avakesh

The old and the new: Hilarious

Lord Winter and I

In the winter's frozen grasp

Lies the charm of frozen grace

Which the heart tells not the mind

Which the mind cannot embrace

*

Howling winds relate the woes

Promise end to all desire

Freezing ice, from head to toes

Reast is Peace and Death's a liar

*

Saddened corpses, shadows vague

Flitter by and vaguely fade

*

It will end and Spring will come

End the freeze, give lie to sorrow

In the promise of tommorow

And the bustle and the hum

*

Share joy and dance and turn

For the turn and for returning

For the soul that has revived

And the spirit that is burning

*

veritas

The Last Remaining Lachash.

Form the Hakhel email for this week:

Chazal (Shabbos 67A) teach that if a person, R’L, has a bone stuck in his throat, one should bring a bone of the same type and
place it on the person’s skull and say “Chad chad, nochis bola, bola nochis,
chad chad.” Rebbi Akiva Eiger (Yoreh Deah 335, D’H Nasnah) brings from the
Maharil that this lachash is the last one we can generally use even in our
days--as it is still “boduk um’nuseh.” Indeed, Rabbi Elimelech Lebowitz,
Shlita, noted Rav and Posek in Flatbush, related that he himself was in the
presence of someone choking on a fish bone, and that he used this lachash. The
bone immediately dislodged itself, and the choking person quickly recovered,
b’chasdei Hashem. Suggestion: Keep this lachash handy--you could become a
one-man Hatzaloh team!

Additional Note 1: Last week, a Doctor reported to us that a senior Rav (his
patient) called him in the morning, and asked him for a specialist, as something
from breakfast (apparently a vegetable) had gotten lodged in his throat and he
did not want to have to go to the emergency room to be treated for this
dangerous predicament. The Doctor suggested that he put a piece of the same
item that was lodged in his throat on his head, and then say the Lachash. The
Rav said he would, but requested that a specialist call him in any event with
medical advice. By the time the specialist called the Rav a few moments later,
the Rav had said the Lachash and was fine, telling our Doctor that he was a
“stikele Rebbe”!

Additional Note 2: We asked HaRav Yisroel Belsky, Shlita, some questions
regarding use of the Lachash.
Q. Would it work with any food upon which one is choking--and not only on a
bone, as seems to be evident from the previous story which involved a vegetable?
A. Yes. It works with any food.

Q: If one did not have more of that food--could he place something else on the
head? Yes, he could place the empty plate from which the food came.

Q: Did the person choking have to recite the Lachash—or could it be another?
It could be someone else close by. In fact, Rav Belsky related that he was at a
small seudah at which one of the participants began to choke, and he (Rav
Belsky) immediately put an empty plate on the choking person’s skull, and said
the Lachash. The food immediately dislodged with no pain. This was, of course,
the talk of the balance of the seudah--a miracle in front of their eyes!
Incredibly, about a year later, Rav Belsky attended a similar seudah with the
same attendees--and someone began choking again. Rav Belsky once again took
action with the Lachash, and the food dislodged, although the person choking
this time experienced discomfort afterwards for about ten seconds. After this
life-saving event, the people only seemed to discuss that this time there was
pain for several second afterwards... They were already used to the miracle
from last year!

REMEMBER—CHAD CHAD, NOCHIS BOLA, BOLA NOCHIS, CHAD CHAD...
AND REMEMBER that each and every time it works it is a miracle--together with all of those other wonderful miracles of everyday life (can you think of three
new miracles every time you recite “V’al Nissecha SheBechal Yom Imanu” in
Modim?)”

Avakesh comments: Generally it is advised that if a person is choking and moving air, nothing should be  done since choking is more effective than any intervention and one can inadevertently actually push the food farther down while trying to help. One should allow the person who is choking to cough it up himself. Intervention is only required when air does not appear to be moving through. If so, for most situations, this is at least a harmless maneuver.

 

How to do "hisbodedus"

Gay Jews

Homosexulity has been in the Jewish news lately. Films, articles and now a conference at YU are straining the borders of Orthodoxy, arguing for compassion, understanding, tolerance and acceptance. As in the wider society fourty years ago, we hear the human aspects of the pain of being in the closet, the argument that people suffer pointlessly for being who they are and what they cannot change. These presentation of the issue puts forth the human face of the tragedy and it generates sympathy and compassion. Who can look away from clean-cut, earnest young men and women who long for nothing more that the universal right to be accepted, to love and to share intimacy.  Who can deny them the elemental right to happiness, to consign them to the shados of denial and to withold the belonging to the communal identity of the Jewish people and the religious heritage, which is all that they crave and which we all appeciate and value?

This argument quickly overhwlelmed the restaraints of the general society when it was first employed there  in the quest for legitimacy. So successful was it, that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is almost universally illegal and the thousands of years old definiton of marriage as between men and women is under attack - all in  a mere fourty years.

How was it accomplished?

The Stonewall Riots brought the existence of the gay underground to the attention of a public that was already in the process of surrendering the traditional values, the turmoil of the sixties. The approach that the nascent movement adopted was of making their message all about personal happiness, self-fulfillment and civil rights of a population that simply had no choice of being other than they were, because homosexulaity is an inborn state of being. Standing against universal happiness, tolerance and acceptance were the forces of reaction, fundamentalism, predjudice and intolerance - an irrational fear and loathing of these clen cut and beautiful men and women who were as American as anyone else, except that they happened to be gay. In fact, some of the opponnents, far from having a moral argument, were in denial of their own latent or overt homosexulity. Being gay became beautiful and progressive, so much so, that in colleges at this time, the gays are the desired and the accepted groups, that draw to them many young people who are seeking acceptance and social status. Hard to our readers to accept but it is so.

This process is now repeating within Modern Orthodoxy. We hear the same arguments, the same appeals for compassion and acceptance, the same narrative of a victimization of men and women who are just like us, who are just as Jewishly committed as we, who desire nothing but to remain within the Orthodox world - just that they are gay, not by choice but by Creator's inscrutable act, which they must surpass and bring into consonance with some kind of a Halachic lifestyle, to enrich, inspire and elevate the rest of us. The first vanguard of the attack is through cinema. Several highly professional films have appeared in the past five years, whose anguished and talented creators poignantly, artistically, effectively express their anguish and plead for acceptance to the Orthodox audiencs.

There is just one difference between the two situations. The secular world can stretch its boundaries without limit. Jewish Orthodoxy cannot. At some point it would cease to be Orthodox... or it will fracture. Responsible Jews must take this into account and ask whether we as a community are willing to pay the price.

Let us look at this issue from the public policy perspective. To do that we must understand what is being asked of us, what the scope of the problem is, and what the costs and consequences that solving it will entail.

What is being asked is deliberately vague. At this point we are being asked merely to understand, acknowledge and become aware. This will undoubtedly be followed by more specific demands for tolerance, inclusion and modification of communal structure and synagogue service to greater inclusiveness and inclusion..

First, what is the scope of the problem? How much of the population is gay?

Kinsey claimed 10%. The true number of exclusive homosexuals is now generally thought to be around 1-3%. They are  also others who may engage in such activity at times but are perfectly capable of finding fulfillment and happiness in a conventional marriage. This latter group cannot and does not make an argument of being denied happiness and normal human intimacy.

We should not forget that some, no one known how many of the Orthodox professing homosexuals do engage in high-risk behavior and will continue to pursue the wider gay scene irrespective of how the Orthodox world responds.  These people are asking for acceptance, not for happiness. Acceptance is not the same as happiness. Asking for acceptance entails either a moral or pragmatic argument. A moral argument for accepting homosexuality is being made  on the grounds of secular ethics but it is a hard sell to a community that derives its morality from a system inhospitable to homosexuality. Tolerance and compassion is one things, rearranging communal policies and structures is something else altogether. One must either argue for an extra-halachic morality that obviates or bypasses tradition, or for a reform of that tradition, and this complicates matters. On pragmatic grounds, as human beings, homosexuals can ask for some tolerance, but this argument is also flawed, because it is bidirectional. If homosexuals ask the community to change at great cost, the community has a right to ask them what they have done themselves to change.  While Reparative Therapy does not help everyone, it does help some. It is appropriate for the community before undertaking a wrenching change to ask what steps those who demand change have taken to change themselves.

The costs to our community are immense. Active acceptance of himosexuality will almost certainly provoke a schism. Those beyond the Modern Orthodox camp will not only have to contend with a lack of tsnius, female rabbis, and compromises on yesodei hadas, they will have to legitmize gay rabbis and synagogues that promote alternative lifestyles as a legitimate choice. Would you rush to make a minyan led by an out-of- the closet homosexual rabbi? Let us be clear: don't ask, don't tell only lasts that long. It is nothing but an intermediate step, a compromise, and a waystation on the road to complete acceptance. Not only will Modern Orthodoxy be expelled out of many communities in which it is hanging on by a thread, it itself will fracture. That's a pretty heavy price to pay to satisfy a few hundred people, many of whom never tried to change and many of whom will remain in the gay subculture irrespective of how Orthodoxy responds. Beyond the immediate considerations, what is the price to our self-image, to our ruchniyos. With full integration of gays, we say to our young people that the morality and standards of the secular life trump the Torah outlook, that we are hyppocrites who despite our protestations do not truly believe in what the Torah says to us. Institutionalized hypocrisy destroyed several generations of Conservative laity. Shall we descend also along this path and loose generations of committed Jews in order to satisfy a few hundred people?

You may counter that the immense human suffering of being in the closet demands a moral response, and the only valid response to pain is compassion. One may counter that pain is not suffering, that the preconception that homosexuality is an innate state of being itself causes suffering and, most importantly, that it is fully right for public policy to consider cost-effectiveness. This concept, known to us from the ongoing discussions in the health-care debate states that benefits of an investment in human health can be measured and that the resultant figure can be compared to how cost-effective other investments may be. Thus, screening mammography may save one woman between ages of 40-50 at a price of more than $300.000.00, whereas screening for colon cancer with colonoscopy costs 50.000.00 per life saved, and therefore, resources should be directed into colonoscopy and not into mammography. This approach is not only accepted, it is central to making public policy decisions. What shoud, we then say, as a community to the cost versus benefit of accepting open homosexuals into our communal and religious life.

It is hard to find a more open contradiction between following the letter and the spirit of the Torah and acceptance of homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle. Quite beyond that, the cost to our already tottering institutions and communities is not justifed when compared to the scope of the problem. That is not to deny the very real suffering of orthodox gays in the closet. However, we can address that through private initiatives. It does not justify the enormous risk to our very long-term continuity and survival that changing our public standards would entail.

President Richard Joel and Menahel Rabbi Yona Reiss Issue Statement Addressing Religious Proscription of Homosexual Activity

Purim in Jerusalem

Overheard: A teachable moment

Tatty: What are your reading?

Bochurel, turning it over: Eh...: It's about a ring

Tatty: Tolkien??!

Bochurel: Yea..

Tatty: Where did you get it? You know, we don't generally have books like this in our house.

Bochurel: I borrowed it from......

Tatty, thinking: So, what's it about?

Bochurel: It's about these things, hobbits and things, and they fight evil things, they are good things.

Tatty: Why are they good?

Bochurel: Because they are brave and heroic and they fight evil. And they are noble.

Tatty: Do they stand for anything, like, do they have any values for which they stand and they maintain?

Bochurel, thinking: Well, no, not really. It's just that they fight evil.

Tatty: ...so the thing that makes them good is that they fight evil.

Bochurel, getting the drift. Well, the evil ones are smelly and ugly and they are dark and hateful.

..and they fight the good ones.

Tatty: Do they have positive values for which they stand?

Bochurel: No. Just for being noble, and heroic and aristocratic. They fight for their king.

Tatty: So, they stand for fighting and the other ones stand for fighting. Is the difference just that these ones are heroic and good looking and the other ones are dark and smelly.

Bochurel, smiling: Yes, I guess so.

Tatty, smiling: Sounds like standard Eisav stuff to me. Fighting because it is heroic to fight and then portraying the beautiful as 'good".

Bochurel, serious: I never thought of it like that.

Tatty: OK, keep on reading... and let me know how it ends. It's been a long time... I forgot.

Bochurel:  OK

Vayigash: Taking the Child along by Chaim Gershon

 

 

 

44:34 For how shall I go up to my father, if the lad be not with me?

44:34 כי איך אעלה אל אבי והנער איננו אתי

 

Coming right after Channukah, the holiday the very name of which has connotations of Chinuch, comes the verse that also speaks about chinuch. The anguished declaration that Yehuda delivers to to Yosef about his younger brother Binyamin has been elucidated in two different ways. The first one is: How can a person strive to advance in one's own Avodah's HaShem, how can one come to his Father when his children are not taken care of: it is a  criticism of those who let their children be range "free" while they sit and learn and daven.

The second, the deeper meaning is how can a person work on improving himself in his Divine service while ignoring his own experience of youth. The past cannot be ignored. First, there is a need to perform a tikkun and /or teshuva on and for the sins of one's youth. More importantly, there is also a special quality that a child can teach the adult, a freshness that can be harnessed to invigorate one's avodah, even after one has grown older. Once a person settles into  the comfort of adulthood,  progress is stalled by inertia. The ability to tap into the enthusiasm that energized the idealistic youth, before this youth evolved into a cynical adult is invaluable toward maximizing growth.

 I first heard this concept here

(Rabbi Mangel: The Mitzvah of Chanukah: Chinuch - Tape 3 (3a 20:37 - end especially after 29:00 and into side b) 

The ideas are in print in Mayana Shel Torah in Vayigash

Other classical chassidic texts such as Tiferes Shlomo, Shem MiShmuel and Panim Meirim mention this concept but it is more developed in Sefer Siach Sarfei Kodesh (Vayigash) as well as in Ger Chassidus such as Imrei Emes 5699 and Beis Yisroel 5710/11. The concept also appears in Rabbi Daniel Frissch's Divrei Chamudot. The Gerer sources allude to the Shechinah being affected with tzaros while striving for attaining higher Divine levels. Kabbalistic sources such as the Recanati and Megale Amukos do not frame this in the terms of avodah but mention the negative effects of excluding the Shechinah, a name by which Malchus is often called, as well as the Malach Metat (metatron, another name for the sefira of Malchus) who is referred to as a youth. In Chassidic sources this is sometimes expressed to refer to avodah in the language of katnus/small and gadlus/great which are analogous to naar/youth and old age but not with the same connotations. More on it, here and here: 

So we have two explanations, one that one must atone for and repair the childnood before entering adulthood, and the other that one must utilize the “child within” to vivify one’s adult Avodas Hashem. The latter explanation of the passuk is more psychologically relevant today than the former and there are many on-line explications of this idea. 

http://www.soulpancake.com/view_post/1543837/how-do-you-retain-a-sense-of-childlike-wonder-in-your-art.html

http://jurvetson.blogspot.com/2007/05/geekdad.html

http://www.kqed.org/w/youdecide/no_child_left_behind/01.html

 

Avakesh comments:

The idea that one must retain the freshness and enthusiasm of youth to be able to properly grow, is also found in misnagdic sources. Thus, famously, R. Y.D.Soloveitchik explained the apellation, Shmuel Hakatan in this manner that Shmuel Hakkaton was like a child, which enabled him to see situations in a new way, for example, to create the blessing of the heretics. R. Yisroel Salanter is said to point out that the Keruvim had the faces of children( k'ravya) in Sukkah 5a, teaching that over the Ark of the Torah must spread childlike freshness and enthisiasm.

 

Pass the Pistachios! by Chaim Gershon

Miketz Chapter 43 11. So Israel, their father, said to them, "If so, then do this: take some of the choice products of the land in your vessels, a little balm and a little honey, wax and lotus, pistachios and almonds.   יא. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבִיהֶם אִם כֵּן אֵפוֹא זֹאת עֲשׂוּ קְחוּ מִזִּמְרַת הָאָרֶץ בִּכְלֵיכֶם וְהוֹרִידוּ לָאִישׁ מִנְחָה מְעַט צֳרִי וּמְעַט דְּבַשׁ נְכֹאת וָלֹט בָּטְנִים וּשְׁקֵדִים   The Tzror HaMor (and others listed below) notes that this gift that Yaakov Avinu sent to Tzafnas Paneach, who unbeknownst to him was Yosef was similar to the gifts sent to appease Esav when Yakov met him with a three pronged plan: war, gifts and prayer. Moreover he elaborates that they play the same role as the Ketores played in the Temple Avodah which is now fullfilled with the daily recitation of related passage in the Torah: negative forces are pacified by the incense offering:see a related prespective here. The footnotes to the new edition of Tzror HaMor note that early versions of the Siddurim from the Arizal actually included this verse in that recitation, deriving the holy name from the initials of the items of the gifts in teh verse above. It can be viewed online: on p. 241-242 and here on p.40.   See the Koznitzer Maggid's Avodas Yisrael and moreover Imrei Yosef (Spinka) Miketz p.210 for more details which also cites Mitzvos Shmurim which relates these items to the mezuzah which also protects against external forces. Also see Toras Chaim (Mittler Rebbe of Chabad) Vayishlach and Pitchei Chotem fromYaakov Abuchatzeira.  A "humorous"  tape on the Tzror HaMor was once available from Rabbi Dovid Orlofsky, called "Pistachios - The Perfect Gift Idea"  A more serious tape can be obtained from Rav Schlesinger (Tefilah Tape #160) citing the Tzror HaMor (Some of his shiurim are here  but the one being cited is available from the Uvlechtcha Baderech tape company)   Some Rebbes in the Polish tradition thought that this verse has a connection to Chanukah and at least one Rebbe recited this passuk before lighting Menorah (Hamodia Torah Features Dec 26, 2008). Bnei Shlishim on Miketz relates these gifts al pi gematria to Channukah. Birkat Avraham (Slonim) Miketz p.102 relates another gematria that indicates to us that that to light the Menorah is to fight with fire the forces of Esav. Given that Esav represents the Other Side, this is then tantamount to the same battle which is waged with the Ketores.

Exorcism and second marriages

From J. Post:

Do Jews beleive in exorcisms? It depends who you ask.

A liturgical text dating back to the 18th century is being used by a British researcher as proof that they do, or at least did at one time. ....

A neatly written, 150-word text fragment - discovered by Dr. Renate Smithuis from the Centre For Jewish Studies at the University of Manchester - describes a ceremony to dispel the evil spirit of Nissim Ben Bunya from his widow, Qamar Bat Rahma.

It is one of the 11,000 manuscript fragments held at the University of Manchester's John Rylands Library - rescued from a 1,000-year-old storeroom - or Genizah - at the Ben Ezra synagogue in Cairo.

Smithuis thinks the Hebrew document was written in the 18th century, and probably originated in Egypt or Palestine.

The fragment contains the second part of a prayer ritual in which the husband - or husband-to-be - of a widow recites an exorcism prayer, to which the other men gathered in the synagogue respond with a similar prayer.

Avakesh comments:  I think that this interpretation of the fragment is a mistake. While I have not seen it, this is probably a prophylactic rite for a new husband of a widow. It is taught in Ari's Sefer Hagilgulim that the spirit of the first husband remains within a widow and can harm the new husband or his children with her. It has nothing to do with dybbuks or possession or exercism. This is a good example of why researchers in Jewish studies need to be consummate scholars in all areas of traditional Jewish literature. The generations of scholars who have now passed from the scene and were educated in yeshivos had this wide ranging knowledge. Unfortunately the new generation is university educated and not infrequenlty, in my experience, miss fairly obvious things.

Caveat: I did not see the fragment but would love to.

The concept is briefly discussed in a new book with a quotation from Shoresh Ishai, p. 68  here

A video of an exorcism perfomred a few weeks ago by R. David Batzri (Part 1 of 10)