Yehuda's Thoughts

Baseball Cards

2010-02-19T02:02:00.002-05:00

This is not my usual fare, but I thought I would share it anyway. It's a true story. Notice that I labeled it under Mishlei.

As a child, I was baseball illiterate. I was actually illiterate in all sports, but baseball was by far the most important to know. I was simply perplexed when my friends would talk about "the game". I didn't know the teams and the rules were only vaguely familiar. My friends would bring in their baseball cards and talk about their rarity, value and the all important stats. Some time in the third grade I came to the conclusion that these cardboard homages to the baseball gods would be my ticket to social grace.

I told my father I wanted baseball cards. Ever resourceful, he called up his friend who had a son who sold baseball cards. Perfect. He bought me the whole set - Topps brand, every card, rookies and all (whatever that meant!). I studied them. I sorted them neatly into plastic holders and organized them in binders. I organized them alphabetically; I organized them by team; I probably even organized them by hair style. I looked at the backs of the cards over and over again and read the strange stats. I was still clueless. I hadn't the foggiest notion what those stats meant, but I thought that maybe, just maybe, they had done the trick. That somehow, by some kind of magic they had made their impact on me. Of course, the problem was, I still hadn't watched a game. Needless to say, I never was able to participate in the great conversation of the third grade.

Stick Figures

2010-01-26T14:18:00.004-05:00

Before the "words" there was the "stick-figure".

By 11th grade I was in RS's gemara class. I had heard about his "stick-figures" from some of my friends who had already attended his Talmud class the year before. When we would discuss an issue in the Talmud he would diagram out the issue on the board in the form of "stick-figures". Lengthy discussions were had on how to represent seemingly simple halakhic acts in a form akin to a choreographer's notation system. The major difference was that we also had to represent the mental states involved in each action. Much time was spent getting them just right. What I did not realize at the time was that "stick-figuring" was a method of exploring and becoming aware of our "souls".

Later in the year he introduced us to Maimonides' Eight (Introductory) Chapters to Pirkei Avot. Maimonides' main focus was the "soul". However, it read more like biology and psychology than the "philosophy" I was accustomed to. (I came to realize that "psyche" with its Greek etymology is much closer in connotation to what Maimonides was discussing - especially considering the Aristotelian philosophical tradition to which his work belongs. However, "psyche" with its modern positivist connotations does not capture Maimonides' conception of the mind as transcendent from matter.)

At the core of the Chapters is Maimonides' treatment of the "diseases" of the soul. He compares the diseases of the soul with physical diseases:

"just as when people, unacquainted with the science of medicine, realize that they are sick, and consult a physician, who tells them what they must do...so those whose souls become ill should consult the wise, the physicians of the soul..."

RS clearly took this statement to heart.

The Steps to Logic

2010-01-21T14:39:00.004-05:00

Recently, I had the opportunity to reflect on my intellectual development. Most of my readers (all 5 of you) know RS played a crucial role in that development. As many of you have had the privilege of studying with him, I thought you would find these reflections interesting. I hope they stimulate insight.

When I was in TASC, RS thought it was important that we study logic. He had a unique method of teaching it. He used a method he called the ‘steps’ or ‘words’. A verb would be chosen, either simple like ‘sit’ or ‘stand’, or more complex like ‘inspire’ or ‘think’. The first step was to give a quick definition so that we knew we were talking about the same thing. The next step was to think of an example. The trick was that it had to be a rich, meaningful example that felt powerful and right: ultimately, an exemplar. However, the exemplar could not be artificial. He would test and prod to make sure we really felt our examples and that they were coming from a real place. When we had our exemplar we would proceed to check our original quick definition. The main point was not to see if our definition was correct - it was, of course, important. The point was to give nuance and real meaning to our definitions - to move from talking-about to truly knowing and experiencing something. This, he explained, was the first logical act of the mind that the Aristotelians spoke of: simple apprehension. This was the first step to learning the art of logic.

These "steps" naturally led to a deeper understanding of many mitzvot and halakhot. For example, "sit", "stand", "inspire" and "think" obviously lead to a deeper understanding of the mitzvah of Tefillah and its halakhot.

Abraham's Tent

2010-01-17T19:24:00.004-05:00

According to Jewish tradition, no teacher's challenge was greater than Abraham's. He belonged to a world completely steeped in idolatry. At God's command Abraham journeyed to Canaan and traveled through the land.

And the Lord appeared to Abram, and He said, "To your seed I will give this land," and there he built an altar to the Lord, Who had appeared to him.

At this point we would think Abram would settle down. Instead, he moves:

And he moved from there to the mountain, east of Beth el, and he pitched his tent; Beth el was to the west and Ai was to the east, and there he built an altar to the Lord, and he called in the name of the Lord.(Genesis 12:7-8)

The motivation for his move is unclear as well as his chosen settlement. Why does he pitch a tent? Why here? If his goal is to teach people about God why not settle in one of the cities? By this point in the narrative of Genesis the Torah's dislike for the city has become abundantly clear. These three examples should suffice:

1) Cain becomes a city-builder after being cast out from God's presence (4:17).
2) Of the three sons of Noah only the descendants of Ham (the cursed son) are described as building cities - Shem and Japheth's (the blessed sons) descendants do not.
3) one chapter back we read the ill-fated story of the builders of Babel (11:1-9).

The builders of Babel constructed a monument to man (11:4):

And they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make ourselves a name, lest we be scattered upon the face of the entire earth.'

In contrast, Abraham built an altar - a structure designed to evoke both man's subservience and his yearning to ascend - and called out in the name of the Lord.

Abraham came to Canaan to shake up the constructed order of the city. The city is all artifice (the builders of Babel even chose to make bricks - artificial to the core), it is designed to protect man from his anxieties about the natural world. He pitched a tent where he would encounter travelers who, at least for that moment, were not tied to their constructed universe. Between Beth el and Ai, Abraham pitched his tent, the most transient of shelters and in that place he called his fellow man to wonder and look beyond man's world. This is the ideal teacher.

The Davidic Covenant, Part III

2009-10-19T00:53:00.002-04:00

After instructing Natan to tell David he will not build "a house for My dwelling", Natan is told to inform David that the tables have been turned: the Lord will build a bayit for David. Of course, we know God does not mean bayit in the sense of a structural house, but a dynasty ('house' has the same double sense in English as well). David is to be assured that his lot is different from the charismatic leaders of Israel's past - who would rise up to save the people from trouble and then pass without an heir to continue their legacy. The House of David would continue on. The first to inherit the throne would build the bayit l'shmi, "a house for My Name". God made a name and a house for David and David's son will make a house for God's Name.

As for David's son, God assures David that he will benefit from a special providence from Him. This providential relationship is expressed through a father-son metaphor. God will be like a father to him and David's son will be like a son to Him. Specifically, in so far as if he becomes corrupt God will chastise him with the 'rod of men' and the afflictions of humans. And, even if he does become corrupt God's chesed - literally: kindness, often used to refer to a b'rit, covenant in 1 & 2 Samuel - would not depart from his line - meaning, David's dynasty would continue uninterrupted in perpetuity.

As for the "son" metaphor I think the sense is clear from Psalms (2):

5. Then He speaks to them in His wrath; and He frightens them with His sore displeasure.
6. "But I have enthroned My king on Zion, My holy mount."
7. I will tell of the decree; The Lord said to me, "You are My son; this day have I begotten you.
8. Request of Me, and I will make nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession.
9. You shall break them with an iron rod; like a potter's vessel you shall shatter them."

Commenting on "You are My son", Rashi writes:

You are My son, the head of Israel, who are called in the Torah (Exodus, 4:22), "My firstborn son", and they will endure through you, as is stated concerning Abner (I2 Sam. 3:18): “for God said, etc., ‘By the hand of My servant David shall I save My people Israel.’”, and for their sake, you are before Me as a son, because they are all dependent upon you.

Rashi sounds somewhat convoluted at first. The more obvious interpretation is that the king is called a son because he shares a special providential relationship with God. However, Rashi is reminding us that this simple interpretation would be ignoring God's relationship with all of His people and the true origin of the "son" metaphor. Israel emerged out of a society that deified their king and viewed him as either a son or an incarnation of a god. God tells Moshe (in Exodus, 4:22) that in response to Pharaoh hardening his heart he is to tell him, "My firstborn son is Israel." Though, in a sense, all of humanity and all nations are God's "children" in regards to His providence - Israel is the firstborn - the one God has chosen to impart His inheritance and show special favor. Rashi is saying that the king's status as "son" must be viewed within this context. The king is only a "son" for the sake of the people.

In summary, to understand the "son" metaphor we must take note of the following: a son shares a privileged status: favor, when the son is virtuous (as in Psalms 2 and Exodus 4); chastisement, when he is corrupt (as in 2 Samuel 7); and even the corrupt son does not lose his father's chesed - meaning, the relationship (in 2 Samuel, the Davidic covenant) will never be absolutely severed.

The Davidic Covenant, Part II

2009-10-14T01:08:00.003-04:00

Once the Lord had given David rest from all his enemies it David shared his observation with Natan that it was improper that he, David, should be dwelling in a house of cedar while the Ark of God resided behind curtains. Natan concurred and gave David carte blanche to do what was in his heart. However, that night the Lord told Natan otherwise:

5. "Go and say to My servant, to David; so says the Lord: 'Shall you build Me a house for My dwelling? 6. For I have not dwelt in a house from the day that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. 7. In all [the places] wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel, did I speak a word with any of the rulers of Israel whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying: 'Why do you not build for me a house of cedar?'

The key word here is house (bayit). This "house" seems to stand at odds with the pastorally depicted past of the children of Israel. Permanence is contrasted with transience. The problem seems to be not particular to David but with the very concept of a "house for My dwelling". As David's son proclaims on the day he brought the ark into the Holy of Holies (1 Kings, 8:27):

"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You; much less this temple (bayit) that I have erected."

The Davidic Covenant, Part I

2009-09-23T23:56:00.004-04:00

I was recently asked the following two questions:

What is your understanding of the "Davidic Covenant", as referenced in 2 Sam. 7:8-17?
What is God really saying when he states: "I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me."

I am good friends with the questioner and I know that he would appreciate what I would call a "full answer". The following is the first part of my reply:

It's always tricky to give just the right amount of context; I am always tempted to give way too much. That said... In the first four chapters of 2 Sam. David solidifies is reign over Judah while at war with the kingdom of Israel ruled by the son of Saul, Ish-Boshet. Ish-Boshet is assassinated at the end of the fourth chapter and at the beginning of the fifth chapter David is "elected" king by the "Northern Kingdom of Israel". For the first time there is a "Kingdom of Israel" ruled by one king: David. The age of "Tribes" and "Judges" is over. David establishes his capital in Jerusalem - a well fortified city in the Judaen mountains right on the border between Judah and the North (specifically, the portion of Benjamin). David's success is apparent and Hiram, king of Tyre forges an alliance with him (with obvious benefits for Hiram). David continues to weaken the Philistines and defeats them repeatedly. In the sixth chapter David attempts to move the Ark to Jerusalem failing on his first attempt. He is successful on his second attempt (when he stops imitating the Philistine method of Ark transportation made famous in 1 Sam.). Finally, we come to the first verse of chapter seven and with great relief and joy read:

"And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house, and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies." - David has finally found some respite.

Quick methodological point: the Hebrew Bible is chock-full of allusion to the Torah/Five Books of Moses. For the prophets/authors of the books of the Prophets the Torah was the literary and spiritual (can you really separate the two?!) soul of their society. Their writing had to have its imprint. For the prophets the Torah was the context. Though the Torah was sealed, their writing was an extension of the Torah. They wrote to further the grand unfolding plan of the Torah. However, they did not usually do this by citing chapter and verse - this would not have been necessary nor, in my opinion, as effective. The Torah in Ancient Israel was speech itself (Deut. 6, 7):

And you shall teach them to your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up.

The Ancient Israelite could not read 2 Sam. 7:1 without viscerally connecting to Deut. 12:10-12:

10. And you shall cross the Jordan and settle {same verb in Hebrew as 'dwelt'} in the land the Lord, your God, is giving you as an inheritance, and He will give you rest from all your enemies surrounding you, and you will dwell securely. 11. And it will be, that the place the Lord, your God, will choose in which to establish His Name there you shall bring all that I am commanding you: Your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the separation by your hand, and the choice of vows which you will vow to the Lord. 12. And you shall rejoice before the Lord, your God you and your sons and your daughters and your menservants and your maidservants, and the Levite who is within your cities, for he has no portion or inheritance with you.

What is a Mitzva?

2009-08-07T15:14:00.001-04:00

I do not know if the patient confused lurker is still lurking but I wanted to let that person know I am now thinking about his question. This post is not a complete answer to his questions, just some thoughts.

PCL asked if the Rambam defines what a mitzva is. To start, I feel confident in saying that the Rambam does have a definition. His 14 principles for counting mitzvot imply that he must have a definition. However, he does not seem to define it outright in the Sefer HaMitzvot. Curiously, virtually all of those principles are negative - the Rambam tells us what should not be counted as a mitzva.

In the beginning of the Mishne Torah the Rambam does provide us with something close to a definition:
א כל המצוות שניתנו לו למשה בסיניי--בפירושן ניתנו, שנאמר "ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן, והתורה והמצוה" (שמות כד,יב): "תורה", זו תורה שבכתב; ו"מצוה", זה פירושה. וציוונו לעשות התורה, על פי המצוה. ומצוה זו, היא הנקראת תורה שבעל פה.

א כל המצוות שניתנו לו למשה בסיניי--בפירושן ניתנו, שנאמר "ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן, והתורה והמצוה" (שמות כד,יב): "תורה", זו תורה שבכתב; ו"מצוה", זה פירושה. וציוונו לעשות התורה, על פי המצוה. ומצוה זו, היא הנקראת תורה שבעל פה.

Here the Rambam seems to define mitzva as the peirush of Torah Sh'bikhtav - which is Torah Sh'ba'al Peh. This leads to some interesting conclusions: when it is said that there are 613 mitzvot this means that there are 613 peirushim; we know the 613 mitzvot via the Mesora - not the Torah Sh'bikhtav.

The Ralbag Livens Things Up

2009-07-09T16:13:00.002-04:00

In the previous post I discussed the term maqam which refers to melody types. I believe this maqam can help us understand the Ralbag's m'qomot and their purpose. The reader of Chumash can be likened to a musician. But first more about the music.

How does one distinguish between a proficient musician and a master? The proficient musician possesses all the skills a musician must have - his artistry is impeccable. However, the master possesses something more. The story in the previous post about Alfarabi is an excellent example of the master musician. The master brings new life to music. For the master, the music is merely a means to convey the deepest passional experiences. So how does one become a master? The maqam are the key. They give a student a map (or topology) of the kinds of music appropriate to conveying different psychological states. If the student memorizes these he can simply check his roster for the appropriate maqam for the venue and occasion. This does not automatically make the proficient musician a master. It helps him develop the proper habits of mind.

M'qomot (in the larger sense of the word) are "places" in the imagination (or psyche in modern terminology). They familiarize a student with different situations he might encounter and provide him with a tool-kit of appropriate responses. M'qomot are appropriate to every art which demands a wide range of action from the student. In the case of a musician each maqam gives him a general sense of how to perform. Even if presented with new lyrics or a new composition he can refer back to the appropriate maqam and find guidance. Is this a happy song? a sad song? a somber moment? a festive occasion? a mournful gathering? By training with maqam the musician would rarely feel unprepared. The proficient musician builds his intuition around these maqam. Likewise, the m'qomot of the Ralbag.

Seeing how the mitzvot emerge from the words of the Chumash does not feel natural at first even for an expert reader. The m'qomot are the means to bring new life to that reading - in this case a derekh haChayim.

The Sweet Music of the Ralbag

2009-05-24T15:40:00.006-04:00

I was discussing the m'qomot of the Ralbag with RS this past Shabbat. An interesting connection occurred to me that I believe adds greatly to the understanding of the m'qomot. Sephardim refer to the different modes of chazzanut as maqam. This has its source in the Arabic musical tradition.

Maqam is the Arabic equivalent of the Hebew maqom.

The following description of maqam is given in wikepedia.

Arabic maqām (Arabic: مقام‎; pl. maqāmāt مقامات or maqams) is the system of melodic modes used in traditional Arabic music, which is mainly melodic. The word maqam in Arabic means place, location or rank. The Arabic maqam is a melody type. Each maqam is built on a scale, and carries a tradition that defines its habitual phrases, important notes, melodic development and modulation. Both compositions and improvisations in traditional Arabic music are based on the maqam system. Maqams can be realized with either vocal or instrumental music, and do not include a rhythmic component.

This article includes a list - according to Al-Farabi - of the different kinds of maqam.

"So what?", you may ask. I believe the following story about Al-Farabi (you might remember him being compared to fine flour by the Rambam (thanks to Matt for a translation of the letter in which he says this on his blog)) will reveal the usefulness of this connection.

Al-Farabi happens to be one of the greatest figures, not only in Arabic philosophy, but in the science of music.

There are many versions of this story floating around but this is the earliest written record I could find (January 1, 1318, to be exact) of the famous story about Al-Farabi (Nizam ad-din Awliya: morals for the heart : conversations of Shaykh Nizam ad-din Awliya recorded by Amir Hasan Sijzi; by Niẓāmuddīn Auliyā, Bruce B. Lawrence, Ḥasan Dihlavī; Translated by Bruce B. Lawrence; Published by Paulist Press, 1992; p. 272)

He then told a brief story about PHILOSOPHERS. "Farabi was a philosopher, " he noted. "One day he came into the assembly of the Caliph dressed in a short cloak and simple clothes, for he was of Turkish origin. Farabi began to play his cymbal and to sing. Now there were three kinds of music, according to this philosopher. One made people laugh, another made them cry, and a third put them to sleep or rendered them unconscious. In short, when Farabi began to play the cymbal, at first the whole assembly erupted in laughter. The when he began to sing, they all fell to crying, "Ah! Ah!" Then when he kept on singing, they all became unconscious. Writing these words on the wall, he left:
Farabi did indeed appear here, but then he disappeared.
When the members of the assembly regained consciousness and read what he had written, they said to themselves: 'This Farabi was indeed a philosopher; alas we did not recognize him as such!'"

