tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-217497312024-03-07T23:25:23.220-05:00Believing is KnowingKnowledge is the building block of Judaism. Love of God is contingent on what one knows about Him.
ועל פי הדעה--על פי האהבה--אם מעט מעט, ואם הרבה הרבה
I am planning to post from time to time some of the ideas that I develop as I read and think about issues that catch my attention. Usually they relate to Machshava or Halacha especially how they affect our daily life. I am looking forward to learn from all commenters.David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.comBlogger632125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-80895003358159566432013-09-18T17:13:00.003-04:002013-09-18T17:14:17.033-04:00How Mitzvot and the Universe Teach us About God - Professor Don Seeman's article and my thoughts on it.<div class="MsoNormal">
Over Rosh Hashanah I read an excellent paper in the current
issue of JQR (Volume 3 number 3 Summer 2013) by Professor Don Seeman which
opened for me a whole new avenue of thought and was very much at the forefront
of my thinking during Yom Kippur (which by the way is my favorite day of the
year). Rambam’s Ta’amei Hamitzvot, the last section of the Moreh, which
comprises more than half of part 3, has raised the hackles of thinkers since it
was published in the 12<sup>th</sup> century. Ramban attacks it several times
in his commentary on Chumash; the most famous attack is the one against
Rambam’s explanation of Korbanot (animal offerings in the temple). The biggest
criticism is that they seem very utilitarian and as the Rav writes in his
Halachik Man as quoted by Seeman, the reasons of the guide “neither edify nor
inspire the religious consciousness” and are “valueless for the religious
interests we have most at heart”. Many
attempts have been made at dealing with this but Seeman shows how the criticism
is a misreading of the Rambam and that Ta’amei Hamitzvot are indeed in line
with his general philosophy of Judaism, an intense religious idea. What is
really extraordinary is that Seeman proves this textually through a comment of
the Rambam in MN and its connection to Sefer Hamitzvot, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In sefer Hamitzvot positive commandment 3 Rambam defines the
Mitzvah of loving God as follows:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">היא הציווי שנצטווינו על אהבתו
יתעלה, והוא: שנתבונן ונסתכל במצוותיו וציווייו ופעולתיו, כדי שנשיגהו ונתענג בהשגתו
תכלית התענוג - וזוהי האהבה המצווה [עלינו].</span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>By this injunction we are commanded to love God that is to say to dwell
upon and contemplate his commandments, his injunctions and his works so that we
can obtain a conception of Him and in conceiving Him attain absolute joy. This
constitutes the love of God and is obligatory.”</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
God is unknowable as He is a transcendental entity and
unique. He is beyond the realm of human comprehension. However man can see
God’s traces by contemplating his surroundings, the world he lives in, the
universe it is part of, how they came into existence, in short God’s works. But
what does Rambam mean when he says that we can obtain a conception of God by
contemplating and dwelling on His injunctions and commandments? Students of
Rambam have understood it to mean that by studying the Laws of the Torah in
great detail and devotion one is indeed studying God’s words and thus reading
the mind of God. That has been the classical explanation and to me it was
always discordant. It sounded like sophistry. And as Seeman points out,
commandment 11 deals with the mitzvah of Talmud torah, which is clearly
learning the details of the Law, why duplicate it? Furthermore in 11 there is
no mention of Talmud torah bringing about a conception of God. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here is where Seeman’s great insight sheds light connecting
this commandment 3 with what seem almost an offhand Rambam comment and a
digression in MN 3:49. Rambam is discussing the reason for the commandments and
injunctions the Laws that deal with forbidden relations. As he discusses the
laws of Yibum (levirate) he seems to digress and talk about the story of Yehuda
and Tamar, how Yehuda was honest and just, and how the story teaches the
descendants of Yaakov about how their forefathers dealt with others justly.
Rambam then shows how equitable justice plays an important role in the Laws of
the Torah.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Thus are these bad habits cured when they are treated
according to the divine Law; the ways of equity are never lost sight of; they
are obvious and discernible in every precept of the Law by those who consider
it well. See how, according to the Law, the slanderer of his wife, who only
intended to withhold from her what he is bound to give her, is treated in the
same manner as a thief who has stolen the property of his neighbor; and the
false witness (Deut. xix. 16, seq.) who schemes to injure, although the injury
was in reality not inflicted, is punished like those who have actually caused
injury and wrong, viz., like the thief and the slanderer. The three kinds of
sinners are tried and judged by one and the same law. <b>Marvel exceedingly at
the wisdom of His commandments, may He be exalted, just as you should marvel at
the wisdom manifested in the things He has made. Scripture says: "The
Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are judgment" (Deut. xxxii. 4.
It says that just as the things made by Him are consummately perfect so are His
commandments consummately just.</b> However our mind is too limited to
comprehend the perfection of all His works, or the equity of all His laws<b>;
and as we are able to comprehend some of His wonderful works in the organs of
living beings and the motions of the spheres, so we understand also the equity
of some of His laws;</b> that which is unknown to us of both of them is far
more than that which is known to us. I will now return to the theme of the
present chapter.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Besides knowing the Laws in detail, which is the mitzvah of
Talmud torah, Rambam suggests that one should step back and contemplate the
Laws in their entirety how perfect and just they are. By placing this
contemplation together with contemplation of the universe, Rambam is telling us
that both contemplations have the same purpose and result. Just as contemplating the elegance of the
universe points us to God so too the justice and equity of His Laws point us to
Him. MN here is thus an expansion of what he said in Sefer Hamitzvot, a kind of
Gemara to a Mishnah. Seeman explains that now we understand how the chapters
about Ta’amei Hamitzvot are sandwiched between the chapters that talk about
Providence and the last chapters which talk about devotional worship. It is the
Ta’amei Hamitzvot that when the Mitzvot are contemplated from their perspective
lead to that devotional worship. It also explains the seemingly mundane reasons
for the commandments, it is the contemplation of these reasons that lead us to
be aware through the Mitzvot God’s wisdom in promulgating these Laws and we
gain a conception of Him. It is the latter idea that I would like to expand a
little upon and that has been central to my thinking in the short time since I
read the article.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Law changes the individual and society by inculcating
good habits and beliefs thus changing the way people act with each other,
individuals as well as nations, by being more equitable and just. These habits
and beliefs indeed changed the course of human history. Judaism has influenced
the trajectory of western civilization and by extension the rest of humanity.
Contemplating how these Laws started at Sinai with Moshe Rabbeinu, have changed
the course of human history, one apprehends the wisdom of God the Giver of
these Laws, and we develop a conception of His Being. So when Rambam defines the third commandment
to love God as contemplating His commandments and his works, he is talking
about this type of contemplation not the details of the Law. When Rambam
explains that Korbanot are a concession to human frailty, he is telling us that
they are there to help us in the process of abandoning idolatry, the bane of
humanity, the great barrier to scientific understanding of the universe. (See
my article in Hakirah on the subject <a href="http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%206%20Guttmann.pdf">here</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
) When justice is done equitably society
is impacted and consequently the trajectory of that society is affected as are those
impacted by that society. Sometimes the Law be not work for an individual, but
the Law is still valid because it is good for the great majority of people and
impacts society favorably (see MN 3:34). This contemplation is the underlying
purpose of the need to know the Ta’amei Hamitzvot. This idea also dovetails
with Rambam’s concept of providence – Hashgacha as I explained Providence in my
article <a href="http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%205%20Guttmann.pdf">here. </a>All actions have consequences and if one calibrates his action to
conform with God’s will and plan, one is acting within the parameters of
providence otherwise ones actions are purely chance. The Mitzvot have propelled
mankind along the path of divine Providence. Contemplation of that confirms and
illuminates how one understands God’s will and wisdom, pointing to His
existence and a conception of how He acts.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Professor Seeman has contributed greatly with his article to
a better understanding of the thinking of the Great Eagle and has completely answered
all criticism of his Ta’amei Hamitzvot. Understanding the Ta’amei Hamitzvot in
this context has made what seemed a mundane and historical explanation of many
Mitzvot into an intense religious experience. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This short post does not do justice to Professor Seeman’s
article which should be read in its entirety, but it triggered some thoughts
which I wanted to put down on paper.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(See also Ibn Ezra on Tehillim 19:8 and Redak on the same verse
who probably got it from Ibn Ezra which could be read in a similar vein.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Chag Sameach.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com170tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-91367966957339679892013-09-01T19:03:00.002-04:002013-09-01T19:03:45.812-04:00Interesting Comment of a Medieval Provencal Scholar on the Ra'avad/Ramban - Rambam disagreement on Olam Haba.<h1>
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; font-weight: normal; line-height: 115%; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Ramban towards the end of the Sha’ar Hagemul section of his work on Aveilus-
Torat HaAdam – summarizes his opinion regarding what occurs after death. <o:p></o:p></span></h1>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">עכשיו ביארנו כונתנו בשכרי
המצות וענשן, ונחזור בקצרה: כי שכר הנפשות וקיומם בעולם הנשמות נקרא לרבותינו זיכרונם
לברכה "גן עדן", ופעמים קורין אותו "עליה", ו"ישיבה שלמעלה".
ואחרי כן יבא המשיח והוא מכלל חיי העולם הזה, ובסופה יהיה יום הדין ותחיית המתים, שהוא
השכר הכולל הגוף והנפש, והוא העיקר הגדול שהוא תקות כל מקוה להקדוש ברוך הוא, והוא
העולם הבא, שבו ישוב הגוף כמו נפש, והנפש תדבק בדעת עליון כהדבקה בגן עדן עולם הנשמות,
ותתעלה בהשגה גדולה ממנה, ויהיה קיום הכל לעדי עד ולנצח נצחים</span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>The reward of the souls in the world of the spirits is referred to by
the Rabbis as “Gan Eden”, at times they refer to it as “going up” or “sitting
in elevation”. After this period [Gan Eden], the mashiach will come – he being
part of this world and at the end of that period will be the Day of Judgment
and the Revival of the Dead, a reward that encompasses both the physical and
the spiritual. That is the important matter that all that yearn for HKBH, yearn
for it, the Olam Haba, where the physical becomes spiritual, the soul cleaving
in the higher knowledge just as it did in Gan Eden in the spirit world, elevating
to a High apprehension and everything will become eternal”.</i> (Translation is
a little difficult and loses the flavor of the original)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ramban based on his reading of various sources in Chazal understands that
once a person dies his soul an immanent entity that has a ghostlike substance,
enters either Gehinom- hell or Gan Eden – paradise – for a transitional period
until Techyat Hametim – the revival of the dead. In between Mashiach comes and
physical life continues for a while with structural and societal changes which
I will not go into here until towards the end of that period, when the dead
come back to eternal life and the physical becomes cleaved with the spiritual.
That is Olam Haba where the physical body is sustained by its spiritual
component. In the schema the order of things after one dies are; Gan Eden,
Mashiach, Techyat Hametim and Olam Haba. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ramban’s source for this thinking is the Ra’avad in Hilchot Teshuvah 8:2.
Rambam is discussing Olam Haba and explains that there is no physical existence
in that state. To Rambam Olam Haba is what one experiences immediately after
death and is permanent. Mashiach and the revival of the dead have no connection
with this and are separate future occurrences. In Rambam’s order Olam Haba is first
as it comes immediately after death followed by Yemot Hamashiach and eventually
some kind of Techyat Hametim for some elite. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On Rambam’s statement:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span dir="LTR"> </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ג [ב] העולם
הבא--אין בו גוף וגווייה, אלא נפשות הצדיקים בלבד, בלא גוף כמלאכי השרת</span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ra’avad comments quoting various Talmudic statements that, according to him,
unequivocally show the rabbis believed that the participant in Olam Haba does
have a physical body. As to the Rabbis statement that in Olam Haba there is no
food etc… he suggests that the bodies that come back from the dead are as
strong as those of Eliyahu the prophet turned angel … Ramban in Sha’ar Hagemul
does not quote him but clearly expands on it and explains more details.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In Daat 74-75 I was reading an article by Dr. Aviram Ravitzky about a
manuscript of a book titled Mezukak Shiv’atayim authored by Rabbi Joseph ben
Shaul Kimhi, a 14<sup>th</sup> century scholar in Provence. As anyone who read Bein Torah Lachochma by Professor
Moshe Halbertal, especially towards the end, knows that the Maimonidean controversies
in Provence during the late 13<sup>th</sup> and early 14<sup>th</sup> century created
a rift between those scholars and the Spanish scholars of the Ramban and his
followers the Rashba etc… school. The
rabbis of Spain rarely quote the Provencal rabbis in their works and as the
Jewish community was destroyed in Provence at the end of the century, their
works fell into oblivion. It is only now that slowly scholars are discovering a
few manuscripts in national libraries and are starting to decipher them and
bring them back to the world. A revival of the dead indeed! Mezukak Shiv’atayim
is one of those books. It is an encyclopedic work that includes Halacha and
theology. Aviram Ravitzky quotes a short excerpt which caught my attention and
addresses the above matter. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“And I the student wonder at the Ra’avad comment for this is not Olam Haba
but Techyat Hametim for Olam Haba is after death. That is why the Members of
the Great Gathering (Anshei Knesset Hagedola) wrote in the yotzer of Shabbat:
Olam Haze, Olam Haba, Mashiach and Techyat Hametim in that precise order….”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rav Yosef is referring to the Shabbat Yotzer Or Bracha at the morning Shema
and Tefillah “Hakol Yoducha”. At the end we say Ein aroch lecha baolam hazeh,
ve’ein Zulatecha lechayei Olam Haba, efes biltecha leyemot hamashiach vein dome
lecha litchyat Hametim. The order is clearly not the Ra’avad order but rather
Rambam’s. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
What also caught my eye is that Rabbi Yosef traces the Hakol Yoducha prayer
to the Anshei Knesset Hagedola. We know that it does not exist in Rambam’s
siddur at the end of Sefer Ahavah. I have also checked Siddur Resag and it does
not have it either. I cannot imagine that a Minhag in place from the Anshei
Knesset Hagedola would be ignored by these Rishonim. <o:p></o:p></div>
David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-89464026945752502612013-08-10T23:36:00.000-04:002013-08-10T23:36:38.320-04:00Does A Non Philosophically Minded Person Partake In Olam Haba?<div class="MsoNormal">
Shabbat, I came across by chance on an interesting Teshuvat
haRashba (1:423) that opened an interesting train of thought and explained a
difficult concept in Rambam. It is a lengthy Teshuvah that deals with certain
aspects of Davening. Towards the end Rashba comments as follows: (my translation)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>Regarding prayers where you stated that without Kavannah
(mindfulness) it has no meaning for a worshiper the truth is that mindfulness
is the basis for everything. However the kind of mindfulness (in other words
what one thinks about) vary and are divided into different levels, one deeper
than the other, depending on the depth of the knowledge and apprehension of the worshiper from the simplest person to Moshe rabbeinu AH, according to each one’s
apprehension [the prayer] will satisfy. <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>The first level of Kavanot upon which all Jews rely upon, is
that all know and admit that there is a God, a non-contingent entity that
created the world from nothingness with His will as He wished to do so, that He
gave the Torah at Sinai, a true Torah with just laws and edicts. It is to Him we
belong and worship, He commanded us to offer ourselves as we declare His name [teach
His existence DG]. It is Him we thank, to Him we pray, for everything emanates
from Him and He watches our deeds to punish or reward. It is with this Kavannah
that all Jews pray even women and ignoramuses and are rewarded for their
worship. Even those who don’t understand the words, does not pronounce them
well, are rewarded for their worship when having this general Kavannah…. One
should not stop one who cannot attain the higher levels of Kavannah from
praying God forbid nor should one demoralize them. For if you suggest this then
children, women and ignoramuses would not be able to pray or do Mitzvot, not
only them but the majority of the Jews except for one or two individuals [who
have a higher apprehension] and the Rabbis already told us all Jews have a part
in Olan Haba.”</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What caught my attention are the last few sentences in this
part of the Teshuvah. Rashba argues that it cannot be that higher levels of
apprehension are necessary because the Mishnah in Sanhedrin says that Kol
Israel yesh Lahem Chelek Leolam Haba. In other words, once a Jew does the
Mitzvot while subscribing to the basic theology outlined above, he partakes in Olam Haba. The rest of the Mishnah then reads “and
these [people] do not partake in Olam Haba, one who denies Techyat Hametim,
denies the divinity of the torah etc…” The Mishnah is thus telling us that one that
keeps Mitzvot but has an erroneous theology as defined further does not partake
in Olam Haba. The act of the Mitzvah does not suffice unless it is done with a
basic mindfulness that an erroneous theology does not permit. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I believe that Rambam read this Mishnah the same way. Some
scholars have argued that the way Rambam explains the ultimate goal of Mitzvot,
which is to make us into perfect individuals who apprehend God and that
achievement is Olam Haba, a kind of unification of the mind with knowledge of
God, then unless one is perfected one cannot have Olam Haba. They therefore
wonder how Rambam would deal with the Mishnah that suggests that ALL Jews have
Olam Haba. The basic theology that Rashba has outlined allows for an apprehension
of God that already gives the person a glimpse of Olam Haba albeit of a lower
level. A person doing a Mitzvah with that apprehension partakes in Olam Haba.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
See also Rabbi Buchman’s article in Hakirah on this subject <a href="http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2010%20Buchman.pdf">http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2010%20Buchman.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-73460555768873621482013-07-04T18:44:00.000-04:002013-07-04T18:44:51.135-04:00Some Reflections on Rambam's and Ramban's Approaches to Metaphysics.<div class="MsoNormal">
In the 10th Perek of Sanhedrin (11<sup>th</sup> in our
Mishnayot and Gemarot), Perek Chelek , Mishnah 3 there is an argument between
Rabbi Nehemiah and others whether the Dor Hamabul, those who drowned in the
flood for being a depraved generation, are eventually going to be judged even
though they do not merit Olam Haba. Rambam in his commentary notes that “<i>we
have mentioned several times that all arguments amongst the sages that has no
practical application whatsoever and which simply establish an opinion there is
no place to say that the Halacha is according to one of them</i>”. Rambam
repeats this in his writings several more times. In the context of this Mishnah it appears that
he personally agrees with Rabbi Nehemiah and understands him to say that there
is no post death reward or punishment for the wicked of the caliber of the Dor
Hamabul or the inhabitants of Sodom. They
simply cease to exist while the righteous do have Olam Haba which is the
ultimate reward which of course he also tells us at the end of Hilchot Teshuvah
that no one really knows what that entails. This is further strengthened by his
comment earlier on the first Mishnah regarding Gan Eden and Gehinom where he
implies that they are something physical in this world. I understand him to say
that Gan Eden is on earth where with time humanity will eventually develop it
to produce life enhancing and extending products while Gehinom is either
external or internal torture that prevails for the wicked during their lifetime.
