Toelet vs Taanug

In the previous post, I noted that Ralbag emphasizes a purposeful approach to life. This emphasis expresses itself in Ralbag's approach to mitzvot, which are founded on the notion of “toelet”, aiding man in his proper pursuit of benefit. This commitment to toelet underlies the distinction between abstaining vs not doing of melacha. Clearly, abstaining from melacha involves a shift to a superior focus rather than merely an absence of melacha behavior. What remains to be understood is the nature of this superior focus saught through abstention. What is this superior focus pursued on Shabbat?

To answer this, it is critical to note that Shabbat is one of the 10 dibrot, a mitzva that has a special role in the purposeful life. For Ralbag, the 10 dibrot are the archetypes of the purposeful life, collectively articulating the essential elements of Toelet for the Taryag system as a whole. Each and every one of the mitzvot, in some way, builds upon the life mission of toelet articulated in skeleton form in the 10 dibrot. Given his view of Dibrot, it is clear that Ralbag's understanding of Shvita memalacha lies at the very heart of the pursuit of toelet underlying the Mitzva system. As a dibrah, Shevita mimelacha is clearly fundamental to the pursuit of toelet. To understand Shabat then, presupposes insight into the role of “toelet” in human action generally.

Toelet is best understood in contrast with its alternative- Taanug. Taanug is the basis of action of the unreflective person whose motivation is limited to pursuit of pleasure alone. A wise person acts on the basis of Toelet - the richer sense of opportunity afforded by reflection. One who is motivated by Toelet has a much wider sense of functionality that includes sensory pleasure in proper measure among other human needs.

To understand this distinction, it is instructive to consider the case of the dieter. Clearly the overeater's over indulgence in food, is not simply ignorance in the area of calorie intake. One could provide the overweight person with a clear diet and still find them overeating on a regular basis. Overeating results from attraction to perceived benefits following from food pleasure, rather than a mere ignorance of calorie counts. In its extreme taanug form, the perceived benefit from food pleasure can be all encompassing. Lacking a realm of human function beyond the sensory, the pleasure of eating is called upon to compensate, leading to overeating. eating becomes the basis of comfort and celebration distraction and self reward. To succeed, the overeater must gain insight into the underlying fact that his notion of benefit is limited to taanug and learn to seek toelet.

The successful dieter therefore is not one with superior “will power”. Rather, the successful dieter must gain an insight into himself as an organism, come to appreciate his opportunities in the world at a deeper, richer level. This recognition of the possibility of a richer life of toelet is liberating. Toelet removes the act of eating from the framework of pleasure alone and opens up the possibility of considering it in a much broader sense of a broad based sense of human functionality.

Ralbag teaches that this process of insight allowing for the shift from sensory pleasure to the possibility of functionality is fundamental to human development generally. It is not only “eating” that can be limited by the pursuit of sensory entertainment for its own sake. Every human act begins as sensory entertainment, from eating and drinking to sexuality from play to art.

Insight into the functionality of human behavior is not a one time event. The release of the self from a habitual taanug orientation, does not give way to a fully formed sense of toelet- no exploration works in this way. What insight opens up is the possibility of growth in the toelet concept, there are many many stages in this process. As such, true success depends on an education that challenges man to seek ever more profound formulations of functionality. But where does this recognition of toelet begin? It is here that the notion of dibrot and Shabbat enter the picture. The next post will explore this extension of the notion of the toelet concept.

Non doing vs Abstaining

The previous post explored the core significance of a preliminary understanding of an end to appreciate the nature of a Mitzva as a means to that desired end. Ralbag illustrates this principle clearly in Mitvat Issur Melacha through his careful distinction between not doing vs abstaining. 
 At first glance, the distinction between not doing craft and abstaining from craft seems semantic and trivial. Isn't not doing the same thing as abstaining? From a behavioral point of view, this is a good point. With Ralbag's emphasis on Toelet, meaning and benefit however, the distinction rings true.

To merely not do something is to practice arbitrary self denial and is to be condemned to failure. The overeater tries to not eat, the drinker tries to not drink, both rarely if ever succeed. To abstain is to have a superior purpose for the sake of which one chooses to avoid overindulgence in an enticing pleasurable activity. The successful dieter's non eating supports a health oriented lifestyle that justifies some loss of eating pleasure.

The principle applies with equal force to Issur Melacha. To attempt to simply not do melacha on Shabat is to engage in a futile battle of will, one that will succumb to the allure of weekend entertainment or 24/7 workstyles. To abstain from melacha is to refrain from melacha , precisely because one is aware of the superior benefit opened up by redirecting energy away from overindulgence in the material domain for the sake of involvement in superior domain of mind. Ralbag develops this idea in Toelet #10 and 11.

In Toelet 11 the Halachic aspect of Issur melacha alone is explored, therefore the Mitzva is formulated at the behavioral level in isolation-- to not do craft on the Shabbat. This behavioral aspect is the focus of the Lo Taaseh as it is presented in the pasuk “You shall not do any Craft". Lest the modern reader slip into the error of thinking that mitzvot can be understood at the behavioral level alone, Ralbag emphasises the need to review the toelet from the previous Toelet- #10.

התועלת הי״א היא במצוות. והוא מה שהזהירנו מעשות כל מלאכה ביום השבת. שנאמר ״לא תעשה כל מלאכה” וכבר בארנו התועלת המגיע מזאת המצוה במה שקדם

The 11th Toelet is in Mitzvot, this being that we are prohibited from doing all craft on the Shabbat day- as it says “You shall not do any Craft”. We have already explained the toelet which comes from this Mitzva in the previous section.

In Toelet 10 the end pursued by this non doing is explored via the aseh of Shevita-to abstain from craft on the seventh day. This abstention is rooted in the pasuk “six days shall you work and accomplish all your craft but the seventh day shall be a Shabbath dedicated to Hashem your God”.

התועלת העשירי הוא במצוות. והוא מה שצוה לשבות ממלאכה ביום השבת. שנאמר ״ששת ימים תעבד ועשית כל מלאכתך ויום השביעי שבתלה׳ אלהיך וגו,״. והנה התועלת בזאת המצוה הוא בדעות ובמדות.
The tenth benefit is in Mitzvot this being that we are commanded to abstain from melacha on the Shabbat day as it says "six days shall you work and accomplish all your craft but the seventh day shall be a  Shabbath dedicated to Hashem your God". The benefit from this Mitzva is in theoretical ideas and practical affairs.

Clearly it is our insight into the toelet, benefit and meaning, of Shabbat in theoretical ideas and practical affairs that justifies abstaining from the allure of preoccupation with melacha alone.
But what is this insight that transforms Issur Melacha from a futile non doing into a productive abstention from overindulgence?

Ends vs means in Ralbag

התועלת הי״א היא במצוות. והוא מה שהזהירנו מעשות כל מלאכה ביום השבת. שנאמר ״לא תעשה כל מלאכה”. וכבר בארנו התועלת המגיע מזאת המצוה במה שקדם.

The 11th Toelet is in Mitzvot, this being that we are prohibitted from doing all craft on the Shabbat day- as it says “You shall not do any Craft”. We have already explained the toelet which comes from this Mitzva in the previous section.

In this one small piece, Ralbag reveals an extremely important, but easily overlooked dimension of his perspective on Talmud torah. Before he explains the halachic dimension of the mitzva of issur melacha (toelet #11), Ralbag calls the readers attention to the ultimate purpose this mitzva serves (toelet # 10).  This emphasis of considering the Mitzva as means to an end is novel to us as moderns. Einstein expresses this tendency of ours to neglect the significance of understanding ends very well .

Yet the ancients knew something- which we seem to have forgotten. All means prove but a blunt instrument, if they have not behind them a living spirit. But if the longing for the achievement of the goal is powerfully alive within us, then shall we not lack the strength to find the means for reaching the goal and for translating it into deeds.
Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49.

Ralbag’s treatment of Issur melacha embodies this notion of Einstein. The reader is focused on the fact that his understanding of the Halachic nature of issur melacha in tolelet #11 as a means, will be but a blunt instrument in the absence of careful consideration of the natural desire and goal underlying the living spirit of Shabat raised previously in toelet #10. But what is this “natural desire” underlying the living spirit of Shabat ? How exactly does this “natural desire” impact on the Halacha as a means?

The next few pieces will deal with this issue, which goes to the heart of Ralbag’s derech in perush Torah Shebichtav.

Obama-friend of my enemy #2-- a call to Teshuva?

On January 24, 2009, I posted an article entitled, Obama- friend of my enemy. The idea was that Obama, because of his cowardice or hypocrisy, would mismanage the phenomenon of an Iran in pursuit of nuclear weapons. Israel, because of her dependence on US friendship for her existence, would be asked to sacrifice her security, to appease Arabs into an anti Iranian coalition, by the US. The 2009 article is worth a review, in light of recent events, and President Shimon Peres' remarks, from today's Jerusalem post. Certainly, this might have been a lucky guess, it might also be, a productive first hypothesis worthy of further development.

Much as we might agree with Peres' political assessment that Israel currently depends on US friendship for her survival, we should also view this as a Tzara, and a call to Teshuva on our part. Why are we not asking ourselves, how did we get to be in this situation of dependence upon frienship? Should we not be seeking a realistic way out of this dependency based upon our Mesorah? Obviously, there is no simple answer to the question, Teshuva begins with almost impossible questions. Yet, we are obligated to ask the question:

הלכות תענייות פרק א  אבל אם לא יזעקו, ולא יריעו, אלא יאמרו דבר זה ממנהג העולם אירע לנו, וצרה זו נקרוא נקרית--הרי זו דרך אכזרייות, וגורמת להם להידבק במעשיהם הרעים, ותוסיף הצרה וצרות אחרות:  הוא שכתוב בתורה, "והלכתם עימי, בקרי.  והלכתי עימכם, בחמת קרי" (ויקרא כו,כז-כח), כלומר כשאביא עליכם צרה, כדי שתשובו--אם תאמרו שהוא קרי, אוסיף עליכם חמת אותו קרי.

 Jpost October 22, 2010
President Shimon Peres said that Israel cannot survive without the help of the United States, at a Jerusalem conference of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute on Thursday.

Peres said that, "for our existence, we need the friendship of the United States of America."

Speaking of how Israel can give back to the US, he said that just "as the US is trying to understand the security needs of Israel, we Israelis ourselves must understand the security needs of the US." He continued, "We cannot give back to the United States what the US is giving us, but in our own small way, we can be of help."

Connecting two of the largest issues on the Israeli - and American - agenda, the president said Israel could be of help to the US by enabling an "anti-Iran coalition in the Middle East, and the contribution will not be by declaration, but if we stop  the secondary conflict between us and the Palestinians," in order to allow the US to focus on the Iranian threat.

Tisha Bav 2010 -The Cause of Churban part 1

Gittin 57b

דף נז,ב גמרא  אמר רבי חייא בר אבין אמר רבי יהושע בן קרחה סח לי זקן אחד מאנשי ירושלים בבקעה זו הרג נבוזראדן רב טבחים מאתים ואחת עשרה רבוא ובירושלים הרג תשעים וארבע רבוא על אבן אחת עד שהלך דמן ונגע בדמו של זכריה לקיים מה שנאמר (הושע ד) ודמים בדמים נגעו אשכחיה לדמיה דזכריה דהוה קא מרתח וסליק אמר מאי האי אמרו ליה דם זבחים דאשתפוך אייתי דמי ולא אידמו אמר להו אי אמריתו לי מוטב ואי לאו מסריקנא לבשרייכו במסרקי דפרזלי אמרי ליה מאי נימא לך נבייא הוה בן דהוה קא מוכח לן במילי דשמיא קמינן עילויה וקטלינן ליה והא כמה שנין דלא קא נייח דמיה אמר להו אנא מפייסנא ליה אייתי סנהדרי גדולה וסנהדרי קטנה קטל עילויה ולא נח בחורים ובתולות קטל עילויה ולא נח אייתי תינוקות של בית רבן קטל עילויה ולא נח א"ל זכריה זכריה טובים שבהן איבדתים ניחא לך דאבדינהו לכולהו כדאמר ליה הכי נח בההיא שעתא הרהר תשובה בדעתיה אמר ומה אם על נפש אחת כך ההוא גברא דקטל כל הני נשמתא על אחת כמה וכמה ערק אזל שדר שטר פרטתא בביתיה ואגייר

