Previously:
«Summary:
A The Talmud in several Braittot on Shabbat 6 mentions the status of Midbar
B The Rambam states it's a RhR
C The Tur AND SA omit Midbar [maybe it deserted them?]
D The SA is ambivalent WRT the 600K issue
Next topic:
Shabbat 6, the Braittot, the question of the Talmud, and Abbaye's answer»
TB Shabbat 6a
«Tannu Rabbanan Arba Reshuyot leShabbat
...
[6b] vlachshov nami midbar?
[Noting that Midbar is omitted from an apparently comprehensive list]
deha tanya eizohi RhR? ..."v'hamidbar"
[Contradiction to Braita #1]
Amar abbayei lo kashya!
A. Kan bizman sheyisrael shruyyin bamidbar
B. Kan bizman hazzeh
This issue of which way is which is debated by Rishonim
Is case A of Abbayei the RhR or the Carmelit? And Converse for Case B
At any rate the SA and the Tur take no sides and omit - apparently consciously[!] - the case of Midbar completely!
While the Rambam is very strange in that he calls EVERY Midbar a. RhR (as per Braitto #2)
This omits Abbaye's Hilluq and seems to make the plain Tanya "trump" a Tanu Rabbanan!
[NB: Tanu Rabbanan's are usually slightly higher in the pecking order than a vanilla Braitto]
Summary:
A the G'mara is split between 2 Braittot re: Midbar
B As per An undisputed Abbaye, there is a definite Hilluq and the braittot are not in dispute, rather they address 2 different scenarios.
C. SA and Tur are silent WRT Midbar
D Rambam re: Midbar takes one side in apparent disagreement with the Talmud's Hilluq
Preview of coming attractions:
What say Rashi and Tosafot?
And what light do they shed upon the Rambam's position?
KT
RRW
Sunday, 8 November 2009
Saturday, 7 November 2009
Disagreeing Respectfully; Dissent with Honour 1
There are many paths to dispute. Some take the high road and some don't
Without belaboring, those who IMHO were less than generous in their dissent - and at times rude and malicious - include:
• The Ra'avad on Rambam's Mishneh Torah
• The Re'ah on Torat Habayyit
• The entire anti-Maimonidean movement in the 12th and 13th centuries. An episode of mega-embarrassment
Let's let those go and think positive!
Can we find respectful debate and dissent?
YES we can! In preparing a series on Reshut haRabbim and the issue of 600,000
[600K] I found that the Beth Yosef outlines both schools in a fair-minded and balanced way. Despite his Sephardic Background, he reports quite objectively how the schools hold and how-where they differ.
In the Ashkenazic Tradition, 3 Classic supplementary texts were written that embody respectful dissent, or simply complementary information that mitigate the simple read of the text.
Perhaps the finest Gentleman of that Genre was the Rema. His respectful dissent in his Hagahot are not only lessons showing how Ashkenazim disagreed on point, but he accomplished Two tangential accomplishments
1. Rema made the SA an almost universally accepted text. [Not so for Teimanim, but quite so for both Ashkenazim and Sephardim]. [Also note R Mordechai Eliyahu did much the same for the Kitzur SA]. Rema's alternative might have been to either "bash" the Mechabeir, or to author a competing text. He chose not to. [While his Talmid the Levush did that exactly]
2. Second, he acted like his Namesake Moshe and taught us anivut. He made no claims to being a superior poseiq, only a preserver of a Tradition that was being short-changed. And his manner was done with elegance and class in terms of his respectfulness.
The second respectful dissenter is going back in History to the Maharam miRothenburg and his student the Hagahot Maimoniyyot.
The Maharam was enamored with the Rambam's Mishneh Torah's clarity and organization, and so he latched onto to the bandwagon by commissioning his student - the Hagahot Maimonoiyyit - to produce an Ashkenaz-friendly supplement. The Hagahot here did not catch on in big way as did the Rema's Hagahot several centuries later. Nevertheless a path was made towards both admiring Sephardic codes w/o trampling Ashkenazic sheetot.
NB: just as the Darchei Moshe on the Tur was short-shifted into a "kitzur" apparently the Hagahot M suffered a similar fate
The Darchei Moshe is being restored in the new editions of the Tur and the Hagahot Constantine are now in the back of the Frankel edition of the Rambam.
The least obvious is Tosafot. This deserves more than a sound-byte, but to a great extent, Tosafot finessed a reconciliation between the Bavli and Early Minhag Ashkenaz in such a way that made the Bavli the premier text of TSBP and made it more palatable to Observant Jews whose tradition was at times in conflict with the text.
Summary
We primarily covered 3 texts:
Bavli
Mishneh Torah
SA
And their corresponding respectful "hagahot"
Preview:
The Rif and beyond
KT
RRW
Torah MiSinai, Then and Now - #2 Bayit Sheini
Previously:
«Let's go back to the common starting point, Ma'amad Har Sinai. Let's take a hard line stance, that as Moshe Rabbeinu descended the mountain all of Written Torah and all of Oral Torah was MiSinai, meaning Divine, Holy. What might have occurred that would make the common denominator across the Ortho spectrum to diverge over time?
Stay Tuned for future posts addressing this point.»
There are 2 events and several processes that could cause a divergence of The Pristine MiSinai
Event #1
The second the Torah was "lo bshamayim hee" when leaders [IE before there were rabbis] started interpreting Torah. Here are 2 POV's WRT to that process
A. Since it is authorized by the Torah itself - A Bona Fide Sanhedrin [BD Haggadol] has the same authority as Sinai
B. Let's face it a Sanhedrin may be commissioned by the Torah itself in Parshat Mishpatim, nevertheless a human element has entered - thereby diluting the Original Sinai quotient.
Thus According to Model A: Anshei Knesset Hag'dolah [AKhG] - which included nevi-im - was indeed miSinai. This explains the ability to make a G'zeirah Shavah [Prazi Prazi see TB Megillah]] between Megillat Esther and Humash - even though GS's normally should stem miSinai only. IOW, AKhG equates to miSinai - because they canonized Megillat Esther; AND therefore COULD create a bona fide Masorah for any GS.
We can see however, that this term MiSinai might imply 2 levels of understanding already in the AKhG era.
1 the Fundamentalist literal read suggest by Jacob Agus - as Divine
OR
2 the looser read suggested by R Shimshon of Sens suggesting both antiquity and being axiomatic, but not necessarily literally Divine in nature.
[NB: This looser read is fundamental to R Zecharyah Frankel's take on TSBP in general]
These interpretations may even have d'Oraitto authority in a Halachic sense, but hashqafically we may see them as diverging from Pristine Sinai the Divine.
Next phase, Post-Hurban and its aftermath. For a sneak preview see Rambam MT Mamrim 1:1
KT
RRW
«Let's go back to the common starting point, Ma'amad Har Sinai. Let's take a hard line stance, that as Moshe Rabbeinu descended the mountain all of Written Torah and all of Oral Torah was MiSinai, meaning Divine, Holy. What might have occurred that would make the common denominator across the Ortho spectrum to diverge over time?
Stay Tuned for future posts addressing this point.»
There are 2 events and several processes that could cause a divergence of The Pristine MiSinai
Event #1
The second the Torah was "lo bshamayim hee" when leaders [IE before there were rabbis] started interpreting Torah. Here are 2 POV's WRT to that process
A. Since it is authorized by the Torah itself - A Bona Fide Sanhedrin [BD Haggadol] has the same authority as Sinai
B. Let's face it a Sanhedrin may be commissioned by the Torah itself in Parshat Mishpatim, nevertheless a human element has entered - thereby diluting the Original Sinai quotient.
Thus According to Model A: Anshei Knesset Hag'dolah [AKhG] - which included nevi-im - was indeed miSinai. This explains the ability to make a G'zeirah Shavah [Prazi Prazi see TB Megillah]] between Megillat Esther and Humash - even though GS's normally should stem miSinai only. IOW, AKhG equates to miSinai - because they canonized Megillat Esther; AND therefore COULD create a bona fide Masorah for any GS.
We can see however, that this term MiSinai might imply 2 levels of understanding already in the AKhG era.
1 the Fundamentalist literal read suggest by Jacob Agus - as Divine
OR
2 the looser read suggested by R Shimshon of Sens suggesting both antiquity and being axiomatic, but not necessarily literally Divine in nature.
[NB: This looser read is fundamental to R Zecharyah Frankel's take on TSBP in general]
These interpretations may even have d'Oraitto authority in a Halachic sense, but hashqafically we may see them as diverging from Pristine Sinai the Divine.
Next phase, Post-Hurban and its aftermath. For a sneak preview see Rambam MT Mamrim 1:1
KT
RRW
New Jews
The recent CNN.com article on the "New Jews"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/10/28/new.and.emergent.jews/index.html
ostensibly praised this variety of new innovations that individuals have undertaken to express their "faith and ethnicity", i.e. their Jewishness.I'm just wondering: what does that mean?
Let's first deal with the issue of faith. If one has new ways to express a faith, one has to question
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/10/28/new.and.emergent.jews/index.html
ostensibly praised this variety of new innovations that individuals have undertaken to express their "faith and ethnicity", i.e. their Jewishness.I'm just wondering: what does that mean?
Let's first deal with the issue of faith. If one has new ways to express a faith, one has to question
whether they are actually new ways to express the faith or changes in the faith. CNN seems to imply that all these changes fall into the former category. It can easily be argued that this is not so -- these new expressions reflect a change; the question is how far a change and whether these changes actually reflect the creation of a new religion. Maybe this is really what CNN is trying to say: Jews are changing Judaism. But then understand what you are doing and why there may be opposition to what you are doing. People may also wonder: why do you still insist on describing this new religion as Jewish? Its the same question with Jews for Jesus. You want to follow this faith, that's between you and God. But call it as it is -- its Christianity. But why is it so important for these people to see themselves as Jews and their faith something Jewish?
Similar questions to some extent can be asked about ethnicity. Are there borders on ethnicity? What does it mean to express your ethnicity? If an Italian said he/she was now going to express his Italian ethnicity by eating sushi, what would you say? What if he/she said this was done by colouring the rice in the sushi in the colours of the Italian flag? The further question is: what is the motivation to do this? A punk rocker who breaks a beer bottle over his head is so proud of the Jewishness within his act for he quotes Torah in it -- but is that not like toivel v'sheretz b'yado? Can quoting Torah make an act that may be inherently contrary to Torah values become Jewish because of these quotes? If a person wants to be a punk rocker, that's the person's business -- by why is it so necessary for this person to be a Jewish punk rocker when Jewishness challenges this whole expression? Maybe its about wanting to change the definition of Jewishness? But then say that. But then what makes the new expression Jewish? What is this Jewishness? And if you are trying to change it, why bother -- just go do it not as a Jew?
Its not that the boys in the picture have tattoos all over their bodies that specifically bothered me about the premise of this article. I mean, I don't know why people get tattoos but, on the personal level, that's their business. But why tattoos of a magen dovid? Because they want to express their Jewishness? But isn't a tattoo itself a challenge to Jewishness itself? I'm not even referring to Halacha. Doesn't a negative feeling to a tattoo permeate the Jewish world? So things are changing, you might say. So why keep Jewishness anyways?
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Similar questions to some extent can be asked about ethnicity. Are there borders on ethnicity? What does it mean to express your ethnicity? If an Italian said he/she was now going to express his Italian ethnicity by eating sushi, what would you say? What if he/she said this was done by colouring the rice in the sushi in the colours of the Italian flag? The further question is: what is the motivation to do this? A punk rocker who breaks a beer bottle over his head is so proud of the Jewishness within his act for he quotes Torah in it -- but is that not like toivel v'sheretz b'yado? Can quoting Torah make an act that may be inherently contrary to Torah values become Jewish because of these quotes? If a person wants to be a punk rocker, that's the person's business -- by why is it so necessary for this person to be a Jewish punk rocker when Jewishness challenges this whole expression? Maybe its about wanting to change the definition of Jewishness? But then say that. But then what makes the new expression Jewish? What is this Jewishness? And if you are trying to change it, why bother -- just go do it not as a Jew?
