Army of Heavens - חילי שמיא

Beholding and Seeking Zion

2009-08-14T00:43:00.019-04:00

“Because they have called thee an outcast, she is Zion, there is none that inquireth after her”

- Yirməyahû 30:17

"From this we gather that she ought to be inquired after"

- BT Rosh ha-Shanah 30a

When I look at world Jewry today I see two types of Jews: passive and active. Most of the passive are still in the diaspora, awaiting either Eliyahu ha-Navi or the Messiah to take them out on the clouds of heaven under the tune of MBD's Moshiach. The actives do not wait for anyone but are strong as the leopard, swift as the eagle, fleet as the gazelle, and brave as the lion to do the will of their Father in Heaven.

The former close themselves up in their ersatz to Erets Yisrael, be it the ghetto in the diaspora or in the State of Israel, and withdraw from the Israelite public. About them the Rambam writes in Iggereth Qidush haShem (a.k.a Treatise on Martyrdom):

"but those who allure themselves and say that they would remain in their place until the King Messiah arrives to the land of the West and [only] then depart and go to Jerusalem... these transgress and cause others to sin... for the duty of the commandments is not dependent on the arrival of the Messiah, but we are obliged to engage in the Torah and Misswoth and exert ourselves to complete their performance"

For the latter, the redemption is a natural process and they do not wait for the Temple to fall from the skies. They take the initiative to perform the miṣwoth fully, and only then expect a divine confirmation.

So teaches us our weekly portion of the Torah, Parashath Rəʾēh ('Behold'). The miqra says the following (D'varim 12:5):

"But unto the place which the Transcendent your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there, even unto His habitation shall ye seek (inquire after), and thither thou shalt come"

Ramban, following the Sifri, comments as follows:

וטעם לשכנו תדרשו - שתלכו לו מארץ מרחקים ותשאלו אנה דרך בית השם, ותאמרו איש אל רעהו לכו ונעלה אל הר ה' אל בית אלהי יעקב, כלשון ציון ישאלו דרך הנה פניהם. ובספרי, תדרשו, דרוש על פי הנביא, יכול תמתין עד שיאמר לך נביא, ת"ל לשכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה, דרוש ומצא ואח"כ יאמר לך נביא, וכן אתה מוצא בדוד וכו'

"and the reason for 'seek his habitation' - that you should depart from distant lands and ask 'where [is] the way [to] the House of God', and say to one another 'let us go and ascend to the Mount of God, to the House of the God of Ya'aqov' (Is. 2:3), similar to the expression 'they shall inquire concerning Zion with their faces hitherward' (Jer. 50:5). And in the Sifre (Re'eh 8) [we find]: 'you shall inquire' - inquire based on the prophet, might you say 'wait until a prophet tells you', hence we learn that we must inquire and find, and afterwards a prophet shall tell you etc."

The Sifre teaches us a great lesson. The edification is that the initiative should come from men and only then will God verify it. Thus, the function of the Prophet is to put a divine stamp of approval on man's endeavors. The Sifre (pisqa 62) exemplifies the matter by bringing scriptural proof:

וכן אתה מוצא בדוד שנאמר זכור ה' לדוד את כל ענותו אשר נשבע לה' נדר לאביר יעקב אם אבא באהל ביתי אם אתן שנת לעיני עד אמצא מקום לה' משכנות לאביר יעקב מנין שלא עשה אלא על פי נביא שנאמר ויבוא גד אל דוד ביום ההוא ויאמר לו עלה הקם לה' מזבח בגורן ארונה היבוסי ואומר + ויחל שלמה לבנות את בית ה' בירושלים בהר המוריה אשר נראה לדוד אביהו

"And so you find it said concerning David: 'LORD, remember unto David all his affliction, how he swore unto the LORD, and vowed unto the Mighty One of Jacob, Surely I will not come into the tent of my house, nor go up into the bed that is spread for me, I will not give sleep to mine eyes, nor slumber to mine eyelids, until I find out a place for the LORD, a dwelling-place for the Mighty One of Jacob' (Təhilim 132). And whence [we know] he did not act but according to a prophet, for it is said: 'And Gad came that day to David, and said unto him: Go up, rear an altar unto the LORD in the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite' (II Sh'muel 24:18), and it says: 'Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the LORD appeared unto David his father; for which provision had been made in the Place of David, in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite'"

What is the meaning of this precept? Is this a game of divine 'hide and seek'?

Commenting on the aforementioned verse, Malbim (R. Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel) writes:

שהדרישה היא מה שחוקר בעצמו למצוא הדבר, וז"ש דרוש ומוצא, למד להם שלא יגלה ה' סודו ע"י נביאיו להודיעם מקום הנבחר רק אם ישתדלו בזה וידרשו אחריו, ואז יערה עליהם רוח ממרומים אחרי ההבנה הראויה

"He taught them that HaShem would not reveal His secret by means of His prophets to inform them of the chosen spot, unless they make their own efforts to seek it out, and then He will pour out upon them a spirit from Heaven after proper preparation"

The Vilna Gaon says similarly:

אשר יבחר ה' ונאמר לשכנו תדרשו - משמע בעצמן ידרשו. בתחילה צריך דרישה ואח"כ אשר יבחר שהקב"ה מסכים לדבריהם וכן נאמר עד אמצא מקום וגו' משכנות וגו' ואח"כ הסכים הקב"ה על ידו

"Therefore they themselves shall seek. Initially there needs to be a demand and then 'the LORD your God shall choose', that the Holy One agrees with their words, and it is said 'until I find out a place', and then the Holy One agreed through him"

R. Yehudah Aryeh Leib Alter (called Sfas Emes by his hasidim) writes that this can be compared to Avraham Avinnu that was commanded to depart from his land but was unaware of the destination. Similarly, the Children of Israel have to seek and inquire regarding the details of the Place and prepare themselves by uprooting the evil from within themselves.

My understanding of the above sources is that the process of redemption is not abrupt and brusque, but gradual. The demand for the Temple has to come from within, but the road is prolonged. The first phase was to perform the commandment of settling the Land of Israel. This phase is still not yet completed. Thus we find Avraham Avinnu who by his own initiative left Ur for being "persecuted by Nimrod... and left for Canaan where the Children of Shem dwelled" (see Malbim on Genesis 11:31), and Moshe Rabbenu who by his own initiative decided to put an end to the bondage of his persecuted brethren. So did Herzl when he too made an effort, and succeeded, to put an end to Antisemitism and redeem Israel.

Resources:
Land Truth: A website I found that explores the Land of Israel and the Temple mathematically (English) (Hebrew)
The Miqdash - Not Yet Time?
Temple Talk

The Ways of Reaching God According to the Kli Yakar

2009-08-07T15:24:00.039-04:00

Rashi's employment of Midrash Rabba in his commentary on Bərēshîth 1:1 is well known. Rabbenu Sh'lomo Yiṣ̣ḥāqi says that rēshîth (the beginning) refers to either the Torah or Israel (in accordance with Prov. 8:22 and Jer. 2:3). The (ב) bə of rēshîth is the letter which signifies a sake, goal or purpose. Thus, "the heavens and the earth" were interpreted as being created for the sake of Israel and the Torah.

Rabbi Sh'lomo Ephraim Luntschitz (1550–1619 Prauge and Poland), a contemporary of the Maharal who in his youth studied under R. Sh'lomo Luria (the Maharshal), describes in his commentary on the Torah, K'li Yaqar ("precious vessel", an allusion to Proverbs 20:15), three approaches -- three paths -- one may take in the discovery of God (מציאת השם), which according to Rashi is possible only through the Torah, that proclaims the origination of the world and God's divinity, or through the nation of Israel, who are the posterity of the Patriarchs and who hold the traditions upon which the Torah is built.

But the K'li Yaqar explains that there is a third way. This other path is found in the second word of Bərēshîth 1:1 - bårå. Through the bərîʾah -- the creation -- one can also reach God, without the Torah or Israel. The Kli Yakar clarifies the way one may go about doing so using the allegory of Jacob's Ladder:

Click on the above image to enlarge it

ויש עוד דרך שלישי, אבל אין כל אדם יכול לעמוד עליו, והוא: להכיר מציאת השם יתברך מתוך החקירה וידיעת כל הנמצאות שבכל שלשה עולמות. וזה סדרם: מתחילה צריך החוקר להתבונך במהות הנמצאים שבעולם התחתון, כי היא החקירה הקלה שבעולם; ואחר ידיעת מהותם, יתבונן גם במהות הנבראים שבעולם האמצעי; ומשם יעלה דרך סולם השתלשלות המדרגות לידיעת מהות העולם העליון; ומשם יעלה לידע ולהשיג כי יש אלוה נמצא רוכב על כולם, אשר סדרם על זה האופן. כמראה אשר ראה יעקב בארבע שליבות הסֻלם: שהיה מֻצָּב אַרְצָה - הינו השגת העולם התחתון ; וְרֹאשׁוֹ מַגִּיעַ הַשָּׁמָיְמָה - זהו העולם התיכון; וְהִנֵּה מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים עֹלִים וְיֹרְדִים בּוֹ - זהו העולם העליון; וְהִנֵּה יְיָ נִצָּב עָלָיו - כי אז השיג על השלמות מציאת השם יתברך.

And there is a third way, but not every man is able to achieve it, and it is: to acknowledge the reality of God, praised be He, from the [scientific] inquiry and knowledge of all that exists in all three worlds. And this is their order: at first, the inquirer needs to look into the essence [or quality] of all that exists in the Lower World, for this is the easiest of inquiries in the world; And after knowing their essence, he should then look into the essence of all that exists in the Intermediary World; And from there he should ascend through the ladder [of] development of levels to the knowledge of the essence of the Uppermost World; And from there he should ascend to know and attain the reality of God who directs them all, and who ordered them in this mode. Like the vision which Jacob beheld in four rungs of the ladder (Gen. 28); which was "set up on the earth" - that is the Lower World; "and the top of it reached to heaven" - that is the Middle World; "and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it" - that is the Uppermost World; "and the LORD stands upon it" - for then he fully attains the reality of God, praised be He.

The inquiry of all that exists in the Lower world is the study of Earth and all that is on it. The inquiry of the Intermediate World is the study of what is beyond earth, namely, the stars (astronomy). The inquiry of the Upper World is the wisdom of the angels (what we might call Metaphysics. See Ibn Ezra on Ex. 3:15 final section and Rashbeṣ on Avoth 5:1). If so, one needs neither the Torah nor Israel. One can simply skip through the scale of reality and reach God. But the K'li Yaqar continues and writes:

אמנם דרך חקירה זו לא רבים יחכמו לבוא בסוד אלוה, מתוך היות האדם עובר בעמק עכור - העולם החמרי הלזה. על כן די לאדם כשישיג מציאתו יתברך מצד הקבלה כאמור, ומצד התורה כאמור.

Verily not many are wise enough to take such a route of inquiry and enter the secret of God, for man passes through a turbid valley - this material world. Therefore it is sufficient for one to attain His reality through tradition, as aforesaid, and through the Torah, as aforesaid.

In other words, most people are likely to be stuck midway. That can mean either turning into pantheists, identifying God with nature and not reaching the transcendental, or becoming materialists. This is exactly what happened to the ancient Greek philosophers, and continues to this day with modern day philosophers who are untouched by religion (including non-religious scientists).

Here too we find that in order to know God, one has to study "His ways and actions, and the work of His hands, created by Him", that is the study of the sciences of the world (see his commentary there). Therefore, according to the Kli Yakar, the purpose of the verse is the third word - Ælohîm. So the first two steps are signified by the beth (ב), which is the second letter in the Hebrew alphabet, implying the two types of rēʾshîth (Torah or Israel) → the third step is bårå → and the ultimate goal is Ḕlohîm.

Israel Land Reform and the law during the time of Bar Kokhva

2009-07-30T13:39:00.031-04:00

Above: a coin from Year Two to Bar Kokhva's rule

On this sad day, the 9th of Av (tish'a b'Av), many calamities befell our people, and one of them is the fall of Betar, the last stronghold which was destroyed by the Romans, thus ending the Jewish Revolt and the hope for redemption.

Not much is known about that period, but we do know that Rebbi Aqiva, one of the most outstanding sages of his generation, supported a certain man who was called "Bar Kokhva" (or Bar Kokhba) and declared him to be the King of Israel. We also have basis to assume that this man, who was called by his subjects "Shim'on ben Koseba", followed the halakha of Rebbi Aqiva (the Four Species for Sukkoth are minted on one coin in accordance with the method of R. Aqiva as recorded in the Mishna).

Now that we are redeemed politically, we still face some economic as well as spiritual conundrums. A current issue has to do with land laws. As of today, the Israel Land Administration (ILA) is responsible for managing roughly 93% of the land in Israel. Buying "ownership" from the ILA does not mean owning the land, but rather having rights to the land for a limited time. Originally, the law intended the land to be leased exclusively to Jews, but due to Arab pressure, Israeli courts ruled against such discriminatory policies, disregarding Parliamentary legislation and public opinion (only 10% of which actually opposed the policy).

But this administrative law is planned to be reformed by the Netanyahu Administration, which sees its current management as "central obstruction to economic growth in the State of Israel" (09-10 budget proposal). The central motive to the reform, so the 100-day team headed by Likud MK Yuval Steinitz contends, is to repair an administration which is characterized by a number of failures, including "inefficient allocation of resources by means of creating a shortage or surplus in supply, encumbrance, bureaucracy, delayed reaction to the needs of the market , a lack of incentives for innovation, and at times even corruption" (ibid). Therefore, the team concludes, this situation obligates an intervention and fundamental structural change in the landed property market. The proposed solution: Privatization.