R. Hiya b. Abin said in the name of R. Joshua b. Korhah: An old man from the inhabitants of Jerusalem told me that in this valley Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard killed two hundred and eleven myriads, and in Jerusalem he killed ninety-four myriads on one stone, until their blood went and joined that of Zechariah, to fulfil the words, Blood toucheth blood (Hosea 4:2). He [Nebuzaradan] noticed the blood of Zechariah boiling and bubbling, and asked what it was. They said: It is the blood of the sacrifices which has been poured there. He had some [animal] blood brought to make a comparison, it was different from the other. He then said to them: If you tell me [the truth], well and good, but if not, I will tear your flesh with combs of iron. They said: What can we say to you? There was a prophet among us who used to reprove us regarding issues of Heaven, and we rose up against him and killed him, and for many years his blood has not rested. He said to them: I will appease him. He brought the great Sanhedrin and the small Sanhedrin and killed them over him, but the blood did not cease. He then slaughtered young men and women, but the blood did not cease. He brought tinokot, students of Torah and slaughtered them over it, but the blood did not cease its boiling. So he said; Zechariah, Zechariah. I have slain the best of them; do you want me to destroy them all? When he said this to him, the blood came to rest. Straightway Nebuzaradan began reflecting on his derech in teshuva.  He said to himself: If such is the penalty for slaying one soul, what will happen to me who have slain such multitudes? So he fled away, and sent a deed to his house disposing of his effects and became a convert.

History vs Heuristic

Clearly, Rabbi Hiyya’s report, is not meant as a historical account. As R. Chait points out, a killing event of such magnitude, would be common knowledge, it would not be a secret known only to a particular old man. But, if it is not a historical account, what then is the nature of this narrative? R. Hiyya, was sufficiently detached from the tragedy of the Churban, to be able to comment upon its significance, as a case study in Israel’s relationship with the Creator.  It would seem then, that story has a heuristic character, rather than a historic one. The story is then a metaphor, a Mashal created to create a basis, for reflecting upon the horror of Churban, in a productive way.

The issue then, is not whether these events happened exactly as they are recounted. No doubt,  Nebuzaradan was responsible for the death of masses of Jews. What is at issue, is how to glean the moral of the story underlying the Churban as depicted by the great R. Hiyya, in the  Mashal. As R. Rosenthal points out, this is much like Sefer Iyov, as the Gra said Iyov Lo haya Vilo Nivrah,ela limashal. Iyov only existed, in the sense of being a mashal. Another example of this is Plato’s Republic, where actual historic characters are used, to illustrate certain ideas Plato wishes to work through.

To do gain access to R. Hiyya’s perspective then, we must seperate the themes being illustrated from the characters being used as a Mashal vehicle. To do this, we will scrutinize the narrative, in order to tease out the underlying themes. Specifically, in our next post, we will scrutinize the passages marked in red.

Old post, as true now as it was then

Obama friend of my enemy

In the reactions to the previous post, I realize that I created a false impression that I want to rectify. It seems that my language caused people to zoom into a sort of Hitlerian framework of understanding Obama. Much as we should distrust this man, this was not the impression I meant to convey. Neither is it necessary for a "Hitler" to arise as the leader of the U.S., in order for Israel, and by extension Jews everywhere, to be in very deep trouble indeed.

For Israel to be in trouble, all that is required is that the U.S. shift in its basis of security, moving away from classic approaches, towards those more common in Europe and the third world.

The classic basis of American security is American "exceptionalism", the notion that the U.S. is singularly blessed by God, among all nations on Earth, because of its unique form of government. The essence of this notion can be reduced to this - a justice logically based upon the chochma of the G of the universe is superior to any merely human form of government. It is this exceptionalism that is at the core of identification with Jews and Israel. It is also this exceptionalism that has allowed a unilateralism that shielded us from world opinion. US Public opinion could be summarized something like this. "What matter if Europeans and Arabs don't like our economic system or foreign policy supporting Israel? They are a rather unimpressive, cowardly lot that depend upon us anyway". This view, while widely shared, is most prevalent in the Conservative community.

What we need to understand, is that our long involvement in inconclusive wars, topped off by an unprecedented failure of our economic system, has opened the door to systemic change regarding exceptionalism itself. It is not accidental that Mccain was making headway laughing at Obama's flowery, meaningless rhetoric a few short months ago, while today- no one is laughing. Talking in terms of reinterpreting ikrim sounds laughable in normal times, but as a "change" that could "restore hope" in times of deep crisis. This was what allowed the "new deal" a generation ago, the "patriot act" after 9/11 and what will allow a virtual nationalizing of our economy now. The essential point here is- exceptionlism is dead, security through fitting in with the world is in.

It is not necessary for a U.S. government to transform into an Arab society for disaster to occur to Israel. Was it necessary for America to become Hitlerian for millions to die at the hands of Germany or Vietnam? All that was needed was an excuse to remove the support that had held the genocidal forces from acting before.
The Europeans and third world are united in their inability to understand the basis of American exceptionalism. Europeans are far to materialistic to understand the American idea of natural justice. Europeans don't believe in God- they don't believe in one nation under God, but rather in one nation under Man. This belief in Man causes hatred for American's as believers in God, as well as a deep hatred for Jews.

As one might expect, if we explore the European democracies, we will see, not Hitlerian anti Semitism, but very real Jew hatred nonetheless. While there is obviously some guilt at this hypocrisy of hating a fellow Man, Jew hatred redeems itself through the excuse of the image of "injustice" to the native Palestinian by the colonial Jew. But this is not the real issue. The article showing Europeans viewing Israel as the #1 threat to world peace attests to that. The #1 danger to world peace? The #1 Czechoslovakia opportunity to appease Arabs and third world tyrants would be more like it. If we explore Arab society, we get much closer to Hitlerian hatred and imagery, as we have all seen innumerable times on T.V. and the U.N. The Muslim hatred comes from a competing notion of God, rather than the absence of one.

The European, Arab / third world partnership is Genocidal to Israel. Their concept of "justice" allows for nothing less than the dismantling of "colonial" Israel and the liberation of the "victimized" Palestinian. While the passionate Arab does the killing in the name of his God, the European watches eagerly on B.B.C. enjoying the murder of Jews while he self righteously "tut tuts" at the foolish Jew who brought this on himself through his own greed and injustice to Man. The only natural force that holds this back, is massive American force of aid and military, diplomatic support.

This religious, exceptionalist "unilateral" approach that identification with Jews and Israel depends upon, is not consistent with the secular, consensus approach with Europe and the third world that democrats and Obama advocate. Any move therefore toward such consensus, is a revolutionary change in America and a danger to Israel and Jews.

If we take into account the extreme financial crisis we are in, as well as the fact that Iran is about to go Nuclear, the danger to Israel becomes mortal. A Mccain exceptionalist would have viewed it as the right, honorable and necessary thing to use military force to prevent Iran as an enemy of Democracy from acquiring nuclear weapons. If need be, this would have been done unilaterally.

An Obama will be far too equivocal to act decisively. His complex conflict about "liberation theology" will not allow for a unilateral action. Such action would imply a real break with tribalism, something Obama cannot do as we saw with Wright. We must remember, an important part of Obama, the part that happily listened to Wright in church for all these years, sympathizes with hatred of America and wants "victims" like Iran to have nuclear weapons. This equivocation will mask itself as "diplomacy", "soft power" multilateralism or the like. What it really is, is a break with the notion of natural justice and American exceptionalism that promotes identification with Jews. In its stead comes a sympathy with Muslims as fellow tribal "victims".

Without defeating Iran, we are going to have to be make a deal the Arabs. The oil rich states will have to be propped up, and that propping up will demand tangible progress on the Israel front. Nothing less than tangible progress on the Israel front will allow the Oil states to remain in the Western alliance. Tangible progress means indefensible borders for Israel, especially as aid and weapons begin to wane from an America equivocating about itself and Israel.

Experiencing the eye of the soul

What changes as one shifts from recognizing the following toar as being either the phenomenon of an old woman or the phenomenon of a young girl?

Young Girl-Old Woman Illusion

A famous perceptual illusion in which the tzelem Elokim switches between naming the following toar as a "young girl" and an "old woman". An anonymous German postcard from 1888 (left figure) depicts the image in its earliest known form, and a rendition on an advertisement for the Anchor Buggy Company from 1890 (center figure) provides another early example (IllusionWorks). For many years, the creator of this figure was thought to be British cartoonist W. E. Hill, who published it in 1915 in Puck humor magazine, an American magazine inspired by the British magazine Punch (right figure).