Talmud in South Korea, Re-visited

For anyone who was skeptical about last year's reports on Talmud study in South Korea - take a look at this...

So you want to be a Rebbetzin?

When a certain well-known rabbi heard I wanted to enter the rabbinate, he put his hands on my head, gave the top of my skull a long look, and said something along the lines of, “That’s strange; I don’t see anything wrong.”

Personally, I think he had the wrong party; I think he should have done that to my wife. To be a Rebbetzin you have to be, well, I don't know what . You must have a generosity gland that runs in twenty-four hour overdrive. You must have the patience of not just one saint, but several thousand of them. And you must lack any sense of self-preservation.

Think I’m exaggerating? Consider these points:

1. The rabbi will work 24/7 looking after the needs of people in the community, but will also receive Thank You and “Job well done” comments (yes, along with doses of righteous criticism…). The Rebbetzin will not have the rabbi’s help at home and will not have the rabbi’s companionship throughout that 24/7, and will receive far fewer Thank You and “Job well done” comments, if any.

2. People in the community will doubtless comment that they wish the Rebbetzin would teach more classes, attend more committee meetings, host more people and be involved in more projects. But because the Rebbetzin doesn’t function in an official capacity, she won’t have the opportunity to face those people and rebut them. The rabbi, at least, can attend a board meeting or speak from the pulpit; where is the Rebbetzin’s public forum?

3. The rabbi will certainly love his Rebbetzin, but he will equally certainly spend time talking to female committee members, counseling women, and so on. It’s all part of the job, the rabbi will say. And this will be the truth … but still…

4. The rabbi will wail and cry on his Rebbetzin's shoulder when things go wrong, when people get sick and die, when life in general becomes tough. The Rebbetzin, on the other hand, will generally not have the option of doing the same to him, because he will be out of the house taking care of other people who are wailing and crying on his shoulder.

I suppose it’s one thing for a woman to marry a man who then goes into the rabbinate, but I cannot fathom why a woman would actually marry a rabbi.

Of course, my rebbetzin did exactly that; go figure. I can’t understand women.

(originally written in honor of my wife and Rebbetzin's birthday several years ago...)

The Rabbi as Leader and Manager

[This week's Haveil Havalim is here]

While taking care of administrative tasks on Motzaei Shabbos, I listened to the opening salvos of the Republican debate. [Don't ask me why; I still live in the fantasy that somehow, magically, one of these anurans is going to metamorphose into a prince. Not a chance.] At one point, Rick Santorum declared that the President of the United States is supposed to be a Leader, rather than a Manager.

That set me thinking – What is a shul Rabbi? Leader or Manager?

For the sake of the discussion, we'll define "Leader" as someone who sets an example, acting and doing and modeling and inspiring others to do likewise. "Manager", on the other hand, is someone who enables others to use their talents, pairing people together and assigning tasks and motivating and critiquing and facilitating.

I tend to think that a shul rabbi needs to be both of these.

The rabbi is a Leader. Think of Moshe Rabbeinu, the ultimate leader - he acts, and others follow. He davens, and hopefully his davening inspires others. He reaches out to people within the community to assist them, and others see this and are motivated to follow his lead. He is a model of studiousness and scholarship.

On the other hand, the rabbi is also a Manager, like Betzalel organizing the various artisans to build the mishkan. He initiates projects, convening people to harness their talents, moving them forward, coordinating their work. The rabbi is a Manager in constructing community, creating connections between individuals and groups in order to tighten the bonds of chevra.

Unfortunately, rabbinic training, as it existed 15-20 years ago, didn't include sessions on Leadership or Management, and I think the latter role suffers for it. I sense that rabbis do succeed as leaders even without training, but I don't think management works the same way.

First, management is very challenging, a balance of צמצום (self-constriction) and direction, of praise and careful counsel and veiled criticism and unveiled respect.

Second, management requires consciousness, an awareness of what one is doing and what one is expected to do, in a way that leadership does not. I find it hard to think that a newly minted rabbi, not knowing there is a management role to play, could succeed in that capacity.

What do you think? Leader, Manager, both or neither? And need these roles be taught?

Morality from Eight Hugs a Day?

Per economist Paul Zak, the human brain generates oxytocin in response to experiences in which we feel close to others - weddings, hugs, receiving a gift - and this oxytocin helps us to feel greater empathy in return, and to act more generously toward others in general. He calls oxytocin "the moral molecule", because oxytocin-induced empathy will cause people to act more positively toward others around them.

You can watch his TED presentation on the topic here; his eight-hugs-per-day prescription comes at the end:



This research leads to obvious questions about moral liability for people whose oxytocin-generating mechanisms are defective, and about the ethical use of oxytocin, or oxytocin-generating actions, in order to influence the behavior of others.

It also leads me to think about the methods of successful politicians and fundraisers - the ones who hug, maintain contact, ask how you are doing, try to help you, and so on. Capitalizing on an empathy-building bond is nothing new, but providing a chemical basis for it is interesting.

The big question in my mind, though: What is it about these empathy-triggering interactions that makes our brain perceive them as worthy of oxytocin? What teaches the brain to view these as bonding experiences?

The Jew and the Greek

I was in New York today to interview avreichim for next year, and while en route I completed a source sheet for this coming Sunday's shiur, "Why was the Torah translated into Greek?" Here are the sources, in case you find the topic interesting.

1. Baal Halachot Gedolot #18

בשמונה בטבת נכתבה התורה יונית בימי תלמי המלך ובא חשך לעולם שלשה ימים, בתשעה בו לא כתבו רבותינו על מה הוא, ובו ביום מת עזרא הכהן ונחמיה בן חכליה, בעשרה בו סמך מלך בבל על ירושלים להחריבה,

On the eighth of Tevet the Torah was written in Greek, in the days of King Ptolemy, and darkness came to the world for three days. Our sages did not say what happened on the ninth, but on that day Ezra and Nechemiah died. On the tenth, the king of Babylon neared Jerusalem to destroy her.

Questions:

• What can we learn from the variations in the account of the translation of Torah into Greek?
• Why did we ultimately accept Greek as a language of Torah?
• What happpened to turn things around, causing a ban on "Greek wisdom"?

