The Wise Guy - Four Sons Walk into Paradise part 2

We are introduced to the Four Sons on the night of the seder while reading the Haggadah and partaking of the seder meal. This context implies that each child is asking about the seder itself and why the ceremony is different than what they are accustomed to. In the structure of the Haggadah, the Four Sons are parallel to the Four Questions which are asked earlier. Unlike the Four Questions which, in fact, are four distinct questions each pointing to something unique in the seder, the Four Sons are all asking essentially the same question. That question is: What's going on here tonight? 
 
Sitting at the seder the young participants notice a variety of distinct procedures and foods. A striking example is that even though kiddush was already said, the family has not yet begun to eat the main meal!

However, when we examine the sources in the Torah for each of these children, we find that each of them seems to be asking about different things. Only the Evil Son seems to be asking about the night of the seder. The One Who Doesn't Know to Ask is addressed in the context of eating matzah for the week of Pessach. The Tam is asking about the mitzvot in regards to the first born. 
 
The Wise Son is actually asking about the entire Torah. 
 
The Wise Son is not the first of these sons to appear in the Torah; in fact, he is the last. His question is a quote from Deuteronomy 6:20. In the chapter prior to his question (Chapter 5), Moshe recounted how the children of Israel received the Decalogue. After the people requested that Moshe continue to receive the Torah directly from God and then transmit it to them, God agreed to their request and continued to give Moshe the rest of the Torah. 
 
Chapter 6 begins by speaking about the entirety of the Torah and various categories of mitzvot. This leads into the essential declaration of faith, the Shma, and then some other general concepts of how to relate to God and the Torah.

It is in this context we find the following verse:

דברים פרק ו (כ) כִּֽי־יִשְׁאָלְךָ֥ בִנְךָ֪ מָחָ֖ר לֵאמֹ֑ר מָ֣ה הָעֵדֹ֗ת וְהַֽחֻקִּים֙ וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוָּ֪ה יְקֹוָ֥ק אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ אֶתְכֶֽם:

Deuteronomy 6:20 When your son asks tomorrow saying: What are the testimonies and the statutes and the judgments that the Lord our God commanded you?

When we read this in context, we understand that this son is actually asking to find out what all the commandments of the Torah are. He already comprehends that there are various categories of commandments (testimonies, statutes, judgments). He is clearly a seeker of wisdom and thus Chazal see him as the Wise Son.

Further, by acknowledging that the commandments are God given, and he accepts that the Lord is his personal God, we understand that he sees himself as one of the tribe, not as an outsider asking as an observer.

Nonetheless, this Wise Son seems to exclude himself from being personally commanded to fulfill these mitzvot in that he says “that the Lord our God commanded you.” The M'chilta seemingly avoids this issue by changing the word to us. You might say that the M'chilta is eliding an essential issue here since it takes the Evil Son to task for saying “to you” and thereby excluding himself from the wider community (as we'll examine in a later post). By simply changing the original wording it all becomes so convenient!

However, it would seem that Chazal had a deeper grammatical understanding of the verse which justifies the change when rendering the verse in the M'chilta. It gets a bit technical and I will talk about it when we examine the Evil Son.

For the moment, though, let's get back to this Wise Son.

We now see that in his original context, the son asking this question indicates wisdom at least to the extent that he recognizes different sorts of commandments. But is that sufficient to give this inquirer the appellation of 'wise?' Just because he wants to know a lot of legal detail?

I believe that this desire for technical knowledge of the Torah is secondary to the acknowledgment of “the Lord our God.” It is the recognition by this child, first and foremost, that the Lord is his personal God that highlights his wisdom.

This is based on a couple of verses elsewhere in Tanach which the midrash took into account when determining that this question is indeed asked by a Wise Son.

The first one is from Psalms:

תהלים פרק קיא (י) רֵ֮אשִׁ֤ית חָכְמָ֨ה׀ יִרְאַ֬ת יְקֹוָ֗ק שֵׂ֣כֶל ט֖וֹב לְכָל־עֹשֵׂיהֶ֑ם תְּ֝הִלָּת֗וֹ עֹמֶ֥דֶת לָעַֽד:

Psalms 111:10 The beginning of wisdom is awe of the Lord, a good success for all who do them, his praise stands forever.

That is, in order to acquire wisdom, one must have already inculcated an awe of the Lord. This awe, combined with the wisdom thereby acquired, will bring success to those who combine them and they will be praised for all time as a result. (Yes, as usual, one can interpret this verse from the Hebrew differently. This is my own translation based mainly on the RaDaK)

The main point for us, though, is that one becomes wise in a Torah world by first having awe for the Lord. This is demonstrated in the question, as we mentioned, by the declaration that the Lord is the asker's personal God.

