Monday, February 8, 2010

Mishpatim- Understanding the Reasons

In this week's parsha G-D starts enumerating many of the laws that govern Judaism. However, when describing how G-D gave over these commandments to the Jewish people, the Torah gives us a very unique description. It says (Shemos 21:1):

וְאֵלֶּה, הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים, לִפְנֵיהֶם. 1 Now these are the ordinances which thou shalt set before them.

The Torah tells us that G-D wanted Moshe to set these commandments before the Jewish people. In fact, the Torah used this language previously when discussing how Moshe was supposed to tell over the laws and commandments to the elders of the Jewish people (Shemos 19:7):

ז וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה, וַיִּקְרָא לְזִקְנֵי הָעָם; וַיָּשֶׂם לִפְנֵיהֶם, אֵת כָּל-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר צִוָּהוּ, יְהוָה. 7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD commanded him.

Also, when Moshe was giving his final speech, in Devarim, the Torah describes his teaching of the Torah in a similar manner. This verse can further help us understand why this type of language is used and can be found in Devarim (4:44):

מד וְזֹאת, הַתּוֹרָה, אֲשֶׁר-שָׂם מֹשֶׁה, לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. 44 And this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel;
These verses show that when the Torah is taught the language of "setting" the Torah "before" the pupil is used. What is the significance of this type of language? How is it being taught by the teacher and how is it being absorbed by the student? Perhaps this language is used to teach us how one should teach, or perhaps it is teaching us about how one should learn the Torah? The question is, simply put, what is the significance of setting the Torah before the Jewish people, why not say that Moshe taught (Lilmoed) the Jewish people Torah or anything similar to that?

To answer this question we must bring down a Gemorah found in Eiruvin (54b) that states: (Soncino translation)

R. Akiba stated: Whence is it deduced that a man must go on teaching his pupil until he has
mastered the subject? From Scripture where it says: And teach thou it to the children of Israel.32 And whence is it deduced that it must be taught until the students are well versed in it?33 From Scripture where it says. Put it in their mouths.34 And whence is it inferred that it is also his duty to explain to him the reasons?35 It has been said: Now these are the ordinances which thou shalt put before them.36

((32) Deut. XXXI, 19; emphasis on ‘teach’.
(33) Lit., ‘arranged in order in their mouth’.
(34) Deut. XXXI, 19: emphasis on ‘put . . . mouth’.
(35) Lit., ‘to show the face’. . . that it is not enough to teach dogmatically.
(36) Ex. XXI. 1, emphasis on ‘put before’ (cf. Rashi). )

Rabbi Akiva is telling us something very unique about the words "set before" (or put before). G-D, in his infinite wisdom, realized that man must understand before he can perform actions. There are different levels of understanding, but in order to do something worth anything, there must first be understanding. Without any type of understanding, there is no purpose to the action. This is why we see that G-D commanded Moshe to set the Torah before the Jewish people. Moshe had to explain and give the reasons for the laws in the Torah.

This is one of the reasons why I believe even the laws that we have nowadays, like ritual slaughter, that seemingly have no reason, must have originally been taught with the reason. Everything in Judaism needs to make sense, logic is an integral part of the Jewish religion. Without logic there is no understanding and without understanding there is no true learning.

People nowadays are all to content with just learning the basic halacha, how to pray and go through the motions without ever understanding what they are doing. These actions are essentially worthless without deeper understanding. That is why G-D gave the Torah and specifically told Moshe, "Place it before the Jewish People." G-D was saying make sure they understand what they are doing and the reasons behind these actions. Knowledge leads to a closer connection to Torah and to G-D.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Moshe's Judaism vs Yisro's Judaism

In this week's parsha Yisro comes and meets up with Moshe and the Jewish people. The most interesting event that occurs between Moshe and Yisro is a conversation where Yisro gives Moshe advice as to how Moshe should lead the people. The conversation goes like this (Shemos 18:14):

