A P U B L I C AT I O N O F T H E R A B B I N I C A L U M N I O F T H E R A B B I I S A A C E L C H A N A N T H E O L O G I C A L S E M I N A RY • A N A F F I L I AT E O F Y E S H I VA U N I V E R S I T Y

CHAVRUSA
May 2010 • Sivan 5770 (:‫אין התורה נקנית אלא בחבורה )ברכות סג‬ Volume 44 • Number 3

In This Issue
Divrei Torah from:
Rabbi Kenneth Brander
‫תנו כבוד‬
Rabbi Mark Dratch
Rabbi Michael Rosensweig
Rabbi Ezra Schwartz ‫לתורה‬

Celebrating Chief Rabbi Lord

the Chag Jonathan Sacks
HaSemikhah awarded the innaugural
5770 Lamm Prize
Page 3 Page 4
 In This Issue
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan
Theological Seminary Page 3 News from RIETS
RIETS Chag HaSemikhah 5770, and Chief Rabbi Lord
Jonathan Sacks recieves the inaugural Norman Lamm
Richard M. Joel Prize at Yeshiva University
P resi d ent, Y eshi va U ni v ersity

Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm

C hancellor , Y eshi va U ni v ersity
R osh H aY eshi va , R I E T S

Rabbi Julius Berman

C hairman of the B oar d of T rustees , R I E T S Page 12 Musmakhim in the Limelight
A look at community rabbis who have trained the next
generation of pulpit rabbis
Rabbi Yona Reiss
M a x an d M arion G rill Dean , R I E T S

Rabbi Kenneth Brander

Dav i d M it z ner Dean , C enter for the J ewish F uture

Rabbi Zevulun Charlop

Dean E meritus , R I E T S

Page 18 Practical Halachah

Rabbi Robert Hirt
Vice P resi d ent E meritus , R I E T S Hashdeihu…ve-Khabdeihu? Community Responses
to Members Accused or Indicted of Crimes
Rabbi Dr. Solomon F. Rybak By Rabbi Mark Dratch
P resi d ent, R abbinic A lumni

Rabbi Chaim Bronstein

A d ministrator , R I E T S

Page 5 Chomer L’Drush Page 17 Book Review

The Role of the Divine in Fresh Fruit and Vintage Wine by
CHAVRUSA the Halakhic Process Rabbi Yitzchak Blau
A P ublication of R I E T S R abbinic A lumni By Rabbi Kenneth Reviewed by Rabbi Chaim Jachter
Brander
Rabbi Ronald L. Schwarzberg
Director , T he M orris an d G ertru d e B ienenfel d
Department of J ewish C areer De v elopment
Page 9 Divrei Chizuk Page 21 Divrei Hesped
an d P lacement Categorizing Birkat Rabbi Dr. Bernard Lander z”l
HaTorah By Rabbi Dr. David Luchins
Rabbi Elly Krimsky By Rabbi Ezra Schwartz
E d itor , C H AV R U S A
Page 10 Back to the Page 22 Lifecycles
Rabbi Levi Mostofsky Beit Midrash
A ssociate E d itor , C H AV R U S A Uniting Our Two Torot
By Rabbi Michael
Ms. Keren Simon Rosensweig
A ssistant E d itor , C H AV R U S A

Rabbi Robert Shur

G raphics an d L ayout, C H AV R U S A
CHAVRUSA is published three times a year by the Rabbinic Alumni of
the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, through the office
of the Morris and Gertrude Bienenfeld Department of Jewish Career
Development and Placement.
Yeshiva University’s Center for the Jewish Future serves as the community
service arm of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS).
It continues the work of the Max Stern Division of Communal Services
which, for over 60 years, has served as one of the premier service
organizations for the Jewish community.
5 0 0 W e s t 1 8 5 t h S t . S u i t e 41 3
N e w Yo r k , N Y 10 0 3 3
21 2 - 9 6 0 - 5 4 0 0 x 6 3 6 0
rabbinicalumni@yu.edu
chavrusamagazine@yu.edu
w w w. y u . e d u / c j f
Editorial contributions and submissions to CHAVRUSA are welcome.
This publication accepts no responsibility for unsolicited manuscripts
or photographs. All submissions are subject to editing and are used at
the editor’s discretion. Opinions expressed in this publication do not
necesarily reflect official Seminary and/or University policy.
Editorial Policies
• CHAVRUSA will consider articles and letters for publication.
• Books authored by musmakhim that are reviewed by musmakhim will be
considered for publication as well.
• Obituaries about and authored by musmakhim will be considered for publication.
• CHAVRUSA aims to maintain the Hebrew pronunciation style of the author of the
article. Transliterations follow the author’s preference i.e. academic, Ashkenazic,
modern Hebrew or the like. While we will remain consistent within articles, each
author will be afforded to transliterate within his comfort level.
• CHAVRUSA reserves the right to edit articles received for publication, and will
make every effort to show a draft form to the author prior to publication.
• Contributions may be sent to chavrusamagazine@yu.edu.
• In addition to CHAVRUSA magazine, articles and divrei Torah may also be
submitted for publication in the weekly Rabbinic Alumni e-newsletter. Please
e-mail them to rabbinicalumni@yu.edu.
2
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
In the News

RIETS Honors Next Generation of Rabbis at

Chag HaSemikhah Convocation
At the conclusion of the Chag HaSemikhah
ceremony on March 7, new musmakhim and
esteemed roshei yeshiva, teachers, mentors, family
and friends poured onto Amsterdam Avenue to
dance in celebration of the continuity between rab-
binic leaders past, present and future. That continu-
ity was a palpable theme, as the largest ever group
of new musmakhim received their ordination at a
ceremony that also honored rabbis who celebrated
their Chag HaSemikhah 50 years ago.

The Chag HaSemikhah ceremony took place in

Lamport Auditorium at Zysman Hall, with video
hookups in the Fishel Beis Midrash at the Yeshiva
University Israel Center and an online webcast.
The Israeli musmakhim had a program at the Israel
Center on January 24.

The rabbis are the products of a comprehensive

program of professional rabbinic training aimed at
creating Torah scholars able to effectively handle
the challenges of contemporary Jewish life. Many
graduates have already accepted positions in the
rabbinate, Jewish education and community work.

“A lot are in their field already which is very

inspiring for the young men just graduating,” said
Rabbi Marc Penner ’95R, director of professional
rabbinics at RIETS and the chairman of the Chag
HaSemikhah. “You get a sense of how far-reaching
the positions are — all around the world.”

Addressing the more than 200 graduates of

the 2006-2010 classes, Rabbi Yona Reiss ’91R,
celebrating his first Chag HaSemikhah as dean of
RIETS, spoke of the enduring connection between
rabbi and student, even as the student grows into
his role as rabbi. “Your rebbeim here are your per-
manent rebbeim. We view you as our permanent
talmidim and now, chaverim,” Rabbi Reiss said.
“You should not hesitate to consult with them to
clarify how to apply Torah principles to the many
challenging situations that you will encounter and
thereby maintain the kedusha of Torah in our
communities. Through your dedication to learning
and upholding the Torah you will serve as vital
links in the chain of our mesorah.”
Speaking on behalf of his fellow musmakhim at the
Chag HaSemikhah, Rabbi Adir Posy ’05R, assistant
Top to Bottom: Members of the RIETS classes of ’57, ’58 and ’59 reunited prior to the Chag;
President Richard M. Joel and Rosh HaYeshiva Rabbi Norman Lamm congratulate the new
musmakhim; Roshei Yeshiva lead the dancing on Amsterdam Avenue after the Chag.
rabbi at Beth Jacob Congregation in Beverly Hills and rabbinic leaders such as Rabbi Julius Berman ’59R,
a Judaic studies teacher, said that as he and his fellow chairman of RIETS Board of Trustees; Rabbi
musmakhim undertake “awesome responsibility,” the Haskel Lookstein ’58R, principal of the Ramaz
new rabbis “take comfort in the support of our col- School and rabbi of Kehillath Jeshrun Synagogue;
leagues and our beloved yeshiva. We go forth on the and Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein ’59R, rosh hakollel
shoulders of the great rabbis who came before us.” at Yeshiva University Israel Center.
RIETS also honored members of the classes of Special awards were given to Rabbi Marvin Bienen-
1957, 1958 and 1959, who received semikhah field ’56R, a member of YU’s Board of Trustees,
50 years ago. The distinguished group includes continued on page 4
3
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
In the News

Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks Receives

the Inaugural Lamm Prize
Accepting the inaugural Lamm Prize on March 17,
Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks spoke about the
dichotomy between Torah and chachma (secular
wisdom) and the need for both in a Jew’s intellec-
tual being. “How can we apply Torah to the world
if we can’t understand it?” he questioned. “Are we
supposed to behave towards secular knowledge the
way the Vatican behaved towards Galileo? Us? The
people of knowledge?”

Calling Yeshiva University “the single most im-

portant educational institution in chutz la’aretz,”
Rabbi Sacks said that “YU has been led and
inspired for so many years by the man we honor
tonight, Rabbi Norman Lamm — man of Torah
and chachma.”

The Lamm Prize is one of several tributes to Rabbi

Lamm that was established in celebration of the
chancellor’s 80th birthday. In addition to the
Lamm Prize, YU has recognized Rabbi Lamm
with the endowment of the Rabbi Norman Lamm
Kollel L’Horaa, an intensive advanced semikhah
program in Jewish legal issues; the creation of
Yad Lamm — a physical space on campus that
will house displays and text documenting Rabbi
Lamm’s 27 years as president; and the Lamm
Archives online, which includes over 800 digitized
sermons, audio and video.
Rabbi Sacks was presented with a citation, which
read in part, “for spreading hope in a world des-
perately in need of it. For acting as an exemplar of
(L-R) Rosh HaYeshiva Rabbi Norman Lamm, Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, President Richard M. Joel.
Jewish thoughts and deeds. For championing G-d
and Torah with the whole world watching.”
“Tonight’s honoree was not my first choice,”
quipped Rabbi Lamm, “he was my only choice.”
Rabbi Sacks, who has served as Chief Rabbi of
the United Kingdom since 1991, has maintained
a prolific writing career of original works and new
translations, most notably his translation of the sid-
dur. He received the prestigious Jerusalem Prize for
contributions to Diaspora Jewry in 1995 and was
knighted in 2005. His most recent book, “Future
Tense,” is a call for Jewry to reject insularism and
reclaim its heritage as a light unto the nations.
Saluting Rabbi Lamm, President Richard M. Joel
applauded the chancellor’s “lifetime of dedication
to the cause of Torah Umadda in all of its facets.”
However, Rabbi Sacks spoke also of the private
Rabbi Lamm, recalling a friendship that started
over 40 years ago when he was a young student
in need of a mentor with whom to discuss his
questions. “The private Rabbi Lamm, who showed
kindness all those years ago to a young student,
changed my life,” he recalled. n

RIETS Honors Next Generation of Rabbis at Chag HaSemikhah Convocation

continued from page 3

who received the Eitz Chaim Award; and Rabbi Dr. Herbert Dobrin-
sky ’57R, YU’s vice president for University affairs, who received the
Harav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik Aluf Torah Award. In presenting
the award to Bienenfeld, YU President Richard M. Joel said, “You have
dedicated yourself to ensuring that lives of value and values emerge
from this yeshiva.”

To the graduates, President Joel said, “may your efforts bring to the
Jewish people shleimut and shalom — wholeness and peace.” n

