Putting the Yetzer Horah In Its Place: An Exposition on Vidui from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Yom Kippur Maamar 17)

Putting the Yetzer Horah In Its Place: An Exposition on Vidui from the Torah of Rav Yitzchok Hutner, zt”l (Pachad Yitzchok, Yom Kippur Maamar 17)

Adapted By Eliakim Willner

Eliakim Willner is author of “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaTorah: An Appreciation of Torah Study”, a translation with commentary of a work by the Maharal of Prague, published by Artscroll/Mesorah. He is currently working on a continuation of the Nesivos Olam series, “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer”.

Vidui – A Return to Pre-Sin Odom

We know that vidui, confession, is a necessary component of the teshuva process; we learn this from the verse (Bamidbar 5:7), “they shall confess the sin they committed…”, which appears in the Torah section dealing with theft from a convert. [Someone who steals from a convert who has no descendants and who dies before the contrite thief can make restitution must confess his sin and pay back what he stole, plus a fine, to a kohen. This law serves as a paradigm for all baalei teshuva; to do a proper teshuva they must confess the sin that they committed as part of their teshuva process.]

There is, however, another form of vidui, which is not a part of a teshuva process and which also has a biblical source. The source for this form of vidui is the verse dealing with the vidui of the high priest, the kohen gadol, during the Yom Kippur service, which states (Vayikra 16:11), “and he shall atone, v’chiper, for himself and for his household”. The Gemara (Yoma 36b) explains that atonement in this context is accomplished not through animal sacrifice, which was the usual way of achieving atonement in the Bais HaMikdash, but through words – that is, through vidui, through a verbal confession.

We see from this Gemara that vidui has an innate power to trigger atonement even when it is not accompanied by the other accoutrements of the general teshuva process, and, moreover, this form of vidui has its own name, kaporas devarim – “verbal atonement” – and does not fall under the general rubric of “vidui”.

There is another remarkable aspect to verbal atonement, and that is, that although the function of “standard vidui” is to articulate the other teshuva components, such as a specification of the transgression for which forgiveness is sought, an expression of regret for committing it, and an undertaking never to repeat it; so as to draw them out of the heart, where they originate, into the open, verbal atonement is different in that it consists of nothing more than a bald statement of the transgression.

In truth, though, the characteristics of this unique form of vidui teach us something that is applicable to vidui in general as well. To understand what this is and how it works, we have to first understand what it is about vidui that enables it to achieve atonement at all, keeping in mind that its sometimes has the power to achieve atonement even when it is standalone and none of the other components of repentance are present. (Indeed, the Gemara referenced earlier gives verbal atonement the same status as sacrificial atonement. Normally when the Torah uses the word v’chiper, “and he shall atone”, it refers to animal sacrifice, but the Gemara does not hesitate to define the v’chiper in the context of the verse in Vayikra 16:11 as verbal atonement. By allowing the substitution the Gemara is implicitly saying that the effect of the two forms of v’chiper are the same.)

So, how does vidui, a mere verbal articulation of an offense, achieve atonement?

Our Sages taught us that the original sin of Odom and Chava caused the forces of evil to infiltrate man’s psyche and insinuate themselves into the very root of his soul, fundamentally changing man’s nature, and his relationship to the forces of evil, from their creation-original state. Our Sages (Shabbos 146b) describe this change of state with the phrase, “the primordial snake violated Chava and contaminated her with foulness”.

Sages versed in the hidden aspects of Torah (See Nefesh HaChaim, 1:6 in the first note) explain that this contamination with foulness marked the beginning of a new stage in the history of man, characterized by the muddling of good and evil. Evil existed before this, but it was sharply defined and easily recognized, since it was external to man; our Sages compared it to a dog, confined to the outdoors and howling at the people indoors. No one would confuse the dog with the people inside the house and similarly, no one, pre-primordial sin, would have confused the advice of the evil inclination, the yetzer horah, with the advice of the good inclination, the yetzer hatov.

After the sin, however, evil lives in man like a cancerous growth whose cells are intermingled with, and often hard to distinguish from, healthy cells. To the extent, then, that man does manage to isolate evil, forcibly eject it from himself, and externalize it, to that extent man moves himself closer to the state of Odom before he tasted sin. In other words, he moves himself closer to Hashem’s original plan for the optimum state of man, since the original sin was not “supposed” to happen. Vidui is no more or less than an ejection of, and an externalization, of sin! Vidui is a bald statement of the transgression; that statement is an “outing” of evil; an exorcism that, in a certain sense, extracts the evil of that sin from the person, exposing it to the cold light of day, and moving the person that much closer to the state of Odom pre-sin, when all evil was external.

This is the source of vidui’s power to achieve atonement. Forcing sin from the depths of the soul, where it had been hiding, to the openness of verbal expression, is akin to sifting out evil from the mishmash with holiness where it had been hiding, and vomiting it out to stand in isolation.

Exposure and Expulsion

We know that part of teshuva is expunging evil and separating it from the oneself from the words of a Tanna in the Gemara (Yoma 86b) who says that one should not re-confess sins next year that have already been confessed this year. Rabbeinu Yonah declared this to be the halacha, (Shaarei Teshuva 4:21) on the grounds that re-confessing gives the appearance of a lack of faith in the power of teshuva to eradicate sin – why would a person confess a second time if he truly believed that the first confession was effective?

However, the aforementioned Gemara characterizes re-confessing as being comparable to, “As a dog returns to his vomit, so does a fool repeat his folly” (Mishlei 26:11). The idea is that someone who returns to his confession is like a dog returning to his vomit; like a fool returning to his folly. The comparison does not make sense according to Rabbeinu Yonah’s understanding of the Gemara. According to Rabbeinu Yonah the reason re-confessing is prohibited is because it shows a lack of faith in the power of teshuva. However the comparison to the verse in Mishlei implies that the problem has to do with the returning itself, not with what the returning shows. Thus this Maamar presents an alternative understanding of the problem with re-confessing that fits better with the Mishlei verse.

In light of our understanding that vidui is an expulsion of sin, though, it makes a lot of sense. As we explained, the purpose of vidui is to transfer the sin from inside the person to outside him; an uprooting of the evil of the sin from its parasitic existence within a person’s soul. In that sense vidui is similar to taking food that has already been enjoyed and digested, and regurgitating it. The sinner enjoyed the “forbidden fruit” of sin while he was “eating” it – that is, while he was engaged in the act of sinning – and the evil of the sin was “digested” into his being. Afterwards, though, he felt remorseful, so he “regurgitated” the sin from himself through vidui, analogous to the vomiting out referenced in the verse.

