Pinchas 2025: When Decrees Don’t Stick & When Rabbis Stick Their Noses Where They Don’t Belong
by devadmin | July 17, 2025 6:23 pm
Raboyseyee and Ladies,
In late breaking news…..
Mazel Tov to Avigail & Gabriel Leifer upon the birth of a baby son. Mazel Tov to Baby Leifer’s grandparents, Astrid and Mord Leifer, to great grandparents, uncles, aunts, and many many cousins. Details to follow.
Mazel tov to Bina and Isaac Levy and to Tamar and Dov Kahane upon the birth of a granddaughter born to their children Daniella & Duvi Levy. Details to follow.
——————————————————————————————————————–
When Decrees Don’t Stick & When Rabbis Stick Their Noses Where They Don’t Belong:
Two weeks ago, my friend of several decades (Risa Uvlin/Davis, let’s shout her out, why not) forwarded a news clip about a ban on eating chulent during the week. The decree and its aftereffect got me thinking and here we go.
According to informed sources (ChatGPT and others), Chulent (or cholent) – the traditional Jewish stew simmered overnight and eaten on the heylige Shabbis -at the shul kiddish, at home, and many other places- was not invented by a specific person, but rather evolved gradually in frum Jewish communities over centuries as a halachic solution to a practical problem: How to eat hot food on Shabbis without violating the heylige Toirah’s prohibition against cooking. According to some, eating hot food on Shabbis is a mitzvah. Mamish? Let’s check it out. Says the heylige Gemora (Shabbos 38b), azoy:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: כָּל הַמְנַעֵעַ עַצְמוֹ מִתַּפְשִׁיל חַם בְּשַׁבָּת — צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה אַחֲרָיו.**
מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּלְמָא מִינְהוּ.
Rav Chisda said: Anyone who holds himself back from eating hot food on Shabbos requires investigation (is suspect). Why? Because perhaps he is a min (heretic). Says Rashi (ד”ה דילמא מינהו):
מִינִים — וְאֵין מַאֲמִינִים בְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁאָסְרוּ לְהַדְלִיק וְהִתִּירוּ הֲנָאָה מִן הָאוּר בְּשַׁבָּת.
וְהֵם אוֹסְרִים הֲנָאָה מִן הָאוּר, וְאוֹכְלִין צָנוּן בְּשַׁבָּת.
“Minim” — they do not believe in the words of the Sages, who forbade lighting fire on Shabbos but permitted deriving benefit from a fire that was lit before. These heretics forbid any benefit from fire on Shabbos and eat cold food.
Of course, you all know that the heylige Toirah prohibits cooking or kindling a fire on Shabbis but people still wanted to enjoy warm food during the long day. To solve this, the Yiddin developed a method to start cooking before Shabbis (on Friday afternoon). Such food was left to simmer on a low fire -avada without adjusting the heat on shabbis- and to eat the bubbly chulent on the Shabbis day. Gishmak.
It appears that early versions of chulent date back to the times of the Gemora (roughly 3rd–6th century CE) and it so happens that the heylige Gemora (Shabbos 38a, 39b) discusses food left on the fire over Shabbis. In Babylonian communities, the dish was known as חמין, which means “hot things” or “hot dish, and in English,”chamin” or “hamin” was common. It often contained meat, grains, and legumes, cooked overnight. This item is still called chamin by Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews. In medieval Europe (especially in France and Germany), Ashkenazi Jews adapted the dish to local ingredients and cooking methods. This version became known as chulent.
Of course, in our times, chulent recipes have expanded as have people’s waist lines, and todays chulent recipes include rice, eggs, chickpeas, and spices for the Sephardic Jews while the Ashkenazim use barley, potatoes, beans, kishke, and meat and more. As well, modern variations, include, vegetarian, Moroccan, Yemenite, Persian, Hungarian, and even chili-style versions. What do they all have in common? What they do to our stomachs. Eat and enjoy on Shabbis, pay the price the rest of the weekend. Those around you don’t fare much better. The bottom line: Anything that bubbles on the stove or crockpot for that many hours, also bubbles in your stomach. The after effects are at times loud and not very pleasant, ober do such -almost guaranteed- side effects prevent anyone from eating chulent? Not! People love chulent. They love it so much they will eat it on Friday nights, and in recent years also on Thursday nights. Some eat leftover chulent during the week; in fact, some prefer it. Another bottom line: Stews have been eaten all over the world for thousands of years, ober, what makes chulent unique isn’t that it’s a stew, but how and why it developed among the Yiddin, particularly in relation to proper shabbis observance. The Yiddin, believing that eating a hot dish on Shabbis is a chiyuv (obligation mamish), latched onto chulent.
