But is a person like that normal?
Is that an ordinary person?

Because with the Talmud you can say that this is what people thought in their time about how mysticism worked, and spiritual forces. So that is a broad mistake made by many people.

But Rabbi Judah the Pious brought some new weird Harry Potter here — doesn’t that show a lack of logic and seriousness?

With my psychiatric training, I try not to make diagnoses even for people I know, so certainly not for someone from a completely different place and time. You have to know the context and the beliefs of his time.
I’ll remind you again that in the Talmud there are things that could definitely get into the DSM no less than his. And I’ll also remind you that this whole discussion is irrelevant. If you haven’t read the news in recent days, he already passed away. One should address the claims, not the speaker.

With God’s help, 3 Av 5782

To Elchanan Rhein — greetings,

Last Sabbath I read the memoirs of Professor Michael Schimmel, founder of the neonatal intensive care unit at Shaare Zedek, Seeing What Is Coming, and he relates that a friend who works in medieval literature showed him Rabbi Judah the Pious’s statement that a pregnancy with several fetuses, and likewise a pregnancy begun within a year of the previous birth, are at risk from the “evil eye.”

Professor Schimmel, who is not committed to the mystical explanation of the “evil eye,” nevertheless surmised that Rabbi Judah the Pious’s words were based on an actual reality in which twin pregnancies and closely spaced pregnancies had more cases of disaster, and he conducted an empirical study in which it indeed turned out that such pregnancies carry higher risk. Therefore he recommends waiting a year after birth before the woman becomes pregnant again.

And as is known, Rabbi Judah the Pious’s recommendation to avoid marriage between relatives (which contradicts the Talmud, Yevamot 62) is supported by modern medicine, out of concern for a recessive genetic defect carried by both relatives. Here too it seems that Rabbi Judah the Pious noticed an actual reality in which there was a higher incidence of congenital defects and tragedies. He explained it through the evil eye and the like, whereas modern medicine explains the phenomenon genetically.

In short: not necessarily to accept his recommendations as “Torah from Sinai,” but it is worth checking them out!

Best regards, Yekutiel Schneur Zehavi

Even the “harmful spirits” mentioned by the Sages, which generally dwell in filthy places and require hand-washing for protection against them — one can conjecture that these are bacteria. The Sages may not have known the scientific explanation, but they noticed that contact with filth carries a higher incidence of illness.

Best regards, Yekutiel Schneur Zehavi

From the testament of Rabbi Judah the Pious:
B. One should not dig a grave and leave it open if the dead person is not placed in it before daytime ends, and if he leaves it open until morning, within a few days [up to sixteen days] one of the townspeople will die.
C. One should not place one coffin of a dead person on top of another coffin that already contains a dead person, and if this is done, certainly one of the townspeople will die within nine days.
E. When burying a woman who had “eaten children” in her lifetime, if her mouth is seen to be open, it is known that she will continue to do so for one year after her death, and one should fill her mouth with dirt and then she will do no more harm.
V. When purifying the dead, one should not turn over the board on which he was purified, because there is danger in this matter lest someone die within three days.
16. A person should not build a house of stone but should buy one; and if he built one, he should not live in it for long, for he or his sons will die. Rather, he should sell it. As for one of wood, it is doubtful.
43. A cow that gives birth to two calves together, or anything else that behaves in an unusual way, such as a hen laying two eggs in one day, must be slaughtered immediately.
44. Likewise, a tree that produces fruit twice in one year should be cut down immediately and not left standing at all.
47. A person should not write on a book, “It is mine,” but rather should write his name on it without “It is mine.”
49. A person should not demolish an oven or stove used for baking in order to use the place for something else; rather, he should leave it there to be repaired again, for there is great danger in all who do these things.
50. A hen that crows like a rooster should be slaughtered immediately, and likewise anything abnormal should be removed from the house.
55. A woman who begins nursing her son should begin nursing him from the left breast.

The most problematic part of Rabbi Judah the Pious’s testament is the part that to this very day harms couples who want to marry when the names of the bride and her mother-in-law, or the groom and his father-in-law, or the two fathers-in-law, or the two mothers-in-law, are identical.

And specifically this clause received full and forceful backing from the Hazon Ish, the Steipler, and so on.

