Reb Chaim Volozhiner's Yahrtzeit

WIth the hindsight of the passage of two hundred years, I think it is possible that Reb Chaim Volozhiner left a mark on the Torah and Kedusha of Klal Yisrael comparable to that of Ezra Hasofer.  Reb Chaim's son, Reb Itzaleh, wrote the introduction to Reb Chaim's Nefesh Hachaim.  In it is a line that deserves contemplation.

והיה רגיל להוכיח אותי על שראה שאינני משתתף בצערא דאחריני וכה היה דברו אלי תמיד שזה כל האדם לא לעצמו נברא רק להועיל לאחריני ככל אשר ימצא בכחו לעשות

He would often rebuke me, seeing that I did not empathize in others' pain.  These were the words he constantly said to me:  "This is the entirety of man- Man was not created for himself, but instead to help others to the extent of his ability to do so."

He did not say that the purpose of man is to sit and learn, or to do mitzvos.  The sum of being a human being is to help others.  As Hillel and Reb Akiva said, the essential teaching of the Torah is to feel what the other person feels.  All the rest is interpretation.

Krauthammer's Law

Forgive this foray into non-Torah matters, but Divrei Chochma are worth knowing no matter what kind.

Charles Krauthammer, physician, columnist and commentator, has propounded a theory that turned out to be, pretty much, a demonstrable fact.  He named it Krauthammer's Law.  This law posits that

Everyone is Jewish until proven otherwise.   

Like Moore's law, this seems thoroughly counter-intuitive, but, again and again, it proves its uncanny truth, explaining all sorts of behavior.  As Dr. Krauthammer (writing in 2006) pointed out,

 First, it turns out that John Kerry — windsurfing, French-speaking, Beacon Hill aristocrat — had two Jewish grandparents. ( NOTE; Mr. Kerry is currently U. S. Secretary of State.)  Then Hillary Clinton — methodical Methodist — unearths a Jewish stepgrandfather in time for her run as New York senator.A less jaunty case was that of Madeleine Albright, three of whose Czech grandparents had perished in the Holocaust and who most improbably contended that she had no idea they were Jewish. To which we can add the leading French presidential contender (Nicolas Sarkozy), a former supreme allied commander of NATO (Wesley Clark) and Russia's leading anti-Semite (Vladimir Zhirinovsky). One must have a sense of humor about these things. Even Fidel Castro claims he is from a family of Marranos.

That Fidel Castro might be descended from Marranos, as he claims, does not surprise me.  His behavior and opinions certainly are consistent with such ancestry.  But if the one-time Governer and Senator of Alabama, the son of a football coach, a dyed in the wool good old boy/high society redneck, George Allen, can be outed as a Jew, then we've fallen down the rabbit hole.

I mention this rule because of the latest news out of Caracas, Venezuela, where Chavez' successor has been accused of being Anti-Semitic.  His response-  "Who, me?  My grandparents were Jewish!"

 In President Nicolas Maduro's  own words, 

“My grandparents were Jewish, from a [Sephardic] Moorish background, and converted to Catholicism in Venezuela… The mother of [Minister of Communication and Information] Ernesto Villegas also comes from a similar background,” Maduro said last week, according to Aporrea, a Venezuelan news portal supportive of Chávez’s socialist platform and reform initiatives.
“I’m sorry to hear about the statements made by Claudio Epelman, director of the Latin American Jewish Congress, who I know and have received many times, saying that there’s anti-Semitism in Venezuela and implicating Chávez and me in it,” Maduro said.
“He can accuse me, but he should leave Chávez out of it,” he added.

So not only is he Jewish, but half his cabinet is Jewish, too.

As Mr. Krauthammer says,

There are 13 million Jews in the world, one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population. Yet 20 percent of Nobel Prize winners are Jewish, a staggering hundredfold surplus of renown and genius. This is similarly true for a myriad of other "everyones" — the household names in music, literature, mathematics, physics, finance, industry, design, comedy, film and, as the doors opened, even politics.

And you have to realize that this disproportionate and remarkable prominence only takes note of the individuals that admit or know that they are Jewish.  How many of the others  either are hiding or are simply unaware of their background?

And in the news recently,

The city of Los Angeles went to the polls on Tuesday, May 21 (2013) and were faced with a choice between City Councilman Eric Garcetti, whose mother is Jewish – but not his father – and Wendy Greuel, LA’s City Controller, who would have been its first female Mayor.  Greuel’s husband is Jewish and her son attends Hebrew school.  Also, Greuel’s mother’s first husband was Jewish.  And the third highest vote-getter in LA’s March primary, Jan Perry, converted to Judaism.
Yes, it’s California, where almost everybody is a little bit of everything.
In a tight race that remained tough to call until early Wednesday morning, Garcetti came out on top with 54 percent of the votes and Greuel with 46 percent.
“Thank you Los Angeles–the hard work begins but I am honored to lead this city for the next four years. Let’s make this a great city again,” Garcetti tweeted.
Garcetti’s mother is Jewish, although his father is Latino and was raised Catholic.  Before Jewish audiences, Garcetti has referred to himself as a “kosher burrito.”  His family attended synagogue on High Holy days, but he also attended Jewish summer camp and told the Los Angeles Times that he attended minyan while a graduate student at Oxford University.

A recent visitor, Rabbi Ari Listowsky, argued that this prominence stems not from inherent talent but rather from a culture that emphasizes and honors education.  This is so true as to be a truism.  As the joke goes, two things can always be found in schools- fish and Jews.  The issue he raises derives from Frances Galton's discussion of what he named "the Nature/Nurture" question.  But I believe that the argument goes nowhere.  First, in the nature nurture debate I believe that Thomas Bouchard's discovery of the Jim Twins laid to rest the argument that Human Beings are infinitely and fundamentally malleable and no more than products of their environment.  In any case, while outside cases of identical twins it is reasonable to assume some cultural influence, it stands to reason to recognize the reality of inherent and intrinsic character traits and skills.  And more- there happens to be a branch of the Jewish People that does not share the European compulsion towards a good education, and they are at least as prominent and successful as any other segment of our people- the Sefardic Jews.  As one Syrian Jew said in an article in the New York Times Magazine,

Syrian Jews have always regarded advanced secular education with something like suspicion. Not only does it promote outside values, it also distracts a boy from his proper role as an apprentice in the family business. “To understand us, you have to know that we are profoundly Middle Eastern,” Suede said. “Education is never the most important thing. People in the community thought we were weird because my older brothers and I became professionals.”

So Arie, no, it's not our love of books.  It's just what we are.

This is not a triumphal assertion of superiority.  For one thing, individuals are not populations, and there are plenty of Jews that are untalented and unmotivated.  Furthermore, being talented and brilliant and creative has no correlation with being decent or kind or civil.  I know plenty of brilliant and talented people that are extremely unpleasant to be with.  For example, even in the field of virulent anti-semitism, we Jews have pushed our way to the forefront, cases in point being Noam Chomsky and George Soros.  We have plenty to be ashamed of as far as wholesale shfichas damim: there's Bugsy Siegel and Leizer Kaganovich, the Wolf of the Kremlin.  We even have some Neo-Nazis, who, when the awful truth came out, had to seriously re-assess their philosophy; some became Orthodox Jews.  Others knew their history all along, but tried to hide it.  And there's also Helmut Newton.  But whatever it means, the talent is undeniable.  Whether this brilliant light brought us to our unique relationship with God, or is a consequence of that relationship, I don't know.

When You Should Name Your Daughter

This was part of another post, but then I realized that it required division into several parts, as follow: 
When one should name a daughter; 
Why some gedolim insist on traditional names; 
Why the naming is such an important ocassion, and others.  

When I've finished all the parts, I will delete the old post.  Here is part one.  

