Yeshiva University

Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary

Center for the Jewish Future
500 West 185 Street
New York, NY 10033
A P U B L I C AT I O N O F T H E R A B B I N I C A L U M N I O F T H E R A B B I I S A A C E L C H A N A N T H E O L O G I C A L S E M I N A RY • A N A F F I L I AT E O F Y E S H I VA U N I V E R S I T Y

CHAVRUSA
September 2010 • Tishrei 5771 (:‫אין התורה נקנית אלא בחבורה )ברכות סג‬ Volume 45 • Number 1

In This Issue
Divrei Torah from:
Rabbi Zevulun Charlop
Rabbi Josh Flug
Rabbi Menachem Penner
Rabbi Zvi Romm

‫זמן שמחתינו‬
Conference for Torah Perspectives on
Assistant Rabbis Monetary Aspects of the
Page 5 Deep Water Oil Spill
Page 19
 In This Issue
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan
Theological Seminary
Page 3 News from RIETS
RIETS introduces new leadership initiative,
Richard M. Joel and conference for assistant rabbis
P r e s i d e n t, Y e s h i va U n i v e r s i ty

Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm

C h a n c e l l o r , Y e s h i va U n i v e r s i ty
R o s h H aY e s h i va , RIE T S

Rabbi Julius Berman

C h a i r m a n o f t h e B o a r d o f T r u s t e e s , RIE T S

Page 12 Musmakhim in the Limelight

A look at rabbis who teach Torah to women
Rabbi Yona Reiss
M a x a n d M a r i o n G r i l l D e a n , RIE T S

Rabbi Kenneth Brander

D av i d M i t z n e r D e a n , C e n t e r f o r t h e J e w i s h F u t u r e

Rabbi Zevulun Charlop

D e a n E m e r i t u s , RIE T S
Sp e c i a l A dv i s o r to t h e P r e s i d e n t o n Y e s h i va A f fa i r s Page 19 Practical Halachah
Torah Perspectives on the Monetary Aspects
Rabbi Robert Hirt of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
V i c e P r e s i d e n t E m e r i t u s , RIE T S By Rabbi Joshua Flug
Rabbi Dr. Solomon F. Rybak
P r e s i d e n t, R a bb i n i c A l u m n i

Rabbi Chaim Bronstein

A d m i n i s t r at o r , RIE T S

Page 5 Chomer L’Drush Page 10 Back to the

Ideas for Sukkot Beit Midrash
By Rabbi Menachem Penner “I and He”: Perspectives on the
CHAVRUSA Mitzvah of Lulav
A P u b l i c at i o n o f RIE T S R a bb i n i c A l u m n i By Rabbi Zvi Romm

Rabbi Ronald L. Schwarzberg Page 8 Divrei Chizuk Page 22 Lifecycles

D i r e ct o r , T h e M o r r i s a n d G e r t r u d e B i e n e n f e l d
D e pa r t m e n t o f J e w i s h C a r e e r D e v e l o p m e n t The Four Species
and Placement By Rabbi Zevulun Charlop

Rabbi Elly Krimsky

E d i to r , C H AV R U S A

Rabbi Levi Mostofsky

A s s o c i at e E d i t o r , C H AV R U S A

Ms. Keren Simon

A s s i s ta n t E d i t o r , C H AV R U S A

Rabbi Robert Shur

G r a p h i c s a n d L ayo u t, C H AV R U S A
CHAVRUSA is published three times a year by the Rabbinic Alumni of
the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, through the office
of the Morris and Gertrude Bienenfeld Department of Jewish Career
Development and Placement.
Yeshiva University’s Center for the Jewish Future serves as the community
service arm of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS).
It continues the work of the Max Stern Division of Communal Services
which, for over 60 years, has served as one of the premier service
organizations for the Jewish community.
5 0 0 W e s t 1 8 5 t h S t . S u i t e 41 3
N e w Yo r k , N Y 10 0 3 3
21 2 - 9 6 0 - 5 4 0 0 x 6 3 6 0
rabbinicalumni@yu.edu
chavrusamagazine@yu.edu
w w w. y u . e d u / c j f
Editorial contributions and submissions to CHAVRUSA are welcome.
This publication accepts no responsibility for unsolicited manuscripts
or photographs. All submissions are subject to editing and are used at
the editor’s discretion. Opinions expressed in this publication do not
necesarily reflect official Seminary and/or University policy.
Editorial Policies
• CHAVRUSA will consider articles and letters for publication.
• Books authored by musmakhim that are reviewed by musmakhim will be
considered for publication as well.
• Obituaries about and authored by musmakhim will be considered for publication.
• CHAVRUSA aims to maintain the Hebrew pronunciation style of the author of the
article. Transliterations follow the author’s preference i.e. academic, Ashkenazic,
modern Hebrew or the like. While we will remain consistent within articles, each
author will be afforded to transliterate within his comfort level.
• CHAVRUSA reserves the right to edit articles received for publication, and will
make every effort to show a draft form to the author prior to publication.
• Contributions may be sent to chavrusamagazine@yu.edu
• In addition to CHAVRUSA magazine, articles and divrei Torah may also be
submitted for publication in the weekly Rabbinic Alumni e-newsletter. Please
e-mail them to rabbinicalumni@yu.edu
2
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
In the News

RIETS Introduces Huberfeld Family

Semikha Leadership Initiative
The Yeshiva has introduced
the Huberfeld Family Semikha
Leadership Initiative, a thre-year
fellowship at RIETS designed
to mold future leaders of the
American rabbinate. “It is our
privilege to be afforded this
special opportunity to provide
enhanced leadership training
to students in consonance with
time-treasured Torah prin-
ciples of areivus, our communal
responsibility towards Klal
Yisroel,” said Rabbi Yona Reiss
’91R, the Max and Marion Grill
Dean of RIETS.
As part of the fellowship,
students will receive crucial
leadership and entrepreneurial
training that will enable them
not only to play a vital role in
(l-r) Rabbi Yaacov Feit, Rabbi Yechiel Shaffer, Dovid Bashevkin
their future respective commu-
nities, but to create and guide the
institutions that stand at the helm in the rabbinic, organizational and busi- tem,” said Rabbi Feit, who will participate
of those communities. ness worlds and benefit from personalized in a joint program between RIETS and the
The talented young men that com- professional coaching. “This offers me the Beth Din of America. “One of my goals
prise the first cadre of Huberfeld Fellows unique opportunity to learn from successful through the fellowship is to create several
are Rabbi Yaacov Feit ’05R, Rabbi Yechiel Jewish leaders in the field and the chance initiatives that will educate the community
Shaffer ’10R and RIETS student Dovid to continue my studies within the walls of at large. This will include seminars, articles
Bashevkin. Yeshiva University,” said Rabbi Shaffer, who and publications that clarify the roles and
“The goal of this program is not to obtained his semikha from RIETS as well procedures of beth din.”
produce leaders who will fill positions as his master’s degree in education from Bashevkin, who is currently complet-
in existing institutions,” explained Rabbi YU’s Azrieli Graduate School of Jewish ing both his rabbinic ordination at RIETS
Marc Penner ’91R, director of profes- Education and Administration in June. He and a master’s degree from YU’s Bernard
sional education for RIETS. “It is to train also served as a leader on the CJF-AJWS Revel Graduate School, believes the fel-
leaders who will envision and create the student trip to El Salvador. “I can continue lowship will help him develop as a leader
institutions of tomorrow.” The fellowship my development both academically and in and an educator. “I’d like to eventually get
program will combine an individualized the field under the best guidance.” Rabbi involved in communal leadership, educa-
curriculum of directed post-semikha Torah Feit, a member of the Yadin Yadin Kollel tion and growth,” said Bashevkin, who has
learning at RIETS with a full complement at RIETS, looks forward to furthering his been involved with several Jewish organiza-
of professional training, tailored to each of training in Jewish jurisprudence through tions and schools in the past. “My hope is to
the fellow’s career aspirations. Each fellow the fellowship. “Our community doesn’t become as valuable an asset as I can for the
will also be assigned multiple mentors fully understand or trust the beth din sys- Jewish community.” n

3
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
In the News

Assistant Rabbis Gather for Professional

Development Seminars Presented by CJF
Twenty-two assistant rabbis from across
North America recently gathered for two one-
day seminars presented by Yeshiva University’s
Center for the Jewish Future (CJF). The semi-
nars featured presentations on topics ranging
from “Relationship to the Senior Rabbi” and
“Assistant Rabbi vs. Senior Rabbi” to “Pro-
gramming and Best Practices” and “It’s Not
Too Early: Building your Financial Future.”
The seminars were hosted by Congrega-
tion Edmund J. Safra in New York’s Upper
East Side. The synagogue’s spiritual leader,
Rabbi Elie Abadie, also serves as director of the
Jacob E. Safra Institute of Sephardic Studies at
Yeshiva University.
“Assistant rabbis are a growing sector of
the Orthodox clergy whose respective roles Participants at the Assistant Rabbi Conference
are often undefined,” explained Rabbi Levi
Mostofsky, director of rabbinic programming not get attention and recognition at broader community of peers to discuss their particular
at the CJF and one of the events’ coordina- rabbinic gatherings. These seminars provide challenges and opportunities.” n
tors. “They are budding professionals who do them the opportunity to come together as a

Table set aside for

RIETS Rabbinic
Alumni in the Jacob
and Dreizel Glueck
Center for Jewish
Study
Dedicated in memory of
Harav Dovid Lifschitz zt”l
Feel free to come by anytime to learn
in the vibrant and exciting atmosphere
of the newest makom Torah on the
YU uptown Wilf Campus. The table
for rabbinic alumni is located on the
second floor of the new beit midrash,
and is accesible by both stairs and an
elevator.

