avakesh

Riots or revolutions

The Arab spring has swept across Middle East. Many commentators see it as revolutions. I see it as riots.

Riots are endemic to the Arab culture. They inherent in tribalism and clan oriented culture. In Grenada at the time of Yosef Hanagid it was Arabs versus Berbers; now it is Sunnis against Shites in Bahrain and Sunnis against Alawites in Syria. The wildness of Ishmael expresses itself in uncoordinated outbreaks of rage and destruction. Since 1977,for example, this region  experienced many bread riots. Stydying histroy of Jews in Islamic lands brings you face to face with the high frequency of riots among Arabs, some directed against Jews but most outbreaks of spontaneous violence directed an no one and at everybody together.

Revolutions have a coherent ideology and a structure. Riots have no coherent ideology and are unguided. I see what is happening as riots and not revolutions. The rulers of Arab conuntries, who should know see it the same way.

Here is a photograph of Arab riots in Jerusalem in 1936 and how the British handled them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The difference between revolutions and riots is that revolutions results in change and riots produce more of the same.

The difference

 

Avos 2:9 Leadership of Five

 
"Rabban Yochanan ben (son of) Zakkai had five [primary] students. They were: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkenos, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, Rabbi Yossi the Priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Nesanel, and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach."

The times of R. Yonchanan ben Zakkai were turbulent and confusing. They were times of turmoil and new sects and religious philosophies: Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Christians according to their kinds, gnostics, pagans and everything in between. Whereas before Judsim sought balance and serenity in pursuit of national destiny to worship Hashem, now it had to form a defensive formation, that could both defend and attack. Zuggos (pairs) typified the situation in which there are two alternatives, thesis and anti-thesis. The challenge is keeping balance. The Hegelian paradigm of thesis, antithesis, catharsis was the reality of R. Yochanan's teachers, who were pairs and spoke in tripartite teachings. After R. Yochanan, Judaism became typified by five member leadership. The number five signifies a defensive formation, in which one warrior faces to each of the four direction and one holds them together to form the center. The advantage of five aligned in a formation is that it is both defensive and offensive, as long as the center holds and can guide them to withdraw or expand together.

We find that the three generations after R. Yochanan were led by groups of five.

1. Five students of R. Yochanan: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkenos, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, Rabbi Yossi the Priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Nesanel, and Rabbi Elazar ben Arach."

2. The five Sages of the Haggadah who were reclining in Bnei Brak: Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Elazar Ben Azaryah, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon.

3.Five students of R. Akiva, from whom Torah was rebuilt after his thousands of students died durng the days between Pesach and Shevuos: R. Meir, R. Judah, R. Jose, R. Simeon and R. Eleazar b. Shammua (Yevamos 62b)

4.These five are also the ones who were ordained by R. Yehuda ben Baseyra, for which he was killed by Romans: "And some say also R. Nechemya" (Sanhedrin 14b)

4.R. Jose had five sons: R. Ishmael, Eleazer, Menachem, Halafta (who died in his lifetime), and Eudemus(Shabbos 118b).

I am sure there are more examples but these are the ones I remember right now.

Once you take this approach, you can understand the forthcoming discussion on whether it is R. Eliezeror R. Elazar ben Arach outweighed everyone else.  The central point is whether it is R. Eliezer ben Hurcunus, the cemented cistern that loses not a drop who is the center of the formation, or R. Elazar ben Arach who is like an ever increasingly flowing spring. Who holds together the center, one who contains all of the traditions of the past  or one who engages and flows forward with an overpowering rushing of Torah? What is the center: tradition or innovation?

