web analytics
April 19, 2014 / 19 Nisan, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Reuven’

Parshat Vayeshev

Wednesday, December 13th, 2006

        Why did crime drop dramatically in New York City during the 1990′s? While many factors certainly contributed to the drop, criminologists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling suggested an intriguing explanation that became known as the “broken windows” theory. The essence of their argument is that in rundown neighborhoods, exemplified by the many broken windows in the area, more crimes will be committed. “If a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that no one cares and no one is in charge. Soon more windows will be broken, and the sense of anarchy will spread from the building to the street on which it faces, sending a signal that anything goes” (The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell, New York, Little, Brown and Company. 2000, p.141).
         In large cities, problems such as graffiti and panhandling, are examples of “broken windows” in as much as they reflect a loss of control of the streets. Kelling argues (as quoted by Gladwell) “If the neighborhood cannot keep a bothersome panhandler from annoying passersby, the thief may reason, it is even less likely to call the police to identify a potential mugger or to interfere if the mugging actually takes place.”
         In the mid 1980′s the New York City Transit Authority hired Kelling as a consultant. Following his advice, the Transit Authority made an all-out effort to clean up graffiti from all trains. Likewise, the head of the Transit Police, William Bratton ordered his officers to vigorously pursue fare jumpers and other relatively minor offenses. Sure enough, crime went down on the subways as a sense of order was restored.
         When Mayor Giuliani appointed Bratton Police Commissioner of New York, he expanded his “broken windows” policies to the city at large. By cracking down on small crimes and quality of life issues, order was restored to the city.
         Gladwell concludes that a criminal “far from being someone who acts for fundamental, intrinsic reasons and who lives in his own world – is actually someone acutely sensitive to his environment, who is alert to all kinds of cues, and who is prompted to commit crimes based on his perception of the world around him” (p.150).
         While it must be pointed out that there are people who argue with this theory and attribute the drop in crime primarily to other factors, keeping the streets clean and orderly has certainly made a difference. Not only did it help bring crime down, it has also helped keep crime down. Clean streets imply order and control, thus discouraging potential criminals from committing crimes. Unfortunately, there will always be crime, and police will need to respond to it. However, by implementing the lessons of the broken windows theory, fewer crimes will be committed.
         In this week’s parshah we are introduced to two types of leaders. While Yosef the dreamer is a visionary and proactive leader, Reuven is the ultimate reactive one. That Yosef is a visionary leader is evidenced in his dreams heralding a new future − and not just a future, which is a continuation of the status quo. That he is a proactive leader becomes clear at the beginning of Parshat Mikeitz when he instructs Pharaoh how to manage his economy to best avoid the pain and dangers of the famine. Additionally, Yosef advises Pharaoh how to use the coming crisis to consolidate his own power and strengthen the empire.
         Reuven on the other hand exemplifies the reactive leader. Although Reuven never did anything to improve the brothers’ relationship with Yosef, when the relationship hit critical mass, and the brothers were about to murder Yosef, Reuven devised a plan to save Yosef by temporarily placing him in the pit. The unfortunate fact that Reuven’s plans were undermined by circumstance does not detract from Reuven’s good intentions. The Midrash Rabbah (84:15) describes that as a reward for Reuven being the first one to attempt to save Yosef, his tribe merited having the first city of refuge built within its boundaries upon conquering the land of Israel.
         After analyzing the Midrash, the connection between the city of refuge and Reuven’s attempt at saving Yosef becomes obvious. Both are responsive measures. The city of refuge offers safety to an accidental murderer after the fact. It does not address the underlying reasons that the killing occurred, namely the cheapening of the value of life. Reuven − who likewise never addressed the underlying cause of Yosef’s brothers’ hatred of him, but rather only attempted to save him after the fact − was rewarded with an institution that served a similar purpose.
         Reuven represents the leader who attempts to solve a crisis. Yosef represents the leader, who through visionary leadership, avoids the crisis to begin with. In the real world, both types of leaders are necessary. However, the greater the amount of visionary and proactive leadership there is in an organization, the less need there will be for reactive leadership.
         The Gemara, Bava Metziah (85b) relates a dispute between Rav Chanina and Rav Chiya. Rav Chanina argued that his approach to learning Torah was superior because if, G-d forbid, the Torah would be forgotten he would reestablish it. R. Chiya argued that his approach was superior because he would ensure  the Torah would not be forgotten in the first place.
         Our national history has called upon the approaches of both Rav Chanina and Rav Chiya. At times Torah learning has had to be reestablished. However, as a people we have ultimately survived because of visionary and proactive leaders such as Rav Chiya, who ensured that the Torah was never fully forgotten.

