B"H
Bereshit (Genesis) Ch. 24:10 reads:
ויקח העבד עשרה גמלים מגמלי אדניו וילך וכל טוב אדניו בידו
Loosely translated:
And the servant (=Eliezer) too ten camels from his master's (=Avraham) stock and he went on his way and the entire wealth of his master in his hand.
Rash comments on the words "and the entire wealth of his master in his hand":
...שטר מתנה כתב ליצחק על כל אשר לו
Loosely translated:
Avraham wrote a bill-of-gifting to Yitzhak of his entire wealth.
In other words, prior to sending Eliezer to find a wife for his son Yitzhak, Avraham wrote his entire wealth over to Yitzhak and gave the bill to Eliezer as proof of Yitzhak's immense wealth, so that the parents of the prospective bride will be more willing to give their daughter's hand in marriage.
So, a few issues arise from Avraham's transaction:
1. How would Avraham sustain himself without any worldly possession or any money. This question is especially troubling considering that Avraham is known to live about 50 years after this episode.
2. Why would Avraham gift everything over to his son? Since Avraham was super-rich, he could have gifted him a portion of his entire wealth which would have still be considered a very respectful sum in the eyes of the prospective bride.
3. Avraham's wealth is destined to be given to Yitzhak as inheritance in any event, why bother gifting it. Essentially, Avraham has given to Yitzhak his inheritance while Avraham's still alive.
4. Why would Yitzahak even accept such a gift, since, As the Rambam write in the very last halacha in Sefer Kinyian that a righteous person should not accept gifts...
An explanation:
Hashem has created imperfection in the world so that the Jewish people can occupy themselves with rectifying the world through the performance of mitzvas i.e., G-d's will. Since the world itself is physical in nature, to rectify it one needs physical tools. However, since the master plan (being G-d's plan) is spiritual, one needs spiritual faculties to perceive it. In other words, in order to implement G-d's plan one spiritual faculties combined with physical tools.
Yitzhak symbolizes the Jewish neshama (=soul), while Rivka symbolizes the Jewish body (need citation). Their marriage symbolizes the descent and infusion of the Jewish neshama with the Jewish body. This combination, i.e., a Jewish person, is exactly what's needed in order to put G-d's plan into motion and rectify the world -- spiritual neshama on the one hand, and a physical body on the other.
Yitzhak's marriage to Rivka is also the first Jewish wedding history. (Avraham and Sarah were both converts, and their wedding occurred prior to their conversion.) Since Yitzhak's wedding to Rivka is the first Jewish wedding, it sets the tone for all subsequent weddings for the rest of eternity. As is the case with a neshama infusion with a body, a Jewish marriage is a vehicle to enable the bride and groom to perform G-d's will at a level higher than at which the bride and groom may have been able to perform on their own.
This then explains Avraham's behavior: The marriage of Yitzhak and Rivka paves the road to Jewish wedding for the rest of eternity through which enables a couple can perform G-d's will at a higher level (hence rectify the world at a higher level.) The end product of the rectification of the world is the revelation of G-d in every aspect of physical existence. It will be as clear as day that Hashem is running the show and is involved in every minuet detail. This is essentially Avraham life's mission: to spread G-d's name throughout the world through love and kindness by teaching people how to acknowledge, recognize and thank Hashem in every aspect of life. Ultimately, his mission is to expose Hashem in every aspect of physical existence.
Since Yitzhak's marriage to Rivka embodies Avraham's life's mission, he completely invested himself in their marriage. This is true in the spiritual/emotional sense. But this is just as true in the physical sense, which explains why Avraham wrote his entire wealth over to Yitzhak, thereby completely investing himself in his marriage, paving the road of Jews to walk on for all the generations, rectifying the world though the performance of mitzvas and acts of kindness.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Fulfilling one's potential
B"H
Bereshit (Genesis) Ch. 18:33 reads:
וילך ה' כאשר כלה לדבר אל אברהם ואברהם שב למקמו
Loosely translated;
And Hashem departed when he finished speaking to Avraham, and Avraham returned to his tent.
This takes place right after Hashem notifies Avraham of his intention to destroy Sodom which is followed by a passionate plea by Avraham to Hashem to reconsider. After Avraham managed to bargain Hashem down to sparing the city on the account of ten righteous individuals Avraham went back home.
One of the criticisms that's leveled against Avraham is that he didn't do enough! Contrast this with Moshe's statement after the sin of the golden calf. Hashem is ready to annihilate the Jewish nation (G-d forbid!) and offers to start all-over with Moshe himself. The Torah records in Shmot (Exodus) Ch. 32:32 Moshe's response:
ועתה אם תשא חטאתם ואם אין מחני נא מספרך אשר כתבת
Loosely translated:
And now forgive the nation! And should you not, erase me from this book that you've written (i.e, the Torah.)
We see that Moshe was willing to put his own life (and portion of the world to come) in order to save his fellow Jews. Avraham made no such gesture -- he simply returned to his tent. This is especially puzzling in light of the fact that Avraham is known of his pure Chessed (kindness.)
If we go back, we find a similar criticism leveled against Noach relative to Avraham (see Rashi on Bereshit (Genesis) 6:9): Noach built the ark for 120 years so everyone becomes aware of the impending doom. But he did not pro-actively attempt to make people repent to avert it.
So, ultimately, we have Noach, Avraham and Moshe in increasing order of willingness to doing for others to save them from destruction. Why the difference?
An explanation:
In the days of Noah, the concept of repentance evidently did not exist (save for Adam of Kain.) See the article Praying for Others' repentance for a detailed explanation. Since people were unable to repent, Noah did not take a proactive approach. He fulfilled the maximum potential with the act of publicly building an ark. Only after the deluge was the concept of repentance introduced into the main-stream.
So, in the time of Avraham, there was a possibility that there would be some individuals in Sodom that repented and become righteous. Avraham was after these individuals hoping that in their merit Sodom (as a whole) will be saved. However, in this point in time, there was no concept of mutual culpability and responsibility, as nothing bound one individual to another, save a family-tie. Hence, Avraham essentially could not take the same stance as Moshe did hundreds of years later. Avraham has no additional tools left in his toolbox, so he returned home. Effectively, Avraham also fulfilled the potential of his generation.
