יום שישי, 29 באוגוסט 2014

חידוש, שינוי ואחריות - Renewal and self-reflection

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו,  וחברינו היקרים,
הסתיימה (כך אני מקווה) מלחמה - התחיל חודש אלול המזמין אותנו להתחדש לקראת השנה החדשה, שתבשר  אולי (כך אני מקווה)  שינוי בגילויים קשים של אלימות ושנאה. הפרשה שנקרא מחר פותחת במצווה להקים מוסדות המשמרים סדר חברתי תקין (שופטים ושוטרים) ומסתיימת בפרשת עגלה ערופה המצביעה על כשל מנהיגותי של מוסדות אלו ועל הצורך לקבלת  אחריות  עקיפה על רצח אלמוני בתחום השיפוט. ואולי בא הדבר ללמדנו שמוסדות מתוקנים  עדיין אינם ערובה לחברה מתוקנת באמת; אולי יש מקום, בוודאי בימי אלול לשאול כל פעם מחדש  "האמנם" יש הלימה בין מה שאנחנו רוצים להיות לבין מה שאנחנו?
שבת שלום וחודש טוב
פנחס, ציפי ובני משפחתם
והפעם, במקום פרחים, קצת שירה המתאימה לימי אלול 
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqD1MBUwMLY


Dear Family and Friends,
.
Actually, in Hebrew a month is called "Hodesh", related to "HIddush", renewal (originally of the Moon cycle); maybe, as human beings, we need "milestones" once in a while, in order to interrupt our everyday life and in order to be able to reflect about options of change and renewal. Although every "Rosh Hodesh" is an opportunity, Rosh Hodesh Elul initiates a very particular month of renewal and introspection, since it introduces us to "Rosh HaShana"; Shana=Year, is connected to Shinuy=Change, Transformation.
So,  Shabbat Shalom, Hodesh Tov, many fruitful occasions for Renewal to all
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family


 Today, instead of flowers, a little inspiring song, appropriate for Elul
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqD1MBUwMLY

יום שישי, 22 באוגוסט 2014

"ראה" ו"שמע" Look and Listen

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
הפרשה שנקרא מחר מתחילה במילה "ראה" , בנוסף, אנחנו מתקדמים לקראת ראש חודש אלול,  בו נשמע  כל בוקר מעין "פרומו" לתקיעת שופר.
ואולי באה שבת זו המגיעה אלינו אחרי קיץ קשה ועצוב שאיננו בטוחים  עדיין שהסתיים, כדי להזמין אותנו לראות, להתבונן, להקשיב; לראות את כל המראות, להקשיב לכל הקולות ומה שמעבר להם ולמוד מכך שהברכה והקללה המוזכרות בפרשה אינן בהכרח פרי הגורל בלבד.
 שבת שקטה  לכולנו (בעיקר לתושבי דרום הארץ) וחודש של התדחשות ותקוה
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 

-------עוד  על פרשת ראה (עיר הנידחת):  http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2008/08/blog-post_25.html 


 נ.ב הפעם הטקסט באנגלית אינו זהה לעברית



Dear Family and Friends,
It's interesting to notice that in the Torah section we'll read tomorrow, as in the entire Torah, the Central Holy Place of Worship is defined as "The Place that G-d will choose"; it does not mention a specific location. It's as if G-d takes the liberty to decide "ad hoc" and the Place remains mysterious and undefined.
Maybe that teaches us  something about Holiness; there is no intrinsic Sanctity in any place or in any object.
Divinity (Shechina) dwells among us, everywhere there is a mutual "choice", or Covenant  between G-d and Men, who are ready to destroy idols of all kind.
Shabbat Shalom and Hodesh Tov  to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family,
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com

More on Parashat Reeh: http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2014/08/the-paradox-of-compassion.html 

יום רביעי, 20 באוגוסט 2014

The paradox of compassion

“AND SHOW COMPASSION TO YOU”

Pinhas Leiser


The context is which these words appear (Devarim 13:18) is – at first blush – odd and unanticipated.  Only a few passages earlier, the Torah charges us to treat the inhabitants of the ir hanidachat (a condemned city) with the full severity of the law: “Strike down, strike down the settlers of that town with the edge of the sword, consign it to destruction, it and all that is in it, and its animals, with the edge of the word..” Regarding this, the poet would question “They say there is mercy in the world – where is mercy here?”

Many commentators, beginning with Chazal, dealt with this difficult issue of collective punishment. In the mishna we find  a marked tendency to limit possibilities of practical application of the law of ir nidachat -- “A Condemned City”. {A similar  inclination may be found regarding a ben sorer u’more -- “A Rebellious Son”).  The Mishna in Sanhedrin (10:4) states: “The inhabitants of a condemned city have no portion in the World to Come, as is written, ‘Men, base men, have gone out from among you and have subverted  the settlers of their town . . .”  They are not to be killed until they have been subverted from that city and from that tribe, and until the majority have been subverted and until they have been subverted by males.  If women and/or minors were subverted, or if only a minority was subverted, or they subverted settlers from outside the town – all these are considered individuals [who have sinned]. And there must have been two witnesses who forewarned each of the sinners. In this respect, individual are punished more severely than communities, for  individual sinners are executed by stoning [the harshest form of court-imposed execution] – and therefore their property is spared. Communities are punished by the sword, and therefore their property is destroyed.”

An additional  tendency towards limitation of possibilities of application is to be found in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 14:1)
“Minors of a condemned town who were subverted with the rest are not to be executed”;  Rabbi Eliezer says, “They are to be executed.” Rabbi Akiva said, “What is the practical application of the text ‘And show compassion to you, having compassion on you and making you many’ ? If to have mercy for the adults, it is already stated ‘Strike down, strike down’; if to have pity upon their livestock, it is already stated ‘and its animals with the edge of the sword”. What then, is the application of ‘and show compassion to you”?  It refers to the minors in it.
Rabbi Eliezer says: “Even adults are not executed, unless there are witnesses and forewarning. What is the practical application of  ‘And show compassion to you etc.’?
Lest the Bet Din say, ‘If we make this an ir nidachat, a condemned city, tomorrow their brothers and relatives will conspire in hatred against us,’  says the Omnipresent: ‘I will show compassion to you, and I will fill their hearts with love, that they say ‘We harbor no ill feelings against you, your verdict was just.”

