avakesh

Avos 3:4, 1+1=3

But two who sit and exchange words of Torah, the Divine Presence rests amongst them, as is stated, "Then the G-d-fearing conversed with one another, and G-d listened and heard; and it was inscribed before Him in a book of remembrance for those who fear G-d and give thought to His name" (Malachi 3:16).

In the first part of the mishna, two indviduals were united by silence and mutual rejection. In this part, they are united through conversation. But they are not only united, the Divine Presence rests among them.

How does this work? How does two become three?

Shekhina, Divine Pesence, is a mysterious concept. We do know that it is called in Kabbalistic sources, Knesses Yisroel - the gathering of Israel. A clue is that the very term Sheckhina come for the verse in  Exodus 25:8, "They shal make me a sanctuary and I will dwell(shakhanti) amongst them".

There are various levels of Shekhina, from the very highest to the ones that we sense among us, all really one and the same(See the beginning of Maamar Bosi L'Gani). The godliness that exists among us is inseparable from the basic defining quality of humans, that we know each other as humans only through and in terms of human society and relationship. To restate it in simple but perhaps shocking terms so to say that G-d only exists in the human realm of relationship and community. If there were not a society of inter-related human beings to sense and enshrine G-d as the King and Master, Friend and Parent, Helper and Judge, there would, perhaps be no Hashem in this world, except as distant Cause.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it really fall? Had there been no humans, would there be G-d (at least in the terms that we understand and perceive him)?

This is what He wanted. "G-d desired to have a dwelling place in the lower worlds (Dira B'Tachtonim( Tanchuma Pikudei2)".

When two individuals share disdain and rejection, they are united by negatvity. But, Hashem is not there, for that is not an interaction that humans can share with the Master of the World, because any rejection between Hashem and humans is one sided. Hashem never rejects. When two people sit and positively interact, especially when they speak of Torah (within which Hashem is enclothed through a different and distinct mechanism), Shekhina dwells among them, for godliness is an aspect of every human interaction. We are only human in as much as we relate to G-d.

When in Rome.... by Chaim Gershon

MasyaA

MasyaB

MasyaConclusion

 

 

 

Masya ben Charesh is listed among the famous Jews who lived in Rome even recently, He headed a Yeshiva there for Jews who wandered off the derech there. See, here

and

 

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=16076&pgnum=129

http://www.yesodei.org/videos/videos.php?index=30

 

 http://lazerbrody.typepad.com/lazer_beams/2010/11/mattia-ben-cheresh.html

 

and Hear the story weaved in the attachments...

 

 

Dibbur Shel Teshuva, Guy Tzvi Mintz

Obesity and Divine Service

He who occupies himself in Torah, it is not possible that his neck should be thick and his body should be fat (Mivchar Peninim 1:29).

On the face of it, this is a perplexing statement. What about the famous Talmudic sages who were very heavy? R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi were very fat. R. Yochanan's and Rav Papa's were also big (but not as big( Bava Metsiah 84a). In fact, in our own day,we had Rav Simon Schwab and Rav Shlomo Freifeld who cut an imposing figure.

A commentary to Mivchar Peninim attempts to explain this by quoting a Tosafos in Taanis 7a that had the sages been more ugly, they would have been even greater. Similarly, those sages who are fat despite their fasting, would have been much heavier, had they not fasted.

This reminded me of an interesting story quoted in the biography of Rabbi Freifeld byR. Yisroel Besser. He reports that Rav Shlomo was eating schnitzel Pentecost in the when a famous biographer of Jewish figures passed by. Rabbi Freifeld humorously exclaimed: "Oy, now they will not write a biography about me. So, is it Shlomo's fault that Shlomo likes schnitzel?"

It seems to me that the mindset that scholars must be thin and pale, is no longer the prevailing one in Judaism, at least, not since the Chassidic revolation. There was a time when there operative mindset was that the weakening over the body to the strengthening of the soul. Since Avodah B'Gashmiyus" (Serving G-d through the body) displaced the idea of ascetism and weakening the body, the previous paradigm of self-denial no longer operates. That does not mean that one should not limit oneself for reasons of health or to be in balance and practice self control. However, it is no longer a virue in itself but merely a stepping stone to other achievements.

