In this post, I will list a skeletal timeline of Jewish History, from the exile of the ten tribes through the twentieth century. Please feel free to make use of this admittedly rough timeline, and please mark your corrections or additions in the comments section.
The hand of God is evident in the pages of Jewish history. As Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits writes (On Jewish Sovereignty, 1973): "It is difficult for a Jew to detect the presence of God in the history of the nations or religions - unless it be in the history of Israel, and, only through that history, in the history of man as well. Eliminate Israel from history and there is no need for any reference to God. Without Israel, everything is explainable and expected. Economics, power, politics and psychology will explain everything. Without Israel, man is self-explanatory. Only the reality of Israel resists explanation on the level of manmade history. Because of Israel, the Jews knows that history is messianism - that God's guidance, however impenetrably wrapped in mystery, is never absent from the life of nations."
719 BCE - Exile of 10 tribes of Israel to Assyria
586 BCE - Destruction of the first Temple & Exile of Judea to Babylon
- 423 according to Seder Olam
- Begin Babylonian Exilarch (Jewish leader)
- from Davidic dynasty (which lasted past 1000 CE)
624-546 BCE - Days of Micha the Prophet
- Thales of Miletus
537 BCE - Babylon conquered by Persia
516 BCE - King Cyrus offers Jews return to Judea
- begin second commonwealth
500 BCE - Cyrus, Ezra, Nechemia
446 BCE - Pythagoras, Heraclitus (dated as per Seder Olam)
400-300 BCE - Xenophanes of Ionia, Yoshiyahu, Yirmiyahu, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle
- (dated as per Seder Olam)
334 BCE - Persian Judea conquered by Syrian-Greeks
- Alexander the Great, Hellenization
200 - 150 BCE - Macabees
190 BCE - Book of Ben-Sira (list of heroes, evidence
- of Neviim as corpus of scripture)
200 - 100 BCE - Dead Sea Scrolls - Evidence of Biblical
- Canon and sectarian writings
165 BCE - Hanukah
- Later Hasmoneans, Hasmonean dynasty
- Hycran, Queen Salome, Aristobulos
135 BCE - Judeans conquer Edom
- Political/religious parties of Pharisees, Sadducees
75 BCE - In Parthia (Persian Empire, Babylonia), Hillel leads
67 BCE - Rome annexes Judea, Idumeans (formerly ruled
- by Judea) become Kings of Israel
40 - 30 BCE - Herod
37 BCE - Rome rules Judea through procurators, eg. Pontius Pilate
100 BCE - 100 CE - Apcocalyptic books - Pseudopygrapha
- Philo
- John the Baptist
- Jesus of Nazareth
70 CE - Destruction of second commonwealth, Temple
- Massada
- 1 million Jews in Persia at this time
135 CE - Mishna
- First citation of Ketuvim, discuss re: Kohelet, Shir Hashirim
- Canon
132 - 134 CE - Judea: Hadrian reneges on promise to rebuild Temple.
- Judea: Rebellion against Rome. Akiva, Bar Kosba
- Judea: Betar. Rebellion crushed. Rename J to AC
- Judea: Yavneh and Sanhedrin destroyed
135 CE - Judea: Christianity parts ways forever with Judaism. ולמלשינים
150 CE - Judea: Bet Din restarts with Shimon II
100 CE - 300 CE - Jews follow Roman army to future France, Germany
- Spain, Portugal inhabited by Jews also
- (perhaps from times of King Solomon)
200 CE - Parthia: Rav in Sura, Shmuel in Pumpedita
260 CE - Parthia: Naharda'a destroyed because of Roman-Persian war
300 CE - Constantine turns Rome Christian
325 CE - Council of Nicea Separations between Jews and Christians
429 CE - Judea: Abolition of Patriarch in Judea/Palestine
400 CE - 470 CE - Parthia: R Ashi collates learning: Babylonian Talmud
- Parthia: Mazdaism tries force the Jews to immorality
470 CE - 500 CE - Parthia: Mar Zutra, Reish Galuta, rebels, is executed
412 CE - 700 CE - Spain: Jews forced to convert or leave
500 CE - Parthia: Begin Saboraim notes, order, editings to text of Talmud,
- which they no longer added to
600 CE - Judea: Persians briefly take Palestine, Rome reconquers soon
622 CE - Mohammed, Islam. Destroys Jews of Arabia or exile them
until 450CE - Northern Europe: Jews were farmers
until 650 CE - Become merchants from oppressive
- laws in France, Spain, Italy
650 CE - 700 CE - Islam conquers Persia, Palestine, North Africa
711 CE - Mohammedans from North Africa conquer Visigothic Spain
- Pact of Omar invoked
760 CE - Parthia: Karaism: Anan Ben David and Chanania rebel
- against Talmud and Geonim.
800 CE - Pact of Omar - Jews allowed to live in Islamic-controlled
- areas with reduced rights. Yellow patch
850 CE - Central Europe: Rabbeinu Gershom & Takkanot in Mayence
860 CE - Parthia: Geonim
- Parthia: Siddurim: Rav Amram Gaon's, Rav Saadia Gaon's, Geonic responsa
875 CE - First appearance of Sambatyon & Eldad the Danite story
500 CE - 900 CE - Judea: Cantillation
- Judea: Vowel system (Tiberian massorah)
- Judea: Midreshei Agada, Piyyutim
500 CE - 1100 CE - Europe: General goodwill between Jew and Christian.
- Laws against Jews but not practically enforced.
- Jews were merchants, government functionaries,
- eg. Charlamagne
750 CE - 1240 CE - Khazars led by Jewish convert king
900 CE - Parthia: Rav Saadia Gaon saves Judaism
- from disintegration from Karaites, among others.
- Unifies Jews, becomes Gaon of Sura
970 CE - 1038 CE - Rav Sherira and Rav Hai Gaon
- Decline of Babylonian community's leadership role
1000 CE - Our earliest extant Torah Scrolls date from around this time
1040 CE - France: Rashi made knowledge the rule
- and ignorance the exception for Jews. Emphasis on study
- Fez: Spanish School of Talmudism
- Rif. Emphasis on halacha
1096 CE - Central Europe: First Crusade
1144 CE - Central Europe: Second Crusade
1189 CE - Central Europe: Third Crusade
- York becomes a second Massada
900 CE - 1200 CE - Spain: Golden Age for Jews
1092 CE - Spain: Ibn Eztra, Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, R' Bahya ibn Pekuda
1135 CE - Spain: Rambam comes from North Africa to flee persecution
1200 CE - 1400 CE - Western and Central Europe:
- Slow process of Expulsion of Jews
1144 CE - Norwitch - first blood libel
1200 CE - Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid - Sefer Chasidim
1239 CE - France: Talmud burned publicly by wagonload
1290 CE - Jews expelled from England
1306 CE - Jews expelled from France
1200 CE - 1400 CE - "Silver Age" of Spain
1212 CE - Moors lose Spain to Christian armies
- Cultural center of Jews moves to Provence
1232 CE - Clash between Philosophers and Traditionalists
- Appeal to Catholic Church who burned Guide and other texts
- Rashba - ban under 25 learning Kabala
1250 CE - Spain: Zohar introduced by Moses de Leon
1263 CE - Spain: Disputation between Ramban and Pablo Christiani
1264 CE - Boleslav the Pious
1306 CE - Controversy ends with Jews being expelled from France
1344 CE - Casimir the Great, both create Jewish Charter for Poland
1394 CE - Jews expelled from France for good
- Germany: Black plague - Jews murdered by thousands
1300-1350 CE - Ralbag book of navigation translated by Pope
1350- 1400 CE - Germany restricts Jews living in towns and length of time they could stay
