#Netziv | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

rabbirose · 5 years

Text

Parshat Shemot 5780 - Attunement (Podcast Transcript)

What made Moses Moses? What is about him that led God to choose him to lead the Jewish people out of Egypt?

Some say courage. After all, he had to confront the mighty Pharaoh. Others say faithfulness. The task required a person who was somehow sure that this seemingly impossible undertaking would succeed. Others point to his triple identity - Israelite, Egyptian, Midianite - which granted him the outsider perspective central to questioning status quo.

All of these are true of Moses and help to explain his leadership. But when we read very closely at key moments in the life of Moses we see that there was something else.

We are going to look at two moments in Moses’ biography. The first, when he witnesses the suffering of the Israelites and the second is the burning bush. ]

After Moses is saved from the water - and Pharaoh’s death sentence - by Pharaoh’s daughter, Miriam takes her newborn brother to be weaned by his mother. Some time passes, and then:

וַיִגְדַּ֣ל הַיֶּ֗לֶד וַתְּבִאֵ֙הוּ֙ לְבַת־פַּרְעֹ֔ה וַֽיְהִי־לָ֖הּ לְבֵ֑ן וַתִּקְרָ֤א שְׁמוֹ֙ מֹשֶׁ֔ה וַתֹּ֕אמֶר כִּ֥י מִן־הַמַּ֖יִם מְשִׁיתִֽהוּ׃

The child grew up and she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, who made him her son. She named him Moses, explaining, “I drew him out of the water.”

וַיְהִ֣י ׀ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֗ם וַיִּגְדַּ֤ל מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֵּצֵ֣א אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו וַיַּ֖רְא בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם וַיַּרְא֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מַכֶּ֥ה אִישׁ־עִבְרִ֖י מֵאֶחָֽיו׃

Some time after that, Moses grew up and he went out to his kinsfolk and witnessed their labors. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his kinsmen.

You might have noticed that we are told twice that he grew up - וַיִּגְדַּ֤ל - in these consecutive verses.

Several commentators explain the repetition. Rashi, for example, says that the first refers to physical growth and the second to his becoming elevated to a position of great importance in Pharaoh’s palace.

Nachmanides, the great Torah commentator and Kabbalist, goes in a different direction. He agrees with Rashi that the first vayigdal refers to the physical. Then he says.

ואז הביאתהו לבת פרעה ויהי לה לבן כי לפני מלכים יתיצב, ואחרי כן גדל ויהי לאיש דעת:

Then his sister brought him to the daughter of Pharaoh, and he became her son because he was to stand before the king’ [see Proverbs 22:29]. After this, he grew to be an ish da’at, a man of understanding.

What is a “man of understanding”? The phrase, ish da’at, is used once in Tanakh, in the book Proverbs. The commentators suggest there that it refers to a very deep level of reflection and spiritual contemplation. No matter the precise meaning of the words, Ramban tells us that Moses was attuned to the world around him. Why this matters to Ramban becomes clear when we read the rest of the verse, which continues:.

וַיֵּצֵ֣א אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו וַיַּ֖רְא בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם וַיַּרְא֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מַכֶּ֥ה אִישׁ־עִבְרִ֖י מֵאֶחָֽיו

He went out to his brothers and he saw their burdens. He saw an Egyptian man hitting a Hebrew man, one of his brothers.

Another verbal repetition draws our attention: וַיַּ֖רְא בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם וַיַּרְא֙ אִ֣ישׁ He saw their burdens and he saw an Egyptian. The Torah wants us to notice Moses notice. Rashi emphasizes: נָתַן עֵינָיו וְלִבּוֹ לִהְיוֹת מֵצֵר עֲלֵיהֶם. “He focused his eyes and his heart to be distressed over [the Israelites].” Both Rashi and Ramban amplify subtle clues in the text that help us understand what made Moses Moses. All of Egypt knows what is happening to the Israelites and the moral crimes that are being committed. They are all implicated. But only one of them, Moses, is committed to beecoming attuned to it all, to seeing past the assumptions of the society and the noise of daily life. Only he pays attention.

The second moment from Moses’ life that I’d like to examine is perhaps the most famous scene about awareness, the burning bush.

The story picks up after Moses has fled Egypt to the neighboring nation Midian and married the daughter of the Midianite Priest. The one time Prince of Egypt is now a shepherd. Here are the four verses that comprise the first part of the story:

וּמֹשֶׁ֗ה הָיָ֥ה רֹעֶ֛ה אֶת־צֹ֛אן יִתְר֥וֹ חֹתְנ֖וֹ כֹּהֵ֣ן מִדְיָ֑ן וַיִּנְהַ֤ג אֶת־הַצֹּאן֙ אַחַ֣ר הַמִּדְבָּ֔ר וַיָּבֹ֛א אֶל־הַ֥ר הָאֱלֹהִ֖ים חֹרֵֽבָה׃

Moses was tending the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, and drove the flock far into the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.

וַ֠יֵּרָא מַלְאַ֨ךְ יְהֹוָ֥ה אֵלָ֛יו בְּלַבַּת־אֵ֖שׁ מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַסְּנֶ֑ה וַיַּ֗רְא וְהִנֵּ֤ה הַסְּנֶה֙ בֹּעֵ֣ר בָּאֵ֔שׁ וְהַסְּנֶ֖ה אֵינֶ֥נּוּ אֻכָּֽל׃

An angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire out of a bush. He gazed, and there was a bush all aflame, yet the bush was not consumed.

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה אָסֻֽרָה־נָּ֣א וְאֶרְאֶ֔ה אֶת־הַמַּרְאֶ֥ה הַגָּדֹ֖ל הַזֶּ֑ה מַדּ֖וּעַ לֹא־יִבְעַ֥ר הַסְּנֶֽה׃

Moses said, “I must turn aside to look at this marvelous sight; why doesn’t the bush burn up?”

וַיַּ֥רְא יְהוָ֖ה כִּ֣י סָ֣ר לִרְא֑וֹת וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אֱלֹהִ֜ים מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַסְּנֶ֗ה וַיֹּ֛אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֥ה מֹשֶׁ֖ה וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי׃

When the LORD saw that he had turned aside to look, God called to him out of the bush: “Moses! Moses!” He answered, “Here I am.”

Midrash Rabbah, part of what we call the Oral Torah, focuses on Moses’ attentiveness and offers two opposite readings of this scene.

שֶׁהָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְדַבֵּר עִם משֶׁה וְלֹא הָיָה מְבַקֵּשׁ לִבָּטֵל מִמְּלַאכְתוֹ

The Holy One was speaking with Moses and Moses did not desist from his work.

הֶרְאָה לוֹ אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּהֲפֹךְ פָּנָיו וְיִרְאֶה וִידַבֵּר עִמּוֹ, שֶׁכָּךְ אַתָּה מוֹצֵא מִתְּחִלָּה וַיֵּרָא מַלְאַךְ ה' אֵלָיו, וְלֹא הָלַךְ משֶׁה, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁבָּטַל מִמְּלַאכְתוֹ וְהָלַךְ לִרְאוֹת, מִיָּד (שמות ג, ד): וַיִּקְרָא אֵלָיו אֱלֹהִים.

He showed him this [burning bush] so that he would turn his face and look and speak with him. This is why we find at the beginning of the verse An angel of HaShem appeared to him. But we see that Moses did not go [to look]. When he desisted from his work and went to see, immediately: God appeared to him.

We can’t linger too long on this Midrash, but I want to point out something profound that is easy to miss. It is before the miracle of the burning bush that God expects Moses’ attention. That is, Moses could have attuned to God’s presence in the ordinary world but he was simply caught up in his labor. It seems that the midrash is suggesting that it is not the combination of the flame and the voice of God that constitute the miracle. Rather the flame was a miraculous device merely to get the attention of Moses so he would hear a voice that had been ready, so to speak, all along. When Moses turns and notices, God is revealed.

A very different teaching appears in the same section of the Midrash. There it says that Moses noticed immediately and took five steps toward the bush. When God observes Moses’ attentiveness, God immedately speaks with him.

While these two midrashim are conflicted about whether Moses was at first sufficiently attuned to be engaged by God, the larger message is one that should grab us. Redemption depends on attunement.

The Netziv, from the 18th century, expands on this.

אחר המדבר. במדבר מיבעי אלא המשמעות שהיה משתדל להנהיג במקום שהוא יותר מדבר. ונמשך אחר מקום מדבר. והוא כדי שיוכל לההבודד ולחקור אחר אלקות וכדומה. ומשום זה

We would have expected it to say in the wilderness. The teaching is that he made an effort to drive the flocks to a place that was more desolate, and was drawn further and further into the wilderness. This was in order that be could isolate himself and reflect on God’s divinity.

The Netziv sees Moses as engaged in a kind of meditation. This may surprise some modern learners but contemplation and deep mental/spiritual focus are absolutely part of the Jewish tradition. I don’t know that we can understand Moses throughout the rest of the Torah without accepting this. Whether we want to follow the Netziv and say that the phrase ahar ha-midbar means Moses was engaged in contemplation, I don’t know. But it is clear from the Torah itself that Moses’ willingness to see and to pay attention by turning aside is at the root of the revelatory experiences that open the door to his engagement with God and his subsequent leadership of Israel.

I want to be emphatic in saying that what the Torah and these commentators are saying is not akin to contemporary discussions of mindfulness and meditation. Offer those practices as they are presented in a modern context are presented as tools for health and improvement of self. As such they are very important and useful. But in the Torah, Moses’ attunement is precisely what allows him to escape the self and to discover his purpose. Attunement leads to revelation of a reality beyond what we see with our eyes. This attunement leads to our hearts opening. Our hearts opening leads us to notice the lives of others. And noticing others leads us to acts of courage and goodness. Where does Moses’ deep focus lead after this scene? He stops runnig away from his intuition that there is terrible pain in the world. He walks directly into the furnace of suffering that he witnessed when he first became a “man of understanding” so he can aid others, and thereby be a servant of God.

