Al Reguel Ajat

Judaism considers the “full” life to be more in the dimension of ethical conduct among men than in that of religious worship. The “hasid” (the man who does “hesed,” mercy) is one who has a generous and altruistic character in his relationship with his fellow men, as opposed to one who is very meticulous and observant in fulfilling only his duties of worship. There are two types of obligations imposed on the Jew: obligations toward God and obligations toward his fellow man. Judaism demands that he fulfill both without distinguishing between them, as we see constantly in the texts of the Torah where they are intertwined, such as in Exodus 22 and 23.

It is more difficult in Judaism to measure and value man’s obligations toward his fellow man than man’s obligations toward God. We know that man’s social responsibilities are derived from the divine commandments in the Torah. Thus, on the one hand, man’s obligations towards his family and society are based on the golden rule: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:18). It is God who validates and commands loving your neighbor. But, on the other hand, the Talmud clearly tells us that the man to man commandments are largely independent of the man to God commandments. Thus, for example, it establishes that fasting and praying on Yom Kippur only absolves man’s sins against God, but not those he committed against another person. These are only forgiven by God when you have made amends and obtained forgiveness from the individual you offended (BT Yoma 87a).

What a purely religious sin really is, is an act of disobedience to a commandment given by a Higher Being. An offense in the world of social ethics is a lack of kindness, a refusal to want to relate ethically with another human being. And this is not only in the case of one-on-one relationships, but also in the relationship with the family, the community, the state and all of humanity. Judaism is especially distinguished from other religions by its great concern for the community.

It is clear that Western man has become increasingly individualistic. But when the Torah was given to us at Mount Sinai, that covenant obliged all Jews, in all times, all those who form that entity called the People of Israel to fulfill it. That covenant implies living life in a “full” way.

By Marcos Gojman.

Bibliography: “The Good Society, Jewish Ethics in Action” by Norman Lamm.

In ancient times, the Tallit was the outer garment or street clothing worn by Jewish men. This garment consisted of a large rectangular piece of woven wool that was wrapped around the body when one went outside the house. The word Tallit comes from Aramaic and means covering.

In shape and use, the Tallit was similar to garments commonly used by other peoples in the Mediterranean, such as the himation, which was a wide, enveloping cloak, a kind of shawl, used by the Greeks. It was worn over the body, wrapped or rolled over one shoulder and did not have a tie or fastening. At the end of the Roman Republic, the himation was the usual cloak of the Romans, as it was more practical than the toga and was given the name pallium.

This type of garment was very practical and appropriate for the climate of those countries where there were constant variations in temperature. During cold weather, the Tallit could be wrapped around the entire body, while in hot weather, it could be folded and worn loosely over the shoulders. It was also a very practical garment that could be removed for heavy work, used to cover oneself when going to sleep, or could be wrapped in an elegant way when going to a ceremony or public place.

The commandment to tie Tzitzit, fringes, to our clothing referred specifically to this type of garment, as it is written in Deuteronomy 22:12: “And you shall make fringes on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself.” Therefore, according to tradition, a garment that does not have four corners does not require Tzitzit.

The Bible does not mandate that a prayer shawl or Tallit be worn. Rather, it assumes that people wore some kind of garment to cover themselves and only instructs them to add fringes or Tzitzit to its four corners (Numbers 15:30 and Deuteronomy 22:12). These two verses do not specify how the Tzitzit are tied. Nor do they make a distinction between men and women as to who may or should wear them. The current custom of how to tie the Tzitzit and the shape and use of the Talit is post-biblical, defined by the rabbis and varies according to each Jewish community.

As time went by, and in view of the dispersion of the Jewish people to distant lands, the style of clothing changed. The Talit was no longer an everyday garment and the clothing worn did not usually have four corners. Therefore, the commandment to wear Tzitzit could no longer be fulfilled. It seemed that this commandment, which was highly appreciated, was going to disappear. To prevent this from happening, the custom was maintained throughout the Jewish world to continue wearing the Tallit only for sacred and worship purposes. Now we use it to pray and no longer to protect ourselves from the cold as before.

By Marcos Gojman Bibliography: “A Guide To Jewish Prayer” by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz.

Praying is par excellence the most used way for man to relate to God and is as old as humanity itself. However, the Torah, the book that marks the path of how man relates to God, does not have a fixed and structured pattern for praying to Him. Some sages held that the Torah ordered a person to turn to God daily to offer Him the “service of the heart” (avodah shebalev), while others thought that one should pray only in case of some misfortune. In any case, the Torah does not specify any fixed time or the content of the prayers. Most people prayed when the need arose, in times of misfortune or to ask God for something specific.

At the beginning of the Second Temple period, between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE, the rabbis of the Great Assembly managed to define and regularize the text of the prayers. They coined a standardized version of the basic prayers and blessings. That structure, initially known simply as Tefilah, developed into what we know today as the Amidah (standing prayer), also called Shemoneh Esreh (eighteen blessings). The Amidah has a very well-defined structure, which has been preserved unchanged ever since. Only on Shabbat and on holidays, including Yom Kippur, is this structure modified, with some of the blessings being eliminated.

In addition to having established a fixed content, the sages of the Great Assembly established the times and order for the religious services. These times were linked to those of the sacrifices in the Temple. Thus, Shacharit, the morning prayer, was done at the same time as the daily morning sacrifice (Tamid). Minhah in turn coincided with the afternoon sacrifice and Maariv with the conclusion of the Temple rituals in the evening. Since it was customary to make additional sacrifices on holidays, the Musaf prayer was added for these occasions. The requirement to pray in community, that is, to pray with a minyan, also originates from that time. The prayer was led by one person, the Sheliach Tzibur, who knew the prayer practically by heart, he would say it out loud and the others would follow him. Remember that at that time there were no printed books as we have today. The final structure of the prayers was defined only after the destruction of the Second Temple. The Sanhedrin introduced changes to adapt to the new reality after the catastrophe. All these prayers were arranged in a book, the Siddur.

The Siddur, of which there are now more than 100 different versions, is not a completely finished work, nor is it the work of a few, but rather contains the contributions of each generation that has added its own prayers full of wisdom and emotion. The Siddur is without a doubt the most popular book in Judaism. Other books such as the Tanach and the Talmud, which are more focused on being studied, are perhaps less widely distributed than the Siddur, which is known and used daily by practically everyone. The Siddur is without a doubt the biggest “best seller” within Judaism.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: “A Guide To Jewish Prayer” by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz.

Rabbi Akiba was the leading Torah teacher in the second half of the first century and the first half of the second century of the common era. It has been difficult for historians to put together a clear version of his life, due to the large number of legends that exist about him. Some sources say that he was ignorant, that he was very poor, that his wife Rachel encouraged him to go to study and that he returned after many years with a large number of students and in a comfortable financial position. But other sources tell us other contradictory stories. What is historically clear is his connection with Bar Kochba whom he considered to be the Messiah, the one who was going to free the Jewish people from the Roman yoke. His death as a martyr at the hands of the Romans is attributed to this relationship.

Akiba made important contributions to Judaism. First of all, Akiba was the one who established the definitive canon of the Jewish Bible. His participation was decisive in deciding which books would form the Tanach. But his greatest contribution was his work on the subject of Halachah, both in the systematization of the traditional rules and in their subsequent development. He saw that the lack of a systematized collection of the entire body of halachot that already existed, did not allow for its practical application or an orderly theoretical study, which varied according to the scholar who taught it. The code that Akiba systematized was used by his student Rabbi Jehuda Hanasi as a basis for compiling the Mishnah.

Akiba realized that the intellectual bond that united the Jews had to be strengthened now more than ever, after the destruction of the Jewish State in Eretz Israel. The Bible could not fill that space, because Christians also considered it to be a divine revelation. Nor could dogmas have that function, since they were rejected by rabbinical Judaism, which had as its true essence to be in constant development and evolution. Akiba taught: “Take your place a few steps below your proper place until you are invited to go higher, for it is better to be told “go higher” than “go lower.”

Akiba was convinced that the way the Bible was written was different from any other book. For him, everything in the Torah had a meaning, every word, every syllable, every letter, every sign. Not only did he give the Jewish mind a new field to develop, but he also gave the Holy Scriptures the character of immutability. Although this did not stop him from modifying some precept that he considered did not respect the true spirit of Judaism, as in the case of underage Jewish slaves. (Exodus 21:7)

In opposition to the Christian doctrine that insisted that God is only love, Akiba taught that God combined kindness with mercy within a strict system of justice. He said: “Whatever God does, He does because it is the best.” Rabbi Akiba ben Yosef was the man who paved the way for Judaism for the past two thousand years. That is why he deserves to be considered the father of Rabbinic Judaism.

By Marcos Gojman:

Bibliography: “The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia”.