Another significant verse is found in Proverbs:

משלי פרק ד (ז) רֵאשִׁ֣ית חָ֭כְמָה קְנֵ֣ה חָכְמָ֑ה וּבְכָל־קִ֝נְיָנְךָ֗ קְנֵ֣ה בִינָֽה:

Proverbs 4:7 (At) the beginning of wisdom, acquire wisdom! And with all your acquisitions acquire understanding.

Since this is a child, he is at the beginning of his career to acquire wisdom. He demonstrates the characteristic of a wise person simply by his attempt to get wisdom.

Furthermore, by seeing himself as part of the larger community, he shows a wise understanding of the nature of Torah, namely that this Divine Wisdom is meant for all of his tribe for all time. The best he can do is to try to grasp what he can.

But why does the M'chilta speak about the Wise Son first even though he comes last in the Torah?

Why is the answer to this son in the M'chilta not the answer given in the Torah itself?

Tune in next time for more thrilling insights!

So Who Are These Four Sons, And Why Do They Ask So Many Questions!? - Four Sons Walk into Paradise part 1

Anyone who has been to a seder has met the Four Sons. How they came to attend every seder is a point not often discussed, though. Also, do we ever really get to know them? Doubtless, many of you are familiar with a plethora of questions and explanations about who they are but please indulge me while I reintroduce them and hopefully understand them more intimately. The oldest source for the section of the Haggadah with the Four Sons is the M'chilta D'Rabbi Yishmael which is primarily a halachic midrash on Shmot (Exodus). Here is the text as it appears there:

מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל בא - מסכתא דפסחא פרשה יח

מה העדות והחקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה' אותנו (דברים ו כ) נמצאת אומר ארבעה בנים הם אחד חכם ואחד רשע ואחד תם ואחד שאינו יודע לשאול. חכם מה הוא אומר מה העדות והחוקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה' אלהינו אותנו אף אתה פתח לו בהלכות הפסח אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן. רשע מה הוא אומר מה העבודה הזאת לכם לכם ולא לו ולפי שהוציא את עצמו מן הכלל וכפר בעיקר אף אתה הקהה את שיניו ואמור לו בעבור זה עשה ה' לי בצאתי ממצרים (שמות יג ח) לי ולא לך אלו היית שם לא היית נגאל. תם מה הוא אומר מה זאת ואמרת אליו בחוזק יד הוציאנו ה' ממצרים מבית עבדים. ושאינו יודע לשאול את פתח לו שנא' והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא וגו'.

M'chilta D'Rabbi Yishmael, Parshat Bo, Tractate Pessach, Parsha 18

What are the testimonies and the statutes and the judgments that the Lord commanded us? (Deuteronomy 6:20—In the original text it actually says 'commanded you'. We'll address that later). We find it tells us that there are four sons: One is Wise, one is Evil, one is Tam (we'll translate that later), and one Who Doesn't Know To Ask.

The Wise, what does he say? ”What are the testimonies and the statutes and the judgments that the Lord our God commanded us?” So you should open to him with the laws of the Passover: We don't finish off after the Passover (sacrifice) with dessert.

The Evil, what does he say? “What is this service to you?” To you and not to him. And since he removed himself from the community and denied the essence, so you break his power (literally 'blunt his teeth') and say to him 'because of this the Lord did for me in my going out of Egypt (Exodus 13:8).' For me and not for you; had you been there you would not have been redeemed.

The Tam, what does he say? “What is this?” And you say to him: With a strong hand He took us out of Egypt, out of the place of bondage (Exodus 13:9).

And The One Who Doesn't Know To Ask: You open to him, as it says “and you should tell your son on that day...(Exodus 13:8)”

Let's begin understanding this midrash by pointing out that the Torah commands us to tell our sons about the going out of Egypt. This is learned from the verse that says:

שמות פרק יג (ח) וְהִגַּדְתָּ֣ לְבִנְךָ֔ בַּיּ֥וֹם הַה֖וּא לֵאמֹ֑ר בַּעֲב֣וּר זֶ֗ה עָשָׂ֤ה יְקֹוָק֙ לִ֔י בְּצֵאתִ֖י מִמִּצְרָֽיִם:

Exodus 13:8 And you will tell your son on that day saying “For this did the Lord do for me in my going out of Egypt.”

This commandment is anticipated earlier in the story just before the plague of locusts.

