Gorbatchev

                                                                                                                        B-H

Mikhail Gorbachev has many merits, but one stands out for me: if not for my desire to write a hesped (eulogy) for him, many of my other essays would have been left forgotten in the folder of my computer, never to be shared.

The last time I wrote a hesped for a political figure was for Vaclav Havel and Kim Jong Il, who passed away in the same week. That was years ago. I have no illusions now; I don’t think anyone is waiting for my essays, nor are people particularly curious about what Matys Weiser thinks about current events. There was a time, maybe ten years ago, when I was more active—not just on this blog, but in various arenas. Today, I write occasionally, but many of my pieces age unread in the folders of my computer for months or even years.

So, when Gorbachev passed, I felt an unexpected impulse to reflect on a significant period of my life. This led me back to my blog, where I found that there was much more to say, even beyond what I intended to share in this essay. And I believe those reflections are far more important than what I’m about to present. But for now, please enjoy the following.

I grew up in Communist Poland during the '70s and '80s.

For the first decade of my life, the world around me seemed stagnant. At age four, I was unaware of the political events unfolding in the Polish dockyards—events that saw 41 people killed and over 1,000 injured during strikes against the government. The Polish government, under Party Leader Władysław Gomułka, collapsed as a result of those riots and strikes. This marked the end of Gomułka’s regime and the start of Edward Gierek’s rule, which lasted for another decade.

As I’ve mentioned before, my political awareness began to awaken in 1976, when I was ten years old. That year, another wave of social unrest broke out in Poland. I was old enough to understand that the ruling party might present a united front, but that unity was not for the benefit of the working class. In fact, it was the opposite: the Communist elites had established themselves as the true owners of the means of production, running a system that, as Noam Chomsky would later call it, could be described as “State Capitalism.”

Then, in 1980, Gierek’s government was overthrown by an unprecedented wave of strikes, which led to the formation of the independent workers' union Solidarność (Solidarity). This was a pivotal moment for Poland, but it was short-lived. Just 18 months later, the Polish army was deployed to the streets. A state of war was declared by the Communist government against its own people. The brief moment of freedom was over, and tanks rolled through the streets and forcibly entered the factories where workers were on strike. Many of the Solidarity leaders were arrested, and a few managed to go into hiding, some for years.

I was 15 at the time, and though I didn’t play a major role in these events, I did participate in and even help organize small-scale protests. But as my life continued, I slowly became disillusioned with politics. Eventually, my interest in it faded altogether as my focus shifted elsewhere.

One constant during my formative years, however, was Leonid Brezhnev in the Kremlin.

It’s hard for anyone who grew up in Eastern Europe under Soviet influence not to remember his bushy eyebrows, his slow, methodical speeches, and the numerous microphones that we believed were there to provide him with oxygen, as he could barely stand at the podium in his later years. His age and deteriorating health were frequent subjects of jokes among the population—humor being, after all, one of the strongest defensive weapons for a controlled society.

Brezhnev passed away in 1982 or perhaps was removed from power by the head of the KGB, Yuri Andropov, who succeeded him as leader. But for the citizens of the Soviet Union, life didn’t change much. Andropov, like Brezhnev, was aging, and his brief tenure maintained the status quo before handing over the reins to the even more decrepit Konstantin Chernenko.

When Chernenko died in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev was appointed as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and became, de facto, the leader of the entire country. Gorbachev was seen as a reformist within the Communist Party, but even he could not have predicted that his reforms would, in just a few short years, bring about the end of the Soviet system.

One of the major turning points occurred just a little over a year after Gorbachev’s rise to power, on April 28, 1986. At precisely 21:02, a 20-second announcement was broadcast on the Soviet TV news program Vremya: “There has been an accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. One of the nuclear reactors was damaged. The effects of the accident are being remedied. Assistance has been provided for any affected people. An investigative commission has been set up.”

At the time, I was serving a two-year term as a janitor at a military hospital due to my refusal to be drafted into the army. I worked in the pediatric clinic, preparing a mixture of berry juice and iodine to help prevent cancer, as the nuclear cloud from Chernobyl had affected our region too.