Its not that the boys in the picture have tattoos all over their bodies that specifically bothered me about the premise of this article. I mean, I don't know why people get tattoos but, on the personal level, that's their business. But why tattoos of a magen dovid? Because they want to express their Jewishness? But isn't a tattoo itself a challenge to Jewishness itself? I'm not even referring to Halacha. Doesn't a negative feeling to a tattoo permeate the Jewish world? So things are changing, you might say. So why keep Jewishness anyways?
Rabbi Ben Hecht
The Limits of Elu v'Elu - Introduction
I have a fairly expansive Point of View [POV] regarding Elu v'Elu [E"vE].
From Rabbi Ben Hecht's writings, one can sense his disappointment when he senses intolerance or "delegitimization" of other opinions within the Halachic universe
I posted about allowing for tolerance with regard to [WRT] the Lower East Side [LES] Eruv. The sons and successors to R Moshe Feinstein [RMF] wanted to ban any attempt at an Eruv in Manhattan - which after all their late father had banned one many decades ago.
The argument FOR tolerating the LES is more subtle. It is after all not IMPOSING an Eruv. Rather it is merely enabling it for those who wish to - or need to - rely upon it. AISI - the Feinsteins are well within their rights to say:
"We oppose this Eruv and forbid our community to rely upon it"
But if they say:
"Anyone relying upon this Eruv has transgressed Shabbos" is over the line because it really implies
"Anyone relying upon this Eruv has UNCONDITIONALLY Transgressed Shabbos". Because IMHO no poseiq acquires exclusivity - absent a Sanhedrin.
There are many tricky areas to this E"vE concept. The first point I want to make is that it has been attacked by some non-Jewish systems.
Rabbinic Judaism does not always see things in black-and-white. While we might say that Hashem has a definitive read - we say "lo bashamayim hee" and humans have grayer perceptions.
Also Judaism is a bit more Eastern when it comes to paradoxes than are pure Westerners. We don't completely invalidate Western either-or thinking, nor are we slaves to it either. We allow for many paradoxes that Greek-style thinking will not condone, while more Eastern thinking has no problem with the same.
At this point, I have not discovered any definite parameters for E"vE; hopefully some of these boundaries will emerge as a result of the posts and feedback
KT
RRW
From Rabbi Ben Hecht's writings, one can sense his disappointment when he senses intolerance or "delegitimization" of other opinions within the Halachic universe
I posted about allowing for tolerance with regard to [WRT] the Lower East Side [LES] Eruv. The sons and successors to R Moshe Feinstein [RMF] wanted to ban any attempt at an Eruv in Manhattan - which after all their late father had banned one many decades ago.
The argument FOR tolerating the LES is more subtle. It is after all not IMPOSING an Eruv. Rather it is merely enabling it for those who wish to - or need to - rely upon it. AISI - the Feinsteins are well within their rights to say:
"We oppose this Eruv and forbid our community to rely upon it"
But if they say:
"Anyone relying upon this Eruv has transgressed Shabbos" is over the line because it really implies
"Anyone relying upon this Eruv has UNCONDITIONALLY Transgressed Shabbos". Because IMHO no poseiq acquires exclusivity - absent a Sanhedrin.
There are many tricky areas to this E"vE concept. The first point I want to make is that it has been attacked by some non-Jewish systems.
Rabbinic Judaism does not always see things in black-and-white. While we might say that Hashem has a definitive read - we say "lo bashamayim hee" and humans have grayer perceptions.
Also Judaism is a bit more Eastern when it comes to paradoxes than are pure Westerners. We don't completely invalidate Western either-or thinking, nor are we slaves to it either. We allow for many paradoxes that Greek-style thinking will not condone, while more Eastern thinking has no problem with the same.
At this point, I have not discovered any definite parameters for E"vE; hopefully some of these boundaries will emerge as a result of the posts and feedback
KT
RRW
Alternate Programs for Beqi'us; To Daf or To Daf Not
As in our recent poll we're assuming a moderate level of learning and about an hour a day to devote to learning beqi'us
Alternative 1
Simple. Cover Daf Yomi using Shottenstein with footnotes, or a similar daf yomi tool (Such as other user-friendly editions with comments)
When covering all of Shas with any kind of notes expounding the sugyos, you get a bit of just about everything.
Alternative 2
A 7.5 year program
(Note I expect this program to evolve based upon feedback)
First year
Mishna Yomis with Kehatti (or other commentary) (6 year cycle). This is the single most important aspect of the program.
Kitzur SA Yomi (1 year cycle). This covers the bare minimum of Halachah
Sefer Hamitzvos of the Rambam using commentary (EG Rambam l'am or Rav Chavel's vsersion with Ramban) 1 positive and 1 negative a day. When positives run out do the 14 shroshim. This gives a great overview of Taryag by the Master.
Year 2
Do Humash and Rashi one aliya per day. (1 year cycle). Rashi on Humash is as basic as one can get
Sefer Hamitzvos Hakatzar - a Kitzur of the Rambam by the "Chofetz Chayyim"
Year 3
SA Yomi (1 year cycle)
The entire range of practical halachah. Tur, Levush, or Aruch Hashulchan are alternatives to be considered.
Sefer Hachinuch about 2 mitzvos a day (1 year cycle)
This expands the Rambam' ShM with a lot of input from Ramban.
Year 4
Humash and Torah Temima one aliya per day. (1 year cycle). Building upon Rashi's method of connecting TSBP to the Humash.
Year 5
Rambam Mishnah Torah and commentary (EG Rambam L'am) 1 chapter a day (3 year cycle) Alternative Programs might do 3 chapters a day in one year - EG the 7th year after covering all of Mishnayos.
5 Megillos with Torah Temima (can be completed over 2 years)
Year 6
Continue Mishnah Torah
Finish Mishna Yomis and any loose ends from previous years
Year 7
Continue Rambam
Shmiras Halashon Yomi classic Mussar with a sampling of Zohar and Midrash
Year 8 (half year)
Sefer Chofetz Chayyim Yomi (4 months)
Sefer Mitzvos Hashem
(30 day cycle). Another good review of mitzvos with a Halachic bent.
Alternative 3
Give yourself about 15 years and do BOTH!
KT
RRW
P. Noah: R.S.R. Hirsch, Inuits, and Vegetarianism
There is a lot of discussion about the desirability of vegetarianism, etc. It was the original antediluvian ideal etc.
Yet the Torah's permission to consume flesh is unambiguous
"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; as with the green herbs have I given you all these" ( Hirsch Breishis 9:3 New Edition P. 222)
The Torah simply equates flesh and herbs! No hierarchy of preference.
R. Hirsch elaborates as to what changed climatically to make this so. Certainly "Eskimos" [Inuit] would be hard-pressed to become vegetarians, and any cold climate could present a similar challenge
KT
RRW
Thursday, 5 November 2009
R.S.R. Hirsch on Avoth 2:5; Community Uber Alles
Background:
Living in the KAJ-Breuer Community and the surrounding "Yekke" community, I could not help but FEEL that Judaism was understood to be practiced as a "Kehilla" that individual spirituality was subservient to making a "Mamlechet Kohanim v'Goy Qaddosh". I have sought sources from R. Hirsch himself and I found one today
P. 436 in the Siddur
«It is not to the individual, but to the community, "morash kehillat Ya'akov" that God entrusted His Torah as an inheritance for all generations to come."
Thus the primary goal is to serve Hashem as a member of the task force, not as individual.
However, R. Hirsch Himself goes on to make a Caveat - what if the community is off-track?
Hirsch did not pen a definitive "How-To" for every situation. Yet he maintained that a person who notes that the Tzibbur is deviating should be sincere - and not out to make egotistical statements. Furthermore, whilst remaining ATTACHED to the Tzibbur, he must steadfastly point out how-where the community has erred. IOW, one may be IN opposition, but LOYAL opposition, such that - that one's membership in good-standing is not in question
[NB: Knowing R. Hirsch's Austritt position, there must be times when breaking away from a community is necessary. Hopefully it's not about whether shibboleth shual is - or is not - OATS! Such Shibboleth's seem hard-pressed to justify a secession!
In the main, sticking with a network of committed, loyal, Observant Jews is superior to going it alone. In fact, the R Shimon B. Yochai method of hermitage, is strictly the exception. Monasticism is not a desirable approach. Aderabba A Societal Endeavour to learn Torah is the superior way [or maybe the Superior Lake
KT
RRW
Living in the KAJ-Breuer Community and the surrounding "Yekke" community, I could not help but FEEL that Judaism was understood to be practiced as a "Kehilla" that individual spirituality was subservient to making a "Mamlechet Kohanim v'Goy Qaddosh". I have sought sources from R. Hirsch himself and I found one today
P. 436 in the Siddur
«It is not to the individual, but to the community, "morash kehillat Ya'akov" that God entrusted His Torah as an inheritance for all generations to come."
Thus the primary goal is to serve Hashem as a member of the task force, not as individual.
However, R. Hirsch Himself goes on to make a Caveat - what if the community is off-track?
Hirsch did not pen a definitive "How-To" for every situation. Yet he maintained that a person who notes that the Tzibbur is deviating should be sincere - and not out to make egotistical statements. Furthermore, whilst remaining ATTACHED to the Tzibbur, he must steadfastly point out how-where the community has erred. IOW, one may be IN opposition, but LOYAL opposition, such that - that one's membership in good-standing is not in question
[NB: Knowing R. Hirsch's Austritt position, there must be times when breaking away from a community is necessary. Hopefully it's not about whether shibboleth shual is - or is not - OATS! Such Shibboleth's seem hard-pressed to justify a secession!
In the main, sticking with a network of committed, loyal, Observant Jews is superior to going it alone. In fact, the R Shimon B. Yochai method of hermitage, is strictly the exception. Monasticism is not a desirable approach. Aderabba A Societal Endeavour to learn Torah is the superior way [or maybe the Superior Lake
KT
RRW
R'shut Harabbim and 600K, Part 1 the Desert
There is a long-standing dispute amongst posqim - To 600K or to NOT 600K? Or in English, does a R'shut Harabbim require 600,000 people traversing it or not in order to be so construed halachically speaking?
It's highly unlikely that I will resolve this 800+ year dispute online, but I will offer a radical paradigm shift. So stay tuned, and get ready to fasten your safety belts!
I will be going down two parallel paths.
1. The status of desert
2. The issue WRT 600K
There are many sources to start with. I choose to begin with SA Orach Hayyim 345. [If you own a Mishna Brura it's the beginning of Vol. IV]
There the Four Domains are listed, defined and illustrated [The Number *4* itself is a curious anomaly. There is at least a 5th domain - viz. Qarpeif!] But since the SA follows a Braitto in TB Shabbos 6 and keys off of it, therefore it stays with its opening Intro that there are 4 domains....
Note: In 345:7 the Mechabeir takes his ambiguous stance on the 600K Prerequisite. Dear Readers, you are invited to research from that point.
Meanwhile I would like to post what I *Don't* see! And that is the status of a Midbar or Desert. What is most curious is the TB. Shab. 6 *DOES* have midbar! So what does the SA indicate from silence?
Furthermore, [Working backwards] the Tur in 345 also is silent WRT Midbar
But the grand-daddy of the Halachic Codes is not ambiguous at all! The Rambam in Hilchot Shabbat 14:1 mentions deserts . And there he unequivocally declares it to be the very First in a list of R'Shut Harabbim [RhR] cases!
