Can a self hating Jew ever become righteous?

[muman613]

So you are admitting the gemara says what it says?   That's a good step.

There are two issues I was thinking about on my drive home tonight... You had an exception to the statement that the Beauty of Bathsheba was a spiritual beauty more than a physical beauty. I have learned this from other sources too, it is truly a Jewish idea and not a Christian one...

Here is some discussion of this:


http://ohr.edu/holidays/chanukah/greek_philosophy/1326

    "If eyes were made for seeing,
    then Beauty is its own excuse for being."

(Ralph Waldo Emerson, Poems, The Rhodora)

The renowned 19th century American poet and essayist herein expresses one of the main philosophic tenets of the Western World: "Beauty is its own excuse for being." Indeed, Western Civilization appears to be built on the adoration of Beauty. From fair Helen of Ancient Troy - dubbed by 16th century British bard, Christopher Marlowe, "the face that launched a thousand ships," - down through the meanderings of time until today's Miss Universe Beauty Pageant, beauty has played a central role on the stage of history.

Beauty, however, is not limited to the appearance of women. Its significance may be recognized as well in a Western World that has given primacy throughout the ages to music, literature, drama, painting, and the other "fine arts." Upon close examination, much of today's world seems to be focused on "aesthetics," the celebration of the various faces of Beauty.

What is the true purpose of Beauty? Does the Torah also give it primacy?

Shlomo Hamelech, the "wisest of men," warns us: "False is grace, and vain is beauty, the woman who fears the Lord shall be praised" (Proverbs 31:30). The Torah seems to take the opposite stance; not only is Beauty not a prominent factor, it is even dangerous in that it is "false." It would seem that its importance is to be denigrated.

Yet, the Gaon of Vilna takes us deeper when he brings Shlomo Hamelech's statement in juxtaposition to the Torah's description of the Matriarchs. Why, asks the Gaon, should the Torah make note of the beauty of the Matriarchs, calling Sarah, Rivka, and Rachel "beautiful in form, and beautiful in appearance," if this beauty is "vain" and "false?" He answers that there are different types of physical beauty. There is physical beauty that is only "skin deep," only physical with no spiritual concomitant. There also exists physical beauty which is at base spiritual, an emanation of an inner beauty, causing observers of this individual to remark: "What a perfect Creation, beautiful inside and out." This, concludes the Gaon, was the startling beauty of the Matriarchs, a beauty that emanated from the inside out.

How radically different than a woman who has only physical beauty, whom Shlomo Hamelech compares to a "gold ring in the nose of a sow." What is this metaphor meant to illustrate? Gold symbolizes honor and importance; it adorns thrones, scepters, and crowns. A nose ring which was a symbol of beauty, especially one made of gold, is most incongruous in the snout of the swine, a disgusting beast that uses its snout to dig in revolting places. So is the physical beauty of a woman who does not aspire to the pursuit of Truth a falsification, an enticing peel devoid of its nourishing fruit.

The nation of Israel descends from Shem, the youngest son of Noach; ancient Greece was descended from Yefet, Noach's oldest son. The Torah traces the roots of their national character to a single incident: Upon hearing from their brother Cham that their father lay intoxicated and exposed in his tent, they remedied the embarrassing situation by covering him. "And Shem and Yefet took a garment, and put it upon both of their shoulders, and went backwards and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness" (Bereishet 9:23). Rashi tells us the consequences of this action for the descendants of the three sons: Cham who disgraced his father is cursed that his descendants will be led into slavery naked and barefoot; Yefet who assisted his brother in covering his father's disgrace merits honorable burial for his descendants, and Shem, who initiated the action, merits tzitzit for his descendants.

While we can understand the consequences of Cham's action, the distinction between that of Shem and Yefet is more subtle, for, did they not both together perform the same dignified deed?