In a future post I will fully elaborate what maqam reveals about maqom.

Speaking of Great Things

2009-04-02T00:33:00.002-04:00

This is a rewrite of a piece that I posted last year. It still doesn't feel finished but I wanted to share it anyway.

שִׁמְעוּ, כִּי-נְגִידִים אֲדַבֵּר; וּמִפְתַּח שְׂפָתַי, מֵישָׁרִים. (משלי ח:ו)

Listen, for I will speak noble things, and the opening of my lips shall be right things. (Mishlei 8:6)

Our Rabbis tell us that we must tell the story of Pesach in a peculiar manner:

וְצָרִיךְ לְהַתְחִיל בִּגְנוּת, וּלְסַיַּם בִּשְׁבָח.

It is necessary to begin with denigration and end with praise.

What is the purpose of this halakha? I believe the answer can be found through an analysis of the laws of the prohibition of lashon hara, slanderous speech.

Concerning the ba'al lashon hara, the slanderer, David HaMelekh writes in Tehillim 12:

ד יַכְרֵת יְהוָה, כָּל-שִׂפְתֵי חֲלָקוֹת-- לָשׁוֹן, מְדַבֶּרֶת גְּדֹלוֹת.
ה אֲשֶׁר אָמְרוּ, לִלְשֹׁנֵנוּ נַגְבִּיר--שְׂפָתֵינוּ אִתָּנוּ: מִי אָדוֹן לָנוּ.

4. May God cut off all smooth lips, the tongue that speaks great things.

5. Who said, "With our tongue we will overpower; our lips are with us. Who is lord over us?"

The ba'al lashon hara is dangerous because he thinks that he speaks of 'great things'. He seeks to gain power and prominence by denigrating his fellow. He raises himself up by bringing others down. If only he recognized the true majesty and dominion of God he would not be so glib and unconstrained. Then he would realize that the very idea of seeking power is delusional - all the more so through slander! This is why the Rabbis say that the one who speaks lashon hara is, "כְּאִלּוּ כָּפַר בָּעִיקָר", as if he denies the most fundamental principle of the Torah: God's existence.

Oddly enough, lashon hara, slanderous speech, bears striking similarities to the mitzva of Sippur Y'tziat Mitzrayim, telling the story of the Exodus. First of all, lashon hara is also referred to as a kind of sippur, story telling. The purpose of Sippur Y'tziat Mitzrayim is knowledge of God (Sh'mot 10):

א וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, בֹּא אֶל-פַּרְעֹה: כִּי-אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי אֶת-לִבּוֹ, וְאֶת-לֵב עֲבָדָיו, לְמַעַן שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה, בְּקִרְבּוֹ. ב וּלְמַעַן תְּסַפֵּר בְּאָזְנֵי בִנְךָ וּבֶן-בִּנְךָ, אֵת אֲשֶׁר הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי בְּמִצְרַיִם, וְאֶת-אֹתֹתַי, אֲשֶׁר-שַׂמְתִּי בָם; וִידַעְתֶּם, כִּי-אֲנִי יְהוָה.

1 God said to Moses, 'Come to Pharaoh, for I have made heavy his heart and the heart of his servants, in order that I would be able to place these, My signs in his midst. 2 And in order that you tell it in the ears of your children and grandchildren how I made a mockery out of Egypt, and My signs that I placed on them. And you will know that I am God.'

The purpose of the the m'sapeir (teller of) lashon hara is clearly not so lofty. The m'sapeir lashon hara also speaks of what he thinks are wondrous and great things as Rambam writes at the end of Hilkhot Tumat Tzara'at in which he discusses the root cause of tzara'at: lashon hara:

קַל וְחֹמֶר לִבְנֵי אָדָם הָרְשָׁעִים הַטִּפְּשִׁים, שֶׁמַּרְבִּים לְדַבַּר גְּדוֹלוֹת וְנִפְלָאוֹת; לְפִיכָּךְ רָאוּי לְמִי שֶׁרָצָה לְכַוַּן אֳרָחָיו, לְהִתְרַחַק מִיְּשִׁיבָתָן וּמִלְּדַבַּר עִמָּהֶן, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתָּפֵס אָדָם, בְּרֶשֶׁת רְשָׁעִים וְסִכְלוּתָם.

[Miriam was afflicted with tzaraat for saying a very limited form of lashon hara against her brother Moshe...] All the more so, evil, foolish people who say great and wondrous things at length; therefore it is proper for one who wants to properly align his path to distance himself from their dwelling places and from speaking with them so that he will not get caught up with them, in the web of the evil and their foolishness.

While the m'sapeir lashon hara in his foolishness speaks at length about what he considers to be great and wondrous, the m'sapeir b'y'tziat Mitzrayim is commanded to speak at length of the truly wondrous and truly great deeds of the Almighty (Hilkhot Chametz uMatza chapter 7):

מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלַּתּוֹרָה לְסַפַּר בְּנִסִּים וְנִפְלָאוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְּמִצְרַיִם

It is a positive commandment from the Torah to tell of the miracles and wonders that were done for our forefathers in Egypt.

כָל הַמַּאֲרִיךְ בַּדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵרְעוּ וְשֶׁהָיוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח.

Anyone who expands upon the matters that happened and that were - this is praiseworthy.

Now, let us return to our original question. The halakha says one must tell the story of y'tziat Mitzrayim (Hilkhot Chametz uMatza, chapter 7) in the following manner:

וְצָרִיךְ לְהַתְחִיל בִּגְנוּת, וּלְסַיַּם בִּשְׁבָח.

It is necessary to begin with denigration and end with praise.

The halakha demands that we do this in two ways:

כֵּיצַד: מַתְחִיל וּמְסַפֵּר שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה הָיוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ בִּימֵי תֶּרַח וּמִלְּפָנָיו, כּוֹפְרִים וְטוֹעִין אַחֲרֵי הַהֶבֶל וְרוֹדְפִין עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה; וּמְסַיֵּם בְּדַת הָאֱמֶת, שֶׁקֵּרְבָנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לָהּ, וְהִבְדִּילָנוּ מִן הַתּוֹעִים, וְקֵרְבָנוּ לְיֵחוּדוֹ. וְכֵן מַתְחִיל וּמוֹדִיעַ שֶׁעֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה בְּמִצְרַיִם, וְכָל הָרָעָה שֶׁגְּמָלוּנוּ; וּמְסַיֵּם בְּנִסִּים וְנִפְלָאוֹת שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ לָנוּ, וּבְחֵרוּתֵנוּ.

How [does one begin with denigration and end with praise]? Begin and tell that originally our forefathers in the days of Terach and before him were heretics and were swayed after vanity and chased after idolatry; and conclude with the true religion - that the Holy One Blessed is He brought us close to Him and separated us from the wayward and brought us close to His Unity.

And also, begin and inform that we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt and all the evil he caused us; and conclude with the miracles and wonders that were done for us and with our freedom.

What greater denigration can there be than being slaves and idolaters! As we know, the slanderer also denigrates, however, for him that is where it ends (Hilkhot Deot, chapter 7):

יֵשׁ עָווֹן גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה עַד מְאוֹד וְהוּא בִּכְלַל לָאו זֶה, וְהוּא לָשׁוֹן הָרַע; וְהוּא הַמְּסַפֵּר בִּגְנוּת חֲבֵרוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר אֱמֶת.

There is an much greater sin than this [gossiping] … : lashon hara, slanderous speech. It is [defined as] one who tells/relates the scorn of his fellow, even if he says the truth.

In contrast, speaking of the B'nei Yisrael's degradation is a means to recognizing and praising God (Tehillim 113):

ז מְקִימִי מֵעָפָר דָּל; מֵאַשְׁפֹּת, יָרִים אֶבְיוֹן.
ח לְהוֹשִׁיבִי עִם-נְדִיבִים; עִם, נְדִיבֵי עַמּוֹ.
ט מוֹשִׁיבִי, עֲקֶרֶת הַבַּיִת-- אֵם-הַבָּנִים שְׂמֵחָה:
הַלְלוּ-יָהּ.

7. He lifts the pauper up from the dust, from the dungheap He raises up the needy,

8. To seat [him] with princes, with the princes of His people.

9. He seats the barren woman of the house as a happy mother of children. Hallelujah!

We must tell the story in this manner because we only come to recognize God's greatness by recognizing our own frailty. On the night of Pesach we do not regale our family and friends with stories of the heroic deeds of our ancestors. Moshe's name does not even appear in the haggadah! We begin by recounting the scorn of our forefathers and end with the praises of the Holy One, blessed is He.

Mishneh Torah Eyes

2009-04-01T00:42:00.002-04:00

I am trying to state briefly the vision of life that the Rambam's Mishneh Torah provides me with. I also want to give a sense of how and why the Mishneh Torah is the main source of this vision.

אָז לֹא-אֵבוֹשׁ--בְּהַבִּיטִי, אֶל-כָּל-מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ תהילים קיט,ו

The Rambam's Mishneh Torah (not to neglect his other works) is the main source of my vision of life. It is the only source in the Jewish tradition that provides a comprehensive, systematic presentation of the entire corpus of the oral law. The Mishneh Torah, though practical in its purpose, gives the theoretical underpinnings of the entire system and it fundamental objectives. Additionally, it is written with tremendous clarity and precision in a simple Hebrew. It is the ultimate salve to the practice of Judaism as disconnected rote behaviors. The Mishneh Torah is web-like in its efficiency to link from the micro-details of a particular halakha to the macro-structure it is part of. In this way one can never miss the forest for the trees (or as the Rambam would say miss the roots for the branches of the branches). At the core of the Rambam's Mishneh Torah is the centrality of the Written Law. This roots the practice of halakha in the covenantal relationship between B'nei Yisrael and God. In all, the vision afforded by the Mishneh Torah is an organic, interconnected world in which the halakha infuses every aspect of life with wisdom and meaning and facilitates an ongoing ascent in the love of God.

A Real Angel

2009-02-26T02:30:00.003-05:00

There is a famous Rashi in Parashat Vayishlach (Chapter 32) on the following verse:

ד וַיִּשְׁלַח יַעֲקֹב מַלְאָכִים לְפָנָיו, אֶל-עֵשָׂו אָחִיו, אַרְצָה שֵׂעִיר, שְׂדֵה אֱדוֹם
4. Jacob sent angels ahead of him to his brother Esau, to the land of Seir, the field of Edom.

And here is the Rashi (translations from JPS found on here):

ד וישלח יעקב מלאכים
מלאכים ממש
Jacob sent angels Heb. מַלְאָכִים, literally angels (Gen. Rabbah 75:4).

In the book of Shmuel I (Chapter 23) there is a similar Rashi on the following verse:

כז וּמַלְאָךְ בָּא, אֶל-שָׁאוּל לֵאמֹר: מַהֲרָה וְלֵכָה, כִּי-פָשְׁטוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים עַל-הָאָרֶץ
27. And a messenger came to Saul, saying, "Make haste and go, for the Pelishtim have spread out over the land!"

And here is the Rashi:

כז ומלאך בא אל שאול - מלאך ממש כדי להציל את דוד
And a messenger came (Heb. ‘malakh’) a real angel, in order to save David.

I believe, (based on a Bar-Ilan query) that these are the only two instances in which Rashi makes the point that malakh is referring to an angel as opposed to a more mundane messenger (of the human variety). The context in the book of Shmuel is highly instructive. David has been surrounded by Shaul and his men – his fate is certain, there is no escape. At the moment when all hope has been lost for David a messenger comes to Shaul sending him off to defend his nation from an onslaught of Pelishtim. A sensitive reader knows that the verse could just have easily told us that a man came. The reason for saying a malakh came is clear. David was saved, not by chance, but by divine intervention. The 'messenger' is an 'angel' – this is the text's way of telling us to not view this event as mundane. Clearly, Rashi is not trying to tell us that a metaphysical being came with the message to Shaul.

With this in mind, one should consider what Rashi means in Parashat Vayishlach.

Ralbag's Preliminary Remark on Sefer B'reishit Part II

2009-02-11T00:01:00.003-05:00

(Continued from here)

Additionally, because the Torah covers the domains of the three divisions that we mentioned in our introduction and the division that covers the science of existing things continually perfects and gives form to the other divisions it is fitting to first establish that this is what the Torah is directed towards.

We should not be confused about the commandments in the Torah - such as belief in the Exalted God, serving Him, awe of Him - that are the ultimate purpose of the Torah, and think that they should precede the division that covers the science of existing things. This is because, it is not possible to posit that we should be in awe of the Exalted God and serve Him before we grasp that there is such a Being of this description. And when we have knowledge of the science of existing things we become enlightened to the fact that there is an existence that actualizes all of the existences, and we comprehend and know Him by way of his actions. And this comprehension brings us to serve Him and have awe of Him.

Additionally, since one of the cornerstones of the Torah is the belief in signs. And it is clear that if the world was eternal there would be no way for signs to exist – it is absolutely necessary to first establish the belief in the creation ex nihilo.

For this reason it begins with the creation of the world. In addition, it is an investigation of the utmost profundity to the point that it is rare for a wise-person to reach the truth in this area by way of analytical investigation if not for the guidance provided by the Torah. And, additionally, it makes known to us many of the deepest ideas concerning existing things, as we shall explain.

Presumptions about Prophets

2008-12-31T16:08:00.005-05:00

The following are just a few points on my method of teaching Navi (my focus is mainly on Neviim Rishonim). As you will see this method is closely connected to what I believe to be the purpose of Navi. These are my thoughts in the raw. Hopefully, they will encourage a good discussion.

1) Navi is fundamentally about failure. Specifically, B'nei Yisrael and its leaders' failure to fully implement the mitzvot of the Torah. The 'sins of our fathers' will forever be revisited upon us if we do not subject their deeds to scrutiny - and this, of course, is of no use if this does not spur us on to scrutinizing our own deeds. To this end, when learning Navi it is critical to clearly formulate the mitzvah with which the Navi is concerned (be it used in the general sense of all mitzvot or a particular mitzvah or class of mitzvot)

2) ~~'Maaseh avot siman labanim' - 'the deeds of the Fathers are signs for the sons'~~ - many (or perhaps all) of the struggles that B'nei Yisrael go through in trying to establish their nation can already be seen in the lives of the Patriarchs. This is because the Patriarchs were dealing with fundamentally the same issue: how to strike a balance between the development of one's own soul and one's duty to family and nation. The struggle of Yaakov/Yisrael is the the struggle of all of his children. This means it is critical to compare, contrast and connect the two to uncover the message of the Navi.

3) The Navi's focus is mainly on the challenges of malkhut - kingship. This means that in order to learn the message of the Navi we must also learn how to relate to the king and his struggles. The kings struggles are, to a certain degree, like our own just amplified. However, there are unique challenges the king faces which we must come to know through the medium of the narrative.

4) Each book of the Navi is just that: a book. How we understand each part must be informed by the whole. Could one attend a class or lecture on a particular chapter of 1984 without having read the entire book and expect to gain very much? Why would one think Navi is any less worthy of such expectations? Even as one seeks to give order and reason to the apparent vagaries of this or that story one must not forget that one is reading a book. Often the puzzle is solved by remembering this.

Ralbag's Preliminary Remarks on Sefer B'reishit

2008-12-30T13:13:00.004-05:00

The following is a translation of the first two paragraphs of the Ralbag's preliminary remarks on Sefer B'reishit. Clearly this is fundamental to understanding B'reishit in general and the Ralbag's commentary in specific. Please feel free to ask for clarifications in the comments section.

Levi the son of Gershom says:

It is clearly evident to anyone who has seen the opinions of the people who lived at the time of Moshe our Master, peace be upon him, that in his days philosophy was greatly lacking. The majority of people did not admit to there being any other existence other than that which is sensed. And they had no sense of the formal cause whatsoever. Instead they thought that only a single 'matter' existed in actuality in every thing that exists. Some were of the view that what distinguishes one existence from another is only the condition of the parts of their 'matter' and in their appearance and the increase or decrease in the quantity of those parts. Some saw other reasons for change based on their individual perspectives. What the majority of people had in common at that time was that they did not see that there is an 'agent -cause'. Rather, they said that things exist spontaneously, without any 'agent-cause'. This is clear from what the Philosopher (Aristotle) cites of the opinions of the ancients in the second book of the Metaphysics.

Being that this was the case, and the intention of the Torah is to bring those who follow it to true perfection, as we mentioned, it is fitting that it should first establish for us as a foundation the true principle that there is an Agent-cause of all existing things and set us on the existence of the formal cause because without this principle there can be no gain whatsoever in the perfection of the soul. This is clear to anyone who has investigated the science of the existing things.

David Withdraws

2008-12-28T23:38:00.004-05:00

(שמואל ב, יא)

א וַיְהִי לִתְשׁוּבַת הַשָּׁנָה לְעֵת צֵאת הַמְּלָאכִים, וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד אֶת-יוֹאָב וְאֶת-עֲבָדָיו עִמּוֹ וְאֶת-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּשְׁחִתוּ אֶת-בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, וַיָּצֻרוּ, עַל-רַבָּה; וְדָוִד, יוֹשֵׁב בִּירוּשָׁלִָם. ס

ב וַיְהִי לְעֵת הָעֶרֶב, וַיָּקָם דָּוִד מֵעַל מִשְׁכָּבוֹ וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ עַל-גַּג בֵּית-הַמֶּלֶךְ

(Shmuel II, 11)
1. And it was, at the return of the year, at the time of the going out of kings [to battle], and David sent Yoav and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the children of Ammon, and besieged Rabbah. But David stayed in Jerusalem.

2. And it came to pass, at the time of evening, that David arose from his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house...

David remains home - at the time the kings sally-forth David withdraws. What has happened? What precipitates this sudden shift in David? The great warrior stays home as his troops lay siege to Rabba-of-the-Children-of-Ammon?

