avakesh

Altz is Gott: Is this classic Rabbinic theology?

The conventional view of Rabbinic theology is that it accepts a distinction between the physical and spiritual world. The spiritual is above and the physial is below. Divine Presence rests on the Ark, which measures 10 tephachim high. Never had Glory (Shekhina) descended below and never had Moshe and Eliahu ascended to above, as it says” The heavens are heavens of the L-rd and earth he has given to the sons of men (Tehilim115) (Sukkah 5 and in the Mekhilta D.Rabbi Yishmoel, Yisro). Revelation is perceived as ocurring within the boundary between the physical below and the spiritual above. We find an example of this phenomona in this week’s parsha, Yisro.

…You have seen that from heavens I have spoken to you (Shemos 20,19) One verse states: “that from heaven” and another one says:”…and Hashem descended upon the mountain Sinai (Shemos 19,20)…” How shall both verses be reconciled? A third verse comes and mediates between them - from heaven He made you hear His voice to chastise you and His fire he made you see on the earth and His words you heard from within the fire (Devarim 4) - these are words of R. Yishmoel. R. Akiva says: “This teaches that the Holy One Blessed be He spread upper heavens on top of the mountain and spoke to them from heaven as it says “and He spread heavens and descended and darkness under his feet (Tehilim 18). Rebbi says: “and Hashem descended on Mount Sinai -top of mountain “and He called to Moshe” - to the top of the mountain “and Moshe went up” - you may think as it sounds, no, just like one who employs helpers can reach to places personally or through helpers, so much more the Glory of One who spoke and the world came into being (in other words, some messenger angel carried out Hashem’s commands and He Himself was not present at the top of the mountain)

Rebbi’s wording is somewhat obscure. I follow the explanation of Hagahos uBiurim.

Rabbi Yishmoel, as Rashi explains in his comments to this verse, understands that “His Glory is in heaven and his fire and power are on the earth”. In other words, what concerns R. Yishmoel is an obvious contradiction between G-d being described as located both on the top of the mountain at Revelation, in the physical realm,  and Him being heard from heaven, presumably far above the mountain. The solution is likewise straightforward - He was seen on the mountain but His voice emanated from heaven. R. Akiva, on the other hand, resolves the contradiction by positing the folding over of heaven on top of the mountain. The spiritual was stretched and folded on top of the physical.

Similarly in an earlier comment, “…and all the people see the voices (20,15)”. They see that which is visible and they hear that which is audible - words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: They see and hear that which is visible. There is nothing that comes from the Mouth of the Almighty and (was not) inscribed on the tablets, as it says “the voice of G-d inscribes flames of fire”(Tehilim 29). Thus, here too R. Yishmoel simply points out that they saw the fire which was at one place, on top of the mountain, and they heard the sound that came from another place, from the heaven. R. Akiva, on the other hand, suggests that they saw and heard that joining of the physical and heavenly that was at that moment taking place on the top of the mountain. In Rashi’s words - “they saw the audible, something not possible in another place”

We realize, however, that R. Akiva is also addressing a completely different issue when we compare his words with an anonymous Tanna quoted in parsha 4 of the Mekhilta (19,20).

‘’...and Hashem descended on the mount Sinai”. You may think that the Glory literally descended and that He spread it over the mountain - it says to teach us - “for from heaven”. That teaches us that the Holy One Blessed be He spread the lower heaven and higher heaven on the mountain and that the Glory descended and spread them (the heavens) on mount Sinai as a man folds a pillow at the head of a bed and as a man who speaks from the top of that pillow. So it says: as the melting fire, fire bubbles water(Ishaia 64) and it says (ibid) in your making things of wonder”.

The most outstanding difference in formulation between this Tanna and R. Akiva is that the former describes a process of folding upper and lower heaven while the latter mentions only the upper heaven. The issue, perhaps, is whether there exists an intemediate substance, what philosphers called, ether (hiyuli), that is made of such fine particles that it is in some ways almost spiritual.This substance is the Lower Heaven. The interaction of the Heavenly and Earthly is portrayed as the touching of two opposite - fire and water. Nevertheless, though the twain shall never meet, they come together and are united at the boundary: the bubbles of boiling water.

It seems to me that R. Akiva is not as much troubled by the contradiction between verses as he feels the need to address the philosophical and religious difficulty that they present. Every religion must present a compelling vision of how the spiritual or heavenly realms can interact with the physical and the earthly. It does not matter whether the physical is the top of a mountain or the lowest valley and it should not matter whether you conceive of the spiritual as the highest or lowest heavens; the twain should never be able to meet. Yet history and human experience demonstrate unequivocally that in some way the physical and the spiritual intertwine, or at the very least, touch each other.

There are two ways of describing this relationship. The first one sees the spiritual as a dimension above and beyond the physical. To explain this, imagine a world that is completely two dimensional, consisting of length and width and nothing else. Imagine also that it is populated by two dimensional intelligent beings, sort of cut-out paper characters that operate and move solely along a two-dimensional plane. How would these beings perceive a man walking about in their world?

Well, first of all they see him as a set of footprints, unaware of the vast dimensions above their two dimensional space. More importantly, what they do percieve, seems to randomly disappear and then miraculously reappear far from where it was originally sighted. This is because they are only aware of him when he steps on their plain; they are blind to the process of walking that occurs above and outside their dimension.

R. Akiva sees the spiritual as a dimension above our world. Sefer Yetsira (5,2), attributed by many sources to R. Akiva (Pardes1,1) expresses this view in these words:”…depth of beginning and depth of end (dimension of time), depth of good and depth of evil (moral), depth of above and depth of below (height,) depth of east and depth of west (width), depth of north and depth of south (length)…When the dimensions, for a moment, connect, we perceive them as miraculous events - and that is what took place at Sinai. For more on this see here.

Chazal speak of Shkhina as "resting" upon a prophet. Avos are the Merkavah (Genesis Rabba 47:6). Just like the Shekhina rides upon the Keruvim, so can the Holy Spirit rest and touch a human being. Once you admit of it entering a human being, however, you are in the realm of the idolatrous, of incorporation of the spirit within a body, of a human becoming divine. Pagans believed in Possession, a spirit dwelling within the body as an uneasy guest, and Incarnation, a spirit entering the body as it sole element of vitality.

Chazal would never accept these concepts. There is no commentator (with the sole exception of R. Bachaya, which deserves a separate discussion) that would even consider explaining that the three men who visited Avrohom were incarnated beings.

There is, however, another solution to the problem of physical and spiritual. It is possible to see the spiritual as present within the physical and the physical as enveloping and enclothing the spiritual, and this is key, in a continuous process. Take for example, a concept such as kindness. Now, kindness does not exist in a physical sense; it cannot be touched, measured or tasted. It is, therefore, a spiritual entity.

One cannot, however, grasp the concept of kindness without understanding the concept of free choice to be kind or otherwise; in this sense, the concept of kindness enclothes the concept of choice within it. The concept of free choice itself cannot be grasped without knowing the concept of good and evil, without which choice mean nothing. Good and evil themselves presuppose a system of moral authority or a Divine Being from Whom it stems. The concepts of a Divine Being is enclothed within the concept of moral choice etc.