Rabbi Michael Rosensweig ’80R surrounded by rabbis participating in the Chag

Hasemikhah associated with West Orange, NJ. Rabbi Rosensweig served as a
scholar in residence in West Orange to honor the musmakhim. Seated next to
Rabbi Rosensweig is Rabbi Aaron Kra ’43R, also of West Orange.
4
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
Chomer l’Drush
The Role of the
Divine in the
Halakhic Process
Rabbi Kenneth Brander
T he Talmudic incident of the oven of Aknai
(Bava Metsia 59b) — with the super-
natural proofs to Rabbi Eliezer and the
consistent ruling of the majority that “It is not in
Heaven” — emphasizes that Divine intervention
does not play any role in the halakhic process.
This ruling becomes practical in several Talmudic
sugyot. For example, the Talmud (Temurah 16a)
relates: “R. Judah reported in the name of Samuel:
They [Jewish people] forgot three thousand laws
during the period of mourning for Moses. They
[Jewish people] said to Yehoshua: “Ask [God]”;
Yehoshua replied: “It [the entire Torah] is no longer
in Heaven (Deuteronomy ad. Loc).”
This passage is significant for it represents God’s
“inadmissibility” to the halakhic process — even in a
situation in which no new laws are being formulated.
These were forgotten laws, laws that had already been
introduced into the mesorah. Nevertheless, this pas-
sage demonstrates that God’s role is still excluded from
the halakhic framework. This principal is elaborated
in other parts of the Talmud including: Shabbat
104a; Pesachim 114a; Yoma 80a; Megillah 2b; and
Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:5. Indeed, Maimonides
(Yesodei ha-Torah 9:1) codifies this principle.
Scriptural and Talmudic
Challenges to the Thesis
However, despite the references mentioned, there
are several incidents in Tanach, Talmud and responsa
literature that appear to challenge this thesis. Let us
evaluate these incidents and learn more about the
Divine role in the post Mosaic halakhic process.
Shmuel (I 23:1-4) relates how the Philistines at-
tacked the Jews in the area of Keilah and robbed the
wheat in their threshing areas. This biblical account
indicates that Dovid was employing prophesy in
making the halakhic decision of whether to go to war.
Concerned about the appropriateness of this activity,
the Talmud (Eruvin 45a) elaborates on this issue.
“What was it that he [Dovid] asked about? Perhaps
whether it was permitted or forbidden to repulse the
attack, surely, we would retort, the Bet Din of Samuel
the Ramathite was then in existence? Rather [Dovid]
asked about whether he would be successful or not. “
Rashi (Eruvin, ad loc., s.v. harei Samuel) clarifies the
Talmud’s question by stating that going to war is
not in the domain of the urim v’tummim, a form of
communication with the Divine, but in the province
of the court. The Talmud asserts that the dialogue
between Dovid and God was not over the halakhic
issue, of whether the war was appropriate. The court
of Samuel would decide if it was permitted to go to
war. The prophetic dialogue was merely used as a
means of ascertaining whether or not they would be
successful in this halakhically mandated battle.
We are told (Shoftim 4:4-5) that the prophetess
Devorah judged the people of Israel. The Talmud
(Megillah 14a) notes that she sat under a palm
tree, which is not leafy, to avoid the problem of yi-
chud, being alone with another man. Tosafot and
Rashi (Megillah 14a, s.v. m’shum yichud) elaborate,
that since Devorah would judge individuals, there
was a constant concern about yichud. Large leafy
trees could create a secluded environment in
which yichud would be a concern. So Devorah
addresses this concern by sitting beneath a palm
tree which did not have excessive shade. In
his commentary, Tosafot (Niddah 50a, s.v. kol
ha’kasher) questions how Devorah could serve
as a judge, for only those who have the capability
of bearing witness can qualify as a judge. Since
5
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
Devorah, a woman, is precluded from being a
witness, how could she judge?
Tosafot offers two explanations. First, he responds
that Devorah judged through prophecy; therefore,
she was not bound by this standard requirement.
Second, Tosafot states that Devorah did not judge
the children of Israel as a judge, rather as a teacher.
Tosafot interprets the statement of her sitting
under a palm tree as referring to her role as teacher,
preparing judges for the judicial system.
Let us evaluate the second answer of Tosafot. If
the pasuk in Shoftim refers to her as a teacher, why
did she need to sit under a palm tree? According
to Jewish law, when it comes to teaching a group
of men there is no concern of yichud. This is a
concern only if she was involved in adjudica-
tions, when she would be in the company of two
men or fewer1. Nevertheless, Tosafot asserts this
second answer, which maintains that Devorah did
not judge, she taught. While the first answer that
Devorah judged through ruach ha-kodesh may be
in consonance with the text, it conflicts with the
thesis that any form of Divine intervention is ex-
cluded from the halakhic process. Despite the fact
that Tosafot’s first answer is in perfect consonance
with the text, Tosafot suggests another answer,
one which stretches the pshat but fits within the
halakhic legal system2.
The Talmud (Bava Batra 122a), reflecting on Bam-
idbar 26:52-56, indicates how Yehoshua divided
the land of Israel. Many techniques could have
been used to divide the land. A lottery alone could
have been effective. Yet Divine intervention plays
a central role in the division of the land. If dividing
the land of Israel is a halakhic issue, why should the
Divine Spirit be permitted to play any role in Yeho-
shua’s dividing of the land? Is this not a violation of:
“The Torah is no longer in Heaven”?
We are told (II Samuel 7) about Dovid’s interest
in building the Beit HaMikdash and his asking
permission from Natan the prophet. The permis-
sion from the prophet is rescinded (II Samuel ad
loc.) after God appears to Natan. If it is a halakhic
mandate for the king to build the Temple, why does
Dovid ask permission from Natan in his capacity
as prophet? Furthermore, if Natan’s response is
contrary to Dovid’s halakhic understanding of the
issue, how does Dovid allow prophecy to stop him
from building the Temple?
continued on page 6
Chomer l’Drush
The Role of the Divine in the Halakhic Process
continued from page 5
The Talmud (Zevachim 62a) relates the following
incident regarding the building of the Second Beit
HaMikdash. “R. Eleazar b. Jacob said: Three prophets
[Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi] went up with them
[the people] from the [first] Exile: one testified to
them [the people] about [the dimensions of] the
altar and the site of the altar; another testified to them
that they could sacrifice even though there was no
Temple; and a third testified that the Torah should
be written in Assyrian characters.”
How is it possible the prophets could be employed
to decide the dimensions and location of the altar,
something that has such significant halakhic conse-
quences3? It would seem that if a rigorous halakhic
analysis should determine the above issues, why is
prophecy and ruach ha-kodesh employed to reach
these conclusions? These three incidents (dividing
the land, building the Temple, determining the
location of the altar) represent the first exception to
the rule “The Torah is not in Heaven.”
In discussing the kashrut of fish, the Talmud
(Avodah Zarah 40a; and Hullin 63b) discusses
the definitive ways to determine whether or not a
fish is kosher. The Talmud mentions two ways: the
checking for fins and scales or checking the shape of
the fish’s egg. Based on these findings Tosafot state
that the fish known as barbattus is considered kosher
even though its scales cannot be located. Rabbenu
Tam (Avodah Zarah ad. loc. s.v. amar Rava) suggests
... that we are permitted to eat barbuta, even though
we do not find scales on the fish.
However, R.Isaac Or Zaru’a relates:
And I, the author, heard from the mouth of the holy
Rabbi Judah he-Hasid, may his memory be blessed,
anyone who eats the barbattus will not merit in the
eating of the Leviathan (the fish which the righteous
will enjoy in the Messianic times). I know this to be true
from the following incident. Rabbenu Ephraim Bar
Yizhak, may his memory be blessed, once permitted
this barbuta. That night in a dream, he was brought a
plateful of rodents to eat. He [Rabbenu Ephraim] was
angry at the one [in the dream] who had brought him
this plateful of rodents. At which point he responded
[the one who brought the plate of rodents] to Rab-
benu Ephraim, “why are you angry? You are the one
who permitted [the eating of this non-kosher food].”
Rabbenu Ephraim was angered by the statement and
woke up. He them remembered that on that day he had
permitted the barbuta. Immediately, he arose from his
bed and broke all the vessels that he had used in eating
the barbuta. All who withdraw from eating the barbuta
will merit a blessing on their head .4
In defense of Tosafot, who permitted the barbuta
fish, and to protest against the use of dreams in the
halakhic process, Rabbi Ezekiel Landau makes the
following comment:
“Regarding the information Rabbenu Ephraim received
in his dream ... I say that dreams may not advance
or detract from a halakhic position. And never have
I heard that Jewish law should be proven from those
who receive dreams. For dreams speak words of vanity.
If Rabbenu Ephraim, may his memory be blessed,
who was a righteous and a great man of piety, was
concerned with the substance of his dreams, for in his
dreams it stated that he had permitted a rodent, and
perhaps his dream was accurate and it was dealing
with his permitting the barbuta fish. Rabbebu Ephraim
would have seen that this fish had scales as the Tosafists
saw, (which the barbuta fish sheds when drawn out of
the water); he [Rabbenu Ephraim] would have recog-
nized that the solution for his dream concerned a differ-
ent foodstuff that he had permitted. However, to bring
a proof from a fleeting dream is foolishness and has no
significance. I would like to ask to the one concerned
for Rabbenu Ephraim’s position why this dream didn’t
come to all the Baalei Tosafots, Rabbenu Tam and
the great halakhic decisors who permitted the barbuta
fish, revealing to them this dream? Study the Tractate
Sanhedrin as well as the Rema, in Yoreh De’ah, the end
of Siman 259 ... the Rema codifies that dreams can not
advance or detract from a halakhic position5.
This is just one example of many, in which one
observes the classical halakhists refusing to allow
any form of Divine intervention to advocate for or
detract from a halakhic position6.
The Mordekhai7 relates an incident in which the
Raban had ruled leniently in a case regarding wine
and non-Jews. After his Shabbat meal he went to
sleep and had a dream in which his father-in-law,
Eliakim b. Joseph, appeared to him and seemingly
contradicted his ruling. The Raban interpreted
the dream to mean that his halakhic decision was
incorrect and rescinded it. This does not com-
promise our thesis. While the dream caused the
Raban to reflect upon his decision, further reading
of the responsum indicates that the Raban in fact,
did not allow this premonition to determine the
final halakhic status of the wine. That was deter-
6
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
mined through an experiment, through which he
concluded that his initial premise (the meziu’t)
was incorrect.
R. Abraham b. Dovid of Posqueires occasionally in-
serts idioms, which seem to indicate that divination
played a role in his commentary on the Mishnah,
his comments on Mishneh Torah and his responsa.
(see his Introduction to Eduyyot and Shofar,
v’Sukah, u’Lulav 8:5; see also Beit ha’Behirah
6:14;). While some take these statements literally8,
Rabbi Dr. Isidore Twersky9 and others10 explain in
great detail that these statements are not an attempt
by the Ravad to impose divination, supernatural
sources of knowledge, into the halakhic process.
Rather, the Ravad’s terminology must be analyzed
from a historical and literary perspective. In this
context, the Ravad’s phrases are contemporary
colloquiums, used also by others, to accentuate the
veracity of an idea.
There are accounts of R. Joseph Caro being visit-
ed regularly by a maggid, an angel sent by God to
teach and dialogue with this great halakhist. Many
reject these reports. They see these accounts as at-
tempts to slander R. Joseph Caro’s illustrious and
revered name as a pillar of the halakhic process11.
Others proclaim that R. Caro was an integral part
of the mystical culture of Zefat12. They assert that
R. Joseph Caro kept a diary of his visits.13 In fact,
R. Shlomo Alkabez relates how members of the
community witnessed the visit of the maggid
to R. Joseph Caro on Shavuot night, when they
gathered together to participate in the tikkun leil
Shavuot14.
However, it is important to realize that advocating
R. Caro’s relationship with a maggid in no way
compromises his integrity as a halakhist. In R.
Joseph Caro’s diary, Maggid Mesharim, halakhic
references are few, and when comparing them with
statements found on his commentary on the Tur
or the Shulhan Arukh we observe an unwilling-
ness to allow the teaching of his maggid, a form of
prophesy, to influence his halakhic decisions.
In the introduction of Rav Chayyim Volozhin
to the Vilna Gaon’s commentary on Sifra de
Zeni’uta15, Rav Chayyim offers an observation on
the role the Divine played in the halakhic and learn-
ing process of the Vilna Gaon.
Chomer l’Drush
Sanctioned Reliance
Upon Divination
Having said all this, it is important to note that the
halakhic system does allow for the reliance upon
Divine intervention on a limited basis.
In Melachim (I:10), we are told of the construction
of Solomon’s ornate throne. The throne is elabo-
rately described in the Midrash as having various
animals statuettes etched into it16. Furthermore,
these statuettes would play a miraculous role in the
judicial process. Any time a false witness would enter
Solomon’s court to testify, the statuettes would begin
to scream. Tosafot17 substantiates the midrash by
suggesting that the role of the statuettes in Solomon’s
judicial process was sufficient reason to legitimate
their fashion, despite the biblical prohibition of the
second commandment. It would thus appear that
this midrashic statement, as well as the endorsement
by Tosafot, seems to contradict the thesis that divina-
tion plays no role in the halakhic process.
There are several other Talmudic incidents that
seem to permit Divine intervention. (see Yoma
75a; Yevamot 41b, 99a and Tosafot ad. loc. s.v. v’en
mo’tsi-in.) Rabbi Yehuda Rosanes, the author of
the Mishneh la’Melekh18, and others19 conclude
that there are two dimensions to the halakhic
process; one component of the halakhic system
allows for Divine intervention in helping to solve
its dilemmas, while the other component forbids
its use in coming to any legal conclusion.
Aid In Finding The Facts
When the halakhic concern is born out of the fact
that the factual reality is uncertain, divination would
be acceptable. For example, if a piece of kosher meat
is found and we are uncertain as to whether or not
it has been salted, the question is one of meziu’t, or
the factual reality of that piece of meat. The goal is to
ascertain whether or not the meat was salted; if that
could be resolved, the question would be answered.
In this kind of situation, Mishneh la’Melekh20 sug-
gests that halakhah does allow Divine intervention
to play a formal role. Since the Divine is the ultimate
source of truth, any credible indication from this
source of what the true reality is would be welcomed.
Therefore, in all the above cases where the Talmud or
Talmudic commentators, like Tosafot, mention that
Moshe, Solomon or Eliyahu used, or will use, divina-
tion, it is acceptable21.
Often a situation arises in which the factual reality is
clear. What is unknown is the impact of that factual
reality on the halakhic system. In these situations,
Divine intervention is not accepted and is a Biblical
violation of, “The Torah is no longer in Heaven.”
When Dovid and his army needed to know how to
relate to the Philistine invasion it was the court that
had to process that reality. The court determined that
Dovid was halakhically mandated to go to war. Every
new phenomenon or event (i.e. the Philistine inva-
sion, the oven of Aknai, or the contemporary reality
of surrogate motherhood) must be analyzed through
the prism of halakha. This cannot be done through
Divine intervention but through a set of halakhic
protocols, allowing us to approach every new reality
through the prism of Jewish law.
While this approach is put forth by many, it does
not take into account the Rishonim who have
employed divination to decide halakhic fact. Such
an example includes the responsa literature of
Rabbenu Ya’akov of Marvege, one of the sainted
Ba’alei ha-Tosafot (late 12th–13th century), who has
a collection of 89 responsum in which he claims he
received answers to his questions from Heaven.
One may suggest that this infrequent use of divina-
tion is not within the halakhic parameters stated in
Bava Metsia and codified by the Rambam, and its
use is suspect. Within the sea of halakhic thought,
these exceptions are to be viewed as deviant, and
do not require an overhaul of the stated thesis.
However, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook 22 and many
other rabbinic scholars23 through the generations
have postulated that those who used Divine inter-
vention for more than just establishing factual reality
are within halakhic parameters. They suggest that
the prohibition in the Torah of employing divination
is only applicable in situations where the halakhic
process has a chance to resolve the dilemma. For
example, in the case of the oven of Aknai, the pro-
hibition to use Divine intervention stems from the
fact that the halakhic process itself is in a position to
resolve the dilemma. When that is possible, Divine
intervention is prohibited, based on the principle,
“It is not in the Heaven.” However, if the traditional
halakhic process cannot determine how a specific
phenomenon can be analyzed in Jewish tradition,
then Divine intervention would be a permissible
vehicle to resolve this halakhic dilemma24.
Why is Hashem Excluded
From the Halachic Process?
One question still remains to be addressed. If, in
fact, halakhah is interested in the ideal truth, then
7
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
why is God, the ultimate embodiment of truth,
excluded or limited from the halakhic process?
The Talmud (Niddah 30b) tells us the celebrated
concept that a fetus learns the entire Torah in the
womb by an angel and forgets it prior to delivery.
This portrayal of the human condition may be
cause for mourning. We have all lost the Torah
taught to us by a Divine being. Yet Rabbi Solovi-
etchik insists that this depiction is one that should
be approached with jubilation25. For this Talmudic
backdrop is here to remind us that the study of
Torah is never a task of collecting new information;
rather, as victims of amnesia we are reconnecting
to our original identity. Would we prefer to receive
the Torah in a fashion in which there would be no
struggle? Would we prefer to retain all the Torah
knowledge taught in utero and not struggle in our
attempt to find the way of God? Definitely not!
It is preferable that our relationship with God is
established and strengthened through the rigorous
pursuit of Torah knowledge.
God wanted every Jew to be able to forge a
dynamic and participatory relationship with Him.
While it is true that the norms and mores of Torah,
its doctrines and principals, are Divinely ordained,
the expansion of these tenets are left to the Jew.
With the knowledge of the axioms and theorems
of Mosaic law, we are mandated to create halakhic
protocols for any new event or phenomenon which
modern man encounters26. To create modernity
shaped through the prism of Jewish ethics.
This is also the message of the passage (Menahot
29b) where Moshe sat in on Rabbi Akiva’s class
which he found incomprehensible. Moshe did not
understand the discussions within the beit midrash
of Rabbi Akiva, for Moses was familiar with the oral
tradition of his time. However, contributions to the
oral tradition developed by future participants, the
future students of the mesorah, were not known
to Moshe. This partnership obligates us, within the
parameters set forth in the Torah, to develop the
“science” of halakhah. We are mandated to be active
participants in a process where rigorous exploration
of the sea of halakhah enables us to reach new truths.
This understanding of our role in the halakhic pro-
cess gives us deeper clarity into the final sentences
of the oven of Aknai incident, with which this
article commenced:
R. Nathan met Elijah and asked him: “What did
the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour [when
continued on page 8
Chomer l’Drush
The Role of the Divine in the Halakhic Process
continued from page 7
the rabbis refused to listen to his intervention]? [Elijah
replied] God laughed [with joy], and stated nits-hu-nee
banai, nits-chu-nee banai, “My children have won, My
children have won.”
One way to translate God’s response is stated above.
However a second meaning to the word nits-hu-nee
and the phrase nits-hu-nee banai is “my children have
immortalized me, my children have immortalized
me.” For it was God’s intent to withdraw from the
halakhic process, allowing our voice to be clearly
heard. Such involvement guarantees the immortality
of Torah and the eternality of the Divine. n
Footnotes
1. Rema, Even ha-Ezer 22:5.
2. Rav Samuel Strashun, in his commentary on
Tractate Niddah (Chidushei ha’Rashash, 50a,
s.v. v’Devorah) explains the answer of Tosafot in a
fashion which does not allow prophecy to play a role
in judgment. He interprets Tosafot as meaning that
it was a horat sha-ah that Devorah was allowed to
judge, even though she was a woman. See the Yabbia
Omer, ad. loc. section 15-17, who also deals with
this conflict between Devorah and divination.
3. One may suggest that the incident mentioned
in Zevahim is different from the other situations
mentioned. In Zevahim, the prophets contribute
based on their scholarship and life experiences, not
necessarily relying upon their prophetic abilities.
The decisions regarding the altar placement and its
dimensions are based on the fact that these prophets
lived during the First Temple and knew the location.
However, for our discussion we may also assume
that divination was used and explain how it was
halakhically acceptable.
4. Or Zaru’a on Avodah Zara II: 200; Haggahot
Asheri, Avodah Zara 40a.
5. Noda bi-Yehudah, Mahadura Tanina, Yoreh De’ah,
#30.
