Weak-Day

During the time that our glorious Beth haMikdash (Holy Temple) stood in Jerusalem, all eligible members of the Jewish nation participated in the service there. Kohanim (priests) had the privilege of performing the sacrificial service itself, Levites would provide musical accompaniment, while regular Jews had the responsibility of praying that the offering would be accepted by G-d in good will. Of course, a limited number of people would perform these duties on any given day, and seeing as the total number of Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites far outnumbered the amount required for these duties, these responsibilities were divided into different “shifts” of individuals who would perform their respective duties for a specified period of time each year. And even those Israelites whose turn it was not to serve in the Beth haMikdash were not completely exempted. Those Jews were divided up into groups whose turn would come, while not actually in the Beth haMikdash, to fast in their hometowns on behalf of their brethren. Those serving in the Beth haMikdash were called the “anshey mishmar,” or “men of the watch,” while those fasting in their hometown were called the “anshey maamad,” or “men of the stand,” as they “stood by” and aided from a distance. The following is an excerpt from the Gemara in Taanith (p. 27B) which deals with some of these laws. The Gemara quotes a baraytha, an ancient oral teaching on this topic:

“Our sages taught: The men of the watch would pray that the sacrificial offering of their brethren be accepted willfully while the men of the stand would enter the synagogue and fast four fasts: (1) on Monday, (2) on Tuesday, (3) on Wednesday and on (4) Thursday.”

The Gemara attempts to analyze why only these four days were chosen for fasting even though offerings were brought every day (including the Sabbath):

“On Friday they would not fast because of the honor of the Sabbath, all the more so [they did not fast] on the Sabbath itself. However, why did they not fast on Sunday?

R’ Yochanan said: ‘Because of the Christians.’

R’ Shemuel bar Nachmani said: ‘Because it is the third day of creation.’

Resh Lakish said: ‘Because of the extra soul (neshamah yetherah),’ as Resh Lakish said: ‘An extra soul is given to a man on the eve of the Sabbath and at the departure of the Sabbath it is taken from him.’”

Rashi explains that, ‘because of the Christians,” means on account of Sunday being a Christian holiday the Jews did not fast, although Rashi is not explicit as to why this is a reason not to fast. The Maharsha suggests that Rashi means that we didn’t fast on their holiday so as not to incur their ire, however he rejects that approach since during the time the Beth haMikdash stood, the Jews were politically superior to the Christians and not afraid of them. The Maharsha therefore concludes that since on fast days those who fast do not do work, just as one celebrating a holiday does not work, it might appear that those Jews who refrained from work on account of their fast actually did so on account of Christian practice. In order that their fasts not resemble Christian practice, therefore, fasting was not regularly practiced on that day.

The “extra soul” according to Rashi is a “broadening of the mind for eating and drinking.” When that aspect of the man is removed, he is left weakened and unable to endure a fast.

What concerns me is the other explanation: “Because it is the third day of creation.” Rashi explains as follows:

“the third day of creation” – “for man was created on the sixth day [i.e. Friday, making Sunday the third day of his existence], and he is weak on every [occurrence of this] third day, as it is written: ‘It happened on the third day, as they were in pain…’ (B’Reshith 34:25)

Two astounding points emerge from this comment of Rashi:

1. The verse quoted by Rashi here refers to the pain of the men of Shechem on the third day after their circumcision. Rashi is comparing the third day after one’s circumcision to the third day after one’s coming into existence. This means that the event of circumcision is equivalent to one’s creation! (Similarly, tradition teaches that Adam was created circumcised.)

2. We normally understand the increase in pain on the third day after the circumcision to be directly related to the recovery from the surgical process of circumcision. However, according to this comment of Rashi, the increase in pain is not due to the circumcision itself. Rather, the pain of the recovery is increased on account of the weakening of the body since it is the third day after one’s creation.

Now, after all this is said, the burning question remains unanswered:

What is it about the third day of one’s creation that makes one weak?

(I don’t know. I’m curious if anyone has any suggestions. If I find any answers, I’ll post them here – G-d willing.)

ShoReSh -- SoReS -- SoRS -- SouRCe

The language of the Torah, what we called "Hebrew," is also known as "Lashon haQodesh" -- "The Holy Tongue."  The Torah tradition regards this language as the first language, a divinely architectured language, a language that lies at the root of all other languages.  Based on this tradition, we are not surprised to find words in other languages that hint at their Hebrew roots (for example, the title of this post).  This is too extensive a topic for me to explore here in depth, but I do recommend a fascinating article on the subject entitled "Edenspeak" by a Hebrew University linguist (whose name escapes me) that is available on the Internet (just do a search).  (Forgive me.  It is not out of laziness that I don't do the search myself and offer a link here; I no longer have web access and can only update this blog via e-mail.)

