Month: December 2011

The Rav on Vayigash: 3 short insights

Notes from a shiur given in Boston on January 6, 1979. (מוצאי שבת)

Insight 1

I try to answer one question halachically. When the brothers come to Mitzraim for the first time to buy food and presented themselves before Joseph, were accused of espionage and denied the charges, Judah’s name is not mentioned. No matter where you look, he isn’t mentioned. We find in the conversation between the brothers and the Viceroy the word, “Vayomru” — (and they said) but it doesn’t mention “Who said.” “Vayomru” is mentioned in fact several times but not specifically who. Where does Yehudah appear?

In his debate with Jacob (where he appeals to his father to let them go a second time to buy food and to take along their youngest brother Benyamin as requested by the Viceroy). At first, it is Reuven – the oldest brother who intervenes right away and is rejected by the father. Much later, it is Yehuda. Scripture tells us there was no food and then Yehuda repeated basically what his brother spoke before him. Suddenly, he emerges from the shadows to the forefront. Apparently, his appeal was irresistible and was accepted. He could have said it before the food was consumed but waited till the point of starvation. When they come to Joseph’s house Yehuda again disappears in the background. When they were caught with the silver chalice in Benjamin’s possession, again, Yehuda is not mentioned. The turning point is where Yehuda is singled out in a solemn manner. Yehuda took over the leadership. The fact that Joseph couldn’t contain himself any longer is due to Yehuda’s appeal. Yehuda takes over when the situation becomes grave. Thus, it was grave when the food became low. Before the goblet was found they thought it was a joke on the part of Joseph. When the goblet was found however, disaster threatened. Yehuda takes over in the time of crisis. Technically, Reuven’s power still had not been removed till Jacob’s blessings in Sedra “Vaychi”. Yehuda takes over in the time of despair.

“Chazal” (Sages) says, “Reuven bchor shota” – Reuven is a fool for he speaks of “Jacob killing his children if he fails to return Benjamin – Aren’t his children Jacob’s also? Yehuda however, wins over with his oration. When Yehuda takes over, the mission will be implemented. The reason is: Yehuda will be Melech. From him will arise the kingship. I want to quote Rambam about the mission of a king. If a “novi” – prophet appoints a king, even if not from the house of David, and he follows the right path, he will be accepted. His ability must be to fight a war. He should think of one objective – to raise the standard – to establish justice, to break the arms of the wicked and to engage in a holy war because the whole purpose of appointing a king is to implement justice, to march ahead of the armies and to emerge victorious over our enemies.

The job of the king is two-fold: to enforce justice and fight the war. The word war, however, has to be interpreted. The word milchama (war) by Rambam is in a much wider sense than the literal meaning. I would say, “milchama” means time of crisis — military, economic, or spiritual. When there is a war it is a critical time. When times are normal there is no need for such unity. In times of war, we need unified, collected leadership. He is responsible for the well-being of the people and their continued existence. Secondly, the king is responsible for the principles of justice. The courts were composed of three, twenty-three, or seventy-one justices — and found in all the cities. But the king is necessary when justice is being trampled in time of crisis and is in danger of disappearing. When the principles of justice are being desecrated, where the people make mockery, the Bes Din (court) is not sufficient. For example, the Hashmonayim lived in critical times. They fought against the “mishyavnim” — the revisionists in combat and the power was seized by Yehuda Hamaccabee. He had the courage and ability of a king.

These are the two objectives which a Melech should pursue: general crises and justice. When the brothers first come to Joseph and he accused them of espionage, they thought he was irritated but not critical. After all, he acted like a gentleman, was handsome and in general conducted himself exemplary. When they finished the food, Yehuda smelled danger. His conscience was affected. “I must come forward at once, it is a crisis!” Later, he withdraws because again there is no crisis. He becomes humble, modest, withdrawn. When he comes before Joseph, they exchange gifts etc. Again he withdraws and his name is not mentioned. When the goblet is discovered and they tear their clothes in despair, now he must emerge. It is a critical time. They all come to Joseph’s house and Joseph understands very well that he’ll have to deal with them, but he thought it would be collective bargaining. However, “Vayigash Yehuda” — Yehuda stepped forth. Joseph had an intuitive feeling that he’ll have to fight with Yehuda and this he’d want to avert. Of course, they were aroused by the initial charge of espionage for it is wrong to be suspicious. But this was a conspiracy. “This Egyptian is out to destroy the house of Jacob.” After all, many nationalities came to Egypt and Joseph didn’t receive them personally. Here he singles out the house of Jacob. He is a fiend interested in destroying the house of Jacob and he will go on provoking and provoking. The possibility that the house of Jacob will be destroyed aroused the “Lion of Judah”.

