Daf Ditty Beitzah 28:Chalaf

1
Mayer Kirshenblatt. The Illegal Slaughter

1
From Mayer Kirshenblatt and Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, They Called Me Mayer July: Painted Memories of a Jewish
Childhood in Poland Before the Holocaust. University of California Press. n.d. p114

1
MISHNA: Rabbi Yehuda says: A person selling meat on a Festival who wishes to know its
weight in order to determine its price may not weigh it against regular weights in the ordinary
weekday manner, but he may weigh the meat against a vessel or against a cleaver [kofitz] and
then calculate the weight of the meat by weighing the vessel or cleaver later. And the Rabbis say:
One may not look at the pans of a balance scale at all, meaning that they may not be used for
weighing in any manner or for any other purpose.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: One may not look at the pans of a scale
at all? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even if one has meat and he wishes to protect it
from mice, he may not put it on a scale, since it would look as if he were weighing it. Rav Idi bar
Avin said: And this ruling applies only where the scale is hanging on the ring used for balancing
it. However, if the scale is hanging in such a manner that it is not fit for weighing, one may use it
as he would use any other vessel.

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is prohibited for an expert butcher to weigh meat
on a Festival even by hand because he can arrive at its precise weight using this method, and so it
is prohibited like weighing with a scale. And likewise, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is
prohibited for an expert butcher to weigh meat on a Festival even in water. Butchers would
calculate the weight of a slab of meat by placing it into a tub of water and measuring the amount
of water that it displaces with the help of markings on the container. Since this procedure enables
the butcher to determine the precise weight of the meat, it may not be performed on a Festival.

2
And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is prohibited for an expert butcher to weigh meat
on a Festival even by hand because he can arrive at its precise weight using this method, and so it
is prohibited like weighing with a scale. And likewise, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is
prohibited for an expert butcher to weigh meat on a Festival even in water. Butchers would
calculate the weight of a slab of meat by placing it into a tub of water and measuring the amount
of water that it displaces with the help of markings on the container. Since this procedure enables
the butcher to determine the precise weight of the meat, it may not be performed on a Festival.

Summary

Rabbi Judah says: a man may weigh meat [on Yom Tov] against a utensil or against a
butcher's chopper. But the sages say: one may not pay attention to the scales at all.

The debate here is concerning weighing out meat at the butchers on Yom Tov. All agree that the
butcher cannot just weigh out meat as usual, using weights on the scale, because that looks too
much like conducting business as usual. They also all agree that one can go to a butcher and get
meat on Yom Tov. This is necessary to ensure that the average person has access to fresh meat so
that he can enjoy his Yom Tov to the fullest extent. As a solution to the problem of the butcher
weighing out the meat, Rabbi Judah says that the butcher may use other utensils on the other side
of the scales. For instance, if he knows that his chopping knife weighs 2 kilo, he can weigh out
meat according to the weight of his knife. This looks different enough that everyone will know
that he is not engaging in business as usual. The sages say that this is still too much like business
as usual. The sages forbid any use of the scales on Yom Tov. All that the butcher and client may
do is estimate the weight of the meat and then hope that it turns out to be fair.

Amud (a) discusses two Mishnayot. The first tells us about an opinion of Rabbi Yehuda compared
with that of other rabbis. Rabbi Yehuda tells us that a person who sells meat cannot weigh that
meat on a scale but can weigh it against a vessel or a cleaver [on a Festival]. the rabbis believe
that this is far too lenient; one cannot even look at the pans of a scale at all. The Gemara considers
different ways of weighing meat. Differences between weighing firstborn animals and other meat
are discussed. The rabbis emphasize the importance of measuring, if at all, in a manner that is
very different from weekday measuring.

The second Mishna tells us that we cannot sharpen a knife on a Festival. However, we can do so
in an unusual way, including sharpening one blade against another. The Gemara considers
whether or not it is permitted to sharpen a knife on a wooden sharpener rather than the usual stone
implement.

Amud (b) continues this discussion. Perhaps the knife is rubbed against the side of a basket to
sharpen the blade, but one says that s/he is doing this simple to rub fat from the blade. We run

3
into one of the difficulties in assessing intention versus action. Jewish thought is
predominantly focused on action. What if our intent runs against halacha? Does that matter?

We learn that we cannot show a blade to a Sage before slaughtering an animal on a Festival, likely
because the knife could be carried beyond the eiruv limits. Apparently Sages inspected these
blades before slaughter in the times of the Temple. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis continue to clarify
how Shabbat and Festivals differ with regard to the preparation of food. A number of other
examples are shared to further this idea, including what to do with bent skewers for food.

We meet Rav Malkiyu, who contributed only a few halachot. He shared the halacha regarding
setting aside a bent skewar. In addition, he taught that even when a bride is given 100 maidservants
as her dowry, her husband can compel her to work so that she is not led by boredom to sin. Rabbi
Malkiyu also decided that 12 year-old girls required only two pubic hair follicles, and not two
pubic hairs, she is of legal age to perform chalitza. Thanks, Rabbi Malkiyu. He also taught that
we are to cut the forelocks of Samaritans at three fingerbreadths on every side to ensure that they
are not grown for the purpose of idolatry. He taught that burnt ashes cannot be placed on a wound
because it looks like a tattoo. Finally, he forbade eating cheese made by a Gentile because of the
use of lard.

The rabbis wish to ensure that Shabbat is different from weekdays and that Festivals are different
from both weekdays and Shabbat. Today's daf demonstrates the creation of halachot that are quite
obscure, especially in today's modern world. Each halacha might on its own give little direction
on how to live today - does it matter if I show a blade to a Sage before slaughtering a firstborn? Not
relevant. But the intention - to walk us through decision-making where we are to ensure that there
is a difference between the Festivals and Shabbat - that continues to be useful.

TAKING SOMETHING WITHOUT THE OWNER'S

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara relates that seven servings of fish were placed on the table in the house of Rebbi, and
five of them ended up in the possession of Rebbi Chiya while only two made it into the hands of
Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi.

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/beitzah/insites/bt-dt-028.htm

4
RASHI explains that Rebbi Chiya took five to his home without asking for permission to do so.
Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi was not upset that Rebbi Chiya took most of the fish, because he and Rebbi
Chiya were friends.

TOSFOS in Bava Metzia (22a, DH Mar Zutra, cited by the SHACH CM 358:1) writes that one
is not permitted to take something from another person without explicit permission, even when he
knows that the other person will not object. (It is considered "Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as" which does
not have the status of Ye'ush.) Why, then, was Rebbi Chiya permitted to take five fish without
asking for permission? (TAL TORAH)

The TAL TORAH suggests that this case is not similar to a case of "Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as"
because the taker knows that the other person does not mind, and thus it is similar to a case of
"Ye'ush mi'Da'as." When one knows that the other person does not mind, he may take the other
person's belongings without asking for permission.

Accordingly, the Gemara here supports the view of the SHACH (ibid.) who argues with Tosfos in
Bava Metzia (and the other Rishonim who rule like Tosfos). The Shach rules that one may take an
object without permission when he knows that the owner does not mind.

RASHI's words imply that Rebbi merely left the fish in a place where he normally left things for
any of the Talmidim to take; he did not specifically designate the fish for Rebbi Chiya.
Accordingly, Rebbi Chiya, who was one of the Talmidim, had permission to take it even though
Rebbi did not give it specifically to him.

SHOWING A KNIFE TO A CHACHAM ON YOM TOV

The Gemara says that one may not bring a Shochet's knife to a Chacham to have it inspected on
Yom Tov, but a Chacham may inspect his own knife.

Why may one not show a knife to a Chacham on Yom Tov?

(a) RASHI writes that the act of bringing the knife to the Chacham has the appearance of a
weekday activity ("Uvda d'Chol"). It looks as though one intends to slaughter a lot of animals for
public sale.

5
Accordingly, a Chacham is permitted to inspect his own knife because the inspection is not done
in a public manner.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Yom Tov 4:9) writes that the prohibition is due to the concern that
one might sharpen the knife if the Chacham tells him that it is not perfectly sharp. A Chacham
may inspect his own knife, however, because just as he is a Chacham and knows how to inspect a
knife, he also knows that one is not permitted to sharpen a knife on Yom Tov.

(c) The RIF writes in the name of the BEHAG that the prohibition is due to the concern that one
will carry the knife outside of his permitted Techum in order to bring it to the Chacham. For that
reason, a Chacham may inspect his own knife (as he does not need to carry it anywhere).

The BA'AL HA'ME'OR asks that the reason of the Rif is logical only according to the opinion
that the prohibition of Techumin is mid'Oraisa. However, according to the opinion that the
prohibition of Techumin is mid'Rabanan, a prohibition against taking the knife to a Chacham
would be a Gezeirah l'Gezeirah (a rabbinical decree made to safeguard another decree), which the
Rabanan do not enact.

The RAMBAN (in Milchamos) answers that in this case the Rabanan made an exception to the
normal rule and they enacted a Gezeirah l'Gezeirah, because it is particularly common that a person
goes out of his Techum to show his knife to the Chacham, since he frequently brings his knife to
the Chacham on ordinary weekdays (because one may not slaughter an animal without first giving
his knife to a Chacham for inspection).

(d) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR (cited by the RAN) writes that one may not show a knife to a
Chacham on Yom Tov because the Chacham's ruling about the knife is included into the category
of passing judgment ("Dan Es ha'Din") which is prohibited on Yom Tov. The same reason
prohibits one from showing a blemish on a Bechor to an expert on Yom Tov.

The RAMBAN asks that if the Chacham's decision about the knife is considered a judgment, then
why may he inspect his own knife?

The RAN answers that when the Chacham examines his own knife, he merely clarifies ("Giluy
Milsa") whether or not it has a blemish; he does not pass a formal ruling. In contrast, when another
person brings a knife to the Chacham for inspection, he does so because the Rabanan instituted
that one may not slaughter an animal without first showing the knife to a Chacham (this enactment
was made in order to preserve the honor of the Chacham; see Rashi to Chulin 9a).

6
Part of the enactment is that the Chacham must issue a Halachic ruling about the knife before the
person may use it, and thus the Chacham's ruling is considered passing judgment. When a
Chacham inspects his own knife, he does not do so because of any enactment of the Rabanan. He
merely wants to clarify whether the knife is blemished or not.

DISCUSSING PRICES ON YOM TOV

The Mishnah states that a person may not ask his butcher on Yom Tov to give him a Dinar's worth
of meat. Rather, the butcher must first slaughter the animal and then divide the portions. The
Gemara explains that when the animal is divided, each person who wants a share of the animal
must say that he wants "one portion" or "half a portion" of meat; he should not say that he wants
"one Dinar's worth" or "half a Dinar's worth" of meat.

The Mishnah earlier (27b) states that the buyer and seller are not permitted to set a price for the
animal on Yom Tov. Rather, the animal is slaughtered and divided, and after Yom Tov the price
is set. The Gemara explains that in order to enable the price of the slaughtered animal to be assessed
after Yom Tov before the animal is slaughtered they should bring another animal of approximately
the same size as the first. After Yom Tov, they assess the price of the original animal based on the
value of the identical animal.