With God’s help, 3 Av 5782

The recommendation of Rabbi Judah the Pious that the groom and his father-in-law not have the same name, nor the bride and her mother-in-law, stems from the concern that when the husband calls his wife, or the wife calls her husband, by name, it will appear as though he is calling his father-in-law by his name or she is calling her mother-in-law by her name. So there is also a simple solution: add a name in order to distinguish the groom’s name from his father-in-law’s and the bride’s name from her mother-in-law’s.

Best regards, Yekutiel Schneur Zehavi

For the same reason, Ashkenazim (and some Sephardim) refrain from naming their children after grandparents during the grandparents’ lifetime, so that it should not appear as though one is calling one’s father or mother by their first name. Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky refrained from calling his grandson “Avraham Yeshaya” by name so as not to pronounce the name of his teacher, the Hazon Ish; instead he called his grandson “der kleyner” (= the little one).

Likewise, the parents of Rabbi Chaim Yerucham Smotrich [father of Bezalel] named their son “Chaim Yerucham” after the father of the father and the father of the mother, but in daily speech the parents called their child “Avi” so as not to utter their father’s name, and that is what he is called to this day: “Rabbi Avi Smotrich.”

To Itai — greetings,

The recommendation not to keep a tree or an animal that behaves in a strange way may stem from the value of avoiding conspicuousness and attracting attention — which also underlies the matter of the “evil eye,” mentioned by the Sages as well. And perhaps there is also a concern that acts of sorcery are involved in the creation of something strange.

The instruction not to place one dead person on another stems from the dignity of the dead. Even objects used for the dead should be treated respectfully, so one should not turn over the purification board and should not leave a grave open (even with a book, people are careful not to leave it open or upside down).

The instruction not to live in a newly built stone house perhaps stems from a concern that the builders did not do their work properly (or deliberately sabotaged it out of hatred), and therefore one should buy a house that has already been lived in or wait a year.

Best regards, Yekutiel Schneur Zehavi

To “preventing conspicuousness.”
You are really playing innocent!!!!
That is not the reasonable explanation when reading these things.
And it does not explain the death threats or the number of days in which it will happen.!!!!!!

It really looks like someone who thinks the whole universe is attacking him and he invents reasons for his own amusement.

To Elchanan Rhein — greetings,

The “evil eye” is defined by the Sages as a cause of damage and death. Just as the Sages say that blessing rests upon that which is hidden from the eye, so they would hold, conversely, that “provoking the eyes of others” may bring the opposite of blessing. Rabbi Judah the Pious is following the Sages here.

Likewise, a failure to be careful about the dignity of the dead and the things meant to serve him is not implausible as something that could bring punishment, in the sense of “measure for measure.”

Best regards, Yekutiel Schneur Zehavi

In my humble opinion, not marrying when the names are the same is not only a mystical matter but also a practical one, in generations when lighting (that is, candles…) was expensive,
and in bedrooms people were stingy with lighting.
People lived clan by clan; a young couple would remain living with the parents for many years. There was a reasonable concern (admittedly rare) that husband and wife would call to each other for intimacy, and the wife would be confused with her mother-in-law or the husband with his father-in-law or the spouse with his or her mother.
Today this sounds funny and like an odd concern.
But it can also happen when the whole clan (especially among our Sephardi brothers, who somehow sort of live in clans like another similar people) goes camping together and sleeps at night as a group and not in separate rooms.
It can happen in great exhaustion, half-asleep, and in total darkness.
Therefore this advice not to marry with the same names out of concern for mix-ups (though names can be changed) is practical advice.
In ancient times the mishap was more common, and in our time relatively rarer.

I also heard that among our Sephardi brothers there is terrible, ongoing suffering on the holidays because the whole family has to come to grandfather and grandmother on the holidays even when there is no room for everyone.
Everyone has to report to grandpa and grandma and get crammed together in heaps, all the couples and children on top of each other, noise and commotion, no privacy or human dignity, the main thing being to satisfy what, poor things, they call the honor of grandpa/grandma.
True, it is terrible suffering and there is no holiday and no privacy, and in sleeping arrangements it is really a disgrace.
But among that similar people, poor things, this is called “honor”…

And that is how they also negate the human positive commandment of “and you shall rejoice in your festival” normally.

There too it is plausible that a mishap of forbidden relations could come about by accident or semi-accident.
Calling with identical names in a dark night while exhausted is a source of mishap.
Therefore it seems to me that specifically the Sephardim need to be extremely careful about this.

