In the word איש and אשה (man and a female man I.L.) lay the guarantee for the equality in rank and mutually complementing calling of Man and Woman. As long as man and woman were איש and אשה there was no need for man to be emancipated from woman nor woman from man, neither could make the other into a slave nor yet into a god or goddess. The first who altered this designation - as indeed our sages remark, in no other language are man and woman designated by words coming from the same root and so regarded from the same trend of thought - brought it about that one man would yoke his woman to the plough while the other would throw himself at her feet. (R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch, Genesis 11:58)
Note: I.L. is the editor Isaac Levy
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Misconception of Teshuvah - The routine approach is doomed to failure
Chanan Morrison paraphrasing Rav Kook
But what path would lead the generation of rebirth to the gates of teshuvah? The routine approach is doomed to failure. One cannot reach out to the idealistic youth of such a generation, brimming with life, vigor, and creativity, with a severe demeanor and punctilious demands of small, everyday deeds - demands that they consider to be a sign of weakness and a feeble spirit.
No, the generation must be awakened via an optimistic spirit of greatness and courage. "Teshuvah comes not to embitter life," Rav Kook taught, "but to make it pleasant" (ibid. 15:6). "Teshuvah is essentially a return to [our] origins, to the source of supernal life and existence in their wholeness" (ibid. 12:8).
Rav Kook in his own words
"Teshuvah is the great key to redemption. Many things inhibit teshuvah, but the major obstacle, particularly to collective teshuvah, is the misconception of teshuvah as atrophy of the soul, as the enfeebling and debilitation of life. This false image also impairs the teshuvah of the individual. But more than anything, it hinders collective teshuvah, the teshuvah of the nation."
The complete article
posted with permission
Nitzavim: Teshuvah for the Generation of Rebirth by Chanan Morrison
"For some time I have been struggling with an inner conflict, and a mighty force impels me to speak about teshuvah [penitence]. All my thoughts are focused on this topic. Teshuvah holds a primary place in Torah and in life. All the hopes of the individual and of society depend on it."
So begins Rav Kook's introduction to Orot HaTeshuvah ("Lights of Penitence"), perhaps his most popular work, first published in 1925. The compact book was beloved by its author, and Rav Kook himself would study its teachings during the month of Elul after morning prayers. One student reported hearing Rav Kook say, "I worked extensively on Orot HaTeshuvah. Whoever studies it properly will find light in every word." He also declared: "Orot HaTeshuvah should be be studied endlessly."
What is so special about the book's outlook on teshuvah?
Teshuvah - a Return to Life
Orot HaTeshuvah illuminates the concepts of sin, punishment, and penitence. It explains that sin primarily harms the one who sinned, as it cuts him off from the roots of his very being, from the light of his soul. This estrangement is sin's worst punishment. Teshuvah, on the other hand, redeems the sinner from this darkness. It rejuvenates him, restoring his previous state of life and joy.
The word teshuvah literally means 'return.' It is not an escape from the world. On the contrary, it is "precisely through genuine, pure teshuvah that we return to the world and to life" (Orot HaTeshuvah 14:30).
Already in his introduction, Rav Kook described teshuvah as an underlying force that influences all aspects of life, not only the realm of the sacred: "Teshuvah holds a primary place in Torah and in life." Thus one who frees himself from unhealthy habits – this is also a type of teshuvah. Additionally, Rav Kook posited that this powerful force is not limited to the failings and triumphs of the individual. It also applies to failures and successes of the nation and the entire universe: "All hopes of the individual and society as a whole depend on it."
National and Spiritual Revival
Rav Kook firmly believed that a secular national revival, the entire program of rebuilding the Land and the nation, could not succeed without a parallel revival in holiness, with lofty manifestations of this holiness expressed in both personal and public spheres.
But what path would lead the generation of rebirth to the gates of teshuvah? The routine approach is doomed to failure. One cannot reach out to the idealistic youth of such a generation, brimming with life, vigor, and creativity, with a severe demeanor and punctilious demands of small, everyday deeds - demands that they consider to be a sign of weakness and a feeble spirit.
No, the generation must be awakened via an optimistic spirit of greatness and courage. "Teshuvah comes not to embitter life," Rav Kook taught, "but to make it pleasant" (ibid. 15:6). "Teshuvah is essentially a return to [our] origins, to the source of supernal life and existence in their wholeness" (ibid. 12:8).
In an article printed in HaYesod in 1934, he explained:
"Teshuvah is the great key to redemption. Many things inhibit teshuvah, but the major obstacle, particularly to collective teshuvah, is the misconception of teshuvah as atrophy of the soul, as the enfeebling and debilitation of life. This false image also impairs the teshuvah of the individual. But more than anything, it hinders collective teshuvah, the teshuvah of the nation.
"We must disclose the secret that the genuine teshuvah of the entire nation of Israel is a mighty, powerful vision that provides reserves of might and strength, imbuing all of our spiritual and pragmatic values with a lofty spirit of vigorous, surging creative energy from the power of the Rock of Israel. This living teshuvah flows not from isolated, fragmented souls, but from the treasury of the nation's collective soul, Knesset Yisrael.... In this way, the united soul of Israel is prepared to return to its former strength, as in days of old."
(Sapphire from the Land of Israel. Adapted from Mo'adei HaRe'iyah, pp. 52,55; Celebration of the Soul, pp. 26,28-29.)
But what path would lead the generation of rebirth to the gates of teshuvah? The routine approach is doomed to failure. One cannot reach out to the idealistic youth of such a generation, brimming with life, vigor, and creativity, with a severe demeanor and punctilious demands of small, everyday deeds - demands that they consider to be a sign of weakness and a feeble spirit.
No, the generation must be awakened via an optimistic spirit of greatness and courage. "Teshuvah comes not to embitter life," Rav Kook taught, "but to make it pleasant" (ibid. 15:6). "Teshuvah is essentially a return to [our] origins, to the source of supernal life and existence in their wholeness" (ibid. 12:8).
Rav Kook in his own words
"Teshuvah is the great key to redemption. Many things inhibit teshuvah, but the major obstacle, particularly to collective teshuvah, is the misconception of teshuvah as atrophy of the soul, as the enfeebling and debilitation of life. This false image also impairs the teshuvah of the individual. But more than anything, it hinders collective teshuvah, the teshuvah of the nation."
