RSS

Author Archives: yishmaelgunzhard

El génesis de la justicia

por Rabino Jonathan Sacks

Hay palabras que cambian el mundo, pero ninguna más que estas dos frases que aparecen en el primer capítulo de la Torá:

Entonces Di-s dijo: “Hagamos al hombre a nuestra imagen, conforme a nuestra semejanza; y ejerza dominio sobre los peces del mar, sobre las aves del cielo, sobre los ganados, sobre todos los animales salvajes, y sobre toda criatura que se arrastre sobre la tierra”. Creó, pues, Di-s al hombre a imagen suya, a imagen de Di-s los creó; varón y hembra los creó.

La idea aquí descrita es quizás la más transformadora en toda la historia del pensamiento político y moral. Es la base de la civilización occidental, con su extraordinario énfasis en el individuo y en la igualdad. Subyace en las palabras de Thomas Jefferson en la Declaración de la independencia estadounidense: “Sostenemos que estas verdades son evidentes por sí mismas, que todos los hombres son creados como iguales [y fueron] dotados por su Creador de ciertos derechos inalienables […]”. Estas verdades son todo menos evidentes por sí mismas. Hubieran sido consideradas absurdas por Platón, quien sostenía que la sociedad debía basarse en el mito de que los humanos se dividen en personas de oro, de plata y de bronce, y de que es esto lo que determina su estatus en la sociedad. Aristóteles creía que algunos nacían para gobernar y otros para ser gobernados.

Las declaraciones revolucionarias no hacen su magia de la noche a la mañana. Como explicó el Rambam en la Guía de los perplejos, a la gente le lleva mucho tiempo cambiar. La Torá funciona entre medio del tiempo. No abolió la esclavitud, pero puso en marcha una serie de procesos (el más notable es shabat, momento en el que se suspenden todas las jerarquías de poder y los esclavos tienen un día de libertad a la semana) que estaban destinados a llevar a su abolición con el paso del tiempo. La gente tarda en entender lo que implican las ideas. Thomas Jefferson, el campeón de la igualdad, tenía sus propios esclavos. La esclavitud no se abolió en los Estados Unidos hasta la década de 1860, y no sin una guerra civil. Como señaló Abraham Lincoln, tanto los defensores de la esclavitud como sus críticos citan la Biblia para defender su causa. Pero en algún momento la gente cambia, y lo hace por el poder de las ideas que se plantaron mucho tiempo atrás en la mentalidad occidental.

¿Qué es lo que se dice exactamente en el primer capítulo de la Torá? Lo primero que hay que notar es que no es una declaración aislada, un dato sin contexto. De hecho, es algo polémico, una protesta contra ciertas formas de entender el universo. En todos los mitos antiguos, el mundo se explicaba en términos de batallas entre los dioses en su lucha por la dominación. La Torá desestima esta manera de pensar. Di-s habla y el universo toma forma. Esto, según Max Weber, el gran sociólogo del siglo XIX, fue el final del mito y el nacimiento del racionalismo occidental.

Más importante aún, creó una nueva manera de pensar el universo. Tanto para el antiguo mundo del mito como para el mundo moderno de la ciencia, es central la idea de poder, de fuerza, de energía. Eso es lo que falta en el Génesis 1. Di-s dice: “Que haya”, y hay. No dice nada sobre el poder, la resistencia, la conquista o el juego de fuerzas. En lugar de eso, la palabra clave de la historia, que aparece siete veces, es inesperada. Es la palabra tov : bueno. Declara lo que se espera que seamos: semejanza de Di-s.  Tov es una palabra moral.

En Génesis 1, la Torá nos dice algo radical. La realidad de que la Torá es guía (la misma palabra “Torá” significa ‘guía’, ‘instrucción’, ‘ley’) es moral y ética. La pregunta que el Génesis busca responder no es “¿cómo comenzó el universo?”, sino “entonces, ¿cómo debemos vivir?”. Este es el cambio de paradigma más significativo de la Torá. El universo que Di-s hizo y que nosotros habitamos no tiene que ver con el poder o la dominación, sino con tov y de ra, con lo bueno y lo malvado.1 Por primera vez, la religión se convirtió en algo ético. A Di-s le importa la justicia, la compasión, la lealtad, el amor, la amabilidad, la dignidad del individuo y la santidad de la vida.

Este mismo principio de que Génesis 1 es polémico, parte de una discusión con un trasfondo, es esencial para entender la idea de que Di-s creó a la humanidad “a su imagen y semejanza”. Estas palabras deben haberles resultado familiares a los primeros lectores de la Torá. Las conocían bien. Eran comunes entre las primeras civilizaciones, la Mesopotamia y el antiguo Egipto. Se decía que algunas personas eran a la imagen de Di-s. Eran los reyes de las ciudades-estado de la Mesopotamia y los faraones de Egipto. Nada podría haber sido más radical que decir que no sólo los reyes y los gobernadores eran a la imagen de Di-s. Que todos lo somos. Incluso hoy la idea es desafiante: cuánto más en una época de gobernantes absolutos con poder absoluto.

Entonces entendemos que Génesis 1:26-27 no es tanto una afirmación metafísica sobre la naturaleza del ser humano como es una protesta política contra la base misma de las sociedades jerárquicas basadas en clases o en castas de los tiempos antiguos o modernos. Eso es lo que la convierte en la idea más incendiaria de la Torá. En cierto sentido fundamental, somos todos iguales en dignidad y en valor, porque todos fuimos hechos a imagen de Di-s, sin importar nuestro color, cultura o credo.

Más adelante en la Torá aparece una idea similar en relación con el pueblo judío, cuando Di-s los invitó a convertirse en un reino de sacerdotes y en un pueblo sagrado. Todos los pueblos del mundo antiguo habían tenido sacerdotes, pero ninguno era “un reino de sacerdotes”. Todas las religiones tienen individuos sagrados, pero ninguna decía ser un pueblo del cual todos sus individuos fueran sagrados. Esto también tomó tiempo en materializarse. Durante toda la era bíblica hubo jerarquías. Había sacerdotes, había una élite sagrada. Pero luego de la destrucción del Segundo Templo, cada rezo se convirtió en un sacrificio, cada oficiante de plegarias, en un sacerdote, y cada sinagoga, en un fragmento del Templo. Justo debajo de la superficie de la Torá, funciona un igualitarismo profundo, y los rabinos lo sabían y lo vivían.

Hay una segunda idea contenida en la frase “y ejerza dominio sobre los peces del mar, sobre las aves del cielo […]”. Nótese que no se sugiere que se tenga el derecho a dominar a otro ser humano. En El paraíso perdido aclara lo que se espera que seamos: semejanza de Di-s basada en el principio de que lo correcto es lo soberano. Tanto en Milton, como en el Midrash, dice que este fue el pecado de Nimrod, el primer gran gobernador de Asiria, y por lo tanto el constructor de la Torre de Babel (ver Gen. 10:8-11). Milton escribe que cuando a Adán le dijeron que Nimrod “se arrojaría un dominio no merecido”, se horrorizó:

¡Hijo execrable! ¡Aspirar a elevarse

sobre sus hermanos, atribuyéndose

una autoridad usurpada, que no le ha sido concedida por Di-s!

El Eterno nos ha otorgado tan sólo dominio absoluto

sobre las bestias, los peces y las aves;

este derecho tenemos, debido a su bondad;

pero no ha hecho al hombre señor sobre los hombres,

sino que reservándose este título para sí,

ha dejado a la humanidad libre de toda servidumbre humana. (El paraíso perdido, Libro XII: 64-71).

En ese momento era impensable cuestionar el derecho de los humanos a gobernar sobre otros humanos sin su consentimiento. Todas las sociedades avanzadas eran así. ¿Cómo podría ser de otra manera? ¿No era esta la estructura del universo? ¿No era el Sol el que gobernaba el día? ¿No era la Luna la que gobernaba la noche? ¿No había en el mismo cielo una jerarquía de dioses? Ya hay aquí implícita una profunda ambivalencia que la Torá terminaría por mostrar con relación a la misma institución de la realeza, el gobierno del “hombre sobre los hombres”.

La tercera implicación descansa en la paradoja pura de Di-s, que dice: “Hagamos al hombre a nuestra imagen, conforme a nuestra semejanza”. A veces olvidamos, al leer estas palabras, que en el judaísmo Di-s no tiene imagen ni semejanza. Hacer una imagen de Di-s es transgredir el segundo de los Diez Mandamientos y ser culpable de idolatría. Moshé puso allí el énfasis en la revelación del Sinaí: “a excepción de oír la voz, ninguna figura han visto”.

Di-s no tiene imagen porque no es físico. Trasciende el universo de lo físico porque él lo creó. Por lo tanto, él es libre, libre de las leyes de la materia. Eso es lo que Di-s quiere decir cuando le dice a Moshé que su nombre es “seré el que seré”, y luego, cuando, después del pecado del becerro de oro, le dice “tendré piedad con quién tendré piedad”. Di-s es libre, y al hacernos a su imagen, también nos dio el poder de serlo.