It is time for the King Yehuda to come forth. Medrash says that the “Shvotim” (tribes) were not involved at all. It is a confrontation of 2 kings. The Torah characterizes Yehuda as a “lion”. Often, the lion sleeps and is unaware of what is happening outside. This “lion” slept when Joseph was sold. In time, when courageous action was desired the “lion” aroused to defend the principles of justice and to defend Jacob’s house. Yehuda appears courageous twice: — once in the affair with Tamar when she returned his goods for identification (when he accused her of harlotry and sentenced her to death. He could have remained silent but chose to forego his honor and publicly admitted his guilt). Secondly, was his defense of Benyamin. Yehuda was successful on both occasions. Why was he tested twice? Because there are two problems! Does he have power as an individual? Does he have power as a leader? Some people can only do one. Some have leadership but as an individual (over their own conscience) they have no power. Here he was tested on both levels. It was not easy to lower himself for an unknown girl. The second time he called the Viceroy of Egypt a liar.

Insight 2

There is another problem which is bothersome. When Yehuda came over to Joseph and wanted to engage in an argument what was the substance of his argument? He told him a story which Joseph knew very well. Basically, it seems strange to think that Joseph would change his position and let Benjamin go free. He merely told Joseph all which he already previously knew. He didn’t argue; he merely related a story. Therefore, what is the idea?

I believe that Yehuda told Joseph something new — something he didn’t know! It is like a lawyer telling a judge that which he already knows. Yet, he must have told him something which caused Joseph to break down and reveal his identity. Why did Joseph torture his brothers — charge them with espionage? I believe that Joseph pursued a double objective. First, Joseph wanted to make up his mind, “should I be loving and forgiving or should I be vindictive? Shall I be a brother or an Egyptian tyrant? The answer is: “It depends on them! Are they the wild Bedouins who sold me or have they grown up? Has the morality of Abraham taken hold of them? Are they or aren’t they ‘B’alay T’shuvah’ (repentant)? Have they changed in the course of time?”

Judah’s appearance changed his mind. He remembered Judah on that awesome day when he sold him. How Jacob would suffer to such a message. He had no compassion for his father’s feelings. Now we are told by medrash that Judah grasped the columns of the palace and shook them. He was ready to give his life. The one who repents is willing to give his life. I believe that Judah felt, Joseph will give in if he repeats the story. Here Judah shows his feeling for his father.

Deep down in his heart, Joseph wanted something which no one could give him. Joseph dreamt twice! Once he dreamt of the surrounding sheaves and the prostration of the sheaves. This was fulfilled! When the brother’s came and bowed there was no doubt about the reality in such a fantastic manner. His ego was satisfied. His brothers are beggars and prostrate themselves. Was the second dream a reality or is it a vision waiting to be recognized. Joseph wanted not only that the sheaves should prostrate themselves but also the celestial bodies! He was mainly interested in the second dream. This is related to the spiritual leadership which the “shvotim” (tribes) will prove. He wanted “malchus” (kingship) not in Egypt but in the Eternal City — the “Messiah”. He wanted all to prostrate themselves and recognize that from him will the Messiah issue forth.

In order to have all this he had to have one condition. When Joseph beheld the second vision, this is the one which he revealed to Jacob. Jacob declared, “Do you expect me to bow to you?” Jacob is the sun! In order to recognize fulfillment of the second condition, Jacob must bow. Jacob had the key – the control. Jacob will never accept and Joseph can never lay claim to “malchus”. His problem was, “How can he make Jacob prostrate himself?” Thus, he contrived the following plan. He will contain or retain Benjamin — fully knowing that Jacob will not remain in Canaan if Benjamin doesn’t return. He will come to Egypt, bow just once to the “Egyptian Viceroy” as a matter or protocol and the “malchus” will come to him. Judah did not understand all this but he felt that the strange Egyptian leader had an interest in making Jacob leave Canaan and come to Egypt. “Jacob will come without knowing the identity.” Should he know, he surely will not bow and Joseph cannot take over “malchus”.

