The post war growth of the synagogue is a phenomenon with which, simultaneously, it was noticed that there was no corresponding growth in observances or depth in commitment. This paradox has occupied the attention of sociologists and religious thinkers. The various analyses offered are: A. The general move of the population from the cities to suburbia meant that many people found themselves rootless with no previous population with which to conform. Hence the synagogue became the social center stabilizing the new society of uprooted ex-urbanites. B. Will Herberg's – thesis that the way to "belong" to American society is via one of the three channels of: Jew – Protestant – Catholic. The affiliation with one of these groups, therefore, is no reflection upon religious commitments; it is merely a way of being an American.C. In this atomic age the iminen^e־'of cosmic cataclysm is a most important factor. People are, uncounciously, aware of the end of all existence just around the corner. They therefore are more painfully aware of the emptiness of life and hence are returning to religion.The first two indicate that the new return to religion is basically superficial and more sociological than spiritual in nature. The last one is much more con-sequential, and cannot be discussed at any length tonight.All the three analyses mentioned are partially true. But the ־three of them together do not exhaust the whole truth. I do not think that we can, as yet, know the whole truth, for we are in the very middle of the process. Only time will tell, and with greater prospective in the future we shall be able to analyze it better.Does that mean that I am a pessimist? No, I am a realist. I know that so far the results are very poor, but that we have the conditions which, with a great burst of energy and determination, can lead us to create a great future. But I am dissatisfied with the present. Story: Khruschev proposes to Kennedy that he is willing to settle all cold war problems and …

The distinction we elaborated in the halakhic section of this shiur, between hirhur and pe’ulat ha-mitzvah, finds an interesting echo in Midrash. The author of Shibbolei ha-Leket cites two midrashim which relate the two most significant instances of teshuvah in Tanakh to two of the berakhot in Shemoneh Esrei. The latter two are Hashivenu Avinu... Barukh Atah Hashem ha-rotzeh bi-teshuvah, and Selach lanu... Barukh Atah Hashem chanun ha-marbeh lisloach. Each of these is connected by the Midrash to a different instance of sin and repentance in the life of the patriarchal family of Jacob. The Midrash relates that when Reuven offended his father Jacob by sinning with Bilhah, it was ordained that he be punished by death, but afterward he did teshuvah, whereupon the malakhei ha-sharet, the ministering angels, proclaimed Barukh Atah Hashem ha-rotzeh bi-teshuvah, blessing God who desires repentance. When Judah sinned against Tamar and pronounced the verdict “Take her out and let her be burnt” (hotzi’uha ve-tisaref), and then Tamar showed him proof that she had not sinned, he immediately confessed and said, tzadkah mimeni — she is right and I am wrong — and he was forgiven for that sin. Whereupon, the malakhei ha-sharet proclaimed Barukh Atah Hashem chanun ha-marbeh lisloach, blessing God who graciously forgives greatly. So the malakhei ha-sharet teach us that the blessings of teshuvah and selichah are not identical; they represent two different forms of teshuvah, and they are related to the two archetypical dramas of sin and repentance. What is the difference between these two stories? Let us analyze each and compare them. The sin of Reuven is described in the Torah as follows: Vayishkav et Bilhah pilegesh aviv vayishma Yisrael — “And Reuven lay with Bilhah, the concubine of his father, and Israel heard about it.” The sin is not as simple as it sounds. All agree that it was not a crime of sexual passion. Some interpret Reuven’s actions as an attempt to establish his rights …

