avakesh

He and His Name 3: Is Keser one of the ten sefiros.

We started this series by asking how could R. Eliezer say that before the world was created there was only Hashem and His Great Name? Isn't it again the principle of total unity of God? Some thinkers who considered this question responded that it is not; all depends on what is Unity and how you understand it.

Before we launch into this question, we must briefly consider an important issue in early Kabbalah – Is Keser counted as one of the 10 sefiros?

To take a step back, the process of emanation consisted of 10 steps or stations, called sefiros. The first one was Keser, followed by Chochma, Bina, Gevura, Chessed, Tiferes, Hod, Netsach, Yesod and Malchus. Our passage in Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer is understood as saying that Keser is not a part of the 10 but rather above the 10. As such, it is a part of the Ain Sof. What takes its place within the 10 sefiros? It is Daas, or according to the Gr"o in the first chapter of Sefer Yetsira, it is the Malchus of Ain Sof. Those who hold the position that Keser is not incldued in the 10 sefiros, base themselves primarily on this passage in Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer (or at least, Pardes 3:1 says so).

The process of emanation then begins from Chochma, and in fact Targum Yerushalmi translates, "In the beginning God created" as  "With Chochma God created". This and the various proofs from Sefer Yetzira, Zohar and Tikkunim are discussed in Pardes Shaar 3, Sefer Hoemunos, ch. 4 and Avodas Hakodesh of R. Meir Gabbai 1: 2 and 1:12. There is much more to say about the subject but that is really not our focus at this time.

How can Keser be is eternally preexistent within the Ain Sof and yet G-d be One? One way to understand it is how R. Meir Gabbay explains it. He says that the possibility of future creation was always existing within the Ain Sof. This possibility is called the "Name " or Keser. Being a potential and not an actuality, it does not detract from Unity. He then goes further and says that all 10 sefiros were always preexistent and coiled within Keser, ready to spring forth and develop.

To understand why this does not contradict God's Unity it is necessary to appreciate that the Unity of these Kabbalists is not the same as the Unity of Rambam. Maimonidean Unity is unique and unlike anything that exists or can be imagined by human beings. It is Nothing like anything we know. Kabbalistic Unity, on the other hand, is Everything that ever existed or can potentially exist. Rambam believes in creation; Kabbalists believe in emanation. According to Kabbalists, Ain Sof is infinite because it contains everything and more. The finite is also a part of the infinite, just like any finite set of numbers is a part of the infinite set of numbers, without detracting from the Infinite itself. Imagine the Infinite Hotel -  there are an infinite number of rooms in this  hotel and each room is occupied. If ten more people come to check in,  the clerk will tell everyone to move over ten rooms so as to make room for these ten new guests. So now the discreet number, ten, is at the same time both finite in itself and a part of the infinite set. This demonstrates that finite and infinite are not so far apart and that the finite can be a part of the infinite, while remaining limited in itself, much like a mathematical  line is made up of an infinite amount of finite dots. Such is the mystery of the infinite and the finite in which we all simultaneously live and operate. Seen this way, what R. Eliezer is saying is that everything emanated was present with an infinite number of other "things" within the Ain Sof before it was emanated. This everything is called "His Great Name". At the end of chapter 4, Avodas Hakodesh expresses an almost Chabad- like idea that everything that was to be created was always present within the Ain Sof  the only difference between before creation and after the creation is our newly existent inability after creation to see Hashem's Essence (he does not use this  term) as it is.

The position that Keser is not a part of the 10 but is rather present in the Ain Sof is not the only possible position. Two other positions are found among the early Kabbalists. One is that Keser, as the first of the Ten, is radically separate and different from Ain Sof (this became the prevailing thinking in subsequent Kabbalistic thought, on the authority of Pardes) and the other that Keser actually is Ain Sof. While these are fascinating topics, it is not for our consideration right now. We will discuss how the former position might explain the statement of R. Eliezer in the next post. After all, if Keser is not a part of the Ain Sof but is simply the first and the most important of the 10 sefiros, what is this Great Name that R. Eliezer says was in existence before the world was created? We will consider answers that proponents of this position gave to this question, God willing in the next post in this series, after we discuss the views of the Geonim.

 

 

Kosher Jesus

The World of Lubavitch is astir. You hear it in shul; it is the staff of mikva conversation and of heated discussion between friends. Vos is di neias? It is Rabbi Boteach's new book, "Kosher Jesus", which is slated for publication on February 18. The book itself is not yet available, but as I understand from Rabbi Boteach's articles and from those who have read the book, it is based on the scholarship of Hayam Maccoby and his belief that Jesus was a kosher Jew who was misunderstood and whose teachings were distorted by his followers.

Many Lubavitchers are concerned about "Chilul Shem Lubavitch". G-d knows, Chabad does not need bad publicity. However, it goes beyond that. I think that the opposition within Lubavitch is not only due to what R. Boteach says but it is because Rabbi Boteach has a long history of blurring the boundary between the Jewish and the Gentile world.

In itself, this theology of Kosher Jesus does not bother me. The scholarship of Hayam Maccoby is dated and most scholars see Jesus as a complex figure who may not have enunciated all of the teachings attributed to him, but certainly taught doctrine that contained seeds that later blossomed into Christianity. Rabbi Boteach favors Matthew over John but it is John who shaped Christian theology more than Matthew. Yes, one can read the synoptic Gospels as teaching low Christology; that is, that Jesus was fully human and spoke of himself us the "Son of God" only in the figurative sense, much like Ezekiel Is called the son of man. The Gospel of John is another matter. The Gentile author of John promoted a clearly non-Jewish theology.

Seeing Jesus as a Jewish teacher is a well written about approach. Rabbi Boteach joins a long list of thinkers and scholars who are tempted to reclaim Jesus for the Jewish people. Luminaries such as Rav Yaakov Emden and many others, and in our own time, activists like Irving Greenberg, Shlomo Riskin and Yechiel Eckstein have enunciated this view on many occasions. There are several scholarly Jewish commentaries by significant scholars on the New Testament, including one by Rav Yaakov Emden, and recently Amy Levine published another one with multiple contributors.

However, "times, they are a-changing". Now is a different time. What I fault R. Boteach for is for blurring boundaries. Judaism and and Christianity are two different religions with very different theologies, two distinct spiritual lives, vocabularies, and, let's be honest, a history of conflict. Christianity is, in Pope John Paul's words "the younger sister of Judaism". Whereas one can hardly think of an amalgam of Christianity and Islam, the same is not true of Christianity and Judaism. These two can be forced together because there are many shared points between them, which is not true of Judaism and Islam. Because Christianity sprang out of the Jewish milieu, it is possible to extend its limits and to create the murky, poorly defined, but nevertheless workable Twilight Zone in which a mongrel Christaism religion can exist.

