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 They scoff at the Bible as outdated, dismiss tradition as irrelevant.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.

A. Significance of the Book: 1. Literary – one of the rare legacies of the human race, Job aims at the heart of the reader. The elements of tragedy, pain and sorrow move through the melancholy lines with rhythmic ease. George Foote Moore calls it “one of the greatest poetical works of the world’s literature.” Tennyson: “Great as the summer midnight, as the world with its seas and stars. There is nothing written, I think, in the Bible or out of it, of equal merit.” Despite the difficult syntax and rare words in the Book, few can resist the combined emotional and esthetic onslaught of its literary attack. 2. Philosophical – the Book is primarily the study of Man's encounter with Evil. Even more than the emotional consequences are the philosophical or theological ones. It therefore aims at the mind of the reader. How shall Job reconcile G-d’s Justice with His seeming Injustice? Why is the pious man the one to suffer, while the wicked prosper? The discussions between Job and his friends lead us to one of the most profound researches into the nature of Evil. Its results have been the source material for all great thinkers since. 3. Religious – the Book of Job aims at the soul too. Whereas the philosophical material is concentrated in the center of the Book, with its debates and rebuttals, the religious interest is in the prologue and epilogue, where the matters of Faith, the Greatness of G-d and the Smallness of Man are discussed. The Book records the vindication of the unorthodox against the accepted beliefs. Job was not always popular with our Rabbis, but nevertheless the High Priest used to read it in the Temple on Kol Nidre night, and the Prophet Ezekiel, himself a Priest, mentions Job, with Noah, as prototypes of great Zaddikim. B. The Story of Job and Organization of the Book: 1. The Prologue – the Book of Job has a Faustian touch to it. As in Faust, the Devil, or Satan, is a protagonist in the play – for that is what Job seems to be, a play or drama which centers…

אפירל לשבועות – מחלון וכליון בורחים – ונופש כאשר ויהי רעש בארץ, משתמשים מחובתם. ושמותיהם מוכיח עליהם: מחלון – people w. diseased mentality, כליון – deactivating personalities. והלכו "לגור בשדה מואב" – vacation abroad. במקום שיוכלו להתעלם מכל המצוקה והצרה. אנשים באלה שהם באים לשדה מואב ופותחים וכו' סופם למיתה.

In bidding farewell to our beloved relative and dear friend, I commend to your attention the words of King David in the first chapter of the Book of Psalms: “And he shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, that bringeth forth its fruit in its season, and whose leaf doth not wither; and in whatsoever he doeth he shall prosper.” This felicitous simile – “like a tree planted by streams of water” – is particularly appropriate for the kind of person that Abraham Landau was, and is especially significant on this eve of Tu Bi’Shevat, the Arbor Day of Judaism. Like a stately tree planted by streams of living water, he too was a man of great dignity in his demeanor and in his manner. In bearing and in deportment he was wholly a gentleman – impressive and earning the admiration and respect of all those with whom he came in contact. His roots were well nourished. The youngest of a large family, he came from pious and devout parents, who had boasted a long line of sages and rabbis. Though orphaned from both parents by the time he was six years old, Providence granted him the good fortune of an older brother, Lou, may he rest in peace, who was to him a second father, and whom he cherished and loved very dearly indeed. His roots drank in from the streams of the Jewish heritage – the love of God and the love of man. From the roots there grew the tree itself, strong in spirit, firm in conviction. It was a strong trunk, in which firmness of character was merged with loveliness, principled personality with goodness of heart and mellowness of expression. This tree that was Abraham Landau had many branches. What were some of them? First there was the religious branch. He was a man who had deep devotion within, a very genuine and heartfelt commitment to the principles of our Jewish faith. We of The Jewish Center shall surely miss him. He was one of our original founders, one of those who drew the charter of our House of God. He was the kind of man who deserved his reputation a…

At the very outset, we must limit the question that we have posed as the theme of this sermon. Our question is not why the hurricanes occur. First, we do not even know the physical causes of hurricanes, despite our weather satellite, certainly we cannot know the spiritual reasons. Secondly, "why” is a fruitless question. It sounds more like a complaint that a quest for informationץ In one of the moving psalms of King David, he cries out Eli, Eli, lamah azavtani -״my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Rabbi Samson Raphael Hersh offers a comment on this verse that is most relevant to our theme - and, in fact, pertinent to all our lives at any occasion or crisis, ne directs our attention to the fact that the world for "why," lamah is in the Masoretic Text, recorded as having the accent on the second rather than on the first syllable. It is not LAmah, but laMAH. The first form of that word, LAmah, is indeed, the word "why." It is a Plaintive demand for information and explanation. But the version laMAH means not "why" but "wherefore". It is not a demand that God explain his reasons for visiting suffering upon us, but rather a prayer to God to teach us what to do with our suffering, what lessons to learn from it, what good to derive from these experiences. So, each of us, when faced with crisis, trouble, difficulties, or problems - must ask ourselves "wherefore?" rather than turning plaintively to God and demanding of Him, "why?"

