Month: February 2010

  • Jesus the Pharisee:Trial of Jesus and the View of Early Christianity

     It is difficult to write about the crucifixion of Jesus.  Rivers of Jewish blood have been shed because of it, despite the fact that it was Romans, and not Jews, who performed the execution.  But the Gospels insist that a Jewish Sanhedrin delivered him up to the Romans, after adjudging him guilty.  The most enigmatic aspect of all this is that scholars have been unable to ascertain with any degree of precision the cause of the guilt.  Some have suggested blasphemy, others that he claimed to be the Messiah, but all such theories lack substance when scrutinized in the light of Jewish law .

    I should like to suggest a different approach based on R. Jacob Emden's thesis that Jesus of Nazareth had sought to establish a religion for the Gentiles based upon the Noahide Commandments.  The Christian Bible tells us John 11:49-51; 18:14) that the High Priest Caiaphas, who had convened the Sanhedrin to try Jesus, said to them, "It is better for one man to die for the people, than for the whole nation to be destroyed." This phrase is found virtually verbatim in one rabbinic source (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 94:9) in conjunction with a Halakhic ruling which was discussed some two hundred years after Jesus' crucifixion.  We shall seek to demonstrate that this later case bears a direct relationship to Caiaphas' remark and the resultant crucifixion.

    The Halakha under discussion there states (Tosefta, Terumot 7:23) that if a group of traveling Jews are suddenly confronted by Gentiles who demand that they hand over a Jew to them to be killed, or else they will all be murdered, they must all agree to die and not hand over one of their number.  However, if the Gentiles identify a specific Jew to be handed over, he should be given to them. 

     
     It is then related (Jerusalem Talmud, Terumot, end ch. 8, and Midrash Genesis Rabbah 94:9) that a certain Ulla bar Koshev-apparently a member of the rabbinic community-was once sentenced to death by the Romans, and he sought protection at the home of the third century C.E. Sage R. Joshua ben Levi.  Representatives of the Romans soon appeared in the town, and threatened to kill a large number of Jews if Ulla was not turned over to them.  The Jerusalem Talmud records that the Sage then spoke to Ulla, convinced him to surrender, and handed him over to the Romans.  But the Midrash is more explicit, and quotes R. Joshua as uttering basically the same words spoken two hundred years earlier by Caiaphas, "It is better that you should die than that the community  should be punished because of you," and R. Joshua then handed him over to the Romans.

          The Jerusalem Talmud and the Midrash then tell us that R. Joshua ben Levi had previously been frequently visited by the prophet Elijah (according to the Taimuds, exemplary pious sages were accorded this honor), but the Prophet ceased visiting him following this incident.  R. Joshua fasted for a long time, until Elijah finally appeared to him.  Angrily, Elijah rebuked the Sage, "I do not visit those who hand over a Jew.  " R. Joshua replied in self-defense, "Did I not act in accordance with the Mishnah (teaching or law)?" Ulla had of course been identified by the Gentiles as the one causing the danger, and it was therefore permitted to surrender him in order to save the other lives.  The Prophet again reprimanded him, "Is this the Mishnah of the Hasidim (pious ones)?" The usual interpretation here is that although R. Joshua had acted in accordance with the law, the Hasidim (truly pious) were expected to act beyond the letter of the law, and someone other than the sage should have handed Ulla over to the Romans .
     
    However, this is difficult, especially as we do not find any precedent in Jewish law to differentiate between Hasidim and others where danger to life is involved . (The Halakhic principle involved here is that of the "rodef" [pursuer], i.e., one who pursues an innocent person with the intent of killing him,any individual having the right and obligation to save the pursued innocent,even if it necessitates slaying the pursuer [see Sanhedrin 72B-74A]  .)33

    Since we have established that the formula spoken by Caiaphas and R. Joshua ben Levi pertained to the same Halakha, there is a more profound analogy here.  In previous posts the opinion is shown many times  that Christianity as a religion for the Gentiles was founded by the Hasidim-the Essenes and disciples of Hillel from whose midst Jesus of Nazareth emerged.  I have also demonstrated that the Pharisees criticized by Jesus were the School of Shammal, who dominated Jewish life and thought in Jesus' time, and therefore were the Pharisees in control of Caiaphas' Sanhedrin as well.  Bet Shammai would have been opposed to Christianity on two grounds.

            First, they held salvation of the Gentiles to be impossible, for, according to them, even those Gentiles who observed the Noahide Commandments did not merit a share in the World to Come, as per R. Eliezer (Sanhedrin 105A).  The only mitigating factor would have been that such a Gentile religion might have helped the Jews especially in the long exile foretold by the prophets, which was soon to begin.  Perhaps Rome's conversion to Christianity might even have saved the Jerusalem Temple, as the Romans would have been brought closer to the Torah of Moses.  But Bet Shammai's negative attitude toward the Gentiles would have dismissed such a stance.  They would have argued that if the pagans received a new religion based on the Torah of Moses, it would only be a matter of time before they would insist that theirs was the only true religion, thatJews be missionized, and even persecuted and forced to embrace their new faith.  A "new covenant" to the Gentiles would come to mean a breaking with the old, rather than a strengthening and reaffirmation . According to Bet Shammai, such a new religion would not lead to brotherhood under God, but to the murder and persecution of Jews .

         We may now attempt to comprehend the session of the Sanhedrin as recorded in John (I 1:47).  The priests and Pharisees said, "If we let him go on like this, the whole world will believe in him.  Then the Romans will come in and sweep away our Sanctuary and our nation." In other words, they feared that if the Roman rulers should embrace Christianity, they would destroy the Temple and Jewish government.  Caiaphas then pointed out to them that the main issue was not the Temple or government, but Jewish lives!  Christians would murder Jews!  Jesus would have then been accounted as a "pursuer" (rodef) of the innocent under Jewish law, and it was for this reason that he was sentenced to death.

          Needless to say, the Hasidim-Bet Hillel and the Essenes-held a different view of the Gentile world.  Hillel had taught "Love mankind and bring them nigh to the Torah," and the Essenes had given as their goal "to love all the sons of light.  R. Joshua ben Hananiah of Bet Hillel gave their tradition (Sanhedrin 105A)-which is accepted by all Jewry since the Heavenly Voice's intervention in favor of Bet Hillel-that those Gentiles who observe the Noahide Commandments merit a share in the World to Come.  To them the Gentiles were not a threat, and certainly not murderers.  To the Hasidim, the Gentiles would become brothers in God's Kingdom.  I would venture to say therefore that Jesus of Nazareth was mainly motivated by just such a hope: that the conversion of Rome to Christianity-according to the Noahide Commandments of the Torah of Moses-would save the Temple.