When should you name your daughter?

a.  A Lubavitcher Journal brings a minhag from the sefer Bris Avos to name her immediately, no need to wait for K'rias HaTorah, no need to wait for Shabbos, just do it the day she's born.
b.  The Minchas Yitzchak brings from the author of the Darkei Teshuva that the parent should name the daughter at the very first K'rias HaTorah after she is born.
c.  Reb Moshe Feinstein held that the naming should not be within the first three days after the birth, and then named at a mi shebeirach at a K'rias HaTorah.  That is the minhag of the Feinstein family, with the exception of a certain Moshe Eisenberg, (named after his Great Grandfather Reb Moshe), who named his daughter the day after she was born.  Another Feinstein Hanhaga is to know the difference between big things and little things, and not to lose any sleep over little things.  I think this is a relatively little thing, around the same level as breaking a plate at the T'naim or whether you stand or sit when you say Lecha Dodi (and when you turn around for Bo'i b'shalom)  I know that some people are obsessive about "their minhag" no matter what.  I remember a bachur that came over to me in yeshiva with a terrible problem.  His minhag is to stand for Lecha Dodi, and the yeshiva sits.  He was faced with a terrible dilemma.  What should he do????  I told him that he doesn't need to be mattir neder, and while he's in yeshiva, he should do what everyone else does.
d.  Some say no sooner than the fifth day, unless the fifth day is preceded by a Shabbos, in which case you can name her on Shabbos.
e.  Bostoner and Karliner Chasidim name only on the second Shabbos, based on the Medrash (brought by the  Taz in YD 265 SK 13) that Kedusha cannot be imparted to a living thing before it experiences a Shabbos- before it appears before the Matron.
f.  The Ya'avetz, in his Siddur, says that the name should be given on the first Shabbos that the mother comes to shul, and he doesn't qualify it by any number of days after the birth.  Alternatively, the father should name her in shul after four weeks (28 days.)
g.  After 30 days.
h.  There's a famous opinion from a forebear of the Chida that you should name a girl no sooner than forty days after her birth (discussed, and in a clearer print, here.)

So, to sum it all up, the first day, the third day, the fifth day, at the first Krias HaTorah, on the second Shabbos, on the first Shabbos the mother comes to shul, after 28 days, after 30 days, and after 40 days.  I'm glad I was able to clear this up for you.

More seriously: Please don't assume parity among the authors of the opinions cited above.  The recorders of these varied minhagim comprise an extremely wide range of authoritativeness, from nobodies to Geonim.  In practice, one should follow the minhag of the place or kehilla to which the parents belong.  The name of a Jewish child is an element of his or her relationship with the community, and one should follow the minhag of the community one is a part of.  As the Ramban says in Bamidbar 1:32,

הבא לפני אב הנביאים ואחיו קדוש ה' והוא נודע אליהם בשמו יהיה לו בדבר הזה זכות וחיים, כי בא בסוד העם ובכתב בני ישראל וזכות הרבים במספרם

Next installment: Why the Naming of a Child is a Supremely Important Event.   

Naming a Daughter

We've been busy writing a dedication for

 The Definitive Edition of the דברי יחזקאל 

soon to be published in Israel, and trying to earn a living, but there's something that wants to get written, and if I don't start, it won't get done.  Here's the topic, and the intention is to flesh it out when we come back from Eretz Yisrael.  Remember, the posts here are participatory and iterative.  That means that the post changes in response to or to incorporate interesting comments, until there's nothing more to add.  If you have something worthwhile to share, send it to me.  Don't send in things like "I named my daughter right away/three days later/a week later/first kriyas hatorah/on Shabbos" unless you know a good reason for what you did.

UPDATE
I'm back from EY, the sefer is being published, and when I came back I realized that this post needs to be divided.

One part will be about the significance and minhagim of naming a daughter;

The other part will be about the famous strongly expressed opinion of Harav Chaim Kanievsky that names of modern coinage are null and void, and are changed by merely chosing an appropriate name.  As he put it, the same way you wouldn't name your son מצורע because he was born during the week of Parshas מצורע, and you wouldn't name your daughter פרה because she was born during the week of Parshas פרה, so too you shouldn't name her שירה just because she was born during Shabbos  שירה.

. האם נראה לכם שכדאי שבפרשת מצורע, נקרא לבננו בשם 'מצורע'? או שבפרשת  פרה נקרא לבת בשם 'פרה' ?", תהה מרן הגר"ח קניבסקי שליט"א, ואם כן, מדוע בשבת שירה קוראים לבת 'שירה'?ה' 

 I believe he holds like that because he feels that such names are a symptom of cultural anomie, like Latisha and Shaniqua and Shonda, and that he holds that the symptom aggravates the underlying problem.  We'll talk more about that, IYH.

 Naming a Daughter

1. There's an amazing Drisha in YD 360 (easy to remember, it's Shin Samach, Shas.) The halacha there deals with precedence: If a person has several events that he ought to attend, and he has to chose which to attend first, or he can only do one but not both, which event has precedence.  The occasions listed include bikkur cholim, attending a funeral, accompanying a Chasan or Kallah to the Chupa, attending a Sheva Brachos, and going to a Bris. I'm not going to write the list, because there are many qualifying factors.  But, all things being equal, the halacha is that Bris Milah comes before Chasan and Kallah. The Drisha says that the event of naming a girl has a status equal to attending a bris milah, and so the same way that attending a Bris has precedence over attending to simchas chasan v'kallah, so too, attending a girl-naming has precedence over simchas chasan v'kallah. This is beyond strange, and the Drisha does not cite any basis for his assertion. The oddity speaks for itself: Equal to a Bris??? Bris, that foundational mitzva upon which thirteen covenants were established??

     A If determination of order of precedence is a ranking of the importance of mitzvos, since when is naming a girl a mitzva at all, and even if it is some kind of mitzva, is it comparable to a Bris???

     B.  If determination of order of precedence is a matter of ranking relative entitlement for honor, why would this be a situation of kavod?  And whose kavod, the parents' or the child's?

     C.  If determination of order of precedence stems from the importance of experiencing the areivus/communion of sharing other people's emotional experiences, is this a time of simcha?

    D.   If there is a Chassan and a bris and a girl-naming in shul, who gets the aliyah?

2.. When should you name a daughter?

Answers:
a.  A Lubavitcher Journal brings a minhag from the sefer Bris Avos to name her immediately, no kiras hatorah, no Shabbos, just on the spot.
b.  The Minchas Yitzchak brings from the author of the Darkei Teshuva that the father should name his daughter at the very first krias hatorah after the birth.
c.  Reb Moshe Feinstein held that the naming should not be within the first three days after the birth, and that is the minhag of the Feinstein family, unless, like my son Moshe (named after his Great Grandfather Reb Moshe), you name her the day after she was born.  Another minhag of the Feinstein's is to know what's a little thing, and not to lose any sleep over little things.
d.  Some say no sooner than the fifth day, unless Shabbos comes on or after the third day, and if so, you can name her on Shabbos.
e.  There is a general preference for naming on a Shabbos.  In fact, Bostoner and Karliner Chasidim name only after the first Shabbos, based on the Medrash (brought by the  Taz in YD 265 SK 13) that Kedusha cannot be imparted to a living thing before it experiences a Shabbos- before it appears before the Matron.
f.  The Ya'avetz, in his Siddur, says that the name should be given on the first Shabbos when the mother comes to shul, and he doesn't qualify it by any number of days after the birth.  If not, the father should name her in shul after four weeks (28 days.)
g.  After 28 and a half days.
h.  There's a famous opinion from a forebear of the Chida that you shouldn't name a girl before the fortieth day after her birth (discussed, and in a clearer print, here.)

So, to sum it all up, the first day, after no less than three days, after five days, at the first Krias HaTorah, on the second Shabbos, on the first Shabbos the mother comes to shul, after 28 days, after 28 and a half days, and after 40 days.  I'm glad I was able to clear this up.

More seriously, first of all: Please don't assume parity among the authors of the opinions cited above.  The recorders of the various minhagim comprise an extremely wide range of authoritativeness.  In practice, one should follow the minhag of the place or kehilla he is a part of.  The name of a Jewish child is an element of his or her relationship with the community, and one should follow the minhag of the community one belongs to.  As the Ramban says in Bamidbar 1:32,

הבא לפני אב הנביאים ואחיו קדוש ה' והוא נודע אליהם בשמו יהיה לו בדבר הזה זכות וחיים, כי בא בסוד העם ובכתב בני ישראל וזכות הרבים במספרם

3.  When we call something a Bris, is the act of circumcision an element of the covenant, or is the circumcision only the mark of a covenant that exists separate from the act?  Assuming that the milah is not the bris, but only the אות ברית/sign of the covenant, and further making the elementary assumption that the covenant is with women no less than with men, is there any אות ברית for women?


I have answers to all of these questions.

Having an answer is not necessarily the same as having a good or excellent or enjoyable answer.  But I think I have some interesting things to bring to the table.  Feel free to do the same.  It'll be a while till this is finished.

