In the Name of Religion

With Rosh Hashanah approaching, we wanted to direct you to various articles on the Nishma website that are connected to the day, including material on Akeidat Yitzchak. 

We have also reproduced below one these Insights connected to Rosh Hashanah and the Akeida -- INSIGHT 5762-#01: In The Name Of Religion --  which was, also, originally written in response to 9/11:

Insight 5758-19: Simcha and Rosh Hashana
Insight 5761-2: THE RENEWAL OF AUTUMN
Insight 5770-01: TESHUVA M'AHAVA
Update 5755-1: G-d
Journal 9: TSHUVAH
Update 5755-2: The Faith of the Akeida
Insight 5762-1: In the Name of Religion

INSIGHT

5762 - #01

In The Name Of Religion

Belief in a deity is one of the most frightening thoughts within human existence. Projection of an all-powerful divine being and an afterlife allows the human being to ignore the parameters of rationality and define life within totally different perceptions. Black can be white and white can be black. Right is potentially wrong and wrong is potentially right.

The monumental tragedy that befell the world last week is an example of the potential evil that can be the product of a belief. The intensely sad realization that these terrorists were, probably, shouting in praise of their deity as they flew the hijacked planes, filled with innocents, into their targets, causes one to shiver. Their religion turned black into white, declaring this heinous crime a divinely-ordained act; rather than fearing death, they embraced it as they expected a result of divine bliss. There are those that argue that atheism is the root of the greatest evil. History in general, and Jewish history in particular, I believe, cries otherwise. The greatest evil is done in the name of religion.

Of course, there are those who will contend, pointing to Nazism as the strongest proof, that atheism is still the root of greater evil. Still, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik¹ insists that the Holocaust could not have taken place if not for the Catholic Church's preaching against the Jew over the centuries. It is religion that can define a person sub-human and deserving death even as our eyes only see a human being like all other human beings. It is religion that can turn evil into good. Atheism can cause one to act destructively but only within the borders of concrete self-interest. Religion can cause one to act beyond these parameters.² Ramban writes, at the end of The Disputation, that King James of Aragon declared, in reference to Ramban, that never before has he seen one who is without justice argue so well. Logic and arguments do not sway the one who acts in the name of religion. He is locked into his conclusion; his belief in his deity - and what he believes his deity to command - inherently defeats any argument. There is no point of conversation; there is no point of connection. The result is frightening.

But Judaism and Torah are different - that is what we would say. That is what we would like to believe. But is it so? And if so, how? When Khomeini came to power, a friend of mine told me that he felt that it was a great shame that Khomeini was not Jewish. What a wonderful Jew he would make, was my friend's declaration. I shuddered at the thought, but on the surface was he not correct? Do we not praise overall commitment to faith? Is there not a value in remaining adamant in our convictions even as the nations of the world challenge them?³ Do we not place the Will of God above the parameters of human morality? Even as I am revolted by the actions of these religious terrorists - and I stand in total opposition not only to their faith but their very idea of faith - I recognize that the language of Torah could be similarly hijacked to present a false defence of evil. How do I show that this would-be hijacking is not within the truth of Torah?

Akedat Yitzchak, the binding of Isaac,⁴ is read on the second day of Rosh Hashanah. It is a most powerful statement of faith but, more importantly, it is a statement of the priority of the Will of God over our moral senses. Yet this idea opens the trap for the pitfalls of religion. Parameters are lost; belief opens the realm of possibilities. Akedat Yitzchak is frightening. Without this idea, however, God is no longer God. God is no longer above all for God becomes subject to parameters. Unbridled belief is frightening but with any parameters God becomes bound. As such, religion, to truly reflect God, must be boundless and accept the possibility of that which is beyond us. To accept God means to accept the possibility that what He declares white is, in fact, white even as we see black. This is not only part of Torah, it must be part of Torah. And it is frightening.

It is Akedat Yitzchak itself that provides the answer - and the answer is confusion. Avraham says to Yitzchak that God will show the lamb for the sacrifice. Avraham says to the servants: we will return. Notwithstanding Rashi's comments, the simple reading is confusion. This is reinforced in Yalkut Shimoni, Bereishit 101 which describes Avraham questioning God at the conclusion of the episode. If God already declared that Yitzchak was to be the father of Avraham's generations, how could God call for his sacrifice? The question is not a challenge of God. The question is the greatest statement of the Omnipotence of God. When we question, we recognize the chasm that exists between us and God. And God's answer to Avraham was that Avraham was mistaken - God never ordered a sacrifice. If a chasm exists between Man and God, how can Man ever be sure that he has heard God correctly? We are called upon to listen to God but as human beings - and that must demand confusion. Are we ever sure? As human beings the answer must be no even as we strive to act in accordance with the Divine command. Thereby, we recognize the Awesomeness of God.

The problem of belief lies in the need for the human being to be sure. He thinks that his belief is sure when he ignores all other voices - within himself and within humanity - and gives himself up to his "beliefs." He thinks he then hears the true voice of the deity. But he in fact only hears his own voice - exactly because he is sure. Reliance upon our Divinely-given human perceptions is how we approach the world - they are necessary. They cannot be forsaken. But in recognition of the Divine, they also cannot be relied upon totally. When there is collision - there is confusion. It is at this point of confusion that we truly find God. Dogma and fanaticism believe that they find the deity in certainty - a certainty that declares normal human perceptions incorrect. Torah declares that we find God in our own recognition that we do not understand. We wonder, we question, we challenge, we strive for synthesis of our internal perceptions and the external directive; we wish to make sure that we truly hear God's voice - and we doubt. Not because we doubt God but because we doubt ourselves and our ability to hear God. We are overwhelmed by His Presence.
Khomeini could never have been a good Jew because he could not question himself. He could not be unsure; he could not be confused. Certainty results in the creation of a deity in the image of a man. This is the realm of evil - the source of the greatest evil for there is no parameters on such human beings. The perception of Torah is that God has no parameters - but the human being does. We are not God. The more we understand the awesomeness of the gulf between us and God, the more we must recognize our lack of comprehension even as our lives, through the study of Torah, are devoted to that comprehension; even as our lives, through the commands of Torah, demand action.