What did Judah tell Joseph? “You are making a mistake. Jacob will never come. You cannot achieve your objective. If you keep Benjamin, Jacob will die but not in Mitzraim. You have lost your game! You’ll never force Jacob to come! “This is when Joseph broke down and realized that “Hashgocha” (providence) has different plans. Now he no longer could control his emotions!

Insight 3

“Vayigash alov Yehuda” (And Yehuda drew near to him). It should have said, “Vayigash Yehuda el Yosef”. This would have been perfectly acceptable Hebrew grammar. What is the difference semantically? In order to understand “alov”, we must study the end of Sedra “miketz” to find out to whom. The brothers didn’t understand the Egyptian. They really didn’t believe he was an Egyptian. “What could we really have said about him had we been exposed to him? We he brutal, capricious? He never engaged anyone else in conversation — the thousands who came to buy. The others bought, they loaded – they departed. Here he asked them all sorts of personal questions. Also they couldn’t understand Shimon’s treatment. Having seen him arrested and bound before their very eyes when they first departed from home, yet when they returned and Shimon was released and was questioned, “How were you treated?,” he answered “Better than ever!” When they come to Joseph’s house, they were wined and dined and exchanged gifts. It was strange!

Even after the charge against Benjamin they were not brought to jail or to the executioner, but to his own house. It was customary even at the time of accusation to throw all into jail. Here the text reads, “Cholilah” (far be it from me to take you all as slaves). In that era, a Yehuda rebuttal against Pharaoh (as he did) would have led to the gallows. Therefore, “alov” is Joseph — the cryptical figure; on one hand an Egyptian — on the other hand, a different kind of person. Even the word, “Baso” (his house) had the opulence of a king but the reminiscence of the quality of their own home. Even when they were apprehended, they were not assaulted and he didn’t shout. He used the language of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. It is more of a complaint person, not the language of a despot. Joseph was still the cryptic, mysterious figure which no one could describe. He was the man of their family!

Extremism rears its ungainly tail-Chillul Hashem in Bet Shemesh

The Gemara פסחים נא ע”ב, states—שלא ישנה אדם מהמנהג—when there is a custom in a particular city to behave in a certain manner, it is forbidden to acquit oneself in an alternative way. In particular, if there is an opinion to be stringent or indeed lenient in respect of a particular Halacha in a given town, it is forbidden to effectively inhabit  that town and alter the Minhag.

The Ramo in his responsa (שו”ת סי’ נד) considers the question of barrels that had previously been smeared with lard, and were now used to store olive oil. Was one permitted to use the olive oil if it sold in these used barrels? The Ramo decides that it’s permitted without qualification to buy the olive oil, and furthermore, this is a long and established convention. The status of this practice being a custom, not only means that it is limited to a permissive ruling. The Ramo expresses the view that someone who desires to be stringent based on the opinion of their own Rabbi, should not do so, even if that person is a בעל נפש—a punctilious individual.

On the category of בעל נפש, It is common for contemporary Poskim to decide Halacha, and then provide additional direction to the בעל נפש. This is found in the משנה ברורה and אגרות משה. (See also (חולין מד ע”ב) for a more fundamental source). Yet, in the case of the barrels, the Ramo specifically directs the בעל נפש to not be מחמיר. Why so? Surely one is always entitled to adopt a stringency? The Ramo’s reasoning is that since it is permitted and בני ישראל behave in consonance with that היתר, their practice should not be indirectly questioned in any way through the stringent actions of those who wish to take upon themselves an alternative ruling. There is much more to say on the general issue of חומרות. For example, in יו”ד סימן פט ס”ק יז, the Shach cites the earlier opinion of the Maharshal who considers those who wait six hours after hard cheese before consuming meat as not only “simpletons”—the Maharshal coins them as apostates (דברי מינות)! Not every חומרה is sensible, and one who is really a בעל נפש will be cognisant of not offending others or foisting their private practice upon the masses. המחמיר יחמיר על עצמו
The Maharashdam who was a contemporary Rishon at the time of both the Ramo and Beis Yosef, limits the aforementioned rule of the Ramo  (יו”ד סי’ קצג) to

