The Great Musical Note Scandal of 5786 and Two More

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman

This article discusses what, at this point. seems to be a four-part scandal.

PART ONE

It all began when someone pointed out that the artwork of a certain Kosher Jewish Magazine reflected the notes to a song that wished others a happy birthday of someone that is worshipped by many around the world as a deity.  The use of the notes depicting the song was surely an innocent mistake and by and large the vast majority of readers would not have known what the notes point to.   Most poskim are of the opinion that a belief in the Trinity as a three part deity and prayer to the trinity means that they are not praying to Hashem per se,

Christian theologians who are fully knowledgeable of their faith have a slightly different conception of G-d than Jews and non-Trinitarian Christians do.* But this only applies to knowledgeable theologians. Most gentiles DO have a proper concept of Hashem. These members of mainstream denominations of Christianity do not truly share the theology of their denomination. Their conceptualization of the nature of G-d is, what Rav Elchonon Wasserman describes as intuitive. A good percentage of the United States likely falls under this category and many in England as well.  As far as fin de siecle, Slabodka – well that is hard to tell.

Some poskim believe that modern day practitioners of the religion are just following the ways of their parents (Maaseh avosaihem b’yadeihem), and do not truly believe in the theological underpinnings (See Shulchan Aruch, YD 148:12; Bach ibid; Responsa Yehudah Yaaleh YD #170).

Gentiles Have More Latitude in Belief

The Ramah in Orach Chaim 156 cites the view of the Ran (end of first chapter of tractate AZ). He writes that in his time, when a gentile mentions idol-worship, he is really intending the Creator of Heaven and Earth to be the recipient — it is just that he is looking at it as if it was shituf: i.e. both G-d and (l’havdil) the avodah zarah entity who created things.

The Ramah continues, that “gentiles are not commanded against shituf — a belief in both G-d and (l’havdil) the avodah zarah entity.”

The reading of this Ramah is the subject of great controversy. Does he really mean that a gentile is not commanded against a belief in G-d plus avodah zarah? The Ran asserts there is no special prohibition of a gentile swearing to avodah zarah, but not that there is no prohibition in believing that avodah zarah can co-exist with G-d.

Dissenting Views

One might, therefore, be tempted then to read the Ramah as only referring to a gentile taking a business oath. Yet the Ramah elsewhere (Darchei Moshe YD 151) clearly refers to more than just permission to cause them to swear in the name of the Creator. Rabbi Akiva Eiger, in a letter to his son Rav Shlomo (new responsa, end), writes that one may not rely on the lenient view of this Ramah.

Yet, we find that the Chasam Sofer, Rabbi Akiva Eiger’s own son-in-law, writes in his Toras Moshe (parshas VaYishlach) that, in fact, gentiles are not commanded on shituf. There is also a fascinating Rashi on Tehillim 6:11 that finds fault with the gentile nations for making idol-worship central and minimizing the Holy One Blessed be He. Rashi is highlighting that it isn’t “sharing” that is faulty, rather it is removing the Creator as the principal. The Maharatz Chajes (Horios 5) also writes clearly that a gentile is not commanded in shituf.

*(The more “kosher” denominations are (1) Christadelphians, (2)Christian Scientists, (3)Dawn Bible Students, (4) Friends General Conference, (5) Iglesia ni Criso, (6) J’s Witnesses, (7) Living Church of G-d, (8) Oneness Pentecostals, (9) Members Church of G-d International, (10) Unitarian Universalist Christians, (11) The Way International, (12) The Church of G-d International and (13) the United Church of G-d.)

Pointing Out the Problem May Have Been a Bigger Problem

At the end of the day, the magazine’s error was probably less of a violation than actually having played the song, and it may have been questionable to broadcast or forward the critique. 

PART TWO

Another observer pointed out a competitor magazine that showed a picture of a Bais Midrash where the Yeshivaleit had their backs toward the Aron Kodesh. The Shulchan Aruch in Yore De’ah 282:1 writes that it is forbidden to turn one’s back to the Torah.  And while the Torah would seem to be contained in a different reshus – the accepted minhag of Klal Yisroel is to face the Aron Kodesh whenever possible because otherwise it is disrespectful. The observer also pointed out that the obviously AI generated picture of the Bais Midrash had a cross at the top of said “Aron Kodesh.” [To be dan lekaf zchus it could be that they were facing away from it (problem #1) precisely because of problem #2.

PART THREE

In the apology issued by a noted Torah scholar in a management role, observers noted the repeated use of the first name of the married woman in charge of magazine number one.  This seems to be against the position of the TaZ in the later half of Even haEzer Siman 21, citing both the Maharshal and the Bach.  Rav Elyashiv zatzal’s position cited in Bnei Yaakov (note 11) is also to be stringent and not refer to a married woman by her first name – even though m’ikar haDin it is permitted.  Rav Chaim Kanievsky zatzal also ruled that it is proper not to refer to a married woman by her first name but if it must be done it should be preceded with the term Giveret (See Ohaiv hashem Shaarei Tzion Parsha Sheet Balak Pinchas 5750). It happens to be that this entire topic is a machlokes Rishonim as to how to understand some conflicting Gemorahs (BM 87a and Brachos 24a – see Rishonim and Acharonim ad locum).

PART FOUR

And then there is the issue of embarrassing a person is like shedding his blood as seen from the Gemorah in Bava Metzia 58b.

The Gemorah there relates that a baraisa was taught by a tanna before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Anyone who humiliates another in public, it is as though he were spilling blood. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: You have spoken well, as we see that after the humiliated person blushes, the red leaves his face and pallor comes in its place, which is tantamount to spilling his blood. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: In the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, with regard to what mitzva are they particularly vigilant? Rav Dimi said to him: They are vigilant in refraining from humiliating others,

CONCLUSION AND THE GOOD NEWS

So there we have it:  Avodah Zarah, Gilui Arayos, and Shfichas Damim. The three cardinal sins for which we can do Teshuva for.  The good news is that these are days when Olam HaBah’s doors swing wide open, when mercy flows like water, and when teshuvah is accepted with divine embrace. 

And – if we do Teshuvah m’Ahava – that is love of Hashem, -our F’s turn into A’s.  Our traffic tickets turn into insurance discounts. Our crimes turn into Congressional medals of Honor. Our Aveiros turn to Mitzvos!

Rav Chatzkel Levenstien zt”l would recount how Rav Yitzele Peterburger zt”l would approach each Elul. As the holy month drew near, this tzaddik would stride to the Aron Kodesh, spread his hands skyward, and cry out with overwhelming emotion:

“Master of the Universe! Behold – I give praise and thanks that You have bestowed upon us this time of Teshuvah! We accept it with love and with joy!”

The author presents this article as a means to further knowledge of Torah, and the observations should be taken in the spirit of humor The author can be reached at [email protected]