avakesh

Niggun in Slavuta

Recorded in 1988 from Shaaris Hapleitah.

Pysical and Spiritual: Consciousness

A problem that bedevils modern science is the nature of consciousness. Along with the nature of creation (Big Bang) it may be one of the few problems for which science may never possess an answer or an explanation in principle and for which invoking a supra-rational reality will not invoke the objection of the "God of the gaps".

There are different definitions of consciousness but here we will define it as our first-hand internal experience and its radical difference from what science claims it is.

Adam Zeman lays out the problem of consciousness very nicely in the introduction to his book by describing a languid rainy afternoon first as he truly perceives it and then as a series of sound waves, electromagnetic disturbances and synaptic activity. Although, hobbled by a neuroscientist's bias, he never resolves the conflict, he grasps the very essence of the problem. Our inner experience of “are sitting on your comfortable chair on a rainy day with hot and tasty coffee with the sound of music in the background” has nothing, nothing at all in common with sound waves, molecular motion impinging on membranes and electrical and chemical synaptic activity. The fact is that what we perceive as happening in the world is remarkably different than what science tells us actually takes place. Here we again experience the dissonance of holding as true a description of reality that is in marked variance with our own experience. As noted in previus posts, we live in the world of abstractions, the universe of Ideas and the supernatural but do not admit it> So also we perceive a very different universe than science tells us surrounds us, but do not admit it. Isn't it strange that we experience one thing but beleive that experience to be nothing more than neuronal activity. In other words, we think that because we can experimentally describe what we experience in scientific language, what we experience is not ‘really’ what happens. Many approaches to understand consciousness have been offered. There is the Quantum approach (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/). There are also those who take the illusion approach – our inner experience is just an illusion (Epiphenomenalism). But this approach is ultimately self-defeating. If the thing that is most real to us-our inner experience- is just an illusion then we have no standard to judge anything in the world. Nothing is real and the retreat into Buddhist-like "Reality is Illusion" follows. We must then walk in the middle and find a way that keeps both inner experience and experimentally derived description of it as both being real.

Let us return to the Kabbalistic approach to reality that we have previously discussed. To review, the spiritual rides the physical and the spiritual is both within and beyond the physical. We can posit that Consciousness, a spiritual nonmaterial entity, 'rides' and is enjambed within the physical substance of the brain in such a amnner that each can affect the other. In this vein, Sefer Yetsirah (1:7) when discussing how the sefiros function within our world says: "The beginning is stuck into the end and the end is stuck into the beginning". It is now fashionable in physics to speak about strings - vibrations and waves. One can analogize the physical and the spiritual as being two ends of a wave, so that vibrating either end also vibrates the other. When the brain is stimulated by neural activity (made up of matter), the consciousness (the spiritual) is stimulated. One can stimulate certain parts of the brain and produce a religious experience. However, one can also undergo a religious experience and locate activity in the same location within the brain. One does not disprove the other. It is a two-way street between the spiritual and the physical, top-down and bottom-up.

The assumptions of Cartesians (and all Cristian philosophers were pre-cartesian Cartesians) is plain wrong from the Jewish perspective, for they view the spiritual as something distinct and separate from the physical world. However, as we have previously explained, there is no separation between the physical and the spiritual. It is one string and vibrating the string on either end will move the entire string. Activity in both worlds is contemporaneous from the material perspective; in the spiritual perspective which is beyond time, it is co-causative. We can extend this principle to explain why mystical experiences can be mapped within the brain [physical processes in the brain can cause a mystical experience) as well as why direct contact with the Divine will cause movement in the brain. They are one organic whole. The whole problem of consciousness vs. neuroscience is only a problem if the two are separated. The Kabbalists, however, teach that they are intricately connected and interwoven.

For example, the same emotions might occur through viewing beauty (looking at mountains) and drinking whiskey. In the first case the emotion comes through one’s mental state - a spiritual source. The soul is vibrated and it provokes the brain. In the second case of drinking whiskey the brain is ‘directly’ affected which in turn affects one’s consciousness.

Question: Do animals also have consciousness - don't they also experience?

Response: I believe that the attempts to equate human and animal consciousness are fundamentally ideologically driven. I also point out that no one would ever think of equating the two, had there not been in existence a theoretical construct that demands this equivalents - the theory of evolution. The fact is that animals and humans are radically different, even if some form of animal cognition is true. An animal that could talk, would never be able to tell a story of what happened or recognize the future through language. It only knows the present. Even if animals have some form of rudimentary consciousness it may not be a problem for us because we still have much higher faculties. They have nefesh, we have ruach! (At first glance this would be a difference in quantity, not quality, but as Zeno already pointed out - this distinction is dependent on a paradox).

