Sinat Chinum - Purposeless Hatred

Originally posted, on Nishmablog, July 7, 2010
*****

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

Mitchell First: Esther Unmasked

Exploring mysteries - The Jewish Standard
http://jstandard.com/index.php/content/item/32540/

«According to Teaneck's [Beth Aaron's] Mitchell First, Queen Esther and King Achashverosh can be identified with the Queen Amestris and King Xerxes Greek historians have mentioned.

How he reaches this conclusion is outlined in his newest book, "Esther Unmasked: Solving Eleven Mysteries of the Jewish Holidays and Liturgy," published by Kodesh Press, released this week just in time for the annual Yeshiva University book sale that continues through February 23.»

Kol Tuv,
RRW

P. Trumah - Asher Yidvenu Libbo

Rabbi Yechezkel Freundlich has done it again. See and enjoy this adorable clip:

http://koshertube.com/videos/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=4&task=videodirectlink&id=10094

Shalom,
RRW

Matot: You and Your Shulchan Aruch are Going to Treif up My Kitchen!

«Rabbi Dov Linzer, Rosh HaYeshiva and Dean of YCT Rabbinical School.
Thursday, July 17, 2014

A Thought on the Parasha

The Vessel or What's Inside of It?

A story is told that when Rav Soloveitchik's wife Tonya, z״l, was hospitalized due to an illness, he [IE the Rav] and Haym had the run of the house. Following the technical laws of kashrut, they proceeded to eat cold milkhig food on fleishig dishes. When Tonya returned from the hospital, she was apoplectic. The Rav explained that he was doing nothing more than following the halakha of the Shulkhan Arukh, to which Tonya replied: "You and your Shulkhan Arukh are going to treif up my kitchen!"

http://www.rabbidovlinzer.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-thought-on-parasha_17.html


Kol Tuv,
RRW

Can there be a Modern Day Korach?

Could it be that in this day and age we have people whose inspiration is Korach? And whose role models resemble Datan vaAviram?

Take for example Rabbi "Mered". A born rebel by nature, his main purpose in studying Torah is to show how everyone - especially rabbis - are wrong. The more wrong rabbis, the merrier!

Here are some telltale signs of the Modern Korach..

A. He looks to defy the establishment in general, the rabbinical establishment in particular

B. He shows up the "Moshe Rabbeinus" of his day with twisted or specious arguments, standing the simple understanding on its head

C. He posits that Torah is truly an egalitarian document by echoing "ki chol ho'eidah kullam Q'doshim ..."

D. He defends his minority point of view by arguing "So too were Koleiv and Yehoshu'a only a minority report". As if to say being a minority means he's correct somehow. Nd
While that's true that Koleiv-Yehoshua were indeed a minority - unlike Rabbi Mered - they did it to buttress Moshe Rabbeinu, not to defy him.

E. He will attempt to trump the authority of all rabbis by arguing from "higher authorities"

F He is continually stirring up machloqet.

G He will fail to see himself in any of his own attacks. IOW he lacks the introspection to see that he does the very things he attacks.

I. He holds platitudes such as "honesty" over the heads of his targets, yet isn't above cherry-picking
sources to further his own agenda.

If you run into some-one who fits this description you have found a Neo-Korach. For the mystically- minded maybe you've met Korach's "gilgul"

Disclaimer: while I myself have not met anyone who fits this description, it's possible that a composite made up of several people's characteristics would indeed resemble this portrait.

KT
RRW

Shabbat Hagadol: How can an Am Ha'aretz lead a Seder and not Know Hallel?

The Tosefta on P'sachim [Pischa] states that after one leads the Seder, if he cannot do Hallel, then they met in public at shul and said Hallel as a K'hillah.
My question:
How can who is someone too ignorant to recite Hallel, successfully lead a Seder?

And this dilemma had bothered me for many years.

Then, via Hashgachah p'ratit [after all I am a mashgi'ach] I heard R David Halivni [RDWH] speak during a Shabbat Hagadol D'rashah as follows.

Why was the passage of Arami Oveid Avi [and its Midroshim] chosen for the core of the Seder? After all many other Torah passages relate the Exodus, some of them more robustly?

Answer: every farmer [peasant?] knew how to recite Arami Oveid Avi. After all they had to recite the vidduy when bringing bikkurim and so it was something they had to learn. Following Sh'ma, it was probably the best known passage among Amei Ha'aretz in Ancient Israel.

This approach answers my question, too

Namely -
How can an Am Hakaretz lead a Seder and not Know Hallel?

Answer: every farmer [peasant?] new how to recite Arami Avi due to the Vidduy of Bikkurim. Following Sh'ma, it was the probably the best known passage among Amei Ha'aretz in Ancient Israel. OTOH, Hallel might not have been so well-known, because they just followed along in shul, etc. They did not need to recite for themselves.

This explains the Tosefta's case which is otherwise a bit obscure.

Kol Tuv,
RRW

Using Rashi as Part of Sh'nayim Mikra v'Echod Targum

Background:
The Shulchan Aruch in O"Ch 285 mentions using Rashi in lieu of, or perhaps in addition to, Targum Onkelos.

Question:
What is the origin of this practice?
- - - - -

Response:
Guest Blogger
R Yaakov Jaffe 
* * * * *

This idea is cited in the Smag, who says "danti lifnei rabosai" who agreed to his position (as cited in Beis Yoseif 285).

Interestingly, we know that Rabbi Yehudah Sir Leon was the Rebbe of the Smag, and we also known that Rabbi Yehudah Sir Leon is the author of Tosfos to Brachos - so the Smag must be understood in light of Tosfos in Brachos (8a), where a non-aramaic translation may be used.   Tosfos there take the first step away from the Divinely-inspired Targum Unkelos as the only option for "echad targum," allowing for whichever translation works best for the reader, and so the natural progression taken by his Talmid shortly thereafter is that Rashi's translation and interpretation is no worse than a French translation.    

Thus, perhaps it is appropriate to say "The Smag - working off of a statement of his Rebbe in Tosfos"

Yaakov


Kol Tuv,
RRW

CAN Hashem change HIS Mind?

Originally published 10/26//09, 7:43 pm
Preface:
Using can in this context, I am asking if it is possible that The Divine has a mind that is "changeable"? Or does Hashem's eternal nature preclude this? 
The Torah states emphatically that Hashem does NOT change HIS mind in Shemuel I:15: 29

  וְגַם נֵצַח יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא יְשַׁקֵּר וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם:  כִּי לֹא אָדָם הוּא, לְהִנָּחֵם.

On the other hand, in Breishit 6:6, it says "Vayinachem Hashem", that Hashem regretted His decision regarding the creation of Adam.
This is apparently a blatant contradiction.

R.S.R. Hirsch, in B'reishit makes an ingenious Diyyuq using Diqduq. In Shemuel, the reflexive Hispael is used, while in B'reishit, the Pi'el construct is used.
As such, in Shemuel the Torah is teaching that Hashem never changes his own mind - meaning in isolation or due to internal ruminations.

However, in B'reishit, Hashem is not altering his internal stance. Rather, He is merely reflecting the external change in Adam-humanity since Creation. Hashem's Mind is actually internally consistent; it is simply that  external circumstances trigger altered responses.

This is different than humans who may indeed change their minds without external stimuli. Human minds can be fickle -
While G-d's mind cannot! However, His mind may appear to change - given a corresponding change in Circumstances - but never due to mood, etc.


Shalom,
RRW