Esto, como la Torá lo deja claro, fue el regalo más fatídico de Di-s. Cuando se les dio libertad, los humanos no supieron usarla. Adam y Javá desobedecieron la orden de Di-s. Cain mató a Ebel. Al final de la parashá nos encontramos a nosotros mismos en el mundo ante el Diluvio, tan lleno de violencia que Di-s se arrepintió de haber creado la humanidad. Este es el drama central del Tanaj y del propio judaísmo. ¿Vamos a usar nuestra libertad para respetar el orden o para el caos? ¿Vamos a honrar o a deshonrar la imagen de Di-s que vive dentro del corazón y de la mente humana?

Estas no son sólo preguntas antiguas. Están tan vivas hoy como lo estuvieron en el pasado. La pregunta que hacen los pensadores serios, desde que Nietzsche argumentó en favor de abandonar tanto a Di-s como a la ética judeo-cristiana es si la justicia, los derechos humanos y la dignidad incondicional del ser humano son capaces de sobrevivir solos en un mundo secular. El mismo Nietzsche pensaba que no.

En 2008, el filósofo de Yale Nicholas Woltersdorff publicó un trabajo magistral en el que sostenía que nuestra concepción occidental de justicia se apoya sobre la creencia de que “todos nosotros tenemos el mismo gran valor: el valor de haber sido hechos a imagen de Di-s y de ser amados por él, nuestro redentor”. Insiste en que no hay racionalidad secular en la que se pueda construir un marco de justicia semejante. Eso es con seguridad lo que John F. Kennedy quiso decir en su discurso de asunción cuando habló de “las creencias revolucionarias por las que pelearon nuestros antecesores”, que “los derechos del hombre no vienen de la generosidad del estado sino de la mano de Di-s”.

Las ideas trascendentales hicieron de Occidente lo que es: los derechos humanos, la abolición de la esclavitud, que todos valgamos lo mismo y la justicia basada en el principio de que la ley es soberana sobre el poder. Todos derivan, en última instancia, de la afirmación que aparece en el primer capítulo de la Torá que dice que fuimos hechos a imagen y semejanza de Di-s. Ningún otro texto ha tenido una influencia mayor en el pensamiento moral, ni ninguna otra civilización ha tenido jamás una visión más clara de lo que se espera que seamos.

Notas al Pie
1. Lo que interpreto de la historia de Adam y Javá y el árbol del conocimiento queda para otro momento. Mientras tanto, leer el Rambam, Guía de los Perplejos, I:2.
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 5, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

Where Is the Garden of Eden?

For thousands of years, people have searched for the Garden of Eden (Heb. Gan Eden), or Paradise, as it is sometimes called, putting forth various theories about its supposed location.

However, any discussion about the location of the Garden of Eden needs to be prefaced with a few important points.

The mystics explain that the term “Garden of Eden” can refer to two things:

  1. the “upper Garden of Eden,” a completely spiritual place where the soul goes after one passes from this world, also called Gan Eden haruchny, the “spiritual Garden of Eden”; and
  2. the “lower Garden of Eden,” where G‑d placed Adam after he was created, as described in the book of Genesis. It is this “physical Garden of Eden”—Gan Eden hagashmy—that man has searched for thousands of years.

Additionally, the Talmud (1) points out that when we say “Garden of Eden,” we are technically referring to two distinct places, the “Garden” and “Eden,” as the verse states, “And a river went out from Eden to water the Garden.” (2) Any discussion about the Garden of Eden is only about the “Garden,” for regarding “Eden,” the verse states, “No eye has seen it, G‑d, aside from You . . .” (3)

With that in mind, we can now turn to the question at hand.

The Four Rivers

Any search for the Garden would have to start with the description in Genesis:

A river flowed out of Eden to water the Garden, and from there it separated and became four heads. The name of one is Pishon; that is the one that encompasses all the land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is good; there is the crystal and the onyx stone. The name of the second river is Gichon; that is the one that encompasses all the land of Cush. The name of the third river is Chidekel; that is the one that flows to the east of Ashur. And the fourth river, that is Perat. (4)

So seemingly, finding the location of the Garden of Eden is fairly straightforward. All you have to do is find the head of these four rivers, and there you have the Garden of Eden. Indeed, many have speculated as to the identity of these four rivers and searched for their source (for more on this, see Where Are the Four Rivers that Come from Eden? ).

And yet, we still don’t know where this mysterious riverhead is. In fact, in the Talmud, Reish Lakish speculated whether the entrance to the Garden of Eden was in Israel, Arabia or between the rivers of Babylonia. (5)

Paradise Lost on the Equator

The question of course is, if the Garden of Eden is indeed a physical place, then how come after so many years, we still can’t find it?

According to the mystics, (6) the Garden of Eden is an actual place that is located on the equator (or approx 32 degrees below Jerusalem). It is located there since the north corresponds to the attribute of gevurah (severity) and the south corresponds to the attribute of chesed (kindness), and the Garden is inclusive of both.

At the same time, they explain that the Garden of Eden was created as a space that would be on a higher plane, an intermediary between the spiritual and physical realms. Originally, when Adam was first created and before he sinned with the Tree of Knowledge, he too was more refined and able to be in this higher plane. Once he sinned and brought death into the world, he became more coarse, and his body was no longer able to physically be in this higher plane. As a result, he was “expelled” from the Garden. And ever since then, we’ve been unable to even perceive the actual Garden of Eden (even if we were to know where it was).

At the time of the final redemption, however, when the world and its inhabitants will be completely refined, we will be able to perceive and enter the Garden of Eden. May it be speedily in our days!

Footnotes
1. Talmud, Berachot 34b.
2. Genesis 2:10.
3. Isaiah 64:3.
4. Genesis 2:10-14.
5. See Talmud, Eruvin 19a.
6. See Ramban, Torat Hadam, Shaar Hagemul; Likutei Torah, Tazria 20a; Sefer Maamarim 5565, vol. 2, p. 960-1; Maamarei Admur Haemtzoi, Vayikra, vol. 2, 702-3, 916.
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 5, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

The Lessons of Adam and Eve

The Lessons of Adam and Eve

avatar by Pini Dunner

A Torah scroll. Photo: RabbiSacks.org.

I don’t expect that you have heard of Dr. Ian Walker, a professor at Bath University in England.

Usually described by the media as a “traffic psychologist,” his official title is “senior lecturer in the Department of Psychology with research interests in environmental behaviors and traffic safety.”

To be clear, Dr. Walker studies how people behave when they are driving cars, with a focus on safety issues.

Walker entered the limelight in 2006, with a shocking find. After years of research, he discovered that when people drive cars drive past cyclists, if the cyclist is wearing a helmet, they will pass them at a closer distance than if there was no helmet.

As astonishing as it may sound, subconsciously drivers make a judgement call about cyclists without a helmet, believing them to be more vulnerable to permanent damage in the event of an accident. Consequently, they are extra careful when driving alongside them. Ironically, it turns out that in some cases wearing a helmet may actually be more dangerous for cyclists.

The most recent figures available for bicycle accidents involving cars or trucks resulting in a fatality is for the year 2015; 818 cyclists were killed on American roads that year, averaging more than two per day. And yet, despite the existence of Walker’s research, the detailed 2015 report includes no information on how many of the fatalities were wearing helmets at the time of their collision.

Furthermore, the report ends with the following warning:

All bicyclists should wear properly fitted bicycle helmets every time they ride. A helmet is the single most effective way to prevent head injury resulting from a bicycle crash.

In my view, the NHTSA should be warning cyclists that wearing a helmet may lead to a greater risk of collisions, and that those wearing a helmet should act with greater caution while riding.

Additionally, Walker also reports that cyclists who wear a helmet often engage in risky behavior while on the road. In an experiment where participants were told they were testing eye tracking while they played a computer game, half the participants were given a hat to hold their eye tracking equipment and the other half were given a bicycle helmet. Those wearing the helmet played the game in a far riskier fashion than those who were not wearing one.

His conclusion: wearing a helmet gives people a sense of safety, and empowers them to take risks that they would not ordinarily take, even though the helmet has no logical way of protecting them from those risks.

Make no mistake, I am not suggesting that cyclists no longer wear helmets based on Dr. Walker’s studies, but it is certainly worth noting that his research highlights an important aspect of decision-making when it comes to added protection for cyclists: sometimes adding too much protection can be counterproductive.

Quite astoundingly, Rashi highlights exactly this point regarding a detail of the Biblical story of Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

Eve initially rejects the serpent’s invitation to eat from the tree, citing God’s prohibition (Gen. 3:3): וּמִפְרִי הָעֵץ אֲשֶר בְּתוֹךְ הַגָן אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמֶנּוּ וְלֹא תִגְעוּ בּוֹ פֶּן תְּמֻתוּן — “God said, ‘don’t eat from the tree in the middle of the garden, and don’t touch it, lest you die.’”

The serpent summarily dismisses Eve’s caution, assuring her that she is “not going to die!” Rashi explains that his confidence was boosted by Eve’s exaggerated vigilance.