Variations in the account

2. Talmud, Megilah 9a

אמר רבי יהודה אף כשהתירו רבותינו יונית לא התירו אלא בספר תורה ומשום מעשה דתלמי המלך דתניא מעשה בתלמי המלך שכינס שבעים ושנים זקנים והכניסן בשבעים ושנים בתים ולא גילה להם על מה כינסן ונכנס אצל כל אחד ואחד ואמר להם כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם נתן הקב"ה בלב כל אחד ואחד עצה והסכימו כולן לדעת אחת וכתבו לו +בראשית א'+ אלקים ברא בראשית

R' Yehudah said: Even when our sages permitted Greek, it was only for a Sefer Torah [and not the Prophets], because of the event with King Ptolemy, as we have learned in a braita: King Ptolemy once gathered 72 elders and brought them into 72 houses without revealing why he was gathering them. He went to each one and told him, 'Write the Torah of Moshe, your master, for me." Gd placed counsel into each one's heart, and all of them came to the same idea, writing, "Elokim created in the beginning"…

3. Masechet Sofrim 1:7-8

אין כותבין [ספר תורה] לא עברית, ולא ארמית, ולא מדית, ולא יוונית, כתב בכל לשונות, בכל כתבים, לא יקרא בה, עד שתהא כתובה אשורית. מעשה בחמשה זקנים שכתבו לתלמי המלך את התורה יוונית, והיה אותו היום קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה בו העגל, שלא הייתה התורה יכולה להתרגם כל צרכה. שוב מעשה בתלמי המלך, שכינס שבעים ושנים זקנים, והושיבם בשבעים ושנים בתים, ולא גלה להם על מה כינסם, נכנס אחר כל אחד ואחד מהם, אמר להם, כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם, נתן המקום עצה בלב כל אחד ואחד, והסכימה דעתן לדעת אחת, וכתבו לו תורה בפני עצמה, ושלשה עשר דבר שינו בה, אלקים ברא בראשית...

A Torah scroll may not be written in ivrit, Aramaic, Mede or Greek; in any language, in any script, one may not read it. It must be recorded in Assyrian. Once five elders wrote the Torah in Greek for King Ptolemy, and that day was as harsh for Israel as the day the Calf was created, because the Torah could not be properly translated.

Another time, King Ptolemy gathered 72 elders and put them in 72 houses without revealing why he had gathered them. He went to each one and told them, "Write the Torah of Moshe, your master, for me." Gd placed counsel into each one's heart, and each of them wrote an independent Torah. They changed thirteen things: "Elokim created in the beginning"…

4. Masechet Sefer Torah 1:8-9

אין כותבין לא עברית ולא עילמית, לא מדית ולא יונית. שבעים זקנים כתבו כל התורה לתלמי המלך לשון יונית, והיה אותו היום קשה לישראל כיום שעשו בו את העגל, שלא היתה תורה יכולה להתרגם כל צרכה. שלשה עשר דברים שינו בה, אלקים ברא בראשית...

One may not write [a Sefer Torah] in ivrit or ilmit, Mede or Greek. 70 elders wrote the entire Torah for King Ptolemy in Greek, and that day was as harsh for Israel as the day they created the Calf, for Torah could not be properly translated. They changed thirteen things: "Elokim created in the beginning"…

5. Rav Shlomo Luria, Yam Shel Shlomo to Bava Kama 4:9

התם מן שמיא הוא דאסכימו בהדייהו, וכעין רוח הקודש היה. וכן איתא התם, נתן הקב"ה [בלב] כל אחד כו', והוה על פי הדיבור. ועוד, התם לא שינו שום דבר ממשמעותו, אלא שינו הלשון, דלא יהפכו למינות. וכמו ששינו כך הוא כוונת המקרא כפשוטו

In that case Heaven agreed with them, and it was a sort of Divine inspiration. And so it says there, "Gd placed counsel into each one's heart", so it was at Divine instruction. Further, they did not change the meaning of anything; rather, they changed the language to keep it from being used for heresy.

6. Author unknown, The Letter of Aristaeas (2^nd century BCE, Alexandria)

7. Philo, The Life of Moses (1^st century BCE)

Were the Sages comfortable with the concept of translating Torah?

8. Talmud Yerushalmi, Megilah 1:9

תני רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף בספרים לא התירו שיכתבו אלא יוונית בדקו ומצאו שאין התורה יכולה להיתרגם כל צורכה אלא יוונית

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Even sefarim [Tanach] may only be written in Greek; they checked and found that the Torah can be translated properly only in Greek.

9. Midrash Tanchuma Vayyera 6

אמר ר' יהודה הלוי ב"ר שלום בקש משה שתהא אף המשנה בכתב, וצפה הקב"ה על שעתידין אומות העולם לתרגם את התורה ולקרות אותה יונית, והן אומרין אף אנו ישראל, א"ל הקב"ה אכתוב לך רובי תורתי (הושע ח יב) ואם כן כמו זר נחשבו (שם /הושע ח י"ב/),

R' Yehudah haLevi b'R' Shalom said: Moshe requested that mishnah be put in writing as well, but Gd saw that the nations would translate the Torah and read it in Greek and say, "We are Israel, too," and so Gd said, "I will write [only] the majority of My Torah [and so] they will be considered as foreigners." (Hosheia 8:12)

Was the translation an honour or an assault? Or did we do it ourselves?

10. Mishnah Shekalim 3:2

בשלש קופות של שלש שלש סאין תורמין את הלשכה וכתוב בהן א' ב' ג' רבי ישמעאל אומר יונית כתוב בהן אלפ"א בית"א גמל"א

They tithed [the shekalim from] the office in three boxes, each of three se'ah; they were marked א ב ג. R' Yishmael said: The boxes were marked in Greek: alpha, beta, gamma.

11. Mishnah Yadayim 4:6

אומרים צדוקים קובלין אנו עליכ' פרושים שאתם אומרים כתבי הקודש מטמאין את הידים וספרי הומריס אינו מטמא את הידים... אמר להם אף כתבי הקדש לפי חבתן היא טומאתן וספרי הומריס שאינן חביבין אינן מטמאין את הידים:

The Sadducees said: We complain against you, Pharisees! You say that holy writings communicate tumah to hands, but the books of Homerus do not!... He replied: Regarding holy writings, our love for them creates their tumah; the books of Homerus are not beloved, and so they do not communicate tumah to hands.

