Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Mitzvos

There are certain Mitzvos, which, by their very nature, obligated people differently according to their levels. These are notable exceptions, the ones that come to my mind offhand being Kedoshim Tihiyu, and Talmud Torah. The amount of Kedusha and the amount of Torah you must learn depends on your level.

---

You do a Mitzvah because Hashem said so. While we do get closer to Hashem by doing Mitzvos, and Mitzvos "lift up" the world, and it is fine to have all those things in mind when doing the Mitzvah; the reason you are doing the Mitzvah is none of the above, but rather because a Mitzvah is the will of Hashem.

To illustrate this, consider a hypothetical case where you could (a) get closer to Hashem, or (b) lift up the world, by going against the Ratzon Hashem. Would you do it?

No, you would not.

Then consider a case where you could fulfill the Ratzon Hashem but by doing so you would get further away from Hashem, or bring the world down. Would you do it?

Yes, you would.

The question, rather, is what should be your motivation to listen to Hashem?

The answer is, there are different levels: There is Ahava, the higher level, where you listen to Hashem's will because you love Him. The reason you love Him is because of the wonderful things He does for you, that is, out of gratitude to Him.

The lower level is Yorah - out of fear.

---

Kaddish is not "such an important part" of Judaism. It is actually a custom - not one of the 613 Mitzvos, not even a Rabbinic Mitzvah, and surely not one of the 13 Fundamentals of the religion.

Among the non-religious, Kaddish became like the most important part of Judaism, and that is because the non-religious Jews used to have religious parents, and when those religious parents died, the non-religious children figured they'd do something nice and honorable for them religious-wise in their honor, since the parents always believed in the religion anyway. So Kaddish became it.

Of course, where the custom applies, it is considered honoring one's parents to say the Kaddish. That means if you do not have a minyan, or if you are a woman, or a slew of other circumstances as well.

Women do not say Kaddish because a custom, by definition, is followed according to its established methods, and when Kaddish was instituted, it was explicit that women do not say it.

The reasons it was instituted that way could be many: don’t forget - if you read the words of Kaddish, you will find not a single mention of death, deceased relatives, honoring the dead, or anything at all that would motivate someone to say this prayer in honor of or in memory of a deceased relative. In fact, the main part of Kaddish - yehai shemei rabbah - is merely an Aramaic translation of the prayer "boruch shem kevod malchose l'olam vaed", which we all say twice a day anyway, women included, and even without a Minyan.

The kabbalistically-aware sages who instituted this custom did so because as per to Jewish mysticism, this prayer, when recited in a certain way (with a minyan), at a certain time (after the aleinu prayer, and sometimes some other places, during the davening, for the first 11 months after the death of certain - not all - relatives, and on the anniversary of their death thereafter), and by certain people (men), if is of benefit to the soul of the deceased. When said not under the specific designated conditions, it does nothing for the soul, and for all we know can perhaps even be harmful.

There are times and circumstances that the Kaddish is optional; there are times when the Kaddish is mandatory; and there are times when the Kaddish is prohibited. All of this is based on the original, kabbalah-based reasons for the kaddish in the first place.

But as I said, Kaddish is NOT a main part of Judaism at all, and it is not to even the main way to honor deceased parents. The main way to do that is available to males and females both - if the children follow the Torah's path, it is a greater merit and honor for the soul of the deceased than 1,000 times saying Kaddish.

That is what Orthodox Judaism says - if you want to honor and commemorate your parents after they are gone from this world, let your behavior be proper, do Hashem's will, and let your parents be proud of you.

The Kaddish is only a custom.

---

Labels: , ,

Copying a CD

[While this is generally for Hashkafa type questions, this particular question has been asked so many times, and is very relevant, so I thought it should be included. If it isn't appropriate, I ask the Moderators to comment and I’ll remove it -taon]

Whether you are permitted to copy a CD depends: If you would have bought that CD and instead are copying it, then you may not copy it because you are causing the owner of the rights to that CD a loss or potential revenue. However, if you never would have gone out and bought that CD - let's say you wouldn’t want to spend the money - then you may copy it, because doing so does not cause anybody any loss, since whether you copied that CD or not, the owner makes the same amount of money.

