avakesh

Death of Desire by Chaim Gershon

 

 

33. The meat was still between their teeth; it was not yet finished, and the anger of the Lord flared against the people, and the Lord struck the people with a very mighty blow.		לג. הַבָּשָׂר עוֹדֶנּוּ בֵּין שִׁנֵּיהֶם טֶרֶם יִכָּרֵת וְאַף יְ־הֹוָ־ה חָרָה בָעָם וַיַּךְ יְ־הֹוָ־ה בָּעָם מַכָּה רַבָּה מְאֹד:
34. He named that place Kivroth Hata'avah [Graves of Craving], for there they buried the people who craved.		לד. וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא קִבְרוֹת הַתַּאֲוָה כִּי שָׁם קָבְרוּ אֶת הָעָם הַמִּתְאַוִּים:
35. From Kivroth Hata'avah the people traveled to Hazeroth, and they stayed in Hazeroth.		לה. מִקִּבְרוֹת הַתַּאֲוָה נָסְעוּ הָעָם חֲצֵרוֹת וַיִּהְיוּ בַּחֲצֵרוֹת:

 

 

The traditional exposition of the events at Kivroth HaTa'avah is that they wre not "good" behavior on the part the Jewish people in the desert. Here and Here

 

  

However, the Baal Shem Tov explains it with a teaching that the goal of Divine Service is killing all desire.

Sources:

Kehos Chumash

http://www.chabad.org/media/pdf/293/TLKr2932217.pdf p.40

quoting

Degel Machane Ephraim

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/3723 80a (p.165 in pdf) 

 

Sichos 5719

דף הבית > ספרי כ"ק אדמו"ר > תורת מנחם > – כו – שנת תשי"ט – חלק שלישי > בס"ד. ש"פ מטות-מסעי, מבה"ח מנחם-אב, ה'תשי"ט > 153

 

As an aside, not only this 13th journey of the 42 but all the forty-two journeys have been expounded upon as have meaning to our own travels in life. Travel can be a metaphor for jurney thorugh life. See the Tales of the Baal Shem Tov volume 5, p.194 where the Baal Shem Tov tells one of his chassidim his whole life story as a parable of travels.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hVaBOwAACAAJ&dq=tales+of+baal+shem+tov&hl=en&ei=lrP6S7CJNoOglAefw8T9Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCA

 

The concept of killing all desire has been explicated in later chassidic literature. Many chassidic commentaries (Shem MiShmuel, Imre Yosef, Kehilas Yaakov/Yasharesh Yaakov ... ) elaborate some nuances of this concept. Put simply it is clear enough: one should strive to get to a that level of connection to HaShem where earthly desires die and no longer block one's spiritual ascent. The Likutei Levi Yitzhak (Igros p.12) speaks about this in the context of different types of spiritual deaths.

 

This approach comes from an early Kabbalistic work called "Brit Menucha" of which there is a nice clear new edition published as well as an "attempt" (which I have not seen) to translate it into English.

 

http://www.seforimcenter.com/product.asp?numPageStartPosition=91&P_ID=400&strPageHistory=cat&strKeywords=&strSearchCriteria=&PT_ID=136

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/458381/jewish/Books-that-Speak.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Brit-Menucha-Avraham-Yitzchak-Granada/dp/1897352018

 

This Bris Menuchat is a rather opaque, other-worldly sefer (which has mostly been quoted by later authors in regard to the proper proununciation of HaShem's name). To one who has ever looked into this obscure and highly stylized sefer it is truly a wonder that a practical lesson from it can be taught.

 

However, a slightly different interpretation of the same passage in Brit Menucha is given in classical mussar sefarim preceding the Baal Shem Tov: Reshis Chochmah (Shar HaYirah 2), Yaaros Dvash, Emek HaMelech and Shnei Luchos HaBris (Masechtas Shavuos). They all reference the sefer and speak about experiencing the source of Chochmah leading one to a nullified existence on the worldly plane.