12. Talmud Yerushalmi, Sotah 7:1

ר' לוי בר חיתה אזל לקיסרין שמע קלון קריין שמע אלוניסתין בעא מעכבתון שמע רבי יוסי ואיקפד אמר כך אומר אני מי שאינו יודע לקרות אשורית לא יקרינה כל עיקר אלא יוצא בכל לשון שהוא יודע

R' Levi bar Chayta went to Caesaria and heard people reciting "Shema" elonistin. He wanted to stop them, but R' Yosi heard and objected, saying, "Should I say that one who does not know how to read in Assyrian should not recite Shema at all? Rather, he fulfills his obligation in any language he knows."

13. Talmud, Megilah 9b

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף בספרים לא התירו שיכתבו אלא יונית אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל ואמר רבי יוחנן מאי טעמא דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל אמר קרא +בראשית ט'+ יפת אלקים ליפת וישכן באהלי שם דבריו של יפת יהיו באהלי שם ואימא גומר ומגוג אמר רבי חייא בר אבא היינו טעמא דכתיב יפת אלקים ליפת יפיותו של יפת יהא באהלי שם

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Even other books may only be recorded in Greek. R' Avahu said, citing R' Yochanan: The law follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. R' Yochanan said, "What is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's reason? The Torah says, 'May Gd beautify Yefet, and he should dwell in the tent of Shem.' The words of Yefet should be in the tents of Shem."

Perhaps that should be the language of Gomer and Magog? R' Chiyya bar Abba said: It is because the text says, "May Gd beautify Yefet" – the [greatest] beauty of Yefet should be in the tents of Shem.

14. Talmud, Bava Kama 82b-83a

תנו רבנן כשצרו בית חשמונאי זה על זה היה הורקנוס מבפנים ואריסטובלוס מבחוץ ובכל יום היו משלשים להם בקופה דינרין והיו מעלים להם תמידין היה שם זקן אחד שהיה מכיר בחכמת יוונית אמר להם כל זמן שעוסקין בעבודה אין נמסרים בידכם למחר שילשלו דינרין בקופה והעלו להם חזיר כיון שהגיע לחצי החומה נעץ צפרניו בחומה ונזדעזעה ארץ ישראל ארבע מאות פרסה על ארבע מאות פרסה באותה שעה אמרו ארור האיש שיגדל חזירים וארור האדם שילמד את בנו חכמת יוונית... וחכמת יוונית מי אסירא והתניא אמר רבי בארץ ישראל לשון סורסי למה או לשון הקדש או לשון יונית... אמרי לשון יוני לחוד חכמת יונית לחוד וחכמת יונית מי אסירא והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רשב"ג +איכה ג'+ עיני עוללה לנפשי מכל בנות עירי אלף ילדים היו בבית אבא חמש מאות מהם למדו תורה חמש מאות למדו חכמת יונית ולא נשתייר מהם אלא אני כאן ובן אחי אבא בעסיא אמרי שאני בית רבן גמליאל שהיו קרובים למלכות

The sages taught: When the members of the Hasmonean house besieged each other, Hurkinus was inside [Jerusalem] and Aristobulus was outside, and the people inside would lower a box of dinarim out each day, and those outside would send up the daily offerings. An elder there, who knew Greek wisdom, said: As long as they are involved in the service, they will not be given into your hands. The next day, the people inside lowered a box of dinarim and those outside sent up a pig [Maharsha: Rome]. When it reached the midpoint of the wall, it stabbed its nails into the wall and Israel shook 400 parsah by 400 parsah. At that time they declared a curse against those who raise pigs and who teach their children Greek wisdom…

But is Greek wisdom prohibited? Rebbe said, "In Israel, why speak Sursi? Either the holy tongue, or Greek!"… The Greek language and Greek wisdom are separate entities.

But is Greek wisdom prohibited? Rav Yehudah cited Shemuel citing Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, "It is written, 'My eye mourns for my spirit from all of the daughters of my city' – My father's household had 1000 children, 500 of whom learned Torah and 500 of whom learned Greek wisdom, and of them all only I remain here, and my first cousin remains in Asia!" Rabban Gamliel's household was different; they were close to the throne.

15. Talmud Yerushalmi, Megilah 1:9

אמר רבי יונתן דבית גוברין ארבעה לשונות נאים שישתמש בהן העולם ואילו הן לעז לזמר רומי לקרב סורסי לאילייא עברי לדיבור ויש אומרים אף אשורי לכתב

R' Yonatan of Beit Guvrin said: There are four beautiful languages for the world to use: Greek for song, Latin for krav [battle or persuasion], Aramaic for wailing, Hebrew for speech. Some say: Assyrian for writing.

16. Talmud Yerushalmi, Sotah 9:15

ר' אבהו בשם ר' יוחנן מותר לאדם ללמד את בתו יוונית מפני שהיא תכשיט לה שמע שמעון בר בא ואמ' בגין דר' אבהו בעי מילף ברתיה הוא תלי לה בר' יוחנן יבוא עליו אם שמעתיה מר' יוחנן

R' Avahu cited R' Yochanan: One may teach his daughter Greek, for it is an ornament for her. Shimon bar Abba heard this and said, "R' Avahu wishes to teach his daughter, and he hangs it on R' Yochanan! May this happen to me if he heard it from R' Yochanan!"

17. Rambam to Mishnah Megilah 2:1

עברי שקראה תרגום בכל לשון לא יצא חוץ מלשון יוני, אבל קוראין אותה ללעוזות בלעז, והוא שכתובה בלעז כדי שלא תהיה הקריאה על פה. ומה שייחד לשון יוני משאר לשונות לפי שהיה ידוע אצלם, הלא תראה אמרו לעיל בספרים לא התירו שיכתבו אלא יונית, והטעם לכך לפי שהם תרגמו את התורה בלשון יון לתלמי המלך ונתפרסם אצלם אותו התרגום עד שנעשה אצלם אותו הלשון כלשונם וכאלו הוא אשורית, וכך אמרו לשון יוני לכל כשר. ונוסף לכך היתה לשון זו חשובה בעיניהם, רבינו הקדוש אמר מה לי ללשון טרסי אי לשון עברי או לשון יוני.

