Volume 65 Number 87
Produced: Mon, 12 Sep 22 12:46:24 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Haftarah problem (2)
[Martin Stern Martin Stern]
Is Geirus deOraisa? (3)
[Martin Stern Chana Luntz Chana Luntz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 11,2022 at 06:17 AM
Subject: Haftarah problem
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz wrote (MJ 65#86):
> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 65#85):
>
>> This year Rosh Chodesh Ellul fell on Shabbat Re'eh so most kehillot read the
>> haftarah for Rosh Chodesh instead. So as not to miss one of the Sheva
>> Denechamta [seven haftaras of consolation], many read the haftarah of Re'eh
>> in addition to that of Ki Teitzei since it follows it in Sefer Yeshayah and
>> most chumashim have a note to this effect. While, for those who read the
>> haftarah from a megillah this presents no problem, it is awkward for those
>> reading (and following) from a chumash who have to turn back. Why don't
>> chumashim simply add that the combined haftarah is the same as that for Noach
>> (on page ...)
> In our shul they announced it before the reading of the Haftarah.
At my shul, they also announced that we would be reading the haftarah of Re'eh
in addition to that of Ki Teitzei but DID NOT mention that the combined haftarah
is the same as that for NOACH which was the point I was raising. Did they do so
in Hillel's shul?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 11,2022 at 06:17 AM
Subject: Haftarah problem
Menashe Elyashiv wrote (MJ 65#86):
> In response to Martin Stern (MJ 65#85):
>
> I assume that the additional haftara is not printed because:
>
> 1. It is said only in a year like this year
>
> 2. The Shulhan Aruch holds that 7 denehemta is never pushed off, so, like in
> our place, no need to reprint
I was not asking why it was not printed but why most chumashim have a note that,
when Rosh Chodesh Ellul fell on Shabbat Re'eh, those kehillot who had read the
haftarah for Rosh Chodesh instead would read it on Shabbat Ki Teitzei IN
ADDITION To the regular one when the combined haftarah is the same as that for
Noach.
Obviously this is irrelevant for those congregations who follow R. Yosef Karo's
ruling in the Shulhan Aruch.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 11,2022 at 04:17 PM
Subject: Is Geirus deOraisa?
Haim Snyder wrote (MJ 65#86):
> Chana Luntz wrote (MJ 65#83):
>
>> If Geirus is d'oraisa, then once a person converts, they are considered a Jew
>> from the Torah, and obligated in mitzvot from the Torah. If Geirus is only
>> d'rabbanan, then the convert is only a Jew, rabbinically and hence is only
>> obligated in mitzvot from the rabbis.
>
> I was surprised and disappointed by this statement. I don't understand how one
> can be considered a Jew but not be obligated by mitzvot from the Torah. The
> Karaites and the Samaritans went only by the WRITTEN Torah and rejected all
> rabbinic extensions. I've never heard of any movement that went only by
> d'rabbanan and rejected the Torah. How is that possible?
I think Haim has misunderstood what Chana meant. I understood her words to mean
that the OBLIGATION to observe Torah mandated mitzvot would only have been on a
RABBINIC level, not that the convert would ONLY be OBLIGATED to observe rabbinic
mitzvot to the EXCLUSION of ones mandated explicitly in the written Torah.
The main consequence would be that a convert would not be able to act as a
shaliach [agent] to perform a mitzvah de'oraita for a born Jew, for example to
be a ba'al tokei'a [shofar blower] for an adult male Jew to fulfil his mitzvah
of hearing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah.
Her comment further on makes this clear:
>> By the way, we have a number of situations where we have some people
>> obligated rabbinically and others from the Torah. There are various
>> situations where men and women are considered (or at least discussed) to be
>> in this scenario where women are therefore not permitted to perform a mitzvah
>> on behalf of men since they are not considered to exempt men from their
>> obligation.
For example, a woman cannot be a ba'al tokei'a [shofar blower] for an adult male
Jew to fulfil his mitzvah of hearing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <Chana@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 12,2022 at 11:17 AM
Subject: Is Geirus deOraisa?