The Talmud explains that God had not forbidden her from touching the tree; He had only said that she and Adam should not eat from it. The Midrash, quoted by Rashi on the Talmud, features the serpent pushing Eve into the tree to demonstrate that nothing would happen to her, thereby lulling her into believing that eating from it would similarly lack any consequences.

In his commentary on this passage, Rabbi Moses Sofer poses the following problem: How is it that Eve’s extra boundary was any different from the countless boundaries set by the Talmud to stop us from violating Torah prohibitions?

His answer is as simple as it is astute. Exaggerated boundaries end up encouraging violations rather than preventing them. The Talmud has a maxim, “gezeira ligzeira lo gazrinan” — one cannot add a restriction to a restriction. Had Eve’s restriction been limited to not touching the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge in order to make it less likely that she would eat it, this would have been a limitation that made sense. But not touching the entire tree was a restriction too far, and opened the way for the serpent to take advantage of her.

This same idea of not creating a double restriction appears in the portion of Yitro, in the section that precedes God’s revelation to the nascent Jewish nation at Mount Sinai (Ex. 19:23).

Rashi’s grandson, Rashbam, explains the verses at the end of Chapter 19 as a dialogue between God and Moses regarding the setting of proper boundaries. Moses had proposed that staying away from the mountain was not enough, suggesting that God also wanted the nation not to gaze at it from afar. But God overruled this proposal, responding that one level of restriction was more than sufficient.

The story of Adam and Eve is a cautionary tale from the dawn of human history — but not for the reason we all assume. Rather, it acts as a reminder that self-congratulation results in complacency, and that this inevitably leads to hubris. The gravest danger is the one that hovers over those who feel they are best protected, while people who recognize their own vulnerability are less likely to fail.

It is not for nothing that this story is the very first narrative of the Torah.

Rabbi Pini Dunner is the senior spiritual leader of the Beverly Hills Synagogue.

As taken from, https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/10/05/the-lessons-of-adam-and-eve/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 5, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

The Three Stages of Creation

by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

“And God said, let there be… And there was… and God saw that it was good.”

Thus unfolds the most revolutionary as well as the most influential account of creation in the history of the human spirit.

In Rashi’s commentary, he quotes Rabbi Isaac who questioned why the Torah should start with the story of creation at all.[1] Given that it is a book of law – the commandments that bind the children of Israel as a nation – it should have started with the first law given to the Israelites, which does not appear until the twelfth chapter of Exodus.

Rabbi Isaac’s own answer was that the Torah opens with the birth of the universe to justify the gift of the Land of Israel to the People of Israel. The Creator of the world is ipso facto owner and ruler of the world. His gift confers title. The claim of the Jewish people to the land is unlike that of any other nation. It does not flow from arbitrary facts of settlement, historical association, conquest or international agreement (though in the case of the present state of Israel, all four apply). It follows from something more profound: the word of God Himself – the God acknowledged, as it happens, by all three monotheisms: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is a political reading of the chapter. Let me suggest another (not incompatible, but additional) interpretation.

One of the most striking propositions of the Torah is that we are called on, as God’s image, to imitate God. “Be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Leviticus 19:2):

 The sages taught: “Just as God is called gracious, so you be gracious. Just as He is called merciful, so you be merciful. Just as He is called holy, so you be holy.” So too the prophets described the Almighty by all the various a tributes: long-suffering, abounding in kindness, righteous, upright, perfect, mighty and powerful and so on – to teach us that these qualities are good and right and that a human being should cultivate them, and thus imitate God as far as we can.[2]

Implicit in the first chapter of Genesis is thus a momentous challenge: Just as God is creative, so you be creative. In making man, God endowed one creature – the only one thus far known to science – with the capacity not merely to adapt to his environment, but to adapt his environment to him; to shape the world; to be active, not merely passive, in relation to the influences and circumstances that surround him:

The brute’s existence is an undignified one because it is a helpless existence. Human existence is a dignified one because it is a glorious, majestic, powerful existence…Man of old who could not fight disease and succumbed in multitudes to yellow fever or any other plague with degrading helplessness could not lay claim to dignity. Only the man who builds hospitals, discovers therapeutic techniques, and saves lives is blessed with dignity…Civilised man has gained limited control of nature and has become, in certain respects, her master, and with his mastery he has attained dignity as well. His mastery has made it possible for him to act in accordance with his responsibility.[3]

The first chapter of Genesis therefore contains a teaching. It tells us how to be creative – namely in three stages. The first is the stage of saying “Let there be.” The second is the stage of “and there was.” The third is the stage of seeing “that it is good.”

Even a cursory look at this model of creativity teaches us something profound and counter-intuitive: What is truly creative is not science or technology per se, but the word. That is what forms all being.

Indeed, what singles out Homo sapiens among other animals is the ability to speak. Targum Onkelos translates the last phrase of Genesis 2:7, “God formed man out of dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living creature,” as “and man became ruaĥ memallelah, a speaking spirit.” Because we can speak, we can think, and therefore imagine a world different from the one that currently exists.

Creation begins with the creative word, the idea, the vision, the dream. Language – and with it the ability to remember a distant past and conceptualise a distant future – lies at the heart of our uniqueness as the image of God. Just as God makes the natural world by words (“And God said…and there was”) so we make the human world by words, which is why Judaism takes words so seriously: “Life and death are in the power of the tongue,” says the book of Proverbs (18:21). Already at the opening of the Torah, at the very beginning of creation, is foreshadowed the Jewish doctrine of revelation: that God reveals Himself to humanity not in the sun, the stars, the wind or the storm but in and through words – sacred words that make us co-partners with God in the work of redemption.

“And God said, let there be…and there was” – is, the second stage of creation, is for us the most difficult. It is one thing to conceive an idea, another to execute it. “Between the imagination and the act falls the shadow.”[4] Between the intention and the fact, the dream and the reality, lies struggle, opposition, and the fallibility of the human will. It is all too easy, having tried and failed, to conclude that nothing ultimately can be achieved, that the world is as it is, and that all human endeavour is destined to end in failure.

This, however, is a Greek idea, not a Jewish one: that hubris ends in nemesis, that fate is inexorable and we must resign ourselves to it. Judaism holds the opposite, that though creation is difficult, laborious and fraught with setbacks, we are summoned to it as our essential human vocation: “It is not for you to complete the work,” said Rabbi Tarfon, “but neither are you free to desist from it.”[5] There is a lovely rabbinic phrase: maĥashva tova HaKadosh barukh Hu meztarfah lema’aseh.[6]

This is usually translated as “God considers a good intention as if it were the deed.” I translate it differently: “When a human being has a good intention, God joins in helping it become a deed,” meaning – He gives us the strength, if not now, then eventually, to turn it into achievement.

If the first stage in creation is imagination, the second is will. The sanctity of the human will is one of the most distinctive features of the Torah. There have been many philosophies – the generic name for them is determinisms – that maintain that the human will is an illusion. We are determined by other factors – genetically encoded instinct, economic or social forces, conditioned reflexes – and the idea that we are what we choose to be is a myth. Judaism is a protest in the name of human freedom and responsibility against determinism. We are not pre-programmed machines; we are persons, endowed with will. Just as God is free, so we are free, and the entire Torah is a call to humanity to exercise responsible freedom in creating a social world which honours the freedom of others. Will is the bridge from “Let there be” to “and there was.”

What, though, of the third stage: “And God saw that it was good”? This is the hardest of the three stages to understand. What does it mean to say that “God saw that it was good”? Surely, this is redundant. What does God make that is not good? Judaism is not Gnosticism, nor is it an Eastern mysticism. We do not believe that this created world of the senses is evil. To the contrary, we believe that it is the arena of blessing and good.

Perhaps this is what the phrase comes to teach us: that the religious life is not to be sought in retreat from the world and its conflicts into mystic rapture or nirvana. God wants us to be part of the world, fighting its battles, tasting its joy, celebrating its splendour. But there is more.

In the course of my work, I have visited prisons and centres for young offenders. Many of the people I met there were potentially good. They, like you and me, had dreams, hopes, ambitions, aspirations. They did not want to become criminals. Their tragedy was that often they came from dysfunctional families in difficult conditions. No one took the time to care for them, support them, teach them how to negotiate the world, how to achieve what they wanted through hard work and persuasion rather than violence and lawbreaking. They lacked a basic self-respect, a sense of their own worth. No one ever told them that they were good.

To see that someone is good and to say so is a creative act – one of the great creative acts. ere may be some few individuals who are inescapably evil, but they are few. Within almost all of us is something positive and unique, but which is all too easily injured, and which only grows when exposed to the sunlight of someone else’s recognition and praise. To see the good in others and let them see themselves in the mirror of our regard is to help someone grow to become the best they can be. “Greater,” says the Talmud, “is one who causes others to do good than one who does good himself.”[7] To help others become what they can be is to give birth to creativity in someone else’s soul. This is done not by criticism or negativity but by searching out the good in others, and helping them see it, recognise it, own it, and live it.

