Mishlei 17:8 - Blinded by Bribes

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

Artwork: Lion's Eye Diamond, by Lindsey Look

Mishlei 17:8 - Blinded by Bribes

משלי יז:ח

אֶבֶן חֵן הַשֹּׁחַד בְּעֵינֵי בְעָלָיו אֶל כָּל אֲשֶׁר יִפְנֶה יַשְׂכִּיל:

Mishlei 17:8

A bribe is a charming gem in the eyes of its owner; wherever he turns he will succeed. 

The major questions on this pasuk are:

(1) In what sense is a bribe considered to be "a charming gem in the eyes of its owner? This is clearly a mashal (metaphor). What is the nimshal (i.e. what does the metaphor represent)? And why does the pasuk specify "in the eyes of its owner"? Why not just say"a bribe is a charming gem"?

(2) Who is "its owner"? The term "owner" can refer either to the giver of the bribe or to the recipient of the bribe. 

(3) How can Shlomo ha'Melech say "wherever he turns he will succeed"? Regardless of whether this is referring to the giver or receiver of the bribe, the statement is patently false. Just do a search on Google news for the term "bribery" and you'll see countless examples of individuals whose success was cut short because of their involvement in bribery. Moreover, even if Shlomo's statement were true, is he advocating bribery? Doesn't the Torah prohibit and condemn bribery, saying: "you shall not accept a bribe, for the bribe will blind the eyes of the wise and corrupt principles of justice" (Devarim 16:19)?

[Time to think! You'll get way more out of this blog post if you work on the pasuk yourself before reading what I have to say. Read on when ready.]

Here's my four-sentence summary of the main idea:

When a bribe is effective, it allows a person to sidestep or shortcut the system in order to obtain a benefit or avoid a consequence or cost. Ironically, the bribe-giver can easily become charmed and blinded by his own bribe – charmed into thinking he can succeed wherever he turns, and blinded to the true probabilities of success and failure. The more he relies on bribes to fuel his rise to “success,” the more reckless he will be in using them. Ultimately, the habitual bribe-giver will fall prey to the very types of systemic consequences he seeks to avoid. 

This pasuk utilizes a stylistic maneuver which Shlomo ha'Melech utilzes from time to time, namely, stating the fool's perspective as if it is reality. It is as if our pasuk says: "A bribe is a charming gem in the eyes of its owner [in that it causes him to believe that] wherever he turns he will succeed." I'd quote more examples of this from elsewhere in Mishlei, but I don't want to spoil future Mishlei posts.

The last time I taught this pasuk in class, a student of mine came up with another way to read this pasuk which leads to the same idea. She moved the asnachta (i.e. the semi-colon) so that the pasuk reads: "A bribe is a charming gem; in the eyes of its owner, wherever he turns he will succeed." I thought this was an elegant interpretive solution.

"I Ordered a Tall, Not a Grande!"

This blog post was written back in my graduate school days, and was originally published in July of 2009. I've kept "real-world 'aha!' moment" posts like this to a minimum on this blog, but I decided to post this one to gauge whether it's something I should write more of this summer.

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

"I Ordered a Tall, Not a Grande!"

Last week Wednesday I woke up at 5:00am to finish an assignment for school. As usual, I enjoyed one-and-a-half mugs of Starbucks Verona coffee, made with a French Press. But by the time I got into Penn Station at 9:45am, the caffeine had started to wear off, and I knew I needed a little something extra to stay alert in class. I decided to stop by the Starbucks in Penn Station to remedy the situation.

I was aware that ordering coffee would load me up with more caffeine than I could handle, so I decided on my favorite non-coffee drink: a tall, no syrup, skinny green tea latte. I figured it was just what I needed: a hot drink with minimal sweetness and minimal caffeine. I specifically ordered a tall (12 fl. oz.) rather than a grande (16 fl. oz.) because (a) I wasn’t in the mood to drink such a large quantity of a sweet beverage, (b) it wasn't worth consuming the extra calories, and (c) I didn’t want that much liquid sloshing around in me for the remaining 40 minutes of traveling to school.

As you might imagine, the Starbucks in Penn Station is extremely busy. Although they are usually quite professional, they messed up my order and gave me a grande green tea latte instead of a tall. I told the barista, “I ordered a tall, not a grande,” but she said, “Go ahead and take it. It was our mistake, so your drink is on the house.” I protested, but she shook her head and told me that it would take a while to prepare a new drink, and they’d have to throw this one away anyway. So I took it.

Then something unexpected happened. As I started to drink, I noticed my desire slowly changing. In spite of my initial desire for a tall and my three reasons for rejecting the grande, I sensed my appetite sneakily adapting itself to the new reality of the larger beverage in front of me. I didn’t want to want the grande, but my desire didn’t obey my will! 

Not only did my desire increase, but I started to automatically make excuses for it, saying things like: “Wow, you were lucky to pay for a tall and get a grande! How can you let this drink go to waste? Come on – it’s not so bad if you just finish the drink. So what if it wasn't in line with your original plan?” I started to think in terms of “finishing the drink is the right thing to do” instead of “finishing the drink is something I want to do.”