And yes, this means that you need to employ intellectual honesty and decide whether your copying the CD will result in a loss of revenue for the owner. You need to be honest as to whether you would have bought this CD, because that's what the Halachah here depends on.

The common claim that the CD is sold "on the condition" that it is not reproduced is not a factor here, because even though it may say so on the CD, it is not true. If the CD were indeed sold on the condition that you may not reproduce it, that means if you violate the condition and in fact reproduce it, that would nullify the sale retroactively, and you would be able to go back to the person who sold you the tape, and demand he take the tape back and return your money. If the vendor would not agree to refund your money and take back his tape, then he really has no intention of making such a "condition".

The same thing applies to software. The fact that when you open the software it makes you check a box that says you agree not to copy it is not binding. Since at the time you bought the disc, you agreed to no such stipulation, therefore you took possession of the disc without agreeing to any such deal. The seller no longer has any rights to make any such deals with you after the sale is final and the disc has already passed into your possession. Compare this to a person who buys a box of cereal for instance, and when he opens the box a seal on the inner wrapping say, "You are not allowed to open this package unless you agree to stand on your head". Of course, once you own the package nobody can force you to do such a thing. Same thing with the software.

As far as Dina D'Malchusa, it is not that simple that copying a CD in a Halachicly permissible manner, that is, for personal, non-commercial use, is prohibited, especially if you are the owner of the CD. Different IP lawyers have given me different opinions, and when I did a Lexis-Nexis search it merely confirmed the lack of clarity, though it does seem that there is something of a discrepancy between the laws "on the books" versus the actual enforcement of the law and common custom. Here's one sample opinion, which you can see on the internet. Follow the link for the full piece

1. “Ripping” songs from CD - I have purchased to copy the songs so that I can play them on my iPod, computer(s), PDAs, and other devices.... I feel reasonably comfortable about ripping a song into iTunes and putting it onto an iPod, but I must admit that my comfort comes from the fact that “ripping” is a feature of the software and that Apple and the recording industry seem to have come to an accommodation on this issue. I’m not sure that I would have the same level of comfort if I only looked at the statutes and case law. When someone starts to have a half dozen or more copies of the same song file on various drives and devices, probably in a variety of file formats, I start to wonder whether you reach a point where it can be argued that having “too many” copies can expose you to liability.
That was from
http://www.corante.com/betweenlawyers/archives/2005/06/06/
ipods_and_timeshifting_fair_use_personal_use_and_the_digital_
copyright_morass.php

Consult your own legal authority on this.

But in any case, following the Dina D'malchusa in this case is a chumra, because of the many Poskim that hold Dina Demalchusa applies only to laws that govern the relationship between you and the government (such as taxes etc), but for regular Bain Adam Lechaveiro laws, such as what is considered stealing, we are not Halachicly bound to what the Dina Demalchusa says.

---

Labels:

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Hashkafa and Halacha II

Having a beard is considered an honor (Shabbos 152a). There are many Shitos that hold having a beard in Halachicly obligatory. For a collection of advantages of having a beard from a Torah perspective, see Orchos Yoshor, by R. Chaim Kanievsky shlita, Ch. 5. There is also a Sefer called Hadras Panim Zokon that has a lot of information on this.

Trimming the beard is a Machlokes in the poskim. The Tzemach Tzadek and others prohibit even trimming it, but many others permit. There are Kabbalistic reasons for not trimming the beard at all.

Re Payos, there's a machlokes if you can cut them, see Tiferes Yisroel (Makos 3:5) and R. Hillel Kalama (quoted in Shaul Sha'al 98) - who prohibit, and Chasam Sofer (OH 154) and others - who permit.

The Chasam Sofer (Haghos YD 181 quoted by his son Ksav Sofer) says that it is customary to let the payos grow long, down to the jaw. This is unnecessary, says the Chasam Sofer, but those who do it are considered holy.

The Arizal (quoted in Bais Lechem Yehuda YD 1818) says that the payos need not be longer than the bottom of the beard, and he would cut them when they reached there.