I can’t say for sure what influence Tverskys (the Jewish mystics from Chernobyl) had in this world or the next, but cracks were forming in what was one of the most repressive empires in human history. Those cracks, which had first opened in the Polish dockyards, were briefly sealed by force in 1981-82, with tanks on the streets. But the Soviet system could not withstand the impact of the Chernobyl disaster, and its collapse was inevitable.

The Communists initially tried to downplay the true scale of the catastrophe, but the era of Glasnost (openness) soon began. Gorbachev, a reformist, realized that the fallout from Chernobyl—and the ongoing effects of the event—could no longer be concealed.

Perestroika, or restructuring, was another key term that gained prominence during this period. What was initially intended to be little more than a set of cosmetic changes within the Soviet system, spurred on by the aftermath of Chernobyl, Glasnost, and a fresh wave of strikes in Poland, soon escalated into something far more significant. It ultimately led to the total collapse of both the Soviet Union and its system of governance.

In the spring of 1988, workers in Poland went on strike once again. They issued their usual demands for social democratic reforms, but this time they added a crucial call for the release of political prisoners.

By early summer, Polish Communists reached out to opposition leaders, with the mediation of the Catholic Church. Later that year, the Round Table talks were convened, and by the early spring of the following year, the negotiations culminated in a partial return to democracy and the introduction of a free-market economy.

This time, neither the Polish opposition nor the Communist Party feared the possibility of “brotherly” intervention from the Soviet Union, as had occurred in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. On June 4, 1989, the first partially free elections took place in the Communist bloc, and Solidarity members filled all the available seats in the Polish parliament.

The Communists, by now, had come to understand that they no longer held the legitimacy to represent not just the Polish people but those across the Soviet sphere of influence. This was a pivotal moment in the unraveling of the Communist system, and it was largely due to Gorbachev’s willingness to step back and allow nations to forge their own paths.

Gorbachev, once a reformist within the Communist Party, had by then become the supervisor of an empire’s dismantling—an empire that had taken tens of millions of lives over its seven decades of existence.

The day of the Polish elections also saw a tragic contrast: in China, the Communist Party chose to crush protests in Tiananmen Square, using flame throwers to burn many of the demonstrators alive. The image of the lone protester standing before a tank in Beijing has become iconic worldwide, even in the United States.

One might have wondered: Would Gorbachev have followed the Chinese path of defending the system through violence?

Historically, Communist regimes had shown no hesitation in invading neighboring countries or even carpet-bombing their own villages to maintain control. The starvation of millions of Ukrainians during the 1930s was a brutal example of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” that Marxist ideologues endorsed. But Gorbachev chose a different path.

Instead of using force, he allowed each country and republic to take its own path to the future. And it wasn’t just the result of the Soviet Union’s crumbling economy. Empires in such a state are far more dangerous to their populations. In fact, I can’t think of a single instance in which an empire disbanded without a significant loss of life through civil wars, wars of independence, or the collapse of central authority.

As a young man living under Communist rule, like all citizens of my country, I never expected the system to end in my lifetime. I certainly never imagined that it would collapse without the kind of widespread bloodshed typically associated with the fall of empires. But against all odds, it ended—almost peacefully.

Mikhail Gorbachev is despised by many Russians today. We are witnessing an attempt to partially restore the Russian Empire. Yet, for the nations that were once conquered and controlled by the Tsar or the First Secretary of the Party, Gorbachev will remain a hero.

May Hashem bring more rulers like him, leaders who act with wisdom and compassion, in the path toward the ultimate redemption—the coming of Mashiach Tzidkenu.

Do not kill.

                                                                                                                        B-H

Do not kill.

וְאַ֨ךְ אֶת־דִּמְכֶ֤ם לְנַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶם֙ אֶדְרֹ֔שׁ מִיַּ֥ד כָּל־חַיָּ֖ה אֶדְרְשֶׁ֑נּוּ וּמִיַּ֣ד הָֽאָדָ֗ם מִיַּד֙ אִ֣ישׁ אָחִ֔יו אֶדְרֹ֖שׁ אֶת־נֶ֥פֶשׁ הָֽאָדָֽם׃

But for your own life-blood I will require a reckoning: I will require it of every beast; of man, too, will I require a reckoning for human life, of every man for that of his fellow man!

