Saturday, September 15, 2012

Rosh Hashanah To-Go™ 5773


Individual Articles download


Or, look at their website and see the Rosh Hashanah To-Go entries for previous years.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

posts so far for parshat Nitzavim

Here is a link to the mobile version of these posts. This will allow you to print each post without worry for the advertisements on the sides.


2012

1. YUTorah on parashat Nitzavim.

2011

  1. Nitzavim sources -- begun in 2008, as links by perek and aliyah to an online mikraos gedolos. Then, in 2009, I added a whole slew of meforshim on the parsha and haftara, organized into sections like midrash, Ibn Ezra and his supercommentators, masorah, and so on. In 2010, further improved and expanded. Now, in 2011, I greatly expanded the number of meforshim. For instance, there are many more meforshei Rashi, and a few kitvei yad of Rashi.
    .
  2. YU Torah on Nitzavim / Vayelech.
    .
  3. Torah is accessible to all --  A lovely homiletic, midrashic, explanation of the pesukim by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz. We don't need ruach hakodeshmazal, or living in Eretz Yisrael to attain Torah.
    .
  4. Torah on the Moon -- Must we fetch it from there? Did Chazal think we could travel to the moon?
    .
2010

  1. Does Hashem have nostrils? Do they smoke?  I think the Samaritans emended the text because they were uncomfortable with the imagery. Does Rashi endorse a non-corporeal God with his comment?
    .
  2. Length of days -- Does it refer to long life, or long dwelling in the land of Israel?

2009
  1. Is Sefer HaTorah masculine or feminine? Discussing Rashi's explanation of the changing between zeh and zot on the basis of the placement of a tipcha.
    .
  2. Did the Canaanites fool Moshe in the same way the Giveonites did? Trying to understand Rashi, and the way he understood or interpreted the midrash.
    .
  3. Were spirits of future generations present during the covenant in Nitzavim? Tanchuma says yes, but Ibn Ezra doesn't think it is necessary. Abarbanel reinterprets the midrash using philosophical derash, but I don't find it compelling. And I explain how the Tanchuma may have parsed the pasuk differently in order to arrive at this derash.
    .
  4. The trup on the big nose -- how it should be parsed in accordance to the trup, and how it would be parsed if we follow how Shadal would rewrite it if he had his druthers.

2008


  1. Nitzavim as standing or remaining, as a nice blend of peshat and the theme of drash.

2004
  • A source for birchat haTorah
  • The Torah Is Not In The Heavens
    • I suggest that pshat in this instance is the interpretation of the allegory, and that, as a continuation of "it is not too difficult," it means that it is accessible to you.
      The Midrash will take it hyperliterally to refer to Moshe's ascending Mt Sinai, and adds: 



      Moshe said to them, "that you should not say that another Moshe will stand and bring us another Torah from heaven, I therefore preempt this by informing you that there is not left of it in heaven."
      What motivated this midrash? Perhaps this a response to Christians, or to false prophets trying to innovate new law. Also, the "of course" factor - the Jews know Moshe took the Torah from heaven, so what is he adding?
      The Midrash adds other explanation, highlighting the completeness of the Torah brought down - it and the crafts of its trade - humility, righteousness, and uprightness, and the giving of its reward.
      Finally, an anti-Torah u-Madda explanation from Shmuel, who was an astrologer. The Torah is not found in astrologers, whose craft is in {looking at} the heaven. When they protested that Shmuel himself was an astrologer, he responded that he only studied astrology when in the bathhouse. I observe that studying secular matters in the bathroom is a good strategy for increasing time for learning. Note that Shmuel agrees to the value of learning secular subjects such as science, but only at a time when one could not otherwise be learning Torah.
  • A Midrashic Source for Daf Yomi
    • As mentioned above, with the Torah not being in the heavens referring to accessibility/attainability, the Midrash discusses various psukim as referring to Torah seeming unattainable and how one can attain it. Read it all in the post, but it ends with an idea similar to Daf Yomi:


      Rabbi Yannai said, to what is this matter comparable? To a loaf of bread which is suspended in the air {presumably from a string from the ceiling}. The fool says, "who is able to bring it?" And the rational man says, "Did not someone suspend it there?" {And if someone was able to access that space to suspend it there then it must be possible for others to access it as well.} He brings a ladder, or a pole, and brings it {down}. So too he who is foolish says "When will I {have time to} read all the Torah.

      And he who is rational, what does he do? He learns a single perek {chapter} every day until he finishes the entirety of Torah.

