Chasidus has the key to happiness; it’s the realization that Hashem is everywhere. Yes, this realization has everything to do with happiness. For under the surface of all things negative such as sadness and pain is loneliness. Eliminate the loneliness and the difficulty looses its sting. When you’re in pain or you’re frustrated what’s really bothering you is the feeling that nobody understands. You feel abandoned, left to deal with the pain all alone. Find a friend who can relate to you, and you will always be happy.
Hashem is everywhere. He is not just an abstract philosophical idea, he is everywhere and you should think of him as your close friend, a friend that will always understand you.
Many people choose to ignore his friendship. They would rather hang out with real friends, friends whose concern they can see with their eyes and whose soothing friendship can be felt with the arms embracing.
Here is the problem. If you really want understanding you need to have many friends, one to talk about philosophy, another to talk about sports, one to dance with and another to swim with.
Some times, all of your friends collectively can’t break into your loneliness, so you begin to drift away from them one by one, you discover that they really can’t relate to your experiences. After starting your adult life with tens of friends, you can consider yourself fortunate if you have even one at the end of the journey of life.
So human friends are real, but they are real limited. They can connect to you in a very physical way but their physicality blocks them from entering the deepest chambers of you’re heart.
Once you realize this you may want to consider a friendship with Hashem. True, he’s not tangible, but that may be his greatest asset. He’ll be there when you need him, he won’t drift away. He promised.
(Tanya Chapter 33)
Monday, December 29, 2008
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Is Reuven insensitive?
The brothers are being accused of spying having a real hard time from the Egyptian ruler and they say to each other that it must be a punishment for not listening to the cries of the youngster. Then Reuven says, I told you then not to touch the boy.
Here's the quote: 21. And they said to one another, "Indeed, we are guilty for our brother, that we witnessed the distress of his soul when he begged us, and we did not listen. That is why this trouble has come upon us."
22. And Reuben answered them, saying, "Didn't I tell you, saying, 'Do not sin against the lad,' but you did not listen? Behold, his blood, too, is being demanded!"
How insensitive! How disgusting of Reuven to say that!
What he was saying was, don't repent because you're having a hard time or because you're being punished. Repent of your own free choice, choose to repent, otherwise it's not true repentance.
The real lesson I took from the Sicha is you have free choice to sin and to repent anytime anywhere and it's not up to Hashgacha Protis.
Here's the quote: 21. And they said to one another, "Indeed, we are guilty for our brother, that we witnessed the distress of his soul when he begged us, and we did not listen. That is why this trouble has come upon us."
22. And Reuben answered them, saying, "Didn't I tell you, saying, 'Do not sin against the lad,' but you did not listen? Behold, his blood, too, is being demanded!"
How insensitive! How disgusting of Reuven to say that!
What he was saying was, don't repent because you're having a hard time or because you're being punished. Repent of your own free choice, choose to repent, otherwise it's not true repentance.
The real lesson I took from the Sicha is you have free choice to sin and to repent anytime anywhere and it's not up to Hashgacha Protis.
Thought
You might think that just thinking G-dly thoughts is enough for your G-dly soul to be in clothed in your thoughts. Yet possibly the depth of thought is also crucial. Thinking not up to your ability quality wise you've not truly become a conduit for your G-dly soul.
This is my understanding why in the beginning of chapter 4 of Tanya the Alter Rebbe says to be able to understand as much as your capable of understanding in Torah, as an explanation for thought not intellect.
This is my understanding why in the beginning of chapter 4 of Tanya the Alter Rebbe says to be able to understand as much as your capable of understanding in Torah, as an explanation for thought not intellect.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Right, up or down?
The mystical explanation of right and left is fairly simple. Right represents giving in a downward flow. Left represents the elevation, the upward surge that is caused when the G-dly light is held back.
There is, however, an alternative interpretation that sees “right” as representing closeness and left representing distance. The divine commandments are on the right side because they create closeness between the physical world and Hashem by elevating the material world. According to this interpretation the right represents not a drawing downward but a closeness that pulls the world upward.