The proposal contains numerous problematic elements, and it is not at all clear whether they are indeed beneficial to national interests. But putting aside other components, we should focus here on one part of the bill, and that is that new lands will be marketed by means of sale instead of by leasing. That is not to say issues of bureaucracy, transparency and accountability are not as important. Perhaps even more so. It is therefore not so much the tactical disposition of the plan which is controversial, but the strategic objectives and its ramifications.

To understand the problematic nature of such proposition, let us confer with one of Israel's greatest political leaders: Shim'on bar Kokhva. Not much was known of him until the recently discovered letters in the Judean desert shed some light on his character. Among these was found a lease deed of one El'azar. It says the following:

בעשרין לשבט שנת שתים לגאלת
ישראל על ידי שמעון בן כוסבא נסיא ישראל
במחנה שיושב בהרדיס אלעזר בן השלני
אמר להלל בן גריס אני מרצוני
חכרתי המך מן קצת עפר שיש לי בעיר נחש בחכיר
חכרתי מן שמעון נסיא ישראל מן היום עד סוף ערב
השמטה שהם שנים שלמות שני (מ)כסה חמש ת חכיר

On the twentieth of Sh'vaṭ year two to the redemption of
Israel by Shim'on ben Kosiba President [or Prince] of Israel
in the camp situated in Herodium
El'azar ben ha-Shiloni said
to Hillel ben Garis: I, by my own accord,
have leased from you some land
that I have taken on lease in the city of Naḥash
I have leased it from Shim'on, the President of Israel
for X years... until the end of the year before the Sabbatical year

We learn a couple of things from this document. One is that the lessee (El'azar b. ha-Shiloni) leases a plot of land through an administrative officer (Hillel b. Garis) from Bar-Kokhva, whom the people see as the de jure ruler, ruling with absolute authority and responsibility, although not to his own advantage but for the good of all. I am unsure, however, whether it is in the King's jurisdiction to distribute land under Jewish law or if it is the incumbency of the Court to do so. In any case, Yigael Yadin, who researched the letters, notes that "[t]he contracts are full of legal Mishnaic phrases", and it seems to me plausible that Bar Kuzba consulted the rabbis and would not have acted autonomously.

A prudent government should realize that its national sovereignty depends on a demographic as well as a geographic position. A Jewish State has to ensure that Jews reside on its lands permanently. In the event that the reform would be implemented, such a pledge is undermined.

Land is an essential national resource, and massive privatization poses a risk of not only concentration of wealth, but concentration of power and control (although this is not an imminent threat). The interests of the buyers can be indifferent at best, or hostile at worst. There is practically no way of overseeing the distribution of the land and ensuring it does not fall into inimical hands. The intention of our enemies in this regard is well known. There have been numerous reports of wealthy Arabs being encouraged by the PA, Hamas and others to purchase Israeli land. I don't think their goal was to build shopping centers on it.

I heard an interview with Moshe Feiglin the other day, where he showed support for the reform, but opposed its initiator (i.e., Netanyahu). Feiglin explained that the will of God is to distribute the land among the entire congregation of Israel and make them into the owners of the land ("לאלה תחלק הארץ"). Even if the destination is to privately own the land, it is irrelevant to the reform. The reform is not about Yossi Levi from Kfar Saba. It's about tycoons who, as Mr. Feiglin too observes, were in close contact with Netanyahu before he became PM, and were perhaps responsible for putting him in that seat. The case does not have to involve bribery. Campaign contributors would not finance political parties if they did not expect something in return. For this reason we see policies and bills that advance special interests over general interests.

It is just as Shim'on bar Kokhva wrote to the men of Ein Gedi:

משמעון בר כוסבא לאנשי עינגדי
למסבלא וליהונתן בר בעין שלום. בטוב
אתן יושבין אכלין ושותין מן נכסי בית
ישראל ולא דאגין לאחיכן לכול דבר

In comfort you sit eating and drinking from the property of
the House of Israel and care nothing for your brothers
and their needs

One might counter this argument by claiming that Bar Kokhva's system of governance was necessary for the time of the revolt, but is not the normative condition. Back then, centralized control was needed to make efficient production, supervise the supply of produce, and distribute food among soldiers. But in my view, this system still applies today, when both political and legal conditions are far from being "normative", and we are in a state of war. A normative condition is when there is a Jewish regime in place and the Temple stands. Therefore, the same principals which motivated the Bar Kusba Administration are still pertinent to the Netanyahu Administration.

The proverbial Biblical statement of "the land shall not be sold in perpetuity" (Leviticus 25:23) actually comes before a more consequential verse, which is "in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land" ( וּבְכֹל אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם גְּאֻלָּה תִּתְּנוּ לָאָרֶץ, verse 24). For the land to be redeemed, we first must have hold of the land (āḥizā), as suggested by the aforementioned verse (v'khol ereṣ āḥuzathḥem). Ramban explains that the land is given to us as an estate (āḥuza) to posses, so we are commanded to 'liberate God's land from those who hold it for it was not given to them'. It was given to us - for a purpose. Therefore the process of privatizing the land and relinquishing it is the opposite of the precept of the Tora. Verse 19 poses a stipulation for the blessings of the Sh'miṭa and Yovel: "and ye shall dwell therein in safety". The Sifra in parashath b'har explains that dwelling in the land in safety means dwelling securely (לא מפוחדים - 'not terrified' - without terror). This condition has not yet been satisfied. As long as these conditions are not met, an anomaly is existent, and this anomaly causes a modification in the observation of the miṣwoth.

Differing opinions are welcomed, as long as they come with explanation.

An Evolutionary Approach to Financial History

2009-07-25T22:00:00.010-04:00

What do Lloyd Blankfein and Stephen Jay Gould have in common? No. Not their Jewish background. Apparently it's their appreciation of evolutionary processes as progressional forces in the world. So suggests one of my favorite historians.

Professor Niall Ferguson, who specializes in economic history, suggests that the discipline of Economics as a branch of Applied Mathematics has drifted further away from the real world, which he identifies with the natural world. The professor presents an evolutionary process in action, which is ever more evident in today's crisis, and compares it to phenomenon in the natural world.

Prof. Ferguson reminds us that "Charles Darwin in some measure was inspired by observation of the economic world around him", and that "it's important to recognise the extent to which he himself [Darwin] was influenced by contemporary notions of political economy". Prof. Ferguson argues that the origin of the Origins of Species lies in the Industrial Revolution of England.

This thought-provoking lecture proved once again in my eyes the outlook of Rav Avraham Itzhak Kook, who was to become the chief rabbi of prestate Palestine when he wrote about the relationship between Judaism and the Darwinian Theory. Rav Kook wrote that the Darwinian Evolutionary Theory accustoms people to think in progressional terms, as did the Sages of Israel in regards to Metaphysics (See Orot HaKodesh II 537-543). Notions that were once the occupation of select few became fluent among the people. The common people see the grandeur of God in leaps, as if He works by magic, in contrast with the sages, who see God in gradation spitefully (p. 542). Therefore, the ancient doctrine which maintains that God "built worlds and destroyed them" (Midrash Rabbah), or the esoteric doctrine of Hishtalsheluth ha-'Olamoth (emanation, or literally "Progression of the Worlds") are better understood in light of modern science, and I believe that Rav Kook would welcome such thought in the discipline of economics.

The lecture notes can be found here.

It should also be noted that Eric Beinhocker, a senior advisor to McKinsey & Company, Inc., in his book The Origin of Wealth also describes such parallels between science and economics, and how they impact economic thought.

Note on Bias of Translations

2009-07-12T23:49:00.011-04:00

When I was at the library the other day, I had no other option but to use the Schottenstein Edition of the Talmud Bavli and study the G'mara discussed in the post on Ta'aniyot (Rosh haShanah 18b). There I found something rather dishonest. The editor(s) decided to put the ahistorical formula "peace=temple" in Rashi's mouth so that it would appear as though Rashi thought that the time of peace discussed by R. Pappa is a time when the Temple stands (the opinion of R. Hannanel). Moreover, they did not only put it in the notes but in the body of the aforementioned Gemara!

From this we learn a critical lesson:

One must always check the sources with an unbiased eye
Translated editions have a tendency to follow an opinion of one of the commentators and omit/distort the other(s)

Rambam vs. Ramban on Ta'aniyot

2009-07-09T01:52:00.030-04:00

The fast which occurs today, the 17th day of the fourth month, is among the four fasts that were fixed by the prophets, peace be upon them all, and the purpose of which is to commemorate and mourn the destruction of the Temple and the subjugation of the Israelite people in order that they repent and repair their misdeeds. The fast of Tammuz was fixed because then the walls of Jerusalem were breached, and this custom was kept throughout the Babylonian Exile. But when the people returned to the land, the question arose whether or not they should continue with this custom (cf. Zech. 7). The word of God through Zekharyah was as follows (8, 19):

כֹּה אָמַר יְקֹוָק צְבָאוֹת צוֹם הָרְבִיעִי וְצוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי וְצוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְצוֹם הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה לְבֵית יְהוּדָה לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָה וּלְמֹעֲדִים טוֹבִים וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם אֱהָבוּ:

Thus saith the LORD of hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful seasons; therefore love ye truth and peace

Historically speaking, when Sar'eṣer and Regem-Melekh addressed the question to the prophet (Zehariah 7), the Jewish people were still under political and economic vassalage of the Persians.

With that in mind, the Gemara in Rosh ha-Shanah 18b elucidates:

דאמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר רב שמעון חסידא: מאי דכתיב כה אמר ה' צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה. קרי להו צום, וקרי להו ששון ושמחה, בזמן שיש שלום - יהיו לששון ולשמחה, אין שלום - צום. אמר רב פפא: הכי קאמר: בזמן שיש שלום - יהיו לששון ולשמחה, יש שמד - צום, אין שמד ואין שלום, רצו - מתענין, רצו - אין מתענין. אי הכי, תשעה באב נמי! - אמר רב פפא: שאני תשעה באב, הואיל והוכפלו בו צרות.

R. Ḥana b. Bizna has said in the name of R. Shimeon Ḥasidha: What is the meaning of the verse, Thus had said the Lord of Hosts: The fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth and the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness? The prophet calls these days both days of fasting and days of joy, signifying that when there is peace they shall be for joy and gladness, but if there is not peace they shall be fast days! — R. Pappa replied: What it means is this: When there is peace they shall be for joy and gladness; if there is persecution, they shall be fast days; if there is no persecution but yet not peace, then those who desire may fast and those who desire need not fast. If that is the case, the ninth of Av also [should be optional]! — R. Papa replied: The ninth of Av is in a different category, because several misfortunes happened on it.

Rashi there explains that the saying of R. Ḥanah is referring to a time when there is no Temple, and defines "peace" as a time when "the nations do not have dominion over Israel", or in other words, when Israel are independent of the nations (i.e., autonomy, "שאין יד הגויים תקיפה על ישראל").

HaRav Dawidh Bar-Hayyim, naṭreyhu raḥmana, in his shi'ur The Four Fasts: Halakha or Minhagh discusses the question of whether the fasts have a status of halakha at all, and when they are to be observed according to our written sources.

The Rav quotes the Ramban in Torath ha-Adham: (Gate of Mourning #101)

והאידנא דליכא שלום וליכא שמד רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין. אי הכי תשעה באב נמי אלמה תנן על ששה חדשים השלוחין יוצאין על אב מפני התענית, אמר רב פפא שאני תשעה באב הואיל והוכפלו בו צרות, פירוש יש שלום היינו בזמן שבית המקדש קיים יהיו לששון ולשמחה, אין שלום כגון בזמן חורבן ואין שמד במקום ידוע בישראל רצו רוב צבור ונסכמו שלא להתענות אין ב"ד מטריחין עליהם להתענות, לפיכך אין שלוחין יוצאין

The Ramban explains, contrary to Rashi, that the meaning of 'a time of peace' is when the Temple stands. The Ritva also takes the same approach (see source sheet) but regrettably was not discussed by the Rav. It is interesting to note that the Rashba, who was the Ritva's rabbi and Ramban's student actually takes Rashi's approach and explains:

בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה. פי' בזמן שיש שלום שישראל שרויין על אדמתן.
אין שמד ואין שלום. בשישראל בארץ האויב אלא שאין שמד רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין.

So for Rashba, 'a time of peace' when there's 'joy and gladness' is a time when "Israel are situated in their land", and 'a time when there is no persecution and no peace' is when "Israel are in the land of the enemy but there are no decrees [against them]".

Ramban continues and says:

ועכשיו כבר רצו ונהגו להתענות בהם וקבלום עליהם, לפיכך אסור ליחיד לפרוץ גדרן, וכל שכן בדורות הללו שהרי בעונותינו שרבו יש שמד בישראל ואין שלום

Ramban says that in his own time, the 13th century C.E., the Jewish people took it upon themselves to fast, and therefore an individual who chooses otherwise transgresses the law.

The Rav and his students question Ramban's and Ritva's approach both on a historical and a linguistic basis. We know that during the time of the Second Temple the Romans were making the life of the Jews miserable but yet the Temple stood, so a time like that cannot be called "a time of peace". Furthermore, if the focal point was the Temple why didn't the G'mara use the word miqdash instead of shalom.

The other conundrum is how to keep uniformity among the public. How do the leaders know what the public in the different communities think? Neither the Ramban, nor the Tur discuss this question.