My desire continued to grow as I drank more, and my ability to exercise my free will continued to weaken. Finally, as I crossed the tall/grande threshold of beverage consumption, I forced myself to get up, to walk over to a trash bin, and to throw away the remaining 4 fl. oz. of the drink in order to follow through with my initial decision. After vanquishing the "grande demon," I snapped out of my green tea trance and was happy with my decision.

Afterwards, as I sat on the subway, I began to wonder how often something like this happens to us without our realizing it. How often do we start out with little or no desire, end up into a situation where desire is expected or contextually appropriate, and our desire changes to fit into the pre-established expectation?

This reminded me of a pair of experiments I heard about, conducted by Brian Wansink. The following is a summary of the experiments and their findings, excerpted from the book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (pp.43-44):

In many situations, people put themselves into an "automatic pilot" mode, in which they are not actively paying attention to the task at hand ... Eating turns out to be one of the most mindless activities we do. Many of us simply eat whatever is put in front of us. That is why even massive bowls of cashews are likely to be consumed completely, regardless of the quality of the food that is soon to be arriving.

The same is true of popcorn - even stale popcorn. A few years ago, Brian Wansink and his colleagues ran an experiment in a Chicago movie theater in which the moviegoers found themselves with a free bucket of stale popcorn. (It had been popped five days earlier and stored so as to ensure that it would actually squeak when eaten.) People were not specifically informed of its staleness, but they didn't like the popcorn. As one moviegoer said, "It was like eating Styrofoam packing peanuts." In the experiment half of the moviegoers received a big bucket of popcorn and half received a medium-sized bucket. On average, recipients of the big bucket ate about 53 percent more popcorn - even though they didn't really like it. After the movie, Wansink asked the recipients of the big bucket whether they might have eaten more because of the size of their bucket. Most denied the possibility, saying, "Things like that don't trick me." But they were wrong.

The same is true of soup. In another Wansink masterpiece (2006), people sat down to a large bowl of Campbell's tomato soup and were told to eat as much as they wanted. Unbeknownst to them, the soup bowls were designed to refill themselves (with empty bottoms connected to machinery beneath the table). No matter how much soup subjects ate, the bowl never emptied. Many people just kept eating, not paying attention to the fact that they were really eating a great deal of soup, until the experiment was (mercifully) ended. Large plates and packages mean more eating; they are a form of choice architecture, and they work as minor nudges.

Many of us were told as children, "Your eyes are bigger than your stomach." Well, sometimes the stomach rises to meet the demands of the eyes. The Sages concisely identified this phenomenon in their statement (Tanchuma 15): 

The heart and the eyes are the spies of the body, and are responsible for a person's sins. The eyes see, the heart desires, and the limbs complete the act.

That pattern is exactly what happened to me: my eyes saw the grande, my desires changed, and my body began to carry out my newly awakened desire. 

So next time you order a tall and they give you a grande, ask yourself whether you really want to finish it, or whether you're finishing it because your appetites have caused you to rationalize that this is the "right" thing to do.

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 Behaalosecha: Moshe's View of Miracles

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

Artwork: Flamewake Phoenix, by Min Yum
This is NOT the type of bird-meat that Hashem would provide. 

Parashas Behaalosecha: Moshe's View of Miracles

Introduction

The episode in the wilderness known as Kivros ha'Taavah (the Graves of Desire) begins with Bnei Yisrael's craving for meat, instigated by the Erev Rav (Mixed Multitude):

The multitude that was among them cultivated a craving, and the Children of Israel also wept once more, and said: "Who will feed us meat? We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt free of charge: the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic. But now, our life is parched, there is nothing; we have nothing to anticipate but the mahn!" (Bamidbar 11:4-6)

Moshe Rabbeinu responds to their outcry in an uncharacteristically agitated manner:

Moshe said to Hashem: "Why have You done evil to Your servant? Why have I not found favor in Your eyes, that You place the burden of this entire people upon me? Did I conceive this entire people or did I give birth to it, that You say to me, 'Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse carries a suckling, to the Land that You swore to its forefathers'? Where shall I get meat to give to this entire people when they weep to me, saying, 'Give us meat that we may eat'? I alone cannot carry this entire nation, for it is too heavy for me! And if this is how You deal with me, then kill me now - if I have found favor in Your eyes - and let me not see my badness!" (ibid. 11:11-15)

Clearly there is a LOT to understand here. A full analysis of Moshe's reaction is beyond the scope of this blog post. I refer you to Rav Soloveitchik's shiur (available here in audio and here as a transcript). In this post I intend to focus only on Moshe's dialogue with Hashem regarding Bnei  Yisrael's demand for meat.