Therein is the problem. We, in this period in time are faced with this extension of boundaries. On one side we have Hebrew Christians, according to their types. Groups such as Jews for Jesus create a mixed Jewish – Gentile movement in which trappings of Judaism are combined with Orthodox Christian dogma. On the other end of the spectrum, Jewish observances are being adopted by the increasing number of fundamentalist and Pentecostallist congregations, that are looking to Judaism as the means to better relate to Jesus. To Protestants, religion is all about their personal relationship to the Nazarene and how best they can invite him to come into their hearts. This is sometimes hard for Jews and Muslims to understand. To people who are brought up viewing religion as a way of life, this incessant focus on the Man – God is foreign and hard to grasp. To Christians, and other hand, even theology is only important in as much as it tells them what to teach about Jesus. Many of them are seeking Jewish symbols and taking on Jewish observances and holidays in order to better relate to the Jew Jesus.

So what is taking shape all across the religious landscape of America, is the twilight zone of rapprochement between Christianity and Judaism. Rabbis in small out of town communities are already routinely faced with new congregants who observe like Jews but believe like Christians. Sometimes they are intermarried couples, sometimes Christians who have drawn close to Judaism, and sometimes Jews who are in the process of reassessing their Christianity and looking back at their community. This state of affairs has created a space for mixing, intermarriage and mongrelization of ancient teachings. This is not good.

Rabbi Boteach has a long history of facilitating such phenomena. As the founder of the Lechaim society in Oxford University, he was immensely successful, to the extent, that Lechaim became the second-largest student group in the University. As I understand, its membership was about 60% Gentile and only about 40% Jewish. As a result, it became a setting for Jewish young men and women to mix with fine, spiritually minded, and clean-cut Gentile students who respected and liked Jews a certain recipe for intermarriage. The world Lubavitcher movement was very concerned and when Cory Booker, currently the mayor of Newark, became the head of the society, they acted. There is the root of the rift between organized Lubavitch and Rabbi Boteach. The same can be said of R. Boteach's subsequent career, much of which has taken place in the world of entertainment, celebrities, and the society of non-Jews.

Therein is the rub! The book Kosher Jesus facilitaes and promotes this blurrring of boundaries. As Jews, and as Americans, we celebrate the values of religious tolerance and rejoice when religious values are adopted and respected by the American public. On the other hand, let Jews be Jews and let Gentiles the Gentiles. Judaism and Christianity have long and sophisticated religious and spiritual traditions. With the advent of the Internet, and the diffusion of knowledge, perhaps it was inevitable that Christians become familiar and take note of the religious riches of Judaism. However, we are a small faith community that still has much of importance due to share with the world and the encounter weakens us and threatens Jewish continuity. This is why Kosher Jesus is bad for the Jews.

Misplaced Grammatical Plague By Chaim Gershon

 

Vaera 8:17

 

17. For if you do not let My people go, behold, I will incite against you and against your servants and against your people and in your houses a mixture of noxious creatures, and the houses of Egypt will be filled with the mixture of noxious creatures, as well as the land upon which they are.

יז. כִּי אִם אֵינְךָ מְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת עַמִּי הִנְנִי מַשְׁלִיחַ בְּךָ וּבַעֲבָדֶיךָ וּבְעַמְּךָ וּבְבָתֶּיךָ אֶת הֶעָרֹב וּמָלְאוּ בָּתֵּי מִצְרַיִם אֶת הֶעָרֹב וְגַם הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר הֵם עָלֶיהָ:

 

The following is a quote.

 

“ומלאו בתי מצרים את הערב וגם

האדמה אשר הם עליה”

“The houses of the Egyptians shall be full of the mixture of animals and also the ground upon which they are.” (8:17)

QUESTION: The words “and also the ground upon which they are” seem superfluous?

ANSWER: Among the animals of the world there is an extremely rare one found in the wild jungles of Africa and known as the “adnei hasadeh.” It has the face of a person, long hands that reach to its knees, and a very unusual relationship to its habitat. It is always connected to the ground through a string that comes out of its navel. Although it is very dangerous and kills anyone who comes within its reach, there is one way to capture it: Shooting arrows at the string which connects it to the ground. As soon as it becomes detached, it screams bitterly and dies immediately. Hashem brought upon the Egyptians a mixture of all the animals from the entire world, including the strange and vicious “adnei hasadeh.” In order that they not die before arriving in Egypt, they were brought together with the earth to which they were connected. Therefore, Moshe told Pharaoh, “The homes of the Egyptians shall be filled with the mixture of wild animals and also ‘adnei hasadeh’ will come, together with the ground (earth) upon which they are [attached]."

See:

     פנים יפות, ועי’ כלאים פ”ח מ”ה ברע”ב ותפארת  ישראל

 

Sforno reads this passuk that the noxious creatures will be fill the houses and also the earth.

There are a number of mefarshim who notice that this extraneous descriptive phrase. "The earth on which they are",  should modify the closer object and not the overall passuk and they suggest various answers.

 See

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=38977&pgnum=22

 

http://www.ou.org/ou/print_this/34577

 

http://www.neryaakov.org/torah.php?id=149&action=show_article&article_type=2&page=2

(quoting the GR”A which is also summarized in Pardes Yosef)

(Avakesh adds: Netsiv explains that the plague of Arov starting from the Pharaoh's house and then involved his servants' houses and the houses of the other Egyptians. From there it spread into the land of Egypr - hence, "also the land on which they (the servants) live upon".)

 

This exotic animal, "Adnes Hasadeh", whose existence is not observed today is also contended historically:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=_1fdxxS26RYC&pg=PA307&dq=adnei+hasadeh&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GoQUT6SfD8KK0QGzhom2Aw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=adnei%20hasadeh&f=false

 

http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2012/01/parenting-dilemmas-of-rationalist.html

 

http://mytorahthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/the-mysterious-adnei-hasadeh/

 

http://parsha.blogspot.com/2011/10/adnei-hasadeh-and-earth-mouse-in.html

 

http://www.torahscience.org/natsci/animal.htm

 

However still other mefarshim (Midrash Yonason [Eibeshitz], Maharil Diskin, Panim Yafos http://www.dafyomi.co.il/bechoros/insites/be-dt-009.htm and  http://www.dafyomi.co.il/parsha/vaera2.htm)  offer the answer that the dirt from these animals’ homelands accompanied them so that they would be comfortable and confident why carrying out the plague according to HaShem’s will.

 The Rogachover http://www.hebrewbooks.org/22177 p15 ( p.124 in pdf)  (translated in Torah Tavlin 5765) concurs and also states that not only animals but also plants yield better produce when in their own earth. Also quoted online is a similar proposal to clarify the odd language of the passuk. http://www.ladaat.net/siteimages/fl_4f1814661e8b5.pdf

 

One wonders why an animal that is attached to the ground had to be invoked to explain this possuk when so many simpler answers are possible. Indeed, even the explanation that the animals had to be in their comfort zone to best carry out their mission is itself is out of the comfort zone of many people who hear it. Sometimes the literal reality is not to be taken literally!

Avakesh comments: Tiferes Yisrael on Kelayim thinks that Adnei Hasadeh is Orangutan. A number of sources are collected in Nathan Slifkin's, "Mysterious Creatures, p. 134-138. In his introduction, he also discusses various approaches to aaggados about animals that do not exist in our times and for which there is no evidence that they ever existed.

