Emunath Chachamim

Long time no see

2011-05-29T21:00:00.003-04:00

After some encouragement from the baal Harambam System, I will be endeavoring to post new material on this site. I admit that I have been more than lax in posting or thinking of posting for the blog and the realization that there are some who were waiting on that is encouraging. Currently I have about 15 posts that have been half done for some time including on : Mila, Tehillim 119 ( part of the larger project), Sukkos, Hakaras Hatov and Mezuza. I think the Mezuza post might appear in some form shortly.

Meir of Rothenburg and the appropriate way to treat your wife

2010-03-13T23:14:00.004-05:00

A few months ago I found this teshuva from the Maharam Merutenberg, one of the Baalei Tosafos and a major figure in the Torah world in Medieval Ashkenaz, he is famous outside of the Torah world for his steadfast refusal to allow his student Rabbeinu Asher ben Yechiel ( the Rosh), to ransom him after his capture and detention in the Ensesisheim fortress in Alsace. That ruling may become the focus of a separate post, but I saw this teshuva recently and thought it was worthwhile posting it .

כל בן ברית חייב לכבד את אשתו יותר מגופו, עולה עמו ואינה יורדת עמו, 'בעולת בעל' כתיב, בעלייתו ולא בירידתו, לחיים נתנה ולא לצער ומספר הכתובה נלמד 'אנא אפלח ואוקיר ואיזון'

אני אעבוד ואכבד ואפרנס אותך, והמכה את אשתו מקובלני שיש יותר להחמיר בו מבמכה את חברו דבחברו אינו חייב בכבודו ובאשתו חייב בכבודה ודרך הגויים בכך, אבל חלילה וחלילה לשום בן ברית מעשות זאת והעושה יש להחרימו ולנדותו ולהלקותו ולעונשו בכל מיני רידוי ואף לקוץ את ידו אם רגיל בכך...

(שו"ת מהר"ם מרוטנבורג, דפוס פראג, סי' פא)

I did not really have anything to say about the teshuva itself, just that I think it is very interesting, I wonder under what circumstances he issued this.

Tosafists

2010-02-17T23:33:00.003-05:00

If anyone still reads this blog they would notice that for the last few months I have been absent without leave from this page. The product of those many months was a paper on the Baalei Tosafos. I am beginning to think that this paper will mark a new phase in my learning and probably this blog ( well at least some of my learning).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27037062/Tosafist-chiddush-final-1

And he called out there in the Name of the Lrd King of the Universe- II

2009-09-23T13:31:00.011-04:00

I will admit that this post is taking a very long time to complete. I do not really care about that because, well, what I am trying to understand is pretty large, and I am pretty small. I have gone back and forth about how to approach this a few times, it is something that I do with trepidation. If I end up changing my mind on presentation or order, I will change

What does the argument over the well have to do with anything? Why do we care about Abraham's border conflicts?

How did Abimelech see that " G' was with Abraham" and what did he mean?

Why is the first thing that Abraham does, after settling the covenant with Abimelech, planting an Eshel ( It remains to be seen what an Eshel even is)?

And of course, how does the planting of the Eshel correspond to the last part of the verse " and he called there in the name of the Lrd King of the World" and what does that mean?

What strikes me here is the interaction of Abimelech and his general, with Abraham. It is clear that Abraham was not as militarily powerful as Abimelech and yet Abimelech takes him very seriously, from the beginning. Sure, he says that he has seen that G' is with him but what does this mean? Why would anyone with such a powerful army fear Abraham enough to cede territory to him?

I think that what you have to say here is that the interaction of Abimelech and Abraham was a manifestation of the idea of " Magen Avraham", that is, that the politcal dealings of Abraham were within the realm of Hashgacha. Abimelech saw that Hashgacha saved Abraham from Sodom ( Rashi) and it impacted his view of, and dealings with him. What then is the Eshel and its connection to this episode? Rashi brings down a machlokes in the Talmud between Rav and Shmuel, one holding that the Eshel was an orchard that bore fruit and one holding it was an inn that provided many forms of fruit to its guests. Rashi explains further that through this orchard G's name will be recognized as the Judge of the universe, because they will contemplate the source of the food and realize that it was from he who spoke and brought the world into existance.

So why then did Abraham plant the Eshel, what does it have to do with anything? I think this is a demonstration of what the proper philosophy of ownership is. Abraham was not concerned with his territorial control over the wells qua the wells themselves. What he was concerned with was the ability to control the wells in so far as they were sources of Bracha which leads to reflection. That is to say, that after he secures the wells, he rushes to actualize their potential for yedias Hashem, and he plants the Orchard/ builds the Inn so that he can foster the reflection on the source of Good. The wells provide water which in turns provides sustenance to plants , the plants in turn feed Man. Man then must recognize the true source of the sustenance, the true purpose of the wells, recognition of shem Hashem.

So according to what I am saying so far, the verse focuses on Abrahams utilization of the territory towards a yisod of the universe and not towards his own material gain. He recognizes Hashgacha as manifest in his acquisition, which forces him to reflect on the purpose of property, this causes him to dedicate the property towards Yedia.

Fine, but what does any of this have to do with the Mishneh Torah?

And Abraham planted a tamarisk-tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the L-rd, the Everlasting Gd

2009-08-06T20:15:00.001-04:00

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the Rambam heads the entire Mishneh Torah with two verses. The first is Genesis 21:33. The following is the parasha that contains this verse ( Hebrew and English). It would seem based on the stucture of the Mishneh Torah that this verse is necessary to an overall understanding of the Mishneh Torah. I wanted to first present the verse in its context, the following is the entire section in the original and then the english translation from JPS.

כב וַיְהִי, בָּעֵת הַהִוא, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וּפִיכֹל שַׂר-צְבָאוֹ, אֶל-אַבְרָהָם לֵאמֹר: אֱלֹהִים עִמְּךָ, בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-אַתָּה עֹשֶׂה. כג וְעַתָּה,

הִשָּׁבְעָה לִּי בֵאלֹהִים הֵנָּה, אִם-תִּשְׁקֹר לִי, וּלְנִינִי וּלְנֶכְדִּי; כַּחֶסֶד אֲשֶׁר-עָשִׂיתִי עִמְּךָ, תַּעֲשֶׂה עִמָּדִי, וְעִם-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-גַּרְתָּה בָּהּ. כד וַיֹּאמֶר, אַבְרָהָם, אָנֹכִי, אִשָּׁבֵעַ. כה וְהוֹכִחַ אַבְרָהָם, אֶת-אֲבִימֶלֶךְ, עַל-אֹדוֹת בְּאֵר הַמַּיִם, אֲשֶׁר גָּזְלוּ עַבְדֵי אֲבִימֶלֶךְ. כו וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ--לֹא יָדַעְתִּי, מִי עָשָׂה אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה; וְגַם-אַתָּה לֹא-הִגַּדְתָּ לִּי, וְגַם אָנֹכִי לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי--בִּלְתִּי הַיּוֹם. כז וַיִּקַּח אַבְרָהָם צֹאן וּבָקָר, וַיִּתֵּן לַאֲבִימֶלֶךְ; וַיִּכְרְתוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם, בְּרִית. כח וַיַּצֵּב אַבְרָהָם, אֶת-שֶׁבַע כִּבְשֹׂת הַצֹּאן--לְבַדְּהֶן. כט וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ, אֶל-אַבְרָהָם: מָה הֵנָּה, שֶׁבַע כְּבָשֹׂת הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר הִצַּבְתָּ, לְבַדָּנָה. ל וַיֹּאמֶר--כִּי אֶת-שֶׁבַע כְּבָשֹׂת, תִּקַּח מִיָּדִי: בַּעֲבוּר תִּהְיֶה-לִּי לְעֵדָה, כִּי חָפַרְתִּי אֶת-הַבְּאֵר הַזֹּאת. לא עַל-כֵּן, קָרָא לַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא--בְּאֵר שָׁבַע: כִּי שָׁם נִשְׁבְּעוּ, שְׁנֵיהֶם. לב וַיִּכְרְתוּ בְרִית, בִּבְאֵר שָׁבַע; וַיָּקָם אֲבִימֶלֶךְ, וּפִיכֹל שַׂר-צְבָאוֹ, וַיָּשֻׁבוּ, אֶל-אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים. לג וַיִּטַּע אֶשֶׁל, בִּבְאֵר שָׁבַע; וַיִּקְרָא-שָׁם--בְּשֵׁם ה', אֵ--ל עוֹלָם. לד וַיָּגָר אַבְרָהָם בְּאֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים, יָמִים רַבִּים.

22 And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phicol the captain of his host spoke unto Abraham, saying: 'God is with thee in all that thou doest. 23 Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son; but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned.' 24 And Abraham said: 'I will swear.' 25 And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of the well of water, which Abimelech's servants had violently taken away. 26 And Abimelech said: 'I know not who hath done this thing; neither didst thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it, but to-day.' 27 And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and they two made a covenant. 28 And Abraham set seven ewe-lambs of the flock by themselves. 29 And Abimelech said unto Abraham: 'What mean these seven ewe-lambs which thou hast set by themselves?' 30 And he said: 'Verily, these seven ewe-lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that it may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well.' 31 Wherefore that place was called Beer-sheba; because there they swore both of them. 32 So they made a covenant at Beer-sheba; and Abimelech rose up, and Phicol the captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines. 33 And Abraham planted a tamarisk-tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God. 34 And Abraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines many days.

I want to let this section sit alone before I put my two cents in. Due to the extreme import that verse 33 seems to have in the Mishneh Torah, I would not want to 'jump the gun' but I felt that perhaps I could open the investigation up to any readers for some mutually beneficial reflection.

What is the cure for diseases of the soul?- ומה היא תקנת חולי נפשות

2009-04-16T23:24:00.007-04:00

An anonymous comment on the last post asked what the proper method for perfecting one's self in the area of shtika would be. The comment caused me to focus back on the method of perfecting Deos. I realize that I dont normally like to post out of order in a perek, but alas, it demands its own post .

משוך חסדך, ליודעיך; וצדקתך, לישרי לב תהילים לו,יא
O continue Thy lovingkindness unto them that know Thee; and Thy righteousness to the upright in heart.

א חולי הגוף, טועמים המר מתוק והמתוק מר. ויש מן החולים מי שמתאווה ותאב למאכלות שאינן ראויין לאכילה, כגון העפר והפחם, ושונא המאכלות הטובים, כגון הפת והבשר--הכול לפי רוב החולי. כך בני אדם שנפשותיהם חולות, מתאווים ואוהבים הדעות הרעות; ושונאים הדרך הטובה, ומתעצלים ללכת בה, והיא כבדה עליהן למאוד, לפי חוליים. וכן ישעיהו אומר באנשים הללו, "הוי האומרים לרע טוב, ולטוב רע: שמים חושך לאור ואור לחושך, שמים מר למתוק ומתוק למר" (ישעיהו ה,כ). ועליהם נאמר "העוזבים, אורחות יושר--ללכת, בדרכי חושך" (משלי ב,יג).
ב ומה היא תקנת חולי נפשות--ילכו אצל החכמים, שהם רופאי הנפשות, וירפאו חוליים בדעות, שמלמדין אותם עד שיחזירום לדרך הטובה. והמכירים בדעות הרעות שלהם, ואינם הולכים אצל החכמים לרפא אותם--עליהם אמר שלמה, "ומוסר, אווילים בזו" (משלי א,ז).
ג [ב] וכיצד היא רפואתם: מי שהוא בעל חמה--אומרים לו להנהיג עצמו שאם הוכה וקולל, לא ירגיש כלל, וילך בדרך זו זמן מרובה, עד שתיעקר החמה מליבו. ואם היה גבה לב--ינהיג עצמו בביזיון הרבה, ויישב למטה מן הכול, וילבוש בלויי סחבות המבזין את לובשיהן, וכיוצא בדברים אלו: עד שייעקר גובה הלב ממנו, ויחזור לדרך האמצעית, שהיא דרך הטובה; ולכשיחזור לדרך האמצעית, ילך בה כל ימיו.

The sick of the body taste bitter things as sweet and sweet things as bitter. There are some sicknesses which cause a desire to eat things which are not suitable for eating, such as dust and coal, and also cause a dislike of normal foods, such as bread and meat - it all depends upon the seriousness of the sickness in question. So too man who's soul is sick, desire and love the bad temperaments, and hate the good ways and try to avoid going in those ways, for the sickness makes it difficult. About such people Isaiah said, "Woe to those people who call bad good and good bad, put dark for light and light for dark and put the sweet for bitter and the bitter for sweet", and about them it is written, "...who leave the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness".
So what is a remedy for sicknesses of the soul? Go next to wise people, for they are healers of the soul, healing it by means of temperaments which they teach until they have returned the soul to the good ways. Concerning those who recognise in themselves bad temperaments but do not go amongst wise people Solomon said, "Fools despise wisdom and instruction".

How do they cure? They tell someone who is of an angry disposition to establish himself, and that if he is hit or cursed he should not react, and he should follow this way until his angry disposition has left him. If he was haughty, he should subject himself to a lot of disgrace and sit low down, and should dress in torn rags which are a discredit to normal clothes, and do similar things until his haughtiness has left him and he returns to the middle way, which is the good way. Once he has returned to the middle way he should follow it for the rest of his life. Other temperaments should be treated in this manner - if one was far over to one extreme, one should move oneself to the other extreme and accustom oneself to it for a long time, until one has returned to the good way, which is the intermediate characteristic that each and every temperament has.

I wanted to clarify something that I know personally I often overlook. Most people are aware that the Rambam advises that one must go to the opposite extreme in order to address a character defect and then moderate himself. What is sad is that this halacha is often learned while ignoring the prior law. The essential cure for deos diseases is consulting a Chacham. ומה היא תקנת חולי נפשות--ילכו אצל החכמים and not rashly changing one's deos on their own.

The derech chachma of adjusting deos is to go to a chacham and speak with him. This is Not a rash self diagnosis but rather a careful consultation with an expert. The Rambam does not advocate hasty pendulum swings in deos. Halacha 2 ( 3) must be viewed in the context of the prior statement, that the cholei hanefesh must go to a Rofeh Nefashos to heal them, and the method that the Doctor will proscribe will involve a careful adjustment of the character through the method described.

לעולם ירבה אדם בשתיקה Man should always maximize silence

2009-04-05T21:39:00.001-04:00

משוך חסדך, ליודעיך; וצדקתך, לישרי לב תהילים לו,יא
O continue Thy lovingkindness unto them that know Thee; and Thy righteousness to the upright in heart.
ח [ד] לעולם ירבה אדם בשתיקה, ולא ידבר אלא בדבר חכמה או בדברים שהוא צריך להן לחיי גופו. אמרו על רב תלמיד רבנו
הקדוש, שלא שח שיחה בטילה כל ימיו--וזו היא שיחת רוב כל אדם. ואפילו בצורכי הגוף, לא ירבה אדם דברים. ועל זה ציוו חכמים ואמרו, כל המרבה דברים, מביא חטא; ואמרו לא מצאתי לגוף טוב, אלא שתיקה.
ט וכן בדברי תורה ובדברי חכמה--יהיו דברי החכם מועטים, וענייניהם מרובים. והוא שציוו חכמים ואמרו, לעולם ישנה אדם לתלמידו דרך קצרה. אבל אם היו הדברים מרובים והעניין מועט, הרי זו סכלות; ועל זה נאמר "כי בא החלום, ברוב עניין; וקול כסיל, ברוב דברים" (קוהלת ה,ב).
י [ה] סייג לחכמה, שתיקה. לפיכך לא ימהר להשיב, ולא ירבה לדבר; וילמד לתלמידים בשובה ונחת, בלא צעקה, בלא אריכות לשון. הוא ששלמה אומר, "דברי חכמים, בנחת נשמעים" (קוהלת ט,יז).

" Man should always maximize silence, he should only speak words of chachama or things which are necessary for the life of his body. It is said about Rav the talmid of Rabbeinu Hakadosh ( Rabbi Judah the Prince), that he did not converse in meaningless conversation his entire life, this is the conversation of the majority of Mankind. Even with regards to physical needs, Man should not maximize his words. On this commandment the Sages said " All who increase their words bring sin. They said, there is nothing found that is better for the body than silence.

This applies also to words of Torah and words of wisdom. The words of a chacham should be minimal and the concepts widespread.This is what the sages commanded and said 'Man should always teach his students in a concise manner'. However, if the words are many and the concept small,this is foolishness. Regardung this it says : "For a dream cometh through a multitude of business; and a fool's voice through a multitude of words."( Ecclesiastes 5:2)

Silence is a protection to chachma, therefore one should not rush to answer, nor increase his words, and one should teach his students quietly,without shouting, without lengthy words, this is as Solomon said "The words of the wise spoken in quiet are more acceptable than the cry of a ruler among fools."( Ecclesiastes 9:17)

Questions:

A) What is the Rambam's concept of " Shtika"( silence)
B) What is the perfection of Shtika?
C) Why should man limit even the words of chachama that he speaks?