Ultimately this is the lesson of Akedat Yitzchak. We stand in confusion in the presence of God. On Rosh Hashanah, as we declare God, King, we are called upon to recognize the chasm that exists between us and Him. It is in this unsurety that the Jew remains unique and Torah can never be hijacked by evil - the evil of Man thinking he is sure, of Man pretending to be God.
Rabbi Benjamin Hecht

Notes

¹ As presented in Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, The Rav, Insight 18.10.
² Another response to the challenge that atheism is a greater root of evil can be found in Rabbi Soloveitchik's further argument that the various modern "isms" - communism, fascism - are, in fact, forms of idolatry. See Rabbi Abraham Besdin, Reflections of the Rav, "Profundity of Jewish Folk Wisdom" and "Teaching with Clarity and Empathy." Belief reads into reality constructs that are not otherwise there; the "Isms" do this as well as conventional religion. In the movie Schindler's List, the chilling execution of the Nazi commandant drives home this point.
³ See Rashi, Bamidbar 19:2. Furthermore, the various attacks, throughout history, upon circumcision always demanded such Jewish conviction. See, for example, Tanchuma, Tazria 5.
⁴ Bereishit 22:1-19.

Haftarah -Scheduling of Shuvah and Dirshu

« In addition to the three haftarot of doom and the seven haftarot of consolation familiar to us, the Tosafot speak also of "two haftarot of repentance" belonging to this set of haftarot, namely Dirshu Hashem be-Himatzo that is read on Tzom Gedalya and Shuva Yisrael that is read this Shabbat.  This means that this entire set of haftarot constitutes a response to Tisha be-Av. 
The destruction of the Temple necessitates a two-fold response: 1) mourning over the loss of the Temple and the members of Israel who fell in battle; and 2) a process of repentance "in order to stir up the hearts and open the paths of repentance.  This should serve as a reminder of our own evil deeds and those of our forefathers that were as our present deeds to the point that they caused them and us these troubles, so that by remembering these things we should repent and do good."[1]
The first and immediate response to the destruction is consolation; it is urgently needed in order to revive Israel's dejected spirit and strengthen their broken hearts.  Following the great effort that was invested in this cause over the course of the summer, the time has come for the repentance that is required in the wake of the destruction as a repair of Israel's evil deeds that led to it.  We see then that reading the haftara of Shuva stems from a double obligation of repentance: a) the special obligation of repentance generated by the Ten Days of Penitence[2]; and b) an obligation of repentance in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, which is rooted in the laws of fasting, as is emphasized by the Rambam in the aforementioned passage.  Formulated in a slightly different manner, it might be argued that now that we have finished reading the haftarot of consolation, the time has come to act toward their realization and bring about the redemption.  This requires repentance and therefore we must deal with the issue of repentance in the haftarot that follow the haftarot of consolation.»

Torah on the Web - Virtual Beit Midrash
http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/haftara/54shuva.htm


Kol Tuv,
RRW

Lo Bashamayim Hee

Originally published 5/27/08, 12:37 AM.

 Some give and take on Avodah with regard to Parshat Nitzavim

First Cantor Richard Wolberg:

«The Sages relate that the angels complained to Hashem when He chose to share His precious Torah with His people. They argued, "Your glory (Your Torah) should remain among the Heavenly beings. They are holy and Your Torah is holy, they are pure and Your Torah is pure and they are everlasting and Your Torah is also." One of the answers to that is three words from the Torah: "Lo bashamayim hee".

However, Midrash Shochar Tov 8 says that Hashem responded that the Torah could not remain amongst them because they are perfect spiritual beings with no mortality, impurity or illness. Hashem's true glory would ultimately come from man plagued by impurity and mortality.

Cantor R Wohlberg»

Then RRW:

«Hazal wanted us to know that once the Torah left the heavens it would no longer remain the pristine Perfect Handiwork of HKBH, but would henceforth be managed and interpreted by error-prone humans. Nevertheless - despite the loss of innocence for the Torah - this step was necessary. The time had come for the innocent Torah to mix it up with the mortals and to help us even if if would not remain in its original state.

------------------------------------------

Hence though Torah started miSinai, it is not necessarily purely miSinai any longer. It is now an admixture.

~*~*~*~

Now for Michael Markovi:

A much-expanded version of a previous post of mine to this thread, regarding my...err...radical view of TSBP:

Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner makes a large point of this, saying that the truth of Torah She'be'al'pe is not what Hashem says but what we say (Rabbi Eliezer and the oven), in line with Drashot haRan #5 on theoven and Sefer haChinuch on the mitzvah of following the judges, that
we follow our rabbis even when they're wrong.

See also Rabbi Gil Student's "Halachic Responses To Scientific Developments"
(http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/science.html)
citation of Yad Yehuda 30:3, quoting Rambam Hilkhot Shekhita 10:12-13, that we cannot question Chazal's decisions regarding which animals are treifa, because all we have is Chazal's decisions, and they are sealed.

According to Rambam, drashot can be overturned by a later Sanhedrin.

In fact, Rabbi Glasner, quoting the Midrash Shmuel on Avot, "aseh sayag laTorah", says that the Oral Law was oral davka to make it flexible and subject to change. This explains the Gemara's apocalyptic permission to write the Oral Law, viz "eit la'asot lashem"; by writing the Oral Law, to save it, a vital piece of it was destroyed, part of its raison d'etre in fact! Because once a piece of the Oral Law was written, it became authoritative, and no longer subject to change and
evolution as was previously the case.

Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits (who received semicha from Rabbi Glasner's son, Rabbi Akiva Glasner) expands extensively on this point, that the writing of the Mishna, Gemara, and the Codes successively ossified the halacha in a way that the Oral Law was never meant to be, making us Karaites of the Oral Law.

See Rabbi Glasner's hakdamah to his Dor Revi'i, perush on Chullin. It is partially translated by Rabbi Yaakov Elman at
http://www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4/elman.html.
See also the biography by David Glasner at
http://www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4/Dorrev7.html.
As for Rabbi Berkovits, he makes his points in a variety of locations, including Not in Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakha (aimed at secularly-educated scholars), Halakha: Kocha v'Tafkida (aimed at rabbinical scholars), Towards Historic Judaism, and Crisis and Faith.

Rabbi Glasner simply takes this entire philosophy a bit further thanmost. Likewise Rabbi Berkovits on Moshe seeing Rabbi Akiva's class andnot understanding and learning from this that Torah does evolve overtime; both are more extreme than most, but the gist of what they say is quite normative, as far as it seems to me. In fact, once we say that

1) halachot could be forgotten and had to be recovered by humans, 2) many drashot were in fact used by humans to actually derive the law(often **but not always** they were asmachtot for laws already knownas kabbalot)

(See, for example, Dynamics of Dispute by Rabbi Zvi Lampel, "Interpretation" by Menachem Elon in Encyclopedia Judaica, Rabbi Isidore Epstein's introduction to the Soncino Midrash Rabbah, Rabbi Gil Student "Midrash Halakha" at
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2004/11/midrash-halakhah.html)

we are admitting the human element of many halachot, and we can no longer say it is purely m'Sinai as most say Torah She'be'al Pe is, and we are forced, as it seems to me, to adopt some sort of opinion similar if not as extreme as those of Rabbis Glasner and Berkovits, as least as far as theory goes (Rabbi Berkovits's actualization of thisphilosophy is a matter for a separate debate.)

