Jason Aronson and Buisness Ethics

8^th of Av, 5767. Rebuild the temple, fill the city of Zion.

Dear friends, Jews, Righteous Gentiles, no matter how much, and countrymen ( except for Romans who can go hang yourselves.)

I received the following comment from a famous character from the Bible that I decided to respond to at length.

I enjoyed it, esp the Shteinzalts stuff. Perhaps you should ask him about his friends at Jason Aronson... why no one gets paid...

you fan...
Korach

Dear Korach.

I hope you don’t mind me turning your comment into a blog entry, but it gave me a few thoughts. Rav Adin Shilta is indeed a joy, for what greater joy could there be that pure Torah? I am not sure if he has any friends at Jason Aronson publishers (JA). I spoke to Rav Shteinsaltz about him. The Rav said that, “he is a real person, you can talk to him.” The point being he is not some demon cloistered in his corner of hell, but a human being that can be gotten to. The Rav, who published a number of his books in English through JA in the Kurtzwiell days (now I don’t know who publishes the Rav’s English books. I think he uses a few different publishers.) told me, “JA sends me a check once in a while.” Great, the rich and famous get paid, but the regular rabble gets shafted.

What I really want to know is, how succesfully are the lawsuits against him? Who succeeded in getting paid and how much did he have to pay his lawyer for the privilige of getting to JA honor his word?

Like so many others, I too was taken for a ride by JA. It takes the Berdichever to say something good about him, so in that spirit I will say that they do great layout, published by book in under a year from when I submitted the manuscript, and even paid me a few dollars in the first half year. For the next five years they completely forgot about me. I called JA personally and asked him why he doesnt pay me or most other authors who signed a contract with him, and he stammered something about having to check with his bookkeeper. Three years ago he sold all of his judaica contracts to Rowman Littlefield, ostensibly to raise money to pay his poor authors. It’s a decent bluff. RL is pretty honest, but they don’t seem to strive for excellence in their Judaica division, and the whole reason I make such a judgment is because for the past three years they don’t find it fiscally worthwhile to pay for a corrected, retranslated edition of the Mei HaShiloach. In all fairness I have never opened any other Judaica book that they publish, so on what basis can I judge their overall excellence. But still, I think it is high time to revamp the Living Waters. If only someone else could do the work for me, I am currently occupied with the Introduction to Chassidus and Kabbalah or the Radziner Rebbe. (Hakdama l’Beis Yaakov.) Maybe you want to take a stab at it, Korach?

Be well,

Betzalel

.

Sichos Chullin: Rav Adin Steinsaltz, Shilta, on Shabbos

Attention. This picture was not taken on Shabbos.
And furthermore, the views presented below, though gleaned from nudging a great Torah scholar during davening, are a product of Betzalel Edwards memory and writing efforts. Some points may not precisely represent the views or exactly reproduce the words of Rav Adin Steinsaltz. Be aware that this blog is supported by a team of 64 lawyers and 70 angelic forces.

Rav Adin Steinsaltz Shlit”a (Even Yisrael) on Shabbas, Parshat Devarim, 5767
Tsemach Tsedek shul, Old City, Jerusalem

The Rav arrived before Barchu. There were three children of a chabad Shaliach (outreach emissary of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Zts”l) sitting in Rav Steinsaltz’s makom kavuah (regular place). The Shaliach was standing next to his children. When the Rav arrived I signaled to the shaliach to take his children. Rav Steinsalz said, “no, let the children stay. They can sit here, but you can’t. You are a shaliach! You should be standing up there,” and he signaled to the front of the Shul by the holy Ark.

I asked the Rav about the “refaim”, who the parsha makes reference to a number of times. As Ruach Refaim means ghosts in modern Hebrew, I asked if they were spirits. He said no, they were Giants living in the land of Ammon (on the east bank of the Jordan River.) I asked him about the place where he lives, of Emek Refaim street in the German Colony of Jerusalem. He said that it used to be the border, and he used to tell his children when they were younger, “go out and see the border,” meaning Emek Refaim street. “A border between two peoples,” he said.

I told him that on thurdsay night and Friday morning I was in Tsefat, praying at the Grave of the Ari”zal, Rav Yitschak Luria. It was his Yahrtzeit, the anniversary of his passing in the year 5332. I told him that it was a strange experience, trying to push through the crowd while retaining some dignity, for me and those I was navigating through. And then right next to the grave, at two in the morning, a mass of arms and legs, laughing and crying. The Rav said that it would be good to redirect the plumbing to send a flow that would clean out the cemetery in Tsfat, or perhaps it could be done by creating another magnetic site, to pull the people away from the Ariza’ls grave. I asked him how that could be achieved, and he said that someone else would have to die. Clearly that Rav is critical of these “hillulot” (spiritual weddings) and Yahrtziet festivals fueled by the power of Tsaddikim. I tried to defend them, saying that there are places and times that have special significances and are more effective for prayer. He said that a man could pray in most other places and achieve the same thing. (He may have been referring to the Arizal’s own teaching that you do not have to be at the Grave of the Tsaddik in order to perform the meditations or cavanot of prostrating upon the graves of the Tsaddikim. You could do it a million miles away in your own armchair.) I mentioned that the Arizal wrote that it is an ancient Jewish custom to pray at the graves of the Tsaddikim. Truly, the Rosh Yeshiva of beit El, Rav Hadaya, Shlita, was against being a “tourist” of praying at graves, and said that it was a special event that should be done once or twice a year.