The Mishnah there (27b) teaches that the animal must be divided by the size of each portion and
not by the price of each portion. What new law, then, does the Mishnah here teach?

The MELECHES SHLOMO answers that the previous Mishnah refers to a case in which an
entire animal is being divided. In such a case, it must be divided into a half, third, quarter, etc., and
it may not be divided by price. The Mishnah here, however, refers to a case in which a person
wants just a single piece of meat. In such a case, he should not describe the piece that he wants as
a Dinar's worth of meat, but rather as a "portion" of meat.

One might have thought that in this case he is permitted to buy a portion of meat by describing it
by its price, and it is not similar to a case in which an entire animal needs to be divided (in which
case dividing it by price is prohibited). In the latter case, the animal does not yet have a set price,
and to establish the price on Yom Tov is prohibited. In this case, however, the individual portions
have already been cut up and the prices have already been set. When one says that he wants a
Dinar's worth of meat, he is not setting the price but rather he is merely describing the piece of

7
meat in terms of its cost. The Mishnah teaches that even in such a case (when one uses the price
only as a description for the meat), one should not mention the price because money should not be
discussed at all on Yom Tov. (This contrasts with the explanation of the TIFERES
YISRAEL who permits one to mention money.)

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

Since we are allowed to prepare food on Yom Tov, in the event that fresh meat is needed,
slaughtering an animal would be permitted. (It is worthwhile to note that the only way meat could
be kept fresh during Talmudic times – prior to the invention of refrigeration – was by keeping the
animal alive until it was to be cooked.) Shechita – ritual slaughtering – must be done with a
specially prepared knife that is perfectly smooth with no chinks or nicks. The Mishnah on
our daf forbids sharpening a knife on Yom Tov, but the Gemara permits it under certain
circumstances.

Rav Yosef rules that a knife which became dull can be sharpened, as long as it still can cut meat,
even if it can only do so with some difficulty. Rashi explains that if it can no longer cut at all,
sharpening it would involve serious labor that should not be done on the holiday. The Ba’al ha-
Ma’or argues that such a knife no longer serves its purpose, and is therefore no longer considered
a utensil. Sharpening it would create a new utensil on Yom Tov, which is certainly forbidden.

Another question that is raised is whether the shochet can present his knife to the community rabbi
on Yom Tov. The Gemara records a disagreement in this case between Rav Mari brei d’Rav Bizna,
who permits it, and the Rabbanan, who forbid it.

The obligation for the shochet who slaughters animals for the community to show his knife to the
local scholar is a Rabbinic ordinance instituted both to ensure that kashrut is scrupulously kept and
to honor the community rabbi. This tradition came to an end many years ago. Although during
Talmudic times any individual could perform shechita, later on only professionals who studied the
laws carefully were allowed to do it and were certified by the community Rabbis as experts who
no longer needed further approval.

Nevertheless, in some communities – particularly Hassidic communities – this practice is still

Regarding the discussion in our Gemara, the R”if explains that we may forbid the scholar to check
knives on Yom Tov because we fear that the knife will be carried outside the 2000-cubit city limit.
According to the Re’ah, the problem is that the scholar checking the knife plays the role of a judge,
and courts are not allowed to operate on Yom Tov. The Rambam‘s explanation is that if the knife

3
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_beitzah_2834/

8
is found to have a nick, the shochet may come to sharpen it, which is, as we learned in the Mishnah,
forbidden.

The knife for ‫ שחיטה‬must be examined before being used (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 18).4
Nicks and imperfections are common on the blades of knives, and it cannot be assumed that the
knife is flawless unless it is checked (‘‫) ז ק”ס שם פרישה‬. The knife must be checked before the
shechita. Rashba explains that one may not rely upon the fact that he will check it after he finishes
the act, because we are afraid that he might forget and not check it afterwards. Furthermore, if the
knife is not checked first, one would not be able to recite the bracha ‫השחיטה על‬before doing the
‫ שחיטה‬.

The knife might later be found to be knicked, and the ‫ שחיטה‬would be invalid, thus rendering the
bracha a ‫ לבטלה ברכה‬.Other problems of not checking the knife prior to ‫ שחיטה‬include the possibility
of unnecessarily causing the animal to be a ‫ בילה‬, which is a violation of ‫ תשחית בל‬.

The Chinuch adds that slaughter with a damaged knife could cause unnecessary pain to the animal
— ‫ חיים בעלי צער‬. Even if the knife is checked before the ‫ שחיטה‬,it should be checked again
afterwards, to ascertain that it did not become damaged as it cut the skin near the neck (Yoreh
De’ah 18:12).

The halacha trusts any Jew to check the knife, based upon the rule of ‫אחד עד באיסוריו אמן‬
Nevertheless, the ‫ חכמים‬have established that after checking the knife himself, a shochet must
present his knife to a ‫ חכם‬for him to inspect it for him, as well. The reason is to show respect for
the ‫ חכם‬and in order to ensure that the inspection be done by an experienced person who is careful
and deliberate in halacha. Detecting a small defect on the blade often takes a greater degree of
focus, and the shochet is often under pressure.

Rosh (Chullin, Ch. 1, #24) writes that in his day it was uncommon for lay individuals to do ‫שחיטה‬
themselves, and it was entrusted to designated professionals who were scrupulous and careful.
The ‫ חכמים‬deferred to these trained ‫שוחטים‬and did not require the knives to be brought to them to
be inspected. However, the halacha never dispensed with the need for individuals to present their
knives to a ‫חכם‬.

4
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Beitza%20028.pdf

9
Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi (1), the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, defines, “food preparations” – ‫פש‬
‫ – אוכל‬as those activities that are performed directly with food. This is in contrast with Rabbeinu
Asher (2), the Rosh, who maintains that any activity that is required to be able to eat is included in
the category of “food preparation” even if it does not involve the food directly. Although the
Gemara3 rules that one is not permitted to perform preliminary food preparation activities, this
restriction is limited to those activities that could have been done before Yom Tov.

In circumstances where preliminary food preparations could not have been performed before Yom
Tov, e.g. the spit broke on Yom Tov or even if it broke on Erev Yom Tov but without sufficient
time to fix it before Yom Tov, one is permitted to perform the necessary preliminary food
activities. Shulchan Aruch HaRav (4) rules that one may not perform preliminary food
preparations activities on Yom Tov if there was time to do these activities before Yom Tov, even
if on Erev Yom Tov circumstances did not allow to make these preparations. (‫ או ס‬.)

Others (5) argue that the time to perform preliminary activities is on Erev Yom Tov and if there
was an ‫ או ס‬at that time, the activities may be performed on Yom Tov. There is a restriction
against issuing ruling publicly to allow preliminary food preparations on Yom Tov. This includes
ruling for one’s own family (6).

Furthermore, even one who knows this halacha may not perform a preliminary food preparation
in front of others if they will interpret that behavior as a lenient ruling because the act itself is the
equivalent of a lenient ruling (7).

10
Our daf discusses a number of heteirim involved in procuring provisions on Yom Tov, as seen in
the segments about how to “buy” meat, sharpen knives, or weigh other dry or liquid goods. We
see from this just how important it is that every Jew, eating at his own table or sharing ours, should
have enough to eat for the festival.

Rav Yisroel Salanter, zt”l, would say, “Yene’s gashmiyus iz mein ruchniyus—caring for another’s
material need is my own spiritual concern.” One erev Pesach, a man came to ask a halachic ruling
from the Beis HaLevi, zt”l. “Could the Rav please tell me if it is permitted for me to use milk for
the arba kosos at the seder?”

The Beis HaLevi answered straight away, “Absolutely not. However, I think that I might be able
to help you in another way.” Reaching into a drawer, he pulled out a handsome sum of money and
handed it to the man. The Rav said kindly, “Please go out and buy the wine that you need for the
seder.” The man thanked the Rav effusively, excused himself, and rushed off to buy what he
needed for the festival.

The Rebbetzin had overheard the exchange, and after the man left she asked pointedly, “I can
understand that you gave him money for wine. But why did you give him such a huge sum? There
was much more money there than he needed for just wine!” The Beis HaLevi answered, “I didn’t
need to be told outright that he needed more than just wine. If he was asking about using milk for
the arba kosos, it means that he does not have meat either! And if he can’t afford meat, do you
think that he can afford all the matzah that he’ll need for Pesach?

Rabbi Malkiyu and Rabbi Malkiyah.

Our daf introduces us to two people we may not have met before in our journey through the
Talmud — Rabbi Malkiyu and Rabbi Malkiyah. Neither appears a lot in the Talmud, so their
mention here is an opportunity to explore them in more depth.

We first meet Rabbi Malkiyu, a fourth-generation Babylonian Amora (later rabbi) in a discussion
about whether one can move a skewer on a festival once it has already served its purpose — and
therefore using it is not necessary for the festival itself:

5
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/beitzah-28/

11
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to a skewer upon which one roasted meat, it is
prohibited to move it on a festival.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav Malkiyu said: He may pull the skewer out and place it in a
corner.

Can we clean up after ourselves on the holiday if it won’t help with our observance of the holiday?
Rabbi Malkiyu says yes.

This dispute leads the anonymous editors of the Gemara to a statement by Rav Hinnana, son of
Rav Ika, which lists two other halakhic positions attributed to Rabbi Malkiyu: a halakhah about
what kinds of work slaveholding women can be required to do by their husbands, and a halakhah
about how we determine if a girl has gone through puberty. So far so good.

But then Rav Hinnana, son of Rav Ika, offers an important clarification. While Rabbi Malkiyu
taught these three halakhot, three other halakhot — a halakhah governing how Jews can cut non-
Jews’ hair, a halakhah about not simulating a tattoo (even accidentally), and a halakhah about
cheese made by non-Jews — were actually taught by Rabbi Malkiyah, not Rabbi Malkiyu.
Recognizing that these two names are very similar, Rav Hinnana, son of Rav Ika, tries to head off
any confusion.

Rabbi Malkiyah was a third-generation Babylonian Amora, which meant he was a generation older
than Rabbi Malkiyu. But the differences between the two are more than generational. Rabbi
Malkiyu’s halakhot seem to be most interested in issues relating to women and cooking — issues
internal to the Jewish community. Rabbi Malkiyah’s halakhot, in contrast, focus on social and
professional relations between Jews and non-Jews.

Rav Pappa offers another distinction between the two:

The teachings mentioned above that relate to a mishnah or a beraita were stated by Rav
Malkiya, whereas halakhot that are not related to a mishna or baraita were taught by Rav
Malkiyu.

The Gemara even offers a mnemonic to remember Rav Pappa’s principle:

The mishna is a queen (malketa — which sounds similar to Malkiyah).

This teaching might lead one to attribute different halakhot to each, based not on theme but on
their relationship to the Mishnah.

