tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-333464062024-02-19T08:43:24.379-08:00mevaseretzion"ויהי נעם ה' עלינו ומעשה ידינו כוננה עלינו ומעשה ידינו כוננהו".mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.comBlogger233125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-31243834598885650102013-04-12T01:40:00.002-07:002013-12-29T03:24:19.625-08:00Circumcision and Impurity of BirthAt the beginning of our portion, we read of the impurity brought on by the process of birth. The mother who bears a son is impure for seven days, after which she can become pure. Immediately after this, on the eighth day, the infant is circumcised. The Talmud (Nida 31) asks, "Why does the Torah say that circumcision is on the eighth day? So that it should not be that everyone is happy, while the infant's father and mother are sad." This is a strange statement; since when do we require harmony between a man and his wife before we do <i>mitzvot</i>? On the contrary, at the height of national experience, at Mt Sinai, we are commanded to separate from spouses! Even the very celebration of the coming together of man and wife, the marriage ceremony, is not postponed in case of a bride who is in a state of impurity. What then is the meaning of this talmudic statement which ascribes to the Torah the demand of intimate happiness between husband and wife as a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the <i>mila</i> command? An understanding of the division between the impurity and the circumcision can be attained from another <i>midrash</i> on the same page of Nidah, but first, a short introduction.<br />
<br />
Rabbi Soloveitchik in <u>Lonely Man of Faith</u> (p 11) writes of two dimensions to Man, dignified Man and cathartic Man. The "image of God" impressed upon humanity refers to its "inner charismatic endowment as a creative being." Rav Kook also points to the creative faculty of the human as a prime way in which we light up the dark world with the supernal light of divinity. Indeed, the Rambam in his <i>Guide</i> (1:54 second to last paragraph) states that the highest purpose of humanity is to imitate God to the best of our ability. This would include not only <i>just as he demonstrates mercy, so shall you be merciful</i>, but also, <i>just as he creates, so too, be creative<sup>1</sup></i>. The creativity of which both these philosophers speak is contingent upon an understanding that mankind is truly free - that Man possesses the ability to choose this or that action at any point. Without this freedom, creativity is prevented by definition, and Man becomes mired deterministically in whatever place he finds himself, and any activity or product in which he engages is not really his in any real sense. Proprietary rights assume freedom; a slave, whose productive freedom is shackled into bondage to his master, is not really a producer, but a tool in the arsenal of his master.<br />
<br />
The creative faculty of humanity and its extent are expressed impressively in another talmudic statement on the same page, and this second statement can help explain the midrash with which we started. The second statement is as follows: there are three partners in the creation of a child, his father, his mother, and God. The first thing that immediately presents itself is the term "partners". The polar opposite of the slave is the partner. While the slave is owned, subsumed by the master, the other, the partner, maintains his independent persona, free to decide to maintain or nullify the partnership at will. When partners create something, they both have equal part in its credit<sup>2</sup>. Man and woman together are essential participants in the creation of a being which never existed before, and will never be created again. Just as one who saves a life (see Sanhedrin 4:5 as quoted in Bavli, Yerushalmi and Rambam for slight variances in the text; see the manuscripts of the Mishna which do not include the phrase, "of an Israelite" as the printed text does), is considered to have saved an entire world, we might safely say that one who brings a life into this world is, so to speak, like God, who created the entire world. Creative Man is compared to God: he creates. The Midrash Tanhuma (Tazria 5) records Rabbi Akiva's answer to Tinnitus the roman, "If God wanted Man circumcised, why was he not born so? For God gave commandments to Israel in order to refine them!" Man is incomplete without circumcision, and the reason he is not born circumcised is to allow him to perfect himself.<br />
<br />
This power of creativity, the chance to perfect by our own acts an in complete creature, reflects our task in this world. We are here for no less important reason than to perfect the world. A boy is not born circumcised; he is born incomplete, physically and morally. Just as it takes parental involvement to perfect him physically, it takes years of education, nurturing and training to turn out good deeds, humility, generosity. And so it is with the entire world: born into an unredeemed world, our task is to bring it to deserve redemption.<br />
<br />
Rabbi Hirsch explains the idea of impurity as the polar opposite of freedom. A person who is brought face to face with an unsympathetic understanding of the limits of his abilities (for example, one who comes into contact with a dead body), may sink dejected into depression and sadness, quoting Kohelet: the end of humans is the same as the end of the beasts, they share the same fate, the death of one is the same as the death of the other. This dirge can easily bring a person to throw up his hands in defeat, surrendering his holy, creative task in this world.<br />
<br />
It is precisely at the beginning of the life-journey of an infant, when all vistas beckon invitingly to him and his parents, at the first free-willed act to be done in his life, that it is unfitting that the dark murmurings of <i>tum'ah</i> be heard. We therefore wait until his parents are together in matrimonial harmony, glad with the<i> </i>שמחה של מצווה, to circumcise him. Only in a state of complete suffusion of creative, free-willed action can the child be called into his task through circumcision: to build himself, to fashion a good human out of the biological creature born, and generalize this concept into his general purpose, to perfect the world - לתקן עולם במלכות ש-די.
<br />
------------------------------------------------<br />
<sup>1</sup><span style="font-size: x-small;"> The attribute of creativity is a slightly difficult one in this context. It was the subject of intense disagreement between the two major schools of Islamic thought in the ninth to eleventh centuries. The third of the four Aristotelian causes is the efficient cause. This is the immediate actor or event which directly leads to an event (see a discussion of the causes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes" target="_blank">here</a>. For example, the efficient cause of a scroll is the scribe. Early Kalam thought, as propounded by Ibn Sinna and the Mu'tazilie school, see God as the primary cause of the world, but the events of nature dictated by secondary efficient causes. Thus mankind can be said to create, and "creative" can be used as an attribute of mankind. In response to this, al-Ghazali and the Ash'ari school of Kalam set forth a view called occasionalism, that any secondary efficient cause diminishes God's power. Cotton burns not because of fire, but because of God's interference. God's rationality means that he interferes similarly in similar situations, and the repetition of these interferences is what we call the laws of nature (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism" target="_blank">source</a>).
<br />
The Rambam writes against the occasionalist school of thought, positing that it's insistence on a constantly created universe does away with the laws of nature (<a href="http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/J014.htm" target="_blank">source</a>). While may seem a simple matter for Rav Soloveitchik to make a statement regarding man's creative aspect, it is important to remember the philosophic baggage and historical dialogue that surrounded this issue.</span>
<br />
<sup>2</sup><span style="font-size: x-small;"> See Philo ("On the Life of Moses" (1:155-158), who makes a similar point about partnership. However, he states it as the main difference between Moses and all other humans, what makes Moses' intimacy with God qualitatively different from anyone else.</span>mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-70699313268987979732013-04-11T23:46:00.003-07:002013-04-12T04:59:48.457-07:00סכין של מילה בשבת<div dir="rtl" lang="he">
<div style="text-align: right;">
הפרשה שלנו פותחת במצוות יולדת, וביניהם, מצוות מילה. "וביום השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו". בספרא דבי רב, פרק א', נדרשת פסוק בפרשתנו שמילה בזמנה דוחה את השבת. אע"פ שבשבת אסור לעשות חבורה, אם זה לידה שיגרתית, ימול הבן, מדיוק המקרא, "וביום, אפילו בשבת". מדרש זה לוקח כנתון מה שמופיע כלימוד לא כה פשוט בבבלי שבת קלב, שיש שם מחלוקת אמוראים מאיפה נדרש דין זה שמילה בזמנה דוחה שבת. לבני מורה על העובדה המעניינת שדרשות הבבלי מופיעות בסדר הפוך מן הסדר הכרונולוגי, ובמקום סדר זה, מופיעות בסדר חוזק טענתם, תופעה החוזרת על עצמה במקומות אחרות בש"ס (מקורות ומסורות שבת עמ' שנד). דין זה מובא להלכה בטור יורה דעה סימן רס"ו.
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
כמובן, בשביל עשיית מצווה זו בשבת, קיימת צורך להתיר איסור דרבנן של מוקצה בעניין סכין המילה.
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
באופן רגיל, סכין של מילה הוא מוקצה בשבת. הרא"ש מזכיר את הסכין הזה כדבר המוקצה מחמת חיסרון כיס, דהיינו, שאדם מקפיד עליהם לא להשתמש בהם בדרך שיוכל לפחות את דמיו. וכן הטור ושו"ע בסימן ש"ח פוסקים, שסכין של מילה מוקצה מחמת חיסרון כיס. דבר מוקצה כזה, באמת אסור להזיזו אפילו מחמה לצל, כלומר, לצורכו שלו, כדי להגן עליו. אם כן, בשביל מצוות מילה שדוחה את השבת, קיימת צורך להשתמש בדבר שרוב הזמן נחשב מוקצה ואסור לטלטלו. השאלה היא, האם השתשמות זו שמותרת בשבת היא דחיית איסור מוקצה, או שמא עובדה זו שאנו צריכים את הסכין, יוצרת מצב אשר בו אף פעם לא הקציהו את הסכין לפני שבת, ולכן, לשבת זו, סכין זה כלל לא מוקצה?
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
שאלה זו יכולה למצא נפקא מינא מיד לאחר המילה. אם למשל, הניח המוהל את הסכין אחרי שחתך, ואחרי טקס הברית הוא רוצה להרים את הסכין ולהצניעו, האם הוא יכול? בזה, באנו למחלוקת אחרונים. לפי הרמ"א בסע' ב', "...מותר לטלטל האיזמל לאחר המילה להצניעו בחצר המעורב, אע"ג דאינו צריך לו עוד באותו שבת, דהא לא הוקצה בין השמשות מאחר דהיה צריך לו באותו שבת..."<br />
<br />
<div style="direction: ltr;">
ר' ירוחם האומר בשם הרמב"ן אומר דבר דומה, אבל לא מזכיר בין השמשות. הוא אומר בפשטות שמותר לטלטל הכלי לאחר המילה, דמאחר שטלטל הכלי בהתר מחזירו לאי זה מקום שירצה אע"פ שאין לו תינוק אחר למול.</div>
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
המהרש"ל בתשובה (מצוטט בט"ז) מסביר יותר: כיון שהיה ראוי בין השמשות הותר לכל היום, דאין מוקצה לחצי שבת. אם יש חפץ שראוי בין השמשות, ובשבת נעשה לא ראוי למלאכה, ואז שוב נהייה ראוי בשבת, אין אומרים שהזמן שלא היה ראוי אוסר את החפץ כאילו לא היה ראוי בין השמשות, אלא "אין מוקצה לחצי שבת", ובשעה שנהייה ראוי שוב, סר מעליו שם מוקצה. המהרש"ל משווה דין זה לדין שלנו: בבין השמשות, היה לסכין צורך למחר, ולכן אחרי שהשתמשו בו, וסר מעליו הסיבה שלא היה מוקצה, עדיין, אינו מוקצה.
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
משמע מהרמ"א והמהרש"ל שבגלל שבבין השמשות ידע שיצטרך את הסכין הזה למחר, המוהל לא מקצה דעתו ממנו, ולכן למחרת, הסכין לא דבר מוקצה, ומותר להביאו למקום שמור כדי שלא ייגנב או ייפגע. (אע"פ שהסכין לא מוקצה לפי הרמ"א, עדיין, אחר שהוא במקום שמור, אסור לטלטלו שוב שלא לצורך, כי אפילו דבר היתר, הרבה אומרים שאסור לטלטלו שלא לצורך כלל, עיין טור ושו"ע ש"ח סע' ד'.)
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
אבל לעומת עמדה זו, קיימת עמדה אחרת: המהרי"ל (מובא בדרכי משה ביו"ד רס"ו ובט"ז) אוחז שמייד לאחר המילה, צריך המוהל לזרוק את האיזמל (סכין) מידו משום מוקצה. הט"ז מוכיח כדברי המהרי"ל שבין השמשות לא היה עליו שם "רואי לעשות מלאכה", כי הוא עדיין מוקצה מחמת חיסרון כיס. כל ההיתר להשתמש בו הוא רק כי א"א לעשות מילה בלעדו, ונדחה איסור המוקצה עליו באותו שעה של המילה בלבד. המגן אברהם (ראיתיו בספר ר' קדר זצ"ל) מסכים לט"ז ומהרי"ל, ואומר שאף מה שהתיר הרמב"ן, זה רק אם עדיין הסכין בידו, כמו כל מוקצה שבא לידו בהיתר בשבת, שמותר להביאו למקום שירצה לפני שיניחנו (או"ח שח:ג).
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
כנראה מח' זה בין הרמ"א (ומהרש"ל וש"כ) נגד הט"ז (ומהרי"ל, גר"א ומ"א) תלוי בשאלה שהצבנו לעיל: האם מוקצה מחמת חיסרון כיס שצריכין להשתמש בשבת מותרת מדין דחיית איסור המוקצה ע"י מצווה אחרת, ומיד עם תום המצווה, חוזרת איסור המוקצה לאיתנה, או שמא בין השמשות לא הקצהו מדעתו כי ידע שיש ברית מחר, ולכן, מותר אף להזיזה אחר הברית, אף אם הניחה קודם.
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
לדעת הא"ר, האוחז כמהרי"ל, יתן הסכין לאחר בשעה שעושה הפריעה, כדי שלא יניחנו ויהיה אסור לטלטלו שוב. אני לא מבין א"ר זה, מאחר שכבר גמר את המצווה, איך יוכל לתת לאחר, הלא רק לו מותר לטלטלו כי נטל בהיתר, אבל האדם השני יטלנו באיסור (כי כבר מוקצה שוב!). שמא מתיר א"ר דבר זה על פי הסברא שמציע הט"ז בדברי הרמב"ן, שאם לא תתירנו, "וודאי מימנע ולא מהיל".
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
המ"ב פוסק באו"ח ש"י:ג (מובא בשו"ת היכל שלמה עמ' קנ) כא"ר, ומביא את דעתו שבדיעבד, אם לא נהג כט"ז, יכול לסמוך על הרמ"א וש"כ, וגם חכמת אדם המקילים, ולראות את הסכין כלא מוקצה ביה"ש ולכן לא מוקצה לכל השבת.
<br />
<br />
אבל למעיין ברמ"א, יראה שהט"ז מבין שהוא מבוסס על הר' ירוחם. אלא שבאמיתת הדבר, לא נראה כן, אחר שסיבת הרמ"א והמהרש"ל מבוססים על הקצאה בין השמשות, בעוד ר' ירוחם בשבם הרמב"ן לא מזכיר סיבה זו, אלא רק כיוון שהתחיל בהיתר. לכן נראה שהרמ"א טעם עצמו הביא, או ביסס עצמו על המהרש"ל, אבל שיטת הרמב"ן הינו שיטה שלישית בעניין זה, שמותר אף אם לא הקצה ביה"ש. נ"מ ברור בענין זה הוא שלשיטת הרמ"א ומהרש"ל, אם לא היה בדעתו בערב שבת שיהיה לו ברית, אזי יהיה הסכין מוקצה, ורק יהיה מותר למול בו ומייד לזרקו, כשיטת המהרי"ל. אבל לפי שיטת הרמב"ן ור' ירוחם, אינו כן; הם לא מבוססים על הקצאה, אלא על עצם זה שכיוון שלקח את הסכין בהיתר, אף אם הניחו (דלא כהבנת הט"ז ברמב"ן), יהיה מותר לו לטלטלו למקום שמור, כמו שמסביר הב"י ברמב"ן: "מאחר שטלטל הכלי בהיתר, מחזירו לאי זה מקום שירצה," דהיינו, סיבה חדשה להיתר - כיוון שהסכין מותרת למול, מותרת גם ליטלטל לשמרו.<br />
<br />
לפי כל זה, יש לומר שיש ג' שיטות בפוסקים: 1) רמ"א: מותר לטלטל הסכין אחר המילה רק אם ידע על המילה קודם שבת ולכן לא הקצהו ביה"ש, 2) רמב"ן: מותר לטלטלו אחר המילה בכלל, אף אם לא היה בדעתו, 3) מהרי"ל ט"ז וגר"א: מיד לאחר המילה צריך לזרק את הסכין אפילו במקרה שידע על המילה קודם השבת (והט"ז מנסה להבין ברמב"ן כדעתו, ולא כדעת הרמ"א, שהט"ז חושב ביסס את שיטתו עליו).</div>
</div>
mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-484097401910251722012-12-14T01:10:00.001-08:002012-12-16T10:02:25.741-08:00Literary Devices Serving Moral MessagesChapters 37, 38 and 39 of Genesis contain early episodes of development in the lives of the sons of Ya'akov. In 37, the reader is introduced to the sons of Ya'akov as active protagonists. The scene is one of envy as the elder brothers begrudge Yosef his favored position in their father's heart, and hate him for what they interpret to be ambitious dreams. When the brothers get a chance, they plot to kill their younger sibling, eventually heeding the advice of Yehuda to sell him, instead, as a slave. His coveted cloak and all that it symbolizes is dipped in blood and brought to Ya'akov, who, upon recognizing it as Yosef's, descends into depths of depression from which no one can redeem him. In chapter 38, our introduction to Yehuda is developed further in his partial estrangement from his family. He commits an indiscretion with his daughter-in-law, who has tricked him into thinking her a common harlot. Yehuda saves her from the death sentence with which her resulting adulterous pregnancy would normally be met, when he admits that it was he who impregnated her. In chapter 39, then, a previously passive Yosef develops his own active role: he turns down the temptations of the master's wife, netting himself an undeserved stint in prison. His virtuosity rewarded at every turn makes the best out of each tragedy that befalls him, and Yosef eventually ends up viceroy to the Egyptian Pharaoh. These stories contain some of the most morally reprehensible tales of the patriarchs, as well as some of the most uplifting. From a literary perspective, the tales are tightly coupled by choice of diction as well as thematic parallelism. Taken together, they demonstrate the contrast between the two personalities of Yehuda and Yosef, and the ethical maturation of Yehuda, progenitor of princes and kings in Israel.<br />
<br />
Both chapter 37 and 38 involve trickery. In the aftermath of Yosef's sale, the brothers dip his special coat in blood, and bring the bloody tatters to their father in feigned innocence (37:32): "הכר נא, הכתונת בנך היא אם לא", "please try and recognize this: is it the cloak of your son?"<sup>1</sup> Now, the brothers (almost certainly led by Yehuda) know very well that this indeed is Yosef's coat; they dipped it in blood themselves. Their plan is to manipulate their father's emotions by controlling the information he possesses. (Indeed, the <i>midrash </i>has the elder ten brothers binding heavenly and earthly beings in an oath forswearing revelation of the sale of Yosef. Such was the extent to which they are willing to go to keep the truth from their father.) The brothers justify this dishonesty with the belief that their actions are unavoidable: they have sinned, yes, but the end justifies the means; Yosef was planning to supplant them, they reason, and so he must be removed from the equation.<br />
<br />
Parallel to this, in the next chapter, Yehuda is now on the receiving end of trickery. Tamar dresses as a harlot and Yehuda turns to her. She demands collateral for future payment, and Yehuda gives her his seal, staff and cloak, personal items that identify him<sup>2</sup>. When word spreads that Tamar has become pregnant out of wedlock, Yehuda, as her father-in-law and honored son of Ya'akov, is asked what should be done with her. In accordance with standard codes of law at the time (such as the <u>Code of Hammurabi</u><sup>3</sup>), he demands her death. Tamar, as she is being led to her execution, reveals the deception and brings her plan to its climax when she produces Yehuda's personal items and demands almost mockingly, "למי החותמת והפתילים והמטה האלה", "to whom do these...belong?" (38:25) In accordance with Hammurabi, the husband has the authority to commute the adulteress's sentence, and this is an authority probably extended to Yehuda as surrogate male-guardian (as she was in between levirate marriages to his various sons). He rescinds the death sentence, admitting publicly that she has bested him and "she is more righteous than I". Tamar thus sins, but expects the ends to justify the means, and she unknowingly completes the saga begun with Yehuda's betrayal of his own father.<br />
<br />
In both these episodes, personal articles are used to identify supposedly (to a bystander in the story) unidentified protagonists, though the reader knows through omniscient narration that those who offer up the articles for identification are far from innocent. Yehuda knows exactly whose bloody cloak he is showing his father, and Tamar knows precisely whose seal and staff she is displaying to those gathered to watch her execution. The dramatic effect of the parallel thematic activity here binds the stories together: it is Yehuda's wronging of his father and brother that brings upon him the shame and sin of the Tamar episode.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the stories exhibit an inverse relationship which highlights the character differences between Yosef and Yehuda. While Yosef suffers punishment and trouble that is undeserved, Tamar is pardoned from deserved punishment. Yosef has done little to deserve the years of pain and suffering to which his brothers destine him, and even less to deserve the prison sentence he receives at the hand of Potiphar, but Tamar indeed has enticed a man and committed adultery (in a manner). Additionally, Yehuda gets by the whole incident with only public shame, but no standard punishment for the taking of a betrothed woman. Yosef appears morally superior to his older brother; he suffers in silence the abuse heaped upon him, while Yehuda behaves selfishly, denying his father the knowledge that his cherished son is still alive.<sup>4</sup><br />
<br />
If the thematic elements were not enough, the two chapters are cinched together by word choice. In the climax of both stories, the words הכר נא, please identify, are used (37:32, 38:25)<sup>5</sup>. This phrase is not found anywhere else in the entirety of the Bible. We have noted in earlier discussions (<a href="http://mevaseretzion.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/anti-pagan-motif-in-breshit.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://mevaseretzion.blogspot.co.il/2007/03/literary-devices-in-ki-tisa.html" target="_blank">here</a>) the importance of words that link concepts and stories in the Torah. The singular use of הכר נא in such close proximity, and the fact that the same term is used in both stories to demonstrate a cynical trick being played, certainly relates the two stories and supports the thesis that the events of 38 are a punishment for Yehuda's and his brothers' behavior in 37.<br />
<br />
However, Yehuda's shame in the Tamar story is not only retribution for his behavior, but is also evidence of the process of his moral growth. For if we take Yehuda's life as presented by <i>B'reshit</i>, we note three main encounters that act as epoch-defining episodes in Yehuda's life. The first and second we have already examined in detail, but now let us view them through a moral lens. In the first encounter, chapter 37, Yehuda initially agrees with his siblings that Yosef must be killed. However, when he sees a convoy of Arab merchants, Yehuda demonstrates his first step in moral growth: why kill him, if we can sell him and just as surely be done with him? Yehuda's moral superiority to the other brothers is limited: he does not deny their sentiments that Yosef must be done away with. His objection is to active fratricide. He is not above deceiving his elderly father, either, and perhaps only realizes the treachary of it all when a similar deception is played upon him, by Tamar.<br />
<br />