 

I just wanted to share a thought I had today about a word in English that I believe fits this paradigm.

 

The Hebrew word "yoneq" (root: Yud-Nun-Quph) literally means "suckling babe," related to the word "tinoq," meaning "baby," from the same root.  ("Linoq" is the infinitive verb, "to suckle.")  However, both words are used euphemistically to refer to all young children in both Hebrew and Aramaic, as in the Hebrew phrase, "tinoqoth shel beth raban," (literally, "babies of the rabbinic academy") meaning "school-children," or the Aramaic word "yanqutha," meaning "youth" or "childhood."

 

It is therefore my belief that this Hebrew word is the source for the English word... (drumroll...)

 

"Young" - The "Y" and "N" consonants are obviously derived from the "yud" and "nun" Hebrew sounds.  As for the "G" consonant, both the "g" sound and the "q/k" sound are produced in the back of the mouth through contact between the tongue and the palette and are therefore easily interchanged.  As a result, the original Hebrew "quph" sound was corrupted into a "g."  (This phonetic similarity between the Q and the G is also presumably the reason for the similarity in their written forms:  q  g  )

 

 

Here's another Hebrew/English similarity which indicates at least a biblical root for an English idiom:

 

Shemoth (Exodus) 27:1-2: "You shall make the altar of cedar wood . . . and you shall cover it with nechosheth."

 

The word "nechosheth" is often translated as "copper," but it can also be translated as "bronze."  (See.Marcus Jastrow's Dictionary of the Talmud)

 

Rashi explains why Israel was commanded to cover the altar with this material:

 

"and you shall cover it with nechosheth" - "to atone for bold-facedness (azuth metzach) as it says: 'Your brow is nechushah' (Yishayah/Isaiah 48:4)."

 

"Your brow is nechushah" could be translated as, "Your brow is copper," or, according to our suggestion, "Your brow is bronze."

 

In addition, if I am not mistaken, the word "brazen" means "bronze-like," and if so, the verse would be read, "Your brow is brazen," and as Rashi points out, this material represents stubbornness.  In English as well when one is described as "brazen," it means one is bold, stubborn or chutzpadik.  We have, then, a startling parallel between the English and Hebrew idiom for boldness or stubbornness -- in both languages, this attribute is described as "brazenness," literally compared to this particular metal!  This is likely not coincidence, and is either another demonstration of the phenomenon described above, of all languages tracing themselves back to a Hebrew root, or is just another example of a modern idiom with a biblical source (similar to "the writing on the wall" from the book of Daniel).

 

 

One more really cool example of Hebrew as the source of all language, from a recorded lecture by Rabbi Dr. Akiva Tatz entitled, "Paradox of the Spirit":

 

The Hebrew word for water is "mayim."  Mayim is a plural noun, as is apparent not only from the "-im" ending, but also when we consider that "cold water" is "mayim karim"  and "hot water" is "mayim chamim," karim and chamim being the plural forms of the adjectives "cold" and "hot."

 

That being the case, what is the singular form of the word?

 

The answer is: the word "mah," meaning "what."  "Mayim," then, means, "whats."  This is the definition of the word for water, since water has no apparent definable essence.  It has no color; it has no taste.  It has no independent form; it takes on the form of the vessel that holds it.  "What" is "water."

 

Rabbi Tatz points out that we can detect this definition of the word for water even in other languages, since they all derive from Hebrew.  For example, in English, the word "what" and the word "water" are phonetically very close.  So too in German: "Vos" and "Vasser."  Even in Latin: "Qua" and "Aqua"!

 

Kind of gives you the Hebrew-Jee-Beez, doesn't it?

Siman Tov uMazal Tov!

I am delighted to announce that through the good graces of G-d, I have finally become able to update my good old blog!  I'm sure everyone reading this is as excited as me! 

 

(The previous post, "Divine Justice," was a test post to see if this would work, that's why the excited announcement is only the second post.)

 

Anyway, I hope those who used to frequent this blog will continue to do so as it is also my hope that my ability to continue updating this blog will continue continuously.  In addition, feel free to spread the word to others who may be interesting in viewing the material here posted whether or not they were aware of my blog in the past.

 

Thank you all and I hope for your excited participation in this momentous event.  Stay tuned for some exciting posts coming very soon (G-d willing)!

 

Simchas by you!