Summary:
A The Talmud in several Braittot on Shabbat 6 mentions the status of Midbar
B The Rambam states it's a RhR
C The Tur AND SA omit Midbar [maybe it deserted them?]
D The SA is ambivalent WRT the 600K issue
Next topic:
Shabbat 6, the Braittot, the question of the Talmud, and Abbaye's answer
KT
RRW
It's highly unlikely that I will resolve this 800+ year dispute online, but I will offer a radical paradigm shift. So stay tuned, and get ready to fasten your safety belts!
I will be going down two parallel paths.
1. The status of desert
2. The issue WRT 600K
There are many sources to start with. I choose to begin with SA Orach Hayyim 345. [If you own a Mishna Brura it's the beginning of Vol. IV]
There the Four Domains are listed, defined and illustrated [The Number *4* itself is a curious anomaly. There is at least a 5th domain - viz. Qarpeif!] But since the SA follows a Braitto in TB Shabbos 6 and keys off of it, therefore it stays with its opening Intro that there are 4 domains....
Note: In 345:7 the Mechabeir takes his ambiguous stance on the 600K Prerequisite. Dear Readers, you are invited to research from that point.
Meanwhile I would like to post what I *Don't* see! And that is the status of a Midbar or Desert. What is most curious is the TB. Shab. 6 *DOES* have midbar! So what does the SA indicate from silence?
Furthermore, [Working backwards] the Tur in 345 also is silent WRT Midbar
But the grand-daddy of the Halachic Codes is not ambiguous at all! The Rambam in Hilchot Shabbat 14:1 mentions deserts . And there he unequivocally declares it to be the very First in a list of R'Shut Harabbim [RhR] cases!
Summary:
A The Talmud in several Braittot on Shabbat 6 mentions the status of Midbar
B The Rambam states it's a RhR
C The Tur AND SA omit Midbar [maybe it deserted them?]
D The SA is ambivalent WRT the 600K issue
Next topic:
Shabbat 6, the Braittot, the question of the Talmud, and Abbaye's answer
KT
RRW
P V'a'eira: Hagar's Eyes Open
Originally published 11/5/09, 4:18 pm.
This question has bothered students of Torah for many generations:
How could Avraham Avinu, the epitome of Hessed, fail to provide adequate water for his son and estranged wife?
The commentaries address this using several approaches. Some maintain that that Avraham was generous to Hagar after all.
Let's look at the text and see.
It says that Hagar's Canteen ran out of water. And she gave up - so to speak - and fell into melancholy.
After Yishma'el's prayer, it states that Hashem opened Hagar's eyes - and behold, there was a well!
Well! Perhaps all was well all along. Maybe Avraham had given them sufficient water to make it to a well, but when Hagar ran out of water, her emotions overtook her and she suppressed her own ability to see the well in front of her. In response to her prayer, Hashem removed Hagar's self-imposed blinders and she could see the well all ended well!
All along, Avraham had well-planned the rationing of the water, anticipating that Hagar would reach that well. But Hagar was not emotionally well enough to see well.
KT
RRW
This question has bothered students of Torah for many generations:
How could Avraham Avinu, the epitome of Hessed, fail to provide adequate water for his son and estranged wife?
The commentaries address this using several approaches. Some maintain that that Avraham was generous to Hagar after all.
Let's look at the text and see.
It says that Hagar's Canteen ran out of water. And she gave up - so to speak - and fell into melancholy.
After Yishma'el's prayer, it states that Hashem opened Hagar's eyes - and behold, there was a well!
Well! Perhaps all was well all along. Maybe Avraham had given them sufficient water to make it to a well, but when Hagar ran out of water, her emotions overtook her and she suppressed her own ability to see the well in front of her. In response to her prayer, Hashem removed Hagar's self-imposed blinders and she could see the well all ended well!
All along, Avraham had well-planned the rationing of the water, anticipating that Hagar would reach that well. But Hagar was not emotionally well enough to see well.
KT
RRW
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Israeli Poll on Religious Law
It seems that there was a recent Ynet - Gesher Foundation poll, conducted in Israel, on religious law within the country. See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3793787,00.html. It seems that the respondents were asked questions about which Israeli laws emerging from Judaism should be repealed and, from a list of 4 potential new laws from the same root, which law should be enacted. While many of the findings were quite predicable, some of the them were most interesting.
In response to the questions concerning laws desired to be repealed. the religious law that seems to be the most bothersome is the exemption of yeshiva students from the draft...yet, even this demand was only voiced by slightly over 50% of the population. The numbers reflecting a desire to repeal other laws were much less with only 20% saying that they would want to repeal the law that demands that marriage and divorce be according to Halacha. This may reflect that dissent over religion in Israel may not be as bad an one may think yet the question that was asked was to choose the first law you would wish repealed. It may be that, given a choice to repeal multiple laws, there may be a greater desire to repeal other laws than is shown by this survey. They did find that 86% of the secular population would like to have malls and shopping centres open on Shabbat.
What I found most interesting, though, was the responses to the question of which religious law would they like to see added. There were four choices and the one that garnered the most support was the institution of the death penalty for murderers. That is most strange because the death penalty was rarely carried out within the rules of Torah jurisprudence. As the second most popular choice was a law to honour parents, which was not really enforceable with Torah jurisprudence, it would seem that the choices were not really tied to religious sensitivities per se but rather the mores of the respondents. If the point of the poll was to somehow measure the feelings towards Judaism of the populace, it didn't really seem to serve this purpose.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
P. Noah: Cappara vs. Teshuva
See R.S.R. Hirsch P. Noah
6:15 S.V. "v'chafarta"
New edition p. 182
The basic meaning of CPR is a protective or restrictive covering
In a sense then Copher = Cover! [More or less]
Cappara is a covering.
V'al kol pesha-im techashe b'ahava...
IOW praying for Cappara is to pray that the sins - or better that the negative impact of sins - will be covered up.
Teshuva is Returning to the State Before Sin. It is a retroactive process undoing a sin.
Here is a mashal
A man gains weight and as a result his blood pressure rises
A Cappara would be to take blood pressure medication. The excess weight remains but he is shielded from its deleterious effects.
Doing Teshuva would entail dieting in such a way as to lose the weight and to reduce the hypertension. IOW to restore the body back to the healthy way it was before the weight gain altered its body chemistry.
Of course Teshuva is a more complete process.
Yom Kippur is more of a quick fix. Perhaps since a complete Teshuva might take years, it is necessary to take the palliative of Cappara before the cure of Teshuva is available.
KT
RRW
6:15 S.V. "v'chafarta"
New edition p. 182
The basic meaning of CPR is a protective or restrictive covering
In a sense then Copher = Cover! [More or less]
Cappara is a covering.
V'al kol pesha-im techashe b'ahava...
IOW praying for Cappara is to pray that the sins - or better that the negative impact of sins - will be covered up.
Teshuva is Returning to the State Before Sin. It is a retroactive process undoing a sin.
Here is a mashal
A man gains weight and as a result his blood pressure rises
A Cappara would be to take blood pressure medication. The excess weight remains but he is shielded from its deleterious effects.
Doing Teshuva would entail dieting in such a way as to lose the weight and to reduce the hypertension. IOW to restore the body back to the healthy way it was before the weight gain altered its body chemistry.
Of course Teshuva is a more complete process.
Yom Kippur is more of a quick fix. Perhaps since a complete Teshuva might take years, it is necessary to take the palliative of Cappara before the cure of Teshuva is available.
KT
RRW
Avoth 1:16 and My Father A"H
Shammai Says:
• Make your study of Torah a regular activity
• Make your study of Torah a regular activity
• Promise Little but do much
• And receive all men with a kindly countenance.
- R. Hirsch Siddur P. 429
-----------------------
Although Shammai has been rejected [for the most part] from normative Halachah, his Words of Wisdom match those of any one else in Avoth. So - who knew that Shammai - portrayed as grumpy by some - would offer such friendly advice?!
These words have personally resonated with me for a long time. Poignantly I used them as the theme of my Hesped for my dear Father [Zvi ben Hayyim]* at his levayah, who was niftar erev Sukkos, 14th of Tishrei 5749.
November 3rd, 2009 marks the 100th secular anniversary of my Dad's Birth. I have not made much of the various milestones before, EG my Dad's 20th yahrtzeit, but I felt that the time had finally arrived to speak-up.
At any rate my Father exemplified Shammai's dictum, albeit it takes some drash to make this work. The last two traits do fit my Dad to the proverbial "T".
OTOH, My Dad was no Torah Scholar. His meager Torah education in a Brooklyn Cheider enabled him to daven well, and not much more.
While my Mother was the outspoken advocate for Jewish Education, my Father in his own quiet way was quite involved in the same goal, serving on the board of the Yeshiva of Hartford and also as President of the Beth David Synagogue.
And so, I darshened "asie toras'cha keva" - not as fixing TIMES for Torah study, because my Dad really did not - but rather as being Kovei'a INSTITUTIONS of Torah Study, which he did big time. IOW his Kevious was about the bricks and mortar that made Torah Schools emerge from blueprint into reality. And as such, he made Torah his Qeva, albeit in my novel "Teitch" of the phrase.
My father's quietness was disarming. Few active community leaders approach public roles with such "anivus". He really did say little. At home, when he did speak seriously**, we listened, because little was stated without a lot of reflection and [by the time I rolled around] many years of experience.
Thus, while my Dad was a quiet man by nature, he could also suppress his strong opinions on issues - when he felt that being outspoken would only be counter-productive.
Nor was my Father shy as to be unfriendly. Aderabah, he was easy-going and smiley when meeting new people, and it was quite sincere. His quiet demeanour was not stand-offish as is often the case with many bashful types. He had a genuine "Dale Carnegie" smile when he said "hi".
Few people I have met have matched my Dad in exemplifying Shammai's immortal advice - albeit in his own way. I only wish leaders nowadays had more "strong silent types" who promised little but delivered much
KT
RRW
* My Dad was usually called to the Torah as simply Zvi ben Hayyim
My Father was also called Zvi Hirsch and His Dad - I.E. my Grandfather was also known as Hayyim Haikkel.
We never knew for certain if the Yiddish nicknames were official names given at their respective Brisses, or simply pet names used by THEIR respective parents.
So E.G. My Grandparents called my Father Hirsh'l, but we don't know if that was his "official" given name - or not.
When naming my son, I made it a point to make "Hirsch" my son's official middle name so that there would be no ambiguity.
** although quiet by nature, my Dad had a good sense of humour and enjoyed entertaining people with cute jokes and stories, as well as very punny quips which were often spontaneous. The punny quips were pithy and natural. The funny stories were mostly to break the tension or "to melt the ice" when dining with company etc.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Asei Lecha Rav - Seeking Objectivity
Originally published 10/27/09, 2:52 pm.
Avoth 1:16: "Provide yourself with a teacher and free yourself from doubt"
After reading this with R.S.R. Hirsch's commentary, I finally realized that the three cases of Rabban Gamliel are not really separate clauses at all
Rather, RG proposes that through having a teacher, one frees oneself from doubt.
To me, this begs the question: "Shouldn't even the greatest poseiq submit his own questions to a colleague in order to obtain objectivity?" Wouldn't the best way to avoid any doubt of subjectivity be soliciting an unbiased opinion?
KT,
RRW
Avoth 1:16: "Provide yourself with a teacher and free yourself from doubt"
After reading this with R.S.R. Hirsch's commentary, I finally realized that the three cases of Rabban Gamliel are not really separate clauses at all
Rather, RG proposes that through having a teacher, one frees oneself from doubt.