And it is in the second encounter, chapter 38, where we find Yehuda taking another step in his moral progress. Whereas in 37, he was willing to lie to his father so that his guilt not be known, in 38, Yehuda admits a shameful truth in public, in order to save Tamar's life. Initially, in verse 23, Yehuda wants to pay the harlot immediately, פן נהיה לבוז, lest it be a shame to us. Rashi explains that Yehuda wants to ensure that no prostitute publicly call for his payment, since this would be shameful to him. And yet, when Tamar reveals her accomplice, Rashi comments that she was careful not to accuse Yehuda in public, and rather hinted to him that he was her accomplice by showing him the seal and staff: לא רצתה להלבין פניו...אמרה אם יודה מעצמו יודה ואם לאו ישרפוני ואל אלבין פניו. "She did not want to embarrass him...she thought, 'if he admits it, he admits it, and if not, I shall allow them to burn me, but I will not shame him publicly'." It certainly took a good deal of moral fiber for Yehuda to be willing to admit the truth and accept the accompanying humiliation. He could have easily ignored her, and allowed the execution to take place, never to hear another word about the matter. Perhaps the Yehuda who tricked his father in 37 might have done this, but not the morally maturing Yehuda of 38. He publicly concedes his sin and absolves Tamar of her punishment. This is Yehuda's growth from brutish to honorable, from lowliness to dignity.<br />
<br />
Finally, in our third encounter with Yehuda, in chapter 44, we read the aftermath of Yosef's deception of his brothers in Egypt. Yosef demands that only Binyamin remain behind and serve for life as punishment for robbing the palace. Yehuda again is presented with a moral choice: he can go back to Cana'an, and again tell his father that a cherished son is no longer (as he in fact did in chapter 37), or he can stand up and do what is right no matter the personal cost. Yehuda is given the chance by Yosef to correct the mistake of decades past, and in verses 33-34 he meets the challenge, offering himself as a slave in place of his youngest brother. He places his own family, life and aspirations upon the altar of his father's happiness. He thinks as the leader of a larger group, the nation of Israel, instead of as the egotistical and petty brother from years past. In doing so, he shows Yosef and the audience how far he has come morally, and demonstrates why it is that his tribe is chosen to rule the future Israel.<br />
<br />
Thus upon close readings of the episodes of Yehuda's life, it becomes clear that his moral progress is carefully mapped. While Yosef seems to have few moral flaws, what comes naturally to him comes with great difficulty and expense for Yehuda. And from this, readers may glean a valuable lesson: some people are born morally great, and others must work hard for years to attain such stature, but lack of such greatness in one's natural inclination is no reason to give up on it. In Yehuda's footsteps, those of us whose ethical nature must be carefully trained may find encouragement in the fact that it is precisely he who is chosen to forbear the dynasty of Israel's monarchy. Hard work and struggle are no shame; on the contrary, they provide meaning and deeper value to those who overcome natural tendencies to ascend the ladder of integrity.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<sup>1</sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">Embedded in this seemingly innocuous request hide the brothers' true feelings: Yosef is referred to as "your son". The reason for his siblings' enmity towards him is encapsulated precisely and subtly in this description. It is because you, father, made us feel as though he was your only son, your cherished one, that we went to the extremities that we did; it is because of Yosef's ambitions to be the only bloom from which the future of the Abrahamic covenant would blossom, that we did away with our brother. Because Ya'akov and Yosef allowed the brothers to feel as though they believed that only Yosef was Ya'akov's son, the excluded brothers plotted to begin with. Not "is this the cloak of our brother," or, "is this the cloak of Yosef," but "is this the cloak of your son." The word בנך here, your son, evokes an earlier use of the term, when God commanded Avraham to bind Yitzchak. There too, there were more than one brother. There too, בנך, your son, is used, to signify that the lad under discussion is the only true heir to the father. And so, when the brothers say בנך here, it echoes the בנך, יחידך (Gen 22:2) of Avraham - your son, your only heir.</span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<sup>2</sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">The seal in ancient Mesopotamia, for example, was a personal item that was marked with etchings, and could be rolled in clay or ink to to impress one's unique signature to documents or items. It was often worn pinned to a cloak, and was an item of pride. As for the cloak, פתילך is translated thus by Rashi.</span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<sup>3</sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">See the code online, <a href="http://www.commonlaw.com/Hammurabi.html" target="_blank">here</a>, §129. Traditional rabbinic exegesis has Yehuda presiding over a Jewish court, and deciding the law in accordance with Torah law for a daughter of a priest who sins. However, there are a number of problems with this position, whose answers do not seem entirely plausible. First of all, how could Yehuda preside over any case (especially a capital one) to which he was a נוגע בדבר, related to a party involved? This is the classic situation requiring a judge to recuse himself from the case.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Secondly, even if we were to ignore the first question, and assume that this case did indeed come before a court including Yehuda as a judge, then the judgment is wrong. In Jewish law, levirate marriage, or <i>yibum</i>, is only valid, indeed, permitted, between the widow and one of her brothers-in-law. The father-in-law would never be permitted to take a daughter-in-law in as wife, which would be against the biblical injunction (Lev. 18:15). Thus, if indeed the judgment were to be conceived in Torah-law parameters, Tamar would still be subject to punishment (and Yehuda to atonement for inadvertent sin) for her actioins.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">On the other hand, if taken in the context of ancient Near-Eastern law, this criticism falls away. For the levirate laws of the surrounding cultures allowed any male relative to act as surrogate husband for a widow. Thus, while Tamar waits for Yehuda's third son, Shela, to come of age, she is bound to Yehuda's household as a betrothed woman, a betrothal that could technically apply to Yehuda as well, as a male relative of the first two dead sons. So, at the start, when the people of Tamar's town find her pregnant and assumed adultery, they and Yehuda are technically justified by the laws of the time (and by Torah law, as well) to demand her execution. However, when the fact comes to light that it is Yehuda who was Tamar's accessory to impropriety, Torah law and Near-Eastern law would differ: according to Torah law, it would make no difference that Yehuda was the man who impregnated Tamar, the situation would still be one of adultery. But according to the surrounding culture, it is a crucial difference: impregnation by an unrelated man would be adultery, but with Yehuda, it would simply be a consummation of the levirate act.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Finally, a question might be put forth to our thesis: if Yehuda, as the Code of Hammurabi allows him, simply pardons Tamar as he had the power to do, then why does he have to admit the embarrassing detail that it was he who impregnated her? He can pardon her for any or no reason! The answer reveals further the moral growth of Yehuda. Had he simply used his position to forgive her transgression, her twin sons would still be <i>mamzerim</i>, illegitimate, and Tamar would still carry the stain of her actions forever. Almost certainly, she and her sons would be forsaken by Yehuda's family, and Ya'akov's clan. Their rejection would have been a moral hypocrisy of epic proportions. The new Yehuda of chapter 38 would not allow this to happen. He would rather suffer his own humiliation than allow another to suffer undeservedly, and this is his moral superiority over the Yehuda of chapter 37, who, in an effort to hide his misdeed, allowed Ya'akov to suffer for many years. His willingness to hold himself accountable allowed Tamar and her sons to become a natural part of the Jewish people, and indeed, the twins are counted amongst Yehuda's legitimate offspring.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">In general, the rabbinic position has been that to a lesser or greater extent, the stories of Genesis can be read in the context of Torah law. Certainly in chapter 38, a less dogmatic approach seems more plausible, and better demonstrates the moral growth of Yehuda. This should not be seen as a rejection of the rabbinic exegetical enterprise, but as an alternative in this episode which may be more historically acceptable, and contributes greatly to the moral and ethical teachings that are the express purpose of the first book of the Torah.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<sup>4</sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">In fact, there is another parallel, this time from chapter 38 to 39. While in 38, Yehuda strays and commits sexual impropriety. Although Tamar sets him up, in the sense that she dresses as a prostitute and stands on the road, other than this, she does not seduce him. It is Yehuda in his full free will who allows his eyes to stray, and commits what is certainly a moral failure (if not an outright sin). This is to be contrasted with the episode related in chapter 39, where Yosef is continuously and resolutely seduced by the wife of his master. Even under such intense pressure, and while so far from his family, he is able to keep his father's image in his mind and resist the extreme temptation before him. This temptation is doubled in that his rejection of Potiphar's wife was not only a rejection of a seductress, but additionally a crisis point in his employment: Yosef probably knew that his saying no would result in the irony of being labelled an attempted rapist, being thrown in prison (or worse), and a total loss of everything for which he had worked so hard these past years. That he was able to walk away under such duress surely demonstrates Yosef's moral constitution, the purity of which is contrasted with Yehuda's low behavior with Tamar.</span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<sup>5</sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">After noting this unique diction, I saw that Victor Hamilton also notes it.</span>
mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-68941707729685483002012-11-20T23:48:00.000-08:002012-11-21T12:08:16.280-08:00Israel's Two Wars<br />
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">In
Israel today, there are two wars going on, and each one has its own goals,
tactics and results, and it is conceivable that the tactics of one may act
against the other's interest.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I
explain: war A is the physical one. It's cause is incessant rocket fire and
other cross-border violence perpetrated against Israel. War B is the PR one -
an abstraction of sorts - it is less "real" than the rockets but also
important, since in our geo-political reality, it matters what other nations
think. Let us look at each one in isolation, and then examine their convergence
in the real world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The
physical war</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">:
Essentially, this goes back to the partition plan and the Arab refusal to
recognize Israel's right to exist. The historical justification to our
establishment in the Middle East is attacked by Negationist history - cynically
and purposefully revised against historical evidence - to deny the facts. This
battle is fought in many spheres, from the audacious denial of Holocaust to the
philistine destruction and removal of artifacts attesting to 3,000 year old
Jewish presence on the Temple Mount. While the PLO switched tactics in the
'70's, and instead of announcing its plans to liberate all of Israel, discussed
peace and a Palestinian State in pre-1967 borders, they never changed their
open and honest plans described in their Arabic speeches - talking of the
destruction of the State of Israel. What this all leaves Israel with is a
hostile de-facto city-state on its southern frontier which is dedicated, not to
statehood, but to the destruction of Israel. If we step back for a moment to a
decisive (though ill-conceived, from the viewpoint of Israel's security) point
in history - the Disengagement from the Gaza Strip, this all becomes quite
clear. Israel took away any logical or defensible reason for the Gazans to
assault Israel: their stated goal of "liberating Gaza from the oppressive
occupation" (or as a friend calls it, the neo-colonialist argument), and yet
still Gaza chose to ignore the well-being of their population and the building of
their society, and rather used their new-found independence to attack Israel, now from up close - using the newly destroyed Jewish towns in the northern part of the strip as a base. At this critical point, there was no more rationale for attacks on
Israel, unless one is willing to take the Gazans at their word: their purpose
is not to liberate Gaza or the West Bank or even Jerusalem, but to destroy
Israel.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Now,
Israel is in a situation where their ability to fight back is hampered: they
have left the alleyways that were otherwise supervised by the IDF, to the
terrorists. Hamas controls a clandestine flow of materiel and explosives and
uses them to fight Israel. And here we have another element, that of euphemism
and newspeak or double-think - for when we say "fight Israel", we do
not mean what most countries do - nor what most countries consider valid war.
We mean attacking primarily civilians - the killing of civilians to sow terror
- a war crime by the Geneva Convention. And yet, the world glosses over this
unimportant point - and considers this a war. (The Geneva Convention and war
crimes are only trotted out when Israel apologizes for inadvertent civilian
casualties.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">And
so, Israel must fight back. It is its most basic requirement, above and beyond any
rhetoric, for a government to protect the security of its citizens. If a
government that taxes citizens without representation was seen as
self-evidently deserving of rebellion, how much more so if a government was to
abdicate its responsibility to security? The response is far from excessive -
and again we fall into the pitfall of double-think (by suggesting the concept
we make it a real consideration): since when is <b>any</b> army
concerned with proportionality when it is fighting a war? The objective of war
is to win; in this case, to bring security to Israel's civilian population. The
objective is not to do so while only using proportional methods! Heaven forbid
if Hamas were to ever possess the capacity to be "excessive" to
Israel – does one think anyone would call on Hamas to behave
"proportionally"? Does one think Hamas would listen? Were any of the
5 7-army wars of annihilation fought against Israel since its inception
proportional<span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span> </span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>- masses of troops in the millions against
a nation with less than 600,000 soldiers? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Beyond
this, the world forgets that Israel is not fighting a recognized country.
(Again, it is fascinating how, as Whorfianism claims, language employed defines
the categories through which we think - by calling them militants instead of terrorists
we lose part of the foundation of our justification to fight them.) The only
thing internationally recognized about the Hamas government is that its status
as a terror organization. When a terrorist admit publicly in Arabic that its
purpose is to destroy you, you don't act with proportion, you destroy them. The
fact that they hide amongst civilians and therefore bring upon their population
death is <b>their</b> fault, not Israel's. It would be a false
morality indeed (not to mention against the ethics of the Torah) for Israel to
place a higher premium upon Gazan civilian life than its own citizens'.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">From
all this, it is clear that from the physical war's perspective, we must go
all-out. Israel has a moral responsibility to its citizens to protect them, and
not one of their lives can be sacrificed for the PR war, to which we will now
turn our attention.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The
PR war</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">:
From this perspective, each side ignores the truth value and validity of the
historical, social and religious nature of the conflict, and tries to impress
with sound bites, pictures and video. And here is where "world
opinion" holds such sway, for the primary purpose of the PR war is to turn
international sympathy to one side or the other. And we must recognize that
international sympathy is rooted in western liberal ideology. The problem with
this ideology is that it accepts no ethical absolutes, and dogmatically avoids
passing judgment upon the relative morality of one side versus the other.
Essentially, since WWII, the liberal ideology has hinged upon the proposition
that "the underdog is always the victim, and always to be helped".
The amoral idea caused liberals to be supportive of Jews as they limped out of
the gas chambers. The world saw David as caught between two Goliaths, one being
Hitler, the other, a numerically overwhelming Arab world seething with
blood-lust for the remnant of Israel. However, as soon as Israel demonstrated
an ability to protect themselves and provide themselves, thank God, with security,
by the sword if necessary, the Arab world shifted the focus from tiny Israel in
a sea of Arab hate, to expansive Israel bullying small and weak Gaza. The world
was happy to allow David to [I just had to take a break and run to our safe
room, we had a siren with multiple booms following] become Goliath, it simply
shifted its reference point.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">And
so, Israel is fighting a losing battle on the PR front. The fact that
militarily Israel is powerful makes the liberals forget the <b>justifications</b> for
our military might - that our "right" came before our
"might", because they never really cared about the justifications.
They only supported us when we were the underdog. Israel is at pains to show
itself as the underdog currently, though it truly is, because the Iron Dome
limits Israeli casualties, and our military boasts of knowing where all Hamas
leaders are make us seem invincible. These things are beside the point. The
point <b>should </b>be: does Israel have the moral right to exist? If
affirmative, then Hamas is the aggressor completely, and the world must support
Israel's destruction of Hamas. If negative, then not. However, liberal world
opinion does not concern itself with that question in any real way, and instead
side-steps it, and asks, but why should Israel sow such destruction upon a
weaker enemy? This question, when asked without the moral judgment component of
“who is right?” leads the liberal world to support Hamas, the perceived
underdog. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">But
how, one might ask, is Hamas winning the PR war? The answer lies in the
international news media, who have bought the new Palestinian David vs. Israeli
Goliath, hook, line and sinker. While there are plenty of images of wounded and
damage on the Israeli side, these are under-reported. On the other hand, the pathetic
images from Gaza are over-reported. Furthermore, the background is left out so
that the viewer of the media is left with a stilted picture of what happened.
The victims are used twice: once as human shields to protect the Hamas, who do their
warfare from heavily populated areas, and again as props in the PR war, when their
dead bodies are displayed to the world as evidence of Israeli heavy-handedness.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The
liberal media is so notoriously against Israel that it essentially ignores the
terror that Hamas commits against its own people for the sake of keeping the
"Israel as the aggressor" story fresh. For example, yesterday, Hamas
shot a number of people and dragged their bodies through the streets, as
punishment for "aiding Israel". Did the NY Times publish these
images? How about girls being killed for being raped (a capital offense in Gaza’s
society)? No. How about the very real problem that western girls who go to
"help the Gazans" or "Free Free Palestine" face, that of rape
by the hands of Gazans? The international solidarity movements hush these
complaints up, and tell the girls not to report these rapes, for they will
"damage the cause"? Essentially, the liberal media has chosen sides -
it has chosen Hamas, and they are willing to white-wash its sins for the
"greater good". <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">So,
while Israel valiantly tries to get its story out there, it will never be as
loud as the story the liberal media allow the Hamas to publish. Israel can
mitigate this by being clear, concise, and to the point. Israel can voice
insistently that there is evil and there is good, and Hamas is evil. They can
publish the above stories, and let the world know. But the sad fact is that as
long as Israel wins in war A, it will never win war B, since the liberal deck
is stacked against them.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">(Israel may decide as well to recognize an incontrovertible fact: the enemies of Israel and the Hamas sympathizers will continue to blame, berate and demonize Israel for even the lowest level self-defense. In this case, with the PR battle so imbalanced, Israel may calculate that it might as well do its best to truly intimidate the enemy into submission in as extreme a way as necesary, since the negative PR is almost certain, anyway.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">And
so, Israel must choose: should we win the PR battle, or defend ourselves
militarily? It is probable that it cannot win both at the same time. And if so,
Israel's first responsibility is to its physical security. The response Israel
is displaying is not excessive, it is necessary to remove the attack
capabilities of an enemy that refuses to commit to the most basic rules of war.
