avakesh

R. Gamliel and Proclus

 

AVODAH ZARAH: CHAP 3: MISHNAH 4

Proclus son of Philosophus asked Rabban Gamliel in Akko, while he was bathing in the bath house of Aphrodite: He said to him: In your Torah it is written, "And there shall cleave nought of the devoted thing to your hand." Why are you bathing in the bath house of Aphrodite? He said to him, One does not respond in the bath house. When he went out, he said to him: I did not come into her place, she came into my place. They do not say: Let us make a bath house as an adornment for Aphrodite, rather they say: Let us make Aphrodite an adornment for the bath house. Another reason: If they give you great wealth, you would not enter before your idol naked, or after an emission, or pass water before her. Yet she stands next to the sewer while all the people pass water before her. It is stated, "their gods" (Deut. 12:2) only what they treat as a god is forbidden; what they do not treat as a god is permitted.

Who was this Proclus? Some identify him with Proclus or Proklos (Πρόκλος), a teacher of rhetoric and a native of Naucratius in Egypt. He lived in the 2nd century. However, there was a more famous Proclus Diadochus who lived in the 5th century (410/412 - 485 c.e.) and headed the Academy in Athens. What is interesting about this Proclus is that he was  an exponent of religious universalism.  He believed the true philosopher should pay homage to the gods of all nations, becoming "a priest of the entire universe." The chronological difficulty with this identification is that the institution of Nasi was abolished by the Romans and Nasi Rabbon Gamliel III was deposed in 415.

However, if we take this Mishna as polemic rather than chronological, we can see that it contains great depth.

Poclus  argued G-dliness is manifested in every religion and that paganism is simply the worship of the One in all its manifestations. Proclus also composed hymns to Aphrodite, two of which have survived and had commentaries written to them. He told R. Gamliel that man approaches the One only in so far as he can see His Manifestations. The policy of pure uncompromising Monotheism is spiritually injurious, he claimed, and inconsistent. "See, even you, have to come to Aphrodite to bathe and become clean".

R. Gamliel's response was that Proclus was wrong. G-d is found inside the person, in his heart, in his very being. " I did not come into her place, she came into my place." Idolatry is an intrusion on where G-d dwells. Farthermore, pagans use the religious feelings and sensibilities as an adornment to their material lifestyle, not vice versa. They do not say: Let us make a bath house as an adornment for Aphrodite, rather they say: Let us make Aphrodite an adornment for the bath house.

Finally, if One is to be worshipped and adored, would a man urinate and bathe before it. Pagans bring the sublime religious ideal inside the impurity of their own lives, instead of elevating their lives toward the religious ideal.

The inclusion of Rabban Gamliel who lived after the conclusion of the Mishna might seem to be a problem... but we have a precedent for this. Avos 2:2 lists in the Mishna someone who was after R. Yehuda Hanassi: "Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi Judah HaNassi would say: Beautiful is the study of Torah with the way of the world, for the toil of them both causes sin to be forgotten. ...."

See also, Yadin, Azzan. Rabban Gamliel, Aphrodite's Bath, and the Question of Pagan Monotheism, Jewish Quarterly Review - Volume 96, Number 2, Spring 2006, pp. 149-179

Encircled in Samekh by Yona

The one letter missing from the account of the Ma'aseh B'reisheit is the Samekh. It first appears in B'reisheit 2:11 "The name of the first [river] is Pishon, the one that encircles the whole land of Havilah, where the gold is" - the first appearance of the letter, in a word that means "surround", describes the very geometry of the letter! Yet, it is the second appearance of the letter in Breisheit 2:21 that defines its essence - "and He took one of his sides and He closed flesh in its place." The Samekh is closed and forever fixed.[i] The Midrash Rabbah to this verse intuits this point in associating the Samekh with the Satan. The Satan is that force in the world which seeks to keep us blocked and constricted, going in circles, and without the opportunity for change and growth.[ii]
 
 Interestingly, throughout all of Tanakh there is almost no Jewish person who has a name beginning with a Samekh. Yet, there are quite a few famous enemies of the Jewish people whose names begin with the letter Samekh: Sihon, Sisra, and Sanheriv.[iii] However, there is one place in the Torah where three Jews have a letter beginning with a Samekh - the names of the Meraglim. The Meraglim include Gadiel ben Sodi, Gadi ben Susi, and Setur ben Michael. Perhaps this is so as the Meraglim personified the Samekh; they were afraid to leave their comfort zone and expand into Eretz Yisrael. "Anxious and Expansive shall be your heart" (Yeshayahu 60:5).
  

