Monday, 19 November 2018

Thanksgiving, George Washington, and Separation of Church and State

From RRW 
Tara Ross:

On this day in 1789, President George Washington issues his first Thanksgiving Proclamation. Congress had asked him to do so, and he wasted no time in complying with the request. It was something that he had done many times before as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army.

The timing of the proclamation tells a story regarding what our Founders believed about our constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.

Congressmen sent their request for a thanksgiving proclamation mere days after they’d approved a proposed Bill of Rights for our Constitution. One of these proposals, of course, would later be ratified as our First Amendment. The words in the First Amendment are simple: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....”

Please note that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the amendment! THAT phrase comes from later writings of Thomas Jefferson and the Supreme Court.

Naturally, neither Congress nor the President was bound by the language of the First Amendment on October 3, when Washington issued his Thanksgiving Proclamation. However, Congress had just spent significant time and effort debating the topic of church-state relations. Why would congressmen immediately turn around and violate their own ideas of what was appropriate?

For his part, Washington clearly saw no problem with the request for thanksgiving and prayer. Congress submitted its request to the President by September 28. Washington responded on October 3. His proclamation was a strong statement that stressed the need for public, collective deference and praise to God. Interestingly, he did not speak of it as something that could be optional. Such action, he said, is a *duty* incumbent upon the American people.

Indeed, Washington concluded that, if the country were to “unite” in such a fashion, public benefits would be felt. Americans, Washington wrote, might “render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed.”

One last interesting observation on Washington’s proclamation? As was so often the case with him, his proclamation is written in a non-denominational manner. Washington knew, better than anyone, what a great diversity of religion existed in the new country. His approach to religion at this point in his life was pretty clear: He wanted to accommodate and even to encourage the practice of religion, but he seemed to be striving to do so in ways that were non-denominational, recognizing and respecting the nation’s religious minorities.

At this juncture, you know that I pretty much have to remind you that more information about Washington’s views on matters of church and state can be found in the book that I co-authored with Joe Smith: “Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State.” (www.GeorgeWashingtonBook.com) ;)

