יום שישי, 31 באוקטובר 2014

אברהם ולוט - Avraham and Lot

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
אברהם אבינו הוא הגיבור של הפרשה אותה נקרא מחר, המתחילה בציווי "לך לך"; בניגוד לנח שהיה צריך "להיכנס לתיבה" כדי להציל את עצמו ואת משפחתו.
יש כאן אולי ניגוד של "שימור, הצלה והישרדות" , לעומת הליכה, תנועה ושינוי. המדרש מפרש את כינויו "העברי" כמי ש"כל העולם מעבר אחד והוא מעברו השני". יתכן שמי שרוצה להוביל שינוי לא צריך לפחד להיות לבד, מול כל העולם. שבת שלום לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ובני משפחתם,




Dear Family and Friends,
The Hero of the Torah section we'll read tomorrow is Avraham, the first of our Fathers. Somehow, the Covenant we are committed to is called "Berito shel Avraham Avinu".
It's interesting to reflect on how a commitment taken so many years ago is still alive and it of course raises the question about what kind of commitments we are able to take for the next generations and what kind of world are we leaving to our children, grandchildren etc.
Shabbat Shalom to all
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family

More on this topic: http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2014/10/ethnocentrism-and-morality.html 

יום שלישי, 28 באוקטובר 2014

Ethnocentrism and Morality


Abraham and Lot
Between Acquisitive Ethnocentrism and Morality[1]

Pinhas Leiser
Abraham and his nephew Lot began their journey together, as it is written: And Lot went with him (Bereishit 12:4). We can understand from their walking together that at the beginning of his road Lot joined Abraham and linked his fate and goals to the fate of his uncle, who walked following God's command from his country and homeland to an unknown land.

The Torah tells us very little about Lot and to what extent he accepted the vision which led Abraham to be willing to leave all that was familiar and build a new culture, a culture of faith and loving-kindness.

Lot accompanied Abraham on his journey from Haran to the Land of Canaan, he apparently joined Abraham when he traveled to Egypt following the famine in Canaan and returned with Abraham to Canaan, when both had accumulated great wealth (Bereishit 13:2-5).

Abraham had, so to speak, an additional Individual accompanying him on his journey. At each stop along the way, a connection was established between Abraham and God. Sometimes God revealed Himself to Abraham, and other times Abraham built an altar to the Lord who appears to him. God punished Pharaoh, who took Sarai, Abraham's wife-sister, thus indirectly prompting Abraham's return to Canaan. Lot did not share in Abraham's connection with God.

A radical change takes place in the relationship between Abraham and Lot upon their return to Canaan (Genesis 13:6-12). This change is consummated when they separate and each goes his own way. Upon a first reading, it simply appears that overcrowded conditions prevented Abraham and Lot from dwelling near each other.

There is a well-known drasha on the dictum from Pirkei Avot 5:5, "And no man ever told his fellow, 'It is too crowded for me to sleep in Jerusalem.'"  The drasha says that it was certainly crowded in Jerusalem, but no one ever complained about it.  We can understand the following verse in the same spirit: And the land did not bear them to dwell together, for their possessions were many, and they could not dwell together (Bereishit 13:6).  The repeated statement that they could not dwell together hints at difficulties of coexistence that were not merely technical in nature.

What, then, is the root of this inability to dwell together?

Rashi (13:7), following the Sages in Bereishit Rabbah, examines the tension between the herdsmen of Abraham and those of Lot in a different light:

And there was a quarrel - because Lot's shepherds were wicked men and grazed their cattle in other people's fields. Abraham's shepherds rebuked them for this act of robbery, but they replied, "The land has been given to Abram, and since he has no son as heir, Lot will be his heir - consequently this is not robbery." Scripture, however, states: The Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land, so that Abram was not yet entitled to possession.

According to Rashi, the disagreement between Abram's herdsmen (who apparently accepted Abram's values and followed his instructions) and Lot's herdsmen was concerned with values.

Two different perspectives on God's promise emerge here. Abraham's perspective is influenced by his constant, direct communication with God; that very connection enables him to see the Other.

Lot and his herdsmen understand God's promise as an absolute declaration from which profit and power can be gained; it is a promise that may be immediately acted upon, and it trumps any other considerations. According to this perspective, neither present reality nor those moral considerations which might prevent the promise from being carried out immediately – here and now - should be taken into account, since God's promise transcends everything else and sweeps away all other factors in its path.

In contrast to Lot, Abraham and his herdsmen comprehend the importance of distinguishing between God's promise and the existing reality. They also understand that moral considerations are never overridden by God's promise, since Abraham's God is the Judge of the whole earth and it could not be that He would not do justice.  It is this world view which explains Abraham's negotiations with God regarding the minimum number of righteous people needed to save Sodom.

While Abraham felt gratitude towards God for the promise granted to him, he was also profoundly anxious about the realization of this promise.

When Abraham reached Elon Moreh, God revealed Himself to him and promised him that He would give his descendents the land of Canaan. Abraham responded by building an altar to the Lord who appeared to him. Rashi, following the Midrash, provides this commentary: "for the good tidings that he would have children, and for the good tidings that they would possess the Land of Israel" (Rashi Bereishit 12:7). Abraham's act of building an altar is thus a religious response, an expression of gratitude.

The next verse (12:8) mentions that Abraham builds another altar. Here Rashi again borrows a midrashic idea:

And he built there an altar - He perceived through the gift of prophecy that his descendents would stumble there through Achan's transgression: therefore he prayed for them there.

Abraham understands that in spite of God's promise, his children might misinterpret the moral significance of the promise and be dragged down. They might commit undesirable acts as a result of impulses stimulated by the act of conquering the land (Achan). The second altar that Abraham builds expresses this anxiety and represents both the hope and prayer that in the end his descendents will be worthy of the promise (Achan's transgression during the conquest of the land did indeed occur between Beth-El and HaAi).