The Rambam, on the other hand, writes in his commentary on the Mishnah: (Rosh haShanah 1, 3)

ובבית שני לא היו מתענין לא עשירי בטבת ולא שבעה עשר בתמוז, אלא הרוצה יתענה או שלא יתענה...כאלו נתן את הבחירה בידם באלו הימים אם רצו מתענין בהם או שלא יתענו

So according to the Rambam, it's an individual choice. Such was the response of Mar Rav Kohen Ṣedeq, as quoted in Shibulei ha-Leqeṭ (Ta'anith #288). In Mishneh Torah, Hilkhoth Ta'aniyoth, the Rambam writes (ch. 5):

כל הצומות האלו עתידים ליבטל לימות המשיח
All these fasts are destined to cease in the days of the [King] Messiah

So the fasts are dependant on a certain reality called Yemoth ha-Mashiaḥ. Elsewhere (H. Melakhim 11) the Rambam explains that the time when Israel are living on its own land as a sovereign nation managed by a Jewish regime is the Days of the Messiah.

For some reason Rav Bar-Hayim does not mention that Ramban's interpretation is probably consequential of Rebbenu Ḥannanel's commentary on that same Gemara, which reads:

הכי קאמר בזמן שיש שלום כלומר כל זמן שבית המקדש קיים יהיה לששון ולשמחה

So according to R. Ḥannanel, who lived in the generation prior to Rashi, the time of peace also pertains to the time when the Temple stands.

R. Bar-Hayyim still says to Ramban's credit that "there is definitely an element of truth to what the Ramban says, because from the time of the destruction it was clear that the general situation of the Jewish people is going down to hell... so from that time onward it became a question of individual choice and preference".

To me personally it seems that our rabbis never imagined, and surely never anticipated, a time when the Jews are independent, and moreover have the power and the ability to build the Temple, and yet do not have the will. To them it was just abnormal and aberrant.

17 of Tammuz: Torah and the Land

2009-07-08T15:02:00.019-04:00

Our Sages taught in the Mishnah masekheth Ta'anith that one of the calamities that befell our people in the Land of Israel was that "Apostemos burned the Torah" (4:6). Although the historical identity of this man is unknown, we do have an interesting parallel from the time of the Second Temple. Josephus recounts a story of Stephanos, a servant of Caesar, that was attacked by robbers on the road to Beith Horon and was robbed of some Roman riches. The enraged procurator, Cumanus, retaliated by "send[ing] troops round the neighboring villages,

with orders to bring up the inhabitants to him in chains, reprimanding them for not having pursued and arrested the robbers. On this occasion, a soldier, finding the sacred book of the law, tore it to pieces, and threw it into the fire. Hereupon the Jews were in great disorder, as though it were their whole country which had been consumed in the flames, and assembled themselves so many of them by their zeal for their religion, as by an engine" (The Judean War 2.228)

What is interesting to note is that the Jews who lived in Ereṣ Yisråel when the Temple was in place identified the burning of the Torah with the burning of the entire land. It seems that current events are beginning to restore this ancient paradigm, namely the mutual relationship between the land and the Torah. But the Jewish people are forgetful and appreciate what they have only after they lose it. Unfortunately we lost that zeal that motivated our forefathers and are no longer driven by the Torah. Today we witness pieces of our land being given away but do not see the Jews so terrified and assemble to fight for justice.

May tomorrow's fast open the hearts of our people to the harsh reality, so that we may return to the ways of our holy forefathers. By the way, today Beit Horon is considered an "illegal settlement" and the modern Roman procurator (procuratoress I should say) demands the Jews to hand it over to its enemies.

Explaining the Jewish Legal System to a Muslim

2009-07-07T17:46:00.007-04:00

Spurred by a TV show, an Australian born Muslim convert, realizing how "ignorant" he was "about the laws and customs of the beni Israel", came out on Hashkafah Forum and inquired about the Torah-based jurisprudence. Here are his exact questions:

I understand that Judaism has a very rich scholarly tradition, so in terms of laws, is it purely through literary critique (studying the language and defining meaning) or are there other means also, like the consensus of community practice (called 'ijma' in Islamic law) or transmissions of stories of Prophets (as)?
Does the Jewish community have a religious hierarchy? Are there central authorities like in the Catholic Church or the Shiat'Ali? Or is it more like Traditionalist Sunni teachings or maybe Buddhism, where a scholar teaches students, who in turn become a scholar with permission to take students of his own, all without a central authority?

My response was as follows:

To simplify the complex, the Jewish legal system is rooted in the ancient systems dating back to the Second and First Temples. In the hierarchy of the Jewish court system, there are three levels of jurisdiction (from bottom to top): Court of Three, Court of Twenty-Three, and Court of Seventy-One judges.

All legitimate judges are ones who are ordained by preceding judges, tracing their ordination to the original seventy Elders, who were both heavenly and earthly mandated. Earthly because the institution existed already in exile (Egypt), and heavenly since God has put the spirit of Moshe (Musa) Rabbenu (AH {Alaw ha-Shalom - the Hebrew form of AS}) upon these Elders.

During the First Temple, the nation was divided into twelve tribes, each including its own district councils. There were judges at the gates of each city (called "Elders" in the Scriptures), and these were usually the Courts of Three or Courts of Twenty-Three judges. The former is authorized to deal with monetary laws. The latter hears cases of capital offenses. These courts were established in communities with a population of at least 120 men. According to our sources, the Court of Twenty-Three has jurisdiction over thirty-six cases.

The most esteemed court is the Supreme Court at Jerusalem, called the Court of Seventy-One judges. Its jurisdiction includes: judicial functions, non-judicial functions, and administrative functions. It deals with the most difficult cases which were either unable to be dealt with by the local courts, or was out of their jurisdiction, such as a case of a sinning tribe, wherein a whole tribe is accused of a certain violation. For instance, in a case is where the majority of the members of a city are accused of idolatry, a capital crime, they are brought to judgment to Jerusalem. Another case is false prophets. The Supreme Court establishes precedence, binding upon the entire nation. Different customs (minhaj) are usually a result of disagreements among local or tribal courts.

As for ijma, I assume you refer to ijma al-'ulama rather than ijma al-umma. Jewish jurisprudence does include a principle of establishing consensus among our ulama. It is called "aḥarei rabeem le'ha'ṭoth", which means that determination or verdicts must be passed according to the majority opinion. This is the reason why our courts are consisted of uneven number of judges. In this respect I must say that the structure of our legal system provides stability, in contrast with Islamic systems as I understand them, where the different schools follow local tradition, like the Maliki school of Madina as opposed to the Hanafi school of Kufa, both claiming their traditions as definitive of the "practice of the Prophet". But ever since the Jewish Supreme Court was abrogated by the Byzantines, this unifying force began to fade, and two central academies arose, one in the Land of Israel and one in Babylonia, resulting in the body of texts we refer to as Talmudh Yerushalmi and Talmudh Bavli. These texts preserve the rulings of the different scholars, and consensus is defined using the expression divrei ha-kol (literally, 'the words of all'), signifying the unanimous consensus.

I also assume that by "through literary critique" you refer to qiyas. Jewish jurists do have a principle called heqeš, and I did hear that eminent Muslim scholars agree that the term qiyas was borrowed from Hebrew. If it interests you, I can expand on that.

Regarding prophets, they are forbidden from deciding legal matters, according to Jewish law. That is not to say there were no prophets who were judges, but they were judging by virtue of their sagacity rather than their prophethood.

Definition of Torah and Its Studies

2009-06-29T13:44:00.063-04:00

There is a fundamental issue in the Jewish world today which shackles the mind and prevents one from pursuing an integral Torah study, and that is the way people define the concept of Torah. Once we understand how to correctly define this term, it would free both the mind and the spirit to reach beyond the limitations set before, and open new portholes to such approaches as secular studies, natural sciences, politics and more.

We hear the word being used over and over in different contexts, but what does it mean? If we would conduct a random survey and ask people in Bnei Brak, Borough Park, or even in Jerusalem what is "Torah" we would get all kinds of answers, most likely all of them erroneous. Some would say Torah is a way of life. Others would say it is a system of proper behavior, or a system of rules and regulations. These are incorrect because they are definitions of Derekh Ereṣ and Miṣwoth - not Torah. Then there are those who would say, it's a book of stories, but that is a definition of the Written Torah - not Torah. There is another mistaken opinion, mostly found among academics, and that is that the Torah is the Wisdom of God. This opinion will be addressed in due course.

If all of the above opinions are erroneous, what is then the correct definition of Torah?

In order to answer this question, let us first deal with the errors and in so doing peel off the husks and arrive at the seed. Those who say that Torah means ethical conduct are unaware of the troublesome nature of their proposition. The question that should arise is: Is it impossible for a person to be ethical without the Torah? Let us ask another question: According to the Torah, do the Gentiles have to be ethical? Answer: Yes. Q: According to the Torah, did the Gentiles receive the Torah? A: No. If so, how can we demand of them to be ethical if the content which necessitates ethics is absent amidst them?!

Moreover, were it not our Sages who said Derekh Ereṣ (lit. 'the way of the land') preceded the Torah? Logically, if one says that A precedes B, that must mean that A≠B. Therefore Torah is not 'the way of the land' (ethics).

Those who say the Torah is laws and regulations seem to overlook some Biblical passages, such as the verse in Proverbs: "For the commandment (Miṣwah) is a lamp, and the teaching (Torah) is light" (6:23),which indicates that Torah is not Miṣwah. These people tend to diminish Torah to the level of impersonal Halakhah. And what about Aggadah? As Rashi comments on the earlier verse: "Just as light always illuminates, so does the merit of the Torah stand for a person forever, but the merit of the commandment is only for a limited time, like the light of a lamp". Or as the Maharal explains in Tiferet Yisrael that "the Torah is not perceptions divided [into] each commandment and commandment in itself, but all the commandments in it connect to one simple idea" (chp. 11). Maharal here says the that Torah is not the totality of commandments, but that the commandments stem from the Torah, a relationship which resembles a root and branches. The root is not the sum of all branches, but rather the branches relate to the root.

In the academia we find the opinion that Torah is the Wisdom of God ('the Mind of God' is another term used), and this is fallacious because wisdom is unassociated with the person who studies it. Just as a mathematical theorem remains true regardless of the fact there are some who did not understand it. The correctness of it is due to the fact it is part of reality. Such Torah is an object. Its God is something, not a someone.

We should therefore resort to the classical view, that the Torah is the expression of the will of God in the world, as illustrated by the midrash: (Tanḥuma, Ki Tissa 17)

ויתן אל משה ככלתו, זש"ה עלית למרום שבית שבי בנוהג שבעולם אדם שובה מחברו כסף וזהב ובגדים שמא יכול לשבות מה שבלבו ואתה שבית את התורה שבתוך לבי הוי שבית שבי

"'He gave to Moses when He finished [speaking to him]' (Exodus 31:18); that is which was stated: 'You went up to the heights, you took spoil [i.e., Torah]' (Psalm 68:19), as is customary in the world that a human seizes silver and gold and cloths from his fellow man, thinking he can seize what is in his heart, so you [Moses] have seized the Torah that was in My heart

The word "heart" in ancient times meant what today we call "mind". What is on one's mind is one's will before it is manifested through speech.

The following torah (teaching) I learned from a rav meqqubal (although from a distance). The study of Torah is divided into three, all of which is included and rooted in THE TORAH (הַתורה), which no one studies. The Sages say that God consulted THE TORAH and created the world. The Torah they refer to is a supernal archetypal Torah. The blueprint of the universe. We study a derivative of that TORAH: Torah (תורה). As the mishnah in Avoth says: "Moses received Torah from Sinai". It is not stated that 'Moses received the Torah', because the Torah he cannot receive. Maharal, commenting on mosheh qibēl tôrah -- משה קבל תורה -- writes: (Derekh Hayyim, ch. 1 pg. 19)

אמר אצל משה לשון קבלה, כי המקבל הוא מקבל לפי כחו, ולא קבל משה כל התורה כדאיתא במסכת שבועות (ה', ע"א) דאמר שם אלא מעתה גבי תורה דכתיב ונעלמה מעיני כל חי מי איכא מאן דידע לה והא כתיב לא ידע אנוש ערכה וגו', א"כ אי אפשר לומר שקבל משה כל התורה כולה עד שידע כל התורה כולה, אלא מקבל התורה מה שאפשר לקבל.
In the case of Moses [the mishnah uses] the term 'reception' (qabalah), for the receiver receives according to his ability, and Moses did not receive the entire Torah... but he received the Torah as was possible for him to receive

In the same manner, R. Menaḥem Azaryah of Fano wrote in 'Asarah Ma'amarot: (Ḥaqor Dīn Part IV, chapter 6)

הא למדת כי חמדה לחוד וכלי חמדה לחוד ועליהן תנן משה קבל תורה מסיני לא אמר את התורה שלא על עצם התורה ונסתרה הדברים אמורים דלא שייך בה לשון קבלה או מסירה אלא השגה שכלית אמנם בסיני היה עוסק בחמדה עצמה ולא הורשה למסור אותה לאחרים כדאיתא בספרי ואותי צוה ה' בעת ההיא דברים צוה אותי לאמרם ביני לבין עצמי והוא טעם וידבר ה' אל משה מה שיאות לו לבדו עמיקתא ומסתרתא לאמר מה שישנו בלך אמור

This metaphysical Torah is the structure of the Universe (סדר העולם) and contains within it everything. But we as students of Moshe Rabbeinu A"H do not study the Torah in its original. Therefore, when Haredim-Dati'im say 'everything is written in the Torah', it depends on which Torah they are talking about. The Torah we study does not contain everything. Every man receives the Torah according to his capacity and understands it according to his sensory nerves.

It should be remarked that this distinction exists in the language of the Sages and is not found in Scripture (‘The Torah uses its own language and the Sages their own’ - B. Ḥulin 137b). As Scripture does not contain abstract expressions, it uses the term word of God instead of the will of God (for more info see Language of Sages vs. Language of Torah).