The complete article
posted with permission
Nitzavim: Teshuvah for the Generation of Rebirth by Chanan Morrison
"For some time I have been struggling with an inner conflict, and a mighty force impels me to speak about teshuvah [penitence]. All my thoughts are focused on this topic. Teshuvah holds a primary place in Torah and in life. All the hopes of the individual and of society depend on it."
So begins Rav Kook's introduction to Orot HaTeshuvah ("Lights of Penitence"), perhaps his most popular work, first published in 1925. The compact book was beloved by its author, and Rav Kook himself would study its teachings during the month of Elul after morning prayers. One student reported hearing Rav Kook say, "I worked extensively on Orot HaTeshuvah. Whoever studies it properly will find light in every word." He also declared: "Orot HaTeshuvah should be be studied endlessly."
What is so special about the book's outlook on teshuvah?
Teshuvah - a Return to Life
Orot HaTeshuvah illuminates the concepts of sin, punishment, and penitence. It explains that sin primarily harms the one who sinned, as it cuts him off from the roots of his very being, from the light of his soul. This estrangement is sin's worst punishment. Teshuvah, on the other hand, redeems the sinner from this darkness. It rejuvenates him, restoring his previous state of life and joy.
The word teshuvah literally means 'return.' It is not an escape from the world. On the contrary, it is "precisely through genuine, pure teshuvah that we return to the world and to life" (Orot HaTeshuvah 14:30).
Already in his introduction, Rav Kook described teshuvah as an underlying force that influences all aspects of life, not only the realm of the sacred: "Teshuvah holds a primary place in Torah and in life." Thus one who frees himself from unhealthy habits – this is also a type of teshuvah. Additionally, Rav Kook posited that this powerful force is not limited to the failings and triumphs of the individual. It also applies to failures and successes of the nation and the entire universe: "All hopes of the individual and society as a whole depend on it."
National and Spiritual Revival
Rav Kook firmly believed that a secular national revival, the entire program of rebuilding the Land and the nation, could not succeed without a parallel revival in holiness, with lofty manifestations of this holiness expressed in both personal and public spheres.
But what path would lead the generation of rebirth to the gates of teshuvah? The routine approach is doomed to failure. One cannot reach out to the idealistic youth of such a generation, brimming with life, vigor, and creativity, with a severe demeanor and punctilious demands of small, everyday deeds - demands that they consider to be a sign of weakness and a feeble spirit.
No, the generation must be awakened via an optimistic spirit of greatness and courage. "Teshuvah comes not to embitter life," Rav Kook taught, "but to make it pleasant" (ibid. 15:6). "Teshuvah is essentially a return to [our] origins, to the source of supernal life and existence in their wholeness" (ibid. 12:8).
In an article printed in HaYesod in 1934, he explained:
"Teshuvah is the great key to redemption. Many things inhibit teshuvah, but the major obstacle, particularly to collective teshuvah, is the misconception of teshuvah as atrophy of the soul, as the enfeebling and debilitation of life. This false image also impairs the teshuvah of the individual. But more than anything, it hinders collective teshuvah, the teshuvah of the nation.
"We must disclose the secret that the genuine teshuvah of the entire nation of Israel is a mighty, powerful vision that provides reserves of might and strength, imbuing all of our spiritual and pragmatic values with a lofty spirit of vigorous, surging creative energy from the power of the Rock of Israel. This living teshuvah flows not from isolated, fragmented souls, but from the treasury of the nation's collective soul, Knesset Yisrael.... In this way, the united soul of Israel is prepared to return to its former strength, as in days of old."
(Sapphire from the Land of Israel. Adapted from Mo'adei HaRe'iyah, pp. 52,55; Celebration of the Soul, pp. 26,28-29.)
Sunday, August 25, 2013
The Cruel Paradox of Fools
Some portray God as a tyrant taking away from people all the kosher activities they enjoy. They turn Him into a punisher, a kind of rogue policeman who wants you to break the law so that he can pounce. Then they wonder why you struggle to put your faith in Him after they have turned him into an enemy. That becomes a source of guilt too.
We live in such pathological times. Some beat up others with sticks, others with ersatz religion.
Rather, He does not take away from you the many kosher activities you enjoy. Rather, He created them in the first place just for your enjoyment. Rather, He does not want to punish and gives us enormous amounts of time to improve ourselves, to become the people that we want to be anyway. You can put your faith in Him because He is not the he some try to make Him out to be.
We live in such pathological times. Some beat up others with sticks, others with ersatz religion.
Rather, He does not take away from you the many kosher activities you enjoy. Rather, He created them in the first place just for your enjoyment. Rather, He does not want to punish and gives us enormous amounts of time to improve ourselves, to become the people that we want to be anyway. You can put your faith in Him because He is not the he some try to make Him out to be.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Revisiting the Concept of Daas Torah by JEROME A. CHANES
Linked Article
by JEROME A. CHANES
The Jewish Link of Bergen County
http://www.jewishlinkbc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1187:daas-torah&catid=153:divrei-torah&Itemid=565
Da’as-Torah—the idea that there is a “Torah view” on everything—has taken hold of the Orthodox world. And how can it not? If indeed the Torah, the revealed (and unrevealed?) word of God is all encompassing, all embracing, all comprehending, it then follows, ineluctably, that the Torah encompasses contemporary public-affairs as well.
There is no secret about my personal view of this phenomenon in American Jewish religious life, regnant in some circles: it’s an unhealthy phenomenon.
“Da’as Torah,” the “Torah view,” was developed in the 19th century in some Eastern European Yeshivot (some historians maintain that it was in the twentieth century) as a panic response to the liberalization of Jewish life. Now it is not at all obvious that there is a Da’as Torah—a “Torah view” that is decisive—for every development in Jewish life. This idea that Talmud masters were to be unquestionably followed not just on ritual matters but on communal policy as well—or on anything, for that matter—has led to a situation in which yeshiva deans, often cloistered from the complexities of public life, were making the kinds of practical decisions and setting public policy, that for centuries had been in the hands of communal rabbis and lay leaders. By the 1960s Da’as Torah had taken hold big time. Da’as Torah is one of a number of dynamics that characterize the dropping out of an Orthodox “center,” and is of a piece with the revisionism of the teachings of rabbinic leadership over the past hundred years, including those of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik.
