ื‘ืกืดื“

Kavanot: Fatherly Advice

Thoughts on Tanach and the Davening

With ืคืกื•ืง ื—, we start the first book of ืกืคืจ ืžืฉืœื™. This continues through ืคืจืง ื˜, and is centered around the image of a parent giving advice to their child. ื‘ื ื™ or ื‘ื ื™ื is adressed 19 times in this book, and only 6 times in the rest of the ืกืคืจ.

ื— ืฉืžืข ื‘ื ื™ ืžื•ืกืจ ืื‘ื™ืš; ื•ืืœ ืชื˜ืฉ ืชื•ืจืช ืืžืšืƒ ื˜ ื›ื™ ืœื•ื™ืช ื—ืŸ ื”ื ืœืจืืฉืš; ื•ืขื ืงื™ื ืœื’ืจื’ืจืชืšืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ืคืจืง ื

An important part of this ืžืฉืœ is the two types of teaching: ืžื•ืกืจ ืื‘ื™ืš and ืชื•ืจืช ืืžืš.

There were two mesoros that Moses transferred to Joshua. One is the tradition of Torah learning, of lomdus. The second mesorah, the hod, was experiential. One can know the entire Maseches Shabbos and yet still not know what Shabbos is. To truly know what Shabbos is, one has to spend time in a Yiddishe home. Even in those neighborhoods made up predominantly of religious Jews, today one can no longer talk of the sanctity of Shabbos. True, there are Jews in America who observe Shabbos; but there are no โ€œErev Shabbos Jewsโ€, who go out to greet Shabbos with beating hearts and pulsating souls.

Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik, Chumash Mesoras haRav, Sefer Bamidbar 27:23

What is torat imekha? What kind of a Torah does the mother pass on? I admit that I am not able to define precisely the massoretic role of the Jewish motherโ€ฆI used to watch [my mother] arranging the house in honor of a holiday. I used to see her recite prayers; I used to watch her recite the sidra every Friday night and I still remember the nostalgic tune. I learned from her very much. Most of all I learned that Judaism expresses itself not only in formal compliance with the law but also in a living experience. She taught me that there is a flavor, a scent and warmth to mitzvot. I learned from her the most important thing in lifeโ€”to feel the presence of the Almighty and the gentle pressure of His hand resting upon my frail shoulders. Without her teachings, which quite often were transmitted to me in silence, I would have grown up a soulless being, dry and insensitive.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, A Tribute to the Rebbitzen of Talne, Tradition, Spring 1978 Issue 17.2, pp 76-77

We have that model of ืชื•ืจืช ืืžืš in the aggadot of Serach, who lives throughout Jewish history.

ื•ืฉื ื‘ืช ืืฉืจ ืฉืจื—: ืœึฐืคึดื™ ืฉืึถื”ึธื™ึฐืชึธื” ืงึทื™ึผึถืžึถืช ื‘ึผึฐื—ึทื™ึผึถื™ื”ึธ ืžึฐื ึธืึธื”ึผ ื›ึผึธืืŸ.

