avakesh

Torah and the Spirit of the Times

Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: I am the Lord, your God.

ב. דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אֲנִי יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:

 

Rashi: Rabbi [Yehudah Hanassi]  says: “It is openly known before Him, that they would eventually be scourged by [transgressing the laws of] immoral relations, in the days of Ezra. Therefore, [concerning these laws,] God came to them with the decree: I am the Lord, your God! You should know Who is placing these decrees upon you-the Judge Who exacts retribution (אלֹקִים), but Who is faithful also to pay a reward (ה ) ! ”- [Torath Kohanim 18:138]"

Rashi is saying something very strange! He appears to explain that this verse was written in the Torah not for the generation in which it was given but for generation of Ezra, many centuries later. How do we wrap our heads around a supposition that an entire verse in the Torah was not understandable at the time it was given, but would only be understood at the time of Ezra.

With Hashem's help, as I was mulling this question I was listening to a lecture by Rabbi Asher Kushnir (Toldos Yeshurun) in Russian entitled, "Torah, science and aunt Bella". On Bella, in case you're interested, represents a ype of pseudo-scientific anti-religious critic immediately recognizable to any one familiar with Russian Jewish culture. The speaker is engaging, intelligent, and well informed.

Rabbi Kushnir discusses the question of why would the all-knowing Creator make a world that contains apparently unnecessary or redundant creatures. To explain it, he gives an analogy of a long distance spaceship, that's travels to distant stars. Its mission consists of three stages. First, it has to leave the earth and guide itself toward he destination star. Second it must sustain its inhabitants during the multigenerational journey. Finally it contains equipment and materials that would be necessary for landing and settlement of distant planets.

Does it not stand to reason that the participants of each one of the three stages will think that there spaceship contains matériel that is extraneous and duplicative? Ihose who leave the earth and direct themselves toward the stars will find much during this stage that they do not need. Similarly, those who maintain the ship in the middle of the journey will find equipment from the past and machinery and instruments for the future that they will perceive as not needed. Finally, in the final stage, the third-generation will wonder why they have so many things inside the spaceship that seem to serve no constructive purpose for what they require.

The speaker goes on to relate this to what each generation sees on their earth itself. A telephone or computer would've been totally superfluous a few hundred years ago. On the other hand, much of the natural world seems to us incongruent and extraneous to our modern lives. Many of its phenomena are against or do not speak to the Gestalt of the modern world

If so, the same could be true of the Torah. The Torah can contain phrases or passages that we do not understand but will understand in the future. This is certainly true of prophecies, many of which have not yet come to pass. However, by extension, it also may be true of concepts and thought processes that appear to us to conflict with the world as we see it, but after Redemption,  will make perfect sense.

Hashem and His name 2: Rambam

We had discussed think the statement of Rabbi Eliezer that before the world was created there was only Hashem and his Great Name.

Rambam in Moreh Nevukhim 1: 61 correctly identifies this as a problem to the central teaching that undergirds his entire philosophy – that God's attributes are simply names that humans give to the effects of His actions. Here is how he puts this point:

"It is well known that all the names of God occurring in Scripture are derived from His actions, except one, namely, the Tetragrammaton, which consists of the letters yod, hé, vau and hé. This name is applied exclusively to God, and is on that account called Shem ha-meforash, "The nomen proprium." It is the distinct and exclusive designation of the Divine Being; whilst His other names are common nouns, and are derived from actions, to which some of our own are similar, as we have already explained."

Given that names are simply what we call his actions, what is it that the Rabbi Eliezer actually saying? Actions can only be possible after the world is created whereas Rabbi Eliezer's statement refers to something that appears to be in true and eternal and existing before the Creation.

Rambam does two things. One, he uses Rabbi Eliezer's statement to reinforce his own take on the Attributes. Two, he interprets the statement of Rabbi Eliezer in a way that intends to remove the problem but which is in itself not very clear. I quote his interpretation.

