Posts
Monday, November 11, 2013
The-7-Noachide-Laws
http://www.aish.com/jl/jnj/nj/The-7-Noachide-Laws.html
The Jewish idea is that the Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not. The Torah (as explained in the Talmud - Sanhedrin 58b) presents seven mitzvot for non-Jews to observe. These seven laws are the pillars of human civilization, and are named the "Seven Laws of Noah," since all humans are descended from Noah. They are:
1.Do not murder.
2.Do not steal.
3.Do not worship false gods.
4.Do not be sexually immoral.
5.Do not eat a limb removed from a live animal.
6.Do not curse God.
7.Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.
Maimonides explains that any human being who faithfully observes these laws earns a proper place in heaven. So you see, the Torah is for all humanity, no conversion necessary.
As well, when King Solomon built the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, he specifically asked God to heed the prayer of non-Jews who come to the Temple (1-Kings 8:41-43). The Temple was the universal center of spirituality, which the prophet Isaiah referred to as a "house for all nations." The service in the Holy Temple during the week of Sukkot featured a total of 70 bull offerings, corresponding to each of the 70 nations of the world. In fact, the Talmud says if the Romans would have realized how much they were benefiting from the Temple, they never would have destroyed it!
Today, there are many active groups of non-Jews called "B'nai Noach" who faithfully observe the Seven Laws of Noah.
There is an excellent book on the topic:
>"The Path of the Righteous Gentile"
by Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1879016117/friendsofaishat/
"The Real Messiah: A Jewish Response to Missionaries"
by Aryeh Kaplan
The U.S. Home and Foreign Front During World War II
http://www.history.com/topics/
http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii
http://www.history.com/topics/the-holocaust
The U.S. Home Front During World War II After the December 7, 1941, Japanese attack on the American naval fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the U.S. was thrust into World War II (1939-45), and everyday life across the country was dramatically altered. Food, gas and clothing were rationed. Communities conducted scrap metal drives. To help build the armaments necessary to win the war, women found employment as electricians, welders and riveters in defense plants. Japanese Americans had their rights as citizens stripped from them. People in the U.S. grew increasingly dependent on radio reports for news of the fighting overseas. And, while popular entertainment served to demonize the nation's enemies, it also was viewed as an escapist outlet that allowed Americans brief respites from war worries.
http://www.history.com/photos/world-war-ii-damage-and-destruction/photo5 WII Damage and destruction yhtoighout Europe Blitz Bombing Damage Near St. Paul's Cathedral in London: The period from fall of 1940 through spring of 1941, when the German forces concetrated their bombing efforts on the city of London, is commonly known as The Blitz. From September 7, 1940 London was bombed for 57 consecutive nights. This image shows the destruction of many of the buildings surrounding St. Paul's Cathedral, which was largely undamaged. (Photo Credit: Corbis)
After the April 9, 1942, U.S. surrender of the Bataan Peninsula on the main Philippine island of Luzon to the Japanese during World War II (1939-45), the approximately 75,000 Filipino and American troops on Bataan were forced to make an arduous 65-mile march to prison camps. The marchers made the trek in intense heat and were subjected to harsh treatment by Japanese guards. Thousands perished in what became known as the Bataan Death March. . Bataan Death March: Background The day after Japan bombed the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941, the Japanese invasion of the Philippines began. Within a month, the Japanese had captured Manila, the capital of the Philippines, and the American and Filipino defenders of Luzon (the island on which Manila is located) were forced to retreat to the Bataan Peninsula. For the next three months, the combined U.S.-Filipino army held out despite a lack of naval and air support. Finally, on April 9, with his forces crippled by starvation and disease, U.S. General Edward King Jr. (1884-1958), surrendered his approximately 75,000 troops at Bataan. Bataan Death March: April 1942 The surrendered Filipinos and Americans soon were rounded up by the Japanese and forced to march some 65 miles from Mariveles, on the southern end of the Bataan Peninsula, to San Fernando. The men were divided into groups of approximately 100, and what became known as the Bataan Death March typically took each group around five days to complete. The exact figures are unknown, but it is believed that thousands of troops died because of the brutality of their captors, who starved and beat the marchers, and bayoneted those too weak to walk. Survivors were taken by rail from San Fernando to prisoner-of-war camps, where thousands more died from disease, mistreatment and starvation. Bataan Death March: Aftermath America avenged its defeat in the Philippines with the invasion of the island of Leyte in October 1944. General Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964), who in 1942 had famously promised to return to the Philippines, made good on his word. In February 1945, U.S.-Filipino forces recaptured the Bataan Peninsula, and Manila was liberated in early March. After the war, an American military tribunal tried Lieutenant General Homma Masaharu, commander of the Japanese invasion forces in the Philippines. He was held responsible for the death march, a war crime, and was executed by firing squad on April 3, 1946.
The instability created in Europe by the First World War (1914-18) set the stage for another international conflict–World War II–which broke out two decades later and would prove even more devastating. Rising to power in an economically and politically unstable Germany, Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist (Nazi Party) rearmed the nation and signed strategic treaties with Italy and Japan to further his ambitions of world domination. Hitler's invasion of Poland in September 1939 drove Great Britain and France to declare war on Germany, and World War II had begun. Over the next six years, the conflict would take more lives and destroy more land and property around the globe than any previous war. Among the estimated 45-60 million people killed were 6 million Jews murdered in Nazi concentration camps as part of Hitler's diabolical "Final Solution," now known as the Holocaust.
Japanese General and Prime Minister Wartime leader of Japan's government, General Tôjô Hideki, with his close-cropped hair, mustache, and round spectacles, became for Allied propagandists one of the most commonly caricatured members of Japan's military dictatorship throughout the Pacific war. Shrewd at bureaucratic infighting and fiercely partisan in presenting the army's perspective while army minister, he was surprisingly indecisive as national leader. Known within the army as "Razor Tôjô" both for his bureaucratic efficiency and for his strict, uncompromising attention to detail, he climbed the command ladders, in close association with the army faction seeking to upgrade and improve Japan's fighting capabilities despite tight budgets and "civilian interference." Tôjô built up a personal power base and used his position as head of the military police of Japan's garrison force in Manchuria to rein in their influence before he became the Kwantung Army's chief of staff in 1937. He played a key role in opening hostilities against China in July. Tôjô had his only combat experience later that year, leading two brigades on operations in Inner Mongolia. Seeing the military occupation of Chinese territory as necessary to force the Nationalist Chinese government to collaborate with Japan, he continued to advocate expansion of the conflict in China when he returned to Tokyo in 1938 as army vice minister, rising to army minister in July 1940. He pushed for alliance with Germany (where he had served in 1920-1922) and Italy, and he supported the formation of a broad political front of national unity. In October 1941 he became prime minister. Although Tôjô supported last-minute diplomatic efforts, he gave final approval to the attacks on the United States, Great Britain, and the Dutch East Indies in December 1941. Japan's early victories greatly strengthened his personal prestige and his assertion that there were times when statesmen had to "have faith in Victory." When the war intensified, Japan's losses mounted, and its fragile industrial foundations threatened to collapse. Tôjô characteristically sought to gather administrative levers into his own hands. Serving as both prime minister and army minister, at various times he also held the portfolios of home affairs (giving him control of the dreaded "thought police"), education, munitions, commerce and industry, and foreign affairs. In February 1944, he even assumed direct command of army operations as chief of the Army General Staff. Yet despite all his posts, Tôjô was never able to establish a dictatorship on a par with those wielded by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. He served constitutionally at the behest of the emperor, without support of a mass party, while crucial power centers, such as the industrial combines (known as zaibatsu), the navy, and the court, remained beyond his control. After the island of Saipan fell to American forces in July 1944, he was forced from power, despite arguments raised by some officials close to the throne that Tôjô should be left in office to the end to accept responsibility for the loss of the war so that a court official could "step in" to deliver peace.
1891-1944 : German World War II Field Marshal. Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel gained immortality in the North African campaign of 1941-1943. Sent with a small German force to help the Axis against the British after the Italians had suffered severe defeat, Rommel--reaching Tripoli in February 1941--was soon master of Cyrenaica and imposing his will on the enemy. For two years the opposing forces alternately advanced or withdrew over the desert, and Rommel's name became legendary--a master of mobile operations who was rapid, courageous, and audacious. Rommel's supreme achievement was his defeat of the British at Gazala in May 1942, followed by the taking of Tobruk and a field marshal's baton. Nemesis came five months later at El Alamein, when the British imperial army under Bernard Montgomery won a convincing victory. Rommel withdrew the survivors of his Panzerarmee to Tunisia. By then the British and Americans had landed in North Africa, the British Eighth Army had reconquered Tripolitania and was on the Tunisian border, and the Germans were hemmed in, isolated and facing overwhelming odds. Rommel left for Europe in March 1943. The African adventure was over. Rommel has been criticized for lacking strategic sense, for excessive absorption in the tactical battle, for neglect of logistics, for periodic imprudence. These criticisms are shallow. Rommel's especial flair was undoubtedly for the battle itself, for the cut and thrust of maneuver, for personal leadership at the point of decision, above all for the speed and energy with which he decided and acted; but in his extensive writings and recorded conversations he showed a military perceptiveness and strategic insight that would have probably enabled him to shine with the brilliance of Erich von Manstein had he held high command on the larger scale of the Eastern Front. As to logistics, Rommel was acutely aware of them at all times--they dominated the African theater where all commodities had to be imported and transported over huge distances. He refused, however, to make excessively pessimistic assumptions or to overensure--or, as he put it, to allow the scope and pace of battle to be dictated by quartermasters. A more cautious approach would have often denied him victory. And although Rommel sometimes underestimated the timing and difficulties of an operation, he was one who believed war seldom forgives hesitation or delay. From his earliest days as a brilliant young leader in World War I, or as a panzer divisional commander crossing the Meuse against fierce opposition and racing across France in 1940, he had proved to himself the virtues of initiative and boldness. On the whole his decisions were justified by victory: and in Africa victory often against odds. Rommel's last military appointment was in command of Army Group B, responsible in 1944 for much of northwest Europe. His energetic preparations reflected his conviction that the expected invasion had to be defeated near the coast, because Allied air power would nullify large-scale armored counteroperations after the landing. He believed, too, that the coming campaign should aim to defeat the invasion for one purpose: so that in the aftermath, peace might be negotiated in the west and a stalemate achieved in the east. Politically this was fantasy and militarily it failed; but for Rommel it was the only rational hope. By then Rommel had lost all faith in Adolf Hitler. Hitler had showed him favor, and Rommel was long grateful for what he saw as Hitler's restoration of German self-respect in the 1930s, but by 1944 he was disenchanted by Hitler's refusal to face strategic facts. After the Allied invasion had succeeded in establishing a front (see D-Day), Rommel--who believed that Germany must now inevitably lose a war on two fronts--tried again personally to confront Hitler with reality. He failed. Rommel, therefore, was now determined to surrender the German forces in the west unilaterally. Before that could happen he was wounded in an air attack on July 17. At home on sick leave, he was visited by emissaries of Hitler on October 14 and offered the choice of trial for high treason or suicide--to be publicized as a heart attack--with guarantees for his family's immunity. He had never participated in the plot to assassinate Hitler, but his "defeatism" was known and his involvement presumed. He chose suicide and was given a state funeral. Rommel has been variously described as a Nazi (because of long personal devotion to Hitler) or as a martyr of the German Resistance (because of the manner of his death). He was neither. He was a straightforward, gifted, patriotic German officer, a charismatic commander and master of maneuver, caught up in the disaster of the Third Reich. GENERAL SIR DAVID FRASER The Reader's Companion to Military History. Edited by Robert Cowley and Geoffrey Parker. Copyright © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
In the summer and fall of 1940, German and British air forces clashed in the skies over the United Kingdom, locked in the largest sustained bombing campaign to that date. A significant turning point of World War II, the Battle of Britain ended when Germany’s Luftwaffe failed to gain air superiority over the Royal Air Force despite months of targeting Britain’s air bases, military posts and, ultimately, its civilian population. Britain’s decisive victory saved the country from a ground invasion and possible occupation by German forces while proving that air power alone could be used to win a major battle. On June 17, 1940, the defeated French signed an armistice and quit World War II. Britain now stood alone against the power of Germany's military forces, which had conquered most of Western Europe in less than two months. But Prime Minister Winston Churchill rallied his stubborn people and outmaneuvered those politicians who wanted to negotiate with Adolf Hitler. But Britain's success in continuing the war would very much depend on the RAF Fighter Command's ability to thwart the Luftwaffe's efforts to gain air superiority. This then would be the first all-air battle in history. In fact, Britain's situation was more favorable than most of the world recognized at the time. Britain possessed an effective air defense system, first-rate fighter pilots, and a great military leader in Air Marshal Hugh Dowding. On the other hand, the Germans had major problems: they had no navy left after the costly conquest of Norway, their army was unprepared for any form of amphibious operations, and the Luftwaffe had suffered heavy losses in the west (the first two factors made a seaborne attack on the British Isles impossible from the first). Even more serious, the Germans had poor intelligence and little idea of British vulnerabilities. They wasted most of July in waiting for a British surrender and attacked only in August. Although air strikes did substantial damage to radar sites, on August 13–15 the Luftwaffe soon abandoned that avenue and turned to attacks on RAF air bases. A battle of attrition ensued in which both sides suffered heavy losses (an average loss of 21 percent of the RAF's fighter pilots and 16 percent of the Luftwaffe's fighter pilots each month during July, August, and September). For a time the advantage seemed to swing slightly in favor of the Germans, but a combination of bad intelligence and British attacks on Berlin led the Luftwaffe to change its operational approach to massive attacks on London. The first attack on London on September 7 was quite successful; the second, on September 15, failed not only with heavy losses, but also with a collapse of morale among German bomber crews when British fighters appeared in large numbers and shot down many of the Germans. As a result, Hitler permanently postponed a landing on the British Isles and suspended the Battle of Britain. Williamson Murray .
![]()
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Chapter 4, Mishna 1(a)
Chapter 4, Mishna 1(a)
"Ben (the son of) Zoma said: Who is wise? He who learns from all people, as it is said: 'From all those who taught me I gained understanding' (Psalms 119:99). Who is strong? He who conquers his evil inclination, as it is said: 'Better is one slow to anger than a strong man, and one who rules over his spirit than a conqueror of a city' (Proverbs 16:32). Who is rich? He who is satisfied with his lot, as it is said: 'When you eat the toil of your hands you are fortunate and it is good for you' (Psalms 128:2). 'You are fortunate' -- in this world; 'and it is good for you' -- in the World to Come. Who is honored? He who honors others, as it is said: 'For those who honor Me will I honor, and those who scorn Me will be degraded' (I Samuel 2:30)."
This week's mishna contains such sound words of wisdom, profound in their simplicity, that it hardly needs Dovid Rosenfeld's embellishments. But I have to earn my weekly paycheck, so here goes... (Actually, I do this for free. :-) (But I try to be rich according to our Mishna's definition (sigh).)
The author of our mishna is Shimon ben Zoma. He is referred to by his father's name alone because he died at an early age or without having received rabbinical ordination (Rashi, see also Talmud Chagigah 14b).
"Who is wise? He who learns from all people:" At its simplest level, the message is that one who seeks wisdom wherever it may be found is the one most likely to acquire it. He or she is willing to ask anyone and everyone. He is not so conscious of his own reputation as to refuse to "lower" himself to seek knowledge from someone not as important or credentialed as he. The Talmud writes that the Torah student who humiliates himself before others in order to understand the Torah (by asking his rabbi "stupid" questions and the like) will eventually be elevated on account of his Torah knowledge (Brachos 63b).
The commentator Rabbeinu Yonah writes further that when a person inquires wisdom of everyone, it indicates that he or she has a love of knowledge. His thirst will take him to every person and every place; it will not be quenched until he has drunk his fill. Such a person may be considered wise even before he has studied, since his desire will soon lead him on the straight path to greatness.
There is a deeper insight into ben Zoma's words. Why is learning from *everyone* so crucial for accomplishment in Torah? Isn't it true that some people just don't know as much as others? Should we really be spending time trying to glean bits of information from the unlearned when we would make much better use of our time studying ourselves or from our teachers?
The answer lies in the true understanding of the Torah's definition of wisdom. When G-d commanded us to study His Torah, it was not just a matter of memorizing dry facts and information. That could be gained from texts and book knowledge alone. We would never need to bother interacting with anyone else (thereby interrupting our own study time).
Rather, Torah study is the understanding of the application of the Torah's principles to real people and real life situations -- how do the Torah's eternal truths apply to the human condition. G-d's wisdom is eternal, yet no two people are precisely alike and relate to the Torah in precisely the same manner. Every one of us has his own perspective, his own life story, and his own unique personality. Each of us will see a slightly different message in the Torah, and will have his or her own fresh insights into its beauty and relevance.
Therefore, the Torah scholar cannot really understand the Torah if he does not comprehend what it means to other human beings. By my very nature, I cannot understand the Torah in every sense it has to convey. I am bound by my own perspective, my own background, my own intellectual capacities, and my own way of thinking. And the Torah is far too profound and all-encompassing to be fully fathomed by any single individual, no matter how wise. I must therefore branch out, attempting to understand what the Torah means to my fellow -- what are the other equally-valid methods of relating to truth. I must grow out of my own shell. When I realize that truth is far more composite and multifaceted than it appears to me -- that black-and-white to me may be shades-of-gray to my fellow -- I am ready to truly become wise.
There is a Midrash which states that there is one letter in the Torah for every single Jew. Every one of us has his own unique understanding of the Torah and his own angle on truth. No one has the monopoly on the word of G-d. And only when the student of the Talmud is prepared to grow out of his own limited perspective and view the Big Picture has he truly embarked on the path to Wisdom.
"Who is strong? He who conquers his evil inclination:" Our mishna teaches us that strength should not be measured in physical might and fighting ability, but in restraint and the controlling of one's passions. Rabbeinu Yonah observes that ben Zoma -- as seen from the verse he quotes -- does not even entertain that physical strength might be the determinant of a man's might. Human beings rate pretty low as far as that is concerned. Being one of the weakest, slowest (relative to our size), most delicate (in terms of what our stomachs can take, extreme temperature endurance, etc.), longest to mature of the animal kingdom, we have very little to brag about. G-d did not seem to invent us as His wondrous masterpieces of grace, strength or endurance. If we see ourselves as nothing more than physical specimens -- if our self-image is based on our macho -- we are trading in the far higher goals G-d has in mind for us for something which just does not fit the spec's.
The quoted verse does, however, contrast one who is slow to anger to a warrior. (R. Yonah understands the "strong man" of the quoted verse to mean a soldier.) Warriors at least exhibit some level of bravery and self-discipline. A soldier who can survive basic training and endure harsh battle conditions or a commander who can orchestrate a military campaign demonstrate true valor -- of character as well as of body.
(One cannot help but notice the high proportion of presidents and national leaders who preceded their political careers with successful military careers. My sense is that this is only in part due to the heroics associated with military distinction. The voting public may also have a sense that someone who has the necessary self-discipline and strength of character to run a battalion may just have the super-discipline required to run a country.)
To this ben Zoma states that nothing matches willpower. True strength is that of the spirit; that of the body is different in kind. "Passive" behavior -- not losing one's cool when the kids are infuriating, holding oneself back when insulted, resisting temptation -- may appear more as doing "nothing" than acting with strength. (What could be more "manly" than banging on the table, slamming the door, and yelling at the top of your lungs?) But as our Sages correctly observe, it often takes far greater strength to do nothing than to react and to overreact. Strength is controlling the animal that lurks within. Rashness, violence, thinking with one's muscles -- all of these are forms of losing one's control and one's humanity, and in the final analysis, are signs of weakness.
One final interesting observation is the universality of this law. As we know, there are Seven Noahide Laws -- seven fundamental laws which G-d commanded upon all mankind (see http://www.aish.com/jl/jnj/nj/The-7-Noachide-Laws.html). Possibly, six of them are ones we'd "expect" to see -- do not kill, steal, commit adultery, etc. One, however, is a little off the beaten track -- not to eat a limb severed from a living animal. Somehow, that does not strike us as one of the fundamental tenets of human morality. What is so crucial about it? Why did G-d deem it so far-reaching as to command its observance on the entire world?