The Question

After instructing Moshe to gather 70 elders to help him bear the burden of leadership, Hashem tells Moshe how He intends to address Bnei Yisrael's demand for meat:

[Hashem said to Moshe:] "To the people you shall say: 'Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat, for you have wept in the ears of Hashem, saying: Who will feed us meat? for it was better for us in Egypt! So Hashem will give you meat and you will eat. Not for one day shall you eat, nor for two days, nor for five days, nor for ten days, nor for twenty days. Until an entire month of days, until it comes out of your nose, and becomes nauseating to you, because you have rejected Hashem Who is in your midst, and you have wept before Him, saying: 'Why did we leave Egypt?'" (ibid. 11:18-20)

Hashem responds by telling Moshe to inform Bnei Yisrael that He will provide them with more meat than they can handle, as a way of rebuking them for their underlying desire to return to Egypt. One might expect Moshe to accept this without any problems. Instead, he bemoans the logistics of Hashem's plan:

Moshe said: "Six hundred thousand foot-soldiers are the people in whose midst I am, yet You say I shall give them meat, and they shall eat for a month of days?! Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them? Or if all the fish of the sea will be gathered for them, would it suffice for them?" (ibid. 11:21-22)

On the surface it seems as though Moshe doubts Hashem's ability to miraculously provide meat! This reading of Moshe's words is supported by Hashem response to Moshe's question:

Hashem said to Moshe: "Is the hand of Hashem limited? Now you will see whether My word comes to pass or not!" (ibid. 11:23)

Hashem then provides meat by causing the wind to blow quail from the sea: "A wind went forth from Hashem and blew quail from the sea and spread them over the camp, a day's journey this way and a day's journey that way, all around the camp, two cubits above the face of the earth" (ibid. 11:31-32).

This exchange between Moshe and Hashem is problematic. The pesukim make it sound as though Moshe doubted Hashem's ability to provide meat for Bnei Yisrael. Our question is: What was Moshe thinking? After all, this is Moshe Rabbeinu we're talking about - the greatest navi who ever existed, through whom Hashem performed the miraculous Ten Plagues, the splitting of the sea, the mahn in the Wilderness, and a number of other miracles and wonders. How could he express incredulity about Hashem's ability to perform this simple miracle of providing meat for the nation?

The Ran's Answer

The Ran [1] provides an eye-opening answer to this question in the eighth drashah of his Drashos ha'Ran. As is my custom, I will first present a translation of the relevant excerpt - with my own paragraph breaks for clarity - and then I will summarize and comment on each point. The Ran writes:

Hashem's desire and will is to maintain the natural order (minhago shel olam) as much as possible; nature (teva) is precious in His eyes, and He will only change it if there is an absolute necessity. 

It is because of this that Moshe said: "Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them? etc." for Moshe thought that Hashem would not generate a miracle and a wonder in order to fill their bellies with something that is not necessary. He was astonished and wondered how, by natural means, he would be able to provide enough meat for those people.

And since the natural order is precious in Hashem's eyes and He desires it, as we have written, then sometimes, when it becomes necessary for Him to do a miracle and a wonder, He will intermingle it with a natural phenomenon which will serve as a basis for that miracle - even though that natural phenomenon is not sufficient to bring about that miracle, but is merely a support for it.

An example of this what Elisha said to that woman from among the wives of the prophets' disciples: "[Elisha said:] 'Tell me: what do you have in the house?' and she said: 'Your maidservant has nothing in the house except for a jar of oil'" (Melachim II 4:2) and he responded to her: "Go, borrow vessels for yourself from the outside, from all your neighbors - empty vessels; do not be sparing" (ibid. 4:3). [Elisha then went on to miraculously fill all of the empty vessels with oil from that single original jar.]

There is no doubt that it would have been impossible within the laws of nature to produce that much oil from that jar - as impossible as if there were no oil there at all. Nevertheless, the navi's request was in line with Hashem's will that this miracle should have a natural basis to lean on. 

The Ran makes four points, which we will now summarize and briefly analyze.

Point #1: Nature is Precious in Hashem's Eyes

Truthfully, this point deserves its own blog post, since it has so many implications, and there is so much evidence to support it. Instead of writing my own thoughts about this, I will quote an excerpt from the introduction to a well-known essay written by my Rosh ha'Yeshiva:

Judaism, as seen through the eyes of the scholars of the Talmud, has its own unique religious orientation. While basing itself on a cataclysmic event – revelation, it does not look to miracles as the source of its intimate relationship with God. God's revelation at Sinai was a one-time occurrence never to be repeated. This is expressed in Deuteronomy 5:19, “a great voice which was not heard again.” In the mind of the Talmudic scholar God continuously reveals himself not through miracles but through the wisdom of his laws. These laws manifest themselves in Torah –the written and the oral law – and in nature. 

The Psalmist expresses this view most clearly. He speaks freely of the wonders of nature and the awe-inspiring universe as in Psalm 8:4, "When I look at the heavens, the work of Your fingers; the moon and stars which you have established". Psalm 104, dedicated to the wonders of nature, climaxes with the exclamation, "How many are Your works, O Lord! You have made them all with wisdom." Regarding the sheer intellectual joy one derives from studying Torah, he states, "The Torah of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul, the testimony of the Lord is trustworthy, making wise the simple person. The precepts of the Lord are upright, rejoicing the heart, the commandment of the Lord is lucid, enlightening the eye. The statutes of the Torah are true; they are all in total harmony. They are more to be desired than gold, even fine gold, and they are sweeter than honey and the honeycomb." 

