Re Ve-lamalshinim

Just to add to Ms. Appel's response, here is part of the footnote to the ברכה from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks' commentary (this is from the new Koren Siddur, translated and annotated by Rabbi Sacks. I'm still getting started on it, but it seems awesome! I hope to post about it some more in the future). I had heard this insight before, but never in Rav Kook's name.

The Talmud (Berakhot 28b) says that to formulate this prayer, Rabban Gamliel turned to Shmuel HaKatan. Rabbi Kook pointed out that Shmuel HaKatan was
known for his attachment to the principle, "Do not rejoice when your enemy
fails." (Avot 4:19). Only a person who deeply loved his fellow human
beings could be entrusted with the task of constructing this prayer, which must
be free of animosity and schadenfraude.

פרשת קרח

Though I am nervous to comment in front of so many of you who learned and taught this in depth, a few quick thoughts (2 thoughts & 1 question) on the last Parsha:

• There is a puzzling passage right after sheini. Moshe calls for Dasan and Aviram to come to him, but they refuse, saying "לא נעלה". They continue to complain that הַמְעַט, כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ, לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ, בַּמִּדְבָּר: כִּי-תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ, גַּם-הִשְׂתָּרֵר. יד אַף לֹא אֶל-אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ, הֲבִיאֹתָנוּ, וַתִּתֶּן-לָנוּ, נַחֲלַת שָׂדֶה וָכָרֶם; הַעֵינֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָהֵם, תְּנַקֵּר--לֹא נַעֲלֶה - 13 is it a small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, but thou must needs make thyself also a prince over us? 14 Moreover thou hast not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us inheritance of fields and vineyards; wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? we will not come up.'

The מפרשים come up with a couple of ways to explain the bolded portion, which on it's face makes no sense. Who are "these men", why would Moshe gouge out their eyes, and what does it have to do with anything? Rashi says that they are referring to themselves, but didn't want to say so (like ברכת ד' or שונאי ישראל). If so, their message was, no matter what you do to us, we aren't coming. Others give variations of the idea that there is nothing you can do to hide your deficiencies as a leader from either the people in general or Korach's group in particular.

Perhaps more simply, לא נעלה doesn't mean what it meant a few pesukim ago, but must be read in the context of the intervening text as we will not go up - to Eretz Yisrael! If so, the eye-gouging is a clear reference to the צרעה the supernatural hornets that Hashem promises to send ahead of Bnei Yisrael to gouge out the eyes of the enemies they encounter when conquering the land (see שמות כג:כח and דברים ז:כ). The message then is very pointed - the Meraglim rejected the land because they felt it would be impossible to conquer. דתן & אבירם go a big step further. Even if we are miraculously able to conquer the land, we still don't want it.

• Immediately after this, Moshe asks Hashem not to respond to the קטרת offerings of the rebels. This is very strange. Why would Hashem, knowing that this is the test to determine who he had chosen as the Kohen Gadol respond to those who are rebelling against his choice? Maybe we can explain this in light of what occurred earlier in פרשת בהעלותך. After the people sin and are punished again, Moshe complains that he can not bear the weight of the nation alone, and in response Hashem has him form the 70 elders to share some of his leadership role. Later, Yehoshua finds Eldad and Medad prophesysing and wants Moshe to defend his honor and destroy them. Moshe responds, wishing - מי יתן כל עם ד' נביאים - that the entire nation would be prophets. This is remarkably similar to קרח's argument that כל העדה כולם קדושים. Maybe the whole story of Korach is not just the story of a troublemaker and his attempted mutiny, but Hashem telling Moshe to be careful what he wishes for, and punishing him for doubting His methods. If so, Moshe's plea makes perfect sense. He asks Hashem not to answer Korach to teach him a lesson.

• Finally, Over these few parshiyot there is an odd recurrence of a חמור - donkey. From the mitzva of פטר חמור, where it is the only non-kosher animal that is subject to the laws of פדיון בכור to Moshe's insistence to Hashem when defending his reign that he didn't even take a single חמור to next week's story with the miraculously talkative חמור of בלעם (was there one more). I know that it often symbolizes חומר - materialism, but I can't figure out the message. All insights on this, and the previous points as well are of course welcome from anyone (faculty, students, parents, strangers etc.).

Ve-la-malshinim

Summer break provides some catch-up time for blog questions, and so... Ma’ayanot alumna (!!!) Gabrielle Hiller asked:

I have always learned that when you're davening you are not supposed to pray for bad things to happen to people. For example, if there's a baseball game between the Yankees and the Red Sox and you support the Yankees, then you are allowed to pray for the Yankees to win, but you are NOT allowed to ask that the Red Sox should lose. How then can we say V'Lamalshinim in Shemoneh Esrei if it is clearly a negative tefillah? How can we pray for something bad to happen to people?thanks, Gabrielle Hiller

Perhaps a little bit of historical context for this berakha can help us understand why Hazal found it appropriate for inclusion in the Amidah.

Originally, the berakha began not with “And to the informers” (ve-la-malshinim) but rather with “And to the sectarians and heretics” (la-minim ve-la-meshumadim) – and hence it is called birkat ha-minim. The likelihood, based on its discussion in Masekhet Berakhot and corroborated by some Christian reports, is that it was introduced during the first century of Christianity. Its specific purpose was to prompt Christians – who had developed their own particular rituals but had not yet established their own distinct liturgy and houses of worship – to remove themselves and their apostasy from the synagogues. Over the centuries, it became clear that for the purposes of maintaining (or creating) civil relationships with their Christian neighbors, Jews needed to alter the text of this berakha, and so it evolved (actually over the course of various versions) into being aimed at Jews who informed against their fellow Jews to non-Jewish authorities.

Hazal implicitly acknowledged the point you bring up in your question – that this berakha unusually asks Hashem to bring about people’s downfall – in Midrash Tanhuma. There (in writing about the original incarnation of the berakha) they indicate that while in general a shaliah tzibbur who made mistakes while reciting hazarat ha-sha”tz would not have to go back and correct the relevant words, one who erred in reciting birkat ha-minim was forced to make the correction or leave. This was because if one were a “Jewish Christian”, then reciting this berakha would be tantamount to cursing oneself, and so the unwillingness to say it with precision would indicate that one was, indeed such a sectarian.

I write all this not as an apologist for asking (as you put it) for bad things happen to people. Rather, I think that the historical context can shed light on the uniqueness of Ve-la-malshinim. Written at one of the most difficult junctures in Jewish history, it reflects a community’s sense of crisis in witnessing the growing fissures in Rabbinic Judaism and its feeling of helplessness in watching its own members join a heretical sect of Judaism. Thus, I view its original intent as one of entreaty, of desperation. Furthermore, its newer version reflects one of the results, a relatively short while later, of this fissure: once the erstwhile sect became a powerful new religion, its impact on internal Jewish social and political dynamics was intense and, likewise, provoked a sense of desperation within the community.

It may be useful to consider one other phrase in the Shemoneh Esrei that invokes God’s power against people. In Elokai Netzor at the end of the silent Amidah, we mention those who think badly of us (implying, if I understand correctly, that they might also consider acting badly against us) and ask of Hashem: hafer atzatam ve-kalkel mahashavtam – essentially to undermine their intentions and destroy their negative thoughts.

Taken together, the assorted versions of Ve-la-malshinim as well as the line in Elokai Netzor (in addition to some other phrases throughout the tefillah) may suggest a category in which it is considered appropriate to pray for people’s downfall: when those people aim to harm individuals or rend the Jewish community. In those circumstances, we see recourse in Hashem.

I want to conclude by stating emphatically that although Ve-la-malshinim originated in opposition to Christianity, I do not believe it is appropriate to have such kavvanah when we recite the berakha today. While Jews have had a complex and often difficult history with the Church, I do not feel the current state of Jewish-Christian relations warrants a hearkening back to the origins of this berakha. Indeed, I think we should be grateful for the freedom we have here in the United States to observe Yahadut with hardly a threat, and that we should reserve our kavvanot in this tefilla for those who might truly seek to destroy us.

More on Sign Language and Hamotzi

When this question came in, I asked one of the resident experts on sign language - Nikki Press, who took an elective in the subject this year. This was her response:

We asked Mrs. Landau about signing between washing and eating bread, and she answered that people don't sign after washing, just like they wouldn't speak, as a matter of respect for the bracha. If it's necessary, for instance to ask someone to pass the salt, one should gesture and not sign. Rebecca Birnbaum added that when her brother asked a Rabbi about signing after washing, he said that it is not allowed- because it's a form of communication just like speech.

Interruptions between Netilat Yadayim and ha-Motzi

Rebecca Schenker asked about interruptions, both verbal and non-verbal, between netilat yadayim and ha-motzi. Even though I am not a posek, with the help of Rabbi Binyamin Forst's sefer The Laws of B'rachos, I can safely say that the following halachot apply: One may not be mafsik (interrupt) between a berachah and its subject. But the eating of bread is not the subject of netilat yadayim - the mitzvah of washing hands is the subject of the berachah. Thus interrupting between netilat yadayim and ha-motzi is less problematic than interrupting between (for example) he-eitz and eating the fruit. Nevertheless, it is preferable not to interrupt.
If it's a request necessary for the meal (for example, someone forgot to bring the knife to cut the challah), however, it is completely permitted to interrupt - to speak - and ask for the knife. Sounds like "shhh" and "nu" are equivalent to any other words: preferable not to say them, but permitted if necessary for the meal. Gestures are less problematic than speaking, but still not ideal. Regarding sign language - which are gestures that are also communicating - a real posek should be asked whether it's equivalent to words (more chamor) or to gestures (less chamor).

Avodah Sheb'lev Contest Winner #2

Also, as we have just received the final submissions from the final round of this years contest, it is time to post the other winner for last month - Esther and Chana Garbow.

מן המיצר קראתי י-ה, ענני במרחב י-ה.ה’ לי, לא אירא מה יעשה לי אדם.ה’ לי בעוזריי, ואני אראה בשונאיי

“From distress I called to G-d; with abounding relief, G-d answered me. The Lord is with me, I do not fear- what can man do to me? The Lord is with me among my helpers, I will see the downfall of my enemies.”

This quote from Hallel is very inspiring to people who are going through difficult times, but they know G-d will help get them through it. And through believing in G-d you will see your problems disappear.

I feel like there’s no way out
No way to get away
But I know I can look to G-d and say
That I need help to go about
And he will answer me
And help me with my pain
I know that G-d can see
What to do to help
And when someone is trying
To be harmful to me
I have no fear of him
For Hashem is helping
Me, and bring the downfall
To my enemy.

The belief in G-d during the 6 Day War led them to victory and the Kotel.

פרשת נשא

As Finals has us all busy and out of class, we don't have our usual forum for Divrei Torah on the Parsha. First, it's Naso, (longest one in the Torah, so get some sleep Friday night). Below I reprint a beautiful idea that a neighbor of mine, Rabbi Daniel Lifschitz circulated.

Parshat Naso concludes with a long and repetitive section detailing the donations that the prices of the Twelve Tribes made to the Tabernacle upon its completion. Each of the prices brought the exact same collection of utensils, incense, animals, etc. Instead of consolidating the description somewhat, the Torah spells it out at maximum length -Prince A brought X, Y and Z; Prince B brought X, Y and Z; Prince C....Why so much repetition?

Rabbi Frand suggests that there is an important lesson that the Torah is trying to underscore by the repetition. On the first day, the prince of the tribe of Yehudah brought his donation. On the second day, the prince of Yissachar was up. The typical person would try to think of something bigger, better, or at the least different than what his colleague had brought in order to make his own gift stand out too.Bringing the same thing as the other prince would show a lack of imagination and would hardly be socially acceptable. But Netanel ben Tzuar, the prince of Yissachar, instead brought the same gift that the prince of Yehudah did. He realized that if he brought something new anddifferent, then prince #3 would have to do the same, as would prince #4,and he would have started an endless chain of one-upsmanship. By bringing the same boring gift, Netanel prevented a cycle of social competition. (Perhaps this special distinction of Netanel is why the passage describing his gift is worded slightly differently than the passages describing the donations of the other princes.) Unfortunately,this type of cycle is all too prevalent in our society, with a number of corrosive effects I need not go into. How many of us have the courage of Netanel to risk our status and reputation by refusing to compete? Shabbat Shalom.