Ober, why is this relevant to Parsha Pinchas? Before I answer that question, let’s begin here. This past Tuesday, I paid a visit to my very dear friend- also of many decades- Rabbi Benjamin Blech, with whom I shared my topic of the week. He asked if I knew where the word chulent comes from. I did not! He then shared the correct etymology of the word. Chulent he suggested came from the French term “Chaud Lent”
- “Chaud” (French for hot)
- “Lent” (French for slow)
Together: “Chaud-lent” → cholent — literally, slow heat or slow-cooked.
This theory aligns perfectly with how cholent is prepared: Cooked slowly over low heat from Friday before shabbis until the next day. Finally, we got something good from the French. It’s meant to stay hot without actively cooking on heylige Shabbis. I need to see him more often!
Let’s get back to chulent and Pinchas; what’s the connection? A few weeks back, a rabbi out of Israel, on his own, singlehandedly mamish, issued a ban -of sorts- against eating cholent on any other day of the week except for shabbis. You read that correctly. One rabbi -with some chutzpah and game- seemingly on his own- decided to ban the eating of chulent on any other day of the week except the shabbis. Who is this fellow and what made him get his hands dirty with chulent? And is that myseh at all related to our parsha?
So happens that Parshas Pinchas, named after a not-so-gentle gentleman who received the RBSO’s first ever peace prize after he killed two people in broad daylight- mamish premediated murder- is partially about the appointment of Pinchas as the war general when the RBSO ordered the Yiddin to attack the Midianites for their involvement in the offense that led to the death of 24,000 players who partook in a sexcapade while also performing some type of idol worship. Seemingly, the Midianites either supplied the women, or were somehow otherwise involved. How? Ver veyst, but if the RBSO decided to seek revenge, they must have had dirty hands. Is that true? Didn’t we learn just last week that the Yiddin sinned with Moabite shiksas? Shoin! Our sages suggest that although Moabite women were involved in seducing the Israelites, the Midianites were seen as the main instigators and manipulators behind the scenes, especially through the advice of Bilam. The RBSO blamed the Midianites not just for direct actions, but for orchestrating and enabling the downfall of the hapless participants. The bottom line: Pinchas was rewarded for his zealotry. Veyter.
In previous postings on this parsha – year 15 comes to a close in a few weeks- the Ois wrote that although Pinchas acted as a vigilante -on his own without forming a consensus- when he decided to take out the two people having sex in public, and though he committed murder- the RBSO gave him a pass. Farkert: He was rewarded for his actions. In our times, President Trump has been nominated for the peace prize for his actions in Iran. He did what he had to do and though it was zicher violent, the goal was, and remains peace. He deserves the prize and many more.
And what about the rabbi who decided to take on all those who sell chulent for weekday consumption? And the many thousands who eat chulent during the week? Was the rabbi on his own? Did he have a consensus? What was he relying on when he declared the ban? Was it a real ban? Can a rabbi over in Bnei Brak Israel, issue an edict that affects the eating of chulent here in the Five Towns and elsewhere? Why stick his nose where it does not belong? Does his ban carry weight? Shoin let us begin with what the rabbi -seemingly wrote as reported online.
Senior Rabbi rules against popular practice of eating cholent on Thursday nights
Rabbi Yitzchok Zilberstein rules that eating cholent on Thursday night diminishes its Shabbat sanctity, warns it lacks blessing, and may pose health risks when consumed midweek.
Jul 8, 2025, 11:54 AM (GMT+3)
Rabbi Yitzchok Zilberstein, a senior legal scholar from Bnei Brak, published a halachic ruling against the widespread practice among yeshiva students to eat cholent on Thursday nights (known colloquially as “Leil Shishi” – Friday night).
Cholent is a stew usually made of meat, potatoes, beans, and grains, invented to circumvent the prohibition of cooking on the Sabbath. While traditionally enjoyed on Shabbat mornings, in recent decades, it has become common among haredi, religious, and even secular Jews in Israel and abroad to eat the dish on Thursday nights as well, usually at casual eateries known as “cholentiot.”
According to Rabbi Zilberstein, the practice is wrong and inappropriate. In a responsa, published in his new pamphlet “Divrei Chemed,” he quotes several sources from the Talmud and halachic scholars on the importance of distinguishing and honoring the Sabbath with special foods.
The rabbi even noted that in past generations, some were afraid to eat cholent due to health concerns, and the Bnei Yissachar assured that one does not have to fear, since on Shabbat the food is blessed. “However, one who eats it during the week is not protected from such dangers.”
He concludes the ruling: “Cholent is a food created especially for Shabbat, and therefore it is very correct not to eat it during the week so you could enjoy Shabbat with this dish. Especially since the dish is not healthy, and only thanks to Shabbat is it full of blessings, and it refines the body.”
