avakesh

Hadran: Peah

A story: R Chamma bar Chanina and  R. Yoshian were walking by the synagogues of Lod. Said R. R. Cham bar Chanina to R. Yoshiah: "How much money our fathers sunk in here!". He said to him: "How many souls our fathers sunk in here! Were there not people who would toil in Torah (and had no means to do so)?

This passage is repeated in Shekalim, end of Ch. 5. There the Yerushalmi adds:

R. Avun made gates for the "big" study hall. R. Mona came to him and R Avun told him, "see what I made". He responded: "And he (Israel) forgot the One who made him and built palaces (for Baal). Are there not people who would study Torah?"

Form standpoint of halacha, this passages serves as the basis for the law that moneys which were pledged synagogue building can be diverted to sustain Torah study (YO'D 249). However, it also teaches us a valuable perspective.

What it says to us is that people are more important than buildings.

I recall that many years ago I was conversing with a certain Rosh Yeshiva who was building an imposing addition to his yeshiva campus. Within the conversation he noted that nowadays the success of a mosad is judged by its building - the larger and more imposing the structure, the more successful the institution is thought to be. This threw me; fortunately, days later I spoke to another Rosh Yeshiva who bitterly bemoaned the time that fundraising for a new building was cosing him. He thought that I was fortunate in being able to have time, at that time,  to teach and write whereas he was forced to spend precious time on building valueless structures. This restored my soul, for the first Rosh Yeshiva was mistaken whereas this Torah leader understood Torah priorities better.

What this Yerushalmi passage teaches us is that no structure is forever, that every decision to devote resources to buildings takes away resources from people and that people are more important that buildings.

When R. Berel Wein was building his shul in Monsey an issue arose regarding selection of wood for building. The options were a less expensive  material that would last 45-50 years or a more expensive wood type that would last 90 years. The choice was for the former after R. Wein closed the discussion with the observation that he knows of few Jewish communities in recent history that lasted 90 years.

What the Yerushalmi ultimately teaches us is that in the eternal perspective of Spirit, the imposing, solid, material structures are evanescent and temporarily but the people remain forever.

For Succos, I add the following thought, heard in the name of Maharal ( I don't know where). He points out that we ask on Succos that Hashem will rebuild for us the fallen sukkah of David. Here the Beis Hamikdash is referred to as sukkah and not as bais (house). The reason for that is that a sukkah, even if fallen, is never destroyed. As a temporary structure, it can fall and still remain a sukkah, requiring only too be put up to functions. Not so a house. When a house falls down it ceases to be a house and cannot be rebuilt except as another house.

So also we must remember that the most enduring structure in the world is the temporary one and the best place in which to build a Temple is within the hearts of men...

(The very last passage of Peah is a restatement of the mishna and is probably brought there solely to end on a good note)

Hadran alach Peah...

 

Sermonic Midrash

Midrash as sermon.

There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether homiletical midrash may represent a transcription or adaptation of synagogue sermons delivered by tannaim and amoraim. We will not review the arguments for and against again; however, there is strong internal evidence, in my opinion, that suggests that at least some midrashic passageswere declaimed in public.

Itzhak Mirsky points out in his introduction to Midrash Tannaim [1] to Bareishis that dozens of passages in Midrash Rabbah are adapted to public discourse in form and structure and utilize rhythm, alliteration, word play and other poetic techniques. The implication of this finding is that they were delivered as sermons. Let us look at just a few of such passages.

The day is Yours, so is the night Yours (Psalms 74, 15).
The day praises You, the night praises You,
As day is in your power, so night is in your power,
When You perform miracles for us in the day, when You perform miracles for us at the night,
Yours is the day, So Yours is the night,
When You perform for us miracles in the day, we praise you in the day,
When Your perform for us miracles in the night, we praise you at night,
You performed for us miracles in the day and we said song for You in the day – “That day Devorah and Barak ben Avinoam sang…”.
You performed for us miracles at night and we said a song for You at night – “ This song will be for as the night on which a sacrifice is renewed”.
It is good to say sing for You in the day, it is good to say a song for you at the night.
Why?
Because you prepared the light and the sun and You made two great luminaries (Genesis Rabbah 6,2)

Another example from parshas Bareishis.

