avakesh

Kol Nidrei in July by Chaim Gershon

 

 

This week's parasha Mattos(Bamidbar 29) opens with a discussion of vows. Some commentaries say it foreshadows the recitation of Kol Nidrei on Yom Kippur.  This first specific case of vows in Mattos is by a woman who is getting married and who is bethrothed but still in her father's house. Diverse sources  say that it alludes to the simultanous interactions of the feminine aspects of the soul of the Jewish people with its father (HaShem) and with its husband (body, animal soul, negative forces). The soul is bound in a web of obligations. The releasing from vows allows the soul to break out of its confines and to return to its source on Yom Kippur. The three cases: of a woman still in her father's house, one just married but still in her father's house and one whose marriage is completed and solely with her husband represent various scenarios of the complex and competitive relationship of a soul being connected to the world.

 

See: "The Betrothed Addict"

 

and here and here

 

 

Igra D' Kalla Mattos 

 

  and here  p.197 (I emailed with Alan Lew and could not confirm the original source of the vort)

 

 

 

   

More on Freud and the Rebbe Rashab

Sometime ago I wrote about Rebbe Rashab's visit to Freud. Now in response to an unfortunate controversy, previousely unpublished letters have been released. They indicate that Rashab visited Freud as a neurologist, not a psychoanalyst. Neurology was Feud's original profession and he prescribed electric stimulation of Rashab's paralyzed hand (not the same as elecroschock therapy which was not yet invented), which cured him. Freud’s treatment of the Rashab’s hand was purely physical. Though they did discuss topics of mutual interest and Freud did advise methods of alleviating the Rashab’s depression, there was no extended psychoanalytical process, and no referral to a junior colleague.

The junior colleague, Steckel, whose case reports are now being adduced as proof, was an unstable individual who broke with Freud and ultimately committed suicide. He was suspected of making up his cases. Here is a quote from his biography"(p. 142, hat tip to a commenter on a CircusTent post): :

“At one session my honor was personally attacked by Victor Tausk. He insinuated that my cases were in­vented. (If I had invented my cases I should undoubt­edly be a greater poet than Shakespeare.) During this speech by Tausk, I wrote to Freud on a scrap of paper, “If you will not rebuke these personal attacks, this is the last time that I shall have been a member of this circle.” In a mild manner Freud asked Tausk to avoid personal remarks.

I don't have to point out that Steckel's cases are unrealistic. No contemporary therapist would give credence to the approaches and lightning fast cures claimed therein.

For me the clincher is Rashab's writings. Anyone who studies his work, especially the famous Hemshech Reish Samech Vov, encounters a giant of sensitivity, psychological insight, a towering intellect and an understanding heart. This perception is incompatible with what was claimed by Steckel, if it is in fact about him.

 

Leap of Faith

Avos 2:2, 4: Avoid the authorities

"Be careful with authorities, for they do not befriend a person except for their own sake. They appear as friends when they benefit from it, but they do not stand by a person in his time of need."

At first glance, this is a continuation of the previous mishna. There we were told that those who work for the community, though they may not be able to learn Torah, will be protected and will succeed, as long as they work for the sake of Heaven. Despite this, they are warned to distrust and be cautious of the authorities, who do not work for the Sake of Heaven, and who will use people and then discard them (Raav).

However, this teaching was already presented in the first chapter. There it says:

Shemaya and Avtalyon received the transmission from them [the previous generation of scholars]. Shemaya said: Love work, despise high position, and do not become close to the authorities."

So what is the difference between these two teachings?

Ain Levanon points ot that Shemaya and Avtalyon are discussing the Jewish government , because that is what was in place in their times. Our mishna is referring to the Non-Jewish authorities, because that is what surrounded Jews in the times of Rabbon Gamliel the son of R. Yehuda Hanasi.

With this in mind, we can understand the difference between the two teachings. Shemaya and Avtalyon teach us that we should pursue work and disdain honor, including the honor of participating in the government. The government is run by Jews and even a frum Jew can become close to them, for after all they are his brothers. That's OK, except that one should eschew honor. Therefore the term for closeness that Shamaya and Avtalyon use is "tisvada", which has a connotation of familial closeness (See Ruth 2:1). As we repatedly discussed in the commentary to the first chapter of Avos, as the politics of the Jewish Commonwealth grew more and more distant from the Davidic ideal, the Rabbis gradually abandoned the idea that they should participate in the building of a Jewish polity that is based on Torah, Temple worship and Public Welfare and, after experimenting with various communal substitutes, at the close of the second Temple period they transitioned to champion the individual's role and a personal path to Torah and Hashem. But for Shemaya and Avtalyon, the government is still neutral. You can work with them but such is not the way of the pious.