The recent historic telecast of the moon’s surface by the three American astronauts who orbited it, the telecast which concluded with the recitation of the first words of Genesis, no doubt brought great satisfaction to religious earth-dwellers. In their address to Congress, the space-explorers commented upon the “ecumenical nature” of their recitation: it was a Catholic who read from the King James Version. What they omitted to mention was that the words came from the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, religious Jews were especially delighted that the first verses of the Chumash were chosen for this memorable message transmitted across one quarter of a million miles of the great void. More important, it brought home to us that this latest technological triumph somehow has religious implications that we intuit only vaguely and that ought to be spelled out more clearly. For those sensitive to history, this was more than just an occasion for understandable pride by religious folk. The Jewish tradition teaches that Abraham emerged from a family and society which were ovdey kochavim u-mazaloth, pagans and heathen who worshiped the stars and the planets. Modern archaeology has not only corroborated this tradition, but has pinpointed more accurately the exact idols worshiped by the pagans of that time and place. We know today that the great metropolitan centers of Ur and Haran, cities well known to us from the biblical narratives about Abraham, were centers of moon worship, a religion which left its imprints even on the names of early biblical personalities. Thus, the similarity of the name of Abraham’s father Terach to yerach (month) and yareiach (moon), and that of Laban, Lavan, which is the masculine form of levanah (moon). Bible scholars have pointed to similar influences in the names of Sarah and Milcah. It is from this background of moon-cult that Abraham emerged to proclaim to the world the message of one G-d. It is, therefore, a divine irony that, 3,500 years later, the first …

Friends: Tishah Be’av has come too early for the Schwarzschild family – too early in terms of days, and much too early in terms of years. Jewish tradition teaches that man is in many ways symbolized by the Temple, and the Temple by man – for both of them are the abode of God Almighty, and there is therefore an equivalence between them. The Temple possesses a Menorah (a candelabrum), and man must possess enlightenment and wisdom. The Temple possesses a mizbeiach (an altar), and man, if he be truly human, must possess the capacity for self-sacrifice and sacrificial love and loyalty. The Temple possesses the Sefer Torah (the Scroll of Law), and man must be committed to Almighty God and the tradition of his forebearers. The Temple has the kodesh ha-kadashim (the Holy of Holies), the inner sanctum, and man must have depth, an inner life, a heart, a reservoir of goodness and charitableness.And now, but several days before all Israel commemorates the Churban Ha'bayit, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, we here not only the family, but all of us who loved and admired this man, we at this time, experi- ence Churban. The passing of Dr. Ludwig Schwarzschild is no less a grievous trauma for those who were intimate with him, for those who acknowledged the kind of person he was, than the destruction of the Temple was a tragedy for all the House of Israel, not forgotten and continuously observed by our people for some 2000 years.Jeremiah, when he witnessed the destruction of the first Temple, com- posed The Book of Lamentations which we shall read on Tishah Be’av, and which begins with the word Ekhan, "how has it come to pass?" Mrs. Schwarzschild, Marty, Laura: I would like you to know on behalf of all of us who are here, and the many others who couldn’t come in time to this sad farewell, that we Joinyou in this Ekhah. We Join you fully in it. We grieve at this great loss thathas struck your family. This nan was a glorious Temple of wisdom, of culture, of commitment, of…

Norman Lamm, Center Couples Club, October 22, 1972, "Role and Importance of the חמש מגילות" – I. Introduction: A. Most scholars – the connecting link of the five megillot is purely accidental or circumstantial – the fact that they are read on five synagogue occasions from seven begs the question. Can understand אסתר and איכה – but why need others? And why not e.g. יונה declared מגילה? Will return to this later. B. General – in listing in five megillot – five shortest books. They are interspersed chronologically amongst other books – not as a unit. C. Halakhah – all agree – blessing on all (except perhaps Esther – because only place find to read a megillah, hence one; others – only sometimes). Blessing on all, even printed; others – on all, yes – printed, no. At any rate, no evidence of early custom to specify – hence question: what unifies five megillot? II. Relevance to holidays – A. Esther and Lamentations – obvious. B. Spring – based on harvest; later – will give other reasons. C. Ruth – various: Abudrahm – Shavuot; Israel at Sinai; lineage of David, who was born and died on Shavuot; Rabbi Maimon – to complement with Ruth = conversion since... D. Kohelet for Sukkot – Abudrahm. III. My theory of unifying factor – each of five megillot speaks of "absence of God" and need for faith in His presence and providence, of love for Him. Each treats theme in a different way. And this makes five megillot a peculiarly contemporary set of books. A. Esther – even divine Name omitted. Book can be read on two levels, even as events themselves could be interpreted casually (secular-political) or religiously. (See Chap. II of Royal Reach.) B. Lamentations – obvious. C. Ecclesiastes – a meditation on meaninglessness of life, even when all virtues and goods available, as long as God not actively present in consciousness and practice of man. (See Chap. 37 Royal Reach.) D. Song of Songs – tradition focuses exclusively on symbolic meaning. Parable of approach and retreat – frustration…

We celebrate this holiday with heavy hearts, thinking of the anguish in the hearts of the mothers and fathers of children in Kiryat Shemona and Ma’alot, and of the parents, wives, children, brothers, and sisters of the soldiers who, since last Shavuot, have died in the Yom Kippur War. It is a sadness we share with them, one deepened by the anxieties and suffering each of us feels personally — each contributing his own inner sorrow to that of the people as a whole, as we ask ourselves how we can feel joy on this holiday. Yet this is a Yom Tov, and a delightful one. We must not give in to our weariness, whether national or personal. How can we do that? By reading Megillat Ruth with care — because, above all, it is a message of hope. Avraham Kariv notes that the book is called Ruth, but its real heroine is Naomi, who is the source of all inspiration; even Ruth’s great decisions are rooted in Naomi’s guidance. Ruth’s conversion to Judaism, notably, is not presented as a theological or metaphysical search but as enchantment with a model of Jewish conduct: Naomi. Naomi begins, as her name suggests, as a sweet and pleasant person, but tragedy strikes repeatedly — her husband dies, her sons intermarry, then they die, and she is left penniless. She believes her life is over — a woman Job. Her bitterness wells up, and when she returns to Bethlehem and the townspeople scarcely recognize her, she declares, “Call me not Naomi but Mara.” Yet after this, Naomi never speaks of herself again. The end of the Book of Ruth focuses on two intertwined stories: that of Ruth, which shapes Jewish destiny through the birth of King David, and that of Naomi, which touches not the fate of Israel as a nation but the fate of Israelites as individuals. It is the story of a personal resurrection. Naomi becomes “Naomi” once again. How does this transformation happen? Simply: Naomi finds a cause greater than herself and gives herself to it — the life, personality, and fortune of Ruth. Ruth is lucky …

Will leave reference to "baked goods" to the end; kiddush as well as other refreshments always come at the very end. The circumstances in which the theme came into focus for me – in ḥeder asheram at the Plaza Hotel in Jerusalem during the first air raid alert in the Gulf War, Jan. 18, 1991. I was giving a shiur to 3–4 students, all in gas masks. The question: “Eleh va-rekhev ve-eleh va-susim va-anachnu be-shem Hashem Elokeinu nazkir” – really? Then what are we doing with gas masks on? Why look for anti-missile missiles, etc.?So:כי לא בחיל ולא בכח כי אם ברוחי אמר ה"צ. So why "sealed rooms” and Patriots to fight Scuds? Why an army and air force altogether? And more: why does David himself say המלמד ידי לקרב אצבעותי למלחמה?Briefly: what part played by God (השגחה פרטית, miracles, destiny, באשערט) and what by man (arms. politics, economics, science)? Same question not only war, but all life...?Two great ideas contend w each other through all J. history:גאולה = wholly act of God. Man = passive; all God's showTrue, without God, nothing; but faith not substitute for human effort. Man may not be playwright, but neither is he puppet. Man is an actor in drama of life; can even write part of own script-־as long as God's will achieved at end of play.First = QUIETISM. Human initiative in redeeming self, society,world is act of hubris, defiance of God.Second = ACTIVISM. בחירה חפשית implies: God wills that man be assertive, active.Quietism: ־־המגיד הגדול ממזריטש man reaches spiritual apex in self-annihilation, בטול היש, thus: אנ"י - אי"ן. (This is secret of ־-תשובה adopting new personality requires first annihilation of present ego, then fashion new one: אנ"י - אין"ן - אנ"י. ) So, R. Bachya: בטחון superior to השתדלות (hence: work only for enough to live that day...)Activism: Heard name of Rav Kook: why open door when welcome Elijah at Seder--if he can make all those appearances, climb stairs, etc., surely can open door himself? Ans.: If you don’t open the door }'ourself, Eli Jah a…