Thus, an observable physical act of kindness enclothes the concept of kindness, which itself enclothes a concept of choice, within which dwells the understanding of good and evil and the concept of a Divine Being. (I set up an example to consist of 4 stages corresponding to the 4 Kabbalistic worlds, but, of course, the act of kindness also envelopes many other concepts of different levels of complexity, analogous to the Kabbalistic idea of Partsufim).

The anonymous Tanna resolves the difficulty of the spiritual physical connection that is resident in the concept of Revelation in the manner just described. The higher heaven are folded into the lower heaven, G-d speaks, as if from a pillow above the double covering. In other words, spiritual comes in a series of "levushim", or, we might say is enclothed in various garments, some just a membrane, like a pillowcase, others thick and obscure, like the pillow itself. In kabbala, there is a disagreement whether this is true only of the spiritual worlds or even of the physical world. In other words, some believe that there is no discontinuity between the spiritual and the physical, so that the physical is sumply the end product of emanation. Others, hold that it is ony true of the spiritual worlds and the physical world was created through a separate process, as Creation, not as emanation.

The impression one gets from Chazal is like the latter view. It would be desirable to find the former view in the words of Tannaim as well, so as to legitimize it before all. The way in which we explained the view of the Anonymous Tanna may serve that purpose.

There is a well known diagreement between R. Yosi and Chochomim in Shevuos 35b. whether the name Tsva(k)os, which means Hosts, is a Holy Name of G-d of merely means hosts and is not holy. R. Yosi says that the name Tsva(k)os is not holy and can be erased, whereas Chochomim says it is Holy and cannot be erased (and this is the halacha). The Rogatchover once explained that the disagreement is the same one as about whether Tsimtusm is Kephsuto or not. If Tsimtsum Kipshuto, G-d withdrew from the world and allowed a space for physical beings to exist in it. He interacts with them from outside this "space" and hosts that are within it are not holy. All the things, (hosts) within it are physical bodies and are not holy. If not kepshuto, He remains within the physical space just as before the withdrawal, physical adn piritual are identical in essence, though not in degree, and both the name Hashem and Tsva(k)os are equally Holy.

 ת"ר כתב אלף למד מאלהים יה מיי' ה"ז אינו נמחק שין דלת משדי אלף דלת מאדני צדי בית מצבאות ה"ז נמחק רבי יוסי אומר צבאות כולו נמחק שלא נקרא צבאות אלא על שם ישראל שנאמר (שמות ז) והוצאתי את צבאותי את עמי בני ישראל מארץ מצרים אמר שמואל אין הלכה כרבי יוסי

In other words, is it that there is a separate G-d and there is a multiplicity of mundane events and beings in our world, the former is Holy and the latter are not. Or, is it that Holiness pervades all worlds, including our own and all the physical beings within it.

The anonymous Tanna and R. Akiva may be disagreeing about the very same point.

 

 

Names and destiny

Names continue to fascinate me. Kabbalistically, a person's name is connected with his essence and the root of his soul. R. Yosef Karo writes in Magid Meisharim (Shemos) that a man named Abraham leans toward the side of kindness and one who is called Yosef is either a hero in sexual matters or feeds and supports others. While essentially Kabbalistic, it could be interpreted to refer to the subconscious effect of carrying a name and its meaning, which creates an expectations that will influence a person to express precisely the qualities associated with the name. It appears incontrovertible that one's name has a shaping and clarifying influence on the development of personality and on how others view him/her, and that it modifies a person's perception of who he or she is. There is scientific evidence to this concept.

Before the world was created, there was only He and His name alone (some versions say Hakadosh Baruch Hu, not He.., see Sefer Hoemunos 4:7. Another version in the printed version of PRDRE says, "His great name...). The Name is Essence!

This assumption that a name affects the person may be based on Brochos 7b.

How do we know that the name is causative (shapes and affects individuals and events)? R. Elazar said. The verse says " come see works of Hashem, that he put destruction (shamus) in the land. Do not read Shamos but sheimos (names).[

There are other sources as well. In Yoma 83b we are treated to a story of how R. Meir was able to prevent financial loss by paying attention to a name of an innkeeper who turned out to be a wicked swindler. Similarly we read in Sotah 9b, "If her name was not Delila she should have been called that, since she weakened his strength and his vigor". Similarly in Sotah 34b we are told that all of the spies were named according to their deeds. I

In Tanach names are certainly reflective of their bearers. For example, Esav has a name indicating his physical appearance (Genesis 25:) and is also called Edom (red), alluding to his violent tendencies, that he sheds blood. Moses's name reflected how the daughter of Pharaoh drew him from the Nile (Exodus 2:10). Noah's birth was accompanied by the aspiration that the newborn would provide comfort "from our work and from the toil of our hands, because of the ground which God cursed" (Genesis 5:29). And he called his name Noach, meaning to say, "This one will give us comfort (e-noach-meinu) (Genesis 5, 29)". Here the name reflects the man's essence. Another example: "The name of one was Peleg, for in his days, the entire world became divided (ni-peleg-a) (Geneis 10,25)". There are countless such  examples.

That a name may indicate something about its owner also goes back to Tanach. "Naval is his name and navala he does (Samuel 1, 25,25). "It is for this that they called him Yakov and he outwitted me these two times (Genesis 27,36).

Not only this - we all have different names.

You find that a person is called by three names: one by which that his father and mother call him, one that people call him and one that he acquires himself. The best one is the one that he acquires himself (Tanchuma VaYakhel, 1).

As is known, Ashkenazim have the custom of not naming their children after living relatives. This is based on Sefer Chassidim 460 who says that it is discourage because it indicates an anticipation that that person will soon die, as explained by Noheg K'Tson Yosef, Yoledes 5.. Of interest, the issue of Gilgul(transmigration) is not cited exlicitly by Sefer Chassidim. An obvious explanation of why we should wait until a relative departs is to give his or her soul an opportunity to partially transmigrate into the newborn baby. To name a child by a parent's name while he is still alive is akin to the sin of Onan, wo did not want to give "seed" to his brother. Abarbanel (unlike Ari who held that souls transmigrate into animals and even stones and trees) on Yibum in Ki Teitse makes the point that giglul is the more appropriate the greater the degree of similarity between the source and the destination and that is why Torah commanded that a brother should marry his passed brother's wife and produce progeny. See a discussion here.

In the recent edition of Kolmos from Mishpacha(Chanukkah 5771, #15), R. Binyamin Jacobson answers a question from Kallah Rabbasi 3, where it says that 80.000 boys named Aharon were present at Aharon's funeral. Does this not sypport the view of teh Sephardim that one names children after LIVING relatives?

