avakesh

Josef Hassid - Achron - Hebrew Melody Op.33

*

 Josef Hassid (Polish: Józef Chasyd) (28 December 1923 - 7 November 1950) was a Polish violinist. He was noted for his intense vibrato and temperament, causing Fritz Kreisler to say "A Heifetz violinist comes around every 100 years, a Hassid every 200." Furthermore pianist Gerald Moore called him "possibly the most incandescent prodigy after perhaps Yehudi Menuhin." He received an honorary diploma in the 1935 Henryk Wieniawski Violin Competition in Warsaw and traveled to London in 1938 with his father, since his mother had died when Hassid was young. However, the start of World War II prevented their return to Poland. He performed in London (where he suffered from a memory lapse while playing the Tchaikovsky Concerto in Queen's Hall) and recorded for HMV; his great legacy to music is in the form of 9 recordings among which Joseph Achron's Hebrew Melody is notable.....He was first placed in a psychiatric hospital in 1941 after suffering from a nervous breakdown at the age of 18. He was admitted again in 1943 and was diagnosed with acute schizophrenia. He was lobotomised in late 1950 and died at the age of 26.

 from Wikipedia

On the Society for Jewish Music and what happeneded to it under Stalin, see here

 

Woe is to him who has daughters!

אי אפשר לעולם בלא בסם (מוכר בשמים) ובלא בורסקי: אשרי מי שאומנותו בסם, ואוי לו מי שאומנותו בורסקי [שעבודתו מלוכלכת ויש שם ריח רע];

אי אפשר לעולם בלא זכרים ובלא נקבות; אשרי מי שבניו זכרים ואוי לו למי שבניו נקיבות;

It is impossible for the world to be without perfumers or tanners (1). Happy is he whose occupation is  perfumery! Woe to him whose occupation is tannery!

It is impossible for the world to be without males or withoutt females. Happy is he whose children are sons! Woe to him whose children are daughters (Kiddushin 82b)? (2)

The statement that having daughters are "woe", is inconsistent with our experience and requires an explanation. After all, the birth of a daughter is a happy occasion. We wish each other "mazal tov" and make a kiddush to share our happiness with others. The text of the mishaberach indicates that this is an occasion for a blessing, not a "woe". How does one then explain this "difficult" Chazal.

We start with a passage from Genesis Rabba 63:10, which says: "The boys grew up.. (Gen. 25:27): R. Elazar says, "A man must take care (lehitapel) of his son until age thirteen. From then on, he must say: "Blessed be He who exempted me from the punishment of this one".

Three explanations are possible:

1.The father has to take care of the physical needs of his son: food, clothing, education etc. till age thirteen. After that: "And Eisav was a man who knew to hunt, a man of the field and Yaakov was an ish tam, sitting in tents". Eisav went on to make a living as a hunter and Yakov sat and learned.

The disadvantage of this explanation is that it makes the meaning of the "punishment " from which the father is released somewhat unclear. Its advantage is that it translates the word "lehitapel" in its the simplest sense of "taking care of".

2. The father must be mechanech, educate the child in the way of the Torah and Mitzvos, so that the child keeps and studies the Torah, and this obligation only devolves on the father until the son reaches the age of thirteen.

The difficulty with this explanation is twofold. First, a father who does is miserable job of bringing up his son, should not stop being responsible at age thirteen for having done so. If a son goes on to not keep the mitzvos at age thirteen and two days, is the father completely blameless and free of all responsibility for what he mishandled for thirteen years?

Furthermore, it is quite clear that the obligation of chinuch never stops (see here, p. 149). We know this from Avrohom, who busied himself in arranging a match for his son Yitshak, when Yitshal was already thirty-seven years old.

3. Until thirteen, a child can suffer for the sins of the father. Henceforth, it is wholly his own fate. For this reason, the father thanks Hashem for being freed of the responsibility of maybe causing his son harm through the father's sins(3).

There are several difficulties with this explanation as well.

1. Why is it the father and not the son, who is the main beneficiary, who says the blessing?

2.The principle of "Poked avos al banim", that children can be visisted for the sins of the fathers does not stop at age thirteen (4). We see this from Nadav V'Avihu who died on the account of their father Aharon's sin of the Golden Calf ( Rashi to Devarim 9:20):

And at Aharon, Ad--noy grew very angry.