The Gemara’s comparison of vidui to the regurgitation of food is a clear indication that vidui itself is a process of expunging something hidden inside him into the light of day.

A further indication that points to our definition of vidui: The antithesis of vidui is called mechaseh p’sha’av, “concealment of transgression” derived from the verse in Mishlei 28:13. To conceal is the opposite of to expose. Thus exposure is the factor in vidui that achieves atonement. And why is this? It is because exposure disentangles the sin-induced mélange of good and evil, and places the sin in isolation; in essence it is, to a degree, a reversal of the contamination of Chava with foulness. Vidui expunges that contamination from the body, and that brings a person closer to the ideal state of man, before Odom ate from the Tree of Knowledge, when he was free of the freeloading yetzer horah residing in his person.

This, then, is how the power of exposure achieves atonement. Exposing sin by confessing it aloud – vidui – is deemed an expulsion of the evil of sin from its embedment within a person’s psyche.

The Enemy Inside, and the Enemy Outside

This provides us a starting point for understanding the difference between the approach to sin avoidance of the penitent, the baal teshuva, and that of those who are righteous-from-the-start (for a particular aveira). The baal teshuva relates to his yetzer horah as one would relate to a hostile opponent, intent on swallowing him up. He calls on Hashem to be his witness that will not sin, much as a plaintiff would call on a witness in a dispute with a second party. This is clear from the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 2:2) who writes “What constitutes teshuva, repentance?  … And He who knows the hidden, will testify concerning him that he will never return to this sin again”, and the Kesef Mishna explains, “He must call upon Hashem to bear witness that he will never repeat this sin…”.

However the righteous-from-the-start relates to the yetzer horah as a person engaged in a struggle with himself. To fortify himself against sinning he takes an oath to his Creator, per the Gemara in Nedarim 8b, that he will not succumb to temptation. This is a mechanism that does not involve a second party at all.

Again, the baal teshuva relates to his yetzer horah as one would relate to an outside hostile opponent, intent on swallowing him up, whereas the righteous-from-the-start relates to the yetzer horah as a person engaged in a struggle with himself.

The reason for the difference, we now understand, is that someone who is righteous-from-the-start has never tasted vidui and therefore has never had the opportunity to banish the yetzer horah embedded in him to the outside. Since the transgression of Odom, everyone, even someone righteous-from-the-start, has an yetzer horah embedded in their psyche. Nonetheless, someone who is righteous-from-the-start has never had an opportunity to recite vidui since vidui can only be done after a person actually sins – since it is a confession of sin – and this person has never actually sinned. Thus the yetzer horah remains bottled up inside him and he must relate to it as a part of himself.

The yetzer horah started out within the recesses of his soul and remained there. His battle with it is a battle between one part of his self – the part that wants to resist sin – and another part of his self – the yetzer horah, that wants to draw him to sin.

This is not the case with the baal teshuva, who has experienced vidui, and who has, as the Gemara said, spat out the evil from within himself. His battle is now, in a manner of speaking with something external to him. The enemy he must attack has an independent existence; it is like the howling dog mentioned earlier.

Shma and the Baal Teshuva

“Listen, Yisroel, Hashem is our G-d, Hashem is one” (Devarim 6:4). Our Sages teach us (Yerushalmi Brachos 1:5) that this verse contains affirmations of the first two of the aseres hadibros (Devarim 5:6). When we say, “Hashem is our G-d” we are affirming the first commandment, which begins, “I am Hashem, your G-d”. When we say, “Hashem is one” we are affirming the second commandment, which begins, “You shall not have other gods…”.

It is worth looking into why the affirmations of the Shma verse appear in Parshas V’eschanan, after the contents of the second luchos are presented in the Torah. This implies that an affirmation was only necessary after the second set of luchos was presented. Why delay the affirmation until the second set?

Here too, though, the concept that we have been developing in this Maamar comes into play.

The difference between the first and second set of the aseres hadibros is that, while the first set was imparted on the basis of the nation having the status of righteous-from-the-start, the second set was imparted on the basis of the nation being in a state of repentance; in fact, the second set was first and foremost an instrument of solace for the nation, in recognition of their repentance.

Prior to the giving of the first set of luchos the nation was cleansed of sin and uplifted to the status of Odom before primordial sin. They were given a fresh start, and therefore had the status of righteous-from-the-start. They maintained that rarefied state until the sin of the golden calf, the egel, after which the first set of luchos were destroyed. The second set of luchos were given only after the nation repented.

Now, the words, “Listen, Yisroel” form an imperative statement expressed in second person – that is, directed at an outside party. But immediately, the tense switches to first person, as the verse continues with the words, “Hashem is our G-d”. In other words, the Shma verse is couched in terms of someone who is interacting with himself as one would interact with someone else – with an outside party. This is the signature “baal teshuva” mode of behavior. And that is why Shma is an affirmation of the second set of luchos, in particular.

The Perceptive Nazir

We can see how meticulous our Sages were in their choice of words, in the incident of the Nazir from the south (Nedarim 9b) of whose asham sacrifice Shimon HaTzadik partook, and whom he blessed with the words, “May there be more Nezirim like you in Yisroel!” When the Gemara relates this incident it takes pains to precisely quote the response of this Nazir when he was asked why he accepted Nezirus on himself, as follows:

“I was a shepherd for my father in my city and I went to the spring to draw water. I gazed upon my reflection and my yetzer horah rushed over to me and sought to banish me from the world. I said to him, ‘Evil one! Why are you giving yourself airs by tempting me to sin…?’ [A Nazir must shave his head at the conclusion of his period of Nezirus and the shepherd intended to thereby spoil his good looks and attenuate his temptation to sin.] Upon hearing this, Shimon HaTzadik arose and kissed him on his head and declared, ‘May there be more Nezirim like you in Yisroel!’”

Anyone with an ear attuned to the nuances of the words of our Sages will realize that the kiss and blessing of Shimon HaTzadik were directed not only at the actions of the Nazir, but also at the Nazir’s turn of phrase, which teaches us something new about tactics to use against the yetzer horah. The Nazir emphasized that in the heat of the moment when the yetzer horah threatened to overcome him, at the beginning of his “dialog” with the yetzer horah, he addressed him in the second person, and he continued in this vein when he related the event to Shimon the Righteous, using the words, “I told him…”

He was careful not to say, “I told myself…”. And he continued in this manner when he related the rest of his conversation with the yetzer horah. When he burst out in anger at the yetzer horah, he said, “Evil one! Why are you giving yourself airs in a world that is not yours”. In other words, he continued to deal with the yetzer horah as one would deal with another person, standing opposite him – not in an inward-facing manner, as someone making a personal decision. This mode of interaction with the yetzer horah was part of what impressed Shimon HaTzadik and what impelled Shimon HaTzadik to kiss and bless the shepherd.