Commentaries on Yerushalmi

For the past  few years I have been spending some time on Yerushalmi Seder Zeraim. Finding a commentary that fits the need of a fairly quick pace, that is accurate, concise, authoritative and deals with the multiple girsa variation (that slow a casual learner of and interfere with timely review) has not been easy. There are the traditional commentaries but they employ different methods of organization than we are used to these days and focus on issues that don't necessarily bother a 21 century learner. To this end, I found R. Kanievsky's pirush most useful. It is concise, covers major points and handles girsa issues competently. On the other hand, it has the feel of a transcription of an oral discourse ( which it what it is), doesn't reference adequately (f.e. as it says in Terumos, without noting the perek or mishna) and as a transcription by a student, it is shallow in places.

R. Krashilchikov's commentary Tevuna is quite good but does not handle girsaos well. The author focuses on the basic issues and provides background material but often maintains clearly erroneous textual variants, at times providing untenable explanations in order to do so. In all fairness, the author wrote his commentary under very difficult circumstances and did not have access to textual variants.

I have not investigated the new ArtScroll Yerushalmi in depth. I posted a prelimiary impression but have now removed it following a comment that questioned its accuracy. I hope to make a more in-depth exmination of this commentary and add to this post.

For those tractates which have Kav V'Naki, I cannot recommend a better commentary for a casual learner who wants to obtain a passing familiarity with texts and issues. It is logically arranged, deals with all major topics and is very accurate. Unfortunately, it is only available on a few mesechtos and is not easy to find.

Some links:

Review of three commentaries on Yerushalmi

The story of R. Krashilchikov and his commentary

Yedid Nefesh Commentary

R. Gavriel Bechoffer's Shiurim and in MP3

Klusenberger Rebbe: Rebuilding

The Palestinian problem vs. Al Qaida and Iran

Every misfortune that comes to the Jewish nation and the nations of the worlds together is a misfortune, while a misfortune that comes to Jews only is not a misfortune. R. Yochanon explained, for example, the misfortune in Shushan, which affected only the Jews, as it says, "A great mourning for the Jews.." Immediately Hashem sprouted seeds of salvation. How do we know? Because the verse states: "For the Jews there was light and joy" (Devarim Rabba 8:16).

Klausenberger Rebbe explains: " In the Land of Israel, where Jews suffer from an enemy who only aims at the Jews, there is nothing to fear, for it will vanish suddenly. This is not true anywhere else in the world, where Jews and non-Jews live together in constant fear of what may happen tomorrow, fearing the atom bomb and nuclear missiles".

The Klausenberger Rebbe: Rebuilding, Targum, 2007, p.170

What's in the name?

On several occasions in the past we had discussed that fact that the Chazal had a set of received principles which they utilized in their reading of Biblical tests. One such rule is found in the following midrash.

And I appeared to Abraham. Isaac and Jacob with name Shakkai but my name YKVK I was not known to them (Exodus 6,3)

My name Shakkai...

The Righteous, their name precedes them - "and his name is Manoach", for they are compared to their Master - "and my name Shakkai...(Midrash Shemuel, 81-6)".

The wicked are listed before their names - Naval is his name, Sheva ben Bikri is his name. But the righteous, their names are listed before them - his name is Elkana, his name is Boaz, his name is Mordechai. They are compared to their Creator - my name Shakkai.
They asked against this: does it not write his name is Lavan (and he was wicked)? This means second in power.[1] R. Berakhia says, "white in wickedness" (Yalkut Shimoni 176,6).

The wicked precede their names - Naval is his name, Goliath is his name, Sheva ben Bikri is his name. But the righteous, they come before their names - his name is Elkana, his name is Ishai, his name is Boaz, his name is Mordechai, his name is Manoach (Bamidbar Rabbah 6,14).

This assumption that when a name is listed first, it affects the person may be based on another tradition, found in Brochos 7b.

How do we know that the name is causative (shapes and affects the individual)? R. Elazar said. The verse says " come see works of Hashem, that he put destruction (shamus) in the land. Do not read Shamos but sheimos (names).[2]

It follows then that when the name is listed first, it will have a formative effect upon the person.

This rule is certainly supported by many verses. However, there are also a number of verses that would appear to contradict it, quite aside from the one that speaks of Lavan.