Read more
by JEROME A. CHANES
The Jewish Link of Bergen County
http://www.jewishlinkbc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1187:daas-torah&catid=153:divrei-torah&Itemid=565
Da’as-Torah—the idea that there is a “Torah view” on everything—has taken hold of the Orthodox world. And how can it not? If indeed the Torah, the revealed (and unrevealed?) word of God is all encompassing, all embracing, all comprehending, it then follows, ineluctably, that the Torah encompasses contemporary public-affairs as well.
There is no secret about my personal view of this phenomenon in American Jewish religious life, regnant in some circles: it’s an unhealthy phenomenon.
“Da’as Torah,” the “Torah view,” was developed in the 19th century in some Eastern European Yeshivot (some historians maintain that it was in the twentieth century) as a panic response to the liberalization of Jewish life. Now it is not at all obvious that there is a Da’as Torah—a “Torah view” that is decisive—for every development in Jewish life. This idea that Talmud masters were to be unquestionably followed not just on ritual matters but on communal policy as well—or on anything, for that matter—has led to a situation in which yeshiva deans, often cloistered from the complexities of public life, were making the kinds of practical decisions and setting public policy, that for centuries had been in the hands of communal rabbis and lay leaders. By the 1960s Da’as Torah had taken hold big time. Da’as Torah is one of a number of dynamics that characterize the dropping out of an Orthodox “center,” and is of a piece with the revisionism of the teachings of rabbinic leadership over the past hundred years, including those of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik.
Read more
From Seforim Blog: Rav Shmuel ben Hofni Gaon, Rationalist from the Gaonic Era
Linked post
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2013/08/rav-shmuel-ben-hofni-gaon.html
Excerpts
"Scholars of the Geonim era are aware of Rav Shmuel's rationalistic approach to Torah and Mitzvot. With the publication of D.E. Sklare's groundbreaking volume on Rav Shmuel,[18] his cultural background in M`utazilite Kalaam (Philosophy), has become more readily understood. Rav Shmuel's approach was already noted by his son in law, Rav Hayya in a teshuvah,[19] who takes his father in-law to task for delving too deeply into Arabic Philosophy.[20]"
"Perhaps the most well known comment by Rav Shmuel expressing his rationalistic viewpoint is his commentary to the 'witch of `Ein Dor' episode (1 Sam. 28:3-25). His view is cited by Radak ad loc as well as in the fragmentary commentary of R. Yehudah ibn Bala'am, and in a responsa preserved in a Genizah fragment.[21] In short, King Shaul seeks out a witch to raise the spirit of Shmuel HaNavi, who in turn informs him that he will perish tomorrow in battle.
As a rationalist, Rav Shmuel does not accept that there are evil forces in the world (Ruach HaTumah) and as such, sorcery can not conjure up the dead, but rather is nothing more than slight of hand."
Read full article
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2013/08/rav-shmuel-ben-hofni-gaon.html
Excerpts
"Scholars of the Geonim era are aware of Rav Shmuel's rationalistic approach to Torah and Mitzvot. With the publication of D.E. Sklare's groundbreaking volume on Rav Shmuel,[18] his cultural background in M`utazilite Kalaam (Philosophy), has become more readily understood. Rav Shmuel's approach was already noted by his son in law, Rav Hayya in a teshuvah,[19] who takes his father in-law to task for delving too deeply into Arabic Philosophy.[20]"
"Perhaps the most well known comment by Rav Shmuel expressing his rationalistic viewpoint is his commentary to the 'witch of `Ein Dor' episode (1 Sam. 28:3-25). His view is cited by Radak ad loc as well as in the fragmentary commentary of R. Yehudah ibn Bala'am, and in a responsa preserved in a Genizah fragment.[21] In short, King Shaul seeks out a witch to raise the spirit of Shmuel HaNavi, who in turn informs him that he will perish tomorrow in battle.
As a rationalist, Rav Shmuel does not accept that there are evil forces in the world (Ruach HaTumah) and as such, sorcery can not conjure up the dead, but rather is nothing more than slight of hand."
Read full article
Monday, August 19, 2013
Reconnecting with Natural Religion by R' Marc Angel
Reconnecting with Natural Religion: Thoughts on Parashat Ki Tavo, August 24, 2013
By Rabbi Marc D. Angel
(posted with permission)
Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals
www.JewishIdeas.org
(This week’s Angel for Shabbat column is excerpted from my book, “Rhythms of Jewish Living,” chapter two.)
Jewish religious experience is intimately linked to the rhythms of the natural world. The rhythms of the sun and moon govern our times of prayer, our religious festivals, our meditation of the universe. The phenomena of nature evoke within us responses to the greatness of God, the Creator, and we recite blessings on witnessing the powers of nature.
Centuries of Westernization and urbanization have profoundly affected Jewish religious sensitivity. There has been a steady and increasing alienation between Jewish religious observance and the natural world, with a parallel diminution in sensing the awe of God as Creator of the natural universe.
To illustrate the changed perception, we may consider the commonly observed Jewish religious experiences which recur on a regular basis. Modern Jews identify their religious lives with such events as the Passover seder, the High Holy Day synagogue services, Shabbat ceremonies and meals, the study of Torah, synagogue worship. The common denominator of these observances is that they generally happen indoors. They are observances in a synagogue, a home, or a place of study.
If we were to consider the situation of the ancient Israelites, we would be confronted with a different religious sensibility. The most important observances for them would have included the three pilgrimages to Jerusalem when they would journey to the holy city to celebrate Passover, Shavuoth and Succoth. They would include the observance of Bikkurim, the bringing of the first fruits to the Temple, a ceremony which was a great outdoor celebration. They would include the festivities which took place during the harvest festivals, the sharing of harvests with the poor, the bringing of animals to Jerusalem to be offered as sacrifices. Almost everything, in fact, would have involved being outdoors, in contact with the natural world.
Obviously, we have moved a long way from the agricultural life of ancient Israel to the urban life of contemporary society. By urbanizing religion and by placing its most important events indoors, we have lost touch with the original religious insight which connected us with the rhythms of nature.