6. Additional examples include R. Shabbetai b. Meir
Hakohen’s refusal to accept the dream mentioned
in the Teshuvot Maharam m’Rothenburg, no. 31
(these teshuvot are found in the Mishneh Torah
after Sefer Kinyan, Hilkhot Se’khirut) as support
for a halakhic position advocated by R. Yosef
Caro; Shakh, Hoshen Misphat, 333, sif katan
25; Teshuvot ha-Radbaz, Sh’nei Alafim, no.286;
Teshuvot R. Yom Tov b. Moses Zahalon , no. 271;
R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller, Divrei Hamudot,
found on the Rosh, Hullin, 7:31.
7. Mordekhai, Avodah Zarah, 5:858 and in the Sefer
ha-Raban, no. 26; this incident is also discussed by
Rabbi Abraham Kook, Misphat Kohen, siman
96:7.
8. R. Moshe ben Solomon ibn.Habib in his introduc-
tion to Sha’ar Ha-hakdamot of R. Haim Vital’s
Sefer Ez ha-Hayyim (Jerusalem) page 8; Teshuvot
Mahari ben Lev (Jerusalem 5730) vol. 3:116;
R. Chaim Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim (Jerusalem
:5752) page 8 (check under Rabad ha’shleshe
entry number 11); Prof. Dovid Tamar, “Sod
Hashem Li-rey-av,” Be-rurim b’Hilkhot ha-Re’ayah
(Jerusalem:Beit haRav, 5752) pp. 525-33.
9. Rabad of Posquieres (Cambridge, Mass.: 1962)
pp. 291-300.
10. R. Ahaon Marcus introduction to She’elot
u-Teshuvot min ha-Shamayim (Tel Aviv: 5717)
page 8; Prof. Jacob Katz, Halakhah and Kabbalah
(Magnes Press: 1984) page 17.
11. Ozar Yisrael, (New York: J.D. Eisenstein, 1951), pp.
88-9; CH. B. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sepharim – Bib-
liographical Lexicon, (Tel Aviv:Baruch Friedberg,
1952), p. 546, no. 471 (entry entitiled Maggid
Mesharim); L. Greenwald, The Life and Times of
R. Joseph Karo (New York: Feldheim, 5714).
12. R.J. Zwi Werblowsky, Joseph Karo Lawyer and
Mystic (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1977), pp. 1-24; Meir Banyahu, Yosef B’chiri Maran
Rebbe Joseph Caro, (Jerusalem :Yad ha’Rav Nissim,
5751) pp 393-412; R. Dovid Luria, Kadmut Sefer
haZohar (Warsaw:1887), anaf chamishi, pp. 33-
35; Prof. Dovid Tamar, “O’lalot Zafat” Tarbiz 28,1
(Jerusalem: 5718), page 107; Prof. Dovid Tamar,
“Mamar Maggid Mesharim b’pherush R. Avraham
Galanti l’Eicah” Arashet I (Jerusalem: 1958).
13. Visits of the maggid with R. Joseph Karo are men-
tioned in several places including R. Isaiah Horowitz,
Shenei Luhot ha’Berit (Jerusalem Machon Sha’rei
Ziv , 5753), vol. III p. 4 (tractate Shavuot no. 5);
R. Isaiah Horowitz’s letters found in a collection of
“Letters from the Land of Israel,” collected by Avra-
ham Yaari ( Massada LTD: 1971); R. Hayyim
Vital, Sha’ar ha-Gilgulim; R. Chaim Azulai, Shem
ha’Gedolim (Jerusalem:Ozar ha’Sefarim, 5752)
p. 94 (entry no. 165 under Yosef Karo); See also the
introduction of Rav Hayyim of Volozhin to the Vilna
Gaon’s commentary on Sifra de-Zeni’uta.
14. In a letter found in the introduction to the Maggid
Mesharim (Jerusalem Orah, 5720).
15. Sifra de Zeni’uta . I would like to thank Rabbi
Dr. Norman Lamm for pointing me toward this
reference.
16. Bamidbar Rabbah 7:17, Esther Rabbah 1:12.
8
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
17. Yoma 54a, s.v. kruvim d’tsurata.
18. Rambam Hilkhot Ishut 9:6 s.v. ye’da.
19. She’elot u-Teshuvot Rasbah I:10 (Machon
Yerusalayim: Jerusalem, 5757); Birkei Yosef, Orakh
Hayyim 32:4, s.v. shuv raiti; R. Barukh Epstien,
Torah Temimah, Vayikra 27:34, note 216 s.v. ayin
kesef mishnah; Yabi’a Omer, ad. loc., section 9-11;
R. Margaliot’s introduction to She’elot u-Teshuvot
min ha-Shamayim (Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusa-
lem), chapter one footnote 12.
20. Rambam Hilkhot Ishut 9:6 s.v. ye’da.
21. Perhaps the use of a prophet in the establishment of
the location of the alter (Zevahim 62a) is permitted
not only based on the approach of Rav Kook, previ-
ously discussed. It may have also been permitted due
to the fact that the prophet was only determining
the geographical location of the altar, a clouded
factual issue. The prophet’s role was not to create new
halakhic precedent, rather to verify a factual reality.
22. Iggerot ha-Re’ayah (Mossad Harav Kook, Israel
1961), 1:467 and 2:133.
23. She’elot u-Teshuvot Mitsbatsot Zahav (1986,
Israel), Hoshen Misphat 4:52; Sefer Yosef Ometz
82; She’elot u-Teshuvot haRadvaz, 4:80; see R.
Margaliot’s introduction to She’elot u-Teshuvot min
ha-Shamayim (Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem).
24. This might also be the approach of the Balei Tosafot
as seen in note four.
25. This is the reason why Rabbi Soloveitchik once
mentioned to the author that he felt chickpeas were
not appropriate for a shalom zachor. Chickpeas are
consumed at a shalom zachor, due to the fact that
they are the food of a mourner. The child has lost
all of his Torah and this round food is consumed to
commemorate this loss based on the comments of R.
Sirkes; see Taz, Yoreh De’ah 265, no. 13. However,
Rabbi Solovietchk suggested that this loss is not
a tragedy but represents the dynamic challenge of
reconnecting to God through the study of Torah.
26. This idea is fully developed by R. Joseph Baer
Soloveitchik in the Beit ha-Levi, drasha no. 18,
describing the differences between the first and
second luchot and how these differences impacted
upon the covenantal relationship between God and
the Jewish people.
Divrei Chizuk
Categorizing
Birkat HaTorah
Rabbi Ezra Schwartz
T he bracha that is recited on talmud Torah
is the source of a great deal of halachic
literature both of the practical and analytical
nature. Much ink has been spilled pondering why
birkat haTorah is singled out as a d’oraitha obligation
unlike virtually all brachot and why birkat haTorah
is recited even by those who do not have a complete
obligation to study Torah. Even the text of birkat
haTorah itself is subject to a dispute in the gemara
that goes on to this very day, and even the number of
brachot that are recited as part of birkat haTorah also
lacks consensus. Many suggest that a great number
of these questions hinge on a single issue: the nature
of the bracha that is birkat haTorah.
Brachot fall into many different categories. Brachot
of shevach and hodaah, praise G-d for a wonderful
gift. These brachot need not necessarily be recited
before the action. Brachot recited on hanaah most
often on the gustatory pleasure of ingesting food-
carry with them a prohibition to derive benefit
before the bracha is recited. Moreover, birkot
hanehenin carry with them an obligation to recite
a brachah acharonah, a brachah after the action, in
addition to the brachah that is recited before the
action. The third category of brachot are birkat
hamitzvot, the blessings that introduce a mitzvah.
In the famous formulation of Rav Soloveitchik,
these serve as a matir and enable us to approach
G-d with the performance of the mitzvah,
something which would otherwise be pretentious
if not impossible. The question that is pondered is
into which category does birkat haTorah fall.
A survey of the rishonim and acharonim will yield
three divergent opinions regarding which category
of bracha birkat HaTorah properly falls into. The
Ramban famously criticizes Rambam for leaving
birkat haTorah out of his list of 613 mitzvoth. As
part of his essay on the topic (hashmatot l’mitvot
aseh 15) he clearly posits that birkat haTorah is
a brachah of shevach v’hodaah, a blessing that is
intended to praise and thank G-d for giving us the
unique gift through which we have the opportunity
to merit the world to come. Gra (Orach Chayim
47:18) however clearly maintains that birkat
haTorah is a birkat hamitzvah. There is, however,
an often neglected but tremendously intriguing
third opinion. The Levush (Orach Chayim 47)
writes and this same idea is developed by the
Steipler in his sefer on Masekhet Brachot (#22),
that the brachah we recite on Torah is in fact a
birkat hanehenin. When we make a brachah prior
to Torah study, we are not simply thanking G-d for
creating the Torah. We are anticipating the pleasure
and enjoyment we will glean from Torah study. We
know that the study of Torah will be a pleasurable
activity and like so many hannaot a specific
brachah was instituted.
It seems that the question of how to categorize
birkat haTorah may shed light on the fundamental
nature of talmud Torah. Why is it that we learn? Do
we study Torah simply because G-d commanded
us to do so; Talmud Torah thereby being a maaseh
hamitzvah similar to all other maasei hamitzvah —
perhaps greater in degree but of the same kind as
all other commandments. Or do we study Torah
because we are aware that it is Torah that sets us apart
from the rest of humanity — that imposes special
responsibility on us to serve as moral guide-stars to a
too-often morally deprived world?
If birkat haTorah is fundamentally a birkat
hamitzvah, it would seem that the dominant lesson
of talmud Torah, the aspect which should be the
focus of our attention, is the mitzvah element;
we learn to fulfill G-d’s will. If however, we take
the approach that birkat haTorah is a brachah of
shevach and hodaah, it seems that the focus of
9
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
our learning should be to properly understand the
differences between Jews and the rest of the world.
When we study Torah we should be thinking
about the great fortune we have to be Hashem’s
people and the opportunity for olam habah that
comes with talmud Torah. However, if we follow
the Levush and the Steipler and understand birkat
haTorah as a birkat hanehenin, then the focus of
our talmud Torah should be the enjoyment of
learning. We study Torah and teach Torah because
we enjoy it.
Approaching Talmud Torah with the aim to enjoy,
to derive hanaah, is the focus of the Avnei Nezer’s
famous introduction to his work Eglei Tal on the
melachot of Shabbat. The Avnei Nezer writes that
many assume that one who enjoys his Torah study,
and exults in the jubilation of deriving new Torah
insights, is not as pure as the one who studies Torah
simply because he is commanded to do so. If you
enjoy your learning, you seem to lack the lishma
element that categorizes the ideal of Torah study.
The Avnei Nezer maintains that this approach
is tremendously mistaken. Rather, the primary
purpose of learning Torah, as explained in the
Zohar, is to attain simchah — joy and pleasure.
This seems to be consistent with the positions that
see birkat haTorah as birkat hanehenin. Moreover
the position of Rabbenu Tam, that la’asok b’divrei
Torah and v’haarev na constitute a single brachah,
would point in the direction that the primary focus
of engaging in Torah study is to enjoy Torah for it
to be sweet. This also seems to lead in the direction
that birkat haTorah is a birkat hanehenin.
Including birkat haTorah in the category of birkat
hanehenin however, forces us to confront the
question as to why we do not recite a bracha
acharonah after learning. After all, we do recite a
bracha acharonah after the other pleasures that
mandate a birkat hanehenin.
The Steipler addresses this in his essay on birkat
haTorah. He maintains that fundamentally, there
should be a bracha acharonah recited after learning.
However, unlike hanaaot like eating, where there
is a true end point, there is no real end point to
one’s learning. Even during the times when one is
engaged in activities that prevent him from opening
a sefer, his act of learning has not ended; he is
simply an onus, and is unable to continue to study.
For myself, and I am sure for all those involved
in chinuch and rabbanut, this point is quite
continued on page 11
Back to the Beit Midrash
T he central theme of Shavuot, reflected in
its krait haTorah and t’fillah, though not
explicated in the Torah itself, is Mattan
Torah. Chazal, in numerous contexts, develop the
thesis that is the crucial cornerstone of Yahadut —
that Revelation was two-tiered, consisting of oral
and written components. On the pasuk, “These
are the statutes and the laws and the Torot which
Hashem gave the Jewish people, by the hand of
Moshe, on Mount Sinai (Vayikra 26:46),” the Sifra
comments that this plural lashon ‘Torot’ teaches
us that two Torot were given to the Jews — one
written and one oral.
At first glance, the two components appear
to represent a study in contrasts. However,
the relationship between the two is, in fact,
complimentary and even ideal. Torah shebichtav,
the Divine text that yields multiple truths (shivim
panim laTorah) is subject to a variety of legitimate
interpretations (see Sanhedrin 34), and whose very
letters recombine into the different Divine names
(see Ramban introduction to B’reishit). Torah
shebaal peh, in sharp contrast, though also Divine in
origin, unfolds through a distinctly human process,
consisting of painstaking transmission of data and
halachic methodology and the rigorous analysis and
application of its conceptual content. The functional
complimentarity of the two is evident, as the Torah
contains in its text, and by virtue its structure and
form, numerous hints and obscure references that
are accessible and decipherable only by means of
mesorah and the hermeneutic methodology of the
13 middot (see Eruvin 21b).
Moreover, it is obvious that the respective
designations, Torah shebichtav u’baal peh,
Uniting Our
Two Torot
Rabbi Michael Rosensweig
transcend descriptive labels. They were meant to
convey distinctive, singular approaches to Torah.
Torah shebichtav is significant as a text. The spelling
and structure of each word and marking has
halachic and homiletic significance. Even when
the meaning is apparently unchanged, a Sefer
Torah that is improperly transcribed is disqualified.
Absolute attention to form may even come at the
expense of substance, as kri u’ktiv demonstrate.
Torah shebaal peh recorded in the gemara and
midrash, on the other hand, derives its special
status from its conceptual content, not its specific
formulation. Indeed, obsessive allegiance to a
specific formulation occasionally can be inhibiting
and counterproductive.
The Baal Hatanya’s suggestion that one can fulfill
the mitzvah of Talmud Torah by simply reading
Torah shebichtav even without comprehending
its message, while such a gesture would be
meaningless with respect to Torah shebaal peh,
highlights the distinctiveness of these approaches.
The twin halachic injunctions that ideally prohibit
that transcription of Torah shebaal peh and
proscribe the quotation of Torah shebichtav
divorced from its text, reflect the ideal reciprocal
interplay between the two components of Torah.
Yet, it is striking that Chazal perceive a perceptible
difference in the attitude of Klal Yisrael toward these
two Torot at the time of Mattan Torah. In response
to apparently conflicting reports of naaseh v’nishma
(Shmot 24:7), on the one hand, and the extremely
reluctant posture reflected by the need for coercive
measures — kaffah aleihem har k’gigit, on the other,
the midrash resolves the dilemma by advancing a
distinction between the two Torot. Coercion was
10
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
necessary only with respect to Torah shebaal peh:
Ela amar lahen al haTorah shebaal peh sheyesh
ba dikdukei mitzvot kalot v’chamurot v’hi aza
kamavet v’kasheh k’she’ol; l’fi she’ein mi shelomed
otah ela mi she’ohev haKadosh Baruch Hu b’chol
libo, b’chol nafsho uv’chol m’odo (Tanchuma).
This development is extremely perplexing
particularly since Chazal view the commitment
to Torah shebaal peh as primary — as the
preprequisite to kritat habrit, and in terms of its
inherent spiritual value — “Hashem consecrated
the brit with Jewish people only for the sake of the
Oral Tradition (Gittin 60b).”
What accounts for the need for a dual Revelation
of the Torah, for the drastic measures to promote
Torah shebaal peh and for its axiological priority?
The conclusion of the Tanchuma provides the
clue. Chazal view the distinctive categories of
Torah as representing basic themes of Yahadut.
Torah shebichtav, standing on its own, projects a
commitment to broad values and general religious
principles whose demands need not intrude
pervasively on apparently neutral spheres of one’s
life. Broad guidelines that can be implemented
variously, together with the ritual imperatives
that are hardly overwhelming in scope, constitute
the essence of such a Torah. It is Torah shebaal
peh in conjunction with Torah shebichtav and
independently by means of mesorah that is
responsible for a halachic system which regulates
every aspect of life, suffusing the neutral and secular
with sanctity. It is this Torah that overwhelms us
with detail and minutiae (see Gitten 60a). The
Tanchuma itself elaborates:
Torah shebichtav, klalot v’Torah shebaal peh pratot.
Torah shebaal peh harbeh vTorah shebichtav me’at.
V’al Torah shebaal peh ne’emar ‘arukah m’eretz
midah ur’chavah minei yam.
Moreover, this Torah constitutes the real litmus test
of religious commitment:
Lo timtza Torah shebaal peh el mi shem’vakesh
oneg ba’olam; taavah v’chavod ug’dulah b’olam
hazeh, ela b’mi shememit atzmo alehah.
Torah shebichtav is the source and inspiration
of ethics, while Torah shebaal peh serves as the
means of implementing that vision, imbuing it with
substance and establishing a sense of legal obligation:
Torah shebichtav — Shma b’ni musar avicha,
shehu mosro shel Hakadosh baruch Hu. ‘V’al
Back to the Beit Midrash
titosh Torat imecha — Torah shebaal peh, shehu
kabbalat ol mitzvoth kulo.
In midrashic and kabbalistic literature, Torah
shebaal peh is characterized in terms of the more
rigorous and uncompromising middat hadin.
Torah shebaal peh is identified with the me’or
hakatan, a light that is dimmer, but also has the
capacity to illuminate even the night.
Klal Yisrael’s initial reticence is now fully
comprehensible. It is much easier to
enthusiastically embrace the general commitment
articulated by Torah shebichtav, than the all-
encompassing life of Torah shebaal peh. At the
same time, Torah shebaal peh’s primacy is manifest.
We live in an age in which, unfortunately,
many Jews, like Klal Yisrael of old, display far
greater enthusiasm for the symbol of Torah
shebichtav than for the motifs conveyed by
its oral counterpart. They do not adequately
appreciate that universal values, and even specific
ritual behavior, require an overarching and
comprehensive structure to be effective. The failure
of secular ethics and of other religions to produce
Divrei Chizuk
Categorizing Birkat HaTorah
continued from page 9
poignant. We realize that there is never an end to
our learning. Very often the shiurim that we give
reflect first thoughts on a particular subject rather
than a final conclusion after having exhausted the
topic completely. We understand that the notion
of a brachah acharonah on talmud Torah is a
conceptual impossibility.
Viewing birkat haTorah as a birkat hanehenin has
a huge pedagogic advantage. On a practical level,
the more we enjoy our Torah study, the more
pleasure we glean while preparing shiurim. The
more excited we are when we present our thoughts,
the greater impact our Torah thoughts will have on
our baalei batim. If we are engaged in talmud Torah
because it is geshmak, if we recite birkat haTorah
as a a birkat hanehenin every day, we will be more
energized and excited; our words will be so much
more powerful. However, if we repeat old ideas
that we found in sermon manuals, stale thoughts
moral societies that safeguard even basic principles
of justice and fairness reinforces this theme.
Pirkei Avot, for this reason, is preceded by an
enumeration of the mesorah. Moreover, they have
completely ignored the theme of commitment and
submission that is the basis for the real relationship
between man and his Creator.
Middat hadin
untempered by
middat harachamim
is hardly the ideal.
At the same time, for b’nei Yeshiva who are steeped
primarily in Torah shebaal peh, as they should be,
it is important to underscore the indispensability
of Torah shebichtav. A Torah shebaal peh that loses
sight of its Torah shebichtav origin and roots runs
the risk of becoming preoccupied with detail in a
way that threatens to detract from the substance
and conceptual significance of those very details.
Divorcing the details of halachah from the lofty
goals and ideals of Torah shebichtav which must
we don’t completely comprehend and are not at all
passionate about, we will impact on few people, if
anyone at all.
On a halachic level also we should realize that
teaching Torah is the truest form. In Sefer
Hamitzvot (Mitzvot Aseh 11) the Rambam
puts forward a single mitzvah to learn and teach
Torah. Teaching is part and parcel of learning
for two reasons. On a practical level, as the
mishna in Avot highlights, very often we do not
properly understand Torah until we convey
it — mitalmiday yoter mikulam. However,
there is also a philosophical dimension to the
connection between teaching Torah and learning
Torah. Areivut tells us that we have not properly
discharged our obligation in the performance of a
mitzvah so long as there are other Jews who have
not completely discharged the mitzvah themselves.
In the realm of Talmud Torah the same could
11
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
animate and guide it is totally inconsistent with the
dual commitment undertaken at Har Sinai. Middat
hadin untempered by middat harachamim is hardly
the ideal.
The Midrash declares unequivocally that neither
factor alone suffices, nor should one be substituted
for the other (see Shmot Rabbah 47:4). Rabbeinu
B’chai, commenting on ‘ki ner mitzvah v’Torah
ohr, emphasizes the primacy of Torah shebaal
peh, equated with ner, but accents its necessary
roots in Torah shebichtav — ohr. He notes that
Torah shebichtav contains both din va’chesed,
as Torah shebaal peh is merely its extension.
Elsewhere, he concludes that while many situations
require the bright universal light of the sun, other
circumstances mandate the more focused beam
of a candle to illuminate the cracks and crevices of
specific life situations.
The theme of shtei Torot is as compelling today
as it was at the dramatic moment of Mattan
Torah. May we rededicate ourselves to this dual,
ambitious, yet complimentary program — l’hagdil
Torah ul’haadirah. n
hold true. So long as there are those who have not
learned, my own learning is deficient. Therefore
teaching Torah is an integral part of our own
responsibility to learn Torah.
Viewing birkat haTorah as a birkat hanehenin has
the advantage of instilling us with the passion to
teach; to share the enjoyment that we derive when
studying with others. It will help us properly fulfill
the mitzvah of talmud Torah and will enable so
many others to taste some of the sweetness that we
so much enjoy. It will infuse even greater energy
and passion into our avodat hakodesh. It will
increase the already tremendous success Yeshiva
University and RIETS musmakhim are finding
spreading d’var Hashem throughout the United
States and beyond, and will bring us as a people
closer to attaining our sacred mission. n
Musmakhim in the Limelight

