Reb Yoinoson-Some Letters to friends 2000-2003
A Collection of Some Letters Sent By Reb Johnny 2000-2003
I
Tayyerer Khaver (Dear, Precious Friend),
How R U, man? As usual, it’s too hard for me to write at length- so just a couple of points. What’s this business about Nietzsche not really being a Nietzschean? Nietzsche cultivated his solitude; living alone without love and practically without friendship for years on end. All this for the sake of intense spiritual self-cultivation- the contemplation of the abyss- the affirmation of life even in the face of the complete denial of any objective source of meaning -such as God etc,- Truly- in what way is Nietzsche less than utterly Nietzschean?
2) I saw a film called - The Story of the Weeping Camel- It’s about a bunch of Mongolians out in the Gobi Desert who raise sheep and camels. At one point in that film, a Mongolian woman sings a song beginning with Ko-So-So in order to calm an ornery mother camel so that she will consent to nurse her newborn colt. I suspect that this Ko-So-So song or chant is the true source of Shloime’s Kevakoras! (Solomon’s -As the Shepherd Inspects his Flock!-) Perhaps, if you have nothing better to do, you can get a hold of the film and let me know what you think. Of course, I’m sure that you have many better things to do.
How’s the business going? Please let me know. As I’m sure you know, I’d love to hear from you in any way, shape or form.—– BTW- I am indeed most interested to hear your hackeray (thoughts, ruminations) on Shavuos (The Festival of Weeks, Pentecost).———–A sad note– Howard Press died a few weeks ago. It’s really quite terrible; he was a hell of a good guy and really quite young. I think he was in his early 60’s. Indeed, as you know, I sat up many nights with him at the College Inn shmoozing and farbrenging (talking and hanging out). He was quite a learned guy and a wonderful shmoozer (talker). It seems to me that he knew something about hoetzev hayisroeli (the Israelite sadness). Zekhusoy Yogein Oleinu (May His Merit Protect Us). It seems that he liked you so maybe you could sell some corrugated boxes in his honor.
Hoping to hear from you very soon-
KHAVEIRKHO (YOUR FRIEND), J. HAKOYHEN (J. THE PRIEST)
II
Tayyerer Khaver (Dear, Precious Friend),
Please forgive me- it is still much too difficult for me to write at length. With your kind permission, I would like to pose an irrelevant historical question. When and where did people first use canabis in order to intoxicate themselves? They say that Muhammad Ali, the Old Man of the Mountain, used to get his young followers high on hashish in order to motivate them to go out and commit their religiously inspired assassinations. There are those who aver that the word -assassin- derives from the Arabic -hashashin- meaning -hashish guys-. Muhammad Ali lived, I think, around the turn of the 13th Ce. Of course, it’s possible that canabis was used for intoxication even much further back than that. Do you have any info. on that? Yelamdenu Rabbeinu (May Our Master Be Pleased to Instruct Us Concerning This Matter).
“I hate religion. Ikh vill geyn in ah college, ah kollehge!” - Itchy Glikman
(”I hate religion. I want to go to a college, a kollehege!”)- Itchy Glikman
Tayyerer Khaver (Dear Precious Friend)- , is there any chance that we will be seeing
you around these parts any time soon?-
KOL TUV (ALL THE BEST) KHAVEIRKHO, (YOUR FRIEND,) J. HAKOYHEN (J. THE PRIEST)
III
Tayyerer Khaver (Dear, Precious Friend),
M has gone off to New Orleans so the job of taking care of his khayyalekh (little beasties) has fallen to me. I am sitting here alone in his apt. farbrenging (hanging out) with the birds and the rabbits. It is truly lovely here; a veritable peaceable kingdom. I certainly hope that all is well with you but somehow I doubt it. I’m sure you know that you are constantly in my thoughts and prayers. Once again, please forgive me for not responding in any real way to your very serious thoughts and concerns. I’d love to see some of your glorious correspondence with B. He is truly ah greyser!(a great one!) I hope and pray that the two of you are not conspiring against me. Once again, I apologize for the brevity and lack of content of this e-mail. Please drop me a line when you get a chance.
KOL TUV (ALL THE BEST)KHAVEIRKHO, (YOUR FRIEND),J. HAKOYHEN (J. THE PRIEST)
IV
I am safely ensconced at P’s Retreat (the annual Thanksgiving visit) where I am drinking deeply of the healing waters.