Meanwhile, here's one interesting thing that addresses several of the questions:

אגר"מ אה"ע ח"ד קב

קריאת שם לבת היא כשם הבנים שהוא רצון השי"ת שיקראו שמות אע"פ שאין על זה ציווי, ויתכן אף דהוא בכלל הציווי לאדה"ר שיקרא שמות, ולדורות נשאר רצון וציווי זה. ולכן הנהיגו אבותינו ורבותינו מדורות הראשונים שיקראו שם הבנות ג"כ בקדושה בשעת קרה"ת ובבקשת רחמים עליה. 

...naming a daughter is like naming a son, it is the will of Hashem names should be given, even though there is no specific commandment to do so.  It is reasonable to say that this is included in the commandment to Adam to give names, and for all generations this will of Hashem and commandment remained.  This is why our forefathers and teachers from the early times led us to give names to daughters in a time of holiness, when we read from the Torah, and while asking that Hashem be merciful with her.

As we will see from the Drisha, there were places where the naming was done in the house with the baby, not in shul during Krias HaTorah.

Just in case I don't have a chance to finish this here's a brief description of my approach. The Rogotchover in Breishis 2:19-20 says that the true name of a thing is the quality that distinguishes it from whatever is not it. When a thing loses its particular quality or specific function it loses its name. He also discussed this in Bechukosai on vehishbati chaya raa, where there is a machlokes Reb Yehuda and Reb Shimon whether this means physical elimination or that the animals will remain, but, for example,  the lion will no longer be a predator; and that Reb Yehuda is leshitaso that ein biur chametz ella sreifa. I believe that the naming of a child is the moment when that neshama's true tafkid/yiud/purpose is determined. That unique purpose is a vital component of God's plan and it can be achieved only by this person. This momentous occasion deserves attention and respect. 

Acharei Mos, Vayikra 16:2. Fear is an Ingredient of the Avodah on Yom Kippur.

Parshas Achrei Mos begins with a description of the Sacrificial Service of Yom Kippur.  The first thing Moshe was told to tell Aharon is a negative: that if Aharon were to come into the Kodesh Kadashim outside of a specific time and without specific korbanos it might cause his death.

דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא בכל עת אל הקדש מבית לפרכת אל פני הכפרת אשר על הארן ולא ימות כי בענן אראה על הכפרת

Only then does the Torah go on to say that the only way to avoid the fatal consequences of entering the Kodesh Kadashim is to enter it on Yom Kippur while doing the sacrificial service of Yom Kippur which is then described. 

Reb Moshe, in his second English Darash, says that it seems that the first thing in the instructions for Avodas Yom HaKippurim should be a positive- "Do X Y and Z."  It is unusual that the first statement in the instructions is "If you don't do it correctly, walking into the Kodesh Kadashim can be deadly."

Reb Moshe explains that this is a misunderstanding.  If you read the passuk correctly, you would realize that this fact is indeed the first ingredient in the Yom Kippur service.  Awareness of the danger of entry under any other circumstances is a prerequisite for the acceptability of the Yom Kippur service.  Only if the Kohen Gadol consciously focuses on the supreme holiness and danger of the Kodesh Kadashim, only if he is fully aware that its holiness is such that that no one may enter other than to perform the Yom Kippur service, will he do the day's avodah in a befittingly elevated state and thereby bring forgiveness.

Reb Moshe then adds that even if the Kohen Gadol knows how serious it is to enter the Kodesh Kadashim, and even if he brings all the sacrifices, he cannot come in on any day other than Yom Kippur.  Reb Moshe says 

"Perhaps, despite his elevated spiritual level, the concept of "hokar raglecha" applied to him."

The term "hokar raglecha" is from Mishlei 25:17.   הוקר רגלך מבית ריעך פן ישבעך ושנאך.  Visit your neighbor sparingly (literally, "Cool your feet" from your friend's house)  lest he become sated with you and hate you.  When I translated Reb Moshe's book for Artscroll, I tried to find the source for using the term hokar raglecha as a limit on excessive appearance before Hashem, and for years I could not find it.  The best I could do was the Gemara (Chagiga 7a) that uses this passuk to discourage people from bringing korbanos that are not necessary, but not in regard to Tefilla:

כדרבי לוי דרבי לוי רמי כתיב הוקר רגלך מבית רעך וכתיב אבא ביתך בעולות לא קשיא כאן בחטאות ואשמות כאן בעולות ושלמים תניא נמי הכי (משלי כה) הוקר רגלך מבית רעך בחטאות ואשמות הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר בחטאות ואשמות או אינו אלא בעולות ושלמים כשהוא אומר (תהילים סו) אבוא ביתך בעולות אשלם לך נדרי הרי עולות ושלמים אמור הא מה אני מקיים הוקר רגלך מבית רעך בחטאות ואשמות הכתוב מדבר.

I finally found it in the Gaon on Mishlei there, where he says that it is assur to daven more than three hours at a time. 

ועוד הקר רגלך מבית רעך אלו בתי הכנסת והיינו שאל ירבה אדם בתפילה יותר מג' שעות

The Gaon in his Chidushim in Brachos 32b also says 

כי אסור לשהות יותר מג' שעות בתפילה,כמו שכתב בבהיר, והטעם ידוע.

The Sefer HaBahir 138 says 

אסור לו לאדם לשהות שלש שעות כפיו פרוסות לשמים

If you know someone that davens shmoneh esrei on Rosh Hashanna or Yom Kippur for more than three hours, you should let them know there is a problem.  (I think that this issur only applies to Shmoneh Esrei proper, the part that is called עומד לפני המלך, standing before the king.  I'm not sure if עומד לפני המלך applies to the vidui section on Yom Kippur,.  But when it says הטעם ידוע and the taam is not yadua to me, I really should not be stating any opinions.)

Another source is Kapach's Moreh, 3:47.  The Rambam says that the puropse of having a Beis Hamikdash was so that people seeing it would be awed and inspired, and would be filled with fear of God.  If a person would find himself there on a regular basis it would diminish the awe and inspiration, and he brings the passuk in Mishlei..

כבר ביארנו כי כל המטרה הייתה במקדש  להביא את הפונה אליו להתפעלות, ושייראוהו וירהוהו, כמו שאמר ומקדשי תיראו . וכל דבר מרומם, כשיתמיד האדם להמצא בו, ימעט מה שיש בנפש ממנו, ותמעט ההתפעלות שהייתה באה על ידו. וכבר העירו חכמים ז"ל על עניין זה ואמרו, שאין רצוי להכנס למקדש בכל עת, והסמיכו את זה לאמרו 'הוקר רגלך מבית רעך פן ישבעך ושנאך' .

Then the Rambam says that this is the reason that a person that is tamei is prohibited from entering the Har Habayis- there are so many tumah restrictions that most of the time, a person would not be allowed to enter, and only after a period of vigilant watchfulness would a person be able to enter the area.

וכיון שזו הייתה המטרה, הזהיר יתעלה את הטמאים מלהכנס למקדש, עם ריבוי מיני הטומאות, עד שכמעט לא תמצא אדם טהור כי אם מעטים:

כי אם ניצול ממגע נבלה, לא ניצול ממגע אחד משמונה שרצים שנופלים הרבה בבתים ובמאכלים ובמשקים ורבות נתקל בהם האדם,

ואם ניצול מאלה, לא ינצל ממגע נדה או זבה או זב או מצורע או משכבן ,

ואם ניצול מאלה, לא ינצל משכיבת אשתו או מקרי,

ואף כאשר טהר מכל הטומאות הללו, אינו מותר לו להכנס למקדש עד שיעריב שימשו,

ואסור להכנס למקדש בלילה  כמו שנתבאר במידות ותמיד ,

ובאותו הלילה אפשר שישמש מיטתו על הרוב, או יארע לו אחד מגורמי הטומאה, וישכים למחרתו כמצבו אתמול, ויהיה כל זה סיבה להתרחק מן המקדש ושלא ירגיל שם בכל עת.

Rav Bergman also touches on this idea in his Shaarei Orah II on Achrei Mos.  He shtells tzu the Rambam in 7 Beis Habechira 1-2 that there is a mitzva to fear the Mikdash, and because of that a person may not enter even the Har Habayis unless he has a mitzva he needs to do there.

מצות עשה ליראה מן המקדש שנאמר ומקדשי תיראו. ולא מן המקדש אתה ירא אלא ממי שצוה על יראתו

ואי זו היא יראתו לא יכנס אדם להר הבית במקלו או במנעל שברגליו או באפונדתו או באבק שעל רגליו או במעות הצרורין לו בסדינו ואין צ"ל שאסור לרוק בכל הר הבית אלא אם נזדמן לו רוק מבליעו בכסותו. ולא יעשה הר הבית דרך שיכנס מפתח זו ויצא מפתח שכנגדה כדי לקצר הדרך אלא יקיפו מבחוץ. ולא יכנס לו אלא לדבר מצוה:

He also brings the Gemara in Sanhedrin 52a-b that familiarity breeds contempt.

אמר רבי (אליעזר) למה תלמיד חכם דומה לפני עם הארץ בתחלה דומה לקיתון של זהב סיפר הימנו דומה לקיתון של כסף נהנה ממנו דומה לקיתון של חרש כיון שנשבר שוב אין לו תקנה

Rebbi Eliezer says, a talmid chacham appears, to the common man, like a golden flask.  Once they engage in conversation, he appears like a silver flask.  If the talmid chacham needs help from the other person, he becomes an earthenware vessel, which once broken is utterly useless.

Rav Bergman ties this idea to the death of Nadav and Avihu.  He says that what ultimately destroyed them was the fact that after repeated contact with Moshe and Aharon, and even with Gilui Shechina, they lost a degree of awe, of hispaalus, and this diminished hispaalus led to their fatal errors (Shemos 24:11, ויחזו את האלקים ויאכלו וישתו, and the Gemara in Sanhedrin that immediately precedes the one we just quoted about familiarity: אמר לו נדב לאביהוא אימתי ימותו שני זקנים הללו ואני ואתה ננהיג את הדור).

The Living Dead: Four Kinds of People with Moribund Souls

Avoda Zara 5a, and Nedarim 64b:  Four are considered as if dead: the poor; the blind; the leprous; and the childless.

ארבעה חשובים כמתים אלו הן עני סומא ומצורע ומי שאין לו בנים

I saw a very striking pshat from Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz that I want to share.  He says that Chazal's expression, as if dead, means that the person lacks a what in a healthy human being would be a pathway to empathy and assistance to others.  This is not to say they are incapable, it means that it is not as simple for them.

The poor refers to one who is so burdened with his need to make a living, to find what he needs, (whether because of actual or only perceived poverty- איזהו עשיר השמח בחלקו and vice versa, as Shlomo HaMelech says in Koheles 6:4, איש אשר יתן לו האלקים עשר ונכסים וכבוד ואיננו חסר לנפשו מכל אשר יתאוה, ולא ישליטנו האלהים לאכל ממנו-) that he doesn't have the time to think about the needs of other people, and certainly doesn't have the means of helping others.  This is reminiscent of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

The blind, because we all have experienced the effect of the powerful image.  We were all fully aware, intellectually, of starvation in Biafra, but it was a terrible photograph in Life magazine that shocked millions into a full emotional awareness and sympathy.  

A leper, or more accurately, a Metzora, because both the cause and the effect of Tzara'as is being outside the community.  The causes of Tzaraas are all manifestations of a basic indifference to the suffering of others, and the punishment of Tzaraas is to be driven out of the community.

One who has no children, we know, may not sit on the Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 36b, and Rambam 2 Sanhedrin 3 -
 אין מעמידין בכל הסנהדרין לא זקן מופלג בשנים. ולא סריס מפני שיש בהן אכזריות. ולא מי שאין לו בנים כדי שיהא רחמן
Rashi explains זקן. ששכח כבר צער גדול בנים ואינו רחמני וכן סריס, A person who has not experienced, or who has forgotten, what it means to raise a difficult child and to love him despite the pain he causes, is missing something that teaches a person to be merciful.  Having children enhances the ability to sympathize, and one who has no children has a challenge in achieving that degree of sympathy.

I want to stress that there are poor people, and blind people, and people who have no children, that are gedolim and saints of kindness.  What Chazal mean is that while a normal and emotionally healthy Ben Yisrael has a natural rachmanus, and has to be a rasha to choose to harden his heart and ignore those that need his help, these four people might have not that natural and automatic reaction of rachamim.

It is also possible that Chazal are speaking metaphorically.  There are people who can see, but they are blind when it comes to to the needs of others.  There are some that are so busy accumulating things that they are totally uninterested in helping others to make it.  There are those that simply never experienced what it means to have a child, which means that your heart is walking around outside of your body.  And there is the Metzora, who exhibits every one of these traits.  Such people may be healthy, and wealthy, and happy, but they are dead men walking.

Profoundly Hurtful Words from People Who Meant Well

I posted this a few years ago, but, in light of an article I saw in the Wall Street Journal, I needed to update it.


'A' and 'B' refer to the people having the conversation.

1. Conversation with a person recently diagnosed with Breast Cancer:
A. "I know what you are going through, my sister in law had the same thing."
B. "Thank you for your concern. And how is your sister in law?"
A. "Oh, she died within a year of her diagnosis."


2. At a Shiva House:
A. "Yes, (his mother) was a tremendous ba'alas bitachon. I once asked her how she dealt with the horrors she saw during the war. She answered that she had no questions: If Hashem did it, there is a reason, and we all have to love and trust the Ribono Shel Olam."
B. "You know, I've met people like that, and I think that the unsophisticated people, the uneducated, klein shtettlsheh people, they just accepted everything unquestioningly. The more educated people are the ones who threw away their bitachon."
(Oh. I used to think of her as a rock solid ba'alas bitachon. I guess she was really just a glassy-eyed cow.)

3. At another Shiva House:
A. "I don't know how I can take this...it's so hard to lose a father...."
B. "It's much harder when you lose your mother."
(I have to admit, these were not the actual words, but I was afraid you wouldn't believe me if I quoted her verbatim. What she actually said was "Wait until you lose your mother." I'm not making this up.)

4. At another Shiva House:
(background: A was sitting for his mother. When his father had passed away some years before, the chevra kadisha messed up, perhaps it was the fault of the local funeral chapel, or the chevra kadisha that took the Aron from the airplane in Israel, and they ended up eulogizing what turned out to be a nun's coffin in his Rebbe's Beis Medrash, as they realized when they opened the Aron for burial on Har Hazeisim.)
B. "Well, at least they didn't misplace her Aron...."
(Thank you, my friend, for re-opening an old wound.)

5. At a Shiva where, nebach, parents were sitting for their teenaged daughter.
A. At a time like this, maybe we can only say that (the daughter) was a gilgul of a holy neshama that came to this word to work out unfinished business, and when her neshama achieved its tafkid, she was taken back to Olam Haba.
B. I don't know about that. Reb Saadia Gaon says there's no such thing as Gilgulim, and the whole idea of Gilgulim was just made up because people couldn't deal with situations just like this.
(B, by the way, is a highly regarded talmid chacham, an author of many articles and sefarim, but a Yekke/Litvak through and through, although he's a big baki in Reb Tzadok.)


I was directed to the following article in the Wall Street Journal.
Reprinted with the author's kind permission.

For a Sick Friend: First, Do No Harm 

Conversing with the ill can be awkward, but keeping a few simple commandments makes a huge difference

 By Letty Cottin Pogrebin

 'A closed mouth gathers no feet." It's a charming axiom, but silence isn't always an option when we're dealing with a friend who's sick or in despair. The natural human reaction is to feel awkward and upset in the face of illness, but unless we control those feelings and come up with an appropriate response, there's a good chance that we'll blurt out some cringe-worthy cliché, craven remark or blunt question that, in retrospect, we'll regret.

Take this real-life exchange. If ever the tone deaf needed a poster child, Fred is their man.

"How'd it go?" he asked his friend, Pete, who'd just had cancer surgery.

"Great!" said Pete. "They got it all."

"Really?" said Fred. "How do they know?"

A few simple commandments makes a huge difference when conversing with the ill.

We're all nervous around illness and mortality, but whatever pops into our heads should not necessarily plop out of our mouths. Yet, in my own experience as a breast-cancer patient, and for many of the people I have interviewed, friends do make hurtful remarks. Marion Fontana, who was diagnosed with breast cancer eight years after her husband, a New York City firefighter, died in the collapse of the World Trade Center, was told that she must have really bad karma to attract so much bad luck. In another case, upon hearing a man's leukemia diagnosis, his friend shrieked, "Wow! A girl in my office just died of that!"Later, when Pete told him how demoralizing his remark had been, Fred's excuse was, "I was nervous. I just said what popped into my head."

You can't make this stuff up.

If we're not unwittingly insulting our sick friends, we're spouting clichés like "Everything happens for a reason." Though our intent is to comfort the patient, we also say such things to comfort ourselves and tamp down our own feelings of vulnerability. From now on, rather than sound like a Hallmark card, you might want to heed the following 10 Commandments for Conversing With a Sick Friend.

1. Rejoice at their good news. Don't minimize their bad news. A guy tells you that the doctors got it all, say "Hallelujah!" A man with advanced bladder cancer says that he's taking his kids to Disneyland next summer, don't bite your lip and mutter, "We'll see." Tell him it's a great idea. (What harm can it do?) Which doesn't mean that you should slap a happy face on a friend's grim diagnosis by saying something like, "Don't worry! Nowadays breast cancer is like having a cold!"

The best response in any encounter with a sick friend is to say, "Tell me what I can do to make things easier for you—I really want to help."

2. Treat your sick friends as you always did—but never forget their changed circumstance. However contradictory that may sound, I promise you can learn to live within the paradox if you keep your friend's illness and its constraints in mind but don't treat them as if their illness is who they are. Speak to them as you always did (tease them, kid around with them, get mad at them) but indulge their occasional blue moods or hissy-fits. Most important, start conversations about other things (sports, politics, food, movies) as soon as possible and you'll help speed their journey from the morass of illness to the miracle of the ordinary.

3. Avoid self-referential comments. A friend with a hacking cough doesn't need to hear, "You think that's bad? I had double pneumonia." Don't tell someone with brain cancer that you know how painful it must be because you get migraines. Don't complain about your colicky baby to the mother of a child with spina bifida. I'm not saying sick people have lost their capacity to empathize with others, just that solipsism is unhelpful and rude. The truest thing you can say to a sick or suffering friend is, "I can only try to imagine what you're going through."

4. Don't assume, verify. Several friends of Michele, a Canadian writer, reacted to her cancer diagnosis with, "Well, at least you caught it early, so you'll be all right!" In fact, she did not catch it early, and never said or hinted otherwise. So when someone said, "You caught it early," she thought, "No, I didn't, therefore I'm going to die." Repeat after me: "Assume nothing."

5. Get the facts straight before you open your mouth.Did your friend have a heart or liver transplant? Chemo or radiation? Don't just ask, "How are you?" Ask questions specific to your friend's health. "How's your rotator cuff these days?" "Did the blood test show Lyme disease?" "Are your new meds working?" If you need help remembering who has shingles and who has lupus, or the date of a friend's operation, enter a health note under the person's name in your contacts list or stick a Post-it by the phone and update the information as needed.

6. Help your sick friend feel useful. Zero in on one of their skills and lead to it. Assuming they're up to the task, ask a cybersmart patient to set up a Web page for you; ask a bridge or chess maven to give you pointers on the game; ask a retired teacher to guide your teenager through the college application process. In most cases, your request won't be seen as an imposition but a vote of confidence in your friend's talent and worth.

7. Don't infantilize the patient. Never speak to a grown-up the way you'd talk to a child. Objectionable sentences include, "How are we today, dearie?" "That's a good boy." "I bet you could swallow this teeny-tiny pill if you really tried." And the most wince-worthy, "Are we ready to go wee-wee?" Protect your friend's dignity at all costs.

8. Think twice before giving advice.Don't forward medical alerts, newspaper clippings or your Aunt Sadie's cure for gout. Your idea of a health bulletin that's useful or revelatory may mislead, upset, confuse or agitate your friend. Sick people have doctors to tell them what to do. Your job is simply to be their friend.

9. Let patients who are terminally ill set the conversational agenda.If they're unaware that they're dying, don't be the one to tell them. If they know they're at the end of life and want to talk about it, don't contradict or interrupt them; let them vent or weep or curse the Fates. Hand them a tissue and cry with them. If they want to confide their last wish, or trust you with a long-kept secret, thank them for the honor and listen hard. Someday you'll want to remember every word they say.

10. Don't pressure them to practice 'positive thinking.' The implication is that they caused their illness in the first place by negative thinking—by feeling discouraged, depressed or not having the "right attitude." Positive thinking can't cure Huntington's disease, ALS or inoperable brain cancer. Telling a terminal patient to keep up the fight isn't just futile, it's cruel. Insisting that they see the glass as half full may deny them the truth of what they know and the chance to tie up life's loose ends while there's still time. As one hospice patient put it, "All I want from my friends right now is the freedom to sulk and say goodbye."

Though most of us feel dis-eased around disease, colloquial English proffers a sparse vocabulary for the expression of embarrassment, fear, anxiety, grief or sorrow. These 10 commandments should help you relate to your sick friends with greater empathy, warmth and grace.

Ms. Pogrebin is the author of ten books and a founding editor of Ms. magazine.  Her latest book is "How to Be a Friend to a Friend who's Sick," from which this essay is adapted.



Finally, here is a video from Youtube. It's humorous, but, unfortunately, not unrealistic.



And another one, on Bikkur Cholim.

For Yom Ha'atzma'ut: Rebbi Simla'i and Kedushas Eretz Yisrael

Rebbi Simla'i expounded a verse in the Torah: Why did Moshe Rabbeinu so dearly desire to enter the land of Israel?  Did he need to eat its fruit?  Did he need to satisfy himself from its goodness?  Rather, so said Moshe: "Many mitzvos were the Jews commanded and they cannot be fulfilled anywhere but in the land of Israel.  Would that I could enter so that they will be fulfilled by my hand."  Hashem said to him, "Are you asking for anything other than to receive reward?  I consider it as if you did them...."

Sotah 14a

דרש רבי שמלאי מפני מה נתאוה משה רבינו ליכנס לא"י וכי לאכול מפריה הוא צריך או לשבוע מטובה הוא צריך אלא כך אמר משה הרבה מצות נצטוו ישראל ואין מתקיימין אלא בא"י אכנס אני לארץ כדי שיתקיימו כולן על ידי אמר לו הקב"ה כלום אתה מבקש אלא לקבל שכר מעלה אני עליך כאילו עשיתם שנאמר לכן אחלק לו ברבים ואת עצומים יחלק שלל תחת אשר הערה למות נפשו ואת פושעים נמנה והוא חטא רבים נשא ולפושעים יפגיע לכן אחלק לו ברבים יכול כאחרונים ולא כראשונים ת"ל ואת עצומים יחלק שלל כאברהם יצחק ויעקב שהן עצומים בתורה ובמצות תחת אשר הערה למות נפשו שמסר עצמו למיתה שנאמר ואם אין מחני נא וגו' ואת פושעים נמנה שנמנה עם מתי מדבר והוא חטא רבים נשא שכיפר על מעשה העגל ולפושעים יפגיע שביקש רחמים על פושעי ישראל שיחזרו בתשובה ואין פגיעה אלא תפלה שנאמר ואתה אל תתפלל בעד העם הזה ואל תשא בעדם רנה ותפלה ואל תפגע בי:

Rebbi Simla'i's question must be rhetorical.   It cannot be read as if he were making a serious analysis, taking a lomdisheh approach.  If it were, it would make no sense at all, because his question is not much of a question.  Considering the depth of our  forefathers' desire to live, or if not to live, at least to be buried (Yaakov, Yosef), in the Land of Israel, Rebbi Simla'i shouldn't be wondering what Moshe Rabbeinu wanted.  Certainly, what seems like sarcasm in Rebbi Simlai's question would be out of place.    (The fruit he needed?  To enjoy the pleasures he needed?)  So we should read it as a rhetorical question, a pure Drasha, something intended to highlight the great value of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael:  "Do you think he wanted to visit because he was looking forward to eating good food there???  Of course not!  He wanted to immerse himself in the holiness of Eretz Yisrael."

(More evidence that Rebbi Simla'i didn't intend his words to be analyzed halachicly is the brouhaha among the poskim whether we ought to say the phrase "le'echol mipiryah v'lisbo'a mituva" in the bracha achrona of Al Hamichya. 
The language of the Tur in 208:

ויש אומרים ונאכל מפריה ונשבע מטובה" ואין לאומרו. שאין לחמוד הארץ בשביל פריה וטובה אלא לקיים מצות התלויות בה, עד כאן. ובהלכות גדולות - ישנו. ואדוני אבי הרא"ש ז"ל לא היה אומרו. 

The Beis Yosef there says

ויש אומרים "ונאכל מפריה ונשבע מטובה" ואין לאמרו שאין לחמוד הארץ בשביל פריה וכו' ואדוני אבי ז"ל היה אומרו. נראה שטעמו מפני שהיה מפרש שמה שאנו אומרים ונאכל מפריה ונשבע מטובה אין התכלית בשביל האכילה אלא מה שאומר אחר כך ונברכך עליה בקדושה ובטהרה הוא התכלית, אלא דמשום דברכה אתיא (=באה) מפני האכילה הוא אומר ונאכל מפריה ונשבע מטובה:

and the Bach there says

תימה הלא קדושת הארץ הנשפעת בה מקדושת הארץ העליונה היא נשפעת גם בפירותיה שיונקים מקדושת השכינה השוכנת בקרב הארץ... ועל כן ניחא שאנו מכניסין בברכה זו "ונאכל מפריה ונשבע מטובה" כי באכילת פירותיה אנו ניזונים מקדושת השכינה ומטהרתה ונשבע מטובתה:

Elsewhere we discussed an approach that this phrase, as used in this bracha, refers to the fruit of Bikkurim and Ma'aser Sheini, which are a mitzva to eat, since the fruit used for those mitzvos are the ones on which we say the bracha of Me'ein Shalosh.

But in any case, the Bach's pshat is more understandable if Rebbi Simla'i just wanted to highlight the great value of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael, and he used to words as a homiletic reference to physical pleasure.)

Having said this, the fact is that many people do take Rebbi Simlai at face value, and apply Gemara analysis to his words.  Assuming that they are correct, we need a good pshat in what he means to ask.

The Geon Yaakov and the Satmerer (Vayoel Moshe, first piece in Va'eschanan, vol 8 page 39-42) and others have an approach based on the assumption that Moshe Rabbeinu knew that he would die on that day or the next and that he would be buried in Chutz La'aretz, so the experience of living in Eretz Yisrael would not be meaningful for him.  This approach requires extensive re-alignment of Rebbi Simlai's words, and doesn't strike a chord with me.  

Reb Meir Simcha (Devarim 11:33, first piece in Re'ei) mentions that Harav Dov Meizels also asks this question- that if, as some Rishonim (e.g., the Ramban,) dwelling in Eretz Yisrael is a mitzva, what's Rebbi Simla'i's question?   Reb Meir Simcha answers that it was because Moshe was already on the east bank of the Jordan, and one who lives on the East bank also fulfilled the mitzva of living in Eretz Yisrael, that Rebbi Simla'i asked the question.  

However, this would only be a pshat according to the Kaftor Va'Ferach and the Ramban, who hold that the special kedusha of Eretz Yisrael applies to the East Bank.  According to the Tashbetz, it does not.  So, again, we need a pshat in Rebbi Simla'i's question.

(Tthe Tashbetz holds that although the mitzva of living in Eretz Yisrael does apply to the East Bank (מצוות דירה/קדושת מצוות,) the special hashra'as Shechina (חיבוב דירה/קדושת שכינה) is only in the main body of Eretz Yisrael- the West Bank- and it existed even before the conquest.  The Kaftor va'Ferach and the Ramban hold that not only does the mitzva to live there apply to the East Bank, but that the special kedusha applies there as well.)  

I'd like to suggest some possibilities.  As always, (in fact more than usual,) this is a vort in progress.

1.  Kedushas Eretz Yisrael is essentially a means, not an end: it is a means of becoming closer to Hashem.  Since Moshe Rabbeinu spoke to Hashem panim el panim, Eretz Yisrael had nothing to offer.  This seems inconsistent with the expressed desire of the Avos to be buried in Eretz Yisrael.
(Update: Chaim B. points out that this could be better expressed as "that the din of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael is not a mitzva, it is a machshir.  Since Moshe had achieved the goal of the hechsher, the din of Yishuv did not apply to him."  Chaim also points out, essentially, that to say this is basically echoing Korach's argument that since the purpose of Tzitzis is to remind us about mitzvos, a person that already remembers the mitzvos has no mitzvah of Tzitzis.)

2.  Before Eretz Yisrael was singled out via the entrance of the Bnei Yisrael, it was no different than any other land.  For example, there is the Mechilta (Shmos 12:1) that says 
ועד שלא נבחרה ארץ ישראל, היו כל הארצות כשרות לדברות, משנבחרה ארץ ישראל יצאו כל הארצות. עד שלא נבחרה ירושלים, היתה כל ארץ ישראל כשרה למבחות, משנבחרה ירושלים יצאת ארץ ישראל. שנאמר 'השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך וכו' כי אם במקום אשר יבחר' [דברים יב']. עד שלא נבחר בית עולמים, הייתה ירושלים ראויה לשכינה, משנבנה בית עולמים יצאת ירושלים שנאמר (כי בחר ה בציון) ואומר 'זאת מנחתי עדי עד' [תהילים קלב]. עד שלא נבחר אהרן היו כל ישראל כשרים לכהונה,משנבחר אהרן יצאו כל ישראל שנאמר ' ברית מלח עולם היא לפני ה' '[במדבר יח'] ואומר 'והייתה לו ולזרעו אחריו' [שם כה']. עד שלא נבחר דוד היו כל ישראל כשרים למלכות, משנבחר דוד יצאו כל ישראל שנאמר 'הלא לכם לדעת כי ה' אלקי ישראל נתן את הממלכה לדוד' [דבה"י ב' יג'].
that until Eretz Yisrael was singled out, all lands were fit for prophecy  (i.e., prophecy could take place in any other land,) but once it was chosen, no other land could have prophecy.  So you see that only with the onset of Eretz Yisrael's special status, after it was conquered by the Jewish people, did it attain that special quality.   But this is contradicted, again, by the obvious desire of the forefathers to live or be buried in Eretz Yisrael.
We could, however, deflect that criticism by suggesting that the forefathers wanted to be buried in Israel not because of its quality at the time of their death, but rather because of the inevitable change they knew was coming.  As for their desire to live there, we don't have any pesukim that clearly state that fact.  
Still, I'm not thrilled with this pshat.

Pesach 5773. A Compendium of Exclusive Divrei Torah

What Merits Brought About Our Redemption from Mitzrayim
They worshiped idols; they didn't do mitzvos.  Who cares that they kept their Hebrew language and names?

The Reason We Dip Twice At the Seder (2013)

The answer to the un-answered question.


The Rambam's Four Tibulim
The Rambam says you dip four times at the Seder. How does he read the Mah Nishtana?

Shipping Chametz before pesach
Potential liability and benefit from Chametz on Pesach.

Juvenal Behavior and Circuses
Two unknown holidays- Defrosting the Chametz and Sour Grapes.

Focusing on the Children at the Seder
Remembering who is supposed to be the star of the seder.

Maror and Redemption
The Beis Halevi and the Malbim on the Maror in the Geula.

Learning Torah instead of bringing a korban pesach
The Chasam Sofer's pshat in the dialogue between Moshe Rabbeinu and the people that asked for a Pesach Sheini and the problems with his pshat.

Loving the Jews you can’t stand
Preparing for the Geula Ha'asida on the second days of Pesach

Bris Milah and Yetzias Mitzrayim
Areilus interferes with bringing a Korban Pesach, and it also interferes with initiating the chain of events that led to the first Korban Pesach in Mitzrayim.

The Right Way to Sing Chad Gadya
Jews from the four corners of the world sing about the little goat.

The Kittel  and the Seder 
A kittle is a symbolic garment.  What it symbolizes is harder to pin down.

The idea of pesach sheini

Why We Were Redeemed From Egypt

The medrash says (Vayikra Rabba 32) that we were redeemed from Egypt in the merit of not having changed our names and our language; because we did not say lashon hara, and because we did not engage in licentious behavior.

רב הונא אמר בשם בר קפרא בשביל ד' דברים נגאלו ישראל ממצרים שלא שנו את שמם ואת לשונם ולא אמרו לשון הרע ולא נמצא ביניהן אחד מהן פרוץ בערוה לא שנו את שמן ראובן ושמעון נחתין ראובן ושמעון סלקין לא היו קורין ליהודה רופא ולא לראובן לוליאני ולא ליוסף לסטיס ולא לבנימין אלכסנדרי לא שנו את לשונם להלן כתיב (בראשית יד) ויבא הפליט ויגד לאברם העברי וכאן (שמות ג) ויאמרו אלהי העברים נקרא עלינו וכתיב (בראשית מה) כי פי המדבר אליכם בלשון הקודש ולא אמרו לשון הרע שנאמר (שמות יא) דבר נא באזני העם אתה מוצא שהיה הדבר מופקד אצלן כל י"ב חדש ולא הלשין אחד על חבירו ולא נמצא אחד מהם פרוץ בערוה תדע לך שהיה כן אחת היתה ופרסמה הכתוב שנא' (ויקרא כד) ושם אמו שלומית בת דברי למטה דן, שלומית, דאמר ר' לוי דהות פטטא בשלמא שלם לך שלם לכון בת דברי אמר ר' יצחק שהביאה דבר על בנה למטה דן גנאי לאמו גנאי לו גנאי למשפחתו גנאי לשבטו שיצא ממנו.

On the other hand, Chazal say that we had fallen to the forty ninth level of tumah, of spiritual decay.  I wonder, what is the value of having Jewish names and talking in Hebrew if you worship idols?  I understand the value of kind speech, and family purity.  But how important, and of what spiritual or ethical weight, is ethnic purity?  Does acting like a "Hebrew" have any value at all?  Was the value simply that we had retained a bond to Avraham Avinu?  Is there some greater value in Jewish Identity that is entirely unrelated to spiritual standards?

1.  The famous statement of Chazal that "Klal Yisrael was redeemed in the merit of not having adopted non-Jewish clothing" does not exist.  The only similar statement is the one quoted above, which appears in several places.  The one similar source is likely a copyist's error.

(מדרש רבה שיר השירים (מדרש חזית

 גן נעול אחותי כלה: רבי הונא בשם בר קפרא אמר בזכות ארבעה דברים נגאלו ישראל ממצרים:
שלא שינו את שמם,
ולא שינו את לשונם,
ולא אמרו לשון הרע,
ולא נמצא בהן אחד פרוץ בערוה.

מכילתא בא פ"ה, 

שלא נחשדו על העריות, ולא ספרו לשון הרע, ולא שנו את שמם, ולא שנו את לשונם

 פסיקתא דרב כהנא פרשת בשלח :

בזכות ארבעה דברים, נגאלו ישראל ממצרים, 
שלא שינו את שמם,
ושלא שינו לשונם, 
ושלא היה בהן לשון הרע, 
ושלא היה בהן פרוץ בעריות,
שלא שינו את שמם, ראובן ושמעון סלקין, ראובן ושמעון נחתין, שלא שלא שינו לשונם, כי פי המדבר אליכם(בראשית מ״ה י״ב), ובלשון הקודש היה מדבר, ושלא היה בהן לשון הרע, דבר נא באזני העם וישאלו וגו׳ (שמות י״א בי) את מוצא זה הדבר היה מופקד אצלן כל שנים עשר חודש, ולא נמצא אחד מהם שהלשין על חברו, ושלא היה בהן פרוץ בערוה, תדע לך שהוא כן אחת היתה ופירסמה הכתוב ושם אמו שלומית בת דברי למטה דן.

On the other hand, it does appear here, but it 's probably a copyist's mistake.

(Medrash Lekach Tov)  פסיקתא זוטרתא (לקח טוב) שמות פרק ו' אות ו' :

לכן אמור לבני ישראל. זו שבועה, שנא' ולכן נשבעתי לבית עלי (ש"א ג יד): אמור לבני ישראל אני ה'. שאמרתי לאברהם אביכם אני ה' אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים (בראשית טו ז): והוצאתי אתכם, והצלתי אתכם, וגאלתי אתכם, ולקחתי אתכם,כנגד ד' זכיות שבידם, 
שלא שינו את לשונם,
ולא חילפו את שמלותם,
ולא גילו את סודם, דכתי' ושאלה אשה משכנתה ,
ולא בטלו ברית מילה.

It also appears there in Shemos 12:6, but there it is consistent with all the other Medrashim and says nothing about clothing.  

ארבע מצות היו להם לישראל
, לא נחשדו על העריות
,לא שינו את שמותם, 
לא שינו אה לשונם
 לא גילו אה סודם

So the Lekach Tov quoted above is most likely not reliable.  Anyway, if they didn't wear Egyptian clothing, what was the point of  ושאלה אשה משכנתה ומגרת ביתה כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלת?  They couldn't wear the stuff anyway!  Unless you want to answer that they didn't borrow the clothing to wear; they gave it to their kids to wear, which explains ושמתם על בניכם ועל בנתיכם.

Having said that, I want to emphasize that this does not prove there is no validity or significance to the alleged Chazal.  It has become a part of our oral tradition, like הלכה בידוע שעשו שונא ליעקב, which also is not exactly what it says there, or כל ישראל ערבים זה לזה.  For example, the Chasam Sofer is quoted as saying on the passuk ויבא יעקב שלם that it is the the Roshei Teivos of  שמם לשונם מלבושם, שלא שינו את שמם ואת לשונם  ואת מלבושם.  Also, the Chasam Sofer brings that language in his drashos here (Drashos II page 516.)

2.  Reb Moshe in his Igros, OC 4:66 says the following, in which it is clear that he is thinking about our question.

זה ששיבחו חז"ל ויק"ר ל"ב בגלות מצרים שלא שינו את שמותן הוא לקודם מתן תורה שלא היה היכר גדול בשביל קיום המצות דבני נח ובפרט שחלק גדול מישראל עבדו ג"כ ע"ז ורובן לא מלו את בניהם עד סמוך להגאולה כשהיו צריכין לאכול הפסח שמל אותן יהושע ומשמע שהיה רוב גדול לבד שבט לוי שהם מלו את בניהם כדכתיב ובריתך ינצורו בברכת משה ואף שפרש"י על אלו שנולדו במדבר היה זה גם במצרים כמפורש במדרשות, 

שלכן בשביל האמונה שיגאלו ורצו שיהיו ניכרין שהם ישראל הנהיגו להקפיד שלא ישנו את שמם ולא ישנו את לשונם ומטעם זה שייך זה להגאולה משום שבשביל אמונת הגאולה הקפידו על זה

 אבל אחר מתן תורה אין לנו חיוב מדינא וגם לא מעניני זהירות ומוסר אלא מה שנצטוינו התרי"ג מצות לדורות והמצות שנצטוו לשעה וכפי שנאמרו בתורה שבעל פה ולכן לא הקפידו ע"ז רבותינו דהא אף עניני זהירות ומוסר ומעלה נמי נאמרו מסיני עיין בריש פרקי אבות ברע"ב ולא היה זה בקבלה שכן איכא מעלה גם אלאחר מתן תורה אלא שבזכות זה נגאלו אבותינו שאפשר לפרש שהיה מעלה ודבר טוב רק אצלם כדלעיל ולא אחר מתן תורה. ואף שמסתבר כן מסתפינא לומר זה בלא ראיות גדולות

He says that the merit of keeping our language and clothing was not the mere fact of retaining those things.  It is because their doing so demonstrated that they remembered Hashem's promise that He would redeem them, and they wanted to remain Jews, so that Hashem should take them out and bring them near to Him as His nation.  They kept their way of dress and speech in order to remain a separate nation, the nation that Hashem promised to redeem.

3.  And from the Sefer Ma'or Va'Shemesh (Rimzei Pesach, bottom of first column):

I apologize for the terrible OCR that resulted from the old print.  If you have a clean copy, please send it to me.  I fixed what was necessary to get a rudimentary understanding.  

 ויראה בזה על מאמר חז״ל בזכות ג׳ דברים נגאלו

  ממצרים שלא שינו את שמם ילא שינו את לשונם ונו׳ ויש

  להתבונן מה שלא שינו את שמם ומה מעלתו גם אמרו שלא

 שינו את לשונם איך היה באפשר לדבר לשון הקודש תמיד הלא

 בין עם לשון אסרת התגוררו אשר לא הבינו לשון הקודש והיו

 מוכרחים לדבר עמהס בלשונם גם מהו גריעות שינוי הלשון גם

 אמרי חז״ל שהרשעים אינם יודעים את שמם טןכר וזה עעמא

 בעי מדוע אינם יודעים שמם ולבאר כל זה נראה ע״פ מימר

 מזיל עד  שאתה מתפלל שיכנסו בן ׳דנד תודה התפלל שלא

 יכנסו בן מאכלות אסורות והענין הוא כי הנס כל מיני ד נוד׳

 « ל עיני לשונות כילם הם על ידי צירופי הכיב אוסיוס

 המורה הקשודם נס׳ מוצאות הסה שאי אפשר לדבר פוס דיבור

 מולא דק על יד• אוסן הכ«« אוסיום וכקודוסיהן שהם הם

 אושיוס סורסינו הקדושס ולכן כשהאדם שוער פיו ילשינו

 מיינו •mid• מלמו שלא •כגנס גר׳ס הלשון נמאכלוס אשמיו׳

 יגס שלא ׳דגר שקרים ולה״ר ולצנום ודומיהן אז פיו ולשונו

 סם בקדושה ואינם .סחסהסיא שאין אייזס החילונים כהי

 «ולאוס פיו ואז אן אם ידבר מ אד לשונוס תודו סם ככלל

Basically: he says it is difficult to understand why retaining their ancestral language was a reason for their redemption.  מהו גריעות שינוי הלשון?  What's so bad about changing your language?  He answers, I think, that by "lashon" Chazal didn't mean lexicon.  They meant the kedusha of the way they expressed themselves.  When someone says that a person dresses like a sheigitz, or talks like a sheigitz, I think it doesn't necessarily mean that he wears jeans and talks in English.  It means that he wears clothing, and uses language, that we associate with a cultural milieu that is inconsistent with Yiddishkeit.  When the Kohen Gadol is told not to be meisi'ach da'as, when we are told not to be mei'si'ach da'as from Tefillin, it means to not do something that is inconsistent with the Kedusha of Tefillin.

