The Curious Jew

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving, for me, is a family holiday. The excitement, the anticipation, the goodly smells that fill the house, the kitchen in and of itself as the center of all things, the anxious wish to set the table with one of our most beautiful autumnal tablecloths and pretty china dishes...all these things are Thanksgiving to me.

The half-groan as I'm woken early to help my mother in the kitchen, such help usually not taking the form of the actual cooking but rather the preparatory steps, the cutting of vegetables or pouring of sauces or the marinading of chicken, brushing egg yolks over crispy dough, brinking up cans of pumpkin mix from the cellar, or perhaps bringing up the whole green and yellow squash from the refrigerator in the basement...all this is Thanksgiving.

The work, the laughter, the loss of tempers, the witty conversation between all the family members, the music, which is always something strong and rythymic (salsa, tango, or various artists- who will it be, I wonder, Marc Anthony, Avraham Russo, Enrique, or Gipsyland?), the urgent telephone calls and laughing good-natured anecdotes about the experiences of others as we all inform each other of the recent and most important developments in our lives...

Thanksgiving is a time of sharing. The shared energy and excitement as we all help prepare, the addition of sparkling apple cider or sugar water or sparkling grape juice to the laden table, the beautiful colors mixing together, the smile as we all sit down to dine and exclaim over what we've made and the various dishes my mother has put together...oh, and the pies and desserts my grandmother has made...

We also prepare the table in a very different fashion than ordinary. The napkins must be folded or pressed or placed in wine glasses in an elaborate display; we make family members little poems or odes of thanks and leave these offerings on appetizer plates, and go around the table relating what we are thankful for. Good cheer, comfort, happiness and family- that is our Thanksgiving.

And I realize today that I am thankful for my family. I miss them, their smiles and witty dialogue; I miss my siblings' conversations or arguments and even their fights. I miss discussing books with them and hearing about their lives. I miss seeing them, their curly-haired heads; I simply miss being with them. Such siblings are rare and precious, so beautiful and kind and caring and simply sweet, especially sweet at the times when they think of me, as it is so unexpected and so unearned. So strange to think of their regard for me, a regard that does not match with what they ought to feel for so neglectful and trying a sister.

I feel blessed. I will admit it now, while I retain a certain contemplative and half-sad state, that I do love and do miss my family so very much. Perhaps in the heat of an argument I will not remember it, but it is true, and I say it whole-heartedly: I miss you all. Your auburn hair, your curly locks, our theories and discussions about books, your clever smile and antics, the fact that you are growing up and I missed seeing you clear out my room in search of books that weren't even there. How entertaining that would have been! I miss your charm and your infuriating nature; I find I even miss the sound of you practicing your musical instruments. I miss seeing your changes of expression as different thoughts dawn upon you. I miss my urgent and neccessary discussions with you both, my parents. I miss prancing about and making you all laugh.

I miss the warmth that binds us together; the warmth you took care to create so that we would be bound. I miss the light laughter and the smell of the gravy you had me strain three times while I rolled my eyes and stamped about the kitchen indignantly.

I miss the feeling of participation in something that had a greater goal we could all enjoy. The lighthearted golden motes of air that wafted through the room as we carved turkey or passed plates and exclaimed over the delicacies that graced our table.

And so, though I am happy, and not homesick in any miserable or wretched way, I tell you that I miss you, and I thank you for creating the kind of bonds that tie us so that I do miss you.

It is a rare thing, and you have done it.
You should be proud.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Texts and Contexts in Terms of Jewish Texts: What's in it for You? by Rabbi Ephraim Kanarfogel

THESE NOTES ARE UNAPPROVED AND UNOFFICIAL. IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT IS MISQUOTED OR MISREPRESENTED, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS TO BE MY MISTAKE.

One of the components to the YU Honors Program are certain events and functions that we must attend. Girls have an obligation to attend about six out of seven events, while guys don’t have this as a mandatory requirement. Last night, November 20, 2006, I had the pleasure of listening to the extremely knowledgeable and well-known Rabbi Ephraim Kanarfogel deliver a lecture entitled “Texts and Contexts in Terms of Jewish Texts: What’s in it for You?” The speech was partly autobiographical in nature, and traced his journey to where he is today, what his field entails, and why he enjoys it. To give a very simple sketch, he delves into Jewish manuscripts of various kinds (interpreting, understanding, and comparing them with regard to the texts and manuscripts we retained over the years) and draws conclusions about time periods and Judaic views during those time periods from his discoveries.

The following are my notes from the event:

Thank you very much, Dr. Wachtell. I am unaccustomed to speaking to coed audiences, but actually not as unaccustomed as I was, as my Revel class is half and half at the moment- let me put in a plug; the last time I spoke to a coed audience of this type was during an event run in Belfur- it was entitled the “Home and Home” shiur series, where the faculty of Stern would give a lecture, then the faculty of YU, they would switch off and we would have Dougies afterward. That was the mingle plan then.

The fact is, obviously the students at Stern are somewhat more familiar with what I do aside from running around signing things. I am engaged in research, though as a whole people engaged in research don’t spend very much time giving you a sense of what kind of research can be done.

I titled this talk “Texts and Contexts: What’s in it for You?” because the men and women of YU and Stern are uniquely positioned. For us at YU there really doesn’t have to be a stirah- YU students can embrace ideas, texts, that will challenge them and not take them away from traditional learning in any sense. The role of Orthodox Jews in research in Jewish studies is expanding, and yet I feel we’re not sending as many people as we could- and there are reasons for this, economic, pecuniary, societal, whatever it may be- the fact is that this university could make a contribution, since our students have the experience with text that few undergraduates have, certainly not in this kind of concentration. What’s missing in the students who go into this kind of research from other universities is the textual facility- you can learn academic jargon, academic writing, but this is harder.

Professor Twerski of Harvard used to bring up people, scholars- always introduced us to this short fellow who was a professor of medieval Chinese history. We always wondered how he got into that- well, he worked at it to master it. Now, our people are not going into medieval Chinese history, but you might wonder how I got into Judaic history. So let me add a bit of biography here.

Like you, I was once an undergraduate at one of the undergrad schools for men at YU. There was no Honors Program at that time; there was Early Admissions, however, and I was in that first class of Early Admissions. We ended up with a bunch of money, a bunch of degrees, and had no idea what we were going to do. Now the Honors Program is better and better organized- I remember that this person who writes about academic garb and knows all the rules pulled us into his office after we’d graduated and wanted to know what had been done for us, so they could determine exactly what this Early Admissions program did. Now, like I said, the Honors Program is organized better.

Now, what doesn’t change is this interest in text and textual training. YU is a reservoir, a resource for you- you can make your name in academia, the use of texts, Jewish studies, whatever you like.

Twenty years after my PhD, which was earned at Bernard Revel- most of the six to eight of us who survived in academia still have our marbles, though some of us are beginning to lose them- not that we want to mass produce doctorates, but we want to produce more doctorates- that’s why the Senior Thesis in your Honors Program is so important, in the Humanities fields in particular- it gives you a good head start.

