I Kings 5:26-6:13
After Jill’s wonderful post, and then Marc’s wonderful post relating to Jill’s wonderful post, I was not about to be outdone…
The first line of this week’s Haftarah:
וַיי, נָתַן חָכְמָה לִשְׁלֹמֹה, כַּאֲשֶׁר, דִּבֶּר-לוֹ
And Adonai gave Solomon wisdom, as Adonai had promised him.
The last lines of this week’s Haftarah:
הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר-אַתָּה בֹנֶה, אִם-תֵּלֵךְ בְּחֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת-מִשְׁפָּטַי תַּעֲשֶׂה, וְשָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת-כָּל-מִצְוֹתַי, לָלֶכֶת בָּהֶם--וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-דְּבָרִי אִתָּךְ, אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתִּי אֶל-דָּוִד אָבִיךָ.
וְשָׁכַנְתִּי, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְלֹא אֶעֱזֹב, אֶת-עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל
With regard to this house you are building—if you follow My laws and observe My rules and faithfully keep My commandments, I will fulfill for you the promise that I gave to your father David: I will abide among the children of Israel and I will never forsake My people Israel.
Solomon is granted wisdom, and we immediately learn that he has made treaties with his neighbors, essentially establishing peace in the region. It does not say that God gave him כח or strength to make this happen. Nor does it say that God gave him an army to accomplish this. Peace, or at least a friendship treaty, comes from wisdom. Since we have already learned that wisdom is usually personified as female, thanks to Marc, we could say that peace requires a feminine touch. At this point in the “peace” process, I’d give it over to women. Men have mad too much of a mess of things already.
But that’s not what I wanted to mention this Shabbat…
The last promise seems to be the one you’d ask for first, right? I want God here first, 'cause if I have that, then I don’t really need wisdom. Well, in an interesting way, Solomon already had what he needed and he didn’t even know it…
Earlier in I Kings, we read that Solomon was visited by God in a dream. God said: “Ask, what shall I give you?” The Genie-in-a-bottle resemblance notwithstanding, God basically grants Solomon one wish in this dream.
What would you wish for?
What should Solomon wish for?
Solomon asks for “an understanding mind to judge [God’s] people, to distinguish between good and bad.” Because Solomon asks for this, and not for wealth or power, God grants him all of the above. It appears that Solomon had it all along! And, as long as he doesn't mess up, God will be there, by his side.
Solomon was wise enough to know what to ask for. He knew the right thing to do as a young King of Israel was to get the tools to be a good leader. One of those tools, as our Haftarah points out, is wisdom. Though it is clear he was wise beyond his years even before the dream, we see how his wisdom allows him to make peace, expand the land, acquire wealth for the nation and build God a house to live in.
When we look to our leaders, what qualities do we look for and value? I, for one, am going to continue in my quest to find a leader who is wise. Hopefully, I won’t have to wait too much longer…
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Wisdom of females, Wisdom is female (San 5)
Jill, your wonderful post got me thinking, obviously our orthodox friend on the train hasn't read today's daf. In it we see Rav (important 2nd century Rabbi) introduced as the R. Chiya's sister's son (even though his is also his brother's son - more on this below). To complicate matters, they introduced his brother Rabbah Bar Chanah as R. Chiya's brother' s son. So why the discrepancy? Why introduce one brother through the male lineage and one through a female? To understand this, we have to look at R. Chiya's interesting pedigree.
Here's what Imrei Binah explains:
The point here is not the lineage but that because Rav was both the son of R. Chiya's sister and brother he could have chosen either label (brother's son or sister's son). So why choose to link him with the sister? Because, the Talmud explains, women are a sign of wisdom. By linking Rav to Chiya's sister, Chiya is alluding to Rav's supperior wisdom.
This got me thinking, why is wisdom is always linked to females? Why is it that in Proverbs, Wisdom is always personified as female? Why is that when God communicates to the Rabbis, she does it through a Bat Kol (a feminine noun that we can define as a divine echo)? The easy answer is that my fiancee is always right, but there has to be something more to this!
Here's one thought. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (the RaMChal) one wrote that the process that we know as chochmah (wisdom) takes place on the left side of the brain. In his view, this side of the brain deals with kindness, mercy and most of all judgement. This holds up to our modern understanding of the brain. Left-brain people are more rational by nature.
So what does this have to do with anything? Maybe our train gawker needs a little bit of that female chochmah to beef up his judgment and energize his kindness. Or else maybe he just needs to real Jill's post. COME ON DUDE, DIDN'T YOUR MOTHER TEACH YOU BETTER THAN THAT?
You go Jill!
