avakesh

I started a podcast

Hebrew Bible to the World: What is tells, not what it says.

I draw on 3 assumptions and 5 sources:

Assumptions

1.The Bible is the most consequential and influential book the ever existed and it has much for each of us.
2. It is written in a way that is designed to communicate maximum information in the available space, and it makes the reader a participant and co-author.
3. It is not a historical record but a book of instruction and it is structured and designed as such. It is true in that deep and profound sense.

Sources:
Hebrew and other languages.
Volumes of Jewish interpretation - 3000 years of it.
Modern and Christian interpretative traditions: Accept the Truth from whoever says it.
Philosophy and everything else I know.

The podcast has been successful so far, I will set up an email, so participants can ask questions.

In the meantime, it can be accessed on: 

iTunesSpotify

GoogleStitcherPodbeanAmazon

 

 

Spirit over the waters

Spirit over the waters

I

1. What can we use to understand what it is?
2. It hovers – see Deuteronomy 32:11 – the image there is of a hawk over its hatchlings!
3. Rashi in Genesis – The Throne of Glory stands in the air and flutters (same wors as in Deuteronomy) over the waters through his Word, like a dove that flutters over the nest.
4. In Deuteronomy, Rashi explains the image of “He flutters over his nestlings{ as, "He does not lie on them heavily, but lightly scrapes them, touching and not touching".
5. Why does he not use the image of the hawk in Genesis as well? Why use an image of a dove?
6. Because contact with the Divine is momentary, light, and evanescent – Forward and Return of Ezekiel, Ch.1. It is expressed as hovers, as the lightness of a dove.
7. A paradigm for the interaction of Spiritual and Physical – light, momentary, evanescent - touches and withdraws.

II.

1. Described as "Ruach": means Wind as well as Spirit (as is the case in English, German and many languages).
2. See R. Moshe Taku in Tamid Deim – God is like air -surrounds up, but we only rarely become aware of Him (it). See Guide 1:40, who says that the Wind in out b=verse means air. Sipporno - denotes air, completing the 4 basic substances: earth, water, fire, and air.
3. Likutei Moharan – our inner selves are connected to the outside world through breathing. We inspire and expire air continuously, and immediately feel faint is we disconnect from it.
4. See Wikipedia on Insufflation and New Testament John 20:22.
5. A paradigm of air and wind – it surrounds up but we only become aware of it when we move, and then only for a moment. Once we stop, we don’t sense the air anymore. The wind is momentary, passing awareness of the spiritual. That is why Wind and Spirit are so intimately related.
6. Christians sometimes interpret this verse as speaking of the Holy Spirit. Christian mystics experience that momentary touch of the Divine but conceptualize it in a different way than Jewish Mystics. Compare:

 Acts 2 on Pentecost and the spirit of the Mishna that appeared to the Holy Fellowship of R. Yosef Karo on Shavuot (Pentecost) and spoke through his mouth (the parallels are striking)– both describing similar phenomena, except that Jews understand it as a wholly connected manifestation of the continuous and integrally One divinity and Christians disconnect it into independent divinities.

I quote the description here since it is not easy to find (

Sh'nei Luchot HaB'rit, by Rabbi Isaiah Halevi Horowitz ("Shelah")

Translation adapted from Rabbi Dr. Alan Brill's Kavvanah Blog
(https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/shavuot-night-syndrome/)

The pious one [Rabbi Yosef Karo] and I resolved to make a mighty effort to keep sleep from our eyes on Shavuot night, and not to stop learning for even one second. Thank God we were successful. When you hear what transpired, it will enliven your souls.
For the night of Shavuot, this is the order of study I prepared…. [Verses from Scripture *] All this we did in a spirit of great fear and awe, with melody and trepidation. But what will be told next won’t be believed.
After all the verses, we recited aloud all the Mishnah’s of Zera’im (the first of the Six Orders), and then we started again, learning it in the way of true learning, and we completed two tractates. At that moment, the Creator graced us and we heard a great voice coming from Rabbi Karo, the words unintelligible. The people nearby heard but could not understand. The voice was very pleasing but at the same time was growing continually stronger, and we fell on our faces from the great awe. No one dared to lift his eyes and face to see.

The voice spoke:

Fortunate are you…because you took it upon yourselves to crown Me… “Listen my beloved, those who most glorify the Creator, my loved ones, peace to you. Fortunate are you and fortunate are those that bore you. Fortunate are you in This World and fortunate you will be in the World to Come, because you took it upon yourselves to crown Me on this night. It has been many years since my crown has fallen, and there has been no one to comfort Me. I had been cast to the dust embracing the filth, but now you have restored the crown.

Strengthen yourselves my dear ones; forge ahead my beloved; be happy and joyous, and know that you are among the exalted. You merited to be in the King’s palace. The voice of your Torah and breath of your mouths arose before God and pierced through the surroundings and many firmaments, until the messenger-angels on high were quieted, and the fire-angels hushed and all God’s lofty army listened to your voices.

I am the Mishna that admonishes mankind. I have come to speak to you. If only there were ten of you, you would have ascended higher. Even so, you have elevated yourselves and those who bore you. You are fortunate, my dear ones, for because of you, sleep passed from the eyes of those who bore you. I have been summoned this night through those gathered in this great and prestigious city. You are not like those lying on their beds, sleeping a sleep that is one-sixtieth of death, besmirching their beds. You bound to the One and have pleased Him.

If you could imagine even one thousandth myriad of my pain, no joy could enter your hearts, no laughter could escape your mouths, considering that on your account I have been cast to the dust. Therefore, strengthen and fortify yourselves my children, my dear ones who glorify Me. Do not halt your efforts, for the thread of kindness is drawn to you, and your Torah is sweet before Him.

Therefore, stand my sons, my dear ones, on your feet and elevate me. With a loud voice, as on Yom Kippur, declare, ‘Blessed is the name of his glorious kingdom for ever and ever.'” Move to the Land of Israel…Do not value your belongings, for you will partake of the best of the supernal levels…

Standing on our feet, we recited aloud, as bidden. The voice then resumed:

Fortunate are you, my children. Return to your learning and do not stop one minute. Move to the Land of Israel, because not all times are equal, and there is no preventing salvation, whether by much or by a little. Do not value your belongings, for you will partake of the best of the supernal levels.
And if you desire and will obey, the choicest of that land you will consume. Therefore, hurry and travel there for I am the cause that sustains you, and will continue to sustain you. Peace to you in your houses, and peace in all there is to you. Eternal God gives strength to His people and blesses them with peace’.

Bits and ends in the beginning

I

1. Is God masculine?
2. No, but the language that we use ascribes masculine gender to the active, the pursuer rather than pursued. S. Lewis, in That Hideous Strength.
3. Dennis Prager in his Genesis commentary – the language convention is that masculine is used for a group that consists of both males and females. In this way, on the contrary, we avoid ascribing gender to God.
4. If we conceive God as the Father, the rule-maker, we tame the males in our society. It is convention to impress males with the authority of the rule-giver.
5. Presupposes a hierarchical world – simply works with the world as it was when the Bible was given.

II

1. Near Eastern Parallels
2. Compare code of Hamumurabi and Exodis
3. Some similarities, but crucial differences. Bible echoes the same or similar legal questions by deliberately transforms the legal principles in them to negate Hammurabian goal of preserving societal structure and to underscore that it works from the assumptions of justice and mercy. Barry Eichler in the Orthodox Forum Series -Modern approaches to the study of Torah.

III. Eye for an eye

1. The use of the word Tachat measn “instead”, rather than “for”. This arises from how Targum Onkelos translates this word here (as chalaf) rather than in other places (as tchos). (Y. Kassovsky, Otzar Lashon Onkelos, Introduction).

IV. Not only in the legal portions but also in the Creation story. Echoes of Near Eastern myths are invoked to show how the Bible completely transforms the narrative.

1. See from Adam to Noah, by Cassuto p. 8-9, 37-38

Darkness, darkness everywhere...

To know what it tells, we must also know what it says, and to know what it says, we must understand what it describes.

1 What did the Earth look like before it was separated from Heaven? What was darkness, before there was light?

What is the Spirit of God?

What is abyss?

What is the image we see in our minds?

I will make one tangent -  The role of alliteration/onomatopoeia in painting a picture. Onomatopoeia: the formation of a word from a sound associated with what is named (e.g. cuckoo, sizzle ).

2. Heaven and Earth, but we discuss Earth first. The emphasis right away is no God within the world and on the Earth.

1. Tohy IVohu

1. Two cognates in a row. Tohu UVohu (formless and without shape) and T’hom (Abyss). T’hom, is where there is water, see Gen. 7:11. Note the outflow of sound and breath: Tohy, Vohu, and then the outflow that spreads, T’hommmmmm )(sort of like Indian Ohmmm…)
2. What is Tohy UVohu

4. Jeremiah 34,11. And he shall stretch over it the line of Tohu and the plummet of Bohu. Tohu and Bohu are a pair!

II Playing the sounds to create an image

1.A feature of the Holy Tongue is the close relationship between sound and meaning.

 2.See Proverbs 31,26 L She opened her mouth in wisdom – Piah Potcha B’chochma. Three consonants that open into a flowing sound, illustrating opening the mouth and producing sound – sound joins words to impart meaning.

3. The Songs of Songs – three sibilants and RRR sounds – ShiR haShiRim aSHeR leSHlomo – each partially opening a flow of sound against friction – foreshadowing how many impediments and how difficult it is to let Love flow.

5. I learned to consider the complex of sound-meaning from the work of Victoria Hanna – In English: https://www.elsewhere.co.nz/world-music/8360/victoria-hanna-interviewed-at-womad-2018-songs-and-psalms-from-the-ancient-to-the-future/

In Hebrew with subtitles: : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeYV-srF69M&ab_channel=%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%94VictoriaHanna

III. Is there darkness without light?

1. Is there dark if no one can see it?
2. IS there a hint of malevolence here?
3. Nachmanides to Exodus 10,23– darkness is an actual thing!
4. Maimonides – darkness is merely an absence of light, Guide III, Ch.10. This view was first enunciated by Plotinus, First Ennead, 8^th
5. Aquinas – the existence of shadows proves that darkness is only an absence of light, Summa Theologie I, Article 1, Q.5 see, https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Augustine/augustine_evil02.html
6. In Isaiah 45, 7 – “He forms light and makes darkness, makes peace and crates evil. Sound like darkness and evil are both actual things.
7. But, it was not complete darkness, for the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

1. Spirit is Wind

1.Saadia Gaon’s commentary - the wind was blowing from all sides. Interpretation 1: Because there was no up and down or directions. The second interpretation is given also by others – all four winds (eastern, Western, Northern, and Eastern), were blowing at once.

We will discuss two other interpretations of this phrase next time.

Elohim -One and Many

Elohim, One and Many

1. Hebrew Scriptures uses many names for God. What does that TELL us?
2. Some cannot be erased, based on Deuteronomy 12:3 and listed in Talmud Sehvuot 35b.
3. Others are descriptive, such as , Merciful, Hyst and the like.
4. The Name used in the first chapter of Genesis is “Elohim”, and it appears tob e pleural.
5. There are parallels. Dios in Latin came from Greek Theos. In Spanish Dios turned out to be plural and Marranos would not use, but say Dio.
6. Why does the Hebrew language have so many names for God?
7. Frederick the Great: “When I want to speak of love, I speak in French. When I plan war, I use German. For Theology, I speak Latin, but when I want to pray, I pray in Hebrew.”
8. B Eskimos have many words for snow (debunked, but now it is back). Hebrews were surrounded by God, and each Divine manifestation had its own name.

   Grammatically three kinds of names:

1. Elokim – plural.
2. AI ending, Shad-dai, Elo-kai. This is a specific mishkal (form) that appears like but is not like that for double plural, Yadaim (hands), Raglaim( feet), etc. It is not plural – see Chizkuni.
3. All others.

4. Not Plural, but the language of Power Rashi to Gen 1:26

Although [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation, and there is an opportunity for the heretics to rebel, to misconstrue the plural as a basis for their heresies, Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of humility, that a great person should consult with and receive permission from a smaller one. Had it been written: "I shall make man," we would not have learned that He was speaking with His tribunal, but to Himself.

And the refutation to the heretics is written alongside it, in the following verse: "And G‑d created (וַיִּבְרָא)," and it does not say, "and they created (וַיִּבְרְאוּ)."

Rashi to Gen. 20:13 – Langue of mastership and superiority is in plural, and cites example.

Gesenius comments that the singular Hebrew term Elohim is to be distinguished from elohim used to refer to plural gods, and remarks that:

The supposition that אֱלֹהִים (elohim) is to be regarded as merely a remnant of earlier polytheistic views (i.e. as originally only a numerical plural) is at least highly improbable, and, moreover, would not explain the analogous plurals (see below). That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in אֱלֹהִים (whenever it denotes one God), is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute (cf. §132h), e.g. אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק Psalms 7:10, &c. Hence אֱלֹהִים may have been used originally not only as a numerical but also as an abstract plural (corresponding to the Latin numen, and our Godhead), and, like other abstracts of the same kind, have been transferred to a concrete single god (even of the heathen).
To the same class (and probably formed on the analogy of אֱלֹהִים) belong the plurals קְדשִׁים (kadoshim), meaning the Most Holy (only of Yahweh, Hosea 12:1, Proverbs 9:10, 30:3 – cf. אֱלֹהִים קְדשִׁים elohiym kadoshim in Joshua 24:19 and the singular Aramaic עֶלְיוֹנִין the Most High, Daniel 7:18, 7:22, 7:25); and probably תְּרָפִים (teraphim) (usually taken in the sense of penates), the image of a god, used especially for obtaining oracles. Certainly, in 1 Samuel 19:13, 19:16 only one image is intended; in most other places a single image may be intended; in Zechariah 10:2 alone is it most naturally taken as a numerical plural.

Gesenius, Wilhelm (1910). "124. The Various Uses of the Plural-form" .

 

5. See also Siporno on our verse – indicates emanation of Many from One. See Shadal – to indicate that there are NOT many gods (multiple appearances but One essence).
6. Perhaps to tell, not say, that there is a multiplicity in manifestations, especially in the process of Creation, when so many different things came into being from a single Creator.

Bits and Ends in the Beginning

1. Bits and Ends in the Beginning

   The goal of the creation. If you were God, how would you guide humanity, preserving its free choice and still trying to move it forward!

   1. Arye Kaplan – The Jewish Nation is a class of teachers and priests. “And you shall be a nation of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:6 and Siporno).
   2. A science-fiction work (and a movie) from the Soviet Union by Strugatzky brothers. See a Mosaic article in Mosaic March 22, 2018)- It is hard to be a god – explores the limitations that a god would have on influencing the development of a civilization

   II So we ask, if you were God, how would you write. YOU know so much more of the story, the past and future are open before you, so how would you express it in the language of limited humans.

   1. In the West, we write linearly and chronologically. That is the convention created by the Western Novel.
   2. Three models
   3. Because humans see and think linearly. We are limited. If we see the front of the elephant we cannot simultaneously see its back.
   4. What kind of fish we get from the sea depends on the size of the holes in our nets.
   5. What we see comes to us filtered through a medium. Light is all colors, but we will see only the ones that are being reflected (Pardes, Tanya, Shaar Hayichud vHaemuna). See, https://www.avakesh.com/2010/12/the-three-conceptions-of-god.html
   6. Therefore, you can expect the Super-Author to write in a way that would allow us a glimpse of the bigger picture  - a multivocal, omnisignificant, apparently contradictory manner, changing perspectives, split-screen presentations. We need to resolve these features to understand it within the limited, linear mode with which we think.

                                       

THE Heaven and THE Earth

The Heaven and The Earth

1. How the story is shaped.
2. Review – we showed that both the creation from nothing (ex nihilo) and formation from pre-existent matter are compatible with the first two verses in Genesis; furthermore, both concepts are presented at the same time.
3. But there was not yet a firmament and waters were not yet separated; water was everywhere, so, there was no definite physical heaven and earth – what does it mean that God created the Heaven and the Earth.
4. However, this contradiction is resolved in V2, where the Spirit is acting within, not above the world. It is resolved in favor of God acting within the world and not from outside it.
5. Why the contrast between Heaven and Earth? Why not mountains and valleys, or dry land and the seas? It is to contrast the Heaven, where God is and the Earth where he is present and, you may say, resides.

        II                    A tangent on accusative and use of the (et) in Hebrew.

1. E”t” is both ”the” and an indication of direct action. In general, “Ha” is the definite article. “Et” carries out the function of the accusative form in the European languages. Had it been only the definite article, “Et’ would not be needed, and it would be always found with “Ha” and not only sometimes.
2. You also find “Et” in reflexive and passive forms of the verbs, without the “Ha”.
3. See Genesis 17:11, 24, 25 with Rashi whose explanation is based on this grammatical fact that “Et” signfies a direct subject.

`        III A tangent on surprising linguistic parallels between Germanic and Semitic languages, and the purported curent explanation for them in attributing theoretical Phoenician traders somehow ending up in Germanic lands.

1.Edenics.org, E-Word: tracing English and world words to the Semitic Mother Tongue attested in Biblical Hebrew, 2021 Edition (2261 pages) By Isaac Mozeson

            IV What this construction “Et” tells us is that God created Heaven and Earth DIRECTLY. so to speak. He rolled up his sleeves and got to work amid the primeval matter and shaped, fashioned, and formed it, and us, and He remains within this world, close to us.

1. See Siporno to v. 1
2. Nahum Sarna and Cassuto take the Heaven and the Earth as meaning, “Everything” because they claim the Hebrew just did not have the word “Everything”. However, that is not correct, see Isaiah 43:7.
3. Models of where is God?
4. Within the World – lead to idolatrys. If divinity is within the world, then divine manifestations are multiple, felt differently at different times and distinct one from another. You end up with many gods andhierarchies of divine/elevated beings. What is above the world is Fate to which even the gods are subject ( acknowledging that Zeus may be an exception in Greek mythology – this is argued). Psalms 115:16 expresses this view.
5. Creation out of Nothing is an argument against Idolatry, see Jeremiah 10:11. This tends to be the Rabbinic view. (He is in Heaven but his knowledge and supervision extends to this world), but not Kabbalistic, mystical and Chassidic views. Angels and prophets are the mediators between this World and Him above in Heaven, and prophets are called angels ) (Genesis Rabbah(68,12), see Kings I 13:18, the book of Malachi (this prophet’s name means “angelic”).
6. Above the World – fatal to paganism but opens the door to Deism; Go wound up the world like a clock, setting in place laws of Nature and then left it.
7. Ultimate Biblical representation is that He is both above the World and within the World.

VI

The model of God spanning Heaven and Earth Isaiah 66:1, 40:22, 6;1 (the Temple being the representation of God’s Presence, Efodi, Introduction to the Guide, Shaarei Orah of R. Yosef, Gikatilla).

1. What it tells:  God sits on His Throne in Heaven and rests his feet on the Earth. This is the representation in the first verses of Genesis, God is shown as being the Creator and above the World but also present within it, both transcendent and immanent, Great and accessible. It uses the split-screen technique to craft a position out of the two conflicting concepts that is more complex but above all more personal than either one alone.

In the beginning -what?

1. There are two concurrent presentations in the Creation story, but one is favored.                                                                                             a. Split scene presentations - two different perspectives at the same time. This forces us to interpret and reconcile, and In this way, we own the final story. It actively enrolls us and makes us buy into the story and its assumptions.                                                         b. Sergei Eisenstein, 1898-1948, Russian filmmaker: Battleship Potemkin - 1925, awarded as the Greatest Film of all times in Brussels World Fair 1956. Socialist realism required all writers to focus on big, bold historic events and discouraged individual stories; therefore to express themselves filmmakers stored to the Montage technique.
2. Deliberate grammatical violations and surprises,                                                                                                                                                            a.The grammar does not require to start with the preposition Bet (Ibn Ginach, Sefer Hasheroshim)                                                b. Reishis is in possessive form but possessive to what is not stated (See Rashi). Leaving out "in the beginning" of what is surely significant.  I follow here with a discussion of how genitive differs between Hebrew and Indo-European languages. In Hebrew, it is the possessed object that changes, in the European language, it is the possessor.                                           c. There are other examples of a possessive form without indicating by whom or what they are possessed, but it is not common, see Hosea 1,2.
3. These grammatical irregularities lead some to conclude that there was no Creation, but what is being described is the formation from eternally pre-existent matter. They are Ibn Ezra ibid, Kuzari 1:63-67, Gersonides in The Wars of the Lord, Part 6, and perhaps Maimonides in Guide 11:13. You can add to these the Aleinu Prayer, which speaks of theShaper of the beginning ( Yotser Bareisht). This is not the majority opinion, but it is important.
4. There are two very different ways to read the first verse, and at the same time!  Consonant with our approach, our question then is why does the Torah present two mutually exclusive Creation stories in the very beginning and at the same time and uses this "split-screen" technique.
5. Conclusion: The simultaneous presentation of these different views is to indicate to us that the main question that should concern us is, "Where is God". Is he a distant Creator, who made the world and set it in motion and then absconded and let it run by itself, the Deist view, or is he within the World, personal and right here with us? The Scripture favors the 2nd view, as we see in the next verse, where the spirit of God is fashioning, shaping, drying the waters and causing things to come into being, on Earth and not in Heaven. We will later discuss how the Scripture sees God as being both in Heaven and on Earth, spanning both.
6. Through this presentation, the Bible teaches us that there is Creation from nothing, but not at the expense of the involved Creator continuing to interact with the World and with us. From its perspective, it is more important for us to understand that this Deity that is being introduced to us in the beginning, is an active and involved one, one that we can deal with and worship, and this is the basis of religious life, than how Creation actually happened, from nothing or from something.
7. Reference the book God of Old by James Kugel.

Welcome and Introduction

Welcome Friends.

These are outlines of the talks that can be found on multiple podcast platforms, including, Spotify, Google Podcasts, I-tunes Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, and Podbean.

 

I. Why this podcast?

A. The world needs to come together. What can bring us together? Search for Wisdom!

B.The Source of wisdom is in our past. Humanity's greatest book of wisdom is the Bible. 1.6 billion people worldwide read the Bible. It is what shaped our institutions, our notions of Right and Wrong, Beauty, and Ugliness. It is at the core of our human identity.

C.The Bible has in it much that is good, and wise, and beautiful.

II. It is fashionable now to claim that we had moved past the Bible, that it is misogynist, oppressive, and filled with violence, the cause of greatest inhumanity that man had shown to man. Yet, the greatest pains brought by men to their brothers were in the 20th century, the time of abandonment of religion and growing Biblical illiteracy, when, as Nietzsche said, "God is dead". On the contrary, the Bible contains great spiritual gifts, profound wisdom, and the keys to human fulfillment.

III. The World is more fractured than ever.

A. As we get to know one another, we are sometimes repelled by what we see, disgusted by what we encounter - all well-known psychological mechanisms. Sometimes we elevate the differences, sometimes we rail and at them or downplay them.

B.The Bible is a common heritage of humanity and it has the power to unite us.

C.Yet, much of what we understand when we read it is peculiar and bound by our individual backgrounds, and we divide on what it teaches: by the traditions of interpretation, by faith, by cultural backgrounds, by past histories. How can this be overcome so we come together?

D. Examples of interpretive traditions:

Jewish

Christian

Modern Academic

Halachic - the place of the Law

The role of the original language rather than translation

Allegorical

E. Finding common ground by focusing on what it tells, not what it says

1) The Scripture invites us to interpret it from inside by using a variety of techniques

2) it leaves lacunae by leaving out crucial details and using a variety of techniques, such as presenting apparently contradictory information, varying expressions, planting grammatical and stylistic inaccuracies, using specific words and not other words or terms, split-screen presentations, changing villains and heroes midway, and many others.

3) This forces us to reconcile, reconstruct, and we become co-authors of the evolving tale. Through the power of subliminal suggestion, through setting the stage with certain assumptions and then enrolling us in completing the story, we accept those assumptions and become convinced without being preached to or didactically taught.

4) If we understand the techniques and modes of presentation, we can bring out the teachings and what is being told from the subliminal to the level of the mind and clearly understand it. You need not even be a believer to participate in this process, just to have respect for the greatest book ever written and trust in its wisdom, subtlety, and skill.

5) Much of this approach is based on Eric Auerbach's seminal first chapter of Mimesis and a number of newly emerging schools of interpretation.

 

“Books are not made to be believed but to be subjected to inquiry. When we consider a book, we mustn't ask ourselves what it says but what it means...”
― Umberto Eco, The Name of the Rose

 

 

Getting old, seeing G-d

An old man and his 6 year old grandson are sitting on a bench.

Both lost in thought....

The child turns to his grandfather and asks: "Zeide, did you ever see G-d?".

"Yes", he answers," all the time".

Both - pensive....

"Did you see him when you were six?", asks the grandson.

"No, answers the old man, " but now that I am getting older, I can barely see anything but Him".

 

Donal Trump and the Jewish problem

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/author/mark-levin/

Veritas linguam latinum discit

Veritas contributed this:

I took up the study of Latin. You may ask why?

One could explain it, as some would say, that you do not choose what you love it.This is how the culture that surrounds us would respond to a question like this, assuming that why one does things is mysterious and impossible to understand, and we should just follow what we are and do what our heart tells us to do, without questions. I do not agree with that. As Yidden we should at least make an effort to understand what motivates us, so that we may know  whether it is worthy or unworthy and how to proceed with it or manage it, and thus we gain self insight and wisdom.

My wife not bothered by it. In fact, she is proud of her husband, the scholar. But, my kids.....they don't like it at all.

The other day, one of my younger ones asked me why I took up the study of Latin. The older one  broke in and answered for me: "Because Totty is studying to be a priest!". 

Why would one study Latin? It is a dead language and everyone who ever spoke it is long dead. As one, now immortal student had said:

'Latin is a dead language,
As dead as dead can be.
It killed the ancient Romans,
And now it's killing me.

All are dead who ever spoke it
All are dead who ever wrote it
All will die who ever learned it
Blessed death, they surely earned it!

There the facile explanations for I am drawn to Latin, the ones that come first to mind.

It helps the study of the Talmud, which contains many words of Latin provenance. This is especially true of Yerushalmi, and as Professor Shaul Lieberman and Samuel Krauss have shown, many times the knowledge of these words opens up the sugya in ways that are otherwise not possible. I always paid a lot of attentions to understanding the realia of daily life  described in the Talmud and learning Latin would be nothing more than an extension of that.

But, then I should study Greek, which everyone agrees was a much stronger presence in the Talmud than Latin.

Perhaps I can trace my interest in Latin to a conversation with a former student, a classics major, who explained how he first came into contact with Jewish learning. He found a copy of a translated Tanya in his college library, and was fascinated by it. However, h could not understand anything in it and was tempted to put it away and never come back; but, he reminded himself that he is a student of ancient texts and has the skills to tackle this challenge - so he did, and made headway, and now can boast of generations of Lubavitch Hassidim.

So, I thought to myself - Hmm, Latin is an ancient text! I also study ancient texts!

On a deeper level, Roman culture was a counterpart and counterweight to the Jewish culture. It was a reflection and a mirror image of our civilization, and by comparison, one can understand one by reference to the other. When one  rises, the other one falls (Megilla 6a). It is interesting that modern scholars have come to the same conclusions without a reference to the Talmudic maxim. 

Is this enough? Who knows? May be one really cannot explain or account for what and who one loves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pray like a servant, also like a slave...

Beloved God, my Teacher and my Friend

You pull me up and please hold me there

Uplift my thoughts and my imperfect leaps

My falls I know and them to  you I bare. 

 

Forgive missteps, I made them all for You

In my exuberance I leaped before I could

It was in Love, even my weakness, it was true

So darkness flee and merit may accrue

 

I wasn't without fault, I did abandon You

Despair engulfed me and I fled Your Face

But always I returned, I always followed through

It was me I betrayed, not You

 

To YOU I come in dread and mostly  love

Ashamed, in darkness and with heart enflamed 

For double YOU made me, a bear and dove

A speck of gold in carbon  rock inlaid.

 

My King, your servant pines for You

Like son, not servant, also like a slave.

Forgive and tell me that my love is true

What I fear most is that it be depraved. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gentile gilgulim

A reader asked me about a post that mentioned that Avtalyon was a gilgul of Aristotle. This statement is, on the face of it, a striking one, for no less a reason that it presupposes that non-Jews undergo a process of gilgul, which is contrary to the teaching of the Ari as presented in Sefer Hagilgulim.

He then shared with me the following source from the recently translated work of R. Azariah DePano (Reincarnation of Souls, p.38), that says that he was gilgul not of Aristotle but of Aristobolus: "Aristobolous was a spark of Avtalyon" (must be understood in reverse because Avatolyon lived afer Aristobolus), who taught unworthy students, who became Saducees. Aristobolous was related to their aspect, which is why he ultimately repented. He was reincarnated in Antoninus, who studied under Rabbeinu Hakadosh."

Now, one first thinks that this Aristobolus is the first Hasmonean king and this is who we are talking about. However, turns out that there were several other Aristiboluses:

• Aristobulus I (died 103 BC), king of the Hebrew Hasmonean Dynasty, 104–103 BC
• Aristobulus II (died 49 BC), king of Judea from the Hasmonean Dynasty, 67–63 BC
• Aristobulus III of Judea (53 BC–36 BC), last scion of the Hasmonean royal house
• Aristobulus IV (31 BC–7 BC), Prince of Judea, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne, married Berenice, father of Agrippa I
• Aristobulus Minor, son of the above, brother of Agrippa I
• Aristobulus of Chalcis
• Aristobulus of Alexandria (c. 160 BC), Hellenistic Jewish philosopher
• Aristobulus of Cassandreia (375 BC–301 BC), Greek historian and engineer, accompanied Alexander the Great on his campaigns
• Aristobulus of Britannia, one of the Seventy Disciples, brother of Barnabas
• Aristobulus of Paneas, one of 72 priests who translated the Torah into the Greek

Airstoboluso l Aexandria and Aristobolus of Paneas are interesting candidates in light of what we will speak about shortly. If we assume Asitobolus III, IV or Minor, the literal reading that "Aristibolos was a spark of Avtalyon" (presupposing that Aristobolus lived after Avtalyon) can be mantained.

By the way, this name comes from the Greek name Αριστοτελης (Aristoteles) which meant "the best purpose", derived from αριστος (aristos) "best" and τελος (telos)"purpose, aim". There is something of the concept of gilgul in this name itself.

Going back to the Avtalyon being a gilgul of Aristotle, the source is from Seder Hadoros, Avtulmus in the name in Gilgulei Haneshomos, the very same sefer of which we just read an excerpt in English above. However, here it says something different.

Download Aristotle Seder Hadoros07242016_0000. 

Here is says that Avtalyon was a gilgul of Aristotolus. You note right away that this name, Aristotolos is not the name by which Aristotle is usually known in Jewish sources, A more common name is Aristo. That makes one wonder whether a transposition of a letter somewhere along the line of transmission made Aristobolus into Aristotolos.

To come back, how does one reconcile the reading of Sefer Hadoros with the view of the Ari that Gentiles do not undergo gilgul?

I offer two possible answers.

One is that there were early Kabbalists who disagreed with the view that Gentiles do not reincarnate. This question is discussed in Minchas Yehuda by R. Yehuda Hachayat, who quotes a view the gilgul also takes place with Gentiles and argues against it. There is a fascinating discussion about it in Brian Ogren, Renaissance and rebirth: Reincarnation in early modern Italian kabbalah, p. 159 ( his book is available in Google Books).

One can make a  distinction between reincarnating into a Gentile or a Gentile soul reincarnating into  a Jew. The former is much more understadable, since Lurianic gilgul can take place even into stones, so why not Gentiles. A more difficult problem presented by the above passage is reincarnation from Gentiles into Jews.Turns out, there is source also for that. 

"Abraham and Sarah, the first Jewish couple, were married for many years before they were blessed with a child, but their union generated many spiritual children. Kabbalah explains that the souls created by Abraham and Sarah—and the souls created from the unions of other righteous couples—have been distributed among the nations of the world, and it is these souls who become converts to Judaism", from Shelah Ha-Kadosh, Sha’ar Ha-Osios, “Kedushas Hazivug,” 402.

"This is why a convert is called the son or daughter of Abraham and Sarah. In a sense, his or her soul stems directly from our first patriarch and matriarch." A similar concept is quoted in the name of Sefer Hapliyah - that the souls of the converts were Jewish to begin with. This is why the expression is, " Convert who converted (ger shenisgayer)", instead of the" Gentile who converted".

 

So it may be that some Gentles have Jewish souls. Presumably, they can then reincarnate into Jews on their path to completion even according to the Ari..

 

Another interesting claim is that Holocaust gilgulim are showing up in gentiles.

 

 

 

Talmud going through us...

It is said that a scholar once came to R. Israel Salanter and boasted that he had gone through the Talmud, surely an achievement. Detecting a smudge of arrogance in the man's manner, R. Salanter asked him: "you had gone through most of the Talmud, but how much of the Talmud had gone through you"?

 

Here a story of two people through whom Talmud had gone, and a lesson for us.

How a Talmud Class Helped Save My Marriage

After 36 years of fiercely devoted marriage, my husband and I are broke, anxious and disappointed. We hardly speak to each other, and when we do it is mostly to accuse and complain. Is it desperation, a search for solace or something more elusive that brings us to the most unlikely of places? One autumn afternoon, responding to an invitation by a rabbi friend, we find found ourselves joining a class called “Tales From the Talmud.”

Neither ET, as I call my husband, nor I have any reason to believe that rabbinic literature will be restorative. Our personal histories with Judaism are very different: ET, a hidden child during the war, lived most of his adult life as a secular, Parisian Jew. His attitude toward Talmud study is at best neutral, tinged with curiosity. I am a generation younger, raised in the postwar era by a father whose militant Orthodoxy was a constant impediment to everything I longed for in life.

Despite my misgivings, we find ourselves on the 46th floor of a midtown law firm, seated on opposite sides of a spacious conference table, ready for class to begin.

The first discussion pushes a hot button. How can we recognize true love, the Sages asked. One replies that the real thing is not conditional on anything external such as beauty, wealth or status, for if it were, love would too easily risk its own extinction. Another counters that true love is of course dependent on conditions. The real question is — what conditions. If they arise from solid values — piety, wisdom, trust — they will sustain the bond.

Could my love have been conditional on the good times? It’s uncomfortable seeing myself in that harsh light. What were the underpinnings of our union? Over three decades, we had no shortage of passion, travel, dancing, culture, humor, social life. But lasting values like open communication, deep caring, trust and honesty, devoted parenting and providing one another with rock-solid, safe refuge also figured high. Lately we’ve seen serious erosion on all counts. I try to catch my husband’s eye, but he is looking away.

In the following weeks I recall how the rabbis see the world as multileveled. The physical world is real and present, while it also partakes of higher realms in which ultimate meaning lies. In the Talmud, the faithful often encounter life-threatening drought. The imbalance in the natural world is symptomatic of ills on other planes: They must reckon with their deeds; their relationship with God must be set right.

We read of a rabbi who brings his disciples to a rooftop to pray for rain. His humble wife undertakes her own quiet supplications in another corner. The rain comes to her area of the roof, not the men’s. When resources run dry, as inevitably they do, women are the go-to rainmakers — even, or especially, in a patriarchal society.

When we leave class, ET says, without apology or aggression: “You know, I was able to provide for you for a long time. Now it’s your turn.” Ill at ease with this reversal of assumed gender roles, and even more discomfited by my own inflexibility, I find an excuse to hurry along. But I am unable to ignore the message.

A week later, still seated apart, we read a story about an older rabbi who declares to his wife that he will henceforth be sexually abstinent. The frustrated woman dresses up as the town prostitute and vamps in the garden, where her husband retreats to study. Overcome with desire, he asks her to fetch him a pomegranate. She agrees, and there is a certain ambiguity overlaid with sexual innuendo as to what happens next. He returns to the hearth to find his spouse in her usual wifely drab. He laments that because he has sinned, he must be punished. His wife insists he has committed no such sin because the object of his “illicit” desire was none other than her.

Again, the wife is the more resourceful of the two. I ask ET if, in his view, the husband might have known all along that the object of his desire was really his wife. ET insists that the man’s libido was awakened by only the fancied transgression. We are having our first edgy and totally honest exchange in a long time.

In another class, we read of a father who reminds me of my own. ET and I are now seated side by side. An angry Rabbi Abin tells his daughter, “You are a source of trouble to mankind; return to dust so that men may not sin because of you.” ET knows how I suffered from my own Orthodox father’s refusal to nurture my life force. ET gently presses my thigh with his own under the table.

The class draws to a close with a final story. A certain Rechumi spends all his time off studying in the far-off academy, coming home to his wife only for Yom Kippur. One year, she waits and waits, sure that her husband will come, but he does not. Still at school, Rechumi wanders up to the roof in deep contemplation. In the moment his wife realizes he is not coming, she sheds a single tear. In that same moment, the roof collapses under Rechumi and he is killed.

ET asks, “Do you know why this one tear is so powerful?” I reply, “Because it is her “Aha” moment, the instant everything becomes clear.”

He says, his voice cracking: “This is not simply a unique tear. This is her last tear. After this tear, she will never shed another over this man.”

We sit curled up in each other’s arms, breathing in harmony if not in unison, recalling the old feeling of absolute belonging.

“That is one tear I will not shed,” I say.

The classes are over, but the rabbinic imagination has put us in touch with our impulses and excesses, our patterns and possibilities. Like the Sages, we do not always agree, but we are again fully engaged. It seems the embrace of shared vulnerability is the unconditional condition of aging love, one that is not likely to expire.

 

Hitting Rock Bottom -Korach

The Torah is written on many levels, among them the literary and metaphorical. We may not always understand the metaphors it uses, but they, nevertheless, can "get into our kishkes", affecting us on the symbolic, experiential and emotional levels, so that an idea penetrates, diffuses and dwells in out subconscious and, affects and shapes how we understand and interpret other Torah passage. Stories do that, images and phrases do it. 

Among such devices is, I believe, the swallowing of Korach and his congregation by the earth.

On the face of it, the earth opening its mouth and swallowing the unruly rebels is remarkable and a riveting image. As we discussed before, and based on Mordechai Breuers work. the story of Korach is a split screen. On one scree, there stands the grouping of characters around Korach: on the other screen is the one led by Dosan abd Aviram. In one wants power, the other one egalitarianism in Divine Service. One is around Korach's tent, the other by he Altar. The two movies, however, intertwine and bleed into the frames of one another. Most importantly, they dies in two different ways. Korach is swallowed by the earth and the the others are consumed by fire. 

What it the metaphor of the earth opening up and swallowing Korach and his congregation? There are, of course, many, but one stands out.

The metaphor of falling through the earth, may I suggest, represents the concept that goes beyond  "hitting rock bottom". 

When a person falls,he or she tend to eventually hit rock bottom. It may be an alcoholic, thrown out by his wife and children, having lost his job, vomiting in a dark hotel room after another binge, an addict waking up where he never imagined he would ever be, or milder variations of such, that make an individual confront that there is no where to go lower than this, and the only way now is up.

“Rock bottom became the solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life.”  J.K. Rowling

But what about those who refuse to acknolwedge that they hit rock bottom, who persist on the same way, who insist on staying where there is  no lower where to go?

Korach was warned. His base motivations were reveled to him, but he refused to turn back. Within a forthnight he went from a respected elder to a despicable rebel. He hit rock bottom. He had nowhere else to go but up. But he did not!

The metaphor in the parsha is telling us that, even where one seems to have to hit rock bottom but refuses to go up, and there are appears to be no lower than he can go, if the does not catch himself, he will find that there is yet lower where to go.

The solid rocky ground can open up the gehennom under its seemingly solid surface, and there is much lower than one can go!

The alternative to not going up from the very bottom is not staying there, but going even lower. Where one thinks that it cannot get worse, the ground open up, and unimagined depths of depravity reveal themselves. It teaches us that one must, must go up for if not, there is much lower yet to go.

 

 

Rabbi Akiva and the Alef Bet

In the Shavuos edition of this year's Inyan magazine I saw an article about Alef Beis that asks the following question on this passage from Avos D'Rabbi Noson, Ch.6 (Version A):

What were Akiva's beginnings? 

It is said: Up to the age of forty, he had not yet studied a thing. One time, while standing by the mouth of a well in Lydda, he inquired, "Who hollowed out this stone?" and was told, "Akiva, haven't you read that 'water wears away stone' (Job 14:19)? - it was water falling upon it constantly, day after day."

At that, Rabbi Akiva asked himself: Is my mind harder than this stone? I will go and study at least one section of Torah. He went directly to a schoolhouse, and he and his son began reading from a child's tablet. Rabbi Akiva took hold of one end of the tablet, and his son of the other end. The teacher wrote down alef and get for him, and he learned them; alef to tav, and he learned them; the book of Leviticus, and he learned it. He went on studying until he learned the whole Torah.

 

Why was there a need for Akiva to study Alef Bet, when his knowledge of Tanach must have been prodigious, He knew the verse from Job 14:19, so he must have known how to read, and quite a bit of Tanach as well.

The author, whose name I unfortunately no longer recall, suggests that what R. Akiva learned was not the just the shapes and forms of the letters but the entire mystical tradition relating to the alphabet.

 

If so, however, why was his young son studying it with him?

 

I would suggest two other approaches:

 

1.R. Akiva certainly knew how to read but now he was about to launch on the study of Torah Shebaal Peh. The Alphabet is the most basic expression of Oral law, as indicated in this Talmudic passage in Shabbos 31a, and he had to relearn it as a part of Torah Shabbal Peh, or this dimension of the Oral tradition would be missing from him:

 

A case occurred, a Nochri came in front of Shamai; he asked, how many Toros do you have.

1.Shamai: We have two, written and oral.

2.The Nochri: I believe you about the written Torah, not about the oral Torah - convert me on condition that you will teach written Torah to me!

3.Shamai angrily drove him away.

4.The Nochri came in front of Hillel; Hillel converted him. The first day, Hillel taught him Aleph, Beis, Gimel, Dalet; the next day, Hillel reversed the order of the letters.

5.The Nochri: Yesterday you taught differently!

6.Hillel: You rely on me to know the letters - you can also rely on me regarding oral Torah!

 

2. Some day , he knew that he will no longer be Akiva, but Rabbo Akiva, the great Sage from whom many will come to learn. He will receive many questions. One day a questioner will ask him how to teach Alef Beis, and he would not know. This is why he started again from the beginning.

One sometimes encounters rabbis whose learning did not start from Alef Beis. They gained a lot of knowledge but missed absorbing the authentic attitude and feeling of Yiddishkeit. They can handle the data but not the Spirit of the Law. They can answer technical questions but not teach the inner dimension. They don't understand why something that is not clearly forbidden might still be inadvisable. R. Akiva did not want to become such a rabbi, and, even though he could read, he elected to start his education again from the beginning.

 

 

Three Rabbis:

 

 

 

 

Of ants and grasshoppers, and frigate birds... and spies

When the spies returned from their mission to the Land of Israel, they curiously never said that Jews cannot conquer it. This is what they said:

"“We came to the land to which you sent us. It flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit.  However, the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large. And besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there (Numbers 3) .

To which Caleb responded: "“Let us go up at once and occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it.”

The spies then explained what they experienced:“The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. ³³ And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

Much has been made of this amazing lack of confidence in themselves, their mission and ultimately of Hashem's power, but an important question remains. Why did they not compare themselves to ants? Why to grasshoppers?

Rashi seems to have been troubled by this question and he explains that grasshoppers really means ants. He says: "We heard them say to each other, 'There are ants in the vineyard like people".

However, one can suggest that they really did mean grasshoppers and not ants, and why is this?

Because there is a major difference about how ants and grasshoppers think of themselves.

Ants are very happy to run across the ground and have no aspiration to leap, to go higher. They are very happy to be ants, like all their fellow ants, of which they are an integral part. Ants are faithful workers, who contribute to the collective; they work industriously and proudly, until it is their time to go into oblivion, fully satisfied with their  little lives and their tiny, but to them primary place in the ant universe. No ant ever thought to rise above his fellows. His is what he is, a social creature, who measures himself solely by its social position in the world of ants. 

Grasshoppers jump. They rise and they fall. They cover distance. They try, every time to jump higher.

Ants do not get depressed by Giants. In their universe, Giants don't even exist.And if they do so what. Can Giants build ant heaps, drag kernels to the Queen, build walls and do all the things good ants do? Of course now. If so, what are they good for?

But grasshoppers, understand, they understand.

Ants will never be depressed by Giants. But, grasshoppers are.

When the spies saw the Giants, they suffered an acute crisis of confidence. For so many years, they worked on scaling the heights of greatness, fixing their characters, gaining awareness of the Divine, plumbing the depths of Torah. Year by year their jumps became a little higher, their time in the air a little longer.

And then they met Giants. They felt like frauds, or worse, suckers. Grasshoppers cannot be Giants, so why even try.

Fine, you might say, that is true and so why were they wrong.

"Then the glory of the Lord appeared at the tent of meeting to all the Israelites (Numbers 14).  The Lord said to Moses, “How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs I have performed among them?

They were profoundly mistaken because with Hashem's active help and assistance, even grasshoppers can become Giants. This is what they did not understand.

Once we talk about animals, let us look at another majestic creature that Hashem had made.

Frigate birds can stay in the airs for days at a time, hardly ever flapping their expansive wings. For many years, zoologists were mystified about this ability, until they realized that frigate birds ride currents. They are able to find an updraft and stay with it for hours at a time, skipping and jumping from one current to another.

 In their confusion and humiliation, in their embarassment about the limits of their own powers, the spies forgot the great Power of Hashem. They forgot that they need not flap their wings to exhaustion, gaining altitude inch by inch. They can rest upon and ride the updraft of the Master of the World.

So can we!

 

 

 

I Am Back

With Hashem's blessing and with His assistance, I will again start blogging on Avakesh. 

 

Overheard: What do you call that again?

Older fellow with glasses: I see that book in your taliis bag, called "Forgiveness". What is it about?

New Age Guy: It is about how you have to forgive all those people who hurt you?

Congregant: Why would you do it, if they dont ask?

New Age Guy: No, you forgive them for yourself, so you can be free. Not forgiving traps you in negativity.

Glasses: Really?