However, it wasn't until the time of Moshe, after Matan-Torah (and the getting of the Torah), that the Jewish people were formed into a nation. The concept of כל ישראל ערבים זה לזה (tran. all the Jews are culpable for one-another) came into being. Only after this point in time, could Moshe make such a claim: "erase me from your book -- I don't want this world and I don't want the next world if you're going to annihilate (G-d forbid) the Jewish nation." Moshe then also fulfilled the maximum potential of his generation (and beyond -- now that we have Torah.)
So, leveling criticism against Noah or Avraham because they did not meet the standard of the next level up is somewhat undue. They all maxed out their potential, within the spiritual limitations their respective generations were subjected to.
Another way to look at it:
In the time of Noah, he was able to be righteous, but his righteousness could not be extended beyond himself, to influence other and to prevent a disaster.
In the time of Avraham, he righteousness could be extended further by influencing other individual , to avert a catastrophe, but not at the price of מסירת נפש (=giving one's soul over.)
In the time of Moshe, due to mutual culpability within the Jewish nation, one could give himself over completely to save his fellow Jews.
We can take this one step further, though:
When Mashiach comes, speedily please G-d, we are told that the whole world will be a more peaceful, wholesome and pure place. In this new world the highest desire and delight will be to bask in Hashem's wisdom by engaging in Torah study. Spiritual pleasures are going to be heavily sought after. Since this will be done at the expense of one's physical pleasures, one will, essentially, give oneself and one's own physical desires over to Hashem (with true מסירת נפש). This will be so even without a pending disaster -- as a matter of course.
Bereshit (Genesis) Ch. 18:33 reads:
וילך ה' כאשר כלה לדבר אל אברהם ואברהם שב למקמו
Loosely translated;
And Hashem departed when he finished speaking to Avraham, and Avraham returned to his tent.
This takes place right after Hashem notifies Avraham of his intention to destroy Sodom which is followed by a passionate plea by Avraham to Hashem to reconsider. After Avraham managed to bargain Hashem down to sparing the city on the account of ten righteous individuals Avraham went back home.
One of the criticisms that's leveled against Avraham is that he didn't do enough! Contrast this with Moshe's statement after the sin of the golden calf. Hashem is ready to annihilate the Jewish nation (G-d forbid!) and offers to start all-over with Moshe himself. The Torah records in Shmot (Exodus) Ch. 32:32 Moshe's response:
ועתה אם תשא חטאתם ואם אין מחני נא מספרך אשר כתבת
Loosely translated:
And now forgive the nation! And should you not, erase me from this book that you've written (i.e, the Torah.)
We see that Moshe was willing to put his own life (and portion of the world to come) in order to save his fellow Jews. Avraham made no such gesture -- he simply returned to his tent. This is especially puzzling in light of the fact that Avraham is known of his pure Chessed (kindness.)
If we go back, we find a similar criticism leveled against Noach relative to Avraham (see Rashi on Bereshit (Genesis) 6:9): Noach built the ark for 120 years so everyone becomes aware of the impending doom. But he did not pro-actively attempt to make people repent to avert it.
So, ultimately, we have Noach, Avraham and Moshe in increasing order of willingness to doing for others to save them from destruction. Why the difference?
An explanation:
In the days of Noah, the concept of repentance evidently did not exist (save for Adam of Kain.) See the article Praying for Others' repentance for a detailed explanation. Since people were unable to repent, Noah did not take a proactive approach. He fulfilled the maximum potential with the act of publicly building an ark. Only after the deluge was the concept of repentance introduced into the main-stream.
So, in the time of Avraham, there was a possibility that there would be some individuals in Sodom that repented and become righteous. Avraham was after these individuals hoping that in their merit Sodom (as a whole) will be saved. However, in this point in time, there was no concept of mutual culpability and responsibility, as nothing bound one individual to another, save a family-tie. Hence, Avraham essentially could not take the same stance as Moshe did hundreds of years later. Avraham has no additional tools left in his toolbox, so he returned home. Effectively, Avraham also fulfilled the potential of his generation.
However, it wasn't until the time of Moshe, after Matan-Torah (and the getting of the Torah), that the Jewish people were formed into a nation. The concept of כל ישראל ערבים זה לזה (tran. all the Jews are culpable for one-another) came into being. Only after this point in time, could Moshe make such a claim: "erase me from your book -- I don't want this world and I don't want the next world if you're going to annihilate (G-d forbid) the Jewish nation." Moshe then also fulfilled the maximum potential of his generation (and beyond -- now that we have Torah.)
So, leveling criticism against Noah or Avraham because they did not meet the standard of the next level up is somewhat undue. They all maxed out their potential, within the spiritual limitations their respective generations were subjected to.
Another way to look at it:
In the time of Noah, he was able to be righteous, but his righteousness could not be extended beyond himself, to influence other and to prevent a disaster.
In the time of Avraham, he righteousness could be extended further by influencing other individual , to avert a catastrophe, but not at the price of מסירת נפש (=giving one's soul over.)
In the time of Moshe, due to mutual culpability within the Jewish nation, one could give himself over completely to save his fellow Jews.
We can take this one step further, though:
When Mashiach comes, speedily please G-d, we are told that the whole world will be a more peaceful, wholesome and pure place. In this new world the highest desire and delight will be to bask in Hashem's wisdom by engaging in Torah study. Spiritual pleasures are going to be heavily sought after. Since this will be done at the expense of one's physical pleasures, one will, essentially, give oneself and one's own physical desires over to Hashem (with true מסירת נפש). This will be so even without a pending disaster -- as a matter of course.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Praying for others' repentance
B"H
Bereshit (Genesis) Ch. 6:14 reads:
עשה לך תבת עצי גפר
Loosely translated:
[G-d says to Noah:] Make for yourself an ark, out of gofer trees.