“And God saw that it was good” – this too is part of the work of creation, the subtlest and most beautiful of all. When we recognise the goodness in someone, we do more than create it, we help it to become creative. This is what God does for us, and what He calls us to do for others.

NOTES

[1] Rashi 1:1

[2] Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot De’ot 1:6.

[3] Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Lonely Man of Faith (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 16–17.

[4] T.S. Eliot, “The Hollow Men”, in T.S. Eliot, Collected Poems 1909–1962 (London: Faber and Faber, 1963), p92.

[5] Mishna, Avot 2:16.

[6] Tosefta, Pe’ah 1:4.

[7] Bava Batra 9a.

As taken from, https://mailchi.mp/rabbisacks/the-three-stages-of-creation-bereishit-5779?e=97ac870b13

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 4, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

Introduction to Torah The Unavoidable and Disturbing Text

by Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo

Torah study has become nearly impossible, and the problem lies not with the Torah but with the reader. Reading the text requires courage. Not to open the Book and start reading, but courage to confront oneself. Learning Torah requires human authenticity; it means standing in front of a mirror and asking yourself the daunting question of who you really are, without masks and artificialities. Unfortunately, that is one of the qualities we, in modern times, have lost. We have convinced ourselves that we must be intellectuals, removed from subjectivity and bowing only to scientific investigation. Consequently, we have disconnected from our Self. Because we humans are a bundle of emotions, passions and subjectivities, we cannot escape our inner world, much as we would like to.

Still, we formulate ideas. We may proclaim the rights of the spirit. But they enter only our books and discussions, not our lives. They float around in our heads, rather than walking with us into the inner chambers of our daily existence. They don’t enter our trivial moments, but rather stand as monuments – impressive, but far removed.

People are no longer able to struggle with their inner Self and therefore cannot deal with the biblical text. It stares them in the face, and they are terrified by the confrontation. All they can do is deny it, so that they may escape from themselves. Since they know that they must come to terms with themselves before they come to terms with the Book, they cannot negate it or disagree with it, as this requires them to deny something that they don’t even know exists.

Does that mean that these people are not religious? Not at all. Even the religious person is detached from the spirit. They have elevated religion to such a level that its influence on their everyday life, in the here and now, has been lost. It is found on the top floor of their spiritual house, with its own very special atmosphere. It has become departmentalized. But the intention of Torah is exactly the reverse. Its words, events and commandments are placed in the midst of the people, enveloped in history and worldly matters. What happens there does not take place in a vacuum but in the harshness of human reality. Most of the Torah deals with the natural course of a person’s life. Only sporadic miracles allow us to hear the murmurs from another world that exists beyond. These moments remind us that God is, after all, the only real entity in all of existence. But the Torah is the story of how God exists among mortal human beings, with their ordinary troubles and joys. It is not the story of God in heaven, but of God in human history and personal encounter.

The Text Is the Author of the People

The art of biblical interpretation is far more than just knowing how to give expression to the deeper meaning of the text. It is, after all, impossible to treat the biblical text as one would any other classical work. This is because the people of Israel, according to Jewish tradition, are not the authors of this text. Rather, the text is the author of the people. Comprising a covenant between God and humankind, the text is what brought the people into being. Moreover, despite the fact that the people often violated the commanding voice of this text, it created the specific and unique identity of the Jewish nation.

That is precisely why reading the text is not like reading a conventional literary work. It requires a reading-art, which allows the unfolding of the essence and nature of a living people struggling with life and God’s commandments.

This calls for a totally different kind of comprehension, one that must reflect a particular thought process and attitude on the part of the student.

George Steiner expressed this well when he wrote:

The script…is a contract with the inevitable. God has, in the dual sense of utterance and of binding affirmation, “given His word,” His Logos and His bond, to Israel. It cannot be broken or refuted.[1]

The text, then, must be approached in a way that reflects a human commitment to ensure that it indeed will not be broken or refuted. This has become a great challenge to modern biblical interpretation. Many scholars and thinkers have been asking whether the unparalleled calamity of the Holocaust did not create a serious existential crisis in which the text, by definition, has been invalidated. Can we still speak about a working covenant by which God promised to protect His people, after six million Jews – including 1.5 million children – lost their lives within a span of five years, under the cruelest of circumstances?

The reason for raising this question is not just because the covenant appears to have been broken, but also because history – and specifically Jewish history – was always seen as a living commentary on the biblical text. The text gave significance to history and simultaneously took on its religious meaning.

Can the text still be used in that sense, or has it lost its significance because history violated the criteria for its proper and covenantal elucidation?

Not for nothing have modern scholars suggested that there is a need, post-Holocaust, to liberate ourselves from this covenantal text in favor of shaping our destiny and history in totally secular terms. The Holocaust proved, they believe, that we have only ourselves to rely on, and even the return to Israel is to be understood as a secular liberation of the galut experience.

New Commentary

It is in this context that “commentary” needs to take on a new challenge: to show not only how the covenant, as articulated in the text, is not broken or refuted, but how in fact it is fully capable of dealing with the new post-Holocaust conditions of secularity. Without falling victim to apologetics, biblical interpretation will have to offer a novel approach to dealing with the Holocaust experience in a full religious setting, based on the text and taking it beyond its limits.

It will have to respond to the fact that God is the most tragic figure in all of history, making our lives sometimes sublime and other times disastrous. The biblical text is there to tell us how to live with this God and try to see meaning behind the absurdity of the situation.

But above all, modern commentary must make sure that the Torah speaks to the atheist and the agnostic, for they need to realize that the text is replete with examples of sincere deniers and doubters who struggled all their lives with great existential questions. The purpose is not to bring the atheists and agnostics back to the faith, but to show that one can be religious while being an agnostic and perhaps even an atheist; to make people aware that it is impossible to live without embarking on a search for meaning, whether one finds it or not. It is the search that is important; the end result much less so. The art is to refrain from throwing such a pursuit on the dunghill of history throughout the ages. The struggle of homo religiosus is of the greatest importance to the atheist.

That many secular people no longer read the Torah is an enormous tragedy. The Torah is too important to be left to the believer. The beauty of day-to-day life takes on a different and higher meaning through the Torah, and that can evoke in atheists a faintly mystical anticipation, which they can experience when they are alone or when they watch a sunset at the beach. A voice is born, and it speaks to them; they feel a melancholy that calls forth something far away and beyond. They happen upon a situation that suddenly throws them over the edge, and they get taken in by the experience of a loftier existence. They realize that the god they were told to believe in is not the God of the Torah. The latter is a God with Whom one argues; a God Who is criticized and Who wants human beings to search, even if it results in their denial of Him.

This issue is related to other crucial problems. Surveying Jewish history, we see drastic changes in how the biblical text was encountered. In the beginning, it was heard and not written. At first, Moshe received the Torah through the spoken Word: “The Word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, for you to carry out.”[2] God may be unimaginably far away, but His voice is heard nearby and it is the only way to encounter Him.

At a later stage, the Word evolved into a written form. Once this happened, there was a process by which the spoken Word was slowly silenced and gradually replaced by the written Word. With the eclipse of prophecy, God’s Word was completely silenced and could then only be read. The Word, therefore, became frozen and ran the risk of becoming stagnant. At that stage, it was necessary to unfreeze the Word, which became the great task of the Sages and commentaries throughout the following centuries.

Relevance and Eternity

Subsequently, a third element gained dominance. The text must be relevant to the generations that study it, while at the same time remaining eternal. Commentators throughout the ages have struggled with this problem. How does one preserve the eternity of the Word and simultaneously make it relevant to a specific moment in time? Many commentators were children of their time and clearly read the text through the prism of the period in which they lived. The perspective of eternity thus became critical. It was often pushed to the background so as to emphasize the great message for the present. Much of the aspect of eternity was thereby compromised, causing a few to wonder how eternal this text really is.

Other commentators wrote as if nothing had happened in Jewish history. That reflected the remarkable situation of the Jewish people in galut: its a-historicity. After the destruction of the Temple, Jewish history came to a standstill. While much happened, with dire consequences for the Jews, they essentially lived their lives outside the historical framework of natural progress. It became a period of existential waiting, with the Jewish people anticipating the moment when they would once again enter history. This eventually came about with the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

Inevitably, then, some commentators wrote their exegeses in a historical vacuum. They hardly emphasized the relevance of biblical texts to a particular generation. Therefore, students were often confronted with a dual sentiment. While dazzled by a commentator’s brilliant insight, they were forced to ask: So what? What is the implication of the interpretation for me, at this moment in time? Here we encounter a situation in which relevance is sacrificed for the sake of eternity.

With the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland, Jews are confronted with an unprecedented situation, which has serious consequences for biblical commentary. Due to a very strong trend toward secularism, caused by the Holocaust as well as other factors, the issue of relevance versus eternity has become greatly magnified.

Today, more than ever before, there exists a greater and more pressing need to show the relevance of the text. The radical changes in Jewish history call for a bold and novel way of understanding the text as a living covenant. At the same time, the drastic secularization of world Jewry and Israeli thinking requires a completely new approach to presenting the reader with the possibility of the Torah’s eternity. With minor exceptions, the religious world has not come forward with an adequate response.

