Browsed by
Author: Rabbi Jeff Fox

I spend my days (and some nights) swimming in the sea of Halakha and Gemara. As the Rosh Yeshiva in Maharat I am blessed to teach students driven to understand the depths and mysteries of our amazing mesora.
Onen (אונן) Between Death and Burial (02) – The Yerushalmi that Drives the Halakhic Discourse

Onen (אונן) Between Death and Burial (02) – The Yerushalmi that Drives the Halakhic Discourse

There are times when a specific passage in the Talmud Yerushalmi gets pulled into the flow of Halakha and sets the tone for the subsequent discourse. In the case of the onen there is a powerful sugya from the Yerushalmi that is brought by the Tosafot1and ultimately defines the parameters of the Halakhic conversation. Because of the importance of this text, we will analyze it piece by piece.

We begin with a simple drasha that removes the onen from the category of Mitzvot:

תלמוד ירושלמי (וילנא) מסכת ברכות פרק ג

א”ר בון כתיב לְמַעַן תִּזְכֹּר אֶת יוֹם צֵאתְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ (דברים טז:ג) 

ימים שאת עוסק בהן בחיים ולא ימים שאת עוסק בהן במתים.

Yerushalmi, Berachot 3

Rebbi said, “It is written in order that you remember the day of the Exodus from Egypt all the days of your life (Devarim 16:3) –

Days when you are involved with life, and not days in which you are involved with death.

This Midrash makes a blanket statement that only days that are filled with life are meant to be days of Mitzvot. However, days in which a person is, “עוסק בהן במתים – involved with those who are dead” are simply not days to do Mitzvot. This is a strong statement about the nature of a life imbued with Mitzvot.   …

Read More Read More

Onen (אונן) Between Death and Burial (01) – Exempt and Permitted or Exempt and Forbidden?

Onen (אונן) Between Death and Burial (01) – Exempt and Permitted or Exempt and Forbidden?

The category known as the Onen (אונן) describes the mourner between the time of passing and burial. This word actually refers to a Biblical verse1that is recited by Israelite pilgrims to the Beit ha-Mikdash when bringing their ma’aser to the Temple. This verse is used to teach us that an Onen may not eat kodshim (the holy food of the Temple)2. 

The correct phrase that describes a person between the passing and burial of a loved one today – when sadly we no longer have the Beit ha-Mikdash – is מיתו מוטל לפניו (lit. The dead person is lying  before him). This is how the third chapter of the Mishna of Berachot opens:

מסכת ברכות פרק ג משנה א (דף יז:)

מי שמתו מוטל לפניו פטור מק”ש ומן התפלה ומן התפילין ומכל מצות האמורות בתורה

Mishna, Berachot 3:1 (17b)

One whose dead lies before them is exempt from the reading of the Shema, from Tefila and from Tefilin and from all [positive] commandments recorded in the Torah. …

Read More Read More

Tearing Garments (קריעה) – what is the level of obligation?

Tearing Garments (קריעה) – what is the level of obligation?

Is the obligation to tear kriyah from the Torah or from the Rabbis?

Rav Taḥlifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: A mourner who did not let his hair grow wild and did not rend his garments is liable to receive the death penalty as it is stated following the deaths of Nadab and Abihu concerning the surviving sons of Aaron: “Let not the hair of your heads go loose, neither rend your clothes, that you not die” (Leviticus 10:6). From here it may be deduced that any other mourner who did not let his hair grow wild or rend his clothes is liable to receive the death penalty.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת מועד קטן דף כד עמוד א

אמר רב תחליפא בר אבימי אמר שמואל אבל שלא פרע ושלא פירם חייב מיתה 

שנאמר ראשיכם אל תפרעו ובגדיכם לא תפרמו ולא תמתו וגו’ 

הא אחר שלא פרע ושלא פירם חייב מיתה 

This text states clearly that the failure to tear kriya is a capital crime based on a Biblical verse. One might think that, therefore, the obligation itself should be understood as a Torah obligation. It is interesting to note that there is only one rishon who claims that the obligation of kriya comes from the Torah. The overwhelming majority understand citation of the verse and the harsh language as an asmachta (a hint from the Torah for a Rabbinic law).