A Borrowed Reality

We learned in this Maamar how a baal teshuva and how a righteous-from-the-start person relate to their yetzer horah, and we learned that relating to him as to an outside party is reserved for the baal teshuva. However, it seems that we may have to revise our thinking on this in light of the words of the Nazir. Those words teach us an extraordinary thing. Realize that the Nazir is not a baal teshuva; his battle with the yetzer horah is that of someone who is righteous-from-the-start and who has never indulged in this sin. [From his reaction to the yetzer horah it is apparent that this Nazir never committed the particular sin that the yetzer horah was tempting him with.] Yet his response to the yetzer horah makes it abundantly clear that even someone who is sin-free can relate to the yetzer horah in this way!

We see, then, that, in planning a strategy to defeat the yetzer horah, there is an advantage, even for someone who is righteous-from-the-start, to addressing it as if it were an external party that one can turn to and address as “you”. Otherwise why would the Nazir, who was righteous-from-the-start, address him in this way, rather than in the introspective manner that is more natural for someone in that category?

The key difference between this strategy in the hands of a baal teshuva and in the hands of a righteous-from-the-start person, is that for the baal teshuva, this strategy is reality, since the baal teshuva took an action that actually ejected, expelled and spat the yetzer horah out and away from himself. But the righteous-from-the-start has to visualize the yetzer horah outside himself, since he never took an action to make that expulsion a reality.

Nonetheless, there is value to using the imagination in this way, just as there is value to “always visualize oneself as hanging in the balance between conviction in the Heavenly court and acquittal” (Kiddushin 40b). If a person continually views his fate as hanging in the balance he will realize that a single good action could tip the balance in his favor while a single bad action could tip the balance in the other direction. Now, most people are not actually hanging in the balance, but they are being advised to imagine themselves in this state as motivation to seek out mitzvos and avoid transgressions.

In the same way, it is legitimate to visualize the yetzer horah as being outside oneself, even if he is not, since that makes it easier to “talk your way out of” transgressing.

Moreover, while it is true that this visualization is imaginary, for the righteous-from-the-start – unlike the situation of the baal teshuva, for whom relating to the yetzer horah as something external is very real – it is not, strictly speaking, a lie, because when man was first created, the yetzer horah was, in fact, external to him. This is the natural state of man, and it changed only because of the original sin. Therefore, when man is at the pinnacle of his greatness – when he is in the throes of subduing his yetzer horah, and can visualize it as being external to himself – he is throwing himself back to man’s originally intended state, where the yetzer horah really was external to him. There is imagination at play here, but no falsehood.

In fact, we can go so far as to say that just as, per our Sages (Yoma 29b), fantasizing about sin is worse, in a sense, than actually sinning, so might we also say that at times, dreams of holiness are better than acts of holiness.

Reality generally falls short of the dream. When we dream, whether for good or for bad, the object of our desire is perfect and without blemish and our ardor is never dampened, as it might be when we are faced with the reality of an imperfect world. In this sense, the righteous-from-the-start, who is visualizing his third-party confrontation with the yetzer horah, may actually has an advantage over the baal teshuva, who has to deal with him in reality.

May we all merit dreaming of holiness in these yimai hadin, and may we all merit achieving it!

An adaptation into English of the full text of Pachad Yitzchok, Yom Kippur Maamar 17 can be obtained from the author at eli@eliwillner.com.

The Misoninim Mysteries: An Understanding Based on the Torah of the Maharal and the Ketzos HaChoshen

The Misoninim Mysteries: An Understanding Based on the Torah of the Maharal and the Ketzos HaChoshen

By Eliakim Willner

Eliakim Willner is author of “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaTorah: An Appreciation of Torah Study”, a translation with commentary of a work by the Maharal of Prague, published by Artscroll/Mesorah. This article is adapted from his forthcoming continuation of the Nesivos Olam series, “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer”.

Part I – The Misoninim

The Mysteries

The parsha of the Misoninim (Bamidbar 11) may superficially seem straightforward but on reflection, there are a number of puzzling aspects that beg for explanation. First of all, what was their primary complaint? Did they want meat? If so, what was the point of mentioning the vegetables that they ate in Egypt? Were they tired of the mon? Then why mention meat, any “real” food should have served their purpose? And why (posuk 7) did they seemingly speak in complimentary terms about the mon?

Why does the Torah tell us (posuk 4) that they “had a lust”; what does that add to the stated complaint of “we want meat!”? Why (posuk 10) do they add their resentment of the newly forbidden marital relationships to their litany of complaints; what does that have to do with either a hankering for meat or the “monotony” of the mon? One might say that they were complaining for complaining’s own sake, so there is no relationship between the complaints, but that seems superficial.

Finally, the quail that they were provided was immediately fatal; the moment they sunk their teeth into it, they died. How, then, did so many people die from eating it? Didn’t people watching the first quail-eaters die realize that they might be better off avoiding it?

Surely there is depth to be mined beneath the surface here.

The Benefits of a Coercive Matan Torah

To solve these mysteries – and to understand this parsha – we turn to the introduction to Sefer Shev Shmaitso, by the Ketzos, who has a unique and unifying understanding of the parsha of the Misoninim based on the Torah of the Maharal.

It all begins at Sinai. Recall that, per the Medrash (Tanchuma, Noach 3) before the Torah was given to Yisroel, Hashem lifted the mountain over their heads like a barrel, har k’gigis, and told them that if they did not accept the Torah, “this will be your burial place”. Of course the question is, since the nation had already willingly accepted the Torah (naaseh v’nishma; we will observe and we will understand) why was this coercive measure necessary?

The Maharal in Tiferes Yisroel 32 answers by pointing out that things that are imperative are permanent. This is why, for example, a me’anes is bound to his victim, the anusa, for life; he forced himself upon her (imperative) and therefore the relationship becomes permanent. The Maharal cites a Medrash that explains that the coercion at Sinai metaphorically creates an unbreakable me’anes-anusa-type relationship between Hashem and Yisroel; the Sinai covenant is permanent and, come what may, neither party can back out of it. Naaseh v’nishma was a discretionary acceptance of the Torah and therefore, despite its merits, it would not have been permanently binding.

