Philosophy of Prayer

Prayer is a mainstay of Judaism, and of religions in general. It is a periodic return to communion with God. However, if considered, the concept of prayer raises a number of theological questions. Since God is truly omniscient, why would He need our prayer to know what is best for us? And since he knows what is in our heart, why does expressing it verbally mean so much? Since he is unified and perfect, how can he 'need' our prayer, or anything else, for that matter? On the other hand, the Talmud (Sotah 12a) is not the first to mention the concept that, 'a righteous man decrees, and God fulfills it.' What are we to make of this bundle of theological contradictions?

There are two major schools of thought regarding the purpose of prayer that I would like to summarize. I will then bring a basic description of Rabbi Soloveichik's philosophy of prayer. Perhaps after this we can have a better understanding of why it is that we pray.

The first theory is theurgical. This view posits that God acts as father and judge, and allows Himself to be swayed by His children's appeals. This view is strongly advocated in Kabbalah, and Kabbalistic theory is employed to explain how a perfect God can be swayed in this way. This view, while uncomfortable for some, is probably the most common way that prayer is perceived by people. We hope that God attentively listens to our prayer, and cares about our small desires and needs. We trust that His infinity is not too large a chasm for Him to bridge, and 'if we open a door the size of a needle's eye, God will enlarge the opening' the rest of the way (Brachot 55a).

The second major theory of prayer is anthropocentric, focusing on the human who prays. God is not affected by prayer; the petitioner is. A person who stands in prayer, almost by definition, purifies himself with thoughts of repentance and hopes to become a more deserving creation. The praise of God leads to an upwelling of sentiment to be deserving of God's blessing. The petitional parts of prayer show a person how much he depends on God, and the thanksgiving in prayer reminds a person of the love and compassion God continually showers upon him. Through prayer, a petitioner is destined to better himself, and raise himself to greater heights. After prayer, he is in a new position as a subject of God, with new merits, and erased demerits. He is now deserving of a new judgment from God. And so, prayer affects God, as it were, indirectly, by changing the essence and thus the appropriate judgment of the person who prays¹.

Rabbi Soloveichik takes a different approach. My teacher, Rabbi Carmy, calls it the volitional/dialogical theory of prayer. He posits that prayer is not Man's attempt to influence God, but it is a fundamental way that Mankind interacts with God. Prayer is a medium through which we encounter God. Prayer is not focused on God, but on Man. However, it is not only anthropocentric, because it is a dialogue between Man and God. By creating that emotional connection that prayer instantiates, Man brings himself into communion with God. By realizing that life in the absence of God is empty and cold, a person brings himself to prayer, in order to draw God back into his realm of existence, so to speak.

We are commanded to find God through prayer. As a mitzvah, prayer demands of us to take notice of the chilling emptiness possible in a rational, natural world. We are enjoined to feel the loneliness of a universe that does not pay us heed. This loneliness reaches a crisis, and we call out to God, seeking a warm, intimate relationship with him. Thus, the very act of prayer is a form of interaction, דביקות, with the Divine. Furthermore, the fact that prayer is codified as a commandment means that the warmth of emotional connection to God is something that every human can experience.

Each of the above three approaches has benefits. The theurgical maintains the intimate bond between Man and God which is part of the general understanding of spirituality. The anthropomorphic allows us to understand prayer as a means to change ourselves, and thus be worthy of Divine grace. It makes religious petition active as opposed to passive. And finally, Rabbi Soloveichik's dialogical theory centralizes the communion aspect of prayer, and presents it as a way to interface with Divinity. Perhaps a synthesis of these three views is necessary to have a full picture of the power and importance of prayer.

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

¹ This difference of viewpoints calls to mind Rabbi Jonathan Saks' beautiful explanation of the controversy between Maimonides and Nachmanides. Rambam views prayer as a מצוה דאוריתא, based on Deut 11:13, while Ramban sees it as a rabbinic enactment. Rabbi Sacks cites the Talmud (Brachot 26b) where Rabi Yose views prayer as based upon the example of the patriarchs, while Rabi Yehoshua sees it as a replacement for the sacrificial rite. It seems natural to understand Rabi Yose as allowing for a biblically-ordained commandment to pray, while Rabi Yehoshua seems to organically subscribe to the rabbinic approach.

This dispute reminds us, says Rabbi Sacks, of the two modalities of our holy Torah: the prophetic, and the priestly. While the priestly laws are strict and formulaic (when the sons of Aharon stepped out of the proscribed method of sacrifice, they paid the ultimate price), the prophetic experience is one of intuition, spontaneous emotion, and intimate uniqueness. The priestly type of service of God is set - permanent and unchanging, while the prophetic eschews such formalism and embraces the unique and individual. Both modalities have a place in our traditions, as we can now see. When Rabi Eliezer states that one should not make his prayer קבע, the talmudic rabbis disagree over what he meant. Some understand him to be simply rejecting the tendency for prayer to become rote. On the other hand, some see him as rejecting formalized prayer completely, and saying that each day's new experience and reality should engender a different formulation of prayer within the soul. Thus, the אמוראים seem to each be taking a side in the question of prophetic vs priestly prayer.

It seems that this tanaitic, amoraic disagreement culminates in the argument between Rabmam and Ramban. According to Rambam, prayer is divinely commanded - it is based upon the prayers of the forefathers. On the other hand, the Ramban sees it as rabbinically enacted as a replacement for the sacrifices. Since it is so, it must apply to the formula.

This argument fits in nicely with the view expressed above: Rambam, the rationalist par excellence, holds that prayer is human-centered, for Man cannot change God. Thus, God commands Man to pray, to better himself. However, Ramban, the mystic between the two, holds that prayer may, mystically, affect God - and so, it is a rabbinically mandated replacement for the sacrifices - and therefore, was not commanded biblically, for the task was accomplished in biblical times by offerings.

Jewish tradition beautifully meshes these two in that each day we repeat our prayers twice, first individually, and then as a community in חזרת הש"צ. We have survived for 2,000 years as a community, Rabbi Sacks points out, because we have both the priestly and prophetic modalities: without the former, we have no tradition, but without the latter, no sponteneity. (See the footnote in here.)

Who Wrote Devarim?

A decade ago, Rabbi Ya'akov Charlop wrote an article discussing the authorship of the book of Devarim. Recently, while teaching tractate Megillah, I had reason to bring up his major points, that I realized afterwards was perhaps a bigger step than most attendees were ready to take at face value.

It is clear that Devarim is written in a different voice than the rest of the Five Books of Moses. Much of it is written in the first person, from Moshe's perspective, and God is spoken of in the third. This is in contrast to the rest of the Torah, in which Moshe is spoken of in third person. On the other hand, the Talmud treats the many commandments that appear exclusively in Devarim as completely Biblical commandments. The tension is clear. Who actually wrote the book of Devarim?

There is an argument in the Talmud as to the author of the book, which is carried through to the Rishonim.

In Sanhedrin (99a), the Talmud states clearly that the claim that there is even one sentence in the Five Books that were not written literally word for word by Moses from the mouth of God is heresy, and a fulfillment of the verse, 'כי דבר ה' בזה.' The Ramban (in his preface) and the Maimonides (Laws of Prayer, 13:6) agree to this view, and hold that the change in voice and motive in the book is a purely stylistic one, and does not represent a change in authorship.

On the other hand, the Talmud in Megillah (31b) states that the curses of Devarim are not as strict as the curses of Vayikra, and therefore, the curses of Devarim may be broken into different עליות, while those of Vayikra must be read without pause. The reason given is that the Vayikra curses are recorded by Moshe directly from the mouth of God, while the Devarim curses represent Moshe's own re-iteration of them. Rashi explains that "[in Vayikra] Moshe was made a messenger to say, 'thus said God,' for behold, they [the curses] are written in the language of [first person] , ex. ונתתי, while in Devarim, it states 'יככה ה,' Moshe spoke these on his own, [as if to say] if you break His commandments, He will repay you..."

The Ra'avan holds in accordance with this view, and cites the fact that the amora'im treated the verses in Devarim differently with regards to certain kinds of exegesis (most notably, סמוכים). Also, the אור החיים holds this way, and says that the first verse of the book serves to clarify that only this book was written by Moshe, but the rest of the Torah was dictated by God.

The Vilna Gaon (whose view I unknowingly expressed the week before at my shiur), explains that the first four books were literal transmissions from God to the Jewish people, with Moshe as the medium. None of his personality was present in the message. This is the אספקלריה המאירה, the perfectly translucent prophecy that was unique to Moshe. However, the book of Devarim was given to Moshe closer to the manner of the prophecies of other prophets. God would implant a vision, and it was up to the prophet to translate that into a message to the People. Thus, the message was colored by the individual prophet's persona. Thus, the book of Devarim was conceptually the word of God, but it was Moshe who wrote it.

According to this, we can understand why the commandments in Devarim are treated completely as commandments in any other book, while the actual writing and the textual scrutiny that the Sages applied may be different than the other books. The book of Devarim is a sort of bridge between the writings of God and the writings of the prophets.

Response to Jewish Atheist

Jewish Atheist has a post about capital punishment in the Torah and in present day Iraq. Here is my response to him:

I thought I should comment a few differences between the formal Jewish death sentence of stoning and what you witnessed on that horrible video. You cannot compare them, and here is why:

1) In Jewish courts, the condemned was drugged before the death, so that they would not feel the same pain or fear as if they were awake. This is akin to the drugs used in today's lethal injections which place the condemned in a relaxed, sleeping state before death.

2) They were thrown off a cliff first before rocks were thrown
so that the person would die immediately. The stones were ceremonial, not the cause of death.

3) To be liable for one of the 4 formal deaths (stoning is one of them) the person had to be warned, and had to agree they know they will be punished, but want to sin anyway. In other words, the only way to get these capital punishments is to want to rebel against God, with foreknowledge of the consequences. This is clear from Maimonides quoting the Talmud (source to come).