In the Scriptures, THE TORAH is called the Torah of the Lord (Torath ha-Shem) and Torah is called 'our Torah', as illustrated by the first Psalm:

But his desire is in the Torah of the Lord, and in his Torah he meditates day and night

Rashi there comments: 'At first, it is called the Torah of the Lord, and after he has toiled to master it, it is called his own Torah'. One would desire to engage in the Torah of the Lord, but de facto (in actuality) he is involved in his own Torah. There is a fall and a difference between the desire and reality.

In light of the aforementioned explanations, it is clear why secular studies such as the natural sciences are learned outside of the Beith Midrash. The sciences are part of The Torah, but not our Torah. Our rabbis taught that there is a scale of ranks where the study of Torah is at the top. According to R. Yehudah ha-Lewi, one should begin his studies with the study of particles (physics), then the elements (chemistry), and the other natural sciences (botany and biology), then proceed to psychology (perhaps even neurology), and only then engage in the divine science (metaphysics) and arrive at the true faith (Kuzari V:2).

Rabbeinu Baḥya bar Asher clarified this in his commentary to Avoth: (chp. 3)

וכל הדברים האלה בין התקופה בין גיאמטריאות הכל פרפראות לחכמה כלומר לחכמת האלהית ולשון פרפרת הוא לפתן שאדס אוכל בו את הפת וכן אמרו (ברכות מ"ב) פטר את הפרפרת של אחר המזון וכשם שהפרפרת טפלה אצל הפת והפת עיקר כך תקופות וגימטריאות טפלין לחכמת האלהית וחכמת האלהית היא העיקר, וכשם שהפרפרת סבה להעיר את הכח הניזון ולהרבות לאכול את הפת כך תקופות וגימטריאות מעוררין את הכח השכלי ומביאין אותו להרבות בידיעת האלהית ודבר ידוע כי שבע חכמות כולם הן הן סולם לעלות לחכמת האלהות שהיא השביעית שכולם מתאימות כאחד נכללות בַּתורה,ואין עיקר כל המצות שבתורה והתכלית שלהן אלא להגיע אל החכמה הזאת השביעית האחרונה כי שאר החכמות אין החכם השלם משתמש בהם כי אם לרקחות ולטבחות ולאופים ואלו הן חכמת ההגיון וחכמת המספר וחכמת המדות וחכמת הטבע וחכמת התכונה וחכמת הניגון וחכמת האלהות

Rabbeinu Baḥya compares the way of study to a meal, where just as dessert is extrinsic and the bread is intrinsic to one's nourishment, so the wisdoms of the world are likened to sweets that are subordinate to the divine wisdom - Torah. He writes that "it is a known fact that the seven wisdoms are a ladder by which one can ascend to the metaphysics". Rabbeinu explains that the sage uses them as handmaidens, and that these wisdoms consist of the study of logic and rhetoric, mathematics and geometry, chemistry and astronomy.

Those who claim that everything that science knows is also Torah unconsciously claim that it is only suitable for Jews to study in the university, since everything is Torah. This is absurd. There has to be a defined boundary which separates the divine Torah that is studied in the Beith Midrash and the six wisdoms that are needed for the Torah to operate, and which in some cases are discovered in the universities, but should definitely be studied by Talmidei Ḥakhamim as well. Even if Moses did receive such wisdoms and passed them onto the Elders, these sciences have been forgotten, as the Rambam says in the Moreh (I:71), and we must regain them either by conducing research ourselves or from the nations, just as we are obliged to bless upon seeing the sages of other nations, saying, 'Blessed be He who hath imparted of His wisdom to His creatures' (B. Berakhoth 58a). So says the Maharal in Netivot 'Olam: (Netiv ha-Torah 14)

ואם כן מזה נראה כי יש ללמוד חכמת האומות כי למה לא ילמד החכמה שהיא מן השם יתברך שהרי חכמת האומות גם כן מן השם יתברך שהרי נתן להם מחכמתו יתברך...אבל החכמות לעמוד על המציאות וסדר העולם בודאי מותר ללמוד... כי החכמה הזאת היא כמו סולם לעלות בה אל חכמת התורה.
And if so [that there is wisdom to be found among the nations] then it is evident that one must study the wisdom of the nations for it is from God, may He be praised, for He gave of his wisdom to them... but the wisdoms which grasp reality and the order of the world is surely permitted to be learned... for this wisdom is like a ladder by which one can ascend to the the wisdom of Torah

But Maharal warns that one should read their works with a critical eye and beware of their worldviews which are foreign to our Holy Torah. He also says that our spiritual and divine wisdom is separate from the material wisdom "and you therefore would not find the Torah among those whose entire wisdom is in the skies where divine wisdom is not to be found" (ibid). The problematic character of secular studies is when it is taught by a foreigner in seclusion from our Holy Torah, and then one is stuck in the natural realm (i.e., materialism). In this respect, one can surely understand the rationale behind the ban on Greek philosophy in the Middle-Ages and the reluctance on the part of some Chareidi rabbanim to send their students after the natural sciences, which are dominated by secular instructors.

Then there are those who will point to one statement by the GR"A found in his commentary to Sifra deTsniuta which seemingly proves that everything is written in the Torah: (chapter 5)

והכלל כי כל מה שהיה והוה ויהיה עד עולם הכל כלול בתורה מבראשית עד לעיני כל ישראל. ולא הכללים בלבד, אלא אפילו פרטיו של כל מין ומין, ושל כל אדם בפרט, וכל מה שאירע לו מיום הולדו עד סופו, וכל גלגוליו. וכל פרטיו ופרטי פרטיו. וכן של כל מין בהמה וחיה, וכל בעל חי שבעולם, וכל עשב וצומח ודומם וכל פרטיהם, ופרטי פרטיהם בכל מין ומין ואישי המינים עד לעולם, ומה שיארע להם ושרשם

Those people do not realize that the Gaon is referring to allusions and codes that are "included" in the Written Torah, and only select few can find what they seek in such a manner. In fact the GRA himself studied the sciences, as his children and students testify. Reb Barukh of Shklov wrote in his introduction to the translation of Euclid's Elements:

שמעתי מפי קדוש כי כפי מה שיחסר לאדם ידיעות משארי החכמות, לעומת זה יחסר לו מאה ידות בחכמת התורה, כי התורה והחכמה נצמדים יחד ואמר משל לאדם הנעצר יתבלבל שכלו עד כל אוכל תתאב... וצוה לי להעתיק מה שאפשר ללשוננו הקדוש מחכמות, כדי להוציא בולעם מפיהם וישוטטו רבים ותרבה הדעת בין עמנו ישראל

“... I have heard from the holy one that if one is lacking in the knowledge of the other [secular] sciences, he will lack a hundredfold more in the wisdom of the Torah, for the two are inseparably connected... and he commanded me to translate whatever possible [of the secular subjects] into our holy tongue in order to recover what was devoured... so that knowledge should proliferate among our people Israel"

R. Hillel of Shklov also wrote of the Gaon: (Kol haTor 5:2)

נודע למשגב, שרבנו… עסק הרבה גם בחקירת סגולות הטבע מחקרי ארץ, לשם השגת חכמת התורה ולשם קידוש השם בעיני העמים ולשם קירוב הגאולה. עוד מצעירותו הראה נפלאות בכל שבע החכמות והירבה לבקש. גם ציווה לתלמידיו ללמוד כמה שאפשר בשבע החכמות של מחקרי ארץ גם כדי להרים את חכמת ישראל על-פי חכמת התורה בעיני העמים...ובכדי להבין ולהשיג את חכמת התורה הכלולה באור החכמה העליון, נחוץ ללמוד גם את שבע החכמות הצפונות בעולם התחתון, עולם הטבע

"It is made known as a stronghold that our master... also dealt much in the research of the qualities of nature in order to attain the wisdom of the Torah and to sanctify the name of God in the sight of the peoples and for the purpose of drawing near the redemption... he has also commanded his students to teach as much as they can the seven wisdoms of the natural sciences to exalt the wisdom of Israel according to the wisdom of the Torah...and in order to understand and attain the wisdom of the Torah which is inclosed in the supreme light of wisdom, it is necessary to learn the seven wisdoms which are concealed in the lower world, the world of nature."

Reb Yisroel mi-Shklov wrote similar things in his introduction to Pe'at ha-Shulchan. Read it there.

In this view, we are free to strive for a lucid study of all sciences and wisdoms, Torah study in particular, with the proper differentiation, free of biases. It also clears misconceptions regarding Torah & Science, and the place of secular studies where it is needed. It should be clarified, however, that one does not learn the wisdoms of the lower world to speculate and philosophize. These studies have the purpose of aiding the Torah, which is superior to all other wisdoms. The Vilna Gaon, for example, urged his students to study geometry and engineering so that Jews can ultimately build the Temple in Jerusalem in due time (before the Messiah arrives. See Prof. Arie Morgenstern's research for the latest findings).

Such a view of Torah widens one's horizons to ideas that were before confined or restrained. If The Torah is the order of the world, it includes within itself all disciplines of life, encompassing a wide range of fields of study such as politics and economics, something that was neglected by the Torah world while we have been in exile. Now that we are back on our land, thank God, we can finally retrieve the lost wisdoms and elevate them to the level of holiness. Observing the commandments is nice, but we should always keep in mind that they are the means and not the end. The ultimate purpose is Da'ath HaShem. This subject would be expanded,God willing, when the occasion arises.

miTeiman Yavo: Three Yemenite Jewish Families make 'Aliyah

2009-06-21T14:20:00.011-04:00

Barukh haShem, a couple of hours ago sixteen Yemenite Jews, including three families, arrived on 'aliyah at Ben-Gurion International Airport (IsraelNN).

The Sifre on Deuteronomy describes the exit from exile thus: (par. 314)

ישאהו על אברתו, כענין שנאמר (שמות יט, ד) ואשא אתכם על כנפי נשרים. דבר אחר, כנשר יעיר קנו, זה לעתיד לבוא שנאמר (שיר השירים ב, ח) קול דוד הנה זה בא. יפרוש כנפיו, שנאמר (ישעיה מג, ו) אומר לצפון תני ולתימן אל תכלאי. ישאהו על אברתו כענין שנאמר (ישעיהו מט, כב) והביאו בניך בחצן
He shall bear them on His pinions, as the matter was stated, and I bore you on eagles' wings [and brought you unto Myself] (Ex. 19:4). Another interpretation, As an eagle that stirreth up his nest, this is in days to come, for it is stated, Hark, my beloved, behold, he cometh (SoS. 2:8). Spreadeth abroad his wings, as it is stated, I will say to the north: 'Give up,' and to the south [Teiman]: 'Keep not back [bring My sons from far, and My daughters from the end of the earth] (Is. 43:6).

The Mekhilta deRebbi Yishmael on parashath Bo says:

וכן אתה מוצא כל זמן שישראל משועבדין כביכול שכינה משועבדת עמהם...וכשנגאלו מה הוא אומר וכעצם השמים לטוהר...וכשעתידין לחזור כביכול שכינה חוזרת עמהן שנ' ושב י"י אלהיך את שבותך (דברים ל, ג) אינו אומר והשיב אלא ושב

As long as Israel is enslaved (which means, in exile under the yoke of the nations) it is though the Shekhinah (Divine Presence) is enslaved with them, and when they are redeemed (return to the Land of Israel) the Scripture testifies that it is "the like of the very heaven for clearness" (Ex. 24:10). Every Jew who ascends to the Land of Israel returns the Shekhinah. This is a great responsibility.

The influence of the Satmers in the Yemenite community is not to be scoffed but to be mourned, or better yet, dealt with (by bringing all Jews from Yemen to Israel).

Formula for Israelite Identity According to the Ben Ish Hai

2009-06-19T15:12:00.007-04:00

Different thinkers have difficulty defining the identity called "Israel". There are those who see it as a religion solely, and those who see it solely a nation. Each thinker emphasized a different dimension. R. Yoseph Ḥayyim from Baghdad (1835-1909), known as "the Ben Ish Ḥai" after the title of his most popular work, gives the rationale behind the prepotency of the name Yisrael in the following manner: (opening to Hilkhoth Shanah Rishonah to parashath WaYishlaḥ)

והוא כי ישראל הוא מספר יעקב, משה דוד דשלשה צדיקים אלו צריכין להיות בחיבור אחד
...for Israel is the number Jacob, Moses, David, the three righteous [men] who have to be in unity (lit., in one linkage)

In continuation, the Ben Ish Ḥai explains the matter according to the lore of Qabbalah, but let us deal with this seemingly simple, but very pivotal, introductory statement.

A later scholar, Rav Yehouda Leon Ashkenazi (1922-1996, son of Chief Rabbi of Algiers. called by his students "Manitou", which means 'The Great Spirit') explained that the gematria, the numerical value of the word "Israel", which is 541, equals the sum of values of "Jacob" (יעקב=182), Moses (משה=345), and David (דוד=14). R. Yehuda further explained that there are three dimensions in Israel: The nation, the Torah, and the land. Jacob our Patriarch symbolizes the nation, Moses our Prophet symbolizes the Torah, and David our King symbolizes the land.

The Ben Ish Ḥai teaches us that these three dimensions must not be separated. During the course of exile, the dimension of David -- soverignty -- was absent, giving way for identity problems. Now during the era of redemption we attain a final fusion of these three elements, and return to the simple formula: The nation with its Torah on its land.

Israel and Torah - which takes precedence?

