It was just after the Exodus that Moshe commanded the Israelites in the name of G-d to give the half shekel contribution, "the rich shall not give more, nor shall the poor give less, to atone for their souls".
The Midrash records that as Moshe was puzzled by this command, G-d pulled out a fiery half-shekel coin from under His Throne of Glory and announced, "This they shall give".
But what is so hard to understand about a command to give a coin towards the Temple? And if there is some difficulty, how is it resolved by a "fiery coin from under the Throne of Glory"?
In explanation of this Midrash, the Lubavitcher Rebbe explains that what bothered Moses was how could money, the archetype of materialism, atone for a sin as serious as the worshiping of the golden calf.
By showing him a fiery coin, G-d was saying, "Moshe, you are right. It is only money, and money on its own cannot achieve atonement. However when it is a fiery half-shekel, a half-shekel given with soul and enthusiasm, then even money can reach right under the Divine Throne of Glory."
But note: G-d didn't show Moshe merely fire, He showed him a coin of fire.
It is true than one requires fire, but one only also requires the coin. And a very specific coin at that. Not a shekel, not a quarter of a shekel, but a half a shekel. The rich were not permitted to give more, nor were the poor permitted to give less.
Why?
Herein lies one of the great truths of Judaism.
There are many people who think that Judaism is all about feelings, that emotions speak louder than actions, that religion is all in the heart, "I'm a Jew in my heart", goes the common refrain.
We often hear the Jew say:
I acknowledge that in order to make my life meaningful there needs to be a point of contact between me and G-d. There are times when my heart spontaneously overflows with a love of G-d, a love of being Jewish, and a love of all creation. But what makes it real is the fact that it is unrestrained, that it is spontaneous. I cannot identify with these so very specific religious practices. Eat precisely this amount of matzah, make sure your tallit is the right size, light Shabbat candles at exactly the right time. It's in your heart, man!
What this Jew fails to understand is that when you do things merely because you feel like doing them, and when and where your emotions dictate, what you are actually saying is that you want G-d when and where you want Him, but you don't want Him to define YOUR when and YOUR where, your time and your space. What you are saying is I want G-d to be there for ME, to fill my spiritual needs, but I don't want Him to invade my time and my space, and certainly not my body.
Says G-d, "I want your heart, I want your enthusiasm, I want your warmth. Your feelings are so very important to me - performing a mitzvah without feeling is like having a soul without a body.
"But I also want your body. And I want your feelings to be translated into real time and real space. I want you to mould your world around me. I want you to define what's good for your body on my terms - eat kosher - and hence create a consecrated body. I want you to define your time along my lines - keep Shabbos precisely when I say so - and hence create consecrated time. I want you to have a tallit of the right dimensions - and hence create consecrated space."
Says G-d: "I want the fire, but I want the half-shekel, too."
Friday, February 25, 2005
Friday, February 18, 2005
On Being Jewish and Democratic
Those in shule last Friday night heard Major General Uzi Dayan, a nephew of the famous Moshe Dayan, and a formidable military man in his own right, speak on the Security Fence.
Actually, he was supposed to speak on the Security Fence. Instead, the General chose to speak on what he called the bigger strategic issue. Terrorism, he explained, was not an existential threat to Israel. There would be casualties but it could be dealt with. The real threat was the demographic time-bomb. By 2020 there would be an Arab majority between the Mediteranian and the Jordon River. To counter this, Israel had only one choice - to shrink to a size that assured a Jewish majority within its borders.
The reason why Israel should withdraw from the territories, explained Dayan, had absolutely nothing to do with the Arabs or reducing the threat of terror. Abbas could not be counted upon to control the terror in the long term and it was not in his interest to do so. The only hope Israel had of dealing with the threat of terror was an exceedingly strong IDF.
Israel must unilaterally withdraw from the territories for one reason only - so that it's Jewish Democratic integrity could be maintained. Dayan then went on to explain that it was he who convinced Sharon of the need for unilateral withdrawal in 2002.
The above is a brief but, I believe, accurate summary of what Major General Dayan said.
The rest is commentary...