And talk of a cease fire damages Israel tremendously in that it reduces the
perceived necessity of the military air-strikes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Israel
can do much to improve its PR campaign, and I hope they do, but I recognize
that very few people in the world have not already taken a side in this
conflict, based not on justice, but on liberal emotion.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-72338325578922140672012-09-15T23:43:00.000-07:002012-09-15T23:43:06.634-07:00Not in HeavenThe Meshech Chochma, in explaining the verse ושב ה' אלקיך את שבותך ורחמך, quotes rabbinic exegesis found in the Yalkut (brought in slightly different language in Yerushalmi Makot 2:6): "They asked Wisdom, 'what should happen to a sinner?' Wisdom answered, 'the one who sins shall die.'" Wisdom is the characteristic of pure Justice, untempered by Mercy. According to Wisdom, one who sins has forfeited his right to life by acting against the will of his Creator. However, as the rabbis teach regarding the story of creation, although God first thought, as it were, to create the world with strict justice, very quickly it became clear that the world could not survive on this attribute alone, and so God included an aspect of mercy, of loving-kindness, to allow the world atonement and survival.<br />
<br />
The rabbis continue: "They asked the Torah, 'what should happen to a sinner?' And Torah answered, 'he should bring a sacrifice and find atonement.'" This is the classical form of forgiveness found in the Books of Moses. A sin committed requires expiation through the symbolic and educational lessons of the offerings in the Temple. The חסד, the loving-kindness, and רחמים, mercy, of God's word to Man allows for a way for sin to be forgiven. No mention of any transformation of the sin into anything different, not even mention of the sin being erased, is made. Atonement through sacrifice does not contradict any legal logic: a person may make good on his misdeeds in the proscribed manner, thus averting punishment for them. This is akin to a person who stole returning the object he stole, making further punishment unnecessary.<br />
<br />
However, the midrash does not stop here. It continues: "Came the Holy One, Blessed Be He, and he said, 'let the sinner repent, יעשה תשובה, and it will be atoned for him.'" This is the part of the midrash that the Meshech Chochma aimed at. ושב ה' אלקיך את שבותך ורחמך, it is God himself who comes towards Man and presents a new concept: that of repentance. A person may have no ability to bring a sacrifice, and yet he may still achieve forgiveness through sincere repentance.<br />
<br />
But what is it about repentance that is so special that it is an innovation, a חידוש, so to speak, of God's? How is it that it is not attributed to the Torah, and it must be God that comes along and suggests it? Furthermore, what type of distinction is this midrash drawing between God and the Torah? Surely, אורייתא וקודשא בריך הוא חד, God and the Torah are a unity in a certain sense! How can we distinguish between them in their approach to the sinner?<br />
<br />
Perhaps an answer can be found in a passage of Talmud (Nedarim 62). There, Rabbi Elazar says, "עשה דברים לשם פועלן, ודבר בהם לשמן", explaining, do your good deeds for the sake of God's name, in the name of God. But all your learning, your give and take in Torah study, do it in the name of the Torah itself." Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin (in נפש החיים) explains the distinction: when you learn Torah, do it for the Torah itself, to know and understand, to add lessons and analysis." Rabbi Chaim is saying, לא בשמים היא, this Torah is not in Heaven. Though it comes from God, it is in the hands of Man now, and God gave over its exegesis and interpretation to the human intellect and mind. Even if God were to send sure signs that the correct interpretation is one way, the rabbis, through their intellect, are the arbiters of Halacha. God gave the Torah into the hands of Man now, and relinquished the interpretive authority over it to us. Now, according to the normal human logic, even one infused with the Godly decision to judge our world with mercy (רחמים), and not only by the strict yardstick of justice (דין), a person cannot undo what is done. A sin committed is one that must be atoned for, but cannot be erased. It certainly cannot be turned into a good deed. The best the Torah can do, within reason, is provide a pathway to atonement.<br />
<br />
And even so, God says, I can transcend reason, I can sidestep the rational judgment of human reason. If a person comes towards Me in sincere repentance, sorry for his actions and sublimely desirous to reconnect his fractured relationship with Me, I can make the impossible happen: זדונות נעשות לו כזכויות - even the worst sins become virtues. God can turn back the clock, and not only erase the bad, but make it good! This is possible when a person seeks out an immanent relationship with God out of love. This is why the suggestion of God, as brought down in the Yalkut, is specifically related to the verse ושב ה' אלקיך את שבותך ורחמך - since it is specifically God, creator of the world, who can abrogate all reasonable reaction to sin, can transcend the need for atonement, and, overnight (see יד החזקה הל' תשובה ז:ז), recreate a loving bond between the sinner and God.mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-32252889416875676672012-09-14T00:07:00.001-07:002012-09-14T06:51:59.789-07:00RepentanceJewish sources include many different theories of <i>teshuva</i>. One that is particularly apropos to modern times is that expounded by Rav Kook, in his 1925 work <u><i>Orot Hateshuva</i></u>. In addition to discussing the benefits of <i>teshuva</i>, Rav Kook points out some of its potential pitfalls, which are instructive and worthy of mention.<br />
<br />
Rav Kook says that repentance repairs the fundamental will, a will which comprises the depth of a person's very life. It is not the superficial will, but that essential will which forms the foundation of an autonmomous living (ch. 9 <span class="st">§ 1)</span>. It is not hard to see that the will Rav Kook refers to is synonymous with the will described in Schopenhauer's <u>The World as Will and Representation</u>. It is a proto-fundamental will which comes before thought, before reason or logic. This will establishes the psyche as separate and apart from the otherwise all-engulfing will of the universe. It is this will, this ego, essentially, that stakes out the possibility of an independent, free personality. Without it, man fades into the general cosmic will, a will that Rav Kook obviously identifies with the will of God.<br />
<br />
Because of this, the will's essential characteristic is pride. Without Man's pride demanding of himself recognition as an autonomous being, he would not be independent, free or creative, since without a sense of his own value, he would regress into stagnation, recognizing no benefit he can bestow upon the world. As the author of the Tanya states (פירוש למגילת אסתר): "Anyone who begins to serve God...it is impossible without the use of the crude characteristics, in that he must set himself up as a 'someone', an ego, that indeed <i>must </i>serve God." In other words, a being that has no persona of his own, no ego, no 'crude' characteristic of pride at all, feels that he has nothing to offer the world, or even to offer God, as it were, in serving Him. Such a being cannot serve God. It is only when a person feels important enough to have a right to exist as an autonomous entity that he can affirm that his work on earth is pregnant with meaning and makes a difference.<br />
<br />
In light of this, what is <i>teshuva</i>? Rav Kook explains that the word, meaning "return", is the return of the fundamental will to its healthy desire, to first stand autonomously, and then set as life's goal the will of God and the perfection of the world. Through the abhorrence at sin and regret over the distancing of oneself from the stream of God's will, a person corrects his foundational will, and returns, in deed. Thus, in place of the dischord between a person's pride-will and God, he reconnects himself and his will to the life-flow from God.<br />
<br />
Of course, pride comes along with danger. The danger is that a person might place himself too high upon the rungs of importance, and lose his humility, which is necessary in order to subjugate himself to the will of a Higher Power. This is one danger inherent in the <i>teshuva</i> process.<br />
<br />
Additionally, another danger lurks in the paths of repentance: that a person might fall prey to depression. In ch. 9 <span class="st">§5, Rav Kook points out that the penitent must ensure that the feelings of sadness and regret only apply to the bad, and not the good. Thinking thoughts of repentance can remind a person of the existential tragedy and almost certain failures inherent in their sojourn in a mortal body: אין צדיק בארץ אשר יעשה טוב ולא יחטא. These themes can evoke regret and inaction - not just in the evil that a person commits, but also in the good. Angst can cause a surrender to fate - better that I not exist, better that I not act, better that I do nothing, though this means I do no good, rather than act, and also do bad. The penitent may end up regretting all actions, even the good ones. This is a danger against which <i>teshuva</i> must defend. The path of active duty is certainly fraught with dangers, but "לא אתה בן חורין להיבטל ממנה", we must not abdicate our duty.</span><br />
<br />
It is for this reason, says Rav Kook (ibid. <span class="st">§10), that immediately after the High Holidays, the calendar brings us to <i>Simchat Torah</i>, the celebration of active service of Hashem in joyful communion. <i>Teshuva </i>must limit its resignation and sadness to the bad, and allow us to still fill ourselves with motivation and alacrity to continue in upright, positive service of God. </span>mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-29845006660607029042012-09-06T05:58:00.000-07:002012-09-06T06:12:14.237-07:00HeroThe deep emotions that swell within the heart after reading about a life filled with self-sacrifice, commitment and dignity should be more than transitory. We must try as hard as possible to come away from such an examination reaffirming our desire to live valuable, useful and meaningful lives. I have just finished reading a collection of Jonathan Netanyahu's letters, <u>Self Portrait of a Hero</u>. It is easy to feel the pride and happiness of a young man, soldiering for the first years of his adult life, but this light-hearted feeling melts into the melancholy of a life cut short, of a person of value who was taken from his nation all too soon. The depth of his thought, the nobility of his soul, will live on in those who read this book and allow themselves to be affected by it. Two main thoughts strike me amongst many note-worthy aspects of Yoni.<br />
<br />
First, I point out the development of his feelings towards the land of Israel. Obviously from the beginning, Yoni drank from his father's brand of Zionism, influenced by Jabotinsky. However, at the start, Yoni's passion about the army seems commonplace; though he writes with a maturity beyond his young years, his thoughts center around the excitement of being a soldier, and, along with his comrades, becoming an effective fighting unit. However, as time goes on, through his time at Harvard and his experiences during the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War, Yoni develops a deeper appreciation for why he fights, and this appreciation keeps him in the army past when he would have stayed otherwise. He writes about his understanding that the IDF needed good officers such as him (p 173). He also sees this as a national responsibility, that our nation's homeland be defended against its enemies. He could not see himself returning to civilian life while Israel needed its reserves called up.<br />
<br />
Yoni did not live in a dream-world; he saw many deficits in Israeli society, and sometimes wrote about his memories of the US with longing. He wished his homeland would develop the type of economic and entrepreneurial spirit common in the US. It is a shame that he did not live to see these ideas blossom in Israel in the late 90's. However, he was committed to Israel's security ahead of his own comfort. This continually deepening feeling of responsibility towards his people and homeland is instructive.<br />
<br />
This leads into the second aspect of Yoni that is so important, and I think it is representative of Israel as a country and a people, in general. Yoni stands as a metaphor for the entire people of Israel. He constantly writes, piningly, of his desire to go back to school and finish his degree. However, every time he brings it up, he follows it up with the realization that at this critical point in Israel's security situation, how can he leave his men and the army? In a peaceful reality, Yoni would have been a scholar or some other highly educated person. But he had to constantly put this aspect of his personality and desires to the side, to wait for the future possibility of peace. He placed the needs of the country over and above his own fulfillment.<br />
<br />
Israel, struggling to develop and maintain a viable economy, an innovative medical community, and a unique culture, persistently must do so with both arms tied behind its back. How many more medical breakthroughs, how many more Nobel Prizes, how much more robust an economy, would Israel have, if its gargantuan military budget could be used elsewhere? Israel's full measure of self-actualization and self-expression is constantly hampered by its need to, with the setting of the sun each and every evening, ensure that it is not destroyed by its enemies by the dawn of the next morning. Yoni's letters intimate this existential struggle, the eternal Jacobian wrestling match with the angel of Esav, always defending our existence, and never allowed by the world to lay to rest the question of its very right to live. Yoni lived a life stunted by military necessity - he did not revel in it, he suffered it, and met it with pride, proud to be a Jew defending Jews in Israel. He left behind many many plans, things he wished deeply to do, but did not, in order to make sure Israel would survive.<br />
<br />
Yoni was dealing with a personal crisis of sorts in the weeks immediately before the raid on Entebbe where he died. The men who were with him speak of a peaceful calm that seemed to hold him, and some said that he seemed to know he was not going to come back. Perhaps the realization that he could never fulfill his personal dreams with full peace of mind, as long as the fate of Israel hung in the balance, led him to an ironic peace during this last fateful mission.<br />
<br />
And thus, a nation of farmers, scientists, doctors, scholars, and manual laborers continue to struggle, forced to take up the rifle and defend what every other nation on earth takes for granted: the right to exist. <br />
<br />
May his memory be instructive to us, and a blessing to our people. יהי זכרו ברוך, ה' יקום דמו.mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-18482762049973996722012-07-18T07:37:00.002-07:002012-07-18T07:37:31.070-07:00Baruch Dayan HaEmetRav Elyashiv has passed away. This is a tremendous loss for the Jewish people. May his death be an atonement for our nation.<br />
<br />
המקום ינחם אותנו בתוך שאר אבלי ציון וירושלים.<br />
<br />
May God comfort us, amongst all those who mourn Zion and Jerusalem.mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-67543391993079019432012-07-17T08:40:00.002-07:002012-07-17T08:40:50.948-07:00Peace and Conflict<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span dir="rtl" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום</span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span>- God grants the special covenant of peace to Pinchas. This is a special kind of peace, the peace of Aharon the high priest, as evidenced by the fact that this covenant brings Pinchas into the special family of Kohanim. Hillel and Shammai implore us all to be such students of Aharon – chasing peace. What kind of peace can be so special, so powerful, as to be a foundational attribute of the holiest of men? What is it that makes it an appropriate corollary, that once the gift of peace is bestowed, it is naturally followed by the gift of priesthood?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">Rav Kook writes in Ein Ayah that there are two conceptions of peace. The first is selfish: opposing viewpoints recognize that the best way for each to achieve the most desirable general result is to come together in unity. Two people, two groups, two nations have competing goals. These goals draw them into conflict time and again. After a while, each side recognizes that in order to further its goal most successfully, it is desirable to end the open hostility and come to an agreement with the opposing side. This is not true unity, for in it, each side maintains that their personal gratification is the most important goal. The perceived unity is of a social-contractual nature. Peace is attained often by denying differences and highlighting commonality. The post-modern concept of “narrative” allows us to pay lip service to opposing viewpoints, but in reality, it subterfuges the truth or falsehood of these viewpoints, positing instead that all positions have value as formative of opinions and principles, and we must therefore appreciate them all. So often peace-making is less about truly finding truth and bringing both sides to an appreciation of justice, but rather the practical path of least resistance - the road-map of the pragmatist. And yet, despite these weaknesses, sometimes, this is the best we can hope for.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">However, there is a deeper kind of peace. When two sides recognize a common set of fundamental beliefs, and both set as their task, not their own success, but the larger picture – the success of this higher goal, then each of them can put aside their own selfish purposes and work harmoniously for the completion of their shared meta-principle. When we recognize the word of God and his commands as the larger goal towards which we strive, our co-operation takes on a truly united character. Instead of a social contract, what now defines our society is a true community, a group of people truly working toward a goal, not of individual self-gratification, but of fraternal service of a higher purpose. Far from denying or minimizing the items about which we disagree, we see the benefit in the opposing view in the furtherance of God’s purposes in our world. We support the opposing view, recognizing its importance in the larger scheme. This is the concept of <span dir="rtl" lang="HE">כלל ישראל</span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span>, the community of Israel. </span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">The <span dir="rtl" lang="AR-SA">רמב"ם</span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span> in his <span dir="rtl" lang="AR-SA">פרוש המשניות</span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span> on <span dir="rtl" lang="AR-SA">בכורות ד:ג</span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span> states, "<span dir="rtl" lang="AR-SA">בני ארץ ישראל הם הנקראים קהל</span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span>".</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">One of the most satisfying aspects of Rav Kook’s teachings is his naturally evident love for humanity. This results in Rav Kook’s axiom that every part of humanity has an element of good that can be included in a holistic view of the world. Rav Kook’s philosophy has a place for every philosophical trend – indeed one of his greatest students, Rav David Cohen, wrote extensively on the necessity for each hashkafic trend in its time, and the special contributions each gave to a unifying world-view that culminates, slowly, in the messianic redemption of the world. Rav Kook’s way of thinking brings true </span><span dir="rtl" lang="HE" style="color: #29303b; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">שלום</span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-bidi;"><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span>, consonance, to wildly opposing views, with a historically conscious eye on how these views ultimately strengthen each other and their ultimate goals of Godliness – <span dir="rtl" lang="HE">לתקן עולם במלכות שקי</span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">When we come into conflict with others, and do our best to attain the kind of peace where both sides recognize the higher values involved, and strive to fulfill them, we are following Aharon in his love and quest for this more desirable, harmonious peace.It is this peace that is deserving of special mention.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">It is also clear now that the blessing of peace, a true implementation of this idealized peace that Rav Kook describes, results naturally in the gift of priesthood. For the high priest was nothing if not an embodiment of the collective people of Israel. Upon his breast rested the multi-hued stones representing the various streams and diversity of the children of Israel. However, all are contained in the golden frame. The כהן הגדול could not choose to represent his family or his tribe: he represented the people, in all their variations, to God on high.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">In masechet Avot, there are two statements that sound similar, but seem at first glance to be talking about opposite ideas. The first is in chapter four, where Rabbi Yochanan says that any assembly that is for the sake of heaven is destined to survive. But in chapter five, the rabbis teach that any argument that is for the sake of heaven will live on. These statements seem to speak of opposing things, so which is it: is it agreement or argument that survive if they are for the sake of heaven? Furthermore, it is understandable that the mishna would teach us this about machloket. Divisiveness is usually bad, and so one would expect it to not stand eternal. The lesson is that there are arguments that are beneficial, and do gain eternal value. But agreement? What negative aspect could there be to agreement that would necessitate the Mishna telling us that some agreements survive? And additionally, what agreements do not survive? What could possibly be bad about agreement?!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">With Rav Kook’s teaching as a guide, we can understand very well. Rabbi Yochanan and the Rabbis are both teaching, from different perspectives, the same lesson. That activity which you see as argumentative, if acted upon for the right reasons, actually is peaceful – it brings about peace. Of course, the flip side of this is that if agreement is simply reached for pragmatic reasons, without submission to a higher cause as a common goal, then eventually the peace-makers will diverge, and the agreement they worked on will dissipate.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">It is this type of peace, says Rav Kook, that is destined to flourish. In fact, the mishna in Avos teaches that this is the type of peace that flourishes out of argument for the sake of heaven, typified by disagreements of Hillel and Shammai. It is telling that precisely these men, Hillel and Shammai, are the ones who together teach their students to be of Aharon’s students, recognizing and desiring peace, the ideal peace, that which does not down-play differences, rather highlights them in the happy recognition that the opposing view also serves Hashem, and has a place in our world-view. Indeed, Hillel and Shammai, despite fundamental disagreements about what constitutes fitness for marriage, continued to marry their children to each other.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">It is this type of machloket which allows Halacha the flexibility and organice dynamic qualities that allow it to remain ever-fresh in a world of decaying, dead legal systems. Rabbi Berkovits makes this point in his discussion of Da’at Yachid, the minority viewpoint, in his book <u>Not in Heaven</u>. Recording minority views and recognizing their legitimacy, even as they may be rejected from standard Halacha, maintains these views for the time in which the judges or rabbis of the generation will decide that these views, in light of new circumstances, need to be brushed off and utilized, This saves rabbinic, halachik Judaism from the pitfalls of rigidity, of what Berkovits refers to as rabbinic Karaism.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #29303b; font-family: Arial;">When the ideal peace replaces pragmatic armistance, when our world joins in recognition of the higher ideal around which we must all rally, and whose goals we will work to further in brotherly love, we will merit the blessings of the redemption, וכל בני בשר יקראו בשמך.</span></div>mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-48598641925278612222012-06-28T22:40:00.002-07:002012-06-28T22:42:56.921-07:00Rejected Cross Currents CommentsTime for another installment of comments I posted on Cross-Currents posts, that have (as of yet) not been approved:<br />
