avakesh

Pesach cleaning: starting early

Aviva Zornberg's "method".

Aviva Zornberg has written another book, a review of which can be read here and an interview, here.

I read her book on Genesis many years ago. I have to confess that I did not return to read the one of Exodus, nor this latest volume. I did not because I found  her work fascinating, literate, erudite and... deeply untrue.

To put it simply, when we interpret sacred Scripture we must understand in what tradition and methodology we are working. If we do not understand, and we mix and match various approaches, our work will be contradictory and not true. First in intepretation is defining and approach and a method. How do you deal with contradictions, what weight is given to local versus distant context, how much role will theology play, what weights heavier - tradition of innovation, and many other such issues. Second is assessing the limits of what is Jewish and what is not and sticking to them. Third, how literal willl you be and where are the limits of allegory and derash.

Ms. Zornberg's method can be called "stream of consciousness". She knows so much and she puts whatever comes to mind into a given text. To me that is not Biblical interpretation at all. It may work but rarely, and for individuals  exalted and permeated by the soul and breath of the Torah. It does not work for erudite, brillian people who mastered the ins and outs of secular "high" culture. It works for Rebbe Nachman. It does not work for Aviva Zornberg.

There are those within Modern Orthodoxy who have passionately embraced literary methods. Yes, there is no denying that these approaches were innovated by those with minimal commitment to tradition. While Jewish proponents often consult Rabbinic sources, they sometimes disparage traditional readings in favor of new ones or, worse, propose ideas that completely subvert received Jewish understanding of the figures of our forefathers, seminal events in Biblical history and basic assumptions of our religion. Adding to the problem is the fact that it has become well recognized that there is no such thing as a value neutral interpretation; every attempt at reading involves assumptions, background and belief systems. Thus, Akeida is for Jews all about faith, trust and obedience foreshadowing Jewish martyrdom for Hashem's sake throughout the ages. For a Christian, on the other hand, it replays the central myth of his religion. Where a Jew sees Isaac as a mature grown man and a full participant in the drama of self-sacrifice, the Christian sees a child and vicarious atonement. A modern, secular humanist reading the same story naturally perceives it as raising issues of autonomy, limits of obedience, and natural morality versus religious ethics. Each one reads it as both reflecting and confirming his or her own spiritual preoccupations. What, we must ask, is the value of importing (or creating a totally new) foreign method, complete with its own assumptions and worldview into sacred quarters of the Torah. Must not a true believer question, if not reject, the wisdom and propriety of such a course of comportment?

The proponents of literary methods have claimed that the Rabbis were not cognizant and therefore routinely missed literary clues within Biblical narrative and poetical passages. In fact, however, careful study of Midrash demonstrates unequivocally that they were very much aware of the features upon literary analysts build their conjectures. There are many Midrashic passages where such a conclusion is inescapable. Because, however, the Rabbis were using their own method of analysis and had their own unique worldview, they chose to acknowledge these observations only when useful to their purpose. In other words, the Rabbis did not feel compelled to pursue and write down every insight; rather they subordinated them to another goal. As we said, theology and worldview drives interpretation.

For a believing Jew, the framework in which to approach the study of Scripture is of paramount importance. Clearly, he or she must enter the world of Biblical studies with trepidation, trembling, and humility, as befits one who is about to encounter revelation of Divine truth. At the same time, it is imperative to be open to shadings and permutations of significance and meaning and to the living and direct human experience reflected in its pages. He or she msut be guided and informed by tradition, not psychoanalysis.

It is not that I object to what Dr. Zornberg does. I don't object to feminist, structural-formal, psychoanalytical, even Christian commentary.. whatever. They have a right to interpret based on their underlying assumptions about the world, God and humanity; in fact, they can only understand Scripture based on where they stand and where they are coming from. But, their commentary is not Jewish and should not be presented as such.

Open the gates of righteousness

I recently posted a teaching of the Maggid that one is able to begin but never finish. Here is a link to a short video  of Noam Elimelech teaching, I think, the same concept, here

Kuzari 14: International Dateline and the Halachic Process

Download International dateline and the Halachic Process

Professor Liebes

A provocative article about Yehuda Liebes, a scholar of Kabbala and a complex and interesting man.

Mishkan

Them apples..

