Sage Prescriptions For a Strong Torah Marriage; a translation of Rambam 15:19-20

Law 19:

Likewise our Sages commanded: that a man honor his wife more than he honors himself; that he love her as he loves himself; that if he is a man of means, he provide for her welfare in accordance with those means; that he not cause her to fear him excessively; that he speak to her gently; and that he not act nervously (depressed?) nor be easily made angry.

Law 20:

They [the Sages] likewise commanded upon the woman: that she honor her husband excessively; that she be in awe of him; that she tailor all her actions to be in accordance with his will; that he be in her eyes as a ruler or king, conducting herself in the ways of his heart, and distancing that which he hates.

And this is the conduct of the holy and pure children of Israel in their unions. And through this conduct, their dwelling will be beautiful and praiseworthy.

Do we all worship the same G-d?

The truth is that the question is a non-starter; what does one mean by the same G-d?

There is only one G-d. So when you direct your attentions to G-d, it is at him you are aiming.

Let’s look at it in another way:

There is G-d; and there is our conception of Him.

Let’s say G-d ‘is’ Light (as it were) and our conception of Him is the vessel in which that light is ‘contained’ and expressed.

If part of a man’s conception of G-d is true, then G-d(ly) light is contained and expressed in that vessel. If part of the conception/vessel is false, then there is no light contained and expressed in that part. The light is the same light nonetheless.

Accordingly, the more ‘pure’ the vessel, the more expressed the light; the less pure, the less expressed the light. Same light, though.

If a person has vessels within vessels within vessels, the light is less manifest; especially if the exterior vessels are false, then the light is concealed. But expressed or not, concealed or not, the light is there the same. Matter of fact, even a pure vessel, though expressing light, obscures or directs attention from the light which cannot be contained, and of course from the essence of G-d which is not light, which is G-d, simple and undefined.

Thus the advantage of relating to G-d through simple faith, accepting that he is beyond conception, not just our conception, but any conception, even infinite conception. Sorta like trying to physically touch an idea.

The reason why we must try to understand-it is the very first commandment according to the Rambam-is because G-d wishes to fill the person; his mind, then his heart; then his thought, speech and action. Indeed that is why he chooses to manifest himself also in a finite way; alas, just as G-d isn’t limited to the finite, so he is not limited to the infinite. But the light is the light is the light. There is one G-d. G-d is one.

This dynamic holds for all theistic attentions.

Here is the difference: Torah says about itself that it is one with G-d; thus Torah vessel and G-dly light are utterly one.

The Heart of the IDF

Art is a tremendous medium for communication, and I have yet to see anything better convey the heart of the Jewish army than the combination of images and music in the clip that follows.

Though most attention is payed to the hands, which are “the hands of Eisov”, what’s critical is the heart: the voice of Ya’acov.

The chorus of the song, rendered in English, is,

We are believers, children of believers; we have no one upon whom to rely; except for our father–our father in heaven.

The most striking image is 1.15 minutes in; the wall is the Eternal Western Wall; The men in green are our soldiers.

The Place of the Altar: Rambam; Laws of the Temple, Chapter 2, Law 2

Through our tradition, it is well known to everyone that the place in ‘Goren Aravna’ on which David and Shlomo (Solomon) built the altar is the very place on which Avraham built the altar on which he bound his son Yiztchak (Isaac). It is the very place on which Noach (Noah) built [his altar] after leaving the Ark. It is the very place on which Kain and Hevel (Cain and Abel) offered [their respective sacrifices]. And in this very place Adam offered his sacrifice after he was created.

From this place he [Adam] was created; Our Sages said, “From the place of his atonement, Man was created”.

The Kingdom of Joseph

 

 

 

 

After spending a decade or so in prison (context), where he arose as temporal and spiritual leader of the ‘local’ population, Yosef (Joseph) finds himself, through a truly fantastic chain of events (context), appointed by the Pharaoh–effective ruler of Egypt, which was all ready by then the most important empire in the world (it was, then, soon to become ever more wealthy and powerful, see the above link).

The definition of Yosef’s power and position is, in the words of the Pharaoh. “without you[r permission], no man shall lift his hand nor foot, in the entire land of Egypt.”(Genesis 41:44); “By your word my nation shall be sustained; only by my throne, shall I be greater than you; [they shall call me King, comments Rashi], (ibid 41:40).

Pharaoh sets forth his reasoning, thusly, “Can there be found [anywhere] a man like this, in whom is found the spirit of G-d?!”; “as G-d has revealed to you all this, there is no understanding and wise [man] like you.” (ibid 41:38; 41;39).