His answer is noteworthy. He brings Bareishis Rabba 37,7: "The ancestors, since they knew their genealogies, would derive names from events. We, who are not certain of our genealogies, derive names from our forefathers. Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel said: The ancestors who used the power of Divine Inspiration drew names out of (future) events; we who do not have access to Divine Inspiration, draw names from our forefathers (Genesis Rabbah 37,7)."

SInce Aharon's contemporaries named their children after events, they named them Aharon after the setting up of the Mishkon. Therefore, it does not apply to our practice at all.

This is an ingenious answer but it doesn't explain everything. There are many examples of Talmuidc Sages who were named after their fathers when they were still alive (see R. Reuven Margolios extensive note in his edition of Sefer Chassidim 460) and this still requires an explanation.

 

Panim Chadashos: an explanation of an obscure halacha.

The light of a man's face during the day during the week is not the same as it is on Shabbos (Gen.Rabbah 11:2)

On Shabbos the face of every person is transformed. The gemara in Ketubot 7b says that Rabi Yehuda rules that sheva berachot are recited for all seven days so long as "panim chadashot," literally "new faces," have come to celebrate. If there are no panim chadashot, the law is that only the last of the sheva berachot ("asher bara") is recited.Tosafot note that Shabbat and holidays are also referred to as panim chadashot, based on a Midrash where Hashem refers to Shabbat as such (the logical extension to holidays is made by the various commentators).This is why on Shabbos each person has a "A New Face (Panim Chadashos) ", and can be counted for a minyan for Sheva Brochos, even he already attended a previous sheva brochos (Sefas Emes).

"The face of a person shows his internal situation (matsav ruach), if it is setteld or he is upset ( Klach 32)". In Daas Tevunos 2:9 , Ramchal farther explains that the face is called Panim while the inner world of a person is called pnim. This is because the face reflects what is deeper and inside. "After all, we can clearly determine if a person is alive or dead by the pallor of his face, or whether he’s ill or well by the hue and tone of his face, and we could even be said to “read” a person’s thoughts on his face thanks to its affect, color, and configuration. For, the very physical human face is capable of reflecting the soul to the eye that’s sensitive enough to read it."

Thus, on Shabbos the inner state of a person is different, whch in turns is reflected in his countenance. In what way is it different?

As is well known, the soul of a person is elevated on Shabbos. With Borechu in the Friday night, he receives the “Ru’ah” portion of the extra soul with which we are endowed on Shabbat. The “Neshama” aspect of the extra soul descends upon a person later during Maariv, during the recitation of “U’fros Alenu Sukat Shelomecha.”

So what we have is that on Shabbos the inner state of person changes, which changes his face as well. In this sense, we can speak of Panim Chadashos on Shabbos and explain the halacha of Panim Chadashos on Shabbos.

 

 

 

Rachel and Leah

Rachel and Leah are the two mothers who together built the Hose of Israel. Yet they are different - in personality, spiritual characteristics, and effect on the generations to come.

A deeper perspective on Rachel and Leah needs to take into account and explain one Kabbalistic fact. Surprisingly, in Kabbalah, Leah is higher and superior to Rachel. The partzuf of Zeir Anpin is composed of a higher part, Isroel Sabba and below it Yacov. Wrapped around them is Leah above and Rachel below. Leah is generally facing Isroel Sabbah's back whereas Rachel is sometimes front to back and sometimes front to front  to Yakov (see Shaar Hakkavonos, Krias Shema). Without getting sidetracked by these intricate ideas, one thing is clear - Leah is higher than Rachel. That is not the perception we get from the Chumash, where Rachel seems to be more valued than Leah. Ruth Rabbah 7:13 points out that even descendents of Leah, Boaz and men of Bethlehem mention Rachel before Leah.

Michtav M'Eliahu suggests that Yakov and Isroel represents Jacob as he functioned in the lower and higher realities respectively."Also Rachel and Leah correspond to two particulars in Divine Service.. Rachel. "the beautiful of form and beautiful of visage" (in the words of the Zohar - the revealed reality) is the revelation of God's Glory in this lower world. Leah stands aside (the eyes of Leah are weak - the world of the hidden) - her portion is what is revealed in the sense of the higher world, the hidden one (2:218)". The Artscroll Chumash adds derives from this an appealing idea. When Yakov saw Rachel, he immediately knew that she was his partner in this world. The same was not the case with Leah. She was his partner in spirit but at that stage of his growth, he did not yet see it. He would only see it later in his life. Rachel was she whom he needed at the time, but Leah was his destiny for eternity. It is she who produced Yehudah and Royalty and Levi and the Priesthood.

So often we see only with eyes of the flesh. Rachel was right for him as he was, Leah was destined for him as he was going to be. So often we rail and complain against Divine injustice in not giving us something that we want, forgetting that God, in His kindness, may be instead giving us what we need.

It's a great segula for Sholom Bayis to remember that the wife that Hashem may have given you may not be the one that you wanted but she is the one that is good for you. A Jewish wife is not a wife who will make you feel great and cater to your every whim and behind your back does G-d knows what. A Jewish wife is supposed to challenge you. She will challenge you, stretch you, shine light on your deficiencies, make you GROW!

I often think of R. Yisroel Salanter. Here is a man who by all contemporary standards was a failure. His career as a Rosh Yeshiva ended with having to go into exile. He spent most of his life in Western Europe, and making very little difference. It is almost an afterthought, a few students who he taught his Mussar doctrine, who created in his name a revolution in the Jewish world. Sometimes it is the insignificant actions that we completely overlook and do not value that may earn us Eternity.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe (quoted in the Gutnick Chumash) had a different approach. He saw Rachel as representing tsaddikim gemurim, hence her beauty of appearance and stature. Leah, on the other hand, represents Baalei Teshuva. That is why she cried a lot. It is for this reason that, as Rashi points out, everyone thought that she was an appropriate wife for Eisav. Like Eisav, Lea went out, a trait that "came out" in her daughter Dinah. That is a trait of Baalei Teshuva who actively seek to cause others to become Baalei Teshuvah. Underlying this approach maybe is the Kabbalistic tradition that Leah is higher than Rachel and the statement (Brochos 34) that in the place in which Baalei Teshuvah stand, tsaddikim gemurim cannot stand.

A deeper perspective on Rachel and Leah needs to take into account and explain one Kabbalistic fact. Surprisingly, in Kabbalah, Leah is higher and superior to Rachel. The partzuf of Zeir Anpin is composed of a higher part, Isroel Sabba and below it Yacov. Wrapped around them is Leah above and Rachel below. Leah is generally facing Isroel Sabbah's back whereas Rachel is sometimes front to back and sometimes front to front  to Yakov (see Shaar Hakkavonos, Krias Shema). Without getting sidetracked by these intricate ideas, one thing is clear - Leah is higher than Rachel. That is not the perception we get from the Chumash, where Rachel seems to be more valued than Leah. Ruth Rabbah 7:13 points out that even descendents of Leah, Boaz and men of Bethlehem mention Rachel before Leah.

