The Eleventh principle of Judaism asserts that God is Just. He rewards those who keep His commandments and punishes those who transgress them.

In the words of Rabbi Hayim Pereira-Mendes, God does not punish in the sense of vengeance but only for correction, in order that we shall forsake our sins and lead better lives.  We don’t always see with our own eyes the punishment of the wicked man and the reward of the righteous.  Our rabbis assert that God rewards and corrects sometimes in this life and sometimes in future life.  There is no necessarily and immediate external reward for an act of kindness, no automatic punishment for a transgression. Moreover, suffering is not sent to us only for punishment of a sin. It is often sent to motivate or train us to live better and nobler lives, to educate us to higher ideals, to lead us nearer to God.

The main assumption of this principle, the reason for the existence of divine reward and punishment, is that God has given us free-will to choose between good and evil, right and wrong.  We Jews do not believe in Predestination. If we were destined to do right or wrong and did not have the power to choose, there would be no merit in doing the right, and we could not be justly punished for doing the wrong. Only by repentance, sorrow for our sin, and by amendment of our conduct, we can be spared from the penalty of our transgressions.  Our rabbis explain that “the very remorse is itself a pain and part of our punishment. The loss of our own self-respect, the loss of the respect of others; the shame which our sin causes our families; the consciousness that we have offended God who loves us, all these are some of the penalties or punishments for sins committed.”

  Do you have Free-will?

His knowledge, obviously, is completely unlike our knowledge. We acquire knowledge while “His knowledge is not something that can be separated from His esence…He and His knowledge and existence are One… This concept is beyond the power of speech to express, and beyond the power of the ear to hear. There is no way the human mind can comprehend it” (Maimonides  MT, Yesode haTora 2:10).

What we do understand about God’s knowledge, and which concerns us the most, is that God knows us intimately. The Creator knows all the thoughts and actions of man, as it is said, “He Who created all their hearts, knows all their deeds.” (Psalm 33:15.)

In the words of Rabbi Hayim Pereira-Mendes : “Whatever we do or say or think, God knows.   It is useless for us to try and deceive God by false excuses. God knows our thoughts. God knows what conduct should be expected of us by reason of our intelligence or education or environment. The greater our intelligence, the better our education, the more enlightened our environment, the higher are the ideals of conduct expected from us by God and by man. God has given us the power of discerning between right and wrong. He knows that we possess that power. Therefore we must use it rightly and wisely.”

Beyond its philosophical value this principle signals primarily our ethical responsibility: we must live a life with the consciousness that God knows our thoughts, actions and intentions. We might easily deceive other human beings.  Hide our negative intentions or plans behind words or rhetoric.   But when it comes to God,  there are no lies, excuses or pretensions.  The more we become alert of God’s omniscience, the easiest to live a life of righteousness. And vice-versa.

Rabbi Moshe ben Gershom (1663-1711) known as Rabbi Moshe Chefetz (of Hefes)  was a rabbinic scholar from Italy. Born in Trieste, raised in Venice, he lived as a private tutor teaching Talmud and Midrash. He wrote poetry, and dealt with philosophy, math, and natural sciences.

A member of the prominent Chefetz family (or Gentili, in Italian) of Northern Italy, he was considered a child prodigy and studied under the renowned R. Solomon Nizza. One of his poetic works written at age 13, appeared in the famous Venice edition of the Bible (1675-78).

Among the writings of Rabbi Chefetz we could mention:

At the bottom of the portrait it says: “ben me-a shana… anokhi hayom”, which literally means: “I’m one today hundred years old”. When you see the portrait you notice that rabbi Chefetz was obviously younger. The numerical value of the Hebrew wordme-a (=40, 1, 5)) is 46, i.e., the real age of rabbi Moshe Cheftez in this portrait.

A philosophical study on the five books of the Torah, by Rabbi Moshe Chefetz. Impressive complete copy containing a detailed copper engraving frontispiece, a leaf with the portrait of the author, clean-shaven and ministerial, and a leaf with geometric sketches. Another sketch on leaf 57.
Moses b. Chefetz (1663-1711) was born in Trieste and raised in Venice. Considered to be a child prodigy, he studied under the renowned R. Solomon Nizza, and developed into a fine rabbinic decisor as well as a scholar familiar with the disciplines of mathematics and the sciences. His best-known for this philosophical commentary.
His age at the time of printing is written in a colophon under his portrait, “ben me’ah shana” (literally 100 years old) the gematriya value of me’ah being 46. Many misunderstood that this was a gematriya and thought that he was 100 years old at the time he wrote the book. Unfortnaltelly, rabbi Mishe passed away when he was just 48 years old