The Ketzos notes that this bond extends to the relationship between Yisroel and the Torah as well. We must study Torah; it is imperative and not optional; permanent and not transitory. He cites Yalkut Re’uveini (Vayishlach) that the Sar of the Torah, the angel in charge of the Torah, was tasked with mon production. What does the mon have to do with the Torah? The Sefer HaMagid of the Bais Yosef states that the mon had the effect of nullifying free choice and making it impossible for those eating it to occupy themselves with anything other than the Torah. Their physical appetites disappeared; their only passion was for Torah study.

Appetites for Appetites

This, then, was behind the primary complaint of the Misoninim. They wanted their physical appetites back; they “had a lust’ for their dormant physical lusts! This business of mandatory Torah-study-only wasn’t for them. They yearned for the ability to enjoy a steak again; they remembered that in Egypt they were even able to enjoy vegetables!

In short, they wanted the discretionary Torah of naaseh v’nishma only, the imperative nature of the har k’gigis coercion wasn’t letting them enjoy the physical pleasures of life. However, they sugar-coated their complaints by arguing that it was more meritorious to operate on a free choice basis than to be boxed in to Torah. We would eat the mon without being forced to, they argued; after all, it’s appealing and tasty. We would study Torah too – when we wanted to. But we want our physical appetites back!

They were way out of line. The role of that generation was to immerse themselves totally in Torah study. Har k’gigis was supposed to have a dramatic effect on their way of life during their desert sojourn and the mon was an integral part of creating that way of life.

Their punishment, writes the Ketzos, was that they got their physical cravings back with a vengeance. They knew, after the first few moments, that eating the quail was a death sentence. Yet their appetites were so strong that they were compelled to gorge themselves nonetheless!

Forbidden Marital Relationships and Har K’Gigis

This approach solves most of the Misoninim mysteries we mentioned. How, though, does their resentment of the newly forbidden marital relationships fit into this picture? The Ketzos answers this by referencing a question of the Maharal in Gur Aryeh (Vayigash). The Maharal notes that when the Torah was given, the entire nation had the status of converts to Judaism. If so, the Maharal asks, why is it that the forbidden marital relationships affected this generation? We know that a convert has the status of a newborn and his previous familial relationships are cancelled. A convert may even marry his birth-sister since the conversion nullifies the brother-sister relationship. So why were the Misoninim complaining about these forbidden relationships in the first place?

The answer, says the Maharal, is that a convert only has the status of a newborn when the conversion was done willingly. However, the conversion of the nation at Sinai was transformed into a coerced conversion when the mountain was held over their heads. Therefore their previous familial relationships were not nullified and the prohibitions applied.

If the Torah had been given on the basis of naaseh v’nishma only there would have been no practical application of the Torah laws prohibiting certain marital relationships for that generation. The “culprit” preventing that from happening was the coercive nature of their conversion brought about by the threat of har k’gigis. We now understand how this particular complaint fits into the Misoninim’s broader picture. They were bothered by all the ramifications of har k’gigis versus naaseh v’nishma, and this was one of them.

The Implications for Us, Today

Our generation does not have mon and our therefore our physical appetites are restored. We can choose to favor them, but the mon remains in our genes forever and we retain the ability to attenuate our physical desires and to choose to single-mindedly devote ourselves to the pursuit of Torah and mitzvos, just as our ancestors did in the desert.

The Ketzos adds a sobering thought. Our physical and spiritual components were implanted in us as separate entities and were “designed” to stay that way. When we leave this world our soul should be heading upwards, unimpeded and unsullied by the body, while the body reposes in the earth, disconnected from the soul.

To the extent that we humor our physical component by indulging ourselves in physical pleasures, we pollute our spiritual component by intermingling it with our bodies. The separation at death is more difficult and more painful and our souls actually retain the pollution of the physical desires we indulged in during our lives.

The Torah tells us (verse 34) “He named that place Kivros Hata'avah (Graves of Craving), for there they buried the people who crave.” Note the present tense: “who crave”. They were dead and buried, surely it would have been more accurate to say, in the past tense, “the people who craved”? But the Ketzos quotes the Akeida who writes that even after their death, their souls continue to crave since they were polluted by the body’s craving when they were connected. Sobering indeed!

May we all merit to take full advantage of the permanence Hashem blessed us with when he imposed har k’gigis, by focusing our lives around Torah and by minimizing physical world indulgences.

Part II – The Meraglim

What Didn’t They Like?

Rashi at the beginning of Parshas Shlach explains that the Meraglim “had it in” for the land of Israel before they even saw it, and their plan from the beginning was to come back with a report that would scare the nation away from wanting to go there. The obvious question is “why?” They left Egypt fully understanding that that was where they were headed. They knew that Hashem promised the land to Avrohom, for his descendants. What happened to change their thinking?

The Maharal, in Chidushei Aggados, Sotah 34b, explains that they knew that Hashem had two sets of rules with which He interacted with Yisroel. First, was natural law; if you want to eat, you have to plow, sow, plant, tend to, harvest, etc. Second, was “miracle law”; the way that Hashem interacted with Yisroel in the dessert, as they traveled to Israel. It included the mon, the ananim and the other phenomena that were discussed in Part I. That set of rules was designed so that Yisroel could focus exclusively on the Torah and spirituality – their role while in the dessert.

The Maharal explains that the Meraglim realized that once they reached Israel, the first set of rules would come back into play. The thought horrified them – think of all the time that would be wasted on the mundanities of earning a living, when they could have been learning Torah! They devised a ploy that, they hoped, would extend the “miracle law” mode as long as possible. For that reason, they came back with a report that, they knew, would frighten many members away from wanting to continue on to Israel.

Part III – The Conundrum

But Was That Bad?

This raises a serious question. True, the Meraglim were wrong to frighten the nation in this way, and to attempt to thwart Hashem’s plan to bring the nation into Israel, but weren’t their hearts in the right place? What was wrong with their desire to remain in an elevated spiritual state for as long as possible?

Moreover, the events of the Meraglim came on the heels of the events of the Misoninim and the two sets of events appear to show the nation acting in two contradictory ways. As we explained in Part I, the Misoninim were bothered by too much spirituality – they wanted their physical appetites back, as we explained. But shortly thereafter, the nation seemed to be pining for more spirituality; they wanted to continue on the high spiritual level of the dessert and defer the workaday life that they knew awaited them in Israel.

Apparently the nation took the lessons of the Misoninim to heart and learned to cherish a purely spiritual life. But then, why did they suffer such serious consequences after the Meraglim events?