In truth, the actions of Shem and Yefet were vastly different. Shem who initiated the meritorious deed was motivated by an internal stimulus, seeing beyond the physical disgrace to the degradation of the "image of G-d," the entire spiritual domain. His reward is tzitzit, a physical tool that enables him to see beyond the physical world to the spiritual world above. Yefet, who follows Shem's lead, concurring that human disgrace must be removed, is responding merely to the external stimulus. He is rewarded with the external trappings of human dignity - honorable burial.

"G-d has granted Beauty to Yefet, and he will dwell in the tents of Shem" (Bereishet 9:27). The Beauty granted Yefet, and his progeny, the nation of Greece, is external; the Beauty of the fine arts, the worship of the physically beautiful - Beauty which is "its own excuse for being." Yet, this Beauty is intended to dwell in the tents of Shem and those of the nation of Israel, to assist in the glorification of True Beauty - the inner beauty of the soul and spirituality. As history so clearly demonstrates, from the ancient political and cultural struggles between Classical Greece and Israel, down through the ages until that of the contemporary Jew surrounded by Western Civilization, True Beauty must either emanate from within or at least assist and glorify this inner Beauty - the Eternal Truth of Torah!


Also this:

http://www.torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5766/chayeisarah.html

The Role of Beauty

At the beginning of this week's Parasha, the verse says, "Sarah's lifetime was one hundred years, and twenty years and seven years; the years of Sarah's life" [Bereshis 23:1]. The Medrash quotes the pasuk "Hashem knows the days of the perfect, their inheritance will be forever" [Tehillim 37:18] and comments "Just as the righteous are 'temimim' [perfect / complete] so too are their years 'temimim'. Sarah was as beautiful as a 7-year-old at age 20, and at 100 her quantity of sins was equal to that of a 20 year old.

The Medrash is obviously addressing the strange way in which the pasuk states that Sarah lived to the age of 127. It is understandable why the Medrash wants to point out the righteousness of Sarah. The longer we live, the more susceptible and open we are to sin. So we can readily understand the praise implicit in the statement that when she was 100, she was like a person who was only 20 in terms of the number of sins she had committed in her lifetime. This is a significant measure of piety that is worth knowing about our first matriarch.

But what is the point of the Medrash telling us that at twenty, Sarah was as beautiful as a 7-year-old? The Torah is not discussing someone who is entering a beauty pageant here. What is the point of this drasha (exegesis)? We are discussing our matriarch Sarah. Why is it significant to know that she had the beauty of a 7 year old when she was twenty?

Rav Mottel Katz, z"l, in his work Be'er Mechokek explains the very important concept of Biblical beauty. The Torah goes out of its way to describe the various matriarchs as being beautiful in appearance. This is not the type of description which we would expect to hear today in describing a prominent Rebbetzin or even in proposing a shidduch (marriage match) to a serious Rabbinical student. Even when someone is interested in "looks", it is still uncommon for one to stress "she is a beautiful girl" when discussing a potential match. We are supposedly above that. However, the Torah does point out that the matriarchs were beautiful people.

Our Sages state that ten measures of beauty descended to the world. Jerusalem took 90% of that beauty and the rest of the world divided up the remaining 10% [Kidushin 49b]. Here again, the Gemara emphasizes that Jerusalem is the most beautiful city in the world. Why is it important that Jerusalem be a beautiful city? Would it be any less meaningful or holy for the Jewish people if Jerusalem were not the most beautiful city in the world?

The answer is that we as human beings are very influenced by our physical surroundings. Physical beauty can put a person in a frame of mind that is more receptive to the spirituality that exists. The Talmud says elsewhere, "three things broaden a person's mind – a beautiful house, beautiful possessions, and a beautiful wife" [Brachos 57b]. What is the meaning of this Gemara? The meaning of the Gemara is that when a person lives in nice conditions and is not bogged down by physical distractions, he has the ability to be more receptive to matters of holiness.

A person who is in a beautiful home with beautiful furniture, beautiful surroundings, and a beautiful wife, can have the freedom and peace of mind to devote himself to the higher tasks of life. The beautiful home, car, and wife are not ends in and of themselves. But they allow the person to rise above the impediments of physical distractions that sometimes get in the way of spiritual growth.