To me, this begs the question: "Shouldn't even the greatest poseiq submit his own questions to a colleague in order to obtain objectivity?" Wouldn't the best way to avoid any doubt of subjectivity be soliciting an unbiased opinion?
KT,
RRW
Monday, 26 October 2009
CAN Hashem change HIS Mind?
Originally published 10/26//09, 7:43 pm
Preface:
Using can in this context, I am asking if it is possible that The Divine has a mind that is "changeable"? Or does Hashem's eternal nature preclude this?
Tthe Torah states emphatically that Hashem does NOT change HIS mind in Shemuel I:15: 29
This is apparently a blatant contradiction.
R.S.R. Hirsch, in B'reishit makes an ingenious Diyyuq using Diqduq. In Shemuel, the reflexive Hispael is used, while in B'reishit, the Pi'el construct is used.
As such, in Shemuel the Torah is teaching that Hashem never changes his own mind - meaning in isolation or due to internal ruminations.
However, in B'reishit, Hashem is not altering his internal stance. Rather, He is merely reflecting the external change in Adam-humanity since Creation. Hashem's Mind is actually internally consistent; it is simply that external circumstances trigger altered responses.
This is different than humans who may indeed change their minds without external stimuli. Human minds can be fickle -
While G-d's mind cannot! However, His mind may appear to change - given a corresponding change in Circumstances - but never due to mood, etc.
Shalom,
RRW
Preface:
Using can in this context, I am asking if it is possible that The Divine has a mind that is "changeable"? Or does Hashem's eternal nature preclude this?
Tthe Torah states emphatically that Hashem does NOT change HIS mind in Shemuel I:15: 29
כט וְגַם נֵצַח יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא יְשַׁקֵּר וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם: כִּי לֹא אָדָם הוּא, לְהִנָּחֵם.
On the other hand, in Breishit 6:6, it says "Vayinachem Hashem", that Hashem regretted His decision regarding the creation of Adam.This is apparently a blatant contradiction.
R.S.R. Hirsch, in B'reishit makes an ingenious Diyyuq using Diqduq. In Shemuel, the reflexive Hispael is used, while in B'reishit, the Pi'el construct is used.
As such, in Shemuel the Torah is teaching that Hashem never changes his own mind - meaning in isolation or due to internal ruminations.
However, in B'reishit, Hashem is not altering his internal stance. Rather, He is merely reflecting the external change in Adam-humanity since Creation. Hashem's Mind is actually internally consistent; it is simply that external circumstances trigger altered responses.
This is different than humans who may indeed change their minds without external stimuli. Human minds can be fickle -
While G-d's mind cannot! However, His mind may appear to change - given a corresponding change in Circumstances - but never due to mood, etc.
Shalom,
RRW
The Root of all Evil as Per R.S.R. Hirsch
«The expression is commonly misquoted as simply "Money is the root of all evil"»
Properly the original Quote is actually:
«"The love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10, KJV)»
[See Root of all evil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_of_all_evil]
Thus a "perfect misunderstanding" - I.E. It's not the money that is evil, it's obsession with money or greed that is being castigated.
So the New Testament sees the Fault as "Greed, Love of Money."
[While Shakespeare would have it:
«"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings." Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141).»
Nevertheless, R.S.R. Hirsch has a different take on the Root of Evil
Breisheet 5:1 P. 151 new edition, commenting on R Aqiva and "v'ahavta l'rei'acha kamocha" R. Hirsch emphasises:
"Indeed the truth is that there is only ONE Aveira; selfishness, egoism. Once a person has freed himself from egoism, and his fellow man is dear to him[self] as his own soul, he is capable of performing ... All Mitzvos"
And so as per R. Hirsch
The fault lays not in money or the stars but in ourselves in that we think of ME and not of WE.
KT
RRW
Properly the original Quote is actually:
«"The love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10, KJV)»
[See Root of all evil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_of_all_evil]
Thus a "perfect misunderstanding" - I.E. It's not the money that is evil, it's obsession with money or greed that is being castigated.
So the New Testament sees the Fault as "Greed, Love of Money."
[While Shakespeare would have it:
«"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings." Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141).»
Nevertheless, R.S.R. Hirsch has a different take on the Root of Evil
Breisheet 5:1 P. 151 new edition, commenting on R Aqiva and "v'ahavta l'rei'acha kamocha" R. Hirsch emphasises:
"Indeed the truth is that there is only ONE Aveira; selfishness, egoism. Once a person has freed himself from egoism, and his fellow man is dear to him[self] as his own soul, he is capable of performing ... All Mitzvos"
And so as per R. Hirsch
The fault lays not in money or the stars but in ourselves in that we think of ME and not of WE.
KT
RRW
Kashrus and Trust
A customer walked in and queried me about certain Kashrus Issues Re:
• Cleaning Broccoli
• Trusting Gentile owned Restaurants
Or
• Trusting restaurants owned by non-observant Jews etc.
I basically said that one cannot generalize in this day and age or in this [viz. North American] society - despite what might be said in Classic Texts on the subject.
IOW you may have trustworthy Gentiles and "sleazy" Jews or vice versa. And so
each case and situation has to be evaluated individually.
I then regaled him with some examples.
I worked in several "Israeli-grill" or shwarma restaurants.
In one case the owner was obviously sleazy and I refused to work there except as a "Temp".
In another case, the owner was a "prince" and everything was done "just-so". As nice as the owner is, his wife is even nicer and they were very straight and kind people.
Bottom line, you really cannot accurately judge "books by their covers" even in the field of Kashrus.
KT
RRW
• Cleaning Broccoli
• Trusting Gentile owned Restaurants
Or
• Trusting restaurants owned by non-observant Jews etc.
I basically said that one cannot generalize in this day and age or in this [viz. North American] society - despite what might be said in Classic Texts on the subject.
IOW you may have trustworthy Gentiles and "sleazy" Jews or vice versa. And so
each case and situation has to be evaluated individually.
I then regaled him with some examples.
I worked in several "Israeli-grill" or shwarma restaurants.
In one case the owner was obviously sleazy and I refused to work there except as a "Temp".
In another case, the owner was a "prince" and everything was done "just-so". As nice as the owner is, his wife is even nicer and they were very straight and kind people.
Bottom line, you really cannot accurately judge "books by their covers" even in the field of Kashrus.
KT
RRW
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Torah MiSinai, Then and Now #1
Originally published 10/22/09, 11:32 pm.
This is a reprise of an earlier post. There are several new comments as a result of a discussion on Avodah
First, let's reset the table.
There are two different perspectives regarding Torah MiSinai that put things in stark, black-and-white contrast.
Conservative Rabbi Jacob Agus (brother of Irving Agus) stated this in an article in the 1950's.
The strict Orthodox perspective: All of Torah is MiSinai. Period. No qualifications. Since every imperative is Divine, there's not much to talk about...
(NB: Agus broad-brushed ALL Orthodox as subscribing to this thesis)
With regards to Conservatives, J. Agus gave a more Leftist Perspective: Torah is simply NOT MiSinai. It might have Divine inspiration or influence but it is a human product. This view gives modern rabbis carte-blanche to dispute anything they need to dispute.
There are many more "gray" positions between these two. Let's start with Positive Historical. PH does not deny Torah MiSinai, nor does it subscribe to it either. It's kinda' agnostic.
What it does propose, is that antiquity, history, and tradition give some sanctity and much legal weight to Torah Traditions. The older the statute, the less it may be challenged. But the Sanctity or Divinity of any given law is fuzzy. It is legally very conservative and traditional, but not really Orthodox. It makes no claim that any law is really that Holy.
PH should have, in practice, provided a position on Halacha fairly close to the Orthodox one. Why it has not, is beyond the scope of this post.
So consider PH the far right of Conservative Judaism, the most loyal to Torah but not necessarily to its Sinaitic pedigree
What about Orthodox?
There are several brands of Orthodox somewhat to the left of the hardline of above. Some call them by names like Modern Orthodox, Neo-Orthodox, Liberal Orthodox, etc.
Let's go back to the common starting point of Ma'amad Har Sinai. Let's take a hardline stance, that as Moshe Rabbeinu descended the mountain, all of the Written Torah and all of the Oral Torah was MiSinai, meaning Divine, Holy.
What might have occurred that would make the common denominator across the Orthodox spectrum to diverge over time?
Stay tuned for future posts addressing this point.
KT,
RRW
This is a reprise of an earlier post. There are several new comments as a result of a discussion on Avodah
First, let's reset the table.
There are two different perspectives regarding Torah MiSinai that put things in stark, black-and-white contrast.
Conservative Rabbi Jacob Agus (brother of Irving Agus) stated this in an article in the 1950's.
The strict Orthodox perspective: All of Torah is MiSinai. Period. No qualifications. Since every imperative is Divine, there's not much to talk about...
(NB: Agus broad-brushed ALL Orthodox as subscribing to this thesis)
With regards to Conservatives, J. Agus gave a more Leftist Perspective: Torah is simply NOT MiSinai. It might have Divine inspiration or influence but it is a human product. This view gives modern rabbis carte-blanche to dispute anything they need to dispute.
There are many more "gray" positions between these two. Let's start with Positive Historical. PH does not deny Torah MiSinai, nor does it subscribe to it either. It's kinda' agnostic.
What it does propose, is that antiquity, history, and tradition give some sanctity and much legal weight to Torah Traditions. The older the statute, the less it may be challenged. But the Sanctity or Divinity of any given law is fuzzy. It is legally very conservative and traditional, but not really Orthodox. It makes no claim that any law is really that Holy.
PH should have, in practice, provided a position on Halacha fairly close to the Orthodox one. Why it has not, is beyond the scope of this post.
So consider PH the far right of Conservative Judaism, the most loyal to Torah but not necessarily to its Sinaitic pedigree
What about Orthodox?
There are several brands of Orthodox somewhat to the left of the hardline of above. Some call them by names like Modern Orthodox, Neo-Orthodox, Liberal Orthodox, etc.
Let's go back to the common starting point of Ma'amad Har Sinai. Let's take a hardline stance, that as Moshe Rabbeinu descended the mountain, all of the Written Torah and all of the Oral Torah was MiSinai, meaning Divine, Holy.
What might have occurred that would make the common denominator across the Orthodox spectrum to diverge over time?
Stay tuned for future posts addressing this point.
KT,
RRW
Shepherds vs. Farmers
Background:
We had a lively discussion on the virtues of Shepherds vs. Farmers on the Avodah List
We had a lively discussion on the virtues of Shepherds vs. Farmers on the Avodah List
One of my Professors at YU - IIRC Dr. Irving Agus - extolled the virtues of Shepherding as breeding more idealistic people, with more time on their hands to contemplate the Divine.
I was pleasantly surprised to see a similar ideal promoted by RSR Hirsch in Breishis re: Hevel vs. Qayin.
Here was my first post on this thread:
«FWIW R. Hirsch Breishis 4:2 S.V. "Vayhi Hevel Ro'eh Tzohn" strongly support the widely held POV that pastoral life is more conducive to spirituality and contemplation than is agricultural Life.»
A lively debate ensued.
Dear Readers: please note that I exhort you to read R. Hirsch - as much as is possible - in the new edition of his Humash; and to NOT draw too many conclusions from my posts! IOW I am trying to simulate MORE learning and research into this topic, so please don't shortcut that!
Based upon the shaqla v'tarya [give and take] I had a flash of insight that I would like to share:
Assuming Arguendo
That - Hevel as Ro'eh tzohn is superior to Qayin and Noah as anshei Adamah...
Drasha:
Then, Let's posit that the Avos and the Shevatim were all superior to the farmers in Egypt when the "70" descended to Mitzrayin and SHOULD have been on a very high Madreiga.