Part IV – The Lesson

There is a Time for Everything

The answer is that Hashem presents us with a variety of challenges in life, and our job is to serve Him to the best of our ability within the constraints of the circumstances He has placed us in. When in the dessert, the nation’s job was to devote themselves exclusively to spiritual pursuits. That was the form of service Hashem demanded of them. But in Israel, the demands were different. The challenges were different. The nation’s job was to serve Hashem to the utmost, within the constraints of natural law. It is very wrong to rail against, or try to flout, Hashem’s plan, and that was the sin of the Meraglim.

All of use have similar challenges in our own lives. When we are in Yeshiva or Bais Yaakov our service to Hashem must include intensive study and we are charged to avoid anything that distracts us from that. When we enter the world of commerce our service must include integrity, kiddush Hashem, and of course, to maintain as rigorous a Torah study schedule as possible, albeit it will not be as intensive as it was during our Yeshiva days.

Not to distinguish between one set of life challenges and another partakes of the sin of the Meraglim. That must be our big takeaway from the juxtaposition of these two Torah portions.

Part V – Korach

Consequences

Perhaps a failure to appreciate this lesson was a factor in the rebellion of Korach, which appears in the next Torah portion. Korach and his cronies were frustrated: “What does Moshe want from us? First, we get into trouble for not being frum enough! So we “reboot” and become super-frum and we get into trouble for that! Moshe is just looking to get us into trouble!”

What they failed to appreciate is that there is a time and place for a variety of different modes of service to Hashem, and the consequences for Korach for that failure and his subsequent rebellion were to be permanently removed from the service-to-Hashem “playing field” entirely.

There are many lessons in these three parshios; may we take them all to heart!

This article is dedicated in honor of the upcoming wedding of our dear son Dovid to Perry Jerusalem, on the first day of Rosh Chodesh Tamuz. May they be zoche to build a bayis ne’eman b’Yisroel together, l’shaim, u’l’tiferes, and to be a source of nachas to myself, my wife, to our future mechutanim, Rabbi and Mrs. Akiva Jerusalem, and to all of klal Yisroel!

The Rebbi, the Talmid – and Your Personal Ruchnius

The Rebbi, the Talmid – and Your Personal Ruchnius

How the Rebbi-Talmid Relationship Affects Every Jew’s Dveikus and Ahavas Hashem, as Explained by Rav Yitzchok Hutner – An Adaptation of Pachad Yitzchok, Shavuous Maamar 18.2.

By Eliakim Willner

Eliakim Willner is author of “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaTorah: An Appreciation of Torah Study”, a translation with commentary of a work by the Maharal of Prague, published by Artscroll/Mesorah. This article is adapted from his forthcoming continuation of the Nesivos Olam series, “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer”.

Introduction

Our institutions of chinuch, and therefore our mesorah itself, are under unprecedented attack. It is obvious that outside interference in what our Yeshivos teach and how they teach it will affect our ability to transmit our values to our children.

Less obvious, but just as important, is the fact that tampering with our mesorah has the potential to negatively impact every individual’s personal avodas Hashem, dampening our dveikus and attenuating our love for Hashem. It is important that we understand these dangers as well. In the following excerpt, Rav Yitzchok Hutner zt’l explains the relationship between the Rebbi-Talmid bond, and these mitzvos temidios.

1 – The Chain Effect, As a Means of Cleaving to the Shechina

“‘…And to cleave to Him’ (Devarim 11:22). But is it possible to cleave to the Shechina, the Divine Presence? Does not the verse say of Him that He is ‘a consuming fire’? (Devarim 4:24) Rather, cleave to Torah Sages and their students.” (Yalkut, Eikev 873)

The fact that this Medrash provides an alternative mode of fulfilling the command to cleave to the Shechina  – teaching us that besides cleaving to Sages themselves, one may also achieve closeness with the Shechina by cleaving to their students – reveals an novel aspect of this mitzva: even though the student is not directly connected to the Shechina, still, cleaving to him is considered cleaving to the Shechina, by virtue of the student’s association with the Sage, his teacher.

This is a powerful statement about the closeness of the Rebbi-talmid relationship. Not only is cleaving to the student the equivalent of cleaving to the teacher, but it even extends to transitively creating a connection to the Shechina, with whom the teacher is connected.

2 – Another Interpretation of the Advice to Cleave to the Shechina

But there is another way to understand the “cleave to Torah Sages and their students” advice, and that is to view it not as two separate approaches to cleaving to the Shechina – either via the Sages or their students – but rather as an instruction to cleave to Torah Sages and their students together, as a single unit. What is the benefit of understanding the Yalkut’s method of cleaving to the Shechina in this way?

3 – Loving Hashem Through Teaching Torah

“…And you should love Hashem, your G-d…” (Devarim 6:5). The Sifri (Devarim 6:7) comments on this verse, “But this verse does not specify how one goes about loving Hashem. The “how” answer, however, is supplied in the next verse, ‘And these words (a reference to words of Torah)… shall be upon your heart’.”

This Sifri is the source for the well-known view that the path to achieving love of Hashem is through study of Torah, and, more forcefully, that without Torah study it is impossible to achieve love of Hashem. This is very clear from the wording of the Sifri, which states that without the answer to the “how” question in the next verse, we would be at a loss to know how to go about loving Hashem.

So, the well-known view that the path to achieving love of Hashem is through Torah study originates in the Sifri, but the point we wish to make is that the lesson of the Sifri cuts deeper than that well-known view.

Consider that when the Torah-study mitzva is specified in the next verse in the “And you should love Hashem” chapter, it is not the general mitzva to study Torah that is mentioned but rather the specific mitzva to teach Torah. The verse we are referring to is, “And you shall teach them to your sons” (Devarim 6:7), which is understood as referring to the mitzva, incumbent on every Torah Sage, to transmit their Torah knowledge to students. (“Sons” is a reference to students, not to biological offspring, as will be discussed shortly.)

It follows, then, that if we interpret the Sifri as saying merely that the path to loving Hashem is through Torah study, we are missing a major point. In fact, the Sifri is teaching us that the power of Torah study to create love of Hashem is centered around the pinnacle level of Torah study, which is disseminating Torah to students.

Obviously, we are not claiming that personal Torah study alone does not lead to love of Hashem; the fact is that Torah is Torah and love of Hashem will follow from any avenue of Torah study. Our point, however, is that the power of Torah to bring about love of Hashem comes into full bloom only through the vehicle of teaching Torah.