Michtav M'Eliahu suggests that Yakov and Isroel represents Jacob as he functioned in the lower and higher realities respectively."Also Rachel and Leah correspond to two particulars in Divine Service.. Rachel. "the beautiful of form and beautiful of visage" (in the words of the Zohar - the revealed reality) is the revelation of God's Glory in this lower world. Leah stands aside (the eyes of Leah are weak - the world of the hidden) - her portion is what is revealed in the sense of the higher world, the hidden one (2:218)". The Artscroll Chumash adds derives from this an appealing idea. When Yakov saw Rachel, he immediately knew that she was his partner in this world. The same was not the case with Leah. She was his partner in spirit but at that stage of his growth, he did not yet see it. He would only see it later in his life. Rachel was she whom he needed at the time, but Leah was his destiny for eternity. It is she who produced Yehudah and Royalty and Levi and the Priesthood.

So often we see only with eyes of the flesh. Rachel was right for him as he was, Leah was destined for him as he was going to be. So often we rail and complain against Divine injustice in not giving us something that we want, forgetting that God, in His kindness, may be instead giving us what we need.

It's a great segula for Sholom Bayis to remember that the wife that Hashem may have given you may not be the one that you wanted but she is the one that is good for you. A Jewish wife is not a wife who will make you feel great and cater to your every whim and behind your back does G-d knows what. A Jewish wife is supposed to challenge you. She will challenge you, stretch you, shine light on your deficiencies, make you GROW!

I often think of R. Yisroel Salanter. Here is a man who by all contemporary standards was a failure. His career as a Rosh Yeshiva ended with having to go into exile. He spent most of his life in Western Europe, and making very little difference. It is almost an afterthought, a few students who he taught his Mussar doctrine, who created in his name a revolution in the Jewish world. Sometimes it is the insignificant actions that we completely overlook and do not value that may earn us Eternity.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe (quoted in the Gutnick Chumash) had a different approach. He saw Rachel as representing tsaddikim gemurim, hence her beauty of appearance and stature. Leah, on the other hand, represents Baalei Teshuva. That is why she cried a lot. It is for this reason that, as Rashi points out, everyone thought that she was an appropriate wife for Eisav. Like Eisav, Lea went out, a trait that "came out" in her daughter Dinah. That is a trait of Baalei Teshuva who actively seek to cause others to become Baalei Teshuvah. Underlying this approach maybe is the Kabbalistic tradition that Leah is higher than Rachel and the statement (Brochos 34) that in the place in which Baalei Teshuvah stand, tsaddikim gemurim cannot stand.

A deeper perspective on Rachel and Leah needs to take into account and explain one Kabbalistic fact. Surprisingly, in Kabbalah, Leah is higher and superior to Rachel. The partzuf of Zeir Anpin is composed of a higher part, Isroel Sabba and below it Yacov. Wrapped around them is Leah above and Rachel below. Leah is generally facing Isroel Sabbah's back whereas Rachel is sometimes front to back and sometimes front to front  to Yakov (see Shaar Hakkavonos, Krias Shema). Without getting sidetracked by these intricate ideas, one thing is clear - Leah is higher than Rachel. That is not the perception we get from the Chumash, where Rachel seems to be more valued than Leah. Ruth Rabbah 7:13 points out that even descendents of Leah, Boaz and men of Bethlehem mention Rachel before Leah.

Michtav M'Eliahu suggests that Yakov and Isroel represents Jacob as he functioned in the lower and higher realities respectively."Also Rachel and Leah correspond to two particulars in Divine Service.. Rachel. "the beautiful of form and beautiful of visage" (in the words of the Zohar - the revealed reality) is the revelation of God's Glory in this lower world. Leah stands aside (the eyes of Leah are weak - the world of the hidden) - her portion is what is revealed in the sense of the higher world, the hidden one (2:218)". The Artscroll Chumash adds derives from this an appealing idea. When Yakov saw Rachel, he immediately knew that she was his partner in this world. The same was not the case with Leah. She was his partner in spirit but at that stage of his growth, he did not yet see it. He would only see it later in his life. Rachel was she whom he needed at the time, but Leah was his destiny for eternity. It is she who produced Yehudah and Royalty and Levi and the Priesthood.

So often we see only with eyes of the flesh. Rachel was right for him as he was, Leah was destined for him as he was going to be. So often we rail and complain against Divine injustice in not giving us something that we want, forgetting that God, in His kindness, may be instead giving us what we need.

It's a great segula for Sholom Bayis to remember that the wife that Hashem may have given you may not be the one that you wanted but she is the one that is good for you. A Jewish wife is not a wife who will make you feel great and cater to your every whim and behind your back does G-d knows what. A Jewish wife is supposed to challenge you. She will challenge you, stretch you, shine light on your deficiencies, make you GROW!

I often think of R. Yisroel Salanter. Here is a man who by all contemporary standards was a failure. His career as a Rosh Yeshiva ended with having to go into exile. He spent most of his life in Western Europe, and making very little difference. It is almost an afterthought, a few students who he taught his Mussar doctrine, who created in his name a revolution in the Jewish world. Sometimes it is the insignificant actions that we completely overlook and do not value that may earn us Eternity.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe (quoted in the Gutnick Chumash) had a different approach. He saw Rachel as representing tsaddikim gemurim, hence her beauty of appearance and stature. Leah, on the other hand, represents Baalei Teshuva. That is why she cried a lot. It is for this reason that, as Rashi points out, everyone thought that she was an appropriate wife for Eisav. Like Eisav, Lea went out, a trait that "came out" in her daughter Dinah. That is a trait of Baalei Teshuva who actively seek to cause others to become Baalei Teshuvah. Underlying this approach maybe is the Kabbalistic tradition that Leah is higher than Rachel and the statement (Brochos 34) that in the place in which Baalei Teshuvah stand, tsaddikim gemurim cannot stand.

Overheard: Bilaam, the Son of a Beast

At a Bar Mitsvah:

Baal Bayis: You, know, I never understood that story about Bilaam and the donkey. If I was riding a donkey and it suddenly spoke to me, I would have ran away and ran and ran...

Talmid Chacham: But BIlaam was very close to his donkey. Chazal say (Sanhedrin 105a) that he related it as a husband to wife at night.

Baal Bayis: What does that mean? Such a prophet and doing this?!

Talmid Chacham: What Chazal mean is something deeper?

Baal Bayis: Nu...

Talmid Chacham: It says in Shemos 22:18 that. "Yo shall not allow a wich to live". The next possuk is: "All who lie with an animal shall be put to death".

Baal Bayis, taking the cue: So what's the connection?

Talmid Chacham: Recanati in his commentary on this verse brings several Zohars, including one that speaks about Bilaam and implies that the connection is that a sorcerer brings his "bris" into the world of impurity in order to perform sorcery. Recanati goes on to say: "and understand this very well" and does not fully explain.

Baal Byis: So what's the pshat?

Talmid Chacham: I heard it explained that humans live on an intermediate plane of being; above them is the angelic sphere and below them is the world of animals and spirits. One can "shortcircuit" the intermediate plain by either rising above it and acting within it so that there are effects upon the world of humans below, or one can accomplish the same results by going under the human plane and working within it. Animals do not affect the world of humans because they do not have intelligence. But a human being with intelligence can descend into this lower world and cause effects there that will cause changes within the human world.