When a person enters Jerusalem and looks out upon the beautiful Judean Hills, his soul becomes more receptive to be influenced by the inherent sanctity of the place than what would be possible if Jerusalem had been an equally sanctified but less attractive city.

Chazal tell us in the above quoted Medrash that the beauty of Sarah was like that of a 7-year-old. The beauty of a 20-year-old woman can sometimes be used for the wrong purposes in life. The beauty of a 7-year-old, on the other hand, has a certain purity and innocence. This is exactly the point made by Chazal. The beauty of Sarah was not used like the beauty of a 20-year-old woman can sometimes be used. It was used like the beauty of a 7-year-old girl -– not for malevolent, not for prurient, and not for sensual purposes –- but purposes of inspiration and aspiration, as our Sages say "Sarah converted the women."
.
.
.


Also, is it not possible to be compelled to do something, while also doing it willingly?

PS: Regarding beauty, it is true that our Matriarchs were stunningly physically beautiful but the lesson the Torah is teaching is more than skin deep.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

And we see once again the Gaon's greatness. 

He says it's PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL beauty.   

They, the askmoses people, have tried to excise the physical part.


Let me quote you directly: 

There is physical beauty that is only "skin deep," only physical with no spiritual concomitant. There also exists physical beauty which is at base spiritual, an emanation of an inner beauty, causing observers of this individual to remark: "What a perfect Creation, beautiful inside and out." This, concludes the Gaon, was the startling beauty of the Matriarchs, a beauty that emanated from the inside out.

Inside and out.   That means outside, she really was beautiful!   Rav Hirsh says that Rachel was especially beautiful (no one denies she was also spiritually great and a 'beautiful personality') but he is talking about physical beauty and Yaakov saw this and recognized it, and there is nothing wrong with saying so.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

And no, Muman, the idea that there cannot be holiness in the physical material world is a Christian theological concept, NOT the Jewish concept.   (This is referring to the "Church fathers" not necessarily what all Christian sects follow today).   

[muman613]

And no, Muman, the idea that there cannot be holiness in the physical material world is a Christian theological concept, NOT the Jewish concept.   (This is referring to the "Church fathers" not necessarily what all Christian sects follow today).   

I never said that. I simply said that there is a lesson concerning the beauty which the Torah talks about concerning the Matriarchs. There is much written about the difference between Jewish beauty and Greek beauty, and we normally discuss this during this season of Chanukah..

http://www.aish.com/h/c/t/48959821.html

.
.
.
HOLLOW BEAUTY

Let us turn the clock forward to over a millennium later. Greece is the dominant force of the world. Its strength lies in yofi -- not the yofi of a Yosef HaTzaddik, to be sure, not even the yofi that finds direction and fulfillment in the tents of Shem in keeping with the blessings of Noah; only the hollow yofi achieved by the secular observer of the universe.

"The world only contains that which reveals itself" was the substance of their worldview. If one fully understands the phenomena of the universe, they maintained, one understands all; that which is out of sight and beyond one's range of observation simply does not exist.

Not so with the Jewish nation. Our belief is that the world that is revealed merely points the way to the world that is hidden from our view, beyond the reach of our senses. For the person who is discerning, the world reveals much more than is apparent at first glance. Thus, Greece restricts the world to yofi, and a shallow beauty at that, while Israel opens its eyes to the hod, the glory that lies deep within.

It is only fitting, then, that self-sacrifice be celebrated on these days of Chanukah, for self-sacrifice is the essence of hod -- the way in which a person achieves more than his apparent potential. As long as a person does mitzvot within the framework of his own existence, respecting his limitations, he can bring his fine traits to full fruition but not more than that. He performs great deeds, but they do not carry him beyond his potential.

When a person is willing to put his life on the line for the sake of Torah, however, he demonstrates that there is a world of Torah and Godliness that far exceeds his own narrow confines. He outgrasps his reach, as it were, and declares a praise that exceeds his apparent limitations.