         Unfortunately,the beliefs of Bet Shammai and the Saducee Zealot priests were the ones that came true.The lack of understanding of the Judaic concepts that spawned the Christian movement and what the real meaning of what was said in their texts,led to its break away from brotherghood with Judaism and a millinium and a half of murder,torture and forced conversion.

          It is only today that Christianity seeks its roots with a desire to understand the cultural and historical aspects of the first century.

    Through earlier posts,I have shown by examination of what the two schools taught,that it was the one's that applied the concepts of Bet Shammai to thier beliefs that opposed the early Christians.The Saducee,who had ties to Rome,the Zealots that were violently anti-gentile,and the sect of Pharasee that believed no Gentile could merit the World to Come.

       With regard to Bet Hillel's relationship with early Christianity, attention should here be drawn to R. Gamaliel the Elder's intervention in order to save the lives of the Apostles, after they had been sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:34).  In his statement to the latter body-which is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (5:39)-this grandson of Hiliel states, "If it (Christianity) does in fact come from God you will not only be unable to destroy them, but you might find yourselves fighting against God." (See R. Jacob Emden's comment in Lechem Shamayzm to Avot 4: 1 1, where he refers to Christianity and Islam as an "assembly for the sake of Heaven" which will in the end be established.) R. Gamaliel thereby offers a strong indication that he knew what the ultimate purpose of its founder was-namely, as a religion for the Gentiles according to the Halakha.

           I have also previously pointed out  that the Jewish-Christians who initially opposed Paul and refused to admit uncircumcised Gentiles into the Christian Church were influenced by the teachings of certain Pharisees who had joined them (Acts 15:5); we now understand that those Pharisees were Shammaites who would have given their School's position that even those Gentiles who observe the Noahide Commandments do not merit a share in the World to Come, and this position caused the error of the Apostles.  Paul, like Jesus before him, had ties to Bet Hillel, and knew the Hillelite view that righteous Gentiles merit salvation.  Accordingly, Paul's statements concerning Jews must also be viewed within the same context of protest against Bet Shammai's influence in his time.

              Jewish scholars have long been mystified as to why Simeon son of Hillel and father of R. Gamaliel the Elder-who served as Nasi(leader of the Sanheddrin) following Hillel's death, is not quoted or discussed even once in the entire Talmudic literature (except for the brief statement that he succeeded Hillel [Shabbat 15A]).  I believe that the Talmud is thereby telling us that the School of Hillel reached its nadir in his time, and that he had no say at all in the affairs of the community.

            Returning now to the Jerusalem Talmud and Midrash, we realize that R. Joshua ben Levi is not recorded as having approached the Romans in an attempt to save Ulla's life.  If he would have spoken to them as a rabbi of God's love for humanity, of man being created in the image of God, or similar teachings, perhaps they would have relented and spared Ulla.  He made no attempt however to plead with the Romans.  The Prophet Elijah thus rebuked R. Joshua ben Levi for uttering Caiaphas'words and handing over a Jew.  When R. Joshua replied that he had acted within the law, the Prophet reminded him that this was not "Mishnat Ha-Hasidim, that a true Hasid would have first endeavored to speak to the Gentiles, to intervene and attempt to teach and inspire them.  A Hasid had to see the best in humanity.  Since R. Joshua had not acted in such a manner, he was not worthy of the Prophet's visitation.  Thus, Elijah's condemnation was in reality directed simultaneously toward Caiaphas and his Sanhedrin as well, for they too had handed over a Jew, and not judged the Gentiles as the Hasidim had.

    The Jerusalem Talmud in fact gives the Prophet's rebuke as "Is this the Mishnah of the Hasidim?" to which the Midrash adds, "Such an act should have been carried out by others, and not by you." But here again the Midrash does not mean to imply that R. Joshua should have bowed out of the picture, while someone else surrendered Ulla.  The Prophet is rather saying that some other person should have remained with Ulla, ready to hand him over at a later time should the Sage's mission to the Gentiles prove fruitless.

        We should also note that after giving the Tosefta's ruling that the Jew identified by the Gentiles may be handed over and immediately prior to the incident involving the Prophet Elijah-the Jerusalem Talmud records a dispute between the two third century C.E. Amoraim, R. Johanan and Resh Lakish.  According to the latter, he may be handed over only if he is guilty of a capital offense according to the Torah, whereas

    R.    Johanan rules that even a completely innocent person may be surrendered to the Gentiles.  It is entirely possible then that Ulla bar Koshev was really an innocent man despite an unjust Roman conviction, and this led to the Prophet's condemnation (Turei Zahav  initially offers this interpretation, but abandons it because he believes Maimonides to have assumed that Ulla was guilty of a crime).  If this were so, two important questions before the Sanhedrin at Jesus' trial would have been, first, whether an innocent man may be handed over, and second, whether a mission to the Gentiles takes precedence.The term "Mishnah of the Hasidim" would then apply both to Resh Lakish's opinion (which would explain why Maimonides adopted his view, even though R. Johanan's opinion is always accepted) and to the mission.

         Our previous identification and analysis of the mission of the Hasidim to the Gentiles two centuries earlier has thus enabled us to offer this new understanding of the Prophet's reference to "Mishnah of the Hasidim."

       It would seem that R. Judah Ha-Nasi-a descendant of Hillel in the second century C.E. who compiled the most important work of Jewish law, the Mishnah-left Bet Hillel's view of Caiaphas for posterity by referring to him (Parah 3:5) as Ha-Kof (the monkey), a play on his name  which would be related to his remark before the Sanhedrin.

  • Jesus the Pharisee: Who killed the Prophets?

    Jesus of Nazareth then introduces a most serious charge against these Pharisees.  He quotes them as saying, "We would never have joined in shedding the blood of the prophets, had we lived in our fathers' day." The debate over the "eighteen measures," at which time a number of Hillel's disciples, identified in the Talmud as "prophets," were killed, would have taken place about 20 to 10 B.C.E., or a half century before 30 C.E., when Jesus spoke these words.  The members of Bet Shammai present at the debate would have been the fathers of the Pharisees he was now attacking.  These Pharisees claimed they would not have done as their fathers (whether it was Bet Shammai themselves, or their allies, the Zealots, who did the actual killing).  But, he continues, "Your own evidence tells against you!  You are the sons of those who murdered the prophets!" He is referring here to the fact that R. Zadok-a leader of Bet Shammai-joined forces with the Zealot chief Judah the Galilean in 6 C.E., thus proving , that they followed in their fathers' footsteps by aligning themselves with these murderers and assassins 
          
          Jesus then accuses these Pharisees of murdering Zechariah ben Berechia ("whom you murdered...") in the Temple.  Julius Wellhausen and other scholars have connected this accusation with Josephus' account of the murder of a righteous man named Zechariah ben Berechia on the Temple grounds by the Zealots (Wars 4:335).  A major objection to Wellhausen's interpretation has been that Jesus is speaking here to the Pharisees, and not to Zealots.  However, since we have established a direct link between Bet Shammai and the Zealots, Wellhausen may be vindicated .