When the land was promised once more to Abraham in the Pact of the Cut Pieces [Brit ben HaBetarim], Abraham asks, how will I know that I will inherit it? (Bereishit 15:8). The commentators Rabbi Ovadiah from Solfranu ("Seforno") and RaMBaN provide us with their interpretations. Seforno (15:8) writes:

How will I know? Perhaps my children will sin and not merit to inherit it.

RaMBaN (15:7) writes:
…and so he asked, how will I know that I will inherit it?  This is not like the question, What is the sign? (II Kings 20:8). And the Holy One, blessed be He, did not act as He did regarding the other signs by showing him a sign or a miracle or something wondrous.  Rather, He asked Abraham to know with true knowledge that he would inherit it, and that neither he nor his descendents would commit a sin preventing this from happening, and that the Canaanites would not repent, making applicable to them the prophecy: At one instant I may speak about plucking up, breaking down, or destroying a nation. If, however, that nation turns from its evil ways because of my words against it, I repent of the evil I thought of inflicting upon it (Jeremiah 18:7-8). The Holy One, blessed be He, made a pact with him that he would inherit it in any event.

Thus, Abraham is afraid that the realization of the promise will depend on the actions of his children and therefore he is very concerned. The promise is strengthened by the establishment of a covenant which is reciprocal in nature. Thus, Rashi (17:7-8) writes:

And I will establish My covenant - And what is this Covenant? To be a God unto you.
For an everlasting possession - and there I will be your God.

That is, the promise made because of the covenant is not a guarantee or deed of registry. The existence of the covenant between God and Abraham's descendents is conditional on being a God unto you.  True, there is a lasting imprint of the covenant passed down from generation to generation through the ritual of circumcision, which is "The Covenant of Our Father Abraham." However, the possession which is everlasting in the spiritual realm is not a prize but rather an anchor in reality enabling the fulfillment of the spiritual and moral vision - there I will be your God.

Lot is not a partner in this vision, as Rashi (13:11) writes following the Midrash:

And Lot journeyed from the East [mikedem]: he distanced himself from the Ancient One [mikadmono] of the world. He said, “I care neither for Abram nor for his God.

The absence of Abraham's God - the judge of all the land and the God of loving-kindness - from Lot's journey, is an essential element in Lot's concrete, absolute, and aggressive understanding of God's promise.

Abraham is able to distinguish between the promise he believes in, the promise given as part of a covenant, and the practical and moral possibilities for the realization of that promise. Abraham is very anxious about the potential dangers involved in transforming the promise into reality through force and harm to others.

Abraham's only suggestion for dealing with the conflict is, Please separate yourself from me. Abraham probably understood that the land could not support them to dwell together. The deep ideological conflict between the two views would not enable the continuation of their journey together. These differences could even deteriorate into a state of civil war resulting in bloodshed. Therefore, the separation enabled each of them to choose the path they believed in. This separation enables us to examine the potential results of the different paths chosen by Lot and Abraham:

At the end of the story Lot reaches Sodom, a city full of evil and sinful inhabitants and he needs Abraham's help to save him. The entire land, including that of Lot, was promised to Abraham, who upheld the conditions of the covenant.

This story enables us to make a deep and profound examination of the distinction made by people of faith between God's promise and concrete reality, which requires consideration of moral values as an important element in the promise. Peaceful coexistence may be impossible between "Abram's herdsmen" and "Lot's herdsmen," and so, in order to avoid a bloody conflict (as in the quarrel between Cain and Abel, to which the Midrash assigns a moral character), the two sides should peacefully separate or find an alternate way to peacefully settle the conflict, allowing room for differing opinions and respecting democratic decisions.  Unfortunately, the events in Kikar Rabin (then Kikar Malkhei Yisrael) of Motza'ei Shabbat Parashat Lekh Lekha 5756 demonstrate this all too clearly.  Has Israeli society learned anything since that gloomy night?

Pinhas Leiser, editor of Shabbat Shalom, is a psychologist.



[1] This devar Torah is based on an earlier version, which appeared in issue 54 of Shabbat Shalom.  I think it has lost none of its relevance.

יום שישי, 24 באוקטובר 2014

עולם בנוי, חרב ובנוי - A stable and traumatic world

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
במדרש נאמר  על נח, שהוא ראה עולם בישובו וראהו בחרבנו וחזר וראהו בישובו . אולי אדם המאריך ימים, בוודאי בתקופות בהן יש יציבות יחסית המתערערת ע"י אירוע טראומטי, נדרש להסתגל לתהפוכות האלו ולעולם החדש. יתכן ששכרותו של נח היא תגובה לטראומה הקשה שהוא חווה אחרי המבול.
דור הורינו חי בעולם שהם חוו אותו כיציב (אם כי, אולי זו היתה אשליה) , שרדו את השואה ובנו באומץ עולם חדש אליו היו צריכים להסתגל. ומה איתנו והעולם בו אנחנו חיים? האם הוא יציב? בטוח? האם עדיין אנחנו פוסט-טראומטיים? האם יש לנו את היכולת, בלי להשתכר, לצאת מהזהות הקרבנית הפוסט-טראומטית, גם  בתקופות  המאתגרות את ביטחוננו האישי?
שבת שלום וחודש טוב לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם




Dear Family and Friends,
Noach, who survived the Flood and the Destruction of the World, is probably the prototype of any person, who lived long enough to experience some kind of stability, who survived a traumatic event and has to readjust in a new world. It does not seem easy to adjust to a new world after a catastrophe of any kind and maybe Noach's getting drunk could be considered as a posttraumatic reaction. The generation of our parents who lived apparently in a world they perceived as being stable (maybe it wasn't really that stable), survived the Shoah and had the courage to rebuild a new world may have experienced the difficulty to adjust to that new world. What about our generation and the next generation?
Shabbat Shalom and Hodesh Tov  to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family




יום רביעי, 15 באוקטובר 2014

סיום והתחלה - Endings and Beginnings

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
שמחת תורה,  הוא החג המסיים את מחזור חגי תשרי; מסיימים בו את המחזור השנתי של קריאת התורה . הוא מסתיים במותו של משה, לפני הכניסה של בני ישראל לארץ כנען. ומיד אנו מתחילים לקרוא "בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ.
סיומים והתחלות משולבים זה בזה. סיומה של תקופה עשויה להיות הכנה לתקופה חדשה. הסיפור של משה ממשיך עם כניסת בני ישראל לארץ המובטחת בהנהגתו של יהושע. כניסה זו מכילה אתגרים חדשים, השונים מחיי עם נוודים במדבר. גם שיבת ציון החדשה והתמודדות עם עצמאות וריבונות  מזמינים אותנו להתבונן מחדש ובצורה אחרת על אחריותנו הכוללת לאופי החברה שברצוננו להקים ולקיים כאן. לכן, אולי מצרפים את "בראשית" ואת סיפור הבריאה למשה; אחרי המדבר (הגלות) יש צורך בביראה, יצירה והתחדשות.
חג שמח, שבת שלום ושנה טובה
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם

למאמר נוסף על שמחת תורה:

והפעם, במקום פרחים: פיוט לכבוד שמחת תורה:  http://www.piyut.org.il/tradition/578.html?currPerformance=706







Dear Family and Friends,
Endings and beginnings are somehow very much interconnected; the season of Holidays reaches its end, and a new year of "everyday life" starts. We are terminating another annual cycle of Torah reading, but we are starting again with the Story of Creation. Rosh HaShana itself is connected to the Creation of the World and Creation of Mankind. Maybe reading tomorrow about Moshe's passing away, before reaching the Promised Land just before Bereishit and the Story of Creation teaches us that from now on, it's our responsibility to create our "world" and to make out of our land a Promised Land
Chag Sameach, Shabbat Shalom and Shana Tova to all
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 

And more on Simchat Torah:http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2014/10/and-no-person-knows-place-of-his-burial.html 
and a special song for Simcaht Torah: http://www.piyut.org.il/tradition/578.html?currPerformance=706 

יום שלישי, 14 באוקטובר 2014

And no person knows the place of his burial - a different thought on Simchat Torah

And concerning joy [I said], "What does this accomplish?"

Pinchas Leiser

In one of his books, Adam Baruch z"l wrote that as a young man studying at the Hevron Yeshiva he once danced enthusiastically at the hakafot for Simhat Torah.  The rosh yeshiva came over and tapped him on the shoulder and said: "Young man, for what you have studied – you have danced enough."

I think that this encounter with Simhat Torah, (which in the Land of Israel has overshadowed Shemini Atzeret and is rooted in the Babylonian custom of reading the Torah in a one year cycle and which has developed into a folk holiday of dancing and the loosening of various restraints) with the content of the parasha read on that day expresses the same paradoxical dialectic.

In the Diaspora a distinction is maintained between the original holiday of Shemini Atzeret, which is firmly founded in Scripture and rabbinic literature and Simhat Torah, which is celebrated on the "second festival day of the Diaspora."  However, no sign of Shemini Atzeret survives in the Land of Israel except for the maftir reading and the amidah prayer.  The entire People Israel celebrates Simhat Torah.

On this day, even when it does not fall on Shabbat, we read parashat VeZot HaBrakha, which is, of course, the concluding parasha of the Torah.

As we all know, the Torah devotes a few verses (Devarim 34:5-12) to describing Moses' death:

5. And Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there, in the land of Moab, by the mouth of the Lord.
6. And He buried him in the valley, in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Pe'or. And no person knows the place of his burial, unto this day.
7. Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died. His eye had not dimmed, nor had he lost his [natural] freshness.
8. And the sons of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab for thirty days, and the days of weeping over the mourning for Moses came to an end.
9. And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands upon him. And the children of Israel obeyed him, and they did as the Lord had commanded Moses.
10. And there was no other prophet who arose in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face,
11. as manifested by all the signs and wonders, which the Lord had sent him to perform in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and all his servants, and to all his land,
12. and all the strong hand, and all the great awe, which Moses performed before the eyes of all Israel.

Moses, servant of the Lord and the prophet who achieved the greatest intimacy with God, died by the mouth of the Lord; there was no medical explanation for his death, rather, he died because that is the common fate of human beings as decreed by God.  Midrashim describe Moses' dialogue with God, expressing his desire not to die and not just his desire to enter the Land of Israel.  Thus, when Moses joins the rest of humanity, dying by the mouth of the Lord, the man of God is transformed into a human figure rather than an angel or a part of the Divinity.

Furthermore: Our Rabbi Moses, greatest of prophets, has no gravesite!  His burial place is unknown.  One can only imagine what kind of rites would have been practiced by his grave, and indeed, various commentators (Hizkuni and R. Yitzhak Shmuel Reggio) discuss the matter.  R. Yitzhak Shmuel Reggio (Northern Italy 19th century) writes:

And no person knows the place of his burial – Behold this is a wonderful matter; the Torah tried to specify the place of burial as thoroughly as possible - in the valley, in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Pe'or – but despite all that God arranged things so that no person knows the place of his burial.  He did so that future generations would not err and worship him [Moses] as a god in reaction to the fame of the wonders he worked.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim chapter 2, 47a, halakhah 5) also expresses concern that the graves of the righteous should not become places of worship:

We learned: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: "A nefesh [memorial structure built over a grave] should not be made for the righteous; their words are their memorial."

And the RaMBaM (Hilkhot Avel 4:4) states:

The entire cemetery should be marked and a nefesh should be built over each grave, but a nefesh should not be set up over the graves of the righteous for their words are their commemoration and one should not be given to visiting graves.

Regarding the Torah's concluding words, which Moses performed before the eyes of all Israel, Rashi writes:

before the eyes of all Israel [This expression alludes to the incident, where] His heart stirred him up to smash the tablets before their eyes, as it is said, and I shattered them before your eyes (Devarim 9:17). - [Sifrei 33:41] And [regarding Moses shattering the Tablets,] the Holy One Blessed is He gave His approval, as Scripture states, “[the first Tablets] which you shattered” (Shemot 34:1); [God said to Moses:] “Well done for shattering them!” - [Shabbat 87a]. (Judaica Press translation)

It would appear that the death of the ultimate leader is a sad event, and so concerning joy, What does this accomplish?  Why conclude the Torah reading of the festival known as Simhat Torah – the rejoicing of the Torah – with this depressing episode?!