The paradigm of "five" explains why R. Akiva is not listed in our Mishna as a student of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, whereas in Sotah 5:2 , R. Yehoshua calls him a student of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. Rambam there comments that R. Akiva was called a student of R. Yochanan because he was a student of his student. We do find that a faithful student of a student can be termed a pupil of the original teacher; for example, Shmuel Hakaton is called a student of Hillel and Hillel is called student of Ezra in Sanhedrin 11a. However, in Pirke D/Rabbi Eliezer 7 it states that R.Akiva was one of a group who sanctified the new moon with R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. It seems that R. Akiva was a student of his after all. If so, why is he not listed in our Mishna. Perhaps, it is because he was not an official member of the Group of Five.

The next mishna tells us what the qualities were of each of the five, with which they confronted the challenges of the time. We will discuss them in due time but first let us look at them:

He used to enumerate their praises: R. Eliezer ben Hurkenos is a cemented pit which never loses a drop; R. Yehoshua ben Chananya - fortunate is she who bore him; R. Yossi the Priest is pious; R. Shimon ben Nesanel fears sin; and R. Elazar ben Arach is as an increasing river."

Belief and mysticism

Belief, akin to intuition is arch-knowledge. Meta-knowledge can be done poorly or well. When it is done poorly, it is a belief in a false g-d. When it is done by a refined individual who follows the rules of obtaining meta-knowledge, which he obtains from others or from tradition, it is a belief into the true G-d, although it cannot be communicated to one who has no concept of how to obtain meta-knowledge and has not even embarked on the quest.

To a mystic who has attained this knowledge, those who have not attained it are like children who must be protected and tended in hope of bringing them slowly and eventually to this knowledge. There is is a great danger from this to the mystic who may grow to believe that he is now exempt from the rules that  govern mere humans. If he is caught up in it, he will become a Bilaam.

Once he transitions beyond this danger, he will know what can and cannot be shared and taught. He will give to each person what he can assimilate and through which he can rise. He will pursue beneficence and chessed because that is what Hashem does for the world. On the other hand, feeding people knowledge which they are not yet ready to digest is not only irresponsible, it is a sign of smallness.

Unfortunately, in our age and time, the world has literally shrunk, both physically and spiritually. Distances are smaller and spiritual distance and levels are also not as well appreciated. We want to know everything quickly and we want to do it through our brains. We don't want to understand that there are many different kinds of knowledge and the some of them take years and decades of preparation and work

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.166-7), Hamlet to Horatio

 

Orthoprax Devils among us

The recent article about Orthopraxy in Ami Magazine has sparked an important discussion. My initial impression was a mixture of grattiude that the issue was broken in mainstream media and surprise at the uncharitable manner in which it was done, to say nothing of specific individuals whose lives were adversely affected by it. See here and here for some reactions.

After thinking about it and discussing it with an astute observer of our community, I realized that this an issue that is too subtle and too nuanced to be discussed in the media. Nothing good will come from it. The article could have just as well be entitled, "The Devils Among Us". Devils must be hunted and exorcized and "impostors" must be outed and persecuted. Nothing good will come form such an approach. Therefore opening the issue up did not serve a constructive purpose. It should be handled by qulaified thinkers on the internet, from where it arose. Only there can there can anonymous and senstive discussion by true experts take place and only there can orthoprax individuals find serious and personalized attention for their individual issues. Those who understand the issues need to open their blogs and sites to the issues that concern the Orthoprax and keep the discourse respecful, helpful and of high quality. The should quietly band together to create support groups for the Orthoprax and the not yet Orthoprax.

The other proposition that I put forward is that formatting the issue as that of heresy and disbelief is highly ideological and highly misleading. Many chassidic thinkers would contend that a Jew never disbelieves, that emunah is naturally in the heart of every Jew and being Orthoprax is simply being disconnected from one's heart. Sometimes the reasons are psychological, sometimes rooted in moral and spiritual failures. If so, Orthoprax are not devils - not more so than other Jews who are disconnected from their inner being by sin, non_jewish influence or personal barriers. A Jew can never be cut off from Divinity. Positioning orthopraxy as a state of heresy or rejection of belief sets up parameters of discourse that are plainly wrong and misleading. Perceiving the issue as that of alienation from other Yidden and from oneself throws a very different light on the issue. The solution is engagement and love, not persecution and rejection.