  • a Psak which involves a דין דרבנן, a Rabbinic law. However, if one wants to be מחמיר because they fear an infraction of a דין דאורייתא, a Torah law, they may do so.
  • a situation where the act of being מחמיר is not assumed by the existing population who settled and live in the city. Newcomers to a town, may not exert their חומרא on the townspeople. (Note that majority or minority is not the consideration here; מנהג המקום is the determining factor and we do not say חוזר וניעור).

There are groups of people in Israel, known by many names, who

  • assume levels of צניעות which can only be described as חומרות
  • settle in existing cities, such as בית שמש, and not only wish to practice their own חומרות, but seek to force others to adhere to those same חומרות.

To be sure, members of these communities falsely claim that their standards are

  • not extreme,
  • involve איסורים דאורייתא, and
  • may even imply the need to act in a manner of יהרג ואל יעבור.

Such claims are  false.

The actuality is that צניעות is, by definition, a set of lines followed by a grey area. The grey area is defined and governed by societal practice. Societal practice cannot be determined by fiat, violent or otherwise; it is also relative to time and place.

Ironically, when extremist women commenced wearing black Burkas as an “extra” level of צניעות, even the usually strict Edah Charedis exclaimed that “enough is enough”. To add to the irony, the Edah objected despite the fact that one could cogently show that were one to live among Muslim women, it might well be a Rabbinic imperative to match their levels of צניעות! I don’t expect we will find such a judgement emanating from the Beis Din of the Edah even though I contend that such a ruling could quite cogently be constructed.

A line was drawn. Grey areas exist in every city, town or village. I do not hold the view that, for example, in Melbourne, one can talk about מנהג מלבורן unless it is something that all the religious communities have practiced and continue to practice. If Adass, the Litvaks, Ger or Chabad or whoever do things uniformly in a particular way, then it is a matter for those communities. They cannot and should not ever impose their practice on anyone else. Ironically, it may well be דינא דמלכותא that preserves the halachic status quo outside of the State of Israel.

Bet Shemesh, on the other hand, is and was, an established city and it had its lines and grey areas. Those areas were amorphous and pluralist but never included the consideration that men and women walk on either side of a road. (This was also not the practice in Poland, for example, except allegedly in Kelm). The line never extended to the disgraceful dehumanisation and targeting of women who wear Tichels and skirts down to their knees. The line didn’t consider a woman who “heaven forbid” displayed her toes through sandals as licentious and through whose toes was causing lustful thoughts in these less than holy בעלי נפש thereby “polluting” the atmosphere with such פריצות. (Yes, one lady wearing a long skirt and sandals was indeed set upon by unruly ruffians for this most trivial reason).

I have been disturbed for days by the sad picture of that little girl holding her mother’s hand while trembling on her way to school because she feared the modern zealots would spit and accost her.  שומו שמים … how far have we strayed from דרכיה דרכי נועם.

If zealots feel the need to build their own עיר מקלט city, where they can enact all level of stringency, that’s their business. If they are permitted to do so by the law of the land, then let them go ahead. If a person wants to live or visit, it would be a good idea to follow those stringencies within the boundaries of that city. This is not different from להבדיל Mecca, where Muslims have accepted certain extra practices only within that city. This would not ever imply though that mindless automatons are justified in resorting to spitting and other forms of violence if someone does not follow their city-based dicta. A city whose Rabbi encourages such practices of violence either directly or indirectly will face a דין וחשבון in due course. I would call such a city that duly practices such abominable acts a modern-day example of an עיר הנדחת.

For a little more perspective, let me conclude with a rather prophetic and incisive psak from no less a גאון than Rav Chaim Berlin ז’ל.  

