Amazing Bava Kamma Resources

As you all know I try to spend some time each day exploring and swimming in the sea of the Talmud. Since the beginning of the latest Daf Yomi cycle, have been keeping up with it as best I can. It currently is reading the Succah tractate, which covers the festival of Succah that occurs a few days after Yom Kippur, in which traditional Jews build a succah (booth) and are supposed to eat and sleep in it for the week of the festival. I have included some excerpts in the blog.

The Talmud passages spend a LOT of time on the dimensions and measurements and materials of a succah, so it can seem rather esoteric to someone like myself who won’t be building a succah, any time soon.

However, there are other tractates of the Talmud that deal with more “real world” topics. In particular there is the order called Nezikim (damages) and within that are the Bavas (gates) – which deal with civil law.

Since I bought my Ipod in November, I have been listening to talks by Rabbi Shlomo Singer from the Passaic Torah Institute on the first chapter (of ten) of Bava Kamma (he has taken over a one and a half years of two to three per week 40-minute lectures to cover the first chapter). They are really quite wonderful and he does a wonderful job of making them relevant to our day-to-day lives.

For a nice introduction to Bava Kamma -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bava_Kamma

Now it turns out that Yeshiva University – the leading Modern Orthodox university in the States, is covering Bava Kamma this year. And that means that there are a number of lecturers presenting on the topic and they will be presenting ALL YEAR on it.

You can listen to them here – Bava Kamma lectures

There are at least 5 different Rabbis speaking about the same Perek (chapter) – that is Meruba (chapter 7), which deals with stealing and robbery. I am still trying to figure out which one I can follow most easily, since some use more Hebrew than others.

The first Mishnah of Meruba reads:

Mishnah: The rule of twofold payment is more inclusive than the rule of fourfold or fivefold payment. For the rule of twofold payment applies to both living things and to inanimate things, whereas the rule of fourfold and fivefold payment applies only to an ox or sheep alone, as it is stated: “If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep, and he slaughters it or sells it, etc. [he shall pay five cattle in place of the ox, and four sheep in place of the sheep] [Exodus 21:37]. One who steals after a thief does not pay the twofold payment, nor does one who slaughters or sells after a theif pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.

There is also an ongoing lecture by Rabbi Rothwachs, who is presenting on chapter 3 (Hamaniach) which with types of damages (for some reason they are not labeled on the search page, but can be found by clicking on the ":" near the bottom of the list. The opening Mishnah of Hamaniach reads:

Mishnah: If one places a kad in the public doman, and another person comes along and stumbles over it and breaks it, he [the pedestrian] is not liable to pay for it. And if he [the pedestrian] was damaged by it, the owner of the chavis is liable to compensate him for the damage.

A couple notes might help here: a kad is usually a jug or a pitcher, while chavis, usually means barrel. However, they are used interchangeably here and elsewhere (which of course, leads to much discussion). Also note that there is a basic premise in Bava Kamma, called adam muad l’olam, which basically means that “humans are always responsible for their actions” – to read more about it, Google “adam muad l’olam” and the first selection that comes up is my entry on my blog Talmudic Questionings!

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

While at times I wonder about why I am so drawn to the Talmud, but it is the nitty-gritty, real world nature of these discussions that are also completely interwoven with a sense of the transcendent that draws me back again and again.

Perhaps these new series of lectures may be just the invitation to enter this world as well.

Succah 5ab -- Can we ascend to God? Can God descend to us?

Here is a fascinating back and forth discussion on whether humans can ascend to God's heavenly realm AND whether God can descend to ours -- the answer seems to be that there must always be a ten tefachim (ten handbreadth) separation of the two realms.

Let's listen to what the Sages say:

[4b] The Holy Ark was nine tefachim tall and the thickness of the Ark-cover was one tefach; we have here ten. And it is written: It is there that I will set My meetings with you, and I shall speak with you from atop the Cover.

[5a] And it was taught in a Baraisa: R’ YOSE SAYS: THE DIVINE PRESENCE HAS NEVER DESCENDED BELOW into the human domain., AND MOSES AND ELIJAH NEVER ASCENDED TO THE HEAVENS, AS IT IS STATED: AS FOR THE HEAVENS, THE HEAVENS ARE GOD’S; BUT THE EARTH HE HAS GIVEN TO MANKIND [Psalms 115:16]

And the Shechinah never descended below? But it is written: God descended upon Mount Sinai! [Exodus 19:20]

The Gemara answers: The Shechinah remained above ten tefachim from the mountaintop.

The Gemara persists: But it is written: On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives! [Zechariah 14:4]

And Moses and Elijah never ascended to the Heavens?! But it is written: And Moses ascended to God! [Exodus 19:3]

The Gemara answers: Moses remained below ten tefachim from the Heavens.

Commentary: That is, the purely human domain is the airspace up to ten tefachim from the ground, while the purely Godly domain extends down to the ten tefachim below the lower limit of the Heavens. The intervening area is sometimes called Earth and sometimes called Heaven, and may accommodate either the Shechinah or man. (Chasam Sofer [Machon Chasam Sofer ed.]; Menachem Meishiv Nefesh, quoting Yad David; see also HaKoseiv in Ein Yaakov).

The Gemara persists: But it is written: And Elijah ascended to Heaven in the whirlwind.

The Gemara answers: Elijah remained below ten tefachim.

The Gemara again asks: But it is written: He allows him to grasp the face of the Throne; He spreads upon him His cloud.[Job 26:9] And R’ Tanchum said regarding this verse: It teaches that the Almighty spread some of the radiances of His Presence and His cloud upon [Moses].

The Gemara here, too, answers: Moses remained below ten tefachim.

The Gemara persists: Nevertheless, it is written: He allows him to grasp the face of the Throne.

The Gemara answers: The Throne was lowered for [Moses] until it reached ten tefachim, and [Moses] grasped it there. Hence, Moses did not leave the earthly domain.

. . . .

[5a2] THE TZITZ WAS A SORT OF GOLD PLATE, TWO FINGERBREADTHS WIDE AND ENCIRCLING the Kohen Gadol’s forehead FROM EAR TO EAR. AND INSCRIBED ON IT, on TWO separate LINES, were the words “HASHEM” (i.e. the Tetragrammaton) ON THE UPPER line AND “HOLY TO” ON THE LOWER. AND R’ ELIEZER THE SON OF R’ YOSE SAID: I SAW [THE TZITZ] IN THE CITY OF ROME, AND “HOLY TO HASHEM” WERE all INSCRIBED ON ONE LINE.

Commentary: [the Tetragrammaton] – the full four-letter Name of God [yud, kei, vav, kei] (Rashi to Shabbos 63b). The Baraisa, however, mentions only the first two letters to avoid spelling out the entire Name. And although these first two letters themselves form a Name [yud, kei], which also should not be spelled out, here it is permitted because the Baraisa mentions the two letters only as an allusion to the full four-letter Name.