All trees as if they converse one with the other.
All trees as if they converse with human beings,
All trees were created to accompany human beings (Genesis Rabbah 2, 5)

Another example:

Men of Name (Hashem) – R.Acha says, Disgraceful, also without a name, and you call them “men of Name??
But (the explanation is that hashem means destruction:)
They destroyed the world,
They were destroyed from the world,
They caused the world to be destroyed.

There are literally dozens of other examples. It is reasonable to suppose that these declamatory  passages were originally written in a such manner so as to make them suitable for public delivery. This feature serves as an indication that there was a public audience for many such passages and that they represent a record of rabbinic sermons.  

---

1 This is a work that purports to reconstruct the original Tannaitic midrash to Bareishis that served as the basis for later editing by authors of Bareishis Rabbah. As is known, there is no preserved Tannaitic midrash on Genesis. It starts from the premise that originally there existed a midrashic compilation on Bareishis that is analogous to Mekhilta, Sifrei and Sifro and that it can be extracted from the much later Bareishis Rabbah.

A meaningful world:Book review

I recently completed reading A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature, by Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt. Each of the authors possesses a specific expertise; one is an intellectual historian and the other a historian of science. This is an important work from two well known exponents of the Intelligent Design movement and it has been making waves in the circles interested in such questions. Although there have been many books that argue that the level of irreducible complexity that man encounters in biological and physical spheres is evidence of design, this book, for the first time, to my knowledge, attempts to consistently go beyond the standard argument from complexity. It succeeds in bringing important issues to the fore but it fails in being unable to focus solely and unrelentlessly on this new area of intelligent design research - complexity of human aesthetic, intellectual and religious accomplishments.

To simplify the argument: human aptitude for pursuits that are far beyond what is necessary for simple physical survival are an evidence of man's Divine origin.  "Human evolution should have stopped at the point that man is better equipped than his competitors in obtaining food, shelter and reproductive advantage", the argument should go. Why then do we see meta-physical potential of humanity expressed in art, music, architecture and a myriad of other impractical fields that are pursued solely for beauty? Why should human beings be drawn to the "useless" arts and sciences; from where comes genius, Shakespeare, Milton or Mozart? Does this phenomena not reveal that something beyond selective pressure impacts on human origins?

These questions are very important. Evolutionary biology attempts to counter them with two maneuvers. First, evolutionary biologists try to reduce the distance between humans and animals by finding rudimentary aesthetic, intellectual and altruistic elements in animal life. Having isolated some such examples, they attempt to bridge the divide between these and the fully developed examples of human creativity and to argue that the latter is simply a quantitatively greater form of the former. Secondly, they posit putative evolutionary advantages to perceptual factors, such as ability tor recognize patterns, or the reproductive advantage of altruism, and then by claiming that human creativity is a byproduct or an unintended consequence of those other selective advantages.

The questions remain better than the answers. This is a point that deserved a book of its own, a work that would relentlessly bear down on this argument and build over it a persuasive structure of examples and analogies. Unfortunately, this book fails to do so.

Don't misunderstand me - it is a very good work! It is written in flowing magnificent prose and covers many important points. Unfortunately, it continuously derails into related subjects, such as attacking the famous proposition that given enough time a million monkeys aimlessly banging typing keyboards can produce the complete works of Shakespeare. It also spend much of its second half in rehashing well known evidence for design from chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics and other branches of knowledge. More accurately, it reviews this evidence in relation to human ability to understand how the world works and how this ability itself argues for intelligent design.  Fundamentally, however, human ability to figure out the world is a different argument than humanity's aesthetic, religious and musical inclinations. Instead of clarifying the argument, these side forays appear designed to merely pad the book and to allow one of the coauthor's to display his scientific proficiency. Still, this book is packed with useful arguments, intelligent analogies and a great deal of factual data. It is a good support for received faith and if you read just one book on intelligent design, this might as well be it.