Perhaps the best way to define Silence and answer our questions is to define the opposite, namely speech. I believe that speech is a declarative action about reality. The speaker conveys his or her vision for reality, or of reality to the world. I know this sounds a bit far fetched, why dont we try it out. " I am tired", the person who makes this statement usually wishes that he was not tired, that he had an alternative reality. " I have work Tomorrow", again , the person is bearing testimony to a reality. ( I can keep going on with these examples , but in the interest of brevity, and not going on anymore, I will stop). Every phrase that the speaker utters is a reflection of the speakers view of reality. This is so because the fact that the person speaks about something means that his view of anything is important in and of itself.
The speaking itself, let alone what is being spoken reflects the worldview of the speaker, one who occupies himself with discussing chachma makes a different statement than one who talks about that beautiful loaf that he found at the market, or the latest gossip. Again, the subject that we choose to speak about reflects our notion of the good on one level, ( the person who only speaks about food clearly values food above all else, he declares that the reality of the universe exists for his tase experience). The fact that we choose to speak is itself also our very own declaration of what reality is. Speaking acts as a stamp on reality, a declaration that something IS or Should be.
If this is the case what is the problem with speaking words of chachma ( or speaking too much)? Surely, words of chachma ARE reality, what harm can be done with lengthy discourse in matters of reality? The problem with over speaking with chachma is the same as it is with anything else, speaking is a declaration or commentary on reality by the speaker. When one is engaged in chachma it has to be clear that the davar is not "his" reality but Realities Reality. The speaker who goes overboard even speaking chachma makes the statement that reality is as he perceives it and is no other way, ( definitively, in explaining an idea you are declaring that the idea IS as YOU see it) this is itself a distortion of reality. We know that no man can perceive reality as it really is and as such lengthening words is muddying the waters.

Therefore, shtika, allows for the removal of man from his desire and practice of making declarations about reality. Shtika allows the person to appreciate reality without imprinting himself on reality or confirming or denying reality. Silence is a defense to wisdom because it helps to slow or prevent the distortions created when we speak.

I found an interesting halacha in the first chapter of the Yisodei HaTorah:
יד ואין לו לא מוות ולא חיים כחיי הגוף החי, ולא סכלות ולא חכמה כחכמת האיש החכם, לא שינה ולא הקיצה, ולא כעס ולא שחוק, ולא שמחה ולא עצבות, ולא שתיקה ולא דיבור כדיבור האדם. כך אמרו חכמים, אין למעלה לא ישיבה ולא עמידה, לא עורף ולא עיפוי

"He does not have death, nor life like that of a body that is living, nor foolishness nor wisdom like the wisdom of a Man who is a sage, neither sleep nor waking, neither anger nor levity, and not happiness or sadness, Not silence and not speech like the speech of a man. Thus said the sages, there is no sitting nor standing no back and no fatigue"

This halacha is of course from the very first chapter of the laws of the foundations of the Torah. I found it interesting that the Rambam uses the anthropomorphisms that he does. Particularly " no shtika and no Speech like that of a Man". The " attributes" are phrases that we use to attempt to understand G' by comparing him to our experiential data. It is interesting that we do not have an idea of " Shtika" in terms of G' but we do have an idea of "Dibur". I think, that this could be pointing to the potential idea of shtika from hilchos deos. Dibur of G' is the manifestation of chachma. Chachmas Hashem is manifest in the creation, Neviim experience chachma manifested even further because they are at highly perfected levels of thought and deed, " and G' spoke to Moses saying". " Dibur" in terms of G' is reality.Shtika could not be appropriated to G' because there is no alternative to Reality being manifest.

שאין העולם מתקיים, אלא בהבל פיהם של תינוקות של בית רבן. The world is only sustained because of the breath of children in the house of study

2009-03-03T18:02:00.005-05:00

משוך חסדך, ליודעיך; וצדקתך, לישרי לב

In Matt's comment on the last post he quoted the following Midrash from Kallah Rabbasi :

Every day a malach goes out before the Kadosh Baruch Hu to destroy the world, but once the Kadosh Baruch Hu gazes upon the tinokos shel beis rabban and the talmidei chachamim, immediately His anger turns to mercy.

Matt also pointed to the gemara in Shabbos 119b which says: "The world is only sustained by the breath of the tinokos shel beis rabban."

What does these two Midrashim mean? What is the benefit of the Tinokos shel Beis Rabban that we can say that the world is saved because of them?

This idea is brought down by the Rambam in the second chapter of the laws of Talmud Torah ( first halacha):

א מושיבין מלמדי תינוקות בכל מדינה ומדינה, ובכל פלך ופלך. וכל עיר שאין בה תינוקות של בית רבן--מחרימין את אנשי העיר, עד שמושיבין מלמד תינוקות; ואם לא הושיבו, מחריבין את העיר: שאין העולם מתקיים, אלא בהבל פיהם של תינוקות של בית רבן.
" You establish childhood educators in each and every province and each and every town. Any city that does not have an educator for its children- the men of the city are placed in excommunication until they sit an educator for the children. If they do not seat an educator, you destroy the city, because the world is only sustained through the breath of the mouths of the children in the study house"

Again, we see that the " world is only sustained through the breath of the children in the house of study". The Rambam is quite clear that every city must have an educator for its children or risk excommunication or loss of the city. What is the importance of this?

I find it interesting that the midrash states that the Kadosh Baruch Hu gazes at the children and the Talmidei Chachamim and his " anger" is assuaged. In the other two formulations I have presented only the children are emphasized. I think this is a hint.

The world is only sustained through the breath of the children in the study house. I believe that this is refering to the Mesorah of yedias Hashem. In other words the world is only sustained if there is a system of training humanity to be knowers of G'. Humanity as a species has a goal of recognizing and " knowing" G' , Am Israel is tasked with being humanities teachers. If Am Israel does not create and maintain a system of education in this concept then Humanity will not live in line with its purpose. As such the world will not be sustainable since it's purpose is no longer fulfilled ( that is, it will fall within another realm of law since it has failed to foster Yedia { " Hashem's Anger"}). This is why the Rambam includes the law that a city that does not seat an educator is excommunicated and then risks destruction. It has failed to perform its most important goal as a city which is to be a tool of perpetuating Yedias Hashem and when it has relinquished this priority it has relinquished its hold on existance.

Why then is there a slight difference between the aggadita in Shabbos ( as quoted also by the Rambam) which states that only the breath of the children sustains the world, and the midrash in Kallah Rabasi which mentions the image of Tinnokos and Talmidei Chachamim "assuaging" the Kadosh Baruch Hu? These two phrases are in reality two expressions of one idea. Talmidei Chachamim are the active and current teachers of humanity, they are the ones with the greatest understanding and those who are most capable of spreading Yedia. Children in the house of study are not yet active tools of yedia, rather they are the material from which Yodei Hashem are formed. In other words the "sight" of Talmidei chachamim and Tinokos is really the expression that Humanity as a SPECIES is engaged in the recognition of G' and not merely as a generational occupation. The inclusion of both Talmidei Chachamim and Tinokos, demonstrates that humanity is engaged perpetually in the process of Yediah. Both generations point to our essential purpose. The world is only sustained through the Human species' recognition of Yedias Hashem, and this can only be accomplished through being maishiv melamdei Tinokos and fostering the " Hevel Pihem shel Tinokos shel Beis Rabban"

I wanted to take this opportunity with this idea on my lips, to be personally Meshabeach the Kadosh Baruch Hu for a great blessing he has bestowed on me,the birth of my niece,Meora Lila, the first of her generation. May it be his will that she grow into a woman of valor , one with yedias Hashem, a true expression of the verse in Micah 6
"ח הִגִּיד לְךָ אָדָם, מַה-טּוֹב; וּמָה-יְהוָה דּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ, כִּי אִם-עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד, וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת, עִם-אֱלֹ-ֶךָ.
It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, and what the LORD doth require of thee: only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk modestly with thy G.

Vnahafoch hu

2009-03-01T17:49:00.010-05:00

As some of you may know, I am a substitute teacher in a local yeshiva. Most days you can find me teaching Science or Math, English or History, ( or trying to impart some sort of valuable lesson in the short time I know I have with the students). Last week I had the unusual opportunity to sub for a Rebbi who normally teaches Mishna and Navi. The Rebbi was very nice and told me that I could teach whatever I felt comfortable with. Since I had no time to prepare, I decided to whip out a Tanach and begin Megillat Estair. What happened afterward was astonishing.

I open my Tanach and ask that the students turn to the beginning of Megillat Estair so we can start reading. Before I began I asked if anyone knew the story, no hands went up. I asked, " Wait a minute guys, you mean to tell me that you have never learned Megillat Estair?". The hands went up with the realization that maybe they did know. After a brief investigation into their prior knowledge I made the following statement, " Ok, what I want to do is read the pesukim and see what the pesukim alone say, lets try and read this like a story".

I began reading, "א וַיְהִי, בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ: הוּא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, הַמֹּלֵךְ מֵהֹדּוּ וְעַד-כּוּשׁ--שֶׁבַע וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה, מְדִינָה. ב בַּיָּמִים, הָהֵם--כְּשֶׁבֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, עַל כִּסֵּא מַלְכוּתוֹ, אֲשֶׁר, בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה. ג בִּשְׁנַת שָׁלוֹשׁ, לְמָלְכוֹ, עָשָׂה מִשְׁתֶּה, לְכָל-שָׂרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו: חֵיל פָּרַס וּמָדַי, הַפַּרְתְּמִים וְשָׂרֵי הַמְּדִינוֹת--לְפָנָיו. ד בְּהַרְאֹתוֹ, אֶת-עֹשֶׁר כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ, וְאֶת-יְקָר, תִּפְאֶרֶת גְּדוּלָּתוֹ; יָמִים רַבִּים, שְׁמוֹנִים וּמְאַת יוֹם

At this point I made sure that everyone understood what we had just read. Then I read the following pesukim:

וּבִמְלוֹאת הַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה, עָשָׂה הַמֶּלֶךְ לְכָל-הָעָם הַנִּמְצְאִים בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה לְמִגָּדוֹל וְעַד-קָטָן מִשְׁתֶּה--שִׁבְעַת יָמִים: בַּחֲצַר, גִּנַּת בִּיתַן הַמֶּלֶךְ. ו חוּר כַּרְפַּס וּתְכֵלֶת, אָחוּז בְּחַבְלֵי-בוּץ וְאַרְגָּמָן, עַל-גְּלִילֵי כֶסֶף, וְעַמּוּדֵי שֵׁשׁ; מִטּוֹת זָהָב וָכֶסֶף, עַל רִצְפַת בַּהַט-וָשֵׁשׁ--וְדַר וְסֹחָרֶת. ז וְהַשְׁקוֹת בִּכְלֵי זָהָב, וְכֵלִים מִכֵּלִים שׁוֹנִים; וְיֵין מַלְכוּת רָב, כְּיַד הַמֶּלֶךְ. ח וְהַשְּׁתִיָּה כַדָּת, אֵין אֹנֵס: כִּי-כֵן יִסַּד הַמֶּלֶךְ, עַל כָּל-רַב בֵּיתוֹ--לַעֲשׂוֹת, כִּרְצוֹן אִישׁ-וָאִישׁ. {ס}
ט גַּם וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה, עָשְׂתָה מִשְׁתֵּה נָשִׁים--בֵּית, הַמַּלְכוּת, אֲשֶׁר, לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ. י בַּיּוֹם, הַשְּׁבִיעִי, כְּטוֹב לֵב-הַמֶּלֶךְ, בַּיָּיִן--אָמַר לִמְהוּמָן בִּזְּתָא חַרְבוֹנָא בִּגְתָא וַאֲבַגְתָא, זֵתַר וְכַרְכַּס, שִׁבְעַת הַסָּרִיסִים, הַמְשָׁרְתִים אֶת-פְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ. יא לְהָבִיא אֶת-וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה, לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ--בְּכֶתֶר מַלְכוּת: לְהַרְאוֹת הָעַמִּים וְהַשָּׂרִים אֶת-יָפְיָהּ, כִּי-טוֹבַת מַרְאֶה הִיא. יב וַתְּמָאֵן הַמַּלְכָּה וַשְׁתִּי, לָבוֹא בִּדְבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר, בְּיַד הַסָּרִיסִים; וַיִּקְצֹף הַמֶּלֶךְ מְאֹד, וַחֲמָתוֹ בָּעֲרָה בוֹ.

As I read I asked the students small story related questions. Nothing too dificult.

First I asked " What was the reason according to the pasuk that Achashverosh wanted to throw a party?"

The answers flooded in: " Well, Achashverosh wanted to make the Jews eat off of the keilim of the Beit Hamikdash", another child says " No your wrong! He wanted to make the Jews eat non kosher!" . At this point I gently reminded the students that our focus was on what we were reading in the verses and not Midrashim, I just wanted the reasons given in the verses at first.

Why would Achashverosh make two parties?

Again, the first round was a flood of Midrashim, or Midrashim filtered from a Rebbi to fifth graders. Again I prompt them to only read the verses themselves, listen to my translation, tell me what the story says first and then tell me according to what the story says what the explanation could be.

Finally I ask them to close their eyes and picture they are the most powerful political leader in the known world. What would you want to make sure you did first?

Suddenly like it was an entirely different question than what I was asking from the pesukim, the students come alive with excitement. " Well, " Rabbi", the first thing I would do would be to make sure the people knew how rich I was!", I ask why? " Because you need to show them you are powerful".

The reason why I went through this whole story is to illustrate two things which blew me away.

The first is the tremendous lacking in my opinion, in the way we teach our students in the normative Yeshiva/ day School setting. The sum total of the students knowledge of Megillat Estair was Midrashic. They did not even know the simple story of the first few lines without the midrashic attachments. Please understand why I believe this is a problem. Midrashim are divrei Chazal and should be studied. However, they are also ripe with esoterica and psychological ideas that a) must be understood and b) do not belong in a 5th grade class room. Also, let us never confuse the fact that the Pshuto shel Mikrah is NOT THE SAME AS THE MIDRASH. I never fully understood the impact that premature exposure to midrashim had on students until this episode. The students were unable to work with the verses separate from the Midrashim. Even when asked to translate the verses they resorted to giving a midrashic translation! It was not until I removed them from the verses and had them imagine themselves in my constructed scenarion that they could give a non midrash influenced explanation for anything.

Second was the amazing potential for actual thought that these students posess at such a young age. When finally removed from the world of the Midrash they were fully able to think about an explanation for what I was asking. ( I was not intending for them to give grandiose sevaras, simply to understand the story better). When the students were unleashed from the chains of what they had been taught their little minds were quick to answer all of the questions posed to them. This was a sheer delight to witness.

In short, my brief experience in the trenches of chinuch was eye opening. Never in my wildest dreams could I believe that 5th grade exposure to Midrashim was so ripe. ( Bear in mind that not too long ago I was in a very similar situation as these 5th graders, which has me really wondering about Midrashic impact on my learning) I always knew we taught too many midrashim and too early, but I had assumed this as an abstraction, I never bothered to think about its practical educational impact. The fact that these midrashim handicapped the students from learning the pshat of the text!

On the opposite side, I was very happy to see that if in fact the students were prompted to think and not spit forth misunderstood midrashic pablum, then in fact they were quite capable of energetic and appropriate learning.

Cool Breezes

2009-02-08T14:04:00.003-05:00

Today is a beautiful day outside. I have my windows open and the cool breeze is filling my room. I do not have a point to this post other than to state my gratitude for such an experience and to still be alive to smell the air. To think about what an amazing system we are part of is truly something to smile about.

Format Change

2009-02-01T14:34:00.000-05:00

Ok so clearly I have opted to change the color scheme on the blog
I must admit though that I have very little idea as to what colors everything is
so,
if it is totally strange looking and that is a distraction
please dear readers,
tell me.

To my Readers ( all 3 of you)

2009-01-29T23:53:00.004-05:00

Ok Ladies and Gents, I have recently had some requests for a color change on the blog, some are having a hard time reading the posts on the blog as the blog is and since a) I want people to read it and b) it is a blog and not a chore, I want to know what people think

Please Keep the Following in mind,

I like the current format and the current color scheme

I am Color Blind so this one is easy for me to read, the Ochre has a font that just doesnt work with my eyes, if someone wants to fiddle with permutations let me know but I cant do it.

Feynman and Ahavah through Matter

2009-01-22T21:12:00.006-05:00

Growing up my oldest brother was a physics buff. He would read physics textbooks for fun and it is from his mouth that I first heard the name Richard Phillips Feynman (1918-1988). Feynman was a particularly interesting individual who has my eternal love for teaching me every bit of physics that I know. This morning on the train I started re-reading the great work Six Easy Pieces- Essentials of Physics Explained by its most Brilliant Teacher. I always expect to get blown away by something in Feynman's work and this morning was no exception, the passage reproduced below is almost exactly the description that my Rebbi gave me of the way an Ohev Hashem views creation and I wanted to share Feynmans description in hopes of assisting with an ahavah reflection.

