Not in Heaven

The 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Repentance

Jewish sources include many different theories of teshuva. One that is particularly apropos to modern times is that expounded by Rav Kook, in his 1925 work Orot Hateshuva. In addition to discussing the benefits of teshuva, Rav Kook points out some of its potential pitfalls, which are instructive and worthy of mention.

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 § 1). It is not hard to see that the will Rav Kook refers to is synonymous with the will described in Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation. 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.

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 must 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.

In light of this, what is teshuva? 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.

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 teshuva process.

Additionally, another danger lurks in the paths of repentance: that a person might fall prey to depression. In ch. 9 §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 teshuva 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.

It is for this reason, says Rav Kook (ibid. §10), that immediately after the High Holidays, the calendar brings us to Simchat Torah, the celebration of active service of Hashem in joyful communion. Teshuva 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.

Hero

The 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, Self Portrait of a Hero. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

May his memory be instructive to us, and a blessing to our people. יהי זכרו ברוך, ה' יקום דמו.

Baruch Dayan HaEmet

Rav Elyashiv has passed away. This is a tremendous loss for the Jewish people. May his death be an atonement for our nation.

המקום ינחם אותנו בתוך שאר אבלי ציון וירושלים.

May God comfort us, amongst all those who mourn Zion and Jerusalem.

Peace and Conflict

הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום- 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?

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.

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 כלל ישראל, the community of Israel. The רמב"ם in his פרוש המשניות on בכורות ד:ג states, "בני ארץ ישראל הם הנקראים קהל".

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 שלום, consonance, to wildly opposing views, with a historically conscious eye on how these views ultimately strengthen each other and their ultimate goals of Godliness – לתקן עולם במלכות שקי.

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.

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.

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?!

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.

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.

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 Not in Heaven. 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.

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.

Rejected Cross Currents Comments

Time for another installment of comments I posted on Cross-Currents posts, that have (as of yet) not been approved:

Post: Nachal Charedi

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

June 28, 2012 at 1:52 am

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.

However, I think your conclusion that, My next child has already gotten their army exemption, 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.

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.

Post: Plesner Committee


Your comment is awaiting moderation.

June 27, 2012 at 11:47 pm

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.

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.

The proof that they feel they are special is in a later part of R Rosenblum’s essay. He writes: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When A Chatzitzah Requires Re-immersion

בשאלת חציצות למיניהן, מתי יוצרות חיוב לחזור ולטבול


דברַי להלן מובאות כעיון, ואין להשליך מהם מסקנות הלכתיות מעשיות אלא בנוסף להתייעצות עם מורה הוראה.

א

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.

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.

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.

ב

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.

ג

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.

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.

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.)

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?

ד

להסבר, נראה לי שיש לחדש שהרמ"א כאן מחדש רובד נוסף לרבדים שהזכרנו עד עתה. עד עתה, אמרנו ש:

- אם זה חציצה דאורייתא, צריכה לחזור ולטבול. (פשוט)

- אם זה חציצה דרבנן, אף אם היא לא מקפדת, בטלה דעתה אצל כל אדם, וחוזרת. (פשוט)

- אם זה חציצה דרבנן, ורוב לא מקפידות, והיא כן, בטלה דעתה ולא חוזרת. (רשב"א)

- אם זה דבר שרוב לא מקפידות, אז לכתחילה לא תטבול, אבל מדיעבד יצאה, ולא חוזרת לטבול. (רמ"א, ט"ז)

- 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)

עתה, נוסיף שלרמ"א, יש עוד רובד: אם זה מיעוט ורוב לא מקפידות מטעם נוי, אבל מטעם מנהגי טבילה, בנות ישראל קיבלו על עצמן לעשות כן, והיא מעוניינת להצטרף למנהגיהן, 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.)

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.

(אחר כתבי דברים אלו, עיינתי בכתבה 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.)

