Conceived in Sin - A Lack of Soul Connection

I was intrigued by how Jewish teachings interpret King David’s lament in the Psalms that “in sin my mother conceived me (1)”. Surely, Judaism does not regard sex as a sin. I was pleased to find an interpretation that made a lot more sense to me and expressed Judaism’s guidance about genuine intimacy.  

Let us begin with the context of David’s exclamation. It is part of “a psalm by David…after he had come to Bathsheba” (2). David, a passionately religious (3) married man, had become interested in a married woman - Bathsheba. He slept with her, and used his royal power to ensure her husband died in battle (4). In this psalm, David expressed remorse, acknowledged his sins and continuing guilt, and pleaded with G-d for forgiveness.

A Midrash adds some explanation of what David meant. “David said to God; “Master of the worlds, did my father Yishai intend to cause me to stand [be born]?! …his intention was only for his own pleasure. Know that this is so, because after they did their needs, this one turned his face this way and that one turned her face there (5)”.

This seems to imply that David was not concerned about the act itself, but its intention - for pleasure rather than procreation (6).

This is problematic on two counts. The Torah mandates intercourse as a husband’s obligation and a wife’s right (7), regardless of the potential for procreation, for example, when a woman is past menopause (8). A husband’s priority during intimacy should be maximising his wife’s pleasure and he is encouraged to delay his own pleasure so that his wife climaxes first (9). The Torah portrays intercourse as pleasurable, using the euphemism ‘playing’ or ‘laughing’, regarding Isaac and Rebecca being sexually intimate (10). According to Raphael Aron, an Australian Chasidic Rabbi and counsellor, the Torah teaches that the “intimate relationship must be pleasurable (11)”. In 2008 Rabbi Aron wrote that “it is a serious mistake to think that the best way is the strictest way; that denial is the most effective means by which to achieve a ‘Kosher’ marriage (12)”.

To understand what ‘Kosher’ intimacy is, it is worth looking at its opposite. The Talmud lists nine types of children, conceived in situations that were, mostly, not accompanied by a full emotional union. These include children of fear, i.e., where the wife was afraid of her husband and engaged in sexual intercourse with him out of fear; children of a woman who was forced into intercourse by her husband; children of a hated woman; children of drunkenness (and thus the partners are not able to be emotionally present with each other); children of a woman who was divorced in the heart, i.e., the husband had already decided to divorce her when they engaged in intercourse; and children of substitution, i.e., while engaging in intercourse with the woman, the man thought that she was another woman (13).

Considering this list, further commentary written in the 19^th century, on the midrash above, can advance our understanding of David’s lament.

This commentary cited a different midrash that relates that ‘Yishai, David’s father, separated from his wife Nitzevet [because of a technical religious concern] (14). Instead, he decided to sleep with his maidservant. The maidservant told her mistress, Yishai’s wife Nitzevet.  Nitzevet then went into the bed, instead of the maidservant, and was intimate with her husband Yishai while Yishai thought he was sleeping with his maidservant. From this deed, David was born’ (15).

The nature of his conception rang in David’s mind during his situation with Bathsheba. Because he felt like he was inherently damaged goods, like a child of a substitution. [one of the nine mentioned above]. …David referenced this in this psalm about his sin with Bathsheba. …David said to God, “I had to sin with Bathsheba (16) because there is, in me, a side of sin, from my father’s side, in that he had no intention of creating me, but only his own pleasure, as he thought he was sleeping with his maidservant. …In this, my father made me like the ‘child of a substitution’. This rumbled inside of me when I sinned with Bat Sheva.” [perhaps, also, that he felt additional shame as he reflected on his sin, because he saw it as linked to his essentially damaged spiritual state because of the nature of his conception (17)].

This remarkable commentary can be understood to be critical of an act that was completely selfish. Yishai was not cementing his relationship with his wife in an act of love and togetherness – in the way the Torah says a man will leave his parents and cleave to his wife and become one flesh (18). He didn’t even know who he was sleeping with! (It is also unlikely that he had quickly formed a deeply committed relationship with his maidservant.) This understandably ‘messed’ with the head of his son, David, who regarded it as sinful.

I find this explanation very useful in an age that, although shameless in some ways, is in other ways excessively shame prone. So many of us feel ashamed of our bodies, telling ourselves we are fat etc. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to feel ashamed of themselves when they violate valid standards. However, for a religious Jew, being a considerate lover, giving and receiving intimate pleasure, in a committed loving relationship, sanctioned by marriage, is certainly not one of them.   

 

Notes

1)   Psalms, 51:7

2)   Psalms, 51:1-2

3)   Samuel II, 6:14 is one example, his authorship of the psalms is another.

4)   Samuel II, 11

5)   Midrash Rabbah, Vayikra 14:5

6)   Chanoch Zundel Ben Yosef (1829) in Anaf Yosef commentary on Midrash Rabba, Vayikra 14:5, in his first comment. Anaf Yosef links the objection to pleasure to a comment in the Talmud whose context suggests it does not mean what he suggests it means. The Talmud in Nedarim 20b relates a description of intercourse by a woman named Ima Shalom who described her husband’s behaviour as follows… My husband does not converse with me [a euphemism for sex] neither at the beginning of the night nor at the end of the night, but rather at midnight. And when he ‘converses’ he reveals a handbreadth and covers a handbreadth, and it [the sexual experience] is as though he were being forced by a demon. And I said to him: What is the reason? And he said to me: It is so that I will not set my eyes on [think about] another woman, which would then result in his children consequently come to a mamzer [bastard] status. [i.e., the nature of their souls is tantamount to that of a mamzer. Therefore, he engaged in sexual intercourse at an hour when there are no people in the street that might distract him from his attention on his wife because he was afraid of not being fully focused on her]. From his explanation, it is clear that he was not worried about how much pleasure he was having but about his degree of emotional connection with his wife, and that it is not diluted by thoughts of other women.

7)   Exodus 21:10, Maimonides, Book of Women, Hilchot Ishut, 12:2

8)   In Aron, R. (2008), Spirituality and Intimacy, Devora Publishing, p. 81

9)   Talmud Nida 31a, see Rashi there and Raavad quoted in Magen Avraham on Orach Chayim 240:8

10) Genesis 26:8

11) Based on a comment by Rashi on Genesis 2:24 and the Netziv- HaEmek Davar on Genesis 2:23, in Aron, R., p. 84, he also cited Nachmanides that Intimacy should be “amidst an abundance of love and desire”

12) Aron, R., p. 85

13) Talmud Nedarim, 20b

14) As a descendant of Ruth, who was a Moabite woman, he was unsure if the Torah forbids only Moabite men or also Moabite women from marrying into the Jewish people.

15) Yalkut HaMachiri, and Sefer HaTodaah, Sivan and Shavuot, cited by Chanoch Zundel in Anaf Yosef and Rabbi Yisroel Roll in https://torah.org/learning/torahtherapy-alone13/?printversion=1

16) Maharal of Prague in Derekh Chayim (commentary on Pirkey Avot) 3:1:15 explained that David’s intention was not to excuse his behaviour- in the psalm he expressed genuine remorse. It is more an argument of mitigating circumstances.

17) Chanoch Zundel Ben Yosef (1829) in Anaf Yosef commentary on Midrash Rabba, Vayikra 14:5, see more on this in this article, cited by Rabbi Yisroel Roll in https://torah.org/learning/torahtherapy-alone13/?printversion=1

18) Genesis 2:24

My speech for son's Bar Mitzva Be a Dragon Rider

What a night, to be with all of you to celebrate our delightful Tuvia’s Bar Mitzvah.

King David told his 12-year-old son, Solomon, “I am going the way of all the land, to die, and you should be strong and be a man[i]”.

What kind of man should you be?

You should follow the example of the men you were named after.

Moshe Tuvia Stark, your great-grandfather who was so loved that every time his grandchildren mentioned his name, their whole faces lit up with pleasure.

My wife Shoshie and I, grandparents, and teachers all get great pleasure from you. This is no small matter, as we are taught: “Every person in whom people’s spirit find pleasure, God is pleased with, but anyone that people are not pleased with, God is also not pleased with[ii]”.

Mr. Stark was an example of the teaching that; “In a place where there are no men, step up and be a man[iii]”. He was ‘the man’ who took responsibility for the synagogue, two schools, meals for those in need, the mikveh, and the burial society.

You are also named after your great, great grandfather, Dr. Armin, Yirmiyahu Blau. A Torah scholar and a teacher. One of his students wrote about him. “His depth of knowledge of German culture and his artistic interests fascinated us and called on us to follow him.  “Nobody instructed us better in the noble art of being human.[iv]”

Great shoes to fill, but you are already on your way to living up to their examples, thanks to the balanced education you get at your school, Kesser Torah. But, as Reb Zushe said, it is not our task to be a copy of anyone else. Certainly, not strong, and brutal like Samson[v]. Instead, we must strive to be the best version of ourselves[vi].

So, I return to the question of what kind of man you will become?

I invite you to consider being the kind of man represented by a fictional, brave, young man, wise beyond his years.

I refer to the character called Hiccup, a young dragon rider[vii].

It is written: “who is strong, one who conquers his own inclination”[viii].

The kind of man you must be, is one who is able to tame the beast inside of you.

According to Hasidic teachings, the meaning of the sacrifices offered up in the temple, is to offer up the animals inside of us.

The ox represents the aggressive part of us[ix], that reacts harshly when provoked or irritated, when we feel that the other person is not being reasonable and deserves a harsh reaction.

It is ok to be assertive, but we must be calm and restrained.

The wrong kind of ox is represented by many of the 1980s New York City cops I remember who were in the habit of yelling insults at people who made a traffic mistake.

 On the other hand, the harnessed ox is exemplified by the detective who stopped at a traffic light, next to a car full of Yeshiva students including me on Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn. He flashed a badge and in a very calm, soft voice told the driver “I have been watching your driving”, he listed all the things the driver did wrong. Then he said: “I am not a cop, I am not going to give you a ticket. You keep driving like this and I will take you into the station”. The driving dramatically improved. 

But we also sacrifice sheep. This represents pleasure-seeking. A gentle sheep that does nothing but eat grass play on the computer and endlessly dribble a basketball.

Here is the odd thing about pleasure. In moderation, pleasure is good. All the sacrifices had to include salt[x] which adds flavour to food[xi]. I am proud of your basketball ability. 

But we must not be driven by seeking pleasure. We must be in control.

The Torah states that yeast or honey was generally not allowed to be part of the sacrifices[xii]. We must not be motivated by the drive for pleasure represented by honey[xiii], but do what is right, because it is right[xiv].

The animal soul we have inside is wild and loves his pleasure. It can be incredibly productive and delightful which is great. Its passion can help us fly high and accomplish things we might never have imagined possible, but this only works if we direct it.

Tuvia, welcome to the dragon riders, young man.

 

---

[i] Kings I 2:2

[ii] Pirkey Avot 3:10

[iii] Pirkey Avot 2:5

[iv] Wolfsberg, Dr. O, Armin Published in Zion, vol 9, no. 3, pp. 13-14. July 1937. Berlin. Translated from German to English by his daughter Rivka (Jenny) Marmorstein.http://www.geni.com/people/R-Dr-Armin-%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95-Blau/353035782440006443

[v] Lyrics to the 8^th Day song

[vi] https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/blogs/336309/a-moment-in-time-why-were-you-not-more-like-zusia/

[vii] the main protagonist of the DreamWorks’ animated How to Train Your Dragon

[viii] Pirkey Avot 4:1

[ix] Likutei Torah, Vayikra

[x] Leviticus 2:13

[xi] Baal Shem Tov on the Torah

[xii] Leviticus 2:11

[xiii] Sefer Hachinuch 117, referred to as “self-oriented satisfaction a person feels in his divine service – based on Ohr Hatorah and Yahel Or in The Siddur Illuminated with Chassidus, p. 39, Kehot publications

[xiv] Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of repentance 1:3

Changing Nature of Jewish Religious Practice in Australia and the Importance of Interfaith Dialogue

An edited version of a talk to the ISRA Studies of Religion Conference in Sydney 10 March 2023

In response to the Studies of Religion Syllabus focus on the changing pattern of religious observance in Australia post-1945, I will discuss one change - the prevalence of Hasidic Rabbis in orthodox synagogues in Sydney. I will also address the importance of Interfaith dialogue.

I begin with a bit of scripture,

Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets, he was not aware that the skin of his face was radiant… the Israelites were afraid to approach him (Exodus 34:29-30).

The phenomenon is explained by the Midrash[i]. Moses worked closely with God to create the second set of tablets after he broke the first set in response to the worship of the golden calf. Moses held one side of the tablets in his hand – symbolic of the parts of the Torah humans could understand, while the Divine Presence held the other edge – symbolic of the parts of the Torah that only God understands[ii], and in between the two parts was something of profound mystery. It was from this mystery that rays of light appeared on Moses’ face.  

I, a Rabbi from Brooklyn, New York, read this passage while preparing my lesson for a Hasidic-led Synagogue based on the North Shore of Sydney. The congregation I will deliver this lesson to are not Hasidic Jews, but choose to attend the lessons of a Hasidic Rabbi. 

Senior Dayan (Judge) of the Sydney Beth Din 
(Religious court), Rabbi Yehoram Ulman

This reflects a peculiar development of Jewish practice since 1945. Instead of mainstream orthodox Jews being led by Rabbis of the same inclination, they are mostly led by Hasidic Rabbis. In terms familiar to Studies of Religion teachers, many of these Rabbis are less in the mode of Maimonides and his rationalist approach - that would interpret the Torah’s story about a talking donkey as a prophetic vision - and more in the mystical mode of the Baal Shem Tov. This change that has occurred in orthodox Jewish life in Australia is linked to the rise of secularism.

 Australian Jews are generally full participants in Australian culture, and the general trends you will see in the census also hold true for Jews. Like the census data that tell us that more than a third of Australians selected no religion, around 30% of respondents of the Gen17 Australian Jewish Population Survey cited a ‘secular’ outlook or lifestyle[iii].

The trend away from religious observance has been a global one. It prompted a response from the Chabad Hasidic movement to send Rabbis from New York to all corners of the world to call Jews back to religious belief, study, and practice. 

This development is one change in one stream of one faith community in Australia, and it is important not to overstate its significance, even within the Jewish faith. Hasidic Rabbis will often teach from mainstream orthodox perspectives.  Adherence to religious requirements is still mixed, despite the best efforts of the Hasidic Rabbis. 29% of survey respondents reported that only kosher meat was bought for their homes and 14% attend synagogue once or more per week.

Despite the Hasidic background of many Rabbis in Sydney, this has not inhibited interfaith work. Labels can often be misleading. An example of this is my good friend, Imam Farhan Khalil, who comes from a Salafi school of Islam and is one of the most passionate advocates of interfaith I know. 

The interfaith work done by the Together For Humanity Foundation began in a Chabad Hasidic Synagogue in 2002. It was a collaboration between a Hasidic Rabbi, Christians and Muslims spreading a message of goodwill between people of different faiths. One of the early events was covering NSW Parliament with messages from students in response to the visits by the Christian, Jewish and Muslim teams to schools.

During the Sydney siege, Father Patrick McInerny and I said prayers on the steps of Lakemba Mosque alongside Sheikh Wesam Charkawi. This was part of an effort to show interfaith solidarity. It was widely reported in the media, and was part of the spirit of goodwill at the time that prevented that terrible event eroding social cohesion in our city.

There is a lot of effort being put into interfaith. Studies of Religion is strong in NSW, with an active Facebook page with over 1600 members.

School children from different cultures come together in interfaith encounters. These are run by Catholic Mission, the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and Together For Humanity, to name a few.

An Independent evaluation of Together For Humanity’s work by Western Sydney University found that there was a significant impact from these activities. The research found that programs are effective in assisting students to challenge stereotypes and alleviate their fears. These programs also empower students to deal with prejudice and discrimination and promote the acquisition of empathy, mutual acceptance and belonging. [iv]

Some would argue that if the criteria for evaluating the importance of interfaith dialogue is measured by the number of participants, then it is irrelevant to most Australians and therefore unimportant.

On the other hand, I would argue that the criteria should be based on the need for it, in which case, it is very important.  

To return to the scriptural idea I began with. Some people are drawn to a ‘golden calf’ type of religion. Concrete, solid and uncomplicated. Interfaith work, however, can be linked to the mystery of ’the middle section of the tablets‘. Its mystery involves the complexity of holding in tension; truth claims on one hand, and leaving space and having respect for those who believe and practice differently.

  

[i] Midrash Rabba, Exodus, 47:11

[ii] Etz Yosef on Midrash Rabba, Exodus, 47:11

[iii] https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1531791/gen17-initial-findings-report-online-version-final-22_3.pdf

[iv] Gale, F., Edenborough, M., Boccanfuso, E., Hawkins, M., & Sell, C. (2019), Western Sydney University, Australia. Promoting intercultural

understanding, connectedness and belonging: An independent qualitative evaluation of Together For Humanity programs. 