Rashi bring "Make for yourself an ark" and give the following commentary:
הרבה ריוח והצלה לפניו ולמה הטריחו בבנין זה כדי שיראוהו אנשי דור המבול עוסק בה ק"כ שנה ושואלין אותו מה זאת לך והוא אומר להם עתיד הקב"ה להביא מבול לעולם אולי ישובו
Loosely translated:
Question: G-d is a savior so why did he bother Noah with building this ark? Answer: So that the generation of the deluge should see him toiling in building it (=the ark) for 120 years. This will peek their curiosity and they might ask "why do you bother?" To which he shall answer "G-d will ultimately cause a deluge!". Hearing his answer, perhaps (=hopefully) they'll repent.
One criticism that's brought upon Noah is that he did not do enough to help the people of his generation to repent. A comparison is drawn between Noah's apparently passive approach to educating his generation and Avraham's proactive approach of praying for the protection of the people of Sodom (see Bereshit (Genesis) Ch. 18:23-32.)
We also see this is Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) Ch. 5:2
Ten generations exited between Adam and Noah to demonstrate G-d's patience, for they angered Him until he brought upon them the deluge. Ten generations existed between Noach and Avraham to demonstrate G-d's patience, for they angered Him until Avraham came and took all their rewards.
The question then is, why did Noah not pray to save his generation, the way Avraham did? After all, we know that Noah was righteous (6:9) and also we learned from Ramban on 6:8 that all of Noah's actions were beautiful and pleasant to Hashem. There are other pointers to the fact that Noah was a great man. So, in all likeliness he should have prayed for the wellbeing of the generation?!?!
One is forced to conclude that Noah could not pray for the generation. We can work this out backwards: After 120 years of seeing Noah toil in the ark and foretelling the prophecy of the deluge one would expect that at least some people repent. Evidently no one did (since there were no other human passengers on the ark except Noah and family.) Perhaps the actual concept (or attribute) of repentance was foreign to the very make up of the world? People could simply not repent since there was no repentance, so Noah had nothing to pray for?
This raises some additional questions:
1) Why then did he take 120 years to build the ark?
2) What's the justification of Rashi's comment on 6:14, as indicated above?
3) How could Adam and Kain repent (eating of the fruit and killing Hevel, respectively)?
Question 1 can possibly be answered that Noah was given a task that's simply too great to finish single-handedly in a shorted span, considering the gigantic proportions of the ark. This flies in the face of question 2, where Rashi assigns a different reason for the long duration of the project. Reconciling the two is still open in my book...
As for question #3 perhaps the explanation is as follows: Both Adam and Kain were created in Gan Eden (=the Garden of Eden). Since Gan Eden was elevated above the physical world, both Adam and Kain exhibited traits that transcended the limitation of the world. So, despite the world being limited in a sense, for it lacked the attribute and possibility of repentance, Adam and Kain did not lack this attribute, and so they could repent.
After the deluge, on the other hand, the Zohar records that Noah came out of the ark and into עולם חדש (lit. A new wold.) A wold so new, in fact, that Hashem was able to make a covenant with the world that He shell never wholly flood it again. Hold on, what if the world gets to the very same corruption that preceded the deluge? Surely Hashem would want to flood it again and start over.... In fact, this is not so -- this new world, evidently was also new in a sense that it now possesed the attribute of repentance. This is evident in Avraham's prayers for saving Sodom.
Bereshit (Genesis) Ch. 6:14 reads:
עשה לך תבת עצי גפר
Loosely translated:
[G-d says to Noah:] Make for yourself an ark, out of gofer trees.
Rashi bring "Make for yourself an ark" and give the following commentary:
הרבה ריוח והצלה לפניו ולמה הטריחו בבנין זה כדי שיראוהו אנשי דור המבול עוסק בה ק"כ שנה ושואלין אותו מה זאת לך והוא אומר להם עתיד הקב"ה להביא מבול לעולם אולי ישובו
Loosely translated:
Question: G-d is a savior so why did he bother Noah with building this ark? Answer: So that the generation of the deluge should see him toiling in building it (=the ark) for 120 years. This will peek their curiosity and they might ask "why do you bother?" To which he shall answer "G-d will ultimately cause a deluge!". Hearing his answer, perhaps (=hopefully) they'll repent.
One criticism that's brought upon Noah is that he did not do enough to help the people of his generation to repent. A comparison is drawn between Noah's apparently passive approach to educating his generation and Avraham's proactive approach of praying for the protection of the people of Sodom (see Bereshit (Genesis) Ch. 18:23-32.)
We also see this is Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) Ch. 5:2
Ten generations exited between Adam and Noah to demonstrate G-d's patience, for they angered Him until he brought upon them the deluge. Ten generations existed between Noach and Avraham to demonstrate G-d's patience, for they angered Him until Avraham came and took all their rewards.
The question then is, why did Noah not pray to save his generation, the way Avraham did? After all, we know that Noah was righteous (6:9) and also we learned from Ramban on 6:8 that all of Noah's actions were beautiful and pleasant to Hashem. There are other pointers to the fact that Noah was a great man. So, in all likeliness he should have prayed for the wellbeing of the generation?!?!
One is forced to conclude that Noah could not pray for the generation. We can work this out backwards: After 120 years of seeing Noah toil in the ark and foretelling the prophecy of the deluge one would expect that at least some people repent. Evidently no one did (since there were no other human passengers on the ark except Noah and family.) Perhaps the actual concept (or attribute) of repentance was foreign to the very make up of the world? People could simply not repent since there was no repentance, so Noah had nothing to pray for?
This raises some additional questions:
1) Why then did he take 120 years to build the ark?
2) What's the justification of Rashi's comment on 6:14, as indicated above?
3) How could Adam and Kain repent (eating of the fruit and killing Hevel, respectively)?
Question 1 can possibly be answered that Noah was given a task that's simply too great to finish single-handedly in a shorted span, considering the gigantic proportions of the ark. This flies in the face of question 2, where Rashi assigns a different reason for the long duration of the project. Reconciling the two is still open in my book...
As for question #3 perhaps the explanation is as follows: Both Adam and Kain were created in Gan Eden (=the Garden of Eden). Since Gan Eden was elevated above the physical world, both Adam and Kain exhibited traits that transcended the limitation of the world. So, despite the world being limited in a sense, for it lacked the attribute and possibility of repentance, Adam and Kain did not lack this attribute, and so they could repent.