<br />
Post: <a href="http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2012/06/27/nachal-charedi-reality-check/#ixzz1z9q0hv3q" target="_blank">Nachal Charedi</a>
<br />
<br />
<em style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;">Your comment is awaiting moderation.</em><br />
<div class="comment-meta commentmetadata" style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2012/06/27/nachal-charedi-reality-check/comment-page-1/#comment-406864" style="color: #c29914; text-decoration: none;">June 28, 2012 at 1:52 am</a></div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
No one claims that blazing trails is easy, כל התחלות קשות. Nachal Hacharedi is new. As you say, mistakes happen in any system, and especially in a new one, it is the trail-blazers’ stubborn determination that makes or breaks its viability. If the army is flooded with 20,000 boys like your son, these issues will quickly be overcome.</div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
However, I think your conclusion that, <i>My next child has already gotten their army exemption</i>, is the wrong one. If our commitment to the ideals you and your son obviously share is overridden by an individual bad experience (ignoring the fact that there are numerous others who came out with markedly different experiences), we belie those ideals, and will never succeed at the goal.</div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
Instead of protesting against and rejecting Nachal Hacharedi, charedim (and all Israelis who care) should be protesting your son’s experience. When the army realizes that mistakes will not be swept under the rug, they will make doubly sure that your son’s story is not repeated.<br />
<br /></div>
Post: <a href="http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2012/06/26/advice-for-the-plesner-committee-minimize-confrontation" target="_blank">Plesner Committee</a><br />
<em style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;"><br /></em><br />
<em style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;">Your comment is awaiting moderation.</em><br />
<div class="comment-meta commentmetadata" style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2012/06/26/advice-for-the-plesner-committee-minimize-confrontation/comment-page-1/#comment-406858" style="color: #c29914; text-decoration: none;">June 27, 2012 at 11:47 pm</a></div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
<i>Nor can the lack of physical danger in national service be the distinguishing factor. Chareidim do not claim that their blood is redder, or that they have some special exemption from risking their lives in defense of the Jews of Israel.</i></div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
Of course they do – (if not they would be in the army!) – they claim that as Talmidei Chacham, they have no need for natural protection, and therefore are not required to contribute to support of the protection (רבנן לא בעי נטירותא, see Bava Batra 7b). The fact that (at the very least) this does not apply in our current situation, and, de facto, the haredi world implicitly concedes this, does not affect their talmudic support for their position.</div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
The proof that they feel they are special is in a later part of R Rosenblum’s essay. He writes: <i>The IDF will encounter little communal resistance to the expansion of chareidi combat units under the aegis of Netzach Yehuda, as long they remain voluntary.</i></div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
Why should haredim be volunteers while the rest of us are drafted? The haredi demand for a different set of standards certainly demonstrates their special opinion of themselves.</div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
<i>Contrary to popular opinion, chareidim do not deny the necessity of an army. Most can conceive of situations in which every able-bodied yeshiva student would pick up arms. But there is no threat that could ever induce anyone in learning to pick up a paintbrush.</i></div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
You can’t just “pick up arms”. A modern army cannot hope to win without thorough training. If you can conceive of a threat, you need to make sure you are ready to fight if it ever becomes a reality – not go to Lishkat Hagiyus on the day hostilities break out.</div>
<div style="font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">
No one is telling haredim to do national service (although it would seem that a better understanding of the larger picture might mitigate or even preclude the disdain held for non-combat societal necessities represented by “picking up a paintbrush”). Perhaps R Rosenblum should exert some energy convincing the haredi leadership that Netzach Yehuda is the way to go. Then, we can have a draft for most, and exemption for the elite intellectuals (which might easily be expanded to the elite of the universities as well, so that true innovation and scholarship might be unhindered there as well as in the beis midrash), and a truly incorporated society – not where everyone is the same (who wants that?!), but where all kinds of Jews shoulder the same national responsibilities with a sense of pride and unity.</div>mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com34tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-4777714112368653712012-06-13T23:15:00.003-07:002012-06-15T04:19:18.432-07:00When A Chatzitzah Requires Re-immersion<div dir="rtl" lang="he">
<div style="text-align: right;">
בשאלת חציצות למיניהן, מתי יוצרות חיוב לחזור ולטבול
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: red;">דברַי להלן מובאות כעיון, ואין להשליך מהם מסקנות הלכתיות מעשיות אלא בנוסף להתייעצות עם מורה הוראה.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br />
<u>א</u><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
במסכת עירובין (ד:), נלמד מהפסוק "ורחץ את כל בשרו", שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בין גוף הטובל לבין המים. ר' יצחק מסביר שדבר העומד על בשר הטובל המחסה את רוב הגוף (או השער), וגם מקפידים רוב האנשים עליו (כדברי הרא"ש שבטלה דעתה אצל כל אדם, ולא כדברי הבית יוסף ברמב"ם שתלוי בדעתה), מהווה חציצה מדאוריתא. אבל אם זה רוב ולא מקפידים, או מיעוט וכן מקפידים, זה רק חציצה מדרבנן.</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
מובן שאם אשה טבלה בדרך אשר בו היה חציצה, מדאוריתא או מדרבנן, אנו נחייב אותה לחזור ולטבול שוב, אפילו עברו ימים, או אפילו היתה עם בעלה כבר. זה משום שבלי טבילה הלכתית, האשה עדיין בחזקת נדה. גם אם רק מדרבנן היה חציצה, אנו נחייב אותה טבילה שנית, כי מדין דרבנן, לא עלתה לה טבילה, ועדיין היא בחזקת איסור (אף אם זה רק איסור מטעם דין דרבנן). אם תחזור לטבול, תברך שנית, אף אם החציצה היה מדרבנן.</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
וכן פוסק השולחן ערוך ביורה דעה, קצ"ח:א. מוסיף הרמ"א שעדיין, לכתחילה, לא תטבול אפילו בדברים שלא חוצצים, גזרה אטו דברים החוצצים, וזה על פי השערי דורא. הט"ז אומר שאף לרמ"א, בדיעבד עלתה לה טבילה, כי לא גוזרים גזרה לגזרה בדיעבד. יוצא שבדבר שאין הקפדה, וזה מיעוט, לא צריכה לחזור ולטבול, אע"פ שלכתחילה לא תטבול כך.</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br />
<u>ב</u><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
אמרנו לעיל שרעיון "מקפדת" היא, להלכה, אף אם האשה הזאת שלפנינו לא מקפדת, אבל רוב נשים כן. המושג היא, "בטלה דעתה אצל כל אדם". אבל מו"ר הרב קדר זצ"ל כותב שאם זו רוצה דווקא את הדבר (למשל גידול ציפורניים), אז היא לא תהיה נכללת במושג, כיוון שיש לה דעת הפוך מנשים האחרות. לכן, אשה אשר דוקא רוצה משהו שרוב נשים לא רוצות, או אף מקפידות, יוצרת לעצמה מציאות חדשה, כי היא דווקא מקפידה - אבל מקפידה באופן חיובי ולא שלילי. מזה יוצא שאשה אחת, שטובלת בחציצה שמהווה מיעוט, ואינה מקפדת, רק לא משנה לה, ההלכה רואה את זה כאילו מקפידה, משום שרוב נשים היו מקפידות, ולכן בטלה דעתה אצל כל אדם, וצריכה לחזור מעיקר הדין, אפילו אחרי כמה ימים, כמו שהסברנו בחלק א'. אבל אשה אשר דוקא רוצה בדבר זה, לה, לא יהווה הדבר חציצה מדרבנן, ולא תצטרך לחזור ולטבול. ראוי לדבר על ליבה כדי שתנהג כמנהג נשי ישראל שנוטלות ציפרניהן, אבל אי אפשר למנוע ממנה לטבול עם הדבר הזה, אם היא לא רוצה להורידו.</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br />
<u>ג</u><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
לאור האמור לעיל, ננתח רמ"א בעייתי בסעיף כ. השולחן ערוך שם פוסק שציפורן גדולה מהווה חציצה על עצמה, כי היא מגוף האדם. רק נקרא חציצה אם יש בצק או צואה מתחת לציפורן. השערי דורא אומר שאם שכחה לגזוז ציפרניה, אינו חוצץ אם לא היה בהן לכלוך, אבל מכל מקום טוב להחמיר ותטבול פעם שנייה משום שאי אפשר שלא יהיה שם טיט או משהו.<br />
<br />
סיבת השערי דורא להחזירה לטבילה היא פשוטה: זה מאוד קשה להיות בטוח שלא היה לכלוך. לכן, אם אפשר, נחמיר ותטבול שוב. כנראה לפי השערי דורא, זה שהיתה מתכוונת לגזוז ציפרניה ושכחה לא יוצר חציצה, כי חלק מהגוף לא מהווה חציצה אם הוא לא מדלדל (עיין סעיף כ"א). כל הענין הוא רק שקרוב הדבר שהיה שם חציצה כי קשה להיות בטוח במקום כה צר במקרה כזה, שמוכח מזה שהיתה כוונתה לגזוז ורק שכחה, שלא ניקתה יפה. לכן, טוב להחמיר לטבול שוב. אם רק שכחה, אזי בטח לא ניקתה תחת הציפורן כראוי (כמו אשה שדווקא רוצה את הצפרניים ארוכות היתה עושה) ולכן קרוב הדבר שהיה חציצה. גם אפשר לדייק מהשערי דורא שכאשר חוזרת לטבול שנית, הוא לא אומר שחייבת לגזוז הצפרניים קודם (כמו שהרמ"א רומז, ראה לקמן), אלא שתטבול שנית בפשטות. זאת אומרת, אחרי ששכחה, ושמה לב ששכחה, היא יכולה או לגזוז, או לנקות היטב - ואז אין בעייה של טיט. כל הבעייה לשערי דורא עם טיט תחת ציפורן ארוכה זה שאם כיוונה לגזוז ולא עשתה כן, אזי קרוב הדבר שלא ניקתה יפה, ולכן אולי היה טיט. יכולה לתקן פגם זה או ע"י או ליטול את הציפורן, או לנקות יפה, אם דוקא רוצה את הציפורן גדול. ואז, תטבול שוב מחומרא.</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
אבל לא כן הרמ"א. הרמ"א אומר שמאחר שכבר נהגו ליטול הצפרניים, אפילו אם צפורן אחת נשאר בידה וטבלה, צריכה טבילה אחרת, וכן נוהגים. הש"כ מביא שדעתו של הרמ"א לא מבוססת על השערי דורא (כי הרמ"א מצריך טבילה, והשערי דורא רק מזכיר לחומרא, וגם שמשמע מהרמ"א שצריכה קודם הטבילה השנייה לגזוז ציפורניה), אלא על הראב"ן, הפוסק נגד השולחן ערוך ודעימיה, ואומר שצפרניים ממש חוצצות כיון שעתידה ליטלן. הש"כ פוסק כרמ"א על פי הראב"ן, שאפילו יום המחרת, אפילו היתה עם בעלה צריכה לחזור לטבול אם יכולה. (הט"ז שלומד את הרמ"א כפוסק כשערי דורא רק מחמיר שתחזור אם יכולה אם לא היתה עם בעלה. ראוי גם לציין שהראב"ן שיטת יחיד, ולכן השו"ע לא פוסק כמותו.)</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
מה שקשה מכל מה שאמור בש"כ זה, זה שלפי הכללים שהגדרנו לעיל, אם רואים את הציפורן כחציצה, כמו שהש"כ קורא את הרמ"א, אז זה מיעוט המקפדת, אז למה לא נחייב את האשה לחזור ולטבול אף אם לא יכולה? דהיינו, היא לא יצאה ידי טבילה מדרבנן, אז שתחזור לטבול! (לט"ז, לא קשה, כי אפשר להבין שחוזרת לטבול רק כי היא לא בדקה טוב מתחת לציפורן, כדעת השערי דורא, ולכן רק צריכה לטבול שוב מטעם חומרא שלא עיינה בבית הסתרים, ואע"פ שבית הסתרים אם לא עיינה עלתה לה טבילה, כאן קצת יותר חמור כי קרוב הדבר שיש שם משהו חוצץ, עיין קצ"ט:ח-ט. לט"ז ולמרה"ם לובלין, לא תחזור לטבול שוב אם כבר היתה עם בעלה, אף אם עבר הלילה (מהר"ם).) אז למה לש"כ לא נחייב אותה לטבול?</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br />
<u>ד</u><br />
<u><br /></u></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
להסבר, נראה לי שיש לחדש שהרמ"א כאן מחדש רובד נוסף לרבדים שהזכרנו עד עתה. עד עתה, אמרנו ש:</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
- אם זה חציצה דאורייתא, צריכה לחזור ולטבול. (פשוט)</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
- אם זה חציצה דרבנן, אף אם היא לא מקפדת, בטלה דעתה אצל כל אדם, וחוזרת. (פשוט)</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
- אם זה חציצה דרבנן, ורוב לא מקפידות, והיא כן, בטלה דעתה ולא חוזרת. (רשב"א)</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
- אם זה דבר שרוב לא מקפידות, אז לכתחילה לא תטבול, אבל מדיעבד יצאה, ולא חוזרת לטבול. (רמ"א, ט"ז)</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
- אם זה דבר שאע"פ שרוב מקפידות, יש לה הקפדה חיובית, אין אומרים בטלה דעתה. לא חוזרת, ואף לכתחילה אם היא מתעקשת. (יביע אומר ור' קדר)</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
עתה, נוסיף שלרמ"א, יש עוד רובד: אם זה מיעוט ורוב לא מקפידות מטעם נוי, <b>אבל מטעם מנהגי טבילה, בנות ישראל קיבלו על עצמן לעשות כן, והיא מעוניינת להצטרף למנהגיהן,</b> רק היה טעות ומשום איזה סיבה, זה לא עבד, בזה, צריכה לחזור, והש"כ מוסיף, אם אפשר. זה לא חיוב גמור, כי זה לא בקטגורית מקפידות מעיקר הדין, אבל זה מספיק כדי ליצור צורך לטבילה שנייה, אם אפשר. ואולי הרמ"א משווה את הרובד החדש הזה למקפדת ממש, ולכן לרמ"א, כל דבר שבנות ישראל יקבלו על עצמן ייהפך לצורך טבילה שנייה, אבל הש"כ מסביר שלדעתו לפחות, זה לא באותו רמה כמו חציצה מדרבנן, ולכן רק חוזרת לטבול אם אפשר. (קיימת גם האפשרות שהש"כ מסביר את הרמ"א ולא מוסיף.)<br />
<br />
כמובן, רובד זה צריך להיות מוגדר, כי לא כל דבר שנשים מורידות יכול להיכנס ל"נהגו בנות ישראל". כנראה הרמ"א ממעיט את תוקף הרובד הזה ורק משתמש בו בציפורניים, היכא דהראב"ן עצמו אמר את זה. כמובן, הרובד הזה רק קיים אם קיימת התנאי של הראב"ן, שעתידה ליטל את הציפרניים. לכן אם לא היה לה כוונה זאת, דהיינו, יש לה כוונה נגדית לגדול ציפורניה, לא שייך דין זה של הרמ"א.<br />
<br />
(אחר כתבי דברים אלו, עיינתי <a href="http://www.yshilo.co.il/uploadfiles/chatzitza%20baadam.pdf" target="_blank">בכתבה</a> של ר' אריה מנדלקורן, בו הוא מסביר את הסוגיה בעיון, ומסביר את הש"כ ברמ"א כך שזה פשוט חשש לציפורן גדולה שחוצצת לדעת ראב"ן. לפי זה, למה כתב הרמ"א "נהגו בנות ישראל"? כנראה לפי הרב מנדלקורן, עצם הנהגת בנות ישראל זה מוכיח שחששו לראב"ן, ולכן, כותב הרמ"א שנכון לנהוג כך. דהיינו, זה לא רובד חדש ברמ"א, אלא פשוט שבנות ישראל נוהגות כן בגלל שהראב"ן כתב כן, אז לכן, מסתמא זה עומד ליגזז, במיוחד אם שכחה, ולכן תחזור לטבול. אני לא שלם עם זה, כי יוצא א"כ שהמניע לבנות ישראל לנהוג כן הוא השיטה של הראב"ן. אבל זה לא כל כך מסתבר, כי הראב"ן רק אמר דבריו "כיוון שעתידה ליטלן", אבל אם לא עתידה ליטלן, לא אמר דבריו. אם כן, עצם זה שהראב"ן אומר שהציפורן מהווה חציצה אם עתידה ליטלן, לא יכול ליצור מצב שנחייב טבילה שנייה אם שכחה. צריך סיבה אחרת, כמו טעם מנהגי טבילה, כדי ליצור מנהג, עליו יחול דין הראב"ן. בין כה, לא יוצא נ"מ בינו לביני לדינא, כי אני מגדיר את הרובד החדש הזה דווקא בדבר שבו אמר הרמ"א, נהגו בנות ישראל - שזה אך ורק צפרניים.)<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">דברַי לעיל מובאות כעיון, ואין להשליך מהם מסקנות הלכתיות מעשיות אלא בנוסף להתייעצות עם מורה הוראה.</span>
</div>
</div>mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-89822952254860866372012-06-01T05:33:00.001-07:002012-06-01T05:33:46.855-07:00Emergence of Ethical Man<b>I.</b><br />
<br />
I finished reading Rabbi Soloveitchik’s <u>Emergence of Ethical Man</u> on Shavuot, and have just completed a reading of Dr Hazony’s essay on the book. I was surprised, as was he, at the tremendously innovative (or not, as RYBS might contend) attitude the book takes towards naturalism, and its seeming implicit rejection (or at least severe de-amplification) of the supernatural<sup>1</sup>. It is part of Dr Hazony's thesis that <u>Emergence of Ethical Man</u> presents an exclusively naturalistic view of mankind's place in the created world, one that eschews the need for the supernatural aspect. I will point out later why I disagree with this.<br />
<br />
It is also worth noting that my deep-seated hesitations to taking this book as true to the opinions which Rabbi Soloveitchik held and taught were dispelled at least somewhat by Hazony’s well-placed treatment in the fourth section: he points out correctly that nothing in Rabbi Soloveitchik’s other published writings contradicts what he wrote here, and provides testimony from a close confidante who seems to support this as being the Rav’s view throughout life. Additionally, <u>Halachik Mind</u> seems to have been written before <u>Emergence </u>was, and it may well be as Hazony suggests that this work is a continuation of that one. In that case, perhaps RYBS had the time to revise and prepare for publication the manuscript that became <u>Halachik Mind</u>, but did not have the leisure before his death to give the same polish to <u>Emergence</u>. Furthermore, I have been told that Rabbi Soloveitchik specifically mentioned this manuscript amongst the ones he wanted his family and students to publish.<br />
<br />
<b>II.</b><br />
<br />
As I mentioned above, I would take issue with one crucial aspect of Hazony’s thesis. He reads the book as a total rejection of the supernatural. However, I do not believe that Rabbi Soloveitchik's book supports such an interpretation. Allow me to demonstrate where we diverge with a few specific examples.<br />
<br />1) Dr Hazony writes: “<i>If the biblical concept of man offers immortality only through the merger of one’s living consciousness with the unending life of one’s people, what kind of salvation or redemption can man hope for? Clearly, the Bible does not offer the individual salvation through the redemption of one’s soul in a transcendental world. What then?</i>"<br />
<br />
It is not clear RYBS rejected the individual's salvation through redemption in a transcendental world. In fact, he seems to uphold both. He says (p 176) that, "The first concept of immortality as coined by Judaism is the continuation of a historical existence throughout the ages. It differs from transcendental immortality...yet metaphysical immortality is based upon historical immortality. Whoever does not identify himself with the historical ego and remains on the natural level cannot attain immortality. The first conquest of death takes place in the realm of history."<br />
<br />
It seems that RYBS does not replace the concept of transcendental immortality with historical immortality. Rather, he sees the latter as a prerequisite for the former. It is not that the former is false or even unnecessary, but that historical immortality is first, and is the gate-way to immortality of the transcendental kind.<br />
<br />
2) Hazony says: "<i>What we see in the exodus from Egypt is not the failure of the natural world to function according to physical law, but rather the remarkable possibility that the natural world can, at times, act in accordance with the dictates of the moral law.</i>"<br />
<br />
RYBS's quoted passage explicitly states an active role for God. He may be acting through nature, but He is acting nonetheless. The miracle is not simply a blind confluence of the natural and the ethical, or a happenstance elevation of nature to the ethical realm, but God acting through nature, and for the purpose of guiding providential history forward. In essence, RYBS seems to hold, as Maimonides does, that the miracle is not in the natural event, but in the timing of that event, which enables meta-historical results. As Hazony himself quotes from <u>Emergence</u>, "God would have been instrumental in a natural children’s plague…. [But o]n the night of Passover he appeared… as acting along historical patterns…. Miracle is simply a natural event which causes a historical metamorphosis. Whenever history is transfigured under the impact of [natural] cosmic dynamics, we encounter a miracle."<br />
<br />
3) Dr Hazony indicates: "<i>… naturalist ones such as those we find in Maimonides’ Guide and Soloveitchik’s Emergence of Ethical Man</i>"<br />
<br />
Though it is tempting to group RYBS's <u>Emergence </u>with Maimonides, so doing ignores the fact that, in the Code, Maimonides is explicit in his need for תחיית המתים and other supernatural occurrences. I only point this out because, according to Hazony's argument, RYBS does not contradict his naturalistic <u>Emergence</u> in his other works. However, Rambam does, and I think this would preclude the association of the two masters in this matter.<br />
<br />
4) Finally, a completely naturalistic take on mankind seems to preclude events such as prophecy, and the giving and receiving of the Torah at <i>Har Sinai</i>. Indeed, Rabbi Soloveitchik does not deny that there exists such a paradigm. Even as he describes prophecy as a charismatic bond between giver and receiver, he does not deny that the essential, supernatural, element of this bond is the divine order: "That is why God tolerates no intrusion by society upon His befriended Abraham...The human being acting under divine orders is portrayed as a forsaken person whose only friend is God." (p 152)<br />
<br />
With regard to revelatory experience, RYBS writes (p 187), "The voice coming forth from the burning bush and Moses' resistance symbolize the clash of the thesis with the antithesis. The final <i>reformation</i> of Moses embodies the synthesis of redemption." It is clear that this "coming forth" is a supernatural occurrence to which Man is susceptible, even in the naturalistically leaning <u>Emergence</u>. It is indeed mankind's highest step to be capable of immanent discourse with God. Further (p 184), Rabbi Soloveitchik describes Moses' role as "The angelic role - that is to say, the role of agent". An angel may simply be an agent of God, but Moses' task as such propelled him into the realm of the supernatural, with "divine power" delegated to him. This would also seem to be at odds with Dr Hazony's thesis.<br />
<br />
<b>III.</b><br />
<br />
Certainly, <u>Emergence </u>presents a unique and important viewpoint, and one that deserves more reflection and study. Hazony’s article zeros in on some of the more notable and revolutionary aspects of the work, and points out how monumental these points may be to modern-day Jewish philosophical ambitions. There is value in a commitment to a religious-philosophical system which is complete within the here-and-now, and which gives adequate meaning to life in the world which we experience, with less resort to the supernatural. However, it is important to note that Rabbi Soloveitchik does not deny the element of the supernatural; he merely downplays it. In this respect, he follows the lead of thinkers such as Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (see Dayan Grunfeld's Introduction to Horeb, p 37), who held that the unique message of Judaism is not one of metaphysical speculation, but down-to-earth activity within the real world, and the raising of the natural to the status of the ethically commanded.<br />
<br />
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><sup>1</sup> Certain parts of the book itself left me unconvinced. In particular, Rabbi Soloveitchik's read of the <i>Gemara </i>in <i>Sanhedrin </i>90b (pp 176-177 in Emergence) struck me as ignoring the subject matter of that passage, ie, תחיית המתים, the revival of the dead, and treating the passage as discussing immortality. This explication is a misreading of the passage.<br />
<br />
The Talmud states (Soncino translation): "How is resurrection derived from the Torah? — As it is written, And ye shall give thereof the Lord's heave offering to Aaron the priest. But would Aaron live forever; he did not even enter Palestine, that terumah should be given him? But it teaches that he would be resurrected, and Israel give him terumah. Thus resurrection is derived from the Torah."<br />
<br />
The obvious meaning of this passage (and the similar one regarding Avraham) is that since the corporeal, actual Aharon was not alive at a time when he could receive terumah, the verse would only be fulfilled literally if a time comes when Aharon is revived, and lives in Israel.<br />
<br />
This passage speaks of revival of the dead, not immortality. Rabbi Soloveitchik reads it metaphorically at best, understanding "resurrection is derived from the Torah" as "immortality is indicated in the Torah", and applies his understanding of historical immortality to it. He undoubtedly takes the passage away from its true meaning.<br />
<br />
To be sure, Rabbi Soloveitchik's understanding of the verses may make more sense than the Talmud's, and be less forced. Indeed, he mentions it earlier in the book. I myself am drawn strongly to his explanation of the verses as discussing historical Aharon and historical Avraham, as opposed to the individuals. However, it is clear that this explanation is at odds with this Talmudic passage; the passage itself does not bear Rabbi Soloveitchik's interpretation.<br />
<br />
