avakesh

Ghaddafi is Jewish

Here

Ani Maamin after Hatikva

What makes a kosher person.

Parshas Shemini tells us of two signs(simanim) of Kosher animal. One is what it does with its mouth - whether it chews its cud or not. This siman goes deep, from the mouth to the inner self, up and down, over and over again. The other one is in its hoofs, meaning its hands and feet.

There are people who say the right things but what they do and where they go makes them not kosher. There are people who do a lot of good and stay in the right places but whose mouth is not under their control. Can't blame them - they did not learn mussar and were never taught how, but neither of these two types is a kosher person. 

Kosher means both!

See, how much one can learn from animals.

See also here

Parshas Porah is d'oraisa.

Shulchan Aruch in the beginning of HiIlchos Purim says that some say that Parshas Zakhor and Porah is of Biblical origin and villagers who don't have a minyan the rest of the year should travel to larger towns to hear these parshiyos read in a minyan.

Almost everyone who commented on this passage questioned that Parshas Porah is of Biblical origin, and for a good reason. There is no Scriptural source for such an obligation, neither is there any clear Talmudic source for it. Until newer manuscripts of certain Rishonim became available, the only source for this contention that was available to the commentators was a note to hagahos Asheiri. It is easy to dismiss a single source. In fact, Nachal Eshkol ( I aso heard it in the name of Gro) attempted to explain even that source away in quite an ingenious manner. He posited that there was a scribal error and that originally what was written in it was the abbreviation Peh"Peh. It was meant to stand for parshas purim and to refer to the story of Amalek's attack that we read from Beshalach on Purim morning. The intent was that parshas Zakhor at the end of Ki Teitse as well as parshas Beshalach that we read on Purim morning can fulfill the obligation to remember Amalek, nothing to do with Porah (this si a machlokes bewtween Mogen Avraham and others). When a subsequent copyist tried to expland the abbreviation, he mistakenly did so as "parshas porah" instead of "parshas purim".

However, now we have much more manuscript evidence. No one ever found any manuscript that contained this putative abbreviation. No one ever found this passage with the words of parshas purim. Instead we now have Ritva to Megilla 7b, Tos. R. Yehuda Hachasid and Tos. Harosh to Brochos 13a (see Rashbo there) who all have the version "parshas Porah".

I heard from Rav Hershel Schachter that by reading parshas Porah we fulfill the command to remember the Cheit Ha'eigel -- the sin of the Golden Calf. In Parshat Eikev (9:7) we read: "Z'chor al tishkach eit asher hiktsafta et Hashem Elokecha b'Choreiv" -- "Remember, do not forget, that which you angered the Lord, your G-d at Choreiv (Sinai)," a reference to the Golden Calf. Rashi (Chukas 19:22) quotes from R. Moshe HaDarshan that the Red Heifer served as an atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf. He uses an allegory concerning a child who dirtied the king's palace. "Let the mother (the Heifer) clean up the mess made by her son (the Golden Calf)."  What this emasn is that Red Heifer is a euphemism for Godlen Calf. I would add that in Megilah 25b it says that the second story of the Godlen Calf we read but do not translate, so as not to create an impression that the calf had powers. Similarly, we fulfill the command to remember Miraim's sin of speaking against her brother Moshe only in the course of the annual Torah rading and we do not establish a specific ceremony for it, as we do for remembering Amalek (Magen Avron 60). This is so as not to embarss Miriam. So we see that not all commandments to remeber should be fulfilled openly.

So as not to produce a wrong impression, we read parshas porah instead of the portion fo Godlen Calf to fulfill the commandment to remember the sin of the Golden Calf.

Aruch Hashulchan O'CH 685 suggests that the obligation of parshas porah is Biblical because the Biblical passage that contains it needs to be read during the purification ceremony. His proof to it is the Talmudic passage in Zevachim 90. There the question is asked: "Why chattos is always first in verses but by yoledes, olah precedes chatos?" The answer is , "Lemikroah", to read it. Rashi there and in the beginning of Tazria understands that this means "designation". Chattos is still brought first but in the case of Yoledes, the olah is designated first, before chattos. Aruch Hashulchan explains the word "lemikroah" differently, to mean that the verses that describe the sacrifice of Yoledes must be read during that sacrifice, and he draws an analogy to Porah. It remains to be asked, "what is the connection betrween Porah Adumah and Yoledes"?

R. Moseh Shternbuch in Moadim UZmanin (2;168) provides stronger evidence. He asks us to take three steps:

1. In Yoma 5b it says that the verse in the beginning of Shemini where the korban of Miluim is explained, "This is the word(Davar) thaty ou shall do...", means that the passages of Miluim must be read from the Torah when Miluim are brought. In fact, if it was not read, the miluim sacrifice would be ineffective.

2.In Yoma 68B, the first Rashi to the Mishna explains that the Cohen Godol's ceremoney of reading of the Torah on Yom Kippur is derived from Miluim. (Parehtetically, it explains that this Torah reading is a part of the sacrificial order and not like other Torah readings that we do, and illuminates the manner in which the mishna there presents it).