יד וַיַּרְא חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-הוּא עֹשֶׂה לָעָם; וַיֹּאמֶר, מָה-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹשֶׂה לָעָם--מַדּוּעַ אַתָּה יוֹשֵׁב לְבַדֶּךָ, וְכָל-הָעָם נִצָּב עָלֶיךָ מִן-בֹּקֶר עַד-עָרֶב. 14 And when Moses' father-in-law saw all that he did to the people, he said: 'What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand about thee from morning unto even?'
טו וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, לְחֹתְנוֹ: כִּי-יָבֹא אֵלַי הָעָם, לִדְרֹשׁ אֱלֹהִים. 15 And Moses said unto his father-in-law: 'Because the people come unto me to inquire of God;
טז כִּי-יִהְיֶה לָהֶם דָּבָר, בָּא אֵלַי, וְשָׁפַטְתִּי, בֵּין אִישׁ וּבֵין רֵעֵהוּ; וְהוֹדַעְתִּי אֶת-חֻקֵּי הָאֱלֹהִים, וְאֶת-תּוֹרֹתָיו. 16 when they have a matter, it cometh unto me; and I judge between a man and his neighbour, and I make them know the statutes of God, and His laws.'
יז וַיֹּאמֶר חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, אֵלָיו: לֹא-טוֹב, הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה, עֹשֶׂה. 17 And Moses' father-in-law said unto him: 'The thing that thou doest is not good.
יח נָבֹל תִּבֹּל--גַּם-אַתָּה, גַּם-הָעָם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר עִמָּךְ: כִּי-כָבֵד מִמְּךָ הַדָּבָר, לֹא-תוּכַל עֲשֹׂהוּ לְבַדֶּךָ. 18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee; for the thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.
יט עַתָּה שְׁמַע בְּקֹלִי, אִיעָצְךָ, וִיהִי אֱלֹהִים, עִמָּךְ; הֱיֵה אַתָּה לָעָם, מוּל הָאֱלֹהִים, וְהֵבֵאתָ אַתָּה אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים, אֶל-הָאֱלֹהִים. 19 Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God be with thee: be thou for the people before God, and bring thou the causes unto God.
כ וְהִזְהַרְתָּה אֶתְהֶם, אֶת-הַחֻקִּים וְאֶת-הַתּוֹרֹת; וְהוֹדַעְתָּ לָהֶם, אֶת-הַדֶּרֶךְ יֵלְכוּ בָהּ, וְאֶת-הַמַּעֲשֶׂה, אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּן. 20 And thou shalt teach them the statutes and the laws, and shalt show them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.
כא וְאַתָּה תֶחֱזֶה מִכָּל-הָעָם אַנְשֵׁי-חַיִל יִרְאֵי אֱלֹהִים, אַנְשֵׁי אֱמֶת--שֹׂנְאֵי בָצַע; וְשַׂמְתָּ עֲלֵהֶם, שָׂרֵי אֲלָפִים שָׂרֵי מֵאוֹת, שָׂרֵי חֲמִשִּׁים, וְשָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרֹת. 21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.
כב וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת-הָעָם, בְּכָל-עֵת, וְהָיָה כָּל-הַדָּבָר הַגָּדֹל יָבִיאוּ אֵלֶיךָ, וְכָל-הַדָּבָר הַקָּטֹן יִשְׁפְּטוּ-הֵם; וְהָקֵל, מֵעָלֶיךָ, וְנָשְׂאוּ, אִתָּךְ. 22 And let them judge the people at all seasons; and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge themselves; so shall they make it easier for thee and bear the burden with thee.
כג אִם אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, תַּעֲשֶׂה, וְצִוְּךָ אֱלֹהִים, וְיָכָלְתָּ עֲמֹד; וְגַם כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה, עַל-מְקֹמוֹ יָבֹא בְשָׁלוֹם. 23 If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people also shall go to their place in peace.'

This seems so strange. First off, Yisro says that Moshe is doing a great disservice to the people by making them wait on line to speak with him. Next, Yisro says that Moshe himself will not be able to continue this ill begotten practice for much longer. Then Yisro tells Moshe to teach "them" the Torah and laws. Finally, he tells Moshe to set up leaders of thousands, hundreds and tens that can guide the people. The question here is, simply put, what exactly is going on. What was Moshe doing before Yisro suggested these changes?

