[Don’t forget to see the Halacha
Encounters below!]
In the Haftorah for Parshas Zachor, we read how Shaul Hamelech,
in response to the command of Hashem, waged war against Amalek. Shaul
killed out a majority of the Amalekim; yet he did not show
absolute fidelity to the word of Hashem, and for this he lost
his kingship. It would seem a great irony that following his
failure to wipe out the most irredeemable of Eisav’s descendants
(Amalek), Shaul would witness the emergence of a rival, who
like Eisav, is initially described as Admoni, ruddy. The
rival was, of course, Dovid Hamelech. What is the significance
of Dovid’s outer resemblance to Eisav? Why did Dovid’s ascent
to power begin right after a war waged against Eisav’s descendants?
An answer to these questions may be found by looking backward
a few generations. There is a basic difference between the
roles of Rochel and Leah Imenu, the great grandmothers of Shaul
and Dovid, respectively. Whereas, Rochel was the natural and
obvious choice, as spouse, for Ya’akov Avinu, Leah was initially
considered for Ya’akov’s twin brother, Eisav Harasha. It was
only after Ya’akov had acquired the portion designated for
Eisav that Leah became an appropriate match for him. Interestingly,
just as the blessings that were intended for Eisav came to
Ya’akov through the vehicle of deception, so too did Leah become
Ya’akov’s wife through deception. Whereas Rochel embodies
the primary traits of Ya’akov, Leah represents Ya’akov’s secondary
traits – that is the potentially positive elements of Eisav
that were internalized by Ya’akov when he took possession of
Eisav’s birthright.
There are, as well, significant role-differences between Yosef
and Yehuda, the children of Rochel and Leah, respectively. Both
faced very serious allegations of impropriety, with, however,
one key distinction. The claims of Potiphar’s wife against
Yosef were false; the claims of Tamar against Yehuda were true. The
difference in the nature of the allegations they faced called
for profoundly different responses. Whereas Yosef’s response
was to remain the Tzaddik he already was and to (ultimately)
rely on Hashem to rescue him, Yehuda’s response was to consider
the evidence, reflect on his own misjudgments and acknowledge
his personal contribution to Tamar’s predicament.
At this point, the faint outlines of an intergenerational
connection can be discerned. Yosef’s role of “staying the course” corresponds
to his mother’s alignment with “Ish tam yosheiv ohalim” – the
straightforward tent dweller. Yehuda’s role of facing “internal
upheaval” matches his mother’s role of confronting the element
within herself that complemented “Ish yodea tzayid, Ish sadeh” – the
wily hunter of the field.
The differing roles of Yosef and Yehuda highlight the fact
that war is rarely limited to a single battlefront. The Sefer
Chovos Halevovos relates how a band of soldiers, upon returning
victorious from battle, met up with a wise man. After listening
to them recount their exploits, the wise man cautioned them: “You’ve
until now fought only the small battle; the major battle is
to be found at home against your internal enemy – the evil
inclination.” Similarly, Midrash Rabbah informs us that the
war against Amalek, whose attack represented a denial of Hashem’s
involvement in His Creation, is ultimately intended to guide
us to an inner realization – that we too are tragically capable
of denying Hashem and his Hashgachah. Not coincidentally,
the B’nei Yisroel had sunk to such a level immediately prior
to Amalek’s attack when, among other misdeeds, they asked: “Is
Hashem in our midst or not?”
As was noted earlier, Dovid is initially described in a similar
manner as is Eisav – Admoni. This, however, is only part of
Shmuel Hanavi’s description. The fuller text reads “Admoni
im yefeh enayim” – ruddy; (yet) possessing beautiful eyes. According
to Midrash, this means that whereas Dovid was burdened with
the destructive drives of Eisav, he was given the capability
of channeling those drives toward healthy outcomes (i.e., He
might kill others, but only following consultation with Sanhedrin). It
is by no means easy to confront or even divert the tendencies
of Eisav. Indeed, according to some commentators, the primary
aveirah of Dovid – that with Uriah and Bat Sheva – constituted
a failure in just this regard.
Based on the above, it is conceivable that with the passing
of the kingship from Shaul to Dovid, the nature of the war
against Eisav/Amalek underwent a fundamental shift. The war,
at least for now, would no longer be fought against the external
Amalek but against the internal one. To a large extent,
the war was no longer directed outwards against the
scoffing Amalekites, but inwards against the Jewish
People’s personal and national failure to trust in Hashem. A
war of such nature is not fought through conventional firepower
or at the points of spears; it is fought through searing introspection
and pointed self-critique. According to the Maharsha, it was
particularly Dovid’s readiness to take ownership of his major
sin, in contradistinction to Shaul, who initially denied wrongdoing,
that allowed for Dovid’s hold on kingship to remain eternal. To
be sure, Dovid had no shortage of (external) foes. Still,
a primary contribution of Dovid, as evidenced in both the Navi
and Tehillim, was in dealing with the internal enemy.
Then again, was not Dovid Hamelech following in the footsteps
of his great-grandmother Leah, whose role was to confront her
internalized compatibility with Eisav? Was he not following
the path of his great-grandfather Yehuda, whose distinguishing
mission was one of internal reckoning and acknowledgment of
wrongdoing? The common thread that runs through mother, son
and great-grandchild’s life-missions is the battle against
the internal enemy – the Yetzer Hara.