Simchas Yom Tov

The Sefer Pele Yoetz writes in the name of the Arizal that one who is
truly joyful on Sukkos, and does not allow himself to be pained, is
assured that he will have a good year and will merit constant joy.  The
Pele Yoetz writes that one can attain this level of joy by reflecting upon
how fortunate he is to be so different from all other creations in the
universe, by having the opportunity to be close to Hashem through the
study of Torah and the performance of Mitzvos.

The Rambam at the end of Hilchos Lulav (8:15), explains that the
euphoria we should experience on Sukkos is an inner joy which is rooted in
the depths of the heart:

“The joy that a person should experience in doing a Mitzvah and in
his love of Hashem who so commanded is a great Avodah; and one who does
not allow himself to feel this joy [does not follow the Torah’s
directive] to be joyful and good of heart…and the only true greatness and
honor is to rejoice before Hashem, as Dovid HaMelech did in dancing
before the Aron HaKodesh...”

The Simcha we experience on Sukkos is an anomaly to the rest of the
world, which equates joy with fun.  Our happiness is “Yismichu
B’Malchusicha”--the joy of our soul in its closeness to Hashem and in our
ruchniyus--tangibly experiencing a sublime, inspiring, spiritual purpose
in life!

from Hakhel email

Is there a Mitzvah of Simcha

        BS"D

from http://mail-jewish.org/simcha.txt

Is There a Mitzva To Be B'simcha (happy) constantly ?       
                              
In recent years, a 'saying, "mitzva gedola lihiyos b'simcha tamid" (It
is a great mitzva to be always joyous) has become well known and oft -
quoted. It is not a new saying, but probably due to being put to music
in recent years and (an)other factor(s), it has become a very popular
saying. Some seem to think that it is an ancient Jewish teaching -
perhaps from the gemara (Talmud) or another unimpeachable classic
ancient Jewish source. That is not the case, however. The source of the
saying is, to my knowledge, the leader of the Breslov (or Bratzlav)
chassidic group, R. Nachman, who lived approximately 200 years ago. Such
a formulation does not appear earlier than that, to my knowledge. With
that in mind, I think it is appropriate and in order to try to examine
if this is an undisputed and indisputable teaching accepted by all
Jewish authorities, despite their not expressing such, or perhaps their
refraining from expressing such a belief for so long, indicates
otherwise.

           Questions On 'Mitzva Gedola Lihiyos B'Simcha Tamid'   

(1) What is the source of this supposed mitzvah?

      Many would point to 'ivdu es Hashem b'simcha' (serve Hashem with
joy) of Tehillim (Psalms) 100:2 and similar verses. However, that /
those verse(s) speak(s) of serving Hashem with joy - not being joyous in
and of itself. This distinction, although seeming very fine, should not
be ignored, in my opinion. What may seem to be fine distinctions /
nuances in Torah verses can be of great import.

(2) If this is a mitzvah (commandment), why do the classic enumerators
of the 613 mitzvos not count this as such? There is a Biblical mitzvah
of Simcha on certain yomim tovim (holidays) that is enumerated, I
believe, but not such a mitzva that applies constantly. In fact, even
the mitzva of simcha on holidays is only fulfilled by action, e.g.eating
meat from karban shelamim (sacrifice), etc., and not just by being in a
certain state of mind. This is quite significant in that it shows that
(1) when there is a mitzva of simcha, it involves more than just thought
/ feelings / emotions and (2) there is no such mitzvah seemingly, at
other times.

                Conflicting Statements / Sources
                                                
(1) One of the great early hassidic leaders, R. Aharon of Karlin, is
reported to have stated 'there is no mitzvah to be b'simcha, but simcha
can bring one to the greatest mitzvos and there is no aveira
(prohibition) to be be'atzvus (in a state of sadness), but atzvus can
bring one to the greatest aveiros' (or similar). Here one sees a great
hassidic leader, contemporary to (slightly earlier I believe) R.
Nachman, saying that there is no mitzvah to be b'simcha!