After the deluge, on the other hand, the Zohar records that Noah came out of the ark and into עולם חדש (lit. A new wold.) A wold so new, in fact, that Hashem was able to make a covenant with the world that He shell never wholly flood it again. Hold on, what if the world gets to the very same corruption that preceded the deluge? Surely Hashem would want to flood it again and start over.... In fact, this is not so -- this new world, evidently was also new in a sense that it now possesed the attribute of repentance. This is evident in Avraham's prayers for saving Sodom.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Wholly entrance into the land
B"H
Dvarim (Deut) Ch. 26:1 reads:
והיה כי תבוא אל הארץ אשר ה' אלקיך נתן לך נחלה וירשתה וישבת בה
Loosely translated:
And it shall come to pass when you enter the land which the L-rd your G-d gives you as inheritance and you shall inherit it and dwell in it....
Rashi comments on the sentence:
והיה כי תבוא וגו' וירשתה וישבת בה: מגיד שלא נתחייבו בבכורים עד שכבשו את הארץ וחלקוה
Loosely translated:
When you come etc... and you shall inherit it and dell in it: teaches us that they were not obligated to bring the first-fruits until after the conquered the land and divided it (amongst the tribes.)
Rahi gets this interpretation for the juxtaposition of 16:1 which talks about conquering the land with 16:2 which talks about bring the first-fruits as a thankgiving offering:
ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה אשר תביא מארצך אשר ה' אלקיך נתן לך ושמת בטנא
Loosely translated:
And you shall take from all first-fruit of your land which you shall harvest from the land that the L-rd your G-d gives you and you shall put it in a basket.
Because conquering the land (and diving it) is juxtaposed to bringing the first-fruits as an offering to Hashem, it's clear that the former is a prerequisite for the second, as Rashi points out.
But Rashi is telling us something a bit deeper:
Conquering the land took 7 years. Dividing it took another 7. The whole process took 14 years, then. However, once the conquering was over and the division process has began, some people would have gotten their potion earlier-on, while other got their portion toward the end of the 14 years.
One might think that the people who got their portion earlier would be obligated to bring the first-fruit thanksgiving offering earlier (i.e. once their fields yielded crop, which could even be the very same year they got their portion.)
Rashi therefore clarifies this for us: despite the fact that by the end of the 14 years the land was fully divided, those who got their portion earlier-on did not bring their first-fruit thanksgiving offering until after EVERYONE got their portion. (Goes to show us that a Jew cannot be fully happy with their lot if he/she knows that their's another Jew out there somewhere who is lacking theirs!)
So, according to this Rashi, the term והיה כי תבוא (=And it shall come to pass when you enter the land) does not mean "as soon as you enter the land". In other words, "when you enter" does not mean "when you physically set foot". Instead, Rashi tells us that "when you enter" means "when you wholly enter, every last Jew enters and gets their allotted portion."
Put differently, the שלמות (=wholeness, completion and perfection) of entering the land only occured when everyone got their portion. Until that time (14 years after physically entering the land) it cannot be said that the Jews "entered the land" in the complete sense.
Some sources (need citation) also give a homiletic interpretation of 16:1
והיה כי תבוא: And it shall come to pass that when the Jewish neshama (=soul) enters
אל הארץ: into the earthly (mundane) body
אשר ה' אלקיך נתן לך: that the L-rd G-d has provided you with
And Rashi comments (as derived above) that the wholeness and perfection of this entrance is only once the land (=homiletically the mundane body) is fully conquered and divided. What does it mean to conquer and divide the mundane body?
An answer:
Each person has within him-/herself the pull towards mundane, earthly things (=ארציות) . The Torah is teaching us that the neshama isn't fully finished entering the body, in שלמות, until the Jew battles his animalistic-self and conquers his/her ארציות and subjugates it to the service of Hashem, thereby rectifying it and making bringing it into the realm of holiness.
Once that's done, and a person's ארציות has been elevated and conquering is therefore complete, it is time to divide the mundane body: each part of the body is involved in a different manner of serving Hashem: the hand is set aside for giving Tzdaka (charity) and downing Teffilin. The foot is set aside for walking to study hall. The head is set aside for learning Hashem's Torah. The heart for loving Hashem, etc...
When a person reaches this level of conquering his/her ארציות and then dividing and giving each body part the prescribed mitzvot specific to it and engaging it in its specific service of Hashem, then it can be said that the neshama has "Wholly entered the body with שלמות."
On the surface, this presents one small complication: battling with the body's inclinations and conquering one's ארציות is something that's related to בעלי תשובה (=penitents). However, for צדיקים (=righteous individuals) there's no war to fight and no ארציות to conquer: a צדיק has no animalistic self. By such a person, there's only the division part that needs to take place, without a prerequisite war. Where is this hinted to in the Torah?
A possible answer: In Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 21:32 we find:
וישלח משה לרגל את יעזר וילכדו בנתיה
Loosely translated:
And Moshe sent spies to spy on Yahzer, and they conquered [it and] it's suburbs (see Rashi on the verse).
So, the spies were able to conquer the whole land of Israel, if they did not go off the path of righteousness and drag the whole nation with them.
Therefore, theoretically, if the spies did indeed conquer the land during the 40 days they spent there then the Jewish people would have maintained the status of צדיקים and would have have not needed to resort to fighting a war -- simply enter the land and divide it amongst themselves -- as is the case of a צדיקים. However, since they allowed themselves to follow the spies they ended falling from the level of צדיקים to the point that they needed to repent and become בעלי תשובה, which necessitate fighting with ארציות.
Good shabbos!
Dvarim (Deut) Ch. 26:1 reads:
והיה כי תבוא אל הארץ אשר ה' אלקיך נתן לך נחלה וירשתה וישבת בה
Loosely translated:
And it shall come to pass when you enter the land which the L-rd your G-d gives you as inheritance and you shall inherit it and dwell in it....
Rashi comments on the sentence:
והיה כי תבוא וגו' וירשתה וישבת בה: מגיד שלא נתחייבו בבכורים עד שכבשו את הארץ וחלקוה
Loosely translated:
When you come etc... and you shall inherit it and dell in it: teaches us that they were not obligated to bring the first-fruits until after the conquered the land and divided it (amongst the tribes.)