David awakes from his bed - what is bothering him? What stirs him from his sleep?

What makes this war different? Let us see how the war with the children of Ammon began.

(פרק י)
א וַיְהִי, אַחֲרֵי-כֵן, וַיָּמָת, מֶלֶךְ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן; וַיִּמְלֹךְ חָנוּן בְּנוֹ, תַּחְתָּיו. ב וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶעֱשֶׂה-חֶסֶד עִם-חָנוּן בֶּן-נָחָשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אָבִיו עִמָּדִי חֶסֶד, וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד לְנַחֲמוֹ בְּיַד-עֲבָדָיו, אֶל-אָבִיו; וַיָּבֹאוּ עַבְדֵי דָוִד, אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן. ג וַיֹּאמְרוּ שָׂרֵי בְנֵי-עַמּוֹן אֶל-חָנוּן אֲדֹנֵיהֶם, הַמְכַבֵּד דָּוִד אֶת-אָבִיךָ בְּעֵינֶיךָ--כִּי-שָׁלַח לְךָ, מְנַחֲמִים; הֲלוֹא בַּעֲבוּר חֲקֹר אֶת-הָעִיר, וּלְרַגְּלָהּ וּלְהָפְכָהּ, שָׁלַח דָּוִד אֶת-עֲבָדָיו, אֵלֶיךָ. ד וַיִּקַּח חָנוּן אֶת-עַבְדֵי דָוִד, וַיְגַלַּח אֶת-חֲצִי זְקָנָם, וַיִּכְרֹת אֶת-מַדְוֵיהֶם בַּחֵצִי, עַד שְׁתוֹתֵיהֶם; וַיְשַׁלְּחֵם. ה וַיַּגִּדוּ לְדָוִד וַיִּשְׁלַח לִקְרָאתָם, כִּי-הָיוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים נִכְלָמִים מְאֹד; וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁבוּ בִירֵחוֹ, עַד-יְצַמַּח זְקַנְכֶם וְשַׁבְתֶּם. ו וַיִּרְאוּ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, כִּי נִבְאֲשׁוּ בְּדָוִד; וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ בְנֵי-עַמּוֹן וַיִּשְׂכְּרוּ אֶת-אֲרַם בֵּית-רְחוֹב וְאֶת-אֲרַם צוֹבָא, עֶשְׂרִים אֶלֶף רַגְלִי, וְאֶת-מֶלֶךְ מַעֲכָה אֶלֶף אִישׁ, וְאִישׁ טוֹב שְׁנֵים-עָשָׂר אֶלֶף אִישׁ. ז וַיִּשְׁמַע, דָּוִד; וַיִּשְׁלַח, אֶת-יוֹאָב, וְאֵת כָּל-הַצָּבָא, הַגִּבֹּרִים.
(Chapter 10)
1. And it came to pass after this, that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead. 2. And David said: "I shall show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, just as his father showed me kindness. And David sent to comfort him through his servants, for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon. 3. And the princes of the children of Ammon said to Hanun their lord: "Do you think that David honors your father that he sent you comforters? Is it not in order to investigate the city and to spy it out, and to search it that David has sent his servants to you?" 4. And Hanun took David's servants and he shaved off a half of their beards, and he cut off their garments in half up to their buttocks, and he sent them away. 5. And they told it to David; and he sent to meet them; for the men were very much ashamed. And the king said: 'Remain seated in Jericho until your beards grow, and then you shall return.' 6. And the children of Ammon saw that they had become odious to David; and the children of Ammon sent and hired [of] the Arameans of Beth-rehob, and the Arameans of Zobah, twenty thousand footsoldiers, and [of] the king of Maacah, a thousand men, and [of] Ish-tov, twelve thousand men. 7. And David heard [of it], and he sent Joab, and the entire host of the mighty warriors.

David wished to do chesed with Chanun the son of Nachash just as his father had done kindness with him - no where in Tanakh does it record what chesed Nachash did for David. We can only surmise that when David was on the run from Shaul he found refuge for either himself or his family with Nachash. However, this is troubling. Nachash is one of the greatest enemies of Israel (read Shmuel I, 11)! In fact, it was Shaul's triumphant defeat of Nachash's army that consolidated his reign over Israel. Any help he gave David can only be viewed as an implementation of the principle: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Additionally, there is a deep irony in describing Nachash - in the first mention of him since the aftermath of his defeat in Shmuel I - as doing chesed? Isn't he the one that said to the inhabitants of Yavesh-Gilad, "On this (condition) will I make a treaty with you, by gouging out the right eye of every one of you, and I shall make it a reproach against all Israel. " (Shmuel I, 11:2)? What is David doing? The folly of David's international dealings quickly becomes apparent as Chanun responds with anything but gratitude and provokes (or, is convinced he has provoked and then actually provokes) a full-scale war.

Additionally, it must be considered whether David transgressed a prohibition from the Torah through his actions. We have already quoted the Radak in the previous post who cites the chazal that David had transgressed the prohibition of "לֹא-תִדְרֹשׁ שְׁלֹמָם, וְטֹבָתָם - Do not seek their welfare (peace) or their good" (D'varim 23:7). In the 6th chapter of Hilkhot M'lakhim uMilchamot the Rambam discusses this prohibition in the context of Israel's obligation to seek peace before going to war with its enemies. The exception (based on this verse) is Ammon and Moav with whom it is forbidden to seek peace. If we are to maintain the Rambam's explanation of this prohibition we must say that Chazal viewed David's chesed as an overture of peace[1].

Another framework for understanding David's misstep is the prohibition of "לֹא תְחָנֵּם - Do not be gracious to them (idolaters)" (D'varim 7:2). In the 10th chapter of Hilkhot Avoda Zara, the Rambam discusses this prohibitions. The following halakha is highly instructive for our investigation:

וְכֵן אָסוּר לְסַפַּר בִּשְׁבָחָן, וְאַפִלּוּ לוֹמַר כַּמָּה נָאֶה גּוֹי זֶה בְּצוּרָתוֹ; קַל וְחֹמֶר שֶׁיְּסַפַּר בִּשְׁבָח מַעֲשָׂיו, אוֹ שֶׁיְּחַבַּב דָּבָר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם: שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם" (דברים ז,ב)--לֹא יִהְיֶה לָהֶם חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגּוֹרֵם לְהִדָּבֵק עִמּוֹ וְלִלְמֹד מִמַּעֲשָׂיו הָרָעִים.
And similarly it is forbidden to relate their (idolaters') praises, even to say, "How beautiful is this gentile in his appearance!". All the more so to relate the praise of his deeds, or to hold precious any thing they say, as it says, "Do not be gracious to them", they should hold no grace in your eyes, because this causes one to cleave to him and to learn from his evil deeds.

Did Ammon hold some grace in David's eyes? Why would this be? Why now? The first verse of chapter 10: " וַיְהִי, אַחֲרֵי-כֵן - And it came to pass after this...", suggests we must look back one more chapter to the story of David's chesed with Mephiboshet the son of Yehonatan the son of Shaul for an answer. However, an analysis of that story must wait until the next post.
_____________________________________________________
[1] The Rambam writes, "וְאַף עַל פִּי שְׁאֵין שׁוֹאֲלִים בִּשְׁלוֹמָם, אִם הִשְׁלִימוּ מֵעַצְמָם תְּחִלָּה, מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן. - And even though we do not ask/seek peace with them, if they initiate peace of their own accord, we accept them." - perhaps David thought that Nachash's chesed was the initiation he required.

David's Mistakes?

2008-12-14T21:02:00.004-05:00

The following are a number of source that I touch upon in the two shiurim that I have given so far on this topic. They can be hear here: http://www.ybt.org/ryrapoport08-09.html

Source #1
The Ralbag points to David's chesed with Mephiboshet (chapter 9) and Hanun (chapter 10) as examples of the mishpat and tz'daka that he administered to his people:

רלב"ג שמואל ב, מן התועליות אחר פרק כא
השלשים ותשעה הוא להודיע יושר דוד שכבר היה עושה משפט וצדקה לכל עמו לא היה מעלים עינו מאחד מהם כי זאת התכונה ראוי שתהיה למלך הגון וראוי לזאת הסבה זכר גם כן שכבר חרד דוד אם נותר איש לבית שאול ויעשה לו חסד ה' בעבור יהונתן ולזה גם כן ספר שגם לחנון בן נחש השתדל דוד לעשות חסד להשיב לו גמול תחת החסד שגמל לו אביו:
Ralbag, Shmuel II, from the "Lessons" found after chapter 21
The thirty-ninth (lesson) is to make known David's righteousness, that he "administered justice (mishpat) and charity (tz'daka) for all his people". He did not lift his eye from a single individual as this is the character befitting a proper king. For this reason it was proper to also mention that David worried himself over whether anyone was left from the house of Saul so that the chesed of God could be done for him for the sake of Jonathan. This is also why it tells that David also sought to do chesed with Hanun the son of Nahash in order to repay the chesed his father did for him.

Source #2
In the following source the Ralbag, interestingly, identifies the source of the problems David begins to face later with Avshalom, Amnon and Adoniyahu as the fact that he gave them positions of authority during his life time. I find this surprising because nearly all of those events are the result (either as natural consequence or as Divine punishment) of his sin with BatSheva as the Ralbag himself explains in his 43rd toelet.

המ' הוא להודיע שאין ראוי לאדם שיתן ממשלה לבניו בחייו הלא תראה מה שקרה לדוד מהרע מפני מה שעשה בניו שרים כי לולי זה לא היה חוטא אמנון עם אחותו ולא מרד אבשלום בו ולא קרה לאדניהו מה שקרה וזה מבואר מאד:
The fortieth (lesson) is to make known that it is not fitting for a person to give positions of authority to his sons during his life. Is it not evident that the evil that befell David was because he placed his sons in positions of authority? If it were not for this Amnon would not have sinned with his sister, Avshalom would not have rebelled, and what happened to Adoniyahu would not have happened. This is all very clear.

Source #3
In the following source it is, once again, interesting that the Ralbag does not identify any wrong doing in David seeking to do chesed with the son of one of the greatest enemies of Israel.

המ"א הוא להודיע איך עמקו מחשבות הש"י ששם עשות דוד חסד לחנון בן נחש כלי להשחי' בני עמון ועזריהם כי זה היה סבה אל שילקח חנון עבדי דוד וביישם ובזם בתכלית מה שאפשר והם בעצמם היו סבה להדיח על עצמם הרעה לחשבם כי נבאשו בדוד:
The forty-first is to make known the depth of God's "thoughts". He devised that the chesed David did for Hanun the son of Nahash would become an instrument to destroy the Children of Amon and their allies. It became the very cause of Hanun taking David's servants and embarrassing and shaming them to the most extreme degree. They themselves became the cause of the evil that befell them - for they thought "they had become odious to David" (Sh'muel II, 10:6).

Source #4
The Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi) cites two midrashim that point to the folly of David's choice to do chesed with Hanun.

רד"ק שמואל ב פרק י, פסוק ב
כאשר עשה אביו עמדי חסד - אמרו כי כשהיה בורח דוד ובאו אליו אביו ואמו ואחיו ואמר וינחם את פני מלך מואב הרגם מלך מואב אחר שהיו עמו חוץ מאח' מהם שברח לארץ בני עמון והחיהו נחש מלך בני עמון, ובדרש עוד לא תדרוש שלומם וטובתם אתה מוצא במי שבא אליהם במדת רחמים סוף בא לידי בזיון ואיזה זה שנאמ' אעשה חסד עם חנון וגו' סוף בא לידי בזיון ויקח חנון את עבדי דודי וגו' ונצטרך להלחם עם ארבע אומות בני עמון וארם צובא ואיש טוב ומלך מעכה מי גרם לו לדוד כל זה שבקש לעשות טובה עם מי שאמר הקב"ה לא תדרוש שלומם וטובתם אמר לו הקב"ה לדוד אתה עובר על תורתי אני כתבתי לא תדרוש שלומם וטובתם ואתה עושה עמהם חסד אל תהי צדיק הרבה מכאן שלא יהא אדם מוותר על התורה:
Commentary of Rabbi David Kimchi, Sh'muel II, 10:2
just as his father showed me kindness they said (B'midbar Rabba 14, 1), that when David ran away and his father, mother and brothers came to him, and it says (Sh'muel I, 22:4), "And he brought them before the king of Moab". The king of Moab killed them once they were with him except for one of them that escaped to the land of the Children of Amon, and Nahash the king of the Children of Amon kept him alive.

In another d'rash (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 3) "Do not seek their welfare or their good." (D'varim 23:7), you find that one who comes to them in kindness will ultimately be disgraced. What is the actual case? As it says (Sh'muel II, 10:2), "I shall do chesed to Hanun..." and ultimately he came to disgrace: "And Hanun took the servants of David..." (v. 4) causing him to have to go to war with four nations, the Children of Amon, Aram Tzovah, Ish Tov and King Ma'akha. What caused all of this to befall David? He sought to do good with one whom the Holy One, blessed is He said, "Do not seek their welfare or their good." The Holy One, blessed is He said to David, "You go beyond my Torah! I wrote, "Do not seek their welfare or their good", and you do chesed with them! "Do not be overly righteous." (Koheleth 7:16), from here we learn that one should not put aside the Torah.

David's Chesed

2008-12-13T21:26:00.003-05:00

At the end of the eighth chapter of Shmuel II, David seems to have reached the peek of his reign:

טו וַיִּמְלֹךְ דָּוִד, עַל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיְהִי דָוִד, עֹשֶׂה מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה--לְכָל-עַמּוֹ. טז וְיוֹאָב בֶּן-צְרוּיָה, עַל-הַצָּבָא; וִיהוֹשָׁפָט בֶּן-אֲחִילוּד, מַזְכִּיר. יז וְצָדוֹק בֶּן-אֲחִיטוּב וַאֲחִימֶלֶךְ בֶּן-אֶבְיָתָר, כֹּהֲנִים; וּשְׂרָיָה, סוֹפֵר. יח וּבְנָיָהוּ, בֶּן-יְהוֹיָדָע, וְהַכְּרֵתִי, וְהַפְּלֵתִי; וּבְנֵי דָוִד, כֹּהֲנִים הָיוּ.

15. And David reigned over all Israel; and David administered justice and charity for all his people. 16. And Joab the son of Zeruyah was over the host; and Yehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder. 17. And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Ebiathar were [the] priests; and Seraiah was scribe. 18. And Benayahu the son of Yehoyada [was over] the archers and the slingers; and David's sons were chief officers.

At the beginning of each of the next two chapters David is described as seeking to do chesed with two individuals:

The beginning of chapter 9:

א וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד--הֲכִי יֶשׁ-עוֹד, אֲשֶׁר נוֹתַר לְבֵית שָׁאוּל; וְאֶעֱשֶׂה עִמּוֹ חֶסֶד, בַּעֲבוּר יְהוֹנָתָן.
1. And David said: "Is there yet anyone who is left of the house of Saul, that I may do chesed to him for the sake of Jonathan?"

The beginning of chapter 10:

א וַיְהִי, אַחֲרֵי-כֵן, וַיָּמָת, מֶלֶךְ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן; וַיִּמְלֹךְ חָנוּן בְּנוֹ, תַּחְתָּיו. ב וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶעֱשֶׂה-חֶסֶד עִם-חָנוּן בֶּן-נָחָשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אָבִיו עִמָּדִי חֶסֶד, וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד לְנַחֲמוֹ בְּיַד-עֲבָדָיו, אֶל-אָבִיו; וַיָּבֹאוּ עַבְדֵי דָוִד, אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן.
1. And it came to pass after this, that the king of the children of Ammon died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead. 2. And David said: "I shall do chesed to Hanun the son of Nahash, just as his father showed me kindness. And David sent to comfort him through his servants, for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.

Now consider this quote from the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishna:

רמב"ם, פירוש המשניות, פרקי אבות ה, ו
וחסיד, הוא האיש החכם כאשר יוסיף במעלה, רצוני לומר: במעלות המידות, עד שייטה אל הקצה האחד מעט, כמו שבארנו בפרק הרביעי, ויהיה מעשהו רב מחכמתו, ולזה נקרא חסיד, להוספתו, לפי שההפלגה בדבר תיקרא חסד, בין שהיתה אותה ההפלגה בטוב או ברע.
Rambam, Commentary on the Mishna, Pirkei Avot 5, 6
A chasid is a chakham (wise individual) who has increased in virtue - meaning to say: ethical virtues - such that he leans to some degree to one side, as we explained in the Fourth Chapter (of the eight introductory chapters to Pirkei Avot). His actions go beyond his wisdom and so he is called a chasid due to an excess - any kind of profusion being called chesed whether this profusion is for good or bad.

Was David's chesed an excess for good or was it an excess for bad? Consider this question while re-reading the rest of chapters 9 and 10.

Abstract Thought

2008-11-19T00:54:00.003-05:00

Today my students were very upset about having assigned seats during lunchtime. After lunch they came to my class and were expressing their frustrations. I told them that we could discuss their feelings but we would have to conduct ourselves intelligently. I went around to each student and gave each one equal time to express his complaints. With a little bit of guidance each student got to speak a few times. The next step was to do some constructive criticism – I told them that I wanted to help them learn how to formulate arguments that the administration would listen to and not view as childish complaints. They agreed that this was a good idea. I then asked them if we could take a step back and take a moment to think about the topic of teshuva in eating for two or three minutes and I gave a few examples of where the halakha helps one improve the habits of eating. They found it close to impossible to break out of their emotional rut and think about that topic – every time they tried they would quickly go back to their complaints about their lunch experience. I stressed to them how important it was to be able to think clearly about the topic to be able to “enter council” but they couldn't do it – I obviously did not push the matter. They were, in the end, happy that I gave them time to air their complaints but my attempt to get them to think abstractly failed. Perhaps they are too young for this, or perhaps the feelings were too intense at that moment.

I am telling this story to illustrate the dual meaning of “abstract thought”. Abstract thought is, of course, thought about “abstract objects”, as opposed to sensible particulars - for example, geometry, mathematics, physics, etc. “Abstract thought” also refers to the ability to “abstract” oneself from one's feeling about a topic and think about it objectively. This is the kind of thought that is crucial for a judge who must “abstract” himself from the passionate pleas of the defendant and charges of the accuser in order to render a just verdict.

הִלְכּוֹת יְסוֹדֵי הַתּוֹרָה פֵּרֶק ד
נֶפֶשׁ כָּל בָּשָׂר, הִיא צוּרָתוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ הָאֵל. וְהַדַּעַת הַיְּתֵרָה הַמְּצוּיָה בְּנַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁלָּאָדָם, הִיא צוּרַת הָאָדָם הַשָּׁלֵם בְּדַעְתּוֹ; וְעַל צוּרָה זוֹ נֶאֱמָר בַּתּוֹרָה "נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ" (בראשית א,כו), כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה לוֹ צוּרָה הַיּוֹדַעַת וּמַשֶּׂגֶת הַדֵּעוֹת שְׁאֵין לָהֶם גֹּלֶם, עַד שֶׁיִּדָּמֶה לָהֶן. וְאֵינוּ אוֹמֵר עַל צוּרָה זוֹ הַנִּכֶּרֶת לָעֵינַיִם, שְׁהִיא הַפֶּה וְהַחֹטֶם וְהַלְּסָתוֹת וּשְׁאָר רֹשֶׁם הַגּוּף, שֶׁזּוֹ תֹּאַר שְׁמָהּ

Love Work

2008-11-16T20:39:00.000-05:00

This is my first post in a long time. I hope to make more posts more often in the future. Most of these posts will be meant to encourage discussion and will not be carefully edited - as is the case with most of our thoughts.

Clearly one's profession can not be thought of as purely a means. This is the surest path to depression. We spend the majority of our time working and we should want to find satisfaction in our chosen profession. The Rabbis go even further. They say that one should actually “love work.”

שמעיה אומר, אהוב את המלאכה, ושנוא את הרבנות; ואל תתוודע לרשות. (אבות א, י)

Shemayah said: Love work; hate dominion; and seek not undue intimacy with the government. (Avot 1, 10)

Why should one love work? Certainly one should find satisfaction in their work and take pride in it but why love? Additionally, why should one hate positions of authority?

Work is humbling. The need to toil with one's own hands to eek out a living intimately connects one to the larger systems necessary for success. The laborer knows and is humbled by the physical exertion of work – it's clear to him that it is not easy to make a living. The professional knows the intense training and knowledge needed for his area of expertise. Both should realize how many factors go into success - how many systems must be in place, from natural to human; how many people are involved; how many raw materials are needed; that there is no product necessary for society that is not part of some vastly larger system of production. However, the professional, though his work in general demands less physical exertion, is in a better position to have this realization because his success depends on the knowledge of these larger systems. And yet, this is precisely where the danger lies – seeing and understanding these larger systems can either humble one to the vast systems that are beyond one's control or be seen as an instrument to gain dominion over one's fellow man. This is what Shemaya warns us: “Love work; hate dominion...”.

Seeking dominion is a sign of vice. The one with the more powerful understanding of the systems of production will, in general, be promoted. This is only natural and is predicted by the laws of supply and demand – the greater the expertise the greater the scarcity and hence the demand. One need not seek dominion – one need only seek to make the contribution he can to society. Dominion as an end will surely lead to corruption – authority as a result of knowledge is a sign of virtue.

Additionally, seeking dominion leads to jealousy and animosity. Commanding authority due to superior understanding of the systems of production does not because his contribution to society is clear. The Rambam explains this beautifully:

ואלו שלושת הציוויים יש בהם תיקון הדת והעולם, כי בהעדר מלאכה יצר מצבו ויגזול ויעשוק; ובבקשת השררה יבואו עליו נסיונות בעולם ורעות, כי יקנאו בו ויאיבוהו, ויפסיד דתו, כמו שאמרו: "כיון שנתמנה אדם מלמטה - נעשה רשע מלמעלה"; וכן ההיוודעות לשלטון, הבטחון ממנה בעולם הזה רחוק, והיא מפסידה הדת, כי לא ישגיח אלא במה שיקרבהו אליו. ואתה יודע סיפור דואג. זאת, והמלך אשר התקרב אליו משיח ה' ובחיר ה' ונביא. (רמב"ם, פירוש המשניות)

These three commands are fundamental to the improvement of the social order and the world at large. Without work people's condition deteriorates and they steal and act corruptly. Seeking dominion causes many trials and tribulations in the world – it causes jealousy and animosity and corrupts the social order, as they say, “As a person gains rank below he becomes evil above.” Similarly, gaining intimacy with the government is unlikely to give one any real security and one who seeks it ultimately corrupts the social order because he only cares about what will endear him to it. (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishna)

The Sound of Joy

2008-04-16T00:58:00.003-04:00

The Rambam discusses the idea of the kos chamishi, the fifth cup, in the eighth chapter of Hilkhot Chametz uMatza.

ואחר כך נוטל ידיו, ומברך ברכת המזון על כוס שלישי, ושותהו. ואחר כך מוזג כוס רביעי, וגומר עליו את ההלל; ואומר עליו ברכת השיר, והיא "יְהַלְלוּךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ כָּל מַעֲשֶׂיך . . . " ואינו טועם אחר כך כלום, כל הלילה--חוץ מן המים. ויש לו למזוג כוס חמישי, ולומר עליו הלל הגדול--והוא מ"הודו לה', כי טוב" (תהילים קלו,א), עד "על נהרות, בבל" (תהילים קלז,א); וכוס זה אינו חובה, כמו ארבע הכוסות. ויש לו לגמור את ההלל בכל מקום שירצה, אף על פי שאינו מקום סעודה.

And afterward he washes his hands and says birkat haMazon on the third cup and drinks it. And afterward he pours the fourth cup and completes upon it the hallel - and he says birkat haShir on it, which is, "They shall proclaim Your praise, Hashem, our God - all Your works...", and he may not taste anything else the rest of the night -- except for water. He may pour a fifth cup, and say on it hallel haGadol, the Great Praise, which is from, "Give thanks to Hashem for He is good", until, "By the rivers of Babylon" [meaning, all of Tehillim 136]. This cup is not a requirement like the four cups. He may complete the hallel wherever he so chooses, even if it is not the place of the meal.

For a more detailed background on this sugya I recommend this article written by Rav Ezra Bick and Rav Yair Kahn. I would like to offer an interpretation of the purpose of the optional fifth cup.

The Rambam explains the purpose of the four cups in the seventh chapter of Hilkhot Chametz uMatza:

ח [ו] בכל דור ודור, חייב אדם להראות את עצמו כאילו הוא בעצמו יצא עתה משיעבוד מצריים, שנאמר "ואותנו, הוציא משם . . ." (דברים ו,כג). ועל דבר זה ציווה בתורה, "וזכרת, כי עבד היית" (דברים ה,יד; דברים טו,טו; דברים טז,יב; דברים כד,יח; דברים כד,כב), כלומר כאילו אתה בעצמך היית עבד, ויצאת לחירות ונפדית.

ט [ז] לפיכך כשסועד אדם בלילה הזה, צריך לאכול ולשתות והוא מסב דרך חירות. וכל אחד ואחד, בין אנשים בין נשים, חייב לשתות בלילה הזה, ארבעה כוסות של יין--אין פחות מהן; ואפילו עני המתפרנס מן הצדקה, לא יפחתו לו מארבעה כוסות: שיעור כל כוס מהן, רביעית.

In every generation I man is obligated to present himself as if he himself went out at that moment from the bondage of Egypt, as it says, "and us - He took out from there..."(D'varim 6:23). And concerning this matter the Torah commands, "And remember, that you were a slave" (D'varim 5:14; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18; 24:22), meaning, it is as if you yourself were a slave and you went out to freedom and were redeemed.

Therefore, when a person dines on this night, he needs to eat and drink while he is reclining in the way of freedom. And every single person, male and femal, is obligated to drink on this night, four cups of wine, no less; and even a poor person who is supported by charity, they should not give him less than four cups. The required quantity of each cup is a reviit.

Drinking the four cups is a fulfillment of the obligation to view oneself as having experienced the redemption. The goal of the Seder is to behold God as גאל ישראל, the Redeemer of Israel. To do this we must ourselves feel redeemed. We say hallel to demonstrate that we have experienced redemption.

In "The Joy of My Heart", I wrote the following concerning the general topic of Sefer Z'manim:

The choice of "נָחַלְתִּי עֵדְו‍ֹתֶיךָ לְעוֹלָם: כִּי-שְׂשׂוֹן לִבִּי הֵמָּה." to crown Sefer Z'manim is perfect. It both captures the joyous spirit of the yamim tovim and the sorrow of the ששון, joy, not yet attained because (Eikha 5:2) " נַחֲלָתֵנוּ נֶהֶפְכָה לְזָרִים, בָּתֵּינוּ לְנָכְרִים. " - " Our heritage has been turned over to strangers, our houses to aliens. ".

This lack is beautifully expressed in the b'rakha we say on the completion of Magid:

בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם, אֲשֶׁר גְּאָלָנוּ וְגָאַל אֶת אֲבוֹתֵינוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם, וְהִגִּיעָנוּ לַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה לֶאֱכֹל בּוֹ מַצָּה וּמְרוֹרִים. כֵּן יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ, יַגִּיעֵנוּ לְמוֹעֲדִים וְלִרְגָלִים אֲחֵרִים הַבָּאִים לִקְרָאתֵנוּ לְשָׁלוֹם, שְׂמֵחִים בְּבִנְיַן עִירָךְ וְשָׂשִׂים בַּעֲבוֹדָתָךְ, וְנֹאכַל שָׁם מִן הַזְּבָחִים וּמִן הַפְּסָחִים שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ דָּמָם עַל קִיר מִזְבְּחָךְ לְרָצוֹן, וְנוֹדֶה לְךָ שִׁיר חָדָשׁ עַל גְּאֻלָּתֵנוּ וְעַל פְּדוּת נַפְשֵׁנוּ. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְהוָה, גּוֹאֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל.

Blessed are you Hashem our God King of the Universe, who redeemed us and redeemed our forefathers from Egypt, and enabled us to reach this night to eat matza and marror. So Hashem our God and the God of our forefathers should enable us to reach other convocations and festivals that are coming to greet us in peace, happy in the building of Your city and sasim, joyful in your service, and we shall eat there from the sacrifices and from the paschal offering that their blood should reach the wall of Your altar for favor, and we shall give thanks to You a new song for our redemption and on the saving of our souls. Blessed are you Hashem, Redeemer of Israel.

The lack of the ultimate redemption holds us back from being able to give the highest praise. However, this limitation is not absolute. The seder night can be so revelatory to an individual that he is able to experience the true sasson of the festival. The fifth cup represents the possibility of a personal redemption that transcends the limitations of being in exile. The hallel haGadol said on the fifth cup is none other than the kol sasson of the y'mot haMashiach, the Messianic times:

Yirmiyahu 33:

י כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה, עוֹד יִשָּׁמַע בַּמָּקוֹם-הַזֶּה, אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם אֹמְרִים, חָרֵב הוּא מֵאֵין אָדָם וּמֵאֵין בְּהֵמָה--בְּעָרֵי יְהוּדָה, וּבְחֻצוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם, הַנְשַׁמּוֹת מֵאֵין אָדָם וּמֵאֵין יוֹשֵׁב, וּמֵאֵין בְּהֵמָה. יא קוֹל שָׂשׂוֹן וְקוֹל שִׂמְחָה, קוֹל חָתָן וְקוֹל כַּלָּה, קוֹל אֹמְרִים הוֹדוּ אֶת-יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת כִּי-טוֹב יְהוָה כִּי-לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ, מְבִאִים תּוֹדָה בֵּית יְהוָה: כִּי-אָשִׁיב אֶת-שְׁבוּת-הָאָרֶץ כְּבָרִאשֹׁנָה, אָמַר יְהוָה. {ס}

10. So said the Lord: There shall again be heard in this place, concerning which you say, "It is desolate without man and without beast," in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem that are desolate without a man and without an inhabitant and without a beast, 11. the sound of mirth and the sound of joy, the voice of a bridegroom and the voice of a bride, the sound of those saying, "Thank the Lord of Hosts, for the Lord is good, for His loving-kindness endures forever," bringing a thanksgiving offering to the House of the Lord, for I will restore the captivity of the land as at first, said the Lord.

Speaking of Great Things

2008-04-13T03:47:00.004-04:00

שִׁמְעוּ, כִּי-נְגִידִים אֲדַבֵּר; וּמִפְתַּח שְׂפָתַי, מֵישָׁרִים. (משלי ח:ו)

Listen, for I will speak noble things, and the opening of my lips shall be right things. (Mishlei 8:6)

Concerning the ba'al lashon hara, the slanderer, David HaMelekh writes in Tehillim 12:

ד יַכְרֵת יְהוָה, כָּל-שִׂפְתֵי חֲלָקוֹת-- לָשׁוֹן, מְדַבֶּרֶת גְּדֹלוֹת.
ה אֲשֶׁר אָמְרוּ, לִלְשֹׁנֵנוּ נַגְבִּיר--שְׂפָתֵינוּ אִתָּנוּ: מִי אָדוֹן לָנוּ.

4. May God cut off all smooth lips, the tongue that speaks great things.

5. Who said, "With our tongue we will overpower; our lips are with us. Who is lord over us?"

The ba'al lashon hara is dangerous because he thinks that he speaks of 'great things'. He seeks to gain power and prominence by denigrating his fellow. He raises himself up by bringing others down. If he recognized the true majesty and dominion of God he could not be so glib and unconstrained. One who truly recognizes God's sovereignty would surely think it delusional to seek power. This is why the Rabbis say that the one who speaks lashon hara it is, "כאילו כפר בעיקר", as if he denies the most fundamental principle of the Torah: God's existence.

Lashon hara, slanderous speech, can be used as a lens with which we can focus on the mitzva of Sippur Y'tziat Mitzrayim. First of all, both are described as a kind of sippur. Sippur - normally translated: to tell a story, or to discuss - can not be so easily translated in these two cases. It does involve telling a story but in the sense that it takes in phrases like: "Now that's a story worth telling!" Both the m'sapeir (=one who tells a sippur) lashon hara, and the m'sapeir b'y'tziat Mitzrayim is motivated by greatness. While the m'sapeir lashon hara is motivated by the pursuit of his own pathetic greatness the m'sapeir b'y'tziat Mitzrayim is inspired by the greatness of God. The purpose of sippur y'tziat Mitzrayim is knowledge of God (Sh'mot 10):

א וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, בֹּא אֶל-פַּרְעֹה: כִּי-אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי אֶת-לִבּוֹ, וְאֶת-לֵב עֲבָדָיו, לְמַעַן שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה, בְּקִרְבּוֹ. ב וּלְמַעַן תְּסַפֵּר בְּאָזְנֵי בִנְךָ וּבֶן-בִּנְךָ, אֵת אֲשֶׁר הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי בְּמִצְרַיִם, וְאֶת-אֹתֹתַי, אֲשֶׁר-שַׂמְתִּי בָם; וִידַעְתֶּם, כִּי-אֲנִי יְהוָה.

1 God said to Moses, 'Come to Pharaoh, for I have made heavy his heart and the heart of his servants, in order that I would be able to place these, My signs in his midst. 2 And in order that you tell it in the ears of your children and grandchildren how I made a mockery out of Egypt, and My signs that I placed on them. And you will know that I am God.'

The m'sapeir lashon hara also speaks of what he thinks are wondrous and great things as Rambam writes at the end of Hilkhot Tumat Tzara'at in which he discusses the root cause of tzara'at: lashon hara:

קל וחומר לבני אדם הרשעים הטיפשים, שמרבים לדבר גדולות ונפלאות; לפיכך ראוי למי שרצה לכוון אורחיו, להתרחק מישיבתן ומלדבר עימהן, כדי שלא ייתפס אדם, ברשת רשעים וסכלותם.

[Miriam was afflicted with tzaraat for saying a very limited form of lashon hara against her brother Moshe...] All the more so, evil, foolish people who say big and wondrous things at length; therefore it is proper for one who wants to properly align his path to distance himself from their dwelling places and from speaking with them so that he will not get caught up with them, in the web of the evil and their foolishness.

The m'sapeir b'y'tziat Mitzrayim speaks at length of the truly wondrous and truly great deeds of the Almighty (Hilkhot Chametz uMatza chapter 7):

מצות עשה של תורה לספר בניסים ונפלאות שנעשו לאבותינו במצריים

It is a positive commandment from the Torah to tell of the miracles and wonders that were done for our forefathers in Egypt.

וכל המאריך בדברים שאירעו ושהיו, הרי זה משובח

Anyone who expands upon the matters that happened and that were - this is praiseworthy.

There is another halakha concerning how one must tell the story of y'tziat Mitzrayim (Hilkhot Chametz uMatza, chapter 7):

וצריך להתחיל בגנות, ולסיים בשבח.

It is necessary to begin with denigration and end with praise.

The halakha demands that we do this in two ways:

כיצד: מתחיל ומספר שבתחילה היו אבותינו בימי תרח ומלפניו, כופרים וטועין אחרי ההבל ורודפין עבודה זרה; ומסיים בדת האמת, שקירבנו הקדוש ברוך הוא לה, והבדילנו מן התועים, וקירבנו לייחודו. וכן מתחיל ומודיע שעבדים היינו לפרעה במצריים, וכל הרעה שגמלונו; ומסיים בניסים ונפלאות שנעשו לנו, ובחירותנו.

How [does one begin with denigration and end with praise]? Begin and tell that originally our forefathers in the days of Terach and before him were heretics and were swayed after vanity and chased after idolatry; and conclude with the true religion - that the Holy One Blessed is He brought us close to Him and separated us from the wayward and brought us close to His Unity.

And also, begin and inform that we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt and all the evil he caused us; and conclude with the miracles and wonders that were done for us and with our freedom.

What greater denigration can there be than being slaves and idolaters! The slanderer also denigrates, however, that is where it ends (Hilkhot Deot, chapter 7):

...הוא המספר בגנות חברו

...he tells of the scorn of his fellow

In contrast, speaking of the B'nei Yisrael's degradation is only a means to recognizing and praising God (Tehillim 113):

ז מְקִימִי מֵעָפָר דָּל; מֵאַשְׁפֹּת, יָרִים אֶבְיוֹן.
ח לְהוֹשִׁיבִי עִם-נְדִיבִים; עִם, נְדִיבֵי עַמּוֹ.
ט מוֹשִׁיבִי, עֲקֶרֶת הַבַּיִת-- אֵם-הַבָּנִים שְׂמֵחָה:
הַלְלוּ-יָהּ.

7. He lifts the pauper up from the dust, from the dungheap He raises up the needy,

8. To seat [him] with princes, with the princes of His people.

9. He seats the barren woman of the house as a happy mother of children. Hallelujah!

The Joy of My Heart...

2008-03-04T00:02:00.003-05:00

This past Shabbat I gave a shiur on Rambam's Sefer Z'manim - the following is a brief overview.

Before each of the fourteen books of the Mishne Torah Rambam puts two verses. The first is always the same: (בשם ה', אל עולם (בראשית כא,לג, which gets across the message that ultimately every part of his work was written for the sake of God's name (ואכמ"ל). The second verse always serves to underscore the underlying theme of each book. The third book of the Mishne Torah, Sefer Z'manim, the Book of Times begins with the following verse from Tehillim (119:111):

נָחַלְתִּי עֵדְו‍ֹתֶיךָ לְעוֹלָם: כִּי-שְׂשׂוֹן לִבִּי הֵמָּה. (תהילים קיט,קיא).

I inherited your testimonials for all time, for they are the joy of my heart.

(or, Your testimonials became my eternal heritage, for they are the joy of my heart.)

Sefer Z'manim includes all of the mitzvot that occur in a known time, as the Rambam describes it in his introduction to the Mishne Torah. This is Rambam's list of the ten halakhic sections of this book:

הלכות שבת, הלכות עירובין, הלכות שביתת עשור, הלכות שביתת יום טוב, הלכות חמץ ומצה, הלכות שופר וסוכה ולולב, הלכות שקלים, הלכות קידוש החודש, הלכות תענייות, הלכות מגילה וחנוכה.

The verse from Tehillim seems mostly appropriate. After all, most of these halakhot are dealing with holidays and holidays should be joyous. However, as usual with Rambam, the waters get much deeper. ששון is not just another word for שמחה. In nearly every example of this word in Tanakh¹ it is used to describe the opposite of mourning and despair - specifically, the mourning and despair that B'nei Yisrael feel over the loss of the Mikdash and their land (also called their נחלה, heritage). Rambam knew this - but, before I show how we know he knew this I want to make one general comment about the Mishne Torah.

To make the vast system of Torah Sh'ba'al Peh comprehensible the Mishne Torah had to be divided into separate books - each dealing with a separate topic. However, the Torah is really one way of life and everything is interconnected. Rambam shows this interconnectedness by providing bridges between the books. At the end of each book is a bridge to the next. At the end of Sefer Ahava Rambam appends the Seder HaTefilla and at the very end of the Seder he lists the seven haphtarot read on the seven Shabbatot between Tisha B'av and Rosh HaShana:

סג וכן נהגו רוב העם, להיות מפטירין בנחמות ישעיהו בן אמוץ, מאחר תשעה באב עד ראש השנה:

בשבת שאחר תשעה באב--"נחמו נחמו, עמי" (ישעיהו מ,א) עד "עלות, ינהל" (ישעיהו מ,יא);

בשנייה--"ותאמר ציון, עזבני ה'" (ישעיהו מט,יד) עד "וגואלך, אביר יעקוב" (ישעיהו מט,כו);

בשלישית--"ענייה סוערה" (ישעיהו נד,יא) עד "כי פיארך" (ישעיהו נה,ה);

ברביעית--"אנוכי אנוכי הוא, מנחמכם" (ישעיהו נא,יב) עד "שבייה בת-ציון" (ישעיהו נב,ב);

בחמישית--"רוני עקרה, לא ילדה" (ישעיהו נד,א) עד "גואלך, ה'" (ישעיהו נד,ח);

בשישית--"קומי אורי, כי בא אורך" (ישעיהו ס,א) עד "בעיתה אחישנה" (ישעיהו ס,כב);

בשביעית--"שוש אשיש בה'" (ישעיהו סא,י).

The first haphtora begins with the words "נחמו נחמו, עמי" - "Be comforted, be comforted my people..." - by the seventh Shabbat we have been sufficiently consoled to read, "שוש אשיש בה'" - "I shall rejoice with God...". Here is the text of the first two verses:

י שׂוֹשׂ אָשִׂישׂ בַּיהוָה, תָּגֵל נַפְשִׁי בֵּאלֹהַי--כִּי הִלְבִּישַׁנִי בִּגְדֵי-יֶשַׁע, מְעִיל צְדָקָה יְעָטָנִי: כֶּחָתָן יְכַהֵן פְּאֵר, וְכַכַּלָּה תַּעְדֶּה כֵלֶיהָ. יא כִּי כָאָרֶץ תּוֹצִיא צִמְחָהּ, וּכְגַנָּה זֵרוּעֶיהָ תַצְמִיחַ--כֵּן אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, יַצְמִיחַ צְדָקָה וּתְהִלָּה, נֶגֶד, כָּל-הַגּוֹיִם.

10. I will rejoice with the Lord; my soul shall exult with my God, for He has attired me with garments of salvation, with a robe of righteousness He has enwrapped me; like a bridegroom, who, priestlike, dons garments of glory, and like a bride, who adorns herself with her jewelry. 11. For, like the earth, which gives forth its plants, and like a garden that causes its seeds to grow, so shall the Lord God cause righteousness and praise to grow opposite all the nations.

Notice how for the first six haphtarot Rambam gives the beginning and ending of each but for the seventh he only gives the beginning. I think the reason is clear: he is building a bridge to Sefer Z'manim. This is not merely a linguistic segue - he is preparing us for a nuanced reading of the pasuk from Tehillim. ששון is not just happiness but exultation - the kind of happiness which is felt after being saved from the depths of ruin and despair. The neviim often compare this to the joy of the groom over his bride on their wedding day - a transformative moment which one can point to and say, "there was everything before and everything after". This makes perfect sense. The עדות, the testimonials, commemorate events that mark the redemption and salvation of B'nei Yisrael - we should not just feel happy on such days but exultation. A slave freed from bondage is not merely happy - he exults in his new life!

However, the waters get deeper still. The mention of ששון can not help but bring to mind its contrary. The neviim speak of ששון almost exclusively in their נחמות, their words of consolation and comfort to a nation bereaved of its נחלה, its heritage. Take, for example, the words of Yishayahu (61)

א רוּחַ אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, עָלָי--יַעַן מָשַׁח יְהוָה אֹתִי לְבַשֵּׂר עֲנָוִים, שְׁלָחַנִי לַחֲבֹשׁ לְנִשְׁבְּרֵי-לֵב, לִקְרֹא לִשְׁבוּיִם דְּרוֹר, וְלַאֲסוּרִים פְּקַח-קוֹחַ. ב לִקְרֹא שְׁנַת-רָצוֹן לַיהוָה, וְיוֹם נָקָם לֵאלֹהֵינוּ, לְנַחֵם, כָּל-אֲבֵלִים. ג לָשׂוּם לַאֲבֵלֵי צִיּוֹן, לָתֵת לָהֶם פְּאֵר תַּחַת אֵפֶר שֶׁמֶן שָׂשׂוֹן תַּחַת אֵבֶל--מַעֲטֵה תְהִלָּה, תַּחַת רוּחַ כֵּהָה; וְקֹרָא לָהֶם אֵילֵי הַצֶּדֶק, מַטַּע יְהוָה לְהִתְפָּאֵר.

1. The spirit of the Lord God was upon me, since the Lord anointed me to bring tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to declare freedom for the captives, and for the prisoners to free from captivity. 2. To declare a year of acceptance for the Lord and a day of vengeance for our God, to console all mourners. 3. To place for the mourners of Zion, to give them glory instead of ashes, oil of joy instead of mourning, a mantle of praise instead of a feeble spirit, and they shall be called the elms of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, with which to glory.

At the end of Sefer Ahava Rambam is setting the mood for Sefer Z'manim. The adorer of Sefer Ahava yearns for the rapturous encounter of the chagim but in place of joy there is mourning. After Tisha B'av how can there be Rosh HaShana, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Sh'mini Atzeret, etc.! Every yom tov is tinged with sadness. This verse from Eikha (5:15) sums it up perfectly:

טו שָׁבַת מְשׂוֹשׂ לִבֵּנוּ, נֶהְפַּךְ לְאֵבֶל מְחֹלֵנוּ.

15. The joy of our heart has ceased, our dancing has turned into mourning.

Rambam's message is clear. The choice of "נָחַלְתִּי עֵדְו‍ֹתֶיךָ לְעוֹלָם: כִּי-שְׂשׂוֹן לִבִּי הֵמָּה." to crown Sefer Z'manim is perfect. It both captures the joyous spirit of the yamim tovim and the sorrow of the ששון not yet attained because (Eikha 5:2) " נַחֲלָתֵנוּ נֶהֶפְכָה לְזָרִים, בָּתֵּינוּ לְנָכְרִים. " - " Our heritage has been turned over to strangers, our houses to aliens. ".

This is clearly reflected in Hilkhot Ta'aniyot, the Laws of Fasts. In the fifth chapter he discusses the laws of those days which we fast to mourn the tragedies of our past. In the last halakha of this chapter he writes:

יט כל הצומות האלו, עתידים ליבטל לימות המשיח; ולא עוד, אלא שהם עתידים להיות ימים טובים וימי ששון ושמחה, שנאמר "כה אמר ה' צבאות, צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה, ולמועדים, טובים; והאמת והשלום, אהבו" (זכריה ח,יט).

All the fasts, they are, in the future, to be nullified, in the days of the Mashiach; not only that, but they are, in the future, to be yamim tovim and days of ששון and שמחה, as it says (Z'charia 8:19) "So said the Lord of Hosts: The fast of the fourth [month], the fast of the fifth [month], the fast of the seventh [month], and the fast of the tenth [month] shall be for the house of Judah for joy and happiness and for happy holidays-but love truth and peace. "

In upcoming posts I will discuss how this same theme is expressed in Hilkhot Chametz uMatza and also in Hilkhot Megilla.

__________________________________________________________

1 22 total, not including the 27 variation of the shoresh שיש and 17 instances of משוש; most being in Yishayahu and Yirmiyahu, third place going to Tehillim, fourth place - Esther, and Z'charia and Yoel tying for fifth place with one example.

Chakham David Byrne

2008-01-02T00:59:00.000-05:00

I have often tried to understand the different prohibitions concerning music. There is some discussion concerning whether it makes a difference if the music is live or recorded. I just read an excellent article by David Byrne in this month's Wired that really put matters into perspective:

What is music?
First, a definition of terms. What is it we're talking about here? What exactly is being bought and sold? In the past, music was something you heard and experienced — it was as much a social event as a purely musical one. Before recording technology existed, you could not separate music from its social context. Epic songs and ballads, troubadours, courtly entertainments, church music, shamanic chants, pub sing-alongs, ceremonial music, military music, dance music — it was pretty much all tied to specific social functions. It was communal and often utilitarian. You couldn't take it home, copy it, sell it as a commodity (except as sheet music, but that's not music), or even hear it again. Music was an experience, intimately married to your life. You could pay to hear music, but after you did, it was over, gone — a memory.

Technology changed all that in the 20th century. Music — or its recorded artifact, at least — became a product, a thing that could be bought, sold, traded, and replayed endlessly in any context. This upended the economics of music, but our human instincts remained intact. I spend plenty of time with buds in my ears listening to recorded music, but I still get out to stand in a crowd with an audience. I sing to myself, and, yes, I play an instrument (not always well).

We'll always want to use music as part of our social fabric: to congregate at concerts and in bars, even if the sound sucks; to pass music from hand to hand (or via the Internet) as a form of social currency; to build temples where only "our kind of people" can hear music (opera houses and symphony halls); to want to know more about our favorite bards — their love lives, their clothes, their political beliefs. This betrays an eternal urge to have a larger context beyond a piece of plastic. One might say this urge is part of our genetic makeup.

I found this article on Yeshivat Har Etzion's web site that nicely puts the issur shira into perspective.

Keep Your Minhagim or Forget Havdala(or, It's Not A Bright Idea to Change Your Minhagim)

2007-12-25T17:05:00.000-05:00

I just came across this תשובה in ר' דוד צבי הופמן's, David Zvi Hoffman's, (1843-1921) מלמד להועיל. It is the last תשובה in או"ח. He gives a very interesting reason for keeping one's מנהג even after deciding that it makes more sense to change one's practice after careful analysis.

At first it seemed to me that he decided to keep his old מנהג for capricious reasons. However, after some thought I think I see what his reasoning was.

I will write down my thoughts after the text of the תשובה.

שאלה: במוצאי שבת חנוכה איזו יקדים, הבדלה או נר חנוכה.

תשובה: הלא ידעתי כי זה הוא פלוגתא בין הרמ"א והט"ז /או"ח/ בסי' תרפ"א דלרמ"א מדליק ואח"כ מבדיל ולט"ז הבדלה קודם לנר חנוכה והסכים עמו הפרמ"ג ובעל החו"ת דעת בדרך החיים ועוד פוסקים ובאשר כי הדרך החיים נתפשט במדינות אלו כבר נתפשט המנהג כט"ז, אולם המ"א הסכים לרמ"א, רק בלא הבדיל בש"ע =בשמונה עשרה= פסק דיבדיל תחילה והאליה רבה פסק דאפילו לא הבדיל בחונן הדעת יאמר המבדיל וידליק תחלה; וגם בחיי אדם פסק כרמ"א וכא"ר. והנה אני מתחילה כאשר באתי הנה לבערלין התחלתי לנהוג כט"ז וכן נהגתי כ"ה שנים, ואח"כ ראיתי בעיון בספר אליה רבא שדחה דברי הט"ז בטוב טעם ודעת, והסכמתי בדעתי לנהוג כרמ"א ולהדליק תחילה, בשגם שבמוצאי שבת תמיד עד שבאתי לביתי והבדלתי היה יותר מחצי שעה אחר לילה, וע"כ חשבתי כי טוב להדליק תחילה, כי אז אפשר שאדליק טרם יעבור חצי שעה משחשכה. אולם כאשר העליתי זאת על לבי איתרמי ששכחתי הבדלה בחונן הדעת, וגם הצבור האריכו במעריב עד שבין כך ובין כך הייתי מוכרח להדליק חצי שעה אחר הלילה, וכיון ששכחתי להבדיל בש"ע הוכרחתי כדי לצאת ידי דעת המג"א להבדיל תחילה ולהדליק אח"כ. ע"כ אמרתי בלבי שמן השמים הוא שלא אשנה את מנהגי והסכמתי לנהוג כמקדם כדברי הט"ז, כי קושיות הא"ר יש ליישב אחרי עיון היטב ועי' שאילת יעב"ץ ח"א סי' נ"ב.

I think that there are two parts to his reasoning to keep the מנהג. The fact that he ended up coming home after the 30 minutes means that one of the factors that went into his original reasoning was wrong. The fact that he forgot to say havdala in his tefilla - which I am sure was a rare occurrence for him - put him into a position which would force him to say havdala first, suggesting possible hashgachic intervention forcing him (or giving him another chance) to reconsider his decision (and sure enough he saw that the reasoning of the א"ר was not impenetrable). Or it might suggest that he wasn't so confident about his own reasoning, or felt uneasy about changing a minhag he had kept for 25 years - think Freud (1856-1939). Of course, I am not trying to 'psychologize' R' Hoffman; I only mean to suggest that he was sensitive to his own reservations that were revealed through his forgetfulness and acted in an intelligent way.

תולדות

2007-11-07T22:07:00.000-05:00

The following are some of my thoughts on the word תולדות which is arguably the מילת מנחה, leitwort (see this chapter from Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom's book, Between the Lines of the Bible also see this article concerning Prof. Yehuda Elitzur's methodology)

of ספר בראשית.

אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ

What does the תורה mean when it uses the phrase "אלה תולדות"¹? An analysis of most of the examples of this word in תנ"ך would suggest that it introduces the genealogy of a particular person (for future reference, we will call these the "simple cases"). However, one only need look as far as the first appearance of this word in the חומש (B'reishit 2:4) to recognize the shortcomings of this translation.

ד אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם: בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת ה' אֱלֹקים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם.

These are the תולדות of the heavens and the earth: on the day Hashem, God made, earth and heavens.

Simply put, Heavens and Earth do not have children. It can be suggested that in this case, תולדות is being used poetically - true, Heavens and Earth do not have children in the literal sense, but, figuratively, Adam and Chava are children of the Earth - being formed from the ground - and children of Heavens - G' "blew" the breath of life into their nostrils². However, this only begs the question - why use this figure of speech?

I believe the point is to take our focus off Adam and Chava and place it on the "grand scheme of Creation". The תורה is trying to tell us what here is most significant. The story of גן עדן is not fundamentally about Adam and Chava. Rather, it is the story of how the Heavens and Earth develop into their most excellent product, mankind - even with all its shortcomings.

This gives us a new insight into how to understand this word in the "simple cases". "אלה תולדות" points to the most significant products resulting from a man's efforts - children (and, in every case, at least, grandchildren). What about all of a person's great deeds? Can they not be more significant than children? The truth is, as great as a person's deeds might be, if he has no child to inherit him and continue in his ways all his great deeds will be but a memory. As our father Avraham says (15:2-3),

ב וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם, אֲדֹנָי ה' מַה-תִּתֶּן-לִי, וְאָנֹכִי, הוֹלֵךְ עֲרִירִי; וּבֶן-מֶשֶׁק בֵּיתִי, הוּא דַּמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶר. ג וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם--הֵן לִי, לֹא נָתַתָּה זָרַע; וְהִנֵּה בֶן-בֵּיתִי, יוֹרֵשׁ אֹתִי.

Avram said, my Master, Hashem, what shall you give? I go about barren and the steward of my house, he is the Damascene, Eliezer. And Avram said, "Behold, to me you have given no seed, and a member of my household will inherit that which is mine.

תולדות אברהם?

One major question is why are there no תולדות אברהם? Throughout ספר בראשית shortly after the תורה mentions the death of an "אב תולדות" it begins the next "אלה תולדות"³. The תולדות תרח must end when he dies (11:32). I believe the answer is simple. At that point in the narrative אברהם is, in fact, a different person אברם. This אברם can not have תולדות because his wife is barren:

כט וַיִּקַּח אַבְרָם וְנָחוֹר לָהֶם, נָשִׁים: שֵׁם אֵשֶׁת-אַבְרָם, שָׂרָי, וְשֵׁם אֵשֶׁת-נָחוֹר מִלְכָּה, בַּת-הָרָן אֲבִי-מִלְכָּה וַאֲבִי יִסְכָּה. ל וַתְּהִי שָׂרַי, עֲקָרָה: אֵין לָהּ, וָלָד.

Avram and Nachor took for themselves wives; the name of the wife of Avram, Sarai; the name of the wife of Nachor, Milka, daughter of Haran, father of Milka and father of Yiska. And Sarai was barren; she had no offspring.

It is interesting to note that the תורה redundantly uses the expression, " אֵין לָהּ, וָלָד", translated here as, "she had no offspring" as opposed to the equally meaningful "אין לה בן" . The word used for offspring is " וָלָד" from the shoresh, י.ל.ד, the same shoresh of תולדות, reinforcing our suggestion that אברם has no תולדות. This begs the question, once again - why not begin תולדות אברהם once his name is changed and he has children⁴? I believe the תורה is teaching a significant idea about אברהם. All of the other אבות⁵ in ספר בראשית are biological אב to their children and as an outgrowth of this role the spiritual/intellectual אב of his children and grandchildren and so on. The phrase "אלה תולדות" includes within its scope those events that directly bear upon his biological descendants and bear the stamp of his intellectual/spiritual אבהות/מנהיגות, fatherhood/leadership. Those תולדות end when the next אב becomes independant of his own father. Concerning אברהם, however, the תורה does not want to limit his impact to only his biological descendants. This seems to be indicated in Hashem's first ברכה of אברהם(B'reishit 12:3):

ג וַאֲבָרְכָה, מְבָרְכֶיךָ, וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ, אָאֹר; וְנִבְרְכוּ בְךָ, כֹּל מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָאֲדָמָה.

And I will bless those who bless you and he who curses you, I will curse; and through you will be blessed all the families of the earth.

"All the families of the earth" are to be blessed through אברהם through his intellectual/spiritual legacy - this is not limited to his biological descendants. The רמב"ם discusses this idea in one of his תשובות to עובדיה הגר, Ovadia the Proselyte (here is a link to the complete תשובה)

פריימן, הוצאת "מקיצי נרדמים", התרצ"ד, סימן מב

...נמצא שאברהם אבינו ע"ה הוא אב לזרעו הכשרים ההולכים בדרכיו ואב לתלמידיו וכל גר שיתגייר. לפיכך יש לך לומר "אלוקינו ואלוקי אבותינו", שאברהם ע"ה הוא אביך. ויש לך לומר "שהנחלת את אבותינו", שלאברהם ניתנה הארץ, שנאמר "קום התהלך בארץ לארכה ולרחבה, כי לך אתננה" (בראשית יג,יז)

(My paraphrase/translation:)

Avraham, our father, is the father of his uncorrupted children who follow his ways. He is the father to his students and to every convert. Therefore, in your prayers you should say, "Our G' and the G' of our forefathers", because Avraham is your [referring to Ovadia] father. You should also say (in the Birkat HaMazon), "Who caused your forefathers to inherit...", because the land was given to Avraham, as it says, "Get up, traverse the land by its length and width, for I give it to you." (B'reishit 13:17).

Footnotes
___________________________________________________________

1And in one case, "זה ספר תולדות אדם" (B'reishit 5:1).

2This possibility is suggested in the דעת מקרא.

3See, B'reishit 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, 36:9, 37:2. 2:4, the introduction to the story of Gan Eden and 5:1, the introduction to the genealogy of Adam down to Noach obviously can not bear this characteristic.

4It is not unusual for תולדות to begin even after all or some of an אב's children are mentioned - see, 5:1, 10:1, 11:10 and most notably, 6:9, 11:27 and 37:2.

5I use this term in its broader sense to include not only Yitzchak and Ya'akov, but also, Noach, Shem, Cham, Yefet, Terach and Yishmael and Eisav.

The Mishna as Teacher's Resource

2007-10-11T23:34:00.000-04:00

The following is from the Rambam's introduction to the Mishne Torah. In this selection he discusses what R' Yehuda HaNasi did and why. I will paraphrase each halacha and make note of some of the significant ideas. (The paraphrases will be in blue; the notes in black)

יב רבנו הקדוש חיבר המשנה. ומימות משה ועד רבנו הקדוש, לא חיברו חיבור שמלמדין אותו ברבים בתורה שבעל פה; אלא בכל דור ודור, ראש בית דין או נביא שיהיה באותו הדור, כותב לעצמו זיכרון בשמועות ששמע מרבותיו, והוא מלמד על פה ברבים.

The Rambam explains that before Rabbeinu HaKadosh, R' Yehuda HaNasi, wrote the Mishna none of the ba'alei mesora wrote a chibur, a compilation, that they used to teach Torah Sh'ba'al Peh to the public. In every generation the ba'al mesora would write his own private notes to remember what he learned from his own teachers. He, then, would give oral instruction to the public - meaning, no "official" text was used when he delivered his lessons. [Note that the Rambam never construes the Mishna as a book that would simply be read. Rather, he refers to it as a compilation that would be published for public use, to serve as the basis for public lessons. In other words, the Mishna was never meant to be a written version of the Torah Sh'ba'al Peh.]

יג וכן כל אחד ואחד כותב לעצמו כפי כוחו, מביאור התורה ומהלכותיה כמו ששמע, ומדברים שנתחדשו בכל דור ודור, בדינים שלא למדום מפי השמועה אלא במידה משלוש עשרה מידות והסכימו עליהן בית דין הגדול. וכן היה הדבר תמיד, עד רבנו הקדוש.

And so, every single ba'al mesora would write his own notes recording the explanations of the Torah and the halachot that he learned, and any new laws that were derived using one of the 13 midot. This is the way it was until the time of Rabbeinu HaKadosh.

יד והוא קיבץ כל השמועות וכל הדינין וכל הביאורין והפירושין ששמעו ממשה רבנו, ושלמדו בית דין של כל דור ודור, בכל התורה כולה; וחיבר מהכול ספר המשנה. ושיננו ברבים, ונגלה לכל ישראל; וכתבוהו כולם, וריבצו בכל מקום, כדי שלא תשתכח תורה שבעל פה מישראל.

He gathered all of the traditions, laws and explanations that were heard from Moshe Rabbeinu and that each beit din taught in each generation. He taught publicly and revealed it to all of Israel (he published it). They all wrote it down and it spread to every place, such that the Torah Sh'ba'al Peh would not be forgotten.

I can not emphasize enough, that even though Rabbeinu HaKadosh published the Mishna he continued to teach. In brief:

The Mishna was never meant to be a stand alone text.

Is this a critique of the study of Mishna as an stand alone text? Yes.

Can the Mishna still be used in-line with Rabbeinu HaKadosh's original intent? I am not sure.

In another post, I will take up the next halakha in which the Rambam explains why Rabbeinu HaKadosh had to publish the Mishna.

Who Is The Mishna For?

2007-08-20T18:57:00.001-04:00

I would like to share some thoughts I have had while preparing the first chapter of Mesekhet Pesachim for the class I was supposed to teach this year.

General Observations

The general topic of the first three mishnayot of Mesekhet Pesachim is bedikat chametz, searching for chametz. Let us consider the specific issues that are dealt with in each mishna:

First Mishna

1) When, 2) With what tool, 3) What places require bedika

4) Bedika of a wine cellar: a) kind of cellar, b) extent of bedika

Second Mishna

5) That we are not concerned that a weasel dragged chametz from a non-baduk place to a baduk place

Third Mishna

6) The requirement of Bedika beyond the time of biur

7) How to handle the chametz that remains after bedika

The Problem

When a student opens up to the first page of Mesekhet Pesachim he is confronted with a host of issues. I will try to present some of the issues he might grapple with - though perhaps never actually put into words. 1) This mesecheta begins with the topic of bedikat chametz. Why does Mesekhet Pesachim begin with this topic? 2) The Torah says nothing about doing bedika - why, then, is bedikat chametz required at all? 3) Are there books that I should have read before this Mesekhta? 4) How does bedika fit into the general system of Pesach? 5) Most of the topics (1-3 and 5-7) discussed in the first three mishnayot are very general principles of bedika or at least easily lend themselves to generalization; only one of them (4) seems to delve into a very specific issue. Is the goal of the mishna to teach general principles or deal with specific problematic cases? 6) Who is the Mishna's intended reader?

The Mishna does not provide us with any way of answering the above mentioned questions. As a book, the Mishna seems greatly lacking. How can this be? This question would not be as bothersome if we were talking about some other book; we would simply say that it is a poorly written book. However, the Mishna is considered the seminal work of Torah Sh'ba'al Peh! How could such a book be so lacking?

The Solution

The problem is with our assumption. The mishna is not a regular book. It was never meant as a complete presentation of Torah Sh'ba'al Peh. Its purpose was to save Torah Sh'ba'al Peh from being forgotten. R' Yehuda HaNasi achieved this by providing the ba'alei mesora with a tool, not by writing a complete presentation. We should not expect comprehensiveness from such a book just as we would not expect comprehensiveness from a great professor's class notes. Let me explain:

Imagine a great professor - let us say, the greatest of his generation - of physics, mathematics, psychology, etc., faced with the following imaginary (though possible) scenario. After hundreds of years of professors teaching the subject to countless numbers of students the day comes - for whatever reason - that many students lose interest. Lecture halls that were once filled to capacity with hopeful graduate students lie mostly unused. Semesters pass without enough students to offer many of the graduate level classes. The would-be professors can not get the experience needed to become master-teachers. Even some elements of the field face the real possibility of being forgotten or misunderstood without the infusion of young talented minds.

This professor observes this dreadful situation and sets himself about the task of saving his beloved discipline from oblivion. He is fortunate because he still has colleagues who are masters of his field. What he decides his colleagues need are lecture notes covering every area of his field. With these notes his colleagues will have a resource with which they can guide their lectures, but more importantly they will have a way of checking that they have not omitted, in these lectures, any element necessary for a complete knowledge of their field.

As for sources, the great professor would use his own notes to form his compilation but would also make use of other master teachers' notes. If he possessed a copy of his own teacher's notes he would most likely make extensive use of them in the formulation of his compilation. The great professor would also be sure to include the major debates current in his field.

Of course, the great professor's compilation would find its main use in the hands of his colleague professors. Being a compilation of notes they are sketchy and incomplete by design - their intention being a guide for professors (this, of course, does not mean that the students would not get a copy, or at least have access to a copy). If a professor were to merely dictate these notes to a student - or if the students were to simply read the notes - very little would be understood. Teacher's notes serve as a guide for instruction not as the instruction itself. The job of teaching would still be in the hands of the professor.

This is, in effect, exactly what R' Yehuda HaNasi did. In another post I will complete this comparison using selections from Rambam's introduction to the Mishne Torah.

The Insight Part II

2007-08-15T17:58:00.000-04:00

Finally, here is the rest of "the insight".

I would like to clarify two terms before I begin.

1) Demonstration is the name of the art of true reasoning (which includes deduction and induction).

2) Dialectic, or argumentation, is the art of reasoning from reputable opinions.

Places For Dialecticians

Why are the schemes used in argumentation called places more than any other thinking skills that one commits to memory? Think of the difference between the shopping list and the characteristics of dogs. The shopping list is unordered by nature and must artificially be given an order through the 'place' technique. The characteristics of dogs are naturally ordered - as the mind grasps the abstract nature of the dog each characteristic finds its place in the mind and is, consequently, remembered.

The Topics is concerned with reasoning from "reputable opinions". One is not naturally investigating an object of thought - one is arguing the merits of reputable opinions. By and large, those engaged in argumentation are not 'natural thinkers'. Thought is still artificial - the best that the arguer can hope for is to train himself to follow proper technique as given by a master (Aristotle, Ralbag or Ramchal) - a well ordered shopping list of argumentation, if you will.

In other words, the dialectician - not being a 'natural thinker' is in need of guidance. The purpose of the topoi and m'komot is to provide that guidance. The master provides his student with a topology of mind, a map, to guide him along the path to truth.

Topics and M'komot

In this post, I wrote what my first thoughts were after the scholar told me that makom is the translation of topos:

Ralbag's m'komot were topoi - argumentative schemes enabling the reader (who is in a sense a dialectician, building his arguments out of authoritative statements) to construe an argument for the conclusion that a specific mitzvah or shoresh can be placed on (or emerge from) a specific text.

I believe this was in essence true though lacking. What was I missing? The fundamental role of m'komot in the development of a talmid being guided by his Rav - in this case the Ralbag. Just as the topoi were the schemes by which Aristotle, as expert reasoner, guided his students to become better reasoners, so too, the m'komot are an expression of the chesed of the Ralbag, as master m'pharaish, to his talmidim guiding them through the process of peirush.

Apology

Please forgive me if I go back and make some changes. I have been a bit harried as of late which is not the best state to engage in the reflection necessary to write a good post. However, I did want to get this post up already. As usual, all critiques are welcome and greatly appreciated.

Ruach HaChein Chapter IV

2007-08-03T12:37:00.000-04:00

Chapter IV of my Ruach HaChein translation is now up:

Chapter IV

I have also added titles to each chapter. Please, as usual, let me know what you think.

The Insight Part I

2007-08-02T12:59:00.000-04:00

So what was the new insight into the nature of the m'komot as well as memory and learning that Rabbi Sacks helped me see? Due to the length of this piece I will present it in two separate posts - additionally, I believe each part is worth considering on its own (I hope to hear the results of your consideration in the comments - thank you very much).

The Question

First I will restate the question. Why does the Ralbag call his methods m'komot? When the scholar told me that he is just using the Hebrew translation of the appropriate Aristotelian term, topica/topoi I should have asked the same question on Aristotle: why does Aristotle call an "argumentative scheme which enables a dialectician or rhetorician to construe an argument for a given conclusion" a topic? The following is written in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The word ‘topos’ (place, location) most probably is derived from an ancient method of memorizing a great number of items on a list by associating them with successive places, say the houses along a street one is acquainted with. By recalling the houses along the street we can also remember the associated items...

Aristotle himself compares his topics with this memory technique:

For just as in a person with a trained memory, a memory of things themselves is immediately caused by the mere mention of their 'places', so these habits too will make a man readier in reasoning, because he has his premisses classified before his mind's eye, each under its number. (163b:28-31 trans. W.A. Pickard-Cambridge)

What exactly is the analogy? Learning different schemes of argumentation certainly will improve one's ability to argue well, making him "readier in reasoning". But how is this at all similar to the 'place' technique? I believe the key is the following phrase: "because he has his premisses classified before his mind's eye, each under its number." However, let us first consider why 'places' are useful to memory.

Places and Memories

First, one does not just use any 'places'. One uses a familiar place and preferably a place that can easily be associated with what one needs to remember. For example one might imagine the different places within one's cupboard and refrigerator to memorize a shopping list or the houses on one's block to remember the phone numbers of each family in each respective house (take a look at this excellent article to see how this method can be extended).

Additionally, and more importantly, the 'place' technique works because it is in line with the natural function of our imagination/psyche. Thought progresses from sensory experience of particulars to a general mental image. From that general mental image the intellectual faculty abstracts out the true universal nature that was embodied in the in the original sensory experience. For example, one sees, hears, feels and feels things about a dog; a general mental representation of the dog is formed which combines the different sensory experiences; after many such experiences the mental representation becomes more refined; the mind abstracts a universal formula of 'dog' out of the refined mental representation. These are the steps, in brief:

1) sense;

2) represent;

3) refine;

4) abstract.

Of course, every step must be checked by all the previous steps; i.e. one must make sure that their formula for 'dog' does not equally describe people.

As one progresses along the path of abstraction one's memory of particulars improves. In other words, at first it is difficult to remember all of the different kinds of dogs, the anatomy of dogs, all the varied behaviors of dogs, etc.; but, the more I study dogs the simpler it gets to remember all of the varied details. What once seemed like a mess of random details suddenly gains coherence, now that my "mind's eye" has 'dog glasses'. Another way of saying this is: everything has found it place. Our memories do not work well with chaos, when our thoughts become "classified", "each under its number" what was once difficult to remember becomes simple.

The purpose of Aristotle's topics is to give one familiarity with general schemes of reasoning to improve one's skill to, as he writes in the beginning of the Topics, "reason from reputable opinions about any subject presented to us, and also... when putting forward an argument, avoid saying anything contrary to it" better known as dialectic or argumentation. The more one familiarizes oneself with these topics - the more each one falls into its mental 'place' - the greater one's facility at argumentation.

In my next post I will discuss: 1) why these dialectical schemes should be called places more than any other thinking skill and 2) what this teaches us about Ralbag's Makomot.

Ralbag on Translation(Or, Think Before You Translate)

2007-07-31T11:25:00.000-04:00

In this comment Isaac wrote:

Refreshing post, really! Yet, maybe I missed... what exactly was the reconciliation between topos and maqom? Further, is the etymological relationship between the two words an agreement, or disagreement, between the epistemological approaches of Ralbag versus Aristotle? The latter of the two could sufficiently be explained by reading from a poor translation... did the Ralbag read in Arabic, Greek or French? Many things to consider.

I always enjoy when Isaac leaves a comment. I will hopefully have the insight ready for posting soon. I have decided to make my reply to Isaac - though it does not answer all his questions - into its own separate post.

It seems Ralbag's knowledge of Arabic, Latin and Greek were very limited. He was born in Bagnols, died in Perpignan and he lived in both Orange and Avignon so most likely he spoke whatever language was spoken there at that time (some form of French?). However, Ralbag was very, very sensitive to language and was very sensitive to the difficulties involved with reading translations. In his introduction to his commentary on Iyov (which is renowned for its difficult language) Ralbag spells out the fundamental principle of translation (I will do my best to translate/paraphrase):

When a work employs equivocal terms, it is proper for an interpreter/expounder (m'va'air) to guide the explanation of terms (milot) and words (teivot) according to the intention/meaning of the matters which were intended based on the general context (asher kivnu b'khlal haD'varim). If he does not first consider the meaning he will not be able to understand the proper interpretation of the terms - unless he was lucky. This is all very clear.

Nima Adlerblum writes in her, "A Study of Gersonides" (1926) pp. 32-33:

Though he had no knowledge, or at best a limited knowledge of Latin and Arabic, he often discovered both errors of expression and misinterpretation in the Aristotelian commentators. Hillel de Verona had already before Gersonides attempted to analyze and discuss the Aristotelian vocabulary. But his chief aim in this was to ply Aristotle to his own views. In Gersonides the motive was only the discovery of the objective scientific truth.

Dr. Adlerblum's comment perfectly describes the difference between a scholar and an Oheiv Hashem.

The Place of Scholarship

2007-07-30T11:58:00.000-04:00

A number of years ago I was studying the Ralbag's introduction to his commentaries on the Torah. One of the most impressive sections is his nine m'komot (see these posts for my translation of the first two). The purpose of these m'komot is to serve as ways of linking the mitzvot of the Torah and the root principles of those mitzvot (shorashim) to the words of the written Torah.

I wondered why the Ralbag would call such methods m'komot, which literally means places. Why not call them midot (which literally means measures), the term used by the Sages - as in, midot sh'haTorah nidreshet bahem? I reflected on the meaning of the word makom and came to the conclusion that a makom is not just a physical place. In its broader sense it can be thought of as that which enables placing, s'micha. So, I concluded the Ralbag must have called his methods m'komot because they enabled him (and the reader) lismoch, to place, or rest, the principles of the mitzvot on the simple meaning of the text. In English we could think of m'komot as "placers" - they help us place the principles on the best textual "places", or m'komot.

Shortly after my musings on this question I spoke with a well known Ralbag scholar. He told me that m'komot is actually a translation of the Greek word topos, meaning place - this Greek term is the source of the title to one of Aristotle's works: The Topics. The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (this is the link to the specific article) gives the following definition of topos:

Generally speaking, an Aristotelian topos (‘place’, ‘location’) is an argumentative scheme which enables a dialectician or rhetorician to construe an argument for a given conclusion.

This scholar's explanation seemed to put the question to rest and as nice as my theory seemed to me the facts were the facts. Ralbag's m'komot were topoi - argumentative schemes enabling the reader (who is in a sense a dialectician, building his arguments out of authoritative statements) to construe an argument for the conclusion that a specific mitzvah or shoresh can be placed on (or emerge from) a specific text. I was very happy after this discussion and was thankful that the scholar had identified that a makom was a topos - I will refer to this kind of explanation as saying "a this is a this".

I let the matter rest for a number of years until this past Shabbat Nachamu. Rabbi Rambam System recently moved into my neighborhood and he was at my house learning with me. As can be seen from his blog, he is currently very focused on the Ralbag's m'komot. He helped me see a fundamental error that I made and also gave me new insight into the nature of the m'komot as well as memory and learning. In this post I will discuss my error.

My Error

The scholar had shown me that a makom is a topos (a this is a this) but this still leaves one begging the question: why is a topos called a topos, a place in the first place (sorry for the bad pun)? What does place have to do with dialectical argumentative schemes? When the scholar told me that a this was really a this my mind became closed to any further investigation. After all, the scholar told me that a this was a this, what more need be said? To give scholars some credit, scholars are in doubt about this very question (as can be seen here on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Perhaps my original theory was not so bad. However, it clearly needed refining based on the new facts that the scholar provided. Unfortunately, once I heard that a this was a this I stopped thinking.

I often find this problem with "scholarship". Scholarship is very good at establishing facts, saying this is a this but when it comes to asking, "what of it?", it often falls short. It is as if once things have been placed into neat categories, and identifications have been made, and data has been put into patterns nothing more need be done or said. Is the amassment and organization of facts the totality of intellectual investigation? Sadly, that which should be a boon to investigation often becomes its pallbearer.

In a upcoming post I will discuss the new insight.

Improved Translation of the Four Levels of the Theoretical Intellect in the Ruach HaChein

2007-07-04T20:21:00.001-04:00

As you can see from the lengthy title of this post, I have improved the translation of the four levels of the theoretical intellect in the third chapter of the Ruach HaChein. I made these improvements as a result of Rabbi Maroof's critique that the second level was unclear. I believe that I have improved that entire section. I can not emphasize enough the value of your critiques. Additionally, I have made some minor improvements to the second chapter - such as the break down of the sections.

Check it out:

Ruach HaChein

As always, please be generous with your critiques and suggestions. I want this translation to be as effective as possible.

Introduction to Torah Sh'ba'al Peh

2007-06-28T10:59:00.000-04:00

I am currently preparing for the Talmud class that I will be giving this coming school year. I always like to start with a general introduction to Torah Sh'ba'al Peh. I believe the best introduction is the Rambam's introduction to the Mishna. Though the introduction to the Mishne Torah is also an excellent introduction to Torah Sh'ba'al Peh it is tailored to act as an introduction to Rambam's particular presentation of Torah Sh'ba'al Peh. If one's task is to learn/teach the other texts of Torah Sh'ba'al Peh then it would seem that the introduction to the Mishna should be one's primary choice.

My method will be to go through the text and paraphrase or translate each mini-unit/paragraph and provide whatever explanations are necessary to understand what the Rambam is doing. The Hebrew text I will be using is from the "daat.ac.il" web site (I will supplement the translation given there with R' Sheilat and R' Qafich's translations). For now, I will be skipping over the Rambam's introductory "song". Skipping over it is not meant to indicate that it is not important just that I need to think about it some more.

The Rambam begins by stating the most basic idea one must have about Torah Sh'ba'al Peh, the Oral Law, before study can begin. However, before discussing it, let me just clarify what the Rambam is not doing:

1) He is not telling us the most basic idea that the Torah (and reason) demands we have. The Rambam presents the most basic ideas we must have in his Hakdama to Chelek and Hilchot Y'sodei HaTorah, The Laws of the Foundations of the Torah (really, all of Sefer HaMada, The Book of the Knowledge). To begin studying the Torah one must already possess the y'sodot, the foundations (after all, you are only allowed to teach Torah to a Yisrael who is a Talmid Hagun - we will assume for now that my students meet those criteria).

2) Additionally, the Rambam is not telling us the most basic ideas we need to study Torah Sh'bichtav, the Written Law.

He is, however, telling us the most basic idea of Torah Sh'ba'al Peh: what it is.

דע, כי כל מצווה שנתן הקב"ה למשה רבנו ע"ה, נתנה לו בפירושה: היה אומר לו המצווה, ואחר כך אומר לו פירושה ועניינה, וכל מה שהוא כולל ספר התורה.

All the mitzvot that God gave to Moshe Rabbeinu, A"H, were given with peirush, explanation. God would tell Moshe the mitzvah and afterwards would tell him its peirush, explanation.

As Rav Sheilat writes in his commentary on the Hakdama to the Mishna (my paraphrase/translation): "The Torah Sh'ba'al Peh transforms the mitzvah from a vague/intangible (Artila'i) idea to a practicable teaching/instruction." This is why the Torah Sh'ba'al Peh is properly called Mitzvah, command in the Hakdama to the Mishne Torah:

א כל המצוות שניתנו לו למשה בסיניי--בפירושן ניתנו, שנאמר "ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן, והתורה והמצוה" (שמות כד,יב): "תורה", זו תורה שבכתב; ו"מצוה", זה פירושה. וציוונו לעשות התורה, על פי המצוה. ומצוה זו, היא הנקראת תורה שבעל פה.

All the mitzvot that were given to Moshe on Sinai -- they were given with their peirush, explanation. As it says, "And I will give you the stone tablets, the Torah and the Mitzvah. "Torah" - this is Torah Sh'bichtav. "Mitzvah" - this is peirushah, its explanation. We are commanded to do the Torah in accordance with the Mitzvah. This "Mitzvah" is called Torah Sh'ba'al Peh.

In other words, only the peirush which facilitates "doing" is called Torah Sh'ba'al Peh - "This "Mitzvah" is called Torah Sh'ba'al Peh" - and no other. Without the "do" it is just an "explanation".

This is not an ad. for Mountain Dew/Do but it's a good mnemonic nonetheless.

OgPart I

2007-06-27T10:41:00.000-04:00

In preparation for an essay in which I would like to explain the meaning of some of the midrashim about Og, I would like to go through what the Torah has to say about this "giant". My method will be to go through the verses and paraphrase each mini-unit/paragraph of text. Along the way, I will try to make note of some the more interesting elements that could easily be missed in a cursory reading.

Disclaimer: please consider this as a rough first reading. Any critiques or suggestions will be appreciated.

It seems, as with many of the events in the Torah, that it all goes back to the B'rit Bein HaBetarim. At the conclusion of that B'rit, God assured Avraham that his descendants would inherit the land of Canaan. However, this inheritance had to be delayed until the "sin of the Emori is complete" (not to exclude the other reasons it was delayed).

וְדוֹר רְבִיעִי, יָשׁוּבוּ הֵנָּה: כִּי לֹא-שָׁלֵם עֲו‍ֹן הָאֱמֹרִי, עַד-הֵנָּה. (בר' טו.טז)

Finally, in the twenty-first chapter of B'midbar (vv. 21-35) the day seems to have arrived:

כא וַיִּשְׁלַח יִשְׂרָאֵל מַלְאָכִים, אֶל-סִיחֹן מֶלֶךְ-הָאֱמֹרִי לֵאמֹר. כב אֶעְבְּרָה בְאַרְצֶךָ, לֹא נִטֶּה בְּשָׂדֶה וּבְכֶרֶם--לֹא נִשְׁתֶּה, מֵי בְאֵר: בְּדֶרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ נֵלֵךְ, עַד אֲשֶׁר-נַעֲבֹר גְּבֻלֶךָ.

Israel sent messengers (note the similarity to B'reishit 32:4: "וַיִּשְׁלַח יַעֲקֹב מַלְאָכִים לְפָנָיו, אֶל-עֵשָׂו "אָחִיו, אַרְצָה שֵׂעִיר, שְׂדֵה אֱדוֹם) to Sichon king of the Emori requesting passage through his land - giving him their word that they would stay on the King's Highway and not tread on anyone's field, or vineyard, or drink from any wells. However, he did not consent:

כג וְלֹא-נָתַן סִיחֹן אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, עֲבֹר בִּגְבֻלוֹ, וַיֶּאֱסֹף סִיחֹן אֶת-כָּל-עַמּוֹ וַיֵּצֵא לִקְרַאת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמִּדְבָּרָה, וַיָּבֹא יָהְצָה; וַיִּלָּחֶם, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.

Even more shockingly he seemed to perceive Israel as a threat and gathered "his entire nation" to the desert and waged war against them! However, he was not triumphant:

כד וַיַּכֵּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְפִי-חָרֶב; וַיִּירַשׁ אֶת-אַרְצוֹ מֵאַרְנֹן, עַד-יַבֹּק עַד-בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן--כִּי עַז, גְּבוּל בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן. כה וַיִּקַּח, יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֵת כָּל-הֶעָרִים, הָאֵלֶּה; וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל-עָרֵי הָאֱמֹרִי, בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן וּבְכָל-בְּנֹתֶיהָ.

Israel soundly defeated them and took possession of his entire land to the border of Amon. They also took hold of the cities and settled in them - this included Cheshbon and all its provinces. In high poetic style the Torah proceeds to explain how Cheshbon came to belong to Sichon:

כו כִּי חֶשְׁבּוֹן--עִיר סִיחֹן מֶלֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִי, הִוא; וְהוּא נִלְחַם, בְּמֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב הָרִאשׁוֹן, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-כָּל-אַרְצוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, עַד-אַרְנֹן. כז עַל-כֵּן יֹאמְרוּ הַמֹּשְׁלִים, בֹּאוּ חֶשְׁבּוֹן; תִּבָּנֶה וְתִכּוֹנֵן, עִיר סִיחוֹן. כח כִּי-אֵשׁ יָצְאָה מֵחֶשְׁבּוֹן, לֶהָבָה מִקִּרְיַת סִיחֹן: אָכְלָה עָר מוֹאָב, בַּעֲלֵי בָּמוֹת אַרְנֹן. כט אוֹי-לְךָ מוֹאָב, אָבַדְתָּ עַם-כְּמוֹשׁ; נָתַן בָּנָיו פְּלֵיטִם וּבְנֹתָיו בַּשְּׁבִית, לְמֶלֶךְ אֱמֹרִי סִיחוֹן. ל וַנִּירָם אָבַד חֶשְׁבּוֹן, עַד-דִּיבֹן; וַנַּשִּׁים עַד-נֹפַח, אֲשֶׁר עַד-מֵידְבָא.

After this poetic interlude the Torah repeats that Israel settled in the land of the Emori (I consider this the beginning of the second half of the story.):

לא וַיֵּשֶׁב, יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּאֶרֶץ, הָאֱמֹרִי.

Now, the Torah shifts its focus from Israel (note that only Israel has been mentioned up to this point) to Moshe. Moshe sent spies - most likely they were spies, however, the Torah leaves out the indirect-object leaving us to fill it in based on context (I can only wonder why the Torah would not want to mention spies (m'raglim) - hmm) - on a reconnaissance mission to gather information on Ya'zeir and "they" (most likely Israel - again, the Torah is somewhat ambiguous) captured all of its provinces and uprooted the Emori that were there:

לב וַיִּשְׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לְרַגֵּל אֶת-יַעְזֵר, וַיִּלְכְּדוּ בְּנֹתֶיהָ; ויירש (וַיּוֹרֶשׁ), אֶת-הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר-שָׁם.

Next, "they" turned and went up by way of Bashan:

לג וַיִּפְנוּ, וַיַּעֲלוּ, דֶּרֶךְ, הַבָּשָׁן; וַיֵּצֵא עוֹג מֶלֶךְ-הַבָּשָׁן לִקְרָאתָם הוּא וְכָל-עַמּוֹ, לַמִּלְחָמָה--אֶדְרֶעִי.

Og, the king of Bashan came out to "greet them" - he, and his entire nation for war. (Note how the Torah emphasises Og's presence at the battle by singling him out with the word "הוא (he)", "he, and his entire nation" went out to battle.)

לד וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אַל-תִּירָא אֹתוֹ--כִּי בְיָדְךָ נָתַתִּי אֹתוֹ וְאֶת-כָּל-עַמּוֹ, וְאֶת-אַרְצוֹ; וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ--כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ לְסִיחֹן מֶלֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִי, אֲשֶׁר יוֹשֵׁב בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן. לה וַיַּכּוּ אֹתוֹ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו וְאֶת-כָּל-עַמּוֹ, עַד-בִּלְתִּי הִשְׁאִיר-לוֹ שָׂרִיד; וַיִּירְשׁוּ, אֶת-אַרְצוֹ.

Before the battle, God instructed Moshe to not be afraid of him (meaning Og) because He had delivered him (Og) and his entire nation and his land into his (Moshe's) hand. God assured Moshe that he would do to him (Og) what he did to Sichon, king of the Emori, who dwells in Cheshbon (The Torah's use of the "present tense" is most probably explained by the fact that, technically, there are no tenses in BH. As in bonei Yerushalayim, the "present tense" can also be used as a noun - this is called a participle, meaning, it participates, or partakes, in the nature of both a noun (as an adjective) and a verb. Check out this article for a nice, simple explanation of tenses in BH). Indeed, Moshe struck Og and his sons (who we hear about, now, for the first time) and his nation to the point that no one remained. And they took possession of Og's land.

Third Chapter of Ruach HaChein is Up

2007-06-24T19:39:00.000-04:00

All of chapter three is now up. I have also made minor improvements throughout and the web address has changed. This is the new link:

Ruach HaChein

I look forward to your critiques and suggestions.

Enjoy!

The Rationality and Non-Rationality of Midrashim

2007-06-23T21:56:00.000-04:00

The following is a post I wrote for Matt's blog, Kankan Chadash, as it appears there (the one thing I changed is the title). If you want to comment, please do it over there (unless you really want to say something here).

The following is a response by Yehuda to points raised by Chana in the comments on the post entitled "Can Animals Speak?" Chana asserted "The aggadah is not rational. Neither are midrashim" (please see the comments there for the full context of this quote). The following is Yehuda's response.

I would like to take up the following two issues concerning midrashim and aggadot: 1) Should they be taken literally? 2) Are they some how not rational?

1) To make any absolute statements about midrashim is risky. Midrashic literature is vast and varied. Obviously, some are to be taken literally and some are clearly allegorical. Admittedly, it is not always easy to discern. Because of this difficulty one must take great care to not misrepresent the authors of these midrashim. Any misrepresentation of our sages is a grave injustice - all the more so, if that misrepresentation would cause people to view the rabbis as silly or foolish. For this reason, any midrash with a fantastical element must be handled with great care. I chose the word fantastical deliberately - fantasy is the product of the imagination alone - unicorns and dragons only exist in the imagination. One must ask (as one should when reading anything) what purpose such midrashim have. Truthfully, the line between the fantastic and the amazing-but-true can, at times, be hard to draw. Of course, it should be remembered that our rabbis were not in the business of writing fantasy stories. In summary, there are three kinds of midrashim: 1) ones we know are literal; 2) ones we know are allegorical; 3) ones that we are not sure about.

No matter what kind of midrash we are reading one thing is always true. Midrash is part of the Oral Law, the Torah Sh'ba'al Peh. Its purpose is to explain the Written Law, the Torah Sh'bichtav. The Torah Sh'ba'al Peh does not limit itself to explaining the commandments of our Torah (and Rabbinical enactments). It embraces everything the Torah has to teach us. The Torah Sh'bichtav includes both commandments and narrative. Similarly, the Torah Sh'ba'al Peh includes both discussions of law, halakha, and midrashim and aggadot which are often in the form of narrative. Just as the purpose of the stories in the Torah are clearly meant to enlighten and educate us, so to the midrashim and aggadot of the Torah Sh'ba'al Peh. The purpose of this education could not be stated any clearer than what Moshe Rabbeinu told B'nei Yisrael at the conclusion of the last speech he gave before he passed on (D'varim 30:15-20):

"See, I have placed before you this day the life and the good and the death and the evil. That which I have commanded you this day to love Hashem, your God, to follow in His ways and to keep His commandments and statutes and judgments; and you shall live and multiply and Hashem, your God will bless you in the land that you are coming there to inherit it. And if your heart turns and you do not listen; and you will be led astray and you bow down to other gods and you serve them. I tell you today that you will surely perish; you will not have long days on the land that you are crossing over the Yarden to come there to inherit it. I make the heaven and the earth witnesses against you today: the life and the death I have placed before you, the blessing and the curse; and you shall choose the life in order that you shall live, you and your children. To love Hashem, your God, to pay heed to His voice and to attach yourself to Him; for it is your life and the length of your days to settle on the land that Hashem promised to your forefathers: to Avraham, to Yitzchak, to Ya'akov to give it to them."

The purpose of midrashim and aggadot - whether they be literal or allegorical - must have the same end as the rest of the Torah: to imbue us with a love of God that is transformative - to give us life.

2) Are midrashim rational? I am sure that you are aware that some midrashim are the actual d'rashot that our rabbis gave to their congregations. Imagine the rabbi of a large synagogue getting up in front of his congregation before the chanting of the Adon Olam. He stands before the podium and begins to describe a recent visit he made to his physician for a check-up or he gives the play-by-play of a famous baseball game or he tells us a story out of his childhood. Why is he doing this? You would know - without anyone having to tell you - that this is a normal part of a Shabbat d'rasha. You know that he is telling the story in order to teach a lesson. But why not just tell us the lesson? You know that would not be as interesting (and/or entertaining).

I would say that the story (or any other emotionally charged technique) can serve three possible functions: interest, memory and action. Interest: The rabbi, in our example, wants to keep his audience's attention (or get it in the first place). A good story will quickly get the attention of an inattentive crowd. Memory: Everyone knows that when a lesson is associated with a story that hits you emotionally it is much easier to remember. Action: Additionally (and perhaps more importantly), a good, emotionally charged story can be very moving - it can make you want to do something and not just know something (think of the word: emotion). The rabbi does not want his speech to be too cerebral - he wants his congregation to feel something about what he is saying and, perhaps, even be inspired to action (like give tzedaka).

The rabbi's speech has rational and emotional elements. The rational element, the lesson, appeals to the mind of the listener. The emotional, or non-rational, element appeals to the listener's emotions. I believe the same could be said for many midrashim. Similar to the rabbi's speech, when a midrash employs an allegory (aside from being an excellent tool to communicate deep ideas) or an anecdote it can serve a rational as well as non-rational function. The midrash might want us to feel something about the idea that it is conveying (for any of the three, above mentioned, purposes).

This dual function of midrashim should not be surprising. Neither the importance of the rational nor the importance of the non-rational should be minimized in our avodat Hashem (service of Hashem). How can we serve God without knowledge? How can we serve God if that knowledge does not inspire us and move us to action? Can one read Tehillim without feeling something? Can one study Mishlei without using his or her mind? . . . or vice versa?

In conclusion, midrashim are perfectly rational - they teach lessons that appeal to the mind. However, this does not mean that they can not serve a non-rational purpose - an appeal to the emotions.

Rabbi Sacks' New Blog

2007-06-08T09:39:00.000-04:00

There is a new link in my list of blogs.

Rambam System

For those of you who know Rabbi Sacks, enjoy! For those of you who do not, enjoy!

The focus will be on the triumvirate haK'dosha of: Rambam, Ralbag and Ramchal.

Ruah HaHen

2007-06-07T20:43:00.000-04:00

I have just put up a website that has part of my translation of Ruah HaHen. It is basically a philosophical primer meant to prepare one to study the Moreh HaNevuchim. It was written sometime in the 13th century and the author is unknown. It was quite popular back in the day.

This is the link to my translation with my notes:

Ruach HaHen

Bear in mind that this translation is far from its final form - I just wanted to share it to get some feedback. A digitized copy of the 1555 edition is available here.

Enjoy! I am looking forward to any helpful comments and critiques. My goal is to eventually publish this translation but continue to make it available for free. If anyone has any ideas how to go about finding a publisher please let me know.

Yitro Leads the Way(A Symbol of Symbiosis)

2007-06-07T12:22:00.000-04:00

The following is based on a conversation I had with Matt on Shabbat.

As many have pointed out before, the first ten chapters of B'midbar describe B'nei Yisrael's preparation for their journey to Canaan. After the "vaY'hi binsoa haAron" mini-book (see Shabbat 115a - 116b) the downward spiral of cheit begins culminating in forty years of wandering in the desert (see Rabbi Leibtag's shiur which deals nicely with this issue). Before the Torah completes its discussion of these preparation it records an a discussion that Moshe Rabbeinu had with Chovav/Yitro.

כט וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, לְחֹבָב בֶּן-רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, נֹסְעִים אֲנַחְנוּ אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אָמַר יְהוָה, אֹתוֹ אֶתֵּן לָכֶם; לְכָה אִתָּנוּ וְהֵטַבְנוּ לָךְ, כִּי-יְהוָה דִּבֶּר-טוֹב עַל-יִשְׂרָאֵל. ל וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, לֹא אֵלֵךְ: כִּי אִם-אֶל-אַרְצִי וְאֶל-מוֹלַדְתִּי, אֵלֵךְ. לא וַיֹּאמֶר, אַל-נָא תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָנוּ: כִּי עַל-כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ, חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ, לְעֵינָיִם. לב וְהָיָה, כִּי-תֵלֵךְ עִמָּנוּ: וְהָיָה הַטּוֹב הַהוּא, אֲשֶׁר יֵיטִיב יְהוָה עִמָּנוּ--וְהֵטַבְנוּ לָךְ.

Moshe asks Chovav to join B'nei Yisrael in Canaan. Chovav resists his invitation and Moshe Rabbeinu persists. What place does this conversation have in the presentation of B'nei Yisrael's travel preparations?

This is not the only oddly placed dialogue between Chovav/Yitro and Moshe Rabbeinu. Before the Torah records the events at Har Sinai (Sh'mot 19) in Parashat Yitro the Torah presents Yitro's arrival and his discussion with Moshe Rabbeinu concerning the establishment of the best court system. As others have pointed out (see R' Yonatan Grossman's essay on Parashat B'haalot'cha for another approach) the placement of these Yitro/Chovav stories forms a chiastic structure:

YITRO -- HAR SINAI -- CHOVAV

B'nei Yisrael's entire encampment at Har Sinai is bookended by these two episodes. What is the purpose of this placement?

First I will try to explain the Yitro--Har Sinai connection. At Sinai B'nei Yisrael received the Divine Laws of the Torah. This law system was like no other because its source was not the mind of man. The God-givenness of the Torah could lead to a fundamental misconception: the wisdom of man has no place in the Torah. The story of Yitro is the corrective. The Torah can not function without man's wisdom - could B'nei Yisrael be governed by the Torah with only Moshe Rabbeinu to judge them? Of course, man's wisdom must be checked by God's wisdom - Yitro gave the proviso that his advise should only be followed if God commands it (Sh'mot 18:23), "וְצִוְּךָ אֱלֹהִים". However, here the Torah gives credit to Yitro and not God's command (v. 24), "וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה, לְקוֹל חֹתְנוֹ; וַיַּעַשׂ, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אָמָר". The story of Yitro protects us from getting swept away with the Divinity of the Torah and, so to speak, lose our minds.

What is the Har Sinai--Chovav connection? There is another fallacy B'nei Yisrael had to guard themselves from as they prepared to enter Canaan: that the Torah is exclusively for them. In other words, is the Torah and the tremendous goods (both physical and spiritual) that it has to offer only for B'nei Yisrael? Loyalty to one's tribe is certainly virtuous but tribalism can not be allowed to degenerate into xenophobic exclusivism. The treasures of the Torah are not for B'nei Yisrael alone. What better demonstration of this truth than Moshe Rabbeinu's invitation to Chovav to join B'nei Yisrael and share in the good that God is to bestow upon them. Here too Moshe Rabbeinu expresses the peoples indebtedness to Chovav - he will be their eyes!

The bookending of the Yitro/Chovav stories seems to underscore the proper role B'nei Yisrael are to take amongst the nations. Not as cloistered priests living isolated from the rest of humanity but as ministering priests inspiring humanity to enjoy the true goods the Torah has to offer, להסתופף תחת כנפי השכינה. However, our connectedness to the other nations is not a one way street. Our ears can not be closed to the general wisdom of the world lest: נָבֹל תִּבֹּל--גַּם-אַתָּה, גַּם-הָעָם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר עִמָּךְ: כִּי-כָבֵד מִמְּךָ הַדָּבָר, לֹא-תוּכַל עֲשֹׂהוּ לְבַדֶּךָ.

The Chatam Sofer, Aruch Laner, Rabbi Maroof, and Little Old Me (special thanks to: Rabbi Jachter)

2007-05-15T07:39:00.000-04:00

After concluding my longest post-title yet, I commence my post:

In this post I suggested that the machloket in the Mishna between the Chakhamim and R' Shimon could be explained as a chukoteihem / Avoda Zara dichotomy (in other words, is tatooing an example of chukoteihem or Avoda Zara). In this comment, Rabbi Maroof suggested a simpler ma'aseh / cheftza dichotomy. At first I thought the Rambam was a proof to his approach and then became convinced it was actually a disproof. In Rabbi Jachter's third article on cosmetic tattoos he presages our argument and also my first and second ways of understanding the Rambam:

It is possible, however, that one violates the prohibition of Kitovet Kaaka on a biblical level only if one’s intention is for idolatry, even according to the opinion of the Chachamim. Recall that the Rambam and Tur write that the reason for the Kitovet Kaaka prohibition is to avoid idolatry. Indeed, the Chatam Sofer (commentary to Gittin 20b s.v. Bichtovet) writes that one does not violate a biblical level prohibition if he tattoos his slave in order that he should not escape (the Shach, Y.D. 180:6, seems to support this view). Maharam Schick (commentary to the Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvah 254) and Teshuvot Shoel Umeishiv (2:1:49) agree with the Chatam Sofer.
The Aruch LaNer (commentary to Makkot 21a s.v. Gam Im), on the other hand, asserts that one violates a biblical prohibition even if one’s intention is not for Avodah Zarah (idolatry). The Aruch Laner and Rav Gestetner note that the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch seem to agree with this view, as they do not mention that one violates this prohibition only if his intention is for idolatry. Moreover, Rav Gestetner notes that Tosafot (Gittin 20b s.v. Bichtovet) clearly indicates that a biblical level prohibition is violated even if one’s intention is not for Avodah Zarah.

I do not know if this machloket achronim hinges on the same point as the machloket between Rabbi Maroof and I, but the resulting approach to the Rambam is the same. Oh yeah, Rabbi Maroof finally got that label he has been wanting.

R' Jachter's Halacha Files on Tattoos

2007-05-13T20:21:00.000-04:00

I just came across three essays written by R' Chaim Jachter on the topic of cosmetic tattooing. As usual he provides an excellent overview of the pertinent halakhic literature.

Part I
Part II
Part III

Enjoy!

Patur aval Asur and Tattoos

2007-05-13T20:04:00.000-04:00

Rivan (he completed Rashi's commentary after he died starting on 19B) in Makkot 21a, commenting on the phrase, "וכתובת קעקע לא תתנו בכם" writes:

שום כתובת קעקע לא יעשו לפני, שאני ה', ואסורין אתם לכתוב שם אחר על בשרכם; אלמא עיקר חיובא - משום שם עבודת כוכבים הוא, ומיהו אסור לכתוב שום כתיבה בעולם, אפילו לרבי שמעון, אלא דחיוב מלקות ליכא

He maintains that R' Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of R' Shimon's position is only in regards to one's liability to receive מלקות. In other words, all forms of tattooing are forbidden but only tattooing the name of an idolatrous deity makes one liable to receive מלקות. It is unclear to me whether all would agree with Rivan's inference. Do we apply the terminology of Hilchot Shabbat here and say that aino chayav, or patur, implies that there is an issur? If so, then why is it that this terminology is given special attention and definition in Hilchot Shabbat - to clarify that patur means patur aval asur? I am sure someone must discuss this. Anyone have any ideas?

Tattoos and Ta'amei HaMitzvot

2007-05-13T13:16:00.000-04:00

This is the text of the Mishna and Gemara (Makkot 21A) on the topic of tattoos:

משנה

הכותב כתובת קעקע: כתב ולא קעקע, קעקע ולא כתב - אינו חייב עד שיכתוב �ויקעקע בדיו, ובכחול, ובכל דבר שהוא רושם.

רבי שמעון בן יהודה משום רבי שמעון אומר: אינו חייב עד שיכתוב שם את השֵּׁם, שנאמר (ויקרא יט,כח) "[ושרט לנפש לא תתנו בבשרכם] וּכְתֹ֣בֶת קַֽעֲקַ֔ע לֹ֥א תִתְּנ֖וּ בָּכֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י ה' "׃

גמרא

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי: עד דיכתוב " אֲנִ֖י ה' ''' ממש ?

אמר ליה: לא! כדתני בר קפרא: אינו חייב עד שיכתוב שֵׁם עבודת כוכבים, שנאמר " וּכְתֹ֣בֶת קַֽעֲקַ֔ע לֹ֥א תִתְּנ֖וּ בָּכֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י ה' " - אני ה' ולא אחר.

אמר רב מלכיא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה: אסור לו לאדם שיתן אפר מקלה על גבי מכתו מפני שנראית ככתובת קעקע.

...

רב ביבי בר אביי קפיד אפילו אריבדא דכוסילתא;

רב אשי אמר: כל מקום שיש שם מכה - מכתו מוכיח עליו.

____________________________________________________________________

Concerning tattoos the Torah states in Vayikra (19:28):

" וּכְתֹ֣בֶת קַֽעֲקַ֔ע לֹ֥א תִתְּנ֖וּ בָּכֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י ה' "

The Mishna contains an interesting dispute on the parameters of the tattoo prohibition:

The Chakhamim maintain that any form of tattoo is prohibited and therefore liable to receive מלקות.

R' Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of R' Shimon maintains that only if one writes the name of a false deity is one liable.

What is the basis for this dispute? After stating the prohibition to make a tattoo the Torah adds two words: " 'אֲנִ֖י ה ''. It seems that the Torah is giving us the ta'am for this prohibition - in other words, in translation we would add the word "because" before " 'אֲנִ֖י ה '' - to paraphrase, "Do not make tattoos because I am Hashem". This would mean that the ta'am for the prohibition of making a tattoo is that it is a rejection of Hashem. However, there are two kinds of ta'amei haMitzvot: 1) a ta'am that provides the origin of a mitzvah and does not necessarily explain every case; 2) a ta'am that explains every case.

If the ta'am is of the first kind then we could say the following: Idolaters used to make tattoos in order to demonstrate how they belonged to, or were servants of, their deity. Because of this practice the Torah prohibited all forms of tattoo. In other words, the Torah is saying: "Do not make tattoos because it was originally an idolatrous practice because I am Hashem so you must distance your self from all such practices."

If the ta'am is of the second kind then we must say that the Torah is only prohibiting that kind of tattoo which is explicitly a rejection of Hashem. In other words, the Torah is saying: "Do not make tattoos because I am Hashem - the gods that your tattoos declare allegaince to are not."

Two ways of categorizing the tattoo prohibition now emerge:

1) Idolatrous Practices --> Tattoos

________________--> Other Practices

2) Tattoos ---------------> Idolatrous

________---------------> Non-Idolatrous

The Chakhamim who hold one liable for all forms of tattoo use the second categorization. In other words, tattoos are prohibited - some are idolatrous (writing the name of a deity) some are not. R' Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of R' Shimon who holds one liable only for writing the name of a deity uses the first categorization. In other words, the tattoo prohibition is just one case of prohibited idolatrous activities - the Torah has merely isolated one form of חוקותיהם.

The halacha follows the position of the Chakhamim. The Rambam, in the last chapter of Hilchot Avoda Zara, in his presentation of this prohibition provides a strong basis for my approach. Note how he states the origin of this prohibition even though all forms of tattoo are prohibited:

"כתובת קעקע" (ויקרא יט,כח) האמורה בתורה, הוא שישרוט על בשרו וימלא מקום השריטה כוחל או דיו או שאר צבעונין הרושמין; וזה היה מנהג הגויים שרושמין עצמן לעבודה זרה שלהן, כלומר שהוא עבד מכור לה ומורשם לעבודתה. ומעת שירשום באחד מדברים הרושמים אחר שישרוט, באי זה מקום מן הגוף, בין איש בין אישה--לוקה.