avakesh

"Help, she threw a chair at me!"

It's that easy!? see, http://www.avakesh.com/2006/09/accepting_insul_1.html

Nachamu - shidduch video

http://www.avakesh.com/2007/03/shidduch_video.html

Wiki on ben Sira and did you know?

Conservative Machzor replaces the Avodah piyut with a passage from Ben Sira - outrageous!

"While Jews reject the apocrypha as having religious value in and of of itself, at various times some in the Jewish community have drawn from it as a legitimate part of Jewish literary creativity; elements of the apocrypha have even been used as the basis for two important parts of the Jewish liturgy. In the Mahzor (High Holy day prayer book), a medieval Jewish poet used Ben Sira as the basis for a beautiful poem, Ke'Ohel HaNimtah. This is a closing piyut in the Seder Avodah section, in the Yom Kipur Musaf. It begins "How glorious indeed was the High Priest, when he safely left the Holy of Holies. Like the clearest canopy of Heaven was the dazzling countenance of the priest". (This can be seen, for example, on page 828 of the Birnbaum edition of the Mahzor.) The Conservative Mahzor replaces the medieval piyut with the relevant section from Ben Sira, which is more direct (Avakesh comments: What a bad idea!). The apocrypha has even formed the basis of the most important of all Jewish prayers, the Amidah (the Shemonah Esrah). Ben Sira provides the vocabulary and framework for many of the Amidah's blessings, which were instituted by the men of the Great Assembly."

Or vice versa....

Ben Sira was a contemporary of Shimon Hatsadik, the last of the Men of the Great Assembly. Some parts of it may have been written with Ruach Hakodesh, see http://www.avakesh.com/2007/01/the_enigma_of_b.html

Shimon Hatsaddik, Avos 1:2

Shimon Hatsadik was from the remnants of the Men of the Great Assembly...

The previous mishna explained how Prophetic Judaism was, with prophetic sanction,  transformed by the Men of the Great Assembly into the forerunner of Rabbinic Judaism as we know it now.  The Great Assembly was the transition body that replaced prophetic inspiration, that now ceased, with the ideal of devotion to the Law, ecstatic religiosity with the idea of reflective scholarship, and the ideal of prophetic apprenticeship with group study. We do not know for how long the Great Assembly functioned, one generation or many generations, but Shimon Hatsadik was its last member. Some sources identify him with Iddo ben Yehoshua, the brother of Ezra. If so, Shimon Hatsadik is mentioned in Ezra 3 and the the prophecy of Haggai under that name (Yuchasin). Maor Einaim places him as the 8th generation from Yehoshua ben Yehotsdak (Nechemia 12). His father was Chonio and his son Some say great-grandson) was also called Chonio, the one who built a Temple in Egypt (Menachos 109B). Shimon Hatsadik presented himself in front of Alexander the Great and saved the Jewish people from the machinations of the Samaritans (Yoma 49a). According to Yuchasin, he also instituted the counting of years from Alexander (Minyan Shtoros) and, in the honor of his entry to the Land of Israel,  decreed that the year begins in Tishrei, the year previously considered to begin in Nissan . According to Yuchasin, the first schism in Judaism occurred in his time. "When Alexander left Jerusalem, Sanbalt the Horite went out (with him) with a part of Israel as well as some of the sons of Yehoshua the High Priest who have intermarried with Samaritans... Then half the people followed Shimon Hatsaddik and half Sanbalt and his in-laws..."(Yuchasin)

What strikes one about these and other accounts is the perception that Shimon Hatsadik was a transitional figure - between the Men of the Great Assembly that unified Israel and the schisms that have torn it apart subsequently throughout the era of the Second Temple. As a transitional figure, this great leader would be expected to direct the nation towards a program of national existence that sets it upon the path or spiritual prosperity, just like the Men of the Great Assembly did before him. As the undisputed head of the nation, he undoubtedly considered how it should be optimally governed.

Shimon Hatsadik, though the force of his intellect,piety and the prestige of his office held all the power in Judea. He was not only  the High Priest but also the President of the Sanhedrin, and Av Beis Din. He also franchised tax collection in Judea (B. Wein, Echoes of Glory, p.37). During the 40 years of his tenure in Judea, its population has grown to 350.000.00 and the population of Jerusalem stood at 120.000.00 (Josephus, Contra Apion 1:197.) It would have been clear to any observer that the main question that stood before the resurgent Jewish polity was: "How and under what principles should it be governed". Was it to be theocratic state, inspired by the ideas of Jewish Scripture, with power diffused among Nasi, as the executive power, the Sanhedrin, as the interpreter of its constitution and the High Priest as the conscience of the state, or would it be modeled after Hellenic political ideas, then sweeping the world. This was the crucial question that divided the Jews then and in the subsequent years.

