Mishpatim 5768: Halakah and Aggadah, Bittersweet Joy.

For the first time in the Torah cycle, there is very little narrative, found only at the end of the parsha. This week is a continuation of the same day God gave the Ten Commandments on Sinai, with God giving directly to Moses a rapid-fire nonstop set of mitzvot, mostly covering civil and criminal law. It includes other things, such as a more elaborate explanation of the Ten Commandments including Shabbat, honoring parents, not murdering, not being a false witness, and not stealing. There also the famous line about witches, and the schedule for the three pilgrimage festivals. Towards the end of this portion, Moses writes down this week portion, and then ascends Sinai for the forty days and nights to receive the rest of the Torah and the tablets.

Key to this portion, unlike any one before it in Torah is the mitzvot which comprise the majority of the portion. Much, but not all of this is civil law. For example there is this bit of liability law:

28. If an ox gores a man or a woman, that they die; then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. 29. But if the ox was wont to gore with its horn in times past, and its owner had been warned, and he has not kept it in, but it has killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.[23:28-9] … 33. And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls in it; 34. The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money to its owner; and the dead beast shall be his. [23:33-4]

Then there is this piece in the next chapter:

4. If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. 5. If fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, so that the stacks of grain, or the standing grain, or the field, be consumed with it; he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution. [22:4-5]

Last week I mentioned the thinking of Halakah, but did not dwell on it too deep. Using the parable of painting, I described this as one of the primary colors on a painter’s palette. In my painting class last week my teacher said something rather wise about my painting style that is also true of Torah. As I am color blind, and as such I can not go by the appearance of a color when it comes to colors, I must use a more analytical approach. As a watercolor painter I generally need to understand all of my colors in order to use any of them. So too with the three ‘colors’ I mentioned last week, Halakah, Aggadah, and Everyday Torah.

On a very basic concept, what defines a Jew as a Jew is acceptance of Halakah on some level. For some it is as deep and completely involved as I described last week. Whether one can sit on a hammock attached to tree on Shabbat is an important, serious matter to some, and for them it should be. Others treat Halakah far more lightly, as though it is some anachronism. Yet Halakah was still there. Even Classical Reform of the late 19^th century which seemingly rejected Halakah for a while still had the Shema in the Union Prayerbook. Classical Reform found verses, both in this week’s mitzvot and the prophets who later quote them, important enough to make social action an important religious doctrine.

To continue the painting analogy, on my palette Alarizin Crimson and Cadmium Red Light are both red, but very different reds. To understand the color red I need to understand something about all the reds. Halakah is similar, there are ones that are simple civil law like ox case above and then there are ones we can never completely understand, like the prohibition of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk. Like Maimonides, we can make assumptions and guesses, but sufficient archaeological evidence does not exist to confirm his idea that mixing of milk and meat had to do with pagan rites. We can however come up with new rules to make sure, whatever its intent, we don’t break the rule.

My point is that Halakah can be really subtle at times. It is not just the doing but the understanding of where it comes from and what one can do with it. A large amount of the civil law tractates in the Talmud is nothing but an exposition on this week’s portion. A lot of things were derived from these few verses. The Mishnah to Baba Kama for example begins:

The principal categories of damage are four: the ox, the pit, the ‘spoliator’ [mab'eh] and the fire.

The rabbis categorized all forms of damages in terms of these four, all based on verses in Mishpatim. A majority of Baba Kama, hundreds of pages of debate, is an exposition of those few lines above. The ox goring, damage caused by falling into an open pit, uncontrolled fires, and the ‘spoilator, ’ which the rabbis get into a large discussion trying to define, becomes the basis of liability law in the Talmud. Understanding that there are subcategories of these, how those subcategories work, what is an accidental case and what is a non-accidental case is all there. A lush forest of laws and rules all derived from a few words as its seed.

For most Jews today, and for many non-Jews this seems a deep, impenetrable forest. For those who enter it is a beautiful tropical rainforest of wonder. There is the halakah of religious commandments and the halakah of civil, ethical rules. For those who enter this lavish beautiful jungle, it’s hard to tell the difference. Is this theology or civil law?

Man is always mu'ad whether [he acts] inadvertently or willfully, whether awake or asleep. If he blinded his neighbor’s eye or broke his articles, full compensation must [therefore] be made. [B.K. 26a]

Humanity is considered Mu’ad, but what is Mu’ad?