      So says Hashem, לֹא-נִפְלֵאת הִוא מִמְּךָ, " it is not too hard for thee." That is, לֹא-נִפְלֵאת הִוא, "it is not too hard." And if it is too hard, מִמְּךָ, "it is from you" that you are not invliving yourself in it. This is what is meant by the verse כִּי הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת.
2003
  • רָאשֵׁיכֶם שִׁבְטֵיכֶם
    • "Your tribes" breaks the order of progression from upper to lower classes. After offering my own improbable suggestion, I go through some of the interesting possibilities.
      Rashi: 
      smichut to mean the heads of your tribes.
      Ramban: Both רָאשֵׁיכֶם and שִׁבְטֵיכֶם are general (
      klal), and the continuation in this and the next verse elaborate.
      Seforno: שִׁבְטֵיכֶם = רָאשֵׁיכֶם
      שִׁבְטֵיכֶם a has at its root שבט, staff, and means leader; The heads who have the shevet, staff, of ruling. (Think of the parallel מטה.)
      Tg Yonatan: Like Seforno, but רָאשֵׁיכֶם of Sanhedrin, שִׁבְטֵיכֶם = officers.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Berachot 42b: Why didn't Abaye get a shkoyach?

In Berachot 42b:
גמ' אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא בשבתות וימים טובים הואיל ואדם קובע סעודתו על היין אבל בשאר ימות השנה מברך על כל כוס וכוס אתמר נמי אמר רבה בר מרי א"ר יהושע בן לוי לא שנו אלא בשבתות וימים טובים ובשעה שאדם יוצא מבית המרחץ ובשעת הקזת דם הואיל ואדם קובע סעודתו על היין אבל בשאר ימות השנה מברך על כל כוס וכוס
Or, in English:
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: This3  was meant to apply only to Sabbaths and festivals, because then a man makes wine an essential part of his meal.4  On others days of the year, however, a blessing is said over each cup,5  it has also been reported: Rabbah b. Mari said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: This was meant to apply only to Sabbaths and festivals, and to meals taken when a man leaves the bath or after bloodletting, because on such occasions a man makes wine an essential part of the meal. On other days of the year, however, a blessing is said over each cup. 

To illustrate this, two parallel stories, one of which took place during a weekday and the other during Yontiff.
בה בר מרי איקלע לבי רבא בחול חזייה דבריך לפני המזון והדר בריך לאחר המזון א"ל יישר וכן אמר ריב"ל רב יצחק בר יוסף איקלע לבי אביי בי"ט חזייה דבריך אכל כסא וכסא א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דריב"ל א"ל נמלך אנא
Rabbah b. Mari was once at the house of Raba on a weekday. He saw him say a blessing [over the wine taken] before the meal and again after the meal. He said to him: 'Well done; and so said R. Joshua b. Levi!'
R. Isaac b. Joseph visited Abaye on a festival, and saw him say a blessing over each cup. He said to him: Does your honour not hold with the rule laid down by R. Joshua b. Levi? — He replied: I have just changed my mind.6
So, for the same action, but taken on Yom Tov, instead of getting an ayasher, which is equal to yeyasher kochacha, or shkoyach, Abaye gets a criticism!

I think the reason for this goes beyond the position of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rather, both Shabbat and Yom Tov are referred to as Shabbaton. Thus, for example, Vayikra 23:39:
אַךְ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי, בְּאָסְפְּכֶם אֶת-תְּבוּאַת הָאָרֶץ, תָּחֹגּוּ אֶת-חַג-יְהוָה, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים; בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן שַׁבָּתוֹן, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי שַׁבָּתוֹן.
And we know from the zemer of Yona Matza that it is forbidden to say shkoyach on such a day:
יוֹם שַׁבָּתוֹן אֵין לִשְׁכּֽוֹחַ, זִכְרוֹ כְּרֵֽיחַ הַנִּיחֹֽחַ, 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

היוֹם נִכְבָּד לִבְנֵי אֱמוּנִים, זְהִירִים לְשָׁמְרוֹ אָבוֹת וּבָנִים, 
חָקוּק בִּשְׁנֵי לֻחוֹת אֲבָנִים, מֵרֹב אוֹנִים וְאַמִּיץ כֹּֽחַ. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

וּבָֽאוּ כֻלָּם בִּבְרִית יַֽחַד, נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע אָמְרוּ כְּאֶחָד, 
וּפָתְחוּ וְעָנוּ יְיָ אֶחָד, בָּרוּךְ הַנּוֹתֵן לַיָּעֵף כֹּֽח. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

דִּבֶּר בְּקָדְשׁוֹ בְּהַר הַמּוֹר, יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי זָכוֹר וְשָׁמוֹר, 
וְכָל פִּקּוּדָיו יַֽחַד לִגְמוֹר, חַזֵּק מָתְנַֽיִם וְאַמֵּץ כֹּֽח. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ. 

הָעָם אֲשֶׁר נָע כַּצֹּאן תָּעָה, יִזְכּוֹר לְפָקְדוֹ בְּרִית וּשְׁבוּעָה, 
לְבַל יַעֲבָר בָּם מִקְרֵה רָעָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּֽעְתָּ עַל מֵי נֹֽחַ. 
יוֹנָה מָצְאָה בוֹ מָנֽוֹחַ, וְשָׁם יָנֽוּחוּ יְגִֽיעֵי כֹֽחַ.

