continued

here's more of the abuhatsira piece, because i promised i would post it, and some people might even read it, and i also really like translating things...

recall, the main questions:
1- why use the term "eshet chayil?"
2- how can chochmah, nevuah, and Torah seemingly disagree with the KBH?
3- How does the author decide what response to attribute to whom?a- why is atonement-by-death attributed to prophecy, when prophetic writings also refer to repentance.b- why is repentance attributed to the KBH only, when (both the prophets and) the Torah contain references to teshuvah. c- why is the prooftext for teshuvah attributed to the KBH if it is in teh writings, which would ordinarily be considered "chochmah."

despite my love of translating, i think this will be easier to understand if i paraphrase/outline:

I - sinning leads to blemishing (pogem) the letters of God's 4-letter name. different levels of sin blemish kmore letters - so some blemish only the final heh, some vav heh, etc. the more you blemish, the worse the punishment.
[based on "the holy Zohar and the tikkunim and the words of the ARI z"l, and all the kabbalists."]

II - blemishing the first two letters is exponentially worse than blemishing the first two. between the first two, blemishing yud is exponentially worse than bleimishing heh.

cool derushy excursus on this point: maybe this is what Amos meant, "for the three transgression of Israel, and for the fourht shall I not return him?" (lo ashivenu. JPS reads not as a rhetorical question, but rather as "I shall not reverse it." i forget where i saw it as rhetorical, but i'm pretty sure i did...) (amos 2:6) the three peshaim are three levels of sin that blemish the final three letters. we know, however, that (shabbat 104a), "he who comes to be purified, they (heavenly forces) help him." however, one who reaches the fourth level of sin - blemishing the yud - loses this. ie, "lo ashivenu" means "I (God) will not help him do teshuvah."
such a person must "litroach u-lehamit atsmo laasot teshuvah gemurah." - try really hard and kill himself (literally?) to do complete teshuvah, because he has no help from heaven.

second derushy excursus: this is also what david meant when he said (tehillim 51:6) "Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in Thy sight; {N}that Thou mayest be justified when Thou speakest, and be in the right when Thou judgest." (JPS)
the psalm is adressed to E-lokim, which is shechinah, which is the final heh. david only sinned on the lowest level - against the shechinah - so his teshuvah is easier and readily accepted.
third derushy super-tangeant - ex. 19:21-22 "al yeharsu el haShem lir'ot.... pen yifrots bam" - pirtsah, or serious/unavoidable destruction, only occurs when people destroy the entire name.

III - this 4-level conception of sin may also be what yitro referred to when he described (ex. 19:21) the men mosheh should appoint as judges. what does the four-pronged description give that the simple, but all -inclusive description "yir'ei Elokim" leaves out? rather, it means that they are so holy that their good deeds have led to a tikkun of all four letters. "anshei chayyil" refers to the "hosts" of the four letters, that exist properly only when the yud is properly metukan. so "chayil" becomes a key-word for the yud and its three affiliates.
(he similarly assignes each phrase to a letter. i'm skipping that becuase this isa lready getting too kabbalistic for this context)

IV - this is what eshet chayyil means - a woman who has not sinned against the yud or any of its affiliates.

V - getting back to the midrash, the four personages asked "what is the punishment of a sinner?" are really the four letters:
1st letter = chochmah, so the sin is really great.
2nd letter = nevuah, so sin merits death
3d letter = torah. atonement is easier - requires only a korban
4th letter = KBH. atonement is easiest. requires only teshuvah.*

the end. (ok, so he ends with a thing about how "eshet chayyil " really is hard to fid because most women are too concerned about looking pretty, good mussar for us all...)

*presumably, a korban only works when it comes with teshuvah, as does death. otherwise, it's hard to see how a korban is more chamur than teshuvah. (?)

summary:
this answers-
question 1 - both terms, yir'ah and chayyil, are use by yitro, also with different meanings. "yir'at haShem" is NOT synonymous with chayyil - the latter is not a general "of valor," but a specific "has left the entire name of God intact."
q. 2 - KBH is not the definitive word of God here, rather, God speaking regarding one aspect of God's name, so the four speakers speak from different, non-contradictory, perspectives - they really speak about four different situations.
q. 3 - because "chochmah," "nevuah" etc are technical terms refering to letters of the Name, they don't need to correspond to more general, literary uses of the same terms in other contexts.

i thought this was cool. esp. the reading of "al sheloshah pish'ei yisrael" and the tie-in to chayyil. really, though, i liked the methodology in this sort of reading - tying up a lot of seemingly loose ends to make a cool point. i hope i conveyed that decently here.

question: r.y. abuhatsira's reading of the midrash is to place the four personages in a heirarchy, and have them respond to four levels of sin. is there a way to read the midrash (especially for the less mystically inclined) as four aspects of a response to the same level of sin - ie, depending on your theological perspective (torah, chochmah, nevuah, etc..), sin as such requires different responses?

shavua tov.

resolved: make shabbos plans before friday afternoon.

On Friday, way too close to shabbos, I bought the fourth-to-last challah in all of Crown Heights. The 8-ish year old boy in front of me was buying:
1 chocolate bar
1 phone card
with his EBT (food stamps) card.

This blew me away

a rough translation. long but worth it. the fun allusions, though, are partially lost, alas...

"A woman of valor, who shall find, and far from pearls is her price." (proverbs 31:10)

"The promise that the KBH promised to women is greater than the men, as it is said, (Isaiah 32:9) "confident women" (nashim sha'ananot, per JPS translation). Rav said to Rabi Hiyya: these women, by what do they gain merit? By bringing their sons to the synagogue and by sending their men to the study hall (bei rabannan) and waiting for their men until they return from the study hall." (Berachot 17a)

"Tsadikim are great in their deaths, that it is called an altar of atonement (mizbeach kapparah). A man and a woman are equivalent in this regard. If you wish I will prove (this eqivalence) using a text, and if you wish I will prove it using logic. When the sages gave the reason for the juxtaposition of the death of Miriam to the laws of the red] heifer, (cf Bamidbar 20:1 and Rashi there, who says that the juxtaposition teaches that the death of righteous people atones just as sacrifics do), from there is a (textual) proof that in this atonement (via death) woman and man are alike. And also, go and learn from "and she went ut of the place"(Ruth 1:7) regarding Naomi and Ruth, from there explain it (not sure about this wording), that once they left the city its glow, its glory, its majesty, left (this is a citation from somewhere, ???). Also, in the merit of righteous women the hosts of HaShem (tsivos haShem ;) ) went out from darkness to light, and also a great man (Abraham) came to eulogize and to weep for Sarah (cf. Gen 23:1). All this comes to teach that a male and female righteous person in their lives and in their deaths are ???? (magen tsinah ve-socherah?). Therefore, it is obligatory on every Israelite to mourn for a kosher woman, and the one who does so extensively, behold this is praised (vekhol hamarbeh, harei zeh meshubach ;) ) and his reward is great before the Great and Awesome One. (Ayom ve-Nora)

First, we will bring what Shlomoh the King (obm) said, "a woman of valor, who sahll find..." For there is room to clarify precisely (ledakdek) why he called her by the name "a woman of valor" (eshet chayil) - he should have called her "a woman fering of God, who sahll find?" As he called her at the end (verse 30), "A woman fearing of God, she shall be praised," for she is the very "eshet chayil" who is refered to above, so why does he call her eshet chayil? And in order that this be understood, we will bring what is in the midrash (Yalkut Shim'oni Mishlei remez 950):
'They asked chochmah (wisdom): A sinner, what is his punishment?
She said to them: sinners will chase evil (source???)
They asked prophecy: A sinner, what is his punishment?
She said to them: 'the soul that sins shall die' (Ezek 18:20)
They asked the Torah: A sinner, what is his punishment?
She said to them: he should bring a sacrifice and it will be atoned for him.
They asked the KBH: A sinner, what is his punishment?
He said to them: He should do teshuvah and it will be atoned for him, as it is said, 'good and upright (tov veyashar) is God, therefore he will instruct sinners on the way (Psalms 25:8).'

And behold, this passage is astonishing for since the KBH, the ruler of all who decreed, says that teshuvah is enough, what do chochmah,, prophecy, and Torah have left? What should they say, for who can come after the King? And furthermore, this that it said that prophecy responded that "the sould that sins, it shall die," )is apparently) because this text is written in the books of the prophets, but behold,m in another prophet it is written (Hosea 14:2-3), "Return, O Israel...take with you words and return...and we will repay (in place of) cows, [with] our lips," and this is the response of the KBH Himself, and what did the author of the passage see that he took up the text that said "the sould that sins" and disregarded the text of "and we will replace cows ith our lips." And further, that which he wrote that the Torah responded 'let him bring a sacrifice,' behold in the Torah teshuvah is spelled out, as it is said, 'For it is close to you, the thing, very much, in your mouth and your heart to do it' (deut 30:14). and further, this verse that he brings for proof for the KBH is written in the Writings, which are called "chochmah."

-R. Yaakov Abuhatsira, as cited in this collection of perushim on eshet chayil I picked up

ad caan for now - i'll get to the answer some time later, beli neder.
What is interesting so far: the mirdash from yalkut shim'oni is amazing.
the main questions:
1- why use the term "eshet chayil?"
2- how can chochmah, nevuah, and Torah seemingly disagree with the KBH?
3- How does the author decide what response to attribute to whom?
a- why is atonement-by-death attributed to prophecy, when prophetic writings also refer to repentance.
b- why is repentance attributed to the KBH only, when (both the prophets and) the Torah contain references to teshuvah.
c- why is the prooftext for teshuvah attributed to the KBH if it is in teh writings, which would ordinarily be considered "chochmah."

also missing as of yet is a tie-in to the opening about women meriting via men (sons, husbands) but being equally (potentially) commendable, atonement-granting, etc...

Thoughts?

overheard

I just witnessed an extended discussion in hebrew between the owner of the Shalom Pizza and Falafel on Kings Highway and a patron. The latter was tryinng to convince the former of the literal truth of traditional Jewish cosmology, the impending ("within forty years") nature of techiyat hametim, etc. The former didn't really get around to making an argument. All that was clear was that he believes scientific theories to some extent and thinks they're cool, and probably believes in some sort of higher power. I almost got invovled, but I didn't trust my Hebrew to make the subtleties of what I wanted to say clear. (all about teleological arguments regarding natural states and why they aren't muchrach...) Also because what's a frum girl doing arguing against a frum man, and because you can never really win those arguments, you just get people (including yourself) annoyed.
Not only was the conversation a reminder of the universe that I do not inhabit, but it saved me from having to eavesdrop on the gross flatbush boys behind me debriefing about dates.

This weekend i saw two movies. well, one and a half. One i recommend. The other I ask for suggested replacements.

1- Bridge on the River Kwai - this seems to be on everyone's parents' list of favorite movies (well, Zev's dad and my mom), and with good reason. Very long, very good. And the moral of the story: War is bad for flowers and other living things. (ok, so I trivialized something serious and should be shot. but it's a really good movie.)

2 - Crown Heights. I expected a B-rate docudrama but figured it might be of proffessional interest. The docu-was minimal and the drama was as predicted, so about halfway through the cliched boys-make-friends-despite-cultural-tensions plot I stopped it. The movie is quite amusing to anyone who knows about Orthodoxy, since they get a lot of things almost-but-not-quite right. (eg, chassidim greet each other with "shalom" instead of "shalom aleichem," boys pronounce "tzeetzis," etc.) I caught a few similar near-misses on the hip-hop culture side, and I'm sure there are more to be caught by people who know more.
Some good scences. Mostly, just reminded me of yet another things I know nothing about and am not quite sure how to learn about. (suggestions welcome...) The oddest things is that 1991 was before most of my students, to whom it is all very nogeia, could talk...

grammar

I've always had a weak spot for grammar. So now, reading over what I wrote below, i wonder about the rules governing the use of the word "ghetto." "one of the most ghetto cars in the neighborhood" is certainly not a native speaker's usage. "my car is so ghetto"* would be fine, as would "ghetto-ass car."** but somehow ghetto can't be used as a stand-alone adjective unless following some version of the verb "to be."
*or, as my students said when I gave them photocopies of my ruler for lack of actual rulers for all, "this kind of ghetto!."
**in the same situation, "this ghetto-ass school!"

If you know things about grammar or the ghetto, and have something to say (eg, words that behave similarly) do tell...

min hashamayim

after my adventure i definitely needed some sort of comfort. in deciding between food (yogurt, falafel, and ice cream being the primary candidates for comfort-food in my life lately) or friendship I decided to seek out some of my brooklyne homegirls (read: fellow maimo alumnae). Sharona not only had wise words, but she had corn muffins and hot cocoa. She also had my favoritest kind of yogurt ever, which she had bought just today without really knowing why. (her shopping companion was there to vouch for her having had a whole discussion about how she really only needed plain but somehow was compelled to get this kind too anyway.) Now there's a hashgochoh story...

little girl, big city.

After school today i drove a few blocks away for dinner and then, remembering what everyone's favorite custodian (and mime, in his spare time) Joe had told me about cars getting vandalized behing the school after hours, parked with confidence in the front. When i got into my car later i noticed that i was missing a window.

My first thought: those f-ing bastards.

My second thought: i don't have time to lose the whole night taking care of this.

Third: I feel like an idiot calling 911 for something that is so clearly not a dangerous situation, but I don't have the patience for 311 (ring the bad citizen alarm...)

Fourth: I wish I weren't locked out of the school - it's raining.

I found myself on the phone with a lot of people who were willing to listen. I noticed that I was smiling and laughing a lot, and that my potty mouth came out of the closet when i wasn't careful, both signs that I am annoyed/upset, but not too much so to handle.

"Do you still feel safe?"
"yes, but i probably won't after i have time to think about it."
That time came sooner than expected, but the police showed up pretty promptly and my biggest worry is when on earth will i have time to take my car to the shop, and do i really have to wake up 10 minutes earlier to take the bus...

Later, I decided that the piecces of glass might make nice jewelry if properly set.

So that's the story. The things to think about:

1- i feel little or no guilt at initially assuming that it was one of my students (until i realized that it had, in fact, happened at least an hour after school). This might hve bothered me back in the day...

2- i am completely incapable of understanding why someone would smash the window of what is arguably one of the more ghetto cars in the neighborhood (92 old, with assorted scrapes and dents...)

3- I am amazingly lucky that this is really the first time I have been the victim of anything approaching physical violence.

The real questions is, how to break the news to the parents, owner of both the car and its insurance policy... (or should one just absorb the cost and pretend nothing happened?)