Thoughts about the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy

 Two thoughts about the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy (Exodus/Shemot 34:6-7) - I want to write more about them, but I will share the basic thoughts here:

1. Whenever the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy are chanted as part of the High Holiday liturgy, in Selichot, on fast days, etc., they are chanted three times. Three times thirteen equals thirty-nine. There are thirty-nine melachot, or categories of work, prohibited to be done on Shabbat - and the reason they are prohibited is that they are the tasks done to build the Mishkan, the Tabernacle. The commandment to observe/remember Shabbat contains the commandment "Six days shall you labor" - so the commandment to rest from performing the tasks to build the Mishkan includes the implicit commandment to do so the rest of the week - which can be seen metaphorically as a commandment to work to build a place for G!d's presence on earth within and among us. Since the thirty-nine tasks equal three times thirteen, this can be seen as a commandment to build a metaphorical place for the presence of G!d emulating G!d's Thirteen Attributes of Mercy as the essential nature of those tasks (and we should emulate G!d because we are created in the image (Genesis/Bereshit 1:27) and likeness (Genesis/Bereshit 5:10 of G!d.

2. Rebbe Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev, in Kedushas Levi on Ki Tisa 14, quoting the Maggid of Mezritch, teaches that the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy correspond to the Thirteen Hermeneutical Principles contained in the Baraita of Rabbi Yishmael, each Attritute having a corresponding Hermeneutical Principle. (More info about these here: https://jewishencyclopedia.com/.../12937-rules-of-r....) These Hermeneutical Principles are recited at the end of the first section of Shacharit each morning. As regular readers know, I have wrestled with the Akedah, the Binding of Isaac (Genesis/Bereshit 22), for many years - and intriguingly, the Akedah is traditionally recited in the first section of Shacharit, not that long before the recitation of this Baraita. I think that perhaps reading this very disturbing text of Abraham almost murdering his son, which can be seen as resulting in trauma for Isaac, in the context of Hermeneutical Principles that correspond to the Attributes of Mercy, teaches us to have a "hermeneutic of G!d's mercy" when approaching traumatic texts such as this. (And "mercy" is such a weak translation of the incredibly rich "Rachmanim" - derived from "rechem," meaning "womb" - "rachmonus" - to use the Yiddish pronunciation means compassion - but a very deep compassion, the English word for which doesn't really exist.)

Shavua Tov - have a great week!

"Where" is the lamb for the ascent?

Longtime regular readers of my posts will know that I have been wrestling with the Akedah, the binding of Isaac (Bereshit/Genesis 22), for over three decades. One local rabbi gives me a trigger warning whenever it comes up in daf yomi or other contexts - and invited me to give a class on the various interpretations on the Shabbat when it was read as part of the Torah reading.

Tonight, I learned a new reading, in the teachings of Rebbe Nachman of Breslov, in a wonderful three-part class taught by Rabbanit Goldie Guy which concluded tonight. Here is the teaching, from Likutey Moharan:

ליקוטי מוהר"ן, תנינא י״ב:א׳:ט״ז

וְזֶהוּ בְּחִינוֹת עוֹלָה, בְּחִינַת (בראשית כב): ו"אַיֵּה" הַשֶּׂה לְעוֹלָה. שֶׁבְּחִינַת "אַיֵּה" הִיא בְּחִינוֹת שֶׂה לְעוֹלָה, לְתַקֵּן וּלְכַפֵּר הִרְהוּר הַלֵּב, שֶׁבָּא מִמְּקוֹמוֹת הַמְטֻנָּפִים כַּנַּ"ל. כִּי עַל־יְדֵי בְּחִינוֹת "אַיֵּה" נִתְתַּקֵּן וְעוֹלֶה מִשָּׁם כַּנַּ"ל.

Likutei Moharan, Part II 12:1:16

This is also the concept of the olah (burnt-offering), as in “but ayeh (where) is the lamb for the olah?” (Genesis 22:7). [Asking] “Ayeh?” is itself the concept of the lamb for the olah to rectify and atone for those thoughts in the heart that stem from the “filthy places.” For it is through the concept of Ayeh that a person is rectified and oleh (ascends) from there, as mentioned above.

Essentially, this is part of a teaching about how the glory of G!d fills the earth - yet at the same time is absent or concealed some of the time (I'm oversimplifying here), but when we feel the absence and ask "Where is G!d's glory?" - that is when it begins to revealed and we begin to make teshuvah - to return to G!d and relationship with G!d.