The Rosh (מו”ק פ”ג ס”ג) quotes the Ra’avad who is a minority voice and thinks that the requirement to tear is in fact from the Torah. The minority here promotes the simplest reading of the Talmudic text to support his approach1. Despite that fact, it appears that everyone else rejects this approach. The Tosafot on the page (Moed Katan 24a s.v. ha acher shelo para) as well as Ramban (Torat ha-Adam page 81), the Tur (as explained by the Beit Yosef 340:30, regarding the death of an infant before 30 days לא עלינו), the Shulcah Aruch (Siman 340, as understood by the ש”ך ס”ק ב and the ט”ז ס”ק י”ז), the Aruch ha-Shulchan (340:1), and Rav Ovadia (חזון עובדיה ח”א עמ’ רכ) all assume that the obligation to tear kriya is rabbinic and not from the Torah.

At some level, this question is part of a more global issue regarding which aspects, if any, of the mourning process are from the Torah. I am curious about the implications of both approaches. To claim that (almost) none of the laws of aveilut (including kriya) are from the Torah reflects something about how we imagine the Bible legislates our lives. Perhaps those who claim that nearly all of the laws of aveilut are fundamentally rabbinic are really saying something about Rabbinic creativity. There is a complex network of laws covering some 63 simanim of the Shulchan Aruch. The Rabbis understood that the passing from this world to the next is a time that people seek direction and ritual.

From the perspective of the majority position that kriya is rabbinic, the Torah (meaning: God) does not make (many) demands of the mourner. The rabbis stepped in and saw a need to create a structure and framework for the mourning experience despite the Torah’s silence. The Ra’avad and those who see more pieces of aveilut as coming from divine authority are perhaps claiming that we cannot imagine that God would not give us direction at this most difficult time of our lives.

Many are comforted by the dictates of Halakha when they face loss. Others feel as though God is intruding into their inner emotional state in a way that can feel uncomfortable. The efficacy of these Halakhot will be different for everyone. Finding the right balance between guidance and strict rulings is a key role of the rabbinic figure for individuals and families experiencing loss and mourning.

Tearing Garments (קריעה) an External Expression of an Internal Experience (04)

Tearing Garments (קריעה) an External Expression of an Internal Experience (04)

See https://davidmoss.com/ for one of the most creative Jewish artists. Can Rabbis learn to be artists?

Is the obligation to tear kriya from the Torah or from the Rabbis?

Bavli, Moed Katan 24a

Rav Taḥlifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: A mourner who did not let his hair grow wild and did not rend his garments is liable to receive the death penalty as it is stated following the deaths of Nadab and Abihu concerning the surviving sons of Aaron: “Let not the hair of your heads go loose, neither rend your clothes, that you not die” (Leviticus 10:6). From here it may be deduced that any other mourner who did not let his hair grow wild or rend his clothes is liable to receive the death penalty.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת מועד קטן דף כד עמוד א

אמר רב תחליפא בר אבימי אמר שמואל אבל שלא פרע ושלא פירם חייב מיתה 

שנאמר ראשיכם אל תפרעו ובגדיכם לא תפרמו ולא תמתו וגו’ 

הא אחר שלא פרע ושלא פירם חייב מיתה 

This text states clearly that the failure to tear kriya is a capital crime based on a Biblical verse. One might think that, therefore, the obligation itself should be understood as a Torah obligation. It is interesting to note that there is only one rishon who claims that the obligation of kriya comes from the Torah. The overwhelming majority understand citation of the verse and the harsh language as an asmachta (a hint from the Torah for a Rabbinic law). …

Read More Read More

Tearing Garments (קריעה) – What if the mourner can’t stand? (03)

Tearing Garments (קריעה) – What if the mourner can’t stand? (03)

 

פתחו לי שערי חסד – Open up your gates of love… but first get me up this flight of stairs!

I asked this question of Facebook, and many comments expressed hurt or insult at the notion that a person would not be permitted to tear kriya in a wheelchair. I agree that such a position seems untenable, but I want to share the approaches of a few important contemporary poskim that shed light on how to approach Halakha. This post will be a bit more technical than usual.