Friday, 16 November 2018

Meaning of the word Netzach

From RRW
Guest Blogger: Mitchell First   


The Meaning of the Word “Netzach”
Since Kislev is the month of a Jewish military “nitzachon,” I thought I would discuss the root “netzach.”
I always knew that N-Tz-Ch was an interesting root, as it meant both “eternal” and “conquer.” But only recently did I decide to investigate it. Of course, the precise meaning of this word is very relevant to us daily. In “Va-yevarekh David” we assign to God “ha-gedulah, ve-ha-gevurah, ve-ha-tiferet, ve-ha-neitzach, ve-ha-hod.” This is a verse at Divrei Ha-yamim I 29:11. We need to determine what the root N-Tz-Ch means here. In rabbinic Hebrew, N-Tz-Ch is often used with a “conquer” or strength-related meaning. (This meaning comes from Aramaic.) Is “conquest/strength/triumph” its meaning in this verse in Divrei Ha-yamim too?
In this column, I will also address that word that appears 55 times in Tehillim (and one time in Habakkuk): “la-menatzeach.” Is this word related to either the “eternal” or “conquer/strength” meanings of N-Tz-Ch?
Regarding the noun forms: “netzach” and “neitzach,” these appear 45 times in Tanach. (Usually our Masoretic tradition utilizes the vocalization “netzach.” Four times the vocalization is “neitzach.” I do not believe that there is any difference in meaning.) The Even-Shoshan concordance gives 40 of these 45 occurrences the meaning “eternal.” Aside from these, in two occurrences (in Isaiah 63) the word seems to have the meaning “blood.” But this meaning probably derives from a meaning like “eternal life force.” So now our key question is whether “netzach/neitzach” has a meaning related to “conquer/strength” anywhere in Tanach?
Even-Shoshan, in his concordance, claims it does three times. Let us look at his claims. First, he gives it the meaning “strength” in the famous phrase at I Samuel 15:29: “ve-gam neitzach Yisrael lo ye-shaker ve-lo yinachem...” But this is very surprising. “Ve-lo yinachem” means “he will not change his mind.” This strongly suggests that the meaning of “neitzach” here is “The Eternal One.” The entire phrase means: “And also the Eternal One of Israel will not change his mind.” This is how the verse is understood by both the Daat Mikra and the Malbim. (Admittedly, many of the traditional commentaries interpret the phrase with a meaning like “The Strong One.” But the traditional commentaries seem to have been overly influenced by the “conquer, strength” meaning that is widespread in rabbinic Hebrew.)
Even-Shoshan also gives N-Tz-Ch the meaning “strength” at Eikhah 3:18: “avad nitzchi.” While this is possible, “nitzchi” here is parallel to “tochalti” which means “my hope.” Therefore, the more probable meaning is “my eternity.” See Rashi and Daat Mikra.
Finally, Even-Shoshan gives “N-Tz-Ch” the meaning “strength” in our verse in Divrei Ha-yamim. But that is precisely the verse I am questioning. How likely is it that the word means “strength” here? In my view, it does not mean “strength” anywhere else in Tanach (except perhaps in a verb used at Daniel 6:4 in the Aramaic section of Tanach, as I will discuss below.)
The Complete ArtScroll Siddur translates our word in Va-yevarekh David with the strength-related word: “triumph.” Every other siddur commentary I have seen does something similar, as do the traditional commentaries on Divrei Ha-Yamim.
But if you agree with my analysis above, N-Tz-Ch never has a strength-related meaning in Tanach and 44 times it has a meaning related to “eternal” This strongly implies that this should be its meaning in its 45th occurrence. I.e., we are assigning “Eternity” to God. Fortunately, the Malbim on our verse in Divrei Ha-yamim agrees with my approach to this verse. It is of course significant that the word “neitzach” is not placed next to the word “gevurah,” but between the words “tiferet” (=splendor, glory) and “hod” (splendor, glory, majesty). (In Yishtabach, just a few pages later in the siddur, “netzach” is placed right next to “gedulah” and “gevurah” and obviously means something like “strength.” But Yishtabach is not a quote from Tanach.)
(Although Malbim agrees with me on the interpretation of our verse in Divrei Ha-yamim, perhaps he does not agree with my claim that N-Tz-Ch never has a strength-related meaning in the Hebrew section of Tanach. I have not checked his commentary on all 45 occurrences of the noun N-Tz-Ch in the Hebrew section of Tanach.)
What is the origin of the rabbinic meaning “conquer, strength”? It seems to be the Aramaic meaning of the word. (One example may be found in the Aramaic section of Tanach at Dan. 6:4. See below.) This meaning is already found, prior to rabbinic Hebrew, in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of course, it is possible that this meaning already existed in Hebrew by the time of Divrei Ha-Yamim, a late book of Tanakh. But this is the less likely scenario. And, as I suggested above, a strength-related meaning at 1 Divrei Ha-yamim 29 does not fit the context. (I have to add that there is a chance that N-Tz-Ch has a strength-related meaning at Ben Sira 43:5. This is a difficult verse. The Hebrew of Ben Sira dates to approximately 200 B.C.E.)
Do the “eternal” meaning and the “conquer, strength” meaning have a common origin? (After all, Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages.) Certainly, things that are “eternal” are also often “strong,” so a common origin is possible.
N-Tz-Ch is found one time in the Aramaic section of Tanach, at Dan. 6:4. Here, the meaning may be a meaning related to “strength,” but many believe that the meaning here is “distinguished himself.” Aramaic and some of the other Semitic languages have a meaning of N-Tz-Ch as “shine, bright.” If the meaning here is “distinguished himself,” this may have derived from a “shine, bright” meaning.
Perhaps Hebrew too once had a meaning of N-Tz-Ch as “shine, bright.” This meaning is found in Ben Sira, at 32:10 and 43:13. Accordingly, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament and others suggest that the meaning of the word at 1 Divrei Ha-yamim 29:11 may be “radiance.” This fits the context better than “eternity.”
Now let us deal with our ubiquitous word “la-menatzeach.” What does “menatzeach” mean? N-Tz-Ch is used as a verb several times in Tanach. See, e.g., Ezra 3:9: “Le-natzeach al osei melakha.” It clearly means “supervise.” So “la-menatzeach” in Tehillim is most likely a word that gives an instruction to the supervisor of the music about the musical accompaniment to the psalm.
It is hard to connect this “supervise” meaning of N-Tz-Ch with the “eternal” meaning. Therefore, some connect the “supervise” meaning with the “shine, bright” meaning. The suggestion is that from the “shine, bright” meaning came a “distinguish oneself” meaning. One who distinguishes himself then becomes the supervisor. See the commentary of Keil and Delitzsh, quoted in the post at Balashon.com of Feb. 8 2015.
Are “supervise” and “conquer” related? We could relate them but there is less of a need to do so since the “conquer” meaning may have originated separately, in Aramaic.
The reason I have always been interested in this root N-Tz-Ch is because it is found in one of the most famous stories in the Talmud, the story of R. Eliezer and the oven (Bava Metzia 59b). Here the Sages decide that the halakha must always follow the majority of the Sages. They reject the opinion of R. Eliezer, even though R. Eliezer has a “bat kol” descend from heaven and state that the halakha is always in his favor. We are told that, upon hearing all of this, God concludes: “nitzchuni vanai.” This obviously means “my children have defeated me.” But a famous (homiletical) interpretation makes the alternative suggestion that the proper translation here is: “my children have eternalized me.” I.e., by making the determination of the halakha subject to the majority of the Sages (and not Divinely fixed long ago), the halakha is thereby made flexible and can last eternally.
Finally, it is interesting that the root Ayin-L-M has meanings like “eternal” and “hidden.” In contrast, the root N-Tz-Ch has meanings like “eternal” and “shine”!
----------------------
Mitchell First hopes to write illuminating and strongly convincing articles for the Jewish Link eternally. He can be reached at MFirstAtty@aol.com.

