Sunday, April 19, 2009

Kilroy Was Here (Click For Link)

Rav Yosef Shaul Natanson, cited by the rabbi in shul, just yesterday morning , addressed Aharon's silence. Nadav and Avihu offer a "strange fire," their lives are taken by G-d, and their father is silent. At first Aharon cried and was reprimanded by G-d for this response. Then he went silent (-Ramban). Why then were the Jewish People permitted to cry? Rav Natanson notes that Aharon experienced a personal tragedy,while the people were feeling for an other who experienced loss. When one - rachmana litzlan - goes through a difficult time, the appropriate reaction is to take it as from G-d and deal with it along those lines. When someone else goes through a hard time, the appropriate reaction is to empathize with them as best as possible.
;k
Rabbi Zev Reichman applied to this the teaching of the Slonimer Rebbe, that every characteristic - midah - can be used for good. The Rebbe was once challenged with the question, "How can heresy be used for good?" The Rebbe explained that when someone goes through a hard time others shouldn't put it all on G-d, but should react as if there were no G-d, as if it was up to them to feel for and assist the other person.
jn
This reminded me of what Rabbi Yitzchak Kirschner (zt"l) said that we should tell ourselves that our suffering is from G-d, and try to figure out and deal with the details. But we should not say that to others. It also brought to mind the saying of Rav Yisrael Salanter that we should worry about our own ruchniyut - spirituality, and the gashmiyut - material needs of others (although we are inclined to do the opposite of this).
l
This reminds me of a phrase I think I recently coined, the opposite of empathy. I thought of these words as I experienced what felt like that. A friend suggested calling it drainpathy, but I like the long hand, opposite of empathy.
lb
The following tanka was birthed today organically. Poet and poem are both doing fine. But they ask for a few days to sleep, heal, and get to know one another.
b
writing means i'm here
will one day show i was here
longhand graffiti
much like the book known as life
written one word at a time
n
I am blown away by good writing. I am reminded of an interview that my mother (SSLABW) told me she saw years ago with J.J. Walker. He was asked who was the funniest person he knew and he named a kid he went to school with. This comes to mind because some of the best writers I know are not famous...
b
On the other hand, some famous writers are really good. Here's a little sample of Paul Auster, from Timbuktu. A friend of mine was recently dissing this book, saying he couldn't read a book that he's supposed to believe is written by a dog. Auster's brilliance, as I see it, is that he doesn't go the kitchy route of having the dog narrate. He presents things ostensibly from the P.O.V. of the dog, in a profoundly believable way, while really presenting an in depth human portrait of the dog's owner.
b
"Mr. Bones knew that Willy wasn't long for this world... What was a poor dog to do? Mr. Bones had been with Willy since his earliest days as a pup, and by now it was next to impossible for him to imagine a world that did not have his master in it. Every thought, every memory, every particle of the earth and air was saturated with Willy's presence. Habits die hard, and no doubt there's some truth to the adage about old dogs and new tricks, but it was more than just love or devotion that caused Mr. Bones to dread what was coming. It was pure ontological terror. Subtract Willy from the world, and the odds were that the world itself would seize to exist.
b
Such was the quandary that Mr. Bones suffered that August morning as he shuffled through the streets of Baltimore with his ailing master. A dog alone was no better than a dead dog, and once Willy breathed his last, he'd have nothing to look forward to but his own imminent demise. Willy had been cautioning him about this for many days now and Mr. Bones knew the drill by heart: how to avoid the dogcatchers and constables, the paddy wagons and unmarked cars, the hypocrites from the so-called humane societies..."

3 Comments:

Blogger kishke said...

I don't agree with R' Yosef Shaul Natanson's contention that Aaron's experience represents the normal expectation of one who suffers a loss. Aaron's was a special situation: the inauguration of the Tabernacle. On that day he was expected to overcome his natural desire to weep, so as not to mar the joy of the day. At any other time, however, he would certainly have been expected to weep for the death of his beloved sons! Indeed, one could argue that one who does not weep at such a loss is in a sense denying God, by refusing to acknowledge that He has given him a reason to mourn.

April 20, 2009 at 12:43 PM  
Blogger rabbi neil fleischmann said...

There's a concept of ein shoalin al hadrush. While I get your critique, I also hear the point made from within what Rav Natanson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosef_Shaul_Natanson)is saying.

Rav Menachem Nachum of Chernobyl applied "et ha'eim tishalach ve'et habanim tikach lach" to drashot, saying to take the lesson most of all. As a friend of mine put it, that's the drasha to end all drashot!

April 21, 2009 at 3:26 AM  
Blogger kishke said...

Well, there are actually Rishonim who say that the message is the point of all derush, that the Chachomim would take the liberty of darshening a pasuk in whatever way relates somewhat to the wording in order to teach a specific message. (Others take sharp exception.) I, however, like my derash at least within shouting range of peshat.

April 21, 2009 at 12:51 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home