Lag Ba’Omer “Voodoo Judaism Day”!

 

Very apropos that on this Erev Lag Ba’Omer — the “Voodoo Judaism Day” when crowds rush to visit the dead and pray to deceased tzadikim (or, giving them the benefit of the doubt, merely ask the tzadikim to intercede and change God’s mind) so they can have children, wealth, and happiness — we are learning today’s daf in Chullin, daf 4 amud bet.

The gemara focuses on the word ויסיתהו (“entice”) as part of the Gemara’s core discussion about whether a mumar who worships idols can still be trusted with shechita.

For our Lag Ba’Omer conversation, I want to zero in on the ויסיתהו (“entice”) section.

The Gemara teaches that enticing someone is normally done with food and drink. (That’s probably why so many business deals are closed over lunch or dinner.) To prove the point, the Gemara brings several examples where the word always appears in the context of food-based enticement.

One classic case: when a person entices his friend to worship idols. The Gemara concludes that this, too, is typically done with food and alcohol. Maybe that’s why the Lag Ba’Omer and Uman “visits to the dead” parties almost always revolve around food and alcohol… :)

The Gemara then challenges this rule with the story of Iyov. The pasuk says about Satan (Iyov 2:3):

ותסיתני בו לבלעו חנם

(“You enticed Me against him to destroy him for no reason.”)

God is criticizing Satan for enticing Him to test Iyov with all kinds of yissurim (sufferings).

The Gemara immediately asks: Did Satan eat food and drink alcohol with God?! Obviously not. Therefore the Gemara answers that when the Torah speaks about God, its language is never literal. This is simply an exception.

The Ritva sharpens the point: the very concept of hasatah (enticement) cannot even apply to God, because God cannot be enticed.

So the big question remains: Why did the author of Iyov use the term “entice” about God in the first place? If God’s mind cannot be changed or enticed, why choose a word that could mislead the literal reader?

I believe the answer lies in the approach of the Rambam. The entire story of Iyov is allegorical. It is teaching a deep Jewish philosophical truth: real happiness is not found in physical pleasures — the very thing Satan represents. The narrative shows this by stripping Iyov of everything physical — wealth, children, family — forcing him to turn inward toward yedias Hashem (knowledge of God) through meditation and contemplation.

 Only through that painful process did Iyov reach perfection. When he eventually received back his riches and family, they were no longer primary; walking in the ways of God had become the true foundation of his life.

That is what God is telling Satan with the words ותסיתני (“you enticed Me”): “You enticed Me against him to swallow Iyov needlessly.” Had Iyov not been so attached to his physical desires, wealth, and needs from the beginning (enticement with food and drink represents the physical pleasures), none of this painful process would have been necessary. He could have reached the goal immediately — if only his priorities had been correct from the start.

It is only when a person is unhappy with what he has that he goes searching for meaning to fill the void. In Judaism, yedias Hashem — achieved by walking in God’s ways — is what actually brings us there.

That should be  the real Lag Ba’Omer lesson.

Asking the dead (or asking the dead to ask God) for our physical needs — believing they can convince a God who, by definition, does not change — is ultimately serving ourselves.

The authentic Jewish path is the opposite: we change ourselves, not God, so that we can serve Him better and walk in His ways.

The Hidden Meaning Behind Rambam’s Milah Blessing That Only Malbim Saw!

 

I have always had difficulty reconciling the Rambam’s statement in Hilchot Milah, Chapter 3, where he discusses the circumcision of a convert and writes the following:

הַמָּל אֶת הַגֵּרִים--מְבָרֵךְ בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם, אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְווֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לָמוּל אֶת הַגֵּרִים וּלְהַטִּיף מֵהֶן דַּם בְּרִית, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא דַּם בְּרִית, לֹא נִתְקַיְּמוּ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ:  שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "אִם-לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה--חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, לֹא-שָׂמְתִּי" (ירמיהו לג,כה)

Translation: One who circumcises converts recites the following blessing: “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to circumcise converts and to draw from them the blood of the covenant. For were it not for the blood of the covenant, heaven and earth would not endure.” As it is stated: “If My covenant with day and night were not, if I had not established the laws of heaven and earth…” (Jeremiah 33:25).

What makes this surprising is that in Moreh Nevuchim the Rambam explicitly does not hold that the world was created for the sake of man. On the contrary, he teaches that the world came into existence solely through the goodness and will of God, and humanity is simply one small part of that vast creation. In Moreh Nevuchim III:12 he writes (Friedlander translation):

“It is of great advantage that man should know his station, and not erroneously imagine that the whole universe exists only for him… For an ignorant man believes that the whole universe only exists for him; as if nothing else required any consideration.”

He emphasizes that each creature exists for its own purpose (or for the perfection of the whole), not as a means to serve man. The celestial spheres, for example, are far superior to humanity in the hierarchy of being. So why, in the context of milah—and especially the milah of a convert—does the Rambam invoke these verses from Jeremiah to imply that heaven and earth endure because of the covenant (a statement that appears, at first glance, to place man at the center of creation)?

While flying back from overseas yesterday, I came across the Malbim’s commentary on these very verses in Yirmiyahu 33:25. I believe the Malbim had this exact difficulty with the Rambam in mind when he wrote it. Here are his words:

כה אמר ה' אם לא בריתי — ר"ל אם יצוייר שלא יהיה עוד ברית היום והלילה במציאות, ואם יצוייר שחקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי, שיתבטלו חקי הטבע והשמים והארץ כאילו לא שמתי אותם, אז יצוייר שגם זרע יעקב ודוד עבדי אמאס (כי שתי הבריתות מוכרחות למציאות ומהלך השלמות הכללי). ור"ל מקחת מזרע יעקב מושלים אל זרע אברהם יצחק, ומזרע דוד מושלים אל זרע יעקב, שזרע דוד ימשול על זרע יעקב, וזרע יעקב ימשול על בני ישמעאל ועשו.

Translation: “Thus says the Lord: ‘If My covenant…’” — Meaning: If one could imagine that the covenant of day and night would no longer exist in reality, and if one could imagine that I had not established the laws of heaven and earth (so that the laws of nature, the heavens, and the earth would be nullified as though I had never set them), then one could likewise imagine that I would also reject the seed of Jacob and My servant David (for these two covenants are indispensable for existence and for the general course of perfection in the world). In other words, just as rulers are taken from the seed of Jacob to rule over the seed of Abraham and Isaac, and rulers from the seed of David to rule over the seed of Jacob—so that the seed of David will rule over the seed of Jacob, and the seed of Jacob will rule over the children of Ishmael and Esau.

With the Malbim’s explanation, the Rambam’s words flow beautifully and no longer contradict his philosophy in the Moreh. The Rambam is saying that just as God established the immutable laws of nature and never violates them, so too His promises to the prophets (and to the Avot) are equally inviolable. Both truths stand together, hand in hand. When a convert undergoes milah and joins the Jewish people, he is affirming this very belief—that God does not retract His vows, whether they concern the natural order or the prophetic covenants. Even more strikingly, the Malbim uses King David—who himself descended from a convert (Ruth the Moabite)—as one of his central examples...