            Rabbi Akiva, peerless interpreter, discerned in “And show compassion to you” a practical Halakhic order not to punish minors. But Rabbi Eliezer does not recognize any possibility of punishment unless it has been preceded by a valid judicial process (witnesses and forewarning).  At the same time, he read the phrase “And show compassion to you” as a promise that the execution of true justice will not result in social enmity, for all will understand that that what was done was necessary. Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer’s words can be read as condition and criterion, and not just as promise; only post facto can one be certain whether the punishment, brutal in itself, was justified; if the brothers and relatives of those executed in the ir hanidachat are able to say  “‘We harbor no ill feelings against you, your verdict was just” –  we will know that there has been an act justice accompanied by compassion.  If there is hatred in their hearts, then there was neither justice nor compassion; there is the danger that the hatred will develop and lead to vengeance, to a cycle of violence which may be difficult to break.
           
Sapient Chazal, in line with the hallowed traditions of the Oral Law, knew how to discern between principle and practical application. They well understood that “Inhabitants of an ir hanidachat have no share in the world to come”, that they have no right to exist in the world –they knew that everything said regarding them in the Written Torah is declarative truth, similar to “eye for an eye”, which comes to point out the severity of the act; but in practical application extreme caution must be exercised, taking into consideration a totality  of complex factors.

            Commentators of later times relate to the psychological damage which may be experienced by one who executes cruel punishment.  Rabbi Hayyim ibn Attar, 18th century author of “Ohr HaHayim,”   writes:
And show compassion to you” – The meaning of this passage is as follows: Inasmuch as He commanded that, in the ir hanidachat,’ they put the entire city to death, including the livestock, such action can produce a cruel nature in man’s heart, as the Ishmaelites tell us of a band of murderers subservient to the king, who murder with great passion; compassion has been uprooted from them, and they have become cruel. This characteristic can be rooted in those who annihilate the ir hanidachat. Therefore, they are promised that God will give them “rachamim” – compassion; even though they will have developed a cruel nature, their fountain of mercy will  shower them anew with the “power of compassion” to nullify the force of cruelty engendered by their actions.  “And show compassion for you” – Whenever man Possesses a cruel nature, so will God relate to him, for God has compassion only for the compassionate.  (Shabbat, 151b)

Rav Chayim ben Attar explains that cruel behavior can transform any person into a brutal person; only the ‘source of compassion’ can immunize one against cruelty. The author of the Ohr HaHayyim interprets “and show compassion to you” as a qualification of the promise; the promise is given only to the compassionate and not to the cruel. The gift of compassion is dependent upon the ‘source of compassion’ and upon the person himself.

The Netziv of Volozhin, one of the Torah giants of an earlier generation, elaborates upon the damage (‘evils’ in his terminology) which may affect the individual and society as a result of imposing the prescribed sentence upon the inhabitants of the ir hanidachat:

1st.       One who kills develops a cruel personality.  When an individual is executed by a proper court, the punishment is administered by a chosen appointee of the court; when an entire city is to be wiped out, of necessity we must train many people to kill and become cruel.
2nd.          Every inhabitant of the ir nidachat must have relatives elsewhere; hatred will increase in Israel.
3rd.           Israel’s population will decrease, creating “bald spots” on the population map. Scripture promised that if we execute the commandment without any personal benefit from spoils, God’s wrath will subside.

The Netziv, then, strictly adhering to the plain reading of the text, discerns a connection between the beginning of the passage “No part of the banned property may adhere to your hand” - and its continuation “so that God will turn back from his burning wrath, and He will show you compassion.”

The ethical message emerging from a careful reading of Chazal and later commentators is unambiguous.
On occasion, one is called upon to perform acts which are necessary, which serve noble causes. Cruel acts, involving bloodshed, are never noble; in any case, even when done for a noble and necessary cause, they have a deleterious effect upon the soul.  The only possibility for minimizing the damage is dependent upon God’s grace. Decreasing such damage depends upon the purity of intent and upon absence of any personal involvement and pleasure in performing the cruel acts.  This, too, is dependent upon God’s grace. The justice of a cruel, but necessary, act must be observed and measured by the result -- acceptance of the sentence by the relatives of the punished.

Ben Gurion labeled the cannon that he ordered to fire upon the Altelena “the holy cannon”.  He was wrong.  There are no ‘holy cannons.’

King David, sweet singer of Israel, servant of God, was not allowed to erect the temple:   
But the word of the Lord came to me, saying: You have shed blood abundantly, and have made great wars; you shall not build a house unto My name, because you have shed much blood upon the earth in My name.” (Chronicles I, 22:8)

War and bloodshed are often unnecessary and must be prevented. Occasionally there are situations of ‘ayn berayra’ – ‘no alternative’ – and we must fight, kill, and be killed. It is essential to differentiate between the two situations. In any case, bloodshed and the building of the temple are not compatible; bloodshed makes the Land tamei (impure), drives away the Shekhina, and causes spiritual and psychological damage.

Today, there seems to be a dangerous tendency to forget this simple moral truth. Therefore, we must remember, remind, and repeat – there are unnecessary wars, and there are wars which are ‘necessary evils’  - - there are no holy wars.
                                                                                                Pinchas Leiser is a psychologist

יום שישי, 15 באוגוסט 2014

מדינה עצמאית - האתגר - An independent Jewish State; a Challenge

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
בפרשת עקב שנקרא מחר, מוזהרים אנו מפני הסכנות המוסריות האורבות לנו עם כניסתנו לארץ ישראל:
בפרק ח, פסוקים יא-כ, מצביע משה על סכנה אחת:
"כִּי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ מְבִיאֲךָ אֶל אֶרֶץ טוֹבָה אֶרֶץ נַחֲלֵי מָיִם עֲיָנֹת וּתְהֹמֹת יֹצְאִים בַּבִּקְעָה וּבָהָר.  אֶרֶץ חִטָּה וּשְׂעֹרָה וְגֶפֶן וּתְאֵנָה וְרִמּוֹן אֶרֶץ זֵית שֶׁמֶן וּדְבָשׁ...
ואז.. וְאָמַרְתָּ בִּלְבָבֶךָ כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי עָשָׂה לִי אֶת הַחַיִל הַזֶּה. "
ובפרק הבא (ט, ד-ה), מזהיר משה את העם מפני סכנה נוספת:  
" אַל תֹּאמַר בִּלְבָבְךָ בַּהֲדֹף ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֹתָם מִלְּפָנֶיךָ לֵאמֹר:  בְּצִדְקָתִי הֱבִיאַנִי ה' לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וּבְרִשְׁעַת הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה ה' מוֹרִישָׁם מִפָּנֶיךָ.
ואולי בא הדבר ללמדנו שתחושת בעלות וכוח וגם התחושה שאנחנו תמיד צודקים בכל מה שאנחנו עושים מביאים אותנו להתנשאות ולהשחתה מוסרית; החיים במדינה ריבונית  המחייבים לעתים שימוש בכח הם אתגר רציני וחשוב ביותר.
שבת שלום לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ובני משפחתם
עוד בנושא הזה: 







Dear Family and Friends,
Tomorrow we'll read about the moral dangers that we are likely to contend with upon entering the Land of Israel

In chapter 8, verses 11 through 20, Moses points out one such problem:
First Moses tells the Israelites that, the Lord your God is bringing you to…a land of wheat and barley, vines and figs and pomegranates.…And then: you will say to yourself, "My strength and the might of my hand that has accumulated this wealth for me." 
Later, Moses mentions another danger awaiting the people upon their entry to the Land (Devarim 9:4-5):
Do not say to yourself, when the Lord, your God, has repelled them from before you, saying, "Because of my righteousness, the Lord has brought me to possess this land.,"
Maybe this teaches us that ownership , power and an absolute feeling of righteousness might lead to hybris and moral corruption; living in an independent state with the need to use power is a very serious challenge.
Shabbat Shalom to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family 


More in my blog: http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2014/08/the-challenge-of-independence.html  
  

יום שני, 11 באוגוסט 2014

The Challenge of Independence

Not by might, nor by power,but by my spirit
Pinchas Leiser
.
The renewal of Jewish settlement in Eretz Yisrael, and even more so, the existence of the State of Israel, presented the Jewish people once again with the need to employ force (excepting, of course, the armed rising in the ghettoes during the Shoah). The establishment of the State in a region partially populated earlier by another people - in contrast to one of the misleading statements attributed to Lord Balfour: 'A land without a people for a people with-out a land' - created a situation of national conflict which, through the years, developed into a violent conflict yet to be concluded,.
It is interesting, in this context, to note that the chareidi (ultra-Orthodox) rabbinate objected to the Zionist Movement and the establishment of the State of Israel prior to the coming of the Messiah. The sharpest formulation of this approach was penned by the Rabbi of Satmar, Rabbi Yoel Teitlebaum, mainly in his book "Vayoel Moshe" and in the essay published after the Six Day War "Al Hageulah V'alHatemura." In his writings, primarily in "Vayoel Moshe", the rabbi bases his firm opposition to Zionism on the "Three Oaths" midrash which he reads as halachic law negating struggle for establishment of a Jewish state. The midrash is based upon three passages in The Song of Songs:
I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalem, by gazelles or by hinds of the field, do not wake or rouse love until it please.
I adjure you, O maidens of Jerussalem, by gazelles or by hinds of the field, do not wake or rouse love until it please.
I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalemdo not wake or rouse love unitl it please.
This midrash is built upon the traditional interpretation of The Song of Songs, which reads the scroll as a metaphor for the relation between the Holy One and the Congregation of Israel.

What are these three oaths?
One - That Israel not rise up on the wall.       
And one - that the Holy one adjures Israel not to rebel against the nations of the world.
And one - that the Holy One adjures the idolaters not to oppress Israel too much. (BavliKetuboth 111a)
Rabbis and religious thinkers who supported Zionism - or at least did not oppose it on theological grounds - coped with the Satmar Rabbi's theological arguments in various ways, Some saw the "three oaths" as aggadic texts without halachic significance. Others argued that the oaths have already been voided, because the nations of the world have already violated them. And there were also rabbis who interpreted "not to rise up on the wall" as not building a Temple rather than as mass immigration into Eretz Yisrael and establishing a state.
A group called "Brit Shalom", a movement established in 1925 by Jewish intellectuals, even sought to create co-existence between Jews and Arabs by relinquishing the right to set up a national homeland for Jews in the Land of Israel, as formulated in the Balfour Declaration. This movement called for the setting up a bi-national autonomy under rule of the British mandate, one in which Arabs and Jews would enjoy full equality of rights, political and civil. Among its members and supporters were, among others, Arthur Ruppin, the philosophers Martin Buber and Shmuel Hugo Bergman, Kaballa scholar GershonSholem, educator Ernst Simon, and the first president of the Hebrew UniversityYehudah Leib Magnes. Other supporters included businessman Shelomo Zalman Shoken and the British statesman Herbert Samuel. This movement became marginal to Zionism after the majority of the Zionist Congress rejected its views and sought to establish a sovereign Jewish state under the British mandate. Among the Arabs, too, there was no willingness to cooperate with this movement. In August 1930, the group disbanded.
Even Rabbi Aaron Shmuel Timrat (1890-1931), who was a proponent of spiritual Zionism and a critic of political Zionism and an especially acute opponent of the glorification of force, pointed to the spiritual danger lurking for the Jewish people:
How great the pain! How terrible the loss! If there was a single nation in the world, Knesset Yisrael, which longed for the vision of Isaiah: "No nation will lift a sword to another nation" - along come our "Balfourian young men [In the Hebrew original 'avreichim Balfouriim' - a caustic reference to Yeshiva students - Trans,] and they dishonor that too... for the sword has not left the nations' hand for a second, and they are sunk in battles and skirmishes from generation to generation. The force of inertia pushes them to war. But that Jews should suddenly crave the beauty of "the warrior's hip' wearing a sword - they are degrading the prophet Isaiah with raised arm" (Timrat:             Three Unethical Matches, p. 40, in: Holzer, E., A Double Edged Sword: Military Activism in Religious Zionism. The Judaism and Israel Series: Faculty of Law, Bar Ilan University; Hartman Institute and Keter Publishing House Ltd., 260 pp. (Hebrew)
I do not intend, within the framework of this dvar Torah, to examine the arguments of the opponents of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel in a historical perspective; the State of Israel is an existing fact and for this we bless the Lord, but there is no doubt that these currents within Jewish thought raised moral dilemmas to the surface, and it seems that we cannot ignore them.   
Our parasha can prove an interesting lab for testing to what degree the Torah cautions us against the ethical dangers awaiting us upon our entering the Land of Israel. In Chap. 5, verses 11-20, Moshe points to a problem: "The Lord brings you to a good land, a land of wheat and barley... a land where not in penury will you eat bread , , , and you shall eat and be sated," And once sated: "Beware you lest you forget the Lord your God and not observe His commandments... lest you eat and be sated... and your heart become haughty and you forget the Lord your God who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, the house of slaves"... and then: "And should you say in your heart: My strength and the power of my hand made me this wealth" For should you forget: "And should you forget the Lord your God and follow other gods, and worship them and bow down to them, I bear witness against you today that you shall surely perish, Like the nations that the Lord causes to perish before you, so shall you perish, inasmuch as you would not heed the voice of the Lord your God".
This stern statement identifies the position of "my strength and the power of my hand" with "and you will forget the Lord your God". This position leads the Jewish people to destruction and its fate will be no different from that of the residents of the idolatrous residents of the land. Further on, Moshe points to an additional danger awaiting the people upon its entry into the land (Devarim 9:4-5):
Do not say in your heart when the Lord your God drives them back before you,         saying, "Through my merit did the Lord bring me to take hold of this land and through     the wickedness of these nations is the Lord dispossessing them before you. Not through your merit nor through your heart's rightness do you come to take hold of their land but through the wickedness of these nations is the Lord our God dispossessing them before you and in order to fulfill the word that the Lord swore to your fathers to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
An Israelite nation entering the promised land, when other nations have been evicted because of their sins, is liable to deceive itself and think "It will not happen to us", because we are better. In these passages, our teacher Moshe warns the people against this dangerous illusion: You are not better; the natives were expelled because of their behavior, the land was given to you because the Holy one entered into a covenant with the Patriarchs, but Eretz Yisrael, a land "where the eyes of the Lord your God are upon it" is sensitive to the behavior of all who dwell upon it, it vomits the evildoers, and if you behave as did your predecessors, your fate will be similar to theirs.
Some might say: These words were said by our teacher Moshe for his particular time, in the context of a final testament of a leader aware of what will happen in a future not under his control, There is no doubt that the admonitions in the Book of Devarim reflect, on a human and literary level, the understandable concern of a leader who knows that his time has passed; there is much pain in these chapters, and many midrashim describe Moshe's difficulty in accepting death and the fact that he will not enter the Land of Israel.
But are we to be content with this literary and psychological reading, seeing in these words only the story of Moshe and his generation? It seems to me that we can apply some of Moshe's concerns and his warnings to every historical situation that a nation exiled from its land has to cope with when establishing a sovereign and independent society on its land, with new challenges and dilemmas not faced "in the desert". A condition of plenty and wellbeing are liable to be taken for granted; accomplishments in various fields (security, science, tech-nology, sport, economics) are liable to engender moral blindness. After the Six Day War - and the many songs of victory are testimony to this - the sense of power-intoxication grew, and somehow many of our leaders - and not necessarily the less intelligent among them - believed that "time works in our favor". Many of our leaders and not inconsiderable segments of the nation understood sooner or later that this illusion is rooted in "my strength and the power of my hand." Sadly, this faith that all our problems can be solved by the employment of force and that "what doesn't work with force will work with more force' is still found among some of us. Even the Second Lebanon War did not succeed in arousing some degree of doubt regarding the limits of power. Even more - the statement "in my merit did the Lord bring me" is liable to instill in us the feeling that we are always right in whatever we do. This feeling sometimes blinds us to the inequities done by us as a result of this arrogance.
Rav Kook was also aware of the moral and spiritual danger hidden in the return to "world politics":
We left world politics due to coercion, which contained inner desire, until the arrival of a fortuitous hour, when it will be possible to lead a kingdom without wickedness and barbarism; this is the time for which we hope. It is understood that in order to realize it, we must awaken with all our forces, to utilize all means which the hour provides, all controlled by the hand of God, creator of all worlds. But the delay is a necessary one; our soul is disgusted by terrible sins of government in bad times. Now the time has come, very close, that the world will be established, and we can already prepare ourselves, for we can already administer our kingdom on foundations of goodness, wisdom, justice and clear divine enlightenment. Yaakov sent Esav: 'Pray let my lord cross on ahead of his servant' - it is not advantageous for Yaakov to engage in government at a time when it must be bloody, when it demands the capacity for evil. Of necessity we received only the basis for establishment of a nation, and once the stock reached maturity we were denied rule, we were dispersed among the nations, we were sowed in the depths of the earth, until (such time as) "The blossoms have appeared in the land, the time of pruning has come; the song of the turtledove is heard in our land." (Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak HaCohen Kook, Orot p.13)
Has the time come to forgo the enlightened use of power in the face of realistic security threats? Unfortunately, this time has yet to arrive, but it does seem to me that at "age 64" we cannot and perhaps we even must not allow ourselves to ignore the essential moral dilemmas, to differentiate between the judicious use of certain methods without glorifying them and converting them into an ideal, as in the words of the prophet Zachariah (4:6):
This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit - said the Lord of Hosts.
Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra explained: Not by might, nor by power - As I saw the oil, made without human assistance and burning, so will the Temple be rebuilt, not by Zerubbabel's great might nor by his power, but by the spirit of God and His assistance.
Pinchas Leiser, editor of Shabbat Shalom, is a psychologist

האתגר המוסרי שבעצמאות מדינית

לא בחיל ולא בכוח, כי אם ברוחי




פנחס לייזר

חידוש היישוב היהודי  בארץ ישראל וביתר שאת, קיומה של מדינת ישראל הפגישו את העם היהודי מחדש עם הצורך להשתמש בכוח (להוציא כמובן את המרד המזוין בגיטאות בתקופת השואה). הקמתה של מדינה במקום שהיה – בניגוד לאחת הסיסמאות השקריות המיוחסות ללורד בלפור: ' ארץ ללא עם לעם ללא ארץ ' -  מיושב בחלקו על ידי בני עם אחר, יצרה מצב של קונפליקט לאומי שהתפתח במהלך השנים לסכסוך אלים שטרם בא לקיצו.
בהקשר זה, מעניין לציין שהעולם הרבני החרדי התנגד לתנועה הציונית ולהקמתה של מדינת ישראל לפני ביאת המשיח, והניסוח החד ביותר של תפיסה זו נוסח על ידי הרבי מסטמאר, רבי יואל טייטלבוים, בעיקר בספרו "ויואל משה" ובחיבור שפירסם אחרי מלחמת ששת הימים "על הגאולה ועל התמורה". בכתביו, ובעיקר ב"ויואל משה", מבסס הרבי מסטמאר את התנגדותו הנחרצת לציונות על מדרש "שלוש השבועות" בו הוא רואה הנחיה הלכתית, השוללת מאבק להקמת מדינה יהודית. המדרש מתבסס על שלושה פסוקים המופיעים במגילת שיר השירים: "הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַ‏ִם, בִּצְבָאוֹת, אוֹ בְּאַיְלוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה: אִם-תָּעִירוּ וְאִם-תְּעוֹרְרוּ אֶת-הָאַהֲבָה עַד שֶׁתֶּחְפָּץ.הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַ‏ִם, בִּצְבָאוֹת, אוֹ, בְּאַיְלוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה: אִם-תָּעִירוּ וְאִם-תְּעוֹרְרוּ אֶת-הָאַהֲבָה, עַד שֶׁתֶּחְפָּץ. הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי אֶתְכֶם, בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלָ‏ִם: מַה-תָּעִירוּ וּמַה-תְּעֹרְרוּ אֶת-הָאַהֲבָה, עַד שֶׁתֶּחְפָּץ."
המדרש על פסוקים אלה מתבסס על הפירוש המסורתי לשיר השירים, לפיו המגילה הינה משל ליחסי הקב"ה וכנסת ישראל.
"ג' שבועות הללו למה?                                                                                                                               אחת-  שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה,                                                                                                        ואחת -  שהשביע הקב"ה את ישראל שלא ימרדו באומות העולם,                                                             ואחת - שהשביע הקב"ה את העובדי כוכבים שלא ישתעבדו בהן בישראל יותר מדי" (בבלי כתובות קיא, ע"א).   
רבנים והוגי דעות דתיים שתמכו בציונות או שלפחות לא התנגדו לה מבחינה תיאולוגית, התמודדו עם טיעוניו התיאולוגיים של הרבי מסטמאר בדרכים שונות; יש שראו במאמר זה מאמר אגדי ללא תוקף הלכתי. אחרים טענו שבוטלו השבועות, מכיוון שגם אומות העולם הפרו אותן. כמו-כן, היו רבנים שפירשו "לא לעלות בחומה" כבניית בית המקדש ולאו דווקא עלייה המונית לארץ והקמת מדינה.                                                                                       
  גם קבוצה בשם  ברית שלום שהיתה תנועה שהוקמה בשנת 1925 על ידי קבוצת אינטלקטואלים יהודיים, וביקשה ליצור דו-קיום בין יהודים לערבים, באמצעות ויתור על הזכות להקמת בית לאומי ליהודים בארץ ישראל, כפי שנוסחה בהצהרת בלפור. תנועה זו דגלה בהקמת אוטונומיה דו-לאומית תחת המשטר של המנדט הבריטי, שבו יהנו הערבים והיהודים משוויון זכויות מלא, פוליטי ואזרחי. עם חבריה ותומכיה של התנועה נמנו בין היתר ארתור רופין, הפילוסוף מרטין בובר, הפילוסוף שמואל הוגו ברגמן, חוקר הקבלה גרשם שלום, המחנך ארנסט סימון ונשיאה הראשון של האוניברסיטה העברית יהודה לייב מאגנס. עוד תומכי התנועה היו איש העסקים שלמה זלמן שוקן והמדינאי הבריטי הרברט סמואל. תנועה זו הפכה לגורם שולי בציונות לאחר שרובו של הקונגרס הציוני דחה את תפישותיה ושאף להקמת מדינה יהודית ריבונית שלא תחת המנדט הבריטי. גם אצל הערבים לא היתה נכונות לשתף פעולה עם תנועה זו. באוגוסט 1930 התפרקה התנועה.
גם הרב אהרון שמואל תמרת (1931-1869) שהיה מתומכיה של הציונות הרוחנית וממבקריה של הציונות המדינית, ובעיקר ממתנגדיו החריפים של האדרת הכוח, הצביע על הסכנה הרוחנית האורבת לעם ישראל וכך לשונו:
 "מה גדול הכאב! מה נורא ההפסד! פן היהת אומה אחת בעולם, זו כנסת ישראל, שגעגעה אל חזון ישעיהו: "לא ישא גוי אל גוי חרב" – באו ה'אברכים הבאלפוריים' שלנו וימאו גם אותה...כי הגויים עדיין לא זזה החרב מתוך ידם אף לרגע, ושקועים הם בהתגוששות והתנגחות מדור דור. וכוח האינרציה דוחפם אפו אל המלחמות. אבל היהודים כי חמדו פתאום את יפיה של 'ירך גיבור' חגורת חרב – הרי הם יוצאים לגדף את ישעיהו הנביא ביד רמה". (תמרת: שלשה זיווגים בלתי הגונים, עמ' 40, מתוך: אלי הולצר, חרב פיפיות בידם- אקטיביזם צבאי בהגותה של הציונות הדתית, עמ' 151)
אין בכוונתי, במסגרת דבר תורה זה, לבחון את טיעוניהם של המתנגדים להקמתה של מדינה יהודית בארץ ישראל בפרספקטיבה היסטורית; מדינת ישראל היא עובדה קיימת ויש לברך על כך, אך אין ספק שזרמים אלו בתוך ההגות היהודית העלו דילמות מוסריות על פני השטח ודומני שאין להתעלם מהן.
מעניין להתבונן בפרשתנו כדי לבחון באיזו מידה התורה מזהירה אותנו מהסכנות המוסריות הצפויות לנו עם כניסתנו לארץ ישראל. בפרק ח, פסוקים יא- כ, מצביע משה רבנו על בעיה אחת: "האל מביאך אל ארץ טובה "ארץ חיטה ושעורה...אשר לא במסכנות תאכל בה לחם...ואכלת ושבעת,  ומתוך השובע: "השמר לך פו תשכח את ה' אלהיך, לבלתי שמֹר מצותיו...פן תאכל ושבעת...ורם לבביך ושכחת את ה' אלהיך המוציאך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים"...ואז: " וְאָמַרְתָּ בִּלְבָבֶךָ: כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי עָשָׂה לִי אֶת הַחַיִל הַזֶּה", כי אם תשכח: "וְהָיָה אִם שָׁכֹחַ תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהָלַכְתָּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וַעֲבַדְתָּם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתָ לָהֶם, הַעִדֹתִי בָכֶם הַיּוֹם כִּי אָבֹד תֹּאבֵדוּן. כַּגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר ה' מַאֲבִיד מִפְּנֵיכֶם כֵּן תֹּאבֵדוּן, עֵקֶב לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּן בְּקוֹל ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם."
אמירה חריפה זו מזהה את העמדה של "כוחי ועוצם ידי" עם "שכחת ה' אלוהיך" ועמדה זו מביאה את עם ישראל לאבדון וגורלו לא יהיה שונה מתושבי הארץ עובדי האלילים. בהמשך מצביע משה רבנו על סכנה נוספת הצפויה לעם עם כניסתו לארץ (דברים ט, ד-ה):
"אַל תֹּאמַר בִּלְבָבְךָ בַּהֲדֹף ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֹתָם מִלְּפָנֶיךָ לֵאמֹר: בְּצִדְקָתִי הֱבִיאַנִי ה' לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וּבְרִשְׁעַת הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה ה' מוֹרִישָׁם מִפָּנֶיךָ. לֹא בְצִדְקָתְךָ וּבְיֹשֶׁר לְבָבְךָ אַתָּה בָא לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת אַרְצָם כִּי בְּרִשְׁעַת הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ מוֹרִישָׁם מִפָּנֶיךָ וּלְמַעַן הָקִים אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע ה' לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹב."
 עם ישראל הנכנס לארץ המובטחת, כאשר עמים אחרים גורשו ממנה בגלל חטאיהם, עלול להשלות עצמו ולחשוב "לנו זה לא יקרה", כי אנחנו טובים יותר. בפסוקים אלו מזהיר משה רבנו את העם מפני אשליה מסוכנת זו: אינכם טובים יותר; עמי הארץ גורשו בגלל מעשיהם, הארץ ניתנה לכם כי הקב"ה כרת ברית עם האבות, אך ארץ ישראל שהיא ארץ "שעיני ה' אלֹהיך בה" רגישה להתנהגות היושבים עליה ומקיאה את עושי העוול, ואם תנהגו כפי שהתנהגו קודמיכם, גורלכם יהיה דומה לגורלם.
יש מי שיאמר: דברים אלו נאמרו על-ידי משה רבנו בשעתו כצוואה של מנהיג היודע שמה שיקרה בהמשך אינו בשליטתו. אין ספק שפרשות התוכחה בספר דברים משקפות ברובד הספרותי והאנושי את הדאגה המובנת של מנהיג היודע כי זמנו עבר; יש הרבה כאב בפרשות אלו ומדרשים רבים תיארו את הקושי של משה לקבל את מותו ואת העובדה שלא ייכנס לארץ ישראל.
אך, האם עלינו להסתפק בקריאה ספרותית ופסיכולוגית זו ולראות בדברים אלו את סיפורו של משה בדורו בלבד? דומני שיש באפשרותנו להעביר חלק מחששותיו של משה רבנו ואזהרותיו לכל סיטואציה היסטורית בה עם שהוגלה מארצו נדרש להתמודד, בעת כינון חברה ריבונית ועצמאית על אדמתו, עם אתגרים חדשים ודילמות שלא היו מנת חלקו בעת שהותו "במדבר". מצב של שפע ורווחה עלול להתפרש כדבר שהוא מובן מאליו; הישגים בתחומים שונים (ביטחון, מדע, טכנולוגיה, ספורט, כלכלה) עלולים לגרום לעיוורון מוסרי. אחרי מלחמת ששת הימים – ושירי ניצחון רבים הם עדות לכך – התגברה תחושה של שיכרון הכוח ואיכשהו חשבו רבים ממנהיגינו – ולאו דווקא הטפשים שבהם- ש"הזמן פועל לטובתנו". דומני שרבים ממנהיגינו וחלקים לא מבוטלים בעם הבינו במוקדם או במאוחר שאולי אשליה זו מקורה ב"כוחי ועוצם ידי". לצערי, עדיין קיימת אמונה אצל חלק מאיתנו שכל בעיותינו יכולות להיפתר באמצעות הפעלת כוח ו"מה שלא הולך בכוח, ילך בעוד יותר כוח" ואפילו מלחמת לבנון השנייה לא הצליחה לעורר איזשהו ספק לגבי מגבלות הכוח. ומעבר לכך, גם ההיגד "בצדקתי הביאני ה'" עלול להביא אותנו גם היום לתחושה שאנחנו תמיד צודקים בכל דבר שנעשה. תחושה זו מביאה אותנו לפעמים לעיוורון לגבי העוולות שנעשו על ידינו, מתוך אותה הרגשה  של יהירות.
גם הרב קוק היה מודע לסכנה המוסרית והרוחנית הטמונה בחזרה ל"פוליטיקה העולמית" וכך לשונו :
"עזבנו את הפוליטיקה העולמית מאונס שיש בו רצון פנימי, עד אשר תבוא עת מאושרה, שיהיה אפשר לנהל ממלכה בלא רשעה וברבריות; זהו הזמן שאנו מקווים. מובן הדבר שכדי להגשימו אנו צריכים להתעורר בכוחותינו כולם, להשתמש בכל האמצעים שהזמן מביא: הכל יד אל בורא כל עולמים מנהלת. אבל האיחור הוא איחור מוכרח, בחלה נפשנו בחטאים האיומים של הנהגת ממלכה בעת רעה. והנה הגיע הזמן, קרוב מאד, העולם יתבסס ואנו נוכל כבר להכין עצמנו , כי לנו כבר אפשר יהיה לנהל ממלכתנו על יסודות הטוב, החכמה, היושר וההארה האלהית הברורה. יעקב שלח לעשיו את הפורפירא: 'יעבר נא עבדך לפני עבדו' – אין הדבר כדאי ליעקב לעסוק בממלכה, בעת שהיא צריכה להיות דמים מלאה, בעת שתובעת כשרון של רשעה. אנו קיבלנו רק את היסוד כפי ההכרח ליסד אומה, וכיון שנגמל הגזע הודחנו ממלוך, בגוים נתפזרנו, נזרענו במעמקי האדמה, עד אשר "עת הזמיר הגיע וקול התור נשמע בארצנו". (הראי"ה קוק זצ"ל, אורות, עמ' יג)

האם הגיעה העת לוותר על השימוש המושכל בכוח לנוכח סכנות ביטחוניות ממשיות? לצערי, עדיין לא היגענו לעת הזאת, אך דומני שאנחנו יכולים להרשות לעצמנו ואולי אף חייבים, "בגיל 64", לא להתעלם מהדילמות המוסריות המהותיות, ולהבדיל בין השימוש המושכל באמצעים מסוימים מבלי להאדיר אותם ולהפוך אותם לאידיאל, וכדברי הנביא זכריה (ד, ו):

זֶה דְּבַר ה' אֶל זְרֻבָּבֶל לֵאמֹר: לֹא בְחַיִל וְלֹא בְכֹחַ כִּי אִם בְּרוּחִי אָמַר ה' צְבָאוֹת.
ורבי אברהם אבן עזרא מפרש: לא בחיל ולא בכח - כאשר ראיתי השמן נעשה מאיליו ודולק, ככה יבנה הבית לא בכח גדול שיש לזרובבל ולא ברוב חילו, כי אם ברוח השם וסיועו.
פנחס לייזר, עורך שבת שלום, הוא פסיכולוג.

יום חמישי, 7 באוגוסט 2014

נחמו - Console

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
השבת אחרי תשעה באב מכונה "שבת נחמו" בגלל ההפטרה (ישעיה מ) הנקראת באותה שבת. ובאמת, אנחנו, ובעיקר משפחות שנפגעו באופן ישיר זקוקות ל"נחמה".
תמיד תהיתי לגבי  פירושה של אותה נחמה, בעיקר כאשר מדובר באירוע טרגי בלתי הפיך. במה אפשר לנחם או להתנחם?
ואולי מדובר בהפנמת עמדה של ענווה ואחריות המאפשרת לנו להסתכל אחרת על אותה מציאות שלא נוצרה על ידינו, לתת לה את  המשמעות העוזרת לנו לחיות אתה בשלום ולהחליט באופן אחראי איך לנהל את חיינו לאור אותה משמעות, הכוללת תקווה ורצוון לשינוי.
שבת שלום, שבת של נחמה ותקווה
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם







Dear Family and Friends,
This Shabbat, after Tish'a be'Av, is known as "Shabbat Nachamu"; "Nachamu"- "Comfort" or "Console" - the first word of Yeshayahu chapter 40, which we'll read as Haftarah tomorrow.
I always wondered about the meaning of "consolation" after a tragic event, especially if the sad reality is irreversible.
Maybe this teaches us humility and responsibility at the same time; there are many events we don't control, but we are able sometimes to look at reality differently and decide about what we do about it, according to the significance we accord to it.
Shabbat Shalom to all, 
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family

 More on Consolation: http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2014/08/consolation.html 

Shabbat Shalom from the Leiser family
         a little click on the flower site

יום רביעי, 6 באוגוסט 2014

Consolation

Console Us?

Pinchas Leiser

            My teacher, Rabbi Daniel Epstein, occasionally quotes the words of Franz Rosenzweig, saying that the weekly parasha is like a personal letter sent to us every week, meeting us in the place where we are at that time.

            Five years ago, in the leaflet on Parashat Vaethanen, which was published during the second Lebanese War, I referred to the concept of consolation.  Contemplating various appearances of the word in the Bible, it became clear to me that at least two nineteenth century Bible commentators, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in Germany and Rabbi Isaac Samuel Reggio in northern Italy referred to the dual meaning of the word in their commentaries, and also to the apparently contradictory meanings of the root N. H. M.

            At that time I mentioned two nearly adjacent uses of the term in Parashat Bereshit:
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.  And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (Gen. 6:5-7)

In contrast to:
This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed. (Gen. 5:29)
The Holy one, as it were, regrets having created Adam and Lemech, Noah’s father, but he is consoled by the birth of Noah, of whom it is said that “he found favor in the eyes of God.”
            Nevertheless, in modern Hebrew, we use the root N. H. M. only in the meaning of consolation, and not in that of regret.
            When we speak of consoling the mourning, the ordinary formulae are: “May the Place console [yenahem] you among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem,” or “May you be consoled [tenuhamu] from heaven.”

            Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch on Gen. 29:5 points out the dual meaning of the word and the common denominator between the meanings: “This root as an extraordinary meaning: in the active sense it means to console, but it can also mean to repent of a decision regarding the future.

            “There is a third meaning, to regret what has been done, as in Jeremiah, “No man repented him of his wickedness” (8:6), and later, “After I returned and repented” (31:18).

            “The basic meaning is to change one’s mind, and from this we get regret and a change in a decision.  Consolation also changes the feeling of the heart regarding an event that has taken place.  Nahem [console] is similar to Noah [the name Noah].  The regretful one changes his mind and turns in a new direction, that is to say, he changes the direction of his motion, and thus we have nahem meaning regret: a person who has experienced a loss will walk and move to fill in the void; someone who has received consolation is someone who is at rest; consolation will put his mind at ease, will fill the void, will silence the murmur of his heart.”

            To sum up, even when we refer to the different, Utopian outlook of Rabbi Akiva, when, in contrast to other Tannaim who went with him and wept seeing a fox leave the Holy of Holies in the destroyed Temple, he laughed, in faith that the prophecy of the renewal of the destroyed and abandoned city would be fulfilled (“Old men and women will yet dwell in the streets of Jerusalem.”)

            Then we wrote: “Rabbi Akiva’s strange response and his ability to console his fellow Tannaim could be connected to his ability to console himself, that is, to contemplate reality in a different way, to take into account not only static reality, but also the possibility that reality might change.  Rabbi Akiva’s ability to see reality in a dynamic way derives from his attitude toward historical reality as a developing and changing text.  On this matter one can ask another question: what enables a person to adopt that way of contemplating, and is this possible in every instance, or could there be situations regarding which there is no possibility of being consoled?  We remember the Patriarch Jacob’s response when Joseph’s brothers showed him Joseph’s cloak, stained with blood:
And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days.  And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him. (Gen. 37:34-35)

Rashi interprets Jacob’s refusal to be consoled with a Midrash found in Bereshit Raba: “And he refused to be comforted” - B. R. A person does not accept consolation for someone living and he was certain he was dead, for of the dead it is decreed that they are forgotten from one’s heart, but not the living.”

            The Midrash apparently assumes that there is a heavenly decree, meaning a mechanism that doesn’t depend on oneself, by very nature, that permits one to be reconciled with death, and that mechanism does not work when the person one is mourning for is not actually dead.
            It is as if finality (conscious or unconscious) helps us to be reconciled with difficult events and circumstances.

            The insight that Rashi adopted from the Midrash is interesting and paradoxical, because if we adopt it and try to read it, following Rosenzweig, as a letter addressed to us today, on the personal and also collective level, six years after the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and five years after the Second Lebanon War, or even when in these days Israeli society is coping with political problems not only in the regional and international arena, but also with serious crises in the social and ethical area, and it is enough to read the headlines of the newspapers to be aware of it, each of us as an individual or members of a community has the possibility of choosing between two positions:

1.      To view the situation as irreversible and to accept it as a decree from heaven, meaning, “we shall eat the sword forever” - the conflict between us and the Palestinians and the Arab world cannot be resolved; social gaps are inevitable, and we have to be reconciled to them; there is no money in the public treasury to assure decent housing at a reasonable, or a public health system, etc.  Does such an acceptance offer consolation? Can accepting a worrisome situation be consolation?
2.      It was Rabbi Akiva who did not accept the existing situation and did not regard it as an irreversible decree, who was the consoler, who was able to see the dead as living. Indeed, not accepting the situation is what enables him to be consoled and to help the others to see not only the present situation, but also the possibility for change, and this was by virtue of his hope and faith.

Rashi, following Midrash Rabba, interprets the words of Judah, “let us live and not die” (Gen. 43:8), after which Jacob agrees to send Benjamin with his brothers, as being connected to the holy spirit, and here are his words:
And we shall live – the holy spirit flashed within him.  By means of this going, your spirit will live, as it is said, “And the spirit of Jacob their father lived.
And on the words, “and the spirit of Jacob their father lived (Gen. 48:37), Rashi wrote: “And the spirit of Jacob lived – the Shekhina came to him, though it had gone away.”

            That is to say, the holy spirit had left Jacob when he thought that Joseph had been devoured by a wild animal.  Rabbi Akiva was graced with the holy spirit when he was able to see through gloomy and discouraging reality.

            Since we have no prophets, and we have no information “from behind the screen”, we are in a situation of constant uncertainty, and therefore, in order to be consoled, paradoxically, we must not, following the example of the Patriarch Jacob, relate to the living as dead, which would not enable us to be consoled, but rather we must adopt the approach of Rabbi Akiva, who enables us to relate even to what seems to be dead and hopeless as something living, and in order to do so, we need a different way of looking, a holy spirit.  As Maimonides said (Guide of the Perplexed, 2:45), this is the first stage in the ladder of prophecy, that to which any person can attain under certain circumstances:

The first level of prophecy is that which lends a person divine help and motivates him and induces him to do a great and valuable good deed, such as saving a group of excellent people from a group of evil people, or to save a great and excellent person, or to benefit many people.  And in his soul he will feel an impulse and drive to act.  This is called the spirit of God.

The spirit of God is meant to inspire us with hope and faith for a better future, but it also permits us to act for such a future, and perhaps it also demands that of us.

Pinchas Leiser, the Editor of Shabbat Shalom, is a psychologist.