avakesh

The Dawn of Redemption

Softcover, 235 pages
ISBN 13: 978-965-031-3
publication: 2009


The Dawn of Redemption traces the Jewish concept of individual and communal

Redemption through its cosmic antecedents to the role it plays in personal experiences

and struggles. Drawing on classic sources, the author melds private experiences with

historical forces, personal destiny and the Divine Plan, and shows how alienation and

despair are transformed into exhilaration and closeness to God. Upon the canvas of the

Biblical books of Ruth and Jonah, one finds in this psychological, philosophical, and

spiritual investigation a profound restatement of the redemptive idea within Judaism and

 its potential to satisfy and uplift the life of every man and woman.

The material presented in the book “dawn of Redemption” was originally serialized on

 

Torah.org. This thoughtful exposition of moral, psychological and devotional issues on

 

issues that all human beings encounter as they seek meaning and understanding of

 

themselves and of their Creator attracted much comment and discussion among the

 

thousands of readers who followed it week by week.

 

This book not only elucidates the meaning of many otherwise unclear passages in the

 

books of Ruth and Yonah, it also clarifies what these books, as Chazal understood them,

 

teach us about the such central questions of religious life as alienation and belonging,

 

individual’s lot versus communal destiny, Justice and Mercy, and how Hashem can be

 

found within the context of daily living.  The author reveals that our Sages said many

 

profound teachings on these topics and shows how and why. The book “Dawn of

 

Redemption.. “  is an important contribution. It can be ordered from the publisher and is

 

currently in Judaica stores worldwide, or it can be ordered directly from me (please

 

emailme with you name and address). I also have a limited number of copies of a French

 

 translation, which can also be ordered from josecoh@gmail.com

 

A new book on R.Nachman

 

Silence, music and mysticism

From a review by ZVI LESHEM

Mysticism and Madness, which analyzes several key issues in Nahman’s thinking, is largely a rejoinder to several scholarly works that have, until now, been considered definitive in describing R. Nahman’s religious world. Mark, who is very much at home in the vast corpus of both Nahman’s own writing and that of subsequent generations of Bratslav literature, presents a radically different understanding of Nahman, one that moves him closer to the kabbalistic-hassidic milieu in which he was raised (he was the great-grandson of the Ba’al Shem Tov, who was the first hassidic leader), and returns him from the radical existentialist mode into which some of his earlier interpreters had thrust him.

The late Joseph Weiss, in his pioneering Hebrew studies of Nahman, emphasized his personal life (of which we are blessed with abundant material from internal Bratslav sources) and existentialist crises, downplaying the mystical elements in his life and teachings. Weiss was followed by Prof. Arthur Green, who, in his classic work Tormented Master, portrayed Nahman as a deeply conflicted individual who was blessed not only with a powerful self-awareness of his status as a tzaddik, but also with tremendous self-doubt and conflicts regarding his own faith and religious tensions. Green presented this existential portrait of Nahman as largely overriding the more mystical aspirations of the more typical hassidic rebbe, which may be subsumed under the general rubric of seeking a more intense personal and spiritual experience of God.

Mark argues forcefully that Weiss, Green and those who followed them misinterpreted key passages in Nahman’s writings, consistently overlooking their obviously mystical meaning and reinterpreting them through the prism of the existentialist lens through which they wrote. While not denying Nahman’s existential struggle, his theological radicalism or his sometimes bizarre behavior, Mark uses close philological analysis to convincingly demonstrate that despite his uniqueness in the world of hassidic thought, in the last analysis, Nahman’s major concern remains that of his other hassidic colleagues, finding a path to God for himself and for his followers.

Mark achieves his goals through analysis of issues such as Nahman’s approach to imagination, prophecy, faith, silence, music and the Land of Israel, to which he traveled at the beginning of the 19th century.

He also discusses some of Nahman’s mystical and devotional techniques, such as the meditative practice of hitbodedut (conversing with God) and hand clapping during prayer. He argues that the goal of these practices is to lead the devotee to a state of bitul (self-annulment) and deveikut (cleaving to God). Mark shows us to what extent Nahman was in fact continuing trends, both in thought and deed, found in earlier mystical literature, although he often infused the earlier texts with a creative new meaning....

Throwing apples in Belz in Shabbos Shira

We have previously written about the significance of apples. Here is apple throwing in Belz

and here in Klausenberg.

Matan Torah

Converts of Jewish ancestry

Rav Amsalem, an Israeli expert on halachos of Giyur, is coming out with a new sefer, Zera Yisrael, in which he argues that those converts who have a biological Jewish connection, unlike those from a compeltely non-Jewish background, do not require a full acceptance of all the mitzvos and an acceptance of a "traditional" lifestyle is enough, because the identification with the Jewish people- serving in the IDF and keeping mitzvos such as Kiddush, Kashrus, Yom Kuppur etc is sufficient.

It will be interesting to see his arguments. In the meantime, a controversy is brewing. For myself, does anyone know how to explain a Rashi (s.v.giyra)that says clearly that one can accept a Ger who does not believe in the Divine origin of Oral Law, as long as the rabbi who accepts him is certain that the convert will eventually be persuaded to accept it? Did Rashi believe that an agreement to perform mitzvos is enough, and that Ikkarei Hadas play no role in Giyur, as the plain meaning of the Talmud in Yevomos 47a seems to suggest? Rambam Issurei Biyah Ch.  14:2 famously rewords that gemara to make it about more about theology, or at least about Oneness of G-d,  as well as mitzva observance.

ומודיעין אותו עיקרי הדת שהוא ייחוד השם ואיסור עכו"ם ומאריכין בדבר הזה ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות ואין מאריכין בדבר זה ומודיעין אותו עון לקט שכחה ופיאה ומעשר שני ומודיעין אותו עונשן של מצות כיצד אומרים לו הוי יודע שעד שלא באת לדת זו אם אכלת חלב אי אתה ענוש כרת אם חללת שבת אי אתה ענוש סקילה ועכשיו אחר שתתגייר אם אכלת חלב אתה ענוש כרת אם חללת שבת אתה ענוש סקילה ואין מרבין עליו ואין מדקדקין עליו שמא יגרום לטרדו ולהטותו מדרך טובה לדרך רעה שבתחלה אין מושכין את האדם אלא בדברי רצון ורכים וכן הוא אומר בחבלי אדם אמשכם ואחר כך בעבותות אהבה

Men of Truth

כא  וְאַתָּה תֶחֱזֶה מִכָּל-הָעָם אַנְשֵׁי-חַיִל יִרְאֵי אֱלֹהִים, אַנְשֵׁי אֱמֶת--שֹׂנְאֵי בָצַע; וְשַׂמְתָּ עֲלֵהֶם, שָׂרֵי אֲלָפִים שָׂרֵי מֵאוֹת, שָׂרֵי חֲמִשִּׁים, וְשָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרֹת

Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens (Exodus 18:21).

The Kotsker Rebbe asks: "There is only one truth. If so, why are there men of truth who are rulers of thusands, men of truth who rule over hundreds and ones who rule over tens? Isn't all truth the same? "

He answered - there are three types of truth: those who do not lie, those who speak the truth and those who fight for the truth.

(Quoted from the ArtScroll biography of R. Moshe Sherer, p.140)

Aside:Did you know there was another biography of R. Moshe Sherer? see here

Avakesh comments:

The Kotsker only tells us of three kinds of "men of truth" but the possuk has four: the heads of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. Which then is the fourth man of truth?

I would say that it is he who lives a lie but tolerates the truth.

That is also a man of truth!

Conversion: Doubly Beloved

Names determine

Names are interesting. Sometimes they tell us much about the person who carries the name; at other times they can guide us to what he or she likes.

 

In Tanach names are certainly reflective of their bearers. For example, Esav has a name indicating his physical appearance (Genesis 25:) and is also called Edom (red), alluding to his violent tendencies, that he sheds blood. Moses's name reflected how the daughter of Pharaoh drew him from the Nile (Exodus 2:10). Noah's birth was accompanied by the aspiration that the newborn would provide comfort "from our work and from the toil of our hands, because of the ground which God cursed" (Genesis 5:29). There are countless such  examples.

We learn from a verse that names "determine" (Berachot 7b) and the gemara gives us concrete examples, such as the meaning of Reuven and Ruth. The Sages certainly believed that names tell us much about people (Yoma 83b) and they conducted themselves in accordance with this belief.

RABBI Meir, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi were once on a journey. Rabbi Meir was always particular about the names of people, but Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi never bothered about them. They once came to some place and looked for lodgings, which they found. They asked the innkeeper what was his name and he said: Kidor. Then said Rabbi Meir, I gather that he is an evil man, for it was said: (Deut. xxxii, 20) For they are a very forward generation (Kidor). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi entrusted to him their money, but Rabbi Meir did not. He hid it in the grave of that man's father. The innkeeper dreamed that some one said to him: Go and take the purse that is lying under that man's head. The next morning he told them about his dream. Said they to him: A dream of a Sabbath night has no meaning. Thereupon Rabbi Meir waited the whole day and took away his purse. The next morning they said to the innkeeper: Give us our purses. He answered that he knew nothing about them. Then Rabbi Meir said to them: Why didn't you pay any attention to the name? They answered:—Why didn't you call our attention to it, Master? He replied: I considered that one ought to be suspicious, but I did not consider it a certainty. Thereupon they asked the innkeeper to go with them to a shop where they noticed lentils in his beard. Whereupon they went to his wife and gave her this as a sign that he had ordered them to return the purses, and they received their purses. When he returned home he killed his wife...... From then on they too paid attention to names. Once they came to the house of a man named Balah, they did not enter the house, for they said: He must be an evil man, for it is written: (Ezek. xxiii, 43) Then said I unto her that was old in adulteries (Balah).

There is a great deal written on the roots of names in the higher spheres and the implications that this fact has on giving additional names to a critically ill person but that is not my focus here. Recently,a paper by Jones at al came across my desk that explains why "names determine".  Here is the abstract:

From the perspective of implicit egotism people should gravitate toward others who resemble them because similar others activate people's positive, automatic associations about themselves. Four archival studies and 3 experiments supported this hypothesis. Studies 1-4 showed that people are disproportionately likely to marry others whose first or last names resemble their own. Studies 5-7 provided experimental support for implicit egotism. Participants were more attracted than usual to people (a) whose arbitrary experimental code numbers resembled their own birthday numbers, (b) whose surnames shared letters with their own surnames, and (c) whose jersey number had been paired, subliminally, with their own names. Discussion focuses on implications for implicit egotism, similarity, and interpersonal attraction.

R. Dessler wrote many years ago that all love is self love (Kuntress Hachesed, Michtav M’Eliahu vol. 1, pp. 32-51, 140-145). We develop love from investing ourselves in others and what we love in them is the love, giving and effort that we invested. From the psychological perspective, you might say that the Sages preceded him by millenia in this insight and in understanding that names that we carry shape how we think of ourselves, because names are so closely related to who we think we are that we shape ourselves to conform to our names . Jones merely offers experimental evidence to support this contention. It's simple. A name that suggests a quality, a character trait, or an occupation, may lead its bearer to develop the same qualities within himself or herself.

A kabbalist, of course, will interpret the associations reported by Jones differently. A kabbalist would say that the connection we see between names and choices are merely a reflection of the fact that things that have the same name stem from the same root. People, for example, tend to marry those with similar names because their names reflect something essential about their similarity, etc. Whichever way you explain it, this paper supports and explains the Sages belief that names "determine".

 Related: here, here and here 

Jewish Pavarotti

Women Rabbas

 I posted on the granting of the title Maharat to Sara Hurwitz only six months ago. It didn't take long: Maharat is now officially (click to read) Rabba.

Walking on Water by Chaim Gershon

Hashem split the Red Sea before Bnei Yisroel. Several commentators [1] ask, "Why did Hashem make a miracle when the same results could have been accomplished in a more natural and less miraculous fashion. HaShem normally does not break the laws of nature that He established. It would have been more appropriate for them to walk on water which is more "natural" in the sense that water bugs do it! Or, why didn't they just take boats, although it might have taken more than a few trips !

The mystical answer is that the dry land and the sea are models for two different types of worlds: revealed and hidden. There is the part that people see and and the portion that is below the surface. The sea was split so that Bnei Yisroel access and connect with the part of the soul that is submerged and cannot be observed from the sea-banks. By walking in the sea bed which was rendered dry and not even muddy, the people were able to bridge between the diametric opposites, the visible world above and the hidden reality below. This experience was an emunah building experience that they would take with them to living in the world.

According to most opinions, when the Jewish people left Egypt and crossed the Yam Suf, they exited on the same side that they entered. What good did that do? a similar question has been asked about Yachatz, splitting the middle matzah during Seder [2] . Both halves are eaten during the Seder so why split them! Both processes, walking across the to these ame shore and Yachatz have been explained as examples of  Nesirah. It also explains why the Sages said that getting married and maintaining parnasa are as difficult as splitting the Yam Suf (Sotah 2a / Pesachim 118a). Two halves that are joined are something altogether different than the whole out of which they were taken.

Another example: A soul descends from heaven to this world and eventually it re-ascends without the body: What did the soul gain: it was pure before it came down and pure after it returned? Here too, the result, though it recreates the beginning, is an altogether different outcome. Likutei Levi Yitzchak writes that Lechem Oni is the revealed Torah and the hidden piece of Afikomen is Toras HaNistar. They both come from the same piece of Matzah but once they were separated and put together in the Seder, it is only then that they become truly whole! The splitting apart of the Matzah during Seder and then putting it together creates something new. To have them both in this manner at the seder to become a whole!

We enact the creation of the world where masculine and feminine were originally an organic whole that was then split in order for them to reach a greater unity through their own efforts. 

Avakesh elaborates: This touches on some of the most profound and difficult questions about Creation. Why was it necessary to create something that will eventually be repaired and made as it was in the beginning? Why did not G-d make it whole from the beginning? The topic is discussed extensively by Ramachal in the first 10 chapters of KL'CH Pische Chochma. Suffices to say, to an extent that any answer to this basic question can be expressed in words alone, the product of what was repaired and made whole is not the same as this product before it was broken. What is the difference? The history! The process of repair demonstrates something. To Ramachal it demonstrated Hashem's Goodness. R. Chaim suggests here based on his sources that in a more specific manner, the breaking of the Matza as well as the other examples he mentioned, demonstrate one aspect of this process, what is known as nesirah and the separation of and subsequent fusion of masculine and feminine in the process of emanation.

 

[1] Menachem Tziyon (Menachem Mendel of Rimanov), Rebbe Maharash of Lubavitch 5638B, several sources brought in Tikkun Leil Shivi shel Pesach.

[2] Sefer Bris Kehunas Olam

Coexistence

How Chabad and the Yeshiva World parted ways

Download Godol

It is well appreciated that until about 50 years ago, the Litvishe Yeshiva world and Chabad were not antagonistic to one another, whereas now they are. Decades ago, not only did the Rebbes of Chabad attend rabbinic conferences, they had a close relationship and worked together on community issues with the leaders of Lithuanian Jewry. There may have been some tension but no more than between misnagdim and any other chassidic group. Yet, in the USA , those who know, know that the mistrust and suspicion go back many decades, and they intensified in the past thirty years. R. Hillel Goldberg, for example, reports scathing criticism of the messianic tendencies in Lubavitch by R. Hutner already more than four decades ago and I remember hearing remarks as well from another godol about the tendency of Lubavitch to duplicate communal institutions instead of joining in community wide institutions decades ago as well. There was the Shanghai controversy. It seems to me, though, that the antagonism in the USA is different than it was in R. Shach's camp in Eretz Isroel, where it was still drawing on the two hundreds year-old ideological opposition to chassidus in general.  Was there a precipitating event in the USA after which everything went downhill?

R. N. Kaminetzky in his controversial, "Making of a Godol",reports such an event. Now, I attempted to check some of the facts that he reports and was not able to do so. I spoke to some people who asked good questions but had no independent knowledge of this issue. I would appreciate if someone who does know more can respond in the comments sections. I attach the relevant pages form R. Kaminetzky's book and the relevant issue of Hekeriah V'Hakedusha.

In brief, the journal Hakeriah V'Hakedusha, a new Lubavitch periodical in Yiddish, that was supposedly under the direct supervision of the Friedeker Rebbe, published an editorial  by Y. Segal on  October 13, 1940 (the journal, unfortunately sans the relevant first volume is available on HebrewBooks.org), which asserted that studying talmudic passages like the one about, "ox which gored a cow",  important as it may be , is completely physical (kulo gashmi), is a meagerly inspiring subject even from a worldly perspective... and one will gain nothing spiritual from studying it...Certainly, the superficial study (of this mishna) has no connection with G-d and reminds a student very little of Him: No spark of Divine light is beheld in the revealed part of the Torah. But when Chassidus takes on the same mishna and begins to unravel from it the depths of the Torah, the hidden part,  a new light arises which reminds the Jew about the Giver of the Torah and which leaves the student and participant with a deep moral lesson  of tremendous spiritual worth".

This may have been just an unfortunate choice of words because standard Chabad teaching does not denigrate the study of Nigleh or relegate it to a secondary status. Perhaps the writer was simply not familiar with Nefesh Hachaim's approach to this topic. This is a summary of what the Yeshiva World considers axiomatic:

Nefesh HaChaim Shaar 4 Chapter 2:
First I will set my words, on the subject of torah study 'lishma'. What is 'lishma'? This is a stumbling block for many who think 'lishma' means with great and constant 'dveikus' (emotionally cleaving to G-d).

And even worse than this, they think learning torah without dveikus is worth nothing and has no purpose, chas v'shalom. So when they see themselves, that their heart is not going in this level, that their learning is not with constant dveikus, they won't even start to learn and therefore (in our times) the torah has fallen....

To learn torah 'lishma' , the truth is 'lishma' does not mean 'dvekus' like most people think... the truth is learning torah 'lishma' means - for the sake of the torah... as the Rosh explains:
to know and to understand, and to increase lekach (knowledge) and pilpul (sharp analysis) and not to be insolent (l'kanter) and to show off (l'hitgaos)...

Nevertheless, certainly we cannot say that you don't need any purity of thought and yiras Hashem in learning torah. As it says 'if there's no yira, theres no torah' (mishna)...(see the text for an explanation of the purpose of Yira as a 'warehourse' for the torah learned)

Thus the true path, which He chose... (Rabbi Normal Lamm wrote a book devoted to this subject. 

With this in mind, one could have predicted that the nascent American Yeshiva World would strongly react and it did. It was surely not meant to provoke it, but it did.

This poorly thought out piece in the Lubavitch flagship publication brought on a firestorm of criticism in the Yeshiva World, since it attacked its raison d'etre and its bedrock of legitimacy - Talmudic study for its own sake. R. Kaminetsky informs us about how much it upset R. A. Kotler and others and how R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik was recruited to write a response, which he did.

I believe that this was the incident which set the unfortunate pattern of animosity and suspicion between the two groups. In the highly tradition centered environment of the yeshivos, in which the mesorah was paramount, students absorbed a certain view of this incident from their teachers and it became invested with the authenticity and holiness of mesorah, and so it expanded and grew to our own day. Chabad messianism came later and was another icing on the cake. May Hashem soon bring peace, respect and reconciliation between all Jews. 

Overheard: Clever and wise

There are many clever people but not many people who are wise.

O, Sole Mio, by three (jewish) tenors

Name of G-d; name of Yakov's sons; the name of each one of us

יג  יְהַלְלוּ, אֶת-שֵׁם יְהוָה--    כִּי-נִשְׂגָּב שְׁמוֹ לְבַדּוֹ: .

13 Let them praise the name of the LORD, for His name alone is exalted...(Tehillim 148).

The following is an explanation of a Rashi.. but really much more than that.

We start with the first Rashi on Shemos.

These are the names of the B'nei Yisrael.

Though [Scripture] has previously enumerated them during their lifetime by their names, it again enumerates them by their names at their deaths. [This is] to show how dear they are [to G-d], because they are compared to the stars which He brings out and brings in by number and by their [individual] names; as it is said: "Who brings out their host by number, and calls each by its name."

What is exactly about names that shows endearment?

It may be that repetition of the name itself shows endearment, as the verse clearly states, "Is Ephraim my dear son, is he a darling child? for as often as I speak against him, I do mention and mention him: therefore my heart yearneth for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, says Hashem( Yirmiah 31:20)". On the other hand, a person who does not like another, attempts to avoid his name by the use of euphemisms, such as when Shaul avoids using David's actual name, thus betraying Saul's anger: "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?'"^{[(Sam.I:20:30).}

Lehavdil, we know of this from Western Literature as well. A person who loves another loves repeating his or her name (for example, Romeo, Romeo in Romeo And Juliet Act 2, scene 2, 33–49 or Maria, Maria in West Side Story).

Rashi also  says in Bareishis 46:2 that a repetition of a name shows endearment,  "the repetition of Yakov, Yakov is a term of affection". This is based on a number of midrashic passage, for example, Bareishis Rabba 56:9. In Shemos Rabbah , end of chapter 2, Eitz Yosef explains: "..the repetition of a name is a language of edearment; because he likes  this person, he brings his name twice to his lips". This explanations assumes that repeating the names of the tribes is a form of endearment because Hashem, who had already counted them at the end of Genesis, now counts them again, and this is the same as repeating a name twice.

However this explanation has difficulties. First, in other passages, it is the use of the name itself that indicates endearment and not its repetition. For example, Rashi in the beginning of Bamidbar sees endearment in the fact that the Children of Israel were counted and does not mention "names". Second, repeating the name twice in the same sentence is quite different than using it twice diachronically.

This is what Rashi says in Bamidbar:

Because they (the Israelites) are precious before Him (Hashem), He counts them all the time; when they went out of Egypt He counted them [Shemos, 12:37], and when they fell because of [the sin of] the golden calf He counted them to know the number of those who remained, when He came to cause His Presence to rest upon them He counted them. On the first day of Nisan the Mishkon was set up, and on the first day of Iyar He counted them(1).

______________________________________________________________________

(1) Although I am assuming that Rashi to Shemos 1 uses the words "by their name", the version of that Rashi in the Ramban ( and a number of the mansucripts) does not have the words "by their names". On the other hand, Mizrachi strongly defends the version with the words "by   their name" in it. In Tanchuma, the "names" are not mentioned either: "..just as stars are brought out by name, so whent they come in, they come in with a counting". The counting itself is the sign of endearment, not the names. It is interesting that Rashi starts his commentary to each of the five books of the Chumash with some praise of Israel. In Genesis it is that the Land of Israel was given to the Jews and that Israel is called "Chosen of his produce (reishis tvuoso)", in Vayikra that Moshe was shown endearment, in Devarim the term is "Honor of Israel". It may this fact that led to Lubavitcher's Rebbe's question about why is that Hashem chose to express endearment through "names" rather through other means, such as giving a gift.

____________________________________________________________________

To understand what "name" signifies, we will take a detour into kabbalistic sources and come back by the way of philosophic inquiry.

There exists a difficult and influential passage in Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer(PRDRE). It states(Ch.3):

Before the world was created, there was only He and His name alone (some versions say Hakadosh Baruch Hu, not He.., see Sefer Hoemunos 4:7. Another version in the printed version of PRDRE says, "His great name...).

 At first glance, this is very philosophically problematic, for if His name eternally existed before the world was created, His name possesses some of G-d's divine nature, at least its eternity, and this seems to violate the core Jewish principle that here is only one G-d.

 It is the same problem that is presented by the Problem of Divine Attributes, but sharper. Rambam in the Guide (I;50-60) describes this problem very well. If we say that G-d is merciful, and since any change in G-d is impossilbe, he being always perfect, Mercy is an attribute of G-d that is eternally coexistent with him, and if so, you have multiple divinities and not One G-d.  If He is one in the sense of being simple, how can a multiplicity of attributes be ascribed to Him? One answer was offered (by thinkers such as R. Saadiah Gaon)  via a distinction between attributes that are essential and those which are accidental. Essential attributes are those that are closely connected with the essence, such as existence or life; accidental attributes are those that are independent of the essence and that may be changed without affecting the essence, such as anger or mercifulness. Medieval logicians generally agreed that accidental attributes introduce a multiplicity into that which they describe, while they disagreed concerning essential attributes. Some, such as Maimonides' contemporary Averroes, held that essential attributes are implicitly contained in the essence and, hence, do not introduce multiplicity; others held that they provide new information and, hence, produce multiplicity. Avicenna was an exponent of the latter view, holding that essential attributes, particularly existence, are superadded to the essence. Aquinas held that we can speak of G-d's attributes as long as we remeber that they are essentially distinct form attributes taht we know, especially in their property of not being separate from G-d's oneness. Rambam accepted Avicenna's position on this point. He came to the conclusion that accidental attributes applied to God must be interpreted as attributes of action, that is, if it is said that God is merciful, it means that God acts mercifully; and essential attributes must be interpreted as negations (or more precisely, negations of privations), that is, if God is said to be existing, it means that he is not nonexistent.

Rambam himself says in 1:61 that what R. Eliezer in PRDRE means is that Hashem was unique before as after Creation, name being another word for uniqueness.

A number of early Kabbalists had a tradition that the first sefira of Kesser is what Pirke D/Rabbi Eliezer meant whan it said that G-d's Name existed before the Creation. This is also found in the end of Tikkunei Zohar (10), "He and His name were one in kesser before the world was created" (see Radal's commentary for the many early kabbalists who expressed this view). This view is ascribed to Raavad by Sefer Hoemunos quoted in Pardes, Gate 3, a chapter devoted entirely to the question of whether Kesser is a part of Ein Sof or not. There, a full paragraph stating this view is quoted from Sefer Hoemunos Shaar 4, chapter 1, which I do not find in this location in our printed editions. Pardes himself strongly negates this view.

Nefesh Hachaim(4:2, in a note) explains that when Pirke DR'Eliezer says, "before the world was created", it is talking solely about the World of Beriah (Creation). This takes the sting and the novelty out of this statement because it is now speaking about the middle of the process of Creation and not its beginning and the "Name" is also now a created entity and not co-eternal with G-d. This is a very reasonable approach, considering that PDRE goes on to speak about seven things (Torah, Gehenna, Garden of Eden, Divine Throne, Temple, Repentance and the Name of Maschiach) that were created before the world was created.

A very astute and interesting approach is offered by the Rebbe Rashab in Hemshech Reish Samech Vav, Vayelech Hashem, p.165.He points out that Kesser is also called Ain, or Nothing. There are many reasons why it is called so, which he does not explain. A common explanation which is often offered is that it is called Ain because to us it is ungraspable, therefore as far as we are concerned it can be said that it does not exist. We can understand or say nothing about it; R. Arye Kaplan explained(Commentary to Sefer Yetzirah) that this is why the color of Kesser is black (see Pardes Shaar Hagavvanim), for when we try to understand Kesser we see only blacknes, an utter absence of light. Its brightness is so great that we cannot see it at all.

The transition from Kesser to the next adjacent sefira, Chochma, is called 'yesh miayin", or, "something from nothing". So when PRDE speaks of the Name, that is Kesser, existing before the world is created, it means only that stage in the Creation of the World that we call, "something from nothing", the point of transition from Kesser to Chochma. This is also what those who hold that Kesser is a part of the Ain Sof mean. Ain Sof is "no end". If it referred the the Essence of G-d, it whould have called G-d, "No beginning", or perhaps, "No end, no Beginning", but it does not. It does not because by Ain Sof it refers to Kesser which we cannot understand and which to us has no end ( or as Sefer Hoemunos says somewhere, we can speak about it endlessly), but in the process of Creation it does have a beginning. This is why it is called Ain Sof rather than "Ain techillah".

Ari himself in Eitz Chaim Shaar 42 takes a compromise position that Kesser is in an intermediary position between Ain Sof and other sefiros,  containing properties of both infinity and finititude, but this is not our topic here.

We are now equipped to understand why mentioning the names of the sons of Yakov who are coming into Egypt is a term of endearment. There is nothing closer to the very being a person than his or her name. The name of each person is unique and essential. In Hebrew, unlike in Spanish and some other tongues ("The Donald" in English, nothwdstanding) one cannot apply "the" participle to a name. One cannot say, "the Moshe", because this Moshe is by definition different than any other Moshe in the world. Your name is so central to who you are that only G-d truly knows it. This is why there is nothing more precious than calling a person by his or her name, and this is why Hashem calling the sons of Yakov, each one by his name, is the most precious form of expressing love and endearment.

I plan to post more on how our names shape us.

The Reluctant Redeemer by Chaim Gershon

 

 

 Shemos 4:13 with Rashi's commentary.

 

But he said, "I beseech You, O Lord, send now [Your message] with whom You would send."		יג. וַיֹּאמֶר בִּי אֲדֹנָי שְׁלַח נָא בְּיַד תִּשְׁלָח:
with whom You would send: With whom You are accustomed to sending, and this is Aaron. Another explanation: With someone else, with whom You wish to send, for I am not destined to bring them into the land [of Israel] and to be their redeemer in the future. You have many messengers.		ביד תשלח: ביד מי שאתה רגיל לשלוח, והוא אהרן. דבר אחר ביד אחר שתרצה לשלוח, שאין סופי להכניסם לארץ ולהיות גואלם לעתיד, יש לך שלוחים הרבה:

 

Moshe is the reluctant redeemer who in this passuk strives to have HaShem send someone else. Whom!? Rashi brings two opinions: Aaron and Moshiach. See the Lubavitcher Rebbe's Likutei Sichos volume 31 and 11, especially the latter where the avodah of the gematria Moshe + Echad = Moshiach is elaborated upon. The simple meaning of the text leads one to conclude he is asking for his brother or for Moshiach to replace him in this role.

 

An alternative answer that is "proven" using allusions by gematrias, tzirufim and other textural mathematical operations is that Moshe wishes that Hashem send Pinchas/Eliyahu, who is, of course, associated with a penultimate stage in the geula (See Yalkut Reuveni,Targum Yonason, Pirke D'Rebbe Eliezer, also here. The Maharal (Netzach Yisrael ca. Perek 54) interestingly points out that all redeemers in Jewish history came as a pair of Aleph and Mem... Aaron and Moshe, Esther and Mordechai, Eliyahu and Moshiach.

 

An interesting candidate for the who Moshe wanted Hashem to send in his stead is.... Rebbe Akiva (see Midrash Pliah, the CHIDA's Haggadah, Imre Pinchas (of Koritz), Pardes Yosef, Mishkan Betzalel [Rudinsky]), also here , and comment brought here which can be supported by the many connections between Moshe and R. Akiva, as for example in Menachos 29  where Moshe wonders why the Torah was not given via Rebbe Akiva. 

 

Was Moshe just being humble or was he expressing a justified doubt about his qualifications for the role of the Redeemer? Was his speech impediment perhaps a physical expression of an imperfection, perhaps an inability to bridge physical and spiritual worlds? The Alter Rebbe (Torah Ohr 52b) discusses this in depth and concludes that Moshe wanted Hashem to choose someone who lived in both "worlds", deemed Tohu and Tikkun by the Arizal. Moshe, who lived wholley in Tohu, thought himself to be too transcendent to accomplish the task.

 

Yet another view is given by a contemporary commentary Likutei Mamarim Shvili Pinchas. He brings an elaborate expansion of a vort of the Chiddushei HaRim relating Moshe's apparently "stuttering" speech to his internal conflict on his position on the machlokes between Shammai and Hillel. Moshe being an acronym (roshei teivos) of "Moshe Shammai Hillel" contains the potential of both within himself. Moshe wanted the view of Shammai to prevail at that time so that al pi Arizal the final redemption would be realized ( since the views of Beis Shammai will be halacha after the Moschiach comes) and he did not want to settle just for the Exodus from Egypt which would be only a partail redemption, followed by four exiles.

Thus Moshe is asking HaShem to resolve his inner turmoil. However, HaShem tells Moshe that he is to go to redeem on His terms in accordance with the opinion of Hillel. Hashem's plan for Moshe was toactualize the views of Beis Hillel within Moshe.

 

We had seen that there are a number of candidates for who Moshe proposed as alternatives to himself. Oddly missing is Dovid. This candidate is mentioned in the collection of sources of Yalkut Moshiach and Geulah that בְּיַד in the verse is an abbreviation for (King) Dovid ben Yishai and that Moshe was requesting that David HaMelech should take his place and take the jews out of Egypt.

Further comments to follow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Diwan Halev

A very interesting fusion of sephardic and sufi spirituality. Warning: there are a few moments that some may consider borderline untzniusdig.

Eldering

Gentile souls

 “All of Israel have a portion in the World-to-Come[1]. "

When we consider the implications of this saying for non-Jews, three possibilities emerge:

1.All of Israel…but none of Gentiles.

2.All of Isreal, even the wicked… but among the Gentile is not so – only the righteous among Gentiles have the option in the World-to-Come.

3.All of Israel have it… even the wicked… but among the Gentiles all who are not wicked, even if they are not righteous but merely regular people, have a portion in the World-to-Come.

The possibility 3 is strengthened by the fact that the Mishna goes on to cite Bilaam, a Gentile, as one of four commoners who do not have a portion in the World-to-Come. The implication is that if he had not been so exceptionally wicked, he would not have lost it. Rambam in his commentary to this mishna brings out this implication[2].“ It mentions Bilaam who was not of Israel because chassidei umot haolam (the good of the nations) do have a portion in the Wolrd-to-Come, but Bilaam is of the wicked of the nations and he does not have a portion in the World-to-Come”. It appears clear that Rambam implies that it is Bilaam’s exceeding wickedness that led him to lose his portion of immortality[3], but other Gentiles, even of average moral stature, would be able to receive a portion in it.

One must ask, however, why wicked Jews should be treated differently than wicked non-Jews. Commentators offer different explanations. Tiferes Israel ad loc implies that Jews possess a soul that is a spark of the Divine and can only be tainted but not damaged by sin. Even wicked Jews possess a soul that survives common sins but even it can be overcome by exceptional sins. The wicked of the nations have a soul that is more easily degraded by transgression and  lose the ability to be a part of the ability to be a part of the World-to-Come. Although he does not state so explicitly, his position appears to be similar to that of Tanya and Zohar who state that at least neshama of a Jew is different in some fashion than that of a Gentile[4].  Similarly Maharal[4], describes  that Jews possess a soul that is more separate (nivdal) from the body than that of gentiles, and hence less susceptible to its influence.

Meiri[5], on the other hand, raises the issue of holding correct belief in earning immortality. He writes that every Jew, even the most wicked, shares and minimally accepts basic beliefs of Judaism. As such, he automatically has a portion in the World –to-Come, something that is not true of wicked Gentiles[6].It is evident that the national perspective, the mere fact of belonging the Jewish people underlies the position that all of Israel has a portion in the World-to-Come. It may be that it operates only for the wicked of Israel, but it operates nevertheless. Although election of Israel is never adduced to support this notion, other forms of belonging to the nation of Israel play an important part.  Jews all share the basic dogmas of Judaism but only some exceptional Gentiles do so.

We can conclude that both the righteous and “average” Jews and Gentiles earn immortality based on their deeds, or are “entitled” to some basic portion in the World-to-Come. The wicked Jews deserve a minimal portion through their belonging to Israel but the truly wicked of the nations have no such right.

 This fact arises from the proof verses that Talmud discusses on 105A.

All of Israel have a protion in the World-to-Come, as it says, “and you nation are all righteous, forever they will inherit the Earth, the sprouting of planting of My hands, to glorify Me (Isaiah 5)”.

“This statement follows the view of R. Yehoshua, as we learned: “R. Eliezer says: “The wicked will return to Sheol, all nations, who forgot God (Psalms 5). The wicked will return to Sheol” – these are the sinners of Israel. “All the nations, who forgot of God – these are the nations of the World”

R. Eliezer derives from Psalms 5 that all nations of the world, not only he wicked,  are destined for Sheol[7]. Talmud posits that he cannot be the author of the statement in the Mishna that only very wicked Gentiles, on the order of Bilaam, are destined to perdition[8].

Who is the author of that teaching. R. Yehoshus! R. Yeshoshua said to him:  Had it stated, “and all nations who forgot God” (I would agree with you”. But it states, “nations[9] who forgot G-d, “ – only those nations who forgot God.

R. Yehoshua expresses the view of the anonymous Mishna at the beginning of chapter Chelek that only those individual non-Jews who “forget God”, meaning those who are as wicked as Bilaam, lose a portion in the world to Come[10]. This is the normative view in Judaism[11].

Interestingly, among several etymologies that the Talmud offers on 105a the name Bilaam, is one that reads his name as, “b’lo am – without a nation”, which can be understood that Jew nor Jew nor Gentile, neither included in the nation of Israel so he could take advantage of the principle, “All of Israel have a portion in the World-to-Come”, nor is he automatically barred from such a portion by being of the nations “who forgot God”. The Talmud proceeds to relate that Bilaam slept with his female ass, underscoring his utter personal wickedness[12]. It is this utter wickedness that bars him from the World-to-Come. Here we have a different stand of thought than the one we had seen before. Whereas the Mishna speaks of the national “right” to the World-to-Come, this anonymous talmudic passage suggests that immortality depends solely on one’s deeds and implies no difference between the souls of Jews and Gentiles. It is this latter strand of thought that is expressed by Kuzari.

---

[1] As is well known, Rambam and Ramban have very different understandings of what this term means, the life of souls after the death of an individual or bodily Resurrection. Because of the complexity of this topic, although it impacts upon out topic in several ways, I will not discuss it farther. There are many works that discuss this disagreement, among them, Neil Gilman’s, The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought, Jewish Lights Publishing; 1ST edition (May 1997) and Simcha Paull Raphael, Jewish Views of the Afterlife, Jason Aronson (April 28, 1994). I would just point out that if the World to Come means bodily Resurrection, non-Jews are certainly a part of that time.

While Tanach does not generally discuss life after death, for Jews or for Gentiles,  Rabbinic tradition teaches that a number of verses explicitly refer to the survival of the individual after death. Of relevance to our topic, there are many verses that indicate that the Messiah will usher in a time of universal recognition of One G-d, in which non-Jews will also share. Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9) and Moshiach will attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10) . Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8) and the nations will recognize the wrongs they did Israel (Isaiah 52:13–53:5). The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah8:23) and the entire world will learn to serve God together (Zephaniah 3:9). There are many other verses, among them in Jeremiah 12, that suggest that the nations  of the world will both exist and have a place in the post-messianic world order.

---

[1] For a discussion, see Simcha Paull Raphael, The Jewish View of the Afterlife, Jason Aronson (April 28, 1994)

[2] Rashi says: “Bilaam and those who are like him (shekamoto). It is now appreciated that the original test of Rashi said, “Bilaam and Yeshu”, but it was changed by the censors.

[3] This interpretation is supported by passages in Rambam’s other writings.

[4] Tanya 2. Such a simplistic reading of Tiferes Israel leaves many questions. It contradicts his own famous comments in chapter 4 of the Chapters of the Fathers, in which he maintains that non-Jews as well as Jews were created in the image of God and possess the image of God. IF so, their souls are also of the same kind. It must be remembered that we deal here in Kabbalistic matters, to understand which, one requires specialized expertise. Suffices to say that according to R. Yitzhal Luria as reported in the first several chapters of Shaar Hagilgulim, very few Jews possess a neshama in any particular incarnation, the majority able to gain only a nefesh, and some, ruach – very few possess a  neshama. Thus, neshama in these sources is not what we colloquially term “soul”. There are also the comments of  R. Hillel MiParitch (Siddur Im D'ach, Shaar Chag HaMatzot; Lekutei Biurim ) cited in Lessons in Tanya (Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, NY), Ch. 1, fn.33, who explains that having a soul means caring about others unselfishly: “It should be noted that among the nations of the world there are also to be found those whose souls are derived from kelipat nogah. Called “the pious ones of the nations of the world,” these righteous individuals are benevolent not out of selfish motives but out of a genuine concern for their fellow.”  This ultimately goes to the role of neshama as a conduit of Divine Light to others and that it can only play this role when, in Imitatio Dei, it does so with no personal interest whatsoever, see Mahari Ashlag’s introduction to Zohar. Immortality depends on the soul, that is the person as a conduit to pass Hashem's light onto others.

One may counter the the nations do a great deal of chessed- just look at the modern Welfare State. However, it is not personal - it is a social contract. It does not pass on the Divine light; it merely keeps peace.

"Kindness of nations is sin" (Proverbs 14:3 as explained in Bava Basra 10b). "The nations of the world do chesed but it is chesed leumim. It is the chesed of society, instituionalized by the social structure of the nations. It does not emanate from kindness and consideration of one individual for another. This is why it is designated as transgression"(R. Chaim Zimmerman, Torah and Reason, p.156).

[5] Chidushei Hameiri, Sanhedrin, beginning of Chelek. His comments are consistent with the teaching that denies the portion in the World-to-Come to minim (heretics) and apikorsim.

[6] This view is similar to the Maimonidean perspective which predicates immortality on achieving the union with Active intelect through knowledge, especially theological knowledge. Although this view is ascribed to Rambam, he never specifically enunciates it in the Guide. However, his sources, especially in Alfarrabi do, and Rambam follows a very similar approach in his discussion of Prophecy.

[7] The exact meaning of Sheol is not our concern here. It suffices to say that in rabbinic sources it is usually, but not universally, identical with Gehenna.

[8] As can be expected this passage suffered interferences by censors. The version I quote is the one found in early manuscripts (Schottentstein Talmud, ad. loc.)

[9] The word for nations used in this verse is “Goyim”. R. Eliezer may understand the word as “non-Jews”, not “nations”, As Max Kapustin pointed out in the introduction to his translation of Mekhilta, it is one of many key-theological terms that has shifted its meaning from the generic “nations” to an appellation for an individual Gentile, without, however, severing its connection to the original Biblical meaning.

[10] In Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:1, R. Yehoshua appears to restrict immortality only to the righteous Gentiles; however, there are so many variants of this Tosefta passage that it is difficult to determine what its original intent may have been.

[11] As codified by Maimonides and t be discussed shortly.

[12] Commentaries to Ein Yakov to Sanhedrin 105a

R. Yehuda Halevy comes to discussing whether non-Jews have a portion in the World-to-Come by the way of explaining why the Torah does not promise or stress eternal rewards and punishment like Christianity and Islam[1]. In I:109 he argues that and adherent of Torah, gains an ability to be close to G-d while still in this world. This is in essence not different from what happens after death though it may be different in degree.

We might expect that Kuzari’s view on the difference between Jewish and Gentile would lead him to a position that excludes Gentiles from the World-to-Come but this is not the case. Kuzari in a number of places, among them in 1:103 expresses his position clearly[2]:

“Thou hast, apparently, forgotten what we said previously concerning the genealogy of Adam's progeny, and how the spirit of divine prophecy rested on one person, who was chosen from his brethren, and the essence of his father. It was he in whom this divine light was concentrated. He was the kernel, whilst the others were as shells which had no share in it. The sons of Jacob were, however, distinguished from other people by godly qualities, which made them, so to speak, an angelic caste. Each of them, being permeated by the divine essence, endeavoured to attain the degree of prophecy, and most of them succeeded in so doing. Those who were not successful strove to approach it by means of pious acts, sanctity, purity, and intercourse with prophets. Know that he who converses with a prophet experiences spiritualization during the time he listens to his oration. He differs from his own kind in the purity of soul, in a yearning for the [higher] degrees and attachment to the qualities of meekness and purity. This was a manifest proof to them, and a clear and convincing sign of reward hereafter. For the only result to be expected from this is that the human soul becomes divine, being detached from material senses, joining the highest world, and enjoying the vision of the divine light, and hearing the divine speech. Such a soul is safe from death, even after its physical organs have perished[3].”

One might expect that this would lead Kuzari to deny immortality to Gentiles but he does not (I:113):

“We do not deny that the good actions of any man, to whichever people he may belong, will be rewarded by God. But the priority belongs to people who are near God during their life, and we estimate the rank they occupy near God after death accordingly.”