YUTorah on parashat Nitzavim



Audio Shiurim on Nitzavim
Dr. Shawn Zelig Aster: Yeshayahu Perek 62-63, "Haftorah for Nitzavim" 
Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Kol Yisrael Arevim - We Are One 
Rabbi Ally Ehrman: The Capacity To Change 
Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: Vidui vs. Teshuva, Kapara vs. Tahara 
Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: The Shofar of Connection 
Mrs. Shayna Goldberg: Teshuva, In G-D We Trust 
Rabbi Moshe Gordon: The Final Bris 
Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Premise of Teshuva=Torah 
Rabbi David Hirsch: Why is Rosh Hashana before Yom Kippur? 
Rabbi Jesse Horn: Understanding the Yetzer Hara for Avodah Zara 
Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Serving Hashem with the Heart and the Mind 
Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan: Eish Kodesh on Parshat NiTzavim 
Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: Is Teshuvah Easy? 
Rabbi Binyamin Kwalwasser: Never Be Satisfied in Torah
Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: The Tipping Point 
Rabbi Eliezer Lerner: Keep Growing
Rabbi Hershel Reichman: You're Still Here
Rabbi Yonason Sacks: Why is Nitzavim read before Rosh Hashana? 
Rabbi Hershel Schachter: What is "Eleh Hachukim" That Moshe Taught? 
Rabbi Baruch Simon: The Importance of Every Jew 
Mrs. Shira Smiles: Double Image
Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky: Teshuva Me'ahava and Talmud Torah 
Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Follow Your Heart? 
Rabbi Moshe Taragin: What is challenging, accessible and eternal? 
Rabbi Michael Taubes: Why is Nitzavim before Rosh Hashana? 
Rabbi Ari Zahtz: But I Wasnt Even There 

Articles on Nitzavim
Rabbi Yitzchok Cohen: Learn Torah
Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: Two types of Bechirah
Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: The Key to Teshuvah
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Yes I Can
Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Choose Life
Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg: ואנכי הסתר אסתיר פני
Rabbi David Horwitz: The Astounding Statement of Resh Lakish
Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Redemption must be Accompanied by Tshuva
Mrs. Shira Siev Shechter: The Promise of Teshuva

Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Nitzavim
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Nitzavim
New This Week












Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Rabbi YY Jacobson: Against the Rambam and Ramban, Jesus could have theoretically come back to be mashiach

This was brought to my attention by Moriah, in a comment on this post.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe based his discussions of mashiach on the Rambam. To cite the Publisher's Forward to The Laws of Moshiach:
Since the time of the Rambam (1135-1204), it has been impossible to discuss the subject of Moshiach and the Era of the Redemption without direct reference to the last two chapters of his monumental halachic code, the Mishneh Torah. For example, it is these two chapters that form the basis of the whole of the next publication of Sichos In English - I Await His Coming Every Day: Studies by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson (shlita) on the Rambam's Conception of Moshiach and the Ultimate Redemption.
In the Rambam's Mishneh Torah, in these chapters in hilchos Melachim, the Rambam writes:
ח  [ד] וְאִם יַעֲמֹד מֶלֶךְ מִבֵּית דָּוִיד הוֹגֶה בַּתּוֹרָה וְעוֹסֵק בַּמִּצְווֹת כְּדָוִיד אָבִיו, כְּפִי תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וְשֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה, וְיָכֹף כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵילֵךְ בָּהּ וּלְחַזַּק בִּדְקָהּ, וְיִלָּחֵם מִלְחָמוֹת ה'--הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקַת שְׁהוּא מָשִׁיחַ:  אִם עָשָׂה וְהִצְלִיחַ, וְנִצַּח כָּל הָאֻמּוֹת שֶׁסְּבִיבָיו, וּבָנָה מִקְדָּשׁ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ, וְקִבַּץ נִדְחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--הֲרֵי זֶה מָשִׁיחַ בַּוַּדַּאי.