 

 

Pharoah's Potty by Chaim Gershon

 

Pharaoh made himself out to be a god. As a proof of his own divinity, Pharaoh maintained that he did not need to go to the bathroom. For this reason, he would steal away to the banks of the Nile to relieve himself before people got up.

Vaera 7:15

15. Go to Pharaoh in the morning; behold, he is going forth to the water, and you shall stand opposite him on the bank of the Nile, and the staff that was turned into a serpent you shall take in your hand.		טו. לֵךְ אֶל פַּרְעֹה בַּבֹּקֶר הִנֵּה יֹצֵא הַמַּיְמָה וְנִצַּבְתָּ לִקְרָאתוֹ עַל שְׂפַת הַיְאֹר וְהַמַּטֶּה אֲשֶׁר נֶהְפַּךְ לְנָחָשׁ תִּקַּח בְּיָדֶךָ:
to relieve himself, for he made claims to be a god and said that he did not need to relieve himself. He would arise early and go out to the Nile and there relieve himself.98 Shemos Rabbah 9:8, Tanchuma 14 and Midrash Lekach Tov		הנה יצא המימה: לנקביו, שהיה עושה עצמו אלוה ואומר שאינו צריך לנקביו ומשכים ויוצא לנילוס ועושה שם צרכיו

Thousands of years later, Pharoah's bathroom habits are still being expounded upon by various modern mefarshim, p.97-104 where this midrash is taken as Pahraoh's denial of personal needs, in the words of the midrash, " - noting in, nothing out(eino machnis v'eino motzi)".

"Pharaoh constructs himself as a god. . . as heavy, dense, and impregnable as possible.. Thus he becomes a prototype of arrogance. But the point that strikes us most forcefully is the fear of vulnerability that lies at the heart of such arrogance. ... what appears on the surface as arrogance is, in fact, insecurity. Pharaoh’s impermeable demeanor is a symptom of his underlying terror. Pharaoh is no fallen god. He is, instead, something much sadder: a frightened, lonely man whose trepidation comes to destroy himself—and his entire nation."

Some other discussion of Pharaoh and his toilet habits:

http://www.torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5765/vaera.html

A realia explanation.

One of the Ishbitzer Rebbe's [Bais Yaakov Shemos 39a] elucidates this Rashi on a deeper level suggesting that the location -  at the water and in the morning, is a double allusion to Avraham. However instead of aiming to fullfil the true will of HaShem, Pharoah is a degenerate and ends up opposing HaShem's will even more than Bilaam who at least claimed he was submissive to the will of HaShem.

 

The recently deceased North Korean dictator emulated Pharoah's claims of not having to go to the bathroom. One of the main dogmas of North Korean Communism is self sufficiency. Its ideology is that it should not take nor should it give to other countries and systems - just like Pharoah, who did not want to "take in or take out".

This is on contrast to the service of Baal Peor where the toilet is made into an altar. One can see Pharaoh and Baal Peor as the opposing sets of ideas, in which all distinctions between the self and the outside dissappear, directly leading to the erasure of the distinction between unholy and Holy.

See, http://www.meaningfullife.com/torah/parsha/bamidbar/balak/Gastronomic_Universe.php

http://www.meaningfullife.com/torah/parsha/bamidbar/pinchas/The_Pleasure_Principle.php

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2980/jewish/The-Evolution-of-Pleasure.htm

www.whiteshul.com/_siteAssets/KI/file/REF-Parshat%20Chukat-Balak.doc

Avakesh comments:

The the paradigms of Pharaoh (not giving and not taking and the total sufficiency of the self) and Baal Peor (erasing all boundaries between the self and the world) as two opposite poles with which Benei Yisroel had to contend at the beginning and the end of their exodus form Egypt, is quite interesting. The famous explanation of Baal Peor by R. Chaim Shmulevitz as the worship of giving up all restraint is also worthy of note, here.

Ramses II

Ramses II

Pharoah's Pin-up by Chaim Gershon

as interpreted by Avakesh 

Zohar Vaera 2:30a

" The first Pharaoh, when Sarah was taken to him, hinted to his artists and they drew her picture in his room on the wall over his bed. He had no peace until they made a picture of Sarah on a panel and when he entered his bed, he brought the panel with him. Every king who succeeded him saw the painted image, and jesters came before him, so when he got into his bed he enjoyed that picture. Therefore the king was smitten here more than everyone else. This is the meaning of: "And into your bedchamber, and on your bed," and afterwards "and into the house of your servants, and on your people" (Shemot 7:28). The expression "on your bed," appears in relation to none except him alone." 

 

Quite strking, isn't it? But, here is an explanation!

 

Shach al HaTorah quotes this Zohar says Pharoah hid in this bedroom during the plagues since this obsession was so great. Commentaries on the Zohar (Matuk Dvash, Ohr HaChamah) say this alludes to how much the Shechinah was dragged down into Galus.

To understand this we must relate this Zohar to several other events that relate to the interaction of Egypt and Israel.

R. Tsadok Hakohen in Likuttei Amarim 80b explains that every element seeks to join itself with what is like it. If a woman on a low spiritual level seeks out an elevated man it is either a sign that something within him still requires correction or, that an element of goodness within her is crying out for redemption. The impure does not desire to attach itself to the pure, if not for one of these two reasons. Why would a Gentile jet-setter, a woman like the wife of Pharaoh’s chief executioner desire to attach herself to a completely pious Jewish man? It must be a desperate cry for meaning and redemption. This is why Joseph was initially tempted somewhat by his master’s wife, for he understood that she could not be attracted to him unless they shared something on a deeper level. So happens, it turned out to be her daughter Asnat, who ultimately married Joseph.

A similar but shorter comment is found in Likkutei Torah of the Ari, regarding Shechem and Dinah. Shechem desired to uplift his spark of holiness and it led him to Dinah and to agree to circumcision. Once he elevated this spark through circumcising himself, the remnant was destroyed by Yakov's sons.

Ari says something similar about Yaffas Toar.

"..through this you will understand the concept of "Yaffas Toar". ...it is known that those who went out to the optional war were righteous, to the extent of not speaking in between prayers. How then is it possible for such great saints to be affected by the desire to defile themselves with a  foreign woman? This is why the Torah informed us that is he longs for her, this is nothing more than a spark of holiness that is intermixed in that nation, it is found in that non- Jewish woman - specifically, a spark that is related to the soul of this man is in this woman - therefore he desired her. So the Torah permitted that he come unto her and through that spirit that he injects into her at the time of intimacy, as is known, perhaps the good within her will overcome and push away the bad, and that woman will enter into holiness and convert. Even so, a rebellious son comes out of her, for it is not possible that some impurities do not remain mixed into her (Likuttim of Ari, Ki Teitsei)."

Pharaoh had somewhere very deep inside of him a longing for Holiness and Divine. When he was rejected by Hashem's own command, he sent Sara out. Unlike Avimeleach he did not offer Abraham and Sara the opportunity to dwell within his land(Rashi to Bareishis 12:19). Pharaoh's brand of impurity did not allow coexistence with the Holy but only a constant and incessant struggle to subdue and lord over it. This is why Egyptians enlsaved Jews, for Pharaoh and his people could not tolerate anything Holy. They corrrectly understood that either they or the Jews could exist as sovereigns, but not both together. When Hashem revealed His great and powerful hand, Pharaon retreated into his ante-chamber and his fantasies of subduing and ruling over the Holy, personified by Sara.

