King Solomon and the Eternity of Israel

Although this blog is primarily concerned with contemporary issues affecting Israel and the Jewish People, anyone who has read it regularly for a while will know that I love to delve into relevant historical archives, and that very occasionally Avraham Reiss of Jerusalem, who studied at the Mercaz HaRav Kook, provides a guest blog on aspects of Jewish thought.  Here's his latest contribution:

This article is a prequel to the article already published in Daphne’s Blog: The Secret of Israel's Eternity (http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-of-israels-eternity.html), and should in fact have been published first (that it wasn’t, is the fault of the author). The two articles combine to examine the secret of Israel’s eternity throughout the ages

Whereas the second article discusses Israel’s activities while in exile, this article discusses the attempt to reach perfection and attain a promise of eternity whilst in the Land of Israel. Only upon the failure of this attempt did the second – exile – long sojourn outside of the Land of Israel become necessary, and we discuss here the reasons behind King Solomon’s attempt at attaining perfection and eternity, and for his subsequent failure.

1. The Jewish attitude towards materialism

Exodus chapter 35
4 And Moses spake unto all the congregation of the children of Israel,
saying, This is the thing which the Lord commanded, saying,
5 Take ye from among you an offering unto the Lord: whosoever is of a
willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the Lord; gold, and
silver, and brass,

...

21 And they came, every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one
whom his spirit made willing, and they brought the Lord's offering to
the work of the tabernacle of the congregation, and for all his service,
and for the holy garments.

22 And they came, both men and women, as many as were willing-hearted,
and brought bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels
of gold: and every man that offered offered an offering of gold unto the Lord.

In verse 22, the name of the fourth item – tablets – is a poor translation, and gives no indication of its nature.

The commentator Rashi quotes the Talmudic explanation, which says that “tablets” refers to an item of jewellery that was used to cover the female genitals, and thus is of a negative connotation. The question immediately arises: how can such a negative item be used in the service of holy worship in the Temple?

The question possesses a wider relevance, since it characterizes all the problematica created by Israel’s living amongst gentiles for the larger part of our history as a nation, and goes even further in relating to Israel’s relationships with materialism in general.

What is allowed, what is forbidden, and under what circumstances – and limitations - can we adopt behavioral concepts and material objects from other nations?

The Ramban (Nachmanides) relates to the matter of introducing the tablets mentioned above into the service of the Temple:

“The tablet was regarded by our Sages as disgusting, but all the various contributions were mixed up (the tablet thus losing its individual identity – A.R.). It would have been forbidden to manufacture a special vessel from the tablet alone, whose purpose was connected with man’s evil inclinations.”

We are familiar with the concept of an item of negative content or value losing its identity when mixed up with larger quantities of positive items, from the law concerning a piece of un-kosher meat falling into a pile of pieces of kosher meat: in such a case, if the pile of kosher pieces of meat numbers at least sixty pieces, then we say that the negative attribute of the un-kosher piece has been “cancelled within the sixty”, and all sixty one pieces of meat may be eaten.

The difference between the two cases – the tablet and the meat – is that the un-kosher meat can only be ‘cancelled’ after the fact: a person holding a piece of un-kosher meat cannot go looking for sixty pieces of kosher meat, in order to throw it in and make it ‘eatable’. The law is only applicable if the un-kosher piece fell into the kosher pile by accident, with no prior intention to throw it in. The tablet, however, can be brought to the Temple a priori, knowing in advance that it will lose its negative value when mixed with ‘valid’ contributions.

A similar problem – introducing into Israel (out of necessity) something forbidden, we see early in Israel’s formation – several hundred years before it became a nation – when two of Jacob’s sons – Simeon and Levi – kill for the first time, in retaliation against the city where lived Shechem son of Hamor, who had defiled their sister Dinah.

They persuaded the citizens of Shechem’s city to circumcise themselves, and while the citizens were still suffering from the pains of circumcision, Simeon and Levi went in, slaughtered all the male inhabitants of the city, and rescued their sister Dinah from Shechem son of Hamor.

Many years later, on his death-bed, when blessing his sons, Jacob relates to Simeon and Levi as follows:

Genesis Chapter 49
5. Simeon and Levi are brothers; stolen instruments are their weapons
6. Let my soul not enter their counsel; my honor, you shall not join their assembly, for in their wrath they killed a man, and with their will they hamstrung a bull.
7. Cursed be their wrath for it is mighty, and their anger because it is harsh. I will separate them throughout Jacob, and I will scatter them throughout Israel.

From various calculations made possible both by Biblical statements and Rabbinic determinations, we know that at the time of the Shechem incident, Levi was thirteen years old. When Jacob was on his death-bed and blessed his sons (excluding Simeon and Levi, as above), Levi was then 67 years old, i.e. Jacob had waited 54 years (!) to scold them. We offer a reason for this, which is the subject of another article. But here, we home in on verse 5 as quoted above, and concentrate on the word “stolen”.

The commentator Rashi relates to this word, and in one sentence says four different things, which are in fact four facets of one truth:

“ ‘stolen instruments’: this ‘profession’ of murder was stolen by you; it belongs to the Blessing of Esau (given by Isaac – A. Reiss); it is his profession; and you stole it from him”

Rashi is pointing out – in explanation of Jacob’s utterance in verse 5 above, that until the Shechem incident the ‘profession’ of murder was unknown to Israel, and that Simeon and Levi had stolen it from Esau, and thus introduced it into Israel.

A negative item has now been introduced into Israel.

But how negative was it? Without the capability of killing at time of war, the nation that is Israel would have ceased to exist thousands of years ago. It had to be ‘introduced’ somehow, some time. And so it later was. Mount Sinai, where the Torah was given to Moses, has seventy names in Jewish tradition; one of them is ‘Horev’. (Exodus, 33,6). Our Sages point out the similarity between the Hebrew words Horev and Herev – meaning ‘sword’ – and say that from Mount Sinai/Horev the Sanhedrin was given permission to authorize death sentences by the sword.

At this point, we are now examining how Israel should relate to the material aspects of the world in which we live, in general.

Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook, first Chief Rabbi of the Land of Israel (he passed away in 1935), in his book Orot HaKodesh (‘Lights of Holiness’), divides mankind into four sections regarding the way it relates to our material world.

1. Total Evil.
The viewing of materialism as covering everything. The desire for evil to gain control of all facets of life on earth. Dictator no. 2 of the previous century defined it well in just seven words: “How many divisions does the Pope have?”.

2. Total Despair
After viewing evil controlling the world, is born the desire to escape to nothingness from the material point of view. This is regarded as idol-worship, because it contains the assumption that the controlling force in the world is evil - and not G-d. This is Buddhism.

3. Semi Despair
After viewing evil controlling the world, out of desperation and despair is born the desire to vacate materialism and concentrate on the internal, spiritual aspects of life. This is Christianity.

[We add that from here is born the idea of “Separation of Church and State” – an inherently Christian idea, which has no place in Judaism – as the following paragraph shows]

4. Facing the challenges of materialism, the desire to save everything, to sanctify materialism together with the spirit. And from here it evolves that Judaism has mitzvot – commandments, precepts, instructions – regarding all practical aspects of material life: commerce and finance, labourers wages, agriculture, food, male-female relationships and many other aspects. Even behaviour regarding speech, and as far as thought, are covered by Jewish Law.

The Torah divides material matters into a number of categories, depending upon the various forms they take. Following is a representative – but by no means complete – selection of such categories:

• Spiritually clean or unclean

• Kosher or un-kosher

• Chametz - bread and related products are forbidden to be eaten or even found in one’s possession during Passover

• Disqualified (Heb: Pasul) – for a certain purpose only, such as a citrus (etrog) being disqualified for ceremonial use on the festival of Tabernacles (Sukkot), but being ‘kosher’ for use in making jam, drinks etc. Also, a person can be disqualified from giving testimony in court

• Pigul – the classic translation terms this ‘abomination’. It refers to a Temple sacrifice that has been rendered invalid for sacrifice or eating by impure thoughts or invalid intentions. One who intentionally eats such a sacrifice invokes upon himself a celestial (i.e. not imposed by man) death sentence. The subject - and influence - of mind (thought) over matter in Judaism, is worthy of a separate essay, if not an entire book.

• And above all of these – Holy. And this also contains degrees. There are, for example, 10 degree of holiness in the Land of Israel, the highest being inside the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem.

On Jews Who Reject Israel

Very recently I posted Ray Cook's excellent blogpost concerning Jews who profess to be "ashamed" to be so in light of Israeli policy. Now, Avraham Reiss of Jerusalem has given a most interesting insight, from a Religious Zionist perspective, on this issue. Mr Reiss blogs at http://jcwatch.wordpress.com/ but this blogpost of his, entitled "Who Rejects Who?" was posted at the London Jewish Chronicle's blogs (thejc.com) on the evening of 13 November. (I've added the pictorial content):

Rabbi Zvi Yehudah HaCohen Kook was the son of the illustrious Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook, first Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Zvi Yehudah, as I knew him, was the Rosh Yeshiva of Mercaz HaRav here in Jerusalem until he passed away during the 'eighties. I had the honour of studying under him for a number of years.

Some months ago appeared a book dedicated to him, in which former students (many now well-known rabbis within the Religious Zionist movement) recounted their experiences while studying in Mercaz HaRav.

The book is named Mashmia Yeshua, which translates roughly as "Proclaimer of Salvation", an apt description of the legacy of Rav Zvi Yehudah's father [pictured], which expounded his attributing the 20th century Jewish renaissance in the Land of Israel to the swift approach of the Final Days of Redemption. Rav Zvi Yehuda was a very original thinker, but he subjugated his entire life to publication of the astounding number of books - in the spheres of both Halacha and Jewish Philosophy - written by his father.  I once innocently asked Rav Zvi Yehudah if we are now at "the start of the Redemption" (itchalta d'geula), and he replied "Start? We are in the actual days of the Mashiach" (Etzem yemot HaMashiach).

The book contains 600 pages, and I am in the habit of taking it to shul and reading from it between Mincha and Maariv each day.

Yesterday night, Leil Shabat, on pages 237-238 I read the following story (which originally appeared in a book named Angels as Men), which immediately brought to mind the handful of Israel-haters which the JC is so happy to host and accommodate on these blog pages. I'm telling the story here because I doubt if the book will ever be translated into English (owing to lack of demand), and because I deem the story relevant to these blog pages.

One comment, and my apologies in advance to our lady readers for this sentence: they say that a translation is like a woman – either attractive or faithful, but never both. For that reason I am not translating word for word, but re-telling the story as I read it, in English.

The story was told by Rav Zvi Yehuda once at a shabbat meal in his house. It was told after Rav Zvi Yehudah heard that some Jewish tourists had returned to their country of origin and foul-mouthed the Land of Israel. The story was originally told by Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever [pictured, on an Israeli stamp], a 19th century founder of Religious Zionism and of the Mizrachi movement.

In a certain village there lived a young man who was very rich – and was as uncouth as he was rich. In the same village lived a very poor family, one of whose daughters was a very beautiful girl, who was also possessed of exceptionally good personality traits.

The young man was very attracted to the young lady, but despite his sending a few shadchanim (match-makers) to arrange a meeting between them, the lady was not interested and refused every suggestion. One day her father asked for his sake to meet with the young man just once, so that he would stop pestering her and the family. She agreed, and he was invited for shabbat lunch.

When he arrived, the young lady appeared in an old, not-too-clean dress, no make-up, her hair dishevelled, and in general showed him no affection whatsoever.

The young man left, telling everyone he knew that the stories about her beauty and character were a lie, that she was in fact ugly and ill-mannered.

This, said Rav Zvi Yehudah, is Eretz Yisrael. This is a holy land with special qualities, which will not accept people whose spiritual qualities are not suited for it. In such cases it makes itself appear to them in an unappealing fashion, so while they are going around saying how much the Land of Israel is not worthy of them, in fact it is they who are not worthy of living in the Land of Israel, which has in effect rejected them.

This is how one should react to Israel-haters; they are in fact rejects.

Judaism, Islam, Eretz Yisrael and Stones

I've just came across an interesting and intriguing article under the above heading by Israeli blogger Avraham Reiss, which, having obtained his permission, I'd like to share with you.

This is what he writes:

In a Jewish Chronicle blog post named “Palestine Campaign head visits anti-Israel protesters outside Ahava” RichMillet brings a quote from the Koran as follows: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).” [ Sahih Muslim, 41:6985, see also Sahih Muslim, 41:6981, Sahih Muslim, 41:6982, Sahih Muslim, 41:6983, Sahih Muslim, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791,(Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:177) ]

 
I wish to juxtaposition this with the attitude of Judaism towards those same stones and trees, for the sake of comparison.
 
Throughout history, different nations have received different levels of public relations. To give just two examples from Jewish (biblical) history, let’s look at  Amalek (Exodus Ch. 17) and the Amorite (Numbers Ch. 21).
 
Most people can talk fairly knowledgeably, at least for a minute or two about Amalek; we read about him in the Torah every year on the Shabat before Purim, and again later on during the year. We are commanded to remember what he did to us, and to wipe out his name.
 
As for the Amorite, few can say much about him. As some American Jews summarize most Jewish Holidays and festivals: “they tried to kill us, we beat them, let’s go eat …”.
 
In actual fact the opposite is true. We know practically nothing at all about the Amalekite beyond what he did to us on a one-time basis at the time of our exodus from Egypt. I once spent an entire evening combing several Toranic databases looking for all available rabbinical material on Amalek, and all I came up with was the opinion that Amalek originated in the Arad area (in the Negev desert). [I once managed to dehydrate there while on military maneuvers. Amalek’s revenge?]
 
On the other hand, we know so much about the Amorites that I could write a book about them if I had to. I don’t have to, because it’s been done. One of the external additions to the Babylonian Talmud is named Tosefta  (lit. ‘addition’). It tells us many of the small things in the Amorites’ life; how the Amorite woman cooked in her kitchen, what she cooked (one example: a concoction of bread, milk and salt), and of their customs and superstitions.  I first heard of Tosefta when I was 11 or 12 years old, while reading Ripley’s famous “Ripley’s Believe It or Not!”. He stated there that while the American Benjamin Franklyn was generally considered the inventor of the lightning conductor (discovered while playing with a kite in a storm), this wasn’t so, said Ripley: the principle of the lightning conductor is mentioned in the Talmudic Tosefta, written some 2,000 years ago, where it is written “he who throws pieces of iron amongst chickens, these are the ways of the Amorite. But if this is done because of thunder or lightning, it is permitted”.   The preceding sentence refers to the principle of the lightning conductor!
 
To read the rest of Avraham Reiss's piece, go here:
http://jcwatch.wordpress.com/judaism-islam-eretz-yisrael-and-stones