ט  וְאִם לֹא הִצְלִיחַ עַד כֹּה, אוֹ נֶהְרַג--בַּיָּדוּעַ שְׁאֵינוּ זֶה שֶׁהִבְטִיחָה עָלָיו תּוֹרָה, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּכָל מַלְכֵי בֵּית דָּוִיד הַשְּׁלֵמִים הַכְּשֵׁרִים שֶׁמֵּתוּ. וְלֹא הִעְמִידוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵלָא לְנַסּוֹת בּוֹ רַבִּים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "וּמִן-הַמַּשְׂכִּילִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ, לִצְרוֹף בָּהֶן וּלְבָרֵר וְלַלְבֵּן--עַד-עֵת קֵץ:  כִּי-עוֹד, לַמּוֹעֵד" (ראה דנייאל יא,לה).
and it continues. To translate:
If a king will arise from the House of David who delves deeply into the study of the Torah and, like David his ancestor, observes its mitzvos as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law; if he will compel all of Israel to walk in [the way of the Torah] and repair the breaches [in its observance]; and if he will fight the wars of G-d; - we may, with assurance, consider him Moshiach. If he succeeds in the above, builds the [Beis Ha]Mikdash on its site, and gathers in the dispersed remnant of Israel, he is definitely the Moshiach.
If he did not succeed to this degree or he was killed, he surely is not [the redeemer] promised by the Torah. [Rather,] he should be considered as all the other proper and legitimate kings of the Davidic dynasty who died. G-d only caused him to arise in order to test the multitude. As it is written [Daniel 11:35], "Some of the wise men will stumble, to purge, to refine, and to clarify, until the appointed time, for it is yet to come."
Thus, according to the Rambam, once a messianic candidate is killed, he can no longer be the redeemer. It is bayadua, known. This is a sore point for meshichist Lubavitchers, who kvetch it by making the distinction between neherag, "killed", and meis, "died". However, even with this kvetch, certainly Jesus, who was killed, and did not fulfill his messianic mission, would not be a candidate for mashiach.






Now listen to is what Rabbi YY Jacobson (a Chabad Rabbi) has to say. In the video below, he gives some good reasons why Jews reject Christianity. But then, at the 37 minute mark, he says something troubling and against the Rambam:





"I once saw an author, he wrote, the reason that Jews reject Christianity is because the Christians believe in a second coming. They believe that Yeshu, the father of Christianity is going to come back, from the dead. He was resurrected, he's going to be resurrected, he's going to come back, as a second coming. He already came as the messiah and he's going to come back. And because of that, Jews can't believe in Christianity, because this idea is antithetical to their faith.

Again, this is a very shallow perspective. It doesn't deal with the basis of the issue, understanding what was the basis of Jewish faith. It's not because we don't believe that Yeshu made miracles, or we don't believe that he could come back. That's not the issue.

In fact, take a look at source #5, I'll show you an interesting thing. The Talmud says inSanhedrin צח amud beis:

{Source #5 from the linked PDF:



}
Amar Rav, Rav, one of the greatest Talmudic Sages said, Iy min chaya hu, If the messiah will come from somebody who's alive, kegon Rabbenu Hakadosh, it will be somebody of the caliber of Rabbenu HaKadosh, our holy master Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the author of the Mishna. Iy min meisaya hu, If the mashiach is going to come from somebody who died, kegon Daniel ish Chamudos, it's going to be somebody like the prophet Daniel.

So Rav himself says that mashiach come come either from somebody who's alive or who passed away. So to say that we, the only reason that we rejected Christianity is 'cause the belief that mashiach is going to come from somebody who died already, from Yeshu, and that's the reason we reject Christianity, so what are we suspecting Rav, God-forbid, in harboring ideas of Christianity? That's ridiculous, that's absurd. According to Rav, mashiach could be come somebody who's alive, somebody who's alive God may designate as the redeemer of the Jewish people of the world, or maybe somebody passed away. Could be like Daniel, like he says, or somebody else who passed away. 

The basis why the Jewish people rejected Christianity thus has nothing to do with this. It has to do with the fact that the message of Christianity came to undermine the Torah. It undermined the Torah, the prophecy of Moshe Rabbenu. Its message was a message that contradicts the truth of Torah, and this, for the Jewish people, meant that it was false. It was completely dishonest. Have a good night."

Now, it is true that the Rambam talks about the execution of Jesus in a beis din. And it is true that Jesus' message was antithetical to traditional Jewish belief and practice.

But to say that according to normative Jewish belief, we have no problem in a mashiach who is killed coming back to be mashiach?! It is explicitly against the Rambam, and thus the Lubavitcher Rebbe who took the Rambam as normative!

In terms of his shallow interpretation of the gemara in Sanhedrin, he fails to note that Rashi on that gemara gives two interpretations, one of which has the mashiach patterned after a living or dead figure, rather than being the living or dead figure themselves. And that according to that interpretation, one need not "suspect Rav, God-forbid, of harboring ideas of Christianity" at all. And that according to the second explanation of Rashi, it is specifically Daniel, and not, as Rabbi Jacobson extended it, anybody who died. Nor does he speak to the issue of just how normative this is.

Rabbi Jacobson, for example, does not cite the Ramban, Nachmanides:
The next proof is brought from Nachmanides' personal record of a debate he held with a Christian apostate. He quotes himself as arguing that as long as Jesus had not fulfilled the prophesies associated with the redemption it is impossible for him to accept Jesus as Moshiach. The author asserts that the defining factor for Nachmanides is death. At which point, if the man in question has not become Moshiach in its fullest sense, he certainly will never become Moshiach in the future. 
So, when Rabbi Jacobson says that:
I once saw an author, he wrote, the reason that Jews reject Christianity is because the Christians believe in a second coming. 
The "author" he is rejecting is the Rambam and the Ramban!