Yisrael Medad wrote (MJ 65#86):
> I would have thought that when I wrote "d'Oraisa" it would be understood as
> meaning "written in the Torah" and not, as was implied, that somehow I do not
> believe that the Written Torah and the Oral Torah are one (although, of
> course, we all know that there are differences between d'Oraisa and
> d'Rabbanan).
>
> [It would be helpful if contributors would in future make clear when they
> refer to the Torah whether they are referring to the written text specifically
> or to it as understood in the light of the oral tradition - something a
> moderator cannot always distinguish - MOD]
I agree - but I do think it is really important that we all understand that
when the term d'oraisa is used - it is
a) a term derived from the Rabbinic literature; and
b) it is used to mean, across Rabbinic literature, something sourced in either
the Oral Torah or the Written Torah (or both).
When the Shulchan Aruch says "Women are obligated in birchat hamezon, and there
is a doubt as to whether they are obligated d'oraisa and can exempt men or if
they are only obligated d'rabbanan and they can only exempt one [a male] who is
obligated rabbinically" it makes no distinction as to whether or not that
d'oraisa is from the written Torah or the oral Torah, and it does not care.
To it, written Torah and oral Torah are one, so it simply doesn't matter.
> I cannot recall just now but it was mentioned by someone, correctly, that
> there is no mitzvah to convert and that is at the root of the "problem"
> [Martin Stern in MJ 65#74 - MOD]. But this week's sedra provides food for
> thought as there are three mitzvot evolving from the situation of Y'fat
> To'ar, a non-Jewish woman captured in battle. In other words, if one goes
> into battle and if one captures a woman he desires then he is obliged by
> three mitzvot. Why, then, could not the Written Torah have included a phrase
> as like "and when a foreigner seeks to convert, you shall..."? In fact, the
> Rambam, in chapter 8 of Sefer Shoftim in Melachim uMilchamot notes that she
> eventually must convert through immersion.
>
> So, conversion is right there but isn't "written out" To return to my
> original question: why?
This is why I thought that saying there is no mitzvah to convert wasn't helpful
in responding to Yisrael Medad's question. My answer to the question is
therefore not based on this, but is really answering a question with a question:
Why is ANY of the Oral Torah not included in the written Torah (not just this
bit about conversion)? Why is there an Oral Torah at all? Why didn't HaShem
write ALL of it down? And even if you needed a bit of Oral Torah, why is there
so much of it and why is there so little in the written Torah? Because the same
question can be asked about details of how to do circumcision, and how to make
tefillin, and how to observe Shabbat, and who is obligated in various mitzvot
(all the women's exemptions, for example, why did the Torah not explicitly put
all that in)? And the list goes on and on. Very, very little of what we do is
written explicitly in the written Torah.
Compared with most things we do, it seems to me that actually what is in the
written Torah in relation to a Ger is quite a lot. BUT you have to understand
the term "Ger" as the Oral Torah does, and not the way the academics do. The
Oral Torah understands the term Ger in the written Torah to mean two different
things in different contexts:
a) a Ger Tzedek - a convert; and
b) a Ger Toshav, one who is permitted to live in the land because such person
has either renounced idolatry or accepted all the seven mitzvot of the children
of Noach.
And although in some cases which is being referred to might be obvious, in
others it needs the Oral Torah to make it clear which of these two categories
the written Torah is dealing with. The academics reject this distinction, and
insist that the written Torah at the time it was written (down) can only have
meant one type of person, and set about reading it that way. Just as they
reject other aspects of the Oral Torah as being anything other than later
Rabbinic additions (similar to other non-Orthodox traditions, such as the
Karaites, Saddokim and Samaritans, who have also rejected the Oral Torah by
going back to the written Torah in a way they say is stripped of the Oral Torah,
just they argue about and are bothered by different bits).
The wider question as to why an Oral Torah was needed is a big question. But
pointing to a little bit of it and saying "why this" doesn't seem to me to be
very helpful without acknowledging the full scope of what is being questioned.
Yisrael then commented on what I wrote:
> a) ger does not appear in Sh'mot 12:45. [This was a misprint, it should
> have been Sh'mot 12:48. We apologise for not spotting it - MOD]
Apologies for the typo there. Given that I quoted the pasuk in full and gave
the correct reference further up that piece, I would have hoped that would have
been obvious.