Well blow me down! What about gefilte fish and challah? Or chicken soup? May we eat leftovers during the week? And potato kugel? Don’t we all eat leftover soup and kugel? At times, the soup is richer and better rewarmed. Is everything we eat on Shabbis off limits during the week? Really? What the hec was this good rabbi smoking when he decided to ban chulent during the week and especially so on Thursday nights when thousands of yeshiva boys all over the world are out and about enjoying chulent on leil shishi?
Is he a zealot as was Pinchas? Was he but looking for some attention? Stirring the pot so to speak? Was anyone going to follow his nonsensical decree? And this question: Was he the first rabbi to issue nonsensical edicts? Not! The heylige Gemora and other sources recount several instances where a rabbi, or a group of them, decided to issue bans and the consequences of their actions. Let’s read about a few.
The heylige Gemora (Avoidah Zarah 36a–37) tells us that Beis Shammai enacted 18 gezeiros (decrees, edicts), including a ban on oil produced by goyim. What happened? The tzibbur (general public) could not uphold it, the decree was too difficult to uphold. Over time, these were widely ignored, and later batei din (Jewish courts) quietly annulled or stopped enforcing them. Lesson: A decree that is not upheld may erode respect for the heylige Toirah law itself. The bottom line: Leaders must know when to let go. The ban on gentile oil was later repealed by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, because: “אין הציבור יכול לעמוד בה” — The people could not manage without it. The repeal became accepted halacha. Another bottom-line lesson: Real Toirah leadership requires not only vision but flexibility grounded in communal reality.
Chazal originally banned the teaching of Greek (Yevanis), language especially during times of war and Hellenistic influence. The Toisefta (Soitah 15:8) and Gemora (Soitah 49b) tells us azoy: During turbulent times, our sages banned the Greek language to protect Jewish identity. But the decree was later weakened or ignored, and permitted for members of certain families (e.g., the family of Rabban Gamliel), because it was widely needed, especially for political/diplomatic purposes. The public could not manage without it and the blanket ban was softened. In this case, rabbinic authority made room for facts on the ground reality.
At some point, Medieval Ashkenazic communities enacted many takkanos to reduce economic strain and social pressure, limiting wedding spending and jewelry. Did the people follow the edicts? Not! These were hotly debated and often not accepted by the public:
Chazal prohibited shaving during Chol HaMoed to encourage people to shave beforehand. But over time, many people did not accept the spirit of the takkanah — and some halachic decision makers (poiskim) later allowed limited shaving if, there was discomfort, if one started a new job, and if one hadn’t shaved due to oiness (situation beyond his control) before Yom Tov. It was not a full repeal, but it showed halachic adaptation to real-world rejection.
Takkanas HaKehilla — Economic or Modesty Rules Ignored. In medieval Ashkenaz and later communities in Europe, Rabbinic leaders made communal decrees (takkanot) such as: how much jewelry women could wear, how lavish weddings could be and tried imposing limits on dowries. What happened? These were often ignored or circumvented. The bottom line: If enforcement failed, the takkanos were either quietly dropped or formally annulled in later generations. The bottom line: Yet another example of bottom-up pressure reshaping halachic practice.
Takkanos HaGeonim — Marriage Without a Kesubah. During the Geonic period, it became common in some regions for men to marry without a formal kesubah (financial marriage document). The Geonim enacted takkanos requiring kesubahs. But in some cases, where the community was noncompliant or incapable, later rabbis had to adjust the requirement or emphasize other protections.
And the bottom lines of the enacted and then modified or totally rescinded decrees is azoy: Throughout Jewish history, there have been takkanos (rabbinic decrees or enactments) that were repealed, modified, or ignored because the people did not accept them. Says the Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim 2:5) this halachic principle: If a Beis Din enacts a takkanah that is not accepted by the tzibbur, it may be annulled. This codifies the idea that Toirah leadership includes the ability to respond to reality. Says Rav Tzadok HaKohen that the heylige Toirah must enter the hearts of the people to truly become Toirah in their generation. A law the people cannot absorb spiritually may fail to sanctify. This concept raboyseyee, is actually grounded in halacha itself as discussed in the heylige Gemora Avoidah Zarah 36a, Beitzah 5b
“גזירה שאין הציבור יכול לעמוד בה — אין גוזרין אותה לכתחילה.”
“We do not issue a decree the public cannot uphold.”
There’s more: Says the heylige Gemora (P’sochim 30a): “If a decree is made, and it spreads through all of Israel — it stands. If it does not spread — it is annulled.” The bottom line: “We don’t enact a decree unless most of the community can uphold it.”
In Hebrew: “לא גזרו גזירה על הציבור אלא אם כן רוב הציבור יכולים לעמוד בה”
Says the heylige Ois azoy: Were one or more rabbis to decree one day Yom Tov instead of two outside of Israel, it would spread like gossip and compliance would be near 100%. Try us!