שֹׁפֵךְ֙ דַּ֣ם הָֽאָדָ֔ם בָּֽאָדָ֖ם דָּמ֣וֹ יִשָּׁפֵ֑ךְ כִּ֚י בְּצֶ֣לֶם אֱלֹהִ֔ים עָשָׂ֖ה אֶת־הָאָדָֽם׃

Whoever sheds the blood of man, By man shall his blood be shed; For in His image Did God make man.

וְאַתֶּ֖ם פְּר֣וּ וּרְב֑וּ שִׁרְצ֥וּ בָאָ֖רֶץ וּרְבוּ־בָֽהּ׃ (ס)

Be fertile, then, and increase; abound on the earth and increase on it.”

Both Onkelos and Rashi interpret these verses as Hashem’s declaration that He will impose justice on anyone who kills another person in cases where a Bais Din (Jewish court) is unable to sentence the murderer to death due to insufficient witnesses or other halachic restrictions. The second verse specifically commands that the killer be brought to justice and sentenced to death, but only a Bais Din—a Halachic court with an unbroken chain of Smicha (ordination)—has the authority to execute a person. This is the interpretation of both Onkelos and Rashi.

Rabbeinu Bachya writes: “The Torah continues ומיד האדם (and from the human being, etc.). This refers to situations where there are witnesses to the murder. In other words, man must judge the murder when there are witnesses, whereas Hashem will judge the murderer when no admissible evidence is available to a human tribunal.” שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך ("Whoever spills the blood of a human being, his blood shall be spilled by a human being.") The word באדם means "before a human tribunal," indicating that there must be witnesses who can testify. In such cases, the guilty party is subject to execution. This interpretation is also reflected in the Targum’s translation: דישוד דמא דאינשא בסהדין על מימר דיינא דמיה יתשד (Onkelos clearly translates באדם as “in the presence of witnesses”).

Radak comments: ומיד האדם ("If man kills man, G-d reserves the right to exact retribution either in this life or in the hereafter").

Chizkiuni explains why punishment for murder must come from the court: “עשה את האדם (He appointed man) on earth to be the judge, so that fellow man would be deterred from committing sins and crimes.”

Rav Miller adds that action from a human court is necessary because failure to respond to sin leads to apathy toward wrongdoing.

Even a human corpse retains an aspect of the Divine image, but only a living person is truly close to G-d in their potential. When this potential is destroyed by the actions of another, that person loses their Tzelem Elokim (Divine resemblance). As Sforno explains: "It is this ‘divine attribute’ of man that makes him so significant in the eyes of his Creator, who demands an accounting from those who destroy the Divine image by taking a human life.”

Ramban quotes the Sages in Bava Kamma 91b, explaining that a person who commits suicide is also accountable for murder because they extinguish the potential given to them by G-d. See also the commentary of Bechor Shor.

The consequence of taking one's life, however, is not physical death. Chizkiuni further elaborates: “The passage is intended as an answer to people who deny that G-d operates vis a vis man through a system of reward and punishment, i.e. reward after the body has died and punishment after the body has died, and who therefore see in suicide a way of avoiding being held responsible for their actions on earth. Clearly a system of reward and punishment, unless it included posthumous reward and punishment, would be meaningless, and would not act as deterrent not to sin.”

Moreover, Ramban writes that the consequence for killing applies equally to both Noachides and Jews, whether the punishment is carried out by a court or directly by the Hand of Heaven.

In a fascinating commentary on this verse, Baal HaTurim derives the meaning of the verse from the word וְאַךְ (“However”). According to him, any form of self-harming is prohibited, including harmful speech.

In the case of harm toward another person, it is clear that any form of violence, whether physical or verbal, is prohibited.

Alshich, writing shortly after Baal HaTurim, comments on this verse: "A person who embarrasses their fellow to the point that they blanch causes the Tzelem Elokim (Divine Image) to be impaired and is therefore guilty of death, even if they have not physically killed anyone.”

Finally, Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch offers this reflection on שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם:

“The whole value of our being human rests on our associating, not bodies with bodies, but spirits with kindred spirits and recognizing such spirit in every human being. The life, the Nefesh of every human being is entrusted to the care of every other human being. And if, through the guilt of a human being, a human soul departs from this world earlier than God, who had placed it here, had willed it, then God misses it here and is Doresh Midoi  – (Exact in measure). Every tiny minute of the earthly existence of even the most miserable human being is sacred to God, and whosoever shortens his own or anybody else's life by one second is responsible to God.”

Regarding the third verse cited at the beginning of this essay, we will share one more commentary that continues the spirit of the above teachings, again from Rav Hirsch:

“Inasmuch as here the procreation and propagation of the human race have this designation added, the term would represent a swarm of the most manifold different kinds of men. It would accordingly be a description of a diversity and infinite variety of human races, and moreover בָאָ֖רֶץ on the earth, and by the earth, under the influences of the differences of the various lands. And not only שִׁרְצ֥וּ בָאָ֖רֶץ but also רְבוּ - the whole physical, moral and intellectual education equally בָֽהּ under the same influences. (…)Noachian mankind is given the mission to spread over the whole world, and under the most diverse conditions and influences of climate and physical nature of the countries, to become Men and develop the one common real character of Man; a diversity and a multiplicity which appeared to us in the above connection as God's new plan for the education of mankind, to avoid the necessity for any fresh total catastrophe. The diversity is to balance the deficiency and so pave the way to progress to the goal. Hence say our sages on this sentence "God has provided the most differing zones and climates with a special dispensation", (or perhaps more literally : The general covenant of God with mankind is spread over the most diverse districts) — -Blessed be God, Who has given every country an attraction to its inhabitants", and they point out how every race feels at ease in its homeland even under the most inhospitable circumstances, and the most unfriendly districts affect their sons with home-sickness when they are away from them, and in strange lands disturbs their spiritual development. Man, who thinks he is master of the land is, in many ways, in his innermost self, in his mind, feelings, understanding and speech, mastered by his native land, and this variety of countries has a purpose. Everywhere a man can conduct himself as a human being, everywhere be happy, everywhere pure human qualities can be developed in people. Only no man may judge others by his own standards. That is why, at the end of this new conditioning of the world and mankind it says: "diversify your-selves on the earth and multiply yourselves on it, by it, in it, with it etc.”

Martin Buber, in his essays I and Thou and especially The Face of the Other, highlights the profound challenge humans face in recognizing others as fully human. The more different the “other” appears, the more difficult it is to see the Divine in them. This natural obstacle can breed animosity, and, in extreme cases, even murder.

It is precisely this factor—natural diversity—that leaders can exploit to incite violence between groups based on nation, religion, or race.

In contrast, Rav Hirsch explains that this diversity is not a reason for division, but for spiritual and moral growth. Diversity within humanity is the very means by which we come closer to Hashem, by recognizing the “other” as a reflection of the ultimate “Other.”

This insight into diversity can also be seen in the relationship between husband and wife. The Divine image in the spouse allows each partner to perform the highest service to G-d, as explained in The Garden of Peace by Rav Shalom Arush.

It is clear that Buber’s philosophy did not arise in a vacuum. As a German philosopher and Biblical scholar, he was undoubtedly influenced by the writings of Rav Hirsch.

Rav Hirsch is not the only one to describe the goal of humanity and the essence of its struggles in such terms. In future essays, B’H, we will explore the writings of the Nevi’im (Prophets) and even our daily prayers. But already at this point, we are faced with an important question: How, in this context, can we understand the existence of violence? Not violence born of corrupted Gevura/Din (justice and severity), as explained in the previous essay, but how it is sanctioned by governments—historical Jewish governments in the Holy Land, and even by the Torah itself. We will not focus on why violence exists, but rather on how it cannot be utilized in the progress toward a united humanity, under the spiritual guidance of the Jewish people, in recognition of the Creator.

Corruption of Chesed and Din

                                                                                                                        B-H

All of Creation, on all its levels, in this three-dimensional reality—as well as in the realms of intellect and spirituality, and those levels beyond our comprehension—are channeled to us through different conduits or emanations, known as Sefirot or Midoot, which were revealed to Moishe, the Prophets, and the Sages of blessed memory.