When speaking of man's search for God the Psalmist states: "The Lord, from heaven, looked down upon the children of man, to see if there were any man of understanding searching for God" (Psalms 14:2). Man discovers God only through understanding. Accordingly, the righteous are depicted as being constantly involved in this process of searching for and discovering God. "But only in the Torah of the Lord is his desire, and in His Torah he mediates day and night" (Psalms 1:2). Maimonides sharply criticizes those who consider themselves religious and search for God through the miraculous. "Say to a person who believes himself to be of the wise men of Israel that the Almighty sends His angel to enter the womb of a woman and to form there the fetus, he will be satisfied with the account; he will believe it and even find in it a description of the greatness of God's might and wisdom; although he believes that the angel consists of burning fire and is as big as a third part of the Universe, yet he considers it possible as a divine miracle. But tell him that God gave the seed a formative power which produces and shapes the limbs and he will turn away because he cannot comprehend the true greatness and power of bringing into existence forces active in a thing that cannot be perceived by the senses." 

While Judaism is based on a supernatural event, it is not oriented toward the supernatural. The essence of Judaism is not realized through religious fervor over the miraculous but through an appreciation of God's wisdom as revealed both in Torah and the natural world. A miracle, being a breach of God's law, does not contribute to this appreciation. This distinction is crucial since it gives Judaism its metaphysical uniqueness.

I believe that the view expressed by my Rosh ha'Yeshiva is what the Ran means when he says that nature is "precious in Hashem's eyes." He cannot mean that nature is "precious" to Hashem simply because He created it. This wouldn't warrant the word "precious," which implies that it is more valuable to Hashem (so to speak) than other things in His world. Rather, nature is "precious in Hashem's eyes" in that it provides the basis of man's relationship to Hashem - namely, the wisdom and beauty of the Divinely authored laws of nature. Nature is precious as a means of drawing closer to Hashem.

That, according to the Ran, is why Hashem is "reluctant" (so to speak) to do miracles, except when absolutely necessary. A miracle is a pgam (blemish) which mars the beauty of Hashem's wondrous laws of nature. 

Point #2: Conservation of Miracles

The Ran's second point is an explicit formulation of what I've heard some people refer to as "The Law of Conservation of Miracles." Hashem doesn't perform miracles gratuitously. Rather, He will only perform a miracle when it is "absolutely necessary." 

The Rambam [2] mentions an application of the Law of Conservation of Miracles in his discussion about nevuah (prophecy), emphasizing the point that all of Moshe's miracles were done out of practical necessity - not to establish his prophecy:

Israel did not believe in Moshe Rabbeinu because of the [miraculous] signs he performed, for one whose belief is based on miracles will have doubt in his heart, since it is possible that he did [these miracles] using illusions and trickery. Rather, all of the miracles he performed in the wilderness, he did out of necessity – not to bring a proof for his prophecy. He needed the Egyptians to be drowned – he split the sea and drowned them in it; we needed sustenance – he brought down the mahn; we were thirsty – he split the stone for them; the congregation of Korach denied him – he caused the earth to swallow them; and the same for all the other [miraculous] signs.

As a Chumash teacher I am often asked, "Why didn't Hashem solve such-and-such problem by miraculously doing such-and-such?" Although this question must be taken up on a case-by-case basis, the general answer can be boiled down to The Law of Conservation of Miracles: if a natural solution is possible, Hashem will not make recourse to miracles - and even when He does resort to miracles, He will minimize His intervention in the laws of nature as much as possible.

This is the basis of the Ran's answer to our question about Moshe's response to Hashem's proposed solution for the meat crisis ...

Point #3: Moshe's Response to the Meat Crisis

According to the Ran, Moshe's response ("Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them? etc.") did not stem from any disbelief in Hashem's ability to do miracles. Rather, Moshe was operating under the assumption that God wouldn't do a miracle in this particular case. He reasoned that Hashem wouldn't do a miracle since it wasn't absolutely necessary for Bnei Yisrael to eat meat. Therefore, he assumed that the solution to Bnei Yisrael's dissatisfaction would have to be found within the laws of nature, and that seemed to be an impossible task to him. 

(Indeed, the Chizkuni [3] learns that Moshe thought that the 70 elders were appointed to help him with all of the meat-slaughtering. Part of his question, "Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them?" was:  "How can 71 men slaughter enough meat for 600,000 men?")

According to the Ran, Hashem's response to Moshe ("Is the hand of Hashem limited?") was not intended to rebuke Moshe for thinking that the hand of Hashem is limited; rather, His response was intended to correct Moshe's mistaken assumption that the meat would be provided by his hand rather than Hashem's hand. The rhetorical formulation of Hashem's rebuke was intended to highlight Moshe's mistake about whose hand would provide the meat.