However, whatever my concerns with this deconstruction and its removal of the plain sense of the Talmudic passage, it is clear that RYBS emphasizes immortality through historical identification, over transcendental life-after-death.</span>mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-79014576594003601032012-05-20T01:11:00.002-07:002012-05-22T10:34:08.739-07:00Anti-Pagan Motif in B'reshitI am reading Moshe Greenberg's translation of Yehezkel Kaufmann's work, <u>Religion of Israel</u>. Part of Kaufmann's thesis is that the Jewish Bible contains within it a strong anti-pagan polemical element. I have found an excellent example of this motif in the aftermath of Avraham's battle against the four kings. I hope to be able to verify the following (someday, when I have more time), but in the meantime, I leave it as a strong possibility.<br />
<br />
A curious literary dance occurs as Malki Zedek, the king of Shalem, priest to El Elyon, comes out to greet Avraham. The Torah emphasizes the god of Malki Zedek three times in three sequential verses, as El Elyon, translated roughly as god-most-high:<br />
<br />
"Malki Zedek, king of Shalem, brought bread and wine (he was priest of El Elyon); He blessed him and said, 'Blessed be Avram by El Elyon, founder of heaven and earth; and blessed is El Elyon, who delivered your enemies into your hands,' and offered a tithe of everything." (Gen. 14:18-20)<br />
<br />
The Torah first describes the king as priest to El Elyon, and twice, the king himself blesses Avraham in El Elyon's name. Now, the <em>midrash</em> identifies Shalem with Jerusalem, and Malki Zedek with Shem, son of Noah. Additionally, El Elyon is identified as an appelation for God, the God of the Bible. 'Shalem' is actually present in the name ירושלם, Yeru-shalem, and, as this is the most imporant city-state in Canaan, the association seems to work well.<br />
<br />
However, the matching of El Elyon with the Jewish conception of God seems less convincing. For, one short verse later, Avram responds: "'I raise my hand to God [the tetragrammaton], El Elyon, founder of heaven and earth...'" If it were true that Malki Zedek's 'El Elyon' refers to the same God as that of Avraham, what need would Avraham find in repeating verbatim, in the same conversation, the preamble of Malki Zedek? Avraham seems to be correcting a mistake; he seems to be making a point pregnant with theological significance.<br />
<br />
'El', while used as a general name for any god in Semitic languages, was also the proper name for the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)" target="_blank">citation</a>). With this fact in mind, it becomes quite possible that this primary god would be the special representative and protector of the most important city-state of Canaan. Thus Malki Zedek, as king of Shalem, would become closely associated with El Elyon (literally, El, the most high god), as high priest of El Elyon's cult. In line with Malki Zedek's statment, El was seen as the god who fashioned heaven and earth. (In general, pagan mythologies view the world as being created by a god who fashions it out of one of various primordial materials (depending on the specific myth). Paganism is essentially a monistic world-view in which both gods and mankind function under an overarching backdrop of a spiritual-mystical rule-set which functions autonomously within matter, separate from gods and man. Kaufmann defines paganism as, "...the idea that there is no supreme divine will that governs all. The rule of the gods is ultimately grounded on the mysterious forces that inhere in matter, in a realm which lies outside them." (<u>Religion of Israel</u><i> </i>p 32) The gods are controlled by fate and magic, operating directly upon the fabric of the universe, which is outside the realm of the gods. Monotheism breaks with this view by positing the Creator as one who functions completely independently and is in total control of everything.)<br />
<br />
If we accept the foregoing, it becomes evident that Malki Zedek (whom we will no longer identify with Shem, obviously), after seeing the victory of Avraham, comes as high priest of the most high god of the land, to praise his god and, through him, Avraham. He declares that the victory stemmed from the aid and divine influence of El Elyon, a proper noun, literally the name of his patron high god.<br />
<br />
Avraham immediately understands Malki Zedek's speech as praise for the pagan cult of El Elyon. Avraham recognizes the friendliness and brotherhood extended by Malki Zedek, but also the implicit and explicit invocation of the pagan dogma. He transforms this moment into yet another chance to gain a victory in his war against idolatry and his evangelism of monotheism in the form of the one God. Immediately notable in Avraham's speech is that he qualifies the name of the deity, pre-pending to it the name of the Abrahamic God. He says, 'I swear not by the proper noun, not by the god named 'El Elyon', but rather by the tetragrammaton, the God who is the creator of everything, and the only God. I use the term 'El Elyon' as an adjectival phrase, describing the only God - the God who is highest over everything, and who is (in the words of Kaufmann) subject to no powers that transcend him.'<br />
<br />
Avraham's critique is subtle, precise and appealing. In just a few words, it sums up an entire world-view, and at the same time, provides an eloquent example of the general anti-idolatry motif in the book of B'reshit.<br />
<br />
However, this lesson is not a simple one. Even the father of monotheism at times struggles with it, so steeped is the world around him in paganism. For in the very next chapter, 15, Avraham learns from God himself the lesson of God's complete control over the fabric of the universe.<br />
<br />
Before discussing the content of chapter 15, it is important to recognize by what right we relate two separate chapters, divided by אחר הדברים האלה, ostensibly a division and mark of a new topic. Upon closer examination, however, the end of chapter 14 and the beginning of chapter 15 are linked linguistically by the use of the Hebrew root מ.ג.נ. Malki Zedek uses this root in 14:20 in the <i>piel</i> form when he declares that El Elyon 'delivered - מיגן' Avraham's enemies into his hands. In 15:1, God uses it in the <i>qal</i> form to assure Avraham that God 'protects - מגן' over Avraham. This root appears only one other time in all of the Torah, in D'varim. Its use in such close proximity in our chapters, four short verses apart, with only the vowelization differentiating the two divergent meanings, is undoubtedly meant to link the two chapters and events in a reader's mind. (This is a literary technique used by the Torah to couple divided narratives, as we discussed <a href="http://mevaseretzion.blogspot.com/2007/03/literary-devices-in-ki-tisa.html" target="_blank">here</a>.)<br />
<br />
While bemoaning his childlessness, Avraham says to God, "What can you give me? I go childless..." (v 2). It seems almost as if Avraham is resigned to a world in which he is doomed to be barren. Avraham describes his lack of progeny as a passive fate. It is not necessarily God who has decided that he be without, but perhaps the fateful realm above the pagan deities. In the next verse, Avraham recants somewhat, evidently remembering his monotheism, saying, "to me, <b>You</b> have not given seed." Avraham admits that God is the source of the curse. However, he still does not make a request that God change his fate; he still accepts as a fact that he will not have children. Perhaps he does not yet recognize that God can change this. His despair places Avraham in a depressed, myopic state, and these verses exude gloom.<br />
<br />
They dynamic, active and all-powerful God shakes Avraham out of his melancholy. In verse 5, "God took him outside, and said, 'look to the sky and count the stars!'". God calls Avraham to an active role, and in doing so, dispels the notion of blind fate actively running things against a passive deity or man. Avraham's depression and belief in fate is tied by the <i>midrash</i> to paganism: God castigates Avraham: "צא מאצגננותך - Leave your astrological divinations!" Perhaps through your pagan tools to divine your fate, you see that you are destined to be without children. However, I am God, in total control of the world, and I promise you children as numerous as the stars of the heaven!<br />
<br />
Thus the beginning of chapter 15 acts as a fitting end to the story in chapter 14. Connected by a rare Hebrew root, the stories beg to be read together. And what is the message of chapter 15? That even Avraham, he who reached monotheism on the strength of his intellectual powers alone, still struggles with the vestiges of the pagan creed on an emotional level. It takes God to arouse him out of his attempts to divine the future through magic and omens. It takes an actual experience, an actual encounter with God, to cleanse the pinnacle of mankind of traces of idolatry. Perhaps even if we accept R' Saadia Gaon's opinion that the truth can be reached by reason alone, we are left with the emotional dimension of man that can only be set completely straight by revelation.mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-51361237482163488572012-03-31T12:05:00.004-07:002012-10-07T05:33:04.006-07:00Against a Submissive Attitude in Torah LearningSince a post at Cross-Currents, extolling the idea that the rishonim were on a higher plane than we are, spiritually and scholastically, and that anyone who does not submit to them, but dares to imply that we have the capacity to decide between them or judge their opinions, is no longer engaged in תלמוד תורה. This precipitated a heated debate, mostly moderated. Ultimately, a misreading, by the editor, of the original points of the author led me to realize that perhaps the editor realizes the fact that we may and should disagree when necessary with rishonim and acharonim, and that although the original poster held one idea, the moderating editor held one much more inline with the sources, and simply wanted to clarify that disagreement should be done with respec?t (something I believe most ideas are entitled to).<br />
<br />
However, it is probably useful to have localized some germane quotes for future reference. The following are some quotes by Torah giants indicating that disagreement and even rejection of earlier sources is desirable in Torah discourse.<br />
<br />
Rav Kook (Orot Hakodesh pp. 537,547):<br />
<br />
“תורת ההתפתחות, ההולכת וכובשת את העולם כעת, היא מתאמת לרזי עולם של הקבלה, יותר מכל התורות הפילוסופיות האחרות…אנו מוצאים בו את העניו האלקי מואר בבהירות מוחלטת…וזאת היא עליתה הכללית, ששום פרט לא ישאר חוצה, שום ניצוץ לא יאבד מהאגודה, הכל מתוקן לסעודה.”<br />
<br />
And then, in 2:24 (pg 647): “כל אותן ההרצאות והדרכים המביאים לדרכי מינות הם בעצמם ביסודם מביאים, כשמחפסים את מקורם, לעומק אמונה יותר עליונה, ויותר מאירה ומחיה, מאותה ההבנה הפשוטה שהאירה לפני התגלות הפרץ…ובזה הגודל האלקי מתפאר, וכל המגמות האמוניות מתאשרות ביותר, ומקום האמונה, הבטחון, והעבודה האלקית מתרחב…ויש בשכלולו של האדם ארת עצמו ואת עולמו גם כן כדי להעלות מדרגות, הרי הוא עושה בזה ממש את רצון קונו. והמעלה הרוחנית המתעלה מעל כל מתראה היא ליותר מרכזית ביסוד ההויה…וכל ערכי המוסר מתעלים בעילוי אלקי…”<br />
<br />
Rav Kook (Shemona Kevatzim 3:8):<br />
<br />
"ועם זה לא נעלמה ממנו גדולתם של הראשונים, ואפיסתנו לעומתם, ואנו אומרים, אם הראשונים כמלאכים אנו כבני אדם. אבל האם על מלאכים עצמם, עם כל הודאתנו בתקפם וחוסן קדושתם, גדלם ואימתם, “וגובה להם ויראה להם”, וכי עליהם עצמם אין אנו באים בכח הסוד, והאגדה בכלל, להתגדר ולומר, שמה שלא יוכלו להגיע אליו עם כל כבודם, אנו מגיעים אליו עם כל שפלותנו? החשבונות שונים הם. יש לנו עילוי של הליכה ושל בחירה, של התקבצות הדרגות השונות בחטיבה אחת, לגבי מעמד של עמידה, של הכרח, של טפוסיות מיוחדה למקצוע אחד, שאנו מרשמים את המלאכים…. כמו כן בחשבונות אחרים לא יעכבונו ראשונים. אם אנו באים למגמה, שמסיבות נמנעה מהם, בין שהיא שכלית בין שהיא מוסרית, אמונית או לאומית, וכבודם וגדלם, ומיעוט ערכנו וקטננו, במקומו מונח, אבל לא נפסוק משום כך מכל שאיפת עליה שרוחנו הומה אליה, ושיד הזמן מורה אותנו שהננו יכולים לתופסה. שם ד’ אנו קוראים בהתגלות החיים והרוח שבכל דור ודור, ופגם הכתוב כבודו של צדיק בקבר מפני כבודו של צדיק חי…"<br />
<br />
"אבל על כל פנים החשבון מתמצה, שההשתפלות שלנו לעומתם לא תבטלנו משאיפות רוממות ערך, ודליגה על גביהם, נגד האלילות הרוחנית, שהרבתה לה אלילים מכל דרי מעלה. ואנו הננו עולים בגאותנו ואומרים, מי לי בשמים. רק האמת המולטה, רק הגודל לבדו, רק המקוריות בעצמה, רק עז אלהים, דורשים אנו ונדרוש. כמו כן בחשבונות אחרים לא יעכבונו ראשונים. אם אנו באים למגמה, שמסיבות נמנעה מהם, בין שהיא שכלית בין שהיא מוסרית, אמונית או לאומית, וכבודם וגדלם, ומיעוט ערכנו וקטננו, במקומו מונח, אבל לא נפסוק משום כך מכל שאיפת עליה שרוחנו הומה אליה, ושיד הזמן מורה אותנו שהננו יכולים לתופסה …"<br />
<br />
Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (Epistle 34):<br />
<br />
"זאת היא תפיסת הגאון החסיד על ספר ליקוטי אמרים ודומיו, אשר מפורש בהם פי’ ממלא כל עלמין ולית אתר פנוי מניה כפשוטו ממש, ובעיני כבודו היא אפיקורסות גמורה לאמר שהוא ית’ נמצא ממש בדברים שפלים ותחתונים ממש<br />
…<br />
הנה עיקר העלאת מ”ן זה של העלאת נצוצין לא נזכר אלא בקבלת האר”י ז”ל בכללה, ולא במקובלים שלפניו וגם לא בזוהר הק’ בפירוש. וידוע לנו בבירור גמור שהגאון החסיד ז”ל, אינו מאמין בקבלת האר”י ז”ל בכללה, ושהיא כולה מפי אליהו ז”ל."<br />
<br />
Ramban (Introduction to Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvot):<br />
<br />
" לראשונים תלמיד, לקיים דבריהם ולהעמיד, לעשות אותם לצוארי רביד ועל ידי צמיד, לא אהיה להם חמור נושא ספרים תמיד. אבחר דרכם ואדע ערכם. אך באשר לא יכילו רעיוני אדון לפניהם בקרקע אשפוט למראה עיני. ובהלכה ברורה לא אשא פנים בתורה. כי י"י יתן חכמה בכל הזמנים ובכל הימים. לא ימנע טוב להולכים בתמים"<br />
<br />
Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits (Towards A Renewed Rabbinic Leadership):<br />
<br />
"We may go still further and say that Jewish knowledge can even be deepened today, firstly through our ability to point out previously unseen significance in Jewish conceptions by contrasting them with related ideas in non-Jewish thought; and secondly by applying to the study of the traditional literature of Judaism modern methods of research."<br />
<br />
(I add the following in a paranthetical comment, since it is a possible explanation of the Kuzari's words, which he does not make perfectly explicit. In the Kuzari (5:2), Rabbi Yehuda Halevi states:<br />
<br />
"לא אנהג על דרך הקראים, אשר עלו אל החכמה האלקית מבלי מדרגה"<br />
<br />
I believe his point here is that the Karaites treated the Torah as given once, and completely static, unchanging. They rejected the notion of an oral Law, תורה שבעל פה, repudiating the very concept of a Divine Law that is revealed through the creative power of Rabbinic authority, in evolutionary stages. Rabbinic Judaism holds differently from the Karaites. Rabbi Berkovits makes this point in <u>Not in Heaven</u> (p 139), stating:<br />
<br />
"In essence, R Abraham [son of Rambam] was warning against a new form of Karaism, against becoming Karaites of the written-down Oral Torah.")<br />
<br />
Rav Soloveitchik (Emergence of Ethical Man, p. 6):<br />
<br />
"It is certain that fathers of the Church and also the Jewish medieval scholars believed that the Bible preached this doctrine. medieval and even modern Jewish moralists have almost canonized this viewpoint and attributed to it apodictic validity. Yet the consensus of many, however great and distinguished, does not prove the truth or falseness of a particular belief. I have always felt that due to some erroneous conception, we have actually misunderstood the Judaic anthropology and read into the Biblical texts ideas which stem from an alien source. This feeling becomes more pronounced when we try to read the Bible not as an isolated literary text but as a manifestation of a grand tradition rooted in the very essence of our God-consciousness that transcends the bounds of the standardized and fixed text and fans out into every aspect of our existential experience. The sooner Biblical texts are placed in their proper setting - namely, the Oral tradition with it's almost endless religious awareness - te clearer and more certain I am that Judaism does not accent unreservedly the theory of man's isolationism and separatism within the natural order of things."<br />
<br />
ביאור הגר"א לספר משלי ו:ג<br />
<br />
אם אין אני לי מי לי...כלומר שאם אין אני אחשוב בשבילי, מי יחשוב בשבילי? <br />
<br />
The Gra, as quoted by his student R' Chaim in חוט המשולש, סימן י"א: <br />
<br />
שלא לישא פנים בהוראה אף להכרעת רבותינו בעלי השולחן ערוך...בתורה דכתיב בה אמת, בלתי אל האמת עינינו.<br />
<br />
Rav Chaim of Volozhin in רוח החיים, א:ד:<br />
<br />
הלימוד נקרא מלחמה...ואסור לו לתלמיד לקבל דברי רבו כשיש לו קושיות עליהם, ולפעמים יהיה האמת עם התלמיד...כי מלחמת מצווה היא...ולא לישא פני איש, רק לאהוב את האמת.<br />
<br />
mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-12034014092602461292012-03-27T06:34:00.014-07:002012-05-24T01:10:05.243-07:00Twice Offended and Thereby PraisedRav Neriyah used to say that we live in a world of <i>b'diavad</i>, a <i>post factum</i>, imperfect, vitiated world where we cannot expect to find ourselves in ideal situations. Usually, this type of thinking is considered a pessimistic world-view. If only we could live in an ideal position, but alas, we wring our hands, we must deal with the unfinished, unpolished realia of practical existence.<br />
<br />
A trademark of Rav Kook's thought is that he does not only take stock of reality and fit it into a framework with which we can manage, but that his transformative creativity is able to find the supernal good even in the most base and spiritually desolate aspects of circumstance. This potential is brought to fruit by the beginning of the Hagadah, where the Talmud teaches (Pes. 116a) that in retelling the story of the Exodus, we begin with the shameful and end with the praise. The Talmud points to two ways in which we do so: the first is by telling the story of ארמי אובד אבי, understood by Rashbam as describing Avraham as an Aramean, descendent of idolators<sup>1</sup>, who wandered from home at the command of God. The second is the reminder that עבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים, we were slaves, the lowest of the low, at one time.<br />
<br />
Now, <i>prima facie</i>, both these stories seem to point to the low beginnings of the Jewish nation. Avraham was the son of idolaters, which, from a moral and religious point of view, is a low place to plant the seeds of the people destined to spread the light of monotheism. By the same token, a free nation, in its own land, would be shamed indeed to recall the disgrace and humiliation of an epoch of servitude to the Egyptian master. On the face of things, these shameful, humble beginnings are overcome by the praise, that in the end, God brought us out of slavery into the fresh air of freedom, and from the mire of paganism to the intellectual clarity of monotheism. These beginnings are something about which we might feel, "Thank God we're over that", something which, were it not for our yearly story-telling, we would be quite happy to forget.<br />
<br />
Rav Kook<sup>2</sup>, however, takes slavery not as something to be brushed aside in embarrassment, but a beginning which was critical in its formative powers for the Jewish People. "To be able to submit the independent will and personal tendency in order to accept the yoke of Heaven, at which Israel excels, through which they have and will bring exceedingly great good to themselves and the world, this potential was acquired during the slavery and subservience..." Rav Kook sees our ability to submit to the will of God and faithfully bear his word to the world around us as a talent conditioned in the crucible of the Exile in Egypt. Furthermore, when a person is "so free that he is able to, through his own independent choice, subjugate himself in the appropriate situation...this is true freedom. 'Do not fear, my servant Ya'akov'..." Rabbi Carmy comments on the use of this reference from Tehilim that even though Ya'akov is referred to as a servant, he is described as possessing the attribute belonging only to the most free person, fearlessness.<br />
<br />
So, it is precisely the exile in Egypt and Israel's slavery there which prepared it to accept the yoke of Heaven. It is only through this shame or offense of slavery that the praise of Israel, the chosen people of God, is possible.<br />
<br />
Rav Kook continues: The lessons of monotheism essentially abstract theology to the extent that it is hard to attach to on an emotional level. Indeed, the further rarefied the philosopher's idea of God was, the less applicable He became to humanity, the less he was part of a vibrant tapestry of human life. The epitome of this is the First Cause conception of God. Even though Judaism certainly contains checks so that monotheism does not dry up into this kind of deism, it is still true that, to paraphrase Rabbi Carmy again, holiness has the potential to stifle the imagination. It is for this reason, Rav Kook says, that the progenitors of Israel began as idolaters. Idolatry, for all its base aspects, lends itself to physical, imaginative and creative talents. This exposure ended up benefiting the nation of Israel, providing the potential capacity to incorporate into the service of the true God the richness of their creative and vivid abilities. The bravery and physical fortitude, the imaginative elements of their personae are all able to shine forth when serving God, in their rightful, prescribed place.<br />
<br />
Thus Rav Kook transforms what may seem to be a shy embarrassment regarding low beginnings into important, contributing factors to the essential qualities of Israel. Our very history is an example of מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח, beginning in a shameful way, but through and because of this shame, becoming a nation worthy of praise. May the light of Israel shine, and help the world attain the perfection of messianic times.<br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
<sup>1</sup> In fact, this can help us understand, tangentially, the uplifting, and yet disturbing, story of עקדת יצחק. How can it be that God would even pretend to demand something of Avraham which goes against all that the ethic of the Torah repudiates so strongly? Perhaps the request, from the point of view of Avraham (and his contemporary readers and witnesses), was not so disturbing as our century's tempered, Judeo-Christian minds see it. It was common in those times to sacrifice the first, the best, in pagan rituals, and this undoubtedly extended to children and other humans, such as the cult of Molech. Thus, the initial request in the עקדה was not outside the normal religious experience of the time.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, and this gets to the point of Rav Kook, pagan ritual was able to evoke a passion and vividness that is often lacking in monotheistic service. Abstracted, intellectualized spirituality tempers the raw emotions of Man, and can stifle creativity and excitement. Perhaps herein lay the test for Avraham - are you able to maintain the willingness to engage, heart and soul, in My service? Can you match the intense fervor of the idolators around you? And Avraham's הנני, Here I am - his immediate and unquestioning willingness - answers this question in the affirmative. (See also Rabbi Soloveitchik's Kierkgaardian summation in <u>Emergence of Ethical Man</u> (note on pp 156-157), "Abraham was great in his acting in accordance with the logic of the absurd.")<br />
<br />
Beyond this, the ultimate lesson in this story regarding child sacrifice is clear - and in this, עקידת יצחק stands as a shining example of the morality God intends the world to learn from the light of the Jews, far above the pervailing morality of the times - "Do not set your hand against the boy, neither shall you do anything to him!" In no uncertain terms, the God of Avraham rejects completely the concept of child, or any human, sacrifice, as an acceptable method of divine service. The story of the עקדה certainly drives this lesson home in stark detail.<br />
<br />
Of course, that which was seen as a positive action for the forefather, would be seen as a sin to us presently, and rest assured, God would not demand this of us. However, the story of the binding of Yitzchak becomes one full of moral lessons for the nascent Jewish People, and for the world, of loyalty to God even to the extreme, tender love between family members, passion and feeling in the service of the one true God, and a rejection of pagan practices.<br />
<br />
Thanks go to Netanel Livni for a <i>shabbat</i> morning discussion which precipitated this footnote.<br />