4) The Jewish concept of these capital punishments was 'וכל ישראל ישמעו ויראו', ie. to provide deterrence for others so that they not sin. This is actually one of the main reasons the US has capital punishment today.

5) Jewish capital punishment was carried out after a court case and verdict. More than a majority of a large court of learned judges was required to condemn a person, and the execution was delayed to allow for any evidence to come forth and exonerate or allow a loophole.

You cannot separate the Oral Law from the Written. We who believe the Written Word as the word of God believe it to be provisoed by His Oral Law, and that lays down the five points I just mentioned. In other words, the same God who wrote those verses, gave over the Oral Law that modifies them. See Rabbi Hirsch on the fact that the Written Law is like lecture notes that leave out important details, and the Oral Law was the lecture.

Thus your problem is really only with someone who does accept the written law, but not the oral law that modulates it. In other words, your problem with stoning is not with Orthodox Jewish thought, much less practice.

What do you think?

How Police Brutality should be Met

In Los Angeles, at an (illegal) immigration rally, Police were met with violence. Their response was to fire 240 rounds of rubber bullets, and to strike demonstrators and journalists who were obeying the orders to disperse. Sounds kind of like Amona, right?

Well, not quite. First of all, while the police in LA were certainly brutal, there were not 300 cases of head trauma that arrived at ER's throughout southern California. The scale of this offense was much smaller than anything witnessed at Amona, or the student protests in Israel of late.

However, the more important difference, and this one is the clincher, is the top brass response to the violence. Police Chief William J. Bratton said that the public has "an absolute and unqualified right to expect and demand an aggressive review" of what occured (link).

Police officials immediately denounced the thuggish tactics displayed by the officers. The public was told that with the amount of training the officers receive, this response was unacceptable. Three investigations are ongoing, and you can be sure that heads will roll.

There will always be brutal cops. Law enforcement tends to bring that out in a person. However, the sign of a compassionate, just government is immediate denunciation of this behavior, and a professional atmosphere where this activity will not be tolerated. Israel has a lot to learn from Los Angeles in regards to this issue.

Mutual Responsibility

When Israeli Police beat religious kids in the town of Amona, it was only another example of the extreme brutality that these forces display. When they badly beat orthodox demonstrators against the construction of highway 6, it was again displayed. There are many cases that should result in jail sentences, but instead result in promotions.

The latest occured today, when police set loose like a pack of dogs attacked a group of university students protesting a tuition increase. One student said, "My pants are soaked with the blood of a friend whose head was split open" by Israeli policemen.

As Jews, we are known as merciful people whose heritage is compassion. How is it, then, that when law enforcement, in our own country, takes up batons and fists and steel-toed boots against our own people, we do not rise in public outcries of abhorrence, demanding the heads of these police-thugs? Where is our defense of the downtrodden?

When a Jew was pounced during anti-expulsion demonstrations, his nose ripped away from his face by an Israeli officer of the law, where were the students? When Rabbi Meir Kahane was hounded by the security forces and branded an extremist, where were the Religious Zionist leaders? When religious kids are beaten, or charedi men trounced, where are the secular humanists of the land? It seems that when we do not protest injustice, we may be the next victim. And he who came before us, he whom we did not defend, will not be around to defend us.

It may be that some people need to experience first-hand the agony of a ripped face, or a billy club to the belly, in order to protest police brutality. But enough is enough. We must rise in one voice, and demand that civil rights be upheld in Israel! These cops must pay for their crimes. When we return to the values of our Torah, we will deserve a police force that knows its limits, not the police force of some third world country.

No more Israeli police brutality.

Acharei Mos: The Yom Kippur Goats

When one sins, he brings a goat as a chatas, or sin offering. Rabbi Hirsch explains the symbolism of this offering. The goat represents the individual sinner's obstinacy, his egotistical desire to do his own bidding, and obey no one external. A naturally stubborn animal, the goat is full of its own vigor and will. It symbolizes the fact that when one sins, he has cast off the yoke of Heaven for that time, and acted without subjugating himself to God's rule. This symbolic goat is brought to the Temple, where submits itself to slaughter. This represents man's ideal, which is submission to God's will. This is an ideal which the sinner has lost, and he brings the offering as a lofty reminder of what his relationship with God must rest on.

The goat is then brought to the fires of the altar, and its blood sprinkled on the sides. When this happens, the sinner learns the lesson that by submitting to the yoke of God, we take our temporal, transitive existence in this world, and convert it into immortality. By keeping our actions in tune with the desires of Hashem, we sublimate our lives, and they become part of the eternal. The altar represents the processing of God's will on earth. Our actions, indeed our very bodies, are to be "לחם אשה ריח ניחוח לה." They are to serve as fuel for the flame of God.

On Yom Kippur, however, a double goat offering is brought. The two goats are to be as identical as possible; they should be bought together, and of the same height and appearance. They represent not only one man, but mankind in general. A lottery decides which one will be for Hashem, and which will go לעזעזל. In other words, no outward properties decide if a particular human will do good or evil. It is truly up to each individual. This is the foundation of free will, that we each choose to do good or evil. Our actions are not predestined or determined by genetics.

The goat that is chosen to be for God immediately submits to slaughter and becomes fuel for God's fire. Meanwhile, the one destined for azazel stands in its own vigor and power. It continues to live. However, it comes to the door of the Temple, but no further. It represents people who choose to turn their backs on God's teachings. He heads out to the desert. One who chooses to live outside the bounds of free-willed subservience to God really has no place in the ideal human society. This person has decided to make his life a hedonistic celebration of his own ego. While he may have a pleasant life (symbolized by his staying alive longer than the goat that was sacrificed), he ultimately is thrown off a cliff in a barren land. His existence and his life's meaning ends with his death. He has chosen not to be fuel for God's glory on earth, and so, has missed his chance at immortality.

The everyday sin offering is enough for us generally. It is enough to teach us how to act with positive reinforcement. However, once a year, the nation gets a symbolic lesson demonstrating the spiritual excision of one who chooses not to live the life delineated by God, with negative reinforcement.

Perhaps this can be a lesson to educators. Negative reinforcement has its place, but positive reinforcement must be the way that discipline is mostly accomplished. Incentives and positive messages awaken the nobility in a child's soul, instead of engendering fear and malice.

Great Demographic News (II)

Another report that talks about the Israeli demographic issue in optimistic tones can be read here.

It seems that the Jewish orthodox birthrates guarantee the Jewish majority and will in fact increase it. It will also, by great coincidence, make the Torah more visible in government, as the future, more numerically religious generation votes orthodox people into government.

This reminds me of the Vilna Gaon's statement about the return to Zion. He writes that it may well start with secular Jews. In fact, he held, it will start that way, just as the Second Temple period was ushered in by Darius.

He further writes that this must be, for the redemption to take place. Satan will do his utmost to uproot the seeds of redemption before they have a chance to grasp the land of their fathers firmly. If the movement back to Israel is one with loud overtones of religion, Satan will immediately know to sabatoge those plans. Therefore, the beginning of the settlement will be initiated and controlled by unorthodox, even anti-orthodox, Jews. Satan will say, 'these surely cannot be part of God's great plan of redemption!' He will then leave the fledgeling state alone, focusing his powers on other things. Only when it is too late, and the process of redemption is no longer derailable, will it become clear that those first frontiermen were a cover for the redemption!

May God allow us to see the day when his plan is revealed to the world in all its glory.

Threatening Truth and the Free World

As reported by the Daily Mail, educators are beginning to leave the Holocaust out of their curricula, in fear of anti-Semitic reactions from Muslim students. The Islamic threat that only 30 years ago endangered Israeli society, is now spreading, by virtue of its high birth rate and scathingly fundamentalist voice, and threatens much of the Free World. What is going on?

The Free World has become so egalitarian that it is able to morally equate the terrorist's actions with those of defensive victims. It is able to compare the calculated murder of innocent children with the tragic, accidental deaths of military reactions to those murders. In short, we have lost our ability to distinguish between morally complex situations. And so, it should be no surprise that the world begins to cave in to the squeakiest global wheel, giving in again and again to evil, in an attempt to gain short term peace. However, the blurring of moral distinctions is never cost-free; eventually, evil catches up, and the debatable short-term peace becomes the catalyst for long-term disaster. Evil slowly peels away society's willingness to stand up for truth and justice, and ultimately, the World stands naked, unarmored, at the brink of a battle that is finally too important before which to bow.

As a world, we have allowed the Muslim fundamentalists too much slack. First, we gave their denial of Israel's right to exist credibility, since it is easier to allow terrorists a pulpit than to destroy their ability to make terror. Then, we allowed them to use our media to paint themselves as victims in a global conflict that is their own creation entirely. We have bought their lie that the West is the root of the world's problems. Why? Because it is easier to accept what they say and rail against moderate democratic governments and elected officials, than to go to their countries and demonstrate against their despots, and be tortured to death in a prison by their police. In short, it is easier in the short-term to tip-toe around brutality than to destroy it head on.

Finally, we are willing to remove the Holocaust from our schools rather than engage the inevitable anti-Semitic vitriol from Muslim students. No teacher would be able to effectively discredit or discipline a screaming Muslim child, and so we rather side-step the whole issue. And by doing so, do we pay notice to the fact that it is the very activity of the Holocaust that these Islamists gather their strength to carry out? No! Because, ultimately, the Jews are easier to reason with. They understand the need for classroom decorum. They will nod their heads with age-old patience and shuffle quietly to the crematoria yet again. The Arabs, however, will cause a ruckus. They will verbalize the unspoken truth that we all know is their dream and prayer: that Islam will wipe out all us heretics by the sword in due time. A Free World teacher does not have the tools to deal with this in the classroom. We simply cannot teach these issues if they raise such a furor in school.

I do not fear for the Jewish people. God saw how much the world does when Jews are butchered in 1939. He and we will never forget the atrocities allowed by an apathetic world and a seething, hateful enemy. And so, he gave us Israel, and an army, and bravery, and commanded us to trust no one but Him and ourselves. And although Israel presently does not put its faith in God only, I know it will. We hope that by choice, and yet, if not, by necessity, Jews will return to their Father in Heaven. He has a teleological goal in store for them, and they will rise to the occasion and their legendary glory eventually.

I do, however, fear for the Western World. It fails to see that by giving in to these fundamentalists, it simply pushes the ultimate battle up one more notch. By removing the Holocaust from their textbooks, teachers lead society down a dangerous road, the road of forgetting history, and being bound to repeat it. The new enemy, with its hateful screams and suicide attacks, will destroy a world that has forgotten what it is to fight for justice, morality, and its own right to exist.

The world must wake up before it is too late. It must root out this Muslim threat while it is still at the stage of its teen-hood, full of fury, but controllable. The world must develop a way to act in a way that befits the merciless masses of hate-filled Arabs bent on destruction, and avert catastrophe. May God give us the resolve and courage necessary, for this is already a hard and morally confusing battle, and it will only grow more so.

Creativity and the Ark

The Holy Ark had an interesting method of construction. It was a wooden box that was encased in gold, from within and without (Ex. 37:2). It is understandable to cover it in gold on the outside. However, the gold on the inside would never be visible to anyone. Why encase it from within?

Rabbi Hirsch takes the aron as a symbol for the Jewish nation's relationship to personal and individual expression. The center of the ark is wooden. Wood is a material which, in its natural state, changes and grows over time. It is constantly developing, branching out in new and different directions, covering new ground, and sprouting new leaves and fruit. It is a symbol for the creative element in each person. Throughout our lives, we change, as wood does. We grow physically, emotionally and spiritually. We continually conceive of new ideas, and give birth to concepts and novellae. We are creative beings by nature.

The coating of the wood, on the other hand, is gold. Gold, the quintessential metal, is rigid and strong. It can withstand pressure and is not flexible. It symbolizes the restrictive, definitive rigor of the halacha.

Thus, the ark symbolizes a person's creative domain and its limits. We are contained by the strictures of the essential law. However, within its bounds, we are free to grow and invent with the full creative capacity that God endowed within us.

Rav Kook takes the creative enterprise and sees it as an ethical and religious imperative. In ארות הקודש, he develops the idea that human creativity is a vestige of prophecy. The strictures of societal pressure choke the lofty creative spirit. Within the golden bounds of the halacha, "we are charged by the Divine to produce with truth and honesty, that which our souls show us, and to bring our celestial insight from the abstract to the concrete..."

"The culling of sparks of glorious truth from the creative stores of all brightens the world, and bring about the revelation ultimate, complete truth of God." Rav Kook sees the innovative expression latent in us all as a pre-requisite for the glory of God to be clearly visible in our world.

In אורות התורה (ch. 13), he goes on to explain that the true elements of innovation and pure creativity are only to be experienced in the land of Israel. This is because the true unity of subject across the vast contents of the torah can only be truly appreciated in the Holy Land. Unity of thought is a necessary element for creative activity. The difference between the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem one is indicative of this: the Babylonian must divide, categorize and feel about in the dark for the contours of God's law, while, in the Jerusalem Talmud, the diverse and disparate elements of halacha and hashkafa are effortlessly seen as part of an organic whole. There, the search for truth is as easy as bringing a candle to illuminate the dark. Perhaps this is the meaning of the statement, 'אוירא דארץ ישראל מחכים.' The very atmosphere in the Holy Land enlightens the mind and spirit (B. Bath. 258b).

Literary Devices in Ki Tisa

To paraphrase one of my teachers, the Torah is much more than excellent literature, but it is at least that. By examining the words of the Torah through a literary scope, one can gain a much deeper appreciation for the beauty and inspiring technical design that went into it. For example, in Gen. 2:25-3:1, we find the word ערום twice, one after the other. The first means 'naked', and refers to the naive pair of humans, while the second means 'wily', and refers to the scheming snake. The juxtaposition of the innocent, guileless man and wife and the crafty snake, is powerful. It is enhanced by the use of precisely the same word to describe each, with each usage highlighting a different variant meaning for that word. It is as if the text itself becomes wily and crafty, foreshadowing the snake's malicious and devious strategy. This kind of verbal irony mingled with alliteration is very successful at immediately changing a light, care-free mood into a grim and portentous tone.

In this week's portion, we again find this literary device. In 32:17, Yehoshua meets Moshe as he descends the mountain, and says, 'the sounds of war are in the camp.' In the next verse, Moshe responds: "אֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה, וְאֵין קוֹל, עֲנוֹת חֲלוּשָׁה; קוֹל עַנּוֹת, אָנֹכִי שֹׁמֵעַ." 'Those are no sounds of victorious battle cries, nor sounds of defeated cries for retreat; I hear the cries of strife.' The word ענות in the context of this verse is used three times, but means two different things. In the first two instances, it is a nominalized verb whose root is the qal form of .ע.נ.ה, meaning 'answer'. This is translated hear as meaning 'battle cry'. Units of armies would sometimes find out the status of their fellow units by listening to hear if the battle cries were victorious ones, or ones of retreat. In this case, the infinitive would be of the form לִלְמׂד, or לְמׂד. However, since the פ of the root is an ע, the shwa becomes a chataf-patach. There is no dagesh in the נ because the word is essentially in qal.

However, the third instance of the word is not the same. There is a dagesh in the נ, which is a marker for piel. The ע is pointed with a patach which further shows that this is a nominalization of a piel verb. The meaning is thus the piel of .ע.נ.ה, which is 'torture or cause pain or strife.'

The use of this literary strategy hearkens to the usage mentioned in Gen 2:25, and provides an undercurrent of movement beneath the surface of the text of the story. The tone and mood of the story-line is changed by literary usages while the story plays iteself out. The result is a text which is subtle and nuanced. Much of the beauty and artistic creativity of the Torah is best recognized when taking a moment to re-connect to the Torah as a Divine literary creation.

J.G. Herder (quoted in Phillip Birnbaum's translation HaSiddur HaShalem) once commented, "It is worth studying the Hebrew language for ten years in order to read Psalm 104 in the original." He was referring to the poetry and native lyric that can only be appreciated in Hebrew. Translations of the Bible, even when they comprise dramatic literary accomplishments in their own rights, are only dim shadows of the drama and breathless beauty that the native Hebrew Bible contains. The original uncovers some of the immortal perfection that is usually hidden in our natural world.

Which Achashverosh? That Achashverosh!

My teacher, Dr. Richard Steiner, sent me an electronic off-print of one of his new articles. In it, he discusses the Aramaic of the Elaphantine papyri and Ezra (5:15-17). There, an official named Sheshbazzar is mentioned. First, when introduced, it is said, "ששבצר שמה", 'whose name was Sheshbazzar', and afterwards, it continues, "ששבצר דך", 'the aforementioned Sheshbazzar'. Dr. Steiner develops this peculiar syntax.

First, a previously unknown (to the reader) subject is mentioned and named in a 'de-definitizing' way. It is analogous to the english sentence, 'A man named John said this.' In this case, the subject 'John' is not a true definite article, and is like saying 'A John said this.' Only after the de-definitizing of the name, is the name re-definitized, by the second clause. "The aforementioned Sheshbazzar" is analogous to "That John is the one who picked up the ball." It takes an indefinite article that is named, and makes it definite by describing which John picked up the ball. Not 'a John,' but 'this John.'

Dr. Steiner (quoting Meyer) points out that this syntactical format is found in Old Persian writings.

Immediately, the first verse of Esther came to my mind: "ויהי בימי אחשורש הוא אחשורש המולך..." The same syntactical style is clear! 'In the days of a king called Achashverosh, that same Achashverosh who ruled over...'

There are certainly people out there who know better than me, but I am betting that the book of Esther was first written in Persian, and certainly employed the diction and style of that language. Could the style of the first verse of the Hebrew Megillat Esther be a subtle hint and acknowledgement of this?

The Wisdom of (John) Wisdom

The question of religious belief and its rationality is one that will certainly continue for a long time. It is my belief that Religion deals with questions of 'why', that are, by definition, out of the reach of empirical tests, the domain of Science. The difference is aptly described by John Wisdom (Proceedings of an Aristotelian Society, LXV):

Two people return to their long neglected garden and find among the weeds a few of the old plants surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other "It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these plants." Upon inquiry they find that no neighbor has ever seen anyone at work in their garden. The first man says to the other "He must have worked while people slept." The other says "No, someone would have heard him and besides, anybody who cared about the plants would have kept down these weeds." The first man says "Look at the way these are arranged. There is purpose and a feeling for beauty here. I believe that someone comes, someone invisible to mortal eyes. I believe that the more carefully we look the more we shall find confirmation of this."

They examine the garden ever so carefully and sometimes they come on new things suggesting the contrary and even that a malicious person has been at work. Besides examining the garden carefully they also study what happens to gardens left without attention. Each learns all the other learns about this and about the garden. Consequently, when after all this, one says "I still believe a gardener comes" while the other says "I don't".

Their different words now reflect no difference as to what they have found in the garden, no difference as to what they would find in the garden if they looked further, and no difference about how fast untended gardens fall into disorder. At this stage, in this context, the gardener hypothesis has ceased to be experimental; the difference between one who accepts and one who rejects it is now not a matter of the one expecting something the other does not expect.

What is the difference between them? The one says "A gardener comes unseen and unheard. He is manifested only in his works with shich we are all familiar." The other says "There is no gardener." And with this difference in what the say about the gardener goes a difference in how they feel toward the garden, in spite of the fact that neither expects anything of it which the other does not expect.