Of course, this is not the way that an average person is set up to see others or themselves. For the exclusively cerebrally committed, engagement with orthopraxy on intellectual grounds alone can be dangerous. But for those who have peered into the Heaven within their hearts, the Orthoprax are suffering brothers whose masks separate them from the wholeness of their inner Jewishness and who demand and deserve an approach based on Love.

A Dvar Torah and a Mussar Vort from Corey Booker

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

 

Here is the mussar vort.

Chumros on Pesach and in general

I seem to write about chumros every Pesach because every Pesach brings with it additonal insights into this subject. Chumros on Pesach are a prominent feature of the Pesach landscape and partake of many related and important ideas in spirituality and Avodas Hashem.

Why is even a tiny piece of Chametz forbidden on Pesach? Radvaz (Rabbi David ben Zimra, 1479-1573) askes this question in She'elot uTeshuvot Radvaz, 3:546 (977). After finding that there is no other halacha that makes quite such  stringent demands, he concludes that this is because chametz symbolizes the yetzer hara (evil inclination). One place where this idea is expressed is in Brochos 17a, where it says that when Rabbi Alexandari finished saying the amidah, he would add a tefillah: "Master of the Universe, You know full well that it is our desire to act according to Your will; but what prevents us from doing so? The se’or in the dough..."

However, Chido in Simchas Haregel extends this idea from searching for chometz to Pesach in general. He writes(Machazik Bracha 457): "It is well known that every person accepts on himself stringencies, adding fences and barriers because of the severity of the prohibition of chomets, as Radvaz explained in a teshuva". He adds that there is no prohibiton of appearing super-punctillious but it should be done in private and the rabbi who rules for others should not follow only the letter of the law. The Minchas Eleizer writes similarly in Machazil Bracha 457 that on other ares of halcha "the power to permit is preferable" but our tradition regarding chometz is to rule according to strict opinons. He attributes this approach "our rabbis, ZTZ'L". This, unlike Chido, he directs even the rabbis to rule strictly, even for others. This approach finds its expression in the the Chabad saying, "Pesach is andersh(different)" and in the practice of Ismach Moshe to accept any possible chumra found is seforim, as documentd in Tehila L'Dovid, a sefer written by his grandson. This remains the prevailing approach in Satmar as documented in the article in the Pesach issue of Mishpacha about the Williamsburg Matza bakery, the only bakery in the world in which, based on R. Yoel's directive, every possible chumra is being kept.

The  Mei HaShiloach quotes Reb Bunim MiParshischa who said that all the stringencies that the Jewish People adopt on Pesach are adornments to holiness, and this is alluded to in the verse that states (Shir HaShirim 1:!0) tzavareich bacharuzim, your neck with necklaces. This means that every limb of a person’s body has a corresponding ornament or garment, whereas the neck can be adorned with an ornament that is not unique to the neck. A precious stone is not designed to clothe someone. Rather, it is intended to be suspended from a person’s neck. Similarly, the stringencies that have been adopted by the Jewish People on Pesach is due to the fact that the neck is the vehicle through which the food enters, and it is specifically regarding food matters that all the stringencies on Pesach apply.

Here is how I understand this concept. Generally, a chumra is praiseworthy thing and an expression of loving G-d, except that a person should not take on stringencies that are far above his or her current level of observance. Doing so exposes his other deficiencies and represents  Kefitsas Hamadreigos which is not the right way in serving Hashem. However on Pesach even chumros that are far above the observance level are fully legitimate. Pesach is the time of mortal combat with Yetser Hara and in a fight to the last, any weapon is acceptable. It is no dishonor to a warrior in the midst of the battle to slay his enemy with a tree trunk, should a sword not be available. Similalry, Pesach is a "time-out" during which the usual considerations in Derech Hoavoda do not apply. 