[i] To quote G.K. Chesterton (Orthodoxy, Chapter Two): "[T]he circle is perfect and infinite in its nature, but it is fixed for ever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller," and "A man cannot think himself out of mental evil...The moment his mere reason moves, it moves in the old circular rut: he will go round and round his logical circle unless he performs the voluntary, vigorous, and mystical act of getting out..." Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks compares two views on time, cyclical and linear time. The latter view is the basis for belief in Moshiach.  
[ii] Interestingly, the weekday Kel Melech has the Samekh saying "encircles" while in the Kel Adon acrostic that we recite on Shabbos morning the Samekh has disappeared. The letter Sin takes its place, and instead of "encircles" we sing "Happy as they go forth?" This is the happiness of growth and movement (Same’akh, happiness, is related to the word Tzame’kh, growth ). On Shabbos we are freed from viewing the world as a closed set of physical laws and viewing our petty selves as the pinnacle of creation. We have the opportunity to peer behind the curtain to see the Godliness in the world and in ourselves. Thus, we are freed from Safek (another Samekh). 

[iii] I might also add that Sedom also starts with a Samekh and epitomizes the self-centered nature of the Samekh.

Bibliography on whether Gentiles have a portion in the world-to-come

Korn GENTILES, THE WORLD TO COME, AND JUDAISM: THE ODYSSEY OF A RABBINIC TEXT
Modern Judaism.1994; 14: 265-287

 

Michel S. Nehorai, “Righteous Gentiles have a portion in the World-to-Come, Tarbitz 61 (1992), pp.465-487

 

Steven S. Schwarzschild, "Do Noachites have to Believe in Revelation?" JQR, 57,.
4 (April, 1962)

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

 

 

Messianic Dreamers

The expectation of the coming of the Messiah, by which  and because of which Judaism lives, would be a meaningless theologumenon, a mere idea in the philosophical sense, empty babble, if the appearance again and again of a 'false" Messiah did not render it reality and unreality, illusion and disillusion. The false Messiah is as old as hope for the true Messiah. He is the changing form of the changeless hope. He separates every Jewish generation into those whose faith is strong enough to give themselves  up to an illusion, and those who hope is strong enough so that they do not allow themselves to be deluded. The former are beter, the latter stronger. The former bleed on the altar of eternity of the people, the latter are the priests who peform the service at the altar. And this goes on until the day when all is reversed, when the belief of the unbeliever will become truth and the hope of the hoping  a lie. Then - and no one known whether this day may not be this very day - the task of hoping will come to an end and, when the morning of that day comes, everyone who still belongs among those who hope and not among those who believe will run the risk of being rejected. The danger hovers the apparently less endangered life of the hopeful.

Franz Rozenzweig

(quoted in The Personal Messian, p. 21, here)

Jewish way of emotion is different

Christianity and other philosophies believe that certain emotions are good while others are bad. For instance, conjunctive emotions (those which bring people together, such as love) are considered good, while disjunctive emotions (which drive people apart, such as hate) are considered bad. People are taught to avoid dysjunctive emotions at all cost and to conversely embrace conjunctive emotions indiscriminately. This is why Christiantiy reacted so badly during the Holocoust. Why would an idealist, such as Schweitzer, not protest? Because of the incomprehensible injunction to love the evil doer

Judaism never thought this way... An emotion is "good" when appropriate to the situation and "bad" when inappropriate. Hate directed at evil is a good emotion. Love directed inappropriately is a bad emotion.

For instance, the correct response to Hitler is hate and indignation. To feel love or sympathy for such a  depraved individual would be a depraved and evil reaction..

from The Rav: Thinking Aloud, p. 260

Introducing a new blog

I recommend a new blog to those who think deeply about the questions of Faith, Reason, Science and the Human Condition. It is a high quality exploration of the deepest philosophical and personal issues by a scholar with a sensitive heart who is familiar with what has been written on these topics and has thought deeply and long about them.

