Archive for November, 2008

You have to keep lost objects a while, but not forever.

Question: I put up a notice regarding the lost coats I found, but nobody came to pick them up. What do I do now?

Answer: Last week we discussed what efforts need to be made to seek the owner of a lost object. This week we will examine what needs to be done if those efforts don’t bear fruit.

continue

The Rabbis taught: “God cries over three things daily: about the one who could study Torah but does not, about the one who cannot study Torah but does, and about the leader who is arrogant towards the community.” (Hagiga 5b)

Rabbenu Hananel interprets God’s tears to mean that these are things worthy of crying about. He thus avoids the anthropomorphic implications of a more literal reading. No tears stream down a divine cheek. Rather, God serves as the ultimate judge of what is worth crying over.

The first and third causes of divine tears are clearly negative but what about the second? Surely, someone with limited time and resources who heroically manages to study should be applauded. Indeed, R. Menahem Meiri evaluates this middle case positively. He says that someone who finds time to study Torah despite significant difficulties will receive great reward. Apparently, God’s tears for this person are tears of joy.

The Alter from Slabodka, R. Nosson Zvi Finkel, also thinks that the middle case refers to a positive performance although the tears still reflect sadness. According to the Alter, this gemara indicates the extent of God’s compassion. Hashem is saddened by the struggles and pains of someone working with difficulties even when that person succeeds. The success engenders joy but the pains cause sadness (Ohr haZafun 2:112).

Both of the above readings suffer from a difficulty. They insert a positive scenario in between two negative performances. The context enveloping this middle case makes us think that it too somehow refers to doing the wrong thing. Indeed, this point motivates Maharsha to offer a novel reading. He explains the middle case as someone who gets distracted from Torah study by other pursuits. In his reading, the word “ve’osek” refers not to involvement in Torah study but to involvement in other endeavors. This person truly could learn but finds himself without time due to the distractions of competing pursuits. According to Maharsha’s interpretation, God cries over two different people who do not learn. One sits around doing nothing and the other allows less worthy pursuits to dominate his schedule until no time remains for learning.

Maharsha’s interpretation does render the middle case parallel to the other two but it deviates from the simplest reading of the gemara’s words which indicate that this person is engaged in Torah. R. Yaakov Reisher (Iyyun Yaakov, found in the Ein Yaakov) finds a different fault described in this case that adheres more to the straightforward meaning. R. Reisher posits that involvement in Torah includes both learning and teaching. The middle case refers to someone not truly knowledgeable enough to teach or lacking pedagogic capability who insists on teaching anyway. The ensuing educational disaster inspires divine tears.

An important point emerges. We rightly emphasize the democratic and egalitarian aspects of Torah study in Judaism. Learning is not restricted to a priestly class but is important for all Jews. However, this democratic tendency does not apply to the question of which should give the shiur. Educational flourishing depends upon the most erudite and the best educators standing in the front of the room and spreading Torah. Everyone studies Torah but not everyone engages in public teaching.

The following Mishna from Pirkei Avot is well known and has been a rallying cry for Jewish fundraisers for probably millennia. I bring two different commentators on this Mishna. Each one reads the Mishna in a different way. First look and see how you would read it before you go on to see how the Me’iri and the Maharal read the Mishna.

Values of our Ancestors: Chapter II Mishnah 5

Hillel says: Do not separate yourself from the community, and do not be secure of who you are until the day of your death. Do not judge your friend until you have been in his place.

Rabbi Menachem HaMeiri (1249-1316) on the social reasons for community identification

Do not separate yourself from the community—rather join them in their times of trial. This means that even though it is possible that one can save one’s self from the calamity without the help of others, his intention should be for the salvation of the whole community, and he should include himself among them. If he does not do this his punishment will be that he will witness the community’s salvation fast like a deer, (Proverbs 6:5) but he will be ensnared in the pit of his wickedness, as the sages have said “Anyone who does not join with the community in times of trouble, will never see the community consoled.” (Talmud, Ta’anit 11a), as it is written: Rejoice with rejoicing all you that have mourned for her. (Isaiah 66:10) Similarly: [Mordecai said to Esther ] …Relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another quarter, while you and your father’s house shall perish. (Esther 4:14)

It’s apparent to me that the Me’iri is reading the Mishna as a warning against a particular reaction to a particular situation. It may be natural to cut and run when the community is in trouble, but that is the very time one needs to remain with the community and not be tempted to leave even if one is able to save his own skin. He limits the scope of the Mishna by relegating it to a particular circumstance.