In former times, Jews knew that the Sabbath was concluded by going outside and looking for stars. If it was dark enough to be able to observe three stars, then the Sabbath was over. Today, calendars and synagogue schedules list the time when Sabbath ends with the arrogant precision of mathematics. A person may pray in the morning without having experienced sunrise; may pray in the afternoon, without having experienced sunset; may say evening prayers without having seen a star in the sky. Religious life can be celebrated indoors with the assistance of clocks and calendars, without the need arising to go outside and determine the position of the sun.
By bringing religion indoors, some of our feeling of awe for the universe and its Creator has been lost. The regular daily connections with nature which Jewish tradition has prescribed are no longer easily experienced. But losing contact with the natural world threatens to make religion increasingly artificial, removed from its basic life source.
Until relatively modern times, the ideal religious personality was one who spent much time outdoors, who contemplated the wonders of the universe and the wisdom of its Maker. The ideal Jew lived in harmony with nature and participated in its rhythms. The notion that ideal piety can be found in a pale, scholarly, undernourished saint who spends his days and nights studying Torah in a study hall is not true to the original Jewish religious vision. The Biblical heroes and prophets, the Talmudic sages, the medieval pietists and mystics—all were involved in outdoor religion.
As we open our eyes more to the outdoors, to the rhythms of nature, we will come into relationship with God, Creator of the universe. Jewish spirituality entails appreciating the value of calm, natural wisdom.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Thinking for Oneself from Rabbi Ruderman
Written by one of his grandsons.
The 14th of Tammuz is the Yahrtzeit of Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman: I sat down to learn with my grandfather zt”l, and continue from where we had ended the previous day. He had left me with a long list of questions that he wanted me to answer. “Zaidy, I’m sorry, but I looked all over numerous Sefarim and couldn’t find an answer,” I shamefully admitted.
“Did you daven today?”
“Of course!”
“You said the blessings of Shema?” he asked.
“Of course!”
“Did you believe what you said?” he asked.
“Of course,” I answered, despite knowing that I was about to receive a spiritual beating.
“In His goodness renews daily, perpetually, the work of creation.” “Why,” asked my grandfather, “does God renew each second of existence?”
I was too cowardly to respond.
“Because He wants His power of Chiddush, renewal, to permeate each detail and each second of creation. He wants you to connect to Chiddush, and not run to the books already printed to find answers, but to be Mechadesh your own answers! Use the blessings of Shema to connect to the power of Chiddush in your learning and in your Middos! We’ll learn when you find your own answer.” He closed his Gemara.
I was back in less than half an hour with my own answer, which he, of course, cherished, then ripped apart, and then reconstructed as a masterpiece.
I continue, more than forty years later, to keep a list of unanswered questions to review before I connect through the blessings of Shema to God as the Mechadesh, empowering my own power of Chiddush.
http://www.thefoundationstone.org/en/prayer/shema/6221-blessings-of-shema-rav-yaakov-yitzchak-ruderman-chiddush.html
The 14th of Tammuz is the Yahrtzeit of Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman: I sat down to learn with my grandfather zt”l, and continue from where we had ended the previous day. He had left me with a long list of questions that he wanted me to answer. “Zaidy, I’m sorry, but I looked all over numerous Sefarim and couldn’t find an answer,” I shamefully admitted.
“Did you daven today?”
“Of course!”
“You said the blessings of Shema?” he asked.
“Of course!”
“Did you believe what you said?” he asked.
“Of course,” I answered, despite knowing that I was about to receive a spiritual beating.
“In His goodness renews daily, perpetually, the work of creation.” “Why,” asked my grandfather, “does God renew each second of existence?”
I was too cowardly to respond.
“Because He wants His power of Chiddush, renewal, to permeate each detail and each second of creation. He wants you to connect to Chiddush, and not run to the books already printed to find answers, but to be Mechadesh your own answers! Use the blessings of Shema to connect to the power of Chiddush in your learning and in your Middos! We’ll learn when you find your own answer.” He closed his Gemara.
I was back in less than half an hour with my own answer, which he, of course, cherished, then ripped apart, and then reconstructed as a masterpiece.
I continue, more than forty years later, to keep a list of unanswered questions to review before I connect through the blessings of Shema to God as the Mechadesh, empowering my own power of Chiddush.
http://www.thefoundationstone.org/en/prayer/shema/6221-blessings-of-shema-rav-yaakov-yitzchak-ruderman-chiddush.html
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Rosh Hashanah, Nicolaes Maes and the Uproar in Our Souls
by Nathan Lopez Cardozo
(Posted with permission)
David Cardozo Academy
The Holy One blessed be He has many ways to create an uproar in our souls. He can show us a moment in the life of a person who seems to live a simple life, with such tranquility and profundity that we are immediately transformed. It would be completely impossible to continue our lives as we did before. Our very being is shattered and we feel the need to start all over again, as if we are infants who have just entered the universe. It is in that very moment that we enter the world of Rosh Hashana.
In the famous Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam there is a portrait by Rembrandt’s most celebrated student, the master painter Nicolaes Maes (1634-1693). The painting is called Old Woman at Prayer. It is sometimes called Prayer without End because it portrays an old woman praying in total surrender. A lonesome figure resigned to her simple, lonely life, yet totally content. Nothing can disturb her while she is praying; her devotion is absolute. She prays with a profundity that is rare in the extreme. Only a few of us can reach that place. She thanks God for her simple bread, fish and drink; for the clean tablecloth and the chair on which she sits. She is grateful for the little cat that gives color to her life, which is coming to a close. She gives thanks for being allowed to be, in spite of all the worries and suffering she has had to endure in her life. No resentful melancholy; no rebellion; no boredom; and above all, no mockery. Nothing but: Lord, thanks for my share.
But there is more: She knows that her life is of great significance in the eyes of the Lord. Not because she has achieved great things on this earth, but because she knows that all human life takes place in the presence of God and therefore must be significant. She knows the secret of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur—that even the trivial has ultimate meaning and needs to be sanctified. She realizes that there are no negligible deeds. Man should never see his life as compatible with the ordinary. Time is broken eternity. Consequently, every moment counts, since it is part of a great infinite mystery in which not even one second can be recaptured at a later time. The old woman’s prayer teaches her that man does not live in his own private time but in God’s. Every second of his life he must infuse divinity into the mundane, bringing together the passing with the everlasting, the common with the unique and the momentary with the eternal (A.J. Heschel).
