Archive for October, 2008

A series of mini-shiurim on Neviim and Ketuvim, consisting of original insights into selected portoins of the Prophets and Biblical Writings. We will begin with insights into Sefer Yehoshua, exploring fascinating and surprising aspects of this unusual prophetic personality (how many Gedolei HaDor are also top generals, and visa versa?), and continue from there through the Tanach.

The analysis will focus on omek ha-peshat - a careful literary reading of the text in light of the entire book and parallels throughout Tanach. Additionally, many of the insights into the deeper meaning of the plain sense of the Biblical text will lead us to an understanding of seemingly strange and difficult statements of Chazal.

These shiurim will be available 3 times a week, each shiur will be approximately 20 minutes long and will be available via audio podcast.

R. Elazar said: “It is permissible to stab the am ha’arez on Yom Kippur which falls out on Shabbat.”

R. Shmuel bar Nahmani said in the name of R. Yohanan: “It is permissible to rip the am ha’arez like a fish.” R. Shmuel bar Yizhak added: “on his back.” (Pesahim 49b)

Both other Talmudic sources and common sense make it abundantly clear that we cannot interpret this gemara literally. Judaism does not countenance murdering the ignorant or the sinners. Let us assume some kind of non – literal interpretation and ask what this gemara wants to convey? Rabbenu Nissim explains that the gemara employs hyperbole to convey a negative attitude towards ammei ha’arez. This still leaves open the question whether this negative hyperbole is directed at every “am ha’arez” or only specific types.

Maharsha also endorses a figurative reading. He claims that the gemara truly refers to the ability to embarrass the am ha’arez. Since one gemara compares the blood draining from the embarrassed face with the blood lost by a murder victim (Bava Mezia 58b), there may be some basis for this reading.

Another strategy accepts a more literal reading but restricts the gemara to a very limited scenario. R. Yizhak Alfasi argues that R. Elazar refers to a case in which that am ha’erez was pursuing someone else with intent to murder or rape. Using violent means to stop such a person would obviously be legitimate. There are two difficulties with this interpretation. The gemara makes no mention of these details and it seems contrived to insert them. Moreover, if the gemara truly refers to a pursuer, then his status as an am ha’arez is quite irrelevant. The same law would apply to a major scholar who pursued a victim.

R. Yehuda Leib from Gur attempts to answer this second objection in his Sefat Emet. In some such situations, we must balance our desire to save victims with the need to ascertain that the pursuer truly endangers them. Perhaps the pursuer engages in a misguided attempt at humor but does not truly constitute a threat. According to Sefat Emet, we would normally have to take a moment to clarify that the pursuer presents a danger before shooting him. Due to his immoral lifestyle, the “am ha’arez” forfeits the right to this extra moment of clarification and we can more quickly assume that he is armed and dangerous. We can still wonder which kind of “am ha’arez we are speaking about.

Many of the commentaries (see Rosh 3:10) assume that this gemara speaks of a particularly corrupt am ha’arez who endangers society. Maharal (Be’er haGolah 7) contends that this am ha’arez is totally divorced from Torah values. In short, our rabbinic luminaries considered it obvious that Jewish tradition does not countenance random violence towards the ignorant and they interpreted this gemara accordingly.

Why does R. Shmuel add the instruction to tear “on the back”? Rashi and Meiri assume that that choice of location makes the blow fatal. R. Kook offers an innovative alternative reading (Midot haRa’a’yah Ahava 9) that has broader implications. R. Kook argues that we Jews have an ambivalent attitude towards the sinner. On the one hand, we despise the evil he does. On the other hand, we love and value the fact that the sinner, like all humans, was created in the image of God. For Rav Kook, the image of God is manifest in the human personality represented by the face. We tear the am ha’arez in the back because we thereby convey that we abhor what he has done with his life even as we avoid negativity towards his face which reflects the grand potential of a being created in the image of God.

A series of mini-shiurim on Neviim and Ketuvim, consisting of original insights into selected portoins of the Prophets and Biblical Writings. We will begin with insights into Sefer Yehoshua, exploring fascinating and surprising aspects of this unusual prophetic personality (how many Gedolei HaDor are also top generals, and visa versa?), and continue from there through the Tanach.

The analysis will focus on omek ha-peshat - a careful literary reading of the text in light of the entire book and parallels throughout Tanach. Additionally, many of the insights into the deeper meaning of the plain sense of the Biblical text will lead us to an understanding of seemingly strange and difficult statements of Chazal.

These shiurim will be available 3 times a week, each shiur will be approximately 20 minutes long and will be available via audio podcast.

Permission to Heal

According to the Talmudic sages, permission to heal the sick is implicit in
Exodus 21:18-19:

When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but becomes bedridden, then if the man rises again and walks abroad with his staff, he that struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.

These verses require anyone who strikes another to cause the victim to be healed.
It follows that the Torah permits medical practice (Tractate Berachot 60a; Baba Kama 85a).

Among the commentators on this passage, Rashi and the Tosafot are of particular
importance.

Rashi [ibid.] explained the need for such permission in the Torah. Had the Torah been silent, we might have thought it improper to heal a person whom God has caused to be ill. Although all illness ultimately derives from God, the Torah makes clear that it is His will that we alleviate suffering.

