Mi-Chutz La-Machane

As we all know, Jews don't agree, pretty much on anything. Nevertheless, despite these disagreements, there's a basic, reluctant willingness to sit together at the same table on Jewish issues. We all consider ourselves part of the same community, for better or worse. All the different groups and factions are pretty much represented in international Jewish bodies and in the Israeli Knesset. At the end of the day, we acknowledge that these other factions are, for better or worse, Jewish factions.

I can think of two, and only two, exceptions that I can think of - groups of Jews that are so thoroughly and unanimously rejected by the rest of the Jewish community, that, though Jewish by birth and supposedly representing 'Jewish' factions, they are simply not given a seat at the Jewish table. Across the board.

The two groups are:
a. Messianic Jews
b. Rabid anti-Zionists like Neturei Karta (and I'd lump Holocaust-denying Jews in with this group as well)

What makes these guys so special?

The Old will be Renewed, and the New will be Sanctified: A Tale of Chanukah

The above quote, from Rav Kook, describes how I felt this past Friday night. As I’ve mentioned before, a very ancient synagogue was unearthed about a five-minute walk from my home. It is set amidst the ruins of what is the most likely candidate for the Hasmonean-era town of Modiin, where many of the events of the Chanukah story are set.

Last night, the first night of Chanukah, we held a Carlebach-style Kabbalat Shabbat in the area adjacent to the fenced-off ruins. I was still feeling to sick to absorb the full impact, though it was still powerful, but many others were speaking of goose bumps and very strong emotions.

The initiative was mine, but it wasn’t much. I sent out some emails and did some word-of-mouth promotion, but it revealed a groundswell of sentiment that was just beneath the surface, waiting to be drawn out. There were probably about 50 of us, men, women, and children, down at the ruins. I can’t say what everyone took away from there, but I took away that our new super-modern ‘city of the future’ must remain aware of its ancient roots.

The impoverished of my people will place their hopes in you, and thus we will rebuild a city upon its ruins

Story about the Kidnapped Baby

There’s a story going around about a 50-year-old guy from Canada who found out from his mother’s will that he was adopted from a Chassidishe family in Bnei Brak. Link.

Now let me make this perfectly clear. I don’t believe this story. Not for a minute. There may have been some Chassidishe couple with lingering doubts about the circumstances of the death of their child. There may have been a Christian Canadian couple who adopted a Chassidishe kid from Bnei Brak.

But there is absolutely no way in hell that some kid was stolen and sold to a Christian family. That’s just ludicrous. I can see that this adopted fellow wanted to do some research, and someone told him about a family that lost a kid under suspicious circumstances. Bingo! What a story! Hey, they even look like they could be brothers!

What probably happened was that some Chassidishe maidele was knocked up by her father/uncle/boyfriend and they had to get the kid as far away as possible. Whether they intended for the child to wind up in Christian hands is another matter, but this family had to do some sweeping under the rug, and they had to do it fast.

Until we see the will, dates, hospital records, and DNA evidence, I am sticking to my guns that this is a composite of two different stories (call them J and E, if you will) that, when combined, play really well into the Satmar narrative.

And since this will be mevurar through DNA testing, beyond the shadow of a doubt, there is absolutely no to'eles in propagating it now. It's not like having this guy on the street is endangering anyone.

Now hear this: if you take this story at face value, but express a ‘healthy skepticism’ about women getting beaten on majority chareidi busses or the existence of pedophiles in your kid’s school, then you are aiding and abetting the reinforcement of destructive stereotypes, be it that ‘frum folks are good’ or ‘frei folks are bad’.

I’m done ranting. That took a lot out of me. Gotta go back to bed. CMV stinks.

Jacob Wanted to Live Peacefully

When we left off last week, Jacob was in a pickle. He understood that he was supposed to have more children through Rachel, but no longer had the ability to do that. How did he deal with that?

Well, perhaps he could have children with another wife, but those children, like Abraham’s later children, would not have been included in the covenant. It would mean that not all of his children would be included in Brit Avot, which was a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Indeed, it was this conclusion that his father and grandfather ultimately drew, though neither without a ‘fight’. Thus, Jacob arrives at a moment in his life where he is ready, like his father and grandfather, to ‘retire’ from the covenant business. After choosing successors, each of them returned to ‘civilian’ life, which passes without incident, and in prosperity. Recall that this was built into the ‘Brit Bein Habetarim’ – that Abraham was promised that he would be a ger from the moment Yitzchak is born, but that at the end of his life he would enjoy his old age. None of the Avot were able to truly ‘enjoy life’ as long as they bore the Abrahamic covenant. They were destined to wander (la-gur).

Thus, at this point in the story, Jacob wishes to ‘retire’. He will elect a successor and then retire from the Covenant business. The first verse says it all – VA-YESHEV Yaavov be-eretz MEGUREI aviv… Jacob SETTLED in the land of his fathers’ SOJOURN. and Rashi comments, so perfectly and succinctly ‘bikesh Yaakov la-shevet be-shalvah’ – Jacob wished to dwell in tranquility. He chose Joseph and retired, thinking he’d live out his days happily. Boy was he wrong.

As a sign of his choice, Jacob gives Joseph the ‘striped coat’ to wear. His brothers hate him and are unable to speak with him. Understandable. Then come the dreams, and they get jealous. The dreams weren’t just about the covenant, the content of ‘Brit Avraham’. They were about earthly domination. They were rooted in the brachot that Jacob wrested from Esau – the blessings of the fat of the land, power, and sovereignty over brothers. Here, already, they had grounds (and precedent) to believe that Dad got the wrong guy. They may have been able to live with one being the covenant-bearer. They couldn’t bear his earthly domination as well. And they therefore decide to put an end to his illusions. As for their father, he’d simply have to pick again.

Jacob, for whatever reason, didn’t think so. When he learns of Joseph’s ‘death’, he is unconsolable. He felt that his own future died with Joseph, and that the covenantal lineage would end there. Note that until Jacob learns that Joseph is alive in Vayigash(45:26-46:4), the covenantal story goes cold. The way Rashi alerts us to this is by saying that Jacob lost his ‘ruach ha-kodesh’ – his Divine spirit.

At the point in the story where Joseph is gone, what does everyone think? At what point does it dawn on anyone that maybe they are ALL covenant-bearers, that maybe Jacob was mistaken about the NEED to choose a single successor. There’s only evidence for two brothers, and it’s the process by which those two brothers are ‘reunited’ to the Israelite family which frames the story until the actual reunion. The two brothers are Joseph and Judah.

Judah goes first. He leaves his family, settles elsewhere, and does the ultimate no-no of anyone who wishes to be considered for the Covenant – he marries a Canaanite woman. This is evidence, clear as day, that Judah had written himself out of the Abrahamic picture (I have an entire approach to the story of Judah, but this is not the time. Od Chazon La-mo’ed). His sons (especially Onan) seem to share his sense of detachment from familial responsibility. Ironically, it is Tamar who brings him around. It is she who teaches him who he is and what his role in the family will be (her communication is through the three items she takes from him, ve-acamol), and that relationships between human beings are not mere ‘transactions’ (it was a cold, calculating Yehuda who suggested the sale, and who ‘transacts’ a relationship with the woman who turns out to be Tamar, ve-acamol). It seems to be Tamar, ostensibly a Canaanite woman (though the Midrash maintains that she was the daughter of Shem ben Noach, i.e., of the right family), who first becomes aware that the destiny of this family is still intact – including all brothers.

Joseph, obviously, was a tougher sell. It’s unclear, beginning to end, what Joseph’s ‘plan’ was with the brothers, but one thing seems clear. HE DIDN’T WANT TO GO BACK TO HIS FATHER’S FAMILY. And why would he? They sold him! Was Dad in on it? Maybe. Either was, he wants to move on. He gets married to a local girl (who the Midrashim again, amazingly, retrofit to the right family, in this case turning her into Joseph’s own niece) and starts his own family. And he calls his first son Menashe because ‘Elokim made me forget all of my toil and ALL OF MY FATHER’S HOUSE’! At what point does Joseph decide to ‘return’ to the family? Unclear. I believe that it’s not until he can ‘no longer hold himself back’ – but my reason will wait for another time. Until then, he was planning on getting Binyamin away from them and sending them off. He was not figuring that the brothers would band together like they did, and he responded in kind.

It was at this point that Jacob, too, comes around and recognizes that his sojourn had never been complete (see his conversation with Pharaoh) and that his own destiny is in fact the destiny of a family and a nation, and not of an individual.

The Ganze Mishpocha

My paternal grandmother, a”h, was the youngest of 15 children. Although much of her family perished in the Holocaust, a significant number escaped or survived and made it to the U.S. or Israel. By now, it’s extremely difficult to keep track of the entire family (I have enough trouble keeping in touch with my own sisters), especially since there are very few people left who bear the family name, Mihaly (of Michaeli). Obviously, none of my grandmother’s descendants bear that name.

Nevertheless, the Mihaly family, descendants of my grandmother’s father, is very large and very, very diverse. Greg is a member of the Mishpocha as well – his wife is my second cousin once removed. Needless to say, the fact that we consider ourselves ‘cousins’ is more ‘cutesy’ than anything else. It’s like a novelty item.

Anyhow, Greg pointed out (and I had no idea, though my father recognized the name right away) that Judith Glassgold, Psy.D., who contributed the appendix to the recently approved Conservative Responsum on Homosexuality, is a Mihaly as well: my second cousin. While discussing heterodox family members, the late Rabbi Prof. Eugene Mihaly (RIETS musmach) of HUC was my father’s first cousin.

Oh, and occasional commenter Yaakov – you know that you’re mishpocha as well. You and Greg are third cousins. Dr. Glassgold, Psy.D., is second cousins with your mother, Psy.D. They would both probably come in handy if there was ever a family reunion, which there won’t be (the last time all 19 of my grandmother’s grandchildren were together was at her funeral 12 years ago. Two of my grandmother’s great-grandchildren are in seminary together this year, and didn’t even know each other beforehand.) Anyhow, this is more about interesting connections than about any kind of specious claims to yikhes. For all I know, my alter-zayde Aryeh was a horse-thief, though I know of at least 10 people named for him, and have occasionally introduced two to each other (Arnie, meet Arthur, you’re cousins and named for the same man). For example, Yaakov’s brother, z”l, and yblch”t, Greg’s father-in-law, share that man’s name. This is what makes being the awkward distant relative at a chasanah fun.

R’ Yochanan and Resh Lakish, R’ Chaim Hirshenson, and R’ Chaim Brill

In case you missed it, there was quite the discussion over a particular reading of the Gemara in Bava Metzia 84a, which discusses the relationship between R’ Yochanan and Resh Lakish. The proposed reasings can be found here, here, and here, but don’t neglect the comments here.

My own contribution here won’t really be my own, as I’m simply resurrecting a long-forgotten contribution that I happened to chance across. It appears on p. 18 of R’ Hirshenson’s book ‘Motza’ei Mayim’, which is essentially a commentary on the Rabbah Bar Bar Chanah stories of Bava Batra 63ff, but which includes much tangential writing, including an expanded exposition of the political positions of Rbb”C, Resh Lakish, R’Yochanan, and R’ Yehuda, all of whom engage each other in political dialogue on the pages of the Talmud. Here is what he writes about Resh Lakish (the original will be appended to the end of this post). Although it doesn’t address the continuation of the story, there’s enough here to completely turn the aggadah and its meaning on its head. Also, from my own observation, it’s impossible to understand this Gemara without relating to the nearly-identical Rabban Gamliel/Rabbi Eliezer story in Bava Metzia 59b:

The opinion of my close friend, the wise, honorable, noble-spirited, humble Rabbi Chaim Brill, may his light continue to shine, from St. Petersburg, which appears is his book ‘The Story of Resh Lakish’, is not far-fetched. The aggadah records that Resh Lakish was a bandit who left his banditry because R’ Yochanan promised his sister. However, Resh Lakish was not an everyday bandit, rather, there were nationalist groups which formed military bands (?) to assist Rome in its war against the (Sassanid – AR) Persians with the promise that Rome would rebuild the Beit Hamikdash for Israel. Because of this, Resh Lakish says to R’ Yochanan, “They called me Rabbi there, and they call me Rabbi here”, because even those who the Rabbis called ‘bandits’ genuinely considered Resh Lakish to be their ‘Rabbi’ because they intended their actions for the betterment of all Israel. However, they displeased the Rabbis because they wasted to ‘rise like a wall’, or because the Rabbis feared that the magi would avenge Jewish alliance with Rome by pouring their wrath upon the Jews of Babylonia, Persia, and Medea. Thus, the Rabbis called them ‘bandits’.

Even though we are lacking many details, leaving this as no more than a hypothesis, it seems that there’s much truth to it. What the Talmud reports, “Anyone with whom Resh Lakish would chatter on the street was trusted in business deals even without witnesses”, this, perforce, was even when he ‘was called Rabbi over there’, because the masses were with him and accepted his opinion, and Rabbinic opposition to them was regarded as contemporary opposition by extreme Charedim to Zionism.

In this debate, R’ Yochanan’s accusation of Resh Lakish as a ‘bandit’ is much less personal and much more political, and the value of the machloket between them takes on a much different character, and the inability of R’ Yochanan to find another suitable chavruta far more central to the story.

Oleh Choleh

A common phenomenon in Israel is what’s known as “Oleh Choleh” – literally, ‘sick immigrants’. It takes a while for immigrants to develop immunity to Israeli strains of common bacteria and viruses, and, especially for families with kids in schools, these bugs run through these immigrant families like wild.

We’ve gone through this, too. There hasn’t been a week where we haven’t been to see some doctor or another. Currently, I have a mono-like virus called CMV. It stinks. I’m exhausted, cold, weak, etc. It’s driving the Rebbetzin crazy. But hey – at least I’m not missing work.

The Second Revelation at Beit El

Jacob experienced 2 separate revelations at Beit El – the first on his way out of the Land of Canaan, and the second on his way back in. The first set the tone for his departure – God assured Jacob that He would protect him and return him safely to the land. The second (35:9-15) is far more crucial to the Patriarchal Covenant. The covenant centers around two central elements – eretz and zera – the land and children. It is only upon Jacobs return that he establishes beyond all doubt that he is the heir to the covenant. He receives the aboriginal bracha of piryah ve-rivyah and the promise of the land. The evidence is strengthened in that soon after this revelation, the Torah records the death of Yitzchak (again, not chronological; a simple calculation yields that Yitzchak didn’t die until 12 years after Joseph’s disappearance) and the progeny of Esav, before beginning the tale of ‘Toldot Yaakov’ at the beginning of Va-Yeshev.

What’s often overlooked is that the remainder of Jacob’s life is totally affected by his understanding of the bracha, at least as much as the first revelation set the tone for Jacob’s sojourn in Aram.

The bracha of peru u-revu means multiple children – always has, always will. After receiving this revelation, Jacob understands that he will have at least 2 more children. Also, each of his ancestors had a single wife through whom the covenant passed, even though they may have had multiple wives.

Immediately after the revelation (35:16-20), Rachel gives birth, but dies. It is more than clear that Jacob understood that the covenant would pass through Rachel, and that he expected another child from her. He renames the child born ‘Son of my right’. He was clearly expecting a son for the left as well. Don’t believe me? Read Bereishit 48:3-14. The entire story comes to a close there with Menashe becoming the long awaiting ‘Son of the left’. Notice that Jacob’s speech there begins with the second revelation that he received at Beit El.

construction zone

i'm in the process of upgrading to the new version of blogger. reatures will be restored shortly.