דברַי לעיל מובאות כעיון, ואין להשליך מהם מסקנות הלכתיות מעשיות אלא בנוסף להתייעצות עם מורה הוראה.

Emergence of Ethical Man

I.

I finished reading Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Emergence of Ethical Man 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 supernatural¹. It is part of Dr Hazony's thesis that Emergence of Ethical Man 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.

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, Halachik Mind seems to have been written before Emergence 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 Halachik Mind, but did not have the leisure before his death to give the same polish to Emergence. Furthermore, I have been told that Rabbi Soloveitchik specifically mentioned this manuscript amongst the ones he wanted his family and students to publish.

II.

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.

1) Dr Hazony writes: “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?"

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."

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.

2) Hazony says: "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."

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 Emergence, "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."

3) Dr Hazony indicates: "… naturalist ones such as those we find in Maimonides’ Guide and Soloveitchik’s Emergence of Ethical Man"

Though it is tempting to group RYBS's Emergence 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 Emergence in his other works. However, Rambam does, and I think this would preclude the association of the two masters in this matter.

4) Finally, a completely naturalistic take on mankind seems to preclude events such as prophecy, and the giving and receiving of the Torah at Har Sinai. 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)

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 reformation 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 Emergence. 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.

III.

Certainly, Emergence 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ Certain parts of the book itself left me unconvinced. In particular, Rabbi Soloveitchik's read of the Gemara in Sanhedrin 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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anti-Pagan Motif in B'reshit

I am reading Moshe Greenberg's translation of Yehezkel Kaufmann's work, Religion of Israel. 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.

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:

"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)

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 midrash 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.

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.

'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 (citation). 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." (Religion of Israel 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.)

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.

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.'

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.

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.

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 piel form when he declares that El Elyon 'delivered - מיגן' Avraham's enemies into his hands. In 15:1, God uses it in the qal 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 here.)

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, You 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.

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 midrash 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!

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.

Against a Submissive Attitude in Torah Learning

Since 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).

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.

Rav Kook (Orot Hakodesh pp. 537,547):

“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.”

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…”

Rav Kook (Shemona Kevatzim 3:8):

"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…"

"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 …"

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (Epistle 34):

"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
…
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."

Ramban (Introduction to Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvot):

" 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"

Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits (Towards A Renewed Rabbinic Leadership):

"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."

(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:

"לא אנהג על דרך הקראים, אשר עלו אל החכמה האלקית מבלי מדרגה"

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 Not in Heaven (p 139), stating:

"In essence, R Abraham [son of Rambam] was warning against a new form of Karaism, against becoming Karaites of the written-down Oral Torah.")

Rav Soloveitchik (Emergence of Ethical Man, p. 6):

"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."

ביאור הגר"א לספר משלי ו:ג

אם אין אני לי מי לי...כלומר שאם אין אני אחשוב בשבילי, מי יחשוב בשבילי?

The Gra, as quoted by his student R' Chaim in חוט המשולש, סימן י"א:

שלא לישא פנים בהוראה אף להכרעת רבותינו בעלי השולחן ערוך...בתורה דכתיב בה אמת, בלתי אל האמת עינינו.

Rav Chaim of Volozhin in רוח החיים, א:ד:

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.

Twice Offended and Thereby Praised

Rav Neriyah used to say that we live in a world of b'diavad, a post factum, 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.

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 idolators¹, 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.

Now, prima facie, 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.

Rav Kook², 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.

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.

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.

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.

--------------------------------------------

¹ 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.

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 Emergence of Ethical Man (note on pp 156-157), "Abraham was great in his acting in accordance with the logic of the absurd.")

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.

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.

Thanks go to Netanel Livni for a shabbat morning discussion which precipitated this footnote.

² 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.

Major Events of Jewish History

In 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.

The hand  of God is evident in the pages of Jewish history. As Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits writes (On Jewish Sovereignty, 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."

