A documented source for pointing to the Torah with the pinky

There is a very "popular" minhag that when the Sefer Torah is lifted up during hagbah, the whole congregation stands and points to it with their pinky. I had always assumed that there was no source for it, just something that developed over time. According to R'Ari Enkin of Hirhurim, that is in fact not the case. He points to the the Me'am Loez on Parshat Ki Tavo which if not the original source for the minhag, at least documents that this minhag is fairly old (The author of the Me'am Loez began writing in 1730 (from this Wiki article ). If anyone has the full text, could they please post it up into the comments. Many thanks.

The Midrash on Self Perception

"And we were in our own eyes as grasshoppers, and so were we in their eyes" (Num 13:33). The Holy One said to the scouts: You don't know what you have just let your mouths utter. I am ready to put up with you saying "We were in our own eyes as grasshoppers". But I do take offense at your assserting, "and so were we in their eyes". Could you possibly know how I made you appear in their eyes? How do you know but that in their eyes you were like angels?

 

The way I interperet this mishna is as follows. All of us have a perception of ourselves, but more importantly all us make assumptions about how others perceive us. Although empowering giving us a sense of balance and place, this can be very  damaging. We often have a tendency to imagine that people think us of little worth, conjuring up in minds all conversations that people must be having with themselves about something we did or did not do. The reality is that we are often so off the mark with these illusions that we become our worst enemy, making mountains out of mole hills and inflicting apon ourselves endless suffering. 1% of pain comes from reality, 99% of pain comes from ourselves. The mishna is teaching us to assume that people think of us positively, not to do so is not only a sin against ourselves but against Hashem himself. 

 

 

I am back

Sorry for the site being down for the last couple of days. Unfortunately my blog host has removed its free hosting service, so I had to fork out the credit card to register it. Oh well, as long as you guys keep reading, well that is all that matters. Will post up something shortly.

Interesting reading of the fall of man

Of late I have been reading the english version of Sefer Ha-Aggadah , edited by Hayim Nahman Bialik and Yehoshua Hana Ravnitzky. It has been immensely englightening, making me realise how sorely deprived our educational system is in that it does cover midrash in a systematic, sophisticated fashion.

There is an interesting Midrash I came accross from Midrash Rabbah 19:3, that presents in my opinion a rather interesting reading of the fall of man, one that I had not seen or thought of before.

Then the serpent touched the tree with his hands and feet, shaking it until its fruit fell to the ground. The tree then credit out. Villain, do not touch me – "Let not hte foot of pride overtake me, and let not the hand of wicked shake me" (Ps 36:12). The serpent said to the woman, "Look, I touched the tree, yet I did not die. You, too, if you touch it, will not die." Right away, he pushed her and she touched the tree.

When she saw the angel of death coming toward her, she said "Woe is me! I am as good as dead, and the Holy one will make another woman and give her to Adam." Immediately "she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate" (Gen 3:6)

 If I am I correct in my understanding, according to this midrash, the eating of the apple was a suicide attempt by a jealous love-struck Eve, who would rather her and Adam die together then leave him for another woman, ala Romeo and Juliet. Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but that appears to be the intent of the midrash in my mind. Interesting isnt it….?

 

 

Rav Kook on the end of hatred

All matters of hatred, and all of the letters of the law
which apply to them, these were only stated in cases where we already knew that
the precept of reproof had been administered to someone. And since we don’t
have in this generation, nor have we had for several previous generations, as
Rabbi Akiva testifies, someone who knows how to deliver reproof, therefore,
they are not longer applicable, all of the laws referring to ill feelings and
the hatred of brothers have become like the case of the rebellious son, a
banished city, and a contaminated house, according to the one who says there
were never such case, and never be in the future…”

Letters of HaRav Avraham Yitzhak HaCoheen Kook Part 1, 305 (Torat Eretz Yisrael pg 82)

Interesting Interview with Rav Herschel Schachter

See here for an interesting interview with Rav Herschel Schachter:

The whole article is fascinating, however this one paragraph sticks out in my mind:

Rabbi Soloveitchik was not a towering baki. He couldn’t tell you on which daf one would find a particular din. He couldn’t even tell you what amud; rather, he would remember the progression of topics in the order in which they appear in the Gemara. People would be surprised. How could he not even remember if it’s amud aleph or amud beis? The truth is that he didn’t have that kind of bekius. He would often introduce a shiur
by quoting a completely different Gemara in order to expose its
underlying principle, which would then shed light on the Gemara at hand. The
shiur would thus have a bekius background in order to set the stage for further inquiry.

 I think this can be seen as a proof that to be a gaon in
Torah, one does not necessarily need a photographic memory, but rather a
structured and orderly understanding of the concepts.

 




Some quotes from Josephus (Against Apion)

Over Shabbat I read Against (Book One) Apion by Josephus. It is quite frankly incredible, and I highly recommend that everyone read it. You can get a copy here.

I have pasted in some quotes that I found interesting and hopefully will write some more about it later. Enjoy

On Education:

As for ourselves, therefore, we neither inhabit a maritime country, nor do we delight in merchandise, nor in such a mixture with other men as arises from it; but the cities we dwell in are remote from the sea, and having a fruitful country for our habitation, we take pains in cultivating that only. Our principal care of all is this, to educate our children well; and we think it to be the most necessary business of our whole life to observe the laws that have been given us, and to keep those rules of piety that have been delivered down to us.


Against Omens (Quite Humerous)

Moreover, he attests that we Jews went asauxiliaries along with king Alexander, and after him with his successors. I will add further what he says he learned when he was himself with the same army, concerning the actions of a man that was a Jew. His words are these: "As I was myself going to the Red Sea, there followed us a man, whose name was Mosollam; he was one of the Jewish horsemen who conducted us; he was a person of great courage, of a strong body, and by all allowed to be the most skillful archer that was either among the Greeks or barbarians. Now this man, as people were in great numbers passing along the road, and a certain augur was observing an augury by a bird, and requiring them all to stand still, inquired what they staid for. Hereupon the augur showed him the bird from whence he took his augury, and told him that if the bird staid where he was, they ought all to stand still; but that if he got up, and flew onward, they must go forward; but that if he flew backward,they must retire again. Mosollam made no reply, but drew his bow,and shot at the bird, and hit him, and killed him; and as the augur and some others were very angry, and wished imprecation supon him, he answered them thus: Why are you so mad as to take this most unhappy bird into your hands? for how can this bird give us any true information concerning our march, who could not foresee how to save himself? for had he been able to forekno wwhat was future, he would not have come to this place, but would have been afraid lest Mosollam the Jew should shoot at him, and kill him."


A valuable lesson from a mishna in Shekalim

Over the chagim I was reviewing some mishnayot and came across a fascinating mishna which I though I would share some thoughts on:

SHEKALIM: CHAPTER 3: MISHNA 2

In three chests of three se’ahs each they withdraw from the chamber, on them were written alef, bet, gimmel. R. Yishmael says: It was written in Greek alpha, beta, gamma. The one who withdrew funds may not enter wearing a hemmed garment, nor with shoes, or with sandals, nor with tefillin, or an amulet; lest he become poor, and that they will say from the sin of the chamber he became poor, or lest he become rich, and they will say from the withdrawal funds of the chamber he became rich; because a person must please people in the same manner that he must please the Almighty, as it states (Num. 32:22), "You shall be guiltless before the Lord and before Israel," and it states (Prov. 3:4), "and find favor and good understanding in the eyes of God and man."

Now pshat is that you cannot enter into the chamber wearing the above mentioned items, because you could steal coins by hiding them in them. But a question remains, one of the items mentioned is tefillin. Surely a person who is walking around with tefillin all day long is not to be suspected of wrong doing, something so base a sin a sin as that of stealing from charity?


Contra to our possible first intuitions, the mishna is coming to teach us a message. By specifying tefillin, the mishna is teaching us that no matter how outwardly pious an individual is, we cannot be naive and assume that he is not capable of sin. The same safeguards that have to implemented for the man in the street have to applied to even the “frum” as well. True, there is a concept of giving people the benefit of the doubt, yet that cannot lead to a kind of blind faith whereby all behavior is unmonitored and it is assumed that all is good and well. A valuable lesson in light of unfortunate incidences in the Orthodox community of late.

As a side issue, see below for real life incidence where tefillin were used to smuggle out goods, and the torah true response of R’ Yaakov Kamenetsky on this matter.

There was a period in the 1970’s when a group of rogues were smuggling valuables in tefillin (phylacteries) and other religious articles that would usually evade inspection; thus the thieves assumed their scheme would be successful. Often they would send these religious articles with unsuspecting pious Jews and asked to deliver them to certain locations near their final destinations. When United States customs officials got wind of this scheme they asked a few observant agents to help crack the ring. In addition to preserving the sanctity of the religious items, the customs authority felt that Jewish religious agents would best be able to mete out knowing accomplices from unsuspecting participants who had been duped into thinking they were actually performing a mitzvah.

The Jewish custom agent in charge of the operation decided to confer with my grandfather, Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetzky on this matter. Though his advice on how to break the ring remains confidential, he told me how he explained how the severity of the crime was compounded by its use of religious items. "Smuggling diamonds in Teffilin," he explained, "is equivalent to raising a white flag, approaching the enemy lines as if to surrender and then lobbing a grenade. That soldier has not only perpetrated a fraud on his battalion and the enemy; he has betrayed a symbol of civilization. With one devious act, he has destroyed a trusted symbol for eternity — forever endangering the lives of countless soldiers for years to come. "These thieves, by taking a sacrosanct symbol and using it as a vehicle for a crime have destroyed the eternal sanctity and symbolism of a sacred object. Their evil actions may cause irreparable damage to countless honest religious people. Those rogues must be stopped, by any means possible," he exclaimed.


Source [http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/mesiralaw2.html footnote 6 ]

A Chiddush of Reb Nachman of Breslov on Megillah 13a

#107.

The Talmud teaches us that Esther was of average height, neither tall nor short (Megillah 13a). The reason is as follows.

Our Rabbis teach us, ‘Because of Rachel’s modesty, she was worthy of being a forebearer of Saul. And because of Saul’s modesty he was worthy of having Esther as a descendantÓ (ibid. 13b). Regarding Rachel it is written, ‘Rachel, your little daughterÓ (Genesis 29:18)–small in stature. Regarding Saul it is written, ‘He was a head taller than any of his fellowsÓ (1 Samuel 9:2). Esther stood between Rachel and Saul. Therefore she was of average stature.

(#107, Sichos HaRan – Reb Nachmans Wisdom)

Why I don’t like the name Religious Zionism.

 Although I consider myself a talmid of Rav Kook & Rav Soloveitchik, I do not label myself as a “Religious Zionist”. This is not just an issue of semantics, but rather one of self definition. Below are some sources that highlight some ideas on this matter. This not a complete dissertation of my world view, nevertheless, it does give some insight into my thought process.

Source 1: Facing Current Challenges: R’Leo Lev chapter on Zionism
Zionists who are not Zionists”

In the religious Zionist camp there are also many who view the Torah, rather than the nation, as the supreme value. When they see themselves as Zionists, they use Zionism to mean something entirely different from the accepted meaning. Such usage turns the term into an obstruction to effective communication; beyond this, it may compromise the clarity of thought of those who use it.

The source of the problem lies in the fact that Zionism was coined by a non-observant jew, and as noted, it is impossible to clarify its meaning using Torah sources. It is therefore appropriate to assign the term the meaning attributed to it by most of the people who use it, and to formulate a new term for those who not use it to refer primary nationalism. Presumably Rabbi Y.D Soloveitchik, the last spiritual leader of the Mizrachi movement in the United States, had this in mind when he wrote, “We do not believe in ‘Zionism Plus religion’ or ‘religious Zionism’. For us there is only one special noun – Torah”

“I believe every Torah-true Jew must take pains to free himself of these errors. Then, he will no longer be a Zionist – not a general Zionist, not even a religious Zionist. He will be a lover of Israel, of the Land of Israel, even an excellent citizen of the State of Israel. He will be engaged in the state’s advancement and in straightening its path, involved in its economy and politics, and will take pains to awaken it to its purpose. A “Zionist”, however, he will not be.”

Source 2: Interview with R’ Yoel Schwartz of Nachal Chareidi
(
http://yeranenyaakov.blogspot.com/2005/08/rav-yoel-schwartz-on-geula.html)

[After giving it to secular Zionism, he was asked, "What about Religious Zionism?" His reply:]"There are people who call themselves Zionists, but they really go with the approach of the Vilna Gaon, who holds that one can hasten the Ge’ula by building Israel, actively – not passively. There are 3 approaches: The first holds not to do anything [in building up the infrastructure of the Land of Israel], and that anything done will just slow down the Geula process. The Zionists’ approach is "We’ll take our fate into our own hands." The third approach is that of the Vilna Gaon, explained in his book "Kol Hator", that it’s incumbant upon us to be partners with Hashem in the world, and that this is what will hasten the Geula. I believe that the Halacha in heaven is like this [third] opinion because events in the field prove so: the center of Torah today is in Eretz Yisrael. It’s incumbant upon us to understand the greatness of the hour.


And finally why the whole issues of labels is inappropriate and counter productive:

Source 3: Labels are for suits
http://www.chabad.org/holidays/JewishNewYear/template.asp?AID=4476