Chasom Sofer [Machon Chasam Sofer ed.] derives from Tosafos that the prohibition against pronouncing the four-letter Name includes even stating its individual letters in order; this Tosafos, then, is the source of the custom of saying, yud, kei, vav, kei, wherein the two kei letters are replaced.
. . . .
[It is interesting to note that even though R’ Eliezer gave an eyewitness account that contradicted the Sages’ opinion, the Sages still relied on their tradition. This is because the Sages concede that a tzitz is valid “after the fact” if both words are inscribed on one line. The Sages felt that the tzitz observed by R’ Eliezer was just such a case, and therefore did not disprove their insistence that “in the first instance” the words appear on two lines.]
. . . .
[5b1] And what is the meaning of the word k’ruv [cherub]? R’ Abahu said: “like a child,” for indeed in Babylonia they call a child “ravya.”

Abaye said to [R’ Ababu]: But then, how do you explain that which is written: the one face, the face of the Cherub; the second face, the face of a man. [Ezekiel 10:14]. Now, if the word “cherub” (k’ruv) means “like a child,” then the face of the Cherub is the same as the face of a man! Since, however, the verse separates “cherub” and “man” into two categories, it would seem that the word “cherub” does not refer to a child.
. . . .
Rather, according to R’ Yehudah, [the Sages] learned an oral tradition that a succah requires walls ten tefachim tall. For Rav Chiya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Measures, interpretations and partitions are oral laws given to Moses at Sinai that have no Scriptural basis. Hence, according to R’ Yehudah, the minimum height requirement of a legal wall including a succah wall, is a Halachah LeMoshe MiSinai.

Succah 4ab

If [the succah] was taller than twenty amos and the leaves of the palm branches that comprise its s’chach were dangling within twenty amos of the floor, if their shade is greater than their sunlight [the succah] is valid. But if not, [the succah] remains invalid.

. . . .

Where [the succah] was taller than twenty amos and one built a platform in its middle—If there is from the edge of the platform until the wall four amos in each direction, [the succah] is invalid. But if the distance is less than four amos, [the succah] is valid.

. . . .

If [the succah] was taller than twenty amos and one built in it a pillar that is ten tefachim tall, and it contains the minimum required area for a succah, Abaye thought to say extend and raise the partition on each of the pillar’s sides to the s’chach above, creating a valid succah on the pillar top. However, Rava said [to Abaye]: We need noticeable walls and there are none.

The Rabbis taught – ONE DROVE FOUR POLES into the roof of a house AND PLACE S’CHACH ACROSS THEM without building walls between the poles, R’ YAAKOV RULES VALID AND THE SAGES INVALIDATE.

. . . .

Teiku – Let [the question] stand unresolved.

Succah 3ab

And [a succah] that accommodates only one’s head and most of [his body], Beis Shammai rule invalid, while Beis Hillel rule valid.

Who taught this Baraisa that the Rabbis taught? A HOUSE THAT DOES NOT CONTAIN FOUR AMOS BY FOUR AMOS IS EXEMPT FROM THE MEZUZAH AND FROM FENCE; AND IT IS NOT CONTAMINATED BY tzaraas AFFLICTIONS; AND IT IS NOT IRREDEEMABLY SOLD AS ARE THE HOUSES OF WALLED CITIES; AND WE DO NOT RETURN ON ITS ACCOUNT FROM THE WARRIORS; AND WE DO MAKE AN ERUV WITH [SUCH A HOUSE], NOR DO WE MAKE A SHITUFEI WITH IT; AND WE DO NOT PLACE AN ERUV chatzeiros IN IT; AND WE MAY NOT MAKE [SUCH A HOUSE] A PROTRUSION BETWEEN TWO CITIES; AND BROTHERS AND PARTNERS DO NOT DIVIDE [SUCH A HOUSE].

For the next number of lines the Gemara explains the reasons behind this Baraisa.

. . . .

What follows are related rulings to the issue that a succah more than 20 amos high is invalid.

If [a succah] was more than twenty amos high and one came to reduce [its height] by mattresses and cushion, it is not a valid reduction.

Excerpts from the Succah Tractate

I am no Talmud expert. But I do love it and have been keeping up with reading a "daf" a day now for about one and a half years. A little over a week ago, we started the Succah tractate.

To help me with my reading, I often type in small sections of the text that I find interesting or descriptive of the ongoing discussion. I will begin sharing some of those from this point on. Note that all text comes from the magnificent Artscroll translations.

Today, I will share a few passages from Succah 2ab:

Mishnah: A succah above twenty amos high is invalid. However, R’ Yehudah rules valid. And [a succah] that is not ten tefachim high, or that does not have three walls, or whose sunny area is great than its shaded is invalid.

Gemara: We learned there in a Mishnah (Eruvin 2a): A MAVOI IS HIGHER THAN TWENTY AMOS ONE MUST LOWER. R’ YEHUDAH SAYS: HE NEED NOT.

What is unique about succah, where [the Tanna] states “invalid,” and what is unique about mavoi, where [the Tanna] states a remedy for a korah higher than twenty amos? Why did the Tanna employ dissimilar language when ruling on the same type of disqualification?

The Gemara answers: succah is Biblical, the Tanna can state “invalid.” However, mavoi is Rabbinic, [the Tanna] can state only a remedy.
. . . .
Now, until twenty amos a person is aware that he is dwelling in a succah. However, higher than twenty amos, a person is not aware that he is dwelling in a succah, because the eye does not notice [the s’chach].

second opinion – until twenty amos a person sits in the shade of the succah. However, higher than twenty amos, a person is not sitting in the shade of succah, but in the shade of the walls.

third opinion – the Torah tells: for all seven days leave fixed dwelling and sit in a temporary dwelling. Now, until twenty amos a person can make his dwelling a temporary dwelling. However, above twenty amos a person cannot make his dwelling a temporary dwelling; rather, a fixed dwelling.
. . . .
for everyone the legal fitness of a succah is one’s head, most of [his body] and his table.
. . . .
But more than four amos, the opinion of all [the succah] is valid.

R’ YEHUDAH SAID: AN INCIDENT INVOLVING QUEEN HELENA IN LOD, THAT HER SUCCAH WAS HIGHER THAN TWENTY AMOS, AND THE ELDERS WERE ENTERING AND LEAVING THERE AND THEY DID NOT SAY A WORD TO HER. [THE SAGES] SAID TO HIM: A PROOF FROM THERE?! [HELENA] WAS A WOMAN, AND IS EXEMPT FROM THE mitzvah of THE SUCCAH!

Shiur on idol worship

Online shiur from the Dafyomi Advancement Forum on Idol Worship

Torah as a drug

I came across these words today in my Daf Yomi reading (Yoma 72b):

And this is reflected by that which Rava said: Where one uses [the Torah] skillfully, it is a drug of life, but where one uses it unskillfully, it is a drug of death.

