People die every day / for lack / of what is found there

In one of William Carlos Williams poems he wrote:

It is difficult
to get the news from poems
yet men die every day
for lack
of what is found
there

When I think about how I feel when I am at my best and listening to Rav Michael Rosensweig's shiurim, this poem rings true.

In many, many ways it is difficult for me to get clear information or specific "spiritual" ideas or concepts from Rav Rosensweig's shiurim (i.e. "news"). What I can get from them is something far more important. Something that I would argue "people are dying for every day" -- dying, metaphorically from a loss of meaning, from a loss of creativity and passion.

At their best, poems help us focus on the particulars of our lives and find meaning within them, but we are not supposed to find answers in those poems. Only appreciation and perhaps more questions, but most importantly love -- love of the life we are given.

A few lines from another poem come to mind here. They are from Rilke's Ninth Duino Elegy:

. . . Perhaps we are only here in order to say: house,
bridge, fountain, gate, pitcher, fruit-tree, window—
at most: column, tower … But to say them,
you must understand, oh to say them more intensely than the Things
themselves ever dreamed of existing. (translated by Stephen Mitchell)

Perhaps it is this type of intensity that Rav Rosensweig means when he writes about:

• the "maximalist man of destiny" from his essay "The Spiritual Legacy of Noah and Avraham" or
• a "maximalist halachic lifestyle" from his essay "Chanukah as a Holiday of Idealism and Maximalism"

For Rav Rosensweig it is never a desire to find ways around the halakhah, but only a constant search to understand the "maximalist halachic lifestyle" ever more deeply and broadly. This, I believe, is why his shiurim range throughout the entire range of the Talmud. He is not simply focused on a daf or a mishnah or a gemara, but instead the entire Talmud and all commentaries on in conversation and Rav Rosensweig is always trying to find something new, to discover, a new chiddush, a new creation . . . it is this creativity and intensity that I believe on can connect to the art of poetry.

Rav Rosensweig's writings can be found at http://www.torahweb.org/rosensweig.html

More on saying "Yes" to life, even an "unexciting" one

In the last entry I wrote about how rabbis Singer and Rosensweig and their intense love of the Talmud, Hashem and the Halakhah represent for me individuals and a tradition that profoundly says "Yes" to all that life brings.

This fundamental position is the one that inspires me the most and one that I look for in any tradition or practice that I explore.

Just recently I discovered a new poet, Kenneth Koch. He was a friend and colleague of John Ashbery and part of the so-called New York School of Poetry of which he once said “Maybe you can almost characterize the poetry of the New York School as having as one of its main subjects the fullness and richness of life and the richness of possibility and excitement and happiness.”

To this line I want to say, "Amen."

Yes life is so full and so rich, even if is An Unexciting Life, as the title of one of my favorite books describes it. The book is on Benedictine spirituality and its Introduction begins:

Some years ago I read a quotation from a letter of Gustave Flaubert, creator of Madame Bovary, which could easily serve as a summary of one aspect of the spirituality that stems from the Rule of St. Benedict. As I remember it, the text ran: "Be regular and ordinary in your life, like a bourgeois, so that you may violent and original in your work." What he seems to be be saying is that the price paid for the release of the inner spark of creativity is low impact living: the renunciation of superficial excitement, passive entertainment and mindless celebrity. In other words, exterior dullness is a condition of inner excitement. To describe this happy state I coined the phrase "creative monotony."

For us who live in a sensate society dominated by an appetite for excitement, no matter how vacuous its source, the preferential option for a quiet life may seem a little peculiar. No doubt in the midst of the helter skelter of a busy life, the idea of an oasis of silence has a certain appeal, but relatively few of us seriously consider building into our lives the values by which Benedict lived.

This reluctance derives, in part, from a misunderstanding of the nature of the unexciting life. The serenity envisaged by the Benedictine motto pax (peace) is not the deathly stillness of a stagnant swamp where nothing ever happens, nor is it the lassitude resulting from the abandonment of all ideals and the dodging of every challenge. The outward call, the nurtures inward growth is the fruit of a well disciplined life pursued through many years, and of battle-scarred victory in many struggles."

While everything I know and read about and listen to in regard to a Yeshiva is that they are not places of quiet or serenity, but they are places that offer something very different from the "sensate society dominated by an appetite for excitement, no matter how vacuous its source."

In future posts I will explore what Michael Casey says in An Unexciting Life, as well as other views that say a powerful Yes!

Saying "Yes" to life

While I regularly fight my decision to spend time studying the Talmud. because there are times that I question why I should focus on something so particular, so specific, so Jewish?

Listening to my teachers, Rav Michael Rosensweig and Rav Shlomo Singer, I have a profound respect for who they are and how they conduct their shiurim, however, their focus is entirely on the Jewish community.

Whether it is Rav Singer tirelessly learning Succah with those in his yeshiva or Rav Rosensweig using the Brisker Derech to create innovative interpretations (chiddushiim), I do not fit into their audience, nor do all the problems and struggles of those outside the Jewish community.

But . . . when I listen carefully; when I listen between the words, I can hear a profound "Yes" being shouted and lived by each man:

• a "Yes" to Hashem,
• a "Yes" to Torah lishmah (studying Torah for its own sake),
• a "Yes" to a "maximal religious aspiration" as Rav Rosensweig likes to describe the halachic challenge that the Torah presents,

which together create for me a strong and deep, "Yes" to life and all that life offers -- good and bad.

Super blog -- Hirhurim Musings

A new resource that I found a few months ago is a blog written Rabbi Gil Student. The blog is called "Hirhurim Musings" and can be found at http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/

It is truly an amazing blog that at this moment is adding a variety of new features such as a Parashah Roundup -- a weekly collection of commentaries on the parashah (weekly Torah reading). Rabbi Student is a graduate from Yeshiva University and his audience is an Orthodox one. While I, of course, am not Orthodox, whenever I read his words, I sense a true warmth and humility, as well as a fundamental desire to love Hashem through study and sharing his study.

R' Student describes an "important policy" for his site as "This blog is intended only for the interchange of ideas for the purpose of Torah study, promoting enlightened public policy and/or the refinement of character." In particular, I sense this focus on a refinement of character his work.

The traffic on the site is also amazing -- it is not uncommon for there to be over 100 comments per entry, some from such well known Orthodox writers as Lawrence Kaplan and Arnie Lustiger.

I cannot recommend this blog highly enough.

I am back. I hope for a while

In a comment to my last post from February 2007, anonymous asked, "are you ever coming back?"

Since blogging doesn't come simply to me, especially about a topic such as the Talmud, it is much easier for me to not blog, than to blog. But just knowing that someone is reading these words energizes me to pick up where I left off.

Thanks to all who read these pages . . .

Why I Study the Talmud

It seems like I ask myself every day, "Why am I studying the Talmud?"

I currently am keeping up with the Daf Yomi process, reading a daf (page) a day. This is a simple morning ritual for me, sometimes reading in depth, sometimes skimming the daf for the day. One important thing that it has offered me is an overview of Jewish tradition and ritual that don't have, since I am not Jewish. While at times the topics can be obscure or seemingly repetitive, there are often wonderful, inspirational gems as well.

In addition to this for that last four months I have been trying to keep up with the class of Rav Michael Rosensweig as he covers parek Meruba of Bava Kamma. Here is a link to all the shiurim the Yeshiva University offers, which I discussed in my last post.

Rav Rosensweig's classes are extremely in-depth discussions of the Mishnah, Gemara and seemingly all the commentaries on a specific topic covered in either the Mishnah or Gemara. The difference between the Daf Yomi level of study and Rav Rosensweig's couldn't be clearer. Since September when I discovered the Rav Rosensweig's shirium, the Daf Yomi has covered over 150 daf, while Rav Rosensweig has covered 6 daf in over 50 separate shiurim each approximately 90 minutes long!

While I don't understand everything Rav Rosensweig discusses, because he uses an enormous amount Hebrew/Aramaic, over time (I have listened to 39 classes so far -- I am still 16 behind where he currently is) I have gathered more and more familiarity with the Hebrew/Aramaic.

But now to the basic question -- "Why?"

I am not Jewish and so I am not obligated to talmud Torah (studying the Torah) like traditional Jews are. The individuals to whom I am drawn like Rav Rosensweig don't represent a universalistic vision of the Talmud (for example, like Emmanuel Levinas), but a clearly orthodox and traditional vision of the Talmud and its study.

Yet, I just can't get enough of Rav Rosensweig's teachings (in other postings I will include links to his writings and other audio shiurim). There is a seriousness, clarity and yet lightness in his presentation, along with a seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of the sources that draws me in.

When I turn to other traditions that I have been drawn to in the past: Catholicism, Buddhism, philosophy and poetry -- while they offer a seemingly more universal message of love or emptiness or creativity or attention, which are clearly useful and helpful, these discussions now seem so abstract, so mystical that they don't appeal at this time.

This reminds me of what Rav Joseph Soloveitchik wrote in Halakhic Man:

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

The Halakhah is not at all concerned with a transcendent world. The world to come is a tranquil, quiet world that is wholly good, wholly everlasting, and wholly eternal, wherein a man will receive the reward for the commandments which he performed in this world. 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

What can be more exciting, more challenging, more inspiring than this?

Nothing!

And it is this sense of dedication and drive that I find in Rav Rosensweig's shiurim, and it is why I listen to his classes nearly every day. They help me get in touch with the "ideal of halakhic man [which] is the redemption of the world not via a higher world but via the world itself, via the adaptation of empirical reality to the ideal patterns of Halakhah." 37-38

To me the parek, Meruba, that YU has been covering -- which basically discusses the issue of stealing (gezeilah -- robbery and geneivah -- thievery) is a perfect example of looking at "empirical reality" through the "ideal patterns of Halakhah," which for myself certainly help me see my day-to-day reality with new eyes.

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.