A Hebrew-speaker who reads [Megilat Esther] in any translation, other than Greek, does not fulfill his obligation. However, one may read it for speakers of foreign languages in foreign languages, assuming it is written in that foreign language so it is not read by heart. Greek is singled out from other languages because it was known to them; note that we only permitted Torah scrolls to be written in Greek. This is because they translated the Torah into Greek for King Ptolemy, and so that translation was publicized to them until it became like their language, like Assyrian, and so they said that Greek may be used for everything. Further, this language was significant in their eyes; Rebbe said, "Why speak Aramaic? Either Hebrew or Greek."

Postscript: The later ban on "Greek Wisdom"

18. Talmud, Sotah 49a

בפולמוס של טיטוס גזרו על עטרות כלות ושלא ילמד אדם את בנו יוונית

In the invasion of Titus they decreed against bridal crowns and they decreed that one should not teach his son Greek.

19. Talmud, Chagigah 15b

אחר מאי זמר יווני לא פסק מפומיה אמרו עליו על אחר בשעה שהיה עומד מבית המדרש הרבה ספרי מינין נושרין מחיקו

What happened with Acher? Greek song did not leave his mouth. They say that when he stood from the study hall, many books of heretics fell from his lap.

20. Talmud Yerushalmi Sotah 9:15

שאלו רבי יהוש' מהו שילמד אדם את בנו יוונית אמר להן ילמדינו בשעה שאינה לא יום ולא לילה דכתיב והגית בו יומם ולילה מעתה אסור לאדם ללמד את בנו אומנות בגין דכתיב והגית בו יומם ולילה והתני רבי ישמעאל ובחרת בחיים זו אומנות רבי בא בריה דרבי חייה בר בא בשם ר' יוחנן מפני המסורות

They asked R' Yehoshua: May one teach his son Greek? He replied: Teach him when it is neither day nor night, as it is written, 'And you shall study it [Torah] day and night.'

But then one may not teach his son a trade [either], for it is written, 'And you shall study it [Torah] day and night!' Didn't R' Yishmael teach, "'And you shall choose life' refers to a trade!"

R' Abba, son of R' Chiyya bar Abba, cited R' Yochanan: The concern is for traitors.

21. Tosafot, Bava Kama 82b ואסור

וי"ל דמעיקרא גזרו ולא קבלו מינייהו א"נ אי הוה בעי למיקם בארור לא היה מיקרי עבריין אבל לבסוף איכא גזירה דרבנן

One could say that they decreed it at first and people did not accept it. Alternatively, [at first] one who wished to be cursed would still not be called a sinner, but in the end there was a rabbinic decree.

22. Rashi, Sotah 49a בפולמוס

בפולמוס של טיטוס - שהביא הורקנוס אאריסתובלוס אחיו ובין זה לזה היו חמשים ושתים שנה כדאמר בסדר עולם

In the invasion of Titus – which was caused by Hurkinus and his brother Aristobulus. Per Seder Olam, there were 52 years between these events.

What's wrong with the Sikrikim?

One of the several reasons why religious fanaticism so easily leads to violence is that religion - and Judaism is no exception - provides sources and precedents which can be used to justify violence in any forum. People who are pathologically greedy or arrogant, and who are restrained only by religious principle, can find justification within that religion for acting on their desires. Mohammed violated a treaty and massacred Jews at Khaibar, so today's Muslim can do the same. Popes sanctioned and promoted any number of Crusades, so today's Christian can do the same.

As much as I loathe any comparison between my religious heritage and these others, extremist Jews can point to biblical examples like Shimon and Levi's massacre of the city of Shechem after the rape of their sister Dinah, to justify smashing store windows in Meah She'arim and threatening children in Beit Shemesh. The sikrikim are not murdering, of course - but they are using abuse and violence in the name of their outrage and 'righteous' indignation, and they point to religious precedent. [Although I do find it odd that they use the Sicarii of two thousand years ago as a model; per the Talmud, such as Gittin 56a-b, the leading rabbis of the day opposed the Sicarii?]

Generally, moderates wave away examples of biblical violence by saying "That was different" and not expanding, but I believe this is a mistake, leaving room for extremists to say, "My case is not different." Often moderates deny the validity of violence altogether, which comes across as inauthentic/dishonest and unconvincing in light of Torah.

We who generally accept biblical practice as model are obligated to examine those biblical precedents, understand where those sources do sanction violence, and explain why we believe those are not models for action today.

To address the above-cited example of Shimon and Levi, here are the comments of Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, the Netziv (Hebrew original at the end), from his commentary to the Torah. He does not deny biblical sanction for zealotry, and even violence - but he highlights Yaakov's rejection of this approach as it was used in Shechem:

Comment to Bereishit 34:25, the attack on the city of Shechem
Biblical text - "The two sons of Yaakov, Shimon and Levi [attacked the city of Shechem]"

The word "two" is extra; in the story of Nadav and Avihu it only says, "And the sons of Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, took." This [word] comes to teach us that even though they were unified in their great anger to destroy a city and its entire contents, and they were also unified to enter into great danger, they were still "two". This means that they were different in their intent to kindle this fire.

One came with human intent, outrage for the honor of his family, which induces a "foreign fire", as is known. The other came from outraged intent for Gd, without any personal bias or desire, "the flame of Gd." One must also be very careful of this fire, to choose the right time and place; otherwise, it will destroy much. Yaakov specifed both of these approaches in his rebuke, and did not agree with the elevated fire either.


Comment to Bereishit 49:5-6, Yaakov's curse of Shimon and Levi
Biblical text: "Shimon and Levi are brothers; they have tools of violence in mecheiroteihem. In their secret let my spirit not come, and in their gathering let my honor not be united."

We should not think that Shimon and Levi were identical in everything; it is not so. They were identical in that tools of violence were mecheiroteihem, meaning their kinyan; tools of violence were what they used to bring their thoughts and desires to action.