Egypts' ruin came when Hashem walked in the Land of Egypt.

Netsiv to Shemos 11:14 explains that when Hashem appeared in Mitzrayim, the powers of impurity perforce arose and were drawn towards him, like princes and potentates who go out to meet their King. I might say that they were drawn to him like flies and insects are drawn to a light and are consumed by it. This is how the gods of Egypt were destroyed.

The meaning of Pharaoh's "panel" is entirely spiritual and it teaches us something essential about impuritiy, its longing for Redemption and its desperate quest to rule or to be consumed by the Holy.

"Is Birth Control Kosher For Orthodox Jews?"

Hasidology

An interesting new blog, "Hasidology", that focuses on academic treatments of Chabad theology.

By locating its exploration of Chabad thought within the academic discourse, this blog has the potential of building the bridge to other currents of contemporary Jewish thought and of dispelling the suspicion that many outside of Chabad feel toward those who attempt to expain Chabad concepts to non-Chabadniks. After all, academia is supposed to be objective, isn't it? This blog explains concepts in a manner that is rare, rarefied and refreshing. By focusing on how academicians, such as Eliott Wolfson, perceive and conceptualize Chabad thought, much antipathy can be short-circuited.

It is a pity that the grand edifice of Chabad thought is so unavailable to those outside of Lubavitch. It is a great construct and interpretation of the thought of Ari, unrivaled, in my estimation, in sophistication and complexity, except by the thought of Ramchal; but then, Ramchal is not a living tradition. Ari Hakodosh left a corpus of arcane and obstruse knowledge, and many after him attempted to decipher and systemize it. Among them, in addition to Ramchal, must  be listed the Leshem, Mikdash Melech and R. Ashlag.

Chabad is the most comprehensive. It is so voluminous, so repetetive but subtly innovative  in its various manfestations, expressed by so many different authors in mediums of maamorim, sichos and teachings. Otzar Hachochma includes an optional Chabad module of more than seven thousands volumes. Couple that to a living tradition and a community that seriously engages in the study of this corpus and you have a unique and multifaceted interpretation of the teachings of the Ari. Hasidology, so far, appears to be able to give an objective inkling to the uninitiated, of the subtlety and complexity of Chabad thought. B'hatslacha!

The First Yahrtzeit by Chaim Gershon

 

 

Hevel was the first person to die, “According to the view that the world was created in Tishrei, Hevel lived from Sukkot to Chanuka; according to the view that the world was created in Nisan, Hevel lived from Pesach to Atzeret [Shavuot].” According to either opinion, he lived no more than fifty days" (Bereshit Rabba on Bereshit 4:3).
Various reasons are given for his life ending on Shavuous, see alson Tur Bareket [493:1]

 

Another opinion is quoted from Seder HaDoros in Shar Yissoschar (p.475 in the book itself/ p.487 in pdf as os 141). It brings there how various minhagim are a tikkun for Hevel's death although the main focus is the tikkun for the Gid HaNashe (of Yaakov as his life resolved the conflict of Kayin and Hevel (p.475 therein). This is also discussed in Yaaros Dvash in several places, although in one discussion quoted there  the date is pushed to 3 Teves and coordinated with the first meaning of Asarah b’Teves, the fast of the 10th of Teves.

 

The conflict between Kayin and Hevel can be expounded upon for many web pages but whether viewed as historically or continually relevant through their gilguilm,  it remains deeply relevant to us lving today in galus.

Hashem and His name 2: Rambam

We had discussed think the statement of Rabbi Eliezer that before the world was created there was only Hashem and his Great Name.

Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim 1: 61 correctly identifies this as a problem to the central teaching that undergirds his entire philosophy – that God's attributes are simply names that humans give to the effects of His actions. Here is how he puts this point:

"It is well known that all the names of God occurring in Scripture are derived from His actions, except one, namely, the Tetragrammaton, which consists of the letters yod, hé, vau and hé. This name is applied exclusively to God, and is on that account called Shem ha-meforash, "The nomen proprium." It is the distinct and exclusive designation of the Divine Being; whilst His other names are common nouns, and are derived from actions, to which some of our own are similar, as we have already explained."

Given that names are simply what we call his actions, what is it that the Rabbi Eliezer actually saying? Actions can only be possible after the world is created whereas Rabbi Eliezer's statement refers to something that appears to be in true and eternal and existing before the Creation.

Rambam does two things. One, he uses Rabbi Eliezer's statement to reinforce his own take on the Attributes. Two, he interprets the statement of Rabbi Eliezer in a way that intends to remove the problem but which is in itself not very clear. I quote his interpretation.

"In the Pirke Rabbi Eliezer (chap. iii.) occurs the following passage: "Before the universe was created, there was only the Almighty and His name." Observe how clearly the author states that all these appellatives employed as names of God came into existence after the Creation. This is true; for they all refer to actions manifested in the Universe. If, however, you consider His essence as separate and as abstracted from all staff actions, you will not describe it by an appellative, but by a proper noun, which exclusively indicates that essence. Every other name of God is a derivative, only the Tetragrammaton is a real nomen proprium, and must not be considered from any other point of view."

Rabbi Dovid Luria in his commentary to Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer has harsh words against this passage of Moreh Nevukhim. First he points out that Rambam was not very definitive and that his language is, "It is possible to say". He then focuses on Rambam's admission that, although names cannot be applied to Hashem, the one that denotes essence can be applied to Hashem. "How can it be", he asks, "that before the creation any name can exist?". He continues that it is not consistent with Rambam's own insistence that no attribute at all then be applied to God. If this is so, then existence(metsius) is also an attribute that cannot be applied to Him." He ends with a interesting statement that the Kabbalists were more consistent in not attributing physicality to God then Rambam.

I did not see that classic commentators on Rambam deal well with this question. I also think that Rav Dovid Luria conflates Existence with Essence. However, in the question of existence as an Attribute lies a potential answer.

The name Havaya certainly has something to do with existence because it is a combination of the three tenses of the word "to be": past, present, and future. Existence is not quite an attribute, in the sense that Will, Knowledge, Movement, etc might be. Existence is much closer to Essence than other Attributes. I have spoken of it here.

Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason argued that existence is also an external attribute, for it is possible to imagine a horse which is in every aspect the same as a real, specific horse, except that it does not exist. This was his argument against the Ontological Proof, which states that a Perfect God must exist. Perfection must include existence for there is no greater imperfection than non-existence. Platinga, a contemporary Catholic philosopher, has offered an interesting counter-argument against Kant. In any case, this may be what Rambam meant - that Existence is different than any other Name. The name Havaya, which denotes existence, was applicable to Hashem's essence even before the creation.

In the next post we will delve into the question of early Kabbalists of whether Keter was pre-existent with God prior to creation, or not. This is usually expressed as the question of whether Keter is a part of the the ten sefiros or a part of the Ain Sof and not one of the ten sefiros.