Innovation in Receptivity

Most worrisome is the fact that the majority of Jewish commentary books published today in Orthodox circles comprise compilations and anthologies of earlier authorities with no opening of new vistas. It is as if original interpretations are no longer possible. The words of God are treated as if they have been exhausted. It clearly reflects a fear of anything new, or an inability to come up with fresh and far-reaching ideas. This phenomenon has overtaken a good part of the Orthodox scholarly world. Jewish commentary is becoming more and more about writing glosses upon glosses, instead of creating new insights into the living covenant with God.

No doubt, not every person is equipped with the knowledge and creativity needed to undertake the task. Years of learning are an absolute requirement before one can make a genuine contribution in this field. Still, one must be aware of the danger of “over-knowledge.” When students are overwhelmed by the interpretations of others, they may quite well become imprisoned by them and lose the art of thinking independently. Instead of becoming vehicles to look for new ideas, their knowledge becomes detrimental.

What is required is innovation in receptivity, where fresh ideas can grow in the minds of those willing to think creatively about the classical sources, without being hampered by preconceived notions. Only then will we see novel approaches to our biblical tradition that will stand up to the challenges of our time.

Notes:

[1] George Steiner, “Our Homeland, the Text,” in The New Salmagundi Reader, eds. Robert Boyers and Peggy Boyers (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1996), 107.

[2] Devarim 30:14.

As taken from, https://www.cardozoacademy.org/thoughts-to-ponder/introduction-to-torah-the-unavoidable-and-disturbing-text/?utm_source=Subscribers&utm_campaign=9f0da1bf8d-Weekly_Thoughts_to_Ponder_campaign_TTP_548_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dd05790c6d-9f0da1bf8d-242341409

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 4, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

In Search of Jewish Identity

by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

The other day I was having a conversation with a Jewish intellectual and the question came up, as it often does, as to the nature of Jewish identity. What are we? What makes us Jewish? This has been one of the persisting debates about Jewish life ever since the nineteenth century. Until then, people by and large knew who and what Jews were. They were the heirs of an ancient nation who, in the Sinai desert long ago, made a covenant with God and, with greater or lesser success, tried to live by it ever since. They were God’s people.

Needless to say, this upset others. The Greeks thought they were the superior race. They called non-Greeks “barbarians,” a word intended to resemble the sound made by sheep. The Romans likewise thought themselves better than others, Christians and Muslims both held, in their different ways, that they, not the Jews, were the true chosen of God. The result was many centuries of persecution. So when Jews were given the chance to become citizens of the newly secular nation states of Europe, they seized it with open arms. In many cases they abandoned their faith and religious practice. But they were still regarded as Jews.

What, though, did this mean? It could not mean that they were a people dedicated to God, since many of them no longer believed in God or acted as if they did. So it came to mean a race. Benjamin Disraeli, converted to Christianity by his father as a young child, thought of his identity in those terms. He once wrote, “All is race — there is no other truth,” and said about himself, in response to a taunt by the Irish politician Daniel O’Connell, “Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.”

The trouble was that hostility to Jews did not cease despite all that Europe claimed by way of enlightenment, reason, the pursuit of science and emancipation. It could now, though, no longer be defined by religion, since neither Jews nor Europeans used that as the basis of identity. So Jews became hated for their race, and in the 1870s a new word was coined to express this: antisemitism. This was dangerous. So long as Jews were defined by religion, Christians could work to convert them. You can change your religion. But you cannot change your race. Anti-Semites could only work, therefore, for the expulsion or extermination of the Jews.

Ever since the Holocaust it has become taboo to use the word “race” in polite society in the West. Yet secular Jewish identity persists, and there seems no other way of referring to it. So a new term has come to be used instead: ethnicity, which means roughly what “race” meant in the nineteenth century. The Wikipedia definition of ethnicity is “a category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural, or national experiences.”

The trouble is that ethnicity is where we came from, not where we are going to. It involves culture and cuisine, a set of memories meaningful to parents but ever less so to their children. In any case, there is no one Jewish ethnicity: there are ethnicities in the plural. That is what makes Sefardi Jews different from their Ashkenazi cousins, and Sefardi Jews from North Africa and the Middle East different from those whose families originally came from Spain and Portugal.

Besides which, what is often thought of as Jewish ethnicity is often not even Jewish in origin. It is a lingering trace of what Jews absorbed from a local non-Jewish culture: Polish dress, Russian music, North African food, and the German-Jewish dialect known as Yiddish along with its Spanish-Jewish counterpart Ladino. Ethnicity is often a set of borrowings thought of as Jewish because their origins have been forgotten.

Judaism is not an ethnicity and Jews are not an ethnic group. Go to the Western Wall in Jerusalem and you will see Jews of every colour and culture under the sun, the Beta Israel from Ethiopia, the Bene Israel from India, Bukharan Jews from central Asia, Iraqi, Berber, Egyptian, Kurdish and Libyan Jews, the Temanim from Yemen, alongside American Jews from Russia, South African Jews from Lithuania, and British Jews from German-speaking Poland. Their food, music, dress, customs and conventions are all different. Jewishness is not an ethnicity but a bricolage of multiple ethnicities.

Besides which, ethnicity does not last. If Jews are merely an ethnic group, they will experience the fate of all such groups, which is that they disappear over time. Like the grandchildren of Irish, Polish, German and Norwegian immigrants to America, they merge into the melting pot. Ethnicity lasts for three generations, for as long as children can remember immigrant grandparents and their distinctive ways. Then it begins to fade, for there is no reason for it not to. If Jews had been no more than an ethnicity, they would have died out long ago, along with the Canaanites, Perizzites and Jebusites, known only to students of antiquity and having left no mark on the civilization of the West.

So when, in 2000, a British Jewish research institute proposed that Jews in Britain be defined as an ethnic group and not a religious community, it took a non-Jewish journalist, Andrew Marr, to state the obvious: ‘All this is shallow water,’ he wrote, ‘and the further in you wade, the shallower it gets.’ He continued:

The Jews have always had stories for the rest of us. They have had their Bible, one of the great imaginative works of the human spirit. They have been victim of the worst modernity can do, a mirror for Western madness. Above all they have had the story of their cultural and genetic survival from the Roman Empire to the 2000s, weaving and thriving amid uncomprehending, hostile European tribes.

This story, their post-Bible, their epic of bodies, not words, involved an intense competitive hardening of generations which threw up, in the end, a blaze of individual geniuses in Europe and America. Outside painting, Morris dancing and rap music, it’s hard to think of many areas of Western endeavour where Jews haven’t been disproportionately successful. For non-Jews, who don’t believe in a people being chosen by God, the lesson is that generations of people living on their wits and hard work, outside the more comfortable mainstream certainties, will seed Einsteins and Wittgensteins, Trotskys and Seiffs. Culture matters . . . The Jews really have been different; they have enriched the world and challenged it.

Marr himself is neither Jewish nor a religious believer, but his insight points us in the direction of this week’s parsha, which contains one of the most important sentences in Judaism: “Speak to the whole assembly of Israel and say to them: Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy.” Jews were and remain the people summoned to holiness.

What does this mean? Rashi reads it in context. The previous chapter was about forbidden sexual relationships. So is the next chapter. So he understands it as meaning, be careful not to put yourself in the way of temptation to forbidden sex. Ramban reads it more broadly. The Torah forbids certain activities and permits others. When it says “Be holy” it means, according to Ramban, practice self-restraint even in the domain of the permitted. Don’t be a glutton, even if what you are eating is kosher. Don’t be an alcoholic even if what you are drinking is kosher wine. Don’t be, in his famous phrase, a naval bireshut ha-Torah, “a scoundrel with Torah license.”

These are localised interpretations. They are what the verse means in its immediate context. But it clearly means something larger as well, and the chapter itself tells us what this is. To be holy is to love your neighbour and to love the stranger. It means not stealing, lying, or deceiving others. It means not standing idly by when someone else’s life is in danger. It means not cursing the deaf or putting a stumbling block before the blind, that is, insulting or taking advantage of others even when they are completely unaware of it – because God is not unaware of it.

It means not planting your field with different kinds of seed, not crossbreeding your livestock or wearing clothes made of a forbidden mixture of wool and linen–or as we would put it nowadays, respecting the integrity of the environment. It means not conforming with whatever happens to be the idolatry of the time – and every age has its idols. It means being honest in business, doing justice, treating your employees well, and sharing your blessings (in those days, parts of the harvest) with others.

It means not hating people, not bearing a grudge or taking revenge. If someone has done you wrong, don’t hate them. Remonstrate with them. Let them know what they have done and how it has hurt you, give them a chance to apologise and make amends, and then forgive them.

Above all, “Be holy” means, “Have the courage to be different.” That is the root meaning of kadosh in Hebrew. It means something distinctive and set apart. “Be holy for I the Lord your God am holy” is one of the most counter-intuitive sentences in the whole of religious literature. How can we be like God? He is infinite, we are finite. He is eternal, we are mortal. He is vaster than the universe, we are a mere speck on its surface. Yet, says the Torah, in one respect we can be.

