Thoughts On Being Modern

There is a term that has come into popular use in the last decade or two.

"Modern".

That is really a euphemism for "less observant". The moment one decides that he or she is "modern" then television, movies, negiya, more revealing clothing for girls, mixed swimming etc. etc. become suddenly, miraculously, by the grace of G-d - "permitted".

"I am modern. I am not shomer negiya". According to the shulchan aruch the laws of negiyah are yehareig vi-al yaavor. Like, if I was told to give a married woman [or a single girl after about the age of 12] a peck on the cheek or die then the halachically mandated choice is the latter. Being "modern" doesn't change halacha - just its erstwhile followers. [So happy that I had the opportunity to use the word "erstwhile":-)]. Might seem a bit extreme but one thing I will assure you - no man who keeps these laws as they are written has ever been unfaithful to his wife. EVER. Does wonders for shalom bayis. Can't even LOOK at someone else's wife.

I am not judging "Modern" people. One may not judge someone else until he is in that person's place [pirkei avos] so who am I to judge individuals. I have not a short list of my own personal shortcomings.  Everybody is experiencing challenges and people cope differently. Some become religiously stronger and more aware while many many others lose it to differing degrees.

Some people who are more "modern" in their bein adam la-Makom, are very holy in their bein adam la-chaveiro. I have a friend who puts on his tfillin daily, says his shma and that is more or less it. I am not sure if he "does" mincha and maariv and by his own admission he doesn't learn. He is not especially careful to keep various areas of halacha. BUT, he quietly helps poor people survive. No noise or fanfare. Just writing checks to feed and cloth poor families. I know people who are less modern, more "charedi" but lack a warm compassionate heart. They love Judaism but not as much as they love their money. A black hat doesn't instantaneously make one an ohev yisrael who can't sleep at night because he is trying to think of ways to help the less fortunate. Makes me nauseous when I think of people's level of goodness being determined by their external appearance. [Just as an aside, a friend overheard a married "charedi" women with a sheitel talking too loudly on her cell phone on the bus with her boyfriend and planning her escape from her husband and restrictive charedi lifestyle. Don't judge based on externals...].

The ideal, of course, is to be equally careful and vigilant in keeping all of the mitzvos. The same G-d commanded both. The 2 luchos were split up 5-5, G-d and man - Man and man and were of equal size. There is equality between the two areas. Rav Hutner pointed out that the Rav Yisrael Meyer Kagan's two most seminal works were the Mishna Brura [G-d and man] and the sefer Chofetz Chaim [lashon ha-ra, man and man]. He revolutionized the Jewish world with both works. We must also strive to find that harmony in our own lives.

Is there anything wrong with being "modern" in the classical sense as defined by the dictionary: Based on or using the newest information, methods, or technology. Nothing at all.

Let me give an example. If you walk into a kollel you will often see men who are clearly not modern [in the colloquial sense] sitting and learning with a computer. This is an innovation. 20 years ago this was not happening. But they are using "modern" technology in the service of Torah. [As I am doing this second. I am also "modern" because it is almost 2am and I am typing with one hand while the other holds my baby as my wife sleeps. That is modern. But don't worry, my wife is the furthest thing from a "woman's libber":-). Wouldn't be a good match if she were....]

Every modern innovation must be put under the microscope and scrutinized: Does this enhance religious practice or detract from it [or is it neutral. Is there a neutral ground?]. If it is in the former category then we embrace it while if it is not then we reject it.

Religious people are not against "modernity". They are against it when it impinges upon religious practice and spirituality.

ודוק  

Priorites In Tzedaka

Laws of Tzedakah Part II: To Whom To Give First

2 Elul 5770

Harav Yosef Fleischman - dinonline.org

  

Recent times have brought something of a revolution in charity giving. Instead of the personal, local giving that was always the basic norm for making donations, various tzedakah organizations (both local and nationwide) have attempted to convince charity givers nation- (in Israel) and world-wide to give them charity donations for distribution among the needy. The publicity and propaganda methods used by these organizations has been effective in raising awareness of charity needs and inspiring donations, yet has also caused a certain confusion with regard to the order of priority for making donations to charity, which is a strictly halachic issue. In this shiur we will describe the halachic order in which charity money should be distributed.

