avakesh

Zaer varem (the Kaminkke nigin/ Bobov)

Revival

Artist:Mihail Ivanenko,

http://www.ivanenko.name/showpart.php?idp=3

Bilvavai Mishkan Evneh author in the US

Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh U.S. speaking schedule

http://dixieyid.blogspot.com/2008/08/bilvavi-mishkan-evneh-author-us-tour.html

Spiritual maturity

Spiritual growth is of three levels.

The first is the level of the great majority of men and is the level on which we must intend to place out children and to which we should hope to lead our students. It is the realization and recognition that Jewishness and  masorah is at the core of our being, that we identify with Torah and its tenets, that we and it are one. This is a very high level, one that many but not most achieve within their lifetime, so that Jewishness and the frum lifestyle is at the core of their beings, and to abandon it is to be untrue to themselves. Untold numbers have remained within the fold against all difficulties owing to the sights, smells, experiences and patterns of thought welded into them from their earliest upbringing. It does come with a danger, however. Just like to some people Judaism is identified with their selves, so to others their selves are identified with Judaism. Intolerance of religious expressions and ideas and positions that "don't feel right" can follow and it can be passionate and destructive. After all, there are few things that provoke more passion than an attack on the self. The confusion of the personal and religious can permit what is forbidden and make forbidden what is personally detestable but securely within the Torah's limits of tolerance, or simply a different way. It can lead to unconscious hypocrisy, idealistically driven misuse of power and glorification of the self instead of Hashem.

With all this, this IS the way of most men, and it is a safe and good place for most people to be. It is a place of religious naivete, a blessed childhood of Faith, a secure and comfortable ancestral home from which we should not attempt to dislodge anyone.

A few move beyond the self and grow to realize that it is not the true parameter of authenticity and truth, that there are outside criteria and that maturity demands self-criticism. This level resembles  adolescence, in that it is often accompanied by a sense of dislocation and insecurity and a willingness to value the judgments of the outsiders more than one's own. In the secular world, we encounter this stage of growth among those who hold everyone elses's perceptions and opinions as somehow more valid than their own. They are afraid of the power of self-interest to pervert their view, for they have recognized its power to do so. In the religious world, it manifests itself as the desire to encompass all views and to live as detached from the inner voice and subjective opinion as possible. Modern maimonideans sometimes fall into this group.

This is an inherently unstable position; it only has value as a transitional device. Rav Kook in Orot Haemuna compares this situation to a sapling that has been uprooted from its native soil and must very quickly be replanted, for if it is not, it dries out. Similarly, those who remain at this level are at a real danger of spiritual dryness and impoverishment, if not worse.

The mature man of years trusts the inner voice. The third level is the return to the inner truth, to the naive faith but now from a position of strength. Giving up the self paradoxically makes one stronger." What should a man do so he may live", asked Alexander of the Sages of the South? "He must kill himself". To truly live in Hashems' truth, one must dissolve the self. So taught the Rebbe of Kotsk. Now, unafraid that the self will be injured, the believer is strong enough to open the self to the immediate experience of the Outside.  Before, he feared being absorbed and ceasing to exist should the Divine Light flood in; now he no longer fears it. Inside, he is certain that he will find that simple faith that animated him before but that was dim, obscured by self-interest and self-delusion.  Few achieve this level; few even perceive its existence. People think that tsaddikim are merely more scrupulous in their observances or have learned more Torah. This is true but what makes tsaddikim into tsaddikim  is openness to Hashem's light and it can only flow inside those whose self does not fill all their space.

Repentance is not only an act or series of actions; it is a process of growth and rebirth. Jewish calendar institutionalizes the process of growth in Return during the month of Elul.

Reish Lakish said: Great is repentance, for intentional sins become for a penitent as if they were not intentional, as it says: Return Israel to your God for you have stumbled in you crime (Hosea 14,). Crime refers to intentional sin and yet it is called "stumbling". Is this really so? Did not Reish Lakish say, "Great is repentance, for it turns sins into merits, as it says, "When the wicked returns from his sin…he shall live(in the sense of "prosper") (Ezekiel 33,)". No problem - this statement is about repentance through love and this one is regarding repentance from fear (Yoma 86b)".

Returning to God because one fears for himself, in this formulation, is the return to oneself, out of fear.One is not transformed by fear and neither are his sins. Love, on the other hand, is transformative, for in the light of the face of the King, is Life (Proverbs 16:15).

  

Peshat commentary in Midrash.

Not all midrash is midrashic. Tannaitic midrash in particular contains long stretches of straightforward commentary. As we noted before, these comments are the oldest substratum of Oral Law, representing the original verbal commentary that was taught and transmitted along with the Written text. We know that this is true because of the similarity, or even identity, of many such passages to various literal targumim, such as Onkelos and whatever little we posses of the Greek translation of Aquilas, a student of R. Akiva [1].

If such a running commentary on the entire Torah was widely taught and known, why would fragments of it need to be included in tannaitic collections? It appears that this was done for specific reasons. Let us discuss one such passage. First, here is the quote from A. Kaplan's translation.

The Supreme Court
17:8	If you are unable to reach a decision in a case involving capital punishment , litigation, leprous marks , [or any other case] where there is a dispute in your territorial courts , then you must set out and go up to the place that God your Lord shall choose.
17:9	You must approach the Levitical priests [and other members of] the supreme court that exists at the time. When you make inquiry, they will declare to you a legal decision.
17:10	Since this decision comes from the place that God shall choose, you must do as they tell you, carefully following their every decision.
17:11	[Besides this, in general,] you must keep the Torah as they interpret it for you, and follow the laws that they legislate for you . Do not stray to the right or left from the word that they declare to you.
17:12	If there is any man who rebels and refuses to listen to the priest or other judge who is in charge of serving God your Lord there [ as leader of the supreme court ], then that man must be put to death, thus ridding yourselves of evil in Israel.
17:13	When all the people hear about it, they will fear and will not rebel again.

Compare it now to the Jewish Publication Society translation.

If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, even matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which HaShem thy G-d shall choose.

9 And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment.

10 And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare unto thee from that place which HaShem shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee.

11 According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.

12 And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before HaShem thy G-d, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt exterminate the evil from Israel .

13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

The comparison of the two translations makes the interpretative problems clearer. This verses seems to require that we consult someone when we have halachic questions but whom? The Levites? Only the Court in Jerusalem ? Any court? And about what? Any matter or only those specified in the verse? Does this apply only to Priests and Judges who serve as temporal authority or to any defined rabbinic body? Who is the Judge referred to in the verse? To individual great Rabbis? To their informal consensus? Are the details mentioned in the verses examples of broad classes or are they restrictive and limitning?

To make our inquiry more focused let me paraphrase the first two verses in two different ways – the traditional Jewish interpretation as presented by R. Kaplan and the alternative interpretation of JPS.

Kaplan - When there arises a matter that you cannot decide, for example, in the areas of criminal law, civil law, or ritual law, any matter of dispute among lower courts, you shall go to Jerusalem, the a court composed of the most qualified persons, either Levites or non-Levites…
In summary, all Torah Law is subject to the final authority of the High Court.

JPS- When there arises a question that that you find too difficult, specifically only in the areas of menstrual blood, decisions between opposing pleas, distinctions between one type of leprosy and another or when populace is divided on matters of public policy, you shall go up to Jerusalem to a court of Levites to decide ritual law or to the Judge/ King to favor one plea over another or to judge between different petitions of different groups of citizens…

In this interpretation, there is no such thing as the High Cour and, therefore, no Rabbinic authority.

Rabbinic authority to interpret and legislate depends on the first interpretation and is negated by the second. We should not be surprised to find that both Karaites and Christians championed the latter interpretation [2].

One might expect that the Sifri will quote the traditional running commentary on a passage of such importance, even if it usually doesn't. That is, in fact, what we find in the Sifri Devarim ad loc.

If there arise a matter – this is halakha

too hard (ipale) - this deals with the chief justice (muphle)

for thee – this is one who provides counsel (about calculation of years and months)

a judgment – this is civil law

between blood and blood –between blood of niddah and blood of zava and blood of a woman who gave birth

between plea and plea –between laws of civil suits and laws of corporal punishment and capital punishment

and between stroke and stroke – between leprosy of houses and leprosy of people

even matters – these are erachim dedication, charamim dedication and sacrifice dedications

of controversy within thy gates – this is giving drink to sotah and breaking the neck of egla arufah and purification of the leper (which takes place in public)

then shalt thou arise – your court (that doesn't know, all members together)…

and get thee up unto the place which HaShem thy G-d shall choose – from here they derived that there were three courts on the Temple Mount (each one serving above the other)…

. 9 And thou shall come – to include the court in Yavne

unto the priests the Levites – you may think that it is commanded to include Levites in this court, therefore it says, “ and unto the judge that shall be in those days”…

etc

It should be apparent that this interpretation places all areas of Torah Law under Rabbinic authority. Each term includes several wide areas of Torah Law. What's more, the rabbis are the ones who decide which law falls under what rubric; they decide if it is a civil, criminal, sacramental, or Temple matter. Thus their authority is absolute and not in any way restricted to a narrow area of expertise; neither are Priests vested with any legislative or interpretative authority aside of such authority as they may obtain as Rabbis.

Methodology point: When we find long stretches of what appears to be straightforward explication of the meaning of text inside a midrashic collection, they often identify a seminal passage with profound theological implications.

---

1 Whether Onkelos and Aquilas are the same person or not is subject to a great deal of scholarly debate.

2 R. David Nieto in his Mateh Dan I responds to this Karaite interpretation.

The Christians were also forced into the debate regarding this verse because of the following quote in Matthew 23:2: “ Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do… It became necessary for them to limit Rabbinic authority to as a narrow area of law as they could, for if not, abrogation of law in favor of faith could never be sanctioned.

Niggun from Baal Hasulam in a very modern rendition

Prayer experience and Adam I and Adam II

The morning Jewis a confident, self aware and self assured man when he accepts on himself the yoke of Heaven. The key word here is Covenantal acceptance  - a embracing of a role as a ally and colleague, a fellow and confidante, a builder and   partner... to God. After all, the Shma was directed to a confident and vigorous nation, about to embark on conquest and settlement of a new land. Its text deals with loving G-d, working the land and being satisfied with its fruits and it enjoins us not to turn away and sin; it allows of the possibility of choice.This is what the Rav (R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik) called Adam I in his writings[1]; a man as master of his destiny who commands technology, uproots mountains and dominates the animal and even the inanimate word[2]. This cosmic man is expansive and quests for vastness. He is universal and believes that nothing is beyond his reach..

”Cosmic man is mesmerized by the infinite number of opportunities with which his fantasy presents him. He forgets the simple tragic fact that he is finite and mortal”.[3]

When in such mood, he fashions societies and cultures and relates to others as a member of a community of builders and creators. On the other hand, man is also created from the dust and senses that he is limited and rooted in a location and experience. He turns inwards. Within, he discovers the redemptive force that he calls his G-d and his Redeemer.

Through prayer, man also knows himself as Adam II , a weak and helpless being standing before the Absolute and aware of his many limitations, nay, of his utter worthlessness and vulnerability. To dare to face the Transcendent Master, the Source and the Creator, man must be desperate indeed. Such a man fears obliteration for any misdeed;he is in terror of nothingness, of the great void and he desperately clings to the Source of all life. It is from utter despair, fear, and dread that man undertakes to stand before G-d in prayer. Out of this encounter, man comes out with a complete and total recognition of worthlessness and lasting humility and appreciation of the Majesty of the Divine Being and his own lowliness. This is the mood of the Evening Prayer.

Despair is the operative word in this receiving of this second type if  Divine Yoke.  It is the decision to submit in prayer that constitutes the receiving of the yoke rather than prayer itself. The Rav most certainly did not view the Shmone Esrei as “the Yoke” for the Talmud states explicitly:”Prayer is different than Shema for it is not the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven”(Brachot 21a). Of course it is then the Shma then constitutes this preliminary approach to G-d. We,therefore, must see the Shma itself as potentially containing within it two disparate though complimentary “Yokes” , the one of the morning and a different one of the evening, which is the same as saying that prayer can be approached from the position of confidence and security  as well as out of despair and trembling.

The tenor of the encounter is different in the morning when the optimistic and confident strains predominate and in the evening when the ebbing of the light and coming of darkness induce a cautious and diffident approach[4]. As the Vilna Gaon in the commentary to the Haggada[5]pointed out, the morning blessing of Ahava Rabba  is of very different tenor than the evening blessing, Ahavat Olam[6].

Both sensibilities are required for a balanced and whole spiritual and religious life. To be overconfident is to risk forgetting that one is but a mortal being and that no amount of technological and intellectual mastery can ensure immortality. This is the malady of modern man who believes in himself to the exclusion of the Divine. “Modern man is frustrated and perplexed because he cannot take defeat. He is simply incapable of retreating humbly.Modern man boasts quite often that he never lost a war.He forgets that defeat is built into the very structure of victory, that there is in fact no total victory; man is finite, so is his victory.Whatever is finite is imperfect; so is man’s triumph”[7]. The early humanists said:”Man is the measure of all things”.Later they said:”-G-d is dead”.  Humanity that sees itself as the pinnacle of perfection cannot allow for G-d’s Providence or even His existence. Neither is complete self deprecation  desirable. likewise be avoided  for  what can be demanded of a puny, worthless being. “I am only human, what can I do?”.

Judaism requires us to know that ,though even a gnat was created before us, we are the crown of Creation, G-d’s special handiwork, and his image in the lower spheres[8].The Psalmist states: “Who is  man that you should remember him and son of man that you should care for him? Yet You have made him a little less than angels and with glory splendor You have crowned him”(Psalms 8,15).”

This recognition is central to Judaism and an integral part of the daily service. The receiving of the yoke of heaven is essentially formalizing this insight upon out approach of the essence of prayer experience, the Shemone Esrei.

---

[1]Majesty and Humility, Tradition 17(2), 1978 and  The Lonely Man of Faith, Tradition 7(2), 1965 and republished by Doubleday in 1992 and Jason Aronson in 1996.

[2]  This paradigm of mankind’s dual origins is one of Rav Soloveitchik’s best well known contributions and is often said to typify his thesis-antithesis-catharsis  approach to human experience.It must be pointed out that a similar idea was innovated by the Rav’s maternal great grandfather, the Netsiv of Volozhin in his commentary to Genesis.

[3]Majesty and Humility, p.29.

[4]Why are Tefillin only worn in the morning? I venture to speculate that man humbled by the darkness and disappearance of light does not require the Tefillin to bind his physical being(Midrash Tehillim to  Psalms 2,3 ), his heart and his arm, and is fully open to the humbling message of the Shmone Esrei. In the evening, the natural sense of vulnerability and anxiety renders the message of Tefillin superfluous. On the other hand, the sense of optimism and self confidence at the start of the new, bright day,may induce overconfidence and requires palpable reminder of man’s physical limitations.

[5]To “V’hi Sheomda...”

[6]  this understanding of the implications  of the two blessings throws light on an obscure disagreement in Brachot 11b.: “It was taught:We do not say Ahavat Olam but Ahava Rabba. The sages say- Ahavat Olam and so it says”I have loved you eternal love, therefore I drew you close with kindness(Jeremaia 31). The disagreement is regarding the posture man must assume when facing G-d in prayer, a confident partner, a part of the community and Jewish people or as an individual  alone, in despair, seeking kindness and support. The practice is to incorporate both, one in the morning and the other in the evening prayers. Thee contrast is farther sharpened by focusing the postShema blessings  on he victories in the past in the morning and on redemption and salvation at night. The Rav added that the the blessing of “Hashkiveinu’ which is uniquely said as part of the evening service is specifically designed to delineate this contrast.

[7]Majesty and Humility, p.36

[8]The Rav quoted the Rebbe of Kotsk who said:’A man must have to pockets in his vest and take out whatever the occasion requires. In one pocket he must keep”...and I am dust and ashes(Genesis 18,27)”. In the other pocket he must place”...for in the image of G-d He created him(Genesis 1,27)”. Compare Majesty and Humility, p.27

 

Yeshiva

Reward and punishment: Automatic or Personal.

Jewish thought contains a variety of positions on almost every theological issue of importance. We often find a particular position or debate first expressed in a medieval work or by a fairly recent thinker and we, therefore, tend to think that the author is the originator of the idea or concept. As we had seen many times in this series, careful reading of midrash often leads us to the discovery of such a topic already in the words of Tannaim. Undoubtedly, some such interpretations are forced; each one deserves to be judged solely on its merits and on how well it explicates the passage under consideration. However, and this goes beyond apologetics to methodology, an encounter with a “difficult” midrash should stimulate an erudite reader to search for a theological issue that may explain the “difficulty”. Directed by midrash itself, Scriptural antecedents of the contending philosophical or theological positions may then be discovered, confirming the essential unity of all Torah [1].

Let us look at one such problem – does God cause suffering? The problem of theodicy is, of course, one of central religious issues and one that notoriously lacks a definitive solution. It is a conundrum. It is obviously desirable to remove God from being the direct cause of human pain; on the other hand, God who does not directly and personally punish evil and rewards good, appears far too distant and irrelevant. It is difficult to worship or pray to such a Deity. There seem to be an irresolvable dilemma without a satisfactory resolution – either God punishes directly for sin and He is therefore responsible for human pain, or, if reward and punishment are merely natural consequences of obedience and disobedience, He is hardly involved in out lives and not much of a personal God. Much ink has been spilled on trying to resolve and bring closer these two polarities but that is not our focus here (an MP3 lecture on this topic is filed under Lectures of Faith).

Much of Jewish liturgy takes the former view. Philosophy [2] and Kabbalah tends to the second. This is how this position is stated by R. Chaim Shmulevits in Sichos Mussar: “…we must view the punishment meted out for interpersonal offenses in a different manner. It is not retribution in the sense of reward and punishment, rather it is part and parcel of the reality our existence. As surely as one must be hurt by a collision with another object, so too must one be hurt when one has hurt another's feelings. When one puts his hand into a fire it will be burned, countless good reasons for doing so notwithstanding”. [3]

The Midrash Deteronomy Rabbah 4,1 reports the following view of R. Elazar on this issue.

Another interpretation: Hear and listen and do not rise up (Yirmiah 14). R. Elazar said: The Book and the sword came down wrapped together from heaven. He said to them: If you do what is written in this book, you are saved from this sword. If you do not do it, you will be killed by the sword…

 Hear, I set before you today blessing and curse… R. Elazar said: Once HKBH said this at Sinai, at that time – “from the mouth of the High One will not go forth evils and good [4](Lament. 3). But, evil comes of its own to those who do evil and good comes of its own to those who do good..”

Thus, reward and punishment are on autopilot. One who does evil automatically suffers the effect of his actions and one who does good is automatically rewarded. This is a spiritual law that Hashem has set up in the world; what's more, He has notified and warned us of its existence. He who chooses to disregard this law is responsible for the outcome and Hashem is blameless for the result.

R. Chagi said: Not only did I set before you two paths but went beyond the call of duty and told you, “You shall choose life”.

The issue is aslo discussed in the Sifri ad loc. The passage is obscure. Bringing this theological issue into the passage provides us with an approach that makes it much more intelligible .

Blessing and Curse. Blessing that you listen and curse if you do not listen…A similar instance, “ If you do well, accrue good and if not, accrue bad (Genesis 4).

Explanation; Do not be misled by the wording to think that obedience is its own reward and blessing; rather, sin leads directly to being punished by G-d as Cain was in the proof-text form Genesis 4, and doing good leads to direct reward as also is stated there.

R. Eliezer the son of R. Yosi Haglili says: Who would whisper such a suggestion? The Torah said: ”The blessing it you listen and the curse if you don't listen”. A similar instance, “Life and death are in the power of tongue and he who loves it eats its fruit (Proverbs 18). He who loves (good) speech eats its fruits; one who loves evil eats its fruits.

R. Eliezer the son of R. Yosi Haglili says: Who would whisper such a suggestion?

Torah said: Watch you tongue from evil (Psalms 34) A similar instance – “For the righteous will be rewarded ( passive form – ishulam) in the land (Proverbs 11).”

These two versions of R. Eliezer advocate the “automatic” theory of reward and punishment and bring proof-texts to support them. R. Yosi, the brother of R. Eleizer disagrees. According to R. Yosi, reward and punishment are direct interventions by the Divine.

R. Yosi, the son of R,. Yosi Haglili says: Who would whisper such a suggestion? The Torah says, “ All that G-d does is by Himself (lmaaneihu) and also the evil one ( is punished) on the day of evil (Ibid 77).”.

I offer this passage as an example of how one can use basic theological issues that are discussed in later Rabbinic literature as tools with which to approach obscure Tannaitic midrash. I do not claim that this particular interpretation is the only possible one or that it is correct. I also admit that application of this technique is subjective and as all chidush in Torah can lead to good and persuasive results or to strained and unappealing interpretations. What I do wish to express is a methodological point that, if utilized carefully and correctly, can open the gates of interpretation a little bit wider and can aid a student of midrash toward better understanding and a more rewarding encounter with obscure midrashic passages. .

---

1 Finding a ‘late' theological dispute in Tannitic sources and tracing its genesis to different and conflicting verses in Tanach demonstrates continuity of Torah study and argues against the often expressed view(first expressed by A, Geiger) that Rabbinic disputes stem from differing social and political positions. It does raise the question of the ultimate reconciliation of the Scriptural verses. This kind of a question is precisely the concern of Tannaitic midrash and the fact that not all such contradictions have been raised and successfully reconciled by the Tannaim offers no substantive theological difficulty.The work of the Oral Law continues and , “The early ones left us place to innovate (Chullin 7a)”.

2 See Moreh III, 51, heorah.

3 Reb Chaim's Discourses: The Shmuessen of the Mirrer Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Shmulevitz,, ArtScroll, 1989, p. 41

4 The Hetsiv in Herchev Davar explains that evil takes many different forms and is therefore termed ‘evils' but good is single and only one.

Why we need tsaddikim.