Shabbat-B'Shabbato – Parshat Shemini

No 1367: 20Adar II 5771 (26March 2011)

AS SHABBAT APPROACHES

Unnecessary Stringencies - by Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg, Rosh Yeshiva, Kerem B'Yavne

"To distinguish between the ritually impure and the pure" [Vayikra 11:47]. The Natziv writes, "Separating between the impure and the pureis a positive mitzva. Thus, if there are any doubts that can be analyzed in order to decide whether to permit something or prohibit it,the Beit Din is obligated by a positive mitzva to clarify the matter. Just as it is wrong to be lenient in a case where it is proper to be stringent... so it is forbidden to be stringent in a case where it is possible to be lenient." [Haamek Davar].

Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe, the sage of moral teaching in our generation, wrote an entire chapter about this subject in his book "Alei Shur." He writes that "frumkeit" (exaggerated stringency) is an egotistical urge which is not related at all to surrender to a higher power and that it does not lead to a closer approach to the Holy One, Blessed be He. This is because it is clear that the holy Shechina will not be revealed through selfishness, and anybody who bases his or her service of G-d on "frumkeit" is acting selfish. And even if he piles on himself many stringent actions – he will not become a pious person, and he will never reach a level of doing things for the sake of heaven.

The subject of stringency appears in the Talmud. For example, "Mar Ukva said: With respect to the following matter I can be compared to vinegar that was made from wine. When my father ate cheese he would not eat meat for the next twenty-four hours, while I do not eat meat during the same meal but I will eat it in the next meal." [Chulin 105a]. The conclusion is that a person who is not at as high a level as his father was should not be as stringent as his father was.

This issue is discussed in "Pitchei Teshuva" where the author quotes from a book named "Solet LeMincha," that one who wants to be stringent and take on a prohibition that was not accepted by the Amora'im, the rabbis of the Talmud, such as ignoring something prohibited if it is less than one-sixtieth of the total amount of food, is "like an apostate, and his loss outweighs any possible reward for this action" [Yoreh Dei'ah 116:10].

In "Chiku Mamtakim," a book published in memory of Rabbi S.Z. Auerbach, a story is told of a student who asked if he was allowed to use a material for a succah that was permitted by the rabbis of Jerusalem but which was not approved by the Chazon Ish. Rabbi Auerbach replied that it is permitted, and he added: How can you be stringent? You are only a young student, you are not allowed to be stringent using your parents' money, and you should also not cause extra expenses for your wife by being especially stringent. Rabbi Auerbach taught his students that if they wanted to be stringent they must first study the matter in depth. And they should be stringent only if they reached a conclusion that it was a halachic necessity, but they should never simply imitate somebody else. He said that the GRA was surprised to be considered to be pious. It is true that a pious man burns his fingernails after they are cut (Nidda 17a), but not everybody who burns his fingernails (as the GRA did) is necessarily pious.

Rabbi Amital said that a student once asked him why he was not stringent in a certain matter about which the Mishna Berura writes that a G-d-fearing person should be careful. Rabbi Amital replied that it is indeed written that a G-d-fearing man should be stringent in this matter, but that it is not written that stringency will lead to a greater fear of G-d.

In a letter to the ultra-religious Badatz organization in Jerusalem, Rabbi A.Y. Kook wrote, "It is important to note how careful we must be when we try to be stringent in matters for which we can be lenient according to the law, so that we will not incur a greater loss than what we gain."

POINT OF VIEW

We are all Atomic Power Plants, and Itamar Too!- by Rabbi Yisrael Rozen, Dean of the Zomet Institute

"All the House of Yisrael will weep for the conflagration which G-d has lit" [Vayikra 10:6]. "And Moshe spoke to Aharon, and to Elazar and to ITAMAR, his remaining sons" [10:12].

How can we write any article without first and foremost taking Itamar into account? Our hearts cry out to Itamar, theygo out to the families that were touched by this tragedy. "Our Father in Heaven, take action in the name of those who were slaughtered for Your Holy Name" ["Avinu Malkeinu"]. "All the House of Yisrael will weep for the conflagration..." as quoted above from this week's Torah portion.

In case my readers are not aware of this: The town Itamar was indeed named for Itamar, who is mentioned in the verse quoted,the son of Aharon the High Priest. According to tradition, he is buried together with Elazar and Pinchas in the nearby Arab village of Awarta.