For this reason man needs to learn that only in the detail can he really live a life of profundity. Detail is the breaking down of generalities into such subtle components that they touch eternity.
The High Holidays are a warning to ensure that we live vertically and not horizontally. When we live our lives in the pursuit of new objects, believing that through them we will find meaning and joy, we need only look around us and see to what extent most people are afflicted with boredom. The excitement of new possessions often leads to the trivialization of our lives after only a few days.
This is true, however, only if we see them in a horizontal position. If we view them vertically, i.e. in the process of constant spiritual growth, then we are seeing them in the light of eternity and, consequently, in profundity. Nicolaes Maes’ Old Woman at Prayer is therefore immensely rich with the little she has. She doesn’t need many possessions to be more.
But more than that, though she lives in profound loneliness, her awareness of God is so intense that she is in touch with all her fellow men. It is through her distinctiveness that all people are her personal friends.
Only in relationships can one be an individual, and it is through this individuality that man encounters his greatest challenge: a call for accountability from which there is no escape. It is only man who bears ultimate responsibility, and through his deeds he meets the Other, whether it is God or man.
Nothing has more far-reaching consequences than the human deed. One act may decide the fate of the world. It is through carrying out his deeds that man reveals his mind and heart. And even when the act takes place among a multitude of people, and in cooperation with others, still, it remains distinct and carries its own responsibility.
Rosh Hashana celebrates the birth of the human being, the first creature destined to be an individual. Among all of God’s creations, he is the only one who carries responsibility. Rosh Hashana is the time when we must learn to turn every human deed into a dignified encounter with God. On this long, 48-hour day we are reminded that our lives and deeds must redeem God’s presence and rescue Him from oblivion. We are enjoined to rediscover our fellow men as unique individuals who stand together with us before the throne of God.
When looking at Nicolaes Maes’ painting, one is forced to peer into one’s own soul. We should ask ourselves whether we are capable of living this life of simplicity and tranquility. Can we reach such a state of soul and mind in today’s world where we are so completely overtaken by the ongoing barrage of crises that we ourselves have created because of social and other pressures? We have constructed a tower of financial needs and have convinced ourselves that we can no longer live without them. We hope that by satisfying these needs we will find the tranquility enjoyed by the old woman, but we fail to realize that we have become caught in a web that we ourselves have spun and that moves us farther away from our goal.
Like a Jungian archetype, deep in his soul the Jew realizes that at least once a year, on Rosh Hashana, he needs to return home and be part of his people and his faith. He must liberate himself from all artificiality and hear the storm that accompanies the sound of the shofar, as a wake-up call signaling that life’s tight web can be unraveled and that real spiritual and moral liberty can be achieved.
The soul rarely knows itself. It is unaware of how to raise its deeper secrets to the level where the mind can grasp them. Most religious people act their faith but do not realize that faith is a constant happening. It cannot be stored away somewhere for the mind to find whenever it so requires. Faith is a moment of meeting between man’s soul and God’s majesty. No ladder of philosophical arguments can be climbed to reach this moment. The mind is walled and there are no ways to enter. All it has is some translucent windows through which it can see the landscape of the soul and catch a glimpse of what is happening on the other side. And when man rises to reach out to God, it is the result of divine light within, which creates this yearning.
Nicolaes Maes’ old woman knows more than the greatest philosophers. She experiences the moment when—to use the Talmudic phrase—heaven and earth kiss. She knows how to lift the veil off the horizon of the unknown and gain a vision of the eternity of her life on earth, soon to end. A thunder in her soul transforms her into a woman in complete stillness. She knows the verse, “The Lord spoke these words to your entire assembly on the mountain, out of the fire, cloud, and thick darkness, in a loud voice that continues forever” (1).
She may not have been Jewish, but she managed to have a Rosh Hashanah without End.
*****
1. Devarim 5:19.
- See more at: http://cardozoacademy.org/current-thought-to-ponder-by-rabbi-lopes-cardozo/rosh-hashanah-nicolaes-maes-and-the-uproar-in-our-souls-ttp-357/?awt_l=90eGl&awt_m=3gQAQ.VCUoFNHNQ#sthash.0uM9dnCZ.dpuf
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
The Danger of Being Pushed Before You Are Ready
Rav Kook: Ki Teitzei: Waging War
by Chanan Morrison
(posted with permission)
"When you wage a war against your enemies, and God will give you victory over them ..." (Deut. 21:10)
War is perhaps the most tragic and horrific aspect of the human condition. Our most fervent wish is for peace. Peace is the final blessing of birkat kohanim. The closing statement of the Talmud also extols the unsurpassed importance of peace: "The Holy One found no vessel more capable of holding blessing for Israel than peace"(Oktzin 3:12).
So why does Jewish law include such concepts as compulsory and optional wars – milchemet mitzvah and milche
In a letter penned in 1904, Rav Kook explained:
"It would have been totally impossible, at a time when all of the surrounding nations were truly wolves of the night, that only the Jewish people would refrain from waging war. The nations would have joined together and destroyed the remnant of the people, God forbid. On the contrary, it was absolutely crucial to act without mercy in order to evoke fear in the wild savages."
We look forward to the day when the human race will advance to the state when war will become unnecessary. The Torah, however, does not attempt to proceed too quickly, before the world is ready.
"Nothing ruins the groundwork for perfecting human society as much as the influence of lofty ideas on masses who are not ready to accept them. Those who sought to advance humanity by imposing the Torah's ethical teachings before the world was ready for them completely misunderstood God's intention. The proof [that this approach is faulty] is apparent in the phenomenon of those who burnt their victims alive in auto-da-fe? [during the Spanish Inquisition] under the banner of "Love your neighbor as yourself." This is because the Torah's lofty ideals require preparation. As the Sages cautioned: "The Torah is an elixir of life for those who follow it diligently... but the careless will stumble in it" (Shabbat 88b, based on Hosea 14:10).
The cruel conflicts that we witness are a result of ethical constraints that were artificially imposed upon the nations of the world. This created an unhealthy society suffering from severe distress. It induced destructive traits, mental imbalance, and deep-rooted anger. Festering resentment erupted into horrible acts of destruction and cruelty, with a brutal violence that exposed their still unrefined character.