What Happened?
This exalted level was compromised somewhat when
The Brothers grew jealous of Yoseph and some wished him to even be executed. They then adopted Qayyin's evil trait of Violent Jealousy and compromised [at least some of] their moral superiority
Nevertheless when the "70" went to Egypt they remained on a high enough level to be equal to Par'oh, and far above that of the average Egyptian.
Woefully, after 210 years, The Israelites descended to the low level of average Mitzrim.
Intervention:
At this point HKBH was "matzileinu miyadam" both physically and spiritually. And
While most credit for the G'ullah must go to HKBH, who is our corresponding human "rescuer"? Is it not Moshe - the ro'eh Tzohn? Isn't he the one chosen to elevate the now depressed Israelites and to restore them to become "spiritual nomads" - after their "redu shama" descent?
Moshe's Successor
How does Moshe pray to HKBH. Send a leader lest they be:
"Katzohn - asher ein lahem ro'eh."
While Yehoshua was the immediate response to this request I suggest that the long-term solution was not Yehoshua bin Nun!
Rather the ultimate Roeh Tzohn was David Hamelech! It is he who founds a dynasty as a ro'eh tzohn, revitalizing the Nation that had slipped under Sha'ul WRT Amaleik and ITS kol hatzohn!
Thus we have modeled our leadership in the mold of the 7 Shepherds
Avraham
Yitzhak
Ya'aqov
Yosef
Mosheh
Aharon
David
Paradigms of Jewish Leaders And Shepherds all.
KT
RRW
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
5770 - What I'm learning (and Why I'm telling you)
Selecting what to learn for me is often a moving target. Priorities constantly shift. Chavrusos come and go. Selected S'farim sometimes do not meet my expectations.
Nevertheless, after some introspection and planning I have set up some goals for this year.
Nevertheless, after some introspection and planning I have set up some goals for this year.
The reason I share these with readers, is to understand what texts are triggering many of my posts! Oftentimes my learning triggers an idea, an insight, or a hiddush.
My highest priority is to cover the entire Shulchan Aruch and Mappah using the SA Yomi program. But I am not sticking to the exact yomi portions. Since I have done patches here and there already, I am jumping around a bit WITHIN the volume of the month. So I am now working on finishing the last third of BOTH Tishrei and finishing Marchesvan (Hilchos Shabbos).
So in any chodesh, I plan to start the new month's limmud and continue to complete the previous month's volume, too.
Also, I am focused on doing Mishnah yomis/yomit as well. In addition, I participate in our shul's siyyum mishnayos, and this year I volunteered to do Ohalos. I also sign up for Ohalos in conjunction with siyyumim for yahrtzeits and I plan to cover the text with several different peirushim, EG Kehati, Bartenura, Blackman, and Tavnis Ohalos.
For Humash I am using the new set of Hirsch. It is also part of my machshava program. In addition I plan to cover one mishnah a day in Avos using Hirsch also. Thus, some Hirsch immersion. Future years, I plan to cover Horeb and Hirsch on Tehillim.
I like to cover 1 sefer on Mitzvos each year. This year it's Hareidim.
It also is involved in "Machshava".
I have a chavrusa in issur v'heter. We are doing Tur and Shulchan Aruch on bassar bechalav. Recently we have integrated Rambam with his nos'ei keilim into the mix.
I also have a "drop in" chavrusa who learns when he gets a break. We are covering SA Harav on Hilchos Sukkah. SA Harav is very well written and the new editions with nekuddos and updated footnotes are a real pleasure.
I also am learning Halachos G'dolos on Shabbos. We decided to focus on Hilchos Pesach in general and the Seder in particular.
Occasionally I will dip into minhagim to update nishma minhag. The SA and SA Harav may be useful here too
So I am using 3 beqios tools
Mishnayos with Kehatti
Shulchan Aruch
Halachos G'dolos
I am light on iyyun as of now, except with issur v'heter and Ohalos.
KT
RRW
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
R.S.R. Hirsch and Abandoning the Masses | Cross-Currents
A modern day editorial founded upon Hirschian thought
The Hirschian snip:
«Several passages in parshas Bereishis always excite me. In one of them, RSRH detects not only meaning in the names in the genealogies of both Kayin and Shais, but treats them as a pattern that governs the pendulum swing of societies.
That pattern invites comparison with our own times. Here is the basic sequence. Forgetting the special relationship between G-d and Man, (אנוש) even while retaining belief in Him, must lead to dissatisfaction with religious life.
This leads in a following generation to an excessive preoccupation with material things simply for the sake of possession (קינן).
Finding this vacuous and devoid of meaning, the next generation tries again to connect with G-d by asserting His existence and honoring Him with pious proclamations (מהללאל). Alas, the service of G-d through praise of the lips without subordinating one's life to His dictates is bound to fail, so the next generation declines (ירד) once more.
Detecting the stumbling, some look to educating a new generation (חנוך), ennobling them with something more meaningful. Such intensive education, however, remains the province of only a minority. The next generation is therefore one of "giving up the masses," מתושלח.
Here I find his words particularly compelling. "They believe they have achieved their goal if they have saved themselves and elevated themselves only. To them the masses were מתים whom they שלח, »
This dialectic seems right out of Hegel!
For the complete article please see
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2009/10/20/abandoning-the-masses/
KT
RRW
The Hirschian snip:
«Several passages in parshas Bereishis always excite me. In one of them, RSRH detects not only meaning in the names in the genealogies of both Kayin and Shais, but treats them as a pattern that governs the pendulum swing of societies.
That pattern invites comparison with our own times. Here is the basic sequence. Forgetting the special relationship between G-d and Man, (אנוש) even while retaining belief in Him, must lead to dissatisfaction with religious life.
This leads in a following generation to an excessive preoccupation with material things simply for the sake of possession (קינן).
Finding this vacuous and devoid of meaning, the next generation tries again to connect with G-d by asserting His existence and honoring Him with pious proclamations (מהללאל). Alas, the service of G-d through praise of the lips without subordinating one's life to His dictates is bound to fail, so the next generation declines (ירד) once more.
Detecting the stumbling, some look to educating a new generation (חנוך), ennobling them with something more meaningful. Such intensive education, however, remains the province of only a minority. The next generation is therefore one of "giving up the masses," מתושלח.
Here I find his words particularly compelling. "They believe they have achieved their goal if they have saved themselves and elevated themselves only. To them the masses were מתים whom they שלח, »
This dialectic seems right out of Hegel!
For the complete article please see
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2009/10/20/abandoning-the-masses/
KT
RRW
Beth Hillel - from a Pedagogical Perspective
Preface:
Many, even many great Rabbis, have a tendency to view their own school of thought as THE exclusive way to understand a Halachah or a Minhag
EG Ashkenazim usually presume Qitniyyot as an axiomatic given
OTOH Sephardim presume just the opposite.
Many, even many great Rabbis, have a tendency to view their own school of thought as THE exclusive way to understand a Halachah or a Minhag
EG Ashkenazim usually presume Qitniyyot as an axiomatic given
OTOH Sephardim presume just the opposite.
The Basic Story of Beth Hillel as Traditionally Understood
A lesson in Humility is taught by the Talmud; I.E. That Beth Hillel deferentially taught Beth Shammai's opinion FIRST before moving on to teaching its own school's opinion. W/O a doubt,
The Talmud is emphasizing a sense of Humility. [Also, derech eretz, elu v'elu, Win-Win, I'm OK You're OK, etc.]
An Insight - Reading Between the Lines
Here is an insight, a drash, from an educational standpoint. BH is not just being humble, BH is also teaching OPEN-MINDEDNESS. That is to say
Here is another school's opinion, one which we [respectfully] reject
And now here is OUR opinion, the one WE embrace.
Subtly, the minds of BH are conditioned away from rigidity into a more flexible approach to learning!
This is borne out by the number of times BH eventually did an "about-face" and taught like BS. Having been exposed in a fair-minded manner, they were not fixated nor locked-in to a single paradigm.
[Note: a Colleague of mind terms this: "binocularity"]
It does NOT appear that Beth Shammai shared this approach. In fact, this approach seems to have been the exception, not the rule. EG It seems the Rambam had one exclusive Viewpoint.
And While this approach is not the typical, it does
Come up now again.
E.G. Both the Mishnah and the Tur present different opinions, but rarely explain them in depth. Yet with the full range of conclusions available, a dialectic is easily created by analyzing the various opinions.
Perhaps the paradigmatic Poseiq that follows this approach is the Beth Yosef who usually expounds the multi-faceted POV's of a given Halachah.
The Shukchan Aruch Harav aims to take 2 approaches to a given while still arriving at a single conclusion. It makes the SA Harav quite a bit more readable than most dry Posqim.
As a Master Melamed, R YD Soloveichik was outstanding at showing how a sugya in the Talmud can be parsed by 2 different Rishonim. This tension between 2 approaches was exploited by the Rav to make for a very exciting Shiur. Talmudic Tennis so to speak.
OTOH, the Kitzur SA reverted to the Rambam's single POV. And so R Mordechai Eliyahu sought to remedy this by expanding it with 5 more approaches
• 1 Mishnah Brurah
• 2 Misgeret Hahsulchan [following SA Harav]
• 3 BY-SA
• 4 Ben Ish Hai
• 5 Kaf HaHayyim
Thus a narrow POV is expanded. "Binocularity is achieved"
Simlarly:
Hagahot Maimoniyyot
Expanded the Rambam
And Hagahot HaRema
Expanded the Shulchan Aruch.
All of these authors and teachers followed in the pedagogical footsteps of BH, to enable seeing a Sugya or a Psaq from at least 2 perspectives
Talmud Teachers often do this using Rashi and Tosafot
Recommendation:
We would be well served to balance Rashi on Humash with an alternative POV. Ramban is one, but often complex. Rashbam comes to mind but perhaps Sipporno is the most educator friendly.
Indoctrinating Students with Rashi's peirush as the exclusive definitive read of a Passuq, serves to limit their flexibility later on in life
KT
RRW
Monday, 19 October 2009
Bishul AKu"m and Assimilation
Rabbi Binyamin Forst has a stimulating piece of Machshava on the rationale for Bishul AK"uM and related g'zeiros See Artscoll "The Kosher Kitchen" PP. 247-261. It is a very cogent and well-written piece and is really must reading for the Halachic Jew who is not already steeped in this literature.
I concur with most of what Rabbi Forst said and especially applaud his "elu v'elu" approach re: the respective roles of Jews and Gentiles in the world.
My post on Sukkah Sensitivity, supports a mildly higher level of interaction between Jews and Gentiles than does R. Forst's chapter. But this is but a quibble.
On this issue of interaction one may understand the Halachic restrictions as effecting 2 different positions. And perhaps both positions are equally legitimate, but would be applied differently based upon the circumstances "on the ground".
• Attitude 1 Complete "levadad yishkon"
Hazal have enacted rules not only to prevent intermarriage, but to avoid assimilation. Therefore, the ideal is no interaction at all. Exceptions are only made for absolute necessity.
• Attitude 2 - Raising Awareness
Aderabba, interaction is OK and at times desirable. Thus, the enactments of Hazal are really mnemonics reminding us to always be aware of our unique separateness lest we get carried away by being overly chummy. So these are g'zeirot keeping our natural friendliness from over-stepping boundaries that keep us as the am hanivchar. The g'zeiros are about engendering "mindfulness".
In our society, I would favour somewhere in the middle. Too much standoffishness is AISI counter-productive to being a positive influence. Yet with the rate of assimilation, a high degree of mindfulness must also have some "restraint" WRT even being overly chummy.
Tangent on Shemen AKu"M.