Baal Bayis: So you are saying that this is what Chazal mean when they say that Bilaam was intimate with his donkey. They are saying that he used the most spiritual implement that a man has, his sexuality, to descend to and become a part of the animal world, to couple with a donkey and to become a great sorcerer.

Talmid Chacham: Exactly. There is a hint to this in the Torah itself. Bilaam is introduced to us as "Ben Baor", which in Hebrew means,"the son of a "beheima"

Related: Animal Men

Throwing apples in Belz in Shabbos Shira

We have previously written about the significance of apples. Here is apple throwing in Belz

and here in Klausenberg.

Walking on Water by Chaim Gershon

Hashem split the Red Sea before Bnei Yisroel. Several commentators [1] ask, "Why did Hashem make a miracle when the same results could have been accomplished in a more natural and less miraculous fashion. HaShem normally does not break the laws of nature that He established. It would have been more appropriate for them to walk on water which is more "natural" in the sense that water bugs do it! Or, why didn't they just take boats, although it might have taken more than a few trips !

The mystical answer is that the dry land and the sea are models for two different types of worlds: revealed and hidden. There is the part that people see and and the portion that is below the surface. The sea was split so that Bnei Yisroel access and connect with the part of the soul that is submerged and cannot be observed from the sea-banks. By walking in the sea bed which was rendered dry and not even muddy, the people were able to bridge between the diametric opposites, the visible world above and the hidden reality below. This experience was an emunah building experience that they would take with them to living in the world.

According to most opinions, when the Jewish people left Egypt and crossed the Yam Suf, they exited on the same side that they entered. What good did that do? a similar question has been asked about Yachatz, splitting the middle matzah during Seder [2] . Both halves are eaten during the Seder so why split them! Both processes, walking across the to these ame shore and Yachatz have been explained as examples of  Nesirah. It also explains why the Sages said that getting married and maintaining parnasa are as difficult as splitting the Yam Suf (Sotah 2a / Pesachim 118a). Two halves that are joined are something altogether different than the whole out of which they were taken.

Another example: A soul descends from heaven to this world and eventually it re-ascends without the body: What did the soul gain: it was pure before it came down and pure after it returned? Here too, the result, though it recreates the beginning, is an altogether different outcome. Likutei Levi Yitzchak writes that Lechem Oni is the revealed Torah and the hidden piece of Afikomen is Toras HaNistar. They both come from the same piece of Matzah but once they were separated and put together in the Seder, it is only then that they become truly whole! The splitting apart of the Matzah during Seder and then putting it together creates something new. To have them both in this manner at the seder to become a whole!

We enact the creation of the world where masculine and feminine were originally an organic whole that was then split in order for them to reach a greater unity through their own efforts. 

Avakesh elaborates: This touches on some of the most profound and difficult questions about Creation. Why was it necessary to create something that will eventually be repaired and made as it was in the beginning? Why did not G-d make it whole from the beginning? The topic is discussed extensively by Ramachal in the first 10 chapters of KL'CH Pische Chochma. Suffices to say, to an extent that any answer to this basic question can be expressed in words alone, the product of what was repaired and made whole is not the same as this product before it was broken. What is the difference? The history! The process of repair demonstrates something. To Ramachal it demonstrated Hashem's Goodness. R. Chaim suggests here based on his sources that in a more specific manner, the breaking of the Matza as well as the other examples he mentioned, demonstrate one aspect of this process, what is known as nesirah and the separation of and subsequent fusion of masculine and feminine in the process of emanation.

 

[1] Menachem Tziyon (Menachem Mendel of Rimanov), Rebbe Maharash of Lubavitch 5638B, several sources brought in Tikkun Leil Shivi shel Pesach.

[2] Sefer Bris Kehunas Olam

Name of G-d; name of Yakov's sons; the name of each one of us

יג  יְהַלְלוּ, אֶת-שֵׁם יְהוָה--    כִּי-נִשְׂגָּב שְׁמוֹ לְבַדּוֹ: .

13 Let them praise the name of the LORD, for His name alone is exalted...(Tehillim 148).

The following is an explanation of a Rashi.. but really much more than that.

We start with the first Rashi on Shemos.

These are the names of the B'nei Yisrael.

Though [Scripture] has previously enumerated them during their lifetime by their names, it again enumerates them by their names at their deaths. [This is] to show how dear they are [to G-d], because they are compared to the stars which He brings out and brings in by number and by their [individual] names; as it is said: "Who brings out their host by number, and calls each by its name."

What is exactly about names that shows endearment?

It may be that repetition of the name itself shows endearment, as the verse clearly states, "Is Ephraim my dear son, is he a darling child? for as often as I speak against him, I do mention and mention him: therefore my heart yearneth for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, says Hashem( Yirmiah 31:20)". On the other hand, a person who does not like another, attempts to avoid his name by the use of euphemisms, such as when Shaul avoids using David's actual name, thus betraying Saul's anger: "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?'"^{[(Sam.I:20:30).}

Lehavdil, we know of this from Western Literature as well. A person who loves another loves repeating his or her name (for example, Romeo, Romeo in Romeo And Juliet Act 2, scene 2, 33–49 or Maria, Maria in West Side Story).

Rashi also  says in Bareishis 46:2 that a repetition of a name shows endearment,  "the repetition of Yakov, Yakov is a term of affection". This is based on a number of midrashic passage, for example, Bareishis Rabba 56:9. In Shemos Rabbah , end of chapter 2, Eitz Yosef explains: "..the repetition of a name is a language of edearment; because he likes  this person, he brings his name twice to his lips". This explanations assumes that repeating the names of the tribes is a form of endearment because Hashem, who had already counted them at the end of Genesis, now counts them again, and this is the same as repeating a name twice.

However this explanation has difficulties. First, in other passages, it is the use of the name itself that indicates endearment and not its repetition. For example, Rashi in the beginning of Bamidbar sees endearment in the fact that the Children of Israel were counted and does not mention "names". Second, repeating the name twice in the same sentence is quite different than using it twice diachronically.

This is what Rashi says in Bamidbar:

Because they (the Israelites) are precious before Him (Hashem), He counts them all the time; when they went out of Egypt He counted them [Shemos, 12:37], and when they fell because of [the sin of] the golden calf He counted them to know the number of those who remained, when He came to cause His Presence to rest upon them He counted them. On the first day of Nisan the Mishkon was set up, and on the first day of Iyar He counted them(1).