Maharasham, however says that he was told by R. Meir Promishlaner that he should never cut his payos, and it will be a segulah for Arichus Yomim.

Maharshal (Yam Shel Shlomo Yevamos 12:18) says it is worthwhile not to cut the payos at all, since the exact measure for the payos is uncertain.

Mishna Brura (251:2, Biur Halachah) says that at least the hair from the temple until the bottom of the ear should not be cut, because it is a possible issur d'oraysa.

In any case, it is true that the "shiur" of the payos being able to fit neatly behind the ears and then being cut as they protrude from below the earlobe has no Halachic validity. It is just a style by certain segments of Klall Yisroel. They are using the Halachic shiur of the Mishna Brura (until the bottom of the ears), and the rest of it is for no real Halachic reason.

As far as putting the payos behind the ears, that began as a way to avoid anti-semitism in Europe from goyim who would harass Jews with long payos. Nowadays at least in Eretz Yisroel there's totally no reason for it, and in fact Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita (Orchos Yoshor p.20) writes that it's wrong, since it looks like you’re embarrassed of the Mitvzah. But that's how these customs start.

---

There is a chumrah of covering your entire head with a bigger yarlmuka than just one that we wear. Gedolim wear hats or big, whole-head Yarlmukas for that reason.

It is a cultural thing, not a Halachic thing; it tells the world what group you identify with and how you want to be recognized, but the fact that it is a black hat (of a certain style, technically called a fedora) is pure coincidence. In Europe, in the main yeshivos, the head covering of choice was a GRAY hat (today it would be considered very unyeshivish); in certain Sefardishe circles, gedolim would wear turban type hats; Rav Moshe Feinstein used to sometimes wear a straw (dark) hat.

When I was a teenager, back hats had small, narrow brims and large, wide bands. Today if you worse such a hat they'd laugh you out of the Bais hamedrash. Some guys used to wear feathers in their hats, or - this was once very popular - imitation pearls. No more. It's a style, this hat thing. The style of Bnei Torah, true, but a style.

I'm not saying not to wear the hat. I'm saying that whatever you do, you should know why you are doing it -- is it a mitzvah, a chumrah, a minhag, a siyag, an aveirah, a davar reshus (neutral), a cultural thing, etc. The black hat is not INTRINSICALLY meaningful; it has become a cultural style of the Yeshiva world.

The concept of following the Rabbonim means either to follow their directions, or to figure out why they do what they do and then take it form there. Sometimes you should do as they do; sometimes you should NOT - some things are appropriate only for people of a certain stature - and sometimes it's in between.

If you don't know WHY the person you are following does what he does, you are likely not following correctly. Example: The Kedushas Yom Tov always always used to specifically eat egg kichels for Kiddush Shabbos morning. Some Chassidim thought there was some significance to that and followed suit. When they asked the Kedushas Yom Tov his reason, he explained that he was Makpid on making an Al haMichyah only if he ate a Kazayis of flour; and since egg kichels do not have much flour in them, he is always safe.

So if a Chosid did not have the Rebbe's chumrah and made an al hamichyah on his kichels, or if he ate so many kichels that he had a kazayis of flour, he may have thought that he was following his rebbe by eating the kichels, but actually he accomplished nothing.

---

Chumra means being strict in Halachah. This is not that. The black hat is a purely cultural thing. In Europe yeshiva guys all wore hats (grey, usually, not black), and the style, I guess, just continued. Could mean absolutely nothing at all, could mean a statement, depends on the whole picture. No way to judge just by the hat.

It's not nearly frowned upon if you don't wear one as much as you may think. Especially if for business dress or the like. But since in "dress mode" such as Shabbos or formal weekday wear what people wear on their heads - black hat, knitted yarlmuka, colored giant Tzefas-type Yarlmuka etc. - happened to have become very statistically equitable with the different segments of Judaism, it will naturally raise an eyebrow if it's incongruous with the segment that observers would expect you to identify with.