As I was saying, twenty years afterwards, I had my first book out- the first book you write is usually a revised version of your doctorate, and even though only six to twelve people read it, still…The publication can be reviewed favorably. My first book was on the relationship between the yeshivot of the Ba’alei HaTosfos, the Tosafists and the community- those Tosafists who we all know about, obviously, learned and studied an awful lot, but they very rarely discussed how they learned, or how they studied- and that’s what my dissertation is about. My advisor told me, when I was trying to explain what I wanted to do, that I was responsible for all of medieval literature. I kind of nodded my head and said “Yeah,” in an unsure voice. I spoke to two distinguished medieval professors and they said they weren’t sure I could pull it off, even though I tried to argue my point- one of them came up to me after I put out my first book in 1992 during a dinner at AJS and said, “Congratulations, you proved me wrong!” The other one took a while to warm up to the idea…

Be friendly with texts- you can see things other people haven’t seen. I had a method for how I was going about this, but after the first book I changed gears. One of the blessings of academia- I thought that I was going to teach and have a very good class and then they’d graduate and I’d have no one to talk to, but I gradually learned that new students come and there’s actually lots of people to talk to! The challenge of academia is that you’re always refreshing yourself- the fact is that your research life is supposedly your “hobby” but really it is part and parcel of what you’re doing all day. One personal point- when I’m working on something during a semester, I specifically try NOT to each it because otherwise I start giving too many details to the students.

Now, by my second book I went a different way- this is an interesting Eretz Yisrael story. There’s a vast body of Rabbinical literature out there that hasn’t been looked at for a while- start to turn the lense of Rishonim and Achronim on themselves- till this day, the studies of Achronim are not there. The Taz- there’s a book about him, but someone has to redo it; someone at Yeshiva wants to work on the Shach; I hope he will- there’s the Nesivos-there’s tremendous stuff to do-

In addition to texts, there’s something called manuscripts. How did I find my way to these things? Well, first, there’s the collection at JTS. JTS has probably the largest collection of manuscripts on microfilm. At Yeshiva uptown we have the Vatican collection on microfilm- the ones that were released many years ago. Anyway, I used to go to the JTS library, where there were two microfilm readers behind an office, and I used to sit and read; I had no idea what I was doing, of course. One of my teachers from Revel walked in one summer day and said, “What are you doing?” “Reading manuscripts,” I said. “Do you know what you’re doing?” “No,” I answered. S he didn’t understand…I was kind of just looking around, made some notes, looking at the collection of manuscripts from Bodleian Library at Oxford- then it occurred to me as I did more work, I saw that American scholars in my field didn’t play with manuscripts so much- but Israeli scholars did! The problem was that Israeli scholars beat the manuscripts to death. So then it occurred to me that it would be interesting to go through this and try to synthesize, mix together the Israeli and American methods..Well, we know that “God protects fools,”- and- it worked! I had a theory that I had developed as a college kid that the Ba’alei HaTosfos, even though we know them through their Talmudic commentaries, there was more to know about them. For example, the Rambam has a hobby, philosophy. The Ramban has a hobby, mysticism. But Rabbein Tam, well, his hobby IS learning! So Tosafists seem to have no hobbies- “Talmudic Centricity” as Professor Twerski so wonderfully put it- it seemed like we were missing a lot of material.

I have an obligation to tell you about this place- at the bottom of Givat Ram in the Hebrew University library there’s a machon called Institute of Hebrew Microfilm- it’s a very nondescript room containing about 800,000 microfilm pieces- they’ve got a bunch of microfilm readers and electronic card catalogue; the material itself is not digitalized. A DAY in that machon is worth- well, let’s say, that JTS to that Machon is roughly 30%. JTS, well, the hours are irregular, the staff is irregular; in Jerusalem the whole machon is devoted to this thing- so you go there a lot- I average about 25 days in a year, all told, sitting in that machon- that comes out to about once every two weeks. If you work in this business, you have to do that. What brings me there is that I always walk away feeling like I know something or have learned something; I never walk away empty-handed.

How did this machon come to be? So when the State of Israel was established, they said first and foremost that every Jewish person who wants to come back may enter with no limitation. The second thing they said is that if you have any holy books, texts that you want to send to Israel- we’ll take them! What they also said, and here’s where subtlety comes in, and I’m eternally grateful- here they are in Israel in the midst of wars and putting out periodicals and some of the greatest scholars have lost their child in the army of a child to a bomb- so these scholars told the State, listen, throughout Europe there are all kinds of manuscripts and texts scattered about- in small museums or houses, private libraries, collections that have Jewish texts- a treasure chest that we would like to have.

Israel couldn’t really remove all those texts, first because it would cost a fortune, and secondly because these museums and private collectors weren’t willing to give them up! So they sent a team of microfilmers to go and capture these texts on microfilm…Recently actually sent them to Russia, also sent to Italy and Spain. By the way, here’s an interesting sidepoint- book-bindings. So how do you keep book-bindings firm? Now we know how to make them, but back then, well, I even remember during my school days when the book bindings were stuffed with newspaper to keep them firm! So how do you keep the book bindings firm in olden days? You stuff medieval manuscripts inside them! There were 2 folios of real Rashi that we didn’t have, and this literally fell out of one of the book-bindings when these microfilmers went to look at that actual book- so all this information is sitting there, just waiting.

Now, here’s a problem- when you’re looking at a particular text, the library will have 63 to 200 manuscripts, so Bar Ilan had to put out a definitive version of what Rashi is- they made a decision to use only Ashkenaz texts, which seems reasonable but some stuff in kesav Sephardi is actually more correct- so now, anyway, people are going to get these manuscripts; they put them onto their laptops- put it right onto your computer- but what do you do with it?

So what I did with it was use manuscripts to show what the time period was like. So the book I put out was about mysticism and magic in the Tosafist time-period, my distinguished colleague and friend did a dissertation on lost halakhic works of the Tosafists….my current book is called New Perspectives (he gave a long title here, too) basically will show in addition to all kinds of subtleties in Tosafist learning- we can talk about the Ba’alei HaTosfos who do Jewish thought, magic, piyutim (liturgy/ poems). In manuscripts and texts you find things that are not found in the printed halakhic texts- there’s a whole world out there.

So what I want to try to show you is to put this into action- I’m not so old that I’m beginning to reminisce, but I’m trying to show how I did it so I CAN communicate to students how I got here- once you find this stuff it’s like finding the mother lode, even if you have writer’s block you can’t have writer’s block, there’s always something new…I’ve had 3 books, 50 articles…

My publisher is the Wayne State University Press- they had a list of things they wanted to get into, and one of these things was Jewish studies, apparently now they’ve brought in Professor Feldman as well. So it was my mazal that they read what I’ve written and were willing to do this for me. So if you’re asking where you publish these types of things, don’t worry, there’s always a venue- one of the editors, Kathy Wildfarm, learned to READ Hebrew in order to check my footnotes- people out there are willing to do this- I’m fighting now, actually, to get her to do my book, but she’s too important.
Doing Jewish books- academic Jewish books- lots of mazel (luck) involved, of course, but some stuff you CAN work on, manuscript index- 250 referred to there- it’s just that kind of newness that makes it exciting.

(At this point you should follow the links and print out the following 2 pages. The first is the microfilm copy; the second what it is saying in Hebrew type, typed by Rabbi Kanarfogel.)

Rabbi Kanarfogel Text 1 (Florence Manuscript)
Rabbi Kanarfogel Text 2 (Modern Hebrew version)

Let me tell you what you have in front of you- so we just leined Parshas Chayah Sara- you have a Florence manuscript from the university collection. The rest of the gibberish refers to shelf-marks, pages 144r, r stands for recto and 254 v for verso, right side and other side; you have a peirush on the Chumash- it’s from the Ashkenaz community but written in a Sephardic hand- actually, you’ll find this interesting, there are people who make their scholarly mark in studying the Xeroxes themselves- this is a copy off a microfilm- now you see that shmutz on the right- that’s actually the parchment discoloration, not dirt. There are people who can look at this page and tell you which century this was written, where it was written, can even tell by the pinpricks, because they used to sew the pages together to form a book, so they sew the pages differently in France versus Germany, so when you have the manuscript that’s much newer/older than what it’s purporting to present, you have to worry.