1. Saving a life takes precedence over all other needs and requirements,¹ including even the support of Torah study.²  The following are examples of saving lives: Redeeming a captive from his captivity;³  aiding somebody whose poverty is so extreme that he is liable to die of hunger;⁴  purchasing medicine for somebody in danger of dying of his illness.
2. Supporting the study of Torah, for example the support of a kolel, a yeshiva, or a Torah elementary school, takes priority over the building of a shul and charity to the poor—so long as their poverty does not endanger their lives.⁵
3. Authorities dispute whether supporting an elementary school (cheider) takes precedence over supporting Torah scholars (a kolel), or whether the support of Torah scholars comes first.⁶
4. Authorities dispute⁷  whether the building of a shul and its maintenance⁸  takes precedence over charity to the poor (whose poverty does not endanger their lives), or whether charity takes precedence over the shul. Some write that where there are insufficient places in shul for town residence (but not where a specific group wish to have their own shul⁹  ), the shul certainly comes first.¹⁰  Under such circumstances, it would be proper for the wardens of the shul to announce that charity should be donated to the building fund rather than to paupers collecting in the shul.¹¹  On the other hand, some write where the opposite is true—the donation to the shul is inessential (for example, only to beautify the building), whereas the poor lack basic essentials (though their lives are not endangered—for example, the lack of minimal means with which to pay for children’s weddings)—charity to the poor certainly takes preference.¹²
5. Many authorities rule that poor family members take precedence over poor Torah scholars who are not relatives;¹³  others maintain that Torah scholars take precedence over family members,¹⁴  with the exception of one’s father.¹⁵  If there are others who are ready sustain the Torah scholars but not the relatives, it would appear that all concede that relatives take precedence, because the obligation to sustain them falls first and foremost on family members.¹⁶  [It is remarkable how many poor people there are who come from rich families. I know many such people. Many people will give to a stranger they never met but not to their own flesh and blood. Shameful. E.E.]
6. Many authorities rule that the principle of “local poor come first” applies only when the financial condition of local poor and poor elsewhere is equivalent. However, if distant poor are worse off than local poor, for instance if local poor have enough money for food, whereas others cannot even pay for basic provisions, then distant poor take precedence over local poor.¹⁷  The same distinction applies to the precedence of Israel’s poor over the poor of other countries.¹⁸  [In the next shiur we will plase G-d cover the application of the same principle to neighbors, family members, and Torah scholars.]
7. Many authorities maintain that local poor take precedence over the poor of a different town even when the most distant poor are Torah scholars;¹⁹  some opine that even distant Torah scholars take precedence.²⁰
8. Local poor take precedence over poor from other towns and localities,²¹  including the poor of the Land of Israel.²²  Therefore, where a charity fund exists for local poor, and there are insufficient funds, one may not contribute to the charity funds of a different fund—unless the poor of the other town are is a considerably worse condition.²³
9. Poor neighbors take precedence over the other poor of the town.²⁴  A “neighbor” is defined as somebody living in the same building;²⁵  for somebody living in a private house, a “neighbor” is defined as the inhabitants of the three nearest houses.²⁶  Some authorities discuss (inconclusively) whether business partners take precedence over neighbors. ²⁷
10. The poor of the Land of Israel take precedence over the poor of other countries.²⁸
11. Shulchan Aruch, YD 251:14, based on Rosh, Kelal 6, sec. 2. The Maharshal (annotations to Tur) questions the priority of saving a life from an explicit statement of the Gemara (Megillah 16b): “The study of Torah is greater even that saving a life.” Perishah answers that the study of Torah takes preference only when the endangered life will be saved by somebody else, but does not take precedence when the study of Torah will lead to death. Derishah suggests a different approach; see also Taz, YD 251:6. [↩]