Rav Hinnana, son of Rav Ika, and Rav Pappa are not willing to simply quote Rabbi Malkiyu’s
halakhah about skewers in the context of the discussion about festival cooking and then move on.
Instead they stop and delve deep into who Rabbi Malkiyah actually was and what he cared about.
The Gemara is going to get back to questions about buying and cooking meat on the festival. But
before it does, we get an important reminder that people’s names — spelled correctly — matter.
What they teach matters. What they care about matters. And it matters that these names, teachings,
and interests are attributed to the right person.

12
Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:6
Having been taught in today’s daf (Beitzah 28a) that the only difference between the Shabbat and
Yom Tov laws is ‫ – אוכל נפש בלבד‬matters relating to food, the question is raised in the Mishna
(Beitzah 3:7) whether one may sharpen a knife on Yom Tov.

Significantly, the Mishna answers by ruling that one may not sharpen a knife in the usual manner
(i.e. on a whetstone). However, it does state that it may be scraped on another knife or, as the
Gemara then proceeds to explain, on a wooden sharpening board.

We are then taught in a Beraita that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the author of the Mishna and
considers the permission of ‫ אוכל נפש‬to include acts associated with food such as sharpening knives.
Still, as the Gemara then relates (see Beitzah 28b), while there were those who believed that the
halacha followed Rav Yehuda, they did not rule this in public (‫)הלכה ואין מורין כן‬.

Interestingly, this caveat features in how the Rambam presents the halacha (see Hilchot Yom Tov
4:9) who writes that ‘we may not sharpen a knife with a sharpener. One may, however, whet it on
wood, on a shard, or on a stone. [However], this law should not be publicized ( ‫ואין מורין דבר זה‬
‫)לרבים‬, lest [the indiscriminate] come to sharpen it using a sharpener’, and this too is echoed in the
halacha as found in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 509:2). But what makes a halacha
something that is not appropriate to be ruled in public? Surely if it is acceptable, it may be done
by all?!

As I previously explained in my commentary to Eruvin 7a ‘this principle of ‫‘ הלכה ואין מורין כן‬this
is the law but we do not rule so in practice’, which is invoked in numerous places in the Gemara
and on countless occasions in the responsa literature, is specifically concerned with the application
of halacha in the public space, and it is predicated on the notion that while a particular position
may be halachically valid and true (‫)אמת‬, ruling as such would be halachically unwise and therefore
incorrect (‫ )נכון‬given the significant possibility that this or other halachot will be transgressed if
this law would be widely promulgated, or given the possibility that Jewish practice and Jewish law
would likely be misinterpreted and thereby brought into disrepute were it to be practiced.

However, there are other occasions (such as our case) when one Sage takes this position of ‫הלכה‬
‫‘( ואין מורין כן‬this is the law but we do not rule so in practice’), while another views the situation
differently and therefore rules that ‫( הלכה ומורין כן‬this is the law and we should rule as such in
practice). Given all this, the Vilna Gaon (see his ‘Aderet Eliyahu’ on Yeshayahu 1:17) teaches that
‘a responsible judge needs to have a double dose of wisdom. Firstly, they need to be fluent in the
realm of the Torah and be able to deduce the law according to its true meaning. And secondly,
they need to be fluent in reading human behaviour…[All] this is alluded to in the biblical phrase
‘‫ – ְוִהֵנּה ֱאֶמת ָנכוֹן ַהָדָּבר‬and behold, the matter was true [and] correct’, meaning that [the judge must
ensure that] their judgement is ‫( אמת‬true) according to the law of the Torah, [and they must also
ensure that it is] ‫( נכון‬correct) based on their understanding of human behaviour.’

In our case, the desire to have a sharp knife to cut food on Yom Tov is strong, as is the desire to
use the best utensil to sharpen one’s knife. However, since the temptation to do so is so strong, it

6
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

13
was considered to be in the spirit of ‫ נכון‬not to publicize permission to do so - notwithstanding the
fact that the ‫ אמת‬is that it is permitted to be done on certain materials.

Rabbi Avrohom Sebrow writes:7

An Inwood resident was paid $15 (Canadian) a number of years ago to be a waiter at a melaveh
malkah in Montreal. The appetizer was gefilte-fish balls with an orange-colored sauce. My friend
was carrying a large tray of individual serving plates with these gefilte-fish balls on them, when
the keynote speaker said something quite humorous. My friend, not wanting to drop the tray,
placed it down while he laughed. The tray apparently wasn’t too secure, and it proceeded to
overturn. The poor individual who happened to be sitting there was now wearing orange trousers;
the orange-and-white gefilte-fish balls exited their plates and started rolling away in all different
directions as if they had minds of their own. Some of them made their way to the end of the room.
My friend now really burst out laughing, but not at the speaker’s joke.

For these fish balls to travel so far, they must have been well-rounded. Is there any problem on
Shabbos or yom tov of making perfectly round kneidlach or gefilte-fish balls?

Our Daf (Beitzah 28a) says that on yom tov one may not fashion a handle on a piece of meat to
make it easier to carry. Rashi explains that this wasn’t an elaborate handle, but merely a hole
through which one may stick his finger. According to Rashi, the Sages forbade this to demonstrate
that commerce is forbidden on yom tov. The Mishnah Berurah suggests that Rashi would permit
a cook at home to fashion a similar hole in the meat. Restrictions were only placed on the butcher.
However, other Rishonim suggest that fashioning a makeshift handle is itself problematic; it is
akin to fashioning a utensil. Therefore it is forbidden regardless of who makes the handle or hole.
The Mishnah Berurah (500:15) concludes that all would permit making a hole in middle of the
afikoman to hang on a wall! It seems from Rashi that it was not uncommon back then to walk out
of a butcher shop carrying meat in one’s hands. As an added service, the butcher would sometimes

7
http://www.5tjt.com/rotflol/

14
carve the meat in such a way that a handle would be formed. If we would do this nowadays we
could cut down on the amount of plastic bags used. Perhaps the local butchers should offer a
discount to those who carry their purchased deli in their hands without wax paper or plastic.

The Gemara contrasts the previous halachah, and rules that one is permitted on yom tov to carve
his meat into a shape. Rabbah bar Rav Huna was famous for cutting his meat into triangular pieces;
he wanted to make sure his meat was not switched in transit. His family knew to only accept
delivery of triangularly cut meat. However, the Mishnah Berurah (500:17) writes that this license
does not extend to pictures or letters. On Shabbos and yom tov, one may not carve the meat into a
meaningful shape or letter. Furthermore, this restriction is not limited to meat. One may not carve
any fruit into a meaningful shape. For example, one is not allowed to carve a watermelon into the
shape of a bird, or a cantaloupe into the shape of a basket. The reason it was permitted to carve
meat into the shape of a triangle is because that is not considered a meaningful shape. A square,
circle, or rectangle is not considered a meaningful shape that would be forbidden to be carved on
yom tov.

The Be’er Moshe (Vol. 8, 134) writes that it is permitted to braid challos on yom tov because no
meaningful shape is made. He writes, however, that making a challah in the shape of a ladder or
key would not be permitted on yom tov. The Chayei Adam (92:3) likewise rules that one cannot
fashion challos on yom tov into meaningful shapes such as a bird, whether one shapes the dough
by hand or uses a mold. (One of my relatives tries to shape her challah into different shapes
corresponding with that week’s parashah or holiday. Her family would argue that none of her
challos ever come out in a meaningful shape.) Based on this distinction between meaningful and
non-meaningful shapes, the Be’er Moshe writes that it is permitted to shape kneidlach or gefilte
fish into round balls. Likewise, it is permitted to use a scooper to make perfectly round balls of
tuna, fruit, or ice cream (Laws of Yom Tov, page 156).

15
This same issue applies also to decorated birthday cakes. Birthday cakes are often decorated with
squiggly lines around the edges or crisscross lines on the top. On Shabbos, it is permitted to cut
through those lines, since they are not meaningful. One may not, however, cut through meaningful
pictures such as roses or trees. So, too, one should not cut through letters written with icing on the
cake. (This is the generally accepted custom; see M.B. 340:16—17). But, the Mishnah Berurah
writes, one may bite into these letters or designs without cutting them first. He also rules leniently
regarding cutting a cookie that has words engraved in it (e.g., a tea biscuit) or cutting a cookie that
itself has a meaningful shape (e.g., a gingerbread man).

Rav Shlomo Zalman, zt’l, offers an interesting distinction as to why one may not write letters on
a cake on Shabbos, but one may bite into those very same letters. Generally, the prohibition of
erasing applies wherever the prohibition of writing applies. Here, however, one who writes the
letters on the cake is interested in those letters. One who eats the cake is only interested in eating
and couldn’t care less if the letters were there or not. Therefore, the act of eating the cake is
qualified as eating and not erasing.

When I was in Eretz Yisrael, I went to purchase a birthday cake from Angel’s bakery, which was
under the hashgachah of the Badatz Eidah HaChareidis of Yerushalayim. When I asked them to
write “Happy Birthday” on the cake, they told me that their hashgachah does not allow them to do
any writing on cake. They instead showed me plastic pieces that said “Happy Birthday” that I
could place on top.

16
 DER ALTER REBBE FUN CHABAD

What Is Hassidic Shechita?

Rabbi Alan J Yuter writes:8

There are resorts, hotels, and tours that advertise that they only use Hassidic shechita, the term
for the kosher slaughtering protocol. What is special about Hassidic slaughtering, why is it a
superior form of kosher protocol?

8
https://utj.org/viewpoints/responsa/what-is-hassidic-shechita/

17
1. According to Torah law, any and every halakhically observant Jew, man, or woman, who
knows [a] what the kosher slaughtering laws happen to be, [b] possesses the skill to
perform the slaughtering act correctly, and [c] is able to inspect the slaughtered animal to
ascertain that it did not have a blemish that would inevitably lead to its death, is by
Traditional, canonical Orthodox Jewish law trustworthy to be a ritual slaughterer.

2. Hassidic shechita is done [a] by Hassidic Jews [b] who buy into a Hassidic Judaism that
[c] requires standards not mentioned, mandated, or memorialized in the Oral Torah
library.

3. Hassidic Jews’ standards of kashrut maintain that the canonical standards, which are God’s
word, are nevertheless insufficient to fulfill God’s word. These Jews project themselves
as more strict, more Orthodox, more authentically religious, and therefore their slaughter
is a more kosher slaughter. Kosher slaughterers’ wives wear wigs, or shave their heads,
they often wear the culturally approved Kapoteh, which is cognate to the English caftan,
and immerse in the miqveh every day.