God is in but not of the world. So we are called on to be in but not of the world. We don’t worship nature. We don’t follow fashion. We don’t behave like everyone else just because everyone else does. We don’t conform. We dance to a different music. We don’t live in the present. We remember our people’s past and help build our people’s future. Not by accident does the word kadosh also have the meaning of marriage, kiddushin, because to marry means to be faithful to one another, as God pledges himself to be faithful to us and we to him, even in the hard times.

To be holy means to bear witness to the presence of God in our, and our people’s, lives. Israel – the Jewish people – is the people who in themselves give testimony to One beyond ourselves. To be Jewish means to live in the conscious presence of the God we can’t see but can sense as the force within ourselves urging us to be more courageous, just and generous than ourselves. That’s what Judaism’s rituals are about: reminding us of the presence of the Divine.   

Every individual on earth has an ethnicity. But only one people was ever asked collectively to be holy. That, to me, is what it is to be a Jew.

As taken from, http://rabbisacks.org/search-jewish-identity-kedoshim-5776/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 3, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

Los Siete Héroes de Sucot

Los siete héroes de Sucot

por Rav Benjamin Blech

Al parecer, Oprah Winfrey siempre sabe exactamente qué preguntar para llegar a conocer a sus entrevistados. Ella dijo que una de sus preguntas favoritas es esta:

“Si pudieras invitar a alguien de toda la historia a una fiesta que tú organizas, ¿a quién elegirías?”

Los judíos tuvieron esa idea mucho antes y ofrecieron una respuesta colectiva durante la feliz celebración de Sucot. Sucot es un momento en el cual salimos de las murallas de nuestros hogares para sentarnos en bellas cabañas abiertas a amigos, invitados y extraños. En la estación de la cosecha deseamos compartir con los demás. Para expresar la mitzvá de hajnasat orjim (recibir huéspedes) contamos con un ritual conocido como ushpizin. Durante siete días invitamos a diferentes héroes bíblicos para que se unan como nuestros “huéspedes de honor” en la sucá.

¿Cómo responden los judíos a la pregunta de Oprah?

Espero que aprovechen la oportunidad de invitar a estos huéspedes recomendados por la tradición judía: Abraham, Itzjak, Iaakov, Iosef, Moshé, Aharón y David. Para algunos, la invitación es una forma de reflexionar sobre su rol en la historia de nuestro pueblo y el significado de sus vidas como una clave para nuestra identidad espiritual. Para aquellos con más inclinaciones místicas, los cabalistas enseñan que las almas de estos invitados literalmente vienen y hace contacto con sus descendientes, reafirmando el nexo entre pasado y futuro.

Los judíos no carecemos de héroes. ¿Por qué fueron escogidos estos siete para esta singular distinción en Sucot?

Permítanme ofrecer mis sugerencias personales y referirme a cada figura. Estos héroes bíblicos nos hablan en el idioma que necesitan los judíos del siglo XXI, y nos enseñan cómo volver nuestras vidas más significativas y espirituales.

Abraham, Itzjak y Iaakov, por favor, tome cada uno de ustedes un día y compartan con nosotros la dicha que descubrieron cuando fueron los pioneros del concepto de la plegaria.

El Talmud nos dice que fuiste tú, Abraham, el primero que habló con Dios con la plegaria de Shajarit, el momento de la mañana en el cual abrimos nuestros ojos a la gloria del universo y sentimos la necesidad de responder con infinita gratitud. Fuiste tú, Abraham, quien nos hizo comprender que si no nos tomamos cada día el tiempo necesario para contar nuestras bendiciones, nos convertimos en receptores desagradecidos de la bondad de Dios y sólo llevamos la cuenta de nuestras desgracias. De no dedicar este tiempo cada día, nos concentraríamos en lo que no debemos y sólo lograríamos entristecernos porque nunca tendremos lo suficiente.

Fuiste tú, Itzjak, el primero que rezó la plegaria de la tarde, minjá, cuando el sol comenzó a ponerse. De ti debemos aprender cómo enfrentar los momentos en los que la vida parece perder su brillo y volverse oscuridad, cuando el éxito parece volverse un fracaso, cuando nos deja de sonreír la buena suerte en cada decisión y vivimos días que desafían nuestros logros y nuestro bienestar. Itzjak, el hombre que se sentía tan cerca de Dios que estuvo dispuesto a entregar su vida en el altar si eso era lo que Él deseaba, él es el huésped que quiere inspirarnos cuando nuestra fe comienza a tambalear y nos asegura que después de un día oscuro siempre sigue otro día soleado.

Y fuiste tú, Iaakov, quien estableció maariv, la plegaria de la noche, el momento de miedo, de terror, de pavor y ansiedad. La plegaria nocturna requiere más fe que todas las demás. Maariv fue la plegaria de todos aquellos que en los últimos meses enfrentaron huracanes e inundaciones, temblores y terremotos, así como pérdidas inimaginables. Necesitamos que Iaakov comparta con nosotros el secreto de su fuerza personal que lo mantuvo ante los ataques de Esav durante su juventud, de las tribulaciones de la historia de Iosef y del primer exilio judío en Egipto durante su ancianidad.

Los tres primeros días de Sucot, días en los cuales renovamos el contacto con nuestros patriarcas, hacen que nuestras plegarias de la festividad sean mucho más significativas. Sus vidas sirven como la mejor respuesta a la pregunta que una vez me formularon: “¿Qué esl o que ganas al rezar regularmente a Dios?”

Respondí: “Déjame contarte qué es lo que pierdo: enojo, ego, codicia, depresión, inseguridad y miedo a la muerte”. A veces la respuesta a nuestras plegarias no es aquello que ganamos, sino aquello que perdemos, lo que en última instancia es nuestra ganancia.

No olvidemos de invitar a Iosef, el único al que la tradición judía se refiere llamándolo hatzadik, el justo. Iosef, enséñanos cómo fuiste capaz de superar los intentos de seducción de la esposa de tu empleador. ¿Cómo fuiste capaz de mantener tu fe no sólo en Dios sino en la bondad del hombre después de que tus hermanos te vendieran como esclavo? Quizás todavía más relevante para nosotros en el mundo contemporáneo: ¿cómo lograste impedir que tu éxito inimaginable destruyera tu carácter ético? Lo más sorprendente de todo: ¿cómo fuiste capaz de perdonar a tus hermanos por su espantoso crimen y pudiste perdonarlos en tu corazón por su pecado? Ama a tu prójimo como a ti mismo, ¿incluso después de que te trata tan mal? Acompáñanos en la cena, Iosef, y permítenos saber cómo lo lograste.

Moshé y Aharón, en un momento en que desesperadamente necesitamos líderes dignos de su puesto, ansiamos que estén en nuestra mesa. Moshé, tú eres el único que habló con Dios “cara a cara”. ¿Cómo fue? ¿Puedes revelarnos algo más de lo que Dios te enseñó sobre Sus trece atributos de misericordia? ¿Cómo te enfrentaste con un pueblo rebelde que nunca te valoró tanto como lo merecías? Moshé, ni siquiera sabemos dónde fuiste enterrado porque Dios no quiso que adoráramos tu tumba en vez de tu Torá. Ayúdanos ahora a volvernos mejores judíos al llegar a conocerte mejor.

Y Aharón, recuérdanos cómo te ganaste el amor del pueblo como el gran sacerdote que se preocupaba por cada uno, incluyendo a los pecadores, y quien (como dice el Talmud) incluso estuvo dispuesto a mentir para restaurar la amistad entre los judíos. “El hombre a quien consideras tu enemigo me dijo cuán angustiado está y cuánto lamenta este malentendido. Él desea con desesperación pedirte perdón, pero no lo hace porque está muy avergonzado”. Esto era lo que Aharón le decía a quienes se habían peleado, a pesar de que no fuera cierto. Aharón creía que había circunstancias en las cuales la verdad podía verse comprometida en pos del amor, cuando una mentira incluso podía convertirse en una mitzvá si podía lograr que dos adversarios se volvieran amigos.

Sucot reúne a los siete gigantes de la historia judía cuyos valores e historias de vida nos convirtieron en lo que somos y representan la clave para nuestra supervivencia.

La festividad no estaría completa si no reserváramos un día para el rey David. David está destinado a ser el ancestro del Mashíaj. Sin duda él se ganó esa distinción con sus innumerables contribuciones a la historia judía. Su reinado fue ejemplar. Su Libro de Salmos es una obra maestra de plegaria y poesía. Pero en mi opinión, hay algo que sobresale por encima de todo. Al ser confrontado por el profeta Natán respecto a su pecado con Batsheba, David se quebró y sin vergüenza respondió con una palabra: jatati – he pecado. Sin explicaciones, sin excusas, sin ninguna afirmación de poder. Sin colocar al rey contra el profeta. David reconoció públicamente que Dios es más grande que cualquier rey y que la ley Divina supera a cualquier falla humana.

En una época en que se glorifica el poder, de culto a las personalidades y adoración a las celebridades, de “selfies”, la confesión del rey David quizás sea la mejor manera de dar cierre al período festivo que nos alienta a acercarnos más a Dios durante el nuevo año.

En el judaísmo, el número siete representa la completitud, la santidad del Shabat. Sucot reúne a estos siete gigantes de la historia judía cuyos valores e historias de vida nos convirtieron en lo que somos y representan la clave para nuestra supervivencia.

Según tomado de, http://www.aishlatino.com/h/su/a/Los-siete-heroes-de-Sucot.html?s=show

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 2, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

El desarrollo de la civilización

Después de que Caín asesinó a su hermano Abel, Dios decretó que Caín vagaría por la tierra y nunca tendría un lugar permanente de residencia. Una regla básica de la Torá es que cualquier “castigo” que Dios decreta sobre una persona no es arbitrario, sino que tiene el propósito de rectificar el error que dicha persona cometió. Al aceptar las condiciones del “castigo”, la persona puede rectificar su error inicial; el vivir en dicha situación de exilio tenía por objetivo rectificar el pecado de Caín.

Sin embargo, Caín no aceptó la forma de rectificación que Dios había decretado para él, sino que trató de evitarla. Inmediatamente después de la mención del decreto, la Torá nos cuenta que “Caín fue un constructor de ciudades1. El Rambán nota que de las palabras utilizadas por la Torá se desprende que Caín construía ciudades constantemente, pero éstas colapsaban de inmediato por causa de la maldición2. Sin embargo, en lugar de aprender la lección y aceptar su estatus de peregrino, Caín continuó construyendo ciudades durante toda su vida.

Las acciones de Caín generaron en sus descendientes una tendencia a evitar la fórmula que Dios había prescrito para que la humanidad rectificara el pecado de Adam. Después del pecado, Dios le dijo a Adam que su forma de arrepentimiento sería trabajar la tierra con sus propias manos para ganar su sustento3. Sin embargo, los descendientes de Caín prefirieron evitar trabajar la tierra y se volcaron hacia otras actividades, como nos relata la Torá: “Y Ada engendró a Iaval; él fue el primero en vivir en tiendas y criar ganado. El nombre de su hermano fue Iuval; él fue el primero en tocar el arpa y la flauta. Y Zila también; ella engendró a Tuval-Caín, quien afilaba todos los implementos de cobre y hierro4.

Rashi explica que estos versículos, que a primera vista parecen irrelevantes, tienen realmente una gran importancia ya que representan el desarrollo de algunos de los aspectos más básicos de la civilización. Iaval eligió ser un pastor, evitando las instrucciones de Dios de trabajar la tierra. También es posible que el “morar en tiendas” del versículo represente el desarrollo de actividades comerciales, lo cual tampoco sería consistente con la forma de rectificación que Dios había asignado para la humanidad. Iuval fue el primero en desarrollar el arte de la música, lo que representa la forma en que la humanidad intentó evitar el dolor por trabajar la tierra, que era mediante el distraerse con formas de entretenimiento. Y Tuval-Caín fue el primero en desarrollar armas, las cuales permitieron que el hombre sobreviviera avasallando a otros y de esta manera evitara la maldición de trabajar la tierra.

Podemos ver por lo tanto que el desarrollo de la humanidad se basó en el deseo de evitar el método que Dios había prescrito para que el hombre rectificara el pecado de Adam, en favor de un estilo de vida más fácil que no rectificaría dicho pecado. Consecuentemente, la humanidad desarrolló una postura de ignorar la voluntad de Dios, la cual culminó con la subsecuente degeneración moral y destrucción en el Gran Diluvio.

Pero hubo una persona que sí decidió obedecer la directiva de Dios de trabajar la tierra: “Lémej… engendró un hijo. Y llamó su nombre Nóaj, diciendo: ‘Este nos traerá descanso de nuestro trabajo y del esfuerzo de nuestras manos, del suelo que Dios ha maldecido’5. Rashi nos dice que Nóaj inventó las herramientas agrícolas, con las cuales causó que el trabajo de la tierra fuera más exitoso.

Nóaj fue la primera persona que no trató de evitar la maldición de Adam, sino que la enfrentó directamente. De esta forma podemos entender por qué Nóaj fue la única persona a la que Dios le perdonó la vida; a diferencia del resto del mundo, su vida estuvo dedicada a cumplir con la voluntad de Dios, por lo que no estuvo sujeto a la degeneración moral que afectó al resto de la humanidad.

De esto podemos aprender una lección muy importante: muchas veces Dios nos pone en una situación para que crezcamos, pero generalmente desaprovechamos la oportunidad. Nuestros sabios nos enseñan que Dios se comunica con nosotros por medio de ‘desafíos’, lo cual no sólo significa terribles tragedias, sino que también se refiere a las dificultades generales que enfrentamos en la vida. Por ejemplo, una persona puede saber en qué área de crecimiento debe enfocarse en su matrimonio mediante el darse cuenta en qué área existen las mayores fricciones en su matrimonio y cómo sus errores contribuyen a ese problema. Claramente, Dios le está mandando esas dificultades como una forma de decirle que debería trabajar en esta área de su personalidad. Sin embargo, uno suele preferir enfocarse en los aspectos de crecimiento que le resultan más naturales. Por ejemplo, una persona que tiene una inclinación hacia la amabilidad probablemente dedicará una parte importante de su tiempo y energía para ayudar a otros, pero terminará descuidando sus obligaciones con su esposa e hijos.

La parashá de esta semana es mucho más que una mera descripción histórica de las primeras generaciones de la historia; es un relato de cómo Dios le comunicó a la humanidad cuál era la forma en que debían rectificar sus errores y de cómo la gran mayoría se rehusó a escuchar Sus instrucciones. Está en nuestras manos entender cuál fue su error y aprender directamente de la Providencia Divina cómo podemos cumplir con Su voluntad.


1 Bereshit 4:17.

2 Rambán en Bereshit 4:17.

3 Bereshit 3:17-19.

4 Bereshit 4:20-22.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 30, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

“The Angel”: Secret Mossad Spy, or Cunning Double-agent?

One of the greatest suspense thrillers of all-time. And it’s true. An Aish.com exclusive.


Emblematic of the topsy-turvy Middle East is the story of Ashraf Marwan: son-in-law of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser; trusted advisor to Anwar Sadat; and spy for the Israeli Mossad… or perhaps a secret double-agent acting on behalf of his native Egypt.

It all comes to life in the new Netflix film, The Angel, a suspense thriller that culminates with Marwan’s death under mysterious circumstances in London.

To make sense of this harrowing tale of intrigue, Aish.com spoke to Dr. Ahron Bregman, the Israeli closest to Marwan, who in 2002 first revealed the identity of the celebrated spy.

Premier Mossad Spy

Our story begins in 1966, when 21-year-old Marwan married the daughter of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, an anti-Israel tyrant who, on the eve of the 1967 war, promised “the destruction of Israel.”

Nasser strongly disapproved of the marriage, since Marwan had no particular social, political, military or business pedigree. As a result, Marwan felt both humiliated by his father-in-law and estranged from the Egyptian power center – planting the seeds of his spy career.

One day in the late 1960s, the Israeli embassy in London received a call from Marwan offering his services as a spy. As proof of his credentials, Marwan produced the protocols of secret Soviet-Egyptian arms talks. Convinced of his sincerity, the Mossad accepted his offer and assigned him the codename, “The Angel.”

Following Nasser’s death, his successor Anwar Sadat brought Marwan into his inner circle, as a way to demonstrate the support of Nasser’s family. In this role, Marwan gained unparalleled access to his nation’s top secrets – including detailed Egyptian military activities and accounts of Sadat’s private conversations with Arab leaders.

Marwan had a variety of possible motivations: Becoming a spy accorded him the status of conversing directly with Moshe Dayan, Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, Henry Kissinger, et al.

Marwan may have also been motivated by money, as the Mossad paid hefty fees for access to secret Egyptian war plans. Indeed, Marwan parlayed those fees into a $3 billion business empire.

Double-Agent?

Marwan became an invaluable asset to Israel in 1973, when Sadat (in conjunction with Assad of Syria) prepared to launch another major military assault on Israel. Marwan’s warning reportedly allowed the Israelis to prepare for the “surprise attack,” thus preventing thousands more Israeli casualties and loss of territory including the strategic Golan Heights.

But here’s where things get complicated: While Marwan was ostensibly a spy who helped Israel, many believe he was a cunning double-agent who duped Israel, deliberately providing inaccurate information about Egypt’s war plans.

This theory has credibility. Prior to the 1973 war, Marwan issued two false alarms of an imminent Egyptian invasion, resulting in costly mobilizations of IDF reserve forces. This eroded Israeli fear of an Arab attack, so when Marwan warned again on the eve of Yom Kippur, the IDF was slow to react, as some in the Israeli security establishment dismissed him as “the boy who cried wolf.”