"In the Pirke Rabbi Eliezer (chap. iii.) occurs the following passage: "Before the universe was created, there was only the Almighty and His name." Observe how clearly the author states that all these appellatives employed as names of God came into existence after the Creation. This is true; for they all refer to actions manifested in the Universe. If, however, you consider His essence as separate and as abstracted from all staff actions, you will not describe it by an appellative, but by a proper noun, which exclusively indicates that essence. Every other name of God is a derivative, only the Tetragrammaton is a real nomen proprium, and must not be considered from any other point of view."

Rabbi Dovid Luria in his commentary to Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer has harsh words against this passage of Moreh Nevukhim. First he points out that Rambam was not very definitive and that his language is, "It is possible to say". He then focuses on Rambam's admission that, although names cannot be applied to Hashem, the one that denotes essence can be applied to Hashem. "How can it be", he asks, "that before the creation any name can exist?". He continues that it is not consistent with Rambam's own insistence that no attribute at all then be applied to God. If this is so, then existence(metsius) is also an attribute that cannot be applied to Him." He ends with a interesting statement that the Kabbalists were more consistent in not attributing physicality to God then Rambam.

I did not see that classic commentators on Rambam deal well with this question. I also think that Rav Dovid Luria conflates Existence with Essence. However, in the question of existence as an Attribute lies a potential answer.

The name Havaya certainly has something to do with existence because it is a combination of the three tenses of the word "to be": past, present, and future. Existence is not quite an attribute, in the sense that Will, Knowledge, Movement, etc might be. Existence is much closer to Essence than other Attributes. I have spoken of it here.

Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason argued that existence is also an external attribute, for it is possible to imagine a horse which is in every aspect the same as a real, specific horse, except that it does not exist. This was his argument against the Ontological Proof, which states that a Perfect God must exist. Perfection must include existence for there is no greater imperfection than non-existence. Platinga, a contemporary Catholic philosopher, has offered an interesting counter-argument against Kant. In any case, this may be what Rambam meant - that Existence is different than any other Name. The name Havaya, which denotes existence, was applicable to Hashem's essence even before the creation.

In the next post we will delve into the question of early Kabbalists of whether Keter was pre-existent with God prior to creation, or not. This is usually expressed as the question of whether Keter is a part of the the ten sefiros or a part of the Ain Sof and not one of the ten sefiros.

 

He and His Name: Problematic passage

This is a first post on a remarkable Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer. This passage is important because it discusses the very nature of divine unity. I will begin with briefly reviewing the nature of the problem and how to other religious traditions have dealt with it.
First let me quote the passage itself, which is found in the beginning of the third chapter.

Ad Sheinivra Haolam haya Hakadosh baruch hu v'shmo Hagadol levad.
Until the world was created there was only Hakadosh Baruch Hu and His great name alone.

Some versions use the word "Kodem" instead of "Ad shenivra".

The issue of, of course, is that it seems to imply eternal duality within the  God-Head.  Before the world was created, there were two entities: G-d and His Name. That's pretty strange, isn't it? Hashem is One, not Two!

A few points are in order. It is of course axiomatic in Judaism that God is One. As Rambam expresses it, this One is unique and unlike any other One that is known to man. All other entities known to Man are by definitions either composite or in some way share some characteristic or attribute with created things. Since God is categorically different, His being One is also completely different from anything we know. We can only define His uniqueness by saying what He is not, the so-called "negative theology". A G-d like this cannot be dual.

This does, however, create another problems. How is G-d able to interact with the world? How was He able to crate it? How did he bridge the radical divide between One and Many? How does He continue to guide us, to answer our prayers, to teach us His Law, and dwell within us and in our Holy Places?

It is tempting to interpose another Deity to fulfill this function.

Although Kabbalists define One differently, they also, as we shall see, uphold the Unity of Hashem.

So what I R. Eliezer talking about?

To appreciate what Judaism is, it is essential to understand how it handles challenges to its essential beliefs from within its own tradition. We will launch on an exploration  that will do just that. R Eliezer's statement is a serious challenge to the concept of Hashem's Unity. Let see how it had been explained throughout the ages.