ש"ע או"ח סי' רע"א פסק שנשים חייבות בקידוש של שבת כמו אנשים, "ומוציאות את האנשים הואיל וחייבות מה"ת כמותם", והמג"א (שם) הוסיף שלפי"ז פשוט שאין קטן מוציא את האשה, ואפילו הוא בן י"ג שנה ויום אחד אינו מוציא אותה, שמכיון שהיא חייבת מדאורייתא אין סומכין על החזקה שהביא שתי שערות אא"כ נתמלא זקנו. והדגול מרבבה (שם) כתב דהיינו דווקא אם האשה לא התפללה ערבית, שאז היא חייבת בקידוש אמנם מדאורייתא, אבל אם התפללה ערבית כראוי, הרי יצאה י"ח בקידוש מדאורייתא ע"י קידוש היום שבתפילה ואינה חייבת כי אם מדרבנן, ואז אפילו קטן לגמרי יכול להוציאה. ומזה בא הדג"מ לדון בשאלה אקטואלית מאוד – באיש שכבר התפלל ערבית ושב לביתו ורוצה להוציא את אשתו וילדיו בקידוש והם לא התפללו – איך יצאו הנשים י"ח בקידוש זה של הבעל, הלא הבעל חייב רק מדרבנן לקדש על הכוס שכבר יצא את חובתו מדאורייתא בקידוש שבתפילה, ואילו אשתו עוד חייבת לקדש מדאורייתא, וקי"ל דמחויב מדרבנן אינו יכול להוציא את המחויב מדאורייתא. והדג"מ דן בשאלה זו מצד ערבות – שהרי כל עניין להוציא אחרים י"ח הוא מצד שכל ישראל ערבים זה בזה (עי' רש"י ר"ה כט), אבל הרא"ש פסק שאין ערבות לנשים (עי' רא"ש ברכות ג"כ ע"ג), וא"כ השאלה אם לאנשים יש ערבות גם על הנשים והם ערבים להן אף כי להן אין ערבות לאנשים, ולכן יכולים להוציאן י"ח – או שמא כמו שאין לנשים ערבות על הגברים כך אין לגברים ערבות על הנשים וא"כ אינם יכולים להוציאן י"ח. אבל בעיקר השאלה כאן תלוי בעניין זכר ליציאת מצרים בקידוש. המנחת חינוך (מ"ע ל"א) כתב שוודאי יכול הבעל להוציא את אשתו בכגון זה, משום שא"א לצאת י"ח קידוש מה"ת בקידוש שבתפילה שהרי בתפילה לא נזכר כלל יציאת מצרים, ועניין הברכה ליצ"מ בקידוש מקורו בפסחים קיז ע"ב, "אמר רבא אמר ר' יצחק: מניין שצריך להזכיר יצ"מ בקידוש היום? שנאמר למען תזכור את יום צאתך וגו' וכתיב הכא זכור את יום השבת לקדשו" – הרי שיש גזירה שווה לחייב הזכרת יצ"מ בקידוש, ואם לא הזכיר לא יצא י"ח מדאורייתא. והנה בתפילת ליל שבת לא נזכר יצ"מ, רק בקידוש על הכוס – א"כ הבעל שהתפלל ערבית אינו מוציא את אשתו שלא התפללה ושניהם לא יצאו י"ח קידוש מדאורייתא, ולכן אפשר שיוכל להוציאה. הרשב"ם פירש שם, "וצריך שיזכיר יצ"מ בקדושת היום – בין בכוס בין בתפילה של שבת מגז"ש דפסח", משמע שגם בתפילה צריך להזכיר יצ"מ. אך נו…

משנה כ': כל אהבה שהיא תלוייה בדבר, בטל דבר בטלה אהבה וכו'. לכאורה המשנה די פשוטה ואין מה להעיר ולהוסיף. אולם הבה ונחקורה: זה שאהבה שהיא תלוייה בדבר סופה בטלה, מה הדין אם היא תלוייה לא בסיבה חיצונית, כגון יופי או ממון וכדומה, אלא באהבה, כלומר, בזה שהנאהב מחזיר אליי את האהבה שלו. האם זה נקרא אהבה שהיא תלוייה בדבר, או שמא זו אהבה צרופה והיא בחינת אינה תלוייה בדבר? לכאורה אפשר לדרוש לשבח ואפשר לדרוש לגנאי. ומכיון שהסברא שקולה על שני הצדדים, אין לפתור את הבעיה. אך דומני שיש תשובה שלישית, לא הן ולא לאו, אלא: גם שניהם. ונבאר:

Every morning, at the introduction to our Shacharit prayers, we recite the following words: Le’olam yehei adam yerei shamayim ba-seter uva-galuy – a person must always be in fear of Heaven, both in private and in public. The source of this statement is the Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu, where it appears in a slightly different form, omitting the word uva-galuy, thus reminding us to be God-fearing in private. This reading, which is also that of Rambam in his version of the Siddur, is obviously meant to encourage Jews living under oppression not to forsake their faith within the privacy of their own homes and hearts even if they are forced to do so in public. However, the popular version, which we recite daily, is puzzling. Why was it necessary to include uva-galuy? And if it was done in order to emphasize that for Jews living under comparative freedom piety had to be pursued at all times and occasions, why not simply say Le’olam yehei adam yerei shamayim – that a man should always be God-fearing – without specifying that he should do so both ba-seter and uva-galuy?I suggest that a hidden nugget of wisdom lies here — a teaching that there really are two different kinds of piety, one for ba-seter and one for uva-galuy, and that the two realms of the hidden and revealed, or private and public, are distinct from although continuous with each other. The ba-seter or “Inside" fear of Heaven is a piety of and for oneself; it fills one’s inner space. Such a person is concerned only with his own spiritual welfare and growth in Torah. He experiences a kind of noble egotism of the soul, one which may, however, lead to spiritual narcissism. His untiring efforts are focused only on his own avodat Ha shem as he shuts the world off in order for this kind of devoutness to flourish. Such an Inside person is, in effect, reliving the condition of Moses who was commanded to ascend Sinai by himself: "no other human may accompany you." The Inside piety is fashioned out of solitude and loneliness a…

Rabbi Lamm explores the laws of reciting the Shema.