So rather than being "Where is the lamb for the burnt-offering?" (the pshat, or literal meaning of the text)- it becomes "'WHERE' [the question] is the lamb for the ascent" (an allegorical reading)- olah, burnt-offering, is the word for ascent (perhaps the burnt-offering is called this because the smoke ascends to G!d). The very question - the very search and desire for G!d - is what allows and begins the ascent.

I have long read Isaac going away separately from his father Abraham at the end of the Akedah through a trauma lens, that he was so traumatized by nearly being murdered by his father that he had to separate from him. And I still believe that reading is valid. But this introduces the idea that in the experience, even in the midst of the trauma, Isaac has the desire to seek G!d and sets out, separate from his father, to find G!d. The midrash suggests he goes to learn in a yeshiva. And at the very least, this perhaps explains the relationship he develops with G!d such that the text later describes him going out into the field for meditation and praying for his wife to be able to have children.

This is a new concept that I look forward to thinking about for some time to come.

Possible reason for the Ramak's choice of the title Tomer Devorah - Megillah 14a

Tomer Devorah by the Ramak is one of my favorite Jewish texts - it takes the Thirteen Supernal Attributes of Mercy from Micah 7:18-20 (different from the Thirteen Attributes taken from Shemot, although I have one siddur that has them superimposed over one another in the text of Tashlich, the practice of which is inspired by a phrase in these verses from Micah) and gives instruction on how we as humans can emulate these attributes of mercy that G!d possesses. That's the first chapter - the rest of the short work describes how to apply this through the ten sfirot, even toward the end giving a schedule of which sfirot are most active at a particular time of day.

But one thing that has puzzled me since discovering the work a couple of years ago is the title, Tomer Devorah, "Palm-Tree of Devorah", which is not referenced in the work - indeed, the only tree of any kind mentioned is the tree of klippot - hardly a tree one would compare with the tomer Devorah!

But I may have discovered the reason in today's daf.

מָה תָּמָר זֶה אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא לֵב אֶחָד — אַף יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ הַדּוֹר לֹא הָיָה לָהֶם אֶלָּא לֵב אֶחָד לַאֲבִיהֶן שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם.

"Alternatively, the verse means: Just as a palm tree has only one heart, as a palm tree does not send out separate branches, but rather has only one main trunk, so too, the Jewish people in that generation had only one heart, directed to their Father in Heaven." (Megillah 14a)

Perhaps the Ramak is exhorting us, through his work Tomer Devorah, to have only one heart, directed to G!d, manifested in living out the 13 Supernal Attributes of Mercy.

Response to Tanya, Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 3

 Today's reading in Tanya talks about fear/awe (yirah) and love (ahavah) of G!d - and it reminds me of how these fundamental ways of approaching the service of G!d are expounded in Mesillat Yesharim, one of the foundational texts in the study of Mussar.

Tanya on awe: For when the intellect in the rational soul deeply contemplates and immerses itself exceedingly in the greatness of G-d, how He fills all worlds, or when one contemplates how He encompasses all worlds, or, when one contemplates another aspect of G-d’s greatness, namely, how in His presence all creation is considered as naught—upon contemplating and immersing oneself in any of the abovementioned aspects of G-d’s greatness, the middah of awe for the Divine Majesty will be born and aroused in one’s mind and thought, to fear and be humble before His blessed greatness, which is without end or limit, and there will also be born a dread [pachad] of G-d in his heart.

Mesillat Yesharim: Fear [of G-d] - this is fear of the exaltedness of G-d, namely, that one fears before Him like he would fear before a great and awesome king, feeling abashed by His greatness before making any movement before Him. All the more so, when speaking before Him in prayer or studying His Torah.

Tanya on love: Next, his contemplation his heart will glow with an intense love of G-d like fiery flames, with a passion, desire, and longing, and a yearning soul toward the greatness of the blessed Ein Sof. This is what is meant by the term kalot hanefesh (“a consuming passion of the soul”), as it is written: “My soul longs [for You]; indeed, it faints…,” and “My soul thirsts for G-d…,” and again, “My soul thirsts for You….”

Mesillat Yesharim on love: Love - that one has implanted in his heart love of G-d, until his soul is moved to do what is pleasing to Him just like his heart is moved to do what is pleasing to his father and mother. He will be pained if he or others are lacking in this. He will be zealous for it and feels great joy in doing something of this.

Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, who wrote Mesillat Yesharim, was a kabbalist, so I am not surprised that he and the Alter Rebbe came up with similar language to describe these - I would love to know more about how these two aspects of the service of G!d are treated in prior works that both might have read and been influenced by.

Response to Tanya, Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 3

I decided last week on Yud Tes Kislev to read Tanya and HaYom Yom this year. I had tried to read Tanya once before, a couple of years ago, and had not gotten very far - and after Chai Elul, I sporadically read HaYom Yom, which I enjoyed more.

