Chumash Shiur: Behaloscha

Over Shabbos, the following Stirah, discussed by all the Meforshim, bothered me very much. In Parshas Bamidbor and Noss0, God tells Moshe to count the Leviim from age thirty to fifty in order to serve in the Mishkan:

נָשֹׂא, אֶת-רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי קְהָת, מִתּוֹךְ, בְּנֵי לֵוִי--לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם, לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם.
מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה, וְעַד בֶּן-חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה--כָּל-בָּא, לַצָּבָא, לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה, בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.
'Take the sum of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi, by their families, by their fathers' houses, from thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter upon the service, to do work in the tent of meeting. (Numbers 4:2-3).
נָשֹׂא, אֶת-רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי גֵרְשׁוֹן--גַּם-הֵם: לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם, לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם.
מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה, עַד בֶּן-חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה--תִּפְקֹד אוֹתָם: כָּל-הַבָּא לִצְבֹא צָבָא, לַעֲבֹד עֲבֹדָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.
'Take the sum of the sons of Gershon also, by their fathers' houses, by their families; from thirty years old and upward until fifty years old shalt thou number them: all that enter in to wait upon the service, to do service in the tent of meeting.(ibid 22-23).
בְּנֵי, מְרָרִי--לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית-אֲבֹתָם, תִּפְקֹד אֹתָם.
מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה, וְעַד בֶּן-חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה--תִּפְקְדֵם: כָּל-הַבָּא, לַצָּבָא, לַעֲבֹד, אֶת-עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.
As for the sons of Merari, thou shalt number them by their families, by their fathers' houses; from thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old shalt thou number them, every one that entereth upon the service, to do the work of the tent of meeting.(ibid 29-30).

While in Parshas Behaloscha it says:
זֹאת, אֲשֶׁר לַלְוִיִּם: מִבֶּן חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וָמַעְלָה, יָבוֹא לִצְבֹא צָבָא, בַּעֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.
וּמִבֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה, יָשׁוּב מִצְּבָא הָעֲבֹדָה; וְלֹא יַעֲבֹד, עוֹד.
'This is that which pertaineth unto the Levites: from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to perform the service in the work of the tent of meeting; and from the age of fifty years they shall return from the service of the work, and shall serve no more;(ibid 8:24-25).

The Meforshim have various explanations for this discrepancy. First there is RSH"I who as usual has a somewhat Midrashic explanation (taken from the Gemarah) that the Levi would come to learn his trade at the age ot twenty five for five years, at which point he would be ready to start at the prescribed age of thirty. Nu, enough said.
The Ibn Ezra writes that the Posuk in which the prescribed age is thirty doesn't contradict the latter Posuk because at the age of thirty the Levi would start carrying the Mishkan while at the age of twenty five he only serviced it. To which the RMB"N rightfully replies that it's incorrect because in 4:23 it says כָּל-הַבָּא לִצְבֹא צָבָא, לַעֲבֹד עֲבֹדָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד
and in the next Posuk: זֹאת עֲבֹדַת, מִשְׁפְּחֹת הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּי--לַעֲבֹד, וּלְמַשָּׂא
so this doesn't work obviously.

The RMB"N himself offers the following explanation: Moshe was commanded to count the Leviim only from age thirty, at which point they were to be pressed into service. At age twenty five though, a Levi was able to come forth and serve of his own volition, but could not have an official post as overseer and so on. The reason being that a decadal birthday is known to a man's family and friends, while other birthdays not so much. The thirtieth birthday was thus a convenient age for counting. The RMB"N notes that in another instance, Chronicles i 23:3, the Leviim were also counted at age thirty.
I think this is the best Terutz so far, but I think it's lacking. First, the phraseology is the same in all the Psukim, indicating that the status and terms of service are the same. Second, in the Psukim where they are counted at thirty, it says: כָּל-בָּא, לַצָּבָא, or כָּל-הַבָּא לִצְבֹא צָבָא, which means that those counted included all that were to serve in the Mishkan. Another problem is obviously that the RMB"Ns differentiation between the two ages has nothing to support it from the text, other than the fact that here the Leviim are counted and here not, which may have many reasons other than his.

The usual real Terutz in such cases doesn't work here, because all of these Psukim are attributed to the same source, which all have the unmistakable imprint of P. So what to do? Did the author forget in chapter eight what he wrote in chapter 4. It's not only the age that's different, it seems that in 8, the author seems oblivious to the fact that the Leviim were just counted extensively for this purpose. Is there an obvious real Terutz I didn't grasp. Or maybe, is one of those Farkvetchte Terutzim the real thing? Did the author actually intend to have his words dissected in a semi-code manner?

Oy Oy Shabbos

Over Shabbos, two things got me thinking.
First, when we say during Hagbah:
וְזֹאת, הַתּוֹרָה, אֲשֶׁר-שָׂם מֹשֶׁה, לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל-פִּי יְהוָה בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה
the first part of the sentence being from Deuteronomy 4:44, and the second from Numbers 9:23, I thought: is this the best we came up with for expressing that the whole Torah was given to Moshe by God? The answer is yes, because for those who know, it doesn't state anywhere in the Chumash that God relayed all of it to Moshe, so yes, this Mishmash Posuk is the best we came up with for stating what the Torah itself is conspicuously missing. Which lead me to think: did I have to get this far to realize this. Why didn't I notice that we say this Mishmash sentence because we've got nothing better, five, ten years ago. I also knew that this is a composite Posuk, but I never thought, why, why nothing better. Unfortunately, the truth is that we usually don't think straight, especially when we're brought up to simply follow what we're taught. This is why I usually don't explain what brought me to my Apikorsus to those not familiar with the issues, and what I tell the same people when they say: do you think you're smarter than RSH"I, RMB"M or whomever. And, Ein Hachi Nami, I'm not. But in order to realize the Chulent your in, you have to look at it from outside. It only takes one peak, but that one peak makes an immeasurable difference.

The second thing was when the Rav spoke for the Aufruf there, and he asked what's the origin of the Brochoh given to the newlyweds "בית נאמן בישראל"? He answered that the source comes from Abigail who beseeched David saying: "Forgive, I pray thee, the trespass of thy handmaid;
כִּי עָשֹׂה-יַעֲשֶׂה יְהוָה לַאדֹנִי בַּיִת נֶאֱמָן for the LORD will certainly make my lord a sure house."
Now the meaning of this wish as far as I know is either that the couple should build a faithful house in Israel, meaning faithful to the Jewish faith. Or that one should have a בית נאמן a faithful household, בית taking on the meaning as in ביתו זו אשתו. The real story behind David and Abigail is actually not very veiled in the text of Shmuel, and it tells a story that is the farthest thing from faithfulness. Although he probably is correct, that the phrase originates from there, but this is a good example of projecting contemporary imagery onto very different people from the past.

Truth: The True Evil

Truth truth truth, we look for her, we find her (or think we do), and then regret the day we started looking. What does one get from her? Nothing. No thank you, no reward, no eternal life, and no meaning. Just nihil and void, and of all good devoid. עולם הפוך שמעתי where truth is equated with good and deception with evil. But in reality, there is no good or evil, and if there is, truth should be equated with evil and deception with good. For is there a single man who will honestly proclaim that shedding the belief in a life full of meaning is good?

What happened. Nothing. Just Shavuos came around, my favorite holiday. A time when I could really appreciate Rav Yosef's saying אי לא האי יומא דקא גרים כמה יוסף איכא בשוקא, but instead nothing. Not that I still can't take a RMB"M apart, but now looking at it, what's it all worth. And not just it, life - it's nothing. How can I recapture that feeling? How? How can I delude myself into disregarding the evil and cruel truth? Can I turn the clock back to a blissful time when I knew no better. This search for truth is a sickness, it's a force that sucks the life out physically and spiritually. I envy people who are able to delude themselves in spite of their knowledge, even those like XGH who still cling to some meaning in life. Unfortunately I don't posses the gift of delusion. Deceiving others is the simplest matter, but deluding oneself is an art, a skill I don't have. How I wish I hadn't started on this path, but once I did, I wish I were able to turn back somehow. It is impossible, כל באיה לא ישובון, and there is no way to recapture that most benevolent deception, that belief in meaning and good.