 

Although firmly based in Chassidus, the approach of killing all desire has not been adopted in later generations. It is not in accord with the popular version of the commonly taught theology of Chabad Chassidus (http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Reflections-Schneerson-Lubavitcher/dp/0826604889) or for that matter any mainstream chassidus. Indeed, the Baal Shem Tov's own student, Toldos Yaakov Yosef (Parashas Metzora I) points this out while explaining of the famous episode Four who entered Paradise and states that only Rebbe Akiva achieved success in applying this principle as opposed to Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma who were harmed by it.

A child singer at a tish

Chronology in the Torah

And Hashem spoke to Moshe in the desert of Sinai in the second year form the exodus from Egypt in the first month, saying... (Bamidbar 9,1)

The verse speaks to detriment of Bnei Yisrael for it was 11 months that they were encamped in front of Mount Sinai, to teach that there is no earlier and later in the Torah (ein mukdam umeuchar btorah). For in the beginning of the volume (of Bamidbar) it states: And Hashem spoke to Moshe in the desert of Sinai in the Tent of Meeting on the first of second month in the second year...and here it says in the first month - to teach that ein mukdam umeuchar batorah[1].

Rebbi says -one does not need it for it already states (Shemos 16): "and Bnei Yisrael ate the manna 40 years until they came to inhabited land." So (at this point when the story of the man is first being told) they have not yet eaten (from the produce of the inhabited land). That teaches you that ein mukdam umeauchar batorah (Sifri Bamidbar 9).

While the first reported derivation is straight-forward and sensible (after all what can be clearer than an obviously out of order chronology), Rebbi's words are somewhat obscure. Why would one not need the other derivation; the one that Rebbi proposes is hardly as convincing as the one he rejects. Granted, his derivation is from the book of Shemos which comes before the book of Bamidbar; but is this not the whole point of ein mukdam umeuchar batorah[2]. It seems, then, that Rabbi does not assign any significance whatsoever to the later event being recounted earlier in the book and the question is why not?

The principle of ein mukdam umeauchar is usually explained as follows: "The Torah did not care to for chronology and chapters that were given first are preceded by those given later (Rashi Pesachim 6b)." In other words, the Torah is arranged by topics, not chronology. "... the Torah was given scroll by scroll (Gittin 60a). When Moshe heard the commandments from the Holy One Blessed be He, he wrote each one in a separate scroll. When he came to leave this world, he arranged the book of Torah and set chapters in it until this day according to fitting similarities (semukhin), as our Rabbis taught (Chezkuni Shemos 34, 32)."

It is reasonable to assume that the anonymous Tanna understood this principle thusly. However, Rebbi may not have understood it in the same way.

If the issue is that of arrangements of chapters, why is this principle of ein mukdam umeauchar often invoked to explain the order of verses and even of words within a single verse[3]?

Perhaps Rebbi has something else in mind when he speaks of ein mukdam umeauchar.

Literary experts, such as Meir Sternberg in his seminal The Poetics of Biblical Narrative..., Indiana University Press, 1987, draw our attention to the role of the Biblical narrator. The narrator is not the same as the author; it is the point of view from which a story is told or presented. The narrator can be the author himself, in which case the narrative is in first person; he or she can be a person or being within the story which is then presented from within and in third person. It can also be a point of view not otherwise identified, above and outside the narrative. The narrator is the proxy for the author and the author remains hidden behind the events.

The Biblical narrator, according to Professor Sternberg, is omniscient and above the story. This point of view far above the story, protects the honor of the Author, and at the same time, allows editorial comments upon the mortal characters, their struggles, successes and failings; it also leaves an opportunity for proper perspectives to be inserted for our edification. Usually the distance is maintained through the employment of the narrator to intersperse comments in third person, as in the example that Rebbi quotes. Occasionally the distance lapses and this accounts for the not infrequent phenomena of changing person, especially in regards to the Divine Author, who sometimes is seen as breaking into the narrative speaking in first person.

Rebbi's point is precisely this: the verse from Shemos reveals a narrator who is above and outside the unfolding narrative. He is also above time for he tells us of something that had not yet happened and will not take place for 40 years; the principle of ein mukdam umeauchar naturally follows.

