Showing posts with label shemittah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shemittah. Show all posts

7/16/2015

My Writings on Religion and State

I've been getting a lot of questions about my views on religion and state in Israel since this past Saturday night, when Israel's Channel 2 News interviewed me for a story on Orthodox rabbis who officiate at weddings not under Rabbanut auspices (and TOI followed up with an article that makes it look far riskier than it is). I've also been asked to write a manifesto of sorts on my religion-state views; someone's even talking about a book project.
Either way, here is a list of articles and blog posts that I've written on the subject over the past 8-9 years for various outlets. Meanwhile, I'll get working on that manifsto:

Jewish Review of Books
Why I defy the Israeli Chief Rabbinate
https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/1917/why-i-defy-the-israeli-chief-rabbinate/

Halakha and State: An Exchange
https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/2056/halakha-and-state-an-exchange/

Mida
The Riskin Opportunity for Religious Privatization
http://mida.org.il/2015/06/25/the-riskin-opportunity-for-religious-privatization/

(Hebrew version)

The Myth of the Conversion Crisis
http://mida.org.il/2015/05/22/there-is-no-conversion-crisis/

Why Rabbi Goren Matters: The Legacy of the Langers
http://mida.org.il/2015/02/06/rav-goren-matters-legacy-langers/

Elazar Stern's Conversion Bill: Bad for Religion, Bad for the State, Bad at Math
http://mida.org.il/2014/04/07/elazar-sterns-jewish-conversion-bill-bad-for-the-state-bad-for-religion-bad-at-math/

(Hebrew version)

Moment
The Israeli Rabbinate: The Origin Story
http://www.momentmag.com/opinion-the-israeli-rabbinate-the-origin-story/

Jerusalem Post
Got Kosher Milk?
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Got-kosher-milk

Jewish Ideas Daily
Love, Marriage, and the Israeli Chief Rabbinate
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/1012/features/love-marriage-and-the-israeli-rabbinate/

Tal Tales
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/4619/features/tal-tales/

Yair Lapid's Religion
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/5979/features/yair-lapids-religion/

New York Jewish Week
God's Gatekeepers: Signs of Progress?
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/gods-gatekeepers-signs-progress

Does the US now have a Chief Rabbinate?
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/does-us-now-have-chief-rabbinate

Regime Change, Realpolitik, and the Rabbanut
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/regime-change-realpolitik-and-rabbanut

Middle Class Rising? (not about religion and state per se, but touches on it)
http://www.thejewishweek.com/special-sections/israel-now/middle-class-rising

Not all Orthodox Rabbis Oppose Civil Marriage in Israel
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/not-all-orthodox-rabbis-oppose-civil-marriage-israel

A Gaon in Every Sense (an obit for Rav Ovadia)
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/israel-news/gaon-every-sense

Intermountain Jewish News (cross-posted to TOI)
A Jewish Holiday and a Civic Dilemma
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-jewish-holiday-and-a-civic-dilemma/

Book Chapter

TOI Blog Posts
Why Israelis don't Realize that Martin Luther King Jr. was Religious
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-israelis-have-trouble-realizing-that-mlk-was-religious/

Same-sex Unions and Intermarriage: Against as a Jew, For as a Citizen
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/same-sex-unions-and-intermarriage-against-as-a-jew-for-as-a-citizen/

An Ironic Observation on Freedom of Religion at Israel's Holiest Site
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/an-ironic-observation-on-freedom-of-religion-at-judaisms-holiest-site/

Personal Blog Posts

On Tzohar Rabbis Accepting Pay to Officiate Weddings
http://adderabbi.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/on-tzohar-rabbis-accepting-pay-for.html

Conversion Collision Course
http://adderabbi.blogspot.co.il/2007/10/conversion-collision-course.html

10/25/2007

The High Court's Decision Regarding Heter Mechira

The Israeli High Court's recent landmark decision to override the Chief Rabbinate's ruling to allow local Chief Rabbis to set their own kashrut standards for shemittah has caused quite a stir in Israel, and would be getting even more press were it not overshadowed by the Annapolis Summit.

The Ashkenazi Haredi public has lambasted the decision, calling it consistent with what they perceive to be the court's anti-religious attitude that they have been protesting for years. The secular public takes it for granted that the Supreme Court should be just that - the country's final arbiter- and that ultimately the Rabbinical Courts are answerable to it. The Religious Zionist public seems torn between agreement with the decision on one hand, and, on the other hand, concern that the court has entered into area of halakhic decision-making.

