There is a fancy new apartment building under construction outside my (old) apartment here in Haifa. However, it is still very much under construction. Until very recently, the windows and doors were giant holes and interior had not progressed beyond bare concrete.
So it was weird when, on or around Tu Beav a few weeks ago, a truck arrived at the building site full of vegetation. When I walked by later that day, a nice row of trees had been planted in the front yard of the unfinished building. What were they doing landscaping the building now, when it was so far from completion?
A bit later I found out it was because of shemitah. The sabbatical year is next year, and it is forbidden to plant trees not only during that year, but for one month and two weeks beforehand (see Rambam Shmita+Yovel 3:11). Thus, Tu Beav is about the last day on which you can plant trees (draw from that whatever homiletical conclusions you desire). And the construction company was engaged in a mad rush to meet the deadline and get all its trees halachically planted now, not 13 months from now, which will be long after the tenants move in. Only in Israel!
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Thoughts on Ki Tavo
"...Because you did not serve Hashem your God - in happiness and goodheartness, and an abundance of all.
You will serve your enemies, whom Hashem will send among you - in hunger and thirst and nakedness and lack of all." (28:47-48)
Chassidim love to quote the first verse, to show why you must always be happy and smiley and touchy-feely when doing mitzvot. After all they say, it talks about people who kept all the mitzvot, but in a dour Lithuanian manner, and God exiled them for it!
Fortunately, this is a total misinterpretation of the verse. Look at the next verse, and the parallels between the two verses. Serving God vs. serving enemies; abundance of all vs. lack of all. In each verse, the object of service comes first, followed by conditions in which you serve them.
In the second verse, "Hunger and thirst and nakedness and lack of all" does not describe your attitude - how can you have a hungry and naked attitude? - but rather the physical conditions you are in. Similarly, "happiness and goodheartness, with an abundance of all" in the first verse must describe the conditions you were in. You were rich and successful and living at ease, yet you did not bother to serve God. Thus you will now be punished, and lose your comfort and wealth.
Thus, the first verse is best translated as "...because you did not serve Hashem your God - WHEN YOU HAD happiness and goodheartness, and an abundance of all."
Happiness is of course legitimate. There is a verse in Tehillim which says "ivdu et Hashem besimcha" (100:2). But there is also a verse which says "ivdu et Hashem beyirah" (2:11). The two have to be balanced. Each emotion is appropriate in some situations - and inappropriate in others.
"These are the words of the covenant which Hashem commanded Moshe to make with the children of Israel, in the land of Moav - besides the covenant He made with them in Horev [=Sinai]." (28:69)
"These words" means chapter 28 - an actual specific text which was passed back and forth, or signed, or whatever else was appropriate, in order to make it into a binding covenant. What is the comparable covenant at Sinai? The whole giving of the Torah was a sort of covenant. But more specifically, by comparison with Ki Tavo, it would seem that that the covenant at Sinai was a particular written text.
Luckily, we possess a very similar text which we know comes from Sinai - parshat Bechukotai. There we have a blessing and curse which are extremely similar to the ones in Ki Tavo. It seems that they too form a written covenant. They date to Sinai, even though due to the verbosity of Sefer Vayikra they come long after the main Sinai story.
God and the Jewish people talked to each other, promised, warned, agreed, and discussed many things at many times. It seems that all of this is condensed and crystallized into a single written "contract" at the end of each story. The rewards, punishments, and promises - in short, the terms of the contract - are recorded in the form of a covenant. There is one such covenant at the end of Vayikra, at the end of the Sinai story. There is another in Ki Tavo, when a new generation finished its desert experience and prepared to enter Israel.
You will serve your enemies, whom Hashem will send among you - in hunger and thirst and nakedness and lack of all." (28:47-48)
Chassidim love to quote the first verse, to show why you must always be happy and smiley and touchy-feely when doing mitzvot. After all they say, it talks about people who kept all the mitzvot, but in a dour Lithuanian manner, and God exiled them for it!
Fortunately, this is a total misinterpretation of the verse. Look at the next verse, and the parallels between the two verses. Serving God vs. serving enemies; abundance of all vs. lack of all. In each verse, the object of service comes first, followed by conditions in which you serve them.
In the second verse, "Hunger and thirst and nakedness and lack of all" does not describe your attitude - how can you have a hungry and naked attitude? - but rather the physical conditions you are in. Similarly, "happiness and goodheartness, with an abundance of all" in the first verse must describe the conditions you were in. You were rich and successful and living at ease, yet you did not bother to serve God. Thus you will now be punished, and lose your comfort and wealth.
Thus, the first verse is best translated as "...because you did not serve Hashem your God - WHEN YOU HAD happiness and goodheartness, and an abundance of all."
Happiness is of course legitimate. There is a verse in Tehillim which says "ivdu et Hashem besimcha" (100:2). But there is also a verse which says "ivdu et Hashem beyirah" (2:11). The two have to be balanced. Each emotion is appropriate in some situations - and inappropriate in others.
"These are the words of the covenant which Hashem commanded Moshe to make with the children of Israel, in the land of Moav - besides the covenant He made with them in Horev [=Sinai]." (28:69)
"These words" means chapter 28 - an actual specific text which was passed back and forth, or signed, or whatever else was appropriate, in order to make it into a binding covenant. What is the comparable covenant at Sinai? The whole giving of the Torah was a sort of covenant. But more specifically, by comparison with Ki Tavo, it would seem that that the covenant at Sinai was a particular written text.
Luckily, we possess a very similar text which we know comes from Sinai - parshat Bechukotai. There we have a blessing and curse which are extremely similar to the ones in Ki Tavo. It seems that they too form a written covenant. They date to Sinai, even though due to the verbosity of Sefer Vayikra they come long after the main Sinai story.
God and the Jewish people talked to each other, promised, warned, agreed, and discussed many things at many times. It seems that all of this is condensed and crystallized into a single written "contract" at the end of each story. The rewards, punishments, and promises - in short, the terms of the contract - are recorded in the form of a covenant. There is one such covenant at the end of Vayikra, at the end of the Sinai story. There is another in Ki Tavo, when a new generation finished its desert experience and prepared to enter Israel.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
United we stand
For the first time in several weeks I decided to be cultured and browse a certain site which I normally avoid so as not to waste too much time. Lo and behind, I came across an interesting article about democracy and the nation-state. At least, that was the part of it which interested me.
