The Sabbath: Kiss Your Sins Goodbye - p. II

In our last post, a reader asked about a tradition that Sabbath observance causes one's sins, even idol worship, to be absolved. This would appear to be the straightforward reading of the Talmud in Tractate Shabath 118B (see previous post). This raised the following difficulties:

Doesn't such an idea run counter to simple intuition? How can one guilty of what seems the greatest defection from G-d be forgiven by virtue of his observance of another precept? What does one have to do with the other? Does this mean one can abrogate whatever laws one pleases and then simply observe the Sabbath and be absolved of sin? What about teshuvah (repentance)?

A reader, "Poppazoppa," wrote:

"Since observing the Shabbat is considered 'THE SIGN' which identifies a worshipper of Ha-Shem, perhaps sabbath observance completely negates idol-worship. Mathematically, (-1) plus (+1) = 0. So there is no sin. But again, intuitively, this seems wrong. Perhaps, also, the absolution applies only to idol-worship."

"Poppazoppa" refers to the reference in the Torah to the Sabbath as a "sign" between HaShem and his people, as in Shemoth 31:12-17:

"HaShem said to Mosheh, saying: 'Speak you to the Children of Israel, saying, 'Only shall you observe My Sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you, for all generations, to know that I am HaShem Who sanctifies you. You shall observe the Sabbath, for it is holy for you. Its desecrators shall be put to death, for any who perform labor on [the Sabbath], that soul shall be excised from the midst of its peoples. Six days shall you perform labor, and on the seventh day [shall be] a Sabbath of complete cessation, holy unto HaShem. Any who perform labor on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.' The Children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, making the Sabbath for all generations an eternal covenant. Between Me and the Children of Israel it is a sign forever that in six days HaShem made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he ceased and rested.'"

The Sabbath does indeed appear to be a sign, through its observance, that Israel recognizes HaShem as G-d and Creator. Is this recognition enough to counteract one's act of idolatry? Is the Sabbath a recognition of HaShem's exclusivity as G-d? And what about sins other than idolatry? Can one mitzvah act as an "antidote" for another transgression? While Poppazoppa's suggestion is certainly a good beginning, as Poppazoppa pointed out, many questions still remain.

With a bit of research, I have uncovered a number of fascinating approaches to this concept which I plan to share (G-d willing) in upcoming posts.

[NOTE: I haven't yet published PART III of this series of articles out of a suspicion that no one is reading it anyway. If there is a specific request for publication of the resolution, I will (G-d willing) oblige.]

The Sabbath: Kiss Your Sins Goodbye

The following question was submitted by a reader:

"Someone (Jewish faith) told the following to a friend of mine.... 'the person who observes the Sabbath each week will have all his or her sins forgiven', according to Jewish tradition. I never heard this. Have you?"

Our answer:

The Talmud in Shabath (118B) states:

אמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כל המשמר שבת כהלכתו אפי' עובד ע"ז [כדור] אנוש מוחלין לו שנאמר (ישעיהו נו) אשרי אנוש יעשה זאת וגו' מחללו אל תקרי מחללו אלא מחול לו

"R' Chiyah bar Aba said: R' Yochanan said: Anyone who observes the Sabbath according to its laws, even if he worships idols as did the generation of Enosh, he is absolved, as it states (Isaiah 56:2): 'Fortunate is the person ('enosh') who does this, and the man ('ben adam') who holds onto it, guarding the Sabbath from desecrating it ( מֵחַלְּלוֹ - 'mechalelo'), and guarding his hand from doing any evil.' Read not 'from desecrating it' (מֵחַלְּלוֹ - 'mechalelo'), rather [read] 'it is forgiven him' (מָחוּל לוֹ - 'machul lo')."