The Rambam and Ramban, by the way, were not unaware of the gemara in Sanhedrin either. They understood it at least as well as Rabbi Jacobson.

I understand Rabbi YY Jacobson's motivation in saying this. After all, if mashiach can come back from the dead, then so can the Rebbe. But ultimately, this presentation is a corruption and misrepresentation of classic Jewish thought on the subject.

Sunday, September 09, 2012

The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the iPhone

Over at Mystical Paths, Reb Akiva noticed my recent post (in item 7) about Christian pastors turned geirim, who believe in the Rebbe as mashiach from the dead.

He cites it as:
….I don't know what to make of (other site). In comments there and elsewhere, they are very much in favor of this belief in (not mainstream Moshiach position). …they describe how they are geirim (from a background of high level involvement in their previous religions)... Is this just switching from one false messianism and idolatry to another? 
The reason I point it out is that so many of the discussions on the English Geulah blogs are framed by people with outside influences, be they "Noahides" (non-Jewish believers in the Torah laws of Noah and non-Jews), baalei teshuva (Jews without a religious background who learned and took on observant Jewish practice and belief or Jews of observant practice who left it and then returned), gerim (converts), or Xians
Because many people focus only on the "not mainstream Moshiach position" and its legitimacy in isolation, I decided to author this follow-up post. Can one kvetch Jewish sources to support a wacky "not mainstream Moshiach position"? Sure. (Though I will debate you whether these kvetches are correct.) But that, in and of itself, does not make something false messianism and idolatry.

Rather, it is the convergence of several different non-mainstream beliefs which leads to the idolatry.

It is like the iPhone. There were touch-screens before the iPhone. There was Internet. There was mobile wireless Internet. There was software. There were phones, including mobile phones. There were digital cameras. But put them all together in one unit, and you get a whole which something so much more than the individual parts.

Let us consider the individual parts:

1. That mashiach can come from the dead. This is certainly not a mainstream Jewish position, and is rejected by the Rambam and Ramban. They managed to kvetch about five sources from all of Rabbinic literature. But fine. Consider it officially kvetched.

2. That one can direct requests to deceased tzaddikim. The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch puts forth the fairly normative misnagdish belief that one can only daven to Hashem in the presence of the deceased tzaddik, with the idea that the merit of the tzadik will aid. But that directly addressing the tzaddik is doresh el hameisim, a prohibited practice of seeking favors from Hashem. Chassidim, and Lubavitch, maintain that one can direct a request to the tzaddik to bring forth the request before Hashem.

They also focus their requests on a single individual, the Rebbe, zatzal, rather than any random tzaddik.

3. That one can communicate in two-way communication with the Rebbe via Igros Kodesh. That is, one can ask a question, place it in a book at random, and then interpret the letter on the resulting page as a response from the Rebbe. This has a precedent the goral hagra, but this was a complicated ritual involving a sefer Torah where the query was posed to Hashem, rather than a person.

4. That the common folk should not deal directly with Hashem, but that one needs an intermediary, who is the tzaddik. This was idea really formulated in full by Rabbi Elimelech of Lizhensk. But others might well argue that this is the correct path in Judaism. For Lubavitch, when the Rebbe was alive, this was the Rebbe. And now that the Rebbe zatzal, is dead, he continues to be the focal point.

5. That the primary focus in our generation should be mashiach, and the mashiach's coming. There are 613 mitzvos in the Torah, and other groups focus, for example, on yishuv haAretz, or talmud Torah, or connecting to Hashem, but in Chabad, there is an incredible emphasis on mashiach. Many other mitzvos are viewed as a means to this end. This was encouraged by the Rebbe, zatzal.

6. That the Rebbe is mashiach.

7. The idea that the previous (and thus current) Rebbe was atzmus umehus bilvush gashmi, some sort of physical manifestation of Hashem on earth. Based on the Zohar, and spoken by the Rebbe, but still controversial.

8. That the tzaddik is a miracle worker, and can decree changes in reality via tzaddik gozer veHakadosh Baruch Hu mekayem. That the tzaddik has supernatural knowledge, via ruach hakodesh or sod Hashem liyre'av. That the tzaddik does not possess a yetzer hara, under the kabbalistic (rather than Talmudic) definition of a tzaddik.

Considered in isolation, each of these beliefs might (or might not) be problematic but not necessarily overwhelmingly so. But the convergence of these beliefs led to an extremely problematic whole.

Now consider the convergence.

The Rebbe is mashiach (#6), the Rebbe is the tzaddik that everyone must use as their intermediary (#4). Now that the Rebbe is deceased, we have an invisible power in Heaven, alongside HaKadosh Baruch Hu, and people should direct themselves to this alternate invisible power. And this specific invisible power is still present, and still plays a central role in Judaism, since mashiach can come from the dead (#1). And this invisible power is Omniscient and Omnipotent, and entirely good (#8).

People direct requests to this invisible power in Heaven, separate from Hashem, at the Rebbe's ohel (#2), to the exclusion of any other tzaddik. When uncertain how to act, they ask the Rebbe, this invisible power in Heaven, separate from Hashem, and receive their answer, using the Igros (#3). Because the Rebbe is mashiach (#6) and the primary focus of Judaism is mashiach (#5), they perform mitzvos for the sake of the Rebbe and mashiach, this invisible power in Heaven which stands alongside HaKadosh Baruch Hu, rather than doing mitzvos to fulfill the ratzon Hashem. Add to it (#7), equating the invisible power in Heaven with some manifestation of Hashem, and you have apotheosis, and idolatry. But you have this even without adding #7.

In other words, in and of itself, belief in a mashiach from the dead might be controversial, but would not be catastrophic. If mashiach is Daniel, Chizkiyahu, or David, I am fine with that. But if the particular mashiach from the dead is already the focus of your Judaism, then being mashiach and being dead moves this focus into the realm of a second power in Heaven, which does strike me as catastrophic.

I wrote in the previous linked post:
In comments there and elsewhere, they are very much in favor of this belief in mashiach from the dead which, in ways, often borders on idolatry. And meanwhile, on their blog, [REDACTED], they describe how they are geirim, and used to be, respectively, an "ordained a pastor in the Methodist Church" and a "Christian minister in the African American community both in Chicago and Los Angeles for 14 years". Is this just switching from one false messianism and idolatry to another?
Hopefully I've explained sufficiently in this post how the belief in mashiach from the dead can, in ways, often border on idolatry.

It is a belief that there is a mashiach who died and is now an invisible power in Heaven, apart from Hashem (or worse, equal in some aspects to Hashem), that will come back and redeem the Jews. And this power in Heaven is one who communicates with people, and properly acts as an intermediary between the Jews and Hashem. And the full focus of the religion should be in bringing this invisible mashiach and power in Heaven to the fore.

Consider now someone who is an ordained Christian minister or pastor, who believes that there is Jesus, a mashiach who died and is now an invisible power in Heaven, apart from Hashem, the God of the Old Testament (and who is, indeed, part of the Divine), that will come back and redeem the Jews. And this power in Heaven is one who communicates with people (when they pray and introspect), and that one should address prayers to this deity. And the full focus of religion should be on serving Jesus, and in bringing him to the fore, so that he will come back and redeem mankind.

If someone converted from this sort of Christianity directly to this sort of false Jewish messianism, I wonder whether this conversion was to Judaism or to Rebbe-worship. I'd need to know more about this person's specific beliefs and history of conversion, but it would certainly give me pause.

Doing the Daf summary #5

To see this picture debunked, see here
Here is a summary of this week's Daf Yomi posts at my Daf Yomi blog from last week.

Going all the way back to Berachot 10a: Losing out on the berachot of kriat Shema; I suggest that early Amora Mar Ukva is not saying that he loses out on all the brachot of Shema if he delayed, but only that of Yotzer Or, since the time light begins has passed. Also, is the disproof to Mar Ukva from the Mishna or the brayta? Regardless, how to defend his position.

In Berachot 28a, How was Resh Lakish in doubt? Rather than the traditional understanding, that Resh Lakish was unsure if Rabbi Yochanan or Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said it, it was a statement that Rabbi Yochanan had made, parallel to an idea voiced by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, which made him doubt whether Rabbi Yochanan would really rule against Rabbi Yehuda in the brayta. The actual details are a lot more interesting than this summary suggests. Basically, if Rabbi Yochanan holds that one does wrong by praying mussaf after time X, even though he still can, then why should he not agree with Rabbi Yehuda's reasoning, that it is a mitzvah overet?

On Berachot 31-32, Wrestling with God, I point out that a good part of these derashot involving arguing with Hashem may well come from the alternate meaning of פלל.

Also on 31a, Shlish beMikra, and peshat in Daniel's prayer 'as he did aforetime'. First, an analysis of the sources, and kvetch, that one can fulfill 1/3 of one's learning time of Mikra, by learning Gemara. And then a practical example from Berachot. What is peshat that Daniel continued praying three times daily as he did before? I mean in context of the story.

On 31b, Did Chana pray el-Hashem or al-Hashem? Rashi rejects a girsa which makes an al tikrei here, just as by Moshe, since by Chana, it actually does say al-Hashem. Rashi is right, and I look to manuscript evidence of Berachot and of sefer Shmuel.

On 32b, Rashi's mother and the oncoming wagon. Rashi's mother purportedly experienced the same thing which should cause one to shorten one's tefillah and clear off! But did it really happen to her?