Thoughts on Ki Tetze
You shall not return a slave to his master, if he flees to you from his master. He shall dwell with and among you, in the place which he chooses, in one of your cities, as is good for him; do not wrong him. (23:16-17)
"The place which he chooses" is a familiar phrase to anyone who has been reading Sefer Devarim the past few weeks. It is used 10 times in the book to refer to Jerusalem (or Shiloh) - the location which God would eventually indicate for the Temple, but which was not yet known in Moshe's time. Here the same phrase appears, referring not to God's choice of Jerusalem, but of the slave's choice of a place to live.
What's the reason for the use of identical (and distinctive) language in this totally different context? I don't really know, but perhaps this teaches us to welcome the runaway slave as enthusiastically as we would welcome the Temple (before we knew where it would end up being).
Hashem has called you an abandoned and distressed wife. "Can a wife of one's youth be rejected?" says your God. "For a small moment I abandoned you, but with great compassion I will gather you [to me]." (Yeshayahu 54:6-7, from the haftarah)
The haftarot between Tisha Beav and Rosh Hashanah are all from Yeshayahu, and all of them seem to be chosen based on their relation to the time of year, not their relation to the parsha.
But this week, it is clear that there is a relation to the parsha as well. The haftarah is centered around the extended metaphor of Israel as God's abandoned wife. And the parsha is packed with laws about women and marriage (1). Thus, out of all the possible haftarot which fit the theme of the time of year (anything in the 2nd half of Yeshayahu, I'd assume, plus some other possibilities), the one which fit our parsha best seems to have been chosen.
1. For example: the war-captive wife, the loved and unloved wives, the various laws of adultery and virginity, incest, marriage with genitally damaged men, marriage with converts from various nations, prostitution, divorce and remarriage, that newly married men don't fight wars but rather gladden their wives, and yevamot.
-------
UPDATE: In the "Daf Kesher" newsletter for Parshat Ki Tavo 5768, R' Amnon Bazak notes the same thing about the runaway slave passage that I did, and comes up with a different, perhaps better, reason for why it's phrased that way.
"The place which he chooses" is a familiar phrase to anyone who has been reading Sefer Devarim the past few weeks. It is used 10 times in the book to refer to Jerusalem (or Shiloh) - the location which God would eventually indicate for the Temple, but which was not yet known in Moshe's time. Here the same phrase appears, referring not to God's choice of Jerusalem, but of the slave's choice of a place to live.
What's the reason for the use of identical (and distinctive) language in this totally different context? I don't really know, but perhaps this teaches us to welcome the runaway slave as enthusiastically as we would welcome the Temple (before we knew where it would end up being).
Hashem has called you an abandoned and distressed wife. "Can a wife of one's youth be rejected?" says your God. "For a small moment I abandoned you, but with great compassion I will gather you [to me]." (Yeshayahu 54:6-7, from the haftarah)
The haftarot between Tisha Beav and Rosh Hashanah are all from Yeshayahu, and all of them seem to be chosen based on their relation to the time of year, not their relation to the parsha.
But this week, it is clear that there is a relation to the parsha as well. The haftarah is centered around the extended metaphor of Israel as God's abandoned wife. And the parsha is packed with laws about women and marriage (1). Thus, out of all the possible haftarot which fit the theme of the time of year (anything in the 2nd half of Yeshayahu, I'd assume, plus some other possibilities), the one which fit our parsha best seems to have been chosen.
1. For example: the war-captive wife, the loved and unloved wives, the various laws of adultery and virginity, incest, marriage with genitally damaged men, marriage with converts from various nations, prostitution, divorce and remarriage, that newly married men don't fight wars but rather gladden their wives, and yevamot.
-------
UPDATE: In the "Daf Kesher" newsletter for Parshat Ki Tavo 5768, R' Amnon Bazak notes the same thing about the runaway slave passage that I did, and comes up with a different, perhaps better, reason for why it's phrased that way.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
I might be going to Brovenders
Prepare for the Yomim Tovim by joining either or both of these pilot shiurim
of ATID's Web Yeshiva. Learn Torah over the Internet, while seeing and
interacting with your teachers and fellow students, from the comfort of
your own computer.
ROSH HA-SHANA, YOM KIPPUR & SUKKOT IN THE GEMARA with Rabbi Chaim Brovender
Sundays, Tuesdays & Thursdays
5:00 PM Jerusalem Time (for 1 hour)
Preparation in advance strongly recommended.
Advanced Gemara Shiur with Rishonim for men, learning assorted sugyot
me-inyanei de-yoma.
Starts Sunday, August 26th until Sukkot.
RAMBAM'S HILKHOT TESHUVA with Rabbi Jeffrey Saks
Mondays and Wednesdays
4:00 PM Jerusalem Time (for 1 hour)
Preparation optional.
Open to men and women regardless of previous background. Exploring
Maimonides' classic Laws of Repentance. Starts Monday, August 27 until
Sukkot.
ATID's Web Yeshiva is a fully interactive learning experience. Join now for
one or both of these shiurim being offered for free during our early pilot
phase, and be a pioneer of the Web Yeshiva wherever you may be in the world.
TO REGISTER, PLEASE CONTACT RABBI YEDIDYA RAUSMAN, DIRECTOR OF WEB YESHIVA,
AT RAUSMAN@ATID.ORG OR CALL 02-567-1719.
Requirements:
* Internet connection
* Webcam
* Headset with microphone
* Sefarim are not necessary (texts provided online)
After Sukkot, Web Yeshiva will be expanding with programs for men and women,
offering shiurim in English on Gemara, Tanakh, Jewish Thought, and Halakhah.
of ATID's Web Yeshiva. Learn Torah over the Internet, while seeing and
interacting with your teachers and fellow students, from the comfort of
your own computer.
ROSH HA-SHANA, YOM KIPPUR & SUKKOT IN THE GEMARA with Rabbi Chaim Brovender
Sundays, Tuesdays & Thursdays
5:00 PM Jerusalem Time (for 1 hour)
Preparation in advance strongly recommended.
