The Form of Hatarat Nedarim

Continuing my discussion of hatarat nedarim. Here are a few nitpicks I have with the instructions given in the machzor.

First, the instructions at the top (circled in red):

"The three 'judges' sit while the petitioner stands before them and states:"

At issue is how the hatarah works. Based on their commentary, Artscroll thinks it does not work at all. In which case I suppose it makes sense to have the judges sit. The purpose is to make the person realize the severity of his sins by vowing, and the more formal we can make it, the better.

However, assuming that is actually supposed to work, there are two means an annulment can happen. One is to find a specific petach, an opening, such that if the person had known X, he never would have vowed. The other is to open the vow with charatah, regret. It seems that the idea within the formula is that they are opening with charatah. Whether the particular brand of charatah, of regretting the making of the vow but not the particular actions, is valid, I will not address here, but certainly, this seems to be the intent of the formula. The difference lehalachah between them is that for the former, real deliberation must be done, and so the judges must sit. But when we open a vow with regret, no deliberation need be done, and so the judges may stand. And yet the directions here are that the judges sit. I do not understand this requirement. The directions may be a matter of custom rather than halacha.

While on this subject, all sorts of other restrictions of a bet din are relaxed, for these are not judges but rather "judges," as the machzor makes clear. Thus, hatarah can be done at night, or on Shabbos if the neder needs be annulled for the sake of Shabbos. And the judges may be related to one another.

My next nitpick is with the formula the judges use in responding to the petitioner. According to the Rambam, the judges only need to say one time, one language of annulment. Thus, they can say muttar lach, or they can say machul lach, or they can say sharui lach.

The Tur (IIRC) has a more developed formula. Once again, they can say muttar lach (or they can say machul lach, or they can say sharui lach). But whatever they say, they say three times. Thus (see here)

טור יורה דעה סימן רכח

מי שנדר ונתחרט יש תקנה ע"י חרטה ואפילו נדר באלהי ישראל כיצד יעשה ילך אצל חכם מומחה וסביר ואם אין יחיד מומחה ילך אצל ג' הדיוטות והוא דגמיר דגמרי להו וסברי וידעו לפתוח לו פתח ויתירו לו והאידנא אין מומחה שיהא ראוי להתיר ביחיד בפחות מג': ואין לו לאדם להתיר במקום רבו ובמקום שיש גדול ממנו אא"כ יתן לו רשות וכיצד הוא ההתרה יאמר לו ג"פ מותר לך ואפילו מעומד ובקרובים ובלילה ובשבת אפילו אם היה אפשר לו מאתמול לישאל עליו ובלבד שיהא לצורך השבת כגון שנדר שלא לאכול או לבטל מעונג שבת.

Or according to Shulchan Aruch:

שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן רכח
כיצד היא ההתרה, יאמר לו ו ד] ג' פעמים: מותר לך, ה] או שרוי לך, או מחול לך, (<ד> בכל לשון שיאמר), (ב"י בשם הרמב"ם), ז ו] <ה> אפילו מעומד, (ב) ובקרובים, ובלילה, ובשבת, אפילו אם היה אפשר לו מאתמול לישאל עליו, ז] ובלבד שיהיה לצורך השבת, כגון שנדר שלא לאכול או ליבטל מעונג השבת. ח ח] <ו> וחרמי צבור, נהגו להתיר אף על פי שאינם לצורך השבת.

So that we see that it is one, or the other, or the other. Not all three, even though he adds this point, just as Tur, of repeating whichever lashon is chosen three times. And even that is not strictly required. As Shach says:

ש"ך יורה דעה סימן רכח
ג' פעמים - לאו דוקא דבחד זימנא נמי סגי אלא עושין כן כדי לחזק הענין עט"ז ומשמע דבדיעבד סגי בפעם אחת וכ"כ הב"י והב"ח בשם הרמב"ם דא"צ שיאמר רק פעם אחת:

The nusach in the machzor has all three leshonos, and the judges repeat the whole formula three times. Thus, there is a total of nine statements. Plus we have the whole paragraph, not just those three phrases, which they recite three times. This is exceptional overkill. But then, I suppose it makes for great ritual. Ritual likes repetition of threes. As you might guess, I take exception to this. (Perhaps we might say this is kedei lechazek hainyan to the nth degree. Or rather the threefold repetition is kedei lechazeik hainyan while the use of all three languages, plus more, is just the way that liturgy grows way past what is required...)

While on this subject, I might note that again lehalacha, it seems that the bet din can annul vows of multiple people, just as they can annul several vows simultaneously (though there is dispute about the latter, about several vows where one is chal on top of the other, such that it only takes effect once the first one is annulled). So the typical process in shul is possibly a tremendous time waster. It depends. If people always pair up in threes, then they get out pretty quickly. But an acceptable alternative is to let several people say their petitions, and have the bet din then grant the annulment to all of them.

Finally, a word as to the translation of hakol yihtu muttarim lach, hakol mechulim lach, hakol sheruyim lach. Artscroll translates

"May everything be permitted you, may everything be forgiven you, may everything be allowed you."

I forget where I saw it, but I seem to recall other explanations. Mutar as in untying, as with a knot, and the same for sharui. And for machul, not in the same of forgiven, but rather making profane, as in lo yachel devaro, and the associated derashot.

Note: Not halacha lemaaseh. Don't pasken or act based on blogs.

Hatarat Nedarim -- As Atonement

This is just a throwaway thought. I criticized the Artscroll for presenting the hatarat nedarim on erev rosh hashanah as a sham, where the real purpose was "as a means of repentance for the sin of abusing vows."

I still do not believe that this is the function of the hatarah. But perhaps we can find an early echo of this idea in the Yerushalmi Nedarim, 18b:

ואתיין אילין פלוגוותא כאילין פלוגוותא דתני יום הכיפורים צריך לפרוט את מעשיו דברי רבי יודה בן בתירה. רבי עקיבה אומר אינו צריך לפרוט את החטא. אית תניי תני צריך לפרוט את הנדר. אית תניי תני אינו צריך לפרוט את הנדר.

Thus, the requirement to delineate one's sins, or lack of such a requirement, is compared to the requirement to delineate one's neder, or to the lack of such a requirement.

It is appropriate to delinate one's sins for Yom Kippur. And indeed, that seems to be the role of Ashamnu and VeAl Chataim where it is really appropriate to substitute one's personal sin that one actually did, in place. (Perhaps a later post on this, and how the plural saves us.) And so we don't really list them, or we list a bunch of them. But then, we say

ועל כלם אלוה סליחות סלח-לנו מחל-לנו כפר-לנו
ועל חתאים שאנו חיבים עליהם, ארבע מיתות בית דין,
סקילה שריפה הרג וחנק על מצות עשה,ועל מצות לא תעשה,
בין שיש בה קום עשה, ובין שאין בה קום עשה,
את הגלוים לנו, ואת שאינם גלוים לנו,
את הגלוים לנו,כבר אמרנום לפניך, והודינו לך עליהם.
ואת שאינם גלוים לנו,לפניך הם גלוים וידועים

or else:

על מצות עשה ועל מצות לא תעשה, בין שיש בה קום עשה ובין שאין בה קום עשה, את הגלויים לנו ואת שאינם גלויים לנו. את הגלויים לנו, כבר אמרנום לפניך והודינו לך עליהם. ואת שאינם גלויים לנו, לפניך הם גלויים וידועים. כדבר שנאמר: הנסתרות לה' אלוהינו, והנגלות לנו ולבנינו עד עולם, לעשות את כל דברי התורה הזאת. כי אתה סלחן לישראל ומחלן לשבטי ישורון בכל דור ודור, ומבלעדיך אין לנו מלך מוחל וסולח אלא אתה.

and so, this excuse from having to list all our vows, seems par for the course. And saying that they are so many seems like a confession of a lot of wrongdoing. And so, perhaps there is something to that idea.

Also, within the extended text the dayanim say, they say "aval yesh kan slicha mechila vechappara," which surely has to do with atonement and forgiveness. And they say that just as they matir them in the bet din down here, so should they matir them in the Bet Din above.