In 1550 Alvise Bragadin established a Hebrew press in Venice, thus ending a brief monopoly in Hebrew printing in Venice enjoyed by Guistiani (after the closing of the Bomberg press). This press continued as one of Venice’s leading Hebrew print-shops, issuing Hebrew titles in the 18th C under several generations of Bragadins (the last of whom was Alvise III). Throughout the years, the output of the Bragadini press was considerable, and covered the gamut of Hebrew works. The press was somewhat unusual, however, in that the Bragadins themselves did not always take an active role in their printing-house, leaving its operation to other printers, and lending their name to other presses.
[8], 98 leaves three illustration plates.
Melechet Machshevet, on the Five Books of the Torah, based upon natural sciences and philosophy, by R. Moshe Chefetz. Venice: Bragadin, [1710]. First edition. Complete wide-margined copy on high-quality paper. Includes an engraved frontispiece, a leaf with an engraved portrait of the author, and a leaf with geometric diagrams. Another diagram on leaf 57. The following caption appears beneath the portrait, alluding to the age of the author at the time of the printing: “Moshe Chefetz here in the picture, in 1710, at the age of me’ah” – at the age of 46 (numeric value of me’ah), though some misunderstood it to mean one hundred years of age (see below). R. Moshe Chefetz (1664-1711, Otzar HaRabbanim 14709), Italian rabbi, researcher and philosopher. Born in Trieste, he was raised in Venice, where he later disseminated Torah. He possessed wide ranging knowledge of Torah, G-d and nature, as is portrayed in this book – Melechet Machshevet. He composed this book to find solace for the untimely passing of his son R. Gershom, author of Yad Charuzim. R. Moshe died at the young age of 48 on 30th Cheshvan 1711 (R. Chananel Nepi in his book, printed as part of Toldot Gedolei Yisrael of R. M.Sh. Ghirondi, Trieste 1853, p. 239). Samuel David Luzzatto (Shadal) quotes a tradition transmitted by Italian Torah scholars, which maintains that the sages of his generation, upon hearing of the text of the caption R. Moshe intended to place beneath his portrait in his book, tried to dissuade him from doing so, warning him that it is not something one can make jest of. He did not heed their warning, and passed away within that year (Igrot Shadal, VII, p. 1013).

With numerous illustrations of the Temple’s structure and its vessels and a large folding map of the Temple’s structure. Chacham Moshe Chefetz was born in 1663 in Trieste, Italy. He studied under the sages of Venice, including Chacham Shlomo ben Yeshaya Nitza. Was a Talmid Chacham who was proficient in philosophy and nature as well as music. In 1678, the Bible was printed in Venice. Printed on its first page was a poem by Chacham Moshe Chefetz. The book Machbarot Emanuel by Chacham Emanuel ben Shlomo of Rome, which was hand-copied in the same time in Venice, included a short commentary by Chacham Moshe Chefetz on the poem ‘לשוד ולרש ילעג ישחק’. In (1699) he published his book Chanukat HaBayit – the form of the Temple, in Venice. In (1699) his son, Gershom, passed away during a plague. In that year, Chacham Moshe Chefetz published his son’s book Yad Charuzim which inlcuded a eulogy by his Rav, Chacham Shlomo NItza, for his son, Gershom Chefetz. In (1710) he published in Venice his book Melechet Machshevet – on the Torah, which had many following editions. Chacham Moshe Chefetz passed away in 1711, when he was only 48 years old. The book was printed in two stages. Initially, the text of the book was printed with blank pages left for the illustrations. These were later added by embossing.

el rabino Moshé Jefetz sobre la creación del “segundo día”

En su comprensión de la creación, el rabino Moshé Jefetz ofrece una de las explicaciones más lúcidas y cercanas a lo que hoy denominamos ciclo del agua. Basado en el Midrash, en la Guía de Perplejos de Maimónides y en los Sabios del Talmud, Jefetz afirma que la separación entre “aguas superiores” y “aguas inferiores” no describe una división mística en planos cósmicos, sino la diferenciación entre el agua en estado líquido y el agua en estado gaseoso. Esa separación —dice— es la creación del ciclo natural del agua.

Maimónides ya había señalado que, en el segundo día, Dios estableció las leyes físicas que gobiernan el comportamiento del agua. En Guía de Perplejos 2:30 explica que el rakia fue creado a partir del agua, y que parte de esa agua “se separó, de algún modo, y quedó sobre el aire” (חלקם הובדל בצורה כלשהי מעל האויר). De acuerdo con esto, los “cielos” del segundo día no son los shamaim de Génesis 1:1 —que alude al universo entero— sino el cielo visible, la zona atmosférica donde se forman nubes y vapores.