Advanced Gemara Shiur with Rishonim for men, learning assorted sugyot
me-inyanei de-yoma.
Starts Sunday, August 26th until Sukkot.
RAMBAM'S HILKHOT TESHUVA with Rabbi Jeffrey Saks
Mondays and Wednesdays
4:00 PM Jerusalem Time (for 1 hour)
Preparation optional.
Open to men and women regardless of previous background. Exploring
Maimonides' classic Laws of Repentance. Starts Monday, August 27 until
Sukkot.
ATID's Web Yeshiva is a fully interactive learning experience. Join now for
one or both of these shiurim being offered for free during our early pilot
phase, and be a pioneer of the Web Yeshiva wherever you may be in the world.
TO REGISTER, PLEASE CONTACT RABBI YEDIDYA RAUSMAN, DIRECTOR OF WEB YESHIVA,
AT RAUSMAN@ATID.ORG OR CALL 02-567-1719.
Requirements:
* Internet connection
* Webcam
* Headset with microphone
* Sefarim are not necessary (texts provided online)
After Sukkot, Web Yeshiva will be expanding with programs for men and women,
offering shiurim in English on Gemara, Tanakh, Jewish Thought, and Halakhah.
Computer programming awards
The Good:
When I searched a thesaurus site for the word "pattern", it showed me Google ads for anti-baldness treatment - in Hebrew. I'm quite impressed that they manage to detect where I am, and come up with a non-obvious but sensible targeted offer based on the word I looked for. (Of course, what's even better is that I've set up my home computer to block ads on web pages, so outside work I wouldn't see the ad at all. And no I'm not going bald.)
The Bad:
Whenever I log out of any of the Microsoft Windows computers in my lab, it forgets all the settings that I have changed. Or rather, it intentionally overrides them when I log in again. Thus, every time I log in and start up my usual programs, I need to deal with at least 15 (literally, I wrote up a list) popups and questions and error messages until the system gets to a basic state of usability. Everything from the web browser warning me that it's dangerous to search Google, to the simulation program forgetting where to store temporary files, to Microsoft Office trying to install its stupid paper clip (which somehow wasn't installed the first time, but even if it was, I would have had to turn it off every time). The first time you log in this annoyance is expected. The 30th time, it's just ridiculously frustrating.
The common thread in my Good and Bad is that they aren't questions of brilliant cutting-edge innovation, but simply of having a tiny bit of thoughtfulness in the design process. The lesson can be summarized very simply: Lazy people make crap. People who care may not be smarter, but are conscientious enough to make good products. And guess which I prefer to use.
When I searched a thesaurus site for the word "pattern", it showed me Google ads for anti-baldness treatment - in Hebrew. I'm quite impressed that they manage to detect where I am, and come up with a non-obvious but sensible targeted offer based on the word I looked for. (Of course, what's even better is that I've set up my home computer to block ads on web pages, so outside work I wouldn't see the ad at all. And no I'm not going bald.)
The Bad:
Whenever I log out of any of the Microsoft Windows computers in my lab, it forgets all the settings that I have changed. Or rather, it intentionally overrides them when I log in again. Thus, every time I log in and start up my usual programs, I need to deal with at least 15 (literally, I wrote up a list) popups and questions and error messages until the system gets to a basic state of usability. Everything from the web browser warning me that it's dangerous to search Google, to the simulation program forgetting where to store temporary files, to Microsoft Office trying to install its stupid paper clip (which somehow wasn't installed the first time, but even if it was, I would have had to turn it off every time). The first time you log in this annoyance is expected. The 30th time, it's just ridiculously frustrating.
The common thread in my Good and Bad is that they aren't questions of brilliant cutting-edge innovation, but simply of having a tiny bit of thoughtfulness in the design process. The lesson can be summarized very simply: Lazy people make crap. People who care may not be smarter, but are conscientious enough to make good products. And guess which I prefer to use.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Thoughts on Shoftim
The laws of eglah arufah are very similar to those of the scapegoat from the Yom Kippur service. In both cases an unworked animal is taken to an uninhabited location, and is killed by an atypical method, after which our hands and/or body must be washed. And in both cases priests are present as we request atonement ("kaparah") for sins which may have been committed.
It therefore seems that the purpose of the two procedures is identical: to symbolize that we are receiving atonement, that the sin(s) are literally being removed from our midst.
The only difference is that while the scapegoat is integrated into the formal Temple service, the eglah arufah takes place locally (depending on where the corpse is discovered) and thus is independent of the Temple service.
The laws both immediately before and after eglah arufah concern various aspects of war. We would therefore expect that eglah arufah is also related to war, and the discovery of unattended corpses in the field is certainly compatible with that. Perhaps each city has a responsibility to absorb and protect any civilians who happen to be in the path of the armies. If the city shut its gates and left these people to their own devices, its leaders would in fact be culpable if the civilians ended up getting killed.
"Thus says your Lord - Hashem; and your God - who advocates/struggles ["yariv"] for his people..." (Yeshayahu 51:22 - this week's haftarah)
Biblical poetry is notable for its frequent use of parallelism, where one phrase is followed by a second phrase with the same meaning but different choice of words. This is clearly the case here, where "your Lord" in the first phrase parallels "your God" in the second.
But what about the second half of each phrase? If this verse is following the common pattern, then the proper name "Hashem" must parallel the description "advocates for his people". This would be unusual, in that a proper name is juxtaposed with a description.
But perhaps this is a fortuitous source which allows us to define the meaning of the name "Hashem". Based on the parallelism, it seems the name "Hashem" by definition implies particularistic intervention on behalf of the Jewish people. This is in opposition to names such as "Elokim" and "Shadai", which refer to the same God, but which relate to more universal/natural behavior by God.
We could perhaps have reached the same conclusion, by looking at the patterns of name usage in Tanach. But that would be difficult, since other factors often complicate the choice of names, and the patterns are not 100% consistent. In contrast, in this verse, the definition is virtually explicit.
It therefore seems that the purpose of the two procedures is identical: to symbolize that we are receiving atonement, that the sin(s) are literally being removed from our midst.
The only difference is that while the scapegoat is integrated into the formal Temple service, the eglah arufah takes place locally (depending on where the corpse is discovered) and thus is independent of the Temple service.
