avakesh

Tsimtsum: The view of the Vilna Gaon, R. Dessler and Lubavitch

Download tsimtsum_ii.mp3

One hundred thousand hits

Thank you, dear readers. We have now passed the One Hundred Thousand hits since starting about a year and 9 months ago.

Thank you for reading and for the chizuk.

Of Compromises

A Different Drum: How a Modern Orthodox 23-year-old Danced Her Way Into a Unique Spotlight
Dance

By Rukhl Schaechter
Forward Thu. Jul 17, 2008

One of this year’s arts fellows at Drisha, a Torah study center for women that is located on New York’s City’s Upper West Side, is a 23-year-old Barnard College graduate named Anna Schon. As a product of the Modern Orthodox day schools, she blends into the student body easily.

But when she is not studying the Prophets or the talmudic laws about transactions in the tractate Bava Kama, Schon leads a very different kind of life. She is an active member of four New York dance companies — an unusual profession for an observant Jew, since many performances take place on the Sabbath, and since, according to the laws of tsniut (modesty), dancing with or performing before unrelated members of the opposite sex is not permitted.

Although Schon struggles with these competing impulses — her passion for dance and her commitment to traditional Judaism — this has not deterred her from embracing both worlds wholeheartedly. In fact, this year she was accepted into (and is the only white dancer in) the acclaimed Reggie Wilson/Fist & Heel Performance Group, a Brooklyn-based company that blends contemporary dance with African traditions, the blues and the gospel culture of the Deep South. New York Times dance critic Anna Kisselgoff has declared the company’s performance “stimulating and refreshing,” while Tobi Tobias of The Village Voice called one of its shows “infectiously joyous.”

......Schon’s two worlds came to a head when she started applying to high schools. At the admissions interview at one high school for Orthodox girls, the rabbi advised her that she would need to give up dancing in order to attend the school. She refused — though surprisingly, she got in anyway. She also got into the Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and the Performing Arts, and Ramaz, a Modern Orthodox Jewish school on the Upper East Side. After agonizing for weeks, Schon decided that Judaism took precedence, and so she chose Ramaz.

 ..Several years later, while taking classes in Barnard’s dance department, Schon became enthralled with African dance. “I realized that when I do ballet or modern, I’m very conscious of my technique; it feels like a performance,” Schon explained. “But when I do the African dances to the beat of the drums, I’m transported to a desert alone somewhere. It’s a very spiritual experience.” She spent the following semester in Cape Town, South Africa, learning African dance traditions.

.....“We have dancers from Senegal, Trinidad, Jamaica,” Wilson told the Forward, “and many of them recognize that they’re working outside their strict religious tradition. So Anna fits right in there.”

This past May, Schon had her first performance with Fist & Heel at a venue on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Since it was Friday night, she had to go home, to the Upper West Side, by foot. When she arrived, close to 11 p.m., her friends were waiting with Sabbath dinner.

“I do whatever I can to keep Shabbat,” she explained. “My bookkeeper pays me for the weekday rehearsals instead of performances, and on Shabbat I ask one of the dancers to put the makeup on me.”

On the matter of modesty, Schon admitted: “Well, I guess the only way I can keep on dancing is to ignore certain things. It’s similar to someone using a Sabbath clock to watch a football game on Sukkot. I used to think I would be able to settle this conflict, but now I see that I’m just going to be in flux my whole life. Maybe the reason people like my dancing is because I bring that struggle to the table when I dance.”

“The truth is, I just don’t connect to God through davening as much as I do through dancing,” she remarked, adding, “There must be a reason why He made me this way.”

Comment:

Ms. Schon is certainly a remarkable young woman. She has done much and deserves respect and admiration for what she has accomplished. She deserves credit for upholding a tradition at great cost and inconvenience to herself and her vision and for the kiddush hashem with which she represented Judaism in faraway lands. One must always push away with the left [hand] and bring close with the right [hand](Yalkut Shimoni, Ruth 1:601).However, it needs to be pointed out that avowing a religious tradition that is infinitely bendable means not avowing anything at all.