He is quite cryptic though and does not make it easy to know what he is getting
at. But again notwithstanding his extensive treatment of metaphysics in his
writings, it is exactly in this Mishnah where he sets down the rule about not
being able to rule according to one of the opinions of the Rabbis on matters of
theology without practical implications. Quite telling!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ramban in his Sha’ar Hagemul, the theological section of his
Torat HaAdam, his compendium on the laws of mourning has a lengthy discussion rejecting
how Rambam understands Olam Haba and in general what happens after death basing
his position on statements of chazal and Midrashim which he reads literally. He
addresses Rambam’s statement about Gehinom and feels compelled to forcefully
read Rambam’s statement as one who also believes in Gehinom as an after death
punishment for the wicked. As you read him carefully you can discern between
the lines that he really did not believe Rambam was saying what he tries to
force into him but he felt he had to do this because he could not accept Rambam
would hold such a heretical position from his point of view. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">אבל יש לו לרב זכרונו לברכה במקום אחר דברים משבשים
הדעות. חזר ושנה זה העניין בפירוש המשנה בפרק חלק, ואמר כי העונש הגדול הוא שתפסק הנפש
ותאבד ושלא תשאר. והוא מה שנזכר בתורה בעניין כרת, כמו שנאמר "הכרת תכרת הנפש
ההיא" ואמרו זיכרונם לברכה "הכרת", בעולם הזה, "תכרת", לעולם
הבא. ואמר הכתוב "והיתה נפש אדוני צרורה בצרור החיים</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>". <o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">וכל מי שיהיה נמשך אל התענוגים הגשמיים, וישליך
האמת אחרי גוו, ויגביר השקר על האמת - יכרת ויאבד מן המעלה ההיא, וישאר גוף אובד בלבד</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">וכתב</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ואולם גיהנם הוא כינוי על עונש הרשעים, ולא התבאר
בתלמוד איך יהיה זה העונש. אבל מקצתם אומרים כי השמש תקרב אל הרשעים ותשרפם, ויביאו
ראיה מן הפסוק "הנה יום בא בוער כתנור" וגו', ומקצתם אומרים כי חמימות נפלא
תבער בגופם ותשרפם, כדכתיב "רוחכם אש תאכלכם</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>".<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">אלו דבריו זכרונו לברכה, ואינם דברים נוחים לדעתנו.
מפני שדברי רבותינו זיכרונם לברכה במחלוקת שהזכיר, אינם על דיני גיהנם המצוי תמיד,
שהוא לדברי הכל מקום דין באש נפלאה דקה, בראה האלהים לעונש ולאבד רחקיו ולהצמית כל
זונה ממנו</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And a little further<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">והדברים כמו שביארנו.
ועם כל זה, גלה לנו הרב זכרונו לברכה דעתו, שהוא מאמין בעונש דין וצער, יהיה באי זה
זמן שיהיה אחרי המות, אלא שלא התבאר לדעתו בתלמוד, ולא הסתפק ממנו אלא איכות הדין והצער
הזה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">וזה התנצלות לרב, ולימוד זכות לחכם גדול וחסיד כמותו
זכרונו לברכה, ופירוש למימרא שלרבי שמעון בן לקיש, שלא תשבש דעת קצת התלמידים, או שלא
יתלו בה החיצונים שהטינה בלבם</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I believe there is a fundamental difference between Rambam and Ramban’s
understanding of metaphysics. Rambam holds that metaphysical understanding is a
human endeavor. As a person perfects himself by developing his knowledge of the
world while at the same time improving his personal traits controlling his
urges and putting them under the domination of his intellectual faculty, he
begins to find answer to the existential questions that go beyond the physical
and the knowable. His intuition and imaginary faculties are triggered under the
influence of his rational faculty. These answers are not certainties but a good
attempt at finding the truth. Rambam describes this very poignantly in his
introduction to MN.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>Do not imagine that these most difficult problems can be thoroughly
understood by any one of us. This is not the case. At times the truth shines so
brilliantly that we perceive it as clear as day. Our nature and habit then draw
a veil over our perception, and we return to a darkness almost as dense as
before. We are like those who, though beholding frequent flashes of lightning,
still find themselves in the thickest darkness of the night. On some the
lightning flashes in rapid succession, and they seem to be in continuous light,
and their night is as clear as the day. This was the degree of prophetic
excellence attained by (Moses) the greatest of prophets, to whom God said,
"But as for thee, stand thou here by Me" (Deut. v. 31), and of whom
it is written "the skin of his face shone," etc. (Exod. xxxiv. 29).
[Some perceive the prophetic flash at long intervals; this is the degree of
most prophets.] By others only once during the whole night is a flash of
lightning perceived. This is the case with those of whom we are informed,
"They prophesied, and did not prophesy again" (Num. xi. 25). There
are some to whom the flashes of lightning appear with varying intervals; others
are in the condition of men, whose darkness is illumined not by lightning, but by
some kind of crystal or similar stone, or other substances that possess the
property of shining during the night; and to them even this small amount of
light is not continuous, but now it shines and now it vanishes, as if it were
"the flame of the rotating sword</i>."”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
After reading this we can very well understand why there
cannot be a definite ruling in these matters. In fact we cannot even convey to
each other the whole understanding one is able to achieve because it is
personal and individual. That is why Rambam in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 2:12 based
on the Gemara in the second Perek of Chagigah describes the transmission of
metaphysical truths as <o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
[<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ציוו חכמים הראשונים שלא לדרוש בדברים אלו אלא לאיש
אחד בלבד, והוא שיהיה חכם ומבין מדעתו<b>.
ואחר כך מוסרין לו ראשי הפרקים, ומודיעין אותו שמץ מן הדבר; והוא מבין מדעתו,
ויודע סוף הדבר ועומקו</b></span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We can transmit to another only the “headings of chapters”,
a kind of conceptual summary, but ultimately the understanding is personal and
individual.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ramban on the other hand makes it clear in all his writings
that the metaphysics he knows is one that was transmitted from mouth to ear
through the generations. These matters are secrets that only the few can
understand but there is a definite set of information that one must adhere to
and it is knowable. It is not based on human knowledge but is something that it
is received from God by Moshe at Sinai and transmitted to us. He is so sure
that this is all transmissions that he cannot accept even that the rabbis would
argue about these matters and he ends the Sha’ar Hagemul saying:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ומכאן יבין כל בעל שכל, שאין מחלוקת בין רבותינו
זיכרונם לברכה בעיקר מכל עיקרי הדין הללו העתידין להיות, וכל דבריהם עולים בסגנון אחד</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There cannot be any doubt in these matters because these are mystical
truths received at Sinai.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The implications of these two opposing positions carry far.
According to Ramban Torah and Mitzvot are part of the mystical system that
maintains the world, not only the human world we know but the whole universe.
Rambam sees Torah and Mitzvot as tools to develop ourselves in a way that we
can speculate about metaphysics without personal bias, so that we can come as
close to the truth as a human being can. However not one human being has
achieved total knowledge, not even Moshe Rabbeinu. These two approaches impact
how each of these two great Rishonim understand prophecy. Rambam sees it as a
result of human perfection; it is the ultimate badge of a perfected human
being. An imperfect person cannot prophesize. Ramban does not have a problem
with prophecy of an ignoramus if God so wishes. (See however Ramban on Bamidbar
22:23 and 24 where he seems to waiver a little). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Personally I find Rambam’s approach inspiring and uplifting.
It puts a much bigger onus on the individual demanding perfection but to me it
has a ring of truth and is compatible with the human condition as we know it.
Ramban’s approach does not speak to me and I find it depressing. But that is
me. Others love the idea of Kabbalah and mysticism and it gives them strength. As Rambam says we do not passken in these
matters that have no practical outcome.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-50043340576316039062013-06-02T15:59:00.002-04:002013-06-02T15:59:32.061-04:00And I will cause evil beasts to cease out of the land - Ramban addresses Rambam.<div class="MsoNormal">
As I learned Ramban on Sefer Vaykra, it was revealing the
way he develops his understanding of Hashgacha and in general his view of the
world. He already laid the foundations for his thought in the first two books,
Breishit and Shemot but here he applies it to the committed Jew in his day to
day practice, namely the Mitzvot. Again we can observe the undertones of a
dialog where Ramban addresses Rambam’s understanding almost at every turn
though he only does so overtly on occasion. While to Rambam Mitzvot are tools
for self-improvement to Ramban they are intrinsically important for the
functioning of the universe – they have a deep mystical impact on the well being
of the universe and its population. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On Vaykra 26:6 <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ו וְנָתַתִּי שָׁלוֹם בָּאָרֶץ, וּשְׁכַבְתֶּם וְאֵין
מַחֲרִיד; וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי חַיָּה רָעָה, מִן-הָאָרֶץ, וְחֶרֶב, לֹא-תַעֲבֹר בְּאַרְצְכֶם.</span> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
6 And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down,
and none shall make you afraid; and I will cause evil beasts to cease out of
the land, neither shall the sword go through your land.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He discusses the meaning of <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי חַיָּה רָעָה, מִן-הָאָרֶץ</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> – I will cause
evil beasts to cease from the land. Moshe Rabbeinu is telling the people that
if they follow God’s commandments he will bring peace to the land and eliminate
wild beasts from it. He refers to a discussion of the subject in Torat Kohanim
(Behukotai 2:1) between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> -<span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ר' יהודה אומר</span><span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">מעבירם מן העולם</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>. <span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ר' שמעון אומר</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>: <span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">משביתן שלא יזוקו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>. <span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">אמר ר' שמעון</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>: <span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">אימתי הוא שבחו של מקום, בזמן שאין מזיקים, או בזמן
שיש מזיקים ואין מזיקים</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>? <span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">אמור בזמן שיש מזיקים ואין מזיקין</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.
<span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">וכן הוא אומר: מזמור שיר ליום השבת, למשבית מזיקים
מן העולם, משביתן שלא יזיקו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span lang="HE"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>(<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ב) וכן הוא אומר: וגר זאב עם כבש ונמר עם גדי ירבץ
ועגל וכפיר ומריא יחדיו ונער קטן נוהג בם. ופרה ודוב תרעינה יחדיו ירבצו ילדיהם ואריה
כבקר יאכל תבן. ושעשע יונק חור פתן ועל מאורת צפעוני גמול ידו הדה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.
<span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">מלמד שתינוק מישראל עתיד להושיט את ידו לתוך גלגל
עינו של צפעוני ומוציא מרה מתוך פיו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>. <span dir="RTL" lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">וכן הוא אומר: גמול ידו הדה, זו חיה ההורגת את הבריות</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Rabbi Yehuda says I will remove them. Rabbi Shimon says I will restrain
them so that don’t harm. Argued Rabbi Shimon, what would enhance God more, when
they disappear or when they are here but don’t harm? So too it says: A song for
the day of Shabbat, to the One who restrains the harmers, restrains them from
harming. (This is a play on the word
Shabbat which also means refraining / restraining – God refrained from creation
on the Shabbat)…. </i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ramban comments that rabbi Yehuda understands the sentence literally
(Kepshuto!) that as the land prospers with plentiful food and health; its
cities will become populated. Wild animals do not frequent populated areas,
confining themselves to the forests and thus creating a safe environment. But
Rabbi Shimon holds that it is a miraculous event. If we follow the Mitzvot even
the wild animals that roam amongst us will not harm us. Ramban explains that the
land will return to its original state before the sin of Adam where no animal
killed humans or each other. Before Adam’s sin all animals were vegetarian as
they had no permission to kill or eat living things. Once man sinned and
animals were allowed to attack humans, they developed a taste for meat and now
started devouring each other too. He reads the verses in Yeshayahu 11:6-8 quoted
in the Midrash literally; a child will stick his hand into a snake pit and be
unscathed; lions will be vegetarian. In
the days of Mashiach, all animals will return to their original pre-sin state
and lose their appetite for meat. Ramban comments that Rabbi Shimon’s position
is the correct one. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here again Ramban is arguing with Rambam and in passing
shows us some interesting insights into his thinking. First here is Rambam’s
comment on the verses on Yeshayahu: (Hilchot Melachim 12:1)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">אל יעלה על הלב שבימות המשיח, ייבטל דבר ממנהגו
של עולם, או יהיה שם חידוש במעשה בראשית; אלא עולם כמנהגו הולך. וזה שנאמר בישעיה "וגר זאב עם כבש, ונמר עם
גדי ירבץ" (ישעיהו יא,ו), משל וחידה.
עניין הדבר--שיהיו ישראל יושבין לבטח עם רשעי העולם, המשולים בזאב ונמר: שנאמר "זאב ערבות ישודדם--נמר שוקד על עריהם"
(ירמיהו ה,ו). ויחזרו כולם לדת האמת, ולא יגזולו
ולא ישחיתו, אלא יאכלו דבר המותר בנחת כישראל, שנאמר "ואריה, כבקר יאכל תבן"
(ישעיהו יא,ז; ישעיהו סה,כה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>).<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course Ramban cannot agree with this for to him Yemot
Hamashiach are going to be miraculous times; nothing will be as it is now. But
again we see how he dialogs with Rambam all the time even when he does not
mention his name. The fascinating thing is that he ties his own disagreement
with Rambam into an ancient argument amongst the Tanaim. That in fact
legitimizes Rambam’s position. Unlike some of his contemporaries who attacked
Rambam vociferously to the point of burning his writings, Ramban makes sure we
know that they both have legitimate positions supported by the rabbis of the
Mishnah. What also caught my attention is how he explains the changeover of
carnivores from vegetarians in a natural way. Once man became available to the
beasts they developed taste for meat! Nothing changed except a more evolved
palate! He in fact, many times in his commentary, reaffirms that miracles have
to have a reason and a purpose, generally to make people aware that there is a
divine presence in the world. But that is a subject for another post.<o:p></o:p></div>
David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-43585907946523131432013-04-05T04:41:00.001-04:002013-04-05T04:41:53.117-04:00Thoughts on Ramban, Aharon, The Golden Calf, Azazel and Rambam.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
As one learns Ramban on Chumash it becomes clear that as he
declared in his introduction, he is having a dialogue with his predecessors. He
discloses in that introduction the names of two of them: Rashi and Ibn Ezra.
But a person familiar with Rambam’s thought will detect a constant underlying
dialogue with Rambam especially when the subject deals with theological matters
even when he does not explicitly tell us so. An example of such a subtle
dialogue can be detected in this week’s Parsha (Shemini) Vaykra 9:7-8. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ז וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, קְרַב אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ
וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת-חַטָּאתְךָ וְאֶת-עֹלָתֶךָ, וְכַפֵּר בַּעַדְךָ, וּבְעַד הָעָם; וַעֲשֵׂה
אֶת-קָרְבַּן הָעָם, וְכַפֵּר בַּעֲדָם, כַּאֲשֶׁר, צִוָּה יְהוָה.</span><span dir="LTR"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And Moses said unto Aaron: 'Draw near unto the altar, and
offer thy sin-offering, and thy burnt-offering, and make atonement for thyself,
and for the people; and present the offering of the people, and make atonement
for them; as the LORD commanded.'<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ח וַיִּקְרַב אַהֲרֹן, אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; וַיִּשְׁחַט
אֶת-עֵגֶל הַחַטָּאת, אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ. </span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span> </span>So Aaron drew near unto the altar, and
slew the calf of the sin-offering, which was for himself<span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span>.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The obvious question that comes to mind is what was the purpose of this
dialogue? Didn’t Aharon know that it was his job as Cohen to go up to the altar
to do the Avodah? Chazal detect reluctance on his part and comment on it. Rashi
abbreviates their comment and just points out that Aharon was shy and
reluctant. One gets the impression that it was possibly a lack of
self-confidence or humility, Aharon feeling that he was not worthy. Ramban is not content with leaving that
impression. After offering a somewhat strained Peshuto Shel Mikra explanation
he quotes the Midrash (Mechilta DeMiluim 7, Sifra ad locum) verbatim.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i> “But in Torat Kohanim [our Rabbis]
commented on this matter by offering a parable. This is comparable to a king
who married a woman who was ashamed [to be intimate] with him. She came to her
sister who told her – isn’t it for this purpose that you married him? Be bold
and come serve the king. So too Moshe told Aharon, brother weren’t you chosen
to be Cohen Gadol to serve God? Be bold and do your work. Some say, that to
Aharon the altar took the shape of an ox (Ketavnit Shor) and Aharon feared him,
Moshe came to him and told him not to let his fears take over, be bold and go
closer. That is why it says <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">קְרַב אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> and <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">וַיִּקְרַב אַהֲרֹן, אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>;”</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When one reads that Midrash second explanation one can interpret it that
Aharon was feeling guilty about having been instrumental in the Egel episode. A
more sophisticated read, and probably that is how Rambam would read it, is that
he was trying to understand how is the concept of bringing offerings to an idol
different than burnt offerings on the altar in the Mishkan. Why when he created
the Egel which was ultimately directed to God, he was so harshly censured,
isn’t this similar? Isn’t the idea of
bringing an offering a sort of bribe exchanging it for goodwill? Aren’t we
attempting to bribe God here too? Moshe’s response was that despite the
questions he must do as ordered because it is God’s wish to allow the people to
indulge a little in their superstitious illusion and thereby slowly lead them
to a more advanced understanding of worship. This is a very directed and regulated
worship while the Egel was an unregulated spontaneous outburst of superstition
and even worse, to an intermediary, a representation of God.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ramban however, at the beginning of Vaykra (1:9) has already voiced his
vehement disagreement with Rambam’s understanding that Korbanot are a
concession to human frailty. He does believe that offerings impact God if
brought with the proper intention. The Egel was to an intermediary which is
prohibited while Korbanot are directed to the Hallowed Name of Hashem. He now
worries that this Midrash will be interpreted support Rambam’s position.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“The meaning of this Midrash is because Aharon who was a holy person and
only had sinned once at the Egel, that sin stood out in his mind, … and he saw
the form of the calf, namely that it was preventing him from successfully
getting forgiveness. Moshe tells him not
worry as he is already forgiven for that misstep. Others say that the Satan was
showing him the calf, as the Rabbis say there, Aharon my brother, even though
God forgave you, you still have to offer something to the Satan to stop him
from interfering when you come into the Holy places…” </i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ramban interprets the Midrash as saying that Aharon was worried about his
having sinned and that will stand in the way of his worship. He makes that point
lest we interpret that the Korbanot themselves were problematic. Ramban does
not see a problem with offerings as long as they are directed to God. The second
explanation offered by the Rabbis he interprets as the Satan appearing to
Aharon demanding a bribe for himself. There are circumstances where even the Torah
sanctions bringing offerings other than to God. Satan at times may have to be
placated just like the Azazel offering on Yom Kippur see Ramban and Ibn Ezra on
Vayikra 16:8. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rambam in MN 3:46 explains that the Azazel offering does not imply that one
can transfer one’s sins onto another entity (reminds us of Kaparot and I would
not be surprised that was in his mind as the custom goes back to Geonim) but
rather to symbolically awaken in us the thought that we have left our past
behind and we are starting afresh with the undertaking of not repeating past
mistakes. This offering represents the most abhorrent sins of the whole people
which are so bad that they cannot be bought into the sanctuary in front of God.
