19.02.2006., nedjelja

Popis objavljenih komentara na paraša Mišpatim (scroll down)

- Sidra ukratko - lista zakona koji se obrađuju u Paraša - HR
- Sažetak - zakoni s kratkim komentarom - HR
- The Proscription against Interest in the Light of Modern Credit Economies - ENG (posebno za sudionike predavanja dr. B. Cohena 21.02.2006.)
- POUKA IZ ŽIVOTA: Sjeme uspjeha - HR
- Ropstvo i Tora u III mileniju - ENG
- Intelektualci, ovo je za vas! - ENG
- Protiv okrutnosti prema životinjama u Židovskoj tradiciji - ENG
- NOVO! - Još malo o posuđivanju novca i kamatama - HR
- Socijalni zakoni - rav Twerski - ENG
- Ima li u Tori mjesta logici? - ENG
- O važnosti zakona iz parašat Mišpatim (Raši i Ramban) - HR
- Judaizam u praksi: Šabat šekalim - HR
- PRIČA! - HR

- 17:07 - Komentari (1) - Isprintaj - #

Sidra ukratko - Paraša Mišpatim

Ova paraša nam donosi niz građanskih zakona koji se odnose na:
- Zakone o židovskim robovima i služavkama
- Razlike između ubojstva i nehotičnog ubojstva
- Štete i odštete za osobne ozljede
- Odgovornosti vlasnika životinja
- Opasnosti na javnom području
- Dopuštenje da se ubije u samoobrani
- Odgovornosti čuvara
- Zabranu uzimanja kamata
- Povrat izgubljenog vlasništva
- Stavljanje mita i korupcije van zakona

- 17:06 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

Sažetak paraša Mišpatim

Neki kažu da B-g gleda na detalje. Ova misao odlično ide uz ovotjednu paraša. Sa širokih područja moralnih i religioznih pitanja o kojima smo diskutirali u Deset Zapovijedi sada se fokusiramo na svakodnevne detalje života pod "savezom". Naša paraša donosi dugačku listu građanskih i vjerskih zakona i često se naziva Knjigom saveza.

Paraša počinje sa zakonima o židovskom robu, koji će raditi šest godina i otići slobodan u sedmoj godini. Ako odbije slobodu, uho mu mora biti probušeno. Odjeljak također sadrži zakon da čovjek ne smije uskratiti hranu, odjeću ili seksualna prava svojoj ženi. U nastavku se nalaze brojni zakoni o štetama, uključujući i dobro poznato pravilo "oko za oko, zub za zub", koje židovski zakon interpretira kao plaćanje odštete. Također, tu su i zakoni o štetama uzrokovanim od goveda koje ubode čovjeka, bez obzira da li je to već ono činilo ranije.

Paraša sadrži i zakone u vezi krađe i donosi razlikovanje među krađama počinjenima noću i danju. Noćni lopov smatra se prijetnjom vlasniku kuće i dozvoljena je upotreba smrtonosne sile. Dalje, tu su zakoni o jamstvu, koji uključuju štetu ili uništenje osobne imovine dok se nalazi u posjedu nekoga drugoga. Odjeljak sadrži brojne zakone koji reguliraju odnos prema siromašnima, udovicama i siročadi.

Paraša završava potvrdom prihvaćanja saveza, uključujući izjavu: "Činit ćemo i razumjet ćemo." Na samom kraju starješine "vide" viziju B-ga - izgleda da se u podnožju B-žjih nogu nalaze safiri. Moše se ponovo uspinje na goru za slijedećih 40 dana i 40 noći.
- 17:05 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

O važnosti zakona iz parašat Mišpatim

"I ovo su zakoni koje ćeš staviti pred njih" (Šemot 21:1)

Postoji vrlo poznati Rašijev komentar na početne riječi ove paraša: "I ovo". Inače, riječ "ovo" označavala bi isključivanje "onih" ("ovi" nasuprot "onih"). Međutim, Raši objašnjava da "vav" ("i" na hrvatski) koji prethodi riječi, mijenja značenje, odnosno podrazumijeva da zakoni koji će uslijediti su DODATAK na one koji su prije toga zabilježeni. Stoga, zaključuje Raši, upravo kao što su Deset Zapovijedi bile dane na Sinaju, tako su na Sinaju bili dani i zakoni iz parašat Mišpatim.

No, zar mi ne vjerujemo da su SVI zakoni Tore bili dani Mošeu na har ha-Sinaj? Ako je tako, u čemu je onda posebnost ovih zakona?

Možda odgovor leži u Rambanovu komentaru, koji objašnjava da je parašat Mišpatim bila dana Mošeu istog dana kada i Deset Zapovijedi (prije 40 dana i noći u kojima je Moše bio naučen ostatak Tore). Drugim riječima, naizgled svjetovnim zakonima o štetama i novčanim odnosima tako je dan status kojeg imaju Deset Zapovijedi!

No, zašto ova paraša ima isti status kao i uzvišene zapovijedi poput "Ja sam Vječni tvoj B-g"?

Prema Rav Moshe Feinsteinu, to nas treba naučiti da ako neki čovjek ne poštuje zakone iz parašat Mišpatim (financijski zakoni), to je isto kao da ne vjeruje u "Ja sam Vječni tvoj B-g"! Jer ako čovjek doista vjeruje u B-ga, tada on mora vjerovati da B-g ispunjava životne potrebe čovjeka. I, ako čovjek vjeruje da se Bog brine za potrebe čovjeka, tada zašto lagati ili varati ili počiniti bilo koji drugi grijeh "pokušavajući napredovati"?

To je razlog zašto je ova paraša izrečena na Sinaju, u isto vrijeme kao i neke od najvažnijih zapovijedi uopće - jer ti "zakoni" su jednako važni kao bilo koji drugi, ako ne i važniji!
- 17:04 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

PRIČA!

Reb Yisroel Salanter došao je u Šul jednog jutra izmoliti Kadiš za jarcajt svog oca. Običaj Šula je bio da jedna osoba kaže Kadiš u ime svih koji ga trebaju izreči. Reb Yisroel zapazio je da se tu nalazi i jedan čovjek koji je trebao reći Kadiš za svoju kćer. Bilo mu je jasno da je taj čovjek doista želio biti onaj koji će reći Kadiš. Reb Yisroel je odlučio dati tom čovjeku zehut da ga kaže. Nakon službe, svi članovi Šula prišli su Reb Yisroelu govoreći mu kako je on rabin ove sinagoge i da je on trebao biti taj koji će reći Kadiš, pošto on ima prioritet.

Reb Yisroel objasnio im je to ovako:“ Ja sam odgojen u domu gdje su me roditelji naučili da na isti način kako smo pažljivi u izvršavanju Micvot između čovjeka i Vječnog, moramo biti pažljivi da izvršavamo Micvot između čovjeka i njegovog bližnjeg. Naučili su me koliko je važno činiti hesed prema drugim ljudima. Jutros, kada sam vidio tog čovjeka, na njemu sam vidio koliko mu je važno da kaže Kadiš za nešama svoje kćeri. I shvatio sam da će, dajući mu priliku da ga on kaže, to biti najveći Kadiš koji mogu izreći za svoje roditelje!“

- 17:03 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

Judaizam u praksi: Šabat šekalim

Dok je postojao Hram, svaki Židov je imao obavezu ispuniti pozitivnu micva davanja pola šekela godišnje za kupovinu zajedničke žrtve koju je trebalo prinijeti na žrtveniku. Tokom te godine, samo doprinos od pola šekela mogao se koristiti za tu svrhu. Čak i siromašni ljudi, koji su bili ovisni o milostinji, davali su po pola šekela. To su činili čak i ako je to značilo da moraju posuditi novac od drugih, založiti nešto ili prodati jednu od svojih haljina, kao što je rečeno: „bogati da ne da više i siromašni da ne da manje od pola šekela " (Šemot 30:10).