ืจืฉืดื™, ื‘ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื›ื•:ืžื“

ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื“ื•ืจื• ืฉืœ ืžืฉื”, ื‘ื“ื•ืจ ืคืœืื™ื ืฉื™ืฆื ืžืžืฆืจื™ื, ืฉืจืื” ืžืจืื•ืช ืืœืงื™ื ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ื•ืงื™ื‘ืœ ืืช ื”ืชื•ืจื”, ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ื ื”ื™ื• ืœื“ืžื•ืช ืงื“ื•ืžื”, ืกืจื— ื‘ืช ืืฉืจ, ืฉื‘ื™ืœื“ื•ืชื” ื™ืฉื‘ื” ื‘ื—ื™ืงื• ืฉืœ ื”ืกื‘ื ื”ื–ืงืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืชืขืฉืขื” ื‘ืฉืขืจื•ืช ืจืืฉื• ื•ื–ืงื ื•. ื‘ืœืขื“ื™ื” ื”ื™ื™ืชื” ื ืคืกืงืช ืจืฆื™ืคืช ื”ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื”ืื™ืฉื™ืชโ€ฆืื™-ืืคืฉืจ ืœืจื ืŸ ื–ึถื” ืึตึพืœึดื™ ื•ึฐืึทื ึฐื•ึตื”ื•ึผ, ืื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืจืช ื”ื”ื•ื•ื” ืžื•ืฆืžื“ืช ืœืฉื™ืจืช ื”ืขื‘ืจโ€”ืึฑึพืœึนื”ึตื™ ืึธื‘ึดื™ ื•ึทืึฒืจึนืžึฐืžึถื ึฐื”ื•ึผ. ืจืง ืึตื ื–ืงื ื”, ืฉื—ื•ื—ืช ื’ื• ื•ื—ืจื•ืฉืช ืคื ื™ื, ืฉื”ืชื—ื˜ืื” ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื–ืงืŸ ื•ืงืจืื” ืœื• โ€ืกื‘ืโ€œ, ื™ื•ื“ืขืช ืืช ืกื•ื“ ื—ื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื•ืงื™ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื™ืžื™ื ื”ื”ื ืขื ื”ื–ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื”.

ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื“ื‘ ื”ืœื•ื™ ืกื•ืœื•ื‘ื™ื™ืฆืณื™ืง, ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื’ื•ืช ื•ื”ืขืจื›ื”, ืคืœื™ื˜ืช ืกื•ืคืจื™ื”ื, ื”ืกืคื“ ืœืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื”ืœืจ

And of course, this is a ืžืฉืœ, a metaphor. We are all the โ€œื‘ืŸโ€, and the ืื‘ and ืื represent ื”ืงื‘ืดื” and the people of Israel as a whole, respectively.

ืฉืžืข ื‘ื ื™ ืžื•ืกืจ ืื‘ื™ืš: ืžื” ืฉื ืชืŸ ื”ืงื‘ืดื” ืœืžืฉื” ื‘ื›ืชื‘ ื•ืขืœ ืคื”.

ืืžืš: ืื•ึผืžืชืš, ื›ื ืกืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ; ื›ืžื• (ื™ื—ื–ืงืืœ ื™ื˜:ื‘) ืžึธื” ืึดืžึผึฐืšึธ ืœึฐื‘ึดื™ึผึธื.

ืจืฉืดื™, ืžืฉืœื™ ื:ื—

Dr. Haym Soloveitchik calls this ืชื•ืจืช ืืžืš, the mimetic tradition.

And a way of life is not learned but rather absorbed. Its transmission is mimetic, imbibed from parents and friends, and patterned on conduct regularly observed in home and street, synagogue and school.

Did these mimetic normsโ€”the culturally prescriptiveโ€”conform with the legal ones? The answer is, at times, yes; at times, no. And the significance of the no may best be brought home by an example with which all are familiarโ€”the kosher kitchen, with its rigid separation of milk and meatโ€”separate dishes, sinks, dish racks, towels, tablecloths, even separate cupboards. Actually little of this has a basis in Halakhah. Strictly speaking, there is no need for separate sinks, for separate dishtowels or cupboards. In fact, if the food is served cold, there is no need for separate dishware altogether. The simple fact is that the traditional Jewish kitchen, transmitted from mother to daughter over generations, has been immeasurably and unrecognizably amplified beyond all halakhic requirements. Its classic contours are the product not of legal exegesis, but of the housewifeโ€™s religious intuition imparted in kitchen apprenticeship.

โ€ฆIt is this rupture [the loss of the mimetic tradition] in the traditional religious sensibilities that underlies much of the transformation of contemporary Orthodoxy. Zealous to continue traditional Judaism unimpaired, religious Jews seek to ground their new emerging spirituality less on a now unattainable intimacy with Him, than on an intimacy with His Will, avidly eliciting Its intricate demands and saturating their daily lives with Its exactions. Having lost the touch of His presence, they seek now solace in the pressure of His yoke.