What is tam, and what is mu'ad? — [cattle become] mu'ad after [the owner has] been warned for three days [regarding the acts of goring], but [return to the state of] tam after refraining from goring for three days; these are the words of R. Judah. R. Meir, however, says: [cattle become] mu'ad after [the owner has] been warned three times [even on the same day], and [become again] tam when children keep on touching them and no goring results. [B.K. 23b]

Mu’ad is based on Exodus 21:29 above, that an animal with a record of warnings is considered dangerous. For cattle, there is a possibility to return to a state of simple and safe. R. Judah believe a safe ox is one whose track record is not to do anything wrong for three days. R. Meir believes only an ox which can be repeatedly taunted by children without incident is safe. To call the nature of man as though a man is always in the dangerous state, as though we are always a mad bull, is quite a remarkable statement. We are always and in all circumstances responsible for our actions even when asleep, and thus deserve the full penalty. As I asked before, is this a religious or civil statement?

The beauty and joy of reading and understanding Halakah is not just in its observance. It is in asking questions about the Mitzvot, where it comes from, and why others made the decisions they did, creating the practiced Halakah. To understand when a preventative measure, a fence around Torah is necessary in an ambiguous case is just as important as seeing there are exceptions to those stringencies. Even with the idea of full responsibility, the rabbis did make exemptions for simple accidents beyond human control. It all really does make some sense if you understand the thinking.

Sadly, very few do. There is a time commitment to study of course, one few have. Starting next month that will be me as well. I’m going to have to give up group Talmud study in order to make a living. It’s a very hard, sad decision for me, but one that was unfortunately necessary. I understand the time issues. Then there is the other issue, the one of not knowing what to do with a Talmud page. The education to do so in most Jews across the spectrum of observance, from Renewal to Reform to Even Orthodox Baalei T’Shuva is sorely lacking. I still have a dream to change that: to make knowledge of Talmud accessible to all. Again out of necessity that dream is sidelined, though I desperately pray not forever.

Talmud is one of the most beautiful things in my world; I’d like it to be in yours too. Teaching it and Learning from it is a source of life, unfortunately it doesn’t seem to pay the rent or grocery bills unless you have an R. for Rabbi in front of your name. I’ve wondered over the last few weeks at the dearth of opportunities for a guy like me whether my last five years of grad school was a waste of time and money. I sometimes doubt I picked the right life path. But then I remember: Halakah gives us a way to do things and a basis to make good decisions that Torah does not explicitly state. Yet Halakhah does not soothe the heart. It is times like this that aggadah paints its colors on the canvas. We also read this week:

20. Behold, I send an Angel before you, to keep you on the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21. Take heed of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my name is in him. 22. But if you shall indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy to your enemies, and an adversary to your adversaries. 23. For my Angel shall go before you, and bring you in to the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off. 24. You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works; but you shall completely overthrow them, and break down their images in pieces. 25. And you shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall bless your bread, and your water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of you.

I do not read this just in its literal sense. I read it in another, to keep the faith in what I am doing, to keep up with the journey. It is to believe in not stopping nor ending what I have started. The other peoples in the land are not real people, but metaphors for my own stumbling blocks on the way to my living in the Land of Torah. My angel resides here in Shlomo’s Drash, and as long as I have a keyboard and a way to upload my Drash, I will continue to do this one way or the other.

Someday people will support me for Torah knowledge, and I can spread such knowledge with true holy joy and total devotion to Torah. But for now this might be a far longer journey than I thought.

Parshat Vayigash 5768: The Five Men

This week Judah pleads for the freedom of Benjamin, and is so moving Joseph reveals that he is their brother in a fearful and tearful reunion. Eventually Jacob and the whole Mishpocha comes down to Egypt. They all live happily off the fat of the land of Egypt at the request of Pharaoh.

When Joseph presents his family to Pharaoh, he does something odd:

1. Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father and my brothers, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, have come from the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen. 2. And he took some of his brothers, five men, and presented them to Pharaoh. [Genesis 47:1-2]

The Hebrew text, Targum Onkelos, Targum Pseudo Jonathan and the Socino translation all note five men went with Joseph. Of course this creates two questions: Which five? And why these five?

To understand the rabbinic answer we have to understand their source for this answer: the blessings for the Tribes by Moses in Deuteronomy 33. For some of the tribes, Moses repeats their name as follows:

33:7. And this is the blessing of Judah; and he said, Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him to his people; let his hands be sufficient for him; and be you a help to him from his enemies.

33:18. And of Zebulon he said, Rejoice, Zebulon, in your going out; and, Issachar, in your tents.

33:20. And of Gad he said, Blessed be he who enlarges Gad; he lives as a lion, and tears the arm with the crown of the head.

33:22. And of Dan he said, Dan is a lion’s cub; he shall leap from Bashan.

33:23. And of Naphtali he said, O Naphtali, satisfied with favor, and full with the blessing of the Lord; possess you the west and the south.

33:24. And of Asher he said, Let Asher be blessed with children; let him be acceptable to his brothers, and let him dip his foot in oil.

Why repeat these six names? The rabbis differ on that question. Midrash Rabbah to Genesis states:

And why did the righteous Joseph take these five of his brethren? Because he knew who were the strong men among his brethren, and he reasoned wisely: If I present the strongest to Pharaoh, he will on seeing them make them his warriors. Therefore he presented these five, who were not mighty men. How do we know that they were not? You find them in the blessing of our teacher Moses. Every one whose name he repeated in his blessing was mighty, while he whose name he did not repeat was not mighty. [Genesis Rabbah - XCV:4]

Using this argument, The Midrash states the brothers who were presented to Pharaoh were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Benjamin, and Issachar, whose names were not repeated. Yet the Talmud and Targum Pseudo Jonathan have a reversed list:

Thus said R. Johanan that ‘they were those whose names were repeated [in the Farewell of Moses]. But was not the name Judah repeated too? He replied: The repetition in the case of Judah was for a different purpose, [Baba Kama 92a]

So If Judah was for a different purpose, we have the five brothers as Zebulon, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. We can see rabbinic commentary isn’t helping much.

Looking at this conundrum, I thought of two possible answers. One is a commentary on the commentators, the other on the text. Recently I was in a Talmud study session at my Synagogue, and we were studying a rather bizarre text about the biblical kings not allowed into the world to come. Among their atrocities:

Ahaz permitted incest; Manasseh violated his sister; Amon, his mother, as it is written, For he Amon sinned very much. R. Johanan and R. Eleazar [dispute therein]: One maintained, He burnt the Torah; the other, he dishonored his mother. His mother remonstrated with him: ‘Hast thou then any pleasure in the place whence thou didst issue?’ He replied: ‘Do I do this for any other purpose than to provoke my Creator!’ [Sanhedrin 103b]

The facilitator had one interpretation. This was part of a power struggle with the prophets. The law of Kings was struggling with the law of God. By violating the sacrosanct law of incest Amon tried to destroy the Torah. Our facilitator saw many problems and issues with modernity in his interpretation. Our group discussed, or was lectured to, on that point for quite a while. I never got to give my explanation, but my idea has a lot to do with the problem of which brothers were before Pharaoh.

I am of the opinion one cannot look at a piece of Talmud without understanding the people who were making these statements. In both the Baba Kama piece about the brothers and the Sanhedrin part about the incestuous kings one of the rabbis involved was the Amora R. Johanan. He lived at a time where most of Israel was overrun with Romans, many of them converts to Christianity. Given Roman oppression and increasing pressure to convert, most Jews were either converting or running away to the lands of the East, to the diaspora in present day Iraq. Torah knowledge was waning in Israel, and about 150 years after R. Johanan, scholarly work disappeared completely for close to a thousand years in the land. R. Johanan, seeing the warning signs, was instrumental in preserving that knowledge in the first Talmud, the Talmud Yerushalmi.

Alternatively, The Tanna R. Eleazar ben Azaria lived at a very different time. The time of the Tannaim were the times in the shadow of the destruction of the temple and the time of the massacres in the shadow of the Bar Kokba rebellion. The Jewish world was undergoing radical change, as sacrifice was no longer possible and Jews were severely punished and executed for the slightest offence.

For me, given this historical context, I saw something different in the Sanhedrin piece. This was not a fight between God’s law and Man’s law, but answering a question of why do people sin. For R. Johanan it was forsaking the tradition as a minority people for the majority. For R. Eleazar it was to spite the God who would allow such horrible things to happen to His people. My interpretation of the text was R. Eleazar was talking of the reaction to the Shoah of his day, R. Johanan to the assimilation of his time. After the session I told this to a friend of mine who had an interesting response: “I guess every generation has its answer”

It is these same two generations the Tannaim and the first Amoraim which flip the answers to which of Jacob’s sons appeared before Pharaoh. Both use the same proof text, but come up with different answers. These texts don’t give us enough information to make good assumptions, but there is one possibility I thought of based on the biblical text. With the exception of Zebulon, the brothers who appear in front of Pharaoh are the sons of the hand maids, of slaves. This was a prophetic message: Just as these were from slaves and are now free men, so too will we be free men again. How? Going back to the blessing we read of Zebulon

