Parshat Chukat - the Rock of Og
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/975db/975dbb43c042c353abf97ab86c551712e1bd4428" alt=""
Click here to download the shiur, or here to navigate to the shiur on YUTorah.org.
Now you can subscribe to this shiur as a podcast, directly from iTunes! To subscribe, click here.
Rambam concurs, writing (Laws of Shabbat 9:13)רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבי אליעזר, אשה לא תעביר סרק על פניה בשבת מפני שצובעתRabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, a woman may not apply red [coloring] on her face on Shabbat, because that is [considered the Melachah of] dyeing.
At face value, that sounds good. Sounds like Rambam says it's OK. But it's not. This is because when Rambam uses the term פטור - "not in violation", he's only talking about the דאורייתא level - a Torah prohibition. Wherever we find the term, it still means that the activity is rabbinically prohibited. So, according to Rambam, using makeup on Shabbat is not prohibited from the Torah, but is forbidden rabbinically.הצובע חוט שאורכו ארבעה טפחים, או דבר שאפשר לטוות ממנו חוט כזה--חייב. ואין הצובע חייב, עד שיהא צבע המתקיים; אבל צבע שאינו מתקיים כלל, כגון שהעביר סרק או ששר על גבי ברזל או נחושת וצבעו--פטור: שהרי אתה מעבירו לשעתו, ואינו צובע כלום; וכל שאין מלאכתו מתקיימת בשבת, פטור.One who dyes a string the length of four tefachim, or material from which one could weave a string of that length - is in violation [of a Torah prohibition]. And the one who dyes is not in violation, unless the dye is lasting, but dye which does not last at all, like one who applies red or lacquer on copper or brass - is not in violation [of a Torah law]. For one is applying it temporarily, and is not "dyeing" anything. And any activity that is not lasting on Shabbat - is not in violation [of a Torah law].
Seems pretty cut and dry. No painting the face on Shabbat. No lipstick (which is also prohibited for other reasons), no rouge, blush, eyeliner or any of the other products women use to make themselves beautiful.אסור לאשה שתעביר בשבת סרק על פניה משום צובע. ומטם זה אסורה לכחול בשבת.A woman is forbidden from applying red dye to her face because of [the prohibition of] dyeing. And, for this reason, a she is forbidden from painting her eyes on Shabbat.
What did Rav Moshe permit here? Did he permit Shabbat makeup? In a later Teshuva, he clarifies that he was talking about colored powders as well.וכן אסור לאשה לצבוע את פניה מדין צביעה. אבל לזרוק את הפאודער האבקה לבן על הפנים שלא מתקיים כלל, אין בזה איסור צביעה. ומלבד זה נראה שלא אסרו העברת סרק אלא מפני שהסרק נדבק יפה בעור הפנים.And furthermore, it is forbidden for a woman to color her face due to the law of dyeing. But, to throw white powder on her face that does not last at all, is not prohibited from the perspective of dyeing. Moreover, it seems that [the Sages] only prohibited dying the face because the dye clings well to the skin of the face.
HaRav Moshe Feinstein zt"l was of the opinion that one may use powdered makeup that is not long lasting. This circumvents the problem of tzovaya. This powder is commonly known as "Shabbos makeup." Rav Moshe only allows the use of certain powders that have been carefully tested to ensure they are not long lasting. HaRav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l disagrees and opines that all makeup may not be applied on Shabbos regardless of how long it lasts. This opinion is more widely accepted by Poskim. According to Rav Shlomo Zalman, all makeup, even "Shabbos makeup," is forbidden to use on Shabbos. One should consult a Rav to determine which opinion one should follow.The article then gives a detailed description of the proper application of the Shabbat makeup. Yet, Rav Moshe was not the only posek to offer a lenient opinion on the issue. Rav Ovadyah Yosef also ruled permissively when he wrote (Yechaveh Daat 4:28),
As a personal aside, I never really understood the leniency of Shabbat Makeup. After all, if the whole point of the product is to color the face, how then can someone argue that the color doesn't last. If the color didn't last, then no one would use it. The fact that women do use it, and can put it on in the morning and have it last at least until they come home from shul seems to indicate to me that some coloring is going on. See the video here as Shaindy applies the Shabbat makeup, telling you not to "dab" - which she then does, and not to paint a line over the eyes, which she also seems to do. To me, the "before" and "after" say all that needs to be said. And, Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach, who was known as an expert in matters of Shabbat, and wasn't unusually strict, categorically rejected the idea of Shabbat Makeup. But my opinion really doesn't matter on the issue, for a few reasons:ואף על פי שאנו אין לנו אלא פסק מרן השלחן ערוך להחמיר, אבל אין להוסיף לאסור גם נתינת פודרא שאינה מתקיימת כלל, וגם אינה נדבקת בפנים, כמו העברת סרק ואודם שפתים. ולכן יש להתיר נתינת פודרא גם צבעונית, ובלבד שלא תהיה מעורבת במשחה או קרם. וראה לרבינו אליעזר בר נתן, הראב"ן (סימן שנ"ד), שהתחשב להקל בנידון כזה, מטעם שלא יתגנו על בעליהן, בפרט לאשה הרגילה בכך. ובשל סופרים הלך אחר המיקל, כמבואר במסכת עבודה זרה (דף ז' ע"א). וכן פשט המנהג להקל והנח להם לישראל.And even though we only have the ruling of Maran HaShulchan Aruch who is strict, nonetheless we should not add [the prohibition of] place powder that does not last at all, and also does not stick to the face, as in the case of [normal] makeup and lipstick. Therefore, one may permit the application of even colored powder, as long as it is not mixed with any ointment or cream. See also the ruling of Ra'avan, who considered ruling leniently in this matter, taking into consideration the factor that [women] do not become repulsive to their husbands, especially if a woman is accustomed to this. And in matter of Rabbinic [prohibition] we follow the lenient opinion, as we find in Masechet Avoda Zara. And so the custom has spread to be lenient, and "leave it to the Jewish people."
