The Torah & the Environment

A freshman asks:

These past few weeks I couldn't help but notice the ad's for this new movie called "2012", it's about how the world is going to be destroyed, because of global warming and how we are all doomed. It's based on the ancient Mayan theory, and as the ad says "its confirmed by science." I know that that Mayans worshipped avodah zarah, and that their theories shouldn't be taken so seriously, but when it comes to global warming or climate changing, all I hear is the secular view, I never heard the Jewish one. Is there a Jewish view on Global warming??

For the science question, we went straight to the expert.  Mrs. Rosenbaum responds:

In short: No, there is no written Jewish view on Global Warming.


However, based on a several sources in the Torah, it seems that we are responsible for what happens to our environment.

1. There are several mitzvot that allude to an eco-conscience mindset. For example shmitta and bal tashchit are mitvot that are commonly refered to when discussing our responsibility to take care of our land. However, shmitta is a mitzvah she'teluya ba'aretz- meaning that it is only performed in Israel. In terms of bal tashchit, although the Rabbis have expanded this mitzvah to include any wasteful action (such as breaking a dish or ripping clothing), the mitzvah in the Torah is strictly a prohibition from cutting down fruit trees during war. According to the Rambam and Ramban, you are allowed to destroy something for a purpose. Whether or not it is legitimate to destroying the world in order to fuel our energy needs is debatable, but it is clear that destroying an object for no reason is prohibited.

Note: It is also worthwhile to point out that our Shalosh Regalim are heavily based on the seasonal and agricultural calendars of Israel. Our connection to the land and its yearly changes is unique.
There is also a famous pasuk in Bereishit that required Adam "to work and preserve the land." This passuk (2, 15) is about his mitzvah to preserve Gan Eden and its trees. Whether this mitzvah expands to Israel or Earth in general is also debatable.

Despite the difficulties in using these texts to absolutely prove our responsibility to nature, it seems that the issue of land frequently pops up in the Torah and therefore should be an object of interest to us.
2. There are many pesukim in the Torah (especially in the Neviim) that write about the impact of our spiritual actions on nature's behavior...that the land will go desolate and kick us out if we sin, but will flourish and produce for us if we repent.

3. The sources about Mashiach (the End of Days) are inconclusive regarding what nature will be like when Mashiach has come. According to the Rambam, the world will continue as it is ("olam k'minhago noheg") which might imply that we are responsible to take care of our world now because even when Mashiach comes G-d won't reverse the nature of the land. According to the Ramban, the world will follow a new natural order and nature will return to the way it was before Adam sinned. This is based on a literal reading of the pesukim that talk about lions and sheep living together and so forth, as opposed to the Rambam who reads these pesukim metaphorically to mean Jews and non-Jews living peacibly. The Ramban's approach might imply that even if the world is destroyed by global warming and other man-made problems that G-d will fix these issues in the coming of Mashiach.

The idea of "chishuv ha'ketz" or calculating the time of the Mashiach is prohibited by most scholars, because it is impossible to calculate, it fosters false hope in the people and opens up the possibility of false messiahs. Despite their dire warnings some scholars still venture to use kabbalistic ideas to figure out the time of the Mashiach, many of whom have been proven wrong.

We do believe (based on pesukim and other sources) that we will either deserve the Mashiach to arrive at any moment ("zachu achishena"- if we merit, it will come early) or that we won't deserve Mashiach but will come anyway at a certain point in time ("lo zachu b'ita" - if we do not merit, it will in its time).

At a certain point Mashiach will come regardless of our worthiness and I can only imagine that Mashiach will come before the disasters that science may predict come to fruition.

Aliens?? Guest Response from Rabbi Lamm

Alona Stewart asks: I know this is a bit of a weird question but I'm going to ask in anyway, in the pursuit of knowledge and whatnot. It's about aliens... I mean, the universe is enormous. Hundreds of billions of miles wide, with countless galaxies and stars and planets and other large chunks of space matter. Is it really possible or even probable that we are the only planet out there that supports life? (I'm not talking about green slimy things with big black eyes and four fingered-hands-- it could be single-celled organisms or those weird blobby things in the ocean that were apparently the first complex life forms... anyway.)

So I was just wondering if the Torah mentions anything about our planet being the only one with life or... I don't know, anything. Have any modern poskim had anything to say about this topic?...

Rabbi Lamm refers us to his article on the subject here.

Here is a condensed answer that he e-mailed in:

First, if there is intelligent life elsewhere, it is probably we who appear as ‘aliens’ to them... Second, the Torah was given to human beings, descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – not to inhabitants of other worlds or universes. Since the Torah does not directly speak of “aliens,” it is safe for us to accept the findings and even well-based speculations of cosmologist and other scientists whose ideas and theories are not in contradiction to Torah. Moreover, there are views of great Torah authority which, when extrapolated, can very well support the idea of a creation of many worlds. If many worlds, why not populated worlds

One More ויצא Point...

From me, and then we move on. As I was reviewing the Parsha, I was struck by how odd some of the names were for the שבטים. I know just about all of you learn or teach this, or at least have within the last few years, so you must have some ideas. The first four - Reuven, Shimon, Levi & Yehuda, all make perfect sense. Then come the בני בלהה named by Rachel. Dan I guess is OK too, but Naftali seems very strange. "And Rachel said: 'With mighty wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and have prevailed.' And she called his name Naphtali." There are other translations, but that is the basic gist. By what possible standard can Rachel claim to have "prevailed" over her sister with four sons? Because her maid-servant had a second one?

And Leah's subsequent naming is also bizarre. She names זלפה's children reflecting how lucky she feels, but then names Yissachar for the reward she got for giving זלפה to Yaakov! One answer to this question, that I'm familiar with says that really the reward was for the Dudaim, but it was unseemly to put in his name (see Moav), so she euphemistically attributed it to something else. The two rewards (שכר) are represented by the two "sin"s (שs) in his name, but one of them, the one for the Dudaim, is silent.

Any other ideas?

Dudaim

Michelle Zivari asks:

I noticed something weird while i was reading the Parsha. In the fourth aliyah it talks about the story of the dudaim. When Rachel asks Leah for the dudaim that Reuven found she unkindly answers "Was you taking of my husband insignificant? And to take even my son's dudaim?" How can Leah say that? In the famous midrash it says that Rachel gave Leah the secret signs that she had made with Yaakov so that she would not be embarrassed not only did she not have hakarat hatov she makes it seems like the roles are swapped and that she was rightfully his wife and first choice. Even not according to the Midrash it is clear that Yaakov wanted to marry Rachel and she was the one he worked for.

I agree that the story of the dudaim is a mysterious one, that bothered me for a long time, but that particular point never seemed odd to me. I think all of us can think of things that happen to us that we at first recognize as great gifts for which we are thankful, but then begin to take for granted. I would guess that at first she had great appreciation for what Rachel had done for her, but then, once she alone was Yaakov's wife, grew resentful when Rachel infringed on their relationship, and hurt and jealous when she felt like the second rate wife.

It's possible that she always felt this way. I'm no psychologist (maybe a member of the guidance team can correct me), but I think that sometimes people can almost forget something that is hard for them to live with. Maybe the way for her to come to grips with her family arrangement was to put the episode of how the marriage began out of her mind.

In general, I think that the story is a beautiful illustration of some very important lessons. What we have here are two sisters each of whom was so consumed by what she lacked, she failed to appreciate what she had. Many mefarshim explain that the dudaim were a fertility drug. If so, when Reuven brings them to Leah, Rachel understandably expects her sister to give them to her - Leah already had four sons. Leah responds by saying, it's bad enough that you took my husband, now you also want to take my dudaim? Rachel makes her crucial mistake, and tries to trade the love of her husband for the children she wants so desperately. Leah too, trivializes her child-bearing "ability" by casually exchanging the dudaim for a night with Yaakov.

We later find that each sister was punished in kind for her lack of appreciation. In this coming week's parsha Rashi quotes that the Dina episode was a direct result of Leah's action here (ותצא דינה = ותצא לאה, I assume Chazal mean that Leah's anguish over her daughter's abduction resulted from the story - not Dina's pain, similar to Yosef's 22 years away from Yaakov being a "punishment" for the 22 years that Yaakov was away from his parents). Because she denigrated the value of her children, Hashem reminded her how much they mattered to her. Rachel, Rashi quotes, was punished by not being buried with Yaakov. Because she valued her children over her husband, she spent eternity without him. But, as we know, when Bnei Yisrael needed her most, she was the one who was there to pray for them (רחל מבכה על בניה). So throughout history, both of them got there wish. Rachel was the paradigmatic mother, and Leah the enduring wife of Yaakov.

Ancient Words, Modern Messages

There is a strange portion of this week's parsha. Here's a translation I found in an essay by Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl:

The agreement between Yaakov and Lavan as stated by Yaakov was: "Let me pass through your whole flock today, remove from there every speckled or spotted lamb, every brownish lamb among the sheep and the spotted or speckled among the goats - that will be my wage" (Bereishit 30:32). The Torah then tells us "Yaakov then took himself fresh rods of poplar and hazel and chestnut ... he set up the rods which he had peeled in the runnels - in the water in receptacles to which the flocks came to drink - facing the flocks, so they would become stimulated when they drink. Then the flocks became stimulated by the rods and the flocks gave birth to ringed ones, speckled ones, and spotted ones ... Whenever it was mating time for the early bearing flocks, Yaakov would place the rods in the runnels, in full view of the flock to stimulate them among the rods" (Bereishit 30:37-42).

To summarize, Lavan was trying to pay Yaakov as little as possible, so he said that he would get, all of the spotted sheep born, though there weren't likely to be any spotted sheep. Yaakov foiled the plan by placing a stick carved with the pattern he needed their children to be, in the water where the sheep were drinking. This effectively induced the sheep to bear spotted offspring, though they themselves had no spots.

We sometimes like to think that what we can see or watch whatever we want, and we will enjoy it on a surface or intellectual level, but that it doesn't really effect us. We can learn from an unlikely source that this is not the case.

Hello from Yerushalayim!

I just wanted to share something that happened today that really made me feel uplifted and inspired.

I took a cab this morning to the seminary that I was visiting, and when we were about halfway there I realized that I had left my wallet in the hotel. I was rather embarrassed, and I asked the driver to take me back to the hotel (at my expense) so that I could get my wallet and pay him at the end of the ride. But instead of turning around, he told me that he didn’t want to waste my time or money driving all the way back again. Instead, he would take me to my destination, and when I would be ready to leave I should call him and he’d come and bring me back to the hotel, and at that point I could get my wallet and pay him.

I was taken aback by his suggestion. Granted, he would benefit from getting the second fare, but how does he know he can trust me to actually call him and pay him later? I tried to refuse, but he was adamant. Shortly before we arrived at the seminary I found 40 shekel in a separate pocket, which was 3 shekel more than the fare. It made me very uncomfortable to know that I’d have absolutely no money on me, but of course I told him that I found enough money in my pocket to pay him. Instead of taking the money, he told me that I should keep it in case I needed to buy something, and he’d wait for me to pay him later. He then handed me his card and drove off.

What are the chances of something like that happening in New York? Only in Israel have I ever experienced anything like that. Although the stereotype is always of the brusque Israeli, I don’t think it is accurate. I think that people are more connected to each other here and look out for each other more.

I can’t close my thoughts without telling you about another, similar incident. Last year on my trip here I took a cab to a seminary in Beit Shemesh. On the way there we passed the cemetery Eretz haChaim, and I mentioned to the driver that my grandparents are buried there and I haven’t been to their k’voros in 8 years. He offered to take me into the cemetery on the way back so that I could go and say some Tehillim. Sure enough, on the way back he reminded me of his offer. While I didn’t say so, I was a little concerned about how much extra he was going to charge me for the stop. So I told him thank you, but not this time; I also didn’t recall the exact location of their graves. He looked at me and said, “Don’t pass it up. We’ll go in to the office and ask where they are buried, and it will be on me – I won’t charge you anything for the stop. The important thing is that you have the opportunity to say a couple of perakim of Tehillim at your grandparents’ k’voros.” And at his insistence, I found their gravesite and with much emotion said some Tehillim. What a wonderful gift he gave me!

How lucky klal Yisrael is to have cab drivers like this. מי כעמך ישראל!

