Reb Chaim HaQoton

Qoton Qlassic: Moses' Black Wife

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:01:00 +0000

Moses' Black Wife is a work of paleontology discusses the paleontological origins of the differences between dark-skinned individuals and light-skinned peoples. The following is a new addition to the essay based on the principles set in the paper:

Rashi (to Genesis 12:11) quotes a Midrash (Genesis Rabbah §40:4) that explains that when Abraham traveled to Egypt, he was scared that the Egyptians might abduct his wife because she was beautiful and the Egyptians, being the brothers of the Cushites, were swarthy and ugly. Nachmanides (Genesis 12:11) asks according to Rashi that Abraham hid Sarah from the Egyptians because she was beautiful and the Egyptians, being relatives of the Cushites, were black and ugly why did Abraham do so only on his sojourn to Egypt, but refrained from doing so (like his son Issac) on his visit to the Phillistinian city of Grar. In asking such a question, Nachmanides assumes that the Philistines (Plishtim) were also of a dark complexion just like the Egyptians. This assumption is based on the fact that, according to the genealogical tables established by the Torah (Genesis 10:13-14), the Phillistinian Nation descended from the Egyptians who in turn descended from Ham. Thus, since the dark-skinned trait is hereditary, the inhabitants of Philistia were dark just as the Egyptians were. However, one can reason (in order to explain the view of Rashi) that only the Egyptians were dark-skinned because they were in the geographical area of Africa, but the Philistines were not in that geographical region, and thus were not dark-skinned. This explanation assumes that the dark-skinned trait is not hereditary but rather is the product of one’s locale. According to this explanation, when Rashi points out that the Egyptians are “the brothers to the Cushites”, his intent is that they are the geographical “brothers” (i.e. neighbors) to the Cushites who made up the bulk of human settlement in Africa. Essentially, one can reduce this dispute between Rashi and Nachmanides to whether “being black” is dependent on one’s geographical location over the span of several generations or on one’s ancestral lineage (with the family of Ham possessing this characteristic).

Read the rest of Moses' Black Wife...

The Splitting of the Red Sea

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:22:00 +0000

In describing the Egyptian pursuit of the fleeing Jewish Nation, immediately preceding the Splitting of the Red Sea, following the Israelites’ Exodus from Mitzrayim, the Holy Scripture writes “These did not approach near those the entire night.” The Talmud exegetically interprets this verse as referring to the ministering angels in Heaven who wanted to sing of G-d’s praises on the night of the Splitting of the Sea, but G-d countered rhetorically “The works of My hand are drowning in the sea and you request to speak of songs?” Essentially, the Talmud is explaining that because the Egyptians were drowning in the sea, the ministering angels were forbidden by HaShem from singing their songs of praise. Based on this Talmudic passage, Rabbi Yosef Kairo (1488-1575) explains that on the latter days of Pesach one does not recite the Hallel in its entirety, rather one merely recites “Half-Hallel” because the Splitting of the Reed Sea occurred on the Seventh Day of Passover and therefore the Jews should not say the Hallel song in its entirety for the same that the ministering angels were forbidden from singing Shirah at the Splitting of the Sea. That is, as HaShem said, because ““The works of My hand are drowning in the sea and you request to speak of songs?” However, the question arises, according to Rabbi Kairo, why the Jews sing Hallel in its entirety on the First Night of Passover, if historically on that night the ancient Egyptians were massacred by the Plague of the Firstborn, so just like the Jews refrain from saying the complete Hallel on the Seventh Night of Passover because that Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea (Yam Suf), they should also do so on the First Night of Passover because many Egyptians died in the Plague of the Firstborn (Makas Bechoros).Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (1820-1892) writes that the Ten Plagues in Egypt which afflicted the Egyptians were mainly to punish the Egyptians for their unfair enslavement of the Jewish Nation. He reasons that one cannot say that the main purpose of the plagues was to facilitate the redemption (Geulah) process for the Jewish Exodus from Egyptian servitude because Rashi writes that HaShem commanded the Jews with the commandment of the Pascal Offering (Korban Pesach) and Ritual Circumcision (Bris Milah) so that they should attain some merit in order to be deemed worth of redemption. This implies those prior to their fulfillment of these two commandments, the Jews were “naked from commandments” (as Rashi says) and had no value in Heaven by which to merit being salvation. Accordingly, reasons Rabbi Soloveitchik, one must conclude that the Ten Plagues which occurred prior to the fulfillment of these commandments (or concurrently with them in the case of the final plague) were primarily brought by HaShem in order to punish the Egyptians, but not to save the Jews, for at that point, the Jews were not worthy of being saved. In contrast, Rabbi Soloveitchik writes that the Krias Yam Suf (Splitting of the Red Sea) mainly transpired as means of allowing the Jews to travel through the Sea on dry-land and escape their Egyptian pursuers and continue en route to Israel. Thus, the primary purpose of the splitting of the sea was to save the Jews, while the secondary purpose was to punish the Egyptians who met their watery grave there. In summation, Rabbi Soloveitchik feels that the plagues in Egypt were primarily to punish the Egyptians, while the act of the splitting the sea was primarily to save the Jews.If one understood the converse to the words of Rabbi Soloveitchik then the aforementioned question on the explanation of Rabbi Yosef Kairo can easily be resolved. If one assumed that the purpose of the ten plagues in Egypt was actually to make possible the Jewish Exodus and the purpose of the splitting of the sea was to drown the Egyptians as a means of punishing them for their cruelty, one can clearly discern the difference between the First Night of Passover and the Seventh Night of Passover. The Ten Plagues represented by the First Night of Passover were chiefly to save the Jews and only tangentially were the Egyptians killed then, therefore when the Jews sing the praises of G-d on the First Night of Passover, they recite the Hallel in its entirety. However, on the Seventh Night of Pesach, when the Red Sea was split in order to allow the Jews to cross the sea as a means of luring their pursuers into the sea and killing them, the purpose of the miracle was to kill the Egyptians, not to save the Jews . Therefore, on the Seventh Night of Passover, when the Jews commemorate the splitting of the Red Sea, they do not recite the entire Hallel because the purpose of the miracle was to kill the Egyptians, and as mentioned above, HaShem rhetorically asks ,”The works of My hand are drowning in the sea and you request to speak of songs?” Therefore, only the “half”, abridged, version of Hallel is recited. This idea that the principle reason behind splitting the Sea was to punish the Egyptians, which stands contrary to the words of Rabbi Soloveitchik, are actually found in the writings of Maimonides. Maimonides writes that Moses did not perform miracles to form a basis for the Jewish belief system in G-d, because a faith which is based solely upon miracles is flawed because one can always attribute the performance of a miracle to magic or sleight of hand. Rather, explains Maimonides, Moses performed each miracle because certain circumstances necessitated the performance of each miracle. For example, the Jews had nothing which to eat, therefore Moses performed the miracle of raining Manna from the Heavens. The Jews had nothing which to drink, therefore Moses performed the miracle of “bursting open” a rock in order to bring forth water, etc… Included in his list of examples, Maimonides writes that G-d needed to drown the Egyptians; therefore He split open the Sea and sunk the Egyptians inside. From these words, one can glean that Maimonides understood that the purpose of splitting the sea was to drown the Egyptians, and the fact that the Jews crossed the geographical location of the sea on dry-land was only a secondary facet of the miracle, but not the raison d’être. Furthermore, Rabbi Eli Baruch Finkel of Yeshivas Mir (d. 2008) points out that the entire content of the song Oz Yoshir (spontaneously sung by the Jews upon the splitting of the sea celebrating the miraculous event) records only the Egyptians drowning in the sea and the world reaction to the event, but does not even mention the Jews’ crossing of the location of the sea on dry land. This important omission seems to imply that the grounds for splitting the sea were to insure the death of the Egyptians, not to save the Jews. Immediately juxtaposed to the song Oz Yoshir is a verse in the Torah which states , “When the horses of Pharoah, his chariots, and horsemen came into the sea and HaShem turned the waters of the sea upon them, the Children of Israel walked on dry land amid the sea.” Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra (1089-1167) questions why the Torah first mentioned the Egyptians drowning in the sea and only afterwards mentioned the Jews’ crossing of the sea, if chronologically, first the Jews crossed the sea, which lured the Egyptians to follow their pursuant, and only afterwards did the Egyptians drown in the sea. Ibn Ezra answers that one is forced to explain that some stragglers from amongst the Jews delayed in crossing the sea until the same time that the Egyptians were already attempting to perform the same feat as the Jews. Thus, writes Ibn Ezra, the miracle at the Red Sea was even greater than formerly understood because from here one sees that some Jews were still crossing the sea concurrently with the Egyptians drowning in the same sea. Rabbi Simcha Maimon of the Brisker Kollel writes that one does not necessarily forced into accepting this novel interpretation of the Ibn Ezra. He reasons that according to the above-mentioned concept exhibited by the words of Maimonides that the Splitting of t he Sea was chiefly to punish the Egyptians and only secondarily was to save the Jews, the order of the bases of the splitting of the sea as recorded in scripture make perfect sense: Since the principle reason for the sea’s splitting was to punish the Egyptians by drowning them in the sea, the Torah mentioned first the fact that the Egyptians drowned in the sea, for it is the more important of the two, while afterwards mentions the secondary reason of allowing the Jews to cross the sea on dry land.Footnotes:

Exodus 14:20
Megillah 10b
Beis Yosef to Tur Orach Chaim §490
The question arises as to why this event which occurred on the Seventh Day of Passover affects the type of Hallel said on every day of Passover save for the first and second.
Beis HaLevi to Parshas Beshallach
Alternate routes through the Sinai Desert would have brought the Jews to Israel without necessitating the splitting of any waters. (The Suez Canal was obviously not built at that point in history.)
Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 8:1
Birkas HaPesach, pg. 145
Exodus 15:19
In his commentary ad loc.
Simchas Yehoshua to Parshas Beshalach

"We Are Here" -- The other "black" in frum

LikelihoodofConfusion@gmail.com (Ron Coleman) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:56:00 +0000

Excerpt from a blog post on Beyond BT dated August 4, 2008:

I was not the only one from a survivor family in my time and place – and my parents were not survivors, not in the direct sense (of course when the crime is genocide, any member of the targeted people who lives is a survivor). One small branch of our family had left Europe in the '30's. But the rest were made dust and ash, and the remnants carried this pain from Poland to Cuba to America. It was soldered to my soul for six years at a summer camp (Camp Hemshekh -- "Camp Continuity") run by remnants of the old anti-religious Jewish Labor Bund, who had incorporated as Survivors of Nazi Persecution -- what a name for a group formed to operate a summer camp! -- and rebuilt their fantasy of a Yiddish secular culture paradise, where we sang the songs, read the poetry, acted the plays of Gebirtig and Peretz and Gelbart, celebrating a culture and a conception of a people that were no more.

But unlike the murdered children on whose lives our summers were to be modeled, we had another chapter in our repertoire. We learned the songs sung by the orphaned children and the mourning parents of the Warsaw Ghetto whose names we bear, the poetry of the partisans of the Vilna forests who were the gedolim of my youth, the literature of the rebels of Sobibor and Treblinka who were our models of techias hameisim.

I thank the Ribbono shel Olam that I didn't know enough Yiddish at that age to understand more than a few words of what I was saying, or who knows how bent I would be today! But that intense exposure to this tragic slice of Jewish life obviously affected me deeply. I am astonished when people from the "outside world" tell me that I must see this or that Holocaust movie –- don't they know what I know already, the children's Holocaust I playacted as a child? Did you ever hear of anyone who went to a summer camp that had its own simulated Warsaw Ghetto Wall, complete with cemented-in broken glass and barbed wire?

The Judaism-in-500-words-or-less Challenge

LikelihoodofConfusion@gmail.com (Ron Coleman) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:52:00 +0000

Originally published on Beyond BT on March 16, 2009:

The answer to the question "What Is Judaism?" would be different for a student of comparative religion, a Sephardic resident of an Israeli development town, or someone who grew up in an assimilated Jewish family in America, just to give a few disparate examples. I will address the last one of these, because of course I have the most familiarity with his mindset.

Ethics are of fundamental interest to anyone who cares about anything, but the idea that there are no ethics for the Jew other than those that emanate from the Torah distinguishes Judaism from all that came before and all that comes after.

Judaism is, of course, objectively identifiable as an essential source of guidelines for ethical living. Because of the richness of Judaism's intellectual tradition, and because that richness has the quality of being both ancient and in constant scholarly and practical agitation, Judaism is probably the best developed system of ethics in the world in both its scope and its depth.

But while all that matters to every searching person, every person of conscience, it is not the heart of Judaism. It is necessary but not sufficient. Rather, the central concept is that while our ethics, as well as our laws regarding how people interact with each other even in non-ethical spheres, are completely open to intellectual probing, challenge and debate, they are absolute. They are based on the Torah given at Mt. Sinai, which we can only understand through the received tradition.

That is why between each chapter of Pirkei Avos we find the recitation, "Moshe received the Torah at Sinai, etc.": It reminds us that although we are talking about ethics, regarding which everyone feels qualified to opine, ultimately all our hypotheses, speculations and gut feelings bow to the revealed truth of Torah.

One fundamental corollary of this double-barreled premise – that Truth only comes via Torah, which only comes via Mesorah ["received tradition"] – is that the Truth may conflict with our personal sensibilities, which non-Jewish culture teaches should be supreme.

But our idea of what is right and true and good is necessarily flawed. We are imperfect because of our distance from God, which is axiomatic in being creatures of flesh and blood. We cannot know and understand all, and our capacities for reasoning, empathy, objectivity and foresight are only human. Even at our best, we are tainted by a lifetime of interaction with other imperfect creatures and their ideas, most of whom do not acknowledge the Truth of Torah at all.

The bombshell corollary of this core concept is that not only ethics, but actions – all actions – are governed by the Truth of Torah. This not only separates Judaism from most world religions and moral systems, but presents a fundamental challenge to every possible concept of what my posited non-religious American Jew can have thought about his life, why it matters, and what he does with it. This Truth defines our relationship and responsibility to the rest of Creation. Now sit and learn!

Click here for comments on the original post.

Reb Noach Weinberg, zt'l

LikelihoodofConfusion@gmail.com (Ron Coleman) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:48:00 +0000

Originally posted on Likelihood of Success on February 5, 2009:

One of my best friends called me this morning at 6:30 AM to say the Hebrew words that translate: "Blessed is the True Judge":

We write these words with great sadness and disbelief -- our beloved Rosh Yeshiva, HaRav Noach Yisrael Noach ben Yitzchak Mattisyahu Weinberg - passed away this morning, Feb 5/ Shevat 11.

"Reb Noach" changed my life more than any other person. We were not very close, but in many important respects he was like a father to me. He was the founder of the Aish HaTorah College of Jewish Studies, as it's called officially, otherwise known simply as "Aish HaTorah" or "Aish." Aish is a system of educational programs, including a full-blown yeshiva for students of all levels in Jerusalem as well as introductory and outreach programs throughout the world based on the premise of getting Jews back to Judaism.

I attended one such program, in Israel, after I emerged from college in 1985 as a puffy purposeless preppy who at least had the good sense to look for meaning, direction and truth. I was a little disappointed to realize, as I did, that Aish HaTorah was actually the vanguard of a whole "movement" -- I didn't want to be part of a movement; I just wanted to move. But I did move, and Aish helped move me, and what I learned and became and, in no small measure, what I left behind have made my life what it is today in virtually every positive aspect of it.

I was not young enough, or at least not in Aish early enough in my life, to be a close student, much less any kind of disciple, of R' Noach. I don't think I could have, anyway. I don't believe we were simpatico that way. But still, personally, R' Noach taught me plenty. He taught me how to live a life of resolute meaning, how to focus ambition on something greater than oneself, and how to give and give and give.

And though R' Noach was sick, and I had been anticipating this day for years, and even had a premonition of his passing yesterday, I am very, very sad.

And when I found the picture above I realized that I loved R' Noach more than I perhaps understood until just now; and when I found the next picture in my scrapbook, of him warmly kissing my then-young children as if they were his own (for they were), I understood this even more, and even harder; and I let myself feel and admit that I miss him far more than I ever thought I would when I anticipated this moment, even already.

Sunny? Boy!

LikelihoodofConfusion@gmail.com (Ron Coleman) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:43:00 +0000

Originally posted on Likelihood of Success on April 7, 2009:

Mamma always told me not to to look into the light of the sun -- but Mamma, that's where the fun is:

The brightest object in the sky will get some religious attention on Wednesday — for the first time since 1981 — when Jews recite Birkat Hachamah, the Blessing of the Sun.

The rare ceremony will mark the time that the Talmud says the sun returns to the spot in the sky where it was created — which happens once every 28 years. In response, groups of Jews will thank "the king of the universe, who re-enacts the work of creation."

Amen!

We'll be up before the crack of dawn around here so we can make this rare blessing -- we hope -- at the earliest possible moment. There was some talk earlier on of a consistently cloudy day, but with God's help it's looking, well, as if overall the day will be quite a bit sunnier.

Blawg Review #191 (cross-post)

LikelihoodofConfusion@gmail.com (Ron Coleman) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:35:00 +0000

Originally posted on December 22, 2008 on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®:

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® is privileged to host the Blawg Review of Lights on this festive night!

חג חנכה שמח! That is, Happy Chanukah! Yes, the fundamental narrative of Chanukah is black-letter:

Chanukah celebrates the victory of the Maccabees, a small band of Jewish patriots, over the mighty armies of Syrian King Antiochus. When they restored the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, the Maccabees found one jar of pure oil, enough to keep the menorah burning for just one day. But a miracle happened, and the oil burned for eight days.

A classic question, and one that lawyers, the people who blog about their work and the people who (God help them!) read those blogs will appreciate regardless of creed, for it is as steeped in legalistic dialectic as any greasy Chanukah donut:

The miracle of Chanukah is celebrate for eight nights. But as the story goes, when the Temple was liberated, enough uncontaminated oil was found there to light the menorah for a day, so the miraculous light evidently only lasted for seven days, not eight. Why, then, do we celebrate eight days of Chanukah?

The question is nearly as old as Chanukah itself (and that's old!), as are many of the answers. Recently Rabbi Reuven Subar collected, not inappropriately, eight of those ancient answers, and we will do our best to jam -- like the jelly in one of those donuts -- our Blawg Review links and commentary into the topical concepts represented by his selection and thereby enlighten your winter solstice too (the explanatory links are ours):

They divided one night’s oil into eight portions. Miraculously, each portion lasted an entire night.

Bais Yosef

This practical approach, by which the miraculous appears in flaming relief, comes to us via the great codifier of Jewish law, Rabbi Yosef Karo. His definitive work on this vast body of regulation, the Shulchan Aruch, or "the Set Table," is a perfect table-setting for our broad consideration of the vastness of, may we be forgiven the comparison, the secular world of law, legislation and policy.Thus first we visit the law blogs whose portion we can only envy for the brilliance by which their efforts illuminate a juridicial darkness that so many others can merely only curse for what is, to the blinkered among us, its dim bleakness:

Cathy Gellis delivers a summary of an recent decision from Montana pitting public access to natural resources against private property rights in the matter of fish and water (actually a Chanuka-connected theme as well!)

It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to make a fortune doing it: Michael Doan continues a worthwhile series explaining the ins and outs of California foreclosures.

Eugene Volokh s not a big fan of the work being done by the Monaghan-backed Thomas More Legal Center. Whatever your view of the AIG bailout (see more below), a "First Amendment" argument that the bill favors Islam over other faiths doesn't sound like a winner.

Brian Kalt at Concurring Opinions considers whether a President can pardon himself. President Bush might want to get a second opinion.

Scott Henson writes that cops, crimes, and courts aren't the solution to every problem. Perhaps a world government, then?

Wanting the oil to last, they made the wicks one-eighth of the normal thickness. Nevertheless, the flames burned just as brightly as if the wicks had been the normal thickness.

Chiddushei HaRim

A similar approach approach is championed by the founder of the dynasty of Gerrer Hasidim, a group known for their unique commitment among hasidim for their widespread rigorous talmudic legal mastery and adherence to halachic (regulatory) norms, and his spiritual ancestor, Rav Achai Gaon, centuries earlier. Not surprisingly, then, the Rebbe posits an entirely rational, forward-looking Hebrew leadership that had, it would seem, already solved the conundrum of how to make one day's typical supply of pure, ritually uncontaminated oil last the eight days needed to secure and deliver a new supply. To this, he teaches us, it is as if God asks, "By virtue of your dedication and sacrifice, both on the battlefield and in your mental exertion to fulfill My Law, should the light in My Sanctuary burn dimmer?," and answers by delivering the miracle of full illumination.

Thus for this night we consider law blog writers who focus on the topic of our own LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®, intellectual property, which while it neither corners the market on intellect nor even deals so much with property, nonetheless is devoted to protecting those rewards that may accrue to those who live a life of the mind, imagine what could be and, perhaps, merit that special extra intensity -- that dial that goes to "eleven" -- in their own ways:

Robb Shecter does more than wave at a familiar refrain -- the diminishing difference between infringing intellectual property and, well, just plain using it, a problem that we've also noticed seems to come to a head when it comes to the use of sports-oriented insignia.

Susan Scafidi's Counterfeit Chic celebrates its third birthday, stylishly as ever.

A person named -- well, in this post it's a little difficult to say this, but the blogger's name is "Piggy" -- roots out the never-ending head-banging insanity of whether you can ever be found legally liable for linking to a website. The post is a tad hard to take but the conceptual payoff is there... you'll have to, er, click the link to see what we mean.

Two interesting developments related to parody and satire and UK law have caught the attention of Daithí Mac Sithigh at Lex Ferenda. Are we seeing some sort of transatlantic convergence here?

In an ecumenical spirit that seems at first entirely contrary to that of this post -- and yet, bless those chaps at the USPTO! -- Tamera H. Bennett presents Merry CHRISTMAHANUKWANZMADAN Trademark at Current Trends in Copyright, Trademark & Entertainment Law.

Paul Allen Levy explores the fascinating phenomenon of the use by trademark holders, who are usually on the receiving end of this business, of "misleading" keyword advertising to draw consumers away from actual complaint web sites. Good thing we don't believe in "diversion" here at LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® -- right?!

The golden Menorah was ritually impure. So were all the Jewish soldiers, having come in contact with death on the battlefield. Therefore, they were forced to make a temporary earthenware Menorah, because earthenware is more resistant to impurity. But earthenware is porous, and when it’s new it absorbs a small but significant part of any oil put in it. Therefore, one night’s oil for a gold Menorah was not sufficient for an earthenware menorah because some of the oil is lost to absorption.

Atzei Zayis

In one account, the text reads "and there wasn’t enough (oil) it to burn even one day..."

Sheiltos DeRav Achai Gaon

The answer to the question posited by the author of Atzei Zayis (a latter-day commentator) also posits an ingenious solution, reminiscent of that suggested by the Chiddushei HaRim above, but with a totally unexpected, negative consequence. The result was that it was a miracle that the oil even lasted one day! Similarly, an ancient source, Rabbi Achai Gaon, focuses on this point, regardless of whether it was the result of the improvisation by the Jewish forces or otherwise. Thus the miracle is apparent nearly at the outset, like a star rising in the early evening sky!Here are posts in a similar spirit, in which our bloggers seek no more and no less than to share their bright insights with otherwise benighted colleagues, and get right to the point about it:

What could be more down to earth right now than the "simple" question of the classic slip-and-fall? Benjamin Clark walked through the icy parts of Iowa laws mandating prompt snow removal from residential sidewalks and lays it all out.

Did you know how good law students could be at this? They're breathing right down our necks! Here, look: Blawgging early adopter Evan Schaeffer, who I think may technically still be a co-blogger of ours, runs down the latest law-student blawging at The Legal Underground.

No one is in the dark for long regarding the views of Kevin O'Keefe and social networking for lawyers.

Okay, it looks straightforward, but on the other hand -- you tell us what the heck is going on here.

What could be more simple!!?? KNOCK BEFORE YOU OPEN THE DOOR!

Marty Schwimmer -- yes, trademark law is IP, but for droll straightforwardness he truly is in a category of his own (see Dennis Kennedy item below).

The Greeks ransacked the Temple many days in search of oil to defile. Despite their strength and numbers, they overlooked one flask. A few weak, battle-weary Jews found it immediately.

Meiri

Seven days commemorate the miracle of the oil, and one day commemorates the miracle that a few weak Jewish soldiers defeated the mighty Greek legions.

Kedushas Levi

The Meiri's focus as well as that of the Kedushas Levi takes us entirely away from the question of "Why eight and not seven?" and focuses on a different Chanukah miracle together. Their interpretation of the matter must be read in the light of the question it is answering, for otherwise it sounds as if it were the very opposite of what it is: We do not celebrate the stronger, keener-sighted rebelling Hebrews for the superiority over the vanquished Syrian Greeks.To the contrary, the supernatural aspect of the festival -- and as we explain below, when we talk about the supernatural, we always talk about eights -- is that the Jews, known neither for their physical strength nor their sharp eyesight, were nonetheless graced by God with a special illumination at the time of Chanuka. It was a grace of the sort which enables its recipients to see what previously had been hidden by virtue of having fought against great odds because it was the right thing to do.

This is surely appropriate considering the role of the second commentator in this section, the Kedushas Levi -- better known as Rabbi Levi of Berditchev, the "defense attorney" before God for the downtrodden, exiled remainder of Israel. So here we consider posts implicating a favorite topic of this blog, i.e., the weak vanquishing the strong, the Davids slaying Goliaths-- the legal Maccabees, if not of our day, of last week.

Who exactly are the weak and the strong in, well, tobacco litigation? We're not so sure these days, and considering the mess the state legislatures, the plaintiffs' bar, the state courts, Congress, the Federal Tradem Commission and now the Supreme Court seems to have made of the jurisprudence of the thing, who can blame us? Leon Gettler keeps us up to speed just who is blowing what kind of litigation smoke these days over at his Sox Blog.

For that matter, how about as between the United Auto Workers and Big Three execs? Is there any way to tell which one is Seleucid Greeks and which one is the Hebrews without a score card? For that matter, did President Bush have any legal right at all to throw $17 billion of our money at both of them? David Zaring and Randy Picker considered whether the TARP-based bailout of GM and Chrysler is, you know... legal. While we're at it, the Perfessers axe: How about the one over at AIG?

JIMMY CHOO vs. KOOCHYCOO? Marc Randazza reports on more of the usual trademark overreaching, but once again, a wave of Internet suppost could help turn the back the choo-choo of Big IP.

Jon Katz, the Underdog Blogger himself, writes about the loss of a treasured colleague, Mark Helm, who regarding himself as the last best chance for people charged with crimes with little other hope for justice.

Again, though, we started with a basic question: Chanukah, of course, is eight days long, and although there is neither an eight-day wait before or after this Blawg Review, that is because even we bloggers exist in the mundane world of the physical, the natural, the -- well,
the mundane. It is a theme well known to students of Jewish lore that the number eight is associated with transcendence beyond the natural, above the seven days of Creation -- a bridge from the human to the Divine. Still, these last several answers seem to question: Even as we admit that the miracle itself may not be tied to the oil, and even if stipulate that miraculousness is associated with eightness (which in modern terms might perhaps be described as 140-ness?) -- why eight days of Chanuka, in particular? Read on...

The commandment to light the [Temple] Menorah with pure oil is written in the Torah (Leviticus, chapters 23 and 24) immediately after the commandment to observe the Succos festival for 8 days . . . . The Sages saw this as a Divine hint that Chanukah should be for 8 days.

Bnei Yisaschar

This approach from the mystical hasidic master, Rabbi Tzvi Elimelech of Dinov, almost suggests that the eight day outcome is merely a matter of statutory interpretation, depending entirely on the unique insight of the decisor to divine what is in this case a Divine intent from relatively obscure-seeming hints. But this master of Kabbalah hardly based his insights either on dry interpretations or personal hunches.

Mere law bloggers can only aspire, in the application of their own far narrower crafts, to the complete integration of the spiritual, the symbolic and the interpretive of the Bnei Yisaschar. But here we can at least list blog posts that demonstrate their authors' determined commitments to dig deep to the essence of a matter, plumb its depths and, again, shed light those who will seek it:

From the sublime to the, well, less sublime, it cannot be gainsaid but that Dennis Kennedy seems to many to hold the whole world of legal blogging in his hands. He has just announced his Blawggie Awards and every bit as much as Dennis has never failed to mention any important legal or influential legal blogging developments or personalities, you won't want to miss that post.

Evan Schaeffer has his list, too! Also Greg Lambert. It's that time of year, right? Yes, too bad these fellows couldn't wait a week and get the "making a list, checking it twice" lines, but that will not do in this post. OK, we have a hangup about those kind of lists, anyway. But this is the last time we'll link to this post. Consider the subject dropped. And thanks for the coal.

On a more substantive note, Jacob Hacker makes the case, demonstrating more than a little command of the topic, if you don't mind, for public plan choice in national health reform.

Similarly, you can't really fake a topic like "drug and device law," and Jim Beck and Mark Herrmann aren't faking anything. They argue that one of the touchiest subjects in drug and device - and indeed all - product liability litigation is whether defense counsel can discuss a plaintiff's medical condition informally with the plaintiff's doctors. They synopsize the current state of play, state by state, for every state in the nation. Every. State.

We could have put this in the IP section, but we've already mentioned Tamera, who blogs at this new place too, and plus the salient feature of Ask Before You Act is: These guys are good.

Indeed, there is one more view of the question we've been dealing with here, which we'll add in before we sign off. It's a famous insight of the great ethical and religious figure of a century ago known as the Alter (Elder) of Kelm, and again, the question is, Why do we celebrate eight days despite the fact that most understandings of the Chanuka narrative suggest only seven days of miraculous events? His answer:

It is a "miracle" that oil burns in the first place.

It's a miracle that we are here today, in an age of greater miracles and wonders than ever. Thank you all for sharing this little bit of light in the darkness, and in doing so, bringing your own light, and a great light from a special place in which we all can share, too, to our Chanuka party.

Blawg Review has information about next week's host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.

Juicing it up

LikelihoodofConfusion@gmail.com (Ron Coleman) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:25:00 +0000

Originally posted on January 27, 2009 on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®:

Oh, to be a hip, Jewish intellectual... property owner. Stick with me here.

A while back I was following the story of the PTO's refusal to register the mark NIGGA. As I put it then:

Forget “immoral or scandalous,” which, as we have said before, is an increasingly hopeless position for national government to take on almost anything in this enlightened era. Interestingly, though, this one will probably stick. Political correctness — in this case, quite correct! (most of the time) — is the empty husk of what was once considered the public virtue of “decency.”

No, the real problem is this: Can the Patent and Trademark Office register as a trademark a word that is, culturally (and almost legally) restricted for use to members of one race only — and that is considered practically a “hate crime” for members of other races to utilize? (As opposed to trademarks that no one can pronounce!) Now that seems as if it would be a bad policy decision for any government agency, much less one (i.e., the PTO) that takes eight months just to queue up a trademark application — no offense intended.

Now come the heebs -- or, more specifically, racy, but not racist, Heeb magazine -- and, in very much the same vein, the TTAB has bounced its appeal of the PTO's refusal to register a (second) trademark for HEEB, on the grounds that the term heeb disparages persons. Hebrew persons, of course. Heeb-rews. Juice.

A similar argument to that utilized in connection with the NIGGA application was attempted by Heeb, mainly along the lines of, hey, we're hip, we're past all that, we're taking the oppressive language of past repression and wearing it like a badge of pride. (See John Welch's coverage here.)

I think* that's a very good argument. And I think the whining of the usual suspects, professionals in the outrage and offendedness fields, cited in the opinion as tisk-tisking this and the previous (successful, as it turns out) application for a HEEB registration, is mostly pathetic. Read More -->

On counterfeit hearts

LikelihoodofConfusion@gmail.com (Ron Coleman) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:18:00 +0000

Originally posted on March 23, 2009 on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®:

Master of Complications

Excerpt:

The great teachers of the school of personal character development called mussar ask, How can a person, being aware of how insignificant he is before God, allows himself pleasure from the regard of others, especially for such mundane achievements as being wealthy or rich or pretty? No blogger can contemplate such a level of modesty, of course. But ant that I am, I have never understood how anyone could enjoy impressing others with something he not only didn’t earn, but that he actually misappropriated — which is what you do when you walk around with a counterfeit fashion item on your wrist or slung over your shoulder. I don’t get it.

Read the whole article here...

Ha-Makom

LikelihoodofConfusion@gmail.com (Ron Coleman) — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:53:00 +0000

Rabbi Meir used to say: How is Techeles [blue color used in Tzitzis] different from all other colors? The Techeles looks like the sea, and the sea looks like the sky and the sky looks like a sapphire stone and the sapphire stone looks like the Throne of Honor (of the Almighty).

Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Chullin 89a. One of the leading orthodox lecturers on Jewish thought, Rabbi Yissocher Frand, explains why we are given this relatively long chain of association: Because we all must take one step at a time. Brilliant color and light can stimulate us, inspire us, and like all things that compel the soul make us want to absorb them and transcend. We are swept up by beauty and want to meld with it. This is after all a kind of love. (Read more.)

Zos Chanuka

LikelihoodofConfusion@gmail.com (Ron Coleman) — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:42:00 +0000

I have a new post up at Beyond BT. Its audience is beyond BT's, you know.

Stand up for what you believe

LikelihoodofConfusion@gmail.com (Ron Coleman) — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:34:00 +0000

That means putting your money, i.e., your name, behind your mouth.

Internet anonymity, an old theme of mine, is becoming more and more of an acute issue. Its victims call me and come to my office day in and day out. Like libertarianism, the absolute privilege of online anonymity is very popular, as long as you don't care what happens to anyone but yourself.

This issue of particular concern to the orthodox Jewish community, which is why I am cross-posting this item (which I also posted at Dean's World) here.

Today I'm having it out with a First Amendment absolutist, my Internet friend Marc Randazza, a lawyer, former journalist and law professor, on Likelihood of Success.

Zol es zayn a shandeh

LikelihoodofConfusion@gmail.com (Ron Coleman) — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:03:00 +0000

I find the idea of electioneering in the these things distasteful.

But coming in last would leave an unpleasant taste in my, mouth, too.

So help me prove I have friends and cast your vote for LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® as Best Law Blog in the 2007 Weblog Awards

Do it for the children.