(Unfortunately, I do not know of any commentary by the Ran on the second part of Hashem's response: "Now you will see whether My word comes to pass or not!" which seems to imply that Moshe did have some doubt as to whether the word of Hashem would come to pass. Let me know if you find or think of anything on this remaining question!)

Point #4: Miracles Via Nature

The Ran's fourth and final point is related to his first point. Because nature is precious in Hashem's eyes, then even when it becomes necessary for Him to do a miracle, He will do it by using a natural phenomenon as a "support" in order to convey his "reluctance" (so to speak) to completely do away with nature. 

The examples of this principle are too numerous to recount here. I'll just mention a few:

• Hashem could have just miraculously protect Noach, his family, and the animals. Instead, He made Noach build an ark and gather a male and female of each species. Undoubtedly, this ALSO required miraculous intervention - but the miracle was done using nature as a "support."
• The flood, itself, is an example of this. Hashem could have instantaneously "zapped" all of the evildoers. Instead, He utilized a natural disaster of miraculous proportions.
• Hashem could have designed the Ten Plagues to be completely supernatural. Instead, He utilized natural phenomena and caused them to behave in unnatural ways.
• Hashem could have split the sea by causing the waters to levitate or miraculously move aside on their own. Instead, "Hashem moved the sea with a strong east wind all the night" (Shemos 14:21).

This principle answers many questions about why Hashem performed specific miracles in the manner that He did. As the Creator of the universe yesh me'ayin (ex nihilo), of course Hashem could do miracles in any way He desires - and yet, He opts to incorporate nature as much as possible into these miraculous interventions in order to convey to us how precious nature is in His eyes.

Concluding Thoughts

I think there is an important lesson we can learn by comparing the popular view of miracles to Moshe's view miracles, as explained by the Ran. The Rambam [4] articulates the popular view in his Maamar Techiyas ha'Meisim: 

I will explain to you that which brought me to this approach, and that is that our aim and the aim of every intelligent person among the select few is opposite to the aim of the masses of people. For the most cherished and beloved thing to the masses of Torah-observant people, because of their ignorance, is to consider the Torah and human intellect to be two opposite poles. Everything which is incomprehensible to the intellect they consider to be a miracle. They flee from explaining something as a natural phenomenon whether it pertains to something recorded in the past, or in regard to something which is discernible at the present time, or whether it relates to something which is written will happen in the future. We, on the other hand, strive to reconcile the Torah with human intellect and regard everything in its natural light wherever possible, unless it is self-evident therefrom that it is of miraculous connotation and cannot be interpreted at all; then we are forced to say it is a miracle.

The "masses of Torah-observant people" look for miracles everywhere. They are eager to posit a miracle whenever possible. In their eyes, the more "miraculous" the miracle is, the better. Many even believe that nature diminishes Hashem's greatness and detracts from our ability to relate to Him.

From Moshe Rabbeinu we see that the Torah encourages the opposite of this orientation towards miracles. Moshe didn't expect Hashem to do a miracle for him, even though it would have solved a lot of problems, since he knew that Hashem only does miracles when they are absolutely necessary. Moshe knew that even when Hashem does perform a miracle, He uses natural phenomena as a "support" in order to convey how "precious" nature is in His eyes. The reason for this is because nature exhibits the wisdom of the Creator, and is our greatest vehicle for relating to Him. As tempting as it might be to seek out the miraculous as a basis for our relationship to God, His preference is for us to seek Him by appreciating the wondrous wisdom of His natural law: "How great are Your works, Hashem! With wisdom You made them all; the earth is full of Your creations" (Tehilim 104:24).

Indeed, this is why the Torah presents us not only the historical account of the miracles that Hashem did, but also includes the information we need in order to learn how Hashem wants us to relate to His miracles. The challenge is to set aside our own preconceived notions, wishes, and fantasies about Divine intervention, and instead, to learn about the ways of Hashem from the words and teachings of Hashem in His Torah.

[1] Rabbeinu Nissim ben Reuven, Drashos ha'Ran #8
[2] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 8:1
[3] Rabbeinu Chezkiah ben Manoach, Commentary to Sefer Bamidbar 11:21-23
[4] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead; see my post entitled On Interpreting "Miracle Stories" in the Talmud for a further exploration of this view

The Alternative Version of the Four Sons (Incomplete)

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

The Alternative Version of the Four Sons

One of the most well-known sections of the Hagadah is the Arbaah Banim (Four Sons). What people may not realize is that there are two equally authoritative versions of the Arbaah Banim - one of which made it into the mainstream text of the Hagadah, and one which did not. The version that made it into our Hagadah is from the Mechilta, and alternative version can be found in the Talmud Yerushalmi.

Here is a translation of the standard Mechilta version. 

The Torah addressed itself to four sons – one wise, one evil, one simple, and one who does not know to ask.

The Wise Son – what does he say? “What are the testimonies, the decrees, and the statutes which Hashem, our God, has commanded you?” (ibid. 6:20). And you, too, should tell him a law like the laws of the Pesach sacrifice: we do not conclude the meal with anything other than the Pesach sacrifice.