Perhaps the Talmudic sages in Bava Metziah were harbingers of the Chassidic revolution?

Finding Hashem "Bein Hameitsarim"

An interesting call came in this week. The caller asked me a question that he found very important but which others whom he had approached dismissed or did not efectively address.

It troubled him that in the story of the Akeida, Hashem called Avraham to sacrifice his son with the name Elokim but when He reversed Himself, it was through "the Angel of YKVK". This, in itself, is not the new complaint. Rashi attributes it to Bilaam. When Bilaam raised his eyes and saw the angel of the Lord he said that such is the way of Hashem. He commands people Himself and then reverses His orders through the use of an angel.

Bamidbar 22:31

34. Balaam said to the angel of the Lord, "I have sinned, for I did not know that you were standing on the road before me. Now, if it displeases you, I will return."		לד. וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל מַלְאַךְ יְ־הֹוָ־ה חָטָאתִי כִּי לֹא יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אַתָּה נִצָּב לִקְרָאתִי בַּדָּרֶךְ וְעַתָּה אִם רַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ אָשׁוּבָה לִּי:
		כי לא ידעתי: גם זה גנותו, ועל כרחו הודה, שהוא היה משתבח שיודע דעת עליון, ופיו העיד לא ידעתי:
Rashi: if it displeases you, I will return: This reply was a challenge against the Omnipresent. He [Balaam] said to him, “He [God] Himself commanded me to go, yet you, an angel, annul His words. This is His custom: He says one thing and angel retracts it. He said to Abraham, ”Take now your son“ (Gen. 22:2), and through an angel He annulled His words. I, too; if it displeases you, I will have to return.”- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 10, Num. Rabbah 20:15]		אם רע בעיניך אשובה לי: להתריס נגד המקום היא תשובה זו. אמר לו הוא בעצמו צוני ללכת, ואתה מלאך מבטל את דבריו, למוד הוא בכך, שאומר דבר ומלאך מחזירו, אמר לאברהם (בראשית כב, ב) קח נא את בנך וגו', וע"י מלאך בטל את דברו, אף אני אם רע בעיניך צריך אני

 

So I asked him for what he thought about it himself and during the discussion other possibilities came up.

The first one was that the Angel of YKVK is actually a higher level than the name Elokim because Elokim is the more distant Quality of Justice and YKVK is a closer Quality of Mercy.

The second one was that it is proper for one to take personal responsibility for delivering bad news. One does not fire people through an e-mail or a letter but is responsible to do so in person. It may be more uncomfortable to to bring good news than bad news and the natural inclination of people is to to bring good news in person and deliver bad news at a distance. However, this is not how God works (delivering the bad news directly as Elokim) and we need to learn Derech Eretz from that.

What I really think is, however is different.

We start with the Ramban ad loc who points out that Avraham was tested and a test(Nisayon) is for the benefit of the individual tested. In other words, it is not that God needs to learn that Avraham will do but that the act of testing benefits Avraham and brings out what is potential in him to become what is actual. Of course, this is an oversimplification. If you look at Netsiv and the midrash that he quotes you will find that there is more than one kind of Nisayon and that not all tests are beneficial and solely for the benefit of the tested individual.

However, assuming that in this case the benefit was for Avraham, the deeper truth of the Akeida is that the Encounter with the Divine is much more likely at the times of stress and suffering than when everything runs smoothly or at the time of blessing. Unfortunately, when Hashem subjects us to suffering we are put to the true test and have to choose between love and anger. Nisayon is what takes place within us. It is such times that force us to say with Iyov 13:15, "even He slays me, I trust in Him", or abandon Hashem. This is when our sense of the Divine is at its deepest and its truest.

Accordingly, it is when we perceive Hashem as Elokim, through tear clouded eyes and in pain and frustration that we encounter Him directly. On the other hand, when we receive a salvation or a blessing we only feel an "angel of the Lord", signifying a more distant connection, because at such a time a choice to remain connected and or to become distanced, is not required.

A similar thought was expressed by the Kotzker. On the verse, "All her pursuers reached her between the borders (Lam. 1:3)", he comments that "her pursuers" refers to those who passionately seek Hashem. Where will they find HIm? Between the borders! He can only be found at the time of trouble and pain referred to as "bein hameitsarim".