Here's what Imrei Binah explains:
Abba bar Acha Karsala was a widower with a son, Aivo, and he married a widow with a daughter. [Aivo and that daughter were thus not related]. R. Chiya was born of this second marriage of Abba bar Acha and the widow. Eventually R. Chiya's half-brother, Aivo married the half sister of R. Chiya (since they were not actually related, but only stepbrother and stepsister), and Rav was their child. Thus, Rav was the son of R. Chiya's half brother as well as the song of his-half sister. Rabbah bar Chanah was a child of Chanah who was R. Chiya full brother. Rabbah's grandparents were Abba bar Acha Karsala and the widow.If this is confusing that's ok. I had to read it 3 or 4 times before I got it. Move over Brady bunch, this is much more interesting!
The point here is not the lineage but that because Rav was both the son of R. Chiya's sister and brother he could have chosen either label (brother's son or sister's son). So why choose to link him with the sister? Because, the Talmud explains, women are a sign of wisdom. By linking Rav to Chiya's sister, Chiya is alluding to Rav's supperior wisdom.
This got me thinking, why is wisdom is always linked to females? Why is it that in Proverbs, Wisdom is always personified as female? Why is that when God communicates to the Rabbis, she does it through a Bat Kol (a feminine noun that we can define as a divine echo)? The easy answer is that my fiancee is always right, but there has to be something more to this!
Here's one thought. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (the RaMChal) one wrote that the process that we know as chochmah (wisdom) takes place on the left side of the brain. In his view, this side of the brain deals with kindness, mercy and most of all judgement. This holds up to our modern understanding of the brain. Left-brain people are more rational by nature.
So what does this have to do with anything? Maybe our train gawker needs a little bit of that female chochmah to beef up his judgment and energize his kindness. Or else maybe he just needs to real Jill's post. COME ON DUDE, DIDN'T YOUR MOTHER TEACH YOU BETTER THAN THAT?
You go Jill!
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Schottenstein and Skinny Jeans (San 5)
I'm usually not the type to be overly concerned with women's issues or standing up for the feminist voice.
Perhaps this is because I go to a female dominated rabbinical school where riding the elevator with renowned female scholars is just another day in the life. This attitude could also be a product of the way I grew up and the values ingrained in my mind from my family and culture. To put it bluntly, I am accepted in my world and since I don't usually put myself in non-liberal environments, feminism hasn't been a big part of consciousness.
This all changed when I started doing daf yomi on the subway (I ride the F train) three days ago. This morning I experienced the CONTINUOUS unfriendly glares of an orthodox man trying to reconcile the combination of Schottenstein and Skinny Jeans.
Ironically, today's daf deals with issues of authority afforded to rabbinic leaders. Descendants of the Reish Geluta of Bavel are more authoritative than descendants of the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael. Why, you may ask? Well, the Tosafot say the reason is that the Reish Geluta was descended from the male line of the Davidic House, whereas the Nasi was descended from the female line! (5a footnote 13) There are endless discussions about why certain scholars have authority to rule independently in certain situations while others do not.
There was a particularly interesting discussion about whether a student has the authority to render a decision in the vicinity of his teacher. The conclusion is that if a student is within three parsaot of his teacher, he cannot render a decision but if the distance between student and teacher is greater than three parsaot, he does have authority to render a decision. A "parsa" is measured in time, not distance. Three parsaot is considered a third of a days travels, or three to four hours (Mishnah Berura 249:1)
As I was approaching the Broadway-Lafayette street station, I regretted my current proximity to my HUC teachers... I considered riding the train with this man to Queens so that I could render his stares "tamei."
Perhaps this is because I go to a female dominated rabbinical school where riding the elevator with renowned female scholars is just another day in the life. This attitude could also be a product of the way I grew up and the values ingrained in my mind from my family and culture. To put it bluntly, I am accepted in my world and since I don't usually put myself in non-liberal environments, feminism hasn't been a big part of consciousness.
This all changed when I started doing daf yomi on the subway (I ride the F train) three days ago. This morning I experienced the CONTINUOUS unfriendly glares of an orthodox man trying to reconcile the combination of Schottenstein and Skinny Jeans.
Ironically, today's daf deals with issues of authority afforded to rabbinic leaders. Descendants of the Reish Geluta of Bavel are more authoritative than descendants of the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael. Why, you may ask? Well, the Tosafot say the reason is that the Reish Geluta was descended from the male line of the Davidic House, whereas the Nasi was descended from the female line! (5a footnote 13) There are endless discussions about why certain scholars have authority to rule independently in certain situations while others do not.