The Evil Son – what does he say? “What is this service to you?” (Shemos 12:26). “To you,” but not to him. Since he excluded himself from the group and denied the fundamental principle – you, too, should blunt his teeth and say to him: “It is because of this that Hashem did so for me when I went out from Egypt” (ibid. 13:8). “For me,” but not for him; had he been there he would not have been redeemed.

The Simple Son – what does he say? “‘What is this?’ And you shall say to him: ‘With a strong hand Hashem took us out from Egypt, from the house of slaves’” (ibid. 13:14).

Concerning The Son Who Does Not Know to Ask – you initiate [a conversation] for him, as it is stated: “And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: ‘It is because of this that Hashem did for me when I went out from Egypt’” (ibid. 13:8).

And here's the Yerushalmi version. Note the differences as you read:

R’ Chiyya taught: the Torah addressed itself to four sons: a wise son, an evil son, a foolish son, and a son who doesn’t know to ask.

The Wise Son – what does he say? “What are the testimonies, the decrees, and the statutes which Hashem, our God, has commanded us?” (ibid. 6:20). And you, too, should tell him: “With a strong hand Hashem took us out from Mitzrayim, from the house of slaves” (ibid. 13:14).

The Evil Son – what does he say? “What is this service to you?” (Shemos 12:26) – “What is this burden which you burden us with each and every year?” Since he removed himself from the group, then you, too, should say to him: “It is because of this that Hashem did so for me when I went out from Mitzrayim” (ibid. 13:8). “For me,” but not for that person; if that person had been in Mitzrayim, he wouldn’t have been worthy to be redeemed from there forever.

The Foolish Son – what does he say? “‘What is this?” (ibid. 13:14). You, too, should teach him the laws of Pesach: that we do not conclude the meal with anything other than the Pesach sacrifice; that one should not get up from one group and enter another group.

Concerning The Son Who Does Not Know to Ask – you initiate [a conversation] for him.

Notice the differences? Most of them are minor, but there are a few major ones. Let's formulate our questions on the two biggest differences: 

1. Why are the answers to the Wise Son and Simple/Foolish son swapped? According to the Mechilta, we respond to the Wise Son's question by teaching him the detailed laws of Pesach and we respond to the Simple Son's question with a general account of Yetzias Mitzrayim (the Exodus from Egypt). According to the Yerushalmi's version, the lesson in halacha is reserved for the Foolish Son and the story of Yetzias Mitzrayim is told to the Wise Son. On the surface, the Mechilta makes more sense: the Wise Son asked about the mitzvos, and we respond by teaching him the halachos which comprise those mitzvos.
   
2. What insight do we gain from the Yerushalmi's addition to the Evil Son's question? According to the Mechilta the Evil Son merely asks, "What is this service to you?" but in the Yerushalmi he adds: "What is this burden which you burden us with each and every year?" The Ritva, in his Hagadah commentary, elaborates even further: "What is this burden which you burden us with each and every year, to delay our meal and ruin the joy of the festival?" 

Those are the questions I intend to answer, but it looks like the answers will have to wait until after Pesach. Let me know what you think! Chag sameach!

Human Expectations and Divine Redemption

Here's a blog post I cranked out just now, on Purim afternoon, in the few hours between minchah and seudah. My apologies for any errors or lack of clarity or incompleteness. Time was of the essence! 

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

Artwork: Forest (Zendikar), by Vincent Proce

Human Expectations and Divine Redemption

Yeshayahu 55 as an Introduction to Megilas Esther

When Chazal gave drashos (homiletic expositions) on entire books of Tanach they would customarily begin with a pesichta - an introductory drashah. This pesichta would usually be rooted in a pasuk from another book of Tanach, but would aim to encapsulate a major theme or idea of the book for which the pesichta served as an introduction. For example, a pesichta to Megilas Eichah might be based on a pasuk in Mishlei; a pesichta to Shir ha'Shirim might be based on a pasuk in Tehilim. 

The Gemara in Megilah (15b) presents a collection of pesichtos on Megilas Esther. I would like to briefly explore the drashah of R' Shmuel bar Nachmani. Here is the translation: 

R' Shmuel bar Nachmani began with this pesichta: "In place of the thorn, a cypress will rise; and in place of the nettle, a myrtle will rise; [and it shall be for Hashem for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off]" (Yeshayahu 55:13). 

"In place of the thorn" - [this means:] in place of the evil Haman, who made himself into object of avodah zarah (idolatrous worship), as it is written: "and upon all thorns and upon all branches" (ibid. 7:19).

"a cypress will rise" - this refers to Mordechai, who was called "the finest of the spices," as it is stated: "And you - take for yourself the finest of the spices, pure myrrh" (Shemos 30:23), and the Targum translates ["pure myrrh"] as "mari dachi" (מרי דכי in Aramaic, which resembles the spelling of Mordechai, מרדכי, in Hebrew).