4
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
Chomer l’Drush
Chomer L’Drush
and Ideas for
Sukkot
Rabbi Menachem Penner
Director, Professional Rabbinic
Education, RIETS
Rabbi, Young Israel of Holliswood
B y the Yom Tov of Sukkot, the kehillah
— and sometimes the Rav — may be
tired of long derashot. No matter how
wonderful and meaningful one’s Yomim No-
raim divrei Torah have been, Sukkot becomes
a time for something a bit different: short, yet
thought-provoking ideas. I share with you a
collection of insights relating to Sukkot and
simchah that I have used or will be using in
Holliswood and encourage you to share simi-
lar ideas with me at penner@yu.edu. Please
also feel free to e-mail me for full copies of the
sources referenced in this article.
Sukkot is the paradigmatic festival of
simchah and we are commanded three times
in the Torah within the context of this chag
to be happy. In fact, we are told (or exhorted)
“vehayita ach sameach.”
A number of reasons can be suggested for
the special joy of Sukkot. The simchah may
be related to the material joy of the completed
harvest. While there is an element of joy
intrinsic to the other chagim, the fact that work
remains to be done in the field gets in the way
of true simchah on Pesach or Shavuot .1 At
the same time, the simchah of Sukkot may be
tied to the spiritual joy of the time spent with
Hashem in Tishrei and to the sense of relief for
having been forgiven on Yom Kippur. Either
way, Sukkot is a good time to look at happiness
and to think about what makes us happy.
1. Most people feel a real sense of joy while
eating the yom tov meals in their sukkah.
This is, on the surface, somewhat strange.
We leave our comfortable homes to sit on
rickety chairs in a hut and we find ourselves
delighted. Why ARE we so happy in the suk-
kah? Is it possible that what we do on Sukkot
is to take the things that are most valuable to
us — our family, our friends, our tradition
— remove them from the distractions of our
homes, and celebrate them?
Meals in the sukkah are made all the more spe-
cial by the attention we give to our children’s
decorations. And how nice it is that there are
no couches for family members to retire upon
before the meal is finished! This message can
be a very powerful one to share with our ba’alei
bayit. What do we truly need to be happy?
Perhaps the answer is found in our sukkot.
2. An interesting contemporary look at the
concept of happiness can be found in a recent
edition of Commentary magazine.2 The author
reviews two recent books about happiness —
one from a personal and one from a political
perspective — and concludes that the books
have confused the concepts of “happiness” and
“fulfillment.” In a few powerful sentences, the
writer explains that happiness not a “right” but
a gift for which we must be most thankful.
3. Simchah is, of course, not just a concept; we
are commanded to be happy on the chagim
and this commandment is one of the most
difficult mitzvot to fulfill. To eat, to drink, even
to sing — that may be easy. To actually remain
happy for seven, eight or nine days in a row
is extraordinarily difficult. The Vilna Gaon
claimed that there is no more difficult mitzvah
than “vesamachta bechagecha.”3
Rav Soloveitchik often differentiated be-
tween mitzvot whose kiyum was one of action
and those whose kiyum was balev. The former
can be most challenging to fulfill, especially for
an extended period of time.
4. And Sukkot, if understood on a deeper level,
makes this challenge even harder. The sukkah
reminds us of our vulnerability.4 Despite all of
our human efforts, represented by the building
of the sukkah, we remain open to the elements
5
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
and the vagaries of “nature.” Rav Soloveitchik
spoke of the dread that modern man faces
despite his advances in science and technol-
ogy. The fear is not new. Shlomo Hamelech,
despite all of the guards that surrounded him
and despite the relative peace in his time, was
haunted by a “pachad ba’leilot” — a fear of
the unknown and uncontrollable that looms
around the corner. Modern Man, in particular,
is haunted by this feeling of insecurity despite
all that he has accomplished.5 (The Rav once
suggested that this “pachad ba’leilot” was the
fear of degenerative disease and senility — a
malady that no-one, despite their power, riches
and brilliance can avoid. The Rav, himself,
would be subject for more than a decade to
this “pachad ba’leilot”. )
A simple approach would be to say “All will
be OK— Hashem will protect us.” And, of
course, He does and He will. But the sukkah,
where it does rain sometimes and we do not
always feel completely protected, begs us to
consider a more sophisticated approach. In-
stead, suggests Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo,
the sukkah is a challenge to celebrate what we
have despite our genuine fears and uncertain-
ties. He writes that “to be happy when all is
well is of no significance. But to fully aware of
the dangers which surround us, while simul-
taneously continuing our lives with ‘song and
harp’ is what makes humans great and proud.”6
5. From its inception, Sukkot represents
dreams as of yet unfulfilled and the ability
to rejoice in the process of geulah while it
continues to unfold. Rabbi Ben Tzion Firer
asks why two holidays, Pesach and Sukkot are
necessary to remember Yetziat Mitzrayim7. He
answers that while Pesach commemorates the
day of Yetziat Mitzrayim — “So that you may
remember the day of your exodus from Egypt
…,”8 Sukkot marks the days that followed
— “ So that your generations shall know that
in sukkot did I make the Children of Israel
dwell when I brought them out from the land
Egypt.”9 The latter focuses not on the day of
the Exodus, but on the many difficult days that
followed as they stood between the Exodus
from Egypt and the entrance into Eretz Yisrael.
This theme of Sukkot is most important
and relevant. It reminds us that we should not
despair of a complete geulah if the redemption
does not materialize immediately. It reminds
us to celebrate each stage of the geulah, even as
we await the final stage of the redemption.
continued on page 6
Chomer l’Drush
Chomer L’Drush and Ideas for Sukkot
continued from page 5
We are reminded of this message by our
special “guests” in the sukkah. Rav Firer notes
that all of the ushpizin longed for a redemption
they could not yet taste. Avraham, Yitzchak
and Yaakov are promised Eretz Yisrael but are
not given the land in their lifetimes. Yosef is
exiled and must await redemptions for himself
and for his family. Moshe and Aharon are
unable to cross into Eretz Yisrael. And Dovid
Hamelech yearns for the Beit HaMikdash, but
is not zocheh to build it himself. They send a
single message to those who will one day sit
in sukkot: “Be patient. It may not happen just
yet. It may not even happen in your lifetime.
But geulot come slowly. Most important, they
do eventually come.” During the long journey
it may seem difficult — yes, “the shade will be
greater than the sunlight” — but the end will
eventually come.
Perhaps, for this reason, Eliyahu HaNavi is
not invited on Sukkot. Eliyahu is the mevaser
ha’geulah. His role restarts when he is ready to
announce an imminent geulah. But that’s not
Sukkot. Sukkot is not about the moments of
geulah themselves, but the long journeys that
lead from one stage of the geulah to the next.10
6. Part of the joy of Sukkot is in the multitude
of mitzvot we are able to perform. It is a crucial
time to show our children that mitzvot, even
when they are somewhat “inconvenient,” are
a source of joy. The attitude that we bring to
yeshiva ba’sukkah can have lasting effects on
our family. If we complain about the cold, the
pine needles, the bees, the mosquitoes and ev-
erything else that distracts us, we send a mes-
sage that mitzvot are a burden. However, if we
show a genuine love for one of the few mitzvot
that we can perform with our entire bodies, we
send a powerful message to the next genera-
tion.11 Rav Moshe Feinstein lamented that a
generation was lost to Shabbat observance
despite the great sacrifices of their parents to
keep Shabbat when they came to the shores of
America. Though parents sacrificed so much
to keep the Shabbat, a generation grew up
seeing Shabbat as a burden rather than a joy.
Shabbat meant not just loss of income, but,
usually, loss of a job. Children, unable to see
the joy and value of the Shabbat, yearned for
the day when they could throw that burden
away. Unfortunately, many did.12
We often take it for granted that our children
understand the meaning that Judaism brings
to our lives. Very often, however, they hear only
the sarcasm, the sighs and the complaints. It is
important to use Sukkot, zman simchateinu, as
a time to clearly express how fortunate we are
to have the mitzvot ha’Torah.
7. Another angle to consider is the joy we give
to Hashem on Sukkot.13 Rabbi Dr. Abraham
Twerski tells a famous story about the Chafetz
Chaim that illustrates this idea:14
On the return from a convention in which many
Torah sages participated, the train made stops in
several towns, whose Jewish communities came
out to greet the gedolim. The Chafetz Chaim,
however, in his profound humility, never went on
the train platform to meet the people. HaGaon
Rav Meir Shapiro of Lublin, although he was a
young man, boldly approached the elderly sage.
“Why aren’t you going out to meet the people?”
he asked. The Chafetz Chaim answered, “Why
should I go out? What is it that they want to see?
6
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
I don’t have horns on my head. It is because they
have this idea about me that I am a tzaddik,
and if I go out to them, I am making a statement
about myself that I am someone special.” Rav
Meir Shapiro asked, “And what is wrong with
making such a statement?” The Chafetz Chaim
said, “What do you mean ‘what is wrong?’ It
is ga’avah.” Rav Meir Shapiro said, “And if it
is ga’avah, so what?” The Chafetz Chaim said,
“Ga’avah is a terrible aveirah.” Rav Meir Shapiro
said, “And what happens if one does an aveirah?”
The Chafetz Chaim said, “Why, for an aveirah
one will be punished in Gehenom.” Rav Meir
Shapiro said, “Throngs of Jews will have pleasure
from seeing you. Aren’t you willing to accept some
punishment in order to give Jews pleasure?” The
Chafetz Chaim was electrified. From then on,
every time the train pulled into a station he was
the first one on the platform to meet the people.
Rabbi Dr. Twerski continues, “This story
tells us that we must be willing to accept some
discomfort to give others pleasure. “ This
was said in the cotext of a dispute between a
brother and sister regarding their mother. But
what a powerful lesson for us about sitting in
the sukkah and giving “pleasure” to the Rib-
bono shel Olam.
8. Another interesting connection to sim-
chah can be found in the takanot of Rabbi
Yochanan ben Zakkai relating to lulav and
chadash. The Gemara15 tells us that Rabbi
Yochanan ben Zakkai established two takan-
not zecher le’Mikdash — one, that the lulav
be taken all seven days, even outside of the
Mikdash, and another that new wheat remain
assur on the entire 16th day of Nisan (the “Yom
HaNeif ”), despite the fact that the Mikdash
was destroyed and no Korban ha’Omer was
being prepared for offering. What, asks Rav
Elyashiv, is the connection between these two
takkanot?
He answers that the takkanot have the
opposite effect. To legislate seven days of lulav
observance as a remembrance to the Temple
days was to send a message that a long period
of galut was forthcoming. One doesn’t cre-
ate a remembrance for something unless a
significant period of time will elapse before it
is renewed. The affect of this first takana was
devastating for the people. They understood,
through the eyes of their gadol ha’dor that the
Chomer l’Drush
geulah might be far into the future. Therefore,
a second takana was necessary — one that
reminded them that geulah could come at any
moment.16
9. A further thought on the joy of being
forgiven: Rav Chaim Yaakov Goldvicht, the
past rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Kerem BeYavneh,
suggested a fascinating insight to the famous
Yalkut Shimoni (651) that speaks of the Jewish
people emerging victoriously from beit din with
their lulavim and etrogim held high as a symbol
of victory.17 Why are the daled minim chosen as
the symbols of our victory?
Rav Goldvicht explained that victory can
only be assured by attaching oneself to the
Klal. When the angels question as to why
Klal Yisrael cannot sing shirah on the Yomim
Noraim,18 they are looking at our chances in
the Heavenly court as a tzibbur. Why, they ask,
should Klal Yisrael, confident of victory, not
sing shirah during the judgment? The answer
given by the Gemara is that each Jew is also
judged as an individual. “Is it possible that the
King sits on his Throne of Judgment and the
books of life and death (for each individual)
are open and Israel should sing shirah?”
There is no greater symbol of the unity of
Klal Yisrael than the daled minim, repre-
senting so many different types of Jews
bound together. Rav Goldvicht explains in
a beautiful essay that part of doing teshuva
is connecting oneself to the Klal (similar to
the famous words of Rav Soloveitchik in Al
HaTeshuva). For this reason, the Midrash
chose the daled minim as the ultimate
symbol of victory. It is when we are bound
together like the four species that we can be
confident of our victory.
10. According to the Vilna Gaon, Sukkot
specifically celebrates the joy of a renewed rela-
tionship with G-d. In his commentary to Shir
HaShirim,19 the GR”A suggests that the 15th
of Tishrei was chosen as the date for Chag
Ha’Sukkot because it was on that very day that
the Ananei HaKavod, removed from the Jew-
ish people after the chet ha’eigel, were restored.
The Jews were forgiven on Yom Kippur and
several days later began to build the Mishkan.
Only after the building of the Mishkan begins
is the atonement complete and only then did
the clouds reappear. This occurred on the 15th
of Tishrei, five days after Yom Kippur. The
sukkah thus represents the special protection
that we receive from Hashem even after we
have sinned — if we are able to do teshuva.
The chag thus follows beautifully on the heels
of the Yomim Noraim.
It is my hope that some of these thoughts
can enhance your Sukkot and the yom tov of
your kehillot. n
7
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
Footnotes
1. Chizkuni, Da’at Zekeinim and others to Devarim
16:15. See Meshech Chochma to this pasuk who
suggests that the mi’ut of “ach sameach” comes to
limit those who rejoice only because of the materials
aspects of the simchah. Ultimately, their simchah
will be clouded by jealousy and will not be complete.
2. “The Dawn of the Happiness Busybody”, Com-
mentary, April 2010, pp. 51-54.
3. Quoted in Sefer Divrei Shalom, p. 36.
4. It is interesting that the Sukkah, which started as a
symbol of our material success in Eretz Yisrael (see
Rashbam to Vayikra 23:43), has become a symbol
of our wanderings in exile. For further elaboration
of the theme of sukkah as historical galut, see Rabbi
Isaac C. Avigdor, Two for Ten, pp. 131 and Rabbi
Lord Jonathan Sacks, Faith in the Future, pp. 150-
153. An interesting look at the value of Galut can
be found in Rav Soloveitchik’s Abraham’s Journey
(Masoret HaRav), in the chapter on Avraham’s
wanderings, especially pp. 75-80, and Rabbi Yisroel
Reisman’s Pathways of the Prophets, in a fascinat-
ing chapter entitled “Prava Galus,” pp. 25-40.
5. See shiur of Rav Soloveitchik, Saturday night, Dec.
16, 1978, Sedra “Vayaytze” which can be found at
www.613.org
6. Thoughts to Ponder, vol. 1, pp. 135-137.
7. Eleh Heim Mo’adai, vol. 1, pp. 149-152.
8. Devarim 16:3.
9. Vayikra 23:43
10. My own thought. Rav Firer himself suggests else-
where that Eliyahu is left off the “guest list” because
Sukkot is a time of rachamim and inclusion of all
types of Jews. Eliyahu represents kana’ut and is thus
not welcome on Sukkot.
11. See Rav Moshe Meir Weiss, Passionate Judaism,
pp 165-167.
12. Derash Moshe, vol. 1, to Parshat Pinchas, p. 133.
13. See Alshich to Vayikra 23:37 who explains that it
is not we, but Hashem who has complete simchah
on Sukkot.
14. Dear Rabbi, Dear Doctor, pp. 20-21.
15. Bavli, Sukkah 41a.
16. Quoted in He’arot al Masechet Sukkah by Rav
Yonah Emmanuel, p. 191. I have seen this idea
quoted in the name of the Sfat Emet, but have not
been able to locate a source in his writings.
17. Yikra d’Chaim (Memorial Volume in memory of
Rav Goldvicht, zt”l), pp. 71-75. See there at length
as he incorporates many ma’amarei Chazal into
this idea.
18. Bavli, Rosh Hashana, 32b.
19. Kol Eliyahu, Parshat Emor, 84.
Divrei Chizuk
Zeh Hakadosh
Baruch Hu
Rabbi Zevulun Charlop
P
ri Etz Hadar, zeh Hakadosh Baruch Hu
… hod v’hadar lavashta (Tehillim 104)
Kapos Temarim zeh Hakadosh Baruch Hu
… tzadik katamar yifrach (Tehillim 32)
Anaf Eitz Avos zeh Hakadosh Baruch Hu …
v’hu omed bein hahadasim (Zechariah 1)
Arvei nachal zeh Hakadosh Baruch Hu … solu
l’rochev b’arvos b’Kah shmo (Tehillim 68)
(Midrash Vayikra Rabba 30:9)
Probably the most popular and well
known midrash relating to the daled minim, the
four species that we take on Sukkos is the one
that defines and distinguishes the wholeness of
the Jewish people in its distinct and possibly at
times disparate parts: even as the esrog has taste
and fragrance, taam vareyach, so too are there
Jews who combine Torah, identified with taste
and maasim tovim, good works, identified with
fragrance. The lulav refers to those Jews who
have taste, Torah, but want for maasim tovim,
fragrance. Others are likened to hadasim, to
myrtles. They have maasim tovim but are not
necessarily learned in Torah. Finally, we have the
willows, the aravos, which have neither taste nor
fragrance.
And the midrash wonders, how does
HaKadosh Baruch Hu relate to these human wil-
lows, without taste or fragrance?
U-ma haKadosh Baruch Hu oseh lahem?
L’ovdan, ee efshar. Ela, amar Hakadosh Baruch
Hu, yuksheru kulam agudah achas v’hein
m’chaprin elu al elu. Ve’im asisem kach, osa sha’ah
ani mis’aleh.
What does the Holy One Blessed Be He do with
or to them? He can’t destroy them! Instead, He ‘ties
them all together into one congregation and they
atone for each other.’ And if you do this, at that
very moment, I am uplifted! (Vayikra Rabbah
30:9)
But the question remains, how and why
do we need the aravos altogether? They have
no Torah, they have no maasim tovim. What do
they add or contribute? On the contrary, they
may diminish from the wholesomeness and
sanctity of the others, separate or united.
The answer, it seems to me, is provided two
midrashim earlier, in anticipation almost, which
astonishingly denominates each of the four
species and each on its own as the Holy One
Blessed Be He, even the lowly and undistin-
guished aravos.
What in the world does the midrash
mean when it proclaims of each of the minim,
including the aravos, individually, Zeh Hakadosh
Baruch Hu, this is the Holy One Blessed Be He.
For me, this midrash is a startling articula-
tion of one of the loftiest and essential teachings
of Torah, of Yiddishkeit, that all Jews - and in a
real sense all humanity - in different ways, what-
ever their station and whoever they be, share at
bottom the breath of Hashem, the tzelem Elokim,
the image of God, that He infused into Adam
Harishon at the very inception of Creation.
And, it is this truth which was self evident to the
Founding Founders of these United States and
speaks to the overriding splendor of the Ameri-
can democracy and sets it altogether apart from
the French Revolution that followed.
The American Revolution was defined and
took its strength from the Declaration of Inde-
pendence which proclaims in that elegant and
vaulting cadence that “We are endowed by our
Creator with certain inalienable rights.” With
8
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
their invoking of the Borei Olam Hakadosh Ba-
ruch Hu, the Creator, these giants who “brought
forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived
in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that
all men are created equal,” projected the ultimate
truth about all of us, that the Tzelem Elokim —
the irrepressible and undying spirit of Hakadosh
Baruch Hu — reposes securely, inextricably
and eternally in us and our descendants.
Murbiyos
Near the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur
War, when literally and miraculously victory
was snatched from the jaws of defeat but which
unfortunately brought in its wake massive casu-