Therefore, for example, we ought to realize that an Amora's explanation of a Tanna may be his own personal thoughts, similar to any rav's understanding today of the intent of a prior authority. Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz in his Essential Talmud remarks on the peculiar Talmudic method of okimta, remarking that it aspires not for historicity, but rather, it attempts to make as many pieces of evidence agree as much as it possible.

There is thus no guarantee that a creative drasha is the correct intent of Torah, nor is there any guarantee that an Amora correctly understood a Tanna - see Tosafot Yom Tov Nazir 5:5 for permission to permit mishna differently than the Gemara.

Evidently, the Shadal (Shmuel David Luzzatto) held similarly to this whole line of thought, that Chazal's drashot on mikra are not necessarily "correct". See Shmuel Vargon's "Samuel David Luzzatto's Critique of Rabbinic Exegesis Which Contradicts the Plain Meaning of Scripture",http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/sum2.html
(note: my Hebrew is insufficient to have read this article yet, so I am relying on the abstract).

Rabbi David Bigman, rosh hayeshiva of Yeshivat Maaleh Gilboa (on Har haGilboa in the Jezre'el), for example, advocates critical Talmud study, asking, for example, what the Tanna meant independent what the Amora thought he meant; what different codifications of Oral Law say (Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosefta, etc.), each in their own light. See his "Finding a Home for Critical Talmud Study",

http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/bigman2_1.pdf,
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/talmud/Gemara/ModernStudy/BigmanCritical.

The Kuzari in 3:41 opines that the omer could be brought on any date chosen by Chazal, and it was Chazal who chose the second day of Pesach. If so, then it means the contrary opinions of the Tzadukim (that it was to fall on Sunday, as the literal mikra indicates) is wrong only insofar as it goes against the binding ruling of Chazal, and not because it was an invalid drasha. It seems to me that perhaps alternatively, we simply don't listen to Tzadukim even if they are correct; there is a story in the Gemara of one rabbi being put to death, and he realized it was because he once found a drasha of a min to be pleasing; even though the drasha was valid, he still should have ignored it. In any case, we can extrapolate that in general, freedom of midrash is restricted more by Chazal's binding decisions than any claim of theirs to being the only correct opinion.

I thank Rabbi Yaakov Elman of Yeshiva University for providing me with sources (most notably, he introduced me to Rabbi Glasner when I mentioned Rabbi Berkovits), as well as having extensive discussion with me on their implications. It should be noted, however, that this philosophy is still a work in progress by me, especially as I continue to learn more Chumash, Gemara, and Halacha. It should also be noted that any errors are mine, not Rabbi Elman's, as he has already pointed out certain errors in my thinking, and no doubt there are still more to be found.

Mikh'el Makovi

Parsha: Vayelech, "National Torah and Personal Torah"

We chose an article from the archives of Nishma's Online Library that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.

This week's parsha is Vayelech, and the topic is the self. We invite you to look at an article on this topic. 

Shalom,

RBH

Parshah: Ki Tavo - Arami Oved Avi

Question 1:

Why did Chazal choose Arami Oved Avi to illustrate the Central theme of Exodus in the Haggadah as opposed to - for example - Parshat Bo?

And given that there is a Tosefta (Peshachim 10:8) that states: "Those who live the in the city and have nobody to recite Hallel would gather in the shul".

Question 2: 

How would you know how to lead a Seder without knowing how to lead Hallel?

Here is a proposed answer to the 2 questions 

Originally, all farmers, when they brought the Bikurim, the first fruit, would recite Arami Oved Avi. So Chazal chose Arami Oved Avi to explain the Exodus because every farmer in Israel would be familiar with Arami Oved Avi when they brought the bikkurim annually to the Beit Hamikdash in Yerushalyim.

Now we can answer both questions because we can now explain:

1. Why Hazal specifically picked this Parsha over any other
2. How a Leader at the Seder could be familiar with the Haggadah [Arami Oved Avi] yet still not be familiar with how to lead the Hallel

RRW

Ki Tavo: Free Choice

From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.

This week's parsha is Ki Tavo and the topic is free choice. So often, people use the argument of free choice to explain why knowledge of God is not clear -- for it it was, we would not have free choice but would clearly not sin -- and/or to contend that there can be no consequences for our actions -- for if there were, we would not have free choice as, for sure, we would do what is good for us. If one considers the brachot and klalot in the Torah, though, one must recognize that free choice exists even when knowledge of God is absolute and the recognition of the consequences of one's actions, even the punishment for sins, is clear and accepted. We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/insight5757-18.htm

Parshah Ki Teitzie 9/11, Amaleik, Honesty and Anti-Semitism

The juxtaposition of honest weights and measures has been used by Hazal to be a causal connexion.; viz. when Jews are dishonest in business the specter of Amaleik rears its ugly head. And I have heard similar statements by Holocaust survivors. Supposedly, Anwar Sadat had anti-Semitic feelings due to being ripped off as a youngster by a Jewish businessman.

So be it.

But I would like to suggest as slight nuance shift. The concept that dishonesty in business triggers Anti-Semitism or Amaleik is difficult to perceive. How can the simple act of being dishonest bring about full-fledged persecution?

I would suggest an alternative way of understanding this point. I.E. that there are Latent Anti-Semites all over the place. However, when we Jews behave ourselves we merit Divine Protection. However, when we Misbehave we are stripped of this special shield and we are now VULNERABLE to Amaleik or Anti-Semitism. This might be viewed as a form of negative re-enforcement philosophically speaking; nevertheless in pragmatic and historical terms this can explain how a relatively minor infraction can trigger such a virulent response.

The late Jerry Falwell and other Christian Leaders voiced a similar point of view [POV] with regard to 9-11. and that is normally America merits Divine Protection but for some misbehaviour this Divine Shield was removed. In the case of the Christian Right, that was attributed to Sexual deviance, etc. While the specific attribution might betray a right-wing or Fundamentalist mindset, the concept of Divine Protection being removed is IMHO indeed a very legitimate Jewish, Midrashic concept. In the case of us Jews, the shield subject to business practices. Woe unto us re: some recent allegations re: some prominent Jewish Businesses.