I remain sympathetic to criticisms of the court, namely, that it is a self-perpetuating oligarchy that ignores democracy in favor of self-defined 'democratic values', that it fancies itself to be an island of liberal, Western correct thinking in the heart of the souk. Nevertheless, in this particular case, I both agree with the court's decision and believe that this type of decision should be within the court's purview.

The idea that the Rabbanut should not be answerable or accountable to the Israeli public is absurd. Every rabbi in history was accountable to his constituency, and for good reason. The role of the Rabbi is not to be a psak machine, but to address the concerns of the people. The rabbi is entitled to take his own position on a matter, but, by the same token, the congregation then has the right to select a rabbi who is more in tune with their sensibilities. Either extreme - the rabbi being unaccountable or the congregation exercising total control - is unacceptable. Rather, the relationship should be one of constant dynamic engagement between rabbi and community to try to arrive at a place which is good in the eyes of both God and man.

Looking at this relationship on the national scale, the question becomes who is empowered, as the representatives of the people, to decide when the rabbis are not doing their job and need to be replaced. The most intuitive answer is the High Court. Absent any special committees or laws that give the Rabbanut its 'job description', it is up to some judicial body - ultimately the highest judicial body - to define the role of the Rabbanut. They based their definition on much history and precedent with regard to this issue. A national body like the Rabbinate cannot start changing major positions, still deemed viable by many, depending on which way the wind blows. The 'heter mechira' has a checkered history, but it is a venerable history nonetheless. The court need not pasken that the heter is valid. It merely must clarify to the Rabbanut what its role is and what its mandate is - and that includes not reversing the positions of a lifetime, especially when so much is riding on it.

It must be emphasized that the court did not require anyone to rule against his conscience. Rather, it mandated that when the local Chief Rabbi is unwilling to certify 'heter mechira' produce as kosher, another willing rabbi should be brought in to do so. This solution should be obvious, based on the communal model. Everybody knows that the 'heter' exists and that the Rabbanut affects it. If a particular local rabbi does not like it, fine. That's his prerogative. The problem was that he could take such a position without risk, without having to answer to the people who work in the food industry whose lives and livelihood they affect. Fortunately, these people had recourse to a constituted body who could remind these rabbis, on behalf of the citizens of Israel, that they must take responsibility for their choices. This is a great step forward in the creation of an accountable Chief Rabbinate.

10/24/2007

Rabbinate's shmita decision overturned | Jerusalem Post

Rabbinate's shmita decision overturned | Jerusalem Post
This is huge.

10/18/2007

Conversion Collision Course

[Part II of this]


Yesterday, Haaretz reported about an initiative to set up conversion courts that will be independent of the Chief Rabbinate. It is being initiated by the usual suspects - Tzohar, Hakibbutz Hadati, et al - as part of their mounting campaign to replace the Rabbanut with something else (or, more likely, with a milder version of the same darn thing).

Today, they reported about Chief Rabbi Amar's visit to the USA to check out the RCA's revamped conversion procedures, their primary response to the Rabbanut's threat to pull the plug on accepting RCA conversions. This was a huge news item about a year and a half ago, both in the mainstream media and in the blogs (especially this one).

This juxtaposition highlights the schizophrenia that exists within the MO Rabbinate about these issues. On one hand, they (we) feel that their derech in life and in psak is legitimate and that they must stand up to the ever-more machmir and strident haredized rabbinic establishment. At the same time, they poo-poo the Rabbanut and keep making nice because they recognize that they are at the Rabbanut's mercy when it comes to recognizing giyur (this goes for both Rabbanim in the Diaspora and 'unfranchised' Rabbanim in Israel). The MO Rabbinate wants its own identity, yet lives in mortal fear that chareidi elements like the 'Vaad Horabbonim Haolami Leinyonei Giyur' or its bedfellow the Eternal Jewish Family will influence the Rabbanut to basically lump, with perhaps a few exceptions, MO Rabbis in with their Reform and Conservative colleagues.