If one takes a closer look at the verses he or she will notice something strange. It seems like Moshe, at this point, had not taught anyone any Torah or laws whatsoever. This is seen in verse 20 where Yisro tells Moshe, "Teach them the Torah and its laws!" This is then followed by verse 21 where it says, After you teach them appoint leaders for them that are the best and the brightest to answer any further questions. However, how could Moshe not have taught the Jewish people the Torah at a point where they already had the Torah and it's laws?

It seems to me that Moshe Rabbeinu and Yisro had different ideas as to how the Jewish religion was supposed to exist. Moshe thought that there was supposed to be one person that connects to G-D and tells everyone else what to do. No one can make a move without asking G-D how to behave. In essence, he thought the Jewish people were supposed to be like angels. This makes sense because they had just experienced so many miracles and such high levels of prophecy.

Yisro, on the other hand, came from a completely different background. He had just come from Midyan where life was very humanistic and filled with physicality. If Moshe had continued treating the Jewish people in a purely spiritual manner, they would have never been able to survive in the land of Israel. Living like angels was only possible in the desert where the hand of G-D is seen continuously and constantly. Therefore, Yisro told Moshe to wake up and smell the coffee. He told Moshe, like any good father-in-law would, that he was living in a fantasy world. "You and these people will grow weary of this," Yisro said.

How can the Jewish people consult Moshe on every detail of their life? Yisro was arguing that human comprehension and choices must be allowed and encouraged. Also, the point yisro was trying to bring across to Moshe was that his place was not as a puppet master where every action must go through him and ultimately G-D, but the people must have free choice and their own logical input. "Teach them the Torah and let them figure it out." However, Yisro did not want Moshe discontinuing his leadership role, no, no, no. Yisro was telling Moshe that there must be guidance and therefore, the best and the brightest should guide when there are simple questions and Moshe should be consulted when no one else can figure out the halacha.

Yisro was setting up a nation that could survive in a world where prophecy would not be constant. Yisro knew how the world outside of the desert worked and how to set up a community. That is why the verse tells us that Yisro was the priest of Midyan, because he understood how to lead a nation. One can not act as a leader by controlling every move of his subjects, rather one must teach the subjects how to make the right choices. That is the only way to lead without becoming weary yourself and without making your subjects weary of you.

To make this relevant to today, like I always try to do, let's ask how can it be that people feel like they always need to ask their Rabbi everything? "Rebbe, can I get a job?" "No my talmid, you must study forever." However, in the meantime this man's wife and he are stressed because they have no money. Unfortunately, I have heard this story many times. Also, the countless amount of times that one must ask a Rabbi about every little thing he or she does. We should learn from this story in Yisro, G-D wants us to figure out the halacha with our own knowledge. We have the Shulchan Orech, Aruch Hashulchan, Igros Moshe, Mishnah Berurah and so on. These are tools that allow us to figure out the halacha and know what to do. Serious questions like Niddah questions, certain kashrus questions and the like require a Rabbi, but we need to be able to know what to do in everyday life.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Jewish Laws: The Categories

I enjoy thinking about the origins of Judaism, how it has evolved and the current mentality of the religion. It is amazing to see how much Judaism has been effected by other cultures and how Judaism has shaped those cultures around it. However, when one does this type of research it opens the door for many questions. Namely, how is the current state of our religion, orthodox Judaism, the heir to the original form of Judaism. How can we claim that this is the proper path for us to be following? Many people claim that the Pharisees perverted the religion and others say the more modern Rabbis have completely distorted the way of worshiping G-D. So, why should we believe that "halachic" Judaism is the proper way? Are these laws really from G-D?

One must realize that many of the laws that we follow, like a man wearing a head covering, is completely made up by the Rabbis without any source in the Torah. It is a custom that was accepted by the Jewish people, but was not a command from G-D. Why then do we follow these types of laws without fail?