New Age Guy: Yes. It holds you back, it gives them continued power over you. When you let go, you can move forward.

Glasses: Can't you move forward without them. You can forget them, for example. Forgiving someone because you want to detach from them is kind of selfish  and not sincere- no?

New Age Guy: Forgiving is always noble. It's theatrical, a grand jesture of liberation. It's a better thing to do.

Glasses: And trusting that G-d is always just is a very private step. I get it. In my book, they have to ask. for fogiveness. They can't hold you back, if you understand that it is all from Hashem and they are just His messengers. Then we are honest, I am not using them for my ends and they gain true forgiveness - through understanding.

New Age Guy, unsure: But forgiving is better.

Glasses: Doesn't sound very Jewish, Sounds outright Christian. Forgiveness only comes if it is solicited.  I KNOW that I cannot forgive someone unless he apologizes, at the very least, and I better know he means it. I can say that I forgive him but that is just words and I don't really mean it. I am just being noble in my own mind and self involved. I enjoy shoving my superiority in their faces and I gain not repair but revenge.

New Age Guy: How would you know that he means the apology?  May he is just unburdening himself to not be trapped himself in negativity.

Glasses: If the apology is sincere. I know what is sincere; if it is complete, if he doesn't minimize the offense and does not blame others or the cicumstances. If he is willing to compensate - then I know it is not just words.

New Age Guy: What difference does it make what you call it.

 Glasses: What you call it shapes your perception of what it is. Truth is always beter than self delusion.

New Age Guy, insisting:  But if you don't forgive you will always remain trapped. It's for you, not for them.

Glasses: I seee what you mean. But, may be that is not called forgiveness, May be you you do it to move on but you need to call it something else, what it really is.

New Age Guy: What?

Glasses: Bitachon !

Shimush - the art of being a student.

Being a student used to not be easy. Not only did one have to invest many years in sitting at the feet of a Sage, often from an early age, not only was one expected to sacrifice the concerns for the self and the diversions of everyday life to the complete preoccupation with toil in Torah - one was also pressed to serve the Rebbi.

R. Joshua b. Levi ruled: All manner of service that a slave must render to his master a student must render to his teacher, except that of taking off his  shoe.  Raba explained: This ruling  applies only to a place where he  is not known, but where he is known there can be no objection.  R. Ashi said: Even where he  is not known the ruling  applies only where he does not put on tefillin  but where he puts on tefillin, he may well perform such a service. R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan. A man who deprives his student of [the privilege of] attending on him acts as if he had deprived him of [an act of] kindness, for it is said in Scripture, To him that deprives  his friend  of kindness.  R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He also deprives  him of the fear of heaven, for it is said in Scripture, And he forsaketh the fear of the Almighty. (Kesuvos 96a)

What does it mean to serve a Master? Is it solely a way to advance in Torah?

It says in the Braisa at the end Avo that Torah can be gained in 48 days. Among them is shimush(service of the wise):

התורה נקנית במ"ח דברים ואלו הן...בשמוש חכמים

Rashi says::

שדוחק ונכנס בכל מקום לשמוע דבריהן ולשמשן

The student must push to enter everyplace (that they teach) and serve them.

This passage elevates serving the Rabbis to the same level as learning from them. As one of the 48 ways to gain wisdom, Shimush Chachamim (serving the Sages) is on the same level as actual learning from them. That is the utility of this Service. There is also a mItzva it it.

 

In fact, as a Mitzva, serving is greater than learning. serving is greater than learning.RI of KURVEILLE (quoted in Tosfos, Kesuvos 17a, DH Mevatlin) says that even though one must be stop Torah study in order to perform the Mitzvah of burying the dead, "Shimush Talmidei Chachamim" overrides burying the dead (even a "Mes Mitzvah"). The service of the Torah is greater thanits study( Brochos 17b)!

 

There are many stories in the Talmud of Sages who required a student to perform some personal service before they would impart a teaching to him. Serving comes before learning. 

 

Nowadays this aspect of training for Torah greatness has been lost. Rarely will you find a young man who dedicates himself to a specific great scholar, even to the extent of attending on his everyday needs. Those who do help elderly scholars, are on the contrary, among the weaker students, the "gabbai" of a Rosh Yeshiva or a "kloiz bochur" of a Hassidic Rebbe.

This situations results in students who superficially appear devoted to their teachers, but in truth, are only connected to them as long as the students derive some benefit from their devotion. They quote them and cite them, constantly referring to : "My Rebbe said this and my Rebbe said that", but when the Rebbe asks for even a small favor, such students dissappear. As soon as the Rebbe asks them to give something in return, they flee. This is how R. Yechiel Weinberg describes such students: "... there are students who are devoted to their teachers, who warm to their light and feel deep gratitude towards them. However, this feeling lasts only when it does not carry any practical obligation (see here, p.118)."

 

Why has such a situation arisen? It might have something to do with the demise of the institution of the apprenticeship. In a society where one does not invest years of learning and observation to learn a craft, the concept of a learning relationship dissappears.  Mentorship replaces apprenticeship. The effort and responsibility in the mentoring relationship is on the mentor and not the mentee.

 

More importantly, it is because of the rarity of the authentic appreciation that one must give in order to receive. 

 

Rebbe Rashab writes in the maaamar Mikne Rav and Ele Hadevorim (Reish Samekh Vov) that there are two kinds of servants: a servant that serves from Awe and Fear and one who serves from Love. In addition, there is a Son, who serves his Father by giving, because due to the great similarity that he sees to himsef in his father, he gives selflessly and without boundary.

 

"You should teach your sons"- these are the students (Sifrei to Deut. 6:7 and Rashi ibid).

We now understand the purpose and the nature and absolute necessity for Shimusha shel Torah! A student who gives to his Teacher establishes a true bilateral relationship. Not so one who only takes. Taking makes people uncomfortable, for it imposes a subtle obligation to reciprocate. People resent being in debt and under an obligation to another ( Rav Dessler, Kuntress Hachesed, Giving and Taking, Michtav M'Eliahu vol. 1). A student cannot have a full and open relationship with a Rebbe when the student resents the Rebbe. This concept underlies the chassidic concept of Hiskashrus. The chossid does something for the Rebbe; for example, in Lubavitch he goes on Shelichus, because it will please the latter. This connects them.

 

One cannot be a taker in Torah study. To take from the Rebbe, no matter how desirous he might be of imparting knowledge (more than the calf wants to suckle, the cow wants to nurse (Pesachim112a)), is not the way in which Torah will be imparted. First give, then take. WIth their great insight into human psyche, the sages taught is this message. A student must first and always give. Only giving will bind him to his teacher. Taking creates distance, giving produces a connection. A student must establish a connection, not a selfish connection based on his own need, but a selfless devotion based on giving. Only then will Torah effortlessly spill over from the teacher to the pupil and take up a position within his heart.