Kuzari appears to consider immortality to be a matter of reward and punishment as well as a natural outcome of the elevation of one’s soul through correct opinions and proper conduct. Although Jews have an advantage in the latter because they lead more godly lives, they as well as Gentiles are rewarded and punished for their conduct in this world. We focused here on the nature of Gentile soul, not on the broader subject of Immortality for Gentiles, which is a different and more complex topic, with a broader area of disagreement and consensus.

---

[1] This question was an important one and is discussed by many commentators and writers, such as, Sefer HaIkkarim 39,4, Akedat Yithak, Behukota, Abarvanel to Behukotai 26. Rambam discusses this in the Commentary to Chelek and Hilkhot Teshuvah 9,1

[2] All quotations from The Kuzari: An argument for the faith of Israel, tr, Hartwig Hirschfeld

[3] The same solution is offered in Akedat Yitzhak Shaar 70

[4] AP Kleinberger, ha-Mahashavah ha-Pedagogit shel ha-Maharal mi-Prague (The Pedagogical Thought Of the Maharal of Prague), pp. 37-42, Jerusalem, 5723

 

 

Important finding provides proof Bible written much earlier than scholars believe

A piece of pottery is providing a new insight.

Finding such an early example of Hebrew makes it possible the Bible could have been written several centuries before the current estimates.

"The inscription is similar in its content to biblical scriptures, but it is clear that it is not copied from any biblical text.

The inscription itself, which was written in ink on a 15 cm X 16.5 cm trapezoid pottery shard, was discovered a year and a half ago at excavations that were carried out by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel at Khirbet Qeiyafa near the Elah valley. "This text is a social statement, relating to slaves, widows and orphans. It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah ("did") and avad ("worked"), which were rarely used in other regional languages. Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah ("widow") are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages," Prof. Galil explained.

The deciphered text:

1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].

2' Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]

3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]

4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.

5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

 The find demonstrates that Biblical Hebrew was spoken and writen in in David's time,and dealing with the same issues that the Bible deals in, and in the same style and language.

 More importantly it undercuts the argument that Tanach must have all be written around the same time because the language of the different books that cover over a thousand year period, is so similar. We now have the inscription of Chizkia's tunnel, the silver scroll with the birkat cohanim written at the end of the First Temple Period and this new inscription - all in the same style of pure Biblical Hebrew. To me it shows the existence of diglossia - the official language of the court and the elite and the colloquial language of the common folk. The former tends to be preserved, especially when there is a "Holy Book", much in the same way that the Korah preserved the Standard Arabic for the past 1400 years. This fact can be extrapolated from the quotations within the Tanach text that serve to categorize the speaker, when that speaker is deliberately shown to speak the common dialect and the folk language. Recongizing the change from the "high" to "low" dialects is an important interpretative technique.

Here is an abridged quote from the book, Dawn of Redemption", that illustrates how this works:" The book of Yonah is full of unusual expressions and words. Many of them are more typical of later Mishnaic rather than pure Biblical Hebrew and others appear to be imported from Arameic, a related and widely spoken language at that time, the lingua franca of the ancient world. A list of 15 of these can be found in the introduction to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) translation of Yonah and three of them are found in our verse.

1. How come you slumber. In classical Hebrew this would be phrased as "ma lkha ki nirdamta". The form "ma lkah nirdam", without preposition and the present participle, is found only in Ezekiel 18:22 and is typical of Mishnaic Hebrew.

2. Give us thought - an Arameic form of the word as found in the Arameic portion of Daniel 6:4. It is not the Hebrew form of Pslams 40:18.

3. Captain - Rav Hachovel. The usage is extremely peculiar. If the chief of rope pullers is intended, as most commentators suggest, the term should be Gadol Hachovlim. Rashi in Ezekiel 27:8 suggests that this is the term used for the fellow who commands the wheel at the stern and directs the ship. Still, the word Rav is widely used in the Mishna to mean great but it is never used that way in Tanakh, where it always means numerous (See Vilna Gaon's commentary to Proverbs 3:3); this example seems to have been missed by the JPS translation).

The reader therefore is faced with a two-fold problem. First, we much account for the general tendency of the book to use unusual words or expressions. Secondly, we must determine whether we must approach these linguistic peculiarities as examples of general tendency or as specific and intentional clues to the author's intention in that particular case.

There are three approaches to these questions that are consistent with Torah and Tradition.

1. Although the language of the Bible is remarkably preserved along a range of Biblical compositions spanning almost a thousand years, it is possible that a certain process of language development was taking place. Ultimately it evolved into the language that is familiar to us from the Mishna. Yonah being a late work from the end of the First Temple period reveals the beginning of this process of change; similar deviations are regularly found in other late works - Ezekiel, Esther, Ezra/ Nehemiah, Daniel and Chronicles. If so, we should not ascribe too much significance to deviation form "pure" Biblical patterns. Were we to do so, we might over-interpret and end up with meanings that the author never intended.

2. Yonah is written in the so-called Northern dialect (see G. A. Rendsburg, Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew, in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. W. R. Bodine, Eisenbrauns, In., 1992). It has long been proposed, primarily to explain stylistic and linguistic peculiarities of the Song of Devorah, a Northern prophetess (Judges 5), that the language of the Northern tribes differed somewhat from the reigning dialect of Judea. The linguistic maps of the ancient Middle East show multiple overlapping language belts stretching from the Summerian in the far North-East to Amharic in Ethiopia. The middle of the map is dominated by Arameic as it slowly transitions into Hebrew. There are indications from the Tanach itself (see Judges 12:5-6) to the existence of this putative Northern dialect. In this view, we also should also not ascribe too much significance to linguistic deviations in the book of Yonah, a prophet from the North.

3. As in our English, there may have been a distinction between literary and colloquial language, often termed di-glossia. It is reasonable to suppose that both co-existed during the Biblical period. Professor Steven (not Saul) Lieberman suggested that the elite spoke and wrote Biblical language while the common-folk spoke a variety of Mishnaic Hebrew (Response, Jewish Languages, 1978, 21-8). The discovery of the pure Biblical inscription in the Siloam aqueduct constructed at the time of Hezekiah appears to argue against this theory (See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jspartid=713&letter=S&search=aqueduc t). However, if true, use of colloquial expressions within the literary matrix would be intentional and must be noted and interpreted.  We will adopt this approach here.

What could the use of colloquiallisms and Arameisms signify in this verse? It could, of course, serve to characterize the Gentile captain as speaking a foreign language (saying to us that even a non-Jew recognized that the storm came from God while Yonah continued to resist Him) or to call attention to Yonah's Northern origins at this critical juncture...etc "