Can literary insights help us to understand Chazal? We have addressed this issue previously. The question is certainly far from settled but I offer this interpretation as a contribution to clarify the potential of literary methods to understanding Midrash.

---

1 See Rashi ibid who connects these two facts together in his retelling of the Sifri.

2 While one can explain that Rebbi goes on in the Sifri to derive from this verse that they used a calendar that started with Exodus at that point in time, the mention of months and years remain unexplained (See also Netsiv's commentary bid to the Sifri).

3 See Encyclopedia Talmudit, entry ein mukdam

Warrior Rabbi

Rabbi Ronsky’s self-imposed stint of four years – after which he will return to the helm of the hesder yeshiva in Itamar, near Nablus, which he founded – was short compared to the IDF’s first chief rabbi Shlomo Goren’s 23 years and the second IDF chief rabbi Gad Navon’s 29 years.

Nevertheless, the seasoned combat commander who embraced Orthodoxy as an adult, in the wake of the national soul searching sparked by the Yom Kippur War, accrued his fair share of detractors, most vociferously of the left-wing, post-Zionist variety.

Along the way he radically transformed the IDF’s Chaplaincy Corps and expanded its scope to include functions previously performed by the Education Corps., such as enlisting Jewish history, culture and tradition to enhance combat motivation. Using his own diverse experiences as a model, Ronsky hand-picked a cadre of men with both combat experience and rabbinic training intimately familiar with the connection between battlefield courage and a strong Jewish identity.

Ronsky replaced the old image of the IDF chaplain, a vapid religious functionary who performed ceremonial aspects of Jewish adherence – distributing wine, supervising kashrut, leading prayers. He was, by contrast, a fighter-rabbi who combined battlefield experience with the religious training to make traditional Jewish sources relevant enough to instill soldiers – secular and religious – with conviction of purpose before battle.

Passages from the Bible, the Talmud, and Maimonides were used to show the troops they belonged to a long chain – albeit broken by exile – of fearless Jewish warriors.

This heady mixture of faith and militancy was not received enthusiastically by all. ...
more

 

Comic Book Siddur

A review in the Jewish Press 

Kidush le-Shavuot

object width="480" height="385">

Avos 2:2, 1: The beauty of work

The statement that Torah is good with Derech Eretz has been discussed so often and from so many different positions that it is difficult, not only to say something original about it, but even to begin to see it from a fresh perspective.It can be done, but such a perspective also needs to be fresh.

We start with the observation that the mishna does not actually say that Torah is good with work but that it is nice or "Yafe". It is noteworthy that while this word is used by Chazal in a dozen or so places, this is the only instance of a construction, "Yafe X with Y". The word is usually used in one of the following ways:

1.Yafe X more than Y, meaning X is better or better than Y, f.e. Yafe (better) the power of the father than the power of the son and yafe the power of the husband than the power of the father (Nedarim 70a).

2.The same usage but with the comparison implied rather than stated, Yafe (fitting) is tsnius(Genesis Rabba 1:3).

3.Yafe + a verb, where it means appropriate of fitting, f.e., Moshe did Yafe(properly) that he hid his face in the case of the (burning) bush(Shmos Rabbah 3:2)

The usage of Yafe Torah WITH Derech Eretz is unique. There is no other usage like it in Chazal. I would even say that it is unique to Rebbi who was an aristocrat. The thing about aristocracy is that the concepts of beautiful and fitting play a larger role in their daily life than in the lives of the common folk. This is such an important concept, called by Chazal Istanis, that it can even determine halacha, see Brochos 2:4..

I suggest that the word "Yafe" is introduced here and used in an unusual for it syntax is to recall to us the previous teaching of Rebbi in the mishna - Which is the path that is beautiful for a person and beautiful for him from man. It reinforces for us that the way of combining Torah and occupation is in the realm of what is fitting and beautiful, of what is "fitting and appropriate" for a person, not in the realm of the mandatory and required. This is so because Torah without employment at the end ceases and brings one to sin. But how much work is appropraite with Torah? That depends! It may be 8 hours a day for one person and 1 hour a day for another, or an hour every few days for another. How does a particualr individual determine this? By looking at what is fitting and what is beautiful for him. One must select that path which is beautiful for him. The word Yafe introduces subjectivity and individuality into this area, allowing for the proportion and balance of work and study that is fitting and beautiful for each particular individual.

