Torture, Mountain Climbing and Shidduchim

okay, for the first time in writing, my "separation makes the heart grow fonder" idea!:

I've always been a fan of the saying that "separation makes the heart grow fonder". In other words in any relationship, being available too often, being ever-present, is not beneficial but is in fact detrimental to a relationship. For with anything comes boredom. Even the object of your romantic desire can quickly become "boring" to you. But if you're forced to be away from them for a while, upon their return comes a rejuvenated closeness and intimacy that was not possible before. Which is the rationalization given for the Purity Laws as they apply to menstruation.

This principle doesn't only apply to a relationships though. It's applicable to many other aspects of life. In all things: if someone experiences a continuous orgy of pleasure, after a while it is not within his ability to experience pleasure. Whether it be in food, sexuality, sleep, sport, honor; anything which Man finds pleasing. Simply put: whatever you 'have', you don't 'want' anymore. You want what you don't have. It's obvious really. The glutton does not enjoy a good meal as much as the pauper. A licentious man does not enjoy sexuality as much as the celibate man. The absence of a thing, in a sense, is the only way to really have it! Absence IS presence. Abstinence IS sexuality. Hunger IS food. Pain IS pleasure! They are points of contrast and comparison. This idea has a central role in thought-processes, and I apply it to many aspects of life.

I once happened upon a blog that criticized Rabbi Avigdor Miller's asceticism. For example, after his death it was revealed that Rav Miller slept on a board, not a bed, he would constantly stop eating while he ate, and many other such practices. This blog called Rav Miller's chamber a torture chamber. I objected. I saw he was an atheist so I told him that not only did causing yourself privation make sense in Judaic terms, but it made sense in general as well. I told him about a television program I once saw, which told the story of a group of German adventure seekers who climbed parts of the alps that are usually traversed by no one. At the end of it they were starving and half dead. When one of them was asked by reporters why he did it, he said that when he goes back to Berlin now and has a beer, it'll be the best beer he ever had! He understood that pleasure does not come without privation.

Another aspect of life I've been associating this principle with recently is the senses of entitlement v.s. appreciation. Here in the my hometown of Brooklyn, more than anywhere else I've seen, and especially in the realm of dating (as is no wonder), I've come across people who have always had far more than I, and yet grew up in an absent-minded sense of great entitlement. Especially the daughters of "our community", as they're provided for more than the boys. Especially the fairer ones. They date as if they're trying on clothes. And they'll only take what they feel entitled to, which is probably part of the "shidduch crisis". I think that had these picky girls known loneliness, in it's severer forms, they would be less picky. Again, it is privation that humbles the soul, and brings it from haughtiness to humility, and therefore, to happiness.

The Tongue of G-d: I

I've been chatting with a few folks over at Chana's blog recently (at times it can be a great place for random discussions, since she's not very engaged in comment moderation). I made a quick comment about how I disapproved of Chana using the Ashkenazi pronunciation in writing (since she's part Sefaradi), and it spurred some reader interaction (actually kind of proud about that). I do still want to write a post glorifying speaking ("Modern") Hebrew as a language, but it might be wise to say a few words about proper Hebrew pronunciation first anyway. The historical aspect of this subject has actually recently had exhaustive coverage in the blog of my newfound online friend, Joel Davidi. The only problem is that his blog offers no opinion, only a record of the opinions of others.

It should be remembered, first of all, that it makes a great difference how Hebrew is pronounced, for we use Hebrew in our prayers to G-d, and certainly we wouldn't want to be speaking to him blasphemously in some non-language jargon, but rather in a clear precise Hebrew, as He intended. Also, in Israel today, the way one pronounces the language has strong socio-political connotations, and in some places the way you pronounce the consonants is definitive of who you are and what you stand for.

My opinion has always been pretty straightforward on this matter: while there are Ashkenazim who'll tell you that there is a certain antiquity to their pronunciation, and that there have always been different Hebrew pronunciations, especially with regards to the different schools of nikkud that flourished in Israel a millenia ago, I still feel their words are misleading. The "authenticity" in this pronunciation is the dried skeleton of authenticity. Hebrew, friends, is a Middle Eastern, Semitic language, and it cannot be separated from those roots. Most of what constitutes the Ashkenazi pronunciation is purely a European and even a Germanic influence on this Middle Eastern language (which, linguistically, can lend itself to absurdities). Forget the pronunciation; the very way children of the lands of the uncircumcised move their mouths and lips is alien to any Semitic tongue. The most beneficial thing for them would be to study the native usages of other Semitic languages so they themselves can see what a perversion their speech was.

Vowels: They'll also say that they differentiate between the kamatz and the patah', and long vowels and short vowels more than Sefaradim. The truth is that it's mostly Israeli and a small group of Sefaradim who did not make any distinction at all between these vowels, especially considering that Arabic does differentiate between them. From Morocco to Iran different forms of the kamatz were in use, that were present in words, but were very discreet about their presence, unlike the clumsy European kamatz.

Syllables: Then of course is the מלרע/מלעיל (mil'el/mil'ra) issue. For anyone who doesn't know; in words with more than one sylable, mil'el is stressing the first syllable and mil'ra is stressing the last. German Yiddish and English obviously are mil'el languages. Hebrew is a mil'ra language. Anglicizing Hebrew words to be mil'ra is obviously just laziness and a corruption of our language. Nothing else to say about that.

Consonants: In the aforementioned blog comment, I said I got the impression that Chana wasn't the biggest scholar of biblical Hebrew in the world because "when someone is "still" using "suf"s instead of "tav"s you get the impression it would be impossible for them to grasp the beauty in the tongue of G-d". The consonants have always been a point of contention among us, the "ת רפויה" especially. But I'm concerned only with what seems most correct, not bickering. I see the words of the outspoken Meir Mazuz (today's leading Sefaradi grammarian) on this subject as being correct: theoretically it should be similar to the Arabic ث ("th") sound (which, unlike popular belief, is not much like the English "th", but is more like an "airy" hard t sound), but if you have a hard time pronouncing that all the time, you're better off saying "t" instead of "s" since it's much closer to the "t" sound.