He did not say that they were identical in their thoughts and desires, for in this they certainly were not identical. In the events of Shechem they were not identical in the intent which brought them to that deed, as we wrote earlier (34:25) based on the specifications of the text. One of them came to right the outrage against Gd, and he entered into danger as Pinchas did in the incident with Zimri. The other came out of outrage for his family's honor.

Therefore Yaakov specified as well, "In their secret [let my spirit not enter]" – When they stand in the 'secret of Gd', to be outraged for His honor. Even though our patriarch Yaakov would not have said regarding this, 'Let not my honor be united [with them],' for it certainly would be honorable for one such as him to be united with them [in the service of Gd], but, still, 'Let my spirit not enter' in this manner.

This is like the Talmudic passage (Taanit 4a), "When a Torah scholar boils, it is Torah that is boiling within him… and yet he is obligated to conduct himself gently, as it is written (Kohelet 11:10), 'And remove anger from your heart.'" Due to rage, foreign deeds, beyond any proportion to the matter at hand, are performed, and this corrupts more than in it mends.

"And in their gathering" – When they gather for a personal purpose, out of outrage for honor, it is entirely prohibited for them to enter a dangerous situation for this, and they are called 'a gathering of evil-doers'. In this, "let my honor not be united." There is no honor for me in being united with them.

The Netziv highlights a few points to consider, when weighing such actions:
1. To choose a path which does not destroy more than it mends;
2. To choose a path which is not one of anger, and is gentle;
3. To choose a path which is truly proportional.

Worth considering. Here is the Netziv's Hebrew:

העמק דבר, בראשית לד:כה
שני בני יעקב שמעון ולוי: תיבת שני מיותר ובנדב ואביהוא כתיב "ויקחו בני אהרן נדב וגו'". ובא ללמדנו דאף על גב שנתאחדו בכעס גדול להחריב עיר ומלואה, וגם התאחדו להביא עצמם לידי סכנה עצומה, מכל מקום היו שנים, היינו ששונים היו בדעת המבעיר את האש הזה, אחד בא בדעת אנושי המקנא לכבוד בית אביו, המביא לאש כזה והוא אש זרה כידוע, ואחד בא בדעת קנאת ד' בלי שום פניה ורצון היא אש שלהבת י-ה, ומכל מקום מאש כזה גם כן יש להיזהר הרבה לכוין המקום והזמן, ובלא זה היא מקלקלת הרבה, ויעקב אבינו פירש בתוכחתו שתי הדעות שהיה בזה, ולא הסכים גם לאש המעולה

העמק דבר, בראשית מט:ה
כלי חמס מכרתיהם: שלא נחשוב שנשתוו שמעון ולוי בכל דבר לא כן אלא בזה נשתוו שכלי חמס מכרתיהם היינו קניינם במה שמוציאים ורצונם לפועל הוא בכלי חמס. אמנם לא אמר שנשתוו במחשבותיהם ורצונם דבזה ודאי לא נשתוו דבמעשה שכם עצמו לא נשתוו בדעות על מה הגיעו לאותו מעשה וכמ"ש לעיל לד:כה מדיוק המקרא דאחד מהם בא לקנא קנאת ד' צבקות ונכנס בסכנה כמו פינחס במעשה זמרי וזה בא לקנא כבוד בית אביו. על כן פירש יעקב גם הוא: 'בסֹדם' - בשעה שעומדים בסוד ד' לקנא על כבודו, ואע"ג שבזה לא היה יעקב אבינו אומר אל תחד כבודי, דודאי כבוד לאיש כמוהו להתאחד אתם, אבל מכל מקום 'אל תבא נפשי' באופן כזה; וכדאיתא בתענית (דף ד, א) 'האי צורבא מרבנן דרתח, אורייתא הוא דרתחא ביה כו', אפילו הכי מיבעי למילף נפשיה בניחותא, שנאמר: 'והסר כעס מלבך'. שעל ידי כעס נעשה דברים זרים יותר מהנדרש לצורך הענין, ובזה יהיה קלקולו יותר מתיקונו. 'ובקהלם' - בשעה שנקהלים על דבר הרשות לקנא על כבוד - וזהו איסור גמור להכנס בסכנה בשביל זה ונקרא קהל מרעים - 'אל תחד כבודי'. זה אין כבוד לפנַי כלל להיות מתאחד עמהם.

Ending and then Beginning

I don't celebrate New Year's Day as a religious holiday, but something in me registers a substantive, positive change when the year flips over and we start writing 12 instead of 11. It's not that different from the feeling that comes with a birthday, just another day and yet so loaded with meaning. It's the end of the old immediately followed by the start of the new.

Starting anew immediately reminds me of a practice of my second grade ("grade two" in Canadian) rebbe, Rabbi Hyman ז"ל. Thanks to him, I am allergic to finishing a parshah, a perek of gemara, a sefer, without starting a new one. Whenever we made one of those siyyumim (celebrations of completion) that second graders perform from time to time, he had us read the first line from whatever book we were starting next. It made enough of an impression that I still do it, 30 years later.

I used to annoy my Daf Yomi crew with the practice, too; we would finish a masechta, and they wouldn't have the new volume with them and the day's Daf was concluded, but I would insist on starting the first mishnah in the new volume.

Theoretically, there is no reason to do this for the end of some specific section; we could add another line at every pause from our learning, whether at the end of a book or mid-page. One could even argue that it's a negative practice, keeping us from spending time thinking about what we have just completed. But from a psychological standpoint, it's important to do this specifically when we complete something, so that we don’t see our study as complete, but as leading to something new.

The same could be said for starting new ventures in life whenever an old one is complete, having nothing to do with study. [This has particular value when the 'completion of the old' is associated with grief and loss, but that's a discussion for another time.]

The model for Rabbi Hyman's practice might be Simchas Torah, when we start the Torah with Bereishis immediately after we finish the Torah with v'Zos haBerachah, but just the other day I came across another, earlier basis for the practice:

The gemara (Avodah Zarah 19a) records a story involving two sages, Rabbi Shimon bar Rebbe and Levi, who were studying from the same scroll. They finished learning one book, and then they wished to start a new one. The story is only recorded in the Talmud because of their debate as to what they should learn next; the fact that they had just finished a text is not directly relevant and doesn't seem to belong, and so Rav Shmuel Eideles (Maharsha) comments:

מדנקט לה בכי האי גוונא דסליק ספרא נראה דאשמעינן שבשעה שמסיימין ספר אחד יש להתחיל ספר האחר

From the fact that it brought the story in this manner, mentioning that they had just finished a book, it appears that they were teaching us that when we conclude one book we should begin another book.

So there's a solid source. May your every completion – secular year or individual day or study session – lead directly into a new beginning.

PS - The Maharsha adds a note:

כמו שאנו עושים בשמחת תורה ע"פ המדרש מפני קטרוג השטן

This is like our practice on Simchas Torah, based on a midrash of preventing the Satan's accusation.

I don't know where this midrash cited by the Maharsha appears, but Rav Ovadia does quote it to explain why there is no kaddish between completion of the Torah and the start of Bereishis on Simchas Torah (Yabia Omer 4:Orach Chaim 22).

Beit Shemesh: Of Sikrikim and Givonim

[I received what could be a critical alert this morning from the ADL, regarding a man named Danny Lee Warner. It is most unusual for them to send an alert specifying a name and a location, as they did with this one. The JCRC of New York has put the alert on-line; click here to see it.]

In the Bible: The Givoni tribe tricked Joshua into a pact of non-aggression when the Jews first entered Canaan. Despite the fraud, the Jews committed to honor their agreement, and supported the Givonim by giving them a role within the Jewish community.

The book of Shemuel I (chapter 21) records that Gd punished the Jews with a famine because King Shaul later attacked the tribe of Givonim. [The commentators are perplexed, for such an attack does not appear in Tanach; some suggest this refers to his eradication of the city of Nov, which eliminated their livelihood.] The Givonim demanded a horrific price for their satisfaction: The death of seven members of King Shaul's family.

As explained in Yevamot 79a, King David reacted by declaring that no Jew could marry a member of this Givoni tribe; they could not possibly be Jewish, because they lacked the traits of bashfulness, mercy and kindness. Expanding upon this, the Rambam wrote in his work of law, Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Issurei Biah 19:17):

כל מי שיש בו עזות פנים או אכזריות ושונא את הבריות ואינו גומל להם חסד חוששין לו ביותר שמא גבעוני הוא, שסימני ישראל האומה הקדושה ביישנין רחמנים וגומלי חסדים, ובגבעונים הוא אומר והגבעונים לא מבני ישראל המה לפי שהעיזו פניהם ולא נתפייסו ולא רחמו על בני שאול ולא גמלו לישראל חסד למחול לבני מלכם והם עשו עמהם חסד והחיום בתחלה

Regarding anyone who is boldfaced or cruel or who hates Gd's creatures and does not perform kindness to them: We are exceptionally concerned that this person might be a Givoni, for the signs of Israel, the holy nation, is that they are bashful, merciful and providers of kindness. Regarding the Givonim it is written, 'The Givonim were not of the children of Israel,' because they were boldfaced, and they were not appeased, and they did not have mercy upon Shaul's family, and they did not perform kindness to Israel to forgive their royal family even though the Jews had [earlier] performed kindness for them, giving them life.

The Shulchan Aruch quotes this as law in Even haEzer 2:2-

מי שיש בו עזות פנים ואכזריות ושונא את הבריות ואינו גומל להם חסד, חוששים לו ביותר שמא גבעוני הוא.

Regarding anyone who is boldfaced and cruel and who hates Gd's creatures and does not perform kindness to them: We are exceptionally concerned that this person might be a Givoni.

Given the above, I have to wonder: How could anyone marry one of Beit Shemesh's self-styled Sikrikim, who - in an organized, premeditated fashion - brutalize children verbally and physically in an attempt to intimidate them and drive them out?

I know their justifications, but the Givonim had a justification, too, and it was a lot stronger than that of the Sikrikim. Claiming the banner of Torah does not hide עזות פנים (boldfaced conduct), does not mitigate אכזריות (cruelty) and does not substitute for חסד (kindness). It appears to me that we have here a modern version of חוששין לו ביותר שמא גבעוני הוא.

Mayor Corey Booker on Jewish Education

First, an interesting question from this morning: On Monday, I went to shul with one of my children. Davening was long (Rosh Chodesh and Chanukah, after all!) and I surprised him afterward with a trip to a local bakery for a jelly doughnut.

This morning - again Chanukah and Rosh Chodesh - I found all of my children dressed and ready to go to shul, bright and early. [Today is Boxing Day nidcheh, so davening wasn't that early] Obviously, a repeat trip to the bakery was expected.

So - Go or No Go? Confirm them in the idea that service of Gd brings quick earthly rewards? Or show them that a mitzvah has value in itself?

I needed about 3 seconds to debate that one; I took them to the bakery. What would you do?

But on to the main subject of this post:

I received a link yesterday to video of Newark's Mayor Corey Booker, speaking at a fundraiser for the Jewish Day School of the Lehigh Valley, the community day school in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The school educates, and draws support from, the gamut of the Jewish spectrum, with a message that tries to reach everyone.

Mayor Booker's speech was perfect; watch it below. [Note: Part II is even better than Part I; that's where he gets into his 'dvar torah'.] I wish every Jewish parent could watch it. He laid out simple but compelling reasons why a Jewish community must support its Jewish school.

Often, Jews draw inspiration from praise that comes from outside the Jewish community; we love to cite Mark Twain on the Eternal Jew, for example. Having a non-Jew recognize value in our community and ideals offers validation. Certainly, that's part of what I value in Mayor Booker's words - but I am more impressed by the Torah content itself.

Part I:


Part II:

Hiddur vs. Kallos

I published the following column in the Canadian Jewish News last week, but since they don't run it on-line, I'm including it here. Some of the ideas I used in a Chanukah article in YU's To Go from 5771 are involved here, but this is more sophisticated. Neal Stephenson fans (Anathem, specifically) may particularly like it:

My elementary school teachers explained Hellenic culture by telling our class that Greeks worshipped the beautiful body. Underscoring this point by noting that ancient Olympic competitors performed without clothing, these teachers succeeded in conveying an indelible image, but they oversimplified the role of Beauty in the original Chanukah and its celebrations today.