First, let's look at how other traditions have handled the issue of One and Many. Even within the context of monotheistic religions, dual g-ds are not unknown. Neopatonists, such as Plotinus,  envisioned a single Hidden God (Deus Absconditus) that could not be known and had no interactions with the created world. It was permanently joined with its knowledge, Nous, in the process of Self-Contemplation. That is all that this God does: self-contemplation. The Nous is a part of of this G-d and of same Essence but also sufficiently distinct of It, that it could lead to a series of emanations, one of which was the Demiurge, the actual Creator of this world that we know. The Nous was inseparable from the Hidden God, but at the same time presented a beginning of a movement toward emanations. Of course pagan NeoPlatonists did not have a problem with a Duality within the Divine.

Christianity faced a similar problem. Having chosen to follow the high Christology of the Gospel of John, it launched itself into the morass of theological complications and contradictions. Unlike the synoptic Gospels, John represents Jesus as the Word or Logos, that existed before the creation and, hence before his own humanity. By choosing John over the Synoptic Gospels, Christianity received two contradictory doctrines. From Jews it knew that God is One. From John it learned that He was Two, and eventually, when the Holy Spirit was added, that He was, R"L, three. John claimed that JC was the son of God, but not only the Son, but pre-existent and in some way equal to Father. In a crucial opening passage, John says, that Word was God. It is interesting and noteworthy that Christianity when faced with this kind of a conflict, always elected the more pagan interpretation or directions. As time went on, Christian sects that were more Jewish or that tended to Judaic sensibilities, became heretics. Jewish Christians and Ebionites were quickly read out of the church (as were, in all fairness Marcionites and Gnostics).Then the Church rejected Arianism,a teaching in which the Word/ Logos was one of God's creation's in time and not fully Divine. Anastasius, Bishop of Alexandria and Arius' antagonist, taught that the Son was not created but eternally begotten from the Father, which means that the Father is eternally Father, but never without a son. EventuallyChristians came to believe that there were three persons(Father, Son and the Holy Spirit)  that are identical in essence, the difference between the three is simply that the father begets the son and not vice versa and that differentiation between the Three is in causation and not in essence.

Judaism of course chose the opposite direction when faced with the challenge of One and Many. It elected to explain the statement of R. Eliezer in a way that accentuated the Unity and explained away the plurality.There are a number of explanations, some Kabbalistic and some not.

 In the next post we will explore Rambam's approach to this puzzling passage in Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer.

 

Judaism is a "science fiction" religion.

An interesting observation on why there are so few Jewish fantasy writers and how Judaism is a "science fiction" religion, here 

Viduy

Viduy is a concept that is no longer easily accessible to the mind of a modern man. He resists it. The process driven essence of modern life, where everything constantly changes and evolves makes the modern man impatient with the past and feeling that past does not truly matter. Teshuva begins to mean, " a change of course", an recognition that a behavior did not work and that a change in behavior or approach is needed. We tend to see teshuva as a change in direction, much in the same way that a CEO of a modern company perceives mistakes made - as a learning opportunity that moves his business forward. To a modern man there is no need for a sense of shame or regret that teshuva subsumes according to classic sources. There is nor reason to get emotional or to take it hard. We live and we learn and we change - that's life.

The requirement of Viduy as  a part of teshuva stubbornly resists this characterization of Teshuva. It implies that repentance is something more than a change in direction. Is there a way in which a modern man can relate to Viduy?

The word is usually rendered as confession but it is certainly not a confession in the Catholic sense, although that concept often interferes when we try to understand what Viduy is.

I think that a better translation of the word Viduy in the context of Teshuva is Apology.

Unlike confession, Apology is a prominent and increasingly visible part of modern life. Politicians do it. Countries apologize for mistreatment of minorities and business executives apologize for insulting their customers. The average number of news stories about apologies printed every year in major newspapers in now just under 400. Apologizing has become the accepted way of dealing with personal errors as well. It is a topic to which increasing attention is being paid. I am currently reading the book "Apology", an excellent treatment of apology in media, business, government, popular culture and private life. Apology is "in".

One feature of Apology is that it requires a complete recognition of fault, or it is not effective and makes things worse. "I am sorry that you were upset", or , "I regret that you saw it this way", simple does not cut it. An effective apology leaves no doubt that the deed will not be repeated and an expression of sorrow, shame and guilt goes along way to its acceptance. The most effective apology is coupled with restitution, or at least an offer of restitution.

All these are features of Teshuva, which is why the model of Apology, to me, is a fruitful way to analyze both Viduy and Teshuva.

Thinking of Viduy as apology throws a new light on well-known halachos in Rambam, Chaper 1 of Laws of Repentance

1)If one transgressed any commandment of the Torah, whether a positive or a negative one, whether deliberately or accidentally, then when one repents one has to confess verbally to God, for it is written, "When a man or a woman commits any sin that people commit...then they shall confess their sin which they have done". This means verbal confession, which is commanded positively to do, and is performed by saying, `O Lord, I have sinned, transgressed and rebelled before You, and have done such- and-such, and I am ashamed by my actions and will never do it again'. This is the main part of verbal confession, and expanding on it is praiseworthy.

(Here you have the essence of simple and complete apology, holding nothing back, and no excuses)

A sin- or guilt-offering when brought because of sins committed either deliberately or accidentally are of no effect unless the person bringing it repents and confesses verbally, for it is written, "...that he shall confess that he has sinned in that matter". Similarly, capital and corporal punishment do not atone unless the recipient repents and confesses verbally. Likewise, if one does financial damage to someone one is not forgiven unless one repents and resolves never to do it again, even if one paid back the money, for it is written, "...any sin that people commit".

2) The goat sent to Azazel on the Day of Atonement is an atonement for all of Israel. The High Priest confesses verbally over it for all Jews, as it is written, "..and confesses over it all the iniquities of the Children of Israel". This goat atones for all transgressions of whatever severity of any of the Torah's commandments, whether they were committed deliberately or accidentally, whether the transgressor had confessed or not, provided that the guilty parties had repented, for without repentance the goat sent to Azazel repents only for the less-severe transgressions. Severe transgression are those which a Court of Law can punish by death, or which carry a penalty of excision, and also false oaths and falsehood, even though they do not bear a penalty of excision. Transgressions of negative commandments or other transgressions the transgression of which does not carry a penalty of excision are considered less-severe.

An apology is most effective when accompanied by restitution and evidence of financial sacrifice to make amends. Hence the importance of atonement to the teshuva process. It is also why Rambam lists atonement right after viduy.

May we be zokhe to teshuva shleima this Days of Awe!

 

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

 

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.

 

 

Viral heretics

 

 

A video has recently gone viral on the internet. In it an yeshiva guy gives a "vort" based on the fact that Avos kept all of the Torah and a respondent ridicules him for naivette and simple-mindedness. "How could Yakov have the entire Torah", he asks, " and not just look at it to find out what happened to Yosef, etc".

Several responses *R. Yair Hoffman) and commentaries have appeared in the blogosphere. They discuss what the "accepted" position is, what points the author had made erroneously and what is the "public" position that should be taught about Avos learning Torah. See here and here. Some responses are indignant, others are supportive; this is an improtant issue and it touched a sensitive nerve.

I have a minor issue with R. Hoffman's comment but I understand where he is coming from. There is no question that a Rav and teacher in Israel has a responsibility to teach that which strenghtens his congregants and charges and not what weakens them. As pointed out on another blog, he is not unique in this feelign of stewardship; a famed "rationalist" Jew felt the same way. Most peopel cannot abide rationalism and faith at the same time and the chosen few who can, must exercize stewardship and not "farshter" the faith of the many. The idea of necessary versus popular truth was already taught by Rambam and the Sages of the Talmud (halacha vlo morin ken). Here is an quote from Yosef Kaspi Amudei Hakessef Umaskiyot Hakessef, p. 8a: "If the people were to find out about this doctrine, they would not be able to tolerate this truth, and would grow wild and uncontrollable in their conduct." What should be the public position varies from generation and  setting to generation and setting and should be determined by the "gedolim" and consensus. Blogwriters do not share the sense of responsibility of their rabbinically involved brothers and often do not realize that there words have an effect on others, far and wide.