On the other hand, I couldn't live with some belief, no matter how exhilarating, if I doubted it's validity. So the search for truth was inevitable. And even now seeing how unsatisfying it is, it doesn't make it any less true. Facts are cruel, and there is nothing to be done about them. Nevertheless, how I wish to have the ability to side step them, and even ignore them.
אָכוֹל וְשָׁתוֹ, כִּי מָחָר נָמוּת is my motto now for lack of anything better, but seeing that all there is to it is מָחָר נָמוּת and contrasting this with the great edifice of religion, it's very hard to continue this way. Probably, one who was never exposed to the beautiful deception of religion, can live with this motto. But for me, I can't. There is simply no comparison, and no turning the clock back, and no deluding oneself, unfortunately.

So what's to be done. I sit and think, maybe there is meaning to all of this after all. But no, stop kidding around, you know we're just here by default, live and then die. How do you know this, based on what, on the little you have studied? That's not enough to make such conclusions, go study more, find out, maybe you're wrong. וחוזר חלילה and round we go, getting deeper and deeper in this quicksand, in the quagmire known as the quest for truth, and so till death. Except that instead of a life full with this nonsense and then death, one could at least אָכוֹל וְשָׁתוֹ and then die. But no, it seems some are destined to waste their life away, stricken with the sickness , an untreatable one at that, known as the "quest for truth".

Morality! What's the Hangup?

First I would like to apologize for my absence from the blogsphere the last week plus. I've been extremely busy and haven't had the time to write or even think much. For now I'll just put up some random stuff that's been in my head, and I hope to post something more coherent in the coming days.

As the title of the post suggests, I want to know why people who have otherwise renounced religion and the belief that life has meaning (or at least recognize that there is no convincing reason to think it has one), continue to have this hangup when it comes to morality. The most annoying manifestation of this is arguments against the Torah because of its failing to pass our moral scrutiny. Fallacious arguments rub me the wrong way, and none is more fallacious than this. By whose standards of morality are we judging the Torah? By modern standards, which are subject to change just as those of 1,000 BC and 1,000 AD changed to become what we recognize today as western morals. I assume the reader recognizes that barring divine instruction, morals are inherently subjective. Why then do people, who are relatively thought out and don't argue logically indefensible positions, continue to make this logically unjustifiable argument over and over again. Is the conception of core morality so ingrained in us that even when we try considering its merits in a detached manner, we seem to be unable to do so?

Vus Nuch. I think there is gotta be some kind of satirical representation of the debacle of the "big three." Maybe the "Three Little Pigs" but that's not a good comparison on two counts: 1) Can we really credit Ford with that much forethought? 2) Ford didn't help anyone, and can a corporation ever be compared to a little pig fighting a wolf?
Maybe the "Three Stooges"? Their financial management definitely qualifies. Anyway that's that for now, hope to keep them coming on a more regular basis.

How to Go Off-the-Derech: A Halachic Guide

It seems that there is a lot gray area where many authorities in the J-blogsphere disagree on when and how one can/should go off the Derech. Therefore, as a public service, I have compiled a little guide, a Kitzur of the main opinions regarding the issue.

It seems that XGH holds the most stringent position on the matter, while Daas Hedyot seems to be the most lenient. Somewhere in between these two extremes held by such prominent Halachic figures, we have other luminaries like BHB, Yeshivish Atheist, and others who fall somewhere in between. Although it seems to be pretty clear that XGH is the most stringent, it is not clear what exactly are the requirements one has to meet in order to Halachically go off the Derech. There are some definite rules that we can pinpoint:
1) You can not be Chassiddish, Lubavitch, Yeshivish, Baal Tshuvah, Mizrachi, under twenty, over forty, amongst others.
2) Even if you are lucky not to fall under any of the above categories, you can not be an atheist once you do go off the Derech, have any difficulties in your social life, or have any other "abnormal" situations.
3) You have to have been raised Modern Orthodox, been to Israel, have Zionist sympathies, gone to movies (very important it seems in XGHs estimation), and been able to do anything you could do if you are off the Derech.
4) If by chance you have met all the above requirements, you can still not go off the Derech according to XGH. You are to normal. You must come from an interesting background like Chabad, crazy Yeshivish, or some other fanatic sect.
5) If by some defiance of all natural laws, you are still qualified, there is one more caveat: you really are not allowed to go off the Derech, you can just become Orthoprax. Yes, you heard correctly.