Rav Chaim Berlin was the son of the famed Netziv (from the Netziv’s  first wife) and a half-brother of R’ Meir Bar Ilan. He was Rosh Yeshivah in Volozhin, Chief Rabbi of Moscow, and at the end of his life became Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem after R’ Shmuel Salant ז’ל.

R’ Chaim Berlin’s halachic responsa  were published posthumously by alumni of Yeshivas Chaim Berlin in the USA. In Even Ha-Ezer, R’ Chaim was asked by a  former student now in the USA what to do in the event that a woman stretched out her hand to him as part of common business practice. R’ Chaim answers that according to the letter of the law עיקר הדין there is no איסור because the act is not occurring בדרך חיבה—amorously—and since the student is visibly religious and is expected to be doing so simply as part of business etiquette, it is permitted. Interestingly, and this is the part that I found very impressive, R’ Chaim quotes the Gemara יומא פו:א

ואהבת את ה’ אלוקיך – שיהא שם שמים מתאהב על ידך

You shall love Hashem your God—[implies that] Heaven should become beloved [by others] on account of your hands [actions]

R’ Chaim contends that the person who is clearly a religious Jew, and is visibly seen as such, and who does not behave with common business etiquette is likely to encourage Non-Jews to think that Jews and their Rabbis are fanatical madmen! Accordingly, he says that failing to shake the hand, in the case of that student, would constitute a חילול שם שמים!

These are powerful words. I’m not a Posek suggesting that anyone simply make their own halachic conclusions based on this insight. However, it is quite clear, that we have witnessed over the last few weeks is exactly what R’ Chaim Berlin was warning us against.

The actions of an ungainly ugly tail of extremist Jews have through their own prescribed grey areas caused Judaism to be seen by many as no different to the Taliban or Salafist Wahhabis. My accusation extends to the imbeciles who berated a blind woman when she sat at the front of one of those new separate buses.

עת לעשות לה’ הפרו תורותיך

Women singing in the Israeli Army

It is well-known that during the British Mandate, there was an important event held in the presence of the two leading religious figures of that time, R’ Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook z”l, and R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld z”l. The former, of course, became the 1st Chief Rabbi whereas the latter was ideologically opposed to him and Av Beth Din of the Edah Charedis. At this event, in the presence of the British dignitaries, a woman began to sing. To be sure, they undoubtedly had no idea that religious men may not hear live singing of the female variety. The reaction of each of them is interesting:

  1. Rav Kook, a lofty man possessed with an ultra sensitive neshama, stood up in shock and made a quick exit. Nothing else existed at that moment. He instinctively removed himself.
  2. Rav Sonnenfeld put his head down and covered his ears with his hands.

None of us approach the lofty spiritual stature of these holy men. I dare say the same applies to Israeli army conscripts who find themselves at an event where women sing as part of the entertainment/process.

How would/should a Jewish conscript behave if they were part of a non-Jewish army and this occurred? I doubt that they would make a commotion or threaten to “die” rather than stay at the performance. It is likely they would put their head down and/or attempt to block the voice out. Why then in the Israeli army do Jewish soldiers behave differently, as reported in the press? Why do Rabbis of the Charedi Leumi variety demand the most extreme response? The answer is that one expects an Israeli army to be more attuned to the needs of religious Jews. That is a reasonable expectation. However, the reality is that respect is earned. Respect may not be demanded and it is not a byproduct of being genetically related.

We know that דברי תורה בנחת נשמעים, words of Torah are best delivered in a gentle manner. “We demand” is only going to make matters worse, especially in a society which is already alienated by religious jews on account of their not being seen to be pulling their weight in a State sense, and featuring prominently in various cases of moral and ethical malfeasance.

Dogma is part and parcel of our religion; coercion is not. Our purpose is to imitate God—Imitatio dei—והלכת בדרכיו. God, himself, gave us free choice.  What right then do we have to remove that בחירה from a fellow Jew? We are expected to be holy. Holiness means separation. We saw two expressions of that separation above: Rav Kook and Rav Sonnenfeld. What is the appropriate approach then for an ordinary soldier?

It’s obvious to me, sitting here in Australia, from the distance.

