Lag BaOmer on Motze'i Shabbat

Four interesting halachot relevant to Ashkenazim this year, since the 33rd day of the Omer falls straight after Shabbat (and on Sunday)

1. The Rema rules that it is permitted to have a haircut on Friday (but not Thursday night) "lichvod Shabbat" (Orech Chaim 493:2)

2. Even though it is permitted to have a haircut before Shabbat, weddings (and presumably live music) are permitted only on the day of Lag BaOmer (i.e. Sunday) and not the night before (i.e. Sat. night) (Mishna Brura 493:10 in the name of Eliya Rabba)

3. The Rabbanut of Israel has ruled that all bonfires and celebrations should be pushed off to Sunday (instead of Saturday night) to minimize chilul Shabbat (this applies even in neighbourhoods where the majority of people keep Shabbat).

4. Laws of Nezikin/Damages still apply on (and before) Lag BaOmer. If you are unsure of how to tend a fire and are not prepared (or able) to watch it until it is completely extinguished, do not light a bonfire. Leaving it under the supervision of a child is negligent and one is liable for any damages caused (not to mention the potential risk of pikuach nefesh in such a situation). Similarly, wood taken/borrowed/stolen without permission is forbidden to be used. Learn Bava Kama before lighting any fires. If you see others acting in a way which is irresponsible and/or assur speak to them and explain the halachot. If they do not understand, call the fire brigade (or police). Last year seven people were injured on Lag BaOmer. Each of us has the responsibility to ensure that nobody is injured and no damage caused to property this year.

Blessing for Birth of Down's Syndrome Baby

Last week (and again this week) Rav Shlomo Aviner publicised a p'sak halacha that parents should recite two blessings on the birth of a child with Down's Syndrome, both shehechiyanu and dayan ha-emet.

Shehechiyanu for the Birth of a Child with Down's Syndrome

Q: If someone has a baby with Down's Syndrome, does he recite Shehechiyanu? After all, he is sad.

A: He is both sad and happy. He therefore recites "Shehechiyanu" and "Dayan Ha-Emet." This is similar to a case in which one's wife gives birth but dies during the process, or one's father dies but leaves him an inheritance. He recites both blessings since he has both feelings (Berachot 60a. This is unlike the ruling of Ha-Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, who rules that Shehechiyanu should not be recited in our case, since the parents are not joyous but sad. Kav Ve-Naki #70).

And this is the follow up response:

Shehechiyanu for the Birth of a Child with Down's Syndrome

Q: Ha-Rav answered that if a child is born with Down's Syndrome, one should recite "Dayan Ha-Emet" on the distress as well as "Shehechiyanu" on the joy. We – with Hashem's kindness – had a baby with Down's Syndrome born to us and we were very happy and are still happy, and we don't see any reason to recite "Dayan Ha-Emet"?

A: Fortunate are you! May those like you increase in Israel. But most people also feel some sadness, and one should therefore recite "Dayan Ha-Emet". Ha-Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv ruled that Shehechiyanu should not be recited at all, and he is discussing a case where the parents are only sad and have no joy (Kav Ve-Naki #70). But the usual case is that there are mixed emotions.

I cannot claim to be as great (in anything) as Rav Aviner, but I feel that this requires a response (the always excellent Bill Kolbruner wrote a great response, but does not address the halachic aspects of the p'sak)

With all due respect to Rav Aviner, I think there are three aspects to this question (and I'm not convinced that he is correct on any of them): The halacha, the psychology and whether such a teshuva should be published.

The halacha:
The source for the blessings of dayan ha-emet and shehechiyanu is the gemeara in Berachot 59b-60a

Come and hear: If a man's father dies and he is his heir, first he says: Blessed is the true Judge, and afterwards he says: Blessed is He who is good and does good?
...
OVER EVIL A BLESSING IS SAID etc. How is this to be understood? — For instance, if a freshet flooded his land. Although it is [eventually] a good thing for him, because his land is covered with alluvium and becomes more fertile, nevertheless for the time being it is evil.7
AND OVER GOOD etc. How can we understand this? — If for instance he found something valuable. Although this may [eventually] be bad for him, because if the king hears of it he will take it from him, nevertheless for the time being it is good.

This is also codified in Shulchan Aruch Orech Chayim 242-3.

The basic concept is that if something happens which is both good and bad, one recites both blessings. However, in the first case, when a person makes two blessings, there are two separate things happening, a death, and an inheritance. I haven't found any source for reciting two blessings for a single event (even if it contians mixed emotions).

Furthermore, why does Rav Aviner consider a baby born with Down's Syndrome to be like a case of someone dying, or even like a case of finding something valuable which will eventually be taken away. To me it seems more like winning the lottery (because the parents have a lovely, beautiful child) and find out that you will have to pay taxes on it - perhaps not as good as it could have been, but much better than not winnning the lottery at all. (I accept that this is a psychological consideration, and you may disagree with me - though I hope not).

I also looked at the responsa of Rav Elyashiv and Rav Scheinberg that Rav Aviner quoted (because they are available online . They discuss whether or not to recite the blessing of shehechiyanu (which anyway the Rema says that we are not really accustomed to say). Neither Rav Elyashiv nor Rav Scheinberg mention reciting dayan ha-emes.

In fact, I haven't found anyone else who says to say this bracha. At the very least, there doesn't seem to be any requirement to recite any blessing. If in doubt leave it out?

Thus far halachic discussion (there is more to say, but the post is already too long).

As for the psychological aspect - even if I were to accept that there is halachic basis for reciting dayan ha-emes (which I don't), I think that actually reciting it could create a barrier between parent and child. It is as if the parent is giving up on the child as soon as he/she is born. I would suggest that the role of Rabbis is to be supportive and encouraging. Anything which has even a tiny chance of safek pikuach nefesh should not be said. Ufortunately, even today there are parents who do not want to take a Down's Syndrome child home with them. Unless it is an absolute obligation to say the bracha of Dayan Ha-Emes it should not be mentioned at all. Rather, Rabbis should be encouraging, supportive, doting etc and doing everything possible (within the confines of halacha) to help parents who are undoubtedly going through a crisis. Perhaps shehechiyanu is not the right blessing to say. But then say nothing at all.

Finally, even if it is the correct halacha and even if there is a specific parent for whom the Rabbi feels that reciting Dayan Ha-Emes would be beneficial - such a p'sak should not be made public. Writing this in a public forum is incredibly damaging. Imagine a child with Down's Syndrome reading (or hearing about) this p'sak. How will he relate to his/her parents and Rabbis? And how will others relate to them?

So, I'll end here. As you can tell I am very upset by this p'sak. Perhaps some will say that it is forbidden to argue with a godol. I don't agree. But in this case I feel very strongly that the potential for damage is enormous, and so far I haven't seen anyone write an alternative view. In addition, from the fact that they dont' mention it, I think that neither Rav Elyashiv nor Rav Scheinberg would agree with Rav Aviner's p'sak.

And apologies if I caused any offence to anyone with this post.

Addendum:

Someone has kindly pointed out to me that Rav Aviner's p'sak is explicitly arguing on the Chofetz Chaim, who writes in Be'ur Halakha in siman 222:

דיין האמת - אמרו לו שנמצא הרבה והרבה עשבים בקמה שלו או שאשתו הולידה נקבה ותשוקתו היה רק לבן זכר אין שייך לברך ע"ז דיין האמת אף שיש לו צער מזה כי לא נתקן ברכה זו אלא על דבר שמתחלה ניתן לו ואח"כ נתקלקל או נאבד משא"כ הכא החטים לא נהפכו לעשבים והבן לא נהפך לנקבה אלא שמתחלה לא ניתן לו בן [וכה"ג בחטים לא ניתן לו מתחלה הכל חטים] ואין שייך לברך דיין האמת על מה שלא ניתן לו [א"ר בשם אבודרהם].

"Dayan HaEmet: If they told someone that his field had grown a lot of grass instead of wheat, or that his wife gave birth to a girl and he really wanted a boy, it is not relevant to recite the blessing of Dayan HaEmet on this, even though it causes him pain. This blessing was only established for something that was given to the person and afterwards became ruined or was lost to him. However, in this case it wasn't that the wheat turned into grass, or the son turned into a daughter. Rather he was never given a son or wheat from the beginning. It is not relevant to recite the blessing of Dayan HaEmet on something that was never given to him.

Women and Hair Covering

I have been asked by someone about the sources for women's hair covering. Why do they have to cover their hair? Who has to cover her hair? When does the hair need to be covered? How much? and where does it say so in the Torah.

The truth is that there is no simple verse in the Torah to point to with all the answers. Like all the laws of Judaism, we don't learn the halachot from the verses in the Torah (there are very few verses that actually give us laws, and even those are limited or expanded (or both) by the Oral tradition. In other words, it is always an unfair question to ask 'where does it say so in the Torah' because almost all of the Torah laws (and absoutely all of the Rabbinic laws) are from the Mishna, Talmud, Tosefta, Gaonim, Rishonim or Acharonim.

There are explicit rules in the Shulchan Aruch, but for a proper overview and understanding of the laws (from the sources) the best book (by far) on the topic is: The Modest Way (Women and Mitzvot Series)

He brings all the relevant sources, without commentary, allowing you to learn for yourself the whats, whys and hows of this (and other) serious subjects.

It is also available in Hebrew under the title 'Hatznea Lechet' (which is a quote from the end of yesterday's haftorah)

Empower the people with knowledge!

Quantum Halacha

I've been investigating the nature and development of halacha for the past few months. It is extremely interesting to try and figure out how the pieces all fit together.
How are we to understand the famous statement of Rabbi Yehoshua (Bava Metzia 59b) that 'Torah is not in Heaven' (lo bashamayim hi). According to the simple reading, G-d no longer has a say in the halacha since he has given the authority to the Rabbis (at least until the closing of the Talmud, but probably even until today) to decide what Jews should and should not be doing. But how can G-d not decide the halacha if it is supposed to be Divine?
There is an idea which I have heard from others, which makes a lot of sense to me (even though the Talmud and Rambam can't have known of it in these terms) which is that halacha behaves like a subatomic particle - in a quantum manner. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle holds that we can never know both the momentum and the position of an electron. If we know the position, the electron has, in effect, no momentum. Conversely, if we know the momentum it has no location but appears as a cloud. It was on this point that Einstein famously said "G-d doesn't play dice" (to which Niels Bohr replied "Albert, stop telling G-d what he can do!").
It is even worse than that if you like the billiard ball model of the universe. Most scientists agree that the electron doesn't even have a position or a momentum until we look for it. In other words it is neither until we decide what it should be by looking for it. The observer changes the facts by doing the experiment. This is basically Schroedinger's cat in a nutshell.
People don't like the idea of quantum mechanics because it is really hard to get your head around. I was just rereading 'The Fire in the Equations' by Kitty Ferguson (an excellent book by the way). She gives an analogy in the name of Professor John Wheeler.

Here is his version of Twenty Questions, Quantum Style.
Professor Wheeler is IT. We all assume that he has chosen a secret word, but he decides to play a trick on us. He doesn't choose any word at all. The game begins. 'Animal, vegetable or mineral?' we ask. Prof. Wheeler, having no secret word in mind, just a blur of every noun in his English vocabulary, is free to choose any of the three categories. 'Animal' he answers. As we all shift our attention to the animal kingdom, the blur of possibilities becomes smaller. 'Mammal?' someone asks. 'No answers Prof. Wheeler, though he could just as honestly have answered 'yes'. 'Reptile?' is then next question. 'Yes,' says Prof. Wheeler with a congratulatory nod, although he might just as truthfully have said 'no'. now we all think of snakes and lizards and the like, a blur of reptilian life in our minds. A blur of reptilian life in Prof. Wheeler's mind too. There is no definite reptile lurking there in his mind's eye. As the game goes on Prof. Wheeler may have to be very clever in order to keep each answer consistent with all his other answers, but if he does, can you see that in the end we will arrive at a definite word, although there was not one waiting to be found in Prof. Wheeler's mind? The avenue our questions have taken has helped create the hidden word.

Perhaps halacha operates in a similar way? If we substitute Prof. Wheeler for (l'havdil) G-d, and the 20 questions for the development of halacha, we can arrive at the correct halachic decision using the process without contradicting the intention of G-d.
Lo bashamayim hi - it is not in Heaven. We can make the halacha (as long as we use the correct system). If we do, we will always reach the intention of G-d!
This is a difficult concept, and I'm not sure if it is right, but it helps me to understand why we do what we do. It also removes many of the questions that people have about halacha and tradition. Perhaps more about that later.
Hope you enjoyed this interesting idea (and please excuse the pop science book - a bad habit of mine).
Good night