18. And of Zebulon he said, Rejoice, Zebulon, in your going out; and, Issachar, in your tents. 19. They shall call the people to the mountain; there they shall offer sacrifices of righteousness; for they shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and of treasures hidden in the sand. [Deuteronomy 33:18-19]

It will be by sea split into two so the people can walk on sand the people will go out, and then go to the mountain to offer sacrifices. Zebulon is there as another statement in front of Pharaoh.: We will go out and it will be by sea. For the world of R. Johanan, who saw the Jewish world once again beginning an exile, the five repeated names show a prophecy of exile and redemption as in Torah’s story of enslavement and the Exodus from Egypt we will begin reading in a few weeks. For the Tannaim of the Mishnah, showing your mightiest heroes meant they would get conscripted – or killed.

That at least is my idea. Midrash is more a reflection of the person giving it than necessarily an accurate description of events. Not only in my own mind games with the text, but even in Talmudic times was this true. The redactors of the Talmud, centuries after Johanan, added their own editorializing. Each generation does interpret things differently. In my interpretation, it’s important to remember that every generation has its interpretation.

Nitzavim-Vayelech 5767: The Oven and the Gates

Deuteronomy 29:9-31:30

This week, in a double portion we have the last of Moses’ speech to the people. One very well known passage from this week’s reading is this one:

11. For this commandment which I command you this day, is not hidden from you, nor is it far off. 12. It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13. Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14. But the word is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it. [Deut 30:11-14]

The phrase It is not in heaven, from Deuteronomy 30:12 is the key element in one of the most known, but often misunderstood stories in the Talmud. The first bit of the story occurs in Mishnah Kelim 5:10, which is a ruling about a type of oven and whether it is spiritually clean or not:

If an oven was cut up into rings, and sand was inserted between each pair of rings, R. Eliezer rules: it is clean; but the sages rule: it is unclean. Such an oven is known as the oven of Aknai.

The R. Eliezer of this portion is R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. The best summary given of him can be found in the Perkei Avot:

If all the sages of Israel were in one scale of the balance and Eliezer b. Hyrcanus in the other scale, he would outweigh them all. [2:8]

Yet Eliezer, the teacher of such powerhouses such as R. Akiba did not have such kind words for his comrades and students:

R. Eliezer said: Let the honor of you friend be as dear to you as your own; and be not easily provoked to anger; and repent one day before thy death. He also said: Warm yourself before the fire of the wise, but beware of their glowing coals, that you would not be singed, for their bite is the bite of a fox, and their sting is the sting of a scorpion, and their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their words are like coals of fire.[2:10]

Why such bitterness against his colleagues? It has to do with that oven. What happened during this debate is recorded in the Gemara to Baba Metzia:

It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. Said he to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!’ Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place — others affirm, four hundred cubits. ‘No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,’ they retorted. Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!’ Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards — ‘No proof can be brought from a stream of water,’ they rejoined. Again he urged: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,’ whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: ‘When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have ye to interfere?’ Hence they did not fall, in honor of R. Joshua, nor did they resume the upright, in honor of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined. Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!’ Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: ‘Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!’ But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: ‘It is not in heaven.’ What did he mean by this? — Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline. R. Nathan met Elijah and asked him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour? — He laughed [with joy], he replied, saying, ‘My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me.’[Baba Metzia 59b]

Most will look at this story in terms by R. Jeremiah’s comment and R. Nathan’s Elijah conversation. It is not in heaven is the clincher. The majority of scholars decide what are the rules, no matter how iron clad the argument is, or how much divine intervention is staged. R. Nathan’s epilogue paradoxically indicates that even God delightfully agrees with this.

The president of the court at the time was Eliezer’s brother-in-law R. Gamliel II. What happened next, yet often not told as part of the story is very significant, all of which had to be led by R. Gamliel:

It was said: On that day all objects which R. Eliezer had declared clean were brought and burnt in fire. Then they took a vote and excommunicated him.

In one day, over the cleanliness of an oven, a man’s life and career were destroyed. Formers students would not talk to him not respect him – no one would. His wife Imma Shalom, Gamliel’s sister, was put into a difficult position. Though losing a lot of status herself, she tried desperately not to let her husband pray to God about the hurt he felt about this one incident, that divine retribution would harm her brother. One day, she wasn’t able to prevent him,

[On her return] she found him fallen on his face [in prayer]. ‘Arise,’ she cried out to him, ‘thou hast slain my brother.’ In the meanwhile an announcement was made from the house of Rabban Gamaliel that he had died. ‘Whence dost thou know it?’ he questioned her. ‘I have this tradition from my father's house: All gates are locked, excepting the gates of wounded feelings.’