The Maharal of Prague (1525-1609) from his commentary on Values of Our Ancestors Derech Hachayyim—A philosophical understanding why community is valued over the individual.

Why is the community of such value?

Hillel has also asserted the special quality of community which, as opposed to the individual, is more important. That is why he says: Do not separate yourself from the community. For the community which is a collective has more permanence, as we have explained, because a community has a more resilient existence. Therefore one who separates from the community is separating from the thing that is more deeply alive.

Furthermore, the community is all, and it has the power of all. Therefore one who separates from it, removes himself from all, and thus lives on the periphery. On the periphery, he is considered as insignificant as vapor—a thing that is outside the collective.

The Maharal, on the other hand, sees the Mishna as making a philosophical statement about the nature of community. Do not separate yourself from the community means do not cut yourself off from life. It seems the Maharal is asking why does Hillel say the statement in the negative and not formulate it by saying “Join the community”. The Maharal teaches that we are born into community, that it is our natural state, for communities generally survive the individual. They were there before and they will be there afterward. To separate yourself is to remove yourself from its life force, ki haklal zeh hakol. (The Community is all.)

I noted in an earlier blog entry that medieval philosophical and theological texts often help our efforts at biblical interpretation. Rabbenu Nissim’s reading of the tower of Babel story provides another fine example. Rabbenu Nissim, a famous Talmudic commentator who lived in fourteenth century Spain, penned a fascinating work entitled Derashot haRan that touches on a host of significant theological issues including the relationship between rabbinic consensus and absolute halachic truth and the balance between a criminal code based on ideal justice and a more practical code. Ran represents the moderate rationalist school of the late Middle Ages that includes R. Yosef Albo and R. Hasdai Crescas as well.

The Torah‘s account of Migdal Bavel does not explicitly tell us how the builders sinned. After all, the desire to engage in a united, massive building project in itself does not violate any moral or religious principles. Chazal in several midrashim try to fill this lacunae. Rashi (Bereishit 11:1) cites one midrash which says that the tower builders wanted to wage war with God. This interpretation certainly explains why God decided to abort the project but it also faces some difficulties. The verses give no hints to such a motivation. Additionally, if such was their motivation, the punishment seems much too lenient as God merely scatters them and sabotages the building project but no more.

Rabbenu Nissim adds a very interesting critique in his first derasha. “It is astonishing that the whole world would agree to such foolishness. If their sight was darkened and their intellect was blinded, then their utter stupidity should save them from punishment.” Ran finds it hard to believe that people could think that building a tower would enable them to fight the majestic power of God. People so idiotic may not be responsible for their decisions. A possible rephrasing of Ran’s point might say that even the problematic characters of Tanach should not be subject to caricatures of stupidity. Plenty of people make bad choices but even choices that we do not approve of usually have some logic to them.

A close reading of the account motivates Ran to go in another direction. God says that “they have begun to do this and now nothing they planned to do will be restrained from them (Bereishit 11:6).” According to Rabbenu Nissim, this verse indicates that the builders have not yet done anything wrong but that the project could lead to something negative. Migdal Bavel is not a story of sin and punishment but a story of preventing great harm that might emerge form what begins as an innocent endeavor. The leniency of God’s response now makes sense.

The historical setting was one in which the overwhelming majority of people believed in idolatry and paganism. In this context, anyone who championed the monotheistic idea was subject to potential persecution. Avraham taught monotheism and had to flee from Nimrod’s wrath. The fact that different governments ruled in various areas enabled Avraham to take his message elsewhere. If the entire known world had been under one authority, then the Avraham’s of this world would have no place to go. For this reason, God broke up the tower of Babel.

We often think of greater centralization and of bringing different forces together as a positive endeavor. Ran reminds us that the whole also depends upon the sum of the parts. When centralization enables the wrong ideas to wield exclusive power, then a division of power is preferable.

(To see a commentary that expands on the idea that Migdal Bavel teaches us of the need for different approaches and opinions see Neziv’s Ha’amek Davar)

Lost object? Seek a forum likely familiar to the unknown owner.

Question: Many unmarked articles of clothing were left in a local hall after an event. How much effort do I need to exert to find the owners?

Answer: Returning lost objects is an important commandment. It is mentioned twice in the Torah, and is also the topic of an entire chapter of the Talmud.

continue