I think we can see the reality of these words being played out all around us today in how religion is being abused to create hatred and death, instead of love and life.

Adam Muad L'Olam

The phrase "adam muad l'olam" is one of the most important phrases within the Talmudic Bava Kamma tractate. Bava Kamma means "First Gate" and covers civil and criminal law.

A basic translation would be that "man is always a muad." To begin to understand this idea we first need to learn what a muad is.

The basic focus of Bava Kamma is on damagers and their penalities. The Sages use an ox to represent one's property and then they explore innumerable ways that this property (the ox) can cause damage. In fact, they delineate three specific ways an ox can cause damage: shein, regel and keren. Shein (lit.tooth) represents possible damage that an ox does when it eats. Regel (lit. foot) represents damage caused when the ox walks. And keren (lit. horm) represents damage caused when the ox gores something with its horn.

Within the Bava Kamma each of these types are determined to represent a more general type of damage:

1. Shein -- The act of damage that an animal does in the case of normal self-gratification.
2. Regel -- The act of damage that an animal does in the course of normal movement.
3. Keren -- The act of damage that an animal does with destructive intent and which is unusual for animals and their species.

Within keren there is another distinction between a tam and a muad. When an ox causes damage by goring another animal, it is considered a tam (lit. ordinary) for the first three times it gores. After the third time, it is considered a muad (lit. warned one). For the first three gorings, the owner of the ox is obligated to pay only half the damages done. When the ox becomes a muad, the owner must pay full damages from his best property.

So, if we return to the phrase -- adam muad l'olam -- and know that adam means "man or humankind" and l'olam means "always," we see that the phrase can be interpreted to mean that "humans are always warned ones." Another way of saying this is that we are "always responsible." In fact, in the Mishnah on daf 26a in Bava Kamma where this phrase is used, it goes on to say that humans are liable for damages they do whether awake or asleep, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

While the Talmudic Sages discuss this issue in amazing depth and detail, it is the online shiurim (lectures) on Bava Kamma from Rabbi Shlomo Singer from the PTI Yeshiva that have brought the importance of this idea most clearly home. As he stresses over and over and over again, if it is true that adam muad l'olam, then we have to be ever vigilant about each of our actions and each of our words -- we are responsible for the consequences. We are muad. We have been warned, so we have to focus much energy on our improving our character (our midos) to ensure that we do not hurt others with our actions or words.

Rabbi Singer does a wonderful job throughout his shiurim in bringing the often complicated Talmudic analysis into our everyday lives. And I believe that the phrase -- adam muad l'olam -- is a wonderful reminder to keep in our minds as we move about in the world and touch the lives of so many people.

Texts and creativity -- a response to a comment

I recently received an interesting comment that I would like to share with you along with my response:

Comment:
I find your comments asserting the elevated status of a Jew in sanctifying the physical world a glaring contradiciton to your earlier reflections on creativity and dogma. To suppose that any made [sic] made text, be it Talmud, Torah, New Testatment, Koran, or Vedas, confers any special power to imbue mundane reality with spiritual fullness seems absurd at best.

Response:
Perhaps I agree with you more than you think. In looking back at the quotation your comments are connected to, it clearly is a very Jewish-centric position that I am quoting, which does inflate the value of the Torah.

What I hear you saying is that no "man made" text can do that. First, I do agree that these texts, particularly the Oral Torah (i.e. the Talmud and all its ongoing commentaries) is man made (what else could they be, since as the Talmud says, "The Torah is not in heaven" -- meaning it has been give to humanity to interpret and extend.

However, most interstingly, what I do find incredible is that at its best this Oral Torah is actually a source great of creativity and an antidote to dogma, as a recent shiur on Halakha and Technology reminded me, when it made clear that a 2000 year-old document can be used to define laws for situations unimaginable when it was first written. If that isn't creativity, I don't what is.

I profoundly believe that the creativity that has been at the heart of the Talmudic project has in fact provided a level of "spiritual fullness" for those who believe and follow it. The spiritual fullness only comes from commitment and dedication and is not something that magically occurs. Whether this text "imbues mundane reality with spiritual fullness" for someone outside that group is not really the point.

Overall, I just marvel at the power of texts and those individuals and communities that interpret them to create ever new visions of life and reality.

Warmly,
Jeff

A New Halakha .. a poem

finding a home, a place to rest, a place to act
but there is no home for me here
no place to simply rest

the loneliness is intense,
the depressed feelings of why I don’t do more,
why don’t I contribute more

the world cries in pain
and I sit and read the Talmud
and Rav Soloveitchik

deeply felt traditions, but
isolated, limited,
not expansive enough for me

perhaps that is what I desire
is something to hold me in,
to reign in my wild ride of exploration

yet with the understanding
that love of God, love of the infinite IS everything.
but the word “love” does nothing
to change things

what can change
all levels, all lines, all
scales of magnitude?

they are all changing all the time anyway
must we do anything,
or must we do nothing?

I sometimes feel that everything
rests on me, everything waits for me
to create something new,

don’t we need something new,
but not simplistic, not utilitarian,
but prayerful, hopeful, wonder-full

yet demanding,

demanding faith, devotion, conviction,
passion

passion of love and acceptance and dedication
not the passion of exclusion, isolation, righteousness

perhaps it is this passion, this devotion, this dedication
that I find within the pages of the Talmud and in
words of the Rav and in the restrictions of halakha

but can we create new halakha
that are not simply our own desires,
our own pleasures

but in some way honor
and demand a total commitment
of love and dedication?

a halakha that

“believes that there is only one world –
not divisible into secular and hallowed sectors –
which can either plunge into ugliness and hatefulness,
or be roused to meaningful, redeeming activity,
gathering up all latent powers into a state of holiness."

Copyright (c) Jeff Wild, 2006

Yes and No -- a poem

As simple as “Yes” and “No.”
Each moment asks a question:
Love or hate?
Hope or despair?
Possibility or stagnation?
Life or death?

Our choices create the world.
At times it is easier to side
with “No,” with despair, with hate.

But this easy path only leads
to more of the same,
more darkness, more death,
more night.

The path of saying “Yes” to life
may be hard, but it is the only way out –

out to the Light, to Life, to Hope, to Love,
to a future for us all.

With Mary we can say, “Yes” to Love,
to Love that is God,
to a God who is Love,
to the resurrection of Love within us and
a “No” to the crucifixion of Love.

Love will rise only if it rises with us.
We are responsible.
We have the choice
with each interaction,
with each breath,
with each “Yes.”

We are one.
We are held in God’s Love,
we are all expressions of that Love,
needing love, living love.

Humility calls us to love all God’s creation –
God help us, guide us, become us?

God becomes us . . .
Each moment held in God’s hand we have life.

God becomes us at each moment.