Lag Baomer Parade Song

I am a Jewish Prince by Chaim Gershon

 

The mishkan was inaugurated on the first day of the Hebrew month of Nissan of the year 2449 from creation (1312 BCE). There is a mostly chassidishe minhag to recall this event by reading the parshiyos of Nesiim from the Torah in parshas Naso: this innovation was instituted by the Shelah HaKodesh (p.44) and perpetuated by mystics following him, such as the author of the Kav HaYashar and it was later adopted by chassidim. This custom has been a subject of discussion, being that we do not otherwise commerate such one-time historical event. We do not, for example, recollect the dedication of either of the Temples in Jersusalem, the day the Jews entered Israel or the fact that the mishkan was completed on the 25th of Kislev, as an antecedent to the holiday of Channukah! One explanatioin is that the portion of Nesiim is different becasue it expresses achdus/unity in longing for the redemption.

Moreover, it has been discussed that each of these twelve days of dedication, Nissan 1-12 are the first twelve days of the year and that they correspond and encapsulate within them each of the 12 months of the year . See here ( on p.458/9), and here . This is connected to the tikkun of souls which occurs before Tishrei as stated in Zohar Balak III, 196b and discussed here. The last 12 days of Elul also correspond, each day to a month, and make a tikkun on the corresponding month of the year. Elul and Nissan are connected becasue there are two opinion regarding the creation of the world in Masechta Rosh Hashanah as discussed in Sefer haSichos 5703 (Hebrew edition p.179).

In Chabad, this “Nasi” custom is taken very seriously. “Did you say ‘the Nasi’ today?” This seriousness has been a subject of ribbing, see also here and here.

The real deal is that these holidays have to do with the the concept of history being relevant today and not just being about the past:

“The Rebbe often quotes the AriZal’s interpretation of the verse in the Megillah : Hayamim ha-eleh nizkarim venaasim — literally, “These days are remembered and done.” However, the AriZal explains that every year when the holiday comes around (not only Purim, but any holiday or festival), the same spiritual energy that was first revealed on that date, is revealed again, every year. Moreover, we have to remember what happened then, and do something about it so that it will happen now as well. These days are here for us to do. We’re not just going to sit and reminisce about the old days, drink and be merry, because of a date on our calendar. For Yidden , all of our holy days and celebrations are an opportunity to do something, to affect us and to change us and to make us and the world better.” See here.

Not a Winter Break by Chaim Gershon

The Daled Parshiyos   do not always fall on four consecutive sabbaths. A non-Special Shabbas that interrupts the flow of the four parshiyos is called in Hebrew “Shabbas Hafsaka”.

I once listened to an interesting shiur: Rabbi Grossman gave over a class from Rav Schlesinger in which he quoted the Chiddushei HaRim (Likutei Harim p.209)and the RemaMiFano(Mamar Meah Kshita 67) in which Shabbos Hafsokah is explained as the same inyan as Hashem’s interruption in speaking with Moshe  cited in Rashi Vayikra 1:1

Vayikra 1:1

1. And He called to Moses, and the Lord spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying,

א. וַיִּקְרָא אֶל מֹשֶׁה וַיְדַבֵּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֵלָיו מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֵאמֹר

 

And He called to Moses: The [Divine] voice emanated and reached Moses’ ears, while all [the rest] of Israel did not hear it. One might think that for each new section [representing a new topic], there was also [such] a call. Scripture, therefore, states, “and [the Lord] spoke (וַיְדַבֵּר) [to him],” [denoting that] only for speech, [i.e., when God “spoke” to Moses, or “said” to him, or “commanded” him,] was there a call, but not at the subsections. [For when these expressions are employed, they demarcate the beginning of major sections, i.e., when God first called to Moses and then proceeded with the prophecy at hand, unlike the beginning of each separate subsection, when God simply continued His communication to Moses without “calling” him anew. Now, if each subsection in the Torah does not represent a new beckoning from God to Moses, ushering in a new prophecy, then] what is the purpose of these subsections? To give Moses a pause, to contemplate between one passage and the next, and between one subject and another. [And if this pause for contemplation was given to the great Moses when being taught by God, then] how much more [necessary is it] for an ordinary man learning [Torah] from another ordinary man [to be allowed pauses between sections and subjects, to carefully contemplate and understand the material being learned]. — [Torath Kohanim 1:3]