> b) in Bamidar 15:15 and 16, although "ger" appears, the actual phrase is
> "hager hagar", meaning that the emphasis is not someone who has undergone
> conversion, IMHO, but rather one simply residing among you/us.
However it is on this pasuk that the Gemara in Kritut 9a brings Rebbe as
learning out the laws of conversion, as does the Sifri on B'Midbar parshat
Shlach Pesika 108. You might find the school of Rabbi Shimon (Mechilta d'Rabbi
Shimon bar Yochai) more satisfying, who learns it on Shemot 12:48, but the
Gemara chose to bring it from the school of Rabbi Akiva who learnt it on this
pasuk despite the literal meaning that has been given. As with so much of the
Oral Torah, one can often look at what appears to be the literal meaning (an eye
for an eye for example) and see exactly where the various literalists are coming
from.
> c) what is that source of that "traditional Orthodox way" too which you
> refer? And is "traditional" different from "d'Oraisa"?
"Traditional Orthodox way" was my way of trying to find some language to express
the totality of the system that includes the written Torah, the Oral Torah and
all the Rabbinic writings on it as ultimately codified and practiced in what
people today call Orthodoxy. It is very different from d'Oraisa. D'oraisa is
the term used by the "traditional Orthodox way" to describe something found in
either the written Torah or the oral Torah or both, generally used in contrast
to something rabbinic, or d'rabbanan.
The fundamental sources of the "Traditional Orthodox way" are
a) the written Torah [Torah shebikhtav];
b) the Oral Torah [Torah sheba'al peh] (as ultimately written down in and found
in and expounded on in the Mishna, Gemara, midrash halacha, tosefta, braitot etc.);
c) the Rabbinic writings (particularly the Mishna, Gemara but also midrash
halacha, tosefta, braitot etc.) that help delineate which bits are Oral Torah
and which bits are rabbinic enactments and fences, as then further discussed in
the Rishonim, Codes (such as the Rambam's and Shulchan Aruch's) and then even
further discussed in the Achronim and later poskim.
Given these sources, the "traditional Orthodox way" will look to the Mishna,
Gemara and midrash halacha as understood by the Rishonim to understand what is
Oral Torah and what is not, and how to understand the Written Torah. It does
not, at least for halachic topics, read the written Torah in isolation from what
is identified in the Mishna, Gemora etc as Oral Torah. Reading the written
Torah in the absence of the Oral Torah is of course the classic hallmarks of the
Saddokim, Karaites etc.
Regards
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <Chana@...>
Date: Mon, Sep 12,2022 at 12:17 PM
Subject: Is Geirus deOraisa?
In response to Haim Snyder (MJ 65#86):
> I was surprised and disappointed by this statement. I don't understand how one
> can be considered a Jew but not be obligated by mitzvot from the Torah.
In the Orthodox/Rabbinic tradition you cannot. That is BECAUSE Geirus
(conversion) is d'oraisa [from the Torah) so a convert is considered a Jew from
the Torah. I was going on the hypothetical question that was raised - what if
Geirus were d'rabbanan - from the Rabbis and NOT do'raisa?
You asked - what would the difference be IF Geirus was from the rabbis and not
d'oraisa? The difference is that if Geirus is only from the Rabbis, but does not
exist d'oraisa, from the Torah, then when a person comes to convert, the most
they could do is become a convert according to the Rabbis, from a d'oraisa
perspective, that person would remain a non-Jew. Unless the Torah itself
authorised conversion, conversion could not work at a Torah level.
> The Karaites and the Samaritans went only by the WRITTEN Torah and rejected
> all rabbinic extensions. I've never heard of any movement that went only by
> d'rabbanan and rejected the Torah. How is that possible?
There has been no religious movement to that effect. The only people who are
suggesting this are the academics. They say - we have no evidence of the
existence of a formal conversion process until the time of the Rabbis. Just
because the Rabbis and Rabbinic Judaism believed and believes there was a
conversion process all the way back to Sinai, doesn't mean that we have to
accept this. More likely (they say), the Israelites were a tribe based people,
with no concept of conversion that made the stranger (Ger) a member of one of
the tribes, just laws that meant that a stranger had to be treated equally to a
member of the tribes, but that in no way made him a native tribesman. It did not
obligate him in Torah laws as set out in the written Torah since at that time
those were, they postulate, considered obligatory only on members of the 12
tribes (unless otherwise specified). Much later in the Rabbinic age a concept
arose that other people could "join the tribes" and they formulated a procedure
- hence the whole concept of Geirus as we know it is a product of the Rabbis or
at least the Rabbinic age, and not the Torah age (the age in which the Torah was
written down in the form of the written Torah, which of course the academics
date to a different time from what we do).
The academics do not generally use the term d'oraisa. The term d'oraisa is a
Rabbinic term that means, in the Orthodox/Rabbinic tradition - that a concept is
from the Torah (and is used indiscriminately in Rabbinic writings such as the
Mishna and Gemara to mean from EITHER the written Torah or the oral Torah) and
is used in such writings to contrast to D'rabbanan - which are understood in the
Rabbinic writings to be mitzvot that were formulated by the Rabbis despite them
also being obligations on us.
Sometimes in Rabbinic/Orthodox understanding it is possible that we have people
who are only obligated rabbinically, and not d'oraisa. Sometimes this can be
for individual mitzvot and sometimes it can happen on a wider scale:
a. Individual mitzvot: there is an argument in the Gemara as to whether women
are obligated in birchat hamazon (grace after meals) d'oraisa or d'rabbanan.
Everybody within Rabbinic Judaism/Orthodoxy agrees that regular males are
obligated in birchat hamazon d'orisa (from the Torah) despite it being a rather
cryptic reference in Devarim 8:10 "and you will eat and be satisfied and you
shall bless the Lord your G-d for the good land He has given you" although the
Gemara understands that this Torah level obligation only kicks in when a certain
amount of bread is eaten, otherwise someone is only obligated in birchat hamazon
rabbinically. There is an argument in the Gemara however, as to whether women,
even if they eat the amount that would otherwise make the obligation d'orisa,
are still only obligated in birchat hamazon rabbinically. And so the Shulchan
Aruch Orech Chaim rules in Siman 186 si'if 1 "Women are obligated in birchat
hamazon, and there is a doubt as to whether they are obligated d'or isa and can
exempt men or if they are only obligated d'rabbanan and they can only exempt a
male who is obligated rabbinically".
b. People who are only obligated Rabbinically in all mitzvot: Within the
Rabbinic/Orthodox tradition there are people who are only obligated
Rabbinically. One example of this is a child. The Orthodox/Rabbinic
understanding is that a child (as defined as having not bought two pubic hairs)
is not obligated from the Torah in any mitzvot - all their obligations, to the
extent they have them, are rabbinic (d'rabbanan) with various practical
consequences. In addition, at least according to Tosafot (see e.g. Tosafot,
Eruvin 96b, s.v. dilma) blind people are only obligated in mitzvot d'rabbanan,
not d'oraisa.
You asked the question: what is the practical difference if somebody were to
be considered a Jew d'oraisa or d'rabbanan - the only distinction I know is
of being lenient or stringent? The answer is: if you are thinking within the
Rabbinic terms of d'oraisa and d'rabbanan, a very simple answer. The Rabbis,
in Orthodox/Rabbinic thinking, only have the obligation to impose mitzvot
rabbinically. If there is no concept of a convert accepting mitzvot from the
Torah and becoming a Jew (the query raised on this list), it is purely
d'rabbanan, then the MOST the Rabbis could possibly have done is obligate such
person in mitzvot rabbinically, they have no power to impose a Torah obligation
on somebody whom the Torah does not obligate. They can't do it with blind
people or women or children. So similarly they can't do it with non-Jews unless
the Torah, as understood by Rabbinic Judaism, in fact allows for this. And if
such a person is only obligated d'rabbanan, then they could not exempt a "full
Jew" who has an obligation d'oraisa. Given that we know that halachically a
convert CAN in various circumstances exempt any other Jew from d'oraisa
obligations -is exactly why I rejected the hypothetical question "Could Geirus
be D'rabbanan?".
Regards
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 65 Issue 87