 

Tenth of Teves, by Chaim Gershon

 

 

The Tenth of Teves is a fast partly because it is the beginning of the siege that led to the walls of Jerusalem being breached.

 

While this is a negative event, there are positive aspects to this tragedy as well, for it signifies an opening in the walls. Openings to the outside, allow one to draw the outside into himself, purify and uplift it. It also allows one to expel the negative from the inside out.

 

In Chassidus, words of Torah and prayer are compared to bricks/stones.

 

There is a parable told about two people praying. One was asked why he davens so slow?

He replied that he builds a wall with the fence posts close together so that nothing  foreign can penetrate and he can, therefore, concentrate and spend time praying. The other person replied that he davens  fast so the posts are far apart and his own unworthy thoughts can be ejected. Thus, openings and breaches, which at first glance are an unmitigated evil, can also serve as the means to expel that which is unworthy.

 

Thus a person has a wall which, like a wall of a cell in his body, is a semi-permeable membrane.  Man's borders (made famous by the book by Rabbi Manis Friedman) are local at the same time as they are global, for his walls are the walls of a sancified space in his own Temple.

 

Kozak dance.

A custom that is conducted in some chassidic sectors call the "Kozak" dance, where children dressed as Cossacks preform a special dance before the Mitzvah tanz

The emergence of Chareidi-lite

The recent events in Beit Shemesh are noteworthy for several reasons. First of all, they showed emergent faultiness between the religious and nonreligious and the movement of the national religious public into the chiloni community. Secondly, they demonstrate that despite its great power, this Chareidi community in Israel remains vulnerable and besieged. Third, it brings to for the the inevitable coming separation within that Chareidi community itself, between the chareidim "as we used to know them" and  what I call Chareidi-lite.

In America, we know Chareidi-light very well. These are people who dress in black but maintain an ongoing engagement with modernity. They work in secular occupations, their children read English books and they are familiar with and take pride in knowing and being within the mainstream of American society. This is a group that has been growing within the Israeli Chareidi community as well in the recent years. Due to the changing socieconomics, more and more former Kollel men have transitioned into various occupations, have gone through various Chareidi training programs, or simply has wives or children who obtained secular degrees. The not insubstantial Anglo community is also a part of this group as are many chareidi immigrants from other countries. In their own countries, they were Chareidim but here, in Israel, they are Chareidi-lite. They are absorbed and indistinct within the Chareidi communities. Their voices are stifled and their are abilities are not yet known.

What is interesting about the current imbroglio is that for the first time we are hearing the voices of this large and growing contingent. Whereas in the past the community monolithically closed around its members under attack, in the past two weeks we heard many voices that explicitly draw a line of separation between themselves and the so-called extremists. What this heralds is the emergence of a new community, whose name is not yet known. I call it Chareidi-light.

It was as inevitable as it was to be expected. Historical precedent teaches us that all movements divide into four groups:those on the far right, those on the far left and the two near the center, one on the right and one on the left, and they struggle over the center.

So it was from the beginning. When Aguda started, it contained two wings: the wing that shared some of their assumptions and the worldview of MIzrachi and the wing that was more isolationinst, headed by Issac Breuer and Nathan Birnbaum respectively. To its left was the world Mizrachi movement and on its right, were the rejectionists, who rejected any cooperation on engagement with the Zionists or the nonreligious. To its credit, Aguda managed to contain both wings within iself for many decades, although it did lose the Poalei Agudas Yisroel on its left wing. As Aguda had become irrelevant as a political or an ideological movement, the two wings began again to be identified under one banner of Chareidism. This situation could not last and what we are witnessing now is the separation of the two.

This Chareidi world will fracture. One group will be people who reject engagement with modernity, have long beards and long black coats, payos, Yiddish, be poor and who assume geographic and cultural isolation. The other one will consist of people with small beards, fashionable black garments, good Hebrew and English, who value professions and the positive features of the contemporary society and are affluent, and who are much less committed to the authority of Gedolei Torah.

What will this two groups be called? I don't know. Perhaps one will remain known as Chareidim and the other one will adopt a name the denotes both seriousness and flexibility. I do know one thing. It is a wonderful opportunity for the right kind of a Talmid Chacham to emerge as a leader of a popular movement.

 

Avos 2:14: Learh all the Toras

Rabbi Yossi said: Let your fellow's property be as dear to you as your own, prepare yourself to study Torah which is not an inheritance to you, and let all of your deeds be for the sake of heaven.

Rabbi Yose is the Tanna in our Mishnah who said that the good way to which a person should cling to is "a good neighbor" and the bad way which a person should avoid is the "bad neighbor". R. Yose  himself certainly followed this philosophy. He tells us in Shabbos 118  that the reason that he lived a long life is because he would never transgress the words of his colleagues. R. Yose was not a Cohen. Yet, even if his colleagues were to tell him to go up and pronounce the Priestly blessings, he would do so. In the merit of his careful cultivation of the trait of congeniality, Rabbi Yose merited that in any dispute between him and one of his friends, the halacha is according to R. Yose (Eruvin 47a).

However, the second teaching of R. Yose is difficult to understand. Why would one think that Torah should come to him by inheritance? After all, there is no branch of knowledge that does not require careful application and many hours of study to master. Furthermore, what does it mean "prepare"? What is this preparation?

I think that R. Yose is teaching us something very important. Do not read, "prepare yourself to study Torah, because it is not an inheritance for you", but read, "prepare yourself to study that Torah which is not an inheritance for you". This reading had the advantage of preserving the tri-partite division of this mishna.

 [י [יב] רבי יוסי אומר, יהי ממון חברך חביב עליך כשלך

; התקן עצמך ללמוד תורה שאינה ירושה לך;

 וכל מעשיך, יהיו לשם שמיים.

The truth is that someone who grows up in a particular community does, almost by osmosis,  receive a certain perspective, a particular approach, a specific sensibility from his community, which can be called an "inheritance". The Torah of Satmar is not the same as that of the Yeshiva World and the Torah of Lubavitch is very different from that of R. Kook, and neither is like the Sephardic tradition. When one seriously engages with another Torah tradition from inside, he often experiences a sense of disorientation in which things are almost the same but not quite the same. One can compare it to the experience of looking  into a mirror that is made to distort. One kind of sees the same things, but the inter-relationships and the sense of emphasis and depth perception are very, very different. One does need to "prepare" to make a transition from one tradition to another.

Having done this, however, your actions will be for the sake of heaven. One who knows, understands and values multiple approaches, will not act by habit. He or she will not parrot slogans. A scholar who is proficient in many different pathways of Avoda will know what to do, and more importantly will know what to do for the right reasons.

This does not negate being a good member of the community. R. Yose teaches us that, at the minimum, one must care for one's neighbors money as much as one's own. Rising above parochialism leads one to the level of "for the Sake of Heaven" but the goal always is to remain within  a specific community as a way of life as one reaches to Heaven. 

He and His Name: Problematic passage

This is a first post on a remarkable Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer. This passage is important because it discusses the very nature of divine unity. I will begin with briefly reviewing the nature of the problem and how to other religious traditions have dealt with it.
First let me quote the passage itself, which is found in the beginning of the third chapter.

