Lookstein, Shabbat Chol Hamoed Succoth Koheleth 1951. "Cynic, Doubter, Scoffer – Another Look at Ecclesiastes": Scholars call Koheleth “the gentle cynic.” Not true because: contradiction in terms — a cynic is never gentle, but irritating, annoying, offensive. Moreover, a cynic is not learned, and Koheleth is learned. Cynic in Hebrew is לֵץ, and the rabbis say: לא במקרא ולא במשנה ולא בהלכות ולא במדרש ולא בתלמוד ולא במעשה ולא במדרש הלכות, אלא במושב לצים ישב — only those who do not engage in Torah are called letzim. If Koheleth is not a cynic, what then? A doubter. Doubting is responsible for a major part of Jewish legal and religious literature, as in taamei hamitzvot. Abraham is a doubter — he doubts G-d’s ability to be unjust: הֲשֹׁפֵט כָּל־הָאָרֶץ לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה מִשְׁפָּט? Moses doubts G-d’s ability to do evil: לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה? The doubter is a hitchhiker on the endless road of knowledge. He may wander from the road but is never lost, for in his hands he carries a compass whose quivering needle constantly points to truth. He hitches rides in many vehicles that pass by — vehicles of pleasure, wealth, knowledge, indulgence — yet he continues to progress at his own pace.But if the doubter is a hitchhiker, the cynic is a hobo. He rides at the mercy of others, can be forced off at a moment’s notice, and when he wanders, he is truly lost. He may cover mileage but not meaningful distance. He experiences respite, but never rest.The cynic may then become a scoffer — one who walks on a treadmill, constantly moving yet going nowhere. Many modern college students fall into this category. They scoff at the Bible as outdated, dismiss tradition as irrelevant. They sample the icing of culture but never sink their teeth into its substance.

Not talking about after death, but about גן עדן התחתון. Paradise is here. Not spot on globe but globe itself, the Paradise which is life. Describe average man’s idea of Paradise: as, sit on soft couch, feet on desk, snip off plum with left hand, apple w. right, long straw to drink from sparkling clear stream, don't have to bend down etc. etc. This not Jewish conception. Not like Moslem ideal as cosmic harem wine women and song (elaborate), not American Indian — charging on white steed down infinite hunting ground, prize beasts to hunt etc. Midrash: G-d had to coax Adam into Eden בדברים נאים. Why? — because fundemantel element of Jewish idea of Eden is A לעבדה ולשמרה, work it and watch it. (Lamm:) story farmer after death taken to beautiful castle, wonderful room. Feet on desk, etc., only presses button and butler appears, brings him whatever he wishes — describe — then, after some weeks, rings for bellboy, says he's getting bored, wants work. Boy: sorry, that's only thing you can't get here. Man: then I'd rather be in hell. Boy: Well, where do you think you are? (polish up). לעבודה. Leisure hours given to modern man by scientific and industrial progress are his downfall. Literally as well as figuratively bored to death. Boredom causes: a) Infidelity of husbands. Too much time on hands, so speeds feet to wrong places. b) " of wives. Housework by mechanical gadgets, too much leisure, go where no belong. c) Gambling. May be part of social acheme in modern age — but only when limited. Describe how overdone in resort hotels when leisure maximum. d) Narcotics. Among rich too, but hushed up. Result of too much time, nothing to do. Talmud says לעבדה refers to תלמוד. Even 1/2 hour day. Everybody has ability to read something serious, not only for scholars. לשמרה refers to זו המצות. Ethics, etc. Watch, or preserve, Judaism. Democracy vs. McCarthyism etc. Anti-semitism etc. If will not do above, then, as with Adam, driven out of Eden, blocked by להט יורד המתהפכת. Rabbis expla…

Twentieth century man is a lonely creature. This startling realization seems, on the surface, to be contradicted by a multitude of facts. Let us look at some of these facts. For one thing, statistics seem to refute the notion of loneliness. Numerically, the human family is larger than ever before in history. There are in the world today some two and one-half billion people. How can man be lonely among so many of his kind? How? Because in the language of Bacon, “a crowd is not company, and faces are but a gallery of pictures.”For another, the vast increase in urban life would seem to eliminate a sense of loneliness. Does it? Do our huge cities with their teeming millions make neighbors of us? Are the jostling multitudes that are belched forth from the industrial neighborhoods companions on their way home? Does a packed subway train consist of fellow travelers or merely of fare–payers? Oh, how desperately alone man can feel even in a populous city!Someone must be thinking now how strange it is to regard our generation as lonely. Has not the world of men been contracted? Have we not gotten closer to each other? Is not one continent as near the other as once upon a time one avenue was to the next? Do we not sit side by side in the family of nations? Lonely in such a world? How preposterous!Think, my friends, on the other hand, of the iron curtains that separate us; of the suspicion and fear that are all about us; of the ominous detonations of atomic weapons that deafen our ears and scare our hearts. “Oh, how lonely we are in the world,” said Thackeray, “you and I are but a pair of infinite isolations with some fellow islands a little more or less near to us.”Has Scripture nothing to say on this matter? It most certainly has. Almost at the very beginning of the Bible – in the second chapter of Genesis – when God contemplates His supreme handiwork, Man, Scripture records the divine judgment: “It is not good that man should be alone.” Long before the psychiatrist foresaw…

I. Not going to talk to you about ג"ע התחתון – even Rabbis are uncertain about that (ריש לקיש in גמ' has doubt whether its בבל or א"י) nor about נחש הקדמון – even Rishonim uncertain about what he was (רמב"ם and others – figurative interpretation). But about different end of Eden and different end of serpent. II. Personality. The ג"ע of personality is when it is at harmony with itself. Man must know that he is the supreme creative of g-d, but that he must not confuse himself with g-

1. This morning we are going to discuss the Jewish Notion of Paradise. But when we say “Paradise”, we do not mean to refer to the Paradise after death, to what is technically known as Olam Ha’ba, or the world-to-come. We speak, rather, of the Gan Eden Ha’tachton, the earthly Paradise. For Paradise is here, on earth, even as the Bible this morning goes out of its way to indicate that Eden is a very real place, filled with delights of all kinds. Gan Eden, as we use it this morning, and as Jewish thinking understands it, is, in essence, a way of life, a real utopia. Paradise is even more than a spot on the globe. It can be the globe itself. We speak of the Paradise which Life is, or can be. 2.Well, what is Paradise? Conceptions of it differ one from the other even as men’s minds and hearts and personalities differ one from the other. What is Paradise to one person is Hell to another. What is Gehennom to me may be Gan Eden to another. Yet there are certain distinct notions as to what G.E. – which in the Bible indicates this-worldly paradise – consists of. 2a. The Moslem Paradise. A cosmic harem with an infinite supply of wine, women and song. Physical pleasures and material plenitude, sensuous delights and bodily gratification – this is Paradise for the Moslem. 2b. The American Indian Paradise. The brave charging down an infinite hunting ground, mounted upon a swift white steed, with an inexhaustible supply of prize beasts to hunt. 2c. The modern man’s paradise. Builds on the above, and includes: sitting on a soft couch with feet on desk, snipping off a plum with right hand, apple with left, big long straw to sip all kinds of liquid without having to get off seat, TV set in one corner, convertible Cadillac for fast drive Riviera, triple-split level ranch-home, and end to income tax. 3. No one can deny that all these things are pleasurable, and, when pursued with moderation, are acceptable from a Jewish point-of-view. Talmud (Brachot 57): Shloshah marchivin daato shel a…

My task this evening is to install the new administration of our Kodimoh. Looking over the list, I discover that there are a total of seven units that must be officially charged and installed. And I do not regard this as a mere fortuitous coincidence. The number seven is a ”magic number" in Jewish life. It is above all the number of days of the week, the symbol of the creation of the world, and therefore the symbol of creativity as such. It is my hope and my prayer that this administration will fulfill that function of creativity on the pattern set down before it. For the work of the officers of a synagogue is much like the study of Torah - Im yom taazvenu yomayim yaazveka, neglect it for a day and it neglects you for twice that time. You cannot keep the status quo in a shul - it’s either ahead or backwards, either creative or, chalilah, destructive. Our installation, this evening, of each and every one of the new administration is based on that proposition, the proposition that you must determine to be creative, else you harm this holy work זזhich you have undertaken• Let us proceed then, with the installation, on the pattern of the first seven days in which God created this Universe.2 .On the first day, G-d created Heaven and Earth - and He also created Light, and Darkness. The ability to distinguish between Light and Darkness, the duty of spreading light and subduing the forces of darkness, is a sacred one. In the first of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls discovered recently, an ancient Megillah whose authorship has not yet been determined beyon doubt, tells of the battle between the BNEI OR and BNEI CHOSHECH, the Children of Light and the Children of ^arkness. The members of the Board must consider themselves the true BNEI OR, Children of Light. Upon you we will rely to bring great light into the congregation whom you are priveleged to serve. Upon you depends the future of the administration, and hence the future of Kodimoh. Apathy, indifference, pettiness and lack …

Our Sidra of this morning teaches us one of the most fundamental concepts of our faith. It is something we speak of often, and that is perhaps why we frequently fail to appreciate its depth and the magnitude of its influence. The concept of man’s creation in tzellem Elokim, the image of G-d, is one of the most sublime ideas that man possesses, and is decisive in the Jewish concept of man.What does it mean when we say that man was created in tzellem Elokim? Varying interpretations have been offered of this term, each reflecting the general ideological orientation of the interpreter. The philosophers of Judaism, the fathers of our rationalist tradition, maintain that the image of G-d is expressed, in man, by his intellect. Thus, Saadia Gaon and Maimonides maintain that sekhel — reason — which separates man from animal is the element of uniqueness that is in essence a divine quality. The intellectual function is thus what characterizes man as the tzellem Elokim.However, the ethical tradition of Judaism does not agree with that interpretation. Thus, Rabbi Moses Hayyim Luzzato in his "Mesillat Yesharim" does not accept reason as the essence of the divine image. A man can, by the exercise of his intellect know what is good — but fail to act upon it. Also, the restriction of tzellem Elokim to reason means that only geniuses can truly qualify as being created in the image of G-d. Hence, Luzzato offers an alternative and perhaps more profound definition. The tzellem Elokim in which man was created is that of ratzon — the freedom of his will. The fact that man has a choice between good and evil, between right and wrong, between obedience and disobedience of G-d — is what expresses the image of G-d in which he was born. An animal has no freedom to act. A man does. That ethical freedom makes man unique in the creation.But how does the freedom of the human will express itself? A man does not assert his freedom by merely saying "yes" to all that is presented to him. Each of us f…

The chronicles of our people are studded with the stories of famous friendships. One of the most interesting of these is that of Rabbi Judah the Prince, commonly called Rabbi or Rebbe, and Antoninus, the Caesar of Imperial Rome. Rabbi and Caesar had a mutual affection for each other and held each other in great esteem. One of the interesting sidelights of this friendship, which I wish to commend to your attention this morning, concerns a verse we just read from the Torah. After Cain was dejected because the Lord had rejected his offerings, G-d said to him: la-pesach chatat rovetz – “Sin crouches at the door.” It is concerning this verse that the Talmud, in Sanhedrin, records the following statement: Amar Rebbe – Rabbi Judah the Prince said, davar zeh limdani Antoninus, this thing was taught to me by Antoninus – that yetzer ha-ra sholet ba-adam mi-shaat yetziato la-olam, that the evil temptation rules over man from the moment that he goes out into the world. And proof for this statement is the verse la-pesach chatat rovetz – “Sin crouches at the door.” In other words, Antoninus interpreted the word pesach, door, in a biological and almost literal sense – at the doorway into the world, from the moment of birth, the evil propensity of man reigns over him.What a remarkable statement! Is it not unthinkable that the great Rebbe, the Redactor of the Mishnah, the pillar of Judaism throughout the ages, he who formulated and organized the structure of the whole oral Law, should have to turn to a non-Jew, a Roman, for the interpretation of a biblical verse? Is it not almost absurd to learn that this great teacher, known in our literature as “the holy Rabbi,” should have to rely upon a politician for the explanation of a simple verse of the Torah?I believe that we have here something subtle which speaks to all men and has something to say to all ages. Note that Rabbi says merely that Antoninus taught him this explanation! He does not say that he accepted it. Indeed I believe t…

The Torah’s record of the creation of the world by G-d, no matter how you may interpret it, is one of the major fundamentals of Jewish thought. Without the concept of creation, nothing else in Judaism makes much sense. It is therefore pertinent to raise one of the most persistent and universal questions that has bothered many a layman as well as some of the most serious thinkers of all times: why did G-d create the world? G-d is, after all, perfect. He does not need the world. He is complete without it. Why, then, did He bring it into existence?Furthermore, especially troublesome is the verse va-yar Elohim ki tov, and “G-d saw that it was good.” What does the Bible mean when it says ki tov, “it was good?” And what do we mean by the words va-yar Elohim, “and G-d saw?” Certainly it could not mean that G-d stepped back, like an artist who has just finished an oil painting, to admire his handiwork from the proper perspective. What then does it mean?Allow me to commend to your attention one of the most novel answers I have yet seen. It is suggested by Rabbi Jacob Zvi Meklenburg in his “Ha-ketav ve-ha-Kabbalah.” The word va-yar, he says, does not mean “and he saw,” but rather “he brought into existence.” For va-yar in ordinary Hebrew parlance may mean not only “he saw” but “he showed.” Just as the idea “to show” means to reveal something which is hidden, so creation by G-d means to bring into sight that which was previously hidden from mortal eyes. Creation by G-d means to bring an object from potential into real existence. Va-yar Elohim, “and G-d brought into existence (the world)” – and why? – because ki tov, because He is good! Not that G-d saw that the world is good, but He brought the world into existence because He, G-d, is tov, good! Whether the world is good remains at best a debatable thesis. It is the goodness of G-d, not the goodness of the world, that the Torah means to emphasize. So the verse va-yar Elohim ki tov comes to answer the question: why did G-d cre…

In pronouncing the verdict of guilty against Adam for eating from the forbidden fruit, God said to him: Ki shamata le’kol ishtekha, because you hearkened to the voice of your wife, va-tokhal min ha-etz asher tzivitekha lemor lo tokhal mi-menu, and you ate from the tree from which I commanded you that you shall not eat from it, arurah ha-adamah ba-avurekha let the earth be cursed because of you. What is remarkable about this proclamation is the apparently superfluous introduction. Adam’s sin consisted of eating the fruit forbidden to him by God; why, then, does the Lord preface His announcement of Adam’s punishment with the word Ki shamata le’kol ishtekha, “because you hearkened to the voice of your wife?” Permit me to present to you three interpretations offered by three different commentators, widely separated in time and geography, but all of which point in one common direction, which is of tremendous relevance to us in our own days. All of them indicate that even more significant than the actual crime was the attitude that Adam brought towards that crime; the apology was worse than the sin. Adam had the opportunity for greatness: to come clean, maturely to acknowledge that he had been wrong, and to beg forgiveness. Instead, he whiningly offered an insipid self-justification. And it is here, in this attitude, that Adam compounded his crime many times over again.The first of our commentators answers our problem by stating that the major sin of Adam was not the eating of the fruit, but in his demonstration of an utter lack of responsibility. Adam absolved himself of any guilt, and shifted the fault to someone else. When God first approached Adam to ask what he had done, what was his response? Ha-ishah asher natata imadi hi natnah li min ha-etz va-okhel, “the woman you gave to me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree and I ate thereof.” What a colossal impertinence! Adam feels he has now established his innocence by blaming his wife! And by disclaiming responsibilit…