How Many Sin Offerings Does a Baal Teshuvah Need to Bring when Moshiach Comes?

I haven't blogged for a long while so I thought I would get the ball rolling again with this very short interesting idea.

The term Baal Teshuvah (BT) today most often refers to a tinuk sh'nishba who later becomes frum. A question I had is that since most BTs violated numerous sins which carry kares when done intentionally, wouldn't (in the messianic age) a BT need to bring a chatas (sin) offering for each and every violation? This oculd be in the thousands! Lucky for us BTs, the Tur in his commentary on the Chumash parashah Sh'lach 15:22 says:

"... According to the pshat, the Torah speaks here of a tinuk sh'nishba. When he becomes aware of his error, he is obligated to offer a single chatas offering for all the previous violations."

If this is how we pasken then this will save us BTs a LOT of money! Pretty nice!

Kol Isha without the Isha

One of the difficulties with the kol isha prohibition which I have heard is that it is difficult to understand why Hashem (and/or Chazal -- there are different opinions whether the prohibition is deoriysa or derabbanim) would deny all of us men the potential beauty of a woman's singing voice. While it is true that we can listen to our own wife's voice, it is quite rare for a woman to go through operatic voice training just to sing for her family and female friends.

For pop music, it is understandable to me to avoid listing to those "artists" sing especially if one has ever seen any recent music video (don't!). In Jewish pop music, they get around not being able to have women sing by having young male children sing in their songs (which I personally find very annoying - sorry MBC).

However, for classical operatic singing, it can be very hard for some people to understand why we must be denied the beauty of a woman's voice.

Well, I came across this video recently which shows that a comparable tone can be produced from a male singing:



Although it is most likely not as good as a woman singing the same way, it at least shows that there is still access to that form of music even with the kol Isha restriction. This, like the shibuta fish (which tastes like pork), could be another example of the Midrash (Gemara? - I forget) which states that for everything Hashem prohibited to us, He gave us an alternative which is permitted.

Why Canaan is Named Canaan

It is interesting that although there were seven (or more) nations living in the land of Israel, the Torah calls it the land of Cannan, after the Cannanites. There are a few explanations of why this is that I cannot remember, but here is an interesting one from the Midrash Tanchumah Parashas Bo Sif 12:

"To the land of the Cannanites." Why did Canaan merit that the land be called in his name? Because when he heard that the Bnei Yisroel were coming, he moved out. The Holy One, Blessed is His Name, said to him, "Because you moved out, the land will be called by your name, and I will give you a land as beautiful as your land." Which land is that? The land of Africa (afrika).

I never remember learning that the Cannanites moved out, but it seems like they did. What is also interesting, is that the Midrash is telling us that Africa is as beautiful as the land of Israel (at least before the Jews got there). I don't know what part of Africa it is refering to (for instance, Egypt is in Africa, but I highly doubt it is refering to Egypt!), maybe Uganda? :)

Avraham was Circumcised by a Scorpion

When Hashem told Avraham about circumcision, how did Avraham know how to do it? The Midrash Tanchumah on Parashas Lech Lecha, Sif 17 gives an amazing answer:

Avraham was sitting and wondering how he should circumcise himself. Once the Holy One, Blessed is He, told him, "I will place My covenant between Me and you," what is written following this? "Avraham fell on his face." When he fell on his face, the Holy One, Blessed is He, indicated to him `the place' and a scorpion bit him [there], so that he found himself circumcised (nimtza mahol). How do we know? From what is written, "God spoke to him saying, `As for Me, this is My covenant with you.'" Look, you are circumcised. And it is written, "On that very day Avraham became circumcised (nimol)." It does not say that he circumcised himself (mol), rather "he became circumcised" (nimol). ...

Thus according to this Midrash, Avraham did not circumcise himself, but rather Hashem caused a scorpion to do it for him. Ouch...

Should Tzitzis be Tucked or Un-tucked?

It always seemed to me that when the pasuk says "and you shall see it and you will remember all the commandments of Hashem, and perform them...", that one should wear their tzitzis un-tucked, so that one will see them throughout the day and remember his obligations to Hashem.

In Yeshiva, I was told by other bochurim that this is not the case, and that the pasuk is only teaching us that tzitzis is worn during the day (i.e. when you can see them), and not the night. I was even told that one should tuck them, that when the pasuk says "and you shall see it", this means you and not them, i.e. the non-Jews, and therefore one should tuck them in when going out on the street. It seems also that historically, when Jews were being persecuted, then it made sense to tuck them in as a life-saving protection, and that this then became the custom.

However, I have come across the following Midrash to support the un-tuck viewpoint:

The Midrash Tanchumah, Parashas Shelach, Sif 15 says:

"And it shall be for to you for tzitzis..." - That it it should be visible. ... "And you will see it and you will remember.." - seeing leads to mindfulness, and mindfulness leads to performance, as it is stated, "In order that you remember and perform all My commandments." Why? "For it is not an empty thing for you."

It would seem from here that to properly use tzitzis the way G-d intended them to be used, is to wear them out so that they are visible.