2009-06-18T12:05:00.025-04:00

Rashi, following Midrash Rabbah, interprets the verse "In the beginning of God's creation of" (Heb. בְּרֵאשִית בָּרָא) as passing a lesson to teach us that the world was created for the sake of the Torah, which is called “the beginning of His way” (Prov. 8:22), and for the sake of Israel, who are called “the first of His grain” (Jer. 2:3). But which comes first - Yisrael or Torah? What relationship of mutuality exists between the two? This was asked by Rebbi Shim'on ben Yohai: (Qoheleth Rabbah 1)

ארשב"י כתיב כי כימי העץ ימי עמי ואין עץ אלא תורה, שנאמר עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה, וכי מי נברא בשביל מי התורה בשביל ישראל או ישראל בשביל תורה, לא תורה בשביל ישראל, אלא תורה שנבראת בשביל ישראל הרי היא קיימת לעולמי עולמים, ישראל שנבראו בזכות' עאכ"ו

R. Shimeon b. Yohai said: It is written, For as the days of a tree shall be the days of My people (Isa. 65:22), and 'tree' means nothing else than Torah, as it is stated, She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her (Prov. 3:18). Now who was created for the sake of whom? Was Torah created for the sake of Israel or vice versa? Surely Torah was created for the sake of Israel.

This question has practical implications, since if the Torah is more important than the existence of Israel, what should happen to the nation if it sins?

Both Rashi's source, Midrash Rabbah, and another midrash also ask that question. The former answers it thus: (Beresheeth Rabbah 1:4)

ר' הונא ור' ירמיה בשם רבי שמואל בר ר' יצחק אמרו מחשבתן של ישראל קדמה לכל דבר
R. Huna and R. Yirmiyah said in the name of R. Shmuel bar Yiṣḥaq: the thought of Israel preceded every thing

Tanna deVei Eliyahu expands the answer with more detail:

אמר לי רבי שני דברים יש לי בלבבי, ואני אוהבן אהבה גדולה, תורה וישראל, אבל איני יודע אי זה מהן קודם? אמרתי לו: דרכן של בני אדם שאומרים, תורה קדומה לכל, שנאמר ה' קנני ראשית דרכו, אבל הייתי אומר: ישראל קדושים קודמין, שנאמר קודש ישראל לה' ראשית תבואתו
[A man who had learning in Scripture but not in Mishnah] said to me: Master, two things are in my heart and I love them [both with] great affection -- Torah and Israel -- but I do not know which one of them comes first. I said to him: it customary for human beings to say 'Torah precedes everything' in keeping with the verse: The LORD made me as the beginning of His way (Pro. 8:22), but I would say: Israel are holy [and] antedate (=come first), as it is stated: Israel is the LORD'S hallowed portion, His first-fruits of the increase (Jer. 2:3)

This comes to teach us a brilliant lesson. At times, there is a need to temporarily postpone the Torah, just as Mordechai made the first day of Passover pass as a fast day (B. Meg. 15a), and as Moshe Rabbeinu A"H did during the sin of the Golden Calf, when God proclaimed, "Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them" (Ex. 32:10), and by his own initiative broke the tablets rather than let the people be judged according to their words (see Avoth deRabbi Nathan, 2nd add. to form. 1:2) . The Holy One is said to be satisfied with Moshe's actions, making the skin of his face send off beams in this world (Eliyahu Rabbah 4:1), and praised him saying, 'all strength to thee that thou brakest it' (יישר כחך ששיברת, lit., 'thy strength be firm', which is an expression of approval. See B. Sha. 87a; Yev. 62a).

The reason this is a brilliant lesson, especially for our times, is because we learn from it the essential definition of Israel and Torah, that the two are inseparable, but moreover that the well being of the nation precedes a strict adherence to the Law. 'The way of human beings' (a literal translation of the original) who think that Torah always takes precedence, and in so doing they turn Judaism into solely a religion and diminish its nationalistic element, is found by the midrash to be an erroneous view of Scripture.

Regrettably, we still have such "human beings" living among us today, that bring Torah before Israel, thus overlooking important events in the annals of the Jewish people and fail giving it proper attention. But interestingly enough, rather than 'having learning in Scripture,' like the man in the midrash, today's "human beings" have learning in Mishnah and yet bring the Torah first. Could it possibly be a mark of the current teachers of Mishnah?

כפשוטו - Restoring Passed Glory

2009-06-16T18:05:00.007-04:00

Ever since the Jewish people went into exile, the study of Hebrew Scriptures was either abandoned or, painful as it is, distorted. The Galut-mode reality could not facilitate a clear understanding of the Miqra, and step-by-step the center of attention switched from the Written Torah to the Oral Torah, to the absurd point where The Book we ourselves bestowed unto the world was studied more by non-Jews than by us.

Even now that many of us have returned to the land of our forefathers, the issue is largely neglected. There is nothing more distressful than to enter a Yeshiva and simply request a Tanakh.

This all might change with Jews of different backgrounds and points of view engaging in interpreting the Miqra through KiPshuto (כפשוטו, lit., as the simple meaning), a new non-denominational website which uses an interface similar to Wikipedia and a rating system which allows users to rate each interpretation, respond and discuss the quality of the explanation.

I checked the comments people left on the article on Ynet and found mainly negative attitudes. Among the reasons was a sentiment of fear of a secular or even Christian or Karaite influence into the realm of Holiness. But I am optimistic with regards to this project for one reason, and that is that to use this extraordinary tool people would have to think on a deeper level and be able to share their insights rather than keep it to themselves and probably forget about it. Moreover, the ability to discuss each person's reasoning and perception of the texts is splendid.

This platform, no matter who its founder is, might revive yet more the urge to return to our roots. Now I only wish that wise and erudite persons will engage in the enterprise.

Note on the Pronunciation of the Letter Qoph

2009-06-16T13:22:00.015-04:00

While researching the saying of R. Yiṣḥāq Nappaḥa, I stumbled upon an interesting distinction in the way different Jews would pronounce the letter Qoph. The Babylonian Talmudh transliterates the Greek word πραγματεία in the following manner: פרקמטיא (see Ber. 34b; Shab. 127b; Mg.6a), while the original Greek word should be transliterated as pragmateia, the fourth letter being Gamma (lowercase γ).

I could make the statement that this is exclusively the transliteration of the Bavli, but sources from the Land of Israel also have the same transliteration (see Tosephta Ketuvoth: "שלשה שהטילו לכיס"; Yer. Suk. 54c; Yer. Sot. 17a; Yer. San. 29d). Interestingly, while the Talmudh Yerushalmi does contain the transliteration פרקמטיא, it does so very rarely (Beresheeth Rabbah has it only once). The more common transliteration of the Greek word from Palestinian sources is פרגמטיא (see Yer. MQ 81b; Yer. Sot. 24b; Sifre Dev. 354; Ber. Rabbah 19).

I tried to identify the authors of the different sayings and see if I can locate particular places to infer whether these are different dialects. It should be mentioned that certain Babylonian communities such as my own (Caucasian) and other Persian communities still retain a unique pronunciation of the letter Qoph (ק) which has voiceless uvular plosive sound but is unlike that of the Baghdadi Jews that resembles the Arabic Qaf (ق). You can hear some piyyutim (this is one example by a Daghestani rabbi. Notice how he pronounces קְטַנָּה and קִלְלוֹתֶיהָ) and a sensitive ear can pick up the difference right away.

Another evidence we might have for this type of vocalization is from a later period. R. Sa'adyah Gaon, writing in the first quarter of the 10th century, describes the Khazar ruler thus:

ואנה כמא כל מלך ללערב יסמי כליפה וכל מלך ללכזר יסמי כאקאן

Notice how our rabbi transliterates the Turkic name for king, kaɣan, which is commonly vocalized as kaghan/Kağan into כאקאן, again using Qoph and not Gimmel.

In light of these findings, it is quite clear why some Jewish communities in Yemen pronounce the ק as Gof, rather than the original which sounded more like Ghof.

Jewish Oligarch Telman Ismailov is Wanted by the Russian Gov

2009-06-07T15:26:00.013-04:00

I have just finished watching a two-hour-long propaganda piece put together by the Russian government..urrr...the Russian media, masqueraded as a "counterfeit reportage" against the Mountain Jewish businessman, entrepreneur and philanthropist Telman Ismailov (Rus. Тельман Исмаилов).

Telman, who is the chairman of AST Group, and former owner of Moscow’s renowned Cherkizovsky Market, is being investigated on charges of "dangerous contraband and counterfeit" in a market he does not even own anymore.

"There is nothing more naive," says the reporter from Telekanal Rossiya (Russian TV Channel), "than to ask the local merchants for a certificate of the merchandise". Through a surveillance camera, the reporter shows us how easy it is to buy any certificate one wishes for, right there in the flea market. Just 17,000 Tadjiks are dealing and sleeping in the market, which sees a million people passing there daily, and brings a profit of a billion dollars yearly, according to the report.

Above: Cherkizovsky Market

Telman, who just opened his luxury hotel – Mardan Palace - in Antalya, the largest hotel on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, costing him €1.4 billion, is said to have started selling off his Russian assets for more than a year now, and requests a Turkish citizenship. It seems he has crossed the path of Putin or one of his thugs, and now all of the sudden they notice the criminal activities occurring in the Moscow market, which just happens to be the largest such market in Russia.

According to the mainstream reports, it all started with the finding of smuggled goods worth $2 billion, placed in 6 thousand containers. Shoes and children's clothings were among the objects, which were found "unsuitable for use, threatening the health of children and will soon be destroyed," said the Prosecutor General.

From Putin's rhetoric it is evident that he wants Telman behind bars. Without commenting on the activities of Telman Ismailov, I can say from experience that he is venerated as a Godfather in the Jewish community both in Russia and beyond. He really helped many, many people.

Above: Mardan Palace Hotel

The newly-build 7-star hotel, which according to another Russian magazine, "Arab sheikhs never saw such a palace in their dreams," also contains a house for Mr. Ismailov. I suspect he planned this project in anticipation of a Russian reaction to whatever 'misunderstanding' there was between him and the other oligarchs.

I haven't yet found a report in English so here is the report in Russian:

Financial Diversification from the Torah

2009-06-04T12:25:00.016-04:00

In modern Finance there is an entire discipline called Diversification that is applied in asset allocation in order to mitigate risk. Our Sages of blessed memory were already aware of the problems of risk exposure and proposed the following rule: (B. Bava Meṣi'a 42a)

ואמר ר' יצחק לעולם ישליש אדם את מעותיו שליש בקרקע ושליש בפרקמטיא ושליש תחת ידו
Said R. Yiṣḥāq: man should always divide his wealth into three - a third in land, a third in pragmatia (Grk. πραγματεία, which means commerce or merchandise), and a third under his hand.

Or in modern terms, a third in real estate, a third in stocks, and a third in liquid form, as Rashi comments there: להיות מזומן לו לצורך ריוח הבא פתאום ('so it would be ready for him to make a profit [out of a deal] that comes suddenly').

This advice is given by Rabbi Yiṣḥāq Nappaḥa ("Isaac the Smith", sometimes called Isaac bar Aḥa, c. 250-320 C.E.), an Amora from Ereṣ Yisrael, and is found recorded in the Middle Gate (Aram. בבא מציעא) of the Order of Damages (נזיקין) in the Babylonian Talmudh.

This strategy, called the equal allocation strategy, is the most ancient strategy ever found in writing, and due to its simplicity economists have dubbed it the "naïve diversification strategy". But I recently have read an article in the Journal for Portfolio Management which statistically proves that this strategy is not so old-fashioned after all.

In Markowitz Versus the Talmudic Portfolio Diversification Strategies (Winter 2009), Prof. Haim Levy and Ran Duchin empirically compare the Talmudic strategy with that of Harry Markowitz, another Jewish sage (an economist) who has pioneered the Modern Portfolio Theory with his paper, "Portfolio Selection", published in the Journal of Finance in 1952.

R. Yiṣḥāq Nappaḥa recommends an equal allocation strategy because he was wise enough to observe that human cognition would not easily discern the future relevant parameters from historical ones, and that by equally distributing one's wealth, the margin of error is minimized. A notable disadvantage of this strategy is not utilizing other parameters to get the optimal return on investment. Harry Markowitz introduced the mean-variance (M-V) diversification strategy, which seeks to optimize returns by characterizing each asset by its expected return and volatility, to answer this drawback. The basic assumption of such an analysis which Markowitz proposed is that the higher the risk of an investment, the higher is the return.This trade-off can be expressed in the M-V strategy, when the mean is the average return, and the variance is a measure of risk.

Prof. Philippe Jorion has already identified the major defects of the Classical Mean-Variance Analysis in his 1985 paper International Portfolio Diversification with Estimation Risk published in the Journal of Business (Vol.58;p.259-78). 'Poor out-of-sample performance of the optimal portfolios' and 'instability of the optimal portfolio' were counted among the major barriers to the practical applications of mean-variance analysis. Already then Prof. Jorion demonstrated how "a simple equally weighted index" outperforms a portfolio which used the M-V analysis.

So the question Prof. Duchin and Levy pose is the following:

Is it better to employ the 1/n rule [the equal allocation strategy] and avoid choosing the wrong portfolio mix due to the sampling errors of the various parameters, or is it better to employ the M-V rule, which takes into account the various parameters, albeit with some possible sampling errors?

click on the above photo to enlarge it

The essay essentially shows that elu wa'elu divrei Elohim hayyim, i.e., both strategies have their place in a proper configuration of the portfolio. It shows "that the Talmudic wisdom is correct for relatively small portfolios and that the Markowitz theory prevails for relatively large portfolios".

Under "Data and Results," Prof. Levy and Duchin conclude:

As it turns out, the Talmudic wise people knew what they were talking about. In some cases, the naive portfolio provides a higher out-of-sample average return than the M-V portfolio. This is particularly true of individual investors who hold a relatively small number of assets in their portfolios.

