Truman: On What Ruins a President

I was going to wait until January 20th to post this, but considering all of the unrest about Trump's election, I thought it might be beneficial to post it now.

Trump (#45) and Truman (#33) - sharing the first four letters of their surnames, and not much else

Truman: On What Ruins a President

One of the best biographies I have ever read is Merle Miller's Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman (1974). There are many memorable (and quotable) passages in this book, but when I think about the upcoming inauguration of our 45th U.S. president, two passages come to mind. The first is about the the danger of becoming a President. Harry Truman said:

"You see the thing you have to remember. When you get to be President, there are all those things, the honors, the twenty-one-gun salutes, all those things, you have to remember it isn't for you. It's for the Presidency, and you've got to keep yourself separate from that in your mind ... If you can't keep the two separate, yourself and the Presidency, you're in all kinds of trouble." 

[Miller said to Truman:] Jonathan Daniels says in one of his books that - I hope you'll forgive me - he was very upset when he was a boy, and he and a friend were passing the White House, and his friend reminded him that the President - I believe it was Coolidge at the time - the President had to go to the bathroom just like everybody else.  

"That's right. We've had a few Presidents who've not remembered a thing like that, and the minute it happens, you can't possibly do the job" (pp.203)

The second passage is about what ruins a man:

[Truman] said, "Do you want to know what I think causes the ruination of a lot of men?" 

I said that I most certainly did. The question is one that has occurred to me now and again. 

"Well," Mr. Truman said, "I've made a great, long study of these things, as you can see up there if you've looked." 

He pointed to the bookshelves, which, as I've said, mostly contained biographies and histories. 

"Three things ruin a man if you want to know what I believe. One's power, one's money, and one's women. 

"If a man can accept a situation in a place of power with the thought that it's only temporary, he comes out all right. But when he thinks that he is the cause of the power, that can be his ruination. 

"And when a man has too much money too soon, that has the same effect on him. He just never gets to understanding that getting enough money to eat and getting a roof over his head is the thing that throughout history most people have spent their lives trying to do and haven't succeeded. ... If you've got too much money too soon, it ruins you by setting you too far apart from most of the human race. 

"And a man who is not loyal to his family, to his wife and his mother and his sisters can be ruined if he has a complex in that direction. If he has the right woman as a partner, he never has any trouble. But if he has the wrong one or if he's mixed up with a bunch of whores, why, then he's in a hell of a fix. And I can name them to you, the ones that got mixed up in that way. But we won't do it now. 

"Those three things, though, in my opinion, power, money, and women in that order, are what most often contribute to the ruination of a man. You read your history and you'll find out" (pp.342-343).

If we accept Truman's theory about what ruins a man, then we can be quite certain that Trump will be ruined. We know he has problems when it comes to women: his fidelity to his wives, his treatment of his daughter, and most of all, the way he treats and views women in general. We know he has problems with money: he definitely "got too much money too soon," and it is fair to say that he lives a life "too far apart from most of the human race." And Trump's desire for power, while maybe not as great as Hillary Clinton's, is evident in everything he does.

Suffice it to say, this does not bode well. 

The real question to my mind is whether Trump will be able to keep himself and the presidency separate. I am inclined to think not. The only source of hope I have is that Trump has consistently surprised everyone, and has defied almost all predictions. I hope this will be the case here as well.

Let us pray that our new President can keep himself separate from the Presidency, and that his power, money, and his way of relating to women do not lead to his ruination and the ruination of our country.

Yom ha'Kippurim 5777: On Being Human

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: (Unknown Zendikar Art)

Yom ha'Kippurim 5777: On Being Human

There is a passage from Richard Mitchell's The Gift of Fire that I think about going into Yom ha'Kippurim. Here is the excerpt in its entirety:

Chapter 1: "Who is Socrates, now that we need him?" 

I imagine some well-informed and largely wise visitor from another world who comes to Earth to study us. He begins by choosing two people at random, and, since time and place are of no importance to him, but only the single fact of humanity, he chooses Socrates and me, leaving aside for the moment every other human being. He begins with an understanding of the single but tremendous attribute that distinguishes us both from all other creatures of Earth. We are capable of Reason. Capable. We can know ourselves, unlike the foxes and the oaks, and can know that we know ourselves. He knows that while we have appetites and urges just like all the other creatures, we have the astonishing power of seeing them not simply as the necessary attributes of what we are, but as separate from us in a strange way, so that we can hold them at arm's length, turning them this way and that, and make judgment of them, and even put them aside, saying, Yes, that is "me," in a way, but, when I choose, it is just a thing, not truly me, but only mine. He sees, in short, what "human" means in "human beings."

And then he considers the specimens he has chosen, Socrates and me. He measures that degree to which they conform to what "human" means in "human beings." With those superior extraterrestrial powers that imagination grants him, he will easily discover:

That I have notions, certain "sayings" in my mind, that flatly contradict one another; believing, for instance, that I can choose for myself the path of my life while blaming other people for the difficulty of the path. With Socrates, this is not the case.

That my mind is full of ideas that are truly nothing more than words, and that as to the meaning of the words I have no clear and constant idea, behaving today as though "justice" were one thing, and tomorrow as though it were another. That, while wanting to be happy and good, I have no clear ideas by which I might distinguish, or might even want to distinguish, happiness from pleasure, and goodness from social acceptability. With Socrates, this is not the case.

That I usually believe what I believe not because I have tested and found it coherent and consistent, and harmonious with evidence, but because it is also believed by the right people, people like me, and because it pleases me. And that furthermore, I live and act and speak as though my believing were no different from my knowing. With Socrates, this is not the case.

That I put myself forth as one who can direct and govern the minds, the inner lives, of others, that, in fact, I make my living as one who can do that, but that my own actions are governed, more often than not, by desire or whim. With Socrates, this is not the case.

That I seem to have a great need for things, and think myself somehow treated unjustly by an insufficiency of them, and that this insufficiency, which seems strangely to persist even after I get hold of the thing whose necessity I have most recently noted, prevents in me that cheerful and temperate disposition to which I deem myself entitled. With Socrates, this is not the case.

That I seem to know what I want, but that I have no way of figuring out whether I should want what I want, and that, indeed, it does not occur to me that I should be able to figure that out. With Socrates, this is not the case.

And that, in short and in general, my mind, the thing that most makes us human, is not doing the steering of this life, but is usually being hustled along on a wild ride by the disorderly and conflicting commands of whole hosts of notions, appetites, hopes, and fears. With Socrates, this is not the case.

How could the alien enquirer help concluding that there is something "wrong" with me, and that the humanness that is indeed in me has been somehow "broken," which he can clearly see by comparing me with Socrates? Must he not decide that Socrates is the normal human, and I the freak, the distortion of human nature?

When he pronounces me the freak, and Socrates the perfectly ordinary, normal human being, living quite obviously, as perhaps only an "alien" can see, by the power of that which most makes a human a human, shall I defend myself by appeal to the principle of majority rule? Shall I say: Well, after all, Socrates is only one human being, and all the others are more like me. Would I not prove myself all the more the freak by my dependence on such a preposterously irrelevant principle? If that visitor were rude, he might well point out that my ability to see, on the one hand, what is natural to human beings, and to claim, on the other, that its absence is only natural, and thus normal, is just the sort of reasoning that he would expect of a freak, whose very freakishness is seen in his inability to do what is simply natural to his species -- that is, to make sense.

But Socrates would defend me. He would say, for this he said very often:

No, my young friend is not truly a freak. All that I can do, he can do; he just doesn't do it. And if he doesn't do it, it is because of something else that is natural to human beings, and just as human as the powers that you rightly find human in me. Before we awaken, we must sleep, and some of us sleep deeper and longer than others. It may be, that unless we are awakened by some help from other human beings, we sleep our lives away, and never come into those powers. But we can be awakened.

In that respect, my friend is not a freak. He might better be thought a sleepwalker, moving about in the world, and getting all sorts of things done, often on time, and sometimes very effectively indeed. But the very power of routine habit by which he can do all that has become the only government that he knows. And the voices of his desires are loud. He is just now not in a condition to give his full attention to any meaning that might be found in all that he does, or to consider carefully how to distinguish between the better and the worse. He might be thought a child, and a perfectly natural child, who lives still in that curious, glorious haze of youth, when only desire seems worthy of obedience, and when the mighty fact of the world that is so very "there" looms immeasurably larger than the fact of the self that is in that world. He might grow up, and it is the "mightness" in him that makes him truly human, however he may look like a freak just now. From time to time, we are all just such freaks, and mindless, for mindlessness is the great background of noise out of which some few certain sounds can be brought forth and harmonized as music.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although Mitchell's words stand on their own, I find that I associate them to a statement from Chazal, which the Rambam brings down in Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 2:2:

There is a unanimous tradition that the place on which David and Shlomo built the Altar, the threshing floor of Arnan, is the location where Abraham built the Altar on which he prepared Yitzchak for sacrifice. Noach built [an altar] on that location when he left the ark. It was also [the place] of the Altar on which Kayin and Hevel brought sacrifices.[Similarly,] Adam, the first man, offered a sacrifice there and was created at that very spot, as our Sages said: "Man was created from the place of his atonement" ("Adam mi'makom kaparaso nivra").

