[Aspaqlaria] Aspaqlaria

Tue Apr 15 11:00:20 PDT 2008

Aspaqlaria

///////////////////////////////////////////
Tam, does he say?

Posted: 14 Apr 2008 03:15 PM CDT
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Aspaqlaria/~3/270329961/tam-does-he-say.shtml

The text of our Haggadah for identifying the third son is somewhat ambiguous. The word tam means simple. It could refer to someone who is simple minded. And this is the interpretation assumed in most translations of the Haggadah  The simple son. And then there is the frequently repeated thought on the words At pisach lo  you shall open [the discussion] for him, or perhaps even you shall Passover for him. The verb pisach is in the masculine, but the noun at is feminine. Because teaching the simple son requires a womans touch, or in this case, that the father be in touch with his feminine side.

However, I have seem commentaries that note that tam is used in the Torah as a compliment. Simple in the sense of having a pure faith, a first-hand relationship with the A-lmighty. And so while the Chakham (who may very well be a different aspect of the same person as the Tam) is taught the laws of Pesach, the Tam is given the heart of Pesach. We could say that the Chakham is the ideal pursued by the stereotypical Litvak, whereas the Chassid is trying to be this understanding of the word Tam.
♦ ♦ ♦

When R JB Soloveitchik was Berel, the Rabbis son, a boy living in the predominantly Chabad town of Chaslovitch, the cheder he attended was in a room rented from the carpenter. The carpenter was a pashuter Yid  a simple Jew as they would have said in Yiddish. Whenever he worked, the carpenter would say Tehillim. The future Rabbi Soloveitchik noticed that he had things timed; whenever the carpenter drove in the last nail it was just as he finished the last verse of Tehillim. Regardless of the size or complexity of the piece, the man would say Tehillim at just the right speed to match.

It is like the Zohars comment on the words Chanokh walked himself with G-d, and he was gone for G-d had taken him (Bereishis 5:24). The Zohar states that Chanokh was a shoemaker, and with every stitch he not only attached the uppers to the soles, he also pronounced names of G-d and unified the worlds.  And at some point his soul simply sored upward and left this world without dying. (Similar in kind to Eliyahus mode of passing.)
♦ ♦ ♦

Rav Soloveitchik would repeat the Vilna Shoemaker Dilemma. While the Gaon studied Torah in Vilna, there was another man, not recorded by history, who was Vilnas shoemaker. He wasnt a gifted genius, nor capable of sleeping in half-hour installments and accomplishing work 22+ hours a day.  Of course, in terms of Torah the Vilna Gaon knew more and taught more. But the shoemaker spent his days banging at his shoes and saying Tehillim with pure thought. He too accomplished everything he could with what Hashem gave him. Who was holier?

And in a statement one would have expected from a chassidic story, not this heartland of Lithuanian learning, the answer is simply We cant know.

I think its no coincidence that Rav Chaim Volozhiner, a student of the Vilna Gaon, tells a story which concludes: And there I hear a voice from the street. I put my head out the window and I see Eli the shoemaker running excited. What happened Eli? What happened to the light of the sun? Why are the birds singing so loudly? Why are all the trees suddenly blooming? The shoemaker responded Dont you know rebbe? The shoemaker gave me a look at said, Moshiach came
♦ ♦ ♦

The version of the four sons in our Hagaddah follows the Talmud Bavli. In the Yerushalmi, there is no such ambiguity  this son is call the Tipesh, the child who isnt as bright as most of us.

As a procedural question, textual variants can be taken two ways. The first approach would be to assume there is no dispute, that these are simply two different expressions of the same basic idea. Which would imply in our case that tam would have to mean simple minded. The other is to assume that the Bavli intentionally used a different word than the Yerushalmi in order to express a difference of opinion. And therefore tam here would be someone who is spiritually unconflicted, wholeheartedly a servant of G-d.

I happen to have a son who would be called a tipeish if the term hadnt been turned into an insult. Shuby has Downs. But he truly is tam in both senses of the word: because his understanding of the universe is so uncomplicated, if I tell him Hashem is here, Hashem is there, Hashem is truly everywhere  He is. To Shuby, when reminded of the fact, Hashems Presence is just as real and immediate as mine.

The Vilna Shoemaker or Chaslavitch Carpenter were not among historys Chakhamim (although there is no reason to believe they were any less bright than most). But they were Temimim; they lived their lives with only one goal  to serve Hashem with the upmost of what He gave them.

Their worldview is captured by Shalom Aleikhem in the mouth of Tevye the Milkman. He may mangle every verse or statement of Chazal that he tries to repeat, but his life is a continuous dialog with the A-lmighty. We meet him coming home moments before candle-lighting on Friday afternoon. He is pulling his milk cart, and muttering something. As we get closer, we hear him ask the A-lmighty, But did You have to break my poor horsesWas that necessary? Did you have to make him lame just before the Sabbath? That wasnt nice. Its enough you pick on me. Bless me with five daughters, a life of poverty, thats all right. But what have you got against my horses leg? And so he continues, his constant discussion. In his own little way, Tevye fulfills Shevisi Hashem lenegdi tamid - I place Hashem before me constantly in a manner matched by few who have greater erudition.

Of course, the true goal would be to have both.

Eizehu chakham? Halomeid mikol adam. Ben Zoma teaches us, Who is wise? Someone who can learn from anyone. Finding what to learn from the Vilna Gaon is trivial. But what are we to learn from the third son? Tam, mah hu omeir?

This temimus, this purity of belief and personality is accessible even  no, let me write more so  to the Yerushalmis tipeish, the simple boy who may not be able to understand everything going on around him, but who uses the all the beauty Hashem gave him to touch heaven with his fingertips.

///////////////////////////////////////////
Sweet Charoses

Posted: 14 Apr 2008 10:01 AM CDT
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Aspaqlaria/~3/270276741/sweet-charoses.shtml

(Version II of an earlier thought.)

Charoses poses a paradox. On the one hand, the Rambam writes, The charoses is a mitzvah from the Sofrim, as a commemoration of the mortar that they worked in in Egypt. (Laws of Chaomeitz and Matzah 7:11). Charoses represents mortar, slavery.

On the other hand, contemporary recipes for charoses are to make it sweet. Sephardic, Ashkenazic and Yemenite recipes have few ingredients in common, yet they all use a sweet mixture (see also Pesachim 115b, which warns against losing the bitterness of the maror under the sweetness of the charoses).

So which is it  a symbol of slavery, or of the sweetness of freedom?

Thinking about it, though, matzah presents a similar ambiguity. We open Magid by describing matzah as the bread of suffering which we ate in Egypt. Yet, later on, when we repeat Rabban Gamliels three things that must be said to fulfill the obligation of the seder, we say we eat matzah because there was not enough [time] for our ancestors dough to rise.

Again, which is it  a symbol of slavery, or of a hasty redemption?

What is interesting is that we see the same duality in the very concept of mitzvah. On the one hand, the root of the word is \צוה\, to command. This is the idea we convey before taking out the Torah, in Berikh Shemei (from the Zohar). I am a servant of the Holy One, blessed be He. We keep mitzvos for a simple reason. G-d told us to.

However, the word for commandment is tzivui. Mitzvah is built from the passive form, a less probable conjugation, that which was commanded. The late Lubavitcher Rebbeztl opined that this is an allusion to a second root, \מצצ\ or \מצו\, to connect for nourishment or aim. Mitzvah can be read as the feminization of this root. Which gives us a second definition of mitzvah  not only are they what G-d commanded but also they provide a focus to our lives, a way to connect to Him. And so the selfsame Zohar we cited in the previous paragraph occasionally refers to the mitzvos as the Taryag itin  the 613 eitzos, ideas / pieces of advice.

In a shiur on the berakhah before netilas Yadayim, I suggested that this is the reason for the phrasing of berakhos on mitzvos, asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu  Who sanctified us with His mitzvos and commanded us Mitzvos are to be viewed both as an opportunity to draw qedushah and as a straightforward act of submitting to His command.
The tablets were engraved (charus) by G-d, and the writing was the writing of G-d. (Shemos 32) Dont read charus, but cheirus (freedom). For no one is more free than one is busy with Torah study.

  Pirkei Avos 6:2

Mitzvah operates on two levels. Servitude, simple obedience to G-d. Freedom, doing what is in our best interest. And here is where the two ideas weve been looking at converge.
You will guard the matzos that they shall not come to leaven. R. Avohu says, It should not be read matzos but rather mitzvos. Just as we dont let matzos leaven, we similarly dont let mitzvos leaven. Rather, if one comes to your hands, do it immediately.

  Rashi, Shmos 12:17

Matzos, in the guise of there was not enough time, teaches us about the proper way to do mitzvos. They parallel because they both share the same dual nature. On the first level, one would assume they are unpleasant, something one would want to avoid. But by the time weve explored the subject, toward the end of Magid, you can feel how they represent the path to freedom.

The mitzvah is a yoke we accept upon ourselves because we know that Hashem commanded (\צוה\) it to nourish us (\מצצ\). On the surface layer, it is the bread of affliction but we eat it by choice, because we trust the G-d gave them to us to help us.

This is a major theme in the Exodus story in general. As we say in Shma I am Hashem your G-d who took you out of the land of Egypt to be for you a G-d/Legislator.

We also have a key to understanding the apparently oxymoronic symbolism of charoses. It doesnt represent the bitter servitude of Paroh, but the sweet, voluntary yoke of heaven. We eat is with maror, which does represent the bitter slavery, and give it the appearance of that servitude to bring to mind the contrast.

Charoses, like being a servant of the Holy One has a surface layer, an appearance of the mortar of slavery. But experientially, its very different. Or, as King David wrote, טַֽעֲמ֣וּ וּ֭רְאוּ כִּי־ט֣וֹב יְהוָ֑ה, אַֽשְׁרֵ֥י הַ֝גֶּ֗בֶר יֶֽחֱסֶה־בּֽוֹ׃  Taste and see that the Hashem is good; happy is the man who takes refuge in Him.  (Tehillim 35:9, said in Shabbos and holiday Shacharis)

(It is interesting to note that due to the inclusion of the next 2 verses in bentching (Yiru es Hashem qedoshav)and R Yisrael Meir haKohen Kagans choice of title to his seifer Chafeitz Chaim, added to the efforts of a number of 20th century songwriters, many people are aware of the mussar content of this chapter of Tehillim. However, this preceding verse doesnt get the same attention.

Naaseh viNishmah  we will do, and we will hear. Doing come first because only through the first-hand experience can we hear the beauty, the depth, of the Torah.

--
You are subscribed to email updates from "Aspaqlaria."
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubcribe now http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailunsub?id=4187981&key=cQD876uioH 

If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Aspaqlaria, c/o FeedBurner, 549 W Randolph, Chicago IL USA 60661

This Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/aspaqlaria-aishdas.org/attachments/20080415/7a6cca5f/attachment-0002.htm>