(2) Rav Yosef Gikatilla (a great Sephardic Rishon - early authority -
circa 1200's C.E.) says in his Sefer Hamishalim (book of Parables) the
following ( # 97) - He compares simcha to day and atzvus (sadness) to
night, saying that simcha's effect is to light up a person, similar to
the sun lighting up the day and atzvus darkens a person like darkness
darkens the night. He continues by saying that just as it is impossible
to have (only) (day) light always, with no periods of night (darkness),
so it is impossible to have (always) only simcha without atzvus
(sadness).

(3) Rabbenu Bachayay (a great early commentator) says in his classic
'Kad HaKemach' - There is Simcha that is assur (prohibited) min haTorah
(Biblically). Somewhat less than R.Nachman's unequivocal enthusiastic
advocacy of simcha.  It is also written, I believe, that simcha tmidis
eina simcha - a constant simcha is not simcha! (I don't have the source
right now - help would be appreciated).

(4) Shlomo Hamelech (King Solomon, wisest of men) says in Koheles
(Ecclesiastes) 2:2 "UliSimcha-ma zo osa?" - As for Happiness - what
(good) does it accomplish? Rashi comments - what good does it do, being
that letdown follows in it's wake.  Here the wisest of all men,
questions the value of simcha. The gemara (Talmud) in Maseches Shabbos
30b explains this verse (in contrasting it to Koheles 8:15, where Simcha
is praised) as referring to Simcha sheaina shel mitzvah (non - mitzvah
related joy). In other words, Simcha (Joy / Happiness) of a mitzva is
praiseworthy - Simcha not of a mitzva is not.

  Another statement critical of simcha is in Koheles 7:4 where it is
stated "Lev chachamim b'veis eivel v'lev ksilim b'veis simcha"- The
heart of the wise is in a house of mourning and the heart of the fool in
a house of happiness (simcha).  We see clearly that the wisest of men
clearly does not consider simcha to be always and unequivocally
desirable / praiseworthy - rather he considers certain simcha
praiseworthy and other simcha worthy of criticism / disdain.

Another statement critical of simcha is found in Mishlei (Proverbs)
21:17 where Shlomo says "Ish machsor ohev simcha"- a deficient person
loves happiness.

            Why There May Be No Mitzvah To Be B'simcha   

Perhaps there may not be a mitzva to be b'simcha because (1) As shown
above, not all simcha is desirable (2) Simcha (joy / happiness) is not
considered a desirable end / goal in and of itself. Rather, it is
something that must go together with / be derived from mitzva
activity. Having an independent / stand alone mitzva to be b'simcha
might be interpreted as making simcha a goal / end in and of itself,
rather than an adjunct / by product to / of mitzva activity.

             What Brings Desirable Simcha? Some Ways 

Examination of Psukim (Biblical verses) that mention Simcha positively,
show that (1) Straightness - There is a connection between yashrus
(straightness) and simcha. Being straight / righteous brings simcha, as
is stated [Tehillim (Psalms) 97:11] "Uliyishrei lev simcha" - to the
straight of heart is joy.  This is also evident in the pasuk (Tehillim
19:9) "pikudei hashem yesharim mesamchei lev" - the precepts of Hashem
are straight and heart gladdening. A straight person with a clear
conscience is naturally inclined to happiness.
      

   (2) Proper Torah study (as per Tehillim 19:9, as above).

             Conclusion - Summing Up         
                                                                              
               
As it appears to me, the Jewish attitude to simcha (happiness) is
nuanced. Proper simcha, though not a mitzva, can be desirable /
praiseworthy. Other simcha is undesirable, even forbidden. One should
beware of overly exalting simcha and making / proclaiming 'simcha' a
major thrust of one's Judaism. Let us not forget the classic Rabbinic
dictum "Kol hamosif goreia" (whoever adds, actually subtracts). If
Hashem did not make something a mitzvah, it is presumed to have been for
good reason and we are forbidden to put it in that category.

P.S. Re a related subject - Some people who believe 'mitzvah gedola
lihiyos bisimcha tamid' seem to think as well, as a corollary of the
above perhaps, that sadness and shame are always viewed negatively and
as undesirable by Judaism. Re shame - That is incorrect, as classical
Jewish sources praise shame and bashfullness highly - though not
excessive shame / shyness.

Re atzvus (sadness) - some seem to think that it's always, totally
undesirable. However, we know that everything Hashem made was for a
purpose (see last statement in Pirkei Avos).There is a time for
everything (Koheles).  Atzvus may have it's proper place in the world in
aiding a choteh (sinner) and spurring him to do teshuva
(repentance). Those who seem to want to banish it entirely remind me of
a Midrashic teaching where Chazal say that Dovid haMelech (King David)
wondered why Hashem created shigaon (insanity) - he wondered what useful
purpose it serves - who needs it? He was later shown that he would have
need for it - when 'L'Dovid bishanoso es taamo lifnei avimelech
vayigarishehu vayeloch' (Tehillim 34) - He was only able to escape
unharmed from the jaws of King Avimelech by feigning insanity
(parenthetically, this account is somewhat similar to a story related by
Chazal re Dovid hamelech o"h questioning why Hashem had created spiders
and the need for them in the world - which ends with him similarly shown
not to question G-d in that manner and being saved by Hashem from his
enemy via a spider [web]).

Similarly, in my opinion, those who think that atzvus has no proper
place in the world, are repeating the mistake of Dovid hamelech and
should realize that G-d created everything for a reason.

            Wisom of the Wise of the Nations re Simcha

I have come across the following quotes from general non - Jewish
literature, which I think are enlightening on the subject. In the spirit
of the Talmudic teaching that 'chochma bagoyim taamin' [if someone tells
you that there is wisdom among the nations, you should believe them] ),
I am mentioing them here.

"Happiness is a butterfly, which when pursued is just beyond your grasp,
but if you sit down quietly, may alight upon you." - Nathaniel
Hawthorne.

"If only we'd stop trying to be happy we'd have a pretty good time." -
Edith Wharton.

Both of the above seem to express a realization that active pursuit of
and concentration on happiness can actually be counterproductive to it's
attainment.  Perhaps because of the above reasons, some people have been
observed to change the lyrics when the songs were played to 'simcha
gedola lihiyos bimitzvah tomid' (it's a great joy to be always involved
in mitzvah[s])-a reformulation which seemingly avoids the objections
cited above.'

Comment: I agree that there is simcha and there is simcha.

Koheles 2:2 says: To Laughter, I said "Profane!" and to Simchah,"What is this one doing?

The commentators explain that (empty) laughter is always profane but joy needs to be investigated to see what it does, in other words, what kind it is and to what it leads.

Simchas Yom Tov to all!

Violins for Succos

Fighting the evil atheists

Blogging -lessons learned.

This blog is now a year old. It began one year ago, and now it receives between 180 to 220 daily hits for the total this year of 53.476. 00. I thank all those who regularly check in here and those who leave comments and in this way are mezakeh harabbim.

This blog has a defined purpose.

From the beginning, the goal for this blog was to disseminate Torah but also to stake out a position that would fulfill an unfilled need. What I had not seen prior to this blog, are sites that attempted to provide inspiration along with Torah content. Several new chasiddic oriented blogs have now appeared and to some degree they are positioned in the same quadrant...but not quite. Inspiration means talking to the heart. Inspiration also means light as well as d arkness. One cannot live inspired at all times. There are ups and there are downs in Avodas Hashem. One of the greatest challenges to a life of wholeness is the challenge of bringing the mind and the heart together. This must be acknowledged and addressed. A blog must be true to life or it will sound inauthentic. The vision of "avakesh" is not saccharine spirituality devoid of all traces of conflict, darkness or melancholy. In real life, these elements compete with joy, lightness and light within a spiritual lifestyle. They also contain kernels of inspiration. Consequently, this blog needed to mix, Torah, inspiration and be entertaining at the same time. Tall order!