4. Following the Ashkenazi Rabbi Isaac, whose name is “Luria,” the Jewish male should not
shave his facial hair. Although not mentioned in the Torah, a man’s removing his beard
has been condemned as akin donning female attire [Deut. 22:5]. Hassidic “religion”
considers the growing of the beard to be a religious obligation and will therefore not
certify a kosher slaughterer who is clean shaven. According to Jewish law, the only
occasions when Orthodox Jewish tradition forbids shaving are [a] the week when the fast
of Av occurs, up to and including the fast day itself, [b] the intermediate festival day
unless one has is eligible for legislated dispensations in the Mishnah, and [c] a son for a
parent until he is rebuked for appearing unkempt and other mourners for thirty days. So
Luria was, consist with its intuitive, mystical wont, a great reformer. He also introduced
a Sefardic-like prayer regimen for Ashkenazi Jews, encouraging the abandonment of
traditional Ashkenazi prayer. Oddly, Hassidic Jews often wear their tallit tassels outside
of their trousers, against Luria’s own professed instructions. Street culture Orthodoxy

18
 often refers to this gentleman as the Ar”I ha-Qadosh, “the ’holy’ lion,” because his
sanctity, according to this mode of thinking, authorizes him to institute new sanctifying
norms which in turn make Jewry more holy. Once a rabbi is holy, lesser lights may not
subject his words to review.

5. Hassidic Judaism required glatt kosher standards, according to which the slaughtered
animal’s lungs must be examined for a disqualifying perforation. Neither Oral Torah nor
Ashkenazi “tradition” mandate this stringency. But the Hassidic “tradition,” by being
stricter than the Law, and by implication, God the Law giver requires, proclaims that
stringency is an expression of virtuosity. According to Oral Torah Orthodoxy, one should
prefer the lenient decision [bGittin 41b], observing the stringencies of Hill and Shammai
renders one a fool [bRosh Hashanah 14b], and performing an act that is not obligatory is
a commoner/idiot [yBerachot 2:9].

6. As noted above, any Jew is in theory authorized to performing the act of kosher slaughter.
The Talmud, the final and most normative articulation of the Oral Torah, explicitly
permits women to perform kosher slaughter. This canonical Tradition is superseded by
the mimetic “tradition” the mindset of which is not the Masorah expressed in Judaism’s
sacred library, but in the blind will of the faithful community and by the charismatic,
intuitional will of the “great sage.” This Ubermentsch rabbi is not subject to peer review
because he has no peers who are by law are not authorized to hold him to account.
Although both Sefardic and early Ashkenazi Judaisms found no difficulty in allowing
women to slaughter, the sexist mimetic tradition was constrained to casuistry to
reconstruct a Judaism that displaced the Oral Law by adding to it in order to make both
the law and its adherents more holy.

7. Jewish law requires that the slaughtering knife possess a sharp blade on one side of the
instrument. Blades that are exceptionally sharp become susceptible to nicks, which if they
can be sensed, disqualify the slaughtering. The first Lubavitcher Rebbe ruled that that
both sides of the instrument must sharpened. Whether this reform is grounded in the

19
 doctrine of soul transmigration, a desire to be “more holy” in God’s eyes, or an attempt
to afford the masses a means of being stricter, and therefore more authentic, than the
institutional rabbinic establishment, the ruling remains a reform. It implies that the
“Tradition” is flawed, it proclaims that Jewish law follows the will of the charismatic
leader, not the most reasonable reading of the Jewish sacred library.

What is at stake in Hassidic slaughter?

Many many years ago Shoichtim sharpened only one side of the chalaf (this led to an extremely
sharp thin blade but also made it more susceptible to pigimos).

The Baal Hatanya was “michadaish” that shoictem should sharpen on both sides making in a blade
that will hold better. This was a great idea that might have been welcome by the masses, only it
came at a terrible time when all innovations by the chasidim were looked at as trying to usurp
the mesorah of klal Yisroel. The Chasidim insisted on using only their knife and even at family
occasions would refuse to eat or even throw out the meat geshochten by a one sided misnaged
chalaf (even though Baal Hatanya wrote not to make a big deal). In some towns the chasidim
boycotted the meat causing a very big monetary loss to the kahal, as a part of the communal money
came from the meat tax and now a large part of the community wasn’t eating meat.
The Misnagdim were adamant about not going to use the chssidishe chalaf.

The hakpada on the usage of a knife sharpened on both side was called “Chassidishe Shechita”,
today this is meaningless because everyone uses the same knife – sharpened on both sides. Today
all Chassidishe Shechita means is chasdidim are shechting and adhering to whatever rules that rav
hamachshir decided makes them properly Chassidishe – i.e., wife shaves head, you toivel daily
and wear long coat.

20
 Controversy over Butcher’s Knives

As I understand it, it wasn’t actually stainless steel vs. something else (stainless steel
hadn’t yet been invented, anyway). It’s more an issue of the shape of the blade in cross-

21
section: the “old-style” knife was the same thickness top to bottom (and then the edge of
this was sharpened, so in profile it would be trapezoidal); the “new” one (called ‫סכין מלוטש‬
in the literature) gradually tapers towards the cutting edge.

R’ Shneur Zalman of Liadi discusses the matter in a letter to the rabbis of Vilna (an
excerpt of it is also published in his responsa appended to his Shulchan Aruch, no. 7).

He reports, first of all, that R’ Chaim Volozhiner quoted the Vilna Gaon as saying that
there’s actually no halachic problem with using polished knives; the ban against them was
due solely to the early concerns about the legitimacy of Chassidus. So once it was
recognized that Chassidus is not (G-d forbid) a heterodox movement, then that reason fell
away.

RSZ goes on to explain that there is in fact a halachic advantage to using such a knife.
There is a chumra, based on the opinions of some Rishonim, that it must not have any
detectable nicks at all (the opposing view is that small ones are fine, as long as a fingernail
doesn’t catch in them). With old-style knives, getting the cutting edge this smooth would
usually come at the expense of its being less sharp, while with tapered knives it is easier
to make the knife both sharp and perfectly smooth. So as this chumra became more widely
adopted, the new knife naturally came along with it.

“He insisted that Chassidic shochtim should use steel knives for Shechitah (instead of the
older wrought iron knives), to ensure the better observance of Kashruth.” . I once heard
that an innovation in English steel made steel more available around that time, and
therefore a viable option. A little research shows that English crucible steel took off in the
middle to late 1700s:

Crucible steel is steel made by melting pig iron (cast iron), iron, and sometimes steel,
often along with sand, glass, ashes, and other fluxes, in a crucible. In ancient times steel
and iron were impossible to melt using charcoal or coal fires, which could not produce
temperatures high enough. However, pig iron, having a higher carbon content and thus a
lower melting point, could be melted, and by soaking wrought iron or steel in the liquid
pig-iron for a long time, the carbon content of the pig iron could be reduced as it
slowly diffused into the iron. Crucible steel of this type was produced in South and Central
Asia during the medieval era. This generally produced a very hard steel, but also a
composite steel that was inhomogeneous, consisting of a very high-carbon steel (formerly
the pig-iron) and a lower-carbon steel (formerly the wrought iron). This often resulted in
an intricate pattern when the steel was forged, filed or polished, with possibly the most
well-known examples coming from the wootz steel used in Damascus swords. The steel
was often much higher in carbon content and in quality (lacking impurities) in comparison
with other methods of steel production of the time because of the use of fluxes.
In Europe, crucible steel was developed by Benjamin Huntsman in England in the 18th
century. Huntsman used coke rather than coal or charcoal, achieving temperatures high
enough to melt steel and dissolve iron. Huntsman’s process differed from some of the
wootz processes in that it used a longer time to melt the steel and to cool it down and
thus allowed more time for the diffusion of carbon.[1] Huntsman’s process used iron and

22
steel as raw materials, in the form of blister steel, rather than direct conversion from cast
iron as in puddling or the later Bessemer process. The ability to fully melt the steel
removed any inhomogeneities in the steel, allowing the carbon to dissolve evenly into the
liquid steel and negating the prior need for extensive blacksmithing in an attempt to
achieve the same result. Similarly, it allowed steel to be cast by pouring into molds. The
use of fluxes allowed nearly complete extraction of impurities from the liquid, which could
then simply float to the top for removal. This produced the first steel of modern quality,
providing a means of efficiently changing excess wrought iron into useful steel.
Huntsman’s process greatly increased the European output of quality steel suitable for
use in items like knives, tools, and machinery, helping to pave the way for the Industrial
revolution.9

...Most Jewish communities had been using iron knives, which were more difficult to sharpen.
If they were highly polished, they would quickly become knicked, and thus unfit for use. The
nuisance of constantly resharpening and repolishing them was not considered worthwhile.
Moreover, the polished steel knives had been deemed a new innovation, which some authorities
wished to avoid. The Alter Rebbe, however encouraged the use of the polished steel knives (see
Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Vol. 6, Responsum No. 7.

It appears that as steel knives stopped being an innovation and are easier to use in a factory where
there is little time to resharpen the knife, the non-chassidim had no more reason to oppose their
use and started using them themselves.

All the responses above are based on Hassidic sources, so some important information and context
may be missing.

I believe that the Litvish knives are/were less susceptible to pegamim (nicks, imperfections that
are problematic re the kashrus of the chalaf/knife), which is an important consideration in
shechita, while the Hassidic ones were sharper, but at the same time, more vulnerable to such
developing imperfections).

As stated above, technological changes need to be considered here as well to understand the
historical background.

9
wikipedia

23
David Assaf writes:10

10
Untold Tales of the Hasidim Crisis and Discontent in the History of Hasidism, Brandeis University Press 2012

24
25
 The Knife Maker

Rabbi Moshe Yurman is one of the few people producing chalafim, shechitah

knives. I sat down with him to find out about this unseen part of the kosher meat

industry.

Yossi Krausz writes:11

Not so many years ago, if you wanted kosher chicken for supper, you’d walk to your local butcher
shop, where they’d shecht a chicken and give it to you, still warm a, and you’d take it home and
prepare it.

11
https://www.amimagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/9P9A4288.jpg

26
That idea probably makes the children of today disturbed and a little queasy.

Of all generations of Jews ever, ours is the one that is least connected to where our meat comes
from. For us, meat is something that comes wrapped in plastic in the grocery store, almost
unconnected to a living animal. And at the same time, we’re the generation with the greatest
abundance of available meat of all types.

That strange dichotomy wasn’t something I was thinking much about when I recently visited Rabbi
Moshe Yurman in his Flatbush home. What I was coming to talk to him about was what he had
waiting for me on his dining room table: a very sharp, lethal knife. Lethal, that is, for animals,
because the knife was a chalaf, a shechitah knife, and Rabbi Yurman is a maker of such knives,
one of the few people in the world who have the expertise to do so.

But as we talked, he revealed to me that the economics of kosher meat and the culture of meat-
eating that we now benefit from cast interesting reflections in the steel of the knives he makes and
the lives of the men who wield them. And those changes that have gone on in the world of meat
production are ones that we who are the end consumers should know and think about, as well.

Getting started

Knives for shechitah can’t just be bought in a regular knife store, for both halachic and practical
reasons. That’s because they need to be long but not easily flexed, flat and not serrated, and they
must stand up to repeated cuts through the tough skin and structures of an animal’s neck. These
knives simply aren’t the type made for most other applications.