The Sifri makes it very clear, then, that that the purpose of the “And you should love Hashem” chapter is to set forth the mitzva to love Hashem and explain how to do it, and the flow of the verses plainly indicates that the optimum method is through teaching Torah. Why is this so?

4 – Teaching Torah Should Create Sons

The mitzva to disseminate Torah is couched in terms of “And you shall teach them to your sons”. If we reflect carefully on this verse we will see that what it is actually teaching us about what it means to teach Torah, is much deeper than would appear on the surface. The common understanding is that there are two independent elements in the act of teaching Torah. The first is the act of teaching itself. The second is that students are referred to as “sons”. Thus, when one teaches Torah he is teaching “sons”, and the verse refers to Torah teaching using the “And you shall teach them to your sons” terminology for this reason.

This is the common understanding. But upon reflection, it seems to us that there is more to the use of “sons” in this verse than a poetic reference to students as “sons”. Rather, the verse is teaching us that teaching Torah and labeling students as “sons” are two sides of the same coin. The point of Torah dissemination is not to teach Torah to students who happened to be called “sons”. Rather, it is to enlist the power of Torah teaching to create sons.

We illustrate with an example. A person can acquire any possession, purchase any object his heart desires, from anyone he pleases. There is just one thing a person cannot acquire in the open market, and that is life itself. Life is acquired from a father and only from a father. The sole way to impart existence to another being is through fatherhood.

This is exactly how the Rebbi-talmid relationship is supposed to work. Students are only truly called “sons” when they value the Torah that has been imparted to them as they value life itself – not as a non-essential possession that they can either live with or do without, but as something crucial to their existence.

What the Torah wants us to understand, with the verse “And you shall teach them to your sons”, is that Torah dissemination can only have a lasting effect if it is done with an eye to creating “sons”; that is, if the Torah is valued as one would value life itself, when it is transmitted; when it is passed on as a father passes on life to the next biological generation.

This is what we mean when we say that that teaching Torah and labeling students as “sons” are two sides of the same coin. One side is the Torah transmission itself. The other side – the resultant side – is the creation of sons. There is much more to the verse, “And you shall teach them to your sons” than an enumeration of two independent elements in the act of teaching Torah.

5 – Love Creates Sons; Creating Sons Engenders Love of Hashem

We return to the idea we developed in section 3, that the power of Torah to bring about love of Hashem comes into full bloom only through the vehicle of teaching Torah; through fulfillment of the mitzva, “And you shall teach them to your sons”, which refers to transmitting Torah knowledge to students.

There are numerous sources (see the end of the second chapter of Nedarim) that detail the many hardships and travails that are the unfortunate lot of the child of “the hated wife”, and from the terrible consequences of hatred one can infer the extraordinary consequences of love. To get the full measure of a thing, look at its opposite; doing so in this case tells us that when love, not hate, is injected into the process of producing life, it has an incredible power.

The Sifri we discussed in section 3 made us aware that the reason for the juxtaposition between Torah study and the mitzva to love Hashem was to teach us that Torah study is the one and only path to achieving love of Hashem, and that ideally, the form that Torah study should take is the teaching of Torah, or, in the terminology of the previous section, the spiritual birthing of “sons” via the transmission of Torah.

We now know that for the spiritual birthing of sons to be worthy of the name it must be suffused with love. And that is the basis for the linkage between “And you shall teach them to your sons” and “You should love Hashem, your G-d”.

For the Rebbi-talmid relationship to be most effective – to the point where the analogy to giving life to a son is more than just a flight of fancy – the Torah transmission must be delivered on wings of love. If it is, then passing on Torah to the next generation is passing on life to the next generation and the students appreciate the Torah they learn as vital, just as their teachers do. The ideal described in section 4 is achieved.

Can there be a better way to both achieve and pass on love of Hashem than for a teacher of Torah to accomplish this level of Torah transmission with his students? This is what we mean when we say that the Sifri is teaching us that the power of Torah to bring about love of Hashem comes into full bloom only through the vehicle of teaching Torah; through fulfillment of the mitzva, “And you shall teach them to your sons”.
 

6 – Using the Rebbi-Talmid Nexus to Become Close to the Shechina

We are now ready to delve deeper into the second way of understanding the meaning of cleaving to Torah Sages and to their students, as mentioned in section 2. In the first way of understanding this directive, two alternatives to cleaving to the Shechina are being presented – cleave either to Torah Sages or to their students. It is hard, however, as we pointed out, to understand the justification for equating an attachment to a student with an attachment to the Shechina; the student may not have any personal merit that connects him directly with the Shechina.

In the second way of understanding this directive, however, the desired result of cleaving to Hashem is accomplished by cleaving not to either Sages or students, but rather, to a single aggregate consisting of both Sages and their students. The benefit of associating with this aggregate, in contrast to associating with one or the other of its components, is that only when Sages and their students are together is the birthing power of the Torah that emerges from, “‘And you shall teach them to your sons’ – this refers to students”, evident.

As we discussed earlier, this power to create “sons” is effective only when the Rebbi-talmid relationship glows with the light of love; when the Torah is valued as one would value life itself. This is when the teachers themselves are most connected with the Torah, and it is only on the strength of the teachers’ connection with Torah that one can connect to the Shechina via a connection to a Torah teacher.

The most effective setting, then, for achieving a connection with the Shechina by connecting to a Torah Sage who is connected to the Shechina is when the Sage’s connection is at its peak, when his connection to his Torah is in full force, and that only happens when the Torah Sages are mingled with their students – with their “sons”.

And that is why the Yalkut advises us, as we learned in section 1, that if we wish to become close to the Shechina we should “cleave to Torah Sages and their students”. The wording is precise. To get as close as possible to the Shechina, latch onto the teachers when they are with their students.

The Neglected Dangers of the Internet

The Neglected Dangers of the Internet

By Eliakim Willner

Eliakim Willner is a computer professional with deep experience in issues relating to the benefits and dangers of the Internet. He is also author of “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaTorah: An Appreciation of Torah Study”, a translation with commentary of a work by the Maharal of Prague, published by Artscroll/Mesorah.

“Hidden” in Plain Sight

The Internet and its dangers are getting renewed attention from the Chareidi world, as we try to grapple with ways of protecting our children – and adults – from the corrosive effects of the worst of the Internet while not impeding legitimate and often necessary usage of benign Internet sites.