Cheit (sin) is unavoidable. Shlomo ha'Melech said: "There is no [entirely] righteous man on earth who does [only] good and does not sin" (Koheles 7:20). Alexander Pope said: "To err is human." However, even though it is natural to sin, this doesn't mean that to sin is our nature.

This, I believe, is what Mitchell was getting at, and what Chazal were alluding to when they said that man was created from the place of his kaparah. Judaism does not entertain fanciful notions of "saints." The cycles of cheit and teshuvah, avon and kaparah, regression and development, are part of what it means to be human. Our struggle to overcome our natural inclinations to live in line with our true nature is by design.

In this sense, it is a mistake to view cheit as an utter failure. Instead, cheit should be viewed as an opportunity for self-knowledge and development. I believe that this shift in our perspective of cheit is essential in order to have a Yom ha'Kippurim that is a "fresh start" day of growth rather than a "dead end" day of guilt and self-castigation.

"I am only human." This argument is, at the same time, our greatest defense, but also our greatest liability - depending on what we mean when we invoke it. And what better time to contemplate that meaning than Yom ha'Kippurim, when we stand before the Creator and beseech Him to help us live as He designed us to live.

May we all attain kaparah this Yom ha'Kippurim and arrive at a truer relationship with our own humanity.

Ralbag: On Akeidas Yitzchak (The Binding of Isaac)

In accordance with (what is apparently) my custom to hurriedly churn out a blog post on the eve of a holiday, mere hours before its onset, I present to you this post on Akeidas Yitzchak. I also urge you to re-read last year's post on Yom ha'Din and Yom Teruah, and ponder the connection between the two.

Click here  for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Nyx-fleece Ram, by Terese Nielsen

Ralbag: On Akeidas Yitzchak (Binding of Isaac)

Disclaimer: Ralbag's Radical Views

The Ralbag has several views which radically diverge from "mainstream Jewish thought," and which some - most notably, the Rambam - might consider to be heretical. Two of these views show up in the Ralbag's treatment of the Akeidah. 

The first of these radical views has to do with God's Omniscience. In short, the Ralbag holds that God does not have foreknowledge of free will decisions made by human beings.  As one can imagine, this premise has a drastic effect on the Ralbag's reading of Akeidas Yitzchak. Unlike the other meforshim, who are confronted with the question of what it means for Hashem to "test" Avraham Avinu, the Ralbag maintains that the Akeidah was an actual test: Hashem did not know what Avraham would do when confronted with such a commandment, and the only way for Him to find out was to actually issue the command. 

The second radical view involves the difference between the nevuah (prophecy) of Moshe Rabbeinu, and the nevuah of other neviim. I am not too familiar with the details of the Ralbag's view here. Suffice it to say, it appears he holds that Avraham received nevuah in the form of words - not merely visions - and that these words were somewhat ambiguous. Not only that, but the Ralbag learns that Avraham was able to receive nevuah while awake and fully conscious. According to my understanding, the Rambam would vehemently disagree on all three scores, and would say that a navi like Avraham would receive his nevuah in the form of images, and that the meaning of these images would be 100% clear, and that this nevuah would occur while the navi was asleep or in a trance. 

I do not plan on taking up these disagreements between the Ralbag and the other Rishonim in this blog post. This is not the place for such an inquiry, and even if it were, I would not be qualified to conduct it. I am only pointing these things out because I want to make several things clear at the outset: (a) the Ralbag differs in a major way on these major issues, (b) the fact that I write about his views without critiquing them should not be interpreted as an endorsement; (c) do not expect me to assess these views at the present time; and (d) for the purposes of this blog post, we will be working within the Ralbag's premises in order to understand what he holds the Akeidah teaches us.

Having said that, let us now begin.

Avraham's Test

Ralbag begins his commentary with an explanation of the nisayon (test):

The substance of the nisayon - according to my opinion - is that the nevuah came to him in an ambiguous language, namely, that Hashem said to him regarding Yitzchak, "ve'ha'aleihu sham l'olah." 

It is possible for this statement to be understood to mean that he should slaughter [Yitzchak] and make him into an olah (burnt offering) OR that he should "bring him up there" (yaaleihu) to do an olah, in order to educate Yitzchak in avodas Hashem (the service of Hashem). 

Hashem tested him [to see] whether it would be difficult in his eyes to do anything that Hashem commanded him, to the point where he would understand this statement to be other than its straightforward meaning - namely, that he would understand from it that he should bring another olah, rather than sacrifice his son.

In other words, according to the Ralbag, Avraham was deliberately given an ambiguous nevuah: "ha'aleihu sham l'olah." The straightforward meaning of the nevuah was "slaughter your son as a korban olah." If Avraham truly loved Hashem, He would take the commandment at face value, and be willing to sacrifice his precious son, despite the difficulty of the task.

But if his attachment to his son were stronger than his love of Hashem, he would look for a different way to interpret Hashem's instructions, and would end up forcing the reading of "bring your son up onto a mountain to teach him how to bring a korban olah." 

[As an aside, the Ralbag raises the classic question: How could Avraham think that Hashem would command him to slaughter his only son, after promising that Yitzchak would be the source of his progeny? Ralbag answers that since Hashem's promises only come true if the recipients are on the level to merit them, Avraham figured that Yitzchak must have sinned in such a way that he was no longer worthy of this promise being carried out through him.] 

Lo and behold, Avraham passed the test. Not only did he interpret the nevuah according to its straightforward meaning, but he fulfilled the mitzvah with zeal, joy, and alacrity. He got up early in the morning, saddled his own donkey, prepared the wood for the olah, and set out to fulfill the will of his Creator. And when the moment came to slaughter his beloved son, he wasn't plagued with despair and suffering. To the contrary, he was ready to perform the mitzvah with love and gladness - even to the point where he was able to receive the nevuah of the malach (angel) calling out to stop him, while he was awake, which would have been impossible had he been sad, despondent, or in pain.

That, in short, is the Ralbag's account of the Akeidah. Are there questions and problems that remain unanswered? Yes. But this sums up the crux of the sipur (narrative) according to his reading.

The Relevance of the Akeidah for Us

The Akeidah takes on a central role on the day of Rosh ha'Shanah. In addition to reading the Akeidah for the krias ha'Torah (Torah reading) on the second day, we also make repeated references to the Akeidah throughout our tefilos (prayers). One of the most prominent references to the Akeidah can be found at the forefront of the Zichronos (Remembrances) section of the Mussaf prayer:

Remember for us, Hashem, our God, the coveneant, the kindness, and the oath that You swore to our father Avraham on Mount Moriah. Let there appear before You the Akeidah when Avraham, our father, bound Yitzchak, his son, upon the altar and he suppressed his mercy to do Your will wholeheartedly. Therefore, may Your mercy suppress Your anger from upon us, and in Your great good may Your burning anger withdraw from Your people, from Your city, and from Your heritage ... For it is You Who eternally remembers all forgotten things, and there is no forgetfulness before Your Throne of Glory, and may You mercifully remember today the Akeidah of Yitzchak for the sake of his offspring. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who remembers the covenant.

The question is: Why do we recall the Akeidah in pleading for mercy before Hashem? There are many events throughout Torah which we could recall in petitioning Hashem to have mercy. What makes the Akeidah special? 

I would like to offer an answer based on the Ralbag's explanation above. At best, this is a true explanation. But if I am wrong, then this will at least be a useful drush. 

According to the Ralbag, Avraham's essential test was whether he would understand and accept the dvar Hashem (word of God) at face value, or whether he would twist it and reinterpret it to bring it in line with his own desires. This, I submit, is the test we face every day in our relationship with Hashem by our adherence to Torah and mitzvos.

We were given the dvar Hashem at Sinai, as we emphasize at the beginning of the Shofros section:

You were revealed in Your cloud of glory to Your holy people to speak with them. From the heavens You made them hear Your voice and revealed Yourself to them in thick clouds of purity. Moreover, the entire universe shuddered before You and the creatures of creation trembled before You during Your revelation, our King, on Mount Sinai to teach Your people Torah and mitzvos. You made them hear the majesty of Your voice and Your holy utterances from fiery flames. 

Like Avraham, we are called upon by the Torah to obey commandments which run contrary to our desires (usually due to our own imperfections). In some cases the Torah merely pushes us slightly beyond our comfort zone, causing us to experience mild frustration, inconvenience, and unpleasantness. In other cases the Torah's demands cause us to recoil with distaste, anger, frustration, revulsion, or horror. And occasionally, the Torah brings us to the very edge, prompting us to confront those aspects of reality - of the world or ourselves - that fill us with absolute dread and terror. It is only through these "skillful frustrations" that we truly grow, but that fact doesn't mitigate the conflict they generate

Like the ambiguous nevuah received by Avraham, the Torah of Moshe is subject to many interpretations - and consequently, many distortions. And, like Avraham, we can choose to flee rather than submit to Hashem. If we so choose, we can warp the dvar Hashem in accordance with our own preconceived notions and values; we can pick and choose within the halachic system to suit our subjective preferences; we can hastily dismiss, deny, or delegitimize those parts of Torah that do not accord with our sensibilities, without conducting an intellectually honest investigation to see whether our understanding is deficient; or we can cope with the cognitive dissonance in the easy way - by violating the dvar Hashem, whether unintentionally, intentionally, or rebelliously, in a particular or with regards to the system as a whole.

By recalling the Akeidah in our tefilos, we are affirming our recognition of this fundamental human choice: will we bend reality to suit our desires, or will we subdue our desires in order to align ourselves with reality? This is the lesson we were taught by Avraham Avinu when he was put to this test in the ultimate way. Most of us would not be able to pass the test that he underwent, but we recognize the correctness of his decision and we strive to live in accordance with his derech to the extent that we can. 

And it is on that basis that we ask Hashem for mercy. We stand before Him and say: "Hashem - we know that we have committed countless errors and sins, and that by our actions alone, we are not worthy of escaping Your anger. But we are Your people, the children of Your covenant, the children of Avraham, Your beloved, to Whom You swore on Mount Moriah - the offspring of Yitzchak, Your akeidah, who was bound on Your altar. We identify with the derech set forth by our patriarch who passed this ultimate test which we have failed, time and again. We aspire to follow in his footsteps because we see with absolute clarity the uprightness of his path at that fateful event. In light of this recognition and longing on our part, please grant us mercy!" 

In other words, it is because the nisayon of Akeidas Yitzchak encompasses kol ha'Torah kulah (all of Torah in its entirety) that we are able to use it as the basis for beseeching Hashem to forgive us for all of our sins. The Akeidah represents the core of zechus Avraham, and by recalling it, we can tap into that zechus and can change the decree. 

May we all merit the rachamim of the Kadosh Baruch Hu this year, and follow in the footsteps of Avraham Avinu!

How to Learn Selichos

Artwork: Plains (Avacyn Restored), by Adam Paquette

How to Learn Selichos

The aim of this post is not to take up the topic of selichos in general. If you are interested in gaining a basic understanding of what selichos are, I suggest you learn Rabbi Zucker's shiur on selichos in The Kuntress and/or Rabbi Maroof's blog post entitled The Mysterious Power of Selichot. Rather, the objective of this post is to set forth a simple methodology for analyzing and understanding each of the selichos in particular, in a manner that will enhance our personal selichos experience and help make the selichos accessible as a tool for teshuvah.

First and foremost, I must give credit where credit is due. Once upon a time, in my second or third year of yeshiva, Aron S. gave a series of shiurim on selichos. Those shiurim forever changed the way I relate to selichos, and I owe Aron a debt of gratitude for making selichos come alive for me. I only wish that I had recorded those shiurim, or at least taken notes on them. Instead, I'll have to work based on memory. As always, please correct me if I am wrong.

If my memory serves me correctly, Aron explained that selichos is one of the oldest minhagim, predating even the Mishnah. Although the centerpiece of selichos is the recitation of the Yud Gimmel Middos ha'Rachamim, the original minhag also included the recitation of pesukim on themes of selichah and teshuvah. These pesukim were carefully selected, arranged, and - in some cases - modified in order to form a flowing series of supplications. The only remnants of these pesukim we have today are the lengthy introduction to each day's selichos (beginning with לך יי הצדקה, ולנו בושת הפנים) and conclusion of the selichos service (beginning with זכור רחמיך יי וחסדיך, כי מעולם המה), as well as the smaller clusters of prefatory pesukim which we recite before each of the particular selichos which were composed by R' Shlomo ha'Bavli and the other paytanim.

What people might not realize is that these piyutim are based on those clusters of pesukim - those pesukim which constituted the original selichos of ancient times, before any piyutim were composed to accompany them. And that, right there, is the basis of the methodology for learning selichos: if we can define the theme of that cluster of pesukim, then we will understand the theme of the selichah that follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's try applying this to the first selichah of Day 2 and see if it works. Here is the cluster of prefatory pesukim as they appear in the sidur:

אִם עֲוֹנֵינוּ עָנוּ בָנוּ יְיָ עֲשֵׂה לְמַעַן שְׁמֶךָ: (ירמיהו יד:ז) אֲדֹנָי יְיִ סְלַח נָא לַעֲוֹן יַעֲקֹב כִּי קָטֹן הוּא: (עמוס ז:ב) כִּי שָׁחָה לֶעָפָר נַפְשֵׁנוּ דָּבְקָה לָאָרֶץ בִּטְנֵנוּ: (תהלים מד:כו) עוּרָה לָמָּה תִישַׁן אֲדֹנָי הָקִיצָה אַל תִּזְנַח לָנֶצַח: (שם מד:כד) וְעַתָּה יִגְדַּל נָא כֹּחַ אֲדֹנָי כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ לֵאמֹר: (במדבר יד:יז)

Though our iniquities testify against us, Hashem, act for Your Name's sake (Yirmiyahu 14:7). Hashem/Elokim, please forgive Yaakov's sin, for he is small (Amos 7:2). For prostrated to the dust is our soul, stuck to the earth is our belly (Tehilim 44:26). Awaken! Why do You sleep, O my Lord? Arouse Yourself! Do not forsake us forever! (ibid. 44:24). And now, please let my Lord's strength grow great, as You have spoken, saying (Bamidbar 14:17).

First we will examine each of these pesukim on its own, in its context. Next, we will see if we can discern the overall theme of the cluster. Finally, we will read the selichah in light of this theme.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Though our iniquities testify against us, Hashem, act for Your Name's sake" (Yirmiyahu 14:7)

This pasuk appears in Sefer Yirmiyahu immediately after a prophecy about a drought which (according to most commentators) took place during the reign of Tzidkiah. Here is the pasuk in context:

The word of Hashem that came to Yirmiyahu concerning the droughts: Yehudah mourns; her cities are devastated, they are blackened like the ground; and the cry of Yerushalayim has gone up. Their officers send out their youngsters for water. They go to cisterns, but do not find water; they bring back their containers empty; they are embarrassed and ashamed and cover their head. Because the ground is parched, for there has been no rain in the land, plowmen are embarrassed; they cover their head. Even the hind in the field gives birth and then abandons [her young], for there is no vegetation. The wild donkeys stand on the hilltops; they suck in the air like serpents; their eyes pine away because there is no herbage. Though our iniquities testify against us, Hashem, act for Your Name's sake, for our waywardness is great; we have sinned against You. O Hope of Israel, its Redeemer in time of trouble, why should You be like a stranger in the land, like a wayfarer who turns off [the road] to sleep over for the night? Why should You be like a man in shock, like a hero who cannot save? But You are in our midst, O Hashem, and Your Name is proclaimed upon us; do not abandon us.

When read in isolation, one might interpret the phrase "though our iniquities testify against us" in a metaphysical-metaphorical sense - namely, that our "record" of iniquity stands as a testimony against us in the Beis Din shel Maalah (The Heavenly Court). In context, however, it appears that the Navi is speaking quite literally: the drought that befell Yehudah and Yerushalayim bears witness to the severity of our iniquities. Radak explains:

“If our iniquities testify against us” – [our iniquities] bear witness against us, for when we see that the rain is withheld from our land, but not the lands of the goyim, this bears witness to the fact that we are being stricken on account [of our iniquities]; nevertheless, act for the sake of Your Name, which is proclaimed upon us.

Main Idea of the Yirmiyahu 14:7: We are cognizant of our iniquities and the severity of our waywardness, for we cannot deny the hashgachic evidence that surrounds us. Nevertheless, do not abandon us, Hashem! Save us - not because we are worthy, but because we are the bearers of Your Name!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Hashem/Elokim, please forgive Yaakov's sin, for he is small" (Amos 7:2)

Interestingly enough, this pasuk also appears in the context of an agricultural calamity:

Thus did Hashem/Elokim show me: Behold! He was forming [a swarm] of locusts as the later growth was beginning to sprout; and behold the later growth appeared after the king's reaping. It was when [the swarm] was finished devouring the grass of the earth, that I said, "Hashem/Elokim, please forgive! How will Yaakov survive, for he is small?" So Hashem relented concerning this: "It shall not be," said Hashem.