How does a person begin in the chalaf-making business?

For Rabbi Yurman, it was a matter of need. After years in 27ollel and then some time as a rebbe
at Be’er Hagolah as it was starting up, Rabbi Yurman decided to make parnasah by becoming a
shochet. He was working in Pennsylvania, shechting chickens. But he had a problem: He couldn’t
get knives.

27
‫”‪“The chalafim business is very small, because there are very few shochatim who need chalafim,‬‬
‫‪he told me. “Many years ago there was a fellow by the name of Mr. Miller, who died in about 1965‬‬
‫‪without anyone taking over his business. There was another person who made chalafim whose‬‬
‫‪name was Rabbi Witkin, who was both a rav and a shochet. He passed away in the mid-’70s. All‬‬
‫‪of their knives and equipment became legends. They weren’t replaceable, and they go for very‬‬
‫‪high prices.‬‬

‫‪“I didn’t get into shechitah through family connections; I plunged into shechitah on my own, and‬‬
‫‪I found it very difficult to find the equipment that I wanted and that I thought was better.‬‬

‫סכינים מלוטשים‬
‫סכינים מלוטשים הם סכיני שחיטה דקים‪ ,‬חלקים וחדים‪ ,‬שהחליפו את סכיני השחיטה העבים‪ ,‬משום שכדי להשחיז את‬
‫חודם של העבים כהוגן היו צריכים לוותר על החלקתם כהוגן‪ .‬הסכינים המלוטשים הונהגו בהוראתו של המגיד ממזריטש‪,‬‬
‫כדי למנוע שחיטה בסכין שאינה חדה דיה‪ .‬התקנה היתה שנויה במחלוקת במשך עשרות שנים בין החסידים והמתנגדים‪,‬‬
‫אך בסופו של דבר היא התקבלה‪.‬‬

‫רקע‬
‫הבעל שם טוב ותלמידיו עסקו בחיזוק עניינים בהלכה שהיו רופפים באותה תקופה‪ .‬במיוחד עסקו בעניינים ציבוריים‬
‫כמו שחיטה‪ ,‬עירובין ומקוואות‪ ,‬לפי הוראה שמימית שקבלו כי שלושה עניינים אלו עומדים ביסודות היהדות]‪.[1‬‬
‫במיוחד החמיר הבעל שם טוב בכשרות הבשר‪ ,‬מכיון שתורת החסידות העניקה משקל כבד לעבודת הלב‪ ,‬ומאכלות‬
‫אסורות מטמטמין את הלב]‪ .[1‬בהתאם לכך היה הבעל שם טוב בצעירותו שוחט בעצמו]‪ ,[2‬והפני יהושע שבדק את סכינו‬
‫אמר כי הוא רואה עליו את שם הוי"ה]‪ .[2‬גם לאחר שפסק ממלאכת השחיטה‪ ,‬כאשר היה הבעל שם טוב מבקר בעיר‬
‫אחרת שבה לא הכיר את השוחט ומעשיו‪ ,‬היה נוהג לבדוק את הסכין לפני השחיטה‪ ,‬דבר שעורר עליו את חמתם של‬
‫המתנגדים‪ ,‬מאחר שהוא ערער בכך על סמכותו ואמינותו של המרא דאתרא שהיה אמון על בדיקת הסכינים]‪.[3‬‬
‫בשונה מהבעל שם טוב שהיה נוסע מעיר לעיר ולפעמים והיה מגלה ברוח הקודש לרב העיר שהשוחט מטריף את הבהמות‬
‫בעירו]‪ ,[4‬תלמידו המגיד ממעזריטש היה ממעט בנסיעות‪ ,‬ואת תקנותיו לשמירת כשרות השחיטה הוציא לפועל על ידי‬
‫קבוצה של שוחטים במעזריטש שאותם לימד ומינה לשחוט לפי חומרותיו‪ ,‬חלק מתקנותיו עסקו בשוחט עצמו )כגון שלא‬
‫ישתה משקה משכר ביום שהוא צריך לשחוט(]‪ [5‬ובעיקר ביראת השמים שלו‪ ,‬וחלק בסכין השחיטה וחידודה‪.‬‬
‫קבוצת שוחטים הזו היתה הבסיס והמקור למסורת השחיטה החסידית לדורות הבאים‪ ,‬וגם רבי מנחם נחום מטשרנוביל‪,‬‬
‫תלמידו של המגיד העמיד בחצירו קבוצת שוחטים שלמדו מפי שוחט שלמד מפי השוחטים של המגיד ממעזריטש]‪ ,[6‬וכן‬
‫]‪[7‬‬
‫עשו שאר תלמידי המגיד כל אחד ואחד בעירו‬

‫ת ק נ ת ה ס כ י ני ם ה מ ל ו ט ש י ם‬
‫עד תקופת המגיד ממעזריטש שחטו השוחטים בסכינים עבים‪ ,‬שבשל עוביים היה קשה להשחיזם בצורה שתהא גם חדה‬
‫וגם חלקה בצורה מספקת‪ .‬רק המומחים הצליחו בכך‪ ,‬ואילו שאר השוחטים היו צריכים לבחור בין סכין לא חדה מספיק‬
‫או לא חלקה מספיק‪ .‬חלק מהשוחטים העדיפו את חדות הסכין‪ ,‬מאחר שחוסר בחדות הסכין עלול להביא לידי כך שתהליך‬
‫השחיטה לא יסתיים ללא לחיצה בכח לכיוון צוואר הבהמה‪ ,‬דבר המכונה בהלכות שחיטה "דריסה"‪ ,‬וגורם לבהמה להחשב‬
‫כטריפה]‪ .[8][6‬כמו כן חוסר בחדות מעכב ומאט את תהליך השחיטה‪ ,‬מה שעלול להביא את השוחט להתעייף בתהליך‬
‫השחיטה ולעצור באמצעו‪ ,‬דבר הנחשב כפסול "שהייה" בשחיטה]‪ .[9‬מאידך אי החלקת הסכינים כהוגן גרמה פעמים רבות‬
‫לפגימות בסכינים ‪ -‬דבר שעלול אף הוא להטריף את הבהמה]‪ .[10‬ואילו חלק מהשוחטים העדיפו את הצורה ההפוכה‪ ,‬סכין‬
‫חלקה מאוד אך לא חדה מספיק]‪][11‬דרוש מקור[‪.‬‬

‫‪28‬‬
‫רבי שניאור זלמן מלאדי‪ ,‬ממובילי התקנה‪ ,‬ביאר]‪ [12‬שיש מחלוקת רחבה בין הראשונים בנוגע להגדרת פגימה הפוסלת‬
‫את הסכין‪ ,‬האם צריך שהפגימה תוכל לאגור את עובי הציפורן]‪ ,[13‬או לפחות חוט השערה‪ ,‬או אפילו רק משהו‪ ,‬או שאפילו‬
‫כשרק מרגישים בפגימה ‪ -‬היא כבר פוסלת את הסכין ‪ -‬וכפי שכתב הפרי מגדים בדעת הרא"ה והרא"ש‪.‬‬
‫כדי להחמיר כדעות המחמירות ביותר ‪ -‬תיקן המגיד ממעזריטש לשוחטים שהיו תחת מרותו להתקין סכינים חדשים דקים‪,‬‬
‫חלקים וחדים‪ ,‬ולהשתמש לצורך כך בסכין המלוטשת כבר לפני ההשחזה‪ ,‬כלומר שהיא נעשית צרה לכיוון חודה‪ ,‬וקל יותר‬
‫לחדדה ולהחליקה]‪.[14‬‬
‫טעם נוסף של המגיד בתקנת הסכינים‪ ,‬שאותה לא רצה רבי שניאור זלמן לגלות למתנגדי התקנה‪ ,‬שסכין שאינה חדה‬
‫קשה לבדקה כראוי שאין בה פגימות המטריפות את הבהמה‪ ,‬מכיון "שהצדדים שלפניו מעכבים ההרגשה העצומה‬
‫בפגימה קלה ודקה מן הדקות שמחמת עביות הצדדים קשה להרגיש"]‪.[6‬‬
‫מעלה הלכתית נוספת בסכינים המלוטשים היא‪ ,‬שהשוחטים לא התעייפו כל כך בהשחזת הסכינים כמו בסכינים העבים‬
‫שהיו נהוגים בעבר וממילא היו קשים יותר להשחזה‪ ,‬מה שגרם לשוחט להתעייף כתוצאה מפעולת ההשחזה‪ ,‬עובדה‬
‫שהשפיעה על טיב בדיקת הסכינים וטיב השחיטה]‪.[15‬‬
‫לפי השוחט הרב דובער יוניק]‪ ,[16‬ההבדל בין סוגי הסכינים‪ ,‬שכאשר משחיזין סכין שלפני ההשחזה היא שווה בעוביה‬
‫בחודה וגבה )=סכין לא מלוטשת(‪ ,‬ההשחזה מתפרסת על שטח רחב יותר‪ ,‬וככל והשטח המושחז רחב יותר ‪ -‬קשה מאוד‬
‫להחליקה כראוי בלי לעגל קצת את שטח ההשחזה‪ .‬אך כאשר הסכין מלכתחילה עבה בצד אחד ודקה בצד השני )=סכין‬
‫מלוטשת(‪ ,‬ההשחזה מתבצעת בצורה עדינה יותר ובשטח צר יותר בסכין‪ ,‬וניתן לשמור על זווית ישרה‪ ,‬חלקה וחדה‪.‬‬
‫והטעם שלא תיקנו סכין דקה מכל צידיה‪ ,‬שאז שטח ההשחזה קטן יותר‪ ,‬ויקל להשחיזה בצורה דקה וחלקה גם ללא‬
‫ליטושה; משום שבסכין דקה מאוד ‪ -‬היא עלולה להיפגם במהירות‪ ,‬אך סכין מלוטשת‪ ,‬אף שהיא דקה ומחודדת‪ ,‬הרי‬
‫שצדה העבה מחזקה שלא תיפגם]‪.[17‬‬

‫המחלוקת‬

‫”‬
‫רבי יעקב יוסף מפולנאה בעל התולדות יעקב יוסף ‪,‬חרה לו מאוד‬
‫על המגיד מדוע חידש תקנה חדשה שלא היתה נהוגה בזמן הבעל‬
‫שם טוב ‪,‬ונסע למעזריטש במיוחד כדי לברר את דעתו‪ ,‬בליווי‬
‫תלמידו רבי משה ציסוס המגיד מטשונדוב‪ .‬כששמע המגיד ז"ל‬
‫על בואו של רבי יעקב יוסף מפולנאה יצא לקראתו‪ .‬מיד‬
‫כשנפגשו שני הצדיקים‪ ,‬שאל אותו הצדיק מפולנאה מדוע‬
‫חדשתם חידוש כזה אשר החלפים יהיו חד וחלק אשר לא היתה‬
‫זאת לפני רבינו הבעל שם טוב"? השיב לו המגיד‪" ,‬שבעוד הבעל‬
‫שם טוב היה בחיים‪ ,‬הוא הגין בזכותו הגדולה על כל העולם כולו‬
‫שלא יבואו לידי מכשול‪ ,‬ולכן היה די בכך שהחלפים יהיו רק‬
‫"חלק"‪ .‬אבל בימינו שהדור ירד במדרגתו עקב פטירתו של הבעל‬
‫“‬ ‫שם טוב‪ ,‬מוכרחים אנתנו לתקן תיקון גדול שלא יבואו העולם‬
‫לידי מכשול‪ ,‬ובזה תקנתי שיהיו החלפים חד וחלק‪".‬‬