Sve kovanice polovice šekela su trebale biti u Hramu do Roš hodeš Nisana, svake godine. Na Roš hodeš Adar išla je javna objava, da podsjeti svakoga na micvu, kako bi svatko mogao pripremiti svojih pola šekela i dati ga u određeno vrijeme. Petnaestog Adara sakupljači doprinosa bi sjeli u svakome gradu i ljudi bi im dobrovoljno donosili novac, no nikakva prisila nije bila primijenjivana. Dvadesetpetoga dana mjeseca, sakupljači su sjeli u Hram i otada je doprinos bio obavezan.

Naši rabini su odlučili da na zadnji Šabat prije Roš hodeš Adara treba iz Tore čitati odjeljak koji govori o doprinosu od pola šekela, pošto će u sinagogi biti prisutni svi i čuti će prvi prvi poziv za ispunjenje ove micva.

Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis
- 17:03 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

13.02.2006., ponedjeljak

Zbog čega je preljub toliko loš? (dvar na paraša Jitro)

Prije nekoliko godina moj kolega rabin u Chicagu je držao predavanje o Deset Zapovijedi sekularnom slušateljstvu. U svom predavanju čvrsto je branio smrtnu kaznu koju Biblija propisuje za preljub. Rabin je obrazlagao da bi društvo u cjelini, čak i danas, bilo mnogo bolje kada bi se preljub kažnjavao smrtnom kaznom.

Svaki od sudionika predavanja izražavao je glasno neslaganje, tvrdeći da je Biblijska kazna prestroga. Svi osim jednog mladića koji je tamo sjedio šuteći. Taj čovjek je propatio strahotne mladenačke godine najvećim dijelom stoga što je njegov otac održavao izvanbračni odnos. Kada je progovorio, sve što je rekao bilo je:” Ne vidim ništa loše u kazni koju Tora propisuje”. Njegove riječi učinile su da svi ostali slušatelji, koji su poznavalli njegovu situaciju, u trenutku ušutjeli.

* * *

Odjeljak Tore za ovaj tjedan, Jitro, govori o davanju Deset Zapovijedi na brdu Sinaj. Zašto je Bog izdvojio ovih deset? Analizirajući dekalog, mnogi komentari zapažaju kako se Deset Zapovijedi fokusiraju prvenstveno na odnose: između B-ga i čovjeka, između čovjeka i čovjeka, između djece i roditelja. Srž svakog uspješnog odnosa je vjernost, odanost. Bez toga, bilo koji odnos je prepun trzavica.

Ispitajmo neke klasične komentare na zapovijed koja zabranjuje preljub.

Nahmanides (13. stoljeće, Španjolska) opisuje naše odnose kao "ljestve ljubavi." On kaže da osoba prvo mora voljeti sebe, prije nego što može uspješno voljeti svog bračnog partnera. Tada, ako je stvorio čvrst odnos sa svojim partnerom, to će pomoći da izgradi svoj odnos sa Svemogućim.

I obratno može biti istina. Čovjek koji je nevjeran svojem bračnom drugu, najvjerojatnije će biti nevjeran i svom B-gu.

Midraš Mehilta kaže da je na ovu ideju aludirano pozicioniranjem zapovijedi na dvije ploče. Sedma zapovijed, zabrana preljuba, pojavljuje se nasuprot druge zapovijedi: “Nemoj imati drugih bogova pored mene”. Mehilta sugerira da ovo mjesto na ploči nije slučajno. To nam je znak da će onaj tko je nevjeran svom bračnom drugu biti nevjeran i B-gu.

* * *

Drugi pak midraš primjećuje da se hebrejska riječ za preljub, “tinaf”, može podijeliti u dvije riječi: “ten af”, što se prevodi kao “davanje gnjeva”. Midraš objašnjava da je preljub čin posebno odvratan Svemogućem, odnosno čin koji izaziva Njegov gnjev. Povijesno gledano, jedna od najznačajnijih karakteristika Židovskog naroda bila je stabilnost obiteljskog života. Onaj koji počini preljub krši i zanemaruje svetu tradiciju.

Rabin Avraham Ibn Ezra (12. stoljeće) kaže da preljub također krši zapovijed “ljubi svog bližnjeg kao sebe”. Preljub je težak grijeh protiv svog bližnjeg: postupanje prema bližnjem na način kako čovjek ne bi želio da se postupa prema njemu samome.

Maimonides tumači preljub snažnim, vječnim terminima. On kaže da je čitava svrha stvaranja uspostavljanje “šalom bajit”, sklada između muža i žene. Preljubnik uništava taj sklad, i nastavno na to, podriva samu svrhu stvaranja.

Rabbi Yehuda Appel

- 23:06 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

Osobna dimenzija (paraša Jitro)

B-g je na brdu Sinaj progovorio čitavom Židovskom narodu, a ipak, Deset Zapovijedi su izrečene u jednini - kao da B-g govori samo jednoj osobi

Odjeljak Tore za ovaj tjedan sadrži "Deset zapovijedi". Na izvornom hebrejskom, Deset Zapovijedi su sve izrečene u jednini.

U jednu ruku, Deset Zapovijedi su trebale biti upućene Židovskom narodu kao cjelini, jer da je i jedna osoba nedostajala, Tora ne bi mogla biti dana.

S druge strane, međutim, one su upućene svakoj osobi kao pojedincu, neovisno o bilo kome drugome. Svaki pojedinac primio je Toru na jedinstven, osoban način, prilagođen njegovim/njezinim unutarnjim, duhovnim i psihološkim potrebama.

Kada nešto dodirne našu unutarnju, osobnu dimenziju - ono pogodi našu bit. Tada ne možemo činiti jednu stvar, a razmišljati o nečem sasvim drugom. Postajemo neosjetljivi na vanjske utjecaje i sve što činimo činimo iskreno i s čitavim srcem.

Mordechai Wollenberg
- 12:19 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

Za petak navečer: Svrha zapovijedi (paraša Jitro)

Midraš donosi začuđujuću tvrdnju: on kaže da je prva riječ u Deset Zapovijedi izrečena na egipatskom jeziku!

The Ten Commandments are the climax of this week Torah reading and, in many ways, of the entire Torah. But the Midrash(1) makes a surprising statement: it says that the first word of the Ten Commandments is in the Egyptian language. What does this mean?

The Ten Commandments are the summary of the entire Torah. They were heard from G-d by the entire Jewish people. The first Command, "I am G-d, your G-d, who took you out of the Land of Egypt" is the basic statement of our special relationship with the Infinite. The first word, Anokhi, means, "I am." G-d is speaking of Himself, and communicating with us.

The Midrash is intriguing. It says this first word Anokhi is Egyptian, because G-d wanted to speak with us in the language we had learnt while we were in Egypt. This tells us something about the nature of Torah and of being a Jew. G-d does not want to relate to us only on the sacred, spiritual level of our lives, represented by Hebrew, the holy language. He wants to reach the earthly "Egyptian" dimension as well.

We should not try to pretend that we do not have this lower aspect. Rather, we should try to control it, then elevate it and ultimately transform it into something holy.

G-d helps us in this task: there are Jewish teachings about every aspect of life, including the most basic. The mitzvot (commandments) connect us to G-d on every level of our being. For this reason Anokhi, the first word of the Ten Commandments, is in Egyptian: it reaches down to the "Egyptian" person inside us and transforms him or her into a Jew. (2)

Meeting Point

The Sages tell us that every Jewish soul ever to be born was present at the giving of the Torah. This includes every single person who would ever become a true proselyte to Judaism. It was a moment of meeting of the entire Jewish people together, and a meeting of the Jewish people with G-d.

The recognition of G-d which was experienced at Sinai remains in the heart of every Jew, and is the spark of his or her Jewish identity.

Further, during his forty days and nights on Mount Sinai the entire Torah was revealed to Moses. The Sages tell us that "Every new idea which would ever be suggested by a scholar in discussion with his teacher - was told to Moses at Sinai".

