Bright Side of Anger — BT Megillah 13b — #29

At that time, when Mordecai was sitting in the palace gate, Bigthan and Teresh, two of the king’s eunuchs who guarded the threshold, became angry, and plotted to do away with King Ahasuerus. (Esther 2:21) R. Chiyya bar Abba said in the name of R. Yochanan: The Holy One Blessed be God caused a master to become angry at his servants in order to fulfill the will of a righteous man.Who is that? Joseph, as it says, A Hebrew youth was there with us… (Genesis 41:12). [And conversely, God caused] servants [to become angry] at their master in order to perform a miracle for a righteous person. Who? Mordecai, as it is written, And the matter became known to Mordecai… (Esther 2:22).

INTRODUCTION

I recently ran across the website of the “American Humanist Association.” I don’t know anything about them other than their motto, “GOOD WITHOUT A GOD,” with which I have no quarrel: belief in God is certainly not a prerequisite to being a moral person, any more than claims to religiosity guarantee honest and decent behavior. An essay entitled, “Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject the Bible” begins: “Humanists reject the claim that the Bible is the word of God. They are convinced the book was written solely by humans in an ignorant, superstitious, and cruel age…” I’ll give them human authorship, too. But an “ignorant, superstitious, and cruel age?” Has he opened a newspaper to world news recently? Or national news? In the current presidential campaign we see droves of people flocking to support a racist, misogynistic, classist, xenophobic, homophobic, vulgar candidate whose campaign is fueled by hate and fear, rather than hopes and aspirations. But most of all, his run for the White House is turbocharged by anger. And anger, a dangerous  emotion, can be a high-powered weapon.

Come to think of it, “GOOD WITHOUT A GOD” is a great subtitle for the Book of Esther, which doesn’t mention God even once. It’s still a great book, especially for thoughtful humanists who appreciate literature (and, in particular, satire) as social commentary. What is more, I suspect that if committed humanists took a look, they’d realize how valuable it is.

COMMENTARY

R. Chiyya bar Abba makes an interesting observation: Although we usually think of anger as negative and dangerous, it sometimes facilitates a good turn of events. He provides two examples. The first concerns Joseph, whose angry brothers sell him to traders heading for Egypt, where he  becomes a slave in Potiphar’s house. When Potiphar’s wife becomes enraged because Joseph’s rejects her, he is tossed in the dungeon, presumably to rot there forever. In prison, Joseph meets Pharaoh’s baker and butler. In his anger, Pharaoh has them tossed into the dungeon, as well (Genesis 40:2). In their time with him, the butler and baker come to appreciate Joseph’s skill as an interpreter of dreams. When Pharaoh becomes angry that none of his advisors or magicians can explain his dreams, the butler—by this time restored to his post—recommends Joseph to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams. As a result, Joseph is brought up from the dungeon, performs his interpretive magic, and is made viceroy over all Egypt. 

R. China’s second example is from the Book of Esther: The eunuchs guarding the haram become angry and as a result they are careless when discussing their plan to kill the king and fail to conceal it from Mordecai, who overhears and saves the king’s  life. A notation is made in the chronicles of the kingdom concerning this event. Sometime later, on a sleepless night, the king reviews the chronicles and realizes that the man who saved his life was never properly rewarded. That is when the king summons Haman to ask his advice, and Haman suggests an honor that he feels sure the king will bestow on himself.

Aristotle

Anybody can become angry, that is easy. But to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose and in the right way—that is not within everybody’s power, nor is not easy.

Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, 1109.a27)

Yes, anger can be dangerous. But R. Chiyya is telling us that even anger can have constructive consequences. We need not subscribe to the notion that God is the invisible choreographer behind every event to recognize the great insight and value in R. Chiyya’s observation. (Nor could God micromanage the world if we believe in our own free will.) The intricate weave of events and emotions that describe and influence other events and emotions in the rolling, roiling, raging flow of human history is far too complex to reduce to a simplistic equation: “He got angry and therefore all these many things happened in this way…” Every situation can spawn a multitude of possible outcomes. We cannot hope to control it all, but neither must we be entirely passive to the flow of events. We can seek to channel even negativity in a constructive manner, as (according to R. Chiyya) God did.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. Can you recall a time when something you considered bad or worrisome happened, but the consequences were surprisingly positive?
2. A famous saying attributed to Gautama Buddha is: “Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.”
3. In an article published by the American Psychological Association, Tori DeAngelis writes: “In studies and in clinical work, [psychologists] find anger can help clarify relationship problems, clinch business deals, fuel political agendas and give people a sense of control during uncertain times. More globally, they note, it can spur an entire culture to change for the better, as witnessed by the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the earlier women's suffrage movement.” Do you agree? Does this apply to the current presidential campaign?