For three decades we heard from the left the mantra of "Land for Peace". After Oslo, after the withdrawal from Lebanon and after Barak's attempt to give away the Temple Mount led to the murderous intifada, the bankruptcy of this slogan became patently obvious to all. You would have expected the architects of withdrawal to move shamefacedly and quietly into a corner. And we would have had to forgive them for making a sincere but fatal mistake.
But no. They have miraculously managed to reappear with greater force than before, but with a slightly altered slogan. "Land for Democracy".
Of course, there is nothing new or surprising in this. Prime Minister Sharon has convincingly demonstrated that the only way to deal with Arab terror was by crushing it, not by negotiation or giving land, and he has been eminently successful. Indeed so successful that other countries now seek out Israel's expertise in this area. Similarly, the mantra of "the need to maintain a Jewish Democratic State" has been endlessly repeated for the last couple of years.
Still I wonder how many people fully grasp what is being said: The withdrawal from Gaza has nothing to do with security and everything to do with maintaining a Democratic Jewish State.
To put it bluntly: the withdrawal from Gaza is for ideological reasons. It is taken as a given that the Palestinian Arabs should all be given the vote - something that they have nowhere else in the Middle East (with the exception of Iraq...). And because giving them the vote will overturn the Jewish majority in Israel, we must shrink Israel. (Question: What happens when the Arab majority in the Gallillee democratically votes to secede and join the new Palestinian State?)
No one deems the moral question of giving the vote to our sworn enemies even worth pondering. Rather than how can we give murderers and terrorists the vote, the question asked is how can we not give them the vote. Doesn't it occur to the government to put first things first? First let them educate their children for peace, first let them put an end to the media, educational institutions and text-books nurturing hatred, anti-Semitism and murder. After that we can deal with democracy and borders. Wasn't there de-Nazification after WWII before Germany was given democracy?
Why is it that Jews do what gentiles would never dream of doing? What are we trying to prove and to whom? Does anyone really believe that someone is going to applaud us?
So then we hear the argument that we are not doing it for them. We are doing it for ourselves. It's about our need to maintain the moral high ground.
The moral high ground? Jews telling Jews that there are certain places that they may not live is moral and ethical? If a non-Jewish government would say that Jews cannot live in certain suburbs of Sydney there would be an outcry. But it's OK for Jews to force Jews out of parts of Israel?!?!
And even if you believe in democracy above everything, is what is being put forward here democracy? It is part of the democratic tradition in all normal countries that individuals are protected against unfairness from government. That if people are attacked, robbed and murdered, they are not told by government to move to another area and give their homes, lands and businesses away to their oppressors - but are rather protected by their government. Indeed it is the very first responsibility of any government to protect even individual citizens. That is the democratic tradition!
What is being put forward here is not democracy at all, but a perversion of democracy. It's a case of Jews doing what we have historically done all too often. Making nice for the gentiles at the expense of our own.
And to think that it is those who wish to maintain possession of the territories for religious or nationalistic reasons who are called the ideologues!
Let no one say that religion is dead. It's just got a different name - Secular Democracy (or a perverted version of it) - and those who pursue it, do so with a passion and irrationality that would put many traditionally religious people to shame.
We believe and trust that "the Guardian of Israel neither sleeps nor slumbers." But as so often in the past, we have given Him a really tough job - protecting us against ourselves. Let's pray that He does a good job of it!
Actually, he was supposed to speak on the Security Fence. Instead, the General chose to speak on what he called the bigger strategic issue. Terrorism, he explained, was not an existential threat to Israel. There would be casualties but it could be dealt with. The real threat was the demographic time-bomb. By 2020 there would be an Arab majority between the Mediteranian and the Jordon River. To counter this, Israel had only one choice - to shrink to a size that assured a Jewish majority within its borders.
The reason why Israel should withdraw from the territories, explained Dayan, had absolutely nothing to do with the Arabs or reducing the threat of terror. Abbas could not be counted upon to control the terror in the long term and it was not in his interest to do so. The only hope Israel had of dealing with the threat of terror was an exceedingly strong IDF.
Israel must unilaterally withdraw from the territories for one reason only - so that it's Jewish Democratic integrity could be maintained. Dayan then went on to explain that it was he who convinced Sharon of the need for unilateral withdrawal in 2002.
The above is a brief but, I believe, accurate summary of what Major General Dayan said.
The rest is commentary...
For three decades we heard from the left the mantra of "Land for Peace". After Oslo, after the withdrawal from Lebanon and after Barak's attempt to give away the Temple Mount led to the murderous intifada, the bankruptcy of this slogan became patently obvious to all. You would have expected the architects of withdrawal to move shamefacedly and quietly into a corner. And we would have had to forgive them for making a sincere but fatal mistake.
But no. They have miraculously managed to reappear with greater force than before, but with a slightly altered slogan. "Land for Democracy".
Of course, there is nothing new or surprising in this. Prime Minister Sharon has convincingly demonstrated that the only way to deal with Arab terror was by crushing it, not by negotiation or giving land, and he has been eminently successful. Indeed so successful that other countries now seek out Israel's expertise in this area. Similarly, the mantra of "the need to maintain a Jewish Democratic State" has been endlessly repeated for the last couple of years.
Still I wonder how many people fully grasp what is being said: The withdrawal from Gaza has nothing to do with security and everything to do with maintaining a Democratic Jewish State.
To put it bluntly: the withdrawal from Gaza is for ideological reasons. It is taken as a given that the Palestinian Arabs should all be given the vote - something that they have nowhere else in the Middle East (with the exception of Iraq...). And because giving them the vote will overturn the Jewish majority in Israel, we must shrink Israel. (Question: What happens when the Arab majority in the Gallillee democratically votes to secede and join the new Palestinian State?)
No one deems the moral question of giving the vote to our sworn enemies even worth pondering. Rather than how can we give murderers and terrorists the vote, the question asked is how can we not give them the vote. Doesn't it occur to the government to put first things first? First let them educate their children for peace, first let them put an end to the media, educational institutions and text-books nurturing hatred, anti-Semitism and murder. After that we can deal with democracy and borders. Wasn't there de-Nazification after WWII before Germany was given democracy?
Why is it that Jews do what gentiles would never dream of doing? What are we trying to prove and to whom? Does anyone really believe that someone is going to applaud us?
So then we hear the argument that we are not doing it for them. We are doing it for ourselves. It's about our need to maintain the moral high ground.
The moral high ground? Jews telling Jews that there are certain places that they may not live is moral and ethical? If a non-Jewish government would say that Jews cannot live in certain suburbs of Sydney there would be an outcry. But it's OK for Jews to force Jews out of parts of Israel?!?!
And even if you believe in democracy above everything, is what is being put forward here democracy? It is part of the democratic tradition in all normal countries that individuals are protected against unfairness from government. That if people are attacked, robbed and murdered, they are not told by government to move to another area and give their homes, lands and businesses away to their oppressors - but are rather protected by their government. Indeed it is the very first responsibility of any government to protect even individual citizens. That is the democratic tradition!
What is being put forward here is not democracy at all, but a perversion of democracy. It's a case of Jews doing what we have historically done all too often. Making nice for the gentiles at the expense of our own.
And to think that it is those who wish to maintain possession of the territories for religious or nationalistic reasons who are called the ideologues!
Let no one say that religion is dead. It's just got a different name - Secular Democracy (or a perverted version of it) - and those who pursue it, do so with a passion and irrationality that would put many traditionally religious people to shame.
We believe and trust that "the Guardian of Israel neither sleeps nor slumbers." But as so often in the past, we have given Him a really tough job - protecting us against ourselves. Let's pray that He does a good job of it!
Friday, February 11, 2005
Aristotle and Maimonides
When the Jewish People were offered the Torah on Mount Sinai, they responded, “We will do and we will understand.”
But what is more important, unquestioning doing or meaningful understanding?
The two parashiot that refer to the giving of the Torah are Yitro and Mishpatim. Yet there is a difference between them. Whereas Yitro primarily discusses the Great Sound and Light Show that occurred on Mt Sinai, and the Revelation of G-d as He spoke the Ten Commandments, Mishpatim mainly deals with the intricacies of Jewish civil law. Indeed, Mishpatim is the foundation of the major Talmudic tractates Bava Kama, Bave Metzia, Bava Batra and Sanhedrin upon which the entire body of Jewish jurisprudence is based. Now although everything that is stated in these tractates is Divinely inspired, and we are mandated to follow them as if they were given directly by G-d, it was human beings who, based on the Torah’s rules and principles, created this awesome body of work.
The reason why the Jewish sages of old were able to develop the relatively small parasha of Mishpatim into an entire legal framework is because it was based on sound logical principles. This is different to the commandments of Kashrut, or Shatnez and Impurity, which we accept as Divine decrees, but which we don’t truly understand. (In Torah terminology, laws that lend themselves to human understanding are called mishpatim; those that don’t are called chukim.)
So put it in another way: Yitro deals with G-d’s gift of the Torah, whereas Mishpatim deals with the Jewish People’s understanding and development of it (or at least of those parts of Torah that are humanly accessible.)
Interestingly, parashat Mishpatim is the eighteenth parasha of the Torah, whereas parashat Yitro is the seventeenth.
Is there perhaps some significance in this?
The Lubavitcher Rebbe points out that eighteen – chai – refers to life, whereas seventeen is the gematria of tov – good.
The ultimate good is G-d, as is understood from the English word for G-d.
Life, on the other hand, refers to something that you can grasp, something that you can understand, something that you can really enjoy - to the extent that it becomes part and parcel of you. It is interesting that the Hebrew word for taste is the same as the Hebrew word for reason – Taam. If you understand something it has taste. It is, as we say in Yiddish, gishmak! And it is certainly alive.
However at the beginning of Mishpatim there is a Vav, meaning AND. The AND connects the two parshiot of Yitro and Mishpatim. Rashi points out the deep significance of this. Don’t think that your understanding can be independent of G-d. Rather just as you acknowledge the Divine Source of those laws that you don’t understand, you must similarly acknowledge the Divine Source of those laws that you do understand. It is just that in some cases G-d has allowed His Wisdom to be understandable by us, and in some not. It all however comes from the same source – G-d.
This is an important principle not only in understanding the source of Jewish Civil Law, but in understanding both the greatness and limitations of human understanding.
The Hebrew word for Wisdom is Chochmo. And the Kabbalists point out that this word contains within it two words: Koach Mah, literally “The Power of What”. To be truly wise, one has to have the power to see beyond Wisdom, to stand in amazement and wonder as you are overwhelmed by the “What”. And to understand that Wisdom itself is sourced in that which is above it.
Even mathematicians now acknowledge that there are certain things that they just have to accept, as they can never be proven. In Chassidic Philosophy we find it stated that the hanachot rishonot - the axioms - of any scientific discipline are beyond logic and can never be proven. This is an indication that intellect and logic has a source beyond itself.
Early in the twentieth century there were philosophers – Bertrand Russell among them - who were very uncomfortable with this. They just did not want to accept that there were things beyond human comprehension in as an exact a discipline as mathematics. However the German mathematician Kurt Godel proved it once and for all. (You can read about all about this in Simon Singh’s amazing best-seller, Fermat’s Last Theorem).
Both Aristotle and Maimonides were great philosophers and both believed in G-d. But as Rabbi Sholom Ber of Lubavitch points out there was a big difference between them. He explains it by way of a metaphor. Belief in G-d is a non-dimensional point. Logic is the circle drawn around that point. Maimonides commenced with the point and drew the circle around it. The centre was clear and the circle even and beautiful. Aristotle commenced with the circle and tried to reach the point. The circle was uneven, and he never truly reached the centre.
Accepting that there is something beyond our logic, being able to stand in amazement at the awesome WHAT, not only humbles us and centres us in Truth, it enables us to think clearly and logically as well. When, however, we commence with logic that is devoid of belief in the hope that we will work it out for ourselves, even should we be as wise as Aristotle, both our logic and our faith will be flawed.
Let us return to our original question. What is more important; the unquestioning doing or the meaningful understanding?
Both of course. This is why the angels placed two crowns on the head of every Jew at Sinai – one for Naaseh – we will do and one for Nishma – we will understand.
However that wise generation of Jews understood that the Naaseh must always come before the Nishma. For it is in the Naaseh that the Nishma is ultimately rooted.
But what is more important, unquestioning doing or meaningful understanding?
The two parashiot that refer to the giving of the Torah are Yitro and Mishpatim. Yet there is a difference between them. Whereas Yitro primarily discusses the Great Sound and Light Show that occurred on Mt Sinai, and the Revelation of G-d as He spoke the Ten Commandments, Mishpatim mainly deals with the intricacies of Jewish civil law. Indeed, Mishpatim is the foundation of the major Talmudic tractates Bava Kama, Bave Metzia, Bava Batra and Sanhedrin upon which the entire body of Jewish jurisprudence is based. Now although everything that is stated in these tractates is Divinely inspired, and we are mandated to follow them as if they were given directly by G-d, it was human beings who, based on the Torah’s rules and principles, created this awesome body of work.
The reason why the Jewish sages of old were able to develop the relatively small parasha of Mishpatim into an entire legal framework is because it was based on sound logical principles. This is different to the commandments of Kashrut, or Shatnez and Impurity, which we accept as Divine decrees, but which we don’t truly understand. (In Torah terminology, laws that lend themselves to human understanding are called mishpatim; those that don’t are called chukim.)
So put it in another way: Yitro deals with G-d’s gift of the Torah, whereas Mishpatim deals with the Jewish People’s understanding and development of it (or at least of those parts of Torah that are humanly accessible.)
Interestingly, parashat Mishpatim is the eighteenth parasha of the Torah, whereas parashat Yitro is the seventeenth.
Is there perhaps some significance in this?
The Lubavitcher Rebbe points out that eighteen – chai – refers to life, whereas seventeen is the gematria of tov – good.
The ultimate good is G-d, as is understood from the English word for G-d.
Life, on the other hand, refers to something that you can grasp, something that you can understand, something that you can really enjoy - to the extent that it becomes part and parcel of you. It is interesting that the Hebrew word for taste is the same as the Hebrew word for reason – Taam. If you understand something it has taste. It is, as we say in Yiddish, gishmak! And it is certainly alive.
However at the beginning of Mishpatim there is a Vav, meaning AND. The AND connects the two parshiot of Yitro and Mishpatim. Rashi points out the deep significance of this. Don’t think that your understanding can be independent of G-d. Rather just as you acknowledge the Divine Source of those laws that you don’t understand, you must similarly acknowledge the Divine Source of those laws that you do understand. It is just that in some cases G-d has allowed His Wisdom to be understandable by us, and in some not. It all however comes from the same source – G-d.
This is an important principle not only in understanding the source of Jewish Civil Law, but in understanding both the greatness and limitations of human understanding.
The Hebrew word for Wisdom is Chochmo. And the Kabbalists point out that this word contains within it two words: Koach Mah, literally “The Power of What”. To be truly wise, one has to have the power to see beyond Wisdom, to stand in amazement and wonder as you are overwhelmed by the “What”. And to understand that Wisdom itself is sourced in that which is above it.
Even mathematicians now acknowledge that there are certain things that they just have to accept, as they can never be proven. In Chassidic Philosophy we find it stated that the hanachot rishonot - the axioms - of any scientific discipline are beyond logic and can never be proven. This is an indication that intellect and logic has a source beyond itself.
Early in the twentieth century there were philosophers – Bertrand Russell among them - who were very uncomfortable with this. They just did not want to accept that there were things beyond human comprehension in as an exact a discipline as mathematics. However the German mathematician Kurt Godel proved it once and for all. (You can read about all about this in Simon Singh’s amazing best-seller, Fermat’s Last Theorem).
Both Aristotle and Maimonides were great philosophers and both believed in G-d. But as Rabbi Sholom Ber of Lubavitch points out there was a big difference between them. He explains it by way of a metaphor. Belief in G-d is a non-dimensional point. Logic is the circle drawn around that point. Maimonides commenced with the point and drew the circle around it. The centre was clear and the circle even and beautiful. Aristotle commenced with the circle and tried to reach the point. The circle was uneven, and he never truly reached the centre.
Accepting that there is something beyond our logic, being able to stand in amazement at the awesome WHAT, not only humbles us and centres us in Truth, it enables us to think clearly and logically as well. When, however, we commence with logic that is devoid of belief in the hope that we will work it out for ourselves, even should we be as wise as Aristotle, both our logic and our faith will be flawed.
Let us return to our original question. What is more important; the unquestioning doing or the meaningful understanding?
Both of course. This is why the angels placed two crowns on the head of every Jew at Sinai – one for Naaseh – we will do and one for Nishma – we will understand.
However that wise generation of Jews understood that the Naaseh must always come before the Nishma. For it is in the Naaseh that the Nishma is ultimately rooted.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Fire and Water!
Fire and Water: the two staples of human life and development.
Without water, nothing can live; with water, the possibilities are endless. This is why so much effort and money is being invested into discovering whether there is or was water on Mars.And fire: at the very onset of civilization, what distinguished Man from all other creatures was his mastery of fire. Fire is energy in its rawest state. And to control fire, was to be control the world.
In Kabbalistic thought, Fire and Water represent G-d's first tools of Creation. The Talmud in tractate Chagiga explains that the Hebew word "Shamayim" (=heavens) is made up of two words: Esh (=fire) and Mayim (=water). According to Kabbalah, Water represents Divine Kindness (Chessed) whereas Fire represents Divine Judgement (Gevurah). Indeed the two most common names of G-d represent His acting in a manner of Chessed (Hashem) and Gevurah (Elokim).Yet while fire and water are indispensable for Creation and the success of human life, they can, as we have recently seen in the Tsunami and the Australian bush-fires, be responsible for Destruction on an enormous scale.
Indeed this is the manner in which G-d had created the world - the greater the potential for good, the greater the potential for evil. "This (referring to good) parallel to this (referring to evil), G-d did make."
Another example of this is the drive for sexual gratification. On the one hand, it is the most infinite, creative and beautiful power which the human body possesses. Infinite and creative - because it gives us the power to live on forever through progeny which are unique to us. And beautiful because it enables us to bond with the deepest intimacy with another human being.
But that same power which contains so much good, can also be the cause of much evil and suffering.
The Rabbis put it very well. They explain that the Hebrew word for Man is Ish whereas the Hebrew word for Woman is Isha. Both these words contain the Hebrew word for fire - Esh. However the Hebrew word for man also includes a Yud, whereas the Hebrew word for woman also includes a Heh. When combined Yud and Heh make up G-d's name. And so the Rabbis explain: If a Man and Woman merit - the Divine Presence (represented by the letters Yud and Heh) rests between them. If they don't merit - a fire consumes them.
The very power that can make their lives Divine can destroy them.
In our own time we are in the midst of one of the greatest technological revolutions of mankind - the internet. On the one hand it creates global links between human beings, grants unprecedented access to information and gives unimaginable power to the individual. On the other, if abused it can be the cause of great physical and spiritual destruction, may Hashem protect us.And when it comes to human beings, our rabbis quite clearly state: "the greater a person is, the greater his evil inclination is". After all, it's only fair that a person with the potential for greatness, should have an equal potential for it's opposite. Otherwise, there would be a lack of balance, an absence of free choice, in the world.
Although all human beings are special, we Jews possess a unique Divine Spark - Chelek Elokah Mimaal Mammash - literally a portion of G-d. It is because of this that G-d calls us in the Torah "A Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation". With this spark we can achieve what no one else can achieve. And indeed we have. But we need to choose wisely, for as our Rabbis say concerning the Jewish People: "They are compared to the stars and they are compared to the dirt of the ground. When they rise, they rise higher than the stars, but when they fall, they fall lower than the ground."
Let's not kid ourselves. As human beings and especially as Jews, each of us has enormous, infinite and unique potential. We do however have a choice: to use it or abuse it. And although most people would not choose to actively abuse their potential to do evil, many simply waste it.
And what could be more abusive than a person with the potential to become a spiritual giant choosing to become a midget?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)