         Rabbi David Hertzberg is the Principal of the Yeshivah of Flatbush Middle Division. Questions and comments can be emailed to him at Mdrabbi@aol.com

Q & A: Sharing A Name

Wednesday, September 8th, 2004
QUESTION: I am about to get married and it appears that my name is the same as my fiance’s mother’s name. I’ve been told that this is problematic. Please advise as I urgently need an answer.
No Name, Please
ANSWER: We must assure you that you need not worry and may proceed with your upcoming plans.We discussed this very question a number of years ago. Let us refer to that discussion.The rule that one should not marry a woman who has the same name as one’s mother – or that a woman should not marry a man who has the same name as her father – is based on Tzava’at Rabbi Yehuda HeHasid, the Testament of Rabbi Judah the Pious (a prominent scholar and mystic in Germany, 1150-1217).

The Pit’chei Teshuva (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 2:6; see also Yoreh De’ah 116:5) cites it in connection with the mitzva to “be fruitful and multiply” (Bereishit 1:28) and the rules as to whom one should/should not marry. He quotes the Chochmat Adam (123:13), who states that the rule only applies to a case where there is a threefold repetition; for example, if a man by the name of Reuven has a son-in-law whose name is Reuven, and he in turn has a daughter (the granddaughter of the first Reuven) for whom a man named Reuven is proposed. This would apply to the case of a mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law and granddaughter-in-law as well.

The Otzar Haposkim (Even HaEzer loc. cit.) cites many sources that find ways around the rule as stated in Tzava’at Rabbi Yehuda HeHasid. The Mekor Hesed, for example, quotes the Gaon R. David Oppenheim, who notes that if the father-in-law is called Shmuel Sabba, that is, “the older one” [while the son-in-law is referred to simply as Shmuel], that would not be considered the same name [even according to the stricter view of R. Yehuda HeHasid].

The Noda BiYehuda (Teshuvot Tanina, Even HaEzer siman 79), as quoted by the Pit’chei Teshuva, states that the Testament of R. Yehuda HeHasid was only intended for his own descendants; and even for his descendants it applies only to the name given at birth (or at the bris, for a boy), and not to a name that was added due to illness.

R. Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch states in his She’elot U’Teshuvot Tzemach Tzedek ? in the name of the Mechaber – that we are stricter in the case of a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, since it is mentioned in Mishnat Hasidim. It also appears, according to the halachic decisors listed by Otzar Haposkim, that it is only in this regard that there is any stringency.

Commenting on the likely reasons for that rule, Otzar Haposkim cites the Chida, the Heishiv Moshe and the Pri Hasadeh, who all state that since such a situation is somewhat out of the ordinary, it attracts attention and may therefore cause the casting of ayin ra’ah, an evil eye. He also cites the Maharil, who offers a different reason (siman 17): that the son will not be able to honor his mother after her death by naming a child in her memory. The Minchat Hakometz (siman 96), however, states that the problem of kibbud em can be resolved if either the mother or the daughter- in-law has more than one name – unlike the Maharil, who requires that it is the mother who should have two names. Otzar Haposkim also lists the Even HaRoshah (siman 31), who quotes the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 240:2; see also Rambam, Hilchot Mamrim 6:3) to the effect that if someone else has the same name as one’s father (or mother), one changes the name by which one calls the other person (such as an intended spouse) since one must not utter the given name of one’s parents even if not in their presence.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, zt”l, quotes the above mentioned Rambam statement in his Sha’arei Halacha U’Minhag (p.88), noting that it only applies to unusual names, but not to commonly used names such as Avraham, Yitzhak, Yaakov or Moshe and the like. Even so, he indicates (p.85) that we nevertheless add another name.

Finally, Otzar Haposkim quotes the Beit Yitzhak (Even HaEzer vol.2 siman 72), who gives a most compelling reason (which might have been particularly relevant when several generations in a family used to live in close quarters): a man might call out his wife’s name and his mother would respond, possibly resulting in a sinful situation. A parallel situation would apply to a father- in-law and a son-in-law with the same name.

This explanation is alluded to in an answer the Rebbe gave to somebody who asked about such a problem in a suggested shidduch (op. cit. p.86), where he states, “But only if they do not live in the same place.”

The Gaon R. Moshe Feinstein, zt”l (Iggrot Moshe, Even HaEzer siman 4), introduces another element. While he does not discount the stringent opinions found in the Divrei Chayyim, among others, which are quoted in the name of the Ari, z”l, he points out that there is no clear decision on that problem. He remarks that today, since the Hebrew name is at least slightly different from the secular name used in the country of residence, we do not pay particular attention to this rule. He also dismisses the suggestion of adding a name, for the bride will most likely not be called by that name henceforth, and all it might do is cause problems in case of a get.

He then discusses the possibility of adding another English name (so as to avoid any difficulty in case of a divorce) but dismisses this option as well, for the bride will probably not be able to establish a new calling name for herself. Her friends might laugh and not heed her request, or she herself might be embarassed to ask her friends to call her by a different name.

Rav Feinstein concludes that if the groom and the bride are not particular about the problem of the name, the opinion of the mother should have no bearing on the matter. In such a situation we rely on the principle that if the interested parties do not care, neither should we, and therefore the mother should not insist.

We convey our wishes of mazel tov to you on the occasion of your upcoming simcha, and may you build a “bayit ne’eman beYisrael.”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/ask-the-rabbi/q-a-sharing-a-name/2004/09/08/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: