Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar and the 42-Letter Name of God

Today's Torah content has been brought to you by the generosity of my Patrons on Patreon.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version (which, if I may say, I am particularly proud of in this case).

Artwork: Granite Gargoyle, by Christopher Rush. I would have used the actual artwork from Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar, but some would consider it to be non-tzanua. Those who are in the know will understand why I used the art from Granite Gargoyle.

Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar and the 42-Letter Name of God

On June 18, 2021, Wizards of the Coast released Modern Horizons 2 as an expansion set for the Magic: the Gathering trading card game. Printed in the set was a card representing the female wizard named Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar. On August 28, 2021, content creator Rhystic Studies (PhD) made a video about Magic: the Gathering card names with a focus on Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar. As I watched the video, my mind kept coming back to one thing: the 42-letter name of Hashem.

The Rambam (Moreh ha’Nevuchim 1:62) explains what we mean by a 42-letter name:

Now it is known to everyone capable of mental representation that it is in no way possible for 42 letters to form one word; these were certainly several words, the number of the letters of which amounted to 42 … These words that had numerous letters were called a “name” only because of their being indicative of a single concept … and these words were numerous only in order to make the concept in question understood.

The Rambam cites a passage in the Talmud which details the qualifications for being taught this name:

The name having 42 letters is holy and sanctified and is only transmitted to one who is discreet, has reached the middle of his life, is not prone to anger or to drunkenness, does not arouse criticism by his way of life, and speaks agreeably with people. And he who knows it is heedful thereof, and observes it in purity, is beloved on high and popular below. He is feared by the people, his learning is preserved by him, and he inherits the two worlds: this world and the next. (Talmud Bavli: Kiddushin 71a, Pines translation)

The Rambam then goes on to decry the ways in which these Talmudic teachings were misconstrued:

How very remote is the way in which this [Talmudic] statement is usually understood from the [true] intention of the speaker. For most people think that it deals solely with the pronunciation of the letters, and it is not taken into consideration that these letters have a meaning, so that great things may be merited through them and that for this reason there is needed the moral preparation and the forming of many dispositions that were mentioned … When wicked and ignorant people found these texts, they had an ample basis for lying statements in that they would put together any letters they liked and would say: this is a shem (divine name) that has efficacy and power to operate if it is written down or uttered in a particular way. Thereupon these lies invented by the first wicked and ignorant man were written down, and these writings transmitted to decent, weak-minded, and foolish men who lack the scales and means by which they could know the true from the false. These people accordingly made a secret of these writings, and the latter were found in the belongings left behind them, so that they were thought to be true. To sum it up: “a fool believes everything” (Mishlei 14:15).

Watching the video about Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar gave me a new insight into this Rambam. As a student of Torah who was “raised” in the rationalist school of thought, I am not prone to belief in the occult. When I read about kabbalistic divine names with magical properties, I am not moved – except to feel sorry for those who have fallen into such views.

And yet, I find myself absolutely enamored with the name Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar on purely aural and somatic grounds. By that, I mean that I love hearing it said and the feeling of my mouth saying it. This helped me realize that beneath the magical aura of these so-called divine names is an underlying aesthetic appeal – associated with their appearance, spelling, and pronunciation – which enhances their mystique in an intrinsic way. To my mind, this is another example of how (at least, according to the Rambam) idolatry appeals not only to our minds and imaginations, but to our most basic physicality.

___________________________________________________________________________________

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. 

Shoftim: The Parameters of Idolatrous Cultural Appropriation

This week's Torah content has been sponsored by Joey and Estee Lichter in honor of the marriage of Isaac and Aviva.

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

Shoftim: The Parameters of Idolatrous Cultural Appropriation

It is prohibited to plant a tree anywhere in the courtyard area on the Temple Mount: “You shall not plant an asheirah of any tree beside the altar of Hashem, your God, which you shall make for yourself” (Devarim 16:21). The Rambam (Sefer ha’Mitzvos: Lo Taaseh #13) explains the reason for this prohibition:

We are prohibited from planting trees in the Mikdash (Temple) or near the altar for decoration or beauty, even if our intention in this is for the service of Hashem, since the idolaters also honored their idolatry by planting beautiful trees which are pleasing to behold in their houses of worship.

The Rambam (Moreh ha’Nevuchim 3:32) infamously held that korbanos (sacrifices) are a concession to human nature. Hashem would have “preferred” that Judaism have no korbanos whatsoever. The problem is that korbanos were the universal form of worship among idolaters at the time the Torah was given.

Therefore, His wisdom and plan – as is displayed throughout the entirety of creation – did not require the discontinuation, abandonment, and abolition of all these forms of service, because this would have been contrary to the nature of man, who clings to what he is accustomed … It is for this reason that Hashem allowed these kinds of service to continue. He transferred to His service that which had formerly served as a worship of created beings, and of things imaginary and unreal, and commanded us to serve Him in this same manner.

On the surface, the Rambam’s explanation of the prohibition to plant trees on the Temple Mount is undermined by his theory of korbanos. How can the Rambam say that we are prohibited from planting trees in the Temple courtyard because this was a custom of the idolaters, and at the same time, maintain that the entire sacrificial service is modeled after idolatrous modes of worship? Does the Torah endorse or oppose cultural appropriation of idolatrous practices? On what basis does the Torah draw this line?

I believe the answer is that only Hashem knows how to draw that line. Only the Creator of man can determine which forms of idolatrous cultural appropriation are so dangerous that they will lead people down the path of destruction and which forms are either worth the risk or are better than the alternatives.

The Rambam begins Hilchos Avodah Zarah with an account of how idolatry started:

In the days of Enosh, the people made a tremendous error, and the counsel of the wise men of the generation became foolish, and Enosh himself was among those who erred. This was their mistake: they said, “Since God created these planets and these galaxies to control the universe and placed them on high and gave them honor, and they are the servants who minister before Him, it is befitting to praise them and to glorify them and to give them honor. And this is the will of God, blessed is He – to exalt and to honor the ones whom He exalts and honors, just as it is the king’s desire to honor his ministers and those who stand before him, and this honors the king.” Once this notion arose in their hearts, they began to build temples for the planets, and to offer sacrifices to them, and to praise them and to glorify them with words, and to bow down to them, in order to satisfy the will of the Creator, according to their evil minds.

The concept proposed by Enosh and his generation was not irrational. It is true that showing honor to a king’s ministers is a way of showing honor to the king. Rather, their mistake was their arrogant assumption that they could ascertain how best to worship Hashem using their own minds. They couldn’t foresee the disastrous consequences of the practice they introduced. Planting a tree to beautify the Mikdash might seem like a good idea, but our minds are too limited to make that determination. Only Hashem knows which forms of worship are beneficial and detrimental to man, and we must defer to His judgment.

________________________________________________________________________________

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. 

Sitting Bull’s Ghost Dance and Moshiach

Today’s Torah content is sponsored by Naomi Mann, in honor of Yeshiva Bnei Torah's 50th year. May Hashem grant YBT continued success!

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

Sitting Bull (1831-1890)

Sitting Bull's Ghost Dance and Moshiach

The final section of Jonathan Lear’s Radical Hope: Ethics in the Face of Cultural Devastation examines how Plenty Coups, the last chief of the Crow Nation, saved his people by adapting to the new world after the devastation of the world of the Crow. Although his leadership decisions were influenced by dream-visions, Lear argues that Plenty Coups possessed “imaginative excellence” which allowed him to “facilitate a creative and appropriate response to the world’s challenges” in a pragmatic, non-mystical manner.

Lear contrasts Plenty Coups’s success in this regard with the failure of Sitting Bull, chief of the Sioux. In 1889, rumors arose of a messianic figure who would arise and save the Sioux. It was claimed “he would wipe out all whites in a catastrophe, bring back their ancestors from the dead, restore all the buffalo.”

The messiah was teaching that the current task of the Indian was to perform a Ghost Dance, which would help usher in the apocalypse. The dance spread like wildfire across the reservation, but nowhere did it take greater hold than at Sitting Bull's camp at Standing Rock. The dance was ecstatic: participants would dance into a frenzy and continue until they dropped of exhaustion; they wore ghost shirts that would protect them from bullets; they abandoned all other activities in order to bring about this cataclysm … The dance continued through October and November and into December, when it was forcibly ended. As is well documented, U.S. authorities were greatly disturbed by the Ghost Dance – they were concerned it might lead to an uprising or, at least, the breakdown of civil order – and they sought to suppress it.

Lear writes: “There is no evidence that Sitting Bull actually participated in the Ghost Dance, but he did support it.” The following is Lear’s analysis of Sitting Bull’s fatal error:

Sitting Bull used a dream-vision to short-circuit reality rather than to engage with it … It is a hallmark of the wishful that the world will be magically transformed – into conformity with how one would like it to be – without having to take any realistic practical steps to bring it about. The only activity in which one is enjoined to partake in is a ritual, in this case a dance. But when the ritual comes to take over one’s entire life, as it did for the Sioux of Standing Rock in the fall of 1890, this is a case of what Freud called “turning away from reality.” Symbolic rituals take over life – whether in an individual’s private life or in the group activity of a culture – and they become a way of avoiding the real-life demands that confront one in the every day. And it led to a disaster for the Sioux.

The Rambam, in his Letter on Astrology, blames the destruction of the Second Temple on such a mistake:

This is why our kingdom was lost and our Temple was destroyed and why we were brought to this, for our fathers sinned and are no more because they found many books dealing with the matters of the star gazers, which are the root of idolatry ... they erred and were drawn after them, imagining them to be glorious science and to be of great utility. They did not busy themselves with the art of war or with the conquest of lands, but imagined that those studies would help them. Therefore, the prophets called them "foolish children" (Yirmiyahu 4:22) – and truly fools they were, for "they followed after that which does not benefit" (ibid. 2:8).

We, too, believe in the coming of a moshiach (messiah). However, our messianic era will involve no changes in the natural order (see Hilchos Tehsuvah 9:2, and Hilchos Melachim u’Milchamos 12:1). The process of bringing about the messianic era is eminently practical and political, and neither supernatural nor miraculous (ibid. Ch11). What remains to be seen is whether the “imaginative excellence” of the Jewish nation and its leaders at the critical junctures in the future will follow the model of Plenty Coups, enabling us to courageously engage with reality, or whether we will follow the model of Sitting Bull, to our peril.

___________________________________________________________________________________

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. 

Vaeschanan: Avodah Zarah – Three Fundamental Premises

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

Artwork: Klothys, God of Destiny (Alternate), by Jason A. Engle

Vaeschanan: Avodah Zarah – Three Premises

After recapping the event of the Revelation at Sinai, Moshe Rabbeinu warns Bnei Yisrael about the dangers of avodah zarah (idolatry): 

But you shall greatly beware for your souls, for you did not see any likeness on the day Hashem spoke to you at Horeb, from the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make yourselves a carved image, a likeness of any shape; a form of a male or a female; a form of any animal on the earth; a form of any winged bird that flies in the heaven; a form of anything that creeps on the ground, a form of any fish that is in the water under the earth; and lest you raise your eyes to heaven and you see the sun, and the moon, and the stars – the entire legion of heaven – and you be drawn away and bow to them and worship them, which Hashem, your God, has apportioned to all the peoples under the entire heaven! … Beware for yourselves lest you forget the covenant of Hashem, your God, that He has sealed with you, and you make yourselves a carved image, a likeness of anything, as Hashem, your God, has commanded you. For Hashem, your God – He is a consuming fire – a jealous God. (Devarim 4:15-19, 23-24) 

It is difficult for the modern reader to relate to these severe warnings. We have a hard time understanding why our ancestors were tempted to make graven images, bow down to idols, and venerate the heavenly bodies. For this reason, the Torah’s campaign against avodah zarah can appear excessive, outdated, and irrelevant. It seems as though mankind has moved on, and the Torah’s hard-line anti-avodah zarah stance carries little to no meaning for most Jews today. 

The view of avodah zarah as irrelevant is incorrect. In this post I will present an overview of three fundamental premises about avodah zarah which, when considered together, demonstrate the central place that avodah zarah occupies in the Torah regimen. 

Fundamental Premise #1: Opposition to Avodah Zarah as the Essence of Torah 

There are 613 mitzvos. According to the Rambam, 51 of these mitzvos are thematically related to avodah zarah, the laws of which he codifies in Hilchos Avodah Zarah. Of these 51, only around 20 of them are practically relevant to most Jews today – and that’s a generous estimate. 

One might infer from the above that avodah zarah is merely an aspect or a component of Torah. This is inaccurate. In truth, the essential mission of the entire Torah is to uproot avodah zarah. There are many sources which express this concept. Here are a few: 

• Chazal [1] teach “anyone who believes [2] in avodah zarah is like one who denies the entire Torah, and anyone who denies avodah zarah is like one who believes in the entire Torah.” [3]
• Similarly, Chazal [4] say that “one who denies avodah zarah is called a Jew (Yehudi).” 
• The Rambam [5] states: “the purpose of the entire Torah and the center around which everything revolves is the removal and annihilation of every trace of avodah zarah.” 
• The Sefer ha’Chinuch [6] refers to the belief in Hashem’s existence as “the foundation of the religion,” but identifies avodah zarah as “the root of the entire Torah upon which all else depends.” 
• The Ramban [7] also calls avodah zarah “the root of all mitzvos.” 
• Halachically, a Jew who worships avodah zarah has the halachic status of non-Jew with regards to all matters. Likewise, a Jew who is an apostate to avodah zarah is considered to be an apostate to the entire Torah. [8]

It is clear from these statements that avodah zarah is not simply a part of Torah. Rather, opposition to avodah zarah is the essence of Torah. Thus, to say that avodah zarah is no longer relevant to our lives would be to say that the Torah, itself, has lost its relevance. 

Moreover, we see from here that in order to understand the centrality of avodah zarah, we must expand our definition of avodah zarah to encompass more than the limited set of halachically proscribed behaviors. This leads us to the second fundamental premise. 

Fundamental Premise #2: Philosophical vs. Halachic Avodah Zarah 

When Chazal and the Rishonim say that the Torah’s essential mission is to uproot avodah zarah, their comments not limited to the specific set of actions and beliefs halachically proscribed by the 51 mitzvos mentioned above, such as bowing down to idols, making offerings to other gods, believing in and worshipping other deities, etc. 

This brings us to the distinction between halachic avodah zarah and philosophical avodah zarah. Halachic avodah zarah refers to those acts which are legally prohibited within the technical parameters of the halachic system. In contrast, philosophical avodah zarah refers to any act which derives from the thoughts, feelings, and general worldview of avodah zarah. 

The easiest way to grasp this distinction is to consider cases which would not constitute halachic avodah zarah, but would still be considered philosophical avodah zarah. For instance, a person who passes all of his children through the ritual Molech-fire is not liable for violating the Torah’s prohibition of worshipping Molech. Why not? Because halachic avodah zarah is only prohibited if it was done b’derech avodasah (in the customary manner). For this reason a person is only halachically culpable for worshipping Molech if he passes some of his children through the ritual fire, since that is how Molech was customarily worshipped; passing all of one’s children through the fire was not a sanctioned practice in the cult of Molech, and would therefore not be prohibited according to Torah law. But is such a person culpable for philosophical avodah zarah? Absolutely! To believe in – and certainly to worship – any god other than Hashem constitutes philosophical avodah zarah, even if the worshipper’s actions would not qualify as halachic avodah zarah due to a technicality. 

Another example is Christianity. Some Rishonim, such as the Rambam [9], unequivocally maintain that Christianity is halachically avodah zarah on account of the doctrine of the Trinity. The god Christians worship is a triune deity, and is therefore not a legitimate form of monotheism – unlike Islam. Others, such as the Baalei Tosafos [10], classify the doctrine of the Trinity as shituf (“co-sovereignty”), which they maintain is not halachically prohibited for non-Jews. For this reason, the Baalei Tosafos hold that we do not treat Christians as idolaters. Nevertheless, despite this halachic disagreement, both the Rambam and the Baalei Tosafos would agree that the Christian worship of the Trinity constitutes philosophical avodah zarah, since they are worshipping a god other than Hashem. 

How is the distinction between halachic and philosophical avodah zarah relevant to our discussion? Because whereas halachic avodah zarah is confined to the 51 mitzvos in Hilchos Avodah Zarah and their technical laws, philosophical avodah zarah plays a role in a far broader range of mitzvos. For example: 

• Thematically and halachically, Shabbos is the antithesis of avodah zarah, as I wrote about in my article Shabbos, Avodah Zarah, and Skilah. 
• Yetzias Miztrayim (the Exodus from Egypt) was orchestrated as a polemic against the avodah zarah of Egypt, as I wrote about in my article Chametz – Why So Serious? Thus, every holiday which commemorates an aspect of Yetzias Mitzrayim and every mitzvah which reminds us of Yetzias Mitzrayim is, by extension, related to avodah zarah. 
• According to the Rambam [11], the entire avodah (divine service) in the Mikdash (Temple) was designed to uproot avodah zarah. 
• There are numerous chukim (mitzvos whose reasons are not obvious) which the commentators explain to be aimed at uprooting specific avodah zarah beliefs and practices. These include mitzvos pertaining to kashrus, arayos (prohibited sexual relations), kilayim (prohibited mixtures), and more. 

The more one delves into the taamei ha’mitzvos (the reasons or objectives of the commandments), the more one comes to realize the truth of the Ramban’s assertion that “avodah zarah is the root of all mitzvos” – but only if we understand this to be referring to philosophical avodah zarah, rather than halachic avodah zarah. 

And this is especially true in light of our third fundamental premise. 

Fundamental Premise #3: The Derech Avodah Zarah 

Avodah zarah has no basis in reality – that is, in the objective external world. Rather, it stems from the subjective internal world of the psyche. There are certain internal trends (instincts, feelings, beliefs, habits, urges, insecurities, neuroses) which give rise to both philosophical and halachic avodah zarah. These internal psychological trends may be characterized as the derech avodah zarah (literally, “the way of idolatry” or “idolatrous psychological tendencies”). 

For example, to attribute supernatural powers to a physical object is derech avodah zarah, even if one recognizes that such a belief is irrational and doesn’t act on it. To be frightened of the number 13 is derech avodah zarah, even if a person doesn’t change his or her decisions in order to avoid this “unlucky” number and knows that numbers can’t cause any harm. According to the Rambam, who maintains that all forms of magic, sorcery, and occult practices are false and ineffective, it would be the derech avodah zarah to believe that they are real, even if one doesn’t actually engage in such practices. 

One of my rabbeim described such superstitious thoughts and feelings as “the soil in which avodah zarah grows.” My Rosh ha’Yeshiva defined the derech avodah zarah as the tendency to “treat the products of the psyche as a reality.” In addition to eliminating halachic and philosophical avodah zarah, the Torah also endeavors to curb, uproot, and sublimate the derech avodah zarah. According to both the Rambam [12] and the Ramban [13], we are enjoined by Hashem to strive for this ideal in the statement: “tamim tihiyeh im Hashem Elokechah (you shall be whole with Hashem, your God)” (Devarim 18:13). This is a tall order – one which was asked of no less than Avraham Avinu: “He said to him, ‘I am E-l Sha-dai. Walk before Me and be whole” (Bereishis 17:1). The path to this state of temimus lifei Hashem (wholeness before Hashem) truly encompasses the entire Torah, with all of its mitzvos and teachings. 

It is for this reason that caution is needed with regards to the derech avodah zarah. Halachic avodah zarah is prohibited across the board. Philosophical avodah zarah is opposed in other ways. But the derech avodah zarah is so deeply rooted that it is not always addressed. Indeed, sometimes Chazal even sanctioned practices which are rooted in the derech avodah zarah. 

An example of this is given by the Meiri [14] in his explanation of Chazal’s treatment of zugos (literally “pairs”). In the olden days, people harbored superstitious feelings about doing things in “pairs.” This posed an obstacle to the mitzvah of the Four Cups on Pesach, since we drink the wine in pairs. The Gemara in Pesachim gives various reasons as to why drinking a pair of pairs of cups on Pesach will not result in harm (e.g. Pesach is described as “a night of guarding” in that it is guarded from harmful spirits; the fact that these cups have blessings recited over them negates the harm). The problem with these answers is that Chazal seem to be endorsing the derech avodah zarah! The Meiri answers this problem by explaining why they did this: 

In many places we have explained that in those days the people were drawn after folk superstitions, such as incantations and omens and folk practices. Anything which did not contain a habit of avodah zarah and darchei ha’Emori (“ways of the Amorites” – idolatrous customs which are prohibited by Torah), [the Sages] did not bother to uproot. Even more so regarding those matters which were accustomed to them. 

In other words, if a particular practice constituted actual avodah zarah, Chazal would have stopped it. But if people harbored superstitious feelings about something which was not actually avodah zarah, not only did Chazal refrain from uprooting them, but they even “catered” to them by providing explanations which indirectly validated the erroneous premises of these derech avodah zarah feelings. 

Nevertheless, one who seeks to attain the level of tamim tihiyeh will strive to understand the origins of avodah zarah within the human psyche, to develop a sensitivity to the derech avodah zarah in themselves, and to strive to counteract those derech avodah trends. 

Conclusion 

In light of these three premises we can see that the warnings about avodah zarah given by Moshe Rabbeinu before his death are relevant today just as they were 3,300 years ago. Avodah zarah is not an antiquated component of Torah, but its very foundation. Halachic avodah zarah may be limited in its scope, especially in a post-pagan era, but philosophical avodah zarah is alive and well. Overt acts of avodah zarah may be avoidable, but the derech avodah zarah is insidious, and continuous to plague us despite our sophistication. 

End Notes

[1] Sifre Devarim 11:28

[2] lit. “admits to” or “acknowledges [the validity of]” or “upholds.” 

[3] This statement is codified by the Rambam in Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha’Mada, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 2:4 

[4] Talmud Bavli Maseches Megilah 13a 

[5] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Moreh ha’Nevuchim 3:37 

[6] Sefer ha’Chinuch Mitzvah #26 

[7] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Devarim 4:3 

[8] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha’Mada, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 2:5 

[9] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Commentary on the Mishnah: Avodah Zarah 1:3; Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha’Mada, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 9:4; Sefer Kedushah, Hilchos Maachalos Assuros 11:7 

[10] see Tosafos Sanhedrin 63b and Bechoros 2b; full disclosure – I have not learned Tosafos’s view firsthand. 

[11] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Moreh ha’Nevuchim 3:32 

[12] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha’Mada, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 11:16 

[13] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Devarim 18:13 and Bereishis 17:1 

[14] Rabbeinu Menachem ben Shlomo Meiri, Beis ha’Bechirah Pesachim 109b

The Month of Av: Unlucky or Misunderstood? (Part 1 of 2)

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

Artwork: Drown in Sorrow, by Noah Bradley

The Month of Av: Unlucky or Misunderstood? (Part 1 of 2)

Introduction

There seems to be a fairly prevalent belief that the month of Av is an "unlucky time." People rearrange their plans, pushing off certain "risky" endeavors until after the month of Av (or, at least, until after Tisha b'Av). They avoid things like traveling, surgery, and business ventures because they feel that undertaking these activities during the month of Av is dangerous and ill-fated. I have seen a number of English articles which refer to the month of Av as an "inauspicious" (read: "unlucky") time of the year for Jews. 

The position taken in this article is that the month of Av is not unlucky, but merely misunderstood. Although we will start with the halacha as codified in the Shulchan Aruch, this article is intended to be theoretical - not normative. In other words, always consult your rabbi before making any changes to your halachic practice. 

Why the Misconception is a Misconception

Even before we look at any of the relevant sources, let us first establish why it is halachically inadvisable for the month of Av to be treated as "unlucky." 

One of the 613 mitzvos is a lo taaseh (Biblical prohibition) called "meonein." Since there's no adequate English translation of the term "meonein," we'll stick with the Hebrew. The Sefer Ha'Chinuch (Mitzvah #250) provides the following definition of meonein, based on the words of the Sages: 

The explanation of this subject is as it was given in the Midrash Sifra: [the Hebrew verb, te'oneinu, denotes] the sense of onah, a designated time - i.e. that we should not determine set times, to say that this hour is "good" for doing that activity in it, and whoever does it at that time will succeed, and whoever does it at this other time will not succeed - as the deluding masters of sorcery say. 

The Rambam, in the Mishneh Torah (Laws of Idolatry and the Statutes of the Gentiles 11:9), elaborates on this prohibition of "designating times," and mentions additional examples: one who says that a specific day is a "good" or "bad" day for doing a particular activity, or a particular year, or a particular month. 

In other words, meonein is the prohibition to designate a period of time as "good" or "bad" (i.e. auspicious or inauspicious, lucky or unlucky, blessed or cursed) for certain activities. According to Torah law, a person who does an action in accordance such a designation is liable for the penalty of whiplashes. For example, if a person were to believe that Friday the 13th is unlucky and decided not to take his driver's test on that day, believing that he'd fail, or if a person thought that his birthday was lucky and decided to buy a lottery ticket on that day, believing that he'd win, then he would be in violation of the Torah prohibition of meonein. 

The most well-known form of meonein is astrology. One who consults horoscopes or astrologers and acts on the basis of their counsel transgresses the Torah prohibition of meonein. According to the Sefer Ha’Chinuch’s definition, not only astrology but any designation of a time period as "good" or "bad" for a certain activity for any reason falls within the scope of this prohibition.

Thus, the problem with the popular belief about Av is is clear. If a Jew believes that the month of Av is an “unlucky time,” thinking that this is what the Gemara meant, and avoids certain activities based on this belief, then there are grounds to say that he would be in violation of the Biblical prohibition of meonein according to the Sefer ha'Chinuch and the Rambam.  

Thus, whatever sources we encounter in the course of our investigation, we cannot understand them to be indicating that a certain time period is auspicious or inauspicious. 

The Source of the Misconception

My guess is that the most common source of this widespread misconception is a pair of halachos that are brought down in the Shulchan Aruch: Orach Chayim Siman 551. One of these halachos pertains to the month of Av as a whole, and the other pertains to the period of time known as "the Three Weeks," though the two are often conflated:

551:1 - From the beginning of Av we diminish rejoicing, and a Jew who has a court appointment with a non-Jew should avoid it [during this time], because its mazal is bad.  

551:18 - One must be careful from the 17th of Tammuz until the 9th of Av to not walk alone from four [halachic] hours until nine [halachic] hours - Rema: because Ketev Meriri is prevalent - and they should not strike students during these days. 

It is easy to see how a superficial glance at these halachos might seem to support the popular belief. Why else would we be cautioned to avoid non-Jewish courts during the month of Av if not for the fact that Av is an bad time for the Jews? Even more significant is the explanation "its mazal is bad,” which seems to indicate that the month of Av is "unlucky." The second halacha goes even further, cautioning us to avoid certain dangerous activities during the Three Weeks on account of the Ketev Meriri - which, as we'll see later, is the name of a havoc-wreaking demon.

But as is often the case, things are not so simple when we examine them closely and critically. First of all, "its mazal is bad" cannot mean that the month of Av is unlucky, as we have explained based on the prohibition of meonein. Secondly, these two halachos do not caution us against all hazardous activities. Indeed, there are only three activities mentioned in these halachos, and all of them have specific parameters: (1) all Jews should avoid court appointments with non-Jews during the month of Av, (2) all people should avoid walking alone between the halachic hours of 4 and 9 during the Three Weeks, and (3) teachers should avoid striking their students during the Three Weeks.

In other words, based on the halachos - according to the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema, at least - there is absolutely no basis for avoiding anything during these time periods except for these three specific activities. There are no other activities we are cautioned to avoid for similar reasons as these.

The Original Source of the Misconception About Av

We will begin by looking up the original source of the first halacha cited in the Shulchan Aruch above, leaving aside the second one for later. The mishnah on Taanis 26b states: "at the onset of the month of Av, we diminish our rejoicing." The Gemara (Taanis 29a-b) explains:

At the onset of the month of Av, we diminish our rejoicing: Just as we diminish rejoicing at the onset of the month of Av, so too, at the onset of the month of Adar (Rashi: which were days of miracles for Israel, Purim and Pesach) we increase rejoicing. 

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, a Jew who has a court appointment at a non-Jewish court should try to avoid it during the month of Av because it has a bad mazal, but he should be present in court during the month of Adar because it has a good mazal.

The key term here is: "therefore a Jew who has a court appointment etc." In other words, the Gemara is not saying:"since the month of Av has bad mazal, therefore we diminish rejoicing and avoid court appointments with non-Jews," which is the intuitive way to conceive of this cause-and-effect relationship. Rather, the Gemara is saying: "since we are obligated to diminish rejoicing during the month of Av, therefore we should avoid court appointments with non-Jews during the month of Av, on account of its bad mazal." Stated differently, the month of Av generates a halachic obligation to diminish rejoicing, and it is on account of this obligation that we avoid court appointments with non-Jews.

Questions to Be Answered

There are several basic questions on the Gemara here:

1. What is special about the month of Av, such that we diminish rejoicing? Yes, we know that the first and second Beis ha'Mikdash were destroyed, and a number of other tragedies happened, but is this why we diminish joy? 
2. Why does this requirement to diminish joy express itself in an obligation to avoid court cases with non-Jews? This seems awfully specific, and not directly related to any of the tragedies that happened during the month of Av?
3. What does the Gemara mean when it says that the month of Av has "bad mazal"?
4. How would we answer these same questions with regards to the obligation to increase joy at the onset of the month of Adar? The fact that there isn't a corresponding superstition which regards the month of Adar as "lucky" is telling. Clearly, symmetry of this Av / Adar halacha isn't as intuitive as the Gemara seems to take it. What is the reasoning behind the parallel halacha regarding the onset of the month of Av?

This seems like a good place to end this blog post. Next time we'll attempt to answer these questions, and shed some light on the halacha in the Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 551:18 regarding our cautionary conduct during the Three Weeks.

Click here for Part 2:

My Grandfather and the Volcano Goddess

Disclaimer: As you can see by its label, this blog post is in the "musings" category, and is different from most of what I write. As a ger (convert), I sometimes have moments when I think about the different direction my life could have gone had I not encountered the Jewish teachers I met at the critical points in my development. This post started off as one of those musings, and I decided to see what would happen if I articulated these thoughts in writing.

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

photo of a volcanic eruption at Mt. Kilauea,
claimed by some to be a photo of Pele, the goddess of volcanoes

My Grandfather and the Volcano Goddess

Introduction

Hawaii has a special place in my heart. I was born in Hawaii. My mom was born in Hawaii. My grandparents on my mom's side of the family were born in Hawaii. Even my great-grandfather was born in Hawaii. I grew up there. My mom's whole side of the family lives there. I've visited my grandmother there almost every year since I was a teenager. 

On Thursday, May 3, I received an emergency notification on my phone: "Mt. Kilauea is erupting." The volcano had been showing increased activity since 1983, but this last round seems to have gotten more news coverage than others in recent memory. Although my grandmother lives on Oahu, and will not likely be affected by the volcanic events on the Big Island, the news of the eruption still felt close to home.

Kilauea is not the only fiery mountain that has been on my mind for the past few weeks. There is another, which is even closer to home: Har Sinai. 

The connection between these two mountains in my mind has less to do with their fire and more to do with their association to the divine within their respective nations. For Jews, Sinai's significance lies in the singular revelation of Hashem and the giving of His Torah. Lehavdil, the ancient Hawaiians viewed every volcanic eruption as a manifestation of Pele, the volcano goddess.

(Halachic reminder: it is prohibited to verbalize the name of an avodah zarah deity. I have decided to use the name of this Hawaiian deity in writing, but if you plan on talking about it, the recommended course of action is to either avoid saying the name, or to come up with a derogatory nickname, like "Poopy" - which is probably what Eliyahu ha'Navi would have called her, given his track record of mocking false gods using bathroom humor.) 

According to Wikipedia: "In the Hawaiian religion, Pele, the Fire Goddess, is the goddess of fire, lightning, wind and volcanoes and the creator of the Hawaiian Islands." Pele came up in an article I read this week about how the current volcanic activity on Kilauea is viewed by some Hawaiians even today. The article reports: 

As threats from the latest Kilauea eruptions continue in Puna, many speak of the dramatic lava flows as the work of Pele, the goddess of fire and volcanoes. 

These Native Hawaiians and other Hawaii residents accept the volcanic activity that has consumed 36 structures and displaced hundreds of residents as demonstrations of Pele’s power and beauty. And there is no way to stop her. 

Pelehonuamea, or Pele of the sacred earth, is also known as “ka wahine ai honua,” woman who devours the land. She is also called Madame Pele or Tutu Pele. 

“I usually use Tutu Pele because she’s an ancestor to me and one of our family aumakua, or family guardian, so we have great respect for her,” said Lilikala Kame‘eleihiwa, a professor at the Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies on the University of Hawaii’s Manoa campus. “We have a personal relationship with Pele” ... 

Kame‘eleihiwa said those who feel they have a relationship to Pele may put markers at the boundaries of their property hoping she will spare it. Others may clean out their homes and leave hookupu, or gifts, for her ... 

Kame‘eleihiwa was on her way to Tahiti this weekend to visit the birthplace of Pele, where she planned to offer a prayer and a gift of Hawaiian salt.

My mind kept on returning to this article throughout the week leading up to Shavuos. I started musing on various themes which overlapped the Hawaiian belief in Pele's revelation at Kilauea, and our conviction in Hashem's revelation at Sinai (the term "lehavdil" should be inserted throughout this blog post).

I decided to write a blog post about three of these musings. 

Fear of Hashem vs. Fear of Pele

Unlike many of my Jewish and non-Jewish friends, I was not raised with any superstitious beliefs. Neither of my parents are superstitious, and neither were their parents - at least, not that I know of. Judging by the stories I hear from my friends about their upbringings, I really dodged the bullet on this one.

There are only two incidents in my memory of any of my close family members exhibiting superstitious beliefs, and both of them stemmed from the same superstition: Pele's Curse. According to Wikipedia:

Pele's Curse is the belief that anything natively Hawaiian, such as sand, rock, or pumice, will effect bad luck on whoever takes it away from Hawaii. The myth has caught on, told as if it were an original Hawaiian taboo, and every year countless tourists send these back in order to escape the awful luck that Pele has caused them.

I first heard about this when I was a kid, when I traveled to the Big Island with my grandfather. We went on a couple of hikes around the crater at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and when we were about to leave I showed him a cool volcanic rock I found, that I planned on taking home as a souvenir. "Leave that here" he said, "or Pele will bring bad luck." I don't remember the dialogue exactly, but I probably asked him who Pele was, and he probably told me that she is the volcano goddess, and that she doesn't let people remove rocks from her mountain.

But my grandfather didn't stop there. He proceeded to tell me a story about a friend of his who tried taking volcanic rock back home with him after a hike near a volcano. He was on his way back to his car but was stopped by none other than Pele's daemonic white dog, who blocked the path and wouldn't let him pass. Lo and behold, when he emptied his pockets of the rocks, the dog left him alone. 

Although I was not a superstitious child, and didn't believe my grandfather's tale, he definitely did (since he was eager to believe things like this), and because of this, he made me leave the rocks behind. 

Fast-forward 15-20 years later. My family visited the Big Island and went to that same national park. This time I noticed something that was probably there when I was a kid, but escaped my attention: food offerings to Pele (which I now know are called "hookupu"), placed near the crater. I have no idea who brought these offerings, and whether they did so out of custom, out of religious belief, or out of some mixture of the two. 

When we were about to leave, I picked up a volcanic rock to take home as a souvenir. My mom said something to the effect of, "You can't take that home. It's bad luck." I was shocked. This was the first time I had ever heard my mom utter anything even remotely superstitious. Since this was years after we had all converted to Judaism, and since my mom was well aware of the Torah's stance on avodah zarah and superstition, I called her out on it, asking if she really believed in what she said. As though shaking off a sorcerer's spell, she immediately realized the stupidity in what she had said, and then proceeded to give me a different rationale for leaving the rock behind - namely, that it's illegal to take rocks from a U.S. national park. 

I think it's safe to say that neither my mom nor my grandfather actually believed in Pele. My mom certainly didn't harbor this belief, and even my grandfather - a quasi-lapsed Catholic - probably wouldn't admit to harboring such a belief, if asked directly. And yet, both of them had an instinctive fear at the prospect of violating this Hawaiian taboo. In my grandfather's case this fear had melded with his own quirky view of the way the world works: everyone needs to visit Hawaii, everyone should start their own business, everything in Reader's Digest is 100%, bee honey cures every type of malady, and if you take volcanic rocks home, Pele will bring bad luck, or send her daemon dog to stop you. In my mom's case, the fear manifested as the vestige of a taboo that was probably inculcated into her by my grandfather when she was just a child. 

Thinking about this primitive "fear of Pele" - as displayed by my grandfather and my mother in a mild form, and by the native Hawaiians (like Lilikala Kame‘eleihiwa of the article) in an extreme form - led me to associate to a different type of fear: the yiras Hashem (fear of God) at Sinai: 

The entire people saw the thunder and the flames, the sound of the shofar, and the smoking mountain; the people saw and trembled and stood from afar. They said to Moshe: "You speak to us and we shall hear; let God not speak to us lest we die."

Moshe said to the people: "Do not fear (אַל תִּירָאוּ), for in order to elevate you has God come; so that the fear of Him shall be upon your faces (וּבַעֲבוּר תִּהְיֶה יִרְאָתוֹ עַל פְּנֵיכֶם), so that you shall not sin." The people stood from afar and Moshe approached the thick cloud where God was. 

This contradiction is impossible to ignore: first Moshe tells them "do not fear" but then he says that "the fear of Him shall be upon your faces"! 

The answer is clear: there must be two different types of fear: one which Moshe urged Bnei Yisrael not to have, and the other which was one of the very reasons why the entire revelation at Sinai took place. What are these two types of fear?

The first type of fear is a primal, instinctive, animalistic reaction - in this case, Bnei Yisrael's fear that they were going to die. Rationally speaking, this type of fear was misplaced. They knew that Hashem was not planning on killing them, and that as long as they followed His instructions and stayed within the boundaries, they had nothing to be afraid for their lives. Moshe pointed this out to them, saying: "Do not fear, for in order to elevate you has God come." This injunction highlights their mistaken underlying premise. It is as if he said to them: "I understand that you are afraid, but this fear that you are currently experiencing does not reflect the reality of the situation. You might feel that you are in danger, but in actuality, the opposite is true: you are being elevated. But in order for this elevation to take place, you must see through the falsehood of your primal fear."

The second type of fear is the yiras Hashem which the Sinai experience was intended to instill in the nation of Israel. This is the same yiras Hashem which was subsequently given as a commandment in the Torah, which Moshe later says is "the only thing Hashem asks of you." This yiras Hashem is eloquently defined by the Rambam in the Mishneh Torah alongside his definition of ahavas Hashem (love of God):

What is the way of loving and fearing God? When a person contemplates His great and wondrous works and creations and sees from them His infinite and incomparable wisdom, he immediately loves, praises, and extols and is filled with a great desire to know the Great Name, as David said: “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God” (Psalms 42:3).  

And when he reflects on these same principles in relation to himself, he immediately recoils back with fear and dread, and knows that he is a small, insignificant, unenlightened creature standing with a frail and puny mind in the presence of Perfect Knowledge, as David said: “[When I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and stars that you have set in place, I exclaim,] ‘What is frail man that You should notice him, [and the son of mortal man that You should take note of him?’]” (Psalms 8:4-5).

This is the type of fear that Moshe told Bnei Yisrael to internalize. According to the pesukim cited above, the Sinai experience was not intended solely in order to provide experiential and historical evidence for Mosaic prophecy. It was also intended to create a foundational national experience of yiras Hashem - the awareness of man's status as a frail creature who forms an infinitesimally small part of the universe that Hashem created. This yirah will, in turn, prevent man from sinning. This can happen on three levels:

Level #1 - Fear of Punishment: On the most elementary level, a person will be afraid of Divine punishment - whatever his or her conception of that may be. Having seen, heard, and experienced the awesome and terrifying Revelation of the Shechinah at Sinai, he or she will think twice before violating God's law. Even if the person's grasp of Divine punishment is immature, incomplete, or flawed, it will at least be rooted in the historical reality of the event at Sinai, when Hashem demonstrated His might to the entire people. 

Level #2 - Fear of Consequences: On a more mature level, this type of yiras Hashem - rooted in the awareness that we live in a world governed by rational, lawful principles of cause and effect - will lead to a development of a chochmah-centered approach to decision-making based on anticipation of natural consequences. This is the type of yiras Hashem that Shlomo is referring to when he says: "Fear of Hashem is the discipline of wisdom" (Mishlei 15:33). 

Level #3 - Awe of Hashem: On the highest level, this type of yiras Hashem will lead to the awe of the Creator - as defined by the Rambam in the halacha cited above - which will naturally give way to ahavas Hashem via the continued pursuit of chochmah.

Now, compare the two fears, experienced by my avos (forefathers) on both sides of my family: the fear of Pele as experienced my grandfather, and the fear of Hashem as experienced by my ancestors who stood at Sinai. The fear of Pele is a primitive, superstitious, detrimental fear rooted in childish imaginations and psychological insecurities, whereas the fear of Hashem is a mature, reality-based, developmentally beneficial fear rooted in the intellectual apprehension of the laws of nature, and their Author.

As I thought about these two mountains - Kilauea and Sinai - and the two deities (lehavdil) who were feared and revered by their respective nations, I became filled with a deep gratitude to Hashem for enabling me to join the Jewish people and to embrace a chochmah-centered life governed by the Torah regimen.

And this past Shavuos, "zman matan Toraseinu" ("the time of the giving of our Torah"), I truly meant it when I thanked Hashem "she'hechyeanu, v'kiyemanu, ve'higiyanu la'zman ha'zeh" ("for giving us life, for preserving us, and for enabling us to reach this time").

You Saw No Image

In thinking about Kilauea vs. Sinai, I couldn't help but associate to another phenomenon: the seeing of a "divine image" in the fire of the mountain. Take a look at the picture at the beginning of this article. This photo gained notoriety because people claim to see the likeness of Pele in the eruption. Similarly, Hawaiians believed that "[Pele's] body is the lava and steam that comes from the volcano" (Wikipedia). This article and this video show that Pele sightings are as common today as they were in ancient times. 

Compare this with Moshe Rabbeinu's recap of the Revelation at Sinai to Bnei Yisrael before his passing:

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. 

But you shall greatly beware for your souls, for you did not see any likeness on the day Hashem spoke to you at Horeb, from the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make yourselves a carved image, a likeness of any shape; a form of a male or a female; a form of any animal on the earth; a form of any winged bird that flies in the heaven; a form of anything that creeps on the ground, a form of any fish that is in the water under the earth; and lest you raise your eyes to heaven and you see the sun, and the moon, and the stars - the entire legion of heaven - and you be drawn away and bow to them and worship them, which Hashem, your God, has apportioned to all the peoples under the entire heaven! But Hashem has taken you and withdrawn you from the iron crucible, from Egypt, to be a nation of heritage for Him, as this very day.

Moshe Rabbeinu knew how difficult it would be for the recently liberated slave nation to relate to a completely non-physical God, especially after having been steeped for two centuries in Egyptian idolatry - with all of its  superstitious beliefs, occult practices, and anthropomorphic deities. This is why, in his parting speech to Bnei Yisrael, he emphasized again and again - as we must believe that he did throughout all the 40 years in the Wilderness - that they and their parents did not see any image or likeness in the conflagration of Sinai. They heard the Divine voice proclaim the Ten Declarations, but they did not see the Divine, because the Divine has no image or likeness.

Compare this to a statement from a local Hawaiian: "Pele is very real to us ... She is a living god. You can see her, you can feel her, you can taste her, you can smell her." This is a far cry from what we mean when we describe Hashem as "a living God," which we intend as an allegory, emphasizing again and again that Hashem is not physical, has no physical qualities, and is not comparable in any way to anything physical. The Rambam codifies this in the Mishneh Torah:

It is explicitly stated in the Torah and in the Prophets that the Holy One, Blessed is He, is neither a body nor a corporeal form, as it is stated, “For Hashem, your God, is the God in the heavens above and on the earth below” (Devarim 4:39), and a body cannot be in two places. It is also stated, “For you did not see any image” (Devarim 4:15), and it is stated, “To whom can you compare Me that I should be equal?” (Yishaya 40:25), and if He were a body, He would be comparable to other bodies ... 

Once it has been clearly demonstrated that He is not a body or a material form, it is also clear that He is not subject to bodily occurrences: neither combination nor separation, neither place nor measure, neither ascent nor descent, neither right nor left, neither front nor back, neither sitting nor standing. And He doesn’t exist in time, such that He would have a beginning, an end, or an age. And He does not change, for there is nothing that can cause Him to change. 

And He has neither death nor life like the life of a physical being, neither foolishness nor wisdom like the wisdom of a wise man, neither sleep nor waking up, neither anger nor jesting, neither happiness nor sadness, neither silence nor speech like human speech. Thus, the Sages declared: On High there is neither sitting nor standing, neither separation nor connection. 

Since this is so, all such [descriptions] and the like that are stated in the Torah and in the words of the prophets – all of these are metaphor and allegory. For example, “He who sits in heavens shall laugh” (Tehilim 2:4), “They angered Me with their emptiness” (Devarim 33:21), and “Hashem rejoiced” (ibid. 28:63) and the like – concerning all of these statements, the Sages said: The Torah speaks in the language of man. This is the meaning of [the rhetorical statement], “Am I the One whom they have angered?” (Yirmiyahu 7:19). Behold, it is stated: “I am Hashem, I have not changed” (Malachi 3:16). If He were sometimes angry and sometimes happy, He would change. All of these things only occur in dark and lowly bodies, those who dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is dust. But He, Blessed is He, is exalted above all of this.

Moshe also emphasized how quickly such misapprehensions can spiral out of control. The mistake of thinking one has perceived a Divine likeness leads to the practice of making representations of the Divine, which will ultimately result in worshiping the physical. So powerful is man's need to "concretize the metaphysical" (as I wrote about in my post entitled Ayn Rand, Art, and Avodah Zarah) that what begins as an innocent misperception can quickly devolve into primitive paganism, and the loss of the abstract and tenuous concept of a totally non-physical Creator.

We live in a scientific era, in which even the most unsophisticated people are at least aware of the scientific paradigm - that the universe operates in a manner of rational, lawful principles cause and effect, which can be studied, understood, and even harnessed. But imagine a time before science and think about how this phenomenon of "Pele sightings" precludes the emergence of a scientific worldview. Allow me to paint a picture of the two paradigms:

When an ancient Jew would witness a volcanic eruption, he would say: "Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, Who does the work of creation (oseh maaseh bereishis)" This berachah would stem from and reinforce the recognition that nature isn't God, but is a melachah ("craft" or "product of design") created by God, which operates in accordance with the wondrous lawfulness of the "King (i.e. law giver and law enforcer) of the universe." The character of this recognition was expressed by David ha'Melech exclamation: "How great are Your works, Hashem! With wisdom You made them all; the earth is full of Your creations" (Tehilim 104:24). This orientation towards nature is conducive to the development of a scientific, chochmah-seeking worldview.

In contrast, when an ancient Hawaiian would witness a volcanic eruption, what would he say? "Look! It's Pele's hair!" "Oh no! I can see Pele's angry face!" "The lava flowing towards my land is Pele reaching out for me. Quick! I need to give her an offering to consume so that she doesn't destroy my home!" No chochmah, no lawfulness, no seeking of the underlying unity of causality in nature. Nothing but imagination and fantasy, fueled by fear and insecurity.

Divine Revelation

The last musing I had led me to think about what a "divine revelation" would mean to a religious Hawaiian vs. a religious Jew.

The Jewish view of revelation is expressed in the text of the Shofros berachah on Rosh ha'Shanah:

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. 

For us, revelation is the means by which the Creator of the universe gave us (to quote the Ralbag's introduction to Torah) "a regimen that brings those who practice it properly to true success (i.e. knowledge of Hashem to the extent that this is humanly possible)." Hashem's revelation at Sinai provided the Jewish people, and mankind as a whole, with a system of laws, ethical guidelines, and ideas which enable us to create a society governed by the principles of chesed (kindness), tzedakah (righteousness), and mishpat (justice), devoted to the pursuit of knowledge and human perfection.

For the ancient Hawaiian, a revelation of Pele has nothing to do with chesed, tzedakah, mishpat, knowledge, or human perfection. Pele's revelation was nothing but an uncertain glimpse into the whims of a capricious deity.

Conclusion

When I am called up to the Torah, they call me up as "_____ ben Avraham Avinu." As the Rambam explains in his letter to Ovadiah ha'Ger, all converts are described as "the children of Avraham Avinu" not because Avraham was our biological ancestor, but because he is our ideological progenitor.

When I think about my non-Jewish grandfather and his cultural heritage and compare that to my Jewish "father" of Avraham Avinu and his cultural heritage, am moved to say: "Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, Who chose us from among the peoples, and gave us His Torah. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who gives the Torah."

Parashas Shoftim: How to Say Tehilim for the Sick Without Violating Halacha

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

Artwork: Devout Invocation, by David Palumbo
(Note: If this is what you think you're doing when you say Tehilm, then you're doing it wrong.)

Parashas Shoftim: How to Tehilim for the Sick Without Violating Halacha

Preface

Broadly speaking, there are two ways to say Tehilim (Psalms) for the sick: one which is halachically permitted and in line with Hashem's will, and the other which is halachically prohibited and is considered by Hashem to be an "abomination."

In Parashas Shoftim Moshe Rabbeinu warns Bnei Yisrael:

When you come to the Land that Hashem, your God, gives you, you shall not learn to act according to the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you one who causes his son or daughter to pass through the fire, a kosem kesamim (diviner), a meonein (astrologer), a menachesh (omen-reader), a mechashef (sorcerer), a chover chaver (one who recites incantations), one who inquires of Ov or Yidoni, or one who consults the dead. For anyone who does these is an abomination of Hashem, and because of these abominations Hashem, your God, banishes [the nations] from before you. You shall be whole with Hashem, your God. For these nations that you are possessing - they hearken to astrologers and diviners; but as for you - not so has Hashem, your God, given for you. (Devarim 18:9-14)

The Torah prohibition we will be discussing is chover chaver with a focus on its application to reciting Tehilim for the sick. In Part I we will examine the Sefer ha'Chinuch's treatment of the topic. In Part II we will summarize the various halacha l'maaseh (practical halacha) views.

Part I: Sefer ha'Chinuch on Chover Chaver

The Sefer ha'Chinuch [1] defines chover chaver as follows:

We are prohibited from making incantations about any matter. By this we are referring to a person who will recite words and tell people that those words cause benefit or harm in a certain matter. About this it is stated, “There shall not be found among you … a speaker of incantations” (Devarim 18:10-11). The Sifri says: “whether one charms a snake or a scorpion,” meaning to say, one who recites words upon them so that they will not bite him – according to his view. So too, if one recites words over an affliction in order to gain relief from the pain, etc.

According to this definition it would seem that if a person recites Tehilim and believes that the words themselves will have a beneficial effect on a choleh (sick person), then this would be a violation of chover chaver. 

The Sefer ha'Chinuch anticipates this question and addresses it head-on by citing a Gemara which ostensibly endorses the practice of reciting Tehilim in order to save a person from harm:

Now perhaps, my son, you will pose a question to me from what we read in the second chapter of the Talmud tractate Shevuos (15b): 

"The psalm against afflictions is with lutes and harps; and one says, 'He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High,' until 'For You, Hashem, are my refuge' (Tehilim 91); then he says, 'Hashem, how many are my foes,' until 'Salvation belongs to Hashem' (ibid. 3)." 

In other words, [the Talmud seems to indicate that] the recitation of these psalms works to provide protection from harm. And it was stated in the tractate Berachos (3a): "R. Yehoshua ben Levi would say these verses before going to bed [to protect himself from harm]."

The Sefer ha'Chinuch answers this difficulty by making a distinction. In doing so, he instructs us in how to say Tehilim in a manner which has a beneficial effect on our physical well-being without straying into chover chaver territory:

However, this matter is not similar to the matter of chover chaver that we mentioned, God forbid! Long ago, the Sages of blessed memory said in this regard (Shevuos 15b): "It is forbidden to heal oneself with words of Torah." Yet they mentioned to say these psalms since they contain words that inspire the soul that knows them to shelter in Hashem, to take security in Him, to establish a reverent fear of Him firmly in his heart, and to rely on His kindness and goodness. As a result of this inspiration, he will be protected from every harm, without a doubt. 

Therein lies the answer. If a person says Tehilim, believing that the words themselves will have a beneficial effect on the physical world, then - according to the Sefer ha'Chinuch - he or she has violated the Torah prohibition of chover chaver, and is considered on the basis of that act to be an abomination to Hashem, as the Torah unequivocally states: "for anyone who does these is an abomination of Hashem." However, if a person recites Tehilim, understands the meaning of what he is saying, and is inspired to trust, fear, and rely on Hashem, then he will not be in violation of halacha, and he will be protected from all harm.

The Sefer ha'Chinuch reinforces this distinction by quoting the Gemara's formulation of this same question, and the answer given there, which he explains in accordance with his view:

This is what was answered in the Talmud in this regard, for it was asked there: "But how could R. Yehoshua do this (i.e. recite these chapters of psalms against afflictions) when R. Yehoshua, himself, said it is forbidden to heal oneself with words of Torah?!" and the reply was given: "to protect is different." In other words, the Torah did not forbid a person to say words of Torah so as to inspire his soul in a good direction, so that this merit should shield him to protect him [but rather, the Torah only prohibited the recitation of words of Torah in order to heal].

The Rambam [2] codifies this distinction as halacha:

One who recites an incantation over a bodily affliction and reads a verse from the Torah, and likewise one who reads [Torah] over an infant so that he not be frightened, and one who places a Torah Scroll or tefilin on a child so that he will sleep – it is not enough that such people are included among the chovrim (incantation-sayers) and menachashim (omen-readers), but they [are also] included among the kofrim ba’Torah (the deniers of Torah), for they utilize words of Torah as remedies for the body, whereas they are truly only remedies for the soul, as it is stated, “[the words of Torah] shall be life for your soul” (Mishlei 3:22). But if a healthy person reads Scriptural verses and chapters from Tehilim so that the merit of their reading will protect him and save him from suffering and harm, this is permissible. 

It is reasonable to assume that the permissible type of Tehilim reading ("so that the merit of their reading will protect him") qualifies as using words of Torah as "remedies for the soul," as described by the Sefer ha'Chinuch. In other words, if a person reads Tehilim with the intention of "inspiring his soul in a good direction" and making an effort to internalize what he reads, then this will bring him merit, and save him from suffering and harm. 

Part II: Practical Halacha

While it is usually the policy of this blog to stay away from commenting on matters of halacha l'maaseh, I fear that some will read this post and feel at a loss about whether their own way of saying Tehilim constitutes a violation of halacha. They would then either cease saying Tehilim altogether, which would be detrimental insofar as this would deprive them of a means of connecting to Hashem, or else they would continue saying Tehilim, thereby running the risk of violating a Torah prohibition.

Thankfully, I found a tshuvah (responsa) by the Tzitz Eliezer [3] which summarizes six different views on how to (and how not to) recite Tehilim, in practice. Here is my summary of his summaries (i.e. I didn't go back and learn through all of the primary sources; I just paraphrased the conclusions as stated in his tshuvah). I've appended the psak (ruling) of my Rosh ha'Yeshiva to the end of this list, since this is the view I follow, and since it wasn't mentioned by the Tzitz Eliezer:

(1) Rambam / Shulchan Aruch [4]: It is prohibited to read Tehilim - indeed, any pesukim from Tanach - for the sake of healing a choleh, but it is permissible for a healthy person to read pesukim so that the merit of their reading will protect him (i.e. the healthy person) from harm.

(2) Meiri [5]: The recitation of Tehilim for healing is only prohibited if it is being relied upon as the primary remedy, but if the choleh is also taking medicine or undergoing medical treatment, then it is permissible to supplement this medical care with the recitation of Tehilim. 

(3) Maharsha [6] / Toras Chayim [7]: The recitation of Tehilim for healing is only prohibited if they are recited in the manner of an incantation, but if one uses Tehilim as a vehicle of tefilah (prayer) or learns Torah for the sake of learning, and requests from Hashem that the merit of this tefilah or learning should heal a choleh, then this is permitted. [8]

(4) Ritva [9] / Ohr Zarua [10] / Rabbeinu Yeshaya [11]: The recitation of Tehilim for healing is only prohibited if there is a physically manifest bodily affliction, but to relieve a non-manifest pain (e.g. a headache) is permitted. 

(5) Tzitz Eliezer #1: The recitation of Tehilim for healing is only prohibited if one selects specific Tehilim (or pesukim to say), but if one chooses Tehilim at random or follows one's normal routine (e.g. reciting Tehilim daily), then this is permitted.

(6) Tzitz Eliezer #2: The recitation of Tehilim for healing is only prohibited if said exclusively for a choleh, but if it is also said for the sake of those who are healthy, then this is permitted, since it demonstrates that the Tehilim are being said for the sake of merit and protection, as the Sefer ha'Chinuch described. 

(7) My Rosh ha'Yeshiva [12]: The recitation of Tehilim for healing is only prohibited if only Tehilim (and/or pesukim) are recited, but if one adds a tefilah (e.g. Mi she'Beirach) before or after the Tehilim, then this is permissible, since in this case, one is using the tefilah as a vehicle of beseeching God - as opposed to relying on the words of the Tehilim themselves. 

I hope that this list provides solace and guidance for those who choose to recite Tehilim for the sake of healing. While I advise those who plan on reciting Tehilim for the sick to consult their own posek (halachic decisor), that the Tzitz Eliezer can serve as a backup option for those who have not yet asked a shaila (halachic inquiry).

Concluding Thoughts

I think that the widespread practice of saying Tehilim for the sick is a good thing. I believe that most people relate to Tehilim exactly as they relate to tefilah, and that their recitation of Tehilim for the sick is in line with the view of the Maharsha and Toras Chaim cited above. 

Nevertheless, I think it is also important for people to be aware of the halachic and spiritual perils of relating to the recitation of Tehilim for the sick in the wrong way. There are definitely people out there who mindlessly recite Tehilim, in the manner of an incantation, without any idea what they're saying, and who relate to the Tehilim as a sort of magic charm. These are the people whom the Rambam condemned, and about whom Chazal said: "one who says an incantation over a wound has no portion in the World to Come" (Shevuos 15b; Sanhedrin 90a).

I believe it is important for all people - especially those just described - to be educated about the topic of chover chaver and to be informed of the Sefer ha'Chinuch's method of using Tehilim as a legitimate way to become closer to Hashem, in order to take refuge "in the [protective] shade of the Almighty" (Tehilim 91:1).

[1] Sefer ha'Chinuch, Mitzvah #512

[2] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 11:6. It should be noted that whereas the Sefer ha'Chinuch defines chover chaver as "a person who will recite words and tell people that those words cause benefit or harm in a certain matter," the Rambam defines it as "a person who speaks words which do not belong to any language and have no meaning, but he – in his foolishness – imagines that those words produce a beneficial effect." And yet, the Rambam writes in our halacha that one who uses words of Torah to heal is included in the category of chover chaver. 

[3] Ha'Rav Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg, Tzitz Eliezer 17:30 

[4] Ha'Rav Yosef Karo, Shulchan Aruch: Yoreh Deah 179:8

[5] Rabbeinu Menachem ben Shlomo Meiri, Beis ha'Bechirah: Shabbos 67a

[6] Ha'Rav Shmuel Eidels (Maharsha), Chidushei Aggados: Shabbos 67a

[7] Ha'Rav Abraham Hayyim ben ha'Rav Naftali Tzvi Hirsch Schor, Toras Chaim: Shevuos 15b

[8] The Tzitz Eliezer learns that this is also the view of the Sefer ha'Chinuch, who only differentiated between the manner in which the Tehilim are being said, but didn't distinguish between a healthy person and a sick person.

[9] Rabbeinu Yom Tov ben Avraham Asevilli (Ritva), citation not provided by the Tzitz Eliezer

[10] Rabbeinu Yitzchak ben Moshe (Ohr Zarua / Riaz), citation not provided by the Tzitz Eliezer

[11] Rabbeinu Yeshaya di Trani (I think?), citation not provided by the Tzitz Eliezer

[12] I heard this verbally, but do not know whether an audio or written source is available. However, the Tzitz Eliezer cited the Mishnas Yaakov as suggesting an answer along these lines.