There are also laws that are stated explicitly in the Torah, like no kindling a fire on Shabbos. These are clear commands directly from G-D that require no interpretation. It is obvious why these commands must be followed, they are from G-D!

A third category of laws are those that are derived from the Torah by the Rabbis. Meaning, they were directly from G-D, but they were oral traditions that G-D told to the Jewish people. A good example of this are the prohibitions on shabbos, namely the majority of the thirty nine melachos (39 Jobs that were done in the temple or mishkan). The Torah says that one can not do melacha, work, on shabbos, but never defines what work it is talking about. The Rabbis tell us that through the oral tradition G-D made known to us what melacha He was speaking of.

These are the three types of halachas that we have: directly from G-D that can be understood straight from the Torah; from G-D that was transmitted orally and the Rabbis tell us the oral tradition; and laws that are completely made up by the Rabbis without any input from G-D.

Everyone who believes the Torah was given by G-D should agree that anything commanded straight in the Torah should be followed because it is the direct words of G-D. Anyone who does not can not reasonably claim that they, either, follow judaism or believe that G-D gave the Torah. That means that on shabbos, anyone who believes G-D gave the Torah and they want to follow Judaism can not light a fire. There is no differentiating betweek any type of actual fire, because G-D says do not kindle a fire. Anyone kindling a fire is not following Judaism, doesn't believe G-D gave the Torah or they realize they are sinning.

The next two categories deal with the Rabbis interpretations and their own laws. These two ideas are less clear cut with regard to what the halacha is in actuality. Whose interpretation do we follow as being the words of G-D? There are many arguments within the Gemorah itself and even after that there are many doubts. Wy should the Jewish people follow anyones interpretation? How are we to know that it is authentic? Also, if it is not authentic, then are we actually going against G-D's will?

To explain this, one needs to look at the verse in parshas Shoftim (Devarim 17:11) that says "According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left."

This verse tells us that G-D expects us to listen to our leaders. However, how far does this go? Does it give them a right to interpret the Torah only? Does it give them the right to add on safeguards to the Torah's law? Does it give them the power to make any law they decide without any real foundation in the Torah? What are the parameters of this law?

Hopefully, since this post is getting a little long, I will discuss the different ideas of how far the Rabbis can go and how far they have gone in the past with regard to their authority at a later post.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Extremism, How Did It Come To Be and What Is It.

I have an interesting theory about why religion has become so extreme. It is interesting to note that the great religious thinkers, at least in Islam and Judaism, used to combine religious thought with practical thought. What I mean is that human rationale was combined with divine commands. The Rambam and Ralbag are prime examples of this type of thought. True, there were always some divine decrees that we can't understand, but everything was looked at through the lens of rational thought. This is also where the idea of reasons behind the commandments come from. Both the Rambam and the Ramban say there are reasons for the commandments. However, more recently religion has disassociated itself from rational thought.

What do I mean that religion has disassociated itself from rational thought? I believe it all started when knowledge became more accessible to the masses. As the age of enlightenment dawned on man, more and more people began asking questions, logically sound questions. How did religious leaders respond? Most wrote these people off as heretics and thus, the leaders that took this path sent their followers on the path of non-rational observance of religious doctrine. However, there were some, like Rav Hirsch, that confronted these questions and found answers through rational thought.

This is what our generation has inherited from a long line of leaders that ignored valid questions, doubters with rational questions and followers that believe without rational thoughts. This leads to abandonement of the religion by people with valid questions and unquestioning allegiance to the religion by those that follow the religion. Hence, we are left with people that are willing to follow even irrational ideas in this religion. Therefore, if a leader tells one of his followers that stealing from someone outside the religion is acceptable, or even a commandment, then they will follow this leader. Basically, anything the leader says will be followed whether it is rational or irrational, logical or illogical.

This is basically how the shift to the right has occurred in orthodox Judaism. Many of the leaders in the past never dealt with rational or logical questions. They just dismissed the questioners or did not care to answer the question. This was very detrimental because it led to more and more unanswered questions that led to more people leaving observant Judaism, or to people abstaining from observing all the commandments. The most recent of these occurences was the Haskala movement and reform Judaism.

