"Horoa's Sha'ah"

We are all familiar with the concept of "Horoa's Sha'ah" (Temporary Dispensation), the Torah was given with a built in mechanism for correcting unforeseeable problems. The Torah gives the "Navi" or prophet the ability to temporarily suspend or change almost any commandment for the benefit of the survival of the Torah or the nation in the long term. We have also seen in the post-prophetic eras of our great nation the concept of "Horoa's Sha'ah" implemented by leaders concerning hashkofoh related issues. Most famously and most recently by Rabbi S.H. Hirsh whereby he relaxed the prohibition against secular studies temporarily in order to save German Orthodox Jewry of the 1800's from the threat posed by assimilation. (the scale and extent of his dictate being controversial and beyond the scope of this particular piece.)

"Loolei D'mistafina" or rather if I had the ability, I would institute a "Horoa's Sha'ah" and ban the

Am Naval Veloh Chacham

Targum Onkeles is mefarash "Am Dekabilu Oiraysah veloh Chakimu" How does Naval translate into Kabilu Oiraysah? Even if you would like to suggest that Onkeles is saying that it is a statement of amazement that Yisrael could accept the Torah and still not get Chachma, you would not be answering the fact that he is translating "naval" which can only be taken in a pejorative sense, to "Kabilu Oraysa".

It seems obvious to me that what Onkeles is saying is that only a nation that has the Torah can be so bad. That is the effect of Kabilu Oraysah velo Chakimu. Having Torah and not letting it be Mechakem is the Torah of "Sam Hamaves". The pasuk is answering the question of "HalHashem Tegmilu Zot?" how can a nation act like this towards God? the answer is only a nation that was "Kabilu Oiraysah" and at the same time "Lo Chakimu" can sink to such a low level. The Kabilu Oiraysa is the cause for the terrible behaviour.

I was shown recently that  Likkutei Moharan I, 123. R' Nachman discusses this vexatious Targum. Without going into Rav Nachman's take on it specifically, I would like to offer my interpretation. R' Nachman says that for one to truly accept the Torah, man must close his mind. A person must first divest himself from his own sechel and allow the Torah to take over. There is much logic in the Torah that takes time to digest. A person's initial intuition might instinctively reject the Torah's logic. However the Torah is "Da'as Eloki" and one must learn to accept it and study it until he ultimately understands it and can start thinking truthfully. However if one takes the first step and divests himself from his own mind to allow Torah to enter but doesn't take the next step of fully immersing himself in Torah to the extent that Torah takes over and fills the void that he has left, that person will be left with just the void and worse off than when he started. That is the "Am Naval veloh Chacham" referred to in this pasuk. The Torah tells us that we have left ourselves as a nation void of logic and learning because we opened ourselves to accept the true "Sechel" but have not taken the next step of becoming an "Am Chacham" which leaves us with nothing and creates a much worse situation. 

Hester Panim

I heard from a Rabbi this week a vort from the "Kotzker". The Rabbi said that the Kotzker says that the reason the Torah says "Haster Astir" is that even the Hester Panim will be hidden. The rabbi went on to say that God is so hidden that we cannot even see the hester Panim.

I am not sure if that is what the "Kotzker" meant. He is well know for his very sharp and biting insights and almost everything I ever heard in his name has been extremely biting. This vort seems very pedestrian to be a "Kotzker" vort. Therefore I would like to propose a different pshat to the words of the "Kotzker".

I think that the Kotzker meant to say that the "Hester" will be "Nistar" in other words we will think we see it. We will not recognize the "Hester". Truly we see that today amongst most religious Jews. They all see God in everything they do. They use words such as bashert or hashgacha or min shamayim etc. They think that they have God figured out and they know what he is trying to accomplish (usually their petty desires). This is the Hester of the Hester because God is hiding in plain sight he is in fact not supplying you with your petty desires and...no that was not the reason why xyz happened today to fulfill your perverted idea of what should  have happened........The ultimate hester!

Adam Dan Din Linafshei/ Vigilantism in Halacha

The Talmud in Bava Kama 27b discusses the concept of Adam Dan Din Linofshei. Translated literally "Can a man adjudicate for Himself" or, as the Talmud explains, does one have to bring his case against his rival to court to adjudicate. The Talmud quotes two Rav Nachman who contends that a man May adjudicate on his own and Rav Yehuda who maintains that one has to go to court and may not take the law into his own hands.

The simple understanding of this legal argument is if Torah law allow for vigilantism. The problem with that is to whom is the Talmud speaking? If somebody takes money out of my pocket do I have to first find out if legally we ultimately follow Rav Nachman's ruling before I know if I can take my money back? Everybody exercises vigilantism to some extent depending on the circumstances and ramifications. If somebody steals somebody's wallet and leaves it openly on a table nearby one will be hardpressed to find anybody that would not take his wallet back! Therefore the problem is from a strictly halachic perspective where is the inflection point where this legal question makes a real difference?

Maimonides rules that one may adjudicate for oneself, below is the text of Maimonides

 יש לאדם לעשות דין לעצמו אם יש בידו כח הואיל וכדת וכהלכה הוא עושה אינו חייב לטרוח ולבוא לבית דין אע"פשלא היה שם הפסד בנכסיו אילו נתאחר ובא לבית דין לפיכך אם קבל עליו בעל דינו והביאו לבית דין ודרשו ומצאו שעשה כהלכה ודין אמת דן לעצמו אין סותרין את דינו

Interestingly, after stating that one may adjudicate for himself, Maimonides adds that "Therefore if the two parties subsequently came to court and it was found that the vigilante acted appropriately the court does not contradict his adjudication" Why does Maimonides add the "Therefore"? that would be a logical extrapolation once we know that we rule that one may adjudicate for himself?

It seems obvious that Maimonides was bothered by the same point discussed earlier. Therefore Maimonides understood that passage in the Talmud not as a question of the allowability of vigilantism (it was obvious that one can  adjudicate for himself if he knows that he is right) but rather as a question for the courts as to its validation from a court perspective. If the vigilante admits to his deed how does the court see that action from a legal perspective is the question. This is not a question that belongs in Pirkei Avos but a question that belongs in Choshen Mishpat