alties, my father, Rabbi Yechiel Michel Charlop
zt’l shared with me on the Hoshanah Rabbah
of that year, as the war was winding down and
our enemies were on the run, that he now
understood more fully the mishnah in Sukkah
(Sukkah 45a).
How was the mitzvah of aravah accomplished?
There was a place below Yerushalayim called
motza. The agents of the beis din would descend
there and collect murbiyos of aravah and would
erect them at the sides of the altar, with their tops
bent over the altar...
The Gemara (Sukkah 45a) describes these
murbiyos, as very tall willows, which surround-
ed the mizbeyach on Hoshanah Rabbah and
around which seven hakafos were made.
My father asked, why did they particularly
choose aravos? They should have surrounded
the mizbeyach with the beautiful esrogim or the
imposing lulavim, or the sweet smelling and
comely hadasim instead.
It was in the context of the heavy and
heartbreaking casualty reports that he sensed a
new understanding of murbiyos — the aravos
of Hoshanah Rabbah. While it is true that the
talmidim of the Yeshivot Hesder who served in
Tzahal sustained, early on, possibly the greatest
losses certainly in relative proportion to their
numbers. This was owing to the fact that they
chose to stay at their posts, to man the border
on Yom Kippur, so that their less observant
comrades could go home for the Holy Day.
Nonetheless, it was clear that the vast
majority of those who died al Kiddush Hashem,
protecting and defending Eretz Yisrael against
the sneak, brutal and sweeping onslaught of the
enemy, were the less lettered and less devout
Divrei Chizuk
Israeli soldiers. My father noted that they may
have been perceived in some quarters as the ara-
vos of our people — no taste and no fragrance.
However, the truth of the matter was that in all
likelihood without their sacrifices, we could
not have emerged victorious in those dark days.
Without them, heaven forefend, there may not
have been a state of Israel today.
On Hoshannah Rabbah, a day likened to
Yom Kippur, it was the aravos which adorned the
mizbeyach, because their human representations
were closest to the mizbeyach. They proved to be
the korbanos, the sacrifices, which saved the day.
In the conglomerate of the Jewish people they
were surely not an unimportant component.
Therefore, no less of them do we declare zeh
HaKadosh Baruch Hu.
Having said all this, however, as bnei Torah
and maaminim b’nei maaminim, we must know
that no less than the heroic soldier on the battle-
field, in different and possibly in profounder
ways, Talmud Torah and yiras Shamayim cannot
be trumped. This truth should never be lost on
us.
One of the premier commentaries, the
Atzei Yosef found in editions of the midrash, un-
derstood the inclusion of the aravos among the
daled minim from a different vantage point. With
their failings and all — without taam and reyach
— it was the aravos who surprisingly wanted to
be at one with the esrogim, the lulavim and the
hadassim. That in itself is a mighty saving grace.
Avaryanim
The authors of the Yom Kippur machzor
deemed it appropriate to open the Kol Nidrei
service with a special plea to the beis din shel
maalah, the tribunal above and the beis din shel
matah, the tribunal here on earth, to allow the
avaryanim, loosely translated as sinners, to pray
with the congregation. Indeed it can and should
be construed as a call of welcome to them.
I often wondered why the word avaryan for
sinner was chosen and not the more common
posh’im and chot’im, words or forms of these
words which abound in the machzor? It seemed
to me that avaryan was deliberately selected
over its more familiar synonyms because it also
resonates the word ivri, which is a highlight of
Maftir Yonah, which we read as prelude to Neilah.
Most of us are familiar with the story of Jonah
the prophet who was fleeing from the Almighty
who put upon him an urgent, awesome, charge
to preach teshuvah to the forsaken metropolis of
Nineveh, which otherwise stood imminently to
be destroyed. Jonah apparently for some reason
not altogether clear to us, took flight on a ship
which in time was met by a furious storm which
threatened to break his ship apart, burying crew
and passengers in the deep oblivion of the sea.
When his fellow voyagers asked Jonah,
the stranger among them, who they prop-
erly suspected is the cause of their impending
misfortune, “who are you and where do you
come from?” Unafraid he says Ivri Anochi, I am a
Hebrew, even as he is running away from G-d.
Avaryanim was the word chosen for sinners
because of its cognitive similarity to ivri. We
don’t force the aravah to be bound up with the
other more committed kinds. In fact, the aravah,
as distanced as he is from the many hallowed
perspectives of our faith, nonetheless wants to
be part and parcel of the Jewish people and to
show himself before the Almighty at least once
a year. His Jewish tzelem Elokim is still alive and
pulsating and is witnessed to the fact that he is
not, heaven forefend, sundered from his roots,
from klal Yisrael. And in this sense, it can be said
of this aravah zeh Hakadosh Baruch Hu. He is a
posheya or a chotei perhaps, but he proclaims ivri
anochi, and therefore he is called an avaryan.
Vat’chasreihu me’at m’Elokim,
v’chavod v’hadar te’atreihu.
But there is another concept, certainly no less
majestic than tzelem Elokim, and probably
another understanding of tzelem Elokim, that
tzelem Elokim not only applies to the moral and
ethical imperatives which ought to distinguish
him from other inhabitants of the universe, but
gives nearly literal meaning to David’s soaring
conception of who man is when he proclaims,
ki er’eh shamecha, ma’aseh etzb’osecha, yareyach
v’chochavim asher konantah. mah enosh ki sizk-
erenu uven adam ki sifkidenu va’tchasreihu me’at
me’Elokim v’chavod v’hadar te-atreihu.
When I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fin-
gers, the moon and the stars which You established.
What is man that You are mindful of him and the
son of man that You think of him? You have made
him slightly lower than Elokim and have crowned
him with glory and honor. (Tehillim 8:4-6)
9
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
I don’t believe that ever before in human
history has this psalm been more understood
and felt as in the last 25 years, and increasingly
in the last five to ten years. The psalm introduces
the notion of va’tchasreihu me’at me’Elokim, of
man being slightly less than Elokim, with ki er’eh
shamecha, ma’aseh etzb’osecha, yareyach v’chochavim
asher konantah…
Buckminster Fuller, the noted architect and
iconoclast who died several years ago observed,
“Until I was 28, we knew only about our own
galaxy. In 1923, Hubble discovered another
galaxy. Since then we have discovered 2 billion
beyond that.” And I might add that in the years
since, even millions and possibly billions more.
Amazing! But that is exactly what Chazal told us
nearly two millennia ago in Brachos (32b) and
specifically in the explanatory note that appears
in the Artscroll edition of the Talmud (note 23),
which invokes Chazal’s understanding centuries
ago of the vastness of the universe.
The Gemara, undoubtedly taken from
some ancient Mesorah that was handed down
from generation to generation, pictures for us
a hierarchy of galaxies with the names ligyon,
rahaton, karton and gostera, telling us the precise
number of stars attached to each of these galax-
ies. Artscroll computes or attempts to compute
their total number: “Ligyon, rahaton, karton
and gostera are titles for different officers [taken
apparently from Roman military parlance]
(Rashi), proceeding in a hierarchy from the
higher to the lower levels (Ben Yehoyada). Each
“officer,” representing a system of stars or other
heavenly bodies, controls numerous lower-
level “officers” and their “divisions” beneath
them, and so on. The lowest level “officers,” the
gosteras, numbering in the hundreds of millions
(12x30x30x30x30x30), each has attached to
it several billion stars (365 thousand myriad).
This amounts to quadrillions of stars.”
A talmid of mine through a strange hap-
penstance was in the same car with Garrett
Reisman, the only Jew to have lived on a space
station for 90 days. He returned to earth a little
over two years ago. And our talmid, upon learn-
ing that he was Jewish, asked if he had placed a
mezuzah on the space station, not really expect-
ing a positive answer. He was surprised when
continued on page 11
Back to the Beit Midrash
“I and He”:
Perspectives on the
Mitzvah of Lulav
Rabbi Zvi Romm
Instructor of Talmud, Isaac Breuer College
Rabbi, Bialystoker Synagogue, NYC
A
nd [through the performance of the
mitzvah of lulav] may I know how Your
Name is called upon me, such that [my
enemies] will fear to approach me …
This phrase, culled from the Yehi Ratzon
prayer recited by some prior to performing the
mitzvah of lulav, calls for explanation. What
does it mean to have G-d’s name “called upon”
the one who performs the mitzvah of lulav?
How does this mitzvah affect that result?
The answer may lie in a striking Midrash
in Vayikra Rabba (30:9):
“A goodly fruit (i.e. the esrog)” — this refers to
the Holy One, Blessed be He, about whom it
says “You donned glory and beauty.” “A palm
branch” — this refers to the Holy One, Blessed
be He, about whom it says “The Righteous One
will flower forth like a palm tree.” “A branch of
myrtles” — this refers to the Holy One, Blessed
be He, about whom it says “He stood among the
myrtles.” “And willows of the river” — this refers
to the Holy One, Blessed be He, about whom it
says “Praise the One who rides in the Heavens
(aravos) using His Name.”
Each of the four species taken on Sukkos
is deemed to be symbolic of G-d Himself
in some fashion. Thus, the one performing
the mitzvah of lulav is taking objects which
represent — metaphorically, of course — the
Almighty Himself.
Yet just a few paragraphs later in the
same Vayikra Rabba, we find another passage
(30:12) which addresses the symbolism of
lulav from a very different perspective:
“A goodly fruit” — this refers to Israel; just as
the esrog has both taste and scent, thus Israel
contains those who posses both Torah and good
deeds. “A palm branch” — this refers to Israel;
just as the lulav has taste but no scent, thus Israel
contains those who posses Torah but no good
deeds. “A branch of myrtles” — this refers to
Israel; just as the myrtle has a scent but no taste,
thus Israel contains those who posses good deeds
but no Torah. “And willows of the river” — this
refers to Israel; just as the willow has neither scent
nor taste, thus Israel contains those who posses
neither Torah nor good deeds.
Part of the
symbolism of the
Four Species is to
show that a unique
bond exists between
G-d and His
Chosen People
Here, the four species are portrayed not
as representing G-d, but as representing the
Jewish People. Other midrashim see the four
species as symbolic of various aspects of Klal
Yisrael, the Avos and Imahos (30:10) or the
Sanhedrin (30:11).
Which is the “true” symbolism of lulav
and esrog? Perhaps we can suggest that all the
symbolic representations are correct. In fact,
part of the symbolism of the four species is to
show that a unique bond exists between G-d
10
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
and His Chosen People. It is not accidental
that the four species are used to portray both
G-d and the Jews. Part of the message of the
Four Species is precisely that Yisrael v’Kudsha
Brich Hu chad hu — that the Jewish People
and G-d are truly united.
This notion, that lulav conveys the
identification of G-d with the Jewish People,
helps explain certain aspects of the hoshanos
recited with the taking of lulav and esrog.
The Mishnah (Sukka 45a) records the
opinion of R’ Yehuda that instead of saying
“Ana Hashem hoshiana na” (“Please, O
G-d, save now”) when circling the altar in
the Beis HaMikdash, the kohanim instead
said “Ani vaHo hoshiana na.” While noting
that the gematria of “ani vaHo” equals that
of “ana Hashem,” Tosfos question what the
significance of “ani vaHo” might be. They
suggest that it means “I and He” — that, as
it were, G-d Himself is in captivity when
the Jews go into exile. The prayer asks G-d
not only to save us, but, so to speak, to save
Himself. The phrase “ani vaHo” thus identifies
G-d with the Jewish People as a central
component of the hoshanos.
This theme is carried further in numerous
stanzas of the poem authored by R’ Eliezer
HaKalir which concludes the hoshanos:
As you saved a nation and its G-d, both in need
of G-d’s salvation — so may You save us now!
As you saved the plant [Israel] who sang “He
saved [us],” the same word is vocalized as “He
was saved” for the One who delivered it — so
may You save us now!
As you saved with the expression “I will redeem
you,” which can also be read as “I will be re-
deemed with you” — so may You save us now!
The theme in all these stanzas, as well as
others, is that G-d goes into exile together with
the Jewish People, and that He is redeemed
from exile together with us. Once again, the
hoshanos stress the identification of G-d with
the Jewish People.
When we consider that the hoshanos
are recited while circling the bima with the
Sefer Torah, a third element is added to this
equation: The notion that G-d and the Jewish
People are both identified with the Torah —
Yisrael, Kudsha Brich Hu, v’Oraisa chad hu.
Based on all this, we can understand the
Back to the Beit Midrash
phrase with which we began — describing the
lulav as exemplifying how “Your Name is called
upon me” — in greater depth. Indeed, the one
who performs the mitzvah of lulav is declaring
that the Jewish People, and by extension,
himself, identifies with the Almighty. In this
Divrei Chizuk
Zeh Hakadosh Baruch Hu
continued from page 9
Reisman told him, “I did in fact affix a mezuzah
on one of the posts of the space station.”
At the same time, only in the last few years,
the GPS has become part of us, it goes wherever
we go. It can direct billions of people to billions
of destinations instantaneously. It can tell a
billion people at the same time all around the
globe with absolute precision, how they can get
to their destinations. And if any of them or all
of them, for that matter, make a wrong turn, it
will immediately change directions in a second
for those billion people in a second. Wherever
you are, whether in China or Timbuktu or the
Bronx, the itinerary will be changed; it knows
exactly where you are.
In the last two years we have seen the
Hadron Collider, which hopes for the first
time to move at speeds faster than the speed of
light. Theoretically it would take us back in time.
We have reached a pass in history when we
can think of going back in time. It is axiomatic
in Judaism that the closer one gets to the past,
the closer you come to ma’amad har Sinai, the
closer you come to Hashem. Chadesh ya’meinu
k’kedem. It’s uncanny that the word Hadron,
which is an acronym of scientific terms and
parts that comprise this collider, is hadron, which
means returning or going back.
Only a short while back, in the August 11,
2010, New York Times Blog Opinionator exclu-
sive online commentary from the Times, Garry
Gutting, a noted philosopher of our day, wrote a
biting critique entitled, “On Dawkins’ Atheism:
A Response,” and attempted to demonstrate
that the scientific assertions that Dawkins made
and the so called proofs that he conjured, were
actually vulnerable and indeed could not stand
the test of rigorous philosophical analysis.
Without going into the itinerary of his thinking,
Dawkins rejects Hashem’s omniscience, and,
sense G-d’s name is called upon the person
through fulfilling the mitzvah of lulav.
Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur posit a
relationship with G-d whereby we approach
Him, so to speak, from the opposite side of the
table. We are being judged and need to defend
not least of all, His ability to manage billions of
people all at once.
Today the GPS can do it, so can the
Almighty. We have reached an age where before
things could only be ascribed to Elokim. Today,
we are me’at me’Elokim.
Science, it has been recently reported,
stands on the threshold of penetrating man’s
mind and the dreams of man as well to know
what he is thinking – day or night, awake or
asleep.
The recent advance of science can also
complicate or clarify biblical exegesis. The To-
rah tells us in Parshat Devarim (1:28) and then
repeats word for word in Parshat Eikev (9:1)
that in the upcoming battle against the seven
nations who then held sway in Canaan-Eretz
Yisrael, they would come against a formidable
opponent whose cities are fortified to the
heavens, arim g’dolos uvetzuros bashamayim.
Rebbe Ami (Chullin 90b) wondered: How can
there be cities in the heavens? The whole idea is
preposterous! Therefore we derive from these
pesukim that dibra Torah b’lashon havai - b’lashon
guzma - that the Torah from time to time
uses exaggeration to make a point.. The Sifrei,
interestingly enough makes a similar comment
about hyperbole, but uses the verse in Eikev, not
that of Devarim, as its proof.
The Vilna Gaon notices this anomaly and
wonders why the authors of the Sifrei would
use Eikev as the proof verse, when trhe pasuk
first appeared earlier in Devarim? As a general
principle, Chazal cite the first time the proof
verse appears. Why in this instance does the
Sifrei pass over the verse in parshas Devarim and
goes to Eikev? The Gaon therefore emends this
midrash and leaves it with a different text, girsa,
altogether, whereby the Sifrei mentions first the
pasuk in Devarim and then adds “that it can also
11
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
ourselves. On Sukkos a realignment of that
relationship takes place. G-d invites us, so to
speak, to join Him on “His side” of the table.
We are able to identify with Him, as He identi-
fies with us. May we merit to be deserving of
that lofty identification. n
be found in Eikev.”
However, the Torah Temimah (Devarim
1:28) demurred from the Gaon’s revision and
said that Chazal, purposely cites the verse in
Eikev deliberately skipping over its first mention
because in Devarim the words were uttered
by the meraglim, the notorious spies who
searched the land of Canaan and brought back
an altogether depressing and evil report about
that land and are explicitly called liars by our
Sages. How can you derive a teaching, says the
Torah Temimah, from liars? So therefore, they
skipped over that verse, went to Eikev, for there
it was Moshe Rabbeinu who proclaimed Arim
U’vezuros BaShamayim.
On the surface the Torah Temimah’s an-
swer seems to be a brilliant reposte to the Gaon’s
concerns.
However, in light of recent discover-
ies, how can we say that the pasuk in Eikev
originally emanated not from Moshe obvi-
ously speaking in Hashem’s name? Hashem
is simultaneously haya, hoveh v’yihiyeh at once
and knows that there would be arim batzuros
bashamayim. Unless the pasuk refers specifically
to cities on earth whose towers rise literally into
the endless expanse of heaven, precisely because
they are endless, the Gaon’s fixing of the text
would not be improper. Moreover the Torah
doesn’t explicitly say that G-d said it or that
Moshe spoke in His name. So it may not be a
question at all. However this may go counter to
the famous assertion of Chazal that HaKadosh
Baruch Hu Diber Me’Toch Grono Shel Moshe –
That the Almighty spoke through the larynx
of Moshe – so our problem with the Gaon’s
understanding remains.
Having said all this, it is still only me’at
m’Elokim. But me’at is hardly less than before and
He remains approachable yet unbridgeable. n
Musmakhim in the Limelight
Teaching Torah to
Women
“Not only is the teaching of Torah she-baal peh to girls permissible but it is
nowadays an absolute imperative. This policy of discrimination between the
sexes as to subject matter and method of instruction which is still advocated by
certain groups within our Orthodox community has contributed greatly to the
deterioration and downfall of traditional Judaism. Boys and girls alike should be
introduced into the inner halls of Torah she-be-al peh.”
Letter dated May 27, 1953 from Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik to Rabbi Leonard
Rosenfeld, chairman of the education committee of the Hebrew Institute of Long Island
and director of the Department of Yeshivot at the New York Board of Jewish Education
pp. 83 - “Community, Covenant and Commitment: Selected Letters and Communications”
by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Rabbi Nathaniel Helfgot, ed. pp. 83. The Toras Horav Foundation, 2005
Musmakhim in the Limelight

The Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 60) teaches us that during the lifetimes
of both Sarah and Rivkah and in their merit, candles burned all week
illuminating their home, blessing was found in their bread and a cloud
was tied above their tent. Perhaps this cloud was a precursor to the
ananei hakavod, the clouds of glory that accompanied our ancestors
through the wilderness, which according to Rebbe Eliezer (Sukkah
11b) the sukkot represent.
As the role of women and their education has evolved in society, our
Torah community needs to ensure that the paradigm of Torat Imecha
(Mishlei 1:8) continues to contribute to the eternality of our people. As
was so eloquently expressed by the Rav zt’l:
I used to have long talks with my mother. In fact, it was a monologue
rather than a dialogue. She talked and I “happened” to overhear. What
did she talk about? I must use a halakhic term in order to answer this
question: she talked me-inyana de-yoma. I used to watch her arranging
the house in honor of a holiday. I used to see her recite prayers; I used
to watch her recite the sidra every Friday night and I still remember the
nostalgic tune. I learned from her very much. Most of all I learned that
Judaism expresses itself not only in formal compliance with the law but
also in a living experience. She taught me that there is a flavor, a scent,
a warmth to mitzvoth. I learned from her the most important things in
life — to feel the presence of the Almighty and the gentle pressure of
His hand resting upon my frail shoulders. Without her teachings, which
quite often were transmitted to me in silence, I would have grown up a
soulless being, dry and insensitive.
(Tradition Vol 17 No. 2 – Spring 1978 – “A Tribute to the Rebbitzen of
Talne”, pp. 77)
The Rav continued to illustrate his point that while his father taught him
the laws of Shabbat, it was his mother who taught him how to live and
love Shabbat.
In the modern world, transmitting “Torat imecha” is not sufficient. As
the Rav explained in the letter above, teaching women Torah shebaal
peh is an ‘absolute imperative.’
Although many halachic traditions frown upon teaching women Torah
sheba’al peh, the Rav, following in the giant footsteps of the Gerer
Rebbe and the Chofetz Chayim, ruled differently. Rabbi Meir Twersky
’85R in a public eulogy for his grandfather the Rav, brought support for
the Rav’s decision:
The chachmei hamasorah are not merely human tape recorders for
transmitting masorah. Their understanding and interpretation are
an integral part of the masorah. Hence, there’s no distinction, and
there can be no distinction, between Torah shebaal peh and magidei
Torah shebaal peh, and the chachmei hamasorah who transmit Torah
shebaal peh…The Rav zt”l boldly applied the masorah he received in
pre-WWII Eastern Europe in the post-war America and Eretz Yisrael ...
In his applications and implementations, his views were not necessarily
those of the majority. But the principles of masorah were the same. He
brilliantly and heroically guided Klal Yisrael under modern conditions in
the same glorious tradition as the Chazon Ish’s “vnireh” [regarding his
psak] on “moridin v’lo ma’alin,” the Chofetz Chaim’s “vnireh” in Likutei
Halachos with reference to Talmud Torah lanashim, and in fact all
chachmei hamasorah. [transcript of the shiur]
CHAVRUSA gathered three rabbinic alumni who have devoted
themselves to teaching women Torah. Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld
(RFS) ’52R, Rabbi Chaim Brovender (RCB) ’65R and Rabbi Shlomo
Hochberg (RSH) ’73R all have enjoyed distinguished careers in
avodat hakodesh. We asked all three to discuss their successes and
experiences teaching Torah to women.