שמות פרק י (א) וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְקֹוָק֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה בֹּ֖א אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כִּֽי־אֲנִ֫י הִכְבַּ֤דְתִּי אֶת־לִבּוֹ֙ וְאֶת־לֵ֣ב עֲבָדָ֔יו לְמַ֗עַן שִׁתִ֪י אֹתֹתַ֥י אֵ֖לֶּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ:(ב) וּלְמַ֡עַן תְּסַפֵּר֩ בְּאָזְנֵ֨י בִנְךָ֜ וּבֶן־בִּנְךָ֗ אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁ֤ר הִתְעַלַּ֙לְתִּי֙ בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם וְאֶת־אֹתֹתַ֖י אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֣מְתִּי בָ֑ם וִֽידַעְתֶּ֖ם כִּי־אֲנִ֥י יְקֹוָֽק:

Exodus 10:1,2 And the Lord said to Moses “Come to pharaoh for I have made his heart and the heart of his servants heavy in order to place these, my signs, in his midst; and in order that you will recount to the ears of your son and your son's son how I made a mockery of Egypt and my signs that I placed with them and you will know that I am the Lord.”

In fact, then, one of the purposes of the spectacle of the plagues was to talk about them later to our sons (and our daughters—but I won't digress on that here).

So it doesn't surprise us when we find the Torah telling us later that we should tell about the going out of Egypt to our children (let's stick with that term from here on in).

What does provoke some thought, though, is that the Torah mentions this in more than one place. Chazal (our sages of blessed memory-- the rabbis of the Talmudic era) understood that the Torah does not repeat itself for no reason, therefore, each time this notion is mentioned warrants further inspection to figure out what the Torah is adding that we didn't know previously.

It turns out that in four places we're told in command form to tell our children about the going out of Egypt. Moreover, in three of those places the command is introduced by a question that our child will ask us.

Why the four answers? Why the three questions? Why not four questions and four answers? Why not just one question and one answer?

The M'chilta answers this by telling us that the Torah understood that there are four types of people whom we need to address, namely a wise one, an evil one, a tam one and one who doesn't know to ask.

How does the M'chilta know that these are the four types spoken of? The easiest to figure out is the one who doesn't know to ask. After all, the answer we give him from Exodus 13:8, and you should tell your son on that day saying, etc., is not preceded by a question. So this must be addressed to one who didn't know to ask.

The other types are not so simple to deduce from the verses themselves. We will examine each one carefully and derive an approach to understanding how the M'chilta figures them out.

But before I end this posting, let me point out that the types listed don't seem 'balanced;' that is, we don't talk about the wise son and the stupid son (although in alternate versions a stupid son is substituted for the tam), or the evil son and the good son.

Rather, Chazal understood that the four types are archetypes of different kinds of people all of whom must be considered in this context. Moreover, I would say that Chazal understood that all of these archetypes are actually part of each of us as individuals.

So next time, we'll start off by looking at the wise son.

Four Sons Walk into Paradise... an Introduction

This series is dedicated to my late father, Benjamin, and my late sister, Marsha, both of whom approached Pardes in their own, unique and loving ways.

And, יבל"ח, to my daughter Milcah who makes sure to stick up for the רשע at every seder.

Introduction

The title of this series, Four Sons Walk into Paradise, is not really the beginning of a joke. Rather, it is a result of close examination of one of the most famous stories of the Talmud which begins 'Four entered the Pardes' and how it relates to one of the most well known midrashim which we repeat each year at the Passover seder, that of the Four Sons. But before I get into those details, a little background:

When I was about 12 years old and going to Hillel Academy in Dayton I became fascinated by the notion of Kabbalah. The draw was mainly to what I thought to be Jewish magic and thought that if I managed to learn the right stuff I could perform my own little miracles, like grant myself three wishes or get out of attending school altogether.

I requested from our principal that we devote some time to studying Kabbalah which he deflected by informing me that one should be forty years old before indulging. I wasn't quite interested enough to pursue the study on my own and certainly felt inadequate to the task. I also felt that this one more thing that grownups are keeping away from deserving kids.

Fast forward a few years and I found myself studying in yeshiva in Jerusalem. Already taken with Talmudic study, I found that devoting myself practically around the clock to that was plenty for me.

But I still had the lingering feeling that I was missing something, kabbalah-wise.

One of the more fascinating realizations I had while studying Talmud, though, was that many aggadic passages had a mystical flavor or subtext.

Talmud can be roughly divided into two types of literature: halachic and aggadic. Halacha is, of course, discussion of Jewish law. It is legalistic by nature and fraught with logic and rational thinking. Aggadah, by contrast, is narrative, legend, recounting of dreams and the like. It feels much more free form and may or may not seem to abide by the logic of halachic passages.

