avakesh

Avos 1:14,2 Was Shammai a severe and somber man?

Shammai Said: "Set A Fixed Time For Your Study Of Torah; Say Little And Do Much; And Receive Every Person With A Cheerful Countenance."

"Every person" can be interpreted to include even gentiles. This raises a question: There is a well-known narrative which relates that a gentile came to Shammai and demanded: "Teach me the entire Torah while I stand on one foot." Shammai drove him away. Hillel, by contrast, received him with gentle forbearance and told him: "What is distasteful to you, do not do to a colleague. This is the entire Torah; the rest is merely explanation.(Shabbos 31a)"

Shammai's conduct seems to conflict with his own directive to "receive every person with a cheerful countenance."

It can be explained that the above narrative reflects Shammai's natural tendencies. Nevertheless, after Shammai heard Hillel's teaching - "Be of the students of Aharon" - he changed his nature and taught his students to "receive every person with a cheerful countenance. " (This explains why in this instance, Hillel's teachings are mentioned before those of Shammai although generally Shammai's teachings are given precedence. See Tosafos, Chagigah 16a).

This explanation is offered by the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The Rebbe's approach is conditioned on his perception of the disagreements between Hillel being due to Shammia representing Gevura and Hillel representing Chessed. (Parenthetically, the question of wheher one can explain multiple views of Tannaim based on their personal proclivities first came up with Zecharia Frankel of the Breslau seminary, who took such a position in his "Darke ha-Mishnah" (Leipsic, 1859). This was subsequently extended by Finkelstein in his analysis of Pharisees and Sadduccees. R. Samson Raphael Hirsch strongly opposed this approach (in Selected Writings, vol. 5) and considered it to be apikorses.  On the other hand, the Rebbe's view is solidly based on Zohar and has influenced several contemporary writers, such as R. Jonathan Sacks and R. Nachman Cohen, who published several books extending this concept to other pairs of Tannaim who disagree. When I discussed this once with R Cohen, he rolled off a number of other authorities throughout the ages who employed this approach.)

One might ask, however, that the statement presented in this Mishna is not that of Beis Hillel, and therefore it could not have been that Shammai changed his view to follow that of Hillel. Beis Hillel instead holds:

R. Ishmael says:...   receive every man with joy (Avos 3:12). Rambam writes: "More than what Shammai said, "receive every man with a pleasant countenance". Further support that the view of Beis Hillel is distinct fror the view of Beis Shammai is the statement in Kesubos 111b that one should greet others with teeth showing, that is with a full and open smile, which is more than what Shammai says.

Although from several sources one may get an impression that Shammai and his followers were severe and unwelcoming (see Tos. Gittin 36b), this is belied by other, less well-known reports about Shammai. For example he went carrying his staff to his student Yonasan ben Uziel as a sign of subjection(Bava Basra 133b - this is not how Rashi understand it but see Rosh HaShanah 24b-25b. Seder Hadoros understand that R. Yonasan was a student of Hillel (as per Sukkah 28) and therefore junior to Shammai as well; however, Seder Hadoros himself holds that Shammai started out as a student of Hillel and became his equal. It is therefore possible that Shammia was a fellow-student of Yonasan ben Uziel)).  The Rebbe, though was based in Kabbala, which considers Shammai to have been unduly severe in rejecting converts, for which he had to return as a gilgul in R. Shimon ben Azzai, who never married, but through his Torah study many souls of geirim were born (see Seder Hadoros, Tannaim and Amoraim, Shammai).

The Jewish Encylopedia has this interesting answer to the contradiction between the persona and teachings of Shammai: "He himself appears to have realized the disadvantages of his violent temper; hence he recommended a friendly attitude toward all. His motto was: "Make the study of the Law thy chief occupation; speak little, but accomplish much; and receive every man with a friendly countenance" (Ab. i. 15). He was modest even toward his pupils (B. B. 134b; comp. Weiss, "Dor," i. 163, note 1)." The answer is not respectful to the great Sage Shammai but does point out the problem.