Before his death, Gamliel would suffer in a similar situation. Yet again, wounded feelings would appear, and again two from The Oven of Aknai incident would be in the center of it, though R. Gamliel and R. Joshua butted heads many times. After several insults against R. Joshua over a period of time in such matters, and some outrageous autocratic behavior in the courts, Gamliel was ousted from his position as head of the courts. R. Eleazar b. Azariah was appointed head. At one point Gamliel was even locked out of the building. Some of his rulings were overturned, and several issues were railroaded through. Gamliel, who despite these stories is usually known as quite the gentle soul even to his servants, does apologize to R. Judah and is for the most part restored to his position. [Berachot 28a-b]

This was a generation of superheroes of halacha, of Jewish law as formulated into our own time. They created a system that had the authority by majority to rule on matters of religious observance, and that such power was greater than imminent divine revelation was a great innovation and probably one of the most significant survival traits of Jewish thought since that time. Their names are attached to the major rulings found in the Mishnah. Yet they were fallible humans with feelings. Since R. Eliezer is not mentioned during the ousting of R. Gamliel it may be hard to place the two stories in sequence, or if the bad feelings and grudges from one effected the other. Yet one has to wonder. Here, and elsewhere in the Talmud, we have stories of Rabbis and hurt feelings. Even legends are human in the Talmud. Like any other two fallible people Rabbinic masters hurt other rabbinic masters too.

There are two sayings from these sections of Baba Metzia I try to remember. Ironically one from Eleazar b. Azariah, the Man Who replaced Gamliel after his ousting:

Since the destruction of the Temple, the gates of prayer are locked… Yet though the gates of prayer are locked, the gates of tears are not.

Ima Shalom said in the name of her father (i.e. Shimon b. Gamliel) :

All gates are locked, excepting the gates of wounded feelings.

The oven of Aknai is not just about the legitimacy of rabbinic authority and the formation of Halakah. It is not just about it is not in heaven. Instead, it is about the end of that passage, But the word is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it. How we do Torah and the commandments are just as important as how we express our thoughts and emotions in our words. All must be good when it comes to words. Hurting people with our mouth and heart is just plain bad, even for the sake of Torah.

The gates of repentance will open soon. We are told that those gates are about the repentance of our transgressions against God. They do not help against the continually open gate, the gate of tears, those transgressions against the hearts of our fellow human beings. The gates of bad feelings need closing in a different way. Like R. Gamliel, we close them by asking for forgiveness of those we offended. The greatest sages of all time were fallible enough to hurt those around them, even family. How much more so people like us! Like the Rabbis, in things we think seriously matter, we are even more fallible to hurt others. In our passion for a cause or a belief, we might even be blind to it being offensive. In my experience, I known I’ve been offended like this on occasion. Yet such experiences and the Oven of Aknai remind me I’m not immune either, I’m sure throughout my life and my enthusiasm for many of the things in my life I’ve offended or hurt someone. Although I have learned a lot about a media such as this one, I still make mistakes right here in my words I write every week. Like every year at this time of year, I need to stop, think about that for my writing and my life, ask for forgiveness, and try better next year.

So If I have offended you this year for any reason whether I know it or not, please forgive me. If you offended me, I forgive you too.

Hag Sameach: The Whole Megilah E- book

Hello Folks!

I had an Idea last night of something that can help both you and me

For several years I have been working on an illustrated translation of the Book of Esther, complete with Commentary from Talmud, Midrash and the two Targumim of Esther. I also included some of my own commentary interspersed through the commentary, sort of channeling Rashi. I also included some of my own watercolors of the women who make up the story of Esther.

This Esther translation was used at the Beth Emet: the Free Synagogue Retreat just before last Purim as one of our primary texts, with a lot of positive comments. It's funny sexy, and gives a view of the story as the R-rated book of Sex, Booze and Heads a'rollin the Talmudic Rabbis thought it was .

So for you blogging types, I'm going to make an offer to you. Send me an e-mail with your name and e-address. and I will send you a link to the site where you can download the E-book.

I'm building my list and wondering how many people read the blog or go to my website, so I'm gathering statistics, and when I start Publishing e-books next fall, I'll notify you directly. This information will only be used for that purpose. I'm not selling it to spammers or anyone else - its for my eyes only.

You can send your requests to shlomo@shlomosdrash.com and send a post with your name and the address you want the link sent to.