12. We find in Shulchan Aruch (251:9, based on Yerushalmi) that the purchase of a quilt for a Torah scholar takes precedence over the life of an ignoramus. This appears to imply that the study of Torah comes before saving a life. However, the Chida (Shaarei Yosef, Horios 13a) writes that the word “life” does not refer to saving his life, but only to his general sustenance. Mareh Panim (commentary to Yerushalmi, quoted in Minchas Pitim on Shulchan Aruch) likewise expresses wonder at how a quilt can take precedence over somebody’s life. Although Beis Yosef interprets the Yerushalmi as referring to a literal life, Shach (YD 251:67) notes that today’s Torah scholars are not considered talmidei chachamim, and therefore the halachah of deferring a life for the sake of a scholar’s Torah would not apply. Many authorities dispute the opinion of Shach concerning the status of today’s Torah scholars, yet it may be joined together with the aforementioned interpretation of Chida is formulating the ruling that saving a life always takes precedence. This is also the ruling given by Harav Moshe Feinstein (Iggros Moshe, YD 1:144). [↩]
13. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 252:1, based on Gemara, Bava Basra 8. The concept of modern imprisonment would not fall under this category, because it does not pose a threat to the captive’s life, though it is usually (but not always) a mitzvah to seek to free the inmate. If there is a chance that the inmate will forsake his faith, it no less severe than saving his life. [↩]
14. Chochmas Adam 145:7. [↩]
15. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 249:16; Chochmas Adam 142:7. Because of this, we also find that money donated for the purpose of building a shul can be used for the support of Torah study, but not vice versa. [↩]
16. On the one hand, we find in the Gemara that the Torah study of children is more important even than that of Amoraim (because children are free of sin; Shabbos 119b); on the other, Chazal grant utmost important to the “gates of halachah” (Berachos 8a). Iggros Moshe (YD 3:94) writes that the support of Torah scholars takes preference if there is a need to establish a posek able to rule halachic decisions; once there are sufficient poskim, children take priority. Shut Maharia Halevi (YD 315, 3:243), however, writes that Torah scholars always take priority. On the other side of the spectrum, Mishpetei Shmuel (65) writes that children always take priority. Shevet Halevi (5:144) points out that a yeshiva student up to the age of twenty has the virtue of being “free of sin,” and remains inconclusive as to the order of preference. [↩]
17. Maharik (Shoresh 128) implies that building a shul comes before regular donations to charity, and his opinion is quoted by Shulchan Aruch (YD 249:16). However, the Vilna Gaon (in his annotations, no. 20) writes that the proof on which the ruling of Maharik is questionable, and quotes an explicit ruling of Tosafos (Bava Basra 9a) to the contrary, i.e. that contribution to charity takes precedence over donations to shul. Chochmas Adam (145:7) cites the ruling of Shulchan Aruch, but Haamek She’elah (She’ilta 62) writes that the opinion of She’ilta concurs with the Vilna Gaon and Tosafos. [↩]
18. Maharik (quoted above) discusses the lighting of candles in shul; the same issue (candles) is quoted Chochmas Adam (loc. cit.). [↩]
19. Shevet Halevi (9:199); Shevet Halevi adds that if the shul is also used for Torah study, it follows that donating to the shul has the virtue of supporting Torah, and even Vilna Gaon would concede that it takes preference. [↩]
20. Aruch Hashulchan YD249:20, his reasoning being that the poor possess the bare essentials, whereas the shul does not. This position can be further upheld by comparing the two obligations: the obligation to build a shul is a personal obligation incumbent on each individual (CM 163:1), and halachah dictates (Rema YD 251:3) that personal obligations take precedence over donating to charity. [↩]
21. Tzedakah U’Mishpat(chap. 3, note 15) is inconclusive concerning whether the wardens have the right to actually prevent paupers from collecting in the shul. However, they certainly have the right to instruct congregants to donate to the shul rather than to paupers. [↩]
22. Shevel Halevi (9:199); it would appear that the ruling pertains to a case in which there are sufficient seats for town residents, and that there is therefore no dispute between Shevet Halevi and Aruch Hashulchan (quoted above). [↩]