Another, more extensive, research released in 2005 by Victor DeMiguel, Lorenzo Garlappi and Raman Uppal (May 31, 2005, “How Inefficient is the 1/N Asset-Allocation Strategy”) found “the 1/N asset allocation rule typically has a higher out-of-sample Sharpe Ratio, a higher certainty-equivalent value, and a lower turnover than optimal asset allocation policies". In the abstract they write, "our analytical results and simulations show that the estimation window needed for the sample-based mean-variance strategy and its extensions to outperform the 1/N benchmark is around 3000 months for a portfolio with 25 assets and about 6000 months for a portfolio with 50 assets."

For those who are interested, the complete paper can be found here.

A yet more recent research by Prof. Jun Tu and Guofu Zhou entitled Markowitz Meets Talmud: A Combination of Sophisticated and Naive Diversification Strategies remarks:

for some of the real data sets examined by DeMiguel, Garlappi, and Uppal (2007) and our new data sets here, all of the existing sophisticated strategies, which are the best ones we choose for our study, not only underperform the 1/N, but also have negative risk-adjusted returns!

Nature in the Jewish Understanding

2009-05-31T21:34:00.020-04:00

The Modern Hebrew word used to denote Nature is ṭeva (טבע). But the Biblical vocabulary lacks this concept. Indeed it is not found in the Torah, nor in the scrolls of the Prophets A"H, nor is it found in the Wisdom Writings. It isn't even found in the Mishnah, nor the B'raitha, nor the early Midrashim, and not even both Talmudhim (!). So if this is the case, what word did the ancient Hebrews use to denote this concept, if they even knew of it as such?

To answer that question we first need to ask ourselves what is this vague concept we refer to as Nature? Is it even a scientific term? It seems not, but yet virtually all scientists use it. Well, nature is a philosophical term in its essence. The Latin word natura has its root in the Greek word physis (φύσις), which in Ancient Greece meant "origin", or some intrinsic way of action or characteristic, and also "growth" (see The Use of Physis in Fifth-century Greek Literature). To Heraclitus, phusis meant proper constitution of each thing. To Plato, the essence of all things. Aristotle has defined it as a principle of inner motion inside each thing, and this causation is thus 'Nature' (Physics II:1; cf. Kuzari I:70-3).

Today's philosophers, the scientists, accustomed us to think of the concept of 'nature' as an autonomous system of deterministic laws which set the functioning of the world. The Hebrew word used today, ṭeva, is a late expression which made its way into the Hebrew dictionary through the Arab philosophers in the Middle Ages. Rav Sa'adyah was the first Jewish scholar, as far as I know (perhaps there were some Karaite philosophers of whom I'm not aware) who used this concept when speaking of the trustworthiness of a prophet, whose "wondrous signs are in the occurrence of what is not according to nature (ṭabīʿa)" (Beliefs and Opinions 1:3).

The Sages from Babylonia used the expression minhago shel-'olam (מנהגו של עולם, lit., 'the way of the world'; cf. Bava Bathra 15b). In this view, nature is a name for the usual order of things -- minhago shel 'olam -- but that regularity is not autonomous. Minhag means a 'custom' or 'habit'.

Let us see how this view is applied in Halakha (legal matters). When interpreting the verse in Dueteronomy pertaining to the poor, Maimonides writes that God did not determine what any individual would do when He foretold how the Egyptians or the Israelites would behave in the future; He only described in general terms how people customarily act (hodi'o ha-Boreh minhago shel 'olam), as in the verse 'for the poor shall not cease to be in the land' (Deut. 15:11), which is not a decree of fate but an observation of the habitual presence of the poor in society to be mindful and benevolent towards them (MT Teshuvah 6:5).

A habit is changeable, compared with a law which is unchangeable. In such a system, miracles are in the realm of possibility. It is a post factum condition and not a condition to begin with.

The Savants from the land of Israel used the expression gidro shel-'olam (גדרו של עולם, lit., 'the fence of the world'; cf. Pe'ah 16:2). This is to show that as a fence can be lifted, so can the laws of nature.

The medieval rabbis have remarked that the numerical value of ha-ṭeva is equal to that of Elohim (=86). The name Elohim symbolizes stringency, and is perceived as 'Possessor of all the powers in the universe'. This is what the image at the head of the post represents (it is the name Elohim in paleo-Hebrew).

Heavens - Fusion of Fire and Water

2009-05-30T19:32:00.014-04:00

What did our Sages of blessed memory mean when they said תורה מן השמים (lit., instruction from the heavens)?

The rabbis taught us that the word for 'Heavens' consists of two words - fire and water: (B. Hagigah 12a; cf. Beresheeth Rabbah 4:7)

מאי שמים...במתניתא תנא: אש ומים. מלמד שהביאן הקדוש ברוך הוא וטרפן זה בזה, ועשה מהן רקיע
What is meant by 'Heavens' (Sḥāṃāyīm)?...it was taught in a b'raitha: fire (esh) and water (ṃāyīm). [Which] teaches that The Holy One brought them [in the Act of Creation] and mingled them together, and made them into firmament

The Earth, however, cannot sustain fire and water concurrently, because the water extinguishes the fire or the fire vaporizes the water. Water, which symbolizes the attribute of grace (Midath ha-Hessedh), and fire, which symbolizes the attribute of justice (Midath ha-Dīn), cannot exist together on earth in a natural way. When one acts in grace, he strikes down justice, and vice versa. Therefore, man alone cannot invent the Torah, which unites all contradictory attributes, by virtue of his intellect.

Accordingly, there is a need for 'Heavenly Torah', that is a Torah which spouts out from a unifying origin, such as the Heavens (Shamayim) where both fire and water are situated together in harmony.

This is the root of the error of the Biblical Critics, who see conflicting and hence contradictory voices in the Pentateuch, for they start out from the essentially ideological and unscientific assumption that the Torah is not from the Heavens. And this whence they know?

Israel's Problem or Ehrman's Problem?

2009-05-26T00:57:00.023-04:00

Even though this is related to a portion we read a couple of weeks ago, Parashath beHuqothai, I still see it fit to bring it forward now.

Dr. Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar from the University of North Carolina, has published a book on the Theodicy of the Bible[s] (that is, both Jewish and Christian writs) entitled God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer. Having partially read his critique on the New Testament, which seemed to me balanced to some degree, I picked up this new book to see what this scholar of Christianity has to say about the Scriptures of the Jews, although without much expectation I must admit. This one seemed unbalanced, but what bothered me most was the intellectual dishonesty concerning the Jewish Scriptures and total disregard for Jewish answers to Dr. Ehrman's (very legitimate) questions.

One can say, 'Suffering is God's problem. What do you care?', and this may be valid. It is derisible to assume that God needs pleaders or advocates. But this case is different. The issue is not just academic myopia or the superficiality of the modern scholars, but rather the outright improbity and its dire consequences.

After explaining to the readers the 'mechanics' of the Torah, the relationship between God and Israel, the two parties who, in a sense, signed a B'rith, a covenant or a contract on Sinai, Prof. Ehrman writes:

...what were ancient Israelite thinkers to suppose when things did not go as planned or expected? What were they to make of the fact that Israel sometimes suffered military defeat or political setbacks or economic hardship? How were they to explain the fact that the people of God suffered from famine, drought, and pestilence? How were they to explain suffering—not only nationally, but also personally, when they were starved or seriously wounded, when their children were stillborn or born with defects, when they faced grinding poverty or personal loss? If God is the powerful creator, and if he has chosen Israel and promised them success and prosperity, how is one to explain the fact that Israel suffers? Eventually the northern kingdom was utterly destroyed by a foreign nation. How could that be, if God had chosen them to be his people? In another 150 years the southern kingdom was destroyed as well. Why did God not protect and defend it as he had promised? (pp. 30-31)

Such lamblike bedazzlement was unexpected from a Western scholar, but I suppose that decades of Christian theology had its affect. My response to the above questions will not be philosophical, but rather, as the questions themselves, literary.

As in any legal contract where both parties are obliged to take certain actions, the B'rith at Sinai was an expressed, bilateral contract; A promise for a promise. In Parashath beHuqothai ("by my statutes”), the last Torah portion in the book of waYiqra (Leviticus), we read about God's promises to the Israelite nation if they abide by His decrees, which will result in blessings. God would bless Israel with rains in their season, abundant harvests, peace, victory over enemies, fertility, and God’s presence (Lev. 26:3–14). However, should the people disobey and not keep up their share of the deal, God would wreak upon Israel misery, consumption, fever, stolen harvests, defeat by enemies, poor harvests, attacks of wild beasts, pestilence, famine, desolation, and timidity (Lev. 26:14–38).

Prof. Ehrman wonders how is exile possible, but that too was part of the contract (verse 39). And even then, after they "confess their iniquity... when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them; for I am the LORD their God" (verses 40-44). This stands in sharp contrast with Christianity, which is a religion for the individual. Judaism is a national religion, and as such it demands compliance to the rules and regulations as a collective, and the people are therefore punished collectively. Moreover, redemption or salvation from the aforementioned Scripture means returning to the God-given land and breaking the yoke of the nations who subdued the people of Israel.

This relationship of quid pro quo is evident in Deuteronomy ("repetition of the law") where Moses, peace be upon him, warns the people ceaselessly regarding the people's obligations and what should happen would they disobey. It therefore comes as no surprise to see that throughout the history of the Jewish people they are punished when disobedient and blessed when are obedient. The fact that this nation undergone two (some historians are reluctant in accepting the Exodus story as historical) exiles and still exists and is alive is actual testimony to the veracity of the Writs, and it still puzzles most if not all historians who try to cope with the recent idea of the dejected Jewish people establishing an independent state (Arnold Toynbee is a good example).

But this system of retribution is much more complicated. The rabbis, who are the successors to the judges, priests and prophets, expanded upon the vague words of the Torah portion, showing how each decree corresponds to daily punishments in an intricate balance of reckoning and accountability. Unlike the teachings of Christianity, it is not mere faith but conduct that counts, and the Hebrew Scriptures show this moral coherence throughout.

Next, Prof. Ehrman judges the prophecy of Amos: (9:14)

And I will turn the captivity of My people Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

When introducing the readers to the writings of the Prophets, Dr. Ehrman premises that prophecy is unreal (see pp. 30-33), and concludes that "[t]his final set of predictions was never fulfilled" (p. 42). "The northern kingdom of Israel in fact was not restored, and even what later came to be known as Israel (the southern kingdom of Judah) was destroyed, not just once, but repeatedly over the years" (ibid).

Manipulation of the verses is unnecessary. Amos does not "predict" that the Northern Kingdom of Israel will be restored. Nor did the other Prophets "predict" the Southern Kingdom of Israel will be restored as it was in their lifetime (cf. Jeremiah 30:3 for the same prophecy). Rather, "My people Israel" -- the nation -- will be restored to its land, the Land of Israel, in unity. How do I know that Amos speaks of the whole of "the House of Israel", the North and the South? First because it is stated explicitly, but he also speaks of raising up "the tabernacle of David that is fallen" (v.11), and you do not have to be a Biblical scholar to know that there were no kings from the House of David in the Northern Kingdom. Besides, a person must be sightless to declare that the prophecy was not fulfilled when it is being realized before our eyes, and the professor feels it each time he eats fruits or drinks wine imported from Israel.

But what is perhaps most insulting is Prof. Ehrman's neglect of Jewish answers to his questions. If he had questions about the Hebrew Scriptures, why not simply turn to the custodians of those Scriptures, which the professor acknowledges to be the Jews? Prof. Ehrman consults neither with the words of the Sages of Israel, nor does he even mention any Jewish scholar, in medieval or modern times. The only shred of evidence for Jewish opinion is found at the end of the book, and is the book of Harold Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People, which is far from being authoritative (see Rabbi Yitzchok Kirzner's, Why Harold Kushner Is Wrong). Although not a Christian, the scholar of Christianity does what Christians have been doing for two millennia now, and that is robbing Judaism of its heritage (see ch. 14 of Dr. Barrie A. Wilson's book, How Jesus Became Christian).

Knitted Kippah on "Heroes" ?

2009-03-24T23:43:00.005-04:00

Did anyone else notice the actor wearing a knitted skullcap (Heb. כיפה סרוגה), usually worn by Traditional/Zionist Jews, on the seventh chapter (20th episode) of the TV show "Heroes"?

Lately I've noticed a number of Jewish symbols on pop films and shows. Is it just Multiculturalism or perhaps something else?

Upcoming Episode: Joshua: Epic Slaughter

2009-03-19T23:51:00.005-04:00

The next episode of the Battles B.C. series is Joshua: Epic Slaughter which premiers on Monday, March 23 09:00 PM on the History Channel (The rest of the schedule in case you miss it can be found here).

Again, I have very low expectations in regards to insightful information. My intention is to enjoy the graphics and to further see what other falsehoods might the HC team propagate and write a blog entry as a response. I have yet to upload a critical analysis and response to the episode on King David, so look forward to that.

History Channel defame our Beloved King

2009-03-18T02:44:00.026-04:00

The History Channel has decided to make another series about ancient warfare, which they call Battles B.C. This one, they so hope, should appeal to viewers by virtue of its computer-animated graphics which resembles Zack Snyder's film, 300. And that is all there is to it - graphical spectacle.

Frankly, I did not have any educational expectations towards this show. The graphical performance did, however, spur me. I did watch 300 and wandered why Snyder, being a Jewish director, did not make a film based on Biblical battle scenes. Perhaps making a Hollywood movie about Persian defeat is currently more politically correct than Israeli victory.