The Dawn of Redemption: A Review

I share with the readers a review by Alan Jay Gerber of the book, " THE DAWN OF REDEMPTION: What the Books of Ruth and Yona Teach About Alienation, Despair and Return (Urim 2009).

"The reading of the Book of Ruth is one of the central events of the Shavuot festival. Inasmuch as this holiday commemorates the birth and passing of King David, this reading teaches us about the life and travails of David’s great, great, grandmother, Ruth.

Rabbi Dr. Meir Levin composed a fascinating commentary on the Book of Ruth. Titled, “The Dawn of Redemption” (Urim, 2009), the work highlights, in a mature and sophisticated manner, the entire saga, though it absents some of the more legendary aspects that have placed the work into question, both historically and theologically.

The historical value and perspective can best be demonstrated by the following observations of Dr. Levin.

“We all know that we carry our parent’s legacy with us through life, sometimes as a burden, sometimes as a blessing. However, we often do not appreciate the extent of our indebtedness to the generations that preceded us. The simple fact is that as families share similarities, inclinations and proclivities — so do nations. Some call these assortments of qualities ‘national character’ while others appeal to the collective unconscious of the entire human race, but, whatever they may be, these roots are deep, extending to the distant past, to the crucible out of which nations arose.
Every man and woman exists within this continuum of heredity and tradition. Each family and nation is given their allotted number of chances. This is true of individual failings as of communal ones.”

Ponder these words carefully as you read the events of Ruth’s sojourn, as well as current events, and consider their relevance today. Also examine the reason why the sages chose this particular work to be studied at this time.
This commentary by Dr. Levin deserves our attention because, unlike other works on Ruth, he takes this Biblical narrative as a serious historical and nationalist lesson for us, both in terms of a larger perspective and as the frail human creatures that we truly are. As the characters in the book play their roles, Dr. Levin enables us, through his commentary, to better appreciate their actions and motives.

For certain, you will never regard the Book of Ruth in the same way after learning from the pen of Dr. Meir Levin."

Cigarettes may contain pig blood and is smoking like drinking

An  Australian researcher recently reported that some, so far mostly foreign, brands of  cigarettes contain pig hemoglobin (blood).  Is this a potential problem?

Turns out there are discussions in classic poskim about similar issues.

Chayei Adom (127:3) mentions that snuff tobacco contains yayin nesech as an additive. Many poskim take up the question of smoking on Pesach. The Magen Avrohom Orach Chaim (467:8:10) prohibited using tobacco during Pesach because it was soaked in beer and this view is  accepted by the Maharam Shick (Orach Chaim 242), who suggested that the beer additive regains its chometz status even when it is smoked (see the Rosh’s commentary at the beginning of the third perek of Pesachim), and is also quoted by the Mishneh Berurah (467:33).The Beis Meir, R. Chaim Sanzer in Divrei Chaim (Yoreh Deah 20) and R. Shlomo Kluger in Tuv Ta’am VeDa’as (3:1:131)contend that tobacco is nifsal meachilas kelev (“not fit for a dog”,  Pesachim 45b) and is not considered prohibited chometz. The Beis Meir suggests that ingestion by smoking may be considered drinking in halacha. The Magen Avraham (210:9) discusses whether or not a bracha is required when smoking "Tabak."  The Minhag Yisroel Torah (210) cites the K'sav Sofer who says that based on the shaila posed by the Magen Avraham, R' Mordechai Banet, prior to smoking a cigarette, would make a shehakol on another food item with the intent to include the cigarette as well. However this is not a common practice in our days. The Aruch HaShulchan (Orach Chaim 467:17) points out that tobacco in his times was no longer soaked in beer.

In conclusion, these reports need to be investigated and may pose real kashrus problems for smokers.

Mount Sinai