Tuesday, 6 November 2018

Did-Marilyn-Monroe-succeed-in-her-conversion-to-Judaism

From RRW 
https://www.quora.com/Did-Marilyn-Monroe-succeed-in-her-conversion-to-Judaism

"Perhaps this is one thing that Marilyn found attractive in the Jews that she came to be surrounded by in the 1950s – the tradition’s affirmation of critical thinking, rationalism and natural embrace of philosophical ideals "

Thursday, 1 November 2018

In the Wake of Pittsburgh -- The Other Demand of Democracy

It may be inappropriate to begin this serious piece reflecting on a most tragic event with a reference to a statement from a comic book -- but the message presented therein is actually most appropriate in our difficult times. "With great powers come great responsibilities." By extension, we must recognize that with rights also come responsibilities.

Western society, indeed, prides itself on the values of democracy and human rights. We strongly advocate for the rights of all and for the various freedoms which have advanced and can continue to advance our society. This standard, though, does not only provide rights but also demands responsibilities. The value of freedom of speech, for example, allows us to voice our thoughts (within reason) without fear but it also demands of us to let the other voice his/her opinion (again, within reason) even if we may disagree with them. The right to speak is, as such, not one-sided, allowing us a simple right to vent. What we are sadly seeing within our modern times, however, is such a misconstrued advancement of such a perception of this freedom and right -- with violent consequences.

Within this same parameter of understanding, as we recognize that democracy gives a voice to all, we must still acknowledge that it also declares that majority rules. People have diverse opinions, and, while there is a value in allowing such diverse opinions to be heard, there is still an inherent parameter to such expression. A conclusion in action still has to be reached and that, within a democracy, is determined primarily by the majority. Freedom thus also demands the responsibility to accept the decision of the majority. Democracy, however, still cannot become the tyranny of the majority. Of course, within the context of the democratic process the minority still deserves continuing voice. The true demand is that reason must still clearly govern.

The true ideals of democracy and human rights. as such, can only be reached if there is a recognition of the value of dialogue and the importance of the positive interpersonal dynamics that can emerge in the sharing of diverse opinions. Freedom of speech was never intended to grant any autocrat the right to simply scream his/her singular viewpoint, developed out of a simplistic, self-centered vision of the world. With this right, we also have a responsibility to give the voice of the other respect and to listen attentively in order to improve upon one's own thoughts. With all the staged protests and the forced effort to drown out any measure of a voice of the other, this responsibility is becoming less and less observed within our society. This is not to say that every opinion is deserving of being heard. While it is fully proper to ignore the rhetoric of the hate-monger, our normative behaviour must include not just the right to speak but the responsibility to listen with thought.