Re: Rumi and the Izhbitzer- 2 points, if I may- 1) Of course, any number of Sufis have put forth the idea that God is in everything and everything is in God. Along these lines, there is the well-known utterance of al-Hallaj- “Ana ul-haq”- “I am the truth”- (meaning -”I am God”). Al-Hallaj, as I imagine you know, was beheaded for his ecstatic outbursts. All this Sufi Toyroh (lore,doctrine) is running along similar lines to the kabbalistic and Hasidic- Leys Asar Ponui Miney- (There is no place devoid of him). Many Sufi masters did, in fact, believe that they reached states of ecstasy which constituted total union with God; there was no longer any “self” to them as individuals and all their actions were to be seen as immediate and automatic expressions of the divine will. These are
expressions of the great, big monistic mystical toyreh (doctrine)- everything is God, God is everything, nothing exists other than God. Now, of course, anyone who preaches this doctrine
will, perforce, assert that everything that happens in the world is, an expression of the divine, even more, is no more than God himself,ultimately. However, MMG and Dr. Firestone (author of - All in The Hands Of Heaven) both pointed out to me that the Izhbitzer is not really going so far as that. The Izhbitzer is putting forth a milder, less far reaching idea, that of -divine determinism- a secret divine master plan. That is to say that the Izhbitzer’s scheme works on a lower level, mystically speaking. The Izhbitzer is working on the more “revealed, not so deep” level, (the level of this world) where Man and his actions are realities separate from God. On that level, Man is separate from God and he is in relation to God, required to carry out the divine will as expressed in the commandments etc. The
Izhbitzer is saying that even on that level of man’s separateness, there is still a hidden hand of God at work. This is because, somehow, on a certain level, free will is illusory and even the actions of men are controlled from above in accordance with the master plan of -tikkun olam- (repair of the world.) Now, of course, the Izhbitzer has a Toyroh (doctrine) which is even more radical. I am referring to his doctrine of holy sinning, wherein a tzaddik (righteous man, saint) may consciously choose to violate the Law because he has perceived that, in this instance, such violation is precisely the fulfillment of the Creator’s will. Even here, it does not seem to me that we are really up to -Leys asar ponui miney- (there is no place devoid of Him). The point is, rather, that the tzaddik has received a special, ad hoc revelation for this occasion (teaching), where are we up to? Are we now up to -leys asar ponui miney-(there is no place devoid of him)? Are we to see the tzaddik’s (saint’s, righteous man’s) state of “license” as stemming from the fact that, having
nullified all his own desires, he now lives, breathes, EXISTS on the level of the deeper truth, the deeper reality - that everything, all thoughts and desires included, is God (similar to al-Hallaj’s toyroh (doctrine)? Or- is it, actually, only a matter of the tzaddik (saint, righteous man) having achieved a PERSONAL state of union with God, becoming -merkabah leshekhinah- (a chariot for the
divine presence)? I don’t really know, but I suspect it’s the former.
Once again, thanks a whole lot for your correspondence which is really somewhat exhilarating. Especially, let me thank you for sending me the source on Joseph ibn Tabul. Ihr zayt meyredik tayyer. (You are awesomely dear, precious.)With your kind permission, a few points. The distinction I drew concerning the Izhbitzer’s (the Grand Rabbi of Izbica’s) toyroh (doctrine)- that it is mostly a matter of positing divine determinism, a master plan- rather than the more radical toyroh (doctrine) of -leys asar ponui miney (there is no place devoid of him)—- I think this distinction applies as well to the famous shtikkl
(pericope) in Midrash Tanhuma at the end of parashas Vayeshev (weekly portion- And he dwelled)- Noyro aliloh al bnei odom- (An awesome entrapment for the human race-also– An awesome slander upon the human race) — where, also, I think, the statements of the Midrash are expressing the idea of a master plan and not going to the lengths of out-and-out mystical monism- leys asar ponui miney- (there is no place devoid of him). There is a famous maymer (sermon, essay on Hasidic teaching) of the Mitteler Rebbe (the “Middle Rabbi”- the second leader in the HABAD dynastic line)
dealing with this Midrash and the theme of divine determinism, in general. The maymer (sermon,
essay on Hasidic teaching) is entitled - Noyro Aliloh Al Bnei Odom (An Awesome Entrapment For
the Human race–also–An Awesome Slander Upon The Human Race). I have not seen the maymer
(sermon, essay). However, Eli Mish. told me about it and it seems that the Mitteler Rebbe’s(the “Middle Rabbi”-the second leader in the HABAD dynastic line’s) teachings there are along the lines of the Izhbitzer’s ( the Grand Rabbi of Izbica’s) toyroh (teaching,Some pts.————- I saw in the letters from the Malakh (the Angel)– that his
understanding of the Hasidic position was that everything is determined from on high and yet
there is bekhiroh (free will). I think he says that it is a very deep inyon (matter) and I suppose that it is one of those HABAD paradoxes.The distinction that I drew concerning the Izhbitzer (the Grand Rabbiof Izbica)— I meant for it to apply to Rumi as well. I’m sure that Rumi, along with many other Sufi masters, believed that God is all in all- that God is in everything and everything is in God. However, as far as that particular piece about Moses and Pharaoh is concerned, it also seems to me that it is not operating on that level. Rather, it seems to me that it is operating on the level of divine determinism,
the master plan.
Actually, I would like to point out that in the context of Islam, the idea of divine determinism with its inevitable corollary, the denial of free will, is not all that radical. As a matter of fact, I believe that it’s a legitimate orthodox position and it may even be THE orthodox position!It seems that the idea that God exercises complete control over EVERYTHING is a very big deal in Islamic discourse. The fact is that the question of free will was one of the main issues in the great Mutazilite- Asharite controversy. This controversy, which raged more than a thousand years ago, centered around three issues. The Mutazilites, who were the “moderne” and were influenced by Greek philosophy were more “rationalistic”. They argued that it was axiomatic that God is just.
The concept of God’s justice can only have meaning if “justice” here means what it always means. That is to say, God’s justice must be such as can be understood by human beings as just. Now, the Prophet Muhammad preached and prophesied to the people concerning Heaven,Hell and the Day of Judgment. This scheme of judgment, reward and punishment makes no sense in terms of justice unless there is free will. How can it be just to reward or punish a man for deeds which are not his own? Therefore- there must be free will.
The Asharites, named for their founder al-Ashari, were the traditionalists. They did not really practice philosophy. Rather, they engaged in what is known as -Kalam-. Kalam was, basically, religious apologetics, polemic. It was a matter of using philosophical methods to defend the foregone conclusion that the Islamic tradition is correct in all matters. (By the way, Maimonides refers to both of these groups in his -Guide to the Perplexed— In the standard Hebrew trans. the Asharites are
referred to as Mutakallimun- meaning -masters of Kalam- and the Mutazilites- are referred to, unsurprisingly, as -anshei hamutazila- the men of the mutazila. Maim. usually refers to the Mutakallimun in a somewhat pejorative fashion; he saw that they were not genuinely philosophical. On the other hand, he often refers to the Mutazilites in a positive vein. It seems that Maim. was influenced in his theological thinking by Mutazilite ideas. This is striking, considering the fact that some of Maim.’s ideas have become enshrined as Jewish orthodoxy. (Mutazila means something, I forget what. By the way, one of the three things that Harry Wolfson regretted in the last year of his
life (-he lived into his nineties-) was -that he had devoted too much time to the kalam. The other two things were not having written anything in Hebrew and not getting married.)The Asharite movement with its practice of kalam arose, it seems, as a response to the philosophical threat to orthodoxy embodied in the Mutazilite school. The Asharites appealed to tradition and to certain passages in the Koran in order to make their point that all is determined by God including the matter of who shall be righteous and who shall be wicked. As to the question of justice, they argued that the true definition of justice is- the will of God. Whatever God wills is just and that’s
that! I believe that the Asharites said that if God would choose to throw innocent infants into
eternal hellfire- then that would be just for it is His will. (Much later, Leibnitz weighed in on this question. He argued that it must be the case that God is just in the way that we humans understand justice. If not, what is the point of our praising him for being just? If his will is just , just by virtue of being his will, what grounds are there for praise here?Also, the discussion seems to reflect the concern of Socrates, who asked, in the Euthyphro- concerning action considered good or pious- Is it good because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is good?—– BTW- Maim. discusses this question at one pt. in the Guide and, of course, he sides with the Mutazilites and says that God is just in the way that we understand justice.
Actually, I’ve never heard of any Jew arguing otherwise.—- I would like to clarify something here. This discussion concerning divine justice is not about Job’s question, theodicy. Of course, divine justice is unfathomable. As far as we can see, the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer. The question is rather- how are we to view this matter of the wicked suffering and the righteous prospering. Shall we say- It is a mystery, it is beyond our comprehension. That is to say- there is no apparent justice here. The mystery consists, though, in the fact that we believe that God’s justice is operative everywhere, even when we cannot see it. The Asharite point of view would be that really, there is no mystery here because God wills what he will and what he wills is, by definition, just. Something like - Mi yoymar loy mah taaseh- (who shall tell him what to do?) So
what I am getting at is– the Asharite position
has become accepted over the generations as normative, orthodox. So that the doctrine of
divine determinism and denial of free will is seen in many quarters as being not some mad Sufi innovation but the strictest traditionalist orthodoxy.
1. Re: The doctrine of divine determinism and Islamic orthodoxy.- Of course, the discussion does not
end here. Al-Ashari himself seemed to have been disturbed by the question of the seeming incompatibility of divine justice and lack of free will. In order to solve this problem, he came up with the doctrine of -kasb-. Kasb- as I have seen it explained, is the idea that, although a man’s actions are predetermined by God, the man, by committing those actions, somehow “acquires” them. Somehow, the actions become “his”. Because these actions are “his”, it is just for him to be judged in accordance
V
Likhvoyd Horav Binyomin N”Y,—-
Sholom U’brokho. Who was Joseph ibn Tabul? G.Scholem writes in “On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism” that J. ibn Tabul was the only disciple of Isaac Luria to explain tzimtzum and sheviras hakeilim in terms of divine catharsis.That is, Ibn Tabul interprets the entire drama of creation in terms of an attempt by God to expelthe element of evil, of harsh judgment, from within himself. Although R. Kh. Vital and the other disciples make no mention of this line ofthought, for some reason, Scholem is convinced that Ibn Tabul’s bold explanation was IsaacLuria’s true belief. —- I really like the whole shmooz, but I never heard of Ibn Tabul. Was heone of the khevroh who were ultimately rejected because of the boldness of his doctrines? When people say that you’re only allowed to study the Kabbalah of the ARI as it was passed down by R.Kh. Vital, R. Y. Sarog, the Rama’ MiPano etc.,are they intending to exclude Ibn Tabul?
Yelamdenu Rabbeinu.
Hoping to hear from you ASAP
KOL TUV
KHAVEIRKHO, J. HAKOYHEN
VI
Likhvoyd Horav B. N”Y,
1) Many thanks for your outstanding hospitality bekhag hasukkoys sheovar oleynu letoyveh!
Be’emmes ah bekhineh fun vesomakhto bekhagekho,mamesh Hutnerian! Tosca!
2) Be’emmes ah greyser yasher keyakh for the shtikkl from Katle Kanye—- it’s be’emmes geshmak! The guy has some real talent!
3) I have met a former khavrusoh of yours-–.. I’m sure you must have heard of his doings of recent years—- how he has enlisted in the ranks of nekiyey hadaas shebiyerusholayim ir hakoydesh, mamesh –habirkayyim asher loy koru lebaal vekhu’—— he has the gantze yerusholayyimer geshtell, the curls, the beard, the shtraymel vekhu’, borukh hashem, — he gave me the whole Neturei Karto shpiel against the concept of Daas Toyreh—Of course, I think the NK have an arguable case there—- Anyway, he remembers you fondly and he sends his regards.
Lomir takeh zayn b’kshorim
KOL TUV
Yoynoson
VII
H,
It’s really great to hear from you! You are saying big spiritual toyres (theories, outpourings, meditations) here and it’s too difficult for me to respond right now in an adequate fashion. Ihr zayt ah greyser!
(You are a great one!) Ayyer greyskayt, ver ken es ah mol bagrayfen?! (Your greatness, who could ever imagine it?!)——- I often suffer from shrecklikhe katnus (terrible small-mindedness) these days vekhu’ (etc.)….. Sometimes it seems to me that all I want is to sit around, smoke cigarettes, drink tea, watch tv etc. Khas v’sholom, khas v’sholom, men darf zikh miskhazek zayn, men darf zikh ah heyb tohn. (God forbid, God forbid, we must strengthen ourselves, we must lift ourselves up!) The worst thing is when I find myself feeling that I like the decadence and I just want to relax etc. It’s like what the BESH”T( The Master of The Good Name) is supposed to have said on the posuk scriptural verse) - Ve’ onoykhi hasteyr asteer ponay bayoym hahu -(And indeed, I shall hide my countenance upon that day)—- RE:- The keyfel haloshon - Hasteyr asteer- (RE- the seeming redundancy- Hiding shall I hide) - the BESH”T (The Master of The Good Name) said- the worst hester (hiding,concealment) is when the hester (hiding, countenance) itself becomes mustor (hidden, concealed)- when people start to think that things are all right this way, they lose the sense that this is golus (exile), that this is hester ponim (the hiding of the countenance) -that constitutes the greatest hester (hiding, concealment)— In a similar way, I am saying that the worst thing is when I
find myself feeling that I like the decadence– and sometimes you might say that I positively revel in it—– The fact is that I am 44 yrs. old and I have accomplished nothing, I am a LOSER! Obber
der ikker iz (But the main thing is)- that of course, all this is going to change very soon, really very soon, I mean before you can say Jack Robinson vekhu’ (etc.), men darf zikh miskhazek zayn, men darf zikh ah heyb tohn vekhu’ , men darf zikh araynnemmen in dee hent arayn vekhu’ (we must strengthen ourselves, we must lift ourseves up etc., we must get ahold of ourselves, get “our hands” on the situation etc.) The fact is that my life has been wasted, I am going to be dead soon, I am going to die soon, I will die without issue vekhu’ (etc.) Nu, avadde, der ikker iz ah me darf zikh miskhazzek zayn, un me vett zikh avadde un avadde miskhazzek zayn, me vet zikh takeh ah heyb tohn un me vet mesakken zayn di inyonim, eyn mol far alle mohl, geyt men zikh mesakken zayn! (Nu, of course, the main thing is that we must strengthen ourselves, and we WILL surely and most certainly strengthen ourselves, we will, indeed lift ourseves up and we will repair matters, we will set things in order, once and for all we will set ourseves in order!)—– Yes, it would be good if we could correspond in this hi-tech mode—- I get a chance to use a computer from time to time at MMG’s (where I am now)—- or at the library vekhu’ (etc.)—- So please write, I really appreciate hearing from you——- but please understand that because of my katnus (small-mindedness) I will often not have anything scintillating to say vekhu’ (etc.)——– Herschel, I am truly flattered by your expressions of respect and affection for me—- I mean it really does me good to hear these things—— Personally, I’d love to have you here in NYC, but it doesn’t really make sense for you to come just in order to farbreng (hang out) with me —— because, kenizkor le’eyl (as previously mentioned), I am all tzebrokhen (broken) and tzeschossen (shot up) and not really good for much vekhu’ (etc.)—— And really, as you know, even in my good times, I am very big on maintaining my privacy vekhu’ (etc.), so that I’m never really up to hanging out that much vekhu’ (etc.)- As far as S is concerned, she seems like quite a fine and decent person to me— why not
be kind to her and tell her that she is the most beloved—- you know women really seem to crave, to want and need that sort of thing vekhu’ (etc.)
Thanks a whole lot for writing and please write again soon ASAP
KOL TUV, KHAVEIRKHO, J. HAKOYHEN
VIII
Most Precious Friend - Oyr Shivas Hayomim- (Light of the Seven Days of Creation), 1. I haven’t heard from you in ages. I beseech you not to abandon me in my time of old age and infirmity. I would really love to hear from you; even a few words would be greatly appreciated.2. Some bad news. M. M. had a heart attack. He got out of the hospital after a few days and he has been basically homebound for weeks now. I imagine he would appreciate hearing from you. 3. In general, I’m having a huge great time and a total joyous blast; exploding eternally in all directions at once. 4. THE “F” IS ” KOLLVAYR”! (Culver-)
KOL TUV KHAVEIRKHO, J. HAKOYHEN
IX
When I think about the fact that I do not and will not have children, there is one thing that
bothers me most. That is the fact that I will never have a boy named Todros.
Thank You
KHAVEIRKHO
J.HAKOYHEN
X
Likhvoyd Hai Gavro Rabboh Veyakiro Yedidi Horav BENTZIYON Sheyikhyeh,
Shlomekh yasge adey ad.
So- your name is Bentziyon. And here I was calling you Binyom- in all this time. I hope you are moykhel me vayl ikh hob moyre az ikh hob ongerirt innem inyon khomur fun mekhaneh shem lekhaveiro r”l vekhu’- Beoyfen klolli, find the fact that your name is Ben Tziyon utterly shattering.
Ah groyse yasher koyakh for your enlightening comments on mitzvoh habooh beaveiroh.
BTW- do you happen to know where the name Ben Tziyon comes from? When does it first show up in klal yisroel vekhu’ ?
I came across an interesante shmooz in Daniel Boyarin’s new book- Border Lines- Apparently, Shaul Lieberman had a shmooz to the effect that - you cannot bring forth evidence from any Amoraic description or recounting of the events of a certain time- as to what was actually going on at that time. One can only bring forth evidence from such a description as to what was going on at the time that the description itself was given. One must seek to ascertain when, at what period, a certain description was uttered, or, at least, when it was written down.It seems that, going with this mehalekh, Halivni has put forth the idea that a great deal of the portrayal of the tannaitic and earlier amoraic worlds that is given in the gemoro is, actually, a reflection of conditions that existed at the time of the final redaction. Boyarin goes with Halivni’s mehalekh and he associates himself with a group of scholars who emphasize what they see as the creative role of the redactors, the Stammaim. I don’t know whether the Stammaim are synonymous with those who have traditionally been known as the Rabbonon Savuroi.
Boyarin and these other scholars go so far as to argue that the traditional rabbinic culture characterized by relatively free- wheeling debate and the valuing of debate and inquiry -for their own sake- was actually the creation of these men who were grappling with the problem of what to do with all the conflicting opinions that had been handed down to them. As a matter of fact, Boyarin and these other scholars state that the institution of the yeshivoh is actually a product of this period. All references to yeshivoh-related activities in earlier times represent a reading back of contemporary conditions into the past and/or an attempt to find legitimation in the past for contemporary practices. Boy. goes on to point out that the statement - eilu vo’eilu divrei eloykim khayyim- is a product of this period. Adderabbo, there is the tannaitic maamor about- talmidei beis hillel ubeis shammai sheloy shimshu kol tzorkhon- and because of that naasesoh toyras yisroel kishney toyros. From that maamor it is of course, mashma, that the emergence of makhloykes actually represents a kind of fall from an earlier state of consensual clarity. Boy. sees this Stammaitic development as the culmination of a long process taking place over the course of quite a few generations, going back to tannaitic times. He reads the stories of the kheyrem against R. Eliezer- (Toyroh loy bashomayim hee)- and R. Gamaliel’s redifoh of R. Yehoyshua, the removal of R.G. from the nesius and his subsequent return as a chastened former elitist, in terms of the unfolding of this process, this struggle. Of course, he puts forth the idea that significant details of these stories are Stammaitic “readings in” of contemporary eilu vo’eilu mentality into much earlier times which could offer a legitimating basis for this mentality. —It’s all largely a matter of earlier generations seeking to rely solely on orally transmitted traditions and the charismatic authority of miracle- working holy men and later generations preferring to rely on rational analysis, debate, and dialectic. Boy. makes a big deal out of the fact that according to this scheme, rabbinical orthodoxy is defined in terms of the acceptance of ,at least,a certain pluralism, and those who seek to achieve certainty and closure by means of an appeal to some kind of divine connection - a higher authority- are deemed heretical or something close to that. One of the interesting aspects here is that a split of this kind is evident, at least to some extent, in the makhloykes khassidim umisnagdim. Al derekh zeh, mayn tayyerer khaver Joe Weiss claims that the Jews were the first people to declare that the era of prophetic revelation was at an end. In general, Boy, ved’eemey claim that stomo de’gmoro is overwhemingly, or maybe, even exclusively of very late origin. It is the work of the Stammaim. They see the general tendency of the Bavli to extensive shaklo vetaryo as a product of Stammaitic mentality and claim that earlier generations of Amoraim were not much given to that and were much more focused on simply citing opinions arriving at halakhic decisions. Indeed, it is striking that the Yerushalmi, redacted a good deal earlier, does not display the tendency to extensive shaklo vetaryo and is, seemingly, a good deal more focused on achieving halakhic certainty. Of course, Boy. and the boys are putting forth this thesis somewhat tentatively but they claim that it is possible to date many maamorei khazal based on linguistic research. Anyway, I find the shmooz mekhudoshdik and interesant. Yoyreinu rabbeinu khavoys daatoy bozeh veskhoroy koful min shmayo.
Ah Freilikhn Khanukoh.
KOL TUV
Beyedidus,
Yoynoson
XI
Likhvoyd Hay Gavro Rabbo Veyakiro Yedidi Horav B. Sheyi’,All this time I have been under the impression that your name is Binyomin but recently a yid was meoyrer me that your name is
actually Ben-Tzion. Could you please enlighten me as to the truth of the matter?
I would like to thank you profusely for your outstanding hospitality bezman simkhoseinu khag hasukkos, vegam beshmini khag hoatzeres (regel bifnei atzmoy) sheovru oleinu letoyvoh. It seems to me that we were mekayyem- ein simkhoh elo bebosor and ein simkho elo toyroh in gor ah
sheinem oyfen.Also, I would like to thank you for the info on faith and works. Yeyasher koykhakhem vekheilkhem leoraiso. I am eagerly awaiting the mareh mekoymos— that is, only if and when you have the time and inclination to send them my way.Birshuskhem, i would like to be mamshikh the shmooz benoygea to mitzvoh habooh beaveiroh- I very much appreciated what you said beshem R’
Hirsh Pesakh- that mitzvoh habooh beaveiroh is davko beki hai gavno that it’s beidno- obber hoavreikh hayokor R’ K C hot mir meoyrer geven az s’shteyt az hakoreya (of ah mes) beshabbos yotzo- iz dortn iz ess beidno bepashtuss- so why is it different from shoykhet beshabbos vos dortn shteyt az ein shkhitosoy ksheyroh— iz– ikh veys nisht— obber ikh hob getrakht az —- s’ ken zayn that the inyon of kerioh al hames iz bepashtuss not to make a mayseh kerioh be’etzem- but rather- to do a mayseh which shall bring about the toytzooh that the beged is korua, vayl azoy pravvet men aveilus iz memeilo- efsher a) dortn heyst ess ess nisht mamesh be’idno-
vayl di khillul shabbos tut zikh op in di mayseh kerioh mashe’ein keyn di kiyyum hamitzvoh fun kerioh iz nor ven di mayseh endigt zakh — un bay shekhitoh vett men zoggen az di mitzvoh iz di mayseh shekhitoh vos dos iz mamosh beidno mit di aveiroh fun khillul shabbos —– or efsher b) ken zayn az be’oyfen klolli mitzvoh habooh beaveiroh iz nor ah problem dort vu s’iz farhan a kheftzo shel
mitzvoh- like by matzoh, lulov vesukkoh- efsher it’s a geder that it’s a shtikkl like the inyon of ritzuy which Toysfos dermans- iz veggen dem iz bay keriyoh iz men yoytze beshabbos– s’zet mir oys bepashtuss that it’s not mukhrokh to say that the beged heyst ah kheftzo shel mitzvoh- un lefi zeh-
far voss iz shoykhet beshabbos ein shkhitosoy ksheiroh- iz- ken zayn az der inyon iz that there’s a bazundere inyon of ee ovid loy mehani— dort vu men darf uftohn eppes ah din, azoy vi do vos di kiyyum mitzvas shekhitoh tut uf kashrus in der beheymoh- iz efsher iz do ah bazundere inyon az ah mayseh aveiroh kennit heyssen ah mayseh mitzvoh oyf uftzuton ah din— efsher iz ess ah dimyon bemiktzas tzum inyon fun ein zeh mevoreikh elo menaetz– odder efsher iz ess ah dimyon tzu dem inyon fun ritzuy– al kol ponim —-s’iz ah za inyon al derekh– kudsho berikh hu iz ah baaleboss oyf zayne dinim vekhu’— Khaveireinu R’ Khayyim Chernikov showed me that the Sfas Emmes says a very similar vort about mitzvoh habbooh beaveiroh in a somewhat different context——-Yoreynu Rabbeinu khavoys daatoy bozeh veskhoroy koful min shmayo.
KOL TUV
Beyedidus,
Yoynoson
XII
Tayyerer Khavver (Dear, Precious Friend),
It was great talking with you on the phone earlier today. I hope that we shall talk again sometime soon. In any case, let me continue our conversation here on the ‘net. (I don’t know whether you have good ‘net access these days. I do because heiliger (holy) Bob Eisenberg bought me a computer so I can do some farsholtene (accursed) research for him. So- I am highly reachable by internet these days and maybe we can get into some korrespondentz (correspondence.)
1. I think I’ve read about Rav Yehudoi Gooyn (R. Yehudai Gaon- early medieval Talmudic authority in Iraq, dean of a yeshiva) He was a rather important figure in Jewish history. I think he was quite involved in propagandizing for Talmud Bavli (the Babylonian Talmud), sending around letters trying to convince people in all sorts of locations to accept the Bavli (Babylonian) as authoritative. I seem to remember specifically that he was involved in controversy with bnei Eretz Yisroel (inhabitants of the Holy Land); attempting to convince them that they could not have an eigene kheshbon(own reckoning0 of khodoshim ( months,dates), but rather that they had to accept the luakh (calendar) of khakhmei Bovel (the Babylonian Sages). Of course, in the end, Rav Yehudoi (see above) and his cohorts won out and Talmud Bavli (the Babylonian Talmud) became accepted as normative bekhol tefutzos hagoyloh (throughout the diaspora). The mesoyroh (tradition) of Talmud Yerushalmi (the Palestinian Talmud) got totally swamped out. So- you might say it’s one of those things like- Der Baal Shem Tov hot nisht gemakht khassidus groys- der Mezritcher Maggid hot gemakht khassidus groys (R. Israel - Master of the Good Name (18th Ce. Eastern European Jewish pietist and mystic) did not make Hasidism big (popular, successful), the Maggid (preacher) of Mezritch (18th Ce. Eastern European Jewish pietist and mystic, foremost disciple of R. Israel-) (clearly true)- with his dynamic propagandizing leadership. Similarly, it was the propagandizing activity of the geonim (heads of the Babylonian academies) that brought about the universal acceptance of Talmud Bavli (The Babylonian Talmud). I don’t think that R. Yehudoi Gooyn (see above)was one of the rabbonon savuroi (Talmudic redactors); I think he lived quite a bit later. I am, of course, mekabbel (I do, of course, accept) that the Ritvo (Yom Tov Ibn Ashvili, 14th Ce. Spanish Rabbi, Talmudic Commentator) says that he put some shtikklekh (passages) into the gemoro (Talmud); I think I’ve heard such things before. Unfortunately, I can’t remember R. Yehudoi’s ( see above) exact dates right now.
2. RE: HaLivni and the first two generations of the rabbonon savuroi-(Talmudic redactors) known to HaLivni and his cohorts as the Stammaim (plain, anonymous texters)- Yes, Halivni really goes to town on it- as far as I can remember, he pushes the idea that ALL shaklo vetaryo (dialectic) in Shas (the Talmud), all stomo degemoro(plain text, unattributed, of the Talmud) is not, in fact, of amoraic (Talmudic rabbis) provenance, but it is rather, the work of the stammaim (plain, anonymous texters). Basically, the shtikkl Toyroh (hypothesis) is that what these redactors of the Talmud had in front of them was large amounts of text or texts containing many divergent halakhic (pertaining to rabbinic law) opinions and statements of amoraim (Talmudic rabbis). Among the problems they faced were
a)what to do about halakhic(pertaining to rabbinc law) disputes among the venerated amoraic (of the Talmudic rabbis) authorities and
b) many of the textual passages they had before them were incomplete or corrupted which, according to the HaLivni Toyroh (hypothesis), they were unaware of or refused to accept.
They were committed to the idea that all the texts they had before them represented the authentic halakhic mesoyroh( rabbinic law tradition) of the amoraim(Talmudic rabbis, in its entirety. Their attitude left them in a quandary because the incompleteness of the texts they were dealing with led to many contradictions and inconsistencies between various textual fragments.
The stammaitic (plain, anonymous texter) redactors solved the first problem by taking the approach that, practically speaking, halakhic (pertaining to rabbinic law) decisions would have to be rendered but all amoraic (rabbinc- Talmudic) opinions would be regarded as equally legitimate expressions of the divine will; eilu voeilu divrei eloykim khayyim vehalokho kedivrei (These and those are the words of the living God; the practical legal decision is in accordance with the opinion of) ….
Their approach to the second problem was to do shaklo vetaryo (dialectic), interpretative work, in order to render all received texts consistent with each other.
It is true that HaLivni (along the lines of Schnitzler, 2005) decries the attitude of the stammaim (anonymous, plain texters) and blames them for bringing into being the traditional rigid Haredi (ultra- Orthodox) attitude towards halakhic (rabbinic law tradition. The great stammaitic (plain, anonymous texter) mistake, according to HaLivni, was claiming divine authority for their own interpretations when, in fact, their interpretations were very much their own. This is in keeping with the idea we discussed on the telephone (Schnitzler, 2005) that Torah (the Law) ought not to be viewed as simply being a straightforward presentation of the divine will in its entirety, but rather, the divine will refracted through human consciousness and therefore subject to revision or reinterpretation by later generations whose consciousness is different or, perhaps even, more advanced.
However, I am not, khas vesholom (God forbid), going to endorse HaLivni’s blasphemous hypothesis. In general, I’m sure you understand that it makes very little difference to a traditional Haredi (ultra Orthodox) Jew whether Talmudic texts are really amoraic (Talmudic- rabbinic) or, in fact, stammaitic (plain, anonymous texter). For a traditional Haredi (ultra- Orthodox Jew), the decisions of the Rishonim (medieval authorities) and even the early Akharonim (later authorities) are normative, so obviously, in accordance with the yeridas hadoyros (decline of the generations) doctrine, kal vakhoymer (a fortiori) the teachings of the rabbonon savuroi (plain, anonymous texters) (. I understand that this is not the end of the discussion because the idea that very substantial parts of the gemoro (the Talmud) are not actually the work of khazal (Our Sages of Blessed Memory) would probably be shattering to most Hareidim (ultra Orthodox Jews).
In addition, it seems fair to point out that there is also the first point. Insofar as they are responsible for inculcating the eilu voeilu (these and those) attitude, the stammaim (plain, anonymous texters) made a great contribution toward bringing about the traditional theoretical liberalism in Talmudic discussion.
NOTE: I read a discussion of this stammaim (plain, anonymous texters) hypothesis in a book by the Judeo scholar out of Berkely, Daniel Boyarin. It’s a long discussion- but I would just like to make a couple of points. One- The way Boyarin presents it- this liberal stammaitic (anonymous, plain texter) attitude, eilu voeilu (these and those), is really the culmination of a struggle over generations between a more traditional mystical ruakh hakoydesh (holy spirit) just- say- over- from- your- rebbe (rabbi, teacher)- absolute truth school represented by the likes of R. Eliezer ben Horkanos (R. Eliezer son of Hyrcanus, Palestinian rabbi,1st- 2nd Ce. C.E.) and the latter-day more democratic, tolerant and discussion- oriented school represented by the likes of R. Yehoshua (R. Joshua, Palestinian rabbi, 1st - 2nd Ce. C.E.) and R. Akiva (R. Akiba, Palestinian rabbi, 1st- 2nd Ce. C.E., martyred by Romans) among others. Two- I would like to reiterate -some versions of the stammaim (plain, anonymous texters) hypothesis are quite radical- they posit that the institution of the yeshiva (rabbinical academy)as we have known it for lo these many generations is a product of the world of the stammaim (plain anonymous texters). The proponents of this view say that before the time of the stammaim (plain, anonymous texters), limud haToyroh (the study of the Law) was a matter of receiving halokhos psukos (legal decisions) from one’s rebbe (rabbi, teacher)and khazzering (reviewing) them over. It was the stammaitic (plain, anonymous texter) generation that gave birth to the study partner or group study kashe- terutz mefalpel zayn (question- answer, doing dialectic) discussion mode. All stories about yeshiva (rabbinic academy) type life and learning referring to earlier generations are actually stammaitic (plain, anonymous texter) readings back into earlier generations providing legitimation for stammaitic (plain, anonymous texter) attitudes and activities. This method of interpreting Talmudic texts is based on a statement by Shaul Lieberman to the effect that one can’t really tell anything about the time under discussion by citing a Talmudic text. Rather, one can only tell something about the time in which the memre (rabbinic utterance, recorded in Talmud) was actually said.
I once sent B. Sommerfeld a letter about this shmooz (discussion)- if I can dig it up, I will send it to you.
Once again, it was great talking to you on the phone and — please, please let’s be in touch.
KOL TUV (ALL THE BEST)
KHAVEIRKHO (YOUR FRIEND),
J. HAKOYHEN ( J. THE PRIEST)
XIII
Tayyerer Khaver (Dear, Precious Friend),
I am, once again, unfortunately unable to write at length. However, I was, of course, quite happy to hear from you.
RE: The short story thing- I think that maybe you could do it like this- Try to imagine that you have the whole story of the person’s life or the whole picture of the person written out in your head. Then betake yourself to putting down a small, specific part of it on paper. Try to bear in mind that this small specific part is not the whole, but rather, only, in fact, a small part of the whole. Of course, in writing a short story, you will need to put in at least a few sentences at the beginning to acquaint your readers with the general world of your characters. However, it might perhaps be possible even to think of those introductory sentences as a connection to the WHOLE story rather than as the creation of a separate entity. I hope that my advice proves somewhat valuable to you and I hope the short story thing works out so you can make mucho dinero.
One more thing- I met Yossel Rabinovitch (Joseph Rabinowitz) at MMG’s recent Bar-Mitzvoh.I don’t know if you know Yossel (Joseph)- He’s Efrayim Nussbaum’s brother- in law. He is an einikl descendant) of Minkatcher Ruv (The Rabbi of Munkacs)- you know- he’s Rabinovitch (Rabinowitz), a grandson of Burekh’l (Benedictinus)- So- We fell to talking about the well-known yedidus (friendship) between Minkatcher Ruv (the Rabbi of Munkacs) and the Sridei Eish (Remnants Salvaged From the Fire)- Yossel (Joseph) told me that once the Minkatcher Ruv (the Rabbi of Munkacs) and the Sridei Eish (Remnants Salvaged From the Fire) were together at a resort town, maybe Marienbad- Anyway, the Minkatcher (Rabbi of Munkacs) hot far’n Sridei Eish nukhgetrugen der hantekh (walked behind the Remnants SFF carrying his towel). The khassidim (followers) were stunned by this and they challenged the Minkatcher (the Rabbi of Munkacs)-What’s going on? this man is a yekke, a litvak, a bukher, a mizrukhnik! (a German, a Lithuanian, a bachelor, a Mizrahi,religious Zionist)! So the Minkatcher (the Rabbi of Munkacs) answered- Vuss konn ikh teen, er iz ah talmid khukhem, ikh hob em leeb! - (What shall I do, He is a Talmudic scholar- so I love him).——— Please tell this story to all your Buddhist friends!
KOL TUV
KHAVEIRKHO,
J.HAKOYHEN
XIV
Tayyerer Khavver (Dear, Precious Friend),
How the hell are you? Missed you at the PURIM party. It was great; it seems like everyone had a great time! Even B S showed up around 4AM. Also, a bunch of Satmar bukherim (young men) from Monroe showed up, maybe 20, 30 of them & they were boogieing and hip-hopping vekhu’ (etc.) Unforunately, I don’t have anything great to say at the moment;I’ve been thinking about this business of your>becoming a great writer. I imagine that you probably can manage that. If you become a great writer, I’ll probably need to hate you but I’ll try to love you anyway. BTW, what is “lehaskilkho binoh” (”to enlighten you with understanding”)?
Hoping to hear from you soon————–
KOL TUV (ALL THE BEST)
KHAVEIRKHO (YOUR FRIEND),
J. HAKOYHEN (J. THE PRIEST)
XV
Tayyerer Khaver (Dear, Precious Friend),
Thank you for your very kind words about my writing. I appreciate it; it’s all bull, though. You are the one who has some real writing talent. Your writing is so lively and exuberant; it’s really something special. I can’t go on and on about this; it’s just too painful for me. Anyway, it’s great to hear from you so thanks a lot for writing. As usual, it’s too difficult for me to write at length now, so please forgive me. All I can say right now is:You better somehow conspire to come to our PURIM (The Festival of Lots) PARTY! It isn’t going to be at the old Corp. Raider building, also known as Bais Tzipporah (The House Of Zipporah)because someone ratted us out to the Skverer Dayyan (Judge of Skvira). As of now, it seems like we’ll be having it in a building on Church Ave. Hope to see you there Sunday night! ——– AH GUTTEN POYRIM! L’KHAYYIM YOYNOSON! TOSCA! ( GOOD FESTIVAL OF LOTS! TO LIFE, JONATHAN! TOSCA!)
KOL TUV (ALL THE BEST)KHAVEIRKHO (YOUR FRIEND),
J.HAKOYHEN (J. THE PRIEST)
Leave a Reply