719 BCE - Exile of 10 tribes of Israel to Assyria
586 BCE - Destruction of the first Temple & Exile of Judea to Babylon
             - 423 according to Seder Olam
             - Begin Babylonian Exilarch (Jewish leader)
             - from Davidic dynasty (which lasted past 1000 CE)
624-546 BCE - Days of Micha the Prophet
                       - Thales of Miletus
537 BCE - Babylon conquered by Persia
516 BCE - King Cyrus offers Jews return to Judea
                - begin second commonwealth
500 BCE - Cyrus, Ezra, Nechemia
446 BCE - Pythagoras, Heraclitus (dated as per Seder Olam)
400-300 BCE - Xenophanes of Ionia, Yoshiyahu, Yirmiyahu, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle
                        - (dated as per Seder Olam)
334 BCE - Persian Judea conquered by Syrian-Greeks
               - Alexander the Great, Hellenization
200 - 150 BCE - Macabees
190 BCE - Book of Ben-Sira (list of heroes, evidence
                - of Neviim as corpus of scripture)
200 - 100 BCE - Dead Sea Scrolls - Evidence of Biblical
                         - Canon and sectarian writings
165 BCE - Hanukah
               - Later Hasmoneans, Hasmonean dynasty
               - Hycran, Queen Salome, Aristobulos
135 BCE - Judeans conquer Edom
                - Political/religious parties of Pharisees, Sadducees
75 BCE - In Parthia (Persian Empire, Babylonia), Hillel leads
67 BCE - Rome annexes Judea, Idumeans (formerly ruled
              - by Judea) become Kings of Israel
40 - 30 BCE - Herod
37 BCE - Rome rules Judea through procurators, eg. Pontius Pilate
100 BCE - 100 CE - Apcocalyptic books - Pseudopygrapha
                               - Philo
                               - John the Baptist
                               - Jesus of Nazareth
70 CE - Destruction of second commonwealth, Temple
           - Massada
           - 1 million Jews in Persia at this time
135 CE - Mishna
             - First citation of Ketuvim, discuss re: Kohelet, Shir Hashirim
             - Canon
132 - 134 CE - Judea: Hadrian reneges on promise to rebuild Temple.
                       - Judea: Rebellion against Rome. Akiva, Bar Kosba
                       - Judea: Betar. Rebellion crushed. Rename J to AC
                       - Judea: Yavneh and Sanhedrin destroyed
135 CE - Judea: Christianity parts ways forever with Judaism. ולמלשינים
150 CE - Judea: Bet Din restarts with Shimon II
100 CE - 300 CE - Jews follow Roman army to future France, Germany
                             - Spain, Portugal inhabited by Jews also
                             - (perhaps from times of King Solomon)
200 CE - Parthia: Rav in Sura, Shmuel in Pumpedita
260 CE - Parthia: Naharda'a destroyed because of Roman-Persian war
300 CE - Constantine turns Rome Christian
325 CE - Council of Nicea Separations between Jews and Christians
429 CE - Judea: Abolition of Patriarch in Judea/Palestine
400 CE - 470 CE - Parthia: R Ashi collates learning: Babylonian Talmud
                             - Parthia: Mazdaism tries force the Jews to immorality
470 CE - 500 CE - Parthia: Mar Zutra, Reish Galuta, rebels, is executed
412 CE - 700 CE - Spain: Jews forced to convert or leave
500 CE - Parthia: Begin Saboraim notes, order, editings to text of Talmud,
             - which they no longer added to
600 CE - Judea: Persians briefly take Palestine, Rome reconquers soon
622 CE - Mohammed, Islam. Destroys Jews of Arabia or exile them
until 450CE - Northern Europe: Jews were farmers
until 650 CE - Become merchants from oppressive
                    - laws in France, Spain, Italy
650 CE - 700 CE - Islam conquers Persia, Palestine, North Africa
711 CE - Mohammedans from North Africa conquer Visigothic Spain
             - Pact of Omar invoked
760 CE - Parthia: Karaism: Anan Ben David and Chanania rebel
             - against Talmud and Geonim.
800 CE - Pact of Omar - Jews allowed to live in Islamic-controlled
             - areas with reduced rights. Yellow patch