One can get the sense of how timely this question was from Shimon Hatsadik's contemporary, Ben Sira. It is curious that the last chapters of Ben Sira book are unexpectedly devoted to Enoch, Moses, Aharon, Joshua, Solomon, David, Eliahu,  Josiah and finally Shimon Hatsadik. This is totally unexpected for the rest of the book is composed of short maxims, and its conclusion with these personalities is out of character. However, if we take these chapters as a rumination on leadership, they make perfect sense - for the times. It is a reflection on the stature of Shimon Hatsadik that he is listed as the culmination of this august series of leaders.

This is why Shimon Hastadik says three things, paralleling the legacy of the Men of the Great Assembly. Like they, he left guidelines for the future, in his case, guidelines to the leadership that Judea must set up. Unfortunately his advice was disregarded, for had it been followed, perhaps Jewish history would have turned out differently than it ultimately did. What Shimon Hatsadik wanted to see was leadership based on Torah, Temple Service and public welfare. What we got instead was schisms, pursuit of power and betrayal of Jewish tradition.

The problems that confronted Shimon Hatsadik has their parallels at the time of another Shimon - R. Shimon ben Gamliel. How his formula for Jewish survival resembled the prescriptions of Shimon Hatsadik and how it differed is something that we will take up when we get to the last mishna of our chapter.

How to read a midrashic passage

How to read a midrashic passage

It is widely agreed that cultural conventions shape how we approach the written word. As Westerns we imbibe from childhood certain assumptions about how information should be packaged, how it is effectively presented and what is clear and unclear communication. As we grow older, schooling reinforces and fixes in our minds the acceptable ways in which to lay out arguments and how to persuade. As Westerners, many beginning readers of midrash find themselves disoriented by patterns of argument and presentation that are at times, bewildering and can even be jarring.

As Westerners, we expect that, when several possible positions exist, the presentation begins with the one we favor, relegating the others to role of counterfoil. We react best to an introduction that leads us to the favored argument, a clear and precise statement of that argument, presentation of proof and summary and restatement. When alternative positions are mentioned, it is only in order to contrast and refine. Not so in the midrash.

The midrash often presents the least favored position first. It then gives us an argument against it and modifies it. It asks another question and modifies again. After a series of such steps, often the result is an inelegant and heavily encumbered proposition. It becomes apparent that it cannot be accepted. At that point, a sharp break occurs and we veer off to a position opposite to the one originally proposed. At other times, as in the example we will shortly consider, the break does not imply that the previous conclusion is incorrect. Rather it introduces a different way to explain the proofs. Sometimes a question is asked on that position as well and a modification is introduced to it as well, and this is where the matter finally rests. The end result is a position contrary and opposite of the one with which we began. Because this sharp break is often missed by an untrained eye, midrashic passages may appear confusing or contradictory. Attention to this very non-Western feature of discourse goes a long way to properly understanding Midrashic passages. It helps agreat dealto identify the point of the break and the alternative proposition.

The passage that we will now read  comes from the Sifri (Eikev 5) on the well-known verse of the Shema: "And it will come pass if you surely listen (shmoa tishmeu) to my commandments and perform them...(Devarim 11, 13). " The Midrash is in bold and my comments are in regular font.

Why does it say "surely listen? Because in Devarim 5 it says, "you shall learn them and observe them to perform them". I might understand this to mean that one is not obligated to study until such time as one has to perform; therefore it states "surely listen: - the obligation to learn is immediate."

We begin by pointing out that the relations between study and performance of the commandments can be seen in one of the following two ways, each with a possible modification.
1. Study is only in order to perform. As such, there is no obligation to study particulars of a commandment except when that commandment is about to be performed.
1a. Study is preparatory to religious life in general. One should study even things that are not immediately relevant. We study Torah in order to absorb its hashkafos, its worldview, its outlook - all in order to fulfill its commandments correctly and in the proper spirit. The difficulty with this approach is that it is not immediately clear how Torah study in general leads to better performance of specific commandments.
2. Study of Torah is supreme in its own right with no connection to mitsva performance at all. This approach has later been called Torah Lishmo.
2a. Torah study is supremely important. However, some types of Torah study have the additional benefit of teaching us how to perform commandments and may be  favored for that reason.