In his commentary on Hilkhot Aveilut, Rav Feivel Cohen asks this very question (ע’ בדי השלחן סימן שמ סק”ח) and says צ”ע, this needs further analysis. In his ביאורים there (ד”ה מעומד וכו), he outlines both sides of the calculus – making the argument both pro and con regarding tearing while sitting. On the one hand, there does appear to be a minority opinion that allows for tearing while sitting. For example, See רא”ש מו”ק ג:מד who quotes two approaches of the ראב”ד, one of which allows for tearing while seated. The Rosh also points out that the רי”ף does not quote the story of Ameimar, an omission which could be understood to say that kriya ‘works’ even while sitting. The בית יוסף in שמ:א quotes this passage of the רא”ש and claims that maybe the ראב”ד holds like his first answer, that kriya must be done while standing, and that the רי”ף is an argument from silence. Given that this voice exists in the history of Halakha, it seems logical that it is better to tear sitting and at least fulfill that minority voice. At the end of his analysis, he again concludes with a צ”ע.  …

Read More Read More

Tearing Garments (קריעה) an External Expression of an Internal Experience (03)

Tearing Garments (קריעה) an External Expression of an Internal Experience (03)

Wheelchair accessible Bima
A person can come up for an Aliya in a wheelchair, what about tearing kriya?

I asked this question of Facebook, and many comments expressed hurt or insult at the notion that a person would not be permitted to tear kriya in a wheelchair. I agree that such a position seems untenable, but I want to share the approaches of a few important contemporary poskim that shed light on how to approach Halakha. This post will be a bit more technical than usual.

In his commentary on Hilkhot Aveilut, Rav Feivel Cohen asks this very question (ע’ בדי השלחן סימן שמ סק”ח) and says צ”ע, this needs further analysis. In his ביאורים there (ד”ה מעומד וכו), he outlines both sides of the calculus – making the argument both pro and con regarding tearing while sitting. On the one hand, there does appear to be a minority opinion that allows for tearing while sitting. For example, See רא”ש מו”ק ג:מד who quotes two approaches of the ראב”ד, one of which allows for tearing while seated. The Rosh also points out that the רי”ף does not quote the story of Ameimar, an omission which could be understood to say that kriya ‘works’ even while sitting. The בית יוסף in שמ:א quotes this passage of the רא”ש and claims that maybe the ראב”ד holds like his first answer, that kriya must be done while standing, and that the רי”ף is an argument from silence. Given that this voice exists in the history of Halakha, it seems logical that it is better to tear sitting and at least fulfill that minority voice. At the end of his analysis, he again concludes with a צ”ע.  …

Read More Read More

Tearing Garments (קריעה) – An External Expression of an Internal Experience (02)

Tearing Garments (קריעה) – An External Expression of an Internal Experience (02)

Last time, we learned a short narrative about the tragic passing of Ameimar’s grandson. There was some debate as to who exactly was tearing kriya, but either way the sugya assumed that the correct posture in which to tear kriya is while standing. It is also interesting to note that the idea of kriya itself seems to have a depth of meaning that is simply taken for granted throughout the Bavli.  The Gemara now looks for a Biblical source for this idea that kriya must take place when standing.

Bavli, Moed Katan 20b

Rami bar Ḥama said: From where is it derived that rending must be performed while standing?

As it is stated: “Then Job arose, and tore his coat” (Job 1:20). 

מועד קטן דף כ: 

אמר רמי בר חמא: מנין לקריעה שהיא מעומד?

שנאמר וַיָּקָם אִיּוֹב וַיִּקְרַע. 

In seeking a source for the obligation to tear while standing, the Gemara first looks to Job (Iyyov). The first chapter of the Book of Job is painful to read. My student, Liz Shayne, pointed out that perhaps turning to the tragic figure of Job was a way for Ameimar – whose story we read in the prior post – to express his grief. When the model for your own experience is Job, then you are signaling a particular kind of emotional turmoil. Job, a model of patience, piety and self-reflection, seems to suffer as a result of the Satan’s persuasion of God1. His cattle, sheep and camels are taken from him, and he finally tears kriya when he learns that his children have been taken as well. …

Read More Read More

Tearing Garments (קריעה) – An External Expression of an Internal Experience (01)

Tearing Garments (קריעה) – An External Expression of an Internal Experience (01)

The practice of tearing garments at the funeral (קריעה, kriya) has developed in a fascinating manner. Throughout the Gemara the act of kriya seems more like a natural, almost spontaneous expression of loss or grief. In response to terrible news people, would rend their garments. The reality for most today is that the moment of tearing needs to be imbued with meaning because it takes place in a very limited context, not because it is a natural expression of loss.