In this age of distraction we have to understand that all of the flashing elecrtonics or just the ordinary business of our lives, all the apps, conveniences, consumer goods, all the noise - these are not simply compromising our personal happiness. They keep us inside of ourselves, and therefore away of the deep truth of our lives, away from God, and therefore away from our repsonsibility. God needs us to pay attention.

Have a shabbat shalom. Thank you for listening.

3 notes · View notes

rickwhite · 2 years

Text

Behar: The Hetter Mechirah for the Sabbatical Year

“When you come to the land that I am giving you, the land must be given a rest, a sabbath to God. For six years you may plant your fields, prune your vineyards, and harvest your crops. But the seventh year is a sabbath of sabbaths for the land.” (Lev. 25:1-4)

A Brief History of the Hetter Mechirah

As the Jewish people began to return to the Land of Israel in the late 1800s, establishing farms and agricultural settlements, the question of letting fields lie fallow during the sabbatical year became - for the first time in many centuries - a burning issue. With the approach of the sabbatical year of 1889, the Jewish settlers turned to the rabbinate to issue a hetter (permit) to allow them to continue working their lands during the seventh year, so that the young and fragile agricultural settlements would not collapse.

Three respected scholars met in Vilna and designed a hetter mechirah, temporarily selling the land to a non-Jew over the sabbatical year. The hetter was approved by Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spector, chief rabbi of Kovno and the pre-eminent Halachic authority of the generation.

During the following sabbatical years of 1889, 1896, and 1903, many of the new settlements utilized the hetter. However, a number of highly respected scholars vociferously opposed the leniency. Among the opponents were Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, the Netziv (Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin), and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch.

The Sabbatical Year of 5670 (1909-1910)

In 1904, Rav Kook arrived in Eretz Yisrael, serving as chief rabbi of Jaffa and the surrounding moshavot. Leading up to the sabbatical year of 1910, Rav Kook took a forceful position defending the hetter mechirah. He penned a treatise entitled Shabbat Ha'Aretz which explained the legal reasoning behind the permit, along with a discussion of the laws for the sabbatical year.

While Rav Kook was an original and creative thinker, he usually took a relatively conservative position in Halachic matters. What led him to support the lenient position in the hetter mechirah controversy?

We can learn much about his underlying concerns from letters that he wrote during this time. The following quotes are from letters in the first volume of Igrot HaRe’iyah.

Reasons to Support the Hetter

While still in Latvia, Rav Kook and his father-in-law, Rabbi Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim (the “Aderet”, rabbi of Ponevezh and later chief rabbi of Jerusalem), discussed the issue at length. In his letters, Rav Kook admits that at that time they both opposed the hetter.

“From afar, when we heard the arguments of those who permit and of those who forbid, we both leaned toward the stricter opinion. But when the Aderet arrived in the Land of Israel, he saw with his own eyes that it is impossible to even consider not making some sort of arrangement for the sabbatical year.” (p. 258)

Seeing first-hand the precarious state of agricultural settlements was a critical factor in changing Rav Kook’s mind. He understood that full observance of the sabbatical year could endanger lives and would likely bring about the collapse of the new settlements.

A second concern was that the entire enterprise of the national return to the Land of Israel could fail over this issue. At that time, the nascent economy of the Yishuv in Eretz Yisrael was based on the commercial sale of agricultural produce.

“The Jewish Colonial Association (JCA) representative informed me that the JCA is preparing plans to buy much more property in the Holy Land. But if we decide that there is no permit to allow work during the seventh year via some legal sale, then the representative will be forced to advise that they should invest their money in Canada and cease supporting projects in the Land of Israel.

He also explained that [if lands will lay fallow during the sabbatical year], the Arabs will take control of Jewish land during the sabbatical year by grazing their herds on them and it will be necessary to take them to court.” (p. 285)

A third concern - and perhaps the most important for Rav Kook - was his fear that a strict ruling would plainly demonstrate that Judaism is incompatible with the modern world and building of a Jewish state:

“Even worse is the potential condemnation of Judaism and widespread rejection of Torah observance as a result of a strict ruling, Heaven forbid, in this matter. The anti-religious elements are hoping that the rabbis will forbid [all agricultural activity during the sabbatical year]. Then they will have gained a great victory. They will have demonstrated that by listening to the rabbis, the land will be laid waste, the fields and vineyards will become desolate, and all commercial ties for the sale of wines, oranges, and other agricultural produce will be broken - ties upon which the survival of the Jewish settlement truly depends.” (p. 258)

The Halachic Underpinnings of the Hetter

In his letters, Rav Kook also discussed the legal reasoning behind the hetter mechirah. The sale is actually based on a number of independent, mitigating factors, each one lessening the severity of working the land during the sabbatical year.

The most important factor in taking a lenient stance is the ruling of most Halachic authorities that nowadays the sabbatical year no longer retains the status of Biblical law. Since it is rabbinically-ordained, we may apply various leniencies, according to the principle of sfeika d'rabbanan lekula.

The hetter only permits those types of agricultural labor that are not Biblically prohibited, even when the sabbatical year itself is Biblically-ordained. Thus, planting, pruning, harvesting, fruit-picking, and perhaps plowing must still be performed by a non-Jew hired to work the field. This clause ensures that no Torah prohibitions are violated, even according to the minority opinion that even nowadays the sabbatical year is Biblically ordained.

An additional reason to be lenient is that our current situation is one of “undue hardship”. Given the precarious state of the agricultural settlements, not working the land would be truly life-threatening. In such cases, one may rely on a single opinion - that of the Rezah1 - who held that nowadays, without the Jubilee year, the sabbatical year is not even rabbinically ordained, but is only a pious custom.

Additionally, we may take into account the question regarding the correct count of the years of the Shemitah cycle. The Kaftor Vaferach2 testified that some farmers would observe the seventh year during one year, while others observed it during another. Even though the rabbis agreed to observe just one sabbatical year - and chose the opinion of Maimonides -this is only a convention. The doubt still remains as to which year is truly the sabbatical year.

Rav Kook also intimated that he had additional arguments to be lenient, but intentionally did not publicize them. He feared that, once institutionalized, the hetter would become too entrenched. The ultimate goal was not to circumvent the laws of the sabbatical year, but to allow the settlements to grow and prosper until they would be able to completely observe the sabbatical year in all of its details.

“On purpose, I did not organize everything in this matter to be fully explained, organized, and analyzed as it should be. Some justifications and cogent arguments I have omitted completely. All this was in order that the hetter should not become too accepted, but will always be considered a temporary measure (hora’at sha’ah), something that was permitted grudgingly due to the needs of the time. But when these issues are analyzed in the way of true Torah scholarship... the prohibition would become too weakened - and I certainly did not desire that.” (pp. 348-349)

Eye to the Future

Many of the rabbis who opposed the hetter mechirah wrote that not observing the sabbatical year would in fact jeopardize the future of Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel, since the punishment for transgressing its laws is exile (see Avot 5:9). While Rav Kook also looked forward to the day when the seventh year would be fully observed, he viewed the hetter as a stepping-stone that would allow the community to achieve that goal.

“We must recognize that we are obligated to strive with all of our strength to bring matters so that, in the end, the sabbatical year will be increasingly observed in all of its holiness in the Holy Land.... But how to arrive at this sacred goal? Which means should we use to attain it? This matter must be considered carefully.

In my opinion, we need to arrive at our desired goal precisely by graduated efforts. Rabbi Chiya Rabbah described the overall redemption of Israel as beginning slowly, little by little - kim'a kim'a [Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 1:2]. So too, the spiritual redemption of establishing the Land’s holiness will advance in stages, step by step.” (p. 330)

One expression of this graduated approach is the distinction the hetter made between those agricultural activities that are prohibited Biblically and those prohibited rabbinically. “We should be like one who saves his possessions from the fire,” Rav Kook explained. “Whatever is more precious and holier [i.e., Biblically-prohibited labor] must be rescued first.”

This distinction also provides a solution to the danger of punishment by exile for not observing the sabbatical year. Such a severe penalty could only apply to transgressing Biblically-ordained prohibitions.3

The Hetter for Farmers and Consumers

What about those who did not wish to rely on the hetter mechirah? Here, Rav Kook distinguished between farmers and consumers.

Rav Kook was very supportive of farmers who did not wish to rely on the hetter. When he heard that the JCA was using the hetter to force farmers to work on the sabbatical year, he became acutely distressed and informed the JCA that the hetter would become invalid under such circumstances. Rav Kook also spoke of setting up a special fund to support these farmers.

On the other hand, Rav Kook was critical of consumers who chose to be stringent in the sabbatical year by buying produce only from non-Jewish farmers. One cannot take on stringencies at the expense of others:

“Certainly it is not proper to look for leniencies and loopholes by purchasing produce from non-Jews, in a situation when this will cause loss of income from Jewish farmers and undermine their livelihood. In general, in any situation where we desire to be strict for ourselves, it is correct to make certain that this stringency does not induce any negative repercussions of financial loss or disrepute for others.” (p. 258)

1 Rabbi Zerachiah HaLevi Gerondi (1125-1186).

2 Rabbi Eshtori HaParchi (1282-1357).

3 Cf Sha’agat Aryeh sec. 24.

#aliyah1800 #Israel #Shmittah Year #Vayikra25:1-4 #hetter

0 notes

virtual-beit-midrash · 7 years

Link

I have become increasingly concerned about the assault on free speech taking place throughout the West, particularly in university campuses.[1] This is being done in the name of “safe space,” that is, space in which you are protected against hearing views which might cause you distress, “trigger warnings”[2] and “micro-aggressions,” that is, any remark that someone might find offensive even if no offence is meant.