  1. Put your head down/close your eyes. Many poskim hold that if you do not see the person singing it’s not ערווה
  2. Bring your fingers up to your ear lobes and block what you can. You can even hum to yourself.
  3. Gently speak to your commander after the event pointing out that it was uncomfortable for you to be in this situation.
  4. Increase Torah and Derech Eretz in your military group.

I’m not sure what else one can or should be expected to do. Walking out en masse and creating a furore simply germinates the same enmity that has transported people to a situation where they already don’t respect each other.

It’s a short step from reacting in a virulent manner to tearing down posters and having Tznius police. Ironically, R’ Kook who did walk out, didn’t do so out of protest. His was but an ultra pure soul that literally fled from a remote smell of  איסור. His Rabbinic leadership was all about gentle enfranchisement and tolerance for those who were not yet observant. None of us are R’ Kook, including the conscripts who perhaps  imitate his reaction.

They have a chip on their shoulders, and much of this is due to unrelenting Charedi delegitimisation of their ideology. Years of Charedi attempts to delegitimise Mizrachi or Torah Im Derech Eretz type Jews are now manifest in less than diplomatic approaches to dealing with the reality of a State before the Geula. Dogma is expressed in virulent and uncaring tones.

We are all worse off as a result. I couldn’t see any קידוש ה’ ברבים

The amorality of the press

Software has bugs. That’s a given unless you have a formal proof of correctness with respect to specifications, something that doesn’t happen except in some areas of defence and health.

Facebook had a bug which allowed you to pretend that you were reporting inappropriate pictures and thereby gain access to a person’s private pictures. It’s a story, yes. It should be reported, yes, again. But, someone exploited this bug and then sequestered Mark Zuckerberg’s pictures. Zuckerberg is the man behind Facebook. Okay, that’s also a story. But, pray tell, what right does the newspaper have to print these pictures (even if they aren’t offensive)? Quite apart from legal consideration, is there any morality that deems it proper to publish someone’s pictures without their permission?

I find this repugnant. Who gives the press the moral right to (further) publish private pictures? Linking to the pictures as opposed to housing and publishing them is no better. It stinks.

Humanitarian Tikun Olamniks

It’s always interesting to read the articles on the Galus Australis blog. One article bemoaned the fact that Orthodox Rabbis had the audacity to state their view about marriage. The article purported to suggest that since marriage is effectively a matter of private ritual, Rabbis should have nothing to say about ritual in a western pluralist society. As usual, those Tikun Olamniks remove the words “BeMalchus Shakay”. It’s uncomfortable to mention those two words; they don’t fit a pre-conceived agenda.

The reason that Tikun Olamniks like to separate “ritual” from “ethics and morality” is sometimes related to the issue of separation of Church and State. There is a fear that if ritual is permitted to impregnate western laws, those who pine for a Godless or a progressively self-reforming and evolutionary morality will be stymied and forced to tow a particular religious line.

I am a supporter of separation of religion and state. A primary consideration for me is that religion is better served and internalised when it isn’t canonised by our political paragons of purity.

Ironically, that right of free speech doesn’t extend to an organisation whose name bothers some. So let’s fix a few things:

  1. lets call them the Organisation of non Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Humanist Rabbis
  2. lets assume they have been elected to their positions in a formal ballot
  3. lets assume that the laws of the land permit such a group to make statements outside of ritual.

What are we left with? We are left with the objection that since civil marriage isn’t ritual but a form of contract/commitment between two people, a group representing the major strand of Judaism should not comment about the nature of the parties to that commitment, if and when that issue is brought to the parliament and public eye.

Just imagine, if you will: parliament is drafting the parameters of IVF law. Should ORA not make a submission? If the IVF laws are problematic to ORA, should they make no statement? Or perhaps the issue of IVF isn’t as sensitive to the tikun olamniks as commenting about the institution of marriage?

Red herrings exist everywhere; sometimes even with a hechsher. One of the big red herrings at present is the statement which implies that there ever was some policy explicit or implicit to be “insensitive and non inclusive” to those with a disposition towards the same gender. I have read about not giving an Aliyah to someone who has married a non jew. I have read about not giving an Aliyah to someone who publicly desecrates shabbos. I have also read about not giving an Aliyah to those who have been accused of despicable crimes and await their day in court. I have never read that one should refrain from according standard honour to someone with a disposition towards the same gender. I have seen those with such a disposition get called up to the Torah.  Still, it is a positive step to make explicit that one should not discriminate/hate people because they have a gender disposition.