"and in place of the nettle" - [this means:] in place of the evil Vashti, granddaughter of the evil Nevuchadnetzar, who burnt the resting place of the House of God, as it is written: "His resting place was gold" (Shir ha'Shirim 3:10).

"a myrtle (hadas) will rise" - this refers to the righteous Esther, who was called "Hadassah" (myrtle). 

"and it shall be for Hashem for a name" - this refers to the reading of the Megilah. 

"for an everlasting sign that will not be cut off" - this refers to the days of Purim. 

When my chavrusa and I prepared this drashah we found the particulars to be a bit daunting. Why is Vashti mentioned and not Achashveirosh? What's with comparison between Mordechai and the spices of the ketoress (incense)? How are the pesukim cited here relevant to the points that R' Shmuel bar Nachmani made? Why do the points about Mordechai and Esther focus on their names, whereas the points about Haman and Vashti focus on the wicked deeds associated with them?

Instead of trying to answer these questions, we focused on trying to get the main idea, and attempting to understand how R' Shmuel bar Nachmani intended this pesichta to be an introduction to Megilas Esther.

The Main Idea of Yeshayahu 55

In order to understand the insight that R' intended to shed on Megilas Esther, we must analyze the pasuk from Sefer Yeshayahu in its context. Here is the full passage:

Seek Hashem when He can be found; call upon Him when He is near. Let the wicked one abandon his path and the iniquitous man his thoughts; let him return to Hashem and He will show him mercy; to our God, for He is abundantly forgiving. For My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways - the word of Hashem. As the heavens are high over the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts. For just as the rain and snow descend from heaven and will not return there, rather it waters the earth and causes it to produce and sprout, and gives seed to the sower and food to the eater, so shall be My word that emanates from My mouth, it will not return to Me unfulfilled unless it will have accomplished what I desired and brought success where I sent it. For in gladness shall you go out and in peace shall you arrive, the mountains and hills will break out in glad song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap hands. In place of the thorn, a cypress will rise; and in place of the nettle, a myrtle will rise. This will be for Hashem for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off (Yeshayahu 55:6-13).

This passage can be divided into three sections. I will restate the pesukim according to their divisions, prefaced by titles which summarize their themes:

Section #1 - Hashem's Acceptance of Teshuvah: Seek Hashem when He can be found; call upon Him when He is near. Let the wicked one abandon his path and the iniquitous man his thoughts; let him return to Hashem and He will show him mercy; to our God, for He is abundantly forgiving. For My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways - the word of Hashem. As the heavens are high over the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.

Radak explains that the navi is reassuring the sinner that his teshuvah will be accepted. Hashem is not like a human being. A human being who is wronged might not be willing to forgive the wrongdoer on account of the severity of the offense. Alternatively, he might forgive him outwardly but secretly continue to bear a grudge. Hashem isn't like that. Even if a person is a rasha (evildoer) who has sinned egregiously, he should never give up on doing teshuvah. Hashem always desires and accepts teshuvah, and is abundant in His forgiveness. 

Section #2 - Hashem's Word is Beneficial and Reliable: For just as the rain and snow descend from heaven and will not return there, rather it waters the earth and causes it to produce and sprout, and gives seed to the sower and food to the eater, so shall be My word that emanates from My mouth, it will not return to Me unfulfilled unless it will have accomplished what I desired and brought success where I sent it.

We are familiar with the water cycle: rain and snow fall from heaven, they water the earth, causing vegetation to sprout and food to grow for humans and animals; then the water "returns to the heavens" and the cycle begins anew. We have no trouble accepting the reality of the water cycle, and yet, when it comes to the word of Hashem, we become filled with doubt. We fear that His prophecies will not come true, we doubt that the mitzvos will actually be "for our benefit" (cf. Devarim 10:13), and we are skeptical about His hashgachah (providence). Yeshayahu is pointing out that we are being hypocritical: if we accept the water cycle, which operates in accordance with the word of Hashem, then we should accept all other instances of the word of Hashem as equally reliable. There should be no difference in our reliance on the laws of physics and the laws of metaphysics, since Hashem is the author of both sets of laws.

Section #3 - Hashem's Redemption is Certain: For in gladness shall you go out and in peace shall you arrive, the mountains and hills will break out in glad song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap hands. In place of the thorn, a cypress will rise; and in place of the nettle, a myrtle will rise. This will be for Hashem for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.

According to the Radak, this last part of the nevuah (prophecy) is about the future geulah (redemption) from galus (exile). He explains: "For in gladness you shall go out" of exile, "and in peace you shall arrive" in your Land. The rest of the passage is an allegory for the joy and flourishing that we will experience when we are redeemed. 

Now that we've gone over the pshat of this passage, we need to understand the main idea. What is the relationship between these three points that Yeshayahu is making? 