Yes, God made all things and he made us as we are, with all our inborn and inherent limitations and imperfections, each one according to his type. He also made man adaptable, able to change and with a capacity for self-sacrifice - not of the primary for the secondary but of the secondary for the primary. Our primary goal is serving the Creator; our secondary goal is self-expression and self-satisfaction. God asked man to sacrifice for Him and that is the core of religion. I suppose some compromise along the edges are inevitable, human nature being what it is. However, not everything is negotiable and not everything can be stretched.

There is an apocryphal story that I once heard. I can't vouch that it happended but stories can be true without actually having happened.

The Gemara (Pesachim 22b) relates that Shimon HaEmsoni (others say Nechamia HaEmsoni) expounded every passuk, verse, which contained the word 'es'. However when he reached the passuk 'es Hashem Elochecha tira, you should fear Hashem (Devarim 6:13), he ceased to expound the Torah in this manner. The Torah is consistent. If there is even one place where the word 'es' appears that cannot include something then that proves that the word ''es'' was not written to expound for the His students asked if all his eforts were in vain? Shimon HaEmsoni responded "K'shem shekabalti s'char al hadrisha kach ani mekabel s'char al haprisha- Just as I received reward for expounding the Torah, I will also receive s'char separating (from what I previously taught)."

This acquaintance of mine claimed that he was once riding on the subway when across him he encountered a young lady, a student form Drisha,  on whose lap lay an open Gemorra.A young man with a yarmulke had his arm around her and his head on her shoulder as she perused the words of the commentators.This breach of tsnius bothered my friend a great deal.

As he exited at his station, he turned to the couple and softly said to them: ""K'shem shemikabel s'char al haDRISHA kach mekabel s'char al haPPRISHA"

How Jews use weapons.

Tohar Haneshek We have often alluded to midrashist's encyclopedic grasp of syntax and lexicon of Lashon Hakodesh. This superior command of the language frequently allows him to express remarkable insights into the meaning of certain verses and phrases. We, with our imperfect command of the Holy Tongue perceive these insights as drash whereas they are nothing if not most remarkable pshat. One such example can be found in Bamidbar 31, 8. The verse states: �and Bilaam son of Beor, the sourcerer, they killed "b'cherev", with a sword. Rashi[1] makes the following comment: He came against Israel and exchanged his device for theirs for they (Israel) conquer only through their mouths and by the means of their prayer and pleas but he (Bilaam) came and seized their device by cursing them with his mouth. Therefore they also came against him and exchanged their device for a device of the nations who come with the sword, as it states (Genesis 27:40) "and by thy sword thou shall live". Although this sounds as a bone-fide drash, that is probably not the case. R. Mordechai Levenshtein in his work on Targum Onkelos, Nefesh Hager[2] points out that in Tanach whenever the sword is in the hand of Jews, the expression that is used is "lfi Chorev", "by" or "according" or "with one blade" of a sword[3]. Whenever a gentile is described as wielding the sword, the espression is "b'cherev", "with sword". There is only one exception, this verse here. In this unique instance it is the Jews who are wielding the sword and still the expression "b"cherev" is used. A sensible explanation for this anomaly is that in this case, Jews are using the sword in the manner of Gentiles. From here it is but a short distance to the claim that Bilaam exchanged his device, the sword for their device, prayer, and that they, in return, dealt him the sword in a way and in a manner that belonged to him. Here we see an example of a midrash that presents the deep pshat. Our limited understanding of Ancient Hebrew usage prevented us from understanding or appreciating this fact until it is pointed out to us. 1 See Rashi to 22:23 for a slightly different version of the same midrash which is found in Tanchuma to that verse and also in Midrash Hagodol in our parsha. 2 Hashmotos, Lfi Cherev 3 One simple explanation of this usage is that a gentile uses his sword indiscriminantly and without serious consideration of the grave moral issues involved. A Jew, on the other hand, uses only the appropriate blade or side, and only as much force as is required.