It all comes down ultimately to will. I cannot 'prove' spiritual matters for proof does not operate in the realm of "why or what" but in the realm of "how" (the realm of Science). Therefore ultimately one cannot solely use facts or data to decide whether or not to live a life believing in God. He must rely on his experience. If so, it all comes down to willing oneself to allow experience to help one see God and not brush those experiences off as chance or something irrelevant. This is the idea of "Free Will" in its muted yet most glorious lyric: truly giving Man the opportunity to will himself to do right.

Marriage, Sinai and Responsibility

A friend of my wife is getting married this coming week. While reflecting on the idea of marriage, I was struck by an odd yet compelling question. The midrash states that Adam and Chava were created as two sides to the same body. They were both present, and shared one soul. Hashem then decided to split the body and soul into two, so that man and woman each became, effectively, one half of a whole. When they are unified in marriage, the primordial harmony is once again established. In essence, marriage is the reunification of what God separated at the dawn of time. While considering this, I asked, "Why did Hashem separate the original human creation? Why tear a soul in two, and then leave the two halves to find each other in a chaotic world? What purpose is served in this search?"

In Shir HaShirim (3:11), the author exhorts the daughters of Zion to celebrate with King Shlomo, "on his wedding day, the day of his heartfelt happiness." The Talmud (Ta'anith 26b) allegorizes this verse. The wedding day refers to the day of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, while the day of his supreme happiness refers to the building of the Temple. What does this allegory mean?

While in Egypt, the Jewish people were not rightly a nation. They were a collection of related individuals, whose common suffering gave them a bond. God's miraculous intervention in the affairs of Man had as a stated purpose, "ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם". By taking the Jews out of Egypt, Hashem would make them into a nation that would serve Him (Exodus 6:6). The goal of this physical creation of the nation of Israel was the immediate spiritual creation of a national purpose, at Sinai, in the giving of the Torah. The Torah codifies how the Jews are to interact as a national unit. But more importantly, it guarantees that each Jew be responsible for, and only be complete, in that national unit. This is the significance of the phrase "נעשה ונשמע", the national resolve that "we will do". No Jew can keep all 613 commandments, as some only apply to one group, while others only apply to another. It is only as a nation, by sublimating ourselves to the כלל, that we truly can uphold the whole of the Torah.

It is easy to imagine the connection between Har Sinai and the marriage canopy. Up until marriage, we are essentially individuals, fulfilling our own individual needs. However, under the chuppah, a man and woman accept the responsibility of acting and thinking as a unit. There is no more you and I, there is only we. I am reminded of the story in which the saintly Rabbi Aryeh Levine brought his hurt wife to the doctor, saying, "Doctor, our leg hurts." This man had internalized the idea of a couple as a unit, and not just a collection of two individuals, that he felt her pain as his own!

And so, our observance of the Torah and our consideration of our marriage inspire each other to greater thinking in terms of the group, and less of ourselves individually.

Next, the day of Shlomo's supreme happiness is compared to the building of the Temple. Rabbi Hirsch (Vayetzeh p. 457) explains that a Jewish home is supposed to be a miniature Temple. The atmosphere is meant to be one in which the loving and joyous service of God is carried out with understanding and emotion. When two people marry and begin a home, they lay the foundation of a family life that lives for the purpose of Heaven. Just as the Beth Hamikdash was the exemplary expression of a whole nation harmoniously serving God, so are our individual homes a microcosmic expression of the same ideal.

We can now understand why God chose to split Adam and Chava up. As one unit, the first human had no need to replace its ego with a larger picture. Everything it needed was in it. By splitting it into two, Hashem gave man and woman a need to transcend the personal ego, and sublimate it into a harmonious society serving God. This effort is then meant to be applied to the nation as a whole. Each family unit is a building block in a national unit. We see our fulfillment and success not only through individual achievements, but in the actions of the nation.

Commonly, we assume that the breaking of the glass under the marriage canopy is a reminder to mourn for the destruction of Jerusalem. While it is true that we must never leave that pain out of our celebrations, the Talmud (Brachos 30b) states that the custom arose when rabbis saw too much hilarity at weddings. They felt that with all the happiness, the bride and groom must not forget that they are just now embarking on a tremendously arduous journey, one in which they will learn to think as one, and through this, produce a home worthy of the שכינה. The glass breaking is a somber reminder that there is much work to be done.

Finally, I will add a very important lesson from מתן תורה. In Yitro, it says, "ביום הזה באו מדבר סיני", on this day, they came to the Sinai desert. Should it not say, on that day? Rashi quotes the midrash and learns from this that every day, we must feel as if we have been given the Torah anew. We must not let the apathy that so often is the effect of time to allow our zeal and excitement for Torah to rust. In the same way, marriage is something that requires constant renewal. We can never let ourselves feel stagnant and unproductive. Constantly learning about one another, seeing the glory of God emanating from our spouse, allows us to keep our marriages alive and fresh.

BlueTruth Message

I just saw this new blog, and I think its aims are noble. I hope to read it regularly.

http://www.blue-truth.blogspot.com/

Jimmy Carter vs Simon Wiesenthal

I was pointed to this exchange between Rabbi Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, and Jimmy Carter.

Beshalach: Awakening from Below

After triumphantly marching out of the ruins of a shattered Egypt, the Jewish People find themselves at the sea's edge. There seems to be no way forward, and the way back is blocked by the remnants of the Egyptian army, intent on reclaiming their escaping slaves. A frightened, hapless nation begins to question the whole enterprise. Moshe tells the people not to worry. This time, God will fight for them, and they may be silent (Ex. 14:14). Rashi and the Ramban quote a mechilta, and interject here that Moshe began to pray to God for salvation. The next verse (15) has God chastising the Jewish leader, "why do you cry out to me? Tell the children of Israel to proceed!"

Why does God speak tersely to Moshe at this time? What else should Moshe do but pray? Further, the second part of v. 15 is clearly a response to the prayer, implying that God accepted Moshe's intercession and now delivers his response! So, why does Hashem level such harsh criticism at Moshe?

The Or HaChayim answers in a greatly relevant way. Times of salvation are also times of judgment. Even when God's desires (if one may speak of God in such mortal terms) to act compassionately and miraculously, the element of judgment questions the merit of the Nation. After all, the Jews were not particularly deserving of redemption, and had to clinch the deal with the blood of circumcision and the blood of the paschal offering (Pesachim 96a). And so, Hashem, in his mercy, gives Moshe advice on how to lead a national assault on the prosecution in heavenly court: Act! Convince the Jews to act with faith, act with all their heart, and push forward into the sea before it splits! When Man acts with complete faith in God, we awaken the powers of redemption from below. This is necessary in order for the heavenly powers of salvation to be awakened on high. As the Vilna Gaon quotes the Zohar in Kol HaTor, it'aruta dil'tata (lower awakening) is first, and after that flows the it'aruta dil'eila (heavenly awakening).

The paradigm that the miracle of the Reed Sea teaches the Nation is that when salvation is near, words and prayers are not enough. Actions, specifically actions that highlight Israel's sole reliance on God, are necessary to bridge the gap between a hesitating dawn and a glorious sunrise across the horizon of geulah.

I venture to add my own insight. As we said, the mechilta adds the fact that Moshe began to pray to Hashem between v. 14 and 15. It is not implied by the Torah. The plain sense of these two verses is that Moshe calmed the People by telling them that they may settle down, for God will fight this battle. To that, Hashem responds, "Moshe, you are making a mistake. By telling the people to be passive and let Me act for them, you are effectively crying out to Me, putting the burden of salvation completely on Me. However, in order for Israel to be saved, they must act, as well. Only when they act with steadfast faith in Me, will I take over and split the sea."

May we internalize this message, in our momentous times of redemption, and avert the crisis of a geulah be'itah, a redemption coming because there is no time left, with pain and suffering, Heaven forbid. Let us catalyze a geulah of achishena, one that is hastened and glorious.

Our House in Israel II

(Click here to see Part I.)

Well, our house is about about 5 months away from completion, and things are really starting to come together. Air conditioning is in, and flooring, as well as some bathtubs! Exciting! Stairs and banister are not in yet, and much is still left to be done.

Here you can see most of our kitchen. The strip in the middle is bare because most people will be putting tile in as a backsplash. Part of our backsplash will be granite, but most will be egshell paint. Counters will run along the wall, and the corner to the left in the picture is the starting point of a peninsula.

Here you can see the bottom of our staircase. We have a tri-level stairwell, which should look quite nice when the house is done. Obviously, the marble stairs are still not installed, nor the banisters. Our staircase has a window, so we hope it will be airy and light.


Here you can see one of the children's bathrooms. The tiling is almost done, but the side tiles for the tub are not in yet. We chose to tile only the area in the bathrooms that surround tubs or showers. The rest of the bathroom will be finished with egshell paint.


And finally (for now), here is the view from the kitchen out to the front entrance. The support poles you see are going to be removed soon. I chose this view so that you can see the tile we chose for the flooring. It is shiny and faintly remenicsient of marble, which is the look we were going for.

I hope to keep this blog up to date regarding the house as it nears completion...please let me know if you find this of interest!

Demons of Maimonides

In his Guide to the Perplexed, the Rambam categorically denies the colloquial understanding of the existance of demons. His understanding of talmudic passages such as Berachot 6a work around this fact, but I find his explanation of a different midrash much more interesting.

The Torah (Gen. 5:3) states that Adam gave birth to many children besides Kayin, Hevel and Shes. Midrash Rabbah (Gen. 24:6) explains that these were children of a fractured relationship between Adam and Eve, and they were demons. What does Maimonides do with this midrash?

In the Guide (1:7), the Rambam explains this phenomenon. Demons, he says, are human beings that are born with all the normal faculties of Man, but their minds are not fully perfected. These souless beings are essentially animals in human form. Because of their vastly superior intellect to other animals, however, they are capable of much more complex thought and action. The fact that they lack a truly human soul gives them sociopathic tendencies. Hence, Maimonides explains, they have a propensity to damage and contributee to the development of evil in this world.