3.Yoma 2b, "As he did on this day, so shall you do to do, to atone for you". This passage form Miluim is explained by the Gemara to mean: "To atone - this is the actions of Yom Kippur; to do-this is the actions of Porah". Hence, it draws a connection between Yom Kippur and Porah and requires the Torah reading of the relevant passage to be performed during the ceremony of Red Heifer purification.

In conclusion, what Rishonim who say that parshas Porah is d'oraysa mean is that reading it is Biblically required during the ceremony of Porah Adumah. It does not mean that we, in our own time have a Biblical obligation of parshas Porah.

A great source but still not compatible with the statement in the Shulchan Aruch from which we started.

Taking credit: Avos 2:8

Rabban Yochanan ben (son of) Zakkai(RYBZ) received from Hillel and Shammai. He used to say: If you have studied much Torah do not take credit for yourself because for this were you created.

The sentiment of this mishna is laudable and straightforward, almost too straighforward. It raises many questions:

1.Why do we introduce R. Ychanan ben Zakkai as receiving from Shammai? Beside this mishna, I am not aware that RYBZ quotes Shammai anywhere else. Hillel-yes, there are many instances of that but not Shammai. Before his death Hillel described RYBZ, as "the father of wisdom" and "the father of coming generations" (Yer. Ned. v., end, 39b). Like that of Hillel, Yochanan's life was divided into periods of forty years each. In the first of these he followed a mercantile pursuit; in the second he studied; and in the third he taught (R. H. 30b). See Sukkah 28a where he is called the "smallest" student of Hillel.

2.What is new about this statement? Does it now already say: "Can a man be of benefit to God? Can even a wise man benefit him(Yov 22:2) and " If you becamse wise, it is for yourself..(Mishle 9:12)?

3.RYBZ was one of the rabbis of Yavne; in fact, he founded Yavne and begged its survival from Vespasian. He was not the only one among rabbis of Yavne to express this sentiment. "A gem in the mouths of the Rabbis of Yavneh: I am God's creature and my fellow is God's creature. My work is in the city and their work is in the field. I rise early for my work and they rise early for their work. Just as they do not presume to do my work, so I do not presume to do their work. Will you say, I do (learn) much and they do (learn) little? We have a tradition: One may do much or one may do little; it is all the same, provided one directs one's heart to heaven."Brochos 17a

To answer these questions and gain a broader understanding of RYBZ contribution, we must being by noting that he was the first Nasi who did not descend from a familial lineage (consult Tiferes Yisroel here for specifics). We don't really know much about how the sintitution of Nasi started but it is first mentioned as being headed by various individuals from the family of Baseyra. Bnei Baseyra abdicated in favor of Hillel. Hillel's descendents ruled for the 100 years before destruciton of the Temple. RYBZ served as the first and only non-Hillelian Nassi and after him, the house of Hillel returned into this office.

As such, RYBZ was the first "self -made man" Nasi. As we pointed out before, Pirkei Avos begins with the teacehr-student model, then lists the familial chain from Hillel to Rebbi and then returns once more to HIllel and his students. This is why it was appropriate for RYBZ specifically to now express this important teaching - that one should not give himself credit for attaining great learning. This is followed by the statement of Teacher-student model of Torah transmission: "RYBZ had five students...".

If not for RYBZ unique position, it would be OK to give oneself credit. We find that other Sages did themselves credit, precisely because they were not in the situation of being first in a line. In Pesachim 68b we find that Rav Sheshes would say: "Rejoyce for myself my soul, yours are verses(that you mastered), yours are Tannatic sayings." R. Elazar questions this because it is a commandment and a form of worshipping the Divine, as it is written "If it were not for My covenant [i.e., the Torah,] day and night, then I would not have put the laws of heaven and earth in place" (Jeremiah 33:25)? The Talmud answers that at first a person has in mind that he is learning in order to improve himself, and then afterwards he comes to study altrustically(lishmo), like  R. Elazar.

So we see here that sometimes it is OK to  take credit for one's learning, as a preliminary self-educational step on the road to full selflessness. There is also another, intermediate step, where one acknowledges one's accomplishment but gives credit to Hashem. R. Yosef knew that he was humble(Sotah 49b), but knew that he accomplished and gave credit to the day of Mattan Torah. The Gemara (Pesachim 68b) tells us: “On Atzeres [Shavuos], Rav Yosef said, ‘Prepare three calves.’ He also said: ‘If not for that day occurring, I would be just another Yosef in the marketplace.’”

There is another way to explain when one can take credit and when one cannot:

Ari explains this when he explains the concept of double gilgul in Shaar Hagilgulim 4:8:

Baba ben Buta the Pious was a student of the elder Shammai. All of his life he daily brought a Doubtful Transgression Offering.

It was Baba ben Buta who returned as the reincarnation of Rav Sheshet in order to complete some tikun that was required of him. Since King Herod had taken out the eyes [of Baba ben Buta], therefore he [Rav Sheshet] was also blind, as is known.

In the form of gematria called "AT-BaSh" the letters that spell Baba change into the letters that spell Sheshet.