El rabino Jefetz desarrolla este concepto en su obra Melejet Majashebet (Venecia, 1710; Varsovia, 1914, pp. 10-11). Identifica las “aguas superiores” con vapores y nubes, surgidos por la evaporación del agua terrestre. Siguiendo la etimología talmúdica, señala que la palabra shamaim es la unión de esh (fuego o calor) y maim (agua). Para Jefetz, el cielo es literalmente el producto del calor que actúa sobre el agua.

Explica así el versículo “Que haya un rakia en medio de las aguas” (Gn 1:6). Según su lectura, la orden divina puede parafrasearse como: “Que haya dentro del agua (betoj hamaim) un cuerpo sutil, móvil y expansivo, que ascienda por su liviandad” —es decir, vapor. Este es su texto original:
“…יהי בתוך המים אויר וגוף מתנועע דק ומתפשט”.

Para Jefetz, rakia no significa la expansión del espacio, sino la expansión del agua convertida en vapor. “Así como el agua puesta sobre fuego se transforma fácilmente en vapor —escribe— ese vapor, al encontrar frío, vuelve a convertirse en agua”:
“כאשר יעשו המים על האש בנקל יתהפכו לאויר והאויר ההוא הנהפך אם ימצא קור בנקל ישוב למים כבראשונה”.

De este modo, Jefetz interpreta que en el segundo día fueron puestas en funcionamiento las leyes físicas que permiten que el agua exista simultáneamente como líquido y como gas. La “separación entre las aguas” es, para él, la primera descripción bíblica de la evaporación y la condensación. Allí comienza el ciclo del agua: las aguas inferiores (océanos) liberan vapor; ese vapor asciende y forma las aguas superiores (nubes); luego, al enfriarse, retorna a la tierra en forma de lluvia.

Esta identificación fue compartida por otros sabios. Ribbí Itzjak Samuel Reggio escribió: “Parte de las aguas se congregó arriba y se convirtieron en nubes” (Torat haElohim, Viena, 1821, p. 4). Ribbí Menashé ben Israel explicó que la división del segundo día condujo directamente a la formación de la lluvia (El Conciliador, p. 3).

La ciencia moderna confirma esta lectura: las nubes son “masas visibles de gotas de agua o cristales de hielo suspendidos en el aire”. El geógrafo John Lynch lo expresó de manera sorprendentemente acorde con la Torá: “Vivimos en un planeta de agua… existe un océano alrededor nuestro y otro sobre nosotros”. Difícil encontrar una formulación más precisa de las “aguas inferiores” y “aguas superiores”.

Así, según Jefetz, el segundo día no describe solamente una división metafísica, sino la creación del mecanismo esencial que hace posible la vida en la tierra: el ciclo del agua.

https://works.hcommons.org/records/z7w6w-09k12?utm_source=chatgpt.com#description-heading

See  HERE  the book Chanukkat haBayit

In many communities, there is a Minhag of doing Kapparot. What is the best way to do it: with chicken or with money for charity?

Kapparot made with chicken is a practice which was initiated by people -not by the rabbis- that apparently started at the time of the Geonim (year 800-1000 CE).  The Kappara made with chicken suppose to inspire our Teshuba. By seeing the Shechita (slaughtering) of the chicken, we realize our own mortality, the fragility of our lives and we reflect on the appropriateness of doing Teshuba while being alive. This is, by the way, the frequent explanation for the effect that the qorban – in the times of the Bet haMiqdash- had in the sinner consciousness. Soon after some Jews started to use animals for Kapparot some prominent Rabbis raised their voices against this practice. Maran Rabbi Yosef Caro (1488-1575) in his celebrated book Shulchan Arukh -the supreme Code of Law for Sephardic Jews- specifically disapproved the practice of Kapparot with chicken in the eve of Yom Kippur. 

√ Third, the Chakhamim warned against another risk when doing the Kapparot with poultry. Since so many people were doing Kapparot on Ereb Yom Kippur, the Shechita could not be done with enough care and attention in terms of the checking of the the knives and other ritual details. This is by the way, the point that was brought by Rabbi Obadia Yosef, who formerly supported the Kapparot, to discourage the practice of Kapparot with chicken. Rabbi Yosef recommended  to make kapparot with Tsedaqa (see  http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,3450191,00.html). 

√ There is yet another point to add to the disadvantages of chicken’s Kapparot: many years ago, poor people would take the chicken home and eat it. Giving these chickens to the poor at least would be considered Tsedaqa. But today, there is no almost no one that will take these chicken home and eat them.  What is more, even the people who did the Kapparot would not eat these chicken because they believe the animals are now somehow impregnated with all their transgressions.  In other words, on top of all the above mentioned considerations there is also the risk of violating the prohibition of Bal Tashchit (to kill an animal unnecessarily), a Biblical prohibition.

In Maimonides’ opinion Teshuba consists of three steps:

1. hakarat hachet, or admission of our personal responsibility .