In the case of America I have no idea which sin was the egregious one that removed this Divine Protection. Perhaps the Christian Right has it right, but it is also possible it has it wrong. If the Dor Hamabbul is a precedent for the world at large, the issue would be "hamas" or a form of thievery - not sexual deviancy. Nevertheless. the impact is similar, i.e. that any catastrophe must bring about active introspection and is a call for self-improvement regardless of the specific shortcoming. To put it another way. the Christian Right might have the specific misdeed all wrong but could also be 100% correct that SOME misdeed permitted this plot to succeed and we are therefore impelled to take this as a wake up call.

With thoughts of Elul time Teshuva,

RRW

Parsha: Ki Teitzei, "War and the Innocent Bystander"

This week's parsha is Ki Teitzei and the topic is the response to terrorism. In the response to terrorism, the practical reality is that there is always a great possibility that innocent individuals will also be hurt and killed. How do we understand this action within the Torah's moral perception?

We have chose the article, War and the Innocent Bystander from the archives of Nishma's Online Library both to direct you to the Dvar Torah and to initiate some discussion.


Shalom,

RBH

Re: [Avodah] proofs of G-d

On Nov 21, 2007, 5:38 AM, Marty Bluke <marty.bluke@gmail.com> wrote:

Meshech Chochma( Shemos 13:9)writes:

"Divine Providence is manifest for each Jew according to his spiritual
level as the Rambam explains in Moreh Nevuchim (3:18): Divine
Providence is not equal for everyone but rather is proportional to
their spiritual level. Consequently the Divine Providence for the
prophets is extremely powerful each according to their level of
prophecy. The Divine Providence for the pious and saintly is according
to their level of perfection. In contrast the fools and the rebels
lacking spirituality are in essence in the same category as animals...
This concept that Divine Providence is proportional to spiritual level
is one of foundations of Judaism..."

Today, this idea (that the Chinuch explicitly rejects) of hashgacha
pratis on everything has taken hold. There is no question that it is a
very calming thought. You don't have to worry about chance occurrences
affecting you, everything is directly from Hashem. However, this was
not the view of the overwhelming majority of the Rishonim.

Regarding Moznay tzedek and Amaleik:

At the end of parshas Ki Teittzei there is the juxtaposition of Business ethics and Amaleik.
Questions:

1.  how does a failing of business ethics give Amaleik any power over us?
2. Aren't there anti-Semites all of the time,  What's new about this situation.

Speaking to my congregation - consisting of many survivors of the Nazi regime - I explained it thusly:
The normal/usual situation is that there are ALWAYS anti-Semites out there. BUT it is only when we fail to live up to the Torah standards of Business Ethics that Hashem ALLOWS them power over us [kind of hester panim due to our bad behavior]

Simlarly Ya'kov Avinu was promised safe passing by HKBH but was afraid of "shema yigrom hacheit" But we know from Rambam et. al. that HKBH never takes away a POSITIVE promise?  Shema yigrom might remove the higher level of protection that was required. [ e.g. vayhi chitas Elokim....]

L'havdil, many Evangelicals felt that 9-11 was a result of Hashem withdrawing His usual protection of America due to America's mis-behavior.  So this idea of removing Protection in the face of Sin is a fairly common concept.

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

Is Parshat Zachor d'Oraitto? - 1

Actually this would be better phrased as:

"What Is the disposition of Parshat Zachor as per Shas and Posqim?"

Let's Start with Sources - Part 1:

See the texts in the Mishnah Brurah
SA O"Ch 685:7
Some say "Zachor" is d'oraitto.
Be'er Hagolah 10
Source: Tosafot Brachot 13
Ba'er Hetev 2 quibbles over Parshat Parah
He also quotes. Tosafot shantz that no other Q'riat Hatorah is d'oraitto other than Zachor
Quoting Magen Avraham - Also Parshat Zachor with 10 is more important than Megillat Esther...
Mishnah Brura 14
"And we learn in the Gmara that Zachor must be "amira mitoch hasefer b'libo"

Next post BEH
Positions of
Kaf Hachayyim
Aruch Hashulchan
Kitzur SA

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Re: Is Parshat Zachor d'Oraitto? - 2

See the Aruch haShulchan
Orach Chaim 685:6

And see the new edition with fn to Mishna Brura notes 4 and 5

Kaf Hachaim esp. #33
[Vol. 8 p. 156]

Citing Talmud Bavli Megillah 18a

«Therefore [as per Rabbenu Hannanel on the Talmud there] both reader and listener need to intend to fulfill the positive commandment of the Torah»

Also see Kitzur SA 140:3. Quoting SA, Rema et al.


KT
RRW

Leining: Is it zeikher or zekher?

Originally published 4/2/08, 11:06 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.

I looked up ZECHER in the Even Shoshan Concordance - and in it I located 2 occurences of Zecher - and BOTH were proper names!

Zecher is clearly wrong. Rav Mordechai Breuer OBM has confirmed this with unassailable research While the Ma'seh Rav attests to this idea of Zecher Rav Haim Volozhiner protested this very attestation [albeit very politely]. In NO way were TWO readings ever suggested

But if safeik D'd'oraiito lehumra re: Zachor why not go all the way? [Reductio ad absurdum indeed- after all it is read around Purim time! So why not

1. Read it from BOTH a Sepyhardic and Ashkenaic Torah...
2. Read BOTH Scrolls with every permutation of pronunciation [e.g. litvisher, Hungarian, Yekkish, Sephardic Yemineite etc. etc.]?

The Vilna Gaon himself made fun of multiple pairs of Tefillin as ludicrous and came up with 32-64 possible permutations. Ironically we are beginning to perpetuate such a practice in his honor. [Incidentally, this proves there MUST be a God or else it would make no sense to practice such a minhag to honor the one who felt such permutation as unnecessary.]

One Rabbi insisted that whilst reading Ki Tetze both Zeicher and Zecher must be read TWICE, one for Shevii'i and once for Maftir! His argument? since we have changed the form [tzura] for Zachor therefore THAT becomes THE normative way to read it EVERY time we read the Torah, including Ki Tetze! No I am not kidding, I had a bar mitzva student who HAD to do it this way!



Kol Tuv / Best Regards,

RabbiRichWolpoe

Zachor: Zeicher vs. Zecher 1

Originally published 3/3/10, 9:13 pm.

Re: Repeating to read Zachor to accommodate both Zeicher and Zecher

There are those with whom I may never agree and in particular there is this one fellow with whom I often lock horns; he sent me a private email that expresses some of my own outrage on this matter...

I think it's safe to snip out these two points:

1. The practice looks silly.
2. The practice looks ... to be huqa utelula.

When you think about it, they are almost the same point.
Here is my similar reaction in a private email to a completely different colleague.