I picked this particular manuscript because we DO have a collection at the YU library and the Heidi Gottesman library- we do have some sefarim at Stern, than God- there is a book called Tosfos HaShalem that was edited by Yaakov ______. Have all of these so-called Tosafist Torah commentaries that he did on Beraishis and Shmos. So you’ll get his report if you read it- problem is it doesn’t always document where he found his sources- so to do this very quickly-

(he begins to read aloud from the sheet, then goes off on a tangent on his ability to read illegible writing)

Here’s a story- I came in one summer. All the secretaries are puzzling over this syllabus for political science, they can’t make it out- it’s illegible handwriting and I should know from illegible (referencing his own handwriting), so I started reading it! And they asked how, but you just get the hang of it after reading these manuscripts…

It’s in kesav Ashiri so you learn to read it, you figure out what it says. So what you have on the sheet I gave you is a running summary- Chaya Sarah take 1 and take 2- this is the end of the first take on Chaya Sara- see where I put #1- look where it says #1- last four words of that line, can you read them? (reads) If you follow this through, which you can do with my typed Hebrew page, it looks CLOSE to something Tosfos said, but not exactly. Issue as to why Rivka is referred to as a “na’ara” and a “ketana”- you know the nifty answer to that- that she was three- how can you say she was three? The other answer is that she was fourteen. My point here is that this passage is something which 25, 15 y ears ago people never saw, so what is Tosfos doing here in biblical commentaries, you might ask? Well, Tosfos on Chumash- my theory is that it’s like Tosfos for Poets, the cliffnote copy.

Door #2- see where I put the #2- read the next words. So the word “Vayevieha” is written without the letter “yud.” There should have been another “yud” between the beis and the aleph because there is a “chirik malei.” That’s the one that is defective or missing- big gap there, pretty significant. WHY is it missing a yud? The gematriah! So copyists are always looking to abbreviate- look, here’s an interesting thing, between the bais and the gimmel the copyist didn’t pick up his pen. Anyway, the absent yud in “vayevieha” make it have the gematriah of 24. 24 significance- Yitzchak didn’t just give her bracelets and noserings but gave her the whole shebang- Jewish people’s splendor doesn’t depend on jewelry, mentioned in Yeshaya, but the whole thing.

Now another Rabbi, from whom we’d expect this, R’ Yehuda HaChasid, brings up this 24 idea. 24 idea is also seen in Rashi when the Luchos (Tablets) were brought down by Moses. Why is Luchos spelled lacking something- the idea of a “Kallah” here. The point is that Rashi brings an interpretation saying that from here we know that the 24 sefarim should be on the lips of Talmidei Chachamim like Torah to Moshe like the chosson gives a kallah 24 kishutim. So now you won’t find this anyplace else. Very common to find gematria in so-called Tosfos on the Torah, trying to make a point.

Last two (numbers 3 and 4) both involving R’ Yosef Bechor Shor- very difficult pasuk to discuss in a coed audience- the shevua that Elazar took which involves brit milah. The Christians say this particular method of making a promise is the forerunner of immaculate conception; the problem is that that should involve the womb, not the male sexual organs. Anyway, this is found in the Bechor Shor Chumash.

#4 we have a peirush that is NOT found in the Bechor Shor Chumash- what he says here which isn’t in his printed commentary is that Abraham says to Elazar that he knows his plan is going to work because God took him out of his homeland- so now he’s sending Elazar BACK to his homeland- so his plan has to work, foolproof hand.

Looking at one particular page reveals phenomena that confirm how these peirushim work.

Manuscript also has something we’ve never seen- R’ Yehiel of Paris- all we have from him are pesachim- but apparently he wrote a peirush on Chumash, because it’s quoted here. I will take questions now. This is a game here, a very fun game- first you have to learn how to read the stuff, but it’s a fun game AND it’s edifying- at the end of the day, what I’m able to synthesize is to put together a picture- the other good thing is when this stuff accumulates in your mind, so when you go to the next text you have some sense of what you’re going to find.

I hope I’ve shown you why t his stuff is terribly fun, terribly interesting, worth spending your life doing- find texts that you find interesting and make them your own- sitting with these texts and swallowing them and trying to then extract from the texts themselves and understand history.

Thanks to the audience- you’ve all been good guineau pigs. 

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. Please explain how, once you open up these manuscripts, they may or may not affect Halakha.

So here is an old discussion- the Chazon Ish discusses- there’s a wonderful article by Professor Lyman about the Chazon Ish’s attitude to this- basically those texts that didn’t go through the kur (furnace?) of generations have to be introduced VERY carefully and slowly but the Chazon Ish himself, we do know, does in some places acknowledge and utilize certain texts as correct. It’s the idea of chashehu v’kabduhu, be suspicious of them and yet honor them- it gets even more complicated when there’s a question of sefarim that are forgeries that Achronim quoted! So we have to go very carefully.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

The Prophet's Apprentice

Ah, no, you are not the chosen one.

You are not the prophet. You are the prophet's apprentice. Perhaps not even that, perhaps a mere assistant, seeking to learn, seeking his power, seeking in so many very desperate ways, to emulate him and to be what he is. You struggle to learn from him, you idealize him, you spend your life in search of his truth.

Perhaps you succeed.

And perhaps you fail.

Perhaps, bitterly, after having done so much, having suffered so much, having striven and broken through all those doors, perhaps then, then, you fail.

How were you chosen? How was it done? Did you hope all that time, hope to become a prophet? Were you content in the role of assistant? Were you angry?

There are four main prophets' assistants.

1. Joshua, assistant to Moshe
2. Elisha, assistant to Elijah
3. Gaichazi, assistant to Elisha
4. Barukh ben Neriah, assistant to Jeremiah

They are different in personality, temperament, and in the way they were chosen. We are introduced to them in different ways. And the way they act varies as well. Some are good, some are bad, some are merely unworthy. They were all assistants. They shared that role, perhaps that honor.

So who were they?

1. Joshua- The Warrior
We are introduced to Joshua in a very action-oriented situation, knowing nothing of him. The verse reads:

ט וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּחַר-לָנוּ אֲנָשִׁים, וְצֵא הִלָּחֵם בַּעֲמָלֵק; מָחָר, אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל-רֹאשׁ הַגִּבְעָה, וּמַטֵּה הָאֱלֹהִים, בְּיָדִי.

9 And Moses said unto Joshua: 'Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek; tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand.'

(Exodus 17: 9)

The first depiction of Joshua, therefore, concentrates on his strength in battle, his ability as a war leader and military commander. Moses places him in a situation where he must fight an enemy, the first enemy willing to come after the Jews once they escaped from Egypt. Joshua, therefore, must be brave and bold, not cowed like most slaves, not a man who suffered from the slave-mentality and would therefore be unable to fight. Joshua is described as "discomfiting Amalek" in almost a one-man effort; the wording of the verse does not state that the people, the nation, or the Jews fought Amalek, but rather, "Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword." Joshua's military prowess shows to great advantage; indeed, God even desires Moses to inform Joshua that one day Amalek will be utterly blotted out- perhaps in order to assure him that he need not worry about killing every last one of them.

The next time we see Joshua he has become Moses' right-hand aide. The verse itself attests to this:

יג וַיָּקָם מֹשֶׁה, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ מְשָׁרְתוֹ; וַיַּעַל מֹשֶׁה, אֶל-הַר הָאֱלֹהִים.

13 And Moses rose up, and Joshua his minister; and Moses went up into the mount of God.

Joshua is "m'sharso," the servant or aide of Moses, his man through and through. He accompanies Moses to the mount of God. He then sets up a tent, according to Rashi, and waits for him at the foot of the mountain. Warlike as his personality is, he immediately detects the sound of discontent and trouble in the camp, exclaiming, "'There is a noise of war in the camp" (Exodus 32: 17) It is Moses who must gently remind him that not all noise is the noise of battle, and having been informed by God as to what this commotion portends, grimly informs Joshua that it is "kol anos," a noise of singing and jubilation, that he hears.

Joshua served Moses as a loving, loyal and dutiful man, sworn to protect his liege-lord. The Torah informs us of how attentive he was to Moses, stating that Moses "would return into the camp; but his minister Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the Tent" (Exodus 33: 11). Joshua made himself available, always desirous of helping Moses, of being near him.

In keeping with his warlike personality and the love he bore Moses, Joshua could tolerate no slight to his master's honor. A hothead, he must tell the truth, knowing no subtlety and cognizant of no plans or plots. His reactions are tinged with nobility; Joshua is the type of man who defends the honor of those he loves, who keeps his oaths and promises faithfully.

There is a very revealing conversation in the Torah that describes the relationship between Joshua and Moses:

How vividly we can imagine this scene! A footrunner, a servant, his eyes wide with the news he bears, almost stutters as he hurries to inform Moses of the men who have the audacity to prophecy in the camp. Joshua, outraged on behalf of his master, stands suddenly, his hand to his sword, his eyes aflame. He must speak, even though it breaks the bonds of respect, even though he is answering before his master (in much the same tradition that Laban spoke before Besuel, or Shmuel before Eli), his words cannot be contained. "My lord Moses, incarcerate them!" he cries, his voice youthful and furious, ennobled with the weight of the law.

But Moses has seen much, experienced much. A smile forms on his lips, a smile at the youthful innocence and distress Joshua displays. This honor- this desire to defend his honor- for what purpose? There is no threat here. There is no need for a sword, for a prison. Moses is joyous. "Art thou jealous for my sake?" he inquires pleasantly. And then, teaching by example, Moses exclaims, "Would that all the people could be prophets, and God's spirit rest upon them!"

(In truth, this reminds me of nothing so much as an exchange between Obi-Wan Kenobi and a young, hotheaded Anakin Skywalker.)

Joshua bows to Moses' judgement, but doubtless continues to smoulder with righteous indignation on behalf of his master.

Moses realizes that Joshua is stifled at the camp, has no desire to play the nursemaid to the needs of a wandering, meandering and stiff-necked nation. These are not Joshua's qualities- these qualities of patience, understanding, a learned feeling on behalf of the nation. Moses therefore decides to put Joshua's qualities, his warlike nature, the ability he shows for fighting and planning, to use. He casts Joshua as a spy. Doubtless Joshua would have preferred to go openly and attack, rather than resort to subterfuge. Such ploys are not of his choosing. But he will, of course, obey Moses- and he knows Moses needs a man he can trust as a member of the group of spies.

There is a specific verse where Moses appears to rename Joshua, "And Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun Joshua" (Numbers 13: 16) The common interpretation is the suggestion that Joshua would be in danger while in the company of men who had no qualms about lying, and the addition of the "yud," a letter from God's name, to Joshua's name, is protection against this.

But I think, simply from the literary point of view, that this is a significant moment in the life of both Moses and Joshua. Moses renames Joshua, symbolic of a rebirth, a new beginning. This is your naming. You will be my ears and eyes in the Land. I trust you. This Joshua, the same Joshua whom we formerly described as the man who remained at all times "within the Tent" of Moshe, of Moses, is now to be released, sent outside the Tent, sent off on a dangerous mission. This Joshua is now a man, a man grown, a man whom Moses can trust. When Moses names him Joshua, he (and/or the Torah) dispenses with the word "m'sharso" or aide. Joshua is no longer an aide, an assistant, an apprentice. At this moment, Joshua has come into his own.

When the spies return, they attempt to mislead the people. It is Joshua and Caleb who attempt to salvage the situation.

Notice, once again, the way in which Joshua is named. He is no longer called a "meshares," an aide or apprentice. Rather, he is Joshua son of Nun, a man granted his full name and lineage.

God spares Joshua and Caleb the fate of their generation, and both of them live.

Moses is commanded to pass on the role of leadership to Joshua:

Notice the description here. Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is spirit. Joshua's warlike nature, his ability to command and rule, the strength of the individual in the face of many, the strength that allowed him to tell the truth and fight those who would have preferred him to lie and malign the land, is this "spirit." Joshua is a man with "spirit" in him; it is for this reason that he is to lead the people at this juncture of time, during which they will have to fight for and subsequently conquer the land of Israel. Moses as leader would not be appropriate to this situation; Moses is able to deal with the people, with their complaints, can sit in judgement over them, but warfare is not his forteit. Even during the battle of Amalek, Moses is the one who holds his hands up symbolically as he prays, rather than engaging in physical combat. He kills specific individuals (the Egyptian man who was beating the Jew, Sichon), but is not the kind of man who can successfully lead an army into battle.

Joshua, however, can. Joshua is a "man of spirit," a man of war. He is the man who is necessary at this point of time, the man who is required in order to fulfill the destiny of the Jews.

God commands Moses (notice that God, when speaking to Moses, does still refer to Joshua as a "meshares" or aide, perhaps in honor of Moses) to strengthen and encourage Joshua, which he does, and to give him command in front of the entire nation (so that there will be no question of who is the rightful leader once Moses dies.) There is a very interesting verse that states:

We have seen Joshua described as a man of spirit. He only becomes a man with the spirit of wisdom when Moses lays his hands upon him, a direct cause and effect here. Moses recognized that in addition to Joshua's warlike nature, which would be necessary in defeating and conquering the enemies of the Jews, Joshua would also need wisdom- wisdom to know when to have mercy, to show kindness, to try to demonstrate compassion. Joshua's zeal, and eagerness needed to be tempered with wisdom. And so it is that Moses gives Joshua a gift- the gift of the spirit of wisdom.

The Gemara is more critical of Joshua. Some examples:

and also

This section references, as Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner writes:

1. Joshua dying without children because he made a suggestion before Moshe, in dealing with Eldad and Medad: Eruvin 63a-b

2. Joshua dying without children because he didn't return the Ark to its place in Gilgal on the night before the war with Gilgal, and so the people were not allowed to engage in procreation: Eruvin 63b

In these cases, therefore, Joshua was at fault. From the Torah, however, he is the picture of the apprentice who fulfills his potential- he was the Prophet's Apprentice, learned from him, aided him, remained at his side, and was proclaimed worthy by God and by Moses to become the next leader. He was even leader alongside Moses for a day (Sotah 13b).

The Yalkut Shimoni references a fantastic Medrish regarding Moses and Joshua. It is mentioned online here, and my quotes are from there:

From here we see that for the Prophet to be demoted to the level of the Prophet's Apprentice is an unbearable thing. It is painful, awful- and Moses felt jealousy on account of it.

Now we come to the second interaction - that of Elijah and Elisha.

2. Elisha- The Family Man

In this situation, Elijah is specifically told by God that he is to take an assistant, and that this assistant or apprentice will "succeed you as prophet." Our first introduction to Elisha, therefore, is in his being pronounced the successor by God.

טז וְאֵת יֵהוּא בֶן-נִמְשִׁי, תִּמְשַׁח לְמֶלֶךְ עַל-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְאֶת-אֱלִישָׁע בֶּן-שָׁפָט מֵאָבֵל מְחוֹלָה, תִּמְשַׁח לְנָבִיא תַּחְתֶּיךָ.
16 and Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room

(Kings I, 19: 16)

We are introduced to Elisha in a situation that is very similar to the one where we met Saul, first King of Israel. The very similarity of the situations suggests that Elisha is someone who owns a quiet kind of royalty, similar to Saul's. He is occupied with a seemingly mundane task, as Saul was, but he claims the task as his, and works at it uncomplainingly and with a kind of good will that makes him likeable.

Elijah comes to claim Elisha and does so symbolically and tersely. He doesn't offer explanations to Elisha's parents, doesn't explain anything at all. He simply casts his mantle over Elisha, and allows Elisha to explain the matter.

Kings I, 19

Beautiful phraseology, both textual and symbolic, here. "Casting the mantle" over Elisha gives us a vivid image of the situation (in addition to reminding us of Yeravam, the cloak, and the ten pieces of cloth), allows us to imagine how thoroughly and symbolically Elisha was "claimed," and the fact that Elijah simply moves on, without stopping, simply furthers our understanding of his personality as well. It is Elisha who must run after Elijah to beg permission to bid his parents farewell. Elijah is very non-committal, "What have I done to you?" implying, "Do as you will! But I will not wait for you."

Elisha's first introduction to us is sweet. Having been offered a wonderful and terrible opportunity- the opportunity to become a prophet- his first response is to bid his parents farewell. He is a family man, and we receive the impression that he would have been content to stay and plow with his oxen. Having been chosen, however, he makes a complete and clean break with his past, to the point that he eats the oxen with whom he had been plowing (symbolism at its best.) Only after he has eaten the oxen, and done away with his old life does he arise and follow Elijah.

The most famous section with regard to Elijah and Elisha is that of Elijah ascending to heaven in a chariot of flames.

Three times does Elijah try to dissuade Elisha from coming with him, and three times does Elisha reply, "'As the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee." Elisha is assistant, aide and apprentice in the same manner that Joshua was. He would not leave his master's side.

It is implied that because of this Elisha is worthy of reward (for it is only after Elisha has accompanied Elijah as far as they can go together that Elijah inquires as to what Elisha desires.)

Kings 2, 2

Here we see that Elisha is not only rewarded, but he transcends his master's powers, receiving a double portion. (My own theory is that this has to do with the fact that Elijah accompanied his master, overriding his protests. In Tanakh as a whole we see many instances where physical steps to a place, from a place, or accompanying another, are given great reward. The best example may be that of Ruth and Orpah; Ruth who actually accompanies Naomi back to her land, and Orpah, who, even though she does not go all the way, is rewarded for the tears she does shed and the steps she does take. We see in other places that one who stands or runs in the honor of God is rewarded- Eglon, for example, who rose when he heard God's name, was rewarded, and Chazal relate that when Nevuchadnezzar ran after a letter that had been improperly addressed, with the salutation to Chizkiyahu placed before the salutation to God, he had to be physically stopped lest he attain so much merit that he be able to overtake the Jews and destroy them. Similarly, we have the idea that one's awe of one's master or Rabbi is to be similar to that of God (with regard to the idea of "es" and how "es" is "l'rabos," to include something else, the disciple answers that the one whom one should fear similarly to one's God is one's Rabbi) and so it would make sense to me that any who persist in showing honor to their master, especially in this manner of walking or accompaniment, receives great reward.)

Elisha, too, then, fulfilled his promise. He was a Prophet's Apprentice, and he not only rose to his potential but rose beyond that of his master's, an absolute success story.

3. Gehazi- The Trickster

Now we come to the "bad" apprentice, the one who didn't work out as he should. Joshua reached his potential, although he did not (indeed, could not) exceed his master's talent. Elisha reached and exceeded his master's talent. But Gehazi (Geichazi) is the "bad" apprentice. He does not reach his potential. He does not succeed. Perhaps he does not even try.

Gehazi's appointment is not preceded by a statement of God's to choose him as an apprentice. Indeed, he is not referred to as a "meshares," but rather as a "na'ar," a foolish lad or servant.

Here is our introduction to Gehazi:

Gehazi's role here is to do what he is told, and to procure information. His role does not change throughout his service.

Notice how Gehazi either fails utterly, or, according to most common interpretations, refused to listen to Elisha's instructions and broke them.

Gehazi fails in this task- he cannot wake the boy. (Most probably, according to the commentaries, he fails because he stopped to talk to another.)

Notice Gehazi's appalling lack of compassion or understanding when the miserable woman throws herself at Elisha's feet. His action could be construed as an attempt at respect for his master, except for the fact that the verse pointedly does NOT mention any zeal or jealousy on Elisha's behalf, but rather states:

Kings 2, 4

The other episode in which Gehazi shows his true colors (along with his greed) is with Na'aman. Elisha instructs Na'aman in how to cure his tza'raas (leprosy.) Na'aman is overjoyed once he is cured, and desires to reward Elisha, but Elisha refuses.

Now note what Gehazi does- three things.

1. Judges Elisha as being "too lenient" on Na'aman
2. Runs after Na'aman and lies to him, using Elisha's name to get the reward (money and clothes)
3. He lies to Elisha

Here is the episode:

2 Kings 5

Gehazi is therefore cursed with leprosy (the intimation being- you received the blessings and reward from Na'aman, come and receive his curse as well!) and according to various commentaries, he and/or his descendants are those referenced in the story of the four lepers outside Jerusalem.

Gehazi and his character flaws are discussed in the Talmud:

From Berachot 10b:

From Sotah 9b:

Similarly do we find it with Cain, Korah, Balaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, Gehazi, Absalom, Adonijah, Uzziah and Haman, who set their eyes upon that which was not proper for them; what they sought was not granted to them and what they possessed was taken from them.

From Sanhedrin 90a:

FOUR COMMONERS, VIZ., BALAAM, DOEG, AHITOPHEL, AND GEHAZI

~

Notice, by the way, that all these relationships have thus far ended in gift-giving. Moses gives Joshua the gift of the "spirit of wisdom." Elijah bestows upon Elisha double his powers. Elisha gives Gahazi tza'raas (not exactly the gift he might want, but a gift nonetheless.) From here we may assume that at the end of the relationship between Prophet and Prophet's Apprentice, there is an exhange or interchange, the giving of something, a gift of some sort.

~

4. Baruch ben Neriah- The Failure
Baruch ben Neriah is possibly the saddest Prophet's Apprentice. His story is so sad because he tries so hard, he desires prophecy ever so much, he extricates Jeremiah from all kind of sticky situations...and still he is not rewarded with his desire. He considers himself a failure, lost, and is extremely disheartened and saddened by his inability to achieve prophecy.
Our first introduction to Baruch is as a trustworthy man, a man who can be trusted in legal matters. Here's the verse:

12 and I delivered the deed of the purchase unto Baruch the son of Neriah, the son of Mahseiah, in the presence of Hanamel mine uncle['s son], and in the presence of the witnesses that subscribed the deed of the purchase, before all the Jews that sat in the court of the guard.
Jeremiah 32: 12
Baruch is described in glowing terms; he does all that Jeremiah commands him on various occassions, he clings to him and saves him from various terrible situations. One such praiseworthy verse states:

ח וַיַּעַשׂ, בָּרוּךְ בֶּן-נֵרִיָּה, כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּהוּ, יִרְמְיָהוּ הַנָּבִיא--לִקְרֹא בַסֵּפֶר דִּבְרֵי יְהוָה, בֵּית יְהוָה. {פ}

8 And Baruch the son of Neriah did according to all that Jeremiah the prophet commanded him, reading in the book the words of the LORD in the LORD'S house. {P}

(Jeremiah 36: 8)

Observe, then, with great sadness, the dialogue that takes place between Baruch and Jeremiah in chapter 45:

There are different reasons given as to what Baruch is asking for here, and what God's reply means. The most common interpretation is that Baruch, out of the great bitterness and desire of his heart, is asking for prophecy, and God's answer (as brought down in the Mechilta) is that "All prophecy is given for the sake of Bnai Yisrael." Since Bnai Yisrael are not worthy and are about to be exiled, there is no reason to instate Baruch as prophet.