The minor issue is that R. Hoffman concludes on the basis of his review of sources that the maximalist position is the more common one and should be the one publicly taught, except in the kiruv situation where all three positions can be presented. However, his review did not comprehensively include kabbalistic and chassidic surces and had they been included, the minimalist position would, in my opinion win by numbers.

I also, like R. Hoffman,  find the mocking of simple faith and gedolm to be off-putting and unpleasant.

This is important not only as a "body count" but in esence and approach. I believe that the post-modern age demands a post-rationalist approach. The only sure way of transcending troublesome issues of philosophy, science and religion is by rising into the exalted sphere of feeling, imagination and direct mystical experience in which questions are answered in ways that cannot be communicated and probems become springboards for increased perception and growth.

For those schooled in this manner of religious expression, there is no disconnect between actual physical performaance of the mitzvos and their experiential, emotional, symbolic and spiritual effects. It is not that they lose interst in the narrow question of whether Avrohom put on tefillin or fulfilled the mitzva of writing Sefer Torah - it is that their mitzva experience transcends this question so much that it no longer even makes sense and the historical issues do not occupy them at all.

Some might see this as an excape into fantasy. To them I say, your are missing the heart of religion which is in the heart and not in the mind. You live in the improverished  and limited world of sense-perception and experience. Do you not hear the Torah's clarion call to leave behind the body and its world of sense-percepton and, yes, even logic and thought, and enter a world of elevated feeling and Holy inspiration. The choice is clear. You can remain on the level of the physical and concrete or rise to the levels that cannot be expressed. The color of the sefira of Keter is black. Why? Because it so bright and  so light that it cannot be perceived on lower levels. What some peopel think to be fantasy is other's spiritual bread. If you believe in Prophecy, believe then also  in the world beyond, which is not concrete and graspable, and many of the questions that arise in the Great Void, of themselves dissappear, like vapor before Spirit.

 

 

More on the "Special Relationship"

Around this time in the Torah reading cycle, I tend to comment on the complex interdependence between Judaic and Western culture and what has come to be called the "Special Relationship". An entry on this topic has been a perennial favorite and has gathered some attention in the blogosphere.

At the center of the issue is how to understand the Jacob-Esau typology. Jewish centers tend to see the relationships between Yakov and Esau as emblematic of the relatiionship between Jews and Christians, between Jerusalem and Rome, and between the Judaic and Western civilizations. At its heart is the tension between being brothers and being competitors and rivals. This rivalry lies at the heart of geo-political, spiritual and eschatological struggle between these two borthers. At time, their rivalry overshadows their love with bloody consequences, mostly to the Jews, and at other times, their familial closeness reasserts itself, drawing the younger brother Yakov into the orbit of the powerful older borther, Esau, resulting in assimilation, acculturation adn conversion.

An important footnote to the entire topic is how Esau stands for the entire Western civilization. The approach that I pioneered and that has now been adopted by several recent books is that Western civilization exhibits many outstanding traits of Esau, as he is described and presented in the Torah. The identification is moral-spiritual, not familial.

An older approach, that of Ababanel in Yeshuos Meshicho and in his commentary is that there is, in fact, a familial relationship.

"The great kingdom of Rome was built by Zepho, son of Eliphaz, son of Esau. Tirtat of the land of Elisha attacked him and killed him (Yelamdeinu, Batei Midrashos 160)."

The Malbim in his commentary to Obadia 1,1 suggests that in addition to genealogical descent, the identification of Rome and Esau is also based on the "founding of their faith by children of Edom, as R. Isaac Abarbanel wrote to Isaiah 34, with proofs."

I wish to add a footnote to this point. I have recently been reading an intersting new Hebrew sefer (not an acaademic work), entitled"Meshichei Hasheker umisnagdeihem (False Messiahs and their opponnents). It is a work that comes out of the Lithuanian sector and includes chapters on well-known "messiahs" like Shabsai Tzvi, Nechamiah Chayun, David Reubeni, Jacob Frank, Chaim Malach. Yehuda Hachasid from Vilna and many others, well known and obscure. Curiousely it does not include Abraham Miguel Cardozo but does include Napoleon Bonaparte and Theodor Herzl.

