This Passover season, I've been thinking about what the laws and traditions surrounding the holiday have to say about what it means to be, or rather to become free. If we closely examine God's commands and messages to the Children of Israel before the Exodus, I believe the Torah conveys a powerful and consistent vision of what constitutes the basis of a free society.
In that vein, let us consider how the Torah describes God's command to the nascent Jewish people for the first paschal sacrifice, given shortly before He rescued us from slavery in Egypt. (I draw heavily in what follows on R. Samson Raphael Hirsch's Torah commentary.)
In Exodus 12:3-6, God tells Moses and Aaron:
There are a number of odd and apparently unnecessarily verbose phrasings in this passage that demand explanation.
First, why is the command to take a lamb phrased in a roundabout and repetitive way, "they shall take for them, every man a lamb," instead of simply saying, "take a lamb"?
Second, while we can understand that the command must single out the "house", due to the (later) command to paint the blood on the doorpost of the house, why the repetition of "parental house ... each house"?
Third, why the detail in verse 4 of what to do if a household doesn't have enough people to consume an entire lamb? Isn't this just a practical issue of how to implement the command?
Fourth, why the seeming redundancy of "neighbor" and "close to his house"?
Fifth, why the command to take the lamb on the tenth of the month and keep it until the fourteenth of the month - why not more simply say to take the lamb before the fourteenth (to have it ready) and then slaughter it on the fourteenth? And why the phrase "keep it safeguarded," which implies that the keeping is not merely instrumental, but itself constitutes an essential part of the command?
All in all, an oddly worded and strangely verbose passage. On the face of it, the Torah could have more simply said:
In fact, if we see this passage as more than just a sacrificial command, but rather as setting the foundations for a polity of free people, it all falls into place.
The command to make the paschal sacrifice begins by addressing the people as a whole, but quickly shifts the command to the individual, who is referred to as an "אִישׁ", a term that, in the Tanakh, refers to a person of dignity and stature. At this seminal moment, when the family of Jacob, after many generations, is about to become a free people, the entire congregation is told that the fundamental unit of the nation is the individual. Not a glorious leader, not an august council of noblemen, not an all-powerful administrative State. But each and every person, from the highest to the lowest. Each and every person, with their own inherent dignity and importance.
The individual is not subservient to the nation or the king, as every developed society of the time would claim, but the nation is a collection of free persons, whose individual freedom is the basis for the freedom of the people as a whole.
Each of these free persons is also to have the ability to own personal property - "וְיִקְחוּ לָהֶם", they shall take for themselves a lamb. The lamb will be each person's personal property. Heretofore, these slaves had no ability to own anything; even their very bodies were not their own property. With this command, God returned each and every one of them the essential human dignity that comes from the ability to acquire and possess personal property.
And yet, the vision is not of an atomized society which is a mere collection of self-sufficient self-seeking individuals in an ur-libertarian dream. Each upright, dignified individual is to be part of a "בֵית-אָבֹת", an ancestral/familial house, a group of related people caring for each other. There are to be connections and associations between people that are lasting, that are more than merely transactional and of the moment - the term "אָבֹת" denotes one's ancestors, a connection to one's history. Society is to be made up of historically-rooted families, each with a sense of continuity and of tradition.
So does the Torah seek to design a society which is a mere federation of (probably) rival clans? A tribal society where family loyalties trump all else? Certainly not! Each family unit is also to share with its neighbors, those close to it. The term "שְׁכֵנוֹ", his neighbor, refers to others who live nearby, in spatial proximity, regardless of how similar or different they may be. The other phrase, "הַקָּרֹב אֶל-בֵּיתוֹ", near to his household, to not be redundant must refer to a personal closeness and affinity. Hence we see two great principles of association - we are to be connected to and concerned with the welfare of our neighbors and our locality, and at the same time, to be free to associate with those with whom we ourselves feel close, regardless of what the rest of society may have to say. These principles, of seeking the welfare of one's community, and of freedom of association, are, together with the basic family unit, the foundations of what is known as civil society, that set of local and often informal institutions and associations that mediate between the individual and the state.
And just as individualism is paramount and yet not absolute, so too personal property. The command was to take a lamb, invent (from the slave's perspective) personal property, several days before its commanded use, and then also to care for, preserve, and protect it. We were to be instilled from the very beginning with an ethic of property. Ownership is not the right to do anything one wants, willy-nilly, with one's property, but also entails responsibilities. Ownership is stewardship, a responsibility for proper care and guardianship (מִשְׁמֶרֶת) of the property, so that it can be used for proper and productive ends.
Thus we see how God's command to sacrifice a lamb on the eve of redemption, is not a mere ritual. It establishes a foundational ethic for a new kind of society, one based on the sanctity of the individual, the household, private property, and human relationships. Some three millennia before the birth of John Locke, the Torah set forth inviolable principles for establishing a free society - the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the freedom of association.
Friday, April 14, 2017
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Abominations come in threes
I recently wrote about how the commandment forbidding keeping dishonest weights or measures (Deut. 25:13-16) is one of only three places in the Torah where an individual is termed "an abomination to God" (תועבת ה׳). In this post I'd like to explore what may connect these three rare instances of enormous opprobrium.
First, the fact that there are precisely three of these personally abominated activities is reminiscent of the three supreme prohibitions, for which one is obligated to give up one's life, viz.: idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality. There is a simple and plausible parallel:
These three are the ultimate exemplars of the three general categories of transgressions: against God (idolatry), against one's fellow (murder), and against one's self (sexual immorality). Similarly here we have a sin against God - seeking guidance from soothsayers and necromancers in his place; a sin against one's fellow - keeping equipment to secretly cheat in business; and a sin against oneself - cross-dressing (by analogy to the clearly related sexual sins).
Second, in a previous post discussing the prohibition of keeping dishonest weights and measures, I suggested that the reason that the person who keeps dishonest weights or measures is an abomination, and not just the action, or the objects, is that while simply keeping something in one's house seems quite harmless, whereas what the Torah is teaching us is that in fact it is pernicious and can lead over time to a total transformation of one's personality.
In each of these three cases, the action involved is one that, on the surface, seems entirely harmless. Do you think that if I (a man) put on a skirt that I'll immediately run out and join an orgy? Crazy talk. Or that getting my fortune told will cause me to go and sacrifice a goat to Baal? Ridiculous!
And yet, what we do has a subtle influence on how we think and how we view the world. Someone who keeps dishonest weights will come to see nothing wrong with having them, and then nothing wrong with using them, and will slowly and imperceptibly lose sight of the humanity of his fellows. Occasional crossdressing will become habitual and will lead, over time, to losing respect and sensitivity for sexual boundaries of all kinds. And playing with occult rituals will lead to a blurring and eventual obliteration of one's spiritual fealty to God, and so to idol worship (in spirit, if not in deed).
One must always remember that what we do creates who we will be, and thus not to mock the influence on us of actions that are seemingly trivial and harmless in themselves. It is through our habits that we become either great, or slowly, imperceptibly into abominations.
The first place we see this is in Deuteronomy 18:10:
לֹא-יִמָּצֵא בְךָ, מַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ-וּבִתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ, קֹסֵם קְסָמִים, מְעוֹנֵן וּמְנַחֵשׁ וּמְכַשֵּׁף. וְחֹבֵר, חָבֶר; וְשֹׁאֵל אוֹב וְיִדְּעֹנִי, וְדֹרֵשׁ אֶל-הַמֵּתִים. כִּי-תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה, כָּל-עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה; וּבִגְלַל, הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, מוֹרִישׁ אוֹתָם מִפָּנֶיךָ.
There shall not be among you those who pass their children through fire, a diviner, soothsayer, fortuneteller, sorcerer, demon summoner, one who consults ghosts or familiar spirits, or a necromancer. For anyone who do these is an abomination to God, and it is because of these abominations that the Lord your God is removing them [the Canaanites] from before you.The second is in Deuteronomy 22:5:
לֹא-יִהְיֶה כְלִי-גֶבֶר עַל-אִשָּׁה, וְלֹא-יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה: כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, כָּל-עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה.
A woman may not wear a man's thing, nor shall a man wear a woman's garment, for anyone who does this is an abomination to the Lord your God.And the third is in Deuteronomy 25:13-16, as aforementioned:
לֹא-יִהְיֶה לְךָ בְּכִיסְךָ, אֶבֶן וָאָבֶן: גְּדוֹלָה, וּקְטַנָּה.
לֹא-יִהְיֶה לְךָ בְּבֵיתְךָ, אֵיפָה וְאֵיפָה: גְּדוֹלָה, וּקְטַנָּה.
אֶבֶן שְׁלֵמָה וָצֶדֶק יִהְיֶה-לָּךְ, אֵיפָה שְׁלֵמָה וָצֶדֶק יִהְיֶה-לָּךְ - לְמַעַן, יַאֲרִיכוּ יָמֶיךָ, עַל הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ.
כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, כָּל-עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה: כֹּל, עֹשֵׂה עָוֶל.
Do not keep multiple weights for yourself in your pocket, large and small. Do not keep multiple measures for yourself in your house, large and small. You must have a complete and just weight; you must have a complete and just measure - so that you may live long in the land which the Lord your God is giving you. For anyone who does such things, anyone who does injustice, is an abomination to the Lord your God.Is there some common thread that connects these three seemingly very different commandments which all share this rare level of divine reproach? I believe that there is - a thread twisted from two strands.
First, the fact that there are precisely three of these personally abominated activities is reminiscent of the three supreme prohibitions, for which one is obligated to give up one's life, viz.: idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality. There is a simple and plausible parallel:
| Big Three | Person is an Abomination |
|---|---|
| Idolatry | Divination and necromancy |
| Murder | Keeping dishonest weights and measures |
| Sexual immorality | Crossdressing |
These three are the ultimate exemplars of the three general categories of transgressions: against God (idolatry), against one's fellow (murder), and against one's self (sexual immorality). Similarly here we have a sin against God - seeking guidance from soothsayers and necromancers in his place; a sin against one's fellow - keeping equipment to secretly cheat in business; and a sin against oneself - cross-dressing (by analogy to the clearly related sexual sins).
Second, in a previous post discussing the prohibition of keeping dishonest weights and measures, I suggested that the reason that the person who keeps dishonest weights or measures is an abomination, and not just the action, or the objects, is that while simply keeping something in one's house seems quite harmless, whereas what the Torah is teaching us is that in fact it is pernicious and can lead over time to a total transformation of one's personality.
In each of these three cases, the action involved is one that, on the surface, seems entirely harmless. Do you think that if I (a man) put on a skirt that I'll immediately run out and join an orgy? Crazy talk. Or that getting my fortune told will cause me to go and sacrifice a goat to Baal? Ridiculous!
And yet, what we do has a subtle influence on how we think and how we view the world. Someone who keeps dishonest weights will come to see nothing wrong with having them, and then nothing wrong with using them, and will slowly and imperceptibly lose sight of the humanity of his fellows. Occasional crossdressing will become habitual and will lead, over time, to losing respect and sensitivity for sexual boundaries of all kinds. And playing with occult rituals will lead to a blurring and eventual obliteration of one's spiritual fealty to God, and so to idol worship (in spirit, if not in deed).
One must always remember that what we do creates who we will be, and thus not to mock the influence on us of actions that are seemingly trivial and harmless in themselves. It is through our habits that we become either great, or slowly, imperceptibly into abominations.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Who is an abomination?
The second-to-last mitsva in Parashat Ki Tetse reads as follows:
On its face, this is a straightforward commandment: Be honest in your business dealings. Do not use a large weight or measure with which to buy merchandise and so cheat your suppliers, while using a smaller weight or measure to sell merchandise, cheating your customers. It is indeed striking that such practices are, like the paramount sin of idolatry, termed here as an "abomination to God," one of the strongest forms of opprobrium in the Torah. This in itself draws our attention and demands our consideration as a powerful and timely lesson to those who wish to fulfill God's will.
And yet there are two oddities in this passage that demand further explanation, and which, I believe, teach us an even greater and more far-reaching lesson.
First, rather than state the prohibition simply, "Do not use dishonest weights and measures," the Torah uses what seems at first to be an oddly idiomatic phrasing - "Do not keep ... in your pocket; Do not keep ... in your house." Why?