______________________________________________________________________

(1) Although I am assuming that Rashi to Shemos 1 uses the words "by their name", the version of that Rashi in the Ramban ( and a number of the mansucripts) does not have the words "by their names". On the other hand, Mizrachi strongly defends the version with the words "by   their name" in it. In Tanchuma, the "names" are not mentioned either: "..just as stars are brought out by name, so whent they come in, they come in with a counting". The counting itself is the sign of endearment, not the names. It is interesting that Rashi starts his commentary to each of the five books of the Chumash with some praise of Israel. In Genesis it is that the Land of Israel was given to the Jews and that Israel is called "Chosen of his produce (reishis tvuoso)", in Vayikra that Moshe was shown endearment, in Devarim the term is "Honor of Israel". It may this fact that led to Lubavitcher's Rebbe's question about why is that Hashem chose to express endearment through "names" rather through other means, such as giving a gift.

____________________________________________________________________

To understand what "name" signifies, we will take a detour into kabbalistic sources and come back by the way of philosophic inquiry.

There exists a difficult and influential passage in Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer(PRDRE). It states(Ch.3):

Before the world was created, there was only He and His name alone (some versions say Hakadosh Baruch Hu, not He.., see Sefer Hoemunos 4:7. Another version in the printed version of PRDRE says, "His great name...).

 At first glance, this is very philosophically problematic, for if His name eternally existed before the world was created, His name possesses some of G-d's divine nature, at least its eternity, and this seems to violate the core Jewish principle that here is only one G-d.

 It is the same problem that is presented by the Problem of Divine Attributes, but sharper. Rambam in the Guide (I;50-60) describes this problem very well. If we say that G-d is merciful, and since any change in G-d is impossilbe, he being always perfect, Mercy is an attribute of G-d that is eternally coexistent with him, and if so, you have multiple divinities and not One G-d.  If He is one in the sense of being simple, how can a multiplicity of attributes be ascribed to Him? One answer was offered (by thinkers such as R. Saadiah Gaon)  via a distinction between attributes that are essential and those which are accidental. Essential attributes are those that are closely connected with the essence, such as existence or life; accidental attributes are those that are independent of the essence and that may be changed without affecting the essence, such as anger or mercifulness. Medieval logicians generally agreed that accidental attributes introduce a multiplicity into that which they describe, while they disagreed concerning essential attributes. Some, such as Maimonides' contemporary Averroes, held that essential attributes are implicitly contained in the essence and, hence, do not introduce multiplicity; others held that they provide new information and, hence, produce multiplicity. Avicenna was an exponent of the latter view, holding that essential attributes, particularly existence, are superadded to the essence. Aquinas held that we can speak of G-d's attributes as long as we remeber that they are essentially distinct form attributes taht we know, especially in their property of not being separate from G-d's oneness. Rambam accepted Avicenna's position on this point. He came to the conclusion that accidental attributes applied to God must be interpreted as attributes of action, that is, if it is said that God is merciful, it means that God acts mercifully; and essential attributes must be interpreted as negations (or more precisely, negations of privations), that is, if God is said to be existing, it means that he is not nonexistent.

Rambam himself says in 1:61 that what R. Eliezer in PRDRE means is that Hashem was unique before as after Creation, name being another word for uniqueness.

A number of early Kabbalists had a tradition that the first sefira of Kesser is what Pirke D/Rabbi Eliezer meant whan it said that G-d's Name existed before the Creation. This is also found in the end of Tikkunei Zohar (10), "He and His name were one in kesser before the world was created" (see Radal's commentary for the many early kabbalists who expressed this view). This view is ascribed to Raavad by Sefer Hoemunos quoted in Pardes, Gate 3, a chapter devoted entirely to the question of whether Kesser is a part of Ein Sof or not. There, a full paragraph stating this view is quoted from Sefer Hoemunos Shaar 4, chapter 1, which I do not find in this location in our printed editions. Pardes himself strongly negates this view.

Nefesh Hachaim(4:2, in a note) explains that when Pirke DR'Eliezer says, "before the world was created", it is talking solely about the World of Beriah (Creation). This takes the sting and the novelty out of this statement because it is now speaking about the middle of the process of Creation and not its beginning and the "Name" is also now a created entity and not co-eternal with G-d. This is a very reasonable approach, considering that PDRE goes on to speak about seven things (Torah, Gehenna, Garden of Eden, Divine Throne, Temple, Repentance and the Name of Maschiach) that were created before the world was created.

A very astute and interesting approach is offered by the Rebbe Rashab in Hemshech Reish Samech Vav, Vayelech Hashem, p.165.He points out that Kesser is also called Ain, or Nothing. There are many reasons why it is called so, which he does not explain. A common explanation which is often offered is that it is called Ain because to us it is ungraspable, therefore as far as we are concerned it can be said that it does not exist. We can understand or say nothing about it; R. Arye Kaplan explained(Commentary to Sefer Yetzirah) that this is why the color of Kesser is black (see Pardes Shaar Hagavvanim), for when we try to understand Kesser we see only blacknes, an utter absence of light. Its brightness is so great that we cannot see it at all.

The transition from Kesser to the next adjacent sefira, Chochma, is called 'yesh miayin", or, "something from nothing". So when PRDE speaks of the Name, that is Kesser, existing before the world is created, it means only that stage in the Creation of the World that we call, "something from nothing", the point of transition from Kesser to Chochma. This is also what those who hold that Kesser is a part of the Ain Sof mean. Ain Sof is "no end". If it referred the the Essence of G-d, it whould have called G-d, "No beginning", or perhaps, "No end, no Beginning", but it does not. It does not because by Ain Sof it refers to Kesser which we cannot understand and which to us has no end ( or as Sefer Hoemunos says somewhere, we can speak about it endlessly), but in the process of Creation it does have a beginning. This is why it is called Ain Sof rather than "Ain techillah".

Ari himself in Eitz Chaim Shaar 42 takes a compromise position that Kesser is in an intermediary position between Ain Sof and other sefiros,  containing properties of both infinity and finititude, but this is not our topic here.

We are now equipped to understand why mentioning the names of the sons of Yakov who are coming into Egypt is a term of endearment. There is nothing closer to the very being a person than his or her name. The name of each person is unique and essential. In Hebrew, unlike in Spanish and some other tongues ("The Donald" in English, nothwdstanding) one cannot apply "the" participle to a name. One cannot say, "the Moshe", because this Moshe is by definition different than any other Moshe in the world. Your name is so central to who you are that only G-d truly knows it. This is why there is nothing more precious than calling a person by his or her name, and this is why Hashem calling the sons of Yakov, each one by his name, is the most precious form of expressing love and endearment.

I plan to post more on how our names shape us.

Gentile souls

 “All of Israel have a portion in the World-to-Come[1]. "

When we consider the implications of this saying for non-Jews, three possibilities emerge:

1.All of Israel…but none of Gentiles.

2.All of Isreal, even the wicked… but among the Gentile is not so – only the righteous among Gentiles have the option in the World-to-Come.

3.All of Israel have it… even the wicked… but among the Gentiles all who are not wicked, even if they are not righteous but merely regular people, have a portion in the World-to-Come.

The possibility 3 is strengthened by the fact that the Mishna goes on to cite Bilaam, a Gentile, as one of four commoners who do not have a portion in the World-to-Come. The implication is that if he had not been so exceptionally wicked, he would not have lost it. Rambam in his commentary to this mishna brings out this implication[2].“ It mentions Bilaam who was not of Israel because chassidei umot haolam (the good of the nations) do have a portion in the Wolrd-to-Come, but Bilaam is of the wicked of the nations and he does not have a portion in the World-to-Come”. It appears clear that Rambam implies that it is Bilaam’s exceeding wickedness that led him to lose his portion of immortality[3], but other Gentiles, even of average moral stature, would be able to receive a portion in it.

One must ask, however, why wicked Jews should be treated differently than wicked non-Jews. Commentators offer different explanations. Tiferes Israel ad loc implies that Jews possess a soul that is a spark of the Divine and can only be tainted but not damaged by sin. Even wicked Jews possess a soul that survives common sins but even it can be overcome by exceptional sins. The wicked of the nations have a soul that is more easily degraded by transgression and  lose the ability to be a part of the ability to be a part of the World-to-Come. Although he does not state so explicitly, his position appears to be similar to that of Tanya and Zohar who state that at least neshama of a Jew is different in some fashion than that of a Gentile[4].  Similarly Maharal[4], describes  that Jews possess a soul that is more separate (nivdal) from the body than that of gentiles, and hence less susceptible to its influence.

Meiri[5], on the other hand, raises the issue of holding correct belief in earning immortality. He writes that every Jew, even the most wicked, shares and minimally accepts basic beliefs of Judaism. As such, he automatically has a portion in the World –to-Come, something that is not true of wicked Gentiles[6].It is evident that the national perspective, the mere fact of belonging the Jewish people underlies the position that all of Israel has a portion in the World-to-Come. It may be that it operates only for the wicked of Israel, but it operates nevertheless. Although election of Israel is never adduced to support this notion, other forms of belonging to the nation of Israel play an important part.  Jews all share the basic dogmas of Judaism but only some exceptional Gentiles do so.

We can conclude that both the righteous and “average” Jews and Gentiles earn immortality based on their deeds, or are “entitled” to some basic portion in the World-to-Come. The wicked Jews deserve a minimal portion through their belonging to Israel but the truly wicked of the nations have no such right.

 This fact arises from the proof verses that Talmud discusses on 105A.

All of Israel have a protion in the World-to-Come, as it says, “and you nation are all righteous, forever they will inherit the Earth, the sprouting of planting of My hands, to glorify Me (Isaiah 5)”.

“This statement follows the view of R. Yehoshua, as we learned: “R. Eliezer says: “The wicked will return to Sheol, all nations, who forgot God (Psalms 5). The wicked will return to Sheol” – these are the sinners of Israel. “All the nations, who forgot of God – these are the nations of the World”

R. Eliezer derives from Psalms 5 that all nations of the world, not only he wicked,  are destined for Sheol[7]. Talmud posits that he cannot be the author of the statement in the Mishna that only very wicked Gentiles, on the order of Bilaam, are destined to perdition[8].

Who is the author of that teaching. R. Yehoshus! R. Yeshoshua said to him:  Had it stated, “and all nations who forgot God” (I would agree with you”. But it states, “nations[9] who forgot G-d, “ – only those nations who forgot God.

R. Yehoshua expresses the view of the anonymous Mishna at the beginning of chapter Chelek that only those individual non-Jews who “forget God”, meaning those who are as wicked as Bilaam, lose a portion in the world to Come[10]. This is the normative view in Judaism[11].

Interestingly, among several etymologies that the Talmud offers on 105a the name Bilaam, is one that reads his name as, “b’lo am – without a nation”, which can be understood that Jew nor Jew nor Gentile, neither included in the nation of Israel so he could take advantage of the principle, “All of Israel have a portion in the World-to-Come”, nor is he automatically barred from such a portion by being of the nations “who forgot God”. The Talmud proceeds to relate that Bilaam slept with his female ass, underscoring his utter personal wickedness[12]. It is this utter wickedness that bars him from the World-to-Come. Here we have a different stand of thought than the one we had seen before. Whereas the Mishna speaks of the national “right” to the World-to-Come, this anonymous talmudic passage suggests that immortality depends solely on one’s deeds and implies no difference between the souls of Jews and Gentiles. It is this latter strand of thought that is expressed by Kuzari.

---

[1] As is well known, Rambam and Ramban have very different understandings of what this term means, the life of souls after the death of an individual or bodily Resurrection. Because of the complexity of this topic, although it impacts upon out topic in several ways, I will not discuss it farther. There are many works that discuss this disagreement, among them, Neil Gilman’s, The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought, Jewish Lights Publishing; 1ST edition (May 1997) and Simcha Paull Raphael, Jewish Views of the Afterlife, Jason Aronson (April 28, 1994). I would just point out that if the World to Come means bodily Resurrection, non-Jews are certainly a part of that time.

While Tanach does not generally discuss life after death, for Jews or for Gentiles,  Rabbinic tradition teaches that a number of verses explicitly refer to the survival of the individual after death. Of relevance to our topic, there are many verses that indicate that the Messiah will usher in a time of universal recognition of One G-d, in which non-Jews will also share. Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9) and Moshiach will attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10) . Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8) and the nations will recognize the wrongs they did Israel (Isaiah 52:13–53:5). The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah8:23) and the entire world will learn to serve God together (Zephaniah 3:9). There are many other verses, among them in Jeremiah 12, that suggest that the nations  of the world will both exist and have a place in the post-messianic world order.

---

[1] For a discussion, see Simcha Paull Raphael, The Jewish View of the Afterlife, Jason Aronson (April 28, 1994)

[2] Rashi says: “Bilaam and those who are like him (shekamoto). It is now appreciated that the original test of Rashi said, “Bilaam and Yeshu”, but it was changed by the censors.

[3] This interpretation is supported by passages in Rambam’s other writings.

[4] Tanya 2. Such a simplistic reading of Tiferes Israel leaves many questions. It contradicts his own famous comments in chapter 4 of the Chapters of the Fathers, in which he maintains that non-Jews as well as Jews were created in the image of God and possess the image of God. IF so, their souls are also of the same kind. It must be remembered that we deal here in Kabbalistic matters, to understand which, one requires specialized expertise. Suffices to say that according to R. Yitzhal Luria as reported in the first several chapters of Shaar Hagilgulim, very few Jews possess a neshama in any particular incarnation, the majority able to gain only a nefesh, and some, ruach – very few possess a  neshama. Thus, neshama in these sources is not what we colloquially term “soul”. There are also the comments of  R. Hillel MiParitch (Siddur Im D'ach, Shaar Chag HaMatzot; Lekutei Biurim ) cited in Lessons in Tanya (Kehot Publication Society, Brooklyn, NY), Ch. 1, fn.33, who explains that having a soul means caring about others unselfishly: “It should be noted that among the nations of the world there are also to be found those whose souls are derived from kelipat nogah. Called “the pious ones of the nations of the world,” these righteous individuals are benevolent not out of selfish motives but out of a genuine concern for their fellow.”  This ultimately goes to the role of neshama as a conduit of Divine Light to others and that it can only play this role when, in Imitatio Dei, it does so with no personal interest whatsoever, see Mahari Ashlag’s introduction to Zohar. Immortality depends on the soul, that is the person as a conduit to pass Hashem's light onto others.