Ad Sheinivra Haolam haya Hakadosh baruch hu v'shmo Hagadol levad.
Until the world was created there was only Hakadosh Baruch Hu and His great name alone.

Some versions use the word "Kodem" instead of "Ad shenivra".

The issue of, of course, is that it seems to imply eternal duality within the  God-Head.  Before the world was created, there were two entities: G-d and His Name. That's pretty strange, isn't it? Hashem is One, not Two!

A few points are in order. It is of course axiomatic in Judaism that God is One. As Rambam expresses it, this One is unique and unlike any other One that is known to man. All other entities known to Man are by definitions either composite or in some way share some characteristic or attribute with created things. Since God is categorically different, His being One is also completely different from anything we know. We can only define His uniqueness by saying what He is not, the so-called "negative theology". A G-d like this cannot be dual.

This does, however, create another problems. How is G-d able to interact with the world? How was He able to crate it? How did he bridge the radical divide between One and Many? How does He continue to guide us, to answer our prayers, to teach us His Law, and dwell within us and in our Holy Places?

It is tempting to interpose another Deity to fulfill this function.

Although Kabbalists define One differently, they also, as we shall see, uphold the Unity of Hashem.

So what I R. Eliezer talking about?

To appreciate what Judaism is, it is essential to understand how it handles challenges to its essential beliefs from within its own tradition. We will launch on an exploration  that will do just that. R Eliezer's statement is a serious challenge to the concept of Hashem's Unity. Let see how it had been explained throughout the ages.

First, let's look at how other traditions have handled the issue of One and Many. Even within the context of monotheistic religions, dual g-ds are not unknown. Neopatonists, such as Plotinus,  envisioned a single Hidden God (Deus Absconditus) that could not be known and had no interactions with the created world. It was permanently joined with its knowledge, Nous, in the process of Self-Contemplation. That is all that this God does: self-contemplation. The Nous is a part of of this G-d and of same Essence but also sufficiently distinct of It, that it could lead to a series of emanations, one of which was the Demiurge, the actual Creator of this world that we know. The Nous was inseparable from the Hidden God, but at the same time presented a beginning of a movement toward emanations. Of course pagan NeoPlatonists did not have a problem with a Duality within the Divine.

Christianity faced a similar problem. Having chosen to follow the high Christology of the Gospel of John, it launched itself into the morass of theological complications and contradictions. Unlike the synoptic Gospels, John represents Jesus as the Word or Logos, that existed before the creation and, hence before his own humanity. By choosing John over the Synoptic Gospels, Christianity received two contradictory doctrines. From Jews it knew that God is One. From John it learned that He was Two, and eventually, when the Holy Spirit was added, that He was, R"L, three. John claimed that JC was the son of God, but not only the Son, but pre-existent and in some way equal to Father. In a crucial opening passage, John says, that Word was God. It is interesting and noteworthy that Christianity when faced with this kind of a conflict, always elected the more pagan interpretation or directions. As time went on, Christian sects that were more Jewish or that tended to Judaic sensibilities, became heretics. Jewish Christians and Ebionites were quickly read out of the church (as were, in all fairness Marcionites and Gnostics).Then the Church rejected Arianism,a teaching in which the Word/ Logos was one of God's creation's in time and not fully Divine. Anastasius, Bishop of Alexandria and Arius' antagonist, taught that the Son was not created but eternally begotten from the Father, which means that the Father is eternally Father, but never without a son. EventuallyChristians came to believe that there were three persons(Father, Son and the Holy Spirit)  that are identical in essence, the difference between the three is simply that the father begets the son and not vice versa and that differentiation between the Three is in causation and not in essence.

Judaism of course chose the opposite direction when faced with the challenge of One and Many. It elected to explain the statement of R. Eliezer in a way that accentuated the Unity and explained away the plurality.There are a number of explanations, some Kabbalistic and some not.

 In the next post we will explore Rambam's approach to this puzzling passage in Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer.

 

Dreaming

I had a dream within a dream before the dream began

Of bright red poppies, verdant fields and blue expansive skies

Walkways of stone and fragrant steps of spice and marjoram

A vison flickered and passed on, shot by before my eyes

Humanity was streaming forth to CIty on the Hill

Bringing its flocks, its fruits, its wheat

Gold, incense, bronze and steel

 

I saw a dream within a dream,

Which means it's meant to pass

But it did not and it was gone

A dream about the past

I wakened, gazed at rising dawn

and sparks of color on the wall

and shadows moving on.

 

Come back my dream within a dream

So I can dream again

My heart beat music of this dream

Before the dream began.

In dreaming space there is no past, no future, and no pain

It will now come, already came

Before it even went

 

I am a thought within a dream

That G-d once dreamt on High

I was a light inside His beam

a thought to verify.

And now I dream His dreams and hope

To drum His beat and sing His trope

Before the dreaming stops.

 

 

 

Did God command Chanukkah?

 

 

From the Rabbis Advocate

 

93. The Khazar said: That good and fine. But what would you say when we say in the blessing that "Blessed be Though, Hashem, Ruler of the Universe who sanctified us with his commandments and commanded" -  to read the Megilah, to complete the Hallel, to light Chanukah candles, and God did not command these things. Do not answer me with what the Sages said, "And where did He command us? In the verse 'Do not turn away from the matter that they command   you' (Brachot 19b )", for this applies specifically to explanations of Biblical imperatives, such as that the "fruit of a beautiful tree" is a citron and not some other fruit. It does not mean that Sages should innovate a law and call it a commandment and compel us to say, "He commanded us" based on the prohibition of "Do not turn away".

94. The scholar said: Know my Master, the King that Sages did not enact to say "He commanded" on their own but by God's word and His command.  Not only here but in every matter that they enacted or decreed, their concern was to model it after the structure of Torah commandments; this is what they said in many places, "Whatever the Rabbis enacted they enacted in the manner of a Biblical law (Pesachim 30b)".

95. The Khazar said: Bring a proof to these words and you'll be done.

96. The scholar said: A man praises and thanks God for the good that He had done with him in one of two ways - by bringing a sacrifice or through speech. Noah thanked God through an offering when he had come out of the Ark as it says, "And Noah built an altar for God and he took of every clean animal and every clean bird and brought up offerings upon the altar (Genesis 8, 20)". When God told Abraham, "to your offspring will I give this  land" - "he built an altar there to God who appeared to him (Genesis 12, 7)". Regarding Jacob it writes, "And Jacob arrived whole… and he set up there an altar (Genesis 33, 18)". The Blessed Lord told Jacob explicitly: "Come go up to Bethel and dwell there and erect there an altar to God who appeared to you as you escaped from your brother Esau (Genesis 35,1)". Jacob said to his sons, "And let us arise and go up to Bethel and I will make there an altar for God who answered to me on the day of my trouble and was with me on the way that I walked (Genesis 35,3)". Here you have it explicitly that sacrifices are to give thanks and praise to the Blessed Lord.

We also find thanksgiving in words, as Malchizedek said, "Blessed is the High God who handed over your enemies into you hand (Genesis 14, 20)." When Isaac dug the third well he called it Rehoboth, "for now Lord has gave us space (rachav) and we will grow in the land (Genesis 26, 22)". Lea, when she gave birth to Judah said, "This time I will praise God (Genesis 29, 35). During the Exodus - "Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord (Exodus 15, 1)". Jethro said: "Blessed is the Lord who saved you from the hand of Egyptians and from the hand of Pharaoh (Exodus 18, 9)." David sated the Holy One Blessed Be He with songs and praises as is evident from the book of Psalms. David instructed is in Psalm 107 that four types of people must give praise: those who descend into the sea, those who travel in the deserts, a sick person who was healed and one who was imprisoned and then went free (Brachot 54b). There is really no difference if a man was in jail and went free or if he was saved from his enemies who sought to kill him. It matters not whether it is an individual or a community. In all cases, the Holy One Blessed Be He wants and commands that praise and thanks be given to Him for the good that He does as it says, " And you shall relate to your son on that day - because of this God has done for me when I went of out of Egypt ( Exodus 13, 8)".   It also says, "And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless God, your Lord for the good land that He had given you (Deuteronomy  8,10)." And it writes, "In tabernacles you shall sit seven days for in tabernacles I made children of Israel dwell (Leviticus 23, 43)."

All these events, verses and commandments clearly demonstrate that the Blessed Lord desired and decreed that we should praise His Great Name for all the miracles, wonders, goodness, and kindnesses that He had done to us. Therefore, we have to extol and praise him on holy days and feasts. It would really behoove us to compose and use original wording; however, since we possess songs and praises of King David that he spoke out through Divine Inspiration, is it not better that we praise and thank the Lord with songs that have already proven to be sweet to Him, by the virtue of the songs themselves as well as by the merit of their author?

It is following this sentiment that we read the Hallel on God's festivals and say, "which Thou commanded", for, although he did not literally command us to pronounce specifically these words, he did command us to praise and glorify His Holy and Great Name in general. The sages and leaders of Israel chose the songs of David for reasons that we already explained. Since it is a commandment of the Blessed Lord that we should thank and praise his name, it is fine to say in the blessing of Hallel "that You commanded us", even if we classify Hallel as a rabbinic commandment. We can likewise say "You commanded us" in regard to reading the Scroll of Esther and not worry, for since reading this story it is a form of thanksgiving[1], a commemoration of the miracle that He performed for us to save us form Haman. Though it may be that he did not command us to read specifically this scroll, He did command the general idea, as I proved from the passage of the four who must praise. We can also say "commanded" in the case of Chanuka candle since it is remembrance of the jug of pure oil that contained only enough oil to burn for one day but it burned for eight. Similarly, Sabbath and festival lights - for it writes of Sabbath "and you shall call Sabbath a pleasure (Isaiah 58, 13) " and it is no pleasure to sit in darkness of Sabbath, like poor souls who had never seen light. Of festivals it says, "you shall rejoice in your festival (Deuteronomy 16, 11)" - and there is no joy without light. Turns out, that although we weren't specifically commanded to light Sabbath and festival candles, since we were commanded to have pleasure on Sabbath and joy on festivals, we of ourselves became commanded to ensure that we have whatever leads to pleasure and joy, and there is no pleasure or joy without light[2].

The four fasts do not present a problem to begin with, for "Aneinu" is naught but a request and a prayer and we do not use "commanded" in it. Besides, the Holy One Blessed Be He agreed to the enactment of these fasts as it says, "So speaks the Lord of Hosts. The fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth month and the fast of the seventh month and the fast of the tenth month shall be for the House of Judah a joy and elation and holidays (Zechariah 8, 19)". The seven days of mourning have no words "commanded"; so also the marriage canopy has only a blessing "who commanded us regarding forbidden relationships". The same is true of the marriage contract. Other blessings are blessings of praise and thanksgiving.

97. The Khazar said: It states in Eurubin 21b that Solomon enacted erubin and hand-washing before bread. Granted, I can accept washing hands, whether before eating or before prayer or after evacuating. Every reasoning person would agree to the Sages in what they said, "And you shall make yourself holy and you will be holy - this refers to washing hands (Chulin 106)", for it is necessary that bodies of the children of Israel be clean so that they can pronounce the great, holy and blessed Name. It is find to say "commanded" for this reason. Erub, however, whether it the one set up is for carrying from one Sabbath domain to another, or to cook on a festival for the needs of a subsequent Sabbath, is something about which deniers raise cry and tumult. They claim that Sages claimed the authority of Solomon so as to silence critics. Despite all your efforts they still dispute the phrasing "who commanded us" for an erub for and God has not commanded us to it[3]

98. The scholar said: Let's allow for a moment that they are right and that the erub was enacted a long time after Solomon. I now set out an argument that we can still say "commanded" and be right. Behold it says, "A person who makes a vow or swears and oath to prohibit a matter to himself, he shall do according to all that came out of his mouth (Numbers 30, 3). Consider well that a Jewish man can vow to give a certain sum to charity or to fast on a particular day, or something like that. Such a man can say, "he commanded me" about fulfilling his vow. If someone asks you how he can do that and based on what, you can tell him that it is based on the verse "he shall not profane his word (ibid)". Behold, all Jews, beginning from the time of King Solomon or whatever later High Court after him that has enacted erub, have accepted on themselves not to go more than 2000 cubits out of city limits in all directions. If a man, for some reason, needs to go four thousand cubits in one direction, he must travel up to two thousand cubits out before Sabbath and leave food there that suffices for two meals (and this is an erub). This is as if he says: "I set up my erub at a distance of two thousand cubits and that makes it as if my dwelling place is at that spot and from that point forward I am permitted to travel a distance of two thousand cubits in all directions.  This is called erub, for in a manner of speaking it joins two thousand cubits that I had toward the east with the two thousand cubits that I had toward the west[4]. Since we accepted on ourselves to honor the Sabbath and not to go beyond two thousand cubits in one direction unless through using an erub, it turns out to be an obligation in a manner of a vow, just as if it was an actual commandment. When we set up an erub we fulfill the commandment of "do not profane your word"; therefore it is fine to say "who has commanded us"[5]. If you counter, why doesn’t every individual make a blessing with phrasing "he commanded us" whenever he fulfills any vow, it is possible to respond that we have a principle that a blessing is not formulated for an activity which is completely optional - for it is possible that a man will never make a vow. (Erub, however, is an activity that is common and most people engage in it).

99. The Khazar said: Your words are pleasant and logically agreeable. It seems to me that the reason why we say "he commanded", whether for erub of distances, whether for erub of domains, is because the whole goal of the Sages was solely to increase the honor of the Sabbath and to preserve individuals from violating Sabbath, lest they may die by violating it. What would you say, however, regarding the erub that allows cooking on festival for Sabbath[6], of which there is not a hint in the Torah?   