<br />
<sup>2</sup> Thanks to Rabbi Carmy whose lecture on this subject pointed me to look at the הגדה של פסח of Rav Kook, עולת ראייה, Introduction to Maggid, which is the source for this essay.</span>mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-59484547174195781132012-03-18T04:14:00.014-07:002012-05-03T03:54:59.506-07:00Major Events of Jewish HistoryIn this post, I will list a skeletal timeline of Jewish History, from the exile of the ten tribes through the twentieth century. Please feel free to make use of this admittedly rough timeline, and please mark your corrections or additions in the comments section.<br />
<br />
The hand of God is evident in the pages of Jewish history. As Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits writes (<u>On Jewish Sovereignty</u>, 1973): "It is difficult for a Jew to detect the presence of God in the history of the nations or religions - unless it be in the history of Israel, and, only through that history, in the history of man as well. Eliminate Israel from history and there is no need for any reference to God. Without Israel, everything is explainable and expected. Economics, power, politics and psychology will explain everything. Without Israel, man is self-explanatory. Only the reality of Israel resists explanation on the level of manmade history. Because of Israel, the Jews knows that history is messianism - that God's guidance, however impenetrably wrapped in mystery, is never absent from the life of nations."<br />
<br />
719 BCE - Exile of 10 tribes of Israel to Assyria<br />
586 BCE - Destruction of the first Temple & Exile of Judea to Babylon<br />
- 423 according to Seder Olam<br />
- Begin Babylonian Exilarch (Jewish leader)<br />
- from Davidic dynasty (which lasted past 1000 CE)<br />
624-546 BCE - Days of Micha the Prophet<br />
- Thales of Miletus<br />
537 BCE - Babylon conquered by Persia<br />
516 BCE - King Cyrus offers Jews return to Judea<br />
- begin second commonwealth<br />
500 BCE - Cyrus, Ezra, Nechemia<br />
446 BCE - Pythagoras, Heraclitus (dated as per Seder Olam)<br />
400-300 BCE - Xenophanes of Ionia, Yoshiyahu, Yirmiyahu, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle<br />
- (dated as per Seder Olam)<br />
334 BCE - Persian Judea conquered by Syrian-Greeks <br />
- Alexander the Great, Hellenization<br />
200 - 150 BCE - Macabees<br />
190 BCE - Book of Ben-Sira (list of heroes, evidence<br />
- of Neviim as corpus of scripture)<br />
200 - 100 BCE - Dead Sea Scrolls - Evidence of Biblical<br />
- Canon and sectarian writings<br />
165 BCE - Hanukah<br />
- Later Hasmoneans, Hasmonean dynasty<br />
- Hycran, Queen Salome, Aristobulos<br />
135 BCE - Judeans conquer Edom<br />
- Political/religious parties of Pharisees, Sadducees<br />
75 BCE - In Parthia (Persian Empire, Babylonia), Hillel leads<br />
67 BCE - Rome annexes Judea, Idumeans (formerly ruled<br />
- by Judea) become Kings of Israel<br />
40 - 30 BCE - Herod<br />
37 BCE - Rome rules Judea through procurators, eg. Pontius Pilate<br />
100 BCE - 100 CE - Apcocalyptic books - Pseudopygrapha<br />
- Philo<br />
- John the Baptist<br />
- Jesus of Nazareth<br />
70 CE - Destruction of second commonwealth, Temple<br />
- Massada<br />
- 1 million Jews in Persia at this time<br />
135 CE - Mishna<br />
- First citation of Ketuvim, discuss re: Kohelet, Shir Hashirim<br />
- Canon<br />
132 - 134 CE - Judea: Hadrian reneges on promise to rebuild Temple. <br />
- Judea: Rebellion against Rome. Akiva, Bar Kosba<br />
- Judea: Betar. Rebellion crushed. Rename J to AC<br />
- Judea: Yavneh and Sanhedrin destroyed<br />
135 CE - Judea: Christianity parts ways forever with Judaism. ולמלשינים<br />
150 CE - Judea: Bet Din restarts with Shimon II<br />
100 CE - 300 CE - Jews follow Roman army to future France, Germany<br />
- Spain, Portugal inhabited by Jews also<br />
- (perhaps from times of King Solomon)<br />
200 CE - Parthia: Rav in Sura, Shmuel in Pumpedita<br />
260 CE - Parthia: Naharda'a destroyed because of Roman-Persian war<br />
300 CE - Constantine turns Rome Christian<br />
325 CE - Council of Nicea Separations between Jews and Christians<br />
429 CE - Judea: Abolition of Patriarch in Judea/Palestine<br />
400 CE - 470 CE - Parthia: R Ashi collates learning: Babylonian Talmud<br />
- Parthia: Mazdaism tries force the Jews to immorality<br />
470 CE - 500 CE - Parthia: Mar Zutra, Reish Galuta, rebels, is executed<br />
412 CE - 700 CE - Spain: Jews forced to convert or leave<br />
500 CE - Parthia: Begin Saboraim notes, order, editings to text of Talmud,<br />
- which they no longer added to<br />
600 CE - Judea: Persians briefly take Palestine, Rome reconquers soon<br />
622 CE - Mohammed, Islam. Destroys Jews of Arabia or exile them<br />
until 450CE - Northern Europe: Jews were farmers<br />
until 650 CE - Become merchants from oppressive<br />
- laws in France, Spain, Italy<br />
650 CE - 700 CE - Islam conquers Persia, Palestine, North Africa<br />
711 CE - Mohammedans from North Africa conquer Visigothic Spain<br />
- Pact of Omar invoked<br />
760 CE - Parthia: Karaism: Anan Ben David and Chanania rebel<br />
- against Talmud and Geonim.<br />
800 CE - Pact of Omar - Jews allowed to live in Islamic-controlled<br />
- areas with reduced rights. Yellow patch<br />
850 CE - Central Europe: Rabbeinu Gershom & Takkanot in Mayence<br />
860 CE - Parthia: Geonim<br />
- Parthia: Siddurim: Rav Amram Gaon's, Rav Saadia Gaon's, Geonic responsa<br />
875 CE - First appearance of Sambatyon & Eldad the Danite story<br />
500 CE - 900 CE - Judea: Cantillation<br />
- Judea: Vowel system (Tiberian massorah)<br />
- Judea: Midreshei Agada, Piyyutim<br />
500 CE - 1100 CE - Europe: General goodwill between Jew and Christian.<br />
- Laws against Jews but not practically enforced.<br />
- Jews were merchants, government functionaries,<br />
- eg. Charlamagne<br />
750 CE - 1240 CE - Khazars led by Jewish convert king<br />
900 CE - Parthia: Rav Saadia Gaon saves Judaism<br />
- from disintegration from Karaites, among others.<br />
- Unifies Jews, becomes Gaon of Sura<br />
970 CE - 1038 CE - Rav Sherira and Rav Hai Gaon<br />
- Decline of Babylonian community's leadership role<br />
1000 CE - Our earliest extant Torah Scrolls date from around this time<br />
1040 CE - France: Rashi made knowledge the rule<br />
- and ignorance the exception for Jews. Emphasis on study<br />
- Fez: Spanish School of Talmudism <br />
- Rif. Emphasis on halacha<br />
1096 CE - Central Europe: First Crusade<br />
1144 CE - Central Europe: Second Crusade<br />
1189 CE - Central Europe: Third Crusade<br />
- York becomes a second Massada<br />
900 CE - 1200 CE - Spain: Golden Age for Jews<br />
1092 CE - Spain: Ibn Eztra, Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, R' Bahya ibn Pekuda<br />
1135 CE - Spain: Rambam comes from North Africa to flee persecution<br />
1200 CE - 1400 CE - Western and Central Europe: <br />
- Slow process of Expulsion of Jews<br />
1144 CE - Norwitch - first blood libel<br />
1200 CE - Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid - Sefer Chasidim<br />
1239 CE - France: Talmud burned publicly by wagonload<br />
1290 CE - Jews expelled from England<br />
1306 CE - Jews expelled from France<br />
1200 CE - 1400 CE - "Silver Age" of Spain <br />
1212 CE - Moors lose Spain to Christian armies<br />
- Cultural center of Jews moves to Provence<br />
1232 CE - Clash between Philosophers and Traditionalists<br />
- Appeal to Catholic Church who burned Guide and other texts<br />
- Rashba - ban under 25 learning Kabala<br />
1250 CE - Spain: Zohar introduced by Moses de Leon<br />
1263 CE - Spain: Disputation between Ramban and Pablo Christiani<br />
1264 CE - Boleslav the Pious<br />
1306 CE - Controversy ends with Jews being expelled from France<br />
1344 CE - Casimir the Great, both create Jewish Charter for Poland<br />
1394 CE - Jews expelled from France for good<br />
- Germany: Black plague - Jews murdered by thousands<br />
1300-1350 CE - Ralbag book of navigation translated by Pope<br />
1350- 1400 CE - Germany restricts Jews living in towns and length of time they could stay<br />
- Jews live in Ghettos<br />
1420 CE - Murder of Jews and Expulsion from Vienna<br />
1411 CE - Riots in Spain lead Jews to convert<br />
1400-1500 CE - Germans followed by Jews migrate East<br />
1453 CE - Turkish J community grows from refugees but not to stature of P<br />
- Jacob Ibn Chabib<br />
- Joseph Nasi - plan to settle Tiberias fails<br />
1496 CE - J expelled from Lithuania<br />
1492 CE - Inquisition in Spain, Torquemada against newly converted Christians<br />
- Abravanel<br />
- Crew of Columbus made up of Morranos<br />
1497 CE - Inquisition in Portugal<br />
- Mendes, Nasi family<br />
1500 CE - L & P under one Grand Duke<br />
1500 - 1600 CE - Pilpulism, the kahal, education, intellectualism<br />
- J culture of intelligence in Poland rivals Babylonian Amoraim<br />
- Tzena Ur'ena in Yiddish published<br />
1480-1520 CE - Renaissance in Western Europe<br />
- Rome, Italy, enlightened ideas spread - medicine, science, art<br />
- Hebrew studied in Universities<br />
- Jews from S and P permitted in R<br />
- Reuchlin (against) - Pfefferkorn (for) book burning controversy<br />
- liberalism is good for tolerable Jewish life<br />
1520 CE - Martin Luther - Lutheranism - eventual advocate extermination of J<br />
1525 CE - Jewish pseudo-Messiahs - David Reubeni, Solomon Molcho.<br />
- burned at stake<br />
1530 CE - Renaissance ends with liberal promises not fulfilled<br />
1540 CE - Previously kind Italy expels Jews except from Rome & Ancona<br />
- Refuge in Turkey - Ottoman Empire<br />
- Sefad, rebuild semicha quarrel - and failure<br />
1488-1575 CE - Karo - Shulchan Aruch, Spain to Sefad<br />
- 1492 and on Spanish Jews turn to Kabala<br />
1530-1572 CE - Rema<br />
1519 CE - Germany expells Jews from some towns<br />
1519-1670 CE - Germany & Italy - Ghetto for Jews<br />
- Homes of Catechums for converts<br />
1534-1572 CE - Luria, ARI, saw self as Messiah son of Joseph<br />
- He was a German in Sefad<br />
- Leader of movement of kabalists and imagination<br />
- Transmigtration of souls, Gilgulim<br />
- Student was Rabbi Chaim Vital, spread Kabala in Europe<br />
- Small population of Palestine subsisted on charity<br />
1558 CE - Holland seeks freedom from Spain<br />
1559 CE - Printing press, Italy center of Jewish press<br />
- Azariah de Rossi, davidic ancestry - historian - מאור עניים<br />
- Western European J expelled or Ghettoized<br />
- despite contributions to very foundations of WE civilization<br />
- Center of J life shifts from S & G and moves to Poland<br />
1530 CE - Polish Jews organize semi-autonomous self government<br />
1572 CE -Jagello dynasty ends, Poland has monarch only as figurehead<br />
- Real power in Nobles in their own territory (feudalism)<br />
- Jews overseers of serfs<br />
1623 CE - Lithuanian J withdraw to own council<br />
- Polish Jews have Va'ad Arba Aratzot<br />
- Rabbinic & Political committees exist within it<br />
- Shtadlan<br />
- Taxes to Poland collected by Va'ad<br />
1648 CE - Chmelnitzky<br />
1648-1658 - Sabbatai Zevi<br />
1618-1648 CE - 30 Years War -German states and Holy Roman Empire<br />
- Jews suffered also<br />
- Jews participated as court purveyors<br />
- In Prague Samuel Bassevi made a noble for services to state<br />
1612-1616 CE - Frankfurter Purim, Fettmilch<br />
1600 CE - Marranos move from Iberian peninsula to Holland for religious freedom<br />
- Jews from Germany escape to Holland - 2 J communities<br />
1609 CE - Maharal dies<br />
1640 CE - Uriel de Costa writes against detailism of J, commits suicide<br />
1632-1677 CE- Benedict Spinoza<br />
1650 CE - Menashe ben Israel - claims 10 tribes are NA Indians<br />
1290-1660 CE - No Jews in England. MBI tries to convince Cromwell who balks<br />
- Soon Jews come to England and are de facto accepted<br />
1492-1612 CE -Jews in new world - North America, South America<br />
1657 CE - New Amsterdam (later NY)<br />
- Stuyvesant denied, Dutch Co permitted J full rights in New World<br />
1660 CE - Lithuania interested in reason/learning<br />
- South Poland interested in mysticism, Ba'alei Shem<br />
1700-1760 CE -Ba'al Shem Tov - Hassidism<br />
- Jews take on Polish noble dress - capotte, long beard<br />
1707 CE - Ramchal mistaken as Sabbatean<br />
1720 CE - GRA - no piyutim, pilpul, positive about secular study<br />
1729 CE - Mendelsohnn born<br />
1740 CE - Jacob Frank - all sins must be done for Messiah to come - orgies<br />
1750 CE - Emden/Eibushitz controversy<br />
- Amulets, Sabbateanism<br />
1753 CE - PM Pelham (England) Jews given full rights, subsequently repealed<br />
1760 CE - Maggid of Mezhrich taught next generation, was more scholarly than Besht<br />
1772 CE - Excommunicated Hassidim (GRA)<br />
1796 CE - Death of GRA<br />
1600-1776 CE - Jews find freedom and equality in USA<br />
- George Washington, Hayim Solomon<br />
1789 CE - French Revolution<br />
1800 CE - Poland split between Hassidim and Mitnagdim - difficulties<br />
1791 CE - French Jews full citizenship<br />
1799 CE - Napoleon<br />
- Sanhedrin (propoganda, get Jews to submit)<br />
- Infamous decrees - 40 yr moratorium on J debts<br />
- Jews cannot escape conscription as a Gentile could<br />
1810 CE - German states still oppressive to Jews<br />
- Vienna conference: after defeat of Napolean retract rights given to J<br />
- Spurs J to work for equality in German lands<br />
1816 CE - Jacob Herz Baer - first reform Prayer meeting<br />
- Reform - attempts by Jews to be less "queer"<br />
1827 CE - Russia Czar Nicholas I - pale of settlement<br />
- Cantons<br />
- Russia opens J schools with Russian subjects<br />
- Realizing the real purpose, head of schools, Lilianthal leaves for US<br />
1830 CE - Crimieux J in France forught for rights, member of provisional gov't<br />
1844-1846 CE - Conferences to give Reform a set of dogma, what they believe<br />
1860-1880 CE - Holdheim - J is dead institution - developed by man and must adjust<br />
- Hirsch - Torah is from God, no changes<br />
- Geiger - Judaism is living institution sacred, must change ceremonies to express spirit<br />
- Frankel - Change must occur organically "Historical Judaism"<br />
- Geiger encapsulated European Reform, Frankel, US Conservative movement<br />
- Hoffmann, Hildesheimer "Science of Judaism", critical work in Judaism and use modern methods<br />
1848 CE - French Revolution II against king<br />
1850 CE - Nationalism awakens in Europe and Jews are more-so than Gentiles<br />
1855 CE - Russia: Czar Aleksandr II liberal, stops cantons, Jews allowed out of pale<br />
- Seeming liberalization in Russia<br />
1840 CE - Renewal of hate<br />
- Damascus Affair, Morau Affair (Italy)<br />
1860 CE - Crimieux - Jewish Universal Alliance to help Jews worldwide<br />
1880 CE - Eastern Eurpoe hostile, Jews need solution<br />
- Jews more loyal to Germany than Germans<br />
1870 CE - Napolean III overthrown, F true republic<br />
1880 CE - France gives J full rights, Crimieux dies<br />
1880 CE - Germany - Zunz, Graetz, Science of Judaism<br />
- Western Jews have negative opinion of Eastern European Jews<br />
1750-1880 CE - Eastern Europe Haskala, Hebrew literature<br />
- As opposed to history, philosophy, theology of Western European Aufklaerung<br />
- Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer - German Philosophers<br />
1867 CE - Rappaport (Shir), Krochmal, Shadal, biblical and philosophical studies<br />
- Viewed Judaism as offering more to secular culture than it took<br />
1870 CE - Russian, German J uncomfortable<br />
- Haskala did not provide adequate solutions<br />
- Modernization is tantalizing<br />
1820-1860 CE - US expands, Jews head west<br />
- Leeser advocated J unified leadership<br />
- Rebecca Gratz - Sunday school system<br />
1820-1892 CE - Belarus - Beis Halevi - RYDS<br />
- Son R Chaim Brisker, begins Brisker dynasty<br />
1860 CE- US Civil War - Jews on both sides<br />
1889 CE - Isaac Wise - Pittsburgh Platform went further in Reform than Europeans<br />
- Hebrew Union College, Union of American Hebrew Congregations<br />
1894 CE - Antisemitism, scientific Jew hatred<br />
- France: Dreyfus affair<br />
- Some are still liberal, but tide turns to hate J<br />
- Russia still feudal, Jew hatred rampant<br />
1880-1900 CE - Liberalism - revolutions and change sweep Europe<br />
- Jews participate but still there is antisemitism<br />
- Jews leave Russia in large numbers to US<br />
1818-1883 CE - Russia: Marx, the Bund<br />
1873 CE- Chovevei Zion, Rabbi Kalischer<br />
1860-1904 CE - Herzl, Zionism, Nordeau<br />
1882-1903 CE - First Aliyah<br />
1904-1914 CE - Second Aliyah (largely failure, many left Palestine before WWI)<br />
1878 CE - BILU, Petach Tikva<br />
1902 CE - JTS, Solomon Shechter, US<br />
- Catholic Israel, Unity, Tradition and Scholarship<br />
1909 CE - Kehilla experiment in US fails<br />
1917 CE - Revolution in Russia, Communism<br />
1914-1918 CE - WWI<br />
1918-1923 CE - Third Aliyah<br />
- Tel Aviv, Haifa, renewal of Land - desert blooms<br />
- Jewish settlements dot the land, and Israel returns to her land<br />
1924-1928 CE - Fourth Aliyah - urban development of Tel Aviv<br />
1920 CE - Sir Herbert Samuel, British Jewish comissioner to Palestine civil administration<br />
- Tel Hai, Jews fight back against Arab attacks - Trumpledor "Hagidem"<br />
1929 CE - Hebron riots and other Arab riots against Jews<br />
- British largely passive unless Jews are attacking<br />
1918 CE - League of Nations, Mandate Commission, Human Rights<br />
1917 CE - Balfour Declaration, British Mandate<br />
- Bolshevik Revolution in Russia -- USSR<br />
1860-1948 CE - Hebrew revived as spoken language, Ben Yehuda<br />
1901-1906 CE - Jewish Encyclopedia published in US<br />
1915 CE - Revel reorganizes RIETS (1896) into Yeshiva University - New York<br />
- R Yosef Dov Soloveitchik<br />
1917 CE - JPS translates Hebrew Bible into English in US<br />
1922 CE - Hebrew Theological College - Chicago - R Eliezer Berkovits<br />
- US Jewry independent of European religious guidance<br />
1920-1930 CE - US rise in anti-semitism, Henry Ford (later admits to being mislead)<br />
- Obstacles to Jews in Universities, etc<br />
- American Jews donate hugely to Palestinian, European Jews<br />
1922 CE - Congress passes strict anti-immigration laws over veto of President<br />
1921 CE - British White Paper - restricts Balfour promises to "part" of P<br />
1925 CE - Hebrew University opens in Jerusalem, Magnes<br />
- German refugee professors (eg Scholem) make it intellectual center<br />
1933 CE - Hitler<br />
- Albert Einstein relocates to US from Germany<br />
- Fifth Aliyah<br />
1937 CE - Columbus Platform recognizing place for tradition, Jewish homeland<br />
- Replaces Pittsburgh Platform for Reform<br />
- Reconstructionist Judaism appears<br />
1883-1946 CE - Rabbi Isaac Breuer - Der Neue Kusari<br />
1937-1943 CE - Universal Jewish Encyclopedia published in US<br />
1938 CE - Kristallnacht<br />
- Evian conference - world turns back on Jews<br />
- Some Jews allowed into some countries only with money<br />
- Germany would not let Jews out with money<br />
- British continue policy to keep Jews out of Palestine<br />
- Jewish refugee ships sink, explode, sent back to port of origin<br />
1939 CE - Death of Freud in Germany<br />
1939 CE - In face of Arab riots, British issue second White Paper<br />
- Declares building of Jewish homeland in P complete<br />
- Allows small number of Jews in over five years, afterwards, only with Arab consent<br />
1939-1945 CE- WWII<br />
1943 CE - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising<br />
1945 CE -United Nations<br />
- Post-war pogroms and violence against Jews in Eastern Eruope<br />
- Prove Jews have no homes left, must emigrate<br />
- Jews revive Haganah, Etzel, Lechi<br />
1948 CE Israel declares Independence<br />
1956,1967,1973,1976 CE - Israel fights for its life against Arab armies<br />
1948-2000 CE - Operation Magic Carpet (Yemen, Iran), and like operations<br />
- Extraction of Jews from lands previously little-known<br />
- Refuseniks in USSR, eventual USSR collapse<br />
- Development of Israeli military alongside peaceful hopes<br />
- Israel blossoms, economic, religious, artistic life flourishesmevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com124tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-48414620481872863972012-03-12T04:01:00.002-07:002012-03-12T04:05:03.647-07:00Knesset Members Eat Their WordsBefore the Disengagement from the Gaza Strip, the following MK's mocked the idea that this would lead to rockets on Ashkelon: Meir Sheetreet (Likud --> Kadima), Ran Cohen (Meretz), Orit Noked (Labor), Shaul Mofaz (Likud --> Kadima), Ofir Pines-Paz (Labor).<br />
<br />
Aside from this, let us not forget the politicians who supported the disengagement against their better judgement: Slivan Shalom, Limor Livnat, Bibi Netanyahu.<br />
<br />
Those of us who saw clearly back then knew then the dangers posed by the disengagement. Now, the whole world can watch these politicians make fools of themselves with the benefit of hindsight and video recording.<br />
<br />
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/klKUFBVV0k4?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/klKUFBVV0k4?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-85376799720609126212012-02-25T11:55:00.001-08:002012-02-25T11:55:52.973-08:00"Get Over" the Holocaust?!In response to a disrespectful, shameful opinion piece <a href="http://thebeaconmag.com/2012/02/opinions/why-its-time-for-jews-to-get-over-the-holocaust/" target="_blank">in the Beacon</a>:<br />
<br />
The truth is, Weinreich does not advocate "forgetting" the Holocaust, he simply advocates allowing it to become part of the historical record, doing away with the visceral reaction it evokes in most people. As people rail against "forgetting", Weinreich may sit and smirk in self-righteous contentment, thinking that he never advocated that, and "can't people read?" However, he is still wrong, and the amount of common sense Weinreich ignores leads one to the conclusion that the purpose of this ill-conceived piece is primarily to create a stir and promote the visibility of the author and publication as "cutting edge".<br />
<br />
First of all, I doubt the author would ever have the temerity to publish such a piece about the Armenian Genocide. Much as the proverbial Jewish bus driver deriding the haredi he meets for being so "different", and t...hen apologizing profusely upon learning that the man is Amish, Weinreich probably feels a certain comfort level with the material of the Holocaust, and his familiarity has bred a certain level of casual disrespect and, yes, even perhaps some contempt. <br />
<br />
In reply to Weinreich's substance: historical events are slowly scabbed over and eventually scar at their own pace. Indeed, the destruction of the Temple, the massacres at Massada, York, Medina, the Crusades and Inquisition, the Chmielnicki Massacre, all these atrocities are remembered by the Jews. However, given time and rebuilding, the acuteness, or freshness, as Weinreich calls it, of the memories, is replaced by historical context and often, religious meaning. This is a natural process that we can witness as occuring in relation to our own personal tragedies and troubles. It is also a psycho-social reality on a national level. So, the very process Weinreich so coldly suggests happens on its own.<br />
<br />
However, the crucial difference between Weinreich's proposal and the natural occurrence I describe above is as follows: When this process occurs naturally, it is part of a healing process that gives perspective and comfort. But when it is demanded before its natural process has barely begun, it is inflammatory, self-promotional and repugnant. As a writer who (to be most charitable to Weinreich) hopes to help the national consciousness of the Jews on the road to recovery, he ignores the needs of the nation and the magnitude of the damage done. The very fact that many read his piece as suggesting that we "forget", shows just how untimely his writing is. It is an obscenity.<br />
<br />