The Jewish community in Babylon dates back to late biblical times and originates from the deportations of Jews from the Land of Israel that followed before and after the destruction of the First Temple (586 BCE). Following the Hellenistic conquest of the East, the Jews of Babylon, like their brethren in Eretz Israel, lived first under the rule of the Seleucids and then became subjects of the Kingdom of Parthia, a federation of feudal principalities, which gave them a certain autonomy since, as long as they gave their support in times of war, the rulers did not interfere in their internal affairs.

It was after the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE) and the Bar Kochba revolt (132-135) that groups of scholars from Eretz Israel emigrated to Babylon, no doubt in the wake of the religious persecution that followed at the hands of the Romans. Although Eretz Yisrael remained the center where matters of religious practice, such as the order of the Hebrew calendar, were decided, over time and with Rome’s continuing campaign to wipe out Judaism, this function had, by the mid-third century, passed to the academies of study (yeshivot) in Babylon.

It was in these academies that the Babylonian Talmud began to be written down. The sages and their disciples interpreted the Mishnah in oral discussions that were transcribed as is. That is why these texts do not bear a systematic and concise account. The conversations were transcribed with everything that could come up in a conversation, including topics that were unrelated to the main point or comments that went off on a tangent. The Babylonian Talmud is said to be like the sea: immense in size, with hidden depths and without a specific shape.

According to scholars, the Babylonian Talmud, as opposed to the Jerusalem Talmud, eventually became “The Tamud” as a result of Babylon being the main center of Torah learning. The academies of Sura and Pumbedita, their teachers, and their teachings were accepted as the supreme rabbinical authority for the entire diaspora. The fact that the Tamud Jerusalemmi had been completed 150 years earlier gave the Talmud Babli an advantage, since being later, it gave it greater authority in case of discrepancies.

The Talmud Babli is a storehouse of information relating to the life itself, customs, beliefs, and superstitions of both Jews and non-Jews. It is a source of history, medicine, astronomy, commerce, agriculture, magic, botany, zoology, and other sciences. When it was finally completed, it became the basic text used in academies throughout the Jewish world. But putting it into writing (more than 2.5 million words) was a Herculean task, since there was no printing press at that time. You can imagine that hand-copying involved errors, changes and additions, making it difficult to canonize a definitive text. The invention of the printing press in the 15th century helped to mitigate the problem somewhat. But even so, despite the many editions, it has always had the stamp of “Made in Babylon.”

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Encyclopaedia Judaica and “Babylonian Rabbinic Culture” by Professor Isaiah Gafni, part of the book “Cultures of the Jews” edited by David Biale.

Since the times of Ezra and Nehemia, the rabbis commented and discussed the Torah, and the Tanach in general, orally, without writing it down, although some took notes in private, as in the case of the rulings of the rabbinical courts. At the time of the Roman conquest of the Kingdom of Judah, a great number of halachic norms were produced, which made it difficult to maintain the oral system, so the words of the sages began to be written down.

According to the epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon, the great upheaval that followed the destruction of the Temple and the uprising of Bar Kochba, put that set of norms known as the Oral Torah in danger of being lost, because there were no longer the conditions to transmit them orally from teacher to student, given the restrictive policies of the Romans. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi made the decision to compile them and put them in writing. This is how the Mishnah was born.

The Mishnah is the collection of those laws and oral traditions that already existed. The rabbis who contributed to its formation are known as Tanaim, of whom we have information about approximately 120. The period during which the Mishnah was compiled lasted about 130 years and spanned five generations. It even included many conflicting commentaries that arose between the different academies (yeshivot), such as those of Hillel and Shammai.

In the year 220 CE, the Mishnah was edited and published. In the following four centuries, the Mishnah was analyzed and debated in the yeshivot of the two most important Jewish communities of the time: that of Eretz Israel and that of Babylon. These commentaries, known as Gemara, were in turn edited and published in each place and together with the original Mishnah, produced, in one case the Talmud Yerushalmi, made in Israel and in the other the Talmud Babli, made in Babylon. The Yerushalmi was finished a century earlier, mostly because of the religious persecution that the Romans launched in Eretz Israel against the rabbis and their academies. In both places, dozens of rabbis, known as Amoraim, over eight generations, contributed to the formation of the Talmud.

Orthodox Rabbi Aaron Parry, in his book The Talmud, tells us: “Almost everyone is familiar with the story of how Moses received the Ten Commandments from God, but what is less known about this story is that Moses and God had a good talk on that mountain and that it covered much more than could be inscribed on the Tablets that he brought with him when he came down. It is this information, the Oral Torah, which was transmitted orally from God to Moses and then from Moses to the generations that followed him, that is the basis for the Talmud.”

This must be understood more metaphorically than literally. The foundation of Judaism is definitely the Torah that Moses received at Sinai, but the building that was built on top of it is due to the work of many sages. The Talmud was written by many with the inspiration of One.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Joseph Telushkin “Jewish Literacy” and others.

It is written in the first verse of the tractate Pirkei Avot (Chapters of the Fathers): “Moses received the Torah on Mount Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua. He transmitted it to the elders of the people, who in turn passed it on to the prophets, who passed it on to the men of the Great Assembly.” With this verse, the rabbis, that is, the men of the Great Assembly, created a chain of continuity that linked them directly to Moses, to whom at that time they had already added the title of Rabeinu, our rabbi, our teacher, thus trying to make him the origin of the rabbinic tradition. We are not surprised that the verse did not mention the kings and the priests, who were the main authority in the time of the two Temples. The fact that they were not included was a sign that leadership was passing from the traditional figures, the monarchs and the priestly class, to the houses of study, to the rabbis themselves.

By arguing that Revelation and Prophecy had ended, that God no longer spoke to anyone, the rabbis removed God from the stage of history and devoted themselves to interpreting His Message as expressed in the Holy Scriptures. They said that their interpretations of the Torah were not something new, but that Moses had received them at Sinai, in the form of what they called the Oral Torah and that it was transmitted from one sage to another. Jewish literary creation moved from the Bible, a book that narrated the history of the Jewish people, including the acts and presence of God, to another book, the Talmud, the Oral Torah, where new historical events were no longer narrated and therefore God no longer appeared and what was narrated were the rabbis’ comments on the texts of the Bible. In the Bible, God and the people of Israel are the main characters; in the Talmud, the rabbis are the main characters. Now, contact with God was indirect, through the rabbis who interpreted His Commandments.

Clearly, the change of leadership was due to the destruction of the Temple. It had functioned as the political and cult center of the people of Israel and when it was destroyed, the void left by the priests and kings was filled by the rabbis. Even the president of the Great Assembly, a rabbi elected by his colleagues, received the approval of the same Roman authorities, which made him the head, not only religiously, but also politically, of the People of Israel.

The destruction of the Temple in the year 70 and the failure of the Bar Kochba uprising 60 years later (132-135), was a devastating event for the Jewish People. The Roman response to the Jewish rebellion was tremendous. They wanted to wipe Judaism off the face of the earth. The rabbis knew that the Jewish people did not have the military, political, or economic strength to confront the greatest power of that time. The only thing that could save them was to turn them into something different. They replaced the Temple, the priests, and the sacrifices with the synagogue, the study of the Torah, prayer, and mitzvoth. The solution was a new Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism.

By Marcos Gojman.

Bibliography; “Jewish Culture in Greco Roman Palestine” by Eric M. Meyers, part of the book “Cultures of the Jews,” edited by David Biale.

The Talmud tells us in several places (Bava Batra 54b, Nedarim 28a, Gitin 10b, Bava Kama 113a and Bava Batra 55a) dina de-malchuta dina, that the law of the land is also the law for the Jews, as long as it does not force the Jews to go against Halacha. In this sense, one as a Jew must respect red lights, not speed, and pay taxes correctly, and observing Halacha, Jewish Law, does not exempt one from these obligations.

This does not surprise most Jews and is rarely the subject of debate, even in most ultra-conservative groups, although it does occur in some Jewish communities of people who claim to be very religious or observant, while violating the laws of the country.

Of course, there are sometimes cases where we have a religious obligation not to obey the law of the land, for example when it has been forbidden to circumcise newborn boys or to slaughter animals according to the laws of shechita (kosher slaughter).

There are other instances where the law of the land is more permissive than Jewish law, such as freedom of speech. Jewish commandments do limit expression in very specific cases, especially if our words may harm or hurt another person (lashon hara).

There are also cases where the law of the land is stricter than the Jewish law. For example, Jewish law does not prohibit discrimination in employment and stipulates different treatment of a Jewish servant than a non-Jew. The law in many countries upholds non-discrimination in matters of employment.

Dina de-malchuta dina, the law of the land is the law, is a phrase attributed to the sage Samuel. According to Samuel, it is very clear that a Jew must obey the laws of the country where he resides unless the law directly contradicts a precept of Halacha. What does this mean? It means that being a law-abiding person is not only a civic obligation, but is also a religious obligation, as important as fulfilling the mitzvoth.

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: Article by Rabbi Michael Knopf.

Hillel and Shammai were two rabbis of the 1st century BCE who founded two rival schools of rabbinical thought. They are known as the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. The debate that took place between the two was critical to the formation of the Talmud and Judaism as we know it today.

In general, the House of Shammai held stricter views than the House of Hillel. Talmudic tradition lists over 350 controversies between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel. The former was generally seen as a more intolerant school than the latter. Bet Hillel seemed to take more into account the needs and sensitivities of the people. (Tosefta Sukah 2:3 and BT Eruvin 13b.)

The rabbis in the Talmud generally sided with Bet Hillel, although the sages held that both views were valid. One famous difference between them was the position each school held regarding widows who could not conclusively prove that their husband had died. Hillel held that they could remarry even if they had only indirect proof of his death. Shammai required witnesses to provide direct proof of the death in order for the widow to be able to remarry.

Another difference was their position on whether or not to accept converts. Hillel favored accepting proselytes. even if they made absurd demands, such as learning Torah while standing on one foot (Al reguel ajat) while Shammai was more strict.

They also held different positions on the lighting of the Chanukah candles. Bet Shammai held that eight candles should be lit on the first day and one candle should be reduced each day, until only one candle was lit on the last day. Hillel said that it should be done exactly the other way around: start with one and end with eight candles. Hillel’s argument was that the sacred should grow and not diminish. (BT Shabbat 21b). The texts also tell us that Hillel said that a bride on her wedding day should be told that she looks beautiful even if this is not true and Shammai said that one should tell her the truth. (Talmud, Ketubot 16b-17a).

There is a beautiful metaphor in the Tosefta that describes the kind of religious sensitivity that the Talmud tries to foster: “Make for yourself a heart with many rooms and bring to it the words of the House of Shammai and the words of the House of Hillel, the words of those who declare it impure and those who declare it pure.” (Sotah 7:12). In other words, become a tolerant person.

Why did our sages leave both positions written in the Talmud, when they could have eliminated the less accepted one? Perhaps it was to teach us that no one has the absolute truth. That is why they included both points of view.

By Marcos Gojman from various sources.

In Breishit, the Torah presents us with two completely opposite reactions by Abraham when faced with two similar situations. The first is when God tells him that he is going to destroy the city of Sodom and Abraham argues with Him. Abraham questions him: “Should not the Judge of all the earth do what is right?” (Breishit 18:25). Abraham seems to be appealing to a moral principle generally accepted by men. He questioned God’s intentions without using “biblical quotes” or the commentary of some wise man. He did so with that intuitive sense of justice and love that neither man nor God could violate, and he also did so with humility and love for God: “And I dare to speak to my Lord, I who am only dust and ashes” (Breishit 18:27).

The second is when God asks Abraham to take his son Isaac to Moriah, to offer him as a sacrifice for Him. Without giving him any further explanation, much less justification, God orders Abraham to sacrifice his son, which also implies the cancellation of the promise that Abraham would be the father of a large people. After the incident in Sodom, one would have expected Abraham to beg God not to end the life of his son. But he does not do so, he does not ask for an explanation, much less a justification. His response is total submission and unconditional surrender.

The God of Abraham therefore takes two different forms in the book of Genesis. On the one hand, a God who demands total surrender to his commandments and on the other, a God who invites criticism and independent moral judgment. These two paradigms have permeated religious life and the interpretation of texts throughout Jewish history. For many teachers, from the time of the Talmud to the present day, the sacrifice of Isaac, the Akedah, has been the paradigm of their life and religious thought. For them, the survival and continuity of Jewish tradition requires unconditional surrender and total loyalty. To comply with God, one must be willing to sacrifice one’s own intellectual capacity and intuition, one must give up everything one knows and holds dear as a human being, in deference and obedience to the word of God.

More conservative circles within Judaism claim that the Akedah paradigm is their response to those who question religious practice and seek change, since according to them, religious life would lose credibility if submission and surrender were less than total. The belief that if you change one thing, everything falls apart, is derived from Abraham’s silence in the Akedah account.

But the other paradigm, that of Sodom, gives us another message: “Bring your own moral intuition, your subjective sense of dignity and justice, and use it to understand the reality of God.” Not only does this not threaten or undermine religious conscience, but on the contrary, it is necessary to understand the validity and applicability of the divine commandments. What do you choose: Sodom or the Akedah?

By Marcos Gojman

Bibliography: A Heart of Many Rooms, by David Hartman.