I would suggest that Shammai advocated that when one meets a new person, he should " do much  and say little". Unfortunately, it is common for one's words, even if meant well, to be misinterpreted by someone who does not recognize and know you, but is meeting you for the first time. Humor can be taken as mockery and joy as flattery or a sign of imbalance. This is why Shammai did not agree with the view of Beis Hillel that one should show much happiness when receiving every man. It is common, for example, for Europeans to perceive Americans as flighty and unreliable when first encountering them, because Americans smile and joke while Europeans rarely smile to strangers and are more reserved. Shammai thought that when receiving "all" people, one should show a pleasant countenance but not excessive happiness. Hillel, on the other hand, felt that true simcha can overcome all boundaries and cultural barriers, because it speaks directly to the heart.

Introducing a new blog

I recommend a new blog to those who think deeply about the questions of Faith, Reason, Science and the Human Condition. It is a high quality exploration of the deepest philosophical and personal issues by a scholar with a sensitive heart who is familiar with what has been written on these topics and has thought deeply and long about them.

Bm'ei ha'daga

Searching for His hidden face from within the belly of the fish.

By the rivers of Babylon

Here is an interesting video of aBob Marley song.

Surprisingly, the upbeat formulation manages to work with the tragic content, which startles and gives food for thought. Can joy and mourning coexist?

I believe that this tune was also done by some Jewish group with the Hebrew words; if anyone knows, please post in the comments.

Finally, please disregard the strange and curious  (and non-sensical) pro-Sadducee slant in the captions.

Here is a trailer of a movie about the Jamaican-Jewish connection. A 3 sec shot at about 50 seconds should be bypassed (A not fully tsniusdige moment).

Tisha B'av by Chaim Gershon

 

          

        On the Three Weeks between the Fast of the 17 Tammuz and Tisha B'Av, there are various restrictions in daily life that have been sanctioned or become the custom in order to mourn the destruction of the Temple. During the Three weeks, we do not celebrate weddings, listen to music, cut hair etc. During the Nine days, we do not eat meat or drink Wine, wear freshly laundered clothes, bathe for recreation etc. During the week in which Tisha B'Av occurs, one does not cut fingernails, etc. On both the 17 Tammuz and 9 Menachem Av we fast according to the laws of Fast days but on the latter day there are additional actions mandated inlcuding ones that are reflective of personal law's of mourning such as sitting on low chairs and not putting on tefillin in the morning service.  At midday, some of these restrictions are lifted transforming the day into a regular fast day. After Tisha B'av in the evening, some of the restrictions such as not drinking wine, eating meat, doing laundry continue until noon on the Tenth of Av.

 

        In mourning (Aveilus) for a parent, the laws start at their strictest until the burial (anenus), then are still stringent during the first seven days aka Shiva, and become less at 30 days (Shloshim) and dissipate at 11/12 months, only to be commerorated with minor if any prohibitions on the yahrtzeit. This is perplexing in comparison to the sequence during the Three Weeks where the intensity in contrast increases with time and then suddenly disappears at noon on the Tenth when everyone can jump into the pool !? Although historically the conditions worsened between the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem on the 17 Tammuz and the destruction that began on the 9 Av, the burning persisted through the Tenth of Av. Nonetheless by noon on the Ninth, people are beginning to arise from their seats of mourning ?! And what of the desolation that was then total on the 11th? and beyond? Moreover, only a person during anenus cannot eat wine and meat yet while for mourning for the Temple the restriction is the nine days? Why does the case for mourning for the Temple differ sequentially and both qualitatively and quantitatively in such a manner from that for a person?