I still think it's a bad approach, a bad precedent and a bad example. We're making Reform & Conservative frummer with regards to the Masoretic text than we Orthodox Jews are. As we play more games with it, we thereby making it appear "less holy" and more susceptible to error.

Next:
Zeicher and Zecher on steroids. ;-)

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Zachor: Zeicher vs. Zecher 2

Posted with permission from the author.

This post speaks for itself. -RRW


«Re zeicher and zecher.

My brother-in-law, Prof. Jordan Penkower of Br Ilan University wrote an extensive article proving that the correct pronunciation is zeicher. It's way beyond my expertise although Jordan acknowledged as a leading expert in Bible studies, Jewish manuscripts etc.

I asked a member of my shul, who is also an expert in this field and who often is the ba'al korey on Parshat Zachor, if he had read the article. he said he had and that Jordan was "absolutely" correct. So I asked him (as Jordan had asked me to) whether he would read it only that way (zeicher) on Parshat Zachor. "Of course not," he replied; "what do facts have to do with minhag Yisrael?" And sure enough, he read it both ways.

Joseph Kaplan»

Zachor: Zeicher vs. Zecher 3

Zeicher vs. Zecher on Steroids

I attended a Bar Mitzvah on Parshat Ki Teitze. There, the BM boy repeated zecher-zeicher twice
• Once for sh'vii
• Once for maftir

I found this strange. The entire Rationale for the Mishnah Brurah's requirement of repeating this - is predicated upon the premise that Zachor is d'oraitto! That does not apply to Ki Teitze.

Also it would be simple to accomodate Zecher/Zeicher by doing one way during sh'vii and the other way during Maftir! Win-win! After all the Passuq was being repeated anyway.

I asked the local Rav. He claimed that once MB changed the tzurah of how to lain this passage, it gets changed across the board in the same tzurah. I found this incredulous! Would the MB ever have made that suggestion? Seems far-fetched indeed.

But we do see that Halachah or Minhag evolves even twice in several generations. First for Zachor alone and then for Ki Teitze.

Zeicher vs. Zecher on Steroids - INDEED ;-)

KT
RRW

Zachor: Zeicher vs. Zecher 4

Originally published 3/7/10, 8:30 PM

Reb Ira Gruscott mentions that, "Of course , what he doesn't say is that prior to and even during the lifetime of R' Y.M. Kagan z't'l, it was never a minhag to repeat....even in Yeshivas Radun."

Check Marc Shapiro's post on this.
This can be spun two ways.Either
A: it's a frum shtick with  no basis either in minhag or grammar or halakha; or
B: Orthodoxy does have a halakha that is -to quote Shapiro- "dynamic" This, of course goes to the post on your blog re: how one "feels" regarding halakha

ISG»

Look, we live in an ambiguous world!

Let's face the facts. Those who can tolerate ambiguity well,  will be fine, while those who cannot, will be frustrated, angry, railing, and dueling the windmills. Most of us fall somewhere in between! ;-)

Indeed I think "minhag Yisrael" is perhaps a poor choice of words.

What I think he was really saying is that Professor Penkower's academic analysis is irrelevant to the Halachah - one way or the other. Only a Poseiq can make that call, not a professor. As to how the Mishnah Brurah's ruling caught on fire - I do not know. I understand Lubavitch does this, and they are not known to be particularly deferential to the MB

Perhaps, as Hacham Sassoon might say: we believe in continuous revelation. Others might see the Hand of Divine Providence.

What bothers me about the Mishnah Brurah's method is that he presents the safeiq as even. It's not. And as Rabbi Noah G. has noted, a Halachic Safeiq is usually approxximately 50-50.
Here it's clearly not a 50-50. For example, I might say that Rabbenu Tam Tefillin might be 50-50, but Catholic Israel did away with that opinion.

R' Mordechai Breuer's article is brilliant on this matter. I have Professor Penkower's article but I have not yet had the pleasure to complete it.

As I understand Rav Halivni and Rabbis Feldblum and Price, we don't follow "science" when it comes to halachic practice, particularly in nusach. For example, This came up regarding "unetaneh toqef" and "kivnei maron" where Albeck and others suggest "kivnumerion" instead. R' Price dismissed this as academic and not halachic, and so subject to the shifting paradigms in science. For instance, is Pluto still a planet?

The story goes that in Breslau Seminary -

Proffessor Graetz read the Haftara with his emendation based upon science

And R' Z. Frankel apparently re-read the entire passage [iirc with brachot] to make the point that we don't emend Tanach on the basis of our scientific point of view - at least not during the liturgy

Anyway, we can safely say this:

• The Masoretes deviated from the Talmud in a number of instances.
• The Kimchi's Grammar deviated from the Tiberian grammatical system on several points.

- I believe segol is one of those areas. Anyway, as far as I know, the Kimchi's PRONOUNCED tzeire and segol the same - obviating any need for repetition. Perhaps our very hakpadah to distinguish the two vowels has led us to this safeiq, though many would claim that this is irrelevant.

'Nuff Said.

Zissen Pesach,
RRW

Zachor: Zeicher vs. Zecher 5

R David Bannett - from the Avodah List

I started learn to read the Torah some 75 years ago in Flatbush and was taught to read both ways. We did not repeat the entire pasuk but only the phrase "timcheh et zeikher Amalek". I don't remember if I was taught the order but, many years later, I decided to read the incorrect zekher first and then correct myself by saying zeikher the second time. Similarly, in the megilla, when the megilla has the incorrect bifneihem and laharog I read as written and then correct myself by repeating the phrase only: v'ish.... lifneihem and k'hashmid.... v'laharog. If the megilla is correct I read only once.

Anyone slightly interested in the subject should read R'Mordekhai Breuer's article. Those very interested should go directly to R' Prof Penkower's article. He gives the entire history, about 45 pages, including statistics on manuscripts from the time of ben Asher as well as customs of reading, etc.
The double reading evidently started slightly before the Hafetz Hayyim made it popular. Penkower cites a ba'al Kriah who was instructed by R' Sh'neur Zalman mi'Lublin to read twice. This R' Sh"Z died in 1902. The Mishna B'rura was printed in 1906.

I was delighted to read that R' Penkower read twice despite his indisputable proofs that zeikher is correct. A few years ago I gave a Friday night talk proving that there is absolutely no justification for double reading. On the following morning I read parashat zakhor and read zekher followed by zeikher. I too do as I was taught and do not allow myself to be confused with facts. I am overjoyed to find that I follow the derekh of the expert.