850 CE - Central Europe: Rabbeinu Gershom & Takkanot in Mayence
860 CE - Parthia: Geonim
             - Parthia: Siddurim: Rav Amram Gaon's, Rav Saadia Gaon's, Geonic responsa
875 CE - First appearance of Sambatyon & Eldad the Danite story
500 CE - 900 CE - Judea: Cantillation
                            - Judea: Vowel system (Tiberian massorah)
                            - Judea: Midreshei Agada, Piyyutim
500 CE - 1100 CE - Europe: General goodwill between Jew and Christian.
                                  - Laws against Jews but not practically enforced.
                                  - Jews were merchants, government functionaries,
                                  - eg. Charlamagne
750 CE - 1240 CE - Khazars led by Jewish convert king
900 CE - Parthia: Rav Saadia Gaon saves Judaism
             - from disintegration from Karaites, among others.
             - Unifies Jews, becomes Gaon of Sura
970 CE - 1038 CE - Rav Sherira and Rav Hai Gaon
                              - Decline of Babylonian community's leadership role
1000 CE - Our earliest extant Torah Scrolls date from around this time
1040 CE - France: Rashi made knowledge the rule
               - and ignorance the exception for Jews. Emphasis on study
               - Fez: Spanish School of Talmudism
               - Rif. Emphasis on halacha
1096 CE - Central Europe: First Crusade
1144 CE - Central Europe: Second Crusade
1189 CE - Central Europe: Third Crusade
               - York becomes a second Massada
900 CE - 1200 CE - Spain: Golden Age for Jews
1092 CE - Spain: Ibn Eztra, Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, R' Bahya ibn Pekuda
1135 CE - Spain: Rambam comes from North Africa to flee persecution
1200 CE - 1400 CE - Western and Central Europe:
                                 - Slow process of Expulsion of Jews
1144 CE - Norwitch - first blood libel
1200 CE - Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid - Sefer Chasidim
1239 CE - France: Talmud burned publicly by wagonload
1290 CE - Jews expelled from England
1306 CE - Jews expelled from France
1200 CE - 1400 CE - "Silver Age" of Spain
1212 CE - Moors lose Spain to Christian armies
               - Cultural center of Jews moves to Provence
1232 CE - Clash between Philosophers and Traditionalists
                - Appeal to Catholic Church who burned Guide and other texts
                - Rashba - ban under 25 learning Kabala
1250 CE - Spain: Zohar introduced by Moses de Leon
1263 CE - Spain: Disputation between Ramban and Pablo Christiani
1264 CE - Boleslav the Pious
1306 CE - Controversy ends with Jews being expelled from France
1344 CE - Casimir the Great, both create Jewish Charter for Poland
1394 CE - Jews expelled from France for good
               - Germany: Black plague - Jews murdered by thousands
1300-1350 CE - Ralbag book of navigation translated by Pope
1350- 1400 CE - Germany restricts Jews living in towns and length of time they could stay
                         - Jews live in Ghettos
1420 CE - Murder of Jews and Expulsion from Vienna
1411 CE - Riots in Spain lead Jews to convert
1400-1500 CE - Germans followed by Jews migrate East
1453 CE - Turkish J community grows from refugees but not to stature of P
               - Jacob Ibn Chabib
               - Joseph Nasi - plan to settle Tiberias fails
1496 CE - J expelled from Lithuania
1492 CE - Inquisition in Spain, Torquemada against newly converted Christians
               - Abravanel
               - Crew of Columbus made up of Morranos
1497 CE - Inquisition in Portugal
               - Mendes, Nasi family
1500 CE - L & P under one Grand Duke
1500 - 1600 CE - Pilpulism, the kahal, education, intellectualism
                           - J culture of intelligence in Poland rivals Babylonian Amoraim
                           - Tzena Ur'ena in Yiddish published
1480-1520 CE - Renaissance in Western Europe
                         - Rome, Italy, enlightened ideas spread - medicine, science, art