 

       Various explanations have been presented for these incongruous observances. The extended time for abstaining from eating meat and inbibing wine has been explained as a Zecher (memory) for the Mikdash (Temple) in that meat and wine were respectively the korbanos and nesachim (liquid offerings) in the Temple: it was not instituted directly for aveilus. The anguish caused by the loss of a relative is immediate while that for the Temple has been termed an aveilus yeshana, an old mourning. The perception of loss needs to be reinculcated each year, updated to be current, so it takes time until distress is felt. The Temple had already lost its kedusha due to the transgressions of the Jews so that the burning building was just a physical structure being reduced to ashes that had lost its inherent holiness: mourning is not relevant at all after the Shechinah has departed. That is the reason why in the Second Temple that Titus was able to stroll into the Holy of Holies and do abominable acts and walk out without any immediate retribution unlike the many Kohanim Gedolim who died on Yom Kippur in the Holy of Holies and needed to be pulled out by a rope because they were unsuitable for the position having bribed their way in.

 

        Tradition says that Moshiach is born on Tisha B'Av; therefore, Tachanun prayers are not said as it is already a Holiday as it is referred to in literature as conditions are already improving on the very day of the destruction. There are esoteric prayers done at midnight mourning the destruction of the Temple and the loss of the Shechinah called "Tikkun Chatzos". One would think there would be extra additions on Tisha B'av due to the greatest relevance to their content but instead the condensed version done on Shabbas and Yom Tov are said because it is a holiday.

 

         Indeed, some of the additional restrictions on Tisha B'Av (no leather shoes, no marital relations, no anointing, no bathing in addition to no eating/drinking) are only in common with the holiest day of the year Yom Kippur. Parallels have been drawn between them concluding that they thus share the status for possessing the greatest revelations of G-dliness. The face-to-face relationship of the Jewish people to HaShem that has been described on Yom Kippur also exists on Tisha B'av: the Keruvim in the Temple were said to be facing each other during the destruction as opposed to being back-to-back when Divine disapproval towards the Jews was revealed.

 

        Every Jew is an avel on Tisha B'Av: every Jew has a part inside of him that is the Temple for commentaries say that each Jew is a dwelling place for the Shechinah.  A loss in a person's ability to learn Torah is due to the absence of the Temple: it is why we do not learn Torah on Tisha B'Av as one does in aveilus. Thus it is like a bit of the person died on Tisha B'av as the neshama is not in the guf in the normal manner which is also the case on Yom Kippur for the opposite reason.

 

        The avodah is that the year has its cycles of seasons with its holidays: "והימים האלה נזכרים ונעשים", some even say that Time is a spiral and not a merry-go-round http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/timeless-patterns/foreword.htm. Nonetheless, C"V that we climb or decend endlessly. However, every Jew also has a piece of Moshiach associated with his soul as well. HaShem did not forget the "Chelek Eloka Mima'al", the holy spark of G-dliness on the Tisha B'avs on which the Temple was destroyed. He does not forget us now. The Second Temple was destroyed due to causeless hatred between Jews. If all Jews loved each other, then all our individual sparks of the Temple and of Moshiach would unite together to create a megastructure that would eradicate all the Amaleks of the world and once again bring down the Shechinah in a revealed manner below and we would all be learning Torah all day long in Jerusalem, Israel and the whole world. This is the Rambam's target state of מלאה הארץ דעה כמים ליס מכסים which has also been described as יום שכולו טוב.

The Self-Healing Paroches by Chaim Gershon

 

 

         It is related in several places in the Oral Torah [Masechta Gittin 56b, Midrash Tanchuma Acharei 4, Vayikra Rabba 20:5,22:3], that when Titus entered the Holy of Holies while conquering the second Beis HaMikdash, he took his sword and stabbed the paroches, the curtain hanging between the Holy of Holies and the Heichal, the latter containing the Shulchan, Menorah and Incense Altar. The sources document a miraculous response: blood dripped from the "wound".