Sinai was therefore the ultimate meeting point of G-d, the entire Jewish people and the Torah.

Tali Loewenthal

FOOTNOTES
1. Yalkut Shimoni to 20:2.
2. Based on the Lubavitcher Rebbe's Likkutei Sichot vol.3, p.893.



- 10:54 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

09.02.2006., četvrtak

Za petak navečer: Bit stvari

Za mnoge ljude glavni aspekt života je potraga za "smislom". Što to znači? - pitaju oni - što to doista znači? To pitanje postavljaju tinejđeri koji s cinizmom i podrugivanjem gledaju na svijet oko sebe. Isto pitanje postavljaju i studenti na sveučilištima, putnici koji putuju na Daleki Istok, kućanice dok stoje u redu na blagajni, poslovni ljudi na kraju radnog dana, stariji sugrađani dok sanjare na klupi u parku. Osoba i mjesto mogu biti različiti, no pitanje je isto: što je bit svega ovoga, što to znači?

Odjeljak Tore od ovoga tjedna daje nam vrijedan trag. Židovski narod napokon napušta Egipat u kojem su bili robovi mnogo godina. Sada će putovati prema zemlji Izrael. U tom trenutku Tora nam kaže: "I Moše je uzeo kosti Josipove sa sobom".1

Josip, prvi do kralja u Egiptu, zahtijevao je od svoje braće da nakon njegove smrti, kada će konačno napuštati Egipat, uzmu njegove posmrtne ostatke sa sobom, za mogući pogreb u Svetoj zemlji.

Ovo nam govori o središnjoj ulozi zemlje Izrael u svijesti Židovskog naroda. No ipak, pojam "kosti Josipove" zvuči pomalo zbunjujuće. Zapravo, ovo je riječ koju je upotrijebio sam Josip prije svoje smrti: "B-g će vas izbaviti i vi svakako uzmite moje kosti s vama".2 Zašto naglasak baš na kosti? Zasigurno se mogao naći neki finiji izraz, neki s više dostojanstva?

Ništa se u Tori ne nalazi bez razloga, pa tako i ovaj izraz ima određenu pouku za nas.

Na hebrejski riječ za kosti (atzamot) je blisko vezana za riječ "bit" (atzmiut). "Kosti" Josipove znače fizički kostur Josipov, okosnicu tijela. "Bit" Josipova znači njegova duhovna priroda, okosnica duše. Moše je uzeo lijes u kojem su se nalazili ostaci Josipovog tijela kako bi ga pokopao u zemlji Izrael, a uzeo je i bit Josipovu.

No, što je bit Josipova koju je Moše uzeo sa sobom? To je nastojanje da se voli i brine za drugoga, da se približi one koji se osjećaju dalekima.

Zbog čega je to Josipova bit? Kada je Josip rođen, njegova majka Rahel mu je nadjenula ime rekavši: "Neka mi B-g doda još jednog sina".3 Josip (Yosef na hebrejski) znači "dodati". Doslovno značenje ovoga je molitva da dobije i drugog sina, no hasidska tumačenja objašnjavaju da to daje dublje značenje Josipovom imenu i čitavom njegovom biću, da pomogne svakom čovjeku da bude dodan i uključen u Židovski narod, a posebno onim pojedincima koji se osjećaju udaljenima od zajednice.

To je bit Josipova i trajno nasljedstvo koje je ostavio Mošeu i Židovskom narodu - da se posvete tome da učine "drugoga" "sinom". Da nađu one koji se osjećaju udaljenima i pomognu im povezati se s njihovim korjenima. Da vole i da se brinu.

To je bit koju su Moše i Židovski narod uzeli sa sobom kada su napuštali egipatsko izgnanstvo i otpočinjali put prema Svetoj zemlji. To je i naša bit dok se spremamo napustiti naše Izgnanstvo i otpočeti put k Izbavljenju. To je bit Židovstva i bit života.4

__________________
1. Šemot 13:19.
2. Berešit 50:25.
3. Berešit 30:24.
4. slobodnije tumačenje Likkutei Sichot vol.26, p.85ff Lubavitcherskog Rebbea . [/I]


- 09:28 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

Gorčina života i kako je otkloniti

Došli su u Maru i nisu mogli piti vode u Mari jer su bile gorke...i on (Moše) zavapi k G-spodu, i G-spod mu da uputstvo u vezi drva koje je on bacio u vode i vode su postale slatke. (Izlazak/Šemot 15:23,25)

Baal Šem Tov tumači prvi stih sa zamjenicom "one" kao "oni", misleći na Izraelce, a ne na vode. Stih sada glasi "Oni nisu mogli piti vode u Mari jer su oni, Izraelci, imali gorčinu." U psihijatrijskoj praksi to je čest slučaj. Osoba koja je depresivna može se žaliti da sve što jede ima gorak okus. U tim slučajevima gorčina se ne nalazi u hrani, već u percepciji okusa te osobe.

Još češće od okusa, to se događa u držanju te osobe i tumačenju događaja u njezinom životu. U životu doista postoje nesretne okolnosti koje su objektivno gorke. No postoji mnogo trenutaka kada mi ocjenjujemo stvari gorkima, a da to one u stvarnosti nisu. I samo zbog naše iskrivljene percepcije mi ih smatramo gorkima. Takvo pogrešno shvaćanje često se može ispraviti ako sagledamo svoja iskustva kroz perspektivu filozofije Tore, a ne kroz rasprostranjena kulturalna stanovišta i njihove vrijednosne sudove.

Tora je ec hajim (drvo života), i za nju je rečeno da oni koji podržavaju Toru postići će sreću (Izreke/Mišle 3:18). Mnoge stvari u životu mogu biti neugodne, no naša reakcija i prilagodba njima može varirati, te tako možemo prihvatiti nevolje sa spokojstvom. Držimo li se smjernica Tore, mnogo gorčine se može otkloniti. B-g je pokazao Mošeu drvo, ec hajim Tore, kroz čiju perspektivu gorke vode mogu postati slatke.

Rabbi Abraham Twerski, M.D.

- 09:28 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

A Summary of Judaism

One of the ironies of modern Judaism is that so many of us consider the sermon to be the high point of the Shabbat service. In fact, a sermon in the vernacular is a relatively recent addition to the service, and our tradition, as a whole, generally minimizes the significance of preaching.

The Torah prefers to teach through the concrete examples of peoples' lives, or through the presentation of rules that make for a sacred and compassionate society. This week’s Torah portion is no exception to that general premise. Here, in very clear terms, the Torah presents a concise description of biblical and rabbinic Judaism:

Heed the Lord your God diligently, doing what is right in His sight, giving ear to His commandments and keeping all his laws.

The central focus of Judaism--from the liberation of our ancestors from Egyptian slavery to the present moment--has been the translation of Jewish values into acts of sacred obedience. As the Mishnah insists, "it is not the explanation that is essential, but the deed itself." Religions which focus primarily on matters of faith or true belief ultimately provide neither standards of behavior nor ingrained belief. Only those creeds which are hardened on the forge of actual living, which are refined in the bellows of daily practice are able to provide guidance and comfort in moments of crisis or despair. The greatness of Judaism testifies that true religiosity is demonstrated through godly behavior, rather than in an acquiescence to approved beliefs. The rabbis of antiquity recognized a special kind of love between God and the Jewish People in the very fact of our having been commanded.

According to the Mekhilta, it is through providing the mitzvot that God "bestowed greatness upon them." High standards are only demanded from people or issues who matter in one's life. The Mekhilta continues by explaining just what those standards are: "The voice of the Lord" means the Ten Commandments. "What is right in His sight" refers to praiseworthy conduct which are apparent to all humanity. "Give ear to His commandments" refers to decrees that accord to reason, and "all his laws" refers to those practices which have no reason but are simply performed because the tradition requires it. How striking, the wide range of Jewish responsibility! We are accustomed to think of Judaism in terms of specific rituals--lighting Shabbat candles, or keeping the dietary laws of kashrut, but the rabbis here explain that those decent practices which all humanity insists on--not murdering, fair business practices, not stealing--these too are a part of the fabric of Jewish living. Just because a deed or an insight is not unique to Jews does not mean it is not essential to Judaism. Yet, at the same time, those deeds which cannot be explained simply according to logic may be among the most essential. Civilizations cultivate and signify belonging through practices that are largely arbitrary. Why wear a tie around the neck? Why smear bright colored paint only on the lips? These practices demonstrate belonging and associated values--their justification has little to do with reason and everything to do with community.