 

To destroy him.

This refers to the death of children. Similarly, it is said, "I shall destroy his fruit from above."

I also prayed for Aharon.

My prayer was effective in atoning for half. Two died, and two were spared.

The second and third explanations are offered by Mogen Avrohom to Orach Chaim 225.

A question that comes out of this is: Why then do we not say when a girl reaches the age of 12 (bas mitzvah), "Blessed be He who freed me from the punishment of this one (5)? Both reasons of Mogen Avrohom would seem to apply also to a girl.

Kaf Hachaim to Orach CHaim 225 asks this question and suggests two answers:

The obligation to take care of a boy lasts only until his Bar-Mitsvah. As we said before, at thirteen a boy must go out to pursue his own sustenance.  It is not so for a girl. A daughter must be supported until her marraige - however long that takes. Sometimes it might be only a few months past bas mitsvah, sometimes a few years, sometimes many years. In addition, a daughter may not be punished for her father's sins because her destiny is tied to her future husband (6).

If so, we can  explain the Chazal with which we started in a simple and novel manner. Woe is to one whose children are daughters" - because his financial obligations are open ended. Whereas with a boy, the father knows how much he must spend every year for thirteen years, for a daughter, the obligation is not temporally defined. One cannot take out an annuity to pay for a daughter's maintenance. This is why having a daughter can be called "woe", not because we have a bias against daughters or because a birth of a daughter is not a happy occasion.

_______________________________________________________________

1. Tanners smell bad and perfumers smell good.

2. One may be tempted to explain in a humorous vein that this passage speaks not at all of daughter but all about sons. Happy is he whose sons are MEN; Woe to him whose sons are girls! In fact, I hears that this is how the Kotsker explained it - if it is true. However, this explantion must be rejected ons everal grounds, including the hashkafic ones. Children are given to us in stewartship, to bring up and chersih, whatever their inclinations may be. Some children as smart and socially adept, others have special needs; some are manly and other are more feminine. In all cases, they have been placed into the parent's custody to cherish and support - so it is not possible to call this situation "Woe".

3. See Shabbos 149b: "He who causes that his neighbor is punished is not admitted to Hashem's presence".

4. Sources for farther consideration: Levush 225, Divrei Chamudos to Rosh Brochos 9:30. Yalkut Shimoni Ruth (247): Until thirteen a son is punsihed for father's sins. See Hokhmat Shlomo 225 for an ingenious answer and response that also has bearing on the Mosaic origin of the Torah. Rambam Teshuva 6:1 seems to have a different understanding of the entire subject.

One can suggest that children can be punished for the sins of the fathers even past age thirteen - if they hold on to the father's actions (maase avoseihem byadeihem). Until age thirteen, children can suffer on the account of the parents even though the children themselves are blameless.

5.Others who ask this question are Pri Megadim and Aishel Avrohom O"C 225

6. Moed Katan 18, Nidah 31b

Avodah on Low by Chaim Gershon

 

               Many people are aware that the various avodahs of the month of Elul are alluded to in the acronyms (roshei teivos) of the word's letters; or if the acronyms are not exactly "avodahs", they at least tell us something important about this month, see for example, here, here,  and (even if they do not assign an avodah),  here:

 

 

 

Not as well-known is the lesson derived from splitting the word Elul itself into 2 smaller words:

אלול = לו לא

 

The word  לא means "NOT" and the word לו means "To him". Each of these terms alludes to a concept and the fusion of them is another expression of the avodah of the month.

 

There are at least three places in Tanach where a passuk has two readings due to the Ksiv כתיב, the written version, not matching the kri קרי, the vocalization, in the case where the ksiv (the written form of the word) is the word  לא and the kri (the pronounced form of the word)  is the word לו. The relevant portions of the sentences follow below with the translation of the ksiv followed by that of the kri.

 

Tehillim 100:3

 הוּא-עָשָׂנוּ, ולא (וְלוֹ) אֲנַחְנוּ

 

Written : Know that Hashem is G-d; He made us and not we (making ourselves).

Read: Know that Hashem is G-d; He made us and we are His.