On 33a, The snake-lizard vs. Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa. The story in its various manifestations. 

Also, How did Reuven save Yosef by casting him into a pit filled with Snakes and Scorpions? And why is this to Reuven's credit, if he knew? After all, the gemara in Berachot says that if one is cast into such a pit, he will surely die!

On 33b, Piyutim, and excessive appellations of Hashem. Why Rav Shmuel Palagi opposes most piyutim, based in part on our gemara which rejects use of Divine appellations other than the few set by the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah.

Then, on 33 - 36, some thoughts on each daf.

And finally, for 28a, A land of oil producing olives and honey. Rav Chaim Kanievsky grapples with how devash can refer to dates when the devash is zaya bealma.







Friday, September 07, 2012

posts so far for parshat Ki Tavo


Here is a link to the mobile version of these posts. This will allow you to print each post without worry for the advertisements on the sides.
2012

1. Ki Tavo sources -- 2012 edition

2. YUTorah on parshas Ki Savo


2011

  1. Ki Tavo sources -- begun in 2008, as links by perek and aliya to the relevant page in an online Mikraos Gedolos. In 2009, revamped,
    by adding a bunch of meforshim on the parashah and haftorah. In 2010, improved further. In 2011, added many more meforshim. For instance, many more meforshei Rashi.
    .
  2. YU Torah on parshas Ki Savo.
    .
  3. Thou shalt not sleep with the fishes -- Considering a derasha from Rav Chaim Kanievsky, about mermaids. Plus my own tongue-in-cheek interpretation of the pasuk.
    .
  4. The Chasam Sofer on Arami oved avi -- A question on Ibn Ezra's peshat, given a midrash on a later part of the pasuk.
    .
  5. For who is able to argue and say this its meaning is אבוד אתה? Well, Onkelos, for one... Further analysis of Mizrachi on Arami Oved Avi, and on עַד אָבְדֶךָ.
    .
  6. Onkelos' rendition of וְעָבַדְתָּ שָּׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, עֵץ וָאָבֶן, and its censorship --  Both Rashi and Onkelos diverge from the most literal rendition. Why? Also, why was this Onkelos crossed out by a censor?

 2010

  1. Ki Tavo: Is the blessing on hafrashat maaser Biblical? What about on shechitaAccording to the sefer Hilchot Eretz Yisrael, saying the beracha on shechita ismeakev. But this makes little sense if all berachot on mitzvot are a Rabbinic innovation. Apasuk in Ki Tavo, darshened by Sifrei and by a Mishna in Maaser Sheni, and brought by Rashi, might counter this. But I don't think so.
    .
  2. The spelling of ויוציאנו -- Is this a typo in Minchat Kohen, or does he reverse himself?
    .
  3. Bringing the bikkurim to the kohen who exists in those days -- Ramban criticizes Rashi (respect) based on a Sifrei (kashrut), but Rashi is really just restating a different version of the Sifrei. And Ramban's peshat explanation, that it refers to the mishmar of that week, is not as convincing as that of Ibn Ezra, that it holds as long as kohanim are presiding. Though I would suggest something even smoother, that it is part of the future-tense tone.
    .

2009
  1. If you sin too much, will you come back as an unripe fruit? An "interesting" interpretation of bevoecha and betzeitecha, via Revach, about gilgul as unripe fruit. And then a disproof from a gemara in Bava Metzia.
    .
  2. Why is the krei / ketiv of yishkavena / yishgalena not a problem of reading not from the ketav? And an interesting story of someone who insisted it indeed was a problem.
    .
  3. Hayom Hazeh -- these are the words of Moshe. Who else would be speaking? In which the standard interpretation of Ibn Ezra is that it is Moshe, rather than the farmer. But I suggest he means Moshe rather than a later peson issuing the Biblical command to the farmer.
    .oes Arami Oved Avi refer to a wandering / poor Aramean, or to Lavan who sought to destroyThis post deals with an interpretation of Arami Oved Avi by Ibn Ezra and Radak which goes against the classic midrashic interpretation, and the reaction of two supercommentaries of Rashi to this "daring" interpretation. What comes into play is whether Ibn Ezra and Radak can claim to have absolute knowledge of Hebrew to be able to declare the midrashic interpretation to not work out according to the rules of dikduk; and whether one can argue on midrash, as they are doing, if after the midrashic interpretation goes all the way back to Sinai! It could also be that as supercommentators of Rashi, they are simply defending Rashi's interpretation as one of peshat.
  4. .
  5. Arami Oved Avi -- the Karaites have their cake and eat it too! Related to the above. The purpose of this post is to bring forth an interesting explanation I saw in the commentary of Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite. It seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it too. That is, he agrees that אובד is a poel omed, an intransitive verb, and thus means that he was a pauper, as per Ibn Ezra. But at the same time, the Arami is Lavan!
    .
  6. The Rav on Arami Oved Avi in the Haggadah -- Dr. David Segal told me over a peshat he heard from the Rav zt"l, in which Arami Oved Avi as expounded in the haggadah is in line with Ibn Ezra and Radak's insistence that Oved is an intransitive verb. Rabbi Wohlgelenter also heard this from the Rav. The chiddush here is that we would think that the haggadah is understanding it as Lavan, but really, it refers to Yaakov, even in the derasha.
    .