I never understood the need for hashgacha on Olive Oil due to the bittul of the g'zeira on Shemen AKu"M. R. Forst explained it simply.
The original g'zeira was about assimilation and was similar to Bishul AKM, Gvinat AKM
IOW it was about assimilation and had little or nothing to do with the actual ingredients. Now that the g'zeira has been rescinded, that is still true. Gentiles may produce Olive Oil w/o and Jewish Participation. Thus our Hashgachah today is ONLY about insuring no unKosher contamination via Ingredients or Keilim does not concern hands-on Jewish intervention.
KT
RRW
B'reisheet - "B'etzev Teil'dee Banim"
Originally published 10/19/09, 3:09 pm.
B'reishit 3:16 - B'etzev Teil'dee Banim...
Itzavon in modern Hebrew can mean "depression"
Could this Passuq refer to Post-Partum depression?
So as to render this phrase, "With [or in] "depression" shalt thou bear children..."
KT,
RRW
B'reishit 3:16 - B'etzev Teil'dee Banim...
Itzavon in modern Hebrew can mean "depression"
Could this Passuq refer to Post-Partum depression?
So as to render this phrase, "With [or in] "depression" shalt thou bear children..."
KT,
RRW
Parsha B'reisheet - Word Play #2 CHWH[Y]
Chavah [HWH] is named by Adam [Breisheet 3:20] after the incident with the Nahash. Until then she is merely "ha'Ishah"
R.S.R. Hirsch points out an interesting word play with the Aramaic word "Chivya" [Hiwyah].
The root of the Hebrew Chavah and the Aramaic Chivyah [snake] are virtually the same. This suggests a very different approach to Chavah's name than the text's own reason [viz. Eim kol Ha]. At any rate, both reasons are apparently the result of the Nahash incidedent
See R.S.R. Hirsch Breisheet 3:6 p. 99 s.v. Sa'avah in the New Edition.
KT,
RRW
R.S.R. Hirsch on Avot 1:11
Q: Why does careless or reckless speech trigger the punishment of Galuth?
A: Just as careless behaviour may inadvertantly lead to manslaughter and be punished by Galut, similarly careless speech may lead or cause a similar snowballing of events "moral maslaughter"
Also see R.S.R. Hirsch who shows how Golah is leaving the sheltered waters and veering off into the perilous Waters. (Siddur p. 426) Yishar KIach to R. Hirsch who has made this parallel come alive
KT
RRW
Parsha Breisheet - Word Play #1 ARM
Continuing my Study of Breisheet with R.S.R. Hirsch...
End of Chapter 2:25
Vayihyu sh'neihem "Arumim"
Beginning of chapter 3:1 "v'haNachash hayah "Arum"
Of course the words convey different meanings, the former "nakedness" the latter "cunning." Nevertheless the [apparently] common root - juxtaposed so closely together - seems to be an obvious literary device.
NB: While R. Hirsch does indeed mention "Eryeh" in conjunction with the earlier term "Arumim", he does not seem to focus upon that definition.. Yet Arayot - as in "Giluy Arayot" - seems to be the obvious focus of the Nahash's meddling into Havvah's business. And this is so indicated by the Midrash.
KT
RRW
Sunday, 18 October 2009
R.S.R. Hirsch on Holding High Office
A Point to Ponder:
R.S.R. Hirsch on Avos 1:10 (P. 425 in Siddur)
«Hate the holding of High Office for the office holder quickly becomes a slave to his position. He will do things - or he will believe that, for the sake of his position he MUST [emphasis mine] do certain things - which actually are contrary to his own view and inclinations, and which he would never do if he were free to follow his own personal philosophies of life.»
KT
RRW
R.S.R. Hirsch on Avos 1:10 (P. 425 in Siddur)
«Hate the holding of High Office for the office holder quickly becomes a slave to his position. He will do things - or he will believe that, for the sake of his position he MUST [emphasis mine] do certain things - which actually are contrary to his own view and inclinations, and which he would never do if he were free to follow his own personal philosophies of life.»
KT
RRW
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Beqi'ut Poll Results
Which of the above, would you recommend as a first option for improving beqi'ut?
Your responses:Option A 2% (2)
Option B 2% (7 )
Option C 2% (3)
Option D 2% (7)
Option E 2% (3)
Option F 2% (5)
Total Responses 27
Comments:
1) It may be noteworthy that the most common study pattern of daf yomi scored the lowest. An additional interesting fact in this regard is that it was also the last item to be marked. Of course, people who do daf yomi may not intent for it to serve the needs of a quick accumulation of biqi'ut but it is interesting that responders to this poll did not see it as a good method of acquiring biqi'ut.
2) While it would seem that the study of mishnayot and the study of Rambam equally led all choices, if one considers that there were actually two choices for Rambam -- one with commentary and one without -- it would seem that the study of Rambam in some way is perceived to be the best method by which to acquire beqi'ut.
3) A comment was made on one of the postings at the time that we launched this poll, that an important option was not considered -- i.e. the study of the Aruch Hashulchan. Indeed that, and a study of the Tur, may have been other options that should have been offered.
Friday, 16 October 2009
A Mazel Tov from Christianity Today?
I am not sure how to respond. Should I find this interesting, have a positive response? Should I perhaps be upset thinking that if Christianity is looking at something in a positive light I should be concerned from a Torah perspective? Or should my response be total indifference?
Take a look at this link. What is is about is pretty much in the wording of the link. Its actually a congratulatory note on the Yoetzet Halacha program at Nishmat in Israel (no connection) celebrating its 10th anniversary.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2009/10/mazel_tov_for_jewish_women.html
The one fact, and say this unfortunately, is that one of the criticisms of the program and, in fact, many of the innovations that have been applied over the years to women, as well as in many other areas of Halacha, is that they are motivated by "outside" influences and are not from a Torah true source -- and articles such as this one fuel that critique and make the whole process actually more difficult. Of course, one response to the critique is to just argue that it is not true, "outside" perceptions have nothing to do with them. On the other hand, maybe there is a place for "outside" influences to some extent within the world of Torah. After all, chachma b'goyim ta'amin. In many ways, this very congratulations may really reflect the general wisdom of the age and not the inherent values of this religion -- which itself is going through a transformation.
But bottom line, this congratulations still is strange.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Take a look at this link. What is is about is pretty much in the wording of the link. Its actually a congratulatory note on the Yoetzet Halacha program at Nishmat in Israel (no connection) celebrating its 10th anniversary.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2009/10/mazel_tov_for_jewish_women.html
The one fact, and say this unfortunately, is that one of the criticisms of the program and, in fact, many of the innovations that have been applied over the years to women, as well as in many other areas of Halacha, is that they are motivated by "outside" influences and are not from a Torah true source -- and articles such as this one fuel that critique and make the whole process actually more difficult. Of course, one response to the critique is to just argue that it is not true, "outside" perceptions have nothing to do with them. On the other hand, maybe there is a place for "outside" influences to some extent within the world of Torah. After all, chachma b'goyim ta'amin. In many ways, this very congratulations may really reflect the general wisdom of the age and not the inherent values of this religion -- which itself is going through a transformation.
But bottom line, this congratulations still is strange.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Picking and Choosing - Setting up new "Batei Din"
The early 20th century presented us with several monumental works on Halachah. The top 3 stars in the firmament seem to be:
1 Mishnah Brurah [MB]
2 Aruch haShulchan [AhS]
3 Kaf haHayyim [KhH]
It may be too late. The ship may have sailed. Many newer posqim probably have superseded the Big 3
What if someone circa 1950 created a new Kitzur using those 3 as his Beth Din? *
And Is it too late NOW to do a modified version?
How about a newer BD that would combine a later generation?
EG
1 R Moshe Feinstein [RMF]
2 R Ovadiah Yosef [ROY]
3 ???
Perhaps we could create a Kitzur based upon the latter BD
Why bother?
It would be nice to synthesize the opinions of the dominant posqim. And at times a synthesis, a blend can produce a balanced outcome
See the R Mordechai Eliyahu edition of Kitzur SA for a sampling of what I am advocating.
Shalom
RRW
* NB RY Caro set up a hypothetical BD of Rif, Rambam, and Rosh
Also Kitzur SA - RS Ganzfried - set up a similar BD of SA haRav, Hayyei Adam, and Derech Hayyim (R Yaaqov of Lisa)
Also note:
How slavishly these authors followed their own rules - is beyond the scope of this post.
1 Mishnah Brurah [MB]
2 Aruch haShulchan [AhS]
3 Kaf haHayyim [KhH]
It may be too late. The ship may have sailed. Many newer posqim probably have superseded the Big 3
What if someone circa 1950 created a new Kitzur using those 3 as his Beth Din? *
And Is it too late NOW to do a modified version?
How about a newer BD that would combine a later generation?
EG
1 R Moshe Feinstein [RMF]
2 R Ovadiah Yosef [ROY]
3 ???
Perhaps we could create a Kitzur based upon the latter BD
Why bother?
It would be nice to synthesize the opinions of the dominant posqim. And at times a synthesis, a blend can produce a balanced outcome
See the R Mordechai Eliyahu edition of Kitzur SA for a sampling of what I am advocating.
Shalom
RRW
* NB RY Caro set up a hypothetical BD of Rif, Rambam, and Rosh
Also Kitzur SA - RS Ganzfried - set up a similar BD of SA haRav, Hayyei Adam, and Derech Hayyim (R Yaaqov of Lisa)
Also note:
How slavishly these authors followed their own rules - is beyond the scope of this post.
Teshuva Now, Geulah Now
Recently, I saw this as a quote from the Friedicker Rebbe, RYI Schneersohn OBM on a Chabad Calendar.
It triggered a few random thoughts
First after learning Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva, I humorously quipped: "it may be summed up in 3 words: 'Do Teshuva Now!'"
Now I realized that I was mechavein to an even pithier summary,
Viz. "Teshuva Now!"
Then it occurred to me:
What if the whole world did a complete Teshuva would it:
• Bring the Moshiach instantly?
• Or would we have geulah and Moshiach zeit even w/o a Moshiach - IOW would worldwide Teshuva obviate the need for a Moshiach?
Either way, it's a win-win option.
Shalom
RRW
It triggered a few random thoughts
First after learning Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva, I humorously quipped: "it may be summed up in 3 words: 'Do Teshuva Now!'"
Now I realized that I was mechavein to an even pithier summary,
Viz. "Teshuva Now!"
Then it occurred to me:
What if the whole world did a complete Teshuva would it:
• Bring the Moshiach instantly?
• Or would we have geulah and Moshiach zeit even w/o a Moshiach - IOW would worldwide Teshuva obviate the need for a Moshiach?
Either way, it's a win-win option.
Shalom
RRW
Talking Torah and History 3 - La'asukei..
In our series re: Cognitive Dissonance we covered 2 versions of "La'asukei Sh'mat'ta aliba d'hilch'ta"
VIZ.
• 1 Determining the Halacha based upon the "P'shat" of a given Sugya
• 2 Determining the "P'shat" in the Sugya Based upon the way the Halachah is in practice
My friend the Historian quipped:
"#2 is indeed congruent with "La'asukei Sh'mat'ta aliba dehilch'ta"
But #1 is really more Congruent with 'La'asukei Hilch'ta aliba dishmat'ta'!
Hmmm I said.
I soon realized that his insight really changes everything...
Shalom RRW
VIZ.
• 1 Determining the Halacha based upon the "P'shat" of a given Sugya
• 2 Determining the "P'shat" in the Sugya Based upon the way the Halachah is in practice
My friend the Historian quipped:
"#2 is indeed congruent with "La'asukei Sh'mat'ta aliba dehilch'ta"
But #1 is really more Congruent with 'La'asukei Hilch'ta aliba dishmat'ta'!
Hmmm I said.
I soon realized that his insight really changes everything...
Shalom RRW
What Would I change about "Judaism" [or Jewish Culture] - Introduction
Many of us have soap-boxes or "rants" to discharge. This series has an interesting Genesis - which is the Parsha of the Week as I write this!
Background:
About 2 years ago a Hassidisher Yid asked me: "What would you change about Judaism?"
It was not the kind of question I expected from a Hassid and I stammered. I finally said that my biggest passion for change centres about Hinuch - education of our next generation.
Later, I realized that I DO have several issues that I "rock the boat" about. Most of those are quibbles.
Further Background
Re: Jewish Education.
This was my late Mother's [OBM] Passion. The Hebrew Academy of Hartford was one of her 4 children - so to speak. Note, today as I write this, is October 14, 2009 my Mom's 99th birthday.
So BEH, we will be focusing about Improving and "turbo-charging" Jewish Ed and Hinuch so that future generations of Jews will enjoy a higher level of Jewish Experience.
There will be a few other "quibbles" about certain practices that require introspection, too. Self-examination is a worthwhile endeavor Year-'round
Happy Birthday Mom!
KT
RRW
Background:
About 2 years ago a Hassidisher Yid asked me: "What would you change about Judaism?"
It was not the kind of question I expected from a Hassid and I stammered. I finally said that my biggest passion for change centres about Hinuch - education of our next generation.
Later, I realized that I DO have several issues that I "rock the boat" about. Most of those are quibbles.
Further Background
Re: Jewish Education.
This was my late Mother's [OBM] Passion. The Hebrew Academy of Hartford was one of her 4 children - so to speak. Note, today as I write this, is October 14, 2009 my Mom's 99th birthday.
So BEH, we will be focusing about Improving and "turbo-charging" Jewish Ed and Hinuch so that future generations of Jews will enjoy a higher level of Jewish Experience.
There will be a few other "quibbles" about certain practices that require introspection, too. Self-examination is a worthwhile endeavor Year-'round
Happy Birthday Mom!
KT
RRW
The Who Said vs. The What Said
Background:
Many years ago RM Hecht gifted me a "Hirsch Pirkei Avos". I am in the process of reviewing this topic.
Avos 1:8*
Hirsch's Commentary includes a very wise quote about litigants:
"For there are disputes in which even the best man may be in the wrong and the worst man in the right."
(In the Hirsch Siddur p. 425)
Isn't this also true re: Halachic disputes between Posqim? VIZ. That the minor Poseiq gets it right and the major Poseiq does not?
IOW doesn't the Truth of the WHAT trump the Opinion of the WHO?
Shalom,
RRW
* for text and Kehatti in English see
Torah Community Connections | Mishna Yomit
http://www.moreshet.net/oldsite/mishna/5762/2-06-02/monday.htm.
Snip from Kehatti:
«"and while the litigants stand before you look upon them as if they are guilty -"
during the investigation of their arguments retain a critical attitude towards both parties, since either might be making false claims, and probe the case thoroughly to arrive at the truth;
Many years ago RM Hecht gifted me a "Hirsch Pirkei Avos". I am in the process of reviewing this topic.
Avos 1:8*
Hirsch's Commentary includes a very wise quote about litigants:
"For there are disputes in which even the best man may be in the wrong and the worst man in the right."
(In the Hirsch Siddur p. 425)
Isn't this also true re: Halachic disputes between Posqim? VIZ. That the minor Poseiq gets it right and the major Poseiq does not?
IOW doesn't the Truth of the WHAT trump the Opinion of the WHO?
Shalom,
RRW
* for text and Kehatti in English see
Torah Community Connections | Mishna Yomit
http://www.moreshet.net/oldsite/mishna/5762/2-06-02/monday.htm.
Snip from Kehatti:
«"and while the litigants stand before you look upon them as if they are guilty -"
during the investigation of their arguments retain a critical attitude towards both parties, since either might be making false claims, and probe the case thoroughly to arrive at the truth;
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
RH - Three "Quickies"
#1
Malchuyot
Descriptive or Prescriptive?
See Breishit ch. 24 v. 3 and V. 7
Rashi sensitively points out that Hashem is in v3 God of Heaven and Earth
And in v7 just God of Heaven
Rabbi Shmeul Goldin of Englewood - in a Humash class - pointed out that it was Avraham's mission to MAKE the God of Heaven into the God of earth too!
I adapted this to a RH sermonette on Malchuyot. That is malchuyot is not JUST Descriptive but also Prescriptive. That we sons of Avraham are on a mission to spread the word - to Make Hashem God of the earth!
On RH we ritually coronate God with the Shofar. While During the year we "spread the word"
[metaphorically] by our acts and deeds as "ohr lagoyim".
#2
Elul Preparedness
[Adapted from Talk: Elul - Themes of Teshuva]
This question arose in Yeshivat Ner Israel:
If YK is the day of forgiveness
And if RH is the day of Judgment
Then why not have YK precede RH? That would provide forgiveness BEFORE the judgment - and we would be Judged favourably?
There were several answers given
Here is my take:
That's why we do selichot BEFORE RH [earliest customs started AFTER]
And the special LONG Selichot on Erev RH - one of the few weekdays that Aveilim are allowed to attend shul - is a form of YK Qatan.
So the Custom of Pre-RH Selichot addresses this very dilemma - we don't wait, we don't procrastinate, rather we pro-actively address the problem. We pre-empt it.
#3
Themes of Dignity vs. Themes of Subservience
First
See Mishna RH CH. 3, Mishnayot 2-5
There is a plugta between Tanna Qama and R Yehudah Re: the shape of the RH shofar
TQ: straight
RY: curved, bent
All have straight hatzotrot
All have bend Shofar for Taanit Tzibbur
Straight - emphasizes straight
Thinking but also the DIGNITY of human kind [strictly speaking RH is birth of ADAM-Havvah, not of the physical universe]
Bent symbolizes subservience to God
[Shi'bud].
Which theme best represents RH? Dignified Coronation of God. Or bent subservience TO GOD.
It seems the psaq favors R Yehudah, curved wins
But there is AISI a legacy of Dignity
See Mishna RH 1:2
Kol .. Ovrim befanav kivnei Maron
We all are reviewed as a shepherd tends his flock
Yet alternatively the Bavli cites khayyalot Beth David as soldiers This dovetails with Albeck's girsa - kivnumerion which paints the scene as a "Caesar inspecting his legions". This emphasises the dignity of TQ
While the curved Shofar prevails Halachically, both themes are interwoven into the liturgy
Also see earlier version:
NishmaBlog: Competing Images of Rosh Hashana
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2007/09/competing-images-of-rosh-hashana.html
Shalom
RRW
Parsha Breisheet: She'amar l'Olam Dai! & Darwin
HKBH completed creation by saying DAI (DIE?). See RSR Hirsch B'reisheet 2:1. Thus creative activity ceased.
It seems that during the 6 Days of Creation, a certain Creative Force Reined, until S-D-Y [the Almighty] terminated it.
Yet it would appear that Creativity and even Evolution continues! So What precisely has ceased?
Here is a possible case of terminated creativity. AFAIK no human has personally witnessed a specie morph into a more evolved specie. No one sees mice becoming rabbits or deer. [Microbes might be an exception.] Yet within species, adaptation has been witnessed...
My big "kasha" on Darwin has long been the following: Where did Darwin dig up adaptation as applicable with regard to evolving from one specie to another? This is AFAIK unknown!
Now - with RSR Hirsch's assistance - I can approach a reconciliation.
When Our CREATOR made the world during the 6 days, such evolution from one specie to the next may have indeed reined upon the earth. [Or perhaps something virtually its equivalent.] As such, when HKBH created specie X, HE may have done so in such a way as to evolve X into species Y and Z etc.! And this pattern is coded into the Original Creation Process's "DNA". Conceivably, Darwin may have detected a legacy of that process or its equivalent.
HOWEVER, once S-D-Y said "DIE", this aspect of the creative process was terminated and what had already been made - and was also making - became fixed, locked. No new species would ever emerge.
Nevertheless, A Remnant, a Legacy of the Original Creativity and Adaption remains, but the species have been fixed and limited - as perhaps other aspects of Creation.
And so since Vayachulu, the Original Creative process was terminated, and but a shadow of it remains
KT
RRW
It seems that during the 6 Days of Creation, a certain Creative Force Reined, until S-D-Y [the Almighty] terminated it.
Yet it would appear that Creativity and even Evolution continues! So What precisely has ceased?
Here is a possible case of terminated creativity. AFAIK no human has personally witnessed a specie morph into a more evolved specie. No one sees mice becoming rabbits or deer. [Microbes might be an exception.] Yet within species, adaptation has been witnessed...
My big "kasha" on Darwin has long been the following: Where did Darwin dig up adaptation as applicable with regard to evolving from one specie to another? This is AFAIK unknown!
Now - with RSR Hirsch's assistance - I can approach a reconciliation.
When Our CREATOR made the world during the 6 days, such evolution from one specie to the next may have indeed reined upon the earth. [Or perhaps something virtually its equivalent.] As such, when HKBH created specie X, HE may have done so in such a way as to evolve X into species Y and Z etc.! And this pattern is coded into the Original Creation Process's "DNA". Conceivably, Darwin may have detected a legacy of that process or its equivalent.
HOWEVER, once S-D-Y said "DIE", this aspect of the creative process was terminated and what had already been made - and was also making - became fixed, locked. No new species would ever emerge.
Nevertheless, A Remnant, a Legacy of the Original Creativity and Adaption remains, but the species have been fixed and limited - as perhaps other aspects of Creation.
And so since Vayachulu, the Original Creative process was terminated, and but a shadow of it remains
KT
RRW
Monday, 12 October 2009
B'reishit: Pru uRvu & Yishuv ha'Olam
Originally published 10/12/09, 2:10 pm.
This idea is extrapolated from Hirsch Humash Breishis 1:28, New edition pm 46, S.V. "Umil'u"
*****
It seems bepashtus that the mitzva of pru urvu is about populating the world by reproducing more humans than what were there before. This does not mean merely replacing, but adding on through increasing the numbers.
While women are technically exempt from this mitzva, their participation is essential nonetheless. Lasheves yetzarah also implies a quasi obligation upon women to participate in this goal.
Now let's step back and ask: what about those [men and women] who unfortunately are not birthing children due to various circumstances and limitations? What should the childless Jew do?
Approaching this from a communal focus - instead of from an individual focus - the resolution seems also "pashtus". Men and women who are not blessed with offspring can assist others in this noble endeavor.
Digression:
The last mitzva in the Torah - kesivas Sefer Torah - is assigned to the individual. Yet, it is rarely accomplished by the individual anymore. It usually takes a a sofer, and often it "takes a village."
So too, with bringing up the next generation. The physical parents are analogous to the sofer, and so there is room for more participation. Several tasks that can be parceled out to the community at large include:
• Assisting the new parents by providing meals or "baby-sitting" relief.
• Medical and Nursing Assistance.
• Training or Coaching "new parents."
• Training children in Talmud Torah or in parnassah.
• Participating in synagogue youth work, such as minyanim, etc.
• Giving rides when necessary for parents or children - such as to the doctor or shopping.
• Playing surrogate "grandparents" when the children have none handy.
Anyway, the list goes on. The point of this exercise is to afford an opportunity for the community to adopt this mitzva so that all may be a part of yishuv olam. So those that cannot do for themselves can still enable others in this essential Mitzva.
Illustration:
A childless woman, "Tzipporah," has dedicated her life to teaching children in a Jewish Day School. In addition, as an aunt, she helps her nieces and nephews by playing the role of "surrogate grandmother". Thus both her personal and professional life participate in participating in or enabling the mitzva of Yishuv Olam.
KT,
RRW
This idea is extrapolated from Hirsch Humash Breishis 1:28, New edition pm 46, S.V. "Umil'u"
*****
It seems bepashtus that the mitzva of pru urvu is about populating the world by reproducing more humans than what were there before. This does not mean merely replacing, but adding on through increasing the numbers.
While women are technically exempt from this mitzva, their participation is essential nonetheless. Lasheves yetzarah also implies a quasi obligation upon women to participate in this goal.
Now let's step back and ask: what about those [men and women] who unfortunately are not birthing children due to various circumstances and limitations? What should the childless Jew do?
Approaching this from a communal focus - instead of from an individual focus - the resolution seems also "pashtus". Men and women who are not blessed with offspring can assist others in this noble endeavor.
Digression:
The last mitzva in the Torah - kesivas Sefer Torah - is assigned to the individual. Yet, it is rarely accomplished by the individual anymore. It usually takes a a sofer, and often it "takes a village."
So too, with bringing up the next generation. The physical parents are analogous to the sofer, and so there is room for more participation. Several tasks that can be parceled out to the community at large include:
• Assisting the new parents by providing meals or "baby-sitting" relief.
• Medical and Nursing Assistance.
• Training or Coaching "new parents."
• Training children in Talmud Torah or in parnassah.
• Participating in synagogue youth work, such as minyanim, etc.
• Giving rides when necessary for parents or children - such as to the doctor or shopping.
• Playing surrogate "grandparents" when the children have none handy.
Anyway, the list goes on. The point of this exercise is to afford an opportunity for the community to adopt this mitzva so that all may be a part of yishuv olam. So those that cannot do for themselves can still enable others in this essential Mitzva.
Illustration:
A childless woman, "Tzipporah," has dedicated her life to teaching children in a Jewish Day School. In addition, as an aunt, she helps her nieces and nephews by playing the role of "surrogate grandmother". Thus both her personal and professional life participate in participating in or enabling the mitzva of Yishuv Olam.
KT,
RRW
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Mishnah RH 4:5, Where does Malchuyot Belong? Part 3
See: Post: Mishnah RH 4:5, Where does Malchuyot Belong? Part 1 Link: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2009/08/mishnah-rh-45-where-does-malchuyot.html
And Post: Mishnah RH 4:5, Where does Malchuyot Belong? Part 2 Link: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2009/09/mishnah-rh-45-where-does-malchuyot.html
Assumption: So if Malchuyot Belongs in Qedushat Hayyom as Per R. Aqiva
Question: What is going on with the Malchuyot in Qedhushat Hashem as Per R. Yochanan ben Nuri?
Answer: R. Yochanan was apparently not 100% rejected and a small subset remains as a legacy based upon his alternative opinion Thus, When R. Aqiva trumps RYBN, it is not a black-and-white issue, and we have preserved a balance of about 95% R. Aqiva and 5% RYBN
Shalom
RRW
And Post: Mishnah RH 4:5, Where does Malchuyot Belong? Part 2 Link: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2009/09/mishnah-rh-45-where-does-malchuyot.html
Assumption: So if Malchuyot Belongs in Qedushat Hayyom as Per R. Aqiva
Question: What is going on with the Malchuyot in Qedhushat Hashem as Per R. Yochanan ben Nuri?
Answer: R. Yochanan was apparently not 100% rejected and a small subset remains as a legacy based upon his alternative opinion Thus, When R. Aqiva trumps RYBN, it is not a black-and-white issue, and we have preserved a balance of about 95% R. Aqiva and 5% RYBN
Shalom
RRW
Talking Torah and History 2.1 - Perfect Mis-understanding RE: the Rambam
In Part 2.0, I wrote, based upon my chat with the Historian:
«"Rambam takes ONE sugya as the controlling sugya. It might be Bavli or Yerushalmi or Tosefta etc. But the Rambam loyally sticks to his selected sugya without deviation.»
*****
«I found this point very enlightening. So Rambam can be a strict constructionist in the sense of staying in the box without straying. Yet Rambam is not at all confined JUST to Bavli. Rather he has a broad range of sources to select from.»
Here is a point of possible "Perfect Mis-understanding"
Here are 2 Premises or Presumptions re: Rambam. The first is based upon the previous post.
• 1 [as above] the Rambam is a strict constructionist re: Sugyot
• 2 That given multiple sources - that the Rambam bases himself upon the Bavli to the exclusion of other sources. IOW if say Bavli and Sifre have a conflict, Rambam invariably would choose the Bavli.
With this version #2 in mind, the Rambam comes off as in conflict with the simple read of the Bavli in numerous cases.
Illustrations:
• "Es haNochri Tigoss" - Is charging Ribbis for a loan to an eino Yehudi optional or required? [Sifre Vs. Bavli]
• Is Mishna Yadayim 1:1 discussing mayyim rishonim or sheniyyim
[Tosefta vs. Simple read of Mishna]
If one presumes #2 to be true, then one must eventually question #1. Because #2 would make the Rambam a liberal constructionist in many places.
So Let's instead substitute #2A
• The Rambam pasqens from selected* Sugyos - whether Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosefta, etc.
Illustration:
Rambam follows straight read of Bavli re: women reading Megillas Esther. Viz. Women are equally obligated as are men.
[Tosafos, OTOH, throws a contradictory Tosefta into the mix and comes up with a proposed synthesis - women must listen but no need to read.]
The perfect misunderstanding is that the Rambam would hold that the Bavli ALWAYS supersedes Tosefta
The more correct understanding is:
• That once Rambam selects a sugya - be it Bavli, Sifre or otherwise - that Sugya supersedes all w/o conflating it with other sources.
So instead of
Perfect Mis-understanding:
The Bavli overrules Tosefta
Better Understanding:
The selected source [including Bavli] rules w/o compromise.
* The exact nature or criteria of the Rambam's "selection" process is subject to further research and debate - and is beyond the scope of this post.
Shalom
RRW
Parshah B'reisheet - Na'aseh Adam
There are many interesting interpretations [and apologetics] for the meaning of the First Person Plural
While Notzrim allege a multi-faceted Divinity, [Heaven Forbid! L'havdil]
RSR Hirsch counters with the Royal We reading.
Rashi favours Hashem u'veit Dino - due to HIS Humility.
I have a simple read. I.E. Hashem partnered with all that had already been created. Thus Hashem created Adam as the SUM of all that went before, and contained components of every step of creation.
Adam is thus, part Light, water, earth, reptile, bird, beast etc. - as well as heavenly and angelic. HKBH is "quarterbacking" or exhorting the entire "team" of creatures to pull together to make Adam Harishon.
And so Na'aseh is addressed to All Creatures, heavenly and earthly to pitch into the process.
Shalom
RRW
Parsha - Breishis and "Religulous"*
Quote from Rabbi David Willig:
«But to argue against the evolutionary process completely on the basis of the literal meaning of the bible is to argue..»
RRW's response
Actually when one follows the pattern of Creation in Breisheet, it starts from the most simple (grass) and ends with the most complex (woman :-) - which really does parallel Darwin as I understand it.
I also find 'dinosaurs' in "taninim g'dolim"
So w/o working hard on apologetics, the Humash narrative matches the general scientific view in several ways. - And I think the Torah was being general.
Furthermore Rabbi Willig had suggested taking Torah seriously - but not literally. This approach may be quite informative. You need some flexibility in order to ignore dogmatists on both sides of the debate.
We also know from the Torah text that literal 24 hour days make no sense regarding days 1-4 when the Sun and Moon were first created. Again not apologetics, just simple analysis within the text.
So a fundamental read of the text cannot really match what PASSES for a fundamental read anyway.
If a were teaching a "Martian" - I would say that Darwin was writing from a technical perspective, while the Torah was approaching the same sequence from a more spiritual and poetic perspective - yet both were describing the same events [more or less]. So it's primarily a gap in style than in substance.
Even my 9th grade science teacher - a secular Jew - taught us classic evolution and allowed the possibility that God was pulling the strings. I think most of us students were quite comfortable with that perspective. AFAIK none of us felt that it threatened our belief in Humash
KT
RRW
«But to argue against the evolutionary process completely on the basis of the literal meaning of the bible is to argue..»
RRW's response
Actually when one follows the pattern of Creation in Breisheet, it starts from the most simple (grass) and ends with the most complex (woman :-) - which really does parallel Darwin as I understand it.
I also find 'dinosaurs' in "taninim g'dolim"
So w/o working hard on apologetics, the Humash narrative matches the general scientific view in several ways. - And I think the Torah was being general.
Furthermore Rabbi Willig had suggested taking Torah seriously - but not literally. This approach may be quite informative. You need some flexibility in order to ignore dogmatists on both sides of the debate.
We also know from the Torah text that literal 24 hour days make no sense regarding days 1-4 when the Sun and Moon were first created. Again not apologetics, just simple analysis within the text.
So a fundamental read of the text cannot really match what PASSES for a fundamental read anyway.
If a were teaching a "Martian" - I would say that Darwin was writing from a technical perspective, while the Torah was approaching the same sequence from a more spiritual and poetic perspective - yet both were describing the same events [more or less]. So it's primarily a gap in style than in substance.
Even my 9th grade science teacher - a secular Jew - taught us classic evolution and allowed the possibility that God was pulling the strings. I think most of us students were quite comfortable with that perspective. AFAIK none of us felt that it threatened our belief in Humash
KT
RRW
* For more on "Religulous" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous
Nevi'im BeQitzur
Don't have the time or energy to study all of Nevi'im?
Study the weekly and holiday Haftarot instead! Consider the Haftarot as Qitzur Nevi'im.
Some good commentaries include
Artscroll
Mendel Hirsch
Hertz
Soncino
Shalom
RRW
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Sukkah Sensitivity - 2
Sukkah Sensitivity (c) Rabbi Richard Wolpoe
One of the laws of the Sukkah roof (aka SCHACH) tells us if the shade is less than 50% it is invalid. And on the other hand, any thatched SCHACH that is so thick that rain cannot permeate is also not valid. So the cover must be more shade than sun, yet not so shady that neither rain nor the starlight can penetrate.
This can be considered a metaphor for how a Jew should deal with the outside world.
This can be considered a metaphor for how a Jew should deal with the outside world.
A protection or barrier of less than 50% is invalid; it is too prone to assimilation. It is by definition more outside than inside; it is too permeable to be considered valid protection. However, any barrier that does not allow rain drops or starlight, that is so thick-skinned as to be totally insensitive to the outside world, is also no good. IOW, avoiding assimilation does not entitle us to erect barriers that completely eliminates sensitivity to the outside world at large.
KT
RRW
KT
RRW
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Hamevazzeh es HaMo'adim..
TB Makkos 23a
"Hamevazzeh es hammoadim, k'illu oveid avodah zoro."
"Hamevazzeh es hammoadim, k'illu oveid avodah zoro."
This admonition re: scorning the moadim seems rather harsh, extreme, maybe a bit over the top!
As a youngster I attended the Shabbos Afternoon Talmud class given at shul by our local rabbi. I was there for most of Makkos. When he taught this, he put it into historical perspective given the times of the Talmud.
Apparently when the early Xtians first broke away from Judaism one of the first "victims" to get jettisoned from their sect were the Holidays. Shabbos was preserved - albeit on a different day, but the Torah ordained festivals were dropped.
Thus, one whose demeanor was to treat the Moadim as "just another day" was certainly suspect as being a "min" (heretic) and was at least guilty of mar'is ho'ayin if not something more substantial.
This makes the apparently "over-the-top" equation quite realistic for them
Shalom
RRW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)