 

 

Yeshaya 63:9

בְּכָל-צָרָתָם לא (לוֹ) צָר

Written: In all their affliction He is not afflicted

Read: In all their affliction He was afflicted 

 

 

I Shmuel 2:3

 ולא (וְלוֹ) נִתְכְּנוּ ע לִלוֹת

 

Written: for the LORD is a G-d of knowledge, and (our human) actions are not counted.

Read: for the LORD is a G-d of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed.

 

 

        The ksiv of all three pasukim describe an upper reality known as Yichud Ila: only HaShem exists and is unaffected by the creation. In contrast, the kri of each pasuk describes a lower world of Yichud tata where the inhabitants are not nullified and there is an apparent interdependence between HaShem and his creations.

Both worlds persist simultaneously: the former is acknowledged when we state "Shema Yisroel.... HaShem Echad" with an א which also represents the sefira of Kesser; the latter is associated with the recitation of "Baruch Shem Kavod....L'Olan Vaed" with a ו for Zer Anpin.

 

It is explained in depth that there are two levels of the 13 middos of Rachamim; again one level is associated with Tishrei and one with Elul.

 

However just as "I am to my Beloved" is for Elul, so "My Beloved is to me"- an arousal from above associated with the Tishrei holidays follows the arousal from below in Elul; nonetheless, both are part of the word Elul. Both spellings of "Lo" operate simultaneously. This means that the love (or teshuva) Hashem that we arouse in ourselves in Elul is reciprocated by the Love that comes back and down to us in Tishrei.

 

        In the famous mashal of the Alte Rebbe of Chabad that the King comes into the field in Elul and is accessible to all, He is still that same King who will be in the Palace in Tishrei. In other words,  HaShem is not limited by time and space. He is still the King in the Palace even in Elul. In the Partzufim these two aspects represent Kesser and Zer Anpin: even though one may be more influential in one month more than the other, the other still fully exists. Simply, it's still the same King whether he is on the throne with the robes and scepter or passing through a field, so to speak.

 

        From the perspective of the subject even though in the palace one is nullified before the King and remains silent and motionless before his throne, unlike when he watches the royal parade pass by in his hometown; nonetheless, he should still have as much awe as when he sees him in the palace. The Jewish approach is not like that attributed to Aristotle, who when caught doing a sin one day he replied that he is not the same person when he is in the streets as when he is teaching in the Academy. A person needs to fuse both of these avodahs, the avodah of לאand of לו  as too much of reliance on Heavenly gifts will lead to paralysis and too much of self-initiative can lead to heresy.

 

Based on Chabad Chassidus and the Chiddushei HaRim (as quoted in Sfas Emes and other sefarim)

 

Comment:

 

From the nigleh perspective on Lo and Low, see here .

 

Note by Chaim Gershon: See also the newly published translation of Uvikashtem Misham AND FROM THERE YOU SHALL SEEK - (R. JOSEPH B. SOLOVEITCHIK) for a different perspective on resolving these avodahs"

               Many people are aware that the various avodahs of the month of Elul are alluded to in the acronyms (roshei teivos) of the word's letters; or if the acronyms are not exactly "avodahs", they at least tell us something important about this month, see for example, here, here,  and (even if they do not assign an avodah),  here:

 

 

 

Not as well-known is the lesson derived from splitting the word Elul itself into 2 smaller words:

אלול = לו לא

 

The word  לא means "NOT" and the word לו means "To him". Each of these terms alludes to a concept and the fusion of them is another expression of the avodah of the month.

 

There are at least three places in Tanach where a passuk has two readings due to the Ksiv כתיב, the written version, not matching the kri קרי, the vocalization, in the case where the ksiv (the written form of the word) is the word  לא and the kri (the pronounced form of the word)  is the word לו. The relevant portions of the sentences follow below with the translation of the ksiv followed by that of the kri.

 

Tehillim 100:3

 הוּא-עָשָׂנוּ, ולא (וְלוֹ) אֲנַחְנוּ

 

Written : Know that Hashem is G-d; He made us and not we (making ourselves).

Read: Know that Hashem is G-d; He made us and we are His.