It should be pointed out that no eidah other than the Ashkenazi ever questioned the correct reading. AFAIK, Yekkes are the only Ashkenazi unaffected by the double-reading syndrome.

As to developments in Israel: One of my grandchildren told me his rosh yeshiva told him to read only once (based on Breuer). On the other hand I davenned this year at a yeshiva where in addition to reading in Abazit, Ashkenoz, Moroccan, and Yemenite they also had Parsi and what might have been Iraqi.

I have also heard a ba'al k'riah reading in mivta Ashkenazi repeat Machlas and Mochlas, and yahalom and yohalom. He told me that he was told to do so by Harav Nebenzahl. At this rate, it won't be long before we'll be hearing hundreds of p'sukim read twice.

David

Important Dead Sea Scroll news

From RRW

From <https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/scientists-finally-read-the-oldest-biblical-text-ever-found-a7323296.html>:

[Go there for video]

==========================

SCIENTISTS FINALLY READ THE OLDEST BIBLICAL TEXT EVER FOUND

The charred lump of scroll sat in an archaeologist’s office,

impossible to read without destroying it – until now

Andrew Griffin

Scientists have finally been able to read the oldest biblical text ever found.

The 2,000-year-old scroll has been in the hands of archaeologists for

decades. But it hasn’t been possible to read it, since it was too

dangerous to open the charred and brittle scroll.

Scientists have now been able to read it, using special imaging

technology that can look into what’s inside. And it has found what was

in there: the earliest evidence of a biblical text in its standardised

form.

The passages, which come from the Book of Leviticus, show the first

physical evidence of a long-held belief that the Hebrew Bible that’s

in use today has is more than 2,000 years old.

The discovery was announced in an article in Science Advances written

by researchers from Kentucky and Jerusalem. It described how the

researchers used a tool called “virtual unwrapping”, which provides a

3D digital analysis of an X-ray scan.

Read more Ancient cemetery could solve one of the Bible’s biggest mysteries

By using that, it was the first time that researchers have been able

to read an ancient scroll without actually opening it.

"You can't imagine the joy in the lab," said Pnina Shor of the Israel

Antiquities Authority, who participated in the study.

The digital technology, funded by Google and the U.S. National Science

Foundation, is slated to be released to the public as open source

software by the end of next year.

Researchers hope to use the technology to peek inside other ancient

documents too fragile to unwrap, like some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and

papyrus scrolls carbonized in the Mt. Vesuvius volcano eruption in 79

CE. Researchers believe the technology could also be applied to the

fields of forensics, intelligence, and antiquities conservation.

The biblical scroll examined in the study was first discovered by

archaeologists in 1970 at Ein Gedi, the site of an ancient Jewish

community near the Dead Sea. Inside the ancient synagogue's ark,

archaeologists found lumps of scroll fragments.

The synagogue was destroyed in an ancient fire, charring the scrolls.

The dry climate of the area kept them preserved, but when

archaeologists touched them, the scrolls would begin to disintegrate.

So the charred logs were shelved for nearly half a century, with no

one knowing what was written inside.

Last year, Yosef Porath, the archaeologist who excavated at Ein Gedi

in 1970, walked into the Israel Antiquities Authority's Dead Sea

Scrolls preservation lab in Jerusalem with boxes of the charcoal

chunks. The lab has been creating hi-resolution images of the Dead Sea

Scrolls, the earliest copies of biblical texts ever discovered, and he

asked researchers to scan the burned scrolls.

"I looked at him and said, 'you must be joking,"' said Shor, who heads the lab.

She agreed, and a number of burned scrolls were scanned using

X-ray-based micro-computed tomography, a 3D version of the CT scans

hospitals use to create images of internal body parts. The images were

then sent to William Brent Seales, a researcher in the computer

science department of the University of Kentucky. Only one of the

scrolls could be deciphered.

Using the "virtual unwrapping" technology, he and his team

painstakingly captured the three-dimensional shape of the scroll's

layers, using a digital triangulated surface mesh to make a virtual

rendering of the parts they suspected contained text. They then

searched for pixels that could signify ink made with a dense material

like iron or lead. The researchers then used computer modeling to

virtually flatten the scroll, to be able to read a few columns of text

inside.

"Not only were you seeing writing, but it was readable," said Seales.

"At that point we were absolutely jubilant."

The researchers say it is the first time a biblical scroll has been

discovered in an ancient synagogue's holy ark, where it would have

been stored for prayers, and not in desert caves like the Dead Sea

Scrolls.

The discovery holds great significance for scholars' understanding of

the development of the Hebrew Bible, researchers say.

In ancient times, many versions of the Hebrew Bible circulated. The

Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to as early as the 3rd century B.C., featured

versions of the text that are radically different than today's Hebrew

Bible.

Scholars have believed the Hebrew Bible in its standard form first

came about some 2,000 years ago, but never had physical proof, until

now, according to the study. Previously the oldest known fragments of

the modern biblical text dated back to the 8th century.

The text discovered in the charred Ein Gedi scroll is "100 percent

identical" to the version of the Book of Leviticus that has been in

use for centuries, said Dead Sea Scroll scholar Emmanuel Tov from the

Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who participated in the study.

"This is quite amazing for us," he said. "In 2,000 years, this text

has not changed."

Noam Mizrahi, a Dead Sea Scrolls expert at Tel Aviv University who did

not participate in the study, called it a "very, very nice find." He

said the imaging technology holds great potential for more readings of

unopened Dead Sea Scrolls.

"It's not only what was found, but the promise of what else it can

uncover, which is what will turn this into an exciting discovery,"

Mizrahi said.

 

Parsha: Shoftim, "To King or Not to King"

Canadians will undoubtedly favour the Royalist Position whilst Americans will surely prefer the Republican Position!

The Torah states that: when you [Bnei Yisrael] ask for a KING,  "'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me" (Devarim: 17:14) you shall surely place one - Even [or especially] when asking to be like the surrounding nations.

Sh'muel [with Hashem's approbation] protests that his people requested a King just like "the Goyim." (Shmuel I 8:5).

Shmuel's protestations all make sense if our Sidrah-Parsha is stating that this royal appointment is optional and subjunctive to a request. In that case, the objection was to the request for appointing a King. Once requested, it must be fulfilled,  according to the law in our Parshah.

However, Rambam Sefer Hamitzvot et. al. states that a king is a requirement.  This implies that the request is also obligatory. Sh'muel's protests then seem difficult to fathom.

I have some answers but I was wondering what you readers might say?

Shalom,

RRW

Shoftim: The False Prophet

From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.

This week's parsha Shoftim and the topic is the the navi sheker, the false prophet. The issue is not solely the person who lies about speaking in the name of God but the issue is also the message. The issue concerns any distortion of Torah. We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5756-22.html

Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof

From RRW

The classic question is why the repetition of Tzedek‎?

I don't recall who said this answer first....

Look at this way:

See the first Tzedek ‎as an adjective

Thus translate it as:

"Just Justice shall you pursue"

It's not enough to seek Just Ends

They must be pursued via Just Means

L'havdil, the US Constitution echoes this

"No one may be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of Law."

Taking the Law into one's own hands is not acceptable. (wth rare exception)

Shooting George Wallace or Yitzchak Rabin is not an OK approach. 

To'eva

From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.
 
The topic is the the term to'evah, usually translated as abomination. The term is often used by proponents of different ethical perspectives as a further indication of the significance of their ethical stance. The fact is, though, that the use of this term in the Chumash itself may not actually provide support for such assertions. We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5754-27.htm.

Parsha: Emor, "Is Sefirat ha'Omer One Mitzva or Two?"

originally posted August 9, 2015

The Rambam firmly construes Sefirat Ha'Omer as one Mitzvah. Sefer HaHinuch concurs with the Rambam's read. Abbaye, however, affirms in the Talmud that just as it is a Mitzva to count days – so it is a Mitzva to count weeks. 

These passages strongly suggest two separate Mitzvot. In Parshat Emor we read, "Tisp'ru Chamishim YOM" (Vaykira:  23: 16), while the text states in Parshat R'eih, "Sheva Shavuot Tispar Lach" . (Devarim: R'eih: 16:9) Doesn't it seem obvious that the two verses in the Torah describe two separate but equal actions?

Problem: How can an individual nowadays simply argue with the Rambam - especially without any further support? Furthermore, must I not construe the silence of so many peer reviews that as implicit acquiescence? 

A rabbinic intern recently provided an informative answer in his shiur. Rabbeinu Yerucham considers Sefirah as two separate Mitzvot! He also posits that as well. My hypothesis now has supporting evidence.

I asked the speaker how he had found this relatively obscure source. He had noted that the new edition of the Minhat Hinuch has this source cited in the footnotes. This indicates that the matter assumed to be a slam dunk by the Hinuch is, in reality, a matter of dispute. Rabbeinu Yerucham had already articulated this voice of opposition, so I need no  longer be concerned about the silence of the peer review.

Case Closed

-------------------------------------------------

Comment On Original Post.

Aside from a bit of Talmud Torah - why did I post this comment?

Sometimes we see something and we assume it to be axiomatic, mutually agreed upon. In attempting to master rational thinking, I came across the concept of "not jumping to conclusions".  After all, if Jews are always questioning,  why was the Rambam's ruling of only one mitzva never questioned? It seemed likely that seeing it as two mitzvoth was an equally good read.

Failing to research this myself, I humbly concluded that Rambam won by acclamation. Case Closed. QED. 

However, after attending a Shiur in which the rabbi found a source that did challenge this Rambam, I had to recant.  Now I realized that my question - my observation - had some validity in classic sources.  It was just unnecessary for other sources to question the Rambam once Rabbeinu Yerucham posed his challenge. I could no longer construe their silence as acquiescence to the Rambam's decision.

In fact, I could now conclude nothing. Although, I now suspect that the silence is possible confirmation that both reads are about 50-50. and therefore no one needs to enter the fray to reject either side as off-target.

This is an important principle to realize: just because we have not seen a competing source does not mean it is not there! I must also confess to not researching the matter in depth. It therefore has also taught me a bit of humility.

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Eqev, "Who Wrote the Second Luchot?"

It always seemed Pashut to me that Moshe carved the second set of luchot and that Hashem wrote on them.

Once, a Rav happened to briefly mention that Moshe wrote the latter set of luchot in his drasha. I found this far-fetched at the time. Today, I find it completely untenable.

Just take a look at the parsha. It seems clear that Hashem wrote on the second set of luchot. (Eqev: 10: 2-4)

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Equev, "Defining 'Eqev' via the 'Concordance Technique' "

Rashi uses the Concordance Technique  to define some difficult or ambiguous words. A great illustration is the verb "PSCh" as in "Ufasachti alleichem" (Shmoth 12:13) There Rashi offers 2 definitions:

1. "V'hamal." "Hashem will have mercy." Rashi bases this upon Yeshaya 31:5. It matches the Targum "v'Yeihos"
2. "V'dileig" based upon Melachim I 18:21. This matches the modern "passover" to skip over or to jump over

------------------------

Now for the background of "Eqev."

• Targum states Halaf meaning "in exchange." 
• Rashi Midrashically puns: "Those mitzvoth that one tramples with one's heel"

------------------------

Although Rashi himself did not choose to use the Concordance Technique here, Rashi frequently offers a subset of the range of "valid" techniques and definitions.

"Eqev" appears in Humash five times:

1. Eqev asher shama Avraham Beqoli (Breishit 22:18)
2. Eqev asher shama Avraham b'Kqoli (Breishit 26:5)
3.  Eqev hayeta Ruch Achereth imo (Bamidbar 14:24)
4. Appears in Eqev itself, in conjunction with the verb "lishmo'a" totaling four of five instances. (Devarim: 7:12)
5. Again, in Eqev. (Devarim: 8:20)

Cases 1 and 3 are the key for me. Both involve "nisayyon" IE crisis situation

1. The Aqeida
2. This is a generic use of the word "Equev," but since they both refer to Avraham, it is feasible to hook it onto one.
3. The Meraglim

This means that Eqev may be more precisely understood to mean "Halaf," in exchange for listening/obeying - or for being - "UNDER DURESS."

Now four and five can be understood.
4. "And it shall be when you obey Under Duress (you shall be blessed...)" (Devarim: 7:12)
5. "...and when you fail to obey Under Duress..." (Devarim: 8:20)

And abandon Hashem...

Shalom,

RRW

Eqev: Who Inscribed the Second Luchos?

Originally published 8/5/09, 6:45 pm.

Given:
Hashem both carved and inscribed the First Luchos.
Moshe hewed the Second set of Luchos
Who inscribed this second set?

We have some ambiguities in the text.
We can resolve them by means of the 13th principle of Rabbi Yishma'el: 'Vechein sh'nei ch'suvim  amach'chishim ze es zeh..'