ויקרא אל משה: הקול הולך ומגיע לאזניו, וכל ישראל לא שומעין. יכול אף להפסקות היתה קריאה, תלמוד לומר וידבר, לדבור היתה קריאה, ולא להפסקות. ומה היו הפסקות משמשות, ליתן ריוח למשה להתבונן בין פרשה לפרשה ובין ענין לענין, קל וחומר להדיוט הלומד מן ההדיוט:

 

Hafsakah is not for a break, vacation, recess or bitul Torah but for reflection: the void actually contributes to growth.

        The Lubavitcher Rebbe similarly brings this analogy (Hisvadus 5749b p.410, 5745c p.1462 and in Sichos Kodesh Terumah 5740; that Shabbos Hafsokah is not a time to fall levels or forget the avodah but to prepare for the next level.

The Ateres Yehoshua  brings that the four shabbatos correspond to the four letters of HaShem’s name. So how could one conceive that an interuption is for greater holiness ?! He notes that the gematria of   הפסקה is 250 which is that kevanna of the Arizal that represents (see here but needs a post of its own) a high level of unity.

This week’s Friday Hamodia (1 Adar 5772) has more similar comments:

However, there is never a Shabbas Hafsaka between Parshas Parah and Parshas HaChodesh. In Likutei Sichos Volume 36, 206 / the Lubavitcher Rebbe cites the Talmud Yerushlami that states this. In his elaboration, it is noted that this is the same as not interupting to drink between the third and the fourth cup of wine at the Pesach Seder: one must proceed directly from the purity that the Parah Adumah brings to the redemption of Pesach.

 

Avakesh comments: Interestingly, the insistence on not separating the third and fourth Sabbaths is unlike the Four Species, where the Ethrog that correspond to the Fourth Letter, is specifically separated (and then reunited) from the first three. Perhaps, the difference is in levels on which the Four-letered Name is expresed. Ethrog represents Malchus on the level of Zeir Anpin but also the lower seven sefiros and the five kindnesses, as explained in Likutei Ari in Emor. There the seventh must per force be separate since there are only six waving of the Four Species during Hallel and not seven. The four cups of wine on Pesach and the Four Sabbaths must be the expression of the Name on a different level of emanation, where such is not the case. See  Y.A. Barlev's Yadid Nefesh 332-338.

Elijah for our times by Chaim Gershon ;)

Prophet Elijah is a large figure in Jewish conscioussness and collective archetype. He will announce the coming of Moshiach. Eliyahu goes to every bris milah and visits each house on Pesach. Eliyahu visits people to learn with them and will resolve halachic uncertainties (Teiku).

See here, here and The Prophet Elijah in the Development of Judaism by A. Wiener.

 

Pinchas is Eliyahu.

 

But Eliahu is not only for the future. Rema MiFano in his Asarah Mamaros , Aim Kol Chai 3:23 states that Eliyahu Ha-Navi still sacrifices the sheep for the korban tamid every day even though the Temple does not stand. The sheep are funded from shekalim as usual from bins already funded in the past!

 

This last activity is commented on and explicated by a diverse set of sources:

The Lubavitcher Rebbe in Sefer HaSichos 11 Iyar 5749 (with R' Mordechai Eliyhau regarding Pesach,www.otzar770.com Hisvadus 5749 Volume 3, 131 footnote 44)

R' Moshe Wolfson Emunas Itecha - Shavuous p.76 and mp3 Shekalim Eng #2 Satmar sefarim: Yetev Lev (Emor), Yismach Moshe Pinchas 77b

Reb Tzadok cited in Pri Tzadik 2, Shekalim #2..and Oelbaum ..also in Hachodesh #3..M"Charutz #8 p.30a... cited from the sefer Gevul Binyamin which cites the Rema MiFano.

Chasam Sofer Drush and Agada Kisvei Yad - Ki Sissa p.91

and some gathered in Pardes Yosef as well as also many sefarim of the CHIDA.