 

 

Yeshaya 63:9

בְּכָל-צָרָתָם לא (לוֹ) צָר

Written: In all their affliction He is not afflicted

Read: In all their affliction He was afflicted 

 

 

I Shmuel 2:3

 ולא (וְלוֹ) נִתְכְּנוּ ע לִלוֹת

 

Written: for the LORD is a G-d of knowledge, and (our human) actions are not counted.

Read: for the LORD is a G-d of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed.

 

 

        The ksiv of all three pasukim describe an upper reality known as Yichud Ila: only HaShem exists and is unaffected by the creation. In contrast, the kri of each pasuk describes a lower world of Yichud tata where the inhabitants are not nullified and there is an apparent interdependence between HaShem and his creations.

Both worlds persist simultaneously: the former is acknowledged when we state "Shema Yisroel.... HaShem Echad" with an א which also represents the sefira of Kesser; the latter is associated with the recitation of "Baruch Shem Kavod....L'Olan Vaed" with a ו for Zer Anpin.

 

It is explained in depth that there are two levels of the 13 middos of Rachamim; again one level is associated with Tishrei and one with Elul.

 

However just as "I am to my Beloved" is for Elul, so "My Beloved is to me"- an arousal from above associated with the Tishrei holidays follows the arousal from below in Elul; nonetheless, both are part of the word Elul. Both spellings of "Lo" operate simultaneously. This means that the love (or teshuva) Hashem that we arouse in ourselves in Elul is reciprocated by the Love that comes back and down to us in Tishrei.

 

        In the famous mashal of the Alte Rebbe of Chabad that the King comes into the field in Elul and is accessible to all, He is still that same King who will be in the Palace in Tishrei. In other words,  HaShem is not limited by time and space. He is still the King in the Palace even in Elul. In the Partzufim these two aspects represent Kesser and Zer Anpin: even though one may be more influential in one month more than the other, the other still fully exists. Simply, it's still the same King whether he is on the throne with the robes and scepter or passing through a field, so to speak.

 

        From the perspective of the subject even though in the palace one is nullified before the King and remains silent and motionless before his throne, unlike when he watches the royal parade pass by in his hometown; nonetheless, he should still have as much awe as when he sees him in the palace. The Jewish approach is not like that attributed to Aristotle, who when caught doing a sin one day he replied that he is not the same person when he is in the streets as when he is teaching in the Academy. A person needs to fuse both of these avodahs, the avodah of לאand of לו  as too much of reliance on Heavenly gifts will lead to paralysis and too much of self-initiative can lead to heresy.

 

Based on Chabad Chassidus and the Chiddushei HaRim (as quoted in Sfas Emes and other sefarim)

 

Comment:

 

From the nigleh perspective on Lo and Low, see here .

Yom Kippur in Tel Aviv

Yom Kippur is a day of fast. Having driving forbidden in Israel during this holiday, the people replace the cars and take over the highways. This video is captured from a building's viewpoint on a main social area in Tel Aviv, and covers 32 hours just before it starts and all the way to the end with music from TCP.

Ramak's defenders

One way to sideline R. Chaim Vital's criticism or pre-Lurianic Kabbala is to demonstrate that his opinion was ignored by virtually all Kabbalsits who came after him. First of all, R. Chaim Vital himself quotes and argues with Ramak in Shaar Haklalim, 12 and mentions him four times in Shaar Maamarei Rashbi (pp.98, 173, 291). In the last year of Ramak's life, the Arizal came to Safed. He too studied under Ramak, whom he refers to as "our teacher." Not only did Ari learn from Ramak, he considerd himself Ramak's successor. In this presentation, there is not, and never has been a break between Rmak and Ari's teachings.

Shivchei HoAri relates (free translation):

Before his passing in 1570, the Ramak said: "Know, that a man will come after me and enlighten your eyes in the wisdom fo Kabbala. Even if you understand that he argues against me, it is not true. Rather, in his days the conduits of holiness wil be closed and I wrote what I srote in a hidden fashion and through using the concepts fo sefiros. However, after my death, the conduits will be more revealed and that man will explain his words with concepts of Partsufim. And even though many of that person's statements may seem to contradict mine, do not oppose him and do not argue with him, for they stem from the same source as do mine and are absolutely true. His soul is a spark of Shimon bar Yochai's, and whoever opposes him opposes the Shechinah (the Divine Presence)."

"What is his name?" the disciples queried.

"I cannot tell you. At this point, he doesn't want his identity made known. This, though, I can say: He who sees the cloud which at my funeral will precede my bed, will be my successor."

A few weeks later, on the 23rd day of the month of Tammuz, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero passed on to his Heavenly reward.

Stunned by the news of this great loss, the entire community mourned. At his funeral, which was attended by all of Safed's Jews, many eulogies were recited. Among the eulogizers was the Ari, who described the Ramak as totally free of sin.

As the throng accompanied the Ramak on his last earthly journey, all wept bitterly. When the bearers of the his holy body reached the cemetery, they continued walking a long while, until reaching a certain site. Then, turning to the following crowd, they said: "We shall bury him here, beside one of Israel's greatest sages."

However, the Ari stopped them, crying out: "Don't bury him here. The cloud which is preceding him has continued on its path. Surely it will indicate where the Ramak desires to be buried."

Hearing these words, they knew the identity of their new leader.

Since I am writing this in the week of parshas Ki Teitse, I  refer to Ari's eulogy on Ramak which can be read on p.158, here.

Torah Noson (Introduction, pp. 66-69) cites many Kabbalists after R. Chaim Vital who discuss and go back and forth in the Torah of Ramak. Similarly, Rabbi Yeshayahu Hurwitz, author of Shnei Luchot HaBrit (Shelah), considered himself a student of Ramak and quoted extensively from his works. Chesed L'Avraham and Ohr Hachama on the Zohar, by the great R. Avrohom Azulai ((1570-1644) , draw extensively from Ramak, as well as Ari.

We will address the Chassidic approach to the relative standing of Ramak and Ari in a separate section.

Ramak and Ari spoke of different kabbalistic facets or worlds.

As is known, Rama MiPano(1548 1620); was a devoted student of Ramak "from his manuscripts" and he spend much wealth to obtain Ramak's writngs. One can dismiss this, however, since Ram MiPano received his Lurianic teachings via R. Yisroel Sarug and not R. Chaim Vital. Rabbi Menachem Azaria DeFano was one of Europe's leading Kabbalists, and he taught from Ramak's Pardes Rimonim regularly. This is what Ram MiPano writes in the introduction to his summary of Pardes entitled Pelach HaRimon, "He who despises him (Ramak) and his wisdom, God will despise him. For Moshe is true and his Torah is true according to the simple meaning of the words of Zohar and Geonim. Is someone who despises Radak's commentaries because he prefers Rashi going to give an account in judgment? Ramak opens the gates of understanding to the pshat that will not lie, even if there is also in it a deep meaning. So also is this matter, for Ramak opened for us the gates to the wisdom of Truth and through them every man can enter into the Hall. However, the Chacham Ramak expounded all his years the world of Belima (Tohu);and all the details on which we can expound in that world, he is justified to enter into the straight, perfect and clear way, in which there is not blemish".

In these few words, R Azaria Menachem MiPano touched on many themes. He says that Ramak and Ari speak of different worlds, which we will explain, he says that Ramak's teachings are pshat and are as true as the Ari's deeper derushim, and that Ramak remains valuable as an introduction to Kabbalistic sciences, before a student is ready to or should approach Ari's teachings. Similar sentiments are found in R. Moshe Zakutos' first note at the end of his Mevo Shearim and R. Meir Popper's second introduction to Eitz Chaim.

The contention that Ramak and Ari simply reveal different facets of kabbalistic worlds is already found in the words of Shivchei HoAri that I cited above. One must keep in mind that probably the most visible difference  between Ramak and Ari is that the former used sefiros and the laltter uses partsufim ( although in Elima Rabba Ramak discusses  Partsufim, which may simply be a nod to the Idras in which this concept is found, or may in truth reflect his deep knowledge of the system of partsufim which he may not have wanted to explicate in his other works). The simplest way to assign Ramak and Ari to different and complementary levels is to find in the more complex Lurainic system a point in which there are only sefiros and not yet Partsufim. This point is found on the level of Nekudim, also known as Tohu, or sometimes referred to as Atsilus (since it is before the fragments of keilim fell into Beriah) when the sefiros were just "coming out" and before Sheviras Hakeilm and formation of Partsufim. The question that I have on this approach, to me, is that at this point there was only a brief and incomplete arrangement of CHadar (Chesed, Din, Rachamim) - so how can one speak of a complete, independent and functioning system? More on this in the following post.

Chassidic Dance

*

From "A Stranger Among Us".

How do you read that again?

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 rabbininc body? 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.

1. 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.
2. 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 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.

Kabbala of RAMAK in the post-Lurianic age

R.Moshe Kordovero was the culmination of a long process of development within the Kabbalistic tradition. Like R. Meir Gabbai's Avaodas Hakodesh (1567), it is a comprehensive presentation fo Kabbala, but it differs from it in some important respects. It is less overtly philosophical and more explicitly quotes, compares and discussses preceding Kabbalstic sources. Ramak quotes his sources, comprehesively reconciles them, brings proofs or questions from Zohar and other works and paskins between conflicting sources and conceptions. Ramak set out from the outside to review and reconcile, or reject opinions of early Kabbalists, from Geonim to his contemporaries, and to erect a consistent and straighforward edifice of Kabbalistic science that would stand forever. He half succeeded. His works, primarily Pardes but also Eilima Rabba and the 22 volume commentary to Zohar, Kli Yakar, are a consistent and staigthforward retelling of Kabbala as it was up to that time. Ramak is a patient and wise teacher and he takes the student by the hand, unharriedly leading him from concept to concept, from source to source, from quotation to its interpretation - until everything is clear and systematic, organized and shining with the profound and deep understanding with which he imbues it. I have hever studied R. Elyashiv works but I have been told that such a method of presentation is also characteristic of his works.

Within decades, however, the edifice lay, of not in ruins, then buried. R. Yitshak Luria, the Holy Ari, taught a vision of Kabbala of such luminescence and complexity, so apparently different from Ramak's version, so far removed from Ramak's rationality and reliance on sources, that  the very usefullness and value of his teachings came into question.

The questions that we will now discuss are:

1.Does Ramak's Kabbala still have value or has  it been supplanted by the teachings of the Ari?

2.Is it still true, or was it ever true?

3.Is it important as an introduction to Kabbalistic concepts, so that it is useful in the beginning of a course of Kabbalsitic studies but shold be abandoned thereafter?

We will not at this time discuss a related question: "Should only the writings of R. Cham Vital be studied, or are the writings of other "gurei hoAri" also accurate and correct?".

R. Chaim Vital opposed the teachings of Ramak.

What gave rise to this whole issue is the statements of R. Chaim Vital that the kabbala of Ramak should not be studied. He writes the following:

All the later kabbalistic works after Ramban - do not come close to them, for from time of Ramban and forward the way of this truth became hidden from the eyes of all the wise, and all that remained in them is some branches of the introductions, without roots. Upon these, the later kabbalists built their words, upon the foundations of human intellect. You can determine this yourself, for a sharp investigator can summarize and know all of their introductions in 4 or 5 days. All of their words are repetition of the same things in different words. Their basic conclusion is that there are ten sefiros and they authored multitudes of books on this principle, which can be encompassed in two or three pamphles. This is not what we find among the early kabbalists.... and people with a heart will not attempt to break closer to Hashem through looking into the works of the later Kabbalists, through study of later kabbalists.. (Introduciton to Shaar Hahakdomos).

In Introduction to Eitz Chaim he writes: From Ramban forward until my teacher (Ari) there was no one who achieved this wisdom in its truth, like him learned Mishna, Talmud, aggados, midrashim, every matter according the so many ways in Pardes, the Work of Creation, and the Work of the Chariot.

R. Chaim Vital makes several points:

1.Everything after Ramban is of human origin, not divine and should not be studied. He does not name Ramak explicitly but clearly includes him in this group.

2.This Kabbala is a waste of time because the few remnants of the original teachings are scattered among "many words".

3.The quality of the later kabbalists is not the same as the Ari's, who explains Mishna, Talmud, aggados, midrashim in many different ways according to the Pardes, whereas the later kabbalists presumably do not.

It is noteworthy what he does not say. He does not say that Kabbala of Ari is different, or better, just that it has more to offer, and that is it completely Divine and not of human origin. He does not say that it is harmful. On the other hand, his condemnation is sweeping and it must have been very difficult for his contemporaries to accept such a wholesale rejection of 400 years of tradition.