CHAVRUSA: How did you get your
start teaching Torah to women?
RFS: I was the first faculty member to teach
Talmud at Stern College for Women. Dr.
Belkin zt”l asked me to teach at YU and asked
me if I would prefer teaching uptown at the
men’s campus or in midtown at Stern College.
I asked the Rav his opinion and he suggested
that I teach at Stern. He also counseled me to
teach text, not to instruct baal peh. The cur-
riculum was up to me, so I requested to teach
Gemara. The Rav was happy with my decision
and encouraged me.
At one point, Dr. Belkin wanted to move
the Stern library uptown as a cost-cutting
measure. They would arrange men’s days and
women’s days. He faced opposition from
roshei yeshiva and some of the faculty, who
feared that the school would end up co-ed. He
called a meeting of the faculty at Stern, which
I attended. He told us the following story: As
a youngster, Dr. Belkin studied in Radin. One
day the Chofetz Chayim told the boys in the
yeshiva to be “gozer a taanis” (to decree a fast
day) the next day because the following day he
was going to Warsaw to plead with the Gerer
Rebbe to withdraw his support for the nascent
Bais Yaakov of Cracow. The Chofetz Chayim
went and met the Gerer Rebbe, who told him,
“Maybe you’re correct in Radin. But in Warsaw
I need it. Should the Jewish women go to
Christian schools, and learn from priests? My
young Chassidim will marry those girls?” Dr.
Belkin continued that, “The Chofetz Chaim
returned to Radin and told us that the Gerer
Rebbe convinced him to found a Bais Yaakov
in Radin as well.”
RCB: My desire to teach Torah stems
from my 12 years as a student at the Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Brovender
of Flatbush. My main motivation for attend-
ing Yeshiva College, which was then not the because Rabbi Elefant, the rosh yeshiva,
accepted choice it might be today, was to maxi- realized that due to the difficult economic
mize my opportunities to learn. Of course, the situation, for an extra $50 a month, he could
eventual opportunity to enter the Rav’s shiur attract the best students to his kollel. It was an
was a major goal and motivation. eye-opening experience for me. I had thought
After semikhah in 1965, I moved to Israel. that if you could make your way through a daf
I was accepted into the ITRI kollel, which Gemara that you’d never seen before you were
was made up of the best guys in Yerushalayim a qualified talmid chacham. But I encountered