 

One might propose that this Temple Avodah is not visible due to it being solely spiritual but the CHIDA in Petach Einyaim (on Menachos 110a and Chaggigah 12b) and the Mavaar Yabok 1:26  note that this contradicts an alternative opinion that Malach Michoel does this task. In the latter case, it is emphasized that Malach Michoel is doing his avodah in the heavenly Temple. Thus Eliyahu is at least doing his avodah in a different of the many possible worlds. Shulchan Aruch in the section dealing with the brocha "Retzay" in the Amidah states that it is not lambs but souls of tzadikkim that are elevated through the avodah of korbanos today. Chassidus focuses on the sacrifice of the animal soul. We all look forward to all of these simultaneously with the physical service in a rebuilt Temple in this lowest for worlds ASAP!

 

 

Supernatural or Scientific Stick ? by Dr. Chaim Gershon

 

Shemos Beshalach Chapter 15

25. So he cried out to the Lord, and the Lord instructed him concerning a piece of wood, which he cast in into the water, and the water became sweet. There He gave them a statute and an ordinance, and there He tested them.
There He gave them: In Marah, He gave them some sections of the Torah so that they would busy themselves with them, namely [they were given the laws governing] the Sabbath, the red cow, and laws of jurisprudence. — [from Mechilta and Sanh. 56b]

 

Science versus Torah is a misnomer and this week’s parasha Beshalach explains how.

 

There are various mefarshim that connect this piece of wood mystically to the Tree of Life, Etz HaChaim and Etz Hadas, first and foremost being Sefer Ha Bahir and many other sources such as Ishbitz (Beis Yaakov) and Chabad.

 

 

 

More modern explanations give scientific explanations that explain that a bitter substance added to bitter water does not sweeten it by causing a miracle but by producing a chemical reaction,the net result being is sweet water via ion exchange, taste modifiers etc. The most interesting is by Nobel Prize Chemist Ronald Hoffman in Old Wine, New Flasks, in a chapter devoted specifically to this.

 

See as well the following non-traditional explanations:

http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/old_website/ndwc/ndwc_dwh_1.html

 

http://www.articlesbase.com/online-education-articles/a-miracle-of-prophet-moses-or-a-chemistry-connection-661768.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=IM-yNiUXwO4C&pg=PA271&lpg=PA271&dq=bitter+water+marah+scientific&source=bl&ots=iEb_rJmx2u&sig=Wc10FRMrViM5_D0qcYO_59gipDk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fG4pT_75Ioba0QHKtum8Ag&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=bitter%20water%20marah%20scientific&f=false

 

http://www.borhatorah.org/editions/10/abstract-goldberger.htm ( this one is essentially Pseudoscience)

 

 

There has been attempts to reconcile these two approaches.

 

 

It occurred to me that Rashi in the next passuk is not referring to the two types of laws that the Jews were given at Marah, the supernatural chukim and logical mishpatim, see here and here,

but to the chok and mishpatim of the previous passuk. Perhaps it is saying that there are the two types of explanations of the piece of wood making the bitter waters sweet, the supernatural and the scientific! Thus “Science” is one of the facets of Torah!

After I made this connection, I figured someone must have said this idea before and I made a scientific/supernatural reach to the seforim shelf. Lo and behold, and the first perush I opened, Abarbanel gives a commentary consistent with my perush! Nachshoni points out that this approach  taking "chok umishpat" not as two separate entiies but a thing that is both a chok and mishpat at the same time was first used was first expressed by Rabbenu Bachaye who stated that the wood/herbs might have worked as either a chok or mishpat and Chasam Sofer uses the same approach.

 

Avakesh: I believe that this approach was also used by R. Yosef Engel who quoted Chazal that the mitzva of Kibud Abv V'Eim was given in Marah(Sanhedrin 56b. How did they know that? Because Kibbud Av V'Eim includes both rational aspects (mishpat) and super-rational aspects(chok). For example, there is the obligation of grattitude(hakaras hatov) while they are alive, which is rational, and of honoring parents after their death, which is super-rational (chok). The source of such usage is Bareishis 47:29, where Rashi explains, "Chessed V'Emes" as "Chessed shel emes", in other words, something which is at the same time, kindness and truth. Another example is in Bareishis 3:16, "Etsvoneich V'Haroneich". This is explained in Dikdukei Rashi by YitzhakAvineri, who calls it "Vav Hasmichus".