More on Wonder of Wonders...

As Rabbi Besser mentioned in his post, I did see another perush that says that the transformation of Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt was not a miracle that transcended the laws of nature. (Although according to Ramban, that doesn’t mean that it is any less of a miracle!)

Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor lived in France in the second half of the 12th century. One of his teachers was Rashbam, and his commentary generally follows the peshat tradition. He explains that as Lot and his wife were leaving Sodom she kept looking backwards and lagging behind. As a result, when Hashem destroyed סדום ועמורה she was not quite out of harm’s way from the cloud of destruction, and the sulfur and salt fell on her as well. (Although the pasuk in וירא mentions גפרית ואש, Bekhor Shor says that wherever there is גפרית (sulfur) there is salt as well, and he references the pasuk in דברים כט:כב which mentions גפרית ומלח in connection with the destruction of סדום ועמורה). He mentions further that although the common opinion is that she changed into a pillar of salt, according to the peshat she was just completely covered by salt, and all one saw was a mound of salt there that didn’t especially look like a woman.

More Thanksgiving Torah

Just to quickly add to Mrs. Appel's post, there is also a more general halachik issue about celebrating Thanksgiving (to Whom are we giving thanks). Here is a very good article on the subject by Rabbi Broyde. For those who want the short version, there are different opinions, but both Rav Moshe Feinstein and the Rav agree that it is OK to celebrate, turkey and all.

Happy Thanksgiving & don't forget to infuse your weekend with a little bit of Torah at the 2nd annual Black Friday Shiur - ...אנו משכימים והם משכימים ... אנו רצים, והם רצים.

Thanksgiving Torah

Every year around this time, I am reminded of a centuries-old mahloket surrounding a subject that most of us take for granted: the kashrut status of turkey. Particularly while teaching American colonial history in whose lore this bird features so prominently, I'm tickled by this controversy that is, in some ways, a uniquely "New World" phenomenon. Because turkeys are not indigenous to most places in Europe in which Jews had lived, but on the other hand it is not mentioned specifically parashat Shemini as a bird that is *not* kosher, rabbanim were faced with the North American challenge of establishing the status of this "new" bird. I've encountered two interesting online sources that trace this discussion from Chazal and through Rishonim and Aharonim:
(article) (audio)
Happy reading, Happy Thanksgiving, and have a great Shabbos!
(And don't worry, if your family - like most who keep kosher - eats turkey, you won't have your Thanksgiving world turned upside down!)

Back to the Beginning

Many of you remember, that when this blog began, our first content was a series of suggested reading lists (see bottom half) by many of our faculty members. For the newcomers, or those who could use chazara, I highly advise checking out those earlier posts, there's a lot of great stuff there. I was reminded of them because on my second favorite blog, Rabbi Gil Student (an old shiur-mate of mine) just ran his list of suggested outreach books. While outreach is somewhat different than general religious inspiration, there is plenty of overlap, and many high school students share the same questions that potential baalei teshuva do. And really, all of us can stand to be "reached" every now and then. Some of the books are targeted at an adult audience, and might be difficult, there are some great books here that many of you will enjoy. Please feel free to approach any of your teachers for suggestions. Happy reading.

On Modern Orthodoxy

A student asks:
So, tonight, on my nightly visit to the blog, I was reviewing the articles on tzniut and college and stuff when I came across the term "Modern Orthodoxy." Now I know this term is repeated like a billion times a day but I never actually thought about it and now that I am thinking about it I realize that i have no idea what it means. And I’m trying to figure out which part is "modern" and which part is "Orthodox" and how did they chose what would be modern and what would be Orthodox? and if I’m Modern Orthodox, how do I decide what about me and my Torah observance is modern and what is Orthodox? So as a "Modern Orthodox" Jew, I'm wondering if you could tell me what Modern Orthodox is???

First of all, thank you for sharing this wonderful question. The definition of Modern Orthodoxy is a nuanced issue, and one with which you will engage seriously in different academic contexts over the course of high school. In 10th grade Jewish History and 11th grade Jewish Philosophy, for example, you will approach this question extensively from different angles, exploring sources on the topics as well as hearing from different speakers. I’d like to offer just the beginning of an answer to your question.

Modern Orthodoxy is sometimes stereotyped as simply representing a less rigorous adherence to halakha. Colloquially, people often use the phrase “Modern” to describe someone who is not fully committed to halakha. This is simply a perversion of what truly constitutes Modern Orthodoxy as an ideology. Modern Orthodoxy, in its ideal form, represents a full and passionate dedication to Torah Judaism and halakhic observance, which also incorporates certain specific values.

There are three beliefs that I view as defining Modern Orthodoxy, although others might take different positions on this. The first is a belief in the inherent value of secular knowledge. Modern Orthodoxy values intellectual engagement with general culture, not only for the purpose of earning a livelihood, but also in order to understand the world more fully. We view the study of literature, science, and other bodies of knowledge not simply as a practical necessity or a bedieved, but as an intrinsically worthwhile pursuit that enables us to be more reflective and knowledgeable people.

The second defining feature of Modern Orthodoxy, I believe, is religious Zionism. While all sectors of Orthodoxy believe that Eretz Yisrael has intrinsic kedusha, Modern Orthodox Jews also support the existence of Medinat Yisrael and believe in contributing to the protection and strengthening of the state. For example, Yeshivot Hesder provide a framework for combining yeshiva study with army service.

The third distinguishing value of Modern Orthodoxy is an openness to increased opportunities for women, particularly in the realm of Talmud Torah. For example, all Modern Orthodox schools with which I am familiar provide some opportunity for girls to learn Torah She-be-al Peh, whether as a major or minor component of the curriculum. In addition to increased opportunities for women to learn Torah, Modern Orthodoxy is fully supportive of women’s engagement in academic and professional pursuits.

Thanks for sharing this thoughtful question! I’d be happy to talk about this with you in person if you want to discuss it further.

Yawn

At the beginning of this week's Parsha, we find the famous story about Esav selling the bechora to Yaakov. While we are all familiar with the encounter, what I just noticed is that both when the passuk is describing Esav entering, and when Esav describes himself, the word עיף is used. At the time when he made the fateful decision that by the end of the parsha would have him crying bitterly, Esav was tired. This rings very true to me. Despite all of the things that we are meant to do and accomplish in this world, Hashem created us as beings that need to sleep. When we don't sleep enough, we are compromised in everything we do. I know that personally, when tired, my classes are not as good, I'm not as patient with my children, etc. The irony is that we usually sacrifice on sleep because of all of the important things we need to do, but then end up not doing them as well as we could. Even worse, we then walk around with a built-in excuse as to why we aren't at the top of our game - "it's not my fault, I'm exhausted". Esav had no idea that day that he was going to have such a crucial decision to make, and when it came along, he wasn't equipped to make the best choice he could because he was tired.

Interestingly, while I was in the middle of writing this, a student asked me what to do when you just seem to be in a constant state of fatigue. How can you effectively learn (especially first period Gemara) when it's so hard to focus. I don't have a better answer than "get more sleep," which I realize is a lot easier to say than to do.

An Age-Old Religious Question

Sophie Satloff eloquently asks:
My general question is why G-d does bad things to good people. I know that many people give answers like, "to test you" or "G-d always has His reasons and if you really believe in Hashem then just go with it." It is easy to give those answers but harder to believe them. When I hear about people who went trough the Holocaust and have survived the horrors I can't believe they are still shomrei mitzvot. I understand that the survivors are thankful for having survived, but by being thankful, they are also thanking the person who allowed this to happen.

How are you supposed to convince your friend or family member that even though they are going through an extremely hard and challenging time, that they should continue practicing Judaism? If there really was a G-d why was He doing this to you? You didn't commit murder or do some heinous crime, so why is this happening to you? What should I say to a friend that will actually make sense and that can actually explain why he/she should continue following the laws of Hashem even if it seems He has turned his back?

Mrs. Schapiro writes back:
Your question really has two parts: 1) Why do bad things happen to good people? 2) Why should people practice religion if God allows bad things happen to them? These are huge questions and I can only share with you my tentative thoughts.

1) Your first question is such a good one that the Gemara has a tradition that Moshe Rabbeinu himself was troubled by it. In Berachot 7a, the Gemara describes how when Moshe asked Hashem in Shemot perek 33 "Show me Your glory that I may know You" he was really asking about this issue – why do bad things happen to good people? The Gemara says that Hashem did indeed offer answers, but does not give a definitive one. Religious philosophers, starting with the author of Sefer Iyyov, have struggled with this issue. There is a tradition (Bava Batra 15a) that Moshe Rabbeinu himself wrote Iyyov in an effort to answer this question, and the commentaries on that sefer struggle to define what the answer offered there is. Rav Saadya Gaon (Emunot ve-Deot 5:3), Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (III:17 and further), Rav Soloveitchik (in a book called Out of the Whirlwind) and other Jewish philosophers have written on this as well. There is a book of essays edited by Rabbi Shalom Carmy called Jewish Approaches to the Experience of Suffering that discusses these and other sources in a readable way. Ultimately, the truest answer may be expressed in Hashem's words to Moshe in Shemot 33:16 "You may see My back, but My face cannot be seen": it is beyond human intelligence to understand God's ways completely.

2) I don't think we keep the mitzvot as a quid-pro-quo: only if God satisfies us do we agree to do what He wants. Each mitzvah has its own reason, or maybe even no understandable reason. Ultimately the mitzvot are a gift to us – a privilege and responsibility that we struggle all our lives to uphold. When everything goes well it may be easy (but it also may lead us to forget Hashem) and when times are challenging it may be harder (though we can also be brought closer to Hashem). There will probably be times that we fail. Indeed, a famous and fundamental idea of Rav Soloveitchik ("footnote 4" in Halakhic Man) is that religion is not meant to be soothing, happy and comforting, but an arena for struggle, difficulty and doubt. It's a hard idea to grasp, and certainly hard to live by.

Wonder of Wonders...

To follow up on the miracles discussion, I am really starting to like Jordana's theory. It really explains the pattern of ניסים in the Torah that I had found so puzzling. In ספר בראשית, where Hashem was dealing with a small group of extraordinary tzadikim, miracles were, with very few exceptions, unnecessary. The only one's who needed proof of His presence in the world were the supporting characters (Lot, Paroh, Avimelech etc.). Once you get to ספר שמות, and Hashem is dealing with two audiences who need to "know" him (the Jews and Egyptians), the miracles become more and more apparent, first punitively to Mitzrayim, then mercifully to the Jews in the desert (מן, water from the rock, עמלק etc.). Yasher koach Jordana, (and Ramban).

I had been thinking more simply, that perhaps the transformation of אשת לוט into salt was less miraculous then it seems. At the end of his commentary on the subject, the Ramban quotes an opinion that she turned around and saw Hashem's שכינה (as it were), the natural consequence of which is her physical disintegration. Mrs. Cohen mentioned that there is a ראשון (I think - I don't remember who it was), who said something similar, but different in a significant way. I'll try to find out the details.

More on Slavery

I wanted to expand on the ideas mentioned by Rabbi Besser in his post. Though I also can't claim to know what will happen in Yemot HaMashiach, I would find it very hard to believe that people will have slaves at that point in history. It seems that although the Torah does have laws concerning slavery; these laws are to limit and control slavery, not to advocate it לכתחילה. The Rambam (Hilkhot Avadim 8:9) states that although technically one can work a slave harshly, it is incorrect to do so, and one must treat a slave as a respected employee (one cannot yell at a slave, nor denigrate him, you must feed him before you feed yourself....). The Rambam concludes his comments by saying how as descendants of Avraham, we are commanded to show traits of kindness and רחמים, which do not come hand in hand with owning a slave!

Although laws controlling slavery might have been necessary for the Torah to assign (since it did exist as an institution for thousands of years - and still unfortunately exists in some countries), this doesn't mean that one must put these laws into practice in what will hopefully be an enlightened, modern age of Yemot HaMashiakh. This is similar to the laws of אשת יפת תואר- the institution exists if you need it, but there's no מצוה to initiate the process. Additionally, there seems to be a clear anti-slavery ethic being expressed in the Torah; both with the value of צלם אלוקים, and with the fact that one of the most pivotal events experienced by the Jewish people was that of being freed from the existence of slavery - יציאת מצרים. Especially with the fact that in most "first world" countries, slavery has been abolished, it seems that mankind has progressed to thankfully now view slavery as a terrible injustice.

Finally, I wanted to share an excerpt from a Dvar Torah that the Chief Rabbi of England, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes on this subject (found here), stating that perhaps the Torah's objective was to lead us to choose to abandon slavery of our own accord, due to viewing it as morally wrong, and not abandoning it simply because the Torah forbade it. Interesting stuff.

"...Yet the Torah does not abolish slavery. That is the paradox at the heart of Behar. To be sure it was limited and humanized. Every seventh day, slaves were granted rest and a taste of freedom. In the seventh year Israelite slaves were set free... During their years of service they were to be treated like employees. They were not to be subjected to back-breaking or spirit-crushing labour. Everything dehumanizing about slavery was forbidden. Yet slavery itself was not banned. Why not? If it was wrong, it should have been annulled. Why did the Torah allow a fundamentally flawed institution to continue?....."

"...G-d wanted mankind to abolish slavery but by their own choice, and that takes time. Ancient economies were dependent on slavery... Slavery as such was not abolished in Britain and America until the nineteenth century, and in America not without a civil war. The challenge to which Torah legislation was an answer is: how can one create a social structure in which, of their own accord, people will eventually come to see slavery as wrong and freely choose to abandon it? ....The Torah did not abolish slavery but it set in motion a process that would lead people to come of their own accord to the conclusion that it was wrong. How it did so is one of the wonders of history."

Slavery & Mashiach

Tziporah Leiser asks:

If the torah speaks about laws for freeing slaves, does that mean that when mashiach comes we will have slaves again?

Great question. The short answer is I don't think so, but I can't claim to know for sure. When it comes to the yemot hamashiach, all we really have to work with are the predictions, mostly from the Rishonim. I don't claim to be a Jewish philosophy expert, so perhaps someone else will supplement this post. I would like to start the conversation by referring you to two responses that were posted last year here and here that are relevant to your question.

Response to Miracles in פרשת וירא

An interesting theory from Jordana Wietschner:

Maybe the reason Hashem answered Lot's prayers and not Avraham's was because Hashem was afraid that if He didn't answer Lot, Lot would stop believing in Him. This was certainly not the case with Avraham because Hashem knew Avraham would continue to believe in Him no matter what and would recognize that although Hashem did not comply with this one request, He was still there.

Perhaps Hashem wanted to keep Lot's support

1- so Avraham would have a family and mortal support system, or

2- I would like to think that anyone who believes in Hashem, especially at that time, and was around Avraham, also believes in certain values like chessed.

Even if Lot wasn't a vital player in the continuity of Bnei Yisrael or spreading monotheism, he might still be able to influence those around him with the positive values he picked up from Avraham. He definitely wasn't as good as Avraham at practicing these values, but he was probably better than a lot of the people who lived at this time. Even though Lot couldn't get people to believe in Hashem, he might have somehow impacted the people around him to become better or at least realize there was such a value as chessed, which is also an important role.

I think this logic can be expanded to the second point as well. According to the Ramban, the objective of miracles is to prove to man that Hashem is present in this world. He also believes that everything that happens in this world is a miracle, and it is our job to see that. If this is true, the avot didn't need miracles! They knew Hashem was here and were able to see him in their everyday lives. Lot, on the other hand, was not at the same level as the avot. If Hashem didn't show Lot that He was here and controlling this world, maybe Lot would have stopped believing in Him. Especially at this point in Lot's life, when he might be tempted to stop believing in God, did God have to reveal Himself in a miracle to Lot so he would recognize God and continue believing in His existence. Throughout the rest of Bereshit, Hashem's people were able to recognize His presence in this world without any "miracles". They were able to recognize that everything was a miracle and an act of God. Not until later in Shemot, after Beni Yisrael were in Egypt for a long time, and did not see God as clearly anymore, did He have to reveal Himself to them in a miracle.

More on Tehillim vs. Tefillah

I just wanted to add a quick thought to Mrs. Billet's post. I think that if the "Tehillim model" of focusing on something specific during the recitation of a brief text works for us, maybe that's something we can transplant into other parts of davening as well. For example, what about taking a bracha of birkat hashachar or shmoneh esreh and planning to think of something specific for one of those as well?

Tehillim vs. Tefilla

I often find that in Ma'ayanot davening, students (including myself) will be talking with their neighbors, taking naps, study for tests, etc. During Tehillim at the end of davening, however, all of a sudden everybody gives the utmost respect towards the prayers. Mrs. Billet often even makes a special announcement to remind everyone to have special respect for these Tehillim-type prayers. So, whats the deal with this? Is Tehillim more important than actual tefillah? Why does everyone make the biggest deal out of Tehillim? I don't deny its general importance, but it's not even part of our mandatory prayers. I'm confused.
-Rikki Novetsky

A: In all my encounters with people of all ages who have trouble with focusing on Tefila, I have found that what they do connect to is davening for people. I have found in my own davening that when I focus on specific needs of others, I feel that my prayers are stronger, less given to rote, and more likely to “rise to the kiseh hakavod”, so to speak. I keep lists (hence the imitations of me at Shabbatons carrying a siddur overflowing with papers) of people who need a refuah shelaimah, singles who need to find a marriage partner, couples who need to conceive a child, families who need parnasah, who need help with a wayward child, and more, because I feel having this focus (actually throughout my tefila) gives my tefilot a sense of purpose and direction. I also have observed that when it is pointed out to them, people are more willing and find it easier to focus briefly on these Tehillim and supplications (as opposed to asking them to focus on the whole long shacharit), so at least a few minutes of the time allocated for tefila can be spent meaningfully. In the same vein, I find that when it is pointed out to people that we do so little for chayalei tzahal except pray for them, those people who are being appealed to actually take it to heart, stand for the tefila for chayalei tzahal and for the tefila for shlom hamedinah, and concentrate for the minute or two that it takes. Suggesting to people that they concentrate during the whole amidah, or say the whole kri’at shema carefully and with kavanah the way it is supposed to be said falls on deaf ears because it is too huge a project and too multi-focused for the indifferent davener to feel that this is a goal she can undertake and succeed at.

Although I clearly feel that it is important and it is the halakha to say the whole tefila each day, Rambam and others tell us that the d’oraitah commandment of tefila can be fulfilled simply by saying a few words of praise, thanks and request in our own words. Simply put, if you were to say “G-d you are my best friend, thanks for the gifts you’ve given me and please help me get through this day” you have fulfilled the minimal Torah obligation of Avodah shebalev. When we say Tehillim for a sick person, we are actually saying words of praise in the text of the Tehillim itself (lehallel means praise!), we surely are making a request for a refuah shelaimah for the sick person(s) and inevitably, we are reflective about thanking G-d for our own good health, or that of our family as we contrast our own ability to pray for someone else with the neediness of the person(s) we are praying for. So I emphasize saying the Tehillim at school because in my feelings of “kol Yisrael areivim zeh” I am happy if even for those few short minutes, the whole tzibbur stands together as one voice and appeals to Hashem for the real people in our lives who need His help and who need our compassion, caring and understanding, and who need the tefilot we are prepared to offer on their behalf.

As a strong believer in acharei hape’ulot nimshachim halevavot, that our hearts can be led and transformed by our actions, I truly think that by sharing the religious experience each day of praying for the health of others, we experience a taste of davening that may actually encourage our hearts to feel that tefila is a more compelling experience than we otherwise thought. I know that when I have attended Tehillim “rallies” in my shul when a member of the community is gravely ill, it is an exceptional experience to stand several hundred strong and focused on a refuah shelaima for the person.

So Tehillim is clearly not more important than tefila. Tehillim share characteristics with many parts of tefila, but tefila, particularly the amidah, is also different from Tehillim. Certainly, Tehillim is an important source for so many of the passages that constitute the praise portions are incorporated into tefila. What you have read above is my personal common sense reasoning for emphasizing Tehillim in the hope that a few minutes will be devoted to tefila by all, and in the sincere desire to try to help others through out prayers when this is the only way we have to demonstrate our caring, our solidarity, our love and our compassion for others.