Even so, for all the reasons I gave above, I do not believe this is the true (or at least only) function of hatarat nedarim on erev Rosh Hashanah. The presumption is that, at least at some point in Jewish history, it did work. If the present nusach works, prove it. If not, fix it.

Note: Not halacha lemaaseh. Don't act based on blogs.

Shu"t Maharik 88 -- On The Definition of Chukat Akum, pt i

88:

Officers of thousands and officers of hundreds, officers of the hosts of Israel, Rabbi {Yehuda} Messer Leon and my dear friend the sage Rabbi Shmuel, much peace.

{Note: Rabbi Messer Leon was the son of a doctor, and studied medicine, and was licensed to practice medicine. Since this kapa is what doctors wear, it makes sense that he would be discussing whether one could wear this garment. Based on a later reference in this teshuva, I would guess that Rabbi Shmuel is Rabbi Shmuel de Modena, that is Maharshdam.}

I have seen your words, and upon them I reply briefly, for two reaons. First, for you have already written sufficient for performing the labor, and more. Second, because of bittul of the study hall, as we are now learning a difficult sugya in the company of colleagues who seek and volunteer their travelings to learn and teach Torah, if, forfend, my presence among them is missing, I bring upon myself guilt.

And yet I run to relate to you my opinion, even if {Yeshayahu 28:1o} it is a little here and a little there, about the kapa {cape} about which you have written -- and it is long, reaching until the ground, going both in front and in back, and is lacking on the sides, and yet they have made a fitting fix such that it is exempt from tzitzit. And yet a few men have murmured according to their words, saying that there is in this a violation of {Vayikra 18:3}:

ג כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ-מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם-בָּהּ, לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ; וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ-כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה, לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ, וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם, לֹא תֵלֵכוּ.

3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their statutes.

In my humble opinion, it appears that it is an obvious thing that one should not prohibit something as being a chok except in one of two ways. The first one is the thing whose matter is not revealed, as is implied from the language of chok.

And as Rashi comments in his commentary on Chumash in parshat Kedoshim, and these are his words:

You shall observe My statutes They are the following: “You shall not crossbreed your livestock with different species, etc.” [The term] חֻקִּים, “statutes,” refers to the decrees of the Divine King, which have no rationale.

{Or, the Hebrew original:

שרי אלפי' ושרי מאות שרי צבאות ישראל הר"ר מסי"ר ליאון וידיד נפשי הח"ר שמואל שלום רב. ראה ראיתי את דבריכם ועליהם אשיב לקצרה לשני טעמים. ראשונה כי כבר כתבתם די המלאכה לעשות אותה והותר. שני' מפני בטול בית המדרש כאשר אנו לומדי' עתה סוגיא חמורה בחבורת חברי' המקשיבי' המתנדבי' לכתת רגליה' ללמוד וללמד תור' אם ח"ו יפקד מושבי מביניה' והבאתי עלי אשם. ואולם למצותיכם ארוצה לחוות דעי ואם כי זער שם זער שם ע"ד הקפ"א אשר כתבת' והיא ארוכה עד לארץ הולכת פנים ואחור ופתוח' מן הצדדין ואמנם מתוקנת תקון הגון להיות פטור' מציצית ועמעמו עליה קצת אנשי' לפי דבריכם באמר' היות בזה משום ובחקותיה' לא תלכו. לע"ד נראה דדבר (א) פשוט דלא לאסור משום חק אלא בא' משני חלקים האחד הוא הדבר אשר אין טעמו נגלה כדמשמע לשון חק. וכד פי' /וכדפי'/ רש"י בפי' חומש בפרש' קדושי' וז"ל חקים אלו גזרו' המלך שאין להם טעם לדבר עכ"ל
}

Is there a Yekkeshe Zemer Called Ayelet Koach?

From a recent scanned sefer at JNUL. (You need a plugin to view the sefer, and then look at the top of page 66.) It is a sefer full of sermons for moadim, including for Rosh HaShanah. And at the end, the author includes this zemer. There are actually more stanzas, but I am just including the beginning. The title is:

זמר לסעודת כל יום בין ברכת המוציא בין האילת כת

or something like that. I am actually not certain about the last two words.

My first guess is that the printer messed up these letters and it really reads האכילת פת, by leaving out a kaf in the first word. But this would be astounding -- a zemer between HaMotzi and the eating? Then again, there is an established halachic position that after the botzeia eats, everyone else can talk even before eating their bread. (Note: Don't pasken or act based on blogs.) If so, this zemer would be appropriate for this time. Or perhaps (!) they would not consider saying this zemer, about Hashem providing food, to be a hefsek.

An alternative is that the last two words are HaAyelet Koach, where Ayelet Koach is some known zemer, and so they are saying that this zemer of the author's creation should precede that in the course of the meal, and should follow Birkat HaMotzi and of course eating of the bread.

Or perhaps the words say something else. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.

Is Hatarat Nedarim A Sham? pt v (paskening like Rav Pappa because of the Yerushalmi)

In the first post of this series, a question: how could hatarat nedarim on erev Rosh haShanah work, if it specifically avoided pirut haneder, and halachah requires this even bedieved? And other questions.

In the second post of this series, a proposed answer: that when the gemara and Rishonim say that bedieved it does not work without pirut haneder, they were not speaking of the case where the judges know that the neder is not being specified.

In the third post if this series, I explained Rosh's reasoning for paskening like Rav Pappa, and questioned the first of those reasons, by showing that Rav Pappa was not actually batrai.

In the fourth post, I tackle the second of Rosh's reasons, and how we might cope with Rav Huna apparently holding like Rav Pappa.

In this fifth post, I address the final reason given by Rosh -- that the Yerushalmi seems to hold like Rav Pappa.

As a reminder, here is the Rosh. Click on the picture to see it very large. You want the first column, d"h kasavar.

Rosh gives three reasons we should hold like Rav Pappa over Rav Nachman:

1) Rav Pappa is later than Rav Nachman, so he is batrai, and hilcheta kebatrai.

2) Rav Huna holds like him.

3) The Yerushalmi seems to conclude like Rav Pappa that there is such an obligation.

To address the third point:

This Yerushalmi occurs in the 5th perek of Nedarim, 18b:

אית תניי תני צריך לפרוט את הנדר. אית תניי תני אינו צריך לפרוט את הנדר. חד בר נש נדר דלא מרווחא אתא לגבי רבי יודן בר שלום אמר ליה ממאי אישתבעת אמר ליה דלא מרווחא. אמר ליה רבי יודן וכן בר נש עביד דילמא בקביוסטיסא אמר ברוך שבחר בתורה ובחכמים שאמרו צריך לפרוט את הנדר:

A slight, probably unimportant, difference between Rosh's girsa and our girsa of Yerushalmi, but noteworthy since we were speaking earlier about the rabbinic nature of the obligation to delineate the neder -- our Yerushalmi has ברוך שבחר בתורה ובחכמים שאמרו צריך לפרוט את הנדר, while Rosh is missing the word בתורה.

Rosh used the conclusion of the Yerushalmi to show that we hold that one needs to delineate the particulars and circumstances of the neder. But I am not convinced this is sufficient cause to rule like Rav Pappa over Rav Nachman.

Firstly, the Yerushalmi spells out explicitly that there are competing braytas. One says one needs to delineate the neder and one says that you do not need to do so. There was an incident before Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom, and he praises this position requiring delineating the neder.

But this could be for one of two reasons. Either he was uncertain, and this incident convinced him, or else he was of one particular position. Now, Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom was a 4th century Palestinian Amora, which means that he was a contemporary of both disputants, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak and Rav Pappa. So the fact that Rav Pappa has a corresponding element in Eretz Yisrael is not so convincing. Different Amoraim hold different positions. On the other hand, the fact that the Yerushalmi saw fit to relate this particular incident may be meaningful. It might not be meaningful, but rather was a known incident, and was relevant to relate in this context. But it might indeed be meaningful, as a way for the Yerushalmi to let it be known how this Tannaitic dispute was resolved -- that the chachamim finally decided that there is a requirement to delineate the neder.