Personally, I am a proponent of austritt. In order for it to work, though, a few things must happen. First of all, from the Rabbinic side of things, it must be war. No footsie-playing on the side. Tzohar flirts with the RCA (thinking that what the Israeli Rabbinate lacks is the proper training of Rabbis - which it thinks that organizations like YU, the OU, and the RCA can help solve with their great expertise and their massive stashes of US $$ - and not realizing that the real issue is accountability; the minute a community has the power to fire its Rabbi, the Rabbi becomes very, very interested in learning about pastoral counseling), and the RCA likes the attention but must also then kiss the Rabbanut's tuchis. Tzohar itself walks a tightrope between competing with the Rabbanut and playing by its rules. They have lately been declaring war more openly against the Rabbanut, especially with these giyur and kashrut initiatives, but still has to make sure, for its own purposes, that the public keeps faith in the idea of a Chief Rabbinate while working to depose the current one (Pesonally, I am against the idea of a Chief Rabbinate in any form, I just don't think the Israeli public is ready for that).

The second, and most important thing that must happen is the buy-in of the RCA and Tzohar's core constituency, namely, the dati rank-and-file, the kosher-keepers, those who care about Jewish observance. This constituency is different in Israel and America because in Israel there are no denominational affiliations, really. Tzohar can claim to represent the 'dati-lite' and the traditional segments of the population, whereas the RCA only represents Orthodoxy. Be that as it way, the Rabbanut itself lives and dies by public faith. Can this public faith be undermined?

It depends. With regard to kashrut, it's easy. The law can say who has the right to put a certificate in a store window, but it cannot tell people what to put or not put in their mouths. If the people do not think that a Rabbanut-certified restaurant is kosher, then the weight of the law will not get them in the building (unless there is an supplementary certification, which really does not threaten the Rabbanut as long as they get their check in order for the Badatz to get theirs). Similarly, if people are convinced that something is kosher despite the lack of certification, then the lack of a sticker will not serve as a deterrent (especially if it is certified by another agency). Thus, the Rabbanut’s kashrut apparatus relies on public faith (and, ultimately, the dues paid by the food seller)in their process. If that faith is undermined, then the apparatus collapses, laws notwithstanding. The Heiter Mechirah controversy has created a perfect storm for another organization to step in and usurp the Rabbanut's role.

With regard to marriage and conversion, it is much more complicated. To a degree, people can vote with their feet in these matters as well. They can live together out of wedlock. They can get married civilly in a foreign country. They can find a rabbi who is willing to (risk arrest and) perform an ‘unofficial’ halakhic wedding. Here again, public faith plays a role, but it is a bit more complicated: the cost of not playing ball with the Rabbanut is much higher. Of course, the Rabbanut wants people to get married in Israel, according to ‘the law of Moshe and Israel’; for the most part, the people want the same thing. If everyone would stop caring about whether the Rabbanut considers me Jewish or not, or stopped caring about marrying Jewish or about mamzerut, etc., then its power would be broken. But people do not want to stop caring.

Furthermore, kashrut makes money, but weddings and conversions do not. Registries and databases cost money (though not too much anymore), the Rabbi must spend a lot of time with the couple and on the ceremony, and the fact that the Rabbanut is so well funded - by the government - makes it difficult to imagine that people will put up the money for a new apparatus when their taxpayers' NIS already pay for a local Rabbi. This, ultimately, is the biggest problem of all. The Rabbis who are 'official' have very cushy jobs and much security. Those who do not will not be paid by private initiative, because there's simply no money for that. So people make do with the imperfect current situation. Tzohar has already done what it can with regard to marriage, even getting the Rabbanut to begin changing from within. Truly breaking the Rabbanut's monopoly, however, may take decades, and must begin with those few brave sould who are willing to actually break the law to have an unsanctioned but halakhic wedding or conversion.

10/08/2007

NYT on Shemittah and Heiter Mechirah

As Farmers and Fields Rest, a Land Grows Restless - New York Times

Is this the first time that shemittah has gotten so much play in the mainstream media? I mean, NYT, al-jazeera, AP. It's amazing.

10/07/2007

Why Do We Need the ‘Heiter Mechirah’ this Year?

by Rabbi David Stav

[translation is mine, as are mistranslations; Rabbi Stav is the Rabbi of the city of Shoham, is a leader of the Tzohar rabbinic organization, and is a major force behind Tzohar's initiative to create an alternative Kashrut organization, to compete with the Chief Rabbinate. This is not an endorsement or a rejection of his arguments or conclusions.]

