Page 40 - EDOS Dinner Journal 2019_website

40 | FESTSCHRIFT

humiliation and dishonor upon their subjects, who will smile and participate due to
social pressures, concealing their true anguish. He further implies that the content
of the Torah itself can be subject to disgrace in this context, referencing an incident
in which a biblical story was performed with a key protagonist made to speak in a
fashion deemed grossly inappropriate. Similarly, R. Yosef Zvi Dushinksky writing
earlier expressed his strong opposition to Purim skits about the biblical story of the
sale of Joseph. Similar objections to the “Purim Torah” presentations were express
40
by R. Avraham Ya’akov HaKohen Pam. Also strongly protesting the Purim shpiel
41
practices are R. Moshe Shternbuch and R. Ovadiah Yosef. 43
42
While it is clear that many great rabbanim have developed a different and more ac-

cepting attitude toward both of these innovations, it is equally clear that the objec-
tions raised by the detractors represent very real concerns of tremendous spiritual
import. Thus, it must be assumed that the pro-shpeil and - Purim Torah camps are
equally concerned with these risks, and incorporate into their support mandated
safeguards and controls to protect against abuse. As such, these objections must be
carefully studied and valued in order to guarantee that that mandate is met.

Toward that end, it is worth considering the word “leitzanut”. In modern usage, the
term is usually relatively innocuous, denoting the kinds of skits that are common on
Purim and other such occasions. Similarly, a “letz” is a clown. When these terms are
used in a derogatory sense, it is usually to disparage content not meant to humor-
ous, e.g., referring to purported scholarship as leitzanut or to a self-regarding politi-

cian as a letz. However, in classical literature the terms seem to reflect negatively on
actions that play out as intended . A notable usage is the verse “Letz Takeh u-fesi
44
ya’arim” which midrashic interpretation understands as a reference to Amalek.
46
45
The reference is puzzling; casting one of the most vicious enemies of the Jews of
40 Responsa Maharitz, I, 56. R. Dushinsky bases his objection, among other things, on a statement of the Tal-
mud (Sanhedrin 101a, with Rashi which apparently condemns the usage of Scripture as a source of personal
entertainment).
41 Atarah LaMelekh, pp. 193-194. I was recently told that in his yeshiva, Torah VoDaath, R. Pam allowed skits
on Purim that lampooned him, but no one else.
42 Mo’adim UZmannim, II, 191, fn 2.
43 Responsa Yechaveh Da’at, V, 50.
44 See Ps. 1:1; Proverbs 21:24; Megillah 25b; Sotah 44a; Sanhedrin 63b. See also the discussion in R. Avigdor
Neventzahl, Sikhot Le-Sefer Shemot, pp. 129-139.
45 Proverbs 19:21.
46 Shemot Rabbah 27:5