Tsimtsum 1

Download tsimtsum_1.mp3

Al Naharot Bavel - Salomone Rossi

The "three weeks" begin this Sunday.

The Torah of redemption, or more on "Hirsch in Lakewood".

My recent post, "Hirsch in Lakewood" attracted many high quality comments. I am honored that readers of this caliber find this topic and this blog deserving of their well-thought out and pertinent consideration.

Our problem as a community and as a people, I think, is the ever growing proportion of "cold" Jews. It's not that the concepts of Torah, Yirah, Avodah do not speak to these individuals; they are irrelevant to them, their lives, their inner concerns. The sanctum of religious life is foreign to them and receives little of their attention.

"Hirsch in Lakewood" contended that we are going though a paradigm shift. The language of the preceding era no longer speaks to the post-modernist Jew, even if he wears a kapote and peyos and speaks  mostly in Yiddish. Like in Rav Hirsch's time, the new generation does not recognize the religious language in which Judaism is being expressed . It is not so much that they do not believe, it is that they see their ancestral religion as being irrelevant, outdated, primitive and meaningless. R. Hirsch's great insight was that the eternal truths of Judaism could be reformulated in the universal language of the times.... and suddenly it again made sense.

Similarly, we live in a post-modern age, in which there is no truth outside of personal feeling and perception, in which the language of image, feeling and sensibility has replaced the parlance of shared assumptions, reason and the common reality of all men.We have opinions and fellings, not reasoned conclusions or received dogmas. For people who take in the world in this manner, the very terms of religious discourse are devoid of meaning. What does obligation, duty, choice, truth, destiny mean to a person who does not recognize these terms as anything more than words.."For with stammering tongue a foreign language I will speak to this people. (Isaiah 28:11)

You might argue that what I am describing is a lack of faith, certainly not a new problem in human affairs. However, it goes deeper. Post-modernist thinking eschews all standards or any possibility of a definitive truth. It is a fog that rots the mind and murders a religious spirit. "kol boeah lo yashuvun..(Mishlei 2:20)

From the teens at risk to adults who are just going through the motions, the problem we face is that wem the religious, the few speak in a foreign language. In as much, as some people still vaguely understand some of these words, they can be on occasion be pulled back into the universe of religious discourse.This is, however, a process of re-education, not of reversion. Others drift outside the bubble of Jewish life, unable to connect or internalize  its concepts.

We must remember that the question of how to make Judaism relevant occupied not only R. Hirsch but all committed Jews. Some watered Judaism done, reformed it, or reconstituted it; others attempted to reinforce and isolate it to a small, insulated group that could continue to employ old terms of discourse within their ghettos.R. Hirsch was unique in that his solution worked for insiders and outsiders and did not compromise Jewish Orthodoxy; however, it iwas never widely accepted and is now an outdated solution. It has nothing to say to the disinterested non-speaker of the old languages, to the average Jew on the street. It also has little to say to a contemporary theist This is why it has disintegrated, for Lakewood is offering a better partial solution to the quandary of how to stay religious in the world today than does TIDE.

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR) Thomas Kuhn argued that knowledge does not progress via a linear accumulation of new knowledge, but undergoes periodic revolutions, also called "paradigm shifts" in which the nature of inquiry within a particular field is abruptly transformed.

"...the current Postmodern belief is that the discovery of Reality is impossible. This extreme skepticism, assumes that;
a) All truth is limited, approximate, and is constantly evolving
b) No theory can ever be proved true (we can only show that a theory is false)
c) No theory can ever explain all things
d) Thus absolute and certain truth that explains all things is unobtainable. "

Of course, the group we are discussing do not read Kuhn. However, they drink him in from the surrounding culture. These concepts supply the conceptual categories in which they see and organize their world. In some ways, the insidious nature of how these concepts penetrate, make them more difficult to overcome.

