Olive Seedlings - שתילי זיתים

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Why Did the Jews Suffer Under the Greeks?

As Jews, we know that God runs the world, and any suffering which befalls the Jewish people is the result of a failing on our part. Any genuine Torah effort to study history requires that we attempt to get an understanding of the error that led to suffering for the Jewish people. In the case of the Greek shmad, the primary Torah source to explain the suffering is the commentary of the Bach[1] on Tur, Orech Chaim 670:

... בחנוכה עיקר הגזירה היתה על שהתרשלו בעבודה וע"כ היתה הגזירה לבטל מהם העבודה כדתניא בברייתא שגזר עליהן לבטל התמיד ועוד א"ל מצוה אחת יש בידן אם אתם מבטלין אותן מידם כבר הם אבודין ואיזה זה הדלקת מנורה שכתב בה להעלות נר תמיד כל זמן שמדליקין אותן תמיד הם עומדין כו' עמדו וטמאו כל השמנים וכשחזרו בתשובה למסור נפשם על העבודה הושיעם ה' על ידי כהנים עובדי העבודה בבית ה' ע"כ נעשה הנס גם כן בנרות תחת אשר הערו נפשם למות על קיום העבודה...

By Chanukah the decree was primarily because they became lax in serving [HaShem]. Therefore the decree was to take away from them the [Temple] service as it is taught in a beraisa that it was decreed on them to end the korban tamid and further, “He [a heretical Jew] said to them [the Greeks], ‘There is one mitzvah they [the Jews] possess that if you stop them from fulfilling they will immediately be lost, and this is the lighting of the menorah, regarding which it says [in the Torah] ‘to light the lamp continually.’ As long as they light it continually they will persist.’ They rose up and defiled all the oils.” When they repented and were willing to give up their lives for the avodah, then HaShem saved them through the kohanim who perform the avodah of God’s Temple. Therefore a miracle also happened with the candles, because they risked their lives to uphold the avodah.

The Bach teaches us that the reason for the Greek shmad was primarily due to their negligent attitude towards the avodah. The period of time under Greek rule was one in which many Jews were influenced by Greek attitudes of science and materialism. This caused many Jews to devalue the importance of Torah and mitzvos, especially avodah – serving HaShem. The decrees of the Greeks took away from the Jews those things that they themselves had already begun to neglect. When the Jews repented and were moser nefesh – self-sacrificing – for the sake of the avodah, then God gave it back to them. It is important to recognize that the military struggle was only window dressing on the basic spiritual struggle, which is the true story of Chanukah.

[1] Bayis Chadash. Rav Yoel Sirkes (1561-1640)

Sources for Dreidel

A friend recently asked me if I had any sources for the custom of playing with a dreidel on Chanuka and what it means. I responded:

See here, from R' Gavriel Zinner:

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=46444&st=&pgnum=302

The Bnei Yissaschar has some famous pieces on dreidel, one is that the dreidel is spinned from the top while a gragger is spun from below, symbolizing that on Chanukah the yeshua came through hisarusa d'l'eilah and Purim was a hisarusa d'l'sata. Also he connects the letters to the word "גשנה" in Breishis 46:28. I think he also points out that the letters are, b'gematria, "moshiach".

While the custom to play with a dreidel on Chanukah appears to have been well established beforehand, I don't know of any written sources earlier than the 19th century.

The Bnei Yissaschar doesn't mention the story of children playing dreidel to hide that they were learning Torah. This story is also not mentioned in Taamei Minhagim or Sefer Hatodaah (both of whom would almost certainly have mentioned it if they had heard of it and thought it was true). The earliest source I have found for this story is a sefer published in 1918 by a Rev. Hirshovitz in Pittsburg called אוצר כל מנהגי ישרון. (R' Zinner quotes it in his first footnote.) You can see it here:

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=2604&st=&pgnum=95

He says it in the name of some other sources but I have not been able to identify them reliably.

As far as I can tell, this story began sometime in the second half of the 1800s. It is probably not a coincidence that at that same general time a number of writers (especially from the Mizrachi movement) were engaged in efforts to "romanticize" Jewish history, to give it more appeal to young people and reinforce nationalist sentiment. I suspect that this story grew out of that general tendency.

If anyone has any additional sources, please let me know.

