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

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

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.

How I Use the Mishneh Torah

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

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...

Psalms 119 and the Code of Maimonides

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

Rachamim and Din

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.

Man- Intellect, Instinct, Imagination

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....

Some thoughts on Seneca

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 Life and the good and the Death and the bad and you shall choose life

"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

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.

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

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)