Encountering the septennial ‘heiter mechirah’ ought to leave every observant Jew feeling uneasy. We strive, religiously and nationally, to fulfill the Torah’s commandments down to the last detail, especially a mitzvah as beloved as Shemittah, which serves as a socio-religious paradigm for the relationship between man and beast, man and society, and man and God. Many of us are familiar with the words of Our Sages, echoing the Torah and the words of the Prophets, which connect failure to observe Shemittah with exile from the Promised Land. Yet the heiter mechirah, even if it covers the appropriate halakhic bases, literally pulls the land out from beneath our feet. Thus, the feelings of unease are well explained.

It is important to emphasize that we are, first and foremost, men of halakha and therefore must determine, before all else, whether this dispensation has halakhic validity. Afterwards, it must be ascertained whether there is a pressing need to constrain the halakha in a manner inconsistent with its Biblical spirit and goals. A detailed analysis of the halakhic validity of the heiter mechirah is beyond the scope of this article. While it is worth mentioning that Shemittah nowadays, according to the majority of halakhic authorities, is of Rabbinic origin, we must not forget that there is a handful of medieval authorities, including Me’iri and Ra’avad, who believed that Shemittah does not apply nowadays at all, and is observed only as a supererogatory act of piety. Our Rabbis have taught that under extenuating circumstances, opinions which are not generally accepted as normative can be relied upon. Thus, if we combine the minority opinion that Shemittah need not be observed at all nowadays with those that rule that the ‘heiter mechirah’ sale is effective, those who rely on the sale definitely have whom to rely upon.

Furthermore, this obviates the issue of the Rabbinic decree against ‘sefichin’ (produce from annual plants, which the Rabbis banned out of concern that farmers would plant them during Shemittah but claim that they grew wild), since we have a general principle that we rule leniently when there is a case of doubt regarding a Rabbinic prohibition. In this instance, the prohibition is based on several Rabbinic laws, one on top of the other (like the Rabbinic prohibition against sefichin on top of the Rabbinic status of Shemittah in general). Thus, there is certainly room to be lenient.

Although the above-outlined methodology seems like a type of legal fiction, in this regard it is no different than its predecessors like the ‘heiter iska’ which allows banks and investors to obviate the unanimously Biblical prohibition against charging interest, or permission for the ‘mechirat chametz’ before Pesach, obviating another unanimously Biblical prohibition, or Hillel’s ‘prozbul’ permit which allows lenders to avoid forgiving loans at the end of the Shemittah year.

When the issue is the prohibition against interest or chametz and is directly relevant to the sustenance of society and the economy, or, in simpler terms, when the issue existentially threatens the community’s livelihood, Israel’s giants knew how to find the proper halakhic approach to insuring the people’s sustenance in accordance with Jewish law. This being the case, one may legitimately ask what fatal flaw was found in the heiter mechirah which, after all, obviates a possible Rabbinic prohibition. It is hard to find a satisfying answer, unless the question of the econocim wellbeing of the country’s farmers simply does not bother or preoccupy its opponents. The inquirer may persist and ask if it is not true that although the heiter mechira was once necessary, when the entire Jewish community in Israel was threatened, but that today, when agriculture does not play such a central role in national life, the farmers’ problems can be solved by a system of monetary arrangements.

My answer to that question is severalfold, but, in short, the need for the heiter mechira is greater than ever for the following reasons:

a) Today as well, thousands of families earn a living from agriculturally-based industries (including processing and transporting), and failure to implement a heiter mechira can destroy their livelihood for years to come. Furthermore, the scope of the problem is not just a few thousand families, as important as that may be. No self-respecting sovereign nation can afford to forego economic independence and basic production. This would be the case if Israel would lose its export markets by stopping production during Shemittah.

b) Neglecting property will create a situation whereby Arabs control the land. This is a neglect of the mitzvah to settle the Land of Israel and is empowers non-Jewish control of the land, thereby violating the prohibition of ‘Lo Techanem’.

c) Preferring Israeli or Palestinian Arab produce at the expense of Israeli Jewish produce supports, directly or indirectly, their foothold in the land and our enemies’ foothold in the land. We recently heard Hamas wishing that every year was a Shemittah year so that Jews could continue strengthening Gaza’s economy. Do we really want to fund terror organizations in order to avoid a debatable Rabbinic prohibition?