The laws both immediately before and after eglah arufah concern various aspects of war. We would therefore expect that eglah arufah is also related to war, and the discovery of unattended corpses in the field is certainly compatible with that. Perhaps each city has a responsibility to absorb and protect any civilians who happen to be in the path of the armies. If the city shut its gates and left these people to their own devices, its leaders would in fact be culpable if the civilians ended up getting killed.
"Thus says your Lord - Hashem; and your God - who advocates/struggles ["yariv"] for his people..." (Yeshayahu 51:22 - this week's haftarah)
Biblical poetry is notable for its frequent use of parallelism, where one phrase is followed by a second phrase with the same meaning but different choice of words. This is clearly the case here, where "your Lord" in the first phrase parallels "your God" in the second.
But what about the second half of each phrase? If this verse is following the common pattern, then the proper name "Hashem" must parallel the description "advocates for his people". This would be unusual, in that a proper name is juxtaposed with a description.
But perhaps this is a fortuitous source which allows us to define the meaning of the name "Hashem". Based on the parallelism, it seems the name "Hashem" by definition implies particularistic intervention on behalf of the Jewish people. This is in opposition to names such as "Elokim" and "Shadai", which refer to the same God, but which relate to more universal/natural behavior by God.
We could perhaps have reached the same conclusion, by looking at the patterns of name usage in Tanach. But that would be difficult, since other factors often complicate the choice of names, and the patterns are not 100% consistent. In contrast, in this verse, the definition is virtually explicit.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
(Il)Liberalism
Such a dead-on analysis that I can't help not only linking to it, but quoting it too.
"The incoherent liberal orthodoxy is that no group is morally inferior to any other, except for those who choose to deny this orthodoxy. (The 'choose to' is important because groups that are sufficiently pathetic to be patronizable by liberals, i.e. Muslims, get a free pass; their behavior is treated as entirely deterministic and involuntary.)"
"The incoherent liberal orthodoxy is that no group is morally inferior to any other, except for those who choose to deny this orthodoxy. (The 'choose to' is important because groups that are sufficiently pathetic to be patronizable by liberals, i.e. Muslims, get a free pass; their behavior is treated as entirely deterministic and involuntary.)"
Peals of laughter
Two blind people were examining an elephant. One of them felt the trunk and concluded, "An elephant is a kind of snake." The other felt the leg and concluded, "An elephant is a kind of tree."
Later on, one blind biblical critic came to examine the elephant. First he felt the the trunk, then he moved over and felt the leg. He puzzled for a while over this contradictory evidence, but then reached a brilliant conclusion. "Aha! There must be two elephants in the room. One of them is a snake, and the other one a tree!"
Later on, one blind biblical critic came to examine the elephant. First he felt the the trunk, then he moved over and felt the leg. He puzzled for a while over this contradictory evidence, but then reached a brilliant conclusion. "Aha! There must be two elephants in the room. One of them is a snake, and the other one a tree!"
Friday, August 10, 2007
Thoughts on Reeh
"You are children of Hashem your God; do not cut yourselves, nor make a baldness between your eyes for the dead. For you are a holy people to Hashem your God, and Hashem has chosen you to be a treasured people, from all peoples on earth. (14:1-2)
Let us start by noting that the phrase "between your eyes" must mean a location where there was originally hair, before being made bald. By comparison tefillin, which are also placed "between your eyes", must also be above the hairline. (see Menachot 36a)
The resemblance between tefillin and this prohibition may in fact be deeper. Excluding the Temple service, tefillin are the probably quintessential item of ritual holiness. Making a "baldness" on the tefillin spot, thus perhaps making it impossible to wear tefillin there, implies deliberately refusing this holiness. Thus, in way of explanation, the Torah explains that "you are a holy people" - a status which you may not refuse.
Furthermore, people who mutilate themselves (for suicidal or other reasons) apparently tend to cut their arms or wrists in particular. (This may be simply because the arm is the most accessible body part, and the wrist includes important blood vessels.) Thus, the "cutting yourself" referred to earlier in the verse may specifically refer to cutting the arm. If so, we have another connection to tefillin. The two examples of mutilation would refer to the arm and the forehead, the two places where tefillin are placed.
By comparison with tefillin, we can therefore explain both of the strange commandments in this passage, their juxtaposition with each other, as well as the explanation given for them.
Let us start by noting that the phrase "between your eyes" must mean a location where there was originally hair, before being made bald. By comparison tefillin, which are also placed "between your eyes", must also be above the hairline. (see Menachot 36a)
The resemblance between tefillin and this prohibition may in fact be deeper. Excluding the Temple service, tefillin are the probably quintessential item of ritual holiness. Making a "baldness" on the tefillin spot, thus perhaps making it impossible to wear tefillin there, implies deliberately refusing this holiness. Thus, in way of explanation, the Torah explains that "you are a holy people" - a status which you may not refuse.
Furthermore, people who mutilate themselves (for suicidal or other reasons) apparently tend to cut their arms or wrists in particular. (This may be simply because the arm is the most accessible body part, and the wrist includes important blood vessels.) Thus, the "cutting yourself" referred to earlier in the verse may specifically refer to cutting the arm. If so, we have another connection to tefillin. The two examples of mutilation would refer to the arm and the forehead, the two places where tefillin are placed.
By comparison with tefillin, we can therefore explain both of the strange commandments in this passage, their juxtaposition with each other, as well as the explanation given for them.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Kippah Serugah Min Hatorah Minayin
How do we know that Avraham Avinu wore a knitted kippah?
According to Breishit 14:22-23: "Avram said to the king of Sedom: 'I have lifted up my hand [i.e. sworn] to Hashem the Supreme God, Maker of heaven and earth, that I will not take anything of yours, from a thread to a shoelace, lest you say: I have made Avram rich.' "
The phrase "from a thread to a shoelace" is apparently an expression for "from the very highest thing on the body, to the very lowest thing". Thus proving that Avraham would normally have worn a garment with threads in it on his head, i.e. a srugi.
Credit for this "insight" goes to R' Yoni Grossman.