Rav Sheshet knew that his Nefesh had first been in the body of Baba ben Buta, a man of great learning and well known for his piety. He only reincarnated a second time to rectify a small amount that had been left incomplete. This made his body sad, because it meant that all of his efforts were for the sake of that Nefesh, which in the end would return to that first body in the time of the Resurrection. All the benefit of the Torah that he studied and the mitzvot that he performed were for that Nefesh, and not his body. It was the Nefesh that had to rejoice, and not the body. Thus, he [Rav Sheshet] would say, "Rejoice my Nefesh…" and not me. "For you I read, for you I studied." It was for your benefit, and not my own.

I add that Baba ben Buta was also the first Nasi, as Tiferes Yisroel explains.

Now we can understand this statement of RYBZ and why he learned from Shammai. For RYBZ, it was straightforward - unlike Bava ben Buta (in his gilgul) and Rav Sheshes, he would not take the credit for his immense learning to which he, credit to whcih he, as the first non-hereditary Nasi was  entitled. The Mishna tells us that he was a student of Shammai to emphasize that he encompased all of tradition, not only its Hillelian aspects, but also its Shammaitic aspects. This corresponds to Bava ben Buta who was a student of Shammai. Furthermore, his statement is novel, because other Sages did take credit for their learning, because the credit was accruing to some part of them that was not really them, a gilgul, a guest within their souls. So the Sages of Yavne explained: "I am a creature and my fellow is a creature. I do my work and he does his work. I am no different than him, so how can I accrue personal credit". With these words they excluded the rare situation of people like Rav Sheshes, who was not a creature like other creatures but a man who included a gilgul of a great another soul.

 

Finders losers

To find Hashem you must first lose yourself.

Ball Shem Tov

Yeshivish eloquence

Be’erech a yoivel and a half ago, the meyasdim shtelled avek on this makom a naya malchus with the kavana that no one should have bailus over their chaver, and on the yesoid that everyone has the zelbe zchusim.

“Now we’re holding by a geferliche machloikes being machria if this medina, or an andere medina made in the same oifen and with the same machshovos, can have a kiyum. We are all mitztaref on the daled amos where a chalois of that machloikes happened in order to be mechabed the soldiers who dinged zich with each other.

“We are here to be koiveya chotsh a chelek of that karka is a kever for the bekekavodike soldiers who were moiser nefesh and were niftar to give a chiyus to our nation. Yashrus is mechayev us to do this. Lemayse, hagam the velt won’t be goires or machshiv what we speak out here, it’s zicher not shayach for them to forget what they tued uf here. We are mechuyav to be meshabed ourselves to the melocha in which these soldiers made a haschala — that vibalt they were moiser nefesh for this eisek, we must be mamash torud in it — that we are all mekabel on ourselves to be moisif on their peula so that their maisim should not be a bracha levatulla — that Hashem should give the gantze oilam a naiya bren for cheirus — that a nation that shtams by the oilam, by the oilam, by the oilam will blaib fest ahd oilam.”

 

from Chaim M. Weiser’s book “Frumspeak: The First Dictionary of Yeshivish” (Jason Aronson, 1995)

A nice discussion here

An academic discussion here

 

Oh... the English translation of the Gettysberg Adress

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

---

Source: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler. The text above is from the so-called "Bliss Copy," one of several versions which Lincoln wrote, and believed to be the final version.

 

 

Purim's coming

What REALLY works!

hat tip here and see for a discussion. 

Humility is the first step of Mussar

As I grow older, meet more and more people and gain a deeper perspective on how humans operate, certain basic assumptions of Mussar become better defined, or even redefined. This is what age and experience bring with them - clarifications and delineation of what is central and what is peripheral.

I now think that there are two basic points that are central in Mussar. One is the conviction that our thinking and assumptions are riddled with bias and must constantly be suspected and challenged. The other one is the equally strong conviction that growth is a process of continuous advancement in internalizing the first point and that we always fall and rise, fail and rise. Expressed differently one would call it humility.

I met many different personalities and types in the past few decades -  thousands. That's a lot of people. Being a little dogmatic I say that very few of them would ever admit that they were wrong, never mind apologize. Few people have the confidence and committment to the truth sufficient to overcome the bias to their self-perception. However they divide into five groups:

1.Those who would never admit or apologize but admit that they were wrong to themselves. This groups subdivides into those who will in some way communicate to others that they understood that they are wrong, but not in words, and those who adamantly insist that they were and are right.

2. Those who will not admit to themselves or others that they were and are wrong but will change their behavior under the pretext that circumstances have changed.

3.Those who will not admit or change anything - ever.

4.Those who will not admit but will accomodate.

5.Those who will admit but partially, or with excuses and assign blame to people or situations.

I used to see Mussar as an armamentarium of techinques: mussar study, chanting, contemplation, mussar vaad, mashgiach etc and goals, self-reconstruction in middos. I now think that the particular techniques that mussarniks used were simply the ones that they discovered and ones that were available to them. If a different technique works, be it drawn from psychology or self-help literature, be pragmatic and use it. It is the goals that matter.

The base for any progress in self-improvement is humility. In every field, assessment comes before intervention. If you can't assess, you can't fix. Ability to admit and confess is one of the central points that undergird success in Mussar.