d) All agree that many farmers will not obey the laws of Shemittah if no heiter mechira is available. The practical ramifications of this fact are that produce that is prohibited under the ban on sefichin will enter into the market. In such a situation, many markets and food manufacturers will not be kosher. Many people will not be deterred by this, and will consume non-kosher food. The ultimate result would be the erosion of the Chief Rabbinate’s kosher certification network. Restaurants and food outlets that know that they will be unable to obtain kosher certification will simply opt to completely forego any kosher standards. For one who already views heiter mechira produce as ‘treif’, this would make no difference, because he treats the entire system as a failure. However, one who is aware that the Chief Rabbinate’s kosher-certification network is what prevents the entire country from reverting to non-kosher consumption has a responsibility toward all of Israel to ensure that the relatively good and stable system currently in place remains. Is it possible that people do not know or do not care that the Chief Rabbinate’s kosher-certification network would collapse? Do they not care that many Jews in Israel, the majority of whom consume only kosher food, will start eating non-kosher if there are no readily available alternatives? Is it possible that the shemittah import industry is guided by ulterior motives that can cause the ruin of others?

There is no doubt in my mind that Israel’s greatest sages, if they were aware of the repercussions of disqualifying the heiter mechira, would behave differently and would understand that, at the very least, the broader public should be allowed to rely on it.

It is worth mentioning that the Chazon Ish (R’ Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz, major halakhic authority during the first half of the 20th Century), who vehemently opposed the heiter mechira, was sensitive to the plight of Israel’s farmers and ruled leniently in order to enable them to grow their produce during shemittah and encouraged its consumption. It is unfortunate that those who consider themselves his followers are busy certifying produce from Jordan and territories hostile to Israel, and do not attempt to nurture Israeli agriculture in a manner that befits a representative of God’s Torah.

9/11/2007

Shemittah and the Palestinian Economy

This article from the Jordan Times (hat tip: Rabbi Dr. Shalom Berger) provides some wonderful insight into the impact of shemittah on the Palestinian economy and also how they view internal Jewish debate regarding various issues. I was also amazed – and pleasantly surprised – at the balanced way that the article portrays this politically-charged halakhic issue. The issue of ‘supporting terrorism’ is a large part of the internal Israeli dialogue on the halakhic issue, and this could have been inverted to (perhaps justifiably, perhaps unjustifiably) suggest that Rabbis who promote heter mechirah do so because they wish to minimize benefits to ‘terrorist’ Palestinian homesteaders.

A Poor Example of Educational Storytelling

Someone recently quoted to me, in the context of a discussion of Hilkhot Shemittah, a story that apparently appears in one of the ‘Magid’ series by Rabbi Paysach Krohn. The story pertains to the rule that one is not allowed to feed a non-Jew produce which contains kedushat shevi’it. Although this rule seems to be in direct contravention to Vayikra 25:6, Our Sages have limited the scope of this passage to a case where the non-Jew is a long-term member of the Jew’s household (See Rambam, Laws of Shemittah and Yovel 5:13).

So this story begins with a husband returning home to find that his wife had given two kedushat sheviit fruits to the goyishe help for her ride home. Acting quickly, the husband tracked the Gentiless down on the bus after an apparently difficult chase. When she saw him, she immediately confessed and opened her bag, revealing the jewelry she had just stolen from the family.

I must admit, I found this story offensive. I believe that stories are the primary manner in which values are communicated (in fact, it’s an assumption which underlies a lot of what I write on this blog: some examples can be found here, here, here, and here), and that the values reflected in this story are problematic.

The central problem I find is in the All-for-the-Boss-esque reward of zeal with miracles. Miracle stories are problematic in general, and this problem is compounded when the miracle is a reward for behavior which is supererogatory at best, negative at worst. The prohibition against giving a non-Jew fruits with kedushat Shevi’it is based on the fact that one must treat these sanctified fruits with proper respect, and giving them to a non-Jew is disrespectful. The story’s ‘hero’ is justifiably concerned with the fact that this non-Jew would violate the sanctity of the produce, but at what expense? Public embarrassment of the Gentile? Embarrassing his wife? Furthermore, it seems clear from Tosefta Sheviit 5:20 that once the produce is in the possession of the non-Jew, there is no need to take it back (the Tosefta discusses, and permits, a similar scenario in the case of an animal, which is generally more stringent than a human when it comes to consumption of foods which have kedushat Shevi’it; I’m not ready to outright permit such a case, but there is certainly reason to pause and especially if there is counter-pressure).

I’m also not thrilled with way the story portrays the wife (as a half-wit) and the Gentiless (as a thief). I think it’s poor values-education.