We must understand that fulminating against the intellectual revolution of the past 40 years is unproductive. Neither will building ghettos (a very important tactical step) be anything more than a delaying action. We need a genius of R. Hirsch's talent and stature to invent a new language that will subsume the new paradigms and rescue the ancient truths by successfully restating them in a new language.

"The times , they are a-changing", and changing faster than ever. We must be prepared to repeat this feat every few decades.

When I look at Judaism, Torah and our tradition, I find only one discipline that is capable to providing the language that can include and ennoble  image, feeling, relationality and other aspects of the post-modernist reality. This new language must be expressible in the form of  video/film, feeling, song, and personal experience for this is the language of postmodern. The salvation will not come from a book and not from a rational discourse. I believe that only Kabbola can provide the tools to accomplish this.

Some responders debated whether in this effort, Kabbola can remain "true". Setting aside the question of what defines true Kabbola (some scholars claim that the Luzzatto controversy was precisely about whether any farther development beyond the Kabbola of the Ari is possible or allowable), we must remember that R. Hirsch was only one of spectrum of thinkers who offered similar solutions, but his was true and theirs was not. Some of the most ridiculous manifestations of the "new Kabbola" are precisely dimly cognized attempts at formulating a post-modernist religious mode of expression. Our criteria should be fidelity to the tradition, "ability to restore the crown to its state", and whether the community of believers finally accepts it as legitimate.It must be universalistic since the modern world will not tolerate or accord value to any particularistic solution.

I see the direction in which we must walk but since the Lubavitcher Rebbe's passing I do not see anyone who is actually wlaking in it. Not all who may see the vision are capable of implementing it. The Rebbe, I believe, had this similar vision of Universal Redemption of the modern world though a mystical revelation. He began to walk in that direction but did not complete or even fully initiate that task. The person who can do this will not only be a great thinker and Talmid Chochom, but a first-class politician, charismatic leader and an inspirational Master. We pray that such a man speedily arise and perhaps he will be the Moshiach ben Yosef.

How much leeway?

Sifri in Pinchas (134) contains an interesting passage that raises many questions. The verses present the laws of inheritance.

God spoke to Moses, saying:
27:7	The daughters of Tzelafchad have a just claim. Give them a hereditary portion of land alongside their father's brothers. Let their father's hereditary property thus pass over to them.
27:8	Speak to the Israelites and tell them that if a man dies and has no son, his hereditary property shall pass over to his daughter.
27:9	If he has no daughter, then his hereditary property shall be given to his brothers.
27:10	If he has no brothers, you shall give his property to his father's brothers.
27:11	If his father had no brothers, then you shall give his property to his flesh which is close to him, who shall then be his heir. This was the decreed law for the Israelites, as God had commanded Moses.

Verse 11 is ambiguous. The Karaites interpreted it as saying that once there are no brothers, the property is evenly divided between all available relatives. This is not how the Sifri interprets the verse.

Torah gave knowledge (daas) to the Sages to interpret the Torah and to say that whichever relative is nearer (as a relative) is prior with regard to inheritance.

No Scriptural proof that this is the correct explanation is advanced. What justifies the law that the Sages re allwoed to advance the binding  interpretation? The knowledge that Torah gave to the Sages.

This perplexing passage can be interpreted in several different ways.

1. R. Pardo in Sifrei D'Bei Rav explains that the intent is that the Sages had Ruach Hakodesh which allowed them to divine the true interpretation. The idea that Divine Inspiration serves as the source of authority for Sages' interpretation is quite widespread and is found in many Rishonim and Acharonim.

The Chazon Ish in letter 2:24 expounds the idea that Divine Inspiration determined the unfolding of Oral Law. In his other writings he invokes the element of the Divine Spirit that rested on the Sages throughout history, an idea already enunciated by Nachmanides (Deuteronomy 17,11).

Azzan Yadin in his Scripture as Logos: R. Ishmael and the origins of Midrash, U.Penn. Press, 2004, proposes that Halachic Midrash is a product of two distinct schools. Mekhilta, and Sifrei on Numbers and Deuteronomy come from the school of R. Ishmael whereas the Sifro is largely from the school of R. Akiva . R. Ishmael was heir to "Priestly" tradition that saw correct interpretation as arising directly from Torah text. The role of the interpreter was to "hear" and learn from the verse (hakatuv), with the help of received principles of interpretation [1]. R. Akiva, on the other hand, saw the interpreter's role as finding the basis for received traditions within the text. To this end he and his school often resorted to interpretations that were far from pshat, for they did not as much interpret the text as attach traditions to it [2].

Interestingly, a similar idea had already been expressed by the Netsiv, the commentator per excellence on Halachic Midrash, in his introduction to the commentary on the Sheiltos (1:10, 17) and in He'emek Davar to Deutronomy 1,3. R. Berlin writes that from the very beginning two distinct methodologies of Torah study co-existed. The first, that he calls Eish, was utilized by Aharon, King Shaul, Temple Priesthood , Talmud Yerushalmi and the Geonim. It consisted of straightforward and direct derivation of Halacha from the Chumash under the influence of Ruach Hakodesh. The priests were especially qualified to apply this method for they were in daily direct contact with Ruach Hakodesh as they served in the Temple . The other approach is that of Moshe, David, Bavli and Rishonim and it consists of what we now call pilpul -intense, complex argumentation that aims to encompass all aspects of the question and thereby discover the truth. This idea of two complementary methods of interpretation can be easily applied to the schools of R. Ishmael and R. Akiva.

The Sifri thus enunciates the idea that Divine Inspiration is determinative in deriving law out of text, presenting one of these two methods of understanding the meaning of the Torah..

2. There is another girsa (textual variant) in the Sifri. The Gra changes the word "knowledge (Daas) to "authority" (reshus).

This approach is consistent with his view that many details of law were "given over to the Sages to determine". Already found in the Rishonim, it was enunciated again in our day by the Chazon Ish (See Chazon Ish E'H 22,3; Y"D 5:3, Ch'M Nezikin 11:1, 8:1, Kovetz Inyanim pp. 194-197). Presumably, the laws of inheritance were ones of many that were left for the Sages to "fix" during a specific historical period. Once this period has passed, so did the authority to interpret [3].

M. Halbertal in People of the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority , points out that in interpretation can be correct because it expresses correctly the original intent, or because it is offered by the only individual or body that is authorized to interpret. Thus, for example, the United States Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says that it means because it is the only body authorized to interpret the Constitution. Similarly, Chazal's interpretations are correct not because they tell us what the original intent necessarily is but because the Torah gave them, and only they have authority to define its meaning.

3. A. J. Heschel has this to say about this passage: "This saying that was observed in the school of Rabbi Ishmael , claims priority for logic in understanding Torah, and opens a path for understanding Rabbbi Ishmael's hermeneutical system" (Theology of Ancient Judaism, 1:12).

Much of Dr. Heschel has written is valuable but much of it is also altogether too facile. This explanation does not accord with either the simple meaning of the passage or with plain logic. The passage is clearly referring to the last verse - This was the decreed law (MISHPAT) for the Israelites, as God had commanded Moses. This unusual closing implies a specific principle that applies only to the laws of inheritance. The Sifri derives therein a principle, that there is special authority or knowledge that was provided to the Sages, specifically for this set of laws. It has nothing to do with the use of logic in general interpretation of the Torah and Dr. Heschel's comments are not, in my opinion, justified [4].

This short passage in the Sifri once again illustrates how much of contemporary theological and academic discussion can be traced to early sources. The Tannaim have already considered, argued and resolved many of the questions that we so unsuccessfully debate. May we be fortunate to understand and properly interpret their profound teachings.

---

1 The book is not entirely clear on this point but this is Dr. Yadin's intent, as I understood it from a personal communication.

2 As we previously discussed in this series, the intent may have been mnemonic or polemical.

3 The Chazon Ish certainly believed that many laws were of Sinaitic origin and restricted the principle of "Torah gave permission" only to some laws. This is different from a similar idea proposed by Zecharias Frankel, the Rector of Breslau Rabbinic Seminary and spiritual father of Conservative Judaism, whose true belief in Sinaitic Law was never clarified (See R.S.R. Hirsch, Selected Writings, Feldheim, Vol. 5)

4 The question of whether the 13 principles of interpretation of R. Ishmael are logic or received tradition has previously been discussed in this series. For additional sources on this topic that I recently found, see R. David Cohen, Kol Hanevua, (Mossad Harv Kook, 1979) and D. Schwarts, Unique Hebrew logic in the teachings of HaRav HaNazir, Higayon 2 (1993), 9-28.

Archeological evidence for Bilaam

An inscription that confirms the existence and character of Bilaam. From AISH

"An expedition led by Professor Henk J. Franken of the University of Leiden was excavating in Deir Alla in March of 1967. The workers were cleaning up some debris from the day's work when someone noticed what seemed to be traces of lettering on fragments of plaster that littered the floor. .....

Reports of the discovery spread throughout the archaeological community. Scholars representing the United States, Jordan, France, Germany and Holland came to examine the fragments. One fragment had written on it in bold letters the words: "the prophet, Balaam son of Beor."

It took approximately ten years to assemble the piles of plaster fragments, jigsaw puzzle style, into a coherent text. Eventually, a chilling prophecy emerged. It reads:

Inscription of Balaam son of Beor,
the prophet, man of the gods.
Behold, the gods came to him at night,
and [spoke to] him according to these words,
and they said to [Balaa]m son of Beor thus:
"The [Light] has shone its last;
the Fire for [judgment] has shone."

And Balaam arose in the morning,
[ ] days,
[ ] ,
and cou[ld not eat],
and he wept bitter tears.
And his people came up to him
and they [said] to Balaam son of Beor:
"Why are you fasting and why are
you weeping?"

And he said to them:
"Return! I shall tell you what
the gods (shaddayim) are [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]
Go on, consider the doings of the gods."

The gods have gathered together,
and the(shaddayim) gods have met in assembly,
and they have said to [��.]:
"Sew up, bolt shut the sky with your cloud!
Let darkness be there, and not brightness,
gloom and not radiance;
Yes, strike terror with the cloud of darkness,
and do not remove it ever

[�] hawk, swift, bat,
eagle, and pelican, vultures,
ostrich, stork, young of falcons,
and owl, chicks of heron, dove,
bird-of-prey, pigeon and sparrow. [10]

In order to date the inscription, the fragments were subjected to radio-carbon dating tests. The results indicated that the inscriptions were to be dated circa 800 BCE, plus or minus 70 years, with an accuracy probability of 66%. The probability rate of only 66% of a 800 BCE. date is not very reassuring. Initial paleographic studies, based on the shapes and forms of the letters, seemed to support this general time period. However, recently, scholars have lowered the date closer to 600 BCE. This suggestion is based on a connection between the handwriting style of the Deir Alla inscription and certain Ammonite inscriptions of the seventh century BCE.

The inscription can easily be seen as a demonstration that the memory of Balaam the seer survived long after his demise. .."

One of the possible reconstructions of the damaged ending of the inscription is that Bilaam placated the gods by setting cultic houses of prostitution and that this insciprion was in fact above the entrance to one such institution.

Thanks to MenachemMendel

Creation

Download V0928075259.mp3

Download rashi_on_creation.mp3