So too, says Rashi (11th Century France), with those commandments in the Torah that appear to have no basis in reason. The commandment not to mix linen and wool in the same garment, to refrain from pork, and other such rules provide Jews with a common identity and a set of symbols which can remind us of the lofty values and moral impulse underlying all of Jewish practice.

Those inexplicable practices are the very foundation of Jewish civilization, the ongoing training grounds for Jewish belonging. Judaism--a network of sacred deeds--provides a path to holiness and goodness through the tangible acts of moral and ritual living. By cultivating the practice of mitzvot, the Jew learns to identify with a glorious and ancient history, to exemplify and caring and a rigorous morality, and to demonstrate reverence and obedience to the God who liberates slaves and who has chosen us in love. That same God calls to us now. Will you do something about it?

By Rabbi Brad Artson
- 09:26 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

07.02.2006., utorak

Akcija, a ne tek reakcija!

Tuesday, September 11, 2001, 8:46 AM. Hijacked jetliner, American Airlines Flight 11, bound from Boston to Los Angeles, deliberately crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center. 9:03 AM, United Flight 175, crashes into the south tower. WTC collapses shortly thereafter. 3,100 dead. And, as was said over and over again, the world changed forever.

We will never forget the moment that we heard the catastrophic news and where we were when we heard it. But has the world really changed? Have we really changed?

This week's Torah portion contains an insight that is extremely relevant to the proper Jewish reaction to tragic events such as September 11. This is all the more purposeful years after the WTC/Pentagon attacks, when, except for longer lines at the security check in airports, life seems to have gone back to normal.

God has just performed perhaps the greatest miracle of all time in the Splitting of the Red Sea. God did this in order to save the Jewish People from the Egyptians, and the Jews were very appreciative, bursting forth in spontaneous song.

There is a curious section in the Song of the Sea which describes the reactions of other nations to the news of the Sea's splitting, then coming back and swallowing the might and army of the Egyptian empire.

"Nations heard -- they are trembling. Terror gripped the dwellers of Philistia. Then the chiefs of Edom were confused; trembling gripped the leaders of Moab. All the inhabitants of Cannan melted." (Exodus 15:14-15)

It is true that the purpose of these verses is to show the impact of the great miracle upon the entire world, and the fear the nations had for the Jewish people. Still, there is more wisdom that can be gleaned from this segment of the Song of the Sea.

All of the nations of the world reacted with strong emotions to the destruction of the Egyptian empire and the salvation of the Jewish people. Some became angry, some became nervous, and some were afraid that their nation would be the next victim of God's wrath.

But did they do anything about it? Did they actively pursue ways in which they could avert disaster for themselves? Perhaps they should have come to convert to Judaism as Yitro did in next week's portion. Maybe they should have sent ambassadors to offer peace so that they could secure the friendship of the Jews. We do not find any of that. They simply did nothing. They felt great, powerful feelings but they let it stop there.

When we heard of the nightmare that was September 11, we all had a mixture of emotions. Newsweek recently reported that President George W. Bush described his initial reaction as, "I was furious that this could happen." Didn't we all feel anger at the evil perpetrators? We also felt afraid and vulnerable, nervous and worried. How many of us had great trouble sleeping that night as the horrific images kept playing back again and again in our minds? Would it ever be safe in the world again?

But after we experienced so many ripe emotions, what did we do about it? What can we still do about it?

Yes, we sit around discussing politics and we all love being armchair presidents and prime ministers. Yet, we know that the hours we spend planning America's next moves against Al-Qaida, though it may make us feel good, do not usually accomplish much of anything.

It's like the guy who was telling his buddies the division of roles in his household. "I handle all the important things like: whether we should go to war against Russia, how much taxes should be raised, and whether the speed limit should be lowered. My wife takes care of the small issues such as: where we should live, what school the kids should go to, and what kind of car we should buy."

So what should we do in the face of September 11? We first should realize that the world has not changed much. Human beings are very resilient and we have bounced back from the catastrophe. No longer do advertisers apologize for making us think of petty things like clothing and cars, and professional sports are back in full force. (This is not to minimize the pain of those who lost friends or relatives or those who have lost jobs. But, by and large, it is true.)

If we do feel pretty much 'back to normal' now, then we unfortunately share the weakness of all the nations at the time of the Splitting of the Sea. We must do something active in order to change and grow spiritually from September 11.

We know that whenever tragedy strikes, be it 9-11 or bombings in Israel, it is a reminder of the fact that we no longer merit Divine Protection. God no longer steps in to save us consistently as He did in the days of the Bible. Sure, there is divine assistance -- even today -- and miracles still happen if we open our eyes to them. But too often God lets evil succeed and does not protect us.

We have to be thinking of ways in which we can attempt to earn God's Divine Protection once again. What spiritual area can I improve in that will help myself, the Jewish nation, and the world become a safer place? Is it prayer? Is it Torah study? Is it acts of kindness? Is it avoiding gossip and thinking negatively about people? Maybe I did accept something upon myself September 11 or in the last 18 months as Israel has faced immense violence and deaths. Am I still keeping my resolution or have I forgotten what it was?

If we don't allow our reactions to 9-11 to become real spiritual actions that will last permanently, will there ever be anything that will move us? What else has to happen, God forbid?

Let us not become like the nations of the Red Sea. Let us act and not just react.

by Rabbi Boruch Leff
- 18:16 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

Kruh s neba

Shabbat. The very word evokes the image of a richly laid table, the glint of candlelight on silver, the aroma of chicken soup mingling with stewing cholent. The Torah tells us to honor the most spiritual of days with fine clothes and tableware and to delight in it with meat and wine.1 What on an ordinary weekday would strike us as extravagant and mundane, on Shabbat assumes an aura of holiness, as if the very nature of the material has been sublimated.

We know of Jews who scrimped and saved the entire week, who pawned the only things of value in their homes, to buy wine, challah, fish and meat for the Shabbat meals. There is even a law in the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) that legislates to what extent one may, and ought, to go:

The more one spends on the Shabbat, preparing more numerous and superior dishes, the better--as long as it is within his means. This also includes one who does not have money to spend but has possessions to pawn--he should borrow against them for his Shabbat expenses and the Almighty will provide him with the means to repay. It is regarding such a case that our sages have said: "G-d says, 'Borrow on My account, and I will repay.'"2 ... However, one who has nothing to pawn is under no obligation to spend beyond his means. Therefore, he should not borrow on the account that G-d will repay, since in such a case the above "guarantee" would not apply.3

In these few lines, the Shulchan Aruch expresses a profound truth about the relationship between Shabbat and the workweek, and about man's material involvements in general.

Let us examine this law more closely. Why this difference between one who has something of value to borrow against and one who does not? In any case, the pawned object will not be sold to purchase food for Shabbat--G-d Himself guarantees that "I will repay." Certainly, the Shulchan Aruch is not suggesting that we need an alternate source of funds "just in case" G-d doesn't make good on His promise! The pawning of an object, then, is a mere formality--G-d will provide the money to repay the loan. Nevertheless, without this "formality" no loan is to be taken out, since in such a case G-d does not commit Himself to provide for one's Shabbat needs.