I think therefore that the time is ripe for us to focus on what I will call the “hidden” dangers of the Internet. Truthfully, these websites are far from “hidden” – most frum Jews who use the Internet are aware of them and probably patronize them to some extent. Yet they are “hidden” in the sense that most people unthinkingly put them in the benign category, while, they are perhaps more dangerous to anshei shlomeinu than sites purveying shmutz, which most of us would never dream of visiting anyway.

I am referring to the Jewish “blogs” – websites with frum-sounding names (containing Yeshivishe or Yiddish words), run by supposedly frum people that supposedly report news of interest to the frum community. Most people naively feel right at home patronizing a site like that. After all, it is run by people “like us”! What could possibly go wrong? I will tell you what could and does go wrong.

For the uninitiated, here is how these sites work: the site management collects news stories from other websites, or in some cases from amateur “reporters”, and publishes them as “articles”. Anyone can access and read those articles – and moreover, anyone can post a “comment” on an article, and that comment is then, at the discretion of the site’s managers, made available to everyone reading the article. Others can then respond to already-posted comments and a dialogue ensues.

In theory such websites can be useful, and indeed to some extent these websites do serve a productive function; they are supreme when it comes to getting the word out quickly about a kashrus problem, a risk to the community, a levaya, r’l, and so on. But let me be blunt: the way these websites are currently run, they are hotbeds of every kind of shmiras haloshon problem described in sefer Chofetz Chaim, they are rampant with apikorsus, with denigration of gedolei yisroel and with laitzonus. They provide a platform that gives the lowest elements of our community equal-footing access to the hearts and minds of every member of our community.

Because these blogs operate under the guise of frumkeit people mistakenly believe that they are safe not only for themselves but also for their impressionable children. But do we really want our children reading remarks that ridicule gedolim for bringing to light a heretofore unknown halachic problem, or that poke fun at a legitimate chumra, or that publicize crimes supposedly committed by members of the frum community – with or without naming names?

Do we have any idea how much permanent damage this causes to the hashkofos of ourselves and our family members, especially when the exposure is prolonged? What was formerly unthinkable is now thinkable; what was formerly unspeakable is now speakable, what was sacrosanct is now open season for laitzonus, and doubts and temptations that might have rested dormant beneath the level of consciousness, especially in weaker individuals, will have come alive and raised their ugly faces to torment them and possibly cause them to go astray, chas vesholom.

I do not have statistics but I believe that it quite plausible that while we are busy locking the door to a set of shmutz-related Internet dangers that primarily affect the weak and the vulnerable – yes, that precaution is indeed necessary and praiseworthy – we are ignoring the elephant in the room; these blogs that insidiously affect almost everyone.

Now, you may ask, “I have a highly recommended filter on my computer, that is supposed to block everything that is ‘bad’. Surely if these sites were as dangerous as you say, my filter would block them, right?”

Wrong! In fact, not only do most of the filters fail to block most of those sites, some of the filters actually advertise on those sites! Some of those sites piously publish articles extolling the virtues of the filters! The fox is guarding the henhouse!

How did this sorry state of affairs come to pass?

Money!

Money is the root of all evil, at least when it comes to the Jewish blogs. The blogs exist to make money, and they do that by selling advertising on their sites, and by publishing “feature” articles that are really ads in disguise – for a fee. As with newspapers, ad fees are a function of readership – the more people that visit a site, the more it can charge for ads. This measure is called “eyeballs” in the trade. To keep a for-profit blog in the black (and the Jewish blogs we are talking about are all for-profit) it is crucial to get and keep the “eyeballs” number as high as possible.

Now, it is an unfortunate fact of life that many people, even, unfortunately, in our community, are drawn to “juicy” stories, to sensationalism and to controversy. It is therefore hard for a blog owner, in a quest for more eyeballs, to resist the temptation to pander to those tastes, even if, in doing so, various serious halachos are violated. Perhaps some of the blog owners soothe their consciences by telling themselves that they have “standards” – red lines that they will not cross. Perhaps that is even the case. But that is small comfort if the red lines are drawn so far off-field that much of what does pass muster is unacceptable by halachic standards – as is in fact the case.

For a variety of reasons I am not naming any of these sites, nor am I going to quote from them verbatim. But here are a couple of typical examples of their “all-for-the-eyeballs” tactics.

A tiny group of frum Jews makes it a practice to demonstrate against the Jewish state and to align itself with various unsavory sonei Yisroel. Is this objectively newsworthy? Considering that the impact of their actions is zero, and that they have been doing the exact same thing for years, the answer is “no”. Yet this kind of article is a staple on the blogs. Why? Because many readers who like to comment on the articles invariably are incensed, and say so, others disagree and say so, and arguments, many of them quite hostile, develop, and that draws a crowd of readers. And it is obvious that the article was couched in such a way as to maximize the negative reaction, draw out the commenters, and foment the controversy.

It does not require a halachic expert to determine that these discussions contain numerous shmiras haloshon violations – which apply to those reading the discussions as well as to those posting in them –  yet they make for titillating reading and people are drawn in. To the blog owner, the ensuing eyeballs help him keep the prices of his ads up and thus he is motivated to post articles like these and to rationalize the michshol, and his own halachic violations, away.

Another example: A group of Jews who consider shaitlach to be prohibited sponsors a shaitel burning event to encourage their followers to get rid of them. Is this an inherently “bad” thing? No, it is not, because there is a sound basis in halacha for not wearing shaitlach and if that is their shittah, such an event is a legitimate means of making their point.

Is this newsworthy? Perhaps a case can be made for a “yes” answer, but the blogs glory in events like this, and write about them not as dispassionate news, but as if they were the height of primitive fanaticism – again to bring the negative commenters out of the woodwork, encourage remarks decrying chumros in general and again, to foment controversy. And again the motive is “eyeballs” – i.e. making more money.

An alleged “cult” takes refuge in a foreign country and its leaders are accused of terrible things. A person once regarded as a charismatic religious leader is charged with committing unspeakable acts. Whether or not these charges are true, should stories like this be publicly disseminated, let alone become fodder for public comment?

What’s In a Name?

Just who are the people commenting on articles like this, anyway? Unfortunately, we do not know who they are because most of the blogs allow people to make up pseudonyms for themselves and most of the comments are published anonymously – and even when real-sounding names are used, there is no way to tell if the name is genuine, or if someone is using another person’s name, or a fictional name.

And herein lies one of the biggest problems of the blogs, because many readers naively believe that since the blog is intended for frum people, the commenters are fellow-frum people like themselves. This gives credence to what they write – after all, if I am reading a comment by a person I suppose is frum on a blog I suppose is frum, then it must be ok for a frum person to think this, or even to say this.