I once heard R. Noach Orlowek of Jerusalem explain as follows. What is the theme of this commandment? In a word, self-restraint. Don't just take whatever you want whenever you want it. You want to eat meat? *Raw* meat? Immediately?! At least wait until the animal is dead. This is not a matter of religious ritual or living ascetically. That was not commanded on all mankind. But one thing was: Don't be an animal. This is universal; it is a simple matter of and fact of our humanity. A person cannot live, nor can society function, if people do nothing more than satisfy their desires -- whenever they want, wherever they want. The Seven Laws do not tell us we must be Jews, but they do tell us we must be humans. Really not so much to ask of us, but above all else this is what distinguishes us -- what crowns us -- as G-d's masterful creations.
without justice, love corrupts
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2269078/jewish/Tzedek-Justice-and-Compassion.htm
Learning & Values » Parshah (Weekly Torah) » Devarim - Deuteronomy » Devarim » Parshah Columnists » Covenant & Conversation
Tzedek: Justice and Compassion
Tzedek: Justice and CompassionBy Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
As Moses begins his great closing addresses to the next generation, he turns to a subject that dominates the last of the Mosaic books, namely justice:
I instructed your judges at that time as follows: “Listen to your fellow men, and decide justly [tzedek] between each man and his brother or a stranger. You shall not be partial in judgment. Listen to great and small alike. Fear no one, for judgment belongs to God. Any matter that is too difficult for you, bring to me and I will hear it.”
Tzedek, “justice,” is a key word in the book of Devarim – most famously in the verse:
Justice, justice you shall pursue, so that you may thrive and occupy the land that the Lord your God is giving you. (Deuteronomy 16: 20)
The distribution of the word tzedek and its derivate tzedakah in the Five Books of Moses is anything but random. It is overwhelmingly concentrated on the first and last books, Genesis (where it appears 16 times) and Deuteronomy (18 times). In Exodus it occurs only four times and in Leviticus five. All but one of these are concentrated in two chapters: Exodus 23 (where 3 of the 4 occurrences are in two verses, 23: 7-8) and Leviticus 19 (where all 5 incidences are in chapter 19). In Numbers, the word does not appear at all.
This distribution is one of many indications that the Chumash (the Five Books of Moses) is constructed as a chiasmus – a literary unit of the form ABCBA. The structure is this:
A: Genesis – the prehistory of Israel (the distant past)
B: Exodus — the journey from Egypt to Mount Sinai
C: Leviticus – the code of holiness
B: Numbers — the journey from Mount Sinai to the banks of the Jordan
A: Deuteronomy – the post-history of Israel (the distant future)
The leitmotiv of tzedek/tzedakah appears at the key points of this structure – the two outer books of Genesis and Deuteronomy, and the central chapter of the work as a whole, Leviticus 19. Clearly the word is a dominant theme of the Mosaic books as a whole.
What does it mean? Tzedek/tzedakah is almost impossible to translate, because of its many shadings of meaning: justice, charity, righteousness, integrity, equity, fairness and innocence. It certainly means more than strictly legal justice, for which the Bible uses words like mishpat and din. One example illustrates the point:
If a man is poor, you may not go to sleep holding his security. Return it to him at sun-down, so that he will be able to sleep in his garment and bless you. To you it will be reckoned as tzedakah before the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 24: 12-13)
Tzedakah cannot mean legal justice in this verse. It speaks of a situation in which a poor person has only a single cloak or covering, which he has handed over to the lender as security against a loan. The lender has a legal right to keep the cloak until the loan has been repaid. However, acting on the basis of this right is simply not the right thing to do. It ignores the human situation of the poor person, who has nothing else with which to keep warm on a cold night. The point becomes even clearer when we examine the parallel passage in Exodus 22, which states:
If you take your neighbour’s cloak as a pledge, return it to him by sunset, because his cloak is the only covering he has for his body. What else will he sleep in? When he cries out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate. (Exodus 22: 25-26)
The same situation which in Deuteronomy is described as tzedakah, in Exodus is termed compassion or grace (chanun). The late Aryeh Kaplan translated tzedakah in Deut. 24 as “charitable merit.” It is best rendered as “the right and decent thing to do” or “justice tempered by compassion.”
In Judaism, justice - tzedek as opposed to mishpat - must be tempered by compassion. Hence the terrible, tragic irony of Portia’s speech in The Merchant of Venice:
The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea . .
Shakespeare is here expressing the medieval stereotype of Christian mercy (Portia) as against Jewish justice (Shylock). He entirely fails to realize – how could he, given the prevailing culture – that “justice” and “mercy” are not opposites in Hebrew but are bonded together in a single word, tzedek or tzedakah. To add to the irony, the very language and imagery of Portia’s speech (“It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven”) is taken from Deuteronomy:
May my teaching drop as the rain,
my speech distill as the dew,
like gentle rain upon the tender grass,
and like showers upon the herb . . .
The Rock, his work is perfect,
for all his ways are justice.
A G-d of faithfulness and without iniquity,
just and upright is he. (Deuteronomy 32: 2-4)
The false contrast between Jew and Christian in The Merchant of Venice is eloquent testimony to the cruel misrepresentation of Judaism in Christian theology until recent times.
Why then is justice so central to Judaism? Because it is impartial. Law as envisaged by the Torah makes no distinction between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, home born or stranger. Equality before the law is the translation into human terms of equality before G-d. Time and again the Torah insists that justice is not a human artefact: “Fear no one, for judgment belongs to G-d.” Because it belongs to God, it must never be compromised – by fear, bribery, or favoritism. It is an inescapable duty, an inalienable right.
Judaism is a religion of love: You shall love the L-rd your G-d; you shall love your neighbor as yourself; you shall love the stranger. But it is also a religion of justice, for without justice, love corrupts (who would not bend the rules, if he could, to favour those he loves?). It is also a religion of compassion, for without compassion law itself can generate inequity. Justice plus compassion equals tzedek, the first precondition of a decent society.
articles by r Jonathan Sacka
http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/194/jewish/Jonathan-Sacks.htm
What do you have against pigs?MUMBAI
Telephone us: +44 (0)20 7286 6391 Write to us: The Office of Rabbi Sacks, P.O. Box 72007, London, NW6 6RW, UK Email us: info@rabbisacks.org All speaker requests must be made sent in writing or via email. Press Office Please note that all media enquiries or interview requests must be put in writing or emailed to info@rabbisacks.org. http://www.rabbisacks.org/ ______When I became chief rabbi, I had to undergo a medical examination. The doctor put me on a treadmill, walking at a very brisk pace. “What are you testing?” I asked him. “How fast I can go, or how long?” “Neither,” he replied. “What I am testing is how long it takes, when you come off the treadmill, for your pulse to return to normal.” That is when I discovered that health is measured by the power of recovery. That is true for everyone, but doubly so for leaders and for the Jewish people, a nation of Leadership, especially in matters of the spirit, is deeply stressfulleaders (that, I believe, is what the phrase “a kingdom of priests” means). __________________ Leadership, especially in matters of the spirit, is deeply stressful. Four figures in Tanach—Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah and Jonah—actually pray to die rather than continue. Nor was this true only in the distant past. Abraham Lincoln suffered deep bouts of depression. So did Churchill, who called it his “black dog.” Gandhi and Martin Luther King both attempted suicide in adolescence, and experienced depressive illness in adult life. The same was true of many great creative artists, among them Michelangelo, Beethoven and Van Gogh. Is it greatness that leads to moments of despair, or moments of despair that lead to greatness? Is it that those who lead internalize the stresses and tensions of their time? Or is it that those who are used to stress in their emotional lives find release in leading exceptional lives? There is no convincing answer to this in the literature thus far. But Jacob was a more emotionally volatile individual than either Abraham, who was often serene even in the face of great trials, or Isaac, who was more than usually withdrawn. Jacob feared; Jacob loved; Jacob spent more of his time in exile than the other patriarchs. But Jacob endured and persisted. Of all the figures in Genesis, he is the great survivor.The ability to survive and to recover is part of what it takes to be a leader. It is the willingness to live a life of risks that makes such individuals different from others. So said Theodore Roosevelt in one of the greatest speeches ever made on the subject: It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who It is not the critic who countsstrives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.3 Jacob endured the rivalry of Esau, the resentment of Laban, the tension between his wives and children, the early death of his beloved Rachel, and the loss for twenty-two years of his favorite son Joseph. He said to Pharaoh, “Few and hard have been the years of my life” (Genesis 47:9). Yet on the way he “encountered” angels, and whether they were wrestling with him or climbing the ladder to heaven, they lit the night with the aura of transcendence. To try, to fall, to fear, and yet to keep going: that is what it takes to be a leader. That was Jacob, the man who at the lowest ebbs of his life had his greatest visions of heaven. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Friend, Five years ago this week, I was on my way to Holland to visit my newborn niece. As the plane touched down, my husband turned on his phone to check the news. We knew there had been a terrorist attack in Mumbai, but suddenly the story turned terribly personal: terrorists had occupied the Chabad House. That Shabbat the rabbi sang Av Harachaimim, the prayer for Jewish martyrs, in a voice choked with tears. Six souls had joined millions of others in the prayer's eternal embrace. Reflecting on Mumbai five years later, it is hard to separate the pain of the tragedy from the response it evoked. People did thousands of mitzvahs, Chabad shluchim established tens of Torah centers, and many parents honored the memory of Rabbi Gavriel and Rivkah Holtzberg by naming their children after them. We survived, and we are stronger for it. As Rabbi Sacks writes this week in Light in Dark Times, the ability to recover, to use our pain as an impetus for growth, is a trait passed down to us from our forefather Jacob. For better or worse, this has become a defining characteristic of our people. May we soon merit the time when light will overpower darkness, once and for all. Sarah Ogince, on behalf of the Chabad.org Editorial Team http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2363199/jewish/Light-in-Dark-Times.htm ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Pain and depression impetus for growth http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2363199/jewish/Light-in-Dark-Times.htm#footnote1a2363199 What is it that made Jacob—not Abraham or Isaac or Moses—the true father of the Jewish people? We are the “congregation of Jacob,” “the children of Israel.” Jacob/Israel is the man whose name we bear. Yet Jacob did not begin the Jewish journey; Abraham did. Jacob faced no trial like that of Isaac at the binding. He did not lead the people out of Egypt, or bring them the Torah. To be sure, all his children stayed within the faith, unlike Abraham or Isaac. But that simply pushes the question back one level. Why did he succeed where Abraham and Isaac failed? It seems that the answer lies in this week’s Parshah and the next. Jacob was the man whose greatest visions came to him when he was alone at night, far from home, fleeing from one danger to the next. In this week’s Parshah, escaping from Esau, he stops and Jacob faced no trial like that of Isaac at the bindingrests for the night with only stones to lie on, and has an epiphany: He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of G‑d were ascending and descending on it . . . When Jacob awoke from his sleep, he thought, “Surely the L‑rd is in this place, and I was not aware of it.” He was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of G‑d; this is the gate of heaven.”1 In next week’s Parshah, fleeing from Laban and terrified at the prospect of meeting Esau again, he wrestles alone at night with an unnamed stranger. Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with G‑d and with humans and have overcome” . . . So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw G‑d face to face, and yet my life was spared.”2 These are the decisive spiritual encounters of Jacob’s life, yet they happen in liminal space (the space between that is neither starting point nor destination), at a time when Jacob was at risk in both directions, where he came from and where he was going to. Yet it was at these points of maximal vulnerability that he encountered G‑d and found the courage to continue despite all the hazards of the journey. That is the strength Jacob bequeathed the Jewish people. What is remarkable is not merely that this one tiny people survived tragedies that would have spelled the end of any other people: the destruction of two Temples, the Babylonian and Roman conquests, the expulsions, persecutions and pogroms of the Middle Ages, the rise of anti-Semitism in nineteenth-century Europe, and the Holocaust. After each cataclysm it renewed itself, scaling new heights of achievement. During the Babylonian exile it deepened its engagement with the Torah. After the Roman destruction of Jerusalem it produced the great literary monuments of the Oral Torah: Midrash, Mishnah and Gemara. During the Middle Ages it produced masterpieces of law and Torah commentary, poetry and philosophy. A mere three years after the Holocaust it proclaimed the state of Israel, the Jewish return to history after the darkest night of exile. When I became chief rabbi, I had to undergo a medical examination. The doctor put me on a treadmill, walking at a very brisk pace. “What are you testing?” I asked him. “How fast I can go, or how long?” “Neither,” he replied. “What I am testing is how long it takes, when you come off the treadmill, for your pulse to return to normal.” That is when I discovered that health is measured by the power of recovery. That is true for everyone, but doubly so for leaders and for the Jewish people, a nation of Leadership, especially in matters of the spirit, is deeply stressfulleaders (that, I believe, is what the phrase “a kingdom of priests” means). Leaders suffer crises. That is a given of leadership. When Harold Macmillan, prime minister of Britain between 1957 and 1963, was asked what was the most difficult aspect of his time in office, he replied, “Events, dear boy, events.” Bad things happen, and when they do, the leader must take the strain so that others can sleep easily in their beds. Leadership, especially in matters of the spirit, is deeply stressful. Four figures in Tanach—Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah and Jonah—actually pray to die rather than continue. Nor was this true only in the distant past. Abraham Lincoln suffered deep bouts of depression. So did Churchill, who called it his “black dog.” Gandhi and Martin Luther King both attempted suicide in adolescence, and experienced depressive illness in adult life. The same was true of many great creative artists, among them Michelangelo, Beethoven and Van Gogh. Is it greatness that leads to moments of despair, or moments of despair that lead to greatness? Is it that those who lead internalize the stresses and tensions of their time? Or is it that those who are used to stress in their emotional lives find release in leading exceptional lives? There is no convincing answer to this in the literature thus far. But Jacob was a more emotionally volatile individual than either Abraham, who was often serene even in the face of great trials, or Isaac, who was more than usually withdrawn. Jacob feared; Jacob loved; Jacob spent more of his time in exile than the other patriarchs. But Jacob endured and persisted. Of all the figures in Genesis, he is the great survivor. The ability to survive and to recover is part of what it takes to be a leader. It is the willingness to live a life of risks that makes such individuals different from others. So said Theodore Roosevelt in one of the greatest speeches ever made on the subject: It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who It is not the critic who countsstrives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.3 Jacob endured the rivalry of Esau, the resentment of Laban, the tension between his wives and children, the early death of his beloved Rachel, and the loss for twenty-two years of his favorite son Joseph. He said to Pharaoh, “Few and hard have been the years of my life” (Genesis 47:9). Yet on the way he “encountered” angels, and whether they were wrestling with him or climbing the ladder to heaven, they lit the night with the aura of transcendence. To try, to fall, to fear, and yet to keep going: that is what it takes to be a leader. That was Jacob, the man who at the lowest ebbs of his life had his greatest visions of heaven.
Friday, November 1, 2013
1492:_Conquest_of_Paradise
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
GILGUL
TRANSMIGRATION OF SOULS
ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Doctrine Refuted by Saadia.
Influence of Cabala.
Opposition to the View.
The School of Luria.
Impregnation of Souls.
Special Instances.
Gilgul.
Read more: file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/Desktop/Gilgul%20Ibbur/JewishEncyclopedia_com%20-%20TRANSMIGRATION%20OF%20SOULS.mht#ixzz2jA1iSrKV
Doctrine Refuted by Saadia.
The passing of souls into successive bodily forms, either human or animal. According to Pythagoras, who probably learned the doctrine in Egypt, the rational mind (ψρήν), after having been freed from the chains of the body, assumes an ethereal vehicle, and passes into the region of the dead, where it remains till it is sent back to this world to inhabit some other body, human or animal. After undergoing successive purgations, and when it is sufficiently purified, it is received among the gods, and returns to the eternal source from which it first proceeded. This doctrine was foreign to Judaism until about the eighth century,when, under the influence of the Mohammedan mystics, it was adopted by the Karaites and other Jewish dissenters. It is first mentioned in Jewish literature by Saadia, who protested against this belief, which at his time was shared by the Yudghanites, or whomsoever he contemptuously designated as "so-called Jews" (; see Schmiedl, "Studien," p. 166; idem, in "Monatsschrift," x. 177; Rapoport, in "Bikkure ha-'Ittim," ix. 23; idem, introduction to Abraham bar Ḥiyya's "Hegyon ha-Nefesh," p. lii.; Jellinek, in "Orient, Lit." 1851, p. 410; Fürst, "Gesch. des Karäert." i. 81). According to Saadia, the reasons given by the adherents of metempsychosis for their belief are partly intellectual and partly Scriptural. The former are as follows: (1) Observation shows that many men possess attributes of animals, as, for instance, the gentleness of a lamb, the rage of a wild beast, the gluttony of a dog, the lightness of a bird, etc. These peculiarities, they assert, prove that their possessors have in part the souls of the respective animals. (2) It would be contrary to the justice of God to inflict pain upon children in punishment for sins committed by their souls in a previous state. The Scriptural reasons are conclusions drawn from certain Biblical verses, such as: "Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath; but with him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day" (Deut. xxix. 14, 15); "Blessed be the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly," etc. (Ps. i. 1). Both sets of reasons are refuted by Saadia, who says that he would not consider it worth while to show the foolishness and the low-mindedness of the believers in metempsychosis, were he not afraid lest they might exercise a pernicious influence upon others ("Emunot we-De'ot," vi.).
Influence of Cabala.
The doctrine counted so few adherents among the Jews that, with the exception of Abraham ibn Daud ("Emunah Ramah," i. 7), no Jewish philosopher until Ḥasdai Crescas even deemed it necessary to refute it. Only with the spread of the Cabala did it begin to take root in Judaism, and then it gained believers even among men who were little inclined toward mysticism. Thus one sees a man like Judah ben Asher (Asheri) discussing the doctrine in a letter to his father, and endeavoring to place it upon a philosophical basis ("Ṭa'am Zeḳenim," vii.). The cabalists eagerly adopted the doctrine on account of the vast field it offered to mystic speculations. Moreover, it was almost a necessary corollary of their psychological system. The absolute condition of the soul is, according to them, its return, after developing all those perfections the germs of which are eternally implanted in it, to the Infinite Source from which it emanated. Another term of life must therefore be vouchsafed to those souls which have not fufilled their destiny here below and have not been sufficiently purified for the state of reunion with the Primordial Cause. Hence if the soul, on its first assumption of a human body and sojourn on earth, fails to acquire that experience for which it descended from heaven, and becomes contaminated by that which is polluting, it must reinhabit a body till it is able to ascend in a purified state through repeated trials. This is the theory of the Zohar, which says: "All souls are subject to transmigration; and men do not know the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He! They do not know that they are brought before the tribunal both before they enter into this world and after they leave it; they are ignorant of the many transmigrations and secret probations which they have to undergo, and of the number of souls and spirits which enter into this world and which do not return to the palace of the Heavenly King. Men do not know how the souls revolve like a stone which is thrown from a sling. But the time is at hand when these mysteries will be disclosed" (Zohar, ii. 99b).Like Origen and other Church Fathers, the cabalists used as their main argument in favor of the doctrine of metempsychosis the justice of God. But for the belief in metempsychosis, they maintained, the question why God often permits the wicked to lead a happy life while many righteous are miserable, would be unanswerable. Then, too, the infliction of pain upon children would be an act of cruelty unless it is imposed in punishment for sin committed by the soul in a previous state.
Opposition to the View.
Although raised by the Cabala to the rank of a dogma, the doctrine of metempsychosis still found great opposition among the leaders of Judaism in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In his "Iggeret Hitnaẓẓelut," addressed to Solomon ben Adret in defense of philosophy, Jedaiah Bedersi praises the philosophers for having opposed the belief in metempsychosis. Ḥasdai Crescas ("Or Adonai," iv. 7), and after him his pupil Joseph Albo ("'Iḳḳarim," iv. 29), attacked this belief on philosophical grounds, considering it to be a heathen superstition, opposed to the spirit of Judaism. The opposition, however, gradually ceased; and the belief began to be shared even by men who were imbued with Aristotelian philosophy
Thus Isaac Abravanel sees in the commandment of the levirate a proof of the doctrine of metempsychosis, for which he gives the following reasons: (1) God in His mercy willed that another trial should be given to the soul which, having yielded to the sanguine temperament of the body, had committed a capital sin, such as murder, adultery, etc.; (2) it is only just that when a man dies young a chance should be given to his soul to execute in another body the good deeds which it had not time to perform in the first body; (3) the soul of the wicked sometimes passes into another body in order to receive its deserved punishment here below instead of in the other world, where it would be much more severe (commentary on Deut. xxv. 5). These arguments were wittily refuted by the skeptical Leon of Modena in his pamphlet against metempsychosis, entitled "Ben Dawid." He says: "It is not God, but the planets, that determine the temperament of the body; why then subject the soul to the risk of entering into a body with a temperament as bad as, if not worse than, that of the one it has left? Would it not be more in keeping with God's mercy to take into consideration the weakness of the body and to pardonthe soul at once? To send the soul of a man who died young into another body would be to make it run the risk of losing the advantages it had acquired in its former body. Why send the soul of the wicked to another body in order to punish it here below? Was there anything to prevent God from punishing it while it was in its first body?"
The School of Luria.
Upon the doctrine of metempsychosis was based the psychological system of the practical Cabala, inaugurated by the cabalists of the school of Luria. According to them, all the souls destined for the human race were created together with the various organs of Adam. As there are superior and inferior organs, so there are superior and inferior souls, according to the organs with which they are respectively coupled. Thus there are souls of the brain, of the eye, of the head, etc. Each human soul is a spark ("niẓaẓ") from Adam. The first sin of the first man caused confusion among the various classes of souls; so that even the purest soul received an admixture of evil. This state of confusion, which gives a continual impulse toward evil, will cease with the arrival of the Messiah, who will establish the moral system of the world on a new basis.Until that time man's soul, because of its deficiencies, can not return to its source, and has to wander not only through the bodies of men, but even through inanimate things. If a man's good deeds outweigh his evil ones, his soul passes into a human body; otherwise, into that of an animal. Incest causes the soul to pass into the body of an unclean animal; adultery, into that of an ass; pride in a leader of a community, into that of a bee; forgery of amulets, into that of a cat; cruelty toward the poor, into that of a crow; denunciation, into that of a barking cur; causing a Jew to eat unclean flesh, into a leaf of a tree which endures great suffering when shaken by the wind; neglect to wash the hands before meals, into a river.
The main difference between the passing of the soul into a human body and its transmigration into an animal or an inanimate object consists in the fact that in the former case the soul ignores its transmigration, while in the latter it is fully aware of its degradation, and suffers cruelly therefrom. With regard to the transmigration of the soul into a crow Moses Galante, rabbi at Safed, relates that once he accompanied Isaac Luria to 'Ain Zaitun to pray at the tomb of Judah ben Ilai. On approaching the place he noticed on an olive-tree which grew near the tomb a crow which croaked incessantly. "Were you acquainted," asked Luria, "with Shabbethai, the tax-farmer of Safed?" "I knew him," answered Galante: "he was a very bad man and displayed great cruelty toward the poor, who were not able to pay the taxes." "This crow," said Luria, "contains his soul" ("Shibḥe ha-Ari," p. 29).
Impregnation of Souls.
A quite new development of the doctrine of metempsychosis was the theory of the impregnation of souls, propounded by the cabalists of the Luria school. According to this theory, a purified soul that has neglected some religious duties on earth must return to the earthly life and unite with the soul of a living man, in order to make good such neglect. Further, the soul of a man freed from sin appears again on earth to support a weak soul unequal to its task.Thus, for instance, the soul of Samuel was supported by those of Moses and Aaron; the soul of Phinehas, by those of Nadab and Abihu. However, this union, which may extend to three souls at one time, can take place only between souls of a homogeneous character, that is, between those which are sparks from the same Adamite organs. As the impregnated soul comes either to make good a neglect or to support a weak soul, it enters into the body only after the man has completed his thirteenth year, when he reaches the age of religious duty and responsibility
The dispersion of Israel has for its purpose the salvation of man; and the purified souls of Israelites unite with the souls of other races in order to free them from demoniacal influences. Each man, according to the practical Cabala, bears on his forehead a mark by which one may recognize the nature of the soul: to which degree and class it belongs; the relation existing between it and the superior world; the transmigrations it has already accomplished; the means by which it may contribute to the establishment of the new moral system of the world; how it may be freed from demoniacal influences; and to which soul it should be united in order to become purified. He who wishes to ascertain to which of the four worlds his soul belongs must close his eyes and fix his thought on the four letters of the Ineffable Name. If the color he then beholds is a very bright, sparkling white, his soul has proceeded from the world of emanation ( ); if an ordinary white, from that of creative ideas (); if red, from that of creative formation (); and if green, from that of creative matter ().
Special Instances.
The cabalists of the Luria school pretended to know the origins and transmigrations of all the souls of the human race since Adam; and in their works accounts are given concerning Biblical personages and the great teachers of Judaism. Thus, for instance, the soul of Aaron is said to have been derived from the good part of that of Cain. It entered into the body of the high priest Eli, who, in expiation of the sin committed by Aaron in making the golden calf—a sin punishable with lapidation—broke his neck in falling from his seat. From Eli it transmigrated into the body of Ezra; and it then became purified. The name "Adam" contains the initials of David and Messiah, into whose bodies the soul of the first man successively entered. The name "Laban" contains the initials of Balaam and Nabal, who successively received Laban's soul. Jacob's soul passed into Mordecai; and because the former had sinned in prostrating himself before Esau, Mordecai obstinately refused to prostrate himself before Haman, even at the risk of endangering the safety of the Persian Jews. Interesting is the account given in the "Sefer ha-Gilgulim" of the souls of some contemporaries of Isaac Luria.The soul of Isaac de Lattes is said there to have been a spark from that of a pious man of the olden times (); that of Joseph Vital, one from the soul of Ezra; that of Moses Minz, one from the soulof Seth, the son of Adam. To the soul of Moses Alshech was united that of the amora Samuel ben Naḥmani; hence the former's talent for preaching. Both Moses Cordovero and Elijah de Vidas partook of the soul of Zechariah ben Jehoiada; hence the great friendship that existed between them. Because of some sin his soul had committed in a previous state Moses Vital was unable to acquire a perfect knowledge of the Cabala. The soul of Joseph Delpino entered into a black dog. Ḥayyim Vital possessed, according to Isaac Luria, a soul which had not been soiled by Adam's sin. Luria himself possessed the soul of Moses, which had previously been in the bodies of Simeon ben Yoḥai and Hamnuna Saba.
Generally the souls of men transmigrate into the bodies of men, and those of women into the bodies of women; but there are exceptions. The soul of Judah, the son of Jacob, was in part that of a woman; while Tamar had the soul of a man. Tamar's soul passed into Ruth; and therefore the latter could not bear children until God had imparted to her sparks from a female soul. The transmigration of a man's soul into the body of a woman is considered by some cabalists to be a punishment for the commission of heinous sins, as when a man refuses to give alms or to communicate his wisdom to others.
Gilgul.
The theory of impregnation gave birth to the superstitious belief in "dibbuḳ" or "gilgul," which prevailed, and still prevails, among the Oriental Jews and those of eastern Europe. This belief assumes that there are souls which are condemned to wander for a time in this world, where they are tormented by evil spirits which watch and accompany them everywhere. To escape their tormentors such souls sometimes take refuge in the bodies of living pious men and women, over whom the evil spirits have no power.The person to whom such a soul clings endures great suffering and loses his own individuality; he acts as though he were quite another man, and loses all moral sense. He can be cured only by a miracle-working rabbi ("ba'al shem") who is able to cast out the soul from his body by exorcisms and amulets. The usual exorcism in such cases consisted in the rabbi's reciting, in the presence of ten men (See Minyan), the 91st Psalm, and adjuring the soul in the name of God to leave the body of the afflicted one. In case of refusal on the part of the soul to yield to this simple injunction, the ban and the blowing of the shofar are resorted to. In order that it may cause the least possible amount of damage to the body, the soul is always directed to pass out through the small toe.
The belief that migrant souls seek refuge in the bodies of living persons became more and more deeply rooted; and regular methods for expelling them are given in the cabalistic works of the seventeenth century. This superstition is still widely spread, especially in Ḥasidic circles. Curtiss relates ("Primitive Semitic Religions of To-Day," p. 152) that a few years ago a woman was exorcised in Palestine, and that the spirit when questioned replied that it was the soul of a Jew who had been murdered in Nablus twelve years before. The migrant soul was generally believed to belong to a wicked or murdered person; but it may happen that that of a righteous man is condemned, for a slight offense committed by it, to wander for a while in this world. Such a soul is, however, free from demoniacal influences, and it enters the body of a living person not to avoid evil spirits (who have no power over it), but to atone for the fault it has committed.As soon as this has been accomplished it leaves the body of its own free will. Ḥayyim Vital records that while sojourning at Damascus in 1699 he was called upon to entertain himself with the soul of a pious man which had entered the body of the daughter of Raphael Anaw. The soul informed him that it was exiled from heaven for having slighted the virtue of repentance. For a time it dwelt in a fish, but this fish was caught and sold to Raphael for the Sabbath meal; the soul then entered the body of the daughter of the house. In proclaiming before Vital the great importance of repentance it became free to return to its heavenly abode ("Shibḥe Ḥayyim Wiṭal," ed. Lemberg, p. 11). Narratives of this sort abound in the cabalistic writings of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and many of them are reproduced in the "Nishmat Ḥayyim" of Manasseh ben Israel, who showed himself a firm believer in all kinds of gilgulim and dibbuḳim. He even went so far as to endeavor to demonstrate that references to them are to be found in the Bible. It is noteworthy that most of the cases of exorcism occurred at Safed or in its neighborhood; that is, in localities where mysticism was flourishing. A curious case is cited by Moses Prager in his "Zera' Ḳodesh": it is interesting from the fact that David Oppenheim, the collector of Hebrew books and manuscripts, who was the rabbi of Nikolsburg, Moravia, was one of the signatories of the narrative. See Dibbuḳim.
Bibliography: Azariah da Fano, Gilgule Neshamot, passim;
Manasseh ben Israel, Nishmat Ḥayyim, part iii., ch. xiv.; part iv., ch. xx.;
Luria, Sefer ha-Gilgulim, passim;
Shebaḥe ha-Ari, passim;
Israel Saruk, Shibḥe Ḥayyim Wiṭal, passim;
Abraham Shalom Ḥai, Sefer Nifla'im Ma'aseka, p. 18;
Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, p. 42;
Karppe, Etude sur l'Origine du Zohar, pp. 320 et seq., Paris, 1902;
P. Rudermann, Uebersicht über die Idee der Seelenwanderung, Warsaw, 1878;
S. Rubin, Gilgul Neshamot, Cracow, 1898;
Alexander W. M. Menz, Demonic Possession in the New Testament, Edinburgh, 1902;
Güdemann, Gesch. i. 202, 205, 216
DIBBUḲIM:
Transmigrated souls. "Dibbuḳ" (lit. "something that cleaves unto something else") is a colloquial equivalent, common among the superstitious Jews in eastern European countries, for a migrant soul. It represents the latest phase in the development of the belief in the transmigration of souls; namely, that the soul of a man who has lived a wicked life will enter the body of a living person and refuse to leave it. The exorciser, in such a case a "ba'al shem," or a wonder-working rabbi, is aloneable to cast out this evil spirit, which usually goes out through the small toe, where a little orifice from which blood oozes marks the exact point of its exit. Full descriptions of such successful acts of exorcism, where, however, the dibbuḳ is still called by its older name "ruaḥ," are given in Manasseh b. Israel's "Nishmat Ḥayyim" (part iii., ch. 14; part iv., ch. 20). Another detailed description of a similar incident is reproduced in "Ha-Shaḥar" (vi. 459, 697) from Moses Prager's (Graf) "Zera' Ḳodesh" (Fürth, 1696), and is curious from the fact that R. David Oppenheim, the celebrated book-collector, who was then rabbi of Nikolsburg, Moravia, is one of the signatories to the narrative.
The first who wrote of the dibbuḳ under that name in modern Hebrew literature was P. Ruderman, but his "Ha-Dibbuḳ," of which the German title is "Uebersicht über die Idee der Seelenwanderung" (Warsaw, 1878), is of little value. The most interesting part of the book is the description of one of the dibbuḳim, which, according to his statement, were very common in Poland in those days. It proves that the manifestations of the dibbuḳ, and the belief in the power of practical cabalists to exorcise it, have undergone little change in the two centuries which have elapsed since the Nikolsburg incident referred to above. Dr. S. Rubin, in his "Gilgul Neshamot," the German title of which is "Die Metempsychose in Mythus und Kultur Aller Völker" (Cracow, 1898), points out the connection between the ancient belief in the transmigration of souls and in possession by evil spirits, and that in the dibbuḳim of modern times. He says at the end of his work (p. 29) that the belief in the wanderings of the soul "has come down to our time among the ẓaddikim and saints of the Ḥasidim, who cast out 'gil-gulim' and 'dibbuḳim' from insane people." See Exorcism; Metempsychosis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)