Parenthetically, it is important to remember that Jewish tradition is full of rites and rituals whose purpose is to assist in this process. The shock element of the laws of Aninut (one whose close relative has just died) leads to Shiva, a period of mourning, which leads to progressively less intense periods of remembrance and sadness. It is important to remember however, that Judaism keeps personal and national days (Tisha B'av for example) to revive and freshen the memory of tragedy and evil in our minds. We are never to allow the events of our personal and national lives to become desiccated history. Even with the natural process in place, we are supposed to break out of that from time to time, each year, to remember the events in a real, fresh, immanent way. So Jewish tradition and religious imperative recognizes the scarring and healing process, and supports it, even as it sets aside certain times to recall the events memorialized in the full color of their experience.mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-63913858580212250772012-01-03T05:22:00.000-08:002012-01-03T08:15:44.005-08:00Intra-Religious ViolenceJust reported on <a href="http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4170753,00.html">Ynet</a>, a haredi family has complained to police that their eleven year old boy was attacked in Jerusalem by secular thugs.<br />
<br />
Whether or not this story proves true, it is imperative that all Jews recognize that violence directed against children, or indeed, any non-threat, is antithetical to Torah values, and antithetical to secular ethical systems as well. It must be publicly stated that such Jew-on-Jew violence is horrifying and must be stopped.mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-71701044249319028232011-12-28T23:41:00.000-08:002011-12-29T10:58:52.601-08:00A School in Beit ShemeshThe Agudath Israel of America released a statement concerning the violence in Beit Shemesh. Read it <a href="http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/12/28/a-much-needed-response" target="_blank">here</a>. Here is my response:<br />
<br />
<i>many charedi Jews, men and women alike, see a need to take special steps – in their own lives and without seeking to coerce others – to counterbalance the pervasive atmosphere of licentiousness, so as to avoid the degradation of humanity to which it leads.</i><br />
<br />
If increased modesty is expressed by individuals' attempts to avoid situations they feel are improper, that is one thing. If a man feels unable or uninterested in walking on the same sidewalk as a woman, and he switches sides, no one will complain. If a woman chooses to not speak with a man out of a sense of modesty, again, no one will complain (although people may question the motives, value and repercussions these types of behavior have on the individual and on the community). <br />
<br />
However, if "special steps" taken include gender-segregated buses, signs asking women to walk on the other side of the street, and an unwillingness to vociferously reject the more radical embodiment of these strictures (such as assault (insults and taunts against adults and, more horrifically, children) and battery (spitting, brick throwing, etc)), then, far more than the "atmosphere of licentiousness" the charedi community wishes to avoid, they <b>contribute</b> to the degradation of humanity.<br />
<br />
The true irony is found when considering the very concept stated above in my first paragraph: the idea that as long as one does not impact others with his "special steps" in modesty (or other strictness), one should be allowed to take them. This idea of personal autonomy and freedom comes not from the Torah, but from liberal philosophy.In the past, the danger posed to society from overly strict individual behavior was viewed as damaging no less than overly lax individual behavior. One who deviated too far off the golden mean, the societal norm, in either direction, was herded back to the norm. It is ironic that only in the context of modernity and the liberalism it engenders that the charedi world can support "special steps in their own lives", steps that have no basis in normative Halacha and derive their validity from modernity's "individual freedom".<br />
<br />
Finally, while Aguda's condemnation of the violence is welcome, it comes belatedly, at a time when the media has picked up on an old story in Beit Shemesh. This has been going on for months, the segregated buses (and violence in their defense) has been going on for years. Why is the vast majority silent? Why is it only when the media pick up a story that the leaders of the charedi world in Israel feel the need to begin to condemn? Was there nothing to condemn months ago, when the heckling of little girlds started? Was there nothing to condemn years ago, when women were assaulted on buses for not moving to the back?<br />
<br />
Could it be that the majority supports the goals of the violence, and therefore, they ignore the means?<br />
<br />
Finally, I want to point out that there is a troubling view of today's society as extremely licentious. Judaism has existed and survived in cultures far more explicit and licentious than today's. Just think about ancient Greek or Roman culture, or the 18th century dress and behavior across Western Europe.<br />
<br />
Later, Rabbi Yaakov Menken posted a comment responding in part to me. I fisked it, and this comment has yet to be approved by Cross-Currents, even though Yaakov Menken has commented since. Here is the unapproved comment from me:<br />
<br />
"<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;">Daniel Weltman</div><em style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;">Your comment is awaiting moderation.</em><br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;" /><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/12/28/a-much-needed-response/comment-page-1/#comment-399955" style="color: #c29914; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">December 29, 2011 at 11:31 am</a></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><i>If you condemn the charedi separate buses, and do not condemn those in Korea and Mexico City, you are a bigot.</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">I guess I am not a bigot then, at least by your standards.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">I know you don’t mean to sound this way, but you sound as though you are trying to defend the indefensible. And so:</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><i>They didn’t speak fast enough.</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">They sure didn’t. Women have had bricks thrown at them, been physically (!!) assaulted on buses that are segregated, and little religious girls (albeit not charedi) have been called whores and prostitutes, and yet there has been <b>no</b> backlash from official charedi organizations until now, until the media blitz. In fact, rabbis have said that they <b>refuse</b> to speak out against these activities, because they are not related to them at all. It is sad that it takes what you call a “deliberate provocation…media tactic” to get the ball rolling on some much-needed, sadly missing public charedi outrage.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><i>They dare to operate gender-separate buses.</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">No, Egged does. They do not operate the buses. If this were a private bus company, things may be a bit different, don’t you think…</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><i>They dare to help their own values by suggesting opposite sides of the street before Sukkos, when the crowds and tiny sidewalks of Meah Shearim make physical contact mandatory.</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">Suggesting? Or enforcing? I think your comment suffers from pollyanism. How about the mob-style forcing of stores to keep the placards about “please only enter modestly dressed” in their windows? What happens to those who refuse, Yaakov? How about Manny’s bookstore? If these actions are really only those of fringe elements, then the complaint of the mainstream charedim is much too late, and too little besides. If not, then I do not really know what point you are making.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><i>All of that means the charedim (including Rav Lipman, who is in Beit Shemesh and has vociferously opposed the Sikrikim) condone their behavior.</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">שתיקה כהודעה – Silence implies consent. I doubt that anyone would say that any rabbi who “vociferously opposed” the hooligans condones their behavior. Let’s discuss without the false choices.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><i>Deliberate provocation is an acceptable media tactic against them.</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">See above.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><i>or present a verbal confrontation as violence.</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">Yaakov, spitting at someone is considered נזיקין in Halacha. It is ironically listed with one who “uncovers a woman’s hair in public”, and has the same compensation to the victim — 400 zuz (quite a sum of money). See Bava Kama 8:6.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">Screaming obscenities in public is certainly against the law, and not covered by Free speech when it is disorderly conduct. Particularly when directed at a person in a threatening way, it is assault. It is assault. Throwing feces, rocks, bricks, and other objects at a person or a home is battery and property damage.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">When you say “present a verbal confrontation as violence”, do you mean to imply that the above occurrences (some recorded) did not occur?</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><i>truly the Jews’ Jews</i></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;">If by “Jews’ Jews” you mean, finding a demand to react against fringe elements of their society vocally and consistently, and not to allow evil and thuggery to fester in their midst, yes they are Jews. If you mean the colloquial usage, that they are the scapegoat for the people who serve as scapegoats for the rest of the nations, you are simply wrong, and throwing around loaded terms will do nothing to help anyone in the Beit Shemesh situation today.</div><br />
"mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-18374335429987157072011-12-13T00:58:00.000-08:002011-12-14T01:15:46.932-08:00Rav Soloveitchik and Historical PositivismIn this <a href="http://torahmusings.com/2011/12/post-modern-objections-to-academic-jewish-studies/comment-page-2/#comments">post</a> on TorahMusings, Rabbi Wurzburger is quoted as saying: "The Rav’s objection to the employment of modern historic and textual scholarship to ascertain the meaning of halakha reflects not naive traditionalism but highly sophisticated post-modern critical thought. He insists that halakha operate with its own unique canons of interpretation. According to R. Soloveitchik, scientific methods are appropriate only for the explanation of natural phenomena but have no place in the quest for the understanding of the normative and cognitive concepts of halakha, which imposes its own a priori categories, which differ from those appropriate in the realm of science. It is for this reason that the Rav completely ignores Bible criticism and eschews the “positive historical” approach of the “Science of Judaism.”"<br />
<br />
Perhaps the use, in the passage quoted above, of the term 'post-modern' is to simply refer to a category of thought that is "after" modernism. After all, Rav Soloveitchik is clear in <u>Halachik Mind</u> that (as pointed out in the passage), to the extent anything can claim the title "true" or "valid" in a post-Kantian world, there are many parallel systems of cognition, which are valid for their field of application. A key element of this is that, within their fields, these systems are valid. This is far from the standard definition of post-Modernism, that apparent realities are nothing more than social constructs, and that narratives take the place of the search for truth.<br />
<br />
In fact, <u>Halachik Mind </u>ends up vouching for a methodology of religion and by extension, Halacha, which is essentially scientific: "...it would be fallacious to apply the method of independent philosophy in the field of religion. It would inevitably result in a labyrinth of mysticism. If modern philosophy, in it quest for "independence", has become arbitrary, then religious thought, which is particularly prone to abstruseness, needs be all the more wary of such an alignment. The student of religion, starting from the principle of cognitive pluralism, would act wisely in taking his cue from the scientist rather than the philosopher. The structural designs of religion cannot be intuited through any sympathetic fusion with an eternal essence, but must be reconstructed out of objective religious data and central realities. The uniqueness of the religious experience resides in its objective normative components." (62) We must go from the objective to the subjective, and not the other direction.<br />
<br />
However, the scientific method wielded in Halacha must be based on different data points than in common scientific inquiry: legal ones. In Part Four, Rabbi Soloveitchik explains that the very data points of the scientific exploration of religion must be the normative objective components, the legal rules themselves. We start not from an ethical question of "why" but the descriptive question of "what". Instead of putting Halcha up to be constructed out of extra-religious considerations, he claims that Halacha contains the data from which we reconstruct our subjective activity. We blow the shofar, not because it (and only it) reminds us of teshuva; rather, we do teshuva because we recognize that as the subjective origin (and a non-necessary result which we are expected to glean) of the objective commandment (94-96). <br />
<br />
This view of Rav Soloveitchik is not, to my mind, necessarily at odds with historical positivism. Nothing in this view fundamentally eschews the historical approach to legal theory and Halacha. Rav Soloveitchik's unwillingness to engage in the "science of Judaism" is much more a function of the prevailing mood in Weimar Germany against historicism. See Gordon's <u>Rosenzweig and Heidegger: Between Judaism and German Philosophy</u> 195n5, and see his reference to David Myers' <u>Historicism and Its Discontents in German-Jewish Thought</u>. This tendency is aptly <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7639.html">summed up</a>: "By the late nineteenth century and into the Weimar period, historicism was seen by many as a grinding force that corroded social values and was emblematic of modern society's gravest ills." (I am not here judging the merits of historicism or the dangers articulated by its critics.) Additionally, the realization that historical positivism would be a tremendous innovation and revolution in standard yeshiva study, to wit, the controversy over Wissenschaft des Judentums, probably also tempered the willingness of many rabbis to engage in it (as commenters point out on the <a href="http://torahmusings.com/2011/12/post-modern-objections-to-academic-jewish-studies/comment-page-2/#comments">post</a>) . Thus it is not at all his post-Kantian view of reality that led Rav Soloveitchik to reject the historical positivist approach to Halacha, but, ironically, historical, sociological and cultural considerations.<br />
<br />
UPDATE:<br />
<br />
After discussion with two friends, I realize that there is a need to differentiate between historical positivism as a theory, and historical necessity as an explanation of data points. Historical positivism as a theory states that the historical realities results in the creation of legal principles. For example, the shortage of wood leads to the creation of the Halachik concept of lavud, and the reticence of lenders leads to the creation of the concept of prosbol. The very concept is created out of historical necessity, and Halacha is in a large sense, a function of reactions to socio-historical events instead of a unified legal theory.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, even one who rejects these theories on the grounds that Halacha is an objective, conceptual system which is unchanging at its core, would still accept historical data as explanations, not for the creation, but for the development (or discovery) of latent halachik principles into halachik tools or takanot. For example, the concepts at the root of lavud were part of the core halachik system from the beginning. The rule that loans owned by the courts are not subject to cancellation in the sh'mitta year, and the idea that one can pay a partner a certain amount and thus purchase the responsibility for fluctuations (up or down) in the business venture (the foundation of the heter iska), are concepts that are not groundbreaking; they existed in halacha from the very beginning. However, this viewpoint would not discount that the process of the development of halacha is historically contingent. Socio-historic necessity is valid as an explanation as to why the Rabbis decided to innovate the idea that one can give his personal loans to the courts, thus turning them into court-held loans which are not cancelled. The innovation lies in the willingness to turn a personal loan into a court-held one. Once this development is accomplished, application of the age-old idea that court-held loans are not subject to shemitta cancellation is non-controversial. Similarly, once social changes necessitated the <em>chiddush </em>that we may view interest on a loan as a business venture in which a partner purchases responsibility for fluctuations in the business venture's profitability in exchange for a fixed percentage, the application of the heter iska becomes non-controvesial as well.<br />
<br />
Thus, historical considerations play a part in the development of the application of core halachik ideas, but they do not engage in the creation of these ideas. This is the point at which Rav Soloveitchik and historical positivists would diverge in principle, ideologically.mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-14835633923025476342011-11-23T01:46:00.001-08:002012-03-27T03:43:22.433-07:00R Judah Halevi and AsceticismRabbi Yehuda Halevi (turn of 11th century in Spain) wrote the Kuzari, a work of original and traditional Jewish philosophy. Rabbi David Cohen (הרב הנזיר), in the middle of the 20th century, gave a series of lectures upon this book in the Merkaz Harav yeshivah. His notes were edited and have been printed as a three volume commentary on the Kuzari. In this edition of the Kuzari, Rabbi Cohen points out that in his earlier years, Rabbi Yehuda Halevi tended towards asceticism. It is clear from the Kuzari (2:56), however, that the author changed his mind. <br />
<br />
The Kuzari makes a passionate case against asceticism or פרישות, when he states: "It is not proof of the Godly [within a person] when he is overly careful about pronunciation, or lifts his eyebrows and squeezes his eyes shut, or engages in profligate pleadings, prayers, gesticulations and pronouncements which have no action backing them up. Rather the pure conscience is proven by actions whose commitment is hard for a person to accomplish, but he nevertheless acts upon them with motivation and love, with a goal of closeness to God..." <br />
<br />
He goes on to describe the details and minutia of practical commandments not only which lead a person to ethical life and performance of loving-kindness towards others, but also allow a person the ability to become intimate with the Creator through עבודה, service as commanded by God. The choosing of one's own path towards closeness to God is the foundation of idolatry, for Rabbi Yehuda. It is only through meticulous performance of commandments from God, active physical expressions of closeness to God on his terms, that we are able to serve Him.<br />
<br />
Centuries after Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, Rabbi Dr Eliezer Berkovits would write in <u>God, Man and History</u>, that, "the task of relating the physical component of the human being to God can be accomplished only by a divine law...the body is not accessible to logical reasoning. One can only teach it by making it do things. One does not learn to swim by reading books on swimming technique, nor does one become a painter by merely contemplating the styles of different schools. One learns to swim by swimming, to paint by painting, to act by acting. One learns how to do anything by doing it. This applies nowhere more strictly than in the realm of ethical action. The only way of educating the biophysical instrument of action is by making it perform." <br />
<br />
The ascetic drive in Man can only bring him so far upon the path of service of the Divine. It is only physical, God-commanded, theonomic practice which allows the whole being of a human to serve God. The pre-occupation with asceticism is to engage in a never-ending enterprise which, if allowed, will easily prevent the whole human from accomplishing his religious and God-ordained goals.mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-34961125134167926992011-09-25T22:31:00.001-07:002011-09-27T11:07:12.060-07:00Isaiah IThe book of Yeshaya starts during the reign of Judean kings, when Jerusalem sits secure and physically safe. However, the prophet looks to the moral state of Israel and finds the nation terribly wanting. The complaints listed by Yeshaya are all of the moral and ethical type. In fact, the language he employs makes it clear that the practice of the Jewish ceremonial-religious service has not lagged. By asking, למה לי רוב זבחיכם, Yeshaya admits that the sacrificial service in the temple is uninterrupted. When he says, חדש ושבת קרא מקרא, he implies that the societal structure is one which still maintains outward practice of the law of Moses.<br />
<br />
Yeshaya complains, though, that the nation has lost its sense of social justice. The judges of Israel are corrupt; they do not seek justice. Halacha, instead of having as its goals good and "ways of pleasantness", has been turned into a tool for everything but that. The judges, those who are charged with the direction of the courts and halacha, have become corrupted. They do not judge correctly for יתומים, and they ignore the plight of widows (v 23). This corruption is the necessary and sufficient cause for the destruction of Jewish society. Courts no longer dispense justice, they contribute to injustice.<br />
<br />
Moreover, Judean society has placed a premium on religious activity and piety, and has allowed expressions of these to overcome and hide the sins of the judiciary (and the judicial conscience within each individual). For example, in v 4: נאצו את קדוש ישראל נזרו אחור. Radak and Ibn Ezra bring as an explanatory verse on the word נזרו, the verse וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל. The verb נ.ז.ר means to withdraw, to remove oneself. In the context of the Pentateuchal verse, this is a desirable action. The priests are exhorted to withdraw from taking קדשי בני ישראל, and doing so is right. The very commandment of נזיר, in which a person withdraws from worldly pleasure to focus on inner, spiritual development, is generally seen as a good thing (even if according to some the very need to do so is a negative). However, Judean society in the times of Yeshaya had perverted this concept of holy withdrawl, נזירות של קדושה, and twisted it into נזירות של רשעות, withdrawl from קדוש ישראל Himself. They have removed themselves from intimate and immanent communion with God through their didactic observance of details, while allowing themselves to ignore the injustice and evil of כלו אהב שחד ורדף שלמנים (v 23).<br />
<br />
From this, comes the thesis of the prophets in general: החפץ ה' בזבחים ועולות כשמוע בקול ה'? Does God really want your offerings and automaton service in His Temple, if that means you ignore the moral and ethical spirit of His commands? Torah and Mitzvot are supposed to make us moral people, Halacha should make us cringe at injustice and in its face, burn with the fire of justified rage. The commands of God are supposed to make us better people. If they do not, then the result is exile and punishment. <br />
<br />
The promise of God in v 25-26 is clear. Which enemies will God take vengeance upon? The judges and politicians, and those elements within indviduals that allowed injustice and perversion of social norms. Those who are charged with social justice are the ones who will be corrected, along with a society that allowed their perversion. Only upon justice will the righteous city be so called, and the returnees will enjoy צדקה (v 27). <br />