These emanations of Divine energy are generally presented to us in the form of two primary columns. On one side is Chesed—Lovingkindness, and on the other, Gevura—Strength or Din (Judgment/Justice).

Within this framework, there are other Divine energies that exist in relation to one another, and each can coexist to some degree with other energies. For example, some amount of Hod (Glory) or Netzach (Eternity, Perseverance) can be found within Chesed or Gevura.

Everything we experience in our existence is ultimately a combination of these energies or emanations. There is no other source of existence or other channels causing reality known to us, other than those emanating from The Source.

So, how is evil possible?

We won’t delve into the intricate and broad discussion of the nature of evil here, as it is a complex topic. For those interested, I recommend exploring the writings and lectures of Rabbi Akiva Tatz, who addresses this subject in depth.

For now, we can say that the source of evil is man himself. It is man who has the power to use and develop these energies in alignment with the will of the One who provides them to us. However, it is also man who, by corrupting the powers bestowed upon him through the channels of Chesed and Din, restricts the flow of Divine energy, allowing evil to manifest.

The history of mankind begins with the description of Creation, followed by certain rules for the created beings, specifically in the two forms of man. Creation is swiftly followed by man’s rebellion.

Countless books have been written on this topic, as it is one of the most potent and foundational. Every word in the Torah often contains layers of hidden meaning, understood by those who are carriers of the Torah Shebe’al Peh—the oral tradition. Since much of this teaching falls within the realm of Kabbalistic tradition, I do not claim expertise in the specifics of the first sin, but the general understanding is that it involved sin within the area of promiscuity.

Michtav mi’Eliyahu expands on the topic of promiscuity in his commentary on Parshas Lech Lecha. Rav Dessler, building on teachings from the Baal Shem Tov and the verse in Leviticus (20:17), writes:

“A person whose main quality is Chesed is in danger that, he may spend more money than he can afford. Then, he will borrow from others and spend it in turn. Eventually it will be found that his excessive desire to do Chesed was counterproductive, for it led him to cause others loss because he could not repay his debts. There is also the possibility that he will eventually "be merciful to the cruel," leading to "cruelty to the merciful," as we find in the example of Shaul Ha-melech. There is also another more insidious danger that, by becoming accustomed to acceding to everyone's requests, he may then come to accede to the demands of the yetzer hara. This is why certain forbidden marriages are referred to as Chesed (The whole institution of marriage is, of course, a great Chesed. Through it, people bestow a great bounty on mankind by allowing a new generation to emerge. But when this deviates from the bounds set down by Creator, by a person acting simply to gratify his desires or by way of sin, God forbid, then it is called "the Chesed of defilement.") Such is the lot of Chesed, which is not limited by the quality of Gevura.” (Strive for Truth)

The aveira (sin) in this verse, one of many within the category of Giluy Arayos (forbidden sexual relations), is a corrupted form of the Middah of Chesed. There are also other Aveiros out of this category which Rav Desler considers as corrupted Chesed.

The second sin in the history of humanity is the act of violence, which results in the death of Hevel, one of the first two sons of Adam and Chava.

I once heard in a shiur that the Vilna Gaon teaches that even anger is a corrupted form of Din. It’s needless to say that violence is simply anger taken to its extreme. Rav Dessler explores this same concept in his writings.

On an individual level, violence manifests as anger, stealing, harm, jealousy, physical and verbal abuse, and many other forms of destructive behavior. On a societal scale, personal anger, stemming from the inflated egos of political leaders or fanatics, can lead entire groups or nations into violence. The "Hunters of the tongue," as Nimrod and Esav are described, manipulate societies to conquer, oppress, humiliate, and control through force, surveillance, or social engineering, leading to violence, death, and destruction.

Violence is a corrupted form of Gevura/Din, and it is often presented as an act of justice. Indeed, justice itself can sometimes be perceived as an act of violence—but even the greatest acts of violence in history are almost always framed as acts of justice.

This corrupt form of Din is a topic I will return to in many of my future essays, Be’ezras Hashem.