ז,יב והיה עקב תשמעון, את המשפטים האלה, ושמרתם ועשיתם, אתם--ושמר יהוה אלהיך לך, את-הברית ואת-החסד, אשר נשבע, לאבתיך
לכאורה there is a serious problem with the assertion in the pasuk. It would seem from the pasuk that הקב"ה is saying (I'm paraphrasing for brevity) "If you will be good then I'll keep to the ברית I committed to with אברהם"... The problem being that seemingly nowhere in ברית אברהם was anything stipulated regarding our שמירת מצוות! You can't go back on the terms of a deal/ברית?! Look carefully at the following:
טו,יח ביום ההוא, כרת יהוה את-אברם--ברית לאמר: לזרעך, נתתי את-הארץ הזאת, מנהר מצרים, עד-הנהר הגדל נהר-פרת. יז,א ויהי אברם, בן-תשעים שנה ותשע שנים; וירא יהוה אל-אברם, ויאמר אליו אני-אל שדי--התהלך לפני, והיה תמים. יז,ב ואתנה בריתי, ביני ובינך; וארבה אותך, במאד מאד. יז,ג ויפל אברם, על-פניו; וידבר אתו אלהים, לאמר. יז,ד אני, הנה בריתי אתך; והיית, לאב המון גוים. יז,ה ולא-יקרא עוד את-שמך, אברם; והיה שמך אברהם, כי אב-המון גוים נתתיך. יז,ו והפרתי אתך במאד מאד, ונתתיך לגוים; ומלכים, ממך יצאו. יז,ז והקמתי את-בריתי ביני ובינך, ובין זרעך אחריך לדרתם--לברית עולם: להיות לך לאלהים, ולזרעך אחריך. יז,ח ונתתי לך ולזרעך אחריך את ארץ מגריך, את כל-ארץ כנען, לאחזת, עולם; והייתי להם, לאלהים. יז,ט ויאמר אלהים אל-אברהם, ואתה את-בריתי תשמר--אתה וזרעך אחריך, לדרתם. יז,י זאת בריתי אשר תשמרו, ביני וביניכם, ובין זרעך, אחריך: המול לכם, כל-זכר. יז,יא ונמלתם, את בשר ערלתכם; והיה לאות ברית, ביני וביניכם. יז,יב ובן-שמנת ימים, ימול לכם כל-זכר--לדרתיכם: יליד בית--ומקנת-כסף מכל בן-נכר, אשר לא מזרעך הוא. יז,יג המול ימול יליד ביתך, ומקנת כספך; והיתה בריתי בבשרכם, לברית עולם. יז,יד וערל זכר, אשר לא-ימול את-בשר ערלתו--ונכרתה הנפש ההוא, מעמיה: את-בריתי, הפר.
At best we only find a committal on our part to (a) ברית מילה and possibly (b) להיות לך לאלהים (I'll come back to this). So where is there any mention of us having to keep mitzvos in order for הקב"ה to fulfill what he agreed with אברהם?!
The answer in my opinion is as follows: Pr' Ekev is not discussing the terms of the ברית אברהם, that's in לך לך. Pr' Ekev is discussing what's necessary to be (and meet the stipulated criteria of) "לזרעך אחריך".
[See Yevamos 42a להבחין בין זרעו של ראשון לבין זרעו של שני that לזרעך אחריך is a proactive obligation i.e. to ensure the specific jewish lineage can be traced back to Avraham individually (hence it's not enough to know the baby's father is jewish, we must know who that father is.) Also see Yevamos 64a להיות לך לאלהים ולזרעך אחריך בזמן שזרעך אחריך שכינה שורה אין זרעך אחריך על מי שורה על העצים ועל האבנים]
That's then how Chazal and Rashi know that the phrase להיות לאלהים by Yaakov is in terms of שמירת פסול זרע:
"והיה ה' לי לאלהים" - שיחול שמו עלי מתחלה ועד סוף שלא ימצא פסול בזרעי כמ"ש אשר דברתי לך והבטחה זו הבטיח לאברהם שנאמר להיות לך לאלהים ולזרעך אחריך (לעיל יז) (זרעך מיוחס שלא ימצא בו שום פסול)
Hence thats why the word עקב ("by consequence of") is used and not כי ("because"). By consequence of your having kept the מצוות of the תורה you'll then be considered as לזרעך אחריך whereby you will be bestowed upon the blessings of להיות לך לאלהים because of Hashem's commitment to אברהם.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Etymology: Shag, שגל
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Tally's Corner - excerpts
I just really liked the eloquence of these various excerpts from Tally's Corner by Elliot Liebow. Resonates with me.
"But the streetcorner man lives in a sea of want. He does not, as a rule, have a surplus of resources, either economic or psychological. Gratification of hunger and the desire for simple creature comforts cannot be long deferred. Neither can support for one's flagging self-esteem. Living on the edge of both economic and psychological subsistence, the streetcorner man is obliged to expend all his resources on maintaining himself from moment to moment."
"It is a future in which everything is uncertain except the ultimate destruction of his hopes and the eventual realization of his fears."
"Convinced of their inadequacies, not only do they not seek out those few better-paying jobs which test their resources, but they actively avoid them, gravitating in a mass to the menial, routine jobs which offer no challenge-- and therefore pose no threat-- to the already diminished images they have of themselves"
"But the streetcorner man lives in a sea of want. He does not, as a rule, have a surplus of resources, either economic or psychological. Gratification of hunger and the desire for simple creature comforts cannot be long deferred. Neither can support for one's flagging self-esteem. Living on the edge of both economic and psychological subsistence, the streetcorner man is obliged to expend all his resources on maintaining himself from moment to moment."
"It is a future in which everything is uncertain except the ultimate destruction of his hopes and the eventual realization of his fears."
"Convinced of their inadequacies, not only do they not seek out those few better-paying jobs which test their resources, but they actively avoid them, gravitating in a mass to the menial, routine jobs which offer no challenge-- and therefore pose no threat-- to the already diminished images they have of themselves"
Monday, August 1, 2011
Social Security, Welfare States, and צדקה
Given the centuries-long debate of left-right economic politics i.e. socialist govt intervention of capital distribution on the one hand versus free market liberal capitalism on the other.
I think the key mistake in the left's "Social Welfare" thinking is one of misunderstanding what צדקה (and additionally Social Justice) is. Namely, the mistake of seeing צדקה as "charity"-- transferring of currency value, services, or even education, medicine, etc-- when in fact צדקה is as much an act of mutual interrelationship and joint exchange as that of the relationship between man and woman (as per the many kabbalistic sources). Ergo, you can't institutionalize צדקה/צדק by having an exteriorized beauracratic institution collecting from one class bracket and mailing out checks to the other, it lacks any sense of ברית between the parties and as such must at some point or other lead to a- abuse on the part of receiver b- inertial apathy on the part of governmental stewards providing the goods, and c- resentment by those whom the goods are being taken from.
All this besides for the more fundamental existential conundrum that R' Matis pointed out in the Sefirat HaOmer shiurim, that without ברית ומלכות the very act of giving something unto the other has impinged upon their independence by being a receiver. [Hence קנין חליפין, being a קנין of mutuality/exchange (מלכות), written in the book of מלכות (Ruth), being the only form of קנין that disregards currency-value of שוה פרוטה and is a sole function of the mutual exchange per se. In other words, the Giver has equally benefited insofar as the Receiver has allowed him to give ותאמר שם האיש אשר עשיתי עמו היום בעז ]
Hence, essentially both camps of economic models are misguided, because it's not a question of "what Govt model you adopt" (Socialist or Liberal Capitalism) but rather the degree of interrelational integrity between the individual people that compose that system. Without ברית amongst them, the system will break down into either waste and abuse among others (Socialist Welfare) or Machievellian apathy and neglect (Liberal Capitalism).
I think the key mistake in the left's "Social Welfare" thinking is one of misunderstanding what צדקה (and additionally Social Justice) is. Namely, the mistake of seeing צדקה as "charity"-- transferring of currency value, services, or even education, medicine, etc-- when in fact צדקה is as much an act of mutual interrelationship and joint exchange as that of the relationship between man and woman (as per the many kabbalistic sources). Ergo, you can't institutionalize צדקה/צדק by having an exteriorized beauracratic institution collecting from one class bracket and mailing out checks to the other, it lacks any sense of ברית between the parties and as such must at some point or other lead to a- abuse on the part of receiver b- inertial apathy on the part of governmental stewards providing the goods, and c- resentment by those whom the goods are being taken from.
All this besides for the more fundamental existential conundrum that R' Matis pointed out in the Sefirat HaOmer shiurim, that without ברית ומלכות the very act of giving something unto the other has impinged upon their independence by being a receiver. [Hence קנין חליפין, being a קנין of mutuality/exchange (מלכות), written in the book of מלכות (Ruth), being the only form of קנין that disregards currency-value of שוה פרוטה and is a sole function of the mutual exchange per se. In other words, the Giver has equally benefited insofar as the Receiver has allowed him to give ותאמר שם האיש אשר עשיתי עמו היום בעז ]
Hence, essentially both camps of economic models are misguided, because it's not a question of "what Govt model you adopt" (Socialist or Liberal Capitalism) but rather the degree of interrelational integrity between the individual people that compose that system. Without ברית amongst them, the system will break down into either waste and abuse among others (Socialist Welfare) or Machievellian apathy and neglect (Liberal Capitalism).
כהן שהרג את הנפש לא ישא את כפיו
א"ר יוחנן כל כהן שהרג את הנפש לא ישא את כפיו שנא' (ישעיהו א) ידיכם דמים מלאו --ברכות לב ב
The Zohar in Pinchas (221a) is משמע that it's a matter of the two being mutually exclusive, so that even in instances of killing as a mitzva (like that of Pinchas), כהונה and death cannot coincide... seemingly against the poskim in שלחן ערוך who seem to understand this as only pertaining to prohibited acts of killing that the kohen commits (and hence they discuss whether Teshuva would be מועיל to allow נשיאת כפיים)...
A: I'm wrong. The Zohar is speaking דווקא by כהן גדול, not כהן הדיוט.
The Zohar in Pinchas (221a) is משמע that it's a matter of the two being mutually exclusive, so that even in instances of killing as a mitzva (like that of Pinchas), כהונה and death cannot coincide... seemingly against the poskim in שלחן ערוך who seem to understand this as only pertaining to prohibited acts of killing that the kohen commits (and hence they discuss whether Teshuva would be מועיל to allow נשיאת כפיים)...
A: I'm wrong. The Zohar is speaking דווקא by כהן גדול, not כהן הדיוט.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)