13
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
Musmakhim in the Limelight

whom I had taught in the ITRI women’s pro- make the inspiring choice to make Torah
gram approached me wanting to learn as well. learning part of their college experience as an
Eventually I started Yeshivat Hamivtar for the entirely or partially new discipline.
men and Bruriah for the women. I spent about
CHAVRUSA: How is women’s Torah
35 years in those institutions.
study different from that of men?
RSH: Since the early years of my rabbinic
RSH: Women seem to seek not only formal
career, I have met numerous women who had
knowledge and meaning of the texts and the
a tremendous thirst for Jewish knowledge;
halachic detail and structure, but also embrace
women of all ages — some Yeshiva-educated,
learning as a spiritual activity to deepen their
many with no formal Jewish education
relationship to Hashem, their ahavas Hashem,
whatsoever. They shared a tremendous drive
as well as their interpersonal relationships.
for deveikus/closeness to Hashem, and they
It often seems, too, that women more than
recognized that their lack of knowledge was a
men relate to their Torah-learning and kiyyum
barrier which they had to overcome.
hamitzvot (performance of mitzvoth) and
Rabbi Shlomo Hochberg I continue to enjoy numerous gratifying op-
middot (character), not only as vehicles for
portunities teaching and learning with women
people in Yerushalayim who felt that even if their individual spiritual development, but also
in the two communities that I served — Low-
you knew all of Shas and Shulchan Aruch, you as tools which will ultimately enable them to
ell, MA, a small out-of-town community and
still were not a talmid chacham! At that point build better families and communities.
now in Jamaica Estates, NY. But the opportu-
I realized that learning Torah was going to be a RFS: Biologically, I don’t think there’s any
nity to teach at Stern where young women are
long haul. After the Six Day War many univer- difference whatsoever. There is nothing that a
focused upon forming their religious person-
sity students, backpackers and whatnot started woman can’t understand as well as a man. My
alities, and their attitudes and life-direction is
making their way through Yerushalayim and issue with teaching women Gemara is only
exhilarating.
R. Elefant asked me to start an evening learn- that women generally are not afforded the
I have found the women at Stern to be
ing program for these people. This program time necessary to master it. But in principal,
“searchers” — both students with a strong
eventually led to the founding of Yeshivat there is no difference.
background Torah-learning through Yeshiva
Darchei Noam (Shappels). In Yerushalalyim The problem I faced was that treating Ge-
High school and Israel programs, as well as
there were no co-ed programs so the women mara like any other subject was not fair to the
those who, with lesser formal background,

14
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
Musmakhim in the Limelight
girls, or fair to the Gemara. You just can’t teach
Gemara like any other subject. The only way to
master Talmud is through ameilus, via diligent
study. I was only on faculty for three hours a
week. Furthermore, aside from my students
who were alumnae of the Yeshiva of Flatbush,
the women had not studied Talmud previous-
ly. I quickly realized that most of the women
had no background. I was teaching young
ladies who were intelligent, but just did not
have the tools. So I began by teaching them
A Quiet Revolution
By Dr. Rivkah Teitz Blau
As revolutions go, the opening of programs for
women to study Talmud has been a quiet one.
It involves the opening of a sefer, a book
of Mishnah or Gemara, and the only sound
beyond the turning of pages comes from the
voices of the teachers and the students.
What has happened because of this revolu-
tion? As their understanding of the connection
between the Written Torah and the Oral To-
rah deepens, students’ observance of halakhah,
Jewish law, becomes more precise and more
fulfilling. In a life of mitzvot, the more you
know, the more you enjoy. The foundations
of Jewish family life have not been shaken; if
anything, they have been strengthened.
Learning Gemara does not work for every-
one. Just as for men, so for women—some
people have an intelligence geared to studying
Talmud, while some are intellectually inclined
to other disciplines. In Europe there were
groups who studied Ein Yaakov in the evening
after a day of work, while others formed a
Chevrah Tehillim; some studied Mishnayot,
while those who could studied Gemara. At
Stern College, after the course of advanced
study in Talmud was initiated, several talented
women asked for an advanced course in
Tanakh; both programs are now flourishing.
I never understood what commotion there
could be about serious learning by women.
I am named for a great-grandmother, Reb-
betzin Rivkah Rabinovich, sister to the twins
the elementary concepts. You really need to
teach a whole year of introduction to Talmud,
such as “Eshnav l’Talmud” and the history of
the Talmud by Chief Rabbi Hertz, which can
be found in the beginning of Brachos in the
Soncino edition of the Talmud. It’s absolutely
magnificent. If you can master that introduc-
tion, then you can go on to the real thing.
The difference is that when men enroll in
RIETS, they desire to be a shtickel ben Torah
and already have 10 years of learning behind
Rav Eliyahu Akiva Rabinovich-Te’omim (the
ADeReT) and Rav Binyamin Zvi Yehuda
Rabinovich-Te’omim (Rav Kook married the
Aderet’s daughter, and when she passed away,
he married her first cousin); she was known
within a learned family as the person to ask if
you wanted to locate a source in the Talmud.
The Aderet had no problem in quoting her
incisive solution in Yagdil Torah to a question
of fasting BaHaB when it fell on Pesach Sheini
in 1883. I am one of the great-granddaughters
who would be happy to attain a fraction of her
knowledge.
The family belonged to a world centered
on Torah learning. They surely knew Rabbi
Eliezer’s statement in Sotah 20A about teach-
ing women Torah, yet chose to follow an
interpretation that permitted it. Dr. Hillel
Seidman gave an account in Yiddish of the
conversation around the table in the home
of the Telzer Rosh Yeshiva, with the women
participating fully; Torah was the essence of
all their lives. When I drove my uncle Rav
Elchonon Teitz, who had learned in Telz, to
visit my father, he said when we reached the
highway, “u’v’lekhtekha vaderekh,” and taught
me the rest of the way.
My grandmother, Rebbetzin Frieda Preil,
moved to a neighborhood in Brooklyn so that
her granddaughters could attend yeshiva high
school; this was before 1963 when my father
founded Bruriah High School in Elizabeth,
12
15
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
them. If you teach Talmud as literature, you
can’t achieve that. You need yegiyah. The Rav
would declare that Torah without yegiyah is
nothing.
I taught Ein Omdin and I told the women
to go out and buy a Gemara Brachos. One of
my students went to her local Jewish book
store and asked to buy a Gemara Brachos. He
wouldn’t sell it to her; her father had to go in
and buy it for her. It was a different time.
I was the chairman of the Board of Educa-
NJ. She studied
Tze’enah u’Re’ena,
and told us how
fortunate we were
to be able to read
commentaries on our own. I had studied
gemara in fifth and sixth grade at the JEC in
Elizabeth, and heard my father say on his radio
program, Daf Hashavua, that he was happy
that women were listening and learning. When
a woman who had contributed to Torah edu-
cation passed away, he dedicated the program
that Saturday night in her memory and spoke
about her accomplishments. When I asked the
representative of the yeshiva high school that I
attended why Gemara was not in the curricu-
lum, my classmates were taken aback: “Girls
don’t learn Gemara!” When I asked my father
how to counter this, he said, “Don’t answer the
critics. If the greatest avlah of this generation
will be that girls learned Gemara, this will be a
wonderful generation in Jewish history.” The
significant change in our time is that what had
been available in learned homes is now open
to every interested student.
In a family that relishes stories about the
little ones, what joy all these ancestors would
take in my granddaughter Tehilla, who saw an
open Gemara on the table, climbed up on the
chair and announced, “I’m being Ima.” The
future is bright.
Musmakhim in the Limelight
tion at the Yeshiva of Central Queens and I
proposed that the girls learn a little gemara in
eighth grade. My proposal was met with much
resistance. I shared my experience with the
Rav and he said, “Why don’t they object to
Rashi and Ramban on Chumash? That’s not
Torah shebaal peh?”
RCB: There does not seem to me a dif-
ference between men learning and women
learning. At Yeshiva of Flatbush I observed that
we did not learn differently. Men and women
come to the table with different backgrounds.
Women who went to the same school as men
may be better at language than the men. This
was my experience. In ivrit b’ivrit schools,
often the girls are better students.
I opened a yeshiva for men. We developed
a way of teaching men. It was obvious to me
that you should teach women exactly the
same way. In the 60s, we were competing with
ashrams. At YU I learned that studying Torah
was a spiritual experience available to all Jews.
In order to turn that into something real, you
had to learn the Gemara. Gemara has its dif-
ficult patches. Women didn’t have a clear path
besides their year of seminary. They didn’t have
the program at Stern College that we have to-
day. In those days, the Judaic studies programs
in universities had their strange dimensions.
Women did not have an obvious path to con-
tinue, as the men did. I was interested in open-
ing the books with them. I didn’t realize the
social stigma associated with women studying
Talmud. Even open-minded people couldn’t
believe that women were learning Gemara. It
always elicited a quizzical response.
In the Chareidi world, there are many
women who are very knowledgeable in Torah.
No one knows where they got it. Often it is
from the home. In terms of learning Torah, you
can’t avoid Gemara. In terms of the experience
of Talmud Torah, you have to hook into the
thousands of years of Talmudic study. To deny
women that opportunity would be wrong.
CHAVRUSA: How did your RIETS
education prepare you both in terms
of knowledge and outlook for your
life’s task?
RCB: I remember the YU Bais Medrash at
night, when I was a student. You and your
chavrusa could easily get a seat; you could
get a whole quadrant. Rabbi Yosef Blau ’61R
and Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik ’62R had their
own quadrant of the bais medrash; another
quadrant went to me and my chavrusa. Night Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld
seder looks very different now.
his grandson to attend his school in Frankfurt.
The Rav made a big impression on me.
He pointed out that while the boys learned
On the one hand, I was afraid of him. On the
Gemara and Rashi, the young women learned
other hand, his human achievements were
dinim, halachah, health, and how to run a
something I could learn from. The Rav loved
Jewish household. He was concerned with
to learn. Often he would learn the sugya in
tachlis. I believe Rav Hirsch would have taught
shiur with us, as if it was his first time. It wasn’t
Gemara to women today.
as if he had a script to pass along to us students.
Often, he would reconsider and re-learn the CHAVRUSA: What do you see as the
material. This was especially true in Yevamos, future of women’s Torah study?
which he told us he had not learned since he RSH: Today women have opportunities to
was a child. The Rav showed passion as well. learn all areas of Torah at a high level, with
You know he was troubled by things. We saw Stern College’s undergraduate and graduate
the communal concern and his burdens on programs providing the premier venue.
his face. I am certain that in the years to come, the
RSH: I have been blessed to learn with Orthodox community, as well as the broader
outstanding rabbeim at RIETS including the Jewish community, will increasingly benefit
Rav zt’l and his talmidim, who taught me on from these learned, committed women as
the one hand that Torah must always emanate they take advantage of an expanding variety of
from a firm structure of deep commitment opportunities — as Torah teachers and guides, and
and allegiance to mesorah, and also to ap- as role models at all levels. n
preciate that different prisms and perspectives
Rabbi Chaim Brovender earned a BA in mathematics
could enable one to enhance our avodas from Yeshiva College and was ordained at RIETS in
Hashem (service of Hashem) within our me- 1965. He made aliyah the same year. He was awarded a
sorah. They also demonstrated first-hand what PhD from the Hebrew University in Semetic languages
it means for a rebbe, rabbi, or teacher to fulfill in 1974. While studying for his doctorate, Rabbi Broven-
their mission as a mentor — to care deeply on der began teaching Judaism to students who had come
a personal level about all of one’s students of to Israel for the Hebrew University’s overseas program.
all ages and levels — and to see in each person Those relationships led to his becoming the found-
their unique spiritual and religious personality, ing Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Hamivtar in 1976 and
Michlelet Bruria afterwards. Currently, he serves as the
and to be responsive to each as an individual.
president of ATID (www.atid.org) — The Academy
RFB: The notion of teaching women Torah for Torah Initiatives and Directions in Jewish Education,
can be found within the writings of Rabbi and rosh yeshiva of www.WebYeshiva.org, a fully interac-
Shimshon Raphael Hirsch. There is a volume tive online yeshiva.
called Parnas l’Davar, which contains a letter
that Rav Hirsch wrote to the author asking for Rabbi Shlomo Hochberg has been serving as mashgiach
16
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
Musmakhim in the Limelight
ruchani and Judaic studies faculty at Yeshiva University’s
Stern College for Women since 1995. He has served
as the rabbi of the Young Israel of Jamaica Estates, a
congregation of approximately 300 families, since 1990.
Prior to assuming his present rabbinic position, Rabbi
Hochberg served in Lowell, MA, for 16 years as rabbi
of Montefiore Synagogue and principal/dean of Merri-
mack Valley Hebrew Academy. Rabbi Hochberg received
his BA from Yeshiva University in 1970, followed by a
year of learning at Yeshivat Kakotel. He completed his
semicha studies in 1974 at RIETS, and earned an MS
in education from YU’s Ferkauf Graduate School in the education committees of local Yeshivot and is among
1973. He studied counseling at Teacher’s College Gradu- the founders of YESS!
ate School of Columbia University, and at the Special
Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld has been the rabbi of the Young
Education Administration doctoral program at Boston
Israel of Kew Gardens Hills since 1951. He received se-
University. Rabbi Hochberg is the immediate past
micha from RIETS, Yeshiva University. Rabbi Schonfeld
president of the Rabbinical Council of America, has been
is the president of Poale Agudah as well as the past presi-
a member of the RCA since 1976, serving on its execu-
dent of the Rabbinical Council of America, Rabbinic
tive committee, as treasurer and first vice-president, has
Alumni of Yeshiva University, and past chairman of the
chaired and co-chaired RCA conventions. Rabbi Hoch-
Council of Young Israel Rabbis. Rabbi Schonfeld was
berg is a past president of both the Vaad Harabonim of
one of the founders of the Vaad Harabonim of Queens.
Queens and the Vaad Harabonim of Massachusetts; on

RABBI ISAAC ELCHANAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY - RIETS

The Gertrude and Morris Bienenfeld Department of Jewish Career Development and Placement,
the placement committee of RIETS, the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) and the Orthodox Union (OU)
congratulates the following leaders on their newly obtained positions in avodat hakodesh.