Second, while the term תועבה, "abomination" appears quite a few times in the Torah, it nearly always applies to either an action or an object, rather than a person. This passage is one of only three places in the Torah where a person is called an "abomination to God." (The other two are Deuteronomy 18:12 and 22:5, about which more another time.) Why is this particular violation, as important as it is, singled out, such that the person who engages in it becomes him/herself an abomination to God?
I believe that the key to answering the second question is given by answering the first. The phrasing of "Do not keep ... in your pocket" indicates that this passage does not forbid dealing unfairly in business, but rather it prohibits just keeping the tools for doing so even if you do not use them (a fortiori, if you use them).
But why?
One who does so may think that they are doing nothing wrong. After all, one could say, I'm not actually using them! But by having them around, one is keeping the possibility of using them open. And this secret knowledge is pernicious. The person may not at first use them, but eventually will do so, but only in times of (so he thinks) of great need. Slowly his mindset will change, and the very wrongness of dealing dishonestly, of secretly cheating others, will not seem so very wrong, will, in fact, seem to be the natural order of being. Indeed, the one who keeps these dishonest weights and measures will likely come to assume that everyone else does as well, normalizing, in his mind, the dishonesty and the theft.
Thus, by keeping these seemingly harmless possessions, a person will inexorably be transformed into an inherently dishonest creature who is, the passage explains, an abomination to God.
The act of keeping these weights or measures is not, in itself, terribly problematic. But the inevitable psychological and spiritual effects on the keeper are. The verse warns us to take great care not to put ourselves into situations that will exert small but inexorable pressures upon our personality so that, like the proverbial frog in boiling water, we ourselves become abominable without ever noticing.
This principle applies not just in the realm of business. One must take great care to choose one's mentors, friends, and neighbors carefully (to the extent possible), to maximize positive, and minimize negative, influences. What we read or watch also has subtle, but significant influence on who we are. Indeed, every decision we make, every experience we seek out, influences the person that we become.
Even a decision as small as keeping a couple of dishonest measuring cups in a back cupboard.
לֹא-יִהְיֶה לְךָ בְּכִיסְךָ, אֶבֶן וָאָבֶן: גְּדוֹלָה, וּקְטַנָּה.
לֹא-יִהְיֶה לְךָ בְּבֵיתְךָ, אֵיפָה וְאֵיפָה: גְּדוֹלָה, וּקְטַנָּה.
אֶבֶן שְׁלֵמָה וָצֶדֶק יִהְיֶה-לָּךְ, אֵיפָה שְׁלֵמָה וָצֶדֶק יִהְיֶה-לָּךְ - לְמַעַן, יַאֲרִיכוּ יָמֶיךָ, עַל הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ.
כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, כָּל-עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה: כֹּל, עֹשֵׂה עָוֶל.
Do not keep multiple weights for yourself in your pocket, large and small. Do not keep multiple measures for yourself in your house, large and small. You must have a complete and just weight; you must have a complete and just measure - so that you may live long in the land which the Lord your God is giving you. For anyone who does such things, anyone who does injustice, is an abomination to God.
On its face, this is a straightforward commandment: Be honest in your business dealings. Do not use a large weight or measure with which to buy merchandise and so cheat your suppliers, while using a smaller weight or measure to sell merchandise, cheating your customers. It is indeed striking that such practices are, like the paramount sin of idolatry, termed here as an "abomination to God," one of the strongest forms of opprobrium in the Torah. This in itself draws our attention and demands our consideration as a powerful and timely lesson to those who wish to fulfill God's will.
And yet there are two oddities in this passage that demand further explanation, and which, I believe, teach us an even greater and more far-reaching lesson.
First, rather than state the prohibition simply, "Do not use dishonest weights and measures," the Torah uses what seems at first to be an oddly idiomatic phrasing - "Do not keep ... in your pocket; Do not keep ... in your house." Why?
Second, while the term תועבה, "abomination" appears quite a few times in the Torah, it nearly always applies to either an action or an object, rather than a person. This passage is one of only three places in the Torah where a person is called an "abomination to God." (The other two are Deuteronomy 18:12 and 22:5, about which more another time.) Why is this particular violation, as important as it is, singled out, such that the person who engages in it becomes him/herself an abomination to God?