According to Breishit 14:22-23: "Avram said to the king of Sedom: 'I have lifted up my hand [i.e. sworn] to Hashem the Supreme God, Maker of heaven and earth, that I will not take anything of yours, from a thread to a shoelace, lest you say: I have made Avram rich.' "
The phrase "from a thread to a shoelace" is apparently an expression for "from the very highest thing on the body, to the very lowest thing". Thus proving that Avraham would normally have worn a garment with threads in it on his head, i.e. a srugi.
Credit for this "insight" goes to R' Yoni Grossman.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
East of Eden
Once upon a time there was a woman named Eve living in the Garden of Eden. She was naked. One day a serpent convinced her to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Suddenly she realized that she was not at all tznius. She went and sewed herself a skirt. Unfortunately, upon trying it on, she realized that it did not fully cover her knees while sitting! So she went and found some more fabric and added a couple inches to her skirt. Now it was time to work on a blouse. Not having learned from her mother, Eve had trouble making sleeves that would never ride up beyond her elbows. Finally, very proud of herself, she finished this too. Unfortunately, upon looking in a calm pond, she realized that her blouse was much too tight! Unhappily she went back to making a more tznius blouse from scratch. Just as she finished putting her new blouse on, Adam walked into the room (it was halftime in the Jets game) and said, "Wife, what is there to eat?" At that moment Eve remembered that she was married, so she was required to cover her hair! Frantically she ran back to her pile of sewing supplies and dug through it until... at last! A snood! All was good. Her hair was covered, her knees and elbows hidden, and none of her clothing was too tight. She was dressed totally tzniusdikly, just like the millions of holy Jewish women who would someday be descended from her.
Actually, while this makes a good story, things in fact happened differently. Eve actually put on exactly the same clothing Adam had - a girdle or loincloth around the waist. The only "real" halachic nakedness, I think we learn from this story, is the genitals. The rest is just societal norms. Clearly women as well as men today should not be walking around in loincloths. But just as clearly, we should be aware of where our halacha comes from.
Actually, while this makes a good story, things in fact happened differently. Eve actually put on exactly the same clothing Adam had - a girdle or loincloth around the waist. The only "real" halachic nakedness, I think we learn from this story, is the genitals. The rest is just societal norms. Clearly women as well as men today should not be walking around in loincloths. But just as clearly, we should be aware of where our halacha comes from.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Best wedding song ever
From some sefardi siddur ("Ish Matzliach" I think). Unfortunately I don't know the tune...
הזן את העולם כולו, ברוך שאכלנו משלו.
יוצר הכל יתברך, כי שולחן לנו ערך, נודה לשמו בלשון רך.
צאן ובקר, לאין מחקר, הפת עיקר, והשאר טפלה לו.
החתן אשר קבע, סעודתו לשובע, זכה לברכות שבע, יזכה לבנים תשע.
נתן יין, בטוב עין, עלי עין, יפרח בכרמלו.
האכילנו בשר פרה, כלתו מפוארה, כמו רחל וציפורה.
עוגות סולת, לגולגולת, ותרנגולת, נתן איש כפי אוכלו.
האכילנו בשר איל, כלתו אשת חיל, כמו רחל ואביגיל.
(עוגות סולת, לגולגולת, ותרנגולת, נתן איש כפי אוכלו.)
האכילנו בשר דגה, כלתו מעונגה, כמו יונה במעי הדגה.
(עוגות סולת, לגולגולת, ותרנגולת, נתן איש כפי אוכלו.)
האכילנו בשר הצאן, כלתו אשת רצון, כמו רחל רועה בצאן.
(עוגות סולת, לגולגולת, ותרנגולת, נתן איש כפי אוכלו.)
האכילנו בשר דגים,כלתו אשת נועם, כמו רחל ואבינעם.
(עוגות סולת, לגולגולת, ותרנגולת, נתן איש כפי אוכלו.)
He created the entire world; blessed is He from whom we have eaten.
The blessed Maker of all, having set this table for us, we will give thanks to his name in tender language.
Mutton and beef without end, but the bread is the main thing, and the rest is secondary to it.
The groom who made this filling meal, who merited seven blessings, may he merit to have nine kids.
He gave wine liberally, may his field sprout beautifully.
He who fed us cow meat - his bride is beautiful, like Rachel and Tziporah.
Flour cakes for every person, and chicken, he gave each person according to their appetite.
He who fed us ram meat - his bride is a woman of valor, like Rachel and Avigail.
He who fed us fish meat - his bride is pampered, like Yonah in the belly of the fish.
He who fed us meat from the flock - his bride is good-willed, like Rachel the shepherdess.
He who fed us fish meat - his bride is a pleasant woman, like Rachel and Avinoam.
הזן את העולם כולו, ברוך שאכלנו משלו.
יוצר הכל יתברך, כי שולחן לנו ערך, נודה לשמו בלשון רך.
צאן ובקר, לאין מחקר, הפת עיקר, והשאר טפלה לו.
החתן אשר קבע, סעודתו לשובע, זכה לברכות שבע, יזכה לבנים תשע.
נתן יין, בטוב עין, עלי עין, יפרח בכרמלו.
האכילנו בשר פרה, כלתו מפוארה, כמו רחל וציפורה.
עוגות סולת, לגולגולת, ותרנגולת, נתן איש כפי אוכלו.
האכילנו בשר איל, כלתו אשת חיל, כמו רחל ואביגיל.
(עוגות סולת, לגולגולת, ותרנגולת, נתן איש כפי אוכלו.)
האכילנו בשר דגה, כלתו מעונגה, כמו יונה במעי הדגה.
(עוגות סולת, לגולגולת, ותרנגולת, נתן איש כפי אוכלו.)
האכילנו בשר הצאן, כלתו אשת רצון, כמו רחל רועה בצאן.
(עוגות סולת, לגולגולת, ותרנגולת, נתן איש כפי אוכלו.)
האכילנו בשר דגים,כלתו אשת נועם, כמו רחל ואבינעם.
(עוגות סולת, לגולגולת, ותרנגולת, נתן איש כפי אוכלו.)
He created the entire world; blessed is He from whom we have eaten.
The blessed Maker of all, having set this table for us, we will give thanks to his name in tender language.
Mutton and beef without end, but the bread is the main thing, and the rest is secondary to it.
The groom who made this filling meal, who merited seven blessings, may he merit to have nine kids.
