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.]
Showing posts with label Shabath. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shabath. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
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:
"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
"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
Sunday, August 3, 2008
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)