It's like let's say you're having lunch in a wall street eatery where everyone is wearing horn-rimmed glasses, suits, yellow ties, and reading the wall street journal, and in walks a guy with pink hair, 6 piercings, leather pants and a copy of "High Times". Of course, this person may well be the most savvy broker in the group, but people are going to ask themselves what's up with him. True that, even though there is nothing intrinsically investment-oriented with gray suits or thin ties. It's just a cultural thing.

In Yeshiva, if a bochur suddenly stops wearing his hat, the question would be more than the removal of the hat itself, the question would be 'why did he do it?'. Is he trying to make a statement, or what? Since the fact is that teenagers (and adults) generally do dress according to the style that the group they identify with does (regardless of personal taste), if a person who identifies with the Yeshiva world dressed differently it will raise questions.

So it's not a chumra thing, it's a style thing. but instead of the style of Calvin Klein, it's the style of the Yeshiva world. Intrinsically, it has zero significance (except during davening, where there is Halachic discussion about wearing a hat over your Yarlmuka). It is purely social, and nonconformity here has the same connotations as nonconformity with the dress norms of any social group.

---

Rabbis, in paskening, are kind of like doctors. They're all trying to give the right diagnosis but just because one says one thing doesn’t mean the whole medical world's going to listen to him, unless he’s such a big doctor that everyone respects him too much to disagree. Of course, each doctor has to be honest with himself - and his patients - and know his place, how big or small he really is.

When a Rabbi has an opinion and he knows others disagree, it means one of two things. The Rav can recognize that there is an opposing opinion, or he can hold that the opposing opinion is just simply a mistake. How to look at the opposing opinion is part of his psak.

There are differences in halachah between an opinions you disagree with versus an opinion that you hold has no basis, so to speak.

The school is only obligated to teach the opinions that they consider legitimate, but they should mention the variations within that range, unless the school is a monolithic school with a monolithic student body, such as, for example, Pupa Bais Yaakov where it is clearly designed to teach the policies of the Pupa Kehilla.

As far as one ultimate truth in halachah, while it is true that sometimes the halachah applies differently in different circumstances, that doesn’t make it any less of a "one single truth", since the variations in circumstance are part of the one, single version of halachah.

It’s like a computer program. It may read:

If A = 5 then B is Bold.
Else, if A < 5 then B is Italic.
Else, if A > 5 then B is Normal.

B can have 3 different instructions depending on the circumstances, but there is one set of instructions.

Same thing for Halachah. its not that the Halacha applies differently but rather the halachah pre-empted the different circumstances and gave instructions using "If" arguments. Such as:

Q: You cooked meat in a milk pot.
A:
IF the milk pot was used for milk in the past 24 hours, THEN
IF that milk-usage involved hot milk, OR
the milk was soaking in the pot for 24 hours, the last second of which was less than 24 hours before you cooked meat in it,
THEN
IF the volume of the milk cooked in the pot was more than 1.66% of the volume of the meat cooked in the pot AND
the volume of the pot itself was more than 1.66% of the volume of the meat cooked in it, THEN
YOUR MEAT IS TREIF
ELSE
your meat is kosher BUT
IF the volume of the milk cooked in the pot was more than 1.66% the volume of the meat AND
the volume of the pot was more than 1.66% the volume of the meat, THEN
YOU WILL HAVE TO KASHER YOUR POTS BEFORE YOU USE IT AGAIN EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY EAT THE MEAT COOKED IN THE POT


The Rabbi you ask a sheaila to, though, will not bother to explain all the "If"s, but rather just tell you if your B is bold, italic, or normal, based on your circumstances. That’s why it’s so important to make sure a Rabbi who is answering a question has all the info, since the halachic instructions can change based on small differences in circumstances.

The ability to recognize which groups are "legitimate" is also a Halachic ruling. You cannot do it just based on what you like better. And you are correct, de-legitimizing Modern Orthodoxy is not more an achdus problem than de-legitimizing Conservative or Reform. Everyone holds there are legitimate and illegitimate groups in Judaism - the only question is who is which. So it makes no sense to say that people have to recognize any given group as legitimate because achdus demands that you cannot deligitimitize Jewish groups. That’s just not so. In Korach's days, that was Korach's attack - "The entire congregation is holy" and you cannot say we are illegitimate. Korach of course was wrong. And so are many groups today.