The argument could be made that when the pasuk says "see it", this does not refer to all the strings, but only to the techelis string(it, and not them). Therefore since most people today do not wear techalis, perhaps there is no need to un-tuck.

However, I still think that if a Jew lives in an area where there is not active persecution, and is not roaming around in dark alleys, that he should wear the tzitzis un-tucked. I don't know if this is right or not, but it seems to me to make sense.

The Balance Between Kollel and Working

An interesting Midrash:

Midrash Tanchumah Parashas Beshalach Sif 20 says:

Rabbi Yehoshua says: When a person studies two halachos in the morning and two halachos in the evening, and is occupied (osaik) with his work all the day, he is considered as one who fulfills the entire Torah (kol hatorah kulo) and fulfills the verse, "And you shall meditate in it day and night." Rabbi shumon ben Yehoshuah said: We see from this that the study of Torah [all day - Ed] was designated for those who ate manna, for they had no need to work or to engage in commerce. ... This could also be said [of Kohanim] due to the terumah gift-offerings [they recieve].

It would seem from this that unless someone has somebody to support his family fully (like manna) in order to learn, a person should work. At the same time, since we do not give terumah today, to keep learning going, everyone who works should give money to Kollelim in order to support those who learn. This creates a balance, where when there are many people working, there is more money, and more people can choose to learn full time. When there are many people learning full time, there is less money to give, and some of them need to choose to go work. There is an equilibrium to be reached where the number working is enough to support the number learning with people not having to switch back and forth too much.

Jewish Father and Non-Jewish Mother - Status of the Child

According to Halachah, a child is Jewish if his/her mother is Jewish, regardless of the father's status. The Reform and Conservative movements have challenged this (not so much challenge, as disregard) which unfortunately will cause many problems down the line. The arguments go back and forth, but I think it is interesting to note that challenging this idea is not new, and is already discussed and settled in the Midrash.

The Midrash Tanchumah, Parashas Chukas, Sif 6 states the following:

Yaakov from Kefar Giboraya [same guy who thought fish needed to be shcheted -ed] taught in Tyre that a child that is born as a result of the union between a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman is circumcised on Shabbos. [Thus implying - in a strong way - that he is Jewish - ed]. Rabbi Chagai heard this and sent for him. He said to him, "How do you know this?" He said, "for it is written, 'And they were registered by family ancestry according to the house of their fathers.'" [He said to them,] "Prepare him for lashing." He said to him, "Is this the law that a person who says something from the Torah is given lashes?!" He said to him, "You do not teach correctly." He said to him, "How do you know?" He said to him, "Bend over [to receive your lashes] and then I will tell you." [.........] He said to him, "Based on what rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. It is written, "And you shall not intermarry with them. You shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son." - Why? - "for he [the non-Jew] will cause your child [the son of the daughter with the non-Jew] to turn away after Me." Your son who comes from a Jewish mother is called "your son" but your son of a non-Jewish woman is not called "your son" but "her son," as it is stated, "but the son of the slave-woman as well I will make into a nation." He said to him, "Give your lashes because it is fitting and proper that I receive them."

We see here a biblical source for the law that Judaism goes through the mother. I have heard from other Rabbis (although I do not know their source) another interpretation of the verse. In this case the "he" in the explanation refers to the Jewish man, and the "child" is the Jewish man's offspring, which will be "turn[ed] away from Me", i.e. not Jewish. However, for the daughter to the non-Jewish man, this is not said.
It could be that I misheard this drashah, and I was told it in the manner of the Midrash originally.

Either way, the message is clear, that the Torah itself mentions (indirectly) the law. (Although in Yeshiva I learned that before Mattan-Torah, Judasim was passed down form the Father, and only afterward was it passed down through the Mother.)

Don't Say Fish Require Shchitah

Here is something I found interesting. I have been asked by some why fish do not need any kind of shchitah. The thought is that it is cruel to kill fish the way we do, and why is it permitted? Well I found that the idea of fish needing shchitah is not new, and is addressed in the Midrash Tanchumah Parashas Chukas Sif 6:

Yaakov from Kfar Giboraya taught in Tyre that fish require shchitah. Rabbi Chagai heard this and sent for him. He said to him, "From where did you learn this?" He said to him, "From here," 'G-d said, Let the water teem with teeming living creatures, and fowl, ...'" Just as fowl requires shchitah, so too does fish require shchitah. He said to them, "Prepare him for lashing!" He said, "Is this the law, that a person who says something form the Torah is given lashes?!" He said to him, "You did not teach correctly." He said to him, "How do you know?" He said to him from what is written here, "Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them? Or if all the fish in the sea will be gathered for them, would is suffice for them?" These [sheep and cattle] require shchitah, and these [fish] require gathering. He said to him, "Give your lashes for they are fitting and proper that I am lashed by them." (Translation from Metsudah edition)

Therefore, we have a pasuk that tells us that fish do not need shchitah. (However, they require "gathering" - I am not sure what this requirement is. My guess is that they must be dead before eating them.)

This also brings out a very important idea that one should not interpret the Torah on their own, but rather check the interpretation with a Sage.