Copyright (c) Jeff Wild, 2006

Brightening our faces

from Shekalim 8b

A certain noblewoman once perceived that [R’ Yehudah bar Il’ai’s] countenance was radiant. She said to him: Old man, old man! One of the following three things is true about yourself: Either you are drunk with wine, or you are a usurer, or you are a pig breeder. He said to her: Let the spirit of that woman suffer agony! For not one of these three things is true about myself. Rather, my countenance shines because my Torah learning is accessible to me. For it is written thus: A man’s wisdom brightens his face. [Ecclesiastes 8:1]

R’ Abahu once came to Tiberias, and the students of R’Yochanan who were there perceived that his countenance was radiant. The students told R’ Yochanan: R’ Abahu has apparently found a treasure! [R’ Yochanan] approached him, and asked him: What new Torah teaching have you heard? [R’ Abahu] responded to him: I heard an ancient Tosefta. [R’ Yochanan] applied to him the verse: A man’s wisdom brightens his face.

The question I want to ask here is what wisdom brightens your face and the face of those around you?

Today, with so much anger and hatred within the world the searching for wisdom powerful enough to “brighten” our face seems either forgotten or lost in the onrush of horrible news. I love and admire those that study tirelessly the Talmud with the hope that their face will be brightened by this wisdom. But I also wonder, how this wisdom can be used to brighten the face of those in agony around us?

Clearly, the Talmud holds great wisdom that has maintained the Jewish people for thousands of years. What truths can we find within it for today's world and not just the Orthodox Jewish community?

Making This World Holy

One the strongest things that draws me to study the teachings of Rav Joseph B. Solovetichik and the Talmud as a whole is the focus on this world and making this world holy. The focus on embracing the possiblities, opportunities and blessings of this world, as well as creating and discovering a level of holiness that is so easily overlooked.

Within a shiur entitled "The Infinite Value of Human Life" by Rav Yitzchak Blau in the course on Understanding Aggada from Yeshivat Har Etzion, I found these words that I think express this point beautifully.

[Within the Halakhic Man] Rav Soloveitchik argues that the man of science shows interest only in this world of physics and biology, while the standard man of religion would like to escape this limited world and move on to a transcendent plane. Unlike the above two figures, Halakhic Man attempts to realize transcendence in this world, employing Halakha as a means for such realization.

According to Rav Soloveitchik, this explains why tumat meit , impurity caused by a human corpse, is the most severe form of ritual defilement. This halakha conveys the strongly negative attitude of halakha towards death. Unlike Socrates, we do not look forward to death as a golden chance to be released from the limiting shackles of the body. Instead, we treasure every day of life as a precious chance to engage in Torah and mitzvot. The world to come may be the place to receive our final reward, but "the receiving of a reward is not a religious act" (Halakhic Man, p. 32). It is only this flesh-and-blood world that is the world of spiritual toil and accomplishment.

Here are couple more quotes from Halakhic Man on this point:

It is here, in this world, that halakhic man acquires eternal life! “Better is one hour of Torah and mitzvoth in this world than the whole life of the world to come,” stated the tanna in Avot [4:17], and this declaration is the watchword of the halakhist. 30

However, receiving of a reward is not a religious act; therefore, halakhic man prefers the real world to a transcendent existence because here, in this world, man is given the opportunity to create, act, accomplish, while there, in the world to come, he is powerless to change anything at all. 32

Halakhic man, on the contrary, longs to bring transcendence down into this valley of the shadow of death—i.e., into our world—and transform it into a land of the living. 40

Every day, at every moment, with every person we meet this is the challenge -- how can I hallow this moment, this person?

WITT? -- Thinking and Living

In keeping with the Internet world's love of acronyms -- I have decided to create one "WITT?," which stands for "What is the Talmud?" :-)

In a recent comment, Rabbi Gluskin, stated that the “Talmud then is ultimately about helping people to think in order to figure out how to behave.”

The key to me in this sentence is the idea that Talmud is something (the Oral Torah, a conversation, a scripture, etc.) that helps us and teaches us how to think in order to help us understand how to “live.” I would use “live” instead of “behave,” because I think it is a more open and flexible word than “behave,” which to my ear, at least, has a lot of baggage.

What is essential is the connection between thinking and living. Obviously from a traditional Jewish perspective this “living” has to do with keeping the mitzvot, the halachah of the Torah. Yet, if we open ourselves to the overall perspective of dialogue, debate, preservation of differing opinions and love of Hashem within the Talmud, then I would argue one can find within the Talmud universal hints and methods for living a more vibrant and open life. A life that embraces the differences that exist and continually strives to find the best, the most holy way to act in a specific moment, within a specific situation.

What is the Talmud? (3)

As a follow-up to the story of Akiva and Moses, I first want to share some of the traditional commentary that Artscroll includes in its Schottenstein Edition of the Talmud Bavli:

Commentary to tagin:
Rambam writes in the introduction to his commentary on the Torah that all the world's wisdom, physics and metaphysics, science and mysticism, are contained in the words and letters of the Torah, in their standard and anomalous shapes, in their tagin and points, and in their allusions.

Generally speaking, the Talmud and Midrash do not cite expositions of tagin. However, there is a Midrashic work, Midrash R' Akiva ben Yosef (found in Otyar HaMidrashim), that contains many such teachings, of both Aggadic and halachic natures.

Commentary to "[Moses'] strength ebbed"
Moses did not recognize the mode of Torah discussion that was taking place between R' Akiva and his students. Although the premises of the discussion were based on traditions from Moses, as the Gemara makes clear immediately, yet R' Akiva and Moses approached knowledge of the Torah in fundamentally different ways: Moses grasped the Torah through prophecy and an internal comprehension that was a result of cleaving to the Divine, not through an external intellectual analysis, which is the lot of later generations. Any novellae that R' Akiva, and his students arrived at were known to Moses, but they were in a different language of the mind and heart. Hence, they were unintelligible to Moses.

Commentary to "[Moses'] mind was relieved"
Moses was relieved when he realized that what R' Akiva was saying was based on a tradition handed down from him (even though Moses had not, in fact, received this tradition yet. This was not an issue of pride; Moses was the humblest of all men (Numbers 12:3). Rather, he was relieved when he realized that R' Akiva's external mode of Torah study leads back to the same internal understanding of Torah that he had received from God.

[It is clear from R' Akiva's reply that all of the halachos that he was teaching indeed derived from the Torah received by Moses. Those who would deliberately misinterpret the Gemara and attribute Moses' lack of understanding to "innovations" that were supposedly made by R' Akva are not only heretics, but are proven wrong by a careful reading of this very passage.]

Commentary to "meat market"
R' Akiva was tortured to death by having his flesh combed with iron dombs (Rashi) [As a final indignity, the Romans sent the combed flesh to the butcher shops to be sold there.]