Rabbon Gamliel, on the other hand,  knows that closeness with the Roman government is impossible. His askan has no illusions. But a communal worker might be misled into thinking tnat an utilitarian, working relationship can still be - I help them and they will hepl us. After all, they are people just like we.  Rabbon Gamliel therefore cautions the askonim: "Be careful with authorities, for they do not befriend a person except for their own sake. They appear as friends when they benefit from it, but they do not stand by a person in his time of need."

 

Thoughts on Parshas Matos

The parsha begins with the laws of nedarim(vows). After the initial opening sentence that explains the concept of nedarim, according to Chaza we find four cases of hafara, or voiding of vows.The young bride's father voids her vows 1) before she is engaged, 2)it is the father jointly with her groom who void nedarim durign the pre-marriage stage of eirusin, 3)the divorced or widowed young woman cannot void her vows, 4)and and the husband alone voids them after the marriage is completed. You would expect that the four cases would be arranged chronologically: Pre-marriage, eirusin, marriage, divorce or widowhood. Why is the case of widow or divorcee out of order?

I would suggest that the Torah is sensitive to the feelings of the young widow or divorcee. Her future feels black. Who would marry me after this? Will I ever remarry and have a normla life, children and husband? The newly divorced or widowed woman is often thrust into the depths of despair. Comes the Torah and says: After divorce, after losing a husband, comes remarriage. The arrangement of cases is meant to reassure the young widow or divorcee that there is hope and that she will yet regain her happiness.

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

Another question: Why did the Bnei Yisroel wage was against Midianites and not Moabites. It was Bolak ben Zippor who engaged Bilaam and wished to curse Israel. It is daughters of Moab with whom Israel sinned in Shittim. Why were Moabites spared and Midianites disciplined?

Rashi gives two answers:

1. Moab was in fear of Israel for they plundered Moabites and threatened them. Midianites had no legitimate political interest ifn fighting Israel and that is why they were specifically punished.

2.Moab was spared because of two women who would join Israel in the future: Ruth, the Moabite, and Naama, the Ammonite (mother of Rechoboam, Kings I:14, 21).

The second answer of Rashi deserves some attention. Firs of all, why was it not possible to punish Moab and leave some Moabites alive so that Ruth can still come out of them years later. Even David left many Moabites alive (Shmuel II:8,2). In addition, the mention of Naama, the Ammonite is irrelevant. Were Moab even exterminated, Ammon would not be affected.

I suggest that the answer lies in considering who were the women. From Moab it was "daughters of Moab", the regular women, perhaps the lower classess, who spontaneously were drawn to the camp of Israel. From Midian, there was a calculated, cold blooded temptation of the Jews and it came from the top upon Bilaam's advice.

 While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with daughters of Moab,who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate and bowed down before these gods. So Israel joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them.

The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the Lord’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.”

So Moses said to Israel’s judges, “Each of you must put to death those of your men who have joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor.”

The sin of Israel is in worshipping Baal Peor, the idolatry that the women shared with their Israelite paramours. That is not what Midianites did. They used their women as a political attack on Jews and Judaism, and the verses now emphasize that it came from the very top of Midianite society.

The Lord said to Moses, “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.”

It even seems that the women of Moab were not blamed. Perhaps it is because, as discussed here, Gentile women are sometimes attracted to Jewish men because they are unconsciously drawn to the purity and sublimity of their religion. They use what they know to, in some uncognized manner, get closer to Hashem and while it is wrong, they are not blamed for it. It was the Jews who were blamed for joining them and not the other way around. Not so Midianites. They were directed by their leaders to compromise and blacken the Jews.

The reference to Ruth and Naama is now clear. These women married tsaddikim because they were drawn to their inherent holiness and purity. Consequenlty, Moshe was told to take the vengeance of Israel upon Midian, for it was he who fully understood what motivated Midianite women. It was not love of Jewish men but a deep hatred for them and for everything that they stood for. Moshe expressed it to the people like this:

Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the Lord’s vengeance on them.

 

What did Jews looked like at the time of Chazal? Same as they do now.

These are very rare visual portraits of two notable Jews who lived to see the holy great Jewish Temple and it's destruction by the Roman Empire in the year 70 CE. The first is a statue of Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, ordered by her lover the Roman emperor Titus, the destroyer of our beloved Temple. In the following years Berenice had to leave Titus and then she returned to her Jewish roots. Roman historians of her time portrait her as extremely beautiful and in this image one can see only a glimpse of her beauty (28-90 CE). The second is a Roman portrait bust of Josephus Flavius the greatest Jewish historian in antiquity (37-100 CE). *****************************************************************************************