Beginning at sundown tonight, and for more than 25 hours thereafter, Jews all over the world will flock to their synagogues to ask forgiveness of G‑d on this holiest day of the year. Forgiveness implies, of course, that a sin was committed. And, indeed, we shall recite the Vidui – the list of some 50 sins to which we confess – a total of 8 times. For 8 times, all told, we shall, in full consciousness and awareness, admit that we have erred. For us moderns that will be, as it is every year, quite a disturbing experience. For we have learned to conform to the tempo of our society in which the words of Protagoras and Swinburne hold sway: “Man is the measure of all things.” G‑d has been replaced by Man as the hub of the universe. Religion has become an extension of psychological therapy. Convenience has been raised to a sacrament. And the only sin recognized is the failure to “adjust.” Yom Kippur thus stands in direct contradiction to this basis of our daily living. Not only can we sin, but we do sin. We approach our G‑d in humility and selflessness, and proclaim that it is we who are faulty – we and not G‑d, not Torah, not Religion, not the Synagogue. G‑d has not abandoned us; we have abandoned Him. Yom Kippur thus acts as a check on us – as a brake, lest we run away with ourselves and seriously begin to imagine ourselves as Divinities who can do no wrong. Think about it this way: the one time we Americans are glad – even eager – to recognize G‑d is when we point to Him as the source of our tragedies. There is an automobile accident. We complain: Why did G‑d do it? There is a flood. We ask: Why did G‑d do it? There is sickness. We murmur: Why did G‑d do it? But when it comes to our successes, we tend to forget Him. Polio was vanquished by American science. Economic prosperity is the achievement of our business wizardry. Jet propulsion is the product of American know-how. The projected man-made satellite will be the creation of our genius. And this way of thinking rev…

The basic principle in the Torah's teaching about man is that he possesses dignity – that is, special worth, unique value. Man is something new and something different in the ancient order of nature. He was created not only on the pattern of a biological organism, but also on the pattern of the spirit, in the "image of God," "To be invested with dignity," writes a contemporary thinker, "means to represent something mote than oneself" (A.J. Heschel, The Earth Is the Lord's). It is man's dignity, his essential value, that he is more than just man; he is Representative of God in the world.; It is that which makes man precious, loveable, and worth cherishing. / "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ani ha-Shem, I am the Lord."It is because both I and my fellow-man are creatures of God and created in His image -- with free will, moral conscience, creativity -- that‘^ we are worthy of love and esteem. Because our very creation is thebe'tzellem Elokim, in the image of God, therefore/nx dignity of52 man 18 democratic, it is distributed to all men alike. It is a dignity £■$ | that 18 Inherent, natural, part of our constitution. It is one which1 we may fulfill or affirm or, if we wish, forfeit and defile. It is a J 4-P^"dlgnity that can be sold -- but not bought" (D.Runes). It la ax this . ^^*'i awareneKS-of his kinship with God that permits«to retain his self-1 ל^ respect even when he has filed Ln his earthly enterprises end Lost allelseome, possessions, family, friends .A "True dignity abides with1 him alone/Who, in the silent hour of Inward thought,/ Can still suspectand still revere himself,/ In lowliness of heart" (Wordsworth). On this holy day, and in this "silent hour of inward thought," let us discuss and reaffirm this true dignity which Judaism teaches and which enables man, though he suspect himself and though he be lowly of heart, to revere himself •si the Godly within him.Never, indeed, was it more important to reaffirm this Jewish teaching of human dignity. …

The perek records the story of Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma, who was accosted by a stranger who asked him, מאיזו עיר אתה? Rabbi Yosi replied, etc., etc. What we have before us is an assertion by Rabbi Yosi that it is better to live among sages than among ignoramuses – among wise men than among fools. Rabbi Yosi disdains all material rewards that might entice him to a spiritually and scholarly less favorable environment. This is, apparently, an unexceptionable teaching. Yet the matter is not quite that simple. Is it really the best policy to pursue in order to assure the dominance of Torah in Israel? If all committed Jews decided to live exclusively in Jewish areas, where kashrut and Torah and tefillah were all assured at the highest level, would this not result in the decimation of our community and in the loss of countless thousands of Jews in the outlying communities? Furthermore, do we not have sufficient examples of great Jews who, by risking an alien environment, succeeded in converting that milieu into great centers of Torah? For instance, we know that Rav left Palestine to go down to Babylon – and almost singlehandedly made that community into a center of Torah for hundreds and hundreds of years to follow. Does Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma then mean to imply that this was wrong? Does he have any alternative solution for the spreading of Torah in Israel? I believe that Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma was not preaching a kind of contemporary retrenchment policy whereby all Orthodox Jews withdraw into one neighborhood and abandon the rest of the community. The stranger who accosted him did not ask, “Where do you live?” He asked him, מאיזו עיר אתה – “From what place are you?” And therein lies the difference. Philo maintained that the pious man is a stranger on earth, for he is intrinsically a citizen of Heaven who is only temporarily here. His real makom is in Heaven. That is, I believe, the meaning of this dialogue between the Tanna and the stranger. What, asked the stranger, is your rea…

Rabbi Lamm speaks to rabbinic alumni on themes of Yom Kippur.

נושא השיעור: האם נכון לברך את הזולת בר״ה ויוה״כ בברכת "חג שמח" או "גוט יו״ט"? שלוש פעמים בתורה נזכרו המועדים – אמור, פנחס, ראה – ובפרשת אמור (ויקרא כג) נאמר "דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם מועדי ה׳ אשר תקראו אתם מקראי קודש אלה הם מועדי", ושם נזכרים שלושת הרגלים וגם ר״ה ויוה״כ, ולכן לכאורה כן נכון לברך "חג שמח". אולם בגמרא ערכין י׳ ע״א נמנו שמונה עשר ימים שהיחיד גומר בהם את ההלל – ואין ר״ה ויוה״כ ביניהם – והקריטריון הוא אם נקרא מועד ואסור בעשיית מלאכה. שואלת הגמרא: ר״ה ויוה״כ דאיקרו מועד ואיקדוש בעשיית מלאכה לימא? ומשיבה משום דר׳ אבהו: מלאכי השרת שאלו לפני הקב״ה מדוע אין ישראל אומרים שירה לפניך בר״ה וביוה״כ, והשיב – אפשר, מלך יושב על כסא הדין וספרי חיים וספרי מתים פתוחים לפניו וישראל אומרים שירה לפני? וא״כ אין הלל – ולא שמחה יתירה. הגר״ח קלוֵי הקשה על הגמרא – והרי אומרים שיר של יום בר״ה? ותירץ שדין הלל שונה מדין שיר – בעינן שמחה שלימה, ובר״ה ויוה״כ אין שמחה שלימה. הרב צבי פסח פראנק זצ״ל מביא את דברי הרמב״ם פ״ג מהל׳ חנוכה ה״ו: "אבל ר״ה ויוה״כ אין בהם הלל לפי שהם ימי תשובה, לא שמחה יתירה" – ומכאן שהטעם הוא חסרון שמחה יתירה, אף שיש שיר של יום. הרמב״ם גם פוסק בפ״ח מהל׳ לולב הי״ב: "אף על פי שכל המועדות מצוה לשמוח בהן, בחג הסוכות היתה שם במקדש שמחה יתירה" – ממילא לר״ה ויוה״כ חסרה שמחה זו, ולכן אין נכון לברך "חג שמח". יסוד הדיון במחלוקת הגאונים, המובאת ברא״ש לסוף מסכת ר״ה, האם אומרים "והשיאנו" בר״ה ויוה״כ. הדעות נחלקו, ולבסוף נהגו שלא לומר. במשנה מועד קטן י״ט ע״א מחלוקת רבן גמליאל וחכמים – האם ר״ה ויוה״כ כרגלים (ר״ג) או כשבת (חכמים). בה״ג פוסק כר״ג וכן נפסק. ולכאו׳ כן נכון לברך "חג שמח". בעירובין מ׳ ע״ב: מהו לומר זמן בר״ה ויוה״כ? והגמ׳ פוסקת – אומרים זמן – אבל לא משום שהם רגלים אלא מטעם הפסוק במשלי. לכן שמחים אבל לא שמחה יתירה. מר זצ״ל בספרו שו״ת עמק הלכה ח״ב סי׳ ל״ט מביא ש"הבינה לעיתים" יצא נגד המנהג לומר "תקעו בחודש שופר" בקדושתא רבא, ופסק לומר "אלה מועדי ה׳", ומו״ז השיב כי אע״פ שר״ה מועד, עניינא דיומא גובר, ולכן גם בתפילה יש להזכיר תקיעת שופר – וממילא אין לומר "חג שמח" אף שהוא מועד. ואולם שואל המחבר: אם עניינא דיומא עדיף ממועד, מדוע בשלושת הרגלים לא מזכירים עניינא דיומא? א…