Evil Woman? — BT Megillah 12b — #28

Rava says: The seventh day was shabbat on which, when Jews eat and drink they begin to [discuss] words of Torah and words of praise [for God]. But when idolators eat and drink, they begin [to discuss] only indecent matters.So it was at the feast of the wicked one [Ahasuerus]: some would say that Median women are beautiful and others would say that Persian women are beautiful. Ahasuerus said them: “My vessel that I use [i.e., my wife, who is the most beautiful of all women] is neither Median nor Persian nor Chaldean. Would you like to see her?” They said: “Yes, provided that she will be naked.” For the way a person behaves is how [heaven] behaves toward them. This teaches that the wicked Vashti used to bring Jewish girls and strip them naked and force them to work on shabbat. Thus it is written: After these things, when the anger of Kng Ahasuerus subsided, he thought of Vashti and what she had done and what had been decreed against her (Esther 2:1)—as she had done [to Jewish girls] so it was done to her.

INTRODUCTION

In addition to being an ancient tale of the attempted genocide of the Jewish people, the Megillat Esther (the Scroll of Esther) is a social, political satire in which wine and sex play leading roles. Esther opens with a description of a lavish, six month long banquet hosted by King Ahasuerus of Persia for the purpose of showing off his vast wealth. The drunken men in attendance argue about who the most beautiful women in the world are. (Cue first the Beach Boys’ “California Girls,” then the Beatles’ parody, “Back in the U.S.S.R.”) Esther records that, On the seventh day, when the king was merry with wine, he ordered [the eunuchs guarding his haram] to bring Queen Vashti before the king wearing a crown, to display her beauty to the peoples and the officials…But Vashti refused to come at the king’s command…The king was greatly incensed, and his fury burned within him (Esther 1:10-12). Harriet Beecher Stowe dubbed Vashti’s refusal the “first stand for women’s rights.” Unfortunately, the Talmud does not concur.

COMMENTARY

The Talmud provides a backstory and between-scenes glimpse of the wine banquet that connects some dots we might not have ever thought needed connecting. The Rabbis notice that the discussion about who are the most beautiful women in the world takes place on “the seventh day.” In context, this is the seventh day of the last week of Ahasuerus’ extended banquet, but the Rabbis understand it to be shabbat. They fashion from this nugget a story that vilifies Vashti even  in the minds of readers who might be inclined to view her compassionately: Vashti would force Jewish girls, presumably servants in the palace, to work naked on shabbat, compelling them to both violate their religious commitments and humiliate themselves. That is sufficient to paint Vashti cruelly masochistic and merit being ordered to appear naked (wearing a crown in 1:11 is now read as “wearing only a crown”). Where the biblical account sees Vashti as a victim of Ahasuerus, the Rabbis create a backstory that conforms to the principle of middah k’neged middah (“measure for measure”): Vashti’s fate resulted from her own cruelty. When the Rabbis evoke middah k’neged middah, it is as much as to say, “it served her right.” The Rabbis transform Vashti from victim to villain.

Vashti added new glory to [her] day and generation… by her disobedience; for “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” (Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Women’s Bible: A Classic Feminist Perspective, p. 83)

Vashti’s treatment of Jewish girls, as told by the Rabbis explains why, in a middah k’neged middah universe, she was commanded to appear before Ahasuerus and his guests naked, but it does not explain why she refused to appear. The Rabbis supply two possible explanations on the same daf  (folio 12b) of Talmud: R. Yose bar Chanina says that Vashti had a sudden outbreak of skin disease; the second explanation is that the angel Gabriel made her grow a hideous tail. 

The Scroll of Esther paints Vashti as an independent woman who is, minimally, morally neutral. The king, a malleable and impressionable buffoon, is easily convinced by his advisor Memucan that, the queen’s behavior will make all wives despise their husbands (1:16) and refuse to acquiesce to their every wish and command. Could it be that in the same way that the original story of Esther doesn’t allow us to draw our own conclusion about Vashti—telling us that her behavior threatens the Persian social family social order—the Rabbis do much the same thing, trying to insure that we don’t admire Vashti’s independence or view her as a victim of the evil Ahasuerus, but rather as a woman who was, herself, deeply immoral (especially to Jews) and deserving of her fate?

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. Do you view Vashti as a hero or as a villain? What messages do we convey  to our daughters when we recount stories about Vashti?
2.     If we view Vashti as a strong and independent woman who refused to cooperate with the immoral behavior of her husband, what do we do with the Rabbis’ commentary? Even more importantly: How do use stories, and commentaries on stories day in and day out to reinforce social mores and values?
3.     Artist Deena Ackerman generously provides downloaded and printable drawings of the characters in the Purim story for children to color. Vashti is depicted twice: once with arms crossed over her chest and a large serpent’s tail emerging from beneath her dress (based on the Talmudic passage cited above) and, in response to people’s objections, without the tail. How would you characterize Vashti’s expression in the picture with the tail, and the one without the tail? Does the tail, signaling her “evil nature,” influence the viewer’s interpretation of her expression? (www.denaackerman.com/2013/02/purim-coloring-pages)
     

Why is Esther in the Bible? — BT Megillah 7a — #27

It was taught: R. Eliezer says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, Haman said in his heart (Esther 6:6). R. Akiba says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, Esther found favor in the eyes of all who looked upon her (2:15). R. Meir says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, The matter became known to Mordecai (2:22). R. Yose b. Durmaskit said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, They did not lay their hands on the booty (9:10). Shmuel said: Had I been there, I would have supplied a proof superior to all of theirs: It is said, They confirmed and took upon themselves (9:27), [which means] they confirmed above what they took upon themselves below.

INTRODUCTION

How did the Scroll of Esther come to be included in the Tana”kh (Hebrew Scriptures)? Have you ever wondered why and how the books in the Bible came to be included, and what others books (perhaps now lost to us) were excluded? The two most surprising choices for inclusion are Song of Songs, which, by any measure, is secular, erotic love poetry, and Esther, which does not contain the name of God. The Rabbis recognized this lacunae early on. In another passage from Talmud (BT Hullin 139b) they claim that Megillat Esther (the Scroll of Esther) was inspired by the holy spirit because the Torah alludes to Esther in the verse, I [God] shall surely hide My face from them (Deuteronomy 31:18)—the Rabbis read the term astir (“I will hide”) as an allusion to “Esther,” which sounds similar. In other words, based on a pun. Later commentators turned somersaults and contorted all reason to demonstrate that, in fact, God is alluded to in Esther, or to claim that God’s name was originally in the text but was subsequently removed for pious reasons.

COMMENTARY

In our passage, four sages provide textual arguments that Esther was composed under divine influence, and a fifth sage rejects the previous four arguments and provides his own, which he claims is superior.

R. Eliezer, R. Akiba, and R. Meir all argue that Esther is divinely inspired based on the presumption that the narrator could not know what the text claims without divine insight. How could the writer know what Haman was thinking but did not say aloud (6:6)? How could the writer know that every person who saw Esther admired her (2:15)? How could Mordecai have known of Bigthan and Teresh’s plan to kill the king without insider information from heaven? R. Eliezer, R. Akiba, and R. Meir are scrambling for evidence from the biblical text itself that warrants including Esther in the Jewish canon. 

But these are weak arguments. First, the manner in which the story unfolds makes it clear that Haman thought that King Ahasuerus was referring to him when when he sought Haman’s advice for honoring someone.  Second, the claim that Esther found favor in the eyes of everyone who saw her is easily understood as a hyperbolic affirmation of her beauty, but at face value, the statement isn’t much of a stretch given that King  Ahasuerus chose Esther from among seemingly hundreds of beautiful young women, each of whom was was provided a one-year beauty regimen prior to her one-night audition with the king. Third, the argument that Mordecai’s knowledge of the guards’ plot to kill the king hardly requires a telegram from heaven to explain, given that Mordecai camped out at the palace gate every day. Furthermore, we are told explicitly that the guards became angry and worked out their plot; angry people often fail to keep their voices low.  Besides, even if

Mordecai had insider knowledge from above, that doesn’t prove that the Scroll itself was written under divine influence. Fourth, the suggestion that it takes the holy spirit to know that not a single Jew in the large and sprawling kingdom of Persia collected booty from the the Persians both ignores the literary nature of the claim, as well as the fact that the claim does not prove that the Scroll itself was written under divine influence.

Shmuel rejects all four arguments for divine influence in favor of his own. Had he been among the Tanna’im (early Sages) who decided to include Esther in the canon, he would have argued for inclusion on the basis of Esther 9:27, which he reads to say, They [God and the angels in heaven] confirmed [that which] they [the Jews] took upon themselves, which is to say that God gave divine imprimatur to the narrative of Esther and to the Jews’ decision to obligate themselves and their descendants to observe Purim every year thereafter for all time. Shmuel is saying that the text wasn’t so much written under divine influence, as it received the divine stamp of approval after the fact. The community’s consensus and commitment conferred upon Megillat Esther and the celebration of Purim divine sanction and holiness.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. Would you have voted to include Megillat Esther in the Tana”kh? Why or why not?
2. Three dates for celebration or mourning have been added to the Hebrew calendar in the modern period: Yom Ha’Atzmaut (Israel Independence Day), Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day), and Yom Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Reunification Day). On what basis should others be added? Can you suggest criteria?
3. In a sense, Shmuel doesn’t argue for the inherent divinity of the Scroll of Esther. He can be understood as saying: Whatever the community decides is sacred to them is sacred. Do you agree? Are their limits and parameters? If so, what are they?

How Far Must I Go? — BT Avodah Zarah 15a,b — #26

[14a] It was taught in a baraita: One may sell [a pagan merchant] a bundle [of frankincense]. And how much is a bundle? R. Yehudah b. Beteira explained: a bundle weighs at least three manehs [approximately one pound]. Should we not be concerned lest the [merchant] goes and sells it to another [idol worshiper] who will burn it [as a sacrifice to a pagan idol]? Abaye says: We are commanded, Before [the blind do not place a stumbling block] (Leviticus 19:14) but we are not obligated concerning a “before” for a “before:… [15b] Rabbah once sold a donkey to an Israelite who was suspected of selling it to an idolater. Said Abaye to him: “Why did you do this?” He said: “I sold it to an Israelite.” “But he will go and sell it to an idolater!” “Why should he sell it to an idolater and not sell it to an Israelite?” 

INTRODUCTION

Ancient Israel lived surrounded by polytheistic culture. Hammurabi’s Code lists 20 gods in the prologue; Egypt had 40 gods and goddesses; the Canaanites worshiped two divine couples, as well as several other gods. In stark and revolutionary contrast, Torah declares: I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, nor likeness, of any thing in the heaven above or on the earth beneath, or in the water beneath the earth. (Exodus 20:2-3) Idols, created by human beings, are not divine manifestations of the Creator of all. Torah is obsessively concerned with the risk that Israel will imitate the practices of the peoples around and descend into idolatry. Talmud dedicates an entire tractate, Avodah Zarah, as well as sections of other tractates, to regulating interactions with non-Jews to prevent Jews from engaging not only directly, or even indirectly, in idolatry.

While the scenarios presented derive from a concern about idolatry, and test how far one’s responsibility for enabling idolatrous worship extends by selling pagans materials for idolatrous worship, we might well apply this thinking to other situations in which what we own or sell could have negative consequences: drugs, alcohol, and guns come readily to mind.

COMMENTARY

Mishnah 1:5 [13b] instructs Jews not to sell to pagans certain items—among them the aromatic resin frankincense—that are likely to be used in idolatrous worship. I have excerpted two seemingly contradictory scenarios from Gemara’s discussion of this mishnah. The first case concerns a Jew who sells frankincense to a pagan merchant, where the possibility exists that the merchant may subsequently sell the frankincense to  second pagan who then uses it in idolatrous worship. Abaye explains that the Jew may sell the frankincense to the merchant without violating the prohibition, You shall not insult the deaf, or place a stumbling block before the blind. You shall fear your God: I am the Lord (Leviticus 19:14). The deaf cannot hear insults and the blind cannot see objects deliberately placed in their path, but Torah uses “deaf” and “blind” metaphorically: we are forbidden to take advantage of people’s vulnerabilities and weaknesses. Abaye is suggesting that were a Jew to sell frankincense directly to a pagan who intended to offer it as a sacrifice to an idol, the Jew would be enabling idolatry by taking advantage of the idolator’s vulnerability. In this case, however, the Jew sold the frankincense to a pagan merchant who is not obligated by You shall not…place a stumbling block. What the merchant does with the frankincense is not the Jewish seller’s responsibility. 

The second case concerns Rabbah, who sold a donkey to a Jew. For reasons we are not told, there was reason to suspect that the Jewish buyer might resell the donkey to a pagan who would sacrifice it as part of idolatrous worship. Is Rabbah potentially guilty of You shall not…place a stumbling block before the blind? Abaye asks Rabbah why he made the sale and Rabbah responds that he is not responsible for any subsequent sale; after all, the Jew who purchased the donkey might just as soon resell it to another Jew as sell it to a pagan.

How far does our responsibility go? And is idolatry the only consideration in our day and age?  Midrash Sifra on Leviticus 19:14 provides the example of A who knowingly gives B poor financial advice that will ultimately benefit A. In our day and age, consider one who sells a gun to a person with a volatile temper who has gotten into fist fights with neighbors.

“But the Torah teaches us that even by sitting at home doing nothing, by complete passivity and divorcement from society, one cannot shake off responsibility for what is transpiring in the world at large, for the iniquity, violence and evil there. By not protesting, "not marking the graves" and danger spots, you have become responsible for any harm arising therefrom, and have violated the prohibition: "Thou shalt not put a stumbling block before the blind..." 

Nehama Leibowitz, Studies in Leviticus, p.178'

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. Can you think of examples of behaviors that would violate the prohibition, You shall not…place a stumbling block before the blind in various arenas of modern life (e.g., community, politics, business, economics)?
2. Can one passively violate You shall not…place a stumbling block before the blind? For example, by failing to point out corruption, bribery, safety violations in the workplace, or by not protesting injustice?
3. When one sells an item to someone who might use it to harm another, how much responsibility does the seller have to vet the buyer? Consider the following: (A) an adult who presents a valid ID to purchase cheap beer, while teenagers are seen outside waiting in the parking lot; (B) physicians who dispense drugs such as oxycontin, Adderall, and Ritalin without periodically seeing the patient; (C) dealers who sell guns at gun shows.

God, the Cosmic Shadchan — BT Sotah 2a — #25

Rabbah bar bar Chanah said in the name of R. Yochanan: It is as hard for  God make a match [between a man and a woman for marriage] as splitting the Sea of Reeds. Is that so? Did not Rav Yehudah say in the name of Rav: Forty days before the formation of an embryo, a heavenly voice proclaims, “The daughter of So-and-so [is designated to marry] the So-and-so; a certain house [is designated for] So-and-so; a certain field [is designated for] So-and-so. This is not a difficulty: This [opinion, that marital matches are determined in heaven prior to conception] concerns first marriages; this [opinion that marital matches are determined by one’s behavior] concerns second marriages.

INTRODUCTION

Did you choose your life partner? Or did God? Do you believe you met by chance and were fortunate to find one another? Or were you living out a destiny designed for you long ago, perhaps even before your were born? These questions stand behind the difference of opinion between R. Yochanan (as reported by Rabbah bar bar Chanah) and Rav Yehuda.

It is rare for Torah to command or forbid an emotional state. You might point to “You shall love the Lord your God,”  but it’s helpful to understand that “love” in the Torah meant loyalty far more than romantic love as we understand it. Marriages were contracted in the ancient world for a host of pragmatic reasons related to family, procreation, and alliances—though Song of Songs assures us that romantic love flourished long ago—and most often parents chose mates for their offspring. Most of us shudder at the prospect of an arranged marriage; many moderns presume that it is more challenging to make an arranged marriage work longterm than a match made by romantic love.

Our passage appears on the first page of tractate Sotah, which discusses the laws and practices surrounding the biblical institution of the “suspected adulteress” whose husband is overwrought with jealousy, but he has neither evidence nor witnesses that his wife has committed adultery. Torah describes a social strategy that is public, involving the priests, to siphon off dangerous emotional energy in the hope that the  husband does not act violently toward his wife. The full description of the trial of the sotah is found in Numbers 5:11-31. 

Jealousy is a dangerous emotion. It easily turns into rage. The Gemara begins by asking why tractate Sotah follows tractate Nazir, which concerns Nazirite vows. The response provided is that the husband, like a nazir, should not consume alcohol. Given that alcohol lowers inhibitions, and the husband who suspects his wife of adultery is presumed to be overwrought and potentially out of control, this is sound advice indeed!

COMMENTARY

I have heard many people refer to their spouse as “my beshert,” a Yiddish word that suggests that destiny brought the couple together. We find the roots here. While R. Yochanan and Rav Yehudah both agree that God has the primary role in matchmaking, they disagree concerning when and how. R. Yochanan compares God’s matchmaking to Parting the Sea of Reeds: it is a colossally difficult task. Rav Yehudah claims that God matches people either at the moment of conception (the more likely understanding of the Gemara) or forty days prior to conception. (While Gemara presumes heterosexual marriage, we can have in mind any kind of life partnership when we consider this passage.)

The Rabbis resolve the disagreement handily through the use of a technique called okimta, whereby they assign two different realities or sets of circumstances to the two opinions. In this case: Rav Yehudah’s view applies to first marriages; R. Yochanan’s view applies to second marriages. In other words: God arranges your first marriage even before you’re born, but if that marriages ends by death or divorce, the task of finding you a second spouse—when you, like Israel coming out of Egypt, have a fully formed personality and needs—is a tremendous undertaking. Does this resolve anything? Or does it generate more questions?

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. Why do you think Gemara identifies Rav Yehudah’s view with first marriages and R. Yochanan’s view with second marriages?

2. How might the notion of God’s role and destiny (“beshert”) in finding a mate make it easier or harder for people to do the hard relationship work marriage requires? Consider the message of this midrash:

A Roman matron asked R. Yose b. Chalafta: “How many days did it take your God to create the world?” He answered, “Six.” “And what has He been doing since then?” “Making matches. This man to that woman,this woman to that man.” The Roman matron replied with surprise: “Is that all? Why anyone can do that!” Rabbi Yossi observed, “It may seem easy to you, but for God making a good match is as difficult as parting the Reed Sea.” To prove her point, the Roman matron returned home and lined up all her household servants – 1000 men and 1000 women, paired them up and married them off. The following morning they returned to her, one with a black eye, one with a bruised face, one limping, and another wounded, each with its own misery and saying, “This one that you designated for me I do not want.” The Roman matron sent for Rabbi Yose and said, “Rabbi your Torah is truth and it is beautiful and praiseworthy. You spoke well in all you said.” 

(Genesis Rabbah 68 and Leviticus Rabbah 8)

3. Rambam (Moses Maimonides, 11th century) disagreed with both R. Yochanan and Rav Yehudah. In Shemonah Perakim ch. 8 (his introduction to Pirkei Avot), Rambam avers that it is necessary for finding a marital partner to be a human choice in order for people to obtain credit for fulfilling the mitzvah of p’ru ur’vu (procreation), on the one hand, and be held accountable for entering into a prohibited marriage, on the other. Does Rambam’s view solve any problems or only introduce new ones?

Is Suffering “Good for the Soul”?—BT Baba Metzia 85a—#24

[The sufferings] of R. Elazar b. of R. Shimon were superior to those of Rabbi [Yehudah ha-Nasi] because they came to him through love and departed in love, while those of Rabbi [Yehudah ha-Nasi] came to him through a certain incident, and departed likewise. They came to him through a certain incident—what is it? As a calf was being led to slaughter it broke away, hid its head under Rabbi's garment, and lowed [in terror]. He said [to the calf], “Go, for this were you created.” Thereupon [the angels in heaven] said: “Since he has no pity, let us bring suffering upon him.” And departed likewise—how so? One day Rabbi's maidservant was sweeping the house. [Seeing] some young weasels lying there, she was about to sweep them away when [Rabbi] said to her: “Let them be. It is written, and His tender mercies are over all his works (Psalm 145:9).” [In heaven] they said: “Since he is compassionate, let us be compassionate toward him.”

INTRODUCTION

Here and elsewhere, the Talmud explores the ins-and-outs of suffering, and in particular painful physical suffering. I would imagine that in the ancient world, which lacked the medical treatments, cures, and analgesics we enjoy (and all too often take for granted) unrelieved physical pain was a source of fear and agony, and even more frequently than in our age inspired the question: Why me? In this reality, the Rabbis propose and thoroughly analyze the theological claim that suffering can be beneficial (BT Berakhot 5): If one accepts their suffering as a loving gift from God through which they pay off the debt of their sins in this world, they will merit a greater reward in the world-to-come. While this may sound alien and troubling to many of us, please keep in mind that making suffering meaningful is one way to make it more bearable.

The context for our passage is a lengthy account of R. Elazar (son of R. Shimon bar Yochai), who spent years and expended enormous effort to insure that he would suffer in this world. The descriptions are strange, extreme, and disgusting—they fall into the realm of the carnivalesque. Interposed into this extended treatise on R. Elazar’s sufferings is a comparison to those of R. Yehudah ha-Nasi (who is called “Rabbi” in the Talmud because of his singular importance). Impressed by R. Elazar’s effort and exploits in the realm of suffering, Rabbi exclaims, “How beloved is suffering!” and thereupon enters a 13-year period of suffering. Gemara objects to this framing of Rabbi’s suffering: Rabbi did not summon suffering as R. Elazar had done; rather, it came about due to his behavior.

The righteous care for the lives of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel. (Proverbs 12:10)

COMMENTARY

The calf being led to slaughter is deeply fearful. It attempts to hide beneath Rabbi’s robe. Rather than express concern or offer comfort, Rabbi responds callously that the animal was created to become food for people. In response to a failure to show compassion, heaven visits Rabbi with suffering. 

Several commentators ask: What’s wrong with Rabbi’s response to the calf? The basis of their question is the presumption that everything in the universe was created for human benefit. The substance of what Rabbi says, therefore, is correct. The problem, they conclude, is not with the veracity of Rabbi’s claim, but rather with his failure to visibly and verbally demonstrate compassion for the calf. If this were the case, the next part of the story is confusing. When Rabbi’s maidservant prepares to sweep away a nest of newborn weasels (presumably killing them in the process), Rabbi quotes a verse from Psalm 145 to say, in essence: Just as God’s attitude toward all living creatures is tender mercy, so should ours be, as well. If heaven’s objection is that Rabbi failed to show compassion, then telling his maid to “Let them be,” is unnecessary; merely making a show of compassion should be sufficient if all animals exist to serve human needs. Actually acting compassionately to save their lives is not necessary—but Rabbi does not make a mere show of compassion; he saves their lives.

The Talmudic commentator Maharsha (Rabbi Shmuel Eidels, 1555-1631) further reasons that heaven was responding to the substance of Rabbi’s claim concerning the calf, interpreting it to mean that all creatures are destined to die and therefore so should he. But then heaven granted Rabbi suffering to exempt him from a premature death. There is a flaw in the logic of this interpretation, as well: Why, then, does heaven relieve Rabbi’s suffering precisely in response to his compassion toward the weasels, rather than after he has suffered sufficiently to avoid an early death?

Torah requires that animals be permitted to rest on Shabbat. It prohibits muzzling an ox while it threshes grain. It requires that the mother bird be dismissed from the nest before eggs or nestlings are collected. It requires us to relieve the load of an overburdened animal. It forbids animals of different sizes to be yoked together.

I understand this story to be subtly rebutting the notion that animals exist purely for the sake of human appetites, needs, and desires, as many commentators claim.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. Does the adage, “What goes around comes around,” apply to this story?
2. Can our own painful physical suffering sensitize us to recognize the pain others experience? Is that what happens to Rabbi, and is this possibly a lesson of the story? Is it possible that suffering is, in this sense, “good for the soul?”
3. The view that all creation is meant to serve our needs derives from a particular reading of Genesis chapter 1. In light of what we know about the universe as a whole, and the ecosystem of our planet in particular, is this idea still tenable and moral? What are the implications for our consumption patterns, food choices, and factory farming?

Facing Jerusalem — BT Berakhot 30a — #23

Our Rabbis taught in a baraita: A blind person or one who cannot discern the cardinal directions should direct his heart toward God in heaven, as it says, And they will pray to Adonai (I Kings 8:44). One who stands outside the Land of Israel should direct his heart toward the Land of Israel, as it says, And they will pray to You by way of their land (I Kings 8:48). One who stands in the Land of Israel should direct his heart toward Jerusalem, as it says, And they pray to Adonai by way of the city that You have chosen (I Kings 8:44). One who stands in Jerusalem should direct his heart toward the Temple, as it says, And they will pray toward this house (II Chronicles 6:32). One who stands in the Temple should direct his heart toward the Holy of Holies, as it says, And they will pray toward this place (I Kings 8:35). One who stands in the Holy of Holies should direct his heart toward the parochet (ark cover). One who stands behind the chamber of the parochet should envision himself as standing before t

he parochet. Thus we find that one who is in the east should turn and face west [to pray]; one who is in the west should turn and face east; one who is in the south should turn and face north; one who is in the north should turn and face south; all Israel should turn their hearts to one place.

INTRODUCTION

The Rabbis discussed at length the Temple, the meaning of its destruction, and their longing for it to be rebuilt. They determined that we should face Jerusalem to pray. Consequently, to this day synagogues build their ark on the wall facing Jerusalem, and synagogues in Jerusalem face the Temple Mount. Many Jews have a small plaque called a mizrach (“east”) on the eastern wall of their house to remind them of the direction of Jerusalem.

"Without Jerusalem, the Land of Israel is a body without a soul." (Elhanan Leib Lewinsky)

But the Talmud doesn’t discuss the Western Wall. In recent decades, the Kotel (the Western Wall, so named because it is the western retaining wall around the Temple Mount) has come to be an important place of prayer for many Jews due to its proximity to the spot where once the Temple stood. The Orthodox rabbinate in Israel controls the area adjacent to the Wall, regulating with an iron fist who may prayer there and how. Women wishing to pray with tallit and read Torah have been excluded, often violently. Led by Women of the Wall, and the courageous force of nature, Anat Hoffman, they have prevailed. Recently, the Israeli government approved a plan to create an egalitarian prayer space at the Kotel in the section known as Robinson’s Arch. I chose this passage in celebration of this victory.

COMMENTARY

While the passage from Berakhot 30a certainly makes it sound like facing Jerusalem for prayer is an open-and-shut case, Baba Batra 25a reports that, “Rav Sheshet believed that the Shekhinah is in all places. Accordingly, when [he prayed] he would say to his attendant: Set me facing any direction except east. And this was not because the Shekhinah is not there, but because the minim (sectarians) prescribe that one face east.” Other sages recommend facing west (the Shekhinah is in the west according to R. Abbahu), north (to become wealthy according to R. Yitzhak), and south (to become wise, again according to R. Yitzhak). It would appear that at some point in history, Jerusalem was not yet a fixed direction for prayer. It is worth noting that Rav Sheshet was blind; the passage in Berakhot 30a seems to suggest that people who are blind or directionally challenged are exempted from the requirement to face the Temple Mount, either because it is an onerous imposition given their disability, or because for them it is not experientially meaningful.

"Jerusalem is a port city on the shore of eternity." (Yehudah Amichai)

When the Temple stood, it was a visible sign of God’s presence, lending sanctity to the Temple Mount, and by extension to Jerusalem, where tradition holds God chose King Solomon to build the First Temple. In this passage, written after the Destruction of the Second Temple, when the Jews are bereft of their Sanctuary and coming to realize that it will not soon be rebuilt, the Rabbis construct, with words, the metaphysical structure of the world: the world is composed of a series of concentric circles of holiness, with the ark of the covenant at the center, the Holy of Holies next, followed by the Temple, and then Jerusalem, and then the Land of Israel. Because the Temple was “God’s house” and God figuratively “resided” in the Holy of Holies, that is the address one faces for prayer. And even if the Temple no longer stands, one imagines it in one’s religious imagination and makes it potent in one’s life by facing a certain spot on the globe for prayer.

"No city in the world, not even Athens or Rome, ever played as great a role in the life of a nation for so long a time, as Jerusalem has done in the life of the Jewish people." (David Ben-Gurion)

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1.     What power and meaning do facing Jerusalem for prayer hold for you? Do you have a mizrach in your home? Why or why not?

2.     Many Jews would say that they do not genuinely long for the Temple to be rebuilt and the cult of sacrifices to be restored. Are there reasons to face Jerusalem for prayer nonetheless?

3.     Prayer at the Kotel—which is only a retaining wall—worries some people, who believe the intense focus on praying at the Wall comes close to idolatrous worship of the Wall. What are your thoughts?