I’d have been much happier with the following ending (leaving aside the man’s treatment of his wife or her apparent ignorance): the man quickly rushes to the local makolet (a word for which there’s no real English equivalent, unless you count bodega) and buys soda, chips, and cookies. He then hops into a taxi to chase down this gentile woman. Upon reaching her, he apologizes profusely that he actually can’t give her those fruits (without explaining the halakhic rationale) and offers her the bag of food instead.

That way, he can actually fulfill the Biblical mandate of shemitta in spirit as well as in the letter, for there is no doubt that the Torah, through the mitzvah of shemittah, wishes to instill concern about the plight of the wage-earner.

And if the story truly happened the way that Rabbi Krohn tells it, then just don’t tell that story in an educational setting. Better edifying fiction.

8/28/2007

Shemittah is from Mars; Yovel is from Venus

I gave my first class on Sheviit today. We went through the different places where the Chumash discusses, or might discuss, Shemittah. All in all, it went pretty well, I think.

I did notice one thing, however. As opposed to most other areas of Halacha where there’s some basic familiarity and application to life, this is an area which is completely and totally foreign to the average Chutznik. It was like we were discussing Buddhism.

In truth, I had similar sentiments while learning Masechet Sheviit. It’s hard to get into the head of a farmer, let alone one from late antiquity. Yet, this is a very real and contemporary issue. My goal is that these students experience shemittah and all of its socio-religious implications. After all, Shemittah was intended to accomplish something; in an agrarian society, the meaning of Shemittah would have been truly experienced. The vast majority of us really only experience Shemittah as consumers (yes, even those of us who ‘buy’ small plots of land in Israel in order to let them fallow for the year). I want to try to learn what it would be like to experience it as a producer.

8/27/2007

Hakhel

In just about a month, we would have the opportunity for the mitzvah of hakhel, on Chol Ha-Mo’ed Sukkot of the Shemittah year. Well, according to Ibn Ezra, anyway. I was startled to discover that Ibn Ezra, against pretty much everyone else, says that Hakhel was performed during the Shemittah year itself, and not the year after Shemittah.

During my little bit of research, I came upon several different ideas regarding what Hakhel was intended to accomplish, and, consequently, why it was performed when it was. First, the verses themselves:

דברים פרק לא

(י) וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה אוֹתָם לֵאמֹר מִקֵּץ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים בְּמֹעֵד שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִטָּה בְּחַג הַסֻּכּוֹת:
(יא) בְּבוֹא כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵרָאוֹת אֶת פְּנֵי יְדֹוָד אֱלֹהֶיךָ בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחָר תִּקְרָא אֶת הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת נֶגֶד כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם:
(יב) הַקְהֵל אֶת הָעָם הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהַנָּשִׁים וְהַטַּף וְגֵרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ לְמַעַן יִשְׁמְעוּ וּלְמַעַן יִלְמְדוּ וְיָרְאוּ אֶת יְדֹוָד אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וְשָׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת כָּל דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת:
(יג) וּבְנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ יִשְׁמְעוּ וְלָמְדוּ לְיִרְאָה אֶת יְדֹוָד אֱלֹהֵיכֶם כָּל הַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם חַיִּים עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ:

And Moshe commanded them: At the end of seven years, during the time of the Shemittah year, on the festival of Sukkot, when all of Israel comes to appear before God at the place that He will choose, you shall read this Torah before all of Israel, in their ears. Gather the nation – men, women, children, and immigrants who are in your midst in order that they hear and in order that they study, and they will fear the Lord, your God, and they will observe the performance of this whole Torah. And your sons who did not know will hear and learn to fear the Lord, your God, as long as you live on the land that you are crossing the Jordan in order to inherit. (Devarim 31:10-13)