Rarely is the adoption of one pole or extreme, to the exclusion
of the other, considered healthy. The earlier mentioned Midrash
Rabbah suggests that an intensive, unrelenting focus on internal
shortcomings, whether at the national or personal level, runs
the risk of bringing about despair. Perhaps for this reason,
the migration from external to internal battlefronts is not
linear. Rather it is cyclical. As is evidenced by the story
of Purim, Amalek’s descendants can, at times, re-emerge to
provide us with a physical, concrete battlefront. Not surprisingly,
such battles are led by the descendants of Rochel, the great-nephew
and great-niece of Yosef, and the tribe-mates of Shaul. In
this instance, Mordechai and Esther “stay the course”, achieving
both the moral and physical upper hand over Haman.
Purim is approaching. As we recall the ancient battles against
Amalek, and as we contemplate impending war against (conceivably)
modern-day Amalekim, we must remember to cast our gaze inward
as well. Ultimately, this is the toughest of all battles.
Rabbi
Krohn is a Kollel Alumnus and learns daily in the Kollel.
Halacha Encounters
The Yarmulke
Rabbi Ari Friedman
When it comes to Jewish identity, few things are as symbolic
as the yarmulke. Whether made of velvet, knit or suede,
the kippa or yarmulke has become the number
one way to display one’s Yiddishkeit. This week we will explore
the origins of this custom and the Halachos that relate to
it.
The
Source
The Gemara tells us of Rav Huna Ber D’Rav Yehoshua who would
not walk four amos without his head covered saying, “The
Shechina is above my head.” In another Gemara he is quoted
as deserving great reward for this practice (Kiddushin 31,Shabbos
118). Elsewhere, the Gemara tells us about the mother of
Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchok who would instruct him to cover
his head to instill in him Yir’as Shamayim (Shabbos
156). Interestingly, the word yarmulke is attributed
to a combination of the words Yareh M’Elokah – fear
of Hashem.
The Rishonim are at odds as to whether these references and
others similar to it are the source for a definitive Halacha
that one must cover his head or merely pointing out that
this is a commendable behavior. (See Shut Maharshal 72 Tashbatz
549 Mahari Bruno 166) The Taz (O.C. 8-3) writes that regardless
of the intent of the Gemara, nowadays there is certainly
an obligation to wear a yarmulke. He explains that
since it is the way of non-Jews to remove their hats, doing
so would be included in the realm of Chukas HaGoyim – a prohibition
of following in the ways of non-Jews. Seemingly, the Taz
is referring to the custom of non-Jews to bare their heads
for religious or cultural reasons, an issue that will be
discussed later.
The
Minhag Today
As mentioned earlier, it has been widely accepted among religious
Jews to wear a yarmulke as a symbol of belonging to
Klal Yisrael and keeping the Mitzvos. So much so, that the
removal of one’s yarmulke is usually an indication
of abandoning the Torah lifestyle. The Poskim write that
a yarmulke should be worn at all times and that it
is commendable to wear it even when sleeping. One need not
wear a yarmulke when bathing or swimming.
In
the Workplace
Should one find himself in a situation where he feels he would
need to remove his yarmulka in the workplace, a shailoh should
be posed to a competent Rav.
Many people find themselves in situations where they fear
that wearing a yarmulke may harm their parnasa.
Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT”L ruled leniently in this matter,
based on the following two points:
1- The obligation to follow Minhag Yisrael
by wearing a yarmulke can be no more binding than
an actual Mitzvah. It is the rule regarding all Mitzvos that
one is not obligated to forfeit his livelihood in order to
perform a Mitzvah and this would apply here as well.
2- Rav Moshe doubts whether the Taz’s
reasoning of Chukas HaGoyim would apply in our times
where people go bareheaded more as a matter of practicality
than a gesture of religious and cultural meaning.
Rav Moshe writes that this heter would only apply at
the workplace itself and not in places or at times when a
person feels uncomfortable wearing a yarmulke. Additionally,
this heter would not allow one to make a brocha or daven without
a yarmulke.
The Yarmulke
Putting aside societal preferences, any material may be used
for a yarmulke. The Mishna Berurah, however, cites
conflicting opinions as to whether one may rely on wearing
a wig to fulfill this obligation (M.B. 212, see Sefer Chayei
Moshe). One may even use his own hand to cover his head.
However, when involved with Devarim ShebiKedusha,
such as davening, making a brocha or even entering
a Shul, in addition to walking outdoors, one’s own hand would
not suffice to be considered a Halachic covering. If necessary,
one may use his shirtsleeve or even have someone else place
his hand on one’s head. (See O.C. 91-4, M.B. 2-11, 12)
The
Size
Rav Moshe ZT”L (O.C.11) writes that a yarmulke must
be large enough to be noticed from all sides of the head.
Others require that the yarmulke cover most of the
head.
Women
and the Yarmulke
Based on the Maharal, (Drashos Al Hatorah) some suggest that
the reason women are not obligated to wear a yarmulke is
because they are inherently more spiritually aware and don’t
need this extra measure to instill Yir’as Shamayim.
Rabbi
Friedman learns full time in the Kollel and is a frequent
contributor to Halacha Encounters.
Now
Available Online!
The Five Minute Hilchos Tefillah Shiur is
available in Real Audio format on the Chicago Community Kollel
website at: http://www.cckollel.org/halachashiur-fs.html
Come and hear
over 60 5-minute shiurim on
the laws, customs and deeper meanings of our daily Tefillos.
Do you have a suggestion for a topic for
a future edition of Halacha
Encounters? Please email shiur@cckollel.org with
your questions or suggestions.