‫–היכל הבעש"ט שנה ב' גליון ד' עמ' צב בשם הספר אמונת צדיקים‬

‫התקנה התפשטה במהירות ברוב המקומות בהם התגוררו החסידים‪ :‬אוקראינה‪ ,‬פולין קטן‪ ,‬פודוליה‪ ,‬וואהלין‪ ,‬וכן‬
‫בקהילות דובנא‪ ,‬אוסטראה‪ ,‬קרמניץ ולוצק‪ ,‬וכן בארץ ישראל]‪.[10‬‬
‫מאידך רבים מהרבנים המתנגדים לחסידות שללו את השימוש בסכינים אלו‪ ,‬בטענה שחומרא זו עלולה לבוא לידי קולא‪,‬‬
‫מכיון שסכינים אלו נפגמות במהירות‪ ,‬עקב דקותם‪ .‬בין השוללים היה רבי אריה לייב מבולחוב]‪ [18‬ששיבח את הסכינים‬
‫העבים‪.‬‬
‫ההתנגדות לשחיטה בסכינים אלו הייתה אחת ממאבקי המתנגדים בחסידים‪ ,‬והם הטילו איסור לאכול מבשר שנשחט‬
‫בסכינים אלו‪ .‬האיסור נכרך יחד עם החרם הכללי על החסידות‪ ,‬בחרם שהטילו חכמי הקלויז בברודי בשנת תקל"ב‪ .‬בנוסח‬
‫החרם נטען כי כל השוחטים אומרים כי לא נטען לשחוט בסכינים אלו בלי לגרום הגרמה ועיקור הסימנים]‪.[19‬‬
‫מאידך‪ ,‬על אף שהמגיד ותלמידיו ראו בתקנה זאת הידור הלכתי חשוב‪ ,‬הם לא פסלו את אלו שלא שינו מהשחיטה הנהוגה‬
‫מכבר‪ ,‬ואף לא נזהרו מלאכול בכליהם של אלו שלא הקפידו על תקנה זאת]‪ .[20‬אמנם אחדים מהם יצאו במכתבים נגד‬
‫האוסרים את השחיטה בסכינים המלוטשים]‪.[21‬‬

‫‪29‬‬
‫היו גם מרבני המתנגדים שהסכימו עם דעת המגיד ממעזריטש‪ ,‬ואף רבי חיים מוולוז'ין אמר בשם רבו הגר"א שמעיקר‬
‫הדין אין איסור כלל בשחיטה בסכינים אלו‪ ,‬ואם יצא איסור על כך מפי הגר"א ‪ -‬היה זה רק כדי שיתרחקו מהחסידים]‪,[22][10‬‬
‫ועל כך קבע בעל התניא שלאיסור זה יש דין נדרי שגגות שמותרים‪ ,‬לאחר שנתברר לכל שדרך החסידים אין בה כל‬
‫פסול]‪.[12‬‬
‫היו אחדים]‪][23‬דרוש מקור[ שהסכימו לעצם תקנת הסכינים המלוטשים‪ ,‬אך לא הסכימו לחדדם ביותר‪ ,‬משום שבראשונים נזכר‬
‫שלא לחדד את הסכין ביותר‪ ,‬שמא יהא חוד הסכין רך מאוד ולא יוכלו לשחוט יפה]‪ .[24‬רבי צבי הירש שפירא השיב לטענה‬
‫זו כי דברי הראשונים היו נכונים בימיהם‪ ,‬שהשתמשו בברזל לא מהותך‪ ,‬אך בשיטת הייצור המתקדמת אין מקום‬
‫לחשש‪ .‬רבי יהודה לייב מינוביץ' )אחי רבי שניאור זלמן מלאדי( אף מנה בספרו]‪ [7‬את מעלות הסכין המלוטש המחודד‬
‫היטב בכך שאפשר בקלות להרגיש בו אם הסכין נפגמה‪.‬‬

‫סוף דבר‬
‫בסופו של דבר‪ ,‬בעקבות אגרותיו הרבות של בעל התניא שבו מסביר את תקנת הסכינים המלוטשים בנימוקים הלכתיים‬
‫רבים‪ ,‬אגרות שעליהם לא קיבל כל מענה מניח את הדעת]‪ ,[25‬ולאחר משא ומתן ארוך]‪ ,[17‬והקרבה בין רבני המתנגדים‬
‫לבעל התניא]‪ ,[26‬בטלה המחלוקת‪ ,‬וגם החולקים הודו כי הסכינים המלוטשים מהודרים יותר]‪ ,[27‬וכך למעשה התקבלה‬
‫התקנה בכל ישראל]‪.[28‬‬
‫בתחילת המאה ה‪ 19-‬עוד היו מקומות בהם התפלגו החסידים ושאינם חסידים על רקע כשרות הסכינים‪ .‬למשל‪ ,‬עם גידול‬
‫מספר החסידים במולדובה נוכחו החסידים שרבים משוחטי האזור נמנעים מלשחוט בסכינים מלוטשים‪ ,‬ולכן תבעו‬
‫החסידים עצמאות במוסד הרבנות ובכשרות הבשר‪ .‬לאחר שדרישתם להקפדה על ליטוש הסכינים לא התקבלה ‪ -‬הקימו‬
‫החסידים מערכת שחיטה עצמאית‪ ,‬ובכך מנעו מהקהילה את הכנסות מס השחיטה‪ .‬דבר זה הוביל לסכסוך בין הקהילה‬
‫החסידית הגדולה לבין הקהילה הלא חסידית שהונהגה על ידי מוסד החכם באשי בראשות בני משפחת נפתולוביץ‪ .‬בשנות‬
‫השלושים של המאה ה‪ 19-‬קבעו השלטונות האימפריאליים הרוסים בראשות המושל הרוסי גנרל פאבל קיסליוב‬
‫את התקנון האורגני לנסיכויות הרומניות‪ ,‬והחסידים ניצלו את החקיקה החדשה‪ ,‬לבקש את ביטול מוסד החכם באשי ומתן‬
‫חופש התארגנות קהילתי‪ .‬לאחר תהליך בירור ממושך התקבלה תביעת החסידים ומוסד החכם באשי ההיסטורי בוטל]‪.[29‬‬
‫יש הטוענים כי המחלוקת על השחיטה גוועה באמצע המאה ה‪ ,19-‬בעקבות המהפכה התעשייתית שאפשרה לייצר סכינים‬
‫מקובלים על הכל]‪ ,[30‬מכיון שסכינים מפלדה שניתן להשחיזם בקלות‪ ,‬הפכו לזמינים וזולים]‪ ,[32][31‬וכפי שכותב בערוך‬
‫השולחן]‪" :[33‬ידוע שיש בזמנינו בערים הגדולות בתים מיוחדים לעשיית סכינים מלוטשים והברזל הוא ברזל‬
‫עשת]‪ ,[34‬מה שלא היה כן בדורות שלפנינו‪ ,‬וכל שוחט ביכולתו להעמיד שיהיה הסכין חד וחלק‪ ,‬ולכן אם אינו‬
‫עושה כן ראוי להעבירו או עכ"פ לקונסו"‪.‬‬

‫קישורים חיצוניים‬
‫שאול שטמפפר‪ ,‬לקורות מחלוקת הסכינים המלוטשים‪ ,‬מחקרי ירושלים במחשבת ישראל‪ ,‬כרך טו‪ ,‬תשנ"ט‬ ‫•‬
‫תקנת סכינים מלוטשים ‪ -‬מאמרו של הרב שלום דובער לוין באתר "אוצר החסידים"‬ ‫•‬

‫הערות שוליים‬
‫לקפוץ מעלה אל‪1.1 1.0:‬‬
‫בעל שם טוב על התורה ‪ -‬פרשת יתרו סימן יט‪ :‬שמעתי שתלמידי הריב"ש ז"ל היו‬ ‫^‬ ‫‪.1‬‬
‫יושבים ביחד ומתווכחים איזהו הדבר העיקרי שראש ומנהיג הדור צריך להשגיח עליו‪ ,‬יש מהם אמרו‬
‫שהעיקר הוא להשגיח על הזביחה שיהיה השו"ב ירא שמים‪ ,‬וכן בכל שאר ענינים השייכים לזה‪ ,‬כי ח"ו‬
‫מאכלות אסורים מטמטמים את הלב‪ ,‬ויש אמרו עירובין הוא העיקר כי הלכות שבת כהררים התלויים‬
‫בשערה )תגיגה ד"י ע"א( והאיסור חמור מאוד‪ ,‬ויש אמרו מקוה היא העיקר להשגיח שהמקוה תהיה‬
‫כשרה בלי שום חשש‪ ,‬כי אם יסוד בנין האדם הוא ח"ו בלי כשרות קשה לו מאוד להתגבר על הרע ר"ל‪,‬‬
‫ואחר זה אמר להם מרן הריב"ש ז"ל בזה הלשון‪ ,‬תיתי לי כי בעת הזאת פלפלו גם כן במתיבתא דרקיע‬
‫איזה מהם עיקר ואמרו כמר וכמר‪ ,‬והסימן הוא במקרא )חבקוק ג'( בזעם תצעד ארץ ר"ת זביחה עירובין‬
‫מקוה‪ ,‬כל אלה הם יסוד הארץ‬
‫^ לקפוץ מעלה אל‪ 2.1 2.0:‬זקן ביתו פרק א' משנה ג' אופן י"ג‬ ‫‪.2‬‬
‫^ ראה סקירה רחבה אצל‪ :‬חיים יוסף וולדמן‪ ,‬תורת השחיטה‪ ,‬ירושלים תשנ"א‪ ,‬עמ' קיא‬ ‫‪.3‬‬
‫^ ראה בשבחי הבעל שם טוב; וכפי שהתרחש גם באחד ממפגשיו עם הפני יהושע‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬מגיד דבריו‬ ‫‪.4‬‬
‫ליעקב‪ ,‬הוצאת תולדות אהרן‪ ,‬עמ' קנג‬
‫^ מגדל עוז ליהושע מונדשיין עמ' תסז‬ ‫‪.5‬‬
‫^ לקפוץ מעלה אל‪ 6.2 6.1 6.0:‬רבי יהודה לייב מינוביץ'‪ ,‬שארית יהודה‪ ,‬יורה דעה סימן א'‬ ‫‪.6‬‬