I believe the answer lies in what is perhaps the most important pasuk in this entire passage: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways - the word of Hashem." I say that this is the most important pasuk because, according to the Rambam (Moreh ha'Nevuchim 3:23), the idea of this pasuk contains the core message of Sefer Iyov - a book of profound wisdom, ascribed to Moshe Rabbeinu, on the subject of Hashem's management of human affairs. Rambam writes: 

How can we think that His management (hanhagah) and supervision (hashgachah) over [His creations] is at all similar to our management of what we manage and supervision over what we supervise? … Rather the term “supervision” (hashgachah) as applied to Him is not the same concept as our supervision, nor is His “management” (hanhagah) of His creations the same concept as our management of what we manage. The two concepts are not even comprised in one and the same definition – as is thought by those who are confused – and there is nothing in common between the two except in name alone. 

In the same way, our actions do not resemble His actions, and the two are not comprised in one and the same definition. Just as natural acts differ from those of craftsmanship, so do the Divine management (hanhagah), supervision (hashgachah), intention (kavanah) in these natural phenomena differ from our management, supervision, and intention of what we manage, supervise, and intend. 

This is the purpose of the entire Book of Iyov as a whole, namely, the establishing of this foundational concept, and the drawing of attention to the inference to be drawn from natural matters, so that you should not err and seek to affirm in your imagination that His knowledge (yediah) is like our knowledge, or that His intention (kavanah), supervision (hashgachah), and management (hanhagah) are like our intention, supervision, and management. 

We humans are prone to mistakenly thinking that Hashem operates in the same way that we do. We project our fallible, human tendencies onto the transcendent Creator. We imagine that His management, His knowledge, His intentions, and His supervision are the same as our own, and that we can understand these things by relying on the same premises as we do when we think about human behavior. This is a major error.

Yeshayahu pointed out three manifestations of this error: (1) we don't do teshuvah because we think of Hashem in the same way that we think of an unforgiving human being, (2) we don't trust that His words are true and will yield benefit, and (3) when we see the "overgrown thorns and nettles" of our state of exile, we can't imagine that there will ever be lush growth there; we don't believe that the joy and geulah will ever replace the sorrow and oppression of galus. 

By drawing allegories from the natural world - an instantiation of "Hashem's ways" that we are  familiar with, and that we do rely upon - Yeshayahu reassures us that we can also rely on Hashem in these three areas with the same degree of trust: we can trust that our teshuvah will be accepted, that the word of Hashem will be fulfilled and will benefit us, and that He will redeem us from exile and cause us to rejoice and flourish in our Land.

Yeshayahu 55 as the Theme of Megilas Esther

Okay, now that we've gone over the main idea of this passage in Yeshayu, the question is: What does this have to do with Megilas Esther? What is the connection that R' Shmuel bar Nachmani wanted us to see, and to adopt as our framework for reading Megilas Esther?

I believe the answer is that the Jews in Shushan might have easily made the same mistake that Yeshayahu warned about, namely, equating Hashem's ways with our ways. 

Think about what it would be like as a Jew in Shushan. Haman, second-in-command to the king, decreed a total genocide on the entire Jewish population. The situation seemed utterly hopeless. It would have been very easy for the Jews to give up hope - to doubt or deny all of the promises made by countless neviim that Hashem would ultimately deliver His people from their enemies and bring them back to their Land. They might think that even if they did teshuvah and turned to Hashem in tefilah, He would neither forgive them nor listen to them. They might think that He had abandoned His people, despite his numerous promises.

But they didn't make that mistake. Bnei Yisrael, led by Esther and Mordechai, remained true to the word of Hashem. They fasted, they davened, and they did teshuvah. They relied on the chochmah that they had acquired from Torah and did everything in their power to bring about salvation. They trusted that Hashem would save them, and they acted on that trust. 

And what was the result? V'nahafoch hu - a complete reversal of our expectations. The "thorn" of Haman was replaced by the "cypress" of Mordechai, and the "nettle" of Vashti with the "myrtle" of Esther. Instead of the Jewish people being annihilated by their enemies forever, the opposite happened: their enemies' lives were cut short, the Jews were saved, and their salvation was memorialized forever in the institution of Megilah and the days of Purim. 

Mordechai and Esther established Purim and its mitzvos so that Klal Yisrael would always have an example of how to respond to an existential threat. "In each and every generation they stand against us, to destroy us" (Haggadah shel Pesach). If we, like the audience of Yeshayahu 55, view Hashem's management of the world the same way that we view human management, then we will be prone to despair and to reliance on futile plans that are built upon human delusions, and we will fail. But if we take Yeshayahu's message to heart, that "My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways," and we trust in Hashem, rely on His word, and act accordingly - as did the Jews of Shushan - then "Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu [will] save us from their hand." 

No matter how dire the situation may seem from a human standpoint, Hashem is not bound by human conventions, nor is He confined to our limited understanding of how He will bring about redemption, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways." And we need look no further than Megilas Esther for a real-world example of how all of our expectations were completely reversed: "In place of the thorn, a cypress will rise; and in place of the nettle, a myrtle will rise. This will be for Hashem for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off." 

As we celebrate Purim, we should take these ideas to heart so that if (God forbid) we find ourselves in a similar situation in the future, we will be able to have trust in the word of Hashem, Whose ways transcend human understanding.