There are many blogs out there that focus on current events, or on description of individual lives, or, regretfully, on gossip. Among the latter group are some of the most successful blogs. This is not a surprise. The Web is not only a communication/information medium, it is also a very effective means of participatory entertainment. For most people, entertainment trumps education. The lessons of this fact, however, are not that entertaining is bad or immoral, or somehow unworthy. Instead the lesson it teaches is that a successful blog must to some degree also entertain in order to fulfill its information function. Thus, we have set up our first conundrum: "How does one employ elements of entertainment without subverting the mission of the informing and inspiring, and how does one touch the heart without slipping?"

In addition, a Torah blog must be worthy of its vision. It cannot and should not employ unworthy means. It must not, for example, allow speaking badly of  individual, movements or approaches, even if it .lifts traffic. It must remain at all times respectful. It must take the high road. The Internet medium is inimical to eidelkeit and fineness; here in the Web it is gossip and character assassination that sells. One must therefore find a way of being entertaining but in a noble way, not a cheap way.

A Torah blog should provide new content but it is not a means to self-revelation. Torah is eternal and the self is evanescent and secondary. The Self must take second place to the mission of educating, inspiring and uplifting. There is a lot of Torah out there, even if it isn't mine. This is why I quote extensively while also providing original content.

To carry out its mission, my posts are reasonably short. People nowadays are not able to stare at a computer screen for long. A post must be concise and to the point, with a clear structure and message. I also learned to run more entertaining and less technical posts at least once a week. These ones take a lot more thought because they must deliver entertaining content without violating the principles of which we already spoke. Sometimes I succeed and sometimes I failed. To vary the content and to keep it light I intersperse video clips and humor or art among "heavier" posts.  This is not in order to attracts frivolous attention but to provide relief from the generally serious, often cosmic subjects with which we deal. At the same time, images are more effective than moralizing in putting forth a message that can inspire, and even sometimes change, a person.

Finally, running this blog taught me a lot about circumspection. We are all so different and what one person considers innocuous, another perceives as a mortal insult. One cannot please everyone but neither must anyone's sensibilities be ignored. I continue to be surprised but never offended by the interpretations that innocuous pieces sometimes attract. To keep myself "in line", I have revealed my identity to a few individuals and several others have themselves figured it out. I remain anonymous to be freer to comment but also to be stay away from controversy and conversely, credit. However, to be completely anonymous is to act irresponsibly. Nothing keeps one on proper behavior as much as being watched. It is tool to living nobly that one must not easily surrender.

Regular readers - feel free to comment. I invite criticism and responses, in general of about specific features. I you can help me refine this blog, I would be most grateful and so will others.

Apologies

Makkos Erev Yom Kippur

by Zalman Kleinman

To all those I offended, unwittingly or in anger, please forgive me, allow me to recompense and bless me with peace.

May Hashem grant you and your family only good in the coming year.

GMAR CHASIMA TOVA!

Suing God..

"Fed up with the threats, tired of natural disasters, the state’s longest-serving state senator is using his legal muscle against who he says is the culprit — God. State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued the Almighty in Douglas County District Court last week.

Chambers, who skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians, said he filed the lawsuit to show that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody…. "(courtesy of http://menachemmendel.net/blog/?p=314#respond)

How he wasn't afraid..?

Only in America...

....well may be also in Berditchev. R. Leivy Yitzhak is said to have called a Din Torah against God one Rosh Hashana. This boldness and closeness took a hold of Jewish imagiantion , see http://www.berdichev.org/history_of_the_kaddish.htm

Here is Leonard Bernstein's intepretation, http://www.milkenarchive.org/articles/articles.taf?function=detail&ID=96