But this is the Jew's approach to earning a living in general. The Jew believes that his sustenance comes from G-d, that "a person's earnings for the year are set by the Almighty on Rosh Hashanah"4 and no amount of effort and ingenuity on his part will increase it in the slightest. Why, then, work for a living at all? Why need the laborer toil, the artisan create and the businessman deal if, in any case, G-d will supply them with what they have been assigned on Rosh Hashanah? Because G-d has commanded us to fashion a "vessel" through which He then promises to channel His blessings--in the words of the Torah, "G-d shall bless you in all that you shall do."5 Our workday efforts, then, are nothing more than a formality, a natural "front" for a supernatural process. G-d provides our needs, without regard to such natural criteria as a person's expertise, capital and enterprise. On the other hand, G-d insists on this formality, promising the bestowal of his blessing only when man creates the vessel enabled by his natural talents and resources.

The Economics of Faith

At first glance, it may seem that there is little practical difference between the Torah's approach and the conventional approach that "my power and my physical might have generated this fortune."6 According to both approaches, one must utilize, to the utmost, the natural tools at one's disposal in order to earn a living, whether it is because these natural tools actually generate one's income or because they are needed as a "vessel" to receive a unilateral gift from Above. In truth, however, these two approaches result in radically different behaviors in work, business and money management.

What happens, for example, when a struggling shopkeeper is faced with the dilemma of whether to open his establishment on Shabbat? Conventional wisdom will dictate that more business hours will generate more income, positing that the shopkeeper must choose between his religious beliefs and his financial betterment. On the other hand, one who knows that his shop, and all the time and toil invested in it, is only a channel for G-d's blessing, understands the absurdity in expanding the channel in a manner that violates the will of the supernal provider. This would be comparable to reducing the fuel supply of a power plant in order to allocate funds for the construction of additional power lines, in the hope that this would increase the net output of the plant. Certainly, it is important to put up power lines; without them, the energy produced by the plant will not reach its intended destination. But simply pulling more lines from the plant will not generate more power, especially if such activity is to the detriment of the power's source. To violate the Shabbat (or any divine command, such as the prohibitions against stealing, lying, withholding payment from one's employees or debtors, dealing in merchandise that causes physical or moral harm to its consumers, etc.) to increase one's income is not only detrimental to one's spiritual health--it's also bad business sense.

Another difference between these two approaches is how a person views his contributions to charity. From the conventional perspective, money given to charity represents a reduction in one's financial resources. A person may still be moved to give out of compassion, duty or guilt; but he will weigh each dollar against the sacrifice it involves--what he is "giving up" in order to give. On the other hand, to a person who believes that G-d's blessing is the ultimate and only source of wealth, charity is an investment. Indeed, to give to charity is far more effective an investment than any business initiative: the latter only serves to construct the channel (the nature of which in no way determines how much will be funneled through it), while the former stimulates the source, as per the divine promise/command, "tithe, so that you may prosper."7 To such a person, it is also obvious that he will not "save" anything by disregarding the divine imperative to aid a fellow in need.8

Finally, these two approaches differ in the extent of their devotion to the building of a career or business. True, both concur that the natural effort must be made, that one must utilize, to the utmost, the tools at one's disposal to earn a living. But what exactly does "utilizing to the utmost" mean? To the person who sees his career or business as the source of his income, "the utmost" is an open-ended parameter: the greater one's efforts, the greater one's success, or, at least, the greater one's chances for success. Eight daily hours become 10 become 12 become 18. Second and third jobs are assumed to cover all possibilities. Plans and anxieties invade every waking (and non-waking) thought.

On the other hand, when a person sees his career or business as nothing more than a formality--as a vessel constructed at G-d's behest--"the utmost" is the utmost that G-d requires. Anything beyond that is a waste of time and effort. And what does G-d require? That we create a natural framework that would suffice as the receptacle for our most basic needs. Should He desire to grant us more than our most basic needs, He will do so--within that framework. Going to greater lengths will not increase the chances of this happening--on the contrary, it can only decrease them, by impinging on those pursuits and activities (prayer, Torah study, observance of mitzvot) that relate directly to the source of all blessing.9

The Precedent

Shabbat is the day "from which all other days are blessed"--on Shabbat we are granted, in the potential, all the spiritual and material blessing that the Almighty has chosen to impart to us in the course of the following week.10 So although Shabbat is a day utterly free of all material cares--a day on which we are to consider "all our work as done"11--it is also the day that establishes the precedent as to how we are to approach our workday endeavors.

Thus, on Shabbat we delight in food, drink and fine clothes. Wednesday evening, such feasting would verge on the hedonistic; on Shabbat, however, the pleasure derived from meat and wine is a holy pleasure, a pleasure that elevates its material embodiment instead of entangling the indulger in its corporeal trappings. This sublimation of the material establishes a precedent: now, when we enter the workday world--a world in which the mundane remains mundane--the memory of Shabbat empowers us to harness it to serve a higher, G-dly end.

And to procure our Shabbat pleasures, we enter a consciousness in which our faith in G-d's provision takes no account of our financial prospects. Borrow on My account, and I will repay! Pawn the family heirloom to finance a meal! On a Monday morning, such behavior would be nothing less than reckless; on Shabbat, however, we are establishing a precedent. Now, when we enter the workday world--a world in which we must be more cautious in our borrowing--we carry this mindset with us: it is G-d who provides, regardless of and despite the economic prospects of the "vessel" we create to receive His blessing. Regardless of and despite the effort we invest in this vessel beyond the minimal requirements mandated by the supernal provider Himself.

On the other hand, even on Shabbat there must be the formality of a conventional economic context in which the loan is acquired. Although we have not the slightest doubt that the Almighty, not the mortgaged collateral, will pay for our feast, we must still create the vessel. For such is the nature of the precedent that we are establishing.

The 40-Year Shabbat

The first laws of Shabbat to be specified in the Torah appear in the 16th chapter of Exodus. This is the chapter known as "The Section of the Manna" (Parshat Ha-Man), the chapter that tells the story of the miraculous "bread from heaven" that sustained the people of Israel during their 40-year journey in the desert.

Nothing in Torah is coincidental. The fact that the Torah chooses the story of the manna as the background against which to begin spelling out the guidelines for Shabbat observance means that Shabbat and manna are interrelated. Indeed, one of the very first things we are told about Shabbat, back in Genesis 2:3, is that "G-d blessed the seventh day and sanctified it," which the Midrash interprets as follows: "He blessed it with manna and sanctified it with manna."12 This link is also emphasized by a ruling by 10th century sage and Halachist R. Saadiah Gaon: If a group of Jews find themselves in the situation that they do not know which Torah-section is to be read on a certain Shabbat, they should read the section that pertains to Shabbat in general--The Section of the Manna.13

The link between Shabbat and manna is even more pronounced in regard to the Shabbat meals. The practice of eating three meals in the course of Shabbat is derived from Exodus 16:25, where the word "today" appears three times regarding the eating of the manna on Shabbat.14 The two challah loaves15 that grace the Shabbat table commemorate the double portion of manna that was provided each Friday in honor of the Shabbat; we spread a cloth under the challot and drape another cloth over them, for such was the manner in which we received the manna: protected, below and above, by two layers of dew.16

Indeed, the manna is to Jewish history--rather, to the history of Jewish labor--what Shabbat is to the workweek: a precedent.

What greater exemplar can there be of the principle that G-d is the sole provider of sustenance? The manna was nourishment that literally descended from heaven. No matter how much effort a person invested in obtaining it--no matter how much manna he gathered--he ended up with his precise nutritional needs for a single day: no more, no less.17 It was forbidden to set aside manna from one day to the next; those who attempted to do so found that their "savings" had spoiled.18 The manna trained the first generation of Jews to complete dependence and utter reliance upon G-d for their daily bread.