I also believe that at the end of the whole charged Avodah of the holiest day
of the year, Yom Kippur, the last offering does not come onto the altar as a
symbol that the burning is not what a Korban is. God does not need it and to
Him it is all the same whether offered to him as a burnt offering or whether it
is gratuitously destroyed. It is all to get us thinking about our actions and
improving them. We have here a classic redirection of a habit that cannot be stopped.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-22415879700174483962012-11-01T05:06:00.000-04:002012-11-01T05:07:28.204-04:00"Why Does The World Exist?" - Towards a Jewish Answer - Part 2.- Emulating God.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the previous post I explained that Rambam sees the God of
Judaism as an entity that we know exists but is so outside any category that we
know that even the words “God exists” has no meaning in our understanding of
“existence”. It just means that there “is” such an entity and that we
hopelessly cannot ever even conceptualize His essence. The question is then
what relevance does such an entity have to us? How can we relate to Him? What
does worship, prophecy and knowledge mean as it relates to God? How do we ever
propose to connect with Him? Paradoxically, the Halacha does demand of us that
we get to know God, that we worship Him and that we love Him. How are we
supposed to love an unknowable and incomprehensible entity? Rambam in Sefer
Hamitzvot establishes that the first Mitzvah is to know God and he restates it
in the short count at the beginning of Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah<span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span> </span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>–<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">הלכות יסודי התורה</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">יש בכללן עשר מצוות--שש מצוות עשה, וארבע מצוות
לא תעשה; וזה הוא פרטן: (א) לידע שיש שם אלוה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span lang="HE"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How are we supposed to know the unknowable? And to
complicate matters further we are required to love Him too – <o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ב) שלא יעלה במחשבה שיש שם אלוה זולתי ה'; (ג) לייחדו;
(ד) לאוהבו</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How can we to do that? Hassidim report that this question
was posed to Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the first Lubavitcher Rebbe and
Ba’al Hatanya by the child grandson of Rabbi Dovber of Mezritch. He asked;
after having said the first verse of Shema where we declare the ultimate
uniqueness and thus transcendence and unknowability of God by saying <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ה' אלוהינו, ה' אחד</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>,
how can we immediately proceed and say <o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ואהבת, את ה' אלוהיך, בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך, ובכל
מאודך</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This question is addressed by the Ba’al Hatanya in his
Sha’ar Hayichud Veha’emunah where he deals with the issue in great depth. A
discussion of this great essay is beyond the scope of this post; the question
however is very important and I will attempt to address it as I understand it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Although we were taught by Moshe rabbeinu that God can only
be known in the negative, what He is not, we still needed Avraham Avinu’s
question to arrive at that by understanding what caused existence and who or
what is behind it. If the answer to that question is that there must be an
entity responsible for existence, it leads to the next one - what is the
essence of that entity that is behind that existence? Rambam in MN 1:54 puts it
as follows:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">דע כי אדון החכמים, משה רבנו עליו השלום, ביקש שתי
בקשות ובאה לו תשובה על שתי הבקשות. הבקשה האחת היא שביקש ממנו יתעלה שיודיענו את עצמוּתו
ואת אמיתת מהותו. הבקשה השנייה - <b><u>והיא זו אשר ביקשה ראשונה</u></b> - היא שיודיענו
את תאריו. וענה לו יתעלה בכך שהבטיח להודיעו את תאריו כולם ושהם מעשׂיו. כן הודיעו,
כי אין להשׂיג את עצמוּתו כפי שהיא. אך הוא העיר לו על מקום עיון שממנו ישיג את מרב
מה שיכול אדם להשׂיגו. מה שהוא, עליו השלום, השׂיג, לא השׂיגו אף אחד לפניו ולא אחריו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>THE wisest man, our Teacher Moses, asked two things of
God, and received a reply respecting both. The one thing he asked was that God
should let him know His true essence: the other, <b><u>which in fact he asked
first, </u></b>that God should let him know His attributes. In answer to both
these petitions God promised that He would let him know all His attributes, and
that these were nothing but His actions. He also told him that His true essence
could not be perceived, and pointed out a method by which he could obtain the
utmost knowledge of God possible for man to acquire. The knowledge obtained by
Moses has not been possessed by any human being before him or after him.”</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rambam describes Moshe’s thinking process. He begins with
the question triggered by existence which we see as God’s actions – “<i>His
attributes, and that these were nothing but His actions</i>” – or to put it in
a simpler context – we know that there is an entity we call God because something
or someone must be responsible for existence<a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Blogs/Currently%20in%20production/Emulating%20God.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>.
In this process, the path to God is through contemplating His actions which is existence.
As we contemplate God’s actions we also develop a sense of how the world we
live in is being run by Him. We are amazed by the complexity and at the same
time the simplicity of the whole system, how each part is necessary for the
existence of the whole, our environment how everything is interdependent and
how finely tuned all the components of our universe are. As we are filled with
wonder, we are humbled by our insignificance in the scheme of things and at the
same time we want to get to know better this entity that is responsible for all
this. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">והיאך היא הדרך לאהבתו, ויראתו: בשעה שיתבונן
האדם במעשיו וברואיו הנפלאים הגדולים, ויראה מהם חכמתו שאין לה ערך ולא קץ--מיד הוא
אוהב ומשבח ומפאר ומתאווה תאווה גדולה לידע השם הגדול, כמו שאמר דויד "צמאה נפשי,
לאלוהים--לאל חי"</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ב וכשמחשב
בדברים האלו עצמן, מיד הוא נרתע לאחוריו, ויירא ויפחד ויידע שהוא בריה קטנה שפלה אפלה,
עומד בדעת קלה מעוטה לפני תמים דעות, כמו שאמר דויד "כי אראה שמיך . . . מה אנוש,
כי תזכרנו"</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>What is the path to love and fear Him? As a person contemplates His wondrous actions
and His great creations, seeing in them His</i> <i>immeasurable and</i> <i>unending
wisdom, at once he is filled with love, praising and lauding [Him] as he is
filled with a great longing to get to know the great name as David said “my
soul thirsts for God – the living God”. When one contemplates these matters he at once
steps back as he is filled with fear and dread realizing that he is an
insignificant small creature, low and somber, who stands with minimal intellect
in front of the perfect intellect as David said “when I see your heavens …. What
is humankind that you should notice it”? <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rambam depicts contradictory feelings that the seeker
confronts. On the one hand there is a great urge and need to get to know God
and to express one’s love for Him and at the same time he is humbled as he realizes how insignificant and
unimportant he is in the scheme of things and he is overcome with trepidation
and wants to step back. The urge to love
gets translated into action as the person now wants to emulate the beloved by
contemplating the beloved’s actions. He wants to partake in those actions and
play a role in them. The humbling feeling on the other hand fills him with
uncertainty and doubt, forcing him to question his understanding of God and His
actions - <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">עומד</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> בדעת קלה מעוטה לפני תמים דעות</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>. This constant
tension between wanting to know and to emulate God and the deep knowledge that
this is an impossible task, the uncertainty that this fosters is the impetus
for self-improvement. It is only by striving for perfection that one can feel a
little comfort in this attempt to emulate God. It also fills one with humility forcing
the person to question his decisions on how to act, making sure that he is
really trying to emulate God and not just act out of personal biases and
natural inclinations. I always find it upsetting when people act with certainty
criticizing and condemning others, stepping all over them and bulldozing through
them as if they had all the answers. We never have all the answers and we never
will; we just are trying our best to know how to act correctly and that does
not give us the right to judge or step on others. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We started by asking what is the relevance of searching for the unknowable
God and the relevance of this knowledge to our daily life. The answer is that
the search is a goal in itself. It is through the search that one becomes
acutely aware of our environment and how it works giving us a basis rooted in
reality, not an imaginary mystical “spiritual” concept, for emulating that
perfect entity responsible for existence. The urge to find God and the humbling
knowledge of the impossibility of the task, the unknowability of God, see to it
that our emulating Him is judicious and well thought out, done with the proper
caution and realness. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div>
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="ftn1">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Blogs/Currently%20in%20production/Emulating%20God.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> I
have to emphasize that it does not mean there must be a Creator but rather an
entity that is not contingent and that has a hierarchal precedence to all
existence (see my article in <a href="http://hakirah.org/Vol%201%20Guttman.pdf">Hakirah</a>). <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-45950312067129317462012-10-03T05:15:00.000-04:002012-10-03T05:16:40.351-04:00"Why Does The World Exist?" - Towards a Jewish Answer - Part 1.- Divine "Existence".<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
In his book “Why Does the World Exist?”(Which I highly
recommend to all those who think about existential issues), Jim Holt interviews
a series of philosophers, physicists and writers. He poses to them the question
“why is there a world rather than nothing at all?” and reports their
answers. The answers can be divided into
three camps listed by the author as; “optimists” who hold that there <b><u>has
to be</u></b> a reason for the world to exist; the “pessimists” who believe <b><u>there
might be</u></b> a reason for the world to exist but we will never know for
sure; the “rejectionists” who believe <b><u>there cannot be</u></b> a reason
for the world to exist and the question itself is meaningless. The fact that thinkers in each group grapple
with the question, while even the rejectionists work hard to explain why the
question is meaningless, proves that the question is important and begs for an
answer. With the Big Bang, the currently
accepted theory of how the world began, the question is; what triggered the singular
event? How did the Big Bang come about? The answers given by the different
interviewees vary from, it just happened; to it was started by some quantum
induced or other possible scientifically explained event; to God as the Creator
being behind the event. Each of these answers leaves us with a mystery as the
question still remains; who made God, who or what established the scientific
law that triggered the event or what was behind the “just happened” event. The
book’s point is that the question still begs for a definite answer and will continue
to do so for a long time if not forever.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The same question is posed by Rambam in Hilchot Avodah Zara
1:3 –<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ט [ג] כיון
שנגמל איתן זה, התחיל לשוטט בדעתו והוא קטן, ולחשוב ביום ובלילה, והיה תמיה: היאך אפשר שיהיה הגלגל הזה נוהג תמיד, ולא יהיה
לו מנהיג; ומי יסבב אותו, לפי שאי אפשר שיסבב את עצמו. ולא היה לו לא מלמד ולא מודיע דבר, אלא מושקע באור
כשדים בין עובדי עבודה זרה הטיפשים</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>As this solid individual (Avraham Avinu) matured, while still a youth, his
mind began to wander and think day and night pondering; how is it possible for
this sphere to always circle without it having a driver? Who is making it
circle? After all it cannot do so by itself. He had no teacher or someone who
could inform him for he was ensconced in Ur of the Chaldeans amongst the stupid
idol worshipers.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rambam presents the question in context of the Aristotelian physics of his
time putting it into Avraham Avinu’s mouth. The movement of the spheres was
seen as the force that made earthly existence possible; the movement caused the
elements to mix together creating the endless combinations of matter that make
up the world. The outer sphere, <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">הגלגל הזה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>, causes all the other spheres to move. The question is what is
behind that moving force just as contemporary thinkers ask what is behind the
Big Bang. That question has not changed with our more advanced understanding of
how things work and there is no outlook that it will change with further
advances in our understanding of our environment and universe. The answer that
Avraham arrives at according to Rambam is <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">וליבו משוטט ומבין, עד שהשיג דרך האמת, והבין קו
הצדק, מדעתו הנכונה; וידע שיש שם אלוה אחד, והוא מנהיג הגלגל, והוא ברא הכול, ואין
בכל הנמצא אלוה חוץ ממנו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>As his mind
wanders and contemplates, he arrives at the true path, and thanks to his
straight thinking he develops the correct line of thought; he knows that there
is out there one God who directs the sphere, who created all and no other God
exists besides Him. <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Avraham’s God is
the Creator and His existence is a deduction that Avraham arrives at through
questioning the provenance of the natural environment he lived in. He deduces
that there is a Creator, a unique God that is also the continuous force that is
responsible for all physical existence. The exact definition of “unique” had
not yet been developed completely and therefore he had not answered the
ultimate question; how did God himself come into being? That question remained
even with Avraham’s understanding of God’s uniqueness. It is only when Moshe
comes onto the scene that the question is finally answered with his
introduction of a more advanced concept of God that addresses the question.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>For all men, with few exceptions, were ignorant of the existence of
God; their highest thoughts did not extend beyond the heavenly sphere, its
forms or its influences. They could not yet emancipate themselves from
sensation, and had not yet attained to any intellectual perfection. Then God
taught Moses how to teach them, and how to establish amongst them the belief in
the existence of Himself, namely, by saying Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, a name derived
from the verb hayah in the sense of "existing," for the verb hayah
denotes "to be," and in Hebrew no difference is made between the
verbs "to be" and "to exist."…</i><i> </i><i>This is, therefore, the
expression of the idea that God exists, but not in the ordinary sense of the
term; or, in other words, He is "the existing Being which is the existing
Being," that is to say, the Being whose existence is absolute. The proof
which he was to give consisted in demonstrating that there is a Being of
absolute existence, that has never been and never will be without existence.”</i> (MN 1:63)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Moshe introduces the concept of negative knowledge when dealing with God’s
existence leaving us with the only possible expression, “the existent Being
which is the existent Being”. When we say that God exists we mean that His
existence is absolute. He does not exist in the way we understand and use the word
existence which is qualitative. Existence is not a quality of God but His
essence meaning that God by definition cannot NOT exist. This concept cannot be
grasped by the human mind because our senses attach existence to things. In our
experience all things we know are brought into existence by another thing, by
an event or another type of cause. We live in a world of cause and effect and
that is what we can understand. The only way we can get a sense of God’s
existence is by understanding that whatever we understand existence to be it
does not apply to God just as the concept of cause and effect does not apply
either. The great understanding of Moshe Rabbeinu was that any concept of God
we arrive at, that concept cannot be God. God is inconceivable; He is the Great
Mystery and also the ultimate Truth. (For a fuller treatment of Rambam’s
understanding see my article in <a href="http://hakirah.org/Vol%201%20Guttman.pdf">Hakirah</a>.) This concept was taught
to us as a nation at Sinai where the Torah continuously repeats that God
appeared in darkness and clouds on the one hand and fire and sound on the other,
a metaphor for this tension between knowing that there is an Entity responsible
for existence while at the same time, that Entity is unknowable to the point
that even “existence” is equivocal when used in this context. It is only once
this new concept of God has been accepted that we can move to the next step and
say that this Existent is the Creator. We are thus saying that there is a
singular incomprehensible Entity which we call God, an Entity that has a
singular existence that is responsible for all that exists. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This understanding of God makes the question “who created God?”
incomprehensible. Time, space and therefore location have no meaning when thinking
about such an “existent”. He “is” but not in the sense we understand “is” to
be. Creation is needed for the common existent who therefore has to have been
caused but the kind of “existent” we think of when talking about God is not in
the same category. To summarize; we sense that there must be something out
there that is responsible for this existence but this something is completely
incomprehensible to us to the point we cannot even imagine anything about His
essence nor ask questions about His existence which cannot be what “existence”
is to us. The closer a person can come to internalizing these opposing ideas,
the closer he is to God. At Moshe’s first encounter with God (Shemot 3:6) he immediately
hid his face and refrained from looking. He had internalized that God is
incomprehensible. The Rabbis tell us metaphorically (TB Brachot 7a) that as a
reward for this it is said about Moshe (Bamidbar 12:8) that he saw God’s image.