- Jews live in Ghettos
1420 CE - Murder of Jews and Expulsion from Vienna
1411 CE - Riots in Spain lead Jews to convert
1400-1500 CE - Germans followed by Jews migrate East
1453 CE - Turkish J community grows from refugees but not to stature of P
- Jacob Ibn Chabib
- Joseph Nasi - plan to settle Tiberias fails
1496 CE - J expelled from Lithuania
1492 CE - Inquisition in Spain, Torquemada against newly converted Christians
- Abravanel
- Crew of Columbus made up of Morranos
1497 CE - Inquisition in Portugal
- Mendes, Nasi family
1500 CE - L & P under one Grand Duke
1500 - 1600 CE - Pilpulism, the kahal, education, intellectualism
- J culture of intelligence in Poland rivals Babylonian Amoraim
- Tzena Ur'ena in Yiddish published
1480-1520 CE - Renaissance in Western Europe
- Rome, Italy, enlightened ideas spread - medicine, science, art
- Hebrew studied in Universities
- Jews from S and P permitted in R
- Reuchlin (against) - Pfefferkorn (for) book burning controversy
- liberalism is good for tolerable Jewish life
1520 CE - Martin Luther - Lutheranism - eventual advocate extermination of J
1525 CE - Jewish pseudo-Messiahs - David Reubeni, Solomon Molcho.
- burned at stake
1530 CE - Renaissance ends with liberal promises not fulfilled
1540 CE - Previously kind Italy expels Jews except from Rome & Ancona
- Refuge in Turkey - Ottoman Empire
- Sefad, rebuild semicha quarrel - and failure
1488-1575 CE - Karo - Shulchan Aruch, Spain to Sefad
- 1492 and on Spanish Jews turn to Kabala
1530-1572 CE - Rema
1519 CE - Germany expells Jews from some towns
1519-1670 CE - Germany & Italy - Ghetto for Jews
- Homes of Catechums for converts
1534-1572 CE - Luria, ARI, saw self as Messiah son of Joseph
- He was a German in Sefad
- Leader of movement of kabalists and imagination
- Transmigtration of souls, Gilgulim
- Student was Rabbi Chaim Vital, spread Kabala in Europe
- Small population of Palestine subsisted on charity
1558 CE - Holland seeks freedom from Spain
1559 CE - Printing press, Italy center of Jewish press
- Azariah de Rossi, davidic ancestry - historian - מאור עניים
- Western European J expelled or Ghettoized
- despite contributions to very foundations of WE civilization
- Center of J life shifts from S & G and moves to Poland
1530 CE - Polish Jews organize semi-autonomous self government
1572 CE -Jagello dynasty ends, Poland has monarch only as figurehead
- Real power in Nobles in their own territory (feudalism)
- Jews overseers of serfs
1623 CE - Lithuanian J withdraw to own council
- Polish Jews have Va'ad Arba Aratzot
- Rabbinic & Political committees exist within it
- Shtadlan
- Taxes to Poland collected by Va'ad
1648 CE - Chmelnitzky
1648-1658 - Sabbatai Zevi
1618-1648 CE - 30 Years War -German states and Holy Roman Empire
- Jews suffered also
- Jews participated as court purveyors
- In Prague Samuel Bassevi made a noble for services to state
1612-1616 CE - Frankfurter Purim, Fettmilch
1600 CE - Marranos move from Iberian peninsula to Holland for religious freedom
- Jews from Germany escape to Holland - 2 J communities
1609 CE - Maharal dies
1640 CE - Uriel de Costa writes against detailism of J, commits suicide
1632-1677 CE- Benedict Spinoza
1650 CE - Menashe ben Israel - claims 10 tribes are NA Indians
1290-1660 CE - No Jews in England. MBI tries to convince Cromwell who balks
- Soon Jews come to England and are de facto accepted
1492-1612 CE -Jews in new world - North America, South America
1657 CE - New Amsterdam (later NY)
- Stuyvesant denied, Dutch Co permitted J full rights in New World
1660 CE - Lithuania interested in reason/learning
- South Poland interested in mysticism, Ba'alei Shem
1700-1760 CE -Ba'al Shem Tov - Hassidism
- Jews take on Polish noble dress - capotte, long beard
1707 CE - Ramchal mistaken as Sabbatean
1720 CE - GRA - no piyutim, pilpul, positive about secular study
1729 CE - Mendelsohnn born
1740 CE - Jacob Frank - all sins must be done for Messiah to come - orgies
1750 CE - Emden/Eibushitz controversy
- Amulets, Sabbateanism
1753 CE - PM Pelham (England) Jews given full rights, subsequently repealed
1760 CE - Maggid of Mezhrich taught next generation, was more scholarly than Besht
1772 CE - Excommunicated Hassidim (GRA)
1796 CE - Death of GRA
1600-1776 CE - Jews find freedom and equality in USA
- George Washington, Hayim Solomon
1789 CE - French Revolution
1800 CE - Poland split between Hassidim and Mitnagdim - difficulties
1791 CE - French Jews full citizenship
1799 CE - Napoleon
- Sanhedrin (propoganda, get Jews to submit)
- Infamous decrees - 40 yr moratorium on J debts
- Jews cannot escape conscription as a Gentile could
1810 CE - German states still oppressive to Jews
- Vienna conference: after defeat of Napolean retract rights given to J
- Spurs J to work for equality in German lands
1816 CE - Jacob Herz Baer - first reform Prayer meeting
- Reform - attempts by Jews to be less "queer"
1827 CE - Russia Czar Nicholas I - pale of settlement
- Cantons
- Russia opens J schools with Russian subjects
- Realizing the real purpose, head of schools, Lilianthal leaves for US
1830 CE - Crimieux J in France forught for rights, member of provisional gov't
1844-1846 CE - Conferences to give Reform a set of dogma, what they believe
1860-1880 CE - Holdheim - J is dead institution - developed by man and must adjust
- Hirsch - Torah is from God, no changes
- Geiger - Judaism is living institution sacred, must change ceremonies to express spirit
- Frankel - Change must occur organically "Historical Judaism"
- Geiger encapsulated European Reform, Frankel, US Conservative movement
- Hoffmann, Hildesheimer "Science of Judaism", critical work in Judaism and use modern methods
1848 CE - French Revolution II against king
1850 CE - Nationalism awakens in Europe and Jews are more-so than Gentiles
1855 CE - Russia: Czar Aleksandr II liberal, stops cantons, Jews allowed out of pale
- Seeming liberalization in Russia
1840 CE - Renewal of hate
- Damascus Affair, Morau Affair (Italy)
1860 CE - Crimieux - Jewish Universal Alliance to help Jews worldwide
1880 CE - Eastern Eurpoe hostile, Jews need solution
- Jews more loyal to Germany than Germans
1870 CE - Napolean III overthrown, F true republic
1880 CE - France gives J full rights, Crimieux dies
1880 CE - Germany - Zunz, Graetz, Science of Judaism
- Western Jews have negative opinion of Eastern European Jews
1750-1880 CE - Eastern Europe Haskala, Hebrew literature
- As opposed to history, philosophy, theology of Western European Aufklaerung
- Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer - German Philosophers
1867 CE - Rappaport (Shir), Krochmal, Shadal, biblical and philosophical studies
- Viewed Judaism as offering more to secular culture than it took
1870 CE - Russian, German J uncomfortable
- Haskala did not provide adequate solutions
- Modernization is tantalizing
1820-1860 CE - US expands, Jews head west
- Leeser advocated J unified leadership
- Rebecca Gratz - Sunday school system
1820-1892 CE - Belarus - Beis Halevi - RYDS
- Son R Chaim Brisker, begins Brisker dynasty
1860 CE- US Civil War - Jews on both sides
1889 CE - Isaac Wise - Pittsburgh Platform went further in Reform than Europeans
- Hebrew Union College, Union of American Hebrew Congregations
1894 CE - Antisemitism, scientific Jew hatred
- France: Dreyfus affair
- Some are still liberal, but tide turns to hate J
- Russia still feudal, Jew hatred rampant
1880-1900 CE - Liberalism - revolutions and change sweep Europe
- Jews participate but still there is antisemitism
- Jews leave Russia in large numbers to US
1818-1883 CE - Russia: Marx, the Bund
1873 CE- Chovevei Zion, Rabbi Kalischer
1860-1904 CE - Herzl, Zionism, Nordeau
1882-1903 CE - First Aliyah
1904-1914 CE - Second Aliyah (largely failure, many left Palestine before WWI)
1878 CE - BILU, Petach Tikva
1902 CE - JTS, Solomon Shechter, US
- Catholic Israel, Unity, Tradition and Scholarship
1909 CE - Kehilla experiment in US fails
1917 CE - Revolution in Russia, Communism
1914-1918 CE - WWI
1918-1923 CE - Third Aliyah
- Tel Aviv, Haifa, renewal of Land - desert blooms
- Jewish settlements dot the land, and Israel returns to her land
1924-1928 CE - Fourth Aliyah - urban development of Tel Aviv
1920 CE - Sir Herbert Samuel, British Jewish comissioner to Palestine civil administration
- Tel Hai, Jews fight back against Arab attacks - Trumpledor "Hagidem"
1929 CE - Hebron riots and other Arab riots against Jews
- British largely passive unless Jews are attacking
1918 CE - League of Nations, Mandate Commission, Human Rights
1917 CE - Balfour Declaration, British Mandate
- Bolshevik Revolution in Russia -- USSR
1860-1948 CE - Hebrew revived as spoken language, Ben Yehuda
1901-1906 CE - Jewish Encyclopedia published in US
1915 CE - Revel reorganizes RIETS (1896) into Yeshiva University - New York
- R Yosef Dov Soloveitchik
1917 CE - JPS translates Hebrew Bible into English in US
1922 CE - Hebrew Theological College - Chicago - R Eliezer Berkovits
- US Jewry independent of European religious guidance
1920-1930 CE - US rise in anti-semitism, Henry Ford (later admits to being mislead)
- Obstacles to Jews in Universities, etc
- American Jews donate hugely to Palestinian, European Jews
1922 CE - Congress passes strict anti-immigration laws over veto of President
1921 CE - British White Paper - restricts Balfour promises to "part" of P
1925 CE - Hebrew University opens in Jerusalem, Magnes
- German refugee professors (eg Scholem) make it intellectual center
1933 CE - Hitler
- Albert Einstein relocates to US from Germany
- Fifth Aliyah
1937 CE - Columbus Platform recognizing place for tradition, Jewish homeland
- Replaces Pittsburgh Platform for Reform
- Reconstructionist Judaism appears
1883-1946 CE - Rabbi Isaac Breuer - Der Neue Kusari
1937-1943 CE - Universal Jewish Encyclopedia published in US
1938 CE - Kristallnacht
- Evian conference - world turns back on Jews
- Some Jews allowed into some countries only with money
- Germany would not let Jews out with money
- British continue policy to keep Jews out of Palestine
- Jewish refugee ships sink, explode, sent back to port of origin
1939 CE - Death of Freud in Germany
1939 CE - In face of Arab riots, British issue second White Paper
- Declares building of Jewish homeland in P complete
- Allows small number of Jews in over five years, afterwards, only with Arab consent
1939-1945 CE- WWII
1943 CE - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
1945 CE -United Nations
- Post-war pogroms and violence against Jews in Eastern Eruope
- Prove Jews have no homes left, must emigrate
- Jews revive Haganah, Etzel, Lechi
1948 CE Israel declares Independence
1956,1967,1973,1976 CE - Israel fights for its life against Arab armies
1948-2000 CE - Operation Magic Carpet (Yemen, Iran), and like operations
- Extraction of Jews from lands previously little-known
- Refuseniks in USSR, eventual USSR collapse
- Development of Israeli military alongside peaceful hopes
- Israel blossoms, economic, religious, artistic life flourishes
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Major Events of Jewish History
Monday, March 12, 2012
Knesset Members Eat Their Words
Before the Disengagement from the Gaza Strip, the following MK's mocked the idea that this would lead to rockets on Ashkelon: Meir Sheetreet (Likud --> Kadima), Ran Cohen (Meretz), Orit Noked (Labor), Shaul Mofaz (Likud --> Kadima), Ofir Pines-Paz (Labor).
Aside from this, let us not forget the politicians who supported the disengagement against their better judgement: Slivan Shalom, Limor Livnat, Bibi Netanyahu.
Those of us who saw clearly back then knew then the dangers posed by the disengagement. Now, the whole world can watch these politicians make fools of themselves with the benefit of hindsight and video recording.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
"Get Over" the Holocaust?!
In response to a disrespectful, shameful opinion piece in the Beacon:
The truth is, Weinreich does not advocate "forgetting" the Holocaust, he simply advocates allowing it to become part of the historical record, doing away with the visceral reaction it evokes in most people. As people rail against "forgetting", Weinreich may sit and smirk in self-righteous contentment, thinking that he never advocated that, and "can't people read?" However, he is still wrong, and the amount of common sense Weinreich ignores leads one to the conclusion that the purpose of this ill-conceived piece is primarily to create a stir and promote the visibility of the author and publication as "cutting edge".
First of all, I doubt the author would ever have the temerity to publish such a piece about the Armenian Genocide. Much as the proverbial Jewish bus driver deriding the haredi he meets for being so "different", and t...hen apologizing profusely upon learning that the man is Amish, Weinreich probably feels a certain comfort level with the material of the Holocaust, and his familiarity has bred a certain level of casual disrespect and, yes, even perhaps some contempt.
In reply to Weinreich's substance: historical events are slowly scabbed over and eventually scar at their own pace. Indeed, the destruction of the Temple, the massacres at Massada, York, Medina, the Crusades and Inquisition, the Chmielnicki Massacre, all these atrocities are remembered by the Jews. However, given time and rebuilding, the acuteness, or freshness, as Weinreich calls it, of the memories, is replaced by historical context and often, religious meaning. This is a natural process that we can witness as occuring in relation to our own personal tragedies and troubles. It is also a psycho-social reality on a national level. So, the very process Weinreich so coldly suggests happens on its own.
However, the crucial difference between Weinreich's proposal and the natural occurrence I describe above is as follows: When this process occurs naturally, it is part of a healing process that gives perspective and comfort. But when it is demanded before its natural process has barely begun, it is inflammatory, self-promotional and repugnant. As a writer who (to be most charitable to Weinreich) hopes to help the national consciousness of the Jews on the road to recovery, he ignores the needs of the nation and the magnitude of the damage done. The very fact that many read his piece as suggesting that we "forget", shows just how untimely his writing is. It is an obscenity.
Parenthetically, it is important to remember that Jewish tradition is full of rites and rituals whose purpose is to assist in this process. The shock element of the laws of Aninut (one whose close relative has just died) leads to Shiva, a period of mourning, which leads to progressively less intense periods of remembrance and sadness. It is important to remember however, that Judaism keeps personal and national days (Tisha B'av for example) to revive and freshen the memory of tragedy and evil in our minds. We are never to allow the events of our personal and national lives to become desiccated history. Even with the natural process in place, we are supposed to break out of that from time to time, each year, to remember the events in a real, fresh, immanent way. So Jewish tradition and religious imperative recognizes the scarring and healing process, and supports it, even as it sets aside certain times to recall the events memorialized in the full color of their experience.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Intra-Religious Violence
Just reported on Ynet, a haredi family has complained to police that their eleven year old boy was attacked in Jerusalem by secular thugs.
Whether or not this story proves true, it is imperative that all Jews recognize that violence directed against children, or indeed, any non-threat, is antithetical to Torah values, and antithetical to secular ethical systems as well. It must be publicly stated that such Jew-on-Jew violence is horrifying and must be stopped.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
A School in Beit Shemesh
The Agudath Israel of America released a statement concerning the violence in Beit Shemesh. Read it here. Here is my response:
many charedi Jews, men and women alike, see a need to take special steps – in their own lives and without seeking to coerce others – to counterbalance the pervasive atmosphere of licentiousness, so as to avoid the degradation of humanity to which it leads.
If increased modesty is expressed by individuals' attempts to avoid situations they feel are improper, that is one thing. If a man feels unable or uninterested in walking on the same sidewalk as a woman, and he switches sides, no one will complain. If a woman chooses to not speak with a man out of a sense of modesty, again, no one will complain (although people may question the motives, value and repercussions these types of behavior have on the individual and on the community).
However, if "special steps" taken include gender-segregated buses, signs asking women to walk on the other side of the street, and an unwillingness to vociferously reject the more radical embodiment of these strictures (such as assault (insults and taunts against adults and, more horrifically, children) and battery (spitting, brick throwing, etc)), then, far more than the "atmosphere of licentiousness" the charedi community wishes to avoid, they contribute to the degradation of humanity.
The true irony is found when considering the very concept stated above in my first paragraph: the idea that as long as one does not impact others with his "special steps" in modesty (or other strictness), one should be allowed to take them. This idea of personal autonomy and freedom comes not from the Torah, but from liberal philosophy.In the past, the danger posed to society from overly strict individual behavior was viewed as damaging no less than overly lax individual behavior. One who deviated too far off the golden mean, the societal norm, in either direction, was herded back to the norm. It is ironic that only in the context of modernity and the liberalism it engenders that the charedi world can support "special steps in their own lives", steps that have no basis in normative Halacha and derive their validity from modernity's "individual freedom".
Finally, while Aguda's condemnation of the violence is welcome, it comes belatedly, at a time when the media has picked up on an old story in Beit Shemesh. This has been going on for months, the segregated buses (and violence in their defense) has been going on for years. Why is the vast majority silent? Why is it only when the media pick up a story that the leaders of the charedi world in Israel feel the need to begin to condemn? Was there nothing to condemn months ago, when the heckling of little girlds started? Was there nothing to condemn years ago, when women were assaulted on buses for not moving to the back?
Could it be that the majority supports the goals of the violence, and therefore, they ignore the means?
Finally, I want to point out that there is a troubling view of today's society as extremely licentious. Judaism has existed and survived in cultures far more explicit and licentious than today's. Just think about ancient Greek or Roman culture, or the 18th century dress and behavior across Western Europe.
Later, Rabbi Yaakov Menken posted a comment responding in part to me. I fisked it, and this comment has yet to be approved by Cross-Currents, even though Yaakov Menken has commented since. Here is the unapproved comment from me:
"
"
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Rav Soloveitchik and Historical Positivism
In this post on TorahMusings, Rabbi Wurzburger is quoted as saying: "The Rav’s objection to the employment of modern historic and textual scholarship to ascertain the meaning of halakha reflects not naive traditionalism but highly sophisticated post-modern critical thought. He insists that halakha operate with its own unique canons of interpretation. According to R. Soloveitchik, scientific methods are appropriate only for the explanation of natural phenomena but have no place in the quest for the understanding of the normative and cognitive concepts of halakha, which imposes its own a priori categories, which differ from those appropriate in the realm of science. It is for this reason that the Rav completely ignores Bible criticism and eschews the “positive historical” approach of the “Science of Judaism.”"
Perhaps the use, in the passage quoted above, of the term 'post-modern' is to simply refer to a category of thought that is "after" modernism. After all, Rav Soloveitchik is clear in Halachik Mind that (as pointed out in the passage), to the extent anything can claim the title "true" or "valid" in a post-Kantian world, there are many parallel systems of cognition, which are valid for their field of application. A key element of this is that, within their fields, these systems are valid. This is far from the standard definition of post-Modernism, that apparent realities are nothing more than social constructs, and that narratives take the place of the search for truth.
In fact, Halachik Mind ends up vouching for a methodology of religion and by extension, Halacha, which is essentially scientific: "...it would be fallacious to apply the method of independent philosophy in the field of religion. It would inevitably result in a labyrinth of mysticism. If modern philosophy, in it quest for "independence", has become arbitrary, then religious thought, which is particularly prone to abstruseness, needs be all the more wary of such an alignment. The student of religion, starting from the principle of cognitive pluralism, would act wisely in taking his cue from the scientist rather than the philosopher. The structural designs of religion cannot be intuited through any sympathetic fusion with an eternal essence, but must be reconstructed out of objective religious data and central realities. The uniqueness of the religious experience resides in its objective normative components." (62) We must go from the objective to the subjective, and not the other direction.
However, the scientific method wielded in Halacha must be based on different data points than in common scientific inquiry: legal ones. In Part Four, Rabbi Soloveitchik explains that the very data points of the scientific exploration of religion must be the normative objective components, the legal rules themselves. We start not from an ethical question of "why" but the descriptive question of "what". Instead of putting Halcha up to be constructed out of extra-religious considerations, he claims that Halacha contains the data from which we reconstruct our subjective activity. We blow the shofar, not because it (and only it) reminds us of teshuva; rather, we do teshuva because we recognize that as the subjective origin (and a non-necessary result which we are expected to glean) of the objective commandment (94-96).
This view of Rav Soloveitchik is not, to my mind, necessarily at odds with historical positivism. Nothing in this view fundamentally eschews the historical approach to legal theory and Halacha. Rav Soloveitchik's unwillingness to engage in the "science of Judaism" is much more a function of the prevailing mood in Weimar Germany against historicism. See Gordon's Rosenzweig and Heidegger: Between Judaism and German Philosophy 195n5, and see his reference to David Myers' Historicism and Its Discontents in German-Jewish Thought. This tendency is aptly summed up: "By the late nineteenth century and into the Weimar period, historicism was seen by many as a grinding force that corroded social values and was emblematic of modern society's gravest ills." (I am not here judging the merits of historicism or the dangers articulated by its critics.) Additionally, the realization that historical positivism would be a tremendous innovation and revolution in standard yeshiva study, to wit, the controversy over Wissenschaft des Judentums, probably also tempered the willingness of many rabbis to engage in it (as commenters point out on the post) . Thus it is not at all his post-Kantian view of reality that led Rav Soloveitchik to reject the historical positivist approach to Halacha, but, ironically, historical, sociological and cultural considerations.
UPDATE:
After discussion with two friends, I realize that there is a need to differentiate between historical positivism as a theory, and historical necessity as an explanation of data points. Historical positivism as a theory states that the historical realities results in the creation of legal principles. For example, the shortage of wood leads to the creation of the Halachik concept of lavud, and the reticence of lenders leads to the creation of the concept of prosbol. The very concept is created out of historical necessity, and Halacha is in a large sense, a function of reactions to socio-historical events instead of a unified legal theory.
On the other hand, even one who rejects these theories on the grounds that Halacha is an objective, conceptual system which is unchanging at its core, would still accept historical data as explanations, not for the creation, but for the development (or discovery) of latent halachik principles into halachik tools or takanot. For example, the concepts at the root of lavud were part of the core halachik system from the beginning. The rule that loans owned by the courts are not subject to cancellation in the sh'mitta year, and the idea that one can pay a partner a certain amount and thus purchase the responsibility for fluctuations (up or down) in the business venture (the foundation of the heter iska), are concepts that are not groundbreaking; they existed in halacha from the very beginning. However, this viewpoint would not discount that the process of the development of halacha is historically contingent. Socio-historic necessity is valid as an explanation as to why the Rabbis decided to innovate the idea that one can give his personal loans to the courts, thus turning them into court-held loans which are not cancelled. The innovation lies in the willingness to turn a personal loan into a court-held one. Once this development is accomplished, application of the age-old idea that court-held loans are not subject to shemitta cancellation is non-controversial. Similarly, once social changes necessitated the chiddush that we may view interest on a loan as a business venture in which a partner purchases responsibility for fluctuations in the business venture's profitability in exchange for a fixed percentage, the application of the heter iska becomes non-controvesial as well.
Thus, historical considerations play a part in the development of the application of core halachik ideas, but they do not engage in the creation of these ideas. This is the point at which Rav Soloveitchik and historical positivists would diverge in principle, ideologically.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
R Judah Halevi and Asceticism
Rabbi Yehuda Halevi (turn of 11th century in Spain) wrote the Kuzari, a work of original and traditional Jewish philosophy. Rabbi David Cohen (הרב הנזיר), in the middle of the 20th century, gave a series of lectures upon this book in the Merkaz Harav yeshivah. His notes were edited and have been printed as a three volume commentary on the Kuzari. In this edition of the Kuzari, Rabbi Cohen points out that in his earlier years, Rabbi Yehuda Halevi tended towards asceticism. It is clear from the Kuzari (2:56), however, that the author changed his mind.
The Kuzari makes a passionate case against asceticism or פרישות, when he states: "It is not proof of the Godly [within a person] when he is overly careful about pronunciation, or lifts his eyebrows and squeezes his eyes shut, or engages in profligate pleadings, prayers, gesticulations and pronouncements which have no action backing them up. Rather the pure conscience is proven by actions whose commitment is hard for a person to accomplish, but he nevertheless acts upon them with motivation and love, with a goal of closeness to God..."
He goes on to describe the details and minutia of practical commandments not only which lead a person to ethical life and performance of loving-kindness towards others, but also allow a person the ability to become intimate with the Creator through עבודה, service as commanded by God. The choosing of one's own path towards closeness to God is the foundation of idolatry, for Rabbi Yehuda. It is only through meticulous performance of commandments from God, active physical expressions of closeness to God on his terms, that we are able to serve Him.
Centuries after Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, Rabbi Dr Eliezer Berkovits would write in God, Man and History, that, "the task of relating the physical component of the human being to God can be accomplished only by a divine law...the body is not accessible to logical reasoning. One can only teach it by making it do things. One does not learn to swim by reading books on swimming technique, nor does one become a painter by merely contemplating the styles of different schools. One learns to swim by swimming, to paint by painting, to act by acting. One learns how to do anything by doing it. This applies nowhere more strictly than in the realm of ethical action. The only way of educating the biophysical instrument of action is by making it perform."
The ascetic drive in Man can only bring him so far upon the path of service of the Divine. It is only physical, God-commanded, theonomic practice which allows the whole being of a human to serve God. The pre-occupation with asceticism is to engage in a never-ending enterprise which, if allowed, will easily prevent the whole human from accomplishing his religious and God-ordained goals.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Isaiah I
The book of Yeshaya starts during the reign of Judean kings, when Jerusalem sits secure and physically safe. However, the prophet looks to the moral state of Israel and finds the nation terribly wanting. The complaints listed by Yeshaya are all of the moral and ethical type. In fact, the language he employs makes it clear that the practice of the Jewish ceremonial-religious service has not lagged. By asking, למה לי רוב זבחיכם, Yeshaya admits that the sacrificial service in the temple is uninterrupted. When he says, חדש ושבת קרא מקרא, he implies that the societal structure is one which still maintains outward practice of the law of Moses.
Yeshaya complains, though, that the nation has lost its sense of social justice. The judges of Israel are corrupt; they do not seek justice. Halacha, instead of having as its goals good and "ways of pleasantness", has been turned into a tool for everything but that. The judges, those who are charged with the direction of the courts and halacha, have become corrupted. They do not judge correctly for יתומים, and they ignore the plight of widows (v 23). This corruption is the necessary and sufficient cause for the destruction of Jewish society. Courts no longer dispense justice, they contribute to injustice.
Moreover, Judean society has placed a premium on religious activity and piety, and has allowed expressions of these to overcome and hide the sins of the judiciary (and the judicial conscience within each individual). For example, in v 4: נאצו את קדוש ישראל נזרו אחור. Radak and Ibn Ezra bring as an explanatory verse on the word נזרו, the verse וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל. The verb נ.ז.ר means to withdraw, to remove oneself. In the context of the Pentateuchal verse, this is a desirable action. The priests are exhorted to withdraw from taking קדשי בני ישראל, and doing so is right. The very commandment of נזיר, in which a person withdraws from worldly pleasure to focus on inner, spiritual development, is generally seen as a good thing (even if according to some the very need to do so is a negative). However, Judean society in the times of Yeshaya had perverted this concept of holy withdrawl, נזירות של קדושה, and twisted it into נזירות של רשעות, withdrawl from קדוש ישראל Himself. They have removed themselves from intimate and immanent communion with God through their didactic observance of details, while allowing themselves to ignore the injustice and evil of כלו אהב שחד ורדף שלמנים (v 23).
From this, comes the thesis of the prophets in general: החפץ ה' בזבחים ועולות כשמוע בקול ה'? Does God really want your offerings and automaton service in His Temple, if that means you ignore the moral and ethical spirit of His commands? Torah and Mitzvot are supposed to make us moral people, Halacha should make us cringe at injustice and in its face, burn with the fire of justified rage. The commands of God are supposed to make us better people. If they do not, then the result is exile and punishment.
The promise of God in v 25-26 is clear. Which enemies will God take vengeance upon? The judges and politicians, and those elements within indviduals that allowed injustice and perversion of social norms. Those who are charged with social justice are the ones who will be corrected, along with a society that allowed their perversion. Only upon justice will the righteous city be so called, and the returnees will enjoy צדקה (v 27).
When Israel returns to God, it begins by returning to the orphan and the widow. When halacha does not countenance the undue suffering of the innocent, then can Israel be redeemed.
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Torah and Truth
(UPATE: In response to feedback from a reader, I decided that this post probably deserves a disclaimer. The topic it addresses is always a difficult topic to approach. It seems to border on a grey area which for many, may tread on ground thought of as Reform. First, let me say that the main problems with Reform Judaism are its antinomianism and its willingness to reject the giving of Torah by God directly to Moshe at Mt Sinai. I certainly deny both these stances: First, the Laws of the Torah (and the Oral Law and Rabbinic Traditions) are in force and every Jew is religiously obligated to follow them. Second, the Jewish people's collective experience at Mt Sinai is a crucial article of faith that I have no intention of denying or discussing in this present post.
Finally, allow me to draw a comparison to the present essay's discussion of the stories of the book of Genesis and parts of Exodus, and the midrashic discussion of the book of Job. There is ample support for the notion that the entire book of Job is an allegory; it does not purport to present a historical discussion of the life of a man named Job; rather, it tells a story with moral and ethical lessons. Additionally, keep in mind that the Rambam is willing to take various stories of the forefathers as prophecies rather than literal occurences (for example, the three angels appearing to Avraham after his circumcision). It is in the above light and the above vein that the following discussion of Genesis and Exodus should be taken.)
As science and the studies of history and archeology continue to progress, the Torah seems under attack from many different directions. Was the world created in six days? Is it really only 5,767 years old? Was there a global flood? These questions and many others like them have caused many to doubt the authenticity of the Torah. They have spawned countless apologetic re-interpretations and explanations, trying to resolve the apparent problems in our tradition1.
Some quite sophisticated mathematic acrobatics have been produced reconciling the six days of creation with different time-lines proposed by theoretical scientists. Heated debate raises questions on these types of work. While it is sometimes exciting to observe the ingenuity of such interpretations, they are unnecessary2.
As Rashi makes clear in his commentary on the first verse in B'reshit, the Torah is not a book of history. The purpose of God's word is not to tell us what was, but what shall be in our realm of thought and action. Torah is a book of ethical instruction. It is to teach us how to act, and how to live. And so, Rashi states that the purpose of the story of creation is to impress upon us the absolute dominion God has over creation, and explain that Jewish rights to the land of Israel are divine. The question of exactly how the world was created, while of possible esoteric value, is not the thrust of the creation story.
Indeed, the concept that the Torah existed before the creation of the world, and served as its blueprint, is certainly not to be taken literally. A basic tenant of Judaism is that God imbued Man with free will. The Torah could not have 'destined' our nation to the stories of the spies or the golden calf written within it. Even the concept of Adam's sin being predetermined would raise problems.
A Rabbi (זצ"ל) who taught me during my semicha studies agrees and quotes midrashim to the effect that the Torah is a unified, pure ray of light. It is the kernel and essence of truth in this world. It is in this regard that, 'אורייתא וקודשא בריך הוא חד הוא'. When exposed to the physical world God created, this light is refracted, much as sulight is broken up by a prism. The more complex the world, the more refraction occurs. In the world of Eden, the essence of truth was broken into one positive and one negative commandment. After the flood and the sins of humanity, it was broken into seven commands. Finally, it settled in our present situation of 613 commandments. The important point here is that the practical form of the divine Torah, in a different reality, could conceivably be different.
My teacher mentions in his writings the possibility that the book of B'reshit and parts of Sh'mot was written by the forefathers (he bases this on Psikta Rabati Chapter 3). It was the material studied by the Jews in Egypt. When the nation gathered at Mt. Sinai, God canonized the teachings of the forefathers and made it part of the divine Torah he imparted to Moshe3. It is certainly clear that our forefathers were not historians or scientists. Just as the people around them, they took for granted certain versions of the history of the world, and used them to teach moral lessons to their children. They even took laws from surrounding cultures (such as yibbum and certain civil and criminal laws) and, with certain changes, made them part of their teachings. These teachings and rules were canonized at Mt. Sinai for the ethical and legal lessons they contained. This was a natural way to teach these truths to a nation that was used to being taught lessons based on stories from the past.
Thus, the questions of historicity or science and Torah really are non-issues. The Torah's purpose is not to teach history or science. One might even say that the Canonical genre transcends the concepts of truth and falsehood. God utililzed the universal stories, the world's wisdom and the common idioms to convey to the Jews the eternal essence of truth that is that unadulterated ray of Torah. It is a generalized version of Rabbi Yishmael's "דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם", that the Torah is written in the lyric of the time in which it was given. (If one thinks about it, it is impossible to imagine otherwise; how, then, would the people receiving it understand it?!)
In the first book of his Guide, Rambam states that the Torah does, in fact, say things that are not true, in order to allow the people who received it to more readily understand it. He brings as an example the phrase 'the hand of God'. This anthropomorphic statement, implies the Rambam, was not naturally understood by most Jews to be an allegory. On the contrary, the majority took it literally! And although it is false that God has a hand, says Rambam, it is written in the Torah in order to make it easily understood.
In the same way, we may say that the Torah contains stories that may not have literally, historically, happened. There is not even a need (nor desire) to allegorize a story if it is proven to be unfounded. Although our forefathers may have believed in their literal truth, we do not have to in order to gain the true point that they are meant to teach. They are there to teach lessons in an approachable way to the Jewish nation that received it from God. The actual facts are simply vehicles to drive home the main thrust, which is the moral lesson and divine command. (This is not to say that we must or even should deny the literal historical occurence of these stories. Rather, what it means is that if they are ever somehow proven to have not historically have occurred in the way the Torah describes, this would not shake one iota of their import, lessons and ultimate truth value. The truth value of these stories lies not in their historical accuracy but in the lessons and molding of Jewish and global values. This remains in effect whether or not the stories in their literal form occurred. With this in mind, the goal of the stories shifts from literal historicity to moral teaching; this is perhaps a deeper understanding of Rashi's statement that Torah is not a history book. In addition, it causes the stories to transcend the binary dichotomy of truth and falsehood; the truth value of these stories no longer rests on their literal historical accuracy. They are transcendentally true (and valuable) even if they did not occur, by virtue of the noble and ennobling lessons they plant in the spirit of their audience.)
This view creates a theological foundation that is more flexible and thus more powerful than others. Science and history may lay claim to evidence that contradicts parts of our tradition. However, with our thesis in mind, these questions from fact become non-questions, ones that attack the outer garments of our faith as if these attacks are aimed at the beating heart. However, the heart continues to beat, and the stories themselves maintain their vitality, for their purpose is not historical accuracy but moral education.
While I cannot ensure that this essay will not be misinterpreted anyway, allow me to point out one caveat immediately. This post in no way denies the divinity of the Torah; on the contrary, it strengthens it. The practical laws of the Torah are certainly not under discussion here. They are the commands of God to His world. Also, the authority of the Oral Law is certainly not attacked. This discussion is limited to a study of how God chose to couch His teachings to the world at the time He revealed them.
This approach obviates the need to harmonize the literal word of the Torah with the latest scientific or archeological find. The Torah's lessons are ethical and theological, not scientific or historical. The more we internalize this, the faster we will find peace of faith in our modern world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Many thanks to S. His input was invaluable for this post.
2 Dr Wolowelsky's note at Tradition Online has recently come to my attention (after writing this essay). See footnote 9 at the end of his article at Tradition Online for expansion on this point, and the article in general, which agrees in large part with my essay here.
3 Also post-publication of this essay, see an explanation of Rabbi Emanuel Rackman's Bibilical theology, here. Also, see אגרות ראיה חלק א אגרת קל"ד which agrees with the thrust of this essay.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Peace as a Meta-Value
After zealously defending the honor of God and the Jewish people in an act of extra-judicial killing, Pinchas is blessed at the beginning of our portion with the covenant of peace. The blessing bestowed upon the zealot seems at odds with the profound violence of his act. Does the juxtaposition of a graphic act of killing and the promise of peace not seem vulgar? Upon further reflection, however, it may become clear that this vulgarity is a function of our general misunderstanding of peace as a value.
Also, another curiosity exists in the verse. Pinchas is promised a "covenant of peace". Should the verse not say "blessing of peace"? What is the meaning of this covenant? The same question applies to the mishna. The mishnah states in Uktzin: אין לך כלי שהוא מחזיק ברכה אלא שלום, שנאמר ה'--עוז, לעמו ייתן; ה', יברך את עמו בשלום. There is no vessel that holds blessing better than peace. Rabbi Tubi of Kerem B'Yavneh asks: why is it that peace is referred to as a vessel that holds blessing? Should not peace be the blessing itself?
The standard working definition of "peace" is the absence of conflict or violence. Nations that do not make war are at peace. However, upon closer examination, this definition breaks down. Would we call it peace, if World War II had come to an end of hostilities with the Axis powers destroying all opponents? That would be a cessation of war, but most would agree that their intuitive sense of what peace means would not be fulfilled by this outcome. What is it, then, that we really mean when we speak of peace?
Rabbi Hirsch points out that peace is not simply the absence of violence. It is rather the completion experienced when the world is right - when the world is on the path to fulfilling its mission to God. Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits discusses the purpose of the world in his God, Man and History. Free will is given uniquely to Man in order for humanity to take responsibility for what goes on down on earth. Only Man can choose to do good, go against their basic animalistic nature and live the higher moral and ethical life. Man is charged with the task of conquering with his free will his nature, and submitting his inclinations for evil to the good commanded by God.
Three times did man fail. Adam and Eve's fall in Eden was the first. Then, sin of the generations leading up to the flood caused God to try again, giving the world a fresh chance at holy greatness in the seed of Noah. In their third failure at the Tower of Babel, God decided to install a priestly nation, the Jews, to shine the light of the moral and ethical greatness and purpose of existence upon the rest of the nations.
Now that we have a basic understanding of the purpose of the world, we can answer the first question. If humanity had given the Nazis control over the world, there may have been an absence of war. However, there would certainly not be a concert of the real world with the word of God. Hitler made it his mission to destroy the two curses he said the Jews bestowed upon humanity: the curse of circumcision and the curse of conscience. Hitler wanted the social darwanistic, Nietzschean "might makes right", power of the sword to rule the world. This proposed destruction of Godly ethics and the destruction of the Jewish people would have cast the world into a shadow of darkness from which it would not have recovered. Without the light of the Jewish Torah and its ethical teachings, there would be no hope for humanity. And so, our intuition is right to tell us that Nazism over the world would have been far from peace. It would have been peace's antithesis. It was the world's fight to the last drop of blood against Hitler which was, paradoxically, its only chance at true peace.
And in the same vein, it is precisely the act of Pinchas, violent though it was, that brought about a semblence of true peace. Zimri's action was a direct rebellion against the kingdom of God and the very purpose of Israel's earthly charge. And it was Pinchas who stemmed the tide of that rebellion, and brought the Jewish world back into harmony with the commands and ethics of God.
As for the second question: why does God give a "covenant" of peace to Pinchas? A blessing is a gift that is uncontingent. However, a covenant implies a challange to the receiver, that he deserve and live up to it.
Each individual human is a microcosm of the world entire. Just as peace is a meta-value that provides correct and appropriate expression of the various and diverging values beneath it for the world, so does peace act as a meta-value for the individual, categorizing and applying various character traits appropriately for the service of God. Peace is not a value in and of itself. It is a meta-value that acts as a harbor for the other values and emotions that Man subscribes to, providing appropriate dock for each one. When one finds the appropriate use for each value, he is able to maintain stability in the face of diverse situations and conditions.
This is the meaning of the covenant of peace that God forges with Pinchas. Pinchas has demonstrated, by his violent actions on behalf of God’s honor, his ability and willingness to use the value of קנאות, zealotry, at the appropriate time. However, God needed to teach him of the balance that is necessary in life. Zealotry was appropriate here, but elsewhere it will be inappropriate. Therefore, God gave Pinchas the priesthood. כהונה is a mantle that requires the priest to be totally and unreservedly at one and in love with his brothers. Indeed, a kohen must feel this specifically, every day, when he blesses the nation באהבה. By making granting Pinchas the priesthood, God added to his natural zealotry the necessary counter-balance, meek willingness and fore-bearance to all. With this equilibrium, Pinchas is able to enter into covanental שלום, complete wholeness resulting in true peace, with God.
Aharon, the archetypical priest, is a shining example of the opposite personality. He was so loving, so full of חסד, that he participated in the Golden Calf with the people, all the while trying desperately to temper their sin. His overflowing love and willingness to give in was his Achilles heel, and is the only sin which we find him explicitly culpable for. To balance this value, God commands that it be him and his tribe who kill those who worshipped the idol. Perhaps this is also a reason for the prominent place the priest has in the array of war according to the Torah. Pinchas and Aharon represent one value that must be tempered with the other in order to bring about שלום, peace. Indeed, when they reach their perfection, each is an archetype of peace – Aharon the רודף שלום, and Pinchas, he who is granted בריתי שלום.
The same lesson is furthered in our haftarah. Eliyahu, prophet par excellence, leaves Jerusalem, his ministry largely failed. He finds himself in a desert, and, at a moment of personal and ministerial crisis, he calls out to God, declaring himself a קנאי and wishing for death. God provides him food and water, and then reveals a prophecy to him: a whirlwind, then an earthquake, and finally a consuming fire. Yet God is not to be found in these. In the stillness that follows, a small voice is heard. The metaphor is clear: sometimes, it is not in aggrandized, noisy and powerful displays of zeal, but in meek willingness to fore-bear in which the path to God can be found. However, Eliyahu is too much a zealot, and he again wishes for death. God realizes that Eliyahu is no longer suited to his ministry, and directs him to choose a successor.
The background story in this haftarah is recognizable in the later prophet, Yonah. After prophesying to Ninveh, he goes to the desert, where he asks, as did Eliyahu, for death. God provides him a tree for sustenance and shade, and then allows a worm to devour it. Again, the lesson teaches the prophet to recognize the need for mercy as opposed to zealous justice only. In contrast to Eliyahu, Yonah learns the lesson, and the Yalkut Shimoni completes the story that the prophet leaves unfinished, saying “he fell on his face and pleaded that God treat the world with mercy!”
The contrast of Aharon and Pinchas in the Torah and Eliyahu and Yonah in the Nevi’im certainly bear out the lesson of שלום. It is not enough to be zealous or meek. One must be both, at the appropriate time for each.
The lesson of שלום is not a simple one. We may find zeal and fore-bearance touted as the correct response to various occasions strewn throughout Jewish history and Rabbinic literature. God Himself is sometimes portrayed acting with strict justice, as when punishing the city of Sodom, rejecting the pleas for mercy from Avraham, and at other times, He is portrayed as acting with tender fore-bearance, such as when he waits patiently for the repentence of the idolatrous Ninveites. God is zealous for his honor when he kills the sons of Aharon when they offer a forbidden incense-sacrifice, and yet on the other hand, he is so self-effacing that he permits His holy name to be erased to reconcile the estranged husband and wife. We can often lose sight of the larger picture of peace as a meta-value throughout the year, as we become preoccupied with the values that make it up. It is common for us to feel the strength of mercy and its all-encompassing purification during the High holidays to be the only way to ever act, and yet then to feel the absolute zeal of Pinchas when we read the parasha of Balak a few months later. How then, in the face of contradictory evidence, are we to decide the true path to tread, in order to correctly apply the zeal of Pinchas and the self-effacement of Aharon appropriately, so that we may be inductees to the covenant of true peace?
When conflict arises, and we must engage, we may ask ourselves a critical question: would showing fore-bearance to the adversary destroy the moral and ethical fabric of our Torah? Would it destroy the soul of mankind? This question needs to be asked in every era and its answer may be different depending on the time. If the answer is yes, then there is no choice but to zealously set forth in battle, adorned with the values of Pinchas. For if we do not, the kindness and meekness we display will simply be the cause of the downfall of the task of Judaism in this world, to let the light of the Torah shine forth for mankind. If, for example, we had taken Gandhi’s advice to German Jewry in the 30’s and commit mass suicide as a non-violent protest to Hitler’s designs, the very ethics for which the world was created would be gone. If the allies had decided that, in order to avoid war at all cost, they would submit to the Nazi plan and allow Germany to rule over all, perhaps the most immediate immanence of war would have been avoided for a time; however, this would not bring peace, this would not bring a situation where good and God’s will prevail. On the contrary, it would bring darkness and savagery, and all that the morality of Torah sets about to eradicate from the world. With this possibility on the horizon, the task of Judaism and indeed, of all that is good in humanity, is to fight to the last drop of blood. Even within this just war there is peace, the peace of mind of a world that will not bow to evil, but stands up for God and good.
To use a more contemporary example, we may consider the “peace” process being shoved down Israel’s throat for the past 20 years. When an adversary explicitly states his desire to destroy your nation, fore-bearance and meekness, concessions and compromise is wrong. Giving in to this enemy irretrievably negates your very right to exist, and by extension, your claim to a moral code that is necessary for the world. As the midrash says, those who fight against Israel are really using Israel to fight against God.
Back to our portion, Pinchas’s killing of those who, at a critical time in Israel’s history, sought to destroy the morality and purity of the Jewish nation, was an act of peace precisely because inaction would have shattered those ideals without which the world is not worthy of existence.
On the other hand, if the answer to our critical question is no, and fore-bearance will not endanger the values of the Torah, then it is possible to utilize the value of חסד, meekness and fore-bearance, and Aharon’s technique of winning over an adversary with love.
In fact, far too often, we may find ourselves arguing with others and sure of our pure intentions, defending God’s honor, when it is in reality only our own honor which is at stake. These situations are ones where the proper path is that of Aharon, leaving the zeal of Pinchas for other times.
The story of Pinchas is here for us to learn from. While zealotry has its place, we must make sure that it is appropriate. Far too often, we stand upon principle when the only principle is personal pride. In order to be people of שלום, a nation of true peace, we must internalize the complexity of each situation, and choose the correct value. When we do so, we make ourselves privy to the true brotherhood of God, where each thing is done for the sake of heaven and with the purpose of bringing about the ultimate purpose, a world run in harmony with God’s plan, a covenant of peace.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Redemption of the Land
or, Apropos to the spies of Parashat Shelach
Leviticus 25:25 discusses the situation where a person has to sell his homestead in the land of Israel. Relations of the impoverished are expected to buy back the home or land, so that the land not be lost to the family. Interestingly, the Or Hachayim takes this opportunity to discuss the ultimate redemption of the Land.
At the culmination of his essay, he says that, "the redemption of the Land [with this double entendre he implies the final redemption of the nation of Israel] will begin when the souls of the righteous stir within them. They will ask themselves, is it really enough for us to remain outside, exiled from the table of our Father? How can we be satisfied with life in this world, when it is devoid of that divine communion? These righteous ones will begin to loathe the perceived glamor and luxury of life outside the Land. They will be gripped by a spiritual desire to perfect their actions in the Land, and thus redeem Israel. In this way will God affect the redemption of His land and people.
The leaders of the people and the great ones of the Jewish nation are destined to give an accounting of why they were not motivated thus, and it is from them that God will demand redress for the shame of His desolate house [a double entendre referencing the ruins of the Temple, and the poor man's house that is the subject of the verse]."
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Providence and Evil
On Shavuot, I was thinking about divine providence and the concept of evil. I would like to share a thought that may not be novel, but certainly seemed eye-opening to me (perhaps mostly due to the early hour of morning at which it occurred).
Rambam in the Guide accepts the idea (mostly found in Yerushalmi, and rejected in Bavli, see Y Elman's essay on rabbinic contributions to a philosophy of suffering in the Orthodox Forum series) that there is no suffering without sin. However, Rambam claims that the measure of divine providence experienced by a person is a direct result of the intellectual occupation with God. When his mind wanders, providence does too, and this is when evil can befall him. It seems clear that Rambam views the all too human proclivity to distraction from enraptured intellectual intimacy with God as the mechanism by which a person becomes available to the vagaries of the natural world and thus evil. Ramban replaces intellectual occupation with the more mystical d'vekut, cleaving to God, but it is the same idea.
Rav Saadia Gaon's view is less absolute. In Emunot V'Deot, he first states that most suffering can be understood as serving the purpose of punishment for past sins, or making the subject more worthy of reward, or a test for the subject. However, he also states that free will allows a person to plan a murder. However, in an occasionalistic passage, he explains that while Man can commit the act of murder (say by pulling a trigger), only God can cause death (the gun firing correctly and the bullet hitting its mark). Finally, he leaves wiggle room for cases that defy these rules by stating that divine providence does not abrogate the need for precaution and does not justify recklessness1: a person must take care to avoid known dangers and things of that nature (this last part is similar to the Bavli's caveats of luck, קביעה הזיקה, עידן דריתחא, etc).
It is interesting that though Rambam views evil and a lack of divine providence as products of sin, the sin which causes them cuts to the very core of what it means to be human. It is impossible to take suffering and evil away from the human condition, precisely because their causes are part of what it means to be human. The same idea is paradoxically accepted by the Bavli's (and to a lesser extent, Rav Saadia's) general conclusions which claim that there is suffering without reason. The world around Man, whether by nature, demonology, luck or astrology, can affect humans in negative ways that God does not always halt; nature often is left to run its course.
Essentially, as R Elman concludes, it is our inability to come to definite answers regarding these questions that leaves the Bavli and Rambam to an open ended philosophy of suffering, which, while trying to lay ground rules, leaves enough space for the reality witnessed around us, of things often countering these rules.
A similar open ended, non-answer appears in the midrashim and kinnot of the 10 martyrs, עשרה הרוגי מלכות. At the very climax of the suffering of the sainted rabbis, heavenly angels cry out to God, "is this the reward of Torah?!" This is a simple demand for divine justice in our world that is familiar to anyone who has witnessed suffering, especially that of a child. Is this the justice of God?!
It always bothered me that God does not answer the angels with words of comfort, or explanations regarding the world to come, of future reincarnation and dispensation of ultimate justice. God thunders back, "this is my decree, and if I hear another word, I shall destroy the whole world!" Why does God answer in this way?
I think perhaps the response of God (as imagined by the פייטן) leaves a very important imbalance or unease in the minds of readers. Yes, there is injustice and you have just witnessed it. Now, God will not provide you with comfort and make you feel good about it, for injustice is implied in the very free will that makes this world worth living! Injustice is woven into the fabric of our existence, and we are not to find comfort or solace from it. On the contrary, we must feel the tension, the evil, the wrong about it so acutely, for it is our task to fight it with every ounce of our strength. Any validation or justification for the evil or suffering which we witness weakens our resolve to fight it to the end. Although intellectually we know of the world to come, and future divine retribution, and we may discuss theodicy when we have nothing else to do, we are not to allow that to assuage our moral outrage at evil. And so, precisely at the times when injustice enflames our instinct for justice, at precisely those times, we are tasked not to explain away the injustice, but to fight it!
It seems to me that this is the response of the Bavli and Rambam as well: although we have a partial understanding of divine providence and the causes of suffering, we cannot have a full understanding; that is not within our power. What we are able to do, and this is our task, is realize that sometimes things will not fit in our philosophical boxes, and recognize the divinely mandated command to be His partners in perfecting the world: heal the sick, conquer disease, set up ordered and ethical societies, punish evil, reward good. We complete the intentionally unfinished business of creation by fighting injustice, destroying evil, and mitigating suffering as best we can.
________________________________________________________
1 Tangentially, Rav Saadia responds to those who rely on bitachon in a reckless manner by saying that if one believes in the concept of bitachon, they are essentially accepting the concept that God runs this world. In that case, he states, it would be a profound folly to believe that this gives them license to ignore the laws of cause and effect, which are the practical way that God causes the world to run according to His plan. Faith in God leads to wanton disregard for careful, planned living only in the most foolish of minds. See chapter 12 of Sefer Hap'rishut Hash'lema, which forms a sub-composition in treatise ten of Emunot V'deot.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Thread of Kindness
Upon a cursory reading of the book of Ruth, it may be hard to perceive why this simple, seemingly provincial story was canonized as part of the Bible. However, upon deeper consideration of the themes present in this megilah, universal lessons are revealed, which make our heroine, Ruth worthy not only of the canon, but of serious study, and her book as a moral text which sheds light on the social and religious bonds that give strength and versatility to a healthy society.
Of the many themes available in the book, this essay will focus upon that of חסד, loving-kindness. This word recurs repeatedly in Ruth, and, indeed, sets the motif of kindness playing a central role. While the firm, legal strictures of Halachah give a baseline by which we measure our actions, it is לפנים משורת הדין, extra-legal kindness which decides the survival of a person, family or society at large. Halacha cannot legislate each and every way in which one must help his fellow, but this does not weaken the importance of such non-legally required actions. Indeed, כופין על מידת סדום (see תוס' בבא בתרא יב: ד"ה כגון). It is this necessary (though unlegislated) חסד which forms a parallel structure which unifies the book of Ruth. On the one hand, we see Elimelech and the results of his actions, and on the other, we see Ruth and Boaz, and the effects of their activities.
At the beginning of Ruth, we are introduced to Elimelech, one of the leaders of the generation. The Malbim, echoing the midrash, explains that as a result of the famine, the poor would throw themselves before the rich, demanding sustenance. Elimelech fled this situation, fearing that his whole fortune would be consumed before the multitudes. Although one is not required to become poor himself by distributing all of his wealth to the needy, Elimelech is viewed as a selfish and flawed character by the midrash. "Anyone who turns a blind eye from those who need charity, is as though he has no God," quotes Malbim. Perhaps by the strict letter of the law, Elimelech cannot be faulted for not giving his all, on a חסד level, he failed. A famine, a time when society is at the verge of collapse, is precisely when greatness is required, when going above and beyond the call of simple duty is demanded. (We leave aside the sin of leaving the land of Israel, for which Elimelech is called to task by חז"ל. Even had he not left, his relative stinginess would remain reason for rebuke.)
Instead, Elimelech leaves his people and settles temporarily in Moav. And in the familiar irony of מדה כנגד מדה, as he forsook Judean society, leaving it to crumble, so does his own family security and cohesion begin to disintegrate. Elimelech dies, and his sons marry outside of the faith. They also, eventually, die, and leave their mother bemoaning her fate, telling her friends from happier times, "do not call me Naomi [= pleasant], rather call me Bitter, for God has made my life exeedingly bitter." (1:20) Judea thrives again, despite Elimelech's abandonment, for God has not abandoned the Jews; however, He seems to have abandoned the family of Elimelech. (This is reminiscient of another Jewish heroine, Esther, being warned precisely of this possible result by Mordechai, "...for if you are silent now [and choose not to use your position as queen to help your bretheren], salvation and comfort will be given to the Jews from another source, while you and your father's house will be lost." (Esther 4:14))
The Bible sets Elimelech as an example of someone who shied away from חסד. He went as far as the law required, ignored the larger picture of the situation regarding the starving Jews of the time, and refused to be swayed by the historical context of his actions into going beyond the letter of the law, into the realm of loving-kindness. For society cannot hope to exist by virtue of the letter of the law. Mutual consideration and feelings of extra-legal responsibility towards one another are critical in order for a nation to function. Avot declares (5:10) that "what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours...this is the trait of Sodom." When we think that strict legal possession should decide who gets a bite of bread, without considering our liability towards others, we exhibit the features of corruption, callousness and evil; in a word, Sodom. By acting in this way, Elimelech invited upon himself and his immediate family the very consequences he would have allowed to befall his nation.
How does one redeem a family whose lives, honor and wealth are deteriorated by a lack of חסד? This is the main question of the book of Ruth. The tragic tale of Elimelech is a preamble to a series of particular events which lead a weak and seemingly fogotten family back up to the position of kings. How is this accomplished? The answer is our heroine, Ruth, and hero, Boaz.
Ruth and Orpah, the widows of Naomi's sons, both insist upon going with her. This is the natural, socially expected loyalty of daughter-in-law to her new family. Especially in patriarchal social orders such as Moav and Judea, a marriage makes the wife a part of the husband's father's home. These two Moavite women performed their social responsibility by travelling with Naomi. However, when she beseeches them to return to their fathers' homes, Ruth and Orpah are freed from this responsibility. Orpah returns home. However, Ruth goes beyond the call of duty, refusing to abandon her poor, helpless and lonely mother-in-law. She declares her determination to stay with her until death. This is the first act of חסד, kindness beyond that which is required, and suddenly, Naomi is not so lonely, and not so helpless. Ruth has placed Naomi's physical and emotional well-being above the tempting comforts of her old Moavite home.
However, it does not stop there. As pointed out by others, Naomi must have been familiar with the laws of לקט, שחכה, פאה, and מעשר עני. As the wife of one of Israel's wealthiest, she probably witnessed the poor avail themselves of these in her husband's fields many times. However, precisely because of her wealthy past and subsequent shameful poverty, she is embarrassed, and does not even suggest that she and Ruth could find sustenance in the "Poor Laws" of the Torah. And so, Ruth takes the initiative in an unfamiliar social order and religious milieu, learning of these laws. She tells Naomi that she will bear the burden of shame; after all, what shame is there in a lowly convert-widow collecting forgotten gleanings in the fields of the wealthy? This is a second point where the megilah goes out of its way to point out the חסד Ruth continues to perform for her mother-in-law.
And yet again. Naomi, encouraged by Boaz's interest in Ruth, suggests that Ruth literally throw herself at his feet, and all but demand marriage. Ruth, a beautiful, young woman, would surely have been found an attractive wife for many of the young men of Beit Lechem, and would probably have wanted such a marriage herself. However, her next act of חסד was to follow Naomi's suggestion. She gives her life, dignity, and finally, her love, in her devotion to her mother-in-law. Boaz himself is amazed by the loyalty and expressions of kindness Ruth demonstrates towards Naomi, and agrees to marry her.
Boaz, the distant relative of Elimelech, furthers the mission of חסד which will ultimately redeem Elimelech's sins. Although the parallels between the mitzvah of yibum and what Boaz does are clear, it is equally obvious that Boaz is not actually doing yibum. He is not the brother of the dead husband of Ruth. He is a kinsman, and the book of Ruth makes it clear that this is not yibum by stating, "Boaz took Ruth to be his wife." (4:13) This is not the order of things in true yibum, where there is no separate acquisition of the wife other than beginning to live together. Here, Boaz did normal kiddushin. Legally, he had no requirement to marry this poor convert. Doing so, with the precise hopes to raise a family for the name of Ruth's dead husband, is a clear act of חסד, kindness beyond the requirements of law. In fact, his name, Boaz, is seen by some as a contraction of "בא עז" -- one who acts with valiance, for going above and beyond the call of duty. His word choice, "אנכי אגאל", can be taken to not only mean redeeming Elimelech's property, and marrying Ruth, but in the larger context, the redemption of Elimelech's sinful lack of חסד.
We have observed a thematic parallel structure in the book. We have, in the preamble, a lack of חסד, and its destructive results. This is symbolized by the names מכלון and כליון, of Elimelech's sons. Meaning emptiness and destruction, they are the natural "children" of the actions of Elimelech. Parallel to this, and yet in contradistinction, we have the kind acts of Ruth and Boaz, which bear, quite literally, the future royal line as their children.
The threads of kindness and compassion demonstrated time and again by Ruth and Boaz, culminating in their marriage, were sufficient to reverse the damage done by Elimelech's unwillingness to go beyond the law. A family once great, now low and trampled, is given a new chance, and produces the greatest family of Israel, that of Kind David. The delineation of this lineage at the end of the book of Ruth serves as a focal point, directing the theme of kindness towards its result. If a lack of חסד can nearly cut a strong, honored family off of the vine of Israel, then the profusion of חסד by a young convert girl and an old man can renew the spirit and honor of that family. The least noble of beginnings, when watered with the spirit of going beyond the call of duty for one another, can produce the nobility of the Davidic line.
The חסד theme of the book of Ruth justifies its use on the holiday of Shavuot. This spirit of ערבות, mutual responsibility, is noted at the foot of Mt Sinai just before the giving of the Torah. "ויחן שם ישראל נגד ההר," and חז"ל state, "כאיש אחד בלב אחד," that Israel was completely at one. Each Jew felt responsible and liable for the benefit of the others. It is in this spirit that we accept, each day, the Torah upon ourselves anew, as a nation committed to one another. In Orot Hakodesh (חלק ג' עמ' שכד), Rav Kook makes the point that the sin of the Second Temple era was that the people did not feel this way; they demonstrated שנאת חינם. The correction of this sin is אהבת חינם, as demonstrated by Ruth and Boaz. Through the application of mutual responsibility and חסד, may we merit the redemption soon.