On the other hand, the manna was not a direct, unilateral infusion of vitality from the supernal source of life into the body: one had to do something to obtain it. "For the righteous," says the Talmud, "it came down on their doorstep. The average man had to go out and gather it. The wicked had to venture far to find it... For the righteous, it was bread. For the average man it was cakes of dough. The wicked had to mill it or pound it in a mortar."19 While the natural "vessel" that one needed to create differed from individual to individual (determined by one's relationship with the divine provider), even the righteous had to step out of their tents, pick up the manna, eat it and digest it. For--as in the weekly case of Shabbat--the precedent had to include an element of "channel building."20

The manna came to impart a dual lesson to the consciousness of a nation. Bread comes from heaven; gathering more won't get you more, and gathering less (as long as you do what is required of you) won't get you less. On the other hand, although the nurturing of man is a daily miracle, the miracle can be received only in a vessel of earthly construction.

Indeed, the blessing we recite after each meal (Blessed are you G-d... Who nourishes the entire world with His goodness, with grace, with kindness and with compassion...") is the very same blessing composed by Moses in gratitude for the manna. Ultimately, the bread we eat--bread we purchase with money earned through our respective professions; bread that is sown, reaped, milled, kneaded and baked--is no less "bread from heaven" than the manna consumed by our ancestors. Our challenge is to recognize what was obvious to a generation who daily saw their daily bread descending from the heavens.


Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe;21 rendered by Yanki Tauber


NOTES:
[1] "You shall call unto the Shabbat, pleasure; to the holy day of G-d, honored"--Isaiah 58:13. Halacha (Torah law) defines the obligation to pleasure and honor the Shabbat to include: (a) eating three festive meals, the first two of which should include at least two cooked dishes; (b) including in these meals warm food, fish, meat and wine (unless they cause a person discomfort rather than pleasure); (c) lighting candles at the place where the meals are eaten; (d) singing of songs in honor of the Shabbat (z'mirot) at the Shabbat table; (e) sleep; (f) marital relations; (g) washing and grooming the body before Shabbat; (h) cleaning the house for Shabbat; (i) dressing in freshly cleaned and pressed festive clothes; (j) setting the Shabbat table in a beautiful and luxurious manner; (k) setting aside of all weekday worries from one's mind (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Laws of Shabbat, 242:1-2, 7 and 11; 260:1; 262; 263:1; 280:1; 281:1-2; 306:1).

[2] Talmud, Beitzah 15b. ("A person's sustenance for the year is allotted him on Rosh Hashanah, except for what he spends on Shabbat and the festivals; here, the more he spends, the more is repaid to him"--ibid.)

[3] Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Laws of Shabbat, 242:3. SeeTosfot commentary and the Glosses on the Rosh on Talmud, ibid.

[4] Talmud, ibid. Rosh Hashanah, the first day of the Jewish year, is the day that G-d decides the fate of every creature. "On Rosh Hashanah it is inscribed, and on Yom Kippur it is sealed... who shall live and who shall die... who shall enjoy tranquility and who shall be afflicted with suffering, who shall grow rich and who shall be impoverished, who shall be humiliated and who shall rise" (from the musaf prayer of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur).

[5] Deuteronomy 15:18 as per Sifri.

[6] Ibid., 8:17.

[7] Ibid., 14:22 as per Talmud, Shabbat 119a.

[8] The Talmud (Bava Batra 10a) relates the following story: One year, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai repeatedly pressured his nephews, two wealthy businessmen, to contribute to charity. In the course of the year they gave, at his prodding, 683 dinars. The day before Yom Kippur they were arrested on a libelous charge of tax evasion and thrown into prison. Rabbi Yochanan assured them that the matter would be settled with 17 dinars. "How do you know?" they asked him. "In the beginning of the year," he told them, "it was revealed to me in a dream that it has been decreed that you will sustain a loss of 700 dinars. This is why I pressured you to contribute to charity, so that the money you give should supplant your ordained loss. The amount you gave comes to 17 dinars less than 700, so this is the sum that you will now have to part with."

[9] See Derech Mitzvotecha, p. 214.

[10] Zohar, part II, 88a. See footnote #12 below.

[11] Exodus 20:9 (as per Rashi's commentary).

[12] Midrash Rabba, Breishit 11:2. The simple meaning of this is that the Shabbat was blessed in that a double portion of manna was provided on Friday in its honor, and it was sanctified in that no manna descended on Shabbat itself, underscoring the holiness of the day (Midrash Rabba, ibid.). The Zohar, however, explains that the entire week's supply of manna was provided, in essence, on Shabbat, though its descent as a physical food was realized in the course of the week, as Shabbat is the day "from which all other days are blessed" (Zohar, part II, 63b and 88a; Ohr Hatorah, B'shalach, pp. 638-639; see section marked by footnote #10 above).

[13] Quoted in Sefer Ha'itim, Laws of Shabbat Blessings and Pleasure, 184.

[14] Talmud, Shabbat 117b.

[15] Lechem mishneh--the term is from Exodus 16:22.

[16] Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Laws of Shabbat, 274:1; ibid., 271:17. For the deeper significance of this dew, see footnote #20 below.

[17] Exodus 16:18.

[18] Ibid., 16:19-20.

[19] Talmud, Yuma 75, derived from Exodus 16:4 and Numbers 11:7-8.

[20] Thus, the Torah uses the idiom "rain" to describe the manna's descent from heaven: "G-d said to Moses: 'Behold, I shall rain down bread to you from the heavens" (Exodus 16:4). Rain comes down from above, but only because first "a mist rises from the earth" (Genesis 2:6); rain is thus the metaphor for a bestowal from Above that must be stimulated by human initiative from below. However, the manna is also associated with dew ("When dew descends upon the camp, the manna descends upon it"--Numbers 11:9) which connotes an utterly unilateral initiative from Above (cf. Talmud, Taanit 3: "Rain may be withheld (in punishment for wrongdoing); dew is never withheld"). The manna thus embodies both these elements: the concept that we generate nothing on our own and are sustained solely by the Almighty; the imperative to create a vessel "below" to evoke and receive the divine blessing. (See Likkutei Torah, Haazinu 73a-c and 74a-76a. For a more detailed treatment of these concepts see The Rain of Peace, WIR vol. V no. 9; Dew and You, WIR vol. I no. 9 (Vayeitzei).)

[21] Based on the Rebbe's talks, Shevat 15, 5737 (February 3, 1977) and on numerous other occasions (Likkutei Sichot vol. XVI pp. 173-182; see also vol. II p. 535, vol. XVII pp. 294-299, et al).

- 18:09 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

Anatomija čudesa

After describing how the Red Sea split to allow the Children of Israel to pass through its divided waters, the Torah relates:

And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea; and the sea returned to its strength at the turning of the morning...

Noting that the Hebrew word l'eitano ("to its strength") is comprised of the same letters as the word litna'o ("to its stipulation"), the Midrash says:

On the third day of creation, when G-d made the dry land emerge from the waters and caused the waters to be gathered together into one place, forming from them the sea, He stipulated with the sea that it should split to allow the Israelites to pass through it on dry land and then overwhelm the Egyptians. Hence, the verse can be interpreted to read: "And the sea returned to its stipulation."

This is one difficulty, however, with this interpretation: the above verse refers not to the sea's fulfillment of the imperative to divide, but to its returning to its former state. Yet wasn't the most important part of the "stipulation" that sea should, contrary to its nature, divide its waters? "Returning to its strength" seem to be little more than a resumption of its natural state.

One of the commentaries on the Midrash suggests an explanation based on the Talmudic account of a similar miracle. In the Talmud (Chulin 7a), Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair tells the River Ginnai to divide its waters; when it refuses, he says to it: "If you do not do so, I will decree that no water shall flow in you for ever." If the same were true of the Red Sea, then its returning to its former strength would be evidence of its having fulfilled its agreement with G-d.

A Conditional World

Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov extended this principle to the entirety of creation: at the time of the creation of the world all the objects of nature were created on the condition that they obeyed the will of the righteous, even if it ran counter to their normal physical laws. Furthermore, says the Baal Shem Tov, if they did not do so, not only would they cease to exist -- it would be as if they had never been created. In other words, had the Red Sea not divided, it would not only never have water again, its entire previous existence would be obliterated.