So far has this gone that at the beginning of the 2017 academic year, students at an Oxford College banned the presence of a representative of the Christian Union on the grounds that some might find their presence alienating and offensive.[3] Increasingly, speakers with controversial views are being disinvited: the number of such incidents on American college campuses rose from 6 in 2000 to 44 in 2016.[4]

Undoubtedly this entire movement was undertaken for the highest of motives, to protect the feelings of the vulnerable. That is a legitimate ethical concern. Jewish law goes to extremes in condemning lashon hara, hurtful or derogatory speech, and the sages were careful to use what they called lashon sagi nahor, euphemism, to avoid language that people might find offensive.

But a safe space is not one in which you silence dissenting views. To the contrary: it is one in which you give a respectful hearing to views opposed to your own, knowing that your views too will be listened to respectfully. That is academic freedom, and it is essential to a free society.[5] As George Orwell said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

John Stuart Mill likewise wrote that one of the worst offences against freedom is “to stigmatise those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men.” That is happening today in institutions that are supposed to be the guardians of academic freedom. We are coming perilously close to what Julian Benda called, in 1927, “The treason of the intellectuals,” in which he said that academic life had been degraded to the extent that it had allowed itself to become an arena for “the intellectual organisation of political hatreds.”[6]

What is striking about Judaism, and we see this starkly in this week’s parsha, is that argument and the hearing of contrary views is of the essence of the religious life. Moses argues with God. That is one of the most striking things about him. He argues with Him on their first encounter at the burning bush. Four times he resists God’s call to lead the Israelites to freedom, until God finally gets angry with him (Ex. 3:1–4:7). More significantly, at the end of the parsha he says to God:

“Lord, why have you brought trouble on this people? Why did You send me? Since I came to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has brought trouble on this people, and You have not rescued Your people at all.” (Ex. 5:22-23).

This is extraordinary language for a human being to use to God. But Moses was not the first to do so. The first was Abraham, who said, on hearing of God’s plan to destroy the cities of the plain, “Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justice?” (Gen. 18:25).

Similarly, Jeremiah, posing the age-old question of why bad things happen to good people and good things to bad people, asked: “Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all the faithless live at ease?” (Jer. 12:1). In the same vein, Habakkuk challenged God: “Why do You tolerate the treacherous? Why are You silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?” (Hab. 1:13). Job who challenges God’s justice is vindicated in the book that bears his name, while his friends who defended Divine justice are said not to have spoken correctly (Job 42:7-8). Heaven, in short, is not a safe space in the current meaning of the phrase. To the contrary: God loves those who argue with Him – so it seems from Tanakh.

Equally striking is the fact that the sages continued the tradition and gave it a name: argument for the sake of heaven,[7] defined as debate for the sake of truth as opposed to victory.[8] The result is that Judaism is, perhaps uniquely, a civilisation all of whose canonical texts are anthologies of arguments. Midrash operates on the principle that there are “seventy faces” to Torah and thus that every verse is open to multiple interpretations. The Mishnah is full of paragraphs of the form, “Rabbi X says this while Rabbi Y says that.” The Talmud says in the name of God himself, about the conflicting views of the schools of Hillel and Shammai, that “These and those are the words of the living God.”[9]

A standard edition of Mikraot Gedolot consists of the biblical text surrounded by multiple commentaries and even commentaries on the commentaries. The standard edition of the Babylonian Talmud has the text surrounded by the often conflicting views of Rashi and the Tosafists. Moses Maimonides, writing his masterpiece of Jewish law, the Mishneh Torah, took the almost unprecedented step of presenting only the halakhic conclusion without the accompanying arguments. The ironic but predictable result was that the Mishneh Torah was eventually surrounded by an endless array of commentaries and arguments. In Judaism there is something holy about argument.

Why so? First, because only God can see the totality of truth. For us, mere mortals who can see only fragments of the truth at any one time, there is an irreducible multiplicity of perspectives. We see reality now one way, now another. The Torah provides us with a dramatic example in its first two chapters, which give us two creation accounts, both true, from different vantage points. The different voices of priest and prophet, Hillel and Shammai, philosopher and mystic, historian and poet, each capture something essential about the spiritual life. Even within a single genre, the sages noted that “No two prophets prophesy in the same style.”[10] Torah is a conversation scored for many voices.

Second, because justice presupposes the principle that in Roman law is called audi alteram partem, “hear the other side.” That is why God wants an Abraham, a Moses, a Jeremiah and a Job to challenge Him, sometimes to plead for mercy or, as in the case of Moses at the end of this week’s parsha, to urge Him to act swiftly in defence of His people.[11] Both the case for the prosecution and the defence must be heard if justice is to be done and seen to be done.

The pursuit of truth and justice require the freedom to disagree. The Netziv argued that it was the prohibition of disagreement that was the sin of the builders of Babel.[12] What we need, therefore, is not “safe spaces” but rather, civility, that is to say, giving a respectful hearing to views with which we disagree. In one of its loveliest passages the Talmud tells us that the views of the school of Hillel became law “because they were pleasant and did not take offence, and because they taught the views of their opponents as well as their own, indeed they taught the views of their opponents before their own.”[13]

And where do we learn this from? From God Himself, who chose as His prophets people who were prepared to argue with Heaven for the sake of Heaven in the name of justice and truth.

When you learn to listen to views different from your own, realising that they are not threatening but enlarging, then you have discovered the life-changing idea of argument for the sake of heaven.

#shmot #shemot #torah #judaism #rabbi sacks

67 notes · View notes

labellezadelatora · 5 years

Text

MISHPATIM

bs'd Shalom. La idea de esta semana de mi libro 'Healing Anger' es: "Cuando una situación potencialmente frustrante se percibe como una lección para mostranos cuán contraproducentes son nuestras expectativas y demandas , en lugar de enojarse en esas situaciones, podremos para utilizarlas como herramientas como retos en nuestro crecimiento como personas". El link para comprar mi libro es http://www.feldheim.com/healing-anger.html Si quieres comprarlo en Israel contactame. Mi revisión semanal llega a más de 5.000 personas en Inglés y Español en todo el mundo. Les ofrezco a todos la oportunidad de compartir la mitzvá de honrar a un ser querido, patrocinando mi Divre Tora, para shelema refua (curación), o shiduj, Atzlaja (éxito). Siéntete libre de reenviar este Divre Tora basado en las ensenanzas del R' Yisajar Frand a cualquier otro correligionario. Disfrutalo y Shabat Shalom. MISHPATIM-¿Qué es la Verdadera Amistad? En la parashá de esta semana, la Torá dice: "Si el buey de un hombre cornea al buey de su prójimo y muere, venderán el buey vivo y dividirán su valor y también el muerto (buey) se dividirá". [1] La Gemara [2] discute extensamente esta ley junto con otras mas que implican daños a la propiedad. La expresión al comienzo de este pasuk es, "veki yigof shor ish et shor reehu ..." que se traduce como "cuando el buey de un hombre cornea el buey de su amigo". Ibn Ezra cita una interpretación de Ben Zuta que ofrece una traducción diferente; las palabras "shor reehu" significa "el buey compañero" del buey que está corneando. No debe traducirse como “el buey de su amigo” que es la traduccion normal, sino más bien “el buey cornea a su amigo”, ¡que es otro buey! Ibn Ezra rechazó la interpretación de Ben Zuta diciendo: "¡el buey no tiene ningún "amigo" que no sea el propio Ben Zuta!" Es decir, cualquiera que diga tal interpretación es un digno compañero de un buey. El concepto de amistad y el de "reeh" [amigo] como "veAhavta lereeja kamoja" [amaras a tu amigo como a ti mismo], solo se aplica a los seres humanos. La amistad es una relación emocional que refleja un aspecto del ser humano. Los animales pueden tener compañeros e incluso parejas, pero el concepto de amistad no es aplicable a ellos, no existe tal cosa. Así el Ibn Ezra rechazó la interpretación de Ben Zuta. Rav Yitzjak Hutner, zt "l, hace la siguiente observación muy interesante: La palabra "reha", que es una de las varias formas de decir "amigo" en hebreo, proviene de la misma raíz que la palabra" terua" en referencia a Rosh HaShana, “Será un día de terua [rompimiento] para ti” [3]. El Targum Onkelos en este pasuk traduce "yom terua" como "yom yevava", que significa un día de gemidos o un día de gritos rotos. Es por eso que el idea principal del sonido del shofar es el "shevarim" (el sonido de lamento roto). Hay una pregunta en Halaja sobre si el verdadero shevarim son los 3 sonidos cortos que llamamos shevarim o la serie de sonidos más cortos que llamamos terua o una combinación de ambos, pero cualquiera que sea su naturaleza, el "shevarim" es la esencia del sonido del Shofar. El sonido de una sola tocada(tekia) que sigue y continua con los "shevarim" simplemente proporciona un marco, por así decirlo, para resaltar la esencia del sonido del shofar: el sollozo del shevarim. Por lo tanto, la etimología de Terua, que comparte la misma raíz que reut [amistad], tiene la connotación de romper algo. Rav Yitzjak Hutner dice que es por eso que un amigo se llama rea: el propósito de un amigo es "rompernos" y "castigarnos". Un verdadero amigo debería detenernos en seco y darnos una palmazo en la espalda, cuando sea necesario. Un amigo no es el tipo de persona que siempre nos da palmaditas carinosas en la espalda y nos dice lo buenos que somos, siempre condonando lo que hacemos. El propósito de un amigo (rea), como es el propósito de Terua (rompimiento del shofar), es decirnos, a veces, "¡estás completamente equivocado!" Esto es algo que incluso el perro más inteligente o cualquier otra mascota jamas podra decirnos. Obviamente, tiene que haber una relación general positiva. Alguien que siempre es crítico no seguirá siendo un amigo por mucho tiempo. Una persona necesita tener confianza en alguien antes de estar preparado para escuchar sus críticas. Pero el tipo que siempre nos da una palmadita en la espalda y nos dice lo bueno que somos, no es un verdadero amigo. Un verdadero amigo debe ser capaz de detenernos y a veces, ser capaz de quebrarnos para nuestro beneficio. [No hace falta decir que esto debe hacerse con tacto y siempre en privado]. En una de las bendiciones de Sheva Berajot (recitada en una boda y durante las comidas de celebración durante la semana posterior), hacemos referencia a la pareja de recién casados como "reim ahuvim" [amigos amorosos]. Hay un mensaje detrás de esta expresión. Para que el Jatan y la Kala / Esposo-Esposa sean "amigos amorosos", necesitan tener la capacidad de poder decirse el uno al otro "esta no es la forma de hacer las cosas, esta no es la forma de actuar”. Obviamente, una relación basada completamente en este tipo de interacción no va a funcionar. Pero si uno lo merece, el tipo de conyugue que encontrará una persona será una "rea ahuva" en el sentido pleno de la palabra "rea". Es por eso que ningún buey tuvo una "rea". Ningún buey le dirá nunca a su buey compañero "No es correcto comer así" o "Estás comiendo demasiado o demasiado rápido". Un verdadero amigo tiene que hacer eso. Del mismo modo, el Netziv dice en el pasuk, "Un compañero de ayuda frente a él" [Bereshit 2:18] que a veces para que una persona sea una ayuda (ezer), el otro necesita ser su oponente (kenegdo). No debería ser solo "Cariño, eres genial" y "Mi amor, siempre tienes la razón". A veces debe ser "¡Cariño, estas totalmente equivocado!" Esta es la verdadera instancia de "reim ahuvim". Una persona madura da la bienvenida a la crítica constructiva y pone su crecimiento espiritual delante de su ego. Siempre deberiamos entender que un verdadero amigo ofrece una reprimenda porque él / ella es un mensajero de Hashem, enviado para que nos enfoquemos en nuestras deficiencias. Por lo tanto, no debemos rechazar las críticas de un amigo, ya que si lo hacemos, realmente estamos detestando la reprimenda personal de Hashem. [4] Que todos merezcamos tener una amistad verdadera con nuestros compañeros y con nuestros cónyuges. ____________________________ [1] Shemot 21:35 [2] Ver el principio del tratado de Bava Kama. [3] Bamidbar 29:1 [4] Mili DeAvot en Avot 6:6 Le Iluy Nishmat Eliahu ben Simja, Perla bat Simja,Yitzjak ben Perla, Shlomo Moshe ben Abraham, Elimelej David ben Jaya Bayla, Abraham Meir ben Lea, Gil ben Abraham. Zivug agun para Gila bat Mazal Tov, Elisheva bat Malka. Refua Shelema de Jana bat Ester Beyla, Mazaltov bat Guila, Zahav Reuben ben Keyla, Elisheva bat Miriam, Mattisyahu Yered ben Miriam, Naftali Dovid ben Naomi Tzipora, Yehuda ben Simja, Yitzjak ben Mazal Tov, Yaacob ben Miriam, Dvir ben Lea, Menajem Jaim ben Malka, Shlomo ben Sara Nejemia, Sender ben Sara, Dovid Yehoshua ben Leba Malka yYitzjack ben Braja. Exito y parnasa tova de Daniel ben Mazal Tov, Debora Leah Bat Henshe Rajel, Shmuel ben Mazal Tov, Jaya Sara Bat Yitzjak, Yosef Matitiahu ben Yitzjak, Yehuda ben Mazal Sara y Yosef be Sara, Nejemia Efraim ben Beyla Mina.