‫‪30‬‬
 ‫^ לקפוץ מעלה אל‪ 7.1 7.0:‬שארית יהודה‪ ,‬שער המילואים שם סי' לט הוצאת "אוצר החסידים"‬ ‫‪.7‬‬
‫^ "שבתער שאינו מלוטש‪ ...‬אי אפשר להיות חד וקרובה לדרסה אם לא שיהיה חלק"‬ ‫‪.8‬‬
‫^ אגרות בעל התניא‪ ,‬אגרת ק"ג "וזהו הדבר הקשה להיות חלקה וגם חדה להנצל מספק שהייה‬ ‫‪.9‬‬
‫בבהמה"‬
‫^ לקפוץ מעלה אל‪ 10.2 10.1 10.0:‬רבי שניאור זלמן מלאדי‪ ,‬שו"ת בעל התניא‪ ,‬סימן ז'‬ ‫‪.10‬‬
‫^ רבי יחיאל מיכל הלוי אפשטיין‪ ,‬ערוך השולחן‬ ‫‪.11‬‬
‫^ לקפוץ מעלה אל‪ 12.1 12.0:‬אגרות אדמו"ר הזקן‪ ,‬אגרת קג )מתמוז תקע"א(‪ ,‬הוצאת קה"ת‪ ,‬עמ' שעח‬ ‫‪.12‬‬
‫^ כלומר שכשבודקים את הסכין על ידי מעבר של הציפורן לאורך הסכין היא מתעכבת בתוך הפגימה‬ ‫‪.13‬‬
‫^ ראה 'שארית יהודה' שער המילואים סי' לט‪' .‬משנת יואל' עמ' מא‪ .‬קובץ 'יגדיל תורה' )ני‪ (.‬יט עמ' תו‪.‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬
‫נה עמ' שלא‪ .‬שולחן ערוך הרב סי' לח‬
‫^ חוקת הזבח סימן ו' אות ב'‬ ‫‪.15‬‬
‫^ כפי שלימד את הרב שלום דובער לוין‬ ‫‪.16‬‬
‫^ לקפוץ מעלה אל‪ 17.1 17.0:‬ראה אודות כך בארוכה בספר "שיעורי הלכה למעשה" לשלום דובער לוין סימן ב'‬ ‫‪.17‬‬
‫"תקנת סכינים מלוטשים" עמ' יא ‪ -‬טו‪ ,‬קישור בסוף הערך‬
‫^ שו"ת שם אריה‪ ,‬יורה דעה סימן ג'‬ ‫‪.18‬‬
‫^ חיים יוסף וולדמן‪ ,‬תורת השחיטה‪ ,‬ירושלים תשנ"א‪ ,‬עמ' קיד‬ ‫‪.19‬‬
‫^ ראה בתשובת הרב סי' ז בענין סכינים המלוטשים‪ ,‬שהחמירו בכך החסידים‪" :‬כי חלילה לנו להוציא‬ ‫‪.20‬‬
‫דבה על מדינות המקילין בזה וסומכים על הפוסקים המקילין"‪ .‬ובענין השתמשות בכלים של המקילים‬
‫ראה אגרת הקודש לרבי שניאור זלמן מלאדי סי' סא‪" :‬וגם יעידו עלי כל המקורבים אלי כי אינני נזהר‬
‫מעולם מכלים אפילו הם בני יומן"‪.‬‬
‫^ כך רבי שמעלקא מניקלשבורג‪ ,‬בכמתב שנדפס בספר שמן הטוב חלק ב' אות נה‬ ‫‪.21‬‬
‫^ אגרות בעל התניא‪ ,‬סימן סא‬ ‫‪.22‬‬
‫^ כך למשל רבי יהודה לנדא בספרו ההלכתי "יד יהודה"‬ ‫‪.23‬‬
‫^ ראו‪ :‬רבי צבי הירש שפירא‪ ,‬דרכי תשובה‪ ,‬סימן יח סעיף מ'‬ ‫‪.24‬‬
‫^ וכדבריו בשו"ת בעל התניא סימן י‪ :‬עדיין איני יורד לסוף דעת החולקים מה זה ועל מה זה ואם יודיעינו‬ ‫‪.25‬‬
‫עלי לשלוח תשובתם בצדם אם ירצה ה'‪ ,‬בבואי לביתי לשלום"‬
‫^ ראה בספר שיעורי הלכה למעשה שם עמ' טו‬ ‫‪.26‬‬
‫^ ראה ערוך השולחן סימן יח‪ ,‬ותקוני תשובה )ליפשיץ( עמ' ‪23‬‬ ‫‪.27‬‬
‫^ ראה דרכי תשובה סימן יח סעיף מ'‪ .‬ובדעת תורה סימן יח סעיף טו‬ ‫‪.28‬‬
‫^ "נוכחויות רבניות במרחב הרומני"‪ ,‬מאת ברוך טרקטין ולוציאן‪-‬זאב הרשקוביץ'‪ ,‬הוצאת ‪,HASEFER‬‬ ‫‪.29‬‬
‫בוקרשט‪ 2008 ,‬עמודים ‪406 - 402‬‬
‫^ הרב יצחק אליעזר יאקאב‪ ,‬גליון משמרת הכשרות‪ ,‬תשס"ג‪ ,‬גליון ‪ ,156‬עמ' ‪ ,3‬הרב יצחק מאיר‬ ‫‪.30‬‬
‫ליברמן בספרו "תשובות מבי מדרשא" סימן צו‬
‫^ ‪Israel Bartal, The Jews of Eastern Europe, 1772-1881, University of Pennsylvania‬‬ ‫‪.31‬‬
‫‪ .Press, 2011‬עמ' ‪.51-52‬‬
‫^ שאול שטמפפר‪ ,‬לקורות מחלוקת הסכינים המלוטשים‪ ,‬מחקרי ירושלים במחשבת ישראל‪ ,‬כרך טו‪,‬‬ ‫‪.32‬‬
‫תשנ"ט‪.‬‬
‫^ יורה דעה סימן יח סעיף יד‬ ‫‪.33‬‬
‫^ ראה מילון אבניאון ‪ -‬עשת‪ :‬פָּלדה‪ ,‬ברזל ָעשות )ִספרוּתי(‬ ‫‪.34‬‬

‫‪All the discussion regarding the Hasidic/Mitnagdic dispute remined of an earlier controversy‬‬
‫…‪that took place in England‬‬

‫‪31‬‬
 David Nieto (1654 – 10 January 1728) was the Haham of the Spanish and
Portuguese Jewish community in London

Pamphlet published by the London Bet Din in 1705 about Haham

12
Gil posted here about his publication of a new translation of London's Bevis Marks synagogue Haham David Nieto's Matteh Dan

ve-kuzari helek sheni, or second Kuzari, his defense of the Oral Torah published in 1714. The new version is called The Rabbis'

Advocate by R. Meir Levin [Yashar 2007]

32
 Haham Nieto himself was involved in a controversy in which he was accused of Spinozism by
congregants because of a derasha he gave in 1703. In it, he attacked the Deist view that nature
was a metaphysical entity separate from God. He noted that "Nature" was a term of fairly
recent vintage and that it is only another name for God's providence and therefore God and
nature are not separate (that is, it seemed, they are the same).

Appeal was made to the Haham Zevi [Ashkenazi] of Amsterdam, who reviewed the matter and
cleared him of the charge. Haham Zevi's reason was that for Haham Nieto God created nature,
whereas the view he was accused of, Spinoza's, was that God was nature. After the affair, Haham
Nieto emerged unscathed and went on to enjoy 25 more years as the esteemed rabbi in London.13

13
Here you can download a 13 page pamphlet from 1705, which includes the question and answer, published in Spanish and in
Hebrew: download

33
(Note how the Haham Zevi is addressed as "el Eruditissimo, Doctissimo, y Excelentissimo, Senor;
H.H.R." [Haham ha-rav] "Zevy Asquenazy.")

34
 A translation of the teshuva of the Hakham Tsevi in Solomon Freehof's "Treasury of Jewish
Responsa":

From the officers and leaders in the London congregation in England, the exalted and upright
magnates, officers of the sacred congregation Gates of Heaven, in the great city of London. May
God bless them with life and peace forever.

Your treasured letter seeking the word of the Lord for guidance has strengthened me and led me
to speak on matters beyond my competence. You ask me regarding a dispute in a subject that I
cannot search out. But we are commanded, Seek peace, and pursue it. The following is the essence
of your question.

Question:

The exalted sage, David Nieto, rabbi in the sacred congregation "Gates of Heaven," preached a
sermon in the congregation. This is its essence translated from English into our sacred tongue:

"People say (these are the words of Nieto) that I said that God and Nature, and Nature and God,
blessed be He, are both the same thing. I did say that, and I will defend and prove it, since David
defends the same idea in Psalm 147, as follows: He who covereth the heaven with clouds, who
prepareth the rain for the earth, who causeth the mountains to sprout froth grass, etc. But incline
your ears to this, O children of Israel, for it is the first principle of our faith: the name 'nature' is
only an invention of the later scholars of the last four or five hundred years. It is not found in the
words of our older sages. But God causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall, so it is clear that
God performs all these actions that the later scholars call 'nature.' There really is no such thing
as 'nature.' That thing that they call 'nature' is really God's providence. That is what I mean when
I say God and Nature are one. This opinion is right and pious and sacred, and those who do not
believe it should be called heretics." (The rest of the question develops Nieto's ideas in his own
words.)

35
Answer:

I note that the words of the exalted sage (i.e., Nieto) are the same as the words of
the KuzariKuzari is in all the usual editions), writes after many premises, as follows: "He, blessed
be He, is called 'nature' truly; as is mentioned there, He puts His seal on all created things." This,
too, is the opinion of those who give exact attributes to God when they say that God sits and feeds
all animals from beasts to insects (a phrase from the Talmud, Shab. 106b). (i.e., Judah Halevi) in
the first section no. 76 and no. 77.

So we (says Ashkenazi) congratulate this sage who preached the sermon, since he knows the
opinion of the philosophers who speak of nature. He despised the evil (of their opinion) and chose
the good with intelligence (a phrase based upon Isa. 7.15), the sacred words of the holy ones of
our people who say that everything comes from God's providence.

I have heard but I do not understand the complaints of those who murmur against him. Is it because
he said that there is really no such thing as nature, which should include all existence outside of
God? Do they consider this a diminution of God, that He works without intermediary? Let them
know that those who seek the intermediation of nature for the general management of the world
are close to falling over many stumbling blocks. But this is not so with those who believe in God's
providence in everything, for wherever they go, they walk securely. Of course if they (the
complainers) think that the words of the preacher referred to the detailed facts of nature -- as the
heat of fire and the wetness of water -- and they wish to accuse the preacher that he meant to say
that the heating or moisture is in itself God, as far as that is concerned there is not a single fool
or boor among all the skeptics of the world who would believe that -- let alone a sage among the
people of God, who believes in God and His holy Law? All the more then are the words of the
preacher clear and definite (when he says) that they (the objects of nature) revolve around the axis
of God's general providence, when he says that God alone causes the wind to blow and He causes
the rain and dew to fall. From this it is proved that God makes all these things.