Selling Young Daughters into Servitude and Marriage in the Torah

Long after I closed the book the words played on my mind. I read a passage in the Torah about the case of a man who sells his daughter as a child to be a maidservant. When the girl matured, she would be expected to marry her master, marry her master’s son, failing either of these options s

he would go free[i]. This was disturbing enough, but a 13th-century commentary by Rabbi Yitzchak Ben Araama added some colour to this. He wrote that the father could go ahead with such a sale even if it is to a “repulsive man, stricken with leprosy, and the daughter is screaming there is no justice [in the world], there is no Judge[ii]”- an allusion to God, in whom she can no longer believe after what has been done to her.

This disturbing law, and passage really got my attention. So, I did two things, I started to read what I could in my library and what I could find online and I put a call out on Facebook to see if anyone else could shed light on this. Both strategies bore fruit.

We must first ask the question; is this scenario one the Torah condoned or a practice the Torah tolerated but condemned and restricted. It would appear to be the latter.

The Torah stated that if this arrangement did not transition into a fully-fledged marriage – with all the rights of a wife as required by the Torah- then the girl must be set free. She cannot be sold again, after ‘he had betrayed her[iii]’. According to one interpretation, this is referring to the father who betrayed his daughter by selling her in the first place[iv]. While it is jarring to us that the Torah does not forbid the practice outright, it does appear to condemn it.

The Torah does not say anything about requiring consent from the girl – who as a child could not meaningfully consent anyway. However, the written Torah is meant to be read together with the oral tradition to be understood[v]. A friend[vi] on Facebook directed me to the work of Maimonides on Jewish law, which requires the girl’s consent for marriage when she becomes mature[vii]. Another commentator adds that if the father is a “kosher’-proper person the sale should not go ahead in the first place without the daughter’s agreement[viii]. 

Maimonides – based on the Talmud[ix] - also stipulated that a father is only permitted to sell his daughter if he became so poor that he has absolutely nothing, he does not even own the garment he is wearing[x]. The context of this practice is unimaginable poverty in an economic reality that is very different from ours[xi]. It has been argued that in such a context it was merciful for a girl to escape unbearable poverty and become a ‘lady’ in a more affluent home[xii].

All of this needs to be viewed within the larger context of Judaism that contains insistent messages about the obligations of the strong toward the week [xiii].

None of this sits comfortably with me. The idea that the Torah would tolerate such a terrible deed still disturbs me. However, with further study, I recognize that there is more nuance than first meets the eye. I hope that as people with different beliefs and backgrounds meet each other and are confronted with ancient texts we respond with curiosity and not knee-jerk condemnation.

 

Thank you to Rabbis Ben Elton, Chayim Lando, Eli Cohen and Shimon Eddi and many others for your help

---

[i] Exodus 21:7-11

[ii] Yitzchak, Ben Arama, - (c. 1420 – 1494) Spain, in Akeidat Yitzchak, on book of Leviticus, gate 67, p.119, it is beyond the scope of this short post but it must be pointed out that this passage in gate 67 is in the context of making a rhetorical point in the context of a discussion of the Rosh Hashana liturgy. Yitzchak, Ben Arama takes a very different approach in Exodus gate 46, when he is focused on this law directly where he emphasises mercy and says nothing or repulsive men and distraught young girls  

[iii] Exodus 21:8

[iv] Rashi on verse 8, BVigdo Bah, based on the Talmud Kiddushin 18b, Seforno

[v] See Aaronson, E,  האם-זה-מוסרי-שאדם-ימכור-את-ביתו-לאמה/ https://www.elami-elatzmi.co.il/האם-זה-מוסרי-שאדם-ימכור-את-ביתו-לאמה/

[vi] Rabbi Shimon Eddi

[vii] Maimonides, Yad Hachazaka, Hilchot Avadim, 4:8

[viii] Seforno on 21:7

[ix] Kiddushin 20a

[x] Maimonides, Yad Hachazaka, Hilchot Avadim, 4:2

[xi] See also Tosafot, Kiddushin 41a, Dibur Hamatchil Asur

[xii] Sefer Hachinuch mitzva 43

[xiii] Exodus 22:22 is just one example, Isaiah 58 is another among many

Darkness is Light and Liberating

I learned a remarkable teaching the other day relating to the dark times in our lives and the plague of darkness in ancient Egypt. “Darkness” - deep discomfort - is necessary for breaking free. Contrary to the idea that religion is the opium of the masses, and that spiritual practice should make us feel good, in the short term, is the simple truth that growth requires some discomfort.