The passage presented option 1. It now questions it and modifies it to eventuate in position 1a.

That, we have, is only for mitsvos that are applicable (in the desert) before they entered the land, such as laws of firstborns, sacrifices, tithes and maaser b'heimah ? How do you know (that obligation to study) includes also the laws that became obligatory only after they entered the land, such as omer, chalah, two breads (of Shevuos) and shew bread[1] - it says, "surely listen", to include other mitsvos (as well)[2]. If so, you might think that this refers only to the mitsvos that applied before the land was conquered and settled. Leket, Shikcha, peah, truma, tithes, shemitah and yovel (that became actual only after conquest and settlement) - how do you know those? "You shall surely listen to my commandments"

At this point we are left with the idea that study of even the commandments that re not applicable is obligatory. Even laws that do not apply in the desert should be studied in the desert. Even the laws that will only apply in an agricultural evironment should be studied in the desert, presumably, because they teach us central ideas of Judaism - G-d's sovereignty and Land of Israel. However, it may be that laws that do not communicate theological principles, do not need to bestudied except in preparation to observing them and only when the right time comes. The Sifri negates this position:

How do we know that other mitsvos too (need to be studied even before they actually are about to be performed)? It says, "and you shall study them and perform them". This teaches that that performance depends on study and not vice versa.

What we now maintain is that study is important as preparation for performance of commandments in general. It remains unclear, however, how and why that is the case. We no longer claim that it incalculates certain central ideas; if so, how does study of inapplicable Torah laws lead to their observance? The statement is now modified by merging it with proposition 1a above, thus reinforcing it. What Sifri now says is that study is importnat becasue it leads to performance as an attitude, irrespective of what laws are being studied.

Likewise we find that He punished for lack of study more than for lack of performance, as it says, " Listen the word of Hashem, House of Yakov for argument for Hashem with the House of Yakov and He shall reproach Israel for there is no truth and no chesed and no knowledge of G-d in the land (Hoshea 4)...[3] And it already happened that R. Trafom, R. Yosi Haglili and R. Akiva were reclining in Beis Arod and question was asked: "Is study greater or performance greater" They all responded and said: Study is greater for study leads to performance".[4]

So, study is more important than performance because it is "knowledge of Hashem". Study all laws, currenlty applicable or not, prepares the entire nation for a worldview that values and enshrines mitsva performance. In addition, by connecting the obligation to study with the exalted language of the prophetic utterance, the midrash identifies Torah study with truth, chesed and knowing G-d and negates a perception of study as purely utilitarian.

We have by a gradual process of modification and adjustment arrived at a sophisticated and complex position; in the process we solidified and defended it both textually and philosophically. however the position is encumbered and complex. It says that one should study all laws becasue it promotes a positive attitude to observing some laws. This is, of course, somewhat difficult.

Now comes the sharp break. R. Yosi Haglili accepts proposes position 2 - Torah Lishmao (study for its own sake). To do so he demonstrates that study is not related to performance.

R. Yosi Haglili said: "Study is greater for study preceded chalah 40 years, tithes 54 years, Yovel 130 years. When they were punished they were punished for study first and when they were rewarded, they were rewarded for study first...

Scriptural proofs follow.

I hope that this example amply demonstrates the unique features of Midrashic presentation and argumentation. Taking the first position presented as the final one and attempting to understand the following twists and turns as proofs for it, is bound to result in a wearying, unsatisfying and ultimately incorrect interpretative journey. Understanding that the original position is to be modified and adjusted and that a sharp break in favor of a completely opposite approach is ultimately to be expected, will make both the journey and its conclusion much more satisfying and correct. May Hashem open our eyes to perceive the wonders in his Torah.

---

1 Many commentators take the words "shew bread" out as it clearly existed already in the desert.

2 As R.S.R. Hirsch points out in his commentary to 4:25, these commandments, especially shemita and yovel establish central teachings of Judaism and serve as tangible reminders of the need of regular spiritual renewal.

3 The passage goes on to demonstrate that these terms refer to Torah study.

4 See Kiddushin 40 and the end of the first chapter of Bava Kama for a somewhat different textual version of this story.

Sim Shalom

Moscow Jewish Choir singing Hasidic tune "Give us peace"

With Cantor Joseph Malovany

May Hashem grant us peace - this year and forever.

For a very different interpretation, see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4036169727337751934

(note: some women singing but swallowed in the choir, ask your posek)

Above the clouds

 
Yehoshua Halevi
goldenlightimages.com

Who wrote Eicha?