Greek culture honoured the body's physical beauty, but their emphasis was upon a broader conception of Beauty, or Kallos. Plato envisioned an abstract universe in which the characteristics we express as adjectives exist as nouns – a perfect Triangle, a perfect Blue, and a perfect Beauty, as independent entities.

Within that abstract Platonic universe, Kallos occupies a place of honour, and so every beautiful thing in our world is automatically admired as a reflection of that higher Kallos, even in the absence of any other redeeming characteristic. To cite from Plato's Phaedrus (Jowett translation), the most elevated person who observes beauty in our world "is transported with the recollection of the true beauty… he is like a bird fluttering and looking upward and careless of the world below; and he is therefore thought to be mad." And as Plato wrote in his Symposium (Nehamas translation), "Only in the contemplation of beauty is human life worth living."

This ideal was rejected by the Maccabees, for Jewish tradition spurns the idea that Beauty has inherent value. Beauty is neither good nor evil; it is only a characteristic of a good or evil entity. As Proverbs 31:30 states, "Charm is false and beauty is empty"; we don't admire Beauty for its own value.

However, Jewish tradition does teach that the act of Beautification, Hiddur in Hebrew, demonstrates devotion; as the Sages translated the Jews' song of praise at the Red Sea (Exodus 15:2), "This is my G-d, and I will beautify Him." Therefore, the same Maccabees who rejected Kallos pursued Hiddur in establishing the restored Temple's Menorah. The Talmud (Menachot 28b) teaches, "The branches of their Menorah were iron rods, and the Hasmoneans coated them with tin. When they became wealthier, they made the branches of silver. When they became still wealthier, they made the branches of gold."

We follow in the footsteps of the Maccabees and employ Hiddur on Chanukah, too. The Talmud records a baseline practice of lighting one flame per household on each night of Chanukah, but Jews all over the world follow the Talmud's highest "mehadrin" practice of lighting multiple flames, based on the number of Chanukah nights that have passed. As the 13th century commentary Tosafot explains, this practice is called mehadrin from the word Hiddur, signifying that it beautifies the mitzvah; we practice Hiddur in order to glorify our Judaism.

Beyond the religious message, Hiddur of a mitzvah also offers great practical value. I wish for my children to value the religious decisions I have made, but if my child sees rote observance, begrudging fulfillment of obligations and bottom-line satisfaction of expectations, she may find that model less than compelling. On the other hand, if our children will see that a mitzvah is a thing worthy of Hiddur, then perhaps they will desire to own it themselves. With their beautified Menorah, the Maccabees encouraged us to demonstrate, for ourselves and for our children, that mitzvot are worthy of Hiddur.

Class: Laws of Comedy

In our Shabbos afternoon class in Gemara Avodah Zarah, we've spent a few weeks discussing Avodah Zarah 18's focus on ליצנות, leitzanut. This term is often rendered as 'scorning' or 'mocking', but the gemara also uses it to refer to attending theatres and circuses and comedy performances and gladiator matches, and perhaps even to hunting for sport. All along, the commentators emphasize the frivolous character of the activity.

Whatever the term means, the gemara makes clear that leitzanut is very, very bad - the Divine punishments include physical suffering, Gehennom, and global destruction.

So what, exactly, is leitzanut, and why is it so bad? After all, the gemara is filled with humor - from puns to slapstick - and it recommends opening a shiur with humor! In today's class we developed two interlocking ideas:
(1) Arrogantly mocking others' ideas or personalities, and
(2) Pursuing empty activities.

We talked about what concerned the sages, and its application to our forms of entertainment.

Here's the source sheet we used; credit goes to this page for leading me to some of these sources:
Key sources from Mishlei
1. Mishlei 9:8

אל תוכח לץ פן ישנאך הוכח לחכם ויאהבך

Do not rebuke a letz, lest he hate you; rebuke a wise person and he will love you.

2. Mishlei 9:12

אם חכמת חכמת לך ואם לצת לבדך תשא

If you gained wisdom, you gained wisdom for yourself. If latzta, you bear that alone.

3. Mishlei 21:24

זד יהיר לץ שמו עושה בעברת זדון

The zeid, arrogant man is named Letz, the one who acts with the anger of zadon.

Putting down others
4. Rabbeinu Yonah, Shaarei Teshuvah III 174

מבלי היות לו תועלת בדבר הוא גורם נזק עצום לחבריו אשר יבאיש את ריחם בעיני האדם, וזה תכלית הזדון יותר מן הגוזל והחומס שעושה להרבות לו ממון, וגם הוא יהיר כי השפל והנכנע כאשר יכיר מגרעת עצמו ומומיו לא יתלוצץ על בני אדם.

Without any personal gain in the matter, he causes great harm to people by denigrating them before others' eyes. This is what makes zadon worse than theft or banditry, which is done to increase one's wealth. Such a person is also arrogant, for one who is humble and recognizes his own deficiencies and blemishes and does not mock other people.

5. Rabbeinu Yonah, Shaarei Teshuvah III 176

מי שלועג תמיד לדברים ולפעולות... הביאוהו למדתו הרעה היותו חכם בעיניו... וכל כך משלה בו המדה הזאת עד שיתלוצץ לדעת זולתו, והיא המדה שאין לה תקוה

One who perpetually mocks things and activities… is brought to this bad trait by being wise in his own eyes… And this trait so rules over him that he mocks the views of others. This is a hopeless trait.

6. Rabbeinu Yonah, Shaarei Teshuvah III 177*

המתלוצץ בדבר שפתים על המעשים והדברים, לא שיבוז להם בלבו אך מדרך השמחים ללא דבר וחק השחוק, ופעמים שגורם לזה משתה היין והשכרות

One who verbally mocks deeds or things, not because he personally scorns them but because this is the way of people who are happy for no reason, and it is a joking practice. Sometimes wine and intoxication causes this.

7. R' Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, Mesilat Yesharim Perek 5

כמו המגן המשוח בשמן אשר ישמיט ויפיל מעליו החצים ומשליכם לארץ ולא יניח אותם שיגיעו אל גוף האדם כן הלצון בפני התוכחה...

