![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
magidLast night I went to the Charles River Beit Midrash, which was moved from the usual Tuesday evening so as not to conflict with the election. The teacher was R. Daniel Goldfarb, director of the Conservative Yeshiva in Jerusalem.
The first half of the session was the group as a whole working through texts on the question of who would succeed Moshe. We discussed other possibilities, including Moshe's sons (Aaron's sons inherit, as do Tzlofchad's daughters) and Pinchas (who had lineage, and was a military leader, but also a zealot (not of concern in Tanach, but of concern to the rabbis in Talmud, at the time of the Romans...)). In the end, Joshua is chosen because he is a leader who is compassionate, can deal with everyone, and is not hot-headed.
The sources cited (all available in Hebrew and English) were:
The second half of the session was chevruta study followed by group summation, looking at Tractate Brachot 27b-28a on the story of how Rabban Gamliel was deposed as head of the sanhedrin. The short version: there was a dispute over whether maariv is obligatory (Rabban Gamliel) or optional (R. Yehoshua). A student stirred up the hornet's nest publically, and Rabban Gamliel humiliated R. Yehoshua in front of the others, rather as he had other situations. The crowd decided this was intolerable, and deposed him in favor of R. Elazar b. Azariah (skipping R. Yehoshua because he was an interested party, and R. Akiva because he didn't have political legs, while R. Elazar b. Azaria was wise, had money (to buy off Romans, if necessary), and had lineage). The story goes on with Rabban Gamliel changing, apologizing, and becoming co-Nasi with R. Elazar b. Azaria, though our focus was on the criteria used for leadership.
On the whole, this was a pleasant enough shiur, but the level of study didn't feel very challenging (not helped, perhaps, by ending up with a chevruta who knew far less than I), and the teacher was definitely orienting his words towards current politics, wanting to be very relevant (and Obama leading, though he mostly kept it to implication), which took up time that I thought could have been better spent looking at the text (especially considering the likely politics of the people in the room. MA is not even close to a swing state.).
The first half of the session was the group as a whole working through texts on the question of who would succeed Moshe. We discussed other possibilities, including Moshe's sons (Aaron's sons inherit, as do Tzlofchad's daughters) and Pinchas (who had lineage, and was a military leader, but also a zealot (not of concern in Tanach, but of concern to the rabbis in Talmud, at the time of the Romans...)). In the end, Joshua is chosen because he is a leader who is compassionate, can deal with everyone, and is not hot-headed.
The sources cited (all available in Hebrew and English) were:
- Deuternomy 31, 1-2 and 15
- Exodus 18, 2-4
- Numbers 27, 15-19
- Rashi on Numbers 27, 16
- Numbers 25, 11-14
- Numbers 31, 6-8
- Tractate Sanhedrin 82a
- Rashi on Numbers 28, 16
- Rashi on Numbers 28, 18
The second half of the session was chevruta study followed by group summation, looking at Tractate Brachot 27b-28a on the story of how Rabban Gamliel was deposed as head of the sanhedrin. The short version: there was a dispute over whether maariv is obligatory (Rabban Gamliel) or optional (R. Yehoshua). A student stirred up the hornet's nest publically, and Rabban Gamliel humiliated R. Yehoshua in front of the others, rather as he had other situations. The crowd decided this was intolerable, and deposed him in favor of R. Elazar b. Azariah (skipping R. Yehoshua because he was an interested party, and R. Akiva because he didn't have political legs, while R. Elazar b. Azaria was wise, had money (to buy off Romans, if necessary), and had lineage). The story goes on with Rabban Gamliel changing, apologizing, and becoming co-Nasi with R. Elazar b. Azaria, though our focus was on the criteria used for leadership.
On the whole, this was a pleasant enough shiur, but the level of study didn't feel very challenging (not helped, perhaps, by ending up with a chevruta who knew far less than I), and the teacher was definitely orienting his words towards current politics, wanting to be very relevant (and Obama leading, though he mostly kept it to implication), which took up time that I thought could have been better spent looking at the text (especially considering the likely politics of the people in the room. MA is not even close to a swing state.).