The Tosafot observed that Torah’s permission to heal applies equally in cases of disease and in cases of injury inflicted by a fellow man.

Rav Kook

Rav Kook (Lithuania/Israel, 1865-1935) had a novel approach to question of the
Torah’s permitting physicians to heal (Daat Kohen 140; page 260b):

When the Talmudic sages inferred on the basis of the verses in Exodus 21 that physicians are permitted to heal, they clearly meant that although there is some doubt regarding the theory of medicine healing is still to be permitted. For if it were clear (beyond doubt that theory of medicine is correct), how could one imagine that healing would not be obligatory? Does one not violate the verse “You shall not stand forth against the life of your neighbor” [Leviticus 19:16] even when one’s neighbor’s misfortune is caused by Heaven….? However, the principle here is that the principles of medicine have not been so clearly proven and it is unknown whether their assumptions are to be doubted. Therefore the Torah had to permit healing for there is no other way open to man.

In this passage Rav Kook suspected the foundations of medicine. Since every medical theory must be viewed with distrust, it is unclear whether any medical theory should be applied in lifesaving. Perhaps, one might think, the biblical law which prohibits standing idly by when one’s neighbor is in danger requires us to take only measures of undoubted value.

When reading Rambam’s Mishneh Torah or Moreh Nevuchim, I am often astounded at the depth of Rambam’s thought and the power of his intellect. However, those two monumental works do not always convey the warmth of Rambam’s personality. Rambam’s letters are another matter altogether. In these letters, Rambam expresses sympathy for the downtrodden, comforts the distressed, and offers advice to the needy. The Epistle to Yemen, for example, reveals not just a massive intellect but a caring heart as well. So too regarding the letter to Ovadiah the convert.

The letter to Ovaidah (found on pages 233-241 of the Shilat edition of Iggerot haRambam) includes important theological material discussing the amount of free will in the world and the monotheistic status of Islam. We shall focus on the section addressing the status of a proselyte. Ovadiah asked Rambam if a convert can say ‘the God of our forefathers” or “who sanctified us with his mizvot” when praying and reciting blessings. After all, the convert’s forefathers were not part of the Jewish people’s covenant with God so how can he utter a falsehood in prayer. Indeed, R. Meir states (Bikkurim 1:4) that the convert can bring bikkuirm but does not recite the accompanying Torah passage because he can not say “who swore to our fathers to give it to us (Devarim 26:3).”

No Tanna challenges R. Meir’s opinion in the mishnah but the Yerushalmi cites the opposing position of R. Yehuda that the convert can refer to “our fathers” because Avraham is the “father of many nations” (Bereishit 17:4). Rambam rules in accordance with this opinion of R. Yehuda and allows him to say the same text as the Jews from birth. The ruling itself is not unusual because multiple Amoraim in the Yerushalmi explicitly rule like R. Yehuda. On the other hand, Rambam’s explanation and formulations are quite noteworthy.

Rambam writes that all those who reject idolatry and adopt monotheism are students of Avraham and members of the Abrahamic household. Jewish peoplehood is not purely biological; it has a distinctly ideological component. From that ideological perspective, Avraham fathered every convert in Jewish history. “After you enter under the wings of the shechinah and come to God, there is no difference between us and you at all.” This formulation moves away from a conception of an inherent biological superiority shared by Jews. If that would be the case, even conversion would not create absolute equality, a position adopted by R. Yehuda haLevi in his Kuzari (1:27). Rambam disagrees, seeing any differences between Jews and gentiles as the product of historical choices and not due to genetic makeup. Once the gentile converts, no differences remain.

In the last part of the letter, Rambam returns to evaluation of the convert. Ovadiah had debated his teacher regarding the halachic status of Islam. In the course of that discussion, the teacher had insulted Ovadiah. Rambam writes harshly about the teacher who seems to have forgotten how adamant the Torah is about not oppressing the ger. He eloquently praises someone who leaves the comfort of the environment they grew up with to join a persecuted people for the sake of a religious ideal. He also makes the fascinating point that the Torah commands love for converts (Vaykira 10:19) but not for parents or prophets. Obviously, all things being equal, a person should love his or her parents but the Divine word does not make such love mandatory while it does do so regarding the convert.

I imagine Ovadiah eagerly awaiting a response from the Great Eagle, R. Moshe ben Maimon. When the courier brought it, that letter must have filled Ovadiah with joy and comfort. Rambam both answered his religious questions and comforted him on a personal level. The grand intellectual was also a man of kindness and sympathy.

A series of mini-shiurim on Neviim and Ketuvim, consisting of original insights into selected portoins of the Prophets and Biblical Writings. We will begin with insights into Sefer Yehoshua, exploring fascinating and surprising aspects of this unusual prophetic personality (how many Gedolei HaDor are also top generals, and visa versa?), and continue from there through the Tanach.

The analysis will focus on omek ha-peshat - a careful literary reading of the text in light of the entire book and parallels throughout Tanach. Additionally, many of the insights into the deeper meaning of the plain sense of the Biblical text will lead us to an understanding of seemingly strange and difficult statements of Chazal.

These shiurim will be available 3 times a week, each shiur will be approximately 20 minutes long and will be available via audio podcast.