Rabbi Dovid Asher
Yeshiva University-Torah Mitzion Chicago
Community Kollel, Chicago, IL
Ms. Libat Aviv
Yeshivat Akiva, Detroit, MI
Rabbi Chaim Axelrod
Yeshiva University High School for Boys
New York, NY
Rabbi Shalom Axelrod
Young Israel of Woodmere, New York
Eitan Bendavid
Community of Capetown, South Africa
Rabbi Ezra Berenholz
Boys Town Jerusalem Foundation
Dovi Bergman
Yeshiva University-Torah Mitzion Chicago
Community Kollel, Chicago, IL
Raffi Bilek
Jewish Family Services, Passaic, NJ
Rabbi Akiva Block
Kehillat Kesher, Tenafly, NJ
SAR High School, Riverdale, NY
Rabbi Yoni Chambre
HAFTR High School, Cedarhurst, NY
Boruch Danzger
HAFTR High School, Cedarhurst, NY
Rabbi Yisrael Druin
Jewish Academy, East Northport, NY
Rabbi Ira Ebbin
Ohav Shalom Congregation, Merrick, NY
Rabbi Steven Eisenberg
HAFTR, Cedarhurst, NY
Rabbi Mark Fishman Rabbi Binyomin Marwick Rabbi Tzvi Sinensky
Congregation Beth Tikvah, Dollard Des Ormeaux, Congregation Shomrei Emunah, Baltimore, MD HAFTR HS, Cedarhurst, NY
Quebec, Canada
Rabbi Philip Moskowitz Rabbi Elon Soniker
Zev Goldberg Boca Raton Synagogue, Boca Raton, FL Congregation Anshei Shalom, West Hempstead, NY
Young Israel of Century City, Los Angeles, CA HANC, West Hempstead, NY
Rabbi Yoni Mozeson
Rabbi Elimelech Gottleib Yeshivot Bnei Akiva, New York, NY Rabbi Ari Spiegler
Yeshiva of Manhattan Beach, Brooklyn, NY Beachwood Kehilla, Beachwood, OH
Rabbi Duvie Nachbar
Rabbi Avi Greene Young Israel of Pelham Parkway, Bronx, NY Michael Stein
Epstein Hebrew Academy, St. Louis, MO
Rabbi Michael Nadata
Riverdale Jewish Center, Bronx, NY
Rabbi Yonah Gross Congregation Schara Tzedeck, Vancouver, BC David Teller
Congregation Beth Hamedrosh, Wynnewood, PA
Rabbi Asher Nemes
YU-Torah miTzion Beit Midrash of Toronto
Rabbi Peretz Hochbaum Yeshivat Akiva, Detroit, MI Rabbi Ira Wallach
Camp Kaylie/OHEL
Rabbi Jeffrey Ney
Ida Crown Jewish Academy, Chicago, IL
Rabbi Naphtali Hoff Yeshivat Akiva, Detroit, MI Rabbi Mayer Waxman
Torah Day School of Atlanta, GA
Rabbi Asher Oser
National Association of Chevra Kadisha
Richmond Hill, NY
Rabbi Yaakov Jaffe Ohel Leah Synagogue, Hong Kong , China
Maimonides School, Brookline, MA Rabbi Mordechai Wecker
Rabbi Adir Posy Be’er Hagolah Institutes, Brooklyn, NY
Rabbi Wes Kalmar Beth Jacob Congregation, Beverly Hills, CA
Anshei Sfard Kehillat Torah, Glendale, WI Orthodox Union West Coast Region Rabbi Elchanan Weinbach
Rabbi Aaron Kaplan
Beverly Hills, CA Stern Hebrew High School, Bala Cynwyd, PA
Shaarei Tefilah, Dallas, TX Rabbi Daniel Price Rabbi Jay Weinstein
Yeshiva of North Jersey, River Edge, NJ Young Israel of East Brunswick, NJ
Rabbi Bryan Kinzbrunner
Oscar and Ella Wilf Campus for Senior Living Rabbi Shaanan Scherer Rabbi Akiva Willig
Somerset, NJ Columbus Torah Academy, Columbus, OH Congregation Ohab Zedek, New York, NY
Binyamin Krohn Rabbi David Serkin Rabbi Daniel Yolkut
Brith Sholom Beth Israel, Charleston, SC Carmel Elementary School, Hong Kong , China Congregation Poale Zedeck, Pittsburgh, PA
Rabbi Ian Lichter Rabbi Charles Sheer Dovid Zirkind
Great Neck Synagogue, Great Neck, NY Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, NY YU-Torah miTzion Beit Midrash of Toronto
Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone
Rabbi Jonathan Shulman Ms. Deva Zwelling
Beth Sholom Congregation, Lawrence, NY JLIC Educator, University of Pennsylvania Ida Crown Jewish Academy, Chicago, IL
Rabbi Andrew Markowitz Philadelphia, PA
Shomrei Torah, Fairlawn, NJ

The placement committee serves Yeshiva University and RIETS alumni, the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) and the Orthodox Union (OU).