It is entirely appropriate for the Rabbinate to make comment and provide input regarding the authentic Jewish view of marriage. It is also churlish to call upon the Rabbinate to therefore also make pronouncements about idol worship and the like because these are noachide laws. I’m not sure I see a law being proposed that suggests that idols be formally enshrined as valid gods for the purpose of worship. You can assume, though, that if such legislation was ever proposed, the Rabbis would and should have something to say about that.

Of peeled eggs, onion and garlic

Is not having a Mesora (tradition) something to be concerned about?

If you took a range of Orthodox people into a room and asked them whether it was forbidden to leave a peeled egg, onion or garlic overnight and use them the next day, you’d get three different reactions:

  1. What are you talking about? My mother and grandmother and great-grandmother never had such a tradition nor did they pass such a tradition onto us
  2. I’ve never heard of that
  3. What are you talking about? It is well-known that this is entirely forbidden. I’ve never even heard of anyone permitting such a thing.

Unlike an “ordinary” question of Kashrus, such as how long one waits between meat and milk for which absolutely everyone agrees that one must wait, except that there are different traditions, e.g.

  1. six full hours
  2. into the sixth hour
  3. three or four hours

The question of eggs, onion and garlic left overnight is:

  1. Not a question of Kashrus per se
  2. Black or white. It’s either yes or no.

In other words, some will be concerned about it whereas others will simply not be.

If you look this issue up in the Gemora (נידה יז), it is intriguing. The Gemora says in the name of R’ Shimon Bar Yochai that leaving these (peeled) items overnight is a most dangerous practice and tantamount to “suicide” if subsequently consumed. Nu, it’s an open Gemora, as they say, with very clear and harsh language, so what’s the issue? On the contrary, based on this Gemora, avoiding such a situation should be common across every single orthodox home.

The mystery then deepens.

