One drink, two drinks, …

So tonight its new years eve and there are going to be quite some people that will consume a drink or two, at least I am:)

As with almost anything, Jewish law has something to say about this and I thought it would be nice to relate a halacha that will be applicable.

The Rambam in the Laws of Prayer and the Priestly benediction 4:17 wrote:

שכור אל יתפלל מפני שאין לו כוונה ואם התפלל תפלתו תועבה לפיכך חוזר ומתפלל כשיתרוקן משכרותו. שתוי אל יתפלל ואם התפלל תפלתו תפלה. אי זה שכור זה שאינו יכול לדבר לפני המלך. שתוי יכול לדבר בפני המלך ואינו משתבש. אף על פי כן הואיל ושתה רביעית יין לא יתפלל עד שיסיר יינו מעליו

“A drunkard should not pray because he has no intention (kavanah) and if he prays, his prayer is an abomination, therefore he should return and pray when he is sober again. A person that is tipsy should not pray but if he prays his prayer is prayer (i.e. its acceptable). Who is a drunk person? One that cannot speak before a king. A tipsy person is one that can speak before a king and does not make mistakes [when talking]. Even though this is so [even] when he drinks a riv’it of wine (80-160 ml or 2.8-5.4 fl oz) he should not pray until the [effect of the] wine is removed from him.”

So it seems if you drink a a few glasses of champagne tonight make sure you have said your prayers before that or wait until you feel the effect is gone. If you are tipsy you shouldnt pray but in the event you do so, its OK. However if you get drunk you should not recite prayers because instead of praising God this will be an abomination. The best way is probably to say the prayers before you get to the drinks in which case you are safe.

Our Forefathers? II

While reading Shaye J.D. Cohen’s From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, I chanced upon a footnote to a mishnah that forbade a convert to Judaism to say “G’d of our forefathers”. I looked up the relevant mishnah (Bikkurim 1:4) and here it is:

 אלו מביאין ולא קורין–הגר מביא ואינו קורא, שאינו יכול לומר “אשר נשבע ה’ לאבותינו לתת לנו” (דברים כו,ג); אם הייתה אימו מישראל, מביא וקורא. וכשהוא מתפלל בינו לבין עצמו, אומר אלוקי אבות ישראל; וכשהוא מתפלל בבית הכנסת, אומר אלוקי אבותיכם. ואם הייתה אימו מישראל, אומר אלוקי אבותינו

I reads something like:

These come and dont recite – the convert comes and does not recite, for he is unable to say “that Hashem swore to our forefathers to give to us” (Deuteronomy 26, 3); if his mother is from Israel [i.e. an Israelite], he [can] come and recite. And when he prays between himself, he [should] say G’d of the fathers of Israel; and when he is praying in the Synagogue, he [should] say G’d of their forefathers. And if his mother is from Israel [i.e. an Israelite], he [should] say G’d of our forefathers.

Now theres a responsa of the Rambam in which he permits a convert to recite G’d of our forefathers. While looking for it I found a site that answers my question which was, how the Rambam could permit it while the above cited mishnah prohibited it. The site refers to a debate in the Yerushalmi and cites Rabbi Yehuda as saying:

גר עצמו מביא וקורא. מה טעם? “כי אב המון גוים נתתיך” – לשעבר היית אב לארם, ועכשיו מיכן והילך אתה אב לכל הגויים

Which reads:

The convert between you comes and recites. Whats the reason? “Because father of many nations I have made you” – Before you were father of/to man, and now from here I will make you father of all the nations

And they quote Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi as saying that “the halacha is according to Rabbi Yehuda”.

Actually when I heard about this mishnah I thought I might look in the Mishneh Torah but I was unable to find the relevant mishnah, however the website also brings out the Rambam’s comment on the mishnah:

כל זה [דברי המשנה] ברור, אלא שפסק ההלכה: מביא הגר עצמו ביכורים וקורא. וסמכוהו למה שאמר ה’ לאברהם: “כי אב המון גוים נתתיך”. אמרו: לשעבר היית אב לארם, עכשיו אב לכל העולם כולו. ולפיכך אפשר לכל גר לומר אשר נשבע ה’ לאבותינו, מפני שאברהם אב לכל באי העולם לפי שלימדם האמונה והדת.

All this (words of the mishnah) is/are clear, but the verse of the halacha [is]: the convert comes between you [with his] first fruits and recites. And they lean(?)[for this halacha on] why [else]  Hashem spoke to Abraham: “Because father of many nations I have made you”. They said: Before you were father of/to man(?), and now father of all the world. And therefore its wholly possible to the convert to say:  that Hashem swore to our forefathers, for Abraham is father to all the people in the world for he taught them faith and religion.

Even though I now know on what the Rambam based his response, Im still wondering how the Yerushalmi can just push aside the opinion as set forth in the respective mishnah…

Principal Purpose of the Torah

I have just finished the Rambam’s explanation of the Divine commandments and must say that it was very interesting. One insight that kept coming back I would like to share.

 

You know from the repeated declarations in the Law that the principal purpose of the whole Law was the removal and utter destruction of idolatry, and all thats is connected therewith, even its name, and everything that might lead to any such practices… [1]

After having said this the Rambam continues by telling about the Sabeans and how his knowledge about them has given him insight into many of the divine commandments.

The knowledge of these theories and practices is of great importance in explaining the reasons of the precepts. For it is the principal object of the Law and the axis round which it turns, to blot out these opinions from man’s heart and make the existence of idolatry impossible. As regards the former Scripture says: “Lest your heart be persuaded,” etc. (Deut. xi. 16), “whose heart turneth away to-day,” etc. (ibid. xxix. 17). The actual abolition of idolatry is expressed in the following passage – “Ye shall destroy their altars, and burn their groves in fire” (Deut. vii. 5), “and ye shall destroy their name,” etc. (xii. 3). These two things are frequently repeated; they form the principal and first object of the whole Law, as our Sages distinctly told us in their traditional explanation of the words “all that G’d commanded you by the hand of Moses” (Num. xv. 25); for they say, “Hence we learn that those who follow idolatry deny as it were their adhesion to the whole Law, and those who reject idolatry follow as it were the whole Law.” (B.T. Kidd, 40a.) [2]

The Sabeans, he relates, were idolators and had a book called On the Nabatean Agriculture wherein their religious doctrines were written up. He relates from On the Nabatean Agriculture:

“All ancient wise men advised, and prophets likewise commanded and enjoined to play before the images on certain instruments during the festivals. They also said-and what they said is truethat the deities are pleased with it, and reward those who do it. They promise, indeed, very great reward for these things; e.g., length of life, protection from illness, exemption from great bodily deformities, plenty of the produce of the earth, and of the fruits of the trees.”[3]

To counter this:

G’d, in His great mercy for us, intended to remove this error from our minds, and to protect our bodies from trouble; and therefore desired us to discontinue the practice of these useless actions. He gave us His Law through Moses, our teacher, who told us in the name of G’d, that the worship of stars and other corporeal beings would effect that rain would cease, the land be waste, and would not produce anything, and the fruit of the trees would wither; calamities would befall the people, their bodies would be deformed, and life would be shortened.[4]

The Rambam then relates a fascinating insight:

[...]the custom which was in those days general among all men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples which contained certain images, to bow down to those images, and to burn incense before them; religious and ascetic persons were in those days the persons that were devoted to the service in the temples erected to the stars, as has been explained by us. It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of G’d, as displayed in the whole Creation, that He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service; for to obey such a commandment it would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present if he called us to the service of G’d and told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and not by any action. For this reason G’d allowed these kinds of service to continue; He transferred to His service that which had formerly served as a worship of created beings, and of things imaginary and unreal, and commanded us to serve Him in the same manner; viz., to build unto Him a temple; comp. “And they shall make unto me a sanctuary” (Exod. xxv. 8): to have the altar erected to His name; comp. “An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me” (ibid. XX. 2 1): to offer the sacrifices to Him; comp. “If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord” (Lev. i. 2), to bow down to Elim. and to burn incense before Him. He has forbidden to do any of these things to any other being; comp. “He who sacrificeth unto any G’d, save the L’rd only, he shall be utterly destroyed * (Exod. xxii. 19): “For thou shalt bow down to no other G’d” (ibid. xxxiv. 14). He selected priests for the service in the temple; comp. “And they shall minister unto me in the priest’s office” (ibid. xxviii. 41). He made it obligatory that certain gifts, called the gifts of the Levites and the priests, should be assigned to them for their maintenance while they are engaged in the service of the temple and its sacrifices. By this Divine plan it was effected that the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of our faith, the Existence and Unity of G’d, was firmly established; this result was thus obtained without deterring or confusing the minds of the people by the abolition of the service to which they were accustomed and which alone was familiar to them.[5]

This is quite a heavy insight and knowing that he will shock some of his readers (including me:P) he says:

I know that you will at first thought reject this idea and find it strange: you will put the following question to me in your heart: How can we suppose that Divine commandments, prohibitions, and important acts, which are fully explained, and for which certain seasons are fixed, should not have been commanded for their own sake, but only for the sake of some other thing: as if they were only the means which He employed for His primary object? What prevented Him from making His primary object a direct commandment to us, and to give us the capacity of obeying it? Those precepts which in your opinion are only the means and not the object would then have been unnecessary. Hear my answer, which will cure your heart of this disease and will show you the truth of that which I have pointed out to you. There occurs in the Law a passage which contains exactly the same idea; it is the following: “G’d led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for G’d said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt; but G’d led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea,” etc. (Exod. xiii. 17). Here G’d led the people about, away from the direct road which He originally intended, because He feared they might meet on that way with hardships too great for their ordinary strength; He took them by another road in order to obtain thereby His original object. In the same manner G’d refrained from prescribing what the people by their natural disposition would be incapable of obeying, and gave the above-mentioned commandments as a means of securing His chief object, viz., to spread a knowledge of Him [among the people], and to cause them to reject idolatry. It is contrary to man’s nature that he should suddenly abandon all the different kinds of Divine service and the different customs in which he has been brought up, and which have been so general, that they were considered as a matter of course; it would be just as if a person trained to work as a slave with mortar and bricks, or similar things, should interrupt his work, clean his hands, and at once fight with real giants. It was the result of G’d's wisdom that the Israelites were led about in the wilderness till they acquired courage. For it is a well-known fact that travelling in the wilderness, and privation of bodily enjoyments, such as bathing, produce courage, whilst the reverse is the source of faint-heartedness: besides, another generation rose during the wanderings that had not been accustomed to degradation and slavery. All the travelling in the wilderness was regulated by Divine commands through Moses; comp. “At the commandment of the L’rd they rested, and at the commandment of the L’rd they journeyed; they kept the charge of the L’rd and the commandment of the L’rd by the hand of Moses” (Num. ix. 23). In the same way the portion of the Law under discussion is the result of divine wisdom, according to which people are allowed to continue the kind of worship to which they have been accustomed, in order that they might acquire the true faith, which is the chief object [of G'd's commandments].[6]

Thus the Rambam on the principal purpose of the Torah.

———————————————

[1] Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed (New York: Dover Publications inc., 2000), p.317

[2] Ibid. p.320

[3] Ibid. p.321

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid. p.323

[6] Ibid. p.324

The Purpose of Creation

As its only a couple of weeks ago since the reading of the Creation, I thought this quote would be interesting to share. Its from the Guide from the Rambam in the section where he discusses the purpose of creation. Enjoy

 

Even if the Universe existed for man’s sake and man existed for the purpose of serving G’d, as has been mentioned, the question remains, What is the end of serving G’d? He does not become more perfect if all His creatures serve Him and comprehend Him as far as possible; nor would He lose anything if nothing existed beside Him. It might perhaps be replied that the service of G’d is not intended for G’d's perfection; it is intended for our own perfection,– it is good for us, it makes us perfect. But then the question might be repeated, What is the object of our being perfect? We must in continuing the inquiry as to the purpose of the creation at last arrive at the answer, It was the Will of G’d, or His Wisdom decreed it; and this is the correct answer. The wise men in Israel have, therefore, introduced in our prayers (for Neilah of the Day of Atonement) the following passage:– “Thou hast distinguished man from the beginning, and chosen him to stand before Thee; who can say unto Thee, What dost Thou? And if he be righteous, what does he give Thee?” They have thus clearly stated that it was not a final cause that determined the existence of all things, but only His will. [1]

————————————–

[1] Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed (New York: Dover Publications inc., 2000), p.274

The Rambam on why Daniel is in Ketuvim

This week while reading in the Rambam’s Guide I came across the section dealing with prophecy. Having been raised in a Pentecostal environment, this was old stuff for me!:P No seriously, this is a very interesting treatment, I could write a very long post of all that struck the eye but will keep it short as there is one point which I personally found enlightening:

The Rambam starts by saying that prophecy is given either in a vision or in a dream based on the verse (Num. 12:6):

And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the L’rd make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream.

 He then delineates two degrees of prophecy:

1. Divine assistance which is given to a person and induces and encourages him to do something good and grand

This degree of divine influence is called “the spirit of the L’rd”; and of the person who is under that influence we say that the spirit of the L’rd came upon him, clothed him, or rested upon him, or the L’rd was with him, and the like. (II:241)

People who possessed this degree were:

• All the judges of Israel
• Moses
• David

The Rambam says:

This faculty did not cause any of the above-named persons to speak on a certain subject, for it only aims at encouraging the person who possesses it to action; (II:242)

2. A person feels as if something came upon him, and as if he had received a new power that encourages him to speak.

Among others, people who possessed this degree were:

• David
• Solomon
• Daniel
• Job
• Chronicler
• The Seventy Elders
• Every High-Priest

The Rambam says:

He treats of science, or composes hymns, exhorts his fellow-men, discusses political and theological problems; all this he does while awake, and in full possession of his senses. Such a person is said to speak by the holy spirit. (II:242)

The Rambam brings the following to the readers attention; a distinction is to be made between those that call their dreams prophecies and those that call claim their prophecies were received in a dream. You might think whats this nit-witting about word order but hear him out:

The passage, “G’d appeared to Solomon and Gibeon in a dream by night, and G’d said” (I Kings xlvi. 2), does not contain a real prophecy, such as is introduced by the words: “The word of the L’rd came to Abram in a vision, saying” (Gen. xv. 1); or, “And G’d said to Israel in the visions of the night” (ibid. xlvi. 2), or such as the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah contain; in all these cases the prophets, though receiving the prophecy in a prophetic dream, are told that it is a prophecy, and that they have received prophetic inspiration. But in the case of Solomon, the account concludes, “And Solomon awoke, and behold it was a drem” (I Kings iii. 15); and in the account of the second divine appearance, it is said, “And G’d apeared to Solomon a second time, as he appeared to him at Gibeon” (ibid. ix. 2); it was evidently a dream. This kind of prophecy is a degree below that of which Scripture says: “In a dream I will speak to him” (Num. xii. 6). When prophets are inspired in a dream, they by no means call this a dream, although the prophecy reached them in a dream, but declare it decidedly to be a prophecy. Thus Jacob, our father, when awaking from a prophetic dream, did not say it was a dream, but declared “Surely there is the L’rd in this place,” etc. (Gen xxviii. 16); “G’d the Almighty appeared to me in Luz, the land of Canaan” (ibid. xlviii. 3) expressing thereby that it was a prophecy. But in reference to Solomon we read:-”And Solomon awoke, and behold it was a dream” (I Kings iii. 15). Similarly Daniel declares that he had a dream; although he sees an angel and hears his word, he speaks of the event as of a dream; even when he had received the information [concerning the dreams of Nebukadnezzar], he speaks of it in the following matter-”Then was the secret revealed to Daniel in a night vision” (Dan. ii. 19). On other occasions it is said, “He wrote down the dream”; “I saw in the visions by night,” etc… There is no doubt that this is one degree below that form of prophecy to which the words, “In a dream I will speak to him,” are applied. For this reason the nation desired to place the book of Daniel among the Hagiographa, and not among the Prophets. I have, therefore, pointed out to you, that the prophecy revealed to Daniel and Solomon, although they saw an angel in the dream, was not considered by them as a a perfect prophecy, but as a dream containing correct information. They belonged to the class of men, that spoke, inspired by the ruah ha-kodesh, “the holy spirit”. (II:243)

So according to the Rambam the reason Daniel is in the Ketuvim is the fact that “he speaks of the event as a dream” instead of a prophecy, even though the dream contained prophetic insights, and in this distinguishes himself from those that receive prophecy in a dream and declare it to be a prophecy.

I find this to be a very nice explanation, not only for the fact that it makes sense but also because I felt my namesake was treated unfairly by being excluded from the Nevi’im

כפי דרך הארץ

While learning Chumash & Rashi, I came across a comment of Rashi on the following verse:

The L’rd will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the L’rd and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the L’rd will blot out his name from under heaven.

Rashi says:

HASHEM’S ANGER (literally, “nose”) WILL SMOKE – Through anger the body heats up, and smoke emerges from the nose, figuratively speaking. Similarly, “Smoke went up in His nose.” Although this is not so before the Omnipresent, i.e., although these physical phenomena are not applicable to the Omnipresent, Scripture lets the ear hear in the manner in which it is accustomed and able to hear according to the normal way of the world.[1]

This principle, of the Torah speaking according to the normal way of the world, is also explained by the Rambam in the Guide.

“The Torah speaks according to the language of man,” that is to say, expressions, which can easily be comprehended and understood by all, are applied to the Creator. Hence the description of G’d by attributes implying corporeality, in order to express His existence; because the multitude of people do not easily conceive existence unless in connection with a body, and that which is not a body nor connected with a body has for them no existence.
Whatever we regard as a state of perfection, is likewise attributed to G’d, as expressing that He is perfect in every respect, and that no imperfection or deficiency whatever is found in Him. But there is not attributed to G’d anything which the multitude consider a defect or want; thus He is never represented as eating, drinking, sleeping, being ill, using violence, and the like. [2] 

In my opinion this captures very well the idea behind the Torah’s language.

 

[1] R. Herczeg, Rashi (New York: Mesorah Publications ltd., 2007), p.310

[2] Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed (New York: Dover Publications inc., 2000), p.35

Troubles ahead?

“You are gonna get into trouble if you continue like this”

These words were spoken to me by a man at the Kotel who had seen me several nights in a row studying at the Kotel (after 23:00, the Kotel is great, a bit of a breeze and not too many people, and of course Rav Zicherman’s Daf Yomi shiur which is very interesting to see, unfortunately only seeing as I cant understand what he’s saying:P).

I had asked him several questions the night before on the parts I was studying, mainly words I couldnt translate and this night when he saw me again, he came over.

We talked a bit and I told him at the start of the conversation that I was not Jewish, so as to avoid confusion. You see, although there was no reason, outwardly to expect me to be Jewish, I mean, I did not wear a Kippah, just a cap, and no tzitzit, I think he still expected me to be Jewish, because in all honesty, who would expect a non-Jew to be studying Ibn Ezra at 11pm at the Kotel

So he said to me, “youre gonna get yourself into trouble”, I was kind of suprised, I mean a comment like, go study the laws of Noah, I would understand, but the idea of me getting into trouble for studying Tanakh I never heard of (Im glad I left my Mishnayot at home:P). So I kindly asked him with whom I would get into trouble, to which he replied “with G’d”.

He said “you cant study Torah, the only thing you can study is the 7 laws of Noah and the Scriptures that precede it”. He made a remark which I found quite amusing “ever heard of doctor saying he wants to be a paratrooper?” He said “you just cant do that”.

I responded “Im aware of the prohibtion on observing more laws than the 7 given to Noah but I think the Rambam somewhere said that its permissible to teach Christians Tanakh as they hold it to be divine”. He wasnt aware of such a statement by the Rambam but told me he would look into it.

Meanwhile I went to the computer to find the specific passage of the Rambam and found it. For those interested here it is:

[לז] שו”ת הרמב”ם סימן קמט ד”ה התשובה היא

ומותר ללמד המצות  לנוצרים ולמשכם אל דתנו, ואינו מותר דבר מזה לישמעאלים, לפי מה שידוע לכם על אמונתם, שתורה זו אינה מן השמים,  וכאשר ילמדום דבר מן כתוביה (וימצאוהו) מתנגד למה שבדו הם מלבם לפי ערבוב הסיפורים ובלבול העניינים אשר  באו להם  . . . אבל  הערלים +ר”ל הנוצרים+ מאמינים בנוסח התורה שלא נשתנה, ורק מגלים בה פנים בפרושם המופסד ומפרשים זאת  בפירושים, שהם ידועים בהם, ואם יעמידום על הפרוש הנכון, אפשר שיחזרו למוטב, ואפילו לא יחזרו, כשרוצים  שיחזרו, לא יבוא לנו מזה מכשול ולא ימצאו בכתוביהם דבר שונה מכתובינו.

[37], Responsa, The Rambam, 149

And its permitted to teach the commandments to the Christians and to draw them closer to our religion, and it is not permitted to speak from these [i.e. teach these] to the Muslims, for what is known to your of their beliefs, that this Torah is not from heaven, and when they learn from the Scriptures (and they find) opposing to what is in their hearts, [they say] this is because the stories are mixed up and the ideas that came to them… but the uncircumcised, i.e. the Christians, believe in the text of the Torah that its not changed and only מגלים בה פנים בפרושם המופסד ומפרשים זאת  בפירושים, שהם ידועים בהם but if they are יעמידום on the correct interpretation, it is possible that they turn to the better, and even [if] they dont return, כשרוצים  שיחזרו this will not come as an obstacle to us and they wont find their Sciptures to be different from our Sciptures.

I gave the man a call and he said “ok you won, I talked to some people and they say its allowed”, I then gave him the teshuva of the Rambam as a confirmation, and continued my learning*

 

*I doubt it if the Rambam’s dissapproval would have stopped me from learning Tanakh, but still his approval makes it easier as it enables me to ask questions to my Jewish friends on Scripture.