Torah Shelema to Genesis 24, 121, quotes Pa'aneach Razi who brings up many examples where this rule seems to break down. They include "her name is Reuma" and she was evil, "Yiov was his name" and he was good, "Tsemach is his name (Zechariah 6,12)" and he was the redeemer. He also points out that in regard to names of women the usual formula is "her name is..., Delila, Hagar, Ketura, Ritspah, Rachav, Atara" etc and in some cases these women were wicked. He therefore attempts to reinterpret the midrash as saying that "righteous precede their names" means simply that gain for themselves a good reputation while the reverse is true of the wicked - their name is preceded by their bad reputation. It is difficult, however, to maintain this explanation when we look at the three passages above together.

It may be suggested that we focus on the names of men only for none of the midrashim mentioned this rule in regard to female names and it may not apply to female names. If we do so, only three examples that explicitly contradict this principle will remain - those of Lavan, Yiov and Tsemach. It is noteworthy that even on the level of plain meaning, these are more literary names than proper names. The Midrash did not even consider Yiov and Tsemach as problems for these names are clearly not proper names of the individuals involved; even had Yiov existed,[3] he probably had a nicer name than the one that means "enemy". Tsemach's real name was Zerubabel and Tsemach is a reference to Ishaia 11,1 and not his proper name.[4]

In summary, here we encounter another long standing rule of derash. These rules were important in setting the direction of Midrashic exegesis, of specific verses as well as broader approaches to personalities and events in Tanach.

---

1 In Bamidbar Rabbah below this is quoted in the name of R. Yitshak and he and R. Berakhia disagree whether Lavan was wicked or not. These descriptions of Lavan are also found in Bareishis Rabba 60. See Torah Shelema 24, 124 for a discussion of various translations of this term. The simplest meaning of the answer is that Lavan was in fact righteous in certain ways.

2 Although in Yoma 83b we are treated to a story of how R. Meir was able to prevent financial loss by paying attention to a name of an innkeeper who turned out to be a wicked swindler, there is no relation to our topic. The question there is whether one may inquire into a name to protect himself form a swindle and whether it is indicative of a man's spiritual status, not that it is the name that caused his to be wicked. In this vein we also read in Sotah 9b, "If her name was not Delila she should have been called that, since she weakened his strength and his vigor". Similarly in Sotah 34b we are told that all of the spies were named according to their deeds; this also appears unrelated to this Midrash.
That a name may indicate something about its owner goes back to Tanach. "Naval is his name and navala he does (Samuel 1, 25,25). "It is for this that they called him Yakov and he outwitted me these two times (Genesis 27,36).
In the same vein, R. Yosef Karo writes in Magid Meisharim (Shemos) that a man named Abraham leans toward the side of kindness and one who is called Yosef is either a hero in sexual matters or feeds and supports others. These sources, Kabbalistic interpretations aside,  probably mean no more than the subconscious effect of carrying a name and its meaning will often and of itself create expectations that will influence a person to express precisely the qualities associated with the name.

3 B"B 15b

4 See Malbim who discusses the symbolic meaning of this name (Zechariah ibid).

Mohels Give Non-Jewish Babies a Slice of Tradition

"When his son was born, Reverend Louis DeCaro Jr. was dismayed to learn that none of the doctors on call at Manhattan’s Allen Pavilion hospital had time to perform the circumcision. At a loss, the DeCaros turned for advice to their Manhattan pediatrician, Andrew Mutnick, who offered a simple solution: Hire a Jewish ritual circumciser, known as a mohel.

Mutnick put the family in touch with Cantor Philip Sherman, an Orthodox mohel working in the tri-state area. Sherman says he has performed more than 18,000 circumcisions in his 30-year career. There were no piles of bagels and lox waiting in the next room, no family members on hand to celebrate, but the DeCaros developed an admiration for the ancient tradition informing Sherman’s work.

“When [a circumcision] is done by a mohel, you appreciate the gravity, the beauty of the religious connotations,” DeCaro said in an interview with the Forward.

Although commonly recognized as performers of the brith milah, or Jewish circumcision, an increasing number of mohels are finding themselves handling the rituals for non-Jewish babies (even when, as in the DeCaros’ case, the father happens to be an ordained minister). Sherman, 51, may be one of the most prolific circumcisers in the tri-state area, but others — including Emily Blake in New York and Joel Shoulson in Philadelphia — have also found their services called upon by non-Jewish families. While it’s not clear exactly how many mohels offer nonritual circumcisions, the practice is, according to Shoulson — an Orthodox-trained mohel who has circumcised Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists and Hindus during his 50-year career — very widespread.