Radak, however, suggests (in accord with the Rambam's philosphy) that Baruch lacked the ability to prophecy, did not have the natural inclination towards it, and that no matter how hard he tried, he would never be able to receive prophecy.

The Shadal offers a completely different interpretation, and suggests that Baruch was complaining about the physical abuse he suffered at the hands of mobs who were after him and Jeremiah, and requests that God save him from this abuse.

If Baruch truly was the man we know him to be in Jeremiah, a dutiful, loyal, kind person, who did all that he could to achieve prophecy, we find ourselves questioning why he did not then receive it. There seems to be no real reason- he is not flawed, like Gehazi, does not suffer from the same avarice and greed. He has suffered more than either Joshua or Elisha, for everywhere he goes his master is mocked and maligned, and oftentimes he has to figure out creative ways to help his master. Baruch wanders, suffers, and is not fulfilled. He is the saddest of the Prophet's Apprentices...for his lack of prophecy cannot, according to most approaches, be construed as his fault.

There we have them, then, our four Prophets' Apprentices. The warrior, the family-man turned wanderer, the evil trickster and the failure, each very different kinds of men involved in very different occupations, and paired with very different prophets (for surely there is a great difference between the tutelage of Elijah and the tutelage of Jeremiah; their teaching styles and life experiences are different.) These four men were similar in their roles, but very different in personalities. They also differ in their potentials. Joshua lived up to his potential, Elisha exceeded that of his master, Gehazi was evil and threw everything away, and Baruch struggled for the prophecy but was not granted it.

Men, but very different men, Prophet's Apprentices at very different costs. For Joshua to be a Prophet's Apprentice was no doubt a position of honor, by the time we reach Baruch, the position is one of disdain as others malign and defame Jeremiah. The interest, however, lies in the roles themselves- these were the men, these are their lives, this is who they were...these men, who aspired to be prophets, and did not always succeed.

Monday, November 13, 2006

The Evil Inclination

— Ô douleur! ô douleur! Le Temps mange la vie,Et l'obscur Ennemi qui nous ronge le coeurDu sang que nous perdons croît et se fortifie!

~Charles Baudelaire, L'Ennemi (with English translation)

With thanks to Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner’s fantastic topical Talmud, and with thanks to Artscroll.

Welcome to the Dark Side.

The idea of a dark side, the evil inclination, whatever it is in humans that allows them to commit evil, to be cruel or wicked or bad or possess vices and desires, is a fascinating one. The mind is drawn to the idea of wickedness, paints it in attractive shades of black and red, fantasizes about the forbidden and its allure.

Judaism has a very interesting view of the evil inclination, one that does not entirely subscribe to the romantic portrait we paint of it. First, the evil inclination is internal, second, it has its balance, the good inclination. What, then, is the evil inclination, and where do we find it?

First we may discuss the names attributed to the Evil Inclination. It has seven names, and they were all attributed by different people. These are the names of the Evil Inclination:

All these names are derived from verses regarding the Evil Inclination. The verses, in English, are:

(This is all from Sukkah 52a)

In Kiddushin 30b we see the relationship between the Evil Inclination and the human being demonstrated by the following text:

This parable seems somewhat strange. A man inflicts a wound on his son, and then cures him, but what cause was there to inflict the wound? What is undeniable based on this story, however, is that it is God who both created the wound, or the Evil Inclination, in addition to its antidote, the Torah. They are both his creations, existing by His will.

The Evil Inclination, as we see here, is involved with the human being. “And you are its desire” is the way it is phrased. It is self-destructive in that it longs to kill its human host, as discussed both in Kiddushin 30b and Sukkah 52b.

R’ Shimon bar Lakish said: A man’s evil inclination threatens every day to overpower him, and seeks to kill him, as it says, “The wicked one watches for the righteous person to slay him.” And if not for the Holy One, Blessed is He, who aids him, he would be unable to withstand it, as it says: God will not leave him in his hand, nor condemn him in His judgement.

The Evil Inclination has a fascinating modus operandi. It is clever, seductive, very subtle. As discussed in Sukkah 52b, it builds up its demands. Rava cites three pesukim, or verses, demonstrating the journey the Evil Inclination makes. The Evil Inclination is given three names-
1. Wayfarer
2. Guest
3. Man

These names actually demonstrate the process by which the Evil Inclination makes himself at home in his human host. First a wayfarer given a night’s shelter, he then becomes an invited guest, and finally a man. To quote Artscroll’s footnote, “This reflects the progress of the desire for sin: First it appears in the guise of a wayfarer, who has no particular hold on the person; then as a regular lodger, who makes himself at home; and finally it takes over completely, assuming full control of the person.”

Sukkah 52b also references the statement, “Woe unto those who draw iniquity with cords of nothingness and sin as with a cart rope.” The Evil Inclination entices with thin threads, almost like a spiderweb, thin and fine, but in the end traps us with thick ropes that drag us down.

Shabbos 105b also discusses the wily nature of the Evil Inclination, stating,

It was taught in a Baraisa: R’ Shimon bar Elazar said in the name of Chilfa Bar Agra who in turn said it in the name of R’ Yochanan ben Nuri: If one tears his garments in his anger, breaks his utensils in his anger, or scatters his money in his anger, he should be in your eyes as one who is performing idolatry. For thus is the craft of the evil inclination, today it tells him, “Do this,” and the next day it tells him, “Do this,” until it tells him, “Perform idolatry,” and he goes and performs it.

Indeed, the Gemara later goes so far as to term the Evil Inclination a “foreign god,” an alternate master, from Psalms 81:10, which states, There shall be no strange god within you, nor shall you bow before an alien god. This foreign god presumably “within you” refers to the Evil Inclination.

There’s a fascinating Gemara in Yoma 69b which details the destruction of the Evil Inclination for idolatry:

This entire scenario is fascinating, but what I find most interesting is the form that the Evil Inclination takes- the roaring young cub of fire. For that matter, as mentioned above, the Evil Inclination is also compared to stone. What I find truly intriguing about this is that both these forms are connected to Godliness in the Torah, and as motifs are almost never seen as bad or evil, but rather as good. God, for example, is compared to stone, or a rock, Tzur, in various places (though most of us know about it because of the song we sing on Chanukah, ‘Rock of ages.’) The strong ones of Israel, for example, Yehuda, are compared to lions or lion cubs; this is even given as a blessing.

We might have thought it more logical were the Evil Inclination to appear as one of the creatures that contaminate us and make us impure- a sheretz of some kind, a lizard or mouse. This is, I think, the influence of our contemporary view of Evil- as something that is not only Evil and bad, but something ugly, something twisted and dwarflike, something filled with pus and boils. Many fairy tales, or reinventions of them, make use of ugly twisted crones as their agents of evil.

What I really like about this depiction is that the exterior is not ugly or loathsome, but rather beautiful and grand- a lion made of fire, a lion made of flame. The exterior demonstrates the Evil Inclination’s grand purpose and destiny- it was made by God, and is a proud servant of God, notice that it even emerges from the Holy of Holies! It does not creep out of a small cave, but from the Holiest place that exists! This Evil Inclination is proud, proud of what it is and what it was created to be, grand and beautiful. And yet, perhaps paradoxically, perhaps wonderfully, it is still evil. The exterior does not match the interior, grand and beautiful as the lion appears, it is still the inclination for Idolatry. Beauty and evil may go together, in certain types of fairy tales (much less Disneyfied), they do so all the time- it is the timeless face of beauty that hides the evil, scheming heart.

Now suppose that someone is unable to win over his Evil Inclination. What, then, should he do? The answer is in Kiddushin 40a.

Now, some of you might immediately wonder about this, since I think we have all heard the idea that someone who fears men and what they will say more than they fear God sins in secret, and is punished for it! This is actually the opinion of R’ Yosef, but the Gemara says there is no problem with the 2 variant opinions, because R’ Yosef’s opinion refrs to a man who is ABLE to subdue his Evil Inclination, if he so chose, but instead opted not to and sinned in secret while in our case we refer to a man who is UNABLE to subdue his Evil Inclination.

What I find interesting about this Gemara are two ideas:

1. The dressing in black, as opposed to any other color. (What does this symbolize? Nowadays we think black= mourning…)
2. The fact that the Gemara allows human beings this license- the fact that sometimes we cannot control our Evil Inclination

Now, this idea (that sometimes one is powerless over the Evil Inclination) is also seen in Kiddushin 21b, which states that when the Torah stated that a soldier is permitted to have relations with a captive (Yefat Toar), it is permitted “only in recognition of the man’s Evil Inclination.”

When one is in the grip of the Evil Inclination, one forgets wisdom, or the Good Inclination. This idea is found in Nedarim 32b, where we are presented with the words of Koheles, Ecclesiastes.

The verse from Ecclesiastes, 9:14 states:

“There was a small city, and its inhabitants were few. A mighty king came upon it and surrounded it and he built great siege works over it. And there was to be found in the city a poor wise man, and he saved the city with his cleverness. Yet no one remembered that poor man.”

How do we interpret this?

The small city is the body.
The inhabitants are the limbs of the body.
The mighty king is the Evil Inclination.
The great siege are sins.
The poor wise man is the Good Inclination.
Cleverness is repentance and good deeds.
The forgetting of the wise man relates to the principle that, “when one is in the grip of the Evil Inclination, no one remembers the Good Inclination.”

Therefore, the Evil Inclination comes and assails the body and its limbs with sins. The Good Inclination saves the body through repentance and good deeds, but he is forgotten when the cycle begins again because at the time that the Evil Inclination comes upon us, the Good one is forgotten.

How, then, does one overcome the Evil Inclination, the yetzer ha’ra?

There are the methods a human being can attempt, and then the final slaughter, when God kills him.

What can a human being do? The idea is found in Sukkah 52b.

Draw the Evil Inclination into the study hall. Why would one do this? Because “if he is like a stone, he will dissolve, and if he is like iron, he will shatter.” The following text expounds:

1. If the evil inclination is like stone, the water of the Torah will wear it down and wear away at it (this suggests a long-term course, with the water slowly wearing away at the rock)
2. If the evil inclination is like metal, the fire of Torah will destroy it/ make it shatter (this suggests a short-term course, with the immediate contact with fire shattering the metal)

This leads us to the very famous Gemara regarding the final slaughter of the Evil Inclination by God, in front of the righteous and the wicked. To the righteous, the evil inclination will appear as a high mountain, while to the wicked it will appear as a strand of hair. Both parties will weep; the one because they cannot believe they have succeed in conquering it, the other because they cannot believe they failed in overcoming so small a strand of hair!

The last idea, and definitely the one I like best, references Abaye, who follow a man and a woman, thinking he will prevent them from sinning with each other. The man he followed, however, turns away from the woman and they go their separate ways after cordially bidding each other farewell. Abaye was very sad, thinking that were he the man walking with the woman, he would have been unable to restrain himself from sin! He leaned against a door and was very sad, until an old man came along and taught him that, “Whoever is greater than his fellow, his evil inclination is greater as well.”

Therefore, the desire to sin is definitely not unnatural or unusual, but rather expected and seen as normal. To conquer such desire, to overcome such lust, must by necessity be an incredible feat! Even our most righteous felt the desire to sin (there’s another story about a sage who sold baskets because he was poor, and a woman propositioned him, and so he jumped off the roof- as though to commit suicide. Elijah the Prophet saved him, but the intimation is, I believe, that this-jumping off the building- was the only way the sage could have prevented himself from sinning!) We even have a clause in our Gemara that allows for the fact that people may not be able to overcome their desires, and we are told what to do in that case (better to sin in secret and prevent making a mockery of God’s name than to sin in public.)

Our Evil Inclination is extremely original, very different from other evil characters in literature and fantasy. Most evil characters are evil because it is in their own self-interest to poison a girl or change her form, to murder a king or depose of him. There is an end goal besides their evil. But this inclination lies within us, and it is not an enemy in and of itself, but only in our response to it. It has its balance in our Good Inclination, and if we conquer it, or overcome it, or channel it to service our Good Inclination, all shall be well. Our Evil Inclination is perhaps more akin to the Dark Side of the Force rather than anything else…it thrives on passion and anger, and clouds our judgment. But sometimes we can behave as Luke- and outwit it, in exciting and thrilling ways.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

They should teach THIS at Stern!

From the Yalkut Me'am Loez on Parshat Chaya Sara (and I would have it in Hebrew except that the Beit Midrash in my dorm has an infuriating way of containing every book except the one I specifically need)

Click on this link for the full-size view (MUCH easier to read.)

Disclaimer: NO, I don't meant to suggest that every Stern girl wants to get married/ is here for a husband/ cares more about the size of her engagement ring than the man she's marrying. However, I have observed the...well, nothing could describe it but avid interest expressed by many in the ring and its size. To be serious for a moment, I have actually heard of girls breaking up engagements because the diamond is too small and this proves the man doesn't really love her- which, if true, is pretty disturbing.

Apparently the Yalkut is quoting the Shevat Mussar 5 (that's where the footnote leads, in any case.)

See? I have a sense of humor. Really.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

In Defense of the Body

כה וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים, הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ; וְלֹא, יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

-Genesis 2: 25

~

The body is beautiful.

The body as an expression of art, of pain, of suffering, of feeling, the body in and of itself, flawed, scarred, dull, lustrous, the body in whatever form it exists...is beautiful.

It is with the body that we experience pain and pleasure, with the body that we live our lives, that we focus upon the mundane and the holy; it is the body that we sanctify to God, the body we afflict when we seek atonement, the body that is our conduit for life, the body that houses our spirit and our soul.

So how can it be that I hear those who do not treat the body with respect, who giggle and smirk when we speak of the body, who laugh behind closed doors? How can someone term the body "disgusting," how can someone attempt to strip the body of its sensuality, its raw sexuality? How can someone seek to make the body less than what it is, to ascribe to it a morality and code that it cannot own? How can the body in and of itself be sinful? What is the body if not beautiful?

On Sunday the Honors Program at Stern took various students to see a ballet. It was a ballet at the New York City Center, a ballet performed by the American Ballet Theatre company. Only women were taken to see this ballet- students of Stern College for Women. Only members of the Honors Program.

And yet people called it "disgusting."

And why was it disgusting? Because, in its first act, called Clear, it featured male ballerinas, men dressed in tan leggings and bare-chested, men who leapt and stepped across the stage with the grace of an angel and the command of a master. These men are strong, muscular, handsome; they can whirl ballerinas as though they weigh little or nothing, can strike poses and contort their bodies, can dance and perform with no thought to the audience, exhibiting only the sheer joy, the beauty that they find within their art.

But they were men in tan leggings. And they were bare-chested.

And hence, according to some, disgusting.

And I cannot see it. How can you not admire these men, men who have mastered such precise control over their muscles, their bodies, men who are masters of an art that requires more skill and thought than perhaps any other sport? Everything must be precised, timed; there is so much trust in ballet- to spin, to whirl, to fall, to be thrown, to catch the one who is falling- one misstep, and your partner has fallen, perhaps to the ground, perhaps injuring himself or herself.

And do I tell you that I appreciated the act only for the clear beauty described by their dancing? Of course not! No! I do not lie. I appreciated it for exactly what the act was meant to convey, and what was demonstrated by the final dance between the principle male ballerina and the principle female balerina, the sensuality that enveloped them, the chemistry that flickered between them, the elements and their battle against the young couple, as the day darkened into night. The female ballerina was exquisite, her entire body suggesting vulnerability; the eerie grace of her limbs, the phantom aura about her, the idea of passion suggested but not fulfilled. This is beauty, and it is an art- it evokes feelings in people; it tells a story. Ballet is a response to but also a dialogue with music; it serves to heighten and evoke emotions within us.

So why must these men, by virtue of their attire, be termed disgusting?

Why, because they are sexual beings, sexual creatures. And how is the young Jewish girl to relate to such a spectacle? Of course, as is most prevalent, it must be with revulsion and disgust, expressing disgust with the human body and all that it encompasses. And where does this disgust come from? Perhaps from what the young Jewish girl cannot see as anything but a brazen display of flesh, and an appalling lack of shame. Where is their shame? Why aren't these men insecure, why don't they try to cover themselves, to hide their bodies and who they are?

Why, simply because they are not. They are not ashamed. As ballerinas, as ballet dancers, artists, and principles, their body is their tool, sculpted as their weapon, their instrument, their dramatic performance. Others play upon instruments, others perform upon external objects. They, on the other hand, express themselves with their every step- their every move- the wave of a hand, the point of a toe, the matching of steps to music. The body is theirs, their weapon, their tool, theirs to expose to vulnerability and simultaneously to hold as strong. The body is beautiful.

And I was not ashamed for them.

The other acts saw changes in costume; the YU audience particularly liked the third act (I did, too) titled In the Upstairs Room. There, the men were wearing red shirts and black and white striped flowing trousers, not as molded to their forms.

Today, while in the Bait Midrash, I heard Stern girls whispering and laughing together about niddah. They used the words "disgusting," liberally; one sentence I overheard was one girl's exclamation that once you understand the euphemisms used in the Gemara to describe nidda "it's all disgusting!" And they continued in this vein, mockingly mentioning the "ankle metaphor" in the text, and so on and so forth.

And this- more than what was said of the ballet- appalled me. Because how could you speak so of your own body? You are women, you are women; how could you call yourselves disgusting? This terminology is so wrong, so incorrect in context. One of the most fascinating aspects of Gemara is how calmly everything is discussed, from the laws dealing with the dead to the most intimate aspects of the body (albeit, sometimes, through the use of euphamisms.) The scholars felt no need to hush or talk in silent whispers when it came to the body- everything was frank, open, honest; everything that the Torah mentioned was up for discussion. Zav, zavah, niddah- the secretions of the body, nudity, prayer and nudity, emissions and the like, were all subjects for debate and analysis.

And here, too, there was no need for shame.

So why this secret shame? Why this urge to label the body as "disgusting," to try to hide it away, to shrink at the thought of the body as having the ability to give pleasure, to view the body as beautiful? Not only do people malign the body, call it names it does not deserve, ascribe adjectives to it that it has not warranted, but they even associate it with that which they see as perverse or wrong- reference with a sneer the "bodily pleasures," try to do away with it in its entirety.

Perhaps it is as simple as the fact that the body as an entity is outside the typical Jewish girl's realm of experience. So much of her life has been devoted to an understanding of (ideally) or an obsession with (unhappily) modesty, that is likely her notion of the body is totally skewed. The body is something which must be covered, something which has the ability to force men to lap at her skirts slavishly like dogs, something which must be hidden away- in other words, at the heart of the matter, women are made to be ashamed of their sexuality.

This is not only accomplished through tznius, I am certain, but simply with most Orthodox family's refraining to discuss the body as beautiful, instead considering it secret, hidden- something which cannot be brought out in public. The body, you see, gives pleasure- sexual pleasure, most specifically. And of course, in most people's minds, sexual pleasure immediately denotes sin. And hence the body must be sinful. Or so a good number of people think.

And I have to wonder why this correlation, why we have adopted Puritanism into Orthodoxy. It is understood that one sanctifies the body by keeping it separate, by obeying certain laws (mikvah especially) to keep it holy; it is understood by most in Orthodox circles that the body is to be shared only when one is married. But why have we made the further judgement, why have we now termed the body in and of itself "disgusting?" Why degrade the body? Simply because it has the ability to bring sexual pleasure? And since when is sexual pleasure a sin! If taken outside the bounds of marriage, the Torah cautions, it may then be a sin- but surely this pleasure in and of itself is not sinful! Surely the body in and of itself is not disgusting!

It saddens me to think that there are women who grow up ashamed of their bodies, not because they are physically malformed or concerned about their weight, or God forbid, suffering from an eating disorder, but simply because they have been brought up to think the body is in and of itself sinful, and an appreciation of the body must mean that one is sinful as well. To connect the body to sin, to connect pleasure with that which is disgusting- why is this necessary? Are we so afraid?

Is the only way to slake one's lust to instill revulsion and disgust with the object of one's lust? Is that really what we believe today?

I hope not...

because it would be a sad society that did not recognize the beauty of the body, in and of itself, that flesh which is us and sustains us, on the biological and internal level of the organs that keep us functioning, and on the physical level of beauty. The Torah itself mentions the physical traits of various men and women in the Torah (Sarah, Joseph, Esther and so on) and does not do so apologetically. This is a character description; their beauty is a part of them- and may even be important in further description of the characters (particularly seen by Joseph, also seen by literal interpretation of the Book of Esther.) In fact, beauty almost always plays a major role in the story (why did Jacob prefer Rachel to Esther? why was Sarah taken from Abraham and given to Pharoah?)

Why, then, have we decided that the body, beautiful as it is, is linked to sin? Why must the body be sinful; why must such ugly adjectives be forced upon such a beautiful creation?

God created man- with a body and a soul. God created man with a body that has the ability to give pleasure. God even sanctified this pleasure and this body. God, therefore, cannot believe that the body is in and of itself disgusting or ugly.

It is only the thoughts that dwell in the minds of those who fear the body...(and I do not say those made uncomfortable by the body, for that is different) that allows them to malign it in this fashion, to term it "disgusting" or laugh at that which they don't understand. These thoughts are of their own creation, probably demonstrative of their own repressed lusts and desires, urgings and leanings which they have been told are sinful. In retaliation, they take it out on the stimulus- the body.

And it is unfair. Unfair to the body, the beautiful body, our bodies in all their shapes and forms.

For the body has done nothing. The body merely is.

It is we who impress desires upon it, ascribe thoughts and leanings to it, tendencies. We who demean it and try to force it to be evil and bad when it is not.

If the body is disgusting, it is we who have made it so.

To me, therefore, the body can only be beautiful.