        The most impressive proof for my interpretation is the similarity between Jesus' criticism and the Talmudic Sages' statements concerning Bet Shammai (toward the close of the first century C.E., after the Heavenly Voice's intervention against them).  Jesus says, "You will draw down on yourselves the blood of every holy man that has been shed on earth." The Talmudic Sages said (Berakhot I IA and Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot 1:4): "He who observes the teachings of Bet Shammai deserves death." And when the Sage R. Tarfon acted according to Bet Shammai in one instance, the Sages told him (Mishnah, Berakhot IOB) that he deserved to be killed.

    More than likely Beit Shammai themselves were not involved in the murders of the members of Bet Hillel, but were criticized for having aligned themselves as the intellectual sponsors of the Zealot terrorists.  What had united them, of course, was their common hatred of the Gentile world, personified by their Roman oppressors.

    As additional support for my contention that Jesus was attacking Bet Shammai only, and not Bet Hillel.

          He begins by exhorting his listeners to do all the Pharisees command them, since "they occupy the chair of Moses." Bet Hillel accepted the rulings of Bet Shammai when the latter constituted a majority.  However, Bet Shammai did not view Bet Hillel's decisions as binding even when the latter constituted a majority, as they considered themselves intellectually superior (Yevamot 14A).  He thus identifies himself as a follower of Bet Hillel.

           Jesus also describes these Pharisees as "straining out gnats, and swallowing camels," a clear reference to Bet Shammai, who were "sharper" (ibid.). (Anti-semites often speak of Jews as being shrewd and practicing casuistry. is this their source?)

    Jesus further states concerning these Pharisees that "they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders," again a clear reference to Bet Shammai, who almost always adopted a more stringent opinion than Bet Hillel.

    He also declares that these Pharisees liked to be called Rabbi  and reminds his listeners that he who humbles himself shall be exalted.  This appears to be a direct reference to a Talmudic passage (Eruvin 13B) which describes the humble members of Bet Hillel as always reciting the opinion of Bet Shammai before their own in the House of Study.  The Talmud (ibid.) gives Bet Hillet's humility as the reason the Halakha was eventually accepted in their favor.  In this well known statement, Jesus is actually expressing his hope for the return of Bet Hillel to power.

         Shortly prior to the attack on the Pharisees, we read in the Christian Bible how some Pharisees got together to disconcert Jesus (Matthew 22).  We seem to recognize them as the same disciples of Bet Shammai who grouped together against Hillel at the Temple (Betsah 20A), as well as against one of his disciples (ibid., 20B).  There is no record anywhere of a member of Bet Hillel acting in such fashion

  • More on Jesus the Pharisee

    Washing hands: clean and unclean:
     
    Did Jesus break Torah law concerning the washing of hands?Not if he was consistent in the concepts of Bet Hillel that he apparently taught to people. Here is more proof that Jesus was a student of Bet Hillel as opposed to Bet Shammai.

         The Gospel according to Matthew (ch. 15) has the Pharisees complaining to Jesus that his disciples do not wash their hands before eating.  Luke (I 1:37) relates that a Pharisee invited Jesus for a meal, and was surprised that Jesus didn't wash his hands first.  Jesus replied, "Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup...."   and this leads into an attack on the Pharisees similar to Matthew 23.  Washing hands before meals has its source in the eighteen measures (Shabbat 13B-15A), and would have no relationship to Jesus' remark concerning the "outside of the cup."

         Jesus is clearly referring here to the dispute between the two Schools over when the washing should take place (Mishnah, Berakhot 5 1 B).  According to the Talmud (ibid. 43A), meals of the Pharisees would begin with the drinking of a cup of wine, after which they would break bread together.  Bet Shammai held that the hands must be washed before filling the cup of wine, whereas Bet Hillel ruled that the washing should take place later, before partaking of the bread.  The Talmud (ibid., 52A-B) explains that Bet Shammai were concerned that the cup of wine might become ritually unclean from the hands, whereas Bet Hillel held that it is permitted to use a cup which had become unclean from the outside.  The passage in Luke is therefore telling us that Jesus upheld Bet Hillel's ruling concerning the outside of the cup, and wished to wash later, before the bread.  The Talmud further makes clear that Bet Shammai considered those following Bet Hillel's ruling as eating with unclean hands (as the unclean cup could defile the hands), and this explains the accusation against the disciples. 
     
    Did Jesus break the Sabbath laws?
     
    Theologians  have generally assumed, primarily on the basis of specific references by Jesus to Jewish law contained in the Gospels, that the founder of Christianity was anti traditionalist.

    It may be noted that when the Pharisees complained to Jesus about his disciples' desecration of the Sabbath, he first quoted from Hosea (6:6), where the Prophet represents God as desiring mercy (hesed), then refers to his disciples as "innocent," and then concludes: "The son of man is master of the Sabbath." I would suggest that since the alleged work was not intended for its usual purpose, but rather for an ulterior result, it would be classified as "a labor not required on its own account" (see Shabbat 73B et al.), for which there is no liability. A similar thesis is advanced by the sixteenth century Talmudist R. Samuel Edels in a parallel case involving a biblical personality (Maharsha, Bava Batra 119A, Aggadot). The Tosafists (Betsah 8A, second paragraph) have pointed out that such labor would be completely permissible if necessary for a constructive religious purpose, even according to Bet Shammai (see Maharsha ad loc.).
    The Gospel (Matthew 12:9-14) then relates that Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, and was criticized by the Pharisees for doing so. Since Jesus evidently healed through prayer, this incident appears to refer to a dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel over whether it is permitted to pray for the sick on the Sabbath (Tosefta Shabbat 17:14); Bet Hillel permitted such prayer, and Bet Shammai forbade it. In the Gospel according to Mark (2:27), Jesus concludes his argument with the Pharisees concerning the Sabbath by stating, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."(Yoma 85b) In addition to prayer for the sick, this would allude to other disputes between the two schools, such as where Bet Shammai rule that it is forbidden on the Sabbath to promise charity for the poor in the synagogue, even for the marriage of orphans, nor may betrothals be arranged, nor may discussion be held for a youngster's education, nor may mourners be comforted or the sick visited, while Bet Hillel permit all of these (Tosefta Shabbat 17:14 and Shabbat 12A).More proof that he was a follower of Bet Hillel.

     
    Jesus in the Talmud?

    We should also point out here that, contrary to many Christians' thinking, the Talmudic literature does not contain criticism of Jesus.  Some have sought to link him with a Yeshua Hanotzri, who is said to have practiced magic and sought to lead Israel astray (Sotah 47A and Sanhedrin 107B, but censored in contemporary texts).  But a foremost historian of the rabbinate, the twelfth century Abraham ibn Daud, wrote (Sefer Ha-Kabbalah, Jewish Publication Society Edition, p. 15) that we possess a true tradition (Kabalat Emet) that this Yeshua Hanotzri lived during the reign of Alexander Yannai (died 76 B.C.E.), and had been a disciple of Joshua ben Perachiah,thus making it impossible for him to have been the founder of Christianity.  This tradition is also given by Nahmanides (Vikuakh Ha-Ramban, Mossad edition, p. 306).  R. Jehiel Heilprin, the seventeenth century rabbinic historian, lists two Yeshua Hanotzris, the first being the earlier controversial disciple of Joshua ben Perachiah who lived during Yannai's reign, and the second as the founder of Christianity (Seder Hadorot, pp. 147, 148 and 15 1).

    Some have tried to linkjesus with a magician named Ben Stada, but R. Jacob Tam-the eminent Tosafist and grandson of Rashi-dismissed this (Shabbat 104B), as he had lived during the second century.

       Unfortunately, many people-and especially those possessing an anti-Semitic frame of mind-have had a field-day with Jesus' attack on the Pharisees.  One can only guess at how many pogroms and persecutions were instigated against Jews because of this misinterpretation.  Such actions have not only caused terrible harm to innocent men, women and children, but also maligned the memory of the Founder of Christianity amongst his own people .

  • Jesus the Pharisee

    While I mostly show comparative theology between different religions,there is also Intra-comparative theology, examining the concepts found in a religion and what they are based on either religiously or by historical events that effected the growth of that paticular faith. This is the first of the series. If anyone shows an interest, I'll post more.These are based on the opinions of Rabbi Falk,Talmudic sources of historical and religious events, and other sources.

    Scholars have wrestled for centuries with the seemingly anti-Jewish statements that are attributed by the Christian Bible to Jesus of Nazareth.  A reading of his great attack on the Pharisees (Matthew 23) virtually leaves one in a state of shock.  Is this the same person who wandered off as a boy to discuss the Torah with the Doctors of the Law at the Temple (Luke 2:46)?  In this latter passage he seems to exhibit a profound love for the Torah, a love which one can discern on the countenances of many Jewish youngsters to this day.  What could possibly have impelled him at a later date to refer to these rabbis as hypocrites, vipers and even murderers?  It is quite clear that he considered these Pharisees as being worthy of death.  And for two thousand years now, Christians seem to have been able to cleanse their consciences following pogroms or a holocaust by simply reading passages such as these.Nor have such statements endeared him to the people from whom he sprang.Or take the passages John 8 and Revelation 2 and 3) where he speaks of Jews as children of the devil, or of their synagogues as "synagogues of Satan." In the Middle Ages the Church actually thought of the Jews as being less than human because of these statements, and persecuted them as well.

         The reader may ask why we should even bring up such matters.  If we simply hush up such passages, they will be forgotten and abandoned by Christians.  I don't think so.  They are there in the Christian Bible, and will eventually surface again.

              Could it be that Jesus wasn't quoted correctly in the Gospels?  Christians will certainly insist that his words were faithfully recorded and preserved.  Others may suggest that he was mistaken about the Pharisees, that perhaps he didn't know them well enough!  A careful reading of the attack would seem to indicate that he knew them very well, and for many years.  But perhaps he didn't mean to be taken seriously, one might suggest.  A careful reading will surely dismiss any such conception.

    Why, then?  What brought him to such a complete break with his people, with their revered scholars, what caused him to turn his back on them and scorn everything his family had held sacred for centuries?  How could he bring himself to call the Jews of his time children of the devil, and their places of worship synagogues of Satan?

            Or was he really anti-Jewish or anti-traditionalist at all?  I have suggested earlier in this book that he possessed a great love for Jewish tradition, the same tradition that is practiced by Jews to this day.  What if we could prove from ancient sources that the Jewish world of scholarship in his time was divided into two Schools, that the scholars in control of the community at the time he preached were of the School he opposed, and that the leading Torah sages of his century later referred to that same group he opposed as being "children of the devil" or considered them worthy of death?

          The thesis I have proposed is based on the writings of the great Talmudist and anti-Shabbatean Rabbi Jacob Emden, a valiant champion of Orthodox Judaism during the eighteenth century.He was a great opponent to the false seventeenth century messiah, Shabbetai Zevi.  These Shabbateans-or Frankists as they were called in his day desecrated Jewish law and openly practiced sexual immorality.  When excommunicated by the Polish rabbinate, they complained to certain Catholic bishops of being persecuted by the Jews because they believed in the Trinity.  This eventually led to the burning of the Talmud in Poland, and these Frankists even tried to revive the notorious blood-libel against the Jews.  When the leading rabbis of Poland asked Rabbi Emden whether it would be permitted to explain the true nature of these immoral heretics to the Polish authorities, Rabbi Emden replied in the affirmative, and also advised them to ask the Christians for help against the Shabbateans.  This led him into a thorough analysis of the origins of Christianity and the original intent of its founders.  He concluded that Jesus and Paul had intended to create a religion for the Gentiles based upon the seven Noahide Commandments.  According to the Talmud and Tosefta, those Gentiles who observe these Commandments are considered of the Hasidim (pious ones) of the Nations, and merit a share in the World to Come. (The basic seven Noahide Commandments consist of the prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, stealing, murder, sexual sins, eating the limb of a living animal [cruelty to animals], and the imperative to establish courts ofjustice.) He believed thatjesus of Nazareth acted entirely according to the Halakha, and "brought about a double kindness to the world."R. Emden stressed that Jesus spoke out strongly on behalf of the Torah of Moses, which indeed grants salvation to those Gentiles who practice the Noahide Commandments.  R. Emden referred to Paul as "a scholar, an attendant of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder."

         Returning now to the first century C.E., we know that two different schools of rabbinic authority existed at that time, Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel.  These two schools are on record in the Mishnah and Talmud as having clashed on over three hundred and fifty occasions during the century they existed (about 30 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.). Nor were these minor controversies; they reached rather to the very heart of Judaism and its perspective on the world at large.  The Talmud tells us (Sanhedrin 88B) that as the disciples of Shammai and Hillel increased, "the Torah became as two Torahs"; in other words, Judaism became split into two opposing approaches to its religious traditions.And, very importantly for our subject, they were strongly at odds over judaism's view of the Gentile world.

    In previous chapters, I have pointed to Talmudic evidence that the Essenes-the apparent authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls-were closely allied with the School of Hillel, and that Hillel and his disciples as well as the Essenes were referred to in the Talmud (Sanhedrin II A et al.) as Hasidim (not Pharisees or Scribes).

    We now know on the basis of the Dead Sea Scrolls that Jesus and Paul must have had some contact with these Essene Hasidim, as many parallel passages have been found in the Scrolls and the Christian Bible.  Hundreds of similar passages (and many customs as well) have been found, and the Scrolls have been demonstrated through scientific process to be of an earlier date.  Two important works on the subject are The Scrolls and the New Testament by K. Stendahl, and The Ancient Library of Qumran by Frank M. Cross.  Many other excellent studies have been published.

    We further noted that according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 57A) and Maimonides (Melakhim, ch. 8), Moses obligated the Jews to spread knowledge of the Noahide Commandments to all mankind; therefore, when the Essenes gave their raison d'etre as (Manual of Discipline) "to do what is good and upright before Him, as He has commanded through Moses ... to love all the sons of light," we expressed our belief that they had such a mission to the Gentiles in mind . We should take note here of one of the many parallel passages between the Scrolls and the Gospels.  Jesus preached to his listeners (John 12:36): "While ye have the light, believe on the light, that ye may become sons of light.  Paul of Tarsus wrote similarly in his Epistle to the Ephesians (5:8): "Walk, then, as children of light." Hillel, founder of the school that bears his name (died about 10 C.E.), charged his disciples-and all Jews today follow the teachings of Bet Hillel-to be one who "loves mankind, and brings them nigh to the Torah" (Avot 1:12)

     
    The authors of the Damascus Document, found in the Essene caves at Qumran, bore a strong animosity toward the Pharisees of Bet Shammai. They referred to them as traitors (bogdim) and "men of war." This scroll contains a prophecy foretelling that the followers of Bet Shammai will come to an end at about the time of the Temple's destruction. (We should assume that Jesus of Nazareth knew the contents of this Scroll well.)

             Following the Temple's destruction (70 C.E.), the School of Hillel began to gain ascendancy over the School of Shammai.  Bet Hillel's strength grew progressively until a Heavenly Voice (bat koo was heard in Yavneh),  proclaiming that the Halakha was to be universally accepted in their favor. (This would have taken place some time toward the end of the first century C.E.) The later rabbis declared (Berakhot 36B), "The opinion of Bet Shammai when it conflicts with that of Bet Hillel is no Mishnah." In other words, their views were to be considered null and void.

            But the Talmudic sages went further than the Heavenly Voice.  They declared (Berakhot I IA): "He who observes the teachings of Bet Shammai deserves death." And lest one interpret this as a minor exaggeration, the Mishnah (Berakhot IOB) tells of an instance where a late first century C.E- sage, R. Tarfon, while on a journey, once observed a ruling of Bet Shammai with regard to the daily prayers; this sage later recounted that he had been set upon at the time by robbers, and the rabbis told him that he would have deserved to lose his life for having followed Bet Shammai's opinion.

            It would perhaps be worthwhile at this point to demonstrate how statements of Jesus, which were originally intended as attacks on Bet Shammai, have been misinterpreted and turned against the Jewish people as a whole, who-as Jesus himself foretold-have nullified the teachings of Shammai's School.

           We might first refer to Jesus' rebuke to the Pharisees (John 8:44): "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires." This is echoed elsewhere, as, for example (Revelation 2:9, 3:9), "the synagogue of Satan." This has led to much anti-Semitism, as well as Church decrees against Jews.  No one seems to have noticed that the first century C.E. Sage Dosa ben Harkinas, criticizing his brother Jonathan for having ruled in accordance with Bet Shammai in an important case concerning levirate marriage, calls him "the first-born of Satan" (Yevamot 16A).  In other words, the rabbis of the first century C.E. were accustomed to refer to the Pharisees of Bet Shammai as descendants of, or followers of, the devil.
    A second example would be Jesus' statement (Matthew 5:38) "You have heard the commandment 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth . . .' " which has led the Church to criticize Jews as vengeful, cruel people. The Jewish community has protested for centuries that we interpret this passage as calling for monetary compensation, but to no avail; the Church insists it has a tradition whereby the Pharisees of Jesus' time interpreted "an eye for an eye" literally. Here again, I have found no one pointing out that R. Eliezer is the only sage on record (Bava Kamma 84A) as ruling that "an eye for an eye" is to be interpreted literally, and R. Eliezer was known never to deviate from the teachings of Bet Shammai (Shabbat 130B and Niddah 7B).

           Before moving on to demonstrate that Jesus' well-known attack on the Pharisees (Matthew 23)-which has caused so much anti-Semitism and persecution over the centuries-was directed against the School of Shammai, we must first study the different attitudes of the two Schools toward non-Jews. This would include not only the views of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai themselves, but also the opinions of the two leading sages during the latter part of the first century C.E., R. Joshua and R. Eliezer-the former recognized as a firm adherent of Bet Hillel,  the latter as a diehard follower of Bet Shammai.  We shall also have to examine the evident link between Bet Shammai and the Zealot party (Kanna'im or Be,yyoni) in the early part of the first century C.E.

    1.    The Talmud (Shabbat 3 1 A) relates that three heathens appeared before Shammai and Hillel for the purpose of conversion, but each of them harbored reservations about various aspects of Judaism.  Shammai rebuffed them, but Hillel reasoned patiently with all three, ultimately winning their confidence and allegiance.  The differing views of the two sages toward the three heathens has been examined at length in Chapter Two. (The passing of the "eighteen measures" by the School of Shammai, which were in the main designed to cause greater separation between Jews and Gentiles, also apparently took place during the lifetimes of Hillel and Shammai [see Shabbat 17A, Tosefta Shabbat 1:8 and Tosafists, Shabbat, 14B, bottom].)

    2.    R.Joshua maintained that the pious among  the Gentiles merit a share in the World to Come.  Since the only laws incumbent upon Gentiles according to Judaism are the Noahide Commandments, their observance is understood.  R. Eliezer, the Shammaite, held that no Gentile merited a share in the World to Come, no matter how pious or righteous he might be (Sanhedrin 105A; Tosefta, Sanhedrin ch. 13).

    3.    Aquila the proselyte, a scholarly convert to Judaism who translated the Bible into Greek, is recorded as having held a conversation with R. Eliezer and R. Joshua over what rank a convert might aspire to in the community of sages.  R. Eliezer told him that the convert has no place amongst them,  and Aquila, as a result, was ready to desert Judaism and revert to paganism (he had been a relative of Hadrian).  R. Joshua then assured him that he was a full member of the Torah community, and he was thus consoled and strengthened in his devotion to Judaism (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 70:5).

          As for the relationship of Bet Shammai with the Zealot party-which Josephus called a "fourth philosophy" (after the Pharisees, Essenes and Sadducees)-the Zealots were founded (reorganized?) see later) in 6 C.E. by Judah the Galilean and Zadok the Pharisee (Josephus, Antiquities 18: 1-1 0).  The Zealots' hatred of the Romans and all Gentiles was surely the common bond that aligned them with Bet Shammai. Josephus' mention of Zadok the Pharisee is the conclusive proof of their alliance, for there is no record of any other Zadok at that time amongst the Pharisees except the one mentioned in Talmudic sources as a member of Bet Shammai (Yevamot 15B; Tosefta Eduyyot 2:2.  The identification of Zadok the Pharisee mentioned by Josephus as the Sage by the same name of Bet Shammai is confirmed by A. Hyman [Toledot Tanna'lm 1: 20 1 ], the historian Graetz, the Jewish Encyclopedia [3:115 and 12:641-642] and the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia 2:25 1). Josephus described the Zealots' atrocities against the Jewish community, branded them as common murderers and robbers, and blamed them for the Temple's destruction.  The Talmud too calls the Zealots murderers (Mishnah, Sotah 47A), recounts how they burned down the storehouses of food in Jerusalem in order to prevent the Jews from negotiating a peaceful settlement with the Romans (Gittin 56A), and blamed the destruction of the Temple on R. Zechariah ben Avkulot, a priest-Pharisee who would not allow the sacrifice of an offering sent by the Roman emperor, even though the Rabbis had permitted it (ibid.)-this R. Zechariah, according to scholars, being identified by Josephus as a Zealot leader. 
     
    The two important points to remember are (1) that both the Talmud and Josephus called these Zealots "murderers" and    their direct connection with Bet Shammai. Josephus' hatred and derision of the Zealots really needs no further elaboration here.  He refers to them throughout his works as robbers and murderers (see Wars 2:13, par. 2 and 3).  He seems to sum up his feelings toward the end of his work (Wars 7:8, 269-273): "For they imitated every wicked work; nor if history suggested any evil thing that had formerly been done, did they avoid zealously to do the same.... It was impossible they could be punished according to their deserving." We should note that these words were written immediately prior to his account of Masada, and he surely intended them so that the reader would not sympathize with the Zealots as they met their Waterloo.  The historian often noted that they sought to advance their own ambitions, rather than those of the nation, and that they murdered large numbers of innocent people.  It is highly probable that the Masada incident was omitted from the Talmud for this reason.

    Josephus makes quite clear his feelings that by waging their war with the Romans, and obstructing any negotiations with them, the Zealots were to blame for the destruction of the Temple.  This corresponds with the Talmud's picture of them (Gittin 56A).

          Scholars have in fact raised a contradiction in Josephus, for the historian states (Antiquities 18: 1-10) that the Zealots were founded by Judah the Galilean and Zadok the Pharisee in 6 C.E., yet he records elsewhere (Wars 1:204) that Hezekiah established the group several decades earlier.  It is probable, however, that Josephus is telling us that under Judah and Zadok a more formal alliance was forged between Zealots and Pharisees, the latter being Bet Shammai.

          Another example of the Bet Shammai-Zealot connection appears in the person of Eleazar ben Hananiah, a leading priest shortly before the Temple's destruction.  Josephus (Wars 2:409) identifies him as a Zealot leader who refused to accept gifts or sacrifices for the Temple from the Romans or any foreigner, and he is also quoted in the Mekhilta (Exodus 20:8) as concurring with Shammai on a ruling concerning preparations for the Sabbath. Josephus also records that the Zealots fought with no regard for the Sabbath, and even slew a group of surrendering Romans on that day (Wars 2:449-456).  Permission for waging a war in progress even on the Sabbath is a ruling of Shammai (Shabbat 19A); could the Zealots have asked him for a decision?

           As for Bet Hillel's view of the Zealots, R.Johanan ben Zakkai of Bet Hillel sought to   negotiate with the Romans despite the Zealots' objection (Gittin 56A).  According to the Midrash (Kohelet Rabbah 7: 1 1), these terrorists sought to assassinate him.  R. Gamaliel the Elder, grandson of Hiliel, is quoted in Acts of the Apostles (5:37) as strongly denigrating Judas the Galilean, a founder of the Zealots.

          One further observation.  One of the first debates between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel concerned the so-called "eighteen measures" (Shabbat 13B), which Bet Shammai sought to introduce as a means of creating further separation between Jews and Gentiles.  Bet Hillel opposed these measures, and the Jerusalem Talmud records (Shabbat 1:4) that during the course of the debate, an unspecified number of Bet Hillel's members were murdered by Bet Shammai (strong evidence exists that Zealots were present at the time, and I believe it was they who did the actual killing;  Many of Hillel's disciples-some of whom were killed that day-are referred to in the Talmud as prophets (Sukkah 28A and Bava Batra 134A).

         Having acquainted ourselves with these important facts, we may now attempt to fathom Jesus' great attack on the Pharisees (Matthew 23), and demonstrate how it was directed against Bet Shammai, who were then in control of the rabbinic community.  Jesus first accuses them, "You shut up the kingdom of heaven in men's faces," and then describes them as "You who travel over sea and land to make a single proselyte." Because of these views he accuses them of being "hypocrites."

    The first accusation would refer to Bet Shammai's position-as per R. Eliezer (Sanhedrin 105A)-that no Gentile merits a share in the World to Come, even those who observe the Noahide Commandments.  At the same time, Shammai discouraged the acceptance of proselytes to Judaism (Shabbat 3 1 A), and this explains Jesus' second charge.  By maintaining such views, the School of Shammai made it virtually impossible for even the most sincere and virtuous Gentile to find his way to salvation.  It would have certainly been impossible and even heretical to found a religion such as Christianity-based on the Noahide Commandments and the promise of everlasting life to pious Gentiles-according to Bet Shammai.  This led to Jesus' charge that they were "hypocrites," and that you have rejected the weightier matters of the Law-justice, mercy, good faith." The Kabbalists have in fact identified the School of Hillel-who disagreed with Bet Shammai on both of these issues-as emanating from the sphere of Hesed or" (Zohar, Ra'aya Meheimna 3:245A).mercy

          Jesus also criticizes Bet Shammai's treatment of proselytes ("and when you have him. . ."), as we have already noted in R. Eliezer's attitude toward the scholarly convert Aquila,who almost reverted to Paganism because of Bet Shammai's position.

            The teachings and concepts of the Nazarene show that he was heavily influenced and a student of Bet Hillel and that it was the Pharisaic followers of Bet Shammai that he was talking about in his accusations.
     
     
    .

        Based on Talmudic sources, that when the School of Shammai gained control of the Jewish community (probably about 20 B.C.E.), the disciples of Hiliel and of his assistant Menahem left to join the Esseries,  and to lead them in establishing a religion for the Gentiles. It was then from the midst of these Essene Hasidim and disciples of Hillel that Jesus of Nazareth emerged on his mission.


       The twentieth century arch-enemy of the Jewish people, A. Hitler, did not neglect to stress this point (Mein Kampf, Houghton Mifflin, pp. 422-423): "Of course, the latter Jesus) made no secret of his disposition toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip in order to drive out of the Lord's Temple this adversary of all humanity. . .

       Rabbi Emden's reply to the Polish rabbinate-or Council of the Four Lands as it was known at the time-may be found in an appendix to his edition of the Seder Olam (1757), a Tannaitic historical work.  He republished the letter in his Sefer Shimmush (1758-1762).

        It should be stressed that the differences between the two Schools involved the oral traditions passed down from Moses and the Prophets, to be used in the interpretation of the written Torah (the Bible).  It was forbidden to commit any part of these oral traditions to writing, nor the discussions of the rabbis concerning them.  The first written version of the Oral Law appeared about 200 C.E. in the form of the Mishnah edited by
    R. Judah Ha-Nasi, a descendant of Hillel-finally published out of fear that it might otherwise be forgotten.

    It is difficult for individuals of the twentieth century-accustomed as we are to books and libraries-to fully grasp this oral system.  At the same time, it is fairly easy to recognize how it could eventually lead to contradictory opinions, and how the public at large might not have been privy to the intense controversies that simmered behind the walls of the first century yeshivot.

    It is clear from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 57A) and Maimonides (Melakhzm ch. 8) that Moses obligated the Jews to spread knowledge of the Noahide Commandments to the Gentiles only from a position of strength, which they never achieved.  Thus, the establishment of Christianity as a religion for the Gentiles by the Hasidim was an act above and beyond the requirements of Jewish law (lifnim mi-shurat hadin). It is mentioned earlier in the same chapter of John (I 2:20) that a group of Greek Gentiles were present at the time in the Temple, and Jesus' remark was apparently directed toward them.

    Even if he was speaking to his fellow Jews, we realize now that Jesus of Nazareth wished them to return to the teachings of Bet Hillel (see Matthew 10, where he refers to "the lost sheep of Israel"); in this case, he could have been speaking to them as well.  The Essenes expressly stated "all the sons of light," which would encompass both Jews and Gentiles, each according to their own practice.
     
    (Cf.  Shabbat 88B where the Talmud states that every single word that went forth from the Omnipotent during the revelation at Sinai split up into seventy languages, i.e., it was given to all humanity.  The Talmud derives this from Psalm 68 which reads "The Lord giveth the word; they that publish the tidings are a great host." Compare with John 1: 1, "In the beginning was the word.")

     

  • Proof of the Creator

    Some people say they want “proof” or evidence of a Divine All-knowing All-powerful Infinite Creator, yet they aren’t willing to invest too much time and energy in seeking out that evidence. Are we any different? Do we seek out the stuff in the universe that might propel us onto a greater level of spirituality?

          Life is always about growth. Everything alive is growing and changing. Nothing alive just stays the same. Some things change rapidly, some things change slowly. Even things that look like they aren’t growing or changing may be just doing it more slowly than other things. A million years is a long time to us, but in the span of the history of the universe is it really that long? We need to reevaluate ourselves periodically to see if we are growing the way we should. Just because you believe in a Creator and are “in” to spirituality, doesn’t mean you’re living up to your potential for growth.

           Why? Because it is in the nature of mankind to be lazy, to take the easy way out. The body comes from the earth, as people say at a funeral, “from dust we came, to dust we shall return.” Earth, one of the four elements of the universe, just sits there. It does nothing unless motivated by another substance. We are part physical and therefore the body tells us to take it easy or “Let it Be” as the song said. That may be good advice when involved in a petty spat, but not when it comes to matters of the spirit. The body wants the easy way out, but the soul craves accomplishment. While a person lays asleep until midday, his body feels good, but his soul is in pain.

          Sometimes the body is getting us to be so active with the physical world that we don’t have time to think about spirituality, and sometimes the body is getting us to be so lazy we don’t want to put the effort into spiritual growth. The ideal situation for the body is dozing, hovering between sleep and wakefulness, because in that state you aren’t accomplishing one single thing. If you’re asleep, at least you’re accomplishing something. If you’re dozing, you’re not even having a decent sleep. Once you convince yourself that you can’t sit around being a couch potato, you’ve got to do something, it will try to lead you into mindless activity. If it can’t do that, and you end up working hard, it will try to get you to work so hard that there’s no time for anything really important in your life. Life is a constant challenge. If you’re reading this, then you probably are above all this at least a good portion of the time. However, there’s always room for growth in every area of spirituality. The soul is infinite and capable of growth at all times.

         Even something you take for granted, like your conviction in a Divine Creator, is something that should be fed and strengthened on a regular basis. And since you are one of the people in the world that really is interested in seeing more evidence of the Creator, it will not be hard to find, if you give it some effort. Who can’t immediately see the hand of God upon examining any small part of His creation?

    This is an excerpt from an ethnobotanical book by Mark Plotkin Ph.D.:

     

    “This mutually beneficial collaboration between a species of plant and a species of animal, called a pollination relationship, almost belongs in the realm of science fiction. The brown –and-white-mottled Amazonian Gongora orchid produces an intoxicating substance that attracts and befuddles the bee that visits the flower. The orchid is shaped so that the inebriated bee then falls onto a part of the flower, where it both deposits the pollen it carried from another Gongora and picks up new pollen.

    The Gongora’s knockout drop by no means represents the most manipulative nor the most perverse approach to pollination. In the 1984 classic Tropical Nature, entomologist Adrian Forsyth writes that some orchids “play on the indiscriminate lust of male tachinid flies by mimicking females.” From a certain angle, the color patterns of the orchid and its leaf shape resemble the female fly and, according to Forsyth, “when the male attempts to copulate with the pseudofemale, he actually pollinates the orchid.”

    I find that incredible the the flower mimics the female of the specie that pollinates it to attract the male.I don’t see how anyone can read that and not be astounded at God’s design that He put into plant pollination, one small part of His Divine plan.

  • BALANCE: Achieving Personal and Global Harmony

    Based on the teachings of Rabbi Jacobson

     

    One of the most eloquent concepts in mystical thought is the microcosm/macrocosm phenomenon. The human being is a “miniature universe,” reflecting every aspect of the world at large, and the universe is a giant organism.

     

    The reason for this intrinsic connection between humans and the universe is because the universe was created for the purpose that we humans refine and elevate it. Thus, a copy of every detail of the universe exists inside of each human being. By refining different aspects of our personal lives we also refine each respective corresponding dimension in the universe.

     

    In a way this introduces an entirely new dimension to the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle states that we live in a fine-tuned universe to allow the existence of life as we know it. The universe seems to have been custom made for human life. If any of the basic physical constants were different, then life as we know it would not be possible. The microcosm concept explains that the human being and the universe are interwoven and interdependent copies of each other.

     

    Knowing that we are a microcosm of the universe also empowers us in dealing with world events happening around us. Though subtle, harmony in our personal lives helps bring harmony to the world. We may not be able to sense the “butterfly effect” of our behavior on the universe, and its effect is not always direct and overt. Nevertheless, were told with absolute certainty that our actions do have a ripple effect on the world. We therefore are not victims of circumstances of world events; we have the power to change the world. As we refine ourselves we in some way also refine the universe.

     

    This message is powerfully relevant today as we struggle to understand the complexities of the world we have suddenly been thrust in. The answer to the biggest question of all: “What can I do about the conflicts of our time?” is that our personal choices help us affect global events. Obviously, we must first understand the soul root of the current upheavals so that we can recognize their parallels mirrored in our own personal lives. We then can, in turn, repair or refine that particular area in our lives.

     

    Sinai is called Tiferet. It empowered us with the ability to fuse the sacred and the secular, and achieve the proper balance between spirit and matter.

    Tiferet is the force that integrates the sefira of Chesed ("Compassion") and Gevurah ("Overpowering"). These two forces are, respectively, expansive (giving) and restrictive (receiving). Either of them without the other could not manifest the flow of Divine energy; they must be balanced in perfect proportion (by sharing), and this is the role of Tiferet, wherein the conflicting forces are harmonized, and creation flows forth.

    For those familiar with the tree of life in Kabbalistic studies, Tiferet is the middle of the tree. Five Sefirot surround it: above are Chesed at the right (south) and Gevurah at the left (north), and below are Netzach at the right, Hod at the left, and Yesod directly below. Together these six comprise a single entity, Zer Anpin, which is the masculine counterpart of the feminine sefira Malkuth. In certain contexts, Tiferet alone represents all the sefirot of Zer Anpin, so that the entire tree appears with only five sefirot: Keter, Chochmah, Binah, Tiferet, and Malkhut. Balance, harmony – Tiferet – is the key point.

    On one hand, you must show profound empathy. On the other hand, if you are a sensitive soul, in your empathy you can sometimes be overwhelmed with emotion as you place yourself in the shoes of the person who has been hurt and your relive his/her experiences. When you are so overwhelmed, it becomes difficult to maintain your composure in a way that allows you to offer your objective support.

     

    I must confess that I have yet to master this balance. There are times when I am so moved by another’s pain and loss, that I cannot step back and provide the appropriate insight.

     

    Hence the need for a seemingly “steely demeanor” at times, not just to protect myself, but primarily to allow me the relative distance necessary to introduce a fresh perspective and be helpful.The balance necessary between empathy (chesed) and distance (gevurah) is an example of Tiferet. There are those who get so emotionally close and intimate with a person they are touched by, that they no longer can give good advice. The there are those that are so distant and detached that the person they are trying to help cannot identify with them.

    Tiferet blends and harmonizes the free outpouring love of Chesed with the discipline of Gevurah. Tiferet possesses this power by introducing a third dimension - the dimension of truth, which is neither love nor discipline and therefore can integrate the two. Tiferet is about looking at what is right and true.

    Truth is accessed through selflessness (bittul): rising above your ego and your predispositions, enabling you to realize truth. Truth gives you a clear and objective picture of yours and others’ needs. This quality gives Tiferet its name, which means beauty: it blends the differing colors of love and discipline, and this harmony makes it beautiful.It always must come with respect, and above all, great care must be taken not to allow your personality to get in the way.

     

    All our struggles come down to a balance between these two poles. Including our ultimate struggle between the material and the spiritual, between the sacred and the secular.

    It’s easier to opt for one pole or the other. To either choose ascetic spirituality or material immersion. Yet, a healthy life is only possible when we balance and integrate the two worlds.

     

    This is the challenge of our times – both personally and globally. Especially in light of all our technological achievements, a great schism has emerged between our material prosperity and easy life and our personal and psychological issues, between unprecedented technological unity and unparalleled personal disunity.

     

    We all have, in microcosm, the struggle between soul and body. Between religion and sensitivity. Between G-d and the universe.The Baal Shem Tov,Rabbi Yisroel (Israel) ben Eliezer (רבי ישראל בן אליעזר August 27, 1698 (18 Elul) – May 22, 1760 is considered to be the founder of the Chassidic Movement,tells us that we are like mirrors. Every event that we experience is actually a reflection of our own lives. It comes to teach us a lesson that we need to learn and repair.

     

    When we see global events shaking the world, they must also shake our internal world. Though we cannot compare our own iniquities with the happenings in the world like war, famine, prejudice, and all the rest of what is bad or evil, we still must learn lessons from these events that help us develop our own sensitivity. Lessons that teach us how to face our own battles – in our search for balance and harmony.

     

    And then we are told that our individual effort changes the world. When we change the microcosm the macrocosm is directly affected.

     

    Maimonides writes: A person must see himself and the world as equally balanced on two ends of the scale;  by doing one good deed, he tips the scale and brings for himself and the entire world redemption and salvation (Laws of Repentance, 3:4).

     

    If each of us would improve our own tiferet balance, we would change the landscape of the universe. After all, the world is simply 6+ billion individuals like you and me.