I think that investigation of this short passage teaches us something about the paradoxical joy that is appropriate on this day. Verse 8 states: And the sons of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab for thirty days, and the days of weeping over the mourning for Moses came to an end.  That is to say, Moses' death was mourned in the same normative and limited fashion as is the death of anyone else: for thirty days. 

This limitation, together with other elements discussed above, highlights the fact that despite his fame as the greatest of prophets, Moses was only human.  Perhaps this can teach us that each of us can, as a human being, rise spiritually in his own way, even if we cannot achieve Moses' station.  This is not a matter reserved for "angels."

Let us conclude with a clear statement from R. Meir Simha MiDvinsk's Meshekh Hokhma:  

All of the types of holiness, [that of] the Land of Israel, Jerusalem and the Temple, they are but details and branches of the Torah, and they are sanctified through the Torah's holiness...Do not imagine, God forbid, that the Temple and the Tabernacle are intrinsically holy objects! God dwells among His sons in order for them to worship Him, and if they, to a man, have transgressed the Covenant (Hosea 6:7), all holiness is removed from them [the Temple, etc.], and they become like profane vessels "intruders came and desecrated it." Titus entered the Holy of Holies with a prostitute and was not harmed (Gittin 56b) because its holiness had been removed. More than that - the Tablets - the writing of God - are not holy in themselves, but only for your sake when you observe that which is written in them...no created thing is holy in itself, but only in that Israel observes the Torah.
...None of the holy places are founded in religion... [As for] Mount Sinai, the place of religion, as soon as the Divine Presence left it - the sheep and cattle climbed up it (Shemot 19:13)! (Meshekh Hokhmah Shemot 32:19;12: 21)

Yeshayahu Leibowitz broadened this principle to encompass every phenomenon in our lives that we tend to call "holy":

Our Rabbi Moses exemplified this when he broke the tablets as soon as he saw the people transgress the commandment make no idol or image for yourself. We must understand that the expression idol or any image applies not only to the golden calf made by Israel, but to every natural existent: Nation, land, homeland, flag, army, idea, a personality, and so forth, whenever they are treated as being holy. (Y. Leibowitz: Sheva Shanim shel Sihot al Parashiyot HaShavu'a, pg. 401)

Perhaps it is precisely the knowledge that what is left for us is "the Torah of Moses" – which is the "Torah of Life" that can be interpreted in every new generation, and that we are commanded to choose life and not worship of the dead, of graves, or of other objects - that can be a source of true joy and significance.

Pinchas Leiser, editor of Shabbat Shalom, is a psychologist.


יום שני, 13 באוקטובר 2014

ולא ידע איש את קבורתו

'וּלְשִׂמְחָה מַה זֹּה עֹשָׂה'
פנחס לייזר

באחד מספריו כתב  אדם ברוך ז"ל שכאשר למד בישיבת 'חברון' ורקד בהלהבות בהקפות של שמחת תורה, ניגש אליו ראש הישיבה, טפח על שכמו ואמר לו: בחורצ'יק, בשביל מה שלמדת – רקדת מספיק.
דומני שמפגש זה בין 'שמחת תורה', שהאפיל בארץ ישראל על 'שמיני עצרת', הקשור למנהג הבבלי של קריאת התורה במחזור חד-שנתי, ושהפך להיות חג עממי עם ריקודים והתרת הרסן בעניינים שונים, לבין תוכן הפרשה  הנקראת באותו יום מבטא את הדיאלקטיקה הפרדוכסלית הזאת.
אמנם בחו"ל נשמרת ההפרדה בין החג המקורי, המעוגן היטב במקרא ובספרות חז"ל, שהוא 'שמיני עצרת', לבין שמחת תורה שנחוג כ'יום טוב שני של גלויות', אך בארץ ישראל, מלבד במפטיר ובתפילות העמידה של אותו יום, אין זכר ל'שמיני עצרת'; כל עם ישראל חוגג את שמחת תורה.
ביום זה, גם כאשר החג אינו חל בשבת, אנו קוראים את 'וזאת הברכה', שהיא כדיוע הפרשה האחרונה בתורה.
כידוע לכולנו, מספרת לנו התורה בכמה משפטים על מות משה רבנו(דברים פרק לד, ה-יב) :


(ה) וַיָּמָת שָׁם מֹשֶׁה עֶבֶד ה' בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב עַל פִּי ה'.
(ו) וַיִּקְבֹּר אֹתוֹ בַגַּיְ בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר וְלֹא יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת קְבֻרָתוֹ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה.
(ז) וּמֹשֶׁה בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה בְּמֹתוֹ לֹא כָהֲתָה עֵינוֹ וְלֹא נָס לֵחֹה.
(ח) וַיִּבְכּוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת מֹשֶׁה בְּעַרְבֹת מוֹאָב שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וַיִּתְּמוּ יְמֵי בְכִי אֵבֶל מֹשֶׁה.
(ט) וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן מָלֵא רוּחַ חָכְמָה כִּי סָמַךְ מֹשֶׁה אֶת יָדָיו עָלָיו וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֵלָיו בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' אֶת מֹשֶׁה.
(י) וְלֹא קָם נָבִיא עוֹד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמֹשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר יְדָעוֹ ה' פָּנִים אֶל פָּנִים.
(יא) לְכָל הָאֹתוֹת וְהַמּוֹפְתִים אֲשֶׁר שְׁלָחוֹ ה' לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם לְפַרְעֹה וּלְכָל עֲבָדָיו וּלְכָל אַרְצוֹ.
(יב) וּלְכֹל הַיָּד הַחֲזָקָה וּלְכֹל הַמּוֹרָא הַגָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה לְעֵינֵי כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל.

משה, עבד ה', הנביא אשר זכה לקרבה הגדולה ביותר לקב"ה, מת 'על פי ה'', למרות שלא כהתה עינו ולא נס ליחו; לא היתה שום סיבה 'רפואית' המסבירה את מותו, אלא הוא מת רק משום שכך גזר האל על כל בני אנוש. ידועים המדרשים המתארים את הדיאלוג בין משה לבין ה', המבטאים את אי רצונו למות, ולא רק את רצונו להיכנס לארץ ישראל, ולכן מות משה 'על פי ה' , ככל האדם, הופך את 'איש האלהים' לדמות אנושית ולא למלאך או לחלק מהאלוהות.
יתרה מזו: אין למשה רבנו, גדול הנביאים קבר! מקום קבורתו לא נודע; תארו לעצמכם איזה פולחן היה מתקיים ליד קברו ואכן, פרשנים שונים (חזקוני ורבי יצחק שמואל רג'יו) התייחסו לדבר, וכך כותב רבי יצחק שמואל רג'יו (צפון איטליה – מאה -19):
'לא ידע איש את קבֻרתו – הנה זה עניין נפלא מאד, כי התורה השתדלה לבאר מקום הקבר כל מה שאפשר, בארץ מואב בגיא מול בית פעור, ועם כל זה סבב הקב"ה שלא ידע איש את קבורתו, ועשה זה כדי שלא יטעו הדורות הבאים ויעבוד אותו לאלוה, מצד מה שהתפרסם מהפלאות שעשה.'
מגמה זו, לא להפוך את קברי הצדיקים למקום פולחן, באה לידי ביטוי גם בתלמוד הירושלמי  
(שקלים פרק ב דף מז טור א /ה"ה ): תני רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: 'אין עושין נפשות לצדיקים, דבריהן הן זכרונן'.
וכך פוסק גם הרמב"ם (הלכות אבל פרק ד הלכה ד)
...ומציינין את כל בית הקברות ובונין נפש על הקבר, והצדיקים אין בונים להם נפש על קברותיהם שדבריהם הם זכרונם, ולא יפנה אדם לבקר הקברות.
ועל  מילות הסיום של התורה ' אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה לְעֵינֵי כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל', כותב רש"י (בעקבות הספרי והגמרא במסכת שבת):

'לעיני כל ישראל - שנשאו לבו לשבור הלוחות לעיניהם, שנאמר (לעיל ט, יז) ואשברם לעיניכם, והסכימה דעת הקב"ה לדעתו, שנאמר (שמות לד, א) אשר שברת - יישר כחך ששברת'

לכאורה, מות המנהיג האולטימיבי הוא סיפור עצוב, ואז לשמחה 'מה זה עושה?' – דווקא לקרוא את הסיפור הזה כסיום הקריאה באותו חג המכונה 'שמחת תורה'. תמהני!
דומני שדווקא התבוננות בפרשה הקצרה הזו מלמדת אותנו לא מעט על השמחה הפרדוכסלית הראויה ליום זה:
בפסוק ח' נאמר: 'וַיִּבְכּוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת מֹשֶׁה בְּעַרְבֹת מוֹאָב שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וַיִּתְּמוּ יְמֵי בְכִי אֵבֶל מֹשֶׁה'. כלומר, אבלו של משהו הוא האבל הנורמטיבי על כל אדם ויש לו גבול: שלושים.
הגבלה זו, בנוסף לדברים הנוספים אליהם התייחסנו מבליטה את אנושיותו של משה, למרות היותו גדול הנביאים. ואולי זה מלמד אותנו שכל אחד מאיתנו, אפילו אם אינו יכול להתעלות לדרגתו של משה רבנו, יכול, בדרכו, בהיותו אדם, להתעלות לרמה רוחנית; הדבר אינו שמור ל'מלאכים'.
העדרות הקבר מלמדת אותנו על מרכזיות המורשת הרוחנית, דהיינו, מעשיו של האדם בחייו, הם הזיכרון הראוי להישמר, ולכן אין קדושה בקברו של משה לא בקברו של אף אדם.
ולבסוף, כדבריו הברורים של רבי מאיר שמחה מדווינסק, בעל פירוש 'משך חכמה':

'כל הקדושות ; ארץ ישראל, ירושלים והמקדש, המה רק פרטי וסעיפי התורה, ונתקדשו בקדושת התורה ואל תדמו כי המקדש והמשכן המה עניינים קדושים בעצמם חלילה. השם יתברך שורה בתוך בניו שיעבדוהו, ואם המה כאדם עברו ברית, הוסר מהם כל קדושה והמה ככלי חול באו פריצים ויחללוה; וטיטוס נכנס לקודש הקודשים ולא ניזוק, כי הוסר קדושתו; ויותר מזה הלוחות מכתב אלוהים , גם המה אינם קדושים בעצמם, רק בשבילכם כשתקיימו מה שכתוב בהם...כי אין בשום נברא קדושה בעצם, רק מצד שמירת ישראל התורה...כל המקומות המקודשים אין יסודם מן הדת, אלא באשר הוקדשו למעשה המצוות, והר סיני מקור הדת כיוון שנסתלקה שכינה ממנו, עלו בו צאן ובקר.' (משך חכמה שמות לב, יט)
וישעיהו ליבוביץ מרחיב עקרון זה לגבי כל תופעה בחיינו אותה אנו נוטים "לקדש":
דבר זה הדגים לפנינו משה רבנו, כאשר שבר את הלוחות בו ברגע שנוכח לראות שהעם עבר על הצו 'לא תעשה לך פסל וכל תמונה'; וזאת עלינו לבין כי הביטוי 'פסל וכל תמונה' אינו חל דווקא על עגל הזהב שעשו ישראל, אלא על כל נתון בטבע כגון: עם, ארץ, מולדת, דגל, צבא, רעיון, אדם מסוים וכיוצא בהם, כאשר מעלים אותם לדרגת קדושה. (מתוך י. ליבוביץ: שבע שנים של שיוחת על פרשת השבוע עמ' 401)

ואולי דווקא הידיעה כי מה שנשאר לנו, זה 'תורת משה', שהיא תורת חיים, הניתנת להידרש בכל דור ודור, ומצווה עלינו לבחור בחיים, ולא בפולחן מתים, קברים, או חפצים אחרים, יכולה להוות מקור לשמחה אמיתית ומשמעותית.


פנחס לייזר, עורך שבת שלום, הוא פסיכולוג.

יום רביעי, 8 באוקטובר 2014

סוכות- ענני הכבוד או סוכות ממש? Experiencing Historical Memory

Dear Family and Friends,
There are 2 different interpretations about the nature of  "Sukkot"  in the Desert, suggested by our Sages; were they "real" Sukkot or "Ananey Kavod" (Clouds of Divine Majesty and Splendor)?
Maybe this reflects a meaningful discussion about the best way of experiencing historical memory and existential uncertainty, when we think we can be strong and secure; should we stick to a concrete, structured model, or maybe, in a paradoxical way, the "concrete" Sukkah we are building should help us to perceive and conceive these "Divine Clouds" who protect us, according to the individual meaning we decide to give them.
Chag Sameach to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family 
   


 more on Sukkot: http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2014/10/some-insights-on-lulav.html 

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,

חכמינו, בבואם לפרש ולתת משמעות לסוכות בהן ישבו בני ישראל במדבר, מציעים שתי אפשרויות:
א.   סוכות ממש
ב.    ענני הכבוד
אולי יש כאן ויכוח לגבי האופן בו אנחנו אמורים להחיות ולחוות את הזיכרון ההיסטורי ואת הארעיות של קיומנו, גם כאשר אנחנו מרגישים "בטוחים"; האם עלינו להיצמד למודל קונקרטי, סגור ומובנה, או האם דווקא הסוכה הקונקרטית עשויה לעזור לנו לתת משמעות אינדיווידואלית לאותם "ענני כבוד" המגינים עלינו.
חג שמח ומועדים לשמחה לכולכם,
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם 
עוד על סוכות:
 http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2008/10/normal-0-false-false-false_7880.html

יום שני, 6 באוקטובר 2014

Some insights on Lulav

Ours won! Ours won!

Pinchas Leiser

During the Sukkot festival, we are commanded to take the Four Species.  It would seem that the minimalist halakhah requires us merely to take up the etrog, lulav, myrtle and willow branches and recite the appropriate blessing.  However, already in the Mishnah (Sukkah 3:9) we find mention of the practice of shaking them.  The Gemara (Sukka 37b) explains the manner in which they should be waved, citing, inter alia, the words of R. Hama bar Ukba:

In the West [i.e., the Land of Israel] they learned thusly: R. Hama bar Ukba said in the name of R. Yossi son of R. Hanina: [One shakes it] back and forth – in order to stop foul winds, up and down – in order to stop foul dew.  

In the “studies” section of his commentary, R. Adin Steinsaltz brings an idea in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud:  Why is it shaken?  In order to shake the power of the accuser.

That is to say: we shake the Four Species in order to overcome certain forces of nature and other forces that could hurt us.

The struggle between those evil forces which might harm us and the possibility of overcoming them is also described in the following midrashic tale:

Abba Yosi of Tzitor would always sit and study by a certain spring.  A spirit that was found there revealed itself before him and told him: Do you not know that I sit in your company these many years and have never done you evil, great or small?  Your wives also come here each morning and evening to draw water and they are unharmed, but now you should know that there is an evil spirit [here] which harms people.

Abba Yossi asked the spirit: What shall we do?

The spirit told him: Go warn the townspeople and tell them: Anyone who has a hoe or a rake should come here tomorrow “when the day grows,” they should look at the surface of the water and when they see a whirl in it they should strike it with an iron tool and say: Ours won! Ours won! They should not leave until they see a drop of blood on the surface of the water.  So did Abba Yossi. (Vayikra Rabba 24:3)

Can the concepts appearing in this midrash involving evil spirits and the possibility of gaining victory over evil spirits in the manner described in the story speak to modern people?  Can we connect them to the custom of shaking the Four Species and find in them significance for Jews of our generation?

Modern people are also sometimes threatened by various and sundry threats. Sometimes the physical survival of the individual and the security of the public, the community or the nation face a real threat.

It seems that there exist many strategies for judging the balance of power, gathering needed intelligence, and choosing the most effective means for the neutralization and achievement of “victory” over real threats.  For instance, a strategic assessment can consider the chances of beating the enemy in battle, the cost to be paid for victory, and first and foremost it must define the meaning of “victory” in the particular case, i.e., to determine what is to be gained by battle and what are the chances of its achievement.

Similarly, it may happen that when all options are considered, intelligence and strategic assessment will lead to the conclusion that military action has no advantage over other means (negotiations, mediation, and international pressure) for the removal or mitigation of the threat. 

It should be supposed and hoped for that if the events of the recent war are investigated seriously by an independent body, we will know to what extent those in charge assessed the threat accurately, clearly defined the goals of realistic “victory,” considered all available options, and chose the best and most effective course of action to achieve their defined goals.  In light of the calls for the establishment of a state commission of inquiry, it may be assumed that much of the public feels that the conduct of the war was flawed.  Beyond the real and present danger, one sometimes feels threatened by a demonic force which floods him with potentially paralyzing fear.  In contrast to the actual threat, here the source of the danger is undefined, making it impossible to develop a rational strategy for vanquishing the threat based on the assessment of information.

In the midrash quoted above, Abba Yossi of Tzitor asks the “good spirit” what should be done in order to overcome the “bad spirit” that might hurt the townspeople.  The good spirit suggests something that sounds like a magical rite.  However, the story can bear a different reading.

Abba Yossi of Tzitor sat by the spring and studied.  It is not surprising that he was connected to the “good spirit.”  A person who studies is in touch with the positive and constructive parts of his soul; through study and observation of the spring he can find the way to overcome his destructive elements, his “evil spirits.”  The “weapons” needed for doing battle against the evil spirit are not really instruments of war; it seems that the cry “Our’s won!” is what decided the outcome of the struggle.  Here we have an inner conflict with the forces of evil that can overcome a person or a society.  Such evil elements can be beaten by emphasizing the good, by cultivating faith in the ability of the good to gain victory over evil, and by struggling for that faith.

I think that Agnon’s story “From Foe to Friend” suggests an interesting way to conduct this struggle.

In the beginning of the story, the author finds himself in a desperate conflict with a wind [ruah – which also means spirit].  He tries various means to deal with it, but “I saw that I cannot conduct a discussion with someone stronger than me, so I left.”  Thus, the story continues with an endless and Sisyphean struggle against the wind that has been designated as his enemy.  Finally

I took some strong boards and beams and large stones and plaster and cement, and I hired good workers and oversaw them day and night.  My wisdom endured, and I deepened the foundations.  The house was built.

When the house was standing, the wind came and knocked on the shutters.

I asked: “Who is knocking on my window?”

It calmed and said: “A neighbor.”

I said to it: “What does one neighbor ask another on such a stormy night?”

He laughed and said: “A neighbor comes to congratulate his neighbor on his new house.”

I said to him: “Is it his custom to enter through windows like a thief?  Come, knock on my door.”

The wind said: “I am your neighbor.”

I said: “You are my neighbor, come inside.”

He said: “But the door is locked.”

I said to him: “The door is locked; it seems I locked it.”

The wind answered, saying: “Open up.”

I said: “I am afraid of the cold, wait until the sun comes out and I shall open it for you…”

I took a hoe and tilled the earth…not many days passed before the seedlings I had planted became trees with branches.  I made a bench for myself and sat in their shade.

One night the wind came and hurled itself against the trees.

The trees hurled themselves against the wind.

The wind became dispirited, he turned and left.

From then on, he brings a nice fragrance from the mountains and from the valleys… and I love him with a complete love. It is even possible that he loves me as well.

This story contains an echo of the definition of the valiant in Avot De’Rabbi Natan (chapter 23):

Who is the most valiant among the valiant? He who makes his enemy love him.

I think that while shaking the Four Species this year, we should reflect upon the deeper meaning of the difficult internal battle which can help us overcome the evil spirit of hatred, bigotry, and aggressiveness which can gain control of us.  We should change “a foe into a friend” and then we shall be able to announce whole-heartedly and with great conviction: “Our’s has won” – our original faith and values have won.

Pinchas Leiser, the editor of Shabbat Shalom, is a psychologist

יום חמישי, 2 באוקטובר 2014

פתח לנו שער

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
בתפילת נעילה אנו מבקשים: "פתח לנו שער, בעת נעילת שער כי פנה יום". קפקא  מסיים את סיפורו "לפני שער החוק" בדברי "השומר": השער הזה הוא רק בשבילך, אף אדם אחר לא יכול היה להיכנס בשער הזה".
אולי בא הדבר ללמדנו שעל כל אחד ואחת מאיתנו לבחור את השערים אליהם הוא רוצה להיכנס ולדאוג לכך שהם יישארו פתוחים.
גמר חתימה טובה, חג כיפורים שמח והרבה טוב
פנחס, ציפי ובני משפחתם
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 

עוד על תשובה וכפרה:  http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2011/10/blog-post.html 
וביצוע נפלא של הפיוט "פתח לנו שער" : 
http://www.piyut.org.il/tradition/3456.html?section=morePerformances&currPerformance=4648&playing=0 



Dear Family and Friends,
Towards the end of Yom Kippur, during Neilah, we say : Petach lanu Shaar, beet Neilat Shaar"-
Kafka wrote that there is a gate for each of us . 
Maybe this teaches us that we have to choose the gates we want to enter and try to keep them open 
Shabbat Shalom- Gemar Hatima Tova and Shana Tova to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie,and Family
More on Atonement and Repentance: http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2014/10/on-repentance-and-atonement.html 
and a very moving rendition of "Petach lanu Shaar" : 
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.co.il/2014/10/on-repentance-and-atonement.html

יום רביעי, 1 באוקטובר 2014

On Repentance and Atonement

REPENTANCE = ATONEMENT?
Pinchas Leiser

One of the more intriguing questions posed by religious thought is the “division of labor”  between man and God in perfecting the world and man. God is portrayed in many of our sources as one who desires the perfection of the world, who does not desire “the death of the wicked; but for the wicked to turn from his course and live.” Much has been written throughout the generations about the connection between repentance and atonement, and about the mutual tie between the two concepts.

          Many are acquainted with the berayta of Rabbi Yismael on “chilukey kapparah” – the classification of modes of expiation. This berayta  is the basis for some of the Rambam’s “Laws of Repentance”, in which repentance is considered an essential – but not always  adequate – condition for atonement.

          The words of the Rambam at the beginning of “The Laws of Repentance” (1:2) pose problems and provoke thoughts – many of which were formulated by the Rambam’s commentators. So wrote the Rambam:

[2] The ‘sent away goat’ – because it was an atonement for all of Israel, the High Priest would confess upon it, in terms referring to all of Israel, as is written, “And is to confess over it all the iniquities of Children of Israel” (Vayikra 16:21)

The ‘sent-away goat’ atones for all the transgressions in the Torah, the light ones and the grave ones, whether done willfully or by mistake, whether beknown to him or unbeknown to him --  all are atoned for by the sent-away goat.  All this, provided that the person repented. But if he did not repent, the goat atones only for the lighter infractions.

What are the lighter ones and what are the serious ones? The serious ones are those which incur capital punishment by the Beth Din, or kareth – a Divinely inflicted punishment. False and unnecessary oaths, even though they carry no kareth penalty, are among the serious ones. All other negative precepts, and positive commandments not subject to  kareth punishment, are considered minor infractions.

          Rambam’s rulings are puzzling in many respects: According to his understanding, there is no single sacrifice which atones sans repentance. Even Yom Hakippurim in our time (1:3) provides atonement only for those who repent. Similarly – and this was noted by Rabbi Yosef Karo in his “Kessef Mishneh” – the Rambam’s system does not conform to any of the Tannaic positions consistently quoted in the Mishna and the Talmud Bavli.  Rebbi takes the most radical position – the sent-goat atones – even without repentance – for all sins, minor as well as major, with the exception of the three specially serious transgressions.  According to the dissenting Sages, the goat can never atone unless accompanied by repentance. The Rambam’s position represents a compromise between these two extremes.  The Rambam’s “arm bearers”  grappled with this difficulty. Rabbi Yosef Karo, in his “Kessef Mishneh”, concludes “requires further study”.  The author of the “Lechem Mishneh”  suggests that the Rambam’s aim is to make the controversy between Rebbi and the Sages less polar. None of these commentators suggest an alternate source for the Rambam’s position. I have not examined latter day  scholars’ explanations; I assume that they deal with this question.
         
          Rabbi Soleveitchik, z”l, also dealt with this question in his “On Repentance”. He draws an interesting distinction – a la the ‘Brisk method’ – between the atonement of the individual and that of the community. He reads the Rambam’s text very closely -- “The ‘sent-away goat’,  because it was an atonement for all of Israel” – he identifies as an offering belonging to the totality of Israel, to Klal Yisrael.  The confession of the High Priest, then, is not a confession of individual sins, but of the sins of the community.  He is not the agent of individuals, but the emissary of Klal Yisrael. This distinction helps Rabbi Soleveitchik explain the contradiction within the Rambam’s own words to the effect that the passage “the  sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination” refers to the sacrifice -- unaccompanied by teshuva. -- of the individual sinner A person who belongs to Klal Yisrael earns expiation through confession and the offering of the ‘goat to Azazel’.  This applies to all transgressions, excluding karet, because the essence of karet – being cut off --  is the expulsion of the individual from Klal Yisrael.

          What, then, is the relevance of this brilliant analytic distinction for  a Jew living in a modern and post-modern reality, in Eretz Yisrael or in the Diaspora, other than having provided a resolution to a problem in the Rambam’s opus?

          In my opinion, there is no single, clear-cut answer. Today, of course, there is no practical possibility of atonement without repentance. In the wonderful formulation of the Rambam: “Today, when there is no Temple and we have no altar of atonement, there remains only repentance. Repentance atones for all sins . . .”

          On a theoretical level, however, we might add a hermeneutic (drush) level to Rabbi Soleveitchik’s analytical examination.     

          The annulment of institutions or ceremonies which were prevalent in the past, opens the door to various explications. In certain instances, the sources take a clear and unequivocal  stand, for example: “With the increase of murderers, the [ceremony of] egla arufa -–the broken-necked calf – was cancelled; with the increase of adulterers, the  [ceremony of] the cursing waters [given the Sotah – the wife suspected of infidelity] was nullified.”  It is evident to all of us that a situation in which there is an “increase of murderers” is perceived to be a morally and spiritually degenerate reality.

          In other cases, things are less clear-cut. In contrast to the approach which considers the revival of sacrificial ritual to constitute “return of the crown to its  original position”,  we cannot ignore the fact that our Sages tended to assign to acts of charity and good deeds greater spiritual worth than to sacrifices.  It is superfluous to state that the Rambam, in his Guide, considers the sacrifices to be a sort of “compromise” with the pagan world.

          A situation in which an individual can achieve atonement via the confession of the High Priest is, without doubt, quite advantageous; on occasion, we can sense the power potential of a public.  This power is beyond anything which the individuals comprising the community can amass; the individual draws his power from the masses. On certain occasions --  such as on Yom Hakippurim – we are able to experience the tremendous spiritual power of communal prayer.

          In our own generation, society offered ‘sacrifices’.  Unlike the sent-away goat, these were very painful sacrifices. There is no doubt that the pain of all who pay a personal price for our existence here is unbearable. But as long as there was a tsibbur – a “community” – who felt that that the personal sacrifice was also its sacrifice, there was  a different feeling about the meaning of the sacrifice.

          It is not quite clear at what point the sense of “community” began to fade, and whether all its roots of decline can be identified; the tendency to blame the “other” (the ultra-Orthodox, the left, the settler, the hedonistic secularists, etc.) is widespread – and frighteningly simplistic.

          Perhaps, in the absence of “community”, the individual is charged with greater responsibility; in order to perfect himself, he has at his disposal only his own efforts. But beyond the opportunity for development, there is also regression in the  perfecting of the whole of society.

          For various and sundry reasons, we live in an era in which the concept of “community” has been weakened. “Knesset Yisrael”, as a spiritual concept, is independent of historical and others circumstances, but Jewish society is split and divided. I do not refer necessarily to political or ideological differences. When there is agreement on minimally common goals and on modes of resolution in cases of controversy, social cohesion need not be impaired. It is understood, then, that the ability to consider the sacrifice as a “communal sacrifice” is in proportion to  the weakening of the sense of “community.”

I do not necessarily long for the ancient ceremony of the “Goat for Azazel” as recorded  in the “Order of Service” of Yom Hakippurim.  I do pray that the day will come – may we merit seeing it – when we will be able to interpret the concept of “Eretz Yisrael is obtained through suffering” in a non-literal fashion. In the meantime, however, it seems that if life is dear to us, we must examine, each of us for himself, what is in his power to do in order to build anew a society which is marked by multiplicity but which is capable of defining common goals in a spirit of respect and mutual appreciation. There were times when sacrifices and shared suffering created “a covenant of destiny”, in the words of Rabbi Soleveitchik. In our day, it seems, this is not enough. There is an urgent need to define common and basic goals through wide communal agreement. Then, if we must pay a price, this society will see to it that it will be as low as possible and shared as equally as possible.

          The High Priest, according to Chazal tradition, was responsible for the spiritual condition of the generation; through his power and in his merit, human life was respected in society (so Chazal and some of the commentators explain the sentence of the accidental killer to life in the city of refuge “until the death of the High Priest”). Therefore, only a society able to nurture such a spiritual leadership can be represented by the communal sacrifice which the Priest offers and the confession which he utters.
                             “Today, there is only repentance.”

                                      Pinchas Leiser, editor of “Shabbat Shalom”, is a psychologist.