Bridging Present and Future

In the Maimonides' 13 Articles of Faith it states that the Messiah's arrival should be eagerly awaited for he may come any day. Yet, there's a passage in the Talmud which seems to dampen that approach a bit. It advises that if you are planting a tree and you heard that the Messiah arrived, keep planting. 

Obviously, these statements are not contradictions of basic belief. However, they may be seen as representing contradictory sentiments. Does one place one's full heart in the arrival of the Messiah or into the projects of life at hand? Does one pack a suitcase and live in a hovel waiting or does one build a business and a mansion where one is? 

The simple approach is to instruct that humans sometimes needs to compartmentalize.  We need to adopt an approach which prepares us for multiple possibilities. In the course of Jewish history, this approach has paid off and there have been a few reports of the Messiah's arrival which have proven to be false alarms. So, yes a Jew must believe. However, do not allow that belief to distract from progress in one's life on pre-messianic terms.

As wonderful as this approach seems as an initial step, I think it's possible for one to grow into a more integrated approach, one which blurs the lines of the compartmentalization; weakens their bold form, maybe even erases them. 

The more integrated sentiment doesn't see as sharp of a line between the periods of the pre and post-messianic. It's possible to bring the light from the future into the present. It's possible to access the light of the Messiah and use it to ensoul present conditions; changing their texture and overall feel. 

So yes, one is not necessarily being asked to ignore the news of the Messiah's arrival to plant a tree. In the integrated approach one is beckoned to use the news to place more soul and vitality into planting the tree; to imbue the planting with one's personal access to the light of the Messiah at the upper reaches of his or her soul. 

Ensouling the pre-messianic with the post-messianic is very precious and transformative. However, let's say the news was correct and the Messiah has indeed arrived, what will be with the tree, i.e. all projects of goodness one invests oneself in on pre-messianic terms?

Plenty of times, the Lubavitcher Rebbe assured that unlike the exodus from Egypt, we won't flee from the present pre-messianic conditions. We will somehow glide into the messianic era much more gently than what happened during the redemption from Egypt. Therefore, whatever we do now, whatever trees we plant, should somehow be part of the messianic future; even if we cannot imagine how in the present. Furthermore, this seems to fit well with the Maimonides' description of the messianic times as one when the natural world continues as it is. The differences will be mainly religious, political, social and economic. Therefore, much of what was positive before can continue on into the future or at least, may have positive ripple effects into the future.

--------------------O------------------

  

  

The Elusive Playmate

As a child, I grew up in the Borough Park section of Brooklyn, NY. It was during the 1970's and humans were not the only residents on my block. The spaces between the homes were occupied by cute, furry creatures whose baby-like cooing just melted my ears. Cats! Oh and how I just wanted to make a friend and playmate with at least one of them.

I begged my Mom for permission to scoop one up to bring home. But my Mom sharply retorted, "I'm raising children, not pets."

Her response got me wondering, "But I do not yet have children. So, don't I need a pet?" Of course, I completely misunderstood her. She simply meant that she's running a human-only household. 

Accordingly, I resigned myself that a feline playmate would have to be an outdoor one. So, in my childish way I tried all sorts of overtures to attract one. I offered to pet and cuddle to the end of time. I chased them with assurances that I only meant friendship and would not hurt them. No matter how I pleaded and negotiated, I got only one response. They dashed away with a speed that my self described "athletic legs" could not match.

I felt so rejected! None of them wanted me as a playmate.

Then one day, something which felt so special happened. I met a cat who did not run away. I picked her up and petted her. I spoke to her and she meowed back. It felt like the bond I so yearned for was forming. I was so "in love".  Yes, here was an ambassador from the world of cats who felt for my rejection and compassionately came forward to accept me.

Late one long and sunny afternoon, while playing with "my cat" and hugging her, from behind came an old man's admonishing voice, "Leave that cat alone! Don't you see she has a broken leg."

My heart sank as it dawned on me that the cat did not want me after all. She was just unable to run away. If she could have, she would have rejected me like the rest of them.


A Thought

The deeper significance of this story has eluded me until very recently. Still, all these years it served well as a "Little Daddy" story to amuse my children with.  Maybe, in the future I will share it with my grandchildren as well.

What recently dawned on me is that the story illuminates one of the key reasons why God gives us the freedom to choose to be in a relationship with Him. Wouldn't He find it kind of sad if we entered into a relationship with Him, just because we couldn't "run away"?

Accordingly, He placed us in a bubble of space/time, a physical realm, which allows us the illusion that we can "run away". We do not need to be in a relationship with him unless we want to. Only under such conditions, there's an opportunity for the relationship to be real.


-----------------------------O--------------------------

Moshe

Moshe had no special skills,

  Save one, being truly human. 

This alone attracted the help,

  Of God, angels and good men.

---------------------O------------------

Only You!

There's no inside of You.

  That would be a limit within.

There's no outside of You.

   That would be a limit without. 