There was a particularly interesting discussion about whether a student has the authority to render a decision in the vicinity of his teacher. The conclusion is that if a student is within three parsaot of his teacher, he cannot render a decision but if the distance between student and teacher is greater than three parsaot, he does have authority to render a decision. A "parsa" is measured in time, not distance. Three parsaot is considered a third of a days travels, or three to four hours (Mishnah Berura 249:1)
As I was approaching the Broadway-Lafayette street station, I regretted my current proximity to my HUC teachers... I considered riding the train with this man to Queens so that I could render his stares "tamei."
Monday, February 15, 2010
Cool New Blog
Check out a new blog by John Crimmings, Examine the Contents. His latest post uses a cool metaphor of a magic eye to explain how he views text:
If yesterday I learned to embrace the arbitrary, today I learned that I will need to embrace confusion. Sanhedrin 3 introduces the Gemara's response to the Mishnah in Sanhedrin 2, which means we're back to discussing the intricacies of monetary rulings and the required number of judges, and whether said judges should be ordained, or know about finances, or have brown hair or black hair, be a Democrat or Republican, etc, etc. I had a hard time following the arguments and details, and rather than map out with flow charts the twists and turns of each claim, I'm going to settle in with my confusion and hope that some sense pops up. Like starring at a Magic Eye poster.
The Rabbinic Mind: (Don't) follow the majority (San 3b)
Throughout school my teachers have drilled one idea into my head: you must look up proof texts. I usually don't listen, especially because ArtScroll does it for me. Today, I did and couldn't believe what I found. The foundational text that explains why courts need to have an odd number of judges and that gives the judges power to rule on a simple majority is a text from Exodus 23:2
לִנְטֹת אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים--לְהַטֹּת
To decide, according to the majority [the matter], shall be decided (Artscroll translation)
A note about the Hebrew: the root that appears twice in this verse (נטה) actually means to lean. The Rabbis translated it the way we would use the word to lean in colloquial English, "the judge leaned toward your side and ruled in your favor." However, this is not the meaning of the verse in its original context.
Often this root means to corrupt or distort. This is the original context:
לֹא-תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי-רַבִּים, לְרָעֹת; וְלֹא-תַעֲנֶה עַל-רִב, לִנְטֹת אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים--לְהַטֹּת
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou bear witness in a cause to turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice (JPS Translation).
In essence the verse is giving directions for judges; they should not follow a majority to pervert justice but stand up for their beleifs and judge fairly. Not only does the text not speak to the makeup of the courts but it says (in a different context) that judges should NOT seek to follow a majority.
What is so amazing about the Talmud's use of this text is that the Rabbis had a vision of a court system. The judges would be odd in number, that way there would never be a tie. Because the Bible never spoke to this, the Rabbis had to get creative. They took the proof from a verse that basically said the opposite, they changed the context and created a foundation for their legal system.
What I love about this text is that the Rabbis weren't doing this arbitrarily but, I believe, thought they were doing what was right in God's eyes. There are many things in my life that I also have that same conviction (gay rights, gun control, health care). If they can do this to the text, why can't we as well? Where do we draw the line between using the text and abusing it? How much attention should we pay to context?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Rosenzweig Meets Sanhedrin. (Sanhedrin 2)
The first day of my daf yomi experience also happens to coincide with the day I am attempting to write a coherent paper about Franz Rosenzweig. This overwhelming task is influencing, and likely overshadowing my understanding of the opening mishnah of Sanhedrin.
Rosenzweig, attempting to immerse himself in a theology unattached to philosophical reasoning, discusses the "possibility of experiencing miracles" in his introduction to Part II of his book, The Star of Redemption. In this introduction, Rosenzweig explains how, for much of Jewish history, miracles were accepted as reliable and credible, and were not seen as contradictory or a threat to natural law.
The validity of miracles, he explained, relied on judicial proof. Eyewitnesses were needed to confirm both the prediction and fulfillment of the miracle. Rosenzweig says, "Thus the proof of miracles must basically fall back on eyewitnesses. In taking their sworn testimony, their personal credibility will be decisive, as well as the estimate of their capacity for observation, and even their numbers." (The Star of Redemption 96)
The notion of rooting miracles within a judicial system that relies on the subjective reasoning of human beings makes me wonder about the role these courts played in relation to their understanding of God in their world. As we read in the mishnah, the sanhedrin is designated to rule over cases concerning a shevet (tribe), sheker (false prophet) or kohen Gadol (high priest). These three cases could be considered cases dealing with the realm of God and perhaps miracles. In addition to numbers, what is it that gives the sanhedrin greater authority to rule over such cases? According to Rosenzweig, shouldn't each individual self or soul be accorded the authority to witness or experiencing the realm of the divine?
