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.