Commentary to "This is of My part"
Moses' inability to understand R' Akiva's torah is related to his inablity to understand R' Akva's fate. The Gemara states elsewhere that fifty gates of understanding were created and forty-nine were given to Moses, but the fiftieth gate was not. The decisions to give the Torah through Moses and not through R' Akiva and to ordain this death for R' Akiva were in the realm of the fiftieth gate, in the realm of God's thoughts. ["Thought" in this context refers to ideas that cannot be expressed in mere speech.] God tells Moses, "Quiet!" because a person is not allowed to explore intellectually that which he is constitutionally incapable of understanding (see BT Chagigah 11b-12a, 13a). This boundary varies for each person and a person can broaden his intellectual horizon, but there is always a point beyond which a person will force himself into mental desolation. For Moses, this point was the fiftieth gate, and God reproached him to probed no further.

What is the Talmud? (2)

In reviewing the first entry in on What is the Talmud?, I thought that I might use some more of my own reflections, along with links and citations as needed, to give a sense of what the Talmud is, and what it is to me.

If I try to find one word to describe the Talmud, it would be "conversation" -- an incredibly wide-ranging and timeless conversation in which the Chazal (the Sages from the Talmud), plus the various commentators Rashi, Rashbam, Rambam, the Gra, etc., plus the current melamed (teachers of Talmud) and the students (each of us) all sit together and have an unbelievably lively discusion, debate -- conversation.

The topics for those conversations can be about anything from what time one can say the evening Shema, to how to keep the Sabbath, to what you should do if you find money in a store, to what happens if your property damages another's property, etc. The topics are seemingly infinite and the conversation that has gone on for over 2,000 years will clearly continue without end into the future.

One of the basic distinctions within the Talmud is between halachah (laws) and aggadah (stories). While I clearly find the aggadah, on the surface, more interesting, Rav Soloveitchik has proven there is an enormous reservoir of creative and interesting insights that one can find or create from the halachahs as well.

To end this post, I will share one of the Talmud's most famous and most beloved stories. It is story that does much to prove that the Talmud and the Jewish tradition itself is one rich with creativity!

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: When Moses ascended to the Heavenly Heights, he found the Holy One, Blessed is He, as He was sitting and attaching crowns to some of the letters. That is, although the Torah was completely written, He was still adding tagin to certain letters. [Moses] said to Him, "Master of the Universe, who is holding You back from giving the Torah as it is?" [God] said to him, "There is one man who is destined to exist at the end of many generations, Akiva ben Yosef is his name, and it is he who will expound upon each and every point heaps and heaps of halachos." [Moses] said before [God] , "Master of the Universe, show him to me!" [God] said to him, "Turn around and see what is behind you." He found himself in R' Akiva's class. Moses went and sat at the end of eight rows of students, but as he listened to the give-and-take between R' Akiva and his students, he did not understand what they were saying. Disheartened [Moses'] strength ebbed. However, once they reached a certain matter that required a source. [R' Akiva's] students asked him, "Teacher, from where do you know this?" and [R' Akiva] replied to them, "It is a halachah transmitted orally to Moses at Sinai."

Upon hearing this, [Moses'] mind was relieved. He returned and came before the Holy One, Blessed is He. [Moses] said before Him, "Master of the Universe, You have someone like this and You give the Torah through me?! Give it through R' Akiva!" [God] said to him, "Quiet! Thus has it arisen in the thoughts before Me; this is part of My greater plan to which you are not privy." [Moses] said before Him, "Master of the Universe, You have shown me his Torah, now show me his reward." [God] said to him, "Turn around and see what is behind you." [Moses] turned around and saw that people were weighing the flesh from [R' Akiva's body] in the butcher's meat market in order to sell it. [Moses] said before Him, "Master of the Universe! This is Torah and this is its reward?!" [God] said to him, "Quiet! This is part of My greater plan to which you are not privy."

This translation comes from the Schottenstein Edition of the Talmud Bavli from Artscroll.

From the mountain to the table

Pesachim 88a

And R’ Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: Many peoples will go and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Hashem, to the House of the God of Jacob etc.? [Isaiah 2:3] Why does the verse specify the God of Jacob? Is the Temple only the house of the God of Jacob, and not also the house of the God of Abraham and Isaac?! Rather, the verse teaches that the Temple is not like the description found in the context of Abraham, concerning whom it is written “mountain,” [Genesis 22:14] as it is stated: like it is said today, “On the mountain Hashem is seen.” And it is not like the description found in the context of Isaac, concerning whom it is written “field,” – as it is stated: Isaac went out to pray in the field. [Genesis 24:63] Rather, it is like the description found in the context of Jacob, who called it “house,” – as it is stated: He named that place “the House of God.” [Isaiah 28:19]

One of the many interpretations of this aggadah (story) is that each of the patriarchs and their images (mountain, field and house) symbolize their own paths, their own ways, their own places of communing with Hashem/God. As the Rabbis say, at first Abraham’s path was one like a mountain – very difficult to follow for most people. Isaac made things more accessible by making this place to meet God like a field, but it was still not close to everyone. It was only Jacob who made the path focused on the house, thus bringing this path, this spiritual journey right into the home, into a far more accessible and secure location.

What if we placed Jesus into this story and ask, “How did Jesus make this path, this journey even more accessible and universal?” Perhaps the image for Jesus would be the “table” – which is even more accessible and universal than a house, since it is not just for those who are within the house, but for anyone who sits down at the table and shares a meal.

Perhaps we can learn from this that the spiritual journey, which is so often described esoterically as a path up the mountain (many paths, of course, up this mountain), is just as easily found at the table, at the moment we share a meal and break bread with another. Clearly, there is something so exciting and thrilling about seeing the path to God as a long and challenging journey up a mountain, while imagining our vision and understanding expanding and getting “closer” to God as we progress higher and higher. And while seeing the place of meeting God as the table, which Jesus shared with so many, certainly has a different feeling of “importance” and “exclusivity,” it may be a path that is even more challenging than a lonely climb up the mountain.

What is the Talmud? (1)

What I realize is that I am sure many of you reading this blog know little about the Talmud, so I am going to start a series of entries providing some background and resources to begin to offer a glimpse at the "sea of the Talmud" -- this is a tradition expression of the size and depth of the Talmud.

Below is some text from the introductory lecture of an online class on learning to study the Talmud. The class itself is offered by the Virtual Beit Midrash. This is a wonderful site that provides an enormous amount of in-depth, traditional classes on all topics of Judaism.

The specific text comes from a Introduction to the Study of the Talmud class. All classes are downloadable. I think it provides a helpful place to begin to learn more about the Talmud

Talmud consists of two distinct primary texts, the Mishna and the Gemara. Surrounding these two, there exists a huge literature, spanning 1800 years and thousands of books, of commentaries, summations, and extended discussions, which continues to this day.

When we study Talmud, we are in fact addressing that entire literature, though obviously much of it must wait for advanced levels of learning. But even on the beginning level of this course we are not studying a BOOK, but rather a literature, which in fact precedes the actual Talmud, and of course extends beyond it. From a literary point of view, the Talmud is the basis and core text, most importantly because it is authoritative, and hence is the starting-point for any subsequent discussion.

The Mishna is printed as a distinct work, and often studied separately. In editions of the Talmud, the Mishna is printed together with the Gemara as a unit, and that is the way we shall be studying.

The Mishna is a halakhic code. It presents a set of rulings on all halakhic matters, in all areas of life. True to the nature of the Oral Law, it is not generally written in a monolithic manner, but rather preserves controversies and disagreements, hundreds of them, from the authorities of the Mishnaic period, roughly the first century and a half of the Common Era. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the head of Palestinian Jewry, compiled the present form of the Mishna and thereby summarized and codified the halakhic rulings of the previous centuries. This was the first code of Jewish law.

The Gemara is the record of two centuries of discussion, argument, elucidation, and controversy surrounding the text of the Mishna, first in the land of Israel, and subsequently in the great Torah centers of Babylonia.

Unlike the Mishna, the Gemara is not a code. It is more like the protocol of a debate, spanning several hundred years and more, where the basic literary form is question and answer, and the most common conveyor of meaning is disagreement.

It is impossible to READ Gemara; you have to join the discussion in order to grasp the meaning of what is going on. In order to understand an answer, you have to understand the question, and that understanding is far more important than summarizing the conclusion. It would be quite accurate to say that Gemara is more about halakhic reasoning than about halakha itself, though obviously the goal is halakha.

In fact, in most cases, the halakhic conclusion is not explicit in the Talmudic text itself, but will be found only in later rabbinic works. It is quite common to find an extensive rabbinic discussion of the "hava amina," the opening and ultimately rejected understanding, for the fact that this position did not survive the scrutiny of the Talmudic discussion does not make it unimportant. It is often correct to state that only by understanding the "hava amina" can we understand the conclusion, the "maskana."

If there are any questions about this text or anything else on this blog, please ask it in a comment.

From "Ethics of Responsiblity" by Walter Wurzburger

from Ethics of Responsibility: Pluralistic Approaches to Covenantal Ethics, by Walter Wurzburger

From my perspective, Halakhah represents not merely “the way of God”—that is, a divinely revealed body of laws; it also functions as a way to God, leading not necessarily to mystical union with Him, but to a life dedicated to responding to Him through obedience to His commandments and imitation of His ways. p3

One the ideas that first drew me to the work of Rabbi Soloveitchik was his emphasis on what he described as the "democratic" nature of the Halakhah. In the sense that anyone can perform the various mitzbvot (commandments) and can find God through those actions. One does not have to have some special mystical or contemplative ability. I find this immensely important because I think very few individuals truly have a mystical side to them. Therefore, finding some way to make our everyday actions and life "holy" is key.

The applicability of the norms and values of Jewish Covenantal Ethics is by no means restricted to the members of the Jewish Covenantal Community. Although at the present time the religiously committed Jewish community seems to turn ever more inward and tends to focus primarily upon the particularistic and nationalistic elements of its heritage, I believe it to be of special importance to call attention to its universalistic components. While the ritualistic elements of Judaism are completely particularistic and intended exclusively for individuals who either by birth or by conversion qualify as members of the People of the Covenant, Jewish ethical teachings are not subject to the same kind of limitation but are viewed as possessing universal relevance. p8

I will share more quotes from this work over time. One of the reasons I am drawn to Judaism is the "democratic," this-worldly focus and its emphasis on ethics. However, I must admit that at times I feel, as Rabbi Wurzburger alludes to, that their vision and interests are far too focused on either Israel or simply Jews as a whole. There are very few "universal" messages presented. In some ways, we should be happy that the Jews are not trying to convert everyone and have always had belief in the righteousness of the righteous from other traditions. But with the world in so much pain these days, I do believe that there are universal qualities within Judaism that can be of support and service to believers of other traditions, or simply those seeking to learn more and be closer to God.

Two "yous" and omnibenevolence

From a discussion of the weekly Torah portion within Jerusalem Post, comes these words from Shlomo Riskin:

I believe the meaning [about why God often calls Moses' name twice] will become clear when we take note of a time-honored mystical concept . . . that there are two images for every individual: the image of the person as he/she is, and the image of the person as it appears on the ethereal chariot. As Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik once explained, there are in reality two yous: you as you are in this world, and the you who you have the potential to become as engraved on God's throne of glory. Ultimately, we are judged in terms of how great a distance there is between these two yous - between who we are in reality and who we could have been.

I find this idea of the "two yous" to hold much truth -- in that I would agree that it is healthy and beneficial that we constantly challenge ourselves to live up to our "potential." But the BIG QUESTION is what we see that potential as? Do we interpret it as some type of career or sports or health or financial "potential"? Or do we try to see it as the potential that God expects of us?

If it is God that we look to, then what is expected of us? Each tradition would seem to have its own answer. However, what if we asked ourselves with the light and understanding of the traditions behind us, what does it mean to "walk in ways of Lord"?

Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, a current favorite commentator of mine, states that the laws of the nature and the laws of ethics "are grounded in the omnibenevolent will of God. The link between the real world of nature (the is) and the ideal world of ethics (the ought) is expressed in Psalm 19. After proclaiming that 'The heavens declare the glory of God . . . ,' the Psalmist turns to the normative sphere and continues with 'The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul.'"

What if we could believe that this idea of "omnibenevolence" [I love that word!] is not simply a description of God's will, but our own potential? Then we would have a challenge before us that I would claim is worthy of each of us who was "created in the image of God."

The Mahayana Buddhists would describe this "omnibenevolence" as a wish and a commitment to help every sentient being find happiness and reach enlightenment. While one talmudic opinion tells us, “it is preferable to throw oneself into a burning furnace rather than embarrass another person publicly.” And of course, Jesus' own giving up of his life for others is another example of this omnibenevolence,

An "omnibenevolent you" -- that is a potential to strive towards.

Doctrine versus social convention

In a comment on a recent posting, one reader wrote about their own Mormon traditon and how the basic tenets of the faith embraced or reconciled "individual creativity with spirituality," but how the social convention made it "easy to overlook."

I believe that this description is true for perhaps all religious faiths and even many, many intellectual movements. The original source (you could call it revelation) often holds and encourages much individual creativity, and in fact, strives to nurture our freedom and spirituality.

Yet, over time as faiths and movements grow and develop, it is easy for them to become more rigid and controlled. That initial entrance of the divine into our world and the wonder and awe it can draw from us, can very easily be bottled up and tamed.

One of the things I love about the Talmud (please realize that I am not Jewish, but simply have a deep affection for the tradition as I read it) is that it seems to do its best to not bottle up God's revelation, but instead to strive to find Hashem in places and situations, one would never normally look. And by keeping the dissenting opinions alive within it, the Talmud does much to allow the Divine to continue to reveal Herself through our study and exploration.