Apples play a small role in Ashkenazi customs. We use them for charoses on Pesach and with honey on Rosh Hashana. This fruit would appear to not be particularly significant in Jewish ilife, compared for example to citrons or the seven species with which the Land of Israel is blessed. Even when the sources refer to apples, they may not be apples but citrons. For example, when Yakov entered to receive Yitzhak's blessings, the latter said: "See the smell of my son like the smell of a field which Hashem has blessed". On this Chazal say: "Like the fragrance of the apple field". Yet, Tosafos points out that the word tapuach that we now use for apples was used in the olden times for citrons instead. Thus the reference in Joshua 12:17, "the king of Tappuah", may not be to apples at all. Traditionally. based on the Tosafos in Taanis 29b) tappuach refers to esrog.

Harold N. and Alma L. Moldenke wrote in their book "Plants of the Bible":

The identity of the apple has perplexed scholars for years. According to the authors, the Hebrew word used is tapuach. "The apple tree of the Scriptures was a tree which afforded a pleasant shade. Its fruit was enticing to the sight, sweet to the taste, imparting fragrance, with restorative properties, and of a golden color, borne amid silvery leaves," they say.

Many scholars, they continue, have argued in favor of the common apple, Malus pumila. But most botanists agree that it is not native to the Holy Land. It was only comparatively recently that the "poor wild fruits of the common apple have been so improved by selection and cultivation as to bring them to a form which would fit the description in the Biblical quotations," the Moldenkes write.

Other writers have supposed the "apples of gold" were oranges, Citrus sinensis. But the fruit is native to China. The Seville orange, Citrus vulgaris, also suggested by some, is a native of eastern India, not introduced into the Holy Land until 1000 C.E., the authors add.

Other plants that don't meet the criteria include the citron, Citrus medica and the quince, Cydonia oblonga. Neither is "sweet to the taste."

The Moldenkes conclude the only fruit that meets all the requirements is the apricot, Prunus armeniaca. With the exception of the fig, it is the most abundant in the Holy Land, referring to Canon Tristam's "Natural History of the Bible." Tristam maintains the plant, originally from Armenia, was introduced to the Holy Land around the time of Noah (about 2950 BCE)."The apricot is a round-headed, reddish-barked tree growing to 30 feet tall," write the Moldenkes. This is clearly outside of the traditional consensus but interesting.

(As an aside: See also here
 on the possible identification of Pri Etz Hadar with an avocado, a close relative of an apricot.

For an intersting discussion of rabbinic views on the Eve's apple see this article from the New York TImes of Jan. 18, 1907)

" Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, (cited in Nefesh Harav pp. 209-210) however, argues that the word Tapuach refers to a citrus fruit such as an Etrog (see Tosafot Taanit 29b s.v. Shel Tapuchim, which supports Rav Soloveitchik's argument). Based on this point, Rav Hershel Schachter places a citrus fruit in his Charoset instead of apples. This practice is supported by the Gemara (Pesachim 116a), which mentions that since the Charoset serves as a reminder of the Tapuach, the Charoset should be acidic. Citrus fruits are distinctively acidic but apples are not. "

In fact, however, apples do have important significance that might explain their inclusion into Charoses.

Zohar refers clearly to apple and not esrog when it writes: "Just as the apple has various colors, so does the Holy One Blessed be He has various colors ( referring to the "colors" of Sefiros). Just as the apples heal all, so Holy One Blessed be He heals everyone (Zohar Acharei Mos). Apples do come in different varieties and colors but not citrons. This passage echoes Rashi to Shir Hashirim 2:5 who writes that  the Sages advised bringing apples to the sick. Truly, an apple a day keeps the doctor away.

Ben Ish Chai (Hilchos Nitsavim) writes that the apple is the only tree associated with the sefira of Tiferes. I suspect though that he is referring to the esrog, which is green, the color of Tiferes, and is associated with Yakov who, as noted, before, brought with him the smell of the apple tree, which Tosafos says is esrog and not apple.

I recently saw an explanation of how the apple is connected to Tiferes (B'Or Hatorah, 10:71) in the name of R. Avraham Brandwein and R. Yitshok Ginsburgh). As is well known, the name  YKVK is associated with Tiferes. Yud is indicated by the the ten dots in the pulp surrounding the seeds. Hei is indicated by the five spaces for the seeds, The Vav is the apple stem and the last hei is the five seeds themselves.

The apple is then an important part of charoses, the element of Tiferes that hold the whole mixture together. While the charoses reminds of the servitude in Egypt, the apple in it reminds us that all extremes are held together by the center  and that even the bitter exile will eventually be transformed into the sweetness of Redemption.

I attach two videos:

1.R.Avigdor MIller's famous exposition on the apple

2.Throwing apples in Zanz-Klausenberg. Please recall that 26 is the gematria of YKVK

When gematria is pshat

The approach that we have generally followed is to demonstrate that the derivations of our Sages are based on sound understanding of language, idiom, cultural background and wider (not only local) context. With this assumption it is often possible to demonstrate that derivations which on the surface appear to be far from the "real" meaning of the proof-verses are in fact a very defensible and at times the most reasonable reading. There are, however, times when this appears impossible to accomplish. A particularly tough challenge is presented when a major law is derived from nothing more than a gematria; how can one claim that a gematria represents the real meaning of a verse?  Nevertheless, on farther reflection, the history and development of a particular derash and its roots pshat may become apparent.
We encounter an example of this phenomena in this week's parsha. As is known, there are 39 forbidden labors on Shabbos. These are derived through a gematria, as follows:

These (ailu- aleph, lamed, hei) are the things that Hashem commanded...Six days shall work be done but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a Sabbath of rest...(Shemos 38, 1-2)

These are the things - Rabbi says to define 39 labors which Moshe told them verbally. (Mekhilta ibid).
R. Chanina D'Sipporin in the name of R. Avvahu: Aleph has a numerical value of 1, lamed of 30 and hei of 5. Things equals 3 (as it consists of 1 thing and plurality of 2), in total 39.The Rabbis of Cesarea said: Aleph is 1, lamed is 30, hei - the rabbis were not inhibited in reading hei as ches[1] (the value of which is 8) - in total 39[2].
R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish at one time spent three and a half year and derived 39 toldos (corollaries) to each forbidden labor... (Yerushalmi Shabbos 7,2)

I was privileged to hear a lecture by R. Yoel Ben Nun in which he offered the following reconstruction of how gematria came to represent the source for the 39 forbidden labors. All inaccuracies in accurately recalling and presenting his excellent talk are solely my responsibility.

Step I

At this point in history there exist various laws regarding labors that are prohibited on Shabbos but they are not organized in any particular groups or categories. Before the Sofrim[3] organize and categorize the received tradition, all received laws are in the same large group of received laws. There also exists at this time a related Mosaic tradition that the building of the Tabernacle did not set aside the Shabbos prohibitions; this tradition is understood to originate or be imbedded in the close proximity between the verses about Shabbos and Mishkan in the beginning of our parsha (See Rashi ibid).

Step II

If you count up the number of vessels that are made for the purpose of the Tabernacle, you will find 39 vessels listed in our parsha. Because of the pre-existent identification of Shabbos labors and building the Tabernacle, the number 39 becomes a convenient one to organize the known prohibited labors in 39 groups. The Sages associated with completing this organization of labors is R. Ychanan and Reish Lakish.

Step III

An even more convenient mneumonic is sought and is found in the gematria of the beginning words of the parsha - Eilu, these are the words, =39.

The original derivation is forgotten and only the last step is remembered and preserved. The original derivation can, however, still be unearthed from the location of this gematria at the beginning words of the parsha in the same verse of the teaching that connects the prohibitions of Shabbos and the Tabernacle.

An interesting example of how gematria can be read as pshat is found in Rashi to Shemos 30:31. Speaking of the oil of annoniting, the verse says: "Oil of annointing should "zeh" (zayin hei) be for you for generatons". Rashi says: "zeh in gematria is 12 lugin", the volume of this oil. The verse is saying that the oil should be 12 lugin.

To summarize, even when there seems to be no way to relate a derasha to the plain sense of a verse, this may be simply because the derasha under consideration represents a late mneumonic or homiletical elaboration of the original derivation. The original derivation may be discovered in a cognate Tannaitic passage or unearthed by careful consideration of verses and context. Once that is done, it may be discovered to be much closer to peshat than the end result.

---

And Betsalel made the Ark..This is what the verse says: Start of your matters will give light (Psalms 119). When the Holy One Blessed be He desired to make the world, he enclothed Himself in light (which was the first thing said to be created in Genesis), as it says: He wears light as a garment (Psalms 103). From the Holy One, the righthouse learned to start with light. When He commanded Moshe to build the Tabernacle, he (in turn) said to Betsalel: begin with the Ark. (Therefore,) Betsalel made the Ark (Yalkut Shemos 37).

The Midrash teaches us that all our projects, even building G-d's abode, must begin with Torah, for which Araon stands. In a wider sense, it declares that worship must start from and contain within it Hashem's teachings for it is within those that He is enclothed and it is I them that He must be sought.

---

1 See Torah Temima to Genesis 17,5 (13) for many other examples of hei to ches substitution.

2 See Shabbos 49b for other derivations.

3 As stated in the Yerushalmi Shekalim 5 quoted in Tosafos Kiddushin 30a, s.v Nikreu Sofrim. According to the Yerushalmi, Sofrim is best translated as Enumerators and not Scribes.

A Fair Shake: Christian Salt Makes its Debut

from the Forward

 

Have you had a recipe call for Christian salt lately? By next week, you just might.

Joe Godlewski, a retired barber from Cresaptown, Md., was fed up with television chefs constantly beckoning for kosher salt. So, he put his styling skills to use and created the first-ever Blessed Christians Salt, a seasoning blessed by an Episcopal priest. The packaging features a bright-red cross.

Godlewski has made his objectives clear to the Associated Press: “This is about keeping Christianity in front of the public so that it doesn’t die. I want to keep Christianity on the table, in the household, however I can do it.” Godlewski plans to offer some proceeds to Christian charities.

But Rabbi Sholem Fishbane, a kosher administrator for the Chicago Rabbinical Council, thinks that the new product may reflect Godlewski’s ignorance of Jewish dietary restrictions, since all salt is inherently kosher. The only distinction between kosher salt and other salts on the market is the former’s coarse-grained nature. Its composition enables butchers to drain the meat’s blood, which Jews are prohibited from consuming. Most chefs prefer the kosher stuff because it’s easy to pinch and portion, and gives their dishes a crisp, clean flavor.

Godlewski is insistent that he has no ill will toward Jews: “There’s no antisemitism. I love Jesus Christ, and he was a Jew.” Considering that the company manufacturing the salt, ICA Gourmet Seasonings, is Jewish owned and sells only kosher products, we’ll take his word for it.

If the salt gains popularity, Godlewski said, he will launch an entire line of Christian-branded foods, including rye bread, bagels and pickles. We hope he won’t mess with gefilte fish, though.

 

Comment: I am still in the Purim spirit, so I ask.

Did Jesus use kosher salt? We think, he did.

He clearly referred to the lighter, less pungent "Christian Salt" version and he did not think much of it:

You are the salt of the world. But if the salt should lose its taste, how can it be made salty again? It's good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled on by people (Matthew 5:13).

Now the question will be, if they can produce a Christian bagel with this salt.

Following megillah reading

One should follow the reader word for word in the megillah, or preferrably recite it together with the reader. What if one follows along and recites but his mind wanders for a few moments one finds himself having kept pace and still on on the same words as the reader, but having missed some words or lines. This is an alltogether common scenario. Is the fact that he silently kept pace with the reader a sufficient indication that he "heard" every word? He was aware of what the reader was saying and kept pace along with him, but this was with lower level of awareness, more automatic than conscious. Is one yotse under such circumstances?

It seems to me that one would fulfill his obligation in this common case, based on the following Tur in siman 59:

My father wrote in a responsa that we quietely pronounce the blessings of "yotser ohr" and "aravis" along with the cantor, for in silence no man can be continuously aware of what the cantor says. Even if he followed the reader in silence and in the middle of a blessing his mind turned away to other matters, he lost the "intention (kavana)", but when a man reads along with the reader, even if he reads some of it without awareness, he is "yotse".

The Tur seems to be saying that when one reads along with another person, some degree of awareness is perforce maintained by the effort of keeping pace, even if conscious awreness is temporarily lost. Such is not the case when one attempts to listen along and follow in silence, for then there is nothing to keep one connected to the reader once conscious concentration leaves him.

This approach also obviates the kasha of Beer Halacha, ain sham.