                         - Hebrew studied in Universities
                         - Jews from S and P permitted in R
                         - Reuchlin (against) - Pfefferkorn (for) book burning controversy
                         - liberalism is good for tolerable Jewish life
1520 CE - Martin Luther - Lutheranism - eventual advocate extermination of J
1525 CE - Jewish pseudo-Messiahs - David Reubeni, Solomon Molcho.
               - burned at stake
1530 CE - Renaissance ends with liberal promises not fulfilled
1540 CE - Previously kind Italy expels Jews except from Rome & Ancona
               - Refuge in Turkey - Ottoman Empire
               - Sefad, rebuild semicha quarrel - and failure
1488-1575 CE - Karo - Shulchan Aruch, Spain to Sefad
                         - 1492 and on Spanish Jews turn to Kabala
1530-1572 CE - Rema
1519 CE - Germany expells Jews from some towns
1519-1670 CE - Germany & Italy - Ghetto for Jews
                         - Homes of Catechums for converts
1534-1572 CE - Luria, ARI, saw self as Messiah son of Joseph
                         - He was a German in Sefad
                         - Leader of movement of kabalists and imagination
                         - Transmigtration of souls, Gilgulim
                         - Student was Rabbi Chaim Vital, spread Kabala in Europe
                         - Small population of Palestine subsisted on charity
1558 CE - Holland seeks freedom from Spain
1559 CE - Printing press, Italy center of Jewish press
               - Azariah de Rossi, davidic ancestry - historian - מאור עניים
               - Western European J expelled or Ghettoized
               - despite contributions to very foundations of WE civilization
               - Center of J life shifts from S & G and moves to Poland
1530 CE - Polish Jews organize semi-autonomous self government
1572 CE -Jagello dynasty ends, Poland has monarch only as figurehead
               - Real power in Nobles in their own territory (feudalism)
               - Jews overseers of serfs
1623 CE - Lithuanian J withdraw to own council
               - Polish Jews have Va'ad Arba Aratzot
               - Rabbinic & Political committees exist within it
               - Shtadlan
               - Taxes to Poland collected by Va'ad
1648 CE - Chmelnitzky
1648-1658 - Sabbatai Zevi
1618-1648 CE - 30 Years War -German states and Holy Roman Empire
                         - Jews suffered also
                         - Jews participated as court purveyors
                         - In Prague Samuel Bassevi made a noble for services to state
1612-1616 CE - Frankfurter Purim, Fettmilch
1600 CE - Marranos move from Iberian peninsula to Holland for religious freedom
               - Jews from Germany escape to Holland - 2 J communities
1609 CE - Maharal dies
1640 CE - Uriel de Costa writes against detailism of J, commits suicide
1632-1677 CE- Benedict Spinoza
1650 CE - Menashe ben Israel - claims 10 tribes are NA Indians
1290-1660 CE - No Jews in England. MBI tries to convince Cromwell who balks
                         - Soon Jews come to England and are de facto accepted
1492-1612 CE -Jews in new world - North America, South America
1657 CE - New Amsterdam (later NY)
               - Stuyvesant denied, Dutch Co permitted J full rights in New World
1660 CE - Lithuania interested in reason/learning
               - South Poland interested in mysticism, Ba'alei Shem
1700-1760 CE -Ba'al Shem Tov - Hassidism
                        - Jews take on Polish noble dress - capotte, long beard
1707 CE - Ramchal mistaken as Sabbatean
1720 CE - GRA - no piyutim, pilpul, positive about secular study
1729 CE - Mendelsohnn born
1740 CE - Jacob Frank - all sins must be done for Messiah to come - orgies
1750 CE - Emden/Eibushitz controversy
               - Amulets, Sabbateanism
1753 CE - PM Pelham (England) Jews given full rights, subsequently repealed
1760 CE - Maggid of Mezhrich taught next generation, was more scholarly than Besht
1772 CE - Excommunicated Hassidim (GRA)
1796 CE - Death of GRA
1600-1776 CE - Jews find freedom and equality in USA
                         - George Washington, Hayim Solomon
1789 CE - French Revolution
1800 CE - Poland split between Hassidim and Mitnagdim - difficulties
1791 CE - French Jews full citizenship
1799 CE - Napoleon
               - Sanhedrin (propoganda, get Jews to submit)
               - Infamous decrees - 40 yr moratorium on J debts
               - Jews cannot escape conscription as a Gentile could
1810 CE - German states still oppressive to Jews
               - Vienna conference: after defeat of Napolean retract rights given to J
               - Spurs J to work for equality in German lands
1816 CE - Jacob Herz Baer - first reform Prayer meeting
               - Reform - attempts by Jews to be less "queer"
1827 CE - Russia Czar Nicholas I - pale of settlement
               - Cantons
               - Russia opens J schools with Russian subjects
               - Realizing the real purpose, head of schools, Lilianthal leaves for US
1830 CE - Crimieux J in France forught for rights, member of provisional gov't
1844-1846 CE - Conferences to give Reform a set of dogma, what they believe
1860-1880 CE - Holdheim - J is dead institution - developed by man and must adjust
               - Hirsch - Torah is from God, no changes
               - Geiger - Judaism is living institution sacred, must change ceremonies to express spirit
               - Frankel - Change must occur organically "Historical Judaism"
               - Geiger encapsulated European Reform, Frankel, US Conservative movement
               - Hoffmann, Hildesheimer "Science of Judaism", critical work in Judaism and use modern methods
1848 CE - French Revolution II against king
1850 CE - Nationalism awakens in Europe and Jews are more-so than Gentiles
1855 CE - Russia: Czar Aleksandr II liberal, stops cantons, Jews allowed out of pale
               - Seeming liberalization in Russia
1840 CE - Renewal of hate
               - Damascus Affair, Morau Affair (Italy)
1860 CE - Crimieux - Jewish Universal Alliance to help Jews worldwide
1880 CE - Eastern Eurpoe hostile, Jews need solution
               - Jews more loyal to Germany than Germans
1870 CE - Napolean III overthrown, F true republic
1880 CE - France gives J full rights, Crimieux dies
1880 CE - Germany - Zunz, Graetz, Science of Judaism
               - Western Jews have negative opinion of Eastern European Jews
1750-1880 CE - Eastern Europe Haskala, Hebrew literature
               - As opposed to history, philosophy, theology of Western European Aufklaerung
               - Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer - German Philosophers
1867 CE - Rappaport (Shir), Krochmal, Shadal, biblical and philosophical studies
               - Viewed Judaism as offering more to secular culture than it took
1870 CE - Russian, German J uncomfortable
               - Haskala did not provide adequate solutions
               - Modernization is tantalizing
1820-1860 CE - US expands, Jews head west
                         - Leeser advocated J unified leadership
                         - Rebecca Gratz - Sunday school system
1820-1892 CE - Belarus - Beis Halevi - RYDS
                          - Son R Chaim Brisker, begins Brisker dynasty
1860 CE- US Civil War - Jews on both sides
1889 CE - Isaac Wise - Pittsburgh Platform went further in Reform than Europeans
               - Hebrew Union College, Union of American Hebrew Congregations
 1894 CE - Antisemitism, scientific Jew hatred
                - France: Dreyfus affair
                - Some are still liberal, but tide turns to hate J
                - Russia still feudal, Jew hatred rampant
1880-1900 CE - Liberalism - revolutions and change sweep Europe
                        - Jews participate but still there is antisemitism
                        - Jews leave Russia in large numbers to US