Open up a Shulchan Aruch and look for this Din. You will discover that you simply can’t find it. Both the Mechaber, R’ Yosef Karo, and the Ramo don’t mention this Gemora’s advice/din. That’s the prime Sefardi Rishon and the prime Ashkenazi Rishon. You search in the Rambam, the Rif,  and the major codifiers and you find that they too were seemingly not bothered or perhaps no longer concerned by this Gemora. They too do not codify any prohibition.
Chazal say (חולין י) that חמירא סכנתא מאיסורא—a danger (סכנה) is something we are more concerned about than performing a possible איסור.  With an איסור we follow the רוב (the statistical likelihood) however with a possible סכנה we will be concerned about a minute concern. If the reason then for R’ Shimon Bar Yochai’s concern is רוח רעה this would constitute a סכנה, so how do we explain the Rishonim apparently not being concerned about the סכנה expressed by the Gemora?
You are perplexed, and so am I, so you ask your Local Orthodox Rabbi. In all likelihood he will say
It’s best not to leave these things overnight and use them the next day
You will likely be advised that  you can avoid the problem by leaving a bit of the peel or root on the item because the effect of the רוח רעה is nullified by this form of protection.
The Gemorah also mentions another method of protection via אותיות—holy letters. There was a custom to write/carve a פסוק on an egg and give this to a child to ingest when they started their education. Without getting into the topic of how one can “eat” פסוקים, the fact that there were holy letters on the egg meant that the רוח רעה could not take hold. This is mentioned in regards to the Yom Tov of שבועות where clearly the egg had to be written on before Yom Tov (and left overnight) in order for the child to ingest it on Yom Tov itself.
Rav Belsky, who together with R’ Schachter is the major Posek for the OU has written a תשובה where he suggests that putting the egg, garlic or onion in a zip-lock bag (sealed) will also mitigate the problem. His reasoning is that the Gemora in נידה mentions a type of basket which won’t help as protection. R’ Belsky feels that’s because the basket doesn’t constitute a hermetic seal. I’m not sure I understand his reasoning because they did have jars in those days, and presumably a jar would have provided an adequate seal?
R’ Waldenberg ז’ל in ציץ אליעזר suggests that one might consider washing the egg/onion/garlic in order to remove the רוח רעה given that רוח רעה is removed in other cases via washing (e.g. in the morning on one’s hands, or before bread etc). I’m not sure I understand his reasoning because I would have thought the Gemora itself would have mentioned this as a “solution”. In addition, it seems that there are different types of רוח רעה. Perhaps the Gemora in :יומא עז which mentions the demon (and also :חולין קז) called “שיבתא” is suggesting that for this particular demon the רוח רעה is removed with washing, but perhaps the “one” associated with eggs, onion and garlic is unaffected by such washing?
So, what we can see thus far is that while there definitely was a concern about an evil spirit the major Rishonim from whose opinions we determine Halacha seemed to no longer be concerned with this evil spirit.
Why is that? Already we see תוספות in יומא and חולין state:
ומה שאין אנו נזהרים עכשיו מזה לפי שאין אותה רוח רעה מצויה בינינו כמו שאין אנו נזהרין על הזוגות ועל הגילוי”.
In other words, there already was at the time of Tosfos a view that these evil spirits had dissipated (for want of a better word). Interestingly, there is a tradition from the Gaon (as relayed by R’ Shlomo Zalman ז’ל), that after the death of the Ger Tzedek, originally known as Graf Potocki there was a further weakening of רוח רעה to the extent that one no longer had to be concerned about walking four cubits before washing one’s hands in the morning.
We also find similar views echoing Tosfos, such as the מהר”ם מרוטנברג who is quoted by the הגהות מרדכי on שבת to the effect that it would seem that these evil spirits no longer exist in our (his) time.
It would appear that the Rishon (codifier) who was concerned about the issue of peeled eggs, onions and garlic was the סמ’’ק in the early 1200’s in France. It could be argued that from the Gemora in ביצה י’ד one could also conclude that Tosfos were still concerned about the רוח רעה because they also used this reason to permit preparing crushed garlic on Yom Tov itself, but there is little doubt that the Rishonim almost exclusively, especially with respect to the codifiers ceased being concerned about the סכנה posed by this evil demon.
Logically, one needs to conclude that the Rambam and the Rif, the Shulchan Aruch and the Ramo were no longer concerned. Surely if there was even a small doubt remaining, given that we are talking about סכנה, they would have been מחמיר and explicitly codified it להלכה ולמעשה.
So, from the period of the Rishonim until the Acharonim, the prevailing view was, from what I can tell, one need not be concerned.
Seemingly, “out of the blue” in the early 1800’s some 500 years after the Rishonim, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav in דיני שמירת הגוף והנפש codifies explicitly that it is forbidden to eat eggs, onion and garlic that have been left overnight because it is dangerous. In case you are thinking that this is understandable because the Shulchan Aruch HaRav himself was a great מקובל and חסיד of the מגיד of Mezeritch, and may well have been מחמיר because the advice came from R’ Shimon Bar Yochai, but that a Litvishe Misnaged would not have been concerned and would simply have left this out as did most Rishonim, you would be wrong! The ערוך השולחן of Navardok, another major Acharon and Codifier from the era of the Acharonim is also concerned about this phenomenon. I haven’t seen it inside, but the חפץ חיים not in the משנה ברורה but in his לקוטי הלכות is also concerned by the issue, as was R’ Moshe Feinstein ז’ל in Igros Moshe (יורה דעה ג:כ). [R’ Moshe also deals with the two views of Tosfos mentioned above].
In summary: this is an issue which is (to me at least) mysterious. One could almost say
“There was once an evil spirit which the Tanoim were concerned about. That evil spirit seemed to have left this world because the major Rishonim didn’t warn us about it as they did other evil spirits. Suddenly? in the early 1800’s the evil spirit was again a matter of concern and Acharonim warned us about it”
Add this to the very long list of things that my little brain can’t understand. If anyone has heard an explanation about why this phenomenon seemed to re-appear, please follow-up in the comments section.
As I started, my personal view is that one should ask their grandmother and if there was no tradition, then there are certainly opinions that would justify both not worrying about it, or indeed worrying about it!