Even for the Jewish people, regarding matters pertaining to the public and national arena, the Torah did not attempt to impose unrealistic saintliness. This would have led to an unnatural, forced piety. The Torah’s objective is to establish an ethical awareness in the hearts of the people based on their own free will. That is why we find that the Torah is tolerant regarding certain war-related issues, such as the law allowing soldiers to take female captives (Deut. 21:10-14).
The Divine Purpose in War
Yet, one may still ask: what is the purpose of war?
In his book Orot, Rav Kook sought to uncover God's purpose even in war. Great wars, he explained, have an important function in the world: they awaken yearnings for the Messianic Era. Solomon described the hour of redemption as "the time of the songbird (zamir)" (Song of Songs 2:12). It is a time to prune (zamir) and cut down the wicked. But what about the many innocent lives lost in the destructive surge of violence? This phenomenon contains a measure of mitat tzaddikim mechaperet, a lofty atonement that comes from the death of the righteous. These souls elevate to the Source of life, and bring universal good and blessing to the world.
With the conclusion of a war, the world is renewed with a new spirit, and the footsteps of the Messianic Era can be heard. Thus the daily prayers make a connection between war and the light of Redemption: "the Master of wars, Who sows kindness and brings forth salvation... You will shine a new light on Zion."
(Sapphire from the Land of Israel. Adapted from Igrot HaRe'iyah vol. I, letter 89, p. 100; Orot pp. 13,15)
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Kollel for All
What Are Those Quoters Thinking?
By Natan Slifkin
Posted with permission. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com
(Note: This post is a mirror-image of an article published by Eytan Kobre in Mishpachah magazine. You have to read the original article in order to understand the tone of this post.)
One fascinating aspect of the writings of Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin ztz”l is that he published many essays addressing political and social issues of the day, setting forth a clear Torah hashkafah on how to relate to such phenomena as the State of Israel, anti-Semitism, the secular American Jewish establishment, and postwar Germany. He based his views on these, and many more matters, on an extremely wide range of sources, including episodes in Tanach and later Jewish history, on the statements of Chazal in Shas and midrashim, and of gedolei Torah he had known.
Looking at Rav Henkin’s deeply sourced and compellingly argued essays, one can’t help but contrast them with, l’havdil, what often passes for Torah-based arguments in contemporary discourse.
In the recent controversy over the draft of bnei Torah, for example, one comes across articles in which the same handful of sources are recycled endlessly to support the innovation of mass kollel. There’s the Mishnaic dictum of Talmud Torah kenegged kulam, and that hardy perennial, the Rambam (Hilchos Shmittah V'Yovel), who writes that anyone can choose the life of a Levite.
One must really wonder what people who quote these sources as discussion-enders are thinking. If one has a question about how to reconcile a mishnah with the practice of multitudes of very observant Jews for centuries, then by all means pose it, earnestly and humbly, and seek out an answer. But these sources are cited triumphantly as conclusory evidence against the position of Chazal, the Rishonim, and the greatest halachic authorities right up until the charedi rabbonim post-WWII, who not only permitted but highly encouraged people to learn a trade and work for a living.
It’s impossible to even imagine another field of highly complex knowledge in which those defending a revolutionary approach would be so foolish and so lacking in humility as to pronounce every acknowledged traditional master of the discipline mistaken for having missed a basic piece of information. But let the conversation turn to something Torah-related, and it’s the Wild West, with every man and his Judaic six-shooter for himself.
Rabbi Aryeh Zev Ginsberg recently wrote of having accompanied Rav Elyashiv ztz”l to and from a funeral, with pen and pad in hand to record the various questions people would inevitably ask. In the course of this 40-minute experience, Rav Elyashiv answered more than 70 sh’eilos, exhibiting his breathtaking mastery of the gamut of Torah. And Rav Elyashiv strongly supported mass kollel. Yet we are to believe, it seems, that this somehow radically alters the very history of our people and the very statements of Chazal and the Rishonim. Don’t those who fling the Gedolim as a shtempel kashrus know that there are Gedolim who disagree strongly with the modern system of mass kollel, but who are afraid to speak their mind, as Jonathan Rosenblum has written? Do they not know that there are complex social forces mean that attitudes to basic issues can change and be distorted, even amongst great Torah scholars? Do they not know the history of the Jewish People, in which many great Torah scholars were embroiled in disputes in which they each considered their equally distinguished opponents to be fundamentally in error? That they attributed such fundamental error to the ability of sophisticated Torah learning to resolve all contradictions between behavior and sources via the drawing of subtle distinctions? This is precisely why halachic practice has always been rooted in the values and rulings of Shas and Rishonim, not in contemporary mores that go against mesorah.
Let’s look, for example, at Eytan Kobre. In an article printed in the latest issue of Mishpachah, Mr. Kobre claims "the Kesef Mishneh, on the page alongside the Rambam; the Rema (Yoreh Dei’ah 246:21); the Shach (ibid.); the Aruch HaShulchan (Yoreh Dei’ah 246:40-42); and Igros Moshe (Yoreh Dei’ah 2:116) all rule that one may, without any hesitation, receive funding to learn Torah full-time."
Now, Eytan Kobre is being presented as the Voice of Torah Judaism. He is, after all, someone who studied for several years in beis medrash and beyond, and presumably knows how to research a basic halachic issue. Here, then, is what he could have discovered if he had actually looked at the very sources that he himself is quoting, let alone the countless sources in Chazal and the Rishonim that strongly oppose the notion of not learning a trade or working and instead relying on communal support:
The Kesef Mishneh indeed observed that Rambam's prohibition on Torah scholars receiving payment was not shared by other authorities, and permits a Torah scholar to receive funds. However, he specifies that this is only in a case where he is teaching students, acting as a rabbinic judge, or studying in order to take on a teaching/judging role (although elsewhere he appears to be more lenient). How on earth does Mr. Kobre describe this as him saying that "one may, without any hesitation, receive funding to learn Torah full-time"?
