Rav Dessler in, IIRC, the fourth volume, makes the point that each galus
had a unique derech avodah which is their eternal contribution to Am
Yisroel. R' Avrohom Elya makes a similar point, somewhat obliquely, in
B'Ikvos HaYirah, as does, of course, Reb Tzadok, who (of course!) gives
the phenomenon a metaphysical tie-in to the land-climate in which the
derech arises (REED's note is evidently based on Reb Tzadok).
And received a request:
Would you be so kind as to send me a couple of mareh mekomos in the
seforeim of Reb Tzadok? Thank you so much.
So, here are some citations:
ספר צדקת הצדיק - אות רה
רה) הדמיונות כולם נולדים מן הלב שבו הם ההרהורים ונמשכים ממנו למוח ומן העין שעל ידי הראיה נכנסים ההרהורים ללב כמו שאמרו בעבודה זרה (כ' ע"ב). ולכן אמרו שם (אבות דר' נתן כ' א') ראיה דדברי תורה מבטלין הרהורין מקרא דמאירת עינים ומשמחי לב. ואסרו להסתכל בפני אדם רשע (מגילה כ"ח.) כי בפנים בולטין כל מיני הרהורים שבלב למבינים כדאיתא בזוהר (ח"א ק"צ.) דהכירו באחד שהיה לו מחשבת עבירה שפניו מוריקות [וכן אמרינן בסוטה (כ'.) פניה מוריקות כי עבירה הוא מיתה לנפש ואמרו במת (עבודה זרה שם) ממנה פניו מוריקות] וכדרך שנאמר (ישעיה ג' ט') הכרת פניהם ענתה בם. ועל ידי הראיה נכנסין ההרהורים בו חס ושלום וההיפך בראיית תלמיד חכם כדאיתא (עירובין י"ג ע"ב) דחזיתא לר' מאיר מאחוריה. וכן כמה תיקונים עשו שלא ידור עם עכו"ם בעבודה זרה (ל"ו ע"ב) ובעירובין (ס"ב.) כי בדירתו ומשכנו המיוחד לו יש התפשטות מכוחותיו כנודע מהבעש"ט ז"ל דבקניני האדם מתפשטין כוחות נפשו. ולכך על ידם גם כן נכנסים הרהורים זרים ללב. וכמו ששמעתי דאוירא דארץ העמים הוא מכניס ללב כוחות הזדון של האומות וההיפוך בארץ ישראל דאוירא מחכים (בבא בתרא קנ"ח ע"ב). כי ברית חלוק לאוירות כמו שאמרו בבראשית רבה (סוף פרשה ל"ד ט"ו) והשם יתברך יסד גבולות עמים לכל אומה שהיא כח מיוחד מקום מיוחד ואויר המקום שאותה אומה דרה שם וקנויה להם יכול להכניס מאותו כח גם בלב בני ישראל חס ושלום:
ספר ליקוטי אמרים - אות י
כי שבעים אומות כל אחת יש לו כח מיוחד אופיה של אומה זו וכו', פירוש אופיה שורש חיותה כמו שאמרו (בראשית רבה י"ד, ט') דברייתא קרין לנשמתא אופיה, והיינו שכל חיותם בדבר זה ואם ימנע זה מהם ממש כנוטל חיותם:
ולכן כשהחזיר התורה על כל אומה ולשון והראה לכל אחת האזהרות שכנגד הכח שהוא משוקע וקבוע בו בשורשו לבני ישמעאל לא תנאף וכו' וכמו שאמרו ז"ל (פסיקתא רבתי פרשה כ"א) לא קיבלוה, כי אי אפשר להם להשתנות ולשנות לבם מכפי מה שהוא מושרש וממש חיותו קבוע בו ואם יטלו ממנו דבר זה כנוטל את נפשו, וברית חלוק לאוירות ויצב גבולות עמים כל מקום בכח מיוחד, מה שאין כן בני ישראל נמשלו לצאן הנמשכים אחר הרועה להשתנות מכח לכח כפי רצון הרועה, וכן קדושת המקום דארץ ישראל המיוחדת לחלקם היא ארץ זבת וגו' משונה בפריה שהוא מצד ריכוך הארץ ושאינה מקום טרשין היא מוציאה פירות יותר כמו שאמרו ז"ל (פסחים שם) וזרעתיה וכו' שעל ידם הוא הריבוי המופלג על ידי הזריעה בקדושת הארץ:
ואמרו ז"ל (שם) לא גלו אלא כדי להוסיף גרים, פירוש דגוי כל אחד יש לו כח מיוחד שאין יכול לשנותו כלל ודאי גם הגר אותו כח אי אפשר לו להשתנות כלל ולכן אמרו ז"ל (בבא מציעא נ"ט ע"ב) שסורן רע, וזה ניתוסף בגלות שקולטין כח ארץ העמים כל מקום בפרט העקשות ולב האבן באיזה דבר וענין פרטי המיוחד בו, ועל ידי שהם מבררים שבאותו כח אין הם עיקשים כמו האומות ויכולים לשנותו לכבוד שמים כרצון ה' יתברך, על ידי זה הוא הוספת הגרים שניתן גם כח דלב האבן של האומות להתחבר לבני ישראל ובשם ישראל יכונה וקולטים כוחם ומוציאים בלעם מפיהם, וכשיושלם בירור זה דלב האבן של כל מיני כוחות הפרטים שבכל אחד אין לישראל לב אבן ועקשות כלל, אז יתבטל לב האבן לגמרי ונתתי לכם לב בשר וגו' (יחזקאל ל"ו, כ"ו):