TBH, today's Tanya reading was the first one so far in the book that I actually found insightful. The introductions by other people, while interesting, made me feel "alright, already - let's get to the good stuff!" - and how many times must we read that someone who published without permission in the five years after original publication would be cursed? I'm also profoundly uncomfortable with the division of the world into "wicked", "righteous", and "in-between" - I think ALL people are "in-between". I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that some souls are derived from unclean klippot, with no good whatsoever within them - I just can't accept that.

But the idea of the lower seven sefirot corresponding to the seven days of creation - THAT is an insight I appreciate. (I have some familiarity already with the sefirot.) I knew there was a connection between Malchut and Shabbat - although it's usually expressed that Malchut (identified with the Shechinah) is in exile six days a week and united with Keter on Shabbat - there is a passage from the Zohar (Ka Gavna) that Chasidim and Sephardim recite on Friday night in the liturgy about this. But it's interesting to see how some of the others work - particularly Gevurah, which would be the second day of creation - which is the only day of the six active days of creation where G!d does not see that "it was good" - and Tiferet is the one day (third day) where it says that G!d saw that it was good TWICE. And Yesod corresponds with the sixth day when G!d saw that it was VERY good. I hope there is more about this as Tanya proceeds.

I'm looking forward to seeing additional insights as I continue through Tanya. 

More and Better Blessings

It is interesting to see how the blessings given from father to son develop in a certain trajectory over the course of the book of Bereshit/Genesis in the lives of the Avot/Patriarchs. The blessings are better and more abundant with each generation.

Abraham does not bless his son Isaac – in fact, the only recorded words they exchange are during the Akedah. Isaac does not return with Abraham from the Akedah (it states in Genesis 22:19 that “Abraham returned to his servants” – the absence of Isaac being quite notable – there are many midrashic explanations for why this is, but suffice it to say that they go their separate ways). Even when Abraham sends his servant to find a wife for Isaac, Abraham seems not to have told Isaac what was happening – the text states that “The servant told Isaac all the things he had done” (Gen. 24:66). It is also notable that, for the marriage, Isaac brings Rebecca into the tent of his mother Sarah – with no mention of Abraham. The rupture between father and son after Abraham attempted to murder his son Isaac – even though it was stopped by the angel – is complete.

When Abraham dies, the text states that “After the death of Abraham, G!d blessed his son Isaac” (Gen 25:11) – and the rabbinic commentators state that, although G!d gave Abraham the power to bless, he failed to bless Isaac, and therefore G!d has to give the blessing Abraham was supposed to have made, which is why the text refers to Isaac as “his son” in this verse. It should be noted that there is also no mention of Abraham blessing Ishmael or any of the children he had with Keturah, although he gives the latter gifts before sending them away (Gen 25:6).

Isaac has only one good blessing to give, with two sons. Esau is meant to get the blessing, but after Jacob sends him out to hunt some game to prepare for him, Rebecca engages in subterfuge by having Jacob prepare a goat and putting the skin of the goat on his arms to seem hairy like his brother. Some have argued that Isaac knows what was going on, since he even acknowledges that “the voice is the voice of Jacob, yet the hands are the hands of Esau” (Gen. 27:22). But regardless of whether or not he knows on some level that Jacob is getting the blessing meant for Esau, there is only one good blessing. The consolation prize blessing that Esau ends up with was not really much of a blessing. And similar to the rupture between Abraham and Isaac, there is a long-term rupture between Jacob and Esau. The text suggests that it is healed when Esau kisses Jacob long after their parents’ death and they weep together – but there is even midrash that suggests that he tries to bite Jacob and that it is not a true reconciliation (Gen 33:4).