It is praiseworthy to note within Jewish thought the accolade given to Beit Hillel for respectfully presenting the view of Beit Shammai even prior to presenting their own views. Contrast this with the present mood within our society where people only want to hear their own opinions voiced and solely comment on another's differing view simply in order to mock and belittle it and show it lacking in any value. Not only is that ethically problematic but also further distances us from finding a truly exemplary solution to a problem which often only emerges in the heat of the honest debate of ideas. Life is actually most complex and answers can usually only be found if we honestly confront the diversity of opinions on a subject. Tragically, our society is moving further and further away from this ideal.

I write this in the aftermath of the Pittsburgh massacre which continues to affect many of us, including myself, with anguish and tears. Such hate has been expressed throughout history so it cannot be solely seen as a result of the problems of contemporary life. But, nonetheless, in what occurred and continues to occur, we can see weaknesses in present life which need to be addressed. One can only act in such a horrific manner if one so adamantly believes oneself to be absolutely correct in one's views without even a hint of self-questioning. This is obviously the position of the demagogue, the tyrant and/or the extreme, dogmatic individual. Yet, even as one may cry of personal rights, if one only sees oneself in this vein, without any recognition of value in the other, the possibility of harming the other in the advancement of one's cause only grows.

The other is, more and more, inherently being seen as lacking any value, who only has purpose as the target of attack. I can thus disrupt the other when dining in a restaurant for I am not concerned about this other's rights. I can disrupt a Senate vote by shouting that I am not being represented even as there are senators on the floor who share this person's opinion. What these individuals are actually declaring is that it is not the majority of these elected individuals who should make decisions but it should be solely themselves with their dogmatic voice. Is it any wonder that, by extension, the extreme autocrat will then maintain a right to kill? Jewish thought has always argued for the absolute opposite - the full analysis of life in pursuit of the truly thoughtful conclusion under the spirit of the Divine.

The other side of democracy is, indeed, the need to recognize one's responsibility to the other. In shouting for one's rights, one must also shout for the right of the other. If we truly value freedom and rights, we must recognize the overriding value of the dialogue of thought. Rights demand of us to recognize our responsibilities - and to find the proper balance between these two necessary demands.