The Rema first says that a person should work to support himself, leaving Torah study to other times of day and night, and that it is very praiseworthy to be self-sufficient. Which is not at all surprising, since Chazal taught that Torah study should be accompanied by derech eretz, and in numerous places stressed the importance of being self-sufficient: “A person should hire himself out for alien work rather than requiring assistance from others”; “The man who is self-sufficient is greater than the one who fears Heaven”; etc. The Rema continues to note that someone who decides to busy themselves with Torah and live off charity rather than working has desecrated God's Name and brought the Torah into disrepute. He adds that Torah which is not accompanied by work leads to sin and theft (presumably because the Torah scholar/student is incapable of making a living via honest means). Similarly, the Rosh, discussing someone whose Torah is his profession, such that he is exempt from paying various taxes, defines this person as someone who only takes time away from his studies in order to earn a livelihood, “which is his obligation, for the study of Torah with derech eretz is beautiful, and if the Torah is not accompanied by work, it will end in neglect and will cause sin." This reflects the normative position amongst the Rishonim in Ashkenaz, where financing Torah study was unheard of; virtually all Torah scholars were self-supporting, and even financing Torah teaching was only reluctantly permitted by some.
So far, Rema has been unequivocal that it is forbidden and evil to take money for Torah rather than to be self-supportive (except for those who are physically incapable of working, and who are allowed to receive payment for the Torah that they teach.) But at this point he introduces a lenient view, based on R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran (Rashbatz), that permits Torah scholars to receive funding. Note, however, that Rashbatz specifically limits this to Torah scholars functioning in the role of community rabbi. In the referenced responsum, he argues that since the Kohen Gadol receives material support from the community, how much more so should a Torah scholar be entitled to such support; after all, he is equally performing a service for the community. Rema writes that “a person important to the community may accept money from it... without violating the prohibition against benefiting from the Torah, for he is honoring the Torah, not using it." He is not talking about a kollel student!
However, Rema proceeds to note that there are those who are even more lenient and permit even students to receive financial support, in order to strengthen Torah study. So there we have it; after stating the primary view, that it is forbidden and wrong for Torah scholars to receive funding, then noting a "yesh omrim," an alternate lenient view that it is permissible for rabbis to receive funding, we finally have a further lenient view that even students may receive funding. However, Rema notes that it is still preferable for Torah students to be self-supportive, if possible. How on earth does Mr. Kobre summarize all this as him saying that "one may, without any hesitation, receive funding to learn Torah full-time"?
Now let us move on to the next source cited by Mr. Kobre, the Shach. He allows a Rosh Yeshivah or Av Beis Din to accept gifts. He says nothing whatsoever about kollel students receiving funding to learn Torah. How on earth does Mr. Kobre summarize all this as saying that "one may, without any hesitation, receive funding to learn Torah full-time"?
Now let us move on to the next source cited by Mr. Kobre, the Aruch HaShulchan. He, too, makes it very clear that he is talking about voluntary communal support of Torah teachers. He does not permit Torah students to receive communal funds, and does not even permit teachers to demand support; he describes Rambam's opposition as being to Torah scholars who try to force the community to support them (an apt description of the modern mass-kollel system). How on earth does Mr. Kobre summarize all this as saying that "one may, without any hesitation, receive funding to learn Torah full-time"?
Igros Moshe is Mr. Kobre's final source for those who wish to receive money for their studies. However, that has little bearing on the normative position over the ages. R. Moshe's primary sources are referring to Torah teachers, not Torah students. And he admits that his license may well be based upon emergency measures, rather than expressing the original laws and priorities. And one cannot necessarily extrapolate from the state of Torah-emergency in 1964 to the situation in the twenty-first century, when there are tens of thousands of people in kollel. Furthermore, Rav Moshe is only addressing a case where the money is being offered - this has nothing to do with whether it is okay to avoid learning a trade and to insist that others support you. Which clearly goes against Chazal and the Rishonim.
Can this fellow Eytan Kobre truly be blissfully unaware of all this, and of the normative approach of Torah Judaism throughout the ages until just a few decades ago, or is he indeed aware of the relevant halachic sources and is engaging in intentional falsification of Torah to mislead the public? Either way, hostile or ignorant, it doesn’t bode well.
By Natan Slifkin
Posted with permission. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com
(Note: This post is a mirror-image of an article published by Eytan Kobre in Mishpachah magazine. You have to read the original article in order to understand the tone of this post.)
One fascinating aspect of the writings of Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin ztz”l is that he published many essays addressing political and social issues of the day, setting forth a clear Torah hashkafah on how to relate to such phenomena as the State of Israel, anti-Semitism, the secular American Jewish establishment, and postwar Germany. He based his views on these, and many more matters, on an extremely wide range of sources, including episodes in Tanach and later Jewish history, on the statements of Chazal in Shas and midrashim, and of gedolei Torah he had known.
Looking at Rav Henkin’s deeply sourced and compellingly argued essays, one can’t help but contrast them with, l’havdil, what often passes for Torah-based arguments in contemporary discourse.
In the recent controversy over the draft of bnei Torah, for example, one comes across articles in which the same handful of sources are recycled endlessly to support the innovation of mass kollel. There’s the Mishnaic dictum of Talmud Torah kenegged kulam, and that hardy perennial, the Rambam (Hilchos Shmittah V'Yovel), who writes that anyone can choose the life of a Levite.
One must really wonder what people who quote these sources as discussion-enders are thinking. If one has a question about how to reconcile a mishnah with the practice of multitudes of very observant Jews for centuries, then by all means pose it, earnestly and humbly, and seek out an answer. But these sources are cited triumphantly as conclusory evidence against the position of Chazal, the Rishonim, and the greatest halachic authorities right up until the charedi rabbonim post-WWII, who not only permitted but highly encouraged people to learn a trade and work for a living.
It’s impossible to even imagine another field of highly complex knowledge in which those defending a revolutionary approach would be so foolish and so lacking in humility as to pronounce every acknowledged traditional master of the discipline mistaken for having missed a basic piece of information. But let the conversation turn to something Torah-related, and it’s the Wild West, with every man and his Judaic six-shooter for himself.