Some have criticized XGHs position based on the impossibility of it ever being borne out in practice. To which there is a very good precedent one can respond, namely עיר הנדחת, and בן סורר ומורה. But some have answered in the spirit of the aforementioned Gemorah: Certainly this Halachah is applicable in practice, and the proof is that "אני ראיתיו וישבתי על קברו" I saw him and used to comment on his blog. והמבין יבין

According to Daas Hedyot, anybody can go off the Derech for any reason at anytime. וכל המרבה הרי זה משובח. Especially if you become Roman Catholic, because what's more logical than switching from one fundamentalist religion based on myths and unsubstantiated fairy tales, to another religion based on myths and unsubstantiated fairy tales. Mamesh, I don't understand why anyone disagrees.

The most curious opinions are the approximate range into which BHB and YA and others fall. They have this curious requirement of having one investigate the alternatives and 'think critically' for oneself.

In summary, the last opinion can be discarded outright because we have no precedent in Halachah for anything even remotely similar to these requirements. "Think critically" who ever heard of such a thing. As to the forst two options, I favor XGHs position since it isn't even followed by its own proponent, something that we have lots of precedent for in Halachah.

Now, obviously this is all הלכה ולא למעשה, and each person should ask their Rav, especially on such an important matter: How to go off the Derech according to Halachah.

Important Finding!

A new manuscript of Koheles has been found! At this stage only a limited number of people are aware of the finding. I was only able to get access to a small fragment, which I present to my readers. I will continue monitoring the situation, and present any new developments as I become aware of them.

At this time, you can not find this version anywhere, not in print nor online. However, we hope that we will be able to spread the availability of this version, and hopefully you will even be able to search for it on Mechon-mamre.

Here is the part available at the moment. Fortunately it's at the beginning, so you can start reading right along:

דברי אחר

.דברי אחר בן אלישע, הייתי פרומאק במאנסי

.הבל הבלים אמר אחר, הבל הבלים הכל הבל

.מה יתרון לחרדי בכל עמלו שיעמול בפרומאקיותו

?דור הולך ודור בא, והפרומאקיות לעולם עומדת

.וזרח הדעת ובא הדעת, והפרומאקיות לאחור תלך

.סביב סביב תסובב, וכשכורת לאחור תפול

.כל החומרות באים מן ההלכות? וההלכות לא נחסרים

כל ההלכות היגעים, לא יוכל רב לדבר ולא ישבע פרומאק מראות ולא תוכל אוזן לשמוע

.מה שהיה הוא לא יהיה, ואין כל ישן בחומראות

יש חומרא שיאמרו ראה זה ישן הוא, לא היה כזה מעולם, כי באמת חדש ומשונה ומשוגע הוא

אין זכרון לראשונים כי אם לשגעונונת, וגם לאחרונים לא יהיה להם זכרון, כי אם לשגעונותיהם

.אני אחר הייתי פרומאק בין פרומאקים

ונתתי את לבי לחקור ולפלפל בהלכה על כל אשר נעשה בפרומאקיות, הוא ענין רע נתן אלהים לחרדים לענות בו

.ראיתי את כל המעשים שנעשו בפרומאקים, והנה הכל הבל וקטנות מוח

.מיושר יתעות, וריח אמת תשתתק

דברתי אני עם לבי לאמר, אני הנה הרביתי ולמדתי בפרומאקיות יותר מהרבה פרומאקים, ולבי ראה הרבה חומרא והלכה

.ואתנה לבי לדעת תורה והלכה, ודעת האמת, ידעתי שגם זה כחלום יעוף

.כי ברב תורה רב כעס, ויוסיף אמת יוסיף מכאוב

Why were/are you Religious?

In the last week I've run into a few discussions as to the basis of our religious beliefs/practices. Over at this thread at Three Jews, Four Opinions I had an exchange with Evanston Jew which turned on the basis for a sustainable Judaism.

I won't focus as much on what brand of Judaism is sustainable in the long run (if any). What I want to explore is the reasons we believed/believe in whatever religious beliefs we have/had. I had a discussion with a former Chossid last week, and we were talking about why we were Frum. In the end it came down to the difference between our upbringing; he was a Chossid, I wasn't. Now let's backtrack, why are/were we Frum, or better yet religious, regardless of particular orientation.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will combine the possible reasons for belief in two categories:

1) Because one believes in the truth claims of, and evidence for one's religion, which logically brings one to follow it since it is the right path based on the truth.

2) Because one feels a spiritual/emotional connection with his religion. It speaks to him, it fulfills some need in his 'soul' if you will.

Within the two categories may lie a wide variety of people, laymen and clergy, the more and less intelligent, the old and the young, newcomers and people born into their faith. Let's explore each category separately. In the first category we have people who believe in the historical claims of their faith, be it God's existence, revelation, an afterlife, divine providence and so forth. Based on these beliefs, they understand that they have an obligation to follow the prescriptions of their faith. Going against their faith would mean defying God, and doing harm to oneself. It must be noted that people in this category need not be mechanical robots. They could have a very thorough understanding of how and why the practices of their religion are meaningful and carry a weight that gives them an actual impact on reality. Nevertheless, the basic foundation of their belief is the factual truth claims of their faith, in which they believe. Why they believe in these claims varies from person to person. Some simply take it as a matter of tradition or authority, others have taken it upon themselves to investigate the matter, and have come to the conclusion that the tenets of their faith are logically deducible. Regardless, the deciding factor in their belief is a conviction in the truthfulness of these claims for whatever reason.

In the second category we have people who feel that the spirit of their faith speaks to them. They get some inner fulfillment from their religious practices or beliefs, or the see their faith as some manifestation of how they see and feel the cosmos. Here we also have a wide variety of people. For example some have a strong desire in helping their fellow man. They see this as the ultimate goal in man's life, and their religion is the channel through which they express this goal. Others may think of God and his connection to man, and employ their faith as an arena where this manifests itself. The common thread is that these people feel that their faith fulfills them in some way, which is independent of the particular truth claims of their given religion. In other words, if they were to become convinced of the falsehood of positions their faith holds as true, and that all the particular facts that it puts forth as proofs of its veracity in fact never happened, they would still be left with the basic reason for continuing with their religion. It would still speak to them on some level.

The differences are not as easy to perceive as it may seem. For example people in the former category can be stereotyped as those that get hung up on insignificant details at the expense of internalizing their faith's main message. The latter group can be generalized as those who are floating in the clouds, without a grasp on reality. But the opposite may in fact be true. Certainly these generalization are often true. Nevertheless, some people may be very pedantic in their faith, thinking that these minor details carry some cosmological significance (Mekubbolim for example). Others may have a very rationalistic approach to their faith, which is solidly built upon the findings of their investigation. And in spite of believing that all the laws and practices of their religion are a product of God's will, they may attach little importance to them, preferring to focus on the fundamentals.

Now which faith is stronger, more sustainable. It would certainly seem that the latter kind of faith, which is based on the heart and is part of the person himself rather than some external reasons, which are always subject to change. But it isn't that simple. For some, the latter path is not an option. There is no inner feeling that is strong enough to nurture a whole religion. There simply isn't anything there. This is the type of faith I had. Truth be told, it was very strong in its time. Why, because I truly believed in the main tenets of the Torah, and as a logical consequence felt obligated to follow the Torah. I did have somewhat of a connection to the religion on an emotional level, but it was very insignificant. Consequently, when my conviction that the Torah's claims about revelation, history, and God were either false or a guess just as good as anyone's, the floor was taken from under my faith. I remember that the only tough time I had on an emotional rather than intellectual level during my transition, was when it hit me that there is no afterlife. I couldn't eat or sleep for three days, but after that I was as fresh as spring flower. But this was the only faith I could have had. And when the foundation went, I was left with nothing but hot air.

This is how I am, and I know that there are others who would say the same for themselves. If someone is to say that it's shallow, I won't argue. I will say though that the other way is too speculative. I don't mean to trade barbs. I mean to point out that it depends on the person. What for me was based on a clear and (what I believed then) an airtight logic, is to you shallow. And what for you is a life based on spirituality and an inner sense of self and the world, is to me baseless speculation and Chalomos.

EJ, on the aforementioned thread seemed surprised at my remark, and wrote:
"No one, not one, ever says what you say "I am or was religious but not spiritual."

Well you have one, and I think that there are more. I won't argue with you if you meant that no one ever says that "I was religious but not at all spiritual" but you seem to be implying that spirituality is an important and even self sustaining factor for everyone. With this I strongly disagree. Some people are decidedly "nonspiritual" in the sense that it plays a very minor if any role in their life. By spiritual, I mean something that can't be grasped either by the senses or the intellect, something in the soul (again, for lack of a better term).

I hope I got the main idea across, it's a hard line to pinpoint. For this post, I ask the readers to comment more than other times, because I think we can clarify the issue with a view from different angles.