ספר קומץ המנחה חלק ב - אות כא
כא) העולם הוא דוגמת הנפש כמו שכתבו בספרי יראה וכמו שמובא במדרש (בראשית רבה ל"ד, ט"ו) ברית חלק לאוירות שיש אויר מחכים אויר מעשיר וכו' לכל אויר יש כח ידוע ככוחות החלוקות בנפש וארץ ישראל הוא ארץ אשר ה' אלהיך דורש אותה רומז נגד הכח בנפש אשר ה' דורש אותו והוא היראה כמו שנאמר (דברים י', י"ב) מה ה' אלהיך שואל וגו'. וזה שאמרו (בבא בתרא קנ"ח ע"ב) אוירא דארץ ישראל מחכים כמו שנאמר (איוב כ"ח, כ"ח) הן יראת ה' היא חכמה וזה שאמרו (כתובות ק"י ע"ב) הדר בארץ ישראל כמי שיש לו אלוה כידוע אלוה מורה דין שהוא יראה. וידוע אברהם ויצחק הם אהבה ויראה. אהבה שורש למצוות עשה שהם הרחקה מקנאה על ידי חסד לאברהם בקום ועשה טוב. ויראה יסוד למצוות לא תעשה שהם הרחקה לתאוה על ידי מדת יצחק כנזכר לעיל:
Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer הרב יוסף גבריאל בקהופר
Friday, July 01, 2005
Lands and Personalities
At 02:05 PM 6/29/2005, I wrote:
I also have a request. Unfortunately none (to my knowledge) or Reb Tzadok's books are availible in English. This is an absolute shame as I havce heard some wonderful ideas said in his name. For those unfortunate (like myself) who are not able to read any of the original sources, I prepose that R' Bechhofer translates some of his works as his next upcoming publication. It would be a revolutionary step and would sell well I am sure. What does the Rav think of this suggestion...?
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I would love to do it - but it is a time and labor intensive effort and I would need a sponsor!
ReplyDeleteFrom Avodah:
ReplyDeleteAt 07:11 PM 7/3/2005, you wrote:
In Avodah V15 #42 dated 7/3/2005 YGB writes -- quoting from (I think)
Sefer Tzidkas Hatzaddik:
[Deleted - it was gibberish anyway. I was not aware that I posted the Hebrew to Avodah - it is unlikely I did so, since I know Avodah and Hebrew don't mix. But if I did so, so I did.]
If you said this in English, I'm afraid it would be condemned as racism and hate speech.
Did poor Rabbi Grama say something so very different or so very much worse?
-Toby Katz
=============
My response:
I do not know if Rabbi Grama said "something so very different or so very much worse." As far as I am concerned, I was merely quoting Reb Tzadok on the concept of lands and personalities. I did not mean to bring to bear any focus on his shittos on non-Jews.
Once you bring it up, however, and point it out, I must say that I repudiate several core ideas of Reb Tzadok. In the final analysis, much as I love his writings, he was a Chasid and I am not. And not just by accident of birth. While I understand Reb Tzadok's choice to become a Chasid, I have not yet made such a choice and do not anticipate doing so. But even if I did, I would hope that core values that I believe true by dint of personal consideration, again, not just by accident of birth, would remain intact.
And that is why Reb Avrohom Elya remains (and, refracted through his prism, Reb Yisroel) my role model, why his picture is sitting not a foot away from me on my desk.
I should tell you which other pictures grace the walls of my study:
My grandfather, R' Dov Yehuda Schochet zt"l (picture taken in 1937, from the pre-Chabad era).
My rebbe in Shaalvim, R' Shimon Zelaznik zt"l, a talmid of Reb Isser Zalman Meltzer zt"l.
R' Simcha Zisel Broide zt"l, with whom I had significant shayachus when he came several times to stay in Baltimore.
RSZA zt"l - who had a major impact on my life in the one time I went to talk to him, and who to me is a model of an Adam HaShalem.
Interesting, I think you made a valid point, that you can still be an admirer of an individual but still disagree with some of his views. That I think is a problem with todays Orthodox world, everything thing is too compartamentalised. I think Rabbi Emanuel Feldmans post on Cross Currents (http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/01/26/ready-to-be-orthdox-but-no-place-to-go/) sums up this problem fairly well. But, the questions beckons why this need to be the case. Why can one not be anti zionist, torah u madda enthusiast, with a white breslov kippa? Orthodoxys biggest problem is that it denys individualism, something I feel that such figures as Reb Avrohom Elya, Rabbi Yaakov Yechiel Weinberg, and the Mussar yeshivot (eg Slabodka) eg Rav Hutner personified. Unfortunately, (to the best of my knowledge) there are no such individuals of stature today. The last person to be a truly unique personality was the late Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L. That is just my ramblings on the matter, What does the Rav think can be done to rectify this situation?
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, Chasidus aims for a shift in perception, to directly perceive the spiritual (hasogos Elokus) as it manifests in this world. When this happens, you can see first hand what is going on, and your opinions would naturally reflect this new reality. If Reb Zadok (I have no doubt that he did) saw the nature of a person, or the air of a country, and saw the influence they/it had, then it is a factual report that he brings back.
ReplyDeleteA major problem I think people face when grappling with Chasidus, and in fact Chazal as a whole, is the tendency to look from a western intellectual perspective, a view that is built on the haskolo and christianity behind that. Here we are totally grounded in the physical, and the spiritual, if it exists at all, is somewhere remote. If you step outside this conceptual straightjacket and take, for examples sake, an american indian perspective, these sorts of ma'amorim become much clearer.
The last person to be a truly unique personality was the late Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L. That is just my ramblings on the matter, What does the Rav think can be done to rectify this situation?
ReplyDeleteI think what you mean is the last famous "truly unique personality" (TUP) was the LR. I think there are, propotionately, as many TUPs today as there always were. Historicaly, I am not sure that TUPs were always at the fore of Yahadus - they were there to be discovered (for example, the Ramchal). The ones that did become first-level leaders were the minority, not the majority.
Here we are totally grounded in the physical, and the spiritual, if it exists at all, is somewhere remote. If you step outside this conceptual straightjacket and take, for examples sake, an american indian perspective, these sorts of ma'amorim become much clearer.
ReplyDeleteA very interesting point. I think R' Aryeh Kaplan, made a similar point concerning Indian Indian perpectives - in areas such as (his major contribution) meditation.
Or as we would say in Chabad:
ReplyDeleteאלוקות בפשיטות ועולמות בהתחדשות
"A very interesting point. I think R' Aryeh Kaplan, made a similar point concerning Indian Indian perpectives - in areas such as (his major contribution) meditation"
ReplyDeleteHe was definitely heading that way, but still seems (IMVHO next to his enormous scholarship) not to have really crossed the barrier. One example that struck me was in his translation of (I think) Daas Tevunos; Ramchal speaks of a transmission of information in the nefesh of the sperm (I don't remember the exact language) which he translates as the genetic material. The purpose of meditation is to access and either clear or journey through the nefesh; either way the goal is to open up to nefesh-based awareness, and if you can do this at a high enough level then you will hit proper Elokus (which of course also has many levels). Otherwise you just see energy everywhere, as do the shamans.
It's a bit long - apologies - but here is a lovely piece by Yogananda. The Zadikim experience this reality at a higher level.
ReplyDelete"Finally, let me quote from Paramhansa Yogananda's well-known and much-loved book: Autobiography of a Yogi. One day, Yogananda's Guru, taking pity on his beloved disciple's struggles with meditation gave him a spontaneous experience of cosmic consciousness. He writes: `My body became immovably rooted; breath was drawn out of my lungs as if by some huge magnet. Soul and mind instantly lost their physical bondage, and streamed out like a fluid piercing light from every pore. The flesh was as though dead, yet in my intense awareness I knew that I had never before been fully alive. My sense of identity was no longer narrowly confined to a body, but embraced the circumambient atoms. People on distant streets seemed to be moving gently over my remote periphery. The roots of plants and trees appeared through a dim transparency of the soil; I discerned the inward flow of their sap.
`The whole vicinity lay bare before me. My ordinary frontal vision was now changed to a vast spherical sight, simultaneously all-perceptive. Through the back of my head I saw men strolling far down Rai Ghat Lane, and noticed also a white cow who was leisurely approaching. When she reached the space in front of the open ashram gate, I observed her as though with my physical eyes. As she passed by, behind the brick wall, I saw her still.
`All objects within my panoramic gaze trembled and vibrated like quick motion pictures. My body, Master's, the pillared courtyard, the furniture and floor, the trees and sunshine, occasionally became violently agitated, until all melted into a luminescent sea; even as sugar crystals, thrown into a glass of water, dissolve after being shaken. The unifying light alternated with materialisation of forms, the metamorphoses revealing the law of cause and effect (karma) in creation.
`An oceanic joy broke upon the calm endless shores of my soul. The Spirit of God, I realised, is exhaustless Bliss; His body is countless tissues of light. A swelling glory within me began to envelop towns, continents, the earth, solar and stellar systems, tenuous nebulae, and floating universes. The entire cosmos, gently luminous, like a city seen afar at night, glimmered within the infinitude of my being. The dazzling light beyond the sharply edged global outlines faded somewhat at the farthest edges; there I could see a mellow radiance, ever-undiminished. It was indescribably subtle; the planetary pictures were formed of a grosser light.
`The divine dispersion of rays poured from an Eternal Source, blazing into galaxies, transfigured with ineffable auras. Again and again I saw the creative beams condense into constellations, then resolve into sheets of transparent flame. By rhythmic reversions, sextillion worlds passed into diaphanous lustre, then fire became firmament.
`I cognised the centre of the empyrean as a point of intuitive perception in my heart. Irradiating splendour issued from my nucleus to every part of the universal structure. Blissful amrita, the nectar of immortality, pulsed through me with a quicksilverlike fluidity. The creative voice of God I heard resounding as Aum, the vibration of the Cosmic Motor."
BTW, concerning the racism issue raised by Rebbitzen Katz, please see what I wrote (yes, it is me, as I am sure you would have guessed) at:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aishdas.org/rygb/race.htm
Or, here it is, somewhat unformatted:
Judaism and Racism: An Unpublished Letter from an Anonymous Source
To the Editor:
In a fine essay: “Teaching Churban Europa to Our Children” (JO, May ‘03), Rabbi Yaakov Feitman shlita presents the following cogent point as one of the lessons that we can learn from the Hitlerian plot to annihilate the Jewish people, R”l:
“Disappointment in the Gentiles - Rabbi Hutner zt”l taught us that one of the prime lessons of Jewish history is learning not to be enamored of the gentiles and their ways by recognizing their unreliability throughout the ages.”
While this is an invaluable lesson, care must be taken in its presentation, particularly to young students. This is because there is cause for concern lest we inadvertently cause racism and bigotry to develop in our society.
It is essential that we take care that it does not become acceptable in our society to use pejorative terminology to describe other races, especially since there are ever-increasing numbers of Jews, Shomrei Torah u’Mitzvos, of other races. We must be careful never to present people of other races as stereotypical examples of degenerate and dim-witted behavior, particularly in light of the evident accomplishments and prominence of many individuals of other races. A special pitfall to be avoided is the acceptance of questionable “Biblical” justifications of such attitudes. Indeed, most of these rationalizations may be traced to Southern, pro-slavery, antebellum (pre-Civil War) Christian preachers.
To expand somewhat, there are many problems in such attitudes and modes of expression. Among these problems are the following:
1. These attitudes and modes of expression will not go unnoticed by general society. If they were to become known, they would likely to lead to Chillul Hashem and to setbacks in our task of leading, by refined example, to “Yakiru v’yeidu kol yoshvei seivel ke lecha tichra kol berech (“May all the world’s inhabitants recognize and know that to You every knee should bend” - second paragraph of Aleinu, based on Yeshayah 45:23). They certainly would not help the other races (nor gentiles in general) to recognize that “rak am navon v’chacham ha’am ha’zeh” (“Surely a wise and astute people is this great nation!” - Devarim 4:6).
2. Additionally, all generalizations only apply generally - at best. Nevertheless, they create stereotypes, branding individuals with the typecast of the group. Thus, upstanding members of other races who remain gentiles, yet may fall into the category of Chasidei Umos Ha’Olam (pious non-Jews who - see Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 8:11) may become subsumed in the derogatory categorization.
3. Such attitudes and modes of expression are likely to spill over when we would not want them to do so. Olam ha’Bo issues of malbin pnei chaveiro (deriding one’s friend - see Bava Metzia 58b-59a) and other explicit d’oraysa prohibitions, such as ona’as ha’ger (deriding a convert - see Bava Metzia, ibid.) - and, of course, Chillul Hashem - are involved in such “slips of the tongue.”
4. The usage of pejorative terms - particularly when the word’s intended use is clearly coarse - may constitute nibbul peh.
5. Perhaps most importantly, were such attitudes to take root in our society, chas v’shalom, they would clearly run counter to the refinement of middos and to the pathways of mussar to which every Ben Aliyah and Ba’al Avodah should aspire. Haughtiness (ga’avah), scoffing (leitzanus), derogation (bittul) and other middos ra’os pervade such attitudes. The tumas sefasayim that is inherent in such modes of expression doubtless impacts negatively on the neshama of the speaker.
In this brief piece I have focused on the pitfalls of bigotry and racism. This is not the vehicle for a comprehensive treatment of our relationship with non-Jews of various orientations. Nevertheless, it is perhaps worthwhile to provide, at the very least, a springboard for further consideration. To the best of my knowledge, the finest comprehensive treatment of that topic is an essay in Divrei Talmud vol. 1 by Rabbi Avrohom Eliyahu Kaplan zt”l. Without going, here, into the broad scope of issues he addresses, it is worth citing some of his conclusions:
1. Non-Jews who keep their seven laws as a result of their personal convictions, and not because of their belief in the divinity of the Torah, do not fall into the category of rei’ah, and we are not obligated to provide them with monetary support. Nevertheless, because Hashem has endowed all men with divine qualities, they are, therefore, “chaviv” (see Avos 3:14), and hence we are required to save them from any danger and not stand idly by when they are in peril.
2. Non-Jews who accept upon themselves in a Beis Din, as a result of their belief in the divinity of the Torah, to keep their seven laws, do fall into the category of rei’ah. It is obligatory for us to provide them with monetary support, to conduct ourselves with a high measure of respect towards them.
3. It is unclear whether the status of non-Jews who accept their seven laws upon themselves, as a result of their belief in the divinity of the Torah, but not in a Beis Din fall into the first or second category. Therefore, as in all matters of doubt that touch on d’orysa issues, we must be stringent, and it is incumbent upon us to provide them with monetary support, etc.
(Rabbi Kaplan also addresses the status of non-Jews who do not accept their seven laws, and whether the concept of tinok she’nishba is relevant to non-Jews.)
Perhaps, however, all the technical categories are moot, as the Yerushalmi (Bava Metzia 2:5) states so powerfully (free translation):
Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach dealt in linen. His students said to him: “Rebbe, desist from this trade. We will buy you a donkey [to make an easier living as a donkey driver] and you will not have to toil so much.” They went and purchased a donkey from a bandit. The students subsequently found a precious stone dangling from it. They went back to Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach and said to him: “From now on you need not exert yourself.” He asked: “How so?” The students responded: “We purchased a donkey for you from a bandit and a precious stone was dangling from it.” Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach asked: “Did the donkey’s seller know that the stone was there?” They answered: “No.” He then said to them: “Go return it.” The students remonstrated with Rabbi Shimon ben Shetach: “Although theft from an idolater is prohibited, is one not permitted to keep an object that an idolater has lost?” He responded: “What do you think, that Shimon ben Shetach is a barbarian? More than all the wealth of the world, Shimon ben Shetach desires to hear [the non-Jew say]: “Berich Eloko d’Yehudo’ei” (“Blessed is the God of the Jews”).
Our paramount value, beyond even halachic considerations, must be Kiddush Shem Shomayim.
In sum, therefore, while Rabbi Feitman’s point is well taken, it must be nuanced. There are cases in which we must denigrate evildoers, but there are cases where denigration is out of place - indeed, counter to the Torah’s expectations of us. There is a fine line to be tread between “Ein lanu l’hisha’en elah al Avinu she’Bashomayim” (We cannot rely on anyone but our Father in Heaven - see Sotah 49b) and Al tehi baz l’kol adam (“Do not denigrate any person” - Avos 4:3).