Yeshivas traditionally skipped over aggadic passages when learning Talmud. Except in a few obvious cases when aggadah is brought to illustrate a halachic concept, it was considered to be somehow lesser than halachic discussion. Aggadah did not generally produce an immediate halachic result so it was not considered important. Generally aggadah was viewed as a side show, perhaps a study in mussar (ethics), a digression from the meatier discussions of halachic minutiae.

However, I came to understand that particular aggadot (the plural form of aggadah) were strategically placed in the text of the Talmud not just as a chance digression and not only to illustrate halachic concepts but as part of an integral understanding of Torah with a capital T.

Consider that the Torah, the Five Books of Moses, is itself a combination of mitzvot (halacha) and narrative (aggadah). The first question which Rashi raises in his commentary on the Torah assumes that the main purpose of the Torah is simply to acquire practical knowledge of the mitzvot. He implies by the question that the narrative portions are secondary.

But the reality is that tradition views the Torah as a singular whole. One cannot truly fulfill or even comprehend the Torah without comprehending the narrative. A subtle interplay between narrative and law ensues throughout the entire Torah.

Some examples are obvious such as the narrative of God commanding Avraham to circumcise himself and his household (Genesis 17:9-14) serving as the basis for the mitzvah of circumcision as related later, after the giving of the Torah at Sinai (Leviticus 12:3).

More subtle is the declaration by God in Genesis 1:26 that he makes humans in His image. This fundamental concept serves in turn as a basis for perhaps all of the mitzvot bein adam l'chavero (laws between man and his fellow man, like caring for others, torts, etc.)

Creation of the universe by God serves a conceptual basis for mitzvot bein adam lamakom (laws between man and God including ritual mitzvot like keeping kosher, laying tefillin and laws regarding belief in God and Torah).

And so we come to understand that before we study mitzvot, we study narrative at least as a way of forming a basis to study mitzvot, but perhaps also to understand them in their own right. Even more, perhaps we study mitzvot in order to understand narrative.

In short, the two are inextricably linked.

And with that, we'll start off next time by looking at the midrash of the four sons.

Tirtzah, Damon, The Tower of Babel and Everything

I recently had the unique experience of attending the wedding of my daughter Tirtzah to her husband Damon. The wedding was unique to me for a number of reasons beginning with the fact that Damon is not Jewish.

If you feel a priori that such a marriage is not to be sanctioned in any way or that reading about such a marriage will disturb you deeply and would rather not, let me advise you now to leave this page and to say that I understand.

Interestingly, though, the Pew Survey of American Jews just came out this week. Some of what I say here is pertinent to how I relate to some of the results of that survey. But I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.

I asked to speak at the wedding and found myself by that time in front of a group of one hundred some guests, many of whom I had just met for the first time in the previous hours or days. Many of them, perhaps most (I didn't make a count) were not Jewish. I took this into account as I formulated what I wanted to say and the following is based on that talk:

Tirtzah's marriage to Damon is not a simple thing in my mind and in the mind of many who attended the wedding. I am speaking mainly of perhaps most of the Jewish participants. You see, for a Jew to marry a non-Jew is not at all simple in the eyes of the Jews. Reasons abound as to why it is not simple and I will try to summarize my own feelings.

Historically, Jews have been separated from non-Jews by a kind of de facto mutual choice; that is, non-Jews, particularly in Christian Europe, did not want Jews mixing in their society and thus put Jews into ghettos and did not grant them citizenship until beginning around the Enlightenment. Jews, for their part, did not want to mingle with non-Jewish society and quite a bit of Jewish law which developed in the Diaspora reflects this.

Jews suffered a long history of oppression at the hands of Christians from at least the time of Constantine and up to the present. The idea of marrying someone of Christian background was, and still is, anathema to many Jews. The marriage was seen as consorting with the enemy and a rejection of one's heritage.

While many Jews are acutely aware of this long history of antisemitism, generally, in my experience, non-Jews are not. Non-Jews have by now heard of the Holocaust if only by way of certain pop culture phenomena, such as the movie “Schindler's List” or hearing about one Holocaust museum or another.

In the 'melting pot' atmosphere in the United States, non-Jews may have a hard time grasping why Jews would be reluctant to marry them. After all, we're all human beings, citizens of the world.

I am not advocating intermarriage, I am merely trying to relate to this particular marriage.

Clearly, Damon is a wonderful, caring man. I can see that he loves Tirtzah very much and that she loves him. But, as we Jews often ask, is this marriage good for the Jews or bad for the Jews?

Whereas in the past (and even in the present) when a Jew married a non-Jew they were often making a declaration of disconnection from their Jewish identity. Intermarriage generally led to assimilation and loss of Jewish identity and therefore loss of another Jew and all their future offspring to the Jewish people.

But when I witness Tirtzah and Damon I see something else happening. This wedding, while not halachic (adhering to Jewish law) could only be categorized as a Jewish wedding. We all saw the procession of the bride and groom with a klezmer band (and an outstanding band at that). We all saw the bride and groom stand under a chupah, the traditional Jewish marriage canopy where they read their self-composed ketuba to each other in Hebrew and in English. And we all saw as seven close friends and family, both Jewish and non-Jewish, came under the chupah to bless the couple, reminiscent of the Jewish tradition of reciting seven blessings at a wedding.

Rather than a rejection of Jewish identity and Jewish tradition, this wedding embraced those elements of Jewish tradition which the couple finds meaningful and attempted sincerely to make the ceremony meaningful to all.

So while Jews have very good reasons to remain apart from non-Jewish society, this wedding has brought to mind an oft overlooked and perhaps misunderstood story of the Torah. That is the story of the Tower of Babel.

Just before the story of the Tower of Babel begins, in Genesis 10, we read a list of the generations of Noah's sons. If we count them all up we get a total of 70.

We then read the story of the Tower of Babel. Let's set the scene: This story takes place in the first generations after the Deluge. The Deluge wiped out all of humanity save Noah and his family. Now people are regenerating but perhaps carry with them the fear of being wiped out again despite God's promise that he will not bring another flood to destroy the earth (Genesis 9:11).

At this time, they were all one nation and spoke one language. They plan to build a city and a tower that will reach to the sky in order to make a 'name' for themselves lest they be scattered on the face of the earth.

It is not clear why, and there are no shortage of explanations, but God does not see this as a good thing. Perhaps, though, it is simply their desire to stay together for protection and that they did not trust that God wouldn't try another flood. A tower could possibly afford them some refuge in the face of another deluge.

I believe that at minimum we understand that while the people were united, they did not see themselves as being united with God.

God understands that it is precisely the fact that they are united as a single nation with a single language that allows them to make such a plan. As such, in order to thwart their plan, God confounds their language and, as a result, they no longer understand each other and the building stops. Not only that, but they are scattered over the land, exactly the situation they wanted to prevent!

Chazal understood that this story serves as the basis for the notion that the world is made up of 70 nations. But what is to happen to these nations? According to Chazal, they will wane over time until just one nation remains.

We read in Zechariah, one of the latter prophets, an account of 'the end of days.' Chapter 14 verse 9 states:

והיה יקוק למלך על כל הארץ ביום ההוא יהיה יקוק אחד ושמו אחד:

And the Lord will be as king over the entire world. On that day the Lord will be One and His name One.

In other words, the ultimate goal of humanity is to come together as a single nation recognizing the Oneness of God. It is not the ultimate goal that everyone become Jewish. The Jewish task in this world is primarily to promote the idea of the One God. It is only by embracing that idea that humanity will be truly united.

You might well ask: If God wanted everyone to be united, why didn't He leave well enough alone at the time of the Tower of Babel? But we understand the answer is that this was not true unity as God was left out of the equation.

You might further ask if God wasn't being a bit petty and petulant? After all, is He so concerned with Himself that he had to break up a nice party and wait for God knows how many millenia until they get it together again?

My personal answer to these questions is based on my own notions about God and the nature of God. I will expound on this more in later posts. However, for now, I will tell you that God is not some old man who sits on high and looks down upon us. This is the image we get by reading the story of the Tower of Babel. But I would argue that the account in the Torah here is what those who experienced the dispersion may have felt and perceived and not necessarily the best way to understand God.

In short, I believe that while God is unknowable per se, all of us have a soul and the soul is the spark of God and the Divine within us. Thus, true unity of mankind can only come about when we all recognize and embrace everyone else's humanity and that humanity includes the idea that we were all created in God's image, that all of us are connected to the Divine by being connected to each other.

We don't know the way in which the scenario of ultimate unity will play out. Perhaps, though, when people like Tirtzah and Damon get together, they are actually making their own step toward the coming together of all mankind. May their union be a blessing to us all.

Awareness

The following is based on a drasha I gave on the occasion of my daughter Nitza's engagement. More about that later...

We read in Kohelet:

קהלת פרק ב (יג) וראיתי אני שיש יתרון לחכמה מן הסכלות כיתרון האור מן החשך:

Ecclesiastes Chapter 12 (13) And I saw that there is an advantage to wisdom over foolishness like the advantage of light over darkness.

The main theme of Kohelet is wisdom. While the author has many insights and anecdotes on the subject, the quote above encapsulates a basic notion presented in the book: Wisdom implies an awareness of what is actually happening while it is happening, just as one can see what's going on when there is light.

This sort of awareness has a central place in Jewish practice. For example, we read in the first Mishnah of the second chapter of B'rachot:

היה קורא בתורה והגיע זמן המקרא אם כיון לבו יצא ואם לאו לא יצא

(If) he was reading in the Torah and the time for reading (the Shma) arrived, if he directed his heart then he fulfilled (the mitzvah of Shma) and if not, he did not fulfill the (the mitzvah of Shma).

In other words, if one happened to be reading a Torah and happened to be reading the parshah of Shma at the time one is supposed to be fulfilling the mitzvah of reading the Shma, then if one had intention (כוונה , kavanna, literally 'directed his/her heart') then the mitzvah is fulfilled.

But what is meant by 'kavanna?'

The most obvious possibility (and the one assumed initially by the gemara here in Talmud Bavli B'rachot 13a) is the intention to fulfill the mitzvah of Shma.

This understanding indicates that the minimum intention required to fulfill a mitzva is cognizance that one is doing the mitzvah.

However, the gemara goes on to offer another possibility: Maybe the person wasn't exactly reading the Torah. Maybe he was just checking the Torah or checking one scroll against another to find any errors. Such 'reading' is not really reading the words as such with all the proper vocalization; it can be done (and I can attest to this as a scribe) by reading letters or reading words in such a way as to make sure all the letters are there.

With this understanding of the Mishnah, the kind of intention changes. Whereas in the first understanding the intention needed would be to fulfill the mitzvah of Shma, now it would be sufficient to read the words as they are written with proper vocalization. If one started off by reading merely to check the scroll and switched at the proper time to reading the words as they are supposed to be pronounced, even if he was unaware that he was performing a mitzvah, he would nonetheless fulfill the mitzvah.

At this point, based on the gemara's two possible understandings, we now have two levels of intention : Intention in the sense of being aware of the physical act of reading and intention in the sense of wanting to fulfill the mitzvah. The gemara is arguing that even the most minimal sense that one is reading the words of the Shma might be sufficient to fulfill that mitzvah.

While the gemara discusses aspects of this question later, I want to point out that the next Mishnah enlightens us about this question in a deeper way. The second Mishnah in the chapter states:

א"ר יהושע בן קרחה למה קדמה שמע לוהיה אם שמוע אלא כדי שיקבל עליו עול מלכות שמים תחלה ואחר כך יקבל עליו עול מצות

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha says: Why does (the paragraph of) Shma precede (the paragraph of) V'haya Im Shamoa? In order that one first accepts upon themselves the yoke of heaven and afterward accepts upon themselves the yoke of the commandments.

Rabbi Yehosha ben Karcha's point here has halachic ramifications in that it explains why the order we read the paragraphs of the Shma is important.

Beyond that, though, we understand that the Rabbi is inviting us to embrace the reading of the Shma with meaning; a deeper meaning than is implied by the minimal requirements of the mitzvah to simply be aware of one's physical actions. Rather he is implying yet another level of kavanna: The awareness not only that one is reading words or even that one is fulfilling a mitzva, but the awareness of the meaning of one's actions.

Embracing this meaning comes as a result of the first two levels of kavanna.

I would offer that the point given here is a metaphor for our lives and part of what Kohelet is trying to teach us, as well.

To be truly wise, we must be aware on many levels of what we are doing, what is happening and what the results of our actions might be.

When I look at my daughters, Tirtzah and Nitza, who are now getting married, I can only be proud of them both for the kind of awareness and consideration which with they have imbued their actions. It is clear to me that each of them has carefully considered their partners and not only where they are now, but where they will be in the future. Marriage to them is not just an action to be cognizant of; it is a vital step in their respective lives.

They have chosen well. I wish them every blessing.

Yeshiva Students and the Army

One of the difficult issues I faced when making aliyah some thirty years ago was accepting the fact that I would be drafted into the army. I grew up in the States during the Vietnam War era and had a kind of reflex reaction against anything military. At the same time, I understood that Israel's situation was one of being under constant military threat from its neighbors and, as such, came to accept that living here entailed personal responsibility to help defend against that threat.

I came to this conclusion in part by consideration of halachic sources. Despite the decision by numerous charedi (ultra-Orthodox) leaders to not allow their followers to join the army, I felt strongly that this was a misguided decision based on what I had learned.

However, knowing that my grasp of halachic sources was (and is) greatly limited, I approached Rav Mordechai Savitsky z”l, whom I have mentioned previously in this blog, to ask his opinion. Rav Savitsky was well known in the charedi world and, in fact, had been asked to be the head of the rabbinic court for the EdahHachareidis back in the 1970s, a highly prestigious position which he turned down (and I intend to speak about that decision in a future post). I had the privilege to study with and ask numerous halachic questions from Rav Savitsky during the time I lived in Boston and even after my aliyah considered him to be my rav.

I asked Rav Savitsky simply if halacha dictated that I must accept going into the army. Rav Savitsky's initial reply was a deflection: he stated that I should not worry and that he had connections who could get me an exemption.

I persisted, though, and presented my argument. I put it to him that if, chas v'chalilah, the Israeli army would cease to exist, the entire Jewish population of Israel would be in mortal danger. Therefore, one should see that being in the Israeli army is, in fact, an act of saving lives (פיקוח נפש – pikuach nefesh). I then pointed out to the rav the gemara which states in a b'raita:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת יומא דף פד עמוד ב ואין עושין דברים הללו לא על ידי נכרים ולא על ידי כותיים, אלא על ידי גדולי ישראל.

Babylonian Talmud Yoma 84b: ...and we do not do these things (to violate the Shabbat for a person whose life is in danger) by way of non-Jews or by way of Cuthites, rather by way of the great of Israel (gedolei Yisrael).

This gemara is brought down in the most prominent halachic works including the Mishneh Torah of the Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 2:3) and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 328:12).

Thus, I argued, it is davka the talmidei chachamim (the learned sages) and their students who should be the first to volunteer for the army.

Rav Savitsky smiled and replied simply, “You're right.”

I left it at that and, when I was drafted, went to the army. As it happened, I was never actually called for active duty, but that's another story.

Let me point out here that many charedim do serve in the army, although as of yet they are still a minority. Why the charedi leaders do not adopt the position that there is an actual obligation to join the army is another question.

The connection to this week's parsha and my story comes by way of a book called אם הבנים שמחה (Em Habanim S'mecha-The Mother of the Children is Happy) by RavYissacher Shlomo Teichtal. I will elucidate in my next posting.

Zealotry for Whom, May I Ask?

About a dozen or so years ago I was approached by a woman asking to have a pair of tefillin checked. As it happened, I met her in her brother's home which was in a charedi section of Jerusalem. Upon concluding that the tefillin were not kosher she ordered a new pair as well as a used pair for her husband. She did not tell me who the new pair were for.

Her brother walked me outside afterward and told me not to sell her the tefillin as he knew they would be given to her niece for her bat mitzvah. When I pointed out that halacha, while discouraging women from putting on tefillin, does not forbid them from doing so, either (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 38:3, see the RaMa's comment). He became very heated, going on about how terrible things were happening in the States with women's minyans where they put on tallitot and tefillin.

I exited but received a call from him the next day. He told me that he had tracked down my original sofrut teacher (who by then was living in the US) and claimed that my teacher told him that if I sold tefillin for a woman's use he would have no choice but to publicize the matter and see to it that others didn't buy from me. I actually checked with my teacher and while he assured me he didn't say those things I understood that this brother was essentially blackmailing me with the threat of smearing my name in the Orthodox world.

After a bit of rage and bit of shock, I decided to speak with Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, a world renown posek and one whose opinion I greatly respected not only for his halachic mastery but also for what I knew was a sensitivity to the people he rendered halachic decisions for.

I explained the situation to Rav Scheinberg and then asked him two questions:

1. Was I allowed to sell the tefillin to this woman?
2. Was this brother in violation of the prohibition against lashon hara for having spoken about me and this matter to my teacher?

Rav Scheinberg answered that in principle halacha would not bar me from selling the woman the tefillin. However, he told me that in this instance I would not be allowed as doing so would risk my livelihood given the threat from this man.

Regarding the question of lashon hara on the brother's part he paskened clearly that, yes, he violated the law of speaking lashon hara.

Lashon hara is not simply gossip; rather, it is specifically speaking ill of someone even though what it is said is true.

I sat back after this conversation in amazement. This brother violated what Chazal considered to be the most severe prohibition of the Torah (see Tosefta Peah 1:1) in order to prevent his niece from fulfilling a mitzvah!

While women are exempt from the mitzvah of tefillin, and in fact the RaMa specifically discourages them, they are allowed to fulfill it if they wish. According to Ashkenazi custom, in fact, they are allowed to say the blessing and include the words 'Who has commanded us to lay tefillin.”

I was reminded of this incident recently with the brouhaha over The Women of the Wall. I have heard various accusations against them including that what they are doing is for their own liberal minded agenda and not l'shem shamayim (for the sake of heaven). I have heard people challenge them about wearing tallit and tefillin and make the claim that they only wear them at the wall in order to incite and provoke and don't wear them every day.

I am puzzled by the uproar, the criticism and especially the attacks, both vocal and physical, against this group of women for a number of reasons.

The one I want to emphasize here is simply this: If the point of the Torah is to become closer to God through his commandments and women voluntarily decide that they want to adopt wearing tallit and tefillin and praying together, why is that so bad? Shouldn't the Orthodox world be encouraging this type of behavior?

After all, I didn't hear the brother go on about how terrible it is that parents in the US (and even here in Israel) spend lavishly for bar and bat mitzvah celebrations, many of which are devoid of any spirituality and often violate shabbat and kashrut laws.

I am puzzled because these Orthodox people who object so loudly and crudely feel that their priorities dictate ignoring specific prohibitions of the Torah in order to prevent women from taking upon themselves mitzvot.

I see a bit of a parallel in this week's parsha. In Numbers 11, after Moshe complains to God that it is too much for him to bear the full responsibility of caring for the children of Israel, God sees fit to transfer some of Moshe's spirit to seventy elders in order to spread that responsibility around.

As it happens, a couple of the newly formed prophets, Eldad and Meidad, under the influence of this Holy Spirit they had just received, continued to prophesy in the camp publicly even as the others had stopped. This was reported back to Moshe and Yehoshua whereupon Yehoshua said to Moshe his master:

במדבר פרק יא : (כח) ויען יהושע בן נון משרת משה מבחריו ויאמר אדני משה כלאם:

(כט) ויאמר לו משה המקנא אתה לי ומי יתן כל עם יקוק נביאים כי יתן יקוק את רוחו עליהם:

Numbers 11 : (28) And Yehoshua the son of Nun, an attendant of Moshe from his youth, replied and said, “My master Moshe, imprison them!” (29) And Moshe said to him, “Are you zealous on my account? And would it be that the Lord would make all of the nation prophets when the Lord would give His spirit upon them!”

Yehoshua saw Eldad and Meidad taking up the mantle of prophecy as a threat to his master Moshe and wanted to suppress that threat. Moshe, about whom we'll learn a bit later that he was the most of humble of men, not only did not perceive a threat but welcomed the spreading of the Lord's spirit however the Lord saw fit.

This word that Moshe uses, המקנא, which I have translated as “are you zealous,” is the same root word used later to describe Pinchas (Numbers 25; 11, 13). In the case of Pinchas, such zealotry was de facto sanctioned by God Himself. However, we see from this story that zealotry is not always a welcome thing.

What is the nature of the zealotry here? Perhaps it is simply that Yehoshua's zealotry in this case was not לשם שמים (for the sake of Heaven), but rather was serving the more narrow purpose of maintaining Moshe's exclusive position as a prophet.

While readers may be quick to point out myriad differences between this story and the current events regarding the Women of the Wall, consider this: Why are the Women of the Wall in particular and women who choose to wear tallit and tefillin in general seen as such a threat by parts of the Orthodox establishment? The halachic argument against their practices is weak at best. Moreover, what provokes some to violate clear halachot in their protests?

I cannot speak on behalf of either side in this controversy. But what it feels like, and what I felt in my own story above, is that these protesters confuse the Torah with their particular lifestyle. What these women choose to do does not fit into a traditional Orthodox narrative as they see it. These women's actions threaten to change norms within the Orthodox world which include changing leadership roles and decision making, just as Yehoshua saw a threat from Eldad and Meidad.

Perhaps Yehoshua thought that maintaining Moshe's position as the exclusive prophet to the people was a pursuit for the sake of Heaven and perhaps those who oppose the Women of the Wall feel themselves to be acting on behalf of Heaven, as well. Perhaps Yehoshua felt that Eldad and Meidad were acting out of self interest just as those who oppose women laying tefillin may feel that they are acting out of self interest.

What we learn from Moshe, though, is that when we see others who are fulfilling mitzvot we should not stop them based on our assumptions. At the very least, until we know otherwise for certain, we should let them be.

Who knows? Maybe their desire to fulfill these commandments, for whatever reason, may bring renewed interest and spirit to the Torah in our day just as Eldad and Meidad must have electrified the crowd around them.