As we will see, the rejoinders come in several varieties. Some are by the way of demonstrating that great Kabbalistic authorities, even after R. Chaim Vital, continued to study and comment on the words of Ramak, that Ari himself did so, or that they explicitly praised and recommended the study of Ramak's works. Others attempt to explain that Ramak and Ari describe different aspects of the same Kabbalistic science. Still others "save" Ramak as appropriate for the beginning of Kabbalistic training, as the initiation text and an introduction to kabbalistic concepts and ideas. FInally, some admit that Ramak and Ari do not agree and choose Ramak.

More in the next post in this series.

A tale of Teshuvah

When he was a cantor in Lincoln, Neb., Weisser confronted diehard Ku Klux Klan leader Larry Trapp, befriended him and eventually inspired the life-long racist to renounce hatred and speak out publicly against bigotry.

Three months before his death from diabetes-related kidney disease in September 1992, Trapp converted to Judaism under Weisser’s guidance, in the very synagogue that he’d once plotted to blow up.

“The truth is, human nature is good, not bad,” Weisser said in a recent interview.

It would have been hard to predict such a lesson emerging from Weisser’s first encounter with Trapp. Weisser and his family had just moved into a new home in Lincoln when he picked up the phone and heard Trapp snarling, “You’re going to be sorry you moved in, Jew boy.”

Threatening hate mail followed. Weisser called the police and learned about Trapp: A bitter man confined to a wheelchair, he had terrorized countless other Jewish, black and Asian residents over the years. Weisser called Trapp’s racist hot line and sat through a 10-minute message that spewed hate at nonwhites. At first, Weisser intended just to tie up the phone line, but then he started leaving messages.

“Larry, there’s a lot of love out there. You’re not getting any of it. Don’t you want some?”

“Larry, you’d better think about all this hatred that you are involved in, because you’re going to have to deal with God one day.”

“Larry, the very first laws that the Nazis passed were against people like yourself, who have physical disabilities, and you would have been among those to die under the Nazis. Why do you love the Nazis so much?”

One day, Trapp picked up the phone. He yelled at Weisser for, of all things, harassing him. “What do you want?” Trapp demanded.

Weisser stayed calm. He had talked to Julie, his wife at the time, about what he should do if Trapp ever answered, and she suggested he say something nice. Weisser said he knew that Trapp had a hard time getting around, and so he offered him a ride to the grocery store if he ever needed it.

Trapp was momentarily speechless. Then he said, in a quiet voice, “I’ve got that taken care of, but thanks for asking.”

That simple moment of kindness unlocked something in Trapp, and he began to struggle with regret over how he’d lived his life....

From Forward

********************

The story of the Weissers and Larry Trapp has touched many over the years. Kathryn Watterson wrote a book about them called Not by the Sword, and David Roth wrote the song Dragon to Butterfly as a tribute. You can get his CD, If You Can’t Fly, by calling (800) 232-7328. Here are some of the lyrics from Dragon to Butterfly: 

Michael helped Larry back into the house, 
And then Michael’s wife Julie helped Larry to bed, 
A lifelong diabetic confined to a wheelchair, 
He couldn’t do much for himself any more. 

So they’d taken him in to unravel the pain, 
How his father made fun of him, planting the seed, 
And the root of the anger that grew so completely, 
Once strangled his heart like a weed. 

Larry’s last breath in his bedroom at Michael’s, 
Came later that night with his friend at his side, 
"Thank you"was all he could whisper, 
"For changing a dragon to a butterfly." 

Comment:

Parallels:

According to GIttin 56a-b Nero went to Jerusalem and shot arrows in all four directions. All the arrows landed in the city. He then asked a passing child to repeat the verse he had learned that day. The child responded "I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel" (Ez. 25,14). Nero became terrified, believing that God wanted the Beis Hamikdash to be destroyed, but would punish the one to carry it out. Nero said, "He desires to lay waste His House and to lay the blame on me," whereupon he fled and converted to Judaism to avoid such retribution.  R. Meir  the Tanna was a descendant of Nero.

 

A year in Eretz Israel