"Titus HaRasha was blasphemous and disgraceful towards Heaven. What did he do? He took a Zonah into the Kodesh HaKodashim, spread a Sefer Torah and committed an Aveirah upon it. He then took a sword and sliced the Paroches. A miracle occurred, and blood bubbled forth, and he thought that he had killed G-d. In truth, he killed a dead person for the Shekhina has already left the  Temple ." (Gittin 56b)

See explanations here and here: 

 

The image that this story sets in front of us is that of the vessels (kelim) of the Beis HaMikdash that are "alive" and can be damaged not only on a simple physical level but also on a spiritual level. This is  expounded upon in depth by Shem MiShmuel [Toldos 5673,5675. Vayetze 5678, Terumah 5672]. Talmud explains that in truth, when Titus entered at the destruction of the Second Temple , the lifeforce, aka Shechinah had already departed and he stabbed a "dead" structure. During the First Temple as discussed in the above source, the Torah study "healed" the vessels such that they could not develop such holes through which the energy can go to the Other Side.  

On a literal level, we understand that skin that can heal itself is a wonder from HaShem in the biological realm. That the fabric of the Paroches behaved like a living structure appears less miraculous today as scientists have worked to imitate living tissues, and synthetics materials that can imitate human skin have been synthesized; this branch of polymer science is called biomimetics (see also here).

 

  Like the paroches in the First Temple where the physical damage by the Nebuchadnetzer et al. was not total and irreparable and was healed by the energy of learning Torah, so can materials made of some newly designed polymers be "healed" by the thermal or UV energy of sunlight.

For those who are interested, here are some links on the scientific aspects of these new polymers.

http://www.pcimag.com/Articles/Feature_Article/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000577467

http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/545287

  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6619/is_6_65/ai_n31977407/?tag=content;col1 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-201494505.html

.

We need to continue to learn Torah and see the wonders of HaShem in the world to merit the Temple's rebuilding.

 

Why Torah does not emphasize Paradise.

Unlike other monotheistic religions, Judaism does not make much of the pleasures and terrors of the soul after death. Ramban suggests that this is so becasue the World-to-Come is a natural attainment, not something that needs to be earned, but something that can be lost.(Lev. 18:29):

“(They) shall be cut off:” …you must realize that the punishment of cutting off the soul implies a firm assurance of the immortality of the soul and of a Divine reward in the Hereafter. By stating “this soul shall be cut off from before Me,” the Torah teaches us that only the soul of the sinner is cut off, for its iniquity, but other souls, which have not sinned will live eternally and enjoy the Divine splendor. This is so because the human soul is the lamp of the Lord which He breathed into our nostrils…and so it rests in its natural setting and will not die. It is not composite and thus is not subject to generation and dissolution as are compound substances. Indeed, it is intrinsically imperishable as are the immaterial intelligence’s (i.e., angels).

It is therefore unnecessary for the Torah to state that as a reward for a good deed the soul will live forever. It states rather that as a punishment for transgressing, the soul will become tarnished and defiled and thus cut off from its natural life of eternity. Accordingly, the torah chose the term karet, as with a branch cut off from a tree that brought it forth. As already noted, all the rewards and punishments promised by the Torah are supernatural, mysterious miracles…thus it (the Torah) does not hold out eternity (for the soul) which is natural (and therefore, self-evident).”

In his Commentary to Bechukotai (26:12), Ramban states this succinctly:

"And I will walk among you”: The torah does not mention here the eternal life of the soul in the world of the souls and in the Hereafter after the resurrection, for the soul’s endurance is constitutional, as I have explained in the context of karet. It is the punishment which brings about extinction of the guilty souls, whilst the others, by their very nature, live forever.

R. Yehuda Halevy in I:109 similarly argues that and adherent of Torah, gains an ability to be close to G-d while still in this world. This is in essence not different from what happens after death though it may be different in degree. This is why Torah speaks much of the rewards and punishments of this world and does not dwell on the rewards and punishments of  the World to come .