AReactor and Radiation

Let's take a look at an article by a senior columnist in the "newspaper for Thinking People." I want to share with my readers the words of one who comes to condemn but ends up giving a blessing. The respected thinker has linked the calamity of the atomic reactors in Japan to the slaughter in Tamar. Here is what he writes:

"The settlements are like the atomic power plant at Fukishima: a project of huge proportion, magnificently built, which was erected in the wrong place and based on false assumptions. Just as those who erected the nuclear power plant did not take into account that one day there would be a level 9.0 earthquake on the Richter scale, the same can be said of those who built the settlements. Just as those who erected the nuclear power plant did not take into account that one day it would be inundated by a tsunami, the same can be said of those who built the settlements. But in both places the land did shake and a tsunami did come. Just as the power station in Fukishima has becine into a nightmare, so has the enterprise of the settlements." [Ari Shavit, Haaretz, 17/3/2011].

First of all, I want to register my thanks for the compliments: "A project of huge proportions, magnificently built." I am even willing to accept the association mentioned in Shavit's article and to expand it further. There can be no doubt that the settlement enterprise in Yehuda and the Shomron is a very powerful "atomic pile" which will have a strong influence on the glorious Zionist enterprise as a whole. This "atomic pile" radiates energy and maintains a high tension within the entire nation of Yisrael, in our land and abroad. Without this "nuclear reactor" and without the pioneering spirit of those who continue to settle in the heartland of Eretz Yisrael, we would long ago have wedged ourselves into the confines of a narrow coastal strip which is an easy target from the hills of Kalkilya and Umm el-Fahm.

It is sufficient to listen to the words of one of the remnants of this murdered family, the daughter Tamar, who thinks only about the future of our nation in our birthplace and our land. Take care, "senior publicist," beware of the agitation in the heart of this settlement maiden. The purity of her thought dwarfs your entire opinionated outlook.

By the way, I wonder how stronglya mere two weeks ago the columnists in general were opposed to the concept of nuclear plants. It seems to me that this was considered more ecologically friendly than the use of coal and oil. As is well known, the religion of ecology reigned supreme in the press at that time.

We return to the blessingof Itamar, in spite of the intended condemnation. I agree that an atomic pile must be cooled down now and then in order to prevent a dangerous leak. An example might be the need to cool down those who want to create a "price tag"of revenge for murderous attacks. I agree that the safety of the nuclear plant is paramount, and it is therefore wrong to lose sight of the boundaries, by for example building settlements not surrounded by a fence. I agree that it is a good idea to upgrade the technological base of the nuclear plant with new construction every ten years or so. The lesson for the settlements is that they should not cling to old slogans but instead refresh the messages and the wording every now and then.

Carrying the Burden

It is written in this week's Torah portion, "And Aharon was silent" [10:3]. After Nadav and Avihu died, the role of leadership passed on to Elazar and to Itamar, "his remaining sons." The two sons took over the responsibilities related to the journeys in the desert and they were in charge of the Levites who transported the Tabernacle (see Bamidbar, Chapter 4). But, while Elazar was given the honored task, in charge of the distinguished family of Kehat who carried the most important vessels of the Tabernacle, the younger Itamar was in charge of the heavier and more difficult task – the beams and the skins, the rods, and all the heavy equipment, which was the burden carried by the families of Gershon and Merari.

Which of the two had the more prestigious role?

* * * * * *

A NOTE for all those who read last week's article with anaiveapproach or with a very cursory glance:

Last weekI reported on a "rabbinical discussion" consisting of e-mails with the objective of organizing a declaration for or against some subject which in itself was not important – the main goal was to publish a "strong statement," no matter what position was taken! In response to many people who reacted to the article, I have a confession to make: It was written as a Purim jest, and I am left wondering about all the readers who did not understand the strong hints or who believed that this could have been a record of a real discussion.

To be honest, I must admit that as is true of many literary works, between the lines this article was based on anelement of criticism, a satire in the best tradition of the "Purim rabbis." There is one element that I want to emphasize, and this is not said in the spirit of Purim. I am quite upset about the way the concepts of sanctification and desecration of the holy name have been cheapened. For G-d's sake: let us see a decrease in accusing opponents of "desecration of the name," let us stop being so generous with the compliment that somebody is "sanctifying the name." It is very easy to see that what one group considers "desecration" is called "sanctification" by their opponents.

The Satmar community views the State of Israel as a desecration of the name, and we as followers of Rav Kook see it as a dramatic sanctification. I think that we should avoid these concepts in our arguments with them. The example that springs to mind is how some rabbis declared the events in Sabra and Shatila to have been a "desecration of the name" – and in the end we lost the war in Lebanon...

SOMETHING FOR THE SOUL

Our National Self Image- by Rabbi Yehoshua Shapira, Rosh Yeshivat Ramat Gan

The international pressure on Israel is steadily increasing. It seems that all of a sudden the entire world has decided that our enemies, who have just been revealed as wild animals who slit the throats of children and babies, deserve international recognition and a country of their own. There are two possible explanations for this situation – one is superficial and the other is of a deeper nature.