First the conflicting bit:
1. Shnei Ch'suvim:
Shmos 34:1, HKBH writes the Second Luchos: "V'chasavti al halluchos"

2. Sh'mos 34 "K'sav lecha.." Moshe is writing on (luchos? Or something else?)

Although the two do not completely contradict each other, they do seem ambiguous.
This week's Parsha, Eqev, to the rescue!
The scale tipper: Hakkatuv hashlishi:

3. Dvarim Eqev Ch. 10:2-4 "v'echtov al halluchos" where it is clear that HKBH wrote on the 2nd Luchos.
I think this structure is clear. Therefore, in #2, Moshe probably wrote something else or wrote the dibros upon something else, like parchment.

KT,
RRW

Parsha: Va'etchanan, "The Perception of Torah"

How does the world view us?

On the one hand, many see our laws as somewhat odd. Rashi  himself writes, in the beginning of parshat Chukkot, that the nations of the world will mock us. Yet, doesn't Devarim 4:6  declare that the nations of the world will also see us, through our laws, as a "wise and understanding people"? So, which is it?

Should we expect the world to mock or praise us and our observance of mitzvot?

We invite you to look at the following Nishma Spark of the Week for a response to this question.

Shalom,

RBH

Yitro Vs. Ruth

originally published on 1/12/14

We read the 10 Dibrot on both P. Yitro and on Shavuot, and technically on vo'Etchanan, too! We also read the Scroll of Ruth on Shavuot so we can easily "connect the dots" between Ruth and the Dibrot
Now let's ask -

What do Yitro and Ruth have in common, and where do they differ?

What they do have in common is the discovery of the ONE TRUE G-D! No denying the sincerity of their common quest for that Holy Grail - so to speak.

Where do they differ?

Yitro found G-d, but - despite his relationship to his daughter and son-in-law - he subsequently abandoned the Jewish People to return to Midian.

Ruth, however, cleaved to Naomi and abandoned Moab to live the life of a beggar in Judea. Her commitment motto? Ameich Ami Veilokayich Elokai!. Her declaration of loyalty to the Jewish Nation preceded her commitment to G-D!

Blasphemy? Adearrabbah - a prerequisite! Yitro is the prototype of the Noahide who has found the True G-d but needs no society.

Ruth is the true convert, the prototypical "Ger Tzedeq" (actually Giyoert of course!). There is one reason to convert to Judaism following one's Spiritual Journey - to join the Priestly Kingdom and the Holy Nation. In truth, to live a life of G-dliness as an individual spiritual seeker needs no Judaism or Peoplehood.

Ruth's progeny? David and Mashiach. Her affiliation to our peoplehood earned her common destiny with us.
Yitro? A good guy to whom we say "fare thee well". Who of Yitro's descendants makes a glorious impact? Not the descendants of Hever haKeini who are allies.

Any sincere spiritual seeker can find G-d as an individual Noahide, but the prototypical Ger/Giyoret shares Jewish Destiny and Torah, as well as G-d.

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: V'etchanan, "Yashar and Tov"

This week's parsha is Va'etchanan. The topic is the source of ethics, and most specifically,  the terms yashar and tov. In our ethical behaviour, do we search solely for Divine approval? Is there value in human approval? We invite you to look at an article on this topic at Nishma's Online Library.

Shalom,

RBH

Sinat Chinum - Purposeless Hatred

We are told that the churban Bayit Sheni, the destruction of the Second Temple, was a result of sinat chinum. But what does this term mean?
Most define it in the realm of "cause", focusing on a negative cause for hatred -- which is then expanded by many individuals to include any reason for hatred.
Is it true that there are no possible acceptable or even good reasons to hate? More significantly, though, is one able to control this emotional response of hatred?

Reviewing the sources seeming about the concept of sinat chinum brings someone into the general halachic discussion on hatred in general.  This discussion focuses on how one should deal with this emotion, and what is the correct effect of hatred, not on hatred's cause. In this light, the term sinat chinum may not really be describing anarchy in the causes of hatred but rather anarchy in the effects of hatred.

Further on this subject, I invite you to read a further discussion of this issue in Nishma Insight 5757-22,23: Defining Sinat Chinum on the Nishma website.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

JVO Blog: National Despair

Jewish Values Online (jewishvaluesonline.org) is a website that asks the Jewish view on a variety of issues, some specifically Jewish and some from the world around us -- and then presents answers from each of the denominations of Judaism. Nishmablog's Blogmaster Rabbi Wolpoe and Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Hecht, both serve as Orthodox members of their Panel of Scholars. Nishmablog, over the years, has also featured the responses on JVO by one of our two Nishma Scholars who are on this panel. 

The Jewish Values Online website now offers a new service -- a blog which presents comments on various topics within Judaism and the Jewish world. See
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/jvoblog/index?aid=0. Rabbi Hecht is also a blogger on this blog.

His latest post 

National Despair
is now available at http://jewishvaluescenter.org/jvoblog/despair
A link is also up on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/JewishValuesOnline/

Haftara of Tisha b'Av - Hacham, Gibbor, Ashir

ירמיהו פרק ט
כב כֹּה אָמַר ה`, אַל-יִתְהַלֵּל חָכָם בְּחָכְמָתוֹ,
וְאַל-יִתְהַלֵּל הַגִּבּוֹר, בִּגְבוּרָתוֹ;
אַל-יִתְהַלֵּל עָשִׁיר, בְּעָשְׁרוֹ. 

כג כִּי אִם-בְּזֹאת יִתְהַלֵּל הַמִּתְהַלֵּל, הַשְׂכֵּל וְיָדֹעַ אוֹתִי--כִּי אֲנִי ה`, עֹשֶׂה חֶסֶד מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה בָּאָרֶץ:  כִּי-בְאֵלֶּה חָפַצְתִּי, נְאֻם-ה`.

מסכת אבות פרק ד

ד,א  בן זומא אומר, איזה הוא חכם--הלמד מכל אדם, שנאמר "מכל מלמדיי, השכלתי" (תהילים קיט,צט).  איזה הוא גיבור--הכובש את יצרו, שנאמר "טוב ארך אפיים, מגיבור" (משלי טז,לב).  איזה הוא עשיר--השמח בחלקו, שנאמר "יגיע כפיך, כי תאכל; אשריך, וטוב לך" (תהילים קכח,ב):  "אשריך", בעולם הזה; "וטוב לך", לעולם הבא.  איזה הוא מכובד--המכבד את הברייות, שנאמר "כי מכבדיי אכבד ובוזיי ייקלו" (שמואל א ב,ל).


Notice how neatly Ben Zoma in Avot 4:1 darshens the P'sukkim in Yirmiyahu 9:22-23 in such a way as to allow for a genuine Hacham / GIbbor / Ashir to emerge

For sources
See EG Ikkar Tosafot Yom Tov 1 how this works.

Kol Tuv,
RRW