Divine Justice

In Shemoth (Exodus) 23:7 we read:

 

"...[A]n innocent man (naki) and a righteous man (tzadik) do not kill, for I will not allow a wicked man (rasha) to be righteous (tzadik)."

 

In general, when the Torah uses the words tzadik and rasha in terms of courts of law, these words don't take on their typical meanings of "righteous" and "wicked" as in the sagacious tzadik with his long beard and the greasy rasha with his clawed fingers, sharp teeth and furrowed uni-brow.  Rather, in this context these terms refer to the status of the litigants of a court case.  One that is considered innocent or justified by the court is referred to as the "tzadik," while the one indicted by the court is called the "rasha."  Accordingly, the verse would read as follows:

 

"Do not kill an innocent man nor one acquitted [by the court], for I will not allow a guilty man to be exonerated."

 

A few questions arise:

 

1. Why does the Torah need to prohibit the killing of an innocent man?

 

2. What is the difference between an innocent man and one acquitted by the court?

 

3. What does the second part of the verse have to do with the first?

 

Thankfully, Rashi already came along to solve these difficulties for us.  In his comments to this verse he explains:

"Do not kill an innocent man nor one acquitted by the court" - How do we know that if one exits the court convicted and someone says, "I have evidence he is innocent," that we return [the convicted man] to court [for a retrial]?  Because the Torah states, "Do not kill an innocent man." (I.e. Since it is obvious that the Torah is not prohibiting killing an innocent man, the verse means that we will not uphold a guilty ruling so long as evidence can be produced to the contrary, even after the trial has adjourned.)

Rashi continues:

And how do we know that if one exits the court acquitted and someone says, "I have evidence he is guilty," that we do not return [the acquitted man] to court [for a retrial]?  Because the Torah states, "Do not kill one acquitted [by the court]." (I.e. Since it is obvious that we would not kill one acquitted by the court, the Torah is teaching us that once acquitted, one's ruling can no longer be overturned.]

This may be all fine and good for the litigant, but what about injustice?  Just as we are willing to entertain in the first case that the one pronounced guilty was perhaps innocent, and therefore we accept evidence to the contrary, why are we not so concerned in the second case?  What if this man is truly a criminal?  Therefore, Rashi explains the end of the verse:

"for I will not allow a guilty man to be exonerated" - "You should not return [the acquitted man to court for a retrial], for I will not exonerate him according to My laws.  If he has left your auspices an innocent man [although he is in fact guilty], I have many agents to put him to death in the form fitting his guilt."  [I.e. Even if the court misses his guilt and pronounces him innocent, if he is truly guilty, we can rely on Divine Providence to arrange his proper punishment.]

In fact, Rashi provides for us a graphic example of this type of Divine justice earlier in this same parshah.  In 21:12-13 we read:

"One who strikes his fellow, so that [the stricken man] dies, [the one who struck him] shall be put to death.  But if he did not intend [to kill], yet G-d brought it about through him, I shall set for you a place whence he shall flee."

Rashi comments:

"yet G-d brought it about through him" - To what does this verse refer?  To two men, one who killed unintentionally and one who killed intentionally, with no witnesses to the matter.  [Therefore, the intentional killer] was not killed, and [the unintentional killer] was not exiled.  The Holy One Blessed is He then brought them together to one inn.  The intentional killer sat beneath a ladder, and the unintentional killer ascended the ladder and fell upon the intentional killer, killing him.  Witnesses then testified against him, causing him to be sentenced to exile.  In the end, the one who killed unintentially was exiled and the one who killed intentially was killed [each in accordance with his just deserts].

Similarly, in Devarim (Dueteronomy) 19:16-19 we read:

"If there arise a false witness against a man to testify against him falsehood, the two men, those who have the quarrel, shall stand before HaShem, before the Kohanim and the judges that will be in those days. The judges shall examine the matter thoroughly, and behold, the witness is a false witness!  He has testified falsely against his brother!  Then you shall do to him as he intended to do to his brother, and you shall eliminate the evil from your midst."

Rashi there comments:

"[you shall do to him] as he intended" - but not as he did.  From here [our Sages] said: If the witnesses [succeed in having the accused] killed, they are not killed. (Makoth 5B)

This seems very odd!  Certainly if they can be killed for their intent, they should be killed for there actions!  And besides, how can we let these men go free once we know they killed someone through false testimony?  Here, the Ramban offers a deep explanation:

This is because even the verdict of the false witnesses themselves is through the decree of the Lord, for they are two against two.  [I.e. The Torah accepts the testimony of two witnesses, and here two witnesses have testified that the accused is guilty.  These witnesses are in turn only found false by the testimony of a second pair of witnesses that comes and places the original witnesses elsewhere at the time of the crime, thus invalidating them.  The difficulty with this scenario is that ultimately we have two sets of seemingly acceptable witnesses testifying contradictory testimony!  What makes either one more believable than the other?  We should believe neither set!  Nevertheless, the Torah here has decreed that the second set is believed over the first for reasons beyond our grasp.  This is the decree of the Lord.]  Indeed, when two witnesses come and testify about Reuven that he committed murder, and two others come and falsify [the original witnesses] with their testimony, Scripture commands that [the original witnesses] be killed, for through the merit of Reuven  who was "innocent and righteous" did this event come about.  If he was wicked, deserving of death, HaShem would not save him from the court, as it says, "for I will not allow a guilty man to be exonerated" (Shemoth 23:7).  But if Reuven is killed, we should think that all that the original witnesses testified about him was true, that he died because of his iniquity, and that if he was innocent HaShem would not have abandoned him into their hands, as the verse states: "He shall not abandon him into his hand, nor shall he cause him to be convicted when he is judged" (Tehilim/Psalms 37:33).  Furthermore, HaShem would not allow the righteous judges that stand before Him to spill innocent blood, for judgment belongs to G-d and "in the midst of judges shall He judge" (Tehilim 82:1).  Indeed, all this raises the greatness of the judges of Israel, with the promise that the Holy One Blessed is He concurs with them and is with them in judgment.  This is the meaning of [verse 17], "The two men, those who have the quarrel, shall stand before HaShem," for those that come before the Kohanim and the judges stand before HaShem, and He will guide them along the true path.

Indeed, the Ramban in his comments here in Parshas Mishpatim (21:6) explains that this is the reason that the word for judges, "elohim," is one of the names of G-d.

 

What I meant to bring out from these sources is that while no system of justice is perfect, since it is facilitated by men, the Torah system has the advantage of being ultimately guided by HaShem Himself, and indeed we must view the all the events that transpire on earth as being guided by the One above, and have faith that we will ultimately see justice prevail, either here on earth, or ultimately in the World to Come.  We must know that there are consequences to all our actions both good and bad, and that is part of a world-view that includes and all-good Creator and Sustainer.  May we merit to perfect our actions, ourselves, and our world, and to see the restoration of HaShem as the One True Judge and King on earth, speedily in our days.

A Thousand Pardons

Those who "frequent" this blog have surely noticed that my posts have come to a complete halt as of a few months ago. The cause was, initially, a malfunctioning computer, the malfunction being that it did not turn on. As of February, that's been fixed, however, I noticed in the interim the fullness, richness and productiveness of a life spent not attached to a computer, so to enhance my quality of life I had my internet disconnected. I'm posting this from a computer in the U.S. where I am currently visiting. I do hope to find a way to continue these posts, and indeed I may be able to subscribe to some sort of e-mail service that will allow me to update my blog over e-mail, but we shall yet see. In the meantime, have a happy and kosher Pesach!

More from the Good Emperor

It looks like we still have a couple more loose ends to tie up from the Chevron/B'er Sheva mystery, but as I'm deeply embroiled in studying for a very intense exam, we'll have to catch up on that stuff later. Here's a little breather, just another quote from Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (part of our ongoing saga to trace the Jewish roots of Antoninus' wisdom):

"All things are implicated with one another, and the bond between them is holy... For things have been co-ordinated, and they combine to form the same universe [order]. For there is one universe made up of all things, and one god who pervades all things, and one substance, and one law, one common reason in all intelligent animals (i.e. humans), and one truth..." (Meditations VII, 9)

Now I ask you, does this sound like the product of a pagan Roman society, or the result of the tutelage of one of the sages of Israel?

Location! Location! Location!

SUMMARY: In an earlier post we began an investigation of the following problem in Scripture (If you have been following the investigation, you may skip the summary.):

In B'reshith (Genesis) 23:2, Scripture records that Sarah (wife of Avraham/Abraham) died in Chevron (Hebron). This implies that Avraham and Sarah were living in Chevron at this time. Furthermore, it is an accepted Jewish tradition, although not explicit in Scripture, that Sarah died at the time of the Akeydah (the "binding") of Yitzchok (Isaac) described in 22:1-19. If so, why does Avraham's journey to perform the Akeydah at Mt. Moriyah, synonymous with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, take 3 days (22:4)? Chevron and Jerusalem are not so far apart! Furthermore, verse 19 there states that Avraham went to B'er Sheva after the Akeydah. Why did Avraham not go home to Chevron? And if he lived in B'er Sheva, why was Sarah in Chevron?

We explained in the last post that according to Rashi, Avraham and Sarah most definitely were living in Chevron at the time of the Akeydah, leaving us with 2 questions:

1. Why did Avraham's journey from Chevron to Mt. Moriyah take 3 days?
2. Why did Avraham go to B'er Sheva after the Akeydah and not back home to Chevron?

For the answer to the first question, see this post.

As for the 2nd question, we left off with the Ramban's suggestion that Avraham went to B'er Sheva to give thanks to G-d for the miracle of the Akeydah. But we asked why it was necessary for Avraham to travel three days in the opposite direction for this purpose when he was already on the Temple Mount itself! What was so special about B'er Sheva?

END OF SUMMARY

(And now, the exciting continuation . . .)

Let us explore the answer. Perhaps we can garner a clue from the fact that the Ramban mentions that Avraham went "to B'er Sheva, the place of his eshel, to give thanks for his miracle," whereas the Ramban could have as easily said that Avraham went "to B'er Sheva to give thanks for his miracle." The Ramban specifically mentions the eshel, as though to give us a clue as to the reason the place was special.

And indeed this makes perfect sense when we understand what the eshel was and who Avraham was. Let us examine 21:33 and Rashi's comments there:

"[Avraham] planted an eshel in B'er Sheva. There he called in the name of HaShem, G-d of the World."

Rashi:

"Eshel" - Rav and Sh'mu'el (ed. -- two Talmudic figures) [disputed the identity of the eshel.] One said [it was] an orchard, from which to bring fruits to [his] guests during the meal, and one said [it was] an inn for lodging containing all types of fruit.

"There he called . . ." - By way of this eshel, the name of the Holy One Blessed is He was called Deity of All the World. After they would eat and drink, [Avraham] would say to them, "Give blessing to the One from Whom you ate! You think you ate of mine? You ate of the One Who spoke and [thereby] the world came to be!"

Avraham exemplified the attribute of chesed, or loving kindness, as is demonstrated by his actions in many places (e.g. his hospitality to the wayfarers in 18:2-8, his prayers on behalf of the wicked men of S'dom/Sodom in 18:23-32). It was via this personal strength of his that Avraham directed his service to G-d. (And that is precisely why the Akeydah was his greatest test -- for the one who personifies loving-kindness on earth to be commanded by G-d Himself to sacrifice the only son of his union with his beloved Sarah, born to them in their old age! But I digress.)

Avraham's chief career of kindness, and simultaneously, his chief service to G-d, it seems, was during his extended sojourn in B'er Sheva, where he lived "many days." He was not merely living there, he was running a business of bringing the world to the recognition of G-d through his acts of loving-kindness and giving. Through Avraham, G-d was revealed, recognized as the true giver, the true provider, the true Creator, Ruler and Sustainer. B'er Sheva, therefore, the place of the eshel, became Avraham's unique place of service and connection to G-d. It is reasonable, then, to suggest that even though Avraham and Sarah did ultimately return to Chevron, Avraham maintained a special emotional and spiritual connection to B'er Sheva as a place of his personal connection with G-d. As such, it follows that at the time of his greatest test, and his greatest success, when he had the greatest level of gratitude to G-d, the place he would choose to channel that outpouring to G-d would be that place where his connection with G-d was deepest and most pronounced -- B'er Sheva.

Indeed, we find the concept of setting a particular spot for communion with G-d expressed in a Jew's daily living. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 90:19) rules:

One should set a place for one's prayer that one should not change without necessity. And it is not enough that one set for oneself a synagogue in which to pray, rather, even in the synagogue in which one [prays] regularly, one must have a set place.

When I looked up the source for this halachah (law) in the Talmud (B'rachoth 6B), I was astonished to find the following:

Rabbi Chelbo said: Rav Huna said: Anyone who sets a place for his prayer -- the G-d of Avraham is at his assistance, and when he dies they say to him . . ., "[You are] of the disciples of Avraham our father!"

From where [is it known] to us that [Avraham] set a place?

As it is written: "Avraham [went] early in the morning to the place where he had stood [before HaShem (G-d)]" (B'reshith 19:27). (ed. -- i.e. We find that Avraham returned to the same place where he had previously communed with G-d.)

Amazing! Avraham is in fact considered to be the archetype for the concept of setting a place for prayer! This is entirely consistent with our characterization of Avraham above, and thus is explained his detour to B'er Sheva after the Akeydah.

Case closed? I leave it to you to decide.