Possession is 10/10 of the Lords- A Torah perspective on ownership and control

This devar Torah is in memory of Herb Smilowitz z'l, who recently passed away. He was a humble and kind man, and a ba'al tzedaka and ba'al chessed of the highest order. Among other causes, Mr. Smilowitz was a big supporter of RIETS and Yeshivat Har Etzion (Gush). Although I did not know Mr. Smilowitz well, through his children, I met him a number of times. I was zocheh to hear some meaningful and powerful stories from his family, during the time I was menachem avel. Mr. Smilowitz had money, it did not have him. In a quiet and humble way, he used his wealth in the most Godly manner possible. Yehi Zichro Baruch.

Herb Smilowitz z'l surrounded by Rabbi Zevulun Charlap and Rabbi Mark Smilowitz

This might be the only time in history when a man had to be "tricked" into being honored.

It's one of the best known Rashis in the Torah

מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני

What does Shemita have to do with Har Sinai?

This question is asked by Rashi on the first passuk in Parshas Behar

וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל־ מֹשֶׁה בְּהַר סִינַי לֵאמֹר

Unlike almost every time that HaShem speaks to Moshe, here, in introduction to the laws of Shemitah and Yovel, the Torah notes that it happened on Har Sinai. Why single out these mitzvos? Were all mitzvos not given at Har Sinai? To answer the question Rashi explains that just as Shemitah and all of its details were taught at Har Sinai, this also applies to all of the other mitzvos in the Torah.

What Rashi does not explain is why this mitzvah is singled out to teach this lesson. What is unique about Shemitah that it is chosen as an example?

Additionally, we see elsewhere that Shemitah is serious enough to lead to exile and other serious consequences when it is not followed. Why is this mitzvah singled out for such severe consequences?

By way of introduction, I will start with the second question first. The Ramban suggests that shemitah teaches us about the messianic era, which is represented by resting during the 7^th year. The Kli Yakkar suggests that Shemitah and Yovel are a re-creation of Har Sinai. To prove his point, he points to several allusions including the number 50 and the use of a shofar, which is referred to in both contexts as a "yovel". As we will see later on, there is no reason to suggest that these explanations are mutually exclusive.

To answer the first question, we need to look at some of the mitzvos that are mentioned in this parsha:

• Shemitah
• Yovel
• Freeing of an Eved Ivri by Yovel at the latest
• Ona'as mamon (limits on profits) as well as Ona'as Devarim (hurtful words)
• Prohibition to permanently sell a field or most homes in Israel
• Returning of field to their original owner by Yovel
• Prohibition on charging interest
• Prohibitions against mistreating an Eved Ivri
• Requirement to redeem a Jewish slave from a non-Jewish owner

If we look at the common denominator between these mitzvohs, we see that the Torah is focusing on ownership and property in parshas Behar. Despite the claims by different proponents of modern economic theory, the Torah's approach to property and ownership is neither capitalist or socialist. It is a unique system.

Bnei Yisrael have left Egypt. They were there long enough to become virtually identical to the Egyptians, both culturally and socially. Just as somewhat paradoxically an abused child runs the risk of becoming an abusive parent, and a captive runs the risk of experiencing Stockholm Syndrome, there was a very real risk that, with the gaining of independence and power, Bnei Yisrael would take an Egyptian view of possesions, particularly to ownership of slaves. It is not surprising that the Torah here uses the word פרך the very same word used to described how BY were enslaved, in discussing the prohibitions of mistreating an Eved Ivri. The Torah also talks of treating him as a תושב, another allusion to the slavery which took place in Egypt. Most telling are the words of HaShem כִּי־עֲבָדַי הֵם אֲשֶׁר־הוֹצֵאתִי אֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. Do not think of your slaves as your own. All of you belong to me.

The other mitzvos listed above, also place strong limitations on ownership, from limiting profit, to prohibiting permanent sale of land and property, to prohibiting the charging of interest. What, in the name of Adam Smith is going on here?

After creating man, HaShem blesses them saying

וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת־ הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל ־חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל־ הָאָרֶץ

Be fruitful, fill the land and be koveish it. What is the meaning of that word? Ordinarily, we translate it as conquer, but I think it could also mean something else here. Chazal speak of being koveish one's Yetzer HaRa. In that context, I would suggest it means more of channeling one's physicality, rather than conquering it. Here God is dealing with something inherent in man, and, I believe, particularly inherent in men. Man can be a conqueror. One who aims to control everything and everyone. A person who views the world in a binary way, saying "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours" and "kochi v'otzem yadi". God is blessing us to view things differently. In the next passuk he says

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת ־כָּל ־עֵשֶׂב ׀ זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל־פְּנֵי כָל ־הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת ־כָּל־ הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר ־בּוֹ פְרִי־עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה

Remember, says HaShem, I am the source of everything you have. Use it, but use it for a Divine purpose.

Now we can return to our original question, Why are these mitzvos specifically mentioned as coming from Har Sinai? If we think of what we know of Har Sinai, we begin to see an answer. Chazal say that by the giving of the Torah, Bnei Yisrael reached the level of Adam HaRishon before the sin. The goal of the Torah is for us to perfect ourselves and through our actions, the world. Although that level was inherently unsustainable at the time of Matan Torah, the Kli Yakar suggests that we receive a reminder of that goal through Shemitah, Yovel, and, I would add, the other mitzvos of this parsha. Moving over to the Ramban, these mitzvos are a reminder of the messianic era, the time when God's ideal world will be realized. Through a recognition of the limits of our ownership, we are reminded that we and all that we have, belong to HaShem, and that we should treat each other and make use of our possessions, in a way that shows we realize this. Our choice is to conquer and control the world, or to perfect it.

Post by Pesach Sommer.

When Our Rabbis are Wrong

Click here to read my latest on Times of Israel.

Post by Pesach Sommer.

Finding Our Path in Torah- An Apology

Earlier this week, I posted a status where I was not careful enough in my words. Despite wanting to say something positive about the Waterbury yeshiva high school, my words came across as insulting to the yeshiva and boys who learn or have learned there. I write the following as an apology.

How does one find their place in Torah? By Torah, I do not mean simply the texts of the Torah, but also, and especially, the inner meaning of Torah, which embodies HaShem, so to speak (Shabbos 105a). Although there are many different answers, I'd like to suggest two of them.

In Berachos 63b Reish Lakish suggests one approach. Based on a homiletical reading of a passuk, he says “Torah only last in one who kills himself over it”. Let's try and find the message contained in his words. To begin, it is important to remember what we know about Reish Lakish. For many years he was a highway robber, until he was “discovered” by Rebbe Yochanan, who became his rebbe. What does he mean when he says that one must kill himself over Torah? I believe that he is saying that in order to really grasp Torah, and the Godliness which can be found within, you have to be willing to get rid of the “you” that stands in the way of Torah. Had Rebbe Yochanan learned Torah merely as an academic pursuit, without being willing to channel himself through it, it would have had no lasting effect upon him. Furthermore, it is important to note that Reish Lakish says that this must be done willingly. Torah can not be forced upon a person. You might be able to control someone's body, but their mind and soul are theirs alone.

A second approach is found in Chagiga 14a. There it says that a person does not succeed in Torah, unless they have stumbled over it first. When a person struggles with something, there are times that they will fall. Rather than that being seen as an unfortunate occurrence, the gemara suggests that from the struggle itself comes the growth. When Torah comes easily, whether through lack of challenge, or through simple or simplistic ideas, it does not truly belong to the one who learned. Through the struggle itself, the recognition of having stumbled, and the subsequent attempt to get back up and move on, the Torah is acquired.

May we all find our connection to Torah in a serious, deep and meaningful way.

All its Perfect Imperfections- Why I love Israel

I recently read two books about Israel. Although the books were written from different vantage points, to my mind they highlighted the maddening, confounding, paradoxical and holy perfect imperfection of the state of Israel.

The Making of Modern Zionism: Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State by Israeli political scientist Shlomo Avineri, discusses exactly what the title implies. By focusing on the biographies of 18 thinkers from the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, Avineri shows the various ideas that led to the formation of the state. Ranging from the secular to the religious, from theory to practicality, from ignoring the local Arabs to recognizing them and their aspirations, the ideas considered do not easily mesh into a synthesized whole.

Like Dreamers: The Story of the Israeli Paratroopers who United Israel and Divided a Nation by Yossi Klein Halevi comes at the contradictions inherent in the modern State of Israel from a different direction. In telling the story of the paratroopers who conquered East Jerusalem in 1967, Halevi masterfully shows the different viewpoints of what the reunification of Jerusalem meant to various parts of the Israeli population. In a book that reads as almost biblical, fascinating characters from Rosh Yeshiva and repentant redmptionist Rav Yoel Bin-Nun to Israeli protest-singer Meir Ariel, we are introduced to individuals and communities and how they viewed the Six Day War, and all that followed. Particularly for those of us who have been educated almost exclusively from the perspective of seeing Israel as a religiously significant, the book is eye-opening and thought provoking.

Over the span of almost 20 centuries, Israel, Jerusalem and redemption became almost ahistorical for the Jewish people. Rishonim wrote of Israel's contours without having seen it, Jerusalem seemed almost to be a metaphor and so often the redemption seemed either so far away, or superfluous. Although many Jews yearned to see the Moshiach, his arrival and all that would come through it, was viewed primarily as something that would happen to the Jewish people, as opposed to something that would be actively brought about by the Jewish people.

The Enlightenment, European Nationalism and the anti-semitism that followed, changed almost everything. Suddenly, the question became “Why not us?”. Jews began to wonder why they should remain forever the stranger, at best on the sidelines, and at worst, the victim of horrible oppression and attacks. Although some, like Rabbis Kalischer and Kook, asked these questions from the religious perspective, most looked at it from the perspective of socialism, communism, nationalism or some other worldview which did not involve God. While these views and the debates that followed were at first theoretical, before long, they became practical, leading to the plethora of conflicting views of Israel is and what it should be.

Let me now change course from the perspective of the aloof writer, to the passionate Zionist that I have again become.

We have been given a gift, one that comes, I believe, from God. It didn't happen in the way that our ancestors envisioned it, but suddenly that which was until very recently seen as ahistorical, has become very real. Jews of all types are living close to and sometimes amongst those with different languages, modes of dress, religious and political views, and perspectives. If this isn't enough, we find ourselves (oh to again be able to use these terms truthfully about myself and my family) in a pretty rough regional “neighborhood, with Arabs living among us and around us. All these years when we prayed, is this what we had in mind? Can this be the Jerusalem that we mentioned many times a day? And what of the redemption?

While some might answer these questions by suggesting that this can not be what God truly wants for us, and that thus, we must view Israel as just another part of galus, I can not answer the questions this way. While this is not the finished product, in many ways it moves in that direction. On the other hand, I can not accept the approach that says that we have all we need, either because this is the “Atchalta D'Geula” or because there is no redemption to follow. I am caught somewhere in the maddening, confusing and most wonderful middle. How else can I view Yom Ha'atzmaut, a secular day on the calendar, where Israelis, religious and secular alike celebrate with tiyulim and barbecues, which this year, as with most years, will be observed a day late, to avoid chillul Shabbat? Can I not be amazed at the founding of a charedi hesder yeshiva, and not, at the same time wonder why it took so long to get to this point? How can I not see the holiness in the bareheaded soldier protecting our land, including its yeshivahs? As I observe my friends living in communities where there is very real strife between religious Jews over what it means to be a religious Jew, how can I not be a bit envious of watching them live out the messy process of figuring out what a Torah state should look like? Finally, when visiting my brother's yishuv, how can I not think about the patch of prime real estate that lays undeveloped in the middle of the yishuv, as the dispute over its ownership remains ongoing?

While this is not the State we might have asked for, it's the one we have been given. While there are blemishes and imperfections, there is such incredible beauty, holiness and goodness. As always, God pushes us to be his partner in creating a holy world, rather than passively sitting back and waiting for the redemption to come from heaven. Shehechiyanu V'kiyemanu v'higiyanu lazeman hazeh.

The Farber Affair (part II) What would Rambam Do?

This is the second in a series on the “Farber Affair”. To read the first post, including my reasons for writing this series, click here.

When Rambam wrote the Moreh Nevuchim, he knew that he was heading into potentially dangerous waters. In attempting to reconcile the Torah with Aristotelian philosophy, he recognized that his conclusions would not, indeed could not, be understood by everyone, and that some people would see his views as dangerous, or even heresy. Therefore, in his introduction to the Guide, he wrote that there would be seeming contradictions within the text, and that it was up to the reader to resolve them on his own. Notwithstanding the fact that in some segments of the Jewish world, he was vilified, he was successful enough that ultimately, his views remained hidden enough as to make him a virtual Rorschach test for Jewish scholars. From Rav Soloveitchik to Satmar, from Strauss to Rav Schneerson, from Shapiro to Schweid, they are all certain that they know the “real” Rambam.

I do not know Zev Farber personally, so my analysis will focus on his actions and words, and not his motivation. I will refrain from analyzing him, and focus on the article that started it all, and to a lesser degree, to his followup responses.

To begin, I will state clearly that I do not blame Farber for struggling with how to create a balance between the worlds of of Torah, religion and belief on the one hand, and scholarship, intellectual honesty and autonomy on the other. The questions with which he struggled are real questions and can not simply be dismissed. I have great respect for anyone who attempts to deal with these issues in a serious and thoughtful way.

That said, I have several questions:

1. Why was there a need to publicize the conclusion that he reached? In other words, even when he concluded that the Torah does not contain any objective history, and was somehow revealed in some other way to some other prophet or leader, why share that view publicly? Surely he knew that such a departure from even the most open traditional views would ruffle feathers.
2. Even if Farber hoped that by sharing his belief, that he might help others who were struggling, why do it in such a public direct manner? There are others who have attempted to deal with the same conflicts who have come up with answers that are seen as controversial. Still, by sharing their views in more scholarly forums, they remain relatively unknown outside of those circles, and have thus, not been the subject of any articles, critiques or attacks in the non-scholarly Jewish world.
3. Finally, if Farber felt the need to share these views openly and publicly had value-perhaps with the assumption that many needed help reconciling these two worlds- why use a tone that suggests that he is among the few who are brave enough to want the real answer? Even if there was value in sharing his views in a view that it would be readable to the non-scholar, taking such a tone virtually assured that he would ruffle feathers. Even when he subsequently backtracked somewhat, there were still comments he made suggesting that his initial take reflected his real views. Calling one's philosophical opponents “dinosaurs” does nothing to lead to calm and thoughtful discussion. While I can certainly imagine how painful the attacks against him must have felt, to some degree, they were self-inflicted.

I began this post with the Rambam, as I think he suggests a better way. For anyone who attempts to reconcile somewhat conflicting worlds, much foresight is needed. The intended audience, potential reaction (to both the author and his institution), manner of speaking, and chance of being understood and accepted by the intended audience, are among the lessons that such an author would be wise to consider.

Although I strongly disagree with the conclusions that Farber reached, as well as the manner in which he shared his views, I admire his willingness to deal with questions which are troubling to many within the Jewish world. It is my hope that future attempts will learn from Farber's mistakes, as well as from the reaction to him, to emulate the Rambam in proceeding with extreme sensitivity and care.

Post by Pesach Sommer.

Dirt and Ashes- Is there anything more?

This past Shabbos, I found myself thinking of the conversation that goes on between HaShem and Avraham, when HaShem is about to destroy Sedom. Although I read this story many times, I thought of something new, which might be worth exploring.

It is HaShem who initiates the conversation:

יז וַֽיהוָֹ֖ה אָמָ֑ר הַֽמֲכַסֶּ֤ה אֲנִי֙ מֵֽאַבְרָהָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֲנִ֥י עֹשֶֽׂה: יח וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם הָי֧וֹ יִֽהְיֶ֛ה לְג֥וֹי גָּד֖וֹל וְעָצ֑וּם וְנִ֨בְרְכוּ־ב֔וֹ כֹּ֖ל גּוֹיֵ֥י הָאָֽרֶץ: יט כִּ֣י יְדַעְתִּ֗יו לְמַ֩עַן֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצַוֶּ֜ה אֶת־בָּנָ֤יו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ֙ אַֽחֲרָ֔יו וְשָֽׁמְרוּ֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ יְהֹוָ֔ה לַֽעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט לְמַ֗עַן הָבִ֤יא יְהוָֹה֙ עַל־אַבְרָהָ֔ם

אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֖ר עָלָֽיו

HaShem rhetorically asks whether he can hold back from Avraham that which he is about to do. After all, it is through Avraham that the whole world will be blessed. Additionally, Avraham is the one who will teach his family and descendants about righteousness and justice.

Immediately upon being told of the impending destruction, Avraham starts to argue, saying:

כג וַיִּגַּ֥שׁ אַבְרָהָ֖ם וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הַאַ֣ף תִּסְפֶּ֔ה צַדִּ֖יק עִם־רָשָֽׁע: כד אוּלַ֥י יֵ֛שׁ חֲמִשִּׁ֥ים צַדִּיקִ֖ם בְּת֣וֹךְ הָעִ֑יר הַאַ֤ף תִּסְפֶּה֙ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂ֣א לַמָּק֔וֹם לְמַ֛עַן חֲמִשִּׁ֥ים הַצַּדִּיקִ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר בְּקִרְבָּֽהּ: כה חָלִ֨לָה לְּךָ֜ מֵֽעֲשׂ֣ת ׀ כַּדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֗ה לְהָמִ֤ית צַדִּיק֙ עִם־רָשָׁ֔ע וְהָיָ֥ה כַצַּדִּ֖יק כָּֽרָשָׁ֑ע חָלִ֣לָה לָּ֔ךְ הֲשֹׁפֵט֙ כָּל־הָאָ֔רֶץ לֹ֥א יַֽעֲשֶׂ֖ה מִשְׁפָּֽט:

Using the very same terms that HaShem used to describe Avraham, Avraham asks God how he can punish the righteous along with those who are evil. Surely the city should be saved if there enough righteous people within its borders. "Will The Judge of the whole earth not do justice!?!". At that point Avraham begins to negotiate, starting off with the possibility that there might be 50 righteous people in Sedom. Ultimately he gets God to agree to spare the city provided there are at least 10 righteous people in the city.

What struck me was the way Avraham describes himself:

כז וַיַּ֥עַן אַבְרָהָ֖ם וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הִנֵּה־נָ֤א הוֹאַ֨לְתִּי֙ לְדַבֵּ֣ר אֶל־אֲדֹנָ֔י וְאָֽנֹכִ֖י עָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר

He says of himself "I am (but?) dirt and ashes".

I had several questions pop to mind when I thought of this phrase:

1. If Avraham wants to say that he is insignificant, why you use these descriptors? Why not simply say "I am nothing"?
2. How can Avraham describe himself in this manner when he is in the midst of talking to God? What greater proof is there of his significance and value?