Like a shield anointed with oil, which shunts and staves off arrows, casting them to the ground, so they don't reach the person's body. So is latzon before rebuke…

8. Malbim to Mishlei 21:24

הזד הוא החולק על חקי החכמה בזדון, ומתוכח נגד חקי החכמה והאמונה, מכחיש בהשגחה ובשכר ועונש ועושה עבירות ביד רמה, וכ"ז שאינו יהיר אינו לץ עדיין, כי מתוכח בטענות וראיות לא בליצנות, ואם ינצחוהו ישתוק, אבל אם הוא יהיר אז לא יחוש לטעמים וראיות כלל, רק מתלוצץ על החכמים והמאמינים

The zeid contradicts the laws of wisdom with zadon, battling the laws of wisdom and faith, denying Divine supervision and reward and punishment, and transgressing with an upraised arm, but as long as he is not arrogant he is not a letz, for he battles with claims and proofs rather than leitzanut. If he is defeated, he is silent. One who is arrogant, though, is not concerned for reasons and proofs at all; he only scorns sages and believers.

9. R' Yitzchak Hutner, Pachad Yitzchak Purim, ענין א'

שמו של הכוח הזה המתפרץ בחזקה להפקיע את עצמו מידיה של החשיבות הוא "ליצנות". מדת הליצנות העצמית, כפי שהיא נמצאת בנפש בשרשה, ענינה הוא למצוא את הפרצה בכל בנין של חשיבות על מנת לסתור את הבנין מתוכה של פרצה זו.

The name of this force which bursts forth with strength to free itself from the hands of Importance is leitzanut. The essence of leitzanut, as it is found in the root of a soul, is to find the weakness in any structure of Importance in order to use it to demolish the structure.

Pursuing empty matters
10. Maharal, Netivot Olam, Netiv ha'Emet 2

הליצנות הם דברי הבאי שעושה מעשים שאין בהם ממש כלל כמו שהוא כל ליצנות, ולפיכך אין רואה פני שכינה... כי הוא יתב׳ ברא כל העולם ואין בעולם דבר אחד של ריקן והבל ושל בטלה. רק כל הבריאה הוא לצורך, אף שרואה האדם ויחשוב כי דבר זה הוא לבטלה אבל אין הדבר כך רק הכל לצורך, לכך אין רואה פני שכינה הלץ שהולך אחר דברי הבאי ודברי בטלה

Leitzanut is empty matters, performing deeds which have no substance at all, as in all leitzanut, and so one cannot be before the Shechinah… for He created the world, and nothing in the world is empty and in vain and worthless. All of Creation has a purpose, even if a person thinks something is worthless. It is not so – all is necessary. Therefore, a letz cannot be before the Shechinah, for he pursues emptiness and worthless things.

11. Maharal, Netivot Olam, Netiv haLeitzanut 1

האדם תחלת בריאה שלו בחסרון, ותמיד הוא יוצא לפעל לקבל, ואם האדם בשמחה כאילו כבר הוא בשלימות בלא חסרון , ודבר זה מביא אליו חסרון כי כאשר הוא בשלימות דבק בזה ההעדר והחסרון... רמזו ז"ל דבר זה , אמרו בפרק חלק אימתי יצר הרע ניתן באדם משעה שיוצא לאויר העולם שנאמר לפתח חטאת רובץ, והיצר הרע הוא ההעדר שהוא דבק באדם... וכל זמן שהוא בבטן אמו שיוצא הוויתו אל השלימות ואל הפעל אין דבק בו ההעדר, אבל כשנשלם הוייתו יוצא אל הפעל אז דבק בו ההעדר

Man is created lacking from the start, and he is perpetually becoming, to receive [growth]. One who is joyous is as though he has achieved completeness, without flaw, and this itself causes him a flaw. When he feels complete he is vulnerable to deficiency and to flaws… The Sages hinted at this when they said, "When is the yetzer hara put into a person? When he enters the world…" The yetzer hara is the deficiency which sticks to a person… As long as he is the womb, so that he is developing toward completeness and he is becoming, deficiency cannot affect him. But when he becomes complete then he is, and deficiency affects him.

12. Talmud, Berachot 30b

אביי הוה יתיב קמיה דרבה חזייה דהוה קא בדח טובא אמר וגילו ברעדה כתיב אמר ליה אנא תפילין מנחנא רבי ירמיה הוה יתיב קמיה דרבי זירא חזייה דהוה קא בדח טובא אמר ליה +משלי י"ד+ בכל עצב יהיה מותר כתיב אמר ליה אנא תפילין מנחנא

Abbaye was sitting before Rabbah, who saw that he was very happy. He said, "Is it not written, 'Rejoice in trembling!'" Abbaye replied: I am wearing tefillin.
R' Yirmiyah was sitting before R' Zeira, who saw that he was very happy. He said, "Is it not written, 'In all sadness there is advantage!'" R' Yirmiyah replied: I am wearing tefillin.

They really are watching

While out shopping a couple of weeks ago, I saw a woman walking down an aisle with her daughter; the daughter looked to be about 10 years old, and she was holding a container of blackberries. Suddenly, the container top opened, and the berries fell all around her. I was taken aback when the mother took a quick look around, then told her daughter to keep on walking.

The following relevant video isn't terribly artistic, and it goes for the easy lines and Hallmark images, but that's okay; the message is gold. (h/t Modern Uberdox)



This also surfaces in my mind around Chanukah, when we light the menorah. How do parents light the menorah - Is it an obligation? A tense time because so much needs to get done? Or a celebration, eagerly anticipated and given real honour?

They're watching us.

Christopher Hitchens' lessons on writing a derashah

[Not sure how I feel about this: Bringing the Kotel to You at Life in Israel]

I saw the following in Christopher Hitchens' 2004 bashing of Michael Moore on Slate. It's an attack on Moore's style of documentary, but it's also a very good point regarding the way a rabbi sermonizes:

I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised.

Two points here:
1. Certainly, a derashah must have a point of view. However, a derashah which only presents that view and fails to point out and address opposition is simplistic and dishonest.

2. Sources must be cited honestly. Quoting half of a midrash or a commentary because that supports your contention, but omitting the rest without so much as pointing out the problem, is, indeed, dishonest.

A good derashah, in my point of view, acknowledges complexity and addresses it with nuance, and uses sources without abusing them. Writing a good derashah is hard work. No wonder my Thursdays were such nightmares when I was in the rabbinate...