<br />
When Israel returns to God, it begins by returning to the orphan and the widow. When halacha does not countenance the undue suffering of the innocent, then can Israel be redeemed.mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-34526763430123666382011-09-01T01:28:00.000-07:002011-12-15T02:13:34.830-08:00Torah and Truth(UPATE: In response to feedback from a reader, I decided that this post probably deserves a disclaimer. The topic it addresses is always a difficult topic to approach. It seems to border on a grey area which for many, may tread on ground thought of as Reform. First, let me say that the main problems with Reform Judaism are its antinomianism and its willingness to reject the giving of Torah by God directly to Moshe at Mt Sinai. I certainly deny both these stances: First, the Laws of the Torah (and the Oral Law and Rabbinic Traditions) are in force and every Jew is religiously obligated to follow them. Second, the Jewish people's collective experience at Mt Sinai is a crucial article of faith that I have no intention of denying or discussing in this present post.<br />
<br />
Finally, allow me to draw a comparison to the present essay's discussion of the stories of the book of Genesis and parts of Exodus, and the midrashic discussion of the book of Job. There is ample support for the notion that the entire book of Job is an allegory; it does not purport to present a historical discussion of the life of a man named Job; rather, it tells a story with moral and ethical lessons. Additionally, keep in mind that the Rambam is willing to take various stories of the forefathers as prophecies rather than literal occurences (for example, the three angels appearing to Avraham after his circumcision). It is in the above light and the above vein that the following discussion of Genesis and Exodus should be taken.)<br />
<br />
As science and the studies of history and archeology continue to progress, the Torah seems under attack from many different directions. Was the world created in six days? Is it really only 5,767 years old? Was there a global flood? These questions and many others like them have caused many to doubt the authenticity of the Torah. They have spawned countless apologetic re-interpretations and explanations, trying to resolve the apparent problems in our tradition<sup>1</sup>.<br />
<br />
Some quite sophisticated mathematic acrobatics have been produced reconciling the six days of creation with different time-lines proposed by theoretical scientists. Heated debate raises questions on these types of work. While it is sometimes exciting to observe the ingenuity of such interpretations, they are unnecessary<sup>2</sup>.<br />
<br />
As Rashi makes clear in his commentary on the first verse in <em>B'reshit</em>, the Torah is not a book of history. The purpose of God's word is not to tell us what was, but what shall be in our realm of thought and action. Torah is a book of ethical instruction. It is to teach us how to act, and how to live. And so, Rashi states that the purpose of the story of creation is to impress upon us the absolute dominion God has over creation, and explain that Jewish rights to the land of Israel are divine. The question of exactly how the world was created, while of possible esoteric value, is not the thrust of the creation story.<br />
<br />
Indeed, the concept that the Torah existed before the creation of the world, and served as its blueprint, is certainly not to be taken literally. A basic tenant of Judaism is that God imbued Man with free will. The Torah could not have 'destined' our nation to the stories of the spies or the golden calf written within it. Even the concept of Adam's sin being predetermined would raise problems.<br />
<br />
A Rabbi (זצ"ל) who taught me during my semicha studies agrees and quotes <em>midrashim</em> to the effect that the Torah is a unified, pure ray of light. It is the kernel and essence of truth in this world. It is in this regard that, 'אורייתא וקודשא בריך הוא חד הוא'. When exposed to the physical world God created, this light is refracted, much as sulight is broken up by a prism. The more complex the world, the more refraction occurs. In the world of Eden, the essence of truth was broken into one positive and one negative commandment. After the flood and the sins of humanity, it was broken into seven commands. Finally, it settled in our present situation of 613 commandments. The important point here is that the practical form of the divine Torah, in a different reality, could conceivably be different.<br />
<br />
My teacher mentions in his writings the possibility that the book of <em>B'reshit</em> and parts of <em>Sh'mot</em> was written by the forefathers (he bases this on Psikta Rabati Chapter 3). It was the material studied by the Jews in Egypt. When the nation gathered at Mt. Sinai, God canonized the teachings of the forefathers and made it part of the divine Torah he imparted to Moshe<sup>3</sup>. It is certainly clear that our forefathers were not historians or scientists. Just as the people around them, they took for granted certain versions of the history of the world, and used them to teach moral lessons to their children. They even took laws from surrounding cultures (such as <em>yibbum</em> and certain civil and criminal laws) and, with certain changes, made them part of their teachings. These teachings and rules were canonized at Mt. Sinai for the ethical and legal lessons they contained. This was a natural way to teach these truths to a nation that was used to being taught lessons based on stories from the past.<br />
<br />
Thus, the questions of historicity or science and Torah really are non-issues. The Torah's purpose is not to teach history or science. One might even say that the Canonical genre transcends the concepts of truth and falsehood. God utililzed the universal stories, the world's wisdom and the common idioms to convey to the Jews the eternal essence of truth that is that unadulterated ray of Torah. It is a generalized version of Rabbi Yishmael's "דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם", that the Torah is written in the lyric of the time in which it was given. (If one thinks about it, it is impossible to imagine otherwise; how, then, would the people receiving it understand it?!)<br />
<br />
In the first book of his <u>Guide</u>, Rambam states that the Torah does, in fact, say things that are not true, in order to allow the people who received it to more readily understand it. He brings as an example the phrase 'the hand of God'. This anthropomorphic statement, implies the Rambam, was not naturally understood by most Jews to be an allegory. On the contrary, the majority took it literally! And although it is false that God has a hand, says Rambam, it is written in the Torah in order to make it easily understood.<br />
<br />
In the same way, we may say that the Torah contains stories that may not have literally, historically, happened. There is not even a need (nor desire) to allegorize a story if it is proven to be unfounded. Although our forefathers may have believed in their literal truth, we do not have to in order to gain the true point that they are meant to teach. They are there to teach lessons in an approachable way to the Jewish nation that received it from God. The actual facts are simply vehicles to drive home the main thrust, which is the moral lesson and divine command. (This is not to say that we must or even should deny the literal historical occurence of these stories. Rather, what it means is that if they are ever somehow proven to have not historically have occurred in the way the Torah describes, this would not shake one iota of their import, lessons and ultimate truth value. The truth value of these stories lies not in their historical accuracy but in the lessons and molding of Jewish and global values. This remains in effect whether or not the stories in their literal form occurred. With this in mind, the goal of the stories shifts from literal historicity to moral teaching; this is perhaps a deeper understanding of Rashi's statement that Torah is not a history book. In addition, it causes the stories to transcend the binary dichotomy of truth and falsehood; the truth value of these stories no longer rests on their literal historical accuracy. They are transcendentally true (and valuable) even if they did not occur, by virtue of the noble and ennobling lessons they plant in the spirit of their audience.)<br />
<br />
This view creates a theological foundation that is more flexible and thus more powerful than others. Science and history may lay claim to evidence that contradicts parts of our tradition. However, with our thesis in mind, these questions from fact become non-questions, ones that attack the outer garments of our faith as if these attacks are aimed at the beating heart. However, the heart continues to beat, and the stories themselves maintain their vitality, for their purpose is not historical accuracy but moral education.<br />
<br />
While I cannot ensure that this essay will not be misinterpreted anyway, allow me to point out one caveat immediately. This post in no way denies the divinity of the Torah; on the contrary, it strengthens it. The practical laws of the Torah are certainly not under discussion here. They are the commands of God to His world. Also, the authority of the Oral Law is certainly not attacked. This discussion is limited to a study of <strong>how</strong> God chose to couch His teachings to the world at the time He revealed them.<br />
<br />
This approach obviates the need to harmonize the literal word of the Torah with the latest scientific or archeological find. The Torah's lessons are ethical and theological, not scientific or historical. The more we internalize this, the faster we will find peace of faith in our modern world.<br />
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<span style="font-size: 85%;"><br />
<sup>1</sup> Many thanks to </span><a href="http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 85%;">S.</span></a><span style="font-size: 85%;"> His input was invaluable for this post.<br />
<br />
<sup>2</sup> Dr Wolowelsky's note at Tradition Online has recently come to my attention (after writing this essay). See footnote 9 at the end of his <a href='http://www.traditiononline.org/news/_pdfs/0041-0048.pdf' target='_blank'>article</a> at Tradition Online for expansion on this point, and the article in general, which agrees in large part with my essay here. <br />
<br />
<sup>3</sup> Also post-publication of this essay, see an explanation of Rabbi Emanuel Rackman's Bibilical theology, <a href='http://torahmusings.com/2011/12/biblical-theology-of-rabbi-emanuel-rackman/' target='_blank'>here</a>. Also, see אגרות ראיה חלק א אגרת קל"ד which agrees with the thrust of this essay.</span>mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33346406.post-52913949715125337202011-07-14T23:57:00.000-07:002011-09-07T04:56:44.805-07:00Peace as a Meta-ValueAfter zealously defending the honor of God and the Jewish people in an act of extra-judicial killing, Pinchas is blessed at the beginning of our portion with the covenant of peace. The blessing bestowed upon the zealot seems at odds with the profound violence of his act. Does the juxtaposition of a graphic act of killing and the promise of peace not seem vulgar? Upon further reflection, however, it may become clear that this vulgarity is a function of our general misunderstanding of peace as a value.<br />
<br />
Also, another curiosity exists in the verse. Pinchas is promised a "covenant of peace". Should the verse not say "blessing of peace"? What is the meaning of this covenant? The same question applies to the mishna. The mishnah states in Uktzin: אין לך כלי שהוא מחזיק ברכה אלא שלום, שנאמר ה'--עוז, לעמו ייתן; ה', יברך את עמו בשלום. There is no vessel that holds blessing better than peace. Rabbi Tubi of Kerem B'Yavneh asks: why is it that peace is referred to as a vessel that holds blessing? Should not peace be the blessing itself? <br />
<br />
The standard working definition of "peace" is the absence of conflict or violence. Nations that do not make war are at peace. However, upon closer examination, this definition breaks down. Would we call it peace, if World War II had come to an end of hostilities with the Axis powers destroying all opponents? That would be a cessation of war, but most would agree that their intuitive sense of what peace means would not be fulfilled by this outcome. What is it, then, that we really mean when we speak of peace?<br />
<br />
Rabbi Hirsch points out that peace is not simply the absence of violence. It is rather the completion experienced when the world is right - when the world is on the path to fulfilling its mission to God. Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits discusses the purpose of the world in his <u>God, Man and History</u>. Free will is given uniquely to Man in order for humanity to take responsibility for what goes on down on earth. Only Man can choose to do good, go against their basic animalistic nature and live the higher moral and ethical life. Man is charged with the task of conquering with his free will his nature, and submitting his inclinations for evil to the good commanded by God.<br />
<br />
Three times did man fail. Adam and Eve's fall in Eden was the first. Then, sin of the generations leading up to the flood caused God to try again, giving the world a fresh chance at holy greatness in the seed of Noah. In their third failure at the Tower of Babel, God decided to install a priestly nation, the Jews, to shine the light of the moral and ethical greatness and purpose of existence upon the rest of the nations.<br />
<br />
Now that we have a basic understanding of the purpose of the world, we can answer the first question. If humanity had given the Nazis control over the world, there may have been an absence of war. However, there would certainly not be a concert of the real world with the word of God. Hitler made it his mission to destroy the two curses he said the Jews bestowed upon humanity: the curse of circumcision and the curse of conscience. Hitler wanted the social darwanistic, Nietzschean "might makes right", power of the sword to rule the world. This proposed destruction of Godly ethics and the destruction of the Jewish people would have cast the world into a shadow of darkness from which it would not have recovered. Without the light of the Jewish Torah and its ethical teachings, there would be no hope for humanity. And so, our intuition is right to tell us that Nazism over the world would have been far from peace. It would have been peace's antithesis. It was the world's fight to the last drop of blood against Hitler which was, paradoxically, its only chance at true peace.<br />
<br />
And in the same vein, it is precisely the act of Pinchas, violent though it was, that brought about a semblence of true peace. Zimri's action was a direct rebellion against the kingdom of God and the very purpose of Israel's earthly charge. And it was Pinchas who stemmed the tide of that rebellion, and brought the Jewish world back into harmony with the commands and ethics of God.<br />
As for the second question: why does God give a "covenant" of peace to Pinchas? A blessing is a gift that is uncontingent. However, a covenant implies a challange to the receiver, that he deserve and live up to it. <br />
Each individual human is a microcosm of the world entire. Just as peace is a meta-value that provides correct and appropriate expression of the various and diverging values beneath it for the world, so does peace act as a meta-value for the individual, categorizing and applying various character traits appropriately for the service of God. Peace is not a value in and of itself. It is a meta-value that acts as a harbor for the other values and emotions that Man subscribes to, providing appropriate dock for each one. When one finds the appropriate use for each value, he is able to maintain stability in the face of diverse situations and conditions.<br />
<br />
This is the meaning of the covenant of peace that God forges with Pinchas. Pinchas has demonstrated, by his violent actions on behalf of God’s honor, his ability and willingness to use the value of קנאות, zealotry, at the appropriate time. However, God needed to teach him of the balance that is necessary in life. Zealotry was appropriate here, but elsewhere it will be inappropriate. Therefore, God gave Pinchas the priesthood. כהונה is a mantle that requires the priest to be totally and unreservedly at one and in love with his brothers. Indeed, a kohen must feel this specifically, every day, when he blesses the nation באהבה. By making granting Pinchas the priesthood, God added to his natural zealotry the necessary counter-balance, meek willingness and fore-bearance to all. With this equilibrium, Pinchas is able to enter into covanental שלום, complete wholeness resulting in true peace, with God.<br />
<br />
Aharon, the archetypical priest, is a shining example of the opposite personality. He was so loving, so full of חסד, that he participated in the Golden Calf with the people, all the while trying desperately to temper their sin. His overflowing love and willingness to give in was his Achilles heel, and is the only sin which we find him explicitly culpable for. To balance this value, God commands that it be him and his tribe who kill those who worshipped the idol. Perhaps this is also a reason for the prominent place the priest has in the array of war according to the Torah. Pinchas and Aharon represent one value that must be tempered with the other in order to bring about שלום, peace. Indeed, when they reach their perfection, each is an archetype of peace – Aharon the רודף שלום, and Pinchas, he who is granted בריתי שלום.<br />
<br />
The same lesson is furthered in our haftarah. Eliyahu, prophet par excellence, leaves Jerusalem, his ministry largely failed. He finds himself in a desert, and, at a moment of personal and ministerial crisis, he calls out to God, declaring himself a קנאי and wishing for death. God provides him food and water, and then reveals a prophecy to him: a whirlwind, then an earthquake, and finally a consuming fire. Yet God is not to be found in these. In the stillness that follows, a small voice is heard. The metaphor is clear: sometimes, it is not in aggrandized, noisy and powerful displays of zeal, but in meek willingness to fore-bear in which the path to God can be found. However, Eliyahu is too much a zealot, and he again wishes for death. God realizes that Eliyahu is no longer suited to his ministry, and directs him to choose a successor.<br />
<br />
The background story in this haftarah is recognizable in the later prophet, Yonah. After prophesying to Ninveh, he goes to the desert, where he asks, as did Eliyahu, for death. God provides him a tree for sustenance and shade, and then allows a worm to devour it. Again, the lesson teaches the prophet to recognize the need for mercy as opposed to zealous justice only. In contrast to Eliyahu, Yonah learns the lesson, and the Yalkut Shimoni completes the story that the prophet leaves unfinished, saying “he fell on his face and pleaded that God treat the world with mercy!” <br />
<br />
The contrast of Aharon and Pinchas in the Torah and Eliyahu and Yonah in the Nevi’im certainly bear out the lesson of שלום. It is not enough to be zealous or meek. One must be both, at the appropriate time for each.<br />
<br />
The lesson of שלום is not a simple one. We may find zeal and fore-bearance touted as the correct response to various occasions strewn throughout Jewish history and Rabbinic literature. God Himself is sometimes portrayed acting with strict justice, as when punishing the city of Sodom, rejecting the pleas for mercy from Avraham, and at other times, He is portrayed as acting with tender fore-bearance, such as when he waits patiently for the repentence of the idolatrous Ninveites. God is zealous for his honor when he kills the sons of Aharon when they offer a forbidden incense-sacrifice, and yet on the other hand, he is so self-effacing that he permits His holy name to be erased to reconcile the estranged husband and wife. We can often lose sight of the larger picture of peace as a meta-value throughout the year, as we become preoccupied with the values that make it up. It is common for us to feel the strength of mercy and its all-encompassing purification during the High holidays to be the only way to ever act, and yet then to feel the absolute zeal of Pinchas when we read the parasha of Balak a few months later. How then, in the face of contradictory evidence, are we to decide the true path to tread, in order to correctly apply the zeal of Pinchas and the self-effacement of Aharon appropriately, so that we may be inductees to the covenant of true peace?<br />
<br />
When conflict arises, and we must engage, we may ask ourselves a critical question: would showing fore-bearance to the adversary destroy the moral and ethical fabric of our Torah? Would it destroy the soul of mankind? This question needs to be asked in every era and its answer may be different depending on the time. If the answer is yes, then there is no choice but to zealously set forth in battle, adorned with the values of Pinchas. For if we do not, the kindness and meekness we display will simply be the cause of the downfall of the task of Judaism in this world, to let the light of the Torah shine forth for mankind. If, for example, we had taken Gandhi’s advice to German Jewry in the 30’s and commit mass suicide as a non-violent protest to Hitler’s designs, the very ethics for which the world was created would be gone. If the allies had decided that, in order to avoid war at all cost, they would submit to the Nazi plan and allow Germany to rule over all, perhaps the most immediate immanence of war would have been avoided for a time; however, this would not bring peace, this would not bring a situation where good and God’s will prevail. On the contrary, it would bring darkness and savagery, and all that the morality of Torah sets about to eradicate from the world. With this possibility on the horizon, the task of Judaism and indeed, of all that is good in humanity, is to fight to the last drop of blood. Even within this just war there is peace, the peace of mind of a world that will not bow to evil, but stands up for God and good. <br />
<br />
To use a more contemporary example, we may consider the “peace” process being shoved down Israel’s throat for the past 20 years. When an adversary explicitly states his desire to destroy your nation, fore-bearance and meekness, concessions and compromise is wrong. Giving in to this enemy irretrievably negates your very right to exist, and by extension, your claim to a moral code that is necessary for the world. As the midrash says, those who fight against Israel are really using Israel to fight against God.<br />
<br />
Back to our portion, Pinchas’s killing of those who, at a critical time in Israel’s history, sought to destroy the morality and purity of the Jewish nation, was an act of peace precisely because inaction would have shattered those ideals without which the world is not worthy of existence.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, if the answer to our critical question is no, and fore-bearance will not endanger the values of the Torah, then it is possible to utilize the value of חסד, meekness and fore-bearance, and Aharon’s technique of winning over an adversary with love. <br />
<br />
In fact, far too often, we may find ourselves arguing with others and sure of our pure intentions, defending God’s honor, when it is in reality only our own honor which is at stake. These situations are ones where the proper path is that of Aharon, leaving the zeal of Pinchas for other times.<br />
<br />
The story of Pinchas is here for us to learn from. While zealotry has its place, we must make sure that it is appropriate. Far too often, we stand upon principle when the only principle is personal pride. In order to be people of שלום, a nation of true peace, we must internalize the complexity of each situation, and choose the correct value. When we do so, we make ourselves privy to the true brotherhood of God, where each thing is done for the sake of heaven and with the purpose of bringing about the ultimate purpose, a world run in harmony with God’s plan, a covenant of peace.mevaseretzionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10118487743478084355noreply@blogger.com0