Other than that, it's obviously right and correct to differentiate the א's from ע's, ח's from כ's, ט's from ת's, ק's from כ's and ס's from צ's (as in the other Semitic languages).

Flesh-Eating

Continuing in my never-ending exposition of Naturalism v.s. the technological lifestyle, I've been thinking a bit about our consumption of the flesh of creatures less intelligent than ourselves. "Meat". Meat is something which never gets old and never will get old. While there are individuals today who will consume no flesh, there were people like that in the distant past as well. Such a thing can never catch on. It's funny that, two thousand years ago people enjoyed eating meat, ...ten thousand years ago people enjoyed eating meat. As long as there were humans and as long as there were animals people and all creatures enjoyed eating meat. And even ourselves, as we engage our high-tech computers and fly around in our planes and space shuttles even, we still find no satisfaction like the satisfaction of sinking our teeth into the flesh of another animal, the same as any hyena would. All other foods simply don't compare. I mean, who "makes shabbos" out of beans?

הייליגע ניגונים

You know, I've never posted my opinions about music here before. Especially the music of my ancestors, "the Exiled of Jerusalem in Spain and Morocco". There are obviously two main components to music, the tune and the words (that is, if the song has lyrics):

The tune: I once commented in passing on Chana's blog that, unlike the opinion of one of the commentors there, it is not just words, but music as well, that can have a soul-corrupting influence over a person. Aristotle and Plato say so themselves. Even then there was proper, noble music, and "youth-corrupting" music. The Talmud reports that one of the reasons Yehushua' Cohen Gadol strayed from the just path in the end of his life was because he listened to Greek music. The corrupting type of Geek music. So it cannot be said that there is no such thing as harmful music.

Now, while there is what to be said about the development of music from that time until our time, the most important phenomenon that's pertinent to this context is the Advent of Rock music. Half a century ago, for the first time in a long time, religious and social leaders were complaining that the new style of music that was being produced was "corrupting the youth". Although today their opinions are looked upon as anachronisms, I agree with a lot of their essential arguments about Rock music. Their main argument was that it developed from the "drum music" of the descendants of the Africans in the South, and that it had an unwholesome beat and African flavor to it. Until then the West had known no such sensual music. Rock music (and the music that is has influenced) is unrelentingly popularistic and intrinsically different from the traditional music of every country.

Then we come to the sad subject of Chassidic Music, of "Jewish Music". Of what, friends, constitutes the "Jewishness" of Jewish music? The singing of Torah words or "Nigunnim" to Rock music tunes, or music inspired by that style. That is all anyone will ever mean by "Jewish" music. Could it be friends, that after a musical tradition spanning 3,300 years we have been reduced to a couple of low-life yeshiva dropouts singing well known verses to the tunes of Rock songs being the only thing that constitutes "Jewish" music?! What a loss.

I myself prefer to indulge in the glorious musical tradition of my ancestors in Morocco. The music of the Moroccan Jews consists mainly of sacred poems sung to what's known as Andalusian music. A pure and beautiful form of the orderly Arab Maqamat that derives it's name from the part of Spain where Jewish, Christian and Muslim thought developed in an atmosphere of mutual good will, Andalusia. The birthplace of the Rambam and countless other sages.

Yet, as today's leading expert in Moroccan Piyutim points out, there is more to Andalusian music than it's sobriety and it's ascetic beauty. You see, the music was brought to Morocco from the original Muslims who emigrated directly from Iraq to the Maghreb. What kind of people resided in Babylonia, friends, when this music was being developed in the seventh century if not a great multitude of Jews? Jews who had been exiled from their Land and their Temple, and no doubt brought their music with them, and which certainly had a great part in influencing this sacred music before it was taken to the Maghreb. What emerges then, is that Andalusian music is directly influenced by the very music our ancestors sang in the Beit Hamikdash!

The words: Again, the words in today's "Jewish music" is only simplistic and popular verses from our Torah, yet soiled by the impure garments that these crowd pleasing singers tie onto them. The lyrics of our liturgical poems, or "piyutim", and Moroccan piyutim especially, are much more complex, and much more beautiful.

As a general introduction to piyutim, I should say that they are poems in biblical Hebrew, based directly on the poems of the Tanach itself. Piyutim like these have been written since at least the Talmudic era, by Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir, and from then till today, in the never ending Rabbi-student Judaic tradition. There are Ashkenazi piyutim as well that are chanted weekly at that Shabbat tables. Yet there were a few particular places and times where the piyut thrived. The first is 11th-12th century Spain, where lived such greats as Rabbi Yehudah Halevi and Shlomo Ibn Gevirol. The second great era is that of the Kabalistic piyut, written mostly in and around Tzfat in the 16th century, under the influence of the Arizal. From there there are two main traditions, the Syrian piyut and the Moroccan piyut, the Rabbis of both countries having produced masterful works from the 18th century to the 20th. In both countries the pious would rise after midnight on the Sabbath 'eve and sing the sacred songs of their rabbis and sages until morning, and were then joined by the community in an inspiring Sabbath morning prayer. This international weekly piyut-singing vigil is called "Bakashot" (requests), since many of the songs are forms of prayer.

There is much to be said about the literary, metrical and contextual style and development of Moroccan piyuim, but one aspect I wish to concentrate on is that the Moroccan piyut, more than others, has a particular affinity towards the husband/wife relationship being a metaphor to the Israel/G-d relationship, as is portayed in Shir Hashirim. The style of Shir Hashirim, which was called the holiest of holies by our rabbis for that reason, is the style which beatifies and sanctifies these piyutim above the others. The song which embodies this the most being "דודי ירד לגנו", written by the holy Rabbi Chaim Hacohen (who lived in the time and place of the Ari, died at the age of 20, and wrote a Kabalistic commentary to the Shulchan Aruch). This song begins the Moroccan Bakashot, the rest of the songs change weekly, and are sung to a different Maqam (but that's for another time).