  • Ibn Ezra, ad loc, states that this was supposed to take place during the Shemittah year itself. He says that, like Shabbat, the purpose of Shemittah is to provide an opportunity to turn away from mundane pursuits and to engage in more spiritually edifying endeavors. Hakhel, which comes at the outset of Shemittah, is a sort of inaugural Shemittah kick-off event whose purpose is to get everybody – even children and non-Jewish immigrants – engaged in Torah. Incidentally, the phrase ‘mi-ketz sheva shanim’ can be interpreted either as during or after Shemittah – see Devarim 15:10
  • The traditional interpretation (Gemara, Rashi, et al) is that Hakhel occurs during the eighth year. It is called Shemittah because it is still being observed de facto in that there’s really not much for a farmer to do then. Perhaps this is why that time was chosen – it’s convenient for everybody, and doesn’t interrupt any farm work. Thus, as indicated in several Rishonim (Rasa”g, Chinukh), the choice of the eighth year is simply coincidental. There should be a gathering of the entire nation every seven years in order to read the Torah publicly and transmit it to those who were not familiar with it, and in order that people hear it and continue to learn it. The choice of Sukkot, a pilgrimage festival, and the eighth year, when there was little, if any, ‘gathering’ taking place in the field, was for convenience.
  • Rabbeinu Bachya provides a rationale which links Hakhel directly to the post-Shemittah year. He relates the seven-year Shemittah cycle, as well as the seven-day Shabbat cycle, to a grater, cosmic Creation cycle in which the world exists for seven ‘millenia’ (purposefully in parentheses), six of ‘creation’ and one of ‘destruction’. The beginning of the first year after Shemitta represents the beginning of a new creation cycle. Therefore, the Torah, which is the world’s blueprint, is read at the site of the Temple, from where the world was created. Thus, according to Rabbeinu Bachya, Hakhel is a mythic re-enactment of the world’s creation after its symbolic destruction during the Shemittah year.
So we have three explanations – the educational, the practical, and the mythic. I think that each one provides a valuable perspective on this mitzvah and, indeed, on the mitzvah of Shemittah as well.

8/22/2007

StairMaster

I’ve been learning Masechet Sheviit lately, well, for obvious reasons (I’ll also be teaching Hilchot Shemitta this upcoming school year). I was learning this past Shabbat afternoon when I cam across the following Mishna (Shevi’it 3:8):

אין בונין מדרגות על פי הגאיות ערב שביעית, משיפסקו הגשמים, מפני שהוא מתקינן לשביעית; אבל בונה הוא בשביעית משיפסקו הגשמים, מפני שהוא מתקינן למוצאי שביעית. לא יסמוך בעפר, אבל עושה הוא חיץ. כל אבן שהוא יכול לפשוט את ידו וליטלה, הרי זו תינטל

It reminded me of a Yerushalmi in Shabbat (7:2, 47b)that I had once learned:

החופר החורץ הנועץ המדייר המעדר המזבל המכבד המרבץ המפעפע גושים. המברה בחרשים. המצית את האור בחישת קנים ובאגד תמרים וכרבי זעירא אמת המים שהיא מכשרת צדדיה לזריעה. המסקל. הבונה מדריגות. הממלא את הנקעים שתחת הזיתים. והעושה עוגיות לגפנים. וכל דבר שהוא להניית קרקע חייב משום חורש

The connection should be obvious: there’s this activity, called ‘boneh madreigot’, which is both a derivative of plowing as far as Shabbat is concerned and a forbidden activity in preparation for Shemittah. The question is, what exactly is this activity?

A literal translation is ‘building steps’. In fact, this is how most commentaries understand the Mishna – it is forbidden to build a flight of stairs down to a pool of water, because you will end up using that water to water your fields on Shemittah. This explanation, as several acharonim point out, is very problematic. They note that it is not forbidden to water one’s field during Shemittah as long as the purpose is just to maintain, but not improve, one’s crops. The suggestion that it is forbidden to build steps because they provide access to water, when use of the water itself is permitted, is far-fetched to say the least. Furthermore, although none of the commentators point it out, this understanding of ‘boneh madreigot’ has nothing to do with ‘choreish’ and would not be considered a derivative of that category, which includes any action which improves the arability of the ground.

When I first learned that Yerushalmi, I was living in Israel. it was clear to me then, as it is clear to me now, that ‘boneh madreigot’ means terrace farming. Building something like this on Shabbat would clearly be a form of choreish; it is truly preparing land for planting. A short drive through the Judean Hills and one is immediately aware that this form of farming has been used in this area from time immemorial. /it just makes so much more sense than the other commentaries.

I’m trying to do more research into the issue. The word ‘madreigah’ comes up twice in Tanach – once in Yechezkel and once in Shir Hashirim – and in both cases it refers to some type of outdoor structure in the hills. I plan to look in the Targumim and in Dr. Feliks’ commentary to Shir Hashirim to see what they say. I’m pretty convinced that I’m right, though.