Might we be able to compare the action of Pinchas to the action taken by Rabbi Silberberg, he, now famous for the chulent ban? One could argue that this is indeed a very intriguing comparison. In a metaphorical sense, one could argue that Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein’s original psak (ruling) had shades of Pinchas-like zeal: A passionate and somewhat solitary act meant to protect holiness, even if it ran counter to popular custom or expectation. In our parsha we read this:
וַיַּרְא פִּינְחָס… וַיָּקָם מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה וַיִּקַּח רֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ
“Pinchas… rose from among the congregation and took a spear in his hand…” (Bamidbar 25:7)
Pinchas acted alone, without waiting for consensus. Our sages of the heylige Gemora (Sanhedrin 82a) tell us that his act was halachically permitted but not commanded. He acted with kin’ah — righteous zeal — to defend the honor of the RBSO and restore sanctity at a moment of moral collapse. As to the chulent edict, like Pinchas, Rabbi Zilberstein thought he saw a creeping erosion of spiritual values. In this case, the encroachment of weekday indulgence on something historically reserved for the heylige shabbis. His initial ruling went beyond the letter of the law as there is clearly no halachic issur on weekday chulent just as there was no explicit directive for Pinchas to act. We might even argue that his intentions were good. On the other hand, we could argue that he had no business getting involved in this matter.
Yet, a very strange thing happened in the days immediately following his edict. It became instantly clear to him and his family that no one, or more accurately stated, very few -maybe his own family and close friends- would follow this narishkeyt (silliness) and mamish within days, a family member posted the following explanation. In plain English, the edict was quickly rescinded. Let’s read it as it appeared, below:
“After a recent psak halacha suggesting that cholent should ideally be reserved for Shabbos, Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein has now clarified that there is no prohibition against serving the dish during the week in yeshivos or at simchos. He emphasized that his earlier statement was intended as guidance for enhancing Shabbos, not as a sweeping ban.”
The clarification was published by Rav Zilberstein’s grandson, Rav Chaim Malin, who noted that “in response to many inquiries” following the widely circulated ruling on Matzav.com. Rav Zilberstein wanted to make clear that it is certainly permissible for yeshiva students to enjoy cholent during the week.
Following the original psak, numerous questions were raised regarding whether it would be appropriate to serve cholent at family celebrations like weddings and bar mitzvahs. Rav Zilberstein responded unequivocally: meals that are considered seudos mitzvah—where it is customary to serve cholent—may certainly include the dish.
One particular question involved yeshivos ketanos (mesivtos) that traditionally serve cholent on Thursday nights. Rav Zilberstein stated firmly, “Of course they should eat and be satisfied,” adding that bochurim are expected to rely on their roshei yeshiva in all matters. “If the yeshiva serves cholent as part of the weekday dinner menu, there is certainly no reason not to eat it,” he said.
The grandson further explained that the initial statement was a response to a private query from several avreichim and yeshiva bochurim who felt it may not be respectful to eat cholent during the week. Rav Zilberstein referenced several halachic sources suggesting that keeping certain foods special for Shabbos enhances the honor and pleasure of the day. However, he made it clear that in the context of yeshiva life and joyous occasions, there is no issue with enjoying cholent during the week as well.”
Lessons learned? Several and let us review them:
1- Chazal and later poskim (halachic decisors) sometimes rescinded or relaxed decrees when they saw that the public could not uphold them — revealing a powerful balance between idealism and communal realism.
2- In Mishlei (3:17) we read this: “Its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace.” דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום
Laws gifted us in the heylige Toirah aren’t meant to break people. Farkert, laws are meant to elevate them. Chulent does just that; anytime anywhere.
3- The guiding rule for rabbis looking to get their hands dirty is this quote from the Gemora: “We do not issue a decree unless the majority can uphold it.”
אין גוזרין גזירה על הציבור אלא אם כן רוב הציבור יכולים לעמוד בה
4- Says the Rambam (Mamrim 2:5): “If a court sees that a takkanah it made was not accepted… it can annul or adjust it.” This is built into the halachic system — not a bug, but a feature.
And the final bottom lines: Back then, rabbinic leaders (gedolim) weren’t afraid to reverse rulings when it no longer fit. Real leaders are not those who only decree; they are the ones who know when not to. They lead not only with halacha, but with heart. Sometimes the greatest gezeirah is knowing when to cancel one. The rabbi’s ban came and went almost as fast as the 24,000 who came and went, if you chap, with the Moabite/Midianite shiksas. The final bottom line: The decree didn’t stick; it vanished quick with one click.”
A gittin Shabbis!
The Heylige Oisvorfer Ruv
Yitz Grossman
Source URL: https://oisvorfer.com/pinchas-2025-when-decrees-dont-stick-when-rabbis-stick-their-noses-where-they-dont-belong/