The neocon con

LikelihoodofConfusion@gmail.com (Ron Coleman) — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 02:09:00 +0000

Eric Schie picks up on a John Edwards detail, but doesn't grasp its significance:

For his part, Edwards repeatedly referred to Republicans as “NEOCONS!” When he scolded Hillary for her favorable vote on the Iran resolution, he said it was “drafted in the language of the NEOCONS!” (As to what language that would be, I don’t know.)

Oh, I do, bubbele.

Likelihood of Hatzlocha

LikelihoodofConfusion@gmail.com (Ron Coleman) — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:19:00 +0000

What with R' Chaim in EY holding up the whole world, I would hate for this blog to be written into the wrong book, chas v'shalom, in the coming year.

I'm R' Chaim's frum grown-up lawyer friend from Passaic, and he has asked me to help out here from time to time. Now that he is focusing entirely on reality instead of this world of falsehood we inhabit, you are left, in part, with me.

Well, it happens that my own blog, Likelihood of Success, has taken a decidedly Jewish turn in the last week or so -- could it be Elul? You may want to stop over and take a look. I have recently commented on or linked to:

The Neo-Nazi "Israelis" that are emblematic of the failure of Zionism as a political philosophy
The strange -- or maybe not so strange -- IDF air incursion into Syria
Aish HaTorah's astonishing video that is an inspiration and challenge for anyone
The "brave" Reform rabbi who ran, hat in hand, to speak to an American Muslim group and show them what a good dhimmi a well-heeled Ghetto Yid can be
A recent article on the Nazi origins of Islamist violence, and the campaign of silence in the U.S. media about it
And everything else, from Alef to Beis.

I'm big on hachnasas orchim, too, so feel free to stop in, leave a comment, start up with me, put your feet on the furniture -- just remember, we're already holding by slichos around here.

Let's Get Some Answeres.

noreply@blogger.com (Ilan The Portlander Rebbe) — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:07:00 +0000

As our dear friend Reb Chaim is doing us all proud in the Mir, I thought I’d take up the questions he was recently asked regarding blood transfusions and the like. Let’s go over some of the points now. Come along, won’t you?

“Live by the law not die by it," correct? But Shagra Simmons said the opposite. What Rabbi Simmons said is more to what the truth is, because it’s the written Torah, Gods spoken word, and that supersedes oral Torah, any day.”

There are two very important points here that I think must need to be addressed. Both Rabbi Simmons and Reb Chaim are correct. To save his life, a Jew may disregard any of the 613 commandments, including eating blood. There are however, three exceptions to the rule. 1) Murder 2) Idolatry 3) Certain types of sexual relationships (i.e. incest homosexuality, bestiality adultery, ect) For example, If a gentile were to hold a gun to my head and command me to eat pork, I would be required by Jewish law to eat it. However, if he told me to shot my friend, I must die rather than listen. If you e-mail Rabbi Simmons, He can explain this in more detail.

The second point is important, in that it addresses the core of Judaism, namely the oral law. You said, “It’s the written Torah, Gods spoken word, and that supersedes oral Torah, any day.” This is making a massive mistake in understanding both G-d and his relationship to mankind.

At Mt. Sinai, Hashem gave the Jewish people the Torah, however, contrary to your belief, it was given in two forms, oral and written. The written Torah is the bare bones facts and is impossible to understand without the oral Torah. For example, we are commanded to slaughter an animal as G-d command, but nowhere in the written Torah is the procedure described. We are ordered to keep Shabbos under penalty of death, but are never told what it entails. Moreover, the Written Torah is filled with contradictions and logical errors.

The oral law, just was much as the written law came from G-d and was given as a special gift to his people, Beni Yisrael. A none Jew is forbidden to study it, and may only learn the written law. A Jew is commanded to keep the Torah as best he can, including its oral laws. Most of the Torah in fact is oral and both the laws that a Jew my break a commandment and the exceptions to that rule were given by the mouth of Hashem to Moshe at Sinai.

For more info, check out
http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/howtoask.html
http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/oral-imperative.html
http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/whynotwritten.html
http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/notchaotic.html
http://www.beingjewish.com/mesorah/1_moses_to_joshua.html

“Just imagine how we, here can get some sort of sickness from these people, just like the bird flu?”

The sad fact is, in every surgery there are risks and things that can go wrong. In fact a good number of hospital deaths occur every year due to infections that were caught at the hospital. However, by that logic, we could never see a doctor for anything.

“Take a look at the symbol of the blood donor? It’s a red cross isn't it? A Idolatry symbol...Hmmmm, see something wrong with this picture yet?”

In Israel, the simple is a red magan dovid. In addition, the symbol is the symbol of an organization, not of blood donation itself.

“God made us with this built in feature to repair itself by our own immune system, our blood and tissues working day and night, trying to make a mends and repair what is damaged.”

G-d also commanded us to see a doctor. We learn this from the fact in the written Torah that if a man injures his fellow, among the restitutions he must make is the medical bill. If there is a medical bill, obviously the sick person went to a doctor.

“This is my favourite scripture....”

It’s dangerous to learn Torah without a Competent Orthodox Rabbi. It’s impossible to understand beyond a very surface level, and must the time people make mistakes. They mean well. However, without an understanding of the Torah and its principles, and without the high level of devotion and good character must rabbis have, it’s all but impossible not to interpret it according to our own views, instead of G-d’s.

“The question is. Do you care? Do you care about Gods and his creation? Do you care about life and people, and everything he made for you and has given to you?”

Sadly the answerer in many cases is no. I don’t mean me personally, I am referring to the fact that although Torah learning is growing, over 80% of American Jews are ignorant of their Judaism and are totally assimilated. The average Jew in the reform and conservative movement has no understanding of even basic Torah laws. Trust me, I grew up conservative, and thy go out of their way to exclude G-d was the equation. Although there is massive outreach, we still loss many to intermarriage and other religions.

I hope this helps. Feel free to e-mail me with any other questions at imnotlikeyou@hotmail.com

Reb Chaim Haqoton has moved.

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:13:00 +0000

I have recently re-located from the United States of America to Jerusalem, Israel. Interestingly, I sat next to Avshalom Katz on my plane trip from New York City to Tel Aviv. I want my readers to post in the comments section of this post some ideas for future articles on Reb Chaim HaQoton.

Blood Transfusions in Halacha (an email discussion)

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:05:00 +0000

On 7/29/07, dt catherine taylor manna < timetobelievefoundation@yahoo.ca> wrote:

So nice to have found your post.

I had made a comment on the birthdays from your blog.

I am a student of the Torah, and observer and would very much like to covert formally, although i have done so in my heart.

also, i am learning so much and it is a blessing.

I would like to ask you if there is a blog on blood transfusions. this is something i am opposed to, I beleive it is an offense to God, to do this from my understanding of the tanak and the torah, are there any rabbi who are against this invented proceedure to try to temporarily save a humans life? and is there any debates on this subject like the birthdays. are there any jews that believe like i do? or rabbis:? If saving one life is performing a mitzvot, would it really be saving if you had to break a mitzvot that God has felt so strongly about?

for example God says, in lev chapter 17 you must not eat "or take into our body" blood of any living creature, if you do you must be cut off. because the life of every living creature is in its blood, you must pour it onto the ground you must not eat it if you do i will turn my face from you. on the ground it must be poured, it is used to make attonement for you, that all, thats it.

just in this last hundread years, of the almost 6 thousand since the creation of mankind, has this been invented, the blood transfusions to save ones life.

this is not wright. how can this be an acception to Gods rules or laws after he clearly states how he feels about blood.? about life? since God is all knowing and powerfull, he knew we would be capable of the intellegence on inventing all kinds of ways to preserve our temporary life here on earth, he knew what we are capable of, but the question still is, are Gods people supposed to sucome to the ways of the world? its practices? absolutly not. Gods people are a clean people, who are supposed to stay free and clear of Idolotry. and if one thinks that they can give there own blood to save someone who is loosing there own blood and is near death and if someone thinks that all they have to do is give there blood to save you, that is a form of Idolotry. saying, i will save you with my blood, over steping Gods authority on this one thinking its ok, im performing a mitzvot, playing God, its not like someone is drowning and you perform mouth to mouth resesitation, thats different or, you dodged a bullet to save your brother or friend, or you took the blow to the head to defend someones life, or you spoke out abouts GOds words stood firm and followed his ways, till your death reciting the shema, as many of Gods true faithfull followers did during the inquisitions and holocost, this is different. do you know what i mean rabbi?

anyways, i share my thought with you. I love our creator, and study his word daily. thank you for listning...

here is a free music site me and my husband have wrote songs for hashem and share them with his people...

http://music.download.com/houseofisrael

shalom catherine manna

I responded:

Life is the most important concept and thus life supersedes any commandment in the Torah. Maimonides writes (Laws of Foundations of Torah, Ch. 5) that the Torah is something by which one is supposed to live, not die. Therefore, in order to save a life, even for a short amount of time, all prohibitions and commandments are suspended. Therefore, even if the prohibition of consuming blood included a blood transfusion, violating this prohibition would be REQUIRED in order to save an individual's life. Furthermore, the prohibition not to consume blood, only means not to eat/drink blood anyways, it does not include other forms of consumption. Remember, the prohibition includes even your own blood (so if, for example, you finger is bleeding, you are not allowed to suck on it).

Please forgive me for not expanding thoroughly on the topic like I usually attempt to do because my grandfather's sister died earlier today (interestingly, her name was Katherine, like yours) and I delivered a eulogy, and then I went to visit my cousinwho is terminally ill in the hospital.

Good Luck on your quest towards Truth...

==

Reb Chaim HaQoton

http://rchaimqoton.blogspot.com

On 7/31/07, dt catherine taylor manna < timetobelievefoundation@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Im sorry to hear that your sister has passed away. thank you for writing to me. I understand, but is it allright if i choose to disagree with Maimonides on this one, and still become a convert? I agree with everything else, just not this one.

respectfully yours

Catherine

I responded:

She was my grandfather's sister, not mine. She was 93 years old, I visited her hours before her soul returned to its Creator...

I cannot possibly understand your position. How can you be so inhumane? Saving people's lives is one of the basic tenents of Judaism, the Torah itself says you MUST save someone's life even it means you wil be committing a sin in doing so, because such a sin is not considered a sin, rather it's a Mitzvah of saving someone's life. In order to be a Jew, one must possess the attribute of mercy, what type of mercy is it to not save someone because you think that a certain prohibition about consuming blood applies to a blood transfusion? The prohibition only applies to eating/drinking blood, and that's it. Surely, for the above two reasons there is nothing wrong with a blood transfusion according to Torah Law. Perhaps before converting to Judaism, you should do a lot more research on how Torah Law, called Halacha, works, because one does not simply "choose to disagree with Maimonides" on a certain law. Maimonides' rulings are based on the Talmud, which is the essential book of the Oral Torah which was given at Mount Sinai. I have the contact information for a Rabbi in Los Angeles who specializes in conversions, if you would like, I can give you his synagouge's phone number and address.

On 7/31/07, dt catherine taylor manna <timetobelievefoundation@yahoo.ca> wrote:

THank you sure i would love the contact information of the rabbi speciallizing in converstion. can you also tell me where it says in the tanak that you can break the torah laws if it is to save someones life? Its not that i am being inhumane, its just that i see in the passages of Lev 17-10 how God feels so strongly about the consumption of blood and of course they didnt have the technology such as blood transfusions back then, so I personally feel that i dont want to violate Gods ways and i dont quite understand living by the law and not dying for it.

I thought Moses said, directed by God, Today I put befor you the blessings and maledictions, if you are carefull to follow all my ways, i will bless you, I will be your God you will be my people, and i will defeat your enemies, and not put the diseases that are put upon the rest of the people {who dont follow his ways, and laws?} After doing my own research on the subject of blood transfusions, theres a major risk involoved in this proceedure too, its not guaranteed save either. and it makes sence, the blood of all of us has everytihing in it. so when we take this that belongs to someone else, we become like someone else, so is it really saving your life? or is it actually killing you? How does God feel about this? is this really a clean thing for his people to do? everyone does it, but i dont care about everyone I care about his people and i feel i am one of them.

I think it is an offence to God, to play with lives like this. the blood of every living creature, belongs not to us but to God, he gives specific instuctions on what to do with blood, to pour it on the ground, you must not partake of it, in any way consume it...what if your wrong, will God forgive this? Or does he expect us to repent and turn back to him. and to trust him, in everything including this one. I personally think that Gods people should be discusted in this practise and i personally view this as Pagan. If I was God and im not, i would be very hurt over my people doing what the rest of the nations do. WHen are Gods people going to listen to his word and actually have respect for it. Life is a gift, and we have lost something in the process of it. but i believe its never too late. I beleive he loves his people Israel, and i do too. Im not here to condem or argue with you Rabbi,. in fact I dont even know at times why Im where I am at. but i say what i feel, and its from my heart.

Shalom.

sincerly, Catherine.

I responded:

According to your reasoning the following should be true: Since it is forbidden for one to drive through a red light or a stop sign without stopping, even if one is driving an ambulance with a critically ill patient, one should not be allowed to drive through without stopping because the law says not to do it and anyways, it's not a guaranteed fact that you can save the critical patient. Is such a conclusion true? Obviously not. The laws were given to apply under normal circumstances, when circumstances are extrenous, then the laws do not apply and certain things which could normally be forbidden could become permitted and even obligatory in order to save the life of a fellow human being.

And anyways, the prohibition of consuming blood applies specifically to eating/drinking blood, other forms of consumptions (including, for example, annointing with blood or even transfusing blood) are not included in the prohibition of consuminh blood.

When the Torah tells of a law, it is not our job to figure out the reasoning behind the law, rather it is our duty to merely carry out what the Torah tells us to do, without analyzing WHY we are supposed to do it. Accordingly, your explanation of the prohibition of the consumption of blood (that one cannot take something from someone else and if he does he becomes like that someone else) might be a nice explanation, but through your explanation you are changing around the actual law by applying it to cases where it doesn't apply, and not applying it in cases where it does apply.Why then do we fulfill G-d's commandments? G-d is the Master of the Universe and the King of the World, so just as when a king would command you to do or not to do something, you would never dare question the reasoning behind his commandment (WHY the king commanded you to do so), so too when G-d commands certain laws, one is not supposed to ask WHY one should fulfill them, rather one should simply fulfill them as he would fulfill any edict commanded by a king. Ignore the WHY, the WHY is irrelevant.

With your permission, I would like to post this to my website to ask other peoples for their opinion on this matter. By the way, I am not a Rabbi, so please do nto refer to me as such.

She then wrote back:

Thank you for your time and reply.

I would be honoured if you would post my letter for discussion.

I would like to know if there is anyone else that thinks the way i do?

I think its good to talk about spiritual things, Gods laws and ways, we could help each other and in the end become closer to the almighty.

I read everyday on aish.com I love there writings and participate very much there.

Like I said i am a Torah observer and student and I am loving it!

Iv never felt closer to God ever, and I thank his people that have guided me in the wright direction. I feel there is so much that i didn't know about our creator. but now i have the opportunity to learn from the best, his people!

I love the Torah, I love his people and I love Him. I know that no one is perfect, and even Gods people can make mistakes, but the difference is, he chose one people for his name, and no matter what...he will always keep his promise and they will always be his people, even if they make mistakes , he always has and always will correct his people when there wrong because he loves them, just like a father loves his children, and like a child loves his father, we will eventually see his way.

That's the way history was, and is today.

God has a theme, a message he sends to his people, Faithfull "Israel", 1/ repents 2/ changes or turns back to him, then 3/ he forgives them...but what must Israel need to repent of?

What is His people guilty of, if anything?

Do we need to take a look at ourselves and question what we are doing , how we are living and is it according to Gods ways or someone elses?

Is that not a part of Judaism? To question everything? To make sure we are not being like the nations that are all around us.? That practise Idolatry, and pagan customs?

Gods people. Are a clean people, that stand out in this world, they always have, and yes they have been persecuted for it many times over, atrocities, inhumane crimes, all because they stood up for Gods name, they didn't bow down to anyone, they didn't forsake there God.

Don't you think these ones well be remembered by God and that he will bless them for it ?

How many stories have we heard of faithful Jews, who died, because they wouldn't kiss the cross. or accept Jesus as there God or convert to pagan religions? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

They really loved God with there whole heart,they didn't care what was being done to them, even till there agonizing painfull death, they would rather die in this temporary life, knowing that they loved there God, whole heardedly, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Joshua, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, they would rather die, than disappoint there creator, who is all knowing all power full and almighty.

There is nothing more pleasurable than having a close relationship with God. I believe that.
Shalom! See you at the wall someday! where Gods presents Shekina, is and awaits us all there.

Tu B'Av: A Qoton Qlassic

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:52:00 +0000

Happy New Years!

Here is a short selection from my Qoton Qlassic essay about Tu B'Av regarding the relationship between Tu B'Av and Rosh HaShannah:

Rabbi Zvi Elimelech Shapiro of Dinov (1783-1841) explains the Kabbalistic
significance of the holiday of Tu B'Av. The Talmud writes that forty days before one's embryo is formed, Heaven declares who his future spouse will be. In Tractate Rosh HaShana, a dispute is discussed at great length between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that Adam was created on the first of Tishrei. Adam was created on the sixth day of creation; therefore, the world was created on the twenty-fifth day of the month of Elul. Forty days before the creation of the world, the day on which all spouses must have been divinely declared was the
fifteenth of Av. This is the cause of the celebration of Tu b'Av and its links
to marriage and matchmaking. It is from the day of Tu B'Av, that it is customary
to begin using the New Years greetings to fellow Jews in anticipation of Rosh
HaShannah, the first of Tishrei.

Continue Reading This Qoton Qlassic...

The Scroll of Lamentations

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:54:00 +0000

In listing the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud refers[1] a book called Kinos "Lamentations" or Megillas Kinos "The Scroll of Lamentations"[2], written by the prophet Jeremiah. Scripture tells that when Jeremiah prophesied the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple therein, he was scorned by the people around him. HaShem commanded the prophet Jeremiah to record all of his visions about a desolate Jerusalem in a scroll. After transcribing the prophecies concerning the future of Jerusalem through his student Baruch, Jeremiah's scroll was delivered to the King of Judah, Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim's reaction was to burn the scroll, which foretold the annihilation of Jerusalem[3]. The opening verse of this book rhetorically asks about the destroyed city of Jerusalem, "How does she sit alone?[4]"

The popular name for the Scroll of Lamentations is Eicha, "How", named for the first word of the scroll. Why, in the popular vernacular, is the book referred to as Eicha, if the Talmud refer to the book of Lamentations as Kinos? The Midrash says[5] that the book of Lamentations opens with the word Eicha because the numerical value of that word is thirty-six; the Mishnah teaches[6] that there are thirty-six transgressions, which are punishable with Kares, spiritual excision. Furthermore, the Midrash says that the letters in the word Eicha allude to the uniqueness of HaShem, the Ten Commandments, the twenty generations from Adam until Abraham when the commandment of circumcision was first commanded, and the Five Books of Moses, which the masses denied, resulting in HaShem destroying the Holy Temple and Jerusalem[7]. Similarly, the Talmud teaches[8] that the book of Lamentations starts with the word Eicha and continues in an acrostic-style poem with each stanza beginning with a sequential letter in the Hebrew alphabet because the Jews transgressed every sin from Aleph through Tav. According to these understandings, one can explain that the purpose of retaining the book of Lamentations for generations is to serve as a reminder as to what destructive powers lie in the severity of a sin. The book serves as a means to arouse feelings of repentance for future generations. In order to achieve this effect, one must stress the word Eicha at the beginning of the book. Therefore, the colloquial speech of the masses styles the book Eicha not Megillas Kinos, in order to stress the effects of the word Eicha.

Rabbi Levi Yitzchack of Berditchev (1740-1809) said[9] that after the arrival of the Messiah, the book of Eicha will still be read. Why should the book that laments the destruction of the Holy Temple and Jerusalem be read even during the Messianic Era, when the Temple and city will have already been rebuilt? The Berditchever explains that it will be read with the opposite tone as it is read during the exile. He explains that when asking about Jerusalem "How does she sit alone?", one will not mean to ask in mourning "what sins caused the city of Jerusalem to lie barren", rather one will intend to ask the opposite, "what sins could have possibly caused the city of Jerusalem to lie deserted if it is now so vibrant and jovial." Thus, the Book of Lamentations contains a dual meaning, it not only serves as a book lamenting the unfortunate annihilation of Jerusalem, but it also serves as a source of hope for a time when the destruction of Jerusalem will seem so unfeasible. The former purpose of the book is represented in its name Megillas Kinos, while the latter purpose of the book is reflected in the popular name, Eicha. By calling the book Eicha, not Megillas Kinos, the masses are optimistically waiting for arrival of the Messiah who shall herald the building of the Holy Temple, speedily and in our days: Amen.
[1] Bava Basra 14b
[2] See Jerusalemic Shabbos 16:1
[3] See Jeremiah Chapter 36
[4] Lamentations 1:1
[5] Lamentations Rabbah §1:1
[6] Kerisos 2a
[7] The letters of Eicha are: Aleph, Yud, Chaf, Hey. Aleph equals one and thus alludes to the oneness of HaShem; Yud equals ten, the Decalogue; Chaf equals twenty, the twenty generations; and Hey equals five, the Pentateuch.
[8] Sanhedrin 104b
[9] [I've heard this in his name, but I cannot find the source]

Sitting in the Courtyard

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:03:00 +0000

The Talmud maintains a rule in many locations[1] that one is not allowed to sit in the courtyard of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. In most points of reference to this law, the Talmud then proceeds to explain that a king of the House of David is allowed to sit in the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Yissachar Ber Eilenberg (1570-1623) writes[2] that in the Jerusalemic Talmud[3] there is an opinion who understood that even a Davidic king is not allowed to sit in the Temple Courtyard. This opinion is stated by Rav Ami the Jerusalemic Talmud in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. However, the Amudei Yerushalayim asks how Rav Ami can say such a thing in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, if he also said in his name[4] that the law is that one cannot sit in the courtyard except in the place of the kings of David. This second law refers to the fact that there was a throne near the courtyard designated for the Davidic kings, upon which anyone was allowed to sit[5]. The Amudei Yerushalayim answers based on the words of Rabbi Menachem Azariah of Fano (1548-1620)[6] that the prohibition barring one from sitting in the Temple's courtyard is only in the future in the Third Holy Temple, but until then one is permitted to sit in the Courtyard[7]. The Jerusalemic Talmud records an opinion that even if a Davidic King is not allowed to sit in the courtyard, the Kohen Gadol is surely allowed to sit there[8] because the Torah explicitly mentions Eli the Kohen Gadol sat there[9].

Rabbi Yehuda Roseannes (1657-1727) was unsure whether the prohibition that bans sitting in the courtyard is rabbinic or Biblical[10] in its origin. Rabbi Roseannes writes that the prohibition cannot be merely rabbinical in its origin because the Talmud used the existence of this prohibition to prove[11] that the prophet Samuel did not literally sleep in the Temple as a lad. Had the prohibition been merely rabbinic, it is not necessarily true that the rabbis had already decreed this prohibition in the times of Samuel. However, Rabbi Roseannes asks that if the prohibition is indeed biblical in origin, then the Mishnah[12] should have listed that the Temple's courtyard has a higher degree of sanctity as it listed all the other places in ascending order of their holiness. Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829-1907) writes[13] that the prohibition is not biblical because then there is no rationalization for it not to apply to Davidic Kings, nor is it rabbinic because then the Talmud would not have been able to prove that Samuel did not literally sleep in the Holy Temple complex. Rather, he writes that the prohibition is in a quasi-rabbinical, quasi-biblical state, for it was a rabbinical law (Divrei Kabbalah) instituted by Moses in an effort to show honor to the future kings of Israel. Indeed, Rabbi Yitzchok Zev Soloveitchik (1886-1959) wrote[14] that one who sat in the courtyard was considered rebelling against the king and could justifiably be given the death penalty for treason.

Maimonides writes[15] that the prohibition of sitting in the courtyard is an extension of the biblical commandment of "Fear my Sanctuary"[16]; Rabbi Moshe ben Yoseph of Trani (1505-1585)[17] and Rabbi Yosef Babad (1801-1874)[18] also write that the prohibition of sitting in the courtyard is an extension of that biblical precept. If the prohibition is biblical, then why did the Mishnah in Tractate Keilim not lost the higher sanctity of the Temple courtyard? Rabbi Yehoshua Yosef HaKohen of Mard, Poland writes[19] that even if the prohibition stems biblically from the commandment about fearing the sanctuary, the root of the prohibition is not the sanctity of the courtyard in the Holy Temple, rather it is the honor of HaShem, which is slighted should one sit in the courtyard[20]. Rabbi Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk (1843-1926) writes[21] that according to Maimonides, even a Kohen Gadol is not allowed to sit in the Temple courtyard. He explains that the opinion in the Midrash, which allowed the Kohen Gadol to sit there, did not mean that the Kohen Gadol is not included in the commandment of fearing the sanctuary. Rather, that opinion held that it is a greater honor for Heaven to allow the Kohen Gadol, who wears the Tzitz, to sit in the courtyard rather than to make him stand. These commentaries understand that Maimonides held that the prohibition of sitting in the courtyard is biblical, however Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575) writes[22] that just as Rashi understood (see below) that the prohibition is a Masoretic tradition, so too Maimonides understood that it is a Masoretic tradition[23].

Various passages in Tosafos understand the nature of the prohibition in two different ways. In one location, the Tosafists write[24] that this prohibition is rabbinic, yet in other locations, the Tosafists seem to understand[25] that the prohibition is biblical in origin. The former Tosafos understands that although usually one is not allowed to sit in the courtyard, one is allowed to sit in the courtyard when eating the sacrificial meat of the offerings in the Holy Temple. This passage in Tosafos understands that since the prohibition is only rabbinic, the rabbis never decreed that one is not allowed to sit in the courtyard when eating from the sacrificial meat. However, the latter Tosafos understands that the prohibition of sitting in the courtyard is biblical and thus Tosafos required hermeneutical extractions to permit the eating of sacrificial meats while sitting in the courtyard. Tosafos explain that eating the sacrificial meats is considered part of the Temple services, and just as other components of the services are theoretically allowed to be done while sitting in the courtyard[26], so too the eating of the sacrificial meats are allowed to be done while sitting in the courtyard[27]. Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky points out[28] that a third view is espoused by another Tosafos: Piskei HaTosfos writes[29] that one is not allowed to eat the sacrificial meats while sitting in the courtyard. Accordingly, this Piskei HaTosfos understands that the prohibition of sitting in the courtyard is not only biblical, but it is so strong that there is never justification for sitting in the courtyard—even when eating from the sacrificial meats. Indeed, Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi ben Aryeh Leib Jolles writes[30] that the discussion of whether or not one can sit down in the Temple courtyard to partake in the sacrificial meats is dependent on whether that prohibition to sit there under normal circumstances is rabbinical or biblical.

Rashi[31] writes that the law barring one from sitting in the Temple courtyard is based on a Masoretic tradition passed down orally from generation to generation, originally given to Moses at Mount Sinai. Rabbi Elazar Landau explains[32] that although the wording of the Masoretic rule was quoted as "There is not sitting in the Courtyard except for Judean kings" in Sanhedrin 101b, that was the exact wording of the tradition until King David was chosen. After the anointment of King David, the practical application of the rule changed to the more commonly quoted "There is not sitting in the Courtyard except for kings of the House of David". Rabbi Yair Chaim Bachrach (1639-1702) lists[33] the prohibition of sitting in the courtyard in his enumeration of purely Masoretic laws. Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes (1805-1855) asks[34] that if this law is purely based on a Sinaitic tradition, how can there be any arguments regarding the application of the law, everyone has to agree to it. Elsewhere, however, Rabbi Chajes writes[35] that a Masoretic law is not necessarily a law that is totally agreed upon by all, rather it is a law that its basic premise is agreed upon, but its minute details in practical applications can be disputed. Therefore, even though whether or not this prohibition applies to a Davidic King or a Kohen Gadol remains disputable, one can still consider the prohibition against a commoner, which is universally agreed upon, a Masoretic tradition. However, Rashi also writes[36] that there is a Scriptural source for the prohibition against sitting in the Temple courtyard, that is, the verse that says, "To stand and to serve"[37] concerning the services of the Holy Temple. Accordingly, Rashi does not seem to understand that the source is purely Masoretic; he learns that there is even a scriptural imperative.

Rabbi Aryeh Leib Malin (1906-1962) offers[38] a radical explanation behind the prohibition of sitting in the courtyard. He explains that there is a general prohibition of needlessly entering the courtyard of the Holy Temple, but when one enters the courtyard and stands there, then such a person is fulfilling the commandment of "To stand and to serve" because merely standing in the Temple courtyard is considered a ritual service. However, if one does not stand in the Temple courtyard, rather he sits, then his entering the Temple's courtyard was pointless and he is transgressing the prohibition of entering the courtyard in vain. Rabbi Leib Malin explains that kings of the Davidic dynasty have a special commandment to be inside the courtyard—regardless of whether they are standing or sitting[39]—so their entrance into the courtyard can never be considered in vain, even if they sit there. . With this explanation, one can answer the question of Rabbi Eilenberg who asked[40] according to Rashi that the prohibition is a Masoretic tradition, why does Rashi also need a scriptural source. This is because Reb Leib explains the seeming contradiction in Rashi who wrote in one place that the prohibition is a Masoretic tradition, yet in another place sourced the prohibition in the verse of "To stand and to serve"; the Masoretic tradition forbids entering the courtyard unnecessarily, while the verse justifies entering the courtyard to stand. Accordingly, Rabbi Malin explains that when Tosafos wrote[41] that the Kohen Gadol is allowed to sleep in the Holy Temple during the seven-day period before Yom Kippur, Tosafos is saying that just as a Davidic King has a commandment to remain inside the Holy Temple, so too the Kohen Gadol in the week preceding Yom Kippur has such a commandment. Nonetheless, Rabbi Malin does not account for the explanation of Rashi[42] who wrote that the one cannot sit in the courtyard is simply because doing so is not honoring Heaven[43].

Rabbi Shneur Kotler (1918-1982) writes[44] that every time that one is in a situation that is considered "in front of HaShem" then one is not allowed to sit. The Talmud writes[45] that the source that Davidic Kings are allowed to site in the courtyard is that the Torah says, "King David came and he sat in front of HaShem"[46]. In the time of King David, a Holy Temple did not yet exist, yet the Talmud still understood that the prohibition of sitting in the Temple courtyard still applied. How then could such a prohibition apply, if the courtyard did not yet exist? Rather, the Talmud must have understood that the prohibition does not specifically prohibit sitting the courtyard of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, rather the prohibition includes sitting in any situation where one is "in front of HaShem". Therefore, the fact that King David sat in the Tabernacle shows that all Davidic kings are allowed to sit "in front of HaShem" including in the courtyard of the Holy Temple. Rabbi Kotler writes that according to this explanation, even if the prohibition of sitting in the courtyard were biblical, the Mishnah in Tractate Keilim would not have listed this as another level of sanctity. This is because the prohibition associated with the sanctity of the courtyard is not dependent on the actual sanctity of the geographical location of the courtyard; rather, it is because the courtyard is considered "in front of HaShem." According to Rabbi Kotler, one can explain that when Moses said to the Israelites "You are all standing in front of HaShem, you G-d[47]" that Israelites had to stand because they were "in front of HaShem". Rabbi Yeshayah of Trani (1180-1250)[48] writes that the prohibition of sitting in the courtyard is only in the airspace of the actual courtyard, for only then is one "in front of HaShem", so he understood that the prohibition is not bound by geographical locations, rather it is dependant on whether or not one's location is "in front of HaShem".

According to the opinion cited earlier from the Midrash Shocher Tov, who learned that even Davidic Kings could not sit in the courtyard, how then did King David sit there? One can answer that there was not yet any prohibition of sitting in the courtyard because the Holy Temple was not yet built in King David's days. Alternatively, the Midrash says[49] that King David did not literally, "sit in front of HaShem" rather he "sat in prayer", meaning "engaged in prayer 'in front of HaShem'" but did not actually sit. Additionally, the Rav Chisda answers[50] that King David sat in the Women's Courtyard, not in The Courtyard of the Holy Temple. In describing the ceremony of HaQhell, the Mishnah says[51] that King Agrippa sat while reading from the biblically prescribed passages[52]. The Talmud asks[53] how the king could have sat if sitting in the courtyard is forbidden. Furthermore, even if Davidic Kings were allowed to sit in the courtyard, King Agrippa was Herodian, not Davidic, so he should not have been allowed to sit. The Talmud answers that just as Rav Chisda explained that King David did not sit in The Courtyard of the Holy Temple, rather he sat in the Women's Courtyard, so too King Agrippa did not read the ceremonial passages of the HaQhell ritual in The Courtyard, rather he read it in the Women's Courtyard, as well.

Footnotes:
[1] Yoma 25a, Yoma 69b, Sotah 40b, Sotah 41b, Kiddushin 78b, Sanhedrin 101b, and Tamid 27b
[2] Be'er Sheva (a Tosafos-like commentary) to Tamid 27a
[3] Yoma 3:2, Pesachim 5:10, and Sotah 7:7
[4] Midrash Shocher Tov (to Psalms) §1
[5] See Mahari Katz to Midrash Shocher Tov §1
[6] Rema mi'Panu, Asara Ma'amaros, Ma'amar Im Kol Chai part 3, §10, see also Yad Yehuda ad loc.
[7] He also writes there that King Rechavam, the son of King Solomon, was supposed to be the Messiah with Jeroboam being his viceroy, but since the latter had higher aspirations, he splintered off from the Kingdom of Judah and started the Kingdom of Israel with Ten Tribes, styling himself King Jeroboam of Israel.
[8] The Midrash says (Midrash Shocher Tov to Psalms 110:1) that HaShem told Abraham, "Sit to my right." How could Abraham have sat in front of HaShem? One can answer that Abraham was a Kohen Gadol as the Midrash says elsewhere (Yalkut Shimoni to Psalms, §869). Rabbi Avraham Abele HaLevi Gombiner (1633-1683) proved (Zayis Ra'anan) that Abraham had the status of a Kohen Gadol. He explains that the Halacha is that an Onan, one whose close relative died on that die, cannot perform the services in the Holy Temple. Therefore, had Abraham slaughtered his son Issac, he would not have been able to offer his son as a sacrifice because Abraham would have had this status of a mourner for his dead son and would be barred from offering sacrifices on the altar. However, if one explains that Abraham had the status of a Kohen Gadol, who is supposed to perform the Temple services even as an Onan, then one could explain how Abraham was Halachikly supposed to offer his son Issac as a sacrifice.
[9] Samuel 1 1:9
[10] See Mishnah L'Melech to Maimonides' Laws of Beis HaBechirah 7:6
[11] Kiddushin 78b
[12] Tractate Keilim, Chapter 1
[13] Aruch HaShulchan HeUsid, Kodshim, §14:14
[14] Chiddushei HaGriz Al HaTorah (stencil) §165
[15] Sefer HaMitzvos #21
[16] Leviticus 26:2
[17] Kiryas Sefer to Maimonides' Laws of Chagigah, Chapter 3 and Laws of Beis HaBechirah, Chapter 7
[18] Minchas Chinuch #244
[19] Ezras Kohanim on tractate Middos
[20] Perhaps then, one can explain that when Elisha ben Avuyah saw Metatron sitting in Heaven and recording the deeds of Israelites, he saw that the archangel was dishonoring HaShem by sitting in front of Him (Chagigah 15a). Perhaps this is what led Acher to apostasy.
[21] Ohr Somayach to Maimonides' Laws of Kings 2:4
[22] Kesef Mishneh to Maimonides' Laws of Sanhedrin 14:12
[23] The reason why Rashi (see below) understands that the prohibition is a Masoretic tradition is that the Talmud (Sanhedrin 101b) says Gemiri before introducing the law that one is not allowed to sit in the courtyard. Rashi understands that the term Gemiri refers to a Sinaitic law. Rabbi Yosef Karo here is assuming that Maimonides follows the same understanding, however Rabbi Yisrael Lipschutz of Danzig (1782-1860) proves (Tiferes Yisroel to Yoma 2:2) that Maimonides does not understand that Gemiri means a Sinaitic law.
[24] To Zevachim 16a
[25] See Tosafos to Yoma 25a
[26] Although, usually this rule would never be applicable because most Temple services are required to be done while standing
[27] Although Tosafos only proves that eating is considered a ritual service of the Holy Temple, but does not prove that eating while sitting is, once Tosafos has proved that one is allowed to eat in the courtyard, then certainly one must be allowed to sit while eating, for eating while standing is considered a dangerous act (see Maimonides, Laws of Mental States 4:3). Alternatively, Tosafos explain that it is the way of kings to eat while sitting, so presumably only eating while seated show proper honor to HaShem while partaking from His banquet meat.
[28] Siach HaSadeh to Yoma 25a
[29] To Sotah §10
[30] Melo HaRoim, Kllalei HaShas, Ein Yeshiva B'Azara
[31] To Sanhedrin 101b
[32] Hagahos Rebbi Elazar Landau to Yoma 25a
[33] See Chavos Yair §192, Law 32
[34] Maharitz Chayes to Yoma 25a
[35] Maharitz Chajes to Bava Kamma 17b
[36] To Yoma 25a and Yoma 69b
[37] Deuteronomy 18:5
[38] Chiddushei Reb Aryeh Leib, Volume 1, §19
[39] Maimonides writes (Laws of Kings 2:4) that if a king enters the courtyard and he is of the progeny of David, he should sit. Maimonides does not say, "He is allowed to sit" rather he says, "He should sit." This implies that there is a specific commandment or purpose in a Davidic king sitting in the Temple courtyard.
[40] Be'er Sheva to Sanhedrin 101b
[41] To Yoma 8b
[42] To Sotah 40b
[43] Furthermore, according to Rabbi Leib Malin, it is difficult to explain why Rashi (to Yoma 5a) writes regarding the Kohen Gadol sleeping in the Holy Temple that the real prohibition is sitting in the courtyard, but one can logically conclude that it applies to sleeping, as well. According to Rabbi Leib Malin, the latter is not a logical assumption based on the first prohibition; rather, it is the same prohibition of needlessly entering the Temple's courtyard as applies by sitting in the courtyard. (Tosafos to Yoma 8b and Chiddushei HaRitva to Yoma 11a also mention this logical sequence.)
[44] To Maimonides, Laws of Kings §11 (Printed in Kovetz Oraysa by Yeshivas Derech Chaim in memory of Avinoam Grossman, Teves 5767)
[45] Sotah 41b
[46] Samuel 2 7:18
[47] Deuteronomy 29:9
[48] Tosafos HaRid to Yoma 6a
[49] Yalkut Shimoni to Samuel §78
[50] Sotah 41b
[51] Sotah 41a
[52] See Deuteronomy 31:10-13
[53] Sotah 41b

Completing a Mitzvah

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:19:00 +0000

The Midrash maintains[1] that the fulfillment of a commandment is only attributed to the one who completed the fulfillment of the commandment. This means that if one starts to perform a commandment, but does not finish it and someone else actually finishes the performance of a commandment started by someone else, the latter is accredited with the accomplishment of the commandment. Rabbi Leib Lipschutz, the first father-in-law of the Shinover Rebbe, Rabbi Yechezkel Shraga Halberstam, (1813–1899) asks[2] whether or not this rule applies even if the first person was unable to complete the fulfillment of the commandment. He asks whether the rule that a commandment is only ascribed to the one who completes it is even if the one who started it caused those circumstances that caused him not to be able to finish carrying out the mitzvah, or does it apply only if he was unable to finish it because of circumstances beyond his control. The Talmud says[3] that one who intends to perform a mitzvah, but is forced beyond his control not to carry it out, is considered as if he performed the commandment. Rabbi Lipschutz asks in this case is the one who completes the commandment given all the credit.

The Talmud[4] contrasts two Scriptural verses concerning the bones of Joseph. In one instance, the Talmud notes that the Torah says, "Moses took the Bones of Joseph with him"[5], yet in another context, the Torah refers to the "Bones of Joseph that the Israelites brought up [from Egypt]"[6]. There is a seeming contradiction in the Torah whether Moses took the bones of Josef or the Israelites took his bones. Rabbi Chama bar Chanina answers that actually, Moses initially took Joseph's bones and intended to bring it to the land of Canaan, however, when he was unable to enter the land of Canaan, the other Israelites finished his mission. He explains that the transportation of the Bones of Joseph is ascribed to the Israelites, even though Moses started it because when one starts to fulfill a commandment and does not finish it and someone else finishes it, the fulfillment of the commandment is attributed to the latter party. However, another Midrash questions[7] why the Psalmist writes "A song to David [concerning] the dedication of the Holy Temple" if King David did not build the Holy Temple, King Solomon, his son did. The Midrash explains that since King David intended to build the Holy Temple, even though in the end he did not, he is considered as having built it. This is because King David actually started the construction of the Holy Temple by digging its foundation[8]. Why does the Midrash ascribe the completion of a Mitzvah to the one who finished it (the Israelites, not Moses, in transporting the Bones of Joseph), yet in another instance the Midrash ascribed the completion of a Mitzvah to the one who started it, not he who finished it (King David, King Solomon, in building the Holy Temple)? Some answer[9] that Moses caused his situation in which he would not be allowed to enter the land of Israel to finish his mission by hitting the rock. While the circumstances, which caused King David not to be able to complete construction of the Holy Temple, were completely beyond the control of King David because the prophet simply came to him and told him HaShem said he is not to build the Holy Temple. Based on this one can answer that if one was forcibly stopped from performing his commandment by conditions which were beyond his control, he can still be considered the performer of the commandment when it is completed, just as King David is considered to have built the Holy Temple. However, if one put himself into a position where he was forcibly not able to complete a commandment, then the achievement of the commandment is credited to the one who finished, just as Moses is not considered to have brought the Bones of Joseph to Israel.

However, Rabbi Lipschutz writes, upon further examination, one will realize that Moses could not bring the Bones of Joseph into the land of Israel for the same exact reason that King David could not build the Holy Temple. The Midrash explains[10] that HaShem did not allowed King David to build the Holy Temple because had King David had built it would never have been able to have been destroyed. Therefore, had King David built it then when the Jews would later sin, HaShem would not be able to pour out His fury by destroying the Holy Temple of sticks and stones, and rather He would have had to destroy His people themselves, heaven forbid. The Psalmist writes, "A song to Asaf: G-d, gentiles have entered into You inheritance, they profaned Your Holy Sanctuary, and they have transformed Jerusalem into heaps of rubble.[11]" Rashi quotes[12] that the Midrash asks[13], why this is called a "Song to Asaf" instead of a kinah, a lamentation, to Asaf. Rashi answers that Asaf was singing about the fact that HaShem unleashed his fury upon wood and rocks instead of on the people of Israel, for had HaShem done the latter, no one would have survived, heaven forbid. Therefore, HaShem decreed that King David would not build the temple, so that it would later be able to be destroyed, as a service to the Jewish nation.

The same is true concerning Moses. Moses was not allowed to enter the Land of Israel because had he led the Jewish people into Israel, he himself would have been the Messiah, and the Holy Temple would have been built by him and such a Temple would not have been able to be destroyed. Therefore, had Moses led the Jews into Israel, they would have been destroyed, but now that he did not lead them there, the Holy Temple was destroyed in their stead. Moses describes his begging HaShem be allowed into the Land of Canaan: "I implored HaShem at that time saying 'HaShem, the G-d, You have began to show Your servant Your greatness and Your strong hand…Allow me to cross and see the good land, which is on the other side of the Jordan, this good mountain and the Lebanon.[14]" HaShem reacted angrily and said, "It is too much for you, do not continue to speak to Me more about this thing"[15]. The Midrash explains[16] that "at that time" refers to the time of the conquest of Sichon and Og, when HaShem had seemingly profaned/violated His vow. The Midrash then "Your greatness" refers to the Manna and "Your strong hand" refers to the wars against Sichon and Og. What does the Manna and the wars with Sichon and Og have to do with Moses entering the land of Israel and HaShem violating a vow? Rabbi Lipschutz explains the meaning of this Midrash. The Talmud says[17] that rain can fall in the merit of an individual, but large-scale sustenance can only occur in the merit of the population. The Talmud then asked how then did the Manna fall in the merit of Moses, if large-scale sustenance can only come in the merit of the masses. The Talmud answered that the merits of Moses were considered as great as the merits of the entire population. Moses saw HaShem allowed him to fight Sichon and overtake the Moabite territories, even though HaShem earlier told Moses[18] not to fight Moab.

From here Moses saw that the only reason that he was allowed to overtake the Moabites was because HaShem looked at him as a representation of the masses, and thus since only an unfavorable heavenly decree on the masses can be overturned, but not on an individual[19]. The unfavorable decree against Moses, which barred him from fighting for the Moabite territories had been overturned, and was able to have been overturned because Moses was considered like the masses. Accordingly, Moses saw from the battle against Sichon and the fact that the Manna fell in his merit that he was considered like a population on his own, and thus unfavorable decrees against him could be overturned. Because of this, Moses decided to pray to HaShem to overturn the decree, which barred him from entering the land of Israel, as well. In requesting to led the nation into the land of Israel, Moses asked to see the "good mountain" which is a reference to Mount Mariah, upon which the Holy Temple has stood[20], and the Lebanon, a reference to the fact that the Holy Temple was built of Lebanon wood (from the area surrounding Tyre in the modern-day country of Lebanon).

However, HaShem did not acquiesce to Moses' prayers. This is because had Moses succeeded in his request, led the Jewish people in Israel, and built the Holy Temple, such a Holy Temple built by Moses would not have been able to be destroyed. Therefore, instead of unleashing His wrath upon a building of wood and stones, HaShem would have had to destroy the Jewish nation themselves when they would later sin. Consequently, HaShem responded to Moses' request by saying "You have enough", meaning that it is enough that Moses will lead the Jewish people in the time of the Third Holy Temple, after the Resurrection of the Dead, so he will not have to lead the Jewish people into Israel in the generation after the exodus. Accordingly, the reason why Moses could not lead the Jewish nation into Israel and bring there Joseph's bones is the same reason why King David did could not build the Holy Temple. Why then is the transportation of Joseph's bones not ascribed to Moses, yet the building of the Holy Temple is attributed to King David? Rabbi Lipschutz answers that King David was accredited with the building of the Holy Temple because the Talmud says[21] that when King Solomon wanted to bring the Holy Ark into the newly constructed Holy Temple, the gates to the Temple were closed shut. The doors did not open, even after King Solomon offered twenty-four prayer until King Solomon mentioned the merits of his father, King David[22]. Therefore, one can understand that the inauguration of the Holy Temple is attributed to King David, even though he only began the construction, but did not complete it, because it was in the merit of the King David that the services in the Holy Temple were allowed to commence. Nevertheless, usually, one who starts to perform a Mitzvah but could not complete is not credited with the finalization of the Mitzvah, just as Moses is not credited in the end with carrying the Bones of Joseph to the land of Israel.
[1] Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Eikev §6
[2] See Ateres Zekanim §5 printed the Shinover Rebbe in 1895 (printed in the back of the book Ayalah Shelucha by the son of the Shinover Rebbe, Rabbi Naphtali Halberstam).
[3] Brachos 6a
[4] Sotah 13b
[5] Exodus 13:19
[6] Joshua 24:32
[7] Yalkut Shimoni to Samuel §46
[8] Sukkah 53a
[9] Responsa Shuv Yaakov, Even HaEzer §13
[10] Yalkut Shimoni to Samuel §46
[11] Psalms 79:1
Interestingly, Rabbi Moshe Alshich (1508-1593) explains (Alshich to Psalms 79:1) the seeming threefold repetition in the wording of the beginning of this Psalm. He explains that "gentiles have entered into Your inheritance" refers to the destruction of the First Holy Temple, when the gentile-army led by Nebuchadnezzar's general, Nevuzardan, merely entered the Holy Temple, but did not destroy. Rather, the moment they entered the Temple with intention to destroy it, the Heavenly Angels descended and set fire to the Temple themselves because the Temple was too holy to have been destroyed by gentiles. "They profaned Your Holy Sanctuary" refers to the fact that the Syrian-Greeks entered the Second Holy Temple and defiled it by erecting statues and committing sins inside, but they did not destroy it. "They have transformed Jerusalem into heaps of rubble" refers to the Romans who, led by general Titus, the son of the Emperor Vespasian, set the entire city of Jerusalem ablaze and plowed over the Temple Mount.
[12] To Kiddushin 31b
[13] Midrash Shocher Tov to Psalms 79:1
[14] Deuteronomy 3:23-25
[15] Deuteronomy 3:26
[16] Sifri to Deuteronomy 3:23-26
[17] Taanis 9a
[18] Deuteronomy 2:9
[19] Rosh HaShannah 18a
[20] See Pesachim 81a which says that Abraham called the Temple Mount a "mountain." See also Genesis 22:14 where Abraham calls Jerusalem "a mountain".
[21] Shabbos 30a
[22] See Chronicles 2 6:42.
Interestingly, the Stropkover Rebbe, Rabbi Avraham Shalom Halberstam, a descendant of the Shinover Rebbe, quoted (in a speech in Los Angeles on Saturday Night, 7 Shevat, 5767) a similar Midrash (Exodus Rabbah §8) that says that when King Solomon inaugurated the First Holy Temple, he met some difficulty squeezing the Holy Ark, which was ten cubits wide into the Holy of Holies, whose entrance was also exactly ten cubits wide. In order to remedy the situation, King Solomon called upon the merit of his father, King David, so that HaShem should perform a miracle and save him from great embarrassment. He brought the coffin of his deceased father into the Holy Temple, whereupon his father, King David, arose from the dead (although, see the parallel to this Midrash at Yalkut Shimoni, Prophets, §193 which does not mention this detail). Based on this Midrash, Rabbi Halberstam reasoned that the decree that all humans are destined to die is specifically if one is alive, then he is supposed to die, but if one already died and has been resurrected, there is no decree that he should ever die again. Therefore, he explained that after King David arose from the dead, he was alive and furthermore, he shall continue to live because the limits of human mortality do not apply to one who already experienced death and returned from the dead. This explains the interpretive anomaly in the contrast between Jacob and King David, for regarding Jacob's state of living, the Talmud simply says (Taanis 5b, See Rashi to Genesis 49:33 who proves this based on the connotation of a scriptural verse), "Jacob, our father, did not die." In contrast, a popular refrain declared by the Jewish Nation for many generations, as a source of inspiration through many trying times, states, "Dovid Melech Yisrael Chai V'Kayam, meaning, "David, king of Israel, is alive and enduring." (This phrase is not only found in popular songs, but is a liturgical part of many joyous occasions (such as Kiddush Levana and its grouping with the phrase Mazel Tov).) Jacob simply did not die, but King David not only remains alive, but continues to live and will never die. May it be the will of HaShem that the scion of the Davidic dynasty shall save the Jewish Nation and bring about the building and inauguration of the Holy Temple, speedily and in our days: Amen.

הבל הבלים #קכ"ו

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:18:00 +0000

הבל הבלים #קכ"ו*

Since this is ה"ה issue #126, I posted 126 links in 3 categories: Torah, Israel and Reid. (Don't count them; it's not worth your time).
Torah

The MUST Gum addict decides that it MUST be that the Torah is his charm. It is the element which helps him achieve the unachievable even in the professional world.

The other Reb Chaim (not me) calculated the price of the First Holy Temple, while I discussed the building of the Third Holy Temple. This blogger discusses some of the miracles from the
Temple.

Reb Gavriel has an interesting post about adding to Shabbos and Shmittah. Speaking of Shmittah, Micha brings an interesting Chazon Ish who said that the bracha given to those who keep Shmittah applies even to Shemittah MiDrabbonon.

JoeSettler writes a very special piece entitled "Feeling Jewish" about how Jewish holidays just don't give off the aura that they are supposed to--that is, until the tragic events of September 11th. From then on, one can always remind oneself of a great tragedy that happened within our own lifetimes and use that reminder as a catalyst to feel the great tragedies of the past, such as the destruction of the Holy Beis HaMikdash. This was also posted @ the Muqata.

This is a very interesting linking the mitzvah of Kibud Av to the Geulah. I'm still wondering why this blog is called Havolim if it is all Torah, which is the opposite of הבל. Anyways, here is a very touching essay about one father's attempt to teach his son about Tisha B'Av, which ended up with the son inspiring his father. Here is an interesting way to teach kids the true meaning of Tisha B'Av. Jack offers some self-reflection for the Nine Days.

Daf notes discusses a gemara that says a Mamzer will die within ten generations with an amazing vort from the Vilna Gaon.

This blogger writes about the power of Malchus, kingship, and I myself wrote a post about how Moses, Joshua, and Samuel were all kings.

Since philosophy is a very subjective matter with some many varying opinions on it, a final psak is impossible. Bottom line: There's always another valid opinion.

Shimshi quotes from a passage from a book written by Herman Wouk in which the famed author describes his experience learning Gemara (even more interestingly, it was daf yomi) with physicist Richard Feynman (see here for another interview with a Jewish author, but beware of the untznius picture of her and here's an interview with the Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l).

Avakesh details three views on the Kabbalistical concept of Tsimtsum.

In discussion the divinely-ordained war against the Midianites, this radical blogger has written a post entitled "Unholy War."This was my comment that never passed the moderation: You said: "Serious students of Torah cannot fail to notice, for instance, that a very different portrayal of Midian is offered in the book of Exodus, where Moses finds refuge in Midian, marries a Midianite woman and seeks serious counsel from his father-in-law Jethro, the Midanite High Priest." The Midianites were always treacherous peoples, your proof offered from Jethro proves nothing about the Midianites. The Midrash says (Exodus Rabbah 1:32) that Jethro was ostracized from the mainstream Midianite community, so he and his family lived alone. Furthermore, even in that passage in Exodus, the Torah discusses the Midianite shepherds who were harassing the daughters of Jethro. Don’t try to argue that the Midianites were undeserving of the decree which G-d put upon them. How dare you call a war commanded by G-d Himself an “Unholy War”, on the contrary, you should have titled this post “Holy War!”?

Rabbi Lazy Brody discusses marrying one's cousin or niece.

Heichal HaNeginah presents the story of the Bobover Rebbe zt"l.

So it turns out that the famous story of Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlit"a outcomputing a computer is false.

The artist formerly known as the Godol HaDor, has been busying himself attempting to formulate a new type of theology. Of course, it failed.

Israel
Interestingly, a Jerusalem-based conservative think tank, which probably itself does not condone feminism, is considering using feminism as a way of breaking the unity amongst Muslims in a new front on the war against terrorism. Similarly, Jewish activists want to start using the term "Jewish refugees" from Muslim countries just as the Arabs use the term "Palistinian Refugees" from Israel. It has begun.

One philosophy says that the proper way to fight terrorism is not to fight their tactics, rather to fight their ideology, what is driving these people to commit acts of terror.

Robert Avrech warns Israel to watch the skies--especially the skies of Persia--for her enemies are numerous and waiting to strike from all sides. This warning should be especially heeded during the month of Av (see these posts about the conflicting themes on Rosh Chodesh Menachem-Av). But Israel doesn't seem to get it! Especially the recently coronated President Shimon Peres. But President Bush doesn't seem to get it either. We should just impeach the guy.

This Zionist compares the Israeli educational television programs for children, to the Palestinian educational television programs for kids.

Israel Zwick has posted information about a video on Islamic violence about the "religion of peace".

An organization in Israel has written a kinah describing the destruction of Gush Katiff. Batya compares the small Israel left after a complete disengagement to a ghetto.

Although this post about the ratio of terrorist Muslims to non-terrorist Moslems was actually submitted, after being introduced to this blog (which is by the way the purpose of ה"ה to introduce people to blogs that may otherwise have been seen), I decided to link to this post, about the truth behind Christian Zionism, as well. He also talks about a Jewish theocracy as does the Rabbi without a cause.

The noble Irina has posted a touching article about humanizing the kidnapped Israeli soldiers who, after a year, are still not yet freed (warning, untznius photos). Another blogger writes about how Israel needs Hamas. Don't worry, NPR botched up their interview with Condi Rice.

There were some interesting archaeological findings in Israel recently.

Pig and Potter are illegal in Israel (or at least on Shabbos and in Netanya, respectively)! Ben-Yehuda has put in his ten agurot buying/reading Harry Potter during the Nine Days. Interestingly, my friend told me that a prominent posek in America has ruled that even according to those opinions who permit reading a book such as Harry Potter ("Chaim Pottervitch"), it is absolutely forbidden to purchase or read this seventh book during the Nine Days. Ben-Yehuda ends of hoping to land a job as an actor for the 2010 Harry Potter movie even though he can't work on Shabbos and Yuntiff, but then again maybe he will get hired and then fired (as a side note, I will actually be flying this week to New York via JetBlue). Yeshiva World reports that in Israel, it will actually be illegal to sell the book on Shabbos, and they will enforce it.

This Arcadi guy seems bent on creating a personality cult--especially amongst Hareidi Jews in Israel. Speaking of Chareidi Jews, they aren't as bad as people make them out to be. Really.

This blogger writes about the "Goldene Medinah" and how people would rather live in the Diaspora than in the Holy Land. And yet the self-hating Israeli government is cutting funding to Nefesh B'Nefesh because they mainly recruit religious Jews for Aliyah.

Reid
In two varieties of religious fanatics, Reb Yudel talks about a man who went from Ivy league grad to ba'al teshuvah to Messianic Christian.

Rabbi Yehuda Henkin points out some silly mistakes made by the Encyclopedia Judaica concerning their entry in his grandfather, Rabbi Eliyahu Henkin. On the same blog, an interesting phenomenon in the frum world is discussed: people printing seforim to give out at weddings.

In an effort to remind us of the upcoming Geulah, this blogger has posted a description of Pesach in Lithuania, behind the iron curtain.

The BBC had decided to agree with anti-semitic propaganda that Bava Metzia is some law that allows Jews to lie to gentiles. In reality, however, Bava Metzia is the name of a tractate of the Talmud and means "Middle Gate", as one can clearly learn from the all-knowing Wikipedia. Incidentally, I also learned from the wiki that the Director of Audio and Music for the BBC is a granddaughter of Rav Chatzkel Abramsky. Oh yeah, and let's also repeat the lie that Zionism is racism.

In describing the significance of this post, mominisreal writes: "Many women have made the commitment to stay in difficult marriages. This blog was started so that they can find and support each other. Please help by posting a link on your own blog. Thanks, Mom in Israel."Here is a post about lucid dreaming, very appropriate for the Nine Days because King David writes (Psalms 126:1) that after the Ultimate Redemption, the exile will seem like a mere dream (he wrote another about Shabbos). I guess this golus is a very realistic dream. (The same blogger wrote this post, but I couldn't understand what he was saying in it.)World Zionist leaders have finally admitted what Hollywood screenwriter Ben Hecht and Rabbi Michel Ber Weissmandel have been telling us for years about the Holocaust.

While some of us are mourning the destruction of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, others are bemoaning the destruction of a maon (pun intended) in the settlements.

The Argentinian Jewish community has asked their government to cut ties with Iran.

AidelMaidel, who has been going through so much over the past few years, is going through more. May HaShem speedily heal her husband. Remember, the power of davening for others can cause one's own prayers to be answered.

This blog offers some resources for those planning a bar/bat mitzvah.

Zchus Avos writes about the genealogy of Rabbi Lazer Brody, based on this post. This blogger also discusses Rav Lazer's post.

In an effort to stop U.S. jails from brewing extremist Muslims, the federal government had decided that only 150 pre-approved books for each religion will stock in prison libraries. Missing amongst the Jewish books include the Zohar and the Rambam. Some inmates have already filed suit.

Should one hide mental ilness for the puposes of Shidduchim? Speaking of Shidduchim, YeshivaWorld has a story about marrying a Ba'al Teshuva. Speaking of marriage, he's a post on planned parenthood.

Rivkah is davening, nay, pleading, that HaShem answers her prayers.

This post is so funny because it is actually an accurate description of my own mother. Does counting sheep really help one fall asleep???

DixieJew discusses the pros and cons of anonymous blogging. The celebrated Jewish copyright lawyer, Ronald Coleman, has legalistically figured out a way to stop anonymous blogging and this is by getting the SEC involved, because it is a potential risk that anonymous bloggers can reveal insider information about companies.

The sister carnivals to ה"ה has posted the newest edition of the Kosher Cooking Carnival #20 and the newest edition (untznius pictures) of J Pix #12. I don't know who the next host of ה"ה will be, but you can find more information here.

*=As I wrote in my previous ה"ה post, due to controversy regarding the proper transliteration of this phrase, the author has chosen to leave it in its pure Hebrew form as intended by King Solomon in his famous work “Ecclesiastes” included in the recent compendium known as “Tanakh”.

The Kingdom of Moses and Joshua

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:20:00 +0000

Maimonides rules[1] that the Jews are commanded to appoint a king over themselves once they enter the land of Israel, as the Torah says, "Thou shalt put over yourselves a king.[2]" However, Maimonides[3] and Rashi[4] rule in accordance with the Talmudic passage, which said that Moses was the King of Israel[5]. Indeed, the Midrash says[6] that when the Torah refers to the "King in Jeshurun"[7] the reference is to Moses[8]. The reign of Moses occurred before the Jews entered the land of Israel, yet Maimonides ruled that the commandment of appointing a king is only in the land of Israel. Furthermore, in many instances Moses did not act regally, rather he acted in a fashion unbefitting of a king, so it is difficult to explain that Moses was the King of the Israelites. Furthermore, assuming that Moses was a king, what then was the status of Joshua; was he a king as well? The Midrash says[9] that King Saul was the first Israelite king. This clearly implies that Moses and Joshua were not actually kings of Israel. Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein explains[10] that although Moses and Joshua had the halachik status of kings, in reality, they did not act like kings and did not present themselves as such.

Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik (1886-1959) explains[11], according to Maimonides, just as Moses was a king[12] and Supreme Justice in the Sanhedrin[13], so too Joshua was a king[14] and the Supreme Justice in the Sanhedrin[15]. Rabbi Soloveitchik writes that this explains why Moses was commanded[16] to lean his hands upon Joshua as Rabbinic ordination, for such ordination is required for one to serve as a judge on the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Yisroel Moshe Finkelstein[17] says that in describing the role of Joshua, Nachmanides[18] writes that Joshua was a "ruler" (moshel), but not necessarily a king (Melech), yet elsewhere, Nachmanides writes[19] that Moses blessed the tribe of Joseph that they should merit raising a King of Israel, and Joshua was that Josephian King of Israel[20]. Rabbi Finkelstein reconciles the seeming contradiction by explaining that initially Joshua was only appointed by Moses to lead the Israelites in the capacity of a "ruler", however, once he was led his people into the land of Canaan, they decided to promote his status from "ruler" to "king". Thus, according to Nachmanides, before entering the land of Israel, Joshua was only a "ruler", but afterwards, he was a "king" as well[21].

Rabbeinu Nissim explains[22] that the power that the Sanhedrin, or any rabbinical court, has to execute the death penalty stems from the king's power as king to carry out such capital punishment. He further writes[23] that even at a time when there is no king, the Sanhedrin has the powers to execute a sinner because in the absence of a king, the Beis Din assume the executive role of the king, in addition to their judicial role as the court. Thus, he understands that power of Sanhedrin is really a reflection of the powers delegated by the Torah to the king. According to Rabbeinu Nissim, every one of the Judges (from the Book of Judges) served not only as a judge, but also as a king[24]. Therefore, according to Rabbeinu Nissim, Moses and Joshua were not actually kings, they merely the Heads of the Sanhedrin, and as such, they assumed the role of the kings, in the absence of an existing king. Consequently, one can explain that since Moses was not really a king he was allowed to forgo the honor due to him[25]. Rabbeinu Nissim assumes that the powers of the kingship and judicial powers are dependent on each other, but Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik understood in the explanation of Maimonides that they are two independent responsibilities. Rabbi Don Yitzchok Abarbanel (1437-1508) asked[26] on the view of Rabbeinu Nissim that it is not necessarily true to assume that certain powers exist that a king could possess and a court cannot possess, but must use the king's abilities to carry out their assigned tasks.

The Talmud[27] says that the source for the rule that rebelling against a king is punishable by death is the scriptural verse, which states, "Any man whom after you have ruled does not listen to your words which you have commanded, shall be put to death.[28]" This verse was stated by HaShem regarding Joshua's authority. Therefore, the Talmud must have understood that Joshua did indeed have the status of a king. Rabbi Chanoch Zundel of Bialystock explains[29] that Joshua carried a Torah Scroll with him wherever he went, as is the rule with any king. Rabbi Dovid Luria (1798-1855) writes[30] that Maimonides' source for the law that a king must always carry with him a Sefer Torah is the verse, which says,[31] "This book of the Torah shall never leave your mouth." This verse was stated concerning Joshua, which proves that Maimonides understood that Joshua was a king.

The Book of Chronicles mentions[32] the Hagrite wars in which the Reubenites and Gadites prevailed against the Hagarites, without the leadership of King Saul. The Midrash explains[33] that the Scripture does not literally mean King Saul; rather, it means King Joshua, who is called Shaul because he "borrowed" the kingship, but did not establish a royal dynasty passing the kingship to his descendants. Rabbi Zev Wolf Einhorn explains[34] that usually the royal approval is needed in order to wage war, but this war was waged without the approval of Joshua because he was not really a king, the mandate of his kingship only included the responsibility of conquering and dividing the land of Canaan. Thus, Rabbi Einhorn understood that Joshua was not completely a "king" in the full sense of the word[35]. Indeed, Rabbi Epstein writes that Joshua was not anointed with oil in the fashion that other kings were because, unlike other kings, Joshua's progeny never continued his kingship. However, Rabbi Yosef Babad (1801-18740) is not satisfied with this explanation[36] because King Saul also did not establish a dynastic monarch, yet he was anointed with oil[37].

Rabbi Yosef Babad explains that Joshua, although he was a king according to Maimonides, was not anointed with the Oil of Anointment (Shemen HaMishcha) because he was not a king of the Davidic family. Why then was King Saul anointed with such oil if he too was not of the Davidic dynasty? Rabbi Dovid Kimchi (1160-1235) writes[38] that King Saul was not actually anointed with the regular oil used to anoint kings; rather, his oil was different because it had balsam spice in it and, thus, was not pure oil. Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar (1696-1743) answers[39] that the right to the kingship given to King Moses and King Joshua came directly from HaShem, so they did not require to be christened with the smearing of oil to signify their royalty. He understands that the "word of HaShem" was instead of oil for Moses and Joshua's kingship. On the other hand, King Saul's appointment did not come divinely; rather, it came through the people, so the smearing of oil upon his head was required to signify his coronation. However, Rabbi Mordechai Carlebach asks[40], according to this explanation, how one justifies the anointing of King David if he too was chosen directly by G-d and thus should not have been anointed. Rather he proposes another reason as to why Joshua was not anointed and King Saul was, even though both were not members of the Davidic dynasty. He explains that since Joshua was only supposed to be king temporarily and never pass on the kingship to his descendants, his coronation did not require anointment. However, King Saul was initially supposed to be the king and his children were supposed to inherit the title, as well, but since he sinned in the matter of Amalek, so he lost the kingship. Therefore, Maimonides understood that since at the onset King Saul was originally supposed to father the House of Saul, which was destined to rule Israel as a monarchist dynasty, King Saul was initially anointed with oil as an everlasting king; nonetheless, his sin prevented such a dynasty from continuing[41].

However, Nachmanides understands[42] that King Saul was only supposed to be king temporarily from the onset, because it has been predestined since the time of Jacob that the kings would descend from the Tribe of Judah, not Benjamin, accordingly, there is no difference between Joshua and Saul. If both Joshua and Saul were only destined to reign for one generation, then why was Joshua not anointed with oil upon assuming the role of king, but Saul was? Perhaps this is a proof to the view that Nachmanides understood that Joshua was not a king, unlike Maimonides' stance. Alternatively, one can answer that Nachmanides understood like Rabbi Menachem Meiri (1249-1310)[43] who said that King Saul was not anointed as a king; rather, he was merely inaugurated as a governor or officer of some sort, but not as a king. This explains King Saul's anointment, because it was not really an anointment of kingship, it was a mere appointment to a position of power.

The Talmud maintains[44] a rule that a king is not allowed to forgo the honor due to him and Tosafos[45] explain this is because the king's honor is not actually his. Rabbeinu Yonah explains[46] that a king's honor is not really, rather it belongs to the people whom he represents, and therefore he cannot give up his honor because it is a slight to the people's honor, of which he is a personification. Similarly, Rabbi Shmuel Eidels (1555-1631) explains[47] that a king cannot ignore his own honor because the honor due to the kingship is not really his own honor, rather the kingship really belongs to HaShem,[48] and a human king is merely an agent of Above. Since the honor due to a king is really due to HaShem, a human king cannot forgo an honor that is not really his. The Midrash says[49] that when Jethro met up with the Israelites in the desert, Moses himself prepared and served the banquet honoring Jethro. However, the commentaries ask, that if Moses had the status of a king how was he halachikly allowed to serve as a waiter, if doing so is beneath his royal dignity and the Talmud says that a king cannot waive the honor due to him. Rabbi Abraham Maskileison (1788-1848) answers[50] that Moses only had the status of a king after he brought the second pair of tablets down from Mount Sinai[51]; the incident involving Moses waiting on his father-in-law, according to some authorities, occurred before the reception of the Torah at Mount Sinai, when Moses did not yet have the status of a king. However, this does not reconcile the event with the opinion of the others authorities[52] who understand that Jethro's arrival occurred only after the Sinaitic Revelation. Furthermore, Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar writes[53] that Moses was already the King of the Jews in Egypt, so either way he was already king when Jethro arrived. Indeed, if Deuteronomy 33:5 is the source for Moses' royal status, the logic dictates that he would have been king from the time that he "gathered the leaders of the nation", which occurred in Egypt (see Exodus 4:29). Rabbi Pinchas Horowitz (1731-1805) explains[54] that since Moses was not king in the land of Israel, rather he was king of Israel in the Sinaic desert, his kingship was not a fulfillment of the positive commandment of appointing a king. Therefore, even though he had the status of a king, since his kingship was not a fulfillment of the commandment, then the rule that a king may not waive the honor due to him did not apply to Moses. Rabbi Horowitz understands that that rule is applicable only to a king whose reign is a fulfillment of the Biblical precept of appointing a king.

When Eldad and Meidad were prophesying in the encampment, Joshua wanted to "confiscate" the power prophecy from the brothers because Joshua looked at the brothers as rebelling against King Moses, who until then was the prophet. However, when he asked Moses, Moses told him not to do so, for all of HaShem's people are prophets[55]. Nachmanides writes[56] that when Moses said this, he was forgoing his rights to honor. Nachmanides must have learned like Rabbi Pinchas Horowitz that, although Moses was a king, since his kingship was not a fulfillment of the Biblical precept of appointing a king because it was in the Diaspora, Moses was allowed to surrender the honor that he is owed. Later on, Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar writes[57] that when Miriam spoke slander about Moses, she was still punished despite the fact that Moses forgave her because since Moses was a king, he was not allowed to forgive any slights to his honor. Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar obviously did not learn like Rabbi Pinchas Horowitz because according to Rabbi Horowitz the rule about a king not giving up his honor did not apply to Moses. It is indeed difficult to explain how Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar understood the law about a king not being allowed to relinquish the honor due to him[58].

A passage in the Talmud also seems to argue against the novel interpretation of Rabbi Pinchas Horowitz. The Talmud asks[59] how King Agrippa was allowed to praise a newly married bride if praising such a woman was beneath his dignity and a king is not allowed to give up the honor due to him. The Talmud answers that King Agrippa only praised the newlywed at a crossroads in such a fashion that it was not easily recognizable by the masses that he afforded the woman honor. Now, King Agrippa was a scion of the Herodian dynasty, which in the eyes of halacha, took the kingship of Judea illegitimately, and Tosafos even say[60] that King Agrippa was not even Jewish and therefore did not deserve the throne, yet the Talmud still assumed that he was not allowed to give up his honor. To explain this, Tosafos[61]say that although appointing Agrippa as king was halachikly unacceptable, ex post facto that he was appointing the king, all laws applicable to a king are in effect[62], so the Talmud asked how he praised the bride. From here, one sees not like the words of Rabbi Pinchas Horowitz because according to Rabbi Pinchas Horowitz since the ascent of King Agrippa to the throne was not a fulfillment of the commandment of appointing a king, then King Agrippa should have justifiably been allowed to surrender the honor due to him[63].

Rabbi Malkiel Tzvi HaLevi Tenenbaum of Lomza (1847-1910) offers[64] an explanation to the question of the Talmud concerning King Agrippa. He explains that only those kings who were appointed by people cannot waive the honor, which is supposed to be accorded to them. This is because since the people elected this king, they will naturally begin to disparage him because they will feel that they are in charge, and not he. Therefore, Halacha says that in order to counter this effect, honor is forced upon the king—whether he wants it or not—so that the masses will not demean the kingship. However, if a king is chosen divinely or chosen because he has some glaringly obvious qualities over the rest of the nation, then such a king is allowed to forgo his rights to honor because the masses will respect him anyways. Therefore, says Rabbi Tenenbaum, King Agrippa, who was chosen and loved by the masses, was not allowed to surrender his honor, so the Talmud asked how he praised the bride and had to answer he did so in a way that he did not degrade himself. However, Moses, who was divinely chosen as the King of Israel, was allowed to give up his own honor, and therefore was justified in serving the banquet to honor his father-in-law, Jethro[65]. Rabbi Yosef Chaim Shneur Kotler (1918-1982) also makes this distinction explaining[66] that the kingdoms of Moses and Joshua were different from that of the other kings because Moses and Joshua were chosen directly by HaShem, while other kings were chosen by the people.

Rabbi Shneur Kotler explains that Samuel was a king in the same way that Moses and Joshua were. The Midrash[67] says that just as Moses ruled over all of Israel and Judea, so too the prophet Samuel ruled over all of Israel and Judea[68]. Indeed, the Talmud says[69] that Samuel reigned over the Jewish people for ten years alone and for two years, he was co-regent with King Saul. After the Jews requested from the Prophet Samuel to have a king lord over them, HaShem told Samuel, "It is not only you whom they are disgusted with, and rather it is Me as well.[70]" HaShem viewed the request for a king as a rebellion against not only Himself, but against Samuel as well. Rabbi Shneur Kotler explains[71] that this was because Samuel was already a king and requesting from him a king was akin to rejecting Samuel's pre-existing kingship. Rabbi Chaim Palagi (1788-1868) writes[72] that the Zohar understood that Samuel was not a king, because if he were a king, then the Jews would not have asked from his to establish a Jewish monarchy. However, according to Rabbi Kotler, he was a king, and that request was viewed by HaShem as an affront to Samuel's kingship. (The Midrash also says that Abraham was a king.[73])

Rashi[74] understands that a king is not allowed to abstain from honor due to him because by abstaining from such honor, he is actually abstaining from the kingship and would thus temporarily lose his position as king[75]. According to Rashi, perhaps one can explain that Moses temporarily relinquished his title of king in order to serve at the banquet honoring his father-in-law and he later took up again that title[76].

Footnotes:
[1] Laws of Kings 1:1
[2] Deuteronomy 17:15
[3] Laws of Beis HaBechirah 6:11 (It is difficult to understand what Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829-1907) meant when he said (Aruch HaShulchan HeUsid Kodshim §13:2) that Maimonides had to specifically say that Moses was a king because this is not found explicitly elsewhere. As one can clearly see below, this concept is stated in other places as well.)
[4] To Shavuos 15a
[5] See Zevachim 102a and Jerusalemic Sanhedrin 1:3
[6] Midrash Tanchuma to Behaaloscha §9
[7] Deuteronomy 33:5
[8] Although, Rabbeinu Bachaya and Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (1093-1167) write (to Deuteronomy 33:5) that Moses was "like a king", which implies that he was not literally a king.
[9] See Leviticus Rabbah §26:7 and the Midrash quoted by Rashi to Numbers 22:7
[10] Aruch HaShulchan HeUsid
[11] Chiddushei HaGriz Al HaTorah (stencil), §156 and Chiddushei HaGriz Al HaTorah, Parshas Vayelech
[12] Zevachim 102a
[13] See Maimonides, Laws of Sanhedrin 1:3
[14] As Maimonides himself writes in Laws of Kings 1:3
[15] This position of the Brisker Rov is disputed by the Brisker Rav's great-grandfather, Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (1817-1893). The latter writes (Emek HaNetziv to Sifri to Numbers 12:1) that Moses was not a king and he writes (Ha'emek She'eila to Sheiltos of Rabbi Achai Gain, Devarim §142:9) that Joshua was not a king, as well. Although Rabbeinu Efraim, a Tosafist, states explicitly that Moses did have the law of a king (see Pirush Rabbeinu Efrayim to Numbers 12:1 printed based on the Cambridge University manuscript).
[16] Numbers 27:18
[17] Torah Ohr on Chiddushei HaGriz Al HaTorah, Parshas Vayelech §3
[18] In the end of his addition to Maimonides' Sefer HaMitzvos
[19] Ramban to Deuteronomy 33:17
[20] Joshua was from the tribe of Efrayim, who was a son of Joseph.
[21] This explanation is not necessarily evident from the wording of Nachmanides in both places because Nachmanides subscribes to the view of Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra who wrote (to Genesis 49:10) that Judah, the son of Jacob, was the first king of the Judean tribe, yet in discussing the rulership of Judah, Nachmanides repeatedly uses moshel and " Melech interchangeably. See Ramban to Genesis 49:10 and Genesis 38:24. Although, see Biur HaGra to Psalms 22:29 who does differentiate between the two terms.
[22] Chiddushei HaRan to Sanhedrin 46a
[23] Drashas HaRan, Drush #11
[24] Rabbi Shneur Kotler wonders (See commentary to Maimonides, Laws of Kings §5. (Printed in Kovetz Oraysa by Yeshivas Derech Chaim in memory of Avinoam Grossman, Teves 5767) whether the judges had the status of kings or not. According to Rabbeinu Nissim, they surely did. Nonetheless, Rabbi Kotler attempts to prove from the fact that no Judge was succeeded by his son that the right to be a judge was not inheritable like the right to rule as a king.
[25] This explanation of Rabbeinu Nissim does not justify the stance of Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar because according to this explanation Moses should have been allowed to forgive Miriam, yet Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar wrote above that he could not.
[26] Abarbanel to Deuteronomy 17:8
[27] Sanhedrin 49a
[28] Joshua 1:18
[29] See Eitz Yosef to Genesis Rabbah §6:9
[30] Chiddushei HaRadal to Genesis Rabbah §6:9
[31] Joshua 1:8
[32] Chronicles 1 5:10
[33] Genesis Rabbah §98:!5
[34] Maharzu to Genesis Rabbah §98:!5
[35] See Divrei HaYamim (pg. 408-411) by Rabbi Moshe Eisemann who offers another approach to this discussion (Published by Artscroll/Mesorah Publications Ltd.)
[36] Hagahos Minchas Chinuch to Maimonides, Laws of Kings 1:3 (printed in Sefer Likutim in the Rabbi Shabsai Frankel edition of Maimonides' work) which is also quoted in a footnote in the Machon Yerushalayim edition of Minchas Chinuch, #497
[37] See Maimonides, Laws of Kings 1:7
[38] Radak to Samuel 1 10:1
[39] Ohr HaChaim to Numbers 27:23
[40] Chavatzeles HaSharon to Numbers 27:23
[41] This is according to the understanding of Tosafos Yeshanim to Yoma 22b that initially King Saul was supposed to pass on the kingship to his descendants, but his sin prevented such a thing from happening.
[42] Ramban to Genesis 49:10
[43] Beis HaBechirah to Horayos 10b
[44] Sotah 41b
[45] To Sanhedrin 19a
[46] Sanhedrin 19a
[47] Maharsha to Kiddushin 32b
[48] See Psalms 22:29
[49] Mechilta, Parshas Yisro §1:13
[50] Mitzpeh Eisan to Kiddushin 33b
[51] Rabbi Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk (1843-1926) also writes (Meshech Chochmah to Exodus 18:14) that Moses had the status of a king only after the Sinaitic Revelation, although he does not specify from the time of the acceptance of the second tablets as Rabbi Maskileison does. Rabbi Chizkiyah ben Manoach writes (Chizkuni to Deuteronomy 33:5) that Moses attained the status of king from the time that he received the first pair of tablets on Mount Sinai. At Mount Sinai, Moses gathered the tribes of Israel (Deuteronomy 4:10), so Deuteronomy 33:5 says he became king when gathering the leaders of the nation.
[52] Zevachim 116a
[53] Ohr HaChaim to Exodus 6:13 and Exodus 27:20
[54] Sefer HaMakneh to Kiddushin 32b
[55] Numbers 11:25-29
[56] Ramban to Numbers 11:28
[57] Ohr HaChaim to Numbers 12:11
[58] He cannot hold like Rabbi Shmuel Eidels and the opinion that Jethro join with the Israelites before the Sinaitic Revelation, and thus before Moses became a king, because, as mentioned above, he understood that Moses was a king over the Israelites in Egypt.
[59] Kesubos 17a
[60] See Tosafos to Yevamos 45b
[61] To Kesubos 17a, see also Chiddushei HaRa'ah to Kesubos 17a
[62] Although, see Bava Basra 3a which implies that King Herod did not have the halachik status of a king, only of a Nasi (roughly translated as "President").
[63] Indeed Rabbi Horowitz himself addresses this issue (Hafla'ah to Kesubos 17a) and purports that the words of Tosafos are inexplicable. They are only inexplicable according to Rabbi Horowitz's own explanation of the issue in Sefer HaMakneh to Kiddushin 32b
[64] Responsa Divrei Malkiel Volume 2, §73
[65] The stance of Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar cannot be explained like Rabbi Malkiel Tzvi Tenenbaum because by the latter's reasoning Moses would have been allowed to forgo his honor because he was appointed as king by HaShem, yet Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar writes that Moses was not able to forgive his sister Miriam because he could not relinquish the honor that he was supposed to be accorded.
[66] To Maimonides, Laws of Kings §3. (Printed in Kovetz Oraysa by Yeshivas Derech Chaim in memory of Avinoam Grossman, Teves 5767)
[67] Yalkut Shimoni to Jeremiah §292
[68] See also Maharzu to Numbers Rabbah to Numbers 15:13
[69] Temurah 15a
[70] Samuel 1 8:7
[71] To Maimonides, Laws of Kings §5. (Printed in Kovetz Oraysa by Yeshivas Derech Chaim in memory of Avinoam Grossman, Teves 5767)
[72] Nefesh Chaim, the letter Shin, §102
[73] See Yalkut Shimoni to Parshas Vayera §96
[74] As explained by Rabbi Betzalel Ashkenazi in Shittah Mekubetzes to Kesubos 17a
[75] Similarly, Rashi explains (Kerisos 5b) that when the Talmud says that a Davidic King only requires anointment from the Oil of Anointing if his kingship is disputed, this is because when there is a dispute of the kingship, all disputants lose their status as king so a new anointing is required.
[76] This explanation also does not explain Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar because according to this reasoning, Moses should have suspended his status as king temporarily in order to pardon Miriam his sister.

Building the Third Holy Temple

noreply@blogger.com (Reb Chaim HaQoton) — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:41:00 +0000

On the surface, there is a halachik argument between two great Torah sages over one of the most important tenets of Judaism: The Third Holy Temple. Rashi[1] understands[2] that the Third Holy Temple is already completed in its construction and is waiting in Heaven for HaShem to allow it to descend to the Earth. However, Maimonides ruled that the Third Holy Temple will be built by the Jewish people because he describes[3] the exact measurements and dimensions to be used in building the Third Holy Temple. Although seemingly these two great sages are indeed disputing an issue which is very essential to the doctrine of the Jewish theology, others go to great lengths to prove that Rashi and Maimonides are not at all arguing with each other.

In attempting to understand the view of Rashi, Rabbi Yerucham Fishel Perlow tries[4] to find Rashi's source for his assertion that HaShem Himself already built the Third Holy Temple in the Heavens. Within the Talmud's list[5] of things which HaShem created before the world was created, the Talmud includes the Holy Temple. One must assume that this refers to the Third Holy Temple, for the first two Holy Temples were clearly built by human hands[6]. However, this cannot be the source of Rashi's assumption that HaShem has already built the Holy Temple, because Rabbeinu Nissim[7] explains that the Talmud does not mean that HaShem actually created all those things before the creation of the world, rather from that time, He planned on creating them later. Furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer ben Samuel of Metz (d. 1175)[8] explains that the Talmud does not mean that HaShem actually created the Holy Temple before the creation of the world, rather the Talmud means that HaShem prepared the site upon which the Holy Temple will eventually stand before the creation of the world. Additionally, the Midrash[9] understands that the Holy Temple in the Heavens was created before the creation of the world, but not the Earthly Holy Temple[10].

Rabbi Perlow says that when the Midrash[11] says that HaShem will build the Third Holy Temple with wisdom, understanding, and knowledge—the same components used by Betzalel to build the Tabernacle[12]—this does not necessarily refer to the actual building of the Temple. Rather, he understands that this Midrash refers to the fact that at a certain time, HaShem will grant His nation the Divine permission needed to rebuild the Temple. Thus, Rabbi Perlow concludes that this is not the source of Rashi; rather his source is another: The Midrash[13] explains that when the Psalmist[14] praised HaShem by saying[15], "Through the works of Your hand, I shall sing", he was referring to the Holy Temple. This implies that HaShem Himself will build the Holy Temple, for the Psalmist refers to the Holy Temple as "the works of Your [HaShem's] hand." This Midrash is the source for Rashi's assertion that the Holy Temple will be build by HaShem Himself.

The Midrash relates[16] that in the days of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanina, the Roman government gave the Jews permission to rebuild the Holy Temple. The Jews then began to build the Temple, but when the slanders slandered the Jewish nation and the permission was rescinded, the Jews had to stop the reconstruction of the Temple. This Midrash explicitly writes that the Third Holy Temple will be built through a physical construction by people, not divinely by HaShem. Rabbi Perlow uses this Midrash to question the validity of Rashi's stance.

Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger (1798-1871) infers[17] from the daily prayers in which one beseeches, "It should be the will of HaShem, our G-d and the G-d of our forefathers, that He should build the Holy Temple speedily and in our days"[18] that the Holy Temple will actually have a physical construction. He arrived at this conclusion because of the usage of the expression "He should build" instead of "He should reveal". Based on this assumption, Rabbi Ettlinger asks on Rashi's understanding that if the Third Holy Temple is already built by HaShem and is awaiting in the Heavens for its descent into the Earth, then why do we ask for Him to build the Holy Temple. Despite this question, one can argue that the expression used in the daily prayers implies that HaShem Himself will build the Temple, which is actually a proof to the view of Rashi.

Rabbi Yoelish Teitelbaum (1887-1979) offers[19] a proof to the opinion of Rashi: the Psalmist writes[20], "HaShem builds Jerusalem". One can argue that this verse is a proof to the opinion of Rashi that He Himself will rebuild of Jerusalem. Indeed the Zohar teaches[21] that the first two Holy Temples were able to be destroyed because they were man-made, but the third Holy Temple will be made by HaShem and will last forever. The Zohar then quotes this verse from Psalms to support the idea that HaShem will build the Third Holy Temple. However, it is not necessarily a proof to Rashi because Rabbi Dovid Kimchi (1160-1235) seems[22] to disagree with the proof cited in the Zohar from the verse in Psalms and understands that the verse only teaches that HaShem will build Jerusalem, but does not imply the He will actually build the Holy Temple. Thus, the meaning of this verse is not clearly and does not necessarily serve as a proof to Rashi.

After discussing the dispute between Rashi and Maimonides, Rabbi Perlow concludes that there is no definitive implication either way in the words of Rabbi Saadiah Gaon in his enumeration of the six-hundred and thirteen commandments. However, Rabbi Perlow proves from elsewhere[23] that Rabbi Saadiah Gaon understands like Maimonides because Rabbi Saadiah Gaon wrote "the masses will build the walls of the Third Temple". From here, Rabbi Perlow infers that people will build the Temple, not HaShem. Despite Rabbi Perlow's implication from the words of Rabbi Saadiah Gaon that he subscribed to Maimonides' opinion, one can infer the opposite from the words of Rabbi Saadiah Gaon. That is, that Rabbi Saadiah Gaon is saying that the masses will only build the walls of the Holy Temple, but they will not build the entire edifice, rather the rest will be built by HaShem. So perhaps Rabbi Saadiah Gaon understood in a sense like Rashi, not necessarily like Maimonides.

Rabbi Dovid Rappaport (a colleague of Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman with whom he was murdered in the Holocaust) writes[24] that even according to the opinion of Rashi that the Holy Temple will be built by HaShem, the altar in the temple must be built by people. This is because[25] there is a Halacha that the altar must be erected specifically with intent for the mitzvah of offering sacrifices to HaShem. If the altar is assembled at the Temple's site, then it does not require specific intention in its assembly because it is apparent from the action of erecting an altar and from the location of the erection that the altar is done with the proper intentions. However, if it is not being created on the Temple Mount, it requires specific declaration of motives and a divine creation does not qualify as halachikly done with the correct intentions. So, even if the Temple would be created in Heaven like Rashi understood, the altar would have to be erected by humans. However, Rabbi Dovid Kessler points out that in the Mussaf prayers of Rosh Chodesh one says, "And a new altar You should arrange in Zion." In this, one requests that HaShem should create the altar on Mount Zion, so that He can not only build the Holy Temple, but the altar as well.

Maimonides writes[26] that the Messiah will rebuild the Holy Temple. (This is also a Midrash.[27]) In his introduction to Tractate Middos which details the structure of the Second Holy Temple, Maimonides writes that one should learn Tractate Middos in order to know how to build the Third Holy Temple. In this, Maimonides remains consistent with his opinion above that the Third Holy Temple will be built by people, not by HaShem Himself. It is therefore difficult to understand why Rashi[28] also stresses the importance of learning about the structure of the Holy Temple in order to be able to build it properly, if Rashi himself subscribed to the opinion that the Third Holy Temple will not be man-made but actually be built by HaShem. It seems from this Rashi that perhaps Rashi retracted his original opinion that HaShem will build the Temple and agreed to the view Maimonides that the masses will build it.

Some latter-day Rabbis reconcile the differences between Rashi and Maimonides in attempting to explain how they do not actually argue. A famous explanation is cited[29] in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua Leib Diskin (1818-1898) to reconcile the dispute between Rashi and Maimonides. He explains that both Rashi and Maimonides that the Holy Temple will arrive from Heaven already built by HaShem. However, it will not have doors; rather the people will have to find the doors of the First Temple, which have been hidden in the ground[30]. This explains why in the Mussaf services on Yom Tov, the liturgy states, "And He shall show us its building, and we will rejoice in its fixing". The "showing of the building" refers to HaShem revealing the already-built Temple and the "rejoicing in the fixing" refers to those who are going to erect the doors and gates to the Temple from Above.

Similarly, Rabbi Yisroel Lipschutz (1782-1860) explains[31] that people will actually build the Third Holy Temple, but HaShem will somehow assist it in a miraculous fashion, so that the great construction can justifiably be attributed to both the physical builders and HaShem. Reb Moshe Yisrael explains[32] that this is like the words of Rabbi Azariah Mi'Panu (1548-1620) who said[33] that all the components of the First Holy Temple were not destroyed, but rather were hidden and will be revealed later. Accordingly, the miraculous intervention in which HaShem will help build the Third Holy Temple will be through revealing the components of the original Holy Temple in order that the Jews could use those materials to build the future Temple. Rabbi Ovadiah Sforno (1475-1550) also says[34] that the prayer recited before removing the Torah Scroll from the Ark on the Sabbath and Holidays, "Father of Mercy, do good in Your favor unto Zion, build the walls of Jerusalem" means that HaShem should reveal the location of the Temple which still exists, but is currently hidden. Nonetheless, Rabbi Teitelbaum says[35] that the explanation of Rabbi Lipschutz is to be considered a strained explanation.

Instead, Rabbi Ettlinger explains that humans will build the physical construction of the Third Holy Temple and HaShem will construct a Temple which is to serve as the "soul" of the Temple. He understands that the human-made Temple would serve as a "physical body" of some kind for the Temple, while the Temple that will be made in Heaven will serve as a "spiritual soul" for the Temple. However, Rabbi Teitelbaum objects to the existence of two co-existing Holy Temples on different planes of existence, instead he offers a comparable explanation. He says that first the Jews will actually build the Holy Temple in order to fulfill the positive precept of building a Temple[36], and then a spiritual Temple from Above will absorb this physical construction into itself so that only the spiritual Temple built by HaShem will eventually exist. Rabbi Teitelbaum offers another explanation, which is similar to the reasoning offered by Rabbi Moshe Shick (1807-1879)[37]. He says that if the Temple is built before the Messiah arrives, then it will be built by human hands, but if it is built after the arrival of the Messiah, then it will be divinely artichetured. Whether the Temple is built first or the Messiah arrives first is dependent on the cause for the eventual arrival of the Messiah, that is, whether he is coming because the Jewish Nation rightfully deserves the Ultimate Redemption or because the time for the redemption has been reached, even if the Jews are not deserving of it.

The Talmud says[38] that just as HaShem destroyed the Holy Temple through fire[39], so too will He rebuilt it through fire. In a special prayer added to Mincha on Tisha B'Av, one begs HaShem to rebuild the Holy Temple with fire, but when concluding this prayer, one quotes a verse which states that fire will surround the New Temple, but will not necessarily be part of making the Temple. The Rosh Yeshiva explains[40] that this contradiction is actually the answer to the seeming contradiction between Rashi and Maimonides. Really, the Temple will be built by man, as Maimonides rules in practical Halacha, but after the physical construction is finished, the presence of HaShem will come in the form of a fire to conclude the sanctification of the process.

Perhaps one can explain the argument between Rashi and Maimonides in another fashion. In mentioning that HaShem will build the Holy Temple, Elijah the Prophet writes[41] "'as if it is possible', HaShem will build the Holy Temple." The term "as if it is possible", as used in Talmudic and Midrashic literature, is left ambiguous. On one hand, it can mean that what is about to be said is not meant to be taken literally, but rather "as if it was possible", but it is actually impossible to occur. On the other hand, the phrase could mean that what is about to be said is meant to be taken literally "as if it was possible" to understand the exact way that such a thing could be true despite the fact that it might seem impossible to mere mortals. According to Rashi, the fact that HaShem built the future Holy Temple is supposed to be taken literally and "as if it was possible" means "as if it was possible to fully comprehend". While, according to Maimonides, man is destined to build the Holy Temple, and "as if it was possible" means that it is impossible that HaShem would build it, for if the Elijah meant that HaShem would truly build the Temple, he would not have used the phrase "as if it was possible".

Another possible method[42] of reconciling the differences between Maimonides' opinion and the view of Rashi is that Maimonides does not necessarily mean literally that human hands will build the Third Beis HaMikdash. Instead, one can explain that although, the Third Holy Temple will be completely built by HaShem, like Rashi said, the Jews will still learn the laws concerning the building of the Holy Temple and its physical parameters and construction. By learning these laws, especially the tractates Middos and Tamid, it is as if one engaged in the actual building of the Temple, as the Midrash says[43] that learning about the physical measurements and dimensions of the Holy Temple is tantamount to actually building the Holy Temple.

In comparing the first Holy Temple to the second Holy Temple, the Talmud refers[44] to the latter as "the last Temple." This is difficult to understand because the Second Temple was not the last Temple, but was only the middle, for one more is destined to be built/arrive. Some authorities understand based on this passage that the phrase "last" when used in the Torah and Talmud could sometimes not refer to the ultimate but to the penultimate[45]. However, the expression "last" certainly seems to denote the final, not the semi-final. Rather, Rabbi Moshe Sofer (1762-1838) understands[46] that the Second Holy Temple is referred to the last Temple because it is the last in which the actual physical construction of the Temple is the central focus of the sanctuary, for in the Third Holy Temple, the focus will be the Holy Presence of HaShem. Similarly, Rabbi Meir Leibush ben Yechiel Michel Weiser (1809-1879) understands[47] that the heart of the Temple will not be its walls, lintels, or doors; rather it will be the dwelling of the Presence of HaShem. However, according to the explanations of the Sforno, Rema Mi'Panu, and Maharil Diskin that the Third Holy Temple will use the components from the First Holy Temple, the Talmud is justified in calling the Second Holy Temple the last, for the next one after it would merely be re-using the old paraphernalia from the First Holy Temple.

The Targum Onkelos translates[48] "This is my G-d and I shall glorify Him" as "This is my G-d and I shall build for Him a Sanctuary". The Chofetz Chaim, Rabbi Yisroel Meir Kagan (1838-1933), says[49] based on this that every morning when a Jew recites the Song of the Sea, he is accepting upon himself the commandment of building a Temple. How is a person supposed to fulfill this commandment when there is no Temple being built, and furthermore, how was this commandment done even when the Temple was already built, if the Temple was already built? Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv explains[50] that one donated money to the upkeep of the Holy Temple in order to fulfill the commandment of building the Holy Temple. Nowadays, he explains, even though there is no Holy Temple, donating money to a synagogue achieves the same effect because a synagogue in considered a mini-Sanctuary of the Holy Temple[51]. So, by donating money to a synagogue, one fulfills his obligation to "build a sanctuary for HaShem". However, this explanation is difficult to understand, because if the Chofetz Chaim believes that the commandment to "build a sanctuary" applies nowadays in the form of an obligation to donate money to a synagogue, why then did the Chofetz Chaim not list this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvos HaKatzur, if there he lists all commandments which apply in contemporary times including the commandment of "fearing the sanctuary"[52] which he says[53] applies nowadays in the form of having awe for a synagogue?

Rather one must understand that the commandment to build the Holy Temple in present times exists in a different form. Rabbi Sofer explains[54] that the suffering and pain which the mourners of Zion go through is the actual building of the Third Holy Temple. He writes that during the time between Tammuz and Av when Jews gather to publicly mourn the destruction of the Holy Temple, they are preparing the already-being-built city of Jerusalem for its descent onto Earth, and when the building will be completed, HaShem will send it down. This explanation of Rabbi Sofer can be used to understand the famous rabbinic dictum which states, "He who mourns over Jerusalem shall merit to see her [Jerusalem's] happiness"[55]. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994) explains that every Mitzvah that one does is another brick, which is added to the building of the Holy Temple above, and so each Mitzvah brings nearer the arrival of the Messiah. May we all merit to do more Mitzvahs and see the coming of the Messiah, speedily and in our days: Amen.

Footnotes:
[1] Although many other Rishonim concur with the opinion of Rashi on this issue, the opinion expressed first by Rashi will be referred to as "Rashi's" understanding throughout this discussion. Others who agree with Rashi's understanding include Tosafos (Sukkah 41a), Tosafos (Shevuos 15b), Tosafos HaRosh (Sukkah 41a), Ritva (Sukkah 41a), and Rabbeinu Avrohom Min HaHar (Sukkah 41a).
[2] To Rosh HaShannah 30a and Sukkah 41a
[3] Throughout his Laws of the Beis HaBechirah
[4] Sefer HaMitzvos of Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, Positive Commandment #13
[5] Pesachim 54a
[6] The first Holy Temple was built by King Solomon (and remodeled by King Joash), while the second Holy Temple was built by the returnees from the Babylonian exile (and later remolded by King Herod the Great).
[7] Ran to Nedarim 39b
[8] The author of Sefer Yereim, as quoted by the Shittah Mekubetzes to Nedarim 39b
[9] Midrash Tanchuma to Parshas Nasso §11
[10] According to Kabbalah, there is a Holy Temple in the Heavens which corresponds to the Holy Temple in the Earth. The angel Michael is described as its High Priest. This deep Kabbalistic concept is beyond the scope of understanding of the author of this essay.
[11] Exodus Rabbah, Chapter 48
[12] Exodus 35:31
[13] Midrash Tanchuma to Parshas Pekudei §11
[14] The Midrash actually attributes this Psalm to King David, but other Midrashic sources assume that Adam wrote this Psalms in honor of the first Sabbath.
[15] Psalms 92:5
[16] Genesis Rabbah, Chapter 64
[17] Aruch L'Ner to Sukkah 41a
[18] This prayer is recited after each time the Eighteen Benedictions are recited and is recited after the recitation of the description of the sacrifices in the Holy Temple.
[19] VaYoel Moshe, Essay on the Three Oaths (mentioned in Kesubos 111a), §62
[20] Psalms 147:2
[21] Pinchas 221a
[22] Radak to Psalms 147:2
[23] Sefer Emunos V'Deos, Chapter 8
[24] Mikdash Dovid, §1:1
[25] As the Shemous Chaim there explains
[26] Laws of Kings 11:1
[27] Pesikta Zutrisa to Numbers 24:17
[28] To Ezekiel 43:11
[29] See Siach Yitzchok to Siddur HaGra
[30] See Lamentations 2:9
[31] Tiferes Yisroel, Boaz §1 to Tractate Middos
[32] See introduction to responsa Maharsham, Volume 5
[33] Asara Ma'amaros, Ma'amar Chikur Din, Part 1 Chapter 26
[34] Sforno to Psalms 51:20
[35] VaYoel Moshe, Essay on the Three Oaths (mentioned in Kesubos 111a), §61
[36] See Exodus 25:8
[37] Responsa Maharam Shick
[38] Bava Kamma 60b
[39] Kings 2 25:9
[40] Shabbos Parshas Terumah, 5767
[41] Tanna Devei Eliyahu Rabbah, end of Chapter 30
[42] This method is based on a similarly thought shared with my by Alexander Yehuda Schiro on the night of Shavuos, 5767
[43] Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav §14
[44] Bava Basra 3a
[45] For example, see Genesis 33:2 where Jacob puts "Leah and her sons last, and Rachel and Joseph last."
[46] Chasam Sofer to Bava Basra 3a
[47] Malbim to Psalms 51:20
[48] See Exodus 15:2 and Targum Onkelos ad loc.
[49] Chomas HaDas, Chapter 8
[50] Divrei Aggadah to Exodus 15:2
[51] See Megillah 29a
[52] Leviticus 19:30
[53] Sefer HaMitzvos HaKatzur #18
[54] "Drashas/Homilies of the Chasam Sofer" volume 2, page 339b
[55] Bava Basra 60b