*and you shall rejoice in your festival

So that, God forbid, one should not give a derogatory nickname to another,
I correct myself:
not “our Sephardi brothers,” God forbid,
but rather “our brothers known as Sephardim.”

The nickname is the least problematic element in these stupid messages.

Seriously.

What is problematic?

I hear about the terrible suffering that cultured people endure from the obligation to show up on the holidays piled on top of each other (sometimes after alcoholic drinks too), in crowding and without privacy, with brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, and nieces and nephews, several days stuck together at grandma and grandpa’s because, poor things, that is their level of “honor”…
Suffering beyond description, and severe issues of modesty, privacy, and marital peace that old people, sick with something that seems to them like honor in their old age, impose on the younger generation…
And likewise the joint family camping trips:
suffering
crowding
modesty issues
lack of respect for privacy
vulgarity
coarseness
etc.

This is a genuine outcry over this terrible suffering, which is very common among Sephardic people…

Really, what is problematic about what I pointed out?
It is quite possible that Rabbi Judah the Pious had compassion on the sons and daughters of Israel and at least tried to solve, or at least reduce, the forbidden-relations problems that such a situation could create accidentally or half-accidentally.

It seems strange to me that even after the remark you still do not understand what is problematic. This is a stupid generalization. Holidays among Ashkenazim involve no fewer unpleasantnesses, tensions, and obligations — not to mention those who avoid coming because there is no room, since there they do not host in the warm and pleasant way you described. In addition, I know many Sephardim who very much enjoy these gatherings (including my wife’s family). To each his own.

Apparently the Rabbi is still young,
and the disease of this pathetic “honor” has not reached him yet.

But old people a little farther north than the Rabbi’s usual circle are probably sick with this pathetic honor…
and the suffering they impose on their descendants is terrible,
a real tragedy when the holidays arrive.
Everyone has to report in, no matter what,
even delicate people,
even in complicated personal and medical situations,
and in general the crowded, stuck-together overload,
which is fertile ground for sexual abuse, etc.

Miserable clannishness.
Maybe pity the delicate woman who fell into such a family.

With God’s help, 4 Av 5782

To Recognizes — greetings,

Good news for the sensitive souls who struggle with crowded clan gatherings in grandpa and grandma’s house. May the Temple soon be rebuilt, and then all will stream on the festivals to Zion, and millions of Jews will gather together, “standing crowded yet bowing with ample space,” and on the festival of Sukkot all the nations will come too…

Best regards, Hasdai Chaya Frenkel-Teomim

Why do you call yourself here: Yekutiel Schneur Zehavi / Yekashnaz / Hasdai Chaya Frenkel-Teomim?

Best regards,
Chaim Zeilig Berger

To Chazab — greetings,

Since all the readers of the site know that all these nicknames, and many others, are mine, I vary my nicknames. What is common to all of them is that it is clear that there is no other real person called by such a name. In many of the nicknames my name is hinted at by the initials “Fish”l,” which have the same numerical value as “Shatzal,” and there is also “Schnitzler,” which is made from the initial and final letters of my name. In most of my nicknames I make sure they add up in gematria to 1148 (plus or minus 1), which is the gematria of “Shimshon Zvi HaLevi Levinger.”

The nickname is sometimes adapted to the topic of the comment. If it is a matter of orderly clarification of an issue, I sign “Yaron Fish”l Ordner” or “Eliam Fish”l Workheimer.” If it is about resolving an apparent contradiction in the verses, I sign “Nehorai Shraga Agami-Psissovitz,” after “Geviha ben Pesisa.” If it concerns the greatness of Israel, I sign “Amiuz Yaron Schnitzler.” And in educational matters, “Chanokh Henech Feinshmaker-פלטי.”

Thus, in a response to someone complaining about “the crowding among the Frenkim,” the signature “Hasdai Chaya Frenkel-Teomim” was fitting; and in a response on the subject of “the law as safeguarding the feeling of love,” nothing is more suitable than “the late Shemaryahu Oxytocinsky, may he live and be well.”

Best regards, Hasdai Betzalel Duvdevani-Kirshen-Kvas, also known as “Simcha Fish”l HaLevi Plankton”

And since we’re talking, let me ask you too.

At one time I saw that you were careful not to sign with three ayins, but rather “Chaim Zeilig Berger” or “Chaim Zeilig Berger.” Now my soul asks: “Why is this night different?” that you signed with three ayins? Further analysis is required.