Our lives take on familiar patterns. Comedian Jim Carey struggled with depression, despite his fame and success. Reflecting on his experience, he said,” depression is your body saying it had enough” [he used more colourful language.] ”…I don’t want to be this character anymore. I don’t want to hold up this avatar that you created in the world. It’s too much for me”. His point is that it’s totally pointless to spend our whole lives creating and curating an identity for ourselves. This is all propping up our ego: desiring to be important, to be someone, to ‘matter’[i].

To be free, from a spiritual and emotional perspective, is to realise our potential and be oriented to, and focused on, our purpose rather than our ‘brand’ and others’ perceptions of us[ii]. The Talmudic sages stated, “there is no one who is free, other than one who is occupied with the Torah[iii]”.

From Chasidic/Kabbalist and allegorical perspectives, the ten plagues that were inflicted on the Egyptians at the time of the exodus were powerful forces that contributed to spiritual liberation[iv].

Of all the ten plagues, only one - darkness - was so important that it is predicted to be repeated, for fifteen days, during the final redemption by the Messiah[v]. It struck me as odd; how can darkness be critical for positive transformation?

This can be understood when we consider that circumstances experienced as light and pleasure by one person can be experienced as darkness and a plague by another. Moses initiated the plague of darkness by extending his hands over the heaven[vi]. This represents a flow of spiritual energy down into the land of Egypt. For people who were already tuned into spirituality, this was delightful and ‘light’, however for those who were oriented towards decadence and cruelty, this same situation was alienating and uncomfortable or ’dark‘. In other words, there is no greater hell than the experience of a wicked person put in a spiritual paradise[vii].

My takeout from this is that, in seeking to negotiate my relationship with God and personal growth, perseverance is needed when something doesn’t immediately click and doesn’t feel right. It might be because it is out of my comfort zone rather than because ‘it is not for me’. 

According to tradition, during the plague of darkness, any Jewish people who did not wish to leave Egypt died[viii]. This will also be the case for those in future who will not want to leave the state of exile[ix]. This represents the agony that can be experienced with significant change. Experiences of ‘darkness’ invite us to reflect on the choice between growth and stagnation, and a kind of death. We are forced to ask ourselves ‘are we willing to give up, or do we have the fight in us?’ Is the pain of growth unbearable? The answer must be “I will not die, but live[x]!”

 This theme plays out again when the Israelites encountered bitter water that became sweet when a stick was thrown in[xi]. This story reiterates the same message - the unfamiliar water that initially appeared bitter was revealed as being sweet after a bit of discomfort. Bitter can be the other side of the coin to sweet, as darkness can be to light[xii]. 

It has been said that “breakdown is often breakthrough[xiii]”. The dark times in our lives can be like having “fallen down a ravine, falling into the gap between who you are and who you want to be[xiv]”.

 

---

[i] https://www.elephantjournal.com/2017/11/jim-carrey-explains-depression-in-the-best-way-ive-ever-heard/

[ii] Lowenthal, T, https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2754/jewish/Freedom-in-Five-Dimensions.htm

[iii] Pirkey Avot 6:2

[iv] The Zohar cited in https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/819472/jewish/Fire-and-Ice.htm and Schneerson, Rabbi M.M, in Likutei Sichos vol 1, Vaera

[v] The Zohar, cited in Chida on the Chumash, Shemot, p. 89. Note also Isaiah 60:2

[vi] Exodus 10:21

[vii] Yaakov Yosef of Polnoah, one of the Chasidic masters, in Toldos Yaakov Yosef, parshas Bo, p. 148

[viii] Shmos Rabba, 14:3

[ix] The Zohar, cited in Chida as cited above

[x] Psalms 118:17

[xi] Exodus 16:23-25

[xii] Yaakov Yosef of Polnoah, p. 147

[xiii] Laing, R.D. in Haig, M, (2015), Dear Stranger, Letters on the Subject of Happiness, Penguin Books, p. 34

[xiv] Haig, M, (2015), Dear Stranger, Letters on the Subject of Happiness, Penguin Books, p. 34