For Yosef’s inauguration, the Pharaoh parades Yosef in the chariot designated second to the king’s own, while criers call out, referring to Yosef, the title “Avrech”.

The title “Avrech”, a word etymologically derived from the Hebrew “Verech” (knee), was designed to convey how all Egyptians were to kneel before Yosef. (Physical attestations of subjugation were the norm then, as is well known.)

Interestingly though, later on, after many years, when the children of Jacob (Israel)–coming as they were from Cana’an to purchase direly needed food and not being able to recognize Yosef, their brother, by sight–appear before Yosef, they prostrate themselves before him, “faces to the ground”.

But the custom was to kneel?

The resolution is simple: Egyptians, understanding that Yosef’s power was (then) not fully his own, but rather an extension of the will of the Pharaoh, only kneeled before him, never prostrating themselves fully, as they would before the Pharaoh. But when the children of Israel–foreigners arriving in the land many years after Yosef’s appointment–saw how Yosef ran the ‘show’, they made no distinction between the status of Yosef and the Pharaoh, and therefore prostrated themselves fully.

A Kabbilistic view on the issue is as follows: The sovereignty of Yosef-a lofty G-dly soul from the world of Atzilus (don’t bother googling)-was a physical representation of the sovereignty of G-d. And kneeling and prostrating, were, respectively, a less and more extreme physical expression of the state of subjugation Yosef’s G-dly reign effectuated in his subjects .

The Egyptians, inhabitants of the land that was at least then known as the “Nakedness of the Earth”, were not brought to the utter subjugation embodied in the act of prostration; They were only brought to their knees. The children of Israel, on the other hand, were brought to an Abrahimic “I am but dust and ash” nullification before G-d, by virtue of their superior spiritual level; they prostrated “faces to the ground”.

We await the complete manifestation of G-d’s Kingship, in the Davidic Kingship of the Moshiach (Messiah). When all the nations will serve G-d, side by side.

Anti-anti-semitism

Thirty four years after leaving the land of Israel, escaping, thereby, the vengeful wrath of his brother, Eisov, Ya’acov begins his journey homeward.

On the way, Ya’acov, knowing that he must encounter Eisov, sends a contingent of messengers (angels) to Eisov in order to find out Eisov’s intentions regarding him.

He tells his Eisov, through the messengers, that he has “been dwelling with Lavan”, and then goes on to tell him-again, through the messengers-about the possessions he has managed to amass while with Lavan.

Rashi, after pointing out that the Hebrew word for “been dwelling” is numerically equivalent to 613 (the number of Torah commandments), comments that with his “I have been dwelling (613) with
Lavan”, Ya’acov wished to convey to Eisov that despite his residence with the “wicked” Lavan, he had not been affected by Lavan’s lifestyle and had managed to keep all 613 torah commandments.

Only then did Ya’acov tell Eisov about his wealth and worldly accomplishments.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe, drawing upon the famous dictate, “the behavior of the Patriarchs is an example to their children”, informs us that we can learn from this episode an important lesson regarding Jewish public relations:

When a Jew finds himself needing to curry favor with non-Jews, he must not ever assume a posture of self-abasement and weakness. Rather, he must approach the non-Jew with “Geon Ya’acov” (the pride of Jacob), declaring proudly his dedication to the Torah and its commandments.

And when a Jew behaves in this manner, not only will the non-Jew concede to the Jew what he needs–Eisov says to Ya’acov “keep what is yours”(Genesis 33:9); ”here Eisov concedes the blessings to Ya’acov”, comments Rashi–but also he will come eventually to a state of admiration and love for the Jew–”And he embraced and kissed him” (33:4)

Jacob’s America: a Torah thought for Thanksgiving

Returning to the land of Israel after twenty years abroad, our forefather Jacob stayed for a while in the city of Shechem (today’s Nablus). In this week’s Torah portion, this is described with the phrase “vayichan es penei ha’ir” — “he encamped in front of (lit., at the face of) the city” (Gen. 33:18).

Our Sages, though, saw another meaning in this phrase. Vayichan (”he encamped” — thanks to Naftali for suggesting that I add this clarification) can also be related to the word chein, favor, and so they explain (Talmud, Shabbos 33b) that Jacob made the city’s conditions (its “face” to the outside world) more favorable. (Opinions vary as to what he contributed: he set up a system of coinage to facilitate trade, or markets in which people could buy food cheaply, or bathhouses.)

From this we learn, states the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 79:6), that a person owes thanks to a place from which they have benefited. In this case, even though Jacob was planning to stay in Shechem only temporarily — his destination was Hebron, where his parents lived and where his grandparents were buried — he still took the time to make Shechem a better place, financially and socially, for its citizens.

How indeed did Jacob come to be so public-spirited? We can get an idea from the previous verse and a half (Gen. 33:17-18a):

“Jacob traveled to Sukkos, and built himself a house, while for his cattle he made booths (Heb., sukkos); therefore the place was called Sukkos. Then Jacob arrived whole in the city of Shechem…”

Jacob commemorated the booths rather than the house in naming the place, because it’s all too easy to fall into the mindset that the human and the animal, the spiritual and the material, are on the same level and deserve the same amenities. He wanted to memorialize, for himself and his descendants, that what makes us human — our spiritual self — requires nothing less than a permanent “house,” a major investment of one’s resources; while for our possessions, and for the elements of ourselves that we share with the lower orders, a second-class status of “booths” is good enough.

In turn, this ability to keep his priorities straight made it possible for Jacob to remain the consummate Torah scholar — to arrive “whole” (in his Torah knowledge, as Rashi here explains) at Shechem — and then to be civic-minded and express, in a practical way, his thanks to his hosts.

* * *

We American Jews also owe a profound debt of gratitude to our country for the freedoms we enjoy here as Jews and as citizens. Like our ancestor Jacob, we should contribute our talents to the improvement of the American body politic, each in his or her own way (and indeed, the most cursory glance at the history of the United States shows how much Jews have done so over the generations). True that America is only a way-station on our journey to our ultimate destination; like Jacob, we look forward to our reunion with our Father (in Heaven) and to the resumption of our intimate relationship with Him (the Hebrew name for Hebron, Chevron, is related to chibbur, attachment) with the coming of Moshiach. Nevertheless, so long as we are here, we should be grateful for her hospitality to us — for being a medinah shel chessed (government of kindness), as great Torah leaders have dubbed America (and of course our ultimate thanks should go to G-d, for making all of this possible and for placing us here and not in some other country).

Far from the idea, though, that this requires us to abandon or dilute our dedication to our Torah and our Jewishness — that we need to join the “melting pot” and assimilate entirely or partially into American society; that Judaism is a relic of the “old country” or of medieval times — we can take a lesson from Jacob that, on the contrary, it’s our Torah and its ideals that inform our sense of civic virtue and thankfulness for the bounty that America provides for us (and for much of the rest of the world too), and that should inspire us to give our all to help her be “a more perfect union” for ourselves and our fellow citizens.

Shem and Ever, vs. Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov; or, Insularity vs. Outreach

On his way out of the Land of Israel, fleeing from the murderous wrath of his brother Esav, our forefather Yaakov stopped in at the yeshivah of Ever, who in fact was his several-times-over great-grandfather, and studied there uninterruptedly for fourteen years.

In that, he was following something of a family tradition. Yaakov’s father Yitzchak had also spent a couple of years at this yeshivah, between the Akeidah and his marriage. (Back then Shem, the founder of the yeshivah, was still alive.) I don’t know if Avraham ever studied there, but we know that he did have a meeting with Shem — under his alternate name of Malki-Tzedek — at which they exchanged goods, blessings, and undoubtedly, Torah ideas (Bereishis 14:18ff).

(Incidentally, here’s an interesting blog entry - apparently referring to this article (in Hebrew) - arguing that this yeshivah can be identified with archeological remnants found in the North Syrian city of Ebla. I don’t know what to make of it, but it’s an interesting idea, at least.)

Anyone who’s descended from Avraham is obviously descended from Shem and Ever too, since they were his ancestors. Furthermore, they knew and taught about Hashem and His Torah. So why indeed don’t we consider them the forefathers of the Jewish People, rather than starting de novo with Avraham?

One answer I’ve seen (I don’t recall the source, unfortunately — a common failing of mine) boils down to this: Shem and Ever were prepared to teach Torah to whoever showed up, but they didn’t go out to actively seek new students. Shem, for example, had his oasis of G-dliness in (Jeru)salem, where he was both king and “priest to the Most High G-d,” while the rest of the land of Canaan was sunk in paganism and gross immorality. Whereas Avraham (and Sarah) reached out, bringing to the masses knowledge of G-d’s existence and His expectations of us. (So important was this work, indeed, that the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 9a) dates a new epoch in world history — the “two thousand years of Torah” – from the beginning of Avraham’s work on “making souls in Charan,” in the year 2000 since Creation.) Yitzchak and Rivkah, Yaakov and Rachel and Leah, all continued this work of demonstrating G-d’s existence to an apathetic or even hostile world. And ultimately, this is why we describe Hashem as “the G-d of Avraham, the G-d of Yitzchak, and the G-d of Yaakov,” and ourselves as their children, rather than referring to Adam or Noach or Shem or Ever.

* * *

This past Shabbos saw the population of my neighborhood, Crown Heights, swell with the influx of Shluchim from all over the world, coming to town for the annual Shluchim Convention. Among these was our gracious blog host, Reb Naftali; and I had the privilege of meeting him in person after Shabbos, at a Chassidic farbrengen (gathering) in my local shul. (And here’s an appropriate place to thank him for giving me a platform on his blog. I can only hope that I’ll live up to the Talmud’s characterization (Berachos 58a) of a good guest, who thoughtfully appreciates everything that his host does for him.)

In Brooklyn or any other major Jewish population center, it’s easy to be insular — to basically ignore the outside world, keep one’s contacts with it to a minimum, and focus on maintaining one’s own Jewish identity and that of his or her family and immediate circle. The Shluchim of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, on the contrary, follow the trail blazed by Avraham and his successors, carrying the torch of Torah to places remote geographically, mentally, and spiritually distant from G-dliness, and preparing the world for its ultimate goal, the “two thousand years of Moshiach” in which Hashem’s presence will be revealed to our fleshly eyes. They are the future of Lubavitch in particular, and the Jewish People in general; they are the Avrahams to our Shems, the Yaakovs to our Evers.

Addendum

In connection with the previous post, I saw fit to post this excellent and concise comment by our own AlexH:

The truth of Judaism is based on Divine revelation in the presence of an entire nation of several millions, something that no other religion is able - or has ever tried - to claim, and which is pretty well impossible to falsify after the fact. (If you try to convince someone that his ancestors experienced some transformative experience, he might well counter by asking why, if it was that important, his parents never mentioned it to him before.)

Epistemological challenges to speculative science.

The following is an excerpt of a letter authored by the Lubaviture Rebbe:

[...] Basically the problem has its roots in a misconception of the scientific method or, simply, of what science is. We must distinguish between empirical or experimental science dealing with, and confined to, describing and classifying observable phenomena, and speculative science, dealing with unknown phenomena, sometimes phenomena that cannot be duplicated in a laboratory. Scientific speculation is actually a terminological incongruity; for science, strictly speaking, means knowledge, while no speculation can be called knowledge in the strict sense of the word.

At best, science can only speak in terms of theories inferred from certain known facts and applied in the realm of the unknown.

Here science has two general methods of inference:

The method of interpolation (as distinguished from extrapolation), whereby, knowing the reaction under two extremes, we attempt to infer what the reaction might be at any point between the two.

The method of extrapolation, whereby inferences are made beyond a known range, on the basis of certain variables within the known range.

For example, suppose we know the variables of a certain element within a temperature range of 0-100, and on the basis of this we estimate what the reaction might be at 101, 200, or 2000.

Of the two methods, the second (extrapolation) is clearly the more uncertain.

Moreover, the uncertainty increases with the distance away from the known range and with the decrease of this range. Thus, if the known range is between 0 and 100, our inference at 101 has a greater probability than at 1001.

Let us note at once, that all speculation regarding the origin of the universe comes within the second and weaker method, that of extrapolation. The weakness becomes more apparent if we bear in mind that a generalization inferred from a known consequent to an unknown antecedent is more speculative than an inference from an antecedent to a consequent.

That an inference from consequent to antecedent is more speculative than an inference from antecedent to consequent can be demonstrated very simply:

Four divided by two equals two. Here the antecedent is represented by the divided and the divisor, and the consequent - by the quotient. Knowing the antecedent in this case, gives us one possible result — the quotient.

However, if we know only the end result, namely, the number two, and we ask ourselves, how can we arrive at the number two, The answer permits several possibilities, arrived at by means of different methods:

(a) 1 plus 1 equals 2;
(b) 4 - 2 equals 2;
(c) 1 * 2 equals 2;
(d) 4 divided by 2 equals 2.

Note that if other numbers are two come into play, the number of possibilities giving us the same result is infinite (since 5 - 3 also equals 2; 6 divided by 3 equals 2 etc, ad infinitum). Add to this another difficulty, which is prevalent in all methods of induction.