avakesh

Yeshaiahu Liebowitz:

A new book on the controversial thinker, Yeshaahu Liebowitz, see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=902399

Abridged from Wiki, for those unfamiliar witht his unique individual:

Yeshayahu Leibowitz was born in Riga in 1903. In 1919 he studied chemistry and philosophy at the University of Berlin. After completing his doctorate in 1924, he went on to study biochemistry and medicine, receiving an MD in 1934 from the University of Basel. He immigrated to Mandatory Palestine in 1935 and settled in Jerusalem, joining the faculty of Hebrew University the following year. He became a professor of biochemistry in 1941 and was promoted to the position of senior professor of organic chemistry and neurology in 1952. After retiring in 1970, he continued to teach philosophy and the history of science.

Leibowitz's younger sister, Nechama Leibowitz, was a world famous Bible scholar. His son, Elia, was chairman of the astrophysics department at Tel Aviv University and the longest-serving director of the Wise Observatory.^[1] The conductor and composer René Leibowitz was Leibowitz's cousin.

An Orthodox Jew, Leibowitz was known primarily for his philosophical writings and scathing critique of Israeli values and national policy. His remarks shortly after the Lebanon War in 1982 accusing Israeli soldiers of "Judeo-Nazi" mentality provoked a public outcry. While such remarks led some to conclude that he was an anti-Zionist, [1] Leibowitz repeatedly affirmed his belief in the validity of the Zionist endeavor, both in writing and in conversation, throughout his life.

Leibowitz also held controversial views on the subject of Jewish Law. He wrote that the only purpose for performing religious commandments was to obey God. He disagreed with the view that Halakhah should be followed either for reward in the world to come or for any benefit in this world. He maintainted that the reasons for religious commandments were beyond man's understanding as well as irrelevant, and any attempt to attribute emotional significance to the performance of mitzvot was misguided and akin to idolatry.

In 1993, he was nominated for the Israel Prize. Before the award ceremony, Leibowitz was invited to speak to the Israel Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, where his controversial remarks calling upon Israeli soldiers to refuse orders triggered ourage. The jury convened to discuss the possibility of withdrawing the prize, but Leibowitz himself announced that he would refuse to accept it, because he did not want to create antagonism when receiving the prize. ^[2]

Comment: I have read some of his writings, primarily on Rambam. While interesting, what is striking is his distance from the conceptual world of Talmudic scholarship. I do not mean that he did not choose to work in its conceptual categories, which, after all are not well suited for many areas of traditional Jewish scholarships, but his utter disregard of them. He not only ignored the Talmud but also classic Jewish writings of evey kind, as if they did not exist, as if they had nothing to say on the topics with which he dealt. His thinking was simply not informed by religious literature. This marginalizes his ideas in my view. One may choose to strike a different path or approach issues in a different way than classic Judaism, but not to be aware, or willfully refuse to be informed by the bedrock of Jewish thought - this I cannot accept. This feature of Prof. Leibowitz' thought makes him, in my eyes, another secular intellectual, albeit in this case in a religious garb, and as such, not authoritative, at least for me,  as a thought leader.

Disclaimer: I had never met him althoughI did learn a great deal from Prof. Leibowtiz' sister

Of early and late…sources.

A believing Jew who has grown up inside the walls of Beis Hamedrash imbibes almost with his mother's milk the concept that Torah is all one. There are no strata or historical layers within it; the idea that later Talmudic sources do nothing more than reveal to us the intent of the earlier sources is axiomatic to the traditional method of study. It comes as a great surprise to such a student to find out that academic study of Talmud is predicated on the concept that later sources interpret rather than explain the earlier ones. Proponents of this idea claim that Amoraim did not always understand Tanniam correctly, and that they, contemporary scholars, are wiser than the carriers of tradition and superior to Amoraim in application of newly discovered knowledge to the process of interpretation. Academic study of Talmud takes apart the sugya to unearth its historic levels and to restore the "true" original meaning of its earliest element, the Tannaitic passages. The assumption is that the Tannaim were not always aware of a problem or difficulty in their own words and that Amoraim were forced to interpret them because they, for their part, did notice that difficulty.