We have all grown up knowing that Yirmiahu wrote Eicha. After all Chazal say in Bava Basra 15a that Yirmiah wrote his book and "lamentations". These lamentations are presumed to be the same ones attributed to Yirmiah in Chronicles 35:25, "and they are written on lamentations". Chazal explained that this sentence speaks of the 4th chapter of Eicha; Yirmiah took the scroll that Yhoakim burnt and rewrote and added to them (Moed Koton 26a, Taanis 22b, also reported by Josephus' Antiquities 5:1 ). It is noteworthy that Ibn Ezra differs with this interpretation in his introduction to Eicha; however, he does not dispute that Yirmiah wrote Eicha.

That Yirmiah write Eicha was never questioned. In Septuagint, which is organized topically, Eicha follows the Book of Jeremiah. More, Septuagint as well as the Arameic Targum preface this book with a statement ascribing its authorship to Yirmiah.

It was surprising, then, for me to read in the Introduction to Eicha in Daas Mikra that there were scholars that differed. It should not surprise me that academics propose revisionism; this is after all the raison D'etre of modern scholarship. What troubled me was the low quality of their proofs for this contention. I list these proofs here following Daas Mikra with my responses; Daas Mikra provides more scholarly rejoinders and I incorporated some of them as well.

The proofs are as follows:

1.The statement in 5:20, "Why forever will you forget us, reject us for many days", indicates that it was written long after Yirmiah's forced descent to Egypt.

Response: This is a standard turn of phrase also found in in Tehilim 13:2 and 9:19 as well as in other places. Furthermore, it was likely quite clear soon after the destruction that this was going to be a long exile. In addition, prophetic inspiration surely played a role.

2.Use of alphabetical acrostic is too artificial for the poetic genius of Yirmiah.

Response: on the contrary, the mastery of poetic form that is demonstrated within the constraints of the alphabetical order is nothing short of astounding. Tor really appreciate the genius of the inspired author, you must read the section in the Daas Mikra's introduction devoted to the literary analysis of the Aleph-Beis in Eicha. It is nothing short of remarkable.

3.

a.They claim that some of the statements in Eicha contradict the teachings of Yirmiahu, for example, "our fathers sinned and are not, but we carry their sins (5:7)". This contradicts, ""each man shall die for his (own) sin.(Yirmiah 31"28).

b. How could Yirmiah speak of "their prophets did not find vision from God(2:9)? Didn't he find visions?

c.How could Yirmiah call Tsidkiah "spirit of our breaths, the anointed of Hashem (4:20)" when he spoke so harshly to him of his failings.(Yirmiah 24:7-10, 34:3, 38:24)

Response:

a.These scholars appear to disregard how Chazal reconciled similar questions.

b.These may refer to false prophets or to the fact that prophecy ceased after the Destruction (see Yormiah 45)

c.There is a difference between the king as an individual before God and the King as the symbol of Royalty. David also called Shaul anointed of Hashem and Shaul certainly fell short of his personal destiny before Hashem. See, Shmuel I:26 - But David said to Abishai, "Don't destroy him! Who can lay a hand on the LORD's anointed and be guiltless?).

4. The history of prophet's suffering as recounted in Eicha is not exactly the same as the one in the Book of Jeremiah.

Response: This is not so (see Daas Mikrah for analysis). Even is we allow that it is so, the references in Eicha is to the events that occurred following destruction, of which fairly little is written in the Book of Jeremiah, and not to what is told in regards to Yirmiah's persecutions prior to the Exile.

On the other hand, stylistic, literary and theological parallels between Eichan and the Book of Jeremiah are overwhelming. I wil not recount them here but they are well discussed in the introduction to Daas Mikrah.

Finally, there is one reason why Yirmiah and only Yirmiah could have written Eicha. As Professor Y. Kaufman has pointed out, Yirmiah is the "prophet of assured destruction", the only prophet whose faith in Israel's ultimate repentance was clouded heavily by pessimism and doubt.  What this means is that he alone, at least in some passages, ominously presents the impending Churban as something which is inevitable and will no longer be prevented by Repentance (see, f.e. Jeremiah 29:28). It was fitting that the prophet who called out this message be the one to mourn over it.

Fighing Fires in Yiddish

The Only All Hasidic Fire Department In the World Is חברה מצילי אש קרית יואל Battling A House Fire In Kiryas Joel NY

Tisha B'Av