Dr. Haym Soloveitchik, Rupture and Reconstruction: The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy, Tradition, Summer 1994 Issue 28.4, pp. 64-130

ืกืคืจ ืžืฉืœื™ is meant to be a fusion of the two. Not lectures of dry law, but not really mimetic. We arenโ€™t seeing or participating in the experiences that shape our moral intuition. ืžืฉืœื™ื are not really observations. We are just reading about them. But they will still serve a purpose.

And the first lesson is about that mimetic moral intuition. Our brains determine what is โ€œnormalโ€ and therefore what is โ€œrightโ€ by observing how others behave. That isnโ€™t a conscious decision; thatโ€™s our primitive social primate brain at work. What we can decide is who counts as the others in our social group. Choose your friends wisely.

ื™ ื‘ื ื™ ืื ื™ืคืชื•ืš ื—ื˜ืื™ื ืืœ ืชื‘ืืƒ ื™ื ืื ื™ืืžืจื• ืœื›ื” ืืชื ื•; ื ืืจื‘ื” ืœื“ื; ื ืฆืคื ื” ืœื ืงื™ ื—ื ืืƒ ื™ื‘ ื ื‘ืœืขื ื›ืฉืื•ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื; ื•ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืจื“ื™ ื‘ื•ืจืƒ ื™ื’ ื›ืœ ื”ื•ืŸ ื™ืงืจ ื ืžืฆื; ื ืžืœื ื‘ืชื™ื ื• ืฉืœืœืƒ ื™ื“ ื’ื•ืจืœืš ืชืคื™ืœ ื‘ืชื•ื›ื ื•; ื›ื™ืก ืื—ื“ ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœื›ืœื ื•ืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ืคืจืง ื

Jonathan Haidt demonstrated that our moral decisions are made, not by logical reasoning, but by intuition. And that intuition is socially determined.

This article reviews evidence against rationalist models and proposes an alternative: the social intuitionist model. Intuitionism in philosophy refers to the view that there are moral truths and that when people grasp these truths they do so not by a process of ratiocination and reflection but rather by a process more akin to perception, in which one โ€œjust sees without argument that they are and must be trueโ€โ€ฆ

The social part of the social intuitionist model proposes that moral judgment should be studied as an interpersonal process. Moral reasoning is usually an ex post facto process used to influence the intuitions (and hence judgments) of other people. In the social intuitionist model, one feels a quick flash of revulsion at the thought of incest and one knows intuitively that something is wrong. Then, when faced with a social demand for a verbal justification, one becomes a lawyer trying to build a case rather than a judge searching for the truthโ€ฆ

Because people are highly attuned to the emergence of group norms, the model proposes that the mere fact that friends, allies, and acquaintances have made a moral judgment exerts a direct influence on others, even if no reasoned persuasion is used.

Jonathan Haidt (2001), The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment, Psychological Review. Vol. 108. No. 4, 814-834

Call it memetic morality. That can work, as long as we are only apes in small clans, and we know where we fit in the hierarchy of the clan. But once we have larger societies, we need more formal structure, to say โ€œthis is rightโ€, โ€œthis is what people doโ€. That structure is called government. In the absence of government, the pasuk says, ื ื‘ืœืขื ื›ืฉืื•ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื. The Mishna borrows that image:

ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืกื’ืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืื•ืžืจ: ื”ื•ื™ ืžืชืคืœืœ ื‘ืฉืœื•ืžื” ืฉืœ ืžืœื›ื•ืช, ืฉืืœืžืœื ืžื•ืจืื”, ืื™ืฉ ืืช ืจืขื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืœืขื•.

ืžืฉื ื” ืื‘ื•ืช ื’:ื‘

ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืœืขื•: ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ (ื—ื‘ืงื•ืง ื:ื™ื“) ื•ึทืชึทึผืขึฒืฉึถื‚ื” ืึธื“ึธื ื›ึดึผื“ึฐื’ึตื™ ื”ึทื™ึธึผื; (ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“,ื) ืžื” ื“ื’ื™ื ืฉื‘ื™ื ื›ืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื‘ื•ืœืข ืืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื•, ืืฃ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืืœืžืœื ืžื•ืจืื” ืฉืœ ืžืœื›ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžื—ื‘ืจื• ื‘ื•ืœืข ืืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื•.

ืจื‘ื™ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื™ื” ืžื‘ืจื˜ื ื•ืจื, ืžืฉื ื” ืื‘ื•ืช ื’:ื‘

The Maharal connects this image of โ€œswallowed wholeโ€ with the idea that every human being is uniquely significant. But we have to realize that this is true not only of us (and our in-group, our clan), but every other human being.

ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื ื‘ืจื ืื“ื ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™, ืœืœืžื“ืš, ืฉื›ืœ ื”ืžืื‘ื“ ื ืคืฉ ืื—ืช ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ, ืžืขืœื” ืขืœื™ื• ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื›ืื™ืœื• ืื™ื‘ื“ ืขื•ืœื ืžืœื. ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื ื ืคืฉ ืื—ืช ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ, ืžืขืœื” ืขืœื™ื• ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื›ืืœื• ืงื™ื™ื ืขื•ืœื ืžืœืโ€ฆ

ื•ืœื”ื’ื™ื“ ืœื“ ื’ื“ื•ืœืชื• ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื, ืฉืื“ื ื˜ื•ื‘ืข ื›ืžื” ืžื˜ื‘ืขื•ืช ื‘ื—ื•ืชื ืื—ื“ ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื“ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืœื–ื”, ื•ืžืœืš ืžืœื›ื™ ื”ืžืœื›ื™ื ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ื˜ื‘ืข ื›ืœ ืื“ื ื‘ื—ื•ืชืžื• ืฉืœ ืื“ื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื“ื•ืžื” ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื•.

ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื•ืžืจ, ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœื™ ื ื‘ืจื ื”ืขื•ืœื.

ืžืฉื ื” ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ ื“:ื”

Maharal points out that animals, other species, are all the same; there is no moral worth to the differences between individuals.

ืฉื”ืจื™ ื›ืœ ืื“ื ืื•ืžืจ โ€ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœื™ ื ื‘ืจื ื”ืขื•ืœืโ€œ, ื•ื”ื•ื ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืจืื•ื™ ื‘ืขื•ืœื, ื•ืœื›ืš ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื•ืœืข ืืช ืจืขื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื, ืขื“ ืฉื”ื•ื ื ืฉืืจ ื‘ืœื‘ื“. ื•ืœื›ืš ืืžืจ โ€ื”ื•ื™ ืžืชืคืœืœ ื‘ืฉืœื•ืžื” ืฉืœ ืžืœื›ื•ืช, ืฉืืœืžืœื ืžื•ืจื ืžืœื›ื•ืชโ€œ, ืฉื”ื•ื ืžืงืฉืจ ื”ืื ืฉื™ื ื”ืคืจื˜ื™ื ืขื“ ืฉื”ื ืžืชื—ื‘ืจื™ื. ื•ืื ืœื ื”ื™ื” ื–ื”, ื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื‘ื•ืœืข ืืช ืจืขื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ืโ€ฆืฉืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื ืžืฆื ืจืง ื”ื•ื.

ืžื”ืจืดืœ, ื“ืจืš ื—ื™ื™ื ื’:ื‘

The way out of this paradox is called ืขื ื•ื•ื”, humility.

Humility is not thinking less of yourself, itโ€™s thinking of yourself less.

Rick Warren

Yet there is no getting away from our own vantage pointโ€ฆItโ€™s hardwired into the fabric of creationโ€ฆThe anavโ€ฆtoo says, โ€œThe world was created for meโ€, because this is engrained within all of us, yet his statement has a spin. He is actually saying, โ€œThe world was created for me to giveโ€.

Rabbi Dovid Morris, Mishlei Chapters 1-5: Metaphors for Living, p. 48

And then the ืžืฉืœ tells us that joining a bad crowd will not end well.

ื˜ื• ื‘ื ื™ ืืœ ืชืœืš ื‘ื“ืจืš ืืชื; ืžื ืข ืจื’ืœืš ืžื ืชื™ื‘ืชืืƒ ื˜ื– ื›ื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื”ื ืœืจืข ื™ืจื•ืฆื•; ื•ื™ืžื”ืจื• ืœืฉืคืš ื“ืืƒ ื™ื– ื›ื™ ื—ื ื ืžื–ืจื” ื”ืจืฉืช ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ ื›ืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื›ื ืฃืƒ ื™ื— ื•ื”ื ืœื“ืžื ื™ืืจื‘ื•; ื™ืฆืคื ื• ืœื ืคืฉืชืืƒ ื™ื˜ ื›ืŸ ืืจื—ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื‘ืฆืข ื‘ืฆืข; ืืช ื ืคืฉ ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื™ืงื—ืƒ

ืžืฉืœื™ ืคืจืง ื

The Gra emphasizes that just hanging round with a bad crowd will lead to a bad end.

ืžื ืข ืจื’ืœืš ืžื ืชื™ื‘ืชื: ื›ืœื•ืžืจ, ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื” ืฉโ€ืืœ ืชืœืš ื‘ื“ืจืšโ€œ ืฉื”ื•ื ื”ื“ืจืš ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืขืฆืžื• ืฉื”ื ื“ื•ืจื›ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ืœื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืึดืชึผึธื, ืืœื โ€ืžื ืข ืจื’ืœืšโ€œ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขืฆืžืš ื‘ืœื ื”ื ื•โ€ืžื ืชื™ื‘ืชืโ€œ ื”ืงื˜ื ื™ื ืฉืžื”ืŸ ื‘ืื™ื ืœื”ื“ืจืš ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืžื‘ื™ื ืœื™ื“ื™ ื–ื”.

ื‘ื™ืื•ืจ ื”ื’ืจืดื, ืžืฉืœื™ ื:ื˜ื•

And then we have a metaphor within a metaphor. The ื ืืจื‘ื” ืœื“ื; ื ืฆืคื ื” ืœื ืงื™ ื—ื ื wonโ€™t catch anything: ื›ื™ ื—ื ื ืžื–ืจื” ื”ืจืฉืช.

And ื•ื”ื ืœื“ืžื ื™ืืจื‘ื•; ื™ืฆืคื ื• ืœื ืคืฉืชื: their traps will only trap themselves. Only they will be hurt.

ื›ืŸ ืืจื—ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื‘ื•ืฆืข ื‘ืฆืข: ื’ื•ื–ืœ ื’ื–ื™ืœื” ื ืื” ื•ื ื—ืžื“ืช ื”ื™ื ืœื• ื•ื—ื ื ื”ื™ื ืœื• ื•ืกื•ืคื•.

ืืช ื ืคืฉ ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื™ืงื—: ื ืคืฉ ืขืฆืžื• ืฉื ืขืฉื” ืขื›ืฉื™ื• ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืžืžื•ืŸ ืฉื’ื–ืœ ืžื—ื‘ื™ืจื•.

ืจืฉืดื™, ืžืฉืœื™ ื:ื™ื˜

Rabbi Morris notes the ื™ืงื— in ื ืคืฉ ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื™ืงื—. That expression is used in the Torah for creating divisions, tearing down society.

ื•ื™ืงื— ืงืจื— ื‘ืŸ ื™ืฆื”ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืงื”ืช ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™; ื•ื“ืชืŸ ื•ืื‘ื™ืจื ื‘ื ื™ ืืœื™ืื‘ ื•ืื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืคืœืช ื‘ื ื™ ืจืื•ื‘ืŸืƒ

ื‘ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื˜ื–:ื

ื•ื™ืงื— ืงืจื—: ืœืงื— ืืช ืขืฆืžื• ืœืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื ื—ืœืง ืžืชื•ืš ื”ืขื“ื”.

ืจืฉืดื™, ื‘ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื˜ื–:ื

In the end, the ืžื•ืกืจ ืื‘ื™ืš and ืชื•ืจืช ืืžืš arenโ€™t about the crimes of stealing and murder. Everyone knows thatโ€™s wrong. Itโ€™s about the value of community, of having community standards that support one another rather than tear each other down.