Unfortunately this is often not the case. It is an unfortunate fact that many of the people commenting anonymously are the dregs of Jewish society – drawn from the small but vocal community of embittered formerly-frum, who delight in casting everything frum in a negative light, as a means of self-justifying their abandonment of Torah and mitzvos. Others are misfits who evoke nothing but pity in real life, but who find a voice and garner attention for themselves by saying outrageous things anonymously on a blog. Or they may be closet apikorsim who wouldn’t dare to express their heresies under their own name for fear of being ostracized, but who do so with impunity under a pseudonym.

Yet we, our spouses, our children, are lulled into thinking that the views expressed by these people are acceptable because, after all, they appear on a “frum” blog. And it is easy to believe that someone who goes by the name “Bubby” is a heimishe Yiddishe bubbe, or that someone who calls himself “Gadol BaTorah” must at least be able to learn a bit, but actually Bubby is more likely to be a cynical 19 year old boy on the fringe, and Gadol is more likely to be someone who has issues with ikrei emunah.

It gets worse. Some of the less scrupulous blog owners not only post provocative articles, they actually hire people to post provocative comments, under the guise of regular users, in order to further stoke the fires of controversy and, of course, to further their eyeballs-quest. Since anonymity is permitted, no one is the wiser.

The Decline of Decency

There is another problem with anonymous discussion that is endemic to all blogs, not just Jewish ones, and that is that civility tends to go out the window when a “discussion” about a controversial topic is in writing, not face-to-face, and especially when the correspondents are hiding behind pseudonyms. Sarcasm, derision, ad hominem attacks and downright insults are tossed about with abandon by people who wouldn’t dream of engaging in these tactics in real-life. In theory, blog owners “moderate” the discussions and can control the viciousness, but they often do not – again, because they believe that “street-fighting” attracts a larger audience, and their revenue is a function of audience size.

Do we really want to inure ourselves and our children to that kind of gutter behavior? Shouldn’t our standards be higher than those of the non-Jewish electronic “street”?

Power Corrupts

Unfortunately, the people who run the blogs are accountable to no one but themselves and can do what they want with impunity. This leads to abuses that go beyond the ones described above.

For example, some of the blogs favor certain frum politicians and disfavor others, to the ludicrous point of never reporting anything that might be construed as negative about the ones they favor, and finding every excuse to say something negative about the ones they don’t. Aside from the shmiras haloshon aspect of beating up on a yid in public,  what motivates this blatant favoritism – which does a disservice to the blog’s readers, who may actually believe that they are getting objective news? Is money changing hands? It’s a reasonable question but unfortunately, because of the lack of accountability, no one knows.

Some blog owners abuse their power by engaging in public shaming. They have been known to take a dislike to some commenters and to publicly “out” them by publishing their identifies for all to see. Now, I am a strong opponent of anonymity in the first place but if a reader is given to expect that he has it, there is absolutely no justification for publishing his identity.

If the blog owner happens not to like someone’s comments, he can and often does, arbitrarily delete them without posting them publicly, giving the lie to the implied claim of an “open” forum. Halevai that this would be the worst sin of these blogs, but I mention it as yet another illustration of the basic underlying problem: An unvetted and unregulated group of people who are strongly profit-motivated and oblivious to the negative halachic implications of what they are doing.

What Can Be Done?

Clearly, we have a serious set of problems here, and now, when the tzibur is redoubling its efforts to protect itself from the dangers of the Internet, is the time to deal with it. And we CAN deal with it. Here are some suggestions to help bring the blogs around to cleaning up their act.

1)      Insist that until these blogs shape up (more on that soon) they are blacklisted by ALL the filter programs, and that filter programs that do not comply will not be on the “approved” list.

2)      Ban the practice of the filter programs advertising on these blogs under pain of being removed from the “approved” list. It is a blatant conflict of interest.

3)      Approach the advertisers who place ads on these blogs and insist that they cease and desist until the blogs shape up. Names of advertisers who do not comply will be publicized.

4)      I am astounded that there are respected Rabbonim who write articles for these blogs, seemingly oblivious to their dangers. Approach them and educate them and insist that they cease and desist until the blogs shape up.

5)      There are numerous frum mosdos, including many Yeshivos, who shill their events on these blogs, both before the events, and with “photo essays” after the fact. Some of these mosdos are doubtless participating in the current Internet protection efforts! Approach them and educate them and insist that they also cease and desist until the blogs shape up.

Here are some of the things we ought to insist that the blogs do in order to restore the tzibur’s trust in them and to enable them to function without the restrictions above.

1)      Establish a tzibur-run regulatory authority to monitor and supervise the blogs to assure no violations of halacha, either in the articles or in the comments. Give them the “teeth” to impose meaningful penalties, drawn from the list above, for “recidivist” blogs.

2)      Create a detailed, written set up guidelines that blogs will have to abide by in order to be approved.

3)      Create a mechanism for members of the tzibur to easily report infractions to the regulatory authority.

4)      Allow only blog “members” to comment, require all members to be adults, and to be identified with full first and last name and city of residence, and verify all information provided by would-be members before authorizing them to comment.

5)      Insist on financial transparency so that the regulatory authority knows who is paying the blog, and for what, to avoid the genaivas daas inherent in taking money under the table, for any reason.

6)      Let it be known that if the current blogs don’t shape up, the tzibur will organize the formation of new blogs that will provide the same benefits as the current ones, but which will scrupulously follow the rules, so they and only they won’t be blacklisted.

I defer to the manhigei hatzibur who are organizing the current Internet initiative, and to the gedolim they rely on for advice; this article is intended to draw attention to what I believe to be a serious problem and to suggest a path toward a solution. I leave the ultimate solution in their hands but I volunteer to serve on the tzibur-run regulatory authority to keep the blogs in check, and to assist in  whatever other way I can.

Comments and further suggestions are welcome and can be sent to me at eli@eliwillner.com.

Postscript

Until the authorized filters get around to blocking these sites, it is relatively easy to block them yourself, by programming your router accordingly. It is not as hard as it sounds. If you want guidance, please email the make and model of your router, and the sites you wish to block, to my email address above.

B’ezras Hashem, through our efforts l’shaim shomayim, we will be zoche to useful blogs without their current unsavory side, and to ways of using the productive and necessary parts of the Internet without risking its pitfalls, and in that zechus may we be zoche to Eliyahu HaNavi’s announcement of the arrival of Moshiach (guaranteed that Eliyahu HaNavi will not need a blog to spread that wonderful news!)