Rahi gets this interpretation for the juxtaposition of 16:1 which talks about conquering the land with 16:2 which talks about bring the first-fruits as a thankgiving offering:
ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה אשר תביא מארצך אשר ה' אלקיך נתן לך ושמת בטנא
Loosely translated:
And you shall take from all first-fruit of your land which you shall harvest from the land that the L-rd your G-d gives you and you shall put it in a basket.
Because conquering the land (and diving it) is juxtaposed to bringing the first-fruits as an offering to Hashem, it's clear that the former is a prerequisite for the second, as Rashi points out.
But Rashi is telling us something a bit deeper:
Conquering the land took 7 years. Dividing it took another 7. The whole process took 14 years, then. However, once the conquering was over and the division process has began, some people would have gotten their potion earlier-on, while other got their portion toward the end of the 14 years.
One might think that the people who got their portion earlier would be obligated to bring the first-fruit thanksgiving offering earlier (i.e. once their fields yielded crop, which could even be the very same year they got their portion.)
Rashi therefore clarifies this for us: despite the fact that by the end of the 14 years the land was fully divided, those who got their portion earlier-on did not bring their first-fruit thanksgiving offering until after EVERYONE got their portion. (Goes to show us that a Jew cannot be fully happy with their lot if he/she knows that their's another Jew out there somewhere who is lacking theirs!)
So, according to this Rashi, the term והיה כי תבוא (=And it shall come to pass when you enter the land) does not mean "as soon as you enter the land". In other words, "when you enter" does not mean "when you physically set foot". Instead, Rashi tells us that "when you enter" means "when you wholly enter, every last Jew enters and gets their allotted portion."
Put differently, the שלמות (=wholeness, completion and perfection) of entering the land only occured when everyone got their portion. Until that time (14 years after physically entering the land) it cannot be said that the Jews "entered the land" in the complete sense.
Some sources (need citation) also give a homiletic interpretation of 16:1
והיה כי תבוא: And it shall come to pass that when the Jewish neshama (=soul) enters
אל הארץ: into the earthly (mundane) body
אשר ה' אלקיך נתן לך: that the L-rd G-d has provided you with
And Rashi comments (as derived above) that the wholeness and perfection of this entrance is only once the land (=homiletically the mundane body) is fully conquered and divided. What does it mean to conquer and divide the mundane body?
An answer:
Each person has within him-/herself the pull towards mundane, earthly things (=ארציות) . The Torah is teaching us that the neshama isn't fully finished entering the body, in שלמות, until the Jew battles his animalistic-self and conquers his/her ארציות and subjugates it to the service of Hashem, thereby rectifying it and making bringing it into the realm of holiness.
Once that's done, and a person's ארציות has been elevated and conquering is therefore complete, it is time to divide the mundane body: each part of the body is involved in a different manner of serving Hashem: the hand is set aside for giving Tzdaka (charity) and downing Teffilin. The foot is set aside for walking to study hall. The head is set aside for learning Hashem's Torah. The heart for loving Hashem, etc...
When a person reaches this level of conquering his/her ארציות and then dividing and giving each body part the prescribed mitzvot specific to it and engaging it in its specific service of Hashem, then it can be said that the neshama has "Wholly entered the body with שלמות."
On the surface, this presents one small complication: battling with the body's inclinations and conquering one's ארציות is something that's related to בעלי תשובה (=penitents). However, for צדיקים (=righteous individuals) there's no war to fight and no ארציות to conquer: a צדיק has no animalistic self. By such a person, there's only the division part that needs to take place, without a prerequisite war. Where is this hinted to in the Torah?
A possible answer: In Bamidbar (Numbers) Ch. 21:32 we find:
וישלח משה לרגל את יעזר וילכדו בנתיה
Loosely translated:
And Moshe sent spies to spy on Yahzer, and they conquered [it and] it's suburbs (see Rashi on the verse).
So, the spies were able to conquer the whole land of Israel, if they did not go off the path of righteousness and drag the whole nation with them.
Therefore, theoretically, if the spies did indeed conquer the land during the 40 days they spent there then the Jewish people would have maintained the status of צדיקים and would have have not needed to resort to fighting a war -- simply enter the land and divide it amongst themselves -- as is the case of a צדיקים. However, since they allowed themselves to follow the spies they ended falling from the level of צדיקים to the point that they needed to repent and become בעלי תשובה, which necessitate fighting with ארציות.
Good shabbos!
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Compulsory or voluntary?
B"H
Dvarim (Deut.) Ch. 21:10 reads:
כי תצא למלחמה על איביך ונתנו ה' אלקיך בידך...
Loosely translated:
When you go to war against your enemies, the L-rd G-d will deliver him into your hands...
Rashi's commentary reads:
כי תצא למלחמה - במלחמת הרשות הכתוב מדבר
Loosely translated:
When you go to war - Scripture refers to a voluntary war...
So, the war appears to be one which the Jewish people were not coerced into, but rather one that's fought for other reasons.
However, a homiletic interpretation of "Your enemy" is the יצר הרע (=evil inclination) that a person possesses within. In other words, the scripture says that when you do battle with the evil inclination, Hashem will surly help by helping you defeat it.
Now, battle with one's evil inclination is not voluntary. In other words, one is obligated (and indeed compelled) to fight his/her own evil inclination at all times, as is alluded to in many verses in Torah. (For instance: Dvaim 17:7)
So then, what is this war being fought here? Is it voluntary (as Rashi explains) or is it compulsory?
A possible approach:
Possibly both approaches are true, but they relate to different individuals. The individual who cannot successfully provoke his/her evil inclination and do battle with it and defeat it is told that this is a voluntary war, i.e., "go for it, if you feel up to the challenge." After all, not everyone's up to the challenge and even those that are may end up loosing the battle. So, the battle is tagged as voluntary. Should the evil inclination be kindled and attach the Jew, on the other hand, then of-course the Jew is obligation to defend him- or herself.