“Almost everybody else does it,” he said.

According to Blake and Shoulson, non-Jews make up between 2% and 5% of their clientele. Some, like the DeCaros, are motivated initially by practical circumstances, but others seem drawn to the mohels for spiritual reasons, if not explicitly religious ones. Both Blake and Sherman have even been approached by “Torah-observant Christians” — those dedicated to observing Old Testament commandments — seeking to have their sons circumcised on the eighth day after the birth. In all cases, families say they are drawn to the intimacy and convenience of a nonritual circumcision performed at home.

Manhattan pediatrician Susan Levitsky makes a point of recommending non-Jewish patients to mohels. Levitsky said she’s been passing out Sherman’s number more often these days, because concerns over hospital-bred infections are rising. “Why would you want to be around an environment with germs?” she asked.

That’s precisely the question posed at www.holisticcircumcision.com, a site that Sherman set up for non-Jewish parents. On it, he describes a “quicker, gentler, and more humane” circumcision carried out without the use of “drugs, injections or creams” (he suggests sugar water or wine) in an environment that’s “spiritual and meaningful” instead of “clinical and cold.”

Certain families have been won over by this nonritual gospel, despite the added cost.

While fees for hospital circumcisions are absorbed by the family’s health insurance, mohels charge between $700 and $750 for circumcisions performed in the New York area.

Two months ago, Nate Sadeghi-Nejad and his wife, Janine Foeller, were denied a circumcision at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell hospital because of a staph outbreak. After the first mohel the couple contacted refused to operate because they weren’t Jewish, Foeller’s postpartum doula gave them Sherman’s number.

Their son’s circumcision was a success. Foeller was comforted that Sherman used sugar water as a mild anesthesia instead of a topical pain reliever, while her husband — who worried about the “see one, do one, teach one” circumcision practices at hospitals — was impressed by Sherman’s know-how. “I’m a firm believer that any procedure, minor or major, should be done by the person who does it the most,” he said.

Mohels aren’t always second choices. Nearly two years ago, Jeannie Noth Gaffigan and Jim Gaffigan gave birth to their first son at home through the assistance of a nurse-midwife. Though the decision to circumcise wasn’t a religious one, as Catholics the Gaffigans wanted more than a simple medical procedure. “We felt a mohel would lend a high level of dignity and significance to this very important moment in our lives,” Noth Gaffigan said in an e-mail to the Forward.

Blake, 52, arrived at a house packed with food, drink and family — a gathering that, were it not for the priest in the corner, would have looked like nothing less than a Jewish bris. While James waited for his big moment — his gauze pacifier soaked in sugar and Manischewitz — Jeannie read a passage from the New Testament describing Mary and Joseph dedicating the infant Jesus to God. After this, the priest gave a common Catholic benediction, known in Judaism as the Priestly Blessing, followed by Blake’s rendition in Hebrew.

Noth Gaffigan attributed the evening’s success to its cooperative efforts. “The fact that there was a priest and a mohel giving blessings side by side was such a celebration of unity in what can be a very divided culture,” Noth Gaffigan said.

As a former obstetrician/gynecologist, Blake said she saw her work as a commitment to her patients as well as to her own faith. “I feel a calling to be a mohel; I feel a calling to do God’s work on Earth,” she told the Forward. “But I feel a human calling to do a good job for anyone I’m doing a surgery for.”

From Forward

Gabboim

copyright by Estaire Kaufman

Misusing the sacred

I now speak of something that troubled me for a long time. It is not, however, my way to complain or cast blame. Better to light a lamp than to fight darkness. Yet, sometimes one must of protest and one surely must join others who make their opinion known in an eidel and appropriate manner, leshem shamaim.

Two weeks ago the Americal Yated run an article by A. Biderman decrying increasing use of religious symbols in  avertising. In frum communities one more and more frequently sees articles for sale advertised not for their design, price or value but based on their putative religious advantages. It might be a better hechsher, a conformance with tsnius standards or an appeal to a godol who either praised and himself used the item. At times, the ad is acompanied by a picture of the Godol with the advertised item in hand or nearby. Certain charities have become especially brazen. In my tsedaka pile (my wife has never met a tsedaka she does not like) lies an adertisement from a certain charity (claimed to be " the tsedoko of Gedolei Yisroel") that offers a blessed coin. Brocho Coin is a large medal. In the past, it was a kvittel that one of the specified four Litvishe gedolim would daven over. This time it is a large "metal" coin that is blessed by a particular Godol, whose picture holding the coin prominently graces the cover of the mailing. It says that in return for a generous donation, it will grace our home and bring the Godol's blessings with it.