It seems to me that dirt and ashes refer to two separate aspects of being human. Dirt (symbolically) refers to the substance from which he was created. He is a creature, and not just a creature, but one who is made up of inorganic material. In some ways, he shares certain qualities with inanimate objects. Ashes refers to that which will occur to him, and all life forms; death. Although he is not an inanimate object, he shares certain similarities with animals. Although he is alive, his end and the animal's end are similar (echoes of Koheles?).

Avraham is noting the paradox of man. On the one hand, we are finite, and similar in makeup to objects and in form to animals. On the other hand, we have significance in the eyes of the creator. There is a relationship that we enjoy with him, which is different from His connection to all other creatures. He cares about us not just as a species, but as individuals. God values our prayers, and asks us to imitate His ways, however imperfectly we may do so. Avraham anticipates the Psalmist's cry of "Mah enosh ki tizkerenu?".

Modern science and philosophy sometimes seem very reductionist. Materialists and Positivists suggest that we are nothing more than our chemical and physical makeup. Camus wondered, if this is true, why one should go on living. Although we can not prove it or quantify it, we have what religion calls a soul, which marks us as unique in the physical world. The very tools of the scientist and philosopher, mark us as unique. Is the importance and value we see in ourselves, nothing but a conceit? We are finite, and destined to die. At the same time, our Creator calls out to us, and asks us to be his partner in creating a just and righteous world. Dare we conceal ourselves from Him?

Remembering the Lives that they Lived

Over the past few years, I've spent time reexamining almost everything I thought I knew and believed, to see whether I could continue to hold onto those ideas. Today, on Yom HaShoah, I begin to reconsider my thoughts on the day of Yom HaShoah itself.

For reasons that I have not yet discovered, for many years I kept an emotional distance from the Holocaust. It was not, God forbid, that I did not care. I simply had a hard time processing it. As I became a member of the subgroup of Modern-Orthodoxy that sat just to the left of the yeshivish world, I had an excuse to ignore the day. With what seems like smugness in retrospect, I refused to observe a day of mourning during the month of Nissan, as if I so deeply felt the emotional joy of the month. I also had Rav Soloveitchik ZT”L to fall back on, as he said we did not have the right to create a new day of mourning. This too, gave me an excuse to not deal with that which I wished to avoid. In returning more to the center, I have, thankfully, run out of excuses, and can use the day for thought and reflection.

As I read through the articles, look at the pictures, blogs and op-eds, there is something that for the most part seems to be missing. While the horrors of camp life are shown, and the brutality of the victim's deaths and suffering are documented, the lives that the survivors and victims lived, are rarely shown or discussed. This is made more striking to me as various organizations try and suggest the lessons that should be learned from the Holocaust. Besides my general discomfort with someone suggesting the lessons that are to be drawn from the brutal murder of six million Jews (and millions of other victims), the victims lives are utilized for some purpose other than memory itself. I do not suggest that there are not lessons to be drawn. I am suggesting that the lives of the victims, and particularly their pre-Holocaust lives , and not merely their suffering and deaths, should be front and center on this day.

One reason that I think this is particularly important, is that it seems to be that much of pre-Holocaust Jewish existence has been whitewashed, romanticized or selectively remembered. Whether it is the claim that most Jews in Europe were religious, or happy with their poverty, or other selective or false memories, these claims cheat the victims out of their memory being of who they were, rather than who we might wish them to have been. Additionally, it goes beyond simply having a more accurate memory of Jews who were somewhat similar to us. For those of us who are Orthodox (for lack of a better word) it is good for us to realize and recognize that all the Jews died al kiddush HaShem, whether from Sarajevo or from Satmar, Pressburg or Paris; Bobovers and Bundists alike. I would like to think that on this day, we can see the humanity and holiness in each person, regardless of belief.

I would humbly suggest that for ourselves and for our children, both as parents and as teachers, that we focus on the lives, beliefs and stories of a few victims and/or survivors, and that we reach beyond our comfort zone to learn about and from the lives which they lived.