The Non Halachic Part of Talmud Part 5

Rabbi Nachman of Breslov (1772-1810) was a very deep thinker, who, ironically, instructed his students and followers to be simple and unsophisticated. He taught that simplicity brings happiness, while sophistication only brings suffering. He was especially opposed to the study of philosophy, particularly the works of RAMBAM. I have discussed the reasons for this in my series on Kabbalah. Basically, he believed that the universe is created on different levels, with different realities on each level, which must contradict each other as far as our minds are concerned. He even reported having a vision in which he saw RAMBAM, and rebuked him severely for having written such a work as "Guide for the Perplexed". He commanded his followers not to even glance at the work. (In my series on Jewish groups, I showed how the early Reform concepts are essentially a mixture of Shabbetai Tzvi and RAMBAM. This is recognized by historians). On the other hand, Rabbi Nachman saw RAMBAM as the ultimate halachic authority, asserting that when Mashiach comes, we will rule from his works directly. (There are variant traditions in Breslov if he said this regarding all areas of halachah, or only some). Was Rabbi Nachman trying to keep us uninformed? Not at all. Our minds can twist and turn an idea, until it comes out the exact opposite of what was said. Even little children tend to philosophize about life, death, and G-d. He compares this to two unlearned people, who are trying to study a text that neither understands. One comes up with an erroneous interpretation and tells his friend. The friend asks a question on the interpretation, which appears to both of them as extremely profound. But it is all based on falsehood and misunderstanding! They never understood the text. If G-d were understandable to the human mind, that means He would be just like us. Philosophers create a god in their own image! But are we to be simpletons, taking everything literally? Rabbi Nachman said the following profound statement: "It is better to believe a thousand things that are false, than to enter into philosophical speculation once!" The Torah, on all its levels, is designed to teach us how to live and find G-d. Something may be literal, or may be a parable. What business is that of ours? We are to study it, believe that it is true on some level, and apply it to our lives. Questioning "who, what, where, when and why?" is in no way appropriate. I once sat in on a lecture by a prominent rabbi. He was speaking about the words which Jacob spoke when he first met Rachel. He gave six different interpretations of Jacob's words. All present were, to say the least, impressed. I was not. It was merely an intellectual exercise. Had he commented on what each interpretation should mean in our lives, I would have seen that as very significant. Which interpretation is right? None of my business. The rabbis stress that the Torah is not a history book. Many things are not in chronological order. How much more so is this true about the Patriarchs' private lives? What are we to do? Study, apply what we study, pray on what we study, and be filled with joy that we have G-d and His Torah! "Meshunedik Freilich!" (Be crazy happy!) The same is true of the non-halachic parts of Talmud. Study them, live them, pray them! There is a concept in philosophy (which I learned before I got to Breslov) called "Hobson's Ass". A hungry donkey is standing exactly midway between two sacks of grain. He is trying to think which sack would be easier to walk to. He thinks and thinks, until he starves to death. Rabbi Nachman urges us to grasp all the joy we can in life, rather than spend our time thinking about what is and isn't literal. G-d gave us a magnificent diamond. Are we to grind it down and perform spectrum analysis on it? Or are we to appreciate it, love it, and find joy! "Joy and Strength are in His Place" (I Chronicles, 16:27) If we are happy, we are close to G-d. That is what it is all about for Rabbi Nachman...and for me.

The Temple Mount Controversy

Since so many people are asking, on and off list, about Har HaBayit (The Temple Mount), I will  describe the issues briefly. Yes, according to all views (except RAAVAD) the prohibition of entering the site where the Temple stood, while in a state of impurity, is exactly the same whether the Temple is standing or not. Since we are all in a state of impurity because of contact with the dead, and we lack the Red Heifer purification ceremony, entrance into the area of the Temple or its courtyard is strictly forbidden, EXCEPT if actually offering sacrifice, which may be done in impurity if most of the people are impure. The only thing lacking for offering the Passover Sacrifice, for instance, is government and police permission.  For this, and many other sacrifices, the Temple itself is not essential, only the Temple site. For the rest of the Temple Mount, there is NO prohibition to enter, providing that one has immersed in a mikveh. The Temple Mount area is 500 x 500 cubits (750 feet by 750 feet). Area was added by Herod on the South side, which is not actually sanctified. Where the Al Akhsa  Mosque is situated, is clearly in the area added by Herod, and not part of the Temple Mount. So, at least theoretically, anyone can go on the Temple Mount, excluding the actual Temple area, after having first  immersed. BUT, we are not certain exactly where the Temple stood. There are three main theories. Nevertheless, most agree that the Dome of the Rock is on the site of the Holy of Holies. Those who go up rely on that view and avoid the raised platform around the Dome. If rabbis and archaeologists were allowed to have free access, that could be settled in an hour. Now, many rabbis hesitate to allow going up at all, until the Temple site can be clarified. Many more are opposed because you and I may be careful to immerse, and avoid the actual Temple area, but, once people are allowed up, who will enforce their movements and actions? Some 45 years ago, a Temple Mount activist put on an army uniform, and went to see Rabbi Elyashiv, the doyen of the Lithuanian Yeshiva community. The man pretended to be crying inconsolably. He told Rabbi Elyashiv that he was being assigned by the army to guard the Temple Mount, and he knows that it is a grave sin. Rav Elyashiv is reported to have said "There is hardly a law more clear than the permissibility of going on to the Temple Mount after immersion. We only say that it is forbidden in order to keep people from going there indiscriminately".Rabbi Elyashiv was reportedly very perturbed to find out he had been duped. Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, the late Sepharadic Chief Rabbi, advocated building a synagogue on the Temple Mount in a part definitely not within the Temple courtyard, with an entrance from outside the Mount, with no exit to the other parts of the Mount. Beyond these considerations is ideology and politics. A concept of early Zionism was "conquer the Land with your feet". If Jews go to an area, it will become ours, if they stay away, it has already been ceded. Others argue that any attempt by Jews to have a presence on the Mount will lead to violence and bloodshed. This goes back to a dispute between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. The Babylonian envisions a supernatural deliverance. G-d will take all the evil off the Mount, and Messiah will rebuild the Temple. (According to RASHI, the Temple will descend fully built from Heaven). The Jerusalem Talmud sees it as our constant obligation to rebuild the Temple whenever that would be feasible, completely independent of Mashiach. Therefore, there are those who wish to go to war for the Temple's rebuilding, and those who want to keep peace at any cost, with letting G-d take care of the rebuilding when it will please Him. I hope this helps in understanding the background of the dispute.

The Non Halachic Part of Talmud Part 4

We have seen how RAMBAM's works were greeted in the Ashkenazi lands of France and Germany with great derision. They were seen as heterodox and dangerous. They were condemned, banned and burned everywhere. With time, however, it began to be recognized that RAMBAM  had an incredible grasp of all of Biblical, Talmudic and post Talmudic literature. He was not easily dismissed! Various approaches to reconcile him with the Judaism that they had known arose.
Some took the simple approach that his philosophical works were forgeries, designed to embarrass and discredit him. This approach was still current among some eighteenth century rabbis.
Another approach was to say that he didn't mean what he wrote. His philosophy was designed to bring back to Judaism those who had strayed because of Greek philosophy. It was the classic "Hora'at Sha'ah", a "ruling for the hour", much as Elijah did when he encouraged the Priests of Baal to make sacrifice in order to show the people that Baal is false.
Still another approach, espoused by many even today, is that RAMBAM, although disparaging Kabbalah, was, in fact, a great Kabbalist. Everything he wrote was speaking of certain "levels". No angels? No problem. In the highest of the four Kabbalistic worlds, there ARE no angels. He was talking on that level. G-d has no attributes? He was talking on the level of Ein Sof (Infinite) which is beyond attributes of even Names. No demons? Why, that's silly. As he wrote this, he actually was banishing the demons to uninhabited areas, where they could do no harm. Often, halachic rulings which he wrote that differed from the "norm" were assumed to be copyist errors. Many were 'reinterpreted", and many were "fixed". Fortunately, two recent editions of his works have been printed from the oldest manuscripts; one even bearing his signature on each page.They differ from the standard editions in hundreds of places.
But the most common approach among Ashkenazim was to see his halachah as one opinion of many, and to simply ignore his philosophical works. Even in Sepharadic circles, where his rulings were rarely challenged (Rabbi Yosef Karo, the author of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in four different places that we ALWAYS follow RAMBAM's rulings "in these lands".), scholars were divided between Kabbalists and Maimonists. This was true until the expulsion from Spain in 1492, when philosophy was at a loss to explain what had happened, and Kabbalah filled the void.
A turnaround occurred in the late seventeenth century. One of the greatest traumas in Jewish history was the appearance of the false Messiah, Shabbaetai Tzvi. There have been, and still are, many false Messiahs in our history. I personally have met about eight of them. But the others had either no following, or a pitiful small group of misfits. Shabbetai Tzvi was different. MOST Jews and rabbis believed him. (This is often played down in apologetic writings, but is well documented). If you are Jewish, you can assume that most of your ancestors who lived in the 1660s were "believers". He based himself on a distortion of Kabbalah, and generated great hopes of redemption in the year 1666. In 1666, Shabbaetai Tzvi converted to Islam. The shock and disappointment were immense. Most went back to their old routine; but with faith diminished. Some continued to believe in Shabbatai Tzvi...up until this very day. It was at that time that Ashkenazim either abandoned the study and practice of Kabbalah, or else limited it to the stable and mature. (This despite the fact that many famous rabbis were "believers", and we are still arguing about some rabbis of the following generations). Many dusted off RAMBAM's  "Guide" at this point, hoping to create a more stable and intellectually based Judaism. RAMBAM's "Thirteen Articles of Faith", long attacked by scholars in every land, now became the "standard" Jewish belief. Non Kabbalistic, "standard" Orthodoxy is heavily Maimonist. Most Sepharadim, and all Chassidim, maintained the belief and practice of Kabbalah. But your standard Yeshiva University Modern Orthodox rabbi will, for the most part, be a theological Maimonist. For these,RAMBAM's halachah will be far less significant than his take on Talmud and Jewish tradition. Kabbalistically oriented Jews will be looked on askance, and with considerable suspicion. In my opinion, this accounts for a very large part of the problems and conflicts which plague modern day Judaism. We thus see the roots of avoidance of aggadah. RAMBAM urged to keep away from it. Where he does quote it, it is almost always interpreted allegorically. For those who are not partial to RAMBAM's philosophy, or who reinterpret it to the point of it being unrecognizable, aggadah remains central.
In my next post, i will examine the unique approach of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov to these issues. Stay tuned!

The Non Halachic Part of Talmud Part 3

In RAMBAM's monumental legal code, the Mishnah Torah, his ideas expressed in his philosophical works come into practical expression. His total rejection of both demons and angels, as conflicting with uncompromising monotheism, is evident in not only his neglect of these topics but even halachot stated in the Talmud based on these topics. These are either ignored totally or else are given new, non-mystical explanations. For instance, some laws are designed to help us avoid "ruach raah" (evil spirit). These halachot are either omitted by RAMBAM, or are given a hygienic explanation. The exhortation of the many rabbis to wash one's hands immediately upon arising in the morning because of an evil spirit that takes hold of them as we sleep is completely absent in all of RAMBAM's vast writings. In his lengthy explanation of calculating the New Moon, and when to add a leap-month, he goes into a great deal of astronomy. He concludes his remarks with "all of these facts are borrowed from Greek and Roman scholars. There is no Jewish astronomy that we know of". In the Biblical laws of "Patzu'a Dakah" ( a man who, because of injury, is incapable of fathering a child) being forbidden to marry, RAMBAM goes into the Talmud's description of what injuries these may be. He concludes, however,  "in practice, we rely on the great medical experts of the day to advise on this topic". As I understand it, he is saying that here, too,  there is no such thing as Jewish science. The rabbis were relying on the medical knowledge of their contemporaries, no more. In his discussion of the Messianic Era, he says "no man knows what will be until it is. We have no tradition regarding these things. All the Talmudic statements regarding his coming and his mission are merely the way that each rabbi understood the prophecies. Do not pay attention to the aggadot, nor try to reconcile the contradictions between aggadot." (In fact, reconciling contradictions in aggadot was a major occupation of Ashkenazic rabbis of this time). Although he apparently rejects the notion of Shmuel haNagid, that aggadah should be ignored, he nevertheless distinguished valuable parables from what he considered folklore, or even superstition. The Talmud is vital as being the major collection of Sinaitic regulations, as well as the enactments of Priests, Prophets and scholars. But these must be separated from outside influences and imagination.
When his writings came to  Franco-Germany, the reaction was violent. His works were burned in the public squares. He was regarded as a heretic. In time, the furor dissipated. In what ways this was accomplished, will be my next installment. Stay tuned.

The Non Halachic Part of Talmud Part 2

RAMBAM (1138-1204) was well aware of the controversy concerning the Aggadic (non halachic, narrative) parts of Talmud. Perhaps the strongest defender of the Oral Torah until his time (Karaite heresy had been around for 400 years, denounced, but tolerated. RAMBAM wrote them out of the Jewish people, unless they repent, and even encouraged violence towards them.) At the same time, he was a physician, a man of science. He deals with this issue in his commentary to the Mishnah. He states that there are three schools of thought on the aggadah. First, there are those who take aggadah literally. He says that if this works for them, fine. But let them remain silent, so that we will not all be considered fools (!). Second, there are those who reject aggadah outright. But aggadah comprises a huge part of Talmudic literature. He saw this rejection as heresy. He offers a third approach. The sages were deep philosophers, who clothed their ideas in metaphors and allegory. His son, Rabbi Avraham, elucidates this point. He writes that whereas his father wrote his "Guide For The Perplexed" in order to interpret the true concepts of the Written  Torah, and distinguish them for the narrative, much of which, in RAMBAM's opinion, is allegorical, he really wanted to write a similar work on the Talmud. But, "Moses feared to come nigh". With Karaite heresy running rampant at that time, he was afraid that any reinterpretation of the Talmud could be used by the Karaites to undermine Judaism. Rabbi Avraham gives an example of his father's approach. In the Torah, we read that Og, King of Bashan, was a giant, who sought to keep the Israelites from coming to the land. How big was he? Well the Torah says that his bed was 9 cubits long. (about 13 feet). But the aggadic parts of Talmud assert that he was really huge. This was not his bed, but his cradle! When Og saw the Israelites coming, he sized up the situation. The Israelite camp was three parasangs long (about 10 miles). He uprooted a mountain that was three parasangs across, carried it on his head, and was prepared to throw it on the Israelites. But a miracle happened, in which G-d made ants to bore a hole in the mountain, so that it fell over his head and became stuck. Moses was ten cubits tall (fifteen feet)  took an ax ten cubits long, jumped ten cubits into the air, and struck Og on his ankle, thereby killing him. Rabbi Avraham explains it as his father saw it. The three parasangs of the camp meant that Israel was bringing the spiritual treasures of the three patriarchs. Og wished to indicate that pagan culture and thought were so superior, it could just be thrown on us and we would cease our march toward holiness. He carried the mountain on his head, symbolizing the old ideas of the pagans. But G-d could defeat this with one of the flimsiest creatures in the world; the ant. Moses symbolized everything holy. The tabernacle was ten cubits tall. That seems like something very minor compared to the might of the pagans and their culture. Only a blow on the ankle would be enough, however, to overcome everything. The "outside world" seems so high and mighty, but it actually means nothing. In RAMBAM's description of the coming of Mashiach, he warns "keep away from the aggadot".Few are capable of properly interpreting them.
RAMBAM's views in this area had numerous implications not only for aggadah, but even for halachah, when he felt that it was based on faulty information which had been passed along through the words of our sages. More on this next time, as well as the reactions of European rabbis to these ideas

The Non Halachic Part of Talmud Part 1

As I have discussed many times, the Torah consists of a Written and Oral element. One is meaningless without the other. I often give the analogy of the relationship between the U.S. Constitution and American law. All U.S. law is based on the Constitution. Yet, when one visits a lawyer, he turns to your State's laws. One cannot go before a judge and argue that one's speeding ticket should be thrown out, since there is no mention of speeding in the constitution. Yet, a State's laws and enactments cannot violate the Constitution. So, the Oral Torah consists of explanations of laws given to Moses, and case law based on decisions of courts (Deut. 17:8-13). It also consists of enactments of the Sanhedrin, in accordance with the statements in that passage from Deuteronomy. Yet, the Talmud, which is the main repository of the Oral Torah, contains much more. There are stories, ostensibly giving the background information on Biblical events. There are statements on science, medicine, astronomy, history, in short, every aspect of human interest. But are these statements to be considered part of Torah? If not, what are they doing in the Talmud? There has been a huge debate on this topic for the last 1300 years. Each side has its defenders and detractors to this day. Let's analyze these one by one.
In medieval Ashkenazic circles, the Talmud was seen as a unified work, which had been dictated to Moses on Sinai along with the Written Torah. As such, it is infallible. As science progressed, some turned their backs on the new discoveries, defending what they saw as the "G-d given facts" expressed in the Talmud. Today, the primary defender of this approach is Chabad. Some other groups and individuals also take this approach. However, many great Ashkenazic authorities disagreed with this approach. Maharal of Prague (1520-1609) opines that the facts discussed in the Talmud represent the best knowledge of the day, but are certainly not the final word. The Talmud is, after all, the work of many generations of scholars, determined to preserve and interpret the Oral Tradition. It is not a unified work, but is essentially the record of discussion, carried on in study halls over several centuries (between 200 and 600 years, depending on which historians we may believe). Side issues came up and were discussed, and became part of the notes on the topic at hand. In most modern Yeshivot, these sections are simply skipped.
In Spain and the East, a totally different approach was taken. Rav Saadya Gaon (882-942), who lived first in Egypt and then Iraq, saw the narrative parts of the Talmud as literal, unless they either violated observable facts, or were beyond reason. In this case, they needed to be understood as allegories. A generation later, in Spain, Rabbi Shmuel HaNagid wrote an introduction to the Talmud, which is still printed in scholarly editions. He explains the structure and methodology of the Talmud. He divides its material into three parts. The first is the laws that have been handed down carefully since Sinai. In this, the Talmud is equal in authority to the Torah itself. The second consists of the interpretations of the various rabbis, how they interpreted Scripture, and derived principles. This, according to him, was NOT given to Moses. But, as these were such great men, their words must be carefully studied, and at least taken into consideration. The third part consists of legends and folklore that can well be ignored by us. Needless to say, this was a very radical approach. A middle ground was proposed by RAMBAM. I will discuss that in my next post.