The verse in Isaiah is here interpreted using a method known as 'derush,' revealing a layer of meaning concealed beneath the literal translation of the words that is also considered a valid reading of the verse. The exact methodology of deriving meaning in this way has not come down to us through the generations, and therefore we generally have difficulty understanding quite how this meaning is extracted from the verse, although many continue to try to work backwards to explain these types of expositions. For example, it appears that the Sages focused on two details of this verse. Firstly, there are two terms used to refer to a man: 'enosh' and 'ben adam.' 'Ben adam' would seem the more common term, and the superfluous 'enosh' is taken then as a reference to the personage Enosh who lived between the time of Adam and Noach and in whose time idol worship began (see Genesis 4:26 and Rashi ad loc). Additionally, the word 'mechalelo' meaning 'from desecrating it' shares the same letters (sans vowelization) with the words 'machul lo' meaning 'it is forgiven him.' Words of similar spellings are also considered related in Lashon haKodesh and therefore this meaning is considered here. Therefore the verse can be interpreted as saying that even 'Enosh,' i.e. one guilty of the sin associated with Enosh, can rejoice if he 'does this,' if he observes the Sabbath properly, for then his sin 'is forgiven him.'

However, after all is said and done, doesn't such an idea run counter to simple intuition? How can one guilty of what seems the greatest defection from G-d be forgiven by virtue of his observance of another precept? What does one have to do with the other? Does this mean one can abrogate whatever laws one pleases and then simply observe the Sabbath and be absolved of sin? What about teshuvah (repentance)? This is a very difficult concept to accept.

At this time I do not have an answer to these powerful objections, although I plan to look into it, so stay tuned.

PART II

Celestial beings, look out! Here comes Mosheh!

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 2:31: "HaShem said to me (Mosheh), 'See, I have begun to give over Sichon and his land..."

Q: What did Mosheh see? How could HaShem have begun to give over Sichon and his land before the war began?

Rashi (ad loc): "[HaShem] bound the celestial guardian angel of the Amorites (Emorim) at the feet of Mosheh and had [Mosheh] tread upon him."

See also this post.

The tally thus far:
Mosheh: 8
Celestial beings: 0

What do Sichon, Esav, Yishmael and Pharoah all have in common?

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 2:26: "I (Mosheh/Moses) sent emissaries from the wilderness of Kedemoth to Sichon (Sihon), King of Cheshbon, [with] words of peace..."

NOTE: This occurred earlier in B'Midbar (Numbers) 21:21. However, based on the previous verse (ibid. v. 20), Israel's location was "the valley that is in the field of Moav," not the wilderness of Kedemoth. Additionally, in Devarim 2:24, Mosheh relates that HaShem had commanded him to make war with Sichon and take possession of his land. Why then would Mosheh send emissaries of peace? Rashi in v. 26 attempts to resolve this difficulty by interpreting our verse figuratively.

Rashi (ad loc): "'from the wilderness of Kedemoth' - Even though G-d did not command me to offer peace to Sichon, I learned this [behavior] from [G-d in] the wilderness of Sinay (Sinai), from [the manner of the giving of] the Torah which preceded (kidmah) [the creation of] the world. [NOTE: The Torah is a revelation of the Divine Will, which is eternal. Therefore the Torah is described as preceding the creation of the world.] When the Holy One came to give [the Torah] to Israel, he offered it to [the descendants of] Esav (Esau) and Yishmael (Ishmael), even though it was obvious to Him that they would not accept it. He nevertheless made them an offer of peace, [therefore] I too made an overture to Sichon with words of peace."

NOTE: Rashi has thus interpreted the phrase "the wilderness of Kedemoth" as a reference to the wilderness where the Torah was given. Sending emissaries from there means that as a result of something that occurred then, Mosheh sent emissaries at this point. Kedemoth, from the Hebrew root that denotes something that comes before, is a reference to the Torah which came before all. Rashi continues:

"Alternatively, `from the wilderness of Kedemoth,' - I learned from You Who preceded (kidamta) the world. You could have send one bolt of lightening and incinerated Egypt, but you patiently sent me from the wilderness to Pharoah to say, 'Let my people go!'"

NOTE: Here "Kedemoth" is understood as a reference to the Eternal One Himself. The Wilderness refers to that wilderness in which Mosheh sojourned when he fled from Egypt after killing the Egyptian until HaShem commanded him to return to Egypt and lead His people to freedom. (See Shemoth/Exodus 2:11-15 and ibid. ch. 3). Therefore, just as HaShem commanded Mosheh to approach Pharoah in a diplomatic fashion, Mosheh learned that he should do the same here.

Son-of-a-Father

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 2:9: "HaShem (G-d) said to me (Mosheh/Moses), 'Do not distress [the nation of ] Moav (Moab) nor provoke them to war, for I will not give you an inheritance from their land, for I have given [the land of] Ar to the children of Lot as an inheritance." (See previous post.)

[NOTE: See B'Reshith (Genesis) 19:29-38. The nations of Moav and Amon were descended from the two sons of Lot, Moav and Ben-Ami, respectively, whom he conceived with his two daughters.]

Rashi (Devarim 2:9): "'do not provoke them to war' - Israel was only prohibited from [provoking] Moav to war, but [Israel] did cause Moav to fear and would appear to them while armed... [Israel] would loot and despoil them. However, regarding the children of Amon, it states (v. 19): 'Do not provoke them' - [implying the prohibition of] any provocation whatsoever. [This immunity of Amon was granted them] in reward for the modesty (tzeniuth) of their matriarch (the younger of Lot's daughters), who did not disclose her father's act as did the elder daughter who called her son 'Moav' (like the Hebrew 'me-av,' meaning 'from father')." [NOTE: See previous note. Lot's younger daughter named her son "Ben-Ami," meaning "son of my nation," obscuring her child's incestuous origin.]

Seven Outta Ten Ain't Bad

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 2:2-5: "HaShem (G-d) said to me (Mosheh/Moses), saying, '...Command the people, saying, 'You are passing the boundary of your brothers, the Children of Esav (Esau) who dwell in Seir... Do not provoke them, for I will not give you from their land even [the measure of] a footfall, for I have given Mount Seir as an inheritance for Esav.''"

Rashi (ad loc): "'an inheritance for Esav' - from Avraham (Abraham). [NOTE: Esav and Israel were twin sons of Yitzchak (Isaac) son of Avraham.] I gave [Avraham] [the land of] ten nations (B'Reshith/Genesis 15:18-21). Seven [are given] to you [Israel], and [of the nations of] the Keni (Kenite) and Kenizi (Kenizzite) and Kadmoni (Kadmonite), which are [the lands of]Amon and Moav (Moab) and Seir, one of them is given to Esav, and the [other] two [are given] to the sons of Lot (Avraham's nephew). In reward for having gone with [Avraham] to Egypt and being silent about that which [Avraham] said regarding his wife (Sarah), 'She is my sister' (See B'Reshith 12:10-16), I considered [Lot] like Avraham's own son (granting each of Lot's two sons, Moav and Ben-Ami, progenitors of the nations of Moav and Amon, respectively, as an inheritance, one of the lands of the ten nations given to Avraham)."

Justifying the Just -- Introduction, p. II

A famous example of a misunderstood biblical passage is B'Reshith (Genesis) 35:22:

"When Israel (i.e. Yaakov/Jacob) dwelt in that land, Reuven (Reuben) went any lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine, and Israel heard. The sons of Yaakov were twelve."

This verse is remarkable for a number of reasons. Firstly and most obviously, it is shocking that Reuven, the first-born son of Yaakov, the third of the triad of righteous forefathers Avraham (Abraham), Yitzchak (Isaac) and Yaakov, could and would commit such an unprecedented act. We find no prior mention of any such misconduct on the part of Reuven, sexual or otherwise. All the moreso is such conduct shocking when it involves his own righteous father's consort! Additionally, this most severe act receives but minor mention in the greater context of the text, namely, half a verse, with no prelude beforehand nor any details thereafter. The second half of this verse already begins the next section of text, the enumeration of Yaakov's progeny. The only other mention of this event is in Yaakov's final words to his sons before his death (B'Reshith 49:3-4):

"Reuven, you are my first-born, my might and the first of my strength, excellent in elevation, excellent in power. [Because of your] haste like water you will not excel (i.e. certain priveledges of the first-born have been taken away from you -Rashi), for you ascended your father's couch, then you defiled the One who ascended my bed (i.e. the Divine Presence was manifest upon Yaakov's bed -Rashi)."