---

[1] This question was an important one and is discussed by many commentators and writers, such as, Sefer HaIkkarim 39,4, Akedat Yithak, Behukotai, Abarvanel to Behukotai 26. Rambam discusses this in the Commentary to Chelek and Hilkhot Teshuvah 9,1

 

 

German Mother, Jewish Son

Avos 1:15, Sophisticated Shammai

Shammai said, make your Torah study fixed, say little and do much, and receive everyone with a cheerful countenance."

So much has been said about this Mishna that one despairs of saying something new. However, when one utilizes a novel methodology one perforce produces new insights and so is the case here.

I start by conisering what "fixed" means. The word that the mishna uses is "kva". What did this word mean in the time of Tannaim?

There are two references to" Kva" in the Mishna in Brochos. The fits mishna of the fourth chapter says that the Maariv prayer is NOT "kva". The Gemara explains that this follows the view of Rav that the evening prayer in not obligatory. More instructive is the statement of R. Eliezer, the Shammaite (Niddah 7b, see Tos) in the fourth mishna of fourth chapter: "He who makes his prayer "kva", his prayer is not supplication". Yerushalmi explains:

R. Abbahu in the name of R.Elazar says that it means that one should not read it as if reading from a letter.R. Acha in the name of R. Yosi says: One must put something new into it every day....R.Zeira said: I always did so and made mistakes....R. Eliezer said a new prayer every day.R. Abbahu said a new blessing every day". In summary, a prayer which is "kva' has a fixed text. Prayer should not have a fixed text but should vary form time to time. Torah must have a fixed text. Thus, when Shammai says that "you shall make your Tora "kva", he means that the your Torah should have a fixed text.

We know from Iggeres R. Sherira Gaon (Ch.2) that in the years prior to writing down of the Mishna, each Tanna taught and organized the material that he had received in his own way. There ws no fixed and approved formulation of halachos. At the time of the Mishna there came to exist various formulation of the same material, each phrased and expressed in a somewhat different language. "Some taught general rule; others added detail; and others expanded and offered many examples and analogies." Presumably, this itself may have led to different understandings and interpretations of the same original traditions. Rebbi elected to follow the formulations of R. Akiva and his students while relegating other collections to "external" status; this explain preponderance of certain names in the Mishna and its focus on citing later Sages.

When did this process of fixing the exact formulation and wording begin? There is evidence that it started in the times of Hillel and Shammai. "Eiduyos 1.3 states: "Hillel says that a full hin of drawn water makes a mikveh unfit; except that a person must use the style of expression employed his teacher; and Shammai says 9 kabs." Rambam in his commentary on the Mishnah wrote: Shemaiah and Avtalion were the teachers of Shammai and Hillel, as is made clear in Tractate Avot. Being proselytes, their speech retained some pronunciations used in their former gentile language, and they would say 'in instead of hin. That is what the Sages meant when they said "a person must use the style of expression employed by his teacher." Similarly. R. Elezer, a student of Shammai, never said something that he did not hear from his teachers (Sukkah 28a). Many ask how is it possible that he NEVER said anything new; did we not learn that .R. Eliezer could expound things that were "more than what said to Moshe at Sinai"(PRD"Rabbi Eliezer, Ch.2)?  What it might mean, however, is that he never said something that was not exactly in the wording and formula that he received from his teachers.

This is what Shammai also taught. "Make you Torah fixed", means that on every topic and for every legal principle you should have the one fixed, canonical and exact phrasing and expression, and not, as it was in the past, a general presentation of a topic, relying solely upon the students' understanding of principles to guide him in his future explication of the Law.  

Furthermore, Shammai taught that one should "say little" and do much. This means that a teacher should transmit a concise and limited text and explain it well and at length, so that the student has the both fixed text and ample explanations to be productive in future explanations and explication of halacha. WIth time this approach became known as Gemara or Talmud. The word "Aseh" (do) can be used in the sense of "to produce", meaning to produce in the future (See the commentary of Netsiv and Beis Haleivy to Genesis 2:3).