Every once in a while a passage presents itself that belies such claims. The passage we will now read possesses a difficulty so obvious and clear that it must have been apparent to its authors. It is hard to believe that these consummate scholars of Scripture were not aware of obvious facts about it. Using the very same historical method, we will demonstrate that a late Amoraic source did nothing more than report the original intent of the Tannaitic passage known to us from a parallel source, one of which teh Amora apparently was nto aware

. We will see that the late source and an early source both report an ancient solution to the problem, a solution that preceded them both.

The first Sifri in this week's Parsha says:

And this is the blessing…

Since Moshe told them harsh words in the beginning…, he said to them words of comfort at the end. From him learned all the prophets. They would speak to Israel harsh words at first and then came back to say to them words of consolation. No other prophet said harsher things than Hoshea. First he told them: "Give them G-d, what shall you give them? Wombs that miscarry and breasts that dry up (Ch.9)." At the end he said:" let his shoots go forth and his splendor will be like an olive tree… Those who will return shall sit in His shade, they will sustain themselves with grain and blossom like a vine. I will heal them…(Ch. 14)."

So also Yoel said "..the remainder from locust the grasshopper shall consume …(Ch.1)." He came back with words of consolation: "I will compensate you for all the years that the locust consumed…(Ch.2)".

So also Amos said: "Hear these words fat cows of Bashan which are in the mountain of Shomron, which oppress the poor and crush the indigent (Ch.4). He came back and said: "Who is like you, G-d, carries sin and passes over transgression for the remainder of His inheritance…(Ch. 7)".

Yirmiah likewise said " I will remove from the cities of Yehuda and streets of Yirushalaim the voice of joy and voice of happiness, the voice of groom and voice of  bride, for the land will be for desolation(Ch. 7)." He came back and said: "Then the bride will rejoice in a circle-dance and young men and old men together (Ch. 32)".

The midrash goes on to point out that in prophecies of destruction for the nations of the world, such as the ending of Yirmiahu "so will Babyon sink…", the prophets behave in an opposite manner - comfort first, words of destruction later. 

The obvious difficulty, and one that no one, much less the Tannaim, could have overlooked is that, in fact, we have several examples where the prophets do end their books with harsh words[1].

Yerushalmi Brochos 5:1 expounds a beraisa that makes the same point as the Sifri, but is phrased differently. In its discussion, the Yerushalmi asks this question.

We find that the early prophets signed off their words with praise and with words of consolation[2]. R. Eliezer said: Except for Yirmiahu who ended his words with rebukes and said "so will Babylon sink." (But no,) there, Yirmiahu ended not with the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash but the fall of those who destroyed it.

So far, the Yerushalmi offered the same answer as the Sifri, but not in the same words. It appears not to have been aware of the passage in the Sifri, or it would have quoted it, but rather shares with us a common pre-existent tradition. It now continues with the same question about other passages in prophetic works. It seems certain that the author of the Sifri must have taken note of these passages also. Unfortunately his answer is not recorded in the Sifri.  It was, however, recorded by the Yerushalmi. 

And in other places did they not end with rebukes? What about "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have rebelled against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh (Ishaia, 66:24). There we are speaking of idol worshippers. What about " Thou canst not have utterly rejected us, and be exceeding wroth against us!  (Lamentations 4:22)[3]. There it ends with "Return us Hashem and we will return, renew our days as before (ibid. 4:21).[4]"

Here we find a Tannaitic statement that possesses a problem so obvious and clear that it could not possibly have been overlooked by the tanna-author himself. An answer must have been either recorded in the original version or passed along orally. A "late" passage in Yerushalmi offers an explanation that is identical with the one offered by an earlier parallel tannaitic source apparently unknown to it, the Sifri, illustrating that Amoraic statements serve to reveal or clarify the original intent of the Tanna, rather than serving as a de-novo interpretation.

We find here traces of an original proto-passage that is reflected in three versions. The longest is found in the Sifri, with its specific formulation and choice of words. A different version and in different words, is found in the Yerushalmi. The shortest excerpt, merely a sentence, in found in Bavli, Brochos 31a. There must have been an earlier version on which all three have drawn.

The Yersuhalmi passage is thus not a creative attempt to interpret a difficult passage but a re-telling of a much older source that was common to all three versions. The answer to the obvious problem must have been given already in the earliest source but did not come down to us in a preserved Tannaitic work. It is only the Yerushalmi, a fairly late source, which presents us with the original answer of the Tannaim.   

---

[1] See what we have written about a rule backed up by a list that intentionally passes in silence over an obvious exception to the rule.

[2] This one sentence also appears as a part of a longer beraisa in Brochos 31a.

[3] There are two other exceptions, the last verse of Koheles and of the Thirteen Prophets. See Mareh Panim bid who discusses it and Tos. Brochos 31a.

[4] As Pnei Moshe explains it, the Yerushalmi appears to hold that "hashiveinu" should be the last verse of Lamentations. I consulted several other commentaries to Yerushalmi and they all offer this answer. This is, of course, not how we have it. We do not re-arrange our versions of Tanach. Instead, our custom is to repeat this verse when we read it in public; we do the same in public reading of Ishaia and Koheles. See Torah Temima to the last verse of Lamentations who offers a somewhat forced explanation of the Yerushalmi that is consistent with our custom.

The Almighty Planter

The Almighty Planter

Yonah - 4:6

We will soon read the Haftarah for Mincha of Yom Kippur and we will encounter therein Yona's plant. As we struggle to understand the significance and meaning of the ricinus plant's miraculous growth and collapse, we must stop for a moment to consider why its meaning and significance are so elusive, so hard for us to grasp. There are some images and metaphors in Tanach that directly speak to us and others that remain tantalizingly vague and incomplete no matter how hard we try. The problem may be cultural, our remoteness from the time, place and language in which the Bible was written, or our unfortunate distance from the world of prophecy and Holy Inspiration which, informed or dictated its contents. When faced with such a difficulty, we often have to turn to parallel passages simply in order to understand.

The perception in Tanach of God as Planter relates to three subjects - individuals, nations, and

Israel

.

1.God's providence and patronage of individual is often expressed by Biblical writers in terms of planting a sapling or watering, pruning or uprooting a tree.

And he shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, that brings forth its fruit in its season, and whose leaf does not wither; and in whatsoever he does he shall prosper (Psalms 1,3).

For man is like the tree of the field (Deuteronomy 20:19)

Blessed is the man that trusts in HaShem, and whose trust HaShem is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreads out its roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but its foliage shall be luxuriant; and shall not be anxious in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit (Jeremiah 17, 7-8).

2.God plants and uproots peoples. The rise and fall of nations is in His hand and according to his will. This idea is repeatedly invoked by prophets, among them, 8 times by Jeremiah. Here is one example.

Then HaShem put forth His hand, and touched my mouth; and HaShem said unto me: Behold, I have put My words in thy mouth; See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and to overthrow; to build, and to plant (Jeremiah 1, 9- 10).

3.Finally, the House of Israel, God's special inheritance, "the stock which Your right hand has planted, and the branch that You made strong for Yourself (Psalms 80, 16)".

Then the nations that are left round about you shall know that I HaShem have builded the ruined places, and planted that which was desolate; I HaShem have spoken it, and I will do it (Ezekiel 36,36).

And I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place, and be disquieted no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as at the first (Samuel II 7,10).

Isaiah has an entire chapter on this. Let me sing of my well-beloved, a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard in a very fruitful hill; And he dug it, and cleared it of stones, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also hewed out a vat therein; and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of

Jerusalem

and men of

Judah

, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? And now come, I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; I will break down the fence thereof, and it shall be trodden down; And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned nor hoed, but there shall come up briers and thorns; I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. For the vineyard of HaShem of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah the plant of His delight; and He looked for justice, but behold violence; for righteousness, but behold a cry (Isaiah 5, 1-7).

The metaphor of Divine Planter is somewhat foreign to our way of relating to God, thinking of Him, as we generally do in many different ways but not usually as a Planter. It must have, however, been a widespread and basic image that would be easily and immediately grasped by readers at early times.

Is the ricinus plant supposed to remind Yonah Who planted him and who takes care of him? Does it represent Nineveh, the great nation, "the rod of Mine anger, in whose hand as a staff is Mine indignation (Isaiah 9,5)", that G- d raised up for a special purpose but whose time of destruction will imminently also come? Could it's shadow in some way refer to His plan for his people

Israel

, "of whom we said: 'Under his shadow we shall live among the nations (Lamentations 4,20)?".

Perhaps any one of them, perhaps all of them. One thing is certain, the ricin plant serves not just to introduce an opening for Hashem's rebuke but is in itself a bearer of an important message about God's providence and about who is it that plants, waters and lovingly maintains individuals and nations.

Kol Nidrei

by Yoram Raanan, copyright held by the artist

Sin versus "path of evil"

The repentance of

Nineveh

certainly was a tortured and complicated affair. The understanding that it was partial, faulty and incomplete come from the general image of Nineveh in the Scripture, multiple textual clues and the sense that a distant and foreign nation could not access the profound and complex vision of repentance that Israelite prophets taught. At best, it would repent as nations do, by negating and isolating the past, rather than redeeming and transmuting it to build a magnificent new structure on pre-existent foundations. This view is well founded and rests on strong textual and theological evidence. There is, however, one very important clue that paints a different picture and suggests that

Nineveh

's return in truth was of highest quality. This clue is the description of

Nineveh

's repentance as "turning away man from his evil path". To understand that we must consider what turning away from a path of evil  means.

It is interesting that the Scripture seems to present two different ways to repent. At times repentance is described as consisting primarily of confession and regret. These two basic elements are overlaid with many others, such as praying, restitution, crying, shame, fast and sackcloth, but the essence of repentance remains simply these two elements. On other occasions, however, the penitent leaves behind his path and this represents the main element of repentance with other constituents seemingly secondary and less important. The classic medieval work on repentance, Shaarei Teshuva (1,13) of R. Yonah from

Gerona

explains that there are two different kinds of repentance. The passage is too lengthy to reproduce here and I will paraphrase without its magnificent Scriptural references.

R. Yonah points out that there are two kinds of repentance. Sometimes, a basically good and decent individual may be overcome by a sudden desire, in a situation of vulnerability and at a time that he or she is simply not prepared to contend with the unexpected attack of the evil impulse. The way back for this person is relatively uncomplicated. He or she must acknowledge the slip up, confess the sin and then direct all their being to inner, spiritual growth - to become a greater and higher kind of being, one who could no longer be caught unaware, one who will never again be tempted in the same fashion.

The way back is different for a person who had sunk in sin these many years, whose inner being and personality are intrinsically bound with evil. A person whose very inner culture is avarice, envy, lack of compassion, and inner toughness does not have the luxury of acknowledgment and then confession. He must first completely and in one moment leave the path of sin. The rest of the work must come later. If he does not do so, to what may it be compared? To a man who immerses in a bath of purifications while clasping a dead rodent. A dead animal of this kind renders anyone who touches it unclean. It does one no good to seek refuge in the waters of purifications while holding on tightly to a source of impurity. Instead, it must be tossed away first and only then can purification take effect. No question, such a penitent still had to travel a long road. However, it must start with leaving the sinful way completely and irreversibly behind. He first picks up speed and then gains distance.

There are then two types of repentance, one for occasional lapses and the other for a way of being that is completely wrapped up with evil. Correspondingly, one requires focus on the lapse and the other complete abandomenment of the way of evil - a total, immediate and radical renounciation of the past.

Happy New Year

An old wish: May you have a good and sweet new year!

Why sweet and good?

Because some good things that Hashem sends appear to be not sweet but bitter, yet utlimately they are also good.

It is related that when the Maggid of Mezeritch was 5 years old, the Baal Shem Tov passed through his town. He gave the little boy a sip of his beer and asked him how it tasted. The child made a face but said: "It is bitter and good".  "You will someday be a great leader in Israel", responded the Besht.

We ask, though, that the Almighty grant us a year which is good but also sweet!

Leshana Tova U Msukah!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8727875983023497869

Gershwin's Jewish Roots

"According to several Gershwin scholars, Gershwin was influenced by the Yiddish Theater and other popular Jewish music. An example of this is the famous tune ‘S Wonderful. It shows many similarities to Goldfaden’s Jewish tune, “Noach’s Teive”. Both songs have almost exact copies of the same tune, and partly even the same notes. Another of Gershwin’s songs that has resemblance to Yiddish music was “My One and Only” from the 1927 show of Funny Face. “Seventeen and Twenty-One” from Strike Up The Band has a similar melody to “Der Pach Tanz” and “Schuster and Schneider Tanz”.

There were other influences from Jewish music on his work. It has been pointed out that Gershwin’s tunes are almost all melody, a characteristic of a lot of religious and secular Jewish music. Moreover, many of his songs are written -- like much Jewish music-- in a minor key. For example, Gershwin’s title song from the show Funny Face is based on a minor third, which is interval of music containing a total of three half steps. Another example of Gershwin’s use of the minor third is the song “In the Mandarin’s Orchid Garden”, used in the early version of the 1929 play Show Girl. Some of George Gershwin’s songs even resemble Biblical prayer chants. An example of this is “It Ain’t Necessarily So” from Porgy and Bess. This song is similar to the prayer that you chant after you read the Torah at your bar/bat mitzvah and at every Sabbath. Since there is enough evidence, I believe that Gershwin’s being Jewish affected his music. "
from http://www.ilperetz.org/graduates/adam_benaroya.htm

Hadran Alach Gittin

Last Mishnah in Gittin says":

BETH SHAMMAI SAY: A MAN SHOULD NOT DIVORCE HIS WIFE UNLESS HE HAS FOUND HER GUILTY OF SOME UNSEEMLY CONDUCT, AS IT SAYS, BECAUSE HE HATH FOUND SOME UNSEEMLY THING  IN HER.

BETH HILLEL, HOWEVER, SAY [THAT HE MAY DIVORCE HER] EVEN IF SHE HAS MERELY SPOILT HIS FOOD,  SINCE IT SAYS,  BECAUSE HE HATH FOUND SOME UNSEEMLY THING IN HER.

  R. AKIBA SAYS, [HE MAY DIVORCE HER] EVEN IF HE FINDS ANOTHER WOMAN NICER THAN SHE IS, AS IT SAYS, IT COMETH TO PASS, IF SHE FIND NO FAVOUR IN HIS EYES.

This disagreement  between  the Houses of Shammai and Hillel is one of the most influential Talmudic disputes in human history for, through its Christian interpretation it has shaped divorce law in the Western World  for millenia. Michael J. Broyde points put that divorce law must of necessity seesaw between two alternatives: 1. Making divorce more difficult so as to disincentivize divorce and protect family structure, or, 2.Make it easier which weakens stability of the family but also decreases human misery inherent in an unhappy marriage. The closer we move to no fault divorce, the more children will grow up in single parent households, in poverty , with a lack of family structure. When divorce is made difficult, many couples are forced to work out their differences and some succeed; others fail. On the other hand, allowing divorce solely for marital infidelity brings with it staged adulteries (as per Anna Karenina), human misery and many unhappy, slowly degrading relationships. The dispute between the Houses of Shammai and Hillel can be understood to hinge on this dichotomy. Jewish Law attempts to discourage divorce, hence the modern variation on the aguna problem, but ultimately allows it for determined individuals.

See http://www.ktav.com/product_info.php?products_id=1810ne

Much has been written about this. However, I would like to share with you an interpretation that teaches us about life of the spirit.

The Lubavitcher Rebber, Menachem Mendel Shneerson A"H (brought in Gutnick Chumash, parshas Vayetse) sees this mishna as teaching us  how one must relate to one's spiritual vocation, what he call "shlichus". To clarify, it  is not uncommon for a sincere seeker to feel that the path which hitherto has given him so much, no longer "fits", no longer brings growth, and that a different path would prove more beneficial. How easily should one exchange the previous way for the new path? In this, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree. Beis Shammai feels that one must honor commitments. One must not abandon the path that previously brought great benefit; rather one must labor at it with all sincerity and it will then again begin to yield fruit. Only the realization that it has been unfaithful, that it has betrayed you rather than you - it, justifies a break. Loyalty extends no less to the life of spirit than to human relationships. Beis Hillel, on the other hand, believe that if it no longer feeds the soul ( spoils his food), a change to another path is also justified.

We must realize that "quitting", running away, refusal to persist, to tenaciously continue trying, has its price. So often do we see individuals who run away from challenges, whose entire life is flight. If a job doesn't work out, they change jobs. If a community does not welcome them, they move. If a relationship is challenging, it is abandoned. Escape becomes a way of life. IWhen has it become so? With the first decision to withdraw rather than stay and fight, with the repeated choices to go away, to escape, to try again where it's easier.

I remember a classmate who came to R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik A'H because he wanted to leave medical school in order to pursue learning. To his surprise, the Rov did not support this decision. "I do not like quitters", is what he said to this fellow.

So, Beis Shammai say that one must stay no matter what, unless it is the the "way" that betrayed and not vice versa. Beis Hillel allow changing one's derech even is it no longer feeds the soul. R. Akiva allows changing over to another path even if one is still succeeding on his current path, as long is the new path is more promising, "nicer" than the current one.

This interpretation of R. Akiva is supported by a passage in Shabbos 20b, where Tannaim disagree regarding, "Who is rich?". R. Akiva says: "One who has a wife who is nice in her actions". This indicates that what R. Akiva means in our mishna is not outside physical beauty, but inner beauty, refinement and tsidkus of a woman (I saw this at the end of Simcha Raz', Tsaddik in our time, in the name of R. Arye Levin".

There is another approach that might be suggested to explain the disagreement between Beis Shammia and Beis Hillel - that of whether sufficient ground for divorce is adultery of infidelity. This is an important distinction that we will, please God, develop at another time.

For a hateful put away:  R. Judah said: [This means that] if you hate her you should put her away. R. Johanan says: It means, He that sends his wife away is hated. There is really no conflict between the two, since the one speaks of the first marriage and the other of the second, as R. Eleazar said: If a man divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears, as it says, And this further ye do, ye cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and with sighing, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, neither receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, though she is thy companion and the wife of thy covenant

Hadran Alach Masesekhes Gittin V'hadrach Alan...

Tashlich

by Zalman Kleinman

There is no greater light than hope...

Some nights, in the middle of the night, there,

A window opens to despair,

In vain the senses strive to find,

Faint luminescence in the air.

*

The window blows a cooling breeze,

In it shapes form and disappear.

*

They float and flow above my head, 

reminding me of what I had,

And have no more, forever gone

Perhaps some day it might return.

*

Awakening is hard  to do

The dawn comes in, insists, intrudes.

*

Awakening is hard to do,

Let go of old, hold on to new,

Throw the shades open to the light,

Welcome the day, and flee, the night.

*veritas