Even this passage raises difficulties. What haste is this verse referring to? No details were given in the above account as to the context of the episode. Information is clearly missing.

Additionally peculiar about the former passage regarding this act of Reuven is that, as mentioned, the narrative seems to completely switch gears within the very same verse, beginning what appears to be a completely unrelated topic. "Reuven (Reuben) went any lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine, and Israel heard. The sons of Yaakov were twelve." Indeed, if one examines the Hebrew text, one finds that there is a gap in the text in the middle of the verse before the words, "The sons of Yaakov were twelve." This sort of gap is common in Scripture, generally denoting the end of one section and the beginning of another. For this sort of gap to appear in the middle of a verse is extremely rare and therefore highly significant.

Let us examine the commentary of Rashi on this verse:

"'Reuven went and lay with Bilhah' - Since [Reuven] rearranged [Yaakov]'s couch, Scripture charges him as though he lay with her. Why did he rearrange and [thereby] desecrate [Yaakov]'s bed? Because when Rachel died, Yaakov took his bed, which was regularly placed in Rachel's tent and no other tent, and placed it in Bilhah (Rachel's handmaiden)'s tent. Reuven came to lay claim against this affront to his mother (Leah). He said: '[Even] if my mother's sister (Rachel) was a rival wife to my mother, should my mother's sister's maid be a rival wife to my mother?' Therefore he rearranged [Yaakov's bed]."

A little background to understand this comment of Rashi. As related in B'Reshith 29:1-30:24, Yaakov, during his sojourn in Padan Aram with his swindling uncle Lavan, encountered Lavan's two daughters, Rachel and Leah. Yaakov quickly fell in love with Rachel, the younger sister, and asked Lavan for his daughter's hand in marriage. Lavan agreed, but tricked Yaakov into marrying Leah, the older daughter, first. Yaakov ultimately wed both sisters, who competed with one another to bear him more children, each one hoping that this would cause Yaakov to prefer her over her sister. Rachel was unable to bear Yaakov children, while the fertile Leah bore him six sons and a daughter, Reuven the first-born of these. Rachel gave her handmaiden, Bilhah, to Yaakov as a concubine, hoping that she would bear children to him that Yaakov would consider like Rachel's own. Bilhah bore Yaakov two sons. Leah likewise gave her handmaiden, Zilpah, to Yaakov for the same purpose, and she bore him another two sons. Eventually, Rachel, too, bore a son to Yaakov. All this is clear from the text.

Our sages have further taught us in the Talmud, Tractate Shabath 55B, that despite the vast superiority of Leah over Rachel in this child-bearing contest, Yaakov's initial and fierce love for Rachel was never dulled, and he always preferred her over her sister and rival Leah. Therefore, while each wife had her own tent, Yaakov's bed held its most constant place in Rachel's tent. This unbalanced favoritism against Leah aroused Reuven's ire, although he never acted upon it. When Rachel died, Reuven's hope was that his mother's proper honor would finally be realized, with Yaakov fixing his bed in Leah's tent, but this never materialized. Instead, Yaakov, because of his love for Rachel, moved his bed to Rachel's handmaiden Bilhah's tent because Yaakov's close association of Bilhah with her mistress Rachel. In Reuven's eyes, this was an affront to his mother that he could not bear. He therefore took the initiative to move his father's bed from the handmaiden's tent to that of his own mother Leah.

According to Rashi, this disruption of Yaakov's relationship with Bilhah is described as though Reuven himself actually lay with Bilhah, although this certainly did not literally take place. The verse merely uses figurative language, or if you will, exaggerated terminology, in describing this act.

It must be pointed out, that Rashi's comments here are all based on a discussion recorded in the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Shabath) as mentioned earlier. Rashi is not inventing details or conjecturing. The Talmudic source predates Rashi by several centuries. While this is not the forum for the complex discussion of just what the Talmud is, suffice it to say that while the Talmud was put into its final written form in the 5th and 6th centuries CE, the teachings within it are far older as the Talmud is mainly a collection of oral traditions. Therefore the Talmudic tradition of the proper understanding of these verses that Rashi cites here claims authenticity as the ancient and accurate meaning of the original Biblical verse.

Let us examine Rashi's comments on the latter part of the verse:

"'Yaakov's sons were twelve' - ...Our Sages (Shabath ibid.) expounded: [These words] come to teach that all were equal and all righteous, for Reuven did not sin."

In other words, this anamoly of the new section discussing the progeny of Yaakov beginning at the end of this verse describing Reuven's act is to indicate the Reuven did not distinguish himself from his brothers in so doing. He remained of comparable stature to all his brothers. If so, since the other brothers were all righteous, so was Reuven. Scripture here mitigates its own harsh statement in the earlier part of the verse. A criticism is certainly aimed at Reuven, but it is immediately modified.

So far we have explained how the Torah could indicate that Reuven committed such an act (he didn't), we have explained why the verse ends with the statement, "The sons of Yaakov were twelve," and now we can also explain the verse in Devarim quoted above that refers to Reuven's haste. Reuven was angered by what he saw as a slight to his mother's honor and he acted hastily to right this wrong. However, it was inappropriate for him to interfere in the marital affairs of his father and for that he is reprimanded.

The main point to be taken from this study, however, is that it is irresponsible to superficially read Biblical verse without taking into account the larger context of the verse as well as the traditions surrounding it. We have concluded that Reuven was indeed a great and righteous individual on par with his brothers and in keeping with what we would expect from the first-born son of a great man such as Yaakov and from one whom HaShem chose to sire an entire tribe of the people of Israel.

The fact that the Torah uses such strong terms to describe Reuven's act, which was actually a much more minor act, is indeed the most puzzling detail of this explanation. I intend to address this point in my next post (G-d willing). Stay tuned.

Justifying the Just -- An Introduction

I have rediscovered of late (I say "rediscovered" because it is no new discovery) that there is a trend out there among certain people, even among the supposedly Torah-observant, to lay calumny upon our great forebearers based upon certain superficial observations of Biblical text. It cannot be stressed enough what a devastating error this is, although a very tempting and in fact instinctive one to make based on the predispositions with which we usually approach the text. These predispositions are based in turn on our experiences and personalities which have taken form under the influence of a society that is completely divorced in its nature from the world in which these texts were composed and in which lived those great men whose craft was their study and to whom were entrusted their transmission together with their genuine meaning. For this reason I feel it is more than a necessity to address this topic and attempt to enlighten both myself and others who may have fallen under this erroneous spell.

The first issue that must be introduced is that of text-study. One must always consider when one approaches any text, especially an ancient one, the context in which it was written, the intent for which it was written, and the readership for which it was written. One cannot approach an ancient text with the same eyes with which one approaches a contemporary journal article, novel, or newspaper item. Contemporary items are written by contemporary authors in a contemporary world for a contemporary readership. Therefore behind the writer's words are all the same assumed axioms of human living and understanding with which the reader approaches those words. Many more things are not written than are written that are relevant to the understanding of the work, but they are all presupposed and understood by the reader and therefore the writer need not write them.

The same is true for the writer of an ancient text at the time of the writing regarding his contemporaries. So much is left unsaid that a reader from another time or place reading the same words will be missing so much of the writer's underlying meaning. In order for those who understand the text to transmit the meaning thereof accurately to another generation, such transmission requires much unwritten explanation that must be maintained by the next generation for accurate transmission to the generation thereafter. For that latter generation to ignore the commentary of the preceding one in favor of interpreting the same words with their more modern connotations is dishonest and unfaithful to the original intent and such interpretation can only be unreliable. How much more so when dealing with a text that is thousands of years old! The only hope of reading such a text properly is through reliance on an accurate commentary that reaches back to the time and circumstances of the original author.

For example, if we go back just two centuries to the writing of the Declaration of Independence, we find the statement that "all men are created equal." How do we understand this statement versus the way its writers intended? The contemporary mindset is that this statement applies to all human beings of all races and genders. However, it is certain that in the mind of the writers the intent was toward males of the white race. Witness to this is the fact that Bill of Rights, composed be the very same men, allows for the treatment of blacks as property and severely limits the rights of women compared to men. We cannot impose upon the authors of this document current standards of equality -- it is dishonest, incorrect and makes for lousy scholarship.

Therefore, when our tradition regards certain Biblical figures as great men, even though elements of the text may imply otherwise to our contemporary ears, we must never put this so-called "literal" reading of the text before an established tradition. Rather, we must approach the text in the context of these traditions.

Judaism has a deep and rich tradition that has been transmitted to us through our sages from one generation to the next. These traditions cannot be ignored simply because the text seems to imply otherwise! Quite the contrary! We must reinterpret the text based on these traditions! Indeed, it may be said that our traditional teachings are the core of Judaism and the text merely a framework (albeit an indispensible one) upon which to lay these traditions in their proper place.

Put differently, the Jewish People has been studying the Torah since time immemorial. There was never a time in which these teachings were "new." Even the writing of the texts was generally the recording of known information. But at the very least it can certainly be said that since the recording of these texts there has never been a cessation of their study among our people. They were always learned and taught from master to disciple from generation to generation, ours no exception to that tradition. We are not greater scholars than our ancestors. We are not more familiar with these texts than they were. In a time when the Jewish people is more removed from its traditions than ever, we cannot be so conceited as to believe that we are more connected to the accurate meaning of these texts or are privy to the full gamut of insights into them than those who came before us. To attempt to "rediscover" the correct meaning of the text without deference to the understanding of our ancestors, to think we know better than they did, to think they were in error while we are not, is lunacy.

It is illegitemate to argue that we are more sophisticated than prior generations, for if we believe that the Torah is a divinely communicated document, and its contents the wisdom of a Divine Creator and Master of all things, its study must certainly enlighten those who study it, and again, our study thereof is not a more serious undertaking than the study thereof of prior generations, and the sincerity and gravity of that undertaking increases the further back in time one goes, as does the limitation of influence from without. With more serious study of the Torah comes forth sophistication, comes forth illumination, therefore our forebearers were certainly more sophisticated in all ways significant, especially Torah-study, and especially considering the degree to which our generation is bombarded with all sorts of influence foreign to our Torah and its wisdom.

A text is a very flexible thing. Different people will read it differently and draw different conclusions therefrom. The most reliable method of determining the meaning of a text is through a tradition of what that text meant to its author. No other method should be adopted in examining the Torah or any Biblical writings than the aforementioned approach.

This is what distinguishes Jewish scholarship from those of any other religion or belief system that relies on the Bible as its central text. While each one of these systems adopts its own unique and novel approach to the text, our tradition rejects those approaches in favor of its own. Only the people who have carried these books from the time they came into being can be trusted in their interpretation thereof against the countless counterfeits that have reared their head in the course of history and continue to do so in our own times.

I intend, with G-d's help, to use this forum to demonstrate some of the stark differences that arise through this approach to Torah-study in contradistinction to those of the falsifiers. Our tools are the text coupled with the timeless and indispensible traditions of our fathers before us. May the light of the Torah, written and oral, continue to enlighten us as it has done for our people since time immemorial.

Stay tuned for more.