Rabbi Aryeh Zev Ginsberg recently wrote of having accompanied Rav Elyashiv ztz”l to and from a funeral, with pen and pad in hand to record the various questions people would inevitably ask. In the course of this 40-minute experience, Rav Elyashiv answered more than 70 sh’eilos, exhibiting his breathtaking mastery of the gamut of Torah. And Rav Elyashiv strongly supported mass kollel. Yet we are to believe, it seems, that this somehow radically alters the very history of our people and the very statements of Chazal and the Rishonim. Don’t those who fling the Gedolim as a shtempel kashrus know that there are Gedolim who disagree strongly with the modern system of mass kollel, but who are afraid to speak their mind, as Jonathan Rosenblum has written? Do they not know that there are complex social forces mean that attitudes to basic issues can change and be distorted, even amongst great Torah scholars? Do they not know the history of the Jewish People, in which many great Torah scholars were embroiled in disputes in which they each considered their equally distinguished opponents to be fundamentally in error? That they attributed such fundamental error to the ability of sophisticated Torah learning to resolve all contradictions between behavior and sources via the drawing of subtle distinctions? This is precisely why halachic practice has always been rooted in the values and rulings of Shas and Rishonim, not in contemporary mores that go against mesorah.
Let’s look, for example, at Eytan Kobre. In an article printed in the latest issue of Mishpachah, Mr. Kobre claims "the Kesef Mishneh, on the page alongside the Rambam; the Rema (Yoreh Dei’ah 246:21); the Shach (ibid.); the Aruch HaShulchan (Yoreh Dei’ah 246:40-42); and Igros Moshe (Yoreh Dei’ah 2:116) all rule that one may, without any hesitation, receive funding to learn Torah full-time."
Now, Eytan Kobre is being presented as the Voice of Torah Judaism. He is, after all, someone who studied for several years in beis medrash and beyond, and presumably knows how to research a basic halachic issue. Here, then, is what he could have discovered if he had actually looked at the very sources that he himself is quoting, let alone the countless sources in Chazal and the Rishonim that strongly oppose the notion of not learning a trade or working and instead relying on communal support:
The Kesef Mishneh indeed observed that Rambam's prohibition on Torah scholars receiving payment was not shared by other authorities, and permits a Torah scholar to receive funds. However, he specifies that this is only in a case where he is teaching students, acting as a rabbinic judge, or studying in order to take on a teaching/judging role (although elsewhere he appears to be more lenient). How on earth does Mr. Kobre describe this as him saying that "one may, without any hesitation, receive funding to learn Torah full-time"?
The Rema first says that a person should work to support himself, leaving Torah study to other times of day and night, and that it is very praiseworthy to be self-sufficient. Which is not at all surprising, since Chazal taught that Torah study should be accompanied by derech eretz, and in numerous places stressed the importance of being self-sufficient: “A person should hire himself out for alien work rather than requiring assistance from others”; “The man who is self-sufficient is greater than the one who fears Heaven”; etc. The Rema continues to note that someone who decides to busy themselves with Torah and live off charity rather than working has desecrated God's Name and brought the Torah into disrepute. He adds that Torah which is not accompanied by work leads to sin and theft (presumably because the Torah scholar/student is incapable of making a living via honest means). Similarly, the Rosh, discussing someone whose Torah is his profession, such that he is exempt from paying various taxes, defines this person as someone who only takes time away from his studies in order to earn a livelihood, “which is his obligation, for the study of Torah with derech eretz is beautiful, and if the Torah is not accompanied by work, it will end in neglect and will cause sin." This reflects the normative position amongst the Rishonim in Ashkenaz, where financing Torah study was unheard of; virtually all Torah scholars were self-supporting, and even financing Torah teaching was only reluctantly permitted by some.
So far, Rema has been unequivocal that it is forbidden and evil to take money for Torah rather than to be self-supportive (except for those who are physically incapable of working, and who are allowed to receive payment for the Torah that they teach.) But at this point he introduces a lenient view, based on R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran (Rashbatz), that permits Torah scholars to receive funding. Note, however, that Rashbatz specifically limits this to Torah scholars functioning in the role of community rabbi. In the referenced responsum, he argues that since the Kohen Gadol receives material support from the community, how much more so should a Torah scholar be entitled to such support; after all, he is equally performing a service for the community. Rema writes that “a person important to the community may accept money from it... without violating the prohibition against benefiting from the Torah, for he is honoring the Torah, not using it." He is not talking about a kollel student!
However, Rema proceeds to note that there are those who are even more lenient and permit even students to receive financial support, in order to strengthen Torah study. So there we have it; after stating the primary view, that it is forbidden and wrong for Torah scholars to receive funding, then noting a "yesh omrim," an alternate lenient view that it is permissible for rabbis to receive funding, we finally have a further lenient view that even students may receive funding. However, Rema notes that it is still preferable for Torah students to be self-supportive, if possible. How on earth does Mr. Kobre summarize all this as him saying that "one may, without any hesitation, receive funding to learn Torah full-time"?
Now let us move on to the next source cited by Mr. Kobre, the Shach. He allows a Rosh Yeshivah or Av Beis Din to accept gifts. He says nothing whatsoever about kollel students receiving funding to learn Torah. How on earth does Mr. Kobre summarize all this as saying that "one may, without any hesitation, receive funding to learn Torah full-time"?
Now let us move on to the next source cited by Mr. Kobre, the Aruch HaShulchan. He, too, makes it very clear that he is talking about voluntary communal support of Torah teachers. He does not permit Torah students to receive communal funds, and does not even permit teachers to demand support; he describes Rambam's opposition as being to Torah scholars who try to force the community to support them (an apt description of the modern mass-kollel system). How on earth does Mr. Kobre summarize all this as saying that "one may, without any hesitation, receive funding to learn Torah full-time"?
Igros Moshe is Mr. Kobre's final source for those who wish to receive money for their studies. However, that has little bearing on the normative position over the ages. R. Moshe's primary sources are referring to Torah teachers, not Torah students. And he admits that his license may well be based upon emergency measures, rather than expressing the original laws and priorities. And one cannot necessarily extrapolate from the state of Torah-emergency in 1964 to the situation in the twenty-first century, when there are tens of thousands of people in kollel. Furthermore, Rav Moshe is only addressing a case where the money is being offered - this has nothing to do with whether it is okay to avoid learning a trade and to insist that others support you. Which clearly goes against Chazal and the Rishonim.
Can this fellow Eytan Kobre truly be blissfully unaware of all this, and of the normative approach of Torah Judaism throughout the ages until just a few decades ago, or is he indeed aware of the relevant halachic sources and is engaging in intentional falsification of Torah to mislead the public? Either way, hostile or ignorant, it doesn’t bode well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)