Regarding who to follow, Rav Shach writes that if your family follows a certain psak, you should follow it too. If not, then you should follow whichever posek is greater. It makes no difference that one Rav wrote a book and another didn’t.

---

Labels:

Hashkafa and Halacha I

There is a Halachah that says you must have the right Hashkofos. “Lo sosuru acharei levavchem”, You may not follow your heart, meaning, you may not believe “meenus” (Apikursos). The Mishna Brura rules (his source is Sefer Hachinuch almost word for word, but without attribution) that Apikursos includes any opinion that is contrary to Daas Torah.

Meaning, even if you follow all Halachos, if you have an opinion that conflicts with that of the Torah, you violate this laav.

Halachic example: Responsa Divrei Chaim YD 105. The case was a rebbi in a cheder who expressed his opinion to his class that the commentary “Ohr Hachaim” on Chumash was a great commentary, but it was not written with Ruach HaKodesh. This statement created a tremendous controversy, and they turned to the Divrei Chaim for a ruling.

After explaining that he cannot rule on a specific incident without hearing both sides of the story, he writes that theoretically, if someone says such a thing, since it is clear that Chazal disagree, he would be guilty of Apikursos.

So let’s say you’re a vegetarian. There is no Halachah that says you have to eat meat (at least not on the weekdays). But if the reason you don’t eat meat is because you believe shechitah is cruelty to animals and therefore wrong, you are guilty of Apikursos, since the Torah clearly disagrees.

Two people can do the same act – here, refraining from eating meat – but one is a spiritual criminal and the other innocent, because of the attitude with which the action was taken.

Or let’s say you are in favor of women’s Torah education. The Chofetz Chaim was, too, for our times. But if you feel that women’s education is an advancement for women’s rights, essentially an improvement in the treatment of women over what we have been accustomed to in the past generations, when we did not teach Torah to women – and the Chofetz Chaim did not feel that way - you are guilty of Apikursos, since your belief collides with that of the Torah’s.

If someone accepts ideas that are not in accordance with the Torah, in other words, Hashkofos, they violate this issur

There are different levels of Apikursos. Worst-case scenario, someone can become a full-fledged Apikores, which Halachicly is considered worse than in idol worshipper. Such a person is treated Halachicly like a non-Jew, yet retains the halachic obligations of all Jews. A full-fledged Apikores is the absolute bottom on the spiritual food chain.

---

Hashkafa is no more varied than Halachah. Just as there are different but legitimate Hashkofos, there are also as many different but legitimate Halachic opinions. Both are objective, meaning, both must be based on Torah and not just your opinion, and both may have disagreements.
The same way you follow certain Halachic authorities, and the same way you determine who they are, you follow Hashkafic authorities and determine who they are as well.

Proper Hashkofos are just as important - often more important - as proper Halachos.

---

Halachah and Hashkafa are two components of your soul’s delicate ecosystem. The wrong hashkofos can not only be deadly in and of themselves, but they can also poison your Halachic observance.

The Ibn Ezra asks how we can have a Mitzvah commanding us not to be jealous. Jealousy is a feeling, and hence cannot be controlled, right?

Wrong, says Ibn Ezra. Nobody is jealous of anything unless you believe it is attainable. The town peasants are not jealous when the princess gets engaged, because they know they have no chance at marrying her anyway.

So too, if a person would only realize that whatever Hashem gives someone else is because Hashem the other person to have it and not him, nobody would ever be jealous, because they would understand that the things they are jealous of are unintended for and thus unattainable by, him.

In other words, the way to fulfill the Halacha of "thou shalt not be jealous", the way to control your feelings, is by having the proper hashkofo (whatever Hashem gives someone is unattainable to another). Without the hashkofo, the Halachah is impossible.

Your hashkafos control not only the Middah of jealousy, but your other Midos as well. Someone who perceives another Jew as a brother will treat him better than someone who perceives him as a stranger (see Rambam Matnas Aniyim 10). Someone who recognizes that everything he has is merely a gift from G-d will not be arrogant; but someone who believes in “my power and the strength of my hand” will be inappropriately proud.

Someone who recognizes that anything bad that someone does to him in this world was decreed from on High (even though the perpetrator volunteered willingly to fulfill that Heavenly decree) will have no interest in taking revenge, since he knows that the damage done to him was not due to the perpetrator but to the will of G-d. (Sefer HaChinuch, Lo sikom)

Someone who recognizes that we are in the world for a short time with an opportunity to collect gold coins (Torah and Mitzvos) will not squander his time poring over Shakespearean plays. He will try to spend as much time possible collecting that gold, regardless of whether the Halachah obligates him to do so. It’s simply a matter of common sense. If someone does not bother to learn, then he obviously does not recognize (Hashkofo) the value of learning.


The Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 8) says that not only do we have to do Teshuva for our bad actions, but also for our bad beliefs (“deos”). He lists as examples, arrogance, materialism, and the like. Although we usually classify these things as “midos” – personality traits – and not “beliefs” – the Rambam makes them into one.

The reason is because these personality traits, as we explained, are directly dependent on your beliefs (Hashkofos). Someone who has wrong Hashkofos will inevitably have bad Midos. And it is the bad “deah” – the bad Hashkofo – for which we are Halachicly obligated to repent.

---

HALACHAH WITHOUT HASHKAFA

Someone who tries to live Halachicly without proper Hashkofos will not succeed. At best, he will be living a schizophrenic, self-contradictory Jewish life, and he will be in a constant state of spiritual disarray trying to reconcile his Halachic lifestyle with his Hashkafic deficiencies. Jewish Halachah and Secular Hashkofos are contradictory.

Rav Yitzchok Hutner Z”TL once described the incongruous “Halachic Judaism” syndrome as comparable to someone who puts on his shirt in the morning and accidentally buttons the lowest button in the wrong hole. Instead of undoing it, he decides to solve the problem by putting the next button in the wrong hole as well, and he keeps buttoning up his shirt like that, always one hole off, thinking everything is OK.

Until he gets to the top of the shirt. Now he has to either undo the entire shirt, or wear it lopsided.

So, too, Rav Hutner said, are those who want to “reconcile” Halachah with the values and way of life of society. It is lopsided. You can maneuver around the Halachic pitfalls again and again, but eventually you will see that it doesn’t work, you paint yourself into a corner, and there will be no choice except to either undo your entire philosophy or live with a self-contradictory Judaism.

Example:

Treating a Rebbi like a “Professor of Talmud” is a Hashkafic atrocity and a slap in the face to Torah. Torah is not secular studies. Learning Torah is not merely “studying”. It is a religious experience, transporting the highest level of G-d’s Influence from the heavens down to earth. In Chassidishe yeshivos they learn Torah with their hats and jackets, like davening. Not everyone does that, but to put Torah in the same category as secular studies, by making “Talmud” a course like anthropology, where each is an elective used for a certain amounts of credits, where the rebbi is called “Professor of Talmud”, is a repulsive secularization of Hashem’s Torah in the worst way.

If someone would sit your wife at a wedding together with a bunch of low and grubby characters, you would feel insulted for her, and angry with the host. When someone places the Torah of our Creator in the same category as physical, materialistic, non-holy studies, we should feel that same type of irritation. That’s hashkafa.

But that’s just the first button – it doesn’t end there. Once you blur the Hashkafic line between Torah and secular studies, you develop additional problems. Women learn secular studies, but they don’t learn Gemora. What happens, then, when a woman goes through college just like a man, and is permitted to score honors in Medical School just like a man, but the room down the hall, the one where they give the “Talmud” college courses . . . those courses she is not good enough for???

The next step, of course, is to say, “It’s ridiculous that nowadays women can go to medical school but they can’t go to gemora class.” This justification has actually been used by rabbis for violating the clear Halachah in Shulchan Aruch against teaching gemora to women.

Sure it’s ridiculous to teach women nuclear physics and not talmud. If you set yourself up a situation where Gemora and physics are both “studies”, taught by Professors, albeit with different training, then the inconsistency of your messed up Hashkafa versus the Halachah against teaching girls Gemora is very much in your face.

If Torah and secular studies are both intellectual pursuits then it is “ridiculous” to bar women from one and not the other, but if one is a religious service and the other is merely the acquisition of knowledge, then Torah and secular studies are apples and oranges.

But now you’ve reached the top button. You either undo your entire hashkafic monster, or you are forced, in the interest of making sense out of your behaviors, to violate Halachah. The shirt, at this point, is revealed to be as unfitting as can be.

---

Halachah is "law" (literally: "direction").

Hashkafa means "perspective". It means your interpretation of things, your values, the way you see things. In South Africa they have an expression that's a pretty good translation. It means your "pluck."
Hashkofos are not “opinions.”

Hashkofos are how you look at the world. As in “vayashkef” (and he looked), or the modern Hebrew “mishkafayim”, meaning eyeglasses, which allow you to have a hashkafa (“sight”).

Just as the Torah has clear-cut Halachos, the Torah has clear-cut hashkafos. Gam zu l’tovah, for instance, is a hashkafa. It is not a matter of opinion of everything that happens to a person is for the good; it is a fact of life. When something painful happens, you can see it with clearly, with eyeglasses, the way it is – the proper hashkafa, that it is for the good – or you can see it the wrong way, and think it is essentially bad. A wrong hashkafa.

Your Hashkofos are the way you perceive reality. It is what you “recognize” in the world.

Both correct Halachah and hashkofo are necessary components for healthy Jewish living. If a person has the wrong hashkafos he is out of touch with reality. Someone who walks down the street thinking that every policeman is a closet KGB agent, has a wrong Hashkafa. Colloquially, you may call someone with the wrong hashkofos “messed up in the head".

Those who don’t believe in the authority of Hashkofo should have no objection, for instance, to someone who objectifies women. Such an attitude is indeed only an attitude – a Hashkofo – and you can maintain it while treating them in full accordance with the demands of halachah.

There are people who will tell you that someone’s Hashkafa “doesn’t matter”, as long as they follow the Halachah. But then when they see Jews in Williamsburg burn the Israeli flag they go nuts. Even though there is no violation of Halachah involved, but merely a hashkafic dispute. Only when it’s convenient for them will people tell you that it Hashkafa doesn’t matter.

The way you look at your fellow Jew, the way you relate to Hashem, the way you perceive Torah, what you value in this world, all of those are Hashkofos. Hashkofos are your attitudes toward the world and toward Judaism.

Proper Hashkofos are compulsory in and of themselves, but besides that, your attitudes have a great effect on your actions. Therefore, Hashkofoh and Halachah are unalterably connected. If you try to follow one without the other, you will be living a broken, unbalanced Jewish life. With bad Hashkofos, you will probably not be able to maintain integrity to Halachah, and at the very least, your efforts to be frum will feel so much more difficult, restrictive and burdensome.

Proper Hashkofos not only earn you Olam Habbah, but they also allow you to live a Torah life committed to Halachah smoothly, happily, and enthusiastically.

---

Rabbi Soloveichik did not approve of the "halachah only" approach. That is clear from his own words in many places. Yet it is also clear, and puzzling, that although Rabbi Soloveitchik lived way into the "trashy culture" days, he never stated the need to change the course that he himself charted in the early 60's, which from what you say, he must have found inapplicable later on. If he did declare such a thing, it is certainly not public knowledge. Were his followers expected to change direction without his lead?

It is also clear that he was unhappy about the lack of Hashkafic awareness among his students. "How can I give you some emotions?" he said to them (he expressed similar sentiments in his hesped for the Tolner Rebbe). Shortly after his wife passed away, he even began teaching Likutei Torah of Chabad to his students (no joke).

What a wonderful idea! But what was the response? One of his close students (who shall go un-named here, though he is a well known rabbi today) asked him, "What do we need from the Lubavitchers?"