An altogether different individual, on the other hand, who is very strong in his yiddishkait and will not be swayed by his/her evil inclination (because his evil inclination cannot exercise control over his/her actions) is commanded to actually provoke and go to war on the evil inclination until it's totally defeated and nullified.
It's also noteworthy that the term used here is על איביך which literally translates to "[go to war] over your enemies", and not עם איביך (...with your enemies) or נגד איביך (...against your enemies.) This would indicate that the Almighty give the Jew all the necessary strength to go to war with his evil inclination, but from the very get-go to be at an advantageous position -- "over you enemies." The evil inclination has no chance if a Jew is approaching the battle-field with the knowledge the the outcome of the battle has already been decided in advance: evil inclination TKO'ed in the first round.
Good shabbos.
Dvarim (Deut.) Ch. 21:10 reads:
כי תצא למלחמה על איביך ונתנו ה' אלקיך בידך...
Loosely translated:
When you go to war against your enemies, the L-rd G-d will deliver him into your hands...
Rashi's commentary reads:
כי תצא למלחמה - במלחמת הרשות הכתוב מדבר
Loosely translated:
When you go to war - Scripture refers to a voluntary war...
So, the war appears to be one which the Jewish people were not coerced into, but rather one that's fought for other reasons.
However, a homiletic interpretation of "Your enemy" is the יצר הרע (=evil inclination) that a person possesses within. In other words, the scripture says that when you do battle with the evil inclination, Hashem will surly help by helping you defeat it.
Now, battle with one's evil inclination is not voluntary. In other words, one is obligated (and indeed compelled) to fight his/her own evil inclination at all times, as is alluded to in many verses in Torah. (For instance: Dvaim 17:7)
So then, what is this war being fought here? Is it voluntary (as Rashi explains) or is it compulsory?
A possible approach:
Possibly both approaches are true, but they relate to different individuals. The individual who cannot successfully provoke his/her evil inclination and do battle with it and defeat it is told that this is a voluntary war, i.e., "go for it, if you feel up to the challenge." After all, not everyone's up to the challenge and even those that are may end up loosing the battle. So, the battle is tagged as voluntary. Should the evil inclination be kindled and attach the Jew, on the other hand, then of-course the Jew is obligation to defend him- or herself.
An altogether different individual, on the other hand, who is very strong in his yiddishkait and will not be swayed by his/her evil inclination (because his evil inclination cannot exercise control over his/her actions) is commanded to actually provoke and go to war on the evil inclination until it's totally defeated and nullified.
It's also noteworthy that the term used here is על איביך which literally translates to "[go to war] over your enemies", and not עם איביך (...with your enemies) or נגד איביך (...against your enemies.) This would indicate that the Almighty give the Jew all the necessary strength to go to war with his evil inclination, but from the very get-go to be at an advantageous position -- "over you enemies." The evil inclination has no chance if a Jew is approaching the battle-field with the knowledge the the outcome of the battle has already been decided in advance: evil inclination TKO'ed in the first round.
Good shabbos.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
To live or not to live?
B"H
Tractate Erovin, Ch. 1, pg. 13b reads:
נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא והללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שנברא יותר משלא נברא נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו
Loosely translated:
The followers of Shamai and the followers of Hillel had a disagreement: The formers argued "it's more beneficial for Adam not to have been created, more so that having been created" while the latter argued "it's more beneficial for Adam to have been created, more so than not having been created." They debated the matter and concluded that "it's more beneficial for Adam not to have been created, however, now that he has been created he should examine his deeds..."
This verse uses the term "Adam" which could be understood to mean the first human being Adam, but could also be understood to mean all Adam's descendants (i.e., all of humanity), by extension.
The above disagreement is a bit odd, to say the least. While the position of the followers of Hillel can be understood plainly, what do the followers of Shamai mean by it's better not having been created?
After all, we were created. Having said that how could they come to the conclusion that it's better than we weren't created?
An explanation:
An analogy is in order: suppose a person is requested to invest a very large sum of money in some business venture. He is told that there's 248 possible outcomes in which he's going to double his/her investment, while there are 365 other outcomes in which he/she will loose everyting. Any reasonable investor is going to back out of the deal really quickly. Why the odds of loosing are significantly greater than those of gaining.
Now, the analog in the Jewish soul: when it descends into this world it invests itself in a corporeal body. The Jew is obligated to keep 248 positive commandments. When a positive commandment is perform, a Jew's bond to the Almighty gets stronger. While the Jew is also obligated to keep 365 prohibitive commandments. When a prohibition is transgressed, heaven forbid, a Jew's bond to the Almighty weakens.
A straight forward calculation reveals that "it's more beneficial for Adam not to have been created..." because there are just so many more ways Adam (i.e., a person) can get hurt from this, than he/she can benefit from it."
This is also alluded to in the word נמנו, which the Gmarah uses: in this context it means "debated" but it is etymologically related to מנו (=the counted.) I.e., the students of Shamai and Hillel counted the mitzvot and came to the conclusion that there are too many prohibitions relative to the positive commandments.
So the question then becomes: Why were we created after all, then?
To answer it, we can dig a bit into the Jewish understanding of performing a commandment. The performance of mitzvot (commandments) can be in one of three ways:
1. the mitzvah is performed with all the right intention, livelihood, joy and enthusiasm, or
2. the actual mitzvah-action is performed, but it's not accompanied by any of the above or
3. all the intentions etc are right, but there's no actual physical performance.
It's explained that when a person does a mitzvah, an angel is created (to advocate for that person.) However, כמים פנים אל הפנים i.e., just as a person performs the mitzvah so to is the angel that's created. Each angel has a "body" (albeit noncorporeal) and a "soul". So:
1. when the performance of a mitzvah is done with all the right spirit, the angel is created with a good body and a health soul.
2. when the performance of the mitzvah is done without the right intentions, i.e., it's lacking in spirit, so too is the angel: a strong body, but it's lacking a soul.
3. when the performance of a mitzvah is lacking in the actual doing, but there's all the right intention is spirit, then a soul of an angel is created but there's no body to vest it into.
G-d Almighty does something very neat, as it alluded to in Kiddushin Ch. 1, pg, 40a:
מחשבה טובה מצרפה למעשה
Loosly translated:
(G-d) joins a good thought to a deed.
In the context above: there's a number of soul-less angels out there that resulted from a mitzvot performed without the right intentions and a number of body-less angel-souls out there resulting from Jews having the right intentions but not following up on them. So, the Almighty takes a these souls (=good thoughts) and joins them in these angel bodies (=deed), thereby creating a good and healthy angel!
So, in a sense each positive mitzvah can be counted twice: once on the count of the intentions, and once on the count of the actual deed. And rewards for the mitzvah are dished out.
On the other hand, a person can have all the intentions in the world to transgress, but never actually does anything to actualize these intentions, then there's no punishment dished out -- since there's no deed associated with these intentions.
So, we find that on the account of positive commandments there's twice the reward per mitzvah than prohibitions. This can explain why Adam was indeed created: true there are many more possibly paths leading away from the almighty, but each path leading to the almighty is twice as wide. That is, indeed there are 365 prohibitions that detract from a persons connection to the Almighty, but there are 2x248=496 ways to connect to the Almighty), so to speak. The landscape changes because with positive commandements, intentions alone carry weight, while with prohibitions they do not!
While on the subject of deeds, the Gmarah continues:
עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו
I.e., now that the person is created, he should examine his deeds, to ensure that he/she is heading in the 2x248 direction rather than in the 365 direction, heaven forbid.
This also connects to the month of Elul (which we're in, at the time of writing). The month of Elul has been specifically set aside as the month of introspection and self-adjustment and self-refinement. A person should examine his/her deeds and ensure that he/she is on the correct path as we approach the days of Awe which immediately follow the month of Elul.
Leshana tovah tikatevu vetichatemu.
Tractate Erovin, Ch. 1, pg. 13b reads:
נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא והללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שנברא יותר משלא נברא נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו
Loosely translated:
The followers of Shamai and the followers of Hillel had a disagreement: The formers argued "it's more beneficial for Adam not to have been created, more so that having been created" while the latter argued "it's more beneficial for Adam to have been created, more so than not having been created." They debated the matter and concluded that "it's more beneficial for Adam not to have been created, however, now that he has been created he should examine his deeds..."
This verse uses the term "Adam" which could be understood to mean the first human being Adam, but could also be understood to mean all Adam's descendants (i.e., all of humanity), by extension.
The above disagreement is a bit odd, to say the least. While the position of the followers of Hillel can be understood plainly, what do the followers of Shamai mean by it's better not having been created?
After all, we were created. Having said that how could they come to the conclusion that it's better than we weren't created?
An explanation:
An analogy is in order: suppose a person is requested to invest a very large sum of money in some business venture. He is told that there's 248 possible outcomes in which he's going to double his/her investment, while there are 365 other outcomes in which he/she will loose everyting. Any reasonable investor is going to back out of the deal really quickly. Why the odds of loosing are significantly greater than those of gaining.
Now, the analog in the Jewish soul: when it descends into this world it invests itself in a corporeal body. The Jew is obligated to keep 248 positive commandments. When a positive commandment is perform, a Jew's bond to the Almighty gets stronger. While the Jew is also obligated to keep 365 prohibitive commandments. When a prohibition is transgressed, heaven forbid, a Jew's bond to the Almighty weakens.
A straight forward calculation reveals that "it's more beneficial for Adam not to have been created..." because there are just so many more ways Adam (i.e., a person) can get hurt from this, than he/she can benefit from it."
This is also alluded to in the word נמנו, which the Gmarah uses: in this context it means "debated" but it is etymologically related to מנו (=the counted.) I.e., the students of Shamai and Hillel counted the mitzvot and came to the conclusion that there are too many prohibitions relative to the positive commandments.
So the question then becomes: Why were we created after all, then?
To answer it, we can dig a bit into the Jewish understanding of performing a commandment. The performance of mitzvot (commandments) can be in one of three ways:
1. the mitzvah is performed with all the right intention, livelihood, joy and enthusiasm, or
2. the actual mitzvah-action is performed, but it's not accompanied by any of the above or
3. all the intentions etc are right, but there's no actual physical performance.
It's explained that when a person does a mitzvah, an angel is created (to advocate for that person.) However, כמים פנים אל הפנים i.e., just as a person performs the mitzvah so to is the angel that's created. Each angel has a "body" (albeit noncorporeal) and a "soul". So:
1. when the performance of a mitzvah is done with all the right spirit, the angel is created with a good body and a health soul.
2. when the performance of the mitzvah is done without the right intentions, i.e., it's lacking in spirit, so too is the angel: a strong body, but it's lacking a soul.
3. when the performance of a mitzvah is lacking in the actual doing, but there's all the right intention is spirit, then a soul of an angel is created but there's no body to vest it into.
G-d Almighty does something very neat, as it alluded to in Kiddushin Ch. 1, pg, 40a:
מחשבה טובה מצרפה למעשה
Loosly translated:
(G-d) joins a good thought to a deed.
In the context above: there's a number of soul-less angels out there that resulted from a mitzvot performed without the right intentions and a number of body-less angel-souls out there resulting from Jews having the right intentions but not following up on them. So, the Almighty takes a these souls (=good thoughts) and joins them in these angel bodies (=deed), thereby creating a good and healthy angel!
So, in a sense each positive mitzvah can be counted twice: once on the count of the intentions, and once on the count of the actual deed. And rewards for the mitzvah are dished out.
On the other hand, a person can have all the intentions in the world to transgress, but never actually does anything to actualize these intentions, then there's no punishment dished out -- since there's no deed associated with these intentions.
So, we find that on the account of positive commandments there's twice the reward per mitzvah than prohibitions. This can explain why Adam was indeed created: true there are many more possibly paths leading away from the almighty, but each path leading to the almighty is twice as wide. That is, indeed there are 365 prohibitions that detract from a persons connection to the Almighty, but there are 2x248=496 ways to connect to the Almighty), so to speak. The landscape changes because with positive commandements, intentions alone carry weight, while with prohibitions they do not!
While on the subject of deeds, the Gmarah continues:
עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו
I.e., now that the person is created, he should examine his deeds, to ensure that he/she is heading in the 2x248 direction rather than in the 365 direction, heaven forbid.
This also connects to the month of Elul (which we're in, at the time of writing). The month of Elul has been specifically set aside as the month of introspection and self-adjustment and self-refinement. A person should examine his/her deeds and ensure that he/she is on the correct path as we approach the days of Awe which immediately follow the month of Elul.
Leshana tovah tikatevu vetichatemu.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Access denied (for now...)
B"H
Dvarim (Deuteronomy) Ch. 3:25-26 read:
אעברה נא ואראה את הארץ הטובה אשר בעבר הירדן...
...ויאמר ה' אלי רב לך אל תוסף דבר אלי עוד בדבר הזה
Loosely translated:
[Moshe beseeches Hashem, pleading with him:] Please let me cross over to see the good land that is on the other side of the Jordan river...
...And Hashem said to me: "You had enough! Do not continue to ask this thing of me."
The context that this exchange is in is Moshe pleading for permission to enter the Holy Land, but his requests are denied.
The question is why did Hashem say that Moshe had enough? Enough of what?
An interesting insight into this can be gained if we consider what King David wrote in the book of Psalms 90:10:
ימי שנותינו בהם שבעים שנה
Loosely translated:
The alloted days of our lives is 70 years.
If King David says that we're all alloted 70 years then why is it that certain people live longer lives or others, G-d forbid, do the opposite?
The answer is (as is explained in a number of places) that a person's merits (or that of his/her ancestors) may extend his/her lifespan (=bonus extension). The opposite is also true. Nonetheless, a person gets a 70-year quota by default (and it's subject to change.)
Moshe, pleading with Hashem on Mt. Nevo is at the last days of his life. He was already informed that he's not going to enter the land of Israel and that indeed his burial place is in the wilderness. Moshe is 120 years old at that point.
So, taking King David's assertions that a person gets 70 years, it turns out that Moshe is 70 years old, plus a 50 year extension Moshe says to Hashem:
אעברה נא ואראה את הארץ הטובה
Which was loosely translated at as "Let me please cross [the Jordan river] so that I shall see the Good Land", however it can also be rendered as: "Let me cross נא so that I shall see the Good Land." What is נא? Aside from "Please" it also has the numerical value of 51. Moshe in effect is asking Hashem: "Please let me cross into the 51'st year of my bonus, that is allow me to live into my 121'st year, and therefore I shall be able to see the good land."
Hashem's answer: "רב לך"
Which was loosely translated as "You had enough", however it can also be rendered as: "לך is enough." What is לך? Aside from "You" it also has the numerical value of 50. Hashem in effect is answering to Moshe: "Fifty is enough. You're 50 year bonus is plenty. You will not live into your 121'st year."
The Midrash says that Moshe pleaded with Hashem over 500 times to enter the land and was refused every single time, until Hashem finally, explicitly and unequivocally told him to continue to ask no more, in verse 26.
A lesson for all of us: when it comes to matters of holiness one should never give up.
But Moshe's passing in the wilderness serves another lesson: Moshe being the loyal and devoted shepherd that he was will never leave behind his flock. He is buried in the desert together with the entire generation that left Egypt. Moshe will still lead them into the Holy Land of Israel at the end of days (the time of resurrection) just as he set out to do -- speedily in our days.
Dvarim (Deuteronomy) Ch. 3:25-26 read:
אעברה נא ואראה את הארץ הטובה אשר בעבר הירדן...
...ויאמר ה' אלי רב לך אל תוסף דבר אלי עוד בדבר הזה
Loosely translated:
[Moshe beseeches Hashem, pleading with him:] Please let me cross over to see the good land that is on the other side of the Jordan river...
...And Hashem said to me: "You had enough! Do not continue to ask this thing of me."
The context that this exchange is in is Moshe pleading for permission to enter the Holy Land, but his requests are denied.
The question is why did Hashem say that Moshe had enough? Enough of what?
An interesting insight into this can be gained if we consider what King David wrote in the book of Psalms 90:10:
ימי שנותינו בהם שבעים שנה
Loosely translated:
The alloted days of our lives is 70 years.
If King David says that we're all alloted 70 years then why is it that certain people live longer lives or others, G-d forbid, do the opposite?
The answer is (as is explained in a number of places) that a person's merits (or that of his/her ancestors) may extend his/her lifespan (=bonus extension). The opposite is also true. Nonetheless, a person gets a 70-year quota by default (and it's subject to change.)
Moshe, pleading with Hashem on Mt. Nevo is at the last days of his life. He was already informed that he's not going to enter the land of Israel and that indeed his burial place is in the wilderness. Moshe is 120 years old at that point.
So, taking King David's assertions that a person gets 70 years, it turns out that Moshe is 70 years old, plus a 50 year extension Moshe says to Hashem:
אעברה נא ואראה את הארץ הטובה
Which was loosely translated at as "Let me please cross [the Jordan river] so that I shall see the Good Land", however it can also be rendered as: "Let me cross נא so that I shall see the Good Land." What is נא? Aside from "Please" it also has the numerical value of 51. Moshe in effect is asking Hashem: "Please let me cross into the 51'st year of my bonus, that is allow me to live into my 121'st year, and therefore I shall be able to see the good land."
Hashem's answer: "רב לך"
Which was loosely translated as "You had enough", however it can also be rendered as: "לך is enough." What is לך? Aside from "You" it also has the numerical value of 50. Hashem in effect is answering to Moshe: "Fifty is enough. You're 50 year bonus is plenty. You will not live into your 121'st year."
The Midrash says that Moshe pleaded with Hashem over 500 times to enter the land and was refused every single time, until Hashem finally, explicitly and unequivocally told him to continue to ask no more, in verse 26.
A lesson for all of us: when it comes to matters of holiness one should never give up.
But Moshe's passing in the wilderness serves another lesson: Moshe being the loyal and devoted shepherd that he was will never leave behind his flock. He is buried in the desert together with the entire generation that left Egypt. Moshe will still lead them into the Holy Land of Israel at the end of days (the time of resurrection) just as he set out to do -- speedily in our days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)