I tried to defend the power of simple Jews saying Tehillim, which needs no defense and he wholly accepts. He just seemed quite down on Yahrtzeit festivals, and being genius and one of the leaders of world Jewry today, I am inclined take his criticism seriously.

Rav Steinsaltz is under the impression that most people use the Arizal’s grave as a supermarket. “Imaging a crowded supermarket, where no one has any money to buy anything.” Then he told me a story about Rockefeller, the richest man in America in his day, who when he was quite ill would spend about a dollar a day to take care of his needs, such as food, and so forth. This was because he could barely eat or enjoy anything. The Rav called this, “a tremendous mussar heskel (ethical teaching).” The Rav suggested that an amulet could be more effective than praying at the Ari’s grave on his Yahrtzeit. But for me, the amulet that I would find most effective is the green one that says on it, ‘In God we trust.’

These are the words, Judging Others, Judging Ourselves

Devarim (Deuteronomy)

The fifth book of the Bible opens with the verse, “And these are the words (“devarim”) which Moshe spoke to all of Israel on the east bank of the Jordan river in the desert in the plain over against Suf between Paran and Tofel and Lavan and Chatzerot and Di Zahav.” The first question on has upon reading this verse is, “why does the Torah make the effort to mention all of these place names?” Furthermore, Rabbi Yochanan, the great third century Palestinian Israeli Talmudic sage (d. 279) tells us that he went over the entire Bible with great care and did not find any mention of a place called, “Tofel” or “Lavan.” Rashi tells us that Moses’ intent in giving the 36 day speech before passing into eternity was in order to rebuke the people for their erroneous ways, such as speaking contemptuously (TaFLu) about the Manna, which was white (lavan), for instance. However, out of the deepest respect for the holy people of Israel, Moses did not want to shame his flock by overtly mentioning their sins, but rather just alluded to their sins by mentioning the names of the places where these sins took place. The moral lesson we learn from the Torah’s careful choice of words is clear. Even if you feel you must point out another person’s wrongdoing, you must find a way to do it that will not shame the person, but will still get the point across. Shaming or embarrassing another person is a way of killing them spiritually, and one who shames another is guilty of a kind of murder.

And "zug Ich," I say.

I say.

When a man is, God forbid, shamed, he either gets red in the face with embarasment, or becomes pale, or white (lavan). Where is a place beween Tafel and Lavan? There is the main point, and things that are not so relevant. In Hebrew, when something is besides the point, or not to the point, it is called, "Tafel." Yes, people make mistakes right and left, and yes, people are breaking the law and sometimes even know that they are breaking it. But this is besides the point, this is not the main point. This is "Tafel." When we get caught up in other people's mistakes and errors, and forget to see how precious they really are, and all the good that if they are not doing, surely have the capability of doing, and positively and gently reinforcing this potential goodness, or appreciating the good things others do every day, then we have been in a place called "Tafel." After a stint in Tafel, it is not so hard to move on to "lavan," a kind of murder, as in "My father was almost destoyed by an Aramean (Lavan)," shaming another, God forbid and help us to fix our eyes to see what's really important, and how great our brothers and sisters really are.

But Rashi does not say this.

A human being is so precious, created in the image of God, who has no image, but whose form and behavior indeed hints at sublime mysteries of creation in the concatenation flowing out of the formless Infinite. Who dare shame God’s creation?

The Talmud teaches us that we are supposed to imitate God’s attributes. Just as God is merciful, so should you be. And just as God is jealous for His law, so shall you be. The Zohar, the immensely popular collection of teachings about Jewish Law, belief, and Mysticism, takes all of the anthropomorphic scenes of God wearing Tefillin, praying, visiting the sick, and so forth and tells us, “this is the image of God.” When a Jew wears Tefillin, prays, visits the sick, or any one of the directives of the Torah, he is at that moment, “created in the image of God.”