And so, to the Rambam, demons are not figaments of our imagination or products of our nightmares. They are humans that have no conscience. Absent is that part of the human soul that ennobles it, elevating it beyond the realm of mere beast. Their superior intellect allows them to ensnare others into tremendous pain and suffering, bringing evil into our world.

Reading this passage, my thoughts immediately turned to the sadistic smiles on the faces of the German (and other) guards during the Holocaust (image). The title of demon befits these brutes well.

UPDATE 3 Nov 2009: In Shapiro's Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters, Rambam's view is stated as I have presented it here. Furthermore, Professor Shapiro quotes R Shlomo Duran in Milchemet Mitzvah as holding the same view: "לא שיהיו שידין ממש אלא בני אדם הדומין לשידין במעשיהם כלשון בני אדם שאומרים על אדם רע זה שד הוא וכל אדם שמשחית במעשיו ג"כ נקרא שטן" (p 111 f 75).

He also points out the fact that the Meiri similarly reinterperts many talmudic passages that deal with demonology, turning them into rationalistic rules. For example, while the talmud (B'rachot 4-5) states that the reason for the recitation of שמע at bed-time is to afford protection from demons, Meiri states, "להבריח את המזיקים, וביאורו אצלי המזיקים הידועים והם הדעות הכוזבים, והזקיקוהו בעתות הפנאי ליחד את השם שלא יטעה באמונות השניות וכשיקרא על הכונה הראויה תהא מטתו בטוחה מהם".

Appeasement isn't Working

While the complexities of Israeli politics and security may be hard for most of us to fathom, we can be assured that the Appeasement Process is not achieving desired results when diary entries like the following appear:

January 15th, 2007: Israel states that it may give up territory in the Golan Heights, as well as most of Judea and Samaria.

January 29th, 2007: One of many attempts, a suicide bomber evades Israeli authorities and detonates himself in a bakery in Eilat. The government of Gaza, the Hamas, state that 'as long as there is an occupation*, resistance is legitimate..."

(This type of result-oriented evaluation of policies also works for the Lebanon war, which had as one of its stated goals, 'the return of the two soldiers kidnapped on the border', and ended with no such success. Meanwhile, Olmert has decided that enough time has gone by for Israelis to forget his promise, and claimed on January 26th that 'the Lebanon war was a great success.')

UPDATE (1.30.2007): According to this poll, Kadima is going the way of Shinui. Israel seems to know that Olmert and his bunch of goons are worthless. Again, an oppritunity for a popular political revolution. May we act towards new leadership, and may Hashem help us succeed where past governments have failed.

__________________________________
* While Israelis like to believe that only the territories post 1967 are considered 'occupied' by the Arabs, the Arab schoolbooks so consider Eilat, Tel Aviv and Haifa, as well.

Bo: Renewal of Spirit and Morals

In a week marred by the Katzav affair, the portion details the first commandment with which the Jewish nation is charged. Each month's beginning is a holiday on the Jewish calendar, and its announcement is ritualized in halacha. Witnesses look out for the night when the moon is begins its waxing period, and they make haste to Jerusalem, to announce their sighting to the court. What is certain is that this is not simply the effort of a crude, unenlightened people to set a calendar. The court in Jerusalem knew the astronomical intricacies very well, and even had the power to override the testimony of witnesses in order to plan the calendar pragmatically for the nation.

So, what is the purpose of the New Moon ceremony? Rabbi Hirsch points out immediately that the moon produces no light of its own. Its surface simply reflects the rays of the obscured sun. Immediately, this conjures up the natural symbol of the moon for the Nation of Israel. As the moon reflects the light of the sun to the inhabitants of Earth, so are we supposed to reflect the spiritual warmth of God to the rest of the world. The moon is beautiful because of the light it reflects; in the same vein, we are a model to the world because of our relationship to God.

When a Jew gazes at the moon, he lifts his mind from the physical, material world, and shifts his sights higher. The wax and wane of the moon represent the constant struggle of humanity to remain true to God's spiritual and ethical commands. The gravity of materialism slowly draws mankind away from lofty goals, and mires it in the drudgery of pragmatism. Eventually, however, the soul re-exerts itself, and lifts humanity back to the realm of ethical growth. This constant state of flux creates tension and a recurring yearning for growth. Without falling, we would have less drive to rise higher. And so, the national focus on the moon each month beckons Israel back to its goal of reflecting Hashem's light. It is an invitation to interact with God in a closer way, to commune with Him on a deeper level.

Thus we can understand the offering of Rosh Chodesh. On this day, a goat is brought, a sin offering, to atone for sins that are unconsciously committed (Shavuoth 9a). The nation atones for its waning spiritual and moral consciousness, and resolves to strengthen these in the future. The tradition of יום כיפור קטן, the miniature day of atonement, which occurs the day before Rosh Chodesh, is also a reflection of this concept. Before the holiday, we turn our thoughts towards penance, and work our ways closer to Godliness.

This day of communion with God, this renewal of national and individual spirit, is not one-sided. God does not want to command His nation to re-inspire themselves. And so, He places us in control of the commemoration. The nation is responsible to set the date, not just through their sanhedrin proxy, but through popular moon-watching and testimony. Each Jew watches the sky, searching for astronomical renewal, and is symbolically invited to spiritual renewal. The nation communes with God as co-participants, not simply as servants fulfilling the will of their master. Jews renew themselves, weaving a new reality, and join Hashem in creation.

The time of the reawakening is, paradoxically, the time immediately following the darkest point in the cycle of the moon. Historically, Jews spring to new heights directly from the shadows of their lowest falls. And so, בדמיך חיי, from our bloodiest point, from our lowest spiritual and moral stances, we are enjoined to live! -- To grasp life and reach higher, re-dedicating every step to God.

May our national shame this week be a springboard for rapid spiritual accomplishment, culminating in redemption.

The Shame of a Nation

The allegations against the president of Israel, Moshe Katzav, are now international news. Headlines around the world blare the rape and corruption charges against the figurehead of the Jewish State. It is not hard to hear the relish in some news outlets. The undercurrent of schadenfreude inevitably stems from the perception that those who consider themselves the most 'moral nation on earth' have been proven hypocrites. Katzav seems to demonstrate that Jews are no more moral than anyone else, and it would seem that they may even be a cut below in the area of government officials.

Indeed, members of the Knesset have complained of the shame that the Katzav debacle is causing Israel in the international community. They end up sounding like calculating politicians, who care only about opinion polls and public perception, instead of truth, justice and morality.

During the formation of our Nation, Moshe made sure not to use his position to take anything from the people. He used his own donkey for transportation, and never made personal demands on the Jews, even the kind that we might consider appropriate. How our leadership has changed from those times. Where has the honor of Israel gone?

The governing class in Israel has, for the most part, rejected the practical aspects of the Torah. Israel is, as much as they can influence it, a secular state, one where religion, God and Torah have little to do with the governance of the land. In fact, the founders and visionaries of our State made it clear that they wanted a state just like any other state. I recall reading that when the newly minted Israel caught and convicted its first thief, the feeling was palpable that now we are really a country; we have Jewish scientists, Jewish policemen, Jewish doctors, and now, Jewish robbers!

What a far cry this is from the ethical standard that the Torah requires! We are meant to be a 'kingdom of priests, a holy nation'! Our social and judicial rules gleaned from the Torah would set our status as a beacon of light, standard-setters for the rest of the world. When Israel sits in its land and follows the Torah, the nations of the world will see utopia! And yet, when we fall from grace, when we abandon the ways of God, we become lower than any other. Our substantial national soul has the ability to fall far below, just as it can soar high above. And so, without God squarely before our consciousness constantly, we flounder, and eventually sink. And the results are the Katzavs, Olmerts, Halutzes and a hundred others, who only represent the tip of the depraved iceberg we allow ourselves to become.

Israel is a gift from God. It is our chance to enable the redemption in a quick, painless way. If we abuse it, it can be a source of suffering, until God redeems us despite our actions. However, if we utilize it correctly, it will continue to flower and bear fruit, unfolding the messianic era before our eyes, and the eyes of the whole world. This can only be accomplished by applying the Torah to the State.

When a child is created, he is born incomplete. It is up to his father to circumcise him, thus perfecting what God has given him. Part of the lesson to the father is that the boy must be educated and perfected spiritually, as he was completed physically. In this world, everything God gives us must be perfected by our own actions. We take part in creation with God, and become like Him in this way. When God presented us with the gift of Israel, it was imperfect. It is up to us to complete it with God, and have a hand in our own redemption.

We must return to God, not only on a personal level, but on a national level. We must take this unfinished gift that God gives us, and complete it by his instruction. May God guide us, and help us replace corruption and hedonism with justice and morality. May swift, merciless justice be done to the Katzavs and the Olmerts, and thus Israel's national glory be restored.

Vayechi: The Diversity of Israel

The time has come for Ya'akov to die. He gathers his sons, each of which is an integral foundation stone in the new nation of Israel. In his philosophic will to his descendants, the patriarch recognizes each son's nature. He describes how each son's innate attributes should be used properly for the service of God. In doing so, Ya'akov learns from the mistake of his father with Esav.

The Midrash Tanchuma points out an interesting oddity. Ya'akov follows birth order in his blessing of his sons, with one exception. Yissachar was older than Zevulun, and yet, the younger is mentioned before the older. The fact is that the two brothers' blessings were intertwined. Zevulun was to provide for the physical maintanance of his brother Yissachar, while the latter provided spiritual sustanence for himself and his supporter. The midrash points out that it was not Yissachar who is mentioned first, but Zevulun, driving home the point that those who provide the physical wherewithal for the study of Torah are the ones who stand first in line to receive the credit.

The diversification of each important set of traits into individual sons of Ya'akov, together making up the whole nation, speaks of the unity of purpose that was expected of the children of Israel, and their idealized desire to bring the kingdom of Heaven here, to Earth. Perhaps, however, we may see the diversification in reverse, as well. While each member of the nation of Israel must see himself as, first and foremost, part of the tapestry of the People, he must also remember that he is an individual. The Israelite (Hirsch's Mensch-Jisroel) must realize the microcosm of the nation, indeed, of the world, in his own life, to the best of his ability. This would require him to do the opposite of Ya'akov's diversifying blessings. He must take each trait and quality that is necessary in life, and integrate it into his personality, becoming as close to perfection as possible. By harmonizing the Yehuda, the Yissachar, the Zevulun, the Yosef, and all the others, in her own life, the individual Jew ensures that not only does she use her natural talents for Godly purposes, but she also adopts traits foreign to her, and uses them to further God's purpose in this world.

Tanchuma states that the blessings Ya'akov gave his children would not become effective until the Nation accepts the Torah. Only with a plan for enacting God's will on earth, can we truly act accordingly. It is only with the Torah as our guide, and our overarching authority, that we can truly engage the world as sons and daughters of Ya'akov, and reap the benefits of success.

What's New Here

Welcome to the newer and better mevaseretzion blog!

By converting my blog to the new blogger, I was able to retain the same look, while adding the link tree of all posts. I am sure there are many new features that I will try to implement in the future, but this was the most important change I wanted to make.

In other news, I know I have not been posting much lately, what with my child getting sick and my changing jobs very soon. However, I do plan to get invest more time in my blog very soon, commenting and posting more frequently, about halacha, hashkafa, politics, and the rest of it.

I hope people out there are reading what is already here, and looking forward to more!

Vayigash: Exile by Choice

Globally, the story of the Jewish People in the Bible is a dramatic cycle: the nation is forced off its land, languishes in exile, desperate to return, and, ultimately, is granted this wish. There is a microcosm of this greater picture in the Torah. This vision is most clearly represented in this week's reading.

When God was first promises the land of Israel to Avraham, he is excited to immediately inherit it. From this promise on, Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov saw their permanent home only in the Land. At brith ben hab'tharim, God makes it clear to Avraham that he will not be the one to inherit it. His descendants will first be 'strangers in a land not theirs...' (Gen. 15:13). Imagine, every time one of the forefathers left Canaan, he must have thought, 'perhaps this will be the exile that mushrooms into the fulfillment of the promise of brith ben hab'tharim!' What relief they must have felt upon their return to their promised land. Only Yitzchak remained in Israel all his life.

In 37:1, Ya'akov assumes that he is back in Canaan to stay. The midrash (source to come) comments on this verse that Ya'akov wanted to enjoy the fruits of his years of hardship in his homeland. The midrash extrapolates from this that one who lives permanently (dar) in Israel is as one who has a connection to God, while one who lives outside of the Land is as one who does not have a connection to his God. Ya'akov's comfort is not to be, and Providence leads Ya'akov, along with his entire family, to settle in Grar. The term used by the Torah for this settlement originally is 'gur', which is a temporary dwelling. Surely, Ya'akov planned to leave Egypt as soon as the famine ended. However, by the end of Vayigash, Israel, the name that refers to Ya'akov as a national unit, 'dwells in Egypt, and takes hold of the land, multiplying greatly.' (47:27) For the first time in Jewish History, the exiled Jew finds comfort, peace and prosperity outside his Promised Land.

This is taken by commentators (among them the כלי יקר on this verse) to be the sin which turned this exile into the one that fulfilled the brith ben hab'tharim. The sons of Israel took hold of the land, and divested themselves of most cultural symbols that identified them as Jews. Tanchuma states that after Yosef died, circumcision was abandoned. The Jews took hold of the land of Egypt as their new home, and almost forgot their Promised Land. When a Jew forgets that outside of Israel he is a stranger and and exile, he incurs the wrath of God, who promised Canaan to Avraham.

The Ba'al Haturim comments that the word 'r'dah' appears in the Torah twice, once in reference to the descent of Israel into Egypt, and once in reference to Nebuccadnezer's descent into the fires of Hell. He claims that this equates the descent out of Israel to Hell. Rabbi Gifter comments that only one who has this attitude will be able to properly fulfill the requirement of the Talmud (Shabbath 31a) to anxiously await the redemption. Without it, our prayer every day to 'see God's return to Zion' is meaningless lipservice, and a serious affront the God who promised the Land to each and every one of us.

Imagine a king who exiles his son to live with the commoners as punishment for some offense. Every day, the exiled prince makes his way to the palace gates, imploring his father to forgive him. As time goes on, the son builds a home and develops a life outside the castle, but always returns to the castle gates, begging for forgiveness. The son hangs a painting of his father the king as a shrine in his own house, and tells himself that if he cannot be in the physical presence of his father, at least he can see his likeness. Day after day, the prince goes to the castle to pray for pardon.

One day, when he comes by, the castle gates open, and there is his father, the king. The prince looks into his father's compassionate eyes, and again recites his daily plea for forgiveness and reinstatement in the palace. The king answers the plea by saying, 'my son, I forgive you. How many years we have lost! Come back home, you are completely pardoned!'

The prince looks at his father as if he does not see him, and turns to walk back to his house. Once at home, he sighs, 'oh, I hope I live to see the day my father finally forgives me!'

While we continue to pray for the return to Zion, the doors have been open for sixty years. Each year, they open wider, making it easier and more realistic to go back home. How long will it take until we see things for what they are, and actually listen to the voice of our Father in Heaven, inviting us back in?

Miketz and Midoth

Character traits are tools. We are meant to use each one at the appropriate time. Sometimes, we must use anger and hate, other times, love and patience. The key is to know when to use each one, and to what extent. This lesson is taught both in Miketz and the holiday of Chanuka.

The midrash twice comments on Yosef's vanity in his younger years. Before his sale into Egypt, and again when he becomes the head servant in Potifar's household, we are presented with a slightly egotistical youth, curling his hair and paying undue attention to his appearance. Indeed, again, at the beginning of this week's portion, we find Yosef shaving and changing his garments for his meeting with the king of Egypt.

Rashi takes the time to point out that Yosef did this 'for the honor of the king's majesty'. Is this not clear from the context of the plot?

I suggest that Rashi points this out in order to make it perfectly clear that this time, Yosef's apparent vanity is commendable, and not a narcissistic act. The trait of vanity should be used for the honor of others. We are told by the halacha to dress in a respectable manner, with no tears or stains in our clothing. This is not for our own honor, but for the honor of Torah, God and the Jewish nation we represent, as well as for the basic honor of everyone we encounter (כבוד הבריות). When used in this way, vanity is a positive force. However, it can quickly degenerate from this ideal to personal honor and vanity. Therefore, it is particularly dangerous, and must be used with caution.

The Hasmoneans began their war and their dynasty for the honor of Israel, and with zealousness for God's name which was being profaned. This was commendable, and indeed, the Maccabees were wildly successful. However, their dynasty refused to hand over the kingdom to the tribe of Judea, as they should have. Because of this, their kingdom eventually came to be considered a bad force in Judaism. This is the reason that Chanuka did not merit its own tractate in the Talmud.

The character traits of קנאה and כבוד, zeal and honor, are ones which, when used correctly, are essential at certain points in national and individual lives. However, they can easily become abused and may end up destroying the very things they originally were to protect.

Rabbi Kook explains that the 'good' character traits, such as love, compassion, patience and kindness, must become part of our very being. True, there are certain times we need to supress them. However, the suppression of these midoth should be against our natural tendencies. We should feel uncomfortable the whole time we suppress them. In contrast, the 'bad' midoth should never become part of our natural state of being. Rather, they should remain in our toolbox of traits, to be dusted off and used only when absolutely necessary. All the while we utilize them, we should feel a foreign attribute in our actions.

May we internalize the good, and keep the bad at hand for its time of need, and may we look to the Torah for direction as we tread the path to the redemption.

(27 Kislev, 5769: Revisiting this issue, my chevrusa and I discussed the ethical in light of the Torah. Our discussion concluded that perhaps an individual halacha, such as Amalek could not be used in isolation to teach the ethics of the Torah, for it is a product not of a purely ethical form or category, but a result of various competing ethics and considerations. For example, the act of torture may be morally reprehensible. However, when used to urge a terrorist to reveal the location of a ticking time bomb, the overall ethical thing to do is to use torture. Some actions should define us (being kind, being peaceful), and are inherently ethical, while other actions, though sometimes employed, do not define our ethic, and only receive the nod of approval because of surrounding considerations. Thus, while an individual halacha may not define morality, the totality of halachot and hashkafa do, and provide a framework and set of rules to, with all the complexities of life, choose the best possible course of action when none may always be perfect. אשת יפת תואר and עמלק are thus not necessarily so different. They are both the best course of action for imperfect situations.)

Vayeshev: The Multi-Colored Coat

The midrash states that Yosef's brothers felt threatened by his favored status in Ya'akov's heart. They felt that Yosef and Ya'akov planned for Yosef's continuation of the Godly mission passed from Avraham to Yitzchak, excluding Yishmael, and from Yitzchak to Ya'akov, excluding Esav. In the same way, Yosef would be the leader of the nation of God, while the rest of the brothers would fade into the scenery of history. They felt this, in part, because of the beautiful multi-hued coat that Ya'akov weaved for Yosef.

Aside from the obvious favoritism displayed to Yosef, perhaps the brothers saw the very coat as a symbol of the continuation of the nation of Ya'akov. The coat was a tapestry of many different colors, all used harmoniously to make up a complete garment. The brothers might have seen this as an allegory, that in Yosef's offspring, the diversity and individuality of Israel would be expressed, leaving them out of the picture.

What is the first thing the brothers do to Yosef? They tear off his cloak and dip it in blood. They effectively obliterate the vibrant and distinct colors, making the point that Yosef is, at best, only one valid aspect of the nation of Israel, amongst the rest of them. And in the end, they are proved right, and all the children of Ya'akov make up the tapestry of Israel.