However, I believe there are some Rabbis that dealt with these questions head on and saved some of the Jewish community from these problems. Rav Saadia Goan, Rambam, Ralbag, Ibn Kaspi, Rav Hirsch, Rav Schwab, even Rebbe from the Mishna that explains why Dovid Hamelech did not really sin. All of these great Rabbis dealt with difficult issues, that were rationally difficult to understand, and explained problems with clarity and not ad hominum attacks against the questioner.

This is why I think extremism has grown, the communities that follow those Rabbis that never gave answers and wrote them off as heretical words are the extreme communities. They only require leaders that tell them what to do without any logical explanations. Their leaders could tell them that chicken is no longer kosher and they would immediately follow that leader.

There are communities that do have great leaders, but do not follow them blindly. In these communities the leaders words must have rationale and logic behind them in order to be followed. This is what Judaism is supposed to be about, rational thought. True, sometimes there are commandments from the Torah, aka G-D, that might not make sense to us, but that is a command from G-D. Every command that is man made, by the Rabbis, needs to have logic and reasoning behind it that is coherent and justifiable. Unfortunately, nowadays and even the past, some decrees made by Rabbis were unjustifiable. Burn the Rambam's books, they would say. When asked why they would say it was heretical. However, there is nothing that goes against the Torah in any of the Rambam's writings, just ideas that go against those Rabbis personal thoughts.

The difference, in my mind, between extremism and regular orthodoxy is simple. Regular orthodoxy realizes there are commandments from G-D that we can not understand. However, any man made commandments that the Rabbis instituted need to be logical and rational. The Rabbinic commandments are not on the same level as G-D's commandments. This is why Kavod Habriyos overrides the Rabbinic commandments. One is allowed to wipe his bottom on shabbos with a muktza object or be over some other rabbinic decree because of kavod habriyos (Allowing the created to have dignity). This is logical, the Rabbis commandments are to prevent us from transgressing a law from G-D, but they were not instituted for our detriment. This is a very logical idea, it is a prohibition to help protect us from transgressing a biblical law from G-D. The holiday of Chanuka is to give thanks to G-D for granting us an amazing victory and then causing the Menorah to stay lit for eight days. Makes sense. Also, the Rabbis are the ones that explain the biblical commandments to us. Even though the Chumash only says a kid in its mother's milk should not be eaten, it really includes all meat and milk for the reasons that the Gemorah goes into. These are all logical and rational ideas. True, it does require some faith, one must believe that G-D is real and wrote the Torah. However, I don't find that irrational or illogical.

The extremists, however, will tell you that the Rabbis words are the words of G-D and carry the same weight. Whatever their Rebbe says is the law and there is no bypassing it! My Rebbe says that you can not eat ketchup from the bottle with milk if when the ketchup that already came out of the bottle touched meat and my Rebbe said that you can not double wrap meat and put it in a microwave if it was used for milk dishes. How do these ideas make any sense? The ketchup in the bottle never even touched the steam of the meat. Double wrapped food does not communicate with the air outside and therefore not even a drop that could have possibly touched meat is touching a drop that could have touched milk. Why is that not allowed? They answer, because the Rebbe said and if you question that ruling then you are a heretic or you don't keep kosher.

That is just my take on the difference between the extremists and the moderates in orthodox Judaism. Anyone have any other ideas? Care to set me straight about something? Let me know.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Yehuda Setting Up Educational Centers and Co-Existing With Other Cultures

In this week's parsha, Yaakov sends Yehuda ahead of everyone else to Yosef in order that Yehuda should prepare the land of Goshen for Yaakov's arrival. Everything about this seems a bit odd. First of all, why not have the entire family arrive at Goshen at the same time? Second of all, if Yehuda was sent ahead to erect houses of study like the Midrashim say, then why wouldn't Yosef have been able to do it? In fact, the verse tells us that Yehuda is supposed to go to Yosef and then set up the houses of study. Furthermore, Yosef must have already established houses of study for his own children, otherwise, where would they be learning? If this is so, why can't Yaakov's family learn with Ephraim and Menashe?

The first question can be answered in a fairly simple manner. The Gemorah (I think In Gittin) tells us how the exile after the first temple's destruction took place. The second to last king of Yehuda (Jehoiachin) was exiled by Nebuchadnezzar and was replaced by Zedekiah. However, Jehoiachin was exiled before the final destruction and scripture tells us that all of the artisans and gate keepers were exiled at this time. The Gemorah tells us that these artisans and gatekeepers were the wise one's and the teachers. Therefore, before the entire Jewish population was exiled, the teachers and wise men were setting up a proper Torah environment for the rest of the Jewish people to enter into. This idea is most probably the reason Yaakov sent Yehuda ahead, because an exiled people can only retain their identity if they have some type of establishment that helps them cling to their culture.

As a side point, I think this is probably why America has been so successful at being a melting pot. This country was an empty land with no establishments. Anyone who came here had freedom to choose and an obligation to decide their own identity. There was no force compelling anyone to go one way or another, just freedom. In some ways this mentality is good and in other ways it is bad. Decide for yourself why it is good and bad and let me know what you think.

The second question of why couldn't Yosef have handled the task of erecting the houses of study is more complicated. This has to do with the dichotomy of Yosef and the purpose of Yehuda. If we look at Yosef's character we can see many great qulaities, however, these qualities are not to be everlasting or constant throughout Jewish history. On the other hand, the characteristics of Yehuda are everlasting and constant. Yosef was needed to set up the presence of the Jewish people in Egypt, however, Jews were not supposed to live a Yosef type of life. Yosef was beautiful, wealthy, a king in a foreign land and powerful. The Jew is not supposed to care about physical beauty, wealth is something that is considered detrimental, Jews are disgraced while in exile and they are, for the most part, weak. How could Yosef, someone who encompassed all of these great qualities, but qualities that Jews do not commonly have, set up a lifestyle for common Jews?

On the other hand, Yehuda was the perfect example of a person that can relate to a common Jew. True, Yehuda was a leader, but only a leader among the borthers. Yehuda was disgraced in his lifetime, he was the paradigm of repentance, and he was willing to die for his fellow Jew (Binyomin). These are qualities that a common Jew relates to, disgrace while in exile, repentance and a willingness to die for one another (Bortherly love). This is why Yehuda was the perfect person to set up an establishment for the Jewish people in exile, because he could understand the needs of the common Jew.

However, scripture tells us that Yehuda consulted with Yosef first. This relates to the final idea, what was with the houses of study that Yosef had for his children. Yosef's children were son's of a king. They are not the common Jew, but needed to be in special programs so that they could fulfill their obligations as the sons of a king. Therefore, they needed a special type of curriculum. This special curriculum is why Yehuda consulted with Yosef before setting up a house of study, because he needed to discern which parts of this curriculum are necessary for Jews in exile. Jews in exile can not be oblivious to their neighbors, the non-Jews. They must learn how to associate and interact with them if they are to survive in the general population.

The lack of communication between societies is what causes conflict. Yehuda understood this and that is why he consulted with Yosef before setting up an establishment of education. He realized the teaching must incorporate some ideas that will allow for Jews and non-Jews to associate with each other. Without this crucial skill all that happens is misunderstandings and hatred. This hatred comes from a lack of understanding and ignorance of other cultures. This idea is obvious throughout all of history. The Jews have been hated throughout the ages because no one ever understood them. The Europeans that came to the new world hated the natives (they called them savages and had several conflicts) because they did not understand their culture. Muslims and Christians were constantly at war ever since Islam's inception. The lack of understanding leads to fear and fear leads to hatred. If we can teach and understand one another, there will be much less hatred.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Hashgacha Pratis (Individual Divine Intervention)

The Ralbag is under the opinion that the world is mainly governed by Hashgacha Klalis (National divine intervention). He holds that there is no Hashgacha pratis (individual intervention) except for those who are very holy and righteous. I always wondered where this argument of Hashgacha Pratis Vs. Klalis originated. After learning some of Tractate Moed Katan and Shabbos I believe I have found the origins of this opinion.

There is a statement in Moed Katan (28a) made by Rava. It says (Translations are Soncino):
"Rava said, 'The length of a person's life, the number of his children and the extent of his sustenance is not dependent upon his merit, rather it is dependent upon his mazal (fortune). [This must be the case] because both Rabbah and Rav Chisda were righteous Rabbis as is evident from the fact that if either would pray for rain then the rain would fall. However, Rav Chisda lived nintey-two years whereas Rabbah lived only forty. Rav Chisda's household celebrated sixty weddings whereas Rabbah's household suffered sixty tragedies. Furthermore, Rav Chisda's household fed bread of fine flour to their dogs and it was not needed whereas Rabbah's family ate bread of barely flour and there was never enough.'"
This passage from the Talmud seems to tell us that nothing is within our own power, rather everything is determined through natural means, only when great individuals pray does G-D intervene. This means that everything is already determined from our "fortune." In light of this, even the Ralbag's idea of extremely holy and righteous people being under a divine watch would contradict Rava because according to his opinion there is no divine intervention unless the extremely righteous person prays for intervention. However, Rava continues with the following qualifying statements:
"Rava said, 'For these three things I entreated heaven, two were given to me and one was not. I asked for the wisdom of Rav Huna and the wealth of Rav Chisda and they were both given to me.'"
The Maharsha tells us that this shows us that even though Rava is of the opinion that everything is from one's "fortune" a righteous and holy person can still entreat G-D and be answered. On the surface, this seems like what was already made known previously in the Gemara when it says Rav Chisda and Rabbah were able to pray for rain. However, that revealed that G-D would grant requests for specific interventions. A righteous person asks for rain then he will receive rain. However, Rava asked for more than just a singular action, Rava asked for wisdom and wealth. Wisdom and wealth are not things that just pop into existence in one instance and stay, they are things that can come and go. It is only through G-D's constant intervention that a person who receives money will be able to retain that money. The same principle goes for wisdom.  In essence, there is hashgacha pratis for holy and righteous people.

This idea is also seen in another part of the Gemara (Shabbos 156b) where it points out cases where righteous individuals are able to overcome their "fate" because of their righteousness, not even entreating G-D. The two stories are:
"From Samuel too [we learn that] Israel is immune from planetary influence. For Samuel and Ablat were sitting, while certain people were going to a lake. Said Ablat to Samuel: 'That man is going but will not return, [for] a snake will bite him and he will die.' 'If he is an Israelite,' replied Samuel. 'he will go and return.' While they were sitting he went and returned. [Thereupon] Ablat arose and threw off his [the man's] knapsack, [and] found a snake therein cut up and lying in two pieces — Said Samuel to him, 'What did you do?' 'Every day we pooled our bread and ate it; but to-day one of us had no bread, and he was ashamed. Said I to them, "I will go and collect [the bread]". When I came to him, I pretended to take [bread] from him, so that he should not be ashamed.' 'You have done a good deed,' said he to him. Then Samuel went out and lectured: But charity delivereth from death; and [this does not mean] from an unnatural death, but from death itself.

From R. Akiba too [we learn that] Israel is free from planetary influence. For R. Akiba had a daughter. Now, astrologers told him, On the day she enters the bridal chamber a snake will bite her and she will die. He was very worried about this. On that day [of her marriage] she took a brooch [and] stuck it into the wall and by chance it penetrated [sank] into the eye of a serpent. The following morning, when she took it out, the snake came trailing after it. 'What did you do?' her father asked her. 'A poor man came to our door in the evening.' she replied, 'and everybody was busy at the banquet, and there was none to attend to him. So I took the portion which was given to me and gave it to him. 'You have done a good deed,' said he to her. Thereupon R. Akiba went out and lectured: 'But charity delivereth from death': and not [merely] from an unnatural death, but from death itself.
These stories point out the ability for one to overcome their "fortune" if they are righteous. In Shmuel's case the man was saved through his act of charity and in Rabbi Akiva's daughter's case there is a similar idea.
In the end of the day it seems like the Gemara is telling us how G-D runs the world. It tells us that the world runs through nature (planetary influence here). This is why bad things happen to good people, like by Rabbah being poor and dying early. It would appear to be that he did not ask for divine intervention and that is why he lived in poverty and the like However, Israel has the ability to change these natural occurrences, through doing mitzvos and connecting to G-D.

For a related post as to how G-D might interact with the world see here: http://markset565.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-does-g-d-work-in-this-world.html

Friday, December 4, 2009

Techailes From the Murex Trunculus and Psak Halacha

In high school I noticed that my Rebbe wore techailes on his Talis Gadol. This was peculiar to me since I was under the impression that techailes had been lost to us. I knew that there were people claiming to be wearing techailes again, but I had heard from so many people that those techailes, the Radziner techailes, were definitely not the real techailes. With my curiosity peaked I went up to my brand new Rebbe, this was the start of Junior year, who I knew was not a Radziner Chassid and asked him why he wore techailes on his Talis Gadol.

He answered, "Here, read this," and he handed me a pamphlet that he had written a few years before. This pamphlet can be found at this website: http://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/tw01.pdf.

I was intrigued by this 17 page pamphlet that my Rebbe, Rav Chaim Twerski, had written. It brought the history of Techailes, the history of the Radziner Rebbe's search for Techailes and several proofs as to why the Murex Trunculus is most likely the source of true techailes. I immediately desired to fulfill this great mitzvah that had been lost.

The most intriguing part about the whole article was the conclusion. It said,

"The argument for identifying chilazon as Murex trunculus has much merit. However, it cannot be said this identification can be 100% absolute, both with regard to the species or even with regard to the color. Nonetheless, the element of certainty would seem to surpass the threshold needed for identification l’halacha. Moreover, there is no issur in wearing a blue colored thread in the tzitzit, even if it turns out that this is not techelet,a point made poignantly by the Radziner Rebbe, in his sefer, Ptil Techelet.61 As with anything that is not definite,this matter is likely to be controversial for along time to come. It is likely that in future years there will be some rabbonim who will say that one is required to wear techelet made of Murex trunculus, others who will say that it is a mitzvah, but not an obligation, others who will say that it is a chumrah, or a mitzva min hamuvchar. Many, undoubtedly will say that there is no mitzvah whatsoever, and that it is a wasteof money and effort and still others who will find some issur to wear Murex trunculus techelet. Undoubtedly, Radziner chassidim will continue to maintain that sepia is the chilazon and techelet made of any other species is possul.62 If I may offer my own humble opinion it would seem that this identification ought to be accepted by many, if not the majority of poskim. But it will likely take much time for this to happen, for halacha is by its very nature conservative, and in general, a consensus is reached only after much debate and deliberation. For the meantime, until a consensus is reached, each rav should do according to the dictates of his own reasoning. If after careful study of all the material he is skeptical, there is no reason for him to wear techelet made from Murex trunculus or instruct others to do so. If, on the other hand, one is reasonably convinced that Murex trunculus is indeed the chilazon, he should wear them, and rule so for those who ask and rely upon his rulings.

NOTES:
61) As Rav Leiner states in his Sefer, Ayn HaTechelet, and in Ptil Techles, the curse meted out for those who use k’la ilan in their tzitzis and claim that they are wearing techelet, is meant for those who are intent upon deception, not those who are making a sincere attempt of fulfilling the mitzvah.


62) Chassidim are known for their emunas chachamim and it would be highly unlikely that
they would question the conclusion of their rebbe. It should be noted, however, that Rav Leiner
himself stated that he would accept any reasonable argument that would prove his identification
wrong and another identfication right. It is more than likely that were the Radziner rebbe to be alive today he would have abandoned his own thesis and adopted the present one
."

I do not know about the rest of you, but this article taught me something very important about piskei halacha. Every competent Rav has the right, nay, the obligation to paskin halacha based on what he finds to be the correct psak. As Rav Twersky tells us, there will be a variety of differing opinions on this halacha and every single one of them is legitimate. He admits that every Rav will come to their own conclusion and that is THEIR OBLIGATION.