Battle B.C. aired on March 9th with its first episode, Hannibal: The Annihilator (which I missed), and then the second episode premiered on March 16th, David: Giant Slayer.

It was obvious to me that the so-called experts on the show will demystify King David (Heb. Dawidh, "beloved"), but what I heard throughout the show struck me as fraudulent, false statements that sound much more like slander than historical or literary analysis. To put it in their words, David is 'a treacherous outlaw, a Philistine puppet, and without pity'.

King David flees Israel and allies himself with its greatest enemy. He betrays his own people by proving his loyalty to the enemy, "raid[ing] Israelite settlements". David is portrayed explicitly as a "Mafia Don", sending his "consigliere" Yoab (Yoav ben Tseruyah) on execution missions. David "The Godfather" puts to death the assassins he himself sent to murder Ishbaal, the HC team claims.

A ruthless murderer and thirsty for power, David leaves no trace of Saul's bloodline by ordering their crucifixion, and betrays the Philistines "who helped put him in power... to further his own interests".

The History Channel has done more than demystify King David -- they demonize him. He is no longer a person of great valor, but rather a war criminal.

Could this be a liberal critique of the State of Israel's "war crimes" against the Philistines (= Palestinians) masqueraded as a documentary?

HC's conclusion: "A blood-thirsty opportunist..narrow, self-interested man," the Israelite King David is to be condemned and not revered.

This post is not a final critical review of the episode. For a thorough review, more time is needed. All who actually read the Hebrew Scriptures understand the injustice done by the History Channel. For those who do not, I will try and find the time to write a concise response to this dreadful episode, and restore our Beloved King's glorious stature.

And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children

2008-12-01T19:23:00.001-05:00

[Not my] English translation of a lesson transcript that has not been edited by Rabbi Sherki yet [I have not edited it either due to lack of time]

At the end of his book, the prophet Malachi discloses a Divine promise. Malachi, the last book in order of Trei Asar, or the Twelve Prophets, is also the last of the books of prophesy; this promise, therefore, concludes the period of prophetic revelation. As the word of God stands to disappear for a significant period of time, there is a need for a Divine pledge (Malachi 3, 22-24):

Remember the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the land with utter destruction.

The prophetic period, which began with God’s word at the world’s creation, ceases with these words: the prophesy reveals pursuing historical success to be dependent on the renewed appearance of the prophet Eliyahu. In this context, Eliyahu appears in a role in which his main responsibility is to make peace between fathers and sons—between the older and younger generations. It follows, therefore, that there is a certain disagreement between the fathers and sons, one which only Eliyahu can resolve.

Eliyahu Makes Peace?!

It is surprising that Eliyahu is chosen to settle the dispute between the fathers and sons. Why is he specifically chosen from amongst all the prophets to make peace? In light of the fact that in a previous story Eliyahu failed at efforts to educate the Jewish nation, it seems that he is not qualified for this endeavor.

The well known story involves Eliyahu and the four hundred and fifty ne’vei baal, the “prophets” of the idol baal: he assembles the nation at Har Carmel; arranges for a competition between himself the ne’vei baal; and attempts to relay a didactic message to bnei yisrael intended to catalyze teshuva (Melachim 1 18:21):

And Elijah came near unto all the people, and said: 'How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.' And the people answered him not a word.

After the ne’vei baal fail at their attempts to bring their sacrifice, Eliyahu brings his sacrifice (Melachim 1 18: 36-39):

And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening offering, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said: 'O LORD, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that Thou art God in Israel, and that I am Thy servant, and that I have done all these things at Thy word. Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that Thou, LORD, art God, for Thou didst turn their heart backward.' Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt-offering, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said: 'The LORD, He is God; the LORD, He is God.'

Eliyahu, showcasing a great success in the midst of the nation, causes them, seemingly, to repent as they cry out: 'The LORD, He is God; the LORD, He is God.' He subsequently exploits the moment of ecstatic enthusiasm and, within one day, kills all of the ne’vei baal in Nachal Kishon; this is surely a great victory for Eliyahu.

He later arrives at Yizrael, the winter house of the kings of Israel, and meets a messenger sent by Achav’s wife, Isabel. The messenger relates Isabel’s reaction (Melachim 1 19:2)

Then Jezebel sent a messenger unto Elijah, saying: 'So let the gods do [to me], and more also, if I make not thy life as the life of one of them by to-morrow about this time.'

Isabel warns that she intends the kill Eliyahu in the exact manner that he killed the ne’vei haBaal. It is important to understand the political situation: Isabel’s willingness to threaten Eliyahu in such a flagrant manner that day after his impressive victory evidences the power and influence she retains; the nation continues to respect and heed the words of the queen. Apparently, therefore, the efforts of Eliyahu did not draw the expected results and the nation did not repent its previous ways.

Eliyahu’s Didactic Failure

After hearing the harsh words of Isabel, Eliyahu flees to Be’er Sheva; from there he goes down to the desert; and it is there that an angel appears to him (Melachim 1 19 4-10):

But he himself went a day's journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a broom-tree; and he requested for himself that he might die; and said: 'It is enough; now, O LORD, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers.' And he lay down and slept under a broom-tree; and, behold, an angel touched him, and said unto him: 'Arise and eat.' And he looked, and, behold, there was at his head a cake baked on the hot stones, and a cruse of water. And he did eat and drink, and laid him down again And the angel of the LORD came again the second time, and touched him, and said: 'Arise and eat; because the journey is too great for thee.' And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meal forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God. And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of the LORD came to him, and He said unto him: 'What doest thou here, Elijah? And he said: 'I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, thrown down Thine altars, and slain Thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.'

This story resembles many aspects of the story of Moshe Rabeinu: both Moshe and Eliyahu fast for forty days and forty nights; God reveals Himself to both Moshe and Eliyahu at Har Sinai; Eliyahu enters the very same cave in which Moshe heard the shlosh esrei middot, the thirteen attributes of God.

As God reveals himself to Eliyahu He asks a strange question: 'What doest thou here, Elijah?’ God instructed Eliyahu to come to Har Sinai; it is surely clear why he is there.

It is integral, therefore, to understand the meaning of the question 'What doest thou here (po), Elijah?’ The word “po” does not refer to “here”—at Har Sinai, but rather “here”—in this world, olam ha’zeh. The question was: “what are you doing in olam ha’zeh, Eliyahu?” How do you understand your role in this world as a prophet of God? Eliyahu, though, answers with harsh accusations of Bnei Yiroel:

“The children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, thrown down Thine altars, and slain Thy prophets with the sword”

Chazal explain that Eliyhu’s words cause the following reaction from God:

Eliyahu says: “The children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant” and God asks: My oath or your oath?

Eliyahu says: “thrown down Thine altars”, and God asks: My alter or your alter?

Eliyahu says: “and slain Thy prophets with the sword” and God asks: My prophets or your prophets?

In other words God is asking Eliyahu: How is this your business? What do you want? The oath and the alters and prophets belong to God and not Eliyahu. Eliyahu then responds: “and they seek my life, to take it away”. Here the problem becomes a personal issue of Eliyahu; it is not a problem with the nation—as it once seemed—but rather with Eliyahu.

It is at this point that Eliyahu merits a exceptional revelation (Melachim 1 19,1-14):

And He said: 'Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD.' And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice. And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entrance of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said: 'What doest thou here, Elijah?' And he said: 'I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, thrown down Thine altars, and slain Thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.'

This unique revelation comes to teach Eliyahu a didactic message: Wind, earthquakes, and fire are all impressive and exciting, and yet that is not where God is found; He is found, rather, in the “still small voice”. True education, that which penetrates to the soul and remains there, is only successful if done through calm means, rather than wind, earthquakes, and fire. It is impossible to educate the nation through zealousness alone.

At the end of the revelation, Eliyahu is asked again: “'What doest thou here, Elijah?” It seems that God it testing Eliyahu to see whether he comprehended the message, whether he understood the lesson that God was teaching him. Eliyahu’s response, though, is the very same response that he answered the previous time:

“'I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant…. and they seek my life, to take it away.”

Eliyahu Hanavi did not understand the lesson.

Following Eliyahu’s response, God assigns him a number of tasks (Melachim1 19, 15-16)

And the LORD said unto him: 'Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus; and when thou comest, thou shalt anoint Hazael to be king over Aram; and Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room.

God excuses Eliyahu from his duties: He commands him to perform a number of last assignments; to appoint Chazael as the king of Aram and Yehu as king over Israel; and afterwards to appoint a replacement for himself, Elisha ben Shefat. And, thus, immediately after Eliyahu performs these three tasks, he ascends to heaven in a storm, fury. The message of dismissal comes after God sees that Eliyahu does not know how to work with people; he who does not know how to deal with people, does not belong on Earth. Ramban explains that God says to Eliyahu that if he continues in this manner, he will eventually kill everyone and thus it is preferable that he ascend to Heaven now. Eliyahu’s extreme personality does not mesh with matter of this world. If so, though, why is Eliyahu specifically chosen to organize the worldly matters before the arrival of “the day of the Lord”?

The Two Types of Holiness

After Eliyahu ascends to Heaven he undergoes a dramatic change. It is great to begin as one zealous for the word of God, but ultimately it is important to moderate one’s stance and that of judgment. It is this that Eliyahu learns in Heaven. Eliayhu Hanavi is he who says:

“for the children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant”

And thus God sends him to see that the case is not so, for in actuality bnei yisroel are following the agreement He made with them. We can learn a lot about the nature of peacemaking from the fact that Eliyahu was chosen for such a task: it cannot be achieved through naiveté, leniency, or shortcuts; rather, the peacemaker must be one who opposes shortcuts, he who is adamant and zealous is fitting for the role. However, he must first make a short visit to Heaven in order that he reveal the root of the Israeli nation which appears in all factions of the nation, and only then can he herald peace.

Harav Kook explains the task of Eliyahu Hanavi: he is the link between the various facets of the nation. The nefesh of the nation is the sinners of Israel; the spirit, the scholars; those who connect between the soul and the spirit are the neshama of the nation. In the language of Harav Kook:

I see with my eyes the light of Elijah’s life rising, his power for God being revealed, the holiness in nature breaking forth, uniting with the holiness that is above course nature, with the holiness that combats nature. We fought nature and emerged victorious. Material nature crippled us, struck us in our thigh, but the sun shone to cure us of our limping. Judaism of the past, from Egypt until now, is a long battle against the ugly side of nature, be it human nature in general, or the nature of the nation and of every individual. We fought nature in order to subdue it. It succumbs before us; the worlds are increasingly refined. At the essential depth of nature a great demand wells up for holiness and purity, for delicacy of soul and refinement of life. Elijah comes to herald peace, and in the inner soul of the nation a life stream of nature breaks forth and approaches holiness. The remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt becomes a remembrance of the delivery from nations; we are all approaching nature and it beckons to us. Nature is conquered before us and its demands are increasingly consonant with our noble demands from the source of holiness. The youthful spirit that demands its land, its language, its freedom and honor, its literature and strength, wealth, and feelings, is flooded with a flow of nature, which within is full of holy fire.
(Orot Hatchiyah 30)

Rav Kook admits that he himself saw “ascending light of the life of Eliyahu”. When Rav Tzvi Yehuda would teach this passage to his student he would point to himself and say: “I see, with my own eyes, the ascending light of Eliyahu”. And what does one see? One sees how the holy nation struggles with nature. Holiness is generally found in opposition with nature, above nature. In order to maintain holiness it is necessary to overcome nature. This, however, is not the truth in its fullest sense: there is holiness latent in the depths of nature, a holiness which is much deeper than that which opposes nature. Ultimately, this holiness, which is hidden in nature,

תובעת את עלבונה

And the first form which this holiness in nature assumes is that of the impudence and opposition of the holiness which is above nature.

The Disagreement Between Parents and Children.

This is the disagreement between parents and children. The parents are the old generation, the old guard, representing the Kedushah (holiness) fighting nature. Their children are the new generation, representing the Kedusha that is stored in the natural, which bursts out and interrupts at the first stage in the form of Chutzpah, opposition and defiance. Therefore only one who stands above the Kodesh may connect these two extremes; Eliyahu HaNavi.

This battle between the two Kedushot has still not ended, and we may feel it too. The fundamental source that opposes religion and the Torah that we see today is since Torah and religion as a whole are fighting against a foreign lifestyle. This lifestyle carries within it a flash of holiness intrinsically against this very lifestyle. The function of Eliyahu HaNavi is to unite these “Kedushot.” It is the task of holy people to reconcile this battle with nature. As long as we continue the fight with nature, nature will fight back. So that we may bring the coming of Eliyahu HaNavi we must reconcile with nature.

In order to be successful in this mission we must do things according to the hour that maybe opposed to normal Halachah. Eliyahu sacrificed at Har Carmel offerings on an altar that was outside of Jerusalem – a transgression normally punishable by “Karet.” Who gave permission to Eliyahu to make a sacrifice outside Jerusalem? None other than himself! Prophets such as Eliyahu HaNavi have the authority to make instructions that are relevant the hour, ones that otherwise may not be given.

But that was so when Am Yisrael had Neviim, but how are we to act when there are no Neviim? The prophet Malachi says it explicitly (Malachi 3:22)

"Remember the Torah of Moshe my servant, that I commanded him at Horev, these statutes and laws upon all Israel"

We must only act according to the Torah that was given to Moshe, there is no leniency to permit any different instructions, no matter how pressing the hour. So how may we bring together these two extremes, how to connect the opposite ends? This question too, the prophet Malachi taught from the following passage: "Here I send you Eliyahu the prophet ...". The prophet assures us that prophecy will return and moreover, before his coming, Hashem will reveal the Torah that unites the intuition of the older generation with the intuition of the younger generation. The Navi reveals to us that there will be the Torah of HaRav Kook. Kedushah that is above the natural, and Kedushah that is within the natural.