Matter is made of Atoms

"If, in some cataclysm, all scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis ( or the atomic fact , or whatever you wish to call it) that all things ae made of atoms- little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracing each other when they are a little distance apart , but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.

To illustrate the power of the atomic idea, suppose that we have a drop of water a quarter of an inch on the side. If we look at it very closely we see nothing but water- smooth, continuous water. Even if we magnify it with the best optical microscope available- roughly two thousand times- then the water drop will be roughly forty feet across, about as big as a large room, and if we looked rather closely, we would still see relatively smooth water- but here and there smal football shaped things swimming back and forth. Very interesting. These are paramecia. You may stop at this point and get so curious about the paramecia with their wiggling cilia and twisting bodies that you go no further, except perhaps to magnify the paramecia still more and see inside. This, of course, is a subject for biology, but for the present we pass on and look still more closely at the water material itself, magnifying it two thousand times again. Now the drop of water extends about fifteen miles across, and if we look very closely at it we see a kind of teeming, something which no longer has a smooth appearance- it looks something like a crowd at a football game as seen from a very great distance. In order to see what this teeming is about, we will magnify it another two hundred fifty times and we will see something similar to what is shown in Figure 1-1( not shown). This is a picture of water magnified a billion times, but idealized in several ways... Notice that there are two kinds of " blobs" or circles to represent the atoms of oxygen and hydrogen, and that each oxygen has two hydrogens tied to it. ( Each little group of an oxygen with its two hydrogens is called a molecule) The picture is idealized further in that the real particles in nature are continually jiggling and bouncing, turning and twisting around one another. You will have to imagine this as a dynamic rather than a static picture. Another thing that cannot be illustrated in a drawing is the fact that the particles are " stuck together"- that they attract each other, this one pulled by that one etc. The whole goup is " glued together", so to speak. On the other hand, the particles do not squeeze through each other. If you try to squeeze two of them too close together, they repel.

The atoms are one or two times ten to the neagative 8th cm in radius. Now ten to the negative eight cm is called an angstrom ( just as another name), so we say 1 or 2 angstroms ( A) in radius. Another way to remember their size is this: if an apple is magnified to the size of the earth , then the atoms in the apple are approximately the size of the original apple.

Now imagine this great drop of water with all of these jiggling particles stuck together and tagging along with each other. The water keeps its volume; it does not fall apart, because of the attraction of the molecules for each other. If the drop is on a slope, where it can move from one place to another , the water will flow, but it does not dissappear- things do not just fly apart- because of molecular attraction. Now the jiggling motion is what we reoresent as heat: when we increase the temperature, we increase the motion. If we heat the water, the jiggling increases and the volume between the atoms increases, and if the heating continues there comes a time whrn the pull between the molecules is not enough to hold them together and the fo fly apart and become separated from one another. Of course , this is how we manufacture steam out of water, by increasing the temperature; the particles fly apart becayse of the increased motion."

Feynman continues in this vein throughout the entire book , I thought his ability to illustrate the idea through zooming in on it was particularly useful.

The Highways of Perfection

2009-01-14T23:05:00.009-05:00

The following is also posted on Rambamsystemreview.blogspot.com and was the result of my ride home this evening:

So I was driving home tonight from the Beis Hatzelamim, ( Brooklyn not YU). I am on the Southern State Parkway and I look into my mirror. What I saw behind me struck me although its nothing I haven't seen before. It was a long line of headlights stretching as far as I could see.Then I looked at the other lane, the Westbound lanes and it was the same thing. Then I looked at my GPS and saw the long expanse of highway.

These cars seemed to go on forever , until you look at the Highway itself which is so much bigger. The great thing about the GPS is you can literally "zoom" out and when I got home just now that's what I did. First all of Long Island appears then New York and New Jersey, then the East Coast then the entire Country . As much as these cars seemed to go on forever, the highway was bigger. As long as the Highway seemed to be the State was bigger as expansive as the State is it pales in comparison to the Continent, the Planet and the Universe. Think about it! That is insane. And every part of this huge universe is governed by law from me sitting in my car at 80 mph to the Planets revolving at their speeds and everything in between.

In short: Wow.

How I Use the Mishneh Torah

2008-12-23T19:39:00.011-05:00

My last post on Bizui Talmidei Chachamim violated some fundamental rules of my understanding of the operating system of the Mishneh Torah. Thanks to Matt for catching it. I wanted to detail what I think the proper way in general to approach the work is and then delineate the misstep that I took in the last post.

The Basic Organization of the Mishneh Torah
As I stated in the presentation of Psalms 119 earlier, the Rambam had a very specific organizational scheme in the writing/ presentation of the Mishneh Torah. The work is comprised of 14 books. The entire Mishneh Torah is headed by two verses,

בשם ה', אל עולם בראשית כא,לג
אז, לא אבוש--בהביטי, אל כל מצוותיך תהילים קיט,ו

33 {And Abraham planted a tamarisk-tree in Beer-sheba}, and called there on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God

6 Then should I not be ashamed, when I have regard unto all Thy commandments.

Immediately after the initial two verses the Rambam places his Hakdamah, his preface to the entire work.The Hakdamah itself has multiple parts, first the preface, then the minyan Hamitzvot the numbering of the commandments both aseh and Lo Ta'aseh and the chalukas haSeforim the delineation and division of each book including the theme of each book and the entire list of every commandment in each book. Following the end of the Hakdamah there again is a verse which heads the first book sefer HaMada'a.[ Sefer HaMada'a I believe is the first book because of its fundamental necessity to the entire corpus of knowledge to follow]. After the verse at the head of each book is the listing of the Halachik sections that are included in the book, these are divided into the mitzvot in each section. Each Halachik section is titled and headed. The heading counts the number of commandments included and lists them. After the heading "Koteret" the chapters begin. Each chapter is divided into laws, each progressing into the next.

How to utilize the Organization

To my knowledge and according to my understanding of the training I have recieved from the scholar of Maimonides' System I have come up with the following rules to properly using the Mishneh Torah.

The Hakdamah is of utmost importance. This is true of any work of a chacham and especially true with Maimonides. The Rambam wrote the preface to give a background and explanation for the necessity of the Mishneh Torah. Within the Hakdamah the numbering of the commandments and divison of the books are carefully written to instruct about the organization of the system. Before using the Mishneh Torah it is highly important to carefully study the preface.

Each book starts with an initial verse. [ This paragraph applies to the two verses before the hakdamah as well] These verses give a general guidline for what the book is about. For example, the verse at the head of Sefer Hamada'a is :
משוך חסדך, ליודעיך; וצדקתך, לישרי לב
This verse " continue your kindness to those who know you and your Justice to the upright of heart" contains ideas that are necessary to the understanding of each and every law contained in the book.

Each Halachik section contains the heading with the number and formulation of the commandments contained in it. It is necessary to read through this section carefully noting the formulation of the commandments. Each Law will fit into one of the commandments listed.

Each chapter is a progression Law into Law principle into principle. Therefore , it is necessary to read the ENTIRE CHAPTER in order and NEVER to CHERRY PICK an individual law.

The order of each chapter is itself intentional. Ideally one should read the entire section thoroughly and see a progression from chapter to chapter.

In other words, the verse at the head of the work contains a general idea into which the entire work will fit, each and every law. The individual book in turn has a verse that contains the principle that the entire book, each and every law will fall in line with. Each section's heading contains the commandments that will be dealt with in that section. Each law must follow from one of the listed commandments. It is possible to go from the verse at the head of the work to the verse at the head of the book to the section, commandment, chapter and eventually down to the very individual law and they will all fall into a hierarchichal system. [ Or vice versa, it is possible, and a good excersize that I was shown by the scholar of Maimonides' System to go from law, to chapter, to commandment to verse all the way up the ladder to the core principle of the work]

It could be that one who carefully studies the Mishneh Torah will come to see that the system works differently than I have described. I would not be surprised. It is clear however, that there IS a system of the Mishneh Torah. If one fails to study this system they will be failing to utilize the work as was intended. If you do not think this is important look at it like this. You go to the dealership and buy a brand new sports car. Its a hot little number and you can not wait to go out on the highway and get it up to speed, Oh to think about just how much joy this little blue car will give you! There is only one problem. The car is a stick shift and Alas!, you only know how to drive automatic. You would not risk ruining your investment , burning out the clutch and ending up a heaping wreck on the side of the road after deciding not to learn how to drive a manual. What you would do is go to a teacher and make very sure that you know how to drive that car so that you ensure that you get the maximum returns on your investment and G' forbid destroy it before you even got to enjoy it. I think the same is true with the Mishneh Torah. The author carefully organized and formulated the entire work. It is important to understand what the organizational scheme of the work is and how it is meant to be used so that you ensure the proper functioning and maximum returns.

Bizui Talmidei Chachamim-וכל המבזה את החכמים--אין לו חלק לעולם הבא Repost to illustrate faulty Methodology

2008-12-19T12:02:00.018-05:00

I have left this post as is to illustrate the OPPOSITE of what I was explaining in the post immediately above this. The major mistake that I committed was to ingore the end of the chapter. I read the entire chapter , as I should have and then conveniently forgot it. Thus, I violated one of my rules and " CHERRY PICKED" a halacha. What resulted was a 'problem' that did not exist.

משוך חסדך, ליודעיך; וצדקתך, לישרי לב
" O continue Thy lovingkindness unto them that know Thee; and Thy righteousness to the upright in heart

The laws pertaining to Talmidei Chachamim are codified by the Rambam in the Laws of Talmud Torah. There are two commandments in this section:

יש בכללן שתי מצוות עשה--(א) ללמוד תורה; (ב) לכבד מלמדיה ויודעיה. וביאור שתי מצוות אלו בפרקים אלו
A) to Learn Torah B) To honor its teachers and those who know it.

Chapter Six law 13:
יג [יא] עוון גדול הוא לבזות את החכמים, או לשנוא אותן: לא חרבה ירושלים, עד שביזו בה תלמידי חכמים--שנאמר "ויהיו מלעיבים, במלאכי האלוהים, ובוזים דבריו, ומיתעתעים בנביאיו" (דברי הימים ב לו,טז), כלומר בוזים מלמדי דבריו. וכן זה שאמרה תורה, "אם בחוקותיי תמאסו" (ויקרא כו,טו)--מלמדי חוקותיי תמאסו. וכל המבזה את החכמים--אין לו חלק לעולם הבא, והרי הוא בכלל "כי דבר ה' בזה" (במדבר טו,לא

" It is a tremendous sin to denegrate Chachamim, or to hate them. Jerusalem was only destroyed after Talmidei Chachamim were denegrated in it, as the verse states ,'16 but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets,{ until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, till there was no remedy}' Which means the degradation of the teachers of his word. This is like what the Torah states, '15 and if ye shall reject My statutes, {and if your soul abhor Mine ordinances, so that ye will not do all My commandments, but break My covenant}', the teachers of my ordinances you reject. Anyone who degrades Chachamim has no portion in the World to Come, and he is in the category of '31 Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken His commandment; that soul shall utterly be cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him.'

It would appear that the degradation of a Talmid Chacham is a major infraction. It is such an imperfaction that the person who commits this act loses his share in the world to come. What is the sin in denegrating a Chacham?Furthermore, the Rambam delineates those who lose thier portion in the world to come in the laws of repentance and does not mention " Hamevazeh talmideai Chachamim" how do we resolve this discrepancy.
יד [ו] ואלו שאין להן חלק לעולם הבא, אלא נכרתין ואובדין, ונידונין על גודל רשעם וחטאתם, לעולם ולעולמי עולמים: המינים, והאפיקורוסים, והכופרים בתורה, והכופרים בתחיית המתים, והכופרים בביאת הגואל, והמשומדים, ומחטיאי הרבים, והפורשים מדרכי ציבור, והעושה עבירות ביד רמה בפרהסיה כיהויקים, והמוסרים, ומטילי אימה על הציבור שלא לשם שמיים, ושופכי דמים, ובעלי לשון הרע, והמושך עורלתו

The following types of people have no share in the World to Come, and are cut off, destroyed and excommunicated for ever on account of their very great sins and wickedness: A Min; am Apikores; one who denies the Torah; one who denies that there will be a Resurrection; one who denies that there will be a Redemption; one who converts from Judaism; one who causes a lot of people to sin; one who withdraws from communal ways; one who publicly sins in a defiant way like Jehoiakim did; an informer [against Jews]; one who instills fear in the congregation but not in the Name of God; a murderer; one who relates loshan ho'rah; and one who pulls back his foreskin.

The Rambam details the definition of each and everyone of the types of person that lose their portion in the later laws. However, he does not mention the previously stated law of one who disgraces Talmidei Chachamim. What is the general concept of Chelek Olam Habah and what would it mean to lose the Chelek. Additionally what is the principle governing the Rambam's listing?

To be continued...

The Foxes walk upon it

2008-12-12T12:08:00.001-05:00

"And at the same time they will come to understand and see that it is the Rebbe who runs this world, until he comes to take us out of galus."

The author of the above statement is one Rabbi Boruch Shalom Cunin. Rabbi Cunin was personally appointed shaliach to the West Coast of the United States by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the late leader of the Lubavitch movement.This statement is astonishing in its sadness and terrifying in its explicitness.

I would like to contrast this statement to one of Zecharia that many have the minhag of saying at the end of the Aleinu.

ט והיה יהוה למלך, על-כל-הארץ; ביום ההוא, יהיה יהוה אחד--ושמו אחד.
"And it will be that the Lrd is King over all the Land, on that day he and his name will be unified"
This is the idea of Yimos Hamashiach according to Zechariah . It is a period of time when the entire world recognizes the reality of the Kingship of G and serves him accordingly. His name and He will be unified, in other words the entire world will desire to serve only the true conception of G. No longer will man serve the desires of his heart nor the lusts of his eyes. Currently there are those that serve G and those that serve a distorted notion of G, I believe that the unification at the end of the pasuk refers to an era when there will be no more distortions of the real Name of G and everyone will serve the Creator of Heaven and Earth.

The statement of Rabbi Cunin is disturbing in its fundamental denial of G and its sheer brazenness. What Rabbi Cunin is saying has reached a new pinnacle in heresy. " At the same time", similar phraseology as Zecharia, Cunin is longing for the day when," they will come to understand", presumably he means the world, this would I suppose include those who accept the 13 Ikkarim," that it is the Rebbe who runs the world until he comes to take us out of Galus".

Rabbi Cunin has replaced G with the Rebbe, he longs for the day that mankind will pervert themselves into believing that Menachem Mendel Schneerson is G, and at that time the Rebbi will return and save Rabbi Cunin from Galus.

So it is quite clear. The G of Israel is not the G of Rabbi Cunin. This is sad enough. It is a tragedy that one person has a faulty idea but this tragedy is magnified when we consider who he is. Rabbi Cunin is in the position to influence thousands upon thousands of Jews via his work as the head of Chabad in California and Nevada. This is the real tragedy, not only does Rabbi Cunin believe the most despicable of beliefs but he is a teacher and advisor to thousands of Jews. I do not know if Rabbi Cunin is alone in his belief, I pray that he is although I suspect he is not. This makes a clear statement about his movement however. Any movement that will allow one of its leaders to harbor these ideas is clearly not dedicated to the ikkarim. The presence of what would seem like authentic Jewish leaders declaring these perversions is the real tragedy of our time.

The crown is fallen from our head; woe unto us! for we have sinned.For this our heart is faint, for these things our eyes are dim;For the mountain of Zion, which is desolate, the foxes walk upon it.

Psalms 119 and the Code of Maimonides

2008-11-22T19:42:00.001-05:00

The Mishneh Torah is divided into 14 books. Before the 14 books is the Hakdamah. The Rambam organized each book in a logical order halacha following from halacha, perek from perek, section from section. At the head of each book there is a pasuk from Nach, this is a heading for the entire book to follow ( and is the essential 'theme'). Following the Pasuk is the table of contents for that book, what halacha sections are where, each of these sections is prefaced by a Koteres, a heading that lists and categorizes all the commandments in that section ( aseh or Lo Ta'aseh). The following chapter is Psalms 119 the Rambam heads 8 of his 14 books with verses from this chapter, as such a keen understanding of this section will no doubt open worlds within the Mishneh Torah. Below is the chapter with the heading verses hyperlinked to their sefer to ease reference.

א אַשְׁרֵי תְמִימֵי-דָרֶךְ-- הַהֹלְכִים, בְּתוֹרַת יְהוָה.ב אַשְׁרֵי, נֹצְרֵי עֵדֹתָיו; בְּכָל-לֵב יִדְרְשׁוּהוּ.ג אַף, לֹא-פָעֲלוּ עַוְלָה; בִּדְרָכָיו הָלָכוּ.ד אַתָּה, צִוִּיתָה פִקֻּדֶיךָ-- לִשְׁמֹר מְאֹד.ה אַחֲלַי, יִכֹּנוּ דְרָכָי-- לִשְׁמֹר חֻקֶּיךָ.ו אָז לֹא-אֵבוֹשׁ-- בְּהַבִּיטִי, אֶל-כָּל-מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ.ז אוֹדְךָ, בְּיֹשֶׁר לֵבָב-- בְּלָמְדִי, מִשְׁפְּטֵי צִדְקֶךָ.ח אֶת-חֻקֶּיךָ אֶשְׁמֹר; אַל-תַּעַזְבֵנִי עַד-מְאֹד.
ט בַּמֶּה יְזַכֶּה-נַּעַר, אֶת-אָרְחוֹ-- לִשְׁמֹר, כִּדְבָרֶךָ.י בְּכָל-לִבִּי דְרַשְׁתִּיךָ; אַל-תַּשְׁגֵּנִי, מִמִּצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ.יא בְּלִבִּי, צָפַנְתִּי אִמְרָתֶךָ-- לְמַעַן, לֹא אֶחֱטָא-לָךְ.יב בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְהוָה-- לַמְּדֵנִי חֻקֶּיךָ.יג בִּשְׂפָתַי סִפַּרְתִּי-- כֹּל, מִשְׁפְּטֵי-פִיךָ.יד בְּדֶרֶךְ עֵדְו‍ֹתֶיךָ שַׂשְׂתִּי-- כְּעַל כָּל-הוֹן.טו בְּפִקּוּדֶיךָ אָשִׂיחָה; וְאַבִּיטָה, אֹרְחֹתֶיךָ.טז בְּחֻקֹּתֶיךָ אֶשְׁתַּעֲשָׁע; לֹא אֶשְׁכַּח דְּבָרֶךָ.
יז גְּמֹל עַל-עַבְדְּךָ אֶחְיֶה; וְאֶשְׁמְרָה דְבָרֶךָ.יח גַּל-עֵינַי וְאַבִּיטָה-- נִפְלָאוֹת, מִתּוֹרָתֶךָ.יט גֵּר אָנֹכִי בָאָרֶץ; אַל-תַּסְתֵּר מִמֶּנִּי, מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ.כ גָּרְסָה נַפְשִׁי לְתַאֲבָה-- אֶל-מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ בְכָל-עֵת.כא גָּעַרְתָּ, זֵדִים אֲרוּרִים-- הַשֹּׁגִים, מִמִּצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ.כב גַּל מֵעָלַי, חֶרְפָּה וָבוּז: כִּי עֵדֹתֶיךָ נָצָרְתִּי.כג גַּם יָשְׁבוּ שָׂרִים, בִּי נִדְבָּרוּ-- עַבְדְּךָ, יָשִׂיחַ בְּחֻקֶּיךָ.כד גַּם-עֵדֹתֶיךָ, שַׁעֲשֻׁעָי-- אַנְשֵׁי עֲצָתִי.
כה דָּבְקָה לֶעָפָר נַפְשִׁי; חַיֵּנִי, כִּדְבָרֶךָ.כו דְּרָכַי סִפַּרְתִּי, וַתַּעֲנֵנִי; לַמְּדֵנִי חֻקֶּיךָ.כז דֶּרֶךְ-פִּקּוּדֶיךָ הֲבִינֵנִי; וְאָשִׂיחָה, בְּנִפְלְאוֹתֶיךָ.כח דָּלְפָה נַפְשִׁי, מִתּוּגָה; קַיְּמֵנִי, כִּדְבָרֶךָ.כט דֶּרֶךְ-שֶׁקֶר, הָסֵר מִמֶּנִּי; וְתוֹרָתְךָ חָנֵּנִי.ל דֶּרֶךְ-אֱמוּנָה בָחָרְתִּי; מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ שִׁוִּיתִי.לא דָּבַקְתִּי בְעֵדְו‍ֹתֶיךָ; יְהוָה, אַל-תְּבִישֵׁנִי.לב דֶּרֶךְ-מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ אָרוּץ: כִּי תַרְחִיב לִבִּי.
לג הוֹרֵנִי יְהוָה, דֶּרֶךְ חֻקֶּיךָ; וְאֶצְּרֶנָּה עֵקֶב.לד הֲבִינֵנִי, וְאֶצְּרָה תוֹרָתֶךָ; וְאֶשְׁמְרֶנָּה בְכָל-לֵב.לה הַדְרִיכֵנִי, בִּנְתִיב מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ: כִּי-בוֹ חָפָצְתִּי.לו הַט-לִבִּי, אֶל-עֵדְו‍ֹתֶיךָ; וְאַל אֶל-בָּצַע.לז הַעֲבֵר עֵינַי, מֵרְאוֹת שָׁוְא; בִּדְרָכֶךָ חַיֵּנִי.לח הָקֵם לְעַבְדְּךָ, אִמְרָתֶךָ-- אֲשֶׁר, לְיִרְאָתֶךָ.לט הַעֲבֵר חֶרְפָּתִי, אֲשֶׁר יָגֹרְתִּי: כִּי מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ טוֹבִים.מ הִנֵּה, תָּאַבְתִּי לְפִקֻּדֶיךָ; בְּצִדְקָתְךָ חַיֵּנִי.
מא וִיבֹאֻנִי חֲסָדֶךָ יְהוָה; תְּשׁוּעָתְךָ, כְּאִמְרָתֶךָ.מב וְאֶעֱנֶה חֹרְפִי דָבָר: כִּי-בָטַחְתִּי, בִּדְבָרֶךָ.מג וְאַל-תַּצֵּל מִפִּי דְבַר-אֱמֶת עַד-מְאֹד: כִּי לְמִשְׁפָּטֶךָ, יִחָלְתִּי.מד וְאֶשְׁמְרָה תוֹרָתְךָ תָמִיד-- לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד.מה וְאֶתְהַלְּכָה בָרְחָבָה: כִּי פִקֻּדֶיךָ דָרָשְׁתִּי.מו וַאֲדַבְּרָה בְעֵדֹתֶיךָ, נֶגֶד מְלָכִים; וְלֹא אֵבוֹשׁ.מז וְאֶשְׁתַּעֲשַׁע בְּמִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר אָהָבְתִּי.מח וְאֶשָּׂא-כַפַּי--אֶל-מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר אָהָבְתִּי; וְאָשִׂיחָה בְחֻקֶּיךָ.
מט זְכֹר-דָּבָר, לְעַבְדֶּךָ-- עַל, אֲשֶׁר יִחַלְתָּנִי.נ זֹאת נֶחָמָתִי בְעָנְיִי: כִּי אִמְרָתְךָ חִיָּתְנִי.נא זֵדִים, הֱלִיצֻנִי עַד-מְאֹד; מִתּוֹרָתְךָ, לֹא נָטִיתִי.נב זָכַרְתִּי מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ מֵעוֹלָם יְהוָה; וָאֶתְנֶחָם.נג זַלְעָפָה אֲחָזַתְנִי, מֵרְשָׁעִים-- עֹזְבֵי, תּוֹרָתֶךָ.נד זְמִרוֹת, הָיוּ-לִי חֻקֶּיךָ-- בְּבֵית מְגוּרָי.נה זָכַרְתִּי בַלַּיְלָה שִׁמְךָ יְהוָה; וָאֶשְׁמְרָה, תּוֹרָתֶךָ.נו זֹאת הָיְתָה-לִּי: כִּי פִקֻּדֶיךָ נָצָרְתִּי.
נז חֶלְקִי יְהוָה אָמַרְתִּי-- לִשְׁמֹר דְּבָרֶיךָ.נח חִלִּיתִי פָנֶיךָ בְכָל-לֵב; חָנֵּנִי, כְּאִמְרָתֶךָ.נט חִשַּׁבְתִּי דְרָכָי; וָאָשִׁיבָה רַגְלַי, אֶל-עֵדֹתֶיךָ.ס חַשְׁתִּי, וְלֹא הִתְמַהְמָהְתִּי-- לִשְׁמֹר, מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ.סא חֶבְלֵי רְשָׁעִים עִוְּדֻנִי; תּוֹרָתְךָ, לֹא שָׁכָחְתִּי.סב חֲצוֹת-לַיְלָה--אָקוּם, לְהוֹדוֹת לָךְ: עַל, מִשְׁפְּטֵי צִדְקֶךָ.סג חָבֵר אָנִי, לְכָל-אֲשֶׁר יְרֵאוּךָ; וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי, פִּקּוּדֶיךָ.סד חַסְדְּךָ יְהוָה, מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ; חֻקֶּיךָ לַמְּדֵנִי.
סה טוֹב, עָשִׂיתָ עִם-עַבְדְּךָ-- יְהוָה, כִּדְבָרֶךָ.סו טוּב טַעַם וָדַעַת לַמְּדֵנִי: כִּי בְמִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ הֶאֱמָנְתִּי.סז טֶרֶם אֶעֱנֶה, אֲנִי שֹׁגֵג; וְעַתָּה, אִמְרָתְךָ שָׁמָרְתִּי.סח טוֹב-אַתָּה וּמֵטִיב; לַמְּדֵנִי חֻקֶּיךָ.סט טָפְלוּ עָלַי שֶׁקֶר זֵדִים; אֲנִי, בְּכָל-לֵב אֶצֹּר פִּקּוּדֶיךָ.ע טָפַשׁ כַּחֵלֶב לִבָּם; אֲנִי, תּוֹרָתְךָ שִׁעֲשָׁעְתִּי.עא טוֹב-לִי כִי-עֻנֵּיתִי-- לְמַעַן, אֶלְמַד חֻקֶּיךָ.עב טוֹב-לִי תוֹרַת-פִּיךָ-- מֵאַלְפֵי, זָהָב וָכָסֶף.
עג יָדֶיךָ עָשׂוּנִי, וַיְכוֹנְנוּנִי; הֲבִינֵנִי, וְאֶלְמְדָה מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ.עד יְרֵאֶיךָ, יִרְאוּנִי וְיִשְׂמָחוּ: כִּי לִדְבָרְךָ יִחָלְתִּי.עה יָדַעְתִּי יְהוָה, כִּי-צֶדֶק מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ; וֶאֱמוּנָה, עִנִּיתָנִי.עו יְהִי-נָא חַסְדְּךָ לְנַחֲמֵנִי-- כְּאִמְרָתְךָ לְעַבְדֶּךָ.עז יְבֹאוּנִי רַחֲמֶיךָ וְאֶחְיֶה: כִּי-תוֹרָתְךָ, שַׁעֲשֻׁעָי.עח יֵבֹשׁוּ זֵדִים, כִּי-שֶׁקֶר עִוְּתוּנִי; אֲנִי, אָשִׂיחַ בְּפִקּוּדֶיךָ.עט יָשׁוּבוּ לִי יְרֵאֶיךָ; וידעו (וְיֹדְעֵי), עֵדֹתֶיךָ.פ יְהִי-לִבִּי תָמִים בְּחֻקֶּיךָ-- לְמַעַן, לֹא אֵבוֹשׁ.
פא כָּלְתָה לִתְשׁוּעָתְךָ נַפְשִׁי; לִדְבָרְךָ יִחָלְתִּי.פב כָּלוּ עֵינַי, לְאִמְרָתֶךָ-- לֵאמֹר, מָתַי תְּנַחֲמֵנִי.פג כִּי-הָיִיתִי, כְּנֹאד בְּקִיטוֹר-- חֻקֶּיךָ, לֹא שָׁכָחְתִּי.פד כַּמָּה יְמֵי-עַבְדֶּךָ; מָתַי תַּעֲשֶׂה בְרֹדְפַי מִשְׁפָּט.פה כָּרוּ-לִי זֵדִים שִׁיחוֹת-- אֲשֶׁר, לֹא כְתוֹרָתֶךָ.פו כָּל-מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ אֱמוּנָה; שֶׁקֶר רְדָפוּנִי עָזְרֵנִי.פז כִּמְעַט, כִּלּוּנִי בָאָרֶץ; וַאֲנִי, לֹא-עָזַבְתִּי פִקֻּדֶיךָ.פח כְּחַסְדְּךָ חַיֵּנִי; וְאֶשְׁמְרָה, עֵדוּת פִּיךָ.
פט לְעוֹלָם יְהוָה-- דְּבָרְךָ, נִצָּב בַּשָּׁמָיִם.צ לְדֹר וָדֹר, אֱמוּנָתֶךָ; כּוֹנַנְתָּ אֶרֶץ, וַתַּעֲמֹד.צא לְמִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ, עָמְדוּ הַיּוֹם: כִּי הַכֹּל עֲבָדֶיךָ.צב לוּלֵי תוֹרָתְךָ, שַׁעֲשֻׁעָי-- אָז, אָבַדְתִּי בְעָנְיִי.צג לְעוֹלָם, לֹא-אֶשְׁכַּח פִּקּוּדֶיךָ: כִּי בָם, חִיִּיתָנִי.צד לְךָ-אֲנִי, הוֹשִׁיעֵנִי: כִּי פִקּוּדֶיךָ דָרָשְׁתִּי.צה לִי קִוּוּ רְשָׁעִים לְאַבְּדֵנִי; עֵדֹתֶיךָ, אֶתְבּוֹנָן.צו לְכָל-תִּכְלָה, רָאִיתִי קֵץ; רְחָבָה מִצְוָתְךָ מְאֹד.
צז מָה-אָהַבְתִּי תוֹרָתֶךָ: כָּל-הַיּוֹם, הִיא שִׂיחָתִי.צח מֵאֹיְבַי, תְּחַכְּמֵנִי מִצְו‍ֹתֶךָ: כִּי לְעוֹלָם הִיא-לִי.צט מִכָּל-מְלַמְּדַי הִשְׂכַּלְתִּי: כִּי עֵדְו‍ֹתֶיךָ, שִׂיחָה לִי.ק מִזְּקֵנִים אֶתְבּוֹנָן: כִּי פִקּוּדֶיךָ נָצָרְתִּי.קא מִכָּל-אֹרַח רָע, כָּלִאתִי רַגְלָי-- לְמַעַן, אֶשְׁמֹר דְּבָרֶךָ.קב מִמִּשְׁפָּטֶיךָ לֹא-סָרְתִּי: כִּי-אַתָּה, הוֹרֵתָנִי.קג מַה-נִּמְלְצוּ לְחִכִּי, אִמְרָתֶךָ-- מִדְּבַשׁ לְפִי.קד מִפִּקּוּדֶיךָ אֶתְבּוֹנָן; עַל כֵּן, שָׂנֵאתִי כָּל-אֹרַח שָׁקֶר.
קה נֵר-לְרַגְלִי דְבָרֶךָ; וְאוֹר, לִנְתִיבָתִי.קו נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי וָאֲקַיֵּמָה-- לִשְׁמֹר, מִשְׁפְּטֵי צִדְקֶךָ.קז נַעֲנֵיתִי עַד-מְאֹד; יְהוָה, חַיֵּנִי כִדְבָרֶךָ.קח נִדְבוֹת פִּי, רְצֵה-נָא יְהוָה; וּמִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ לַמְּדֵנִי.קט נַפְשִׁי בְכַפִּי תָמִיד; וְתוֹרָתְךָ, לֹא שָׁכָחְתִּי.קי נָתְנוּ רְשָׁעִים פַּח לִי; וּמִפִּקּוּדֶיךָ, לֹא תָעִיתִי.קיא נָחַלְתִּי עֵדְו‍ֹתֶיךָ לְעוֹלָם: כִּי-שְׂשׂוֹן לִבִּי הֵמָּה.קיב נָטִיתִי לִבִּי, לַעֲשׂוֹת חֻקֶּיךָ-- לְעוֹלָם עֵקֶב.
קיג סֵעֲפִים שָׂנֵאתִי; וְתוֹרָתְךָ אָהָבְתִּי.קיד סִתְרִי וּמָגִנִּי אָתָּה; לִדְבָרְךָ יִחָלְתִּי.קטו סוּרוּ-מִמֶּנִּי מְרֵעִים; וְאֶצְּרָה, מִצְו‍ֹת אֱלֹהָי.קטז סָמְכֵנִי כְאִמְרָתְךָ וְאֶחְיֶה; וְאַל-תְּבִישֵׁנִי, מִשִּׂבְרִי.קיז סְעָדֵנִי וְאִוָּשֵׁעָה; וְאֶשְׁעָה בְחֻקֶּיךָ תָמִיד.קיח סָלִיתָ, כָּל-שׁוֹגִים מֵחֻקֶּיךָ: כִּי-שֶׁקֶר, תַּרְמִיתָם.קיט סִגִים--הִשְׁבַּתָּ כָל-רִשְׁעֵי-אָרֶץ; לָכֵן, אָהַבְתִּי עֵדֹתֶיךָ.קכ סָמַר מִפַּחְדְּךָ בְשָׂרִי; וּמִמִּשְׁפָּטֶיךָ יָרֵאתִי.
קכא עָשִׂיתִי, מִשְׁפָּט וָצֶדֶק; בַּל-תַּנִּיחֵנִי, לְעֹשְׁקָי.קכב עֲרֹב עַבְדְּךָ לְטוֹב; אַל-יַעַשְׁקֻנִי זֵדִים.קכג עֵינַי, כָּלוּ לִישׁוּעָתֶךָ; וּלְאִמְרַת צִדְקֶךָ.קכד עֲשֵׂה עִם-עַבְדְּךָ כְחַסְדֶּךָ; וְחֻקֶּיךָ לַמְּדֵנִי.קכה עַבְדְּךָ-אָנִי הֲבִינֵנִי; וְאֵדְעָה, עֵדֹתֶיךָ.קכו עֵת, לַעֲשׂוֹת לַיהוָה-- הֵפֵרוּ, תּוֹרָתֶךָ.קכז עַל-כֵּן, אָהַבְתִּי מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ-- מִזָּהָב וּמִפָּז.קכח עַל-כֵּן, כָּל-פִּקּוּדֵי כֹל יִשָּׁרְתִּי; כָּל-אֹרַח שֶׁקֶר שָׂנֵאתִי.
קכט פְּלָאוֹת עֵדְו‍ֹתֶיךָ; עַל-כֵּן, נְצָרָתַם נַפְשִׁי.קל פֵּתַח דְּבָרֶיךָ יָאִיר; מֵבִין פְּתָיִים.קלא פִּי-פָעַרְתִּי, וָאֶשְׁאָפָה: כִּי לְמִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ יָאָבְתִּי.קלב פְּנֵה-אֵלַי וְחָנֵּנִי-- כְּמִשְׁפָּט, לְאֹהֲבֵי שְׁמֶךָ.קלג פְּעָמַי, הָכֵן בְּאִמְרָתֶךָ; וְאַל-תַּשְׁלֶט-בִּי כָל-אָוֶן.קלד פְּדֵנִי, מֵעֹשֶׁק אָדָם; וְאֶשְׁמְרָה, פִּקּוּדֶיךָ.קלה פָּנֶיךָ, הָאֵר בְּעַבְדֶּךָ; וְלַמְּדֵנִי, אֶת-חֻקֶּיךָ.קלו פַּלְגֵי-מַיִם, יָרְדוּ עֵינָי-- עַל, לֹא-שָׁמְרוּ תוֹרָתֶךָ.
קלז צַדִּיק אַתָּה יְהוָה; וְיָשָׁר, מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ.קלח צִוִּיתָ, צֶדֶק עֵדֹתֶיךָ; וֶאֱמוּנָה מְאֹד.קלט צִמְּתַתְנִי קִנְאָתִי: כִּי-שָׁכְחוּ דְבָרֶיךָ צָרָי.קמ צְרוּפָה אִמְרָתְךָ מְאֹד; וְעַבְדְּךָ אֲהֵבָהּ.קמא צָעִיר אָנֹכִי וְנִבְזֶה; פִּקֻּדֶיךָ, לֹא שָׁכָחְתִּי.קמב צִדְקָתְךָ צֶדֶק לְעוֹלָם; וְתוֹרָתְךָ אֱמֶת.קמג צַר-וּמָצוֹק מְצָאוּנִי; מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ, שַׁעֲשֻׁעָי.קמד צֶדֶק עֵדְו‍ֹתֶיךָ לְעוֹלָם; הֲבִינֵנִי וְאֶחְיֶה.
קמה קָרָאתִי בְכָל-לֵב, עֲנֵנִי יְהוָה; חֻקֶּיךָ אֶצֹּרָה.קמו קְרָאתִיךָ הוֹשִׁיעֵנִי; וְאֶשְׁמְרָה, עֵדֹתֶיךָ.קמז קִדַּמְתִּי בַנֶּשֶׁף, וָאֲשַׁוֵּעָה; לדבריך (לִדְבָרְךָ) יִחָלְתִּי.קמח קִדְּמוּ עֵינַי, אַשְׁמֻרוֹת-- לָשִׂיחַ, בְּאִמְרָתֶךָ.קמט קוֹלִי, שִׁמְעָה כְחַסְדֶּךָ; יְהוָה, כְּמִשְׁפָּטֶךָ חַיֵּנִי.קנ קָרְבוּ, רֹדְפֵי זִמָּה; מִתּוֹרָתְךָ רָחָקוּ.קנא קָרוֹב אַתָּה יְהוָה; וְכָל-מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ אֱמֶת.קנב קֶדֶם יָדַעְתִּי, מֵעֵדֹתֶיךָ: כִּי לְעוֹלָם יְסַדְתָּם.
קנג רְאֵה-עָנְיִי וְחַלְּצֵנִי: כִּי-תוֹרָתְךָ, לֹא שָׁכָחְתִּי.קנד רִיבָה רִיבִי, וּגְאָלֵנִי; לְאִמְרָתְךָ חַיֵּנִי.קנה רָחוֹק מֵרְשָׁעִים יְשׁוּעָה: כִּי חֻקֶּיךָ, לֹא דָרָשׁוּ.קנו רַחֲמֶיךָ רַבִּים יְהוָה; כְּמִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ חַיֵּנִי.קנז רַבִּים, רֹדְפַי וְצָרָי; מֵעֵדְו‍ֹתֶיךָ, לֹא נָטִיתִי.קנח רָאִיתִי בֹגְדִים, וָאֶתְקוֹטָטָה-- אֲשֶׁר אִמְרָתְךָ, לֹא שָׁמָרוּ.קנט רְאֵה, כִּי-פִקּוּדֶיךָ אָהָבְתִּי; יְהוָה, כְּחַסְדְּךָ חַיֵּנִי.קס רֹאשׁ-דְּבָרְךָ אֱמֶת; וּלְעוֹלָם, כָּל-מִשְׁפַּט צִדְקֶךָ.
קסא שָׂרִים, רְדָפוּנִי חִנָּם; ומדבריך (וּמִדְּבָרְךָ), פָּחַד לִבִּי.קסב שָׂשׂ אָנֹכִי, עַל-אִמְרָתֶךָ-- כְּמוֹצֵא, שָׁלָל רָב.קסג שֶׁקֶר שָׂנֵאתִי, וַאֲתַעֵבָה; תּוֹרָתְךָ אָהָבְתִּי.קסד שֶׁבַע בַּיּוֹם, הִלַּלְתִּיךָ-- עַל, מִשְׁפְּטֵי צִדְקֶךָ.קסה שָׁלוֹם רָב, לְאֹהֲבֵי תוֹרָתֶךָ; וְאֵין-לָמוֹ מִכְשׁוֹל.קסו שִׂבַּרְתִּי לִישׁוּעָתְךָ יְהוָה; וּמִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ עָשִׂיתִי.קסז שָׁמְרָה נַפְשִׁי, עֵדֹתֶיךָ; וָאֹהֲבֵם מְאֹד.קסח שָׁמַרְתִּי פִקּוּדֶיךָ, וְעֵדֹתֶיךָ: כִּי כָל-דְּרָכַי נֶגְדֶּךָ.
קסט תִּקְרַב רִנָּתִי לְפָנֶיךָ יְהוָה; כִּדְבָרְךָ הֲבִינֵנִי.קע תָּבוֹא תְּחִנָּתִי לְפָנֶיךָ; כְּאִמְרָתְךָ, הַצִּילֵנִי.קעא תַּבַּעְנָה שְׂפָתַי תְּהִלָּה: כִּי תְלַמְּדֵנִי חֻקֶּיךָ.קעב תַּעַן לְשׁוֹנִי, אִמְרָתֶךָ: כִּי כָל-מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ צֶּדֶק.קעג תְּהִי-יָדְךָ לְעָזְרֵנִי: כִּי פִקּוּדֶיךָ בָחָרְתִּי.קעד תָּאַבְתִּי לִישׁוּעָתְךָ יְהוָה; וְתוֹרָתְךָ, שַׁעֲשֻׁעָי.קעה תְּחִי-נַפְשִׁי, וּתְהַלְלֶךָּ; וּמִשְׁפָּטֶךָ יַעְזְרֻנִי.קעו תָּעִיתִי-- כְּשֶׂה אֹבֵד, בַּקֵּשׁ עַבְדֶּךָ:כִּי מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ, לֹא שָׁכָחְתִּי

Din and Rachamim Recap, or How Zaqui can Say what I mean concisely

2008-11-18T00:29:00.001-05:00

Since I started thinking about the previous post because of Zaqui, ( May the Merciful One protect and establish him), I decided to send it to him. The following is his clarification of my point:

Midat HaDin and Midat HaRachamim are two levels of how nature interecats with man. Midat HaDin is the system of natural laws, and Midat HaRachamim is the system of laws that apply to certain individuals who are more in line with reality. Both midot are part of nature its just that Chachamim benefit more from both aspects whereas normal people only experience/benefit from one.In Noach's case, since the world became corrupted, it had to be destroyed according to natural law (Midat HaDin) but since Noach was a tzadik and lived in line with reality he was subject to another form of law which is why only he and his family was saved. So when the mefarshim point out an exmaple of Hashem's Midat HaRachamim it just means that the certain individuasl benefited from the second sub-system of Hashem's law.

Rachamim and Din

2008-11-07T15:53:00.001-05:00

משוך חסדך, ליודעיך; וצדקתך, לישרי לב
O continue Thy lovingkindness unto them that know Thee; and Thy righteousness to the upright in heart

A few weeks back, I had the great blessing to have spent a shabbat in Rockville Maryland with my good friends the Maroofs, ( Rabbi Josh Maroof is the author of vesomsechel.blogspot.com, a personal favorite as well as the Rav of Magen David Sephardic Congregation). I had the opportunity to see my other good friend Zaqui and he asked me a vey good question.

How can we say that there exists Midat Hadin and Midat Harahamim , whilst maintaining the idea of Achduso, his oneness?

The question is of fundamental significance to our belief system. As you know we are told many times that G' is one . Maimonides explains that the knowledge of the existance of G' is the fundamental truth that all other knowledge is based on and that he is a unity that is incomparable to any conception of One that we could have.( Laws of the fundamentals of the Torah chapter 1 law 5{7})

ה [ז] אלוה זה אחד הוא--אינו לא שניים ולא יתר על שניים, אלא אחד, שאין כייחודו אחד מן האחדים הנמצאים בעולם: לא אחד כמין שהוא כולל אחדים הרבה, ולא אחד כגוף שהוא נחלק למחלקות ולקצוות; אלא ייחוד שאין ייחוד אחר כמותו בעולם.

Clearly the two attributes of Rachamim and Din cannot exist in such a way that they would imply a duality within G'!

This may be a simple point but I will state it anyway. The midot that we mention with regards to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, are not separate parts within G' but rather they are linguistic mechanisms that we use so that we can best describe an idea that we are utterly incapable of fully grasping. As Maimonides states further on in the Laws of the foundations of the Torah:

ט אם כן מה הוא זה שנאמר בתורה "ותחת רגליו" (שמות כד,י), "כתובים באצבע אלוהים" (שמות לא,יח; דברים ט,י), "יד ה'" (שמות ט,ג; במדבר יא,כג; דברים ב,טו), "עיני ה'" (דברים יא,יב), "אוזני ה'" (במדבר יא,א; במדבר יא,יח), וכיוצא בדברים הללו--הכול לפי דעתן של בני אדם הוא, שאינן מכירין אלא הגופות; ודיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם. והכול כינויים הם, כמו שנאמר "אם שנותי ברק חרבי" (דברים לב,מא), וכי חרב יש לו ובחרב הוא הורג; אלא משל, והכול משל

9) If so, (That it is explained in the Torah that G' is incorporeal)what does the Torah mean when it says things like, "under His feet" (Exodus 31:18), "written with the finger of God" (ibid), "the hand of the Lord" (Exodus 9:3), "the eyes of the Lord" (Genesis 38:7), "the ears of the Lord" (Numbers 11:1), et cetera? These phrases are in line with the level of understanding of people, who can only comprehend physical existence, and the Torah speaks in terms that we can understand. All examples of this nature are merely attributory. For example, when it says, "If I whet My glittering sword" - does God really have a sword and does He really kill with one?! Such phrases are Mashal, ( parables).

G' does not have parts, however, what is the idea of the two Midot, Din and Rachamim?( Bearing in mind that this is not THE idea or THE explanation since those are impossible).
Midat Hadin can be understood as Natural Law. This is the system that governs planetary motion as well as human interaction. In terms of Midat hadin the laws are set. If you light a match it will burn, if you drop something off of a platform, it will fall.In Parashat Noah it was Midat Hadin that the world be destroyed.The natural system had been abrogated to the extent that the law would have a clear A- B corrolation of corruption to destruction. However, out of Midat Harachamim Noah was permitted to build the Ark and preserve both humanity and the ecosystem, and the world was not destroyed. The question is what is Midat Harachamim such that it can supercede Midat Hadin and it is not a change in G'? In other words, we know that the two attributes are not two parts of G' , what is the relationship of Din to Rachamim such that it is within one idea and not a change?

I believe that the answer, or an approach to one, can be found in a similar question regarding Tefillah. The question in the area of Tefillah is, " How does tefillah work such that you can pray for something and we say that your prayer can be answered and yet it is not a change in G'

Tefillah is not a change in G', as those who worship the stars and their own psyches wish . G' does not change, since G' does not change our prayers can not be attempting the impossible. Tefilla, is a refocusing of Man to be in line with Chachama. In other words Tefilla is a change in Man not G'. When one changes themselves to fit inline with the Briah, they have new laws which are open to them. The system of creation operates differently depending on how you operate with in it, ( this is obvious, nature will deal differently with someone who looks both ways before crossing the street than someone who does not, the first will be protected whilst the second will very likely end up splattered on Madison Avenue, it is the same here if the causes are changed the effects can be assumed to change to suit). In other words, there is one system of laws created by G'. Within this system there are laws of the universe that we percieve like gravity which only demands mass to operate, and there are other laws which only apply to those that are of a certain stature. The second class of laws are just as unchanging as the first but they are also much more demanding. ( Again, if you act in a responsible way you will have a different outcome)

So to in Parashat Noah. The Midas Harachamim of Parashat Noah is that since Noah was at a level of human perfection it meant that he was subject to additional laws.

"And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart. 7 And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.' 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. "

The Midat Harachamim is not that G' changes and allows something to slip by. Rather, the creation of the system of Law in such a way that it has tiers, laws which apply to everyone, and laws which apply to smaller subsets is Midat Harachamim. Both Midat Hadin and Midat Harachamim are systems of cause and effect.The Creator Does Not change, Man changes and if he does he can become subject to new effects, the creation of the World in such a way to provide for Man's perfection is ( as I understand it) Midat harachamim.

Dialogues with a Modern Stoic

2008-10-08T10:17:00.001-04:00

Recently I came across a website run by a " modern stoic". Amazed that there were individuals out there who considered themselves stoics, I sought to contact him and start a dialogue. I mentioned that I was a student in a yeshiva and thought that the stoic philosophy was very similar to the words of chazal in many cases.
In his reply email the gentleman asked me the following question.
" Do you believe that your god really cares about the extraordinary detail that goes into daily practice, especially on the Sabbath, of course. And if so, why?

I guess what I'm really asking is how much is divine expectation versus Rabbinical invention?"

The following is my letter in response to his question. Keep in mind that I was trying to avoid extreme detail and felt it was necessary for the sake of him understanding my basic point, to sacrifice some detail and clarity.In addition there are certain lines which seem redundant, again, my concern was to make sure that I communicated my point and as such there are certain repetitions.

First off, I just wanted to say again how thankful I am that we can engage in an honest and open investigation. It is yet another gift that I have been granted in this life. Please forgive me for lack of style, and if it seems that I am quoting from your question or from a source I apologize, it is merely for my organization.

You ask, “. Do you believe that your god really cares about the extraordinary detail that goes into daily practice, especially on the Sabbath, of course. And if so, why?” You go on further and ask, “I guess what I'm really asking is how much is divine expectation versus Rabbinical invention? I probably shouldn't compare your situation with the Catholic faith, but it's the first to come to mind: only fish on Fridays, celibate priests, infallible popes, birth control prohibition, et cetera. Is there a substantive difference between Catholic prohibitions and those of the Orthodox Jewish faith?

I think you are asking two separate questions. As I understand it, your first question pertains to the Jewish view of G-d, the proper service of him and the reasons for said service. The second question seems to seek a clarification of the system of Jewish law how it is derived, instituted and practiced. I will attempt to answer the questions in order.

Do I believe that my God really cares about the extraordinary detail that goes into my daily practice? No. Unequivocally God does not care. God does not need my service to him. God does not need anyone’s service nor does he need any of his creations for anything. To attribute a need to God would be to attribute a lack to him, he needs neither me nor my service .God is independent of his creations. The question then is, “if it is so that God does not want my service, then what is the purpose of my observance?” I believe that the answer to this question will come from an understanding of what Torah is and what its relationship to man is.
Man
As you know the essence of Man is his faculty of reason. The verse in Genesis 1 “27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them”, is interpreted by the Talmudic scholars to be referring to the human intellect. Our purpose in life is to use our intellect to perceive reality and to live in accordance with it. This is I believe the same as the stoic adjuration to live in line with nature. What then is this system of Torah that has occupied the minds and governed the lives of Jews for the last 5 thousand years, and how does it relate to mans nature?

Torah
Torah is an intellectual system of life given to Man through the nation of Israel. The Torah exists in two media, written and oral. Neither is complete without the other and both were given to a mass of people at Sinai. Encompassed in the Torah are the commandments ( Mitzvos). The commandments (all six hundred and thirteen) are tools that God has given us to perfect our minds. Each individual commandment is aimed at removing a false notion of the universe and instilling the correct idea.
It is now possible to answer the question that we had asked earlier on, namely if God does not want my service what is the point of my service? The Torah is an intellectual system that was given to man to perfect himself. Each law in the Torah is designed with human nature in mind to guide Man to his ultimate potential. When we engage in the law we are not serving God for hopes of appeasing him or satisfying a desire . Rather what we aim at with our dedication to the law is a fulfillment of Man’s mission to live in line with his intellectual nature, and perceive the reality of the Universe as it really is and not as my psyche wishes it to be.

As per the second part of your question, I would point you to three verses in Deuteronomy ( Chapter 30:12-14). 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. In terms of Rabbinic “invention” or the relationship between what was given and what we do , these verses stand out as the rubric. The words of God himself are quite clear. “It is not in the heavens”, the system of Torah was given over as an intellectual system for man and it is he who must master the law and interpret it. The rules and guidelines were given over to man and it is Man’s job to make sure it is kept. This is where the perception of “Rabbinic invention” comes in. It is true that there are rules or extensions of rules that were not given to Moses at Sinai. However, “ it is very nigh unto you” ,one must note that the very system of interpretation was within the system given to Moses at Sinai .
As I stated previously the Torah is an intellectual system which serves to perfect our lives. Again God does not need me or my service. The system of Torah was given to humanity as the tool for engaging the mind and accepting the reality of the laws of creation. It is up to the experts in the legal system to apply and extrapolate its principles. In that way there is no such thing as “Rabbinic invention” because the Torah given by God demands that there is a constant engagement of legal experts to properly understand it.

To recap, Man was given the Torah, a system of intellectual and moral perfection, not for Gods satisfaction ( which is impossible), but only so that Man can reach his potential and recognize the reality of the Universe. Man can only achieve true happiness, true success if he recognizes and lives in line with his nature, as Aurelius states in Book two of the Meditations. “This thou must always bear in mind, what is the nature of the whole, and what is my nature, and how this is related to that, and what kind of a part it is of what kind of a whole; and that there is no one who hinders thee from always doing and saying the things which are according to the nature of which thou art a part”. This is the goal of Torah and this is the philosophy of the Stoic masters as I see it.

Fantasy

2008-09-19T10:10:00.000-04:00

What is fantasy?

In the previous post I wrote about a preliminary definition of Man, or at least three components of Man. To recap, the Instinct is the drive that pushes man to preserve himself. The Intellect is the drive that pushes him to see universal categories of existance. The Imagination is the tool that takes all collected data and categorizes it into essences and accidents for intellectual and instinctual uses.

Fantasy is a result of the three components that we already mentioned.

When Man uses his senses and comes to the Intellectual realization that he has a natural place in the Universe, he is immediately thrown into conflict. This conflict arises from the fact that the Intellect percieves that he is quite literally a very small fish in a tremendously large pond.This intellectual recognition poses a threat to the instinct, the part of Man that is concerned with self preservation. The instinct cannot abide by the fact that Man is not in control of his surroundings.In order to remove this pain the Man constructs scenarios and acts in such a way that will prove he is in control. The fantasy is a defense mechanism. The man cannot accept that he is vulnerable so he constructs an alternative view of the Natural order in which he is supreme.

This was best described by my friend Sean in a post at Matt's blog which can be accessed here:
http://kankanchadash.blogspot.com/2008/08/sean-on-architecture-and-fantasy.html

Man percieves that he is weak. He is vulnerable to the forces of Nature, a mere chill can layway him forever. What is man's response? He builds shelter. Shelter is necessary for him to survive the elements. How though does man relate to the shelter.Instead of viewing the house as a testament to his own weakness, he places the house in an alternative reality. The house is the fortress that protects Man from all harm. It is a testament not to weakness but to strength. My what a strong and beautiful bulding this is, surely it bears witness to the power and glory of its owner. This is fantasy at its clearest. The man has seen his weakness and responded to it by creating a monument to his strength, something that allows him to deny he ever was weak.

Man- Intellect, Instinct, Imagination

2008-09-11T19:50:00.000-04:00

I have the tremendous bracha to have just started a new chavrusah with my friend Jonny. The topic of our study is Mitzvos and the Mishneh Torah. Our first hour of study brought out some amazing ideas and I thought it would be appropriate to share them , perhaps as the first in a series of posts resulting from this new endeavor.

Since our chavrusah is to focus on the area of Mitzvos as a system, we thought it would be beneficial to start out by defining some basic ideas that are relevant to mitzvos. Today we took on the concept of " Man".

What is Man?

This is a question that is all to hastily answered by most people. The immediate answer could be, "man is an animal". This is flawed because it fails to capture man's essence. Another answer could be " Man is intellect", this is flawed because man is not purely intellect. A more subtle approach would be the synthesis of these two catchphrases into " Man is a rational animal".This answer is also flawed but for a different reason than the two previous. This answer is flawed because the term " rational animal" is so in need of definition as to be practically meaningless.

In order to properly formulate the definition we first examined "Animal".

When an animal, say a cougar wakes up in the morning, it has immediate instinctual drives.The cougar is hungry so it goes out to the field and spots antelope.The cougars instinct tells him that this antelope is a food source. The cougar pounces on its prey , kills it, eats it and satisfies its instinctual need for food. When the cougar needs to mate, it again goes to the field spots a female cougar utilizes it to his procreative need and satisfies his instinct. When the cougar needs shade it finds a tree and rests beneath it allowing the boughs to keep the sun's rays from causing harm.The animal is capable of seeing good for himself. The cougar can see a shady spot and instinct will guide it to rest, a plump antelope to eat, and a young female to sport with.

How does the instinctual gratification of the Cougar compare to that of Man?

When Man wakes up in the morning he is also hungry. He can gather food, he understands what is and is not food. Similarly he needs to procreate so he looks for and finds a mate. He relates to the instinctual needs similarly to the cougar. He needs to eat, he needs to procreate, he needs shelter. Man also has another element though. When he gazes on an apple tree, he does not just see food, he does not just see shade. There is something beyond the immediate instinct that Man has the ability to comprehend. Man can see the apple tree recognizes it as a source of physical good and then can make a breakthrough. All of a sudden he can see the tree and place it into a general category of "Plant" and can fit that into part of the overall ecosystem. He can perceive the tree as both food and as part of a universal category.

This ability to see the world both in terms of immediate instinct and universal categories is our working definition for " intellect". When the cougar wakes up he immediately starts collecting data and uses it to satisfy his instinctual needs. When Man wakes up he collects data for his instinctual needs and also uses that data and fits it into universal categories. He sees the world as both individual circumstances for fulfilling his instinct and a unified order of nature.

We now have a clear distinction between Man and Animal.The question now is how does the Man take the data that he has collected and use said data?

As the sensory data is collected it is acted on by the " imagination". The Imagination is the part of man that collects the sensory data and orders it into essences and accidents based on the frameworks of either the Instinct or the Intellect.For instance the Man can see a bone lying on the ground. His imagination will then categorize this bone as " essentially a weapon with which I can fend off predators"( an example of the Imagination viewing instinctual essences and accidents), or he can see this bone and view it as " essentially a part of the skeleton of an antelope" and intellectually fit it into the universal system of nature.

To recap we have three aspects, Instinct- the part of man that tells him he is hungry,he needs shade, he needs reproduction.Intellect- the part that puts the data that his senses collect into categorical terms, views everything he comes in contact with as part of a universal. Imagination- the part that takes the data and views it in terms of essences and accidents of both the Instinctual and Intellectual.

To be continued....

For my Friend and my Rebbi,in thanks.

2008-07-15T21:06:00.000-04:00

I am reminded of a famous expression which is found throughout the world. In fact I can hear it ringing through my ears in the soft German of my family. I wont mention it explicitly because it is often formulated in a heretical manner. The gist of the expression is that Man plans his life and then circumstances intervene and in the end the man has ended up in a place and state that he had not planned nor had he desired at the beginning. Often times the man experiences great grief at the loss of his "plan" and the experience of his new reality.When the man is thrust into a new reality he is often so fixated on his "plan" , his conception of "happiness" and "good" that he cannot escape his own delusions. He continues to dwell as if he was in the same state as the ante-circumstance man was. In short he had become so infatuated with his prior life, so comfortable, so enamored with the object of his desires and the subject of his thoughts that he can not redeem himself. When he reaches this point, bobbing up and down in the tide he does not even know to tread water. The fortunate ones are those who have that cliched life vest tossed to them.

It is in this light , with this image in my mind that I am writing.

Recently, I experienced first hand the emotional glass breaking that comes with a destruction , an annihilation of "the plan". I would not be eating, I would not be functioning were it not for a salvation that was done for me . They spent their time and their energies , emotionally and otherwise when they were not at a loss for important things to do seperate from me.They demonstrated that my "plan" and my Life were not equivalent. They pointed me on the way to the "Happy Life", they saved me and I love them .

I owe them more than I can repay, and as such my only tribute - some thoughts on the nature of happiness which I have collected from my friends, my Rebbi and Seneca, which are in agreement with one another .

"To live happily, my brother Gallio,is the desire of all men, but their minds are blinded to a clear vision of just what it is that makes life happy; and so far from its being easy to attain the happy life, the more eagerly a man strives to reach it, the farther he recedes from it if he has made a mistake in the road for when it leads in the opposite direction, his very speed will increase the distance that separates him"

When man is in the midst of his "plan", his desires, his lusts, he cannot conceive of the possibility that what he imagines to be his life, what he wants , what he strives for, is not what is good, is not what will make him Happy.Even as the plan crumbles around him, he deludes himself to think that the plan is sound. He is so steeped in the fantasy that he drives himself ever further down the opposite path.The faculty of mind is left at the dock, and he refuses to see that the plan has failed.

"Let us, therefore, decide both upon the goal and upon the way, and not fail to find some experienced guide who has explored the region towards which we are advancing; for the conditions of this journey are different from those of most travel"

This is the solution to the man slipping beneath the waves of his own self denial and fantasy. The Rabbis have said it thus, " Yelech etzel Chacham" , "Go to a sage and he will instruct you".Most people under normal circumstances are untrained and unable to sort through their own turmoil and end in Happiness. The chacham is the therapist, the role model and the guide. Seneca endorses " Aseh Lecha Rav". He cautions , as does the Mesorah, not to blindly follow anyone. The mind is the crucible.Sometimes however, the mind is absent.

"You understand, even if I do not say more, that, when once we have driven away all that excites or affrights us, there ensues unbroken tranquillity and enduring freedom; for when pleasures and fears have been banished, then, in place of all that is trivial and fragile and harmful just because of the evil it works, there comes upon us first a boundless joy that is firm and unalterable, then peace and harmony of the soul and true greatness coupled with kindliness; for all ferocity is born from weakness"
This paragraph resonates with me. I can recall time after time after time being instructed in the truth of this statement. At a certain point man holds tight to his pain , his fragility because that very thing is a remnant of the lost desires, the lost "life" that you had planned.
" But no man can be happy unless he is sane, and no man can be sane who searches for what will injure him in place of what is best."
This is the sickness of the man who cannot allow himself happiness. He thinks bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter. He attempts to eat things which are not food. He seeks out and cleaves to the things that are his undoing.
"the happy man is he who allows reason to fix the value of every condition of existence"
This is the definition. This points to what the mesorah has declared regarding Man and his happiness. Happiness , Good for man, demands his mind. "And therefore the ancients have enjoined us to follow, not the most pleasant, but the best life, in order that pleasure should be, not the, leader, but the companion of a right and proper desire. For we must use Nature as our guide; she it is that Reason heeds, it is of her that it takes counsel. Therefore to live happily is the same thing as to liveaccording to Nature." To live happily, is to live the life of mind, for the nature of man is a rational animal.

"On the Happy Life"

2008-07-15T19:37:00.000-04:00

Here Again is a selection from Seneca. I have not posted the entire piece as of yet. You can read the entire treatise as well as many others of Seneca at,http://www.stoics.com/seneca_essays_book_2.html, this site is a good resource for Stoic philosophy. The owners of the site have also added hyperlinks in the text to the works of other philosophers who deal with similar concepts.The bolding and Italics are mine, with something like this the entire piece deserves to be bolded, I have attempted to be conservative in my bolding. I will , with the help of my maker formulate some thoughts on the Happy life after posting this.

DE VITA BEATA
TO GALLIO ON THE HAPPY LIFE
"To live happily, my brother Gallio,is the desire of all men, but their minds are blinded to a clear vision of just what it is that makes life happy; and so far from its being easy to attain the happy life, the more eagerly a man strives to reach it, the farther he recedes from it if he has made a mistake in the road; for when it leads in the opposite direction, his very speed will increase the distance that separates him. First, therefore, we must seek what it is that we are aiming at; then we must look about for the road by which we can reach it most quickly, and on the journey itself, if only we are on the right path, we shall discover how much of the distance we overcome each day, and how much nearer we are to the goal toward which we are urged by a natural desire. But so long as we wander aimlessly, having no guide, and following only the noise and discordant cries of those who call us in different directions, life will be consumed in making mistakes - life that is brief even if we should strive day and night for sound wisdom. Let us, therefore, decide both upon the goal and upon the way, and not fail to find some experienced guide who has explored the region towards which we are advancing; for the conditions of this journey are different from those of most travel. On most journeys some well-recognized road and inquiries made of the inhabitants of the region prevent you from going astray; but on this one all the best beaten and the most frequented paths are the most deceptive. Nothing, therefore, needs to be more emphasized than the warning that we should not, like sheep, follow the lead of the throng in front of us, travelling, thus, the way that all go and not the way that we ought to go. Yet nothing involves us in greater trouble than the fact that we adapt ourselves to common report in the belief that the best things are those that have met with great approval, - the fact that, having so many to follow, we live after the rule, not of reason, but of imitation. The result of this is that people are piled high, one above another, as they rush to destruction. And just as it happens that in a great crush of humanity, when the people push against each other, no one can fall down without drawing along another, and those that are in front cause destruction to those behind - this same thing, You may see happening everywhere in life. No man can go wrong to his own hurt only, but he will be both the cause and the sponsor of another's wrongdoing. For it is dangerous to attach one's self to the crowd in front, and so long as each one of us is more willing to trust another than to judge for himself, we never show any judgement in the matter of living, but always a blind trust, and a mistake that has been passed on from hand to hand finally involves us and works our destruction. It is the example of other people that is our undoing; let us merely separate ourselves from the crowd, and we shall be made whole. But as it is, the populace,, defending its own iniquity, pits itself against reason. And so we see the same thing happening that happens at the elections, where, when the fickle breeze of popular favour has shifted, the very same persons who chose the praetors wonder that those praetors were chosen. The same thing has one moment our favour, the next our disfavour; this is the outcome of every decision that follows the choice of the majority. When the happy life is under debate, there will be no use for you to reply to me, as if it were a matter of votes: "This side seems to be in a majority." For that is just the reason it is the worse side. Human affairs are not so happily ordered that the majority prefer the better things; a proof of the worst choice is the crowd. Therefore let us find out what is best to do, not what is most commonly done what will establish our claim to lasting happiness, not what finds favour with the rabble, who are the worst possible exponents of the truth. But by the rabble I mean no less the servants of the court than the servants of the kitchen; for I do not regard the colour of the garments that clothe the body. In rating a man I do not rely upon eyesight: I have a better and surer light, by which I may distinguish the false from the true. Let the soul discover the good of the soul. If the soul ever has leisure to draw breath and to retire within itself - ah! to what self- torture will it come, and how, if it confesses the truth to itself, it will say: "All that I have done hitherto,
I would were undone; when I think of all that I have said, I envy the dumb; of all that I have prayed for, I rate my prayers as the curses of my enemies; of all that I have feared - ye gods! how much lighter it would have been than the load of what I have coveted! With many I have been at enmity, and, laying aside hatred, have been restored to friendship with them - if only there can be any friendship between the wicked; with myself I have not yet entered into friendship. I have made every effort to remove myself from the multitude and to make myself noteworthy by reason of some endowment. What have I accomplished save to expose myself to the darts of malice and show it where it can sting me? See you those who praise your eloquence, who trail upon your wealth, who court your favour, who exalt your power? All these are either now your enemies, or - it amounts to the same thing - can become such. To know how many are jealous of you, count your admirers. Why do I not rather seek some real good - one which I could feel, not one which I could display? These things that draw the eyes of men, before which they halt, which they show to one another in wonder, outwardly glitter, but are worthless within." Let us seek something that is a good in more than appearance - something that is solid, constant, and more beautiful in its more hidden part; for this let us delve. And it is placed not far off; you will find it - you need only to know where to stretch out your hand. As it is, just as if we groped in darkness, we pass by things near at hand, stumbling over the very objects we desire. Not to bore you, however, with tortuous details, I shall pass over in silence the opinions of other philosophers, for it would be tedious to enumerate and refute them all. Do you listen to ours. But when I say ours, "I do not bind myself to some particular one of the Stoic masters; I, too, have the right to form an opinion. Accordingly, I shall follow so- and-so, I shall request so-and-so to divide the question; perhaps, too, when called upon after all the rest, I shall impugn none of my predecessors' opinions, and shall say: "I simply have this much to add." Meantime, I follow the guidance of Nature - a doctrine upon which all Stoics are agreed. Not to stray from Nature and to mould ourselves according to her law and pattern - this is true wisdom. The happy life, therefore, is a life that is in harmony with its own nature, and it can be attained in only one way. First of all, we must have a sound mind and one that is in constant possession of its sanity; second, it must be courageous and energetic, and, too, capable of the noblest fortitude, ready for every emergency, careful of the body and of all that concerns it, but without anxiety; lastly, it must be attentive to all the advantages that adorn life, but with over-much love for none the user, but not the slave, of the gifts of Fortune. You understand, even if I do not say more, that, when once we have driven away all that excites or affrights us, there ensues unbroken tranquillity and enduring freedom; for when pleasures and fears have been banished, then, in place of all that is trivial and fragile and harmful just because of the evil it works, there comes upon us first a boundless joy that is firm and unalterable, then peace and harmony of the soul and true greatness coupled with kindliness; for all ferocity is born from weakness. It is possible also to define this good of ours in other terms - that is, the same idea may be expressed in different language. Just as an army remains the same, though at one time it deploys with a longer line, now is massed into a narrow space and either stands with hollowed centre and wings curved forward, or extends a straightened front, and, no matter what its formation may be, will keep the selfsame spirit and the same resolve to stand in defence of the selfsame cause, - so the definition of the highest good may at one time be given in prolix and lengthy form, and at another be restrained and concise. So it will come to the same thing if I say: "The highest good is a mind that scorns the happenings of chance, and rejoices only in virtue," or say: "It is the power of the mind to be unconquerable, wise from experience, calm in action, showing the while much courtesy and consideration in intercourse with others," It may also be defined in the statement that the happy man is he who recognizes no good and evil other than a good and an evil mind one who cherishes honour, is content with virtue, who is neither puffed up, nor crushed, by the happenings of chance, who knows of no greater good than that which he alone is able to bestow upon himself, for whom true pleasure will be the scorn of pleasures. It is possible, too, if one chooses to be discursive, to transfer the same idea to various other forms of expression without injuring or weakening its meaning. For what prevents us from saying that the happy life is to have a mind that is free, lofty, fearless and steadfast - a mind that is placed beyond the reach of fear, beyond the reach of desire, that counts virtue the only good, baseness the only evil, and all else but a worthless mass of things, which come and go without increasing or diminishing the highest good, and neither subtract any part from the happy life nor add any part to it? A man thus grounded must, whether he wills or not, necessarily be attended by constant cheerfulness and a joy that is deep and issues from deep within, since he finds delight in his own resources, and desires no joys greater than his inner joys. Should not such joys as these be rightly matched against the paltry and trivial and fleeting sensations of the wretched body? The day a man becomes superior to pleasure, he will also be superior to pain; but you see in what wretched and baneful bondage he must linger whom pleasures and pains, those most capricious and tyrannical of masters, shall in turn enslave.Therefore we must make our escape to . But the only means of procuring this is through indifference to Fortune. Then will be born the one inestimable blessing, the peace and exaltation of a mind now safely anchored, and, when all error is banished, the great and stable joy that comes from the discovery of truth, along with kindliness and cheerfulness of mind; and the source of a man's pleasure in all of these will not be that they are good, but that they spring from a good that is his own. Seeing that I am employing some freedom in treating my subject, I may say that the happy man is one who is freed from both fear and desire because of the gift of reason; since even rocks are free from fear and sorrow, and no less are the beasts of the field, yet for all that no one could say that these things are "blissful," when they have no comprehension of bliss. Put in the same class those people whose dullness of nature and ignorance of themselves have reduced them to the level of beasts of the field and of inanimate things. There is no difference between the one and the other, since in one case they are things without reason, and in the other their reason is warped, and works their own hurt, being active in the wrong direction; for no man can be said to be happy if he has been thrust outside the pale of truth. Therefore the life that is happy has been founded on correct and trustworthy judgement, and is unalterable. Then, truly, is the mind unclouded and freed from every ill, since it knows how to escape not only deep wounds, but even scratches, and, resolved to hold to the end whatever stand it has taken, it will defend its position even against the assaults of an angry Fortune. For so far as sensual pleasure is concerned, though it flows about us on every side, steals in through every opening, softens the mind with its blandishments, and employs one resource after another in order to seduce us in whole or in part, yet who of mortals, if he has left in him one trace of a human being, would choose to have his senses tickled night and day, and, forsaking the mind, devote his attention wholly to the body? "But the mind also," it will be said, "has its own pleasures." Let it have them, in sooth, and let it pose as a judge of luxury and pleasures; let it gorge itself with the things that are wont to delight the senses, then let it look back upon the past, and, recalling faded pleasures, let it intoxicate itself with former experiences and be eager now for those to come, and let it lay its plans, and, while the body lies helpless from present cramming, let it direct its thoughts to that to come - yet from all this, it seems to me, the mind will be more wretched than ever, since it is madness to choose evils instead of goods. But no man can be happy unless he is sane, and no man can be sane who searches for what will injure him in place of what is best. The happy man, therefore, is one who has right judgement; the happy man is content with his present lot, no matter what it is, and is reconciled to his circumstances; the happy man is he who allows reason to fix the value of every condition of existence. Even those who declare that the highest good is in the belly see in what a dishonourable position they have placed it. And so they say that it is not possible to separate pleasure from virtue, and they aver that no one can live virtuously without also living pleasantly, nor pleasantly without also living virtuously. But I do not see how things so different can be cast in the same mould. What reason is there, I beg of you, why pleasure cannot be separated from virtue? Do you mean, since all goods have their origin in virtue, even the things that you love and desire must spring from its roots? But if the two were inseparable, we should not see certain things pleasant, but not honourable, and certain things truly most honourable, but painful and capable of being accomplished only through suffering. Then, too, we see that pleasure enters into even the basest life, but, on the other hand, virtue does not permit life to be evil, and there are people who are unhappy not without pleasure - nay, are so on account of pleasure itself - and this could not happen if pleasure were indisolubly joined to virtue; virtue often lacks pleasure, and never needs it. Why do you couple things that are unlike, nay, even opposites? Virtue is something lofty, exalted and regal, unconquerable, and unwearied; pleasure is something lowly, servile, weak, and perishable, whose haunt and abode are the brothel and the tavern. Virtue you will find in the temple, in the forum, in the senate-house - you will find her standing in front of the city walls, dusty and stained, and with calloused hands; pleasure you will more often find lurking out of sight, and in search of darkness, around the public baths and the sweating-rooms and the places that fear the police - soft, enervated, reeking with wine and perfume, and pallid, or else painted and made up with cosmetics like a corpse. The highest good is immortal, it knows no ending, it permits neither surfeit nor regret; for the right-thinking mind never alters, it neither is filled with self-loathing nor suffers any change in its life, that is ever the best. But pleasure is extinguished just when it is most enjoyed; it has but small space, and thus quickly fills it - it grows weary and is soon spent after its first assault. Nor is anything certain whose nature consists in movement. So it is not even possible that there should be any substance in that which comes and goes most swiftly and will perish in the very exercise of its power; for it struggles to reach a point at which it may cease, and it looks to the end while it is beginning. What, further, is to be said of the fact that pleasure belongs alike to the good and the evil, and that the base delight no less in their disgrace than do the honourable in fair repute? And therefore the ancients have enjoined us to follow, not the most pleasant, but the best life, in order that pleasure should be, not the, leader, but the companion of a right and proper desire. For we must use Nature as our guide; she it is that Reason heeds, it is of her that it takes counsel. Therefore to live happily is the same thing as to live
according to Nature."

Bechiraville U.S.A.

2008-07-04T11:56:00.000-04:00

Last night as I drove home from work, tired from a long day, happy for a long weekend, I started to reflect on this land that has given me sojourn. America, is a wonderful land. I do not think that anyone would argue that the founding fathers, framers or whatever you would prefer to call them, were some of the greatest minds the secular world has produced in the last 1000 years. (It is interesting to note, that many of the chachmei harevolution expressed views on religion and the Creator which are at the very least thoughtful) The writings of the revolutionaries are soaked through with the chachmah of political theory and natural philosophy.The founders believed as they so often stated that Man derives his freedom from the creator.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"( Unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America). The founders stated their purpose in the preamble to the constitution,
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"
Read these words and absorb the chachma that pours off the pages. These few lines give testimony to the good of America. As the Rambam famously said,"Just as plants bear testimony to the existence of real roots, and waters are evidence for the excellence of springs, so has a firm shoot developed from the roots of truth and righteousness, and a huge river has gushed forth from the spring of mercy( letter to Rav Ya'akob Al Fayumi, the Epistle to Yemen). These words are but a part of the great springs from which this nation flows.The words, justice, tranquility, and blessings reflect the mindset of the founders. They recognized that the world is governed by laws, laws established by the Creator and that Man must attempt to live within these laws. They understood that Man is imperfect and his rule is as a result corrupted. Their system was,( is), designed to minimize that corruption. I would not pretend that this system is better than that of Torah, but we must remember that the Malchus of the Torah and the Philosopher King of Plato ( not to say they are far off), are lichatchila situations. It would have been counterproductive for the founders to try and establish a Philosophical Monarchy and impossible for them to replacate the Malchus of Torah. As such, their system is, the best system that could be achieved.It spreads the power and authority amongst many, while maintaining the position of a national leader. ( This reminds me of the advise of Chazal to not walk alone at night because of the 'mazikin' , the spreading of power to many allows for mutual support and avoidance of mazikin.)There are those who criticize the system for this reason, and to them I repeat my statement. If we had a navi , or a real sanhedrin then I would agree, but that is a stupid mans way of thinking.

Another point that I was reflecting on as I drove was the nature of the Torah world in America. There are those who decry America as evil and elevate Poland, or Yemen, or the Maghreb or wherever their zaydees and papous came from as so much better for yehadus. In America we have seen a total abandonment of yehadus from thousands of Jews. We have also seen the Torah world re-establish itself after the second World War in America and become a center for chachma rivaling any of recent memory.So, in light of both of these facts, I wonder what is the proper view of this country and its society in regards to a Halachic person.
There is no doubt that there are destructive elements in society. We are overly consumed by frivolity, sex and a myriad other pursuits. It is true again, that thousands have left the Bris , tempted by these pursuits. This is a tragedy. However, if we consider the nature of man and his bechirah the greatness of America on a whole and specifically in terms of Torah comes to the fore. Man was created with free will. It is his responsibility to choose "THE GOOD" and "THE LIFE" and avoid and deny "THE DEATH AND THE BAD".No nation on earth allows for this quite as America does. The very idea of personal responsibility and liberty presuppose bechira chofshith. When we decry the loss of some to Torah, it is not Americas fault , it is our fault. If we do not want our people destroying themselves than we better make sure they understand the bechirah. This is the beauty of America. We have been given a foothold in a land that will allow us to quite literally make that free will decision. American liberty IS bechirah.

Some thoughts on Seneca

2008-07-03T20:42:00.000-04:00

I have to thank my friend Matt for introducing me to the works of Lucius Annaeus Seneca. ( As you will hopefully see, Matt fits the true model of friend). Seneca was born in Cordoba Spain and educated in Rome. He was tutor, and eventually advisor to the emperor Nero. His biggest legacy to wisdom comes from his work as one of the "stoics"among these the Letters to his student Lucilius and his "Dialogues and Essays" , stand out. Seneca is a master of the one liner and his writings are fertile ground from which sprout many large and beautiful ideas. I do not have a major piece written up, however, he has had such an impact that at the very least I thought it necessary to share some thoughts. It must be noted before reading any of my "thoughts" that you should read Seneca for himself http://www.stoics.com/seneca_epistles_book_1.html, as well as some thoughts that Matt has posted already on his blog, http://www.kankanchadash.blogspot.com/
I apologize in advance if any of the ideas are redundant to something Matt has said, or even if they are pashtus of the letters themselves.

As you know, the chachmei hamesorah have equated anger with idolatry. Maimonides states in Deoth , that the "baalei Qa'as ain chayehem chayim"," the angry person's life is not LIFE".

Seneca on Anger:

Seneca wrote an entire work on the subject of anger. I have not reproduced it in entirety, nor have I even come close to producing a large swath of it, I have selected some simple points from book 3 of "On Anger".

" I shall now try to do what you have particularly desired, Navatus, to expel anger from the mind, or at least to rein it in and check its violence. This should be done sometimes openly and plainly,when a less serious attack of the evil permits,sometimes secretly, when it burns too fiercely and every obstacle intensifies and increases it;it depends on how much strenght and energy it has,whether we should beat it back and force its withdrawal, or should give way to it until the initial storm has spent its fury,in case it carries off with it the very means of effecting a cure"

Seneca, abhors anger.Yet he is realistic about it. He does not pretend, that anger does not occur in even the best amongst us.He recognizes from the outset that the expulsion of anger from the soul is perhaps impossible,that the goal of man in this area must be to rein it in and distance its destructive power from your life as much as possible. I think this is a very powerful, if not subtle position. There is no superhuman amongst us that does not suffer the ill effects of emotion. The goal according to Seneca would be to contain this "violence" such that it does not harm anyone or thing. This is remeniscent to me of the Rambam in deoth chapter 2 halacha 7 " ואמרו שכל הכועס--אם חכם הוא, חכמתו מסתלקת ממנו, ואם נביא הוא, נבואתו מסתלקת ממנו
"... they stated, that anyone who is angry, if he is a Chacham, ( wise) , his wisdom escapes him, if he is a prophet, his prophesy escapes him". Clearly even the most perfected humans , prophets, fall prey to this emotion. This very well might be a bigger lesson about people and levels of perfection than it is about anger itself. We do not believe in supermen. Every single human is succeptible to the destructive forces of emotions.
Further in Seneca:
"... For though the rest of the passions may be amenable to such postponement and may be cured at a slower pace,this one,with its rapid and self propelled violence,does not proceed gradually,but reaches the full scope the moment it begins; unlike other vices it does not tempt the mind but carries it off by force,and drives on those who lacking self control, desire the destruction,it may be, of everyone,spending its rage not only on the targets of its aim but on whatever happens to cross its path. The other vices drive the mind on , anger hurls it headlong."
Again, an interesting point which reminds me of the same Rambam.As Seneca notes, anger comes on as a freight train and carries the mind and self control away with it. This emotion as he notes, does not eat away at the psyche, it does not tempt the heart . Rather, like a tinderbox, there is a spark and then combustion.This could explain the old question of the comparison to idolatry.Anger is the ultimate fantasy. Anger arrives when one's conception of the good comes in conflict with reality. In other words, when what we want, think is right, or think must be, does not occur our conception of the good, our view of reality is upturned and this cataclysmic upheaval explodes in fits of rage. This is the idolatry, the Qo'es, is entirely consumed with the reality of his desire. HE controls what must be and as such when he percieves that he is NOT in control of reality he himself loses control of his mind and flies off into an emotional shooting spree.
more to follow....

Behold I have set before you the Life and the good the Death and the bad - part two.

2008-06-02T10:47:00.000-04:00

This is not really a part two so much as another observation that I would like to make about the mikrah in devarim . I think it is interesting to note the lashon of the verse, the pasuk does not say " behold I have set before you life and good death and bad" but rather it says " Behold I have set before you the life and the good , the death and the bad". Did you catch the difference? The verse describes these two choices as either THE life and THE good, or conversely THE death and The bad. The use of 'the' instead of just saying life and good, death and bad, seems to be a further pointer to the meaning of the verse. Rationality and intellectual living is THE Life that man was created for, it is THE GOOD. On the other hand the life of an animal is in reality THE Death of man and THE BAD, the worst possible engagement available to him.

I guess that was a simple point but perhaps it needed to be said again...

Behold I have set before you Life and the good and the Death and the bad and you shall choose life

2008-06-01T22:30:00.000-04:00

"ראה נתתי לפניך היום, את החיים ואת הטוב, ואת המוות, ואת הרע" (דברים ל,טו
This mikrah often bothers me and this week it popped into my head again, what kind of a choice is that? . I have set before you life and good, death and bad, choose life?I have given you poison and I have given you sustenance pick whichever you prefer? It seems almost absurd that this mikrah is couched as a choice. What type of choice is it?
Bob, I have two things in my hand , one is a baseball bat with which I will beat you, the other is a pillow for you to rest on, now Bobbo, which one do you want? Curious, no?

Also this week I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine , ( you know who you are),the friend was lamenting her recent removal from an environment of Torah where she was surrounded by chachmah and Tov.She was literally pained by the sudden uprooting from her cozy chachma nest and the dumping into the world outside the Beit Midrash.Indeed I had recently experienced a similar pain, ( in my case it was pre-emptive), at my impending limit of Beit Midrash time. I think however, that these two feelings , the pain at removal from being one of the permanent "Yoshevei beisecha", to a mere student or a worker, can be assuaged with a proper understanding of the pasuk of Chayim and Maveth, tov and rah.

I think that we can find an answer to my uneasiness with the "choice" in the mikrah if we recall the words of a certain chacham, who has often been quoted by other chachamim anonymously , but I will reference him by saying " hear the truth from whoever speaks it". The quote is as follows ,"EVERY art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." To my mind this quote provides a very good solution, every action of man points to what that man holds to be good, clearly that is why man would do anything. If you did not perceive some good in what you were doing then you would not do it. Now if we keep this in mind then the verse could be saying, " behold I have set before you real Life and objective good and certain death and objective bad which you view as good because you have a false concept of the good, re-evaluate your idea of the good and choose the objective good". In other words this verse is a command to use your mind to decipher what is and is not good .

Now, how does this apply to the situation of my friend?

We are given minds to percieve the wisdom of the creator. This is the ultimate goal of Man. In the words of the pasuk we are given minds to " choose the good", the good is yediath Hashem.When we are in an environment of a beit midrash, when we are literally those who the psalmist speaks of in Psalm 145 as being praiseworthy, we feel a sense of security. It is almost as if we are in an intellectual summer camp, we are engaged in ideas, activities ,on our own, but we are also closed off and sheltered within the stacks of books. Our outside experiences, as in summer camp, are controlled, highly limited.Our learning is regulated, there are shiurim that we have given to us, our schedules revolve around certain fixed points of involvement in chachamah .As such when we are in the Beit Midrash what cares do we have? What is tosafot talking about? How can the Rambam say one thing here and seemingly contradict himself two paragraphs later, ( Lo aleinu!), or even the concern of one who is uncomfortable with the harsh criticism of the Ra'avad. But we do not have open exposure to influences and attractions that openly challenge us on the very deoth that we spend our time with.So the pain comes when we are ripped from this security and thrown into this brave new world of work and battalah and bills to pay and kids to feed and responsibility. No one is there to tell us to learn, no one is standing over our shoulder if we are mevattel our time, no rebbi next to you in shiur to guide you everyday, no chavrutha at work to help you be perfected.
This pain is however, great. Think about it, the pain is the confrontation between the world of bechirah and your mind. It is the point at which you must decide, " Jake, are you gonna go off and lose your mind , or are you going to grab tight and be an Adam".( You dont have to decide using the name Jake, but I do...).This is the first real exposure to the world of maveth and rah and the potential for chayim and tov. In this world of malacha , or better yet just the world outside, we are immediately confronted with taavoth and other distractions that challenge our conception of tov. The pain is beneficial at this point because it is the screaming of the soul, the mind or whatever you want to call it, the yelping of a mind that was spoiled by all day involvement in chachamah and is now conflicted over the removal or limitation of it.It is the recognition of what you have up until now held to be the good. This pain is what will in the beginning stages push you to the bechirah of tov and of chayim and will steer you from the pitfalls of rah and maveth.

א רשות כל אדם נתונה לו: אם רצה להטות עצמו לדרך טובה ולהיות צדיק, הרשות בידו; ואם רצה להטות עצמו לדרך רעה
ולהיות רשע, הרשות בידו. הוא שכתוב בתורה "הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו, לדעת, טוב ורע" (בראשית ג,כב)--כלומר הן מין זה של אדם היה אחד בעולם, ואין לו מין שני דומה לו בזה העניין, שיהא הוא מעצמו בדעתו ובמחשבתו יודע הטוב והרע ועושה כל מה שהוא חפץ, ואין לו מי שיעכב על ידו מלעשות הטוב או הרע. וכיון שכן הוא, "פן ישלח ידו" (שם

ה [ג] ועיקר זה עיקר גדול הוא, והוא עמוד התורה והמצוה--שנאמר "ראה נתתי לפניך היום, את החיים ואת הטוב, ואת המוות, ואת הרע" (דברים ל,טו), וכתוב "ראה, אנוכי נותן לפניכם--היום: ברכה, וקללה" (דברים יא,כו): כלומר שהרשות בידכם; וכל שיחפוץ האדם לעשות ממעשה בני האדם--עושה, בין טובים בין רעים. ומפני זה העניין נאמר "מי ייתן והיה לבבם זה להם" (דברים ה,כה)--כלומר שאין הבורא כופה בני האדם ולא גוזר עליהן לעשות טובה או רעה, אלא ליבם מסור להם

Ra'avad on teshuva 3:15 continued

2007-11-21T23:42:00.000-05:00

As I stated in the previous post, it is more than clear that the Ra'avad held from a rational mesora . However, there is still the main question that I had raised which has yet to be answered. The question, in summation is, why would the Ra'avad use the phrase Gedolim vtuvim memenu to refer to those who believed in a physical G, if in fact he rejects that notion.

In the kesef mishna, Rav Yosef Karo takes up our question:
כתב הראב"ד "ולמה קרה לזה מין וכו' .המשבשות את הדעות עכ"ל.
ויש לתמוה על פה קדוש איך יקרא לאומרים שהוא בעל גוף ובעל תמונה גדולים וטובים ממנו . ואפשר שעיקר הנוסחא כמו שכתוב בספר העיקרים פ"ב ממ"א וז"ל. א"א אע"פ שעיקר האמונה כן הוא המאמין היותו גוף מצד תפיסתו לשונות הפסוקים והמדרשות כפשטן אין ראוי לקרותו מין .

"There is astonishment at the holy mouth [ the Ra'avad] how can he call those who say that G' ahs a body or image " greater and better than he"? It is possible that the essential textual version is the same as is written in the sefer haikkarim : "Abraham states, even though the essential conviction is thus ( that G' is non physical) , one who believes that G' has a body because of the language of the verses and the literal interpretation of the midrashim , it is not appropriate to call him a min."

I was recently made aware of a shiur given by my Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Y. Chait regarding contradictory beliefs in which he mentions this Ra'avad. The shiur can be accessed at http://www.ybt.org/Sunday03092003.ram.

The main point that I have gathered from the shiur regarding our Ra'avad is one which deserves a post in its own right.

The real question here is when we are confronted with language from chazal or other chachamim that semingly contradicts our Yisodos, what should our response be? Our Ra'avad is a prime example of this. Are we to view the problem language as a claim against our already established principles , or is there another reaction.According to Rabbi Chait the appropriate reaction to seemingly contradictory language in the corpus of Torah sheba'al peh is the reaction of the kesef mishna to the Ra'avad. The Kesef Mishna did not read the Ra'avad and question his yisodos. The reaction of Rav Yosef Karo was to utterly reject the problem language as invalid and suggest an appropriate replacement. The response to problem chazals is not to run away screaming that the Yisodos are uprooted because of whatever problem language appears. Rather, the response to a problem language is to clamly return to your knowledge of the foundational principles of yehaduth and to accept that the way in which you are understanding that language is impossible within the mesora and to simply reject the problem statement.This is not to say that you cannot try to resolve the problem, if there is a sevara that can preserve the language and is within the framework of Torah then congratulations you have fought a war in which the truth has prevailed. However, if you cannot salvage that particular language then be satisfied that you were able to determine a conflict between what you were reading and the Yisodos and know that the Yisodos are true and there is no statement that will shake you of that notion.

In conclusion, whenever we are faced with a seemingly problematic statement within the mesora there can be but one reaction. To retreat back to the sound foundations of yehaduth that have been rationally proven , and not put stock in languages that conflict with what we already know is true.

The Chazon Ish brain surgery, Rav Charlop and his "telekenisis" and other fantastic tales of bizui haTorah

2007-11-21T20:45:00.001-05:00

I recently met a very intelligent fellow who told over two very fantastic "stories" regarding gedolim and seemingly miraculous events. This gent proceeded to question the rational philosophy espoused by my yeshiva based on these two fantastic stories.I had heard the first story many years ago and it remains unverified and without a source to this day. Recently I was informed ( although I have yet to see it myself) that this story is included in the biography of the Chazon Ish ( Harav Avrohom Yishaya Karelitz) which was published by a very prominent religious publishing house. The second story was new to me and I have been unable to find it anywhere. Again it is unverified and unsourced. I am writing this not in response to the stories themselves but rather as a reaction to the way people view these stories . I would like to preface by saying that this is in no way an attack on the individual who told me these stories. Indeed he was doing nothing less than seeking the truth and he should be commended for it.This is however, a response to the method of thinking that these stories are used to support.

(I will present the stories as I have heard them, If there are sources and or corrections in the story please make me aware of them.)

Story A- The Chazon Ish- brain surgeon.

The story goes as follows.

There was a patient in Israel who had a large brain tumor that required surgery of a very difficult nature in order to be cured. No surgeons were able to figure out exactly how to execute the surgery.The patient was distraught at the possibility that modern medicine could not save him and he sought guidance from the gaon Rav Avrahom Yeshaya Karelitz , the Chazon Ish. As the story goes the Chazon Ish examined the patient and using his knowledge of mesechet Chullin was able to plot the appropriate method for surgery.

Story B- Rav Charlop and his telekinetic abilities

The second story as told by this individual :

During the first World War Rav Charlop was mithpalel at the kotel. Suddenly he had a vision of Rav Avraham Yitzchak Hacohen Kook learning in London. ( Apparently Rav Kook was residing in England during the hostilities.) Not only did Rav Charlop envision Rav Kook learning but he was also aware of the sugya that he was learning at that very moment. Rav Charlop was purported to have told this to Rav Kook sometime later when they were reunited.

The problem I have with both of these stories is as follows. Let us assume that both stories are real. It is possible that the Chazon Ish was able to devise a way to remove a brain tumor. Rav Karelitz was a tremendous chacham and it is possible that he was aware of brain function and physiology enough to help the medical professionals. Perhaps. It could also be logically argued that the second story was a result of Rav Charlops tremendous understanding of the mind and thoughts or Rav Kook which led him to think of what Rav Kook was learning. Again, it is theoretically possible. My problem is thus: as I said it could be that both of these stories occured in some form, somehow. However, the emphasis and weight that is put into these stories along with the inevitable questioning of rationality that follows is the problem.

When these stories were told to me they were told in order to somehow prove to me that there are magical phenomena at work in the world. Miraculous occurences which somehow should call into question my world view. The purported surgery was a function of the fact that " everything is in the Torah" and so therefore a chacham will know science better than the scientist. ( I am still unclear as to exactly what the Rav Charlop story was supposed to prove).This is my problem. When we allow fantastical stories to creep into our minds and give them as much weight as rational investigation and mesora then we are degrading the very Torah which we claim to adhere to. I dont care one iota whether Rav Charlop knew what Rav Kook was learning or whether the Chazon Ish knew brain surgery. To the adherent of the mesora it is irrelevant.

There is another point that I am always astonished by aside from the sheer irrelevance to the mesora. These stories are nothing less than bizui haTorah and bizui talmidei chachamim. The fact that there are stories being told about chachmei hamesorah and their seemingly magical powers is defining what the mesora and chachamim are to the people who peddle these fables.In short, the mesorah( to those who adhere to these stories) is some magical tradition that allows those who master it to perform miracles and break the rules of science . In fact the mesorah is a rational worldview which accepts cause and effect as real and denies stupidity and foolishness. To imply that the Torah is a magic " realm" is to completly degrade the essence of the Torah. As the verse in Deuteronomy states(Chap.4 verse10)

וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם, וַעֲשִׂיתֶם--כִּי הִוא חָכְמַתְכֶם וּבִינַתְכֶם, לְעֵינֵי הָעַמִּים: אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְעוּן, אֵת כָּל-הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה, וְאָמְרוּ רַק עַם-חָכָם וְנָבוֹן, הַגּוֹי הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה
" and you shall guard them to perform them for they are your wisdom and understanding in they eyes of the nations that will hear all of these statutes and declare ' surely a wise and discerning and great nation this is".

The mesora and its masters are not magicians and anyone who implies the opposite should go ask one of them and they will instruct you to examine your actions and return to the system of reality.

Rav Abraham ben David of Posquieres and Hilchoth Teshuvah 3:15 ( 3:7)

2007-10-10T13:18:00.001-04:00

משוך חסדך, ליודעיך; וצדקתך, לישרי לב
I often come in contact with people who claim that there is evidence to say that the belief in the physicality of G' is a valid position within the Mesorah. Often these people point to the hasagoth of the Ra'avad on the Mishneh Torah as evidence to their claims. Specifically the Ra'avad on Hilchoth Teshuvah chapter 3 halacha 15 (7) dealing with the classification of certain types of heretics.Fortunate are those who have the opportunity to learn from chachamim and know with utmost conviction that this is not so...

The Sources

Mishneh Torah Hilchoth Teshuvah chapter 3 halacha 15 ( 7):

טו [ז] חמישה הן הנקראין מינים: האומר שאין שם אלוה, ואין לעולם מנהיג; והאומר שיש שם מנהיג, אבל הם שניים או יתר; והאומר שיש שם ריבון אחד, אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה; וכן האומר שאינו לבדו ראשון וצור לכול; וכן העובד אלוה זולתו, כדי להיות מליץ בינו ובין ריבון העולמים. כל אחד מחמישה אלו מין

"There are five who are called "Min": One who says that there is no G' and the world has no conductor, So too the one who says that there is a conductor but there are two or more, And one who says that there is one master but he has a body and image

Ra'avad
והואמר שיש שם רבון אהד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה. א"א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות

"one who says that there is a master but he has a body or an image. Abraham states: And why does he call this a min? How many people , greater and better than he went after this idea because of what they saw in the verses and the words of the aggadoth which cause mistakes in the deoth. "
The Questions
This Ra'avad clearly poses some problems.Firstly, what is the Ra'avad's use of " how many people greater and better than he". If as I am supposing, the Ra'avad really agrees with the Rambam then how can someone who has a false notion of G' be called greater than the Rambam who held the correct notion?In addition the shitta itself has to be understood.The proponents of the argument that the Ra'avad disagreed with the real idea of yichudo can merely point to the fact that those who do hold by a physical G are seemingly doing nothing wrong according to the language of this Ra'avad .I think that this is the crux of the argument to say that in reality the Ra'avad would ( G' forbid) tolerate the concept of a physical G'.

The response

I would be the first to agree that this is something that must be answered. Could it really be that one of the chachmei haMesorah maintains this? I have two points from which I will attack this problem. The first is within the Ra'avad himself, from his own language that he uses in this halacha. The second also the Ra'avad himself , but this time it is in what he does not say.

If you are familiar with the Ra'avad and his critiques of the Mishneh Torah , you know that if he disagrees with something he will be more than open in saying so. This is true to the extent that sometimes it appears as if the Ra'avad is harshly attacking the Rambam. In truth this is merely his way of emphasizing the problem as he sees it. It is from this awareness of the Ra'avad that a very compelling answer to our probem appears.

As I just stated the style of the Ra'avad in the Hasagot al Mishneh Torah, is not to sit quietly if he disagrees with what the gedolei hamechabrim is saying. The Rambam did not scare the Ra'avad into submission. So it is clear to me that we can deduce a simple rule about the Ra'avad. If he does not mention any criticism then it must mean that he agrees with the Rambam . If we keep this in mind then all we have to do to prove that not only did the Ra'avad not disagree with the idea of yichudo brought down in the Mishneh Torah but in fact he agreed fully, is look at Yisodei haTorah. This is the section that the Rambam has of the fundamentals of yehaduth. Included in these perakim is the concept of Yichud hashem, Yirah, Ahava and Yedias hashem. If there was ever a time to voice your opposition to those concepts as championed by Maimonides , it is in this section. Yet we find something very curious. There is not a single word from the Ra'avad on any thing until the sixth chapter of Yisodei haTorah , which is already passed the topics of metaphysics and Physics. So the Ra'avad has admitted his position through silence.

Furthermore, if one were to reject my assumed principle that silence for the Ra'avad is an admission of agreement, then we have but to look at the words that he does say. Let us now take a closer look at the words of ,the Ilan Gadol,Rabbi Abraham Ben David of Posquieres .

והואמר שיש שם רבון אהד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה. א"א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות
First off , the Ra'avad states that these unfortunates only hold this notion because of what they have read in the verses of Tanach. This could make the argument stronger after all if the tanach has anthropomorphisms then perhaps that is a valid idea.However, if you look at the last three words , I believe the entire argument crumbles like the bones of the wicked.These three are, " hameshabshoth et hadeoth" which means roughly " that confuse the ideational principles".This is the Ra'avad himself telling us that it is true

If the Ra'avad maintained as some would fancy, then there is no logical explanation for the use of " hamishabshoth et hadeoth". If the correct idea was the physicality of G according to the Ra'avad then why on earth would he mention that these notions are arrived at through pesukim and aggadoth which end up being meshabesh people's ideas.

It is interesting to note one other thing which can be learned from this hasagah of the Ra'avad. Not only do the last three words reveal the Ra'avads true thoughts on the subject, they also reveal at least in part , his concept of the aggadoth. The use of meshabesh hadeoth implies that the Ra'avad understood the system of aggadoth as something which must be rationally understood in order for it to benefit ones deoth. ( see essay on Aggadoth by Rabbeinu Abraham ibn Harambam)