Hence the verse tells us that "the sea returned to its strength." In fulfilling of its agreement with G-d, it both assured its future continuity and at the same time ratified its past existence.

This point may be difficult for us to understand. For though we can imagine what it is for something to be obliterated, surely its past existence is an objective fact, which cannot be retroactively removed?

The mental block we have in comprehending this possibility is due to a two-fold secular conception to which our minds tenaciously cling: firstly, that objects have a real and independent existence, and secondly, that our time-scheme (in which we cannot reach back and change the past) is the only possible one. Both conceptions are false in Judaism. In the first instance, objects only exist because G-d continually creates them; in the second instance, time is a human conception, one by which G-d is not bound (indeed, one which G-d created and so, obviously, can stand aside from).

It therefore follows that if G-d decides to "uncreate" something, it is retroactively divested of its entire (i.e., past as well as future) being.

Hence, the term which the Midrash reads into the verse is "stipulation." The closest analogy in human terms to the sea's state of existence (and that of the entire created reality) is that of a conditional legal agreement. If the condition is not fulfilled, it is not that the agreement suddenly terminates, but rather that this establishes that the agreement never came into being in the first place.

The Strengthening of the Sea

But why did G-d need to make an agreement with the sea, and why particularly at the moment when it was created? His power over His creations is unlimited; certainly, He could have divided the sea when He wanted, with or without its "consent"!

The answer to that is to be found in the verse's use of the term "strength" (l'eitano) to allude to the sea's "stipulation" (litna'o). One might think that the fact that the sea's creation was "conditional" would mean that its existence is less real; in truth, however, the very opposite is the case: this is the source of its true "strength" and viability.

In his commentary on the first verse of Genesis, Rashi's interprets the phrase bereishit ("in the beginning") to imply that the world was created "for the sake of Israel and the Torah." This can be understood on two levels. In the more simplistic sense, this means that the entirety of creation exists to allow and enable the people of Israel to perform G-d's will on earth. A deeper understanding is that through Israel's fulfillment of the divine purpose in creation, the world itself is sanctified into becoming a "dwelling-place" for G-d and thus brought to its own fulfillment.

If the world would have been created as a something which must subsequently be "forced" to accommodate Israel's mission, its own "natural" existence would be finite and temporal, nothing more than a "background" or "setting" for -- even, at times, an obstacle to -- the unfolding of the divine purpose. But by stipulating at the outset that physical objects should change their nature when it was necessary for the sake of Israel's implementation of the Torah, G-d wrote this miraculous possibility into their very constitution. This means that when miracles occurred, this would not be an interruption of their natural existence, but its continuation and fulfillment.

This makes their existence of an entirely different order. They become not things which exist for a while and then pass away; but rather things whose destiny is (by the very nature of their creation) linked with the miraculous and eternal existence of Israel and their miraculous and eternal realization of the divine purpose.

Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe
- 18:07 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

05.02.2006., nedjelja

Pitanja za daljnje proučavanje

Ibn Ezra concludes from the wording “the people found fault” rather than “all the people” (as is stated in the case of the manna) that there are two parties, one that had no water – they strove with Moses, and the other that still had some left from Alush – they simply wished to put the Lord to the proof. To the fault finders, Moses answered, “Why do you find fault”; let us all cry to the Lord; to the testers, he said, “Why do you put the Lord to the proof”.

What is Ibn Ezra’s proof that there were two parties?

Find another passage in our sidra that lends itself to a similar explanation.

Is Ibn Ezra’s approach here similar to that of Cassuto or Ha’amek Davar or entirely different?

Cf. The following two passages:

“The people found fault with Moses and they said (va’yomru): Give us water” (2)

The people grumbled against Moses and (it) said (va’yomer): why then did you bring us out of Egypt! (3)

Can you explain the reason for the switch from plural in verse 2 to singular in verse 3?

Why does verse 3 specify as the object of kill: “me and my children and my cattle” rather that state briefly “to kill us with thirst” as in 14, 11?

The following question has been prompted by the comment of the Mekhilta cited in Rashi’s formulation on p. 280:

How could the Israelites regard Moses’ rod as being exclusively associated with punishment? Surely they had seen it divide the water?

Cf. Rashi we cited on Moses’ rod with the following comments of his:

“The Lord rained…” (Gen. 19, 24) reechoed in Job 36, 31: “for with them he judges the peoples, provides food in plenty”. When God wishes to correct His creatures he sends down fire from Heaven as in the case of Sodom, where He wishes to send manna – from Heaven: “I shall rain bread from Heaven on you”.

“Aaron returned to Moses” (Num. 17, 15): Why incense? Because the Israelites maligned the incense saying: It is a killer. It brought about the death of Nadab and Abihu, the burning alive of two hundred and fifty men. Said the Holy one blessed be He: I’ll show you that it can stop a plague: it is sin that is a killer.

“If the serpent had bitten a man and he looked”. (Num. 21, 8). The one who had suffered a bite was only cured if he looked at the copper serpent in the right frame of mind. Our Rabbis commented: Does the serpent really kill or bring to life? But when Israel looked upward and subjected themselves to their Father in Heaven they were cured, otherwise they pined away.

“Then Moses cried to the Lord” (17, 4) reflecting credit on Moses, indicating that he did not say: just because they are finding fault with me I am not going to intercede on their behalf: but in spite of that: “Moses cried to God”. (Mekhilta)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the difference between the way the Mekhilta here and Tanhuma (on p. 279) understand the phrase “then Moses cried”?

Where else can you find in the sidra a “cry” carrying the same connotation given it here by Mekhilta?


- 23:02 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

Udari po stijeni

Rephidim was the last in the series of murmurings reported in this sidra. In the first one we heard the Israelites bemoaning their fate when they caught sight of the Egyptians pursuing them (14, 10-12). The second occasion was when they arrived at Marah (15, 22-24); “they could not drink the water of Marah because it was bitter”. On the third occasion, when they entered the wilderness of Zin, they gave vent to their nostalgia for the fleshpots of Egypt. Here we have a fourth occasion where the people rose up against the Lord and Moses.

All the congregation of the people of Israel moved on from the wilderness of Zin by stages, according to the commandment of the Lord and camped at Rephidim; but there was no water for the people to drink.

Therefore the people found fault with Moses and said, give us water to drink. And Moses said to them, Why do you find fault with me? Why do you put the Lord to the proof?

But the people thirsted there for water and the people murmured against Moses and said why did you bring us out of Egypt, to kill me and my cattle with thirst?

So Moses cried to the Lord saying: What shall I do with this people? A little more and they will stone me.

(17, 1-4)

The above verses prompt a question. This is how it is formulated by Abarbanel:

Why the duplication of “the people thirsted for water and murmured”, when the text has already

alluded earlier to the lack of water and the grumblings of the people (5. 2)?

Do verses 2 and 3 describe a gradually increasing sense of bitterness? Was their sense of grievance soundly based? Cassuto maintains in his Commentary to Shemot that the Israelites here faced the greatest misfortune:

“There was no water for the people to drink”. This time the situation was much more serious than that described in the two previous accounts. At Marah they found bitter waters, and later in the wilderness, suffered from a rationing in their diet but now they were faced by the greatest misfortune of desert travelers: water was completely unobtainable.

“But the people thirsted there for water”: this tells us nothing new but gives, according to the conventional narrative technique, a detailed account of what was generally stated in verse 2, explaining what the murmurings that the people directed at Moses consisted of

According to this interpretation, the thirst alluded to in verse 2, is not to be regarded as a further stage in the aggravation of their feeling of thirst. They had already suffered from lack of water before coming to Rephidim, and there were therefore objective grounds for their bitterness, as Abraham, Rambam’s son has suggested:

Here their ferment was more intense than at Marah , because their thirst had become more aggravated, as the text bears witness: “But the people thirsted there for water “. Also at Marah they did find water, but it was bitter and they were, placated because Moses sweetened it. The very sight of water even if unfit for drinking is sufficient to relieve the parched; here however water was entirely non-existent.

