Rabbi Lamm on Women's Issues

From the Jerusalem Post:

Regarding the ordination of female rabbis, Lamm said his opposition was "social, not religious."

"Change has to come to religion when feasible, but it should not be rushed. Women have just come into their own from an educational perspective. I would prefer not to have this innovation right now. It is simply too early. What will happen later... I am not a prophet."

This essentially corroborates my own views as referenced in a mildly controversial JTA article a couple of months ago. It is a matter of public policy and not halakha, and - as has been widely discussed in the J-Blogosphere - most Orthodox Rabbis are aware of this fact.

Seventh Day of Pesah II

Another approach to the question of why the Torah established the seventh day of Pesah as a full-fledged holiday is expressed in many traditional sources and is widely known; namely, the seventh day is, according to the Midrashim, the day on which Hashem split the Sea of Reeds, allowing the Jewish people to pass through to safety and drowning their Egyptian pursuers. This view of the origin of the special status of the seventh day of Pesah is reflected in the Torah reading for that day - we read the beginning of Parashat Beshalah, which describes the Jews' exit from Egypt, Pharaoh's final change of heart, and the ensuing drama at the Sea.

The first difficulty with this explanation is a basic one. The Exodus was the culmination of a multi-stage process. It did not occur in one fell swoop. Yet we do not find that the Torah requires us to commemorate each of the ten plagues with a distinct holiday; we reflect upon all of them, and the lessons they represent, on the first day of Pesah.

On the surface, it would seem that the splitting of the sea is no different. It was certainly a magnificent and miraculous occurrence that is worthy of mention at the Seder; however, all things considered, it is just another component of the process by which the Jews were led by Hashem to freedom. Why does the splitting of the sea justify the creation of another full fledged holiday any more than any of the other plagues that befell the Egyptians and facilitated our liberation?

A second, equally significant difficulty pertains to the story of the splitting of the sea itself. Pharaoh had acquiesced, albeit after much resistance, to Hashem's command to release the Jewish people from bondage. They were well on their way to receive the Torah and settle in the Land of Israel. Apparently, though, Hashem was not satisfied with this outcome. He insisted upon enticing Pharoah to pursue his former slaves, so that he and his army would meet their demise in the Sea of Reeds. Why wasn't the liberation of the Jewish slaves sufficient? Why was it necessary, from Hashem's perspective, to punish the Egyptians further?

I would suggest the following answer: Through their experience of the plagues and their witnessing the remarkable turn of events in Egypt, the Jewish people had become fully convinced that it was worthwhile to commit themselves to following the path of Hashem and to leave Egyptian life behind once and for all. This, in and of itself, was wonderful, but was not a complete 'redemption'.

If Pharaoh had resumed business as usual after the departure of the Jews, he may eventually have seen a rehabilitation of the Egyptian economy and infrastructure, etc. The ordeal with the plagues would have registered in the minds of the Egyptians and the Jews, in retrospect, as a challenge to Pharaoh's sovereignty that was ultimately overcome. Pharaoh took a beating but was not defeated; he may have lost the battle but he was fully capable of continuing the war if need be. While life under God's Kingship might have been proven to be viable, life under the kingship of Man would still exist, at least in theory, as a reasonable (and tempting) alternative. Torah and Egyptian culture would have been seen as two equally valid options - each with their positives and negatives, their strengths and weaknesses - but two options of substance nonetheless.

For this reason, Hashem orchestrated the splitting of the Sea and saw to it that the Children of Israel witnessed the drowning of their oppressors in its depths, as the Torah states:

And Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the bank of the Sea.

The Talmud comments that, before they saw the corpses of the Egyptians wash ashore, the Jews imagined that their tormentors had survived on the other side of the Sea, that they had withdrawn from the water before it was too late. In other words, they fantasized that the kingdom of man could prevail; although it might lose some battles, it remained a contender in the cosmic struggle for mastery of the Universe. Hashem, therefore, willed that the dead Egyptians be seen by the Jews, so that the harsh reality of their fate would be known beyond the shadow of a doubt.

And it is precisely because the Jewish people were then totally disabused of any fantasies about the potential of human dominion to contend with God that we read:

And Israel saw the great hand that Hashem manifested against Egypt, and the people feared Hashem; and they trusted Hashem and Moshe, His servant.

Indeed, the conclusion of the Song at the Sea summarizes the lesson of this dramatic event in one sentence:

Hashem will reign for all eternity -

That is, He did not merely prevail in a single battle, only to be challenged by Pharaoh or his ilk again in the future; on the contrary, He is now seen to transcend and direct any and all material forces, human or otherwise, and His kingship is therefore acknowledged as absolute.

We now understand why, whenever the Exodus is mentioned in our liturgy, the downfall of Pharaoh is emphasized alongside the salvation of Israel. There are numerous instances of this, but one that immediately comes to mind is in the blessing that follows the Shema each morning:

From Egypt did You redeem us, Hashem, our God; from the house of slaves you freed us. All of their firstborn did You kill, and Your firstborn, Israel, did You redeem, and You split the sea for them - the wicked You drowned, and the beloved ones passed through the sea; water covered their oppressors, not one of them was left.

It is not enough, then, to recognize the greatness of Hashem and His majesty alongside that of man; if our redemption is to be complete, we must become fully cognizant of the futility of human dominion in the Universe, and utterly reject the validity of any alternative to the service of our Creator. We do not simply choose the worship of Hashem as a good among other possible goods; on the contrary, we consider all other purported "options" illusory.

This attitude is captured beautifully in the closing verse of the first chapter of Tehillim:

For Hashem knows the way of the righteous, and the way of the wicked will be destroyed.

This, then, is the importance of the seventh day of Pesah and the splitting of the sea that occurred on it. The plagues that led to the Exodus, and the commandments the Jews were required to perform before their release from bondage, were all designed to provide the Jewish people with the education they needed to be ready to respond to Hashem's directives. The plagues convinced them of the reality of Hashem's existence and the overwhelming power of His governance, and their participation in the Paschal sacrifice demonstrated their commitment to His service. During the first six days of Pesah, we explore and attempt to internalize these themes.

The splitting of the sea, on the other hand, was not intended to establish the basic reality of Hashem and His providence but to show that there is no other reasonable basis for a meaningful and fulfilling life - whatever seems to offer such a basis is, ultimately, a house of cards waiting to be toppled. Commemorating the splitting of the sea on the Seventh Day of Pesah completes our acknowledgement of God's sovereignty by reminding us that "the way of the wicked will be destroyed"; it underscores not only our acceptance of Hashem's kingship (already manifest on the first six days of Pesah) but our absolute rejection of any humanly crafted alternative.

Thus, it is only on the Seventh Day of Pesah that we declare, once and for all, that "Hashem will reign for all eternity."

(Incidentally, we can also see from this analysis why the Seventh Day is not a completely independent holiday - it is still "Pesah", does not require a separate sheheyanu blessing, etc., because it is meant to further develop and round out our reflection upon the theme of Hashem's sovereignty introduced on the First Day of Pesah. It doesn't add any fundamentally new content to the Yom Tov.)

Seventh Day of Pesah I

Why does the Torah require us to celebrate the Seventh Day of Pesah as a distinct holiday with a prohibition of work, festival prayers, etc.? This seems like a reasonable question (albeit in retrospect) since the Torah provides no explicit account of its purpose.

Over Yom Tov, I delivered two derashot (speeches) in which I offered independent - although I believe complementary, rather than mutually exclusive - explanations for the institution of the seventh day of Pesah. I will present them here as a series of two posts, and then perhaps a final summary in which I plan to explore their relationship to one another.

There is a curious verse in Parashat Re'eh that we read on the final day of Pesah in the Diaspora:

Six days shall you eat Matsot; on the seventh day it is a day of assembly/rest (i.e., atseret) to Hashem, your God; you shall do no work.

This is certainly a strange statement, and for more than one reason.

First of all, the prohibition of consuming hametz - generally expressed in the positive form, "eating matsot" - extends to the seventh day of Passover as well; it is not restricted to the first six days as the verse would seem to imply. We know this from another passuq in Parashat Bo:

On the fourteenth day of the month in the evening you shall eat matsot, until the twenty first day of the month (i.e., the seventh day of Pesah), in the evening.

A second difficulty with our verse is its structure. It evokes associations to the description of Shabbat in the Torah "six days shall you do work, but on the seventh day you shall rest", or of the Sabbatical year "six years shall you sow your field and gather its produce, but during the seventh year you shall release it and abandon it." However, in this case, not working is not the opposite of eating matsah; there is no reason to mention eating matsot in the verse at all. The Torah could simply have stated, "on the seventh day, it shall be a day of assembly to Hashem, your God; you shall do no work."

I believe that this unusual passuq contains a profound idea. The Torah continually addresses us on both a physical and an intellectual plane. Oftentimes, as in the case of abstaining from hametz, the Torah directs or stimulates our minds through the framework of the physical. However, the Torah never establishes a purely material state or performance as an end in its own right.

If Pesah were to conclude with six days of Hol Hamoed and no final "atseret" holiday, a key component of the objective of the Yom Tov would not be achieved. We would be going through physical motions that failed to culminate in intellectual or moral enlightenment. There would be a change of habits of eating, solidified over seven days' time, but no corresponding opportunity for reflection on the real meaning of that change.

This is why the Torah had to create the seventh day of Pesah - it is a day for contemplating and internalizing the lessons and implications of our separation from hametz, a day for connecting the physical experience of the holiday - what feels like the essential experience, for most people - back to the fundamental themes and principles we articulated at our Sedarim on the first days of Pesah.

Now we can better understand the verse with which we opened our inquiry:

"For six days you shall eat matsot" - that is, you shall engage in a physical action/abstention, beginning with the Seder of the first night of Pesah, but extending five days beyond it and preserving a measure of its holiness for the duration of an otherwise mundane week.

"And on the seventh day it is an atseret to Hashem, your God, you shall do no work" - that is, on the seventh day you must elevate yourselves even further than you already have through your period of abstention from hametz; you must remove yourselves, not only from certain foods, but from the workaday mindset altogether. This way you can consecrate your time and energy to reflection upon the deeper significance of the hametz-free existence you have maintained, and you can walk away from the holiday both edified and inspired.

In a subsequent post, I will explore an alternative reason for the institution of the seventh day of Pesah and then, hopefully, we will see how the two approaches are interconnected.

Pesah, Sukkot and Sefirat HaOmer

As I have discussed in several earlier posts, the two seven-day festivals instituted by the Torah, Pesah and Sukkot, both address elements of our physical existence. Pesah changes our staple food from conventional bread to matsah. Sukkot alters our dwelling from a permanent house to a Sukkah. Both holidays are also followed up by one-day celebrations that revolve around the intellectual or spiritual dimension of Jewish life - Shavuot and Shemini Atseret, respectively.

One of the unusual features of Pesah is the "intrusion" of the counting of the Omer. Immediately after the first day of Passover, we begin the process of moving toward Shavuot. We don't even wait for the seven day festival to conclude before setting our sights on the next holiday in the calendar. Indeed, the Torah commands us to harvest the Omer offering - and, hence, to begin the count - right after the holiday, on the "morrow of the rest day". This is taken to mean that we should not even wait until the next morning; harvesting and counting start as soon as the first day of the festival is over. What is the rush? Why can't we complete the celebration of Pesah before hastily transferring our focus to Shavuot?

The noteworthy starting point of the Omer count highlights a more general quality of Pesah as contrasted with Sukkot. Sukkot is the epitome of a joyous holiday in the Torah. Every one of its seven days has a distinct set of sacrifices that are to be offered. We say a blessing each time we dwell in the Sukkah. The four species are taken every day with a blessing and full Hallel is recited for the duration of the holiday. The Jewish people are, at least ideally, bidden to remain in Jerusalem and "celebrate before Hashem for seven days". The eighth day, Shemini Atseret, ushers in a whole new level of holiness that warrants a distinct sacrificial order, special blessings, prayers and an additional element of joy.

In the case of Pesah, on the other hand, all of the positive mitsvot - the paschal sacrifice, eating matsah and maror, telling the story of the Exodus and reciting the full Hallel - are fulfilled on the first night and day of the festival. Thereafter, observance of Pesah manifests itself only as the abstention from hametz for the entire week. The sacrifices offered in the Temple on the seven days of Pesah are all identical. The Jewish people are not especially encouraged to remain in Jerusalem after the first day of the holiday; indeed, the Torah states (with regard to the Paschal sacrifice) "and you shall roast it and eat it in the place that Hashem, your God, will choose, and in the morning you may turn back and return to your tents. For six days shall you eat matsot and on the seventh day shall be a day of assembly dedicated to Hashem, your God; you shall do no work." The implication is clear that, unlike the days of Sukkot, the final six days of Pesah are of lesser significance than the first. Even the seventh day, with its prohibition of work, does not have its own identity, blessings or special sacrificial order; it is more like a day of Hol Hamoed that has been promoted than a bona fide holiday in its own right.

What is the reason for the stark contrast between the respective structures of Pesah and Sukkot? And how can this explain our premature commencement of the counting of the Omer?

I believe that Pesah and Sukkot represent two opposite orientations to the material world. Pesah is about breaking our attachments and addictions to the luxuries of physical life. We distance ourselves from idolatry through the Paschal sacrifice and embrace matsah, the bread of servitude, as our staple food. In essence, though, our observance of the holiday is reflected in the negative, through privation. We define ourselves on Pesah by what we are not - we are not Egyptian sheep-worshippers. We are not hedonistic pleasure-seekers. We are prepared, by virtue of our disentanglement from these alternative lifestyles, to begin the process of receiving the Torah and serving Hashem.

This is why the first day of Pesah stands apart from the remaining days. It is on the first day that, through sacrificing the Pesah offering and adopting matsah as our bread, we clearly demonstrate our non-Egyptian character as a nation and our readiness to pursue a transcendent purpose. The six subsequent days make the impact of this demonstration manifest, but do not contribute anything to its content. Our observance of Pesah consists, then, in a major "event" on the first day, followed by mere abstention from hametz for the other six.

This fits beautifully with the lesson of another fascinating verse in the Torah that I have addressed on this blog in the past, "do not eat on it [the Paschal sacrifice] hametz; for seven days you shall eat matsot - the bread of affliction - on it." We are only permitted to eat the Paschal sacrifice on the first night of Passover. Why does the Torah command us to eat matsah "on it" - that is to say, with the Paschal offering - all seven days? The answer is simple. The Torah means to draw our attention to the fact that by abstaining from hametz/eating matsah seven days, we are carrying the message of the Pesah offering forward; it is still with us, we are still reacting to it. The revelation of Hashem's presence represented by the sacrifice has inspired us to take up the bread of servitude but to devote our energies to the service of the true King - Hashem - rather than the service of man.

We can now see why Pesah seems to stop short after the first day; as soon as it no longer expresses itself in positive activity, it no longer warrants full Hallel, new sacrifices, special blessings or an extended stay in Jerusalem. There is nothing novel to be had on the subsequent days, only a continuation and consolidation of what has already, at least essentially, been accomplished. Even the seventh day, which commemorates the splitting of the Sea, really just drives home the principle of the futility of the worship of human beings and/or idols and the ultimate sovereignty of Hashem. It is a reflection back on the implications of the Exodus and the significance of our week-long observance of the holiday rather than the introduction of any new theme.

Sukkot, on the other hand, is about establishing a home in the framework of service of Hashem. Unlike Pesah, which is about extricating ourselves and moving upward and away from materialism, Sukkot is about transitioning downward from the transcendence of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur to the gritty realities of life. This is no simple matter; living in the Sukkah day by day brings us ever closer to the ideal of integration and harmony of the material and intellectual elements within us. Our success in progressing toward this ideal is celebrated joyously on Shemini Atseret.

Because every day of Sukkot embodies another stage of progress toward a desired goal, every day has its own sacrifical service, a full Hallel, Lulav and Etrog, etc. The joy of Sukkot extends to all seven days, waxing rather than waning as we build up to the culmination of the process on Shemini Atseret. Unlike Pesah, which expresses itself in the creation and sustaining of a negative (i.e., the avoidance of hametz), Sukkot is a holiday full of constructive and positive commandments, where every day is a milestone worthy of celebration.

This approach to Pesah can also help us explain why we begin counting to Shavuot as soon as the first day of Pesah is concluded. The break away from Egypt leaves us in an intellectual and moral vacuum; we know what we are not, but the mitsvot of Pesah do not provide us with the means to express what we are. For this, we must wait for Shavuot, the occasion of the giving of the Torah. So even as we are still abstaining from hametz to demonstrate the pervasive impact of the message of the first day of Pesah on our lives and households, we are simultaneously preparing ourselves, day after day, to stand at Mount Sinai as true servants of Hashem. The latter six days of Pesah form a part of this transformation, but six more weeks are necessary before we ascend to the pinnacle of spiritual development commemorated on Shavuot. And the desire to fill our inner emptiness with Torah substance is so powerful that we cannot help but initiate our countdown to Shavuot as soon as the first day of Pesah is over!

Hag Kasher V'Sameah to all. After the holiday, I hope to further expand on some of these themes.

How Does Eruv Tavshilin Work?

In principle, it would be prohibited to prepare food on Yom Tov for consumption on Shabbat. To circumvent this restriction, the Rabbis instituted Eruv Tavshilin. Whenever a holiday falls out on a Friday - or, as in our case, Thursday and Friday - we take a piece of bread (matzah) and a cooked dish (oftentimes a hard boiled egg) before the holiday begins. We recite the blessing and eruv declaration and set the food aside for Shabbat use. It is said that, in this way, we demonstrate that we have commenced our preparations for Shabbat prior to Yom Tov. This permits us, in effect, to complete those preparations on the holiday itself.

On the surface, it is not clear what this legal fiction really accomplishes. After all, in the final analysis, we will be cooking and toiling on Friday, a Yom Tov, for the sake of Shabbat, in contradiction to the essential halakha that forbids such activity. What do we gain from this apparently contrived "solution"?

An answer to this difficulty can be gleaned from the Rambam. In the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam codifies the laws of Eruv Tavshilin in the sixth chapter of the Laws of Yom Tov. Strangely, however, he changes the topic of the chapter midstream, in halakha 15, and begins expounding upon the mitzvot to honor Yom Tov and rejoice therein. What is the connection between the technical performance of Eruv Tavshilin and the commandment to celebrate on the Holidays? (Incidentally, this unusual juxtaposition is not only found in the Rambam's presentation. The Talmud, in the very beginning of second chapter of Masekhet Betzah, also discusses the laws of rejoicing on Yom Tov in the midst of its exploration of the laws of Eruv Tavshilin.)

It seems that when Yom Tov falls out on Erev Shabbat we are faced with a unique conundrum. On one hand, Friday is generally the day that the Torah designates as a time of preparation for Shabbat. A double portion of Manna fell for the Jews in the wilderness on Friday and they were commanded "it is Shabbat, a holy day of rest unto Hashem, tomorrow - so whatever you will bake, bake now; whatever you will cook, cook now; whatever is left over, save for the morning."

On the other hand, Yom Tov is a day of rejoicing - a day when, by definition, one should not be preoccupied with preparations for anything else. One's mind and heart should be fully engaged with the thematic content and spirit of the holiday. So, in a certain sense, a Friday Holiday is an inherent contradiction in terms - it is a Yom Tov, a day good in its own right and worthy of its own recognition, but is simultaneously a Friday, a day designated to serve the needs of Shabbat observance.

This, I believe, is the basis for the concept of Eruv Tavshilin. Were we to begin our Shabbat cooking and preparation on Friday, we would be implying that this particular Friday, like all others, is a vehicle for Shabbat and not a time of sanctity in its own right. The Eruv Tavshilin reminds us that, while we are permitted to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbat, that cooking should be seen as a secondary activity, an afterthought, as it were, and not as the main event of the day.

It is of no moment that we do more work for Shabbat on Yom Tov, quantitatively speaking, than we did before Yom Tov. The point is that the requirement to commence food preparation in advance defines the activity on Yom Tov as the completion of a process begun beforehand. Were we to begin cooking from scratch on Yom Tov for Shabbat, this would serve to establish the very identity of the day as a day of preparation. Beginning Shabbat preparations before Yom Tov makes the statement that the work we do on Yom Tov for Shabbat is not a reflection of any change in the essential nature of Yom Tov and should not be seen as compromising its sanctity. We are merely "finishing up" pre-Yom Tov chores on the Holiday.

This explains why the Rambam linked Eruv Tavshilin to the mitzvah of celebrating on Yom Tov. Celebration on Yom Tov is tied to the fact that we view it as a day of holiness and significance in its own right. This significance can be diminished when Yom Tov falls out on Friday and is "hijacked" by the demands of Shabbat preparation. If we relate to the Friday Holiday as little more than a period set aside for Shabbat cooking, this will undermine our ability to genuinely celebrate it.

The impact of such a breakdown would not be limited to the Yom Tov that happens to fall out on Friday. Indeed, the Rabbis were concerned that permitting cooking on Yom Tov for Shabbat could compromise people's esteem for Yom Tov across the board, even when it is observed in the middle of the week. The very fact that Yom Tov can occasionally be instrumental in serving the needs of another day - Shabbat or otherwise - could detract from its importance, sanctity, and joyousness in the eyes of the population at large.

This is where Eruv Tavshilin comes in and "redeems" the joyous quality of Yom Tov. Eruv Tavshilin conceptually transforms the cooking that will take place on Friday into the legal equivalent of an afterthought. This, in turn, underscores and emphasizes the independent significance of Yom Tov, even when it falls out on Friday. As a result of fulfilling the Rabbis' commandment of Eruv Tavshilin, the character of Yom Tov as a time of rejoicing - regardless of the day of the week on which it is celebrated - is preserved and reinforced.

I have more to say about this general area, and further related sources on which to comment, but I will have to save it for Hol Hamoed!

Hag Kasher V'Sameah.

Is Birkat HaChamma A Farce?

There has been much recent discussion, in the J-Blogosphere and elsewhere, of the rare and fascinating Birkat Hachamma or "Blessing of the Sun" that will be performed Wednesday morning. The very fact that this blessing is recited only once in a generation - just a single time every twenty-eight years - is enough to awaken broad interest in its significance. But there is a more fundamental issue preoccupying and even vexing contemporary Jews as they approach this ritual.

To put it bluntly, the astronomical calculations upon which the recitation of Birkat Hachamma is based, which were formulated by the Talmudic sage Shmuel, are now known to be seriously inaccurate. Some rabbis and laypersons have even gone so far as to suggest, as a result of this flaw, that the observance of Birkat Hachamma be discontinued altogether.

A survey of the halakhic literature, however, reveals that the discovery of the limitations of Shmuel's proposed 28-year cosmic cycle predates our era by millenia. Yet this did not prevent our Rabbis from instructing their students to recite the blessing. Indeed, Rabbi Bleich, in his seminal work on Birkat Hachamma that was recently reissued, notes that the Amora Rav Adda, who lived in the same period as Shmuel, introduced a more precise calendrical model that became the foundation for the current Jewish calendar instituted by Hillel II. This means that subsequent generations of scholars were surely aware of the difficulties with Shmuel's model, but did not refrain from reciting Birkat Hachamma as a result.

Rabbi Bleich suggests (and cites numerous sources to the effect) that Shmuel himself, in all likelihood, recognized the approximate nature of his formula but promoted it because of its sheer simplicity and its accessibility to the average person. Moreover, the Rambam, whose astronomy would have been far superior to that of the Talmudic Rabbis and who was certainly aware of the inaccuracies in Shmuel's calculation, nonetheless endorses and codifies the traditional practice of Birkat Hachamma in his Mishneh Torah.

This again indicates that knowledge of the disparity between the twenty-eight year cycle and empirical reality was not considered a legitimate reason to abandon Birkat Hachamma. So the question becomes - why not? If we are reciting a blessing in response to an astronomical phenomenon that is imaginary, aren't we taking God's name in vain?

I believe that there is an important concept at work in the formulation of Birkat Hachamma that is worthy of further exploration. Knowledge of the true principles of Maaseh Beresheet, the lawful and harmonious material universe, is, ultimately, beyond our intellectual capacity. The cycles of the macrocosm - the stars, comets, constellations and even the sun - are so vast and complex as to be nearly unfathomable to us.

Yet halakha is undeterred and creates institutions that reflect these elusive and intricate phenomena in plain human terms. We observe Shabbat every seventh 24-hour day, even though few of us believe that the seven "days" described in Genesis were literal days. We sanctify the new moon, utilize it as the basis for our calendar, etc., despite the fact that our calculations in this respect fall short of scientific precision.

The point here is that the objective of halakha is not to present the empirical realities of the universe as they are; it is designed, instead, to translate those realities into a form that is comprehensible to the average human being in search of knowledge. Thus, our version of Shabbat, while it doesn't do justice to the culmination of primordial six 'days' of creation by any means, nonetheless directs our minds to the contemplation of the Creator through reflection on His magnificent handiwork. And it goes without saying that promoting a "realistic" Shabbat, marked once every several billion years, would have little impact on human existence altogether. It would not inspire, educate or sanctify our lives at all, despite being more "accurate".

The same, I maintain, is true of Birkat Hachamma. The idea behind the blessing is to underscore the notion that there are discernible and predictable cycles of motion at the macro level of the universe. This is a very valuable truth to highlight in general, and would be especially poignant in an idolatrous culture that tended to deify the sun rather than perceive it as manifesting a pattern determined by abstract scientific laws.

The problem is that the actual, empirical cycle of the sun's motion is incalculably vast. Indeed, were we to adopt the relatively more accurate calendrical model of Rav Adda (which still has substantial flaws), we would discover that the vernal equinox has, since creation, never again fallen out on a Tuesday night (i.e., a Wednesday) at 6PM. It is the conjunction of the equinox with the time of the creation of the sun in Genesis that gives rise to Birkat Hachamma and, according to Rav Adda's calendar, this event has not repeated itself even once in the last 5769 years!

The calendar of Shmuel, on the other hand, yields the 28 year cosmic cycle that forms the basis for the blessing. It seems likely that Shmuel's calculations were accepted for this purpose despite their widely recognized inaccuracies simply because they offered us the opportunity of Birkat Hachamma like no other methods of calculation did. Our ultimate goal in this berakha is not to establish or to endorse a particular vision of empirical reality. Instead, we seek to emphasize a grander, more essential concept; namely, that the physical world continually manifests orderly patterns of Divine design, whatever the specifics of those patterns may be. This is fully consistent with our observance of Shabbat and our approach to the sanctification of the New Moon - in all instances, we are less concerned with the details of the material world's operation and more focused on conveying the notion that an intelligible order, only partially accessible to the human mind, permeates Creation.

So as we recite the blessing and acknowledge this important fundamental principle, we also bear in mind the limitations of our finite existence and our inherent inability to genuinely grasp or articulate the majestic cycles of the universe in human terms. We bless on an artificially tweaked version of the cosmic revolutions because that is the best version to which imperfect beings like ourselves can possibly relate!

Laws of Pesah 5769

Back by popular demand, and simplified quite a bit this time. You can download the PDF Version or read it below. The original footnoted version can also be made available upon request (if you would like a copy, email me, and please be patient!).

קיצור הלכות פסח
Essential Laws of Pesah by Rabbi J. Maroof


איסור החמץ - The Prohibition of Hametz

1. On Pesah we are not permitted to eat or to possess any hametz. This includes any food product that contains one of the five grains (wheat, barley, oats, rye or spelt) or one of their many derivatives, unless it has been properly supervised for Pesah use.

2. In addition to the prohibition of eating and possessing hametz, the Torah prohibits us to benefit from it in any way. Therefore, we may not sell it, present it as a gift or feed it to any animals on Pesah.

3. Containers of condiments and spreads like butter, cream cheese and fruit preserves that have been opened and used with hametz should be thrown out and new ones purchased for Pesah.

4. Since spices, oils and other additives are sometimes poured directly into a pot over the fire and may have absorbed hametz from its steam, one should purchase new, unopened ones for Pesah. However, the old ones do not need to be thrown out or sold, just put away.

5. The prohibition of hametz also requires us to treat all of the pots, pans, utensils and other cookware that have been used with hametz as non-Kosher for Pesah use.

6. In addition to the restriction on eating actual hametz, Ashkenazim also refrain from eating kitniyot (‘legumes’, such as rice, corn, and beans) during Pesah. However, they are permitted to possess kitniyot and may utilize pots, pans, dishes and utensils that have been used with kitniyot.

7. The restriction on kitniyot only applies to foods that are primarily made up of kitniyot. Food products that contain less than fifty percent kitniyot AND in which the kitniyot are not recognizable, like soft drinks that contain corn syrup, are permitted even for Ashkenazim on Pesah.

8. Sephardim who are accustomed not to eat kitniyot during Pesah may discontinue their custom if they want to. Ideally, they should ‘annul’ the custom before a Jewish court (bet din).

9. Nowadays, Sephardim who eat kitniyot such as rice that are packaged commercially are not obligated to check them for traces of hametz because the companies that prepare these products have already purified them. However, if one happens to find a grain of hametz mixed in with rice, it must be removed. If one has already cooked the rice, consult a Rabbi about how to proceed (many factors are involved).

10. Sephardim are permitted to eat ‘egg matza’ on Pesah, provided that it is prepared under proper supervision. Ashkenazim only allow egg matza for the sick and elderly who cannot digest regular matza.

11. Some authorities permit both kitniyot and egg matza even for Ashkenazim on Erev Pesah.

12. Items that are not edible, such as shoe polish, aluminum foil, glue, cosmetics, toiletries, shampoos and medicines do not need to be kosher for Pesah (or in general), because they are not foods. Pet food, however, must be kosher for Pesah, because it is considered an edible item.

13. The prohibition of eating hametz will begin on the eve of Pesah – Wednesday, April 8th - in Rockville, Maryland at 11:01 AM this year (in NYC, 10:48 AM). The prohibition to possess, sell or otherwise benefit from hametz will begin at 12:06 PM (in NYC, 11:53 AM).


בדיקת חמץ- The Search for Hametz

1. On the night before Pesah begins – this year, Tuesday, April 7th - every Jew is required to search their property for any hametz. The search should be a genuine, serious inspection for hametz, not a ritualistic walk through the house with a feather and a candle.

2. The search for hametz should begin twenty minutes after sunset or as soon as possible thereafter.

3. Before the search, we recite the appropriate beracha (found either in the Haggada or Pesah prayerbook) and proceed to inspect all areas that we may have brought hametz into during the year. This includes our homes, cars, offices, coat pockets, etc.

4. A flashlight should be used during the search so that one can inspect all of the necessary areas with sufficient lighting.

5. There is no need for ‘spring cleaning’ during the search for hametz. One should concentrate on finding substantial pieces of hametz (like a cookie or pretzel) rather than sweeping up crumbs. If there is extra time, removing even smaller bits of hametz is an enhancement of the mitzvah.

6. After the search for hametz, one should gather all the hametz one intends to save for dinner or breakfast and keep it in one place.

7. When the search for hametz is concluded, one must say the nullification of hametz (‘bittul hametz’) formula found in the Haggada or Mahazor. The nullification statement is repeated in a slightly different form in the morning, right after one destroys or eats the last of one’s hametz.

8. If one is going away for the holiday before the night of the search but is leaving less than a month before Pesah one must conduct a proper search for hametz without a beracha on the last night that one is still home. One should recite the nighttime ‘bittul hametz’ formula immediately after the search, but should wait until erev Pesah to make the daytime “bittul” statement.


ערב פסח - The Eve of Pesah

1. On the eve of Pesah – this year, Wednesday, April 8th - it is prohibited to eat matza, so that the matza eaten at the seder will be special. Egg matza is permitted for Sephardim as well as for those Ashkenazim who are lenient in this matter on Erev Pesah.

2. It is customary that every firstborn male fasts on the eve of Pesah. The fast may be broken if one attends a ‘Siyum Masechet’, a celebration held when somebody completes the study of an entire tractate of the Talmud.

3. Where possible, first born females should attend the Siyum as well, since many authorities maintain that they are also obligated to fast.

4. One is not permitted to begin work projects that are very involved after midday on Erev Pesah so that one can fully devote one’s energy to preparing for the seder.

5. Beginning about two and a half hours before sunset on Erev Pesah, one is not permitted to eat the equivalent of a meal (even of egg matza), so that he/she will be hungry enough to enjoy dining at the seder. Snacks of fruits and vegetables are permitted.


ערוב תבשילין - Eruv Tavshilin

1. On Yom Tov, it is prohibited to make preparations for any other day. Therefore, When Yom Tov falls on a Friday we are required to create an Eruv Tavshilin in order to permit us to prepare for Shabbat. The Eruv must be prepared before the holiday begins.

2. The Eruv Tavshilin is made by taking a cooked dish (like a hard boiled egg) and a piece of matza and then reciting the beracha and declaration written in the machzor or haggada.

3. It is preferable to recite the Eruv declaration in a language that one understands.

4. When Yom Tov falls out on a Thursday and Friday, preparations for Shabbat may only be made on Friday, despite the fact that the Eruv was created on Wednesday.

5. When preparing for Shabbat on Yom Tov, one should complete one’s preparations early in the afternoon so that it is not obvious that one is using Yom Tov to prepare for Shabbat.

6. It is customary to eat the Eruv Tavshilin at Seudah Shelishit on Shabbat.



הכשר כלים -Kashering Vessels

1. Many people keep separate sets of cookware and utensils for Pesah use. If, however, one wishes to use one’s year-round kitchenware for Pesah, it must first undergo a process of ‘kashering’. In order to avoid complications, it is best to complete this process before hametz becomes prohibited (i.e., before 11:01 AM on April 8th this year).

2. Only metal, stone, wood and plastic vessels can be kashered. Items made from earthenware, such as china, cannot be kashered.

3. Sephardim do not require any kashering for glass and Pyrex vessels and are permitted to use them after a thorough cleaning. Ashkenazim treat these items like earthenware and prohibit their use for Pesah unless they have been used exclusively with cold food.

4. The method used to kasher an item is always based on the way in which the item is used. A vessel that is used for cooking liquidy substances, such as a pot, should be kashered by boiling water in it and then dropping a hot rock or hot piece of metal into it so that it boils over on all sides. Utensils such as soup ladles and carving knives that are placed directly into hot pots are kashered by completely submerging them in a pot filled with boiling water. Serving platters and strainers that have food poured onto them from hot pots are generally kashered in this way as well.

5. After kashering a vessel with boiling water, it is customary to rinse the item off with cold water.

6. Customs differ with regard to kashering vessels that are used for eating hot food but have no direct contact with hot cookware (for example, forks, spoons, knives, etc.) Sephardim may kasher these utensils by cleaning them thoroughly and then running them through a regular cycle in a kosher-for-Pesah dishwasher. Ashkenazim require all vessels that come into contact with hot food to be kashered through placement in a pot of boiling hot water.

7. According to Ashkenazic practice, a vessel must be left unused for 24 hours before being purged with boiling water for Pesah use. Sephardim are only required to observe this stringency in two cases: (1) when kashering a microwave and (2) when kashering meat and dairy vessels together in the same vat. However, it is meritorious for Sephardim to follow the stringent practice in all cases if possible.

8. Before a vessel can be kashered with boiling water, it must be totally clean. When cleaning a vessel to prepare it for kashering, one may come across food substances that adhere to it and cannot be removed. In such cases, simply apply a caustic cleaner such as bleach or detergent to the substance in order to render it inedible.

9. A vessel upon which dry food is directly placed to cook, like a grill or baking pan, should be kashered by cleaning it carefully and then heating it until it is red hot (libun). This is the most intense form of kashering, and vessels kashered in this way do not need to be left unused for 24 hours beforehand.

10. Vessels used for cold food only, such as goblets for Kiddush or cups used for cold drinks, need only to be rinsed with water and are permitted for Pesah use.

11. According to Sephardim, if a vessel is used in different ways at different times, the method of kashering that is applied will follow the primary usage. For example, if a pot normally used for cooking liquidy foods were used for dry cooking once or twice, it would still be kashered by boiling water inside. Similarly, if a fork normally used for eating was used to stir a pot over the fire a couple of times, it could still be kashered by a run through the dishwasher. However, if the vessel was used in a more intense way than usual during the past 24 hours, the more intense method of kashering must be applied.

12. Ashkenazim always kasher based on the most intense way that the vessel has been used with food, even if it has been used that way only once. Therefore, in the two cases mentioned in Law #11, the pot would need to be heated until red hot and the fork would need to be placed in a pot of boiling water.

13. If one carefully cleans one’s oven racks and covers all food placed in the oven with single sheets of tin foil, there is no need to kasher the oven because there is no way for food cooked in the oven to absorb hametz from it.

14. If one does decide to kasher an oven, self-cleaning is perfectly acceptable. If one’s oven does not have a self-cleaning option, one should carefully clean the racks and walls of the oven and then - after leaving it unused for 24 hours - place the oven on its highest temperature setting for one hour.

15. For Sephardim, the grates on which pots are placed on a gas or electric stovetop need only to be spotlessly cleaned to be kosher for Pesah. As an added measure of stringency, some Sephardim also place them into a pot of boiling hot water.

16. After cleaning the grates, Ashkenazim are required to heat them to the temperature at which a tissue that touched them would ignite.

17. Sephardim may kasher dishwashers, regardless of the material they are made of, by leaving them unused for 24 hours and then running them (without dishes inside) through at least one complete cycle with detergent. Ideally, for Ashkenazim, three complete dishwasher cycles should be run (only one needs to include detergent). The racks do not need to be changed.

18. For Sephardim, sinks, countertops and tabletops require nothing more than a careful cleaning to be kosher for Pesah (however, please be sure to consult Law #20.) Some Sephardim are stringent with sinks and, in addition to cleaning them, pour boiling hot water over them

19. Ashkenazim are advised not to use their sinks, countertops or tabletops without kashering them first. They should either (1) not use these items with anything hot for 24 hours and then pour boiling water over them OR (2) simply clean and then cover them.

20. If a sink, countertop, tabletop or stove grate is known to have had contact with hot hametz during the past 24 hours, then Sephardim are required to kasher them according to the same standards as Ashkenazim.

21. Dish sponges and toothbrushes should be cleaned thoroughly with hot water or replaced for the holiday.

22. A microwave can be kashered by leaving it over for 24 hours, cleaning the inside thoroughly and then heating a dish of water in the microwave until it is filled with steam.

23. Refrigerators and cabinets need only to be wiped down with water to be kosher for Pesah. Dish strainers on which clean dishes are placed to dry do not require any kashering at all.

24. If one is not planning on using a particular vessel or appliance for Pesah, it does not require any kashering. Non-Pesah vessels should be cleaned and put away, preferably in a cabinet that is taped up or locked.


ליל הסדר - The Seder Night

1. One may not begin the Pesah Seder until at least 45 minutes after sunset.

2. Men, women and children are obligated to fulfill all the mitzvot of the night. It is especially important for children to have the Haggada explained to them.

3. The custom of Sephardim is to use red wine for the Four Cups, even if superior white wine is available. The custom of Ashkenazim is to use red wine unless a superior white wine is available.

4. The minimum amount of wine that must be contained in each of the four cups is approximately 3 fluid ounces. One must drink more than half of each cup (about 1.6 fl. oz.) to fulfill the mitzvah.

5. Almost any vegetable may be used for karpas, provided that its blessing is bore peri ha-adama. One should make sure that any vegetables eaten at the Seder (and all year round) have been carefully inspected for bugs.

6. It is preferable to use handmade matza shemura for the Seder. However, machine-made shemura is also acceptable.

7. It is ideal to use Romaine lettuce for Maror.

8. Everyone participating in the Seder is required to lean to the left when drinking any of the four cups or eating the matza, korech, or the afikoman. If a man forgot to lean while performing one of the mitzvot he must go back and redo it. Women may be lenient and need not repeat the mitzvah.

9. Sephardim recite the beracha of Borei Pri Hagefen only on the first and third cups. Ashkenazim say a beracha on all four cups.

10. The most essential part of the Haggada is “Rabban Gamliel Haya Omer”, in which the special mitzvot of the night are explained.

11. The minimum amount of matza that must be eaten for each mitzva is a little more than one third of a medium size handmade matza. However, for motzi matza on the first night, one should eat at least half of a handmade matza.The minimum amount of maror one must eat for each mitzvah is approximately 28 grams.

12. One should make every effort to complete the entire Seder, including Hallel, before “midnight” (in Rockville this year, 1:11 AM; in NYC, 12:58 AM). If this is not possible, one should at least eat the afikoman before this time.

Can Women Issue Halakhic Rulings?

(This is cross-posted on my Ask the Rabbi blog.)

I was recently asked to respond to the question of whether a woman who is knowledgeable in Torah Law may issue rulings on matters of halakha. My answer, in brief, is contained in this post; I apologize in advance for my uncharacteristic use of Hebrew letters and terminology, I have not had a chance to translate the relevant "lingo" from the original document into English just yet.

(Incidentally, you can read the entire paper, complete with some interesting and even surprising footnotes, here.)

There is a paucity of classical source material addressing the question of whether qualified women can render halakhic decisions, i.e., give הוראה. However, what material does exist is uniformly and clearly in support of the permissibility of women being halakhic decisors (מורות הוראה). For example, the ספר החינוך in פרשת שמיני מצוה קנ"ח writes that the prohibition of giving הוראה while intoxicated applies both to men and to women who are qualified to rule on halakhic issues.

Furthermore, the ברכי יוסף, written by the renowned sage מרן החיד"א and cited approvingly in פתחי תשובה חו"מ סימן ז' ס"ק ה states unequivocally that, although women are not permitted to serve as judges on a rabbinical court, a knowledgeable woman may issue decisions on matters of halakha. Former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, Harav Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, concurs with this view in his responsa שו"ת בנין אב as did one of his most illustrious predecessors, Harav Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel in both משפטי עוזיאל and פסקי עוזיאל.

The פתחי תשובה points out that this distinction is, in principle, made by the ספר החינוך as well, inasmuch as he states that women are forbidden from serving as judges but nevertheless allows for the possibility of legitimate מורות הוראה who would be required to observe the mitzvah prohibiting them from engaging in halakhic decision-making while under the influence of alcohol.

As the פ"ת mentions, this approach is also supported by תוספות in מסכת נדה דף נ, who argue that, even if Devorah was not permitted to serve as the official judge of the Jewish people, she must at least have instructed the judges in the proper interpretation of the law - i.e., been מורה הוראה to them.

This dichotomy, however, appears problematic. Why should a woman be entitled to render halakhic decisions yet be barred from serving as a judge? In order to understand the answer, we must clarify the fundamental difference between the concepts of הוראה and פסיקת דין and the legal mechanisms by which they operate.

The literal meaning of הוראה is teaching or instruction; indeed, the words הוראה and תורה share the same Hebrew root. Specifically,הוראה refers to the application of the abstract principles of Torah Law to the concrete particulars of life. In essence, then, הוראה is nothing more than a by-product of intensive Torah study. When one develops a thorough and comprehensive theoretical knowledge of an area of Jewish law, and applies that knowledge to the practical exigencies of life, one is basically engaging in הוראה.

This is not to say that all Torah study is created equal. On the contrary, the validity of any הוראה will be a function of the quality of the research and analysis that produced it. Not all explanations are correct, not all interpretations are valid, and not all conclusions are warranted. Even the most distinguished and scholarly Yeshiva students, Rabbis, men and women are subject to occasional error, flaws in reasoning, forgetfulness and bias. As the רמ"א explains in ש"ע יו"ד in סימן רמ"ב סעיף י"ד, both halakha and tradition dictate that one may not rely upon - or encourage others to rely upon - the conclusions that emerge from one’s personal analysis of the Law until one has received explicit permission to do so from one’s teacher. This restriction, similar to secular ‘quality control’ laws that require doctors, lawyers, etc., to receive an accredited education and be licensed before practicing in their fields, prevents students who are insufficiently prepared from adhering to or disseminating their own incorrect rulings prematurely.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the goal of all learning is to bring the practical implications of Torah to bear upon our lives; therefore, we can safely assert - at least in theory - that every well-executed, sincere and genuine act of תלמוד תורה has the potential to culminate in some kind of הוראה, whether it is a הוראה to oneself or a הוראה to someone else. The essential point here is that the core of any given act of הוראה is the process of Torah study upon which it is based and from which it emerges, and that this process is equally accessible to competent men and to competent women.

Judgment, or פסיקת דין , on the other hand, derives its validity not from the process that produces it but from the stature of the one who issues it. Judgment is, by its very nature, an act of governance (שררה) and an exercise of personal authoritative leadership rather than the outgrowth of a specific act of תלמוד תורה. In this sense, serving as a judge is more akin to receiving the original form of semikha that was conferred from Rabbi to student from the days of Moshe Rabbenu until persecutions led to its discontinuation during the Talmudic period. The quality of being a מוסמך or a בעל המסורה inheres in the recipient, endowing his person with unique legal authority (שררה) and his decisions with legitimacy and binding force.

In the framework of פסיקת דין, then, the legal decisions of the individual are manifestations of the special status with which he is vested and take effect by virtue of that status alone. Since today we lack the authentic Sinaitic ordination, a lone judge cannot arrogate to himself the level of authority once possessed by a יחיד מומחה המוסמך; it is instead granted to the collective of three judges who convene a בית דין. Once the בית דין rules on a case, this ruling cannot be reversed unless a manifest error in the proceedings is discovered. This is because the binding nature of the decision is intrinsic, enshrined by the authority of the team of judges and not contingent upon any other factor.3

Granting a woman this form of political authority, or שררה, is what most Rishonim find objectionable about the prospect of allowing women to serve as judges. Prohibiting women from holding positions of שררה ensures that they remain free from communal obligation so that they can dedicate themselves to maintaining the integrity and sanctity of the Jewish family which was placed in their care by הקב"ה.

We can now understand why women may indeed be מורות הוראה but may not, according to most opinions, hold official positions of שררה such as judgeships. Women are capable of engaging in the study of Torah at high levels and their theories and conclusions deserve to be accorded the same respect and weight as those of their male counterparts. As long as their process of Torah study is legitimate, the הוראות that organically emerge from it are, by definition, legitimate as well. The validity or binding force of a given halakhic conclusion is not contingent upon the political station of its proponent but upon the research and analysis that generated it; espousing such a conclusion neither necessitates nor entails שררה.

In summary, the act of הוראה is essentially an act of learning or teaching and is not a manifestation of an individual’s political authority or שררה at all. Therefore, a competent, knowledgeable and God fearing woman who receives the requisite permission from her teachers is entitled to be מורה הוראה.

Women's Issues

On the heels of Hakham Ovadiah Yosef's recent espousal of liberal views regarding women and Megillah - novel to some but not intrinsically newsworthy since he has been quite candid about his position on these issues for many, many years already - comes an article on the question of the ordination of women as Orthodox Rabbis.

For many years I have planned to write a paper on this very subject including a systematic review and analysis of the relevant halakhic sources (there are a limited number but their implications are quite fascinating). The appearance of this news item has reawakened my interest in doing so in the near future. Perhaps the blogosphere is the ideal venue for its publication, one installment as a time. To be continued, I suppose...

Poetic Interpretation IV

Continuing our explanation of "The Door" from previous posts.

When we left off our discussion, the escaped inmate's newfound solace was disrupted by the sirens and flashing lights of approaching police. He runs as fast as he possibly can, wishing it could be faster and that time would stand still. Then we read:

But his steely sleek competitor was unimpressed,
And with the cockiness of an amateur brush
Clumsily plumbed the palette of his misery;
A bright crimson mosaic now taking shape
On the crumbling asphalt canvas
Concrete soaking in every hue of aspiration,
Life wriggling to wrest itself from the grasp
Of desperation decomposed.

The "steely sleek competitor" is of course a bullet, which then penetrates his body. It is "unimpressed" because, even after all his efforts, he is no match for the speed of the bullet destined to end his life.

The next metaphor used here is that of an amateur painter's brush, which he clumsily plunges into a palette in order to begin working. In our case, the "brush" is the bullet which enters the escapee's body, "the palette of his misery". We then see the street become a "canvas" for a "crimson mosaic", i.e., his blood, and the concrete soaking in his "aspirations", i.e., his bodily fluids, which represent his ambition, creative potential, desires, etc. In other words, instead of his capacity for creativity being actualized through free choice and behavior, he himself became "material" for the "amateur brush" of a police bullet and used to "paint" the asphalt. Life now leaves him as his resistance to death slowly dissipates and he "decomposes".

The poem then provides us with a "retrospective" in the mind of the dying prisoner as he considers the irony of the whole situation. An open door, a window of opportunity was in reality a pathway to his own demise. Yet his fixation on the open door couldn't be reasoned away despite the risks, like the temptation of gazing at an eclipse when one shouldn't or irritating a wound even though it will delay the healing process.

Many more images are utilized to illustrate the notion that the door, for all its tantalizing power, was in fact the gateway to tragedy for the prisoner - for example, it was like the disingenuous talk of a used car salesman, the memorable beginning to a forgotten text (i.e., his potential new life would now be forgotten), or the entrance of an exquisitely dressed actor onto the stage not realizing it will be his last performance (he has on "raiment of oblivious glamor") just as the inmate reemerged on the "stage of life" in glory not realizing it was literally the beginning of the end for him.

Finally, we see that the whole narrative - the escape, the reunion with loved ones and employer, and the shooting a death - never actually happened. Instead, what we have been reading is the mental projection of the prisoner - what he believed would happen were he to avail himself of the opportunity to escape. He imagined a short-lived experience of joy and exhilaration followed by tragedy and death, and concluded that he would be a fool to risk such a move. Hence, overcoming the temptation once and for all, he shut the door.

One could interpret the underlying message of the poem in one of two ways. The first is positive - the prisoner is wise, he exercises forethought, deliberates carefully, and makes a prudent decision not to leave his cell. If only we all considered the potential consequences of our actions so carefully in advance!

The second possible interpretation is the negative one - namely, that the prisoner is so afraid of taking risks, so obsessed with the possible fallout of an unconventional move, that he timidly refrains from pursuing the opportunity of a lifetime for the sake of comfort and security.

This would metaphorically speak to all of us on a different level - we are all prisoners of conventional ideas, attitudes and habits, and we are conscious of this to some extent, but we are often too frightened of the consequences of bucking convention to explore the alternatives.

We imagine the fallout from such risky decisions as potentially tragic. Therefore, we resign ourselves to the bleak though predictable and socially acceptable confines of conventional human life rather than take a chance on true freedom.

Poetic Interpretation III

A third brief installment of our analysis of "The Door":

His boss on the other hand patently unfazed
For they all knew it was a mistake
And he'd one day return to join them.

The prisoner, having found freedom, reconnects not only with his love interest but also with his employer (how he does the latter is not specified - by telephone perhaps?) In contradistinction to the confused reaction of the girl, the boss is "patently unfazed". What exactly does it mean to be patently unfazed?

I would suggest the following explanation: The boss shows no sign of surprise or bewilderment in his welcome to the former inmate who was his former employee. But he is "patently unfazed" by the prisoner's reappearance. "Patently" is typically associated with "false", as in the common phrase "patently false", and immediately reminds us of that expression. In other words, the boss projects an air of being unfazed, but it is more about being politically correct and cordial than an indication of his true thoughts, which may be slightly suspicious of the circumstances surrounding the inmate's "early release".

In the verse "for they all knew it was a mistake and he'd one day return to join them" we hear echoes of free indirect style again. We can imagine the boss making just such a statement of confidence in his former employee. "They all knew it was a mistake" is somewhat ambiguous, probably purposely so; either the conviction of the criminal was itself a mistake and the prisoner was innocent, so his eventual acquittal was anticipated, or the crime was committed by mistake, so leniency in sentencing was to be expected.

So he rested
Satisfaction bathing him like the cool massage
Of a million sprinkler kisses
Consoling victims of summer sun's piracy.

The metaphor of the spray of a sprinkler being like a massage of millions of wet kisses conjures up images of relief from the heat on a brutal summer afternoon. "Consoling victims of summer sun's piracy" - the summer sun is a pirate and we are victims in the sense that the sun's heat robs us of our hydration and energy, leaving us worn down and exhausted. A spray of cool water consoles us on that the loss by refreshing us once again.

Alas, he should have realized
That the coveted award of solace
Was not to be so easily conferred;
For then the nauseating ebb and flow
Of a shrill familiar battle cry descended
Desecrating his moment with self-righteous blasphemy;

What is the escaped convict's greatest fear? What would disrupt his newfound sense of comfort most jarringly? Of course, the police arriving in hot pursuit!

The "nauseating ebb and flow" of the siren, the "shrill familiar battle cry" - which is familiar because, as a prisoner, he no doubt heard it before when he was apprehended the first time, and also because everyone recognizes that sound when they hear it - "descends upon him"; usually a battle cry is described as ascending, but here it is descending because the police are swooping down to capture him, so to speak.

His moment of freedom was a holy, sanctified entity to him, which the police officers have now come to desecrate by recapturing him. They have the official law on their side and are thus "self-righteous" in their view of him as a deviant, but relative to the perspective of the escapee their act is one of "blasphemy".

Cheap gyrating lights of a hellish disco invading paradise
Suffocated him with their insistence.

Along the lines of the interpretation we've been advancing, we can now see that the gyrating lights are those of the police cars. From the standpoint of the escaped prisoner they are products of a hell that have arrived to ruin his paradise. In his mind they are similar to the cheap artificial lights used in a disco (a symbol of superficiality) which pale by comparison to the genuine beauty he finds in his current idyllic state. The lights on the police car are also red, which is alluded to in the "hellish" metaphor.

The escapee is "suffocated" by the sights and sounds of approaching police - in other words, he inward sense of satisfaction is destroyed as he is overwhelmed by the external conditions that are literally closing in on him like hands around the throat of one being suffocated. He is compelled to respond for the sake of survival, like a person who is literally suffocated and thereby forced to do whatever necessary to breathe freely. Allusion to the experience of suffocation elicits an almost visceral reaction from the reader, as the prospect of drowning of suffocating is very frightening and would be avoided by us at nearly any cost (think waterboarding).

So he runs....

To be continued next week.

Shabbat Shalom!

Poetic Interpretation II

Let us continue our analysis of "The Door" to further exemplify the poetic mode of expression and its interpretation. The next lines read:

And back to his very own Waldorf Astorian hovel
Perched gloriously amidst beer cans and metal detectors.

We can gather from these verses that the prisoner has escaped to a place that is "his very own". But the phraseology employed is bizarre and counterintuitive. "Waldorf Astorian hovel" seems like a contradiction in terms, being that the Waldorf Astoria is one of the premiere luxury hotels in the world. Similarly, being amidst "beer cans and metal detectors" would seem incommensurate with "perched gloriously", which carries an air of grandeur.

This case illustrates how poetry can purposely invoke inconsistency and contradiction in order to convey a deeper message. The prisoner returns to a place which would be objectively deemed a hovel. But to him, a newly escaped inmate, it is the Waldorf Astoria. His neighborhood might be a bad one, with beer cans strewn about and metal detectors positioned at the front of every building. But to him it is a gloriously perched palace of the first order.

Surprised arms of the girl of his dreams greeted him
Hovering about him so as not to break him
Tantalizing him with their almost warmth
Her vision still confounded by a misty bewilderment
- Because, after all, what was he doing there?

The girl wants to embrace him warmly but hesitates. She is confused by the whole situation and doesn't know what to make of it. This leads her to cautiously restrain her emotion, to his mild chagrin. Her vision is blocked by a "misty bewilderment", i.e., she is crying, probably out of joy, but is also profoundly unsure of what is happening.

The next line "because, after all, what was he doing there" is an instance of what James Wood calls "free indirect style" (I don't think he invented the terminology, but I learned it from his book). For a moment we hear what the girl herself is actually thinking, in her own words, but without being informed as such. The abrupt change in poetic style leads us intuitively to the conclusion that we are listening to her inner response to the circumstances unfolding around her.

If the poet had written, "she thinks to herself" or "she says 'what are you doing here'" then the surreal quality of the poem would have been replaced with the formality of traditional narrative which describes phenomena rather than allowing us to experience them. The use of free indirect style offers us a glimpse into the mind and heart of one of the characters in the poem without jolting the reader out of an image-based, purely poetic mode of reflection.

Poetry and the Point of Entry

In his comment on the previous post, Rabbi Sacks expressed an inability to identify the 'point of entry' into poetry of the kind presented there.

I must confess that for many years I had an aversion to this kind of poetry and that it took a decent amount of work for me to develop the skills necessary to appreciate it. A book that taps into some of the aspects of literature relevant to this process is "How Fiction Works" by James Wood, which I highly recommend for this purpose.

In my opinion, the key to fathoming poetry like "The Door" is proceeding slowly and exploring each unusual image or phrase independently. We are accustomed to reading on a more abstract level where terms, statements and the relationships among them register more distinctly in our minds. Poetry requires a different level of reflection to be comprehended.

Let us take an example to illustrate this point. The opening lines of "The Door" are:

The door was ajar
Gleam of freedom's seductive smile
Wrapped like tiny fingers around its edge

Now, read haphazardly, this is just a bunch of disjointed ramblings. But considered more critically, a more specific picture begins to emerge. A door is open, and presents the opportunity for freedom to someone inside a room, perhaps a prisoner.

The poem states that the gleam of freedom's smile is wrapped around the edge of the door. Picture an inmate who is stuck in a prison cell to which the door was unwittingly left open. How would he first notice the presence of potential for an escape? He could infer it from the fact that light - a 'gleam' - was making its way around the door where it would normally be blocked out. This light, to him, as it bends around the edge of the door, is like an invitation from freedom itself, beckoning him to pursue it (hence it is a 'seductive smile').

Another case in point can be observed in the next passage:

So he left,
Carried on the feet of a first night ballerina
Gracefully buckling under adrenaline's weight
Tiptoeing around the ignorant snores
Of a poorly paid watchman

The prisoner makes his escape - but what is the metaphor of the 'first night ballerina'?

Imagine a ballerina on the night of her debut performance. She appears to move gracefully, and consciously wills herself to do so, but the rush of adrenaline makes her shake inside; she is terribly nervous and jittery despite the apparent effortlessness of her dance. The prisoner, then, is carefully but very anxiously moving out of his cell, perhaps outwardly graceful but inwardly frightened.

He "tiptoes around ignorant snores" meaning that he doesn't wish to wake the blissfully unaware guard who is sleeping on the job and would apprehend him were he to notice. To trample on his snores would be to rouse him from his slumber. The description "poorly paid watchman" implies that the watchman is negligent precisely because he is not well compensated and is therefore lacking in vigilance or enthusiasm for his job, hence the sleeping.

(Incidentally, if anyone would like to propose an alternative interpretation, I would love to hear it, but this is my conception of the piece.)

What we discover then is one of the fundamental principles of poetry - it communicates as much content as possible through the medium of imagery and colorfully loaded metaphoric words and phrases, while avoiding abstract prose-type description as much as possible.

Poetry is designed to create a rich and compelling image from which a message or theme becomes apparent to the thoughtful reader, as opposed to simply articulating that theme in a direct, detached or dictatorial manner. This makes it an especially potent and memorable form of expression once one is able to access the deeper levels of its meaning.

In upcoming posts, I plan to elaborate on my commentary to The Door; in the course of the discussion I hope to introduce some of the ideas presented in the aforementioned book by James Wood and in a fascinating essay by Isaiah Berlin (The Naivete of Verdi) that are relevant to this study.

Please feel free to chime in with your own thoughts, responses and reactions along the way!

An Exercise in Poetic Analysis

In order to read and interpret the Written Torah skillfully, one must have a sense of appreciation for nuance in literature in general. I enjoyed the imagery and flow of the following anonymously composed poem, "The Door", so I thought I would share it with the readership to elicit their reactions and responses. It can serve as a nice exercise in the analysis of literature in terms of both form and substance. Please consider the following questions:

1) What descriptive elements, metaphors, etc., of the poem, if any, strike you as especially compelling? What aspects do you find weaker?

2) What stylistic features of the poem stand out? Are any of the turns of phrase particularly smooth? Are any of the expressions too cumbersome? Is the style even throughout, or does it change at certain points? What do you think the motive of the author is in shaping the poem the way it is?

3) Overall, what would you say is the essential message of the work? What is it about the poem that determined your impression of its purpose?

I will chime in with my own musings later...For now, here is the poem:

THE DOOR

The door was ajar

Gleam of freedom’s seductive smile

Wrapped like tiny fingers around its edge;

So he left,

Carried on the feet of a first night ballerina

Gracefully buckling under adrenaline’s weight;

Tiptoeing around the ignorant snores

Of a poorly paid watchman

And back to his very own Waldorf Astorian hovel

Perched gloriously amidst beer cans and metal detectors.

The surprised arms of the girl of his dreams greeted him

Hovering about him so as not to break him

Tantalizing him with their almost warmth,

Her vision still confounded by a misty bewilderment

-Because, after all, what was he doing there?

His boss on the other hand patently unfazed

For they all knew it was a mistake

And he’d one day return to join them.

So he rested,

Satisfaction bathing him like the cool massage

Of a million sprinkler kisses

Consoling victims of summer sun’s piracy.

Alas, he should have realized

That the coveted award of solace

Was not to be so easily conferred;

For then the nauseating ebb and flow

Of a shrill familiar battle cry descended,

Desecrating his moment with self-righteous blasphemy;

Cheap gyrating lights of a hellish disco invading paradise

Suffocated him with their insistence.

So he ran,

Ruthlessly dragging iron limb by iron limb

Like parents of a stubborn little child who just won’t move;

Olympic muscles straining as if to race past themselves,

A silent prayer tossed heavenward

Beseeching Father Time for some small respite -

But his steely sleek competitor was unimpressed,

And with the cockiness of an amateur brush

Clumsily plumbed the palette of his misery;

A bright crimson mosaic now taking shape

On the crumbling asphalt canvas,

Concrete soaking in every hue of aspiration,

Life wriggling to wrest itself from the grasp

Of desperation decomposed.

It was all because of the door

Its accidental sliver of sunlight and shadow

Coaxing him with destiny’s charm;

It was all because of the door

Waving motionlessly, impossible to let alone

Like a sore you can’t help irritating just to feel the pain

Or an eclipse you stare at stupidly against the teacher's orders;

It was all because of the door

Rattling off promises of godforsaken blessing

Like a used car salesman who knows the truth;

It was all because of the door

Rusty gate leading to a garden of regrets

Portal to what could have been;

It was all because of the door

Extravagant prelude to a premature conclusion

Memorable introduction to a forgotten litany;

It was all because of the door,

Leading an ambitious actor

Decked out in raiment of oblivious glamour

To his final curtain call;

Yes, it was all because of the door -

So he shut it.