As a reform Jew, I question what it means to experience or witness miracles in my life and as an emerging reform Jewish leader, I constantly struggle with the authority afforded to me as a rabbinic authority and witness in the lives of Jews around me. I'm looking forward to starting this journey though sanhedrin, and exploring the world of the Talmudic judiciary system!
woooo! go team!
Rosenzweig, attempting to immerse himself in a theology unattached to philosophical reasoning, discusses the "possibility of experiencing miracles" in his introduction to Part II of his book, The Star of Redemption. In this introduction, Rosenzweig explains how, for much of Jewish history, miracles were accepted as reliable and credible, and were not seen as contradictory or a threat to natural law.
The validity of miracles, he explained, relied on judicial proof. Eyewitnesses were needed to confirm both the prediction and fulfillment of the miracle. Rosenzweig says, "Thus the proof of miracles must basically fall back on eyewitnesses. In taking their sworn testimony, their personal credibility will be decisive, as well as the estimate of their capacity for observation, and even their numbers." (The Star of Redemption 96)
The notion of rooting miracles within a judicial system that relies on the subjective reasoning of human beings makes me wonder about the role these courts played in relation to their understanding of God in their world. As we read in the mishnah, the sanhedrin is designated to rule over cases concerning a shevet (tribe), sheker (false prophet) or kohen Gadol (high priest). These three cases could be considered cases dealing with the realm of God and perhaps miracles. In addition to numbers, what is it that gives the sanhedrin greater authority to rule over such cases? According to Rosenzweig, shouldn't each individual self or soul be accorded the authority to witness or experiencing the realm of the divine?
As a reform Jew, I question what it means to experience or witness miracles in my life and as an emerging reform Jewish leader, I constantly struggle with the authority afforded to me as a rabbinic authority and witness in the lives of Jews around me. I'm looking forward to starting this journey though sanhedrin, and exploring the world of the Talmudic judiciary system!
woooo! go team!
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The end is the beginning: we will return to you
Today was the siyum (the end celebration) for tractate Bava Batra. It's been 176 days since I first dove headfirst into the world of property, contract, and inheritance laws. I want to conclude with a quote from the final Mishnah of the tractate:
Although I'd been study a page of Talmud everyday for a number of months before I jumped into the offical cycle, I began my official foray into the Daf Yomi world this past spring. Counting the 119 pages of monitary law in Bava Metzia, I've been studying this legal minutia for 295 days strait. Over this period, I've stretched myself in new ways. I've incorperated words like lein, guarentor, encumbered property, and partial admission oaths (modeh b'mikzat) into my vocabulary and through this blog have begun to explore what this journey has meant to me as a modern Jew trying to fit these laws into my secular worldview.
Tomorrow I leave monetary law and begin a 113-day study of criminal law. I'll enter into the world of death penalties (do I deserve strangling or stoning?) and the intricacies of court procedures. However, I won't leave the past 295 days far behind. I am and will continue to be shaped by these two tractates. Through them, I have developed a better sense of legal thinking, a truer appreciation for the Rabbis and for argumenation and a better sense of where God and my personal ethic fits into the text (more on this in later posts).
Today was an end. Tomorrow will be a beginning. I look forward to returning to you Bava Batra.
Rabbi Yishmael said: One who wishes to become wise should occupty himself with the study of monetary law for there is no branch of Torah greater than it, for they are like a welling fountain.The Jewish legal scholar, Rabbi Israel of Ruzhin, explains that Rabbi Yishmael's statement is apt because "no other branch of Torah law provides the human intellect with as wide-ranging a field for reasoning and analysis. Hense, its study sharpens the mind."
Although I'd been study a page of Talmud everyday for a number of months before I jumped into the offical cycle, I began my official foray into the Daf Yomi world this past spring. Counting the 119 pages of monitary law in Bava Metzia, I've been studying this legal minutia for 295 days strait. Over this period, I've stretched myself in new ways. I've incorperated words like lein, guarentor, encumbered property, and partial admission oaths (modeh b'mikzat) into my vocabulary and through this blog have begun to explore what this journey has meant to me as a modern Jew trying to fit these laws into my secular worldview.
Tomorrow I leave monetary law and begin a 113-day study of criminal law. I'll enter into the world of death penalties (do I deserve strangling or stoning?) and the intricacies of court procedures. However, I won't leave the past 295 days far behind. I am and will continue to be shaped by these two tractates. Through them, I have developed a better sense of legal thinking, a truer appreciation for the Rabbis and for argumenation and a better sense of where God and my personal ethic fits into the text (more on this in later posts).
Today was an end. Tomorrow will be a beginning. I look forward to returning to you Bava Batra.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