The late Rabbi Walter Wurzburger from an article in Tradition magazine volume 3.1 from 1960 adds these lovely lines about the Talmudic tradition:

Halakhic questions call for a creative approach; they can not be answered by some electronic calculator which grinds out its answers the way an electrical brain finds the solution to a complex differential equation. It is precisely this creative aspect of the halakhic process that led the sages to the remarkable statement "both these and these are the words of the living God," that at times even conflicting halakhic opinions represent, in the final analysis, legitimate elucidations of the word of God.

The Torah "is not in Heaven"; it must be interpreted by the proper authorities [perhaps by each individual] of each generation.

When, according to the Aggadah, Rabbi Akiba found in the Torah meanings that had eluded Moses, he was not creating a new Torah. What he did was something altogether different. Reading the Torah in the light of the conditions of an entirely different age, he discovered chidushei Torah, new meanings of the Torah. Yet, in spite of their manifest novelty, there were implicitly contained in the Torah as received by Moses on Mount Sinai.

To employ the well know rabbinic simile, just as different sparks are emitted when a hammer breaks a rock into pieces, so does the word of God yields numerous meanings. And it is the function of the Halakhah scholar, employing creative halakhic processes, to unravel the specific meaning which the timeless message of Sinai holds for his own time.

Rabbi Wurzburger alludes to a number of very famous Talmudic stories that I will try to share in the next few days. His words also remind me of the stories I have heard and read about Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, who was one of the leading Orthodox thinkers and leaders of the 20th century.

There are innumerable stories about him that often have him present in very different lights (sometimes from the Right, sometimes from the Left and even the Center). But one thing seems clear -- he rarely decided specific individual halakhic or legal questions for people. If you came to him with a question, he would encourage you to read the texts yourself and come up with a decision. He did not want to make the decision for the person. This perspective seems to fit perfectly with his lifelong desire to encourage creativity in his students.

And it is this creativity that is so important for an individual, for a community and for an entire faith to keep alive.

The importance of creativity in the Rav’s thought

At times when one views an Orthodox tradition – whether that is Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Buddhism, to name a few – one usually doesn’t think of “creativity” as an important quality. One instead views it as dogmatic, stagnant and repressive. And if anything, frightened of creativity and change.

Well, I would contend that Orthodox Judaism and in particular the thought of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, does embrace creativity and even places creativity at the center of its thought.

Here are a number of quotations from Walter Wurzburger’s article in Tradition, volume 30.4 1996 entitled, “The Centrality of Creativity in the Thought of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik.”

According to the Rav, human beings, as bearers of the image of God, are mandated to imitate the Creator. In view of the fact that the commandment, ve-halakhta bi-drakhav (imitatio Dei) refers exclusively to the divine moral attributes, the Rav treats creation as a moral category. . . .

R. Chaim of Volozin, a forebear of the Rav, [defined] the human task as the realization of one’s potential for spiritual creativity. In his view, that human beings bear the image of God implies that they are charged with imitating His creativity. . . .

He [R. Chaim of Volozin] goes so far as to assert that the bliss of the Hereafter can be enjoyed only by those who actually create their own immortality. The World-to-Come is not a pre-existing domain to which God dispenses visas of admission to meritorious individuals. Everyone must by his own good deeds create his own spiritual domain in the World-to-Come. . . .

According to the [Rav] individual providence extends only to those human beings who by dint of their intellectual and spiritual development have become genuine individuals and are no longer merely members of the human species. When a person creates himself, ceases to be a mere species (“man”), and becomes a man of God, then he has fulfilled that commandment which is implicit in the principle of providence. . . .

What matters for us is that, basing himself on Rambam, the Rav unequivocally declared that striving for ever higher rungs of moral perfection and participating as a partner with God in overcoming the imperfections of the universe is the pre-eminent approach to imitatio Dei. . . .

According to Rav Soloveitchik the extremist enjoys the advantage of being self-assured. But whoever has deeper insight and perceives different aspects of issues must forego the satisfaction of dogmatic certainty.

Rav Soloveitchik points to the dialectical tension within human beings as demanding the balancing of hesed and emet. In his interpretation, hesed mandates involvement in the world to transform it and create conditions conducive to human welfare. Emet, on the other hand, refers to the eternal values of the covenantal community, which transcend the world of temporal flux and which alone can provide us with a sense of meaning and purpose and enable us to overcome our existential loneliness. Since, according to halakhic Judaism, it is our task to seek to encounter God’s Presence primarily in the lower realms of being (ikkar Shekhina ba-tahtonim), we must not try to escape from this world by a flight into transcendental spheres. The human task is to create an abode for God in this world.

This is a vision of human creativity that I find quite beautiful and meaningful, especially in our world that seems so caught up in simplistic visions of good and bad, right and wrong, us and them. This is a profound challenge to each of us to create ourselves and to create a world that are truly fit for God, a world and a self full of love, care and hope.

From cleaning the intestines to raising the dead

One of the fascinating things about learning the Talmud is to discover passages like the following. In just a few sentences, we move from the issue of cleaning out the intestines of the Pesach offering to discussing whether the righteoius will be able to raise and heal the dead. An amazing set of associations . . .

The washing of its entrails." What is meant by washing the entrails? Said R. Huna: "The entrails are pricked with a knife and then washed," and R. Hyya bar Rabh says: "They are merely pressed with a knife, and in that manner the filth is removed."

R' Elazer said, "What is the reasoning behind Hyya bar Rabh's interpretation. For it is written [Isaiah v. 17]: "Then shall the sheep feed according to their wont, and the ruins of the fat ones shall sojourners eat."

Said Menasseh bar Jeremiah in the name of Rabh: The term "according to their wont" being expressed by (the Hebrew word) Kedabram, and "Debur" meaning "speaking," the expression Kedabram should be explained to mean, "as they were spoken of."

The word "sheep" refers to the Israelites, and thus the passage signifies: "Then shall the Israelites feed as they were spoken of."

What was spoken of concerning them? Said Abayi: "By the latter part of that verse and by the 'sojourners' are meant the righteous who at that time were strangers, but in the future they would be the inhabitants and feed on the ruins of the fat ones."

Said Rabha to him: This interpretation would be correct if there were not the word "and" between the two passages, but that word gives the latter passage a distinct significance; therefore, said he, the passage will have the meaning given it by R. Hananel in the name of Rabh, who said that in the future the righteous would have the power to arouse the dead; because in this passage quoted it is said: "Then shall the sheep feed according to their wont," and in another passage [Micah vii. 14]." Let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old." By Bashan is meant Elisha, the man of Bashan, as it is written [I Chronicles v. 12]: "Yanai and Shaphat in Bashan," and [II Kings iii. ii]. "Elisha the son of Shaphat" (hence Elisha, being the son of Shaphat, was from Bashan).

By Gilead is meant Elijah, as it is written [I Kings xvii. 1]: "Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead" (and both of these prophets Elijah and Elisha roused the dead). Thus the original passage quoted [Isaiah v. 17] should be interpreted as follows: As in the days of old Elijah and Elisha aroused the dead, so will in the future other righteous men also have that power.

R. Samuel ben Na'hmeni in the name of R. Jonathan deduces the above conclusion from the passage [Zechariah viii. 4]: "Thus hath said the Lord of Hosts, Again shall there sit old men and women in the streets of Jerusalem, and every one with staff in hand because of their multitude of years"; and as it is written [II Kings iv. 29]: "Lay my staff upon the face of the lad," the inference that the righteous will have the power to arouse the dead is deduced from the analogy of the two passages, the latter of which deals with the arousing of the dead.

The Talmud text is from this online translation, though for my daily reading I use the wonderful and helpful translation from Artscroll -- The Schottenstein Edition Talmud Bavli.

Wisdom from the Daf -- Pesachim 66b

Here is some practical wisdom that the Talmud placed within its discussion Pesach sacrifice:

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: "He who is arrogant, if he be one of the sages his wisdom leaveth him, and if he be a prophet his power of prophecy forsaketh him.

Resh Lakish said: A man who becomes angry, if he be a sage his wisdom leaveth him, and if he be a prophet his power of prophecy forsaketh him.

Today, there is often very little interest in this type of advice. Rather, one is supposed to express their anger and have pride in themselves. I believe that there is profound wisdom within these recommendations. Our haughtiness and anger can so easily cause us to lose sight of the true value of those in front of us and simply blame them for everything that is wrong.

Whether it is the progressives blaming the neo-conservatives, or the neo-conservatives blaming the progressives -- they all are seeing their own anger and pride and failing to see the other.

The Talmud text is from this online translation, though for my daily reading I use the wonderful and helpful translation from Artscroll -- The Schottenstein Edition Talmud Bavli.

We must sanctify the physical world

From Daf-insights from The Dafyomi Advancement Forum

The Torah was given to man in order to enable him to utilize the physical world in the service of Hashem. A Jew is not supposed to live an ascetic life, severed entirely from the physical pleasures of the material world. Hashem placed the Jew's Neshamah [soul] into a physical body, fusing the holy with the mundane and charging him with the obligation to uplift and sanctify his physical existence and the physical world in which he lives. The Torah enables the Jew to sanctify the physical world, in contrast to the Nochri [gentile] who does not have the ability to uplift the physical world and infuse it with spirituality. The Nochri's spirituality is divorced from the physical world. For example, the Nochri's spiritual leaders practice celibacy, while the Kohen Gadol is obligated to be married when he performs the holiest service on the holiest day of the year (Yoma 1:1). It is therefore logical that on the day on which we received the Torah, which teaches us how to utilize the physical world in the service of Hashem, we are to partake in physical pleasures of food and drink. (Heard from Rav Kalman Weinreb, shlit'a.)

While this is of course an exaggerated, stereotypical view of Christianity, seeing is as "otherworldly" and "ascetical" -- clearly there are many tendencies with the Catholic Church that give these comments some truth.

A new blog -- A Rhizome Spirit

I have started another blog called, A Rhizome Spirit. It provides a more wide-ranging discussion of what I call "rhizeomss and holzwege of love and spirit."

The word "rhizome" comes from Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari and represents something that is always on the move, always learning and changing. It "has no beginning or end; it is always in the middle, between things" and "any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be." Which is very different from a "tree or root," "which plots a point, fixes an order. . . . A rhizome ceaselessly establishes connections"

The word "holzwege," which comes from Heidegger and represents forest paths made by backwoods loggers leading to a place in the forest from which trees have been removed. In some ways these paths can be seen as leading "nowhere," or they can be seen as leading to a clearing in the forest.

Since my interests include a number of areas and issues, I think this new site will give me that flexibility.

And of course a huge and most wonderful collection of rhizomes and holzwege is the Talmud itself, which is one of the key reasons I am so attracted to it. So, I plan to continue to keep this site up as well.

Aflictions of love -- a Talmudic answer to the question of evil

Here are some classic statements from the Bavli Berachos 5ab, trying to make sense of the eternal issue of why bad things happen to good people . . .

The next section discusses “afflictions of love” – these are afflictions that occur to a person who when he or sheinvestigate their deeds finds no sin and investigates their commitment to Torah study and finds no failings – then “it can be assumed that they are ‘afflictions of love’ – as it is stated: For Hashem rebukes the one He loves. [Proverbs 3:12]

From Ramban (Nachmanides): “. . . out of love and compassion, God cleanses people from their inadvertent sins by afflicting them in this world. They are thus rendered fit to receive their full measure of reward in the World to Come.”

From Rashi: “God therefore shifts the onus of punishment from the average people onto the righteous, who will bear it with love. Since a righteous person who is afflicted for this reason is suffering on behalf of others, he is credited with the reward that is consequently taken from them.”

From Tzlach: “’The reward is in proportion to the exertion’ (Pirkei Avos 5:23). Thus, by visiting suffering upon the righteous, God increases their opportunities for reward.”

One of the sections on afflictions of love says:

Now, if the loss of a tooth or eye, which is only one of the limbs of a person, -- a slave goes free on account of it, then afflictions, which purge a person’s entire body, all the more so should a person be freed (i.e. from sin) on account of them!

The commentary states: “When a Canaanite slave goes free because his master injured one of his limbs he assumes the status of a free Jew. Thus, through the freedom wrought by his injury, he ascends from a lower level of sanctity to a higher level. This is, therefore, a fitting analogy to the suffering of a righteous person, which likewise frees him from his previous lower status and brings him close to the Almighty. He, too, is liberated in the sense that previously he was only God’s servant, but now he is God’s ‘child’ (Pnei Yehoshua)”

Fighting your evil inclination

A person should constantly agitate his Good Inclination to fight against his Evil Inclination – Tremble (i.e. be agitated) and sin not. If he vanquishes it, fine. But if not, he should engage in Torah study, as it is state in that verse: reflect in your hearts. If he vanquishes it, fine. But if not, he should recite the Shema, as it is stated in the verse: on your beds. If he vanquishes it, fine. But if not, he should remind himself of the day of death – as it is stated at the end of the verse – and be utterly silent – selah.

What is the meaning of that which written [Exodus 24:12]: I shall give you the Tablets of stone, and the Torah, and the commandment which I have written, to teach them?

The verse is interpreted phrase by phrase: “Tablets” – these refer to the Ten Commandments; “Torah” – this refers to Scripture; “and the commandment”; – this refers to the Mishnah; – “which I have written” – these refer to the Prophets and Writings; “to teach them” – refers to the Gemara. [The verse] thus teaches that all of them were given to Moses at Sinai.

A classic text striving to understand and explain how all the Oral Torah, even the Gemara they are writing at that actual moment, was actually given to Moses at Sinai.