Monday, December 19, 2011

The History of Chanuka

At the beginning of the Second Temple period, the Jews were not an independent nation. Initially, they were under the rule of the Persians. Later, when Alexander the Great conquered the Persian empire, the land of Israel became a province of Alexander's empire. When Alexander died, his empire broke up into several sections. At first, the Jews were ruled by the Greeks of Egypt, the Ptolemies. However, the different Greek kingdoms were constantly struggling with each other, and eventually the land of Israel came under the rule of the Seleucid Empire, the Syrian-Greeks.

In the beginning, the Seleucid rule was fairly benevolent. Antiochus III, the king who brought Israel under Seleucid rule, permitted the Jews to “live according to their ancestral laws.” This meant that the Jews were permitted to continue their internal governance according to Torah law. However, during this period, certain Jews, primarily among the wealthy and politically powerful, began to adopt Greek modes of thought. These Jews came to be known as the Hellenisers, or Misyavnim. These Jews sought to gain increased power through political maneuvers involving the Greek kings. These activities came to a crisis during the reign of Antiochus IV, also known as Antiochus Epiphanes. The Jews know him as Antiochus HaRasha - Antiochus the Wicked. The rise to power of Antiochus IV is described in I Maccabees (ch. 1):

From [the Greeks] came forth a sinful root, Antiochus Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king; he had been a hostage in Rome.^[1] He began to reign in the one hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks. In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many, saying, "Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us." This proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king. He authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium^[2] in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.

Historians point out that the campaign against Judaism - called a shmad in Hebrew - was out of character for the Greeks. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch^[3] explains that the shmad was a major change in policy for the Greeks, and took place only because of those disloyal Jews who encouraged it:

Not only Alexander but all the generals who succeeded him and who divided the conquered land among themselves—the Ptolomites in Egypt, and especially the Seleucides in Syria, and the immediate predecessors of Antiochus Epiphanes—all without exception rendered respect to the Divine Law of the Jews who they had subjugated. Their decrees assuring freedom, protection and support to those who demonstrated faith in the Law and their Temple, and the right to fulfill all their obligations under the law, have been preserved for our times.
Antiochus would never have been mad enough to initiate a war of destruction against the Jewish Law if the Jews themselves and priests of the Law had not show their contempt for the Law, thus suggesting the possibility of its obliteration.

One of the minor midrashim^[4] identifies a specific heretical Jew, תתני בן פחת, as advising the Greeks on which specific decrees they should make against the Jews.

Thus, at the instigation of these power-hungry Hellenistic Jews—and with their active assistance—Antiochus embarked on an intensive campaign against the Torah. This involved the prohibition of Torah study, circumcision, the Sabbath, and many other commandments. The desecration of Jewish women was imposed by law, as was the imposition of the Greek pagan idol worship.

All of these policies were aimed at one basic goal, to wipe out the Jewish emunah (faith) that God had given the Jews a Torah that makes them distinct from all the other nations. The belief, expressed in the daily prayers, "that He has chosen us from all the nations and given us the Torah of truth."

Torah study was their primary target. As it states in the Al HaNisim prayer recited on Chanukah, "the evil Greek kingdom rose against Your nation Israel to make them forget Your Torah and to remove them from the laws of Your will." The first step was to eliminate the knowledge of Torah, and from this would follow the abandonment of all the commandments. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch explains:

Their chief efforts were aimed at the exclusion of the teaching of the Torah from the training of the young and at the suppression of its study by the old, for they knew that once the Law would no longer be taught or studied in Yisrael, it would be an easy thing for them to induce them to transgress it. (Hirsch Siddur p. 152)

However, the oppressors did not stop with Torah study. They also forbade bris mila (circumcision), the symbol of the special relationship between God and the Jewish people. And they forbade the observance of the Sabbath, another sign that distinguishes the Jews from the nations of the world.

The desecration of Jewish women as well, was part of a deliberate campaign to destroy the holiness of the Jewish marriage. The modesty of Jewish women is one of the Jewish people’s unique distinguishing characteristics.

All of this culminated with their attempts to impose their idolatry upon the Jewish people, as in their desecration of the Holy Temple by using it as a temple of idolatry.

This was one of the most tragic periods in Jewish history. Many died sanctifying the name of God, like Chanah and her seven sons. Ultimately, one family lifted up the banner of Torah and led the Jewish people against their Greek oppressors.

This was the family of Mattityahu HaKohen, the family of the Chashmonayim (the Hasmoneans). Mattityahu and his sons led the Jews to war. In the beginning they were just a tiny band of men. Eventually, the Jewish army came to number in the thousands; however, it never came close to matching the size and power of the Seleucid armies, which was one of the mightiest military forces of the time. The Seleucid forces were well trained, well organized, and tried in battle. Their forces were made up of heavy and light infantry, heavy and light cavalry, chariots, elephant units, and artillery units operating ballistas. The Jewish forces lacked all military training and, in the beginning, were armed with just farm tools and homemade weapons (later they were able to use captured weapons).

At one major battle, the Battle of Emmaus, the Greeks had between 20 to 40 thousand infantry and about 7,000 cavalry. This was against a Jewish force of about 6,000 men, most of whom were new recruits. The Seleucids were so confident of their victory that they invited slave dealers to join their troops to purchase all the captive Jews they expected to have after the fighting. However, contrary to their expectations, the Greek army was destroyed. This was truly a case of God delivering “the strong into the hands of the weak and the numerous into the hands of the few!”

Eventually, the Greeks were driven out of Jerusalem. On the 25^th of Kislev, the Jews entered the Holy Temple and cleansed it of the impurity and idols that the Greeks had placed within it. Then they made a new chanukat haBayit (inauguration of the Temple). It was at this time that the famous “miracle of the lights” took place. Pure oil was needed for the menorah. Due to the Greek desecration of the Temple no such oil could be found except for one container that contained only enough oil to last one day. Since it would take eight days to get the necessary new oil, this presented a serious problem. The Jews used this oil for the first day and it miraculously lasted for the full eight days until new oil was available.

Although the war was far from over, this victory had freed the Jewish people to once again serve God properly, and that was the primary goal of the war. The following year, the Sages established an eight-day holiday beginning on the 25^th of Kislev, in memory of this victory and the miracle of the oil. This holiday is called Chanukah, which means ‘dedication ceremony’ or ‘inauguration’, in memory of the rededication of the Holy Temple.

[1] Antiochus had been given to the Romans by his father Antiochus III after he had been defeated by the Romans in battle.

[2] The gymnasium was the centerpiece of Greek culture. It was a center for social and religious life, and was associated with pagan cults. The main activity of the gymnasium was sports, which were performed naked. This led to the desire to “remove the marks of circumcision” which was despised by Greek culture.

[3] Collected Writings vol. II, Kislev III

[4] In Otzar Midrashim, מדרש לחנוכה(p. 193). This midrash is also quoted in She’iltos D’Rav Achai Gaon 27.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Book Review: "Echoes of Eden" by Rabbi Ari D. Kahn

In many ways, the book of Genesis is one of the most esoteric books of the Bible. On the surface, Genesis appears to be a simple narrative of the origins of the Jewish people, beginning with the creation of the world until the beginning of the Egyptian exile. However, a careful reader will quickly recognize that a great deal of explanation is needed to make sense of much of the narrative. This is true not only for the early chapters of Genesis, which deal with obviously difficult topics (such as the creation of the universe, the original sin, Noah and the flood, etc.) but also for the later narratives about the Patriarchs and their families. Stories that, at first glance, appear to be quite simple, such as the tales of sibling rivalry between Jacob and Esau or Joseph and his elder brothers, quickly become far more complex, even incomprehensible, when read with a more careful eye.

In his recent book, Echoes of Eden, Rabbi Ari D. Kahn attempts to shed light on many of these difficult topics, through a series of essays working through the entire book of Genesis. Towards this purpose, Rabbi Kahn marshals a broad host of traditional commentaries and midrashic sources (including a number of important kabalistic works), many of which are not well known. Indeed, much of the value of Rabbi Kahn’s work is precisely in the sources that he quotes. Even experienced scholars will find a number of gems here that they were unaware of previously. In addition, Rabbi Kahn provides a number of valuable original insights. I was particularly impressed by an insight that Rabbi Kahn gives over from his teacher, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, in the essay, “The Universal and the Particular.” Rabbi Soloveitchik notes that, in Genesis 22:5, when Abraham and Isaac separate from the two young men accompanying them to complete their journey to the “binding of Isaac”, Abraham tells the young men that he and Isaac would “go yonder and worship and return to you.” Rabbi Soloveitchik explains that these last words indicate that the religious experience would not be complete until Abraham returned and shared his experience with others. As Rabbi Kahn goes on to explain, this is an important aspect of all Jewish spirituality, that while we may need to separate ourselves from others at times to achieve spiritual heights, we must ultimately bring these experiences back with us to those we “left behind”. On a cosmic scale, this is the role of the Jewish people relative to the world as a whole.

Unfortunately, however, despite these virtues, the book suffers from a number of major flaws that severely undermine its usefulness, especially for readers who are not equipped to study the original sources that Rabbi Kahn cites. First of all, it should be noted that many of the sources that he quotes in his footnotes are quoted in the original Hebrew without translation. This is a major loss for those readers who are not literate in Hebrew. However, a far more serious problem is that the book’s presentation of these sources is often inaccurate and misleading. Many of the translations are substantively erroneous, frequently in matters directly relevant to the discussion. Sources are often cited as stating or supporting ideas that are not to be found in the original material. In some cases this appears to have been the result of a misunderstanding of the material, itself a serious problem. However, in most cases, it seems as if the author is unjustifiably reading his own original ideas into the sources. While, in themselves, many of these insights may be legitimate, the attempt to give them a false pedigree is very problematic. Errors of this sort abound throughout the book, in some cases the errors are minor (but irritatingly elementary - as in his commentary on Genesis 27:1 that Isaac enjoyed the aroma of the meal that Jacob had brought to him, when the verse states that he smelled Jacob’s garments!), and in other cases the errors are very substantial, fundamentally undermining the validity of the entire essay.

Even when the author’s presentation of a source is correct in substance, the tone of his presentation may be very discordant with the intent of the original source. As an example, the author quotes, in Hebrew, a commentary of Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (d. 1893) that states that because Abraham was so deeply immersed in theological and philosophical thought, his father was the one who initially led the family in their travels. In English, the author gives Rabbi Berlin’s commentary a rather different tone, saying that Abraham “was a luftmensch – his head was in the clouds”, which has a rather derogatory tone that is completely absent from the original commentary.

A related problem is the author’s tendency to unjustifiably jump to conclusions that are unsupported by the sources and, in many cases, to then present these conclusions as settled fact. For example, in his essay on the wife of Noah, “Na’amah”, he asserts early on that “Noah’s wife could only be Na’amah [the sister of Tubal-cain].” Yet the midrash explicitly states that this was a matter of debate and that the Rabbis believed the wife of Noah to have been a different woman with the same name. Later, when the author quotes this very midrash, it is erroneously translated to say that the rabbis agreed with the identification of the sister of Tubal-cain with the wife of Noah and the debate was only about her moral character.

In other cases, the author takes what would otherwise be a valid insight and carries it too far. Thus, the author asserts that, although Abraham erected numerous altars, “he never brought an offering upon them.” He bases this assertion on the fact that, in several locations, when Scripture tells us that Abraham erected an altar, it does not mention any offerings (with the exception of the binding of Isaac). While this is a valid textual insight (not restricted to Abraham), it does not support the author’s conclusion, which he presents as self-evident. On the contrary, the commentaries, quite reasonably, take it for granted that Abraham offered sacrifices upon these altars (that is what altars are for, after all). Later in the same essay, the author actually quotes a commentary by Nachmanides that explicitly contradicts this assertion, but the quote is not translated into English.

Finally, I felt that many of the essays were written in a confusing manner, without a clear presentation from the beginning to the conclusion. The essays often feel unfocused and meandering, as if the author got sidetracked from his initial point and went off on a tangent and never quite found his way back. Many of the essays suffer from poorly presented reasoning, as if important steps were omitted or insufficiently stressed, so that the reader is unsure how he got from one point to the next. Many of the essays seem rather pointless, where a great amount of effort is expended to bring us to an anticlimactic conclusion that is not particularly interesting or meaningful. For example, in the essay, “Clothes Make the Man”, the author goes on for twelve pages, citing a number of interesting sources, but comes to no meaningful conclusion except that “clothing” symbolizes sin. And what, exactly, are we supposed to do with that?

I suspect that most of the problems with this book are due to the essays being based upon oral lectures that Rabbi Kahn delivered to different audiences over a few years. The dynamic nature of such, often partially extemporaneous, oral lectures generally cannot be simply transcribed into print. Such material needs to be very carefully worked over (and, often, completely rewritten), by the author himself with the help of competent proofreaders. The failure to do this can cause even a highly competent scholar to appear incompetent.

While Echoes of Eden has some valuable insights, I cannot recommend it to anyone who is not able and ready to work through the essays critically and to research all of the sources that are quoted. The reader cannot simply rely on the author’s presentation of the sources as reliable. It is my hope that future volumes of this work will be handled more carefully (as well as, hopefully, a revised edition of this first volume), as I believe that Rabbi Kahn has a great deal to offer.

Vayeishev - Reuben's "Immunity" from Jealousy

Throughout the generations, the commentaries have struggled to shed light on the difficult story of the sale of Joseph into slavery by his brothers. On the one hand, the Torah and the Sages clearly present the sale of Joseph as a grave sin. Yet, on the other hand, we know that the brothers were extraordinarily holy and righteous men. On the contrary, the midrash (Bamidbar Rabba 13:18) tells us that, while we would usually expect such a sin only on the part of wicked men, in fact the brothers were completely righteous and never sinned except in this one case. Indeed, even later, when they recognized that they had sinned in their treatment of Joseph, they initially thought that they had only sinned in their failure to be more compassionate towards their young brother, but they still believed that, in principle, they had acted correctly. The brothers had come to the conclusion that Joseph was a false prophet and an unscrupulous seeker of power who was a threat to the future of the Jewish people. Only God - Who sees into the depths of the human heart - knew, as He tells us in the Torah, that their judgement was influenced by jealousy and hatred.

There was, however, one exception. The Torah tells us that Reuben, the firstborn of the brothers, recognized that they were doing something wrong, and he did all he could to rescue Joseph. What was it about Reuben that enabled him to overcome the insidious effects of the jealousy that had corrupted the judgement of his brothers?

The Sages tell us that, at this time, Reuben was in a state of repentance for having dishonored his father. In his recognition of his sin, Reuben realized that, by strict justice, he was no longer worthy of being counted among the sons of Jacob.

R' Aaron Kotler

Thus, Reuben's reaction to the dreams of Joseph, in which all eleven brothers submitted to the authority of Joseph, was very different from his brothers. He saw these dreams as proof that he would continue to be a member of the family of Jacob despite his sin.

Rabbi Aaron Kotler (d. 1962) points out that it was the extraordinary humility engendered by his repentance that enabled Reuben to see Joseph in very different light than his brothers. In his recognition of his own failures, there was no place for jealousy to take hold and Reuben, alone of his brothers, was able to recognize the truth.

Book Review: "Maimonides:Reason Above All" by Israel Drazin

Maimonides was one of the greatest rabbinic figures in history. He made a profound and permanent impact upon the Jewish world, and his influence spread well beyond the borders of the Jewish community. He was universally recognized as a great scholar of the Bible and Talmud, and his works have become basic texts of the Jewish canon. At the same time, Maimonides was an original thinker who put forth a number of opinions that were controversial in his own time and some of these controversies resonate until today. The bulk of the controversy surrounds his efforts, mainly in his great philosophical work, Guide for the Perplexed, to resolve conflicts between traditional Jewish teachings and Aristotelian philosophy.

Because of the importance of Maimonides and the debates surrounding some of his opinions, a good introductory work to the thought of Maimonides and his contemporaries, clearly explaining where and how he differed from other major figures, would be highly desirable. Unfortunately, that is not what the reader will encounter when reading Israel Drazin's new book, Maimonides: Reason Above All.

Despite the book's promising description and the author's apparent qualifications, the book not only fails to live up to expectations, but it even fails to attain the most minimal standards of academic competence and intellectual honesty. The book is replete, page after page, with misstatements, distortions, and dishonest citations and quotations. After a great deal of effort, I was forced to conclude that I could not find a single redeeming characteristic in the book.

Drazin fails to understand the opinions of any of the scholars he is discussing, whether it is Maimonides himself, other Jewish scholars, or even non-Jewish philosophers. He appears to have difficulty with even basic reading comprehension. For example, on page 26, Drazin begins a detailed analysis of a statement from "the poet Yehuda Halevi" in which Halevi negatively contrasted Maimonides with his father. This is an amazing statement, in that Yehuda Halevi, one of the greatest Jewish philosophers and poets, died in 1141, when Maimonides was about two years old. (This should be immediately obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with Jewish intellectual history.) The quote that Drazin is discussing - which he got from a secondary source (which does not ascribe the quote to Yehuda Halevi) - was actually written by L. M. Simmons, an English rabbi, in the Jewish Quarterly Review in 1890. Drazin's failure in this simple citation is unfortunately typical of his entire work. Over and over again, Drazin makes basic errors of fact and comprehension.

The quality of this work is so poor that it does not really deserve a detailed response. There is, quite literally, not a single issue that Drazin presents accurately. When attempting to present a dispute, Drazin usually gets both sides wrong, and misses the actual point of disagreement entirely. In other cases, Drazin creates disputes where none exist. Drazin's presentation of Maimonides is so heavily biased, that it quickly reaches the point of absurdity.

Drazin attempts to reconstruct Maimonides as a religious naturalist who rejected creation ex nihilo, miracles, providence, prophecy, the existence of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and any God-oriented purpose in religion. Drazin openly admits that it is only possible to do so by denying many - many!! - of Maimonides' own statements. Drazin believes that Maimonides' was simply lying when he said these things. This is a major theme of Drazin's work, that Maimonides engaged in a "holy lie" (a phrase coined by Nietzsche that Drazin uses repeatedly) and knowingly made completely false statements to deceive the masses (for their own good, of course). Drazin makes this claim not just of some of the more difficult passages in Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed (even this is debatable), but of vast swathes of his writings, including large amounts of material that was unique to Maimonides. For example, Maimonides was the first Jewish scholar to create a formalized dogma of Judaism, his 13 Foundations, which Maimonides argued must be fully accepted in order for one to be a legitimate member of the Jewish faith. This idea was original to Maimonides, and, indeed, many authorities disagreed with his formulation (although, by and large, they agreed with its content). Drazin, however, would have us believe that Maimonides himself did not believe many, possibly most, of these foundations.

Even when Drazin directly quotes Maimonides (and others), he does so dishonestly, carefully editing the quote (using ellipses to remove inconvenient material and inserting material in brackets) to support his point even when the full quote, in context, would not only fail to support Drazin's point, but actually contradict it. This betrayal of the reader's trust is exacerbated by the fact that many of Drazin's most radical assertions are supported by nothing more than anonymous "scholars" without any reference to who these scholars are, what they actually said, or where and when they said it. Given Drazin's repeated inability to comprehend the material he is writing about, and his dishonest citations of material that people can actually check for themselves, it is simply impossible to trust his assertion of the opinions of scholars whom he fails to even identify.

If Drazin's presentation of Maimonides is absurd, his presentation of other Jewish thinkers is grotesque. For example, Drazin apparently understands all anthropomorphic depictions of God, midrashic, kabalistic or liturgical, to have been intended in the full literal sense. Thus, his presentation of Lurianic kabbalah on page 241 is beyond laughable; it is a caricature of a caricature.

Even Drazin's discussion of non-Jewish philosophers is incompetent. For some reason, Drazin chose to include an entire chapter on Rene Descartes, apparently to argue that Descartes was not sufficiently "rational". In the course of this discussion, Drazin completely mangles Descartes, and demonstrates a complete failure to grasp even the most basic elements of his thought. Drazin's "refutation" of Descartes' "cogito" - again given in the name of anonymous scholars - is so shallow that it wouldn't past muster in a seventh grade classroom discussion.

If Drazin's work were of a better quality, it would be worthwhile to enter into a deeper discussion of some of the arguments he puts forth. For example, the relationship between the thought of Maimonides and the thought of his son, Abraham, is one that requires serious study. However, Drazin's presentation of the thought of both figures is so distorted that he contributes nothing to the discussion except confusion.

In short, Drazin's book is so... awful... that readers will not only learn nothing new, but, far worse, they will learn a large number of things that are not so. If a reader wishes to educate himself about the thought of Maimonides, there are many vastly superior works. My personal recommendation as a basic introduction would be A Maimonides Reader by Isadore Twersky.

Book Review: "Truths Desired by God" by Meir Tamari

While the last few decades have seen a wonderful outpouring of excellent English works on the Torah itself, there is very little available on the weekly Haftarah reading. Dr. Meir Tamari's new book, Truths Desired by God, does an excellent job filling this gap. On each Haftara reading, Dr. Tamari has prepared a stimulating essay summarizing the major themes of the reading, how it relates to the Torah reading of the week, and presenting a wide range of commentaries taken from the full range of Jewish tradition. He cites major medieval authorities, such as Maimonides and Abarbanel, as well as more recent works, including chassidic commentaries, R' Samson Raphael Hirsch, and R' Kook. Dr. Tamari does not just compile sources for us; he also introduces us to the geographic, political, and economic realities of the periods in which the prophets functioned and helps us understand the broader implications of their words.