But the question is not who endorsed a Hashkaficly empty Orthodoxy, but rather, how did it happen? How do people who would never think of breaking Shabbos, or eating non-kosher, just tear part of our religion out of the Torah (i.e. Hashkafa)? How do you think it developed within institutions that still call themselves Modern Orthodox? Where did it come from that, in educational institutions even, Hashkofos are mistakenly translated "opinions", meaning in this context, unbinding, or non-absolute?

Also, I - and, it seems, pretty much all of us - are unclear on what "Modern orthodox" means to begin with. It used to mean, apparently, integration into society for the sake of survival, but if you say that Rav Soloveitchik would not currently endorse that, then what does it mean today?

---

The ultimate goal of every Jew is to be what some people call "extreme." The question is, how fast or slow should you try to get there?

The answer is it depends where you’re holding. You should do as much as you can, and slowly do more and more. You need to know when to go "cold turkey" and when to wean yourself away from undesirable behavior.

So it really depends on you and where you’re holding, but one thing is for sure --- it is definitely better to be "extreme" -- the only question is, how to get there: all at once, or slowly.

And that depends on what you can handle.

It is vital to know the difference between Halacha and Hashkafa. See Emes L'Yaakov by R. Yaakov Kaminetzky ZTL on Avos, ("lo am haaretz chosid").

Hashkafa can often be Halachicly binding. Sometimes a Hashkafic violation can be worse than a Halachic one - such as in the case of an Apikores vs. a Mechalel Shabbos. This was discussed previously.

"Chumrah" is used to describe a number of things, as follows:

(a) If there is a disagreement in Halachah, in a case where one may be entitled to follow the lenient opinion, a "chumrah" may mean that you follow the stricter opinion anyway. Because even though you are permitted to be lenient, you want to make sure that you are doing the right thing according to everybody. This is an expression of "Yiras Shamayim", where a person is not interested in merely what he is allowed to do, but he wants to make sure that what he does has no chance of being prohibited.

(b) If there is something that is 100% permitted, but you don’t want to be tempted to do it, or even do it by accident. So you prohibit even getting close to the Aveirah, so that you are not only innocent, but safe as well.

These kinds of "chumros" are Siyagim and Gedorim, which Chazal advise us to make. Of course, you are not allowed to say that the Siyag is prohibited the same way as the actual Aveirah, but rather that it is a prohibited as a Siyag.

A Siyag can be self-imposed, community-imposed, or imposed on Klall Yisroel as a whole by Chazal. Any individual can impose such Siyagim on himself by making a Neder, or even a commitment bli neder; the Rabboni of a community have the authority to impose Siyagim on a community when they see fit; and only Chazal have the authority to impose a Siyag as binding on all of Klall Yisroel.

(c) Something with no basis or reason at all, just people don’t do it because it looks bad, or they think its bad, or it feels bad, or whatever. These are just people's behavior and have zero Halachic substance.

While it is true that the core Halachos are the main goal, the first two types of Chumros above serve important supportive roles to protect the Mitzvos. Its like a construction site -- the contractors spend days and maybe more building a wooden fence around the massive hole that they dug to lay the foundation. Plus, they build scaffolding with side rails and often put safety nets on the ground if they are working high up. Someone who doesn’t understand may wonder why they’re spending so much time on this stuff when they should be building the building. But the reality is that these efforts will make sure that the building gets built safely and efficiently. So its worth putting time into them.

So too with Chumros. They ensure the spiritually safe and efficient performance of the Mitzvos.

Of course, it would be crazy for builders to spend so much time on the safety net that the building gets neglected. You have to know what’s a Chumrah and what’s a Halachah, and what is the purpose of both. And you also have to know where a Chumrah is useful and where its merely a waste. That’s what Rabbonim are for.


No question you should get the main Halachos right first before you go to chumros.

The why bother attitude is a mistake, since the reward for the chumrah is worth the effort.

We're not looking at the Mitzvos as burdens but rather privileges and opportunities. If you have a way to squeeze out a bit more holiness or a bit more protection for your soul, even if you are not obligated to, if you look at it the right way you will want to.

However, again, this is not obligatory, you should never lose sight of what’s most important in Yiddishkeit.

---

Labels: