Kol ha'Seridim: October 2021

Friday, October 22, 2021

Parashas Vayeira: Avraham and Islam

Today's Torah content has been sponsored by someone who makes regular contributions, not only to the Torah content fund, but also to my shiurim.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Parashas Vayeira: Avraham and Islam

Avraham Avinu is distressed by Sarah’s instructions to banish Hagar and Yishmael from their home. Hashem addresses Avraham’s concerns:

God said to Avraham, “Do not let the matter of this youth and your maidservant be evil in your eyes. Whatever Sarah tells you, heed her voice, since through Yitzchak will offspring be considered yours. But also the son of the maidservant I will make into a nation, for he is your offspring.” (Bereishis 21:12-13)

The plain pshat of the statement “I will also make [Yishmael] into a nation” is that Yishmael’s offspring will be numerous, as the Rambam explains in his Iggeres Teiman. However, R’ Avraham ben ha’Rambam notes (ibid.) that this statement contains an allusion to another aspect of Yishmael’s destiny:

But also the son etc. – this alludes to the revelation of Islam, [the adherents of which] believe in the Oneness of the Creator, [and who descend] from him (i.e. from Yishmael). How precise are His words, exalted is He: “I will make him [into a nation]” [implying] at a later time, after the revelation of the religion of Israel, and at a time of darkness for them, on account of their sins. “He told the end from the beginning” (cf. Yeshayahu 46:10).

R’ Avraham ben ha’Rambam saw the rise of the monotheistic Islam as a fulfillment of the promise to Avraham regarding Yishmael. When the offspring of Yitzchak are in “darkness … on account of their sins,” the offspring of Yishmael will raise the banner of Yichud Hashem (God’s Oneness), as their legacy from Avraham Avinu.

When taken in isolation, these words seem like an unqualified endorsement of Islam. Even more, they would seem to indicate R’ Avraham’s view that Islam is sanctioned by Hashem, Himself! However, this overly simplistic view ignores a comment that R’ Avraham made two pesukim earlier (ibid. 21:10):

The religious perfection that was promised to the offspring of Avraham would not include a partnership between the offspring of Yishmael and the offspring of Yitzchak, for [Yishmael] would not inherit a complete partnership with Yitzchak in terms of perfection. This is true, since the offspring of Yishmael would not be obligated in Torah, and even though they believed in it, they renounced it with claims of invalidation and emptied it with claims of modification and forgery. And even though they believe in the Oneness of the Creator, [their belief] in common with the offspring of Yaakov would only be during times of darkness for the offspring of Yitzchak. Therefore, Yishmael would not inherit perfection with Yitzchak.

R’ Avraham is referring here to the Islamic doctrine of Taḥrīf, by which the Muslims maintain that the Jews modified our Torah to remove references to Mohammad.

We see from here that Judaism’s stance on Islam is nuanced. Some of its features are good enough to be alluded to in Hashem’s promises to Avraham; other features are bad enough to remove Yishmael’s descendants from Avraham’s legacy of perfection. Likewise, the role that Islam will play in the unfolding of Hashem’s plan is unclear. Many Jews have been oppressed and killed at the hands of Muslims – and yet, it is impossible for us to see the big picture from our limited vantage point. Rambam expresses this truth in Hilchos Melachim u’Milchamos 11:4:

But the plans of the Creator of the Universe are not within the capacity of man to grasp, for our ways are not His ways and our thoughts are not His thoughts. All these matters of Jesus of Nazareth and the Ishmaelite who arose after him – all of these have only straightened the path for the Melech ha'Moshiach (King Messiah), and prepared the world to serve Hashem together, as it is stated: "then I will transform all the peoples, that they all will call upon the name of Hashem and serve Him with one purpose" (Tzephania 3:9).

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor an article, shiur, or podcast episode, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast" For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here.

Friday, October 8, 2021

Parashas Noach: Migdal Bavel and the Hindu Account of the Mabul

This week's Torah content has been sponsored by an anonymous donor, in memory of her grandmother, Golda Henya bat Devora a"h.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Parashas Noach: Migdal Bavel and the Hindu Account of the Mabul

Rashi (Bereishis 11:1) mentions three possible motives of the Dor Ha'Haflagah (Generation of the Dispersion) for building the tower. According to his third explanation, the people said: "Once every 1656 years, the firmament becomes unstable, as it did in the time of the Mabul (Flood). Come, let us make supports for it!" (Bereishis Rabbah 38:6). On a basic level, Chazal are teaching us that the Dor Ha'Haflagah denied that the Mabul was Divine punishment for the sinfulness of mankind; likewise, they denied Hashem’s promise that He would never bring such destruction again. Instead, they viewed the Mabul as a natural, cyclical phenomenon – one which had nothing to do with morality, and which could be averted by taking the proper technological precautions.

Up until now, I assumed that this midrash was mere homiletics, having nothing to do with historical fact. After all, how could Chazal know what the Dor Ha'Haflagah really thought? This year, however, I discovered that there really were people who believed this about the Mabul! I’m currently in the middle of reading Rabbi on the Ganges: A Jewish-Hindu Encounter, by Rabbi Dr. Alan Brill. The author summarizes the Hindu-Indian account of the Mabul, as recorded in the Puranas, a sacred text which was written down during the Gupta era (350-550 CE):

The Puranas present many related versions of the flood story, which all bear an uncanny resemblance to the biblical flood story. All of these accounts agree that the flood story’s protagonist is a man named Manu. Like Noah, Manu is described as a virtuous individual “who, by penances and prayers, had won the favor of the lord of heaven” (Shatapatha Brahmana I:8 Matsya Purana). Both Manu and Noah had three sons before the flood – Charma, Sharma, and Yapeti, and Ham, Shem, and Japheth, respectively. In Genesis, the cause of humanity’s destruction is that the “wickedness of man was great in the earth” (ch 6). In the story of Manu, however, the destruction of the world was part of the natural order of things, rather than as a divine punishment. (p.112)

Apparently, the cyclical flood theory wasn’t merely a didactic element of a midrashic fiction, but was a real belief held by actual human beings! Let us compare the response of the Dor Ha’Haflagah as described by the midrash with the Hindu response described in the Puranas. Chazal rightly condemn the Dor Ha’Haflagah for their denial of the true cause of the Mabul. They knew what Noach had told them based on nevuah and rejected it anyway. In contrast, the Hindus didn’t have access to a living navi to frame the event from a true Divine perspective. Where does that leave us today? We also don’t have a living navi. How should we respond to a cyclical natural disaster?

The answer lies in the Rambam’s codification (Hilchos Taaniyos 1:1-3) of the Jewish response to tzarah (catastrophe):

It is a positive mitzvah of the Torah to cry out and to sound the trumpets on every tzarah that befalls the community … such as drought, epidemic, locusts, and the like … This principle is one of the darchei teshuvah (ways of repentance), that at a time of the onset of an affliction, when the [people] cry out and sound the trumpets, everyone will know that it was because of their evil conduct that this bad occurrence befell them … But if they do not cry out and do not sound the trumpets, but instead say, “This is minhago shel olam (a natural event) which befell us, and this affliction is a mikreh (chance occurrence)” - behold, this is a derech achzarius (way of cruelty) and will cause them to cling to their evil conduct, and [this] affliction and others will increase.

The Rambam doesn’t differentiate between cyclical and non-cyclical catastrophes. Apparently, it doesn’t matter whether the tzarah follows a natural cycle or not. What matters is whether we respond to it by doing teshuvah or whether we dismiss it as “the way of the world” and persist in our behavior. Every tzarah ought to prompt us to engage in teshuvah, no matter what the cause or frequency. In this framework, even if the Mabul were a cyclical disaster – as believed by the Dor Ha'Haflagah and the Hindus – it wouldn’t make a difference. Even without access to a navi today, we can know with 100% certainty that the correct response to any tzarah is teshuvah.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Tuesday, October 5, 2021

Parashas Bereishis: (How) Did Hashem Speak to Kayin

This week's Torah content has been sponsored by an anonymous donor, in memory of her grandmother, Golda Henya bat Devora a"h.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Artwork: Mind Grind, by Daarken

Bereishis: (How) Did Hashem Speak to Kayin

According to the pshat (plain meaning of the text), Hashem addresses Kayin three times: “Hashem said to Kayin, ‘Why are you angry etc.’” (Bereishis 4:6-7), “Hashem said to Kayin, ‘Where is Hevel, your brother?’ etc.” (ibid. 4:9-12), and “Hashem said to him, ‘Therefore, anyone who kills Kayin’ etc.” (ibid. 4:15).

The question is: How? According to the Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei ha’Torah Chapter 7), Hashem only grants nevuah to those who are on the highest level of perfection. Kayin certainly falls short of the requisite level of ethical perfection, as indicated by the rejection of his korban, his reaction of anger and dejection, his decision to murder his brother, and his denial of culpability. Regarding his intellectual perfection: some commentators learn that Kayin’s act of murder and subsequent denial indicate that he harbored false beliefs about Divine Omniscience. Midrashic commentaries ascribe to him additional heretical beliefs. Kayin is not exactly navi material.

Radak wrote a full commentary on Sefer Bereishis which, unfortunately, isn’t very well-known because it’s not printed in the standard Mikraos Gedolos. Even less well-known is his peirush ha’nistar (esoteric commentary) on Bereishis 2:7 through 5:1, which is available on AlHaTorah.org. It is in this esoteric commentary (4:6-7) that Radak suggests a radical answer to our question:

Hashem said to Kayin: the will of God - namely, the human intellect - responded to [Kayin’s] wrath and anger by saying to him, "Why did you get angry and why did you become crestfallen?"

Isn’t it true that if you improve: his intellect taught him the path of teshuvah.

Seemingly, according to Radak’s comments, Hashem didn't speak to Kayin at all! Rather, it was Kayin’s own intellect – which expresses the will of God – that rebuked him for his anger and enlightened him about teshuvah. This is reminiscent of the Rambam’s second explanation (Hilchos Teshuvah 6:5) of what David ha’Melech meant when he said: “Good and upright is Hashem; therefore, He instructs sinners on the path” (Tehilim 25:8):

[This means that] He implanted within them (i.e. sinners) the capacity to learn and to understand, for this tendency is within every human being, namely, that as long as he is drawn on the paths of chochmah (wisdom) and tzedek (righteousness), he will desire them and pursue them. This is what the Sages meant by, “One who comes to be purified will be assisted” – meaning to say, he will find himself assisted in the matter.

Now, before we get carried away with the implications of our findings, we contextualize the Radak’s comments within the mission statement of his esoteric commentary. On Bereishis 2:7 he writes:

The “adam” mentioned in the pasuk ["Hashem-Elokim formed the adam" (Bereishis 2:7)] refers in the nigleh (non-esoteric reading) to Adam ha'Rishon, but in the nistar (esoteric reading) it refers to the name of the species. Both are true, but the nigleh is for the masses and the nistar is for the individuals who are the excellent among the masses.

In other words, Radak doesn’t deny the literal truth of the pshat, according to which Hashem did speak with Kayin. Unfortunately, this means that Radak esoteric commentary ultimately does not answer our original question.

And yet, Radak’s esoteric reading opens an intriguing can of worms. Does the Torah ever use Divine communication as a narrative device rather than as a factual account of prophetic communication? Rambam is certainly comfortable with giving non-literal explanations of Divine speech, as cited above, and as he writes about in the Moreh ha’Nevuchim 2:48 and in 3:22. While such interpretations are not to be posited gratuitously, it is noteworthy that such an approach exists and can be found in the writings of mainstream commentators.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Friday, October 1, 2021

Does Hashem Actually Care What We Call Shemini Atzeres?

This week's Torah content has been sponsored by an anonymous donor, in memory of her grandmother, Golda Henya bat Devora a"h.

Disclaimer: I usually try to make my articles as accessible as possible by translating Hebrew and Aramic terms and providing background information. However, due to the halachic nature of this topic and the fact that it is a one-page article, I've decided not to provide such explanations.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Does Hashem Actually Care What We Call Shemini Atzeres?

I would describe myself as somewhat of a “nusach ha’tefilah geek.” I enjoy researching variations in different nuschaos and attempting to understand their causes and implications. For this reason, my chavrusa and I spent an inordinate amount of time this past Shemini Atzeres delving into the question of how one is supposed to refer to the name of the holiday when mentioning it in tefilah, birkas ha’mazon, and kiddush. Do we say “Yom Shemini Chag ha’Atzeres” (Tur / Shulchan Aruch), “Yom Shemini Atzeres” (Minhagim / Rama), “Yom Shemini Atzeres ha’Chag” (Rashal / Taz), “Yom Chag Shemini Atzeres” (Rambam), or something else?

Our learning prompted us to probe deeply into the very nature of Shemini Atzeres and its relationship to the Chag ha’Sukkos. We emerged with a clearer grasp of the multifaceted halachic character of this unique holiday than we previously had. From the standpoint of enhancing our Yom Tov, this was definitely a worthwhile sugya to take up. And yet, a little over an hour into our learning, I found myself bothered by what some might consider to be an irreverent question: Does Hashem actually care what I call Shemini Atzeres in my tefilah and berachos?

Let me be very clear about what I am asking and what I am not asking. I am not asking, “What's the point of davening at all? What does Hashem get out of our tefilos?” Hashem doesn’t get anything out of our tefilos. Nothing we do affects Him. Tefilah, like all mitzvos, is entirely for our own benefit. I am also not asking, “Why do variants in the nusach ha’tefilah matter?” The Anshei Kneses ha’Gedolah included the greatest chachamim and neviim of their era; it would be both halachically irresponsible and intellectually foolish to deviate from the carefully crafted nusach they established in their unparalleled wisdom. Furthermore, I am not bothered by nusach variants which reflect different ideas, different interpretations, different sources, different emphases, or different minhagim.

My question here is far narrower and is based on an assumption. My assumption is that the Anshei Kneses ha’Gedolah did NOT dictate a specific wording for how we refer to Shemini Atzeres. Rather, they established the halacha of me’ein ha’meora (i.e. the requirement to mention the name of the Yom Tov on the day itself) and they also instructed us to single out Shemini Atzeres as separate from the Chag ha’Sukkos, but they didn’t formulate the precise manner in which we ought to identify the Yom Tov when implementing these halachos. If this assumption is true, then do all these hairsplitting arguments mentioned by the poskim actually matter? Why should we care which version we say if the Anshei Kneses ha’Gedolah didn’t care enough to tell us?

An answer to my question came from a pasuk we read on Shabbos Chol ha’Moed: “Do not be rash with your mouth, and do not let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God; for God is in heaven and you are on earth; therefore, let your words be few” (Koheles 5:1). The Ibn Ezra uses this as a springboard for a lengthy polemic against certain paytanim and the use of piyutim in davening. He opens with the following:

[Utter words before God] only if you understand their meaning … Know that God stands over you. He sees you and hears your words … Therefore, a person who prays is obligated to guard the openings of his mouth; he should contemplate in his heart that he is standing before the King of kings, Who holds the power to kill and to grant life.

If you knew you were going to make an appearance before a king who had the power over life and death, you would certainly make sure you spoke with the highest level of precision and understanding you could muster. To neglect to do so would indicate a lack of reverence, no matter how trifling the content of your speech. Thus, even if the Anshei Kneses ha’Gedolah didn’t establish a particular nusach for how we refer to Shemini Atzeres in our davening, this doesn’t exempt us from doing our due diligence to choose our words with as much understanding and precision as we can, thereby reinforcing our recognition that we are standing in awe and fear before the King of kings. It's not what we call Shemini Atzeres that matters. It's the fact that we care how we speak before God.

___________________________________________________________________________________