rabbisedley

Rosh Chodesh - the Power of Renewal

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:46:00 +0000

This shiur is also based on the writings of Rav Tzadok HaCohen.

The shiur is sponsored in memory of Irena bat Ilia Brezner. May her soul be bound in the bonds of Eternal Life.

This week is a new beginning for my Tuesday night women's shiur - we have moved to a new home in Armon HaNetziv. Contact me for details if you would like to come.

This parsha is also a new beginning - it contains the first mitzvah that was given to the Jewish people - kiddush hachodesh (sanctifying the new month).
This shiur was also given on Rosh Chodesh (new month) of Shevat, which (according to Beit Shammai) is the New Year for trees.

So lots of beginnings, and a shiur on the power of renewal and the importance of stumbling and falling in order to begin again and to grow.

I look forward to your comments.

Here is the audio shiur (and the pdf sheets to download if you want).

Parshat Bo - Renewal

(Right click and then 'download as')

Parshat Bo - Renewal

Your feedback is welcome and appreciated. I would love to continue giving a shiur to this group on a weekly basis, but to do that I would need some kind of sponsorship. If anyone is interested in sponsoring a shiur (either l'ilui nishmat someone, or just for no reason) please contact me.

VaEra - Derech Eretz

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:27:00 +0000

This week (and hopefully in coming weeks) I'm using Rav Tzadok HaCohen as the basis for the shiur.

The parsha begins with G-d telling Moshe that He only appeared to the Avot as E-l Shaddai, but He will appear to Moshe as YHVH.

The problem is that G-d appeared many times to the Avot with the name YHVH. Furthermore, He only appeared twice with the name E-l Shaddai (and never to Yitzchak).

Rav Tzadok explains that it refers to the fundamentally different relationship with G-d that the Avot had - based on Derech Eretz, compared to Moshe Rabbeinu's - based on Torah.

He discusses the meanings of the names, and the way in which the Avot kept the Torah. He explains the meaning of the concept "derech eretz kadma la-Torah" (derech eretz preceded the Torah). Derech eretz is a concept that non-Jews accept as much as Jews, and in some cases Jews can/should learn from non-Jews.

I end with a quote from Rav Kook (who was influenced by the writings of Rav Tzadok) about derech eretz (of the Zionists who built the land and State of Israel) and recognition of its importance for those who learn Torah.

If only more people in Ramat Beit Shemesh and other places would realise the importance of derech eretz and making a positive contribution to the world!

http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
I look forward to your comments.

Here is the audio shiur (and the pdf sheets to download if you want).

Parshat VaEra- Derech Eretz preceded the Torah

(Right click and then 'download as')

Parshat VaEra- Derech Eretz preceded the Torah

Your feedback is welcome and appreciated. I would love to continue giving a shiur to this group on a weekly basis, but to do that I would need some kind of sponsorship. If anyone is interested in sponsoring a shiur (either l'ilui nishmat someone, or just for no reason) please contact me.

Project on Aging

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:42:00 +0000

I have been working for TAG-Institute for the past couple of months.

Tag is an organisation dedicated to promoting the broadest possible contribution of Jews and Judaism to the improvement of the world. It does this in two ways - the dissemination of knowledge of Jewish social values through Tag Institute for Jewish Social Values, and humanitarian activities through Tag International Development.

The basic goal of what I have been doing is to present Jewish ideas to the non-Jewish world, to allow the 'Jewish' voice of Social Science to be heard. With over 2000 years of written history, Judaism has a contribution to make to the wider world.

So, here is a document that I prepared on the 'Jewish View on Aging'. There is much more that could be said, but my main focus was where Judaism can make a contribution to the wider world in the field of Aging Enrichment.

If anyone has time or interest to read this document I would appreciate any thoughts, ideas or feedback (positive or negative). This is essentially the first draft and any comments will be incorporated in future versions of this document.

Here is the document on Jewish Aging. Right click to download.

Ninth of Tevet

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 05:14:00 +0000

Today is the 9th of Tevet. Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman has given one of the best shiurim I have ever heard on reason for the fast on this day (which nobody fasts on).

You can hear the shiur (or download it) on the Yeshiva University website:
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/715371/Dr_Shnayer_Leiman/Jewish_Perspectives_on_Early_Christianity_-_Nittel,_the_Ninth_of_Teves_and_Pope_Simon_Peter

The shiur begins with a cryptic Rashi in Avoda Zara which says that the Romans have no langugage or books of their own. He then looks at the Shulchan Aruch who says that 9th Tevet is a Fast Day, but we do not know the reason why. He cites attempted answers from Sefer Hakabballah, Rema (in Mechir Yayin), Taz and Magen Avraham, Ye'arot Devash and Sefer Ha-Ibbur (which claims that 25th December in the year of Jesus' birth fell on 9th Tevet). Then he gives what seems to be the most likely answer - that it is the Yarzheit of Saint Peter, who was really a Tanna named Shimon Kefas (Kasponi), uncle of Jesus. and he shows that the original text of rashi also made reference to this literature of the 'Jewish version of the Jesus story'.

I have never met Rabbi Leiman, and (unfortunately) have no connection to him, but I highly recommend this and all fo his shiurim.

In the shiur, he is reading from a source sheet. However, I was not able to find the source sheet on that website. So I created it myself (and the sources that he quotes are wild and wonderful).

So, if you want to hear his shiur, and read a source sheet, you can download this source sheet, and click on his link.

Parshat Vayeshev - The Poor Person

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:49:00 +0000

I'm sorry - I forgot to put this shiur on the web last week. So you will either have to listen to last week's parsha now (I think it is still kosher if you listen before Tuesday) or you will have to wait until next year to listen to it.

This shiur is fairly simple, but gives a different view of the parsha. I look at Rabbeinu Bachaye's introduction to the parsha, where he describes four categories of poor people. Then with some help from the audience (audience participation is always a good thing) we try to read these four categories of poor people back into the whole parsha, and come out with a theme of loss and redemption as the central idea of the parsha.

I look forward to your comments.

Here is the audio shiur (and the pdf sheets to download if you want).

Parshat Vayeshev - Rabbeinu Bachaye and the Poor Person

(Right click and then 'download as')

Parshat Vayeshev - Rabbeinu Bachaye source sheet

Your feedback is welcome and appreciated. I would love to continue giving a shiur to this group on a weekly basis, but to do that I would need some kind of sponsorship. If anyone is interested in sponsoring a shiur (either l'ilui nishmat someone, or just for no reason) please contact me.

Signs of Life

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:50:00 +0000

I recently saw a book (which I believe has just been published) which has beautiful illustrations showing what makes animals kosher and what makes them non-kosher. It is called "Signs of Life" The pictures are beautiful. However, as many of you know, there has been much controversy in the past few years about how to deal with the issue of hyrax and rabbit in terms of whether they chew the cud or not. I was curious how this book dealt with the issue. He spends almost half a page on both animals, and this is what he writes:

The Rock Badger and the Rabbit
Scientists throughout the generations have had the audacity to argue that the rock badger (shafan) and rabbit (arneves) do not chew their cud, in direct contradiction of that which is stated in the Torah. On the contrary, anyone can see with their own eyes that these animals chew their food long after it was ingested. (See Torah Sheleimah, Parshas Shemini (p. 293, quoted in Sefer Sichas Chullin p. 410) for further explanation of why these animals are considered to chew their cud

I am not all that impressed with his scholarship - he apparently didn't actually look in Torah Sheleimah, but relied on the citation from Sichas Chullin (which is honest of him). I'm not sure how many rock badgers or rabbits he has looked at - personally I have never looked at them for long enough to see them chew their food after it was ingested, but I'm skeptical!

But I am completely impressed with his total faith in the Torah (though his reliance on 'that which is stated in the Torah' disregarding the disagreements of Chazal and Rishonim is perhaps a but too much like the Saducees for my linking). And the audacity of those scientists throughout the ages! (Not sure how many studies of rock badgers have been done before the 20th century, but I'll believe him). Wouldn't it be great if scientists would always only stick to the simple text of Chumash and never have the audacity to argue with it!http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif We wouldn't have to worry about pesky issues such as the age of the universe, the heliocentric solar system, or the Southern Hemisphere. We would never investigate photosynthesis, because we would know that plants can live without a sun. We would never look for medical cures for illnesses, because we know that they come from G-d, who is the only true Healer.

Wouldn't life be simple (if short) if we restricted scientists from investigating things which make them seem audacious.

PS I just found an article in HaModia about the book which includes the following line:

Signs of Life, is the only modern comprehensive work that deals with the mitzvah of recognizing the kosher signs of animals, providing an in-depth analysis of the issue with beautiful full-color photos and diagrams. It has been widely acclaimed by the Torah leaders of this generation.

I didn't know that it was the only book on the topic! And I'm slightly disappointed that he didn't go into the issue in more details once he realised that it is a Torah mitzvah!

Parshat Vayishlach - the Divine Within

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 06:47:00 +0000

I gave this shiur last night in Jerusalem. Happy Birthday Michael and thank you for hosting the shiur.

This shiur is in part a continuation of last week's shiur on angels. Only this time we examine 'Who is G-d'?

Who did Yaakov wrestle with? All the Rishonim (without exception as far as I could tell) say it was an angel. Yet this appears to contradict the simple reading of the Chumash, and ignores several Midrashim.

Is there a p'shat reading of the text? How are we to understand the statements of Chazal that equate Yaakov/Yisrael/Yeshurun with G-d?

I also bring two kabbalistic Rishonim (there are not so many Rishonim who wrote on kabbalah). However I completely failed to understand what they said, so even though I think the message is valid, profound and true, please ignore my misinterpretation of the Recanati and Avodat HaKodesh. I will try to have a better understanding before my shiur tonight on WebYeshiva.

I look forward to your comments.

Here is the audio shiur (and the pdf sheets to download if you want).

Parshat Vayishlach - The Divine Within

(Right click and then 'download as')

Parshat Vayishlach - The Divine Within - source sheet

Your feedback is welcome and appreciated. I would love to continue giving a shiur to this group on a weekly basis, but to do that I would need some kind of sponsorship. If anyone is interested in sponsoring a shiur (either l'ilui nishmat someone, or just for no reason) please contact me.

Parshat Toldot - Esav, Rome and Free Choice

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 01:29:00 +0000

I gave this shiur last night in Jerusalem. I look at several Rashis (citing Midrashim) that imply that Esav was born bad, and therefore had no free choice. I also try to find the basis for the Talmudic connection between Esav and Rome (and going one step further, the connection in the Rishonim between Esav and Christianity).

I look forward to your comments.

Here is the audio shiur (and the pdf sheets to download if you want).

Parshat Toldot - Esav, Rome and Free Choice

(Right click and then 'download as')

Parshat Toldot - Esav, Rome and Free Choice- source sheet

Your feedback is welcome and appreciated. I would love to continue giving a shiur to this group on a weekly basis, but to do that I would need some kind of sponsorship. If anyone is interested in sponsoring a shiur (either l'ilui nishmat someone, or just for no reason) please contact me.

Parshat Chayei Sarah - Superstition

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:57:00 +0000

Here is a shiur I gave this week to a group in Katamon. It is similar, but different, to the shiur I gave last night on WebYeshiva

I begin with Stevie Wonder's "Superstition" and look at Eliezer's quest to find a wife for Yitzchak. He asks G-d for a sign to help him find a suitable woman. Is it permissible for Jews to rely on signs and omens? Do we view them as help from G-d, involving Him in our lives, or are they considered forbidden Emorite (idolatrous?) practices?

We look at four different approaches in the Rishonim, grouped geographically. Each has a different answer to that question:
Ashkenaz (Rashi/Tosefot)
Cataolonia (Rabbeinu Nissim)
Spain/Egypt (Rambam)
Provence (Raavad, Radak, Baal HaMaor and Meiri)

And the answer I didn't give in the shiur - what should we do today - here is the Shulchan Aruch:

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 179:4

בית תינוק ואשה אף על פי שאין ניחוש יש סימן. הגה: ... יש אומרים דאדם מותר לעשות לו סינן בדבר שיבא לעתיד כמו שעשה אליעזר עבד אברהם או יהונתן ויש אוסרין וההולך בתום ובוטח בה' חסד יסובבנו.
A house, a child or a wife, even though they are not divination, can be a sign. [Rema:… Some say that a person is permitted to make for himself a sign for something that will happen in the future, like Eliezer and Yonatan did. Others forbid this. Someone who walks whole-heartedly and trusts in G-d will be surrounded with kindness.

Nedarim 32a
אמר רבי יצחק כל המתמים עצמו הקב"ה מתמים עמו שנאמר (שמואל ב כב) עם חסיד תתחסד עם גבר תמים תתמם ... אמר רבי כל המנחש לו נחש... משום מדה כנגד מדה תני אהבה בריה דרבי זירא כל אדם שאינו מנחש מכניסין אותו במחיצה שאפי' מלאכי השרת אין יכולין ליכנס בתוכה.
Rabbi Yitzchak said: Anyone who acts whole-heartedly G-d acts with him whole-heartedly, as the verse says, “With a kind person He will act kindly; with a whole-hearted person He will act whole-heartedly” (II Shmuel 22:26). Rebbi said: Anyone who divines, is subject to divination… he gets what he deserves. Ahava son of Rebbi Zeira taught: Anyone who does not use divination is brought within a curtain that even the angels are not permitted to enter.

I look forward to your comments.

Here is the audio shiur (and the pdf sheets to download if you want).

Parshat Chayei Sarah - Superstition

(Right click and then 'download as')

Parshat Chayei Sarah - Superstition - source sheet

Your feedback is welcome and appreciated. I would love to continue giving a shiur to this group on a weekly basis, but to do that I would need some kind of sponsorship. If anyone is interested in sponsoring a shiur (either l'ilui nishmat someone, or just for no reason) please contact me.

Vayera - What is Faith?

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:29:00 +0000

I gave a shiur tonight(I know it is not Tuesday, but we can pretend, though the shiur may have to be renamed the 'Sunday night shiur' quite soon - thanks Yonit for hosting).

The shiur is on Vayera and the definition of faith. Do we arrive at faith/belief through rational investigation, or by accepting unquestioningly? It seems that both approaches are considered 'Jewish'. How do I know which is right for me? And why has it changed in recent times?

In passing I also discuss Douglas Adams and Richard Dawkins (why can't all atheists also be comedians - Tim Minchin and Terry Pratchett get extra credit for not taking themselves too seriously), and kiruv techniques to prove G-d.

I look forward to your comments.

Here is the audio shiur (and the pdf sheets to download if you want).

Parshat Vayera - What is Faith?

(Right click and then 'download as')

Parshat Vayera - Faith - source sheet

Your feedback is welcome and appreciated. I would love to continue giving a shiur to this group on a weekly basis, but to do that I would need some kind of sponsorship. If anyone is interested in sponsoring a shiur (either l'ilui nishmat someone, or just for no reason) please contact me.

Lech Lecha - Discovering G-d

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 08:20:00 +0000

I gave a shiur last night (and a big 'Thank You' to Katy for arranging and hosting the shiur).

The shiur is on Lech Lecha and whether Avraham perceived G-d in the same way that Moshe Rabbeinu did. Was Avraham a believer in the Platonic concept of creation, or in the creation ex nihilo of Torat Moshe Rabbeinu? (I think Rambam is deliberately contradictory in this, meaning that I'm not sure there is a straight answer).

I am hopefully giving a shiur tonight on Web Yeshiva using the same source sheet, but I have a feeling that it will not be the same shiur. You can sign up for the class on their website: http://www.webyeshiva.org/class.php?cid=592

Here is the audio shiur (and the pdf sheets to download if you want).

Lech Lecha - G-d of Creation

(Right click and then 'download as')

Lech Lecha source sheet

Your feedback is welcome and appreciated. I would love to continue giving a shiur to this group of women on a weekly basis, but to do that I would need some kind of sponsorship. If anyone is interested in sponsoring a shiur (either l'ilui nishmat someone, or just for no reason) please contact me.

New Shiur

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:33:00 +0000

I have been asked by WebYeshiva to give a weekly parsha shiur. I am quite excited at the opportunity.

Course Description
This is a class on the weekly Torah portion, looking at traditional commentaries (primarily medieval philosophers). We will look at how the Rishonim understood the concepts and philosophy of the weekly Torah portion and find the relevance of the Torah and Rishonim to 21st century life.

Perhaps I'll see some of you there?

Bereishit and Free Choice

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 07:37:00 +0000

I gave a shiur last night (and a big 'Thank You' to Yonit Schiller for arranging and hosting the shiur).

It was kind of last minute, so I didn't have as much time to prepare as I would have liked - you'll hear that the shiur is a bit choppy.

I spoke about Parshat Bereishit (because when else is there ever time to speak about Bereishit) and how the Rishonim (mainly Rambam) dealt with the apparent contradictions between reality as we perceive it, and what is written in the Torah (young earth, talking snakes etc.)

I conclude that it is certainly a legitimate approach to view these stories as metaphorical, rather than literal. The next question is 'what is the meaning of the metaphor'. I believe that Rambam answers that in Hilchot Teshuva, when he begins speaking about free choice.

Here is the audio shiur (and the pdf sheets to download if you want).

Bereishit/Free Choice

(Right click and then 'download as')

Bereishit/Free Choice

Your feedback is welcome and appreciated. I would love to continue giving a shiur to this group of women on a weekly basis, but to do that I would need some kind of sponsorship. If anyone is interested in sponsoring a shiur (either l'ilui nishmat someone, or just for no reason) please contact me.

Differing Views on Tzimtzum

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:47:00 +0000

L'Iluyi Nishmat Maras Menya bas Hertzel

Last time I introduced the concept of tzimtzum as a way of reconciling the differing views of the Rishonim. However, there are differing views about the meaning of tzimtzum as well. It is my contention that these are not only abstract philosophical differences, but that they can lead to differences in education, relationship with G-d and others, and how we see our role in the world.

Yosher Levav claims that tzimtzum is to be understood literally - that the essence of G-d is not in the world. This view is criticised by the chasidim as both dangerous, and bordering on heretical.

The Vilna Gaon claims that tzimtzum was literal in terms of G-d's Essence, but that His Will never left the world, and through this we can connect to him (because ultimately His Essence and His Will are One).

The Baal HaTanya attacks this appraoch, and presents the view which has perhaps become the most widespread today - that tzimtzum is essentially an illusion from our vantage point. From G-d's viewpoint nothing has changed, He never left the world, and we don't really exist. The goal of existence is to understand that "there is nothing apart from Him" and that we ourselves do not really exist.

The implications of these differing views lead to many practical differences (though most people will find a middle path, or actually do both):
Do we shttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifee cause and effect as real, or illusory? When a tragedy happens in the community, do we try to take practical steps to prevent it happening again, or do we say it is the Will of G-d and recite Tehillim? Do we teach our chidren to perceive G-d through science and the world, or is G-d to be found primarily through Torah? Do we require a Rebbe or Torah scholar to tell us how to think, or can we make decisions for ourselves?

Many of these ideas are developed further in an article I wrote for Reshimu entitled "The Perception of Reality: Contrasting Views of the Nature of Existence"

Here is the shiur. I welcome your views and comments.

Or if you prefer to download it here is the link:
Differing Views on Tzimtzum (right click and 'save as')

and here are the source sheets to go with it
Download Source Sheets

If you are interested in sponsoring a shiur please contact me by e-mail.

Tzimtzum Revolution

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:21:00 +0000

This shiur is l'ilui nishmat Marat Menya bas Hertzel

In the previous shiur we looked at the different understandings of the nature of G-d amongst Rishonim. I found in Prof. Menachem Kellner's book "Must a Jew Believe Anything?" an interesting source which is connected to thsi idea - Teshuva Radbaz vol. 8 number 191. There he distinguishes between "The G-d of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov" and "The G-d of Aristotle", and clearly states that Rambam, Rav Saadia, Kuzari and others were in the latter camp (though he says that was only for 'kiruv' purposes).

There are conceptual problems with each of these approaches. To say that G-d has a body is too difficult for us to comprehend, and is almost a denial of how we understand monotheism. On the other hand, Rambam's G-d is unknowable, and therefore unaffected by anything we do, and is so far removed from our experience that from our perspective there is nothing He can do for us. It is impossible to have a relationship with such a G-d, and difficult to understand how G-d could have a relationship with us.

In this shiur I look at the chidush of the Arizal, which resolves this machlokes by distinguishing between two aspects of G-d. Before tzimtzum (and outside the space of tzimtzum) we have the "G-d of Rambam" who is unknowable and indescribable. Conversely, in the world of tzimtzum we can speak about aspects of G-d, including midot, sefirot, partzufim, and the ways in which they interact with each other and with the world. In this post-tzimtzum world in which we live, G-d almost becomes physical, and in this way we can have a reciprocal relationship with Him.

There is also a discussion at the end of the shiur about whether it really makes a difference. Why should we even think about G-d? Isn't it enough just to be a good Jew and do the mitzvos?

Here is the shiur

Or if you prefer to download it here is the link:
Tzimtzum Revolution (right click and 'save as')

and here are the source sheets to go with it
Download Source Sheets

If you are interested in sponsoring a shiur please contact me by e-mail.

The Nature of G-d

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:35:00 +0000

I gave a shiur last night. this shiur is l'ilyi nishmat Menya bas Hertzel.

I discuss two approaches in the Rishonim about how a person should come to understand G-d. Kuzari, Rav Sadiah Gaon, Rambam and others hold that the only way to understand G-d is to use rational thought to investigate His nature. Anyone who speaks about G-d,simply based on what he heard from others or based on the words of Tanach and Chazal, without thinking about the nature of G-d is "still outside the palace".

One case where this is expressed is in Rambam's third principle - that G-d has no physical form. If a person believes the simple words of Tanach or Chazal, without using philosophy to clarify, could come to believe that G-d has a body. Such a belief is heretical according to Rambam.

On the other hand, we find Raavad and Ohr Zaruah who argue that this is not a heretical belief. Furthermore, they both claim that there were many greater than Rambam who held this belief, including (according to Ohr Zaruah) some of Chazal. They explain the reason for this mistaken belief is following the simple reading of Tanach and Aggadata.

I then look at Rav Moshe Taku's book 'Kesav Tamim' where he argues that to deny G-d any physicality is heretical. If G-d is unable to appear in physical form, He is not omnipotent. Furthermore, he claims that Rav Saadiah was the first person to use philosophy to reinterpret the words of Tanach and Chazal and this is not the traditional Jewish view. How can we possibly use our limited logic to understand anything about G-d who is beyond logic?

Rashi also seems to say that G-d can appear in physical form if He wants to. This seems to me the correct reading of Rashi in Sanhedrin, and is explicit by Tosefos Rid in a comment he makes about Rashi.

I think the underlying issue is the omnipotence paradox. Can G-d create a rock which is so big that he cannot lift it?

There have been many answers to this type of question over the past 2000 years. But to simplify - some say that G-d is also bound by the laws of logic. Yet this does not limit His omnipotence. Others say that G-d can do absolutely anything, and the fact that it apears to us to be illogical is not a reason to lmiit G-d's omnipotence.

Rambam, Rav Saadiah etc take the first view. Rav Moshe Taku and Rashi take the second.

Today all Jews know that G-d has no body, and it is heretical to think that He does. Why did the Rambam's view become so pervasive that we cannot even contemplate the alternative? I quote from Rav Profiat Duran, who shows that belief in a physcial G-d is one of the essential differences between Judaism and Christianity. Jews don't believe that G-d could appear in physical form!

Here is the shiur

Or if you prefer to download it here is the link:
Nature of G-d (right click and 'save as')

and here are the source sheets to go with it
Download Source Sheets

If you are interested in sponsoring a shiur please contact me by e-mail.

Torah from Sinai?

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 03:04:00 +0000

Now that I am no longer associated with any institution I can give shiurim on topics that interest me.

This is a shiur on Rambam's 8th principle and the concept of Torah from Sinai. Is the Torah that we have in our Shuls/chumashim identical with the one that Moshe Rabbeinu gave the Children of Israel 3300 years ago? (answer = 'no')

Is Torah from Sinai a valid concept even if the Torah is not the same as the one we got from Sinai (answer = 'yes')

Did Rambam really mean that the Torah we have today is the same as the one Moshe gave us? (According to the Ashkenazi 'Ani Maamin' and Abarbanel - 'yes' according to Rambam and everyone else 'no')

And should we try to correct out Sifrei Torah to match the Talmud/Rishonim/Aleppo Codex? (machlokes, but probably 'no')

The shiur is quite long (1:30). But I think it is also very interesting. And if you disagree I would be happy to hear from you. (As Rabbi Yochanan said to his Talmidim after the death of Reish Lakish when Rabbi Elazer was agreeing with everything he said).

Here is the shiur

Or if you prefer to download it here is the link:
Torah from Sinai (right click and 'save as')

and here are the source sheets to go with it
Download Source Sheets

A few apologies:
I forgot the date of the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex.

And I was recording the shiur on my phone, so a couple of times my phone rang, and you get a few seconds of Eurythmics along with the shiur.

Reason that Chicken is considered Meat

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 04:29:00 +0000

Often people are confused about why the Rabbis forbade chicken (birds) with milk - why were they concerned about chicken more than fish, or pareve vege-burgers?

The usual answer given is that 'it looks like meat' which is not really a good answer, because many things look like meat, and many things don't.

Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim end of chapter 2) gives a different answer. He explains the 'slippery slope' argument that Chazal were trying to avoid with their decree. The context is that he is explaining why a decree of Chazal is not considered 'Bal Tosif' - and the reason is because they don't claim that it is from the Torah, even though in practice they are enacting a new rule:

אבל אם אמר בשר העוף מותר מן התורה, ואנו נאסור אותו, ונודיע לעם שהוא גזירה: שלא יבוא מן הדבר חורבה, ויאמרו בשר העוף מותר מפני שלא נתפרש בתורה, כך החיה מותרת שהרי לא נתפרשה; ויבוא אחר לומר אף בשר בהמה מותר, חוץ מן העז; ויבוא אחר לומר אף בשר העז מותר בחלב הפרה או הכבשה, שלא נאמר אלא "אימו" (שמות כג,יט; שמות לד,כו; דברים יד,כא) שהיא מינו; ויבוא אחר לומר אף בחלב העז שאינה אימו מותר, שלא נאמר אלא "אימו". לפיכך נאסור כל בשר בחלב, ואפילו בשר עוף. אין זה מוסיף, אלא עושה סייג לתורה. וכן כל כיוצא בזה.

But if someone says that meat of a chicken is permitted from the Torah, but we (Sages) forbid it, and we tell the people the reason for the decree:
In order that it doesn't lead to ruin, that people may say that just as chicken meat is permitted because it is not explicit in the Torah, so too meat from a wild animal is permitted because it is also not explicit. Then another person will come and say that even meat of domestic animals is permitted apart from goat. Then another person will come and say that even meat of a goat is permitted with milk of a cow or sheep, because the Torah only says "its mother" which means from the same species. Then another person will come and say that even in goat's milk it is permtited as long as it is not the mother of that kid, because the Torah only says "its mother". Therefore we (the Sages) forbade all meat with milk, even chicken meat.
This is not adding to the Torah, but making a fence. And all cases which are similar.

So Rambam is not worried about people who cannot tell the difference between meat and milk, He is worried about the 'lamdanim' who don't understand the system of halacha and will make false analogies, leading them to transgress Torah prohibitions.

He also seems to say that this is the logic behind all Rabbinic decrees.

I suppose a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Ibn Ezra, James Kugel and Multiple Authors

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 08:25:00 +0000

One of the stories that is on all the media at the moment is the new software which has been developed by a team in Israel which traces the different voices and 'authors' of the Bible. It was even picked up by Stuff, which is a New Zealand newspaper.

For me the key thing in the article is the last couple of paragraphs:

What the algorithm won't answer, say the researchers who created it, is the question of whether the Bible is human or divine. Three of the four scholars, including Koppel, are religious Jews who subscribe in some form to the belief that the Torah was dictated to Moses in its entirety by a single author: God.

The question is - how can people who see different voices and authors in the text continue to beleive that the entire text was dictated by a single G-d to a single prophet (Moses)? Do they have to compartmentalise in their brains, or is their a resolution of these two apparent contradictions (I think there is - see below).

Another question which has been bothering me for a while is the parallels between the story of the flood (and particularly Noach's sacrifices after the flood) in the Torah and in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Lawrence Kelemen uses this as evidence for the truth of the Torah. In "Permission to Receive" on pp. 88-89 he writes:

In 1872, Dr. george Smith of the British Museum identified the first nonbiblical, written record of such a deluge. Scanning cuneiform tablets discovered in the Palace of Sennacherib at Kuyunjik, Simith found a reference to "a ship touching ground on a mountain called Nisir," followed by these lines:

When the seventh day arrived,
I sent forth and set free a dove.
The dove went forth, but came back;
Since no resting place for it was visible, she turned around.

At first this seems like very strong historical evidence for the truth of the events that are described in the Torah. However, James Kugel, in his book "How to Read the Bible" (pp. 75-6) points out that the similarities are too great, and it would seem to invalidate the authenticity of the Torah as the primariy source for this story.

The discovery of the Mesopotamian flood texts proved torubling for traditional Christian and Jewish belief. The reason may not be immediately apparent. After all, if such a great flood had indeed taken place in ancient times, there ought ot be nothing disturbing in the fact that some account of it survived outside of the Bible - on the contrary, the existence of other accounts would only seem to confirm the veracity of biblical history. But hte fact that the biblical and Mesopotamian accounts agreed in so many details suggested to scholars that there was actaully a literary connection between them: that is, the different accounts did not seem simply to agree on the events that had occurred, but on how those events should be retold, inlcuding things that could not have been based solely on historical observation. To mention one detail: why should the Bible have bothered to say that G-d "smelled the pleasing odor" of Noah's sacrifice? Certainly such a vivid anthropomorphism was a bit odd in the Bible, and the text could have as easily said that G-d "was pleased" with the sacrifice - or said nothing at all. More to the point, however: how could any on-site observer of the flood and its aftermath know that G-d/the gods had smelled anything? Surely this was not an observable event but an author's asertion; and the fact that the same asertion, indeed, the very same expression, is found in both Gilgamesh and the Bible seemed to sugest that one text was dependent on the other, or that both derived from a still earlier source. The problem was the even the friendliest dating eliminates any possibility that the Mesopotamian accounts derive from the biblical story; the oldest fragments go back to early in the second millennium BCE, perhaps even earlier - long before the time of Moses nad the traditinoal setting for the giving of the Torah and its account of the flood. As a consequence, most modern scholars today see in the biblical flood story a direct dependence on the Mesopotamian literary tradition.

So, in summary:
How is it possible to see apparent evidence of multiple authors in the Bible, and yet still believe that it was given by G-d to Moshe?
And how should we deal with the literary similarity between the Torah and the Epic of Gilgamesh, which imply that the Torah borrowed the story from an earlier source?

I would like to answer both questions based on Ibn Ezra in Parshas Chukas. Actually, both Ramban and Chizkuni give similar explanations, but Ibn Ezra is the clearest. In chapter 21 verses 13-14 the Torah says:

From thence they journeyed, and pitched on the other side of the Arnon, which is in the wilderness, that cometh out of the border of the Amorites.--For Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites; wherefore it is said in the book of the Wars of the LORD: Vaheb in Suphah, and the valleys of Arnon.

Ibn Ezra (and Ramban and Chizkuni) ask what this "Book of the Wars of the Lord" is. His answer:

“In the Book of Wars of the Lord"– this was a separate book on its own, in which are written the wars of God for those who fear Him. It makes sense that this is from the time of Avraham, because many books were lost, and we no longer have them, such as The Words of Natan, The Book of Ido, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Songs of Shlomo and his Proverbs.

Ibn Ezra (and the other Rishonim) claim that the Torah text we have includes within it fragments from earlier texts (which presumably were also dictated by G-d to Moshe - either G-d gave him a copy of the book or said it word for word). This also explains why the language of these verses is not in classic Hebrew, and the commentators struggle to explain some of the words.

Rashi gives a different explanation, but it seems to me that he is not giving 'pshat' - let me know what you think.

So does it not make sense that when G-d was retelling Moshe the stories from Bereishis, including the flood, that He also quoted earlier texts, even though the Torah does not explicitly quote the source of the words (I don't think G-d has to worry about plagiarism). This would answer Kugel's apparent difficulty with the biblical text.

Perhaps this can also explain why there appear to be different strands of authorship in the Bible. Moshe was combining earlier texts into the Torah that we have today - all based on the word of G-d.

I think that some people may have difficulty with such an answer, but when three major Rishonim all explain that Moshe is copying from other texts, is it really a problematic answer?

Your thoughts please.

26th Sivan - Rabbi Yonatan ben Uzziel

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:24:00 +0000

According to my calendar:

Some say that today is the yahrzeit of the Tanna, Rabbi Yonatan ben Uzziel, and that he is buried in Amukah. But I do not know the source of this.

Clearly this is a GOOD THING for the various charity organisations, because they can take your money in exchange for praying for you at Amukah on this very auspicious day.
For example Kupat Ha-Ir

Vaad HaRabonim have a similar campaign - though I can't find it on the internet (which is good, since they hold that the internet is forbidden).

And I have heard from many people and sems of the importance of going to Amukah to find a shidduch.

So it is quite interesting to find the real story: On p. 688 of 'Making of a Godol' Rav Noson Kaminetsky explains the source of this belief, and the reason for the 'minhag' to travel to Amukah to find a shidduch:

Another case of superstition came to this author's attention through a review of the book 'Ohr HaGalil' in the HaTzofeh newspaper. The reviewer, R' Meir Wunder, made a study and discovered that belief in the powers of prayer at the site of the grave of the Tanna Yonathan ben 'Uziel in 'Amuqah was nonexistent until a tour company in Jerusalem concocted the "tradition" circa 5713 (1953). R' Meir filled this author in on the background of his investigation: a spinster acquaintance took a private taxi with an unknown driver for the long and lonely drive through the hills and
forests of the Galilee to visit the grave, a site where prayers for finding a mate were said to be especially effective d. The single woman who spurred the reviewer's research put herself in jeopardy to get to 'Amuqah and obviously had a superstitious faith in what she was doing to the extent that she felt protected by a magic net of security during the dangerous (and probably halakhically forbidden) ride with the stranger. The trip to the Galilee brought her no tragedy, but neither joy.

In a footnote there he also shows how the media has avoided correcting this 'mistaken minhag':

R' Wunder had also sent a letter with the gist of his discovery to the editor of the newspaper. But on the advice of a renowned Torah scholar, that newspaper edited it to avoid casting any aspersion on the "tradition". Not that the Torah scholar approved of doing unsafe things to get to 'Amuqah, but he did not want to invalidate altogether the notion of traveling there, saying, "Let it be: if they believe in it, let us not discourage them." It seems to this author that the scholar had compassion for the unfortunates who find solace in their superstitions - see
fn. w - on p. 680. He is believed to be R' Shlomo-Zalman Auerbach.

It is also interesting to see each year that there are more and more yahrzeits commemorated with special bus services, and Rabbis offering to say special prayers on the day. Whoever thought of this tourism idea should really deserve a prize!

Baby Yitzchak Sedley

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:21:00 +0000

Here is the video of the brit of baby Yitzchak. Don't worry - there is no blood on the video - though the camera does turn sideways a couple of times.

Audio Shiur - Semicha and Mashiach

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Mon, 23 May 2011 06:26:00 +0000

Here is a shiur I gave yesterday to Midreshet Rachel (for Lag BaOmer) about the concept of Semicha (which is one of the reasons given for the celebrations of Lag BaOmer)

and here are the source sheets to go with it (in Hebrew only I'm afraid)
Download Source Sheets

I recorded it with a new app on my new Motorola Defy, so you will have to decide for yourselves about the quality. It was also given in the Har Nof forest, so there are all sorts of background noises (included one of my kids needing the toilet half way through).

The shiur discusses the historical background of Semicha, when it was given and to whom, the end of Semicha in the time of Theodosius (and the failed rebuilding of the Beit HaMidkash in the time of Julian). I also speak about Rav David HaReuveini, Rav Shlomo Molcho, Don Yosef Nassi, and the dreams of Mashiach following the expulsion from Spain. There is a discussion of the attempt to reinstate semicha, based on Rambam's system, by Rav Yaakov Bei Rav in Tzfas. And finally a brief mention of the current Sanhedrin, and their semicha which was given to Rav Moshe Halberstam zt"l.

Gene Simmons on Obama's Speech

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Sun, 22 May 2011 16:17:00 +0000

This is too good to miss. Gene Simmons (the one with the tongue from KISS) on the Israeli political situation and Obama's lack of understanding.

I love it when Israel and music come together. And for Lag BaOmer too - when we can discover the secrets of the Zohar and the brilliance of KISS. Hod she-beHod.

Yom HaAtzma'ut in Bnei Brak

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Fri, 06 May 2011 10:04:00 +0000

I found this poster from Bnei Brak for Israel Independence Day 1949.

It says:

Bnei Brak Local Council
Yom HaAtzma'ut Festival in Bnei Brak!

On Tuesday 4th Iyar 5709 (3.5.49) at 8 in the evening, a festive parade will take place for all the local organisations with the participation of the Israeli Armed Forces and sponsored by the head of the local council.
The parade will leave from the main entrance next to the Petach Tikva-Tel Aviv road, and will pass down Rabbi Akiva Street.
It is an obligatoin for all residents to wave the national flag over their homes from Tuesday evening and throughout Wednesday.
All residents are invited to join the parade and to celebrate Yom HaAtzma'ut with great splendour inkeepign with the instructions.
The local council of Bnei Brak

How times have changed!

Yaakov Bei Rav and Semicha

noreply@blogger.com (rabbi sedley) — Thu, 05 May 2011 17:34:00 +0000

Today, 1st Iyar, is the yarzheit of a very interesting person in Jewish history. Rav Yaakov Bei Rav passed away on this day in 1546. His main contribution to history was that in 1538 R' Yaakov Bei Rav reintroduced semicha in Eretz Yisrael for the first time in several hundred years.

The background to the story is as follows: When Moshe passed on the mantle of leadership to Yehoshua, he placed his hand on his head. The Torah says (Bamidbar 27:18-21)

And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is spirit, and lay thy hand upon him
and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a charge in their sight.
And thou shalt put of thy honour upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may hearken.
And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the LORD; at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation.'

Since that time Rabbinic leaders were inducted by someone who already had semicha from the previous generation, with the approval of the Nassi (political leader). In addition, this semicha could only be given and received in Eretz Yisrael. For this reason the Babylonian Amoraim in the Talmud are never called 'Rabbi' but always 'Rav' (or sometimes simply by their name - for example Shmuel).

Only someone with semicha was permitted to rule on cases of fines (knasot) and some other kinds of rulings. In addition, the Sanhedrin (both the main Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, and the smaller Sanhedrins in each town) could only convene if at least one of their number had semicha.

When the Romans took control of Israel they banned semicha and threatened to kill anyone giving or receiving semicha. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 14a) records how Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava gave up his life in order to give semicha to five of his students, who became the leaders and decisors of Judaism - Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yehudah (ben Ila’i), Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua.

Despite this sometime in the 4th or 5th century the Romans succeded in banning semicha and dismantled the Sanhedrin. This was probably because the greatest Rabbis, the ones who would have been worthy of receiving semicha, were no longer residing in Israel. The centres of Torah had moved to Bavel.

Since that time there has been no semicha (what is today called semicha is named that in memory of the authentic semicha which was traced back to Moshe).

However, Rambam writes in two places that if all the Rabbis of Israel would agree, they could jointly give semicha to someone, and restart the process. He writes in his commentary on the Mishna (Sanhedrin 1:1) and Mishne Torah (Hilchot Sanhedrin 4:11):

נראין לי הדברים, שאם הסכימו כל החכמים שבארץ ישראל למנות דיינין ולסמוך אותן--הרי אלו סמוכין, ויש להן לדון דיני קנסות, ויש להן לסמוך לאחרים. אם כן, למה היו החכמים מצטערין על הסמיכה, כדי שלא ייבטלו דיני קנסות מישראל: לפי שישראל מפוזרין, ואי אפשר שיסכימו כולן; ואם היה שם סמוך מפי סמוך, אינו צריך דעת כולן, אלא דן דיני קנסות לכול, שהרי נסמך מפי בית דין. והדבר צריך הכרע.

It appears to me [Maimonides] that if all the sages of the Land of Israel consent to appoint dayanim (judges) and grant them semichah (ordination), they have the law of musmachim and they can judge penalty cases and are authorized to grant semichah to others [thus restoring Biblical ordination].
If so, why did the sages bemoan [the loss of] semichah? So that the judgment of penalty cases wouldn't disappear from among Israel because Jews are so spread out that it's not possible to get their consent [to authorize a dayan]. If someone were to receive semichah from someone who already has semichah, then he does not require their consent – he may judge penalty cases for everyone since he received semichah from beis din (rabbinical court). However, this matter requires a final decision.

(Translation from wikipedia's website)

(Paranthetically - I just found that you can download two sedarim of Rambam's commentary on Mishna IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING from this website. WOW!)

Based on this view of Rambam, R' Yaakov Bei Rav tried to reinstate semicha in Tzfat in 1538 by getting the agreement of all the Rabbis of Israel.

It is getting late, so I'll just copy and paste what wikipedia has to say on the matter:

In 1538 Rabbi Jacob Berab of Safed, Land of Israel, attempted to restore the traditional form of Semikhah. His goal was to unify the scattered Jewish communities through the re-establishment of the Sanhedrin. At his prompting, 25 rabbis from the land of Israel convened; they ordained Jacob Berab as their "Chief rabbi". Berab then conferred semikhah through a laying on of hands to four rabbis, including Joseph Caro, who was later to become the author of the Shulchan Aruch, widely viewed as the most important code of Jewish law from the 17th century onwards. Joseph Caro in turn ordained Rabbi Moshe Alshich, who in turn ordained Rabbi Hayyim Vital.
Berab made an error in not first obtaining the approval of the chief rabbis in Jerusalem, which led to an objection to having a Sanhedrin at that time. One should note that this was not an objection to the semikhah, but to reinstituting a Sanhedrin. Levi ibn Habib, the chief rabbi in Jerusalem, wrote that when the nascent Sanhedrin took the authority of a Sanhedrin upon itself, it had to fix the calendar immediately. However, by delaying in this matter, it invalidated itself. Rabbi David ibn abi Zimra (Radvaz) of Egypt was consulted, but when Berab died in 1542 the renewed form of semikhah gradually ground to a halt.

If you have spare time over Shabbat and want to read the dialogue between R' Yaakov Bei Rav and R' Levi Ibn Chaviv (who was the father of the author of Ein Yaakov) it is recorded in the Responsa of R' Levi Ibn Chaviv. It is quite a lengthy discussion of the subject (just under 50 pages) and I have not yet gone through most of it. (actually I just found another wikipedia page which summarizes the main arguments)

I wonder whether semicha gave the Shulchan Aruch more authority, and gave R' Yosef Karo the ability to complete such a task. I also wonder what could have happened if politics and machlokes had not got in the way of halacha.

The final question is what, if any, implications this event in history has for the Sanhedrin of today.

One very final note - I visited the Mossad HaRav book sale this week (as I do every year - though this year for the first time ever I didn't actually purchase anything). You may be familiar with the building on the corner at the entrance to Jerusalem. I seem to remember once being told that when the State was established, Rav Yehuda Leib Maimon tried to create a Sanhedrin, and this semi-circular building was originally intended to house that Sanhedrin (since the Old City was not under Jewish control at the time. And the Sanhedrin sits in the shape of a semi-circle).