Death of Moses on Har Nebo

 

Death of Moses on Mount Nebo (engraving)

People's Standard Holy Bible (1872) by Ziegler Publishers

The Goy Within and Without by Chaim Gershon

Chassidic philosophy centers on the soul and the experiences of man as he attempts to reach out to G-d. A man who desires to serve Hashem finds within himself both the fonts of exalted feeling that draws him Heavenwards and sources of opposition: dullness, inertia and physicality that weigh him down and block his path. When a mind casts around for what to call these forces and how to identify them so they can be understood and harnessed, it seeks a a metaphor in the world around us. Sometimes they are termed “animal”, as in “nefesh habehamis”, because animals do not possess spiritual urges and strive only for physical gratification. Another, less common comparison is to call such impediments “a Goy within”. It is not that something perjorative is being expressed; rather, this is an easily accessible metaphor that, to those who lived in Russian countryside, immediately communicates an image of a Russian peasant, of uncouthness, of spiritual coarseness and immobility.

 

              When Reb Shmuel Munkis was a young man, he decided to go to Liozna to become the chassid of the Alter Rebbe. He arrived in the middle of the cold, winter night and found the Alter Rebbe's house, the only one with the candles still burning. He knocked and asked the Alter Rebbe if he could come in and warm himself up. The Alter Rebbe told him to find another Jewish house and then warned Reb Shmuel that if he tried to force his way in, the goy (servant of the house) will chase him out. Reb Shmuel replied that his own goy is stronger, referring non-literally to his animal soul which he was certain was stronger than his Rebbe's animal soul!  The Lubavitcher Rebbe [quoted in the book Reb Shmuel Munkis by Rabbi Shalom DovBer Avtzon published by Kehos where this story is told at length] explains that Reb Shmuel wanted to learn from the Alter Rebbe how to serve HaShem with warmth and was acknowledging that his 'goy', his stranger within his heart, could not be overcome without the help of the Alter Rebbe.  

         The Alter Rebbe's Tanya explains in more technical and expanded manner that there takes place an internal war between a person's G-dly soul and animal soul, which are respectively the struggle between his good and evil inclinations, between his Yetzer HaTov and Yetzer Hara.  The previous Lubavitcher Rebbe Yosef Yitzhak explains [in a letter quoted in the back of his edition of Sefer Tehillim] that a person's animal soul and evil inclination are non-Jewish; in other words, as other footnotes therein reference, every person has to wage a daily war with his goy residing in a person's olam katan, aka his personal psyche (literally “small world”) to serve HaShem properly.

            The Chiddushei HaRim, founder of Gerrer chassidus, in his Perush al HaTorah states "It brings in sefarim that Erev Shabbas is the time for Teshuvah. The sins that are found in a person are a piece of goy in him. Since it is forbidden for a goy to rest of Shabbas (i.e. according to the halacha a that a ben Noach that rests on Shabbas is liable for a death penalty); therefore, one has to do teshuvah at that time to remove from himself the portion that is a goy" (so it is not inside with him when he is observing Shabbas). The Chiddushei HaRim also states in that sefer, "a person who has a court case with a goy should wait until Adar. As for the court case with his goy, that is portion of Amalek in every person, Adar is also the time then that one can overcome him (as that is when the Jewish people in general were victorious over Amalek)".  

            Rav Zev Cohen of Chicago [Irgun Shuirei Torah tape SF266 and SF317] interprets this to mean that in both cases a person is battling a  foreign persona that became established inside himself due to his adapting the customs, habits, etc. of the non-Jewish world; therefore, we call this foreign personality a goy. In order to build a Jewish home, a person needs to internalize only Yiddishe attitudes. The Pnei Menachem (in Tavo p.153), states that the removal of the orlahs (obstructions) of the heart, body, mouth and ears corresponds to the removal of the "ger asher b'kirbacha" (Devarim 28:43), getting rid of external goyish appearances. 