The tragic part of it all is that Ya'akov probably never meant the coat in the way that the jealous brothers perceived it, and Yosef probably did not interpret it that way, either. Yet the animosity engendered by this jealousy was so intensely passionate, that it led to our incarceration and enslavement in Egypt. What a lesson in parenting! We must not only have equal appreciation and love for our children, but we must make absolutely sure that each child feels it. No child may be allowed to feel second to any other in parents' love.

Illuminating a Machloketh

In Masechet Shabbat (21b), the Gemara discusses the laws of the Chanukah lights. In order to fulfill the minimum requirement of Chanukah, we need light only one candle each night. However, it is praiseworthy to light more. The Gemara quotes a disagreement between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel regarding the extra candles. Beit Shammai holds that on the first eve of Chanukah we light eight candles, and then deduct one each subsequent night. According to Beit Hillel, however, we start out with one candle, and on each successive night of the holiday we add another candle. The Gemara explains that the view of Beit Shammai is that the number of lights on any given day corresponds to the days left to Chanukah ("yamim hanichnasim"), while Beit Hillel maintains that the number of lights reflects the days of the holiday that have passed ("yamim hayotzim"). Reading this Gemara, we ask: Why is the number of candles lit on a given day related to the number of days the holiday lasts?

R. Chaim Yaakov Goldvicht, zt"l, Rosh Yeshiva of Kerem B'Yavneh, addresses this issue in his sefer, Asufat Maarachot. He says that in order to understand this dispute, we must examine another machloket of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

The Gemara in Masechet Berachot (52b) discusses the proper wording for the blessing on fire in havdalah. Beit Shammai says, "shebara me'or ha'esh" (Blessed is He ... who created the light of the fire), while Beit Hillel opts for "borei me'orei ha'esh" (Blessed is He ... who creates the lights of the fire). The reason given for this dispute is that Beit Shammai holds, "There is one light in fire," and Beit Hillel argues, "There are many lights in a fire." Rashi explains Beit Hillel by saying that "many lights" means that fire has red, white and yellow colored flames. Beit Shammai, on the other hand, would say that light does not consist of many parts; rather, it is one physical reality.

It seems from the Gemara and Rashi that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argue about the physical quality of fire. However, the Vilna Gaon explains that the argument is much more subtle. Both agree that that fire, as we see it, has many components and colors. They also agree that the initial spark that generates the flame is a single entity. The argument, rather, is about which part of the fire we use to bless G-d. Beit Shammai says that the essence of fire is that original spark which created the flame. Therefore, we bless Hashem on the spark, because it is the origin of fire. Since the spark is a single entity, the wording of the bracha is singular. Beit Hillel holds that since we benefit from fire because of the flame, not the spark, we must bless G-d on the flame. Since the flame has many parts, the wording of the bracha should be plural.

Understanding this machloket in further depth will shed light on the machloket about Chanukah lights.

Midrash Bereishit Rabbah (12:5) says that God created the world with an especially clear "super-light." With that light Adam could see to the ends of the earth. This light lasted the day of Adam's creation (Friday), that night, and Shabbat. However, because of Man's sin, God concealed that "super-light." On Motzei Shabbat, when darkness fell, Adam was paralyzed with fear. Hashem taught him to strike two flint stones together and create fire. Now, it is obvious that Adam did not create fire ex nihilo. He was simply taught how to actualize an already existing potential. When God created the "super-light," Adam could use it with no effort on his own part. It was a Divine gift from above. However, when God hid this light, Man was forced to work to benefit, and the fire he created was "by the sweat of his brow." Sefer Habahir (ch. 50) writes about the concealment of this super-light that, "G-d concealed it in the Oral Torah." What does this mean?

The Written Torah and the Oral Torah define two stages in Torah learning. The Written Torah represents the situation before the breaking of the luchot. All the laws and intricacies of God's teachings were unambiguously clear. Anyone interested would effortlessly understand Torah as clearly as the greatest sage. There was no need for toil and exertion in order to understand the precepts. However, once the luchot were broken, forgetfulness and confusion came to the world, and Man was forced to labor with his own intellect to understand the laws of God. We can understand Torah only to the extent that we labor in it. We actualize our potential for Torah in proportion to how hard we work on it.

Let us return to the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Whenever these two tanaim argue, there is a deeper level to their respective opinions. Beit Shammai is more interested in what was meant to be by God (hinted to by the Written Torah). They decide halacha based on a perfect, idealized world, the kind of world originally intended. Beit Shammai decides the lechatchila, the de jure, aspect of the law. On the other hand, Beit Hillel sees the present spiritual level of the word and rules a more practical, bediavad, de facto, halachah (corresponding to the idea of the Oral Torah). The ARI, z"l, writes that although in our times halacha is in accordance with Beit Hillel, in the Messianic age halacha will follow Beit Shammai. (This is the meaning of Pirkei Avot (5:20) that the machlokot between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are for the sake of Heaven and, therefore, both views will eventually be utilized.)

We now have a deeper understanding of the argument concerning the blessing of havdalah. The primary spark that ignites the fire is the original, Heavenly light, the intended illuminant for our world. It corresponds to the Written Torah -- God's word effortlessly understood. According to Beit Shammai, we bless God every motzei shabbat on this idealized light. The light that is radiated by the fire, however, is the light that Adam had to create with his own two hands. This is the Oral Torah, which hints at the exertion of the human mind. According to Beit Hillel, this earthly light (our present situation in the galut) is what must also be used to bless G-d.

The ideas we discussed explain the machloketh about the lights of Chanukah. The one candle that is required each night to fulfill the commandment of Chanukah hints at the Heavenly, beginning spark of fire. This is the concealed light of creation. The rest of the candles imply the earthly, manly light. Now we understand why Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argue.

Beit Shammai lights according to the incoming days (yamim hanichnasim) of Chanukah. Every day we deduct a light, until we reach our goal, the singular, Divine spark. Even after the concealment of this light by God, our goal is to reach it again. Beit Shammai follows their own reasoning, that we bless on the ideal, intended situation. Beit Hillel, however, holds that we light based on the outgoing days (yamim hayotzim). The addition of candles each night symbolizes the present, pragmatic, world situation. We look back at what God has given us, and use that, however distant from the ideal it may be, to thank Him.

May we continue to worship God for the present, while striving to reach an ideal future with the coming of the redemption.

Torah Education

A comprehensive examination of Jewish education is beyond the scope of my time right now. Even so, I have extensive contact with Jewish youth in my work as Youth Director at a Modern Orthodox Synagouge, and am less than impressed with the product of our schools. No one argues against sending children to Jewish schools. However, what do they produce? Do these schools succeed at their goals? What can parents do to enhance their children's Torah education?

In secular education, each subject has a syllabus, and has stated goals for each age level. Jewish education consists of subjects as well, and each one should have a syllabus and a lesson plan to guarantee mastery and breadth.

In first grade, students begin learning the book of Genesis. That sounds great, but in fourth grade, they have only made it to Parashat Vayishlach, only about two thirds of the way through! They begin learning mishna in this grade as well, also at a snail's pace. The children still cannot comfortably understand and translate Hebrew, and they struggle to read the words of the text.

In Israel, when immigrants need to learn Hebrew, they are taught in a lightning immersion system called 'ulpan'. They learn how to speak, read and write Hebrew within six months. From first grade and on, students should be presented with an ulpan style method to learning the Hebrew language. For the first half year of first grade, this is all they should learn in their Torah half of the day. After that, they will be comfortable and confident reading Chumash, Rashi and Mishna. From then on, they should continue their Torah studies only in Hebrew, and devote half an hour a day to continuing Hebrew grammar and language skills. The rest of their morning should be devoted to Chumash and Rashi on a quick pace. They will thus, by the middle of fourth grade, be able to complete the Torah with Rashi, an accomplishment that will further motivate them to desire success in Torah learning.

After this, students can learn Mishna. For the first year or two, the Rabbi can simply read and translate, moving quickly, while making sure everyone keeps up. Students like paced movement, and their short attention spans will be happy for the speed. For seventh and eighth grade, they can review the Mishna while spending the bulk of their time going through the Nevi'im and Ketuvim.

Tanach and Mishna are not closed books. They are readily understood and can be learned fairly quickly with a Rabbi who is fluent in them. Students who are at home in the Hebrew language will find much of these subjects interesting, and will come out of elementary school with a formidable knowledge base.

Students who enroll in the school late can go through a six month 'ulpan' time, and then be brought in to the mainstream of the classes.

Each year of elementary school will have a section of halacha that they focus on, so that students end eighth grade with a solid knowledge of Orach Chaim.

High school can then be devoted to Talmud and Halacha, also in a structured way, with cyclical reviews of Tanach and Mishna.

I know that this type of system will probably not be instituted in our schools soon. However, the concept is one that will help produce well-rounded, thinking students, and help us raise a generation knowledgeable in Torah and the world around them.

As it is, parents can supplement their children's current education with an hour of private learning with father, mother or tutor. The hour can consist of twenty minutes of Mishna, enough to cover about five mishnayot, and thus, in about two years, the entire Mishna. The next twenty minutes can focus on half a perek of Chumash a day, and the last twenty can teach half a perek of Nach a day. It is up to the student's ability and the teacher's descision to add Rashi to that or not.

I know these suggestions are dramatic, but I truly believe that they are attainable by the vast majority of children. Please, let me know through the comments what you think, and if you would change the system I propose, or any other system in place. I think we, as parents, need to rethink the way Jewish Education is run, and this is an excellent forum to do so.

The Baker Report

Last week, James Baker's report outlined a dim view of the war in Iraq. It stated that in order to leave with a measure of success, the US must reach out to Iran and Syria, who both have as a national interest the prevention of chaos in Iraq. Baker's thesis represents a total capitulation to the countries that most support and legitimize global terror. The report is an implied suggestion that Israel be sacrificed on the altar of Arab unity, and it is amazing to me that the Jewish world, and the blogging world, is not up in arms.

In order to secure Iran's 'help' in Iraq's political arena, the US is to accept a de facto nuclear Iran. The United States is to ignore the fact that with nuclear weapons, Iran will pursue its stated ideal of annihilating Israel. To bring Syria to the table, the US is to pressure Israel to give the Golan Heights away, doing away with the most militarily strategic piece of land it possesses. Both of these actions would immediately place Israel at the mercy of those who daily call for her destruction. Simply put, the Baker report advocates sacrificing the safety of Israel on the altar of Arab unity.

The possible abandonment of Israel by the US would not be quite so dangerous, had Israel a strong, independent leadership. Sadly, our country has one of the most corrupt, self-serving, blinded governments in its history. Ehud Olmert has repeatedly placed the Iran issue at Bush's feet, ignoring the fact that Israel is, in the end, going to have to go it alone. The Iranians are anywhere from 4 months to a few years away from nuclear launch capability. Israel does not have the luxury to assume the latter. It must prepare for the former, and realize that one missle with a nuclear warhead would effectively decapitate the country, and leave it open for the taking.

The Israeli government must stop the rhetoric, and begin acting. It must put an end to the international perception that Israel is for sale or dependent on anyone. Israel must stand on its own two feet and threaten Iran with immediate destruction of civil, religious and national infrastructure, as well as, of course, military capability.

The Israeli public must take to the streets and protest its government's inability to form a solid, focused foreign policy with regard to Iran. Israelis must demand that the IDF end the rocket attacks from the south and the threat from Lebanon, so that, if and when it does come to a military strike against Iran's nuclear capabilities, Israelis are not lay to waste by rockets sent by Hamas and Hizbullah.

Jews around the world, and Americans in general, must vocally protest the proposed abandonment of Israel. We must make it clear to the US and other free world governments, that if Israel is attacked, they will all be fundamentally altered. Israel's second launch capability and Sampson Option will surely send the free world into the stone age, destroying oil wells and power in the Middle East for decades to come.

Jews everywhere must pray to God and return to him. It is not a far cry from where we are to the apocalyptic words of the prophets, where the world entire turns on Israel. However, it need not happen that way. Repentance and calculated preparation are our only hope.

I am surprised not to find the blogs, particularly the Jewish ones, discussing Baker's report and its implications. As we have seen in the recent past, blogs are a vehicle for grassroots change that can shake traditional institutions. We must come together to battle a policy that is aimed directly at Israel's heart.

Vayishlach: Limping through History

Tomorrow, we will read about Ya'akov wrestling the angel of Esav. The text describes the attack of the angel as, 'vaye'avek', he raised dust against Ya'akov. Rabbi Hirsch comments that it is more than just raising dust due to the actual struggle, but that the angel of Esav tried with all his might to bring Ya'akov down to the dust, to completely take him off his feet, to the ground. Realizing that this was impossible, the angel settled for bruising Ya'akov's sciatic nerve, his gid hanasheh.

The angel leaves our forefather, and he continues on his way back to his family, limping into the sunrise, 'v'hu tzole'a' al y'recho'. Rabbi Hirsch teaches an important lesson about the exile from this story. A person's legs symbolize her ability to take care of themselves and be stable. When a person stands on his own two feet, he is able to deal with anything life throws his way. However, when someone limps, they are not in control of their own destiny, and they are weakened. The nation of Israel limps through history, not quite able to walk upright. We are visibly weakened in the eyes of the nations around us. It is clear, as we make our painful way from exile to exile, that the children of Ya'akov are barely able to stay alive.

The angel of Esav periodically throws all his resources at finally putting us down for the count. He wrestles us, trying his best to make sure that Ya'akov limps no more. However, his work is always for naught. Although we limp, we can never be stopped. We can be slowed, but we constantly plod resolutely toward the finish line of history.

And the nations learn, from our miraculous trek, that it is not physical strength or fortitude that sustains Man. Not by our own power do Ya'akov's People limp on by. It is rather by our adherence to the Torah that we continue to exist. When we succeed, it is not thanks to our own physical prowess, for we are cripple. Rather, it is testament to God's power and our fulfillment of His will. And when we stumble, and fail, it is not the natural failing that every nation experiences. Rather, it is proof that we have failed our duty to our God.

And so, the Jewish limp through history is the greatest testimony to God's complete power and control. Our success is only due to our obedience to Him, and our failures are due to our ruptured relationship.

To embed this lesson in every Jewish heart, we do not eat the sciatic nerve of any animal. By removing the nerve necessary to confident movement from our diets, we are constantly cognizant that our own movement and success is dependant on our loyalty to God.

------------
12/12/2011
An interesting addition can be made when considering the words of the midrash at the sin of the golden calf. God threatens to destroy the Jews and make a nation out of Moshe exclusively. The midrash quotes Moshe as countering, "Lord, if a chair of three legs (Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov) cannot stand before thee, how much more so will a chair of one leg (Moshe) be able to stand..."

The forefather who makes the "chair" of the nation of Israel stable is Yaakov. It is he who joins Avraham and Yitzchak too create a stable foundation for the people. However, this is paradoxical, since in worldly matters, Avraham was wealthy and had a relatively easy physical life, and Yitzchak was "old money", who simply had to maintain the riches for whic his father worked so hard. He had a particularly uneventful and easy life, for a founder of a nation. It is Yaakov, the first-born who came out second, who suffered the most - it is he who had to trick his way to his rightful payment for years of servitude, it is he who displayed obsequiousness to a belligerent brother, it is he who suffered the degradation of the rape of his daughter and feared reprisal for his sons' actions. Later in life, it is he who suffers famine, loss of sons and fear of failure.

However, it was Yaakov particularly who provided the spiritual strength and stability for the Jewish people: of all the forefathers, it was he whose children were all righteous. It was he who transitioned the family from a clan to a nation. As as affirmation of the above concepts, it is indeed not physical or material wealth that indicates stability and success for the Jew, but spiritual, aphysical assets. Not by wealth, strenght or prestige is the Jewish nation, the moral and ethical light of the world, founded, but by limping through history, rising and falling with its fidelity to the Torah.

Pride in Our Miraculous Country

With all the political and military issues concerning Israel in the past years, it is easy to forget the absolutely miraculous blossoming of Israel's economy. God's material blessing to the Jewish people in the land of Israel is the most obvious sign of the impending redemption, and we are privileged to see it with our own eyes. As the economy continues to grow robustly, I found an article from last year, which really made me proud and happy. I hope you all enjoy it.


The secret of Israel's success
From The Economist print edition
November, 2005

This week's initial public offering (IPO) by Saifun, an Israeli chip-design firm, on the NASDAQ exchange was one of the biggest flotations by an Israeli company in America for years. Saifun has developed a new, more compact form of flash memory, demand for which is booming as the storage capacity of mobile phones, music players and other portable devices increases. It has already licensed its technology to companies including Sony, Infineon and Fujitsu, and is expected to sign a deal with Samsung soon.

Having been valued by the IPO at $675m, Saifun now joins a list of globally successful Israeli technology firms such as Amdocs, Check Point and Comverse. Indeed, Israel is third only to America and Canada in the number of companies listed on NASDAQ, and the country attracts twice the number of venture-capital (VC) investments as the whole of Europe, according to Ed Mlavsky, a veteran of the Israeli technology industry and the chairman and founder of Gemini, a big Israeli VC fund that was one of the investors in Saifun. In 2003, 55% of Israel's exports were high technology, compared with the OECD average of 26%. Tech giants such as IBM, Motorola and Cisco have research centres in Israel, which is also where Intel developed its Centrino chip. Not bad for a country with a population of 6.9m.

Why is Israel—sometimes called the "second Silicon Valley"—so strong in technology? For several reasons, says Mr Mlavsky. First, the pump was primed by government grants in the 1970s, by the BIRD Foundation (a joint American-Israeli initiative that supported many start-ups before VC money was widely available), and by government schemes to encourage Russian immigrants who arrived after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The second big factor is the army. "The army gets hold of everybody at age 18, and if they have a glimmer of potential, it catalyses their transformation into engineers or scientists," says Mr Mlavsky. The technically minded are given projects to develop and run, and are allowed to keep any intellectual property that they develop, which results in many spin-outs. It also means that once they get to university, trainee engineers already have practical experience and a problem-solving mentality. Israel has 135 engineers per 10,000 employees, compared with 70 in America, 65 in Japan, and 28 in Britain (see chart).

The small size of Israel's home market is also, paradoxically, an advantage. While a British start-up, say, will look to its home market to get started, Israeli firms cannot. Accordingly, they look to America for customers, so that Israeli start-ups function as "mini-multinationals" from the off—and are instantly exposed to the world's most competitive high-tech market. Similarly, Israel's relative lack of land and resources serves to steer entrepreneurs towards high technology instead.

Naturally, cultural factors play a part too. Around 5% of start-ups in America are headed by repeat entrepreneurs, says Mr Mlavsky, compared with around 30% in Israel. "The whole culture, we're like junkies, and the real kick is success, not the fruits of success, so we want to do it again," he argues. Israeli entrepreneurs are often workaholics who tend not to change their lifestyles much after becoming successful, he says. Gil Shwed, the boss of Check Point and one of Israel's richest men, still has a regular DJ slot at a Tel Aviv restaurant on Wednesday nights, for example.

The bad news for other countries that wish to encourage the development of their technology industries is that few of these factors can be replicated. Singapore's attempt to establish itself as a biotechnology centre faces the challenge of encouraging risk-taking and entrepreneurialism in a highly conformist society. And Britain is hardly likely to introduce conscription in order to boost the fortunes of the technology cluster around Cambridge University. In technology, as in so many other ways, Israel is a special case.