Rabbi Lamm explores the laws of reciting the Shema.

Rabbi Lamm explores the laws of reciting the Shema.

I am delighted to greet the President of Israel, Chaim Herzog, an old and distinguished friend, in a triple capacity: as the President of Israel – a country in which over 10% of our undergraduate alumni have settled and now call “home,” and where we send some 300 or more students every year to spend a year or two in study – as an honorary doctoral alumnus of Y.U. – and as a role model for our students, a man who has had the finest education in two worlds – the world of the university and the world of the yeshivot, where he studied at Yeshivat Chevron as well as at the feet of his late, famed father, Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog. We appreciate your friendship in making this special trip and wish you well on your return journey this evening – בואכם לשלום וצאתכם לשלום. Hanukkah, like everything else in life, is open to a variety of interpretations, and to an even greater variety of misinterpretations. The event has been taken to signify a purely secular nationalist struggle – and the celebration of a supernatural miracle; the political assertion of freedom of religion – and the revolt against Hellenism, the then-contemporary form of assimilation. But whatever one’s inclination in historical exegesis, one thing is clear: the Hasmoneans (or Maccabees) were fighting for something beyond themselves. Their success consisted not in appealing to self-interest, but in rallying people to a higher cause – which made their self-interest meaningful and tenable. There is nothing quite so unrealistic and impractical as the cynical and smug assumption that people are interested only in their status and stomachs. But what was the overall and overarching cause for which our Hasmonean ancestors were willing to sacrifice their very lives, for which they revolted against the Greek-Syrian oppressors, and which we celebrate on this night of Hanukkah? The key lies in the special addition to our regular prayers during this happy festival, the Al HaNissim prayer. The oppressors had one priority:…

השיעור הזה – ביום היאה״צ של רי״א ספקטור, מו״ר ד״ר שמואל בלקיו זצ״ל, והשנה – במיוחד למחר הגריד״ס זצ״ל, שמותו ורבנו היה לכולנו, לרגלי עשר שנים לפטירתו ומאה שנים ללידתו. נושא השיעור: "לעניין תפילה לאלה שעוסקים בצ״צ". וכמה סיבות לדבר. First, in addition to his overwhelming preoccupation with ת״ת, the Rav was also involved in communal leadership: Rav of Boston, as well as Rosh Yeshiva. His opinions on current issues were solicited and accepted by the RCA, leaders of government in America and Israel, heads of large Jewish organizations, as well as רבנים ותלמידים – all of whom sought his views on myriad problems, both מילי דארעא and מילי דשמיא. Second: personal experience – הייתי עסוק בצורכי הישיבה ואיחרתי מנחה. האם עשיתי נכון? או שהיה ראוי לי להפסיק את הדיונים המעשיים כדי להתפלל? והאם אני חייב להתפלל תשלומין? Third: this is an opportunity to explore whether there is any essential place in halakha for questions of worldly affairs, communal organizations, and communal leadership. Are יששכר and זבולון simply two brothers who fashioned a mutually satisfying partnership, or is there a real, inherent place in halakha for יששכר to be involved in communal matters and for זבולון to be present at his brother’s shtender? Is mundane work on behalf of the community a מצווה, an irrelevancy, or a distraction? Is it considered at all in a halakhic calculus? 1) ירושלמי ברכות פ״ה ה״א: "רב ירמיה אמר העוסק בצורכי ציבור כעוסק בדברי תורה." We must ask – to what does this apply, and what is its source? In order to understand, we should view it in the context of tefillah. 2) There are two halakhic approaches to the state of a person prior to tefillah. a) The tension between his activity and his prayer: whether one must interrupt work to pray, or whether his work exempts him from prayer (see Rambam, Tefillah 7:6: "הבא מן הדרך והוא עייף או מיצר אסור לו להתפלל עד שתתיישב דעתו..."). b) As emotional preparation: Mishnah Berakhot 30b – "אין עומדין להתפלל אלא מתוך כובד ראש" – emphasis is on the state …