23. Chacham Tzvi (no. 70), basing himself on Rambam (Matnos Aniyim 7:13): “A poor person who is his relative comes before all others.” The ruling of Chacham Tzvi is cited by Rabbi Akiva Eiger (annotations to Shulchan Aruch, YD 251:3), and is also ruled by Chafetz Chaim(Ahavas Chesed 6:7) and by Aruch Hashulchan (YD 251:8). [↩]
24. Meishiv Davar (2:47), who argues with Chacham Tzvi (cited above); Ruach Chaim (of Rav Chaim Falagi, YD 251:3).It should be noted that catering for the requirements of (one’s own) children under the age of six comes before all donations of charity, because providing their needs is a personal obligation, and must be paid for with ordinary money and not with charity money. According to Iggros Moshe(EH 1:106) this law applies even to children above the age of six who live with their parents—but many authorities dispute this position. [↩]
25. Shach, Yoreh De’ah 251:17. [↩]
26. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 257:8 (a gabbai tzedakah has the right to refuse a donation to a pauper whose family has the means to support him, because the obligation to sustain him falls first and foremost on family). [↩]
27. See Chasam Sofer(YD 234), who writes that the precedence of the poor of Jerusalem only applies when there are no better off than poor elsewhere. See also Chasam Sofer (YD 231). Although Iggros Moshe (YD1:144) does not concur with this ruling, writing that we do not find an obligation to investigate and compare the poverty levels of the poor (see also Tana de’bei Eliyahu (above, note 22), which also seems to contradict the chiddush of Chasam Sofer) many authorities quote the ruling of the Chasam Sofer. [↩]
28. Shevet Halevi (vol. 5, no. 135, sec. 4). [↩]
29. Pischei Teshuva (YD 251:3) in the name of Shemesh Tzedakah (1:19); Aruch Hashulchan (YD 251:8); Chasam Sofer (6:27). [↩]
30. Ahavas Chesed (chap. 6, Nesiv Hachesed no. 14), proving the case from a ruling of Chasam Sofer (234; this would mean that Chasam Sofer contradicts himself from the ruling quoted above); Divrei Chaim, Vol. II, Choshen Mishpat no. 68. [Ahavas Chesed brings proof to the ruling from the preference of Torah scholars with regard to redeeming captives (YD 252:4). However, the proof can be deferred by distinguishing between redeeming captives for large sums of money, which is only permitted for Torah scholars, and regular donations to charity.] [↩]
31. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’as 251:3, and all poskim. This law is extracted by Sifri from the verse (Devarim 15:7), “from one of your brothers, in one of your towns.” [↩]
32. Shach, YD 251:6, citing from Bach; Chasam Sofer 6:27; although Pe’as Hashulchan disputes this ruling, and opines that the poor of Israel take precedence, later authorities have not concurred with his view. See also Shevet Halevi vol. 5, no. 135, sec. 2. [↩]
33. See below, no. 10. [↩]
34. Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De’ah 251:3; although Rambam (Matnos Aniyim 7:13) uses the expression “the poor of his house” rather than “neighbors,” Chochmas Adam (145:1) implies that there is no dispute in the matter (“poor of the house” refers to neighbors), as Imrei Eish(YD 101) states explicitly. See Tana de’bei Eliyahu(chap. 27), where the order of preference is given as: parents, siblings, family members, neighbors, people on the road, other poor of Israel. [↩]
35. The apartments of a single residential building are considered one courtyard (chatzer), or one mavui (road or alley). [↩]
36. See Derech Emunah on Rambam (ibid). [↩]
37. Imrei Eish (no. 101); see also Chochmas Adam (145), who writes that he once saw (in an ancient volume whose identity he did not recollect) a “neighbor” defined as somebody who one is close with, rather than someone who necessarily lives next door; see Derech Emunah, Zion Halachah 233, who explains that this does not mean to annul the virtue of a regular geographical neighbor, but only to state that a close partner (and the like) might take preference over a regular neighbor. [↩]
38. Sifri, Devarim 116 (cited in Beis Yosef, YD 151); Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 251:3. Chasam Sofer (YD 233-4) adds that the poor of Jerusalem take precedence over the poor of the rest of the Land of Israel. As Shevet Halevi (5:135, sec. 5) explains, this refers only to inhabitants of the Old City, a small fraction of today’s wider Jerusalem. [↩]