The simple explanation views the current situation as a result of the spoiled fruits of repeated attempts to solve our dilemma, none of which accomplished anything. After all of these attempts, the other nations of the world are thoroughly disappointed, and since there appears to be no other alternative they have decided to impose a solution on us. They have decided that the Palestinians deserve a country within the area that is termed the "1967 borders." This refers to the small area of Israel before the Six Day War. From the point of view of the "leaders of the world" this is the only reasonable end for any "Peace Process," and Israel should agree to it too.

With respect to this approach, it is clear to me that the dark clouds of international opinion which are closing in on us should not lead to any panic. Various speakers are trying to convince us to accept this path by emphasizing that we are continuing along a routethat has no exit, by threatening us that we will soon become a pursued and banned nation which is considered to be a place of apartheid, and so on. But, my gentle readers, there is no cause for fear. After all, the United Nations once declared us to be a racist nation, in the past we managed to survive a strict arms embargo, and there was almost noperiod in all of our existence when we were not subject to slander, pursuit, and a lack of satisfaction of others with how we acted. Paradoxically, we can look at the many attacks on us by the nations of the world as a clear sign that we know how to maintain our opinions and act in a way that is just and correct. We live in a world that in general prefers more to have pity on us and to sympathize with our pain than to recognize that we are justified, determined, and victorious.

But I would like to discuss an analysis of the situation that goes much deeper than the above ideas and to consider the possibility that we share in the blame for our international situation. The State of Israel is acting like a battered wife. Every psychologist and social worker knows that a battered woman shares the responsibility for the delicate situation in her home, although in no way can this be seen as a way to justify the violence from which she suffers. The part which the woman plays in creating the atmosphere of the house is that she does not do anything to put a stop to the violence. Why, in fact, does she act this way? It is because deep within her mind she accepts the idea that perhaps her husband is right. Such a woman has a huge empty space within her, a void of insecurity in her own self estimation, and therefore – without being aware of it – she allows her husband to raise his hands against her, based on complaints that have no basis in fact.

We as a nation act just like a battered woman. We suffer from deep-felt doubts about our moral right, or, as is written in the Israeli Declaration of Independence, "Our natural and historic rights," to return to our original and ancient land. This doubt causes us to make desperate attempts to obtain approval from our neighbors. Such a desire – just as with a battered woman – can never be fulfilled. Instead it continues to grow in strength. By using this analogy of a battered woman I do not have any specific leader of our nation in mind but rather the basic approach of our nation as a whole, what is known as the "narrative" as we see it.

As long as we continue to act like a battered wife, we should not be surprised that the surrounding nations observe their part of the equation and take on the role of a violent husband. Thus, they attack us with claims based on nonsense and they relate to every "crime" of ours in a severe way. This in no way justifies the evil with which the other nations react to us, while they give one reward after another to those who want to destroy us no matter where our borders will be. (This was their objective before 1967, at the time that we lived inside the borders that they want us to accept now.) But it does show us the path we should follow if we want to continue to live.

PEOPLE OF YISRAEL

The Man who Revealed the "Esh Kodesh" - by Rabbi Uri Dasberg, the Zomet Institute

One of the witnesses in the Eichmann trial was Baruch Duvdevani. When he went to Poland in 1956 in order to help organize bringing the remaining survivors of the exile to Israel, a Polish man brought him a milk jug that he had found buried in a yard in Warsaw in which there was various written material. Among the papers, Duvdevani found the manuscript of the book "Eish Kodesh," a record of sermons delivered in the Warsaw Ghetto during the Holocaust by Rabbi Kolonimus Shapira, the Rabbi of Piaschina. This was not the only discovery that Duvdevani found while on his missions abroad. Soon after the country was established, he was sent to organize the move of the Jews of Libya to Israel. When he spoke in Tripoli he found 15,000 Jews who were ready to board a ship and immediately make the journey. And this was not the only life-threatening mission that he undertook, all for the purpose of helping Jews to come to the holy land. Later, Duvdevani was the director of the Aliyah Department of the Jewish Agency.

Once he was asked how he managed with the problems of finding kosher food in the foreign lands. He replied, I ate only bread and olives, and that is why I developed my own "Mount of Olives" – a hint of his own potbelly. The Jews were afraid of their Arab neighbors, and they would only ask for help from the shelichim from Israel in secret. Duvdevani testified that he had brought one and a quarter million Jews to Israel. In Libya, he was able to convince the government to help support the Aliyah, and it is said that that this was linked to the fact that in 1949Israel voted for Libyan independence in the United Nations. In 1951, Libya was on the verge ofallowing Israel to set up a diplomatic mission (Gadafi, take note!). It is to Duvdevani's credit that the rabbis of Libya were more enthusiastic aboutIsrael Independence Day than many of the Jews living in the country.