The Yated article points out that extensive use of sacred symbols in advertising cheapens these symbols and will in time lead to lessening of their emotional value. In other words, and the author is careful to bring this out only by implication, the result will be a spread of cynicism and lessening of the emotonal attachment of Jews to their religious symbols.

I am sure that the gedolim who are used in these advertisements do not know to what use their images are being put. I know that the people who write this advertising copy are not aware of their eventual impact. I grant that their intent is honorable but their education and experience may be limited and it is our role to make them and the entire community aware of the dangers of this trend.

The brocho coin troubles me. For how this played out in other settings, see here.

Note: I will delete any comments that are not respectful or in good taste.

Avos 1:4, Serving the Creator

Do not be like the servants who service the Master on the condition to receive a prize but be like servants who serve the master on the condition not to receive a prize (or another version: not on the condition of receiving a reward) and fear which is of Heaven be upon you.

This enigmatic teaching confused Tsoedek and Boethus and it confuses us. There are in it several unusual expressions that indicate that Antigonos meant something specific and may help us reconstruct what it is. I will first restate the mishna as we would expect it in the rabbinic dialect (as best as I can do so in English) underlining each expected expression and then focus on each deviation from the expected.

Do not be like servant who serve their masters on the condition of receiving a reward but be like the servants who serve their master on the condition of not receiving a reward and you will fear God.

I list each unusual expression:

1.the Master - the usual expression would be their master or their masters. The change from the plural, servants, to singular, master, is unusual. Likewise, the usual expression in mishnaic Hebrew would be their masters, not the Master.

2.Service. Meshamshin connotes direct and personal service - putting on the masters shoes, washing his feet, and the like, not work in the fields, weaving, or plowing etc.

3. Instead of using the far more common word for reward, sachar, the mishna uses, pras. That word, Rambam points out ad. loc., like its cognate in English, prize, has the meaning of a random winning, like in a lottery.

4.service (meshamshin) - the expected would be serve (ovdim)

5.fear - Morah. Unlike the more common yiras Hashem, which describes a human emotion, mora shemaim is describing the awe-inspiring essence of God Himself. Furthermore, by using Heaven to stand for God, the meaning is broadened to include the entire Divine complex above us, including all the angels, powers and levels.

6. It is not entirely clear how the first and the last part of the mishna hang together; i.e. how serving God without expectation of reward leads to fearing heaven.

Careful attention to these peculiarities of language, coupled to the big issue of the day, spread and penetration of the classic culture of Greece, must lead to a more specific understanding of Antigonos message. I offer one possible understanding; others are also possible.

The Vilna Gaon in his commentary to Seder Olam explains that the statement that the attraction of idolatry died in the days of Anshei Knesses Hagedolah (Yoma 69) is best understood in the historical sense. This coincides with the spread of Hellenic outlook on life that replaced the sense of man's utter helplessness before personified powers of nature that they called gods, with the conviction of man's power over nature and his superiority within the natural order. This is after all what Greeks believed - that man can rule over nature, that logic can discover natural law and help man subjugate nature. Like goyim so go the Jews. With increasing distance between man and God, not only did idolatry wane, so did the power of prophecy. In this perspective, God becomes distant and His intervention in nature rare, infrequent and unusual. Greek gods, unlike pantheons of other pagan nations, did not fashion the world and they themselves were subjected to vagaries of Fortune. That does not mean that Jews of that period were as distant from the realization of God's omnipotence as we are (we yearn for one tenths of their power of faith), but, perhaps, they were just a bit more distant from it than their forefathers.

Perhaps, in that milieu they began to see God as the Overseer of public works, who passes by occasionally to supervise the ongoing constructions, dealing out occasional rewards to good workers whom he happens to notice and overlooking others who happen to not be present. Personal service is more likely to lead to a prize; a good shoeshine is more likely to be noticed and rewarded with a toss of a coin than decades of devoted toil in the fields. Antigonos was trying to paint an image with his choice of words ( I would add, a very Greek use of words), to his audience who were familiar with the reality he described. He decried the mentality of a personal servant who pines for an unexpected handout and wished to emphasize the fearsome nature of the Master, who must be worshiped for His own sake. That is why he used the metaphor of servants and why he set up the contrast between the grandeur of Heaven and the worthlessness of a servile approach to the service of Hashem.

Next week, please God, we will address the nature of heresy in Judaism.