The Torah on the other hand travels downward to the most distant places, to the “left” side. It travels to the world of un-holiness. In order to determine the difference between kosher and non kosher, between truth and lie, the Torah must descend into the world, causing its closeness to Hashem to be concealed.
Similarly, the Chanukah Menorah is placed at the left side of the door. for It too has the power to descend to the "left" side, bringing its beauty, tranquility and brightness to the most unlikely of places.
When you’re on the “right” side you’re in the light, however, you can’t communicate beyond your realm. On the left side you will only find a tiny flame, tiny, but powerful, it can reach anywhere and everywhere.
ATERES - Vayeshev
There is, however, an alternative interpretation that sees “right” as representing closeness and left representing distance. The divine commandments are on the right side because they create closeness between the physical world and Hashem by elevating the material world. According to this interpretation the right represents not a drawing downward but a closeness that pulls the world upward.
The Torah on the other hand travels downward to the most distant places, to the “left” side. It travels to the world of un-holiness. In order to determine the difference between kosher and non kosher, between truth and lie, the Torah must descend into the world, causing its closeness to Hashem to be concealed.
Similarly, the Chanukah Menorah is placed at the left side of the door. for It too has the power to descend to the "left" side, bringing its beauty, tranquility and brightness to the most unlikely of places.
When you’re on the “right” side you’re in the light, however, you can’t communicate beyond your realm. On the left side you will only find a tiny flame, tiny, but powerful, it can reach anywhere and everywhere.
ATERES - Vayeshev
THE "SOUND" OF NEWS
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE: DOCUMENT OR WITNESSES?
What makes a transaction public knowledge? Rav gives conflicting messages. In one instance he says that only when a document is written can we assume that the transaction is public knowledge.
Rav was referring to a case were someone bought a field and sold it to a second person, who then sold it to a third person. Rav rules that when the buyers collectively occupy the field for three years they have a Chazakah, a legal assumption that the field belongs to the buyer, because three years past without a protest from the Original owner. Since all of the sales were documented the original owner can't claim that he had no idea that the three people that occupied his field bought it from each other giving them the right to a chazakah,
In another instance Rav said that a transaction in the presence of two witnesses is considered public knowledge.
In the second statement Rav said that if one sells a field in the presence of two witnesses all of the seller's real property is placed in lien, securing the buyer against the seller's creditors.
It seems that Rav's statements are conflicting, are witnesses sufficient to create public knowledge or must there be a document?
THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION: HOW MUCH NOISE IS NEEDED?
The Talmud explains that it depends on the specifics of the case and on the amount of "noise" that is necessary. In the case of the lein, we expect a responsible buyer to research the prospective field, and he will therefoe be able to discover the lien that was observed by two witnesses.
In the case of the first case, however, the original owner is not expected to do any research. A greater "noise" is necessary in order for the news of the second and third transaction to reach someone who is not actively researching the ownership of a field. therefore, argues Rav, only a document can generate that amoumt of "sound".
Baba Basra 41b
What makes a transaction public knowledge? Rav gives conflicting messages. In one instance he says that only when a document is written can we assume that the transaction is public knowledge.
Rav was referring to a case were someone bought a field and sold it to a second person, who then sold it to a third person. Rav rules that when the buyers collectively occupy the field for three years they have a Chazakah, a legal assumption that the field belongs to the buyer, because three years past without a protest from the Original owner. Since all of the sales were documented the original owner can't claim that he had no idea that the three people that occupied his field bought it from each other giving them the right to a chazakah,
In another instance Rav said that a transaction in the presence of two witnesses is considered public knowledge.
In the second statement Rav said that if one sells a field in the presence of two witnesses all of the seller's real property is placed in lien, securing the buyer against the seller's creditors.
It seems that Rav's statements are conflicting, are witnesses sufficient to create public knowledge or must there be a document?
THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION: HOW MUCH NOISE IS NEEDED?
The Talmud explains that it depends on the specifics of the case and on the amount of "noise" that is necessary. In the case of the lein, we expect a responsible buyer to research the prospective field, and he will therefoe be able to discover the lien that was observed by two witnesses.
In the case of the first case, however, the original owner is not expected to do any research. A greater "noise" is necessary in order for the news of the second and third transaction to reach someone who is not actively researching the ownership of a field. therefore, argues Rav, only a document can generate that amoumt of "sound".
Baba Basra 41b
Monday, December 15, 2008
Mediate On Life
Here is what Chasidus teaches:
Look, you feel your energy, you feel that you are alive, you love your life. Now, all you have to do is realize that the energy that you already feel is G-dly energy. The breath of life within you is G-dly. Everything in this universe is absolutely unimportant in Comparisson to your life.
The beauty of this meditation is that it can’t be that difficult, after all, most of it is already done. You already feel your life and you would sacrifice anything for it. There is just a little more that you have to do, and your life will never be the same again.
(Kol Ha'Marich B'echod - Ateres )
Look, you feel your energy, you feel that you are alive, you love your life. Now, all you have to do is realize that the energy that you already feel is G-dly energy. The breath of life within you is G-dly. Everything in this universe is absolutely unimportant in Comparisson to your life.
The beauty of this meditation is that it can’t be that difficult, after all, most of it is already done. You already feel your life and you would sacrifice anything for it. There is just a little more that you have to do, and your life will never be the same again.
(Kol Ha'Marich B'echod - Ateres )
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The “Silver of Rabbi Abba”
The following case was brought before the court of Rabbi Abba:
Plaintiff: the defendant grabbed a piece of silver from my hand; I have one witness who saw it happen!
Defendant: yes, I grabbed the silver from the plaintiff, but it belonged to me!
This is a dificult case to rule on, because we can't use the usual laws. Let me explain: According to Totah law a plaintiff must produce two witnesses in order to force the defendant to pay. If the plaintiff is only able to support his claim with the testimony of one witness, the defendant must take an oath asserting that his defensive claim is true, and he does not have to pay.
In the silver case we can’t rely on the usual ruling of forcing the defendant to take an oath to substantiate his claim, beacuse the defendant is not contradicting the witness. The defendant acknowledges the truth of the witness’s claim, he, however, claims that the silver belongs to him. (One witness can only force the defendant to sware if the defendant contradicts the witness’s testimony, in this case the defendant is not disputing the facts that the witness is testifying about.)
Rabbi Abba ruled that since the defendant can't sware, he must pay.
Rabbi abba Explaine: if the plaintiff wouldn't have one witness supporting his claim, we would belive the defendnds claim that the silver belonged to him. The reason: he could have denied that he grabbed the silver from the plaintiff, and we would believe him since he is in possession of the silver. Now that he admits to grabbeing the silver his claim that the silver belonged to him must be true.
This legal principle is called “migo” which is Aramaic for “because”. We believe the defendant “because” he could have made a better claim. If he were lying he would choose a better lie.
In the “silver” case the defendant does not have a “migo”. He does not have the option to claim the better claim denying his grabbing the silver, because a witness saw him do it. Without a "migo" we have no reason to belibve the defendant that the silver belonged to him.
The only other way we could belive the defendant would be if he swore that his claim is true. the problem is, we can't impose an oath since the defendant is not contradicting the witness.
Rabbi Abba therefore ruled, and established a precedent, that since the defendant can’t swear in his own defense he must pay. In our case he must return the silver.
Plaintiff: the defendant grabbed a piece of silver from my hand; I have one witness who saw it happen!
Defendant: yes, I grabbed the silver from the plaintiff, but it belonged to me!
This is a dificult case to rule on, because we can't use the usual laws. Let me explain: According to Totah law a plaintiff must produce two witnesses in order to force the defendant to pay. If the plaintiff is only able to support his claim with the testimony of one witness, the defendant must take an oath asserting that his defensive claim is true, and he does not have to pay.
In the silver case we can’t rely on the usual ruling of forcing the defendant to take an oath to substantiate his claim, beacuse the defendant is not contradicting the witness. The defendant acknowledges the truth of the witness’s claim, he, however, claims that the silver belongs to him. (One witness can only force the defendant to sware if the defendant contradicts the witness’s testimony, in this case the defendant is not disputing the facts that the witness is testifying about.)
Rabbi Abba ruled that since the defendant can't sware, he must pay.
Rabbi abba Explaine: if the plaintiff wouldn't have one witness supporting his claim, we would belive the defendnds claim that the silver belonged to him. The reason: he could have denied that he grabbed the silver from the plaintiff, and we would believe him since he is in possession of the silver. Now that he admits to grabbeing the silver his claim that the silver belonged to him must be true.
This legal principle is called “migo” which is Aramaic for “because”. We believe the defendant “because” he could have made a better claim. If he were lying he would choose a better lie.
In the “silver” case the defendant does not have a “migo”. He does not have the option to claim the better claim denying his grabbing the silver, because a witness saw him do it. Without a "migo" we have no reason to belibve the defendant that the silver belonged to him.
The only other way we could belive the defendant would be if he swore that his claim is true. the problem is, we can't impose an oath since the defendant is not contradicting the witness.
Rabbi Abba therefore ruled, and established a precedent, that since the defendant can’t swear in his own defense he must pay. In our case he must return the silver.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Kindness or Intense Kindness?
Chesed and Gevurah, kindness and discipline, are two of the seven emotional attributes of Hashem. Chasidus explains that in the source of the Sefiros there is no discipline, only kindness and intense kindness.
This Shabbos morning I attempted to explain this with the following parable. There are two teachers. The first opens his doors to everybody, all are welcome. The teacher is kind, he finds the right words to impart knowledge to everyone. The first teacher embodies the attribute of kindness.
The second teacher is the embodiment of intense kindness. He wants to give far more knowledge then the masses could understand. He stands at the door testing the students, allowing only the best and brightest to attend his lecture. The second teacher's kindness is intense. So intense, that to some students it can feel like discipline and rejection. Within the teacher's heart, however, is a powerful feeling to give, a feeling that can't be satisfied by sharing the measured wisdom that the teacher down the hall is sharing.
Which is kinder? Kindness or intense kindness?
(Liku"s Vol. 30, Toldot, Sicha 1)
This Shabbos morning I attempted to explain this with the following parable. There are two teachers. The first opens his doors to everybody, all are welcome. The teacher is kind, he finds the right words to impart knowledge to everyone. The first teacher embodies the attribute of kindness.
The second teacher is the embodiment of intense kindness. He wants to give far more knowledge then the masses could understand. He stands at the door testing the students, allowing only the best and brightest to attend his lecture. The second teacher's kindness is intense. So intense, that to some students it can feel like discipline and rejection. Within the teacher's heart, however, is a powerful feeling to give, a feeling that can't be satisfied by sharing the measured wisdom that the teacher down the hall is sharing.
Which is kinder? Kindness or intense kindness?
(Liku"s Vol. 30, Toldot, Sicha 1)
Thursday, December 4, 2008
"Your Belife at Night"
At the moment when words fail me, I turn to the masters, the ones who posses the magic to find the right words to express every feeling in the emotional spectrum.
In this time of heavy, deep, and painful darkness I turn to king David, three thousand years ago, in the deserts of southern Israel, harp in hand, he sang the following words: “To say your kindness in the morning and your belief at night.” In the morning, when the sun shines, when we feel the closeness, we do not sing our belief, we have kindness. Our belief is reserved for the midnight, when we can’t even attempt to understand what’s happening in the darkness around us, we must believe.
In this time of great pain I turn to my brothers for a feeling of connection, like a family in mourning we try to stick together. I open and read every email carefully. One email hits me. “Our belief must be steadfast, it must be the same as it was on Wednesday morning.”
Our belief must be steadfast, however we can never be the same as we were on Wednesday morning. On Wednesday morning it was morning, we experienced kindness. Now, it’s dark we must begin to believe. We believe, we believe that this tragedy did not happen at random. A world was shattered, lives was shattered, our life must never be the same, we must be completely transformed.
I’m not sure how, but all the negativity in our life, all of the pettiness must be shattered. We must be totally transformed people, we must become a little like the Holtzbergs HY”D.
May the day come when we can once again sing hashem’s kindness, not just his belief.
In this time of heavy, deep, and painful darkness I turn to king David, three thousand years ago, in the deserts of southern Israel, harp in hand, he sang the following words: “To say your kindness in the morning and your belief at night.” In the morning, when the sun shines, when we feel the closeness, we do not sing our belief, we have kindness. Our belief is reserved for the midnight, when we can’t even attempt to understand what’s happening in the darkness around us, we must believe.
In this time of great pain I turn to my brothers for a feeling of connection, like a family in mourning we try to stick together. I open and read every email carefully. One email hits me. “Our belief must be steadfast, it must be the same as it was on Wednesday morning.”
Our belief must be steadfast, however we can never be the same as we were on Wednesday morning. On Wednesday morning it was morning, we experienced kindness. Now, it’s dark we must begin to believe. We believe, we believe that this tragedy did not happen at random. A world was shattered, lives was shattered, our life must never be the same, we must be completely transformed.
I’m not sure how, but all the negativity in our life, all of the pettiness must be shattered. We must be totally transformed people, we must become a little like the Holtzbergs HY”D.
May the day come when we can once again sing hashem’s kindness, not just his belief.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Connect
Love or awe, passion or respect, which is more connecting? On the surface awe doesn't stand a chance. How can it even compete against the powerful force of love?
Chasidus allows me to look at the world from a deeper angle. Love is a feeling that connects, it connects me to myself. The more I love the more I am focused on myself, the harder it is to put myself aside and appreciate the needs of my beloved.
[As in, "I am in love right now, I want to talk to you about my feelings" while your beloved is thinking "I wish you would notice that I am in pain right now, and in no position to talk about love".]
When I am in awe, when I feel reverence and respect, I don't feel myself. I can focus and connect to the feelings of the other.
To truly connect I must transcend myself.
In the morning prayers I ask Hashem "May my soul be like dust before all, open my heart to your Torah". I pray for the humility that allows me to connect to something greater then myself.
I ask myself are love and awe opposites? Are Avraham, the embodiment of love, and Yitzchok, the embodiment of fear, opposites?
In truth they are two steps in forming a bond. Love is a feeling of connectedness, and it is crucially important to any relationship. But hey, don’t underestimate the importance of awe. It alone has the power to truly unite deeply and meaningfully.
So the next time you love don't forget to respect. It may not be as fun, but it's the glue holding you together.
(Liku"s Vol. 30, Toldot, Sicha 1)
Chasidus allows me to look at the world from a deeper angle. Love is a feeling that connects, it connects me to myself. The more I love the more I am focused on myself, the harder it is to put myself aside and appreciate the needs of my beloved.
[As in, "I am in love right now, I want to talk to you about my feelings" while your beloved is thinking "I wish you would notice that I am in pain right now, and in no position to talk about love".]
When I am in awe, when I feel reverence and respect, I don't feel myself. I can focus and connect to the feelings of the other.
To truly connect I must transcend myself.
In the morning prayers I ask Hashem "May my soul be like dust before all, open my heart to your Torah". I pray for the humility that allows me to connect to something greater then myself.
I ask myself are love and awe opposites? Are Avraham, the embodiment of love, and Yitzchok, the embodiment of fear, opposites?
In truth they are two steps in forming a bond. Love is a feeling of connectedness, and it is crucially important to any relationship. But hey, don’t underestimate the importance of awe. It alone has the power to truly unite deeply and meaningfully.
So the next time you love don't forget to respect. It may not be as fun, but it's the glue holding you together.
(Liku"s Vol. 30, Toldot, Sicha 1)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)