To me, that is the main joy in singing the piyutim and bakashot, the thought that these are the songs and transferred religious wisdom that endless generations of rabbis have imparted to us. They are vessels for us to grasp their religious feelings and fervor. Lippa Shmeltzer is a fine man, but he is surely no Yehudah Halevi, no Yisrael Nagara, no Chaim Hacohen and no Yisrael Abuchatzera (Baba Sali), nor is he even slightly up to par with any other of the piyut authors.

Another spiritual advantage of the piyut is that is itself is the highest form of prayer, prayer through song. Which is a fulfillment of Jewish reformers from John the Baptist to the Baal Shem Tov (להבדיל), who all said that the established prayer is not enough, and that one must pray to G-d at all times, especially through song.

The only problem is that the lower elements and the masses will always prefer Mordechai ben David-type stuff, since he sings only one or two Hebrew words, and these piyutim are masterworks of biblical Hebrew poetry, something which is far too lofty for the average man to grasp, and so it will remain, the prize of the initiated.

Decay

I generally try to veer away from speaking about myself on this blog, since, quite simply, my existence is pointless and uneventful (at the moment), but there are a few recent changes in me that I wished to take note of here.

First off, one new phenomenon of concern to me is that I seem to have become far more boring than I once was. I used to be more of a waxing wellspring of thoughts and ideas, and now...everything seems a lot more self-evident to me, and better off not said. In fact I have been away from the companionship of friends for so long that I've forgotten what my personality was like. If I do come in contact with friends, it's more of an effort to recreate my old personality than spontaneity. Ah, the curse of age! if one does not ensure that they do not get swollowed up by the mundane...

Not that that's what preventing me from writing here more frequently. I have endless things I wish to write about. The only factor preventing that is lethargy, my great foe.

Another disturbing change in me is that these days I find myself in a constant state of jealousy. Of everyone. I find it particularly disturbing because I, in fact, always had trouble understanding the sin of jealousy. I would always be the one to bless my brother in my heart, and I never even understood what purpose there was in beating yourself up over something someone else has and you don't; it doesn't get you any closer to attaining it. It seemed to me to be bringing grief on oneself for no good reason. Yet now, I am perpetually consumed by it and find it unimaginable not to feel the way I do.

And lastly I'm also questioning my interest in parenting children in the near future. While I do, of course, want to raise up a new generation on the purity of proper idealism and continue my dynasty, on the other hand caring for children seems to be an unspeakably great burden from which one can never escape, and which in effect stops a person from living their own life. Even the near future would seem too early for me to give up my life. Every time I thinking of having children I think of these men I used to see in Bene Brak, bearded, dressed in suits and black hats, sweating and pushing a baby carriage through the sweltering streets of Bene Brak in the summer. What man wishes such a thing upon himself? What man does not wish to take some time to explore the world and its knowledge? And such things cannot be done with a child.

On Criticism

Criticism, friends, is perhaps 'the' paramount contributor to interpersonal strife, and more importantly, marrital strife. Besides for the obvious "being worthy of criticism" or not, the two main components to this phenomenon are how criticism is given and how criticism is taken.

I would suppose the main reason why individuals feel the need to give criticism in marriage is a certain infallible image they had about their spouse which there has been reason for them to become disillusioned with, which obviously makes them feel deeply and emotionally disappointed.

This is a topic that interests me not only because I hope to have a romantic relationship with someone in the future, and know that it usually ends in criticism battles, "wars of justification" if you will, but more importantly, going back to the "criticism worthy" point, because I myself am generally more worthy of criticism than most people, yet I can rarely remember attempting to reveal to someone the injustice of their ways unless I had first been criticized by them. Only at that point would I try to show them that they themselves are not free of blame.

Personally, I don't think it's healthy or possible not to criticize, and I certainly don't hope to avoid it. But within the "תורת הביקורת", I feel there are some very simplistic guidelines which would help:

In regards to giving criticism: to try not to criticize your spouse when possible, and to overlook all injustices done towards you, and not take to heart all unmet expectations disillusionments about them. And when criticism is necessary, to do it in a cordial, friendly and not overly serious manner. Rather then "Why are you never home and having relations with someone else?!", perhaps "You know (name), I think it would be nice if you were home once in a while and didn't have sexual relationships with other people", etc.

In regards to getting criticism: once having had your attention brought to a negative aspect of yourself, to try to refrain from such actions in the future, and not to instead question the very legitimacy of the criticism, considering the critic is no less worthy of criticism.

It should be kept in mind though, that many times even people who marry and are in love have deep and intrinsic differences, and at times cannot possibly hope to meet each others needs and desires on all levels. The love itself is just the illusion of unity. But it is just such an illusion which brought them together, and just such an illusion which must exist if any man and woman are going to be living in any amount of harmony with each other. Unless they concentrate on child-rearing and act as divorcees under their own roof. ...which is also an option. Well, that or divorce, which is sometimes called for...

On Pot and Naturalism

Honestly, it's absurd to say that just because cannabis is natural it's ok to smoke it all the time. Who are we to say in what context it was meant to be smoked? Anyway, all the vices of the world are "natural". Grape fermentation is 'natural', coffee and chocolate beans are 'natural'. Respite is natural, steak is natural and beautiful people are natural, yet unrestrained appetites for sleep or food or cohabitation are also 'natural'. They've all existed since the beginning of time. That doesn't mean that it's not part of our duty as responsible human beings to beware of them, and to ensure we don't develop addictions to them. Thorns are 'natural'. Wild beasts are natural. Cliffs, are 'natural'...

The Papa and the Baba

I have borne witness recently, friends, to what seems to be a recurring theme among those who are relatively new to observant Judaism attempting to marry those who come from more observant families: the guy and the girl are perfectly fine with each other, notwithstanding the difference in their backgrounds, but when it comes time for the Baal Teshuva to be accepted into the religious family, one of the parents is adamantly opposed to such objectionable seed sullying the purity of their clan. The saga usually ends with the family seeking the councel of a Rosh Yeshiva or Mekubal, and discovering that their concerns were well-founded, since the authority figure is usually also in opposition to such unions.

To me the whole thing smacks of a pre-Fiddler on the Roof era; for even in that film, in all three marriages neither the father nor the community had much say in the face of love. To most (unorthodox) Jews today this phenomenon seems quite arcane, yet it's still "מעשים בכל יום" in our religious community "עד עצם היום הזה".

Yet what if a great man, say a descendant of the Abuhassera lineage, ..or your Rosh Yeshiva, ...or the Rebbe of Lubavitch בכבודו ובעצמו, after having been approached by you with the question of whether or not to cave in to parental pressure to turn down a prospective match with whom you've already developed an emotional relationship, tells you to listen to your elders and back down. Would you heed and does it make sense to heed?

It seems to boil down to how much supernatural Divine Inspiration and knowledge, or lack thereof, we aspire to this person, and whether their insights into our lives are true. Yet those who would wish to ascribe such inspiration to these men would use as proof the precept in Avot which states "עשה לך רב והסתלק מן הספק". But this proof insn't entirely convincing, since that Mishna may just be discussing "מילי דשמיא" (heavenly matters), but not necessarily the idea that one must heed a spiritual authority for "מילי דארעא" (earthly matters).

In regard to the latter, which is the topic of discussion here, the concept of "Da'at Torah" must be referred to. You see, many today feel that it's obvious that you must heed the guidance of your Rav in all matters, but upon a critical analysis it can be determined that many are of the opinion that Daat Torah is a relatively recent phenomenon, created by the modern Haredi group as a reaction to modernity.

While that may be true for Ashkenazim though, it is well known that Moroccan Jews always approach their Mystics, the "Mekubal" or "Baba" for advice in temporal matters, and that advice was always heeded. Unfortunately though, I think it is to our shame that we not only brought this institution to Israel, but it became quite popular among religious and irreligious Sefaradim alike, evolved into "big business" and provided opportunity for charlatans. Not to suggest that most Mekubalim in Israel are charlatans, but it is not unheard of. So not only have we, as Moroccan Jews in Israel, not stamped out these false notions, we promulgated them like never before.

Anyway, I grew up on American imagery and conceptualization, where if a man and a woman are in love, they don't let anything get in the way (...like in Fiddler on the Roof). Therefore to blindly trust Rabbinic authorities in these matters, is, in my opinion, not only somewhat foolish, but has no basis in Torah.

I wish to speak about this further in the future, in relation to how it affects the halachic process.

Not a Deaf Ear on the Blind Night

As many of you may know, friends, tonight the Christians celebrate the commemoration of the birth of their Deity; Christmas. For the moment I'm not quite interested in discussing Christmas itself, though I admit it's an interesting topic, especially for those of the "Judeo-Christian" tradition.

Though traditionally Christmas has never quite been a rosy time for the Jews, most Jews today seem to celebrate Christmas in one way or another. From going to Christmas eve concerts to reveling in Christmas carols to Chasidic "Shalishsudis"s with Coca Cola bottles that have an absurdly out of place picture of an overly-merry, red-cheeked Santa on the wrapper.

My own form of involvement in this holiday is the aforementioned Christmas carol binges. It should be stated though that the idea of listening to and taking pleasure in songs sung for the glory of a foreign Deity is at least somewhat questionable from a halachic perspective. Yet it's essentially not a question of Christmas songs themselves, but of the music specific to any religion outside of our own, especially those with Pagan leanings. The "G-d of Israel" is in fact known to be very concerned about proper theology, but is there any room for lenience for songs of this nature?

Now, I can't go into the actual halachic specifics of the topic, but suffice it to say that I am generally lenient on religious songs of other monotheistic traditions as long as there is no mention of explicitly polytheistic ideas, even if the the premise of the entire religion is semi-polytheistic. This lenience, in my opinion, is very Maimonidean in origin. He was a proponent of an unprecedented amount of theological inclusion and acceptance.

As you may have noticed, I included some of the Christmas songs I'm fond of on the sidebar. I thought the red color would be amusing, but the truth is I myself find it to be of objectionable taste. Nonetheless, I wish to say a few words about some of these songs separately:

1) The Little Drummer Boy: The first song I wish to mention is this pleasant little tune written early in the previous century by the lovely American composer Katherine Davis. This song, I feel, more than the other Christmas songs, is not only evocative of the most sublime Jewish ideals, but in a strong sense are more typical of Chasidic ideas. For those who are not aware, the song is a narrative of a boy who is stuck in the predicament of having to greet the king, whom everyone else is bestowing lavish gifts to, with nothing but his drum. When his turn comes to greet the monarch, he decides that his best option is to play his drum as best he can, which ultimately finds favor with the king. The meaning of the parable is obvious; the object of Divine service is not "how much" we have to offer G-d, but to be fully sincere with what we actually do. As it says in Avot: אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט ובלבד שיכוין לבו לשמיים.

There is a well known Chasidic tale told about Rabbi Yisrael ben Eliezer of Medzibizh that bears a great similarity to this: during the Yom Kippur prayers the "Baal Shem" refused to continue because he felt that there was something impeding their prayers. At that moment an unlearned village boy entered and played his flute as a form of prayer, not knowing that such performance is prohibited on the holy day. Yet instead of criticize this boy, the Baal Shem Tov exclaimed that is was this boys absence that was impeding their prayers, and with this performance they can rest assured their payers are reaching heaven's gates.

2) It Came Upon a Midnight Clear: While obviously discussing Christmas, this nineteenth century melody, written by Edmund Sears has no direct reference to Pagan G-ds (probably having something something to do with his being a Unitarian minister). Although this song was written partly as a melancholy critique of his overly materialistic society, it embodies a lot of the positive aspects of Christmas's current form, the main one being to increase in friendliness as the world becomes more desolate (as Christmas takes place in the dead of the winter). The song also beautifully contrasts the mundanity of life with the spiritual ecstasy of the angels, and ends with a yearning for the era of the Redemption.

3) O Come O Come Emmanuel: A metrical version of one of the Antiphons, the hymn was translated into English by John Mason Neale, again, in the nineteenth century. Although the song refers to the Christian god and is directed to him, from a non-Christian standpoint the song is simply about G-d, Israel and the coming Redemption. It's a prayer to and about the Jewish Messiah, to come and save Israel from it's plight in the exile. Essentially the song has surprisingly Jewish themes (aside from the whole "son of god" thing!), the last line for example reads "Who to Thy tribes, on Sinai's height, In ancient times did'st give the Law, In cloud, and majesty and awe. Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel. Shall come to thee, O Israel".

4) Carol of the Bells: Translated from Mykola Leontovych's Ukrainian. The significance of this song is more melodical that lyrical, but again, just the idea that people should be kinder at the height of the winter and not miserable is a legitimate idea.

[The title of this post by the way, is based on a now obsolete Eastern European Jewish term for Chistmas, "בלינדע נאַכט" (Blind Night), now replaced by the more common "ניטל נאַכט".]

חלום משה בנו יעקוב

During Chanukah I happened upon a cheap edition of a book I'd been looking for: an earlier, dialogue version of Luzzato's ethical opus, Messilat Yesharim. Many of his works were in dialogue form, but this particular work he later felt would work better in a condensed form, and as a monologue (which is all we've known about until a decade ago, when the earlier version was found in a Russian antiquities library). This event is what got me thinking recently of the Ramchal and his influence on later movements.

You see, as is evidenced in his preface (to both works), what the Ramchal would really like to see is people using the same energy, the same logic, the same hair-splitting analyses and the same studiousness not only in the study of the Talmud, but much more so in the study of ones own spiritual existence. That idea is not really mentioned later in the work, but it's the premise of everything he says; to have a regular "seder-iyyun" for "mussar".

What's funny is that while it's known that his works, and especially this work, deeply influenced Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, the founder of the "Mussar Movement" and the generations of thinkers and yeshivot that followed in his path, and even the main opposer of Chassidut when it first emerged, the Gaon of Vilnius, but it's less known that they, in a quieter way, influenced the founding of the Chassidic Movement as well. While Rabbi Yisrael ben Eliezer of Medzhybizh himself was a contemporary of Luzzato, it's difficult to pinpoint Luzzato's influence in his thought, though it is definitely there. One Chassidut in which the influence of Luzzato is still obvious today is, I think, Chassidut Chabad. Anybody in a Chabad Beit Midrash would tell you that an essential difference between them and their non-Chassidic counterparts is the stress and time they put into the study of "spirituality" and proper character training, which is essentially the wish of Luzzatto.

His Kabalah was a little more popular among some Chassidic thinkers. Rabbi Dov Ber of Mezeritch for example, commanded the printing of Luzzattos "Kalach Pitchei Chochmah", though some Rebbes (such as (the ninteenth century) Rabbi Menachem Mendel (Schneersohn) of Lyubavichi, frowned upon or prohibited it's study.

Luzzatto also affected other movements, such as the Zionist and the Reform: as H. N. Bialik was want to mention that "he was the father of the schools of thought of the 'Gra', the 'Besht', 'Ben Menahem' (Moses Mendelssohn) and in him lies the beginning of our own literary development (i.e. that of the "Maskilim"). It's also known that the writings of Rav Kook are based on a synthesis of the ideas of the Gra and the Ramchal. He once said "I feel like I'm a gilgul of Luzzatto".

It's always confused me that so many different groups affiliate with him. Which is really true to his ideology? Well, the reality is that most of his work was in kabbalah (something Graetz criticizes him for), so his true ideology is really quite steeped in mysticism, but he has another side, a "Nigla" side. An ethical side. And most of that side is revealed in both Messilat Yesharims....which is why I'm considering again writing on my blog dedicated to that book, but this time contrasting it with the dialogue version.

..I think the part of my brain that generates conclusions has been removed or something...

הָקֵם תָּקִים

אין ספק שלעזור לאדם לשחרר את גלגלי מכוניתו מן השלגים הינו בכלל "כִּי תִרְאֶה חֲמוֹר שֹׂנַאֲךָ רֹבֵץ תַּחַת מַשָּׂאוֹ..." ו"הָקֵם תָּקִים עִמּוֹ". ח

Lomo on Chanukah - '09

I was just looking over my Chanukah post from last year, and while it does badly need to be rewritten, the core idea is correct.

One quirky little idea I've been pondering about Chanukah thus far this year is how different the historical reality of those times are from the historical setting I once imagined: when I think Chanukah I usually think Jews against Greeks, and the Greeks being at the height of their empire and having no rivals. In the meantime the reality of Chanukah is far more complex and unexpected than one would imagine: The original "Greek" conquerors weren't even Greeks but Macedonians who despised real Greeks, and the height of Greek culture had passed long ago (people like Aristotle had lived in the First Temple period, well before there was any Greek Empire, and Antiochus VI was one of the last great Seleucid kings).

One also imagines the Persians as having stepped into the historical background long before then, but they were still very much around at this time. The very same Persians who allowed for the Second Temple to initially be constructed, were in fact, Antiochus's main difficulty outside of the Judeans (he actually died waring against the Persians). The funny thing about the people of Iran is that they keep appearing in history under different names: Medes, Parthians, Sassanids etc. And the Romans, whom one thinks of as having thrived later in history were also very active at that time, and even made a pact with the Haasmonean Judeans against the Seleucids and Helenized Judeans. Since it was essentially some sort of civil war among the Judeans themselves, and the Seleucid king only came at the behest of the (Judean) Tobiads, who were at odds with the Onias/Hasmonean party, which represented the majority of the people, and who favored the Seleucid rival, the Egyptian Ptolemaic kingdom (who, after all, were just as Greek as the Seleucids, and were also an impediment to Judah's autonomy, yet was still preferred over the latter). All these historical complications are what make reading the Book of Maccabees so difficult: "We know the story, the oil burnt for eight days. What's all this with Onias and Romans?"!

I wouldn't have posted this since it bears no lesson, but...it's better than nothing!

…This is Man

[In the picture: SS officers in the Auschwitz camp who, despite their busy day murdering millions of our ancestors, find the time to take a pleasant afternoon nap.]

My mind, friends, works in tangents. Seeing a topic discussed in one media makes me interested in finding out about it in another. For example: As a result of my having seen the film The Boy in the Striped Pajamas I became interested in "the Holocaust" in general. One thing that incited my interest was the fact that Jewish critics of the novel/film mentioned have a number of complaints about it regarding the authenticity with which it describes the Holocaust. One exceedingly obvious thing in the film is that the camp inmates aren't emaciated (kind of hard to do that with makeup). Another film I had seen which had questionable representations of the Holocaust was a BBC film ("television play" actually) entitled G-d On Trial (actually pretty interesting).

From there I chanced upon a very well known book that I had heard nothing about; Primo Levi's If This is Man, foolishly published in the United States under the title Survival in Auschwitz). I hadn't even known that Levi was "in the Holocaust". The book, of course, was quite interesting, and it fulfilled one of the main purposes I was reading; getting a real and accurate description of the Nazi concentration and death camps. It's a very detailed description that a movie wouldn't really be able to represent anyway; how cold it was, or how uncomfortable it is to march all day in wooden shoes or in the freezing rain wearing nothing but a shirt and trousers. He speaks about it from the perspective of a thoughtful individual, not a complainer, and he covers many of the great philosophical issues the ordeal brings up.

Once I’m already involved in this, I think I might read his work of labor-camp-inspired poetry, entitled "Shma" in America, as well as Elie Wiesel’s Night; a book I couldn't imagine reading in high school, where it was assigned to me. I might also watch Schindler’s List, a film that, again, I would have found ruthlessly boring in the past.

But from whence comes my newfound interest in the Holocaust? I must admit that I originally, like most people, found no good reason in researching it too much or being obsessed with it. One of my main reasons was that "holocaust studies" should not be what defines Judaism for Jews in America, and non-Jews find Jews who are "too" interested in the holocaust to be of ill taste. They feel that the world has heard quite enough about the holocaust, and that it's not quite the most fascinating or cheery subject to start with. While I still agree that these are legitimate concerns (among other, legitimate, concerns) my feelings about the German solution to the judenfrage changed with age. I used to see the holocaust, as some still do, as something that happened in some primordial past of the 1930's-40's, regarding events about which legends abound in shuls and batei midrash every ninth of Av, and seems to be as distant as the churban itself. Though when I became older and more interested in past events, the 40's didn't seem like so long ago. In fact as far as technological advancements of the 20's century go, it was really very much like today; there were telephones, refrigerators, cars, airplanes etc. Essentially it was very recent. In that case then, its occurrence becomes all the more unbelievable. In the environment that I grew up in (yeshivot), the fact that the 'Goyim' wanted to exterminate the Jews was a given; they're inherently evil, there's nothing to talk about. Yet if we're dealing with the center of world culture, a place where Jews had played an important part in he previous war, a place where Shai Agnon felt safe and comfortable, a place where even he who's philosophy became the cornerstone for Nazism, Friedrich Nietzsche, was violently opposed to German Anti-Semites, that such a country would, just a few years ago, annihilate countless of it's law-abiding citizens within a few years is difficult to comprehend. ..which is the main place from which interest in the holocaust generally stems.

It's not a question of the Jews then, but a question the Germans seem to pose about humanity; not a "Judenfrage", but a "Menschfrage". In fact it was not only Jews that the Germans wanted to annihilate: the very founding of the death camps was for the purpose of eradicating the Slavs. In the long run, the Germans essentially wished to conquer the Eastern European states, eradicate and enslave the native populations, and build German colonies which would eventually become part of Germany (all of which actually happened on a small scale. Auschwitz was to become just one of these future German cities). It’s the enth degree of the colonialist ideology: "If the Americans can wipe out countless of innocent natives because they are 'savages', use their land as lebensraum and bring innocents from the African continent to work for them, and if France and Britain can colonize the relatively civilized countries of the Arab world and India, who's to say we can't remove and enslave the Untermenschen and replace them with ourselves" they would say. It's really just an extension of the same principle, but a very hard concept for any 'Modern' to swallow. ..which is why this can't become a stale or abhorrent subject, but rather one which requires diligent study, for, as I often say, any society, especially that of America, could go downhill like Germany did, and turn on it's minorities who, in some parts of America, seem to almost exclusively be Jews. And besides, the views of contemporary non-Jews on the Holocaust should be concerning enough to us: when they hear tha six million Jews died, instead of saying "how could this happen?", many of them call the Jews liars. They say "it was not six million Jews that perished, as the Jews claim, but rather nine hundred thousand nine hundred and ninety!”. After all that suffering, the only response of the Nations is that not enough of us died! …enough to cause concern..

הצעיר לבית שריקי
ס"ט

In Lomo's Mind on a Cold Brooklyn Morning

KK
…I step off the subway and realize its cold again in Brooklyn. Again the wayward clouds play their old sun-hiding trick, and again the howling wind rushes between the buildings as if it's a hardened New Yorker on the way to catch a train. Again, Brooklyn is a dismal town. Even the Bangladeshis are wondering if it was really a good idea to come here. "What were we so lacking in Bangladesh that we had to come here?" they ask each other. The Puerto Ricans are asking each other the same question.

Yet they and we still walk these streets and politely let the hurried wind pass. And for what do we trudge through this daily rat-race when we don't really need a lot of money to get by on our own? Just to buy a better one of those accident-mobiles? Why? Just to impress some pampered, self-absorbed witch who wouldn't put-up with the slightest infringement when the time came? To trap yourself in a never-ending load of responsibilities only to raise and support more of the same unappreciative takers? All to continue the circle of Brooklyn life? Perhaps it’s just a mood I get into, but again the whole cycle seems pointless to me. ..or perhaps since I haven’t quite lived yet I can’t imagine giving my life up so fast..

(I’m attempting to write in that narrative style that most people find so natural, but just seems to allude me. Just needs some getting used to, ..but I've still got a ways to go.)

ההודאה בחג ההודיה

פלא בעיני: אם יש בכדי חג ההודיה לעורר לבבות יהודי אמריקה שומרי התורה והמצוות למנות את ברכותם אשר השפיע עליהם הא"ל ברוב טובו, וכל עצמו של החג נתייסד על הגיעם של הפוריטנים לחוף ההארץ החדש בשלום, והודאתם לא"ל על כך, אינו ק"ו שבחג שנתייסד על הגיענו לארץ ישראל בשלום והקימתינו בה ממשל יהודי שנודה א"לוהינו על שהנחיל לאבותינו ארץ חמדה, טובה, ורחבה, ברית ותורה חיים ומזון?! וכי אינו מן הראוי ביום ההוא לפחות להלל אל"לוהינו בהלל גמור, ולקחת לקח טוב מדוגמת חג ההודיה למנות את ברכותינו ביום שגמל לנו הא"ל כאלה וכאלה טובות וחסדים (דהיינו חג העצמאות)? ח

ראיו לציין גם: וכי חג שכזה יש בכוחה לזרוק צל על חג יותר ראוי? הלא המתיישבים הראשונים האלו נתקלו בקשיי התאקלמות רבים, והם לא הצליחו לפרנס את ישובם אם לא שהאינדיאנים באו לעזרתם. ומה עשו האמריקאים להודות לבעלי טובתם? השמידו את זכרם מעל פני האדמה. בעיני, התנהגות שכזאת מסמלת כפוי טובה ולא הודיה. ח

A Queer Dilemma

I once had a discussion over at Chana's blog with a lady named Megan about homosexuality in the perspective of Jewish law and objective truth. It was in response to a post about how people with homosexual natures in the Jewish community are at a dilemma in regards to what to do with themselves and their futures. I've recently come to recall some of my ideas on the subject and I still feel some of basically still hold true. So this is not necessarily to follow-up on the discussion I was having there, but rather to restate my ideas.

My first argument is legal: although the legal systems of democracies are created to be objectively just and applicable to people of all creeds and religions, there are still a great many laws which are absurd. It seems to me that the laws are just an extension of the Western norms, which themselves are greatly influenced by the norms of Greece and Rome. Yet were the ethics of the Greeks and the Romans objectively just? They would discard newborns that were seen as "unfit". Are the laws here in America just? Less than a century ago eugenics was popular, and the severe mistreatment of African-Americans and discrimination against Jews was part of the law.

They say that it's unjust to even suggest that homosexuality might not be the best thing in the world, yet there are other sexual practices that are not "objectively" evil that are greatly discouraged. For example the cohabitation between an adult and a consenting minor is illegal. For an eighteen year old boy to cohabitate with a seventeen year old girl is illegal yet cohabitation between two of the same sex is beyond reproach? There is even a case of a seventeen year old male being arrested for viewing pornographic images of seventeen year old females. Yet pornographic images of eighteen year old females is fine. Yet prostitution is basically fine as well.

They defend their opinions by saying that homosexuality is natural in some people and therefore can't be discriminated against. Well, the desire to be intimate with minors, children, close relatives and even animals is quite natural to some people as well. If the law is objective who's to say those should not be deemed legal in the ideal state? If it's some sort of sexual or emotional repression we fear, than we should fear the sexual repression of the child molester as well (I saw Little Children recently).

Rather the law in Western lands simply follows the Western tradition, in which homosexuality is not quite as frowned upon as the other practices mentioned. Yet they complain when Muslims suggest homosexuality should be illegal, even though the Oriental tradition condemns homosexuals. We must conclude then, that just as with the Mission, the Western world, rather than trying to spread "Christianity", was trying to spread "Western culture", so too with the wish of the Western Europeans and their descendants throughout the globe to spread "Democracy"; it is not objective law they wish to disseminate, but rather their own view of things.

Another argument I mentioned there that I feel still stands is the idea that it is within our ability to change our sexual natures to an extent, perhaps even from homosexuality to heterosexuality. My very mention of such an idea brought me sharp criticism from the other commentators, as if they're the worlds experts on people's sexual natures. There is practically no scientific evidence saying it's impossible for people to become attracted to people of the same or other gender.In fact there is much evidence suggesting it is possible.

What the critics would respond to this is that some males were simply born with more estrogen in their bodies, and are therefore wholly female from a chemical standpoint. They suggest that there were homosexuals in every era and in every society; that it's quite natural and that it can't be helped. Still, I feel that the truly effeminate men and emasculate women are the minority in today's homo/bi-sexual community. The majority can be heterosexual had the need arose. For example in the European Dark Ages there is not much of a record of homosexual activity. I cannot recount the history of populations with little-to-no homosexual populations, but suffice it to say in the right environment more people are born with heterosexual inclinations. It seems to me that in very affluent societies that can mimic the wealth of the ancient Egyptian, Greek or Roman societies, for example today's Western societies (for example the one we live within here in the coastal United States) more effeminate males and emasculate females are born.

Instead, therefore, of having endless sympathy with the struggles of homosexuals who wish to live religious lives, we are better off attempting to discover what causes homosexuality and trying to change people's innate natures (since it does, in fact, seem to be very possible).

Correct? Incorrect?

ס"ט

My New Blog

Well, I’ve finally started a new blog again, entitled “הציוני האחרון”. I start way too many blogs, I know. I’ve actually  been meaning to start it for a while but I kept procrastinating. Tonight I haven't got much to o so I’m starting it up. If anyone has any Israel-related posts they might want to contribute, feel free to join.

זו אגדה

One of my favorite types of books to read, friends, is the type of book that is so obscure most people (of the cultured class) would be surprised to hear that such a book existed. A set of books I've been reading recently that's met that standard more than some others is the diaries of Theodor Herzl. I've read Der Judenstaat in the past (which, in yeshiva in Jerusalem, was also pretty obscure), but it's far more eye-opening to see the day-to-day entries of the "Visionary of the State" in the late nineteenth century. What strikes me as humorous about Herzl's speeches and writings, or for that matter any of the Western European Zionists of his day, was how well they had the entire endeavor planned out, and how very absurd most of those ideas seem today (though the truth is some of his predictions about the future state are shockingly accurate...but perhaps only because the founders wished to shape things in Herzl's vision).

For example Herzl envisioned a state where the majority of the first immigrants at the time of the state's founding would be from the West, coming out of their own volition in a very organized manner. In reality most of the founding generation came from the East, most of them only as refugees of pogroms or the war, and there would be a great number brought in from the Orient, which he seemed not to have considered.

The best thing about Herzl's ignorance about the future though, is that he sort of knew deep down inside that there could be no state if world politics stayed as they were. The Ottomans swore they would never relinquish the holy sites of Palestine to the Jews, the Pope was thoroughly uninterested in Herzl and even the European leaders weren't so excited about the prospect. It is perhaps for this reason that in the end of his life he gave precedence to the idea that there be a Jewish state than to the idea that it be situated in the historical land of Israel, where Jewish pioneers had been arriving until then. He would never have foreseen that soon after his death the Ottoman Empire would collapse and the Arab lands partitioned by the Western powers. On the other hand he could never have foreseen that the Jews would not leave Europe unless forced out, and that even after a holocaust the nations of the world would still be extremely iffy about allowing a Jewish state.

This last point has always been disturbing to me though; here Herzl thought he had his game made, it was a win-win situation; the Europeans don't want the Jews and the Jews ultimately want to return to Palestine. He thought all it would take was a stroll over to the Kaiser and another over to the sultan and viola; the Jewish question solved. Yet after chatting with some the German Dukes, they say "who said we want to lose our Jews? What will be with the economy?", and three decades later they decimated the Jews but still refused to grant them a homeland. If you don't like them this is your opportunity to be rid of them! To me it seems like a great paradox. A love-hate relationship. They can't live with us and they can't live without us. Even today the Jewish population in the holy land is constantly harassed by their neighbors and by the media, and yet many of them are the very same people who criticize the Jewish population in their own countries (David Duke being an extreme example of someone who doesn't want Jews in America, yet is pro-Palestinian when it comes to Judea, Samaria and Gaza).

Anyway, the entire set makes for an interesting read. Lots of great lines there. I could practically write a running commentary on the thing.

[Shlomo Avineri article on the diaries]

Lomo and Time

[The title, obviously being based on the philosophical work Being and Time, for all you non-Heideggernicks out there]

For various reasons I've recently come to reexamine my relationship with temporal movement and the effect or lack of effect that it has on my existence. I'm sorry to say that my relationship with punctuality hasn't always been the closest, which has actually, strangely enough, made me more punctual at times. For example someone I knew once asked me why I was so 'unusually' punctual. The answer, obviously, was that because I naturally wasn't, I had more of an agenda to prove I was...

In order to discuss this subject though, we should understand that "time" is such a relative word. The passage of time on a stone, for example, has little effect on it's lifestyle. Yet for human beings time is our being, the passage of time over us is more of our life having gone by; the flowing of our blood, the pumping of our hearts. When you "take" someones time therefore, it's not only their time you're taking, but their very life. For what does a life consist of if not years, and what do years consist of if not days, and days consist of hours. So creating a situation in which someone is forced to be idle for one of those hours is undoubtedly snatching away part of their life.

In the slaughterhouse in Wisconsin which had the good fortune of finding me employed therein, we worked on shifts, and since there was little management, ones only hope of being relieved of his shift was the goodwill of his fellow worker to come on time. During my time there I noticed the ways of an old Uzbeki man who was actually our oldest member: despite his age he was always five to fifteen minutes early to his shift, thus affording great relief to the worker of the previous shift, and gaining nothing in return. Personally, at the time his practice didn't sit well with me, seeing as if he would fill my shift early I would be obliged to do the same for him. Yet the truth is that temporal form of giving is in fact the highest form.

Even if you are tardy to a class or meeting or group of any kind where your presence is expected, if you are absent, that loss is felt by the group (hopefully!) and it mars their experience to a small extent, but even the slightest extent should be of concern. It's written that rabbi "Nachman of Bratslav" (founder of the Breslov Chasidut) was very off-put if there were missing faces from his sacred gatherings.

Thus if one does wish to engage in a more scrupulous form of time management one thing he will have to acquire is a foresight of every possible prevention from arriving at his destination at the proper moment.

Do not think, by the way, that these ideas are alien to our religion. Although punctuality was greatly stressed by the proponents of the "Mussar Movement", even authors who preceded that era wrote much about time management (especially in relation to prayer and study), and we see it written in more modern works such as the "עלי שור" (Wolbe) and "אור לציון" (Aba Shaul).

I'm not verbalizing these dictums for didactic reasons, but as a hope that the repeating of these principles will assist myself and others in their fulfillment.


עבד, ס"ט

"Shabbos Brachos Party"

Another thing I wanted to mention recently was that I, for reasons beyond my control, had to sit in for a "Brachos Party" this past Shabbat. Now, I'm the youngest of my clan, and I don't often see children, so seeing a whole array of toddlers and young children in their own environment is, to me, ...similar to the experience of watching a group of guinea pigs interact with each other. Perhaps it says something about my being "too interested" in the opposite sex or gender relations, but one thing that caught my eye the most was some of the interactions between the boys and the girls. The two specimens I studied most closely were a pair of toddlers (a male Uzbek and a blond female with Swiss features) and a pair of children (both Uzbek-American).

The toddlers concerned me since the girl was only a month older than the boy yet she seemed to run circles around him intellectually (unfortunately, probably a sign of what their future statuses will be in relation to one another in society when they become adults). Though all-in-all, they seemed not to harbor any particular disposition towards each other, in fact they seemed to get on quite well. Not half as well, though, as the two Uzbek-American children (male: 6, female: 4). If I didn't know better I would think they were just a happily married, albeit very small, couple. The way their personalities complimented one another was uncanny, and even when one wronged the other to the point of causing tears, they were not able to, or perhaps did not want to, recall each others wrongs later on.

To me what these children seemed to be doing was enforcing a theory I had already had regarding the spousal compatibility of men and women, namely that any two people have the potential to live side by side in relative harmony. The only reason two people would not do so is because they are both concentrating their vision on unimportant and negligible differences between them, yet they overlook the vast amount of things they have in common with one another. And even if you grouped people with nothing in common (say, a Polish man and Ethiopian woman stranded on a desrted island), chances are they both manage to live in harmony and work for one anthers welfare.