The point of departure for the lenient approach is that the prohibition to apply Serek (the cosmetic discussed by the Gemara) is only rabbinic in nature.Thus, Rav Ovadia ruled leniently in this matter for three reasons:
We should note that this is a typical approach of Poskim who seek to present a lenient approach in case of great need. The first step is to demonstrate (if possible) that there is no possibility of violating a Biblical prohibition. Thus, the first step of the lenient argument regarding cosmetics is to prove that the prohibition to apply Serek is only rabbinic in nature and thus there is more room to be lenient than had it been classified as a biblical prohibition...
In this context Rav Ovadia Yosef explicitly states a motivation for adopting a lenient approach to this issue. In Teshuvot Yabia Omer he states that his concern is “Shema Titganeh Ishah Al Baalah”, that domestic tranquility might be disturbed. The source for this idea is the Gemara (Shabbat 64b), which records that Rabi Akiva permitted wives to wear makeup even when they are Niddot, in order to promote Sh’lom Bayit (domestic tranquility) between husband and wife...
In Teshuvot Yechave Da’at, Rav Ovadia refers to the oft-cited Gemara (Pesachim 66a) that states regarding an area of uncertainty with respect to the Halachot governing Korban Pesach, “leave it to the Jewish People, if they are not prophets then they are the children of prophets”. Rashi (ad. loc. s.v. B’nai) adds “and [therefore] observe what they (the Jewish people) do” and that will resolve the uncertainty. Rav Ovadia applies this principle to this situation, as he notes that many women who are meticulously observant rely on the lenient approaches of Rav Moshe and the K’tzot Hashulchan.
We should note that this principle of “if they are not prophets then they are the sons of prophets” applies only to an area of uncertainty in Halacha and only to the practices of those who carefully observe Halacha. The sin of the golden calf clearly demonstrates that it is not an all-embracing principle.
A Crowe follower told the Australian celebrity that he was expecting a son soon, and asked for his input on whether he should have his baby circumcised.
Crowe responded harshly, saying that "circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature? Is it real that GOD requires a donation of foreskin?"
The actor added that "babies are perfect" when they are born. Crowe later said that he "will always stand for the perfection of babies, I will always believe in God, not man's interpretation of what God requires."
"שאל טורנוסרופוס הרשע את ר’ עקיבא "איזה מעשים נאים של הקב"ה או של בשר ודם?
אמר לו ר’ עקיבא: של בשר ודם נאים.
אמר לו טורנוסרופוס הרשע: הרי השמים והארץ יכול אתה לעשות כהם.
אמר לו ר’ עקיבא: לא תאמר לי בדבר שהוא למעלה מן הבריות, שאין שולטין בהן, אלא בדברים שהן מצויין בבני אדם.
אמר לו: למה אתם מולים?
אמר לו: אף אני הייתי יודע שאתה עתיד לומר לי כן. לכך הקדמתי ואמרתי לך מעשה בשר ודם הם נאים משל הקב"ה.
הביאו לטורנוסרופוס שבולים וגלוסקאות (ועוגות).
אמר לו רבי עקיבא: אלו מעשה הקב"ה! ואלו מעשה בשר ודם! אין אלו נאים?
הביאו לטורנוסרופוס אנוצי פשתן וכלים מבית שאן (בגדים יפים),
אמר לו רבי עקיבא: אלו מעשה הקב"ה! ואלו מעשה בשר ודם! אין אלו נאים?
אמר לו טורנוסרופוס: הואיל הוא חפץ בברית מילה, למה אינו יוצא מהול ממעי אמו?...
ולמה אינו יוצא מהול? לפי שלא נתן הקב"ה לישראל את המצות אלא כדי לצרף בהןThe wicked Turnusrufus once asked Rabbi Akiva: Whose creations are better: those of man, or those of God?Rabbi Akiva answered: Mankind['s] creations are nicer.Said to him the wicked Turnusrufus: Behold the heavens and the earth. Can man fashion similar items?Responded Rabbi Akiva: Don't ask me about things that are above [the ability] of the creations, over which we have no dominion. Rather, let us speak about items that are found among people.[Turnusrufus] asked: Why do you circumcise?[Rabbi Akiva answered]: I knew that was what you wanted to ask me. That is why I said that mankind's creations are better.Rabbi Akiva brought before [Turnusrufus] sheaves of grain and biscuits, said: These (the grain) are the creations of God, and these (biscuits) are the creation of man. Which are nicer?He then presented stalks of flax and [linen] cloth from Beit She'an and again said, These (the flax) are the creations of God, and these (cloths) are the creation of man. Which are nicer?[Turnusrufus] asked: If God wishes for people to be circumcised, why does He not create us circumcised?...Rabbi Akiva answered: Why does the child not emerge circumcised? Because God gave the commandments to Israel to forge (and purify) them...
Minim… and apikorsim… there is a mitzva to kill them; if a person has the power to slay them publicly by the sword, he should do so, and if not, he should plot against them in such a way as to bring about their death. How so? If he saw that one of them had fallen into a well containing a ladder, he should go ahead and remove the ladder, and say to him: I will lower my son from the roof and then return it to you, or the like. (Rambam, Hilkhot Rotze'ach 4:10) (I got this translation from an online shiur on the topic by Rabbi Haim Navon on the Har Etzion website. For a full treatment of the issue, read the shiur here.)In another section, Rambam expands on this idea, noting the obligation to "get rid" of Jews who overtly reject the Oral Torah and its obligations. But then, Rambam severely limits this law, applying it only to a very specific group:
This applies only to one who repudiates the Oral Law as a result of his reasoned opinion and conclusion, who walks lightmindedly in the stubbornness of his heart, denying first the Oral Law, as did Tzadok and Boethus and all who went astray. But their children and grandchildren, who, misguided by their parents, were raised among the Karaites and trained in their views, are like a child taken captive by them and raised in their religion, whose status is that of an anus, who, although he later learns that he is a Jew, meets Jews, observes them practice their religion, is nevertheless to be regarded as an anus, since he was reared in the erroneous ways of his fathers. Thus it is with those who adhere to the practices of their Karaite parents. Therefore efforts should be made to bring them back in repentance, to draw them near by friendly relations, so that they may return to the strength-giving source, i.e., the Torah, and one should not be hasty to kill them. (Rambam, Hilkhot Mamrim 3:3)
While Israel remains the destiny of the Jewish people, we also must not abandon the Diaspora. Firstly, the Torah demands that we, as a nation, commit to pursuing justice; to be warriors against injustice, it behooves us to be stationed everywhere around the globe. This work as an ohr l'goyim, a light unto the nations, is our raison d'être.I already addressed his specific article extensively, but I think what worries me most is the underlying discomfort with Jewish particularism. The sense that I get is that, "It can't just be about Israel. It can't just be about the Jewish people. There must be more. I don't want to just care about the Jews. I want to fix the world."
Why is this man happy that his kid is joining a foreign army? It sounds like a lack of loyalty and hakarat hatov to the country which actually does protect the flourishing of Jewish life. I would of course have no problem with an Israeli child fighting Israels wars. If he needs to kill a Palestinian child to protect himself, its regrettable but it may happen. But what business does an American child have pulling the trigger on a Palestinian one? Is an abundance of feeling now enough to justify entering someone else’s fight?In truth, I should not allow comments on a blog to surprise me or upset me. But where have we come to when Jews (ostensibly) consider the IDF a "foreign" army, and see a true disconnect between themselves and the citizens of the State of Isreal?
ועַתָּה, אִם-שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי, וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם, אֶת-בְּרִיתִי--וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכָּל-הָעַמִּים, כִּי-לִי כָּל-הָאָרֶץ. וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ-לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים, וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁ: אֵלֶּה, הַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר תְּדַבֵּר, אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.Now therefore, if you will listen to My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak unto the children of Israel.'(Shemot 19:5-6)
We need to refocus on this specific point. With all the freedoms that the United States has granted the Jewish people and the universal equality championed by the West, Judaism isn't just about a way of life. It's about belonging to a nation. It's about putting our Land and our people first, and doing our best to ensure that all of us live our lives in a manner that reflects the will of God.אשר בחר בנו מכל העמים ונתן לנו את תורתוWho chose us from among the nations and gave us the Torah.