Rabbi Benjamin Hecht


Wednesday, 31 October 2018

Meaning of Navi

From RRW
Guest Blogger: Mitchell First   


What is the Meaning of the Word “Navi”?
I previously wrote about this word. But that was three years ago. Presumably, you are all mortals and not prophets, and need some refreshing. (I also improved the article slightly.)
In English, the word “navi” (Nun-Bet-Yod-Aleph) is usually translated as “prophet.” This English word has a connotation of someone who is able to predict the future. But what is the root of the Hebrew word? Is ability to predict the future implied in the Hebrew? I admit I always thought this, because the letters Bet-Aleph (“come”) are part of the word.
Rashi (commenting on Exodus 7:1) connects the word with the word “niv” (Nun-Yod-Bet), relying on Isaiah 57:19 (“niv sefatayim”). The word “niv” in this verse in Isaiah means something like the “outgrowth of” or “something that flows from.” Rashbam (commentary to Genesis 20:7) also connects “navi” with “niv.” He adds that a “navi” is someone who is “ragilwith God and speaks God’s words, and that God loves his words and answers his prayers.
But Ibn Ezra argues strongly that the root of “navi” is Nun-Bet-Aleph. Despite the eminence of Rashi and Rashbam, it is hard to disagree with Ibn Ezra here. The alephs are always present in the word, so it seems very likely that the aleph is a root letter here. With regard to the meaning of the root Nun-Bet-Aleph, Ibn Ezra tries to infer its meaning from the context at Amos 3:7. There it is stated that God will not do anything unless he is “galah sodo el avadav ha-neviim.” Therefore, Ibn Ezra concludes, a “navi” is fundamentally someone to whom God reveals his secrets.
Rav S. R. Hirsch (commentary to Genesis 20:7) also accepts Nun-Bet-Aleph as the root. He tries to deduce its meaning by extrapolating from a similar root: Nun-Bet-Ayin. The latter means “to flow” or “to be the source of.” Rav Hirsch concludes that a “navi” is “the source from which the word of God issues, the organ through which the spirit of God speaks to men.”
Most scholars today view the root as Nun-Bet-Aleph. But based on Akkadian and several other Semitic languages, they view the fundamental meaning of this root as “to call.” Then the issue becomes whether the “navi” was “one who was calling out to the people,” or “one who was called (=appointed).” According to Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, the earlier scholars preferred the former view, but now the prevailing view is the latter. (See also Encyclopaedia Judaica, 13:1152, which follows the latter view.)
In most instances in Tanakh, a “navi” is someone who was called by God to communicate a Divine message to the people. One verse where this is not the case is Exodus 7:1. Here God tells Moses that “Aaron your brother will be ‘neviekha.’ ” We see from here that not just God can have a “navi.” A human can have one as well.
Scholars also suggest that, most likely, the Hebrew verb Nun-Bet-Aleph was derived from the noun. (Usually, the process is the reverse: the noun is derived from the verb.) Since the verb was derived from the noun, the meaning of the verb in Hebrew was “to act as a navi.” (If the verb came first, the noun would likely have had a “mem” prefixed as the first letter. Another such atypical situation occurs with the noun “kohen.” Here too, the noun likely preceded the verb.)
We see from all the above that it is obviously a mistake to rely on English translations. We must ignore the common translation “prophet” and whatever that may imply. We first have to determine the Hebrew root. But sometimes, like here, that is only half the battle. Figuring out what the root means can be another battle. Here Ibn Ezra tried to learn it from a context (Amos 3:7). Rav Hirsch tried to learn it from a different but similar root. Scholars try to learn it from related Semitic languages.
One last issue needs to be addressed. The English word “prophet” has the connotation of someone who can predict the future. It is derived from a similar sounding Greek word. Did the Greek word have this connotation as well? Most likely, the Greek word meant merely “one who speaks on behalf of.” See, e.g., Encyclopaedia Judaica (13:1153).
------
Last week, I made an interesting error when I tried to calculate the number of Mishneh Torah sets in Teaneck. I made a calculation based on an assumption of two boys in each family (with each getting three sets of Mishneh Torah as bar-mitzvah presents), plus the sets of Mishneh Torah owned by their fathers. A reader then pointed out to me that his daughters received Mishneh Torah sets for their bat-mitzvah. I also overlooked our new generation of educated adult women, many of whom may own their own Mishneh Torah, separate from the ones owned by their husbands. I apologize for my old-fashioned thinking! I think I will have to have my wife and daughter review my columns each week to correct my old-fashioned thinking and add in the female perspective!
--------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell First is an attorney and Jewish history scholar. He can be reached at MFirstAtty@aol.com. He checks his emails, and has not yet been called upon by God to deliver any lexical discourses.


Sunday, 28 October 2018

Prayer for healing and families of victims

From RRW 

From HaRav Steinsaltz,

רחם והושע את בניך, הצילם מחרב אויב, פדם ממוות, הגן עליהם מן האימה.
שלח נא אורך להאיר את הלב הנשבר של של אבות ואמהות שכולים, של נשים שאיבדו את הקרוב להם. שלח רפואה שלמה לפצועים ולנפגעים, ותן עוז ועוצמה, תקוה ותוחלת לעמך ולארצך.
רבון העולמים, תן תבונה לעמים להסיר מלבם איבת שקר מושרשת , שלח אור בינתך בלב המאמינים לדברי שקר , האר את עיני התמימים השומעים לעלילות שוא, שלח רוח צדקך ומשפט בעולמך, סייע לבני האדם לבנות ולנטוע, לעזור לסובלים באמת, לישר דרכי עולם.
אב הרחמים הנאמן בבריתו כבר הגיע העת שתשלח לעולמך בשורת ישע וגאולה. לנחם את ילדיך כולם, לתת להם את שלום וברכה, אור ושמחה.
Master of the Universe, Compassionate One, Lord of Justice,
Have mercy and save Your children. Save them from the sword of their enemy, safeguard them from death, protect them from danger, and shelter them from fear. Send Your light to mend the broken spirits of bereaved parents, of weeping husbands and wives, of grieving siblings, and of anguished friends who have lost those who are dear to them.
Grant complete recovery to the wounded and the stricken and give courage and strength, hope and vision, to Your people and to Your land.
Master of the Universe, enable the nations of the world to remove the hardened hatred from their hearts. Shine the light of discernment on those who give credence to lies, and enlighten those who listen to libelous dogmas. Send the spirit of morality and justice into Your world. Help humanity to build and to plant, to support the merciful in righting the ways of the world.
Compassionate One, who is true to the Covenant, the time has arrived for You to send a message of salvation and redemption to Your world, to comfort all of Your children, and bestow upon them an era of peace and blessing, light and joy.