העורך Editor

Answer: What do you mean by a metzius of “light”? Vos shtait da? Does the thing give off a chalos light or not?! Fakert, if – and to the extent, the cheftza needs switching, it is no longer in the geder mesuyam of “light bulb”, so your Kashe is pashut narishkeit! Da’as ba’alei batim hepech da’as Brisker Torah”. Don’t make faces; only eineklach may do so. You chap? Ya? Nu nu.

Also, Der Tatteh never said nothing about this ‘switching lightbulbs’ zach. Except… someone once takeh told me he thinks, maybe in this inyan of an old bulb – or maybe about an old broom, Der Tatteh said in Yiddishe shprach – and this absolutely cannot be translated into Lashon Hakodesh, and I forbid it with a shiyur bakinyan, Medin Yerusha: “מ’קען זיין בעסער”. It was exactly those words with precisely such a facial expression.

Download (PDF, 351KB)

Reprinted from Ladaat, here.

A certain author outlined most pertinent questions and concluded to permit swimming on Shabbos [on a now-defunct website].

I do not agree with his conclusions, but all Torah questions require fresh, honest study, especially those arousing cognitive dissonance. We must, as part of the obligation to study Torah, continually reopen what grabs our attention and let the chips fall where they may. Too few Torah scholars today do so, relying instead on various slogans to reinforce unjust habit and Appeal to Authority.

An imprecatory verse from Pirkei Avos comes to mind:

ודלא מוסיף יסף

P.S., Why do I disagree? For one, modern scholars may add prohibitions of permitted activities to the Torah (as long as (1) they are self-consciously doing so and revealing the fact, (2) their reasoning is sound, and (3) there is no unjustified leniency or sin brought about through the new stringency). So the author over here is correct but incomplete.

Examples include not having the Shli’ach Tzibbur pray and say blessings for the congregation, since it is suspected that they do not listen carefully (unlike Chazal’s day), umbrellas on Shabbos (?), some laws of Bassar Bechalav, the Gaon on not going to the Mikveh on Shabbos, et cetera. Perhaps Rambam on Redid might be another.

Do post-Chazal scholars keep up to the three aforementioned standards required? Not always.

There is more to say, but not now.

… It is normal that a person has a preference for one specific type of learning and wants to spend the majority of his time on that area, such as Gemara. However, if he does not devote any time to halacho, for example, then he will not be able to observe the mitzvos properly. Similarly, my Rebbe notes that a person may learn Chumash when he is a young child and never again give it any significant time beyond speeding through Shtayim Mikra v’echad targum. The consequence of this is that a ben Torah who learns Gemara in great depth may have little more than a child’s understanding of the maasim in Chumash! Rav Kamenetsy was once in a forum encouraging avreichim to spend some time teaching unaffiliated Jews. To one avreich who was concerned about the bitul Torah involved in teaching, he answered, “And if you have to learn a little Chumash and Nachi it won’t be such a terrible thing.”

Excerpted from here.

The Chovos Halevavos famously writes, Yichud Hama’seh chapter 5:

ואמרו על חסיד, שפגע אנשים שבים ממלחמת אויבים, ושללו שלל אחר מלחמה חזקה, אמר להם: שבתם מן המלחמה הקטנה שוללים שלל, התעתדו למלחמה הגדולה. אמרו לו: ומה היא המלחמה הגדולה? אמר להם: מלחמת היצר וחייליו.

But this story was first told of Mohammed. He is the “Chassid” referred to above. The warriors he met were his own. “Jihad” is the word for “war”, both lesser and greater. For a full discussion see this.

Nor is this the only example of Rabbi Bachye borrowing from their material. Know the one about the carcass’ white teeth? See Otzar Hachochma Forums here on that. Others were similarly influenced, including Rabbi Avraham ben Harambam, who incorporated silly Sufism in his syncretistic “Hamaspik Le’ovdei Hashem”. For a too-wide overview, see this.

There are a whole host of lessons to be learned here. The easiest to ignore is this: the brand of of “piety” sought by the author of “Chovos Halevavos” is not a Jewish one. This is blatantly obvious from the author’s evil, antinomian introduction as well.

I hope to elaborate at some future date.

P.S., I am not speaking of the widely praised “Sha’ar Habitachon”.