Sunday, December 10, 2017

Hanukkah: Lighting After Nightfall


Listen to our mosa'ei Shabbat class on "Lighting After Nightfall" here.

Follow along with the sources: Shabbat 21b, Harambam (MT Hanukkah 4:5), Shulhan Arukh (672:2), Yehaveh Daat (3:51), Hazon Ovadia (Hanukkah pg. 64-7).

See, as well, part of the weekly shiur of R. Yisshak Yosef.

Friday, December 8, 2017

Parashat VaYeshev: Autonomy

Autonomy
A Message for Parashat VaYeshev 2017
Click here to view as PDF.


The formative years of Yosef’s life were structured by dreams. Dreams played a significant role in both the difficult and fortunate times of his early years. Whereas his youthful dreams caused his descent to Egypt, his later interpretations of dreams lifted him out of jail and into Pharaoh’s palace. Any attempt to understand the life of Yosef, then, must begin with a careful analysis of his associations with dreams.

Yosef first became involved with dreams when he recounted his own visions to his brothers. He twice told his brothers about his dreams of majesty and grandeur. Yosef’s recollections incensed the brothers, and fueled their hatred and sale of him to Egypt.

Yosef’s next affiliation with dreams came in prison, as an interpreter for two of Pharaoh’s ministers. Predicting the cupbearer’s good fortune, Yosef begged him: “But if you remember I was with you once it goes well for you, do me the kindness, please, to mention me to Pharaoh and bring me out of this house” (40:14). Yosef’s hopes of good fortune from dreams, however, were again dashed: “But the cupbearer did not remember Yosef, no, he forgot him” (40:23). Although Yosef’s association with dreams had twice inspired hope, it seemed that it was instead destined to bring him only sorrow.

And then it all changed. Acting on the advice of his cupbearer, Pharaoh invited Yosef to interpret his two dreams. As I review the story of Yosef every year, I pause at this juncture to imagine what Yosef should have been thinking when he stepped into the inner chambers of Pharaoh’s palace. It would have made sense for him to be frightened stiff. Each of his previous involvements with dreams had ended in disappointment. Why would this time be any different? But somehow it was. In an unexpected twist, Yosef’s third and final involvement with dreams were the key to his success. What changed? Was Yosef’s catapult to the head of Egypt the simple result of God’s “chosen” time, or did Yosef do something at this point to alter the outcome?
* * * *
Best-selling author Daniel Pink took notice of how the greatest artists of the last hundred years worked. Analyzing the success of Pablo Picasso, Georgia O’Keefe and Jackson Pollock, Pink realized that nobody had told them with whom to paint, what sort of pictures to paint, when to paint them, or how to paint them. The very idea of a forced art is ludicrous. Pink stretched that conception further, and argued that every career functions best when it is invested with autonomy. He argued that we all crave some sense of autonomy and we therefore produce best in its atmosphere. Presuming that we actually want to be accountable, our control over the task, time, technique and team are the most effective pathway to that destination.[1]
* * * *
Yosef stepped into Pharaoh’s room empowered by a bold sense of autonomy. Sensing that Pharaoh had placed hope in his ability to interpret dreams, Yosef determined that he could now voice more than just a prediction. In contrast to his previous two encounters with dreams, when Yosef depended upon the reaction of others – his brothers and the cupbearer, this time he seized control of the situation. Transitioning swiftly from his prediction of seven impending years of famine in Egypt, Yosef handed Pharaoh some unsolicited advice:

And so, let Pharaoh look out for a discerning, wise man and set him over the land of Egypt. Let Pharaoh do this: appoint overseers for the land… (41:33-4)

This time the outcome would be different. No longer dependent upon the whim of others, Yosef grabbed his destiny by the arm and ran with it.
* * * *
Perhaps it’s time to toss the very word “management” onto the linguistic ash heap alongside “icebox” and “horseless carriage.” This era doesn’t call for better management. It calls for a renaissance of self-direction. (Daniel Pink)

Much of the success in our lives depends upon a healthy sense of autonomy. Dream big and take control.

Shabbat shalom!

Rabbi Avi Harari



[1] Daniel H. Pink, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us (New York, NY, 2009), pg. 105-6.

Hanukkah: Lighting at the Synagogue


Listen to this morning's class, "Lighting at the Synagogue," here.

Follow along with the sources here.


For further research: 

1) See the full text of R. Ovadia Yosef's teshuvah in Yabia Omer 7:57 here.

2) See R. Michael Taubes's article for YU's Torah to Go, on this topic, here.

3) See R. David Brofsky's summary of this issue in his Hilkhot Mo'adim here.

4) See R. Dovid Lichtenstein's related analysis of "Making a Beracha on Chanukah Candles at the White House," in his Headlines, here.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Hanukkah: Origins (Shabbat 21b)


Listen to our class on the topic of Hanukkah's origins here.

Follow along with our analysis of Shabbat 21b here.

For further research: Ready R. Ezra Schwartz's related article, for YU's Torah to Go, here.

Using Paper Towels and Wipes on Shabbat

Listen to our class on "Using Paper Towels and Wipes on Shabbat" here.

Follow along with the teshuvah from Iggerot Moshe here, and see the full text from Hazon Ovadia here.


For further research:

Read R. Yisrael Belsky's analysis of this issue in his Shulhan HaLevi here.

Kiddushin 61a-62b


Listen to our shiurim on Masekhet Kiddushin from this past week!

Listen to:   61a,  61b,   62a,   62b

Follow along with the text of the dapim here.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Parashat VaYeshev: 'Clothing' and Control

'Clothing' and Control
A Message for Parashat VaYeshev 2016
Click here to view as PDF.


The early narrative of Parashat VaYeshev is dominated by the symbolism of Yosef’s ornamented tunic (ketonet passim). Initially made for him as a sign of Yaakov’s preferential love (37:3), it was later used by his brothers as a tool of deception to their father. Upon selling Yosef as a slave, they dipped his tunic in the blood of a freshly slaughtered kid and misled Yaakov into believing that Yosef had died (37:33).

This was not Yaakov’s first encounter with clothing as a tool of deception in brotherly rivals. Ironically, the first time around it was he who deceivingly dressed in his brother’s clothing, in pursuit of his father’s blessing (27:15). Deception by means of clothing had come full-circle for Yaakov. Whereas he had previously used it to break familial hierarchy in his favor, his sons now used it against him to restore a fair structure in their own family.

The Torah’s history of clothing may add another dimension to this particular episode. Consider the initial description of Adam and Hava: “And the two of them were naked, the human and his woman, and they were not ashamed” (2:25). The seemingly mild weather of Gan Eden and their unashamed nature delayed their conception of clothing. The immediate consequence of eating from the Etz ha-Da’at, however, was the invention of clothing: “And the eyes of the two were opened, and they knew they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves and made themselves loincloths” (3:7). The creation of clothing, then, occupies an integral part of man’s initial sin. Why?

The late Jewish philosopher Michael Wyschogrod z”l highlighted the described consequence of eating from the tree, “You shall become as gods, knowing good and evil” (3:5), in his definition of the nature of sin. He explained that by eating from the tree, Adam and Hava exerted their autonomous judgment of good and evil. Their value judgments were no longer decided by God, and were instead based on their own criterion. The subsequent revelation of their nakedness was the extension of sin, as God had never commanded against going nude, and their shame in that instance was instead driven by their own self-perception.[1]

The invention of clothing was then the next step in their autonomous behavior. Born into a world created by God, man first endeavored self-creation by sewing the initial garment. The creation of clothing thus symbolized man’s willingness to create his own rules and control his own fate.

Immediately prior to banishing Adam and Hava from Gan Eden, God made them skin coats and clothed them (3:21). The symbolism of this gesture seems clear. It forced them to reconsider who was actually in control. Through a forced exit from the Garden and a set of God-given clothing, Adam and Hava were served the stark reminder of a mistaken belief in autonomy and self-control.[2]

Let us now reconsider the “clothing story” of our parashah.

The motive underlying Yaakov’s making clothing for Yosef mirrors that of Adam and Hava’s invention of clothing: control. Sewing a special tunic for Yosef, Yaakov sought control of the family hierarchy. By so doing, he attempted to shift the mantle of leadership from the oldest of his sons to the near-youngest. And God’s response to Adam and Hava through the parallel symbolism of clothing was similarly repeated to Yaakov. Staring at the blood-stained garment that was stripped from his beloved son, Yaakov was forced to reconsider the actual extent of his governance.

We spend much of our lives “making clothing.” We seek control of all realms and aspects of our lives, and attempt to manipulate the outcome of every encountered situation. It is at those rare yet critical moments when we lose all control, however, that we perceive our limits and follow the lead of Yaakov to “rip our clothing.”

In loving memory of yedidi ha-yakar, Avraham ben Levana Cohen, z”l.



[1] “Sin and Atonement in Judaism,” in The Human Condition in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (New York, 1986), pg. 103-26. Reprinted in Abraham’s Promise (Cambridge, 2004), pg. 53-74. Recall, as well, our brief analysis of this matter in the devar Torah for Parashat Bereshit, “Freedom.”
[2] In his Covenant & Conversation: Bemidbar (New Milford, CT, 2017), pg. 164, R. Jonathan Sacks similarly observed that clothing is generally associated with “deception” throughout Sefer Bereshit. He further noted, in this context, that the Hebrew word for garment – begged – appropriately also means “betrayal.”