He gave wine liberally, may his field sprout beautifully.
He who fed us cow meat - his bride is beautiful, like Rachel and Tziporah.
Flour cakes for every person, and chicken, he gave each person according to their appetite.
He who fed us ram meat - his bride is a woman of valor, like Rachel and Avigail.
He who fed us fish meat - his bride is pampered, like Yonah in the belly of the fish.
He who fed us meat from the flock - his bride is good-willed, like Rachel the shepherdess.
He who fed us fish meat - his bride is a pleasant woman, like Rachel and Avinoam.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Sacrifices
(Something I just wrote on another site, possible using a pseudonym.)
I think people are missing the point that korbanot were not just about killing animals - they were, in the vast majority of cases, about killing your animals. They were a substantial financial "sacrifice", especially in ancient times, when animals were one of the few valuable objects people owned. Instead of mumbling some prayer which you might not even know the meaning of while daydreaming about the Yankees, you were literally forced to put your money where your mouth was.
And in many cases, korbanot were required to include other central components of religious life, such as prayer (chatat, asham, bikurim); charity to the poor (certain shelamim), and so on.
I would hazard to say that sacrifices as depicted in the Torah were more meaningful than any institutional form of worship we have today. Simply saying that "korbanot are bloody and violent, so we don't want them" is superficial and immature, and demonstrates ignorance as to what the Torah actually commands.
I think people are missing the point that korbanot were not just about killing animals - they were, in the vast majority of cases, about killing your animals. They were a substantial financial "sacrifice", especially in ancient times, when animals were one of the few valuable objects people owned. Instead of mumbling some prayer which you might not even know the meaning of while daydreaming about the Yankees, you were literally forced to put your money where your mouth was.
And in many cases, korbanot were required to include other central components of religious life, such as prayer (chatat, asham, bikurim); charity to the poor (certain shelamim), and so on.
I would hazard to say that sacrifices as depicted in the Torah were more meaningful than any institutional form of worship we have today. Simply saying that "korbanot are bloody and violent, so we don't want them" is superficial and immature, and demonstrates ignorance as to what the Torah actually commands.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Thoughts on Vaetchanan
"For which great nation has God as close to them, as is Hashem our God whenever we call upon Him?
And which great nation has statutes and laws, as righteous as all the law which I present to you today? (4:5-6)
In these two lines Moshe alludes to two of the main forms of religious experience - the experiential/spiritual, versus the intellectual. He says that the Jewish people has experienced both, in ways that no other nation has.
Now, it is easy to think of extraordinary spiritual experiences that Moshe could be alluding to, for example the splitting of the Red Sea. It is also easy to think of intellectual experiences, specifically the many laws which Moshe taught them over the course of 40 years. But there was only one event which was a spiritual and an intellectual experience. This was the revelation at Sinai. It should be no surprise that Moshe now mentions Sinai as the lasting evidence for the claims he has just made...
Only beware, and watch yourself carefully, lest you forget the things which your eyes saw, and lest they leave your heart all the days of your life; but rather make them known to your children and grandchildren - the day you stood before Hashem your God in Horev..." (4:7-10)
And which great nation has statutes and laws, as righteous as all the law which I present to you today? (4:5-6)
In these two lines Moshe alludes to two of the main forms of religious experience - the experiential/spiritual, versus the intellectual. He says that the Jewish people has experienced both, in ways that no other nation has.
Now, it is easy to think of extraordinary spiritual experiences that Moshe could be alluding to, for example the splitting of the Red Sea. It is also easy to think of intellectual experiences, specifically the many laws which Moshe taught them over the course of 40 years. But there was only one event which was a spiritual and an intellectual experience. This was the revelation at Sinai. It should be no surprise that Moshe now mentions Sinai as the lasting evidence for the claims he has just made...
Only beware, and watch yourself carefully, lest you forget the things which your eyes saw, and lest they leave your heart all the days of your life; but rather make them known to your children and grandchildren - the day you stood before Hashem your God in Horev..." (4:7-10)
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Thoughts on Eichah
I found it useful this year, while reading Eichah, to keep in mind that the events which are mentioned in it are/were presumably well-known to the intended audience.
This is certainly true for chapter 5, which is one long speech to God; and for large chunks of chapter 1 which are also addressed to God. These chapters give many examples of our suffering, despite the fact that God clearly knows about them already. It seems to me that this serves to create a sense of urgency. Chapter 5 in particular is simply a prayer from us to God - I found it spiritually productive to go off by myself and say it as a prayer, the same way I had said Shemoneh Esreh a couple hours earlier - and the mention of each event serves to make the argument sharper and more poignant. "Look. We have been suffering terribly. We have had to deal with X, and Y, and Z. We cannot bear it any more. Please return to us."
Chapters 2 and 4 seem to be addressed not to God but to some subset of the Jewish people, who, however, are intimately aware of what has happened. They call for specific responses to the tragedy: in chapter 2, calling out to God; in chapter 4, theological perspective.
(Chapter 3 is more complex, less nationally oriented, and more private. Eichah as a whole has a chiastic structure - chapters 1 and 5 are speeches to God, 2 and 4 are speeches to Israel, 3 is sort of an internal monologue.)
We are mostly accustomed to look at Eichah as a piece of history - if you want to know what the destruction was like, go read Eichah. I think that is the wrong approach. Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 5 take the form of public speeches. But they fail as speeches unless the events they describe are painfully familiar to the audience. We can read about our historical tragedies in Sefer Melachim, in Josephus, in books on the Holocaust, or wherever else. We thus obtain mental associations which come into play when we read Eichah. Eichah does not simply tell us about tragedies. It also tells us how to respond to them. And the goal of Tisha Beav is for us to begin responding.
This is certainly true for chapter 5, which is one long speech to God; and for large chunks of chapter 1 which are also addressed to God. These chapters give many examples of our suffering, despite the fact that God clearly knows about them already. It seems to me that this serves to create a sense of urgency. Chapter 5 in particular is simply a prayer from us to God - I found it spiritually productive to go off by myself and say it as a prayer, the same way I had said Shemoneh Esreh a couple hours earlier - and the mention of each event serves to make the argument sharper and more poignant. "Look. We have been suffering terribly. We have had to deal with X, and Y, and Z. We cannot bear it any more. Please return to us."
Chapters 2 and 4 seem to be addressed not to God but to some subset of the Jewish people, who, however, are intimately aware of what has happened. They call for specific responses to the tragedy: in chapter 2, calling out to God; in chapter 4, theological perspective.
(Chapter 3 is more complex, less nationally oriented, and more private. Eichah as a whole has a chiastic structure - chapters 1 and 5 are speeches to God, 2 and 4 are speeches to Israel, 3 is sort of an internal monologue.)
We are mostly accustomed to look at Eichah as a piece of history - if you want to know what the destruction was like, go read Eichah. I think that is the wrong approach. Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 5 take the form of public speeches. But they fail as speeches unless the events they describe are painfully familiar to the audience. We can read about our historical tragedies in Sefer Melachim, in Josephus, in books on the Holocaust, or wherever else. We thus obtain mental associations which come into play when we read Eichah. Eichah does not simply tell us about tragedies. It also tells us how to respond to them. And the goal of Tisha Beav is for us to begin responding.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Devarim and Tisha Beav
One obvious parallel between Parshat Devarim and its haftarah is the presence of the word "Eichah", which in both places we read in, um, the Eichah-tune.
This parallel is intimately related to a deeper parallel: the role of judges. In Devarim, Moshe's complaint about being unable to manage the people's quarrels leads him to appoint judges to do it for him. In the haftarah, we read about moral deterioration: "How ["Eichah"] the faithful city has become a harlot! She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers..." (Yeshayahu 1:21) And the stated reparation for the sin involves fixing the justice system: "I will restore your judges as before, and your advisors as at the beginning; afterward you will be called 'The city of righteousness, the faithful city'. Zion will be redeemed through justice, and its returnees through righteousness." (1:26-27)
We learn in Bamidbar 35:32-34 that unpunished murder "defiles" the land and cannot be atoned for except by punishment. The language is similar to Vayikra 18:27, which says that sexual immorality also "defiles" the land and leads to exile. In Devarim 4:25-27 we read that idol worship causes exile. These are the clear sources in the Torah for Chazal's statement that idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality lead to destruction. Yeshayahu, by calling for a reformed or more effective justice system, tried to address the second of these three potential causes. Moshe had similar motivations in appointing judges, even if murder and other injustice had not yet become prevalent.
In later generations, the impulse towards idolatry disappeared, but sexual immorality and the absence of justice persisted. The gemara (Gittin 55b-58a) tells a series of stories relating why the second Temple was destroyed. The first is that of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, and the last is that of "two wicks in one lamp" - that is to say, adultery.
In the Kamtza/Bar Kamtza story, virtually everyone is to blame, but perhaps the ultimate cause of destruction is the rabbis' failure to protest Bar Kamtza's embarrassment. Elsewhere, the gemara (Bava Metzia 58b) likens acute embarrassment to murder. Even if we do not take that statement literally, it remains true that the rabbis, in their role as authorities and arbiters, neglected to justly resolve the dispute between Bar Kamtza and the host, with disastrous consequences.
Thus, the gemara begins with a story about the abdication of justice, and ends with a story of sexual immorality. These were only two causes of the destruction, among others, and can perhaps be subsumed under the general label of "sinat hinam". But they were the most prominent and perhaps most important causes, and thus merit being at the very beginning and end. Perhaps due to this importance, in this week's haftarah we are warned about the presence of murder and the absence of justice.
As far as warnings about sexual immorality, do not feel cheated that there are none in parshat Devarim or its haftarah, or on Tisha Beav. These warnings will come soon enough - two months from now, on the afternoon of Yom Kippur.
This parallel is intimately related to a deeper parallel: the role of judges. In Devarim, Moshe's complaint about being unable to manage the people's quarrels leads him to appoint judges to do it for him. In the haftarah, we read about moral deterioration: "How ["Eichah"] the faithful city has become a harlot! She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers..." (Yeshayahu 1:21) And the stated reparation for the sin involves fixing the justice system: "I will restore your judges as before, and your advisors as at the beginning; afterward you will be called 'The city of righteousness, the faithful city'. Zion will be redeemed through justice, and its returnees through righteousness." (1:26-27)
We learn in Bamidbar 35:32-34 that unpunished murder "defiles" the land and cannot be atoned for except by punishment. The language is similar to Vayikra 18:27, which says that sexual immorality also "defiles" the land and leads to exile. In Devarim 4:25-27 we read that idol worship causes exile. These are the clear sources in the Torah for Chazal's statement that idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality lead to destruction. Yeshayahu, by calling for a reformed or more effective justice system, tried to address the second of these three potential causes. Moshe had similar motivations in appointing judges, even if murder and other injustice had not yet become prevalent.
In later generations, the impulse towards idolatry disappeared, but sexual immorality and the absence of justice persisted. The gemara (Gittin 55b-58a) tells a series of stories relating why the second Temple was destroyed. The first is that of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, and the last is that of "two wicks in one lamp" - that is to say, adultery.
In the Kamtza/Bar Kamtza story, virtually everyone is to blame, but perhaps the ultimate cause of destruction is the rabbis' failure to protest Bar Kamtza's embarrassment. Elsewhere, the gemara (Bava Metzia 58b) likens acute embarrassment to murder. Even if we do not take that statement literally, it remains true that the rabbis, in their role as authorities and arbiters, neglected to justly resolve the dispute between Bar Kamtza and the host, with disastrous consequences.
Thus, the gemara begins with a story about the abdication of justice, and ends with a story of sexual immorality. These were only two causes of the destruction, among others, and can perhaps be subsumed under the general label of "sinat hinam". But they were the most prominent and perhaps most important causes, and thus merit being at the very beginning and end. Perhaps due to this importance, in this week's haftarah we are warned about the presence of murder and the absence of justice.
As far as warnings about sexual immorality, do not feel cheated that there are none in parshat Devarim or its haftarah, or on Tisha Beav. These warnings will come soon enough - two months from now, on the afternoon of Yom Kippur.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Thoughts on Devarim
These are the commandments and the ordinances, which Hashem commanded by the hand of Moshe to the children of Israel, in the plains of Moav by the Jordan at Jericho. (Bamidbar 36:13)
These are the words which Moshe spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan; in the wilderness, in the Aravah, opposite Suf, between Paran and Tofel, and Lavan, and Hatzerot, and Di-zahav. Eleven days journey from Horev, to Kadesh-barnea, by the way of Mount Seir. (Devarim 1:1-2)
The last verse of Sefer Bamidbar specifies that the preceding commandments were commanded in Moav. The first verse of Devarim does not specify where the commandments which follow were given. In fact, in chapter 5 we will learn that they were given at Sinai.
I personally think (like Ibn Ezra) that at least some of the places listed here represent separate locations, each of which Moshe gave the "speech" of Sefer Devarim over again. Certainly Kadesh-Barnea seems logical in that respect, since the content of Sefer Devarim addresses the entry to Israel, and the Jews would have entered Israel from Kadesh-Barnea (after a journey from Horev[=Sinai] via Hatzerot) were it not for the spies incident.
Devarim is referred to as "Mishneh Torah". Perhaps that means "orally repeated Torah", as in "veshinantam lebanecha", as the speech was repeated orally several times. (R' Menachem Leibtag)
And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moshe spoke to the children of Israel, according to all that Hashem had given him in commandment unto them; after he had defeated Sichon the king of the Amorites, who dwelt in Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, who dwelt in Ashtaroth, at Edrei. Beyond the Jordan, in the land of Moav, Moshe took upon himself to expound [?] this law, saying: "Hashem our God spoke to us in Horev... (1:3-6)
There is no punctuation in the written Torah, so you have to mentally add it yourself. Here we clearly have an "open-quote" as Moshe begins his speech. Where is the close-quote? I think it comes four chapters later, after verse 4:40. Then there is another open-quote in 5:1. This begins a speech which continues all the way until 26:19. The final 8 chapters of Devarim, after this mega-speech, contain miscellaneous other topics. (R' Menachem Leibtag)
Verses 3-5 seem redundant after verses 1-2. See the explanation here.
Then Sichon came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Yahatz. Hashem our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. (2:32-33)
Why the mention of Sichon's sons, which does not appear for the other battle (with Og)? Presumably this is because his sons were the generals leading the battle. We find the same phenomenon with Shaul, and it was likely the case with some other ancient kings. As one example with Shaul, his son Yehonatan led battles against the Philistines. (Shmuel Alef 13:3,14:1-14:14)
As another possible example, there is the disturbing story in Shmuel Bet 21, where it is revealed after Shaul's death that he had massacred the Giveonite people. As a form of reparation, the remaining Giveonites request that seven of Shaul's sons or descendants be put to death, and David does this. Not only does it seem immoral for there to be arbitrary punishment, but the Torah specifically prohibits punishing sons for the crimes of their fathers. But if these sons had been army commanders like Yehonatan (Yehonatan himself had previously died in battle), then it makes perfect sense that they be put to death for a crime which they themselves committed. This would, perhaps, have been the first war crimes tribunal in history.
(Verse 21:7 would still need explaining though.)
These are the words which Moshe spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan; in the wilderness, in the Aravah, opposite Suf, between Paran and Tofel, and Lavan, and Hatzerot, and Di-zahav. Eleven days journey from Horev, to Kadesh-barnea, by the way of Mount Seir. (Devarim 1:1-2)
The last verse of Sefer Bamidbar specifies that the preceding commandments were commanded in Moav. The first verse of Devarim does not specify where the commandments which follow were given. In fact, in chapter 5 we will learn that they were given at Sinai.
I personally think (like Ibn Ezra) that at least some of the places listed here represent separate locations, each of which Moshe gave the "speech" of Sefer Devarim over again. Certainly Kadesh-Barnea seems logical in that respect, since the content of Sefer Devarim addresses the entry to Israel, and the Jews would have entered Israel from Kadesh-Barnea (after a journey from Horev[=Sinai] via Hatzerot) were it not for the spies incident.
Devarim is referred to as "Mishneh Torah". Perhaps that means "orally repeated Torah", as in "veshinantam lebanecha", as the speech was repeated orally several times. (R' Menachem Leibtag)
And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moshe spoke to the children of Israel, according to all that Hashem had given him in commandment unto them; after he had defeated Sichon the king of the Amorites, who dwelt in Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, who dwelt in Ashtaroth, at Edrei. Beyond the Jordan, in the land of Moav, Moshe took upon himself to expound [?] this law, saying: "Hashem our God spoke to us in Horev... (1:3-6)
There is no punctuation in the written Torah, so you have to mentally add it yourself. Here we clearly have an "open-quote" as Moshe begins his speech. Where is the close-quote? I think it comes four chapters later, after verse 4:40. Then there is another open-quote in 5:1. This begins a speech which continues all the way until 26:19. The final 8 chapters of Devarim, after this mega-speech, contain miscellaneous other topics. (R' Menachem Leibtag)
Verses 3-5 seem redundant after verses 1-2. See the explanation here.
Then Sichon came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Yahatz. Hashem our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. (2:32-33)
Why the mention of Sichon's sons, which does not appear for the other battle (with Og)? Presumably this is because his sons were the generals leading the battle. We find the same phenomenon with Shaul, and it was likely the case with some other ancient kings. As one example with Shaul, his son Yehonatan led battles against the Philistines. (Shmuel Alef 13:3,14:1-14:14)
As another possible example, there is the disturbing story in Shmuel Bet 21, where it is revealed after Shaul's death that he had massacred the Giveonite people. As a form of reparation, the remaining Giveonites request that seven of Shaul's sons or descendants be put to death, and David does this. Not only does it seem immoral for there to be arbitrary punishment, but the Torah specifically prohibits punishing sons for the crimes of their fathers. But if these sons had been army commanders like Yehonatan (Yehonatan himself had previously died in battle), then it makes perfect sense that they be put to death for a crime which they themselves committed. This would, perhaps, have been the first war crimes tribunal in history.
(Verse 21:7 would still need explaining though.)
Monday, July 16, 2007
Consolation quote for the 9 days
"I never studied Chullin under my father. I know Chullin by osmosis. I swallowed Chullin."
-R' Soloveitchik
-R' Soloveitchik
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)