Let not the stubborn mocker object, thinking that it is not proper to describe the working of God
by the name of nature, and think this is a diminution of His glory. What would they gain by shouting
complaints against this preacher? Behold, the great sage, Isaiah Levi (Hurwitz), known for his
wisdom and piety, in his famous book, Two Tablets of the Covenant, which is received with love
throughout the scattered homes of Israel, wrote at the beginning of his book, in the name of the

36
author of Abodat haKodesh ( Meir Gabbai, 15th century), who was a great and famous Sephardi
rabbi and whose books were scattered all through the world, that the reward for those who do
God's commandments and the punishment for those who violate them, are all natural rewards and
punishments. To this all who have eyes and knowledge in the wisdom of truth agree.

He continues with this argument:

So we must congratulate the great sage, David Nieto, for the sermon which he preached, whose
purpose it was to warn the whole people not to let their hearts go astray after those philosophers
who speak of nature (i.e., as a separate force, as do the Deists), for many stumblings can come
from that. He illumined their eyes with his true faith by saying that everything exists through God's
providence. So I say to him, may his strength increase. Whoever murmureth against him after
seeing my words, I suspect him of sinfulness. Now, although all these things are clear and plain,
and do not need further support to refute every complainer, nevertheless, I invited two of the most
educated scholars of our city to join me. After discussing the matter, all three of us agreed on the
words mentioned above, that they are true and just.

Written here in Altona on the 6th day of the month of Ab, of the year 1705.

Signed,

Zvi Ashkenazi, S.T.14

14
The initials S.T. are generally used by the Sephardi scholars in signing their name. They are taken by some to mean Siman Tov,

an omen of happiness; others take them to mean Sephardi Tahor, a pure Sephardi, which certainly Ashkenazi could not have used

in his own name.

37
 When Orthodox rabbis silence their own, they generate hazardous, far-
reaching small-mindedness

Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo writes:15

It is most disturbing that for the second time in almost 315 years the celebrated S&P
(Spanish and Portuguese Jewish community of London), an affiliate of its mother
synagogue in Amsterdam (of which many of my ancestors have been members for
generations), is at the center of a major eruption within Orthodox Judaism due to the
small-mindedness and deliberate misinterpretation of their rabbi’s views by some of his
colleagues.

On the 20th of November 1703, the venerable Chacham David Nieto (1654-1728), chief
rabbi of the S&P and a great Talmudic scholar, philosopher, mathematician, and author
of his remarkable magnum opus, Matteh Dan, was accused of being a secret follower
of the Dutch, Jewish, Portuguese-Spanish world class philosopher Baruch Spinoza
(1632-1677), who had turned his back on Judaism and declared that God was
transcendent but not immanent, denying His involvement in the affairs of humankind
and even His being the Creator of the universe. This doctrine, called pantheism, also
suggests that God is not a Personality to Whom we are able to speak, or Who can reveal
Himself to humankind through some type of verbal communication.

Chacham Nieto, in an attempt to refute deism (a very popular belief among philosophers
of his time), which teaches that the living God created the universe but is no longer
involved in it or in the affairs of humankind, said that God and nature are one and the
same. By this he meant to say that God is not only transcendent but also immanent and,
as such, deeply involved in the world. Unfortunately, he used the same words that

15
Untold Tales of the Hasidim : Crisis and Discontent in the History of Hasidism, Brandeis University Press 2012

38
Spinoza had used to explain his pantheistic views: God and nature are the same.
Misunderstanding Chacham Nieto’s words, the Ma’amad (lay leadership of the S&P)
thought that he was supporting Spinoza’s pantheism. They accused him of heresy and
wanted to fire him. When this matter came to a head, shaking the foundations of the
community, with far-reaching consequences for its future and for Judaism in general,
they wisely decided to ask the opinion of the world-famous Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch
Ashkenazi (c.1660-1718), also called the Chacham Tzvi, the former chief rabbi of the
Ashkhenazic community in Amsterdam who was then living in Altona, Germany. The
rabbi convened his beit din, studied all the relevant material from both sides, and
vindicated Chacham Nieto completely, telling the leaders of the S&P that they had
misunderstood their rabbi and that he must continue as their religious leader (1). This
ended a most unfortunate controversy and dangerous development within Judaism.

Now, more than 300 years later, a new scandal with major ramifications is again
erupting around the S&P — this time, regarding a lecture on homosexuality given by
its venerable Senior Rabbi Joseph Dweck. In this case, however, it is not the lay leaders
of the S&P who accuse their rabbi of heresy (in fact, they are standing with him) but
some influential rabbis in England and abroad who felt the need to accuse Rabbi Dweck
of heresy. In a tirade of mostly meaningless words, they attacked his integrity, faith,
and scholarship, calling him a wicked person and using even worse descriptions. By
doing so, they showed ignorance, bias, and self-interest and, above all, as in the case of
Chacham Nieto, they completely and probably deliberately misinterpreted what the
rabbi said.

In this remarkable lecture at the Ner Yisrael Synagogue, where the congregation is led
by my dear friend Rabbi Dr. Avraham (Alan) Kimche, Rabbi Dweck presented an
entirely new way of understanding homosexuality. Drawing on non-Jewish historical
sources, he explained that homosexuality was an accepted lifestyle in the ancient non-

39
Jewish world and, quoting many Jewish classical sources, he then specified what the
prohibition of homosexuality in Halacha is all about and what is not prohibited in a
same-sex, male loving relationship. He presented the different points of view and their
nuances, and expressed the idea that current Western attitudes toward sexuality force
traditional Judaism to rethink some of its core values, as it has always done when
challenged. While it is true that Rabbi Dweck used some unfortunate phrases in the heat
of his argument (What speaker doesn’t, from time to time?), nothing that he said was
outside the boundaries of established Halacha.

In fact, much of what he argued had already been said by Rabbi Chaim Rapoport, a
great halachic scholar in London, in his well-known book, Judaism and Homosexuality:
An Authentic Orthodox View, for which I wrote an approbation and which carries a
foreword by Emeritus Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks and a preface by the late Dayan
Berel Berkovits of the Beth Din of the (Orthodox) Federation of Synagogues in London.
However, that didn’t stop Rabbi Dweck’s rabbinical opponents from deliberately
misrepresenting him. Nothing but fear, lack of knowledge about homosexuality, and
personal (not so kosher) reasons seem to have motivated them.

One rabbi felt the need to scrutinize all of Rabbi Dweck’s lectures from the time he
came to live in London — a witch hunt of sorts — looking for possible mistakes the
rabbi may have made in earlier lectures so as to undermine his reputation, as if no
Orthodox rabbis ever make mistakes in some of their rulings. He completely ignored
the fact that Rabbi Dweck comes from a different Sefardic-Syrian tradition with its own
(halachic) practices and religious outlook on life.

Rabbi Dweck is married to the granddaughter of Chacham Ovadia Yosef, z”l, former
chief rabbi of Israel. But that didn’t prevent the current Chief Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef
and his brother Rabbi David Yosef — both sons of Rav Ovadia — from refusing to see

40
him (their own nephew) when he asked for a meeting. In fact, both wrote a letter to the
Sefardic communities of New York and New Jersey condemning Rabbi Dweck (while
never mentioning his name!) and asking for his dismissal, thereby showing lamentable
small-mindedness, a lack of general knowledge, and ignorance of the Jewish religious
philosophical tradition.

I have been told by reliable sources that by now Rabbi Dweck’s weekly lectures have
been cancelled and his former lectures removed from the Internet. Not only is this a
grave injustice but it greatly harms his remarkable and most successful influence in
London and beyond, in bringing people closer to our holy Torah.

The great danger of this unfortunate affair is not just the controversy surrounding Rabbi
Dweck. More than anything else, it is an indication of where British or perhaps all
European Orthodoxy is heading. When Orthodox rabbis are told that they are no longer
able to speak their minds, offer new insights into Orthodox Judaism, or try to find
solutions to serious problems by using innovative ideas, we are faced with a rabbinical
world that is wearing blinders, is comprised of yes-people looking over their shoulders,
and is generating a hazardous small-mindedness that has far-reaching effects.

Sure, there have always been differences of opinion within Rabbinic Judaism. This is
healthy, and Judaism has only benefited from it. But this was always done in a
framework of well-informed argument and discussion, not in tirades of meaningless
and hateful statements.

One of the biggest problems of current mainstream Orthodoxy is that it believes it is

41
What rabbis like those attacking Rabbi Dweck do not realize is that they are slowly but
surely becoming irrelevant. They may be great Talmudic scholars, but instead of using
their exceptional knowledge to make Orthodox Judaism more and more vibrant, they
drown in it and become stuck in the quicksand of intransigence, which they themselves
have created.

The danger is that in their stubbornness they take down all of British Orthodoxy, which
seems to be unaware or too immature to understand what is happening.

The task of great rabbis is to jump aboard the sinking ship of Orthodoxy, with knives
between their teeth, ensuring that a fearless Judaism, in full sail and in full force, will
sail the ship of Torah into the midst of the sea of our lives.

I call on:

The venerable British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis and his beit din to unequivocally
condemn the attacks on Rabbi Dweck and stand staunchly behind him;

Emeritus Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks to join Rabbi Mirvis in this endeavor;

My dear friend Rabbi Dr. Alan Kimche to resume Rabbi Dweck’s lectures in his
community without further delay;

The relevant parties to restore Rabbi Dweck’s lectures on the Internet;

The S&P to continue to show courage and to oppose with full force any attempt to fire
Rabbi Dweck and/or discredit him;

42
The New York and New Jersey communities to immediately invite Rabbi Dweck to be
their scholar in residence again;

Chief Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef, Rabbi David Yosef, and other rabbis to cease harassing
Rabbi Dweck and subjecting him to a meaningless inquisition; to begin listening to
what he has actually been saying; and to stop the witch hunt, which has no place in
authentic Orthodox Judaism.

And I call on Rabbi Dweck himself to continue leading and inspiring the S&P with
pride and self-confidence and spreading Torah wherever possible. Let him not forget
the wise words of Jonathan Swift: “Censure is the tax a man pays to the public for being
eminent” (2).

Let us hope that this story will end in the same way as did the attack on Chacham Nieto,
once again proving the power of Judaism when confronted with the lamentable closing
of current rabbinic minds.

(1) See Responsa Chacham Tzvi, responsum # 18 (Amsterdam, 1712). See also: Jakob J. Petuchowsky, The Theology of Haham

David Nieto: An Eighteenth Century Defense of the Jewish Tradition (NY: KTAV Publishing House, 1970).

(2) From Swift’s satirical essay, “Various Thoughts, Moral and Diverting,” first appeared in Miscellanies in Prose and

Verse (Leicester, UK: Scholar Press, 1711).

43