Jewish Theology has God doing all of the six hundred and thirteen commandments in some Divine sort of way. For instance, there is a commandment where if a Jew is given the choice between being killed or committing the three cardinal sins of murder, idolatry, or incest, he must chose martyrdom and offer his life. How does God fulfill this commandment, of “giving over one’s life?” In the book of Numbers, the suspected adulteress goes to the temple, and must drink the “bitter and cursing waters.” The scribe writes the passage of the Torah about the suspected adulteress (“sotah”) with ink on parchment, and then pours water over the letters, washing the ink into a vessel. The suspected adulteress must then drink these waters, made from the erasures of God’s very name. God erases his very name in order to make peace between man and wife, for if she was guilty and lied about it, she is duly punished, and if she was indeed innocent, the inky waters bless her with a new child.

But justice has it that evil should be shunned, battled against, and destroyed. Who is to say what is a sin and what is just? Aside from gray areas on the moral barometer, we have the Torah to tell us what is evil. Amalek is evil. Idolatry is evil. Abusing others is evil, and self-abuse is evil.

Sadly though everyone is an expert in identifying abuse, most people dont have even the slightest idea how to define Amalek, Idolatry, or even beloved Moshiach, for that matter. But still they bandy these words about like fourth of july barbeque grilled meats assuming you've been eating them all your life.

Ever since we ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil we have been wandering around this prison planet judging everything around us and sometimes even ourselves against the scale of good and evil. Sure, there is evil in the world. Every evil is punished and every good deed is rewarded, either in this world or in the next, because God is absolutely just. But the real question is, who is to say that the sinner has the choice not to sin? Determinism is a slippery slope, which could lead to moral anarchy. But still, there is a strong philosophical argument which leads us to see how everything is in the hands of Heaven, including the choice to fear the One who created the heavens … or not. A divine voice called down to one of the greatest Rabbis of his generation, Alisha ben Abuya (born some time before 70 of the common era), and said, “return ye backsliding children, except for Acher (the alias of Elisha b.Abuya).” In other words, be good little boys and girls, and follow the law, but not you, Elisha. You can do whatever the heck you want.” So bear in mind that if Elisha b. Abuya was branded a heretic and given the pejorative name of, “Acher,” it is nothing other than the hand of heaven that reaches down and points the finger of blame back at the Boss.

(The Agra d’Kalah by Tvi Elimelech of Dinnov opens with the teaching of Rav Yaakov Yitsack Horovitz, the Seer of Lublin, who invokes the Talmudic dictum, “when you are a guest, do everything your host tells you except, ‘leave.’ ” God was telling Acher, “leave, I don’t want you to serve me anymore.” So Acher was not supposed to listen to God. He was supposed to go against God and keep the Torah. Then he would truly be serving God from his kishkes, a pure service out of his own free choice, and with no ulterior motives of reward.)

At times I have suprised myself by acting like a religious hot head who becomes red with righteous indignation when confronted with unrepentant sinners. As an american, I have been taught to, "not be judgmental." But as a believing, religious person, I find it very easy to judge others. There is good and there is evil, and God gave us the Torah to distinguish between the two. But it is not so simple in a world where good and evil are so easily confused. And after all, the Mishna in the Ethics of the Fathers teaches us, "don't judge a man until you have stood in his place."

I, like many, also get particularly upset when I hear about pervert rabbis. However, I will put my money where my mouth is and admit that it just might not be in their ability to refrain from, in the words of Elvis Costello, “putting a hand up the fleece of their flock.” But just because such deviants are not in control of their actions, it doesn’t mean that they should not rot in jail.

Everyone sins in one way or another, and as a nation we all sinned while wandering around in the desert trying to figure out what it means to be a Jew in the post exodus world. We also probably did a lot of good stuff, too, but it makes for a much more boring story. Remember those place names in the beginning of this talk? We find in the Mei HaShiloach:

“…in the plain over against Suf…” (Devarim, 1:1)
Why does the Torah discreetly mention the sins of Israel only by making reference to the names of the places where the sins occurred rather than by mentioning the time when they occurred? This is in order to keep you from thinking that the sins were done according to their power of choice, and that they had the choice to remove themselves from the sin. The matter of place hints at this, for it was not possible for them to guard themselves from the sin and move to a different place.

Parshas Pinchas

The affair of Cosbi and Zimri in Parshat Pinchas as explained by the Mei Hashiloach may be quite difficult for many to accept. What is on the table? The removal of the last vestige of free choice. What are the stakes? The breakdown of the Torah's authority and the free reign of religious anarchy. And yet, in trying to honestly grapple with the Mei HaShiloach's message in parshat Pinchas, one thing must be clear: is not so simple.

The Mei Hashiloach says, "far be it to judge Zimri of being guilty of niuf, or adultery, for the Torah would not include a parsha devoted to niuf. There are ten levels of znut (licentiousness). The first level is where one intentionally commits the sin, deliberately inviting the evil inclination upon himself. After that there are nine other levels, where with each progressive level man's power of free choice is taken from him a little more. Then on the tenth level we find a man whose level of morality is of the highest order, where he does all that is within his power to refrain from znut. And yet he still succumbs. On the tenth level, when his evil inclination overpowers him, his action is unquestionably the will of God. Such was the case with Yehuda and Tamar, for she was his true soulmate (as Rashi alludes to on the verse, "she is more righteous than I." Where God announced that He had determined the affair in order to bring the Davidic line through their offspring Peretz). This is also the case here, for Zimri was on the very highest level of guarding himself from giving in to his evil desires. Since it was impossible for him to remove himself from the action, he concluded that she was his true soulmate. Pinchas believed that the opposite was true, that Zimri still had the power of free choice and could have refrained from the sin."

There is some discussion of people in positions of religious authority, rabbis and such, who may point to the Mei Hashiloach as a license to feed their desires. Not everyone is Zimri. I am no one to judge, and the Mei Hashiloach in parshat Emor on the near impossibility of rebuking someone who I think is sinning well advises me to shy away from judging. But perhaps the Mei Hashiloach style "Zimri wanna bee's" out there would do well to carve onto their hearts the words of the same author on the verse on the Psalms, "I have placed God before me always", where he says, "in a place where a man greatly desires something he should make great efforts to be positive that it is truly the will of God, but must not assume that because he desires it so much that it is in fact is the will of God. In other words, it is much more likely that one is deluding one's self, that actually being like Zimri.

It is important to stress in trying to understand this teaching of the Mei HaShiloach that he is not only talking about whether one has the choice to refrain from promiscuity or not. He is looking deeper into what is behind any transgression, and compelling us to know that the motivation is never so simple or transparent.

As said, clearly an individual cannot assume that he is on the level of Zimri. It must be known that Zimri was on a very high level, spiritually, morally, and yet he convinced himself that he had no choice, that he was fufilling what God wanted him to do. In truth, he was not. On the other hand, who can say that he is on the level of Pinchas and take the liberty to go and horse whip (or execute) the would be Zimri? There are, also, natural limits of morality. It is easy to boil over with anger upon flagrant immorality even for secular people. A friend of mine once told me of a story from the time before he had became Torah observant. He was playing bass guitar in a band for a crowded dancing audience in the Lampoon building of Harvard university. During the concert an amorous young couple on the dance floor decided that the time was ripe to fornicate. My friend playing the bass told me that upon seeing this, he had to do everything in his power to keep himself from removing his bass and using it to bash in their skulls. "Haboel aramite, Kanaim pogim bo." Torah Law teaches that the zealot, witnessing a Jew fornicating with a Gentile, may attack them in the heat of his zealotry, and need not consult the court.

In the Kitvei HaAri, after explaining the sources of the roots of the souls of Cosbi and Zimri, Rabbi Chaim Vital writes the following. "She was his soulmate, yet he, 'ate an unripe fruit,' meaning that the time had not yet come for them to be together; All the actions of our biblical forebears, and all that is mentioned in the Torah, is not to be understood according to a simplistic meaning and is not governed by chance, God forbid. So do not think that Shlumiel (Zimri), who was the second greatest prince, the chosen of the generation of the desert in the days of Moses, was rushing out to commit forbidden sexual acts, as is understood by the small minded and foolish. I have not come to explain all the necessary verses and homilies, for time would end and not the verses, for the Torah is not, "old wives tales," or the chatter of birds, God forbid. This will suffice for those who understand. And if this will fall into the hands of one with no brain in his cranium to understand, he will just speak insolently, for fools do not desire wisdom. Though these matters appear strange they stand in the furnace that fuels the universe (civshano shel olam)."

There are two levels operating here simultaneously. There was a reason for the affair of Cosbi and Zimri. Perhaps it is along the line of the Mei HaShiloach's teachings that the sins in the Bible serve a higher purpose. Aharon and Miriam's "loshon hara" or speaking against Moshe in the end of parshat Behalot'cha served the purpose of showing the greatness of Moshe Rabeynu, so all would know that he spoke to God face to face. Korah's rebellion served to show us the greatness of Aharon the Cohen and his family. Tslofchad, the first one to violate the Shabbat (and be put to death for it) showed the true greatness and Kedusha of Shabbat. And maybe Zimri, by bringing the licentiousness that was rampant at his time out into the open, showed us the true greatness of modesty and sanctity in conjugal relations. Zimri was a vessel used by God to teach us something. And rabbi x y and z is most likely not Zimri. The Mei Hashiloach notes that Moshe Rabeynu did not get involved in punishing Zimri for his actions. Moshe Rabeynu knew that Zimri was no ordinary case. And though Pinchas did not see the true level of Zimri, God in the end agreed with Pinchas and his act of zealotry. Pichas stresses to us never to assume that because you desire something so great that it is God's will. Pinchas - there is free choice. Zimri - it is beyond choice.