One may counter the the nations do a great deal of chessed- just look at the modern Welfare State. However, it is not personal - it is a social contract. It does not pass on the Divine light; it merely keeps peace.

"Kindness of nations is sin" (Proverbs 14:3 as explained in Bava Basra 10b). "The nations of the world do chesed but it is chesed leumim. It is the chesed of society, instituionalized by the social structure of the nations. It does not emanate from kindness and consideration of one individual for another. This is why it is designated as transgression"(R. Chaim Zimmerman, Torah and Reason, p.156).

[5] Chidushei Hameiri, Sanhedrin, beginning of Chelek. His comments are consistent with the teaching that denies the portion in the World-to-Come to minim (heretics) and apikorsim.

[6] This view is similar to the Maimonidean perspective which predicates immortality on achieving the union with Active intelect through knowledge, especially theological knowledge. Although this view is ascribed to Rambam, he never specifically enunciates it in the Guide. However, his sources, especially in Alfarrabi do, and Rambam follows a very similar approach in his discussion of Prophecy.

[7] The exact meaning of Sheol is not our concern here. It suffices to say that in rabbinic sources it is usually, but not universally, identical with Gehenna.

[8] As can be expected this passage suffered interferences by censors. The version I quote is the one found in early manuscripts (Schottentstein Talmud, ad. loc.)

[9] The word for nations used in this verse is “Goyim”. R. Eliezer may understand the word as “non-Jews”, not “nations”, As Max Kapustin pointed out in the introduction to his translation of Mekhilta, it is one of many key-theological terms that has shifted its meaning from the generic “nations” to an appellation for an individual Gentile, without, however, severing its connection to the original Biblical meaning.

[10] In Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:1, R. Yehoshua appears to restrict immortality only to the righteous Gentiles; however, there are so many variants of this Tosefta passage that it is difficult to determine what its original intent may have been.

[11] As codified by Maimonides and t be discussed shortly.

[12] Commentaries to Ein Yakov to Sanhedrin 105a

R. Yehuda Halevy comes to discussing whether non-Jews have a portion in the World-to-Come by the way of explaining why the Torah does not promise or stress eternal rewards and punishment like Christianity and Islam[1]. In I:109 he argues that and adherent of Torah, gains an ability to be close to G-d while still in this world. This is in essence not different from what happens after death though it may be different in degree.

We might expect that Kuzari’s view on the difference between Jewish and Gentile would lead him to a position that excludes Gentiles from the World-to-Come but this is not the case. Kuzari in a number of places, among them in 1:103 expresses his position clearly[2]:

“Thou hast, apparently, forgotten what we said previously concerning the genealogy of Adam's progeny, and how the spirit of divine prophecy rested on one person, who was chosen from his brethren, and the essence of his father. It was he in whom this divine light was concentrated. He was the kernel, whilst the others were as shells which had no share in it. The sons of Jacob were, however, distinguished from other people by godly qualities, which made them, so to speak, an angelic caste. Each of them, being permeated by the divine essence, endeavoured to attain the degree of prophecy, and most of them succeeded in so doing. Those who were not successful strove to approach it by means of pious acts, sanctity, purity, and intercourse with prophets. Know that he who converses with a prophet experiences spiritualization during the time he listens to his oration. He differs from his own kind in the purity of soul, in a yearning for the [higher] degrees and attachment to the qualities of meekness and purity. This was a manifest proof to them, and a clear and convincing sign of reward hereafter. For the only result to be expected from this is that the human soul becomes divine, being detached from material senses, joining the highest world, and enjoying the vision of the divine light, and hearing the divine speech. Such a soul is safe from death, even after its physical organs have perished[3].”

One might expect that this would lead Kuzari to deny immortality to Gentiles but he does not (I:113):

“We do not deny that the good actions of any man, to whichever people he may belong, will be rewarded by God. But the priority belongs to people who are near God during their life, and we estimate the rank they occupy near God after death accordingly.”

Kuzari appears to consider immortality to be a matter of reward and punishment as well as a natural outcome of the elevation of one’s soul through correct opinions and proper conduct. Although Jews have an advantage in the latter because they lead more godly lives, they as well as Gentiles are rewarded and punished for their conduct in this world. We focused here on the nature of Gentile soul, not on the broader subject of Immortality for Gentiles, which is a different and more complex topic, with a broader area of disagreement and consensus.

---

[1] This question was an important one and is discussed by many commentators and writers, such as, Sefer HaIkkarim 39,4, Akedat Yithak, Behukota, Abarvanel to Behukotai 26. Rambam discusses this in the Commentary to Chelek and Hilkhot Teshuvah 9,1

[2] All quotations from The Kuzari: An argument for the faith of Israel, tr, Hartwig Hirschfeld

[3] The same solution is offered in Akedat Yitzhak Shaar 70

[4] AP Kleinberger, ha-Mahashavah ha-Pedagogit shel ha-Maharal mi-Prague (The Pedagogical Thought Of the Maharal of Prague), pp. 37-42, Jerusalem, 5723

 

 

Exorcism and second marriages

From J. Post:

Do Jews beleive in exorcisms? It depends who you ask.

A liturgical text dating back to the 18th century is being used by a British researcher as proof that they do, or at least did at one time. ....

A neatly written, 150-word text fragment - discovered by Dr. Renate Smithuis from the Centre For Jewish Studies at the University of Manchester - describes a ceremony to dispel the evil spirit of Nissim Ben Bunya from his widow, Qamar Bat Rahma.

It is one of the 11,000 manuscript fragments held at the University of Manchester's John Rylands Library - rescued from a 1,000-year-old storeroom - or Genizah - at the Ben Ezra synagogue in Cairo.

Smithuis thinks the Hebrew document was written in the 18th century, and probably originated in Egypt or Palestine.

The fragment contains the second part of a prayer ritual in which the husband - or husband-to-be - of a widow recites an exorcism prayer, to which the other men gathered in the synagogue respond with a similar prayer.

Avakesh comments:  I think that this interpretation of the fragment is a mistake. While I have not seen it, this is probably a prophylactic rite for a new husband of a widow. It is taught in Ari's Sefer Hagilgulim that the spirit of the first husband remains within a widow and can harm the new husband or his children with her. It has nothing to do with dybbuks or possession or exercism. This is a good example of why researchers in Jewish studies need to be consummate scholars in all areas of traditional Jewish literature. The generations of scholars who have now passed from the scene and were educated in yeshivos had this wide ranging knowledge. Unfortunately the new generation is university educated and not infrequenlty, in my experience, miss fairly obvious things.

Caveat: I did not see the fragment but would love to.

The concept is briefly discussed in a new book with a quotation from Shoresh Ishai, p. 68  here

A video of an exorcism perfomred a few weeks ago by R. David Batzri (Part 1 of 10)