Thus did Hashem/Elokim show me: Behold, Hashem/Elokim was summoning [His legions] to contend [with Israel] by fire; and it consumed the great depths and devoured the portion of land. And I said, "Hashem/Elokim, please refrain! How will Yaakov survive, for he is small?" So Hashem relented concerning this: "It too shall not be," said Hashem/Elokim. 

Thus did He show me: Behold, the Lord standing on a plumbed wall with a plumb line in His hand. And Hashem said to me, "What do you see, Amos?" I said, "A plumb line." The Lord then said, "Behold, I am placing a plumb line in the midst of My nation Israel; I will no longer continue to forbear them. The high places of Yitzchak will be made desolate and the sanctuaries of Yisrael destroyed; and I will rise up against the house of Yeravam with the sword."  

The first thing we notice is that the baal ha'selichos (the person or persons who selected and arranged these pesukim for the purposes of selichos) changed the language of the pasuk. The pasuk appears in the selichos as a request accompanied by a reason: "Hashem/Elokim, please forgive Yaakov's sin, for he is small" In contrast, the Navi himself poses the request accompanied by a rhetorical question: "Hashem/Elokim, please forgive! How will Yaakov survive, for he is small?" Radak explains the Navi's request/argument:

How will Yaakov survive these decrees [of punishment], for he is small, and he will remain [but] a few out of many?

I'm not sure why the baal selichos decided to "edit" the pasuk. Perhaps he didn't want to explicitly mention the possibility of our nation not surviving.

Apparently, the Navi's argument worked, and Hashem relented. Soon thereafter, the nation's sinfulness caused it to incur retribution by fire. The Navi used the same request/argument, and it worked again. But the third time, Hashem said, "I will no longer continue to forbear them." According to the Radak, the plumb line - a device used to precisely measure depth - symbolizes strict justice. By showing the Navi the vision of the plumb line, Hashem made it clear that He would no longer show mercy, and the nation would receive strict justice in the form of (near) utter destruction.

Main Idea of Amos 7:2: We realize that we are deserving of harsh decrees, Hashem/Elokim, but have mercy on us, for we fear that we will not be able to survive the destructiveness of Your retribution!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"For prostrated to the dust is our soul, stuck to the earth is our belly" (Tehilim 44:26) "Awaken! Why do You sleep, O my Lord? Arouse Yourself! Do not forsake us forever!" (ibid. 44:24)

These two pesukim are taken out of order from a single chapter of Tehilim. Here is the entire chapter:

For the conductor, by the sons of Korach, a maskil. God, with our ears we have heard, our fathers have recounted to us, the work that You wrought in their days, in days of old. You, with Your own hand, drove out nations, and You implanted them; You afflicted regimes and banished them. For not by their sword did they possess the land, nor did their own arm help them; but by Your right hand, Your arm, and the light of Your Countenance - for You favored them. It is You Who are my King, O God; command the salvations of Yaakov. Through You we shall gore our foes; by Your Name we will trample our opponents. For I do not trust in my bow, nor does my sword save me. For You have saved us from our oppressors, and You shamed those who hate us. In God we glory all the day, and Your Name we forever thank, Selah! - Even though You abandon and disgrace us, and You do not go forth with our armies; You cause us to retreat from the oppressor, and our haters plunder for themselves; You deliver us like sheep to be eaten, and have scattered us among the nations; You sell Your nation for no fortune, and You did not inflate their price; You make us a disgrace to our neighbors, the mockery and scorn of those around us; You make us a byword among the nations, a cause for the regimes to shake their heads. All day long my humiliation is before me and my shamefacedness covers me - at the voice of the reviler and blasphemer, because of the enemy and avenger. All this came upon us yet we have not forgotten You, and we have not been false to Your covenant. Our heart has not turned back, nor have our footsteps strayed from Your path, even when You crushed us in the place of serpents and shrouded us in the shadow of death. Have we forgotten the Name of our God and extended our hands to a strange god? Is it not so that God can examine this, for He knows the secrets of the heart? Because for Your sake we are killed all the time, we are considered as sheep for slaughter. Awaken, why do You sleep, O Lord? Arouse Yourself! Do not forsake us forever! Why do You conceal Your face? do You forget our affliction and oppression? For prostrated to the dust is our soul, stuck to the earth is our belly. Arise! Assist us! And redeem us for the sake of Your kindness!

The flow of this perek is quite interesting. The author begins by recounting Hashem's hashgachah over our ancestors. He expresses his own trust in that hasghachah, and his recognition that Hashem is the cause of his victory and salvation. But without warning, he transitions into a depiction of Hashem as the cause of our defeat and our oppression at the hands of our enemies. He emphasizes that in spite of all these afflictions, we have not forgotten Hashem, nor have we breached His covenant. The author then raises a question against Hashem's conduct: Considering our unwavering devotion to Hashem's Name, why does He conceal His countenance and abandon us to be destroyed by our enemies? The author concludes with a request for redemption, for the sake of Hashem's kindness.

The first of our two pesukim highlights the low state we are in. Radak explains that "prostrated to the dust is our soul" means we are close to death and our soul is on the brink of departing from our body, whereas "stuck to the earth is our belly" depicts a person who has fallen, but can no longer support his weight with his own hands, and therefore falls with his belly to the ground.

The second of our two pesukim is a plea for hashgachah. On the one hand wee know that "the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps" (ibid. 121:4). Still - the Radak explains - when Hashem doesn't intervene to save us from our enemies, we can't help but feel that He is asleep and doesn't see our plight. Moreover, it feels that He has been asleep for many years. David ha'Melech therefore requests, "Do not forsake us forever!"

Summary of Tehilim 44:26 and 24: Hashem, the concealment of Your countenance (i.e. Your hashgachah) has left us in a state of distress. We are close to death and lack the strength to support ourselves - and yet, You seem to be unaware of our suffering! Please do not abandon us!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now, please let my Lord's strength grow great, as You have spoken, saying (Bamidbar 14:17)

The last pasuk in the series is from Moshe Rabbeinu's tefilah after the incident of the meraglim. Hashem is angry and declares, "How long will this people provoke Me, and how long will they not have conviction in Me, despite all the signs that I have performed in their midst? I will smite them with the plague and annihilate them, and I shall make you a greater and more powerful nation than they" (ibid. 11-12). Moshe responds: 

"Then Egypt - from whose midst You brought up this nation with Your power - will hear, and they will say about the inhabitants of this Land, 'They have heard that You, Hashem, are in the midst of this people - that You, Hashem, appeared eye to eye and Your cloud stands over them, and that in a pillar of cloud You go before them by day and in a pillar of fire by night - yet You killed this people like a single man!' Then the nations that heard of Your fame will say, 'Because Hashem lacked the ability to bring this people to the Land that He has sworn to give them, He slaughtered them in the Wilderness.' And now - may the power of my Lord be magnified as You have spoken saying, 'Hashem, slow to anger, abundant in kindness, forgiver of iniquity and willful sin, and Who cleanses - but does not cleanse completely, recalling the iniquity of parents upon [rebellious] children to the third and fourth generations' - forgive now the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of Your kindness and as You have forgiven this people from Egypt until now."

Main Idea of Bamidbar 14:7: It is true, Hashem, that Your people deserves utter destruction. Nevertheless, if You destroy them, You will cause a desecration of Your Name among the nations. Therefore, have mercy and forgive these people for the sake of Your kindness. By doing so, this will magnify Your power in the eyes of the nation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's summarize the ideas that emerged from each pasuk:

• Yirmiyahu 14:7: We deserve punishment, but we request that Hashem save us for His Name's sake.
• Amos 7:2: We deserve harsh decrees, but we fear that we will be unable to survive.
• Tehilim 44:26: We are close to death, and have no strength.
• Tehilim 44:24: Hashem has concealed Himself for too long. 
• Bamidbar 17:4: For the sake of His Name, He should show us mercy.

Now I think the theme of this cluster of pesukim is clear. As has become my custom, I will summarize it in four sentences, in supplicatory form:

We recognize that we have sinned before You and are unworthy of Your salvation, Hashem, as is evident from the afflictions which befall us and which testify to the withdrawal of Your hashgachah. But we are still Your nation, the bearers of Your Name! Therefore, show us kindness for the sake of Your Name, and do not abandon Your people forever. For we are weak and we are on the brink of destruction, and if you continue to conceal Your countenance from us, we will surely perish, and Your Name and the manifestation of Your power will be diminished in the eyes of the nations. 

In short, the theme of this selichah may be summed up as follows: We beseech Hashem to save His weakened and diminished nation from utter destruction, not for our sake - for we are unworthy - but for the sake of His Great Name, which is the basis of Hashem's kindness towards His people.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we can read the selichah in its entirety to see if our definition of the theme is reflected in the words:

Our God, and the God of our forefathers: 

If our iniquities have increased greatly, 

and thickly plaited ropes bear witness against us, 

[if our sins] have caused us to create a rift between the two [of us, God and Israel], 

You will not withhold Your merciful ways. 

You have promised to act with the Midas ha'Chesed,

and it was You Who was from the beginning.

Remember Your flock that You have acquired for Yourself,

and be gracious to the remnants of the ones You called, '[My] first-born.'

You carried us and placed us on the [Holy] City's height,

You settled us on the Patriarchs' rocky peak.

Suddenly You crushed us in the place of serpents.

How long have we waited to go forth [from it] to liberty?

Due to the many [evil] occurrences, and the trembling panic,

my soul is in turmoil, [it is bent] to the dust it abhors.

Prop up the one whose belly sags to the ground!

Awake! Why do You [seem to] sleep, [our] Hope?

May it be Your will to cry, 'Undo your fetters!' to Your prisoners,

[and to] cut short the reckoning for their time of suffering.

Gather up Your dispersed ones, the scattered flock;

when wickedness sees [this], it will clamp its mouth shut.

Keep the vow of kindness and the compact

of the wholesome one, the heaped one, and the builder, my mighty [Patriarchs].

May He command His peace [to us], not to [be] shamed,

turning and changing the times to good.

Although Yaakov is small and poor, 

sickly, despised, and [thought] worthless,

[yet he shall have] life and kindness, a fortress and tower [from God],

as now Your strength is [revealed in its] greatness.

In my opinion, it appears we were correct! The theme we derived from the pesukim is amplified in poetic form by the words of the paytan. Every element from each of the five pesukim can clearly be seen in the selichah, and the stanzas bear out all of the ideas we identified.

This was my first attempt at applying this method, and I am very satisfied with the results. Although it took a lot of time and effort to go through the pesukim, I see that it was worthwhile. When I read this selichah tomorrow morning, I will actually understand and connect to what I am saying. I hope that you have also found this exercise useful, and that you will be granted the time, energy, and insight to apply this method on your own, and that you will be able to unleash the tremendous power of selichos.

Parashas Eikev: When to Take Pesukim Non-literally

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Contingency Plan, by Ryan Yee

Parashas Eikev: When to Take Pesukim Non-literally

Question: What do the following four pesukim from this week's parashah have in common?

• "Hear, O Israel, today you cross the Jordan, to come and drive out nations that are greater and mightier than you, cities that are great and fortified in the sky" (Devarim 9:1)
• "You shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and no longer stiffen your neck" (ibid. 10:16)
• "Behold! To Hashem, your God, belong the heaven and the highest heaven, the earth and everything that is in it" (ibid. 10:14)
• "You shall place these words of Mine upon your heart and upon your soul; you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes" (ibid. 11:18)

If you read the title of this blog post, then you already know the answer: these are all pesukim which we do not take literally! 

Unlike some of our fundamentalist Christian neighbors, we Jews have never subscribed to Biblical Literalism. "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" (Shemos 21:24) refers to monetary compensation, not literal eye-gouging and tooth-pulling; "with a strong hand and an outstretched arm" (Devarim 4:34) is an allegory, and doesn't mean that God has limbs; "Yisachar is a strong-boned donkey" (Bereishis 49:14) is a metaphor, not a taxonomic statement. The list goes on and on.

The problem is that although there are many instances in which it is obvious that we do not take a pasuk literally, there are others which are not so clear-cut. Is the Torah's account of creation to be taken at face value? Did the snake in the Garden of Eden really talk? Was Avraham Avinu really visited by angels in human form?

If only there was a methodology for how to approach these questions of interpretation! Better yet, it would be great to have a list of interpretive rules and guidelines that we could apply as a litmus test to determine whether a pasuk is literal or non-literal.

Thankfully for us, Saadia Gaon [1] provides us with exactly what we are looking for! He lays out a set of rules for when to interpret a pasuk literally and when not to. According to Saadia Gaon, there are four - and only four - reasons why we would not take a pasuk literally. He even provides us with at least one example from each category. Here is a translation of his treatment of this topic:

It is a well-known fact that every statement found in the Torah is to be understood in its literal sense except for those that cannot be so construed for one of the following four reasons:

Reason #1: It may, for example, either be rejected by the observation of the senses, such as the statement: "And the man called his wife’s name 'Chava' because she was the mother of all living things" (Bereishis 3:20), whereas we see that the ox and the lion are not the offspring of womankind. Hence we must conclude that the implication of the statement embraces human descendants only. 

Reason #2: Or else the literal sense may be negated by rationality, such as that of the statement: "For Hashem, your God, is a devouring fire, a jealous God" (Devarim 4:42). Now fire is something created and defective, for it is subject to extinction. Hence it is logically inadmissible that God resemble it. We must, therefore, impute to this statement the meaning that God’s punishment is like consuming fire, in accordance with the remark made elsewhere in Scripture: "For all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of My jealously" (Zephaniah 3:8).  

Reason #3: Again, [the literal meaning of a Biblical statement may be rendered impossible] by an explicit text of a contradictory nature, in which case it would become necessary to interpret the first statement in a non-literal sense. Thus, for example, it is said in Scripture: "You shall not test Hashem, your God, as you tested Him at Massah" (Devarim 6:16). And it is also said, on the other hand: "And do not test Me now ... if I will not open for you the windows of heaven" (Malachi 3:10). Now the point wherein these two statements agree is that we must not test our Lord as to whether He is able to do a certain thing, as they did of whom it is reported: "And they tested God in their heart by asking food for their craving. They spoke against God, saying: 'Can God prepare a table in the wilderness?'” (Tehilim 78:18-19). It is to these that the remark "as you tested Him in Massah" refers. It is, however, permissible for a servant of God to test his Master’s power by asking whether it will be possible for Him to create a miracle in his behalf. Such a request was indeed made by Gideon, who said: "I will test but this one time through the fleece" (Shoftim 6:39). It was also done by Hezekiah (II Melachim 20:8) and others. 

Reason #4: Finally any Biblical statement to the meaning of which rabbinic tradition has attached a certain qualification is to be interpreted by us in keeping with this authentic tradition. Thus it has been transmitted to us that the punishment of malkos (lashes) consists of thirty-nine blows, although Scripture states: "Forty lashes he shall give him" (Devarim 25:3). We therefore adopt the view that this is just a rough way of saying that there be thirty-nine stripes. The text of Scripture has merely expressed this thought in round numbers, as it has done in the statement: "After the number of days in which you spied out the land, even forty days, for every day a year shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years" (Bamidbar 14:34). For in reality there were only thirty-nine years, since the first year of Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness did not enter into this punishment. 

Thus, there are only these four possible reasons for a non-literal interpretation of the verses of the Holy Torah, there being no fifth. 

There you have it - the four cases in which we take a pasuk non-literally. Now let's see how these categories to apply to the pesukim from our parashah. 

Example #1: "Hear, O Israel, today you cross the Jordan, to come and drive out nations that are greater and mightier than you, cities that are great and fortified in the sky" (Devarim 9:1)

This pasuk is an example of Saadia Gaon's first category: pesukim we take non-literally because they contradict our senses. It is impossible to actually build cities that are "in the sky" because the sky cannot support such structures. Alternatively, if we read this phrase as "up to the sky," it is still impossible to take this literally, since human beings cannot build structures which reach that high. "Skyscraper" is a figure of speech - not a literal description.

This particular form of non-literal statement is referred to by Chazal (the Sages) as "guzma" or "divrei havai." Chazal [2] teach: "The Torah spoke in an exaggerated manner, the prophets spoke in an exaggerated manner, and the Sages spoke in an exaggerated manner."

Example #2: "You shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and no longer stiffen your neck" (ibid. 10:16)

This pasuk is an example of Saadia Gaon's second category: pesukim which we take non-literally because they are negated by rationality. It would be absurd to take this pasuk literally, that Hashem commands each and every Jew to surgically remove their own pericardium. The Ibn Ezra [3] is fond of using this pasuk as an example of when to interpret a commandment in the Torah non-literally if doing so would be irrational. He offers several reasons for why our pasuk falls into this category: the Torah says that we should do this mitzvos and live by them; it is prohibited to murder others, and to murder ourselves; and - my favorite reason - the mitzvah would be impossible to do, since we would die before completing the procedure! Rather, the pshat of this pasuk is "you shall remove the foolishness of your mind," as Onkelos renders it.

Without a question, this is the trickiest of Saadia Gaon's interpretive rules to apply. Whether a pasuk is "negated by rationality" is not always a clear-cut matter. Consider, for example, the three instances mentioned earlier: the Six Days of Creation, the talking snake, and Avraham's visitors. The meforshim (commentators) are divided as to whether these pesukim should be taken literally or not; each side will claim that their interpretation is consistent with rationality. 

Nevertheless, Saadia Gaon's rule still stands. The fact that the application of this rule is subject to difficulty and dispute does not negate its validity. 

Example #3: "Behold! To Hashem, your God, belongs the heaven and the highest heaven, the earth and everything that is in it" (ibid. 10:14)

This pasuk is an example of Saadia Gaon's third category: pesukim which we take non-literally because they are explicitly contradicted by another text in the Torah. Chazal point out the contradiction of our pasuk by using a similar pasuk from Tehilim:

Rebbi Levi raised a contradiction: in one place it is written: "The earth and its fullness belong to Hashem" (Tehilim 24:1), but in another place it is written: "As for the heavens, the heavens are Hashem's, but the earth He has given to mankind" (Tehilim 115:16)! [Which is it? Does the earth belong to Hashem or to mankind?]

[Rebbi Levi answered:] This is not a contradiction: the first pasuk refers to before one recites a blessing; the second is referring to after one recites a blessing.

Like any contradiction, this one is resolved by qualifying each statement such that it doesn't contradict the other. 

Example #4: "You shall place these words of Mine upon your heart and upon your soul; you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes" (ibid. 11:18)

This pasuk is an example of Saadia Gaon's fourth category: pesukim which we take non-literally because we have a mesorah (oral tradition) for how to interpret the pasuk which overrides its literal meaning. Although the pasuk itself would seem to indicate that we should place our head-tefillin between our eyes, the Torah she'baal Peh (Oral Torah) interpretation that was received by Moshe Rabbeinu at Sinai teaches that the head-tefillin should be placed so that it is resting on one's hairline above the spot that is between one's eyes. Like many of the non-literal interpretations in this category, there would be no way for us to arrive at this reading on our own without the oral tradition. 

And there you have it! Saadia Gaon assures us that these are the only four categories of non-literal pesukim, and thus far in my learning, I have seen no reason to doubt his claim. So next time you wonder whether a pasuk should be taken literally, just whip out Saadia Gaon's checklist, run through all four categories, and that should help you to find your answer!

End Notes:
[1] Saadia ben Yosef al-Fayyumi (Saadia Gaon), Emunos v'Deos 7:2
[2] Talmud Bavli: Maseches Tamid 29a
[3] Rabbeinu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer Shemos 20:1; see also Ibn Ezra's introduction to Torah in his regular commentary and in his Shitah Acheres commentary

Parashas Vaeschanan: The Place of the Proof of Torah mi'Sinai

This dvar Torah looks like it was inspired by the parashas ha'shavua, when in actuality, it was inspired by the fact that I am going over the proof of Torah mi'Sinai with a student, and have been thinking about the role that it plays, and ought to play. 

Disclaimer: Unlike most of my blog posts, in which I make every effort to explain everything so that every reader can follow every step, this post will assume that the reader is familiar with the proof of Torah mi'Sinai. If you are not familiar with the proof, then you might not be able to follow this post. I have included links to three presentations of this proof within the post. I encourage you to check them out, whether or not you read this post.

Parashas Vaeschanan: The Place of the Proof of Torah mi'Sinai

In this week's parashah Moshe Rabbeinu urges the generation that is about to enter Eretz Yisrael not to forget about what they and their ancestors witnessed at Maamad Har Sinai (the Revelation at Sinai): 

Only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld and lest you remove them from your hear all the days of your life, and make them known to your children and your children's children - the day that you stood before Hashem, your God, at Horeb, when Hashem said to me, "Gather the people to Me and I shall let them hear My words, so that they shall learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, and they shall teach their children." 

So you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain was burning with fire up to the heart of heaven, darkness, cloud, and thick cloud. Hashem spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. He told you of His covenant that He commanded you to observe, the Ten Declarations, and He inscribed them on two stone Tablets. Hashem commanded me at that time to teach you decrees and ordinances, that you shall perform them in the Land to which you cross, to possess it ... 

For inquire now regarding the early days that preceded you, from the day when Hashem created man on the earth, and from one end of heaven to the other end of heaven: Has there ever been anything like this great thing or has anything like it been heard? Has a people ever heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire as you have heard and survived? Or has any god ever miraculously come to take for himself a nation from amidst a nation, with challenges, with sings, and with wonders, and with war, and with a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with greatly awesome deeds, such as everything that Hashem, your God, did for you in Egypt before your eyes? 

You have been shown in order to know that Hashem, He is the God! There is none beside Him! From heaven He caused you to hear His voice in order to teach you, and on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words from the midst of the fire, because He loved your forefathers, and He chose his offspring after him, and took you out before Himself with His great strength from Egypt; to drive away before you nations that are greater and mightier than you, to bring you, to give you their land as an inheritance, as this very day. You shall know this day and take to your heart that Hashem, He is the God - in heaven above and on the earth below - there is none other. You shall observe His decrees and His commandments that I command you this day, so that He will do good to you and to your children after you, and so that you will prolong your days on the Land that Hashem, your God, gives you, for all the days.

Why did Hashem reveal Himself through such a momentous, public spectacle, and why did Moshe Rabbeinu see fit to exhort Bnei Yisrael to teach their children about the revelation? The answer is explicitly stated prior to the Torah's initial account of this event. Although Bnei Yisrael "believed in Hashem and in [the word of] Moshe, His servant" (Shemos 14:31) after Moshe took them out of Egypt, he was still concerned that they didn't fully believe in his prophecy. In response to this concern, Hashem promised Moshe that the Revelation at Sinai would remove any doubt about the legitimacy of his prophecy:

Hashem said to Moshe, "Behold! I will come to you in the thickness of the cloud, so that the people will hear as I speak to you, and they will also believe in you forever" (ibid. 19:9).

In other words, the primary purpose of Maamad Har Sinai was to establish nevuas Moshe (Mosaic prophecy) as authentic, thereby proving the Divine Authorship of the Torah. 

If this sounds like a big deal, that's because it is. The Rambam cites the "proof of Torah mi'Sinai" as the basis for our belief in nevuas Moshe, and our rejection of any other prophet. [1] The Ramban maintains that the Torah obligates us to teach this proof to our children. The Kuzari wrote at length about this topic - so much so, that this proof is often referred to as "the Kuzari principle." Contemporary authors have also written presentations of this proof. In my opinion, the best presentations are:

• Torah from Sinai
• Living Up to the Truth: Chapter 6
• A Rational Argument for the Divine Origin of Torah

Much ink has been spilled about the validity of this "proof" (or "rational demonstration," to be more accurate). Some maintain that is valid; others disagree. This discussion is beyond the scope of this blog post. 

Suffice it to say, my position is that this proof is valid, and is compelling to those who understand it. Be that as it may, I have grown increasingly doubtful as to how prominent of a role it should play in Jewish education. 

When I converted to Judaism and began my Jewish education in 11th grade, my Mishlei rebbi was of the opinion that it was essential for all students to be taught the proof of Torah mi'Sinai as the foundation of their Judaism. He taught it to my class, and I gained tremendously from it. When I started teaching, I took the same stance - both because this was the way that I had been taught, and because it seemed to me that it is impossible to have true emunah (conviction) in the Divine Authorship of Torah without it.

But over time, my Mishlei rebbi changed his tune. He argued that although the proof might be convincing on an intellectual level, it is unlikely to actually change any student's mind. Since the proof hinges on a clear categorization of how people assess secondhand knowledge, and since most people don't think in these terms (and don't rigorously analyze secondhand knowledge before accepting it), then this proof will not be real to the average student's mind, and will not affect him or her on an emotional level. 

When I first heard my rebbi express this objection, I disagreed. I dismissed his opinion as overly pessimistic, and chalked it up to the dim view of human nature that he has been trending towards over the past ten years. 

But the more experience I have had teaching this proof to students, the more I am inclined to agree with my rebbi. Although I have had some students who claim that Torah mi'Sinai changed their lives, this is definitely not the norm. Most students have never even been exposed to a philosophical proof, so the whole exercise feels artificial to them. Others have a difficult time thinking about hypothetical scenarios, which interferes with their ability to follow the proof. Many high school students are poor judges of how plausible or implausible a hypothetical scenario is, which leads them to lend undue weight to unlikely possibilities. And some students just don't have the patience to work through each step of the proof and get each step clear. 

The biggest problem with the proof is that at the end of the day, most people just aren't motivated by logical arguments. Even students who accept the proof and have no objections tend to go about their lives in the same manner as they did before they heard the proof. It simply doesn't affect them.

Being that this has been my experience, I find myself wondering: Is there a benefit in teaching the proof of Torah mi'Sinai? If so, what is that benefit?

As present, I believe that there are two benefits which make Torah mi'Sinai worth teaching, despite these difficulties. The most important reason for teaching Torah mi'Sinai to students is to show them that Judaism is fundamentally different from other religions. Whereas other religions demand blind faith, Judaism demands proof. It was not enough for Bnei Yisrael to merely have faith in Moshe's prophecy; they needed proof, and so should we. The Rashba identifies this need for proof as a hallmark of our nation:

Yisrael are the inheritors of the true religion; they are the children of Yaakov, the man of truth; they are all offspring of truth who are willing to endure the yoke of exile and that which befalls them, rather than to believe anything until after they have subjected it to intensive analysis - analysis after analysis - in order to remove all impurities from that which is said to them … Even the Jews who were enslaved with the harshest labor doubted Moshe when Moshe was commanded to bring them good news [of their imminent redemption]; in spite of this, he said, “They will not believe me,” and it was necessary for him to bring many signs [of his prophecy]. This is the true sign of our nation, the Nation of Hashem: that we do not allow ourselves to be seduced by anything until after we have arrived at its truth by way of intensive, complete analysis.

Even if students aren't moved or motivated by the proof, it is important for them to know that Judaism claims something that no other religion claims, namely, that our God spoke to our prophet in front of the entire nation, leaving no room to doubt the legitimacy of his prophecy. 

The second benefit of the proof of Torah mi'Sinai is that it takes away the excuse of "Judaism has no basis." There are many Jews who justify their turning away from Judaism by telling themselves that the whole religion is baseless. I believe that it is important to at least attempt to show these Jews that this assumption is false. Of course, not everyone will heed this point, but those who understand the proof and are intellectually honest will be forced to confront the fact that their excuse for abandoning Judaism isn't valid. Even if the proof doesn't emotionally motivate them to embrace Judaism, at least it will negate the intellectual basis of their rejection of Judaism.

That is where I stand, as of now. I suspect that my view will continue to change the more I teach and review the proof of Torah mi'Sinai. I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic!

[1] See Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah Chapter 8. The secondary purpose of Maamad Har Sinai is to prevent people from being taken in by a navi sheker (false prophet), as the Torah states in Parashas Re'eh:

The entire word that I command you, that you shall observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it. If there should stand up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream, and he will produce to you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes about of which he spoke to you, saying: "Let us follow gods of others that you did not know and we shall worship them!" - do not hearken to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream, for Hashem, your God, is testing you to know whether you love Hashem, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul. Hashem, your God, you shall follow and Him shall you fear; His commandments you shall observe and to His voice shall you hearken; Him shall you serve and to Him shall you cleave. And that prophet and that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death, for he had spoken perversion against Hashem, your God - Who takes you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeems you from the house of slavery - to make you stray from the path on which Hashem, your God, has commanded you to go; and you shall destroy the evil from your midst (Devarim 13:2-6)

We do not believe in Moshe Rabbeinu's nevuah (prophecy) because of the miracles he did. We only believe in it because of Maamad Har Sinai. Furthermore, we only believe the nevuah of another (alleged) navi based on the criteria outlined by Moshe Rabbeinu in the Torah. Thus, if someone else comes along, performs miracles, and claims to speak words of prophecy which contradict the Torah of Moshe, then we know that this prophet is a navi sheker. 

I am including this in a footnote because it is implicit in the primary purpose of Torah, but is worthwhile to mention as a separate point nonetheless.

[2] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Aderes (Rasha), Shailos u'Tshuvos 1:548

"No, the Rambam was NOT a Racist" or "The Allegory of the Palace"

Artwork: Teferi, Temporal Archmage, by Tyler Jacobson

"No, the Rambam was NOT a Racist" or "The Allegory of the Palace"

The Allegation

There's a certain public figure I follow on social media. Let's call him Malcolm (not his real name, nor his real pseudonym). His Twitter tagline is "Black. Jewish. Orthodox." As such, he describes himself as a "unicorn" within the Orthodox Jewish community. He is a social justice crusader when it comes to issues of racism and other forms of discrimination within the Jewish community. I chose to follow him because he seemed like a decent and educated guy who, like myself, is bothered by the prevalence of bigotry among Orthodox Jews. 

Last week Malcolm wrote a lengthy post on his Facebook page urging his fellow Jews to join the Black Lives Matter movement. In this post he made the following statement:

Every week, I show up to any given synagogue and have to encounter/battle at least one person who doesn't think I'm the right color to belong there. I frequently study Mishneh Torah, a superb tome of halachic literature written by Maimonides, the same Maimonides who also wrote in Guide to the Perplexed that black people are "incapable of attaining to supreme religious values" and that their place in nature is "below that of a man and above that of a monkey".

When I read this, I knew it was a terrible distortion of the Rambam's views. Since Malcolm is a public figure, I felt I had a responsibility to say something. 

I commented on Malcolm's Facebook post informing him that this was a severe misreading of the Rambam, and that if he read the quotation in context he would see that the Rambam's statement had nothing to do with racism or race. I also mentioned that the Rambam writes in several places in the Mishneh Torah that all human beings - men and women, Jews and non-Jews - can reach the utmost heights of intellectual perfection and closeness to Hashem. 

Malcolm responded with his version of "citing the Rambam's statement in context." He merely reiterated the quotation, but with a few more words from the same sentence. He then told me that if I was correct about the Rambam's other statements affirming human equality, then Rambam was contradicting himself. 

Again, I urged him to read the Rambam in the full context of the chapter. I spelled out my arguments and said that if anything, the Rambam's statements undermine racism. The author's only response was: "IN CONTEXT, it is STILL a racially problematic statement." 

I will now present to you, my readers, the full context of the Rambam's statement, so that you can judge for yourself whether it indicates that the Rambam was racist. 

The Allegory of the Palace

The statement in question can be found in the Guide for the Perplexed 3:51. The Rambam begins the chapter with an elaborate allegory, which we will refer to as "The Allegory of the Palace." Here is the translation of the allegory and its explanation, with the passage in question underlined:

A king is in his palace, and all his subjects are partly in the country, and partly abroad. Of the former, some have their backs turned towards the king's palace, and their faces in another direction; and some are desirous and zealous to go to the palace, seeking to inquire in his temple and to minister before him, but have not yet seen even the face of the wall of the house. Of those that desire to go to the palace, some reach it, and go round about in search of the entrance gate; others have passed through the gate, and walk about in the ante-chamber; and others have succeeded in entering into the inner part of the palace, and being in the same room with the king in the royal palace. But even the latter do not immediately on entering the palace see the king, or speak to him; for, after having entered the inner part of the palace, another effort is required before they can stand before the king – at a distance, or close by – hear his words, or speak to him.

I will now explain the allegory which I have made. The people who are abroad are all those that have no religion, neither one based on philosophical speculation nor one received by tradition. Such are the extreme Turks that wander about in the far north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our region who are like them. I consider these as irrational beings, and to my mind, they are not on the level of human beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the form and shape of man, and a mental faculty above that of the monkey.

Those who are in the country, but have their backs turned towards the king's palace, are those who possess religion, belief, and thought, but happen to hold false doctrines, which they either adopted in consequence of great mistakes made in their own speculations, or received from others who misled them. Because of these doctrines they recede more and more from the royal palace the more they seem to proceed. These are worse than the first class, and under certain circumstances it may become necessary to slay them, and to extirpate their doctrines, in order that others should not be misled.

Those who desire to arrive at the palace, and to enter it, but have never yet seen it, are the mass of religious people: the multitude that observes the divine commandments, but are ignorant.

Those who arrive at the palace, but go round about it, are those who devote themselves exclusively to the study of the practical law: they believe in true principles of emunah on the basis of tradition, and learn the practical worship of God, but are not trained in philosophical treatment of the principles of the Torah, and do not endeavor to establish the truth of their faith by proof.

Those who undertake to investigate the principles of religion, have come into the ante-chamber: and there is no doubt that these can also be divided into different grades. But those who have succeeded in finding a proof for everything that can be proved, who have a true knowledge of God, so far as a true knowledge can be attained, and are near the truth, wherever an approach to the truth is possible, they have reached the goal, and are in the palace in which the king lives.

There you have it, in its full context. Now I will present my defense of the Rambam against Malcolm's charge of racism.

Malcom wished to read the Rambam as categorically proclaiming Kushites (a.k.a. Ethiopians, Africans, Blacks) to be irrational, subhuman creatures. To my mind, the entire allegory flies in the face of such an interpretation. The point of the allegory is to show that each person's position in relation to the king is based on his or her involvement in the pursuit of knowledge. In the allegory the king's subjects are mobile. True, they may presently be situated in various positions throughout the kingdom, but they can move closer or further away, depending on the choices they make. 

When the Rambam speaks about "the extreme Turks that wander about in the far north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our region who are like them," he is not referring to their race, but to their level of education - specifically, the educational of level of the Turks and Kushites in the 13th century. The Rambam does not hold that a Northern Turk or a Southern Kushite is inherently irrational or intrinsically incapable of sophisticated thought. Rather, he would maintain that if one of these individuals decided to start learning, then he could become as great as any other Jew, or human being. 

The correctness of this reading of the Rambam is evident if we try to read the other elements of the allegory according to Malcolm's interpretation. He wants to read the Rambam as saying that "the people who are abroad" (i.e. the Northern Turks and Southern Ethiopians) are innately inferior to other races. Would Malcolm say the same thing about "those who are in the country but have their backs turned to the king's palace" (i.e. people with false doctrines), and claim that the Rambam believes these people to be inherently heretical and incapable of change? And what about "those who have never seen the palace" (i.e. the religious masses)? When the Rambam calls them "ignorant," is he saying that this ignorance is an immutable, genetic trait? And when he describes the people who "go round about in search of the entrance gate" (i.e. those who only study halacha without philosophy), does Malcolm think the Rambam means that these people are constitutionally unable to study philosophy because of who they are or how they were born?  

Obviously, the answer to all of these questions is "no!" Just as the Rambam maintains that a person with a false belief can change his mind and turn in the opposite direction, and an ignoramus can start learning and move towards the palace, and a pure halachist can begin studying philosophy and gain entry to the palace, so too, the irrational Northern Turks and Southern Kushites can acquire true ideas and actualize their status as human beings, just like everyone else. 

One might object, saying: "Oh yeah? Well why did the Rambam single out Turks and Africans from all the other races? Clearly this indicates racism!" 

To this I would respond: "Clearly, it does not!" The Rambam was describing a circumstantial demographic reality of his times. Apparently, during the 13th century, the Turks in the extreme North and the Kushites in the South were primitive tribesmen who didn't have any religious ideology. Presumably, the Rambam quoted these groups because they were paradigmatic examples that the readers of the Guide would be familiar with. It would be no different than nowadays, if we spoke about "the uncivilized tribes of the Amazon and New Guinea." This would not be a racial slur against Amazonians or New Guineans. It just happens to be that at the present time these groups of indigenous people exemplify the category under discussion. 

Let's go back to Malcolm's claim again. If the Rambam were racist against Turks in general, then why did he specify, "the extreme Turks that wander about in the far north"? Why didn't he simply say "Turkish people," as a whole? The same goes for the Kushites in the South. According to Wikipedia, there were "large communities ... of black Africans" living in Egypt during the time period that the Rambam resided there. If the Rambam intended to include all black people in his allegedly racist statement, why didn't he simply say "the Kushites" instead of limiting it to "the Kushites in the South"? 

And another thing: how would Malcolm explain the end of the Rambam's statement: "the extreme Turks that wander about in the far north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our region who are like them"? According to my reading, the answer is clear: he is referring to those people in his region who were just as uneducated as the Northern Turks and the Southern Kushites. But if the Rambam were making sweeping statements about specific races, then what could he mean by "and those who are like them"? He can't be referring to other Turks and Kushites, since then he would just say, "Turks and Kushites" and omit the last clause altogether. If he were referring to all non-Jews, he would just say so. And if you're going to try to claim that the Rambam was making a generic reference to "minorities," like the KKK and neo-Nazis of today are wont to do, then that's just a gross anachronism of Anglo-American racism.

This isn't the only statement of this nature that the Rambam makes in the Guide. In 3:29 the Rambam talks about the widespread admiration of Avraham Avinu. He writes:

No one is antagonistic to him or ignorant of his greatness except the remnants of this religious community that has perished, remnants that survive in the extremities of the earth, such as the Turks heretics in the extreme North and the Indians in the extreme South. These are the remnants of the religious community of the Sabeans, for this was a religious community that extended over the whole earth. 

Perhaps Malcolm would take this as proof that the Rambam was racist against extremely Southern Indians, and doubly racist against Northern Turks (since he mentioned them twice)! I, on the other hand, am inclined to go with the more straightforward and consistent reading. The Rambam is not making a point about race. He is talking about people's beliefs, and citing examples from the well-known demographics of his time. 

I mentioned earlier that the Rambam makes other statements which affirm his very modern and progressive view of human equality. I know of no better example than the concluding halachos of Sefer Zeraim in the Mishneh Torah. First he explains the unique position held by the Leviim:

Why didn’t the Tribe of Levi merit in the inheritance of the Land of Israel and its spoils along with their brethren? Because they are set aside to serve Hashem and to minister to Him and to teach His upright ways and righteous laws to the masses, as it is stated, “They shall teach Your laws to Yaakov and Your teachings to Israel” (Devarim 33:10).

Therefore, they are separated from the ways of the world. They do not go to war like the rest of Israel, nor do they receive an inheritance, nor do they acquire for themselves with their bodily power, but rather, they are the legion of Hashem, as it is stated, “Bless, O Hashem, His legion” (ibid. 33:11), and He, Blessed is He, provides for them, as it is stated, “I Am your Portion and your Inheritance” (Bamidbar 18:20).

But then he makes a surprising statement:

Not only the Tribe of Levi, but each and every member of humanity whose spirit generously moves him and whose understanding of his knowledge [of all existing things causes him] to separate himself to stand before Hashem to minister unto Him and to serve Him in order to know Hashem, and to walk with uprightness as God made him, removing from his neck the yoke of the many calculations which people seek – he becomes sanctified as holy of holies. God will be His portion and heritage forever and ever, and He will provide what is sufficient for him in this world like He provides for the Kohanim and the Levites. And thus David declared, “Hashem is the lot of my portion; You are my cup; You support my lot” (Tehilim 16:5).

The Rambam does not say "every Jew" or "every descendant of Avraham." Rather, he says "each and every member of humanity" can reach the level where "he becomes sanctified as holy of holies." Man, woman, Jew, non-Jew, black, white - it doesn't matter. Everyone can seek knowledge and understanding of Hashem, and reach the heights of human perfection. 

In conclusion, I think that Malcolm is forcing his BLM agenda into the words of the Rambam. If he would like to charge the Rambam with being an intellectual elitist, then the Allegory of the Palace would provide a solid basis for that claim. But the Rambam's intellectual elitism is color-blind. To paint the Rambam as a racist on the basis of this misinterpretation of his words is pure motzi shem ra (slander).

Epilogue

After presenting all of these arguments, Malcolm declined to respond any further. However, another commenter chimed in and said in reference to my comments: 

Holy crap, reading all the whitejewsplaining on this thread makes [Malcolm's] original point.

Little did this commenter realize that I am not a "white Jew," as they ironically assumed, but a "Jew of color." I must admit that I took great joy in responding to this comment with the following:

I am a Jew of color. If you're going to make racist remarks about my comments, please use "Chink" or "Ching Chong" or something that is more appropriate.

I will end this blog post with a quotation from my fellow Chinaman, Bruce Lee, on the topic of the Rambam's Palace Allegory: 

You know what I want to think of myself? As a human being ... under the sky, under the heavens there is but one family. It just so happens that people are different.

The sooner we recognize what it means to be human and accept that there are differences, the greater our chances of working together and to help each other actualize our humanity.


ADDENDUM (8/8/16 at 3:00pm)

Yaakov directed me to an excerpt from the Rambam's medical writings which I was unaware of while writing this post. Apparently, the Rambam held by Galenic notions of environmental determinism, believing that physiological development is affected by factors in the climate and geographical locale, and that this has an impact on the intellectual and psychological dispositions of the people who lived there. Those who dwelt in moderate climates were more predisposed to attain human perfection, while those who lived in the extremities of the earth were less predisposed. His comments about "extreme Turks that wander about in the far north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our region who are like them" should be taken in that light. Needless to say, these theories have since been debunked, but they were the "science of the times" and the Rambam subscribed to them.

I felt compelled by intellectual honesty to include this as an addendum in this post, which is why I updated it as soon as possible. Regardless, I do not believe that this affects my main point here. I still believe that Malcolm is projecting modern notions of racism onto the Rambam's words, and missing the whole thrust of the Palace Allegory. Also, even according to the Rambam's Galenic theories, both "whites" AND "blacks" would be inferior or superior in their predispositions, depending on where they lived. The Rambam would make the same statements about fair-skinned Norwegians as he would about dark-skinned Kushites.