About The Links - Great Men Who Were Once Illiterate

I often link different Torah articles in Hebrew. I know that many readers of the blog would love to understand what is written but because of the lacuna in their education or other reasons they are unable to do so.

So I apologize.

If someone wants to become fluent and to be able to read any sefer on any topic there IS a way:-).

To learn a lot.

Rav Moshe Feinstein was actually born completely illiterate. So was the Chofetz Chaim and the Vilna Gaon and the Rambam. But they overcame their illiteracy and reached the greatest heights:-)!

So can we all BS"D if we just believe in ourselves and have a firm immutable resolve to achieve spiritual heights. The greatest level of dveykus to Hashem is acquired through talmud Torah so if one has such strivings he must learn.   

If one wants to learn with the "Ba'al Hamevakesh" [i.e. me] himself that is also an option. It is an opportunity to explore vistas of Torah knowledge that one might until now not have traversed.

Miracles Happen:-)

We ALL need some miracles in our lives. The secret is Bitachon [and simcha:-)].

Links [Hebrew]

How was the geirus at Sinai different from all future conversions?

Singing even when getting a slap in the face.

The Secret Of The Long Drasha

This rabbi just had all of his remaining teeth pulled and new dentures were being made.

The first Shabbos, he only spoke for five minutes.

The second Shabbos, he spoke for ten minutes.

But, on the third Shabbos, he spoke for an hour and a half.

When asked about this by some of the congregation, he responded this way.

The first Shabbos, my gums were so sore it hurt to talk.

The second Shabbos, my gums felt better but my dentures were hurting so I spoke a bit longer.

The third Shabbos, I accidentally grabbed my wife's dentures... and I couldn't stop talking!

Tzitzis On The Kisei Hakavod

Answering an email and in the process sharing with everyone....:-)

Dear sweet friend and chatan,

It is permitted to sleep with the tzitzis (Rema, Orach Chaim 21:3), and some do so based on kabbalistic sources, but this causes a question over whether a new blessing should be recited in the morning over the tzitzis. If one recites a blessing over a tallis gadol, or if one changes tzitzis in the morning, this would not be a problem (see Mishnah Berurah 8:42; Shulchan Aruch Harav 8:27). However, one should not have a separate tzitzis garment for sleeping in.

It is also permitted to enter the bathroom with a tallis katan. Although Taz (21:3) is stringent when the strings are revealed, it is not customary to be stringent concerning this matter (Peri Megadim).

[dinonline.org]

As far as thinking of the mitzvos of which the tzitzis remind you - of course one should avoid that. As far as thinking of the existence of G-d in the bathroom - some actually permit this. Note - It is absolutely forbidden to think Torah thoughts in an unclean place but the metzius Hashem may be permitted. See the very first teshuva in the very first volume of the Lehoros Nosson. I have a shiur on this somewhere on yutorah bs"d.

Some people like to do math problems in there to avoid thinking about Torah. To each his own....

Bi-ahava rabba and ahavas olam,
Me:-)