Even if the Yerushalmi does relate it for this purpose, the Rif has a principle that the Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael (and perhaps the Savoraim) were greater experts in Yerushalmi than we are (since Yerushalmi was closed before Bavli), and if they did not cite a Yerushalmi which would be at odds with our Bavli, then it is because this is not to be relied upon. Personally, I do not find that argument so convincing, given the difficulty of conveying information from one place to another, and for other reasons I won't specify here, why I think it possible that the Bavli did not know all the details of the Yerushalmi. But if you endorse such a position, this could be a reason for wondering whether the Yerushalmi, if it really is saying this, should be relevant.

One final, parting note. In the Yerushalmi, Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom praises the Hashem who chose the Torah and the Chachamim. But why praise? There are two possible reasons.

(1) That he would have annulled without hearing all the details, and it would have been effective. That is, based on what the person who took the vow said, the vow might have been annulled, and then the person would go on to sin, playing with dice and profiting.

(2) That because of this peice of information held back, he would have thought the vow was annulled, but in truth it would not be annulled.

I would favor the former over the latter, for stylistic reasons and reasons having to do with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's concern, but here I will not elaborate.

Is Hatarat Nedarim A Sham? pt iv (paskening like Rav Pappa because Rav Huna concurs)

In the first post of this series, a question: how could hatarat nedarim on erev Rosh haShanah work, if it specifically avoided pirut haneder, and halachah requires this even bedieved? And other questions.

In the second post of this series, a proposed answer: that when the gemara and Rishonim say that bedieved it does not work without pirut haneder, they were not speaking of the case where the judges know that the neder is not being specified.

In the third post in this series, I explained Rosh's reasoning for paskening like Rav Pappa, and questioned the first of those reasons, by showing that Rav Pappa was not actually batrai.

Now, in this fourth post, I tackle the second of Rosh's reasons.

As a reminder, Click on the picture to see it very large. You want the first column, d"h kasavar.

Rosh gives three reasons we should hold like Rav Pappa over Rav Nachman:

1) Rav Pappa is later than Rav Nachman, so he is batrai, and hilcheta kebatrai.

2) Rav Huna holds like him.

3) The Yerushalmi seems to conclude like Rav Pappa that there is such an obligation.

To now address the second point:

We have the fact that Rav Huna rules like Rav Pappa and against Rav Nachman. Each of these people was the heads of an academy:

Rav Huna: Head of Sura.
Rav Nachman bar Yaakov (plain Rav Nachman): Nehardeah
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: Pumbedita
Rav Pappa: Nehardeah

But Rav Huna does not explicitly rule like Rav Pappa. Rather, the setama de-gemara proposes a reason for Rav Huna's statement, asks on it, and proposes its own explanation. Thus, we see:

התקין רבן גמליאל הזקן שתהא נודרת כו': אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא בשלא ניסת אבל ניסת אין מדירין אותה ניסת מאי טעמא דמיפר לה בעל כי לא ניסת נמי לכי מנסבא מיפר לה בעל אין הבעל מיפר בקודמין וניחוש דלמא אזלה לגבי חכם ושרי לה קסבר צריך לפרט את הנדר רב נחמן אמר אפי' ניסת ניסת ודאי מיפר לה בעל דמדרינן לה ברבים

But all Rav Huna said was that אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא בשלא ניסת אבל ניסת אין מדירין אותה. Why should only a non-married woman take the vow, but not a married woman? The setama de-gemara proposes that this is because the husband can simply annul her vow. But this need not be so. If we say like Amemar, as the setama de-gemara proposes for Rav Nachman, that דמדרינן לה ברבים, and such a vow, the husband is not able to annul. This is such a ready solution that it is perhaps questionable why Rav Huna would say not to impose the vow.

I would suggest an alternative. We see in the parallel Yerushalmi on the Mishna, on Yerushalmi Gittin 21b, the reason for imposing this vow:

בראשונה היו נשבעות לשקר וקוברות את בניהם שנאמר

ירמיהו ב) לשוא הכיתי את בניכם. ועוד שאימת נדרים עליהן יותר מן השבועות.

Thus, they would swear falsely and as Divine penalty, their children, who they were stealing from, would die.

What would compel a widow to steal from the orphans and swear falsely? Profit motive, though even that is hard to understand. But the situation is not so dire if she is married and thus being supported, or if she does not have to worry about being a good catch with money coming into the marriage. Therefore, the extremity of the vow is not called for, according to Rav Huna. But Rav Nachman says that the impose the vow even if she is married.

I am not arguing forcefully that this need be so, but rather that this seems to be a valid alternative to the setama de-gemara's suggestion. If so, Rav Huna was never talking about the new husband's hafarah, and would then not be compelled to channel Rav Pappa in explaining why a chacham's hatarah would not work.

A second possibility is that Rav Huna actually intended it just as the setama de-gemara proposed. But that does not mean that hatarah from a chacham was something he considered. And even if he considered it, it does not mean that he dismissed it for the reason the gemara gave -- that there is a requirement for pirut haneder. I would propose the following alternatives.

a) Rav Huna holds that a neder which involves other people cannot be annulled, even bedieved, as deduced by various Rishonim as halacha in general, and this is a neder which was entered into because of other people.

b) Even if we say that potchin bacharata, the regret needs to be real. And it is not real here, because the widow had the option not to enter into the neder in the first place. If she enters into the vow with intent to have it annulled, then she is not really regretting taking the vow.

c) And then the chacham can only operate by finding a petach, which requires knowing the whole circumstances of the vow. And then the chacham would decide not to annul it.

So we do not need to say that Rav Huna is saying that we require pirut haneder, and that absent such specification, the annulment is invalid even bedieved. This is then no support for Rav Pappa over Rav Nachman.

A third possibility is that Rav Huna even agrees with the conclusion the setama de-gemara proposes, and so requires pirut haneder even bedieved. But should we care? As we will see when addressing the Yerushalmi, the dispute between Rav Nachman and Rav Pappa about whether pirut haneder is required is actually a Tannaitic dispute, with one brayta like Rav Nachman and one brayta like Rav Pappa. So it stands to reason that different Amoraim would hold like different braytot. And if Rav Huna indeed holds one way, there may well be other Amoraim who hold the other way. Just because the setama de-gemara was able to attribute Rav Pappa's position to one named Amora, via logic, does not mean that many other Amoraim did not stand in line with Rav Nachman.

Indeed, as mentioned earlier, based on the Rif's girsa, Rav Pappa's disputant is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, his contemporary. But Rav Huna's disputant may well be plain Rav Nachman, who is Rav Nachman bar Yaakov, and that Rav Nachman need not subscribe to Rav Pappa's view. (On the other hand, we cannot pin him down to any position.) Is this really a way of determining halacha, based on a majority of Amoraim we can manage to pin down, without getting a representative sample of Amoraim? For all we know, many others may hold like the other brayta and thus with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.

Furthermore, if Rav Pappa's disputant is indeed Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, his contemporary, then both of them are batrai compared with Rav Huna. Such that they knew the competing braytas, they knew that in an earlier generation of Amoraim there was Rav Huna who held one way, and yet, they divided, with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak willing to state the halacha was not in accordance with Rav Huna. Shouldn't the batrai aspect compel us to ignore the earlier staked position of Amoraim, and just treat it as a straight machlokes? I don't know, and I am no master in kelalei horaah, but I believe a valid argument can be made here. And that Rosh did not make that argument firstly because he would not argue with the setama de-gemara, but secondly because his assumption, based on his girsa, is that Rav Nachman is Rav Nachman bar Yaakov, such that only Rav Pappa is batrai.

Note: Not intended halacha lemaaseh. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

Nitzavim as Standing vs. Remaining

Here is an interesting Shadal on the topic of the meaning of Nitzavim. The first pasuk in Nitzavim reads:

ט אַתֶּם נִצָּבִים הַיּוֹם כֻּלְּכֶם, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם: רָאשֵׁיכֶם שִׁבְטֵיכֶם, זִקְנֵיכֶם וְשֹׁטְרֵיכֶם, כֹּל, אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

9 Ye are standing this day all of you before the LORD your God: your heads, your tribes, your elders, and your officers, even all the men of Israel,

and upon this, Shadal states:

ט ] אתם נצבים : לא מצינו שענו אמן או עשו שום דבר להראות שהם מקבלים הברית , אבל במה שנשארו שם לשמוע הקללות עד תומם עשו עצמם כמקבלים ; זה טעם אתה נצבים , ואח " כ הוא מדבר על מי שאולי לא בא שמה או הלך לו באמצע

Thus, nitzavim means standing here today, in the sense of remaining here, in the physical presence of Moshe speaking, and this then bears a connection to the previous section with all the kelalot and the berit in general. By remaining, they are showing that they accept the covenant.

This is a neat twist on the setup provided by the classic mefarshim. Until this point, on a peshat level, nitzavim meant physically standing. And Rashi says this, Ramban says this, and Ibn Ezra says this. Thus,

Ramban:
(ט): טעם אתם נצבים היום לפני ה' אלוהיכם -
שאתם עומדים ומזומנים לפני השם כדי לעמוד בבריתו, כי לקבל התורה בביאורה נאספו אליו.
או שהיו עומדים לפני הארון. והברית, הוא השבועה והאלה אשר יזכיר.

Ibn Ezra:
אתם נצבים לפני ה' אלהיכם -
סביבות הארון.

Rashi:
אתם נצבים -
מלמד שכנסם משה לפני הקב"ה ביום מותו להכניסם בברית:

But that was on a solely peshat level. On a derash level (and perhaps more on this in the other post), Rashi cites a midrash aggada:
למה נסמכה פרשת אתם ניצבים לקללות?
לפי ששמעו ישראל מאה קללות חסר שתים, חוץ ממ"ט שבתורת כוהנים, הוריקו פניהם, ואמרו: מי יוכל לעמוד באלו?
התחיל משה לפייסם אתם נצבים היום, הרבה הכעסתם למקום ולא עשה אתכם כלייה והרי אתם קיימים לפניו:

The Israelites heard all the kelalot and they were greatly frightened. This, then, is Moshe reassuring them. You angered Hashem, and yet you stand, and remain alive, before Him. And this shows a thematic connection between these two segments of Devarim, which should be intertwined in some way.

Shadal does not make it explicit that this is the way he creates his peshat, but he seems to be taking elements of both. He takes what is promoted as peshat, which is being physically proximate to someone or something, and adds the thematic element and connection to the Brit with the threat of the kelalot of the previous section. They are still physically remaining before the aron, or before Moshe, which means that they have accepted the Brit despite the threats. Now, moving on, etc.

Interesting Posts and Articles #77

1. At Mystical Paths, a conversation with some Japanese visitors to the kotel, with connections to the three Jewish boys arrested in Japan for accidental drug smuggling. As a side point, I wonder, though, whether non-Jewish male visitors to the kotel must really don a kippah. And whether there was any minyan going on many hours before sunrise, such that it was important that the non-Jewish female Japanese visitors go into the designated Ezrat Nashim portion.
   
   
2. In Italy, a "miracle," in which Saint Gennaro's dried blood is said to liquify twice a year. And a possible explanation of how this happens. It is important to point these things out, because as Jews, we can understand that these purported miracles are just constructed fakery, whether or not those hailing it know it. And then we might be able to apply that realization to the fakers in our own midst -- and there are some.
   
   
3. From The Little Mermaid, "Part of Your World" in Hebrew, with lyrics.
   
   Choose whether you want to watch this. Also, there is a lot more Hebrew Disney out there.
   
   
4. Snopes explains what will happen if FDIC pays off when a bank fails, citing the FDIC's FAQ. This worry strikes me as part of the general hysteria, so this knowledge might be helpful. The misconceptions are written in bold:
   

   If a bank fails, the FDIC could take up to 99 years to pay depositors for their insured accounts.
   
   This is a completely false notion that many bank customers have told us they heard from someone attempting to sell them another kind of financial product.
   
   The truth is that federal law requires the FDIC to pay the insured deposits "as soon as possible" after an insured bank fails.
   
   Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day. In most cases, the FDIC will provide each depositor with a new account at another insured bank. Or, if arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor.
   
   The FDIC only pays failed-bank depositors a percentage of their insured funds.
   
   All too often we receive questions similar to this one: "Is it true that if my FDIC-insured bank fails, I would only get $1.31 for every $100 in my checking account?" As with misconception number 3, this misinformation appears to be spread by some financial advisors and sales people.
   
   Federal law requires the FDIC to pay 100 percent of the insured deposits up to the federal limit — including principal and interest. If your bank fails and you have deposits over the limit, you may be able to recover some or, in rare cases, all of your uninsured funds. However, the overwhelming majority of depositors at failed institutions are within the insurance limit, and insured funds are always paid in full.

5. One of the recent Microsoft "I'm a PC" commercials:
   
   
6. The New York Times on research that claims that grape juice provides much of red wine's heart benefits.
   
   
7. Both DovBear and WolfishMusings are upset at the latest Jewish Press editorial about the "shabby treatment" Rabbi Bentzion Twersky received at the hands of askanim. The editorial:
   

   The Jewish Press joins our columnist Rabbi Yakov Horowitz and others in condemning the shabby treatment Rabbi Dr. Benzion Twerski received from some self-appointed guardians of the faith over his participation in an anti-abuse task force geared toward the Orthodox community.

   
   Dr. Twerski is a serious, thoughtful and highly talented individual and has much to offer in the way of dealing with child abuse in our community. Those truly committed to the interests of our community should be thinking of ways to get him to spend more time on our problems rather than less.

   
   Although there is no way to guarantee that the sort of thing to which Dr. Twerski was subjected will not recur, we do believe it is as important for Assemblyman Dov Hikind and the others involved in the new task force to spend time reaching out to the community for support and cooperation as it is to highlight the nature of the problem.
   

   
   There must be clarification of the centrality of halacha to the project, the primacy of due process protections, the involvement of a broad spectrum of people to evaluate complaints and, overall, the momentous contributions a project like this can make to the well-being of our community.

   "Shabby treatment" in describing threats of ostracism for him and his family is more than just an understatement. And it is a fairly light statement, apparently in reaction to a letter writing campaign by a bunch of bloggers. The idea that

   "There must be clarification of the centrality of halacha to the project, the primacy of due process protections, the involvement of a broad spectrum of people to evaluate complaints and, overall, the momentous contributions a project like this can make to the well-being of our community"

   seems at first like blaming Dov Hikind. And I am not sure that this is the appropriate place for it. However, if I might cast this suggestion in a different light, I would make a comparison to Dor Yesharim.
   
   Dor Yesharim tests for a couple of genetic diseases, but gives people numbers and they call up to find out if they are compatible. They only are told if they are both carriers for the genetic disease. Dor Yasharim will refuse to tell you, or anyone else, if you are a carrier otherwise. And even if both are carriers, they will refuse to tell you for which genetic disease. This is silly. Go get yourself tested, and find out if you are a carrier, and don't put your medical information in the hands of people who will conceal it from you.
   
   Why do they do this, and why is this in fact a good thing? Because in certain chassidic and chareidi communities, this is a stigma, even to be a carrier. And if they did not operate this way, people would just not test for these genetic diseases, and a lot more tragedies would occur. So they find something palatable to the community, and get rabbinic approval, etc.
   
   The fact that these types of threats against Rabbi Twersky could surface, and that there is a real possibility that they would have been carried out, demonstrates just how closed-minded the community is. Yet they are still our brothers, our fellow Jews, and we love them, despite the fact that they are backwards, closed-minded idiots. I would read this editorial in this light. In order to be effective, we need the cooperation of the members of the community. (Perhaps we do not, but this seems to be the underlying assumption.) Therefore, go through the proper chareidi channels to get rabbinic approval, and "clarify" the centrality of halacha to the project. That is, run an effective PR campaign to let people know that what you are doing is halachically justified, and then the outspoken idiots will not be able to suppress this, as they did by threatening Rabbi Twersky, with the clout of the community enforcing that thread by ostracizing him.
   
   
8. Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman on Rabbinic Epitaphs, pt i (at the Seforim blog). Such as the newly recovered tombstone of the Maharit.
   

Is Hatarat Nedarim A Sham? pt iii (paskening like Rav Pappa because he is later)

In the first post of this series, a question: how could hatarat nedarim on erev Rosh haShanah work, if it specifically avoided pirut haneder, and halachah requires this even bedieved? And other questions.

In the second post of this series, a proposed answer: that when the gemara and Rishonim say that bedieved it does not work without pirut haneder, they were not speaking of the case where the judges know that the neder is not being specified.

Now, in the third post in this series, I wish to address whether Rif, Rosh, etc., are correct in ruling in accordance with Rav Pappa over Rav Nachman. This is important because only according to Rav Pappa is pirut haneder required as protocol. According to Rav Nachman, it should not be done.

Pictured to the right is a scan of the Rosh. Click on the picture to see it very large. You want the first column, d"h kasavar.

Rosh gives three reasons we should hold like Rav Pappa over Rav Nachman:

1) Rav Pappa is later than Rav Nachman, so he is batrai, and hilcheta kebatrai.

2) Rav Huna holds like him.

3) The Yerushalmi seems to conclude like Rav Pappa that there is such an obligation.

And so, we shall have to address each of these three in turn. Here, we will address the first point, and declare:

1) Rav Pappa is not actually batrai.

We have two ways of accomplishing this.

a) Rav Pappa is batrai when compared with plain Rav Nachman, who is Rav Nachman bar Yaakov. (See here.) But what if the Rav Nachman in this dispute is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak? (See here.) Rav Nachman bar Yaakov was a disciple of Shmuel and so is of an earlier generation than Rav Pappa, who was a student of both Abaye and Rava. But if it is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, then he is of the same generation of Rav Pappa, for he was also a student of both Abaye and Rava. Then, neither is batrai. And it makes more sense for there to be a dispute between the two.

I do not make this suggestion idly. In fact, the Rif has a girsa of this gemara in which he explicitly has Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rather than just plain Rav Nachman. Thus, in Nedarim, on 21b in the pages of Rif:

גרסינן בפרק השולח
צריך לפרט הנדר או לא
רב פפא אמר צריך
רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אין צריך
דאי אמרת צריך זמנין דגייז וחכם מה דשמע מיפר
ורב פפא אמר צריך דלמא אמילתא דאיסורא משתבע
והלכתא כרב פפא:

We learn in perek haSholeach {=the 4th perek of Gittin, daf 35b}:
Does one need to spell out the vow {when asking absolution} or not?
Rav Pappa said: He needs to.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: He does not need to.
For if you say that he needs, there are times that he will cut off his words, and the sage will only annul that which he hears.
And Rav Pappa said: He needs to, for perhaps he swore about something which was forbidden.
And the halacha is like Rav Pappa.

Rif still says the halacha is like Rav Pappa, but his reason does not need to be that Rav Pappa is batrai. Indeed, he specifies no reason, though the reason may well be that Rav Huna holds like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, rather than that Rav Pappa is later. Meanwhile, Rosh has the girsa of just plain Rav Nachman, and so he cites this as a reason.

This is really enough for me. Lectio difficilior dictates that "bar Yitzchak" is more likely to be dropped than added to a text, and so the most likely original is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.

Of course, a bit earlier in the gemara, we have Rav Nachman arguing with Rav Huna. This would presumably be the earlier Rav Nachman, namely Rav Nachman bar Yaakov. This could also explain the reason for the dropping of "bar Yitzchak" a bit later in the gemara, when a Rav Nachman argues with Rav Pappa.

b) But I could propose another solution, if I wished. Namely, that Rav Nachman is indeed Rav Nachman bar Yaakov, who is a student of Shmuel, but his disputant is not Rav Pappa, but rather Rav Pappi, who some say was of an earlier generation. Indeed, we have Rav Pappi visit Mar Shmuel's house, and so some then distinguish Shmuel from Mar Shmuel, but I believe others say that Rav Pappi was of an earlier generation. Since he visited Shmuel's house, he would be of the same generation as Shmuel's student, Rav Nachman bar Yaakov.

While I did not look, and thus certainly have no manuscript evidence to support me in this bold assertion, I do have the fact that this is not the only time "Rav Nachman" and "Rav Pappa" disagree. We also have a dispute between Rav Nachman and Rav Pappa elsewhere. (See here for a partial list.) We really need to sit down and see whether we can figure out a rule for this.

Thus, for example, from my transaltion in the Rif:

Rav Nachman said: People do not make a son the agent in the place of his father. And Rav Pappa {our gemara: Rav Pappi} said: People do make a son the agent in the place of his father.
And the halacha is that people to make a son an agent in place of his father.

And in this dispute, we have a girsological variant between Rav Pappa and Rav Pappi. Lectio difficilior would argue in favor of the less well-known Rav Pappi, but then again, if one scribe writes פפ' מ instead of פפא, the shmitchik could be reinterpreted by the next scribe as a yud.

But other gemaras (e.g. this) make me favor the identification of Rav Pappa rather than Rav Pappi. Thus, I would reject option (b) but would promote option (a).

All in all, we have this compelling variant in the words of the Rif that Rav Nachman is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, and so he is a contemporary of Rav Pappa. Rosh's first argument in favor of ruling like Rav Pappa is thus readily dismissed.

Note: This is all not intended halacha lemaaseh.

Is Hatarat Nedarim A Sham? pt ii (an answer)

In the previous post, I contrasted two statements in the Artscroll. In introducing hataras nedarim, they state
"It is meritorious to annul vows on the day before Rosh Hashanah (see commentary)."

but then in discussing it in the commentary, they give several reasons it should not work, ending with the declaration that

And, as the declaration itself makes clear, the halacha requires that the vow be specified. Consequently, the present declaration must not be understood as a halachic annulment, but as a means of repentance for the sin of having abused vows.

I put forth several objections to this in the previous post. For example, if it is a sham, then they should warn people more clearly, or else the general public will come to accidentally violate their vows, which have not been annulled. If it does not work, how is it meritorious? Judaism does not have rituals, but rather mitzvos, so why promote something that does not actually have halachic effect? Either fix the institution, or do not do it! And if you want to cast it as repentance, Judaism already has existing forms for repentance. Finally, it is clear that Aruch HaShulchan regards it as actual hataras nedarim, and derives a law about hatarah in general from the hatarah customarily done on erev rosh hashanah.

In this post, I propose an answer. I believe that even though Rif, Rosh, and Shulchan Aruch all state that even bedieved if there is no pirut of the neder or the sibba it is invalid, they would all maintain hatart nedarim in the form it appears for erev rosh hashanah is valid, at least bedieved.

How can this be so?

We will have to go back to the gemara, and see how this develops. The Aruch haShulchan states that this requirement for pirut haneder is an institution of the Sages, rather than something Biblically mandated. And this seems fairly clear from the Yerushalmi Nedarim where Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom praises Hashem that the Chachamim saw fit to require pirut haneder. {ברוך שבחר בדברי חכמים שאמרו צריך לפרט את הנדר.} And it is clear from the dispute from the specifics of the dispute in Bavli Gittin 35b between Rav Nachman and Rav Pappa about this requirement.

That gemara reads:

צריך לפרט הנדר או לא
רב פפא אמר צריך
רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אין צריך
דאי אמרת צריך זמנין דגייז וחכם מה דשמע מיפר
ורב פפא אמר צריך דלמא אמילתא דאיסורא משתבע

We learn in perek haSholeach {=the 4th perek of Gittin, daf 35b}:
Does one need to spell out the vow {when asking absolution} or not?
Rav Pappa said: He needs to.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: He does not need to.
For if you say that he needs, there are times that he will cut off his words, and the sage will only annul that which he hears.
And Rav Pappa said: He needs to, for perhaps he swore about something which was forbidden.

And Rif says we hold like Rav Papa.

This clearly reads like a dispute as to the proper procedure. Rav Pappa gives as a reason a logical argument why it is a good idea to require it. And so Rav Pappa says we should require it for perhaps he swore about something that was forbidden. And Rav Nachman says we should not institute it, and gives a reason not to implement this restriction -- it could lead to an error where the Sage will annul only what he hears.

Even Rav Nachman thus agrees that once we require this as standard hatarat nedarim procedure, that bedieved if one does not fully specify, it could not be valid. That is, Rav Nachman's concern -- that "there are times that he will cut off his words, and the sage will only annul that which he hears" -- is equal to the statement that if this is required, lack of pirut haneder would invalidate the hatarat nedarim.

A bit earlier on the same amud is part of the basis of saying that bedieved it would not be valid. The gemara there records a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Nachman:

התקין רבן גמליאל הזקן שתהא נודרת כו': אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא בשלא ניסת אבל ניסת אין מדירין אותה ניסת מאי טעמא דמיפר לה בעל כי לא ניסת נמי לכי מנסבא מיפר לה בעל אין הבעל מיפר בקודמין וניחוש דלמא אזלה לגבי חכם ושרי לה קסבר צריך לפרט את הנדר רב נחמן אמר אפי' ניסת ניסת ודאי מיפר לה בעל דמדרינן לה ברבים

So Rav Huna says the neder is only imposed on the woman where she is not married. The setama de-gemara offers an explanation, that it is because the husband could just annul it for her anyway. This is an extremely plausible explanation, but not necessarily the required one. (Bli neder, I will offer an alternative in the next post.) Then, the setama de-gemara asks why a married woman is any different from a woman in general, for such a woman can go to a chacham to get him to be mattir the neder. The setama de-gemara answers that Rav Huna must hold against Rav Nachman, his disputant here, and like Rav Pappa, that we require pirut haneder. And, as Rosh explains, if she explains the neder and the reason for the neder, the chacham will certainly not be mattir her neder. And if she does not explain the neder and the reason for it, the hatarah will not be effective.

Thus, we see that even bedieved, without pirut haneder, the hatarah is invalid. We see this explicitly in the words of the Rosh. And the Tur requires pirut haneder but does not mention that bedieved it is invalid, which is strange given that the Rosh was his father, so he should presumably agree. But we see this made explicit in Shulchan Aruch, from Rav Yosef Karo.

But how could a derabbanan requirement uproot the hatarah working on a deorayta level? The answer, once again, to my mind is that it is like Rav Nachman's explanation. If this widow does not elaborate to the chacham, then his hatarah is obviously based on false information, so it is not valid. But if she did elaborate, then he would not grant it.

And this, I think, is why the Tur does not bother to say that bedieved the hatarah is invalid. The Tur already said this earlier, when he said that it is obvious that if one lies to the chacham, the hatarah is invalid. This is just another application of this obvious rule.

Compare this to the text in the hataras nedarim on erev Yom Kippur. The second page is pictured to the right. Click on it to see it larger. And the last paragraph there reads:

"Now behold, according to the law, one who regrets and seeks annulment must specify the vow, but please be informed, my masters, that it is impossible to specify them because they are many. Nor do I seek annulment of those vows that cannot be annulled; therefore may you consider them as if I had specified them."

Clearly, the author of this language believes that with such an excuse, one can get around the requirement of pirut haneder at least on a bedieved level. Now, this may just be amaratzus. Who knows who composed this language? I don't know. (Though it is quite possibly knowable.) Similarly, on the previous page, annulment was requested for vows even impacting other people. This might again be ignorance, though at there I believe I can show this might be subject to dispute.

But assuming it is not amaratzus, then the author of this formula believes this will satisfactorily dismiss any requirement of pirut haneder. How is this possible? I would suggest that this is simply that by telling the "dayanim" that you are not listing the nedarim, they will not be basing themselves on any partial description of the neder. Though this is a violation of the protocols set up by Chazal for hatarah, since the dayanim know, Rav Nachman's concern does not apply, and so bedieved it would be a valid hatarah.

At this point, I think this is pashut peshat in the gemara and the various Rishonim and Acharonim, such that Rif, Rosh, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch would all agree. But then, I may be wrong about this.

In the next post, I intend to address the question of whether the halacha really should be in accordance with Rav Pappa against Rav Nachman.

Note: Not to be taken halacha lemaaseh.

Interesting Posts and Articles #76

1. At Nanach.net, American NaNach says we should not argue whether it is better to stay in Yerushalayim or go to Uman for Rosh HaShanah. Bolding my own:
   

   Let's try working hard on loving and understanding each other for our decisions of going to UMAN or staying in YERUSHALAYIM. I am confident that we are all just trying to do the will of the Tzadik because we want the complete TIKUN so we can speed the GEULAH, and if by trying to do so we like some of us accuse the others hold back the GEULAH with our mistaken actions, fighting about it will definitely not fix the problem. To all I wish A KESIVA VACHASIMA TOVA.
   NA NACH NACHMA NACHMAN MEUMAN

2. A new Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book, although Douglas Adams is deceased. From the author of the Artemis Fowl series.
   
   
3. Avakesh reposts kapparot guidelines from the Kashrus Information Center.
   
   Generally good suggestions. Kudos to Rabbi Weiner. One other suggestion would be to use money instead, or to avoid the problematic ritual altogether. But assuming people are going to do this, good suggestions. I just wonder, are the tznius concerns really that serious?
   
   "Yes, I met Chanie while doing kapparot, so naturally, we had a 'fling'."
   "Wow, that chick is hot!"
   "Check out Shprintza! Just like Sarah Imeinu, she not only is as pretty as a 20 year-old (corrected girsa), but she is free of sin!"
   
   Add your suggestions in the comment section, if you want. Maybe I'll post the winner in a subsequent post.
   
   
4. A Metro State English professor assigns an essay to contradict what he called "the fairy tale image of Palin." And he also cusses out Republican students. In terms of the former without the latter, I can actually see the value in that -- the ability to come up with a structured argument for a position you do not believe in, as an exercise in critical thinking. If so, though, the Democrats in the class should have written a similar article about Obama.
   
   
5. Life In Israel has Rav Chaim Soleveitchik on local sexual molestation/abuse against children.
   
   
6. At Emes veEmunah, a post, and comment section, about certain Jewish newspapers not printing pictures of women. Hamodiah is refusing to even write her first name, Tzipi, since it is too familiar.
   
   
7. Gilui notes that the source which stands behind some of the recent predictions that Bush will visit Jerusalem three times, and between the second and third times, is not the Zohar, but rather Ramchal's Tikkunim Chadashim. He has a post translating it here, and does not believe that this reading is truly readable into the text. Rather, as he develops in his series on the subject of Gog and Magog, Ramchal is expanding on, and "giving detail to, the mesorah that Gog uMagog is a 3-part war."
   
   
8. Two recent posts of mine are attracting some attention: Are there credible news reports that Bush will cancel US elections because of the economy, and Is bowing to the Rebbe OK because Jews at large say Barchuni Leshalom?
   

Are There Credible News Reports That Bush Will Cancel US Elections Because of the Economy?

False prophetess Nava, at Dreaming of Moshiach, is getting desperate. Previously, she announced that George Bush was Gog, that Mashiach would come in 5768, and finally that the US elections would be canceled, based on a Zohar, or rather, her krum reading of the Zohar. As I said earlier, as November passes and nothing comes to be, she will have egg on her face, except for the fact that believers tend to overlook this kind of thing and will forget her embarrassing predictions, or interpret them such that they have been fulfilled. In a recent post, she expressed surprise that mashiach had not yet arrived. But then posted a guest post based on gematrias that 5769 would be the time for mashiach. The recent Wall Street financial woes gave her back hope, and some have mistakenly interpreted the failure of some investment banks as a fulfillment of Nava's "prophecy" of the failure of all commercial banks. And now, she seeks to rebolster her claim that Bush is Gog, and will cancel the US elections:

Zohar HaKadosh: President Bush/President Gog
"...The Zohar HaKadosh says President Bush will come to Yerushalayim (as President) the first time, for a 3-day visit and will leave healthy and whole. Within short time, he'll return to Israel a second time also as President Bush and during this time, judgment on the world will be tough.In total, President Gog Bush will visit Israel 3 times.

But between his second and third visit, something will occur that will cause the USA elections to be cancelled and President Bush will remain the president."

Current Events:
The Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB) is reporting in the Kremlin today that the Bank of England has received from the United States Federal Reserve Bank a ‘notice’ that President Bush is preparing to declare an ‘Economic Emergency’ during the week of October 5th and will further announce that the American Presidential election due to be held on November 4th will be ‘indefinitely suspended’.

For more click here or google it.

The problem will this is that she does not know how to check out sources of information to make sure it is reliable. Either because of desperation or hope, or because she does not know in general how to make sure information is coming from a reliable source, which is why she lives in a delusional world, and previously posted anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Rothschild and the Illuminati, not realizing it was crazy and anti-Semitic, just because it supported her own delusions.

We will have to wait and see if the November elections are canceled indefinitely by Bush, but the source in this case is "Sorcha Faal," who has written for Pravda in the past. Sorcha Faal is an Internet hoax queen, according to this website, Above Top Secret. (And the following is also from the same website.) Here are some hoaxes Sorcha Faal has been behind:

US President Orders Military To Begin Jailing All Civilian Protestors To War

Putin Orders Russian Military Forces To Attack US Forces During Iran Invasion????

Russia, China Order Forces To Highest Alert As US Forces Mass On Iranian Border

Pravda: Imus Fired After He Threatened to Reveal 9/11 secrets

Massive ULF 'Blast' Detected In US Bridge Collapse Catastrophe

US 'Shoot on Site' Order Issued For Escaping Americans

Australia To Imprison All Muslims In Concentration Camps

American Spy Satellite Downed In Peru

‘Ship of Giants’ Said Attacked By Israel in Strike on Syria

Sorcha Faal is apparently the pseudonym of David Booth, an American computer programmer, who uses these hoaxes to solicit money and to promote his book.

Is Bowing To The Rebbe OK Because Jews At Large Say Barchuni Leshalom?

As I noted in a previous post, over at Thanbook, by R' Jonatan Baker (thanbo), an explanation of the practice of some Lubavitch of bowing to the Rebbe, to the Rebbe's picture, or directing prayers towards the Rebbe, within Chabad theology. Moshe objects that sof kol sof, no matter how we pretty it up, davening to the Rebbe is still heretical according to the 5th Ikkar of the Rambam. I said that thanbo probably agrees, based on his words there. He clarified that it is a yes and no situation:

But do we, today, really, take the Rambam as dispositive in these matters? Did you say Machnisei Rachamim in Slichos yesterday, and/or today? Do you say the third verse of Shalom Aleichem every week? I know people who don't, davka because of the "davening to an intermediary" problem, but it's far from the majority position.

And once you say that praying to an angel (who has no will of his own) is OK as an intermediary, then where's the outrage at praying to a chassidic tzadik, who, as they believe, has nullified his will such that he effectively has no will, and is doing (and thus a revelation of, in a sense) the will of God, coming from? Is it just "they're doing this bad thing" or is there some other inter-group rivalry driving it?

Puk chazi still rules...

I have a multipart answer to this. First, in terms of Shalom Aleichem, I am not at all convinced that this is praying to an angel. Sure, some people don't say it, because that is how they cast it. But that does not mean tha everyone who does say it thinks they are praying to an angel and thinks that it OK. If it is directing a request to an angel, and that is problematic, why specifically Barchuni leShalom as problematic? What about Boachem leShalom?! We are asking the angels to do something, to enter in peace, to leave in peace, etcetera!

Indeed, if instructing an angel to bless us is *praying* to an angel, how on a peshat level could Yaakov Avinu have forced the angel to do this, in parshat Vayetzei? In parshat Vayishlach, according to Rashi who says that Yaakov sent malachim mamash, how could he have asked them to give Esav his gifts? Instructing is not the same as praying.

Indeed, it seems that the construction of the song Shalom Aleichem is a reenactment of the brayta in Shabbat 119b:

It was taught, R. Jose son of R. Judah said: Two ministering angels accompany man on the eve of the Sabbath from the synagogue to his home, one a good [angel] and one an evil [one]. And when he arrives home and finds the lamp burning, the table laid and the couch [bed] covered with a spread, the good angel exclaims, 'May it be even thus on another Sabbath [too],' and the evil angel unwillingly responds 'amen'. But if not, the evil angel exclaims, 'May it be even thus on another Sabbath [tool,' and the good angel unwillingly responds, 'amen'.

Where the assumption is that everything is set up nicely. This is not a request, but rather, describing the steps the angels are taking. Not that the angels have independent will, and we are asking them to do these things. Rather, we are taking them through the paces.

In terms of Machnisei Rachamim (available here at piyut.org), R' Richard Wolpoe last year had an attempted explanation or apologetics, within the bounds of Rambam, that it is requesting that the sound system works. Indeed, Chazal were not heretics, but they believed that the angels delivered prayers to Hashem (and thus there are instructions about not praying in Aramaic). Even so, one should not direct one's prayers to the angel, but to Hashem. We see this fleshed out in the Apochryphal book of Tobit. See my discussion in the comment section at eLomdus. Adjuring angels to deliver the message may or may not be problematic. Read the piyut and draw your conclusions.

But there is a better explanation of Machnisei Rachamim, and it speaks directly to the issue of The Rebbe, The Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference. "The Orthodox" nowadays are in general indifferent to theology, and ignorant of theology. We don't think about it, we don't really care about it, and that is really why we don't bother protesting Chabad theology that much. We are more concerned with actions than theology. Do you really think that the hamon am who sing Barchuni LeShalom are treating it as a tefillah directed towards angels? Most people do not even think about the translation of the words. It is a nice song, with a nice tune, and it is traditional to sing it to welcome Shabbos. There is no underlying theology to it. Similarly, do you think the majority of Jews think about even the plain meaning of machnisei rachamim? In America, I think if you ask many products of a yeshiva education to whom Machnisei Rachamim is directed, they would not know it is directed towards angels. And people say it, without thinking, because it is in their selichot. Halevai that people would actually think about the words they are saying. But they are mostly saying them by rote, and this is especially the case when you have to say things quickly to keep up with the tzibbur, and where there is much else to say.

This is akin to the distinction sometimes made between an apikores and an am ha`aretz -- that "today there is no such thing as an apikores: there is only the am haaretz."

In contrast, Lubavitch is extremely Rebbe-centered to start off with. When If they direct prayers to the Rebbe, or bow to the Rebbe, they do so with a developed theological justification -- one which is very problematic, in that it conflates the tzaddik and Hashem. They are not theologically indifferent, unlike Orthodoxy in general. And therein lies the problem.

Update #1: And see his response there, and my comment there as well. Also, this is all if they are really doing it. See the comment section of this post for more details.

Update #2: In the comment section, both Akiva and Devorah assert that this is not Chabad practice. In the comment thread at Thanbook, he questions that assertion.

At any rate, here are a bunch of posts relating to this issue at the Daas Torah blog. It starts with a comment in a post about Dr. David Berger. That comment read in part:

And, if they look at his picture while praying it is correct. It is discussed by the radvaz in his teshuvos. Many sefardim do that with baba Sali.

There were several follow-up comments, and posts. Thus, the context of the Radvaz was seeing one's (living) teacher during learning. And the Radvaz in another teshuva objected to images being used in shul. In terms of actual practice, we have the following exchange reported in another post:

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver said...

There is no such "Chabad custom"; it's totally false. Please delete this libel.

===============================

Not Lubavitch said...

In Rabbi Olensky's shul in North Miami Beach, FL there was a picture of the Rebbe next to the Aron. This was in effect, praying to the Rebbe.

In Rabbi Dalfin's shul in North Bay Village, FL, there was a picture of the Rebbe in the sanctuary (back wall, opposite Mizrach) that the Chassidim would turn to face while davening.

These are two examples of shuls that I personally visited while on vacation where I saw Lubavitcher Chassidim praying to a picture of the Rebbe on the wall.

There are 48 comments on that last post at present, so check it out. And check out the clarification by someone else in those comments, that perhaps they were not directing their tefillot to the picture, in the second of the two instance.

Update #3: They also talk there of a custom of some to have children look at a picture of the Rebbe before saying Shema.

Is Hatarat Nedarim a Sham? pt i (the question)

Is hataras nedarim a sham?

I saw something curious the other day when looking through my Artscroll Rosh haShanah Machzor. (Click on the image to see a full page, readable picture.) It begins with the order of hatarat nedarim. And they say at the beginning (page 2, circled in red) that

"It is meritorious to annul vows on the day before Rosh Hashanah (see commentary)."

But then, in that commentary, on page 2 (also circled in red), we are given three "problems" with the hatarat nedarim, as formulated. The third problem is critical, and invalidates the entire hatarat nedarim.

They write:
1)

However, as the declaration makes clear, this annulment applies only to vows for which the halacha permits annulments and for which there is a halachically acceptable reason for doing so.

That is fine. Yes, hatarat nedarim only works for certain types of vows. This is true in general, not just for the one on erev Rosh haShanah.

They continue:
2)

Likewise, annulment is valid only if the vows involve only oneself. If, however, the vows were adopted for the sake of, or involve, someone else, they cannot be annulled without the consent of the other party.

This is based on specific gemaras and the readings by various Rishonim, but we are not going to go into this at this juncture. Let us accept that. That is true for any vow, for any hatarat nedarim. But there still must be some other vows one can do hatara on, just as hatarat nedarim performed on other days is valid.

They continue:
3)

Also, for an annulment to be effective halachically, the regret must be complete and preferably be accompanied with a valid reason for regret.

Yet it seems we are not finding a regular petach here for the neder, but rather releasing of potchin via charata, regret, with all sorts of interesting ramifications such as that the "dayanim" do not even have to bother sitting, despite the instructions found in your Artscroll machzor. And if they are expressing regret and the regret is complete, the vow is released. So there are vows for which this hatara should work. Fine.

But then they note:

4)

And, as the declaration itself makes clear, the halacha requires that the vow be specified.

And they are listing this as a reason the annulment won't work. Though they do not say it explicitly, this seems to be a major impediment, which would turn the entire hatarat nedarim into a sham.

This is based on a recent gemara in Gittin 35b, which was brought down lehalacha by the Rif on Nedarim, page 21b in pages of the Rif (link goes to my Rif Yomi blog).

גרסינן בפרק השולח
צריך לפרט הנדר או לא
רב פפא אמר צריך
רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אין צריך
דאי אמרת צריך זמנין דגייז וחכם מה דשמע מיפר
ורב פפא אמר צריך דלמא אמילתא דאיסורא משתבע
והלכתא כרב פפא:

We learn in perek haSholeach {=the 4th perek of Gittin, daf 35b}:
Does one need to spell out the vow {when asking absolution} or not?
Rav Pappa said: He needs to.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: He does not need to.
For if you say that he needs, there are times that he will cut off his words, and the sage will only annul that which he hears.
And Rav Pappa said: He needs to, for perhaps he swore about something which was forbidden.
And the halacha is like Rav Pappa.

Indeed, if you look at the Rosh, he says that if you do not specify the neder {pirut haneder}, then even bedieved the hatarah of the chacham is not valid. (He says this a bit earlier in the gemara, on the words of Rav Huna.) His son, Tur, does not explicitly say that bedieved it does not work, though he lists the requirement of pirut haneder. And Rav Yosef Karo, in Shulchan Aruch, requiers pirut haneder and states that bedieved, if you do not do it, the hatarah is not valid.

If so, since we are not listing the specific nedarim or (according to certain Rishonim explaining that gemara) the sibba, the events leading up to the neder being taken, the hatara should not work at all, for this reason. It is all a sham!

And this is what they conclude in the Artscroll machzor:

Consequently, the present declaration must not be understood as a halachic annulment, but as a means of repentance for the sin of having abused vows.

Thus, it is indeed a sham, and your vows are not annulled.

This is mystifying. Firstly, if this is really so, they should not hide it in plain sight in the commentary, and only say

"It is meritorious to annul vows on the day before Rosh Hashanah (see commentary)."

at the start. The hatarat nedarim does not work!!!! And hundreds of thousands of religious Jews are thinking it works, and will go on to violate their nedarim, thinking incorrectly that they are annulled! They should put a warning! And it would not be meritorious, because it would lead to many Jews committing sins.

It reminds me of the Monty Python skit about the crunchy frog:

Praline: Am I right in thinking there's a real frog in here?

Milton: Yes. A little one.

Praline: What sort of frog?

Milton: A dead frog.

Praline: Is it cooked?

Milton: No.

Praline: What, a raw frog?

(Superintendent Parrot looks increasingly queasy.)

Milton: We use only the finest baby frogs, dew picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose.

Praline: That's as maybe, it's still a frog.

Milton: What else?

Praline: Well don't you even take the bones out?

Milton: If we took the bones out it wouldn't be crunchy would it?

Praline: Superintendent Parrot ate one of those.

Parrot: Excuse me a moment. (exits hurriedly)

Milton: It says 'crunchy frog' quite clearly.

Praline: Well, the superintendent thought it was an almond whirl. People won't expect there to be a frog in there. They're bound to think it's some form of mock frog.

Milton: (insulted) Mock frog? We use no artificial preservatives or additives of any kind!

Praline: Nevertheless, I must warn you that in future you should delete the words 'crunchy frog', and replace them with the legend 'crunchy raw unboned real dead frog', if you want to avoid prosecution.

Milton: What about our sales?

Praline: I'm not interested in your sales, I have to protect the general public.

By putting a sham procedure in the beginning of their machzor, they are causing the general public to sin.

Furthermore, if it is a sham, how is it that it is meritorious to do it? Why should it be a good, positive thing, to engage on erev Rosh Hashanah in a procedure which does not work, halachically speaking?

As I believe the Rav said: Judaism does not have rituals. A Catholic has rituals. A Jew has mitzvot.

If this is ineffective, it is not a mitzvah. Why should an empty ritual be meritorious?

The answer might be, as they say, that we should view it as just a fancy way of as a means of repentance for the sin of having abused vows.

However, if this is so, why do it in the form of an ineffective hatarat nedarim? Surely this is not the original intent of the ritual. And why should we convene a bet din to say muttar lach? If you want to ask forgiveness, or repent, speak to Hashem and say you are sorry, and actually repent. We have appropriate existing forms for this. We do not need to make use of a sham ceremony, which will work as a stumbling block to the public.

Furthermore, I do not believe that in generations past it was regarded entirely as a sham ceremony. For example, when discussing the laws of hatarat nedarim in general, the Aruch haShulchan mentions that while there might be an injunction against being mattir neder in the same location as your rebbe, this is not the case, for we see on erev Rosh haShanah that people are not makpid on that. One could have said that that is because the hatarat nedarim on erev Rosh haShanah is a sham. But clearly, Aruch haShulchan thought that it was real.

Of course, perhaps that hatarat nedarim in his day did not have the present form, shown in the Artscroll machzor. Or perhaps it did. If it did, then we have to find some explanation for why this hatarat nedarim is not a sham, despite these apparent halachic problems, and particularly despite this last halachic problem.

If, however, the form was different in the days of the Aruch haShulchan, that it is specifically that which it is meritorious to do. Namely, a real, functioning, hataras nedarim. And if you find halachic problems with the present form, you fix it. Put a place for people to list out the specific neder, and so on and so forth. Make it work. Then it will be what people in generations past did on erev Rosh Hashanah. And then it will be meritorious. Until then, it is not meritorious, but just silliness.

In part ii, why lack of pirut haneder on erev Rosh Hashanah does not impede the hatarat nedarim from working, even according to all the Rishonim and Acharonim. Tune in, probably tomorrow.

Note: Don't rely on this series practically. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.