2008

Shadal on Tithes -- and how there is really only one tithe.

A Beautiful Midrash About Kinas Soferim, and about wanting Torah as a cherished inheritance, rather than a weird midrash brought down by Rashi.

2007

Why plaster them with plaster? Well, it would be silly to plaster them with peanut butter. ;) But seriously, to make them long-lasting, for the future.

It's not so odd -- and how choosing God made us into the Am Segulah.

Vaytzav -- An important grammatical form, and how it saps the energy out of a multiple authorship proof.

Bikkurim -- an interesting theme and underlying message.

2006
From parshat Matot, Pinchas the Flying Priest. In the course of this, I mention Arami Oved Avi, and how this is interpreted to be the saga of Bilaam from the time he was Lavan, until when he (Lavan rather than Yaakov) went down to Egypt, and so on and so forth, as Bilaam.

2003

Talk of a Death Cult: Is this being doresh Torah shelo kehalacha? I analyze לֹא-אָכַלְתִּי בְאֹנִי מִמֶּנּוּ and show how each phrase may refer to practices of a death cult, which he is proclaiming that he did not participate in.

In Bowdlerization of Torah I mention the possibility that certain krei and ketiv pairs were formed because the original term changed in connotation and became a crude word.

to be continued...

Thursday, September 06, 2012

YUTorah on parshas Ki Savo


Audio Shiurim on Ki Tavo
Rabbi Elchanan Adler: Hashkifa Mimon Kadshecha 
Dr. Shawn Zelig Aster: Yeshayahu Perek 60, "Kumi Ori" 
Rabbi Eli Belizon: Vidui Maasros 
Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Torah Writ on Stone! For Whom? 
Rabbi Zevulun Charlop: Why Sefer HaYashar and Not Sefer HaSimcha?
Rabbi Avishai David: Hakaras HaTov 
Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Lev La'daas 
Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: Rejoicing in Oneself
Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: The Mezuzah of Israel 
Rabbi Efrem Goldberg: An Exercise in Humility and Appreciation
Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: Run YOUR Route 
Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Individual and Communal 
Rabbi David Hirsch: Hakaras HaTov as a Foundation for Middos 
Rabbi Jesse Horn: Why the Torah values Happiness 
Rabbi Ari Kahn: Coming Home 
Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Understanding, Seeing and Hearing 
Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: The Lesson of Viduy Ma'aser 
Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: The Beauty of Black 
Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz: Yeridas Hadoros 
Rabbi Yoni Levin: The Connection Between Bikurim and Hagaddah 
Rabbi Ben Leybovich: Refilling with Taste 
Rabbi Yaakov Neuburger: New Kabalat haTorah 
Rabbi Yona Reiss: Teshuva Means Recognizing Our Capacity 
Rabbi Yonason Sacks: Tochacha and Arvus
Rabbi Jeffrey Saks: Blessings and Curses 
Rabbi Hershel Schachter: Dinei Bikurim
Shay Schachter: Chazaras Hashatz and Private Shmone Esreh in a Different Nusach 
R' Dr. Jacob J Schacter: Why is there such a celebration for the bringing of bikkurim? 
Rabbi Avi Schneider: Something Seems Different About You 
Rabbi Baruch Simon: V'Samachta B'chol Ha'Tov 
Mrs. Shira Smiles: Judgement on Joviality 
Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky: Simchas Kreiso vs. Simchas Halev 
Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Viduy Maaser - Our Money, Ourselves 
Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Mission Man
Rabbi Michael Taubes: The Nature of Birchos HaMitzvah 
Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner: The Bilateral Covenant with Gd 
Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: The Berachah within the Tochachah
Rabbi Andi Yudin: Elul and Direction 
Rabbi Ari Zahtz: The Writing on the Rocks 

Articles on Ki Tavo
Rabbi Solomon Drillman: Reading the Klalos before Rosh Hashana
Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman: Confessions of a Tzaddik
Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: All-Encompassing Responsibility
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: The Key to Torah Observance
Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Torah on the Rocks
Rabbi Josh Hoffman: Beginnings
Rabbi David Horwitz: Writing the Teaching on Stones and Building an Altar
Rabbi Yitzchak Korn: Why is it called Viduy Ma'asrot?
Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: The Sanctity and Power of the Jewish Nation
Rabbi Zvi Shiloni: Arami Oved Avi
Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank: The Creative Power of Words

Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Ki Tavo
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Ki Tavo
New This Week












LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin