What does it take to be a Jewish leader? I've recorded different ideas on the topic over the years, including this blog post (Rabbinic Leadership), this one (Rabbi as Leader and Manager) and this one (You can be right and dead at the same time). But in a discussion at a Yehoshua class yesterday, I was reminded of another facet of Jewish leadership.
In the first chapter of Yehoshua (1:2), G-d tells Yehoshua that He is going to give the land of Israel "to them, to the Children of Israel". There is a redundancy here. What is added by saying both, "to them"; and "to the Children of Israel"? Don Isaac Abarbanel explains that G-d is telling Yehoshua that He is giving Israel to the nation, not its leader. Leaders come and leaders go, and the nation is the essential thing.
In the same chapter (1:17), the tribes of Reuven, Gad and Menasheh pledge loyalty to Yehoshua, but they warn him that they will listen, "only as long as G-d is with you, as He was with Moshe." In other words: We will follow you not because of your personality and identity, but because G-d is with you.
G-d supports the leader only for the sake of the nation. The nation supports the leader only for the sake of G-d. Yehoshua, and any Jewish leader, must understand this key point: It's not about you. The task of the Jewish leader is to enable the Divine summons to inspire each individual Jew, and to enable each individual Jew to respond, to rise, and to shine. The leader who accomplishes both of these things - neither of which is simple! - is a success.
Showing posts with label Tanach: Yehoshua. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tanach: Yehoshua. Show all posts
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Monday, November 24, 2008
Four items from today
Just four quick items that I found interesting today...
1) I taught a Navi (Prophets) class at noon; we were looking at the first chapter in Yehoshua.
I love this chapter; it’s loaded with emotion and psychology, as well as the greater Jewish mission and legacy.
Count up the number of times Moshe is named vs. the number of times Yehoshua is named, and how.
Note the iteration and reiteration of חזק ואמץ, Be strong and courageous.
Study the descriptions of Moshe as servant of Gd, and Yehoshua as servant of Moshe.
And much, much more.
But the end of the chapter gives me a great kick - the tribes of Reuven, Gad and (semi-)Menashe pledge loyalty to Yehoshua, saying, “As long as Gd is with you as He was with Moshe, we will follow you in the same way we follow Moshe.”
Talk about an undesirable pledge of support - what does Yehoshua think when he hears those words? Does he have visions of Meraglim, Korach, Eldad and Meidad?!
2) I taught a class in Sefer Chasidim (Rabbi Yehudah haChasid), and we came across a remarkable exchange. I love the stories in Sefer Chasidim; I don’t always understand them, but he has such a love for irony and humor.
In this particular story, one student prays, “May it be Gd’s will that my wife conceive, if the baby will live. If the baby will not live, may it be Gd’s will that she not conceive.” Then another student prays, simply, “May it be Gd’s will that my wife conceive.”
The former student turns to the latter and points out that the Shunamite woman whose son appears to have died says she would have preferred never to have been pregnant in the first place!
To which the latter replies, “Right now, I pray for conception. Once there is a child, I will pray for survival.”
3) Tonight I was learning Daat Tevunot (R’ Moshe Chaim Luzzatto; Ramchal) with a chavrusa, and we encountered his description of Mazal. I must preface that I generally find Ramchal to be very heavy, and I sense that I am not grasping even one-tenth of what he is trying to convey.
According to this philosopher, Gd sometimes runs the world with reward and punishment, but at other times Gd shifts gears and acts based on whatever will bring about the ultimate improvement of the universe, even if that does not fit the general pattern of reward and punishment. This is what is called “Mazal.”
Through this Ramchal has found a way to explain the gemara’s use of “Mazal” (as in, “Children, lifespan and livelihood are not dependent upon merit, but upon Mazal” - Moed Katan 28a) as something which is not chance, but rather is very much within Divine control.
But Ramchal is clearly very uncomfortable with this, and he then takes a step back, saying that even when Gd acts out of Mazal, He still fits it into a system of reward and punishment, conveying good to those who have some good coming to them anyway, and vice versa.
4) And last, I was preparing a History shiur on the Censorship of Jewish Books, and came across something I last saw a few years back, which gave me a good laugh then and now.
When, during the 1830’s edition of the Russo-Turkish War, the Russian church wanted to censor our books, they took out every use of the word גוי (goy) and replaced it with the word Turk.
Among other ludicrous readings, this yielded the following text for a paragraph in Tachanun:
May the guardian of the holy Turk guard the remnant of the holy nation,
And may the Holy Turk, who recite three Kedushot, not be destroyed.
1) I taught a Navi (Prophets) class at noon; we were looking at the first chapter in Yehoshua.
I love this chapter; it’s loaded with emotion and psychology, as well as the greater Jewish mission and legacy.
Count up the number of times Moshe is named vs. the number of times Yehoshua is named, and how.
Note the iteration and reiteration of חזק ואמץ, Be strong and courageous.
Study the descriptions of Moshe as servant of Gd, and Yehoshua as servant of Moshe.
And much, much more.
But the end of the chapter gives me a great kick - the tribes of Reuven, Gad and (semi-)Menashe pledge loyalty to Yehoshua, saying, “As long as Gd is with you as He was with Moshe, we will follow you in the same way we follow Moshe.”
Talk about an undesirable pledge of support - what does Yehoshua think when he hears those words? Does he have visions of Meraglim, Korach, Eldad and Meidad?!
2) I taught a class in Sefer Chasidim (Rabbi Yehudah haChasid), and we came across a remarkable exchange. I love the stories in Sefer Chasidim; I don’t always understand them, but he has such a love for irony and humor.
In this particular story, one student prays, “May it be Gd’s will that my wife conceive, if the baby will live. If the baby will not live, may it be Gd’s will that she not conceive.” Then another student prays, simply, “May it be Gd’s will that my wife conceive.”
The former student turns to the latter and points out that the Shunamite woman whose son appears to have died says she would have preferred never to have been pregnant in the first place!
To which the latter replies, “Right now, I pray for conception. Once there is a child, I will pray for survival.”
3) Tonight I was learning Daat Tevunot (R’ Moshe Chaim Luzzatto; Ramchal) with a chavrusa, and we encountered his description of Mazal. I must preface that I generally find Ramchal to be very heavy, and I sense that I am not grasping even one-tenth of what he is trying to convey.
According to this philosopher, Gd sometimes runs the world with reward and punishment, but at other times Gd shifts gears and acts based on whatever will bring about the ultimate improvement of the universe, even if that does not fit the general pattern of reward and punishment. This is what is called “Mazal.”
Through this Ramchal has found a way to explain the gemara’s use of “Mazal” (as in, “Children, lifespan and livelihood are not dependent upon merit, but upon Mazal” - Moed Katan 28a) as something which is not chance, but rather is very much within Divine control.
But Ramchal is clearly very uncomfortable with this, and he then takes a step back, saying that even when Gd acts out of Mazal, He still fits it into a system of reward and punishment, conveying good to those who have some good coming to them anyway, and vice versa.
4) And last, I was preparing a History shiur on the Censorship of Jewish Books, and came across something I last saw a few years back, which gave me a good laugh then and now.
When, during the 1830’s edition of the Russo-Turkish War, the Russian church wanted to censor our books, they took out every use of the word גוי (goy) and replaced it with the word Turk.
Among other ludicrous readings, this yielded the following text for a paragraph in Tachanun:
May the guardian of the holy Turk guard the remnant of the holy nation,
And may the Holy Turk, who recite three Kedushot, not be destroyed.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Daf: Sotah 33-35 - lots happening here
There's a lot going on in these pages; I've just added some notes on a few of the many issues. As always, read with a gemara in front of you, but I have taken a few extra minutes to try to make some of these items comprehensible for those without a gemara.
33a
The gemara says that the entire Torah is supposed to be read in the original Hebrew. Rashi and Tosafot Shantz disagree on the application of that statement, as far as whether it refers to the weekly Torah reading or only to the biblically required Torah readings. Of particular note is the marginal comment on the Tosafot Shantz, suggesting that Parshat Parah is biblical.
Do the angels only speak Hebrew, or do they speak all non-Aramaic languages? See the Maharsha. (And boy is that topic odd – especially as it has halachic ramifications!)
33b
Tosafot and the Maharsha seem to have different explanations of the question of והלא לא ראו את הגלגל – Tosafot מול understands it to be asking that one cannot see Gilgal from Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval, but the Maharsha seems to think it is asking that the Jews cannot see Gilgal from their desert location.
The gemara lists times when Kohanim carried the Aron. See the Gilyon haShas on other times the Aron was carried by Kohanim. The Radak he cites asks and answers as Tosafot וכשהחזירוהו does here.
34a
I would have assumed the “300 mil” number was just an exaggeration, as is the gemara’s evaluation of the distance from earth to the clouds (in other discussions), but Tosafot יותר does not think so.
34b
See Tosafot כחנייתן on the matter of how the Jews crossed the Yarden.
The idea that a person could walk faster than water travels downstream is odd, to say the least. Rashi רבה and Tosafot מר both wrestle with this issue, and develop different solutions.
Regarding the issue of naming someone for an event that has not yet happened (as in the case of נחבי בן ופסי and סתור), see the Maharsha in Berachot on naming Ruth רות for the deeds of her descendant Dovid haMelech. Naming has elements of prophecy associated with it. See also our earlier discussion on Leah naming Yehudah for what he would do in the future.
The gemara here famously describes Moshe re-naming Yehoshua before his espionage mission; the Maharsha says that Yehoshua’s earlier labelling of “Yehoshua” in the Torah is only because his name would be changed later.
See Tosafot אבותי on the question of whether the deceased actually know what is happening in this world – and follow up in that gemara in Berachot 18-19 on this issue, particularly given the comment in the margin here. Based on our liturgy, such as some of the Tisha b’Av kinot, we certainly believe that the deceased do find out what is happening in this world.
See the Aruch on ענק; he renders it as neck.
35a
The Torah Temimah, commenting on the story of the spies, explains why the spies should have suffered particularly from wounds to their tongue and belly, and from the dreaded askerah death. The tongue was for lashon hara. The belly was for slandering Israel, which is seen in the gemara as the navel of the world. Askera is considered an appropriate punishment for lashon hara [but see also Pesachim 105a, where it is also a punishment for eating before havdalah…]
The idea of Dovid being blamed for Uzza’s death, when Uzza acted independently, is reminiscent of an issue discussed in many halachic authorities, of one’s liability for the death of a person who is doing a job for you. The Mahari Weil ruled that one is spiritually liable for the death of a person who is doing a job in his employ, and the issue has been greatly debated since. See Sanhedrin 95, Mahari Weil 125, Maharshal 96, Maharam Lublin 44, Beis Yosef at the end of Choshen Mishpat 188 (on financial liability), Tzemach Tzedek (the earlier) 6, Chasam Sofer 177, Avnei Nezer Yoreh Deah 478.
35b
Rashi’s explanation of בעבר הירדן is interesting; see also Rashbam to Devarim 1:1. There are others who are more troubled by this phrase.
If the Jews are not supposed to accept peace with the Canaanites they encounter, how do we understand Rachav’s survival? Tosafot לרבות gives one answer here, and this approach is seen in Malbim to Yehoshua 2:12 as well. Radak to Yehoshua 6:25 gives a similar answer, saying she converted. On the other hand, Ibn Ezra to Shemot 20:7 says that the oath bound the Jews, despite their mitzvah regarding her.
33a
The gemara says that the entire Torah is supposed to be read in the original Hebrew. Rashi and Tosafot Shantz disagree on the application of that statement, as far as whether it refers to the weekly Torah reading or only to the biblically required Torah readings. Of particular note is the marginal comment on the Tosafot Shantz, suggesting that Parshat Parah is biblical.
Do the angels only speak Hebrew, or do they speak all non-Aramaic languages? See the Maharsha. (And boy is that topic odd – especially as it has halachic ramifications!)
33b
Tosafot and the Maharsha seem to have different explanations of the question of והלא לא ראו את הגלגל – Tosafot מול understands it to be asking that one cannot see Gilgal from Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval, but the Maharsha seems to think it is asking that the Jews cannot see Gilgal from their desert location.
The gemara lists times when Kohanim carried the Aron. See the Gilyon haShas on other times the Aron was carried by Kohanim. The Radak he cites asks and answers as Tosafot וכשהחזירוהו does here.
34a
I would have assumed the “300 mil” number was just an exaggeration, as is the gemara’s evaluation of the distance from earth to the clouds (in other discussions), but Tosafot יותר does not think so.
34b
See Tosafot כחנייתן on the matter of how the Jews crossed the Yarden.
The idea that a person could walk faster than water travels downstream is odd, to say the least. Rashi רבה and Tosafot מר both wrestle with this issue, and develop different solutions.
Regarding the issue of naming someone for an event that has not yet happened (as in the case of נחבי בן ופסי and סתור), see the Maharsha in Berachot on naming Ruth רות for the deeds of her descendant Dovid haMelech. Naming has elements of prophecy associated with it. See also our earlier discussion on Leah naming Yehudah for what he would do in the future.
The gemara here famously describes Moshe re-naming Yehoshua before his espionage mission; the Maharsha says that Yehoshua’s earlier labelling of “Yehoshua” in the Torah is only because his name would be changed later.
See Tosafot אבותי on the question of whether the deceased actually know what is happening in this world – and follow up in that gemara in Berachot 18-19 on this issue, particularly given the comment in the margin here. Based on our liturgy, such as some of the Tisha b’Av kinot, we certainly believe that the deceased do find out what is happening in this world.
See the Aruch on ענק; he renders it as neck.
35a
The Torah Temimah, commenting on the story of the spies, explains why the spies should have suffered particularly from wounds to their tongue and belly, and from the dreaded askerah death. The tongue was for lashon hara. The belly was for slandering Israel, which is seen in the gemara as the navel of the world. Askera is considered an appropriate punishment for lashon hara [but see also Pesachim 105a, where it is also a punishment for eating before havdalah…]
The idea of Dovid being blamed for Uzza’s death, when Uzza acted independently, is reminiscent of an issue discussed in many halachic authorities, of one’s liability for the death of a person who is doing a job for you. The Mahari Weil ruled that one is spiritually liable for the death of a person who is doing a job in his employ, and the issue has been greatly debated since. See Sanhedrin 95, Mahari Weil 125, Maharshal 96, Maharam Lublin 44, Beis Yosef at the end of Choshen Mishpat 188 (on financial liability), Tzemach Tzedek (the earlier) 6, Chasam Sofer 177, Avnei Nezer Yoreh Deah 478.
35b
Rashi’s explanation of בעבר הירדן is interesting; see also Rashbam to Devarim 1:1. There are others who are more troubled by this phrase.
If the Jews are not supposed to accept peace with the Canaanites they encounter, how do we understand Rachav’s survival? Tosafot לרבות gives one answer here, and this approach is seen in Malbim to Yehoshua 2:12 as well. Radak to Yehoshua 6:25 gives a similar answer, saying she converted. On the other hand, Ibn Ezra to Shemot 20:7 says that the oath bound the Jews, despite their mitzvah regarding her.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Daf: Nedarim 54-59
54b
See the Maharsha in his Chiddushei Aggadot; he suggests that Gd didn’t provide “dagah” to the Jews in the desert because of Abbaye’s point here. Obviously, this is counter to the normal explanation re: pregnancy.
55a
Here we see Rava going to Rav Yosef to appease him on Erev Yom Kippur. For another interesting account of the Erev Yom Kippur mechilah phenomenon (which did not turn out so well!), see the story of Rav and the butcher, on Yoma 87a.
55b
Here we talk about animals as being “non-gidulei karka” “not growing from the ground.” This is actually not so simple; see, for example, Eruvin 27b, and the Meiri to Succah 11a on using animal hide for schach.
Regarding wearing rain-gear outside the Eruv when there is no rain, see the Rosh 55b yotzim b’sakim.
56b
The encounter of Yehoshua and the Malach pre-Yericho is actually rather problematic, not in terms of our gemara but in terms of the classic gemara (Megilah 3a) on this story, which says that Yehoshua is being reprimanded for failing to study Torah. That gemara proves its point by showing that Yehoshua "immediately (מיד)" went to study Torah – but the Torah study pasuk is actually long after the war with Yericho (8:13)!
See also Ralbag to Yehoshua 5:13, with another, fascinating explanation of Yehoshua being “in Yericho” at this point.
57a
Make sure to see Ran vs. Rosh on the key word “eilu” at the beginning.
Note the Ran on gidulei gidulei gidulin
58a
Note the Ran vs the Rosh on meduchanin. I find the Rosh’s approach easier to understand, especially as the gemara continues.
59a
Here, again, we find the issue of considering a Neder as a Davar sheyesh lo matirin. This passage seems extremely difficult for the Meiri we mentioned here, who says that a Davar sheyesh lo matirin must be guaranteed to become mutar.
See the Maharsha in his Chiddushei Aggadot; he suggests that Gd didn’t provide “dagah” to the Jews in the desert because of Abbaye’s point here. Obviously, this is counter to the normal explanation re: pregnancy.
55a
Here we see Rava going to Rav Yosef to appease him on Erev Yom Kippur. For another interesting account of the Erev Yom Kippur mechilah phenomenon (which did not turn out so well!), see the story of Rav and the butcher, on Yoma 87a.
55b
Here we talk about animals as being “non-gidulei karka” “not growing from the ground.” This is actually not so simple; see, for example, Eruvin 27b, and the Meiri to Succah 11a on using animal hide for schach.
Regarding wearing rain-gear outside the Eruv when there is no rain, see the Rosh 55b yotzim b’sakim.
56b
The encounter of Yehoshua and the Malach pre-Yericho is actually rather problematic, not in terms of our gemara but in terms of the classic gemara (Megilah 3a) on this story, which says that Yehoshua is being reprimanded for failing to study Torah. That gemara proves its point by showing that Yehoshua "immediately (מיד)" went to study Torah – but the Torah study pasuk is actually long after the war with Yericho (8:13)!
See also Ralbag to Yehoshua 5:13, with another, fascinating explanation of Yehoshua being “in Yericho” at this point.
57a
Make sure to see Ran vs. Rosh on the key word “eilu” at the beginning.
Note the Ran on gidulei gidulei gidulin
58a
Note the Ran vs the Rosh on meduchanin. I find the Rosh’s approach easier to understand, especially as the gemara continues.
59a
Here, again, we find the issue of considering a Neder as a Davar sheyesh lo matirin. This passage seems extremely difficult for the Meiri we mentioned here, who says that a Davar sheyesh lo matirin must be guaranteed to become mutar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