In other words the true apprehension of God is the “not” apprehension, the deep
acceptance that whatever one thinks is God, it is not. No wonder Moshe was the
humblest of men. (See Rav Adin
Steinsaltz edition of Sha’ar Hayichud Veha’emunah of the Ba’al Hatanya page 98
in his wonderful comments).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is how Judaism according to Rambam explains existence and how it came
to be caused by the incomprehensible God. Had it stopped here we would have a
nice abstract explanation of an existential question. But Judaism goes a step further. This Entity
that we sense its "existence" and is responsible for ours whom we find
incomprehensible, can however be traced via that same existence. Our own
existence results from His existence. We are therefore one of the results of
His “actions” and so is everything that surrounds us. By looking at all that
objectively and very carefully we can develop a sense of where He wants to take
this whole enterprise namely existence. That is the focus Judaism puts on this
speculation and redirects it to the practical; how do we emulate God’s actions?
In next post(s) I will attempt to address this and how it affects our question “why
does the world exist?” <o:p></o:p></div>
David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-27114351768588969812012-09-16T15:29:00.000-04:002012-09-18T21:32:56.999-04:00"But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" - Love and Fear in Judaism.<br />
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">העובד מאהבה, עוסק בתורה ובמצוות והולך בנתיבות
החכמה--לא מפני דבר בעולם, לא מפני יראת הרעה, ולא כדי לירש הטובה: אלא עושה האמת, מפני שהוא אמת; וסוף הטובה לבוא
בכלל</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“One who worships out of love, is occupied with Torah and
walks in the paths of knowledge, for no other reason in the world, neither for
fear of bad consequences nor hoping for good outcomes, but acts the truth
because it is true and eventually good will follow on the whole<a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Hakirah%20submissions/volume%2013/Religion%20for%20the%20sake%20of%20truth.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><b><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>”.
(Hilchot Teshuvah 10:2)<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is one of the most important statements that we can
find anywhere in the Jewish literature and it truly defines our religion as it
really is – The Quest for Truth - the ultimate Truth. What triggered this post is
a quote from Steven Weinberg (Nobel Prize Physicist), in Jim Holt’s excellent
book – Why Does the World Exist? – which I am now reading. Weinberg reportedly
stated, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that
takes religion”. My reaction is that he
is 100% right and that is because most people do not understand what real
religion is all about. I don’t know enough about other religions but I know
enough about our religion, Judaism to know that based on the way it is
practiced nowadays and understood by the general Jewish religious community,
Weinberg is correct. It is only by accepting Rambam’s definition of religion
and understanding deeply what he is teaching that Judaism can become what it is
supposed to be – to move humanity towards seeking Truth and not a tool for
control and manipulation. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The general rather simplistic and popular concept of Judaism
today is that it is good for you. God knows all and watches all human actions
and sits in judgment; good deeds are rewarded and bad deeds are punished. As
man does not know what is right or wrong, a set of laws has been given – the
Torah and Mitzvot – and doing good means following the Mitzvot, bad is ignoring
or flouting them. Punishment is when bad things happen and reward is when good
things happen. How to define good things and bad things? If a person’s wishes
are fulfilled it is good and if they are thwarted it is bad. As human life is
short there is an additional bonus, Olam Haba, life after death where if one
was good one will bask in perpetual bliss, an undefined concept but said to be
something that one cannot grasp while alive. The evil person, the one who
flouted the Mitzvot while alive will burn in hell, suffering untold pain
eternally. Then there are full panoplies of intermediary systems where one gets
reward in this world for the good deeds so that he can be punished eternally
for the bad and vice versa. Interestingly
some more “advanced thinkers” will suggest that there are “spiritual” benefits
that result from following this path. If you try to delve deeper and ask what
they mean by "spiritual" the answer is less anxiety, Bitachon,
feeling good about yourself and other such “feel good” experiences. The common
denominator is that the rewards are “good things” happening to the individual. All one has to do is pick up a contemporary
Mussar sefer or “theological” sefer to get a picture of this simple and easy to
grasp system of reward and punishment. The ultimate goal of this type of
religion is to adhere strictly to the Mitzvot and to reap the rewards that God
bestows on those that follow rituals strictly.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
At first blush, the sources fit very nicely with this
understanding of Judaism. However this approach cannot satisfy a thinking
person. It is a narcissistic and selfish perspective on life where everything
one does is to satisfy personal wishes and needs. It is no better than
capitalism, socialism or any other “ism” out there. Egoism and selfishness
eventually lead to evil and it is in the name of these “isms” that much of the
evil witnessed by humankind has been perpetrated. If there is nothing more to
religion, then religion is truly the cause of evil. If religion is there only
to better our material life then it will inevitably lead to evil. That is the
idea behind Avodah Zara – idolatry - which is the ultimate falsehood and is the
underlying theme of all that the Torah teaches away from. So how do we explain
the prevalence of this way of thinking in our community? Human beings are
endowed with the urge for self-preservation. That urge is common to all living
things and is there to perpetuate themselves and their kind or genus. That urge is narcissistic and selfish and is
part of us just like appetite and all our other urges. This type of religious
thinking caters to that urge and is attractive to the animalistic instinct, it
“feels” good. It is also a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the sources,
a distortion of what they teach us as we will see further. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In addition to the survival instinct human beings have
another innate capability - consciousness. That capability allows us to see
ourselves, ourselves in relation to the other and in relation to our environment
and our universe. It gives us the ability to see beyond our natural urges and
our immediate needs, to see the other and develop moral and ethical codes that
take into account the other and our environment. Moral and ethical societies do
not necessarily require religion to function and indeed many societies work
well without religion. Thus the first part of Weinberg’s statement is correct,
good people will do good and bad people evil without religion. Consciousness
and the ability to think abstractly and self-awareness that comes with it bring
with them an even more advanced and sophisticated urge; it triggers in us the
need to understand our existence why we are here, what is the goal of us being
here and all the existential questions that humanity has struggled with for
millennia. Judaism is meant to help people address these questions. Rambam
counts as the eighth positive commandment<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">המצווה השמינית</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">הציווי שנצטווינו להדמות לו
ית' כפי יכלתנו, והוא אמרו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
"<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">והלכת בדרכיו" (דברים
כח, ט</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The existential question of how and why we exist and the
search for the answer has a practical side to it – to find God so that we can
emulate Him. The problem is that to know God, to know how to emulate Him is not
easy. God is the Truth but also the Great Mystery and the search to discover
Him and interpret His actions correctly is a lifelong task that takes over all
aspects of a human being’s day. The greatest challenge is to overcome
subjectivity, self-serving bias so that we can see things objectively. It is
here that Torah and Mitzvot, the practical side of Judaism come into play. They
are the tool that perfects our minds and our emotions so that we think
objectively and thus know how to act constructively. Torah and Mitzvot are not
the goal and end all of religious life but the most important gift we received
from HKBH as tools to perfect us and help us reach our ultimate goal which is
finding God and His ways and emulating Him. When religion is focused to help us
realize these goals it is a very personal experience and does not lead to
control and manipulation that is the source of evil. On the contrary it imbues
us with respect to fellow seekers and compels us to enlist others into this
quest through example and promotes love for our fellow human beings. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Returning to the question we asked earlier, why is our
community so invested in the idea of following the Law for the sake of physical
reward and to avoid punishment? The
question is even sharper when we read the strong admonishments and warnings in
the last few Parshyot – Ki Tavo and Nitzavim. They all seem to focus on the
physical good and bad. As I said earlier it is an attractive approach to the
undeveloped person and therefore entices him to grab on to this
misinterpretation of the sources. In <a href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1509.htm">Hilchot Teshuvah Chapter 9</a> Rambam
addresses these sources<a href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1509.htm"> </a> and explains how they are meant to be read.
As this is a quite lengthy discussion I will leave it for another post. <a href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1509.htm">Here </a>is a summary of how Rambam understands
this –<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ו נמצא
פירוש כל אותן הברכות והקללות, על דרך זו:
כלומר אם עבדתם את ה' בשמחה, ושמרתם דרכו--משפיע לכם הברכות האלו ומרחיק הקללות,
עד שתהיו פנויים להתחכם בתורה ולעסוק בה, כדי שתזכו לחיי העולם הבא, וייטב לך לעולם
שכולו טוב ותאריך ימים לעולם שכולו ארוך. ונמצאתם
זוכין לשני העולמות, לחיים טובים בעולם הזה המביאין לחיי העולם הבא: שאם לא יקנה הנה חכמה ומעשים טובים--אין לו במה
יזכה, שנאמר "כי אין מעשה וחשבון, ודעת וחכמה, בשאול . . ." (קוהלת ט,י</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ז ואם עזבתם
את ה' ושגיתם במאכל ומשקה וזנות ודומה להם--מביא עליכם כל הקללות האלו ומסיר כל הברכות,
עד שייכלו ימיכם בבהלה ופחד, ולא יהיה לכם לב פנוי ולא גוף שלם לעשות המצוות, כדי שתאבדו
מחיי העולם הבא. ונמצא שאיבדתם שני עולמות: שבזמן שאדם טרוד בעולם הזה בחולי ובמלחמה ורעבון,
אינו מתעסק לא בחכמה ולא במצוה שבהן זוכין לחיי העולם הבא</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It should be noted that at the end of all the admonishments
and warnings where the Torah describes all the physical destruction and
punishment that will result from our transgressions, the Torah describes what
will happen at the end when we realize our mistake. It promises improvements in
our physical wellbeing but ultimately the goal is – (Devarim 30:6)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ו וּמָל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת-לְבָבְךָ, וְאֶת-לְבַב
זַרְעֶךָ: לְאַהֲבָה אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ,
בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ--לְמַעַן חַיֶּיךָ.</span> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
6 <i>And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart, and
the heart of your seed, </i><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">to love</span></b><i> the LORD your God with all your heart, and with
all your soul, that you may live.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The ultimate goal is to worship God out of love and not out
of fear. Love comes with knowledge. We love someone we know; we do not love
strangers. It is the search for the answers to our existential questions that
leads us to the transcendental God, the mysterious and unknown Entity that we
can only know through negating any physical attribute to, that we only perceive
the results of His will and which we try to emulate. The understanding that
this is the goal of Mitzvot and not just physical wellbeing will go a long way
to keep us from falling into the trap Professor Weinberg so eloquently describes
– “But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In another post I would like to expand more on this last
fundamental issue – what exactly to we mean when we talk about God? When we say
we are searching for God, what exactly are we looking for? Because the answer
to that sharpens further why Professor Weinstein’s comment and indeed many of
the anti-religion arguments of other atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens do
not talk to me when I think about real Judaism, the one Rambam teaches.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As this post was inspired by Steven Weinberg, who claims to
be an atheist, I would like to share another statement of his regarding the
boycotting of Israel by some humanistic/religious groups -<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
"<i>Given the history of the attacks on Israel and the
oppressiveness and aggressiveness of other countries in the Middle East and
elsewhere, boycotting Israel indicated a moral blindness for which it is hard
to find any explanation other than anti-Semitism</i>."<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Spoken like a Jew!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I wish all a Ketiva Vechatima Tova and a Shana Tova. Chag
Sameach. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div>
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="ftn1">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Hakirah%20submissions/volume%2013/Religion%20for%20the%20sake%20of%20truth.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
“On the whole” indicates the possibility of a rocky road with a good outcome.
The immediate result of “acting the Truth” may not be necessarily rosy but in
the larger context it will lead to good. This falls into Rambam’s discussion of
providence – Hashgacha.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-86929102518255666202012-07-18T05:08:00.001-04:002012-07-18T05:09:13.979-04:00Variants In Talmud and RIF - RABH Disagrees With His Father.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
An apparently innocuous comment by RABH opens up an
interesting window on variants of the Talmud and RIF. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rambam in Hilchot Tefillah 7:6 as part of a discussion of
the morning blessings we make when we wake up writes:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">כשחוגר חגורו--מברך ברוך אתה ה' אלוהינו מלך העולם,
אוזר ישראל בגבורה. כשלובש מנעלו--מברך ברוך
אתה ה' אלוהינו מלך העולם, שעשה לי כל צרכיי.
כשמהלך לצאת לדרך--מברך ברוך אתה ה' אלוהינו מלך העולם, המכין מצעדי גבר<span style="color: red;">. ומברך אדם בכל יום</span>--ברוך
אתה ה' אלוהינו מלך העולם, שלא עשני גוי; ברוך אתה ה' אלוהינו מלך העולם, שלא עשני
עבד; ברוך אתה ה' אלוהינו מלך העולם, שלא עשני אישה</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The three blessings <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">שלא עשני גוי</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>, <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">שלא עשני עבד</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> and <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">שלא עשני אישה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> are said daily
as opposed to the others which are said only when appropriate. Indeed in Halacha
9 he writes:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">ט נהגו
העם ברוב ערינו, לברך ברכות אלו כולן זו אחר זו בבית הכנסת, בין נתחייבו בהן, בין לא
נתחייבו בהן. וטעות היא בידם, ואין ראוי לעשות
כן. ולא יברך אדם ברכה, אלא אם כן נתחייב בה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Apparently the latter applies to all the other blessings
except for these three which are said always on a daily basis. The Rambam
commentators pick up on it and Rabbeinu Manoach explains that as it is probable
that one will encounter during the day one of the three, a woman, a slave and a
non-Jew, therefore these three blessings are said daily as opposed to the
others which are said only when applicable. RABH in his sefer Hamaspik refers
us to this Halacha in MT, repeats the rule with the other blessings and then comments:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>My father Z”L already warned about this erroneous custom
in Hilchot Tefillah however it becomes clear from his words that three of these
blessings, </i><i><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">שלא עשני גוי, שלא
עשני עבד</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> and </i><i><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">שלא עשני אישה</span></i><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><i><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> are said under
all circumstances whether one encountered a Goy, slave or woman or did not. It
also appears to be so from the popular edition of the Pirush of rabbeinu Yitzchak
the author of the Halachot (RIF). However someone who saw a copy of an earlier
edition of the Talmud that is brought down in this Pirush reads “when one <u><span style="color: red;">sees</span> </u>a Goy one says </i><i><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">שלא עשני גו</span></i><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><i><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>” and so too concerning a woman
and a slave. That edition (copy) is correct as it makes sense. So too can be
found in the siddur of Rabbeinu Amram ben Shoshanna (died 875).</i> ” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
RABH blames his father’s ruling regarding these three Brachot on a faulty
edition of RIF. (As an aside and letting my anal persona take over, Frankel
Rambam Mekorot Vetziyunim misunderstood RABH and says that he quotes an old
edition of the Talmud. A careful read makes it clear that he is referring to a
version of RIF who quotes the Talmud.) Having heard about a different edition
which makes more sense to him he disagrees and relies on the latter against his
father’s ruling. This is not new as many Rishonim deal with the variants as
anyone who learns Gemara is familiar with the many Hachi Garsinan in Rashi.
What I find interesting in this comment is that RABH who was only four
generations away from RIF (Rabbeinu Maimon, Rambam’s father was a pupil of RI
Migash who was a pupil of RIF) relies on a variant that he heard about from
someone, a variant RIF quoting a variant in a Gemara. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The RIF edition we have is not reliable. Dr. Ezra Chwat on his blog Giluy
Milta Be’alma <a href="http://imhm.blogspot.com/">http://imhm.blogspot.com/</a>
writes that Hamaor is about to publish a new edition of RIF in their new Shas
with many of the variants which explain many difficulties found in Rishonim who
quote RIF different than our edition. See
there for some examples of clarifying variants. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The problem with the variant that RABH quotes is that it does not fit well
into the text of the Gemara. The source of this Halacha is TB Menachot 43b which
quotes a Tosefta Brachot 6 (see R. Lieberman Tosefta Kifshuta Zera’im page 38 and
comments on page 119) and the suggested variant would have to be a few lines
addition to the current text by the editor which did not make it into the known
editions of the Talmud. Be it as it may it does open a window on how varied the
texts of the Talmud were even at those early times only a few centuries after
the sealing of the Talmud. These early variants impact Halacha. This case is a
very minute ritualistic detail but these variants can have an impact on more
serious issues. No wonder that we are so dependent on the Rishonim who,
predating the many incidents of burning of the Talmud during the Middle Ages,
had many variants at their disposal and were able to critically analyze them. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-55519416040626037552012-07-06T05:00:00.000-04:002012-07-06T05:00:49.186-04:00Washing Hands After Meals - Halacha or Superstition?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another fascinating (to me) comment by RABH in his Sefer
Hamaspik in a discussion about Mayim Acharonim caught my attention. The
traditional explanation given by Halacha as the reason for Mayim Acharonim,
washing hands after eating a meal before benching is to remove “Melach Sedomit”
Soddomite salts from the hands. Apparently the salt used during the meals that
remained on the hands could be dangerous if they ended up in the eyes. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(Rambam Hilchot Brachot 6:4)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">כל את המלח, צריך נטילת ידיים
באחרונה--שמא יש בו מלח סדומית או מלח שטבעו כטבע מלח סדומית, ויעביר ידיו על עיניו
וייסמה; ומפני זה חייבו ליטול ידיים בסוף כל סעודה, מפני המלח. ובמחנה, פטורין מנטילת ידיים בתחילה, מפני שהן טרודין
במלחמה; וחייבין באחרונה, מפני הסכנה</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
RABH writes:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“Externally, the reason for Mayim Acharonim is given by
Halacha to prevent the risks caused by Soddomite Salts. In my opinion the
reason for Mayim Acharonim and the Rabbi’s making them more important than pre-meal
washing as they said “Pre-meal is a mitzvah, post- meal is an obligation and in
an [army] camp one is not obligated to wash before a meal but obligated to wash
after the meal”, is because one needs to make preparations for Benching (the
blessing after the meal) which is De’oraita (a Torah obligation) and a minor
Tefillah. They gave danger as the exoteric reason and set it into Halacha so
that people should take it seriously and not be lenient [and not wash hands
after the meal], making them fear for their life. I report something similar
from my father A’H on the Rabbi’s saying “a person may not eat pairs and may
not drink pairs [of cups]” (TB Pessachim 109b). He said that the rationale for
the prohibition is to distance from the custom of doubling up in the Beit
Hamikdash, where the reason for doing so was to be blessed, therefore the
Rabbis said this and tied it in with danger to prevent them from doing so.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
RABH reports that his father, Rambam, explained the famous
Issur of “pairs”, Zugot, which is discussed in the Gemara. The supposed reason
as given by the Gemara is that pairs are dangerous apparently for mystical or
spiritual reasons and could harm a person that indulges in them. Rambam
apparently was bothered by this reason as it seems to endorse superstition. He
therefore explained that, and this is just a guess on my part as to what he
means exactly, there was a superstition in the Beit Hamikdash for people going
for doubles as a talisman, and the rabbis frowned at that. To dissuade people
from it the Rabbis claimed that it was dangerous and harmful, knowing full well
that this is the only thing that would work for the masses. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I understand doubles as a talisman based on the Gemara Yoma
26a that explains the drawing of lots for which Cohen will have the privilege
to do the Ketoret because of the popularity of the ritual as it supposedly
brings riches to the person who does it. I cannot put my finger on the location
but I seem to remember the same thing regarding who gets to eat the Lechem
Hapanim. If anyone has a better idea, please don’t hesitate to comment and
straighten me out. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“What caught my attention and made me revisit the reason
for Mayim Acharonim is the rule that “immediately after washing one must make
the blessing” and the prohibition of using hot water, because hot water does
not clean. If the reason for post-meal washing was danger these restrictions
would not apply. Furthermore the Rabbis giving the reason for using good oil
{on the hands after the meal] “because a dirty person is not allowed to worship
[in the temple] (TB Brachot 53b)” is a direct proof to my thesis, for one who
understands. It is not just a hint. Pay attention well as it a secret that is
only understood by scholars”. <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
RABH is arguing that if the reason for the obligation to
wash after the meal is to avoid a dangerous situation why does the Halacha
forbid delaying the blessing after washing?<a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Blogs/Currently%20in%20production/RABH%20on%20Sakkanah.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
He then points to the Gemara that requires quality oil to be used to anoint
hands after the meal, and explain that requirement by comparing Benching to the
Avodah in the Beit Hamikdash. Clearly, the Rabbis considered Benching as a
replacement or a process similar to the one done in the temple. All temple
worship requires washing hands so too does Benching. Indeed so does Tefillah
which we know that the Rabbis see it as mirroring the Korbanot. (See Hilchot
Tefillah 1:5)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are several interesting undercurrents in this
discussion. The general custom nowadays is to bring a small cup or at more
elegant homes a special silver Mayim Acharonim plate with a cup at the end of a
meal to wash the fingertips. This is based on Tosafot Brachot 53b s.v. Vehe’yitem
Kedoshim that says that nowadays there is no more concern about Melach Sedomit
as it is not available and therefore Mayim Acharonim washing is no longer
obligatory. We therefore wash symbolically rather than as a Mitzvah. Rambam on
the other hand does not make that distinction making it an obligation even
nowadays and the way the Halacha is organized in Hilchot Brachot 6, it is clear
that the same rules of washing with a Revi’it, a Kelli etc… apply to Mayim
Acharonim. RABH’s explanation fits very well with this. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The other issue is the rationale for the Halacha of washing
hands in general. The Rishonim had different understandings of the basis for
the obligation. In the Gemara there are
a variety of reasons given for different situations; Tume’ah for Teruma and
Kodashim which is the only Halacha where hands only are seen as unclean versus
the whole body as a Rabbinical obligation; bad spirits on hands overnight; preparation
(Hikon) for Tefillah and Kery’at Shema and of course plain cleanliness as in
the Melach Sedomit explanation for Mayim Acharonim. (I am sure I forgot one or
two more reasons.) The Rishonim apply the different reasons to each situation
and from a practical standpoint, details of praxis differ according to each
situation based on which reason is seen as the correct one. Rambam breaks up
the Halacha of hand washing placing it in two separate places. The one for
Teruma and Kodashim he places at the end of Hilchot Mikva’ot, the end of Sefer
Tahara in MT, because it is another detail in how to prepare for dealing with
matters of holiness such as Kodashim, Beit Hamikdash etc… which is the core for
Hilchot Tahara ( a discussion which I will leave for another post). The other Halacha
which covers washing hands for Kery’at Shema, Tefillah, bread (and liquid
dipped foods) and Mayim Acharonim he places in the 6<sup>th</sup> chapter of
Hilchot Brachot. He does not give an explicit reason other than it being a
Mitzvah Derabanan and for Mayim Acharonim – Melach Sedomit. He links the Halachot
from a practical standpoint in Hilchot Mikva’ot (11:11) referring back to
Hilchot Brachot. There is no mention of
any of the other reasons. In practice according to Rambam one does not have to
wash hands in the morning before making a Bracha just for Kery’at Shema and
Tefillah. On Yom Kippur one does not
have to wash hands at all as well as on Tisha Be’av. In fact one is prohibited from
doing so (however RABH disagrees in Sefer Hamaspik). There are other
differences but I don’t want to digress here. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
RABH in this piece addresses the reasoning behind this
Mitzvah Derabanan and explains that it is because Tefillah is organized as a parallel
to the worship in the Beit Hamikdash, the Korbanot Tamid and therefore require
washing hands just like there was such a requirement before Korbanot. This idea
is mentioned in Beit Yosef on the Tur where he quotes a Teshuvah of the Rashba
that is struggling to understand the basis of this Takanah of washing hands for
Tefillah and suggests the comparison to the washing in the Beit Hamikdash as
one possible explanation among others. In Hilchot Tefillah 4:3 Rambam rules
that before the Morning Prayer one should wash hands, face and feet. Ravad
questions the basis for washing feet. Rabbeinu Manoach ad locum points to a
Gemara ignored by Ravad and suggests that it is based on the washing from the
Kiyor in the Beit Hamikdash where hands and feet were washed. These two Provençale
Rishonim apparently arrived at the same conclusion as RABH. Rabbeinu Manoach
went one step further and saw it as Rambam’s underlying idea for the Halacha. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What I find interesting is the context that RABH uses to
introduce this idea. He struggles and does not accept the reason for Mayim
Acharonim given by the Gemara as apparently it was not something that made
sense to him. He compares his objection to the danger reason given for Mayim
Acharonim with the reason given for pairs - Zugot. This to me indicates that he
saw the ostensible danger of Soddomite salts as a superstition rather than a
scientific fact. He then proves
internally, from the praxis the Halacha requires that it is not the true reason
as it does not explain the praxis. We have here a Straussian approach to
Halacha – an exoteric and an esoteric reason. RABH adds that the reason for
keeping the real reason secret is because it would not have guaranteed
compliance<a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Blogs/Currently%20in%20production/RABH%20on%20Sakkanah.docx#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>.
The Rabbis then give a reason that will induce the masses to follow their
Takanah. Another interesting thing is that this rationale binds the two
Halachot of Netilat Yaday’im of Rambam – Hilchot Mikva’ot and Brachot – both have
a Beit Hamikdash component. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Shabbat Shalom.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div>
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="ftn1">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Blogs/Currently%20in%20production/RABH%20on%20Sakkanah.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> I
am not sure what his problem is with using hot water as that does make sense.
Hot water prevents one from washing carefully as he said in an earlier piece
leaving some residual salt on the hands<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Blogs/Currently%20in%20production/RABH%20on%20Sakkanah.docx#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Similar
to his father’s explanation why the Gemara would allow a superstitious reason
for pairs<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-49887247817821767102012-07-03T06:19:00.000-04:002012-07-03T06:19:00.622-04:00Rabbeinu Avraham on Customs - Minhaggim.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rabbeinu Avraham in his sefer Hamaspik is very concerned
with the decorum in Shul during prayer; to stand or to sit; in what direction
one should sit; people should sit in rows; etc…. In a discussion where he
argues that people should always be facing towards the Aron Hakodesh, including
when sitting, he quotes a Tosefta which describes seating arrangements during
prayer. One of the details in that Tosefta is that the elders sit with their
back to the Aron Hakodesh facing the people (see Hilchot Tefillah 11:4). Here
is an interesting snippet about the elders.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“It is incorrect to sit other than facing the Holy (Aron
Hakodesh) except for the elders who sit at the front of the Beit Knesset. These
elders are sages, based on the rabbi’s explanation of the verse “And you shall
defer to an elder” (Vaykra 19:32) they comment “An elder is one who acquired
knowledge” (TB Kiddushin 32b). The reason why elders are permitted to sit in
such a way is so that “the people should fear (respect) them”. In my mind, that
[their sitting this way] is not to be seen as obligatory, but rather as a
concession. Or possibly, the elders the Tanaim of that generation were
referring to, were those that seeing their faces elicited a greater
concentration on the part of the public, thus bringing them great benefit. In
our generation such people or any coming close to their status are non-existent
and no benefit will accrue from contemporary elders sitting that way, “with their
back to the holy”, other than their striving for power. Learning from them,
emulating them, causes people to sin rather than fulfill the purpose of their
sitting thus as described in the Tosefta. As we can see their sitting [facing the
people] they are perceived as a group that is schmoozing amongst themselves
rather than talking to God”.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How little things
have changed! <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of the things RABH is known for is his attempt to
introduce into the ritual the requirement to prostate spread eagled on the ground
during certain parts of the davening especially during the saying of the
Kadish, Halel, after every Halleluiah in the Pessukei Dezimra part of the
Morning Prayer, during the blessings for Kryat Shema etc…. He argues that one
of the reasons it did not make it as a requirement in Talmudic Halacha is
because of the difficulty people have doing this act so many times during
prayer. As he goes along in the discussion he proposes several other reasons
for the disappearance of this ritual. However, real authentic worship should
include it according to him. He writes a lot about it in a very polemical
fashion. It is clear that he encountered a lot of resistance to this idea.
There are some very interesting points that he brings out in this heated
discussion. He then lists several objections that people had and apparently voiced
to him against his introducing this form of worship as a normal part of the
ritual. One objection is that it is a form of worship that is customary with
non-Jews. Interestingly, many scholars have argued that RABH was strongly
influenced by Sufi theology. Apparently RABH himself already had to confront
that accusation. His answer is lengthy arguing that just because other
religions, religions that stem from Judaism adopt a Jewish ritual, that ritual
does not become illegitimate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another objection that RABH addresses is that it is
presumptuous for simple people to act in such manners of extreme devotion. He
differentiates between different acts of devotion, those that are presumptuous
and those that are acts of submission. RABH then quotes his grandfather’s
explanation of the verse:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">יח פָּנָה, אֶל-תְּפִלַּת הָעַרְעָר; וְלֹא-בָזָה, אֶת-תְּפִלָּתָם.</span> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
18 When He hath regarded the prayer of the destitute, and
hath not despised their prayer.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The word <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">עַרְעָר</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> which JPS
translates destitute and Alter translates desolate is a word found only twice
in Tanach; here and in Yirmiyahu 17:6. Its meaning is obscure though in both
places the context is negative. Aruch based on the Targum Yehonatan translates
it as a thorny fruit or vegetable, others, including RABH quoting an
explanation he rejects, think it refers to a type of insect similar to the locust.
Others see it as referring to a childless barren person, one who cannot have
children, from the word <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ערירי</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>. The problem
is that if the verse is taken literally none of these translations make sense
contextually. A fruit or vegetable or an insect do not pray and a barren man
who cannot conceive, no amount of prayer will help. This word <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">עַרְעָר</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> must therefore
have an allegorical meaning.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“I copy from my grandfather Rabbeinu Maimon: the verse is referring to a
person who is the opposite of a Tzaddik or a Chassid …. As if saying even one
who is not worthy to pray, should he turn to Him and petition Him, He will not
disappoint him depending on his concentration and genuineness. Not that it
refers to the prayer of an insect, a tree insect or something similar as many
mistakenly believe. This is the gist of his [grandfather] Pirush though not
verbatim and it is one of those wondrous explanations to one who understands.
It [not ignoring the prayer] is a generosity from Him; it is through the merit
of the earlier generations during which the prophets taught this based on the
spirit from the Holy [they had access to] that we dare in the later generations
to praise and exalt even if we have not reached perfection. Thus the next
verse:<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i> </i><i><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">יט תִּכָּתֶב
זֹאת, לְדוֹר אַחֲרוֹן; וְעַם נִבְרָא, יְהַלֶּל-יָהּ.</span></i><i> <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>19 This shall be
written for the generation to come; and a people who shall be created shall
praise the LORD. “</i><i> <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
RABH does not dwell on the exact meaning of the word. He says that should
one understand it to be an insect it cannot be taken literally. It is a
metaphor for an unworthy human who is allowed to praise and exalt HKBH in spite
of his low status. One can do so only if supported by revelation. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another objection that RABH addresses is that it is not customary for
people to prostrate themselves during Davening. Here are excerpts from his
response:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>One may oppose what we have clarified and proven regarding prostration
by resorting to the argument that these things are not according to custom and
that it is difficult to go against a custom since the Mishnah obligates one to
follow the custom…. Even more as the customs used to argue against our proposed
custom [of prostration] are very old and were performed in front of respected
sages, Torah scholars and promulgators of Halacha, and they did not see as
wrong what we have shown to be wrong nor have they suggested what we suggest.
This [my suggested custom] seems to be an innovation and an indictment of the
earlier [generations]. You may say anything you want in this matter, it brings
us back to what I said earlier that the widespread customs (minhagim) whether
they are popular or unpopular, ancient or recent, done in front of respected
[sages] or not, if we can prove them to be defective, we may not follow them. For
it is not impossible for later [scholars] to clarify matters that earlier ones
could not; it is quite common for the later ones to build on what the earlier
ones have already clarified giving them the ability to progress further and
arrive at conclusions that are different from the earlier ones…. This is not
because the later ones are always and in all circumstances better than the
earlier ones but because they have the ability to analyze the sayings of the
earlier generations building on them and learning from them. Using deductive
rules they [the later generations] can arrive at conclusions that obligate us
to act accordingly as long as they make sense and are based on accepted logical
rules…. There is therefore no reason for a fully rational person, one whose
intellect is perfect, to oppose things that were clarified by a later [sage] who
uses correct proofs, by arguing that earlier authorities have not said so. It
is well known that many of the Geonim argued on earlier ones unearthing things
the earlier ones did not discover. See the critical notes that Rabbeinu Yitzchak
the author of the Halachot (RIF 1013-1103) made on the Pirush of Rav Hai Gaon
(939-1038) in spite of the latter’s great abilities and knowledge, so too [his
critical notes] on Rabbeinu Nissim the author of “Megillat Setarim” (990-1062).
See all the critical notes on these two and others in his Halachot. Rabbeinu
Yosef Halevy (R. Yosef Migash (1077-1141) his [RIF] pupil disagreed with him on
many issues. My father, although he considered himself their pupil and in his
magnum opus refers to them as “my teachers”, because his father (Rabbeinu
Maimon) who was his [Rambam’s] teacher was a pupil of Rabbeinu Yosef, disagrees
with them wherever he found the truth to be against them. He even argues with
his father and says “my father is amongst those who forbid it and I am amongst
those who allow it” [MT Hilchot Shechita 11:10)<a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Blogs/Currently%20in%20production/R.%20Avraham%202.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><b><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>.
There is nothing wrong with sages and men of religion doing that. It is only the
ignorant masses and the like who must rely on their leaders but that does not
obligate sages to follow in their path.”</i> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is an amazing piece. RABH is suggesting that no custom (minhag) is
inviolate. If a scholar finds a minhag to be wrong and does so using the proper
rules that the Halacha systems dictate, he may follow his conclusions and
change that custom. A minhag is not necessarily an act but could also be a lack
of an act. If a scholar feels something should be done when it is not, such as prostrating
in the case of RABH, he must do his utmost to implement what he believes to be
correct. There is however a very important proviso; one must be knowledgeable,
well informed and use the tools Halacha provides. That condition satisfied, when
it comes to the truth, precedent is not binding. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So far I have pointed to interesting (at least to me) things that RABH dealt
with from a practical perspective. What were his theology and his philosophy
and how did that influence his Halachik and general thinking? I will hopefully
address that in upcoming posts.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div>
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="ftn1">
<div align="right" class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: right;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Blogs/Currently%20in%20production/R.%20Avraham%202.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">יש מקומות שמנהגן אם מצאו
סרכה מן האוזן לבשר ולעצם שבצלעות, והסרכה דבוקה בשתיהן--אוסרין אותה. ואבא מרי זצ"ל, מן האוסרין; ואני, מן המתירין</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-48679744232879968802012-06-17T10:38:00.000-04:002012-06-17T10:38:20.704-04:00Accede to the Truth<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rabbeinu Avraham Ben Harambam (1186-1237) (RABH going
forward) took over the leadership of Egyptian Jewry after his father’s death
when he was barely 20 years old. He was a dynamic leader who instituted many
changes in the communal and ritual customs of the community in Fustat (old
Cairo). We have many Responsa from him and portions of his magnum opus – Sefer Hamaspik
Le’ovdei Hashem – (SHLH going forward). The sefer is a Halachik sefer
interspersed with philosophical insights and ethical/moral admonishments. It
originally was quite lengthy, around 10 volumes of which we only have a very
small part. The volume that I am reading, published and translated by Nissim
Dana is part two, volume two, of the sefer. The first few chapters deal with Tefillah
– Prayer is a very satisfying and
interesting read. As I go through the sefer I plan to post and comment on
pieces that I find novel or intriguing. All translations are my own.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a discussion about the obligation of washing hands before
praying, RABH quotes his father in Hilchot Tefillah 7:8 that on Yom Kippur and
Tisha Be’av, since washing is prohibited, one does not make the Bracha Al
Netilat Yaday’im (on hand washing) nor does one make the Bracha of Hama’avir
Sheina Me’einay which is made when washing one’s eyes after sleep. RABH explains
that the basis for this ruling is the prohibition of even extending the tip of
a finger into water on those days (Hilchot Shvitat Assor 3:1 and Ta’anyot
5:10). The Gemara in Yoma 78a also states that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi used a
damp cloth to wipe his eyes on Yom Kippur instead of rinsing them. RABH
continues:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>However I hold that one is obligated to wash hands for
Kryat Shema and Tefillah on Yom Kippur and Tisha Be’av just like one is
obligated to do so on other days. The Rabbis never prohibited doing so because
this washing is not meant for pleasure; it is a mitzvah. Proof is that a Ba’al
Keri - before the Gezeira was abolished – was obligated to purify himself in a
Mikvah on Yom Kippur. Washing for Kryat Shema and Tefillah is no less an
obligation nowadays then the purification of a Ba’al Keri in those days. One
cannot compare washing the face to this, because it is not as obligatory as
washing hands and that is why Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi allowed substituting washing
by using a damp cloth. This is a correct analysis, exact and there can be no
dissent unless one does not understand it or one who has ulterior motives<b>. Had
my father heard this argument, he would have acceded as we are commanded “accede to the truth”. Indeed we always saw him clearly accede to the truth even to the
least amongst his students despite the wealth of his learning which did not
contradict his extreme religiosity for “unwitting errors who can grasp?”</b>
(Tehillim 19:13).”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This theme of not being bound by his father’s rulings or for
that matter any ruling that he disagrees with will be recurrent in the book as
we go along and I hope to point the more blatant ones out as I go along. It is
interesting how his arguments are not textual or text based but rather
conceptual. Washing hands for prayer is a rabbinical Takanah (See Hilchot
Brachot 6:2). Rambam does not explain the reasons for the Takanah but it would
appear that it is a form of preparation for Prayer and Kery’at Shema. The requirements of a ba’al Keri to purify
himself is also rabbinical, Takanat Ezra, with the reason given to limit sexual
activity. RABH ignores the apparently different underlying reasons of the two
Takanot, comparing the weightiness of the rulings both being Takanot and
differentiating them from washing the eyes which has a lesser Halachik weight,
it not being an official Takanah. <o:p></o:p></div>David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-33015679464801495032012-05-22T17:04:00.003-04:002012-05-22T17:06:15.379-04:00Gavriel's Views On The Asifa My grandson Gavriel just posted about the Asifa on <a href="http://dteitelbaum.blogspot.com/2012/05/teenagers-view-on-asifa-by-gavriel.html">Dovid Teitelbaum's blog</a>. It is worth reading - enjoyDavid Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-70317824865125202812012-05-01T19:23:00.003-04:002012-05-01T19:25:14.738-04:00Some Thoughts About Tzara'at<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Every year as we read the Parsha of Tazria we are confronted
with the Torah treatment of what is erroneously referred to as leprosy.
Inevitably someone brings the issue to my attention as did a dear Israeli
friend a week earlier and my grandson Gavriel this Erev Shabbat. As usual a number
of ideas and thoughts passed through my mind as I was contemplating the issue
and though I don’t believe the issue is closed and solved (will it ever be?), I
went on a different track and looked at it from a different perspective this
time around.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Tzara’at is when one presents on his body a mole like lesion
on the skin that is white or off-white going towards the pink. The smallest
size of this lesion is a square that could contain 36 hairs, quite a small area.
Incongruously however, if the discoloration covers the whole body the person is
considered clean. Thinking about this the question that came to my mind is,
what prompts a person that has a tiny lesion like that to run and tell the Cohen
about it? Why not just ignore it? I then
thought that the verse in Devarim 24:8 addresses exactly that question.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">ח הִשָּׁמֶר בְּנֶגַע-הַצָּרַעַת לִשְׁמֹר מְאֹד,
וְלַעֲשׂוֹת: כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-יוֹרוּ אֶתְכֶם
הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִם--תִּשְׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
8 <i>Take heed in the plague of leprosy, that thou observe
diligently, and do according to all that the priests the Levites shall teach
you, as I commanded them, so ye shall observe to do.</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However the Rabbis do not see this as an obligation to
report the lesion but rather as the prohibition to cut it off or remove it. I
found no mention of the obligation to report it. Is reporting voluntary? I have
not found any discussion about this in Massechet Negaim nor in Rambam Hilchot
Tume’at Tzara’at. Not seeing is not a definite proof and maybe someone will
enlighten me if I am incorrect but until then I am operating under that
assumption. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Looking at the cases in Tanach that depict occurrences of Tzara’at
we have first where we have one of Moshe’s hand becoming white when he refused
to go to Egypt. That probably can be seen as a vision rather than a physical
occurrence (rabbeinu Nissim of Marseilles explains it thus). The case of Miriam
is depicted as a visible lesion – <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">י וְהֶעָנָן, סָר מֵעַל הָאֹהֶל, וְהִנֵּה מִרְיָם,
מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג<u>; וַיִּפֶן אַהֲרֹן אֶל-מִרְיָם, וְהִנֵּה מְצֹרָעַת</u>.</span> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
10 <i>And when the cloud was removed from over the Tent,
behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow; and <u>Aaron looked upon Miriam;
and, behold, she was leprous</u>.</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the case of Uziyahu, the verse makes a point of telling
us that the lesion was on his forehead (Divrei Hayamim 2:26:19), where it could
not be concealed, which further supports my thesis about reporting being
voluntary or at the most a choice one has to make. The case of Na’aman in
Melachim 2:5- a careful read of the story leads one to conclude that it was not
Tzara’at of the unclean kind but a real skin disease (more about this later).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rambam in Pirush Hamishna Negaim 12:5 explains why the Mishnah
refers to the Metzora as a Rasha – an evildoer -</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(My translation) – <i>Tzara’at that the Torah discusses is a
punishment for Lashon Hara (saying evil things about the other) so that he will
be separated from people affording them respite from his evil tongue. It starts
in his house, either he takes notice and repents or it spreads to his bedding –
i.e. leather utensils - either he repents
or it spreads to his woolens, either he repents or it spreads to his body. This
thing is a sign and a portent just as is the water of the Sotah. It is clear
that these are unnatural occurrences not logically explainable, for clothing
and houses are inanimate things and the changes that occur are not lesions
[Tzara’at] (which can occur only in biological entities). The Torah named them
as such as I explained. So too the human lesions, you see that He (God through
the Torah) considers baldness as Tzara’at; furthermore He considers one whose
whole body has turned white to be clean when [logic dictates] that it is the
ultimate, most intense Tzara’at. Therefore these must be legal definitions [as
opposed to real illness] and it is based on this that the Mishnah refers to the
Metzora as an evildoer. <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rambam does not consider Tzara’at a real skin disease but
rather an innocuous discoloration of the skin that when it occurs the Torah
teaches to see it as a reminder for transgressions of speech. Rambam furthermore compares Tzara’at to the
waters of the Sotah. In MN3:49 he explains the rational for the Sotah ritual in
a psychological vein though quite foreign to our modern women’s right
sensibilities.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>There are frequently occasions for suspicion of adultery
and doubts concerning the conduct of the wife. Laws concerning a wife suspected
of adultery (Sotah) are therefore prescribed (Num. v.); the effect of which is
that the wife, out of fear of the "bitter waters," is most careful to
prevent any ill-feeling on the part of her husband against her. Even of those that
felt quite innocent and safe most were rather willing to lose all their
property than to submit to the prescribed treatment; even death was preferred
to the public disgrace of uncovering the head, undoing the hair, rending the
garments and exposing the heart, and being led round through the Sanctuary in
the presence of all, of women and men, and also in the presence of the members
of the Sanhedrin. The fear of this trial keeps away great diseases that ruin
the home comfort.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rambam minimizes the
effect of drinking the water and emphasizes the preparatory rituals that lead
up to that moment as the main concept behind the water drinking process. The
publicity of the process is the main feature and the greatest deterrent for
improper behavior. Comparing Tzara’at to Sotah seems to cast it in a similar
light, namely a psychological context. Is the Torah telling us that such a skin
lesion, a non-medical lesion which may go unnoticed, should be viewed as a wakeup
call for introspection? Is it that knowledge and guilt that compels the person
who notices the lesion to go to the Cohen and be exposed? Is the Torah creating
an artificial anomaly and uses suggestion as a powerful tool to trigger
introspection?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With this in mind I read Rambam at the end of Hilchot Tume’at
Tzara’at -<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">יג [י]
הצרעת--הוא שם האמור בשותפות, כולל עניינים הרבה שאין דומין זה לזה: שהרי לובן עור האדם, קרוי צרעת; ונפילת מקצת שיער
הראש או הזקן, קרוי צרעת; ושינוי עין הבגדים או הבתים, קרוי צרעת. וזה השינוי האמור בבגדים ובבתים שקראה אותו תורה
צרעת בשותפות השם--אינו ממנהגו של עולם, אלא אות ופלא היה בישראל כדי להזהירן מלשון
הרע</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rambam points out that Tzara’at does not stand for a
specific disease but is rather a generalization of various occurrences that are
not biological illnesses - <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">ממנהגו</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> של עולם</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span lang="HE"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span>– but rather are seen by Jews as - <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">אות ופלא</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span lang="HE"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span>– signs and markers of
improper behavior. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I come away from all this with the impression that Tzara’at is a Halachik construct
used to make us aware of the damages uncontrolled gossip can cause. There is no
intrinsic disease, just a tool to use for self-improvement. A person, who has a
problem with uncontrolled gossip and wants to change, will use Tzara’at as a
tool to work on himself through temporary isolation and distancing from society
allowing for proper introspection on his own bad behavior and work on
overcoming it. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-53063781673025584212012-04-20T01:58:00.000-04:002012-04-20T01:58:28.136-04:00The Cat Is Out of the Bag - The Dangers of Unbridled Speculation.<div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/the-day-chabad-came-to-the-last-supper-1.425442">Haaretz </a>brought to my attention the sad decline in the Meshichist stream in Chabad, their slow move towards Sabbateanism and who knows what else. The dangers of unbridled and popular mysticism are quite glaring. The timing on Parshat Shemini is incredible falling in line with the episode (sin) of Nadav and Avihu who according to Midrash were participants in</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David;"><tbody>
<tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>י</b> וַיִּרְאוּ, אֵת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר, וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם, לָטֹהַר.</td><td style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>10</b> and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><a href="" name="11"></a><b>יא</b> וְאֶל-אֲצִילֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ; וַיֶּחֱזוּ, אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים, וַיֹּאכְלוּ, וַיִּשְׁתּוּ. {ס}</td><td style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>11</b> And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand; and they beheld God, and did eat and drink<br />
<br />
<br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: David; text-align: left;">Note the last two words above - Also see MN 1:5 </span> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: David; text-align: left;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>But "the nobles of the Children of Israel" were impetuous, and allowed their thoughts to go unrestrained: what they perceived was but imperfect. Therefore it is said of them, "And they saw the God of Israel, and there was under his feet," etc. (Exod. xxiv. 10); and not merely, "and they saw the God of Israel"; the purpose of the whole passage is to criticize their act of seeing and not to describe it. They are blamed for the nature of their perception, which was to a certain extent corporeal--a result which necessarily followed, from the fact that they ventured too far before being perfectly prepared. They deserved to perish, but at the intercession of Moses this fate was averted by God for the time. They were afterwards burnt at Taberah, except Nadab and Abihu, who were burnt in the Tabernacle of the congregation, according to what is stated by authentic tradition. (Midr. Rabba ad locum.)</i></div><i>If such was the case with them, how much more is it incumbent on us who are inferior, and on those who are below us, to persevere in perfecting our knowledge of the elements, and in rightly understanding the preliminaries which purify the mind from the defilement of error: then we may enter the holy and divine camp in order to gaze: as the Bible says, "And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them" (Exod. xix. 22). Solomon, also, has cautioned all who endeavour to attain this high degree of knowledge in the following figurative terms, "Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God" (Eccles. iv. 17).</i><br />
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David;"><tbody>
<tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"></td><td style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b><br />
</b></td></tr>
<tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;">?Need one say more</td><td style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"></td></tr>
</tbody></table><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David;"><tbody>
<tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div></td><td style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><br />
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><br />
</td><td style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-21147073179923538292012-04-16T19:46:00.001-04:002012-04-16T19:47:42.539-04:00Hakirah Volume 13 Is Now AvailableYou can now purchase Hakirah 13, the latest volume on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Hakirah-Flatbush-Journal-Jewish-Thought/dp/193680302X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334619933&sr=8-1">Amazon</a>. All past editions are now available on Amazon too.<br />
<br />
This issue in my opinion is the most exciting yet.David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-73577842268390770912012-03-22T02:13:00.002-04:002012-03-22T04:20:15.890-04:00Yoram Hazoni"s The Rav"s Bombshell - A review of The Emergence of Ethical Man.I just finished reading Yoram Hazoni's article in Commentary Magazine discussing his read of The Emergence of Ethical Man by Rav Joseph B. Sloveitchik. I immediately ordered the book because if Yoram's understanding of it is correct, it is the contemporary Guide for the Perplexed. This article is anyway a must read for anyone interested in a modern perspective and presentation of a very similar approach to how I understand Rambam's outlook on Judaism.<br />
<br />
If Hazony is correct the Rav was a pure Maimonidean and all those rumours that he was Nachmanidean should be dispelled.David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-87514857617339749862012-03-08T05:18:00.000-05:002012-03-08T05:18:55.064-05:00Important Post at Lamalikra.I have been following this <a href="http://lamalikra.blogspot.com/2012/03/blog-post.html">excellent blog</a> for several years and the latest post is amazing. I highly recommend it to anyone who reads Hebrew.David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com49tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-90205054152752429032012-03-02T04:32:00.000-05:002012-03-02T04:32:43.779-05:00The Laws of Purity, The Core of Torah and Ruach Hakodesh.<div class="MsoNormal">Rambam’s introduction to Taharot, which includes the Pirush on the first Perek of Massechet Kelim, is one of the greatest Halachik compositions ever written. It is the work of a virtuoso in his twenties who presents all the rules of Taharot in a concise and organized form which gives the student all the tools necessary to understand the most complex and difficult part of the Talmud. Rambam is quite aware of his accomplishments and as usual we find no false modesty in the writings of the great man. At the end of the introduction he writes:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“…<i> Do not think that these matters are of the same caliber as those I have presented in the earlier Sedarim, for these valuable generalities that I have organized in this introduction were only apprehended by me after I toiled greatly in clarifying each one of them from all perspectives. I collected them “one from a city, two from a family” (an allegory based on Yirmiyahu 3:14 for collecting details from a vast corpus of writings) from all corners of the Talmud and fragments of Braitot and Toseftot, until I have compiled this introduction which is the key to all I want to explain in this Seder…. One will not appreciate the real practical value [of this introduction] until he has toiled days and sleepless nights in one Halacha amongst those at the beginning of Shabbat, Pessachim or Chagigah, Zevachim, Chulin and similar ones and it has not become clear enough for him to rely on his conclusions. He will then read my introduction and the rest [I wrote] and all these matters will now be based on fundamental rules, only then will he appreciate the value of what was accomplished here</i>”. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Earlier Rambam admonishes the reader to read this introduction and the first Perek of Kelim with his Pirush, over and over a thousand times until he memorizes it word for word. In Parah Perek 8 Mishnah 5, he writes: “<i>We already explained this Halacha well in our introduction and if you have memorized what we said [there] verbatim, it requires no further explanation</i>”. Rambam was serious when he admonished the reader to memorize the introduction verbatim!<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">All this is quite interesting but is not the point of this post. I wanted to focus on a point Rambam makes in the introduction which I believe is revolutionary and is a basis for additional thought and contemplation. Rambam points out that the Rabbis in the Mishnah and Talmud already had great difficulty understanding the rules of Tume’ot and Taharot. He points to a Gemara in Pessachim 17a which discusses the test given by Hagai (2:11-13) to the returning Kohanim during the early times of the Second Temple to make sure they still knew the laws of Purity. The Gemara offers three possibilities in understanding those verses, offered by three of the most prominent Amoraim, Rav, Shmuel and Ravina. Each one had a different understanding of the details of these halachot. Rambam ends this somewhat lengthy exposition and discussion of the three points of view as follows:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>“It is now clear that the subject itself [Tume’ot and Taharot] is difficult and was so even in earlier times,. Contemplate about that which they say that the torah at a future time will be forgotten in Israel, and they are referring to the forgetting of the laws of Purity [Tume’ah and Tahara]. So too when the prophet says on this subject ask please the Kohanim Torah - </i><i><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">שְׁאַל-נָא אֶת-הַכֹּהֲנִים תּוֹרָהֹ</span></i><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><i><span lang="HE"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span></i><i>- he refers to the laws of Purity generically and knowing their rules as Torah.”<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rambam is pointing out that the word Torah both in Rabbinic and in the Tanach texts is at times a reference to the laws of Purity. They are so important that they are synonymous with Torah.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“<i>So too have they [the Rabbis] said about Tume’ot and Taharot that they are the core of Torah (see Mishnah Chagigah 1:8). And why not? They are the ladder to Ruach Hakodesh as they say purity brings about holiness etc… (TB Avodah Zara 20b and also at the end of Mishnah Sotah as an interpolated Braita)</i> ”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rambam sees the rules of purity as a central teaching of Torah and furthermore as a stepping-stone to Ruach Hakodesh, an inspirational basic level of prophecy. How are we to understand this?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rambam in Hilchot Tume’at Ochlin 16:8 writes:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;"><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ט [ח] כל הכתוב בתורה ובדברי קבלה מהלכות הטומאות והטהרות--אינו אלא לעניין מקדש וקודשיו ותרומות ומעשר שני בלבד, שהרי הזהיר את הטמאין מלהיכנס למקדש או לאכול קודש או תרומה ומעשר בטומאה. אבל החולין--אין בהן איסור כלל, אלא מותר לאכול חולין טמאין ולשתות משקין טמאין: הרי נאמר בתורה "והבשר אשר ייגע בכל טמא, לא ייאכל--באש, יישרף" (ויקרא ז,יט)--מכלל שהחולין מותרין, שאינו מדבר אלא בבשר קודשים</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The rules of purity apply only in the Beit Hamikdash and there are no obligatory rules outside it<a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Blogs/Currently%20in%20production/Intro%20to%20Taharot..docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> (except of course the laws of Nidah which fall in the same Seder because of the dual aspect of those laws: marital relations and purity). What is the purpose of the laws of purity? <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“<i>The twelfth class comprises the laws concerning things unclean and clean. The general object of these laws is, as will be explained by me, to discourage people from [frequently] entering the Sanctuary; in order that their minds are impressed with the greatness of the Sanctuary, and approach it with respect and reverence.”</i> (MN 3:35)<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The Beit Hamikdash is a place where we humans who have difficulty with focusing our minds on abstract concepts, have a physical locale on which we can focus our contemplation regarding the existence of God and His role in our existence and our role in His universe. Before we enter the Beit Hamikdash we have to remove ourselves mentally from the day-to-day material life and pursuits so that we can rationally contemplate our existence looking at it dispassionately. It is only when we look at ourselves from this perspective that we can make proper decisions on how to act so that our actions conform to our place and role in God’s universe. The laws of purity create the proper atmosphere that distances us from the mundane. It forces us to become aware of everything we handled recently or came in contact with. It is the proper preparation for the contemplation that is the goal of our visit to the Beit Hamikdash. It is that awareness and realization that sets the proper mood of reverence and respect when entering the Temple which puts us in the proper state of mind to contemplate our existence and our place in the Universe. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">What is Ruach Hakodesh? Rabbi Dr. Jose Faur points out that the Hebrew does not connote “holy spirit<a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Blogs/Currently%20in%20production/Intro%20to%20Taharot..docx#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>”, which would be Ruach Hakadosh. Ruach Hakodesh translates as “the spirit that emanates from the Holy”. It is the spirit that emanates from the Beit Hamikdash, the locale that was established to facilitate human contemplation about his relationship with God and His universe and the resulting conclusions. Ruach Hakodesh is not contemplation where the person just meditates about abstract matters, but rather is an action oriented type of meditation. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“<i>The first degree of prophecy consists in the divine assistance which is given to a person, and induces and <u>encourages him to do something good and grand</u>, e.g., to deliver a congregation of good men from the hands of evildoers; to save one noble person, or to bring happiness to a large number of people<u>; he finds in himself the cause that moves and urges him to this deed</u>. This degree of divine influence is called "the spirit of the Lord"; and of the person who is under that influence we say that the spirit of the Lord came upon him, clothed him, or rested upon him, or the Lord was with him, and the like…When Amasa was moved by the <u>Ruach Hakodesh</u> to assist David, "A spirit clothed Amasa, who was chief of the captains, and he said, Thine are we, David," etc.(1 Chron. xii. 18). This faculty was always possessed by Moses from the time he had attained the age of manhood: it moved him to slay the Egyptian, and to prevent evil from the two men that quarreled….This faculty did not cause any of the above-named persons to speak on a certain subject, for it only aims at encouraging the person who possesses it to action; it does not encourage him to do everything, but only to help either a distinguished man or a whole congregation when oppressed, or to do something that leads to that end…. We only apply such phrases to those who have accomplished something very good and grand, or something that leads to that end</i>….” (MN 2:45)<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Keeping in mind these ideas as we learn and struggle with the laws of purity, seeing the laws as preparation for unbiased contemplation, a way of making us aware of our obsession with the material aspects of day-to-day life, is a stepping stone to behavior inspired by Ruach Hakodesh, a result of such contemplation. It is indeed this focus on making us aware of our material life and its limitations that gives these laws such importance and at the same time explains why they are so difficult to grasp – they highlight our limitations. These laws are therefore seen as the final stepping stone to action based on Ruach Hakodesh. That is the main purpose of the Torah and all the Mitzvot, for us to act in a way that conforms to God’s universe fulfilling our role in it. The laws of purity are therefore the final step before accomplishing the goal of the Torah; they are at the core of the Torah. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /> <!--[endif]--> <div id="ftn1"> <div class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Blogs/Currently%20in%20production/Intro%20to%20Taharot..docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> For a thorough discussion of the different opinions and possibilities see the first chapter in Shiurei Harav Aharon Lichtenstein on Taharot.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div id="ftn2"> <div class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Blogs/Currently%20in%20production/Intro%20to%20Taharot..docx#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> A Christian concept not found in Judaism.<o:p></o:p></div></div></div>David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-73647793891711464742012-02-28T04:48:00.003-05:002012-02-28T19:28:33.238-05:00"The Source of Faith is Faith Itself", (Harav Aharon Lichtenstein) .<div class="MsoNormal">In a discussion with my friend Rabbi Yoni Sacks we disagreed about the meaning of Faith – Emunah. Is Emunah a purely rational process or is a leap of faith required? Can one believe in God based on rational proofs or must one go beyond the rational and involve the intuitive and the emotional? The discussion arose after we both watched the presentation by Harav Aharon Lichtenstein at an event promoting the book Mevakshei Panecha<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9rV59pRC-U&context=C3fc8bd5ADOEgsToPDskLV4nCny7u6hRcJ-nC1JviL"> available </a>here starting at about 1:04:00. Rav Lichtenstein states “the source of faith is faith itself”. Rabbi Sacks objected to that statement based on the Rambam’s rational approach to Yediat Hashem – knowing God. I felt otherwise and saw this as an opportunity to clarify my thinking. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We start our daily prayers with the Pessukei Dezimra, the verses of praise, and we introduce the concept of contemplative prayer with verses from King David’s repertoire of poetry and thought. The first chapter we recite (Sfardim the first one indeed, Ashkenazim the first after the introductory blessing – Baruch She‘Amar) is from Divrei Hayamim 1:16 verses 10 and 11 -<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"> <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">י הִתְהַלְלוּ, בְּשֵׁם קָדְשׁוֹ-- {ס} יִשְׂמַח, לֵב מְבַקְשֵׁי יְהוָה. {ר}</span> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">10 Glory ye in His holy name; let the heart of them rejoice that seek the LORD.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">יא דִּרְשׁוּ יְהוָה, וְעֻזּוֹ-- {ס} בַּקְּשׁוּ פָנָיו, תָּמִיד. {ר}</span> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">11 Seek ye the LORD and His strength; seek His face continually.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Those who contemplate God are seekers, they are eternally seeking without any hope of ever finding what they seek - <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">ב</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">ַּקְּשׁוּ פָנָיו, תָּמִיד</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> – seek His face continually. We humans can never reach the goal we seek of Knowing God – we can only eternally seek Him and by doing so establish in our minds and hearts His presence, without ever really knowing Him. So what is the process of seeking? How does one seek out and spend a lifetime looking for what we know we will never find? The answer is that we have to really understand and absorb why we cannot know Him, why He is so elusive. By understanding why we cannot ever hope to find Him, we develop an abstract sense of Him. The way we arrive at that understanding is by getting to know our own world, our environment, our material surroundings and realize why that cannot be the same category of being that God is. Rambam presents this Mitzvah as follows:<o:p></o:p></div><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;"><br />
</div><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;"><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">המצווה הראשונה</span><o:p></o:p></div><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;"><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">היא הציווי שנצטווינו בידיעת האלהות, והוא: שנדע שיש (שם) עילה וסיבה, שהיא הפועל לכל הנמצאים</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>. <o:p></o:p></div><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;"><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">וזהו אמרו יתעלה: "אנכי ה' אלקיך</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>"<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The Mitzvah is to know God, to know that He is the cause for existence. There is no Mitzvah to “prove” His existence – the Mitzvah is to know Him. We are supposed to define Him not prove His existence. So too in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah when Rambam enumerates the Mitzvot, what is referred to as the short count, he writes <o:p></o:p></div><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;"><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">א) לידע שיש שם אלוה</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">He presents it as knowing that there is an <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">אלוה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> an attribute that defines God from our perspective as the dominant force that brings and keeps things in existence see MN 2:30<a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Blogs/Currently%20in%20production/The%20source%20of%20faith%20is%20faith.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span></span></a>. So too in the Halacha itself Yesodei Hatorah 1:1 we read:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;"><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">א יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות, לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון. והוא ממציא כל הנמצא; וכל הנמצאים מן שמיים וארץ ומה ביניהם, לא נמצאו אלא מאמיתת הימצאו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Again the presentation is not to “prove” that He exists but to know what He is – the First Existent etc… What we are saying is that God is the cause of everything and we know that it is so because it fits with our understanding of the universe we live in. We are further compelled to go one step further and also define exactly what we mean by God –<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;"> <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">לפיכך אין אמיתתו כאמיתת אחד מהם. [ד] הוא שהנביא אומר "וה' אלוהים אמת" (ירמיהו י,י)--הוא לבדו האמת, ואין לאחר אמת כאמיתו. והוא שהתורה אומרת "אין עוד, מלבדו" (דברים ד,לה), כלומר אין שם מצוי אמת מלבדו כמותו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Truth is a word that defines something in relation to something else that is false. Truth is therefore relative. In this case we need to “know” that this is not the case with God. There is no relativity and therefore it is a different type of truth. Understanding this point is the most a human can hope to find in his search for God - that there is no other existent like Him; He is in a category by Himself. We can only know that – that He is NOT like anything else but what He is, is eternally elusive. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">“<i>Know that this is really the case, that those who have obtained a knowledge of God differ greatly from each other; for in the same way as by each additional attribute an object is more specified, and is brought nearer to the true apprehension of the observer, so by each additional negative attribute you advance toward the knowledge of God, and you are nearer to it than he who does not negative, in reference to God, those qualities which you are convinced by proof must be negated. There may thus be a man who after having earnestly devoted many years to the pursuit of one science, and to the true understanding of its principles, till he is fully convinced of its truths, has obtained as the sole result of this study the conviction that a certain quality must be negated in reference to God, and the capacity of demonstrating that it is impossible to apply it to Him</i>.” (MN 1:59)<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">Ultimately the existence of God is a belief because by definition God is unknowable, the only thing we can know about Him is what He is not. How can one prove with scientific and material tools the existence of an entity that does not fall under any category? I must accept “the source of faith is faith itself". <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"><div align="right" class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: right;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/davidhome/Documents/Files%20for%20backup/Blogs/Currently%20in%20production/The%20source%20of%20faith%20is%20faith.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span></span></a> <span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">אבל אלוהי השמים 4, וכן אל עולם 3, הוא מבחינת שלמותו יתעלה ושלמותם 15, הרי הוא אלוהים, כלומר: שופט והם נשפטים ולא בעניין משילה 16, כי זה הוא עניין קונה 2, אלא הוא מבחינת השפעתו יתעלה במציאות 17 והשפעתם 18, הרי הוא האלוה לא הם, כלומר: השמים</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></div></div></div>David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com40tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-40398416244160554212012-01-17T04:22:00.001-05:002012-01-17T04:22:55.629-05:00Reading Mevakshei Panecha - Part 4 - Final - the Holy of Holies of a Person - Emunah.<div class="MsoNormal">The last chapter of Mevakshei Panecha I found fascinating. It is entitled “The Holy of Holies of a Person” and it is a response to a Rav Sabato question to Rav Lichtenstein about faith. The first paragraph I believe is probably the most important one and really defines the idea of Emunah – faith – in a rational Jew.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>“You want to talk about my Emunah in God? Is that what you want? That is the Holy of Holies of man! That is his Inner Sanctum! That is the most intimate of intimacies!”<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We can talk about God, what we think He is, try to define him in words but ultimately we are just walking around a wall that can never be breached by an outsider. The paradox of Emunah is that we work and spend a lifetime searching for God in our surrounding but ultimately we find Him in the silence of the self. Rambam in MN 1:50 when he begins the chapters that discuss God’s attributes and how we can understand them without violating God’s unity (uniqueness) he introduces the subject with the following statement:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;"><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">כאשר תפשוט מעליך את התאוות והמנהגים17 ותהיה בעל הבנה ותתבונן במה שאגיד בפרקים הבאים על שלילת התארים - תהיה לך בהכרח ודאות בעניין זה, אזי תהיה מאלה המציירים לעצמם18 את יִחוד השם ולא מאלה האומרים אותו בפיהם מבלי לציירו לעצמם19, שהללו בבחינת מי שנאמר עליהם: קרוב אתה בפיהם ורחוק מכִליותיהם (ירמיה י"ב, 2)19<b>. אלא צריך אדם להיות בבחינת מי שמציירים להם את האמת ומשיגים אותה, אף אם אין הם מבטאים אותה, כמו שנצטוו אנשי המעלה ונאמר להם: אִמרו בלבבכם על משכבכם ודֹמו סלה (תהלים ד', 5)</b>20</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Renounce desires and habits, follow your reason, and study what I am going to say in the chapters which follow on the rejection of the attributes; you will then be fully convinced of what we have said: you will be of those who truly conceive the Unity of God, not of those who utter it with their lips without thought, like men of whom it has been said, "Thou art near in their mouth, and far from their reins" (Jer. xii. 2). <b>It is right that a man should belong to that class of men who have a conception of truth and understand it, though they do not speak of it. Thus the pious are advised and addressed, "Commune with your own heart upon your bed and be still. Selah.</b>" (Ps. iv. 5.)<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Clearly Rav Lichtenstein has internalized Rambam’s admonition. A singular and unique entity which cannot be sensed with human senses, cannot be conceived with human mind, can only be intuited through inductive and deductive reasoning, such an entity cannot be verbalized outside the self, and that is true Emunah. Contemplating this brings us to an understanding of Negative Knowledge which is the key of Rambam’s thought in this matter. See my article <a href="http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%201%20Guttman.pdf">here</a> . <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rav Lichtenstein then proceeds to discuss the subject in a general without getting into specifics. First he addresses a well-known thought that I grew up with and always made me uncomfortable.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>“Rav Elhanan Wasserman said that faith [in God] is simple and easy. However the Yetzer Hara interferes and keeps man from worshipping God. I do not accept these words. Firstly, to my mind, that is factually untrue. Secondly, this argument is somewhat insulting. It argues that were it not for bad urges, others too would aspire to faith. True that our natural senses may bring a person to believe, but to argue that it is easy and simple, were it not for our urges, I cannot agree with that. A certain effort is required for one to arrive at belief. The concept of faith is complex. Specifically, one cannot give one answer that one can say with certainty that it will convince every denier.”<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rav Lichtenstein makes two points that always bothered me about Rav Elhanan’s approach. He says that Emunah is self-evident. If it were so why does every thinking person struggle with it? He also accuses those who don’t accept it succumb to their bad urges. We know many ethical and moral people who have no Emunah. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>“When I teach a Sugya –subject - and offer two possibilities as potential explanations, I tell my students, don’t forget that there also is a third possibility; both explanations are correct. Not always must we accept one position and refute the other. In Halachik sugyot it is possible that the resolution depends on circumstances. At times we will rely on one principle and others on another. So too with Emunah one cannot say that it all depends on one argument only. There different perspectives; from a historical and national one I find myself turning to a certain aspect of my personality while for other perspectives I turn to others.”<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rav Lichtenstein then spells out some of what I would term conflicting perspectives. We have to accept that certain truths and arguments that were considered axiomatic during the Middle Ages are no longer applicable. On the other hand reliance on subjective experiences does not work for many and triggers many questions. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>“The historical perspective has two sides to it. Some people are inspired by it and it strengthens their Emunah while to others the historical perspective itself is the source of doubt. To anything you tell them they find analogies elsewhere, in the Caribbean or Antarctica. Of course the strongest historical proof is the contemplation of Jewish history and the wondrous survival of the Jewish nation against all odds, one lamb amongst seventy wolves. That strengthens one’s Emunah. The impetus for religious Emunah is multi-faceted; learning Torah, relying on the Tradition of generations, contemplation of the universe and its perfection, the Historical record and the personal instinct and experience. I hope that we don’t have to choose amongst these. I believe that they are all interdependent each supporting the other. In such a setup, some things are more central and important than others but altogether they lead us to experience Emunah without us having to choose one over the other.” <o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rav Lichtenstein is talking about Emunah very generally without specifying a particular question or particular subject of belief. During the Middle Ages, basing themselves on the science of the times, the Rishonim felt that certain issues of belief can be proven scientifically while others were based on what I refer to as “plausibility” when taking into account all aspects of an issue. Rambam in MN spends several chapters in the beginning of Part 2 differentiating between the different types of arguments for the existence of God and His unity which he bases on what he considered as scientifically objective arguments while will, creation from nothingness and prophecy are based on plausibility rather than irrefutable proofs. Plausibility is based on a combination of various related propositions that support a certain point of view. This approach is used in matters that are beyond human comprehension, areas that humans cannot experience with their senses and is generally referred to as metaphysical questions. Considering the current state of scientific knowledge, Rav Lichtenstein seems to use the latter argument, the argument from plausibility as the basis for his understanding of Emunah. He also emphasizes that the process of searching, learning and contemplating these issues brings one closer to HKBH and ultimately Emunah becomes a combination of the rational and the experiential – the experiential being internalized and personal which does not lend itself to verbalization. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I highly recommend for anyone that has the fortitude and facility with the Hebrew language, to work his way through this very interesting, challenging and enlightening book. We need to take advantage and appreciate the few great talmidei Chachamim and thinkers in our community – and unfortunately they are few and precious.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In Memory of My Mother A’H who’s Yahrzeit is today the 22<sup>nd</sup> of Tevet. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-77393524050148074212012-01-09T04:44:00.001-05:002012-01-09T20:57:23.077-05:00Reading Mevakshei Panecha - Part 3 - Leadership For Our Community.<div class="MsoNormal">Continuing with the interview of Rav Lichtenstein in Mevakshei Panecha, Rav Sabato asks him about leadership as part of a general discussion about educating Talmidei Chachamim:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“<i>This question, whether a Talmid Chacham should grow exclusively in Torah or should he also be involved in leadership matters, is a difficult question in our generation. Look at Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ZL; there is no other in our generation like him. It will take a long time until we find another such great. One of the things that were outstanding about him was that although he expressed himself here and there about communal issues, he refused to be involved in leadership issues. I had many conversations with him about a variety of issues and he used to tell me: I don’t want to deal with this. On the other hand there are other Gedolim in Torah who took upon themselves this responsibility because of how important it was to them. If Rav Shlomo Zalman is one kind of figure amongst Gedolim, Rav Elayashiv is completely a different kind. <o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>It is clear that we need great people but there is a great distance between being a great man (Gadol) and a leader. In great measure in the Chareidi world, notwithstanding all the due respect and appreciation for what they accomplish in the field of learning, those who become the heads of the community, don’t know the world around them and that is no coincidence as they are trained not to. They are taught that there is no point in dealing with anything that does not enter the world of the Beit Hamidrash and then they expect these same people who were taught not to notice their surroundings to become leaders? They should tell us how to behave [in the world outside]? No wonder that in our era this road is strewn with failure! <o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>If one devotes time, significant time, dealing with external matters one gets to know reality, and knowing reality does not mean knowing the gizzard of a chicken for the purpose of ruling Hilchot treifot. It means to know in depth the soul of the nation, the community. I believe that they say in the name of the Chazon Ish that in the area of psak there is a greater risk of improperly understanding the circumstances of the case than in misreading the Halacha. (Rav Sabato points to Iggrot Chazon Ish letter 31). For many there is not enough understanding of what it means to know reality. They look at technical areas, one learning about electricity another about medicine. Of course one cannot rule certain halachot in Hilchot Shabbat without knowing a little physics, medicine etc… but this is far from enough. To deal with issues of values, those things that are on the agenda of the community, those issues that engage the community, one has to arrive to a certain depth in understanding the psyche of the individual, the nation and that requires investment, significant investment. The truth is that it is hard to see on the horizon personalities that will become such people in the future. I do not see a Rav Shlomo Zalman sprouting here [in Eretz Israel]. While in the Lakewood Yeshiva, with all the investment that is there and with all its glory, it is hard for me to see a new Rav Aharon Kotler coming out of there. They are around several decades and so far one has not emerged. <o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>It is possible that it is our fate to get used to a different kind of leadership and preparation for leadership. This getting used to is difficult. Who does not want a leader like the Chafetz Chaim? <o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>I do not see in our own group anyone like the Rav ZL. There are many Talmidei Chachamim who are Lamdanim with breadth and depth but a leader par excellence is missing….”<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rav Aharon Lichtenstein makes an interesting point about leadership in our community. He does not belittle the advantages of Torah leadership but it has to be someone prepared for the task by being deeply involved in real life outside the Beit Hamidrash. He does not subscribe to the school that believes that a lifelong Torah scholar somehow miraculously gains insights into the workings of the community and world outside. The required external involvement may come at the cost of some Talmud Torah but it is necessary and only then can we rely on such a leader. It is interesting that he does not see this kind of leadership emerging in any of the groups that make up the community of observant Jews. He does not however address enough the underlying causes for the lack of this type of leadership. By including his own group, who are active in the world outside the Beit Hamidrash, amongst those lacking the necessary leadership traits, he leaves us with a sense of helplessness and even despair. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-20273350501308523592012-01-02T11:40:00.000-05:002012-01-02T11:40:49.993-05:00Reading Mevakshei Panecha - Part 2 - How Should Religious Jews Relate To Secular Ones?<div class="MsoNormal">In another chapter of the book Mevakshei Panecha, Rav Lichtenstein and Rav Sabato discuss the attitude religious Jews should have towards secular Jews. This issue is very pertinent today, especially with the painful and disturbing occurrences we read and hear about in Bet Shemesh and earlier in Jerusalem. Rav Sabato introduces the subject, presenting the two dominant points of view, that of Rav Kook and the Chazon Ish that seem to be the most accepted opinions in the religious community. Rav Kook holds that considering that the secular Jews were the leaders of the Zionistic enterprise and the builders of the land, they apparently were suffused with a national spirit of love and dedication to their fellow Jews. Such a total dedication to the Jewish nation stems from a deep-rooted Jewishness that is implanted in their soul. These traits will eventually blossom as the process of return to Zion continues and eventually move towards Torah study and Mitzvot. The second position is that of the Chazon Ish (not necessarily contradictory) that the secular Jews are “Tinokot Shenishbu” prisoners of their circumstances, and therefore cannot be blamed for their misguided ways. Rav Lichtenstein disagrees with both approaches.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>“In both narratives there is a certain judgment, a certain statement of fact, a general categorization of the public in question. I have no idea how one can think in such a way. We are talking about a large public. The spiritual content and the values of a part of that public include powerful ideas, important ones that contain meaningful values, not necessarily historical ones. At the same time, to our great sorrow, there is a part of that public that is empty and frivolous, who shook off not only Torah and Mitzvot, Mikvah or Kashrut, but also values that are important to us as Jews and others that are universal… Therefore, I don’t want to pass judgment on the whole lifestyle of that public, nor do I think that I can… If we want to judge a certain individual within a certain public, there are things that irritate us, but there are also certain things that definitely are attainments and values that I wish we were at their level… If we relate to them as Tinokot Shenishbu we do not give them any credit, we don’t find anything of value worth emulating, we assume that they have no meaningful spiritual or moral value, as the [famous] definition by the Chazon Ish [comparing them] to an empty wagon. To say that they are an “empty wagon” infers that they don’t have anything of value, nothing that is not better in our community. I believe that in actuality that is incorrect and I am not interested in going to that place.”<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rav Lichtenstein explains that the totally negative image that we have of the secular community is a result of our defending against being drawn in by them.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>“I repeat: I don’t believe that is the reality. There are amongst them very charitable people, people who care deeply for the future, the path and the survival of the Jewish community – at the communal level not only the national. My vision is not theirs. But there are many things that they are building and doing, not only in the areas of state where they have a historical role which is the perspective of Rav Kook, they also have value systems that are meaningful. Saying that they are Tinokot Shenishbu is infantilizing this public. Saying they are Tinokot Shenishbu is saying that they have no value but it is “nebbish” not their fault. I have no doubt that there are such people amongst them just as there are also amongst us… I also see an element of Tinokot Shenishbu in the Rav Kook approach not only in the Chazon Ish one. I am referring to his attitude to the secular group that says: you think that you are such and such, but we know that deep inside you there is another universe. That universe is your real internal self. One day that self will be uncovered, as you remove layer after layer of skin. They see this as layers of an onion. This attitude is arrogant. I would object if I was the subject of this attitude and I don’t believe one should relate to them in this way.”<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rav Lichtenstein very astutely puts his finger on one of the least attractive aspects of the religious view of the other. There is a sense of self satisfaction, a feeling that I am doing what is right while the other, who does not follow the Mitzvot, is missing out on this great good and the only reason they are doing so is because of ignorance. Of course, this attitude does not promote feelings of mutual respect and good will. Rav Lichtenstein blames or rather tries to mitigate the accusation of arrogance by blaming it on self-preservation. There is no question that it plays a role but ultimately it puts down anyone that is different. It also refuses to see much of the good and values of the other which at times is superior to those found in our community. I was watching a video a few days ago where one of the crazies in Beit Shemesh was yelling at the police and the journalists saying to them “you are going to teach us values? You?” Of course this guy was nuts and abhorrent but crazy people sometimes voice what others in his community think. Indeed, many of the reactions of the rabbinical organs e.g. Agudah, condemned the public behavior but not the underlying arrogance and dismissal of the other. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>“The vision of Rav Kook I understand. At times I am even jealous of him. At times. The vision he expresses, I have problems with to a great extent, because I see in it – and I hope I don’t misread – a preference of the historical over the moral. This vision praises the attainments and the mission that these people fulfill in the physical world; but what about [their accomplishments in] the intellectual realm?”<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rav Lichtenstein is critical of Rav Kook’s approach because he understands that he refuses to see the good values that the secular community brings to the table. Rav Kook sees them as tools in the hand of HKBH to serve the Klal but does not give them credit for what they really offer in terms of the intellectual and spiritual. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">So what is Rav Lichtenstein’s own position?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i> “It is very important that we do not under any circumstances arrive at the conclusion that we have no regard to select values that exist in segments of the secular public. There are people in the religious community, and not only in the religious one, that have an attitude of - either you are [totally] with us or against us. I believe that a Jewish moral perspective based on torah should recognize imperfect value systems too. If I am out to build an ideology, whether a personal one or for a community, I build it on a purely Holy basis. On the other hand, if I ask myself: let us say that this person, this group or that group, are anyway not keeping Shabbat, they don’t go to the Mikvah, is there no difference from our perspective - not from theirs - if a Jew hates Torah or loves it, or whether he has a warm spot for it, even if this is not enough to make him observe the Shulchan Aruch? … Every one of us has had the experience that when a member of the family becomes non-observant, at times there are confrontations. What is the point of the confrontation? People have family members who they know will not return to become Shabbos observant halachikally, it is however important to us that they should have a warm spot in their heart [for torah] not only so that should they become members of the Knesset they will vote favorably for women serving in Sherut Leumi [instead of the army – DG] but because we pray and wish that our whole community remain healthy both spiritually and physically and that includes regard for select values</i>.” <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rav Lichtenstein makes here a very important point. We all have a tendency to look at others from the perspective of our own values. Anybody that sees things differently is judged on that basis. We see our own values as ideal and look askance at values that we do not have. That prevents us from objectively evaluating and adapting some of these values, those that are meaningful and important. Our attitude further creates a rift between us and the secular public which prevents them from appreciating what we bring to the table. We have to look at ourselves as a whole, the religious and secular community as one, and respect the values found in both communities. The risk to this approach is that we see all values as relative rather than absolute. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“<i>However, I do not agree with some of my colleagues who say: “listen, not everybody is perfect. We are not mindful of this and they are not mindful of something else. They don’t keep Shabbat and we are lax in other things. I do not buy this approach. True, we all are not perfect, but what is missing, how much is missing and are the attempts to fix our shortcomings sincere? That is a much more meaningful [criteria].”</i><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">There are indeed Jewish values that are important to us. The external values are meaningful but are even more so if added to our own values rather than replacing them. In other words, Rav Lichtenstein does not want us to misunderstand that his appreciation for external values should allow for them to replace our own values. They are a welcome and necessary addition and they will only be available to us if we look at them objectively and with the due respect. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>“This approach to a partial value system is not exclusive to our relationship with the secular community. It is also useful in our relationship with the Conservative and Reform movements everywhere. And I repeat over and over, I value very much the incomplete value system and hope and pray that I can advance with people towards the goal of their internalizing more and more of the world of our values</i>”.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In other words Rav Lichtenstein sees great value in the cross-pollination of the different value systems in the Jewish community. To allow for that to happen both communities have to show respect for each other although in the eyes of each the value system of the other is incomplete and imperfect. An all or nothing approach is not constructive for both parties. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21749731.post-10153895244497963572011-12-27T20:06:00.003-05:002011-12-27T20:34:37.134-05:00Reading Mevakshei Panecha - Part 1 - Secular Knowledge and The Torah Jew<div class="MsoNormal">My Israeli friend Mechel recently gave me as a gift the book Mevakshei Panecha, an interview of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein by Rav Chaim Sabato. It is not an easy read although Rav Sabato is a writer par excellence. Rav Lichtenstein has developed the dialectical method to an art form and some chapters leave the reader in a state of confusion – at least that was the case with me. The effort to read is however well worth it as we get a glimpse of the workings of a great mind and a Gadol Betorah, one of the greatest of our time. I am about half way through the book and I want to share/discuss some points that I found enlightening and interesting. As the book is in Hebrew, I will translate the pertinent excerpts. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In a chapter discussing how to relate to values that come to us from outside the Torah:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>“There are people including gentiles whose historical mission is one of creativity – literary or moral creativity. These are people that you see in them greatness whether greatness of the soul or moral greatness. How can one not be impressed with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson">Samuel Johnson</a> ? A man who started life in the London gutter and climbed to a level of Gemilat Chassadim that I wish I could reach. Should I ignore this just because he was a gentile? …. What nobility, what fear of heaven and dedication are projected and the final lines of the wondrous sonata of Milton regarding his blindness! Why should I ignore this?”<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We are not talking about TIDE (Torah im Derech Eretz) which is generally seen as a utilitarian approach to secular studies but rather a fundamental appreciation of that knowledge and the creativity found in that world. An appreciation that sees it as part of the basic education needed to make us into perfected human beings and Jews. However Rav Lichtenstein does set some limitations.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>“One has to differentiate between the ideal and the practical. In practice, one must be careful when importing values from the outside by looking at two issues. One issue is self-suspicion. When I am searching for values outside the Torah I must ask myself: what propels me to look for universal values? Why am I not looking for them in our own sources? Am I truly looking? Is the search occurring only after I have fully evaluated everything that is written in the Torah about these values without finding them, to the point of having to look outside? Is there another reason that I am compelled to look in places other than the Torah? … The second issue one must investigate is where these external values come from. Are they possibly coming from sources that from our standpoint are unreliable and unwanted? Having concluded these two analyses I find myself confronting a universal question and not necessarily a Jewish one. It is told that the Caliph Omar Ibn Hatab, one of the famous Caliphs in the middle Ages ordered the burning of the famous great library in Alexandria. He argued that if what is written in this library is true it must be found in the Koran and if it is not found there it must be false…”<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rav Lichtenstein subtly points out that the standard Yeshiva world argument that anything not found in the Torah must be false is an old argument developed by other religions. As he points out further this argument was quite common in 17<sup>th</sup> century England between the Puritans and their more enlightened opponents. Rav Lichtenstein then fleshes out the immediate questions one has to confront when going out to look for external values. First we have to determine how well grounded the person that embarks on the search is. Is he easily swayed or is he self-confident and has a firm footing in his thinking?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>“We then have to focus on two additional issues. One is the environment the person is in. When I say environment I refer to two things. First is to analyze the social, financial and cultural environments. The whole environment could be so different from what it once was, that the sources do not address the current situation. We have to however caution; the fact that the circumstances changed does not mean that one has to automatically expect a changed stand. Not every circumstantial change forces us to modify our thinking or outlook. But we must at least be aware of the changed circumstances. I always ask myself whether the situation I am in now is a mirror of the situation and circumstances that is presented in the words of Chazal and the Rishonim. Second, even if the environment has not changed, I have to ask are the tools that I have now different than those that were available to the past. And even if there is no change in either the circumstances or the tools, sometimes there is a change in the weltanschauung that I have to things, which may not be exactly the same it was once….”<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rav Lichtenstein is very sensitive to the changes that have occurred over time and the effect they have on how we look at them from the Torah viewpoint. We cannot let the Torah viewpoint become ossified to the point of making it irrelevant. Rav Sabato asks him if his father in law, RYBS Z”L was influenced by external sources. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><i>“A certain person once asked me if Rav Soloveitchik was influenced by Kierkegaard. I understand that one who asks this question does so with a critical undertone, as if saying that should the Rav have been influenced by Kierkegaard, woe is to us! I answered him that if the question was whether the Rav read Kierkegaard, of course he did! But if the question was did he take anything from him? I don’t know for sure but I suspect the answer is positive too. Of course, a great person like the Rav, who learned Torah all his life, who is rooted in its world, its opinions and its values – such a person when he is confronted by a book by Kierkegaard, if after a careful inspection he discovers that the things he read in there are true, moral and deepen our understanding of divine worship, does he have to ignore them? Does he have to turn away from them? Why? Just because they are based on Kierkegaard? If the notion is true, he will take it and if not he will ignore it, not because it comes from Kierkegaard but because it is wrong... There is a problem that many people nowadays have, including Yeshiva students. They lack the ability to dive into stormy seas. They live in a world of fear. They are afraid of everything. A part of the Yeshiva world suffers from this disability. True, in some matters they are right, but in many other things, and not necessarily literary matters, they are not right…” <o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rav Lichtenstein interestingly starts the discussion by setting very clear parameters. One has to analyze and be suspicious of one’s motives. We first have to explore the whole Torah and try to find an answer to the existential question that is intriguing the searcher. He then admits that there are contemporary matters and issues that because of the environment, the culture, the tools we now have, cannot be solved by ignoring external sources. And then he turns to the Rav and how he did take out good ideas from secular culture and introduced them into Judaism. The way I read the progression of his thought is that people of the caliber of the Rav are able to independently fish in the deep waters of secular thought and find the kernels of truth that advance the thinking of a modern Jew living in our world today. He does not say it, but it is clear that he sees himself as capable of doing the same. Lesser scholars and other interested students can then study their insights which help them navigate the contemporary cultural currents. The Yeshivot are so afraid of possible deviance that they prohibit even that, thus restricting their members from fully participating in the contemporary world. As we will see further, this respect for truth from whatever its source leads Rav Lichtenstein to a unique and extremely enlightening perspective on the secular Jews of our time. I will write about that in an upcoming post.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></div>David Guttmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07668302013143561290noreply@blogger.com7