I believe that the key to answering the second question is given by answering the first. The phrasing of "Do not keep ... in your pocket" indicates that this passage does not forbid dealing unfairly in business, but rather it prohibits just keeping the tools for doing so even if you do not use them (a fortiori, if you use them).
But why?
One who does so may think that they are doing nothing wrong. After all, one could say, I'm not actually using them! But by having them around, one is keeping the possibility of using them open. And this secret knowledge is pernicious. The person may not at first use them, but eventually will do so, but only in times of (so he thinks) of great need. Slowly his mindset will change, and the very wrongness of dealing dishonestly, of secretly cheating others, will not seem so very wrong, will, in fact, seem to be the natural order of being. Indeed, the one who keeps these dishonest weights and measures will likely come to assume that everyone else does as well, normalizing, in his mind, the dishonesty and the theft.
Thus, by keeping these seemingly harmless possessions, a person will inexorably be transformed into an inherently dishonest creature who is, the passage explains, an abomination to God.
The act of keeping these weights or measures is not, in itself, terribly problematic. But the inevitable psychological and spiritual effects on the keeper are. The verse warns us to take great care not to put ourselves into situations that will exert small but inexorable pressures upon our personality so that, like the proverbial frog in boiling water, we ourselves become abominable without ever noticing.
This principle applies not just in the realm of business. One must take great care to choose one's mentors, friends, and neighbors carefully (to the extent possible), to maximize positive, and minimize negative, influences. What we read or watch also has subtle, but significant influence on who we are. Indeed, every decision we make, every experience we seek out, influences the person that we become.
Even a decision as small as keeping a couple of dishonest measuring cups in a back cupboard.
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Miketz: The Road to Serfdom
Parshat Miketz, which nearly always falls on Chanuka, the festival of religious freedom, also powerfully describes the fragility of economic and political freedom.
Yosef, the newly appointed Prime Minister of Egypt, institutes a series of severe political and economic changes in response to the looming crisis of famine--higher taxes, export restrictions, and governmental regulation of internal agricultural commerce (cf. R. Hirsch on Gen. 41:48). Further, when the crisis finally struck, the stores of grain were sold back to the people, enriching Pharaoh (Gen. 41:56); eventually, the people were forced to sell themselves into servitude to Pharaoh to survive (Gen. 47:25).
Now all of this can certainly be understood as the necessary response of government to an existential national crisis. However, the key to understanding the full import of this story lies in next week's parsha, Vayigash, where it states (Gen. 47:26): And Yosef established a one-fifth fee on all Egypt's land as law unto this day; only the priests' land was not taken by Pharaoh. The famine was over, the crisis successfully navigated, the country (and government) saved. Yet the regulation and governmental machinery developed during the response to the crisis remained. The response of government to an existential environmental crisis was to ultimately enslave the people even as it saved their lives.
We are shown, thus, the risk to political freedom that loss of economic freedom ultimately entails. This can be contrasted with the ideal described by the prophets of each man under his own vine and fig tree, living in economic and political freedom.
The Torah warns in Parshat Miketz of one possible avenue for man's natural liberty to be taken from him without a fight--the route of national crisis. The midrash (Yalkut Shimoni) in Parshat Shemot describes another road to serfdom, that of good intentions. The midrash describes how Pharaoh got the Jews to willingly become his slaves--he appealed to their sense of civic pride, their desire to help society. Pharaoh himself started digging and laying bricks, so of course the Jews rushed to help with the work. Once this became the norm, however, that norm was enforced with increasingly harsh discipline.
The Torah warns us, therefore, of two paths that the statist may seek to lead us down the road to serfdom - the Road of National Crisis and the Road of Good Intentions. While certain measures may be necessary in the short term, we must always be wary of what governmental powers we may thereby accept for the long term.
Yosef, the newly appointed Prime Minister of Egypt, institutes a series of severe political and economic changes in response to the looming crisis of famine--higher taxes, export restrictions, and governmental regulation of internal agricultural commerce (cf. R. Hirsch on Gen. 41:48). Further, when the crisis finally struck, the stores of grain were sold back to the people, enriching Pharaoh (Gen. 41:56); eventually, the people were forced to sell themselves into servitude to Pharaoh to survive (Gen. 47:25).
Now all of this can certainly be understood as the necessary response of government to an existential national crisis. However, the key to understanding the full import of this story lies in next week's parsha, Vayigash, where it states (Gen. 47:26): And Yosef established a one-fifth fee on all Egypt's land as law unto this day; only the priests' land was not taken by Pharaoh. The famine was over, the crisis successfully navigated, the country (and government) saved. Yet the regulation and governmental machinery developed during the response to the crisis remained. The response of government to an existential environmental crisis was to ultimately enslave the people even as it saved their lives.
We are shown, thus, the risk to political freedom that loss of economic freedom ultimately entails. This can be contrasted with the ideal described by the prophets of each man under his own vine and fig tree, living in economic and political freedom.
The Torah warns in Parshat Miketz of one possible avenue for man's natural liberty to be taken from him without a fight--the route of national crisis. The midrash (Yalkut Shimoni) in Parshat Shemot describes another road to serfdom, that of good intentions. The midrash describes how Pharaoh got the Jews to willingly become his slaves--he appealed to their sense of civic pride, their desire to help society. Pharaoh himself started digging and laying bricks, so of course the Jews rushed to help with the work. Once this became the norm, however, that norm was enforced with increasingly harsh discipline.
The Torah warns us, therefore, of two paths that the statist may seek to lead us down the road to serfdom - the Road of National Crisis and the Road of Good Intentions. While certain measures may be necessary in the short term, we must always be wary of what governmental powers we may thereby accept for the long term.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Mishlei 10:1
בֵּן חָכָם יְשַׂמַּח אָב וּבֵן כְּסִיל תּוּגַת אִמּוֹ
A wise son makes his father happy, and a foolish son is his mother's grief
Questions:
- Why is it the father who has joy in the wise son, and the mother who has grief over the foolish son?
- There are many kinds of fool discussed in Mishlei; why is the כְּסִיל here contrasted with the חָכָם?
- A wise man, חָכָם, is one who has wisdom, that is, he (or she) can clearly see the consequences of his actions (רואה את הנולד), and can therefore make good decisions (and give good advice).
- The fool in this verse, כְּסִיל, according to the Malbim, is someone who may have wisdom, like the חָכָם, but pursues whatever he feels like, regardless of the demands of his wisdom. This "kesil-fool" will thus end up doing foolish things, but not for lack of intellectual capability or knowledge. For example, such a fool might predict the likely end of gambling uncontrollably, but still end up gambling away his life's savings.
Explanation:
- The parent (father or mother) is the educator of the child; we thus conclude that the father is the one who educates the child in חכמה, wisdom on how the world works and how to make good decisions, and the mother is the one who educates the child in emotional understanding and regulation, i.e., what the kesil-fool lacks.
- Furthermore, per Rashi, the fool is the grief of his mother, since the stereotypical mother is in the home, and she sees the son in his foolishness, which is in the home. The wise son therefore is presumably out and about, applying his wisdom in the world. Rashi implies that the stereotypical father is also out in the world, presumably applying his wisdom.
- The contrast between the wise son, חָכָם, and the kesil-fool son, כְּסִיל, emphasizes the fact that merely knowing wisdom is useless, unless it is actualized. One who, like the kesil-fool, has wisdom but, due to lack of self-control, does not use it, is the grief of she who raised him. The wisdom of the wise son is the joy of the father, who sees that it is actually applied (outside the home).
- The verse also teaches that the crucible wherein this essential quality of self-control is learned is the home. Emotional understanding and self-control can only be learned in the context of close relationships, not in the schoolhouse. These lessons must be modeled, and practiced, in real situations - theoretical education may work to teach wisdom, but cannot by itself prevent the student from becoming a "wise" fool.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Balak 5773
In the first verse of this past week's haftara, the prophet Micha says in the name of Gd, "And the remnant of Yaakov shall be in the midst of many nations, as dew [טל] from Gd, like strong rain [רביבים] upon the grass, that shall not place hope in a man nor have expectation from the sons of men."
Through this somewhat opaque metaphor, I believe, Micha is giving us a view of what the Jewish people will be or should be like during the time of the Exile, scattered around the earth, living among the various nations of the world.
The parallelism of "dew" and "strong rain" is reminiscent of Moshe's words in Parshat HaAzinu, where he proclaims that his words should "drip as dew" and fall as "strong rain upon the grass". There, Rashi explains that "dew" is a type of precipitation that everyone is happy with [הכל שמחים בו], since it disturbs no one and only brings benefits, and that "strong rain" [רביבים] means rain that goes straight towards its target, like an arrow from a bow [רובה קשת].
In this way, the prophet gives us guideposts for how we should behave among the "many nations." First and foremost, we should behave as "dew from Gd" - in a way in which "everyone is happy with." The way we live should make people of all nations happy that Jews are living among them. At the same time, we must keep our eyes on the target like רביבים, knowing that we are on a mission from Gd, and should not be tempted from that mission by the promises of men.
We must remain distinctively committed to fulfilling Gd's mission in this world, to be a light to the nations, a mission that we can only achieve by living and acting in a way in which הכל שמחים בו, that is considerate and kind to all.
Through this somewhat opaque metaphor, I believe, Micha is giving us a view of what the Jewish people will be or should be like during the time of the Exile, scattered around the earth, living among the various nations of the world.
The parallelism of "dew" and "strong rain" is reminiscent of Moshe's words in Parshat HaAzinu, where he proclaims that his words should "drip as dew" and fall as "strong rain upon the grass". There, Rashi explains that "dew" is a type of precipitation that everyone is happy with [הכל שמחים בו], since it disturbs no one and only brings benefits, and that "strong rain" [רביבים] means rain that goes straight towards its target, like an arrow from a bow [רובה קשת].
In this way, the prophet gives us guideposts for how we should behave among the "many nations." First and foremost, we should behave as "dew from Gd" - in a way in which "everyone is happy with." The way we live should make people of all nations happy that Jews are living among them. At the same time, we must keep our eyes on the target like רביבים, knowing that we are on a mission from Gd, and should not be tempted from that mission by the promises of men.
We must remain distinctively committed to fulfilling Gd's mission in this world, to be a light to the nations, a mission that we can only achieve by living and acting in a way in which הכל שמחים בו, that is considerate and kind to all.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Chagiga 2 Quiz
Quiz for Chapter 2 of Tractate Chagiga
- What is not taught to three or more people at once?
- What is not taught to two or more people at once?
- What is not taught to anyone directly?
- How can it be taught, and to whom?
- What four things should not be investigated by anyone?
- What is the issue that one must be concerned with, or else it were better he were never born?
- Who are the first pair of zugot, and what did they hold about leaning on offerings (semicha) on yom tov?
- Who are the second pair, and what did they hold?
- Who are the third pair, and what did they hold?
- Who are the fourth pair, and what did they hold?
- Who are the fifth pair, and what did they hold?
- Who was replaced by whom, and what did the resulting pair hold?
- Which member of each pair was the nasi and which the av bet din?
- Does one bring voluntary shelamim on yom tov, according to Bet Shammai? According to Bet Hillel?
- Does one bring individual olot (re'iya) on yom tov, according to Bet Shammai? According to Bet Hillel?
- If Shavuot is on Friday, when are re'iya offerings brought, according to Bet Shammai? According to Bet Hillel?
- If Shavuot is on Shabbat, when are re'iya offerings brought, according to Bet Shammai? According to Bet Hillel?
- What is special about that day, and why?
- For what three categories of food must one wash hands (netilat yadaim) if they are tamei?
- For what category of food must one dip one's hands in a mikva if they are tamei?
- For what category of food must one go to a mikva, even if only one's hands became tamei?
- What is the order of importance of holiness categories of foods, from lesser to greater?
- Does tevila require intention, and what are the implications (regarding eating holy foods)?
- What are the rules regarding implicit impurity of clothes of different categories of people?
- Which rule is missing from the Mishna and added back in by the Gemara?
- What about Yosef ben Yoezer's hand towel?
- What about Yochanan ben Gudgoda's hand towel?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)