              On a more kabalistic level, had Adam not sinned, everyone would be Jewish in the sense that all of his offspring would be fullfilling all the mitzvos. Adam's fall yielded fragmentation which eventuated spiritually and physically in goyish souls in goyish bodies which on the superficial level of existence serve as opposition to Jews trying to serve HaShem. Chassidic philosophy also ironically points out that the snake was originally the external personification of the Yetzer Hara, that evil caricature often drawn on a person's shoulders in cartoons: only after Adam's sin was the personal conflict internalized and became a different, internal battlefield, within the person as well as still existing in the external world. 

 

               In one of his discussions [Toras Menachem 10, 114] of the first Rashi in Chumash, the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson discusses this concept as an answer to what to answer the nations when they claim that Jews stole Eretz Yisroel. He compares this conversation to that between the animal soul (the goy inside you) and the G-dly soul, the nefesh Elokis. The land of Eretz Yisroel  represents the physical part of a person’s life (since physical mitzvos are done there on the land which is a physical place) and thus the animal soul claims that the nefesh Elokis has stolen its land for its own spiritual service ! According to the animal soul, the world only exists for it's own physical enjoyment. The Nefesh Elokis counters that HaShem created both the person and the world to be made into a vessel for Elokus and that the Land of Israel is its by right.

 

           The Rebbe quotes the above story of Shmuel Munkis apropos to this discussion. Applying this story is a commentary on how Lubavitch views Eretz Yisroe, not like  the secular Zionist who denies the claim of his personal Nefesh Elokis and rejects the mitzvos of the land. In contrast, Torah-observant Jews strive to have the state of Eretz Yisroel achieve its purpose of existence: Jews observing Torah in the Land, both internally and externally! 

           

            Various Jewish commentators all agree that the "microcosm mirrors the macrocosm", in other words, what goes on in person's own world is related to global events. The Tzemach Tzedek (see Sefer Likutim) phrases a question brought by the Mekubel R. Moshe Zacuto (known by his initials ReMaZ) in his perush on the Zohar: the Ushpizin, the supernal guests who visit on Sukkos are Avraham, Yitzhak, Yaakov, Moshe, Aaron, Yosef and Dovid.  However there is also a famous mashal brought in the Gemara/Midrash about Shemini Azteres marking the special relationship between HaShem and the Jewish nation after the departure of the other guests, the nations of the world, for whom 70 offerings are brought during the days of Sukkos. The Remaz points out that the identity of just whom the Sukkos guests are is contradictory: are the guests the holy Ushpizin or are they a bunch of goyim ?! So who is it really that comes for dinner on Sukkos – the patriarchs of the nations of the world? He concludes that the Ushpizin represent the inner-Pnimiyus aspect of the holiday and the nations delineate the outer-Chitzoniyus aspect of the holiday, which is called guests because it does not occur on a regular weekday. Chabad chassidus in a number of mamarim (for example: 5731 2nd Day Sukkos) develops this concept further based on the passuk from Tehillim (Ps. 118) that the external praise of HaShem by the nations is intrinsically connected to each person's Avodas Hashem and his/her conquest of the evil inclination (Also see Bnei  Yissachar's Arga D'Pirka 303 for a similar but alternative depicture of this dual interaction.)