2. viduy, or confession with sincere remorse for the wrong we have done

3. ‘azibat hachet ,or the resolve to abandon our bad habits.

hakarat hachet is probably the most difficult challenge in Teshuba. Because we naturally tend to justify and rationalize whatever wrong we have done. Or, we might be tempted to play the oldest human game: “blame displacement”.

Everyone knows that God punished Adam and Eve expelling them from Paradise. But why did He punish them? Was it because they ate from the forbidden tree?

Try this. Put on a table all kind of candies, sweets, and cakes in front of a six years old child. In the middle of the table place a simple cherry-tomato. Now, tell the child: ‘You can eat whatever you want except for the tomato’. It will be only a matter of time until the child disobeys, leaves all the carb-loaded foods and grabs the tomato. The forbidden fruit syndrome triggers an irresistible curiosity and desire for what we cannot have, just because we cannot have it. According to Rabbi Yosef Albo (Spain, 1380-1444), Adam and Eve’s sin was not eating from the fruit. God, he reasons, knew they will succumb. God wanted to train the first couple to take charge, confess and repent for their wrong actions. Knowing that making mistakes is part of the human nature, HaShem was teaching them the way to repair and reset: Teshuba!

Adam’s original sin happened when God approached him and asked him: ‘What did you do?’ and instead of admitting his responsibility and asking for God’s forgiveness Adam ‘transferred’ the blame to Eve saying: ‘the woman that You gave to me (You=God. Adam was now blaming God!) she offered me the fruit’. Then God approached Eve and she said: ‘It wasn’t me! The serpent made me do it’.

‘Blame displacement,’ i.e., holding others responsible for our own misdeeds, is probably the main obstacle for repentance, or at least the oldest one.

Yesterday we explained that when somebody apologizes for an offense or for a wrong thing he or she did to us, we should be willing to forgive and also forget. After all, we are asking from God to forgive us: taking the fist step will be the best way to demonstrate that we deserve to be forgiven (see here).

I was asked by a reader of HOTD yesterday: Can we unilaterally forgive or should we wait for a request for forgiveness?

There is a fundamental difference between asking forgiveness and granting forgiveness. As the reader (D.A.) hinted, granting forgiveness can be done unilaterally. It is nice if the offender comes and apologizes. But sometimes people have too much psychological barriers or pride (i.e., low self esteem) or shyness, which impairs them from the possibility of taking charge and ask forgiveness.

And then, we still can forgive.

How and why?

In the Talmud, Megila 28a, we read that R. Nechunya ben haQana, who was very old, was asked by his disciples: “In virtue of what have you reached such a good old age? He quoted the verse. ‘Nor did the curse of my fellow go up on my bed with me’. This is illustrated by Mor Zutra, who, [every night] when going to bed would say: I forgive all those who have offended me”.

This unilateral and unrequested forgiveness released Rabbi Nechunya from hatred and resentment and it impacted positively the length (and I would guess also the quality) of his life.  I’m sure it might work for us as well!

There is a beautiful prayer, inspired by the example of Mor Zutra, found in any prayer book which is recited as part of the reading of the Shema Israel before going to sleep. When said with the proper understanding it helps us to cultivate the habit of forgiveness and prepares us emotionally for such a difficult task. (See below).

“Master of the Universe; Behold, I forgive anyone who angered or offended me, whether it was directed toward my person or my money or my honor or anything which pertains to me. [I forgive them] whether the action was performed by total accident or willingly, through neglect or premeditation, whether it was done through speech or physical action. [I forgive them and I request You]: may no person be punished because of me…”

Maimonides gives the example of a man who was involved in an illicit relationship and later on repents. The ultimate test of his repentance would take place if that man is eventually faced with a similar opportunity but now he refrains from repeating the transgression because of his new understanding and remorse.

However, if that man is not faced again with similar circumstances as those leading to his earlier sin (he definitely should not seek them!) or if he faces a similar scenario but now he refrains from sinning because he suspects somebody will find out about his affair, his Teshuba is still accepted. But it is not a perfectTeshuba. Why? because this man might now have changed not because of his conscience, but because of the new circumstances.

A modern example: Sometimes we read in the news about famous people caught doing immoral things. Almost invariably, they would come in front of the cameras and publicly repent and apologize for what they have done. That act is definitely an act of repentance. However, it is at least questionable in terms of its credibility and genuineness, since the whole process of repentance happened as a consequence of having been caught. It cannot be known if they would have really repented from their wrongdoing had they not been caught…

Following Maimonides, the perfect repentance in this case would take place when, while still involved in an illicit relationship or other immoral act, and with no external impediment to continue with it, one decides out of his own conscience (not because of the media!), to stop, repent and change.

That is a perfect and credible Teshuba.