In the chapter on Yeshu, he quotes from several sources that the Christian religion first spread among Edomites, and only later among other Gentiles (p.128). This is brought by R. Avraham ben Harambam, Ramban in Sefer Hageula, Abarabanel in Yeshuas Meshicho 1, Rashbatz in Magen Avos 8:2. He also brings an interesting midrash, which may be the source for this approach: "Why does it (cross) have two heads? Because this Yeshu grasped two heads, of Israel and of Edom...(Osios D'Rabbi Akiva Vertheimer, p.112).

In this approach, Christianity is identified with Edom simply because it was the Edomites who converted first. Although this is not the picture that we see in the Acts of the Apostles, it may well have had a historic basis in the pre-Acts years. The aforementioned sources also indicate that it was after that the Edomites accepted the Chrsitian beliefs, that Paul took a version of Christianity that rejected commandments and allowed worship of images to other lands.

Of course, this approach pretty much removes cosmic significance from the Jacob-Esau axis, which is may be why it is not more widespread and why you and I have not heard of it before.

How do Christian exegetes view the Genesis stories of Jacob and Esau?

They certainly cannot identify with Esau because Malchi 1:2-3 says that G-d hates Esau and loves Jacob. Not being an expert in this area, I believe that they select "local" or devotional explanations of the story but not a typological one. Hebrews 12:15–16, depicts Esau as unspiritual for thoughtlessly throwing away his birthright, betraying traces of Jewish traditional understanding.

 

Deception in Genesis

We all know that "the seal of the Holy One Blessed Be He is Truth (Shabbos 55 a)".  Chazal held falsehood to be abhorrent and the Talmudic sages spoke strongly against dissembling and cheating. On the other hand, there are situations when carefully designed misstatement is permitted (sources here). In Tanach a  similar situation exists. On one hand, Hashem abhorrs a liar (Psalms 5:5-6) and  "The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth" (Zephania 3:13); on the other hand, Genesis is full of deceit. Take as an example Abraham and Pharaoh and Abimelech, Yitzhak and Avimelech, Yaakov and Yitzhak, Rachel and Lavan, brothers and Yakov, Tamar and Yehuda, Yosef and the brothers and on and on and on. Let's not forget Moshe and Pharaoh either. How does one explain this?

There are, of course, "local" explanation for each case. However, I venture to say that in Tanach, dissembling or what we call now "geneivas daas" is seen as justified when it is used by the weak against the strong. After all, the weak cannot match the power of the strong, and each one can legitimately use the means and weapons in their disposal. Let the strong give up their power and then the weak will give up their deceits. The weak, as is believed in every culture and every time and place, have a right to protect themselves as best as they can. Deceit is often the only weapon they have against an opponent that they cannot otherwise match. To this day, that lying is appropriate on the part of the weak but repugnant when utilized by the strong to augment their already existing advantage, is a prominent feature of the Mediterranean culture. The idea that lying is always wrong made its way into Western culture from the age of chivalry and the spirit of Eisav. Later Kant enshrined it as an ethical principle basd in his absolutist system of ethics.

The case of Abraham adn Paroh is clear. In regard to Pharaoh and Moshe, Rashbam explains that Pharaoh could never accept teh demand to let Jews go forever. He was simply psychologically incapable of acceding to such a demand. I would say it is as if an Indian Chief showed up on the front lawn of the White House demanding the state of Arizona because the Great Eagle sent him. Moshe had to proceed step by step; there was simply no otehr way.

I believe that every apparently tolerated, excused and accepted occurrence of deceit in Tanach is in a situation of weak defending themselves against the strong. Every ocurrence that is explicitly or implicitly tagged with opporbrium (like Lavan's use of falsehood against Yakov), is when the strong use it to opress the weak.

In other words, injustice is worse than falsehood.

Why then will the remnant of Israel not speak falsehood? Because they will rule the nations and that is the implied context to this verse.

“The remnant of Israel will do no wrong  And tell no lies,  Nor will a deceitful tongue  Be found in their mouths;  For they will feed and lie down  With no one to make them tremble.”