100. The scholar said: No my Master for some say that it is of Biblical origin from the verse (regarding the manna), " on the sixth day you shall prepare of what you have brought (Exodus 16,5)"[7]. However, even if you say that is Rabbinic, it is possible to say "He commanded". The reason is that there is a verse that says, "But that alone which will be eaten by somebody, that alone will be prepared by you (Exodus 12, 16)".  Clearly, this is a permission to cook for what is needed on the festival itself but not for any need outside of a festival. No one disagrees that it is prohibited to cook on a holiday for the day after.. This is because a regular weekday can be preparation for a Sabbath and a regular weekday can be a preparation for a festival; also one can prepares for the Sabbath on a festival[8]. However the Sages prohibited to do so without setting up an erub, for perhaps people would cook dishes on a festival to be eaten on a subsequent weekday. Now with the enactment of erub, people will realize that there is a priori argument and say, "Just like on festival we cannot cook for the Sabbath (without an erub), so much more so from a festival for a weekday. The erub is to indicate, "I have already started to cook on a regular weekday for the Sabbath with the foods that constitute this erub". After that, even if he cooks on a festival that is Sabbath Eve for the Sabbath, it is as if he merely completes the dish that he already started from the eve of the festival. This was enacted tp preserve the honor of the holy festivals, so that people do not take its sanctity lightly. All of Israel accepted the prohibition not to cook without an erub as a vow. It turns out that one who transgresses this enactment has also transgressed "do not profane your word". With this correlation to vows, it makes sense to say, "He commanded us".   

101. The Khazar said: If so we do not require the source of "You shall not turn away from what they command you…(Deuteronomy 17, 11)".[9]

102. The scholar said: The verse "Do not turn away" is general; I, however, explained the specifics because I recognize that the deniers especially criticize Rabbinic commandments when there is an associated blessing containing" Which He commanded".

 

---

[1] Megila 14a

[2] The justification for saying 'commanded' on the second day of festivals that are kept outside of the Land of Israel are taken up in Fifth Dialogue.

[3] Even is we accept the assignment of erub enactments to Solomon himself, how can we say "commanded" when this enactments were made by a human being and not commanded by God?

[4] The word erub can be understood as mixing or joining two things together.

[5] Once the Sages enact a ritual and it becomes widely accepted, it attains the status of a personal vow. Since to fulfill a vow is fulfillment of commandment of not profaning one's word, it is legally perfectly right to refer to this ritual as having been commanded.

[6] There is generally a prohibition to cook on Festival for the purposes of the following day, even if that day is a Sabbath. The erub tavshilin allows one to begin preparing a meal by preparation on the eve of the festival of token articles of food as if for the festival itself. The remainder of the food preparation can then be carried out even if it is not necessarily consumed on that festival day itself.

[7] See beginning of tractate Beitsa.

[8] It is permitted to utilize a day as preparation for a day of greater sanctity - weekday of a festival or Sabbath and festival for the Holy Sabbath.

[9] If every enactment of the Sages can be subsumed under some God commanded rubric, why does one need a specific prohibition to not turn away from what they command?

ניגון חנוכה מחסידות ברסלב

*by חיליק פרנק

Tachrut Kelavim by Evyatar Banai

An interesting Israeli Baal Teshuvah singer, Evyatar Banai.

Warning: One less than fully tsniusdig moment at 1:04. More on Evyatar Banai, here

Pshat and Drash: Working together.

Pshat and Drasha are those mysterious things that the more we speak of them, the less we understand. It is not that it is hard to "get" each one separately; that is pretty easy. What's baffling is to conceptualize how Chazal worked both of them side by side into their halachic methodology. 

It would seem that one ot the other must predominate. Either you believe that Halacha is encoded into the Torah for purposes of derivation, or at least of demonstration, in which case the Drash reigns and the Pashat, albeit also a part of Torah, is more of a curiosity for  those who like Tanach. Or, Pshat is the "real"meaning of the Torah, and Drash is but an expedient by which to connect Oral Tradition and Written Law.

This is why it is important to explore the interface of Pshat and Drash, by which I mean, how the too work together, so that neither overshadows the other . How does halacha arises out of the two working together?

Netsiv in his Chumash commentary offers several instructive example. He says that Pshat modifies and directs the Drash. I will begin with one that is the least technical.

When Yosef's brothers decide to kill him, they elect to bring his death about in an indirect way. Why, one may ask should it matter how Yosef dies; is it not the same "bad" whether he dies by their hand or through their handing him over to others to kill him. But apparently it matters! Yehuda says: " Do not spill blood...Let us sell him to Ishmaelites and our hand should not be upon him:(Gen 22-27). It seems that killing indirectly is better than killing directly( see Sanhedrin 77a-b about murder and grama)

Netsiv comments: "Prohibition(against spilling blood) that is expressed explicitly is more severe to transgress than one that is derived through reasoning( see Gen. 9:6). Sometimes, we find that Chazal emphasize the case in the verse over the cases learned by Drash from the same verse This is why the Court in Usha decreed that, "We do not excommunicate the head of Beis Din who behaved improperly (because of the verse, "The Prince in you people you shall not curse)". (In other words, even though we darshin this verse to refer to more than just the Prince), the simple meaning remains that we do not curse or excommunicate a Prince; the Drash does not obviate the Pshat).

In this manner, the Pshat works along side the Drash. Drash explains that the halacha is not as limited as stated in a verse and broadens it to other similar cases but the Pshat insists that the plain meaning of the verse still accrues added severity for that case that is the sole Pshat in the verse.

Netsiv talks about this in two other places in his commentary, Vayikra 13:45 and 19:27, and adduces as proof Tosafos in Kiddushin 24b. In Vaykra 13, the point is that even though the separation of a Metzorah, his wearing a cloak that covers his lips and calling "Tame Tame" is derived by Toras Kohanim to apply to all types of a Metzora, it is written in the section of a Tsaraas of the head. Therefore, it is particularly severe in the cases of the tsaraas of the head. Similarly, the prohibition to speak Lashon Hara applies everywhere but because it is written in the section on behavior during the war, it is particularly severe in the wartime(Kesuvos 46). Another example is the prohibition to remove the peyos of one's head (Vaykra 19:27). It applies to .both Kohen and Yisroel; but, because it is written about Kohanim, it is particularly severe for Kohanim.

It seems to me that Netziv would not subscribe to the notion that Drash is simply a sophisticated Pshat (Omek Hapshat). Rather they are two separate systems that generally co-operate, although sometimes one tor the other predominate in a particular case. Sometimes, the Drash even obviates the Pshat but usually it merely expands and broadens it. At other times, like the cases that we discussed above, Pshat amends and modifies the Drash. Sometimes Pshat loses to Drah out in one verse but returns in  different guise as the Drash explanation of another verse. They remain two concurrent and simultaneous systems that work together to define Halacha.

This leads me to an observation that I saw in Martin Lokshin's commentary to Rashbam al Hatorah. He notes that Chazal say that "a verse does not lose its plain sense (Ein Hamikra Yotse Midei Pshuto - Shabbos 63a); yet, this essential and overriding principle is barely mentioned in their literature. This leads to disagreemtns about what this statement really means. Perhaps, the meaning is exactly this - Drash broadens the meaning of verses but their Pshat is also not lost, for the cases which are the Pshat remain more severe than the cases added to the "coverage" of the verses by Drash.