In fact Moshe Rabbeinu already said there are two kinds of Kedushah (D’varim 30:6)

"Hashem, your God, will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, to love Hashem your God, with all your heart and all your soul, that you may live."

From a close inspection of this passage, it can be said that there are two types of word concerning the heart: There is the word for the heart of the fathers and the word for the heart of the offsprings. Rav Kook explains that there are philosophical differences between the fathers and the sons. For this reason, each of these groups has a different character evident in their response.

The reason for Kefira. (/Heresy).
When the older generation wants to cause the young generation to do Teshuva, it is their responsibility to know how to approach the younger generation in the appropriate way so as to inspire them to do Teshuvah. It is important to know how to talk to others. Once, a Talmid Chacham from Hungary sent a letter to Rabbi Zvi Yehuda when his father was still alive. In the letter were serious objections against Rabbi Kook. One of the objections raised in the letter to Rabbi Kook was that he spoke with secular people in a national secular style and not in the traditional Torah style. Rabbi Zvi Yehuda replied to the Talmid Chacham that this is one of the laws of “Tochechah” – of giving a rebuke. It is Halacha to for the one who is rebuking to speak in a language that will be understood. There is no point in saying things that are correct and true if they cannot be heard.

Therefore, in order to cause the younger generation to do Teshuvah we have to understand the true desire of the young generation. And that is: that their “Emunah” is immense and not lacking in any way. The younger generation demands a greater Judaism, a more meaningful Judaism. The younger generation has a greater soul, so to speak, and their souls seek out a path free from pettiness and triviality. This is the real reason for Kfirah, for the denial, not because of a loss of faith, rather because of the magnitude of their faith!

In his book “Orot HaEmunah - Lights of Belief,” Rav Kook writes on the belief that the Torah is heaven sent (Min Hashamayim). Some Jews believe that the Torah was given to us by Hashem, and there are others who deny that belief. But do they even know what they are talking about?

There is denial (of God) that is effectively acknowledgement, and belief and acknowledgement of Hashem that is effectively Kefira - a denial of belief. How can this be?

A person acknowledges that Torah is given to us by Shamayim (the skies). What we now need to check is whether these are the same skies that the Torah came to us from, and what is the height of these skies. Sometimes the heavens that had previously borne us the Torah have become so strange and distorted, that nothing remains real in our Emunah.

And how is Kfirah (denial) like acknowledgment of Hashem? When all of a man’s perception is based on those same distorted skies, the reason for his denial is not out of stubborn refusal to accept Hashem, it’s because he is unprepared to accept Torah from heavens that are so low. In such a case this denial is a considered an acknowledgment of Hashem. Don’t believe everyone who says that he does not believe.

In order to bring about Teshuva in this generation, we will need people who are first and foremost able to “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers” and make peace between the kedusha which is opposed to nature and the kedusha which is found inside the nature.

Torah min ha'Arets - Earthly Torah

2008-11-27T11:26:00.003-05:00

The revelation at Mount Sinai is many times at the center of discussion, but we should not forget that our ancestors should have never went through Sinai. The original course was to enter the land through the land of the Philistines (Exodus 13:17-18). And then, the revelation itself was dreadful, with thunder and lightening and a complete prohibition to get close to the mountain, where the people were at the foot of the mountain and the voice came from out of the top of the mountain. Then, the Torah was indeed felt as Heavenly, having received it from above, but what lacked was the proof that Torah can also come from the earth. What was uncertain is whether the Torah can be integrated with the nature of Israel.

There is a need for an inverted revelation/assembly, wherein the people of Israel would be on top and the voice would come from the bottom. In Deuteronomy 27, Moshe Rabbeinu A"H instructs the people on doing so upon entering the land, and in Joshua 8 the instruction is executed in between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. There occurred the giving of the Torah from the Earth, where the people of Israel stood on top of the mountains, whereas the Levites stood in between the two.

The Ma'amad at Sinai looked as an upward triangle (Δ) and the Ma'amad at Gerizim and Ebal looked like a downward triangle (∇) - together creating the Star of David.

The Force of Simulation, Postmodernism and the Lower Nature

2008-11-24T21:52:00.016-05:00

In a lesson on Likutey Muharan of Reb Nachman of Breslov taught by Rav Ouri Cherqi, an interesting concept came up. In Likutim, Torah Alef, Reb Nachman interprets the single verse of, "Happy are they that are upright in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD" (Pslams 119 Alef), using one of the aggadot of Rabba bar bar Ḥana. Towards the end of the torah, Reb Naḥman raises a suggestion for the lunatics:

...הינו שהתורה הקדושה היא מכניע את היצר הרע שרוצה לעשות את האדם משוגע ממש, חס ושלום. כי בעל עברה הוא משוגע, כמו שאמרו רבותינו, זכרונם לברכה (סוטה ג.): 'אין אדם עובר עברה אלא אם כן נכנס בו רוח-שטות'. וכמו שהמשוגעים צריכים להכותם ולששום עליהם שמות, כמו כן ממש התורה שעוסקין הוא בחינת מקלות ושמות, שבזה מכין ומכניעין את היצר הרע ומגרשין מן האדם את השגעון והרוח שטות שנכנס בו, בחינת 'ומחינן ליה באלותא, דחקיק עליה שמות' וכו'

Reb Nachman interprets the legend (Baba Bathra 73a) where a big wave threatens to sink a ship (and we know that waves can be much larger than ships) and on top of the wave a spark of white fire. RaSHBaM there comments that it is a maleficent angel. The way to defeat this wave is to hit it with sticks with the Divine Name inscribed on them. The wave, interprets Reb Nachman, is the disposition of evil ('yetser ha'ra), wanting to sink the sefinah, the ship, and if we crack the word game we shall find the word safûn, important. Namely, yetser ha'ra wishes to revoke the importancy of men.

Our Sages have taught us (Sota 3) that a man does not transgress unless spirit of folly and mischief has entered him. Reb Nachman writes that the lower nature of man ('yetser ha'ra), makes him insane.
Rav Cherqi notes that this spirit of folly that enters men nowadays is 'Postmodernism' - the renouncement of any value system. Renouncement of any purpose.

Rav Sa'adya Gaon in his book, Muk'tar fi al-Amanat wal-l'tikadat (The Chosen of the Articles of Faith and Doctrines of Dogma) essay I, enumerates 13 methods dealing with reality, the thirteenth being שיטת הכסילים, the method of the fools. Those are the 'deniers of the perceptible,' who say that nothing holds truth, not the sensible nor the tangible. His description there matches precisely today's Postmodernism. Rav Sa'adya writes that these people will deny any proof, and any talks with them are worthless. They are of whom our Scriptures testify: (Proverbs 18:1)

בְּכָל-תּוּשִׁיָּה, יִתְגַּלָּע

He snarl against all sound wisdom

What can you do with such people? The answer is -beat them((!))
Why beat them? Because when they feel the pain of the blows they confess and acknowledge the perceptible. But if this does not help, then we have to give up on them, as the Scripture attests: (Proverbs 27:22)

אִם תִּכְתּוֹשׁ-אֶת-הָאֱוִיל, בַּמַּכְתֵּשׁ בְּתוֹךְ הָרִיפוֹת-- בַּעֱלִי:
לֹא-תָסוּר מֵעָלָיו, אִוַּלְתּוֹ

Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar with a pestle among groats,
yet will not his foolishness depart from him

This, to Rav Sa'adya, draws the line of wisdom, an own goal.

Reb Nachman says that the principal of defeating yetser ha'ra is by Torah, which is full in Divine Names. According to Reb Nachman, what conquers yetser ha'ra isn't coercion, because then there would be a natural force fighting against another natural force. However, if man recalls his noble virtue, by itself it nullifies the evil disposition. And so we ought to use sticks, the letter vav, the shape of which looks like a stick.

ומגרשין מן האדם את השגעון והרוח שטות שנכנס בו, בחינת 'ומחינן ליה באלותא, דחקיק עליה שמות'

For Reb Nachman, Postmodernism is the pretence, or the demand, of men to hear a wisdom higher than wisdom. They do not want philosophical explanations. What do they want, then? They want the Word of G-d. So, the erasion of philosophy comes in order to receive the Higher Spirit.

HaRav Kook zt"l touched on this in Orot: (Israel and his Revival, 17)

...מפני שחושב העולם כולו שכל האושר תלוי בפתוחו של כח המדמה. וכה הולכים הענינים בהדרגה, עד ששרירי השכל שברוח החכמה החולונית גם הם הולכים ונעתקים אל כח המדמה. המליצים והמספרים, הדרמתוריים וכל העוסקים באמניות היפות נוטלים מקום בראש התרבות, והפילוסופיה פוסחת וצולעת ואין לה מעמד מפני שהשכל הנקי הולך ומסתלק. כפי סלוקו של השכל ורוח החכמה כן חוצפא יסגי וחכמת סופרים תסרח, יראי חטא ימאסו והאמת תהא נעדרת ופני הדור כפני הכלב, אותה העדינות הפנימית, הבאה מרוח החכמה, הולכת ונמוגה, השאיפה לרוחניות ואצילות, לדבקות אלהית, לעולם העליון, לזוך המוסר, ברום טהרתו, לציורי המושכלות מצד עצמם ונצחיותם, נעשית חזון יקר, וכפי אותה המדה, הנוהגת בעולם בכללו, נוהג הדבר בישראל כלפי רוח הקודש ואהבת התורה ברוח פנימי ורעננות עצמית של היהדות הנאמנה, ובעולם שולט רוח מגושם. "אי לך ארץ שמלכך נער ושריך בבקר יאכלו". אמנם כל זה הוא יסוד עצה מרחוק, עצת ד' היא להשלים את כח המדמה, מפני שהוא בסיס בריא לרוח העליון שיופיע עליו...

"The entire world think that happiness depends upon the development of the imaginative faculty. And so matters gradually progress, until valid intelligence in the spirit of secular wisdom too shift towards the imaginative faculty. The interceders and the tellers and the actors who deal with the fair arts take their place at the head of the culture," so those who become important are the performers in Kokhav Nolad (a popular Israeli show, similar to American Idol), "and philosophy wavers and limps and has no status for the pure intellect departs." Philsophy is being studied in some dusty corner of a university faculty.

"... that inner tenderness coming out of the spirit of wisdom," charm, "fades away, the aspiration for spirituality and grandeur, devotion to the Divine, to the Upper World, to moral clarity...and as that measure taking place in the world at all, it is also the fashion in Israel towards the Holy Spirit and the love of Torah...and a coarse spirit rules the world. "Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a boy, and thy princes feast in the morning!" (Ecclesiastes 10:16)."

What should we say? Oy Gevalt?

Rav Kook thinks otherwise:

אמנם כל זה הוא יסוד עצה מרחוק, עצת ד' היא להשלים את כח המדמה, מפני שהוא בסיס בריא לרוח העליון שיופיע עליו

Verily all of this is counselling element from afar, the counsel of G-d is to complete the imaginative faculty, for it is the healthy foundation for a supreme spirit which shall appear upon him

So, much television, much internet, drawing, and the expension of the

force of simulation over the intellect, though procreating many deteriorations, is the agent and factor for the reappearance of the supreme spirit, namely prophecy.

Our Rabbis of blessed memory, too, attested to the force of simulation and its significance in relation to prophecy. RaMbaM in Shemonah Perakim lists it as one of the capacities of the nefesh: (ch. 1)

והחלק המדמה - הוא הכח אשר יזכור רישומי המוחשים אחר העלמם מקרבת החושים אשר השיגום, וירכיב קצתם עם קצתם, ויפריד קצתם מקצתם.

And the simulating faculty encompassing the capacity to retain impressions of experiences when they have vanished from the senses involved, and to compound some and separate others. It is the capacity that enables a person to combine certain experiences he has had along with others he never had nor ever could grasp.

And later in Moreh Nevukhim (See I:49; II:6, 36, III:38) expands on its function in prophecy.

RaDaK, too, incorporated this faculty into his exegesis, see for example his comment on Jeremiah 14:14; 23:28, and also R. Yoseph Albo, Ikkarim III:10.

Thus Reb Nachman concludes, interpreting the aforementioned verse:

וזהו:"אשרי תמימי דרך". אשרי לשון הסתכלות. תמימי דרך בחינת (בראשית כ"ה): "יעקב איש תם"; שהוא בחינת השכל כנ"ל. הינו לזכות להסתכל על השכל שיש בכל דבר, שהוא בחינת "יעקב איש תם" זה זוכין על-ידי התורה: וזהו:ההולכים בתורת ה'. כי על-ידי שלומד תורה בכח, על-ידי-זה נותן כח למלכות דקדשה בחינת נו"ן, לקבל מן השכל, שהוא בחינת חי"ת, ואזי נעשה חן ונתקבלים דבריו כנ"ל, ואזי נתעלה החן והחשיבות של ישראל, וכל התפלות והבקשות נתקבלים

āshrey in Aramaic means "to look". And so, the Israelite has to look into the mind of every thing. What he calls Malkhut, attaching to it the letter nûn, which allows to receive the wisdom of Torah. An infinite and personal wisdom, unlike philosophies. The letter het, the way it is written, suggests hayyut, vitality. He who has both het and nun is worthy of attaining hen - grace/charm/glamour. If he is to perform this properly, it will blend into him in contant absorption in his neffesh, which in Hebrew is called tav, thus the third letter, altogether leading to the word NHT- נחת- complacency. For this the wise one said:

דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים, בְּנַחַת נִשְׁמָעִים

The words of the wise in complacency are heard