1818-1883 CE - Russia: Marx, the Bund
1873 CE- Chovevei Zion, Rabbi Kalischer
1860-1904 CE - Herzl, Zionism, Nordeau
1882-1903 CE - First Aliyah
1904-1914 CE - Second Aliyah (largely failure, many left Palestine before WWI)
1878 CE - BILU, Petach Tikva
1902 CE - JTS, Solomon Shechter, US
               - Catholic Israel, Unity, Tradition and Scholarship
1909 CE - Kehilla experiment in US fails
1917 CE - Revolution in Russia, Communism
1914-1918 CE - WWI
1918-1923 CE - Third Aliyah
                         - Tel Aviv, Haifa, renewal of Land - desert blooms
                         - Jewish settlements dot the land, and Israel returns to her land
1924-1928 CE - Fourth Aliyah - urban development of Tel Aviv
1920 CE - Sir Herbert Samuel, British Jewish comissioner to Palestine civil administration
               - Tel Hai, Jews fight back against Arab attacks - Trumpledor "Hagidem"
1929 CE - Hebron riots and other Arab riots against Jews
               - British largely passive unless Jews are attacking
1918 CE - League of Nations, Mandate Commission, Human Rights
1917 CE - Balfour Declaration, British Mandate
               - Bolshevik Revolution in Russia -- USSR
1860-1948 CE - Hebrew revived as spoken language, Ben Yehuda
1901-1906 CE - Jewish Encyclopedia published in US
1915 CE - Revel reorganizes RIETS (1896) into Yeshiva University - New York
               - R Yosef Dov Soloveitchik
1917 CE - JPS translates Hebrew Bible into English in US
1922 CE - Hebrew Theological College - Chicago - R Eliezer Berkovits
                - US Jewry independent of European religious guidance
1920-1930 CE - US rise in anti-semitism, Henry Ford (later admits to being mislead)
                         - Obstacles to Jews in Universities, etc
                         - American Jews donate hugely to Palestinian, European Jews
1922 CE - Congress passes strict anti-immigration laws over veto of President
1921 CE - British White Paper - restricts Balfour promises to "part" of P
1925 CE - Hebrew University opens in Jerusalem, Magnes
               - German refugee professors (eg Scholem) make it intellectual center
1933 CE - Hitler
               - Albert Einstein relocates to US from Germany
               - Fifth Aliyah
1937 CE - Columbus Platform recognizing place for tradition, Jewish homeland
               - Replaces Pittsburgh Platform for Reform
               - Reconstructionist Judaism appears
1883-1946 CE - Rabbi Isaac Breuer - Der Neue Kusari
1937-1943 CE - Universal Jewish Encyclopedia published in US
1938 CE - Kristallnacht
               - Evian conference - world turns back on Jews
               - Some Jews allowed into some countries only with money
               - Germany would not let Jews out with money
               - British continue policy to keep Jews out of Palestine
               - Jewish refugee ships sink, explode, sent back to port of origin
1939 CE - Death of Freud in Germany
1939 CE - In face of Arab riots, British issue second White Paper
               - Declares building of Jewish homeland in P complete
               - Allows small number of Jews in over five years, afterwards, only with Arab consent
1939-1945 CE- WWII
1943 CE - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
1945 CE -United Nations
               - Post-war pogroms and violence against Jews in Eastern Eruope
               - Prove Jews have no homes left, must emigrate
               - Jews revive Haganah, Etzel, Lechi
1948 CE Israel declares Independence
1956,1967,1973,1976 CE - Israel fights for its life against Arab armies
1948-2000 CE - Operation Magic Carpet (Yemen, Iran), and like operations
                        - Extraction of Jews from lands previously little-known
                        - Refuseniks in USSR, eventual USSR collapse
                        - Development of Israeli military alongside peaceful hopes
                        - Israel blossoms, economic, religious, artistic life flourishes