When learning kriya, people often begin with the question of its authority – Rabbinic or Torah – a question we will address that in the third installment of the kriya essays.  But the psychology of this ritual is essential to its performance, and I am organizing this material around emotional potency rather than the typical Halakhic taxonomy. The physical act is meant to express an internal emotional state. Let’s look at one story about a particular Amora (rabbi from the Gemara) who experiences loss.  The Gemara in Moed Katan 20b tells of the tragic passing of Ameimar’s grandson. The following sugya asks some very specific legal questions about this story. We will begin with the narrative portion of the Gemara with a simple translation, intentionally maintaining the unclarified pronouns for now: …

Read More Read More

An introduction (3) to the Laws of Mourning: Sheva Berachot & The Creation of the World

An introduction (3) to the Laws of Mourning: Sheva Berachot & The Creation of the World

תוהו ובוהוIn the first two essays we saw three different surprising sources offered by the Yerushalmi for the source of the seven days of shiva: the inauguration of the Mishkan, Miriam’s tzara’at and the seven-day Holiday from the prophecy of Amos. Each of these teaches us an important lesson about the nature of mourning.

From the inauguration of the Mishkan we learn about the holiness of death. From Miriam’s tzara’at we see the importance of being separated from the community to allow the process of healing to begin. From the prophecy of Amos we are reminded that even joyous days can be turned into darkness during this time of people’s lives.

I would like to conclude these introductory essays with an even more radical text. There is a Midrash known as either Lekach Tov or Pesikta Zutarta1.   …

Read More Read More

First Beracha of the Amida (אבות) – part 5 of 5 – Divine Love

First Beracha of the Amida (אבות) – part 5 of 5 – Divine Love

The first beracha of the Amida also refers to God as א-ל עליון (el elyon) – The Powerful God who is Most High. This is a strange way to refer to the Creator of the World and is a citation from a non-Jewish priest whom we meet in the book of Bereishit. After the successful battle against the four kings in chapter fourteen, Avram is greeted by a mysterious priest who interrupts the negotiations with the King of Sodom. The Torah tells us:

(18) And Malki-Tzedek king of Shalem brought forth bread and wine; and he was a priest of God the Most High (el elyon). (19) And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Avram to the God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth ; (20) and blessed be God the Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” And he gave him a tenth of all1.

The concluding phrase of the first beracha refers to the beginning of the next chapter when God tells Avram that he has nothing to fear. After his military victory Avram receives a blessing from a non-Jewish priest and then assurance from God that he will be safe. God tells Avram: Do not be afraid, I will protect you (Bereishit 15:1)2. What do the rabbis who wrote this beracha want to communicate to us by pulling this narrative into the opening of the Amida?

The remainder of this beracha refers to: 1) God as doing chesed; 2) God who remembers the chesed of our ancestors; 3)and, God who brings redemption with love3. One might not think that Avram needed a God overflowing with chesed and love at this moment in the narrative. However, it is precisely at this time, a time of victory and power, that we need to be reminded of the importance of chesed.

The first section of the beracha brought us to the introduction of Moshe to God and his humble, hesitant approach to leadership. The second piece of this beracha now brings us into a very specific moment of the life of Avram avinu when he is in a position of power. Moshe, before he stepped into his role as leader, and Avram, at the end of the battle, are in two opposite places. Moshe is afraid to step into the geopolitical arena and approach Pharo, while Avram has just won a war against the four kings who had already defeated the five kings. The Amida juxtaposes these two Biblical moments to remind us that, whether we have just experienced great success or are feeling nervous about what might come next, God will be there for us, with love.

Chapter fifteen continues with the Berit ben ha-betarim (The Covenant between the Pieces). Now Avram, despite his great success, expresses his own self-doubt about who will inherit his path. At this point he does not have children, and he is scared that perhaps his vision of the world might come to an end with his own passing from this world. Avram is told of his own future – that he will indeed have his own children – as well as the future of the Jewish People. We will be enslaved and ultimately redeemed, and throughout it all, God will be with us.

Divine grace or love, what this beracha refers to as חסד, (sometimes translated as loving-kindness) is a foundation of a life of prayer in particular and Jewish theology more broadly. We will return to this idea later in these essays.