Bm'ei ha'daga

Searching for His hidden face from within the belly of the fish.

Why Torah does not emphasize Paradise.

Unlike other monotheistic religions, Judaism does not make much of the pleasures and terrors of the soul after death. Ramban suggests that this is so becasue the World-to-Come is a natural attainment, not something that needs to be earned, but something that can be lost.(Lev. 18:29):

“(They) shall be cut off:” …you must realize that the punishment of cutting off the soul implies a firm assurance of the immortality of the soul and of a Divine reward in the Hereafter. By stating “this soul shall be cut off from before Me,” the Torah teaches us that only the soul of the sinner is cut off, for its iniquity, but other souls, which have not sinned will live eternally and enjoy the Divine splendor. This is so because the human soul is the lamp of the Lord which He breathed into our nostrils…and so it rests in its natural setting and will not die. It is not composite and thus is not subject to generation and dissolution as are compound substances. Indeed, it is intrinsically imperishable as are the immaterial intelligence’s (i.e., angels).

It is therefore unnecessary for the Torah to state that as a reward for a good deed the soul will live forever. It states rather that as a punishment for transgressing, the soul will become tarnished and defiled and thus cut off from its natural life of eternity. Accordingly, the torah chose the term karet, as with a branch cut off from a tree that brought it forth. As already noted, all the rewards and punishments promised by the Torah are supernatural, mysterious miracles…thus it (the Torah) does not hold out eternity (for the soul) which is natural (and therefore, self-evident).”

In his Commentary to Bechukotai (26:12), Ramban states this succinctly:

"And I will walk among you”: The torah does not mention here the eternal life of the soul in the world of the souls and in the Hereafter after the resurrection, for the soul’s endurance is constitutional, as I have explained in the context of karet. It is the punishment which brings about extinction of the guilty souls, whilst the others, by their very nature, live forever.

R. Yehuda Halevy in I:109 similarly 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. This is why Torah speaks much of the rewards and punishments of this world and does not dwell on the rewards and punishments of  the World to come .

---

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

 

 

Do we all have the same Torah?

It is not uncommon for people to disagree on Torah topics and we are all familiar with this. It is a part of the background of aTorah life. However, it pays to ask, "Why?".

Many of us have had the experience of encountering knowledgeable Torah learned people who not only hold different opinion than we on many matters but hold opinions so outrageous and so obviousely different from what we perceive the Torah to teach that it is hard to believe that we all belong to the same religion. This is not only true in many debates in halacha where one says that a thing is permitted and another that is forbidden and even esteemed authorities come to radically opposed conclusions. It is also so in regard to basic hashkafa where it is not uncommon to find that one group holds something to be good and desirable and another group views it to be bad and outside the pale. There are those who are convinced that Zionism is an authentic and indipensable Jewish teaching and others who view it as a betrayal of religion. Some consider secular studies to be essential and others shun them. There are opposing views on so many matters of practice and doctrine.

Why is it so and shouldn't we attempt to understand it?

On the practical level, one encounters people who believe that Torah requires them to fight with all possible means "for the sake of truth" and others who will compromise every esssential belief and practice for the "sake of peace". There are those who light fires because they argue that the Torah requires them to do so and others who work only thorough peaceful and pleasant ways and  "turn away wrath". Though my sympathies lie with the latter and not the former, they also deserve to be understood - with respect, and not dismissed as psychologically or morally unbalanced.

We know, of course, that machlokes exist and always existed. But why do we, in this generation and place, disagree so profoundly and with so much conviction on so many subjects?

Chazal do say that there seventy faces to Torah ((Bamidbar Rabbah 13:15) or in other places, that there are fourty nine faces to Torah (Sofrim 16:5). Both statements might be true: the Gaon writes: " In the Torah there are seventy faces to the Orally transmitted Torah and 49 faces to the written Torah (Song of Songs 2:4). Another way to understand it is as  per Pesikta Rabbati (21:4, see Eruvin 13b), where we read: R. Yanai said: The Torah which God gave to Mosheh included forty-nine arguments in favor of purity and forty-nine arguments in favor of impurity [on any given question]...[Mosheh] asked: "How should we rule?" - to which God answered: "If those who argue in favor of impurity are the majority, it is impure; if those who argue in favor of purity are the majority, it is pure."

There is really no disagreement. In P'ninim mi'Shulchan ha'G'ro it says that  the seventy souls that went down to Egypt correspond to the seventy 'faces' via which Torah can be expounded, and b. the total of forty-nine of the children of Leah (33, including her daughter Serach) and her maidservant Zilpah (16), correspond to the forty-nine 'faces' of Taharah, and forty-nine 'faces' of Tum'ah via which the Torah can be expounded (Gen. 46).This we can handle. So far so good. However, here is a statement from Shaar Hagilgulim of R. Chiam Vitalm Hakdomo 17, that at first glance one might call "outrageous".

"Torah is the root of the souls of Israel for they were hewn out of it and rooted in it. This is why in the Torah there 600.000.00 explanations in pshat, 600.000.00 in derush, 600.00.00 in remez and 6000.00.00 in sod."... In the Future, each one will will achieve that explanation through which he was born...".The commentary Benei Aharon connects that second part of the statement to the Lurianic teaching that seventy "nitsosos" of Adam generate six hundred thousand souls. That explains the second part of what we quoted but how can one explain that every word and statement of the Torah can be explained in 600.000.00 different ways on the level of pshat. We can perhaps envision that derush and sod, even remez, can produce many differing explanations, but how can you generatesix hundred thousand explanations according to pshat?

Benei Aharon suggests that you can take this statement to refer to a chapter or topic. If so one can to produce many variations. So, for example if there are two words in a chapter that can each have two different explanations, there would be the following combinaitons: AB and BA. If there are three words or phrases that can have different explanations, we can have abc, acb, bac, bca, cab, cba. The general formula is n(n-1). (For the pruposes of Tsirufei Osios it would be divided by 2 because of duplications (i.e. abc and cba is the same etc).)

 You can see how you can quickly work this up to 600.000.00 combinations with only  a few different explanation as long as you are looking at a chapter of a group of verses.

I would like to suggest something else.  At the basis of it is the statement that  "once a talmid chacham learns Torah, it becomes his, as it says, "for in the Torah of Hashem is his desire and his (own Torah he engages day and night (Tehillim 1) ( A"Z 19a). I used to explain this with a parable of a puzzzle or a mosaic. Imagine that an artist is given most of the pieces of a mosaic but not all the pieces and not the the overal plan. He would start by matching pieces and come out with some kind of a partial picture. He would then extrapolate and fill the missing pieces as well as he can, based on his own udnerstanding and imagination. In order to complete the picture, he will have to extrapolate from the partial picture to the overall image and then manufacture pieces to fill in what is missing. This is essentially what a talmid chacham does nowadays. We do have many pieces of the mosaic, but, through forgetfullness and loss, not all of them. Every scholar constructs his own version of what the entire picture must have looked like. Not surprisingly these reconstructions can look very differentlly.  It is because of this that talmidei chochomim can disagree and diverge so greatly.

This is a good explanation but it still does not fully explain why different scholars come out with different overall reconstructions of the original intent.

The statement of Shaar Hagilgulim helps in this regard. As is now appreciated, words do not have a single meaning and many if not most words mean different things to different people. The more abstract a word or concept, the less do people share the same understanding ot it. To some people Love means control, to others abrogation of control and giving freedom and autonomy. Some  view "spirituality" as self-abnegation, others as redemptive self -fulfillment and so on... This is especially true in Lashon Hakodesh. In other words, words have a whole range of different meanings and different people have slightly different, sometimes very different understandings of the same word. In fact it would not be wrong to say that there are 6000.000.00 different understandings of the same word or concept. In everyday communication we share enough agreement about the basic meaning of words to understand each other. However, once we go farther, to interpreting complex and complicated verbal structures, we begin to understand words and their applications very differently.

There are six hundred thousand different souls and so, there are also that many ways to understand even a single word. We can now see that this kabbalistic teaching is not purely technical but, at its core, philosophical and practical.  

So, yes, we all have the same Torah but we do not all understand it the same - because each one draws an understanding according to his own soul-level. The Shaar Hagilgulim goes on to say that higher neshomos, ones that incorporate several different "roots' can possess multiple understandings at the same time. The ultimate in this regard was Moshe Rabbeinu, who was the source and encompassed all the six hundred thousand souls of Israel and could understand and contain all possible explanations.