Jacob has twelve sons and he has more than one good blessing to give – but he also uses the opportunity to chew some of the sons out for their past behavior from many years earlier. By my reading, four of the blessings are “bad blessings” (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Issachar – four of Leah’s six children), five are “good blessings” (Judah and Zebulun from Leah’s sons, Joseph from Rachel’s sons, Naphtali from Bilhah’s sons, and Asher from Zilpah’s sons), while the remaining three I would regard as questions – not obviously good OR bad (Benjamin from Rachel’s sons, Dan from Bilhah’s sons, and Gad from Leah’s sons). (I would also note that Gad’s blessing is used in some versions [said three times!] of the Bedtime Shema as well as being recited after Shacharit as part of the prayer upon leaving the synagogue - and a line that may be part of Dan’s blessing or may be an interpolated utterance of praise immediately afterward [“For Thy salvation I wait, O Lord”] is also said both as part of the bedtime Shema [said three times each of three permutations of the three Hebrew words!!!] and by some both at the beginning and after the conclusion of Shacharit.) So, after no blessing for Isaac and one good blessing and one bad blessing for Isaac’s sons, we’ve moved to a situation where there are good and bad blessings (and perhaps even mixed blessing), but not limited by number, only by character of the sons receiving the blessing. I presented this teaching at an early morning Tikkun Leil Shavuot and someone mentioned in response that perhaps the bad blessings that Jacob gives his sons are instances of appropriate tochechah, or rebuke. To be sure, the sons receiving the bad blessings have done very bad things worthy of rebuke! But Jacob had ample opportunity to rebuke them prior to his deathbed blessings, and I still think that there should be good blessings for all of them at this point, even if there had been rebuke on other occasions. His lack of prior resolution of the relationships – similar to Abraham and Isaac’s relationship (if here caused by his sons and not by the father) is not a positive trait.

Finally, we move to Jacob’s blessing of his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh. (To be sure, this happens just before the blessing of his twelve sons, but I believe that the blessing represents a generational shift along the trajectory of more and better blessings.) It is interesting that on Friday nights, Jewish parents give their daughters the expected blessing to be like the four recognized matriarchs, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah. (I am among those who believe the list should be expanded to include Bilhah and Zilpah, but that is for another time.) But rather than blessing their sons like the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the blessing is to be like Ephraim and Manasseh. The rabbis comment that this is the case because they are the first generation where the brothers get along with each other in peace. I wonder if this is the case because they are blessed with the same awesome blessing – a blessing that recalls the legacy of Abraham and Isaac:

 

The G!d before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the G!d who hath been my shepherd all my life long unto this day, the angel who hath redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named in them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

(Genesis 48:15-16)

 

I believe that this blessing is a tikkun, a repair, for the absence, stinginess, and vindictiveness of the blessings of the prior generations – by mentioning Abraham and Isaac and thanking G!d for G!d’s blessings upon his own life, he heals and repairs the harm of their blessings (or absence thereof) as well as the blessings he is about to give his own sons.

 

To be sure, he insists on putting the right hand on the younger son’s head and the left hand on the older son’s head, insisting (as has been the case throughout Genesis) that the younger will be greater than the older. I believe that, looking at the progression of blessings that happens through the generations, we are called by the G!d of blessing to make our own lives full of ever more abundant and better blessings to those with whom we come in contact and the earth and all of its creatures. We are called to make tikkun constantly, for our ancestors and for ourselves, as Jacob does in his blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh. And the first tikkun I would invite us to make is to stop seeing in those we bless as “greater” or “lesser”. My parents were raised in generation where the school systems tried to “correct” left-handedness and force left-handed children to learn to be right-handed – we see this bias in the English language with words from the Latin – “dexterity” comes from the word for “right-handed” and “sinister” comes from the word for “left-handed”. Now, children are allowed to write with the hand they prefer and the gifts of left-handed children are accepted. (I do applaud the Jewish tradition for allowing left-handed people to don tefillin on their right hand and arm, in an early recognition of the value of this diversity.) Maybe we can reframe the left and right hands being on their heads as saying that both the right-hand blessing and the left-hand blessing are equally valuable and necessary – and it is important for Ephraim and Manasseh to each receive the particular blessing that fits their personality – without making it a competition about who is greater and who is lesser. Perhaps, given how they get along in peace, they made this tikkun for themselves.

 

May our lives be full of berachot, of blessings, for ourselves, for others, for our world, and for G!d – may we be ever more open to G!d’s blessings for our lives and G!d’s requests for us to be channels of those blessings for others, and may we constantly make tikkun where it is needed. Amen.

Jacob and Esau in the Womb and at Birth

וַיֶּעְתַּ֨ר יִצְחָ֤ק לַֽיהֹוָה֙ לְנֹ֣כַח אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ כִּ֥י עֲקָרָ֖ה הִ֑וא וַיֵּעָ֤תֶר לוֹ֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה וַתַּ֖הַר רִבְקָ֥ה אִשְׁתּֽוֹ׃ And Isaac entreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD let Himself be entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

וַיִּתְרֹֽצְצ֤וּ הַבָּנִים֙ בְּקִרְבָּ֔הּ וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אִם־כֵּ֔ן לָ֥מָּה זֶּ֖ה אָנֹ֑כִי וַתֵּ֖לֶךְ לִדְרֹ֥שׁ אֶת־יְהֹוָֽה׃ And the children struggled together within her; and she said: ‘If it be so, wherefore do I live?’ And she went to inquire of the LORD.

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֜ה לָ֗הּ שְׁנֵ֤י (גיים) [גוֹיִם֙] בְּבִטְנֵ֔ךְ וּשְׁנֵ֣י לְאֻמִּ֔ים מִמֵּעַ֖יִךְ יִפָּרֵ֑דוּ וּלְאֹם֙ מִלְאֹ֣ם יֶֽאֱמָ֔ץ וְרַ֖ב יַעֲבֹ֥ד צָעִֽיר׃ And the LORD said unto her: Two nations are in thy womb, And two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels; And the one people shall be stronger than the other people; And the elder shall serve the younger.

וַיִּמְלְא֥וּ יָמֶ֖יהָ לָלֶ֑דֶת וְהִנֵּ֥ה תוֹמִ֖ם בְּבִטְנָֽהּ׃ And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.

וַיֵּצֵ֤א הָרִאשׁוֹן֙ אַדְמוֹנִ֔י כֻּלּ֖וֹ כְּאַדֶּ֣רֶת שֵׂעָ֑ר וַיִּקְרְא֥וּ שְׁמ֖וֹ עֵשָֽׂו׃ And the first came forth ruddy, all over like a hairy mantle; and they called his name Esau.

וְאַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֞ן יָצָ֣א אָחִ֗יו וְיָד֤וֹ אֹחֶ֙זֶת֙ בַּעֲקֵ֣ב עֵשָׂ֔ו וַיִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ יַעֲקֹ֑ב וְיִצְחָ֛ק בֶּן־שִׁשִּׁ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה בְּלֶ֥דֶת אֹתָֽם׃ And after that came forth his brother, and his hand had hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob. And Isaac was threescore years old when she bore them.

(Genesis 25:21-26)

I believe that Jacob and Esau were meant to be loving brothers and that the way they were treated by their parents, with each parent picking a favorite and with there being only one birthright and one decent blessing, had a negative effect on both of them, with Esau having the worse treatment and the worse effect on his life. I also believe that the story of their sojourn in the womb, G!d’s prophecy about them given to Rebecca, and their birth can be reframed in a way that is faithful to the text that can create a potential reality in which, rather than be bitter rivals, they could have become the closest of friends.

First, the verb used to describe their relationship in the womb, וַיִּתְרֹֽצְצ֤וּ, can be read a couple of ways. Ibn Ezra and others argue that the verb is related to the shoresh רוץ, “to run”, pointing to Nahum 2:5, where the verb is applied to lightning, meaning “running to and fro”. Read it this way, it can be seen as the two brothers playing by running to and fro (similar to my two kittens, who love to run back and forth across the room, scattering papers in their wake). Even read as “struggle” or “crush each other”, from the root רצץ, it can be seen as two brothers playfully wrestling with each other. Or perhaps they were struggling to grow – and rather than struggling with each other, each was struggling with himself in the process of growth. And in terms of crushing, perhaps it can be seen as being crushed from the lack of expansiveness, even in the womb, that Isaac and Rebecca were willing to give them, since Rebecca sees the struggle as a problem – had it been interpreted as playfulness, perhaps there would not have been crushing.

But what of G!d’s words about them? It says that one nation shall be stronger than the other – but it could also be read that one nation shall be strong and courageous FROM the other – that is, the two nations could make each other strong and courageous through friendship rather than competition. And the elder serving the younger? This could also be read as the greater serving the weaker – and “serve” could be read as joyful service and work, rather than a servile forced service. G!d’s words, had Isaac and Rebecca treated their sons differently, could have been lived out in a very different and more life-giving way. G!d answered Rebecca’s inquiry – but it was up to her and Isaac to determine HOW the words would come true – whether in a life-giving way, with the two brothers strengthening and encouraging one another in mutual service, or in a destructive way, each strengthening himself at the expense of the other and with one necessarily dominating the other.

Finally, Jacob came out of the womb holding Esau’s heel – and this was seen as Jacob trying to supplant Esau and to replace him as the firstborn. But what if, as loving twins, this could be seen as Jacob not wanting to be left alone in the womb, to be separated from his brother whom he loves, but instead wanting to remain together and grasping his heel as a sign of love? What if – instead of Jacob – Supplanter/Heel – he had been named Ohev – Lover – to show that his action was an act of love, not bitter rivalry?

I choose to read this story in a way that opens up unrealized possibilities – that Jacob and Esau had the potential to be loving brothers and not enemies – a potential finally realized when they reconcile and Esau kisses Jacob – that could have been realized much earlier. That is how I choose to read the text of Scripture, in ways that open up lifegiving possibilities if I wrestle with the text and demand a blessing.