Thus, it seems to me true,

  That there must be only You!

------------O---------- 

Infinity/Infinities

Relative infinities can be many. 

  But Asolute Infinity can only be One.

~ Rav Bachya Ibn Pequda 

Shavat and Aquarius

Tonight's the beginning of the Jewish month of Shevat which is associated with the zodiac sign of Aquarius, the water carrier. In Hebrew the name of Aquarius is "deli" and literally means, "bucket". 

The great Chassidic master Rabbi Tzvi Elimelech of Dinov teaches, in his work "Bnei Yissaschar", that Aquarius is the zodiac sign of the Jewish people and it also bears a unique association with Abraham's servant Eliezer. 

The great Torah commentary Rashi explains that Eliezer doled out drinks from the Torah of his master Abraham. Hebrew word for doling out is "doleh" and is grammatically related to the word "deli", Aquarius.

In reviewing this teaching, I notice that Rashi does not state that Eliezer doled out food from his master's teachings, but rather drinks. This got me thinking, what's the difference between doling out food and doling out drinks?

Then it dawned on me, food requires that the person chew, i.e. process. Drinks just smoothly go down, requiring much less effort. 

When giving over from Abraham's Torah, Eliezer didn't hand it over to the students raw and unprocessed. Rather, he was concerned to present the teachings in a way which they can be related to. Therefore, he carefully ensured that the teachings were brought down to where they met the students at eye level.

Chabad mystical philosophy teaches that there are two kinds of bowing. One kind is what we're commonly familiar with, where someone of a lower rank bows before someone of a higher rank; like a servant before a master. While bowing, the servant temporarily sets aside all traces of personal identity in order to internalize the master's message. 

No doubt Eliezer was adept at setting aside his identity before his master Abraham. For example, when he was entrusted with the sensitive mission of finding a bride for Isaac, he remains entirely nameless.  The Bible does not mention his name and neither does he mention his own name. When identifying himself to Rebecca's family, he opens with the words, "I am Abraham's servant..." without any mention of his name.

However, Eliezer was also a master at the second kind of bowing. The second kind, might be even harder than the first. It's when someone of higher rank figuratively bows to someone of lower rank. This kind of bowing can require even more humility.

But what does such bowing look like? It's when someone of higher stature  mentally steps into the situation of a person of lower stature to delicately convey a message in a manner which can be easily understood. Likely, the most commonly observed example of this scenario is that of a teacher who really reaches the students. In such a scenario difficult concepts are brought down to students in ways in which they can relate.

By stating that Eliezer doled out water Rashi is conveying that Eliezer was precisely this kind of teacher. He transformed the difficult concepts into water, meaning that he made them near effortless to internalize. 

Being a master of both kinds of bowing turned him into an ideal bridge personality, as he brought together various levels of people in common continuum of communication.

-------------O------------ 

 

Abraham's Hospitality

The Midrash relates that Abraham would ask his guests to thank God after he served them a luscious meal. If they refused, he then requested that they then pay for the meal instead. 

He'd claim, "If you don't believe that God provided you with this meal then it must be me that did. In that case I want to be paid for my services. Let's see, how much does bread and meat cost in the middle of the desert?"

As he'd rack up the huge bill, the guests would open their mouths and start thanking God.

It was taught to me that having guests is huge mitzvah, in and of itself. Therefore, for the past 26 years I have wondered why did Abraham make his hospitality contingent on his guests thanking God? 

Recently, it dawned on me that possibly the answer lay in the special relational bond which only a mitzvah can form. Since there is no parity between Infinite and finite, how the two can ever form such a bond is truly a quandary. 

What solves this quandary is a mitzvah, a Torah commandment. Even in circumstances where parity is out of reach, the Infinite and finite can meet around a mitzvah - a common interest that a certain act should be performed.

In Chabad teachings the following parable is offered to highlight how this kind of bond can be formed:

In a university, there was a world renowned professor. He was a top thought leader in his field. One day while studying he notices someone at the other end of the work spectrum, the janitor. Other than being under the same roof, the two share little in common. 

Yet today he wants something from the janitor. So, he motions him over. 

"Could you please prepare for me a tea with a few biscuits today and every day at 3pm?", he requests.

The janitor nods compliantly and begins a routine of bringing him his daily treat. 

Though there's little parity between the two of them, by fulfilling the professor's request a bond starts to form. Similarly, when God's requests (i.e. His mitzvahs) are fulfilled a bond is formed with Him. And even a human being, a lowly finite creature, can form a relational bond with the Infinite One.  

In Abraham's time there were only seven mitzvahs. Hosting guests was not among them. However, monotheism was. 

By urging his guests to express their thanks to God, Abraham was engaging them in an act of monotheism. Thereby, he turned the whole act of hosting them into that mitzvah. All the delicacies he served became like firewood to fuel their expression of thanks, their act of monotheism. 

In short, this was his way of turning hosting guests, which was not yet a mitzvah, into a mitzvah. 

--------------💖--------------