4.  We can't not quote the Maharam Shick.  A vociferous enemy of the Haskala and the Reform, he took every opportunity to attack what he saw as breaches in our Mesora.  This is from his Teshuvos, YD 169.  The idea is that he holds that having a non-Jewish name is an issur De'Oraysa that might fall into the category of Yeihareig ve'al ya'avor.

אם אמנם שאין אני יודע לכנות אותו מ״מ ראיתי שראו• להשיב על הדבר אשר שאל שיש בני אדם שמכנים עצמם בשם הגוים וממלחו די הוכיח אוחם דהרי אמרו במדרש שבזכוה זה שלא שינו אמ שמם זכינו לצאמ ממצרים והם משיבים שלזה די כמה שיש להם שם יהודי לקרותם בו לעלות לחורה וזה רבר הבל וטפשות כי בוודאי יש בזה איסור דאוריימ׳ כמ״ש הרמב״ם כפ׳ י״א מהלכו׳ מ״ז דמקרא מלא נאמר בסוף פ׳ קדושים ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיוה לי ומשם ילפינן בספרי דאין רשאין לדמות להם בשום אופן וכל שהוא מושה לדמות להם מובר מל מה שנאמר בתור׳ דאסור לנו לדמות להם וכשם שאסור לנו להדמות להם במלטשם ובהילוכם ובשאר מנהגיהם ה״ה וכ״ש דאסור לדמום להם בשמם ומלינו למשוה כמו

 שמשו אכומינו שנאמר כהם ויהי שם לגו• גדול ודרשו חכז״ל מלמד שהיו ישראל מצויינים שם : וביותר ביאור אמרחי הכוונה דהנ׳ כהיוחי רכ דק״ק ימרגין סמוך לפרפשכורג ופמם נזדמן לי כשמסרמי המאפריקמל להשר המיופד לזה החרפם לפני ואמר כי לא נאה מה שיהודים קורץ מצמם כשם הגרם ושאר כל האומומ מחשיטן השמוה הכאים להם מראש

 האומה דהיינו אונגאד׳ פראנצמזיא וכדומה כולם מחשיכין הלשון והשמוה שלהם ואינם משנים כשום אופן כי מחזיקי׳ זאה להם לככת׳ ולמפארמ והיהודים אשר הם מקדמור האומומ קיומי הסולם המה כושים מצמם להקרא כשם המצם ומשנים שמם לשם האומו׳ וזה להם גנאי גדול ולא הי׳ כפי ממנה להשיכ לו אכל דחימי אומו כדכדם שהגלומ גורם זאמ •

אבל כאמה גם כזה נהקיים כנו הקרא כי דור מהפוכומ המם כדם לא אמון כס שאכומינו וכל הדורוה אשר לפניהם הי׳

 סליהם מול הגלומ כמקפו ומ״מ לא שינו אח שמם ולא הי׳ להם שם הישראלי לכיוש ולכזיון ואדרכה הי׳ להם שם הישראלי לככוד ולתפארת וכמו שאמרו חכז״ל פל הקרא איש יהוד הי׳ כשושן שהי׳ מוכמר כנימוסין שפשה לסצמו כתר שהוא יהודי ורףמו כחקוהיהם לא מלט ואכויל אמכם מן הסמים ומכשו שהוקל כוכד הגלומ ואין הישראלי׳ מכוזים טן האומו׳ הם משנים שמם ולשונם כדי לומוח מצמם לאוה״ע ויש להמליץ זה כקרא כי דור מהפוכוה המה וז״ש כנים לא אימק כס היינו שאיני רוצי׳ כשם המגדלי׳ אותם ומהמימ׳ שהרי אמרו כיומי  ל״ח ס״כ דאסור לקרוי כשם איש שהוא רשפ דרשעי׳ לא מסקיק כשמייהו שנאמ׳ שם רשפי׳ ירקכ פיי״ש ואומן אנשי׳ קודאין פצמם כשם הגוים והרי כזה הם מראים שהם מחשיכים יאה הגרם יומר מהישראלית והד מפולס הי׳ הדרך לקרוא שם כניהם וכנוהיהם סל שם אכוחיסם או סל שם צדיקים קדושים וגאונים גדולים שהם היו החשוס והחדשים מכזים אכוחיהם וגמליהם וקדושיהם ומחשיבץ ומשכחץ ומסאדן שם הגרם לקרוא שם צאצאיהם סל שמם והרי זה כזיון גדול לאכוחיהם כל אחד מישראל שהטא טטרים הי׳ קורא בקול גדול וירד מצרים שם ויהי שם לגוי גדול וגדול הוא לשון חשיכומ והיינו דדרשו בסשרי שטו מצויילם שם דהיינו מלשון שם והיינו שטעו מצויינים ג״כ כשם אפפ״י שפכדו פמנו פטדה פרך אסי״ם לא נתנו לקרות לסצמם כשם הגוים ושם היהודי לא הי׳ לסם לכת ולקלק תהו שפמוה לאבותינו ולנו כצאמינו ממצדם

5.  To balance out the Maharam Shick, here is what the Maharashdam says in YD 199.  He says it's no big deal.

אלו האנוסים שבאו  מפרטוגל והיו להם שמית כשמות

הגוים ואחר שבאו לבקש את ה׳ ואת תורתו משנים שמם

 לשמות בני ישראל ויש להם צורך לנתונ ממקוס אשר הס ׳ושניס ניהחחס אצ

 ממקום אשר סיה להם שמות נשמות הגו״ אס לקרוניהס וחס למי שנושא ועת!

 ממונם אס יסלים לנתונ ולשנות שמס נשמות אשר סיו להם נגיותס או אס

 יש חשש איסור נדנר מפני שנראה מקיים היותו עדןגוי ונלת׳ מורה נתורת ה׳

 תשובה אמת נ׳ מדת חסידות לא קאמינ׳ דודא׳ מדת חסידות הוא

 להרסיק סאוס עצמו ננל מינ׳ הרחקת שאיפשר ונפרט למי שענרו

 על רא8ו סמיס הזדוני׳ אנן מן הדין נד נעינ׳ דנד נרו׳ שאין נזה סשש איסור

ל ואע״נ דלנאורה היה גר׳ להניא קלת ראיה לאסור ממה שנתנ הטור

 ׳״ר סי׳ קצ״ז וז״ל אסור לארס לומר שהוא צוי נרי שלא יהרנוהו רניון שאומר

 שהוא נוי הרי מורה לרתס ונופר נעיקר ע״נ ויאמר האומר רסכא נמי כיון

 שקור׳ עצמו נשם צוי הוה ליה נאומי שהוא גוי ואסור ואפי׳ את״ל ישאג־

 החס מ״מ נס יש נגוון ההוא יתר שאת שהוא להציל עצמו מן המות ואפיה

 אסור הנא ולא הוי אלא לצורך ממון או ר׳א היה ראוי לאסור אלא שנר׳ נלי

 ספק שאסר עיון נל דהו ימצא סארס שהרק הוא שהוא מותר

6.  To Eli and gu- I think you're both right, and I'm not done yet.  And Eli- thanks for the MM to the Igros.  I hadn't looked at the comments before starting out this afternoon.  

7.  I can't enunciate it well, but to me, there's something here that illustrates the importance of things that define us as Jews, even outside Torah and Mitzvos.  Maybe it's the "organic whole" idea.