17
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
Practical Halachah
Torah Perspectives on
the Monetary Aspects
of the Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill
Rabbi Joshua Flug
Director of Torah Research
Yeshiva University’s Center for the Jewish Future
A
s rabbis and educators, we are often
challenged to find contemporary ap-
plications to laws and scenarios found
in the Torah and the Talmud. The laws relating
to torts are replete with applications to agricul-
tural settings. Congregants or students have
a particularly difficult time relating these laws
to modern times. The Deepwater Horizon oil
spill provides us with an opportunity to teach
some of these laws in a meaningful way. In this
article, we will highlight some of the relevant
issues. Please keep in mind that the “facts” of
the case are constantly changing and signifi-
cantly affect any halachic discussion.1
Introduction
The Deepwater Horizon was an oil rig owned
and operated by Transocean. Transocean was
contracted by BP to pump oil out of a well pri-
marily owned by BP. Halliburton was contract-
ed by BP to cement the well and Halliburton
claims that it completed its job 20 hours prior to
the blowout that caused the oil spill.
Millions of gallons of oil have leaked out of
the well in what has become the largest oil spill
in U.S. history. Damages caused by the oil spill
will amount to billions of dollars. Aside from
actual damages, the U.S. government and local
governments will bill BP for any costs that are
incurred through its role in the cleanup and
containment.
There are two basic questions that must
be addressed: First, who should pay for the
damages? Should the blame be assigned to
BP, Transocean or Halliburton? Second, what
types of damages are included in the total
costs? We will now explore some relevant
sugyot and how they apply to the oil spill.
The Liability of a Contractor
BP was not actively involved in the oil drill-
ing. It hired Transocean and Halliburton as
contractors to complete certain tasks. Who is
responsible when a contractor causes damage
to someone else’s property? The Mishna, Baba
Kama 98b, states that if a builder was hired to
take down a wall and he caused damage, he
must pay for the damage. R. Yehonatan (cited
in Shita Mekubetzet ad loc.,) is of the opinion
that if someone else’s property is damaged,
the builder is responsible and the homeowner
is exempt because a contractor takes on all
responsibility for damage. However, if the
builder is not working as a contractor, rather
as an employee, the owner is responsible
for damage to someone else’s property. R.
Elchanan Wasserman, Kovetz Shiurim no. 142,
adds that although R. Shlomo Luria, Yam Shel
Shlomo, Baba Kama 9:21, exempts the con-
tractor for damages that were not in his control
(onnes), this exemption does not exempt one
from damage caused to others. Onnes is only
an exemption from paying for the broken
materials belonging to the homeowner.2
Applying the above discussion to our case,
the two contractors, Transocean and Hallibur-
ton, can be held liable for the initial explosion
if investigations reveal that either one of the
companies caused the initial explosion. How-
ever, it is arguable that if investigations reveal
that the explosion was caused by a fault in the
well itself, BP is liable for the initial explosion.
The Categories of Nezikin
The Torah presents us with different categories
of damage. One of these categories is dam-
age caused by a bor (pit). The Gemara, Baba
19
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
Kama 6a, notes that one can only categorize
something as a bor if it causes damage pas-
sively. Another category is damage caused by
fire (eish). The Gemara defines eish as damage
caused by one’s property that was transported
through an auxiliary force (e.g. wind). If some-
one left a package on the edge of a roof and it
was blown off of the roof and caused damage
on the way down, it is considered eish. If it
caused damage after it landed (e.g. someone
tripped on the package), it is considered a
hybrid of bor and eish.
The oil is transported by the ocean to the
shores. Damages that are caused as the oil
is transported, such as damage to the fish,3
would be categorized as eish. Damages that
are caused by the presence of oil on the shores,
such as the devaluation of beachfront property,
would be categorized as bor.
There are a number of laws relating to bor
that impact our discussion. First, Rambam,
Hilchot Nizkei Mamom 12:3, writes that one
is liable for a bor, even if the pit developed by
itself without any human interaction. If it is
one’s property, one must take responsibility for
it. R. Ya’akov ben Asher, Tur, Choshen Mish-
pat no. 410, adds that even if someone else dug
the pit, the digger is only liable until the owner
finds out. Once the owner finds out, the owner
is liable. Rama, Choshen Mishpat 410:4, codi-
fies Tur’s ruling but adds that the owner can
sue the digger for the costs of covering the pit.
Second, Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen
Mishpat 410:28, write that if a pit was created
as a result of an accident, the owner is not
liable until he is given proper time to cover
the pit. If it was the result of negligence, he is
immediately responsible.4
If one were to categorize certain damages
caused by the oil spill as bor, the responsibility
is primarily placed on BP. BP can sue Trans-
ocean or Halliburton for its part in causing the
damage, but its case with the two other parties
does not absolve it from responsibility to those
who suffered financial loss. Yet, BP can claim
that it should be exempt from all bor-related
damages that occurred prior to their oppor-
tunity to cap the well. One must then explore
whether the spill was the result of negligence,
in which case, BP would be immediately
responsible. One must also figure out what is
considered a reasonable amount of time for
Practical Halachah
BP to have capped the well.
Are damages that are categorized as eish
subject to different rules? It is clear that if
someone places someone else’s package on
the edge of a roof and it blows off and causes
damage, the person who placed the pack-
age is responsible for the damage.5 What if
the owner of the package knew about the
placement of the package and had a chance
to remove it? Shita Mekubetzet, Baba Kama
5b, s.v. Kashia, quotes the opinion of Tosafot
Shantz that one can be responsible for eish if
one’s property causes damage that is catego-
rized as eish, even if someone else it to blame.
However, this seems to only apply when the
person who actually caused the damage is
not available or able to pay for the damages.
As such, Transocean or Halliburton would
be held primarily responsible for the eish
damages. If they are unable to pay, BP would
be responsible. Nevertheless, it is arguable
that the eish responsibility may be limited to
the initial flow of oil. The oil that followed the
initial flow, would be the responsibility of BP
as damage caused by its bor. 6
There are two types of costs related to the
oil spill: costs related to the cleanup and costs
related to reimbursement for damages. Regard-
ing cleanup costs, the Mishna, Baba Metzia
117b, states that if a wall falls onto someone
else’s property, the owner of the wall is respon-
sible to remove the stones. Tosafot, Baba Metzia
118a, s.v. Amar Lei, imply that the responsibility
to remove the stones is a function of the stones
causing damage to the property. As such, one
would apply the previous discussions relating to
damage to the cleanup responsibility. R. Avra-
ham Y. Karelitz, Chazon Ish, Baba Batra 14:16,
based on the comments of Tosafot HaRosh,
Baba Metzia 118a, s.v. V’Amar Lei, contends
that it is not a function of the laws of damage.
Rather, when one’s own property is actively
20
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
causing damage to someone else’s property, one
must remove the cause of damage, even if one
is technically exempt from damages that were
previously caused by that property. As such, the
cleanup costs are the responsibility of BP who
owns the well.
Damages Caused by Gerama
Some of the damage caused by the oil spill is
not direct damage. A restaurant on the coast of
Louisiana that has a slower summer because
there are fewer tourists is not directly damaged
by the oil spill. A lifeguard who was laid off be-
cause his portion of the beach is closed is also
not directly damaged. Regarding torts, there
is no legal responsibility for damages caused
indirectly (gerama).7 There is only a moral
responsibility.8 Does this exempt BP from all
indirect damages?
There is a concept of harchakat nezikin
which requires one to avoid certain activities
that might cause damage to neighbors by
Practical Halachah
keeping a safe distance. These laws are found
in Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat no.
155. There is a dispute among the Rishonim
regarding damages that were caused through
gerama when a person did not follow the
proper procedures in distancing his poten-
tially harmful activity. Rabbeinu Asher, Baba
Batra 2:27, rules that there is no liability. Sefer
HaItur, Dinei Macha’ah (page 53a) rules
that there is liability. Shulchan Aruch 155:33,
quotes both opinions on the matter. Shach,
Choshen Mishpat 155:2, notes that if there is a
significant statistical likelihood that the activity
will cause damage, there is liability for gerama
even if one followed the proper precautions.
Investigations into the oil spill will eventually
reveal whether the proper precautions were
taken and what the perceived likelihood of a
spill was at the time of the explosion.
The Cost of Government
Intervention
The government has been and will continue
to be involved in the cleanup effort. In general,
actions taken by the government are more
costly than actions taken by a private company.
Additionally, the government tends to spend
money on services that may not be absolutely
necessary. Is BP justified in claiming that it
should only pay for the costs that one would
pay a private company and not the govern-
ment premium?
The Gemara, Baba Kama 116a, discusses a
case where someone went to save the property
of someone else and the rescuer incurred
expenses from the rescue. The Gemara con-
cludes that if he was successful in the rescue
mission, he can charge full price. If he was
unsuccessful, he only gets paid for his time and
his costs. Rama, Choshen Mishpat 264:4, ex-
plains that this only applies when there was an
arrangement between the rescuer and the vic-
tim. If there was no arrangement, the rescuer
only gets paid for a successful rescue mission.
R. Ya’akov of Lisa, Netivot HaMishpat 264:3,
explains that there are two separate reasons to
pay the rescuer. The first is a contractual ob-
ligation. When the rescuer is asked to rescue,
there is an assumed payment structure, even
if the mission is not successful. The second is
based on benefit. When one provides financial
benefit to another, even if there was no ar-
rangement, the beneficiary must pay. If there
was no arrangement and no benefit, there is
no payment required. Based on the comments
of Netivot HaMishpat, if there is no arrange-
ment and the benefit is less than the price that
the rescuer charges, one is only responsible for
the benefit. BP only benefits to the extent that
the government is saving it from cleanup costs
that it would have had to incur on its own.
Additional costs above and beyond that would
not be included.
Nevertheless, one can claim that the
government has a responsibility to its people
to ensure their safety and there is no other
option for them to allow the parties to handle
the effort on their own. The government
expenditures are a necessary means of ensur-
ing the safety of its people. When someone
is put in a situation where he must react by
spending money to alleviate the situation, it is
considered garmi (a direct action with indirect
results) and the party causing the situation
must pay for the expenses.9n
Notes
1. This article is based on what was known in July,
2010.
2. There is a dispute between Tosafot, Baba Kama s.v.
U’Shmuel and Ramban, Baba Metzia 82b, regard-
ing liability for complete accidents (onnes gamur).
Tosafot is of the opinion that one is exempt and
Rambam is of the opinion that one is liable. Ram-
ban seems to agree that in the case of a contractor or
employee, one is exempt from accidental damages
caused to the owner’s property because the contrac-
tor/employee is treated as a shomer sachar (paid
watchman) and not as a mazik (damager). This
would explain why there is distinction between dam-
age caused by a contractor to the owner’s property
and damage caused to a third party. The contractor
does not enjoy a shomer sachar relationship with the
third party and therefore, he is considered a mazik,
who is liable even in cases of accident. According to
Tosafot, it is arguable that if the accident was beyond
the control of the contractor, the contractor is exempt
even from damages caused to a third party.
3. The Gemara, Baba Batra 21b, notes that a fisher-
man has certain monetary rights to the fish that
normally enter one’s net.
4. The Mishna, Baba Kama 52a, states that if two
partners own a pit and one of the partners discov-
ers that the pit is not covered properly and does
not cover it, he is solely responsible. We follow the
21
C HAV RU S A • T i s h r e i 57 71
opinion of R. Yochanan that the other partner only
shares in the liability once enough time has elapsed
for him to find out about it and hire workers to cover
the pit. Rashi, ad loc., s.v. V’Rishon, writes that the
time factor is only significant regarding the partner
who didn’t discover the open pit. The partner who
discovered the pit is fully liable from the moment of
discovery. Tosafot, ad loc., s.v. B’Kdei, write that even
the partner who discovers the open pit is given time
to cover the pit before he is fully liable. Shulchan
Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 410:26, follows the opin-
ion of Rashi. Rama follows the opinion of Tosafot.
R. Yosef Z. Hutner, Ulam HaMishpat 410:26,
posits that Shulchan Aruch’s ruling that in general,
one is given time to cover a pit is only applicable ac-
cording to Tosafot. According to Rashi, when there is
a single owner, the owner of the pit takes immediate
responsibility for the pit, even if he does not have
time to cover it.
5. See Tosafot, Baba Kama 22a, s.v. Isho Mishum
Mamono and Minchat Shlomo ad loc.
6. The Gemara, Sanhedrin 77b, states that if someone
bound an individual close to a dam and opened up
the dam and killed the individual, he is culpable
if it was result of the first force (ko’ach rishon). If
it was the result of the second force (ko’ach sheni),
he is exempt (i.e. it is considered gerama). Chazon
Ish, Baba Kama 1:5-6, notes that if the cause of
damage was generated through ko’ach sheni, there
is no liability. As such, it is arguable that the oil
that flowed out of the well after the initial explosion
is an eish form of damage that was generated by
ko’ach sheni. R. Ya’akov Y. Bloi, Pitchei Choshen,
Nezikin U’Sh’cheinim (chapter 7 note 1) contends
that regarding bor one is responsible even if the bor
was generated through ko’ach sheni because it is
no different than a bor that developed by itself. It
should be noted that there is an important dispute
between Rashi, Sanhedrin 77b, s.v. B’Ko’ach, and
R. Meir Abulafia, Yad Ramah, Sanhedrin 77b, s.v.
Amar Rav Papa, regarding the parameters of ko’ach
rishon and ko’ach sheni. Rashi is of the opinion that
only the initial waters are included in ko’ach rishon.
Ramah is of the opinion that everything that is
released as a result of the initial flow is included in
ko’ach rishon.
7. Baba Kama 60a.
8. See Baba Kama 55b, and Ketzot HaChoshen 32:1,
regarding the different types of moral responsibilities
for damage caused by gerama.
9. Compare to Rama, Choshen Mishpat 14:5, who
rules that if Reuven is told by his co-litigant, Shimon,
to show up for an appointment at the beit din and
Shimon fails to attend, Shimon must reimburse
Reuven for his costs based on garmi.
Lifecycles
Publications
Rabbi Dr. Alan Brill ’90R: Judaism
and Other Religions (Palgrave
Macmillan, February 2010).
Rabbi Herbert J.Cohen, PhD, ’70R:
Walking in Two Worlds: Visioning
Torah Concepts through Secular
Studies, as an educational project of
the Community Kollel of Dallas.
Rabbi Eliyahu W. Ferrell ’94R:
Biur HaShulchan — Hilchos Basar
B’Chalav, to provide current students
of Yoreh Deah and musmakhim
reviewing Yoreh Deah with the data
they need to go from s’if to s’if with
clarity and understanding.
Rabbi Dr. Basil Herring ’73R on
republishing his long out-of-print
book, Jewish Ethics and Halakhah for
Our Time, Sources and Commentary,
featuring the original two volumes
now in one volume.
Rabbi Dr. Samuel A. Weiss ’46R: “An
analysis of the Two Versions of the
Ten Commandments” in MIDSTREAM,
a Quarterly Jewish Review, Spring
2010, pp 38-41.
Rabbi Tzvee Zahavy, PhD, ’72R and
Jacob Neusner: How the Halakhah
Unfolds: Volume Five: Hullin in the
Mishnah, Tosefta, and Bavli, Part One:
Mishnah, Tosefta, and Bavli and How
the Halakhah Unfolds: Volume Five:
Hullin in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and
Bavli, Part Two: Mishnah, Tosefta, and
Bavli (University Press of America, Inc).
Mazal Tov
Rabbi Moshe ’70R and Cheryl
Abramowitz on their grandson
Shlomo becoming a Bar Mitzvah.
Rabbi Shimon ’76R and Sharon
(Marks) Altshul on the marriage
of their daughter, Eliana, to Adam
Pomerantz.
Rabbi Eli ’10R and Rebecca Belizon
on receiving the Midor l’Dor Award
from Yeshivat Kerem B’Yavneh at the
Yeshiva’s 40th Annual Dinner.
Rabbi Julius ’59R and Dorothy
Berman on receiving a special
tribute at the YU High Schools Annual
Dinner of Tribute.
Rabbi Jon ’74R and Miriam
Bloomberg on the marriage of their
daughter Adina to Rabbi Aviv Melese
of Kiryat Ekron.
RIETS Student Joe Blumenthal on
his marriage to Leah Weixelbaum of
West Orange, NJ.
Rabbi Dr. Herbert (Chaim Zev) ’51R
and Leona Bomzer on being honored
with the Keter Shem Tov Award by
the Brooklyn Region of Emunah.
Rabbi Avraham ’09R and Daniela
Bronstein on the birth of a son,
Elisha Chanan. And to grandparents,
RIETS administrator Rabbi Chaim
’72R and Brenda Bronstein.
RIETS student Noah and Sarah
Cheses on the birth of a daughter,
Adina Malka.
RIETS Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Yitzchok
’65R and Sara Cohen and Rabbi
Lawrence ’78R and Florence Ziffer
on the birth of a granddaughter,
Rochel, to Ari and Devorah Ziffer of
Lakewood, NJ.
Rabbi Dr. Hillel ’75R and Rock
Davis on the marriage of their
daughter, Leora, to Ezra Blumenthal
of Cedarhurst, NY.
Rabbi Eliot ’75R and Ann Feldman
on the birth of a granddaughter,
Ahuva Ora, born to Simcha and
Shoshana (Michaelson) Feldman.
Rabbi Joel ’89R and Bluma
Finkelstein on their son, Asher,
becoming a Bar Mitzvah.
Rabbi Moshe and Rebbetzin
Esti Frank on being honored by
Congregation Ezrath Israel in
Ellenville, NY.
Rabbi Zvi ’81R and Tobi Friedman
of Ramat Beit Shemesh on the
birth of a grandson, Akiva Chaim,
born to their children Daniella and
Raphael Tatelbaum of Kiryat HaYovel,
Yerushalayim. And on the birth of
a grandson, Moshe Aharon, born
to their children Yehudit and Dovey
Polansky of Ramat Beit Shemesh.
Rabbi Hersh Moses ’58R and
Sarah (Lebowitz) Galinsky on their
grandson, Yishai Naphtali, son of Lior
and Nechama Shtul, becoming a Bar
Mitzvah in Ely, Israel.
Rabbi Daniel ’07R and Tzippy
Gelernter on birth of a son.
Rabbi Yaakov ’03 and Jennifer
Gibber on the birth of a son,
Avraham Yeshaya.
Rabbi Efrem Goldberg ’01R on
being chosen by The Jewish Journal
as one of the 33 Top Jewish People
who have made an impact in South
Florida through their extraordinary
commitment to the Jewish
community and Israel.
Rabbi Shmuel ’76R and Barbara
Goldin on the birth of a grandson,
Chaim Yonah, to Yossi and Shifra
Goldin. And on being the guests
of honor at their 26th Anniversary
Dinner at Congregation Ahavath
Torah of Englewood, NJ.
22
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
Rabbi Aaron Goldscheider ’94R and
the Mt. Kisco Hebrew Congregation
in New York on the completion of
their eruv.
Rabbi Macy Gordon ’56R (and
former president of YU Rabbinic
Alumni) on the marriage of his
granddaughter Nava Devora,
daughter of Etana and Dr. Alan
Friedman, of Petah Tiqva, to Tzori
Wieder, of Modiin.
Rabbi Shlomo Grafstein on the birth
of a grandson.
Rabbi Seth ’04R and Leba Grauer
on receiving the Alumnus of the
Year Award at the Etzion Foundation
Annual Dinner.
Rabbi Morton Green ’58R on
receiving an honorary doctorate from
Yeshiva University at the Toronto
Convocation and Dinner.
Rabbi Wallace Greene ’69R on
being honored with the Community
Service Award by Yeshiva Ohr
Simcha of Englewood, NJ and on
receiving the 2010 Prize for the
Jewish Educator in the Diaspora by
Lifshitz College of Education together
with the World Council for Torah
Education in Jerusalem.
Rabbi Gary ’08R and Leba
Guttenberg on the birth of a
daughter, Esther Elka. Leba’s
grandparents are Rabbi Yitzchak
’56R and Fay Sladowsky.
Rabbi Michael Hecht ’64R on
receiving a special tribute at the
YU High Schools Annual Dinner of
Tribute.
Rabbi David ’10R and Ariella
(Cohen) Hellman on the birth of a
daughter.
Rabbi William ’55R and Sylvia
Herskowitz on the birth of their
first great grandchild, Amiel David
Jotkowitz born to Tova and Ithamar
Jotkowitz. Grandparents are Amy and
Nathan Katz.
Rabbi Joshua ’55R and Claire
Hertzberg on the birth of a great
grandson, Moshe Rosenthal.
Rabbi Mordechai ’05R and Shira
Hochheimer on the birth of a son.
Rabbi Carmi ’71R and Sara
Horowitz on the birth of a
granddaughter, Gefen, born to Elisha
and Hodaya Horowitz of Mizpeh
Yeriho.
Rabbi Alan ’10R and Lisa Houben
on the birth of a daughter, Talia
Shira.
Rabbi Ari ’84R and Esther Jacobs of
Alon Shvut on the marriage of their
son, Yehuda, to Atara Piha of Neve
Daniel.
Rabbi Yonatan ’07R and Elana
Kohn on the birth of a son, Ephraim
Mordechai.
Rabbi Stuart ’80R and Karen
Lavenda on the birth of a
granddaughter, Shayna Leora, born
to Tova and Avi Rosenbloom.
Rabbi Yaakov ’73R and Abby Lerner
on the marriage of their daughter
Yosefa to RIETS Student Jonathan
Hefter.
Rabbi Menachem ’98R and
Devora (Cohen) Linzer on the
birth of a daughter, Miriam. Also to
grandparents, Rabbi Dr. Norman
’58R and Diane Linzer.
Rabbi Elchanan (Charles) ’76R
and Ruth Lipshitz on the birth of
granddaughter, Tal Meitav, to Batya
and Yonatan Kolitz. And on the birth
of another granddaughter, Renana
Sarah, to Eli and Kedma Lipshitz.
Rabbi Elihu ’56R and Chaya
Marcus on their granddaughter Raut
Breitbard becoming a Bat Mitzvah.
And on the birth of their first great
granddaughter, Ruth, to Chana Chen
and Elazar Rosilio.
Rabbi Meyer ’78R and Shulamith
May upon the birth of a grandson,
Yitzchak, born to Rabbi Yehuda and
Nechama May. And on the birth of
another grandson, Yosef, born to
Rabbi Yitzchak and Tova May.
Rabbi Shmuel ’02R and Chani
(Koenigsberg) Maybruch on the birth
of a son, Yochanan Yehuda.
Rabbi David E. ’58R and Anita
Miller on the birth of a great-
grandson, Judah Yehudah
Azriel, born to Michael and Yael
(Koenigsberg) Schertz. And to
grandparents Heshie and Bonnie
(Miller) Schertz of Lawrence, NY.
Rabbi Eddie ’73R and Sandy
Mittelman on the birth of a
grandson, Akiva Eliezer, born to
Avigail and Michael Gordon.
Rabbi Shelley ’03R and Dina Morris
on the birth of a son, Asher Yisroel.
Rabbi Elazar ’81R and Ruhama
Muskin on the marriage of their
daughter, Gila, to David Block of
West Hempstead, NY. And to David’s
grandparents Dr. Alvin I. and Miriam
Schiff and Jack and Margie Block.
Rabbi Eli ’04R and Zemira Ozarowski
on the birth of a son, Bentzion Baruch
Asher. And to grandparents Rabbi Joe
and Ashira Ozarowski.
Lifecycles
RIETS Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Yaakov
’79R and Peshi Neuburger on the
birth of a granddaughter, Elisheva,
born to RIETS student Aryeh and
Chaya Weistreich. And to great-
grandfather RIETS Dean Emeritus
Rabbi Zevulun Charlop ’54R.
Rabbi Ian Pear ’05R on the
groundbreaking ceremony for the
new Shir Hadash Center for Jewish
Life in Talbiya, Jerusalem.
Rabbi Daniel ’04R and Lea Price
on the birth of a daughter, Avigayil
Miriam.
Rabbi Uriel ’10R and Aviva (Stroh)
Rabinovitz on the birth of a son,
Yonatan Shalom.
Rabbi David ’66R and Barbara
Radinsky on the marriage of their
daughter, Chani, to Daniel Friedman
this past January.
Rabbi Abraham “Avi” Robinson
’08R on receiving the Loretta Smith
Legal Internship scholarship (first
recipient). It is reserved for a second-
year law student with high academic
standards who is committed to public
service.
Rabbi Ari ’01R and Deborah
Rockoff on the birth of a daughter,
Leora Leeba.
Rabbi Dr.Bernhard ’74R and
Charlene Rosenberg on the birth of
a granddaughter, Ahuva Leba, born to
Ilana and Joshua Merl of Brooklyn, NY.
Rabbi Benjamin ’60R and Liza
Samson upon the birth of a
granddaughter, Soroh Rivkah, born to
Chanah and Victor Braverman.
Rabbi Eliezer ’03R and Shira
Schnall on the birth of a son,
Yonatan Tzvi Hirsch. And to
grandparents Rabbi David ’72R
and Tova Schnall, and great
grandparents Rabbi Solomon ’49R
and Bertha Shoulson.
Rabbi Elihu ’57R and Freida Schatz,
of Yishuv Hashmonaim, on the birth
of their 47th grandchild, Tamar, to
Pinchas and Tzippie Schatz of Yishuv
Rimonim. And on the birth of their
sixth great-grandchild, Akivah, to
Ariel and Fraydel Gilor of Yishuv
Hashmonaim.
Rabbi Arthur Schneier ’56R who
was honored at the Park East
Synagogue Annual Dinner.
Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld ’52R and
Rabbi Yitzchok Sladowsky ’56R on
being honored by the New York City
Council for their leadership of the
Queens Vaad on the occasion of its
50th anniversary.
Rabbi Ezra Y. ’01R and Dr. Rivka P.
Schwartz on receiving the Rabbinic
Alumnus Award from Yeshivat Kerem
B’Yavneh at the Yeshiva’s 40th
Annual Dinner.
RIETS student Simmy Shabtai on his
marriage to Devora Greer of Boca
Raton, FL.
Rabbi Avi ’93R and Ditza Silverman
of Ramat Beit Shemesh, on the
marriage of their daughter, Yonina,
to Netanel Rubenstein of Chispin.
And on their son Elchanan Betzalel
becoming a Bar Mitzvah.
Rabbi Sidney ’80R and Michele
Chabin Slivko on the birth of a
grandson, Asher Josef, to Ellie and
Dave Beatus.
RIETS student Aryeh Sova on his
marriage to Shoshanna Webberly of
Boca Raton, FL.
Rabbi Reuven ’97R and Rena
Spolter on the birth of a daughter,
Moriyah Rachel. And on their son,
Simcha, becoming a Bar Mitzvah.
Rabbi Drs. Charles A. ’51R and
Regina Spirn on their granddaughter
Shoshana Chaya becoming a Bat
Mitzvah in Israel.
RIETS student Gershon and Nili
Turetsky on the birth of a son, Akiva
Yosef.
RIETS student Noson and Tamar
Devorah Waintman on the birth of a
son, Michoel.
Rabbi Josh ’06R and Racheli
Waxman on the December 2009
birth of a son, Eitan Shlomo. And to
grandparents Rabbi Eddie ’73R and
Sandy Mittelman and Rabbi Zishe
’72R and Lorri Waxman.
Rabbi Steve ’90R and Yael Weil
on their son, Benji, becoming a Bar
Mitzvah.
RIETS student Josh Weinberg on
his marriage to Julia Schafer of
Lakewood, NJ.
Rabbi Elie Weissman ’05R on
receiving the Young Leader of the
Year Award at the YU High Schools
Annual Dinner of Tribute.
RIETS student Moshe and Sherry
Winograd on the birth of a baby girl,
Shifra Nechama.
Rabbi Jeffrey ’82R and Toby Woolf
on their daughter, Moriah Rachel,
becoming a Bat Mitzvah.
Rabbi Moshe (Jordan) Yasgur ’81R
on his marriage to Yedida Schaffner
Sachs.
23
C h av r u s a • T i s h r e i 57 71
Rabbi Joel ’86R and Donna Zeff Dr. David (and Arlynn) Mirvis of
on the marriage of their daughter Memphis and Theodore “Ted” (and
Chana, to Uri, son of Rabbi Mayer Ruth) Mirvis of Riverdale on the loss of
and Michal Lichtenstein. And to their father, Rabbi Allan Mirvis ’41R.
grandparents, Rosh Kollel and
RIETS Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Yaakov
Director of the YU-RIETS Israel
Neuburger ’79R on the loss of his
Kollel in Jerusalem Rav Dr. Aharon
father, Mr. Max Neuburger, husband
’59R and Dr. Tovah Soloveitchik
of Mrs. Ruth Neuburger and also
Lichtenstein.
father of Naftali Neuburger and Judy
Condolences Sturm.
Rabbi Joseph Oratz on the loss of his
Carol Stone Applbaum on the loss
father, Rabbi Irving M. Oratz, father
of her husband, Rabbi Sidney
also of Suzie Lowinger and Dina
Applbaum ’45R, father of Yaakov
Perlman; brother of Rabbi Ephraim
Nisan, Alisa Weinrib, Isaac (Yitz) and
Oratz and the late Rabbi Pesach
Kalman, and 10 grandchildren; his
Oratz ’50R.
two stepsons, Elihu and Maurice
Stone, and six step-grandchildren. Rabbi Jay L. ’73R and Huti
Pomrenze on the loss of Huti’s
Helen Geller on the loss of her
father, Berel Ramras, father also of
husband, Rabbi Yehoshua [Eugene]
Gittel Hochster, Chia Samson, and
M. Geller ’48R, father of Simcha
Shmiel Ramras.
Geller, Ora Rosenbloom, Rochel-Leah
Michael, Avraham Geller and Batya Rabbi Joseph Radinsky on the
Ney; brother of Jerry and Howard loss of his wife, Rebbetzin Juliette
Geller. Radinsky, mother of Rabbi Elie
Radinsky, Dena Radinsky, and
RIETS board member Elliot Gibber
the late Devorah Urkowitz z”l. And
on the loss of his father, Mr. Isadore
eleven grandchildren including RIETS
Gibber, husband of Ruth Gibber and
student Tzvi Urkowitz and one-great
also father of Allan Gibber, Harvey
grandchild. Sister-in-law of Rabbi
Gibber, Phyllis Victor, and Esther
David Radinsky ’66R and mother-in-
Katz.
law of Rabbi Mark Urkowitz ’78R.
Rabbi David ’52R and Sheila
Rabbi Yitzchak ’62R and Judy
Halpern on the loss of Sheila’s
Rosenbaum on the loss of Judy’s
father, Hyman Lifschitz, also father
mother, Shoshana (Rose) Grossman,
of Rabbi Joseph (and Miriam)
who passed away before Pesach and
Lifschitz and Esther (and Dr. Stanley)
was buried on Har Hamenuchot on
Landsman.
Erev Pesach.
Rabbi David Kaminetsky, Judah
Rabbi Yechiel “Jerry” Shatzkes ’70R
Kaminetsky, Nechama Steinhardt,
and his wife Dr. Pamela Greenman
Faygie Riess, and Symie Liff on the
on the loss of Pamela’s mother,
loss of their mother, Mrs. Selma
Mildred Greenman, also mother of
Kaminetsky, wife of the late Rabbi
Dr. Marion Greenman Myers.
Dr. Joseph Kaminetsky and sister of
Shani Nagler. Rabbi Abraham Shonfeld ’44R
on the loss of his wife, Mrs. Chana
Etta Kramer on the loss of her
Shonfeld.
husband, Rabbi Milton E. Kramer
Esq. ’47R, father of Roberta (and Rabbi Aharon Simkin ’85R on the
Michael) Sigall, Allen (and Bettina) loss of his mother, Barbara Simkin,
Kramer Esq., and the late David
wife of Ray Simkin, also mother of
Kramer z”l (and his wife Karen).
Michael Simkin, and Roberta Aharon.
Rabbi Yitzchak Korn ’84R on the The Wagner family on the loss of
loss of his wife, Rabbanit Taube Rebbetzin Bina Wagner, widow of the
Korn, daughter of Toddie and Trudy late Rabbi Feivel Wagner of Forest
Levine, sister of Dr. Benjamin Levine, Hills, mother of Bracha Shapiro,
Charles Levine, Sam Levine and
Rabbi Chaim Wagner, Sara Maybruch
Beth Bernstein, mother of Bracha
and Chani Wagner.
and Elazar Hofshteter, Sari, Elisheva,
Tiferet, Zvi and Avital. Rabbi Michael Wolff ’81R on the
loss of his father, Ernest Wolff.
Rabbi Yirmiyahu Lebowitz ’99R and
his brother, Dr. Jonathan Lebowitz, Rabbi Stuart ’78R and Chana
on the passing of their mother, Mrs. Zweiter on the loss of Chana’s
Ruth Lebowtiz. father, Rabbi Joseph Reifman.
Rabbi Dr. Josh Mark ’91R on the
loss of his father, Dr. Julian Mark,
Associate Professor of Maxiofacial
Surgery at AECOM.