I always thought that the statement of Ramo in in Orach Chaim 443:6 contradicts this approach. Ramo writes that those who scour and wash the walls before Pesach have what to rely on and shold not be ridiculed. Mishan Berura points out that they rely on a Yerushalmi. Doesn't this indicate that chumros even on Pesach must have something on which to rely, something at least of the gravity of Yerushalmi?

There is also found in the traditional sources an approach that is against all chumros on Pesach. Not surprisingly it comes from Breslov. Sichos HaRan #235 says:

"The Rebbe was also very much against all the special stringencies that are observed on Pesach. Many people went so far in observing many fine points of custom that they were literally depressed by the holiday. He spoke about this at length. One of his followers once asked the Rebbe exactly how to act with regard to an ultra-stringent observance. The Rebbe made a joke of it.

The Rebbe spoke about this quite often. He said that these ultra-strict practices are nothing more than confused foolishness. He told us that he had also been caught up in this and would waste much time thinking up all sorts of unnecessary restrictions. Once he worried about the drinking water used during Pesach. He was afraid that a small amount of leaven might have fallen into the well from which they drew water. The only alternative would be to prepare water in advance for the entire Pesach week, as some people do. But this was also not good enough, for the water had to be carefully safeguarded from leaven from the day before Pesach, and this was very difficult."

Here is how the RCA put it in a statement issued in 1997. " The promulgation of stringencies were condemned because they add additional financial burdens on the Jewish consumer. Unnecessary stringencies are divisive........they foster an atmosphere of cynicism that no standards are ever good enough."

However, there is also a middle approach, one that says that some chumros are good and some are bad.The good ones keep you out of trouble because they bring with them zechus avos.

Inyan this year, the magazine of Hamodia, contains an interesting interview with the Squarer Rebbe. In it he quotes this Ramo as an indication that chumros IN GENERAL, not only on Pesach, must have something on which to rely. "This is how the Rav of Ostrow interpreted this Ramo. This something should be a received tradition from our forefathers."This is a gevaldige message", the Rebber enthuses. "If one relies on his ancestros, it is their responsibility to ensure that he does not stumble. On the other hand, if their way does not find favor in his eyes,then it is as if he has forged a new path, and in that case ancestors bear no responsibility and one is dependent on his own zchyos". He goes on to share a story of a certain machmir who would not eat of the Magid of Chernobyl's shirayim because of the minhag of not to "mish" (eat other people's food on Pesach). The Maggid told him to check his water barrel and he found there a piece of floating chometz.

It is important to point out that this is not the kind of oppositon to chumros that one sometimes finds in the "modern" sector. The argument here is for the authority of traditional minhagim, not their dismissal as not somehow relevant to our 21st centruy lives. What the Squarer Rebbe says is that raditional chumros are to be mantained but new ones should not be manufactured by individuals.

I end with a quote from Shelah, Beis Chochma, vol1.

We find that as generations unfold more and more halachic stringencies are enacted. During days of Moshe Rabbeinu only those prohibitions that were explicitly received on Sinai were proscribed. Moshe Rabbeinu enacted a nubmer of stringencies based on his perception of the spiritual needs of the nation. In later generations, be it at the time of the prophets or the Tannaim, the prevailing spiritual leadership instituted additional halachic stringencies and guidelines.

 

Judaization in America: BYU Seder

'Dayenu' in Provo from Jewish Forward on Vimeo.

See here

Feet, feet, feet

Download Litvishe feet Chassidishe feet

Click, Scroll down, Compare and enjoy

 

 

Feet, feet, feet

Are the 13 rules of interpetation Sinaitic?

The 13 principles of interpretation are at the center of Talmudic interpretative science. They are basic and foundational and usually understood to be Sinaitic in origin.Sefer Hakrisus (1;Batei Middos9:5) says that there cannot be a dispute regarding these rules. It is interesting that the Yerushalmi seems to see these essential rules in a different light.

The rule in question is the 11th of the13 prinicples of R. Ishmael.

Let us first take a step back and understand some background. TheTorah repeats many passages, which requires an explanation. There are five types of repetitions that one finds in the Torah, all of which are explained by the Rabbis.

1. A prohibiton is repeated. This is explained on the basis that, "we do not punish unless we harned". One of the passages containing a prohibiton is understood as being a "warning(azhara" not to do a certain thing and another one is understood as providing the penalty or punishment for transgressing it. Sometimes this is the pshat and sometimes it is supported though a drasha. Usually (but not always) the assignment of warning and prohibition is quite sensible as one of the verses does sound like a warning and the other one is clearly a penalty.

2.Exact repetition of the same prohibiton. This is explained by saying that Torah wanted to assign two prohibitions to someone who transgresses this particular commandment -"La'avor alov bshnei la'avin".

3.A story or teaching is repeated - to teach us a lesson, such as two retellings of the conversation between Abraham's servant and Rivka's family.

4. A repetition is to import a stringency or a leniency into the particular case which is repeated, or to thell us something about what the general rule is - R. Ishmael's rules 9-11.

5.An repetition of a phrase or a few words that were already taught in a similar case. This is explained by the 11th principle: The particular implied in the general and excepted from it on account of a new and reversed decision can be referred to the general only in case the passage under consideration makes an explicit reference to it.

The reason for the repetition is to apply general rules to a law or situation that in another passage was given a unique and conflicting law and thus was taken out of the general class adn amde into an exception. For example, in Vaykra 14:13 we were told that the asham of metzorah is like olah and has the same law. On the face of it this is a meaningless repetition because we were already taught the same principle, that asham is like olah, in Vaykra 7:7. However, the reason for the repetition is that asham of metzora was given a unique status because it requires putting the sacrificial blood on the great right toe of the metzora. Usually blood is placed on the altar, not toes. One might think that the sacrificial of metzora should not require blood on the altar at all, only on the toes; therefore, the comparison between asham and olah had to be repeated in the passage that relates the laws of the metzora.

Interestingly, in Yerushalmi Peah CH. 1, 5 (daf 8:) we find that whether this principle even exists is a matter of dispute between R. Ishmael and Rabbis. The issue is Peah, which  Yerushalmi sees as stated by wheat and repeated by grape fields. R. Ishamels explains it by saying that since grapes were subjected to a unique halacha of olelos, they became a unique case and we might think that Peah does not apply to grapes. Therefore Peah as repeated (via a drasha) by grapes.

But, Yerushalmi asks, that is fine according to R. Ishmael who holds of the principle but how would rabbis explain why it is repeated... and it aswers this question. What you do see, however, is that in something as basic as the existence of one of the Thirteen rules of interpretation, Rabbis do not agree with R. Ishmael.

Perhaps, the scholars of Yerushalmi did not see the 13 principles of R. Ishmael in the same light as did Babyonian scholars. After all, we know these 13 principles fomr the introduciton to the Sifra, which is called Sifre D'/Bei Rav. It was Rav who arranged and wrote it done - in Bavel. Perhaps is Eretz Isroel they continued to use Hillel's 7 principles, or perhaps they did not agree that R. Ishmael's rules were Sinaitic. As we discussed in the past, they may be nothing more than provisonal rules of hermeneutic logic and may be that is how they were viewed in Eretz Isroel. This is similar to the opinion of Doros Harishonim.

In conclusion, I suggest that Yerushalmi did not see the 13 principles as Sinaitic but rather as logical and therefore, subject to dispute.

In general, R. Ishmael was reluctant to be dogmatic about drashos. He would not consent to attach a sentence of death, or even a fine, to a crime or misdemeanor on the strength of a mere inference, however logical, where no such punishment is clearly stated in Scripture (Yer. 'Ab. Zarah v. 45b), or to draw a rule from a law itself based on an inference (Yer. Ḳid. i. 59a).

See also here