 

         In his academic publications, Chabad Shaliach Professor Rabbi Dr. Naftali Loewenthal of Oxford University has discussed this relationship between the quest for individual redemption form Yetzer Hara and historical-geopolitical redemption of Israel in terms of campaigns of the last two Lubavitcher Rebbes stating,  "Thus in 1967 the Seventh Rebbe responded to the Six Day War by inaugurating the "Tefillin Campaign", claiming if a Jew ... would put on tefillin, the Israeli War effort would be aided."  At the same time, he cites that the Rebbe was also focusing more on private contemplation by re-publishing sefarim such "Tract on Prayer" which now can be see in light of what we explained as part of the pathway to Moshiach coming. His father-in-law is also noted to have gone on a two-prong attack during the 1940's, focusing on Teshuvah leading to the Geulah in his sichas and in the publication HaKriah v’HaKedusha”, while simultaneously discussing the seemingly “unrelated topic” of intellectual avodah in his mamarim.  

 

        Such an approach can be traced to the concept in the Siddur Arizal of R. Yaakov Koppel. He notes that the kevanna ( mystical intention) of the bracha "Shelo Asani Goy" is that when the soul of a person descends each day back into the body after its elevation during sleep of the previous night, we praise Hashem that it should return only as a pure Jewish soul without being interchanged with or cleaved to by a goyish soul. On one of his tapes [Shiur Perush Tefilah -Shiur 67], Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Schlesinger of Monsey elaborates on the meaning of this bracha and concurs with the thesis above: we petition HaShem with this bracha to clean ourselves from influences of the non-Jewish world around us. In Siddur Arizal (Reb Shabsi) the mention of the nations praising HaShem at the start of Hodu is attributed to the getting the spiritual klipos in a person’s life to praise HaShem.  This does not refer to the whole world directly but first to the negative energies and evil impulses in one's own life. A number of other references to goyim throughout the siddur are also conceptualized in the terms of the internal conflict of a servant of Hashem: “Nakama (revenge) on the goyim” (same psalm as just mentioned, explained in Torah Or 2b) and  “kol goyim savavuni” (psalm that is part of Hallel, explained in Likutei Torah, Shemini Atzeres 90d).  When a Jew davens for his personal needs, he is also davening for the nation as a whole. Sometimes these two concepts are separated, as they are during the prayer of the  the Amidah, which are grouped separately into blessing that are for the individual and for the community. However, once a Jew realizes that his internal struggles are reflective of those in the world, all of his prayers will then be directed for both a personal and collective redemption simultaneously.  

 

        Such a perspective is not rascism ! The Gemara in Megilla (14) explains that Achashverosh and Haman's conspiring to destroy the Jews can be compared to a man with a mound of dirt giving it to a man with a ditch. It is not that Haman manipulated Achashverosh but that each of the two had a different but complementary motivation for his Jew hatred. The Lubavitcher Rebbe explained that in general, there are two responses amongst goyim when encountering Jews. The former group feel that the Jews are a mound of dirt, something excess in the world that must be removed. The latter group feels like an empty hole that is inadequate and lacking self-esteem in the presence of Jews and for that reason needs to eliminate them.  There are several views about the ultimate destiny of goyim when Moshiach comes; although there is one opinion they will be eradicated, there are also opinions that they will assist the Jews in serving HaShem or even become converts.

    

        As the Shelah Hakodesh has often been quoted "And they shall make me a Mikdash b'socham"... inside every Jew there is a personal dwelling place for HaShem: the Third Temple will be achieved by the combined efforts of every member of the Jewish people both on a personal level and then together on many levels leading up to the global scale. The  establishment of the Third Temple in Jerusalem will be for all Jews and nations under the leadership of Moshiach. 

 

         Indeed prior to the conclusion of the first section of Tanya (chapter 53) where it explains that through doing mitzvos a person can experience the Shechinah, the Divine Presence, the discussion apparently digresses to explain the revelation of the Shechinah in each of the Temples. This would appear to be so since each person's individual service creating his own mishkan combines to create the global Beis HaMikdash reality of redemption. It has been stated [Sukkah 55b and Yalkut Shimoni] that if the nations were only aware of the physical benefits that they derived from the sacrifices in the Temple, they would have protected it from being destroyed instead. Just as the elevation of the body is through the G-dly soul, so is the survival of Earth intimately connected to the Jews!