The ultimate in hoda’ah -- confessing one's own limitations -- reveals the majesty of hod, linking one up with something greater than oneself.

Thus, on every holiday, when we celebrate God's Divine Providence, we recite Hallel. The days of Chanukah, however, are dedicated to lehodot u'lehallel -- so we first recite thanks then praise.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

And no, Muman, the idea that there cannot be holiness in the physical material world is a Christian theological concept, NOT the Jewish concept.   (This is referring to the "Church fathers" not necessarily what all Christian sects follow today).   

I never said that. I simply said that there is a lesson concerning the beauty which the Torah talks about concerning the Matriarchs.   

Let me try to clarify this for you.

You took issue with what I wrote.   If you "never said that" then you didn't really take issue with WHAT I WROTE, but you misunderstood what I wrote and took issue with something I never said.

[muman613]

And no, Muman, the idea that there cannot be holiness in the physical material world is a Christian theological concept, NOT the Jewish concept.   (This is referring to the "Church fathers" not necessarily what all Christian sects follow today).   

I never said that. I simply said that there is a lesson concerning the beauty which the Torah talks about concerning the Matriarchs.   

Let me try to clarify this for you.

You took issue with what I wrote.   If you "never said that" then you didn't really take issue with WHAT I WROTE, but you misunderstood what I wrote and took issue with something I never said.

I never said that beauty cannot exist in the physical world and that beauty is only spiritual. That is not what the original article which I posted stated, and it is not what I stated. I simply said that there is Jewish reason to state that when the Torah talks about beauty it is not simply physical beauty. I don't know why you had to digress and refute this idea. There appear to be differences in what Christianity believes regarding this, but I am not aware of it.

I do not desire to argue about this. Let us agree about something...

Though the deeds of David HaMelech do seem unseemly he was able to do an honest Teshuva, which obviously Hashem accepted. David HaMelech is the patriarch of the Moshiach and thus he has the qualities which were needed for the King of Israel, and the future kings of Israel.

[muman613]

By the way, in one of my earlier postings I mentioned that I recently learned that there was a comparison made between King David and Esau HaRasha himself. Because last Shabbat was Parasha Toldot this discussion is timely...

http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48932852.html

TWO RED-HEADS

The source of Esau's problems seem to date back to his birth, his ruddy pigmentation sending an ominous, chilling message to all who saw him.

But the Sages tell us of another individual who was born with a similar exterior -- King David:

    And Samuel said to Jesse, "Are these all your children?" And he said, "There remains still the youngest, and, behold, he keeps the sheep." And Samuel said to Jesse, "Send and fetch him; for we will not sit down till he comes here." And he sent, and brought him in. And he was red-haired, with beautiful eyes, and good looking. And the Lord said, "Arise, anoint him; for this is he." (1 Samuel 16:11-12)

    Red-haired. Rabbi Abba ben Kahana said: "Altogether a shedder of blood. And when Samuel saw that David was red-headed ... he was smitten with fear, thinking he too might be a murderer. But the Holy One, blessed be He, reassured him that he had beautiful eyes [which meant] Esau slew by his own impulse, whereas he [David] would slay only on the sentence of the court. (Midrash Rabbah - Bereishit 63:8)

The beautiful eyes of David are a mirror of inherent kindness, and of David's ability to accept upon himself the law. The Midrash associates eyes with the Sanhedrin:

    Thine eyes are as doves. Thine eyes refers to the Sanhedrin who are the eyes of the congregation, as it is written, "If it be hid from the eyes of the congregation." (Midrash Rabbah - Shir Hashirim I:64)

David believed in law and justice, and killed with the blessing of the Sanhedrin. His eyes shone with love for his people. When an intransigent bully (Goliath) threatens their safety, David will kill. For Esau, though, it seems like a sport, a test of his own mortality, a dangerous and futile dance with death.

David believed that there is a "Judge and judgement" both in this world and the next. Esau denied justice in either world, and spent his days pursuing death and causing death, tortured by his own mortality and despising those who found comfort in eternal life.

The first challenge of Esau's life -- the death of his beloved grandfather -- proved too great a test. Esau came away from that experience mean-spirited, a misanthrope dedicated to spreading his disease to all who crossed his path.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

And no, Muman, the idea that there cannot be holiness in the physical material world is a Christian theological concept, NOT the Jewish concept.   (This is referring to the "Church fathers" not necessarily what all Christian sects follow today).   

I never said that. I simply said that there is a lesson concerning the beauty which the Torah talks about concerning the Matriarchs.   

Let me try to clarify this for you.

You took issue with what I wrote.   If you "never said that" then you didn't really take issue with WHAT I WROTE, but you misunderstood what I wrote and took issue with something I never said.

I never said that beauty cannot exist in the physical world and that beauty is only spiritual. That is not what the original article which I posted stated, and it is not what I stated. I simply said that there is Jewish reason to state that when the Torah talks about beauty it is not simply physical beauty. I don't know why you had to digress and refute this idea. There appear to be differences in what Christianity believes regarding this, but I am not aware of it.

Muman, now you are playing in semantics to the point that this is incoherent.


I said this:  "There are many people who assume that there can be no spirituality or holiness in the physical.   But that is where Jewish religion differs from that of the Christians!    "

I said that was the error that underlies the askmoses interpretation where they claim extremely beautiful refers ONLY to "spiritual beauty."

It was never attributed to YOU, and it was never a digression.

You said

There are two issues I was thinking about on my drive home tonight... You had an exception to the statement that the Beauty of Bathsheba was a spiritual beauty more than a physical beauty. I have learned this from other sources too, it is truly a Jewish idea and not a Christian one...

Notice several things:  1.  You took issue with what I wrote on your drive home.   2.  You actually modified what I actually said when you tried to reproduce it here and you presented it in your own version.  You then proceeded to attack the straw-man you set up, then I repeated the same thing I said before, and this time around you then said you didn't take issue with what I said.   So did it bother you on your drive home or it didn't?   You haven't been consistent, but that is because you misunderstood what I said and presented my argument inaccurately.   So without knowing precisely what I said, it will be difficult to discern if you disagree or agree to it, muman.   That seems to be where your confusion stems from.

Instead of rushing to disagree I would encourage you to read carefully first and make sure you have clear what exactly I'm arguing.

[muman613]

And no, Muman, the idea that there cannot be holiness in the physical material world is a Christian theological concept, NOT the Jewish concept.   (This is referring to the "Church fathers" not necessarily what all Christian sects follow today).   

I never said that. I simply said that there is a lesson concerning the beauty which the Torah talks about concerning the Matriarchs.   

Let me try to clarify this for you.

You took issue with what I wrote.   If you "never said that" then you didn't really take issue with WHAT I WROTE, but you misunderstood what I wrote and took issue with something I never said.

I never said that beauty cannot exist in the physical world and that beauty is only spiritual. That is not what the original article which I posted stated, and it is not what I stated. I simply said that there is Jewish reason to state that when the Torah talks about beauty it is not simply physical beauty. I don't know why you had to digress and refute this idea. There appear to be differences in what Christianity believes regarding this, but I am not aware of it.

Muman, now you are playing in semantics to the point that this is incoherent.


I said this:  "There are many people who assume that there can be no spirituality or holiness in the physical.   But that is where Jewish religion differs from that of the Christians!    "

I said that was the error that underlies the askmoses interpretation where they claim extremely beautiful refers ONLY to "spiritual beauty."

It was never attributed to YOU, and it was never a digression.

You said

There are two issues I was thinking about on my drive home tonight... You had an exception to the statement that the Beauty of Bathsheba was a spiritual beauty more than a physical beauty. I have learned this from other sources too, it is truly a Jewish idea and not a Christian one...

Notice several things:  1.  You took issue with what I wrote on your drive home.   2.  You actually modified what I actually said when you tried to reproduce it here and you presented it in your own version.  You then proceeded to attack the straw-man you set up, I repeated the same thing I said before, and this time around you then said you didn't take issue with what I said.   So did it bother you on your drive home or it didn't?   You haven't been consistent, but that is because you misunderstood what I said and presented my argument inaccurately.   So without knowing precisely what I said, it will be difficult to discern if you disagree or agree to it, muman.

What I thought you were saying is that there was no Jewish concept concerning the Matriarchs having an internal beauty which was reflected in their external beauty.

This is the original quote which you quoted and commented:

and David perceived that she was "extremely beautiful." This term, used by the Torah to describe our holy matriarchs, primarily refers to spiritual inner-beauty.

Uh, sure.   But Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh says that when that term is used to describe Rahel, it really means that literally Yakov thought she was physically beautiful and romantically fell in love with her.   So not everyone agrees to this.   If you ask me, this reading they are giving is really forced.   And it stems from a common error among our generation.   There are many people who assume that there can be no spirituality or holiness in the physical.   But that is where Jewish religion differs from that of the Christians!

The original quote says "extremely beautiful" refers primarily to inner-beauty. You wanted to make a point that this explanation is somehow a Christian idea which has crept into Jewish thought. My problem with your dismissing this as non-Jewish is that I have heard this idea repeated many times, and as I pointed out there are many sites which explain this inner-beauty idea. It has nothing to do with denying that beauty can exist in the physical world. Obviously Judaism implores us to seek pleasures in this world because they were created for us to enjoy, within limitations and with the intention of elevating this world.

What was originally written was not incorrect. What you say is also correct but was not the issue which the original article I posted made concerning the beauty of Bathsheba. Obviously she must have been very beautiful...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Well, if you ask me I disagree because I found the way they said it was basically negating the notion of bat sheva being physically attractive to King David.

This was the quote from that site
"A king's palace is not next door to other homes, but is surrounded by gardens, orchards, parks and walls. She was immersing herself in the Mikvah (an area which is always completely enclosed, without any windows to the outside), and David perceived that she was "extremely beautiful." This term, used by the Torah to describe our holy matriarchs, primarily refers to spiritual inner-beauty. David was a man of action, and he had found the woman who was worthy of being the grandmother of Moshiach. He immediately dispatched messengers to ascertain that she was divorced from Uriah, and did not hesitate to consummate the union."

[FreedomDefender]

You can't ask what "Torah" means without carrying on like a lunatic?

Well i didn`t ask you about what Torah means, i asked you about your important note:

Very "important": those three are the only Torah laws that a Jew must die for. If your life depended on it, you may eat non-Kosher, steal, violate the Shabbat or smack your best friend, because they’re not societal pillars like those Big Three.

Where it was written? If you know so much about Torah i believe you can also answer a simple question

TORAH MEANS BIBLE, yes.

You agree with me??? What about my language barrier, it disappeared all of a sudden? No it cannot be, probably misunderstanding.

But I thought you said you were Israeli.... So you must know what the word Torah means.    Are you lying to us, "freedom" defender?

So any Israeli citizen who don`t know what Torah means is a lier and not Israeli? Is this also was taken from Torah? I just want to learn from person like you who always "above" me, because English is not my mother language and i making grammar errors.     

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

You can't ask what "Torah" means without carrying on like a lunatic?

Well i didn`t ask you about what Torah means, i asked you about your important note:

Very "important": those three are the only Torah laws that a Jew must die for. If your life depended on it, you may eat non-Kosher, steal, violate the Shabbat or smack your best friend, because they’re not societal pillars like those Big Three.

I never said that!

TORAH MEANS BIBLE, yes.

You agree with me??? What about my language barrier, it disappeared all of a sudden? No it cannot be, probably misunderstanding.

But I thought you said you were Israeli.... So you must know what the word Torah means.    Are you lying to us, "freedom" defender?

So any Israeli citizen who don`t know what Torah means is a lier and not Israeli? Is this also was taken from Torah? I just want to learn from person like you who always "above" me, because English is not my mother language and i making grammar errors.     

First off, I really have a hard time understanding anything you're saying.

I have a simple question for you - Are you Jewish?