Preparing the Next

Generation
“The mishnah teaches at the beginning of Masechet Avot: ‘Moshe received the
Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua; Yehoshua to the Elders…’
From the words of this mishnah we learn several important principles. First,
that each person must have a rebbe who transmits Torah to him. Without
surrendering himself to his rebbe and being subservient to him in order to
receive the mesorah from him, he will not be able to succeed in his Torah study.
Second, Moshe was obligated to transmit the Torah to future generations, as it
says, ‘See, I taught you laws and statutes as Hashem my Lord commanded me.’
(Dvarim 4:5.) There is a serious prohibition for a Torah giant to hold on to his
Torah without transmitting it, for the Torah was not given to the Jews to be
theirs individually, but rather, it was given to the entire congregation of Israel.”
Nefesh Harav, pp. 4
Musmakhim in the Limelight
In an issue devoted to zman Matan Torateinu and the transmission of our holy mesorah, we highlight three veteran rabbis, who have not only suc-
ceeded in their own callings, but have trained assistant rabbis who have succeeded in their own careers in the rabbanut. We focus this column on
the sterling rabbinic careers of three chaveirim: Rabbi Haskel Lookstein ’58R, Rabbi Alvin Marcus ’52R and Rabbi Benjamin Yudin ’69R.
We chose not to speak to these rabbinic mentors, but rather, to their protégés. We laud these three leaders for hearkening to the mandate of the
mesorah: to share their wealth of Torah and experience, assuring the continuity of successful synagogue rabbis.
We convened three former assistant rabbis to each rabbi for this feature. All of the essayists are still engaged in avodat hakodesh and consider
the rabbi under whom they served as a mentor.

In Tribute To Rabbi Haskel Lookstein

Rabbi Dr. Haskel Lookstein has been the rabbi of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun since
1958 and principal of the Ramaz School since 1966. He is the Joseph H. Lookstein
Professor of Homiletics at Yeshiva University, vice president of the Beth Din of America,
and a member of the Board of Directors of the UJA Federation of New York. Rabbi
Lookstein is also a commissioner of the New York City Human Rights Commission.
He received his bachelor’s degree from Columbia College and earned his ordination,
master’s degree, and Ph.D. from Yeshiva University.

Rabbi Haskel and Audrey Lookstein

Rabbi Dale Polakoff ’82R
Brown suits. Brown shoes. Both items that I owned
and wore before becoming an assistant rabbi at
Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, before having
the privilege of having Rabbi Haskel Lookstein as
a mentor. Since those days you won’t find a brown
suit or a pair of brown dress shoes in my closet,
because at KJ that was not how a rabbi dressed.
Brown is not a rabbinic color.
Despite the obvious superficiality of clothing color,
there was a deeper lesson ingrained in me from that
beginning of my rabbinic career. I learned in a very
profound way that there are professional expecta-
tions of how a rabbi carries himself, how he acts,
what he does and yes, even what he wears. Rabbi
Lookstein taught that even more by example than
he did in our mentoring discussions.
I learned that there was a professional expectation
that every drashah and shiur was prepared and
thought out, and in those early days, written out
word for word. I subsequently learned that not
every drashah needed to have three points or appli-
cations, but in those days that was the expectation. I
learned (painfully) that reading a ketubah properly
took practice, and I learned firsthand how a rabbi
who understands his pastoral responsibilities can
make a difference in a congregant’s life.
Rabbi Lookstein and Audrey taught me how a
rabbinic family holds all of the pieces together, and
how a rabbinic family considers the congregation
as part of its extended family. I saw and felt the love
between rabbi and congregant, yet realized that
such a bond develops only over time and often
through much sacrifice. I learned about the chal-
lenge of raising children in such a family.
I know that the lessons I learned from Rabbi
Lookstein and KJ played a significant role in
shaping my rabbinic career. I often think back with
fondness to those days, not simply because of what
I learned, but because of the relationship that I had
the privilege of forming with one of the pillars of
the American rabbinate. A student relationship has
grown into one of colleagues, but the foundation
of respect, admiration and friendship has grown
stronger and deeper over the years. n
Rabbi Polakoff is the senior rabbi at the Great Neck
Synagogue.
Rabbi Adam Mintz ’85R
Rabbi Lookstein taught me the rabbinate as a
profession and a passion. Rabbi Lookstein appre-
ciates every detail of the rabbinate whether it was
setting the schedule for Yom Kippur services or
meeting with a congregant to discuss a personal
problem. For Rabbi Lookstein, the rabbinate is
an art and I have tried in my rabbinate to emulate
these qualities.
Finally, Rabbi Lookstein loved the tradition of
the American rabbinate that he learned from his
father, Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein. As a historian
of American Orthodoxy, I especially appreciated
13
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
this sense of history and tradition. I am very proud
when I am able to continue this American rabbinic
tradition and I hope that I have transmitted that
love and the tradition to my assistant rabbis. n
Rabbi Mintz is the spiritual leader of Kehillat Reyim
Ahuvim in Manhattan.
Rabbi Mark Wildes ’94R
From 1996 through 1998 I had the great honor
of serving as the assistant rabbi of Congregation
Kehilath Jeshurun in New York City. Without a
question, the greatest part of that position was the
privilege of being trained and mentored by Rabbi
Lookstein. I learned much during those two very
special years, much of which has informed my own
rabbinate and work in outreach.
First and foremost, Rabbi Lookstein taught me
what it means to be dedicated to the institution
one serves. I will never forget walking with Rabbi
Lookstein in one of the halls of the synagogue
building and watching him pick up a piece of
trash that was lying on the floor. As he tossed the
trash into the garbage he told me that working
for a Jewish institution means you care about
everything that goes on, down to the last piece of
paper on the floor. It also left a great impression
on me as to the dignity that a synagogue should
represent; so the congregants will come to associ-
ate the synagogue and really all of Judaism with a
certain elegance and class. To this day I make sure
that every event MJE hosts is done with the right
look so it can convey the right feel.
Musmakhim in the Limelight

Rabbi Lookstein also taught me how to run a
synagogue service, and in particular, to ensure
that the davening moves and that the congrega-
tion is not allowed too much time to remain
inactive. To this day, at the Shabbat beginners
service I conduct, I always make sure there is
never a lull in the davening. My congregation
is either singing, chanting or doing something,
never remaining idle.
Rabbi Lookstein taught me and countless others
how to prepare and deliver a sermon and to make
sure that every sermon has both practical applica-
tions and a take-home message that is clear.
But perhaps the greatest thing I learned from
Rabbi Lookstein is a rabbi’s commitment to his
congregants. In a very large congregation Rabbi
Lookstein somehow manages to be in touch with
the personal issues affecting the many individuals
who make up the KJ membership. He is totally
devoted to his people and they know it. As such,
Rabbi Lookstein has been able to serve as a true
spiritual guide for his many parishioners and as
someone to go to, not only with halachic queries,
but also for advice and guidance in life’s most
important decisions.
All in all, Rabbi Lookstein is a rabbi’s rabbi and I re-
main forever indebted for having learned so much
under his tutelage. n
Rabbi Wildes is president and founder of the Manhattan
Jewish Experience outreach organization.

In Tribute To Rabbi Alvin Marcus

Rabbi Alvin Marcus holds the position of Rabbi Emeritus of Ahawas Achim B’nai Jacob and
David in West Orange, NJ, and was rabbi of the shul from September 1968 to early 1988. He
received his semikhah from RIETS in June 1952 and received a Doctorate of Divinity degree
from Yeshiva University in 1983. He served as president of the Rabbinical Council of New
Jersey and a past president of the Council of Orthodox Rabbis of Metropolitan New Jersey. He
was co-chairman of the Rabbinic Division of the United Jewish Appeal Campaign of the Jewish
Community Federation of Metropolitan New Jersey. He has also served as president of the
RIETS Rabbinic Alumi, as well as chairman of the Education Commission of the Rabbinical
Council of America. In metropolitan New Jersey, Rabbi Marcus was co-chairman of the V’aad
HaKashrus of Metrowest, on the board of the Joseph Kushner Hebrew Academy and was
chairman of its Board of Education. He is also co-president of the Joint Chaplaincy Commis-
sion. He is also administrator of the Kukin Society of Fellows.

Rabbi Alvin and Marilyn Marcus

Rabbi Daniel Cohen ’94R
My time spent under the tutelage of Rabbi Alvin
Marcus serves as an invaluable source of inspiration
and guidance in my rabbinate. When I reflect upon
Rabbi Marcus’ impact, I realize that his love of
people and pastoral influence shapes my priorities.
Delivering sermons, organizing programs or man-
aging the operations of the synagogue are all crucial
to success; but the glue of a cohesive congregation
and transformational rabbinate flows from the
spiritual counsel and engagement in the lives of
our members. I spend most of my time developing
relationships with the Jewish people and with G-d’s
help, supporting them emotionally and spiritually,
unlocking their Divine spark and doing my utmost
to realize their potential. I am eternally grateful to
Rabbi Marcus for his mentorship and investment
in me as a person and as a rabbi.
Rabbi Marcus loves serving the Jewish people and
his passion and positive attitude for the rabbin-
ate distinguish his career. Whether for myself or
any other assistant rabbis who trained with Rabbi
Marcus, these character traits are contagious and
energize my mission as a rabbi. One of the keys
to success in life is an upbeat and can-do attitude.
No task was too small for Rabbi Marcus and no
challenge was too great. If an assistant rabbi can
embody the same spirit thoughtout his career, he
will realize his personal dream of making an eternal
difference in lives of Klal Yisrael and be blessed by
G-d with renewable energy every day of his life. n
Rabbi Cohen currently leads Congregation Agudath
Shalom in Stamford, CT.
Rabbi Donald Bixon ’95R
Rabbi Marcus taught me to be a professional rabbi.
I distinctly remember coming into shul 20 minutes
before mincha on a Friday afternoon and saw him
re-typing the announcements the president would
make after davening on Shabbos. I asked him,
“Rabbi, you have secretaries, why are you doing
this?” His answer rings true for the rabbinate: “If
the president’s announcements are not exact and
correct, it reflects badly on me.”
Rabbi Marcus taught me how to be a rabbi – how
to run a shul, the importance of being involved in
the greater community. Rabbi Marcus taught me
how to work a crowd, whether at a shul kiddush
or developing a relationship with respect. Rabbi
Marcus’ professional goals were about the shul,
never about himself. He knew that if I succeeded, it
would be good for the shul. n
Rabbi Bixon is the rabbi of Beth Israel Congregation in
Miami Beach.
Rabbi Daniel Alter ’98R
To this day, I still consider Rabbi Marcus to have
been my primary mentor in the rabbinate. Permit
me to share some anecdotes which reflect on that
impact.
I was once sitting in the office with Rabbi Marcus,
when one of his mentees called. The young,
ambitious, and extremely talented rabbi began to
describe the incredible kiruv shabbaton he had just
run. “What about Mrs Schwartz?” interrupted Rab-
bi Marcus. “Who?” asked the young Rabbi. “Mrs.
Schwartz” responded Rabbi Marcus. “She has a
cold today and missed shul this shabbos. Have you
called her?” Assuming Rabbi Marcus was joking,
the young rabbi continued to describe the dynamic

14
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
Musmakhim in the Limelight

programming that was taking place at his shul. “But
what about Mrs. Schwartz? Have you called her to-
day?” Rabbi Marcus asked again. As Rabbi Marcus
continued to emphasize the older widow who had
a cold, I realized that Mrs. Schwartz was a fictional
figure. Rabbi Marcus, in his gentle way, was subtly
teaching a mentee a very important lesson about
the role of the rabbi.
My first induction into the world of eiruvin was
through Rabbi Marcus. He would drive with me
over the course of two hours while we checked the
eruv together. For me, this was the most valuable
time of my entire week; two hours of uninterrupted
time with my mentor. During our second week of
checking, we found a lechi that was down. Rabbi
Marcus drove me to Home Depot. Having learned
through many Ritvas or Pnei Yeshoshuas, I had
never actually entered a Home Depot before. Rab-
bi Marcus bought a number of planks, had them
cut down, then bought a few cans of spray paint,
and showed me how to paint the boards black.
(They are less conspicuous when used as a lechi if
they are the same color as the telephone pole.) As
a community rabbi, Rabbi Marcus possessed an
extremely diverse array of skills. Even outside of
homiletic, pastoral, and other traditional rabbinic
competences, he was extremely skilled.
I don’t think I ever saw Rabbi Marcus become
angry. His philosophy matched his temperament,
which is always calm and composed. Under his
leadership, West Orange was always known as a
community where peace reigned, everyone got
along, and somehow, a community made up of
people with diverse philosophies and perspectives,
as well as a wide array of personal religious practice,
came together to feel and act like a united commu-
nity. He believed strongly in community and was
willing to stand up against any form of divisiveness
in order to maintain the cohesion that existed in
West Orange. In today’s fragmented Jewish world,
this vision is rare. He also believed strongly in Klal
Yisrael and made every effort to reach out and
co-exist with all Jews. It did not matter if they were
rabbis or lay people, Orthodox or non-Orthodox,
religious or not, they were all Jews, and he treated
them all with extraordinary respect.
Rabbi Marcus did not micromanage his assistant
rabbis. He allowed us to find our passion in the
rabbinate and encouraged us to move in those
directions. When I looked back at the assistant
rabbis before me, I realized that the job description
for each of us had been different. He allowed each
of us to discover and develop our own passions. He
also trusted us to grow in our areas of choice, make
mistakes on the path of growth, and covered for us
when we did make those mistakes. n
Rabbi Alter is rabbi of the DAT Minyan in Denver and
head of school of the Denver Academy of Torah.

In Tribute To Rabbi Benjamin Yudin

Rabbi Benjamin and Shevi Yudin
Rabbi Benjamin Yudin has served as the spiritual leader of Congregation Shomrei Torah
in Fair Lawn, NJ since 1969. Together with his wife Shevi, he has been involved in virtually
every aspect of Jewish communal life in Fair Lawn. Rabbi Yudin is a senior member and past
president of the Rabbinical Council of Bergen County and, in 2007, was appointed by Gov-
ernor Jon Corzine to the New Jersey-Israel Commission. After receiving a B.A. in history from
Yeshiva University, he pursued a dual graduate program, earning semikhah from RIETS as
well as a master’s degree in Jewish History. His association with Yeshiva continues to this day.
A former rebbe in YU’s high school, Rabbi Yudin currently teaches Bible and Jewish thought in
the Mechina Program at Yeshiva College, and is a former dean of Mechina’s predecessor, the
James Striar School. He also chairs the Moshe Besdin Memorial Fund, which raises scholar-
ship money for needy students from Russia, Iran, and other countries. In 1993, Rabbi Yudin
received the Yeshiva College Alumni Association’s prestigious Bernard Revel Memorial Award
in Religion and Religious Education. Rabbi Yudin’s weekly parshah commentary on radio sta-
tion WFMU’s “JM in the AM” program is heard by thousands of listeners in the tri-state area.
Countless others have been inspired by the explanatory essays Rabbi Yudin contributed to
the ArtScroll Transliterated Linear Siddur, a landmark prayerbook designed to enable all Jews
to be full participants in the synagogue service.

Rabbi Donald Bixon ’94R
Rabbi Yudin is the consummate Talmid Cha-
cham, who constantly pushes himself in learning.
I learned from him how to persevere in preparing
to teach Torah and to assure myself that I had
s’darim k’vuim for my own learning. Rabbi Yudin
always used to quote R. Joseph Lookstein, “If the
baalei batim like the rabbi, they’ll do more for the
rabbi than they will for Shulchan Aruch.” After be-
ing with Rabbi Yudin and seeing how lishma he is,
I saw first-hand Rabbi Lookstein’s aphorism come
to life in Fair Lawn; how people trying to emulate
R. Yudin ended up following Shulchan Aruch
and growing spiritually. Rabbi Yudin is a true rav
b’Yisrael, and I learned from him the Torah aspect
of the rabbinate. n
Rabbi Dovid Cohen ’97R
My mentorship under Rabbi Yudin was the
impetus for my pursuing a career in the rabbinate.
Rabbi Yudin was incredibly enthusiastic about all
the opportunities he had to touch people and make
a profound impact on their lives. He was a part
of almost every family in his community. Rabbi
Yudin viewed every day in the rabbinate as a fresh
opportunity for growth and that attitude convinced
me that I too could find diverse satisfaction in the
profession. I observed an unparalleled commit-
ment to chesed, talmud Torah and kiruv that was
contagious. In particular, I try to adopt Rabbi
Yudin’s positive outlook and confidence in every
Jew. He would often reflect that somebody is “not
yet” religious rather than “not” religious.
Rabbi Yudin is the model mentor. He included
me every step of the way. He often would discuss
complex shailos or personal counseling issues and
would even solicit my input. He viewed it as his re-
sponsibility to train me for a career in the rabbinate.

12
15
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
Musmakhim in the Limelight
I had the great merit of five years under his tutelage,
and my current congregants have a more effective,
engaged rav because of the mentoring I received.
Rabbi Yudin is a model rav because he is above
politics and pettiness. His entire focus is ahavat
Yisrael and helping Jews. n
Rabbi Cohen is rabbi of the Young Israel of the West Side
and Mashgiach Ruchani at Stern College for Women.
Rabbi Shmuel Silber ’02R
Rabbi Yudin was an incredible mentor in so many
ways. I still remember the first thing Rabbi Yudin
taught me — “there is nothing part time about
the rabbanus.” I believe that this “maamar” truly
personifies and embodies his commitment to Am
Yisroel. It was clear to me from the beginning that
Rabbi Yudin was a rav not just to his kehillah but
to any Jew who was in need of his help, guidance
and advice. Rabbi Yudin showed me the beauty
of leading a life devoted to serving Klal Yisrael.
He demonstrated to me that even small acts of
chessed, kindness, devotion and empathy could
have a lasting and transformative effect on the lives
of others. Rabbi Yudin taught me that true growth
as a rav, Jew and human being is directly propor-
tional to the amount of effort, time and patience
Bring
you are willing to give to another. Rabbi Yudin also
reinforced the idea that a rav must always continue
to excel and grow in his personal learning in order
to feel fulfilled in his relationship with Hashem.
Everything the rabbi did — he did b’simchah. He
taught his congregants (and assistant rabbi) that
everything in life, is an “opportunity and privilege”;
every person is a “friend,” and we must always find
the strength to have a “sever panic yafos” for every
person at all hours.
I believe that Rabbi Yudin’s ability to be an incredible
“mashpiah” (both as a mentor to young rabbis and to
his greater congregation) is rooted in his unbridled
sincerity, kedushah and love for Am Yisroel.
My time as Rabbi Yudin’s assistant was not just
shimush in the rabbanus, it was shimush for how
to properly live life — and for this I am forever
grateful. n
Rabbi Silber serves as rabbi of the Suburban Orthodox
Congregation in Baltimore.
Rabbi Reuven Brand ’05R
Rabbi Yudin served as an outstanding mentor and
teacher by modeling the values which are essential
for future leaders in Klei Kodesh. Two specific
world-renowned scholars
from the campus to your
Yeshiva University Speakers Bureau
www.yu.edu/speakers
qualities that had a great impact on my develop-
ment and still inspire me today are Rabbi Yudin’s
ahavas Torah and selflessness. Rabbi Yudin’s
excitement for Torah study has inspired countless
students; I have seen him light up upon hearing
a new Torah insight and beam at the thought of
creating a new opportunity to share Torah with
others. His personal sacrifice for the benefit of oth-
ers is legendary. Together with his wife, Shevi, they
have opened their hearts and home to Jews from all
over and continue to inspire a culture of giving by
leading a shining example.
Serving as an assistant to Rabbi Yudin enabled me
to learn by observing his humble, gracious style
of leadership that has earned the trust and respect
of his congregants. His dedication to excellence
in learning and living Torah is a model which is
ideal for budding rabbis to emulate. Those whose
rabbinate reflects the type of genuine and sincere
avodas Hashem — bein adam lachaveiro and bein
adam lamakom — found in Fair Lawn are blessed
to have a true moral compass. n
Rabbi Reuven Brand is the Rosh Kollel of the Yeshiva
University Torah Mitzion Kollel in Chicago.
Pl
sp an
ea yo
kin ur
g 20
ev 1
en 0–
ts 20
no 11
w!
community! Visit the
Book Review
Fresh Fruit &
Vintage Wine
(OU Press, Ktav and
Yeshivat Har Etzion, 2009 )
by Rabbi Yitzchak Blau ’94R
Reviewed by Rabbi Chaim Jachter ’92R
Rebbe, Torah Academy of Bergen County; Dayan,
Beth Din of Elizabeth and Rabbi of Congregation
Shaarei Orah of Teaneck
Torah educators are constantly challenged to find
topics that their students will find compelling and
meaningful. Congregational rabbis are faced with
the additional challenge of presenting shiurim
and derashot that are suitable to audiences whose
educational levels often range from accomplished
Torah scholar to outright beginner. Many of the
classic and even newer sefarim available on a
dizzying array of topics often provide material that
a Modern Orthodox audience will find arcane
and not meaningful to their lives as Jews. On the
other hand, some of the newer means of analysis
rely entirely upon original thought that fails to
resonate with our audiences due their failure to
build upon classic commentaries and styles. Thus
rabbis and educators are left with a dearth of tools
at their disposal to help them create presentations
that will satisfy their constituents.
Rav Yitzchak Blau’s Fresh Fruit and Vintage Wine
is a most welcome breath of fresh air for Torah
professionals. Rav Blau has an incredible knack of
identifying topics and traditional commentaries
that our audiences will find meaningful. More-
over, his breadth of knowledge is astounding. He
cites from an incredibly wide mixture of sources
that provides the variety our audiences so very
much need. In his analysis of approximately 90
Aggadic passages from the gemara, Rav Blau
regularly cites Rashi, Rambam, Meiri, Maharsha,
Maharal, Netziv, Ben Yehoyada, Ein Yaakov,
Meshech Chochmah, Rav Yechiel Yaakov Wein-
berg and Rav Yitzchak Hutner in addition to the
expected citations of Rav Kook and Rav Soloveit-
chik. Other lesser known personalities such as
Rav Moshe Avigdor Amiel and Rav Reuven Katz
are cited when needed to provide just the right
insight into a classic text to clinch a lesson that is
relevant to our times. Rav Blau even spices his dis-
cussions with citations from non-Jewish sources
such as Isaiah Berlin and Soren Kirkegaard. Rav
Blau selects Aggadic passages that are essential
building blocks of Jewish literacy and writes in a
pleasant, elegant and engaging manner that makes
this book a truly delicious read.
An example of Rav Blau’s method is his analysis of
the gemara (Eruvin 13b) which presents the pro-
tracted debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Sha-
mai as to whether it is better for one not to have
been created and the conclusion in favor of the
approach that it is better for man not to have been
created. Rav Blau notes that this conclusion ap-
parently contradicts Hashem’s observation at the
conclusion of the six days of creation that all He
made is very good (Breishit 1:31). Rav Blau offers
a variety of approaches to solve this problem. He
cites Rav Yosef Albo (Sefer HaIkkarim 3:2), who
explains that all of creation is referring to the total-
ity of creation, but some aspects of creation, such
as man, are not necessarily very good. Yet another
possibility is that the gemara is simply speaking in
terms of comfort (“Noach”) that it is simply more
comfortable for one not to be created but that it is
certainly good for man to be created.
He then articulates an answer based on Rav Hut-
ner that the gemara’s conclusion represents the
beginning of one’s life journey where one should
be struck with the awesome responsibility of one’s
life journey and feel that it is better not to have
been created. Only after this recognition may one
17
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
move forward and responsibly exercise his life’s
mission which indeed is very good.
Another example of Rav Blau’s masterful ap-
proach is his analysis of the Gemara (Eruvin 65b)
which states that a man is known by koso (how he
drinks), kiso (how he chooses to spend money)
and ka’aso (how he expresses his anger) and some
say b’sachko (how he plays). After noting the al-
literation Rav Blau notes the different approaches
as to why these three activities are named. Ben Ye-
hoyada explains that the examples reflect increas-
ing prevalence as not everyone drinks, there are
times when we do not use money, but the danger
of anger is always present. Maharsha explains that
these categories represent the three categories of
mitzvot: between man and man (kiso), between
man and Hashem (ka’aso, because Chazal
compare anger to idolatry) and between man and
himself (koso).
Rav Blau then analyzes the last test of play. He
explains the test is whether one conducts an
integrated life in which he integrates Torah values
even into areas of reshut, where the Shulchan
Aruch does not offer strict guidelines as to how
one should behave. Rav Blau further develops
this idea using Rabbi Norman Lamm’s analysis
of the gemara (Megillah 9a), which distinguishes
between the Greek-Western perception of leisure
and the Torah view of leisure. Whereas the
Greek-Western tradition views leisure as simply
refraining from productive behavior, the Torah
views rest as laden with potential for spiritual
growth. Thus the use of one’s leisure time is a very
appropriate manner to gauge someone’s spiritual
profile.
Rav Blau’s work is a much-needed, groundbreaking
work which is a highly valuable addition to any To-
rah professional’s tool box. It is recommended for
rabbis searching for appropriate topics for discus-
sions between mincha and maariv, classroom reb-
beim to teach appreciation and in-depth analysis of
Agaddah, and a valuable resource and springboard
for formulating derashot. The Torah community
eagerly looks forward to many more such volumes
from Rav Blau, which will greatly elevate the quality
of Torah literacy and Torah classes throughout the
Jewish community. n
Practical Halachah
Hashdeihu…
ve-Khabdeihu?
Community Responses
to Members Accused or
Indicted of Crimes
Rabbi Mark Dratch ’82R
T
he seemingly ubiquitous headlines
announcing alleged illegal activities of
Orthodox-affiliating Jews pose an impor-
tant challenge to rabbis and communities.1 How do
we treat shul members who have been accused of
financial misconduct, sexual or physical abuse, and
other crimes? Are they welcome in the shul? Do
they receive aliyot? Lead the services?
The answers are not simple. On the one hand, the
facts of the cases have yet to be heard or confirmed
in a court of law and the accused have yet to be
found guilty; they may very well be innocent. Any
punitive or restrictive policies may lead to our viola-
tion of halbanat penei haveiro ba-rabbim, lashon
hara, motzi shem ra and rekhilut; and ona’ah (op-
pression). We may be guilty of being hoshed be-
kesheirim, of failing to be dan le-kaf zekhut and to
provide support and encouragement to fellow Jews
in crisis who just at this time need the empathy and
caring of their community and spiritual leaders.
On the other hand, if the allegations are true, honor-
ing the accused publicly may be a hillul Hashem,
casting aspersions on the ethics and integrity of the
shul 2; other community members may feel uncom-
fortable seeing them attend and fully participate in
synagogue life; and alleged victims of this individual
may feel angry that someone who harmed them has
unconstrained benefits of all the rights and privileges
of the community. This may lead to resentment of,
and alienation and disaffection from the rabbi, the
shul and the community. Furthermore, if the accusa-
tions are about physical or sexual abuse, others in
the community may be future victims of this alleged
perpetrator; what is the community’s responsibility
to protect innocents from harm?
The issues are complex and deserve much more de-
tailed analysis than this space allows. The following
may serve as a helpful introduction to some of the
issues and offers approaches to this sensitive matter.
Benefit of the Doubt
In general, we must judge others favorably, assuming
their innocence: “ve-hevei dan et kol ha-adam le-kaf
zekhut;3” “ha-hoshed be-kesherim lokeh be-gufo;4”
and “be-tzedek tishpot et ‘amitekha,” which means
not only that “you shall judge your neighbor with
righteousness,5” but “you shall judge your neighbor
as righteous.” While many reasons have been prof-
fered for this attitude6, for our analysis it is impor-
tant to draw attention to those who base it on the
principle of hazakah, a legal theory that enshrines the
status quo and enables us to make certain presump-
tions about people and their behavior — people
are presumed to be as they have always been. Every
person has a hezkat kashrut and is to be considered
innocent until proven guilty 7: either people are pre-
sumed born guiltless and honest and they continue
to be so8; their behavior patterns until now have es-
tablished a presumption that all his actions are good
and noble9; or since the rov (the majority) of Jews
behave in good and noble ways10, or the majority of
this person’s actions are good11, the odds are that this
person is part of that majority.
Another approach that explains the requirement of
judging others favorably suggests that in considering
suspicious behavior we are to assume that we do not
know the entire story, that we do not properly un-
derstand another’s motivations, or that the unseemly
act may have merely been an innocent mistake12. In
fact, we are warned not to judge another “until we
have been in his place13.” And even when we observe
unquestionable misconduct by a Torah scholar, a
person whose piety and conduct are presumed to
be beyond reproach, we must assume that he has
immediately repented for his misdeeds.14
Judging Favorably: Obligation
or Meritorious Act?
There is a difference of opinion as to whether we are
obligated to judge others favorably15 or whether do-
18
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
ing so is just a meritorious act.16 Furthermore, there
is a dispute as to whether we have to judge everyone
in this manner17 or whether our favorable judgment
is reserved only for the religious elite18. Rambam is of
the opinion that, as a matter of law, righteous people
must always be given the benefit of the doubt and
that wicked people must always be judged negatively,
regardless of the apparent nature of any particular
action. He applies R. Yehoshua ben Perahyah’s
teaching — hevei dan le-kaf zekhut — only to
actions of beinonim, those who are neither wicked
nor righteous18. Others apply this principle only to
strangers, those whose characters are unknown to
us and for whom we have no context by which to
make assumptions about their behavior20. Maharam
Shik and Avodat Yisrael, in their commentaries to
Pirke Avot, limit its application to those individuals
mentioned in the Mishnah — friends and teachers;
strangers may be suspected.
Always?
Despite the call to judge favorably, there is room
for suspicion and for precaution. When there is no
hazakah, or when the hazakah has weakened due to
circumstances, reliable suspicions and other factors,
misgivings and doubts are appropriate. Masekhet
Derekh Eretz, Pirkei Ben Azzai 3:3 tells the story of
R. Yehoshua and his suspicious treatment of a house
guest. After an evening of eating and drinking, R. Ye-
hoshua showed his guest to the roof where the visitor
would spend the night. After the guest climbed the
ladder, R. Yehoshua, without his guest’s knowledge,
removed the only safe descent. In the middle of the
night, the guest gathered much of his host’s property
and sought to escape “like a thief in the night.” The
ladder having been removed, the thief fell off the roof
and was injured. When the thief complained about
the missing ladder, R. Yehoshua castigated him say-
ing that he should have realized that he would have
been under suspicion. The conclusion: “One should
always consider others as thieves, while honoring
them like Rabban Gamliel.”
The gemara, Niddah 61a, relates that when certain
men who were rumored to have committed
murder came to R. Tarfon and asked to be hidden,
R. Tarfon replied, “How should I act? If I do not
hide you, [the avengers of the blood] would see you
[and kill you]. If I do hide you, I would be acting
contrary to the statement of the rabbis, ‘As to slan-
der, though one should not believe it, one should
take note of it.’ Go you and hide yourselves.”
One final example: the Mishnah, Yoma 18b, relates
how the elders charged the High Priest prior to his
officiating in the Temple’s Holy of Holies on Yom
Kippur. To ensure that he would follow the rituals
according to the rabbinic, Pharisaic requirements,
Practical Halachah
and not in accord with the interpretations of the
Sadducees, they warned him against deviating from
the halakhah and then they all wept. The kohen
cried because they suspected him of being a Sad-
ducee, and they cried for having suspected him and
not judging him favorably. Rambam explains that
where there is a hekhreh gadol the need to presume
innocence is suspended. R. Moshe Soloveitchik,
zt”l, suggested that in the case of this case of the ko-
hen Gadol on Yom Kippur the elders were justified:
while one may look at a person’s past behavior in a
charitable light, such openness is not required, and
may be inappropriate, with regard to future actions.
Thus, where there is reason to be concerned about
future negative ramifications we should not give
others the full benefit of the doubt but may pro-
ceed with suspicion.
Lashon Hara
Although the prohibitions of lashon hara, rekhilut
and motzi shem ra are rigorous and severe, there
are circumstances in which sharing derogatory
information with others is obligatory21. Specifi-
cally, if there is a to’elet22, a positive, constructive,
and beneficial purpose, like protecting others
from physical or financial harm or protecting their
religious and spiritual integrity, the prohibition
against lashon hara does not apply23. Motzi shem
ra, spouting lies and spreading disinformation, is
always prohibited. And if the lashon hara serves as a
warning against the possibility of future harm, such
communication is not only permissible, but, under
certain conditions it is compulsory24.
Of relevance for our consideration is how certain
we must be of the veracity of the allegations before
we are permitted to act on them. Most often we are
not qualified to investigate or judge the allegations;
most often it would be inappropriate to do so. These
limitations, however, do not exempt us from acting
responsibly. Certainly, extreme care must be taken
as the consequences of accepting and acting on false
allegations can be devastating, as we noted above.
We do not need complete, two witness-observant
male testimony in order to act. Under certain cir-
cumstances, the word of an otherwise unqualified
witnesses can be accepted, even in a bet din. There
is a takanat kadmonim which authorizes a court
to accept the statements of individual witnesses,
women and relatives in places and circumstances
in which kosher witnesses are not regularly found25.
While Shulhan Arukh agrees that an unsubstanti-
ated accusation is ineffective with regard to punish-
ing a person for unacceptable behavior, where an
accusation leads to concerns about potential future
harm or victimization, the court has the obligation
and the authority to act to protect the vulnerable26.
Credible, persistent rumors and circumstantial
evidence are sufficient in order to speak out against
supposed malfeasors. Megillah 25b records permis-
sion to shame publicly a person about whom there
are rumors that he is an adulterer and refer to him as
“gimel shin,” an acronym for gala shaita (adulterer,
madman)27. A rumor that a certain disciple revealed
a matter that had been declared a secret 22 years
earlier was enough to ban him from entering the
Bet Midrash28. Rumors of impropriety, even though
they were not confirmed by legal testimony, were
sufficient to enable a court to remove an agent acting
on its behalf29. A reasonable presumption (amatla)
was enough to dismiss a community functionary,
such as the administrator of the Hevra Kaddisha30.
Even a court, usually constrained by a high standard
of testimony which must be met before it passes
judgment or metes out punishment, is authorized
to administer lashes to a person who is the subject
of persistent rumors of impropriety31. And a court
may place someone in niddui (excommunicative
ban) determined solely by ‘omed ha-da’at (deduction
based on an assessment of the merits)32.
Devarim ha-nikkarim (self-evident conditions)
may also be sufficient. The Talmudic Sage Samuel
asserts that King David punished Mephiboshet (II
Samuel 19) based on devarim ha-nikkarim (self-
evident conditions)33. Thus, according to Samuel,
one may act on circumstantial evidence that gives
strong and conclusive support to an allegation; it
is not considered lashon hara34. Even persistent
rumors (kala de-lo pasik) alone may be proof
enough35. The Talmud applies this to the case of a
rabbi, an individual who must be a moral exemplar
for his community, whose integrity is called into
question by persistent rumors; he can no longer
function in a rabbinic capacity36. In fact, “Wherever
there is desecration of God’s Name, honor is not
extended to anyone, not even to a rabbi.”37
The credibility afforded to a rumor is based on
the premise that its very existence indicates that
the person who is the subject of that rumor must
necessarily be guilty, to one degree or another, of
the misconduct of which he is accused38. Now,
experience teaches us that not every rumor is true
and not every subject of every rumor, even if it
is pervasive, is always guilty. The Talmud points
to the claim against Moses — he was accused of
adultery — which was clearly a false accusation
promulgated by those who were jealous of him
and his position. The Talmud therefore limits the
presumption that “where there’s smoke there’s fire”
to situations in which those who started the rumors
are not enemies of the subject and have no personal
agenda to unjustly disparage him.39
19
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
Policy Considerations
We have briefly touched on a number of the major ar-
eas of halakhic and ethical concerns that must be con-
sidered when formulating congregational policies that
respond to members accused or indicted of crimes. To
these we add some practical considerations:
1. Congregations should formulate and adopt poli-
cies in advance of any specific situation. This gives
sufficient time to discuss and formulate their re-
sponses. It also allows for greater objectivity when
discussions are held about theoretical situations
and not about specific cases or individuals. Further,
these policies make it easier to respond should an
actual situation arise.
2. Ideally, the policies should be formulated and ad-
opted by the group, not any one individual. While
the halakhic guidelines should be provided by the
rabbi, the responsibility for the practical applica-
tions of those guidelines (both in formulation and
in practice) must be shared with lay leadership.
3. One can certainly distinguish between accusa-
tions of financial misconduct and accusations of
sexually abusive or violent behaviors. While the
former are both illegal and against Jewish law, one
could argue that in many such cases the extent of
personal harm to community members and the
chances of future harm are limited. (There are
exceptions, of course. Some recent events come
to mind.) In areas of abuse or violence, concerns
about the future safety and welfare of others are
very real and must be a primary consideration. In
such cases, not only should public honors be with-
held, but careful consideration should be given as
to whether the alleged abuser may be permitted at
services or into the building altogether.
4. Nevertheless, in any case in which the alleged
conduct that instigated the accusations constitutes
a hillul Hashem, the congregation should restrict
all public honors; the kevod ha-Torah and kevod
ha-tzibbur must also be protected. Honoring such
an individual may itself be a hillul Hashem. And
careful consideration must be given to how the
congregation’s reactions are viewed by its youth:
what message is the shul sending its children about
its expectations for proper halakhic and ethical be-
havior? How is this balanced with care and concern
for individuals in crisis?
5. Careful consideration should be given as to if and
when restrictions should be discretely and quietly
imposed and if and when they should imposed
publicly. Discretion may avert concerns about pub-
lic shame while at the same time avert community
gossip and offense. Nevertheless, some actions
demand public response and the obligation of
Practical Halachah
hokhei’ah tokhi’ah should not let us remain silent.
6. Ideally, a shul policy and its implementation
should be objective; the less discretion permitted
to the leaders, the fewer the chances of personal
politics and divisiveness. Nevertheless, not all
accusations are equal and, where there is reason-
able doubt as to their veracity, there should be great
reluctance to vilify or exclude the accused. Careful
consideration must be given as to how and by
whom this determination will be made.
7. Rabbis must remember that their responsibilities
include all of the members of their congregations,
including the accused and indicted and their fami-
lies. Even if, for reasons of congregational welfare,
a person is barred from receiving honors or from
attending the services altogether, the rabbi must
maintain contact and offer appropriate support to
the accused and his family.
8. While proper care and concern must be shown
toward the family of the accused, it must be re-
membered that it was he — and not the congrega-
tion — that brought this on to his family40.
9. Statements by shul leaders and representatives
must be tactful and sensitive. Statements of support
and empathy for the accused must never be formu-
lated in a way that is callous to the ethical standing
of Torah, the integrity of the community, the rule of
law and the welfare of possible victims. n
Notes
1. On the relationship between ritual observance and
ethical behavior see A. Lichtenstein, “Being Frum
and Being Good: On the Relationship Between
Religion and Morality” in “By His Light : Character
and Values in the Service of God” (Jersey City, NJ
KTAV Pub. House; Alon Shevut, Israel: Yeshivat
Har Etzion, 2003) 101-133.
2. See Mark Dratch, “The Shame of It All; The Real
Shanda in Revealing Abuse” at http://www.jsafe.
org/pdfs/Hillul_Hashem.pdf.
3. Avot 1:6.
4. Shabbat 97a; see Entziklopedia Talmudit, vol. 17,
cols. 559-566.
5. Sifra, Kedoshim 2:4.
6. For a more detailed discussion, see Mark Dratch,
“Couldn’t Be! Do Alleged Perpetrators of Abuse
Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt?” at www.jsafe.
com/pdfs/Dan_LeKaf_Zekhut.pdf.
7. Hil. Kiddush ha-Hodesh 2:2; Bet Yosef, Yoreh De’ah
1 s.v. katav ha-Mordechai.
8. Teshuvot Maharshdam, Hoshen Mishpat, no. 310.
9. Encyclopedia Talmudit, XIII, Hezkat Kashrut, cols.
26-27; Avnei Milu’im 127:2; Shev Shemateta,
Sha’ar 1, 15.
10. Teshuvot Noda be-Yehudah, Kamma, Even ha-
Ezer, no. 69; Teshuvot Nahalat David no. 26.
11. Commentary of Rabbeinu Yonah to Mishlei 21:12.
12. Rema to Hoshen Mishpat 34:4 and Shulhan
Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 34:12.
13. Avot 2:4.
14. Berakhot 19a: It was taught in the school of R.
Ishmael: If you see a scholar who has committed an
offense at night, do not have doubts about him [the
next] day; perhaps he has repented. “Perhaps,” you
say? [That is not the case,] he has certainly repented.
According to Me’iri, Shabbat 127b, he is to be
judged favorably even if it appears that his actions
are disreputable.
15. Rambam, Sefer ha-Mitzvot, ‘asei no. 177; Sha’arei
Teshuvah, sha’ar 3, no. 218; Semag ‘asin 106; Sefer
ha-Hinukh 235.
16. Me’iri to Shevu’ot 30a.
17. Torat Kohanim, Kedoshim 4:4; Rashi, Shevu’ot
30a, s.v., hevei dan et haverkha.
18. Hil. De’ot 5:7.
19. Peirush ha-Mishnayot to Avot 1:6.
20. Commentary of Rabbeinu Yonah to Avot. See
also Sha’arei Teshuvah, sha’ar 3, no. 218, in which
Rabbeinu Yonah writes that judging a pious person
favorably is “al derekh emet” (a rational requirement
needing no biblical mandate) and in which he main-
tains that the biblical obligation to judge favorably
refers to a beinoni (an average person) whose deeds
are morally ambiguous. The principle to be dan le-
kaf zekhut applies to a beinoni whose deeds appear
to be most likely sinful.
21. See Mark Dratch, “Let Them Talk: The Mitzvah
to Speak Lashon Hara” at www.jsafe.org/pdfs/
Lashon%20Hara%20and%20Abuse.pdf.
22. To’elet is a factor in permitting not only otherwise
forbidden speech, but it is a consideration in all
interpersonal (bein adam le-haveiro) prohibitions
as well. R. Elhanan Wasserman, Kovetz He’arot,
Yevamot no. 70, writes: All interpersonal injunctions
are prohibited only [when the act is performed in a]
destructive and deleterious manner, for no positive
benefit. For example, the prohibition of “Do not hate
your brother” prohibits only sinat hinam (wanton
hatred), i.e., when he did not see him commit an il-
licit act. But if he witnessed an illicit act, it is permis-
sible to hate him … So too regarding the prohibition
of physical assault; Rambam wrote that this applies
only if he strikes another in an aggressive manner
…So too regarding the prohibition “You shall not
go as a tale bearer”— one is permitted to speak
lashon hara concerning those involved in disputes
in order to quell the argument … Thus, all of this
indicates that all these prohibitions are permitted for
the purpose of to’elet.
20
C HAV R U S A • S i v a n 57 7 0
23. See R. Yisrael Isser, Pit’hei Teshuvah, Orah Hayyim,
no. 156.
24. For the requirements that must be met in order to
permit derogatory speech, see Hafetz Hayyim, Hil.
Lashon Hara, kelal 10 and Hil. Rekhilut, kelal 9.
25. Rema, Hoshen Mishpat 35:14. According to Rema,
Yoreh De’ah 334:43 quoting Maharik, shoresh
120, a court may place someone in niddui based
solely on allegations brought by those who are
normally unqualified to testify.
26. Even ha-Ezer 178:20.
27. Rashi s.v. desani shomanei.
28. Sanhedrin 31a.
29. Teshuvot ha-Ritva, no. 206 quoted by Bet Yosef,
Hosen Mishpat 290.
30. Teshuvot Ramatz, Orah Hayyim no. 15 quoted in
Piskei Din Rabbaniyim, helek 5, p. 27.
31. Kiddushin 81a; Hil. Sanhedrin 24:5. Ritva to
Kiddushin 81a. A person whose reputation is bad
[because of] inappropriate sexual activity and the
like, and there is circumstantial evidence (raglayim
la-davar) or persistent rumors (kola de-lo pasik),
is lashed with lashes of rebellion because he violated
that which is written, concerning the sons of Eli,
“No, my sons; it is not a good report what I hear” (I
Samuel 2:24).
32. Rema, Yoreh De’ah 334:43 quoting Maharik,
shoresh 120.
33. See Rashi, s.v., devarim ha-nikkarim haza beih. See
Tosafot Yesheinim to Yoma 22b and Sefat Emet to
Shabbat 56a for a different explanation.
34. Shabbat 56a-b; Hafetz Hayyim, Hil. Lashon
Hara, kelal 7:10-11; Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav, Orah
Hayyim 156:10.
35. Hil. Sanhedrin 24:5;
36. Mo’ed Katan 17a. See Orah Hayyim 53, Mishneh
Berurah, no. 78, quoting Yam Shel Shelomo,
Hullin, no. 52; Bi’ur Halakhah s.v. im ba’u alav
edim quoting Bi’ur ha-Gr”a which cites Gittin 89a
and Ketubot 36b and Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, no.
11; Hafetz Hayyim, Issurei Rekhilut, he’arot ve-
hashmatot, kelal 7 quoting Magen Avraham 53:7,
Mahzit ha-Shekel, Peri Megadim, no. 29.
37. Berakhot 19b.
38. Mo’ed Katan 18b: “A person does not incur suspi-
cion unless he has done the thing [suspected]; and
if he has not done it wholly, he has done it partly;
and if he has not done it partly, he has a mind to do
it; and if he has not had a mind to do it, he has seen
others doing it and enjoyed [the sight of it].”
39. Mo’ed Katan 18b.
40. See Yoreh De’ah 334:1; Pit’hei Teshuvah, no. 1, s.v.,
ve-afilu yesh la-hush.
Divrei Hesped
Rabbi Dr. Bernard Lander ’38R, z”l
by Rabbi Dr. David Luchins ’71R
Dr. Bernard Lander’s p’tira on
Monday evening, February 8
(Shevat 25) marked the end of
an era in American Jewish life.
He was the last survivor of an
intrepid band of American-born
Jewish children of the Depression who would boldly
assume the mantle of lay leadership of American
Orthodoxy in the post war era. Tested by privation,
tempered by the twilight struggle against fascism
and communism, they would succeed in building a
vibrant Torah community in the very North Ameri-
can environment in which so many “experts” had
declared it could never survive, much less flourish.
Born on the Lower East Side in June of 1915,
Bernard Lander was deeply shaped by his years
at Yeshiva College (class of 1936) and RIETS
(where he was ordained in 1938). His more than
70 creative years in communal life were profoundly
influenced by the vision of Dr. Bernard Revel and
the Torah of his Rebbe, Rabbi Moshe Soloveichik,
zichronam l’bracha.
I first met Dr. Bernard Lander at the Orthodox
Union’s 1964 Biennial Convention in Washington,
DC. He was already a legend in Orthodox Union
circles, having served as a director or officer since
1938 (at his death he had served on the Union’s
Board for 72 of the organization’s 112 years).
I knew that he had played a pivotal role in the
creation of NCSY in 1954. I had heard that he had
used his extensive contacts in the civil rights move-
ment (he had been New York’s City’s First Human
Right Commissioner and had served on the Fed-
eral Human Rights Commission under Presidents
Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson) to help ensure
that Martin Luther King’s historic 1963 March
on Washington would be held on a Wednesday
instead of Shabbat. I would later learn that he had
been a prime force in crafting the MacIver Report
of 1951 that helped create the current structure of
local and national Jewish Community Councils.
However, I had no way of suspecting in 1964, that
within a few years, I would be joining Dr. Lander
in his audacious dream of creating Touro College,
an adventure which continues to provide me with
both meaningful employment and intense personal
satisfaction.
Dr. Lander’s communal career began in the Rab-
binate at Congregation Beth Jacob in Baltimore,
Maryland. He returned to New York City in 1942
to finish his doctoral studies at Columbia Univer-
sity. His pioneering work on juvenile delinquency
convinced him that access to quality education was
the key to combating both poverty and crime, a be-
lief that would later be reflected in Touro College’s
emphasis on reaching out to underserved segments
of both the Jewish and general population.
Bernard Lander married Sarah Shragowitz in 1948
and they settled in Forest Hills where their four
children, Esther (Greenfield), Hannah, Debbie
(Waxman) and (Rabbi) Doniel, were all born and
raised. Dr. Lander played a major role in shaping
the Forest Hills Orthodox Jewish Community,
serving as president of the Queens Jewish Center
and helping to found Yeshiva Dov Revel, named
after his beloved mentor. From 1949 to 1971 he
served as a professor of sociology at the City Uni-
versity of New York and, for much of this time, as a
visiting professor at Notre Dame, where he enjoyed
a close friendship with the president, the legend-
ary Father Hesburgh. In 1954, Dr. Samuel Belkin
invited Dr. Lander to return to Yeshiva University
and accept the position of the dean of the Bernard
Revel Graduate School. He served in this position
for 15 eventful years, chairing the taskforce that
organized YU’s graduate schools of social work,
education and psychology. Dr. Lander also worked
closely with his life long friend Rabbi Moshe
Besdin in the founding the James Striar School of
Jewish Studies at Yeshiva College.
Of all of Dr. Lander’s many achievements in com-
munal life, one of the most significant was his role
in creating and nurturing NCSY. He often spoke of
the 1954 Orthodox Union Convention where he
helped Harold Boxer convince a skeptical plenary
session to endorse the concept of a nationwide
Orthodox synagogue youth movement. He served
for over 20 years on the Joint Youth Commission,
fighting to ensure that NCSY received the support
it needed to survive, including the historic decision
to hire Rabbi Pinchas Stolper in 1959 and support-
ing his insistence on uniform halachic standards at
all NCSY programs (how strange it is to remember
when mixed dancing and mixed swimming were
burning issues in NCSY).
Dr. Lander played a pivotal role in convincing Dr.
Belkin to have Yeshiva work closely with NCSY,
over the occasional objections of the Yeshiva Uni-
versity Youth Bureau which had its own synagogue
youth movement and summer seminar programs
for teenagers in North America and Israel. Dr.
Lander was the only staff person at Yeshiva who
21
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
was also an Orthodox Union lay leader, and it was
largely due to his efforts that Yeshiva’s once flour-
ishing synagogue youth programming was merged
into NCSY by 1970.
During the late 1960’s, Dr. Lander headed a
landmark study for Norte Dame University on the
roots of the then-raging campus turmoil. He was
troubled by the high percentage of alienated bright
Jewish students who were playing leadership roles
in the unrest. This finding, along with his abiding
belief in the nurturing power of education, would
lead to his historic effort to create Touro College.
A Personal note: In 1973, having been offered full-
time employment at the then tiny Touro College,
I asked my beloved mentor Rabbi Israel Miller zt”l
if I should take the offer. He thought for a minute
and responded, “David, Bernie Lander is taking the
skills he acquired at Yeshiva and utilizing them to
serve the larger community — join him and do the
same with the skills we taught you.”
Touro’s growth from 37 students in 1971 to 17,500
today has been well documented elsewhere. The
institutions’ scope, as it prepares for University
status in the near future, is testimony to the range of
Dr. Lander’s daring vision; from the acclaimed af-
filiated Yeshivat Ohr Chayim in Kew Garden Hills
to schools of osteopathic medicine in California,
Harlem and Nevada; from unique programs em-
powering the Charedei communities in Israel and
Borough Park to the competitive Lander Colleges
for Men in Kew Garden Hills and Women in Man-
hattan; from the newest addition, the New York
Medical College in Westchester County, to the
innovative Flatbush Program which has enabled
thousands of yeshiva and seminary students to
attend college in the evening and Sundays.
It is a measure of Dr. Lander’s genius that his
guiding principle now seems so logical; an institu-
tion deeply loyal to Torah values can and should
provide quality educational opportunities to every
interested segment of society, without asking any
segment to compromise its core values in any
fashion. The same college that runs a first class
College of Medicine in Nevada (with m’zuzot on
every door) can answer the call of Gedolei Yisroel
to provide heavily subsidized higher education to
Jewish girls from the former Soviet Union. The
same Touro College that sponsors cutting-edge
graduate programs in the health sciences and
pharmacology can offer superb graduate education
in Jewish education and Jewish studies. All of these
Divrei Hesped Lifecycles

programs, from the renowned Mesivtot to the campuses in Paris and

Berlin, from the pioneering School of General Studies branch campus Publications
in East Harlem to the Touro Colleges in Miami and Los Angeles, share Rabbi Stanley Wagner ’56R, co-
the same vision, the same commitment, the same dream. Their very author of Onkelos on the Torah, a five
diversity is testimony to the unity of his vision. Their very differences volume English translation of Onkelos
on its incorporation into the OU’s
attest to the holistic totality of his legacy.
Shnayim Mikra program.
But none of this captures the real magic of Dr. Bernard Lander’s unique Rabbi Morey Schwartz ’90R on the
style. Lists of schools and litanies of degree-granting programs hardly publication of his new book entitled
convey the majesty of his dream or the tenacity of his convictions. And, Where’s My Miracle? Exploring Jewish
Traditions for dealing with Tragedy
perhaps most important, they do not reflect the remarkable force of his
published by Gefen Publishing House.
personality or the extraordinary commitment to kavod habriyot and
Rabbi Shmuel Goldin ’76 on the
Ahavat Yisroel that graced his remarkable accomplishments. As one publication of his new sefer on Vayikra,
maspid declared, “the only thing bigger than his mind, was his heart.”
the newest volume of his popular
Unlocking the Torah Text: An In-Depth
About a decade ago the daughter of an American employee at Touro’s
Journey into the Weekly Parsha (OU
Moscow campus was killed in a terrorist attack. Dr. Lander oversaw the Press and Gefen Publishing).
arrangements for her levaya in New York, sending a minyan of Touro
staff to the kvura and being maspid the niftara, a participant reported, “as Mazal Tov
if it was his own daughter.” When he was later asked how he knew the RIETS student Chaim Apfel on
young woman, he replied he had never met her. his marriage to Tehilla Raviv from
Queens. Another YUConnects
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan related that he was once speaking to a
shidduch!
major banker when Dr. Lander’s name came up and the banker shared
Rabbi Bernhard ’50R and Vivien
with him the following story:
Auerbach on the wedding of their
“I was at a meeting with Dr. Lander a few years ago when his college was in granddaughter Avital Naiman to Tzuri
Dotan.
serious financial trouble; those of us in the room had every reason to doubt
if the school could survive and no incentive to continue extending their Rabbi Bernhard ’49R and Vivien
credit. It was a tough and unpleasant meeting. And then the phone rang. Auerbach on their grandson Yechiel,
son of Tova and Aharon Naiman,
Dr. Lander answered it. ‘Yes, Momma,’ he said, and for the next ten minutes becoming a Bar Mitzvah.
he chatted with his mother as though we didn’t exist, as though we weren’t
Rabbi Julius ’59R and Dorothy
on the verge of pulling the plug on his dream. After what seemed forever to
Berman on their grandson Chanoch
a room full of busy bank officials, he got off the phone and said ‘I’m sorry,
Aminsky, son of Simcha and Myra
but when my mother calls that comes first’. ‘Is everything alright?’ One of us Aminsky, becoming a Bar Mitzvah.
asked. ‘Yes,’ he said ‘but she needed to tell me about her day.’
Rabbi Azarya ’78R and Charnie
Berzon, on the birth of a grandson,
“After that,” the banker told the Senator, “how could we refuse his Rafael Shalom, born to Baruch and
request for more time?” Mariam (Levitanus) Berzon.
One evening in the spring of 1997 I received a phone call from Dr. Rabbi Elichai ’09R and Zahava
Lander urging me to call my Rebbi, Rav Ahron Soloveichik, to wish Bitter of Alon Shvut on the birth of a
daughter, Shalva Tzivia. Mazal Tov to
him a happy 80th birthday. I was delighted to do so and promptly called grandparents Rabbi Yaacov ’74R and
Rav Ahron who asked me how I was aware of this occasion which he Abby Lerner.
assured me he had never publicized. When I told him that Dr. Lander Rabbi Steven ’06R and Rachel Burg
was the source of my “inside information,” he began to laugh and
on their son Aryeh Yehoshua
declared, “historians in future generations will have heated arguments becoming a Bar Mitzvah. Also to
over how many people named Bernard Lander were active during grandparents Rabbi Melvin ’74R and
Pearl Burg.
the last half the 20th century. No one will even consider that it was just
one man — rather, they will postulate that there was a Rabbi Bernard Rabbi Asher ’81R and Laya Bush
on the birth of their first grandson,
Lander who created yeshivot and Jewish colleges, a Dr. Bernard Lander Yisrael Zev Bush, to Donny and
who founded law schools and medical schools, and a lay leader named
Yehudis Bush.
Bernard Lander who was deeply involved in communal affairs.” “But,”
Rabbi Yehuda ’10R and Elissa
said Rav Ahron, “I must add a fourth person for them to ponder — Chanales on the birth of a daughter,
Dov Beresh Lander, who remembers his classmates’ birthdays 60 years
Tova Adina.
after they sat together in my father’s shiur” n Rabbi Ariel ’10R and Yael Davis on
the birth of a son, Moshe Yitzchak.
Dr. David Luchins is chair of the Political Science Department of Touro And to grandparents, YU Vice
College and founding dean of the Lander College for Women/The Anna Ruth
President for University Life, Rabbi Dr. 
and Mark Hasten School Hillel ’75R and Rock Davis.
Rabbi Dr. Herbert ’57R and Dina
Dobrinsky on the of a granddaughter,
Adina (Elyssa) Dobrinsky, to Andy
Feuerstein-Rudin from Teaneck.
Rabbi Nachman (Michael Judah)
’07R and Hudi Elsant on the birth
of a son, Elchanan Yechezkel. And to
grandparents, Rabbi Yaacov ’73R
and Abby Lerner.
Rabbi Amichai ’02R and Jody Chaya
Erdfarb on the birth of a daughter,
Rosa Avigayel.
Rabbi Elie ’07R and Yael Farkas on
the birth of a daughter, Shira Temima.
Rabbi Howard Finkelstein ’77R on
winning the Grinspoon-Steinhardt
Award for Excellence in Jewish
Education-2009.
Rabbi Avi ’08R and Sarah Fried on
the birth of a son, Yehuda Simcha.
Rabbi Lippy ’69R and Dr. Maureen
Friedman on the birth of a daughter
to Simcha and Efrat Friedman of Yad
Binyamin.
Rabbi Hersh Moses ’58R and Sarah
(Lebowitz) Galinsky on the birth of a
great-granddaughter, Talya, born to
Binyamin and Hodaya Galinsky. Mazel
Tov to granparents Eliezer and Tzippy
Galinsky.
Rabbi Shmuel ’76R and
Barbara Goldin on the birth of a
granddaughter, to Yehuda and Noa
Goldin.
RIETS student Benji Goldman on his
marriage to Shosh Kramer from North
Riverdale.
Rabbi Moshe ’55R and Sarah Gorelik
of Jerusalem and Rabbi Shalom ’82R
and Shifra Kurz on the marriage of
Rinat Weitz (granddaughter of Rabbi
and Mrs. Gorelik) to Eliezer Kurz (son
of Rabbi and Mrs. Kurz).
Rabbi Dovid ’01R and Ilana Gottlieb
on their daughter Eliana becoming a
Bat Mitzvah.
Rabbi Maury ’04R and Malka
Grebenau on the birth a daughter.
Rabbi Micha ’02R and Rivkie
Greenland on the birth of a son,
Daniel Yaakov.
Rabbi Chananel ’94R and Sarah
Herbsman on their son Naphtali
becoming a Bar Mitzvah.
Rabbi Basil ’73R and Sherri Herring
on the marriage of their daughter Yael
to Eli Fischman of Brooklyn.
Rabbi Avi ’09R and Rebecca
(Mandel) Hochman in Boca Raton on
the birth of a son, Binyamin Simcha.

22
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
Lifecycles
Rabbi Avrohom ’86R and Rena
Kanarek on the marriage of their
son Yehuda to Miriam Feinstein, of
Manhattan.
Rabbi Avrohom ’86R and Rena
Kanarek on the mariage of their
son Shmuel to Sora Perel Jacobs, of
Brooklyn.
Rabbi Aaron Kaplan ’08R on his
marriage to Anna Avery of Miami.
Rabbi Shaya and Nechie Kilimnick
on their grandson Doni becoming a
Bar Mitzvah.
Rabbi Barry ’01R and Dina Kornblau
on their son Yoni becoming a Bar
Mitzvah.
Rabbi Jonathan ’02R and Chaya
Krimsky on the birth of a son,
Yeshaya Simcha.
Rabbi Shalom ’82R and Shifra Kurz
on the marriage of their son Eliezer
to Rinat Weitz of Elkana.
Rabbi Eliezer ’75R and Lucy Langer
on the birth of a granddaughter,
Malka, to Baila (Rosenblum) and
Naftali Langer.
Rabbi Naphtali ’09R and Elana
Lavenda on the birth of a son, Akiva
Yehuda. Mazel Tov to grandparents
Rabbi Stuart ’80R and Karen
Lavenda.
Rabbi Yisrael Lutnick ’92R is
producing and starring  in a one-
man show entitled The Broadway
Rabbi Sings His Mind.  The show
was presented in Jerusalem and
will be staged in January in Tel Aviv,
Netanya, Rehovot and Raanana.
RIETS student Ramon and Debra
Lyons on the birth of a son, Avraham
Moshe.
Rabbi Gary ’81R and Beaty Menchel
on the marriage of their son Dovid to
Emily Scharfman, of New Rochelle.   granddaughter, Nitzan Shira, born
Rabbi Eduard “Eddie” ’73R and
Sandy Mittelman on the marriage of
their son Dov to Dr. Nechama Blatt.
RIETS Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Yaakov
’79R and Peshi Neuburger on the
marriage of their daughter Chaya
to RIETS student Aryeh Weistreich.
Mazel Tov to grandfather RIETS
Dean Emeritus Rabbi Zevulun
Charlop ’54R.
RIETS Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Yaakov
’79R and Peshi Neuburger on
the birth of a granddaughter,
Yehudis, born to their children Motti
and Avigayil Neuberger. Mazel Tov
to grandfather RIETS Dean Emeritus
Rabbi Zevulun Charlop ’54R.
Rabbi Uri and Nava Orlian on the
birth of a son, Netanel.
Rabbi Joe and Ashira Ozarowski
on the birth of a granddaughter,
Nachala Sarah, to Shalom and Bryna
Ozarowski.
Rabbi Dr. Gil ’07R and Melissa
Perl on the birth of a son, Eitan
Mordechai.
Rabbi Ariel Rackovsky ’06R on his
marriage to Jessica Abramowitz of
Chicago.
Rabbi Asher ’78R and Rashie
Reichert on the marriage of their
daughter Miriam to Avi Stiefel, recent
oleh from Teaneck.
RIETS Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Hershel
and Chasida Reichman on the birth
of a granddaughter, Ora Basya, born
to Yitzchak and Ahuva Reichman.
Rabbi Elimelech ’09R and Dr.
Chaya Rosenthal on the birth of
a son, Moshe. Mazel Tov to Rabbi
Rosenthal’s grandparents Rabbi
Joshua and Claire ‘55R Hertzberg,
on their new great grandson.
Rabbi Elie ’02R and Abigail
Rothberger on the birth of a
daughter, Geula Bracha.
Rabbi Elihu ’57R and Freida Schatz
on the birth of a great-grandson,
Roee.
Rabbi Simcha ’07R and Rachel
Schaum on the birth of a daughter,
Ayelet Rut. Mazel Tov to Great-
grandparents Rabbi M. Aaron ’43R
and Batya Kra.
Rabbi Nahum ’81R and Bracha
Schnitzer of Maale Adumim on the
birth of a grandson, Betsalel, to
Temima and Amichai Perlman
Rabbi Fabian ’52R and Ruth
Schonfeld on the birth of a great-
to RIETS student Jonny and Ilana
Gordon.
Rabbi Tzvi ’07R and Tova Sinensky
on the birth of a daughter, Moriah
Meital.
Rabbi Yehuda ’78R and Edna Singer
of Mitzpe Yericho on the birth of a
grandson, Roi Yedidya, to Yair and
Nili Singer, and on the birth of a
granddaughter, Reut Miriam to Avi
and Tzvia Konen.
Rabbi Mordechai ’59R and Naomi
Spiegelman on their grandaughter,
Adi Rachel, daughter of Vardit and
Avi Spiegelman, becoming a Bat
Mitzvah.
23
C h avr u s a • S i va n 57 7 0
Rabbi Chaim ’05R and Avital The family of Rabbi Samuel W.
Strauchler on the birth of a son, Zvi. Rubenstein ’41R, Rabbi Emeritus
at Agudas Achim Synagogue in
Rabbi Dr. Joseph ’58R and
Columbus, Ohio.
Honey Sungolowsky on their
grandson Shimon Eliyahu Chaim Rabbi Dan Segal ’02R on the loss of
Garrel becoming a Bar Mitzvah in his father, Emmanual “Mike” Segal,
Jerusalem. also father of Gadi Segal.
Rabbi Mark Urkowitz ’78R on the Rabbi Mendel Shapiro ’75R on the
birth of a grandson, Ezra Yeshaya, loss of his wife and Rabbi Steven
born to RIETS student Tzvi and Klitsner ’87R on the loss of his
Michelle Urkowitz. sister, Betsy Shapiro.
Rabbi Shaya ’78R and Dina Roemer Rabbi Mendel Shapiro ’75R on
Wexler of Efrat on the birth of a the loss of his father, Rabbi Morris
granddaughter, Eden Tova, born Shapiro.
to Tehila and Jeremy Gimpel of
Rabbi Yair Silverman ’02R and
Neve Daniel.  Mazal tov to great-
RIETS Israel Kollel Shoel uMeishiv
grandparents Rabbi Shlomo ’51R
Rabbi Eliav Silverman ’06R on the
and Chaya Wexler of Jerusalem.
loss of their mother, Anita Hirsch-
Rabbi Howard ’77R and Annette Silverman.
Wolk on the marriage of their son,
Rabbi Yitzchak A. Sladowsky ’56R
Gavriel Aharon, to Talia Volk.
on the loss of his sister, Mrs. Vita
RIETS Shoel uMeishiv Rabbi Yosef Naiman, wife of Dr. Michael Naiman.
Chaim Yanetz on his marriage to
Rabbi Matt Tropp ’84R on the loss
Rivka Janashvily in Israel.
of his mother, Dorothy Tropp.
RIETS Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Gershon
Condolences Yankelewitz on the loss of his wife,
Rabbi Noah Baron ’10R, Member Mrs. Bluma Yankelewitz.
of the YU Torah Mitzion Kollel of
Chicago, and Zemira (Baron) and
Rabbi Eli ’04R Ozarowski on the
loss of their father, Bernard Baron.
The Family of Rabbi Samuel Cooper
’32R.
Chani Jaskoll, wife of YU Dean Rabbi
Ira Jaskoll ’75R on the loss of her
father, Rabbi Mordecai Topel.
Emily Friedman Labaton, wife of
Rabbi Ezra Labaton ’74R, on the
loss of her father, Isaac Friedman.
Rabbi Daniel Lander, Rosh HaYeshiva
of Yeshiva Ohr HaChaim (Queens,
NY), Mrs. Ester Greenfield, Mrs.
Debbie Waxman and Mrs. Hana
Lander on the loss of their father,
Rabbi Dr. Bernard Lander ’38R.
Rabbi Israel Lifshitz on the loss of
his mother, Chana Lifshitz.
Rabbi Joseph Ozarowski on the
loss of his father, Uszer (Oscar)
Ozarowski, grandfather of Rabbi
Eli Ozarowski ’04R, Rabbi Shalom
Ozarowski and Chani (Ozarowski)
Newman.
The family of Rabbi Dr. Baruch
Poupko, ’41R.
Rabbi Dr. Yaacov Rosenthal ’93R,
on the loss of his mother, Marilyn
Rosenthal, wife of Dr. Martin
Rosenthal.