My only complaints on the book are the lack of an index (an index of verses and sources cited would be especially useful) and the fact that the table of contents does not inform us of the Scriptural source of each haftara. This means that if you are looking for his discussion of a particular Scriptural passage, you will need to consult another reference to find out which haftara it is in.

However, these are very minor complaints. Overall, Truths Desired by God is an excellent work that will be read with interest by any serious student or teacher of Scripture. Even experienced scholars will find these essays to be useful.

"Olive Seedlings" - On the Name of this Blog

I have chosen to name this blog "Olive Seedlings" based upon the midrash in Bamidbar Raba 8:9 which interprets Psalms 128 as referring to gerei tzedek (converts to Judaism). On verse 3 the midrash states:

"בניך כשתילי זיתים" מה הזית הזה - זיתים לאכילה, זיתים ליבש, וזיתים לשמן, ושמנו דולק מכל השמנים, ואין עליו נושרין לא בימות החמה ולא בימות הגשמים, כך באים בני הגרים מהם בעלי מקרא, מהם בעלי משנה, מהם בעלי משא ומתן, מהן חכמים, מהם נבונים, ומהם יודעי דבר בעתו, ויש להם זרע קיים לעולם. (במדבר רבה ח:ט)

"Your sons shall be as olive seedlings" - Just as the olive tree produces olives for eating, olives for drying, olives for oil, its oil burns better than all other oils, and its leaves do not fall during the summer or the winter, similarly the from the children of converts will come masters of Scripture, masters of Mishna, masters of discourse (or financial transactions), men of wisdom, men of understanding, men who know what is needed at a given moment, and they shall have descendants that last for all time.

As the son of a ger tzedek, this medrash - of which the above is only a small piece - is particularly meaningful to me and it is my hope that the blessings spoken of in the medrash will be fulfilled in my family and my brothers' families.

May the Torah that is learned by those who read my postings here be a zechus for my father, ר' דוד אהרן בן אברהם ע"ה.

Vayishlach - Tell God Exactly What You Need

Parshas Vayishlach begins with the account of Jacob's preparation for his meeting with his estranged brother, Esau. Jacob was very concerned about this meeting, and the Torah states that he turned to God in prayer. The Zohar (1:169a) tells us that Jacob's prayer serves as a model for all mankind of how to approach God in prayer.

One of the lessons that the Zohar derives from the prayer of Jacob comes from the verse (32:12), "Rescue me, please, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him, lest he come and strike me, mother and children." The Zohar says that this teaches us that, in prayer, a person should fully state his concerns. Although, in principle, Jacob could have simply said, "Rescue me, please!", Jacob went on to state, in detail, who he was afraid of - "my brother", "Esau" - and what he was afraid Esau would do to him. The Zohar says that this should be a model for our prayers as well.

The question that remains, of course, is why should this be so? God certainly knows what we need, and He certainly knows what our intent is. Why is it necessary to lay it all out in such detail? In fact, this raises the even more basic question, why do we need to pray - verbally - at all?

These questions clearly demonstrate that, in its essence, the function of prayer is not to inform God of our needs - which would be an absurdity - but to accomplish some important change in the person who is praying. As many commentaries point out, the Hebrew verb for prayer, l'hispallel, is in the reflexive form. The object of the verb is the one who is praying!

In his Guide for the Perplexed (3:36), Maimonides explains that the function of prayer is "to firmly establish the true knowledge" that God is concerned about us and is able to help us, and that nothing happens by chance. Prayer reinforces in our mind the knowledge that God is the source of all that we have and, through this, prayer enables us to reconnect to God and become worthy of receiving new blessings from Him.

This is why a short, vague, prayer is insufficient. By clearly stating our concerns, we remind ourselves that God is fully involved in our lives, not just in some general way, but in every detail. Our father, Jacob, by speaking to God in detail about his concerns about meeting his brother, was reinforcing in his own mind his knowledge of God's detailed providence over his life. We too, in our prayers, whether in our formal prayers from the Siddur, or in our informal personal prayers, should use these opportunities to come closer to God by internalizing the basic message of all prayer, that God cares about us and is only waiting for us to open ourselves up to His blessings.