Hinting more to the double-agent theory, the Netflix film includes a scene of Marwan listening to a lecture about “Garbo,” the Spanish double-agent who deceived the Nazis regarding the D-Day invasion. Indeed, Egyptian officials over the years, including former President Hosni Mubarak, have praised Marwan for “carrying out patriotic acts… which it is not yet time to reveal.”

The Big Reveal

Following Sadat’s assassination in 1981, Marwan left Egypt and began a lucrative business career in London.

Things were relatively quiet until 1999, when Dr. Ahron Bregman, a historian and journalist who teaches war studies at King’s College in London, came into the picture. After three years of investigative journalism, Bregman published a book revealing Marwan as the legendary Mossad super-spy.

Marwan flatly denied Bregman’s claim, calling it a “stupid detective story.” But when the revelation was published in the Egyptian media, Marwan called Bregman asking to meet.

Marwan initially suggested they meet at the Dorchester Hotel, but Bregman was fearful it was a set-up – given that was the site of the attempted assassination of Israeli ambassador Shlomo Argov in 1982, which sparked the first Lebanon War.

Instead, they met at London’s Intercontinental Hotel, and Bregman tells Aish.com: “I was extremely nervous, because Marwan was the legendary and dangerous spy. I thought he might try to kill me.”

When they sat and spoke, however, Bregman had a change of heart. “I encountered Marwan’s humanity. History didn’t matter any longer.”

As they established a personal connection, Bregman regretted revealing the identity of this legendary spy. “It was a huge scoop and I couldn’t resist the temptation to follow the most primitive journalistic instincts,” he says. “But I complicated an already tricky situation. It was an impulse I should have resisted.”

Bregman says that he and Marwan “would meet quite frequently and became close friends. In some conversations, Marwan would pour his heart out. He couldn’t talk about his spy career with anyone else, not even his wife or kids. He was very well-connected, but very lonely. Ironically, I was the only person he could speak openly with – the very person who exposed him.”

Death by Balcony

Meanwhile in Israel, rival intelligence agencies were battling over who was the main culprit in Israel’s failure to preempt the Yom Kippur War. Part and parcel of this debate was whether Marwan’s loyalties lay primarily with Israel or Egypt.

Zvi Zamir, head of the Mossad and who was Marwan’s personal handler in 1973, claimed that Marwan was loyal to Israel. Eli Zeira, head of IDF Intelligence during the Yom Kippur War, subscribed to the double-agent theory.

The dispute ended in legal arbitration and in 2007 Bregman was called to testify. The judge issued a conclusion that Marwan was loyal to Israel – a verdict that was then leaked and published online.

At this turn of events, Marwan called Bregman in a panic, leaving multiple voice messages. They scheduled an appointment to meet the next day, but Marwan failed to appear. That morning, he had fallen from the fifth-floor balcony of his luxury apartment in London. Ashraf Marwan, superspy, was dead at age 63.

Who did it? Was it assassination? Or suicide?

One theory is that Marwan was a genuine spy for Israel, and the vengeful Egyptians killed him. Yet to save face for having been infiltrated at the highest level by a Mossad spy, Egyptian officials gave Marwan a funeral befitting a national hero.

Lending credibility to this theory, “death by high balcony” is an assassination method used multiple times previously by the Egyptian intelligence agency operating in London.

Bregman suggests a plausible alternate theory: “Marwan committed suicide. He was not physically well, having undergone heart operations. Plus he had accumulated a considerable number of personal enemies. So he decided to end his life. But he didn’t want to shame his family, so he faked the suicide and wove me into his ‘death story.’ If that sounds fanciful, remember that for a very clever master spy, it makes perfect sense.”

Questions and Conclusions

Bregman is consumed by regret over his exposing of Marwan as a “tragic, huge mistake.”

As an act of repentance, in 2016 Bregman published The Spy Who Fell to Earth: My Relationship with the Secret Agent Who Rocked the Middle East.

The jury is still out whether Marwan’s contribution was mostly helpful or harmful to Israel, since his key warning was delivered only hours before the outbreak of the war. IDF General Shlomo Gazit said: “The damage he caused was terrible. If we hadn’t used Marwan, the State of Israel… would have prepared for the war a week earlier when news began to arrive about what was happening in Egypt. But they said that if Marwan didn’t tell us about it, it wasn’t serious.”

Bregman has reached his own conclusion: “I don’t think he ever became an ‘official’ double-agent. But I do think at the critical moment of truth before the war, he asked himself, ‘Am I Israeli or Egyptian?’ His conclusion was loyalty to his people and his country – and he misled Israel.”

Which side of the conflict was Marwan ultimately loyal to? And who caused his death? It is characteristic of Marwan to keep us guessing about his motivations. These controversial questions will likely never be answered.

As taken from, http://www.aish.com/jw/s/The-Angel-Secret-Mossad-Spy-or-Cunning-Double-agent.html?s=trh

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 29, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

Simchat Torah: The Unapproachable Text

by Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo

Since Simchat Torah is the day on which we celebrate the Torah and its divinity, greatness, and superiority, it is quite perplexing that there is no special mitzvah commanding the Jewish people to study Torah more deeply and more extensively on this festival than on any other day. In fact, not much studying can be done since much of the day is taken up with dancing and singing, and even the reading of the Torah is kept to a minimum. We read the last portion of the Torah (V’zot Habracha), which concludes with Moshe’s death, and the first 34 verses of Sefer Bereishit (Genesis) concerning the seven days of Creation.

Even more remarkable is the unapproachability of the text. While dancing with the Torah scrolls, they are carefully covered with velvet mantels and not once is the actual text shown to the worshippers and dancers in the synagogue. Seemingly, we are not allowed to see what we celebrate!

Even when we actually read from the Torah—not only on this day, but throughout the year—the text is immediately covered once the reading of one section has come to an end. There is a constant attempt to hide the text.

This is also demonstrated by the fact that once a Torah portion has been read, it disappears again into the scroll, while another one, which was hidden until then, is revealed for a short while so as to be read, only to quickly disappear again when the reading is done.

What is the meaning behind all this?

It could not be clearer. Now that we start to read the Torah all over again, we must once again be reminded of its absolute holiness, rendering it inaccessible and unapproachable.

Its holiness is of such superiority that we need to receive a stern warning that we are once again undertaking the impossible. There is no way to fathom this text; all we can do is read its outer layer but never “das ding an sich” (the “thing-in-itself”), to use Immanuel Kant’s famous concept.

The book will forever remain a nearly closed work. Only for a moment can one look into its text without getting burned. Gazing at the Torah too much, or for too long, will leave the reader paralyzed. Only in printed form, in a book, and with the help of commentaries can one approach the text.

It is solely through these commentaries that the text can be brought down to the level of mortals. Only when the Torah is partially stripped of its heavenly fire and made “user friendly” is there a slight chance that one may understand some of its contents.

This is also the reason why Jews only start reading the Torah but never finish it. For thousands of years, on the day of Simchat Torah we begin all over again. Even the greatest Torah scholars once again come to the conclusion that they need to reread it, since they failed bitterly the previous year.

After all, we only start reading the first words and already we get stuck, unable to understand the actual meaning; and we can never really get beyond that place.

While in the non-Jewish world the whole point is to finish a book, in Judaism we are all just perpetual beginners.

This explains why, unlike the week of Sukkot in which we hold our lulavim and circle around a Sefer Torah that has been placed on the bimah/tevah (a raised platform from which the Torah is read in a synagogue), on Simchat Torah we carry the Torah scrolls and circle around an empty bimah/tevah. This time it is not the Torah that stands at the center of our lives, but the Great and Invisible God Who is encircled.

This, we believe, is another serious warning to all those who see the Torah as a literary work that can be studied like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, like a chapter out of humanity’s great cultural heritage, or as a piece of the Israelites’ early history.

The moment it is disconnected from God, it loses its source of spirituality and its text will slowly die, like a human succumbing to a lack of oxygen. While studying, even only its outer layers, the student needs to be constantly reminded that this text is Divine and can therefore only be approached in awe and holiness. The student must hear the voice of God behind the text. It is, as Abraham Joshua Heschel once wrote, “holiness in words.”

Though its words seem plain and its style transparent, obscure meanings and unimagined intimations are hidden in its simple words. Just as God is untouchable, so is His text. While studying the text, the students must have God standing at the center of their lives.

This is why on Simchat Torah we take the Torah scrolls and circle around the empty space on the bimah/tevah. Just as a spinning cylinder pulls all its elements to its very center, so the Torah must be drawn more and more to its center: God. Only when it becomes clear that God is the Author behind the words can it be understood and even then only partially.

Now that we are going to once again start reading the Torah on Simchat Torah, we can approach it only with awe and realize that even with all our knowledge, the Torah is hidden behind a mantel of divinity.

As taken from, https://www.cardozoacademy.org/thoughts-to-ponder/simchat-torah-the-unapproachable-text/?utm_source=Subscribers&utm_campaign=d75f6cf5dc-Weekly_Thoughts_to_Ponder_campaign_TTP_548_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dd05790c6d-d75f6cf5dc-242341409

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 29, 2018 in Uncategorized