0 notes

chassidbreslev · 5 years

Text

Rav Avraham Isaac Kook

Um dos maiores sábios de sua geração, vivenciou as mudanças pelas quais passou o Povo Judeu no início do século 20. Gênio talmúdico, cabalista, autoridade em Halachá, líder comunitário, foi também um poeta e pensador extraordinário, cujas idéias continuam a servir de base para o movimento sionista religioso.

Rabi Avraham Isaac HaCohen Kook ou Rav Kook (1865-1935), como era simplesmente chamado, foi uma lenda. Essencialmente um místico, com um interesse genuíno no ser humano e nos problemas do dia-a-dia, Rabi Kook conseguia conciliar de forma harmoniosa os conceitos cabalísticos e as realidades mundanas do cotidiano. Ele afirmava que "o sagrado e o profano, juntos, influenciam o espírito do homem, e este se enriquece ao absorver de cada um deles o que é mais apropriado". Ele acreditava na união espiritual da vida; queria que todo judeu percebesse que a Torá não é distante do fluxo da vida cotidiana e o mundo é um lugar que precisa ser melhorado, não negligenciado.

O grande amor que nutria por D'us e pelo povo que Ele escolheu - por todo e qualquer judeu, independente de ideologia ou do modo de vida - fez com que dedicasse sua vida a aproximar os judeus do Eterno e a incutir a mensagem de união. Procurava aproximar as diferentes facções, repetindo, sem cansar, que "é melhor padecer de amor gratuito do que de ódio gratuito". Certa vez, citou o dito rabínico de que se deve abraçar com o braço direito e afastar com o esquerdo, afirmando que era capaz de rejeitar, mas como já havia muitos judeus que rejeitavam seus irmãos, desempenhava a função daquele que abraça e aproxima.

O pensamento de Rav Kook abrangia os mais diversos assuntos de forma brilhante, sendo necessárias centenas de páginas para tentar expor seu legado. Uma de suas maiores contribuições, no entanto, foi ter dado significado às profundas mudanças que o Povo Judeu vivenciava no início do século 20. Ele acreditava que os judeus da era contemporânea tinham um papel fundamental nos desdobramentos da história judaica. "Nossa geração é maravilhosa", escreveu. "Consiste de opostos; escuridão e luz coexistem na confusão". Se, de um lado, havia um declínio religioso, uma assimilação corrosiva, de outro havia um surpreendente renascimento nacional. Para ele, o regresso dos judeus a Eretz Israel, à nossa Pátria ancestral, não era apenas um acontecimento político para salvar os judeus da perseguição. Era um evento de extraordinária importância em termos históricos, teológicos e espirituais. Rav Kook acreditava ainda que a história judaica adentrava uma nova era que incluiria a redenção espiritual e material e que o Povo Judeu lideraria um renascimento espiritual universal.

A vida na Europa

Avraham Isaac nasceu no dia 15 de Elul de 1865, em Griva, na época parte da Rússia czarista. Era o mais velho dos sete filhos de Rabi Shlomo Zalman HaCohen Kook e Pere-Slata. Tanto em sua família materna como paterna havia rabinos das duas correntes do judaísmo europeu: Chassidim e Mitnagdim1. Sua mãe era filha de um dos primeiros seguidores de Rabi Menachem Mendel de Lubavitch, o Tzemach Tzedek, o terceiro Lubavitcher Rebe. Seu pai, Rabi Shlomo Zalman, renomado por sua erudição, estudara na famosa ieshivá de Volozhin, a "mãe" das ieshivot lituanas.

Até completar 13 anos, o jovem Avraham Isaac estudou com o pai, adquirindo uma extensa educação talmúdica, e um profundo amor pela Terra de Israel e pela língua hebraica. Considerado desde cedo um ilui, uma criança prodígio, possuía uma mente privilegiada, dotada de uma extraordinária memória. Contudo, seu maior dom era a habilidade de rapidamente assimilar e compreender os mais difíceis e variados conceitos.

Nos oito anos após seu bar mitzvá, viajou para diversos lugares, onde estudou com grandes rabinos, absorvendo de cada um deles diferentes facetas do judaísmo. Para ele, estudar os textos sagrados era, acima de tudo, um ato de devoção a D'us.

Em 1884, Avraham Isaac entrou na ieshivá de Volozhin - fundada por Rabi Chaim Volozhin, um aluno do Gaon de Vilna - onde permaneceu durante 18 meses.

A ieshivá era liderada pelo Rabi Naftali Zvi Yehudá Berlin, alcunhado o "Netziv"(o "pilar"), um dos maiores eruditos de seu tempo. Rapidamente se tornou o aluno preferido do Netziv. Durante o tempo em que permaneceu na ieshivá, Rav Kook não se limitou aos estudos talmúdicos, aprofundando-se, também, no estudo da Cabalá, e filosofia judaica e língua hebraica. As idéias do Netziv sobre a volta dos judeus para Eretz Israel o influenciaram profundamente. Rabi Naftali era um dos poucos líderes no mundo da Torá a apoiar o retorno dos judeus à Terra de Israel e os Chovevei Tzion, Amantes de Tzion, movimento considerado o precursor do sionismo moderno.

Em 1886, ele se casa com Batsheva, filha de Rabi Eliyahu David Rabinowtiz-Teomim, o Aderet, rabino de Ponevetz, que, anos mais tarde, tornar-se-ia Rabino-chefe de Jerusalém. No ano seguinte, com apenas 23 anos, assume o posto de rabino da cidade lituana de Zeimel.

As divisões e disputas entre as diferentes facções da comunidade judaica da Europa - Chassidim, Mitnagdim, Maskilim e Chovevei Tzion - perturbavam Rav Kook. Ele acreditava que os conflitos no seio de nosso povo eram a causa do sofrimento judaico. Por isso, passa a falar e escrever sobre a responsabilidade de cada judeu em relação à Nação Judaica como um todo.

No ano de 1888, sua esposa Batsheva falece e seu sogro o convence a se casar novamente. E ele se casa com Raize-Rivka, filha do irmão gêmeo do ex-sogro. Ela lhe dá seu único filho homem, Rabi Tzvi Yehudá. Em 1895, se torna Rabino de Bausk, onde permaneceu até emigrar para Eretz Israel, em 1904.

Já famoso como profundo conhecedor da Halachá, a Lei Judaica, Rav Kook não parava de expandir seu conhecimento nas mais diversas esferas espirituais e culturais. Aprofundou-se ainda mais nos ensinamentos chassídicos, no estudo da Cabalá e nas obras dos filósofos judeus medievais. Estudou, também, as obras dos grandes pensadores do século 19, a filosofia alemã e a moderna literatura hebraica.

Em Bausk, publica seu primeiro artigo sobre o sionismo, no qual declara que o movimento era um fator legítimo para fazer reviver o nacionalismo judaico. Escreveu outros dois artigos sobre nacionalismo e as polêmicas entre rabinos e sionistas laicos. Nos seus textos já se viam as idéias que ele iria desenvolver quando já estivesse radicado na Terra de Israel. Tendo sido convidado para se tornar Rabino-chefe da cidade de Yaffo, Rav Kook decidiu partir para Eretz Israel, apesar dos insistentes pedidos da comunidade de Bausk para não os deixar. Era a realização de seu tão acalentado sonho de viver na Terra Santa.

A chegada a Eretz Israel

Em 1904, aos 39 anos de idade, Rav Kook e sua família deixam a Europa rumo a Eretz Israel, na época sob domínio do Império Otomano. Chegam a Yaffo no dia 28 de Iyar. Curiosamente, 63 anos depois, em 1967, nessa mesma data, Jerusalém foi reconquistada por Israel na Guerra dos Seis Dias.

Ele é recebido com grande entusiasmo pelos judeus de Yaffo e por inúmeros shlichim e representantes das mais diferentes comunidades judaicas, vindos de todo Eretz Israel. Seu renome e erudição o precediam e sua personalidade carismática de pronto conquistou a todos. Ao pronunciar seu primeiro discurso em hebraico fluente, sefaradim e sionistas o aplaudiram com admiração, pois era raro um rabino asquenazi falar um hebraico tão puro.

Como Rabino-chefe de Yaffo, Rav Kook era responsável pelas comunidades agrícolas criadas por sionistas. Costumava visitá-las com freqüência, misturando-se aos colonos, que o acolhiam calorosamente. Além de falar hebraico, suas idéias sobre o sionismo e o fato de simpatizar com seus problemas logo o tornam muito respeitado e amado entre os judeus não-religiosos da então Palestina.

Rav Kook dedicava grande parte de seu tempo a procurar aproximar da Torá os judeus que viviam na Terra de Israel. Apesar de ser um pensador criativo e original e um líder comunitário preocupado com as necessidades e o bem-estar de todos em sua volta, era muito cuidadoso no tocante às questões da Halachá.

A realidade social e religiosa que encontrou em Eretz Israel era conturbada. Os judeus que lá habitavam estavam basicamente divididos em duas comunidades: o Velho e o Novo Ishuv. Eram substanciais as diferenças no modo de vida e ideologia de ambos os grupos. O chamado Velho Ishuv era composto por judeus cuja vida era dedicada exclusivamente às orações e ao estudo da Torá. A maior parte deles viviam nas cidades sagradas de Jerusalém, Safed, Tibérias e Hebron e dependiam das doações dos judeus da Diáspora.

Já o Novo Ishuv surgira com a 1ª Aliá, em 1882. Uns 25 a 35 mil judeus emigraram para Eretz Israel durante essa onda migratória. Seu objetivo era lá se estabelecerem, vivendo e trabalhando em comunidades economicamente viáveis. Muitos deles eram judeus observantes das Leis da Torá - os sionistas seculares ainda eram minoria. A situação começa a mudar com a fundação da Organização Sionista Mundial (OSM), em 1897, e, mais ainda, a partir da 2ª Aliá (1905-1914), quando passam a se estabelecer em Eretz Israel um número cada vez maior de judeus seculares, muitos dos quais de orientação socialista.

A Terra de Israel e o sionismo

Rav Kook ensinava que desde que Eretz Israel foi escolhida por D'us para revelar a mensagem universal de santidade, tornou-se uma terra repleta de virtudes espirituais extraordinárias. Foi nessa terra prometida por D'us a Abraão que o destino espiritual do Povo Judeu foi primeiramente manifestado. Ensinava também que o elo sagrado entre o povo de Israel e a Terra de Israel não pode ser compreendido em termos das ligações naturais e históricas que unem as outras nações a seus respectivos países.

A identidade nacional judaica difere da de outras nações, no sentido de que seu propósito não é apenas sócio-econômico-cultural, mas essencialmente Divino e profundamente imbuído do sentido de justiça. Isto porque, como afirmava Rav Kook, a particularidade de Israel é sua busca constante pela justiça. De acordo com seus ensinamentos, cada nação tem um papel particular a desempenhar no processo da evolução do mundo. O do povo de Israel é disseminar a Divindade pelo mundo. No próprio nome Israel, que significa "guerreiro de D'us", está revelada essa missão. No entanto, devido à falta de um lar nacional e de suas conseqüentes andanças pela Diáspora, os judeus encontravam-se afastados de sua vocação sagrada. Rav Kook não tinha dúvida de que o retorno dos judeus à Terra de Israel renovaria e regeneraria as qualidades espirituais intrínsecas à Nação Judaica.

A base de todo o seu pensamento era que a retomada de sua pátria ancestral representava para o Povo Judeu não apenas a inauguração de um novo período histórico, mas a instituição da tão esperada Era prevista pelos antigos profetas. Seria o início da Redenção Messiânica. Rav Kook via o movimento sionista como o instrumento escolhido por D'us para inaugurar essa nova Era. Os pioneiros sionistas estariam, portanto, cumprindo a Vontade Divina.

Rav Kook escreveu que "na Diáspora, um judeu não pode ser tão fiel e verdadeiro às suas idéias, sentimentos e pensamentos quanto pode sê-lo em Eretz Israel. As revelações do Sagrado, em qualquer que seja o seu grau, são relativamente puras na Terra de Israel; fora dela, no entanto estão misturadas com muita impureza".Através dessa afirmação, Rav Kook deu apoio à posição sionista de que um Estado Judeu na pátria ancestral permitiria não apenas uma existência judaica mais segura, mas também mais legítima. Para ele, a vida na Diáspora havia sido necessária para a sobrevivência do Povo Judeu - mas somente até o dia em que os judeus voltassem definitivamente a residir em Eretz Israel e a se realizar integralmente como judeus, em sua própria terra.

Segundo Rav Kook, foi uma infelicidade histórica o movimento sionista ter nascido em um momento de declínio religioso, ressaltando que o sionismo estaria incompleto enquanto suas dimensões espirituais não se manifestassem. No entanto, acreditava que os sionistas laicos estavam errados, quando negavam que seus esforços a favor da volta dos judeus a Eretz Israel tinham algum elemento espiritual.

Nem eles se davam conta de que, ao afirmar sua ligação com o Povo Judeu e com a Terra Santa de Israel, os sionistas seculares estavam de fato reafirmando a existência de D'us. Estavam realizando o sagrado trabalho Divino de reconstruir a Sua Terra Santa. Rav Kook acreditava profundamente na essência espiritual da alma judaica, em seu anseio de se aproximar a D'us. Para ele, a falta de religiosidade dos sionistas seculares nada mais era do que um fenômeno transitório causado por sua vida na Diáspora.

Rabino-chefe asquenazita

Em 1914, Rav Kook deixa Eretz Israel, a contragosto, para participar do Congresso do Partido Agudat Israel, que deveria ser realizado em Berlim. Porém, com o irromper da 1ª Guerra Mundial, a conferência foi cancelada. Impedido de retornar à Terra de Israel, vai para a Suíça, onde permanece durante dois anos, até aceitar o convite da congregação londrina Machzekei Hadaat, para ser líder religioso.

Mesmo estando longe de Israel, Rav Kook continuou a se envolver com os acontecimentos na Terra Santa. Em 1917, durante a elaboração da Declaração Balfour, Rav Kook posicionou-se publicamente a favor da mesma. Acreditava que a Declaração abria uma nova fase no renascimento nacional do Povo Judeu. No entanto, havia entre os judeus da Europa muitos que se opunham: os ortodoxos alemães viam-na como uma ameaça ao judaísmo; e "os ingleses de fé mosaica" como uma ameaça à recém-adquirida emancipação. Líderes da comunidade britânica, em carta entregue ao governo, declararam que não havia ligações entre a religião e o nacionalismo judaico, e que se opunham a qualquer tipo de reconhecimento da Terra de Israel como sendo o Lar Nacional Judaico. Rav Kook rebateu com firmeza essas afirmações em carta aberta lida em todas as sinagogas inglesas.

Durante os debates realizados no Parlamento britânico sobre o Lar Nacional Judaico na Terra de Israel, foram expostas as questões levantadas pelos assimilacionistas judeus. Na ocasião, Mr. Kiley, um dos proponentes da Declaração Balfour, fez a seguinte pergunta: "Em quem nos devemos basear em relação aos aspectos religiosos da questão - em Lord Montagu, ou em Rabi Kook, o rabino da Congregação Machzekei Hadaat?"

Em 1919, Rav Kook retorna a Eretz Israel, já sob mandato britânico, aceitando o posto de Rabino-chefe de Jerusalém. Em 1921, quando foi criado o Rabinato-chefe do pré-Estado de Israel, se torna o Rabino-chefe asquenazita, junto com o Rabi Yaacov Meir, Rabino-chefe sefaradita. Manteve essa posição até seu falecimento, em 1935.

Sua erudição e espiritualidade, aliadas ao seu respeito e sensibilidade pelas aspirações nacionais dos chalutzim (pioneiros), fizeram dele a pessoa ideal para assumir tal posição, pois era respeitado tanto por judeus religiosos como por pioneiros laicos. Segundo Joseph Klau, "não havia ninguém na Terra de Israel, além de (Chaim Nachman) Bialik que possuísse um público de admiradores tão fiéis como Rav Kook. Mas enquanto Bialik tinha poucos adversários, Rav Kook tinha muitos que eram contrários à sua ideologia, mas ele sabia enfrentá-los com firmeza, nunca receando expressar suas idéias".

O antagonismo do qual era alvo e a ininterrupta campanha de difamação liderada por grupos religiosos mais extremistas eram resultado de seu apoio ao sionismo e suas críticas ao modo de vida do Velho Ishuv. Para Rav Kook, o abandono da participação plena na vida cotidiana para se dedicar exclusivamente a atividades religiosas era resultado de uma visão deturpada do judaísmo. Uma visão tão errada, dizia, quanto a dos sionistas laicos, que almejavam somente uma redenção nacional física, desprovida de espiritualidade.

Rav Kook criticava as ieshivot de sua época por excluir os assuntos laicos de seus currículos. Seu sonho era fundar uma ieshivá que oferecesse um programa integrado de educação judaica de nível superior. Embora isto nunca tenha sido posto em prática, em 1924 ele fundou em Jerusalém a Merkaz HaRav, que se tornou singular devido à sua filosofia religiosa e sua postura positiva em relação ao sionismo.

Defendeu a fusão dos estudos religiosos e seculares no seu discurso durante a cerimônia de inauguração da Universidade Hebraica de Jerusalém, em 1925. Ele disse acreditar que o estudo da Torá deveria ser complementado pelo estudo das ciências seculares; mas também alertou que a preocupação exclusiva com a pesquisa científica acabaria alienando o homem de seus valores religiosos e espirituais.

Durante toda a sua vida, Rav Kook nunca deixou de amar o Povo Judeu em sua totalidade, e não é de surpreender que este amor tenha sido retribuído pela grande maioria dos Filhos de Israel. Sua mensagem de que a "Galut" - a dispersão dos judeus - não era permanente e que havia chegado a hora para o início da tão esperada Redenção, foi ouvida por milhares de judeus. Sua filosofia religiosa baseada na ressurreição do nacionalismo judaico, no estudo da Torá e na observância dos mandamentos continua a servir como o fundamento básico do movimento sionista religioso.

Rabi Avraham Isaac HaCohen Kook faleceu em Jerusalém, no dia 3 de Elul de 1935, duas semanas antes de completar 70 anos. No último Shabat de sua vida na Terra ele perguntou: "Como pode alguém não ser sionista, vendo que D'us escolheu Tzion para Sua Morada?"

אני כבר אמרתי את שמי : "נ נח" !

נ נח נחמ נחמן מאומן

פתק

0 notes

thebeautyoftorah · 5 years

Text

MISHPATIM

bs'd

Shalom.

The thought of this week of my book Healing Anger is

"When a potentially frustrating situation is perceived as a lesson to show us how counterproductive our expectations and demands are, instead of becoming angry in those situations, we will be able to utilize them as tools for challenge and growth."

Buy my book at http://www.feldheim.com/healing-anger.html

If you want to buy it from me in Israel let me know.

This article is based on the teaching of R' Yissachar Frand.

You have the opportunity to share in the mitzvah to honor a loved one by sponsoring my weekly review, or refua shelema (healing), shiduch, Atzlacha (success).

To join the over 4,000 recipients in English and Spanish and receive these insights free on a weekly email, feedback, comments, which has been all around the world, or if you know any other Jew who is interested in receiving these insights weekly, contact me. Shabbat Shalom

MISHPATIM-What is True Friendship?

In this week's parsha the Torah says “If the ox of a man will gore his fellow man’s ox and it dies they will sell the live ox and split its value and also the dead (ox) shall be split.” [1] The Gemara [2] discussed at length this law, along other laws involving damage to or by one’s property.

The expression at the beginning of this pasuk “veki yeegof shor ish et shor re-ehu…” is translated “When a man’s ox will gore his friend’s ox”. Ibn Ezra quotes an interpretation from Ben Zuta who offers a different translation; the words “shor re-ehu” mean the “fellow ox” of the ox who is goring. It is not to be translated as “the ox of his friend” as we normally translate but rather “the ox gores his friend”, which is another ox!

The Ibn Ezra dismissed the interpretation of Ben Zuta by saying, “the ox has no ‘friend’ other than Ben Zuta himself!” Meaning, anyone who says such an interpretation is a worthy companion to an ox.

The concept of friendship and the concept of “re-ah” [friend] as in “veAhavta lere-echa kamocha” [you should love your friend as yourself], only applies to human beings. Friendship is an emotional relationship that reflects an aspect of humanity. Animals can have companions and they can even have mates, but the concept of friendship is not applicable to them, there is no such thing and Ibn Ezra dismissed this interpretation.

Rav Yitchak Hutner, zt”l, makes the following very interesting observation: The word “reha,” which is one of several ways of saying “friend” in Hebrew comes from the same root as the word “teruah” as referring to Rosh HaShannah, “It shall be a day of teruah [blasting] for you” [3]. The Targum Onkelos on this pasuk translates “yom teruah” as “yom yevava”. “Yom yevava” means a day of moaning, or a day of broken up cries.

That is why the main thrust of the shofar sound is the “shevarim” (the broken wailing sound). There is a question in Halacha as to whether the true shevarim is the 3 short sounds we call shevarim or the series of shorter blasts that we call teruah or a combination of both, but whatever its nature, the “shevarim” is the essence of the shofar blowing. The single blast sound (tekiah) that proceeds and follows the “shevarim” merely provides a frame, so to speak, to highlight the essence of the shofar sound – the sobbing cry of shevarim.

Thus, the etymology of Teruah, sharing the same root as reut [friendship] has the connotation of breaking something up. Rav Hutner says that is why a friend is called reah – the purpose of a friend is to “break you up” and to “give you chastisement”. A true friend should stop us in our tracks and give us a kick in the pants, when necessary. A friend is not the type of person who always pats us on the back and tells us how great we are, always condoning whatever we do. The purpose of a friend (reah), as is the purpose of Teruah (shofar blast), is to tell us, sometimes, “you are completely wrong!” This is something that even the smartest dog or any other pet can tell us.

Obviously, there has to be an overall positive relationship. Someone who is always critical will not remain a friend for very long. A person needs to have trust and confidence in someone before he is prepared to hear criticism from him. But the fellow who always slaps us on the back and tells us how great we are is likewise not a true friend. A true friend must be able to stop us and sometimes be able to break us for our benefit.[Needless to say the this has to be done in a pleasant tone of voice, with serenity and in private].

In one of the blessings of Sheva Berachot (recited at a wedding and during celebration meals for the week thereafter), we make reference to the newlywed couple as being “reim ahuvim” [loving friends]. There is a message behind this expression. In order for a Chatan-Kallah / Husband-Wife to be “loving friends,” they need to have the capacity to be able to say to each other “this is not the way to do it; this is not the way to act”. Obviously, a relationship in which this is the entire basis of their interaction will not funtion. But – if one is deserving of it – the type of spouse a person will find will be one who will be a “reah ahuva” in the full sense of the word “reah”.

This is why no ox ever had a “reah”. No ox will ever tell its companion ox “It is not right to eat like that” or “You are eating too much or too fast.” A true friend has to do that.

Similarly, the Netziv says on the pasuk, “A helpmate, opposite[against] him” [Bereshit 2:18] that sometimes a person can best be a helper (ezer), by being an opponent (kenegdo). It should not just be “Honey, you’re great” and “Honey, you are always right.” Sometimes it must be “Honey, you are totally wrong!” This is a true instance of “reim ahuvim”.

A mature person welcomes constructive criticism; he puts his spiritual growth ahead of his ego. Let us always understand that a true friend offers rebuke because she/he is a messenger of Hashem, sent to make us focus on our shortcomings. Thus, we should not reject a friend’s criticism, for if we do so, we are really detesting Hashem’s personal rebuke.[4] May we all merit having true friendship with our companions and specially between ourselves and our spouses. ____________________________ [1] Shemot 21:35 [2] See beginning of Tractate Bava Kamma. [3] Bamidbar 29:1 [4] Mili DeAvot on Avot 6:6

Le Iluy nishmat Eliahu ben Simcha, Mordechai ben Shlomo, Perla bat Simcha, Abraham Meir ben Leah, Moshe ben Gila,Yaakov ben Gila, Sara bat Gila, Yitzchak ben Perla, Leah bat Chavah, Abraham Meir ben Leah,Itamar Ben Reb Yehuda, Yehuda Ben Shmuel Tzvi, Tova Chaya bat Dovid.

Refua Shelema of Mazal Tov bat Freja, Zahav Reuben ben Keyla, Yitzchak ben Mazal Tov, Elisheva bat Miriam, Chana bat Ester Beyla, Mattitiahu Yered ben Miriam, Yaacov ben Miriam, Yehuda ben Simcha, Menachem Chaim ben Malka, Naftali Dovid ben Naomi Tzipora, Nechemia Efraim ben Beyla Mina, Dvir ben Leah, Sender ben Sara, Eliezer Chaim ben Chaya Batya, Shlomo Yoel ben Chaya Leah, Dovid Yehoshua ben Leba, Shmuel ben Mazal Tov, Yosef Yitzchak ben Bracha. Atzlacha and parnasa tova to Daniel ben Mazal Tov, Debora Leah Bat Henshe Rachel, Shmuel ben Mazal tov, Yitzchak ben Mazal Tov, Yehuda ben Mazal Sara and Zivug agun to Gila bat Mazal Tov, Naftali Dovid ben Naomi Tzipora, Elisheva bat Malka. Pidyon anefesh-yeshua of Yosef Itai ben Eliana Shufra.

0 notes

eretzyisrael · 2 years

Text

21 Av - R’ Chaim Soloveichik - 1918

Today is the 21st day of the month of Av. On this day in 1918, R’ Chaim Soloveichik passed away. R’ Chaim, as he is belovedly known, was the son of R’ Yosef Dov Solovechick, better known by the title of his monumental work, the Beis HaLevi. R’ Chaim spent his early years as a lecturer at the Volozoner Yeshiva which was known as the Grandmother of all the Yeshivas. His wife’s grandfather, R’ Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (the Netziv) was the Dean. In 1892, the Netziv made the difficult decision to close the Yeshiva due to impossible restrictions that the Russian Government was putting on the Institution. At that point, R’ Chaim took over for his father as the Chief Rabbi of the town of Brisk in modern-day Belarus. He continued to develop his highly analytical form of Talmud study that included a heavy focus on the legal writings of Maimonides. This became known as the ‘Brisker Derech.’

R’ Chaim had three sons. One was R’ Yitzchak Zev, known as the Brisker Rov, who moved to Israel and started the chain of Brisker Yeshivos. Another was R’ Moshe who moved to America to become a Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University in New York. Today, the Brisker Yeshivos, run by his Grandchildren and Great Grandchildren, are considered the most elite in the world

Rabbi Pinchas L. Landis

#OTD #R’ Chaim #1918

4 notes · View notes

jyungar · 5 years

Text

The Schechinah at 32,000 Feet

At 32,000 feet one is allowed to let the mind wander,

At 32,000 feet certain thoughts are permitted, no?

Lord, can you allow me certain thoughts at this altitude?

will you permit me thoughts unacceptable and inappropriate at ground level?

Up here I am close to the heavens, can we agree?

up here the blue sky seems more pure (and eternal)

up here the burden of my own mortality is lifted momentarily,

up here I feel the license to say things not allowed down below,

thoughts that would be misinterpreted “down there”.

So permit me some heretical thoughts, maybe?

for up here, I fear less the inner Kritik!

up here my flight attendant,

has been inexplicably liberal in the administration of bloody Mary’s.

Let me then express

what I would never dare down there,

let me invite you

to feelings not revealed,

let me in

on what you know already

since you are so intuitive from that which has hitherto

been congealed.

The transgressive includes you my dear,

beyond the professionalism and propriety,

the learned intellectual discussions

over Pinot Noir and Netziv!

the heart has no boundaries (you know, of course)

and the heart will have its way no matter what the consequence.

For the Divine operates under atmospheric conditions

and today surprisingly the sky is blue

the heavens have an azure clarity,

which means the real truth is present and obvious

which means down below we are in trouble.

So forgive me a while,

under the Mariological influence,

of a deadly combination of sky blue and the redness of this inflammatory concoction,

and reminiscences of the black Madonna of Częstochowa,

(at least the Vodka in the Bloody Mary survived!)

allowing the inner Kritik ( wife? Mother? for whom I mourn thrice daily?)

a moments reprieve.

Up here at 32,000 feet,

where all barriers to expression maybe removed

for a while,

I can say the following

and not pay the price down below.

I love you my dear

and through you I love Her,

though the very transgression

beyond the rule book

beyond the Halachic

beyond the appropriate.

For She makes demands

on me,

and I have little idea how to handle Her

despite my age

and struggles.

She still thinks/demands satisfaction as/is possible.

Strung between Wife, Mother and Schechina (the RAMAK was correct)

between every woman I have loved and the law

here I am today, this moment

my tears and my heart in unison

the head games are out of the picture up here (thank goodness or Godness)

the reality of life, love and death so clear,

and the knowing heart fills my being,

with no higher criticism (Biblical or Psychological!)

to account to.

I am writing at 32,000 feet, a dizzying height even without Vodka!

But my fingers are merely gliding over the keyboard

a demoness has possessed them for a few,

The words flow like the red liquor

The censor is off duty, we have fooled it at 32,000 feet

And outside... the eternal blueness,

but inside…. the bloody Mary lingers a little longer

imbibed in the incarnation of Mary/Schechina/You

I am at peace if only for a few.

0 notes

rabbirose · 5 years

Text

Pay Attention to Moses' Superpower: Parashat Shemot 5780

Midrash Rabba, Rashi, Ramban and the Netziv all focus on this strength of Moses, which opens the door to revelation.

Check out this episode!

0 notes

dewofyouryouth-blog · 6 years

Text

דער פאלטאווער עילוי

Rabbi Yoel Shurin – the Poltava Illui – was a talmid of the Netziv and the Rosh Yeshiva of yeshivas Ohr Torah.

I found this article about the Poltaver Illui in the Yiddishe Licht.

And here in the publication Beis Yaakov.

Also, a קשה he asked in בבא קמא is brought in אבן האזל.

Some historical documentation here, here and here.

View On WordPress

#documentation #illui #poltava #shurin #yoel

1 note · View note

eretzyisrael · 7 years

Text

Parshas Shoftim

This weeks parsha says:

כי תבא אל הארץ אשר ה’ אלהיך נתן לך וירשתה וישבתה בה ואמרת אשימה עלי מלך ככל הגוים אשר סביבתי. שום תשים עליך מלך אשר יבחר ה’ אלהיך בו מקרב אחיך תשים עליך מלך לא תוכל לתת עליך איש נכרי אשר לא אחיך הוא.

When you come to the land that the Lord you G-d gives you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and you say, “I will set a king over myself, like all the nations that surround me”. You shall surely set over yourself a king, whom the Lord your G-d shall choose; from among your brethren you shall set a king over yourself; you may not place over yourself a foreign man, who is not your brother.

Our sages tell us that based on this verse, it is a mitzvah to appoint a king. Therefore, there is much debate among contemporary halachic authorities as to the statues of the State of Israel and its government. Is it allowed to be democratic? Can there be members of the Knesset who aren’t religious or even Jewish?

The Netziv writes that, “The Sanhedrin has a positive commandment to appoint a king…It is certainly a mitzvah, but the Sanhedrin is not commanded to appoint a king until the nation says they want this kind of leadership.” According to this, a democratically elected government is a legitimate substitute for a monarchy.

There are, however, other problems. The Sifrei states, “Whom the Lord you G-d shall chose through a prophet…but not from chutz laaretz.” Unfortunately, we don’t have prophets today, and what is the meaning of, “not from chutz laaretz”? How do we work these issues out?

Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin deals with these issues in his commentary. “When the prophecy ceases and the question of kingship arises, choose a king who fulfills the following criteria: He must be a jew who lives in Israel and isn’t estranged from heaven (not secular).”

In other words, when you return to the land, appoint someone who is G-d fearing and religious. Many Jews cite the fact that irreligious Jews run the State of Israel as a reason not to live there. This is a cop out. If these people were seriously concerned, they would davka move to Israel to help the situation. We might even have a religious Prime Minister. So next time there are elections in Israel, we must consider the fact that we’re passing up an opportunity to make an impact.

#Israel #Judaism #Jewish #Elul #Frumblr

6 notes · View notes

labellezadelatora · 5 years

Text

Vaera

bs'd Shalom. La idea de esta semana de mi libro 'Healing Anger' es: "Aunque es difícil aceptar las reprimendas y ciertamente no es algo natural, debemos tratar de pensar: 'Qué suerte tengo de que alguien me hable de esta manera porque se preocupa por mí y quiere que mejore'. Entrenándonos a pensar de esta manera, la ira no estallará". El link para comprar mi libro es http://www.feldheim.com/healing-anger.html Si quieres comprarlo en Israel contactame. Mi revisión semanal llega a más de 5.000 personas en Inglés y Español en todo el mundo. Les ofrezco a todos la oportunidad de compartir la mitzvá de honrar a un ser querido, patrocinando mi Divre Tora, para shelema refua (curación), o shiduj, Atzlaja (éxito). Este artículo esta basado en las ensenanzas del R' Yisajar Frand. Siéntete libre de reenviar este Divre Tora a cualquier otro correligionario. Disfrutalo y Shabat Shalom. VAERA-El Mero Potencial no nos da Ningún Crédito En la parashá de su semana, la Torá menciona explícitamente por primera vez el nombre del padre de Moshe Rabenu, Amram ben Kehat ben Levi. [1] Amram se casó con su tía Yojeved y tuvieron tres hijos, Miriam, Aharon y Moshe. En la parashá de la semana pasada supimos sobre el nacimiento de Moshe y allí el pasuk dice ambiguamente: "Y un hombre de la Casa de Levi fue y se casó con la hija de Levi" [2]. Hubiera sido más lógico contarnos sobre el padre de Moshe cuandose mencionó inicialmente su nacimiento. ¿Por qué la Torá omite la identidad de los padres cuando narra por primera vez su nacimiento? Rav Moshe Feinstein explica que cuando una pareja trae a un niño al mundo, en esa etapa temprana de la vida del niño los padres realmente no tienen un "reclamo de fama". No se sabe quién es el bebé ni en qué se convertirá. En ese punto el es solo "un paquete de potencial bruto" (bekoaj, no befoal). En la etapa del nacimiento de Moshe Rabenu, complementar y honrar a los padres sería prematuro, porque él era solo un bebé. Pero en la parashá de esta semana, la situación cambia totalmente. En Parshat Vaera ya sabemos quién fue Moshe. El podría haberse quedado cómodamente en la casa del faraón, pero creció y salió con sus hermanos y compartió su sufrimiento. Moshe Rabenu defendió a los oprimidos; mató al egipcio para salvar la vida de su compañero judío y tuvo que huir por su propia vida e ir a Midián. Moshe Rabenu también defendió a las hijas de Yitro en el pozo. Estas son solo una pequeña fracción de los hechos que aún lograria en su vida. En esta parashá, el pasuk puede informarnos que él es el producto de un Amram y un Yojeved [Moshe tiene ahora 80 años y ya ha demostrado su verdadero carácter]. Solo aquí y ahora los padres pueden proclamar: "Vean al niño que hemos criado". Ahora pueden ponerse de pie y dar crédito por quién es él. Que el mundo sepa quiénes eran el padre y la madre de Moshe Rabenu. Moshe Rabenu es más que un simple potencial. El potencial se ha concretado y el lo hizo posible. Rabenu Bajaye en Parashat Bereshit alude a la misma idea en la Creación del mundo. A lo largo de los días de la creación, la Torá usala frase "Y Di-s vio que era bueno". Al final de la creación, el pasuk dice "Y Di-s vio todo lo que hizo y he aquí que fue MUY bueno" [3]. Encontramos tres expresiones distintas: "ki tov", "tov" y "tov meod". La primera expresión ("ki tov"), dice Rabenu Bachaye, se usa cuando observamos el potencial de un día, un artículo o una persona. Cada día de creación fue "ki tov" porque había un tremendo potencial en todos y cada uno de los ellos. Pero era solo una parte de una suma mucho mayor que todavía iba a suceder . Sin embargo, cuando Hashem revisó toda la creación al final de seis días, al completarla fue "tov meod" porque el potencial se realizó. La suma es mayor que todas las partes. Las "partes" son simplemente "ki tov". La suma es "tov meod". [Si reorganizamos la palabra מְאֹד, tenemos אָדָם -man. Solo después de crear a Adam y Java Hashem consideró la Creación como "tov meod"]. Rabenu Bejaye - de vuelta en Parshat Bereshit - hace referencia al lenguaje utilizado en relación con Moshe Rabenu aquí en Jumash Shemot. Cuando nació Moshe, los padres sabían que tenían algo muy especial en sus manos. El Midrash dice que la habitación se llenó de luz. Su voz era la de un niño maduro. Este bebé era alguien especial. La Torá usa la expresión "ki tov hu" en ese punto [Shemot 2:2]. Él era solo potencial. Por lo tanto, al igual que las etapas intermedias de la creación, fue designado "ki tov". Era un potencial increíble e inimaginable, pero solo eso, potencial en bruto. Y luego, cuando Moshé maduró y con sus acciones demostró su valía, de hecho se ganó el galardón "meod" tal como está escrito [4] "Y el hombre Moshé era ‘anav meod’” (extremadamente humilde). Incluso Moshe Rabenu tuvo que alcanzar su potencial. Hasta que lo hizo, era simplemente "ki tov". Cuando alcanzó ese potencial, fue "tov meod". Al final de Parshat Bo, aprendemos las leyes del primogénito. Existe la ley del primogénito del hombre, el de un animal kosher y la ley del primogénito de un animal no kosher. Hay una ley aparentemente extraña llamada "Peter Jamor". El primogénito de un burro tiene que ser redimido con una oveja. Si el dueño decide no redimir al burro de esta manera, debe decapitar al animal. El Netziv de Volozhin dice que un primogénito que desperdicia su potencial pierde su derecho a permanecer en el mundo. El primogénito es unico. Tiene capacidades especiales y un gran potencial. Debe desarrollar ese potencial y maximizar los poderes que se le dieron. De lo contrario, se justifica el duro destino que le acontece al burro que no fue utilizado adecuadamente para cumplir con la mitzah de "peter jamor". El Netziv generaliza que esto es un "klal gadol baTora" [gran concepto en la Torá]: Alguien que tiene la capacidad de grandeza, pero es flojo y no se da cuenta de que su potencial, es mucho peor que alguien que nunca tuvo el potencial en primer lugar. Siempre debemos recordar que no hay mayor tragedia que dejar nuestro potencial sin desarrollar. Hubiera sido preferible nunca haber nacido que desperdiciar el potencial que nos fue otorgado. Que Hashem nos ayude a desarrollar completamente nuestro potencial. _____________________________________ [1] Shemot 6:20 [2] Ibíd. 2:1. [3] Bereshit 1:31 [4] Bamidbar 12:3 Le Iluy Nishmat Eliahu ben Simja, Perla bat Simja,Yitzjak ben Perla, Shlomo Moshe ben Abraham, Elimelej David ben Jaya Bayla, Abraham Meir ben Lea, Gil ben Abraham. Zivug agun para Gila bat Mazal Tov, Elisheva bat Malka. Refua Shelema de Jana bat Ester Beyla, Mazaltov bat Guila, Zahav Reuben ben Keyla, Elisheva bat Miriam, Mattisyahu Yered ben Miriam, Naftali Dovid ben Naomi Tzipora, Yehuda ben Simja, Yitzjak ben Mazal Tov, Yaacob ben Miriam, Dvir ben Lea, Menajem Jaim ben Malka, Shlomo ben Sara Nejemia, Sender ben Sara, Dovid Yehoshua ben Leba Malka yYitzjack ben Braja. Exito y parnasa tova de Daniel ben Mazal Tov, Debora Leah Bat Henshe Rajel, Shmuel ben Mazal Tov, Jaya Sara Bat Yitzjak, Yosef Matitiahu ben Yitzjak, Yehuda ben Mazal Sara y Yosef be Sara, Nejemia Efraim ben Beyla Mina.

0 notes

thebeautyoftorah · 5 years

Text

VAERA

bs'd

Shalom. The thought of this week of my book Healing Anger is "Even though it is difficult to accept rebuke and certainly does not come naturally, we should try to think, 'How lucky I am that someone speaks to me that way because they care about me and want me to improve'. By training ourselves to think in this way, anger will not flare up.” Buy my book at http://www.feldheim.com/healing-anger.html If you want to buy it from me in Israel let me know. This article is based on the teachings of R' Yissachar Frand. You have the opportunity to share in the mitzvah to honor a loved one by sponsoring my weekly review, or refua shelema (healing), shiduch, Atzlacha. To join the over 4,000 recipients in English and Spanish and receive these insights free on a weekly email, feedback, comments, which has been all around the world, or if you know any other Jew who is interested in receiving these insights weekly, contact me. Shabbat Shalom. VAERA-Raw Potential Does not Give us Any Credit

In his week’s parsha the Torah mentions explicitly for the first time the name of Moshe Rabbenu’s father, Amram ben Kehat ben Levi.[1] Amram married his aunt Yocheved and together they had three children, Miriam, Aharon and Moshe.

In last week’s parsha we learned about the birth of Moshe and there the pasuk ambiguously says: “And a man from the House of Levi went and he married the daughter of Levi” [2]. It would have been more logical to tell us about Moshe’s father when initially mentioning his birth. Why does the Torah omit the identity of the parents when first narrating his birth?

Rav Moshe Feinstein explains that when a couple bring a child into the world, at that early stage in the child’s life, the parents really have no great “claim to fame.” We do not know who the baby is or what the baby will become. At that point, the baby is just “a bundle of raw potential” (bekoach, not befoal).

At the stage of Moshe Rabbenu's birth, complementing and honoring the parents would be premature, because he was only a baby. But in this week’s parsha, the situation has changed. In Parshat Vaera we already know who Moshe was. He is someone who could have remained comfortably in the house of Pharaoh, but he grew up and went out with his brethren and shared their suffering. Moshe Rabbenu stuck up for the oppressed; he killed the Egyptian to save the life of his fellow Jew and had to flee for his own life and go to Midian. Moshe Rabbenu also stood up for the oppressed daughters of Yitro at the well. These are only a small fraction of the deeds that he will yet accomplish in his life.

Now in this week'e parsha, the pasuk can inform us that he is the product of an Amram and a Yocheved [Moshe is now 80 years old and has already demonstrated his true character]. Only here the parents can now proclaim: “See the child that we have raised.” They can now stand up and take credit for who he is. Let the world know who Moshe Rabbenu’s father and mother were. Moshe Rabbenu is more that just raw potential. The potential has been realized. He made it happen.

Rabbenu Bachaye in Parashat Bereshit alludes to the same idea in the Creation of the world. Throughout the days of creation the Torah uses the refrain “And G-d saw that it was good.” At the end of creation the pasuk says “And G-d saw everything that He did and behold it was VERY good.” [3]. We find three distinct expressions: “ki tov”, “tov”, and “tov meod”. The first expression (“ki tov”), says Rabbenu Bachaye, is used when we are looking at the potential of a day or an item or a person. Each day of creation was “ki tov” because there was tremendous potential in each and every day. But it was only a part of a much greater sum that was going to yet happen.

However, when Hashem reviewed all of creation at the end of six days, the full creation was “tov meod” because the potential was realized. The sum is greater than all of the parts. The “parts” are merely “ki tov”. The sum is “tov meod.” [If we rearrange the word מְאֹד, we have אָדָם -man. Only after creating Adam and Chava Hashem considered the Creation as "tov meod"].

Rabbenu Bechaye – back in Parshat Bereshit – references the language used in connection with Moshe Rabbenu here in Chumash Shemot. When Moshe was born, the parents knew they had something very special in their hands. The Midrash says that the room filled with light. His cry was that of a mature child. This was not just any little baby. This was someone special. The Torah uses the expression “ki tov hu” at that point [Shemot 2:2]. He was only potential. Therefore, just like the intermediate stages of creation, he was designated “ki tov”. He was unbelievable and unimaginable potential, but only that, raw potential. And then later, when Moshe matured and with his actions proved himself, he in fact merited the accolade “meod” as it is written [4] “And the man Moshe was ‘anav meod’ (exceedingly humble)”.

Even Moshe Rabbenu had to reach his potential. Until he did he was merely “ki tov”. When he reached that potential he was “tov meod.”

At the end of Parshat Bo, we learn the laws of the firstborn. There is the law of the firstborn of man, the firstborn of a kosher animal, and the law of the firstborn of a non-kosher animal. There is a seemingly strange-law called “Petter Chamor.” The firstborn of a donkey has to be redeemed with a sheep. If the owner chooses not to redeem the donkey in this way, he must decapitate the animal.

The Netziv of Volozhin says that a firstborn who wastes his potential forfeits his right to remain in the world. The firstborn is special. He has special capabilities and special potential. He must develop that potential and maximize the powers he was given. Failure to do so justifies the harsh fate that befalls the donkey who was not utilized properly to fulfill the mitzah of “petter chamor.”

The Netziv generalizes this to be a “klal gadol baTorah” [over-arching principle of the Torah]: Someone who has the capacity for greatness and is lazy and does not realize his potential is far worse than someone who never had the potential in the first place. We must always remember that there is no greater tragedy than leaving our potential undeveloped. It would have been preferable to have never been born into the world than to waste one’s potential. May Hashem help us to develop completely our potential. _____________________________________ [1] Shemot 6:20 [2] Ibid 2:1 [3] Bereshit 1:31 [4] Bamidbar 12:3

0 notes