5/19/2005

BEHAR - Two Aspects of Holiness and the Price of Tea in China

This weeks parsha begins with a strange juxtaposition in Jewish literature. G-d commands Moshe regarding Shemittah (The Sabbatical Year) at Mt. Sinai. Thus, Rashi asks, "What does Shemittah have to do with Mt. Sinai?". This question is the Modern Hebrew equivalent of "What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China?"

Rashi answers generally – that it’s to teach that all Mitzvot came from Sinai. However, the same juxtaposition appears at the very end of the parsha, which states, “And you shall keep My Sabbath and revere My Sanctuary, I am G-d.”. The Sabbath and the Sabbatical year are certainly linked. The Mikdash/Sanctuary is, according to the Ramban (with a whole heck of a lot of textual and forensic evidence) a prerpetual recreation of the revelation at Mt. Sinai. Yet, it’s not really bothersome that Shabbat and Mikdash are put side-by-side. Anticipating a later metaphor of A.J. Heschel, Ramban explains that the term ‘Mikdash’ is a reference to Shabbat itself – it’s a sanctuary in time.

The two imperatives, “Mora” and “Shmira”, highlight two different themes of holiness. One aspect of the Holy is that it’s a complete break from the temporal. It’s Wholly Other, belonging to a different quality of existence. When one steps foot into a Sanctuary, or when the sun goes down on Friday, there is a complete break with everything that came before. The second relates to the way in which the Holy interacts with the world around it. The Holy re-enters the mundane world as a polestar, raising up everything that comes within its sphere, sanctifying the mundane. This duality is reflected in nearly every expression of Holiness, be it temporal, spatial, or human. It is the central theme of the book of Vayikra as well.

The best example of the latter aspect of holiness is in our parsha as well. After recounting the laws of Shemittah and Yovel, the Torah records a number of laws that pertain to commercial and social justice (including a prohibition against overcharging, which could regulate the price of tea in China). The refrain through all of it is that we are enjoined to remember that the Earth all belongs to God, the lesson which the Sabbatical year is designed to reinforce. Thus, observance of Shemittah affects the behavior of the ensuing 6 years. Nonetheless, Shemittah has no independent Kedusha, no ‘Kedushat Ha-Zman’ (as opposed to Yovel, which does).

Mt. Sinai, on the other hand, is almost the exact opposite. It has the independent holiness, but, at least initially, doesn’t reach beck to the world it left. For a brief moment, it was the place where G-d and man met. It was a holy place- no man could set foot upon it The next day, however, nothing persisted. This suggests that the initial experience was completely other-worldly, and couldn’t be ‘unpacked’ and integrated into a mundane reality. Only by placing it at the center of the community on a ongoing basis could God’s Presence begin to affect its context.

Thus, Shmittah and Har Sinai appear as competing ideas of Holiness – other-worldly vs. paradigmatic. The end of the parsha demonstrates that the normal case is that both are present and necessary. On Shabbat, it’s cessation from work on one day which shows that my work on the other six are chosen and meaningful. If I’m forced to create, my creativity is a mere compulsion. If I choose to create, and demonstrate this choice by demonstrating the ability to stop creating, then ipso facto, all of my creative labor becomes meaningful. Such it was with God’s creation, and so it is with our own (See Pachad Yitzchak’s first Ma’amar on Shabbos). It’s also the point that Neo makes when he suggests to the Mayor of Zion that ‘we control the machines and they don’t control us, because we can turn them off’.If you can’t turn them off, then you’re not in control of your world; it controls you. You’re not a creator, you’re a creature of compulsion.

If I may apply this to a contemporary setting – there’s a UO emphasis on the ‘Shmirah’: true holiness and this world are completely separate entities. Never the twain shall meet. God and Caesar, Jacob and Esau, have divided Olam Ha-Zeh and Olam Ha-Bah between them. MO seems to have the opposite problem. Holiness is diluted by being placed on the table with so many other things. Torah in the morning, secular studies in the afternoon. A year of Yeshiva, 4 of college. Shmittah and Torah – which feature prominently in next week’s parsha, and whose neglect are attributed as the cardinal failures of the First Jewish Commonwealth, are specifically prone to neglect. Instead of entering into the profane as holy objects, they are themselves profaned by being lumped together with the rest of the profane world.

True holiness is when these two elements are experienced at two sides of the same coin.

שמור וזכור בדיבור אחד נאמרו