But most commentators differ, regarding the dissention as an inevitable consequence of objective conditions of lack of water. Thus R. Eliezer Ashkenazi, in his work Ma’saei Ha-shem, understands their complaints to have been prompted not by actual scarcity but by the impossibility of storing it.

Evidently at Rephidim they had not enough water in their vessels. Their complaint was not just that they had not enough water to drink but that they always wanted to have enough in their vessels as standby. For this reason they had wanted to go easy with the water, not to drink all the water in their vessels. So it is stated: “They encamped in Rephidim but there was not water for the people to drink”.

The dissatisfaction of man with what he has, with what he is provided daily, his desire for an illusory security in the stores he has stocked up was reflected, as we have seen, in the Israelites’ attitude to the manna granted to them daily and only for the day, and in particular in the reaction of those who left some over for the morrow.

The reasons then for the people finding fault was not, as Cassuto makes out, the actual lack of water, which is, indeed, the greatest of misfortunes, but illusory need. This is how Ha-ketav Veha-kabbalah explains it, finding support for this interpretation in the actual wording of the text, in the anomalous Hebrew phrasing e mayim lishtot ha’am (“no water for the people to drink”). He comes to the conclusion from a comparison of texts (Num. 25, 17: zaroring”), that the Hebrew infinitive root form used here: lishtot has the implication of continuos action, in contradistinction to the gerund noun formation shetiya, “the drinking”:

Had it said there is no water lishtiyat – “for the drinking of” the people, it would have meant they had no water at all, not even in their vessels.

But since the text states “there was no water for the people lishtot—“to drink”, i.e. to keep on drinking from, the implication is that they had not enough for a continuous supply, but if they had wanted to ration their requirements, they would have had enough.

Both according to Ma’saei Ha-shem and Ha-ketav Veha-kabbalah the objective conditions were arduous, but not sufficiently serious to justify their outburst. Had they been willing to ration themselves, they would have had enough. But a more extreme attitude is taken up by Ha’amek Davar, who attributes their grumblings entirely to subjective factors, to the people’s lack of faith:

The text should have read simply “there was no water for the people” or “there was no water for the drinking of the people”. But the actual wording of the text implies that they were not thirsty at all, but the people said there was no water to drink, and Moses divined this and therefore reprimanded them saying: Why do you find fault with me, when you know I cannot do anything without God. If you wish, submit your complaint to God. “Why do you put the Lord to the proof”: Surely he knows that you are not really thirsty but that you only wish to put him to the proof.

We may now understand why their thirst is not indicated till verse 3 after they had already quarreled with Moses in verse 2, because earlier on, when the quarrel broke out with Moses “they were not thirsty at all but the people said that there was no water to drink”. According to Cassuto, verse 3 contains no more than particulars of what is referred to in a general way in verse 2. According to the Ha’amek Davar, verse 3 introduces a new stage not alluded to in verse 2. This is how Ha’amek Davar explains the connection:

“The people thirsted there for water”: the punishment of those who put the Lord to the proof overtook them, that they suffered real thirst, as alluded to in the Mishnah Peah (8, 9): “he who is in no need of charity yet takes, will not depart this world before he is reduced to the need of asking for it… and whoever is neither lame nor blind, yet makes himself like one of them shall not die of old age until he becomes one of them, as it is stated (Prov. 11, 27): “He that seeks evil shall get it”. In the same way those who grumbled of thirst without cause, gratuitously, were eventually reduced to it. With other generations the punishment does not come at once, but only in old age, whereas in the wilderness, the place of the manifestation of the Divine Presence, retribution overtook them immediately.

Only against such a background can we understand Moses’ reaction:

Why do you find fault with me?

Why do you put the Lord to proof?

If we accept the interpretation of Rambam’s son and Casuuto that their grumbles were objectively justified, or even if we accept that of Ma’saei Ha-shem and Ha-ketav Veha-kabbalah that there was at least, some justification, it is impossible to understand why their plea for water should have been called “putting the Lord to the proof”, According to the Ha’amek Davar, however, their murmurings were completely unjustified. Their demands involved the assumption that God was unaware of their real situation. According to this explanation we may readily understand Moses’ statement in verse 4, where he does not ask for water for them, but gives vent to the angry outburst: “What shall I do to this people? A little more and they will stone me?”

Moses did not use the affectionate term “my people”, as he did when he interceded for them after the sin of the golden calf, but the distant one of “this people”. The Almighty, on the other hand, understands the feelings of His people. They had still not shaken off the dust and mortar of Egypt; the taskmaker’s shout was still ringing in their ears and the swish of his whip was still not forgotten. His answer was full of compassion and understanding:

Pass on before the people and take with you some of the elders of Israel and take in your hand the rod with which you struck the Nile and go.

And strike the rock and water shall come out of it that the people may drink. (17, 5-6)

Two apparently unnecessary phrases in the above passage have preoccupied our commentators. What purpose is served by the phrase, “pass on before the people”? Two different views are represented in our commentators. The Midrash regards it as a rebuke to Moses for his impatience:

“What shall I do with this people? A little more and they will stone me”. Moses thus addressed the Holy One blessed be He: Lord of the universe! Whatever I do I shall be killed. You tell me not to order them about, but to “carry them in your lap as a nurse carries a suckling child” (Num. 11, 12), while they seek to stone me? The Holy One blessed be He answered Moses: Is that the way you talk? Pass on before the people and we shall see who will stone you! He began to pass before them. All the Israelites stood up as he passed by and behaved with the greatest respect and reverence. The Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: How often have I told you not to order them about, but to lead them like a shepherd his flock; remember it was for their sake that I brought you out of Egypt and on account of them will you find favour, grace, life and honour before Me. (Midrash Tanhumah Beshallah 22)

Rashi, with his customary pithiness, condenses this same idea into his comments on: “Pass on before the people”:

And see if they stone you. Why have you slandered My children?

The Zohar is even more explicit in its account of God’s defense of Israel against Moses’ accusation:

So it is always the case that the Holy One blessed be He stands up for the rights of the righteous more than his own. Here Moses complained: “Soon they will stone me”. God replied: Now is not the time to stand up for your rights but pass over before the people and we shall see who will dare to raise his hand against you. Are you in their power or in Mine?

But or Ha-hayyim regards this phrase not as a rebuke to Moses for his outburst, but as indicating the Almighty’s fatherly concern for Israel:

The Lord told him to pass before the people out of concern for the safety of the people, knowing that they were suffering from thirst and their lives might be endangered if they waited much longer. Pass on before the people so that they should thereby know that you are going to find water, in order to allay their burning thirst in the meantime.

The second apparently unnecessary phrase “with which you struck the Nile” has been the subject of comment by our sages in Mekhilta. Here it is as formulated by Rashi ad loc:

“The rod with which you struck the Nile” – What is the point of this phrase? But the Israelites used to say that the rod was only designed for inflicting punishment – it inflicted the plagues on Pharaoh in Egypt. For this reason the text states: “with which you struck the Nile” – let them now see that it is designed also for bringing good fortune.

The lesson of this is clear: Objects have no independently good or bad uses, neither have the forces of nature; it is God who uses them for His own needs, and man has only to fear God.

- 22:59 - Komentari (1) - Isprintaj - #

  veljača, 2006 >
P U S Č P S N
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28          


Dnevnik.hr
Gol.hr
Zadovoljna.hr
Novaplus.hr
NovaTV.hr
DomaTV.hr
Mojamini.tv

Komentari On/Off

Ovdje ćete naći promišljanja na teme tjednog odjeljka iz Tore iz usta/olovke/tastature prominentnih židovskih mislilaca



......... Jerušalajim

BEREŠIT:

ŠEMOT:
Mišpatim
Jitro
Bešalah
Vaera
Vajakhel
Ki Tisa
Tecave
Ki Tisa
Vajakhel

VAJIKRA:

BAMIDBAR:

DEVARIM:

BLAGDANI: