_
January 7, 2012
Mendy Log: Parsha Vayechi
There may be a corollary between Mendy’s passion about a subject and the rapidity at which he delivers his drush on it. Mendy must have really be passionate on this subject because he spoke more rapidly than usual, and the metacognitive part of my brain, the part that processes out what his happening as it is happening, became concerned about keeping up and keeping things straight. So not everything I heard will be covered and for that I apologize.
Mendy began by reminding us that if we were ever in a situation where we or a significant person in our lives brought up issues that had not been spoken of for years in an argument, we were to be aware that that person had not forgiven the other for the infraction despite the reality that “forgiveness” might have been asked for and given. If the issue is still resurrected, the person bringing it up had not really forgiven because they were not ready to forgive. It is also possible that the other party may not have accepted the forgiveness because they did not think themselves deserving of it. I believe this was one of the major themes of Mendy’s talk today.
People caught is such a situation are unaware of the Game being played, and according to the psychological modality known as Transactional Analysis, people who bring up past infractions in unrelated situations are termed Stamp Collectors. A Stamp is a feeling, usually negative, such as guilt, depression, or anger, that is generated by some negative encounter. We call these anger Stamps or depression Stamps and a collector will one day have collected so many that he or she will feel justified in cashing them in on a fight or a depression. Such Stamps are collected from a variety of experiences and usually cashed in against the person who generated them but not necessarily.. Discharging the Stamps is a guilt free experience for the collector because this fight or depression was earned and the person on the receiving end deserved whatever was being discharged against them. Stamp collectors are people who cannot forgive, truly forgive, because they are distrustful of the person’s apology if one was given, or they themselves are not ready to forgive because the negative feelings reinforce something important to them. So the Stamps are collected and like stamp books of old, cashed in on a fight, or a depression that they feel has been earned or well deserved. All this exists outside the awareness of both parties who are generally not tuned into that level of non-verbal communication. Cashing in Stamps is a way of reinforcing one’s psychological position which can be quite negative and quite satisfying at the same time.
Mendy’s reference to “forgiveness” and when one is ready to forgive and ready to accept forgiveness introduced the story of Joseph forgiving his brothers because the emotions they generated in their willingness to become slaves in order to protect their youngest brother, Benjamin, overwhelmed him. Though he was not ready to reveal himself to them because he believed they were not ready to forgive themselves for what they had done to him, he nevertheless said, “I am Joseph.” He also believed that his brothers would not believe his sincerity.
I do think that Joseph believed the guilt they continued to feel for what they had done to him continued to inform their lives even after so many years, and they were not at a place where they could forgive themselves let alone believe or accept his forgiveness. They weren’t ready. Because they could not forgive themselves, they could not believe that Joseph could forgive them and they were therefore suspicious of him.
If you apply the Stamp collecting concept to this Bible story, Joseph and his brothers certainly had lots of Stamps. Because of Isaac’s raising Joseph above his other sons and the dreams Joseph revealed to his brothers and father, the brothers and possibly the father generated a lot of anger and envy stamps against Joseph which resulted in his being sold him into slavery. Joseph, his life in constant danger, having to survive on his wits, and his years in prison, generated plenty of anger stamps that were discharged when the brothers came down to Egypt to buy grain. The games in which Joseph involved his brothers generated fear stamps, and this was not done outside of Joseph’s awareness.
His torment of them was deliberate, possibly to see if they had grown in their compassion and maturity and were truly worthy of his forgiveness. When he saw that they were willing to sacrifice themselves rather than see their youngest brother enslaved and their father die, Joseph felt that they had matured and were worthy. But Joseph, according to the rabbis, perceived that they were not at the point where they could accept his forgiveness because they had not let go of their guilt stamps and could not believe that they could be forgiven. While they still carried their guilt and shame, they could not accept Joseph’s forgiveness. Joseph saw this and was therefore reluctant to reveal himself and his forgiveness, but he was overcome by his emotions and did. I’m leaving a lot out.
Mendy briefly mentioned the blessing that parents give their children or grandchildren on Friday nights. It is the priestly benediction: “May the Lord bless you and protect you. May the Lord countenance you and be gracious to you. May the Lord favor you and grant you peace.”
(It is to be noted that Catholics call this “St. Joseph’s Prayer,” and Catholic lay people have no idea it was first uttered by Aaron, the High Priest of the Israelites, millennia before St. Joseph lived. Another borrowing without due credit.)
This priestly benediction is preceded by the words “May G od make you like Ephraim and Manassa.” These boy were the son’s of Joseph and brought to Jacob for the old patriarch’s blessing before he died. Jacob was blind and put his right hand on Ephraim who was the younger child thus continuing the tradition in the Torah that it is the younger son that will surpass the elder in either character or deeds. When Joseph tries to change his father’s hand, Jacob tells him that it will be the younger and his descendants who will excel. But what makes Manassa worthy is that for the first time since Cain and Able, the elder brother does not challenge the younger and accepts the fact that the younger brother is the one chosen for greater things. For this attitude of brotherly love and the fact that Manassa chose his father’s faith rather than sucomb to the idolatry that surrounded him, he was truly worthy of having Jewish boys blessed in his name.
At one point I think Mendy segued into the topic of children. Mendy or my friend sitting next to me, and asked, “How can you tell a teenager is lying? They’re talking.” This was funny, and I can’t recall why Mendy brought this up. But I know it had something to do with being consistent and honest in your responses to your children, because children need consistency.
Though no comment was made, the parsha also deal with Jacob blessing his sons, and some of the blessing are not blessing at all. Jacob severely takes to task Reuven, Simeon, and Levi, his eldest sons Jacob reminds Reuven that his son had no right to go to his stepmother’s bed because she was the wife of his father. Reuven, according to the ancient code of Mesopotamia, took his right as the heir apparent to assert himself by taking to bed one of the wives of the former leader. Jacob did not forgive him for this. Levi and Simeon were dismissed with disgust for their violence against Shechem but we are still not sure if this was because Jacob genuinely despised the blood on their hands or because they had made him a pariah and target. They were lucky to get out of town and into Egypt. Jacob may also have been lucky that he had been given a new name. With such antipathy coming your way by the people surrounding you, an alias can be quite helpful. But it is Judah, who is strongly implicated and culpable as regards Joseph being sold, who strangely enough comes out smelling like the proverbial rose. If I am not mistaken, our Torah is written down during the time of King David, and it is possible that Judah comes out clean in this because David is a descendant of Judah and out of Judah will also come the Messiah. Might those who wrote the story down injected some politics into this thus giving David legitimacy to lead while justifying the Davidic monarchy? But to believe that, one would have to deny that the Torah was given in it’s entirety on Sinai millennia before David lived and ordered the books to be codified.
January 14, 2012
Mendy Log:
Parsha Shemot, the first Book of Exodus
Many important events take place in this parsha, such as Moses’s birth and his being raised as the son of an Egyptian princess, his flight to Median, his encounter with the burning bush, and G od’s charge to him on going to Pharaoh and demanding that His people go free. Mendy chose to focus in on Moses’s encounter with the burning bush, and his personal qualities that G od saw in him that made him qualified to lead the people to freedom.
Mendy pointed out the importance of the bush being a thorn bush because according to traditional insight, the thorn bush is something that inflicts pain and it choice is to symbolize God’s pain while His people are enslaved.
Of course, G od remains silent for all the years of slavery and one wonders why He Himself would put Himself in pain? The only honest answer to that question is,“who knows?” We know that Romney likes to fire people, but why does G od like to watch people suffer?
At this point, Moses chooses not to look at the bush because in some way, looking at the bush would give him G od’s reasons for what G od does and G od’s purpose at the end. His reason for not wanting to know is that if he knew G od’s purpose and how it would all turn out, he might not be as compassionate as a leader must be for those in his charge. At this point, Mendy may have used the used the phrase “compassionate leadership” to expand on why Moses was the man selected to lead the people out of Egypt.
The first incident cited to support the thesis was when Moses saw an Egyptian beating a slave and slew the Egyptian. This demonstrated his compassion for the individual plight of another who was being brutalized. Moses could have walked away and didn’t. The second incident was when Moses saw two Hebrew slaves fighting and intervened demonstrating that he knew that members of the Hebrew community must get along and he felt he needed to be a peace maker. The third incident where he demonstrated compassion and leadership potential came at the well where he fought off the shepards who were harassing a young girl at the well. A concern for the welfare of an individual, a concern for the welfare of the community, and a concern for the welfare of strangers, were the three qualities G od saw in Moses that made Moses the right man for the job.
The Tradition teaches that Moses did not want to look at G od because Moses feared he would not be compassionate if he knew how everything would turn out, and strangely, G od rewards him by allowing face to face encounters. Strange that the one thing Moses doesn’t want, G od gives him as his reward.
The key message to us based on Moses choosing to involve himself in these three situations is that there are individuals in our Jewish community who need help and it is up to us to help them. And if there is disharmony among members of the Jewish community, we must also do what we can to be peace makers. Finally, there are people outside the Jewish community who are in need of help and we are responsible to act compassionately towards them.
On a personal level, my wife and I are part of an organization called, “Host for Hospitals.” We are like a private Ronald McDonald House. There are people who come to hospitals in the Philadelphia/South Jersey area who are either outpatients or family members visiting patients. These people need to stay for extended periods of time in the area. But may cannot afford lengthy stays in hotels, so people open their homes to them. We decided we wanted to express our compassion for such people. Currently, a man will be with us for two weeks until his son is well enough to be transferred out of pediatrics in Virtua Hospital back to a special facility in Delaware.
I am also very proud to belong to Congregation M’kor Shalom which is the only synagogue in Jersey in concert with several churches, to host homeless men for the December holiday season. We are also very much involved in holiday relief at the Ronald M’Donald house and the South Jersey and JCC food pantries. Compassion and social justice inspired by Moses and our Torah are alive and well at my Reform congregation and in my home. That’s why I am proud to be a Reformodox Jew.
I had a problem with some of the time lines as they exit in this parsha. If you subtract the age of Moses when he returns to Egypt from the implied age he was when he left Egypt, you find that Moses was in his early teens when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster. So the question arises as to why Pharaoh, his adopted uncle, would care about a prince of Egypt killing an insignificant taskmaster unless Pharaoh knew that Moses was a Hebrew and had been waiting for such an infraction of Egyptian law to kill him. Moses tells us that he fears that Pharaoh will kill him, and he flees to Media. But then again, if Pharaoh wanted to kill Moses, he could have done it at any time.
Another issue confusing me revolves around circumcision. Moses was hidden, we are told, for three months before he is set afloat in the Nile. Certainly, he was circumcised at eight days unless for some reason, Hebrews were not following that important tradition. He is found and immediately given to his Hebrew mother, Yochabed, to be fed. If Moses stayed with his real mother until he was weaned, that would make him two or three by the time he gets to Pharaoh’s palace. He had to be circumcised at the time. That would have been a give away that he was a Hebrew child unless Egyptians also practiced circumcision which might have been the case. Pharaoh’s sister knew Moses’ origins immediately, so it is likely that Pharaoh knew also.
The importance of Hebrew circumcision is highlighted in the same parsha when G od sends an angel to kill Moses for not immediately circumcising his son. Moses’ compassion and concern for the welfare of the boy stayed his hand. Moses’s wife, performs the act and appeases the angel by throwing the foreskin at the angel’s feet as a blood sacrifice. Traditional commentaries say it was thrown at Moses’ feet but that would not be logical. Moses doesn’t need proof of adherence to ritual and certainly doesn’t need a blood sacrifice. The angel and G od might. The angel relents and Moses is saved. But it begs the question as to why the man whom G od anoints with the task of saving the people is immediately threatened by the same G od who selected him for expressing the very same compassion on his own son that G od deemed so important as a quality of leadership? Again, as throughout Genesis, G od appears capricious.
Rabbi Richard is back from a well deserved vacation, and began with the quote, “There arose a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph.” His comments directed us to the contemporary application of the quote and the truth of it. In every society, there are changes in governments or in businesses that either do not know or do not chose to acknowledge the contributions of groups or individuals that are that are not part of their group. So the concept of “the other” becomes policy regarding this group that is not part of your own. Real or imagined, the “other” becomes a threat to power, and must be kept in line. The Suffragette Movement and the Civil Right Movements were two that come to mind. The midwives, Shifra and Puah, were cited as the first in our tradition to push back in our ancient civil rights movement by refusing to murder the Hebrew male infants as they were born.
We spoke of G od remembering the Covenant and noticing that Israel, His people, were suffering in slavery. We, as a people, do not put great importance on suffering as a way to redemption believing that there is no value in pain and suffering. It is a mitzvah to be released from it and to release others from it. Medications that shortens life while allowing for dignity triumphs over suffering.
Perhaps that’s why medicine was such a valued profession by our people. It was also valued by our mothers but for different reasons. Suffering is not proof of anything. The fact that G od finally decided to hear the groans of the Israelites after centuries in slavery, also begs the question as to where was G od and what was he doing in the 400 years Israel was in Egypt?
The focus shifted to the burning bush. Symbolically, the burning bush is the burning heart, the passionate heart, that can burn but is not consumed. Rabbi said that this is a pivotal chapter in the development of Judaism. G od calls, “Moses, Moses, take off your shoes, for you are standing on holy ground.” The repetition of his name is significant because such repetition implies emphasis and urgency. Moses is told to take off both shoes because the Tradition teaches that one shoe is symbolic of the body, and the other symbolic of the soul. Moses must free himself from both physical and spiritual urges to complete the task before him. In short, he must deliver both body and soul up to G od if he is to be successful. The bush story also implies to us that no place is devoid of G od’s presence and at any moment, we may find ourselves standing on holy ground if we have a mind to be aware. Like Jacob, we can also say that we were in a holy place and did not know it.
The traditional response to G od’s call is “Here I am.” Every person who is ever called in the Torah responds in this way. But I was thinking, and I’m sure others have thought this also, that since there are no punctuation marks in the Torah, this response could be interpreted in a different way. What if “Moses, Moses” and the “Here I am” is not Moses’ response but a continuation of G od calling Moses. What if G od is telling Moses that He is here and Moses only has to realize it to fulfill his destiny. What if any time we see something in need of change, or someone being abused, or some injustice being committed, it is G od saying to us, calling to us that “He is here” and that we have the opportunity if not the obligation to ameliorate the situation. I think that that is also a valid interpretation. If it is G od who is always saying “Here I am,” and it is not the response from those addressed, it implies that G od is always making us aware of His presence though making us aware of what needs to be fixed, and we may be the ones not responding with “Here I am.” We are the ones not ready to receive revelation.
The study session then considered verse 13 where Moses asks G od to tell him his name. Moses is fully aware of the difficulties he will face and knows that since there are many gods in Egypt and elsewhere, the people will want to know the name of the G od he is asking them to follow and put their lives in jeopardy. G od replies, Ehyeh-Asher- Ehyeh which is traditionally translated as “I will be what I will be,” or “I am that I am.” What these translations imply is that G od is not a static concept and that if we are to remain fixed in a static concept of G od and not evolve this G od as we evolve, we are doomed to a life of doubt and fear where G od is concerned. G od Himself seems to demand that our ideas about Him evolve as we evolve.
Of course, Orthodox people may or may not have any concerns about their concept of G od having fully accepted the Torah/Rabbinic ideas. Being raised in Orthodox communities and schools where questions may be discouraged and the words halul-Hashem held over the heads of young men who question like a Sword of Damocles, doubts, if there are any, remain hidden and tinged with shame.
But in the Reform and Conservative Movements, where questions could be encouraged and alternative and more contemporary concepts of G od could be discussed, there are few efforts made because those in charge either are defending one particular God concept, are not aware of others. Jewish education must open itself to the possibility that there are other, valid concepts of G od both contemporary and ancient that might be considered. The Ayn Sof concept of G od the Kabbalists posit might be considered with the Creative Power that moves through all things that inspired Spinoza as just two examples. But to do this is to challenge the established Torah/Rabbinic concept and many lay educators and Rabbis are not willing to go there. To do this one must also challenge the established idea that the Torah was written by G od along with the Oral Tradition, and handed to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
For G od to evolve, and for non- Orthodox Jews to come back to a firm belief in the existence of our Deity, Jewish challenges have to be made. If those who think about such changes in their personal theologies and suggest to others that they also think about their relationships to G od in new ways are deemed heretics and consigned to Gehenna for their blasphemy, those doing the consigning and the condemning have to ask themselves why they are attacking when they know that their truth is the truth. Why can’t other people not have a different truth that is also valid to them? If people choose different paths to the same G od, and G od’s primary expectation that we behave decently towards one another, what difference does it make how we view G od?
January 21, 2012
Mendy Log: Parsha Va’eira
Mendy had already gotten up on the bimah when I arrived and was speaking about the flax and the barley that were destroyed in the hail plague while the wheat and the spelt were spared. He said that this seemingly unimportant information was included to teach a very important point. In fact, he insisted is that one of the great benefits of reading the Torah is that in the Torah there are daily lessons for living successfully. The lesson here was that flax and barley grow on ridged stalks while wheat and spelt are able to bend. It was obvious to me that he was using these grains as symbols of people. He reinforced this idea by telling a story about Rabbi Gamliel. Gamliel believed he saw Rabbi Akiva perish in a boating accident, but when Akiva meets Gamliel again in the house of study, Akiva tells him that he was able to survive because he held onto a board and bowed his head as each wave came at him until he was carried to shore. People, like Akiva and the wheat and the spelt who have the ability to bow or bend to conditions that are buffeting them, survive, while people who are rigid in their stances often do not. Mendy, to reinforce this message, brought in a story about how reeds can withstand stand a gale but cypress trees cannot. But he also made it clear that even though reeds can bend, they remain fixed because they are firmly rooted. Cypress trees are rigid, look strong, but can be pushed over in a gale because their root systems may not be deep. In short, if you know what you believe in, are solidly rooted in that belief, and can still bend when you can see what’s good instead of what’s always right, you stand a good chance of being successful. Mendy supported this by telling us once again that driving on Shabbos was against tradition, but he knew that if he wanted a congregation, he would have to bend on that rule.
Mendy knows that not driving on Shabbat is“right,” and attending synagogue is “good,” so he bends. I for one could not come here unless I could drive, and Mendy recognizes this reality as part of suburban living life. Is it better to insist on the law and not have Jews coming together to learn and to pray, or is it better bend the rule for what to me is obviously the greater good and the smarter thing to do? This reality does not exist in Crown Heights because it is a small, self contained community like a shetle.
Mendy presents himself as a reed, and that malleable quality allows him to bend and address what congregants need to hear at the moment they come to him with an issue. He may give people with a similar problem different advice because he is skilled enough to see into what each might need at that time. Mendy is solidly rooted in his faith and traditions, and yet is secure enough in himself and in that faith and in those traditions to appropriately bend. But of course, like Teyvea, our Mendy is a reeds that also has a limited tensile strength, and he knows just how far he can bend without breaking.
Using the symbols of the reed and the cypress as types of people in relationships, Mendy segued into the concept of leadership and added to the reed and the cypress the image of the floating plastic bag that is caught in the wind and flies from place to place at the whim of the prevailing winds. This latter symbol was used as an example of what leadership must not be. The leadership idea was presented as it related to Moses and Aaron in a partnership, each doing for the people what his skill set allowed. This was pointed out to explain that in one part of the narrative, why their names are written and then interchanged, The interpretation, if I remember correctly, had to do with the job each had to do, and when it was appropriate for each to act.
From parshas pasts, I know Aaron was considered and loved because he was the peace maker among the people, and Moses was the one who spoke to God and taught the Torah. If we extend the metaphor, this would mean that it was Aaron who was the reed, and it was Moses who was the Cypress. But acting together as a partnership, they shored one another up, complementing each others talents in order to be successful. Theirs was a true partnership. From this, Mendy spoke of husband and wife partnerships, and said, “If a man says that he and his wife are partners because she cooks and he eats, that is not a partnership.”
There is a mutuality in a partnership, especially in a marriage, where the skills and talents of each brings benefits to the other. There are things in which my wife delights, and I am not particularly interested, and the reverse is true where some of my interests are concerned. I am happy for her in what she enjoys, and I believe she is happy for me in what I enjoy. But these separate activities are mutually beneficial to our relationship, because we each can enjoy the fruits of our separate interests. Happily, there are things that we both mutually enjoy, so things are good.
As Mendy spoke about the reed, the cypress, and the plastic bag, I couldn’t help but think about the Republican candidates for president. Santorum and Paul are definitely the cypress tree. Santorum would sooner see the mother of five die than abort a pregnancy that the doctors say will kill her, and Paul would rather see Iran get a nuclear weapon that would menace the Middle East and Western Civilization, than get involved by intervening in the workings of a sovereign nation. Both will fall. Now, the way Romney has played his scenario, he seems like the paper bag, blowing this way or that depending on his audience’s expectations. Of course, we do not know if this is his strategy and he really has strong opinions and centrist leanings that will ultimately be revealed
once president, but at this time, I see him as the plastic bag. I think most Republicans see him as the bag, too. So that leaves Gingrich who may have some reed qualities because while in Congress, was willing to negotiate, but some of his statements such as children replacing janitors in schools and denying the needy with food stamps while he helps them earn pay checks, is just a ludicrous idea and certainly said without serious thought given. He is not a plastic bag, but may be more of a wind bag. Besides, he left Congress under a cloud because of shady financial dealings. Do we dare risk America to any of these men? Where are the likes of William F.Buckley Jr. now that we really need them?
In this parsha are also most of the plagues that tradition says were brought by G od on Egypt to ultimately prove that He is in charge. Archaeologists have posited other interesting theories for what happened in Egypt 3500 years ago. As the necromancers match each of the early plagues, Pharaoh becomes more stubborn in dealing with the Jews and makes their labor even more difficult. Tyrants who do not believe in anything greater than themselves are cruel with impunity. Eventually, even the necromancers and magicians admit that they are dealing with phenomenon that they cannot control: ‘thunder and hail with fire flashing down, darkness that can be felt, water changed into blood, death of livestock, flies, occurrences, locust, wild animals etc.
How to explain these remarkable events? The Torah clearly states that it was G od’s doing. As I believe that my ancestors walked out of Egypt into freedom and established a new paradigm for humanity by doing so, I also believe that each of the plagues happened, and that said, I have come to believe, based on my own knowledge of vulcanology, that all the plagues can be explained if we look at the science pertaining to eruptions of major volcanoes and what the ash, fire, and waters surrounding the volcano can do to the environment. Unusual swarming of insects and other pests is commonly associate with volcanic disturbances, as are hail and showers of pellety volcanic ash that can burn the skin. Volcanic ash can asphyxiate animals and smother crops and other vegetation. Red iron oxide produces a foul smell and is often discharged as a result of an eruption and marine life dies. Volcanic dust can cause skin irritations, and huge ash clouds associated with major volcanic eruptions causes widespread daytime darkness, and a pillar of cloud and a pillar of fire could very well be a plume from the eruption. Eye witnesses to the explosions of Vesuvius in 79 CE,, of Tambora in 1815, of Krakatau in 1883, Mount Pelee,in 1902, and Mt. St. Helens in 1980, CE all describe such natural occurrences. But it is the grand daddy eruption of all times that could have brought all the plagues together effecting Egypt and that was the eruption of the island of Thera, now known as Santorini. Thera erupted in 1450 BCE which historically corresponds to the Exodus from Egypt. This eruption, based on the physical destruction of Thera and the Mediterranean world that surrounded it, was possibly the largest eruption in the history of
mankind. It brought the Minoan Civilization to a screeching halt, wiped out much of the life on the island of Crete, leveling the palace of Minos, and was felt as far as Egypt hundreds of miles away. The entire known western world thrown into upheaval, and our ancestors, slaves in Egypt, may have taken the opportunity to pick themselves up and walk out of slavery while the Egyptians tried to resurrect their devastated world. The story of leaving Egypt, told over the centuries, took on heroic, magical, mystical and even miraculous proportions as it was handed down from generation to generation. Please note: I want to believe in the truths contained in the Torah, but I cannot make the leap of faith without rational justification. I am willing to sacrifice mystery and wonders to get to a truth that works for me.
Of course one might take the Spinozarian position that since G od is Nature, and He makes His presence known through natural order and natural events, G od’s essence was in the volcano and was the cause and inspiration for the Hebrew slaves to realize it was time to go. Therefore, G od was rightfully recognized as causing the plagues if you can accept Spinoza’s concept of G od. Linked into this concept is the concept of Ayne Sof of the Kabbalists, the G od beyond G od that moves through all things and is all things as well.
Rabbi Address also began his Torah study session by also stating that there are many important reasons for Torah study. Where Mendy suggested that it provided daily life lessons, Rabbi Richard suggested that at any age we are able to interpret a word or a sentence, or even a concept depending on our educational and intellectual development. Thus, our idea of G od changes as we change. And because there are several names given for G od through out the Torah, that may also suggest that G od may be an ever changing concept in Judaism.
One can say that the Torah itself invites us to perceive G od changing and to continue that process.
The G od language given us and the G od language we use is a narrow interpretation of G od. We are limited by language, but we are not limited by concept. For example, Mordecai Kaplan, the rabbi who created the Reconstructionist Movement, posited the idea that G od was “the Process that makes for human salvation.” For breaking the boundaries and the accepted Torah/Rabbinic G od concept in Judaism, he was ostracized by the Orthodox community. Rabbi Heshel suggested that G od needs man which again is a concept not found in the Torah.
I offered the only quote I memorized from my undergraduate philosophy class stated by Julian Huxley: “Man is that part of reality through which and by which the Cosmic Process has learned to apprehend Itself.” Now that’s something to wrap your brain around because this quote, like Hershel, suggests G od needs us, and also has embodied within it the G od concepts of Luria and Spinoza. Of course, these concepts do not offer a G od one can cozy up to and love.
Can you love a process or be loved by a process? To address the primal questions of existence, “Why are we born?, Why do we die?, and “Why are we here?,” the three questions that created religion, perhaps we need a personal G od concept to help us address such profound and fundamental questions without feeling existentially alone in the universe.
Both rabbis stressed the importance of the Exodus in our lives, but where Mendy spoke of relationships, Richard spoke of our enslavement in Egypt as the symbolic enslavements both physical and psychological that we impose on ourselves because of or fear of the unknown. It is this fear of the unknown which is at the core of human existence and the key reason for the development of religions.
So the Hebrews are enslaved in Egypt, and “cannot hear” Moses assure them that they will be free. Part of their inability to hear is that they came to accept the idea that slavery was the natural state of their lives, and that their place in the order of things was to be enslaved.
The Hebrews could not conceive that Moses and G od were about to challenge the accepted notion of world order, namely, that which was ordained to be could not be changed. That it was not true that where you were in the order of things was divinely decreed. And it was not true that , time was circular and that people were on a wheel that had to keep repeating itself. But this new idea that was to be introduced to the world was that time was linear and not circular, and that things could change if people decided that they would be willing to make those changes. This idea of challenging the established order of things was a crucial step forward in the evolution of humanity, and one of the great concept gifts our ancestors gave to the world. People could change. You didn’t have to be a slave; you could be free, and merit was more important than birth order. This is one of the core ideas of the Book of Exodus and why this story continues to resonate with humanity.
Thus, slavery becomes the metaphor of much of the human condition. People enslave themselves by refusing to move and by blaming others for their conditions. “I am alright.” “It’s my teacher’s fault.” “It’s my parent’s fault.” People stay in terrible marriages and in stressful jobs without believing there are alternatives. The Exodus story is important because so many of us live in spiritual and psychological slavery. We rationalize why we are where we are and why we are ossified. Rationalization is the ability of your mind to tell you what you want to know. “Our heads can lie to us. Our guts do not.”
A perception I have of why we choose not to leave our various self imposed slaveries is that, like our ancestors, we are comfortable with them because we know them. It is the fear of going out in to the desert, into the unknown, into the void where there are no guarantees of what is out there, that keeps us from changing our lives and conditions. That’s why we choose not to move. It is the fear of the void. Where you are, even if it is fraught with pain, is at least someplace familiar.
February 4, 2012
Mendy Log: Parsha Beshalac
Exodus XIII
Mendy began his drush by telling us that everything we need to know about the really important things in life could be found in the Torah, and that is why the rabbis who taught him never had a need to refer to psychology, archaeology, anthropology, or any other “ology” for that matter. Now prior to Mendy speaking, he said to me, “you write what you think I said.”
So from now on my dear readers if any of you really exist, you must read everything I relate as if it is through a filtered memory of an alta cockeh and realize that I may or may not be clearly stating the exact points Mendy made as he made them. Now from where I sit, if I cannot not truthfully convey what a man said only a few hours ago, can you imagine the filters that have been used on a tradition that was handed down orally for thousands of years before it was written down? It would seem to me that each generation and each age has its own visions of religion, of history, of morality, of a G od concept etc. so when handing down something in an oral fashion, certain ideas might take the place of other ideas and become set when the oral tradition is finally canonized. With this very human tendency to impose our beliefs, feelings, and values, perhaps that is why men must surround the Torah reader and correct the slightest error. I do believe that we are the inheritors of filtered commentary.
So now to what I think I heard Mendy say.
As mentioned, Mendy said all is in the Torah and challenged us to think about why there was a circuitous route given to the Hebrew slaves when G od could easily have taken them along the direct path to Caanan and destroyed the Egyptian fortifications in the way. The answer may exist on three levels. The first is that G od was not finished with the Egyptians and the destruction of the Egyptian army had to come to pass to prove to Pharaoh, the Egyptians, the Egyptian gods, and finally to the people of the Levant who would ultimately hear these stories, that this G od was thee only true G od. Another reason might be because that the parting of the sea was ordained at Creation and it had to happen. I’ll get into this later. And the third reason is that our ancestors needed the challenges that would come in order to develop into the people G od needed them to be.
This circuitous route to the Sea of Reeds and then to the Sinai is to be viewed as a metaphor. (Metaphor, not being a Jewish word, was not used by Mendy, but that’s what Mendy was talking about.) And so we begin: The Sea of Reeds is to be viewed as an obstacle, one of the many our Hebrew ancestors will face in the days and years ahead. So one might say the Exodus journey is a journey to learning how to overcome obstacles and in doing so, come to some self-understanding as to how we are to deal with obstacles. And in learning this, we also see how we become the people we become. We extend the metaphor by seeing Egypt itself as a metaphor. Egypt is the darkness within us all, and we all have darkness within because of what life has given us to deal with as we moved from childhood into adulthood. Our darkness is our own personal Egypt, and even during the Passover Seder, we are enjoined to consider ourselves as if we had come out of Egypt. We are invited to continue the metaphorical journey out of the dark places we inhabit into the light of G od, because if we don’t we shall continue carry our own personal Egypts within us daily and not evolve into the people we might become.
When our ancestors came out of Egypt, they had the goal of the Promised Land. They knew what that goal was, but they also carried their own personal demons out with them. They then find themselves with their back toward the sea about to be slaughtered. Their personal demons take over, and Moses is blamed. G od is angry that these people who saw the miracles, still did not believe. For some who have spent centuries in slavery, seeing wonders may not be enough to have faith. Slavery puts its own filters up and reality is seen through those filters. Because G od freed the people, it didn’t mean that they were free from their experiences. They were still slaves. They were not ready to receive. These people had to had to free themselves, and that is process that may take years. In this case, forty. It seems to me that if G od knew that they first had to travel on this metaphoric path to self awareness and growth, why could He not see that they would moan and complain and not be so impatient and antagonistic? But while I do think that G od may know all the possible choices and reactions, He doesn’t have a clue as to what will be the ultimate decision or reaction and that is why He seems always surprised and disappointed in His creatures. Free will is a bitch. He gave it and now He has to deal with it.
What we are to learn from this is that as our ancestors had the goal of going to Caanan, but being a new people, children in a way, they did not know that the path to our goals is not often a straight path. We also had goals when we were young. And like our Hebrew ancestors, few of us had straight paths (except for the very rich who are often protected and entitled like certain front runners for the Republican nomination for president) for us to follow to our goals because life gets in the way and life is often messy. Slavery imposed a darkness on their souls, as dark experiences of our childhood may have taken hold of us when we were young. The darkness that clung like ghosts to our ancestors that caused them to doubt despite the miracles they saw, is the same kind of darkness from our own experiences that may keep us ossified in the face of needed change and growth. But as they were compelled to move forward despite their fears, so we must move forward despite ours. We must push through our own Sea of Reeds even though we still carry the darkness of our Egypts within our souls. We must not allow ourselves to be enslaved by our past or to our past. Sitting down and giving up is not an option and certainly not the message of the Torah.
Mendy brought this Sea of Reeds story to a different place with two related midrashim. The first had to do with the Creation, and how G od called into existence all the things that would be called upon over the coming centuries such as the mouth of the earth that swallowed Korah, the mouth of Baalim’s donkey’s mouth, the well that followed the Israelites, etc. He related the story of G od telling the Sea of Reeds that one day in the future, it would need to part in order for the Hebrews to pass. The sea is non-plused (also not a Jewish word) because it feels that parting would interrupt its normal flow, but G od shows the sea the souls of the people who would want to cross and the sea is impressed with their goodness and beauty and agrees. That midrash sets the stage for the next which is also a dialogue between G od and the sea, but at the time when the Israelites need to cross. This midrash says that nothing happens, and G od questions the sea. The sea replies that it has seen the people he must part for, and that they are a nasty, backbiting, and rebellious group and nothing like the souls he had been shown at creation. So G od tell the sea to look at the bones of Joseph the Israelites are carrying with them and reminds the sea of what a noble soul Joseph was. G od then asks the see to look again beneath the physical appearance of the Israelites and into their souls, and the sea recognizes the same beautiful souls living within, souls that could become what they are supposed to be if they become free. The sea agrees and parts. But my favorite midrash about the parting of the sea still remains the one about Nachshon ben Amidi, who wades into the sea and parts it with his faith and his willingness to go forward into an unknown future. Metaphorically, we are all Nachshons. It rings a little truer than G od having a conversation with water.
According to the tradition, G od, when not running the universe, spends the rest of his time matching people for marriage. We are told that his task is harder than causing the sea to split. There are people who say, “It’s a match made in heaven,” and “It was bachert fun Gut” decreed by G od. Personally, I think people who have good marriages may claim this, but you can only explain the bad marriages by concluding that again, G od hasn’t a clue as to what humanity will do. Again, free will is a bitch.
Rabbi Richie at M’kor Shalom brought a very similar message as well as some comments of interest to those of us who do feel that archaeology, history, anthropology etc. has something to offer. More about that later.
Rabbi Richie, being a Reform rabbi and not afraid to use non Jewish words like “metaphor,” also spoke to the idea that in order for us to fully appreciate our freedom, we must take a circuitous path to it. Those who came out of Egypt were just not ready to understand freedom and its responsibilities. Life is not a straight line. Everyone is tested. Everyone struggles. Even Abraham had ten tests.
Our ancestors were promised the Promised Land, and expected to be taken there immediately. That’s what they saw when they looked into their future. But the reality is that we can also look into the future and realize that we will not get there, and how we deal with this realization may just define us as the person we are. “Menchen tracht un Gut lached,” Man plans and G od laughts.” We plan and then reality takes over. In this vein, we are all Moses who can see the Promised Land and cannot go there because from time to time we also strike our metaphoric rocks and are chastised for it. Perhaps our metaphoric rock is not believing in ourselves. Moses’ metaphoric rock was not having sufficient faith in G od. If we think of our children or grandchildren, we realize that they will see a Promised Land that we will never see and how we handle this speaks to our character.
Our life is a journey to find G od. Exodus is a metaphor for this. What is to be learned from our own wanderings is that the true value is found more in the process of self-discovery than in the goal itself. To struggle, to wander is the Jewish way of coming to G od.
Perhaps that was the intention all along.
This process of discovering ourselves, is also a journey towards discovering The Process that created all things. G od may very well be the term believers have give to this Process, and the only way we might truly discover The Process, is to experience our own. In coming to an awareness of our own process to self understanding, we may also come to a better understand the Creative Process itself. I don’t fully understand what I just wrote, but something within me feels there is an element of truth here. As I have always believed that we are one with the Creator, The Process, and one with each other, I believe that our own awareness of our personal journey and the process this journey reveals, gives us insight in to the ultimate goal which is to connect with the Process of Creation. Julian Huxley wrote: “Man is that part of reality through which and by which the Cosmic Process has learned to apprehend Itself.” We might be doing the exact same thing but in reverse.
If the ultimate goal is to discover a relationship with G od, we are in a constant movement to find out where we are in the process. So our search for a relationship and definition of G od is constantly evolving. We are challenged to argue, to change, and to struggle towards that end. For Christians it is believe and you shall be saved. For Jews it is search and you will find meaning. Mining the text allows all people to come to the relationship and definition of G od. It’s this “engagement” that makes us grow.
Does salvation for the Jew rest in finding a relationship with G od and meaning, and is that enough?
Throughout the Torah there is a motif of constant complaining, and you would think the people would have been more appreciative considering what they have witnessed themselves. But it is human nature for some to ask: “What have you done for me lately,” and see others as “only good as their last lunch.” In the case of the ancient Hebrews, some felt this way towards G od. But to reform a group’s character, there needs to be more than “special effects.” Miracles are external. Inner transformation can only be accomplished through small things, small steps. You must change what is inside, and change comes slowly. It may take changing one relationship at a time. It would take forty years to remake these people, and we learn from this that it will take us time to remake ourselves in the Divine Image. The reward for the journey towards that goal is that G od is the center of our study and sacred heritage, and that study is part of that journey to find G od.
The ability to give people the right to think about their relationship with and definition of G od, is frightening to some people, especially to fundamentalists. Theological freedom terrifies all those whose faiths and paths are set in stone. The crisis and challenge facing organized religions today are those that arise between those who take their faiths seriously, and those who know only the performance.
I suspect that those who only know the “performance” aspects of Judaism have never been engaged with anything other than the outward trappings, and probably have no interest in being involved in anything deeper because they may not believe anything is actually there. Or they may think that what is beneath the performance is nothing in which they feel they can believe because they have not had any alternatives to the G od about which they were taught as children. Secular Jews and performance Jews need an outreach program specifically designed for them. It should be one that would send the fundamentalist into a frenzy. Then we’d know we were on the right track to bringing them back. The Reform movement should take a lesson from Chabad.
Now the archaeological, historical, and psychological material introduced was also very interesting. To explain certain historical inconsistencies in the story such as G od moving our ancestors to the Sea of Reed because of the war like Philistines and the Wall of Horus constructed by Amenhotep in 1991 BCE to guard the coastal road to Caanan, we are told that the story comes out of a dimly recollected oral history where historical events get blended back and forth. At the time of the Exodus, the Philistines did not exist. It is related to us in the Torah that there were Egyptian fortifications blocking the way. But this begs the question: If G od is in total control, and all parts of the Exodus story says He is, why does He chose not to just eradicate the Egyptian forts? Is G od afraid of the Philistines who did not exist at the time?
I do believe that something remarkable happened in and around 1500 BCE. It may have been an eruption of a volcano that presented an opportunity for our enslaved Hebrew ancestors to walk out of Egypt, or it may have been G od who brought plague after plague upon the Egyptians and brought the Hebrews out under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. For me, whatever the cause, the event produced awesome ideas that did more to create Western Civilization than any others, namely: That people have the right to be free
That people can change the course of history
That what has been does not have to be done over and over again
That people can move forward in time and effect their destinies
That people have a right to a personal relationship with G od.
That there are laws regarding human decency that are above the laws rulers and governments create on earth.
February 11, 2012
Mendy Log: Parsha Yitro
Exodus
Sadly, I did not get to Chabad until after Mendy got up to speak, so I missed his initial statement and questions. But what he was talking about when I walked in had something to do with "perfection" and how it is defined. I have no recollection of what he said except that it had to do with unity and the ability of people to disagree with one another and still be unified. What follows is what I think I heard Mendy say.
I suspect this all had to do with the story of the Israelites camped at the foot of Sinai.
In addition to the Hebrew slaves going out of Egypt, there was also a “mixed multitude” which probably refers to other slaves who saw an opportunity to leave Egypt during this time of turmoil much the way some Soviet citizens claimed they were Jews just to get out of Russia. So this was not an organized body of people with a single mind. The Hebrews themselves were probably a disorganized rabble despite Joshua in "The Ten Commandments" designating which tribe should go where.
So there they were, camped at the foot of Sinai to experience something no other group before or since had ever experienced: Revelation from G od Himself! Revelation was indeed something special, and there was another great miracle happening that day. The miracle was that tens of thousands of Jews all stood there with a single focus, listening. The backbiting, the bickering, the complaining were all forgotten, and for the first time they came together as a people. Can you imagine? Jews quietly listening without comment. Now that was a miracle of note! The Shema begins with "Hear oh Israel," or "Listen oh Israel." At its very core,the statement is telling us to shut up and pay attention. Not an easy thing to do.
I do believe the point Mendy was making is that we as a people are very diverse, with different aspirations, causes, goals, opinions, visions etc. There are more than a few jokes about how difficult it is for Jews to agree on anything. And yet, here, at this sacred moment in time, we came together and said collectively, “We shall do, and we shall hear.” It was this commitment to unity and our ability to come together for a single purpose despite our differences that makes the concept Kal Yisroel, One People, viable. In short, people should be able to disagree and still be one.
I think that in addition to the Shema, “Hear, oh Israel. The L ord is G od, the L ord is One,” there might be another mantra which says, “Hear, oh Israel. We are one with the Creator, we are one with each other.” The first naturally speaks to the Unity of G od. The second speaks to the Unity of His people with Him and with one another. How would you say the latter in Hebrew?
One sentence I have uttered in my classrooms on more than one occasion to certain students is, “Can we passionately disagree and still remain friends?” That statement basically says that people can still respect and even admire those who think differently. My students and I have the ability to look beyond specific contentious issues to the broader relationship that needs to exist in a successful classroom. And that’s what I believe Mendy was saying. There are members of Chabad whom I admire and respect and our differences of opinions regarding politics and religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with my affection and rsepect for them. We stay unified based on mutual respect that we have for one another as individuals who are part of a larger family.
Mendy spoke of husbands and wives and the divisions of opinions that often exist between the two, and yet the successful marriage is one where the unity of purpose over rides the differences.
Mendy then segued into a U-tube video that went viral of a father who shot his daughter’s computer because of something she wrote and published that was demeaning him. I have no recollection of how this story related to the parsha, but Mendy chose to speak of it, so I’m sure it did. I am assuming that this father was not abusive in any way that would demand that his daughter be removed from his home.
Now some fifteen year old girls are nasty pieces of work, perceiving a world and parents whose sole purpose is to make their lives wretched. They are secretive, resentful of the slightest request, overwhelmed and on and on and on. Some teenage boys are no different. Mendy did not share what the daughter wrote and sent out to the world, but his question was something like “How many of you support the father’s shooting the daughter’s computer?” He asked for a show of hands. There was hesitation all around, because such questions are perceived as us being asked to guess what Mendy thinks is the correct answer and some people are reluctant to show that they may not be in agreement with the rabbi. I had no difficulty raising my hand. I think my relationship with Mendy has progressed to the point where I am not too concerned if he and I are in agreement. The fact that we might not agree does in no way diminish my affection for him.
Now I’ll admit that shooting a computer is a little over the top, and this is what I took into consideration in making my decision: I considered that G od is also referred to as a father, and His reaction to Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden was also a little over the top. Now we are told that disobedience was the issue, but it may also be possible that G od was embarrassed because all the other gods were watching and here are His new creations ignoring His request. He promised death as punishment, but Adam and Eve had no concept of death. They were new and without experience. They may even have been testing Him as children will do. After all, isn’t it all metaphor? Still, G od comes down pretty hard on the kids and banishes them. A bit harsh for a first infraction, but over the top reactions to G od’s children’s bad behavior does have a precedent in the bible for making a point. Then there is the law that a disrespectful child can be stoned to death, especially if he cannot be controlled, as well as the idea that to slander someone is as good as murdering them. Finally, there is the “Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother” which is part of the big ten and part of the parsha read this Shabbat. These edicts from my education were confronted by a piece of wisdom from somewhere where we are told that if we have an unruly son, we are to draw him closer and love him even more than before. But then again there is the traditional response to the wicked son in the Haggadah were we are instructed to get in his face.
Children fight as part of their natural insistence on becoming independent individuals from their parents. But to publish for the world your hostile feelings and comments about your father shows both stupidity regarding possible consequences, and a profound lack of respect. I object to the gun fire, but I have no difficulty teaching a child that reaction to an infraction from power may be really over the top even if all you did was to eat an apple or vilify your father in cyber space.
Unexpected consequences is one of the key metaphoric messages of the Garden of Eden story.
Now Mendy’s response was to always keep lines of communication open, and I do agree with him to some extent. That said, there is such a thing called “Tough Love,” and for the most incorrigible, being grounded and having your t.v., your i-pad,-your i-phone, your computer, your laptop, your DVD player etc. etc. taken out of your room until you learn some respect is not over the top. Besides, any kid who has all that stuff and is still complaining about how he or she is being put upon by their father, deserves some tough love. If parental behaviors are not in the area of sexual, physical, and/or emotional abuse, some kids just have to except the fact they are not the center of the universe and grown ups just may know better. Now of course, some teenage monsters are parent created, and if that is the case, the parent has to first realize this and begin to make real changes.
_______________________________________
At M’kor Shalom, Rabbi Richie also spoke to the unity concept of the Jewish people, but approached if from a grammatical point of view. He also spoke of the origins of management, and how the organization in the desert speaks to modern management.
In Chapter 19, The Israelites come to the foot of Sinai. In this chapter it says, “they came to the wilderness..., they came to Sinai..., they camped...” And then “they” changes to the singular “Israel” and what is to be learned from this is that Israel had to be unified in order to hear the word of G od. In fact, we could not receive the Torah unless we were unified. We also learn that when Jews are united, we become stronger. Three days were needed to prepare ourselves. The ability to be able to move ourselves into a sacred space where we can open ourselves to the Power of the Universe takes time and quiet contemplation. Great biblical figures go into the desert to encounter themselves and G od. It takes time to apprehend the words “Know Before Whom You Stand.”
The giving of the Torah is an ongoing process. We must always be prepared. We must pledge to be unified if we are to survive as a people. We must be one with each other. As G od is One, so must we be one with G od and with one another. And unified, we said, “We will do and we will hear.” Go out into the community to do mitzvot, and once you do it, you will understand it.
The second key component of this study session dealt with Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, and the older man’s suggestion as to how to organize the judicial system of this new society. The key concept here was the delegation of power. But he does lay the foundation for a practical judicial system and management system. At one point, the rabbi introduced a midrash whose story I don’t remember but whose message was that anyone can criticize, but not everyone can find the solution. So if you have a solution, great, but if you don’t, keep quiet.
The Torah sets out the principles of management and leadership, and a book, Moses on Management was the source for the discussion. Moses had to both lead and manage the Children of Israel. The management mandate is to “do things right,” while the leadership mandate is to “do the right thing.” For example, Moses speaks directly to G od, and the message to us is that the best means of communication is to speak directly to those we manage and lead. Trust is built up with face to face meetings. Perhaps that is why all people and all souls came metaphorically face to face with G od at Sinai. G od wanted to establish trust archetypical let us know that at any time we had the option of coming to Him directly without any intermediaries. Another message is to be flexible and to think quickly. In reviewing stories of Moses’ trek through the wilderness, one can see these qualities at work.
According to Rashi, Jethro listed four qualities for leadership. The first was that a leader had to demonstrate accomplishment; a leader had to be G od fearing; a leader had to despise money; a leader had to despise bribes. Of course there are many laws supporting this concept of leadership in the Torah, but they are also directed to us: “You shall not stand upon a bribe, you shall not favor the rich man or a poor man in a dispute,”etc.
I have always believed that the Torah was a guide book for behavior and for standards, and now I see that it is also a guide book for managing ourselves and others when we find ourselves wandering in our own private deserts either alone or at the head of a group who might be or not be following us.
Finally, Moses is the archetypical paradigm for human activity and for being a human being. I have two statues of Moses in my home because to me, he is the greatest human being who ever walked this earth. It was through Moses that the world received the standard for human behavior that became the standard for Western and Middle Eastern Civilization. What gift is greater than a universal morality?
February 18, 2012
Mendy Log: Exodus XXI
Parsha: Mispatim VI
Mendy was in New York City attending a conference. The congregant who gave the drush on the parsha was an Israeli, and chanted both the Torah and Haftorah beautifully with his deep sonorous voice, and his Sephardic incantations. His drush on this very interesting parsha which introduces us to many laws that would establish a viable and just society, was not what it might have been had he focused on one or two concepts and not referred to as many as he did. He was very knowledgeable, inserting appropriate midrashim, as well as Hebrew words and origins. But because of his heavy accent and his seemingly desultory delivery, it was difficult to follow his train of thought that also moved quickly. He also spoke for close to an hour, and I feel he lost his audience.
I did take away what I think was a piece of his drush. It had to do with Hebrew slaves or what would better be called indentured servants. Such people had to serve a certain amount of time it pay off their debt, but I do not believe foreign slaves taken in battle were free to leave after six years. Indentured servants had options. If this “slave” came in alone, he left alone. If he came in married, he left with his wife. But if he came in and married another slave in the house hold and had children with her, he had two options: he could leave without them, or he could stay. If he chose to go out, he had to leave his wife and children in perpetual servitude to the master, but if he loved them, he could stay, allowing his ear to be bored to the door. The option of buying his wife and children’s freedom was not offered though it might have been.
Nailing one’s ear to the door was a symbolic practice that informed the world that this man belonged to this house. I believe the speaker also spoke about the ear as the organ with which we hear, and something about the different levels of hearing which is different from listening. I don’t recall what he was saying. I, too, had a hearing problem at this moment. There was a commentary that informed us that the ear was what enabled us to hear G od’s statement that the children of Israel were His servants, and for a man to choose to be a servant on another, he was diminishing himself. Now he was a servant of a servant.
On another level, and extending the metaphor beyond the intention of the Torah, one might consider that doors are the opening to the world and to freedom. To have the opportunity to go through it and to choose not to, is indicative of a person who does not wish to engage with the world or feels inadequate to do so. Remaining where he or she is, might be safer even staying will enslave them to the past and inhibit personal growth.
The society in which our ancestors lived was a slave society, and we need to keep that in mind as we view and judge them. But even as a slave society, the laws advanced in the Torah were so far beyond the laws of the nations surrounding them, that one can only marvel at the insight the Torah contains regarding the human condition.
There are laws protecting girls who are sold by their parents as maid servants so that they are never to be re-sold to a foreigner. And there are laws granting them the rights of daughters and provisions if they displease their betrothed. They can be sent home. There are laws regarding murder and accidents, miscarriages, and the rights of bondsman being abused. There are laws regarding animals injuring people, thieves breaking into a house, the obligations of a man seducing a virgin, the condemnation of witchcraft, sodomy, polytheism, and oppression of the weak. And in this portion, there is the famous “eye for eye” concept which all then and now understood as just compensation for the value of the eye.
Many of the laws found in this parsha are also found in older legal codes such as the Laws of Hammurabi, but with major differences. For example, where the law in Hammurabi insists that if a man accidentally takes out the eye of another, then the first man must lose his eye, also. That’s an “eye for an eye.” Masters could be as brutal as they liked to their slaves in Hammurabi’s Code, but in the Torah, a master must let his slave go free if the master knocks out a tooth. The Hebrews, so much more advanced, created legal codes that called for compensation deemed appropriate by the courts. There is so much of value in this parsha that one must stand in awe of the level of intelligence and compassion conceived of and written here three thousand or more years ago.
At M’kor, Rabbi Richard began the study session with the laws dealing with the differentiation regarding capital crimes beginning with the one “He who fatally strikes a man shall be put to death.” Nothing saves a man from capital punishment if the murder was premeditated, but if it was accidental, there were cities of refuge to which he might run till things could be sorted out.
Actually, these cities of refuge were created because our ancestors recognized a very real problem that continues to exist today in tribal societies. Whether accidental or not, vengeance was to be exacted and people in the family of the victim were appointed to be the blood avenger. The cities were set up to protect and shelter someone who may have committed an accidental homicide Another ancient advance in justice unique to our people.
But one law in this area demanded special attention, and that was “If a man lies not in wait but God cause it to come to hand, then I will appoint thee a place whither he may flee.” The implication is clearly that G od may be involved in a killing. How is that explained?
There is a midrash that informs us that events are not haphazard, and that God has His messengers to kill people. In every event, even murder, the guiding hand of God is in play. God controls all and if someone dies, the victim must be guilty of an offense that went unpunished. Gods hand is in everything even in accidental deaths. Explanation of this rationalization is that we are incapable of understanding. God squares accounts.
This piece of ludicrous rationalization supports those who insist that the Holocaust was due to the fact that Jewish woman didn’t light Sabbath candles or other equally insane rationalizations for the inexplicable horror. So the Nazis were G ods messengers? Such a twisted rationalization and the midrashim and the theology that supports it, may certainly be a factor in Jewish people leaving the faith and opting for atheism rather than such a perverse idea. Who would want to believe in such a G od or associate with a people who accepted such a piece of theology?
Classic tension in Jewish thought is that G od controls everything, but man has free will.
But if G od controls everything, that means that everything is pre-destined and there cannot be free will. I’d rather believe that G od may know all possible choices and outcomes, but the choice is ours to make and G od hasn’t a clue as to what we will do. Now that’s free will!
The answer that “G od did it,” is an answer that frustrates. Such a statement reveals what is incompatible and confusing to us. We seek answers to that which we cannot understand. We created religions for that purpose as well as to help us deal with fear of the unknown and fear of death. Stuff happens and “G od did it.” But the answer frustrates us, and I am personally not comforted by the explanation or the expression, “It’s G od’s will.”.
Maimonides said “you’ll never get the answer, but the journey to find the answer is the answer.” At moments of crisis or tragedy it is not the time to explain the reason. In Pirke Avot we are taught that “a person cannot be comforted when his dead is before him.” We strive to understand what we cannot understand. Everyone needs some sense of foundation in this life or it’s all chaos. Religion is an attempt to deal with the chaos.
Throughout the discussion on the spirit of the laws under study, the idea that the dignity of the human being in Judaism is what is being stressed. When you curse someone, you are diminishing them. You are taking their dignity. It’s like putting out a light. When you honor someone, you treat them with significance. Everyone has a sense of dignity, and people must be treated well. This Torah also insists on worker’s compensation in case of an accident. People who hire others have a moral responsibility for compensation if they are harmed. In fact, all people have a moral obligation to compensate anyone they harm.
The conversation turned to the statement “And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him and he shall pay as the judges determine.” This is a Torah proof text for the damages one is to pay for a termination of pregnancy. Such a termination is not murder and has never been considered murder in the Torah. In Jewish tradition, the fetus is not a human being until it is born, so a person ending a pregnancy is free of capital liability. Hichita, the commentary on this passage in Exodus, states that even if the fetus is nine months old, it is not a person. The Talmud makes it clear that breathing means coming into the world. When you breath, you are alive. Both death and life are determined by breathing. An embryo is not a nefesh, not a soul if it doesn’t breath. But once born and once breathing, the child has all the rights of a human being.
February 25, 2012
Mendy log: Parsha Terumahl
Exodus
There wasn’t much of a Mendy Log this Sabbath because Mendy had two guest rabbis who took to the bimah. One spoke about Jewish education, and one spoke about his work in Safed for the IDF. So for the second week in a row, I was disappointed. When they finished, Mendy did come back and this is what I think I heard him say. He made reference to the Ark of the Covenant, the tables of the law contained in it, and the staves that carried it that always had to remain in place. Metaphorically, Mendy equated the Jewish people as the staves and our purpose is to carry the Ark. We do this in perpetuity and in doing so, we also carry the law contained in it and we carry the space between the cherubim where G od resides and where we can communicate with him. G od and G od’s law are always with us, and we are responsible for carrying them wherever we go.
Congregation M’kor Shalom
Rabbi Remi Shapiro, this year’s selection as scholar in residence at M’kor Shalom, began with the disclaimer that what was to follow “was his opinions.” With that phrase, he proceeded to reveal teachings that contained some very radical concepts in Jewish theology that in the age of Spinoza would have also gotten him excommunicated. Today, in some circles, his ideas would be viewed as blasphemous, but traditionalists would dismiss him as misinformed before they was consigned him to Cherem. In short, Rabbi Shapiro is an iconoclast.
Rabbi Shapiro’s G od concept was not unlike Spinoza’s: G od is Creation, G od is Nature, G od is Everything that Exists, Free Will is an illusion, and there is no afterlife. What he did not state was whether or not G od was aware of us as individuals.
Throughout the weekend, he spoke of what G od wants us to do and be, but if G od is pure spirit, the Creative Power of Nature, is that Power aware of us as individuals? This is crucial, for how can an unaware Power have expectations of creatures of which he has no cognizance? I found his perceptions both interesting and disturbing. His thoughts were thoughts I’ve considered privately, but this was the first time my personal thoughts had been revealed to me by a well known rabbi and in a sanctuary. I was vaguely disconcerted.
I do believe that Rabbi Shapiro believes in G od, and it is definitely not the G od of the Traditionalist. What this G od is I cannot define, and I suspect he cannot define it either. G od cannot be defined or contained or imagined. Yet throughout his presentation, he urges us to find a way to spiritually connect with this Great Unknown Creative Power in the Universe which is not unlike the urging of the Traditionalists. But where as Traditionalists are content to believe in and find comfort in an anthropomorphic deity who is aware of us as individuals and guides the events on earth, Rabbi Shapiro is involved with a complete spiritual abstraction. Rabbi Shapiro’s G od is a spirit that moves through all things and is all things at the same time. William Wordsworth, the Romanitc poet, expressed this same idea in Lines Written Above Tintern Abbey, a poem that touches the core of the Transcendental Movement in English Poetry.
Rabbi Shapiro took over the Torah study class. The parsha was all about the specifications about building the Tabernacle and what would be required to achieve this G od given command. He made reference to Exodus 25 where the people were told what to bring as the needed materials, and he quipped that this is the origin of the building fund. The people were asked to bring gifts of gold, silver, and copper, but the good rabbi raised the questions as to Why does G od need this stuff? Where did they get all this stuff? And did G od really ask for this stuff? Rabbi Shapiro made it very clear that to his way of thinking, people wrote the Bible and wrote it, for the most part, with good intentions. Certain people wanted this stuff. He also declared that people created God– some with the concept of holiness and purity in mind, and some with violence and horrible images in mind. The people who wrote this had an agenda. Sometimes it was to justify and support a political position, a particular value, or a particular monarchy, and sometimes it was written to justify horrendous and violent behavior. In most events, it was to get people to do what they wanted using God as the motivation or the hammer. If G od wills it, you do it. The Torah is a human document, so we must be careful. G od is often misused.
`The darker parts of the Torah are the darker parts of us. The Torah speaks of radical things such as the rights of slaves and compassion for the poor. In this, it is radically holy. It is also radically horrible when it calls for the mass murder of people, or justifies such behavior. Both the high levels of spiritual awakening and the low levels of spiritual awakening are all there because it comes from the best and the worst parts of the people who wrote it. As we are susceptible of light, we are susceptible of darkness.
Judaism is the rabbinic interpretation of the Bible. When what we do leads us to compassion, it is the Torah and G od acting in our lives. When it leads to genocide and immorality, it is not.
In Isaiah 45 we are told that God makes light and darkness, so everything comes from God. We may not have free will.
I raised the most pressing issue for me. If people wrote the Torah, than who or what is the authority behind moral law? I believe there must be something higher than humanity as the authority. The rabbi responded that since people wrote the Torah, people become the authority behind moral behavior. So I was reminded of the quote by Dostoevsky: “Where there is no G od, all is permitted.” Not to have an authority outside of the foibles and agendas of individuals in power is to resign yourself to the idea that morality is conditional and floats from place to place without anything to anchor it to decency other than agreements between or among individuals, communities, or societies. But people are fickle and things can change. Without some authority as a guide, there is no safety. Totalitarian governments write their laws as do democracies. In one, a person might be murdered for a choice he or she makes, while in another, one might choose the same behavior without punishment. If each individual, group, or nations can set its own standard and that standard can change from place to place, it all comes down to opinion and a Darwinian society where the weak are eaten by the strong..
The rabbi then referred to history, and said that the story matters more than history. Whatever meaning is to be found that is of value is found in the story. The story is how we communicate our values. Passover is about freeing yourself from the narrow places in your life. Liberation is the core of the Passover story. The right of everyone not to be enslaved is a right and a value even if the Exodus story did not happen as it appears in the Bible. It’s the story that conveys what is really important. The actual historicity of the Exodus is not important to the message that it teaches.
The Bible stories may just be a gateway into something far more important. The entire Torah is a gateway into a way of life and a values structure. But to go through the gate, you have to free yourself from your conditioning. You have to go off the path. You have to think outside the box. G od is outside the box. You have to take off your shoes and connect with the earth; with G od. G od cannot be contained in a box.
G od wants us to liberate ourselves and others. G od wants us to be a blessing to all the families of the earth. Judaism is the pathway to fulfilling that mandate.
The expectation of the people is that G od will dwell in the ark because people need a concrete manifestation. But G od says He will speak to Moses not from inside the box, but above it and between the cherubim. God is literally out side the box? The Ten Commandments are inside the box, and G od is outside. The Ten Commandments are tangible concepts for living successfully in a society and maintaining solid relationships. But a relationship with God goes beyond the tangible, so to enter such a relationship, we must free ourselves for a time. The cherubim define the empty space, the nothingness, where G od dwells. It’s the yin and yang. Can the soup exist in the bowl unless there is a bowl to hold it? We cannot have one without the other. We exist in a world of opposites, and opposites define us and space. When we speak of God, we say what we think God is or what we think God is not. To encounter G od, we have to separate ourselves from ourselves and encounter the emptiness between the cherubim.
Where nothingness resides is where G od communicates. The white spaces in the Torah defines the black letters. There is negative space and positive space. There is silence and there is noise. Spirituality resides in the silent spaces. All spirituality takes you to the space between the cherubim.
Tradition sets us up to encounter God. We have traditions and commandments so we can structure our lives and find the empty space where we can encounter G od. G od resides in the commandments, in traditions, and in the structure. Jews structure time with the Sabbath, the holidays, the three prayer services, the mitzvot, and community activities. This structure defines us as a separate people, and it can also define us spiritually. Structuring time in an interesting and meaningful way is one of our hungers. But if G od is in the structure with everything that goes on in this structure, is there any room for the silence between the cherubim? Where is the silence in the structure? Prayer is filled with sounds and becomes rote. If that is so, then it is more confining than liberating? We need structure to pull us together. We need structure to keep us together. Structure reminds us of our true natures. Being Jewish is the way you get to remember who you are.
Religions are like language. There are things you can say in Yiddish that you cannot say in English. The more languages we know, the more nuance our experiences are. Religions are like languages. The more you know about other faiths, the more truths you will encounter. No one faith has the corner on all the truth. Judaism is a language. The ultimate language of the soul is silence.
If G od is everything that exists, and everything is G od, than each one of us is G od. We are each a legitimate manifestation of G od. If the letters yod, hay, vuv, hay are placed one above the other, you have a little human being. Each of us is the name of G od manifest.
So if everything is G od, if I am G od, is encountering G od much like encountering yourself? If not, how do you encounter G od?
There are five levels of consciousness: body, heart, mind, soul, and spirit.
Ruach is the heart energy– love, fear, etc.
Nefesh is self- I, me, mine is the nefesh level.
Chaia level is the I-Thou level of Buber. Here we are the manifestation of G od. What you encounter there is a higher state of G od. We often resist the meeting because it is outside our comfort zone.
Yehida is the non conscious level. Yehida is a gift of grace. When you come back from this level you feel love.
If Judaism is to matter at all, it has to be counter cultural. Each blessing is a door. Spirituality is based on abundance. Culture demands that we lack something. We live in a throw away society. In spirituality, there is no lack. Religions are market driven.
In the spacious mind, I and G od are one. You are to challenge the status quo.
All levels operate at all times, and we don’t think of them.
If a wave could encounter the ocean, it would be in awe of it.
Waves are the people. Each is unique and connected. Waves arise out of the water which is life. Both the water and the waves are wet. G od is the wet. The sun gives life. The rays are the people. Both convey heat. G od is the heat.
We are unique in our aliveness. What is aliveness? G od manifests uniqueness forever. G od is creativity. But why create a world with suffering? The mystics tell us that G od creates the universe not by free will. G od is G od. Creating is what G od does. If G od is everything, then everything is changing. The sun shines because that’s what the sun does.
The Divine Feminine
We are entering the Second Axiel Age. The Second Axiel Age is the return of Feminine Energy which is Chochmah or Wisdom. With its return comes our ability to extend compassion. That will be our purpose. The more we have Wisdom and compassion, the more our hearts will be open to loving others.
The First Axial Age was from 800 BCE to 200 BCE. All religions at that time moved from magic to compassion. Prior to this time period, pagan religions tried to control their gods by manipulating charms, and reciting incantations, reading the entrails of animals, etc. The gods demanded human sacrifice. That was put to an end with the binding of Isaac story.
The new way of thinking is summarized in the book of Micah. It shows a prophetic shift: What does the Lord God require of thee but to seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God. Be merciful, just, and don’t take yourself too seriously.
Combining Micah with Hillel’s statement of “That which is hateful to you, do not do to another,”we have here a new concept of what path Judaism was following. It was a path to compassion. We are obliged by the prophets and rabbis to bring compassion to higher and higher levels.
The first sign of the turn of the Second Axial Age was in 1893 at the Parliament of World Religions in Chicago. The leading figure was a swami who claimed that all religions are variations of the one true way. We should listen to one another and expand our visions.
The second sign was the view of the earth from outer space. Land and sea merge. No divisions of land like on a map. This was a revelation from the Divine. All is part of a single system. The culmination of the Impressionist Movement in Art was Cezanne discovering this and merging sky, earth, and objects so they appear as one unity yet still discernable.
The third sign is the return of the Divine Feminine. The Divine Feminine is the active manifestation of the Divine. The Divine Feminine first appears in Chapter 8 verse 32 in Proverbs. She is the first thing G od created and sets the course of creation. She may be the map of creation, and the way things function. She is G od’s eternal delight, and may have been God’s consort. All ancient male deities had consorts. Astarte may have been the consort of the high G od, El. The Torah is a woman. The Sabbath is a woman. She is the feminine coming into man’s working world.
She creates the world and shows up all over the place. “Follow me,” she says. “Follow Wisdom.” Practice observing the nature of reality. She identifies with reality, not with Judaism. Find me and find life and grace. Turn your back on me and your choose chaos and death. Wisdom calls to us and is always available.
Wisdom has female apostles. Everyone is invited to the meal. In Psalm 23– God is the source and I am creation. I am primordial reality through which all happens.
Jewish Wisdom Literature– Job, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sira
In Job, Satan is the prosecuting attorney and makes a bet with God. Job knows that all comes from God, and believed that if you did good, you got good. But that idea doesn’t seem to work on earth, so we adopted the idea from the Zoroasterians that you will get good in the next life.
Job refuses to curse God as his wife insists and die like a man. Chapter II verse 9 is similar to John 3:16 God kills. He responds to her by saying: “Shall we not accept the bad as well as the good?” Job’s friends represent conventional thinking: “You deserve this because you must have done something wrong.” Ask for God’s forgiveness. Job refuses and demands the truth from God. Chapter 38. God tells Job that He cannot be contained and asks him where he was when God created all. The Universe cannot fit our understanding of Justice. Job responds by acknowledging his true nature that he is of dust and ash and in no way can he understand. He must remain silent.
G od can’t be contained. Life in this world is wild and chaotic, and there is no way to avoid suffering. We have to learn to live with it and make peace with it. The nature of reality is beyond human control. Everything is temporary. It is like Sukkot. Enjoy the bounty and recognize its transitory nature. This is the message of Job.
How do you live with that difficult message? That is addressed by the book of Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes teaches us that life is transient. We lose our money, our kids leave us, things don’t work out as we want, and when we die, nothing goes with us.
The message in Ecclesiastes is that God is the reality. The Divine doesn’t protect: It just creates everything. There is a time for everything. If you want to live, be true to your time. Every moment has its own integrity, and you must figure out how to live it. The formula for doing this is: Eat Moderately, Drink Moderately, Find a Job with Meaning, and Find Friends. Don’t get involved in politics or with the wealthy, and live below the radar. We exist for a short period of time. We are like a wave in the ocean and we return quickly.
March 3, 2012
Mendy Log: Parsha Tetzaveh
Exodus 27
Mendy began his drush by speaking about the holiday Purim which is this coming week. He informed us that when the Messiah comes, the only holiday that will continue to be celebrated is Purim. As part of his introduction, he said that while he was not political on the bimah, he couldn’t help but realize that the current situation with Iran and the Ayatolla Khommeni and his henchman, Ahcmadinijad, both calling for the destruction of Israel and the eradication of the Jewish people, duplicates the ancient Purim story where King Ahasherus and his henchman, Heyman also sought the annihilation of the Jewish people in Persia which is modern day Iran.
History continues to repeat itself, and while history is linear, it is also cyclical. “What goes around, comes around.”
This was a surprise to me since Purim is not considered one of the major holidays in the Jewish calendar, and it is not mentioned in the Torah since it historically happened after the Torah was codified. As an explanation, Mendy said that Purim celebrates life, and then proceeded to explain what he meant in his usual rapid fire delivery of which I can remember very little. The total impression I took away is that Jews are to celebrate life and have the right to defend life when it is threatened. “If a man comes to slay you, slay him first,” is a basic right in preserving one’s life.
Now the following may not be what Mendy said, but it’s what I thought about: The concept of celebrating life and defending it is a right that we have. In fact, just about every Jewish holiday celebrates a concept that speaks to the dignity of human beings. Next to be celebrated on the calendar is Passover which celebrates the concept that people have the right not to be enslaved and have the power to change their situations. Rosh Hashonah celebrates the concept that at any time people have the power to transform themselves from where they are to where they want to be. Chanukah celebrates the concept that people have a right to worship G od as they choose. All these concepts scream FREEDOM and TRANSFORMATION. I also thought that perhaps G od’s nature is transformative also. The translation of G od’s name is given as “I am” or “I shall be what I shall be.” Both imply existence in the present and future, and gives a sense that G od will evolve or transform as existence moves into the future. Perhaps the message is that since we are in G od’s image, we must also transform ourselves and in that way, humanity itself will evolve. Does our evolving to higher understanding or higher levels of spirituality reflect G od evolving? Something to consider.
Two Torah scrolls are taken out and read on the Sabbath prior to Purim. In the second scroll, we read the mandate from G od that Amalek’s name is to be wiped out of existence. (To my way of thinking, this could easily be accomplished if we chose not to read this mandate yearly which keeps the memory of this event and the people very much alive. But I digress.)
But the story of Amalek is read because we must be constantly reminded that such people continue to exist and continue to threaten our existence.
Mendy related the story of how when our ancestors came out of Egypt, they skirted the land of Amalek. The Amalekites were descendants Esau, Jacob’s “evil twin.” The Israelites had no intention of attacking and had no interest in this land because it was no where near Canaan. But the Amalekites attacked the rear of the Israelites where the weak, the elderly, and the woman and children were. For this cowardly act, the Amalekites were to be totally destroyed.
Happily, there are no Amalekites today that we would be bound to slaughter, and we are to recognize that there are people today who are in the spiritual image of Amalek. Such people are people who hate us without cause. The Israelites were of no threat to Amalek, yet the hatred he inherited from Esau, lived in him. Today, the Jewish people have implacable enemies. Today, fundamentalist Muslims around the world calling for the destruction of Israel and Jews are descendants of Amalek, as were men like Hitler and his minions, Stalin in the 20th century, and other Jew haters in every century throughout history. Today there are a variety of men and woman on the extreme Left and the extreme Right who are also descendants of Amalek. We must be constantly vigilant to protect our lives from such as these.
This was a life reaffirming drush. Bravo Mendy.
At M’kor Shalom, Rabbi Richard spoke about the parsha which deals exclusively with the raiments to be worn by the high priest, the dimensions of ritual objects, and the materials of which all of these things were to be made. He raised the issue as to how all these very specific items were available to the Hebrews in a desert, including dolphin skins. Thus, having made the traditional Reform obeisance to the god’s of “higher criticism,” he continued with a beautiful quote by the Bal Shem Tov that set the tone for the following discussion.: “Memory is the source of redemption. Exile comes from forgetting.”
The parsha opens with the request that the menorah was to burn perpetually. As a child, I remember listening to a program on the radio called, “The Eternal Light” which began with the sonorous voice of Morton Wishengrad: “Bring unto me pure oil olive, beaten for the light, to cause the lamps to burn continually in the Tabernacle of the congregation.” The rabbi spoke of light as a symbol of the Divine in man and as a symbol of godliness – sparks of Divinity within us. Light is the spirit in every soul. Our Nefesh Ruach, our soul spirit is reflected in the Eternal Light that hangs above the ark.
He then suggested that since this parsha, curiously inserted in this place, actually has nothing to do with the Exodus or the Revelation, when considered from a political science standpoint, it reveals a layer of meaning not readily seen. He said its purpose was to establish the Aaronite priesthood. It would seem that the parsha was inserted into our history to underscore the power of the priesthood. The priests were in charge.
Does this mean that Moses’s authority was being usurped in favor of the priesthood’s? Is this a reflection of an ancient conflict between the religious authority and the secular authority in ancient Israel when the book was codified after the Babylonial Exile in the 5th or 6th century B.C.E.? Might this be the reason why Aaron is not punished for the golden calf incident? Why was he not punished?
Is his lack of punishment a deliberate statement to underscore G od’s own support for the priesthood as the ruling class? Seth was born to Adam and Eve so the Jewish People would not be descended from a murderer. Does Aaron get pardoned so the future generations of Israelites would know that the High Priest is so beloved by G od that he can be forgiven for a crime that otherwise would get him the death penalty? The mouth of the earth opens and swallows Korah and his followers. Why didn’t Aaron go down with them? Is there something political afoot? Excruciating detail is given to describing the vestments of the very expensive clothes the High Priest is to wear, and this reinforces that clothing indicates authority and status. Even today, authority is determined by uniforms, and fashion in many societies including ours. “Clothes make the man,” as the saying goes.
Aaron, like Moses, speaks to G od, but unlike his brother, it is not face to face.
As part of the sacral vestments, a breastplate is created with twelve semi-precious stones each representing one of the twelve tribes. We are told that when the High Priest asked a question of G od, certain letters would light up within the names of the tribes, and it was up to the High Priest to arrange them in such a way that he would learn G od’s response. Of course, the responses themselves were quite enigmatic and open to interpretation, much like the Oracle of Delphi who once told King Creses who came to her inquiring his fate if he went to war. Her response was that “a great nation would fall.” Sadly, he did not realize that it was going to be his. One of the congregants said that the process was akin to shaking an 8 ball to divine the future. Everyone thought that amusing. Another suggested that the Jews anticipated the Iphone 4 and Sirius where you ask your phone a question and you mysteriously get an answer.
This breastplate is also a pouch containing something called the Urim and Thurum. No one knows what these were, but there is thought that they may have been a positive energy and a negative energy; a “Yes” and a “No.” Whatever these were, were place between the two halves of the breast plate. This major adornment was called the Breastplate of Judgement and Decision, and it was through this object that G od responded to the High Priest’s questions.
There was a brief and interesting allusion again to the idea of the light that was produced by the Breast Plate giving wisdom and G od’s response. Consideration was also given to the idea that the Breast Plate was over the heart which indicates the decisions were made from the heart and not the head.
I couldn’t help but think of the three domains of human behavior: the cognitive, the affective, and the psychomotor. When I did my workshops in valuing education, I would ask participants to list the three major decisions they made in their lives that moved their lives in a particular direction. I then explained briefly the what each domain was and asked them to imagine each decision on a three way balance understanding the most decisions will involve all three. But I asked them which domain tipped the scale and in almost every instance it was the affective domain. The affective domain is the domain that concerns itself with values and feelings. Generally, things of the heart. Those decisions made from the heart invariably move our lives in the direction in which it has gone.
To reinforce this relationship between G od and the heart, Rabbi informed us that the equivalent number for the Hebrew letter “lammed” is 30, and the letter “vays” is 2. Together, they make the word “heart.” 3 plus 0 plus 2 is 5 and one of the names of G od has the numerical equivalent of 5. The letter “hay” is also five. There is a relationship between our G od and the human heart, so one can make the case for G od being in our hearts and directing us from our hearts.
I think I got the jist of this but not sure.
With the lights on the Breastplate almost like aps enabling the High Priest to access hidden information, Urim and Thurim, the questions asked to a seemingly magical or mystical device, and answers coming back through the ether, it would seem that the Torah did presage the Iphone 4 with Sirius where you ask a question and get an answer seemingly from nowhere.
The Torah is indeed a wonderful book.
March 10, 2012
Mendy Log:
Parsha Ki Tisa Exodus 30
Disclaimer: The following is what I think I heard Mendy saying.
There was a bar mitzvah at Chabad, and Mendy began by introducing us to the young man who would be “called up,” praising his attentiveness to his studies, his involvement in his tradition, and his upstanding character.
The bar and bat mitzvah ceremonies are unique because they reflect ancient rites of passage where the individual child becomes the focus of the entire community that welcomes him or her into adulthood with a memorable ritual and celebration. The focus is on the child, and everything that is said is designed to make this young person feel special and valued as a member of the Jewish People. The community opens its collective arms to the child and the child’s uniqueness and potential. It is a day for making a young person feel very special.
Mendy continued this theme of uniqueness by harkening back to the story of Purim which was celebrated this past week. He referred to Hayman informing King Ahashveros that there was a people living in his lands who did not worship the same gods as everyone else, did not keep the same celebrations as everyone else, and did not have the same traditions or customs as everyone else. For their “otherness,” they had to be destroyed, and the foolish king agreed.
Ancient Jew hatred, prior but similar to Christian and Muslim Jew hatred throughout the centuries, was also predicated on the Jew’s rejection of the values and beliefs of the people around them. But whereas Christian and Muslim Jew-hatred resulted from the Jews refusal to validate these two new religions that sprung from it, ancient Jew-hatred was based on the rejection of the wider values and culture of the people among whom the ancient Jews lived. We had a different G od, a different set of laws, a concept of ourselves as a distinctive people, and a sense that we had been chosen for a special purpose. People do not like to be told or constantly reminded that they are wrong so suspicion, hostility and xenophobia became the order of the day.
Mendy focused on the idea of distinctiveness and spoke of Jewish distinctiveness as a strength rather than as a weakness despite what this distinctiveness has engendered from those around us over the centuries. Because each human being is unique and, according to tradition, is created with a unique gift to give the world, we should value ourselves and delight in our individual differences while still rejoicing in the fact that we are one people comprised of unique individuals.
Uniqueness is not to be discarded. In fact, it’s the unique people who often think “outside the box” and come up with ideas that improve the lives of those around them. For survival, Jews have often had to think “outside the box” because the status quo over the centuries was not particularly good to us.
In this age of multi-culturalism where the supporters of this concept demand that all cultures and their values be honored and considered equal to all others, such distinctiveness must be eradicated so everyone can feel equal. But to my way of thinking, such leveling of the playing field leads to a norm reflecting more of mediocrity than superiority. In such a leveled community, standards are lowered and there is nothing for which one might reach to make the world a better place because differences in people would not be valued. One of the reasons I do not care for Jesse Jackson is that at one college demonstration, he led the group chanting “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ Has Got To Go!” The six core values of Western Civilization come from the Torah and entered through the Septuigent which is used by Christianity. Getting rid of Western Civilization’s value system would certainly eliminate the standard that makes the value systems of other cultures, inadequate.
Honoring distinctiveness should be the goal because such uniqueness insists that life move forward in a positive direction.
To reinforce this idea of valuing individuality among the group, Mendy then referred us to the opening of the parsha that spoke of a census. Each person, regardless of status or wealth was to give half a shekel in support of the Tabernacle. (This presages the beginning of synagogue dues and a regressive tax system suggested by some Republicans.)
What Mendy pointed out was that the closer translation to the word “census” that is used is “raising up of the head.” The interpretation of this is that while numbering the people was important, the half shekel was symbolic of citing each person individually, recognizing his uniqueness by “raising up his head.”
At M’or, Rabbi Richard also began with the coins for the census, and the interpretations was somewhat the same and somewhat different. Here, the coins were to raise the level of contributions for the Tabernacle and also to give up something for the sake of the nation. The mission of Israel is to depend upon the unity of the whole with the community always taking precedence pver the individual, because the strength of the institution rests with the participation of all.
This led to a sobering reflection that in modern Jewry, for the most part, this was no longer the case, and that the sense of community which had been one of the hallmarks of Judaism, was now up for grabs. The unity of the whole that was once the Jewish way is being replaced by a sense of entitlement where the needs of the individual are more important than the needs of the community.
While the causes of this phenomenon were not discussed, the individual’s concern for him or her self, this sense of entitlement and its focus on the needs of the self, really began after World War II. The men and women who saw the devastation and the fragility of life, came back and concluded that the most important thing for their children to be was “happy” with a secure sense of self and a positive identity. Prior to this period in history, in fact from the beginning of society, a person’s identity came from what they did and what they accomplished. The thought was you’ll “find” your self and your purpose through what you actually do with your life. So up until the end of that war, people got jobs and raised families and their self-concepts came out of their activities. But after the war with the growth of the suburbs and a more affluent middle class, there began a paradigm shift from finding out who you were after you got a job and created a family to finding yourself and your identity before you got a job or accomplished anything. “Don’t worry about tomorrow, be happy today” became something of a mantra to children born in the fifties, sixties, seventies, and since. The Baby Boomers and those who followed were given the message that it’s more important that you be happy with who you are than anything else. This has led to people who think failing out of college is no great shame, or taking five or six years to graduate is no great problem if they haven’t “found themselves” yet. So with the focus most often on themselves, these people grow to adulthood and they have no real sense of the needs of their community because they have always been more concerned about their own needs. We are losing our young adults because this demographic was raised to focus on their own needs rather than on the needs of anyone else. We really need to learn how to rebuild a sense of Kal Yisroel, of a sense of peopleness among our own.
Rabbi Richard also spoke about the census, about counting, and the restriction placed upon counting Jews as a task that was exclusively in G od province. The ancients believed that if someone to count another, that person was taking away the uniqueness of personhood. Numbering is to take away individuality. So the Orthodox count one another as “Not one, not two, not three...” etc. As part of this census episode, Rabbi told a midrash about G od showing Moses a coin made of fire while implying that money can be useful for creating beauty, and also dangerous depending upon what choose to do with it. The Rabbi also implied that money means control and alluded to the power that the priest were amassing with the wealth they were collecting for the Tabernacle.
He then went into a discussion of Bezalel, the craftsman who was an epic figure with divine gifts and endowed with three key concepts: wisdom, understanding ideas different from his own, and Divine inspiration. There was an in depth clarification of these three, but I can’t remember the details. He mentioned the three concepts and their relationship to the word Chabad which I believe is an acronym for the three concepts. I do recall him saying that Judaism is a very sophisticated religion that is not for little kids.
Sadly, the way it is taught in Hebrew schools today with the focus being on holidays rather than spirituality or life affirming concepts, it will never be more than a series of holidays and exciting stories. And since many Jews do not continue their formal educations beyond thirteen, Judaism for them is a childhood thing with little value to them when they reach adulthood.
There was a moment when Rabbi Richard spoke about following one’s passion, and this seemed to speak of the uniqueness of the individual. This is what I want to do in the world. He said that as we age, we look at the text differently because we mature. In keeping with this idea, it was made clear that all Torah is about your personal journey from exile to freedom.
A series of laws were considered and it was reaffirmed that Shabbat was the most important event in the Jewish tradition. If one breaks the Sabbath laws, they are “karait” or to be cut off. What followed this was an extension of this idea to being emotionally cut off, an existential aloneness, an emotional exile.
Attention turned to Aaron and the Golden Calf episode and why Aaron got off without suffering the same fate as Korah and the rebels. There is a midrash rationalizing his behavior. It tells us that because Aaron was threatened by the mob, and seeing that when Hur, the other man who was put in charge with him, protested, he was murdered. Aaron’s acquiescence to the demands of the mob was a stalling technique. In this, Aaron’s behavior is understandable. When people feel abandoned, they reach for something tangible around which they can coalesce. The people in the Torah are very human and very real. When feeling cast off, people will reach for meaning. People need to hold onto something. With Moses gone for forty days, they believed him to be dead. They felt abandoned. They were frightened and leaderless. They wanted a substitute for Moses to unify them. They decided that a Golden Calf would do this for them.
March 24, 2012
Mendy Log: Parshah Vayikra
Leviticus 1
This is what I think I heard Mendy say:
Mendy referred us to the last letter of the Hebrew word, “vayikra,” which begins the parsha and ends in the Hebrew letter “aleph.” This letter is written smaller than all the other letters. Mendy asked us to consider why this smaller letter appears, and referred us to the rabbis of old who also wondered and interpreted this with a midrash that tells us that G od wanted to honor Moses, but Moses was so humble that he did not want the honor. So G od and Moses agreed that a smaller letter at the end of the word to honor the prophet would suffice. Sadly, I do not recall how the word “vayikra” or the small aleph has anything to do with the name of Moses or honor for that matter, and I don’t suspect it does.
Elsewhere I read that the translation “vayikra” and the words following it reads, “And G od called Moses...” Beginning with the word “And” indicates that this seems to be a continuation of Exodus, and since the word “vayikra” ends with an aleph, and the word after it begins with an aleph also, it is conceivable that the letter is smaller so as to mark the separation of the two words. This interpretation is far less mystical and literary, but might also hold some truth. Not being a Hebrew, biblical scholar or grammarian for that matter, I cannot tell.
Mendy then proceeded to speak about humility as a value in Judaism, and then spoke about the mad man who murdered three soldiers, then a rabbi, his children, and the other children in front of their school in Toulouse, France. He reminded us that one of the murdered little girls was named after the rabbi’s wife who had been murdered in Mumbai, India two or so years ago. Other than the soldiers, all were murdered just because they were Jews.
He then spoke of his trip to Israel and of a speaker who was the mother of two young boys had been stoned to death by Arab Palestinians again, just for being Jews. He pointed out that her plea was not for revenge, but for doing mitzvot, good deeds to make someone’s life better. Mitzvot in memory of her sons was what she wanted.
The highest value for the Jew is life. We remind ourselves of this when we raise a glass, we are commanded in the Torah to create life, we are commanded not to murder, we are taught that we may violate Sabbath law in order to save someone, and we know from the Talmud that “to save a life is as if you have saved an entire world.” But along with this comes the truth that if “someone comes to slay you, slay him first.” We have a right to self-defense.
While we grieve over the deaths of each precious life that was lost to us, the extreme Muslim community relishes martyrdom, and use the places where their children play and learn as stations for rockets. They see glory in death, even for their children. And I have seen Arab Palestinian mothers proudly tell the world from the television screen of the joy of having a son martyred and of the honor their son brought to them by murdering others. They name streets and public squares after people who murder others. What kind of faith grants honor and possibly redemption to its adherents for murdering innocent children and innocent civilians?
As before, and in honor of those lost, Mendy once again asked us to do mitzvot that were outside our comfort zones. If we do not put on phylacteries in the morning, to do that, or if we do not light Sabbath candles, to do that. Stepping out of your comfort zones may be a risk, but by being willing to experience, we are giving ourselves permission to continue until it becomes part of our lives.
At M’Kor Shalom, Rabbi Richard also started off with the small aleph on the word “vayikra” and informed us that this parsha is the very first taught to little children who are beginning to learn Torah. Now with all the stories that might interest children, why start with the text that speaks of the sacrifices to be brought to G od? The reason given seems to deal with the interpretation of that little aleph as it regards Moses. It seems we are taught that Moses did not want honor or the focus on himself, and this humility that he expressed through his actions and rejections of honors, became the foundation for the value of humility in Jewish tradition.
To reinforce this concept of keeping yourself humble, the Rabbi also related a tale of how we should always carry two pieces of paper in our pockets. On one are written the words, “For my sake, the world was created,” and on the other “You are nothing but dust and ashes.” The midrash teaches us through these papers that we are to keep our egos in check and that we are to focus on centering ourselves to achieve balance in our lives. The ego provides a lense to see life. A small deed done in humility is a thousand time more acceptable to G od than a great deed done in self possession. We live most of our lives in the tensions of trying to negotiate the balances of life. But so much of life is in shades of grey. How do you negotiate the greys of life we find in daily living?
The bulk of this parsha deals with the sacrifices to be brought to the Tabernacle and stresses how they are to be without blemish. Bulls, goats, sheep, doves etc. are all to be without blemish, and all the other items not livestock are to be pure. So how do we interpret these offerings today so they have some meaning for us? The key here seems to be “intentionality” or what do you bring to your world? And the language of sacrifice is a symbolic language. We are to think of the concept of purity and what it means to be unblemished. We are to think about what this means for us, and if a sacrifice becomes meaningless if its not pure in its intentionality.
Now I’m thinking about intentionality and sacrifice and I’m thinking about things I give up such as time, or money, or emotions, or wants. We may give something dear to us up for the greater good because we see the need to do so or we are guilted or shamed into it. Of course it is suggested that the sacrifice of any kind is meaningless if it is false and the kavanah, the spirit of the offering, is not pure. Kavanah is a Hebrew word which refers to the purity, intensity. and intentionality of the sacrifice or prayer you are offering up.
But lets be realistic for a moment. To act righteously does not mean your heart has to be in it. You can even be resentful, but the sacrifice still must be made. It may be better for a person’s soul to want to help feed the starving, and a nice check from a reluctant donator can still be put to good use. People need to be fed. I don’t care if the donator is not really happy to give.
This also tied back to the opening lines of the parsha, where Moses is called by G od. What does it mean to be called by G od, and are we still being called by G od? The “still small voice” is the voice some believe is the voice of our conscience. The voice is always there. G od is always calling us. But like the characters in the early part of Genesis who hear G od calling them, we, too, run and hide.
It was suggested that G od never intended for animal offerings, but G od realized that mankind could not deal with the abstractions of what G od really was. So sacrifices were instituted because humanity needed to make offerings to feel G od’s nearness. In reality, man may have thought he was being kind by bringing sacrifices to G od, but in reality, it was G od who was being kind to man by allowing him to feel near to Him. Only about ten percent of the people can deal with an abstract G od. Ninety percent need something tangible. The normal person doesn’t have the intellect to achieve union with the “Prime Mover.” But the struggle to find the path to it is where you find the meaning. Again, it is in the journey and not in the destination where meaning is found.
We created a system to help us establish what is good in life. Michah said, “What does the Lord, G od require of thee but to seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your G od.” There is the mandate to “visit the sick, dower the bride, comfort the bereaved, and attend the dead to the grave.” These things may have been commanded, but they are good ideas and we eventually make them our own. Initially, we behave because we are asked to do so, and then we recognize the value of the behavior, and after continuing to do so, we see their value and they become our own. Values
become inculcated though repeated behaviors.
The laws of the Torah are the foundational ethical principals out of which comes our value systems and our ensuing moral or immoral behaviors depending on the path we take. Our ancestors posited a concept of a G od as the authority behind what is right and what is wrong and how people are to deal with one another. This authority is the parental voice of our civilization. When we silence the parental voice, we risk losing direction.
April 14, 2012
Passover
Mendy did not address the special parsha designated for the Passover Sabbath, but asked the question as to “Why the joy of Passover must be interrupted with the Yiskor service?” a service to commemorate those who have passed away. He also spoke about the Messiah and waiting for him to come.
I cannot honestly say I can remember anything Mendy said, but that does not mean that what he said was not meaningful and thought provoking as usual. I am concerned that my powers of concentration are fading, and that my memory is slipping. Perhaps I am just temporarily distracted by other things going on in my life and not focusing, or perhaps I really am starting to “lose it.” So what follows may or may not reflect anything of what Mendy had to say, but are my musings on his two basic themes.
In any case, as I sit here, I’m thinking about the question raised that we are to interrupt the joy of Passover with Yiskor because there is always a harsh reality out there of which we must be continually aware. Joy is important to existence, but can we truly know joy unless it is compared to its opposite? And besides, isn’t it true that joy, like most experiences, is a brief illusion that can lull us into a sense of false security without a periodic reality check?” If anything, Judaism’s long history has taught its adherents to be very aware of reality. Breaking the glass at the wedding and interrupting joyous holidays with memorial prayers and candles, might be just to remind us to keep vigilant. As the sprig of parsley on the seder table which represents spring and hope must be dipped in the salt water which is symbolic of the tears our ancestors shed, so we must mix joy and sadness as a reminder that reality is often not kind. Joy and sadness, hope and despair, good and evil, free will and determinism; all opposites reminding us about the nature of life. Opposites must have been in the Creator’s Mind when all things came into being. It seems to me that opposites are part of the foundation of existence. But as I think of it, the idea that including glimmers of sadness may work for the severely Orthodox, but who is really saddened or contemplating the loss of the Temples when a glass is broken by the groom at the end of a wedding? Shouts of mazel tov and joy command the moment. As we are forbidden to mix certain fibers as well as certain mitzvot, we should also be forbidden the mixing of joy and sadness. Why diminish the cup of joy when there are appropriate moments in our calendar to commemorate both?
I do recall Mendy speaking about the Messiah which is appropriate since Passover is the story of our redemption from slavery from a particular place, and the Messiah’s coming will bring the redemption of humanity from the spiritual enslavements that bind the heart and mind. For me, the Messiah is the symbolic embodiment of the hope for which humanity yearns. Isaiah details the universal events that will follow when all humanity turns towards Zion (which to me is a metaphor for moral decency,) and stands united. This has not happened yet, so we continue to wait and hope. But we must also act. I do believe that people, acting in concert to make the world a better place, will bring about Isaiah’s Messianic vision. I would love for the Messiah to be a real person, but I think it best to consider the Messiah as the concept label under which all the good collective actions of good people may be subsumed. Those of us who do good for others with or without the hope of compensation or recognition, and those of us who contribute to causes that will assist others to live better, and those of us who support and teach others to be independent etc., etc., etc., are acting in the tradition of the Messiah and are, in fact to my way of thinking, helping to fulfill the Messianic dream. Collectively, those who act for the good are the Messiah. Sadly, there just aren’t enough of us to make a real difference.
Sorry I could only give you thoughts that Mendy triggered in me and not what he said.
At M’Kor Shalom, Rabbi Richard initially spoke of the hedge or border that the rabbis placed around the Torah, and raised the question as to whether or not the border can be moved. The answer he gave was a resounding “Yes” and we have moved this border over the centuries so we might live successful Jewish lives in every age in which we find ourselves. The example given was that of the “eruv” the wire or rope that extends the home into the community so the observant Jew might carry on the Sabbath outside his or her home while still adhering to the Torah law of not carrying. Rabbi called it a “legal fiction” created by rabbis so we can live our lives within the law. Like our Constitution which is interpreted and ruled upon by the Supreme Court, the Torah, too, is a living document that can address the needs of all generations through a process of interpretation and extension of its boundaries. In modern times, it is the Responsa literature that takes the traditional texts and applies it to issues of today. The rabbis of today must create a situation where people can live with their Judaism or they’ll walk away from it. The divisions currently part of Judaism reflect those efforts to keep Jews Jewish and connected.
“When you canonize a scripture, you discover you need another scripture.” I don’t recall who said that, but it makes sense. The Torah needed the Talmud, and the Talmud needed the Responsa.
We focused on the Ethics of the Fathers which is studied in the Passover season. Our focus was on chapter three where we are told to concentrate on three things: Know from where you came, where you are going, and before whom you will give an account and a reckoning. The answer is that we came from a putrid drop, we are going to dust and ashes, and we will give an account to G od.
In short, the past is nothing, and the end is nothing. We are being instructed here on the path of spiritual awakening. The ultimate value expressed here is the transcendence of death where the ultimate account and reckoning must be given. That’s the focus: accessing the soul. The accounting has to do with the life you have been given. You will have to defend yourself. What you do, is how you will be judged. You have been given life and you have been given free will and what you do with it depends on your choices. And are your choices affirmative in their nature? It is essential to the maintenance of free will that there be no clarification as to cause and effect regarding why good people suffer and evil people prosper, for if we had the answer, there would be no true choice because people would choose righteousness to assure material comfort and not because they believed that this was the right thing to do.
The struggle enables you to find the path to personal fulfillment. The struggle to find a balance is the essence of life. We struggle to find meaning and purpose. We struggle for answers. We need to know our purposes from the texts: “Be a light unto the nations and make the world a better place as a co-creator with G od. But this is how we are to respond to outside world. Where are we to be on a more personal level? Our inner struggle opens the door to deeper spiritual meaning. Considering the text opens the door for conversations and possibly discovering meaning. We may not be able to explain why the good suffer and the evil seem blessed, but by conversing about it, we may glimpse understanding.
The Ram Bam spoke of mind, body and spirit as the life force and reflective on how you live your life. Some people can make themselves sick so as not to confront the meaning of their lives.
Passover is a metaphor for one’s own personal liberation. We never get to the promised land but we must struggle to understand who we are so our lives can have meaning.
May 19, 2012
Mendy Log:
Parshah Behar-Bechukotai
Mendy began by referring to the Ethics of the Fathers as is the tradition of this time of the cycle and focused in on Chapter V verse five which states ten miracles that took place in the Temple in Jerusalem. He mostly spoke about the last miracle which dealt with the fact that there was always room to be found in the city and in the Temple no matter how many thousands of pilgrims were there. The inference was that there were no complaints despite the crowed conditions, and he pointed out that an aspect of the miracle had to be that a multitude of Jews actually did not complain! That was a miracle in itself.
By nature, we are a people who complain, and the world has benefitted from this trait. The status quo has never been good to the Jews, and since our focus is not on the afterlife, it has been our philosophy to make the world in which we find ourselves a better place. Initially, change begins by recognizing that something has to change for the better, and that’s were complaining comes into play. A lot of advances in this world have been made because Jews didn’t like the way things were and complained.
This is what I think I heard Mendy tell us:
Mendy informing us that we, like our ancestors, should not complain about the petty stuff such as how crowded it is, but focus on what is truly important, which is especially our relationships with our spouses. Certainly, for the sake of “peace in the house,” he advised us not to point out the minor flaws or problems.
Any man or woman who has been divorced and remarried and still continues to focus or harp on the little things that contributed to the destruction of his or her first marriage, has not learned this lesson and will continue to endanger his or her relationship. Don’t sweat the small stuff. Let it go. Learn to focus on what’s really important if the relationship is to successfully thrive.
The drush shifted over to a Talmudic discussion between to differing rabbis who argued over business procedures and whether something was owned by just paying for it or whether it was owned when the object was taken or some other symbolic thing was done. It was the idea that something must be done that seemed to be the message, and Mendy used this concept by inferring that once a person is touched by “an awareness of the transcendent,” (my wording) or G od, you are forever touched and cannot be untouched. But like in the business transaction, you are obligated to do something.
I will always remember my first encounter with the transcendent. Growing up in a crowded neighborhood in East New York, Brooklyn, the only truly open space was the sky. I know it was before I was an adolescent, and it happened one night up on the roof of the apartment building on Pitkin Avenue that I encountered the wonder of the universe and was touched by it. But the two languages spoken in my shul were Hebrew and Yiddish and I understood neither. My religion gave me no clarity as to what I had experienced. Perhaps I never knew there was anyone to ask about such feelings. At that point, the only G od concept I understood was a condemning G od my mother called down upon me when I was bad. My mother controlled G od and no one controlled my mother. It was not until college that I found a voice for what I experienced by reading transcendental poetry: “And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things.” W. Wordsworth
Many years would pass before I would learn that this concept was developed by a Jewish philosopher named Baruch Spinoza, and this “spirit” was named “Ayn Sof” by the Kabbalists. The struggle to understand that began on that roof top over sixty years ago, is finally being resolved emotionally and intellectually by giving myself permission to recognize that no one approach or answer contains all the truth, and that a fusion of many ideas has led me to a spiritually satisfying life. And to seal the purchase, I have put my actions and my limited resources into activities that help me make a stronger connection with my people, and with my fellow citizens.
Over at M’kor, Leviticus 25 was also under consideration, and the focus here was on the sabbatical and jubilee years and the ecological movement that seems to be founded on these laws. It is clearly stated that G od owns the land, that it is leased to us only. “The land is mine. You are strangers, residents with me.” What seems important here is that relationship between G od, the land, and us.
The discussion continued and focused on the words inscribed on the Liberty Bell: “Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” The word “liberty” is translated from a Hebrew word that is closer in meaning to the word, “release,” and the statement has to do with the Jubilee year and slavery. All Jewish slaves had to be freed, and freedom was to come to both slave and the slave holder who was being forced from power over other human beings. Someone who holds slaves is also enslaved by a system that allows slavery. Slavery deprives both the slave and the master of freedom, and it is written that “he who enslaves another become a slave,” for a truly free person has no need to be a master of others. The more one seeks to control others, the more one enslaves himself. One can become enslaved by one’s own ego.
The concept of release may be a synchronistic borrowing from the Babylonians since some Babylonian kings also proclaimed release to restore economic stability. Some think that much of Jewish culture emerged out of Babylonian culture.
This idea of restoring economic stability states that it is easier to help a person out when he or she is first in trouble. If you let people fall into poverty, it will cost more later to pull them out of it. The Torah, separate from the rituals and history, is really a progressive left wing document. It is against G od’s will to allow people to slide into poverty, and we are exhorted to “support our brother if he has fallen,” and “not to lend on interest.” The Torah demands that we help before there is serious trouble, and we see the adherence to these laws in the countless charities that have been set up to ease the burden of the less fortunate, and that the very first organizations set up when our immigrant forefathers came to America were the benevolent societies. The liberal religious community gave this away to the right wing conservative Bible thumpers who would see the safety nets pulled out from under the poor when the very G od they claim to represent has demanded otherwise. Biblical theology imposed an economic system that attempted to give a good life to everyone. A major thrust of the Torah is the social welfare of the people, and we are in a sacred relationship with God to see that this is done to our best ability. We are to do this because G od told us to do this.
I cannot help but wonder how Jews who support the Conservative Republican Economic Platform resolve this platform with their belief that the Torah is G od’s word?
June 2, 2012
Mendy Log:
Parahah: Naso
Mendy spoke about the priestly benediction uttered by Aaron as dictated from G od: “May the Lord bless you and protect you. May the Lord countenance you and be gracious to you. May the Lord favor you and grant you peace.” The angels, we are told in a commentary berate G od for his favoritism, pointing out to G od that all are created in His image and that these people should not be considered more than any other. G od’s response is that the Hebrews go beyond most other people in their gratitude and response to the blessings bestowed on them, and are therefore worthy of special praise. G od as well as Mendy pointed out that Jews give thanks and go beyond Torah expectations, and he cited several Jewish behaviors that are not required in the Torah but are acted upon anyway. For example, there is no requirement for not mixing dairy and chicken, but people who choose to keep Kosher, do not mix. I don’t mix either, but I do miss my chicken parmigiana. I became mostly observant regarding keeping kosher in my 40's. There were several other examples of going beyond expectations, but I don’t recall what they were.
The core of the drush seemed to ultimately bring the congregation to the concept of gratitude and of going beyond just the minimum. It has been my experience that you don’t meet too many ungrateful people who are happy, so one might conclude that being grateful for what you have enables one to better recognize those thing around you that generates happy feelings. Through its system of blessing just about everything, Judaism inculcates gratitude and the feelings that come with appreciation. Somewhere in the Ethics of the Fathers is a statement that says: “Who is happy? He who rejoices in his own portions.” I think that’s what it says, and if it doesn’t, it should. But I would suggest that it continues to insist that he who rejoices in another’s portion is also a happier person. I believe this because it while it is good to be grateful for what you have, it’s nice to be happy for the good fortune of others. I also believe that the ability to rejoice in another’s portion cuts down on covetousness. To covet someone’s belongings might lead to behaviors that cause serious damage. That’s probably the reason why it’s the last of the Ten Commandments. It’s a summary commandment.
Now rejoicing in your portion does not mean that you don’t or can’t better your portion. That attitude can make civilization come to a screeching halt. Desiring something more is a great incentive to creativity and personal growth. It’s how we advance. The point is that even though you may be desirous of better things and a better life, you should still be grateful for what you have because there are always people who are less fortunate. Remember: “I wept because I had no shoes, and then I met a man who had no feet.” You can always get a pair of shoes. Can’t get feet. At the very core of Tikkun Olam is improving “portion.”
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard was considering Numbers 5:1 which deals with the “Sota” or ordeal. This section deals with a jealous husband who has proof or just suspects his wife’s infidelity. The stress was on the importance of the sanctity of marriage. In response to such behavior, a Medieval rabbi said, “No one sins unless overcome by prohibited.” Normally, we don’t intend to sin.
The ritual involved the aggrieved husband bringing his wife before the priest. The priest prepared a drink made from sweeping of the tabernacle floor, holy water, barley, and the writing of G od’s name etc. during the ritual, the document with the name of G od on it is destroyed. The wife was told that if she drank this mixture and she was in fact unfaithful, her stomach became distended and her “thigh sagged” which was a euphemism for her uterus falling out. If she passed, she would be blessed with children.
The construct of this ritual is definitely patriarchal where a woman was considered her husband’s property. The Talmud tells us that the ritual worked only when people believed in its potency. On another level, we are dealing here with male jealousy of the woman and the humiliation of women as a means of control. We continue to see this being done among many cultures all over the world. Happily, we stopped believing in this form of abuse very early on in our development as a people.
One interesting issue raised focused on the idea that writing the name of G od on a paper and then destroying it with water should have been prohibited, but in this instance it was considered necessary in order to save the marriage. Marriage takes precedence over all else because it represents sacredness. The midrash written on this comes a thousand years later than Numbers. It tells us that Peace is considered one of G od’s names. The ethic here seems to situational. In other places G od’s name must not be destroyed but here in this instance it might. So one is lead to believe that Jewish ethics are not fixed. This idea comes from a concept called Contectual Ethical Theory where one looks to the context of the situation. Such a theory recognizes the many shades of grey. When considering a case for judgement, one cannot always say, “This is the law.” One must apply halachic Judaism to each situation under consideration, and one must shape the response to the law so people can live life. The object of the interpretation of law is to keep community going.
June 9, 2012
Mendy Log:
Parshah Behaalotecha
I came in and Mendy had already begun his drush on the section of Numbers under consideration, and this is what I think Mendy said.
From what I could piece together, the laws of the Sabbath, the prohibitions incumbent on all but primarily adhered to by the Orthodox and serious Conservative Jews, seem to be based on the laws proscribed for putting up the Mishcan or the Tabernacle. It would seem that if something was done to put up the Tabernacle, it could not be done on the Sabbath. So carrying, building, creating etc. on the Sabbath became prohibited.
What I like about my people is that over the centuries, the rabbis reconsidered the prohibitions, and while the Torah could not be changed, the fence around the law could be moved so as to accommodate life in different eras. So happily we no longer have to sit in our tents and not move but within a defined space outside our homes, we can carry. Those of us who are not Orthodox but who have accepted the Orthodox service as our voice, drive to services because it is recognized that if suburban people are to be able to get to shul on the Sabbath, they must drive. You can’t feel like part of a community sitting alone in your tent. Would that the rabbis would condone writing on the Sabbath. Then I could take complete notes because I just cannot remember all that is said.
A description and comments on the seven branched candelabra followed. This seven branched menorah was created from molten gold cast as so it would be one piece. There were no seams in it. What followed was a teaching that the Jewish people were also conceived of as being made from one seamless element so at our core, we are all one.
It is possible that the concept of “Kal Yisroel,” one people, comes from this teaching.
At one point, Mendy raised the issue of what it means to be a “success.” I have no recollection as to how he got on this topic, but he wasn’t talking about success in the usual terms of what we display to the rest of the world to mark our status. He was defining a successful person as someone who relishes the moment, who lives in the moment he or she is in without worrying about the future or feeling guilty about something in the past. To live in the moment is to fully experience, without distractions, the people and the event in which you find yourself. Of course he said that the future must be considered, but there can be specific moments set aside for that purpose.
The idea is not to be thinking about business or other obligations when you are playing with your grand children or having dinner with your spouse.
As a teacher, I early on learned the importance of being in the here and now. Students walk into your classroom in the “there and then” and “in the once before.” Your task is to get them into the “here and now” because that is where you need them to be. That is where you are and where you subject matter is. For me, I begin my classes with the highlight of the week, which focuses them all on one particular positive topic that they share with the class. Then we proceed because they are now all focused on one another and on me. Years ago I also learned that the here and now is injured by worry and by guilt. Worry is about a future over which you might have absolutely no control, and guilt is a feeling about something you did in the past that cannot be undone. Both destroy the here and now and rob the person of the moment. So to minimize worrying about the future, you must first recognize that you have no control over it, and then you do whatever needs to be done to shape that future so it works out for you. Worrying about a test will not change your grade, but studying for it will. Regretting past actions will not change the guilt you feel, but vowing never to repeat the action that caused the guilt will enable you to move on and possibly forgive yourself.
Over at M’kor Shalom, Rabbi Richard was also considering Numbers 9, made mention of the cloud that rested on the Tabernacle. When the cloud moved, the people moved. The cloud was G od’s presence. But his focus was not on the rules of the Sabbath, but on the rules of the Passover sacrifice. It seems that people who had been defiled by a death couldn’t offer the sacrifice and complained to Moses about the matter. Moses took the matter to G od, and G od responded by telling him that if people are unable to attend the Seder because they are defiled or traveling far away, they can have their Seder the following month provided that everything be done according to the law. But if a person decides not to have this Seder, he has cut himself off from his people. To be cut off from the community is a serious business because we are a whole. But to be cut off is also a spiritual thing because you are cut off from yourself. We are in exile from our own true selves which is the Exodus motif made very personal.
By this response, we learned that Jewish tradition looks at traditions very humanely. If you can’t do it on schedule, Jewish law allows you to do it at a later date. We are part of a tradition where there are shades of grey. If you cannot do Shabbat on Saturday, you can do it on Tuesday. We created the concept of time, and time is malleable. In Jewish tradition, the spirit of the law takes precedents over the literal interpretation. Jewish law if flexible. Orthodoxy is flexible.
What is more crucial-the literal affirmation of the law or the spiritual intent of the law?
This does not mean that Judaism is a religion of convenience. It means that when there are circumstances that preclude observances according to law, the law can become flexible or contextual. As long as you observe, it doesn’t have to be on that specific day or at that specific moment. People do want a sense of connection but can’t do it because of conditions. We continue as a people because we have the ability to adapt. The Code of Jewish Law, compiled by Joseph Caro in the 6th Century, was written for the Mediterranean community, and things were added when the northern and eastern European Jews became involved. The community has a say in what the law is and how it is to be interpreted. The community has power. Remember from the marriage contract: “According to the laws of Moses and the People, Israel.”
The challenge for non-Orthodox Judaism is who wrote the Torah? If G od wrote it, than that Power become the authority of right and wrong behind what you do. If the Torah was written by our ancestors, than the authority for right and wrong becomes the rule of the people The real challenge of liberal Judaism is that those who believe the Torah was written by men, have no one to blame but themselves. It is the community that decides. The community becomes the final arbiter of what takes place. That’s the tension.
For me, there must be an authority higher than man behind moral law. I have seen and continue to see the evil humanity has imposed as we move from people to people and country to country over time. Somewhere there must be a standard by which to judge right and wrong or good and evil. If there is none, morality floats and changes from person to person, group to group, people to people and nation to nation. If we don’t believe that G od wrote these laws so humanity might live in safe communities and create stable societies, than we must accept the idea that there is no set standard for behavior other than what humans decide and that standard will change from place to place.
I believe that there was a man named Moses who was a brilliant teacher and moralist. I believe that this man and others such as Abraham, looked at the world and saw the balances, patterns, and harmonies in nature and conceived of a society that could reflect what they saw. They believed, as do I, that there was a creative Power in the universe who set all according to a plan and process to work that plan. And so they behaved, wrote, and taught the core values that would reflect the life they envisioned and made these core values so accessible that they could be acted upon. Everything that is human is in the Torah. That’s why it’s a great book and for me, the authority behind moral law.
The rabbi said that finding G od is in meeting people, and that the connection is made in the synagogue through the people and the programs. While some of us might not find G od in the synagogue, we reflect G od in doing the commanded mitzvot. Synagogues are non-profit organizations, and the product of such an organization is a changed human being. There is no profit and loss regarding human being saved. The bottom line in the synagogue world cannot be measured even if society at large is interested in the bottom line. We don’t know what will happen because we don’t see the impact.
As a teacher, I have made it my business to stay in touch with former students. I wanted to see the impact of what I taught them. All of them are descent human beings and still in touch with their Judaism at different levels as is expected.
June 23, 2012
Mendy Log: Parshah Korach
Tammuz 3
This week, Chabad will be commemorating the passing of The Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, whose vision for keeping the Jewish people a connected and vibrant community continues to be revealed. Mendy, as I recall, told of a story about Chaim Potok, the author of novels such as The Chosen and My Name is Asher Lev, prophesied that the Lubovitch Movement would end with the Rebbe’s passing, but Potok missed the point of what Chabad Lubovitch is all about. The Rebbe knew that in each generation, people would be needed to lead and inspire, and it was he who created the system of sending out young married couples around the world to be a beacon to “wandering Jews.” His rule was that all were to be accepted no matter where they were in their belief systems, and all were to be introduced or reintroduced to “yiddishkeit” or the Jewish way of life. Because of his inspiration, Chabad Lubovitch has grown since his death without a Rebbe to direct the movement. His word and life carries on through men and women like Mendy and Dinie.
I think Mendy also referred to a leaderless community because the Torah portion dealt with the story of Korah, Moses’ first cousin. Korah was an exceptionally wealthy man according to legend, and very much honored. He had everything, but everything was not enough just like Adam and Eve had everything and it was not enough. Korah, in actuality, wanted to be Moses but challenged Moses’ leadership by saying that everyone was holy and that Moses was therefore no holier than anyone else and therefore not deserving of leadership. You might say that Korah is the first true Libertarian who believes that there is no need for a central government. But Moses knows that such a system can only lead to further anarchy and the people must have a leader.
Korah also challenged Moses on certain laws of the Torah as illogical such as the blue string on a for cornered garment, or the law of not mixing certain materials. To challenge the veracity of the Torah is indeed dangerous to this fledgling belief system. Mendy said that Korah missed the point by not seeing the importance of inspirational leadership and the true meaning of what holiness really is. Holiness, according to Mendy, reveals itself through actions, not through prayer or rituals. Holy people may not be in Williamsburg, or Crown Heights, or in Lakewood. According to Mendy, holy people are in Mumbai, Kiev, or Catmandu bringing yiddishkeit to the Jewish people who live there.
Furthermore, Mendy said that the reason people sided with Korah was that they actually did not want to go into the Promised Land, because having that land meant they were to become responsible for themselves. Prior to this, according to the story, they were fed with manna and drank from a well that followed them in their travels. They liked the hours of study and their leisure. They didn’t have to fight to hold onto what they were given, plant, reap, build etc. They were not deserving of the Promised Land.
As always, there were many other points made, but Mendy speaks rapidly, giving example after example to support his premise and I have an increasingly limited capacity for recalling all that is said.
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard also introduced Numbers 16:1-17:15, the Korah rebellion. He pointed out that this was the third time G od threatened to destroy the people and start all over again. The first time was the Golden Calf incident, the second was the spies, and Korah rebellion was the third. Again, Moses pleads for the people, and once again, G od changes His mind.
I find it interesting that G od’s immediate response is to destroy, but Moses’ cooler head seems to prevail. And though G od seems to reluctantly negotiate and backs off, He is still pretty vindictive when he sees people disrespecting His will or suggestions. Early on in the development of our religion, the leadership must have believed that in order to keep the people in line, a very powerful and revengeful G od was needed. Happily, as our people evolved, so did our G od.
Korah was a priest, and along with three others, rebelled in an attempt to wrest control from Moses and the authority of G od. It would seem that each and everyone of the men who rebelled had his own personal agenda and was interested only in himself. They were not real leaders because they did not have the welfare of the People in mind. Consider the political ads that we see today, and look at who is supporting what legislation in the Congress.
Everyone seems out to feather his or her nest, stay in his or her position, and not really care about the needs of their constituents. Korah and his cronies, and the politicos today are of the same stripe. Nothing new under the sun, and that is the genius of the Torah. “What goes around come around, and the Torah was the first to record these true life patterns and warn us about what happens when it all gets out of control. It therefore becomes imperative that we analyze the true motivations under the overt cause. Is good at the core, or only self-interest?
Rabbi made reference to a Rabbi Elliot Dorf as regarding Korah and relationships. The good rabbi raised the issue of the challenge of being in a relationship with other human beings as well as a relationship with G od. G od is also in a relationship with us, and G od asks, “Do I stay in this relationship or not?” G od, again, wants out of the relationship, and again, Moses, as the defense attorney, appeals to G ods reason (or ego) by saying “How will it look?” Moses also deceptively creates a ritual that will decide the fates of the rebellious men without them suspecting him. Rituals are potent and powerful in relationships, and can be use to move through stages in a person’s life. They are both public and private, and used to facilitate rites of passages or moments of crisis. Other than abuse or addictions that destroy, the higher value of a ritual might in certain instances to help those in a relationship work through difficult moments. Relationships have rituals of their own. Subtle shifts of parent/child reversals where at one point the child becomes the parent.
This could be a sacred moment that could become ritualized to ease the crisis.
It takes courage to stay in a relationship and slough through it. Often a tough decision will inform us of the person we are and the person we might become.
We and G od have stayed in this relationship and we continue to evolve into who and what we shall be. G od said to Moses: “I am what I will be.” G od understands that nothing is static.
Sometimes Moses is a rabbi, and sometimes Moses is the defense attorney. But always he has an image to maintain, and Korah is challenging his “street cred.”
According to Rabbi Green of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, Korah is getting a bad rap. As the rabbi puts it, Korah is saying to Moses: “If we’re operating as a community, why are you (Moses) getting to make all the decisions? Why are you so autocratic? You are not taking into consideration other men of repute. Bad things have happened on your watch.”
Moses reacts to this threat by saying: “I hear you and I’m interested in hearing your side of the story and perhaps we’ll reach some understanding.” But Moses is stalling for time because he will now go to G od and set up the test that will involve the fire pans.
The rabbinic commentary is that Moses, throughout his tenure as leader is the most humble of people because he doesn’t go around telling people how important he is. But is he really all that humble. What comes through is a frustrated man because the people, who have seen miracle after miracle, still don’t get it. They refuse to buy into the system. “Ok,” he seems to say to them. “You want to do this, we’ll have a test and you’ll lose.” Of course, one might say that the people are also frustrated, and people in moments of such frustration, often make the wrong decision.
So Moses, the child, runs to G od, the parent to solve his problem. G od is his security and will handle the problem.
Reform Jews can identify with Korah’s position. His position is the liberal Jewish position to authority. Non-Orhodox raise issues and ask, “Why should we listen to you?” “Why are you doing this?” Rabbi Kushner points out that there are all different ways of asking “why?” Why can be a criticism or why can be curiosity. Korah’s sin is in the way he approached the “why?” In relationships, there are all different ways of saying “no” and “yes.”
In the Ethics of the Fathers we are told that there are arguments for the sake of heaven and arguments that are not. Which arguments are ennobling and which are not? Korah is also asking if virtue exist in all people, or does G od have his favorites? If all of us are priest and a holy people, why is one person’s relationship with G od better than another’s. Korah raises valid issues but in the wrong way. Korah was not motivated “for the sake of heaven.”
Also in The Ethics of the Fathers, we are warned not to make any decisions in the heat of anger because we will make the wrong decision. We are told to step back and wait. When a person becomes involved in disputes, he or she is sometimes blinded and sometimes makes ridiculous accusations. Korah, is so personally involved in this situation, he has lost his objectivity. We also tend to lose our objectivity when so involved. That is why a judge will recuse him or her self. Sometimes an outside disinterested party is needed to help. Korah’s is an egomaniacal man who has lost his objectivity.
So ultimately, the Mouth of the Earth which was called into being at the dawn of creation for this sole purpose, opens and swallows up the families of those who rebelled. But we are told that Korah’s sons repent on the way down, and they are saved. It’s an important save because the Prophet Samuel, is descended from Korah so somebody has to survive. Those priests who believed that the fire pan ritual Moses created especially so G od could choose between them and Aaron, are also destroyed for daring to question.
The ultimate message is the same as the one in Job. “G od is in total control, and does what He wants to do. You cannot understand so don’t try.”
June 30, 2012
Mendy Log: Parsha Chukat
Tammuz 10
Mendy came up to the bimah and informed us that he would not be speaking about the parsha, but would be responding to a question asked of him this morning by a congregant. The question was, “How’s the G od business? The following is what I think Mendy said as a response.
First of all, it was a very long and passionate response delivered with great intensity and at great speed so much that was said is not recalled. As part of the response, and I don’t fully recall how it connected with the answer, Mendy spoke of expressing individuality and that he, and others like him, despite their similar appearances, were very free to express themselves through action if not appearance. I think he seemed to imply that this was possible by having accepted the role, the ritual, and the theology of a Chabadnick. By doing this, he says he knows who he is at his core, accepts his limitations as well as his strengths. Within him and within us there are voices that tell us to “Do want you want to do,” and “This is what G od wants you to do.” These two are constantly in conflict, and Mendy says he is strong enough to choose what G od wants him to do. He implied that once you decide to do what G od wants you to do, you are liberated.
While not mentioning he good inclination and the bad inclination, the inclination to righteous behavior and the inclination to ego and self gratification, I do think that is what he was talking about. Was Mendy implying that by doing what G od tells us to do, we are indeed expressing out individuality because we have a basic need to behave righteously and this expresses who we really are? Somewhere in this message was the exact connection to being an individual, but I don’t recall it.
He also related an amusing story of students who said they could never dress like he dresses because they had to express their individuality through their clothing, so Mendy asked these two young men to stand on the desk. They were both dressed exactly alike with the exact same style slacks, shirts, and sneakers. So is aping designer clothing to be in style really an expression of your individuality or just your need to fit in and be like everyone else which is the exact opposite of being an individual.
Listening to the part of us that hears what G od wants us to do resonated with me. I am very much aware of the conflicts between my yetzer tov and my yetzer harah and I can honestly say that if I did not accept G od as being the arbiter of good and evil and the Torah law that reveals how a safe society can be instituted and flourish, I would not be the person I am today. While I do not pay much heed to most of the ritualistic demands of my faith, I do pay a great deal of attention to the moral commands of my faith and how I am to respond to other people. I actually believe that G od must be the authority behind my decisions because otherwise, I am the authority and that would not be a good thing for me or the people around me. I don’t do what I could do because G od forbids it. I try to do what is good because G od encourages it. It isn’t always easy, especially because my concept of G od and Mendy’s concept of G od are very different concepts. I’ll give you a quick example. At lunch after services, I was speaking to a man who said that G od was implicated (my word) in the Holocaust. My immediate response was, “G od had nothing to do with the Holocaust.” I could not even consider believing in let alone worshiping a G od who was “implicated”in the Holocaust, while some of the congregants who believe in the Torah/Rabbinic concept of G od can and do.
The other major question Mendy raised was primarily directed at the congregant who raised the “G od business” question in the first place, but it was also a challenge to the rest of us. Mendy asked, “Why do people come to Chabad? He might have added “even if they doubt or have strong reservations about their faith or about G od?” but didn’t. After opening this to the congregation and hearing a variety of responses, Mendy simply stated that we come because we are “Yids,” Jews and there is something within us that needs to connect. He asked if there was anyone in the congregation who had never felt a moment when the felt that G od was present.
While Mendy does not use words like transcendent, or transcendental, he was speaking of such moments. He basically said that if you felt it once, and he used life cycle events where a person might experience such moments, you long to feel this connection to G od again. Coming to shul on the Sabbath and being part of a faith community is one way of reconnecting with the spiritual dimension that is too often lacking in our daily lives.
I can see the merit in this, but unlike most of my co-congregationalists, I do not find the words of the prayer book particularly helpful in making a spiritual connection with G od, though I do believe that there are at least two factors that prompt me to attend Chabad. They are both very important to my spiritual growth. One is the opportunity to study, learn and increase my knowledge base of Judaism. I have always known that I and G od interface in a classroom and in a garden, not in a prayer book or in a synagogue. That was made clearer this week when I came to Chabad for the preliminary morning service and I was thoroughly bored by the repetition of the psalms of praise. Just how much does one have to praise before one gets the idea of knowing before whom you stand? I do not find prayers of praise and prayers of supplication, meaningful to my spiritual growth. What I do find meaningful is listening to Mendy talk about the Torah and how it relates to our lives and how I might become a better human being by considering what it is asking of me. I do find reading the Torah, Halftorah, and the commentaries that accompany each both intellectually stimulating, and thought provoking. If study is a form of prayer in Judaism, I am praying when I’m listening to Mendy and when I learn from the readings.
Beyond the intellectual connections I make that enable me to experience G od in my unique way, I find a spiritual connection that is inspired by the people around me. I believe that G od reveals Himself though meaningful relationships and our conscious awareness of such interactions as they are taking place. So I feel G od’s presence in the friends I have made at Chabad. Here I connect with my wider family of Kal Yisroel, the Jewish People. Here I see generations of families standing next to one another that assures me that what is will continue after I am gone. It is a sense of permanence that I do not feel elsewhere. Here there is a sound of prayer in a language that speaks to and is understood by my soul though the language itself is not understood. Here there is a connection that is made and remade weekly among a group of mostly like minded people who come together for the purpose of connecting with one another and with the transcendent. I have come to attend Chabad and the Torah study at M’kor because that what I feel I must do on the Sabbath. It works for me.
So in summry, I do believe in a Supreme Creative Power in the universe I refer to as Ayn Sof, I do attend Sabbath services weekly, I do participate the wider Jewish Community through the Midrashah and the JCRC, I do belong to three men’s clubs that service the community, I do contribute regularly to charities both secular and religious, and I do belong to and attend two synagogues. But rote prayer does nothing for me, and the minutia of the laws are of little interest.
Now all the above are choices were freely made. Mendy said that he has to be in synagogue but we don’t. He told us that that makes us part of a select community who will be first on line when the Messiah comes because of those choices. I liked that idea, but I’d step aside for Mendy.
Mendy also spoke of creating a full service synagogue which means he wants to have a morning, afternoon/evening minyon each day. Ten men are needed for the kaddish to be said, and Mendy is passionate to implement these services. I’m thinking about putting myself on an alternative list because someone might need a tenth man in order to pray. Other than supporting a fellow congregant in need of another warm body present, I do not find the minyon services personally meaningful.
Respectfully,
Lenny
July 24, 2012
Mendy Log: Parshat Pinchas
Tamuz 23, 5772
My encounter with a kidney stone last week kept me from attending Shabbat services where the story of Pinchas was begun and finished today. Pinchas was the grandson of Aaron the High Priest and was one of the priestly leaders who directly experienced his people destroying themselves by whoring after the daughters of Moab and by worshiping Baal of Peor. My ancestors just never seem to learn. While Moses and the elders cried bitter tears, G od took things into His own hands as He often does when there is dissension in the ranks, and a lot of the apostates were hung out to dry, and I don’t mean that figuratively. When one of the leaders of the Simeonite tribe brought a Midianite woman and committed harlotry within the sight of Moses and the congregation in front of the Tent of Meeting, it was Pinchas who took a spear and dispatched the two of them.
Pinchas was described as “being jealous for his G od,” and shortly after, this act of leadership seemed to please G od. The plague stopped. That brings you up to today’s parsha which continues the Pinchas saga. G od is pleased with Pinchas and tells Moses that for Pinchas’s act, there will be a covenant of peace and everlasting priest hood for “being jealous for his G od.”
Mendy didn’t speak of the phrase “being jealous for his G od” and it occurred to me that we have often be taught that the word “jealous” means “full of awe” or “awesome.” But it seems to me that here the word may mean exactly what it means today, and that G od will not abide the intrusion of any other god on His turf. Those who were involved with Baal, died. In the Ten Commandments, it does say that “You shall not have any other gods before Me.” This does indicate that G od recognizes there are other gods worshiped, but makes it crystal clear that if you are going to have Him as your G od, you had better not have any others that you think more important than He is. There is a term given to this period of time when the One True G od was emerging from among other gods and this commandment reflects this time, but I forgot the term. If anyone knows it, please let me know what it is.
This is what I remember from what I think Mendy said:
Mendy did talk about Pinchas because he saw this man as a great leader, a man who acted when others were weeping and wringing their seemingly impotent hands. Pinchas acts and does what needs to be done. Mendy focused on different responses when people are called upon to be leaders. Mendy quipped that he is suspect of a person who will agree to do a task without knowing what that task is just because he tells them he has a task for them.
I can’t help but wonder if Mendy is just suspect or is really uncomfortable with immediate acquiescence since in his line of work he usually has to cajole and overcome barriers. Perhaps Mendy doesn’t find it a challenge if it’s too easy, and he feels better when he has to use his considerable skills of persuasion. Perhaps it is the successful confrontation that gives him the psychological boost that keeps him plodding on. For Mendy, winning may be on more than one level. More often than not, there is a playful glint in his eye, and I suspect the Creative, Spunky, and Cute Little Child in Mendy is happiest when he has broken through the barrier, scaled the walls of negativity, and brought someone onto the battlements to wage war against their comfort zones.
Mendy said that there are generally two responses to his request of an individual that they assume a leadership role. Initially, most people will say “no” after hearing what he wants them to do, though they are willing to tell him exactly who will do a wonderful job. I think the second response was that they say, “I am not comfortable in that role.” But when challenged with what role of leadership they might be willing to try on, or why they haven’t assumed some role till now, they cannot respond with specifics.
Taking on leadership roles demands a certain kind of personality. People with altruistic reasons who feel they have something to offer an organization are one type, while people with large egos who need to be in the lime light and receiving praise from others for the sake of boosting their egos might be another. Both may do wonderful jobs, and the results are what ultimately count regardless of the personal motivations. But most people want to be left alone and be in a supportive role, participating behind the scenes. Shy of the spotlight? Just too tired? Not liking to negotiate or be told that they’re wrong? Not assertive? Uncomfortable in front of people? Dozens of reasons for not taking the lead.
Personally, I believe that a teacher is the leader of the classroom who must control large disparate groups while delivering a quality product that will be evaluated. I’ve done that for most of my adult life. When I had my career, I assumed the leadership by initiating and coordinating state wide conferences, state wide and local in service programs, and when invited, I accepted the role of chairperson or president of several organizations. In just about every instance, things ran smoothly and without stress or rancor among those involved. Actually, the only moments of leadership where I have been profoundly disappointed was when I had to deal with adults in a synagogue. And those experiences have turned me off from assuming leadership roles and the distasteful memories keep me from assuming leadership roles. Now, I’m just too old and too tired to get involved in the politics or the egos of synagogue life. I remain a devoted follower, and organizations need followers.
Mendy also made mention of a specific type of leader that Moses describes, a leader who will “go out before them, and who may come in before them, and who may lead them out and who may bring them in.” He asked the congregation what qualities this leader possessed so that he could go out and come in, and while all responses were thoughtful, none guessed what Mendy had in mind.
I keep forgetting that I must not play “guess what Mendy is thinking about” but I usually get caught up in the game.
For me, the quality was the ability to set the example by leading the people out to battle, and after battle, follow them in so they are all safely back at camp. Moses uses the image of a shepherd guiding and protecting the sheep, and whose focus is on the welfare of the flock.
But Mendy’s idea revolved around the leadership role of the man after the battle when the braggadocio ends, the heroic glow fades, and the daily activities of mowing the lawn, doing the laundry and helping with the homework, kick in. The true leader can easily straddle both the battlefield of the daily grind with its stress, its mind numbing routines, and its soul destroying minutia with the quite and simple joys of daily living despite the stress and its own mind numbing routines. The person who can stand astride both worlds is a true leader his family.
As Mendy spoke, I could not help but recall an admonition in The Ethics of the Father’s: “In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man.” Leadership comes from within, and when someone sees that something needs to be done for the good of the family or for the good of the group, he or she will step forward and do it. For the reluctant leader, there is an element of selflessness. To step forward and do it because it must be done, is the act of more than just a leader. That’s being a man or a woman in the best sense of the word. This is the area of the mensch or the menschette.
Being a leader is a frightening thing for some because of the enormous responsibility that rests on you and the repercussions for not being successful. For as there are as many people who will raise you up for a job well done, there are just as many who will complain that it could have been done better. Fail, and you carry the shame as well as the calumny of those who are happiest when they can say, “I told you so.” Leadership is not for the faint of heart or the thin skinned.
Respectfully,
Lenny
July 21, 2012
Mendy log: Parsha Matot-Massei
Av 2, 5772
Today we finish the book of Numbers which tells the original story of the Jewish people and their encounter and relationship with G od. It is Shabbat Chazak because at the end of the parsha, we urge each other to be strong and to strengthen one another. Next week we begin the book of Deuteronomy, which Moses’ summary of our people’s history.
Prior to speaking, Mendy introduced a guest from Israel whose name I do not recall. He was an articulate speaker, sprinkling his talk with Hebrew phrases and quotes from the Bible because this portion spoke to entering the Promised Land and settling on both sides of the Jordan. His life’s work was to stop terrorism before it could happen, and much of his talk was unintelligible to me because I do not understand or speak modern or Biblical Hebrew. But I believe his core message was not to fear traveling to Judea or Sumeria because the cities and towns there in which Jews have made their homes were areas given by G od to the Israelites and should be visited by other Jews to show their support for the people who live there and to make the land our own by visiting it. His message reminded me of the poem, The Gift Outright delivered by Robert Frost at JFK’s inauguration. I think it’s the same message only one must substitute the American name places, people, and events with those of the Hebrews.
The Gift Outright
By Robert Frost
The land was ours before we were the land's.
She was our land more than a hundred years
Before we were her people. She was ours
In Massachusetts, in Virginia,
But we were England's, still colonials,
Possessing what we still were unpossessed
by.
Possessed by what we now no more possessed.
Something we were withholding made us weak
Until we found out that it was ourselves
We were withholding from our land of living,not possess us.
And forthwith found salvation in surrender.
Such as we were we gave ourselves outright
(The deed of gift was many deeds of war)
Of the land vaguely realizing westward,
But still unstoried, artless, unenhanced
Such as she was, such as she would become.
Reinterpretation
G od had decided that this parcel of land would belong to the
Jewish people from the time of creation. Israel was ours
in Jerusalem in Hebron, in Shilo.
But our minds were still enslaved in Egypt and
though we possessed, Israel, Israel did not possess us.
Though no longer enslaved, we were still enslaved by Egypt.
We lacked faith and courage until after forty years of wandering and learning to trust
G od and have faith, we learned that we had been withholding ourselves from the promised land.
And once we finally and truly believed that G od was with us and would make us victorious,
We gave ourselves whole heartedly to the venture, pushing westward towards the Mediterranean.
Over the centuries we would then put our distinctive mark on this land,
and make it our own through the laws and the values of the Torah.
Israel has given its morality to Western Civilization.
(We could become so much more and we can give so much more if the nations would let us.)
The following is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy’s focus was on the importance of the individual verses the importance of the group, but this wasn’t all that clear until he told the story of his renting a large pump to empty the mikvah. He had asked the man behind the counter if this store was his franchise, and his answer was that he was only a peon, a Spanish word which is synonymous with drudge or peasant laborer. Mendy was surprised with the man’s self deprecation and informed him that no individual was unimportant. When Mendy left, the man followed him out to thank him for saying that to him. It seemed that no one had ever told this man that he had worth just because he existed.
I may be mistaken, but Mendy told this story in relation to a story that ends the Book of Numbers, and the story is something of the continuation of the story about Zelophehad’s daughters who requested and were granted their father’s portion of land even though they were woman.
This is a remarkable ruling, since it lays the foundation for women inheriting property. Till this time, what should have gone to the woman rightfully was given to the next male heir. G od decreed that women should inherit their fair share. How advanced the Torah was for its day.
But I digress. At the end of the book, the heads of the Tribe of Joseph to which Zelophehad’s daughters belonged, came to Moses for another ruling. They said that if any of the daughter’s married out of the tribe, that portion of land would then go to the husband’s tribe and diminish their own holdings. Moses again consults with G od and decrees that the daughters may choose any man they like, but that man must belong to the Tribe of Joseph so the land stays in the tribe in perpetuity. So the question Mendy asked was, “Why do you think the Torah ends with this particular event which seems so minor compared with so many others?” There were several reasons given, and Mendy even gave one of them an “excellent” even though that’s not what he was thinking
Now I wasn’t even close with my thoughts, (not response), on intermarriage and not marrying out of the tribe so as to retain what is spiritually yours, but Mendy did have an answer and I’m not recalling what it was though it had something to do with the man in the hardware store.
His focus and message had to do with the value of each individual as a member of the whole. And while I can’t recall the exact connection, the final message was clear.
We are each part of the whole. The structure of a system exists, but individuals create the spirit of the system by participating in it. Chabad is a system that Mendy and Denie brought to Cherry Hill, and it gives back to the individuals who are part of it in the form of emotional, spiritual, and in some cases, financial support. It gives back socially through activities that invite participation with community and friends. It provides support in times of pain and in times of joy. It offers a place to commune with the transcendent and to enter into a relationship with the mystical. Ours is a symbiotic relationship.
What the individual offers or creates as part of the system, may increases themselves, but it also increases the group and if the contribution is really good, the world. Mendy commented on the importance of our individual connections to the synagogue though such contributions to the whole either by standing as the tenth man in a minyon, as a contributor, in supportive and caring roll, or through their wisdom, skill, or physical prowess. All have something to offer. Of course, some are more comfortable in certain situations than in others, but each small contribution keeps the system functioning for Chabad’s success. Each individual is of enormous value and can contribute.
I was reminded to the last line of John Milton’s On His Blindness where he writes, “They also serve who only stand and wait.”
July 28, 2012
Av 9, 5772
Mendy Log: Parshah Devarim
Shabbat Chazon
Today is Tish A’bov, a day that commemorates the destruction of both Temples as well as some other nasty events such as the expulsion from Spain in 1492. It is a day or remembrance and fasting, but because it falls on the Sabbath, we are not permitted to give up the joy of the Sabbath day, so we will commemorate the day on Sunday, the tenth of the Hebrew month of Av. Because this day falls during the summer, most non Orthodox Jews are unaware that it’s even happening and pay little attention to it if any if they are aware. It’s not easy to connect with events that happened in the 6th century BCE and the 1st century CE although we certainly connect with events such as Passover which happened 3500 years ago. I can honestly say that I have always been vaguely aware of this day on the Hebrew calendar having been born on or around this day 72 years ago, but I haven’t done much about it mostly because I just forget. But this year, I actually abstained from wine, beef, and chicken for the week prior to the day as is the custom, read the Book of Lamentations, and fasted. Mendy calls these behaviors an effort towards Yiddishkeit which I guess can be translated as an effort to connect with my people in a singularly Jewish way.
So Mendy began the drush by pointing out the paradox of having to be joyful on the Sabbath day when this same day is that black day in history when many terrible events befell our people. He acknowledged the difficulty for that individual who feels both the loss in the past and the joy of the moment. But Mendy, always having a positive bent, asked us not to get lost in the lamentation of the day, but to ask a simple question: Since both Temples were lost, how do we get back the third one that is promised? Here he took two paths. The first was the explanation as to why we lost the Temples in the first place. Reasons give were that the people came to be uncivil to one another which morphed into a mindless hatred. Another reason was that our ancestors became idol worshipers and that those who did profess to be devout, really did things by rote without any spirit behind their actions. One rabbi gave an interpretation that we lost the Temples because there was no compassion or taking into account extenuating circumstances in the law courts. Everything was done to the letter of the law and where there could have been merciful interpretations, there was none. The people, by abandoning compassion, mercy, and civility, had also abandoned G od. They did not deserve His protection and He hid His Face.
To illustrate these points, Mendy told three stories. One had to do with G od creating the universe in consultation with Peace and Truth, another about a King and his son’s new clothing, and the third about a banquet. The first story speaks to the letter of the law interpretations, and he told us of G od, at the beginning of creation consulting with Truth and Peace to determine which of the two would prevail. Each presents his case to G od, and G od chooses peace because Truth is uncompromising and when absolute, can be destructive to relationships. He said that no marriage would last with absolute truth between the couple. To illustrate this idea, we were told a story of a man named Comsa who made a banquet. By mistake, his arch enemy was invited, and when this other man arrived, he was asked to leave. The guest pleaded that he not be embarrassed, but Comsa insisted that he leave despite the man’s offering to pay for the entire party. Comsa was dealing in absolute truths in his disdain for this guest, and did not recall the Ethics of the Father’s which teachers that everyman’s honor should be as dear to you as your own. Comsa would listen to no one and shamed the man in front of the guests by insisting he leave. In his shame and rage, the man went to the Roman authorities and contributed to bringing down the nation. Therefore, Peace was chosen, because if peace is to be achieved, one must be flexible even where truth is concerned. When our ancestors chose absolute interpretations of the law without any attempt to create peace among the people through negotiation and compromise, we lost our humanity.
The second story referred metaphorically to the Third Temple which is promised. It is the story of a king who has a young son he loves very much. The king has a new suit of clothes made for the young prince as a sign of his affection. The son is happy, puts on the suit, and proceeds to get it dirty and torn. Recognizing that this can happen with young boys, the king has another suit made, and the same thing happens to it. The king has a third suit made, and tells his son that it is hanging in the closet but cannot be worn until the prince is mature enough to appreciate it and care for it. This story of course refers to the loss of the Temples and the promised third.
The Temple is there, but we are not mature enough to receive it. So the question remains, “How do we get the Temple back? What will indicate our maturity to warrant the gift and G od’s confidence that we once again deserve it? The answer basically is found in or levels of compassion and civility. A wonderful lesson.
P.S. The service on Sunday was primarily focused on the severely Orthodox. Would you kindly have English translations of readings or at least give the page numbers in the Torah as to where the parsha and Halftorah can be found. We Reformodox Jews demand that attention be paid to our needs. Also, much of the video’s impact was lost due to the poor auditory conditions. Is a DVD available for home use?
August 11, 2012
Mendy Log: Parshah Elkev
Av 23, 5772
Mendy began by referencing in Deuteronomy Moses’ telling the Hebrews of how he destroyed the first tablets that were written by G od and how G od instructed him to carve another set of wood and to rewrite them. Both the broken set and the new set were to be placed side by side in the temporary Ark of the Covenant.
The question Mendy posited was why should this be done? Why have the constant reminder of our the golden calf episode follow us though out our journey. He opened this question to the congregation and the responses were perceptive.
Ever since Mendy stopped commenting immediately after a congregant’s response with some refutation, participation improved noticeably. Now Mendy should consider introducing his questions with “What might be some ot the reasons you have when you consider... why the broken set of tablets were kept with the new set of tablets?” This phrasing will allow people to feel that what they say has merit even though they have not guessed what Mendy is thinking. Also, he should consider saying “Thank you” after each response so people can feel appreciated for their risk..
To get to the answer, Mendy took a circuitous path and told us a very personal story about his daughter and her profound disappointment about not getting into an A tier school in Jerusalem. Mendy, being the protective and loving father that he is, made some phone calls, called in some favors, and was able to get his daughter placed in a good school in Italy. Then, to further demonstrate his support for her, he and Denie financially sponsored three or four other trips to other countries so she might have a additional special learning experiences This was the way they chose to show their love and support for her. It is what any good parent might do.
So when his daughter returned, Mendy, being a parent and needing some confirmation that he was a loving tata and that what he had done for her was rewarded with her appreciation and love, bared his jugular vein to a teenager and asked her if she loved him. Her response was not what he anticipated and his devastation was followed by private tears. The following day when his daughter asked for money for camp, he suggested that she ask someone she loves. His daughter was confused and did not understand his response until he shared his feeling with her that were generated by her response. The daughter assured him that she was joking and that she did love and appreciate what he and her mother did for her. And after this, their relationship became stronger because it had weathered a potentially disastrous moment.
At this moment, Mendy brought us back to the broken tablet and the whole tablets, telling us that the broken tablets were there not to remind us of our sin, but to remind us that next to them were the whole tablets that were symbolic of our forgiveness and our stronger relationship with G od. As Mendy and his daughter reached a new depth of their relationship because what Mendy thought had been broken but was repaired through conversation, so G od and the children of Israel also found a renewed depth to their relationship symbolized by the new and whole tablets.
I was reminded at this moment of a lyric from The Fantastics, a musical, that goes, “Without a hurt, the heart is hollow.” Parents get hurt, mostly by their children. We are all children first, and we often hurt our parents in our struggle to become independent from them so we might establish our own identities separate from theirs. For me to separate myself from my mother, I eloped. It was the only way I could begin to free myself even though my actions caused her a nervous breakdown. The tighter the parent holds on, the deeper the hurt.
Mendy’s story to help his daughter get into school mirrors my effort to help my daughter, but where as Mendy and his child wrote new tablets, my tablets remain shattered and have been shattered for years. My daughter attended Brandis University but could not make it in their pre-med program. So upon graduation, she told me that she wanted to go to Tufts to take the courses she would need to take the MCATS and fulfill science requirements. I told her that I would not abandon her and continued her child support till she was twenty-four. I supported her because she wanted this and because as a physician, she would not be afraid of not having a sustaining future. When she finished her courses and applied to medical schools, I spoke to a friend who was on the board of one of the schools to which she had applied. The competition was fierce, and I believe that giving a leg up to a child is what any parent would do. Mendy and Denie obviously feel the same way. But when I told her what I had done, she was furious and demanded that I tell my friend that she didn’t need any help from me. I told her I would do that, and I didn’t because if I did, that man would have been angry of her lack of appreciation and would have withdrawn his support and she would not have gotten in at all. Needless to say, this particular school was the only one that accepted her. I did what I felt a father had to do to help his child. But my help combined with the poison her mother fed her before, after, and since the divorce, kept the tablets broken. Today she is a physician, also married to a physisian with two children living somewhere in Florida. I had never met these two children until last month, and I thought at that time a new set of tablets could
be written. But she did not acknowledge my letter to her with a call or with a Father’s Day card or a letter of her own. So I continue with my broken tablets, and though her mother is dead, my daughter will not give herself permission to give up her mother’s anger and move towards a new relationship with me which might be stronger. Through a cousin, my daughter did lay down her conditions. One was that we never speak of the past, so any error in her thinking or any truths other than her mother’s will not be uttered. She will never hear my truth. Another condition was that I can only have a relationship with her and then she will decide if I can have a relationship with her children. She also said that I should have asked permission to take pictures of her children and that I should not have given them gifts without asking her first. I cannot contact them.
Mendy, there are very few people in my life who don’t like me and really don’t want me in their lives. So do I need such people? What is interesting is that there is a deeper relationship forged which sits next to the broken tablets of my life, and that is the one I have with my wife. Each time there is an altercation between this one daughter or two of her children with us, she and I grow closer, more appreciative, and supportive of one another. It was a very good message.
Fondly,
Lenny
September 8, 2012
Mendy Log: Parsha Ki Tavo
Elul 21, 5772
Normally, when there is a celebration, Mendy tries to find a message in the section of the Torah being read that Shabbat that will have meaning for those involved in the joyous occasion. This parsha has as its focus the blessing and the curses, and it is a very difficult parsha to read. In fact, the tradition is that it is read very softly. So Mendy, being Mendy, found another portion in it that dealt with the first fruit offerings and tithing, and taught a beautiful message that focused on intent of behavior of each person in a loving relationship.
I had the definite feeling that his focus was more on the men of the congregation because I do believe that men have a longer “row to hoe” in our quest for sensitivity in our relationships.
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
He began by talking about the first fruits and how these were to be dedicated to G od by tying a ribbon around the seedling or fruit bud. In this way we were remembering G od and saying, “I am thinking of you as your bounty and new life is flourishing.” These first fruits are the produce that was to be delivered to the priests. So the rabbis ask the question: Since it took years to conquer the land, and etymology since those who settled in first had crops while those who had no land did not have crops and could therefore not bring offerings, wouldn’t it have been more logical to have the earlier settlers bring what offerings they had even though the others would have to wait till their land became productive? Was it right for some to be happy by giving the offering and some not to be happy? The answer was that everyone had to wait till the land became productive for all for this commandment to be initiated.
The rabbis explained this decision as one that took into consideration the feelings of the other Israelites who could not obey this commandment. They would not be happy about the situation, and possibly resent the joy of those who could make the offering. Mendy then turned this to relationships and said that when one person in the relationship, the woman in his example, was having a bad day, it would be inconsiderate of the husband to discount those feelings and talk about what a great day he had had.
Mendy frequently uses his own relationship with Denie as examples of how some men fall short. His self deprecation is amusing and I refuse to believe any of it except that he may be a shtunk when it comes to picking up after himself. After all, I have been in his office.
In short, when the woman in the relationship is unhappy, the man should not be happy, and if he discounts her feelings, things will get messy for the husband even though he may have had nothing to do with the cause of her unhappiness originally. But if he is insensitive, her ire will turn on him. I would hope that the reverse of this would be true, but Mendy did not go there. I think the implication is that everything rests on the husband’s shoulders in such a situation. Sadly, I think there are some husbands, men, boyfriends etc., who find it difficult to read emotions in others and some who often cannot sympathize let alone empathize with another. Such men are emotionally immature and they are the ones whose marriages are always in danger because they cannot read another’s needs. Often, men learned about relationships with women by watching their fathers and when they have wives of their own, they use the only model they have even if it’s a bad model. For such men, insensitivity or cluelessness may be their norm, but it if they recognize their failings, therapy helps. The current movie, “Hope Springs” deals with such a relationship.
Mendy also spoke about children not being happy and questioned whether or not parents should or could be happy if their children are not.
I for one recognize that many children from the age of twelve and especially teenagers are often not happy,(and understatement if I ever made one) and if parents were to gear their feelings to those of their children’s, the parents would and could never be happy. We gave life, and we also have a life. We also deserve to be happy. We’ve worked through our teenaged angst and we can and should certainly help or children with theirs, but I don’t feel we are obliged to carry it for them. We carried our own, and how we dealt with our frustrations, disappointments, and anger helped us develop “character” and the people we are today. Allowing our children to learn how to deal with the trials and tribulations of life so they can learn to negotiate a world that is often not pleasant, is something we must allow. What we can do for them is give them a loving and safe home where they can work it all out. Parents who try to fix everything so their child won’t feel bad, is debilitating them. Besides, we will be blamed for everything anyhow when the kid finally goes into therapy.. But I digress.
So the message to the young couple getting married was that you had to pay attention to the feelings and the signs of distress and not discount them. Personal needs, wants, and desires must be put aside until the person with the problem can deal with it effectively and know they are heard by the spouse.
Of course, one spouse can do Rogerian listening or active listening and feed back the emotion they are hearing to the other spouse. But such an activity tells the troubled spouse that they have a problem if they know the process. Such an analytical response on the part of the partner feeding back emotions may be clinically correct, but it can get you in trouble because the spouse doesn’t want to know that the problem is hers. Sometimes a guy just cant win.
Another message he gave had to do with tithing, the giving of one tenth of your bounty to G od. Mendy made the point that the tithing offering may be a better offering that the first fruit offering because the nature of the crop’s growth. But the first fruit offering is a statement that we are remembering G od, while the tithing offering is more of an obligation to the community. So it would seem that it is not the quality of the offering to G od that counts, but the thought behind the offering.
This brought Mendy to a discussion about whether it was the thought behind the gift that counted or the quality of the gift itself. Surprisingly, few felt that it was the thought behind the gift and that might be due to the standard established in certain homes as to what constitutes a gift that tells the receiver that they are valued. Mendy thought that the thought counted more.
I was informed at the outset of my marriage is that anything with a plug attached to it is not acceptable as a gift.
Mendy made reference to those people, again men, who might buy something for a spouse that they themselves want, and such a gift is not really a gift that expresses true affection except for one’s self. In such instances, one is not thinking of one’s spouse, and that is indicative of a bad relationship or an emotionally immature person. Mendy said that the thought behind the gift is very important, and gave the example of little pieces of paper each of his children wrote and hid in his luggage. These expressions of affection for their “tata” were precious and beyond tangible value. It is the thought that counts.
In short, the message to the couple was that the gift should never be something you want, but something the spouse wants. It must be well thought out, and never perfunctory like an automatic flower delivery on certain dates.
One of the things I like about Judaism is the attitude towards giving. The word “charity” comes from the French word for heart, “cour” implying that your “heart” must be in the giving. The same concept of giving in Judaism comes from the Hebrew word “tzadakah” which has at its root the concept of “righteousness.” The heart may or may not have anything to do with a righteous act. Our ancestors recognized long ago that if we waited for people’s “hearts” to be in the giving, few gifts would be given because of human nature. So there is a mandate to tithe because people need help. There is a commandment to leave the corners of your fields to the widows and orphans for gleaning. Judaism is too practical a faith to demand that your heart in your giving. And to be absolutely crass about it, we need your donations to buy food, clothing, and shelter for the needy. We need your donations to support and sustain the community. We are obliged to do this, and there is nothing wrong in praying with a check. You may resent writing your check, but “the poor shall never depart from the land.” We are obligated to others. Hungry people don’t care if the food they are eating comes from a resentful person or a saint. To paraphrase Gandhi, “There are some people who are so destitute that they can find G od only in bread.”
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard was dealing with the same parshah, but the discussion was decidedly different. Initially, because the opening of the parshah dealt with the gratitude we show G od by setting aside the first fruits, we spoke about getting up in the morning and thanking G od for another day of life. Gratitude is a major concept in Judaism because there is a blessing of thanks for just about everything. Through this, Judaism inculcates gratitude and grateful people are happier people. But the conversation changed when Richard spoke about the considerable number of curses as opposed to blessings, and spoke of how difficult it was to teach G od as a G od of love and mercy when the message is “Live this particular way or I’ll kill you.” Another questions raised was “What does it mean to bless and curse and what is the theology behind it?” Of course, all this depends on whether or not you have a concept of G od. He talked about the awe of standing before a sun rise or a sun set or the wonder of bringing life into the world. These prod us into believing that something exists that is greater than ourselves. But what is that something, what is our relationship to it, and how do we access it?
In dealing with the warnings of the portion, he spent some time on the admonition not to insult your parents, and used the image of light or “making light” of them. This interpretation seemed to be based on the etymology of the word used. In using this word to insult someone, you are lessening them; you are making “light” of them and giving them no weight. The word sounded something like “kal.”
We were asked to consider the Torah on one level as a book of political science, and Richard pointed out the construction of the curses which was “If – Then.” We were informed that scholars place the writing of Deuteronomy in the 6th century BCE and contemporary with the social justice prophets. It was written between the destruction of the Northern Kingdoms and Southern Kingdoms which saw the extreme corruption of those contemporary kings. The books of Jeremiah and Kings are contemporary with Deuteronomy.
The prophets were right wing individuals, and exhorted the people to return to some idealized path. They taught that the reason for the destruction of the Temple and the destruction of the Southern Kingdom was that the people strayed from the path. Richard reminded us that the right wing preachers and pundits maintained that Hurricane Katrina was caused by our countries acceptance of gay marriage, abortion, etc. and were in line with the thinking of the prophets in their condemnation of a society that had also lost its moral compass.
I’ve always felt that laws reflecting a group’s values, are created as a result of actions, and if there is a law against something, you can bet someone or a group was doing something the wider society didn’t like. Deuteronomy is speaking to an audience that is and were obviously performing certain acts that the priest and prophets recognize as immoral. They reason a cause and effect scenario. If you continue to do this, then this will happen to you.
So again we were asked, “Do you want to worship a G od who curses you and scares you?
G od, to most, is an idealized parent who is there to protect us and explains the incomprehensible. For many, G od is a human construct to allay the lack of understanding of the universe and the fear of death. We are a species who are, at our cores, fearful of the unknown. We are a species who basically wants someone to look after us and be concerned about our welfare.
Rabbi Richard posited the idea of having a workshop were people talk about their struggle to come to a better understanding of who or what G od is and the relationship that has come out of it.
One of the reasons I like Richard is that he is still struggling with his understanding and relationship with G od and not afraid to share this with his congregants. In some way, this is almost an invitation to us that by recognizing that even those who have studied and thought about this for most of their lives, are still searching, we, as lay, people, are not too far removed from those who have devoted their lives to this faith. We are being welcomed to the struggle, and being given permission to struggle. The acceptance of where we are and permission to continue the struggle is very important.
Another thing I like about Richard’s approach is that his mind is totally open to possibilities and interpretation. And though I value and love Mendy, I don’t think he could invite such a dialogue because for him, only one possible concept of G od, the G od of the Torah and the rabbinic period is acceptable. At least, that’s what he conveys to me.
Respectfully,
Lenny
September 15, 2012
Elul 21, 5772
Parshah Nitzavim in Deuteronomy
Mendy Log:
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
He began by asking the congregation the meaning of the word “Teshuvah” and it was generally agreed upon that it meant return. In this case, a return to G od from wherever you happen to have been. The implication seemed to be that some of us, for a time, will go away and may wish to return. The path to returning is always open providing you follow certain steps. Step one is to recognize that you have made an error and wish to correct it. Step two is the actual apology to the person you have wronged. Step three involves a resolve or vow not to repeat this behavior.
“I forgive you,” uttered by the person to whom you have made the apology may not mean that the person has really forgiven you if the recollection of your infraction is hurled at you each time you do or say something that is not appreciated. If they say, “I can forgive you, but I can never forget,” the relationship is in serious trouble. So in reality, you are not really forgiven. It’s only when the issue is forgotten and never raised can you honestly believe you are forgiven. People who use past errors in judgment over and over again as weapons, live in the past, and when they remind you of those past failures, they are injuring the relationship in the here and now.
I personally have come to believe that the only way you can know you have been forgiven by G od is if you have the opportunity to behave or say something that originally caused the need to apologize and you choose not to say or do it. If you can hold your tongue, you can feel that G od has forgiven you. I also personally believe that it is easier to get forgiveness from G od than it is from an irate wife with a long memory.
Living in the here and now and leaving the “shadows of yesterday” to yesterday, while striving for a relationship with G od were two ideas explored. To make his point, Mendy said that we are to approach G od with joy and with hope, and though the door to a relationship with G od is always open, the circumstance are better on the High Holidays. To make the point about relationships, Mendy asked us to tell him the two most important dates of the year. I knew immediately that it was a wedding anniversary and your spouse’s birthday. He once again reminded us that the gifts to be given were gifts the spouse really wanted and not something you wanted. But he made it clear that if the anniversary was on January 28th and the birthday was on February 2nd, we had better not dismiss the intervening months and not pay attention to that relationship thinking that the two special days were all that were needed. If we did, what kind of relationship would that be?
Mendy compared these two special days when the relationship might be particularly good with the days of Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. Too many people believe that thinking about G od just two days a year will suffice for a relationship, but like paying attention to your spouse for just those two celebratory secular days, is not enough.
On this Sabbath, a day prior to Rosh Hashonah, Mendy invited us to open our minds and hearts to those around us and to G od. I know that listening more intently to friends and family, and seeing them newly bathed in the light of love and friendship are ways of improving the relationship. Though not surrounded by my biological family, I am surrounded by friends, and friends are the family you choose. There is great satisfaction in being with old and new friends, and the sharing of prayer and food with these dear people enable us to grow closer.
But a relationship with G od requires a bit more. First, such a relationship is deeply personal, and for me, requires silence and absolute focus on an abstraction not easily embraced. The voice and the images given to us by the text, for me, are not satisfying intellectually, emotionally, or spiritually and does not open me to G od. If my soul is moved to open itself to G od, it is moved by the sound of the Hebrew prayers of the men around me, the devotion of the cantor, Mendy’s passion and sincerity, the weekly sight of grandfathers next to their sons, next to their sons, and the intimacy of the room. For me, a relationship with my people and my affection for the people in that room, enables me to open myself to G od because I have opened myself to them. This feeling may be G od’s presence in my life. But still, the deeply personal one on one relationship Mendy is calling for, for me, must begin in the silence of my garden and my longing to apprehend the Ayn Sof even only for seconds.
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard asked about the meaning of the repetition of the word “hayom” defined as “today” and made it clear that the covenant was here, at this moment. Where you are at this moment impacts tomorrow. This is a transcendent moment. This day is a pivotal day. The interpretation is that swe are alive today. Live in this day. Too many people live in a past which they can’t control. You can impact today. You are to live in the moment.
One of the important things I’ve learned in life is that if you live in the anger, regrets, or guilt of the past, you ruin the here and now where the people you love are living. The past cannot be changed. As The Rubyat tells us, “The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on. And all your piety and wit shall not call it back to cancel out half a line.” Guilt is a responsive feeling for something done in the past that is regretted. The only way to deal with it and move on is to resolve that when a behavior such as the one that caused the guilt presents itself again, you chose not to act on it. That resolve will help you forgive yourself and move on. Another feeling that destroys the here and now is worry. Worry is a passive feeling that has never had any effect on the future. To eliminate worry, you do all you can in the present to assure some good outcome that you’ve made an effort to control. If you can tell yourself that you’ve done all you can, you can ease from worry into concern and into hope. It’s sort of like that Jewish adage, “Pray as if everything depends on G od, and act as if everything depends on you.” Prayer is passive. Action is in the here and now.
In a society such as ours, we are programed to make plans for our futures. If you live with integrity, you don’t have to fear the future. But people who are so programed in there efforts to control their futures, can become so self- possessed, they can destroy their own souls in the effort. Therefore, we must find a balance. Certainly, be concerned about the future, but don’t become so obsessed with it that you miss out on what is going one right in front of you.
We then looked at what I consider is one of the most beautiful theological construct in the Torah. It is the moment when G od tells us that the mitzvot (commandments or instructions) given this day (in the here and now) are not far away. They are not in heaven and not across the sea. No one needs to be sent to retrieve them for you. There are no mystical intermediaries necessary nor nor do you need valiant heroes to bring them to you. They are here and they are doable and you are capable of understanding them yourself!
Torah study requires that you bring your soul to the text and interpret it. It is not enough to merely pray to G od. We are responsible to do. This is a classic Jewish social justice philosophy. You must act! We each have a part to play in the small chunk of the world we inhabit. This is not a complex idea. This is written in 6th Century BCE morality, and each generation must reinterpreted the message for our own time using the moral core ot the text.
Again we were invited to see the “if - then” theology that we find throughout Deuteronomy. G od says: “If you do this, you’ll be rewarded.” We often counter with an “Dear G od, If you do this than I shall to this.” G od is the parent figure. If you don’t do this, you’ll be grounded. With the Biblical G od, there is very little wiggle room. G od doesn’t do focus groups.
In effect, a core part of the message of Rosh Hashonah has to do with renewal. Our lives and our souls are leased to us. The morning prayers say, “The soul within us is pure. You gave it to us, you take it from us and you return it to us.” We are only renters. Your license for your life gets renewed each year. This license is an on going invitation to grow in our humanity.
Respectfully,
Lenny
September 22, 2012
Tishrei 6, 5773
Vayeilech
Shabbat Shuva/ The Sabbath of Return
Mendy Log:
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Continuing his thread of focusing the congregation on developing and maintaining a relationship with God, Mendy began by asking the question as to why Rosh Hashonah comes before Yom Kippur? His answer, after several responses, was that Yom Kippur is a time of negotiation with God, but in order to have a negotiation with anyone, there has to be a relationship established so both parties will want to negotiate. To reinforce this idea, Mendy told a story of a man who borrows money from his neighbor and cannot sleep because he cannot meet the first payment. His wife, recognizing her husband’s stress, goes to the window, opens it, wakes up the neighbor and screams that he’s not getting his money. The wife then turns to her husband and says, “Now he can’t sleep and you can because you can’t do anything about the situation. Write it off. ” But what if the neighbor comes and says, “Let’s talk about this. Let me set new terms. Let me lower the payment so you can pay off the debt.” In this case, the man cannot walk away from his debt as he might have before the neighbor offered to work with him on a payment plan. The man has established a relationship. The debtor has an obligation to make restitution. God, as the one who holds the debt, is willing to make new terms. God is willing for a relationship.
It would seem that we are the debtors, and God, on Yom Kippur, is willing to negotiate and renegotiate for our return to a path of righteousness. It is a day of soul searching, give, and take, and some resolution as to how one will proceed. But we do not come to negotiation with God without some prior relationship or understanding regarding our intent to work out some plan. This focus on developing a meaningful relationship so we can enter into a meaningful negotiation is the purpose of Rosh Hashonah. It is a time of refocusing on concepts that many of us are not often concerned of during the year.
But I have to say in all honesty, that the God depicted in the Torah is not a God easily pacified and or initially, willing to negotiate. Abraham has some success, and so does Moses, but God’s initial response prior to their efforts is first to destroy and ask questions later. At first, God is an angry parent figure. Happily, as the people evolved, their concept of God did also, and while we continue to have a God in Deuteronomy who will wreak havoc on his people if they stray, we also have the introduction to us of the compassionate and loving God of Isaiah and other Prophets who is long suffering for His children to return.
While on the subject, Mendy shared with us a recollection from his childhood about watching these old rabbis in shul weeping over the recitation of the sins being read. He knew that these were not sinful men, and yet they wept. He asked his father and his father told him that these venerable old men were reviewing their lives and weeping over the sins they committed in their past; infractions committed perhaps fifty or sixty years ago against people they loved. Mendy shared with us his experiences of having hurt his parents as a child and being forgiven. But when his own children have said hurtful things, the same things he said to his parents, only then could he fully understand and empathize with what their pain must have been. He said that as he grows and remembers his own behavior as a younger man, he will periodically go to his parents to apologize for what he did and said. He says he finds this necessary even if his parents do not. He feels that by recounting and taking responsibility for behaviors in the past, he grows as an adult.
(How wonderful it must have been to grow up with such loving kindness, understanding, and trust that a man wants to continue to dialogue with his parents. How wonderful that the parents are willing to listen.)
Mendy said that real Teshuva, real returning, is coming back as a better you.
For me, return, Teshuva, is a return to where I left off in my effort ot become my better self. If I, like these old rabbis or even like Mendy, were to return to the decisions of my past or the past pains I inflicted on significant people, I would become so enraged at those moments and at those involved, that all efforts to negotiate a better me will be lost in the anger. Mendy can look back with love on parents who loved and guided him on his path. Some of us can only look back on parents who, while providing sustenance and protection, were parents who did nothing to inspire a spiritual component or emotional safety; parents who discounted a child’s existence, or so imposed themselves into the life and mind of that the child that the child was rendered helpless and inadequate. Emotionally debilitated children who view themselves as helpless and inadequate, become emotionally debilitated adults. For such a person, it might take years to learn to live in the present and to not look back. To follow Mendy’s suggestion to revisit such moments is to step dangerously close to an abyss. People who have grown up with such messages and who have successfully dealt with their ghosts, can become decent and successful human beings, despite their destructive messages received as children. Ghosts once vanquished, need not be resurrected. A person should not have to gut himself open every Yom Kippur in order to become a better person. In the play “King Lear” Shakespeare puts into Lear’s mouth, “I am a man more sinned against than sinning.” Mendy, a person cannot erase his past, and there is no profit in revisiting it if there is nothing that can be done other than not repeating the original mistakes. The people who have most hurt me in my life are dead. The people I’ve hurt are the same as those who hurt me. Why do I need to I recall the pain? Of what value is the guilt that is sure to be felt. I respectfully disagree with your message of returning to the past in order to become better for the future. I can become better despite my past and I have.
The last item I recall Mendy addressing was the reason why didn’t God forgive Moses for striking the rock and allowing him to enter the promised land. If God is a forgiving God, certainly He could have given his prophet some slack. Mendy’s answer had to do with the consequences of our actions.
The idea that in life there are unforseen consequences for doing what you are not supposed to be doing. It begins with Adam and Eve. Don’t eat the apple or you’ll die. Die? What’s die? These two didn’t know what death was. There was no cause and effect in the world. There was no consequence for disobedience. What was disobedience? If there was something called disobedience, could there be free will? If there are consequences of free will, shouldn’t they be understood. The whole story is a metaphor for the idea that there are consequences beyond what you can conceive for infractions to the rules. And sometimes the consequences are really beyond imagination. So for a basic innocent man and women succumbing to temptation by a talking snake, the man must work by the sweat of his brow and the woman must bring forth children in pain? The punishment is a little over the top. Certainly no negotiation with the kids here.
So Moses hit the rock, and God takes umbridge with Moses because Moses, by hitting the rock and not speaking to it, in some way takes honor from God. But the message is clear. There are consequences for everything, and though you might think the action small, there is the so called “Butterfly Effect.” While life should be lived in the hear and now, it must also be played like a chess game, thinking about the future moves you need to make and the consequences of such moves.
Everything has consequences.
Over at M’kor Shalom, Rabbi Richard opened the session with the idea that Moses had reached his 120th year and was about to pass away. Moses says that he can no longer be active, and
Rabbi, who is very much interested in healthy aging, said that we can continue to be spiritually active even if we can no longer be physically active. We can be healed spiritually even if not cured of the disease. “Heal me oh Lord, and I shall be healed.” You can be in a relationship with God even if you are sick. Your body is a gift from God, and it is not to be abused.
The discussion continued with Moses calling in Joshua and the transition to Joshua’s leadership. We were informed that the book of Deuteronomy was written against the historical period where the Northern Kingdom had been destroyed, the Southern Kingdom was breaking down, the kings were corrupt, and statues of Baal were openly worshiped. This book relates how God, in Deuteronmy, is witnessing against Israel, and it is written down so the people will come to understand and return. Here we are told “I will hide my countenance from you.” The Israelites will be exposed and unprotected. The God of the Bible hides Himself. Is He still hiding from us?
Locked in this idea is that evil is the result of God withdrawing from us. Is God the one who protects us from evil? We certainly pray for that. But what of the idea that God creates both good and evil? It seems very contradictory. Yet we believe that God is always present. Can one hide and still be present?
In Genesis, Adam and Eve are the ones who hide from God. The metaphor for us is that God is always there, and we are the ones who hide. The word theodocy was used. This word deal with questions about God’s justice. The same world that brings you blessings is also the same world that brings you trauma. When you enter the religious world, you must suspend logic. We may want proofs where there are no proofs. We may want logic where logic cannot be imposed. Judaism requires a leap of faith, not a leap of thought. There is no proof of God’s existence; just hypothesizes.
The conversation switched to metaphorical interpretations. The metaphorical interpretation of the Burning Bush is that Moses needed to be ready to hear God’s voice. We also need to be ready to hear it.
The wilderness imagery and the Exodus is a metaphor for our own journey of going out from the dark places symbolized by Egypt and for our own wandering in the wilderness in search of our true selves. We might not get there, but it is the journey that is of great importance to our growth. We will never be perfect, so this allows for growth.
Lech lechah is a metaphor for our own going out into the unknown to become the people we become.
I started thinking about my own Lech lechas and my own leaps into the unknown:
My choice to major in English and become a teacher.
My choice to elope.
My choice to become a father.
My choice to move to NJ, buy a home, all before I had the job.
My choice to take a blank slate and create the best job I ever had.
My choice to agree to a divorce.
My choice to remarry.
An interesting discussion followed about free will and our directive to “Choose Life.” God directs us to “Choose Life,” so we know we are going to have choices to make. Our choices reverberate down the generations, and those who come after us can benefit from those choices or be injured by them. The choices we make impact us and the future. We are in control of our reactions to the choices we are given by God. The choices are in our own hands, and classic Judaism’s response is, “It’s up to you.”
But is it really only up to us in the here and now, or are we anchored to our pasts.
My great grandparents and grandparents made the choice to come here and that has certainly impacted me and my descendants. What they valued and how they responded to their own children formed those people, and to a large degree, I am a product of those behaviors. So the question must be raised as to whether or not, considering all the events in our past that leads us to the moment we are in and the people we are, do we really have free will or are our decisions merely responses based messages given to us by significant people in our early lives that told us who we are and what we can expect from life? I think it safe to say that genetics, family, origins, religion, environment, etc. also have a voice in directing us to make choices. This is my take on this subject.
The crucial decisions that lead our lives in a particular direction are usually made at a time of life when we are totally inept to make such life altering choices.
We all have hungers. We hunger for food, for shelter, and for other needs to sustain our lives. Among these “hungers” are some of which we are unaware such as the “hunger” to be recognized and the “hunger”to find a position in life that will confirm who we are. Now the hunger to be recognized is paramount to our existence because recognition tells us that we exist. The worst response from another is to be discounted, so to gain recognition, we will do anything.
So if a person is raised with hugs and kisses, basically that person will conclude that they are basically worth hugs and kisses and will go after positive recognition as they grow up, fully believing that their life has worth and their position in life is going to be a good one. Thus, choices that will be made will most likely garner them positive recognition and reinforce a positive position.
On the other hand, a child raised with smacks across the mouth, a boot to the rear end, beatings, hurtful words that describe them, and/or sexual abuse will conclude very early that this must be the kind of recognition he or she deserve and will go after it. Any recognition that tells a person he or she exists is better than no recognition at all. They satisfy their “hunger recognition”
by getting into trouble, drugs, promiscuity, and a variety of other unhealthy activities. They have been given verbal and non verbal messages as to their lack of worth, and they will show the people who gave them these negative messages that these important people were correct and not to be disappointed. Of course, much of such behavior is being done outside the awareness of why it is
being done. People often do not have a clue as to why they say and do what they do. Recognition hunger and position hunger are not in the forefront of anyone’s mind, but they are always there.
So based upon the myriad of forces in our lives, the verbal and non-verbal messages that informed us of who we are and what we can expect out of life, the needs of others, the environment in which we find ourselves, etc. etc. can we really say that we truly have freedom of choice? Perhaps if we say we do if we accept the fact that we bring to our choices a host of factors that influence us though we may be unaware of such influences.
Respectfully,
Lenny
September 29, 2012
Tishrei 13, 5773
Parsha Ha’azinu
Mendy Log:
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Initially, Mendy began talking about heaven and earth giving witness to what Moses was saying in his last exhortation to the congregation. Mendy said that though the earth was under the feet of our ancestors and could be felt, and though a physical world surrounded them, it was the spiritual world above them and around them that would be the focus of his talk. It was this relationship and this constant conflict between the physical and the spiritual worlds that needed to be addressed.
Mendy continued by talking about our material sides and our spiritual sides and how there is a yearning within us for both though for many, the material side is often more desirable. The image he used was the image of Jews shopping in Neaman Marcus and Jews going to shul.
I would say that in some way it’s the exact same idea as the war within us between our Yetzer Tov, our good inclinations and the Yetzer Hara, our bad inclination.
The point was that we have natural yearnings for both, and it is during Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur that our spiritual selves seem more open and eager for a connection with God at these times, and that is the reason so many Jews appear on the High Holidays who do not attend regularly.
Being something of a cynic, I can also say that I know people who attend High Holiday services because it is expected of them by the community and their spouses. There is no attempt at a spiritual connection because there is no belief in the God they were taught about in Chader or in Hebrew school. They come to keep peace in the house and to be seen as someone who is connected to the congregation. But even for those who come to connect to something, we all know that one or two attempts at an encounter once a year doesn’t make for a lasting relationship between anyone, so I would say that even those who sense that something in them wants a connection with the transcendent will be disappointed that the connection is not made and not fully understand why. Even people who attend weekly often can’t make a connection. I would even venture a guess that people who attend a daily minion may not be making a connection. To them, it is possible that they say that “this is what a Jew does and this is what my father and grandfather did.” I wonder if Shechinah is felt by those who attend minions regularly or is that not even a thought?
Mendy also informed us of the mitzvah of eating in the succah the first night of the holiday even if it rains. He said that even if the weather is bad, we are to approach Succot with a joyous heart because, though inconvenient, Succot is an extension of Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur in that we rejoice at the connection and resolve we have made to be better our lives and to attempt a new and better relationship with God.
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard said that Moses’s last message to the congregation was something of an ethical will. Moses knows he is about to die and he’s telling the people “Listen to what I’ve learned from my life.” There is an air of desperation about him because he knows these people and he knows that after he’s gone, they will fall into sin. This last message is in the form of a poem with repetitions of the same thought repeated in different way, a definite rhythm, parallelisms, and a definite structure. Each poetic device is designed to make it easy to remember and to repeat. The poem predates the 6th Century BCE and most likely came down as part of our ancient oral tradition.
“Give ear, oh hear. Let me speak.” The first image of the poem is of rain: gentle, nourishing, and life sustaining. The message to us is that if the rain falls and the ground is not prepared to receive it, it will just run off and not nourish. But if the earth is prepared (if we are prepared) the rain will be absorbed and our souls will grow. But if not prepared, and we or the earth can’t receive the water, destruction could follow.
How can one be prepared to receive words?. Some people are not prepared to hear this because they have no learning. Sometimes we make snap judgments, taking things out of context, and our words can be hurtful and destructive.
There is a spiritual component. For the soul to grow, we must hear the words and absorb them. Soul growth is a gradual process, and this is a life long learning process. It is not immediate. Soft rain and dew are gentle on the earth and can be absorbed more readily than a torrent.
But following this, Moses quickly changes his tone to urgency: “You cannot forget your past!” From generation to generation you must remember.
Go back to understand it and from understanding, you will better understand who you are and why you were chosen. If you disregard your past, you are doomed to repeat the errors of the past. You have a collective history. In Yungian terms, Moses is telling us that we have both a collective history and a collective sub-conscience.
On a psycho spiritual level, the clock is ticking for Moses. What does he want to leave behind? In this final soliloquy, he seems also to be saying, “Don’t forget me. I count for something.” It is a profound spiritual moment.
We all want to be remembered. We all want to stand for something. I’ve made a weak attempted at immortality with Grandpa Zeydeh’s Wisdom under Biography on my website. It is something of an ethical will.
Moses is also saying something more. He is telling the people that their baseness gives the lie to God, and their evil behavior will cause others to doubt God’s law. When God’s people act against God’s law, God’s honor is endangered.
Reference was made to a book entitled, The Ambivalence of God where it is suggested that God’s goal was to create a loyal and obedient people so He could be worshiped. This would imply an imperfect God who has needs. So it would seem that God needs us as much as we need Him, and the insistence that we stay healthy is because only healthy people can properly worship.
Jewish tradition is fantastic because it allows for a relationship between an imperfect people and an imperfect God. The challenge is to understand why an imperfect people could or should seek a relationship with an imperfect God.
We are part of a civilization that asks us to question. Why do we come to services? What are we looking for and what are we getting out of the experience?
In the Reform tradition, one is encouraged to think about his or her relationship with God, and is encouraged to consider and or reassess what we have been taught about God. I would go so far as to say that there are rabbinic figures in the Reform Movement who insist that each person has the “God given right” to create a concept of God that he or she can relate to if the one they’ve been taught about does not work for them. It’s better than walking away and saying that “I don’t believe.” One might say that the idea of seeking different concepts of God comes from the idea that we say: “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” The interpretation is that each developed his own relationship and concept of God.
To this his end, Rabbi Richard on Yom Kippur challenged the congregation as to why they had come to services, and what God they were worshiping? This was an enormously gutsy topic as a sermon since those who come once or twice a year expect something on social action and not on action of the soul. I was very proud of him because it is never too late for soul growth and for a relationship with God. But it has to be with a God to whom you can relate, and having an imperfect God levels the proverbial playing field. How can you have a loving relationship when you are always in the subservient position and alternately in fear or awe? How can you have an honest adult relationship when you are always in the child position? How can you love when there
is fear? I’m not talking ego here or thinking you are equal to the Creator. I’m talking something of a partnership. A covenant is an agreement between two like minded beings. Each gets something out of the relationship. Man gets a cosmic ear and hope, and God gets gratitude for having created and for sustaining creation. At least that’s my covenant.
So the following day, between the afternoon and the evening services, Rabbi invited the congregation into the chapel to listen to three people tell of their journeys to find their God. I had the privilege of being one of the three. Mendy could never make such an invitation because Orthodoxy has the answer and there is no negotiation. You are urged to have a relationship with God, but the God is the Torah/Rabbinic God and no other concept will do.
I said at the presentation that a person’s initially encounters a God concept in his home, and in my home, my mom wielded God the way Zeus wielded thunderbolts. The God of my childhood was not a kind or loving Being. But I also spoke of how, as a pre teen, I would go up on the roof at night, look at the stars, and sense how small I was and how something very big was out there. I could not name what this something was so I called it God even though I knew it was in conflict with the God who was conjured up in the apartment below. Hebrew school was of little help since Hebrew and Yiddish was spoken during the services, and history, culture, and decoding the Hebrew language was what we were taught in the school upstairs. Nothing about God. So after my Bar Mitzvah I walked away and did not encounter spirituality until college in my Romantic and Victorian poetry class. There I read the following:
And I have felt a presence
That disturbs me with the joy of elevated thoughts,
A sense sublime, of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns, and the round ocean,
And the living air, and in the mind of man.
A motion and a spirit that impels all thinking things,
All objects of all thought, and moves through all things.
from Lines Composed Above Tintern Abby William Wordsworth.
Then in my philosophy class I encountered Julian Huxley who wrote:
“Man is that part of reality through which and by which the Cosmic Process has learned to apprehend itself.”
But always with me is the God who says, “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the House of Egypt, out of a house of bondage to be your God. You shall have no other gods before Me.”
So the poets identified a transcendental force that one philosopher called the Cosmic Process and my people called God. But this was a very different God concept from what I knew and years later I learned that the Kabbalists called this Force Ayn Sof and that Baruch Spinoza also identified It, gave It a new twist, and was excommunicated for his troubles. These poets, philosophers, rabbis, and scholars had give themselves permission to conceive of a new conception of God, and I took permission myself to think about what they thought. I was in good company.
With Mendy and Richard as guides, I am still in good company though I’ve added Steinberg, Kaplan, and Buber to my merry little band.
Respectfully,
Lenny
October 13, 2012
Mendy Log:
Parsha Bereshith Gen 1:1-6:8
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began with a statement that what he was about to say might offend some of the congregants. He was not apologetic. He said that the world and everything in it was created by God expressly for His chosen people, namely, us. He then went on to explain what he meant, though I don’t recall the details other than we were put on earth to model correct behavior and we were given the Torah as a guide.
The remainder of the drush had to do with the creation of Adam and Eve and specifically, the line that tells us that God has created a mate for Adam that will be both a helper and a challenger to him. The question was raised as to why a “challenger” and not just a “helper.” Mendy’s answer was that men, who are not as spiritually developed as are women, would never grow in their humanity if they didn’t have someone to catch them up short, and question their behavior. He almost implied that the criticism that is leveled at us by our wives so we might improve ourselves, is a blessing.
I wish I had known that in my first marriage where such “blessings” were abundant. But I couldn’t help but think: What if the spouse’s challenges are only to satisfy the spouse’s needs and these needs can never really be satisfied? Is one expected to turn oneself inside out and lose one’s identity to satisfy another’s needs even if they are the needs of the spouse? The philosophic mind comes late in life, and may not be around when the couple are in their twenties, thirties, or forties. Perhaps other divisions of Judaism might insist on relationship instruction prior to getting married the way the Orthodox and Catholics do.
Mendy implied that a wife who is only a helper to her husband and who does not challenge him to grow, may be a helpful wife, but not a good one. To reinforce this, he gave examples from his own life where his wife will catch him up short with a comment on his plans or attitudes, and he will have to consider her perceptions and possibly change his own. Mendy also mentioned the words that “a man should leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh” as a way of reinforcing the idea of the closeness of the relationship between a husband and a wife, and how the challenges and the help make for a secure and an honest relationship.
I would like him to expand on this idea. It is very idealistic, and I guess the Torah sets high objectives so one might have something to which one might aspire. To become one flesh may be a metaphor for becoming one mind and acting on the needs of the other.
There is the concept that each of us has a “bashert,” a person we are destine to marry to complete us. This would imply that there is an outside intelligence behind people meeting one another that has ordained this coupling. But while the decision of this “outside intelligence” may be traditionally thought of as infallible, the “intelligence” certainly must not be aware of the human factors that figure into the equation. In my first marriage, my mother and my first wife disliked each other from the very start, and my wife literally wanted me “to leave my father and mother.” While I knew that my mother was to blame for the conflict, I could not seem myself disassociating myself from my family, and though it might have satisfied my wife, I chose not to do so. Perhaps I was too immature to do what really needed to be done for the sake of the marriage. I believe she saw this as me choosing my parents over her, and perhaps I did. Her challenge was too early in our marriage, too costly, and I was not up to it. Of course, there were many other issues that ultimately ended our twenty year marriage. But being in the middle of two very strong women and having to constantly balance between the two and thus satisfying neither, revealed other issues and other personal flaws.
Yes, I certainly did grow from those challenges, and I am certainly not the man tody that I was thirty years ago. But not all challenges are good. Can one honestly believe that the pain of growing in this way was God’s plan? To what end? Did God mean for me to grow in order to be happy with another woman and to make another woman happy? But what of my first wife’s unhappiness? Why would God cause her such stress by matching her with someone who could not possibly fulfill her emotional needs or protect her?
It raises the issue of why we were created, and what is our purpose. True, we are told that we were created to be to “be a light unto the nations,” and that we are to “make the world a better place,” but these reasons come much later on in our sacred texts. The earlier reasons seem less noble. The commandment, “You will have no other gods before Me” is a good clue as to why we were created. God wanted to be worshiped. It might also be possible that The Creative Process in the universe which some of us identify as God ,wanted or needed to experience life on a physical dimension and we were the solution to that addressed that need. We are a complex and volatile species, and capable of providing a limitless ranges of emotional and physical reactions. Our experiences give our lives meaning and we hopefully grow from them, and our experiences and the emotions generated from these allow God a constant renewable source of experiences on a physical plain. We grow and God grows. Everybody wins. Ya think?
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard spoke about non- revelatory literature and gave examples of borrowings in the literatures of other ancient civilizations that also appear in our Torah as these relate to the creation of the world and of humanity. He spoke of word derivations, and how the roots of words give a deeper meaning that cannot easily be translated into English. For example, the name Havel or as we know him, Abel, has its root in the idea of emptiness or nothingness. This child will be murdered, and nothing will ensue from him.
Richard said the that for him, the most important question for us is found in Genesis 3:9 where God says to Adam and Eve, “Alyecha” or “Where are you?” We continually try to answer that question, and he seemed to imply that if we can keep that question with us as a personal way of assessing ourselves, we will grow.
He invited us to look at the family dynamic in Genesis, and suggested that there are family pathologies that are sent down generations.
Most of these pathologies exist outside our awareness, and it is only when we step back and look at our lives and the patterns that seem to flow from generation to generation, that we can see them. We are all a series of learned behaviors and attitudes give both verbally and non verbally from the powerful people in our lives. For example, I began to write my first novel after my divorce when I realized that I might have been the fourth generation of a Berman male in a bad marriage. So my story begins with the messages my great grand father might have gotten from his own parents.
We then looked at the two creation stories, and how each depicts a different type of human being. In the first, Adam is created with Eve. This man is given orders: the first is to propagate, and the second is to subdue the earth. One commentary offered was that we were put here to learn how to be God like, and how this was our “sandbox.” We are to bring the world back to God. We were also told a Talmudic story of how three angels requested that mankind not be created.
We were informed that the second creation story was probably older than the first because of the language used, but when the priests put all the stories together, they decided this one should go first. In this story, man is created alone and put in a garden. Then, for his pleasure, trees, plants, animals etc. are created. Richard spoke of a word (which I don’t recall) that has two “yuds” in it and these refer to the two inclinations that exist in us, namely, the good inclination and the bad. This Adam is different from the first Adam. This one is formed from clay by God Himself and animated directly by God own breath. In one story, God creates from nothing, and in the other, God creates humanity from something. Eve seems to be created from a spare part.
The concept of the two Adams seem to point to the symbolic duality of man’s two natures and speaks to two stages of life, but I cannot recall anything other than one Adam is told that he has to procreate and subdue the earth, while, the other Adam is given opportunities to name the living things around him and ordered not to eat the fruit of a certain tree. The first Adam is not challenged with a warning, but is give a definite road to being a success. But the other decides he needs to acquire the true meaning of what it is to be alive and decides to challenge himself by tasting the fruit of the forbidden tree. This Adam is far more dynamic than the first who follows orders.
Now one of the issues I have with the story is that the second Adam is warned not to eat the fruit or he will die. But what concept of death could he possibly have had, and what concept of cause and effect could he possibly have had? How could he possibly understood the concept of consequences and of over reactions on the part of a parent? Adam and Eve are children without guile and without an agenda. They must be considered a metaphor for children who will test their parents and challenge themselves to grow. That’s what humanity does. Besides, did these two innocents really know who God was? Could they even comprehend such a being with expectations of being obeyed? Did God want pets or did God want individuals who would grow in their intelligence and in their humanity? Either way, He really beats up on them for disobeying him. The message for us here is that we never really know the consequences of what we may see as an insignificant action.
Respectfully,
Lenny
October 21, 2012
Heshvan 4, 5773
Mendy Log: Noah Genesis 6:9-11:32
Halftorah Isaiah 54L1-1-55:5
Note: This was my Torah and Halftorah portion at my bar mitzvah in 1952. Honestly, I could not remember a word of it. But in thirteen years I will be eighty-three and entitled to a second bar mitzvah so I have ten years to reacquaint myself with it. You are invited to the celebration.
This Sabbath, a young man became a bar mitzvah, and Mendy rightfully praised the family for having raised such a fine young man, and he also heaped praise upon the young man himself for the outstanding effort made during his preparation. In fact, the young man read the entire Torah portion which was quite lengthy as well as his Halftorah. He did both very well.
In the rear of the synagogue sat several of his friends who where not Jewish. I could not help but wonder if they felt they had happened in on aliens in America: men separated from women, a sea of prayer shawls, a foreign language everyone seemed to know, strange music, and strange rituals including throwing candy and piercing chirps from the women’s section. But I also hope that they saw in this spectacle the honor that was heaped on their friend by not only his rabbi and family, but also a congregation of men and woman who were only tangentially involved in his life. While there are many cultures around the world that have rituals of rites of passage into adulthood, I do believe only Judaism requires the young person to study for a year or more, and stand in front of the congregation so he or she can demonstrate literacy, poise, and intelligence in order to be welcomed into the community as an adult. This young man did not disappoint.
Mendy did speak to the story of Noah, and this is what I think I remember him saying:
The quote “Noah was a righteous man in his generation,” was offered along with the question as to whether or not he would have been righteous had he lived in another generation? Would he have been considered righteous had he lived along side Abraham or Moses?
There were many responses with Mendy clarifying and asking additional questions. In fact, there were so many responses, that I do not remember any of them, including Mendy’s final take on the statement. I may have been distracted and slightly overwhelmed by so many words coming at me.
I think he also spoke about the incident of Noah getting drunk and his son Ham, who we are specifically told is the father of Canaan, finds him and report this to his brothers. Mendy also related this odd midrash about a certain huge animal that came on the ark that is now extinct.
I immediately thought of the unicorn, and the fact that the unicorn was rumored to appear only in the presence of a virgin, may explain why they are now extinct. I also think that Noah has been given a bad reputation because of the “drunkenness” story. But one must remember that his first act after getting off the ark was to build an alter and in doing so, demonstrates to future generations that we must first be grateful for what we have been given. The vineyard story, and getting drunk comes later. The economy of the story is brilliant. Time is compressed. But I think that if I had seen my entire world destroyed and I had to live for weeks on a boat filled with stinking animals, I might also experience “survivor’s guilt” and also try to self medicate with a drink or two. Who wouldn’t? Vineyards take years to grow, so his drunkenness comes years after the ark has landed. Survivors remorse or guilt does not leave a person. Is trauma ever forgotten? I think we need to lighten up on Noah.
It occurred to me that this story has very definite political undertones. Noah’s sons had many children, yet only Ham’s son, Canaan, is singled out to be mentioned, and it is Canaan, not Ham himself, and his descendants who are cursed by Noah. Could this little tale that sullies Noah’s character have deliberately been included as a justification or rationale for over running the land of Canaan?
Mendy also related a rabbinic midrash about one extinct species on the ark that was so huge, it wouldn’t fit in at all. So the rabbis posited three suggestions, and sadly, I don’t think I will do the story justice. The first was that the animals horns were so wide, that even by putting one horn in first, the beast couldn’t get the second one in so it was partially in but mostly outside. One suggested that only the animal’s nose was able to enter the cabin, and that’s how it traveled. I’m not clear about the third suggestion, but it may have had something to do with tying the animals to the boat and floating them. Mendy himself raised the issue of why there was such a strange story such as this one, and he interpreted it as an allegory. The ark, I believe he said, was Judaism and Yiddishkeit, the way Judaism is expressed in every day life. The animal may have been symbolic of the way parents introduce their children to Judaism and Yiddishkeit. I honestly don’t recall how each attempt to explain how the animal made the trip related to different parental attempts, but Mendy’s message was clearly one of hope. Some of our young may only stick their noses into the ark or into their Judaism or Yiddishkeit, but they have not separated themselves from it, and because of this, they may one day they may return and learn about it. That is hopeful.
He made mention of how the bar mitzvah boy’s family introduced him to Judaism and Yiddishkeit when he was an infant, and how he has grown in his tradition.
One of the beautiful things about Chabad is seeing parents bringing in infants and watching them grow in the shul. Nothing is strange. Nothing is alien or will ever be alien. I am envious as I rejoice in the portions of the grandfathers who surround me. I have grandchildren whose parents have opted not to allow their children into “the ark” but only their noses when they are with their grandparents. I have to wait until they are of age so I can begin to share with them the beauty of our faith and the extraordinary contributions of our civilization.
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard was also discussing the story of Noah, describing it as a universal myth and an attempt at Jewish pre-history. The idea that Noah was a “righteous man in his generation” was also discussed and one thought that I found amusing was that he “was the least horrible out of all the other horrible people.”
It sort of reminded me about elections and voting for the lesser of the two evils. It seems that even God has to make such choices. Perhaps that is one of the key messages to us that life demands such choices of us and like God, we, too, also must decide between the best of the worst. Such a reality has given us such phrases as “a Hobson’s choice” and “a choice between Scylla and Charybdis.”
In Genesis chapter 9 verse 1, Noah is told by God everything is his and that he is to become master of the earth. Noah, like Adam, is given the commandment to multiply, and God establishes a covenant with him that He will never destroy the earth again with a flood. The rainbow will be a reminder to God of his promise.
The rainbow is common in other cultures such as the Babylonian, but there it is a symbols of triumph in war, used when the Babylonian god Marduk sets the bow in the sky to commemorate his triumph over Tiament. The ancient Hebrews borrowed this symbol, but turned it from a war symbol into a peace symbol. The story of Noah is also based on a much more ancient Babylonian text called the Epic of Gilgamish. Here, the gods choose a man named Utmashpitim and give him very clear directions as to how to build a boat and what to put in it. But in their story, the capricious gods are angry with mankind because they make noise and disturb the god’s sleep. Mankind has also lax on offerings. But when the Hebrews take over the story, you have a moral dimension that is not in the Babylonian tale. God in the story of Noah is responding to corruption and evil. He wants to start over and get it right.
The Talmudic rabbis extracted from the communication of God to Noah, seven laws called the Noahide Laws that would apply to all human beings. These are derived from the text; patterns of behavior as to what is a good human being. Basically they require that every person is to come to and observe religion and judicial laws:
1.- Don’t blaspheme
2.- Don’t worship idols,
3.- Don’t commit incest,
4.-Don’t steal,
5.-Don’t murder,
6.-Don’t drink or eat the blood of an animal, and
7.-Don’t eat the flesh of a living animal.
These laws were given to the descendants of Noah, and required of all those non-Jewish people who chose to live among the Israelites. These laws termed Natural Religion were vital to maintaining a human and a civil society.
Respectfully,
Lenny
October 27, 2012
Heshvan 11, 5773
Mendy Log: Lech Lecha
Genesis 12:1-17:27
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
“Lech Lecha,” which is the statement made by God to Abram that tells him to leave his father’s house and go to a land that he will be shown, begins one of my favorite parshas because it is the story of every person who decides to grow by leaving his or her past and entering upon a journey that might take them to places unknown.
But Mendy chose another path to take this Sabbath by talking about the opening of a particular prayer that we say at every service. Though we can all recite this prayer by rote, he we suggested that we do not know what the words really means or to what it refers. He was right.
The words to which he referred contains the lines, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”
The Reform Jew in me had always taken this statement as recognition our God concept was not to be set but was to evolved as humanity evolved, as indicated in the line to Moses, “I shall be what I shall be” as a translation of His Name. The implication for me is that the God of Abraham, was not the same exact God as the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob is different from both. As we evolve, God evolves in our own understanding as He reveals Himself to us. But Mendy’s take was different. Surprise, surprise.
Mendy made reference to this repetition by saying that the Rabbis who wrote the service back in Talmudic times, had specific qualities in mind when the distinct statements about the God of the Patriarchs were made, but most people now have no knowledge of what each quality was, so the statements become rote, and for most, meaningless. He referred us to two references, but I can recall only the one in the Ethics of the Fathers, and if my memory serves it was Hillel’s statement that we are to love and pursue peace, love thy fellow-creatures, bring them to Torah. It seems that each of the patriarchs exemplified one of these qualities. I think it was Abraham who was the one who loved his fellow man because his tent was always open, Isaac was the quiet scholarly one who exemplified Torah study, and Jacob was the one who exemplified love of fellow creatures.
I may have mixed them up so you understand why I always qualify what I write with “This is what I think I remember Mendy saying.” But as Mendy spoke, I recalled other qualities that oddly enough also come in threes. Simon the Just told us that the world existed on three things: Torah, temple service, and practice of charity. Rabbam Simon, son of Gamaliel added that the world exists on truth, on justice, and on peace. And the Prophet Micah, in positing his trio, says that God wants us to seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with HIm. Each of our Patriarchs could also be identified with such qualities.
I think Mendy’s comments were important because so much is said by rote, and little thought is given to the actual meanings of the words or the meaning behind the words. But the services are always the same, and I doubt if many apprehend the meaning behind what they are saying. Perhaps it is also the fault of the rabbis who have an established service they must get through because that is the tradition. But would an Orthodox or Conservative rabbi have the courage to say to a congregation: “Look, you come here week after week, and some of you day after day, and really do not understand the heart of the prayers. So this Sabbath, we are not going to do the entire shemoneh esreh repetition, and we’re going to just concentrate on one of the eighteen prayers so you will fully know in the future what it really means and it’s significance in the liturgy.”
And if I knew that such a teaching would be going on for at least eighteen weeks, I would be much happier with the service because I would be learning and intellectually and hopefully, spiritually growing. Personally, I think the repetition of the amidah is unnecessary because it is redundant, and I don’t know why we have to include it other than “it’s always been that way.” I am the poster child for not knowing why the prayers are there and what their real significance are.
On Shabbat, a rabbi has a captive audience, and if he (or she) were to take the opportunity to educate on the meaning of the prayers and why they are included, I do believe that his (or her) congregation would be very appreciative. Of course, a rabbi might say that if you want to learn, take a class, but there are those of us who can only allot a certain amount of time to attendance, and might not be willing to attend or could not attend because of other pressures.
Before we started talking about the Lech Lecha parshah over a M’Kor Shalom, we reviewed a piece of the Noah story and what nakedness might also mean metaphorically. To be naked is to be exposed; to see the truth of that person in all their fallibility.
Was Ham the one to see first see his father’s fear, confusion, and anxiety at seeing the world destroyed? Did his father curse his descendants for seeing the truth that lies beyond the image the parent feels compelled to project? The older brothers, wishing to respect their father and his fallibility, cover him up and will not see the reality. Perhaps they are protecting the established relationships between children and parents. Perhaps they have learned to deal in denial.
Parents, because they fear being seen as vulnerable and fallible, will keep family secrets. But such secrets underlie certain behaviors that could be confusing and dangerous if not explained to their offspring. We spoke about breaking away from family patterns and curses from generation to generation that are both physical and emotional? What do you do with the knowledge that you are cursed?
“Lech Lecha” speaks to the natural inclination of moving forward and taking risks. Taking risks to grow seem part of Jewish tradition and a Jewish value. (The status quo has historically not been kind to Jews, so risking a new path and thinking outside the box has always been part of our survival plan). Abram is well up there in years when the call comes, and this teaches us that we are not to be afraid to take risks at any age. We are invited to grow; to take a leap of faith to a “place you do not know.” It can be both a physical and spiritual leap. To grow spiritually is to go to a place we do not know. Judaism invites us to just do it, and have faith and courage in yourself.
I’ve had several major lech lechas in my lifetime. I think my first major one was deciding to teach, and this career choice was not what was anticipated in my family. But despite the drama this choice caused, it made me very happy. My second was to elope. That made no one happy, but I had to “leave my father’s house” in order to grow up. My interest in inter-disciplinary education and teaching skills allowed me to write a curriculum that was accepted as one of the models for the New York City School System. I was about twenty five, and following that, I was invited to join the New Jersey State Department of Education. This brought me to my third life altering lech lecha. Time was a crucial factor. I was told I had the job but one person still had to approve me. But to move to NJ, I had to give up my job, our apartment, take out my pension for a down payment to buy a home and all this had to be done before the school year began. Nothing could be done until I quit. So without a firm commitment, I did all of these things. And though I was told I should not have done it, I did get the job, and my professional life truly began as the New Jersey State Consultant in Arts and Humanities. I was twenty-nine. I risked it all for a chance at a new and exciting life. I got it, but in retrospect, I can honestly say that most of my “lech lechas”have been accompanied by great drama, and lasting trauma that were imposed on me from those responding to my choices. Was it worth it to have the life I carved out for myself and the people I have met and befriended on this journey? You bet it was!
It was made clear that each spiritual journey comes in stages, and our growth is not always at once. We always have the opportunity to grow. None of us is ever complete.
Abram is told to leave his native land and “his father’s house” because to become who he’d become, he had to develop a new lifestyle. The question was considered as to why the Torah lists the particular order of the leaving in the way it does. The explanation was that the parental home as well as the community and country, imprints on us emotional responses, values, and attitudes. Change comes slowly, beginning with making superficial changes first, and then internalizing them. Each change in attitude, value, or behavior must be integrated and internalized before moving on. Change in personality and spiritual growth must be gradual. Growth takes a lifetime. Who you are has taken a lifetime of growth.
Abram makes a radical change when Terah, his father, dies. Such moments give us permission to change ourselves: death, divorce, birth etc. Something becomes the trigger that tells us that we have a major choice to make and an opportunity to grow. Such moments may take us to the metaphoric abyss, “to a land you may not know.”
I do believe that our lech lechas must first require a latent vision and only then can we give ourselves permission to grow. Y’a gotta have a vision!
Respectfully,
Lenny
November 3, 2012
Heshvan 18, 5773
Mendy Log: Vayera Genesis 18:1-22:24
Haft. II Kings 4:1-37
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
This chapter in Genesis is perhaps one of the most dramatic and telling chapters in the Torah because it moves from God’s visit to Abraham, his negotiation with God, the destruction of Sodom and Gemorah, Lot and his daughters, Sarah’s giving birth to Isaac, the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, and the great test of Abraham, namely, the sacrifice of Isaac. Initially, Mendy chose to speak about God’s visit to Abraham which by the way gives us one of our strongest values which is visiting and comforting the sick. He later stressed the negotiation with God to save the righteous in the two cities which gives rise to another key Jewish characteristic of not accepting the status quo if you deem it unfair or unjust, and challenging God Himself for what you see as a righteous cause.
Hurricane Sandy was on Mendy’s mind as it was on all our minds, and he implored the congregation to be generous in giving. He related this need to open our hearts and hands to both “the stranger and the home born” by referencing how Abraham, while talking to God, saw three strangers coming toward his tent in the heat of the day, left talking with God, and greeted them offering to wash their feet, and give them refreshments. Mendy’s question was, “How do you leave off talking to God Himself and go take care of strangers? Why would the patriarch do such a thing, and how should God have responded?
Mendy inferred that God responded favorably, because the man He chose to be the father of the Jewish People would consider assistance to the wayfaring stranger in need of food and shelter more important that a conversation with Him; thus projecting the value of hospitality to his descendants. Abraham was taking care of God’s people, and that was and continues to be the right and proper thing to do. In short, the immediate needs of people are more important. Hurricane Sandy, if anything positive can be said about it, is an opportunity to be like Abraham and help people who need help.
Chabad did not lose its electricity, and Mendy sent out an e-mail inviting people to come charge their phones. He let us know that some people did not see this as an opportunity to help people, but should have been yet another opportunity for further involvement in ritual. Mendy recounted two congregants who complained that there should have been a greater call to prayer and to study and that he had missed an opportunity. Another actually complained that the children were invited to see a magic show asking to know why they weren’t being given religious instruction instead of being entertained? Mendy disagreed with these callers emphatically, because they wanted to concentrate on rituals rather than on helping. He made if very clear that this is not what God wants, and this is not what Judaism is all about. He also spoke about our obligation to do whatever needs to be done to save a life even if it means breaking a Sabbath law.
This triggered the following in my mind: This idea of believing you can read the mind of God, know what God wants, God’s involvement, or what God’s intentions are in in the events that happen, for me is very off putting. And I think proposing and ascribing to God rationalizations for events such as Hurricane Sandy, The Holocaust, the destruction of the Temples, boarders on blasphemy. In the Book of Job, we are told not to try to fathom God’s ways and though it is proper to challenge them, we will never fathom them. The Right Wing Christian Right ascribes any natural calamity as God’s judgement on the immorality of the East and West coasts, as well as the Gulf region. What hubris! And we can’t forget our own crazies who claim that God brought about the Holocaust because not enough Jewish women were lighting Sabbath candles. It is a natural inclination to want to know the whys and wherefores of tragedies. But to rationalize these events as messages from God boarders on delusion. The Holocaust happened because people are taught to hate other people and there are people in this world who are sociopaths. There is evil in the world, and when good people remain silent in the face of injustice because of their own evil inclinations, evil flourishes. Hurricane Sandy happened because the glaciers and ice shelves are melting due to global warming, the seas are rising, the oceans are heating up, the moon was raising the tides, and the results are, and will continue to be, massive and cataclysmic events if we refuse to do anything about it. I do not believe that God had anything to do with it, although the question was asked by one of the men at lunch. “I wonder why Hashem did this to the east coast?” or some question like that. He might as well believe in Karma. And if it is God’s will that destruction follow because of some infraction against His laws, who are we to try to ease the plight of the people who are suffering his righteous wrath? Right? But what about Abraham leaving God’s company to take care of strangers and his arguing for the righteous of Sodom and Gomorrah? It can’t be both ways. You either believe God is punishing people for moral infractions and you have no right to interfere with the Divine Purpose, or you see natural disasters exactly as they are without any relationship to God’s wrath, and you do everything you can to help. The duel messages of God being involved in everything that goes on, and the message that we must behave in ways that might counter His severe decrees is confusing, and such aspects of theology take away from the beauty of Judaism.
Over at M’kor, the teachings primarily dealt with the metaphoric meaning of the the parsha. Sodom and Gomorrah became metaphors for evil, depravity, and destruction. God, in deciding to tell Abraham of His plan, became a parenting metaphor– an idealized father image. In the Torah, God often does not react in a linear logical fashion. The expulsion from Eden and the flood, were not logical but emotional reactions. Perhaps he wants to check out his decision with Abraham who may be a moderating influence because he is human. But in sharing His intentions, Abraham raises the issue of the deaths of possibly innocent people and delivers the great line, “Shall not the judge of all the world deal justly?” God indulges this moderating voice and agrees not to destroy the cities if there are ten righteous men found there. We are not told how the assessment is made, but the cities are destroyed leaving us to wonder if God had any real intention of abiding by the negotiation.
The fact that Abraham is bold enough to confront God is a proof text that tells Jews that we are supposed to argue and challenge God’s decisions. When we see something wrong, the Jew must stand up for justice. The Torah law, “You shall not stand idly by upon the blood of your neighbor,” reflects an ethical precept that was given the status of law. We are told by Rabbi Sax that this is a turning point in human spiritual growth. To argue with God on justice is unique in religious literature. Defending justice is the first human argument for the sake of heaven. Argument is part of being Jewish. Heroes of the spirit make such challenges.
It would seem that God invites Abraham to speak, and in doing so, also invites Abraham to challenge His verdict. He even signals words to use such as “righteousness” and “justly.” It would seem that we move in God’s universe, and God is teaching us all the time. God rules by right, not might, and God is not merely powerful but ethical. As God is ethical, so we, too, must model that behavior. We cannot know God. We cannot know the teacher, but we need to model the teacher. There will be things we cannot understand, and how we deal with the randomness of existence determines the type of person we become.
At one point there was mentioned Abraham and a shadow, and I cannot recall the origin of the reference except that it led to a discussion on Jung and the archetype of evil. It also had something to do with the debate between Abraham and God as an inner debate between humanities’ destructive and compassionate inner development. In this internal dialogue, it is Abraham who is the human ethical yardstick, standing as a symbol for life, and God as the destructive aspect of man’s nature. The Divine image needs the human level to modify its destructive nature, and the debate between God and Abraham is the same internal dialogue we have daily but on a universal scale. It is the good inclination verses the bad inclination.
This Divinity exists as a manifestation of our spiritual potential. Our perceptions of God changes as we change in our lives. We project our own growth on to the Divinity. If you see yourself as the spokesperson for what is ethical as Abraham obviously does, does God become the evil inclination in Abraham? Obviously, Abraham has great internal tensions and his inclinations struggle though out. He is not crazy but very human.
If we could make our fantasies come true, would we become God or King and impose order on the chaos we see around us? But since “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” we need to temper our egos so we can live with other people. We are dealing here with a 10th century BCE tribal nomadic culture, and the God posited here reflects these people, what they value, and their internal struggles to make sense out of a dangerous world.
Abraham is the patriarch and archetype of humanity. He is flawed just as we are, and that’s why he still continues to be valid and inspirational thirty centuries after he walked the earth.
Respectfully,
Lenny
Mendy Log:
Toledot Genesis 23:19-28:9
Halftorah Malachi 1:1-2:7
It was a sober Mendy who got up on the bimah to deliver his drush today because his first thought was of the impending ground incursion into Gaza, and the three Chabadnicks who were killed by terrorist missiles.
I did not know that one of the three was a pregnant woman, and the two men were fathers of small children. That fact was not pointed out on CNN, MSNBC, the regular network news channels, our local newspapers, or the BBC. Of course what was poignantly pointed out to the public was the father in Gaza holding his lifeless son for the cameras. Now call me cynical, but I do recall past pictures and fabricated stories detailing the so called loss of other Arab children who were used for propaganda purposes by the Arab Palestinians, so forgive me if I’m not choked up. This picture may also be a fiction to garner world support for Hamas and its supporters which it surely will in Europe and among main line Protestant groups in the USA.. Would the same plaintive voices be raised if they were burying Jewish children? These murderers know just how gullible the world is and how much the world loves putting aside the facts if there is an opportunity to condemn Israel. Even Rachel Maddow had the nerve to say that she “didn’t know how this whole thing got started.” Well, Rachel, Hamas started lobbing missiles into Israel, and that’s how it got started. Israel did not initiate this. She should be ashamed of herself. Another MSNBC thought it fine to compare weapons that Israel had with weapons that Hamas had. What a schmuck and what a less than subtle in your face reference to the David and Goliath metaphor that can only lead to a condemnation of Israel for what will be a response that the world will see as “over the top.” For the non-Jewish world and for Jews on the extreme Left, all responses from Israel are always “over the top” no matter what the provocation. Sometimes the hypocrisy and the hate is just overwhelming, so my only conclusion is that Israel has got to do what it has to do to survive and those who don’t like that response can pound sand. For me, the guiding maxim must be the Talmudic exhortation that “If a man comes to slay you, slay him first. None of this “turn the other cheek” bullshit.
And before getting into the actual parsha, Mendy spoke of the hundreds of elderly Jews living in Sea Gate Brooklyn who were devastated by Hurricane Sandy, and urged us to continue giving what we could so they could begin rebuilding their shattered lives.
This parsha begins with the story about the wells that were dug, fought over, abandoned, and re-dug. If I recall, between Abraham and Isaac, there were seven wells, six of which were in contention with the indigenous population and one which was not. This final single well dug by Isaac’s men is the one that establishes Isaac and his descendants the physical right to the land. In this place they dug wells and buried their dead. They planted and reaped. They could claim ownership. God had already granted our ancestors their spiritual right to this land. Isaac’s well establishes the land its on as his.
Mendy linked this to the right of Israel to be on that land, but not by virtue of the covenant that both Abraham and Isaac made with King Abimelech. Such covenants are easily abrogated with time as were those. Covenants made with mere mortals are tenuous. Nor did he say that Israel was given this land in 1948 by the decree of the United Nations, because most of the member nations would happily see the creation of Israel rescinded, and I’m fully convinced that those who did vote for the creation of Israel imagined that the Arabs would immediately destroy it and finallysolve the “Jewish Problem.” The majority of the UN member states support the delegitimization of the Jewish State.
At the end of this Mendy Log is an essay on manifest destiny and Israel’s survival.
What Mendy did say was that the Land of Israel was given to us by God Himself and it was given in perpetuity despite what the world does or says. This land is ours, and we will gain the respect of the world if we proudly say that God gave it to us millennia ago and insist on that fact.
Happily, the Evangelicals believe this to be true and are our best supporters among Christians. Christians who do not believe this and reject or discount the truth of the Torah as it regards God and Israel, must logically reject the truth of the Gospels since the truth of our Torah verifies the truth of their testament. You can’t have it both ways. Christian theology stands or falls on the Torah as God’s revealed word. The land of Israel is ours because God gave it to us, and that we can do our part by to protect Israel by involving ourselves in prayer, ritual, action, and by moving outside our comfort zones and trying on new behaviors.
The focus of the story turned to the deception of the blind Isaac by his wife Rebecca and the willingness of Isaac to go along with his mother. Now prior to this, there is the story of how the wild Esau comes in from hunting claiming that he was famished and near death. This is pure hyperbole, but it is indicative of Esau’s dramatic and broad nature. His twin brother, the younger Isaac, says that he will give him the stew he is making if he will give him the birthright that is due the first born. Primogeniture, the law that the first born son gets the lion’s share, was the law of their society, but Esau reasons that a birthright would mean nothing if he starved to death. So we are told that Esau despised his birthright, the spiritual gravitas that comes with it, and in giving up his claim to it, he also gives up the legacy of perpetuating his grandfather’s and his father’s traditions and faith. We are told that Esau has no interest in such matters.
Esau is portrayed as a wild man, a hunter who is comfortable out in the open air while his brother is comfortable in the tents studying. (Was Isaac literate? What was there to read?) Rabbi Menachim related a story that tells us that because both Isaac and Rebecca knew their elder son’s true character, they both connived the deception in the hope that the loss of the blessing would temper his nature and bring him back to some semblance of balance. (Chaim Potok uses the same technique in The Chose, where the rabbi father, perceiving that his brilliant son lacked empathy/compassion, withholds empathy/compassion from his son in the hope that the lad will come to feel what he is withholding from others.)
But that is pure midrash and certainly not what the Torah says. In reality, Isaac is blind, clueless, and deceived by his wife and younger son. But deception generates deception, and if there is anything to learn from how this story ultimately plays itself out, it is that once an action is taken, it can roil down the generations. From generation to generation. From dysfunction to dysfunction.
When Esau realizes that the blessing was given to his brother, he becomes enraged and for the first time complains that Isaac has not only stolen the blessing, but the birthright as well. This is the first time that Esau has mentioned the birthright, and Mendy suggested that he did this because it were his material possessions being threatened and not just his spiritual ones. He sold the spiritual because he perceived it had not tangible value. Mendy expanded this line of thought by likening it to the Jew’s position in the world. He said that as long as the Jews stayed in their place and prayed, the non-Jewish world did not concern itself with them. But because Judaism is not just a religion but a way of life, and Jews moved into areas and excelled in the provinces believed by the non-Jewish world to be exclusively theirs, there was a backlash that we now call anti-Semitism and what I call Jew-hatred.
I disagree with Mendy in his assertion that we were left alone as a people as long as we quietly prayed in our little backwater country. Our foray into economic competition may have been one issue that has exacerbated the reactions to us in the past two thousand years. But Jew hatred begins at the very beginning of our faith where we are compelled in the Torah to bring the word of God to the world. In doing this, we had to tell the world that the gods they worshiped were false. People don’t like being told such things, and there was a backlash. We had a book of moral laws where this God demanded that we behave well and point out when others were not behaving well, and our different laws and judgements made us suspect. There was a backlash. We conceived of ourselves as a transnational tribe of people anyone could join if they accepted our God, our laws, and our concept of Chosenness and Peoplehood. The backlash continues. God, Torah, Israel, and Chosenness are the reasons for Jew hatred. Economics may be a factor in Jew hatred, but not the underlying cause.
Over at M’kor Shalom, the same story was being discussed and the initial focus was on the metaphoric meaning of the rivalry between Jacob and Esau. It is a struggle for position, for status, and for property. Esau, who was born ruddy likes the earth, fulfills his destiny and becomes a man of the earth, a wild hunter who lives in the open and relishes the hunt. Jacob is a quiet almost scholarly man who lives in tents and cooks. One brother represent the urban world, and one the rural. The brothers are metaphors for the process of moving from the hunter/gatherer life to the life of living in cities. Society requires restraint and laws allowing for civilization. Jacob is concerned with how people might get along in society, while Esau prefers living off the land. The text suggests that a society where there are laws and mutual respect for individual rights is better than living in a state of nature. Civilization grows from urban centers, not from the fields and forests.
I expanded on another’s thought by saying that the metaphor was not quite that simple. We are still both Esau and Jacob, and as Esau, we have substituted symbolic activities for the hunt although some still do. We watch competitive games, violent sports, involve ourselves in technology where we become players in violent and uncivilized stories, and some of us do and think things that are just not civilized. But the Jacob in us is a law abiding citizen, often well educated, righteous in our treatment of others, and generous in our lives. The Jacob in us balances the Esau in us as the good inclination balances the bad. The world, including ourselves, is composed of vying opposites.
The conversation moved to what happens to a child when it is obvious that one parent favors one child over the other. In the case of these twins, each lacked the love of one parent and each became a particular person because of that lack. We also spoke about the animal images as it relates to people in the episode where the birthright is sold for some stew. Easu employs hyperbole as he describes himself as being famished and likely to die of hunger. He is described as gulping down his food, not savoring it or appreciating it. Animals eat in such a way, but humans are asked not to do that. In fact, to slow down the animal in us, we are asked to wash our hands ritually as well as physically, for spiritual elevation, and for cleanliness.
In this symbolic act, we are also separating this moment of sustaining our lives from other moments. To make something holy is to separate it from the mundane. I define holiness as separation. As we separate the Sabbath from the other days of the week, so we can think of it as an elevated moment in time and therefore separate, so we become holy by separating our animal inclinations from our civilized inclinations.
Respectfully,
Lenny
Manifest Destiny and Religion
By Leonard H. Berman
The conflict in the Middle East finds its origins in religion and in the concept of manifest destiny. Manifest destiny is a philosophical imperative by which a nation gives itself permission to expand itself because of its own perceived virtue and greatness, or by virtue of Divine Will. A religious imperative is a mandate a group perceives is given to them by the deity they worship and is legitimized in their holy scripture. The Arab/Israeli conflict is, at its heart, a Muslim/Jewish conflict and the animosity towards Israel and toward Jews that exists in the world of Muslim fundamentalism, stems from these two concepts. Religion and nationalistic perceptions have more to do with the conflict than disputed boundaries and settlements.
Fundamentalist Muslim Arabs believe that the land upon which the legitimately created nation of Israel exists, belongs to them. According to their own concept of manifest destiny, all lands that were ever Muslim are still Muslim and must ultimately be returned to Muslims. This idea comes from the Islamic political/theological imperative which teaches that it is the duty of Muslims to re-establish a global Islamic state called the Caliphate, and that entity is to be ruled by Islamic law. Jihid, or holy war, is waged to achieve that end.
Jewish manifest destiny comes from that section of the Genesis where God gives to the Jewish people the particular piece of property in question. But if you don’t believe in biblical manifest destiny, there have been legally recognized bodies over the years such as the United Nations in 1948, the British Balfour Declaration, and the support at the League of Nations earlier in that century, that have called for, supported, and created a homeland for the Jews in what was once a section of the Ottoman Empire called Palestine. There never existed at any time in ancient or in modern times an independent entity called Palestine. Palestine was a section of the Ottoman Empire much the way New Jersey is a section of the United States. There were Palestinian Jews living in that section of the Ottoman Empire and Palestinian Arabs living there as well. Both were given the option of a state of their own by the U.N. in 1948.. The Arab Palestinians and the Arab nations around them, acting on their concept of manifest destiny, chose not to accept the partition and the creation of two legal entities called Israel and Palestine. Wars followed and Israel was victorious, thrived, and dominated, much to the disgust of those Arabs who have not given up their hope to destroy the Jewish state. Now the questions to be asked are: Why do Arabs want to destroy Israel? Arab manifest destiny is certainly a piece of the answer, but the answer can also be found in the Koran, the Muslim bible.
One can easily see that the real issue for Arabs is Israel’s very existence and Jewish dominance on that piece of property. If one looks into the Koran one finds mandates which state that Jews and Christians must be kept in perpetual servitude. The Suras that make that demand are further expanded upon by the Pact of Umar, the Muslim legal code written in the seventh century, which delineates what that servitude must look like. Both these absolute theistic works are discredited by the fact that Jews are dominant in Israel and Israel exist. So the question remains: Are Israel’s borders or disputed settlements really the cause of the problems between the Jews and the Arabs, or is the problem for the fundamentalist Muslims ultimately that Israel exists on what the Arabs perceive as their land by virtue of their concept of manifest destiny, and by virtue of the fact that Israel’s dominance gives the lie to their holy book and legal code? When you canonize hatred in your holy books and believe that every word is God given or God inspired, the fundamentalist has only the option to believe.
It is the Jew’s refusal to accept an unequal, inferior status that irks the Arab nations. This is what really lies at the heart of the Arab-Muslim hatred for Israel. The existence of the Jews was not a provocation to Islam as long as Jews were subordinate or degraded as they were throughout the centuries that they were living in Arab lands. But a successful and dominant Jewish state is incompatible with the view of Jews as the “humiliated and wretched” beings they are called in the Koran. The call for a Palestinian Arab state in place of Israel is the call for a state where Islam dominates and is not dominated.
Muslim fundamentalist end sentences with: If Allah is willing.” Perhaps it is time to conclude that after sixty years of trying to destroy the Jewish state, one might conclude that Allah is willing for Israel to exist.
Mendy Log:
November 24, 2012
Kislev 10, 5773
Parsha: Vayetzei – Genesis 28:10-32:3 missile
Halftorah: Hosea 12:13- 14:10
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying: The conflict between Hamas and the Palestinian Arabs who support them in Gaza and the Israelis continues to weigh heavily on Mendy’s mind, and he began with something of a review of what was going on, updating us on the status of those who were murdered and injured by rockets falling indiscriminately on civilian populations. He then exhorted the congregation to pray and to perform mitzvot because he insisted that it is prayer and faith, not the Iron Dome missile interceptor or the IDF that keeps and will keep Israel safe. He continued with the idea that Israel’s survival and our survival as well hinges on our ability to connect with one another as a people. There were more comments, but I don’t recall because there was an audible murmur among the male congregants. One had went up, and Mendy said, “Later.”
The murmur was to the idea that Mendy was asking us to believe and accept the traditional belief that all was in God’s hands, and as long as we prayed, did mitzvot, and kept connected to our people, Israel would be safe. My brain immediately raced through my knowledge of Jewish history, reviewed it, and concluded that while God promised that there would always be a remnant (which we currently are) the reality remains that there were millions upon millions of Jews throughout history who were connected with one another, prayed sincerely to God for His protection, and were still murdered by any number of despotic regimes. (Akiva’s prayers to God were no doubt sincere I’m sure, and his love and connection to the Jewish people are legendary. Still, the Romans flayed the skin off of him and God remained silent.) Of course there are those in certain Orthodox communities who would insist that the prayers were to no avail because he along with the other eleven rabbis of the Great Assembly didn’t pray sincerely, light enough candles, study enough Torah, perform enough mitzvot, or stay connected to one another. One can rationalize anything to explain the chaos that has been inflicted on us, but such reason cannot be verified, and therefore, fallacious. And please don’t counter that “we cannot know what is in God’s plan.” I just don’t by that rationalization to explain why God’s compassion is not forthcoming. I am reminded of similar specious reasoning in the Christian Testament where they are told that “If you had the faith the size of a mustard seed” you could move a mountain or something equally big. Since you cannot move the mountain, you obviously don’t even have faith the size of a mustard seed. Talk about setting people up to feel inadequate. All human rationalizations as to why God does or doesn’t do something may be comforting to some, but are in reality only conjecture. We just don’t know and that is the only honest response that can be given!
You may already know that one of my maxims is “Pray as if everything depends on God, and act as if everything depends on you.” There was a song I heard years ago that had the line, “Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.” It’s the same idea. Mendy’s take is that everything depends on God. My take is that God has a way of staying silent and hiding His Face from us in the most traumatic of times, but has promised that there will always be a “remnant.” Well sorry if I am not comforted by that promise. To be comforted by such an idea is to have total faith that there is an over arching plan and that God knows what He is doing despite the horror that others may inflict on us. To buy into that is to buy into the idea that the individual is not important; only the remnant. I just don’t have that kind of faith. I do say that it's fine to pray if you feel that will help, and after your finished with that, you'd better raise an army and equip them with what they need to defend us.
Some of the men I see at Chabad pray because it is something they do and because it is something they have always done. It is done by rote and I do believe that little thought is given to what the words really mean or how God relates to those words. Some of the men I see at Chabad pray because they do believe that God does have a plan and will answer their individual prayers. These are the same people who wondered what the people in the shore communities did that was so terrible that God sent a hurricane to punish them. I call this “Resignation Theology” and I reject it. Some men I see at Chabad (and I include myself among this group) pray so we do not feel existentially alone, believing that a community of people praying reinforces and strengthens the resolve of those near them, to act as a community. I and I believe that these people fully believe that it is better for Israel to dot the landscape with missile defense systems and that we should be grateful to our Congress for their unfailing support of the Jewish State be that support God inspired or not. My prays to the Ayn Sof requests that I be infused with the only gift I believe Ayn Sof offers us: Divine Energy and the resolve to meet whatever the current challenge may be. Again, “Pray as if everything depends on God and act as if everything depends on you,” is my truism. I connect with all these types of men just because they are my people, and I am strengthened by them.
Mendy’s concept of staying connected is the same concept posited by Rabbi Mordicai Kaplan who founded the Reconstructionist Movement. He called the connection “Peoplehood,” and it he taught that it was this concept that kept us one People though out the centuries and not God or the rituals. For this and other radical ideas such as creating the bat mitzvah, he was excommunicated and sent to join Spinoza in Cherem. I think it was Mark Twain who quipped, “Go to heaven for the weather, and to Hell for the company.” If I could create my own afterlife, one dinner party I would host would have Spinoza, Kaplan, Akiva, and Moses at my round dinner table. Care to join that conversation anyone?
The next topic Mendy focused on was a little discussed moment at the well when Jacob castigates the shepards for not doing an honest day’s work because they were waiting for all the flocks to assemble before raising the stone on the well. It seems that the shepards felt that as individuals they are not obligated to lift the stone because one should not do the work that all of them should have to do. Jacob lifts the rock himself, letting them know that they are squandering time, and time is a commodity that cannot be reclaimed. He is giving them a lesson in leadership and initiative.
I was reminded of a line in the Ethics of the Fathers that tells us that though “We may not be required to complete the task, we are not absolved from doing so.” Also, “In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man.” Jacob did both.
To me, Jacob is the most interesting and complex member of the patriarchal triumverate.
Though a trixter who is doomed to be tricked, he also is a man of integrity, ingenuity, and resolve as indicated by his honesty when dealing with Laban’s flocks, his machinations with the rods, as well as his willingness to work for his thoroughly reprehensible father-in-law for the privilege of marrying his daughters. He is also a spiritual being, a tactician, and a leader of men. He is a survivor who sees opportunities and takes them. He’s always thinking of his future and his survival because he knows he lives in a dangerous world and using his wits will give him the edge against stronger opponents. If Jacob lived to day, I think he might be a politician. Certainly, he is a role model for survival in a very complex world.
The last thing I remember Mendy talking about was how the word Jew came to be applied to our people. The word comes from the word Judah who was Leah’s second son, and it was also the name of our ancient kingdom. The root of the word has something to do with the concept of gratitude. We are a people of gratitude, and that is easily seen because three times a day we demonstrate our gratitude to God though prayers, and there is a blessing for just about everything which reinforces the idea. At one point, Mendy asked what was at the root of choosing the name Judah as our own, and I got sucked into a reply which I knew would not be right even as I said it. I said, “People who are not grateful cannot be happy. It was a reminder to be grateful.”
This I firmly believe is true, but Mendy moved on. At the end of his solicitation where no one could guess the answer, Mendy did say that we all had good answers, and that positive acknowledgment of the varied responses was a first. I for one appreciated it although I doubt if it registered on anyone else. The actual correct answer Mendy had in mind had to do gratitude that came from within and not from without. I’m not relating this idea clearly, and I think I lost the connection. I think the idea was about people who are motivated by those on the outside, the other directed type of person, as opposed to people who are motivated by some internal value system, the inner directed type person.
A sense of being grateful has to rise up from within and not from without. We are to be grateful for what is within us, and that is important because we carry what is within all the time. Those who depend on others for validity are more prone to becoming lost if the motivation or praise is not there.
I do not recall if or how this interesting tangent was related to the Jacob story.
Over at Congregation M’kor Shalom, the Jacob story was also considered, and the water/well motif was reconsidered. Jacob leaves Bersheba and comes to a well. Something dramatic takes place where there is water be it water in a river or water in a well. Water is a symbol of transformation and transition in one’s personal life. Water is symbolic of change.
Jacob also dreams of a ladder which is a gateway to heaven, and also involves us in a shift of senses. God makes a promise to him, and he responds as an adolescent with an “if/then” condition which is indicative of who this man is at this moment in his life. “If you want me, you will do this for me, and then I will worship you.” Jacob is the center of his own universe at this stage in his development. Jacob’s response can also be interpreted as a test of God.
There are those who believe that humanity created God in its own image, and this dysfunctional God reflected the dysfunction in humanity. God Himself, from time to time is capricious, angry, and reactive. And the family we’ve created to emulate is just as dysfunctional. Let’s face it. The family stories reflected in the Torah are so true to life, that these people had to be real. Who or why would you invent them and sanctify them in you most sacred text if they weren’t? Major relationship issues exist between husband and wife, between parents and children, between sibling and sibling, and between God and man. Jacob is at a moment of transformation in his spiritual growth, recognizes something is happening and knows he can only move upward if he begins at the “if/then” negotiation level which is were he is at in his spiritual development. Human growth of any kind is developmental, and one cannot leap to higher levels without going through the lower levels. For example, if you ask someone on a lower level of moral development why he would not steal a car, he might answer that he or she is afraid of being caught. Someone on a higher level of moral development might say that he or she has an unwritten social contract where there is a mutual agreement that what is mine is mine and what’s yours is yours. The spiritually adolescent Jacob at this point represents a spiritually adolescent humanity who must first go through the different layers of spiritual development before reaching whatever the highest spiritual level. We were told that we never reach the top of the ladder and we may even not know what is there. I have considered that and concluded that if there is no goal, why climb? So I have decided what the learning at the top rung is and this is it. It has to do with the unification of all things. That’s my guess. When we evolve to the top rung, we come to apprehend that we are One with the Ayn Sof and we are One with each other.
The ladder itself is symbolic of each stage of our own wrestling match with God, and each rung is another level of our spiritual development. There was an interesting comment about how Jacob arranged the rocks originally around his head, and how in a few passages later, we read that they combined into one to become Jacob’s pillow. (I’m sure there is a midrash to explain this obvious quirk in the story.) We were told that in Gematria, the numerical equivalents of Hebrew letters, the numerical number for the word “ladder” is the same as for the word “Sinai.”
So what happened at Sinai and what was happening with Jacob has a lot to do with the spiritual development of each of us as an individual, and us as a people. Later, Jacob will wrestle with God or an angel of God and will receive the name Israel which means “wrestling with God.” To understand how this relates to us, we conclude that to grow spiritually, the Jew must wrestle with God, and that means challenging God and demanding answers. And because of this, there is a duality of tensions within. We believe that God has made a Covenant with the Jewish People, but we also have a personal Covenant that we have made with God as a result of our wrestling matches. This makes for an intensely personal relationship with God, and an intensely personal relationship with, and responsibility to, our co-religionists. Perhaps this is the reason why we come together as a people to pray, and why we pray and react in very unique ways when relating to our concept of God.
Some people will put themselves on the ladder because the sense something important to be gained is on that ladder. Others do not see spiritual growth as a necessary part of their lives and will not consider it. But those who do attempt the climb, learn that what you encounter on each rung is the struggle as well as the process and probably the hidden learning of each rung. When you begin your climb, you begin the struggle/process, and this is what initiates your own Covenant. When we begin our spiritual journey, we often have a teenage “if/then” attitude for proof that the climb will not be a futile activity. We soon discover that what we may ask for in physical proof is given in values.
We were told that one can’t begin to understand Jewish tradition and Torah until you’re about forty, and that Judaism, real Judaism, is not a religion for children. For truly understanding Judaism, you have to have lived. If you’ve lived, you can relate to the ladder.
December 1, 2012
Kislev 17, 5773
Mendy Log: Vayishlah Torah Genesis 32:4-36:43
Halftorah: Obadiah 1: 1-21
Mendy was at a Bar Mitzvah out of town and we had the pleasure of listening to Rabbi Menachim who is most likely the tallest rabbi in the world. He’s a big man with a big brain.
This is what I think I remember him saying: His initial comments were related to the nations of the world who voted to change the status of the PLO to non-member status which gives this group a certain gravitas for which it did not have to negotiate.
The vote was an end run around the Oslo Accords and the peace process, and though it changes nothing on the ground, it gives tacit approval for the Palestinian Arabs to appeal to the World Court and charge Israel with terrorism and bring specific people up on charges. It may give them leverage now that they have been given new validity by the UN and also enables them to join UN organizations and exert even more bias against Israel than already exists. Of course Israel can now take them to court and do the same to them, and since they are close to being considered an independent entity, Israel might not have to be so careful the next time Hamas attacks. Also, Israel may withhold the taxes that are collected now that Abbas has gone this route.
Rabbi was appreciative of the support of the United States, Canada, and mentioned Micronesia. I imagine Israel has been supportive of that country. But Rabbi expressed profound disappointment in Western European countries such as England, France, Switzerland for voting yes and disappointed in countries such as Germany for abstaining.
I have been all over Western Europe and has seen first hand the change in the demography of the major cities. On some major streets in London and Paris, only Arabic is spoken and only Arabic signs appear. Europe is rapidly becoming Islamified, and that is because after the Second World War, the Left in Europe, never again wanting to appear racist or phobic, opened their doors to a group of people who had no intention of assimilating or making meaningful contributions to their adopted societies. Western and Eastern Europe easily and eagerly gave up to the Nazis their one minority population that was literate, creative, cultural, and assimilated and replaced them with millions of illiterate people who despise Western Civilization and would happily see it destroyed as easily as the fundamentalists destroyed the centuries old Buddahs in Afghanistan. The mosques are filled, and the churches are empty except for tourists. The final moral decline of Europe began with the Holocaust and now, Europe is reaping what it has sown. European institutional Jew-hatred such as the kind spewed by Norway, England, and Spain, is still alive and reflective in its support for the Arab narrative. Europe is getting what it deserves.
The rabbi continued by insisting that Israel has no friend but God, and that Israel exists because God wants Israel to exist. We were asked to consider our survival from 1948 through the present, and the vast armies and resources that have come up against us. Yet we have prevailed because God wanted us to prevail. He was reinforcing what Mendy had said last week.
Both rabbi’s faiths are extraordinary, and I wish I had it. But our God and the Muslim God is the same God. The rabbis teach that it is God who wants Israel to exist. Yet in the Koran, it clearly says that Jews and Christians are to be subservient to Muslims and kept in a state of degradation. Muslims often end statements with the expression, “If it is Allah’s will.” Well, Israel has been in existence for sixty-five years, and is clearly not subservient or degraded. At what point do Muslims get the idea that Allah, the same God as the God of the Jews and Christians as well, wants Israel to exist? Israel has won all the wars waged against them, has made the desert bloom, and has maintained itself despite the calumny of the world. If the rabbis are right, what else could it be but God’s will. When will Muslims realize that by insisting that Israel be destroyed, they are going against Allah’s will and not submitting to it. Do their holy books and laws insisting that Jews be degraded second class citizens trump what God has willed on the ground? Might the reality on the ground be God’s will?
Using the reality of the UN vote, he referred us to a prophesy in the Book of Numbers that was quite telling and seems to have come true. I guess that’s what a prophesy is all about. The specific quote comes from the pagan prophet Bilam who was hired to curse the Jews but said instead, “How goodly are your tents, Oh, Jacob, your dwelling places, Oh Israel.” He later went on to say that “The Jews would be a nation alone.” This prophesy as it regards the nations of the world and their attitudes towards Israel, has sadly, always been true.
Menacham then turned to the text itself. This text tells of Jacob’s fear of seeing the brother he cheated out of his blessing and birthright twenty years ago. It also tells of his strategy for the meeting, and relates that wonderful story of how he wrestles with the angel, is wounded, and gets a new name: Israel. The story also relates the sad story of Jacob’s only daughter, Dina, and the brutal murder of Shechem and his people at the hands of Dina’s irate brothers.
The rabbi also referred us to the story of how Jacob, after sending his wives, children and possessions across the Jabbok River, stays there and it its here that he encounters the “divine being” he wrestles. I do not recall the specific word Menacham focused on, but it could be read in two ways.
One way was an interpretation given in the Oral Torah which traditionally explains the meaning behind the Torah’s written words, and expands the stories to explain and expand what is written in between the lines. The Oral Torah translates this particular word as “vessels.” I have no recollection of the other translation. Here, the case was being made for Jacob’s work ethic and his holiness. It seems that the vessels and what they contained were earned honestly, and things earned honestly become endowed with a kind of sacredness. They were too precious to leave behind. I do recall something about the family going over the Jabbok and Jacob going back across the river, but when I check the story, I could not find that he returned. I must have been on overload. Still, I like the idea that the things we create and earn honestly are imbued with a kind of sanctity.
Over at M’kor Shalom, we reviewed the story of Jacob and Esau, and how Esau vowed to kill his brother for stealing the birthright and the blessing. It is now twenty years later, Jacob is returning, and Jacob is terrified. And though he prays to God for guidance, God remains silent. Jacob will now hedge his bets by sending gifts to placate his brother while diminishing himself by telling his servants that he, Jacob, is a servant to Esau. By means of this tribute, Jacob hopes that his brother will be magnanimous.
Jacob, throughout his life thus far has revealed himself as a man who survives by using his wits. He is patient, crafty, and relies on his intellect to think his way out of difficult and dangerous situations. He is a Trixter, and in ancient literature and folk literature, the Trixter is revered. The Trixter is the one who survives by being crafty. Both his father and grandfather also survived by using their wits. That is also a message that has come down to us from the Torah. The Torah lets us know that as a small and often friendless people, our survival often depended on our abilities to manipulate situations and people. We all carry Jacob’s genes. The gifts Jacob sends to Esau reminded me of a phrase that entered the English language from ancient Greek mythology. It is “A sop to Cerberus.” Cerberus was the three headed dog that guarded the gates to Hades. It was a potentially dangerous foe. I think it was Odysseus who had to get past this creature, and he does so by tossing it a drugged cake (sop) which is eaten and renders the dog catatonic. (Do you see the humor in the last two words?) So a “sop to Cerberus” is anything you give a potentially dangerous foe that will placate them. Esau is Jacob’s Cerberus.
The word in the Torah is translated as “propitiate” or “to regain favor from God, a god, a person, or spirit by doing something that will please them.”
The next focus was on the idea of “face,” and why the word appears so often. Which face does Jacob want his brother to see? In the beginning of this story, Jacob is the quiet son who sees faces, watches faces, and reads faces. Jacob has caused Esau to lose face, and now he fears his brother’s face. Esau has the power to lift Jacob’s face. When he is alone near the Jabbok River, he comes face to face with an angel. This unknown man or angel is metaphorically himself. He wrestles with himself as we all must come face to face with ourselves and wrestle with our conflicting natures. Jacob’s greatness is revealed when he faces his inner fears straight on and overcomes them. When we do this, when we face ourselves, we, like Jacob, are never the same. And like Jacob, we may also walk away limping and carry that limp or self realization for as long as we live. In the film, “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” the beasts are symbols of the girl’s fears and troubles. In the new movie, “The Life of Pi,” it is the tiger who is the young man’s fears which must be overcome in order to survive. There was a reference to “Zim Sun” which means expansion and contraction, but I don’t recall it exactly. It had something to do with the name of the boat Pi and the tiger find themselves on. I think the boat was called Zim Sun. If that is the case, the boat becomes the place where you encounter yourself; where you expand yourself or contract. The cognoscente will see the name of the boat and smile.
Jacob is at a crucial moment in his spiritual growth. Spiritual growth is an on going and never ending process. It is an evolutionary process, tolerate we change as we grow. In this process, we also come face to face with our fears and we become someone new. Jacob become Israel. He is now more spiritual and whole. His ego and sense of survival has wrestled with his spiritual side. For us to encounter ourselves and move forward, we must go into isolation. Moses goes into the desert as does Jesus, and both emerge spiritually uplifted and leaders. We also need to withdraw or contract from people in order to come back to them. What we see in Jacob, we also see in ourselves.
We have two souls: one pulls us away from our spirituality, and the other pulls us towards it. The soul that pulls us back to God will ultimately win out, because the pain of moving further and further away becomes too much to tolerate. This push/pull leaves the soul in spiritual exile. This is our personal Exodus. We are exiled from God, and we wander in emptiness. Our goal is to get back to Eden. When you confront yourself, you see the face of God looking back at you. If we are willing to reach up, we can draw down the energy from the universe. Only then do we set things in motion.
Before you wrestle with your true self, you have to shed the stuff that gets in the way. It’s a
“Lech Lecha” moment. You must confront the things that tie you down and limit your ability to find your true self so you can move forward. Jacob sends sheep, goats, camels etc. ahead. All these are symbols of his “stuff.”
The conversations became deeply personal and I may have lost the link connecting these ideas so I think it best to just bullet them.
1. Each of us having a default setting to which we return.
2. We leave childhood, the paradise of innocence.
3. Growth is a paradox. It’s the tension between push/pull where we must learn to balance.
4. We must find the Golden Mean, the balance between the Yetzer Tov and the Yetzer Hara. The good inclination and the bad inclination within us all.
5. Maturity is learning how to deal with the paradoxes of existence.
6. You learn how to become whole by living life.
7. We must go into a place of deep spiritual exile in order to be reborn.
8. We pray for the broken parts of ourselves to be made whole again.
Indeed, Judaism is not a religion for children.
December 8, 2012
Kislev 24, 5773
Mendy Log: Vayeshev
Torah: Genesis 37:1-40:23
Halftorah: Amos 2:6-3:8
Chanukah is upon us, Mendy was filled with the spirit of the season, and this is what I think I remember him saying. He did not share the story since everyone knows it, but he did raise the following question: What is your Chanukah? No one knew what he was talking about, so he proceeded to explain what he meant. I recall him saying something about how the Jewish People have throughout the centuries, been steadfast to this celebration and how it has kept them together. All over the world, menorahs are being lit, and thousands of people are coming out to celebrate where not too long ago there were no public celebrations. People are becoming more comfortable with their Judaism. So the question, “What is your Chanukah?” was really a statement to us as to how comfortable are we in our Judaism, and what are we willing to do to push ourselves outside of our comfort zones to become more than we are now. What will we do that will keep us connected to Yiddisheit?
This year, for the first time, I put an electric chanukia in the dining room window, and I think that next year I’ll join the menorah motorcade though the neighborhoods.
Mendy continued by letting us know that this parsha would include the conflict with Joseph and his brothers over Jacob’s preference for him and his dreams of superiority, the brothers selling him into slavery, his rise in Potiphar’s house, his descent into prison based on a false charge, his interpretation of the dreams of the baker and wine steward, and the insertion of the story of Judah and Tamar. Mendy affirmed that this digression in the Joseph narrative was a strange one, and asked the congregation if anyone knew why. No one knew, so he began by actually saying that the story was really a metaphor for the relationship between God and the Jewish People.
Personally, I am uncomfortable with this interpretation since the story of Tamar, her two dead husbands, Judah’s sons, and the one son he has left, seems more like a dysfunctional soap opera then something that should be elevated to a love between God and His People. For a faith that introduced a non-corporal Being to the world as their God, the idea of deliberately anthropomorphizing this Being into a sexual Being just to explain why a story is included, is very off putting.
The story is highly sexually charged with God taking the part of Judah and Tamar the part of the people. There is guile on the part of both Judah and Tamar as well as an illicit relationship that causes Judah to condemn her to death. When she produces proof that Judah is the father of her unborn child, he confesses that he had “done her wrong” and her life is saved. The interpretation is that God also recognized that He had abandoned the Jewish People who had held fast to Him, and as Tamar held Judah to the Nazerite marriage law, Judah had abandoned her. As the Jewish People were true to God, God was not true to them. Metaphorically, God is Judah, and confesses that He has not been true to His word. One might also think that as Judah “stuck” it to Tamar in a variety of figurative and literal ways, so God has “stuck” it to the Jewish People also in a variety of ways. I am as uncomfortable with this metaphor as I am with the same idea carried over to the “Song of Songs” where the young man is equated with God in pursuit of the shepardess who, we are asked to believe, is representative of the Jewish People. I was once told that this interpretation was made because this beautiful piece of poetic drama was far too sensuous for inclusion in the cannon unless it had some religious connection. The story of Tamar and Judah can stand by itself and a vehicle of truth for what it says about promises and human relationships. The “Song of Songs” can stand by itself because it is a beautiful love story about passion and innocence. They both cause us to think and to feel and do not require a connection to God to give them value. Rationalizations for their inclusion are unnecessary.
Over at M’Kor Shalom, the focus was entirely on Joseph and his relationships. The parsha beings with the statement that “Jacob was settled,” but this is metaphorical language. While Jacob is finished with his youthful battles, has married, has children, and now comes back to his place of origin, the events in his life will not let him settle down. We are being taught that life is not tranquil. Settling down means separation, but those most sensitive to justice, order, and righteousness in the world, continue to see reality and cannot settle down. Life has a way of continuing to stick it to us, and though we would like to say, “This is my time!,” those who see themselves as part of the process to mend the world, may never settle down. We know that there is a right and wrong way in this universe.
Being settled may be developing a comfortable rhythm, but the period of wholeness is never going to happen. We are never really done growing, and the tangled mess that is life is an opportunity to rise above it and untangle it through Tikun Olam, repairing the world. We do rise up.
While there are days I wish the world would just go away and leave me alone, I don’t believe I will ever be able to settle down. There are just too many things wrong with the world in general, and I am told that though I am not responsible for solving the problems, I may not desist from doing something about it. If society is to evolve, and people are to evolve, we do not have the luxury of settling down. Some can numb themselves to life, but I don’t see separation as living.
To further clarify this point, Richard quoted someone who said that “there are always going to be waves, and the trick is to learn how to serf.” Also, there are those of us who are economically and socially secure enough in our lives to be able to be aware of the problems around us.
I think it was Gandi who said something like “there are some people who are so destitute, they can only see God in bread.” There are a ladder of needs posited by educators such as Bloom and Havinghurst that teach us that one cannot move up the ladder unless lower needs have been addressed. People who are hungry or have no homes, cannot be concerned about the lack of human rights in the Middle East or in Africa because they themselves are having trouble surviving.
And now for the Joseph cycle which is the growth of Joseph as a human being. The Joseph story opens with Joseph bringing back to Jacob bad reports about his brothers, and the brothers hate him for it. At this point, Joseph is seventeen, totally egocentric, a self absorbed brat who has no clue as to the possible consequences of his actions, and is in the process of separating himself from the pack. He’s individuating. This is a study in the development of a human being- a journey of the individual from where they were to where they should be. It is the search for purpose in one’s life. At the core of this search are the three questions we all ask ourselves at one point or another: Why was I born?, Why must I die?, and why am I here?
Here it was suggested that we are born into a metaphoric jig saw puzzle representing life, and we spend our lives trying to fit the pieces together. Joseph’s dreams are an attempt to answer those three questions.
I recall having a dream years ago where I was given a large life size painting, and though I cannot recall what was depicted, I knew it was beautifully painted and perfect. Strangely, the painting was not done on canvas, but on long pieces of wood hanging on hooks with bulges at their ends like musical notes. When I next looked, all the pieces of wood had been rearranged by some unseen hand and I recall how distraught I was having been given something perfect and now having to figure out how to rearrange the pieces so they would be perfect again. Are we given something perfect and either we or something else makes a mess of it leaving us to repair it for ourselves?
Like many bereaved spouses, Jacob, who has lost his beloved Rachel, has transferred that love to her son, Joseph, the physical representation of his wife. The coat is therefor the tangible representation of that love. Jacob’s behavior conjures up again the “favorite son” motif which really begins with God, Cain, and Able. Genesis is a series of stories depicting inter-generational woundings, and Genesis continues to resonate powerfully with the same trans-generational pathology because these same stories are being played out in one form or another in 2012. The book expresses hard truths about human nature, and a sibling rivalry that has been seething for generations. None of the people in Genesis are super human. They are real and flawed just as we are. Jacob is over compensating for his pain by loving Joseph excessively, and unwittingly carrying on a pathology begun between Cain and Abel and now includes Issac and Ishmael, Jacob and his brother Esau, and now Joseph and his brothers.
When Joseph is sent by Jacob to find his brothers, he meets a man who says, “What are you looking for?” Joseph tells him that he is looking for his brothers, and the man tells Joseph where he might find them. If Joseph had never met that man, history would be different. Joseph would not have been sold into slavery, he would never have gone down to Egypt, he would not have saved the Jewish People from starvation, Moses would not have been born, the Torah would never have been given, moral law would not have become the source of values for civilization, Christianity and Islam would not have been born, etc. etc. Sort of like the new film Cloud Odyssey. This unnamed man who might have been the same man who wrestled with Jacob, sets in motion the Joseph cycle.
The questions raised are: Did Jacob send his son on his journey knowing what would happen so Joseph could fulfill his destiny? The man asks “What are you looking for? not “Who are you looking for?” What are we looking for? Where are we going? Are we, ourselves, that man?
Is the question one of self assessment that we ask ourselves at every stage of our lives? Do people who do not have the bare necessities for survival have the luxury of self assessment? We are indeed on a developmental ladder, but only those who have satisfied the needs of the lower rungs can afford to climb.
December 15, 2012
Tevet 2, 5773
Mendy Log: Miketz Genesis 41L1-44:17
Haftorah: Zechariah 2:14-4:7
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
He began by recognizing the insanity of yesterdays massacre at the school in Connecticut and offered whatever comfort he could to the parents and loved ones who lost children, family, and friends. He also freely admitted that he had no answers to any question that could possibly be asked.
I am very proud of Mendy for opening his drush by expressing the pain we were all feeling, offering his compassion for the bereaved, and honestly saying that he had no answers. I shudder to think what reasons for this evil event might have been given by other religious leaders who are over on the extreme sides of their faiths. I for one do have an answer although it will not satisfy nor give comfort.
In the first place, I do believe there is real evil in the world, and that evil is at the core of many people in this world. “Man is evil from his youth” is a line God delivers in Genesis, and I have always wondered why my faith would posit a God who creates both good and evil and projected these elements into those who were created in His Image?
Evil people carry within them the mindless hatred that they have been taught, and though evil is part of our God given inclinations, not everyone chooses to act on those inclinations. Evil people deliberately gun down innocent people be they adults or children, or push them into gas chambers. To dismiss such people as psychologically disturbed, is to excuse them. Yes, there are psychologically disturbed people, but most would never dream of murdering children or to call for the destruction of an entire people as some currently do or have done in the past.
In the second place, I do not believe we can go to God for an answer to the insanity because from my point of view, the God we conceived of and continue to worship is a silent God who is either unable to interfere, is unwilling to interfere, or cannot interfere. Either way, we are left to impose order on the chaos through law and righteous behavior, the good inclination also God given, without satisfying answers and without comfort. To quietly utter the word, “why?” or to scream it in our rage into the black void, is a waste of breath.
I may not be remembering this correctly, because I was very tired and could barely focus.
Mendy then spoke about Chunukah, but was a little shaky on his history facts. These were clarified by several congregants, but I’m not sure if the facts of the story were really important to the message he was giving us which I think had something to do with the right of people to worship as they choose, and to be themselves. It also had something to do with the Jews of that time being a people who did not accept what the other nations around them accepted, though many Jews relished the new ideas of the Hellenistic world and eagerly embraced it. Ultimately, the Syrian Greeks tried to squelch the Jewish way of life by prohibiting Torah study, celebrations, and circumcision. The Jews revolted, but it was both a civil war of traditionalist Jews fighting Hellenistic Jews, and traditionalist Jews fighting an outside enemy that was trying to eradicate their way of life.
The history of this holiday is really interesting. When Alexander died, his empire was divided among his three generals, and the land of Judea fell under the rule of the Selucids who operated out of Syria and ruled by Antiochus. So they were called the Syrian Greeks. Their king was somewhat insane, and claimed that he was the incarnation of Zeus, demanding to be worshiped in the Temple. This did not sit well with the Jews. The sons of Matatihius, known as the Maccabees, led the revolt with Judah, the Hammer, at the head of the army. The Jews won, and cleansed the Temple.
The story is told in books one and two of The Maccabees which Mendy did not mention as a source even though it is as contemporary as you can get. I suspect he did not mention it because these books are not part of the accepted cannon of holy writ, and do not contain the miracle of the oil which was first written down 700 years after the event. In fact, scholars believe that the eight days of celebration which took place was the belated celebration of Succot which could not have taken place in a defiled Temple. The Succot prayers for rain had to be said even a month or so later. As Succot had eight days and was celebrated in Tishrei, so Chanukah, celebrated in Kislev, also had eight days. Tishrei in Kislev. I do believe Mendy rejects this interpretation.
The miracle of the oil was written about in the Talmud, and it is thought that the rabbis felt it was not a good idea to support a story where young men rose up against superior forces, so they had God create a miracle that became the focus of the holiday. Could this be the reason that these books are in the Apocrypha and not included in the books of the Bible? But miracle or not, the concept of people having the right to worship as they choose and keep their customs as they choose, is another good idea that Judaism gave to the world.
There was also an “ufruf” this Shabbat which is a calling up to the Torah a young man who is about to be married, and Mendy said that he searched the parsha for some wisdom to give to the young man and to his bride. I must tell you that this young man is rather special to me since he was one of my former students, and I now have the pleasure of sitting near him weekly at Chabad. After receiving the honor, he was pelted with candy as is the tradition, and then he read the halftorah flawlessly. I am enormously proud of him, and will happily attend his wedding.
I honestly cannot recall how Mendy divined the message from the text, but I think it had
something to do with the reversal of words. Whenever Mendy uses the Hebrew, I tend to forget the specifics. The reversal may have related to the reversal of blessings that the dying Jacob gave to Joseph’s sons, but I’m thinking there was another reversal in the parsha. I think the message Mendy was sending to the couple had to do with seeing the substance in one another rather than just surface appearance, and that as a husband, you must always look for what is deeper in the words, and act on the feelings beneath the words. Did Jacob see greater worth in one of Joseph’s sons over the other? Mendy also suggested that you act on your wife’s request even when you do not understand the logic behind the request. To a man, the request may not seem reasonable, but if it is important to the spouse, it needs to be addressed. Remember, Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus.
I leaned over and said to the young man that if he wanted things to go smoothly he had to learn to say: “Yes, dear. Whatever you say, dear.” But I will admit that that can go just so far, and there are requests or statements that are made that one cannot act on or accept without comment. But it is in how the comment to the request or statement is made that makes all the difference in how the conversation proceeds. After thinking it really through before I choose to confront the issue, and only after I am settled in my resolve that this cannot go without a response, my opening line may be: “Are you aware that when you said such and such, I began to think such and such and that made me feel such and such. If there is a harsh response after you’ve “bared your jugular” in this way, there may be a problem in the relationship beyond the current problem and that’s the problem that needs to be addressed first. Children scream at each other; adults confer.
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard raised the issue of famine, and how this recurring motif in the Torah is symbolic of all catastrophic life experiences over which we have no control. At such times, our identities and our integrity are tested. “Famine” represents an opportunity for change. There is a famine in Egypt, and in the surrounding lands, and a radical opportunity for change is about to take place in Joseph’s soul and character, as well as in the characters and souls of his brothers.
There are many famines in the Bible, and it would be interesting to note who is involved, what they were before the famine, how they handled it, and what they became as a result of it.
When we consider the word “famine” in the context of Torah, we may also be considering a famine of the soul; literally a starving for affection, country, community. Famine is an emptiness; a hunger for something.
Joseph is thrown into a jail which could be his symbolic desert or his symbolic famine. He needs to languish there until he is ready to leave off who he was to become who he must become. His soul needs to be burnished.
I have noticed that in some relationships, some people tend to forget their personal "famines” once they are married because they are no longer “hunger” for a relationship. Once satisfied and no longer “hungry,” some might “let themselves go,” reverting to behaviors that might have been sublimated. Such people, while “hungry,” behaved and looked a certain way but then changed once they no longer felt that they would have to worry that they would be “hungry” again. That kind of famine brought on only a temporary change because the person reverted back to who they really were. So not all symbolic famines lead to positive growth. One party in the relationship might feel betrayed that the person they thought they married became someone else because he or she was no longer “hungry.”
The Joseph cycle is a progression of growth. Joseph is transformed from despair to affluence, but never lost his family or origin. In his growth, clothing also effects who he is. His father gave him a coat of many colors which set him apart and caused him grief because of the statement it made. When he is brought to Pharaoh to interpret the dreams, he is cleaned up and given a new tunic. When Pharaoh raises him up, he is given robes, a new name, a high born women, and a signet ring. All these are symbols of change.
Joseph is totally assimilated into Egyptian society, and his sons are given symbolic names to reflect his assimilation, his past adversity, and present good fortune. The elder is Manassah, and the younger is Ephraim. Throughout the Bible, names have great power. For Joseph, the names he gives to his sons reflect the bitterness and sweetness of his life and informs us that he has moved forward.
The motif of the younger son achieving greater things than the older is again carried through when Jacob crosses his hands and deliberately places his right hand on the head of Ephraim, the younger and not on the head of his elder brother.
In his dealings with his brother, should he act out of revenge or pity? He has prospered and can certainly afford to be kind. He can’t change the past, but he can move on. There is no reason to continue the animosity. With the power and wisdom one hopes to gather as one gets older, we begin to prioritize and certain things that bothered us years ago, no longer bother us.
Life is a journey, and the journey motif in Judaism is very powerful. Abraham goes on a journey as does Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and on and on. We are all on a journey as well and as we travel, we dream dreams of who we are, what we will become, and what our legacy will be. Dreams abound in the Joseph cycle. Joseph dreams, the baker and wine steward dream, and Pharaoh dreams. Of course there are other kinds of dreams that we allow ourselves that do not come to us as we sleep. These are the dreams we dream while we are awake, the dreams of identity.
There are faiths in this world that proclaim that all life is a dream, but I do not know who the dreamer is if there is a dreamer to begin with. I do know that each of us is a dreamer and we dream ourselves into being through our choices, and our work, and the relationships in which we are involved. But as life draws down, we eventually must all face ourselves as creations of our own dreamings. If we were resourceful, like Joseph, cleaver like Jacob, content with our lot like Isaac, and faithful like Abraham, we will realize that if we brought more good than bad to the small corner of the world we inhabited, our dreams of a successful and valued life may have been fulfilled.
December 22, 2012
Tevet 9, 5773
Mendy Log: Vayigash
Torah Genesis 44:18 - 47:17
Haftorah Ezekiel 37:15-28
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying: Mendy had already begun when I arrived, so I did not hear his introduction. He was speaking again of the massacre in Connecticut and mentioned that one of the local rabbis had devoted his Friday evening sermon to the issue of how we should address the issue of guns in our culture and the importance of becoming proactive. His focus seemed to be on leadership or becoming leaders when confronted with difficult situations because he did speak of Judah as the leader of the brothers in the Joseph saga, and the nature of leadership.
I think he agreed with the concept of becoming proactive as a general rule of conduct, making it very clear that in stressful times, the first reaction is to look to something or someone to blame. Blaming is easy, but the true leader will lead others to do something that will correct the situation. Judah, as the leader of the brothers, does just that by taking full responsibility for the alleged actions of his youngest brother, and offers himself as a slave to save Benjamin.
I had received a phone call from a friend Friday morning who asked me how I would respond to the rabbi of her synagogue devoting his sermon to gun control? This friend thought this was not an appropriate topic for Shabbat, and endangered the pulpit’s integrity by speaking about a political issue. I saw several issues at work and wondered the following: I know this person is not a guardian of the Sabbath, not kosher, and probably attends services sporadically. So why the big concern suddenly about the sanctity of the Sabbath or the integrity of the pulpit? I know that this person is a defender of the Second Amendment as interpreted by the most conservative among us, is a conservative leaning to the extreme Right, and I suspect that guns are owned. I was also curious as to why this person brought up the issue of the synagogue losing it’s tax free privileges by speaking about a political issue such as gun control. I chose not to raise these for clarification at this time, but I did suggest that an e-mail letter to the rabbi be written expressing concern. I also suggested attendance at the service to hear what was being said. I remain suspect of the motivation.
The slaughter in Connecticut should be a topic on every pulpit in America. This is a moral issue. Where else should the murder of children and adults be explored? Such a conversation as to whether or not there is a need for military grade weapons that are easily obtained and easily accessed should begin in the place where morality should be the focus and not just a factor. Should any house of God be exempt from discussing the sanctity of life because it may touch on a touchy subject? I would love to hear my fellow congregants sitting in a synagogue after prayer justify the need for clips that shoot a hundred or more rounds of ammunition when no gun that uses those clips are ever used for hunting. Such automatic weapons are used only to murder people.
The conversation is not about abrogating The Second Amendment. This amendment gives American citizens the right to “bear arms” and no one wants to take away that right. What we have now are so many loopholes in the existing laws that anyone who wants any kind of gun can usually obtain it. The laws are so vaguely written and some so poorly written that manufacturers can make and sell whatever they wish, and just about anyone can currently sell and purchase whatever they please. The first step is to close the loop holes, and we need to enforce the laws already on the books. Then, laws need to be rewritten so there are no loop holes. That is one thing our legislators might insist upon as a first step in their attempt to lead.
But too many of our legislators, both locally and in Washington, are so beholden to the gun lobby for campaign contributions, that they do not dare vote against the NRA Lobby if these representatives want to be reelected. That’s not leadership.
If we are to talk of leadership such as Judah’s,we have to talk about taking responsibility. Our legislators and the NRA cannot or will not lead in this because they refuse to take any responsibility. Recently, the NRA blamed video games, movies, comic books, etc. for the violence that pervades American Society. I agree that virtual violence has numbed us and especially our children to the consequences of real violence. Certainly, these are a factor. That said, the NRA must own responsibility for allowing and supporting the vehicles that provide the violence in reality, and if they were truly interested in ameliorating the situation, they would support legislation that bans automatic guns designed for use in war, armor piercing ordinance, and clips that discharge hundreds of rounds a minute. But the NRA supports only what is good for the members of the NRA and only the legislation that will keep millions floating into their coffers.
Joseph warned his brothers that on their return trip to get his father, they should not become “agitated.” By this he meant that they were not to argue about who was right or wrong, or who was to blame. The Torah understood the human mind. They were to move on.
The American People, our legislators, and the NRA, like the brothers, must realize that it will be a waste of time to accuse each other of blame. All are to blame. We must all accept responsibility. People who own guns must lock them safely away from children or people who may have emotional problems. Parents and the media need to monitor what their children are exposed to and the media needs to cut down on violence as entertainment. Our legislators need to become independent of the NRA lobby, and the NRA needs to recognize that the sanctity of life trumps the rights of citizens to have whatever weapons they want.
But beyond these, there are the rights we as Americans enjoy that are granted us in the Constitution and here’s the rub. If we demand that Hollywood and other entertainment venues cut back on violence, we are infringing on their First Amendment rights. If we try to put a stop to the ease at which any type of gun can be obtained, we are infringing on Second Amendment rights. If we insist that the mentally ill be incarcerated whether they like it or not, we are infringing on their Fifth Amendment rights. So the question remains as to how many rights Americans are willing to fore go to achieve some degree of safety if such a thing really exists. After 9/11 there was an uproar by some because of the Patriot Act that some saw as an infringement on individual freedoms. The ACLU, the NRA, and Congress all have to get together and make some hard choices.
There is a quote in The Ethics of the Fathers from the Talmud that says something like “though it is not up to you to complete the task, you are not exempt from doing so” or something close to that. Basically, we are all responsible to do something about the chaos we may or may not have created, and we are all obliged to make it better.
One of the other themes of Mendy’s talk had to do with the question Joseph posed to his brothers as to whether or not his father was alive? This question is interpreted as Joseph asking whether or not the influence of Judaism was still strong in the family, and whether or not the traditions of Abraham and Isaac were still influencing the behavior of his kin.
It is also taught that Joseph’s treatment of his brothers was not so much related to revenge, but whether or not they had grown morally and developed into responsible adults. He seemed satisfied that they had because they had dealt honestly with him, and did not withhold the history of the family or their genuine concern for their father and youngest brother.
I wondered why Joseph never contacted his family when he was able to do so, and was informed that Joseph could not act to move toward his family because all the dreams and the prophesies had to be fulfilled first. The brothers on their hands and knees before him fulfilled the last of his dreams and only at that moment could he reveal himself and his mission. Personally, I think there are better reasons.
I was curious as to why our tradition did not consider Joseph as the fourth patriarch since I consider him infinitely superior in his development as a human being to his father, and grandfather. I was informed at Chabad that the reason was because he had fathered only the two half tribes of Ephraim and Mannassa while his father and grandfather are considered as the father of all the tribes. I concluded from hearing congregant at M’kor that he was denied this honor because he had never spoken to God as did the others. Personally, I like the second because it says that Joseph developed his humanity, like us, through just living and not through divine revelation.
Over at M’kor Shalom, Rabbi Richard’s focus was on Judah’s recounting the entire story, pointing out that he repeats the word “father” no less than thirteen times. At this point, Judah is begging Joseph for Benjamin’s return. The result of this summary and the repetition of that particular word is that all of Joseph’s attempts to obliterate his past and his childhood trauma is torn away leaving him entirely distraught. Now he realizes that he must deal with his past. We are products of our pasts and we must all deal with the past eventually. All his defense mechanisms give way in this cathartic moment, and he says, “I am Joseph! Is my father still alive?” It should be noted that he does not say, “Is our father still alive?”
At this point, it seems that Joseph is doing some Monday Morning Quaterbacking, by looking back, connecting the dots, and drawing the conclusion that it was God’s plan that he be sent down into Egypt. The dreams he had as a young man of his brothers and parents kneeling before him, his slavery, his going to prison, the interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream, his elevation– all was planned by God so he could save the family. Joseph has come to his faith as a mature man, and what he discovers is that God’s Hand directs his life. I know people like Joseph who see God’s Hand in whatever they do. I do not know if they have true faith or just rationalization for what has happened to them be it good or bad.
Joseph can forgive his brothers, but would that have been the case had he not been successful? When we first met Joseph, he was an adolescent who saw himself as the center of the universe and who was ratting out his brothers. Now we see him spiritually mature.
What does he want? In all the years of separation, Joseph never attempted to contact his family. The naming of his sons indicates that as a fact. He had to have been very resentful. His father should have known the animosity in which his brothers held him, and yet Jacob deliberately sends him to them. His brothers sold him and abandoned him. Would they now abandon Benjamin as they had abandoned him? Joseph has many unresolved issues with his father and the repetition of the word forces him to think.
“Where there are no men, strive to be a man,” is another quote from the Ethics of the Fathers. Joseph is striving to be a man by abjuring revenge and seeing himself as someone who can save his family regardless of the issues still unresolved. To become our true selves, we must move beyond family hurts. Like Joseph, we have to say, “What can I do for my family rather than what can my family do for me?”
When Joseph reveals himself to his brothers, Joseph also reveals himself to himself.
Whenever we act or react, we also reveal ourselves to ourselves as well as to others.
At this moment, the brothers, on their knees or prostrate before him, are totally dependent on him. Only Joseph has the power to preserve his family. He is the single sheave of wheat standing as in the dream.
The message here is that we are to stop living in the past, forget the unresolved hurts, and move forward. The resentments of the past get in the way of our truly being human. This is a classical Jewish theological thought: If the anger doesn’t matter anymore, it’s time to give back. And giving back in time is just as good as giving back with money.
Rabbi Jonathan Sachs of England posits the idea that Jacob had set Joseph up to individuate– to become his own person. Parents say this when they tell you to move out. Joseph believes his father terminated their relationship, discounting the idea that his father truly loved him. “What did I do to deserve this?” he asks. “Why is my father angry? Joseph had seen his father’s anger in the Shechem episode where Jacob curses his sons. He had seen Jacob’s anger at Judah when Judah took one of Jacob’s secondary wives to bed. Joseph internalized this anger by asking what he did wrong? This is why he chose not to go back or contact his father all these years.
The Joseph Cycle is played out daily. These are human beings, and it’s amazing that three thousand years ago when the Torah was put down, the rabbis could see these dynamics. Joseph is a metaphor for aging and spiritual journey. He moves from a self-absorbed “punk” to a generative, spiritual person. Joseph’s revelations about God come to him not through God speaking to him directly on a mountain, or near a river, or in a dream, or in a bush, but through reconciliation with his family. He grows in his spirituality by forgiving. Joseph, by choosing to heal and move himself beyond his own anger and resentments towards his family, has found his path to God. Joseph is telling us that just by living, we can all come to God.
Personally, I think as people, we are all more reflective of Joseph than we are of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. We find God or God finds us not through personal revelation, but by attempting to live a decent life.
Respectfully,
Lenny
December 29, 2012
Tevet 16, 5773
Mendy Log: Vayehi Genesis 47:28-50:26
Halftorah: I Kings 2:1-12
I think I remember Mendy beginning his drush by asking us if we had seen a video that went viral on the Internet of rabbis in Texas dancing at what I think might have been a foot ball game. He then asked if those who had seen it were embarrassed. Since few had seen it, he asked us how we felt when we walked into an old synagogue and saw the line of portraits of old European rabbis in hallways that spoke to life in the shetle and Yiddishkeit, the Jewish way of doing things and thinking about things. This introduction led to a point Mendy was making about whether it is more important to remember and focus on our past, or to concentrate and employ new technologies so as to bring the past to present and involve people in that way. He used the image of relying on Tweets, e-mails, and videos as the dancing rabbis did, as well as other pieces of contemporary communications used increasingly each day by our children and grandchildren as a vehicle for perpetuating Jewish values and the Jewish way of doing things. Ultimately, he said that a combination of both remembering the past as you focus on the future was best. This idea was his introduction to some thoughts on Joseph’s sons, Manasseh, the eldest, and Ephriam, the younger.
I find that a line of portraits of old rabbis harkening back to the shetle something quite nostalgic if not comforting, because these pictures bring to mind the life my grandparents and great grandparents brought with them that continues to cling to me along with the comforting images I continue to have of them. The reality remains that sheltle life was more brutal than not, and leaving it was the best option. I would take the Voorhees/Cherry Hill area over any shetle any day.
Though my parents were born in America, the traditions I was raised with was a weird combination that I guess one might call Assimilated Orthodox American, but for the most part, the foods, the music, and the superstitions (which I see now was the religion I was given) were Eastern European. The nostalgia I feel is certainly is not for the shetle, but for the foods, stories, and music or what would be the ethnic side of Yiddishkeit that came from the shetle. The nostalgia I feel is for my mother’s parents, my Bubba and Zeydeh and the memories of their apartments when I was little. There, Yiddishkeit was the way of life. Bubba read only “der Forvitz” spoke little English, did not learn to write although I was told that she was fluent in several different European languages. But what she lacked in formal education, she made up for in the kitchen and in kindness to me, her favorite grandchild.
Whatever religion there was in my parent’s home came from my mother’s home and became a conglomeration of Eastern European Shetle Folk Judaism, and American superstitions. Yes, there was a “remembrance of things past” in the home in which I grew up, but there was a religious disconnect that did not encourage meaning ful involvement in Judaism or an impetus to perpetuate it. That came later in my life. My mother was also a fantastic cook.
Mendy referred us back to an earlier portion of Genesis where we are told that Joseph named his first born son Manasseh: “‘for God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house:’” and the second son he named Ephraim: “‘for God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.’” Mendy said that by naming Manasseh as he did, Joseph was both forgetting the past and at the same time, remembering the past. At this time of his life, Joseph has come to believe that God had directed his footsteps, so we know that he is still fully invested in his past and what he learned in his “father’s house” as regards his values and traditions even though he looks like an Egyptian in every way. Mendy then informed us that Ephraim implies that Joseph is looking towards the future because he has been “fruitful,” and Mendy tied the entire package together by saying that while we need to incorporate today’s technology so we can connect and understand the world of our children and grandchildren, we must still stay rooted in Yiddishkeit, because technology cannot teach you what is really important in life to value or how to act on those values. We can communicate those values through the technology.
Mendy invited us to focus next on the blessings that Jacob dispensed to his sons and these two grandsons in particular. Joseph presents Manasseh, the eldest, first as would be usual in their society, and put him closest to Jacob’s right hand. But Jacob reverses his hands and puts his right hand on Ephriam’s head. Joseph objects, but Jacob insists and the interpretation, based on their names, is that Manasseh represents the past, and Ephriam represents the future.
It is to be noted that when those of us who bless our sons or grandsons on Friday evenings say, “May God make you like Ephriam and Manasseh,” we are sending a subliminal message of looking toward the future. We are also taught that another reason we bless our sons in their names is that they, despite their opportunities to worship the Egyptian pantheon, chose to keep their father’s faith. The blessing is in remembrance of their choices.
We then turned to Jacob’s blessing his other children. Naturally, Jacob’s blessing on Joseph which is done privately, is extensive and specific as befitting the man who saved the family from famine and who was always the favorite son. But the blessings on Jacob’s other sons, in some cases, seem not blessings at all but statements either regarding their characters or what will happen to them. The three so called “blessings” of his eldest sons express his disappointment and can in no way be interpreted as blessings. Jacob reminds Reuben, that his eldest son committed the dastardly act of copulating with one of his father’s secondary wives. Reuben, as he is whitewashed in the commentaries, did so so his father would sleep with his mother, Leah that night, and not with this secondary wife. Earlier in Genesis we were told that he had maneuvered his father into his mother’s bed by bartering mandrakes he had picked for Leah with Rachel, Leah’s sister and rival. Mandrakes, because their roots looked like small people, were considered in the ancient world as encouraging fertility. The rabbis teach that Reuven was just being a devoted son, but there is another reason, less noble that is given in more contemporary literature that comes out of traditions of ancient Mesopotamia and seems more plausible . It would seem that in that society, it was the tradition that the eldest son, the son who would take over the leadership of the tribe, established his primacy and right to leadership by taking to bed a secondary wife of the current leader.
In “blessing” Simeon and Levi, Jacob reviews their horrendous decision and despicable behavior when they brutally murdered the prince, king, and men of Shechem when Jacob had already negotiated a treaty that would have allowed Dina, their sister, to marry the prince. Of course, Jacob’s initial response back when that happened led us to believe that he was more concerned with his own skin and what would happen when the word got out, than he was about the unjust taking of so many lives.
Now here is a problem I have with the rabbinic midrash that seems to fill in the spaces between the lines in the Torah, and rabbinic interpretations of the Torah. The commentators will take the statements that Jacob makes to these three adult sons and twist it into something that has no relationship to the text just to paint these biblical characters in a favorable light. Most people in the Torah are flawed, and because they are so flawed, I actually believe that did live. What religion would create flawed icons to admire? But to twist them into something that they are not for the purpose of casting them in a favorable light so we can admire them, takes away their humanity and asks us to accept something that just isn’t in the Torah. We can identify with them because they are as flawed as we are and sometimes more flawed than we are. Yes, I know that Judaism is an interpretive faith, but..................
While we are products of our world and culture and must not judge these people by our standards, they were also products of their societies, and should be accepted in that light and for who they were. We can learn just as much from them on how not to behave, as we can from them on how we should behave.
Mendy once beat off one of the more challenging congregants by asking him to read a particular book that would tie all the stories together and answer all the congregant’s questions. But it seems
to me that by reading this particular text, one must still suspend disbelief and accept the interpretations and rationalizations of this commentator as the truth. Where is one to go when one would view such a book as just another very creative and imaginative effort to make connections between people and stories that have no basis other than the word of the commentators. Suspension of disbelief is an absolute necessity if one is to believe, and as a Jew, I cannot easily do that.
Respectfully,
Lenny
January 7, 2012
Mendy Log: Parsha Vayechi
There may be a corollary between Mendy’s passion about a subject and the rapidity at which he delivers his drush on it. Mendy must have really be passionate on this subject because he spoke more rapidly than usual, and the metacognitive part of my brain, the part that processes out what his happening as it is happening, became concerned about keeping up and keeping things straight. So not everything I heard will be covered and for that I apologize.
Mendy began by reminding us that if we were ever in a situation where we or a significant person in our lives brought up issues that had not been spoken of for years in an argument, we were to be aware that that person had not forgiven the other for the infraction despite the reality that “forgiveness” might have been asked for and given. If the issue is still resurrected, the person bringing it up had not really forgiven because they were not ready to forgive. It is also possible that the other party may not have accepted the forgiveness because they did not think themselves deserving of it. I believe this was one of the major themes of Mendy’s talk today.
People caught is such a situation are unaware of the Game being played, and according to the psychological modality known as Transactional Analysis, people who bring up past infractions in unrelated situations are termed Stamp Collectors. A Stamp is a feeling, usually negative, such as guilt, depression, or anger, that is generated by some negative encounter. We call these anger Stamps or depression Stamps and a collector will one day have collected so many that he or she will feel justified in cashing them in on a fight or a depression. Such Stamps are collected from a variety of experiences and usually cashed in against the person who generated them but not necessarily.. Discharging the Stamps is a guilt free experience for the collector because this fight or depression was earned and the person on the receiving end deserved whatever was being discharged against them. Stamp collectors are people who cannot forgive, truly forgive, because they are distrustful of the person’s apology if one was given, or they themselves are not ready to forgive because the negative feelings reinforce something important to them. So the Stamps are collected and like stamp books of old, cashed in on a fight, or a depression that they feel has been earned or well deserved. All this exists outside the awareness of both parties who are generally not tuned into that level of non-verbal communication. Cashing in Stamps is a way of reinforcing one’s psychological position which can be quite negative and quite satisfying at the same time.
Mendy’s reference to “forgiveness” and when one is ready to forgive and ready to accept forgiveness introduced the story of Joseph forgiving his brothers because the emotions they generated in their willingness to become slaves in order to protect their youngest brother, Benjamin, overwhelmed him. Though he was not ready to reveal himself to them because he believed they were not ready to forgive themselves for what they had done to him, he nevertheless said, “I am Joseph.” He also believed that his brothers would not believe his sincerity.
I do think that Joseph believed the guilt they continued to feel for what they had done to him continued to inform their lives even after so many years, and they were not at a place where they could forgive themselves let alone believe or accept his forgiveness. They weren’t ready. Because they could not forgive themselves, they could not believe that Joseph could forgive them and they were therefore suspicious of him.
If you apply the Stamp collecting concept to this Bible story, Joseph and his brothers certainly had lots of Stamps. Because of Isaac’s raising Joseph above his other sons and the dreams Joseph revealed to his brothers and father, the brothers and possibly the father generated a lot of anger and envy stamps against Joseph which resulted in his being sold him into slavery. Joseph, his life in constant danger, having to survive on his wits, and his years in prison, generated plenty of anger stamps that were discharged when the brothers came down to Egypt to buy grain. The games in which Joseph involved his brothers generated fear stamps, and this was not done outside of Joseph’s awareness.
His torment of them was deliberate, possibly to see if they had grown in their compassion and maturity and were truly worthy of his forgiveness. When he saw that they were willing to sacrifice themselves rather than see their youngest brother enslaved and their father die, Joseph felt that they had matured and were worthy. But Joseph, according to the rabbis, perceived that they were not at the point where they could accept his forgiveness because they had not let go of their guilt stamps and could not believe that they could be forgiven. While they still carried their guilt and shame, they could not accept Joseph’s forgiveness. Joseph saw this and was therefore reluctant to reveal himself and his forgiveness, but he was overcome by his emotions and did. I’m leaving a lot out.
Mendy briefly mentioned the blessing that parents give their children or grandchildren on Friday nights. It is the priestly benediction: “May the Lord bless you and protect you. May the Lord countenance you and be gracious to you. May the Lord favor you and grant you peace.”
(It is to be noted that Catholics call this “St. Joseph’s Prayer,” and Catholic lay people have no idea it was first uttered by Aaron, the High Priest of the Israelites, millennia before St. Joseph lived. Another borrowing without due credit.)
This priestly benediction is preceded by the words “May G od make you like Ephraim and Manassa.” These boy were the son’s of Joseph and brought to Jacob for the old patriarch’s blessing before he died. Jacob was blind and put his right hand on Ephraim who was the younger child thus continuing the tradition in the Torah that it is the younger son that will surpass the elder in either character or deeds. When Joseph tries to change his father’s hand, Jacob tells him that it will be the younger and his descendants who will excel. But what makes Manassa worthy is that for the first time since Cain and Able, the elder brother does not challenge the younger and accepts the fact that the younger brother is the one chosen for greater things. For this attitude of brotherly love and the fact that Manassa chose his father’s faith rather than sucomb to the idolatry that surrounded him, he was truly worthy of having Jewish boys blessed in his name.
At one point I think Mendy segued into the topic of children. Mendy or my friend sitting next to me, and asked, “How can you tell a teenager is lying? They’re talking.” This was funny, and I can’t recall why Mendy brought this up. But I know it had something to do with being consistent and honest in your responses to your children, because children need consistency.
Though no comment was made, the parsha also deal with Jacob blessing his sons, and some of the blessing are not blessing at all. Jacob severely takes to task Reuven, Simeon, and Levi, his eldest sons Jacob reminds Reuven that his son had no right to go to his stepmother’s bed because she was the wife of his father. Reuven, according to the ancient code of Mesopotamia, took his right as the heir apparent to assert himself by taking to bed one of the wives of the former leader. Jacob did not forgive him for this. Levi and Simeon were dismissed with disgust for their violence against Shechem but we are still not sure if this was because Jacob genuinely despised the blood on their hands or because they had made him a pariah and target. They were lucky to get out of town and into Egypt. Jacob may also have been lucky that he had been given a new name. With such antipathy coming your way by the people surrounding you, an alias can be quite helpful. But it is Judah, who is strongly implicated and culpable as regards Joseph being sold, who strangely enough comes out smelling like the proverbial rose. If I am not mistaken, our Torah is written down during the time of King David, and it is possible that Judah comes out clean in this because David is a descendant of Judah and out of Judah will also come the Messiah. Might those who wrote the story down injected some politics into this thus giving David legitimacy to lead while justifying the Davidic monarchy? But to believe that, one would have to deny that the Torah was given in it’s entirety on Sinai millennia before David lived and ordered the books to be codified.
January 14, 2012
Mendy Log:
Parsha Shemot, the first Book of Exodus
Many important events take place in this parsha, such as Moses’s birth and his being raised as the son of an Egyptian princess, his flight to Median, his encounter with the burning bush, and G od’s charge to him on going to Pharaoh and demanding that His people go free. Mendy chose to focus in on Moses’s encounter with the burning bush, and his personal qualities that G od saw in him that made him qualified to lead the people to freedom.
Mendy pointed out the importance of the bush being a thorn bush because according to traditional insight, the thorn bush is something that inflicts pain and it choice is to symbolize God’s pain while His people are enslaved.
Of course, G od remains silent for all the years of slavery and one wonders why He Himself would put Himself in pain? The only honest answer to that question is,“who knows?” We know that Romney likes to fire people, but why does G od like to watch people suffer?
At this point, Moses chooses not to look at the bush because in some way, looking at the bush would give him G od’s reasons for what G od does and G od’s purpose at the end. His reason for not wanting to know is that if he knew G od’s purpose and how it would all turn out, he might not be as compassionate as a leader must be for those in his charge. At this point, Mendy may have used the used the phrase “compassionate leadership” to expand on why Moses was the man selected to lead the people out of Egypt.
The first incident cited to support the thesis was when Moses saw an Egyptian beating a slave and slew the Egyptian. This demonstrated his compassion for the individual plight of another who was being brutalized. Moses could have walked away and didn’t. The second incident was when Moses saw two Hebrew slaves fighting and intervened demonstrating that he knew that members of the Hebrew community must get along and he felt he needed to be a peace maker. The third incident where he demonstrated compassion and leadership potential came at the well where he fought off the shepards who were harassing a young girl at the well. A concern for the welfare of an individual, a concern for the welfare of the community, and a concern for the welfare of strangers, were the three qualities G od saw in Moses that made Moses the right man for the job.
The Tradition teaches that Moses did not want to look at G od because Moses feared he would not be compassionate if he knew how everything would turn out, and strangely, G od rewards him by allowing face to face encounters. Strange that the one thing Moses doesn’t want, G od gives him as his reward.
The key message to us based on Moses choosing to involve himself in these three situations is that there are individuals in our Jewish community who need help and it is up to us to help them. And if there is disharmony among members of the Jewish community, we must also do what we can to be peace makers. Finally, there are people outside the Jewish community who are in need of help and we are responsible to act compassionately towards them.
On a personal level, my wife and I are part of an organization called, “Host for Hospitals.” We are like a private Ronald McDonald House. There are people who come to hospitals in the Philadelphia/South Jersey area who are either outpatients or family members visiting patients. These people need to stay for extended periods of time in the area. But may cannot afford lengthy stays in hotels, so people open their homes to them. We decided we wanted to express our compassion for such people. Currently, a man will be with us for two weeks until his son is well enough to be transferred out of pediatrics in Virtua Hospital back to a special facility in Delaware.
I am also very proud to belong to Congregation M’kor Shalom which is the only synagogue in Jersey in concert with several churches, to host homeless men for the December holiday season. We are also very much involved in holiday relief at the Ronald M’Donald house and the South Jersey and JCC food pantries. Compassion and social justice inspired by Moses and our Torah are alive and well at my Reform congregation and in my home. That’s why I am proud to be a Reformodox Jew.
I had a problem with some of the time lines as they exit in this parsha. If you subtract the age of Moses when he returns to Egypt from the implied age he was when he left Egypt, you find that Moses was in his early teens when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster. So the question arises as to why Pharaoh, his adopted uncle, would care about a prince of Egypt killing an insignificant taskmaster unless Pharaoh knew that Moses was a Hebrew and had been waiting for such an infraction of Egyptian law to kill him. Moses tells us that he fears that Pharaoh will kill him, and he flees to Media. But then again, if Pharaoh wanted to kill Moses, he could have done it at any time.
Another issue confusing me revolves around circumcision. Moses was hidden, we are told, for three months before he is set afloat in the Nile. Certainly, he was circumcised at eight days unless for some reason, Hebrews were not following that important tradition. He is found and immediately given to his Hebrew mother, Yochabed, to be fed. If Moses stayed with his real mother until he was weaned, that would make him two or three by the time he gets to Pharaoh’s palace. He had to be circumcised at the time. That would have been a give away that he was a Hebrew child unless Egyptians also practiced circumcision which might have been the case. Pharaoh’s sister knew Moses’ origins immediately, so it is likely that Pharaoh knew also.
The importance of Hebrew circumcision is highlighted in the same parsha when G od sends an angel to kill Moses for not immediately circumcising his son. Moses’ compassion and concern for the welfare of the boy stayed his hand. Moses’s wife, performs the act and appeases the angel by throwing the foreskin at the angel’s feet as a blood sacrifice. Traditional commentaries say it was thrown at Moses’ feet but that would not be logical. Moses doesn’t need proof of adherence to ritual and certainly doesn’t need a blood sacrifice. The angel and G od might. The angel relents and Moses is saved. But it begs the question as to why the man whom G od anoints with the task of saving the people is immediately threatened by the same G od who selected him for expressing the very same compassion on his own son that G od deemed so important as a quality of leadership? Again, as throughout Genesis, G od appears capricious.
Rabbi Richard is back from a well deserved vacation, and began with the quote, “There arose a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph.” His comments directed us to the contemporary application of the quote and the truth of it. In every society, there are changes in governments or in businesses that either do not know or do not chose to acknowledge the contributions of groups or individuals that are that are not part of their group. So the concept of “the other” becomes policy regarding this group that is not part of your own. Real or imagined, the “other” becomes a threat to power, and must be kept in line. The Suffragette Movement and the Civil Right Movements were two that come to mind. The midwives, Shifra and Puah, were cited as the first in our tradition to push back in our ancient civil rights movement by refusing to murder the Hebrew male infants as they were born.
We spoke of G od remembering the Covenant and noticing that Israel, His people, were suffering in slavery. We, as a people, do not put great importance on suffering as a way to redemption believing that there is no value in pain and suffering. It is a mitzvah to be released from it and to release others from it. Medications that shortens life while allowing for dignity triumphs over suffering.
Perhaps that’s why medicine was such a valued profession by our people. It was also valued by our mothers but for different reasons. Suffering is not proof of anything. The fact that G od finally decided to hear the groans of the Israelites after centuries in slavery, also begs the question as to where was G od and what was he doing in the 400 years Israel was in Egypt?
The focus shifted to the burning bush. Symbolically, the burning bush is the burning heart, the passionate heart, that can burn but is not consumed. Rabbi said that this is a pivotal chapter in the development of Judaism. G od calls, “Moses, Moses, take off your shoes, for you are standing on holy ground.” The repetition of his name is significant because such repetition implies emphasis and urgency. Moses is told to take off both shoes because the Tradition teaches that one shoe is symbolic of the body, and the other symbolic of the soul. Moses must free himself from both physical and spiritual urges to complete the task before him. In short, he must deliver both body and soul up to G od if he is to be successful. The bush story also implies to us that no place is devoid of G od’s presence and at any moment, we may find ourselves standing on holy ground if we have a mind to be aware. Like Jacob, we can also say that we were in a holy place and did not know it.
The traditional response to G od’s call is “Here I am.” Every person who is ever called in the Torah responds in this way. But I was thinking, and I’m sure others have thought this also, that since there are no punctuation marks in the Torah, this response could be interpreted in a different way. What if “Moses, Moses” and the “Here I am” is not Moses’ response but a continuation of G od calling Moses. What if G od is telling Moses that He is here and Moses only has to realize it to fulfill his destiny. What if any time we see something in need of change, or someone being abused, or some injustice being committed, it is G od saying to us, calling to us that “He is here” and that we have the opportunity if not the obligation to ameliorate the situation. I think that that is also a valid interpretation. If it is G od who is always saying “Here I am,” and it is not the response from those addressed, it implies that G od is always making us aware of His presence though making us aware of what needs to be fixed, and we may be the ones not responding with “Here I am.” We are the ones not ready to receive revelation.
The study session then considered verse 13 where Moses asks G od to tell him his name. Moses is fully aware of the difficulties he will face and knows that since there are many gods in Egypt and elsewhere, the people will want to know the name of the G od he is asking them to follow and put their lives in jeopardy. G od replies, Ehyeh-Asher- Ehyeh which is traditionally translated as “I will be what I will be,” or “I am that I am.” What these translations imply is that G od is not a static concept and that if we are to remain fixed in a static concept of G od and not evolve this G od as we evolve, we are doomed to a life of doubt and fear where G od is concerned. G od Himself seems to demand that our ideas about Him evolve as we evolve.
Of course, Orthodox people may or may not have any concerns about their concept of G od having fully accepted the Torah/Rabbinic ideas. Being raised in Orthodox communities and schools where questions may be discouraged and the words halul-Hashem held over the heads of young men who question like a Sword of Damocles, doubts, if there are any, remain hidden and tinged with shame.
But in the Reform and Conservative Movements, where questions could be encouraged and alternative and more contemporary concepts of G od could be discussed, there are few efforts made because those in charge either are defending one particular God concept, are not aware of others. Jewish education must open itself to the possibility that there are other, valid concepts of G od both contemporary and ancient that might be considered. The Ayn Sof concept of G od the Kabbalists posit might be considered with the Creative Power that moves through all things that inspired Spinoza as just two examples. But to do this is to challenge the established Torah/Rabbinic concept and many lay educators and Rabbis are not willing to go there. To do this one must also challenge the established idea that the Torah was written by G od along with the Oral Tradition, and handed to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
For G od to evolve, and for non- Orthodox Jews to come back to a firm belief in the existence of our Deity, Jewish challenges have to be made. If those who think about such changes in their personal theologies and suggest to others that they also think about their relationships to G od in new ways are deemed heretics and consigned to Gehenna for their blasphemy, those doing the consigning and the condemning have to ask themselves why they are attacking when they know that their truth is the truth. Why can’t other people not have a different truth that is also valid to them? If people choose different paths to the same G od, and G od’s primary expectation that we behave decently towards one another, what difference does it make how we view G od?
January 21, 2012
Mendy Log: Parsha Va’eira
Mendy had already gotten up on the bimah when I arrived and was speaking about the flax and the barley that were destroyed in the hail plague while the wheat and the spelt were spared. He said that this seemingly unimportant information was included to teach a very important point. In fact, he insisted is that one of the great benefits of reading the Torah is that in the Torah there are daily lessons for living successfully. The lesson here was that flax and barley grow on ridged stalks while wheat and spelt are able to bend. It was obvious to me that he was using these grains as symbols of people. He reinforced this idea by telling a story about Rabbi Gamliel. Gamliel believed he saw Rabbi Akiva perish in a boating accident, but when Akiva meets Gamliel again in the house of study, Akiva tells him that he was able to survive because he held onto a board and bowed his head as each wave came at him until he was carried to shore. People, like Akiva and the wheat and the spelt who have the ability to bow or bend to conditions that are buffeting them, survive, while people who are rigid in their stances often do not. Mendy, to reinforce this message, brought in a story about how reeds can withstand stand a gale but cypress trees cannot. But he also made it clear that even though reeds can bend, they remain fixed because they are firmly rooted. Cypress trees are rigid, look strong, but can be pushed over in a gale because their root systems may not be deep. In short, if you know what you believe in, are solidly rooted in that belief, and can still bend when you can see what’s good instead of what’s always right, you stand a good chance of being successful. Mendy supported this by telling us once again that driving on Shabbos was against tradition, but he knew that if he wanted a congregation, he would have to bend on that rule.
Mendy knows that not driving on Shabbat is“right,” and attending synagogue is “good,” so he bends. I for one could not come here unless I could drive, and Mendy recognizes this reality as part of suburban living life. Is it better to insist on the law and not have Jews coming together to learn and to pray, or is it better bend the rule for what to me is obviously the greater good and the smarter thing to do? This reality does not exist in Crown Heights because it is a small, self contained community like a shetle.
Mendy presents himself as a reed, and that malleable quality allows him to bend and address what congregants need to hear at the moment they come to him with an issue. He may give people with a similar problem different advice because he is skilled enough to see into what each might need at that time. Mendy is solidly rooted in his faith and traditions, and yet is secure enough in himself and in that faith and in those traditions to appropriately bend. But of course, like Teyvea, our Mendy is a reeds that also has a limited tensile strength, and he knows just how far he can bend without breaking.
Using the symbols of the reed and the cypress as types of people in relationships, Mendy segued into the concept of leadership and added to the reed and the cypress the image of the floating plastic bag that is caught in the wind and flies from place to place at the whim of the prevailing winds. This latter symbol was used as an example of what leadership must not be. The leadership idea was presented as it related to Moses and Aaron in a partnership, each doing for the people what his skill set allowed. This was pointed out to explain that in one part of the narrative, why their names are written and then interchanged, The interpretation, if I remember correctly, had to do with the job each had to do, and when it was appropriate for each to act.
From parshas pasts, I know Aaron was considered and loved because he was the peace maker among the people, and Moses was the one who spoke to God and taught the Torah. If we extend the metaphor, this would mean that it was Aaron who was the reed, and it was Moses who was the Cypress. But acting together as a partnership, they shored one another up, complementing each others talents in order to be successful. Theirs was a true partnership. From this, Mendy spoke of husband and wife partnerships, and said, “If a man says that he and his wife are partners because she cooks and he eats, that is not a partnership.”
There is a mutuality in a partnership, especially in a marriage, where the skills and talents of each brings benefits to the other. There are things in which my wife delights, and I am not particularly interested, and the reverse is true where some of my interests are concerned. I am happy for her in what she enjoys, and I believe she is happy for me in what I enjoy. But these separate activities are mutually beneficial to our relationship, because we each can enjoy the fruits of our separate interests. Happily, there are things that we both mutually enjoy, so things are good.
As Mendy spoke about the reed, the cypress, and the plastic bag, I couldn’t help but think about the Republican candidates for president. Santorum and Paul are definitely the cypress tree. Santorum would sooner see the mother of five die than abort a pregnancy that the doctors say will kill her, and Paul would rather see Iran get a nuclear weapon that would menace the Middle East and Western Civilization, than get involved by intervening in the workings of a sovereign nation. Both will fall. Now, the way Romney has played his scenario, he seems like the paper bag, blowing this way or that depending on his audience’s expectations. Of course, we do not know if this is his strategy and he really has strong opinions and centrist leanings that will ultimately be revealed
once president, but at this time, I see him as the plastic bag. I think most Republicans see him as the bag, too. So that leaves Gingrich who may have some reed qualities because while in Congress, was willing to negotiate, but some of his statements such as children replacing janitors in schools and denying the needy with food stamps while he helps them earn pay checks, is just a ludicrous idea and certainly said without serious thought given. He is not a plastic bag, but may be more of a wind bag. Besides, he left Congress under a cloud because of shady financial dealings. Do we dare risk America to any of these men? Where are the likes of William F.Buckley Jr. now that we really need them?
In this parsha are also most of the plagues that tradition says were brought by G od on Egypt to ultimately prove that He is in charge. Archaeologists have posited other interesting theories for what happened in Egypt 3500 years ago. As the necromancers match each of the early plagues, Pharaoh becomes more stubborn in dealing with the Jews and makes their labor even more difficult. Tyrants who do not believe in anything greater than themselves are cruel with impunity. Eventually, even the necromancers and magicians admit that they are dealing with phenomenon that they cannot control: ‘thunder and hail with fire flashing down, darkness that can be felt, water changed into blood, death of livestock, flies, occurrences, locust, wild animals etc.
How to explain these remarkable events? The Torah clearly states that it was G od’s doing. As I believe that my ancestors walked out of Egypt into freedom and established a new paradigm for humanity by doing so, I also believe that each of the plagues happened, and that said, I have come to believe, based on my own knowledge of vulcanology, that all the plagues can be explained if we look at the science pertaining to eruptions of major volcanoes and what the ash, fire, and waters surrounding the volcano can do to the environment. Unusual swarming of insects and other pests is commonly associate with volcanic disturbances, as are hail and showers of pellety volcanic ash that can burn the skin. Volcanic ash can asphyxiate animals and smother crops and other vegetation. Red iron oxide produces a foul smell and is often discharged as a result of an eruption and marine life dies. Volcanic dust can cause skin irritations, and huge ash clouds associated with major volcanic eruptions causes widespread daytime darkness, and a pillar of cloud and a pillar of fire could very well be a plume from the eruption. Eye witnesses to the explosions of Vesuvius in 79 CE,, of Tambora in 1815, of Krakatau in 1883, Mount Pelee,in 1902, and Mt. St. Helens in 1980, CE all describe such natural occurrences. But it is the grand daddy eruption of all times that could have brought all the plagues together effecting Egypt and that was the eruption of the island of Thera, now known as Santorini. Thera erupted in 1450 BCE which historically corresponds to the Exodus from Egypt. This eruption, based on the physical destruction of Thera and the Mediterranean world that surrounded it, was possibly the largest eruption in the history of
mankind. It brought the Minoan Civilization to a screeching halt, wiped out much of the life on the island of Crete, leveling the palace of Minos, and was felt as far as Egypt hundreds of miles away. The entire known western world thrown into upheaval, and our ancestors, slaves in Egypt, may have taken the opportunity to pick themselves up and walk out of slavery while the Egyptians tried to resurrect their devastated world. The story of leaving Egypt, told over the centuries, took on heroic, magical, mystical and even miraculous proportions as it was handed down from generation to generation. Please note: I want to believe in the truths contained in the Torah, but I cannot make the leap of faith without rational justification. I am willing to sacrifice mystery and wonders to get to a truth that works for me.
Of course one might take the Spinozarian position that since G od is Nature, and He makes His presence known through natural order and natural events, G od’s essence was in the volcano and was the cause and inspiration for the Hebrew slaves to realize it was time to go. Therefore, G od was rightfully recognized as causing the plagues if you can accept Spinoza’s concept of G od. Linked into this concept is the concept of Ayne Sof of the Kabbalists, the G od beyond G od that moves through all things and is all things as well.
Rabbi Address also began his Torah study session by also stating that there are many important reasons for Torah study. Where Mendy suggested that it provided daily life lessons, Rabbi Richard suggested that at any age we are able to interpret a word or a sentence, or even a concept depending on our educational and intellectual development. Thus, our idea of G od changes as we change. And because there are several names given for G od through out the Torah, that may also suggest that G od may be an ever changing concept in Judaism.
One can say that the Torah itself invites us to perceive G od changing and to continue that process.
The G od language given us and the G od language we use is a narrow interpretation of G od. We are limited by language, but we are not limited by concept. For example, Mordecai Kaplan, the rabbi who created the Reconstructionist Movement, posited the idea that G od was “the Process that makes for human salvation.” For breaking the boundaries and the accepted Torah/Rabbinic G od concept in Judaism, he was ostracized by the Orthodox community. Rabbi Heshel suggested that G od needs man which again is a concept not found in the Torah.
I offered the only quote I memorized from my undergraduate philosophy class stated by Julian Huxley: “Man is that part of reality through which and by which the Cosmic Process has learned to apprehend Itself.” Now that’s something to wrap your brain around because this quote, like Hershel, suggests G od needs us, and also has embodied within it the G od concepts of Luria and Spinoza. Of course, these concepts do not offer a G od one can cozy up to and love.
Can you love a process or be loved by a process? To address the primal questions of existence, “Why are we born?, Why do we die?, and “Why are we here?,” the three questions that created religion, perhaps we need a personal G od concept to help us address such profound and fundamental questions without feeling existentially alone in the universe.
Both rabbis stressed the importance of the Exodus in our lives, but where Mendy spoke of relationships, Richard spoke of our enslavement in Egypt as the symbolic enslavements both physical and psychological that we impose on ourselves because of or fear of the unknown. It is this fear of the unknown which is at the core of human existence and the key reason for the development of religions.
So the Hebrews are enslaved in Egypt, and “cannot hear” Moses assure them that they will be free. Part of their inability to hear is that they came to accept the idea that slavery was the natural state of their lives, and that their place in the order of things was to be enslaved.
The Hebrews could not conceive that Moses and G od were about to challenge the accepted notion of world order, namely, that which was ordained to be could not be changed. That it was not true that where you were in the order of things was divinely decreed. And it was not true that , time was circular and that people were on a wheel that had to keep repeating itself. But this new idea that was to be introduced to the world was that time was linear and not circular, and that things could change if people decided that they would be willing to make those changes. This idea of challenging the established order of things was a crucial step forward in the evolution of humanity, and one of the great concept gifts our ancestors gave to the world. People could change. You didn’t have to be a slave; you could be free, and merit was more important than birth order. This is one of the core ideas of the Book of Exodus and why this story continues to resonate with humanity.
Thus, slavery becomes the metaphor of much of the human condition. People enslave themselves by refusing to move and by blaming others for their conditions. “I am alright.” “It’s my teacher’s fault.” “It’s my parent’s fault.” People stay in terrible marriages and in stressful jobs without believing there are alternatives. The Exodus story is important because so many of us live in spiritual and psychological slavery. We rationalize why we are where we are and why we are ossified. Rationalization is the ability of your mind to tell you what you want to know. “Our heads can lie to us. Our guts do not.”
A perception I have of why we choose not to leave our various self imposed slaveries is that, like our ancestors, we are comfortable with them because we know them. It is the fear of going out in to the desert, into the unknown, into the void where there are no guarantees of what is out there, that keeps us from changing our lives and conditions. That’s why we choose not to move. It is the fear of the void. Where you are, even if it is fraught with pain, is at least someplace familiar.
February 4, 2012
Mendy Log: Parsha Beshalac
Exodus XIII
Mendy began his drush by telling us that everything we need to know about the really important things in life could be found in the Torah, and that is why the rabbis who taught him never had a need to refer to psychology, archaeology, anthropology, or any other “ology” for that matter. Now prior to Mendy speaking, he said to me, “you write what you think I said.”
So from now on my dear readers if any of you really exist, you must read everything I relate as if it is through a filtered memory of an alta cockeh and realize that I may or may not be clearly stating the exact points Mendy made as he made them. Now from where I sit, if I cannot not truthfully convey what a man said only a few hours ago, can you imagine the filters that have been used on a tradition that was handed down orally for thousands of years before it was written down? It would seem to me that each generation and each age has its own visions of religion, of history, of morality, of a G od concept etc. so when handing down something in an oral fashion, certain ideas might take the place of other ideas and become set when the oral tradition is finally canonized. With this very human tendency to impose our beliefs, feelings, and values, perhaps that is why men must surround the Torah reader and correct the slightest error. I do believe that we are the inheritors of filtered commentary.
So now to what I think I heard Mendy say.
As mentioned, Mendy said all is in the Torah and challenged us to think about why there was a circuitous route given to the Hebrew slaves when G od could easily have taken them along the direct path to Caanan and destroyed the Egyptian fortifications in the way. The answer may exist on three levels. The first is that G od was not finished with the Egyptians and the destruction of the Egyptian army had to come to pass to prove to Pharaoh, the Egyptians, the Egyptian gods, and finally to the people of the Levant who would ultimately hear these stories, that this G od was thee only true G od. Another reason might be because that the parting of the sea was ordained at Creation and it had to happen. I’ll get into this later. And the third reason is that our ancestors needed the challenges that would come in order to develop into the people G od needed them to be.
This circuitous route to the Sea of Reeds and then to the Sinai is to be viewed as a metaphor. (Metaphor, not being a Jewish word, was not used by Mendy, but that’s what Mendy was talking about.) And so we begin: The Sea of Reeds is to be viewed as an obstacle, one of the many our Hebrew ancestors will face in the days and years ahead. So one might say the Exodus journey is a journey to learning how to overcome obstacles and in doing so, come to some self-understanding as to how we are to deal with obstacles. And in learning this, we also see how we become the people we become. We extend the metaphor by seeing Egypt itself as a metaphor. Egypt is the darkness within us all, and we all have darkness within because of what life has given us to deal with as we moved from childhood into adulthood. Our darkness is our own personal Egypt, and even during the Passover Seder, we are enjoined to consider ourselves as if we had come out of Egypt. We are invited to continue the metaphorical journey out of the dark places we inhabit into the light of G od, because if we don’t we shall continue carry our own personal Egypts within us daily and not evolve into the people we might become.
When our ancestors came out of Egypt, they had the goal of the Promised Land. They knew what that goal was, but they also carried their own personal demons out with them. They then find themselves with their back toward the sea about to be slaughtered. Their personal demons take over, and Moses is blamed. G od is angry that these people who saw the miracles, still did not believe. For some who have spent centuries in slavery, seeing wonders may not be enough to have faith. Slavery puts its own filters up and reality is seen through those filters. Because G od freed the people, it didn’t mean that they were free from their experiences. They were still slaves. They were not ready to receive. These people had to had to free themselves, and that is process that may take years. In this case, forty. It seems to me that if G od knew that they first had to travel on this metaphoric path to self awareness and growth, why could He not see that they would moan and complain and not be so impatient and antagonistic? But while I do think that G od may know all the possible choices and reactions, He doesn’t have a clue as to what will be the ultimate decision or reaction and that is why He seems always surprised and disappointed in His creatures. Free will is a bitch. He gave it and now He has to deal with it.
What we are to learn from this is that as our ancestors had the goal of going to Caanan, but being a new people, children in a way, they did not know that the path to our goals is not often a straight path. We also had goals when we were young. And like our Hebrew ancestors, few of us had straight paths (except for the very rich who are often protected and entitled like certain front runners for the Republican nomination for president) for us to follow to our goals because life gets in the way and life is often messy. Slavery imposed a darkness on their souls, as dark experiences of our childhood may have taken hold of us when we were young. The darkness that clung like ghosts to our ancestors that caused them to doubt despite the miracles they saw, is the same kind of darkness from our own experiences that may keep us ossified in the face of needed change and growth. But as they were compelled to move forward despite their fears, so we must move forward despite ours. We must push through our own Sea of Reeds even though we still carry the darkness of our Egypts within our souls. We must not allow ourselves to be enslaved by our past or to our past. Sitting down and giving up is not an option and certainly not the message of the Torah.
Mendy brought this Sea of Reeds story to a different place with two related midrashim. The first had to do with the Creation, and how G od called into existence all the things that would be called upon over the coming centuries such as the mouth of the earth that swallowed Korah, the mouth of Baalim’s donkey’s mouth, the well that followed the Israelites, etc. He related the story of G od telling the Sea of Reeds that one day in the future, it would need to part in order for the Hebrews to pass. The sea is non-plused (also not a Jewish word) because it feels that parting would interrupt its normal flow, but G od shows the sea the souls of the people who would want to cross and the sea is impressed with their goodness and beauty and agrees. That midrash sets the stage for the next which is also a dialogue between G od and the sea, but at the time when the Israelites need to cross. This midrash says that nothing happens, and G od questions the sea. The sea replies that it has seen the people he must part for, and that they are a nasty, backbiting, and rebellious group and nothing like the souls he had been shown at creation. So G od tell the sea to look at the bones of Joseph the Israelites are carrying with them and reminds the sea of what a noble soul Joseph was. G od then asks the see to look again beneath the physical appearance of the Israelites and into their souls, and the sea recognizes the same beautiful souls living within, souls that could become what they are supposed to be if they become free. The sea agrees and parts. But my favorite midrash about the parting of the sea still remains the one about Nachshon ben Amidi, who wades into the sea and parts it with his faith and his willingness to go forward into an unknown future. Metaphorically, we are all Nachshons. It rings a little truer than G od having a conversation with water.
According to the tradition, G od, when not running the universe, spends the rest of his time matching people for marriage. We are told that his task is harder than causing the sea to split. There are people who say, “It’s a match made in heaven,” and “It was bachert fun Gut” decreed by G od. Personally, I think people who have good marriages may claim this, but you can only explain the bad marriages by concluding that again, G od hasn’t a clue as to what humanity will do. Again, free will is a bitch.
Rabbi Richie at M’kor Shalom brought a very similar message as well as some comments of interest to those of us who do feel that archaeology, history, anthropology etc. has something to offer. More about that later.
Rabbi Richie, being a Reform rabbi and not afraid to use non Jewish words like “metaphor,” also spoke to the idea that in order for us to fully appreciate our freedom, we must take a circuitous path to it. Those who came out of Egypt were just not ready to understand freedom and its responsibilities. Life is not a straight line. Everyone is tested. Everyone struggles. Even Abraham had ten tests.
Our ancestors were promised the Promised Land, and expected to be taken there immediately. That’s what they saw when they looked into their future. But the reality is that we can also look into the future and realize that we will not get there, and how we deal with this realization may just define us as the person we are. “Menchen tracht un Gut lached,” Man plans and G od laughts.” We plan and then reality takes over. In this vein, we are all Moses who can see the Promised Land and cannot go there because from time to time we also strike our metaphoric rocks and are chastised for it. Perhaps our metaphoric rock is not believing in ourselves. Moses’ metaphoric rock was not having sufficient faith in G od. If we think of our children or grandchildren, we realize that they will see a Promised Land that we will never see and how we handle this speaks to our character.
Our life is a journey to find G od. Exodus is a metaphor for this. What is to be learned from our own wanderings is that the true value is found more in the process of self-discovery than in the goal itself. To struggle, to wander is the Jewish way of coming to G od.
Perhaps that was the intention all along.
This process of discovering ourselves, is also a journey towards discovering The Process that created all things. G od may very well be the term believers have give to this Process, and the only way we might truly discover The Process, is to experience our own. In coming to an awareness of our own process to self understanding, we may also come to a better understand the Creative Process itself. I don’t fully understand what I just wrote, but something within me feels there is an element of truth here. As I have always believed that we are one with the Creator, The Process, and one with each other, I believe that our own awareness of our personal journey and the process this journey reveals, gives us insight in to the ultimate goal which is to connect with the Process of Creation. Julian Huxley wrote: “Man is that part of reality through which and by which the Cosmic Process has learned to apprehend Itself.” We might be doing the exact same thing but in reverse.
If the ultimate goal is to discover a relationship with G od, we are in a constant movement to find out where we are in the process. So our search for a relationship and definition of G od is constantly evolving. We are challenged to argue, to change, and to struggle towards that end. For Christians it is believe and you shall be saved. For Jews it is search and you will find meaning. Mining the text allows all people to come to the relationship and definition of G od. It’s this “engagement” that makes us grow.
Does salvation for the Jew rest in finding a relationship with G od and meaning, and is that enough?
Throughout the Torah there is a motif of constant complaining, and you would think the people would have been more appreciative considering what they have witnessed themselves. But it is human nature for some to ask: “What have you done for me lately,” and see others as “only good as their last lunch.” In the case of the ancient Hebrews, some felt this way towards G od. But to reform a group’s character, there needs to be more than “special effects.” Miracles are external. Inner transformation can only be accomplished through small things, small steps. You must change what is inside, and change comes slowly. It may take changing one relationship at a time. It would take forty years to remake these people, and we learn from this that it will take us time to remake ourselves in the Divine Image. The reward for the journey towards that goal is that G od is the center of our study and sacred heritage, and that study is part of that journey to find G od.
The ability to give people the right to think about their relationship with and definition of G od, is frightening to some people, especially to fundamentalists. Theological freedom terrifies all those whose faiths and paths are set in stone. The crisis and challenge facing organized religions today are those that arise between those who take their faiths seriously, and those who know only the performance.
I suspect that those who only know the “performance” aspects of Judaism have never been engaged with anything other than the outward trappings, and probably have no interest in being involved in anything deeper because they may not believe anything is actually there. Or they may think that what is beneath the performance is nothing in which they feel they can believe because they have not had any alternatives to the G od about which they were taught as children. Secular Jews and performance Jews need an outreach program specifically designed for them. It should be one that would send the fundamentalist into a frenzy. Then we’d know we were on the right track to bringing them back. The Reform movement should take a lesson from Chabad.
Now the archaeological, historical, and psychological material introduced was also very interesting. To explain certain historical inconsistencies in the story such as G od moving our ancestors to the Sea of Reed because of the war like Philistines and the Wall of Horus constructed by Amenhotep in 1991 BCE to guard the coastal road to Caanan, we are told that the story comes out of a dimly recollected oral history where historical events get blended back and forth. At the time of the Exodus, the Philistines did not exist. It is related to us in the Torah that there were Egyptian fortifications blocking the way. But this begs the question: If G od is in total control, and all parts of the Exodus story says He is, why does He chose not to just eradicate the Egyptian forts? Is G od afraid of the Philistines who did not exist at the time?
I do believe that something remarkable happened in and around 1500 BCE. It may have been an eruption of a volcano that presented an opportunity for our enslaved Hebrew ancestors to walk out of Egypt, or it may have been G od who brought plague after plague upon the Egyptians and brought the Hebrews out under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. For me, whatever the cause, the event produced awesome ideas that did more to create Western Civilization than any others, namely: That people have the right to be free
That people can change the course of history
That what has been does not have to be done over and over again
That people can move forward in time and effect their destinies
That people have a right to a personal relationship with G od.
That there are laws regarding human decency that are above the laws rulers and governments create on earth.
February 11, 2012
Mendy Log: Parsha Yitro
Exodus
Sadly, I did not get to Chabad until after Mendy got up to speak, so I missed his initial statement and questions. But what he was talking about when I walked in had something to do with "perfection" and how it is defined. I have no recollection of what he said except that it had to do with unity and the ability of people to disagree with one another and still be unified. What follows is what I think I heard Mendy say.
I suspect this all had to do with the story of the Israelites camped at the foot of Sinai.
In addition to the Hebrew slaves going out of Egypt, there was also a “mixed multitude” which probably refers to other slaves who saw an opportunity to leave Egypt during this time of turmoil much the way some Soviet citizens claimed they were Jews just to get out of Russia. So this was not an organized body of people with a single mind. The Hebrews themselves were probably a disorganized rabble despite Joshua in "The Ten Commandments" designating which tribe should go where.
So there they were, camped at the foot of Sinai to experience something no other group before or since had ever experienced: Revelation from G od Himself! Revelation was indeed something special, and there was another great miracle happening that day. The miracle was that tens of thousands of Jews all stood there with a single focus, listening. The backbiting, the bickering, the complaining were all forgotten, and for the first time they came together as a people. Can you imagine? Jews quietly listening without comment. Now that was a miracle of note! The Shema begins with "Hear oh Israel," or "Listen oh Israel." At its very core,the statement is telling us to shut up and pay attention. Not an easy thing to do.
I do believe the point Mendy was making is that we as a people are very diverse, with different aspirations, causes, goals, opinions, visions etc. There are more than a few jokes about how difficult it is for Jews to agree on anything. And yet, here, at this sacred moment in time, we came together and said collectively, “We shall do, and we shall hear.” It was this commitment to unity and our ability to come together for a single purpose despite our differences that makes the concept Kal Yisroel, One People, viable. In short, people should be able to disagree and still be one.
I think that in addition to the Shema, “Hear, oh Israel. The L ord is G od, the L ord is One,” there might be another mantra which says, “Hear, oh Israel. We are one with the Creator, we are one with each other.” The first naturally speaks to the Unity of G od. The second speaks to the Unity of His people with Him and with one another. How would you say the latter in Hebrew?
One sentence I have uttered in my classrooms on more than one occasion to certain students is, “Can we passionately disagree and still remain friends?” That statement basically says that people can still respect and even admire those who think differently. My students and I have the ability to look beyond specific contentious issues to the broader relationship that needs to exist in a successful classroom. And that’s what I believe Mendy was saying. There are members of Chabad whom I admire and respect and our differences of opinions regarding politics and religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with my affection and rsepect for them. We stay unified based on mutual respect that we have for one another as individuals who are part of a larger family.
Mendy spoke of husbands and wives and the divisions of opinions that often exist between the two, and yet the successful marriage is one where the unity of purpose over rides the differences.
Mendy then segued into a U-tube video that went viral of a father who shot his daughter’s computer because of something she wrote and published that was demeaning him. I have no recollection of how this story related to the parsha, but Mendy chose to speak of it, so I’m sure it did. I am assuming that this father was not abusive in any way that would demand that his daughter be removed from his home.
Now some fifteen year old girls are nasty pieces of work, perceiving a world and parents whose sole purpose is to make their lives wretched. They are secretive, resentful of the slightest request, overwhelmed and on and on and on. Some teenage boys are no different. Mendy did not share what the daughter wrote and sent out to the world, but his question was something like “How many of you support the father’s shooting the daughter’s computer?” He asked for a show of hands. There was hesitation all around, because such questions are perceived as us being asked to guess what Mendy thinks is the correct answer and some people are reluctant to show that they may not be in agreement with the rabbi. I had no difficulty raising my hand. I think my relationship with Mendy has progressed to the point where I am not too concerned if he and I are in agreement. The fact that we might not agree does in no way diminish my affection for him.
Now I’ll admit that shooting a computer is a little over the top, and this is what I took into consideration in making my decision: I considered that G od is also referred to as a father, and His reaction to Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden was also a little over the top. Now we are told that disobedience was the issue, but it may also be possible that G od was embarrassed because all the other gods were watching and here are His new creations ignoring His request. He promised death as punishment, but Adam and Eve had no concept of death. They were new and without experience. They may even have been testing Him as children will do. After all, isn’t it all metaphor? Still, G od comes down pretty hard on the kids and banishes them. A bit harsh for a first infraction, but over the top reactions to G od’s children’s bad behavior does have a precedent in the bible for making a point. Then there is the law that a disrespectful child can be stoned to death, especially if he cannot be controlled, as well as the idea that to slander someone is as good as murdering them. Finally, there is the “Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother” which is part of the big ten and part of the parsha read this Shabbat. These edicts from my education were confronted by a piece of wisdom from somewhere where we are told that if we have an unruly son, we are to draw him closer and love him even more than before. But then again there is the traditional response to the wicked son in the Haggadah were we are instructed to get in his face.
Children fight as part of their natural insistence on becoming independent individuals from their parents. But to publish for the world your hostile feelings and comments about your father shows both stupidity regarding possible consequences, and a profound lack of respect. I object to the gun fire, but I have no difficulty teaching a child that reaction to an infraction from power may be really over the top even if all you did was to eat an apple or vilify your father in cyber space.
Unexpected consequences is one of the key metaphoric messages of the Garden of Eden story.
Now Mendy’s response was to always keep lines of communication open, and I do agree with him to some extent. That said, there is such a thing called “Tough Love,” and for the most incorrigible, being grounded and having your t.v., your i-pad,-your i-phone, your computer, your laptop, your DVD player etc. etc. taken out of your room until you learn some respect is not over the top. Besides, any kid who has all that stuff and is still complaining about how he or she is being put upon by their father, deserves some tough love. If parental behaviors are not in the area of sexual, physical, and/or emotional abuse, some kids just have to except the fact they are not the center of the universe and grown ups just may know better. Now of course, some teenage monsters are parent created, and if that is the case, the parent has to first realize this and begin to make real changes.
_______________________________________
At M’kor Shalom, Rabbi Richie also spoke to the unity concept of the Jewish people, but approached if from a grammatical point of view. He also spoke of the origins of management, and how the organization in the desert speaks to modern management.
In Chapter 19, The Israelites come to the foot of Sinai. In this chapter it says, “they came to the wilderness..., they came to Sinai..., they camped...” And then “they” changes to the singular “Israel” and what is to be learned from this is that Israel had to be unified in order to hear the word of G od. In fact, we could not receive the Torah unless we were unified. We also learn that when Jews are united, we become stronger. Three days were needed to prepare ourselves. The ability to be able to move ourselves into a sacred space where we can open ourselves to the Power of the Universe takes time and quiet contemplation. Great biblical figures go into the desert to encounter themselves and G od. It takes time to apprehend the words “Know Before Whom You Stand.”
The giving of the Torah is an ongoing process. We must always be prepared. We must pledge to be unified if we are to survive as a people. We must be one with each other. As G od is One, so must we be one with G od and with one another. And unified, we said, “We will do and we will hear.” Go out into the community to do mitzvot, and once you do it, you will understand it.
The second key component of this study session dealt with Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, and the older man’s suggestion as to how to organize the judicial system of this new society. The key concept here was the delegation of power. But he does lay the foundation for a practical judicial system and management system. At one point, the rabbi introduced a midrash whose story I don’t remember but whose message was that anyone can criticize, but not everyone can find the solution. So if you have a solution, great, but if you don’t, keep quiet.
The Torah sets out the principles of management and leadership, and a book, Moses on Management was the source for the discussion. Moses had to both lead and manage the Children of Israel. The management mandate is to “do things right,” while the leadership mandate is to “do the right thing.” For example, Moses speaks directly to G od, and the message to us is that the best means of communication is to speak directly to those we manage and lead. Trust is built up with face to face meetings. Perhaps that is why all people and all souls came metaphorically face to face with G od at Sinai. G od wanted to establish trust archetypical let us know that at any time we had the option of coming to Him directly without any intermediaries. Another message is to be flexible and to think quickly. In reviewing stories of Moses’ trek through the wilderness, one can see these qualities at work.
According to Rashi, Jethro listed four qualities for leadership. The first was that a leader had to demonstrate accomplishment; a leader had to be G od fearing; a leader had to despise money; a leader had to despise bribes. Of course there are many laws supporting this concept of leadership in the Torah, but they are also directed to us: “You shall not stand upon a bribe, you shall not favor the rich man or a poor man in a dispute,”etc.
I have always believed that the Torah was a guide book for behavior and for standards, and now I see that it is also a guide book for managing ourselves and others when we find ourselves wandering in our own private deserts either alone or at the head of a group who might be or not be following us.
Finally, Moses is the archetypical paradigm for human activity and for being a human being. I have two statues of Moses in my home because to me, he is the greatest human being who ever walked this earth. It was through Moses that the world received the standard for human behavior that became the standard for Western and Middle Eastern Civilization. What gift is greater than a universal morality?
February 18, 2012
Mendy Log: Exodus XXI
Parsha: Mispatim VI
Mendy was in New York City attending a conference. The congregant who gave the drush on the parsha was an Israeli, and chanted both the Torah and Haftorah beautifully with his deep sonorous voice, and his Sephardic incantations. His drush on this very interesting parsha which introduces us to many laws that would establish a viable and just society, was not what it might have been had he focused on one or two concepts and not referred to as many as he did. He was very knowledgeable, inserting appropriate midrashim, as well as Hebrew words and origins. But because of his heavy accent and his seemingly desultory delivery, it was difficult to follow his train of thought that also moved quickly. He also spoke for close to an hour, and I feel he lost his audience.
I did take away what I think was a piece of his drush. It had to do with Hebrew slaves or what would better be called indentured servants. Such people had to serve a certain amount of time it pay off their debt, but I do not believe foreign slaves taken in battle were free to leave after six years. Indentured servants had options. If this “slave” came in alone, he left alone. If he came in married, he left with his wife. But if he came in and married another slave in the house hold and had children with her, he had two options: he could leave without them, or he could stay. If he chose to go out, he had to leave his wife and children in perpetual servitude to the master, but if he loved them, he could stay, allowing his ear to be bored to the door. The option of buying his wife and children’s freedom was not offered though it might have been.
Nailing one’s ear to the door was a symbolic practice that informed the world that this man belonged to this house. I believe the speaker also spoke about the ear as the organ with which we hear, and something about the different levels of hearing which is different from listening. I don’t recall what he was saying. I, too, had a hearing problem at this moment. There was a commentary that informed us that the ear was what enabled us to hear G od’s statement that the children of Israel were His servants, and for a man to choose to be a servant on another, he was diminishing himself. Now he was a servant of a servant.
On another level, and extending the metaphor beyond the intention of the Torah, one might consider that doors are the opening to the world and to freedom. To have the opportunity to go through it and to choose not to, is indicative of a person who does not wish to engage with the world or feels inadequate to do so. Remaining where he or she is, might be safer even staying will enslave them to the past and inhibit personal growth.
The society in which our ancestors lived was a slave society, and we need to keep that in mind as we view and judge them. But even as a slave society, the laws advanced in the Torah were so far beyond the laws of the nations surrounding them, that one can only marvel at the insight the Torah contains regarding the human condition.
There are laws protecting girls who are sold by their parents as maid servants so that they are never to be re-sold to a foreigner. And there are laws granting them the rights of daughters and provisions if they displease their betrothed. They can be sent home. There are laws regarding murder and accidents, miscarriages, and the rights of bondsman being abused. There are laws regarding animals injuring people, thieves breaking into a house, the obligations of a man seducing a virgin, the condemnation of witchcraft, sodomy, polytheism, and oppression of the weak. And in this portion, there is the famous “eye for eye” concept which all then and now understood as just compensation for the value of the eye.
Many of the laws found in this parsha are also found in older legal codes such as the Laws of Hammurabi, but with major differences. For example, where the law in Hammurabi insists that if a man accidentally takes out the eye of another, then the first man must lose his eye, also. That’s an “eye for an eye.” Masters could be as brutal as they liked to their slaves in Hammurabi’s Code, but in the Torah, a master must let his slave go free if the master knocks out a tooth. The Hebrews, so much more advanced, created legal codes that called for compensation deemed appropriate by the courts. There is so much of value in this parsha that one must stand in awe of the level of intelligence and compassion conceived of and written here three thousand or more years ago.
At M’kor, Rabbi Richard began the study session with the laws dealing with the differentiation regarding capital crimes beginning with the one “He who fatally strikes a man shall be put to death.” Nothing saves a man from capital punishment if the murder was premeditated, but if it was accidental, there were cities of refuge to which he might run till things could be sorted out.
Actually, these cities of refuge were created because our ancestors recognized a very real problem that continues to exist today in tribal societies. Whether accidental or not, vengeance was to be exacted and people in the family of the victim were appointed to be the blood avenger. The cities were set up to protect and shelter someone who may have committed an accidental homicide Another ancient advance in justice unique to our people.
But one law in this area demanded special attention, and that was “If a man lies not in wait but God cause it to come to hand, then I will appoint thee a place whither he may flee.” The implication is clearly that G od may be involved in a killing. How is that explained?
There is a midrash that informs us that events are not haphazard, and that God has His messengers to kill people. In every event, even murder, the guiding hand of God is in play. God controls all and if someone dies, the victim must be guilty of an offense that went unpunished. Gods hand is in everything even in accidental deaths. Explanation of this rationalization is that we are incapable of understanding. God squares accounts.
This piece of ludicrous rationalization supports those who insist that the Holocaust was due to the fact that Jewish woman didn’t light Sabbath candles or other equally insane rationalizations for the inexplicable horror. So the Nazis were G ods messengers? Such a twisted rationalization and the midrashim and the theology that supports it, may certainly be a factor in Jewish people leaving the faith and opting for atheism rather than such a perverse idea. Who would want to believe in such a G od or associate with a people who accepted such a piece of theology?
Classic tension in Jewish thought is that G od controls everything, but man has free will.
But if G od controls everything, that means that everything is pre-destined and there cannot be free will. I’d rather believe that G od may know all possible choices and outcomes, but the choice is ours to make and G od hasn’t a clue as to what we will do. Now that’s free will!
The answer that “G od did it,” is an answer that frustrates. Such a statement reveals what is incompatible and confusing to us. We seek answers to that which we cannot understand. We created religions for that purpose as well as to help us deal with fear of the unknown and fear of death. Stuff happens and “G od did it.” But the answer frustrates us, and I am personally not comforted by the explanation or the expression, “It’s G od’s will.”.
Maimonides said “you’ll never get the answer, but the journey to find the answer is the answer.” At moments of crisis or tragedy it is not the time to explain the reason. In Pirke Avot we are taught that “a person cannot be comforted when his dead is before him.” We strive to understand what we cannot understand. Everyone needs some sense of foundation in this life or it’s all chaos. Religion is an attempt to deal with the chaos.
Throughout the discussion on the spirit of the laws under study, the idea that the dignity of the human being in Judaism is what is being stressed. When you curse someone, you are diminishing them. You are taking their dignity. It’s like putting out a light. When you honor someone, you treat them with significance. Everyone has a sense of dignity, and people must be treated well. This Torah also insists on worker’s compensation in case of an accident. People who hire others have a moral responsibility for compensation if they are harmed. In fact, all people have a moral obligation to compensate anyone they harm.
The conversation turned to the statement “And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him and he shall pay as the judges determine.” This is a Torah proof text for the damages one is to pay for a termination of pregnancy. Such a termination is not murder and has never been considered murder in the Torah. In Jewish tradition, the fetus is not a human being until it is born, so a person ending a pregnancy is free of capital liability. Hichita, the commentary on this passage in Exodus, states that even if the fetus is nine months old, it is not a person. The Talmud makes it clear that breathing means coming into the world. When you breath, you are alive. Both death and life are determined by breathing. An embryo is not a nefesh, not a soul if it doesn’t breath. But once born and once breathing, the child has all the rights of a human being.
February 25, 2012
Mendy log: Parsha Terumahl
Exodus
There wasn’t much of a Mendy Log this Sabbath because Mendy had two guest rabbis who took to the bimah. One spoke about Jewish education, and one spoke about his work in Safed for the IDF. So for the second week in a row, I was disappointed. When they finished, Mendy did come back and this is what I think I heard him say. He made reference to the Ark of the Covenant, the tables of the law contained in it, and the staves that carried it that always had to remain in place. Metaphorically, Mendy equated the Jewish people as the staves and our purpose is to carry the Ark. We do this in perpetuity and in doing so, we also carry the law contained in it and we carry the space between the cherubim where G od resides and where we can communicate with him. G od and G od’s law are always with us, and we are responsible for carrying them wherever we go.
Congregation M’kor Shalom
Rabbi Remi Shapiro, this year’s selection as scholar in residence at M’kor Shalom, began with the disclaimer that what was to follow “was his opinions.” With that phrase, he proceeded to reveal teachings that contained some very radical concepts in Jewish theology that in the age of Spinoza would have also gotten him excommunicated. Today, in some circles, his ideas would be viewed as blasphemous, but traditionalists would dismiss him as misinformed before they was consigned him to Cherem. In short, Rabbi Shapiro is an iconoclast.
Rabbi Shapiro’s G od concept was not unlike Spinoza’s: G od is Creation, G od is Nature, G od is Everything that Exists, Free Will is an illusion, and there is no afterlife. What he did not state was whether or not G od was aware of us as individuals.
Throughout the weekend, he spoke of what G od wants us to do and be, but if G od is pure spirit, the Creative Power of Nature, is that Power aware of us as individuals? This is crucial, for how can an unaware Power have expectations of creatures of which he has no cognizance? I found his perceptions both interesting and disturbing. His thoughts were thoughts I’ve considered privately, but this was the first time my personal thoughts had been revealed to me by a well known rabbi and in a sanctuary. I was vaguely disconcerted.
I do believe that Rabbi Shapiro believes in G od, and it is definitely not the G od of the Traditionalist. What this G od is I cannot define, and I suspect he cannot define it either. G od cannot be defined or contained or imagined. Yet throughout his presentation, he urges us to find a way to spiritually connect with this Great Unknown Creative Power in the Universe which is not unlike the urging of the Traditionalists. But where as Traditionalists are content to believe in and find comfort in an anthropomorphic deity who is aware of us as individuals and guides the events on earth, Rabbi Shapiro is involved with a complete spiritual abstraction. Rabbi Shapiro’s G od is a spirit that moves through all things and is all things at the same time. William Wordsworth, the Romanitc poet, expressed this same idea in Lines Written Above Tintern Abbey, a poem that touches the core of the Transcendental Movement in English Poetry.
Rabbi Shapiro took over the Torah study class. The parsha was all about the specifications about building the Tabernacle and what would be required to achieve this G od given command. He made reference to Exodus 25 where the people were told what to bring as the needed materials, and he quipped that this is the origin of the building fund. The people were asked to bring gifts of gold, silver, and copper, but the good rabbi raised the questions as to Why does G od need this stuff? Where did they get all this stuff? And did G od really ask for this stuff? Rabbi Shapiro made it very clear that to his way of thinking, people wrote the Bible and wrote it, for the most part, with good intentions. Certain people wanted this stuff. He also declared that people created God– some with the concept of holiness and purity in mind, and some with violence and horrible images in mind. The people who wrote this had an agenda. Sometimes it was to justify and support a political position, a particular value, or a particular monarchy, and sometimes it was written to justify horrendous and violent behavior. In most events, it was to get people to do what they wanted using God as the motivation or the hammer. If G od wills it, you do it. The Torah is a human document, so we must be careful. G od is often misused.
`The darker parts of the Torah are the darker parts of us. The Torah speaks of radical things such as the rights of slaves and compassion for the poor. In this, it is radically holy. It is also radically horrible when it calls for the mass murder of people, or justifies such behavior. Both the high levels of spiritual awakening and the low levels of spiritual awakening are all there because it comes from the best and the worst parts of the people who wrote it. As we are susceptible of light, we are susceptible of darkness.
Judaism is the rabbinic interpretation of the Bible. When what we do leads us to compassion, it is the Torah and G od acting in our lives. When it leads to genocide and immorality, it is not.
In Isaiah 45 we are told that God makes light and darkness, so everything comes from God. We may not have free will.
I raised the most pressing issue for me. If people wrote the Torah, than who or what is the authority behind moral law? I believe there must be something higher than humanity as the authority. The rabbi responded that since people wrote the Torah, people become the authority behind moral behavior. So I was reminded of the quote by Dostoevsky: “Where there is no G od, all is permitted.” Not to have an authority outside of the foibles and agendas of individuals in power is to resign yourself to the idea that morality is conditional and floats from place to place without anything to anchor it to decency other than agreements between or among individuals, communities, or societies. But people are fickle and things can change. Without some authority as a guide, there is no safety. Totalitarian governments write their laws as do democracies. In one, a person might be murdered for a choice he or she makes, while in another, one might choose the same behavior without punishment. If each individual, group, or nations can set its own standard and that standard can change from place to place, it all comes down to opinion and a Darwinian society where the weak are eaten by the strong..
The rabbi then referred to history, and said that the story matters more than history. Whatever meaning is to be found that is of value is found in the story. The story is how we communicate our values. Passover is about freeing yourself from the narrow places in your life. Liberation is the core of the Passover story. The right of everyone not to be enslaved is a right and a value even if the Exodus story did not happen as it appears in the Bible. It’s the story that conveys what is really important. The actual historicity of the Exodus is not important to the message that it teaches.
The Bible stories may just be a gateway into something far more important. The entire Torah is a gateway into a way of life and a values structure. But to go through the gate, you have to free yourself from your conditioning. You have to go off the path. You have to think outside the box. G od is outside the box. You have to take off your shoes and connect with the earth; with G od. G od cannot be contained in a box.
G od wants us to liberate ourselves and others. G od wants us to be a blessing to all the families of the earth. Judaism is the pathway to fulfilling that mandate.
The expectation of the people is that G od will dwell in the ark because people need a concrete manifestation. But G od says He will speak to Moses not from inside the box, but above it and between the cherubim. God is literally out side the box? The Ten Commandments are inside the box, and G od is outside. The Ten Commandments are tangible concepts for living successfully in a society and maintaining solid relationships. But a relationship with God goes beyond the tangible, so to enter such a relationship, we must free ourselves for a time. The cherubim define the empty space, the nothingness, where G od dwells. It’s the yin and yang. Can the soup exist in the bowl unless there is a bowl to hold it? We cannot have one without the other. We exist in a world of opposites, and opposites define us and space. When we speak of God, we say what we think God is or what we think God is not. To encounter G od, we have to separate ourselves from ourselves and encounter the emptiness between the cherubim.
Where nothingness resides is where G od communicates. The white spaces in the Torah defines the black letters. There is negative space and positive space. There is silence and there is noise. Spirituality resides in the silent spaces. All spirituality takes you to the space between the cherubim.
Tradition sets us up to encounter God. We have traditions and commandments so we can structure our lives and find the empty space where we can encounter G od. G od resides in the commandments, in traditions, and in the structure. Jews structure time with the Sabbath, the holidays, the three prayer services, the mitzvot, and community activities. This structure defines us as a separate people, and it can also define us spiritually. Structuring time in an interesting and meaningful way is one of our hungers. But if G od is in the structure with everything that goes on in this structure, is there any room for the silence between the cherubim? Where is the silence in the structure? Prayer is filled with sounds and becomes rote. If that is so, then it is more confining than liberating? We need structure to pull us together. We need structure to keep us together. Structure reminds us of our true natures. Being Jewish is the way you get to remember who you are.
Religions are like language. There are things you can say in Yiddish that you cannot say in English. The more languages we know, the more nuance our experiences are. Religions are like languages. The more you know about other faiths, the more truths you will encounter. No one faith has the corner on all the truth. Judaism is a language. The ultimate language of the soul is silence.
If G od is everything that exists, and everything is G od, than each one of us is G od. We are each a legitimate manifestation of G od. If the letters yod, hay, vuv, hay are placed one above the other, you have a little human being. Each of us is the name of G od manifest.
So if everything is G od, if I am G od, is encountering G od much like encountering yourself? If not, how do you encounter G od?
There are five levels of consciousness: body, heart, mind, soul, and spirit.
Ruach is the heart energy– love, fear, etc.
Nefesh is self- I, me, mine is the nefesh level.
Chaia level is the I-Thou level of Buber. Here we are the manifestation of G od. What you encounter there is a higher state of G od. We often resist the meeting because it is outside our comfort zone.
Yehida is the non conscious level. Yehida is a gift of grace. When you come back from this level you feel love.
If Judaism is to matter at all, it has to be counter cultural. Each blessing is a door. Spirituality is based on abundance. Culture demands that we lack something. We live in a throw away society. In spirituality, there is no lack. Religions are market driven.
In the spacious mind, I and G od are one. You are to challenge the status quo.
All levels operate at all times, and we don’t think of them.
If a wave could encounter the ocean, it would be in awe of it.
Waves are the people. Each is unique and connected. Waves arise out of the water which is life. Both the water and the waves are wet. G od is the wet. The sun gives life. The rays are the people. Both convey heat. G od is the heat.
We are unique in our aliveness. What is aliveness? G od manifests uniqueness forever. G od is creativity. But why create a world with suffering? The mystics tell us that G od creates the universe not by free will. G od is G od. Creating is what G od does. If G od is everything, then everything is changing. The sun shines because that’s what the sun does.
The Divine Feminine
We are entering the Second Axiel Age. The Second Axiel Age is the return of Feminine Energy which is Chochmah or Wisdom. With its return comes our ability to extend compassion. That will be our purpose. The more we have Wisdom and compassion, the more our hearts will be open to loving others.
The First Axial Age was from 800 BCE to 200 BCE. All religions at that time moved from magic to compassion. Prior to this time period, pagan religions tried to control their gods by manipulating charms, and reciting incantations, reading the entrails of animals, etc. The gods demanded human sacrifice. That was put to an end with the binding of Isaac story.
The new way of thinking is summarized in the book of Micah. It shows a prophetic shift: What does the Lord God require of thee but to seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God. Be merciful, just, and don’t take yourself too seriously.
Combining Micah with Hillel’s statement of “That which is hateful to you, do not do to another,”we have here a new concept of what path Judaism was following. It was a path to compassion. We are obliged by the prophets and rabbis to bring compassion to higher and higher levels.
The first sign of the turn of the Second Axial Age was in 1893 at the Parliament of World Religions in Chicago. The leading figure was a swami who claimed that all religions are variations of the one true way. We should listen to one another and expand our visions.
The second sign was the view of the earth from outer space. Land and sea merge. No divisions of land like on a map. This was a revelation from the Divine. All is part of a single system. The culmination of the Impressionist Movement in Art was Cezanne discovering this and merging sky, earth, and objects so they appear as one unity yet still discernable.
The third sign is the return of the Divine Feminine. The Divine Feminine is the active manifestation of the Divine. The Divine Feminine first appears in Chapter 8 verse 32 in Proverbs. She is the first thing G od created and sets the course of creation. She may be the map of creation, and the way things function. She is G od’s eternal delight, and may have been God’s consort. All ancient male deities had consorts. Astarte may have been the consort of the high G od, El. The Torah is a woman. The Sabbath is a woman. She is the feminine coming into man’s working world.
She creates the world and shows up all over the place. “Follow me,” she says. “Follow Wisdom.” Practice observing the nature of reality. She identifies with reality, not with Judaism. Find me and find life and grace. Turn your back on me and your choose chaos and death. Wisdom calls to us and is always available.
Wisdom has female apostles. Everyone is invited to the meal. In Psalm 23– God is the source and I am creation. I am primordial reality through which all happens.
Jewish Wisdom Literature– Job, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sira
In Job, Satan is the prosecuting attorney and makes a bet with God. Job knows that all comes from God, and believed that if you did good, you got good. But that idea doesn’t seem to work on earth, so we adopted the idea from the Zoroasterians that you will get good in the next life.
Job refuses to curse God as his wife insists and die like a man. Chapter II verse 9 is similar to John 3:16 God kills. He responds to her by saying: “Shall we not accept the bad as well as the good?” Job’s friends represent conventional thinking: “You deserve this because you must have done something wrong.” Ask for God’s forgiveness. Job refuses and demands the truth from God. Chapter 38. God tells Job that He cannot be contained and asks him where he was when God created all. The Universe cannot fit our understanding of Justice. Job responds by acknowledging his true nature that he is of dust and ash and in no way can he understand. He must remain silent.
G od can’t be contained. Life in this world is wild and chaotic, and there is no way to avoid suffering. We have to learn to live with it and make peace with it. The nature of reality is beyond human control. Everything is temporary. It is like Sukkot. Enjoy the bounty and recognize its transitory nature. This is the message of Job.
How do you live with that difficult message? That is addressed by the book of Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes teaches us that life is transient. We lose our money, our kids leave us, things don’t work out as we want, and when we die, nothing goes with us.
The message in Ecclesiastes is that God is the reality. The Divine doesn’t protect: It just creates everything. There is a time for everything. If you want to live, be true to your time. Every moment has its own integrity, and you must figure out how to live it. The formula for doing this is: Eat Moderately, Drink Moderately, Find a Job with Meaning, and Find Friends. Don’t get involved in politics or with the wealthy, and live below the radar. We exist for a short period of time. We are like a wave in the ocean and we return quickly.
March 3, 2012
Mendy Log: Parsha Tetzaveh
Exodus 27
Mendy began his drush by speaking about the holiday Purim which is this coming week. He informed us that when the Messiah comes, the only holiday that will continue to be celebrated is Purim. As part of his introduction, he said that while he was not political on the bimah, he couldn’t help but realize that the current situation with Iran and the Ayatolla Khommeni and his henchman, Ahcmadinijad, both calling for the destruction of Israel and the eradication of the Jewish people, duplicates the ancient Purim story where King Ahasherus and his henchman, Heyman also sought the annihilation of the Jewish people in Persia which is modern day Iran.
History continues to repeat itself, and while history is linear, it is also cyclical. “What goes around, comes around.”
This was a surprise to me since Purim is not considered one of the major holidays in the Jewish calendar, and it is not mentioned in the Torah since it historically happened after the Torah was codified. As an explanation, Mendy said that Purim celebrates life, and then proceeded to explain what he meant in his usual rapid fire delivery of which I can remember very little. The total impression I took away is that Jews are to celebrate life and have the right to defend life when it is threatened. “If a man comes to slay you, slay him first,” is a basic right in preserving one’s life.
Now the following may not be what Mendy said, but it’s what I thought about: The concept of celebrating life and defending it is a right that we have. In fact, just about every Jewish holiday celebrates a concept that speaks to the dignity of human beings. Next to be celebrated on the calendar is Passover which celebrates the concept that people have the right not to be enslaved and have the power to change their situations. Rosh Hashonah celebrates the concept that at any time people have the power to transform themselves from where they are to where they want to be. Chanukah celebrates the concept that people have a right to worship G od as they choose. All these concepts scream FREEDOM and TRANSFORMATION. I also thought that perhaps G od’s nature is transformative also. The translation of G od’s name is given as “I am” or “I shall be what I shall be.” Both imply existence in the present and future, and gives a sense that G od will evolve or transform as existence moves into the future. Perhaps the message is that since we are in G od’s image, we must also transform ourselves and in that way, humanity itself will evolve. Does our evolving to higher understanding or higher levels of spirituality reflect G od evolving? Something to consider.
Two Torah scrolls are taken out and read on the Sabbath prior to Purim. In the second scroll, we read the mandate from G od that Amalek’s name is to be wiped out of existence. (To my way of thinking, this could easily be accomplished if we chose not to read this mandate yearly which keeps the memory of this event and the people very much alive. But I digress.)
But the story of Amalek is read because we must be constantly reminded that such people continue to exist and continue to threaten our existence.
Mendy related the story of how when our ancestors came out of Egypt, they skirted the land of Amalek. The Amalekites were descendants Esau, Jacob’s “evil twin.” The Israelites had no intention of attacking and had no interest in this land because it was no where near Canaan. But the Amalekites attacked the rear of the Israelites where the weak, the elderly, and the woman and children were. For this cowardly act, the Amalekites were to be totally destroyed.
Happily, there are no Amalekites today that we would be bound to slaughter, and we are to recognize that there are people today who are in the spiritual image of Amalek. Such people are people who hate us without cause. The Israelites were of no threat to Amalek, yet the hatred he inherited from Esau, lived in him. Today, the Jewish people have implacable enemies. Today, fundamentalist Muslims around the world calling for the destruction of Israel and Jews are descendants of Amalek, as were men like Hitler and his minions, Stalin in the 20th century, and other Jew haters in every century throughout history. Today there are a variety of men and woman on the extreme Left and the extreme Right who are also descendants of Amalek. We must be constantly vigilant to protect our lives from such as these.
This was a life reaffirming drush. Bravo Mendy.
At M’kor Shalom, Rabbi Richard spoke about the parsha which deals exclusively with the raiments to be worn by the high priest, the dimensions of ritual objects, and the materials of which all of these things were to be made. He raised the issue as to how all these very specific items were available to the Hebrews in a desert, including dolphin skins. Thus, having made the traditional Reform obeisance to the god’s of “higher criticism,” he continued with a beautiful quote by the Bal Shem Tov that set the tone for the following discussion.: “Memory is the source of redemption. Exile comes from forgetting.”
The parsha opens with the request that the menorah was to burn perpetually. As a child, I remember listening to a program on the radio called, “The Eternal Light” which began with the sonorous voice of Morton Wishengrad: “Bring unto me pure oil olive, beaten for the light, to cause the lamps to burn continually in the Tabernacle of the congregation.” The rabbi spoke of light as a symbol of the Divine in man and as a symbol of godliness – sparks of Divinity within us. Light is the spirit in every soul. Our Nefesh Ruach, our soul spirit is reflected in the Eternal Light that hangs above the ark.
He then suggested that since this parsha, curiously inserted in this place, actually has nothing to do with the Exodus or the Revelation, when considered from a political science standpoint, it reveals a layer of meaning not readily seen. He said its purpose was to establish the Aaronite priesthood. It would seem that the parsha was inserted into our history to underscore the power of the priesthood. The priests were in charge.
Does this mean that Moses’s authority was being usurped in favor of the priesthood’s? Is this a reflection of an ancient conflict between the religious authority and the secular authority in ancient Israel when the book was codified after the Babylonial Exile in the 5th or 6th century B.C.E.? Might this be the reason why Aaron is not punished for the golden calf incident? Why was he not punished?
Is his lack of punishment a deliberate statement to underscore G od’s own support for the priesthood as the ruling class? Seth was born to Adam and Eve so the Jewish People would not be descended from a murderer. Does Aaron get pardoned so the future generations of Israelites would know that the High Priest is so beloved by G od that he can be forgiven for a crime that otherwise would get him the death penalty? The mouth of the earth opens and swallows Korah and his followers. Why didn’t Aaron go down with them? Is there something political afoot? Excruciating detail is given to describing the vestments of the very expensive clothes the High Priest is to wear, and this reinforces that clothing indicates authority and status. Even today, authority is determined by uniforms, and fashion in many societies including ours. “Clothes make the man,” as the saying goes.
Aaron, like Moses, speaks to G od, but unlike his brother, it is not face to face.
As part of the sacral vestments, a breastplate is created with twelve semi-precious stones each representing one of the twelve tribes. We are told that when the High Priest asked a question of G od, certain letters would light up within the names of the tribes, and it was up to the High Priest to arrange them in such a way that he would learn G od’s response. Of course, the responses themselves were quite enigmatic and open to interpretation, much like the Oracle of Delphi who once told King Creses who came to her inquiring his fate if he went to war. Her response was that “a great nation would fall.” Sadly, he did not realize that it was going to be his. One of the congregants said that the process was akin to shaking an 8 ball to divine the future. Everyone thought that amusing. Another suggested that the Jews anticipated the Iphone 4 and Sirius where you ask your phone a question and you mysteriously get an answer.
This breastplate is also a pouch containing something called the Urim and Thurum. No one knows what these were, but there is thought that they may have been a positive energy and a negative energy; a “Yes” and a “No.” Whatever these were, were place between the two halves of the breast plate. This major adornment was called the Breastplate of Judgement and Decision, and it was through this object that G od responded to the High Priest’s questions.
There was a brief and interesting allusion again to the idea of the light that was produced by the Breast Plate giving wisdom and G od’s response. Consideration was also given to the idea that the Breast Plate was over the heart which indicates the decisions were made from the heart and not the head.
I couldn’t help but think of the three domains of human behavior: the cognitive, the affective, and the psychomotor. When I did my workshops in valuing education, I would ask participants to list the three major decisions they made in their lives that moved their lives in a particular direction. I then explained briefly the what each domain was and asked them to imagine each decision on a three way balance understanding the most decisions will involve all three. But I asked them which domain tipped the scale and in almost every instance it was the affective domain. The affective domain is the domain that concerns itself with values and feelings. Generally, things of the heart. Those decisions made from the heart invariably move our lives in the direction in which it has gone.
To reinforce this relationship between G od and the heart, Rabbi informed us that the equivalent number for the Hebrew letter “lammed” is 30, and the letter “vays” is 2. Together, they make the word “heart.” 3 plus 0 plus 2 is 5 and one of the names of G od has the numerical equivalent of 5. The letter “hay” is also five. There is a relationship between our G od and the human heart, so one can make the case for G od being in our hearts and directing us from our hearts.
I think I got the jist of this but not sure.
With the lights on the Breastplate almost like aps enabling the High Priest to access hidden information, Urim and Thurim, the questions asked to a seemingly magical or mystical device, and answers coming back through the ether, it would seem that the Torah did presage the Iphone 4 with Sirius where you ask a question and get an answer seemingly from nowhere.
The Torah is indeed a wonderful book.
March 10, 2012
Mendy Log:
Parsha Ki Tisa Exodus 30
Disclaimer: The following is what I think I heard Mendy saying.
There was a bar mitzvah at Chabad, and Mendy began by introducing us to the young man who would be “called up,” praising his attentiveness to his studies, his involvement in his tradition, and his upstanding character.
The bar and bat mitzvah ceremonies are unique because they reflect ancient rites of passage where the individual child becomes the focus of the entire community that welcomes him or her into adulthood with a memorable ritual and celebration. The focus is on the child, and everything that is said is designed to make this young person feel special and valued as a member of the Jewish People. The community opens its collective arms to the child and the child’s uniqueness and potential. It is a day for making a young person feel very special.
Mendy continued this theme of uniqueness by harkening back to the story of Purim which was celebrated this past week. He referred to Hayman informing King Ahashveros that there was a people living in his lands who did not worship the same gods as everyone else, did not keep the same celebrations as everyone else, and did not have the same traditions or customs as everyone else. For their “otherness,” they had to be destroyed, and the foolish king agreed.
Ancient Jew hatred, prior but similar to Christian and Muslim Jew hatred throughout the centuries, was also predicated on the Jew’s rejection of the values and beliefs of the people around them. But whereas Christian and Muslim Jew-hatred resulted from the Jews refusal to validate these two new religions that sprung from it, ancient Jew-hatred was based on the rejection of the wider values and culture of the people among whom the ancient Jews lived. We had a different G od, a different set of laws, a concept of ourselves as a distinctive people, and a sense that we had been chosen for a special purpose. People do not like to be told or constantly reminded that they are wrong so suspicion, hostility and xenophobia became the order of the day.
Mendy focused on the idea of distinctiveness and spoke of Jewish distinctiveness as a strength rather than as a weakness despite what this distinctiveness has engendered from those around us over the centuries. Because each human being is unique and, according to tradition, is created with a unique gift to give the world, we should value ourselves and delight in our individual differences while still rejoicing in the fact that we are one people comprised of unique individuals.
Uniqueness is not to be discarded. In fact, it’s the unique people who often think “outside the box” and come up with ideas that improve the lives of those around them. For survival, Jews have often had to think “outside the box” because the status quo over the centuries was not particularly good to us.
In this age of multi-culturalism where the supporters of this concept demand that all cultures and their values be honored and considered equal to all others, such distinctiveness must be eradicated so everyone can feel equal. But to my way of thinking, such leveling of the playing field leads to a norm reflecting more of mediocrity than superiority. In such a leveled community, standards are lowered and there is nothing for which one might reach to make the world a better place because differences in people would not be valued. One of the reasons I do not care for Jesse Jackson is that at one college demonstration, he led the group chanting “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ Has Got To Go!” The six core values of Western Civilization come from the Torah and entered through the Septuigent which is used by Christianity. Getting rid of Western Civilization’s value system would certainly eliminate the standard that makes the value systems of other cultures, inadequate.
Honoring distinctiveness should be the goal because such uniqueness insists that life move forward in a positive direction.
To reinforce this idea of valuing individuality among the group, Mendy then referred us to the opening of the parsha that spoke of a census. Each person, regardless of status or wealth was to give half a shekel in support of the Tabernacle. (This presages the beginning of synagogue dues and a regressive tax system suggested by some Republicans.)
What Mendy pointed out was that the closer translation to the word “census” that is used is “raising up of the head.” The interpretation of this is that while numbering the people was important, the half shekel was symbolic of citing each person individually, recognizing his uniqueness by “raising up his head.”
At M’or, Rabbi Richard also began with the coins for the census, and the interpretations was somewhat the same and somewhat different. Here, the coins were to raise the level of contributions for the Tabernacle and also to give up something for the sake of the nation. The mission of Israel is to depend upon the unity of the whole with the community always taking precedence pver the individual, because the strength of the institution rests with the participation of all.
This led to a sobering reflection that in modern Jewry, for the most part, this was no longer the case, and that the sense of community which had been one of the hallmarks of Judaism, was now up for grabs. The unity of the whole that was once the Jewish way is being replaced by a sense of entitlement where the needs of the individual are more important than the needs of the community.
While the causes of this phenomenon were not discussed, the individual’s concern for him or her self, this sense of entitlement and its focus on the needs of the self, really began after World War II. The men and women who saw the devastation and the fragility of life, came back and concluded that the most important thing for their children to be was “happy” with a secure sense of self and a positive identity. Prior to this period in history, in fact from the beginning of society, a person’s identity came from what they did and what they accomplished. The thought was you’ll “find” your self and your purpose through what you actually do with your life. So up until the end of that war, people got jobs and raised families and their self-concepts came out of their activities. But after the war with the growth of the suburbs and a more affluent middle class, there began a paradigm shift from finding out who you were after you got a job and created a family to finding yourself and your identity before you got a job or accomplished anything. “Don’t worry about tomorrow, be happy today” became something of a mantra to children born in the fifties, sixties, seventies, and since. The Baby Boomers and those who followed were given the message that it’s more important that you be happy with who you are than anything else. This has led to people who think failing out of college is no great shame, or taking five or six years to graduate is no great problem if they haven’t “found themselves” yet. So with the focus most often on themselves, these people grow to adulthood and they have no real sense of the needs of their community because they have always been more concerned about their own needs. We are losing our young adults because this demographic was raised to focus on their own needs rather than on the needs of anyone else. We really need to learn how to rebuild a sense of Kal Yisroel, of a sense of peopleness among our own.
Rabbi Richard also spoke about the census, about counting, and the restriction placed upon counting Jews as a task that was exclusively in G od province. The ancients believed that if someone to count another, that person was taking away the uniqueness of personhood. Numbering is to take away individuality. So the Orthodox count one another as “Not one, not two, not three...” etc. As part of this census episode, Rabbi told a midrash about G od showing Moses a coin made of fire while implying that money can be useful for creating beauty, and also dangerous depending upon what choose to do with it. The Rabbi also implied that money means control and alluded to the power that the priest were amassing with the wealth they were collecting for the Tabernacle.
He then went into a discussion of Bezalel, the craftsman who was an epic figure with divine gifts and endowed with three key concepts: wisdom, understanding ideas different from his own, and Divine inspiration. There was an in depth clarification of these three, but I can’t remember the details. He mentioned the three concepts and their relationship to the word Chabad which I believe is an acronym for the three concepts. I do recall him saying that Judaism is a very sophisticated religion that is not for little kids.
Sadly, the way it is taught in Hebrew schools today with the focus being on holidays rather than spirituality or life affirming concepts, it will never be more than a series of holidays and exciting stories. And since many Jews do not continue their formal educations beyond thirteen, Judaism for them is a childhood thing with little value to them when they reach adulthood.
There was a moment when Rabbi Richard spoke about following one’s passion, and this seemed to speak of the uniqueness of the individual. This is what I want to do in the world. He said that as we age, we look at the text differently because we mature. In keeping with this idea, it was made clear that all Torah is about your personal journey from exile to freedom.
A series of laws were considered and it was reaffirmed that Shabbat was the most important event in the Jewish tradition. If one breaks the Sabbath laws, they are “karait” or to be cut off. What followed this was an extension of this idea to being emotionally cut off, an existential aloneness, an emotional exile.
Attention turned to Aaron and the Golden Calf episode and why Aaron got off without suffering the same fate as Korah and the rebels. There is a midrash rationalizing his behavior. It tells us that because Aaron was threatened by the mob, and seeing that when Hur, the other man who was put in charge with him, protested, he was murdered. Aaron’s acquiescence to the demands of the mob was a stalling technique. In this, Aaron’s behavior is understandable. When people feel abandoned, they reach for something tangible around which they can coalesce. The people in the Torah are very human and very real. When feeling cast off, people will reach for meaning. People need to hold onto something. With Moses gone for forty days, they believed him to be dead. They felt abandoned. They were frightened and leaderless. They wanted a substitute for Moses to unify them. They decided that a Golden Calf would do this for them.
March 24, 2012
Mendy Log: Parshah Vayikra
Leviticus 1
This is what I think I heard Mendy say:
Mendy referred us to the last letter of the Hebrew word, “vayikra,” which begins the parsha and ends in the Hebrew letter “aleph.” This letter is written smaller than all the other letters. Mendy asked us to consider why this smaller letter appears, and referred us to the rabbis of old who also wondered and interpreted this with a midrash that tells us that G od wanted to honor Moses, but Moses was so humble that he did not want the honor. So G od and Moses agreed that a smaller letter at the end of the word to honor the prophet would suffice. Sadly, I do not recall how the word “vayikra” or the small aleph has anything to do with the name of Moses or honor for that matter, and I don’t suspect it does.
Elsewhere I read that the translation “vayikra” and the words following it reads, “And G od called Moses...” Beginning with the word “And” indicates that this seems to be a continuation of Exodus, and since the word “vayikra” ends with an aleph, and the word after it begins with an aleph also, it is conceivable that the letter is smaller so as to mark the separation of the two words. This interpretation is far less mystical and literary, but might also hold some truth. Not being a Hebrew, biblical scholar or grammarian for that matter, I cannot tell.
Mendy then proceeded to speak about humility as a value in Judaism, and then spoke about the mad man who murdered three soldiers, then a rabbi, his children, and the other children in front of their school in Toulouse, France. He reminded us that one of the murdered little girls was named after the rabbi’s wife who had been murdered in Mumbai, India two or so years ago. Other than the soldiers, all were murdered just because they were Jews.
He then spoke of his trip to Israel and of a speaker who was the mother of two young boys had been stoned to death by Arab Palestinians again, just for being Jews. He pointed out that her plea was not for revenge, but for doing mitzvot, good deeds to make someone’s life better. Mitzvot in memory of her sons was what she wanted.
The highest value for the Jew is life. We remind ourselves of this when we raise a glass, we are commanded in the Torah to create life, we are commanded not to murder, we are taught that we may violate Sabbath law in order to save someone, and we know from the Talmud that “to save a life is as if you have saved an entire world.” But along with this comes the truth that if “someone comes to slay you, slay him first.” We have a right to self-defense.
While we grieve over the deaths of each precious life that was lost to us, the extreme Muslim community relishes martyrdom, and use the places where their children play and learn as stations for rockets. They see glory in death, even for their children. And I have seen Arab Palestinian mothers proudly tell the world from the television screen of the joy of having a son martyred and of the honor their son brought to them by murdering others. They name streets and public squares after people who murder others. What kind of faith grants honor and possibly redemption to its adherents for murdering innocent children and innocent civilians?
As before, and in honor of those lost, Mendy once again asked us to do mitzvot that were outside our comfort zones. If we do not put on phylacteries in the morning, to do that, or if we do not light Sabbath candles, to do that. Stepping out of your comfort zones may be a risk, but by being willing to experience, we are giving ourselves permission to continue until it becomes part of our lives.
At M’Kor Shalom, Rabbi Richard also started off with the small aleph on the word “vayikra” and informed us that this parsha is the very first taught to little children who are beginning to learn Torah. Now with all the stories that might interest children, why start with the text that speaks of the sacrifices to be brought to G od? The reason given seems to deal with the interpretation of that little aleph as it regards Moses. It seems we are taught that Moses did not want honor or the focus on himself, and this humility that he expressed through his actions and rejections of honors, became the foundation for the value of humility in Jewish tradition.
To reinforce this concept of keeping yourself humble, the Rabbi also related a tale of how we should always carry two pieces of paper in our pockets. On one are written the words, “For my sake, the world was created,” and on the other “You are nothing but dust and ashes.” The midrash teaches us through these papers that we are to keep our egos in check and that we are to focus on centering ourselves to achieve balance in our lives. The ego provides a lense to see life. A small deed done in humility is a thousand time more acceptable to G od than a great deed done in self possession. We live most of our lives in the tensions of trying to negotiate the balances of life. But so much of life is in shades of grey. How do you negotiate the greys of life we find in daily living?
The bulk of this parsha deals with the sacrifices to be brought to the Tabernacle and stresses how they are to be without blemish. Bulls, goats, sheep, doves etc. are all to be without blemish, and all the other items not livestock are to be pure. So how do we interpret these offerings today so they have some meaning for us? The key here seems to be “intentionality” or what do you bring to your world? And the language of sacrifice is a symbolic language. We are to think of the concept of purity and what it means to be unblemished. We are to think about what this means for us, and if a sacrifice becomes meaningless if its not pure in its intentionality.
Now I’m thinking about intentionality and sacrifice and I’m thinking about things I give up such as time, or money, or emotions, or wants. We may give something dear to us up for the greater good because we see the need to do so or we are guilted or shamed into it. Of course it is suggested that the sacrifice of any kind is meaningless if it is false and the kavanah, the spirit of the offering, is not pure. Kavanah is a Hebrew word which refers to the purity, intensity. and intentionality of the sacrifice or prayer you are offering up.
But lets be realistic for a moment. To act righteously does not mean your heart has to be in it. You can even be resentful, but the sacrifice still must be made. It may be better for a person’s soul to want to help feed the starving, and a nice check from a reluctant donator can still be put to good use. People need to be fed. I don’t care if the donator is not really happy to give.
This also tied back to the opening lines of the parsha, where Moses is called by G od. What does it mean to be called by G od, and are we still being called by G od? The “still small voice” is the voice some believe is the voice of our conscience. The voice is always there. G od is always calling us. But like the characters in the early part of Genesis who hear G od calling them, we, too, run and hide.
It was suggested that G od never intended for animal offerings, but G od realized that mankind could not deal with the abstractions of what G od really was. So sacrifices were instituted because humanity needed to make offerings to feel G od’s nearness. In reality, man may have thought he was being kind by bringing sacrifices to G od, but in reality, it was G od who was being kind to man by allowing him to feel near to Him. Only about ten percent of the people can deal with an abstract G od. Ninety percent need something tangible. The normal person doesn’t have the intellect to achieve union with the “Prime Mover.” But the struggle to find the path to it is where you find the meaning. Again, it is in the journey and not in the destination where meaning is found.
We created a system to help us establish what is good in life. Michah said, “What does the Lord, G od require of thee but to seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your G od.” There is the mandate to “visit the sick, dower the bride, comfort the bereaved, and attend the dead to the grave.” These things may have been commanded, but they are good ideas and we eventually make them our own. Initially, we behave because we are asked to do so, and then we recognize the value of the behavior, and after continuing to do so, we see their value and they become our own. Values
become inculcated though repeated behaviors.
The laws of the Torah are the foundational ethical principals out of which comes our value systems and our ensuing moral or immoral behaviors depending on the path we take. Our ancestors posited a concept of a G od as the authority behind what is right and what is wrong and how people are to deal with one another. This authority is the parental voice of our civilization. When we silence the parental voice, we risk losing direction.
April 14, 2012
Passover
Mendy did not address the special parsha designated for the Passover Sabbath, but asked the question as to “Why the joy of Passover must be interrupted with the Yiskor service?” a service to commemorate those who have passed away. He also spoke about the Messiah and waiting for him to come.
I cannot honestly say I can remember anything Mendy said, but that does not mean that what he said was not meaningful and thought provoking as usual. I am concerned that my powers of concentration are fading, and that my memory is slipping. Perhaps I am just temporarily distracted by other things going on in my life and not focusing, or perhaps I really am starting to “lose it.” So what follows may or may not reflect anything of what Mendy had to say, but are my musings on his two basic themes.
In any case, as I sit here, I’m thinking about the question raised that we are to interrupt the joy of Passover with Yiskor because there is always a harsh reality out there of which we must be continually aware. Joy is important to existence, but can we truly know joy unless it is compared to its opposite? And besides, isn’t it true that joy, like most experiences, is a brief illusion that can lull us into a sense of false security without a periodic reality check?” If anything, Judaism’s long history has taught its adherents to be very aware of reality. Breaking the glass at the wedding and interrupting joyous holidays with memorial prayers and candles, might be just to remind us to keep vigilant. As the sprig of parsley on the seder table which represents spring and hope must be dipped in the salt water which is symbolic of the tears our ancestors shed, so we must mix joy and sadness as a reminder that reality is often not kind. Joy and sadness, hope and despair, good and evil, free will and determinism; all opposites reminding us about the nature of life. Opposites must have been in the Creator’s Mind when all things came into being. It seems to me that opposites are part of the foundation of existence. But as I think of it, the idea that including glimmers of sadness may work for the severely Orthodox, but who is really saddened or contemplating the loss of the Temples when a glass is broken by the groom at the end of a wedding? Shouts of mazel tov and joy command the moment. As we are forbidden to mix certain fibers as well as certain mitzvot, we should also be forbidden the mixing of joy and sadness. Why diminish the cup of joy when there are appropriate moments in our calendar to commemorate both?
I do recall Mendy speaking about the Messiah which is appropriate since Passover is the story of our redemption from slavery from a particular place, and the Messiah’s coming will bring the redemption of humanity from the spiritual enslavements that bind the heart and mind. For me, the Messiah is the symbolic embodiment of the hope for which humanity yearns. Isaiah details the universal events that will follow when all humanity turns towards Zion (which to me is a metaphor for moral decency,) and stands united. This has not happened yet, so we continue to wait and hope. But we must also act. I do believe that people, acting in concert to make the world a better place, will bring about Isaiah’s Messianic vision. I would love for the Messiah to be a real person, but I think it best to consider the Messiah as the concept label under which all the good collective actions of good people may be subsumed. Those of us who do good for others with or without the hope of compensation or recognition, and those of us who contribute to causes that will assist others to live better, and those of us who support and teach others to be independent etc., etc., etc., are acting in the tradition of the Messiah and are, in fact to my way of thinking, helping to fulfill the Messianic dream. Collectively, those who act for the good are the Messiah. Sadly, there just aren’t enough of us to make a real difference.
Sorry I could only give you thoughts that Mendy triggered in me and not what he said.
At M’Kor Shalom, Rabbi Richard initially spoke of the hedge or border that the rabbis placed around the Torah, and raised the question as to whether or not the border can be moved. The answer he gave was a resounding “Yes” and we have moved this border over the centuries so we might live successful Jewish lives in every age in which we find ourselves. The example given was that of the “eruv” the wire or rope that extends the home into the community so the observant Jew might carry on the Sabbath outside his or her home while still adhering to the Torah law of not carrying. Rabbi called it a “legal fiction” created by rabbis so we can live our lives within the law. Like our Constitution which is interpreted and ruled upon by the Supreme Court, the Torah, too, is a living document that can address the needs of all generations through a process of interpretation and extension of its boundaries. In modern times, it is the Responsa literature that takes the traditional texts and applies it to issues of today. The rabbis of today must create a situation where people can live with their Judaism or they’ll walk away from it. The divisions currently part of Judaism reflect those efforts to keep Jews Jewish and connected.
“When you canonize a scripture, you discover you need another scripture.” I don’t recall who said that, but it makes sense. The Torah needed the Talmud, and the Talmud needed the Responsa.
We focused on the Ethics of the Fathers which is studied in the Passover season. Our focus was on chapter three where we are told to concentrate on three things: Know from where you came, where you are going, and before whom you will give an account and a reckoning. The answer is that we came from a putrid drop, we are going to dust and ashes, and we will give an account to G od.
In short, the past is nothing, and the end is nothing. We are being instructed here on the path of spiritual awakening. The ultimate value expressed here is the transcendence of death where the ultimate account and reckoning must be given. That’s the focus: accessing the soul. The accounting has to do with the life you have been given. You will have to defend yourself. What you do, is how you will be judged. You have been given life and you have been given free will and what you do with it depends on your choices. And are your choices affirmative in their nature? It is essential to the maintenance of free will that there be no clarification as to cause and effect regarding why good people suffer and evil people prosper, for if we had the answer, there would be no true choice because people would choose righteousness to assure material comfort and not because they believed that this was the right thing to do.
The struggle enables you to find the path to personal fulfillment. The struggle to find a balance is the essence of life. We struggle to find meaning and purpose. We struggle for answers. We need to know our purposes from the texts: “Be a light unto the nations and make the world a better place as a co-creator with G od. But this is how we are to respond to outside world. Where are we to be on a more personal level? Our inner struggle opens the door to deeper spiritual meaning. Considering the text opens the door for conversations and possibly discovering meaning. We may not be able to explain why the good suffer and the evil seem blessed, but by conversing about it, we may glimpse understanding.
The Ram Bam spoke of mind, body and spirit as the life force and reflective on how you live your life. Some people can make themselves sick so as not to confront the meaning of their lives.
Passover is a metaphor for one’s own personal liberation. We never get to the promised land but we must struggle to understand who we are so our lives can have meaning.
May 19, 2012
Mendy Log:
Parshah Behar-Bechukotai
Mendy began by referring to the Ethics of the Fathers as is the tradition of this time of the cycle and focused in on Chapter V verse five which states ten miracles that took place in the Temple in Jerusalem. He mostly spoke about the last miracle which dealt with the fact that there was always room to be found in the city and in the Temple no matter how many thousands of pilgrims were there. The inference was that there were no complaints despite the crowed conditions, and he pointed out that an aspect of the miracle had to be that a multitude of Jews actually did not complain! That was a miracle in itself.
By nature, we are a people who complain, and the world has benefitted from this trait. The status quo has never been good to the Jews, and since our focus is not on the afterlife, it has been our philosophy to make the world in which we find ourselves a better place. Initially, change begins by recognizing that something has to change for the better, and that’s were complaining comes into play. A lot of advances in this world have been made because Jews didn’t like the way things were and complained.
This is what I think I heard Mendy tell us:
Mendy informing us that we, like our ancestors, should not complain about the petty stuff such as how crowded it is, but focus on what is truly important, which is especially our relationships with our spouses. Certainly, for the sake of “peace in the house,” he advised us not to point out the minor flaws or problems.
Any man or woman who has been divorced and remarried and still continues to focus or harp on the little things that contributed to the destruction of his or her first marriage, has not learned this lesson and will continue to endanger his or her relationship. Don’t sweat the small stuff. Let it go. Learn to focus on what’s really important if the relationship is to successfully thrive.
The drush shifted over to a Talmudic discussion between to differing rabbis who argued over business procedures and whether something was owned by just paying for it or whether it was owned when the object was taken or some other symbolic thing was done. It was the idea that something must be done that seemed to be the message, and Mendy used this concept by inferring that once a person is touched by “an awareness of the transcendent,” (my wording) or G od, you are forever touched and cannot be untouched. But like in the business transaction, you are obligated to do something.
I will always remember my first encounter with the transcendent. Growing up in a crowded neighborhood in East New York, Brooklyn, the only truly open space was the sky. I know it was before I was an adolescent, and it happened one night up on the roof of the apartment building on Pitkin Avenue that I encountered the wonder of the universe and was touched by it. But the two languages spoken in my shul were Hebrew and Yiddish and I understood neither. My religion gave me no clarity as to what I had experienced. Perhaps I never knew there was anyone to ask about such feelings. At that point, the only G od concept I understood was a condemning G od my mother called down upon me when I was bad. My mother controlled G od and no one controlled my mother. It was not until college that I found a voice for what I experienced by reading transcendental poetry: “And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things.” W. Wordsworth
Many years would pass before I would learn that this concept was developed by a Jewish philosopher named Baruch Spinoza, and this “spirit” was named “Ayn Sof” by the Kabbalists. The struggle to understand that began on that roof top over sixty years ago, is finally being resolved emotionally and intellectually by giving myself permission to recognize that no one approach or answer contains all the truth, and that a fusion of many ideas has led me to a spiritually satisfying life. And to seal the purchase, I have put my actions and my limited resources into activities that help me make a stronger connection with my people, and with my fellow citizens.
Over at M’kor, Leviticus 25 was also under consideration, and the focus here was on the sabbatical and jubilee years and the ecological movement that seems to be founded on these laws. It is clearly stated that G od owns the land, that it is leased to us only. “The land is mine. You are strangers, residents with me.” What seems important here is that relationship between G od, the land, and us.
The discussion continued and focused on the words inscribed on the Liberty Bell: “Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” The word “liberty” is translated from a Hebrew word that is closer in meaning to the word, “release,” and the statement has to do with the Jubilee year and slavery. All Jewish slaves had to be freed, and freedom was to come to both slave and the slave holder who was being forced from power over other human beings. Someone who holds slaves is also enslaved by a system that allows slavery. Slavery deprives both the slave and the master of freedom, and it is written that “he who enslaves another become a slave,” for a truly free person has no need to be a master of others. The more one seeks to control others, the more one enslaves himself. One can become enslaved by one’s own ego.
The concept of release may be a synchronistic borrowing from the Babylonians since some Babylonian kings also proclaimed release to restore economic stability. Some think that much of Jewish culture emerged out of Babylonian culture.
This idea of restoring economic stability states that it is easier to help a person out when he or she is first in trouble. If you let people fall into poverty, it will cost more later to pull them out of it. The Torah, separate from the rituals and history, is really a progressive left wing document. It is against G od’s will to allow people to slide into poverty, and we are exhorted to “support our brother if he has fallen,” and “not to lend on interest.” The Torah demands that we help before there is serious trouble, and we see the adherence to these laws in the countless charities that have been set up to ease the burden of the less fortunate, and that the very first organizations set up when our immigrant forefathers came to America were the benevolent societies. The liberal religious community gave this away to the right wing conservative Bible thumpers who would see the safety nets pulled out from under the poor when the very G od they claim to represent has demanded otherwise. Biblical theology imposed an economic system that attempted to give a good life to everyone. A major thrust of the Torah is the social welfare of the people, and we are in a sacred relationship with God to see that this is done to our best ability. We are to do this because G od told us to do this.
I cannot help but wonder how Jews who support the Conservative Republican Economic Platform resolve this platform with their belief that the Torah is G od’s word?
June 2, 2012
Mendy Log:
Parahah: Naso
Mendy spoke about the priestly benediction uttered by Aaron as dictated from G od: “May the Lord bless you and protect you. May the Lord countenance you and be gracious to you. May the Lord favor you and grant you peace.” The angels, we are told in a commentary berate G od for his favoritism, pointing out to G od that all are created in His image and that these people should not be considered more than any other. G od’s response is that the Hebrews go beyond most other people in their gratitude and response to the blessings bestowed on them, and are therefore worthy of special praise. G od as well as Mendy pointed out that Jews give thanks and go beyond Torah expectations, and he cited several Jewish behaviors that are not required in the Torah but are acted upon anyway. For example, there is no requirement for not mixing dairy and chicken, but people who choose to keep Kosher, do not mix. I don’t mix either, but I do miss my chicken parmigiana. I became mostly observant regarding keeping kosher in my 40's. There were several other examples of going beyond expectations, but I don’t recall what they were.
The core of the drush seemed to ultimately bring the congregation to the concept of gratitude and of going beyond just the minimum. It has been my experience that you don’t meet too many ungrateful people who are happy, so one might conclude that being grateful for what you have enables one to better recognize those thing around you that generates happy feelings. Through its system of blessing just about everything, Judaism inculcates gratitude and the feelings that come with appreciation. Somewhere in the Ethics of the Fathers is a statement that says: “Who is happy? He who rejoices in his own portions.” I think that’s what it says, and if it doesn’t, it should. But I would suggest that it continues to insist that he who rejoices in another’s portion is also a happier person. I believe this because it while it is good to be grateful for what you have, it’s nice to be happy for the good fortune of others. I also believe that the ability to rejoice in another’s portion cuts down on covetousness. To covet someone’s belongings might lead to behaviors that cause serious damage. That’s probably the reason why it’s the last of the Ten Commandments. It’s a summary commandment.
Now rejoicing in your portion does not mean that you don’t or can’t better your portion. That attitude can make civilization come to a screeching halt. Desiring something more is a great incentive to creativity and personal growth. It’s how we advance. The point is that even though you may be desirous of better things and a better life, you should still be grateful for what you have because there are always people who are less fortunate. Remember: “I wept because I had no shoes, and then I met a man who had no feet.” You can always get a pair of shoes. Can’t get feet. At the very core of Tikkun Olam is improving “portion.”
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard was considering Numbers 5:1 which deals with the “Sota” or ordeal. This section deals with a jealous husband who has proof or just suspects his wife’s infidelity. The stress was on the importance of the sanctity of marriage. In response to such behavior, a Medieval rabbi said, “No one sins unless overcome by prohibited.” Normally, we don’t intend to sin.
The ritual involved the aggrieved husband bringing his wife before the priest. The priest prepared a drink made from sweeping of the tabernacle floor, holy water, barley, and the writing of G od’s name etc. during the ritual, the document with the name of G od on it is destroyed. The wife was told that if she drank this mixture and she was in fact unfaithful, her stomach became distended and her “thigh sagged” which was a euphemism for her uterus falling out. If she passed, she would be blessed with children.
The construct of this ritual is definitely patriarchal where a woman was considered her husband’s property. The Talmud tells us that the ritual worked only when people believed in its potency. On another level, we are dealing here with male jealousy of the woman and the humiliation of women as a means of control. We continue to see this being done among many cultures all over the world. Happily, we stopped believing in this form of abuse very early on in our development as a people.
One interesting issue raised focused on the idea that writing the name of G od on a paper and then destroying it with water should have been prohibited, but in this instance it was considered necessary in order to save the marriage. Marriage takes precedence over all else because it represents sacredness. The midrash written on this comes a thousand years later than Numbers. It tells us that Peace is considered one of G od’s names. The ethic here seems to situational. In other places G od’s name must not be destroyed but here in this instance it might. So one is lead to believe that Jewish ethics are not fixed. This idea comes from a concept called Contectual Ethical Theory where one looks to the context of the situation. Such a theory recognizes the many shades of grey. When considering a case for judgement, one cannot always say, “This is the law.” One must apply halachic Judaism to each situation under consideration, and one must shape the response to the law so people can live life. The object of the interpretation of law is to keep community going.
June 9, 2012
Mendy Log:
Parshah Behaalotecha
I came in and Mendy had already begun his drush on the section of Numbers under consideration, and this is what I think Mendy said.
From what I could piece together, the laws of the Sabbath, the prohibitions incumbent on all but primarily adhered to by the Orthodox and serious Conservative Jews, seem to be based on the laws proscribed for putting up the Mishcan or the Tabernacle. It would seem that if something was done to put up the Tabernacle, it could not be done on the Sabbath. So carrying, building, creating etc. on the Sabbath became prohibited.
What I like about my people is that over the centuries, the rabbis reconsidered the prohibitions, and while the Torah could not be changed, the fence around the law could be moved so as to accommodate life in different eras. So happily we no longer have to sit in our tents and not move but within a defined space outside our homes, we can carry. Those of us who are not Orthodox but who have accepted the Orthodox service as our voice, drive to services because it is recognized that if suburban people are to be able to get to shul on the Sabbath, they must drive. You can’t feel like part of a community sitting alone in your tent. Would that the rabbis would condone writing on the Sabbath. Then I could take complete notes because I just cannot remember all that is said.
A description and comments on the seven branched candelabra followed. This seven branched menorah was created from molten gold cast as so it would be one piece. There were no seams in it. What followed was a teaching that the Jewish people were also conceived of as being made from one seamless element so at our core, we are all one.
It is possible that the concept of “Kal Yisroel,” one people, comes from this teaching.
At one point, Mendy raised the issue of what it means to be a “success.” I have no recollection as to how he got on this topic, but he wasn’t talking about success in the usual terms of what we display to the rest of the world to mark our status. He was defining a successful person as someone who relishes the moment, who lives in the moment he or she is in without worrying about the future or feeling guilty about something in the past. To live in the moment is to fully experience, without distractions, the people and the event in which you find yourself. Of course he said that the future must be considered, but there can be specific moments set aside for that purpose.
The idea is not to be thinking about business or other obligations when you are playing with your grand children or having dinner with your spouse.
As a teacher, I early on learned the importance of being in the here and now. Students walk into your classroom in the “there and then” and “in the once before.” Your task is to get them into the “here and now” because that is where you need them to be. That is where you are and where you subject matter is. For me, I begin my classes with the highlight of the week, which focuses them all on one particular positive topic that they share with the class. Then we proceed because they are now all focused on one another and on me. Years ago I also learned that the here and now is injured by worry and by guilt. Worry is about a future over which you might have absolutely no control, and guilt is a feeling about something you did in the past that cannot be undone. Both destroy the here and now and rob the person of the moment. So to minimize worrying about the future, you must first recognize that you have no control over it, and then you do whatever needs to be done to shape that future so it works out for you. Worrying about a test will not change your grade, but studying for it will. Regretting past actions will not change the guilt you feel, but vowing never to repeat the action that caused the guilt will enable you to move on and possibly forgive yourself.
Over at M’kor Shalom, Rabbi Richard was also considering Numbers 9, made mention of the cloud that rested on the Tabernacle. When the cloud moved, the people moved. The cloud was G od’s presence. But his focus was not on the rules of the Sabbath, but on the rules of the Passover sacrifice. It seems that people who had been defiled by a death couldn’t offer the sacrifice and complained to Moses about the matter. Moses took the matter to G od, and G od responded by telling him that if people are unable to attend the Seder because they are defiled or traveling far away, they can have their Seder the following month provided that everything be done according to the law. But if a person decides not to have this Seder, he has cut himself off from his people. To be cut off from the community is a serious business because we are a whole. But to be cut off is also a spiritual thing because you are cut off from yourself. We are in exile from our own true selves which is the Exodus motif made very personal.
By this response, we learned that Jewish tradition looks at traditions very humanely. If you can’t do it on schedule, Jewish law allows you to do it at a later date. We are part of a tradition where there are shades of grey. If you cannot do Shabbat on Saturday, you can do it on Tuesday. We created the concept of time, and time is malleable. In Jewish tradition, the spirit of the law takes precedents over the literal interpretation. Jewish law if flexible. Orthodoxy is flexible.
What is more crucial-the literal affirmation of the law or the spiritual intent of the law?
This does not mean that Judaism is a religion of convenience. It means that when there are circumstances that preclude observances according to law, the law can become flexible or contextual. As long as you observe, it doesn’t have to be on that specific day or at that specific moment. People do want a sense of connection but can’t do it because of conditions. We continue as a people because we have the ability to adapt. The Code of Jewish Law, compiled by Joseph Caro in the 6th Century, was written for the Mediterranean community, and things were added when the northern and eastern European Jews became involved. The community has a say in what the law is and how it is to be interpreted. The community has power. Remember from the marriage contract: “According to the laws of Moses and the People, Israel.”
The challenge for non-Orthodox Judaism is who wrote the Torah? If G od wrote it, than that Power become the authority of right and wrong behind what you do. If the Torah was written by our ancestors, than the authority for right and wrong becomes the rule of the people The real challenge of liberal Judaism is that those who believe the Torah was written by men, have no one to blame but themselves. It is the community that decides. The community becomes the final arbiter of what takes place. That’s the tension.
For me, there must be an authority higher than man behind moral law. I have seen and continue to see the evil humanity has imposed as we move from people to people and country to country over time. Somewhere there must be a standard by which to judge right and wrong or good and evil. If there is none, morality floats and changes from person to person, group to group, people to people and nation to nation. If we don’t believe that G od wrote these laws so humanity might live in safe communities and create stable societies, than we must accept the idea that there is no set standard for behavior other than what humans decide and that standard will change from place to place.
I believe that there was a man named Moses who was a brilliant teacher and moralist. I believe that this man and others such as Abraham, looked at the world and saw the balances, patterns, and harmonies in nature and conceived of a society that could reflect what they saw. They believed, as do I, that there was a creative Power in the universe who set all according to a plan and process to work that plan. And so they behaved, wrote, and taught the core values that would reflect the life they envisioned and made these core values so accessible that they could be acted upon. Everything that is human is in the Torah. That’s why it’s a great book and for me, the authority behind moral law.
The rabbi said that finding G od is in meeting people, and that the connection is made in the synagogue through the people and the programs. While some of us might not find G od in the synagogue, we reflect G od in doing the commanded mitzvot. Synagogues are non-profit organizations, and the product of such an organization is a changed human being. There is no profit and loss regarding human being saved. The bottom line in the synagogue world cannot be measured even if society at large is interested in the bottom line. We don’t know what will happen because we don’t see the impact.
As a teacher, I have made it my business to stay in touch with former students. I wanted to see the impact of what I taught them. All of them are descent human beings and still in touch with their Judaism at different levels as is expected.
June 23, 2012
Mendy Log: Parshah Korach
Tammuz 3
This week, Chabad will be commemorating the passing of The Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, whose vision for keeping the Jewish people a connected and vibrant community continues to be revealed. Mendy, as I recall, told of a story about Chaim Potok, the author of novels such as The Chosen and My Name is Asher Lev, prophesied that the Lubovitch Movement would end with the Rebbe’s passing, but Potok missed the point of what Chabad Lubovitch is all about. The Rebbe knew that in each generation, people would be needed to lead and inspire, and it was he who created the system of sending out young married couples around the world to be a beacon to “wandering Jews.” His rule was that all were to be accepted no matter where they were in their belief systems, and all were to be introduced or reintroduced to “yiddishkeit” or the Jewish way of life. Because of his inspiration, Chabad Lubovitch has grown since his death without a Rebbe to direct the movement. His word and life carries on through men and women like Mendy and Dinie.
I think Mendy also referred to a leaderless community because the Torah portion dealt with the story of Korah, Moses’ first cousin. Korah was an exceptionally wealthy man according to legend, and very much honored. He had everything, but everything was not enough just like Adam and Eve had everything and it was not enough. Korah, in actuality, wanted to be Moses but challenged Moses’ leadership by saying that everyone was holy and that Moses was therefore no holier than anyone else and therefore not deserving of leadership. You might say that Korah is the first true Libertarian who believes that there is no need for a central government. But Moses knows that such a system can only lead to further anarchy and the people must have a leader.
Korah also challenged Moses on certain laws of the Torah as illogical such as the blue string on a for cornered garment, or the law of not mixing certain materials. To challenge the veracity of the Torah is indeed dangerous to this fledgling belief system. Mendy said that Korah missed the point by not seeing the importance of inspirational leadership and the true meaning of what holiness really is. Holiness, according to Mendy, reveals itself through actions, not through prayer or rituals. Holy people may not be in Williamsburg, or Crown Heights, or in Lakewood. According to Mendy, holy people are in Mumbai, Kiev, or Catmandu bringing yiddishkeit to the Jewish people who live there.
Furthermore, Mendy said that the reason people sided with Korah was that they actually did not want to go into the Promised Land, because having that land meant they were to become responsible for themselves. Prior to this, according to the story, they were fed with manna and drank from a well that followed them in their travels. They liked the hours of study and their leisure. They didn’t have to fight to hold onto what they were given, plant, reap, build etc. They were not deserving of the Promised Land.
As always, there were many other points made, but Mendy speaks rapidly, giving example after example to support his premise and I have an increasingly limited capacity for recalling all that is said.
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard also introduced Numbers 16:1-17:15, the Korah rebellion. He pointed out that this was the third time G od threatened to destroy the people and start all over again. The first time was the Golden Calf incident, the second was the spies, and Korah rebellion was the third. Again, Moses pleads for the people, and once again, G od changes His mind.
I find it interesting that G od’s immediate response is to destroy, but Moses’ cooler head seems to prevail. And though G od seems to reluctantly negotiate and backs off, He is still pretty vindictive when he sees people disrespecting His will or suggestions. Early on in the development of our religion, the leadership must have believed that in order to keep the people in line, a very powerful and revengeful G od was needed. Happily, as our people evolved, so did our G od.
Korah was a priest, and along with three others, rebelled in an attempt to wrest control from Moses and the authority of G od. It would seem that each and everyone of the men who rebelled had his own personal agenda and was interested only in himself. They were not real leaders because they did not have the welfare of the People in mind. Consider the political ads that we see today, and look at who is supporting what legislation in the Congress.
Everyone seems out to feather his or her nest, stay in his or her position, and not really care about the needs of their constituents. Korah and his cronies, and the politicos today are of the same stripe. Nothing new under the sun, and that is the genius of the Torah. “What goes around come around, and the Torah was the first to record these true life patterns and warn us about what happens when it all gets out of control. It therefore becomes imperative that we analyze the true motivations under the overt cause. Is good at the core, or only self-interest?
Rabbi made reference to a Rabbi Elliot Dorf as regarding Korah and relationships. The good rabbi raised the issue of the challenge of being in a relationship with other human beings as well as a relationship with G od. G od is also in a relationship with us, and G od asks, “Do I stay in this relationship or not?” G od, again, wants out of the relationship, and again, Moses, as the defense attorney, appeals to G ods reason (or ego) by saying “How will it look?” Moses also deceptively creates a ritual that will decide the fates of the rebellious men without them suspecting him. Rituals are potent and powerful in relationships, and can be use to move through stages in a person’s life. They are both public and private, and used to facilitate rites of passages or moments of crisis. Other than abuse or addictions that destroy, the higher value of a ritual might in certain instances to help those in a relationship work through difficult moments. Relationships have rituals of their own. Subtle shifts of parent/child reversals where at one point the child becomes the parent.
This could be a sacred moment that could become ritualized to ease the crisis.
It takes courage to stay in a relationship and slough through it. Often a tough decision will inform us of the person we are and the person we might become.
We and G od have stayed in this relationship and we continue to evolve into who and what we shall be. G od said to Moses: “I am what I will be.” G od understands that nothing is static.
Sometimes Moses is a rabbi, and sometimes Moses is the defense attorney. But always he has an image to maintain, and Korah is challenging his “street cred.”
According to Rabbi Green of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, Korah is getting a bad rap. As the rabbi puts it, Korah is saying to Moses: “If we’re operating as a community, why are you (Moses) getting to make all the decisions? Why are you so autocratic? You are not taking into consideration other men of repute. Bad things have happened on your watch.”
Moses reacts to this threat by saying: “I hear you and I’m interested in hearing your side of the story and perhaps we’ll reach some understanding.” But Moses is stalling for time because he will now go to G od and set up the test that will involve the fire pans.
The rabbinic commentary is that Moses, throughout his tenure as leader is the most humble of people because he doesn’t go around telling people how important he is. But is he really all that humble. What comes through is a frustrated man because the people, who have seen miracle after miracle, still don’t get it. They refuse to buy into the system. “Ok,” he seems to say to them. “You want to do this, we’ll have a test and you’ll lose.” Of course, one might say that the people are also frustrated, and people in moments of such frustration, often make the wrong decision.
So Moses, the child, runs to G od, the parent to solve his problem. G od is his security and will handle the problem.
Reform Jews can identify with Korah’s position. His position is the liberal Jewish position to authority. Non-Orhodox raise issues and ask, “Why should we listen to you?” “Why are you doing this?” Rabbi Kushner points out that there are all different ways of asking “why?” Why can be a criticism or why can be curiosity. Korah’s sin is in the way he approached the “why?” In relationships, there are all different ways of saying “no” and “yes.”
In the Ethics of the Fathers we are told that there are arguments for the sake of heaven and arguments that are not. Which arguments are ennobling and which are not? Korah is also asking if virtue exist in all people, or does G od have his favorites? If all of us are priest and a holy people, why is one person’s relationship with G od better than another’s. Korah raises valid issues but in the wrong way. Korah was not motivated “for the sake of heaven.”
Also in The Ethics of the Fathers, we are warned not to make any decisions in the heat of anger because we will make the wrong decision. We are told to step back and wait. When a person becomes involved in disputes, he or she is sometimes blinded and sometimes makes ridiculous accusations. Korah, is so personally involved in this situation, he has lost his objectivity. We also tend to lose our objectivity when so involved. That is why a judge will recuse him or her self. Sometimes an outside disinterested party is needed to help. Korah’s is an egomaniacal man who has lost his objectivity.
So ultimately, the Mouth of the Earth which was called into being at the dawn of creation for this sole purpose, opens and swallows up the families of those who rebelled. But we are told that Korah’s sons repent on the way down, and they are saved. It’s an important save because the Prophet Samuel, is descended from Korah so somebody has to survive. Those priests who believed that the fire pan ritual Moses created especially so G od could choose between them and Aaron, are also destroyed for daring to question.
The ultimate message is the same as the one in Job. “G od is in total control, and does what He wants to do. You cannot understand so don’t try.”
June 30, 2012
Mendy Log: Parsha Chukat
Tammuz 10
Mendy came up to the bimah and informed us that he would not be speaking about the parsha, but would be responding to a question asked of him this morning by a congregant. The question was, “How’s the G od business? The following is what I think Mendy said as a response.
First of all, it was a very long and passionate response delivered with great intensity and at great speed so much that was said is not recalled. As part of the response, and I don’t fully recall how it connected with the answer, Mendy spoke of expressing individuality and that he, and others like him, despite their similar appearances, were very free to express themselves through action if not appearance. I think he seemed to imply that this was possible by having accepted the role, the ritual, and the theology of a Chabadnick. By doing this, he says he knows who he is at his core, accepts his limitations as well as his strengths. Within him and within us there are voices that tell us to “Do want you want to do,” and “This is what G od wants you to do.” These two are constantly in conflict, and Mendy says he is strong enough to choose what G od wants him to do. He implied that once you decide to do what G od wants you to do, you are liberated.
While not mentioning he good inclination and the bad inclination, the inclination to righteous behavior and the inclination to ego and self gratification, I do think that is what he was talking about. Was Mendy implying that by doing what G od tells us to do, we are indeed expressing out individuality because we have a basic need to behave righteously and this expresses who we really are? Somewhere in this message was the exact connection to being an individual, but I don’t recall it.
He also related an amusing story of students who said they could never dress like he dresses because they had to express their individuality through their clothing, so Mendy asked these two young men to stand on the desk. They were both dressed exactly alike with the exact same style slacks, shirts, and sneakers. So is aping designer clothing to be in style really an expression of your individuality or just your need to fit in and be like everyone else which is the exact opposite of being an individual.
Listening to the part of us that hears what G od wants us to do resonated with me. I am very much aware of the conflicts between my yetzer tov and my yetzer harah and I can honestly say that if I did not accept G od as being the arbiter of good and evil and the Torah law that reveals how a safe society can be instituted and flourish, I would not be the person I am today. While I do not pay much heed to most of the ritualistic demands of my faith, I do pay a great deal of attention to the moral commands of my faith and how I am to respond to other people. I actually believe that G od must be the authority behind my decisions because otherwise, I am the authority and that would not be a good thing for me or the people around me. I don’t do what I could do because G od forbids it. I try to do what is good because G od encourages it. It isn’t always easy, especially because my concept of G od and Mendy’s concept of G od are very different concepts. I’ll give you a quick example. At lunch after services, I was speaking to a man who said that G od was implicated (my word) in the Holocaust. My immediate response was, “G od had nothing to do with the Holocaust.” I could not even consider believing in let alone worshiping a G od who was “implicated”in the Holocaust, while some of the congregants who believe in the Torah/Rabbinic concept of G od can and do.
The other major question Mendy raised was primarily directed at the congregant who raised the “G od business” question in the first place, but it was also a challenge to the rest of us. Mendy asked, “Why do people come to Chabad? He might have added “even if they doubt or have strong reservations about their faith or about G od?” but didn’t. After opening this to the congregation and hearing a variety of responses, Mendy simply stated that we come because we are “Yids,” Jews and there is something within us that needs to connect. He asked if there was anyone in the congregation who had never felt a moment when the felt that G od was present.
While Mendy does not use words like transcendent, or transcendental, he was speaking of such moments. He basically said that if you felt it once, and he used life cycle events where a person might experience such moments, you long to feel this connection to G od again. Coming to shul on the Sabbath and being part of a faith community is one way of reconnecting with the spiritual dimension that is too often lacking in our daily lives.
I can see the merit in this, but unlike most of my co-congregationalists, I do not find the words of the prayer book particularly helpful in making a spiritual connection with G od, though I do believe that there are at least two factors that prompt me to attend Chabad. They are both very important to my spiritual growth. One is the opportunity to study, learn and increase my knowledge base of Judaism. I have always known that I and G od interface in a classroom and in a garden, not in a prayer book or in a synagogue. That was made clearer this week when I came to Chabad for the preliminary morning service and I was thoroughly bored by the repetition of the psalms of praise. Just how much does one have to praise before one gets the idea of knowing before whom you stand? I do not find prayers of praise and prayers of supplication, meaningful to my spiritual growth. What I do find meaningful is listening to Mendy talk about the Torah and how it relates to our lives and how I might become a better human being by considering what it is asking of me. I do find reading the Torah, Halftorah, and the commentaries that accompany each both intellectually stimulating, and thought provoking. If study is a form of prayer in Judaism, I am praying when I’m listening to Mendy and when I learn from the readings.
Beyond the intellectual connections I make that enable me to experience G od in my unique way, I find a spiritual connection that is inspired by the people around me. I believe that G od reveals Himself though meaningful relationships and our conscious awareness of such interactions as they are taking place. So I feel G od’s presence in the friends I have made at Chabad. Here I connect with my wider family of Kal Yisroel, the Jewish People. Here I see generations of families standing next to one another that assures me that what is will continue after I am gone. It is a sense of permanence that I do not feel elsewhere. Here there is a sound of prayer in a language that speaks to and is understood by my soul though the language itself is not understood. Here there is a connection that is made and remade weekly among a group of mostly like minded people who come together for the purpose of connecting with one another and with the transcendent. I have come to attend Chabad and the Torah study at M’kor because that what I feel I must do on the Sabbath. It works for me.
So in summry, I do believe in a Supreme Creative Power in the universe I refer to as Ayn Sof, I do attend Sabbath services weekly, I do participate the wider Jewish Community through the Midrashah and the JCRC, I do belong to three men’s clubs that service the community, I do contribute regularly to charities both secular and religious, and I do belong to and attend two synagogues. But rote prayer does nothing for me, and the minutia of the laws are of little interest.
Now all the above are choices were freely made. Mendy said that he has to be in synagogue but we don’t. He told us that that makes us part of a select community who will be first on line when the Messiah comes because of those choices. I liked that idea, but I’d step aside for Mendy.
Mendy also spoke of creating a full service synagogue which means he wants to have a morning, afternoon/evening minyon each day. Ten men are needed for the kaddish to be said, and Mendy is passionate to implement these services. I’m thinking about putting myself on an alternative list because someone might need a tenth man in order to pray. Other than supporting a fellow congregant in need of another warm body present, I do not find the minyon services personally meaningful.
Respectfully,
Lenny
July 24, 2012
Mendy Log: Parshat Pinchas
Tamuz 23, 5772
My encounter with a kidney stone last week kept me from attending Shabbat services where the story of Pinchas was begun and finished today. Pinchas was the grandson of Aaron the High Priest and was one of the priestly leaders who directly experienced his people destroying themselves by whoring after the daughters of Moab and by worshiping Baal of Peor. My ancestors just never seem to learn. While Moses and the elders cried bitter tears, G od took things into His own hands as He often does when there is dissension in the ranks, and a lot of the apostates were hung out to dry, and I don’t mean that figuratively. When one of the leaders of the Simeonite tribe brought a Midianite woman and committed harlotry within the sight of Moses and the congregation in front of the Tent of Meeting, it was Pinchas who took a spear and dispatched the two of them.
Pinchas was described as “being jealous for his G od,” and shortly after, this act of leadership seemed to please G od. The plague stopped. That brings you up to today’s parsha which continues the Pinchas saga. G od is pleased with Pinchas and tells Moses that for Pinchas’s act, there will be a covenant of peace and everlasting priest hood for “being jealous for his G od.”
Mendy didn’t speak of the phrase “being jealous for his G od” and it occurred to me that we have often be taught that the word “jealous” means “full of awe” or “awesome.” But it seems to me that here the word may mean exactly what it means today, and that G od will not abide the intrusion of any other god on His turf. Those who were involved with Baal, died. In the Ten Commandments, it does say that “You shall not have any other gods before Me.” This does indicate that G od recognizes there are other gods worshiped, but makes it crystal clear that if you are going to have Him as your G od, you had better not have any others that you think more important than He is. There is a term given to this period of time when the One True G od was emerging from among other gods and this commandment reflects this time, but I forgot the term. If anyone knows it, please let me know what it is.
This is what I remember from what I think Mendy said:
Mendy did talk about Pinchas because he saw this man as a great leader, a man who acted when others were weeping and wringing their seemingly impotent hands. Pinchas acts and does what needs to be done. Mendy focused on different responses when people are called upon to be leaders. Mendy quipped that he is suspect of a person who will agree to do a task without knowing what that task is just because he tells them he has a task for them.
I can’t help but wonder if Mendy is just suspect or is really uncomfortable with immediate acquiescence since in his line of work he usually has to cajole and overcome barriers. Perhaps Mendy doesn’t find it a challenge if it’s too easy, and he feels better when he has to use his considerable skills of persuasion. Perhaps it is the successful confrontation that gives him the psychological boost that keeps him plodding on. For Mendy, winning may be on more than one level. More often than not, there is a playful glint in his eye, and I suspect the Creative, Spunky, and Cute Little Child in Mendy is happiest when he has broken through the barrier, scaled the walls of negativity, and brought someone onto the battlements to wage war against their comfort zones.
Mendy said that there are generally two responses to his request of an individual that they assume a leadership role. Initially, most people will say “no” after hearing what he wants them to do, though they are willing to tell him exactly who will do a wonderful job. I think the second response was that they say, “I am not comfortable in that role.” But when challenged with what role of leadership they might be willing to try on, or why they haven’t assumed some role till now, they cannot respond with specifics.
Taking on leadership roles demands a certain kind of personality. People with altruistic reasons who feel they have something to offer an organization are one type, while people with large egos who need to be in the lime light and receiving praise from others for the sake of boosting their egos might be another. Both may do wonderful jobs, and the results are what ultimately count regardless of the personal motivations. But most people want to be left alone and be in a supportive role, participating behind the scenes. Shy of the spotlight? Just too tired? Not liking to negotiate or be told that they’re wrong? Not assertive? Uncomfortable in front of people? Dozens of reasons for not taking the lead.
Personally, I believe that a teacher is the leader of the classroom who must control large disparate groups while delivering a quality product that will be evaluated. I’ve done that for most of my adult life. When I had my career, I assumed the leadership by initiating and coordinating state wide conferences, state wide and local in service programs, and when invited, I accepted the role of chairperson or president of several organizations. In just about every instance, things ran smoothly and without stress or rancor among those involved. Actually, the only moments of leadership where I have been profoundly disappointed was when I had to deal with adults in a synagogue. And those experiences have turned me off from assuming leadership roles and the distasteful memories keep me from assuming leadership roles. Now, I’m just too old and too tired to get involved in the politics or the egos of synagogue life. I remain a devoted follower, and organizations need followers.
Mendy also made mention of a specific type of leader that Moses describes, a leader who will “go out before them, and who may come in before them, and who may lead them out and who may bring them in.” He asked the congregation what qualities this leader possessed so that he could go out and come in, and while all responses were thoughtful, none guessed what Mendy had in mind.
I keep forgetting that I must not play “guess what Mendy is thinking about” but I usually get caught up in the game.
For me, the quality was the ability to set the example by leading the people out to battle, and after battle, follow them in so they are all safely back at camp. Moses uses the image of a shepherd guiding and protecting the sheep, and whose focus is on the welfare of the flock.
But Mendy’s idea revolved around the leadership role of the man after the battle when the braggadocio ends, the heroic glow fades, and the daily activities of mowing the lawn, doing the laundry and helping with the homework, kick in. The true leader can easily straddle both the battlefield of the daily grind with its stress, its mind numbing routines, and its soul destroying minutia with the quite and simple joys of daily living despite the stress and its own mind numbing routines. The person who can stand astride both worlds is a true leader his family.
As Mendy spoke, I could not help but recall an admonition in The Ethics of the Father’s: “In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man.” Leadership comes from within, and when someone sees that something needs to be done for the good of the family or for the good of the group, he or she will step forward and do it. For the reluctant leader, there is an element of selflessness. To step forward and do it because it must be done, is the act of more than just a leader. That’s being a man or a woman in the best sense of the word. This is the area of the mensch or the menschette.
Being a leader is a frightening thing for some because of the enormous responsibility that rests on you and the repercussions for not being successful. For as there are as many people who will raise you up for a job well done, there are just as many who will complain that it could have been done better. Fail, and you carry the shame as well as the calumny of those who are happiest when they can say, “I told you so.” Leadership is not for the faint of heart or the thin skinned.
Respectfully,
Lenny
July 21, 2012
Mendy log: Parsha Matot-Massei
Av 2, 5772
Today we finish the book of Numbers which tells the original story of the Jewish people and their encounter and relationship with G od. It is Shabbat Chazak because at the end of the parsha, we urge each other to be strong and to strengthen one another. Next week we begin the book of Deuteronomy, which Moses’ summary of our people’s history.
Prior to speaking, Mendy introduced a guest from Israel whose name I do not recall. He was an articulate speaker, sprinkling his talk with Hebrew phrases and quotes from the Bible because this portion spoke to entering the Promised Land and settling on both sides of the Jordan. His life’s work was to stop terrorism before it could happen, and much of his talk was unintelligible to me because I do not understand or speak modern or Biblical Hebrew. But I believe his core message was not to fear traveling to Judea or Sumeria because the cities and towns there in which Jews have made their homes were areas given by G od to the Israelites and should be visited by other Jews to show their support for the people who live there and to make the land our own by visiting it. His message reminded me of the poem, The Gift Outright delivered by Robert Frost at JFK’s inauguration. I think it’s the same message only one must substitute the American name places, people, and events with those of the Hebrews.
The Gift Outright
By Robert Frost
The land was ours before we were the land's.
She was our land more than a hundred years
Before we were her people. She was ours
In Massachusetts, in Virginia,
But we were England's, still colonials,
Possessing what we still were unpossessed
by.
Possessed by what we now no more possessed.
Something we were withholding made us weak
Until we found out that it was ourselves
We were withholding from our land of living,not possess us.
And forthwith found salvation in surrender.
Such as we were we gave ourselves outright
(The deed of gift was many deeds of war)
Of the land vaguely realizing westward,
But still unstoried, artless, unenhanced
Such as she was, such as she would become.
Reinterpretation
G od had decided that this parcel of land would belong to the
Jewish people from the time of creation. Israel was ours
in Jerusalem in Hebron, in Shilo.
But our minds were still enslaved in Egypt and
though we possessed, Israel, Israel did not possess us.
Though no longer enslaved, we were still enslaved by Egypt.
We lacked faith and courage until after forty years of wandering and learning to trust
G od and have faith, we learned that we had been withholding ourselves from the promised land.
And once we finally and truly believed that G od was with us and would make us victorious,
We gave ourselves whole heartedly to the venture, pushing westward towards the Mediterranean.
Over the centuries we would then put our distinctive mark on this land,
and make it our own through the laws and the values of the Torah.
Israel has given its morality to Western Civilization.
(We could become so much more and we can give so much more if the nations would let us.)
The following is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy’s focus was on the importance of the individual verses the importance of the group, but this wasn’t all that clear until he told the story of his renting a large pump to empty the mikvah. He had asked the man behind the counter if this store was his franchise, and his answer was that he was only a peon, a Spanish word which is synonymous with drudge or peasant laborer. Mendy was surprised with the man’s self deprecation and informed him that no individual was unimportant. When Mendy left, the man followed him out to thank him for saying that to him. It seemed that no one had ever told this man that he had worth just because he existed.
I may be mistaken, but Mendy told this story in relation to a story that ends the Book of Numbers, and the story is something of the continuation of the story about Zelophehad’s daughters who requested and were granted their father’s portion of land even though they were woman.
This is a remarkable ruling, since it lays the foundation for women inheriting property. Till this time, what should have gone to the woman rightfully was given to the next male heir. G od decreed that women should inherit their fair share. How advanced the Torah was for its day.
But I digress. At the end of the book, the heads of the Tribe of Joseph to which Zelophehad’s daughters belonged, came to Moses for another ruling. They said that if any of the daughter’s married out of the tribe, that portion of land would then go to the husband’s tribe and diminish their own holdings. Moses again consults with G od and decrees that the daughters may choose any man they like, but that man must belong to the Tribe of Joseph so the land stays in the tribe in perpetuity. So the question Mendy asked was, “Why do you think the Torah ends with this particular event which seems so minor compared with so many others?” There were several reasons given, and Mendy even gave one of them an “excellent” even though that’s not what he was thinking
Now I wasn’t even close with my thoughts, (not response), on intermarriage and not marrying out of the tribe so as to retain what is spiritually yours, but Mendy did have an answer and I’m not recalling what it was though it had something to do with the man in the hardware store.
His focus and message had to do with the value of each individual as a member of the whole. And while I can’t recall the exact connection, the final message was clear.
We are each part of the whole. The structure of a system exists, but individuals create the spirit of the system by participating in it. Chabad is a system that Mendy and Denie brought to Cherry Hill, and it gives back to the individuals who are part of it in the form of emotional, spiritual, and in some cases, financial support. It gives back socially through activities that invite participation with community and friends. It provides support in times of pain and in times of joy. It offers a place to commune with the transcendent and to enter into a relationship with the mystical. Ours is a symbiotic relationship.
What the individual offers or creates as part of the system, may increases themselves, but it also increases the group and if the contribution is really good, the world. Mendy commented on the importance of our individual connections to the synagogue though such contributions to the whole either by standing as the tenth man in a minyon, as a contributor, in supportive and caring roll, or through their wisdom, skill, or physical prowess. All have something to offer. Of course, some are more comfortable in certain situations than in others, but each small contribution keeps the system functioning for Chabad’s success. Each individual is of enormous value and can contribute.
I was reminded to the last line of John Milton’s On His Blindness where he writes, “They also serve who only stand and wait.”
July 28, 2012
Av 9, 5772
Mendy Log: Parshah Devarim
Shabbat Chazon
Today is Tish A’bov, a day that commemorates the destruction of both Temples as well as some other nasty events such as the expulsion from Spain in 1492. It is a day or remembrance and fasting, but because it falls on the Sabbath, we are not permitted to give up the joy of the Sabbath day, so we will commemorate the day on Sunday, the tenth of the Hebrew month of Av. Because this day falls during the summer, most non Orthodox Jews are unaware that it’s even happening and pay little attention to it if any if they are aware. It’s not easy to connect with events that happened in the 6th century BCE and the 1st century CE although we certainly connect with events such as Passover which happened 3500 years ago. I can honestly say that I have always been vaguely aware of this day on the Hebrew calendar having been born on or around this day 72 years ago, but I haven’t done much about it mostly because I just forget. But this year, I actually abstained from wine, beef, and chicken for the week prior to the day as is the custom, read the Book of Lamentations, and fasted. Mendy calls these behaviors an effort towards Yiddishkeit which I guess can be translated as an effort to connect with my people in a singularly Jewish way.
So Mendy began the drush by pointing out the paradox of having to be joyful on the Sabbath day when this same day is that black day in history when many terrible events befell our people. He acknowledged the difficulty for that individual who feels both the loss in the past and the joy of the moment. But Mendy, always having a positive bent, asked us not to get lost in the lamentation of the day, but to ask a simple question: Since both Temples were lost, how do we get back the third one that is promised? Here he took two paths. The first was the explanation as to why we lost the Temples in the first place. Reasons give were that the people came to be uncivil to one another which morphed into a mindless hatred. Another reason was that our ancestors became idol worshipers and that those who did profess to be devout, really did things by rote without any spirit behind their actions. One rabbi gave an interpretation that we lost the Temples because there was no compassion or taking into account extenuating circumstances in the law courts. Everything was done to the letter of the law and where there could have been merciful interpretations, there was none. The people, by abandoning compassion, mercy, and civility, had also abandoned G od. They did not deserve His protection and He hid His Face.
To illustrate these points, Mendy told three stories. One had to do with G od creating the universe in consultation with Peace and Truth, another about a King and his son’s new clothing, and the third about a banquet. The first story speaks to the letter of the law interpretations, and he told us of G od, at the beginning of creation consulting with Truth and Peace to determine which of the two would prevail. Each presents his case to G od, and G od chooses peace because Truth is uncompromising and when absolute, can be destructive to relationships. He said that no marriage would last with absolute truth between the couple. To illustrate this idea, we were told a story of a man named Comsa who made a banquet. By mistake, his arch enemy was invited, and when this other man arrived, he was asked to leave. The guest pleaded that he not be embarrassed, but Comsa insisted that he leave despite the man’s offering to pay for the entire party. Comsa was dealing in absolute truths in his disdain for this guest, and did not recall the Ethics of the Father’s which teachers that everyman’s honor should be as dear to you as your own. Comsa would listen to no one and shamed the man in front of the guests by insisting he leave. In his shame and rage, the man went to the Roman authorities and contributed to bringing down the nation. Therefore, Peace was chosen, because if peace is to be achieved, one must be flexible even where truth is concerned. When our ancestors chose absolute interpretations of the law without any attempt to create peace among the people through negotiation and compromise, we lost our humanity.
The second story referred metaphorically to the Third Temple which is promised. It is the story of a king who has a young son he loves very much. The king has a new suit of clothes made for the young prince as a sign of his affection. The son is happy, puts on the suit, and proceeds to get it dirty and torn. Recognizing that this can happen with young boys, the king has another suit made, and the same thing happens to it. The king has a third suit made, and tells his son that it is hanging in the closet but cannot be worn until the prince is mature enough to appreciate it and care for it. This story of course refers to the loss of the Temples and the promised third.
The Temple is there, but we are not mature enough to receive it. So the question remains, “How do we get the Temple back? What will indicate our maturity to warrant the gift and G od’s confidence that we once again deserve it? The answer basically is found in or levels of compassion and civility. A wonderful lesson.
P.S. The service on Sunday was primarily focused on the severely Orthodox. Would you kindly have English translations of readings or at least give the page numbers in the Torah as to where the parsha and Halftorah can be found. We Reformodox Jews demand that attention be paid to our needs. Also, much of the video’s impact was lost due to the poor auditory conditions. Is a DVD available for home use?
August 11, 2012
Mendy Log: Parshah Elkev
Av 23, 5772
Mendy began by referencing in Deuteronomy Moses’ telling the Hebrews of how he destroyed the first tablets that were written by G od and how G od instructed him to carve another set of wood and to rewrite them. Both the broken set and the new set were to be placed side by side in the temporary Ark of the Covenant.
The question Mendy posited was why should this be done? Why have the constant reminder of our the golden calf episode follow us though out our journey. He opened this question to the congregation and the responses were perceptive.
Ever since Mendy stopped commenting immediately after a congregant’s response with some refutation, participation improved noticeably. Now Mendy should consider introducing his questions with “What might be some ot the reasons you have when you consider... why the broken set of tablets were kept with the new set of tablets?” This phrasing will allow people to feel that what they say has merit even though they have not guessed what Mendy is thinking. Also, he should consider saying “Thank you” after each response so people can feel appreciated for their risk..
To get to the answer, Mendy took a circuitous path and told us a very personal story about his daughter and her profound disappointment about not getting into an A tier school in Jerusalem. Mendy, being the protective and loving father that he is, made some phone calls, called in some favors, and was able to get his daughter placed in a good school in Italy. Then, to further demonstrate his support for her, he and Denie financially sponsored three or four other trips to other countries so she might have a additional special learning experiences This was the way they chose to show their love and support for her. It is what any good parent might do.
So when his daughter returned, Mendy, being a parent and needing some confirmation that he was a loving tata and that what he had done for her was rewarded with her appreciation and love, bared his jugular vein to a teenager and asked her if she loved him. Her response was not what he anticipated and his devastation was followed by private tears. The following day when his daughter asked for money for camp, he suggested that she ask someone she loves. His daughter was confused and did not understand his response until he shared his feeling with her that were generated by her response. The daughter assured him that she was joking and that she did love and appreciate what he and her mother did for her. And after this, their relationship became stronger because it had weathered a potentially disastrous moment.
At this moment, Mendy brought us back to the broken tablet and the whole tablets, telling us that the broken tablets were there not to remind us of our sin, but to remind us that next to them were the whole tablets that were symbolic of our forgiveness and our stronger relationship with G od. As Mendy and his daughter reached a new depth of their relationship because what Mendy thought had been broken but was repaired through conversation, so G od and the children of Israel also found a renewed depth to their relationship symbolized by the new and whole tablets.
I was reminded at this moment of a lyric from The Fantastics, a musical, that goes, “Without a hurt, the heart is hollow.” Parents get hurt, mostly by their children. We are all children first, and we often hurt our parents in our struggle to become independent from them so we might establish our own identities separate from theirs. For me to separate myself from my mother, I eloped. It was the only way I could begin to free myself even though my actions caused her a nervous breakdown. The tighter the parent holds on, the deeper the hurt.
Mendy’s story to help his daughter get into school mirrors my effort to help my daughter, but where as Mendy and his child wrote new tablets, my tablets remain shattered and have been shattered for years. My daughter attended Brandis University but could not make it in their pre-med program. So upon graduation, she told me that she wanted to go to Tufts to take the courses she would need to take the MCATS and fulfill science requirements. I told her that I would not abandon her and continued her child support till she was twenty-four. I supported her because she wanted this and because as a physician, she would not be afraid of not having a sustaining future. When she finished her courses and applied to medical schools, I spoke to a friend who was on the board of one of the schools to which she had applied. The competition was fierce, and I believe that giving a leg up to a child is what any parent would do. Mendy and Denie obviously feel the same way. But when I told her what I had done, she was furious and demanded that I tell my friend that she didn’t need any help from me. I told her I would do that, and I didn’t because if I did, that man would have been angry of her lack of appreciation and would have withdrawn his support and she would not have gotten in at all. Needless to say, this particular school was the only one that accepted her. I did what I felt a father had to do to help his child. But my help combined with the poison her mother fed her before, after, and since the divorce, kept the tablets broken. Today she is a physician, also married to a physisian with two children living somewhere in Florida. I had never met these two children until last month, and I thought at that time a new set of tablets could
be written. But she did not acknowledge my letter to her with a call or with a Father’s Day card or a letter of her own. So I continue with my broken tablets, and though her mother is dead, my daughter will not give herself permission to give up her mother’s anger and move towards a new relationship with me which might be stronger. Through a cousin, my daughter did lay down her conditions. One was that we never speak of the past, so any error in her thinking or any truths other than her mother’s will not be uttered. She will never hear my truth. Another condition was that I can only have a relationship with her and then she will decide if I can have a relationship with her children. She also said that I should have asked permission to take pictures of her children and that I should not have given them gifts without asking her first. I cannot contact them.
Mendy, there are very few people in my life who don’t like me and really don’t want me in their lives. So do I need such people? What is interesting is that there is a deeper relationship forged which sits next to the broken tablets of my life, and that is the one I have with my wife. Each time there is an altercation between this one daughter or two of her children with us, she and I grow closer, more appreciative, and supportive of one another. It was a very good message.
Fondly,
Lenny
September 8, 2012
Mendy Log: Parsha Ki Tavo
Elul 21, 5772
Normally, when there is a celebration, Mendy tries to find a message in the section of the Torah being read that Shabbat that will have meaning for those involved in the joyous occasion. This parsha has as its focus the blessing and the curses, and it is a very difficult parsha to read. In fact, the tradition is that it is read very softly. So Mendy, being Mendy, found another portion in it that dealt with the first fruit offerings and tithing, and taught a beautiful message that focused on intent of behavior of each person in a loving relationship.
I had the definite feeling that his focus was more on the men of the congregation because I do believe that men have a longer “row to hoe” in our quest for sensitivity in our relationships.
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
He began by talking about the first fruits and how these were to be dedicated to G od by tying a ribbon around the seedling or fruit bud. In this way we were remembering G od and saying, “I am thinking of you as your bounty and new life is flourishing.” These first fruits are the produce that was to be delivered to the priests. So the rabbis ask the question: Since it took years to conquer the land, and etymology since those who settled in first had crops while those who had no land did not have crops and could therefore not bring offerings, wouldn’t it have been more logical to have the earlier settlers bring what offerings they had even though the others would have to wait till their land became productive? Was it right for some to be happy by giving the offering and some not to be happy? The answer was that everyone had to wait till the land became productive for all for this commandment to be initiated.
The rabbis explained this decision as one that took into consideration the feelings of the other Israelites who could not obey this commandment. They would not be happy about the situation, and possibly resent the joy of those who could make the offering. Mendy then turned this to relationships and said that when one person in the relationship, the woman in his example, was having a bad day, it would be inconsiderate of the husband to discount those feelings and talk about what a great day he had had.
Mendy frequently uses his own relationship with Denie as examples of how some men fall short. His self deprecation is amusing and I refuse to believe any of it except that he may be a shtunk when it comes to picking up after himself. After all, I have been in his office.
In short, when the woman in the relationship is unhappy, the man should not be happy, and if he discounts her feelings, things will get messy for the husband even though he may have had nothing to do with the cause of her unhappiness originally. But if he is insensitive, her ire will turn on him. I would hope that the reverse of this would be true, but Mendy did not go there. I think the implication is that everything rests on the husband’s shoulders in such a situation. Sadly, I think there are some husbands, men, boyfriends etc., who find it difficult to read emotions in others and some who often cannot sympathize let alone empathize with another. Such men are emotionally immature and they are the ones whose marriages are always in danger because they cannot read another’s needs. Often, men learned about relationships with women by watching their fathers and when they have wives of their own, they use the only model they have even if it’s a bad model. For such men, insensitivity or cluelessness may be their norm, but it if they recognize their failings, therapy helps. The current movie, “Hope Springs” deals with such a relationship.
Mendy also spoke about children not being happy and questioned whether or not parents should or could be happy if their children are not.
I for one recognize that many children from the age of twelve and especially teenagers are often not happy,(and understatement if I ever made one) and if parents were to gear their feelings to those of their children’s, the parents would and could never be happy. We gave life, and we also have a life. We also deserve to be happy. We’ve worked through our teenaged angst and we can and should certainly help or children with theirs, but I don’t feel we are obliged to carry it for them. We carried our own, and how we dealt with our frustrations, disappointments, and anger helped us develop “character” and the people we are today. Allowing our children to learn how to deal with the trials and tribulations of life so they can learn to negotiate a world that is often not pleasant, is something we must allow. What we can do for them is give them a loving and safe home where they can work it all out. Parents who try to fix everything so their child won’t feel bad, is debilitating them. Besides, we will be blamed for everything anyhow when the kid finally goes into therapy.. But I digress.
So the message to the young couple getting married was that you had to pay attention to the feelings and the signs of distress and not discount them. Personal needs, wants, and desires must be put aside until the person with the problem can deal with it effectively and know they are heard by the spouse.
Of course, one spouse can do Rogerian listening or active listening and feed back the emotion they are hearing to the other spouse. But such an activity tells the troubled spouse that they have a problem if they know the process. Such an analytical response on the part of the partner feeding back emotions may be clinically correct, but it can get you in trouble because the spouse doesn’t want to know that the problem is hers. Sometimes a guy just cant win.
Another message he gave had to do with tithing, the giving of one tenth of your bounty to G od. Mendy made the point that the tithing offering may be a better offering that the first fruit offering because the nature of the crop’s growth. But the first fruit offering is a statement that we are remembering G od, while the tithing offering is more of an obligation to the community. So it would seem that it is not the quality of the offering to G od that counts, but the thought behind the offering.
This brought Mendy to a discussion about whether it was the thought behind the gift that counted or the quality of the gift itself. Surprisingly, few felt that it was the thought behind the gift and that might be due to the standard established in certain homes as to what constitutes a gift that tells the receiver that they are valued. Mendy thought that the thought counted more.
I was informed at the outset of my marriage is that anything with a plug attached to it is not acceptable as a gift.
Mendy made reference to those people, again men, who might buy something for a spouse that they themselves want, and such a gift is not really a gift that expresses true affection except for one’s self. In such instances, one is not thinking of one’s spouse, and that is indicative of a bad relationship or an emotionally immature person. Mendy said that the thought behind the gift is very important, and gave the example of little pieces of paper each of his children wrote and hid in his luggage. These expressions of affection for their “tata” were precious and beyond tangible value. It is the thought that counts.
In short, the message to the couple was that the gift should never be something you want, but something the spouse wants. It must be well thought out, and never perfunctory like an automatic flower delivery on certain dates.
One of the things I like about Judaism is the attitude towards giving. The word “charity” comes from the French word for heart, “cour” implying that your “heart” must be in the giving. The same concept of giving in Judaism comes from the Hebrew word “tzadakah” which has at its root the concept of “righteousness.” The heart may or may not have anything to do with a righteous act. Our ancestors recognized long ago that if we waited for people’s “hearts” to be in the giving, few gifts would be given because of human nature. So there is a mandate to tithe because people need help. There is a commandment to leave the corners of your fields to the widows and orphans for gleaning. Judaism is too practical a faith to demand that your heart in your giving. And to be absolutely crass about it, we need your donations to buy food, clothing, and shelter for the needy. We need your donations to support and sustain the community. We are obliged to do this, and there is nothing wrong in praying with a check. You may resent writing your check, but “the poor shall never depart from the land.” We are obligated to others. Hungry people don’t care if the food they are eating comes from a resentful person or a saint. To paraphrase Gandhi, “There are some people who are so destitute that they can find G od only in bread.”
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard was dealing with the same parshah, but the discussion was decidedly different. Initially, because the opening of the parshah dealt with the gratitude we show G od by setting aside the first fruits, we spoke about getting up in the morning and thanking G od for another day of life. Gratitude is a major concept in Judaism because there is a blessing of thanks for just about everything. Through this, Judaism inculcates gratitude and grateful people are happier people. But the conversation changed when Richard spoke about the considerable number of curses as opposed to blessings, and spoke of how difficult it was to teach G od as a G od of love and mercy when the message is “Live this particular way or I’ll kill you.” Another questions raised was “What does it mean to bless and curse and what is the theology behind it?” Of course, all this depends on whether or not you have a concept of G od. He talked about the awe of standing before a sun rise or a sun set or the wonder of bringing life into the world. These prod us into believing that something exists that is greater than ourselves. But what is that something, what is our relationship to it, and how do we access it?
In dealing with the warnings of the portion, he spent some time on the admonition not to insult your parents, and used the image of light or “making light” of them. This interpretation seemed to be based on the etymology of the word used. In using this word to insult someone, you are lessening them; you are making “light” of them and giving them no weight. The word sounded something like “kal.”
We were asked to consider the Torah on one level as a book of political science, and Richard pointed out the construction of the curses which was “If – Then.” We were informed that scholars place the writing of Deuteronomy in the 6th century BCE and contemporary with the social justice prophets. It was written between the destruction of the Northern Kingdoms and Southern Kingdoms which saw the extreme corruption of those contemporary kings. The books of Jeremiah and Kings are contemporary with Deuteronomy.
The prophets were right wing individuals, and exhorted the people to return to some idealized path. They taught that the reason for the destruction of the Temple and the destruction of the Southern Kingdom was that the people strayed from the path. Richard reminded us that the right wing preachers and pundits maintained that Hurricane Katrina was caused by our countries acceptance of gay marriage, abortion, etc. and were in line with the thinking of the prophets in their condemnation of a society that had also lost its moral compass.
I’ve always felt that laws reflecting a group’s values, are created as a result of actions, and if there is a law against something, you can bet someone or a group was doing something the wider society didn’t like. Deuteronomy is speaking to an audience that is and were obviously performing certain acts that the priest and prophets recognize as immoral. They reason a cause and effect scenario. If you continue to do this, then this will happen to you.
So again we were asked, “Do you want to worship a G od who curses you and scares you?
G od, to most, is an idealized parent who is there to protect us and explains the incomprehensible. For many, G od is a human construct to allay the lack of understanding of the universe and the fear of death. We are a species who are, at our cores, fearful of the unknown. We are a species who basically wants someone to look after us and be concerned about our welfare.
Rabbi Richard posited the idea of having a workshop were people talk about their struggle to come to a better understanding of who or what G od is and the relationship that has come out of it.
One of the reasons I like Richard is that he is still struggling with his understanding and relationship with G od and not afraid to share this with his congregants. In some way, this is almost an invitation to us that by recognizing that even those who have studied and thought about this for most of their lives, are still searching, we, as lay, people, are not too far removed from those who have devoted their lives to this faith. We are being welcomed to the struggle, and being given permission to struggle. The acceptance of where we are and permission to continue the struggle is very important.
Another thing I like about Richard’s approach is that his mind is totally open to possibilities and interpretation. And though I value and love Mendy, I don’t think he could invite such a dialogue because for him, only one possible concept of G od, the G od of the Torah and the rabbinic period is acceptable. At least, that’s what he conveys to me.
Respectfully,
Lenny
September 15, 2012
Elul 21, 5772
Parshah Nitzavim in Deuteronomy
Mendy Log:
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
He began by asking the congregation the meaning of the word “Teshuvah” and it was generally agreed upon that it meant return. In this case, a return to G od from wherever you happen to have been. The implication seemed to be that some of us, for a time, will go away and may wish to return. The path to returning is always open providing you follow certain steps. Step one is to recognize that you have made an error and wish to correct it. Step two is the actual apology to the person you have wronged. Step three involves a resolve or vow not to repeat this behavior.
“I forgive you,” uttered by the person to whom you have made the apology may not mean that the person has really forgiven you if the recollection of your infraction is hurled at you each time you do or say something that is not appreciated. If they say, “I can forgive you, but I can never forget,” the relationship is in serious trouble. So in reality, you are not really forgiven. It’s only when the issue is forgotten and never raised can you honestly believe you are forgiven. People who use past errors in judgment over and over again as weapons, live in the past, and when they remind you of those past failures, they are injuring the relationship in the here and now.
I personally have come to believe that the only way you can know you have been forgiven by G od is if you have the opportunity to behave or say something that originally caused the need to apologize and you choose not to say or do it. If you can hold your tongue, you can feel that G od has forgiven you. I also personally believe that it is easier to get forgiveness from G od than it is from an irate wife with a long memory.
Living in the here and now and leaving the “shadows of yesterday” to yesterday, while striving for a relationship with G od were two ideas explored. To make his point, Mendy said that we are to approach G od with joy and with hope, and though the door to a relationship with G od is always open, the circumstance are better on the High Holidays. To make the point about relationships, Mendy asked us to tell him the two most important dates of the year. I knew immediately that it was a wedding anniversary and your spouse’s birthday. He once again reminded us that the gifts to be given were gifts the spouse really wanted and not something you wanted. But he made it clear that if the anniversary was on January 28th and the birthday was on February 2nd, we had better not dismiss the intervening months and not pay attention to that relationship thinking that the two special days were all that were needed. If we did, what kind of relationship would that be?
Mendy compared these two special days when the relationship might be particularly good with the days of Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. Too many people believe that thinking about G od just two days a year will suffice for a relationship, but like paying attention to your spouse for just those two celebratory secular days, is not enough.
On this Sabbath, a day prior to Rosh Hashonah, Mendy invited us to open our minds and hearts to those around us and to G od. I know that listening more intently to friends and family, and seeing them newly bathed in the light of love and friendship are ways of improving the relationship. Though not surrounded by my biological family, I am surrounded by friends, and friends are the family you choose. There is great satisfaction in being with old and new friends, and the sharing of prayer and food with these dear people enable us to grow closer.
But a relationship with G od requires a bit more. First, such a relationship is deeply personal, and for me, requires silence and absolute focus on an abstraction not easily embraced. The voice and the images given to us by the text, for me, are not satisfying intellectually, emotionally, or spiritually and does not open me to G od. If my soul is moved to open itself to G od, it is moved by the sound of the Hebrew prayers of the men around me, the devotion of the cantor, Mendy’s passion and sincerity, the weekly sight of grandfathers next to their sons, next to their sons, and the intimacy of the room. For me, a relationship with my people and my affection for the people in that room, enables me to open myself to G od because I have opened myself to them. This feeling may be G od’s presence in my life. But still, the deeply personal one on one relationship Mendy is calling for, for me, must begin in the silence of my garden and my longing to apprehend the Ayn Sof even only for seconds.
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard asked about the meaning of the repetition of the word “hayom” defined as “today” and made it clear that the covenant was here, at this moment. Where you are at this moment impacts tomorrow. This is a transcendent moment. This day is a pivotal day. The interpretation is that swe are alive today. Live in this day. Too many people live in a past which they can’t control. You can impact today. You are to live in the moment.
One of the important things I’ve learned in life is that if you live in the anger, regrets, or guilt of the past, you ruin the here and now where the people you love are living. The past cannot be changed. As The Rubyat tells us, “The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on. And all your piety and wit shall not call it back to cancel out half a line.” Guilt is a responsive feeling for something done in the past that is regretted. The only way to deal with it and move on is to resolve that when a behavior such as the one that caused the guilt presents itself again, you chose not to act on it. That resolve will help you forgive yourself and move on. Another feeling that destroys the here and now is worry. Worry is a passive feeling that has never had any effect on the future. To eliminate worry, you do all you can in the present to assure some good outcome that you’ve made an effort to control. If you can tell yourself that you’ve done all you can, you can ease from worry into concern and into hope. It’s sort of like that Jewish adage, “Pray as if everything depends on G od, and act as if everything depends on you.” Prayer is passive. Action is in the here and now.
In a society such as ours, we are programed to make plans for our futures. If you live with integrity, you don’t have to fear the future. But people who are so programed in there efforts to control their futures, can become so self- possessed, they can destroy their own souls in the effort. Therefore, we must find a balance. Certainly, be concerned about the future, but don’t become so obsessed with it that you miss out on what is going one right in front of you.
We then looked at what I consider is one of the most beautiful theological construct in the Torah. It is the moment when G od tells us that the mitzvot (commandments or instructions) given this day (in the here and now) are not far away. They are not in heaven and not across the sea. No one needs to be sent to retrieve them for you. There are no mystical intermediaries necessary nor nor do you need valiant heroes to bring them to you. They are here and they are doable and you are capable of understanding them yourself!
Torah study requires that you bring your soul to the text and interpret it. It is not enough to merely pray to G od. We are responsible to do. This is a classic Jewish social justice philosophy. You must act! We each have a part to play in the small chunk of the world we inhabit. This is not a complex idea. This is written in 6th Century BCE morality, and each generation must reinterpreted the message for our own time using the moral core ot the text.
Again we were invited to see the “if - then” theology that we find throughout Deuteronomy. G od says: “If you do this, you’ll be rewarded.” We often counter with an “Dear G od, If you do this than I shall to this.” G od is the parent figure. If you don’t do this, you’ll be grounded. With the Biblical G od, there is very little wiggle room. G od doesn’t do focus groups.
In effect, a core part of the message of Rosh Hashonah has to do with renewal. Our lives and our souls are leased to us. The morning prayers say, “The soul within us is pure. You gave it to us, you take it from us and you return it to us.” We are only renters. Your license for your life gets renewed each year. This license is an on going invitation to grow in our humanity.
Respectfully,
Lenny
September 22, 2012
Tishrei 6, 5773
Vayeilech
Shabbat Shuva/ The Sabbath of Return
Mendy Log:
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Continuing his thread of focusing the congregation on developing and maintaining a relationship with God, Mendy began by asking the question as to why Rosh Hashonah comes before Yom Kippur? His answer, after several responses, was that Yom Kippur is a time of negotiation with God, but in order to have a negotiation with anyone, there has to be a relationship established so both parties will want to negotiate. To reinforce this idea, Mendy told a story of a man who borrows money from his neighbor and cannot sleep because he cannot meet the first payment. His wife, recognizing her husband’s stress, goes to the window, opens it, wakes up the neighbor and screams that he’s not getting his money. The wife then turns to her husband and says, “Now he can’t sleep and you can because you can’t do anything about the situation. Write it off. ” But what if the neighbor comes and says, “Let’s talk about this. Let me set new terms. Let me lower the payment so you can pay off the debt.” In this case, the man cannot walk away from his debt as he might have before the neighbor offered to work with him on a payment plan. The man has established a relationship. The debtor has an obligation to make restitution. God, as the one who holds the debt, is willing to make new terms. God is willing for a relationship.
It would seem that we are the debtors, and God, on Yom Kippur, is willing to negotiate and renegotiate for our return to a path of righteousness. It is a day of soul searching, give, and take, and some resolution as to how one will proceed. But we do not come to negotiation with God without some prior relationship or understanding regarding our intent to work out some plan. This focus on developing a meaningful relationship so we can enter into a meaningful negotiation is the purpose of Rosh Hashonah. It is a time of refocusing on concepts that many of us are not often concerned of during the year.
But I have to say in all honesty, that the God depicted in the Torah is not a God easily pacified and or initially, willing to negotiate. Abraham has some success, and so does Moses, but God’s initial response prior to their efforts is first to destroy and ask questions later. At first, God is an angry parent figure. Happily, as the people evolved, their concept of God did also, and while we continue to have a God in Deuteronomy who will wreak havoc on his people if they stray, we also have the introduction to us of the compassionate and loving God of Isaiah and other Prophets who is long suffering for His children to return.
While on the subject, Mendy shared with us a recollection from his childhood about watching these old rabbis in shul weeping over the recitation of the sins being read. He knew that these were not sinful men, and yet they wept. He asked his father and his father told him that these venerable old men were reviewing their lives and weeping over the sins they committed in their past; infractions committed perhaps fifty or sixty years ago against people they loved. Mendy shared with us his experiences of having hurt his parents as a child and being forgiven. But when his own children have said hurtful things, the same things he said to his parents, only then could he fully understand and empathize with what their pain must have been. He said that as he grows and remembers his own behavior as a younger man, he will periodically go to his parents to apologize for what he did and said. He says he finds this necessary even if his parents do not. He feels that by recounting and taking responsibility for behaviors in the past, he grows as an adult.
(How wonderful it must have been to grow up with such loving kindness, understanding, and trust that a man wants to continue to dialogue with his parents. How wonderful that the parents are willing to listen.)
Mendy said that real Teshuva, real returning, is coming back as a better you.
For me, return, Teshuva, is a return to where I left off in my effort ot become my better self. If I, like these old rabbis or even like Mendy, were to return to the decisions of my past or the past pains I inflicted on significant people, I would become so enraged at those moments and at those involved, that all efforts to negotiate a better me will be lost in the anger. Mendy can look back with love on parents who loved and guided him on his path. Some of us can only look back on parents who, while providing sustenance and protection, were parents who did nothing to inspire a spiritual component or emotional safety; parents who discounted a child’s existence, or so imposed themselves into the life and mind of that the child that the child was rendered helpless and inadequate. Emotionally debilitated children who view themselves as helpless and inadequate, become emotionally debilitated adults. For such a person, it might take years to learn to live in the present and to not look back. To follow Mendy’s suggestion to revisit such moments is to step dangerously close to an abyss. People who have grown up with such messages and who have successfully dealt with their ghosts, can become decent and successful human beings, despite their destructive messages received as children. Ghosts once vanquished, need not be resurrected. A person should not have to gut himself open every Yom Kippur in order to become a better person. In the play “King Lear” Shakespeare puts into Lear’s mouth, “I am a man more sinned against than sinning.” Mendy, a person cannot erase his past, and there is no profit in revisiting it if there is nothing that can be done other than not repeating the original mistakes. The people who have most hurt me in my life are dead. The people I’ve hurt are the same as those who hurt me. Why do I need to I recall the pain? Of what value is the guilt that is sure to be felt. I respectfully disagree with your message of returning to the past in order to become better for the future. I can become better despite my past and I have.
The last item I recall Mendy addressing was the reason why didn’t God forgive Moses for striking the rock and allowing him to enter the promised land. If God is a forgiving God, certainly He could have given his prophet some slack. Mendy’s answer had to do with the consequences of our actions.
The idea that in life there are unforseen consequences for doing what you are not supposed to be doing. It begins with Adam and Eve. Don’t eat the apple or you’ll die. Die? What’s die? These two didn’t know what death was. There was no cause and effect in the world. There was no consequence for disobedience. What was disobedience? If there was something called disobedience, could there be free will? If there are consequences of free will, shouldn’t they be understood. The whole story is a metaphor for the idea that there are consequences beyond what you can conceive for infractions to the rules. And sometimes the consequences are really beyond imagination. So for a basic innocent man and women succumbing to temptation by a talking snake, the man must work by the sweat of his brow and the woman must bring forth children in pain? The punishment is a little over the top. Certainly no negotiation with the kids here.
So Moses hit the rock, and God takes umbridge with Moses because Moses, by hitting the rock and not speaking to it, in some way takes honor from God. But the message is clear. There are consequences for everything, and though you might think the action small, there is the so called “Butterfly Effect.” While life should be lived in the hear and now, it must also be played like a chess game, thinking about the future moves you need to make and the consequences of such moves.
Everything has consequences.
Over at M’kor Shalom, Rabbi Richard opened the session with the idea that Moses had reached his 120th year and was about to pass away. Moses says that he can no longer be active, and
Rabbi, who is very much interested in healthy aging, said that we can continue to be spiritually active even if we can no longer be physically active. We can be healed spiritually even if not cured of the disease. “Heal me oh Lord, and I shall be healed.” You can be in a relationship with God even if you are sick. Your body is a gift from God, and it is not to be abused.
The discussion continued with Moses calling in Joshua and the transition to Joshua’s leadership. We were informed that the book of Deuteronomy was written against the historical period where the Northern Kingdom had been destroyed, the Southern Kingdom was breaking down, the kings were corrupt, and statues of Baal were openly worshiped. This book relates how God, in Deuteronmy, is witnessing against Israel, and it is written down so the people will come to understand and return. Here we are told “I will hide my countenance from you.” The Israelites will be exposed and unprotected. The God of the Bible hides Himself. Is He still hiding from us?
Locked in this idea is that evil is the result of God withdrawing from us. Is God the one who protects us from evil? We certainly pray for that. But what of the idea that God creates both good and evil? It seems very contradictory. Yet we believe that God is always present. Can one hide and still be present?
In Genesis, Adam and Eve are the ones who hide from God. The metaphor for us is that God is always there, and we are the ones who hide. The word theodocy was used. This word deal with questions about God’s justice. The same world that brings you blessings is also the same world that brings you trauma. When you enter the religious world, you must suspend logic. We may want proofs where there are no proofs. We may want logic where logic cannot be imposed. Judaism requires a leap of faith, not a leap of thought. There is no proof of God’s existence; just hypothesizes.
The conversation switched to metaphorical interpretations. The metaphorical interpretation of the Burning Bush is that Moses needed to be ready to hear God’s voice. We also need to be ready to hear it.
The wilderness imagery and the Exodus is a metaphor for our own journey of going out from the dark places symbolized by Egypt and for our own wandering in the wilderness in search of our true selves. We might not get there, but it is the journey that is of great importance to our growth. We will never be perfect, so this allows for growth.
Lech lechah is a metaphor for our own going out into the unknown to become the people we become.
I started thinking about my own Lech lechas and my own leaps into the unknown:
My choice to major in English and become a teacher.
My choice to elope.
My choice to become a father.
My choice to move to NJ, buy a home, all before I had the job.
My choice to take a blank slate and create the best job I ever had.
My choice to agree to a divorce.
My choice to remarry.
An interesting discussion followed about free will and our directive to “Choose Life.” God directs us to “Choose Life,” so we know we are going to have choices to make. Our choices reverberate down the generations, and those who come after us can benefit from those choices or be injured by them. The choices we make impact us and the future. We are in control of our reactions to the choices we are given by God. The choices are in our own hands, and classic Judaism’s response is, “It’s up to you.”
But is it really only up to us in the here and now, or are we anchored to our pasts.
My great grandparents and grandparents made the choice to come here and that has certainly impacted me and my descendants. What they valued and how they responded to their own children formed those people, and to a large degree, I am a product of those behaviors. So the question must be raised as to whether or not, considering all the events in our past that leads us to the moment we are in and the people we are, do we really have free will or are our decisions merely responses based messages given to us by significant people in our early lives that told us who we are and what we can expect from life? I think it safe to say that genetics, family, origins, religion, environment, etc. also have a voice in directing us to make choices. This is my take on this subject.
The crucial decisions that lead our lives in a particular direction are usually made at a time of life when we are totally inept to make such life altering choices.
We all have hungers. We hunger for food, for shelter, and for other needs to sustain our lives. Among these “hungers” are some of which we are unaware such as the “hunger” to be recognized and the “hunger”to find a position in life that will confirm who we are. Now the hunger to be recognized is paramount to our existence because recognition tells us that we exist. The worst response from another is to be discounted, so to gain recognition, we will do anything.
So if a person is raised with hugs and kisses, basically that person will conclude that they are basically worth hugs and kisses and will go after positive recognition as they grow up, fully believing that their life has worth and their position in life is going to be a good one. Thus, choices that will be made will most likely garner them positive recognition and reinforce a positive position.
On the other hand, a child raised with smacks across the mouth, a boot to the rear end, beatings, hurtful words that describe them, and/or sexual abuse will conclude very early that this must be the kind of recognition he or she deserve and will go after it. Any recognition that tells a person he or she exists is better than no recognition at all. They satisfy their “hunger recognition”
by getting into trouble, drugs, promiscuity, and a variety of other unhealthy activities. They have been given verbal and non verbal messages as to their lack of worth, and they will show the people who gave them these negative messages that these important people were correct and not to be disappointed. Of course, much of such behavior is being done outside the awareness of why it is
being done. People often do not have a clue as to why they say and do what they do. Recognition hunger and position hunger are not in the forefront of anyone’s mind, but they are always there.
So based upon the myriad of forces in our lives, the verbal and non-verbal messages that informed us of who we are and what we can expect out of life, the needs of others, the environment in which we find ourselves, etc. etc. can we really say that we truly have freedom of choice? Perhaps if we say we do if we accept the fact that we bring to our choices a host of factors that influence us though we may be unaware of such influences.
Respectfully,
Lenny
September 29, 2012
Tishrei 13, 5773
Parsha Ha’azinu
Mendy Log:
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Initially, Mendy began talking about heaven and earth giving witness to what Moses was saying in his last exhortation to the congregation. Mendy said that though the earth was under the feet of our ancestors and could be felt, and though a physical world surrounded them, it was the spiritual world above them and around them that would be the focus of his talk. It was this relationship and this constant conflict between the physical and the spiritual worlds that needed to be addressed.
Mendy continued by talking about our material sides and our spiritual sides and how there is a yearning within us for both though for many, the material side is often more desirable. The image he used was the image of Jews shopping in Neaman Marcus and Jews going to shul.
I would say that in some way it’s the exact same idea as the war within us between our Yetzer Tov, our good inclinations and the Yetzer Hara, our bad inclination.
The point was that we have natural yearnings for both, and it is during Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur that our spiritual selves seem more open and eager for a connection with God at these times, and that is the reason so many Jews appear on the High Holidays who do not attend regularly.
Being something of a cynic, I can also say that I know people who attend High Holiday services because it is expected of them by the community and their spouses. There is no attempt at a spiritual connection because there is no belief in the God they were taught about in Chader or in Hebrew school. They come to keep peace in the house and to be seen as someone who is connected to the congregation. But even for those who come to connect to something, we all know that one or two attempts at an encounter once a year doesn’t make for a lasting relationship between anyone, so I would say that even those who sense that something in them wants a connection with the transcendent will be disappointed that the connection is not made and not fully understand why. Even people who attend weekly often can’t make a connection. I would even venture a guess that people who attend a daily minion may not be making a connection. To them, it is possible that they say that “this is what a Jew does and this is what my father and grandfather did.” I wonder if Shechinah is felt by those who attend minions regularly or is that not even a thought?
Mendy also informed us of the mitzvah of eating in the succah the first night of the holiday even if it rains. He said that even if the weather is bad, we are to approach Succot with a joyous heart because, though inconvenient, Succot is an extension of Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur in that we rejoice at the connection and resolve we have made to be better our lives and to attempt a new and better relationship with God.
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard said that Moses’s last message to the congregation was something of an ethical will. Moses knows he is about to die and he’s telling the people “Listen to what I’ve learned from my life.” There is an air of desperation about him because he knows these people and he knows that after he’s gone, they will fall into sin. This last message is in the form of a poem with repetitions of the same thought repeated in different way, a definite rhythm, parallelisms, and a definite structure. Each poetic device is designed to make it easy to remember and to repeat. The poem predates the 6th Century BCE and most likely came down as part of our ancient oral tradition.
“Give ear, oh hear. Let me speak.” The first image of the poem is of rain: gentle, nourishing, and life sustaining. The message to us is that if the rain falls and the ground is not prepared to receive it, it will just run off and not nourish. But if the earth is prepared (if we are prepared) the rain will be absorbed and our souls will grow. But if not prepared, and we or the earth can’t receive the water, destruction could follow.
How can one be prepared to receive words?. Some people are not prepared to hear this because they have no learning. Sometimes we make snap judgments, taking things out of context, and our words can be hurtful and destructive.
There is a spiritual component. For the soul to grow, we must hear the words and absorb them. Soul growth is a gradual process, and this is a life long learning process. It is not immediate. Soft rain and dew are gentle on the earth and can be absorbed more readily than a torrent.
But following this, Moses quickly changes his tone to urgency: “You cannot forget your past!” From generation to generation you must remember.
Go back to understand it and from understanding, you will better understand who you are and why you were chosen. If you disregard your past, you are doomed to repeat the errors of the past. You have a collective history. In Yungian terms, Moses is telling us that we have both a collective history and a collective sub-conscience.
On a psycho spiritual level, the clock is ticking for Moses. What does he want to leave behind? In this final soliloquy, he seems also to be saying, “Don’t forget me. I count for something.” It is a profound spiritual moment.
We all want to be remembered. We all want to stand for something. I’ve made a weak attempted at immortality with Grandpa Zeydeh’s Wisdom under Biography on my website. It is something of an ethical will.
Moses is also saying something more. He is telling the people that their baseness gives the lie to God, and their evil behavior will cause others to doubt God’s law. When God’s people act against God’s law, God’s honor is endangered.
Reference was made to a book entitled, The Ambivalence of God where it is suggested that God’s goal was to create a loyal and obedient people so He could be worshiped. This would imply an imperfect God who has needs. So it would seem that God needs us as much as we need Him, and the insistence that we stay healthy is because only healthy people can properly worship.
Jewish tradition is fantastic because it allows for a relationship between an imperfect people and an imperfect God. The challenge is to understand why an imperfect people could or should seek a relationship with an imperfect God.
We are part of a civilization that asks us to question. Why do we come to services? What are we looking for and what are we getting out of the experience?
In the Reform tradition, one is encouraged to think about his or her relationship with God, and is encouraged to consider and or reassess what we have been taught about God. I would go so far as to say that there are rabbinic figures in the Reform Movement who insist that each person has the “God given right” to create a concept of God that he or she can relate to if the one they’ve been taught about does not work for them. It’s better than walking away and saying that “I don’t believe.” One might say that the idea of seeking different concepts of God comes from the idea that we say: “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” The interpretation is that each developed his own relationship and concept of God.
To this his end, Rabbi Richard on Yom Kippur challenged the congregation as to why they had come to services, and what God they were worshiping? This was an enormously gutsy topic as a sermon since those who come once or twice a year expect something on social action and not on action of the soul. I was very proud of him because it is never too late for soul growth and for a relationship with God. But it has to be with a God to whom you can relate, and having an imperfect God levels the proverbial playing field. How can you have a loving relationship when you are always in the subservient position and alternately in fear or awe? How can you have an honest adult relationship when you are always in the child position? How can you love when there
is fear? I’m not talking ego here or thinking you are equal to the Creator. I’m talking something of a partnership. A covenant is an agreement between two like minded beings. Each gets something out of the relationship. Man gets a cosmic ear and hope, and God gets gratitude for having created and for sustaining creation. At least that’s my covenant.
So the following day, between the afternoon and the evening services, Rabbi invited the congregation into the chapel to listen to three people tell of their journeys to find their God. I had the privilege of being one of the three. Mendy could never make such an invitation because Orthodoxy has the answer and there is no negotiation. You are urged to have a relationship with God, but the God is the Torah/Rabbinic God and no other concept will do.
I said at the presentation that a person’s initially encounters a God concept in his home, and in my home, my mom wielded God the way Zeus wielded thunderbolts. The God of my childhood was not a kind or loving Being. But I also spoke of how, as a pre teen, I would go up on the roof at night, look at the stars, and sense how small I was and how something very big was out there. I could not name what this something was so I called it God even though I knew it was in conflict with the God who was conjured up in the apartment below. Hebrew school was of little help since Hebrew and Yiddish was spoken during the services, and history, culture, and decoding the Hebrew language was what we were taught in the school upstairs. Nothing about God. So after my Bar Mitzvah I walked away and did not encounter spirituality until college in my Romantic and Victorian poetry class. There I read the following:
And I have felt a presence
That disturbs me with the joy of elevated thoughts,
A sense sublime, of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns, and the round ocean,
And the living air, and in the mind of man.
A motion and a spirit that impels all thinking things,
All objects of all thought, and moves through all things.
from Lines Composed Above Tintern Abby William Wordsworth.
Then in my philosophy class I encountered Julian Huxley who wrote:
“Man is that part of reality through which and by which the Cosmic Process has learned to apprehend itself.”
But always with me is the God who says, “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the House of Egypt, out of a house of bondage to be your God. You shall have no other gods before Me.”
So the poets identified a transcendental force that one philosopher called the Cosmic Process and my people called God. But this was a very different God concept from what I knew and years later I learned that the Kabbalists called this Force Ayn Sof and that Baruch Spinoza also identified It, gave It a new twist, and was excommunicated for his troubles. These poets, philosophers, rabbis, and scholars had give themselves permission to conceive of a new conception of God, and I took permission myself to think about what they thought. I was in good company.
With Mendy and Richard as guides, I am still in good company though I’ve added Steinberg, Kaplan, and Buber to my merry little band.
Respectfully,
Lenny
October 13, 2012
Mendy Log:
Parsha Bereshith Gen 1:1-6:8
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began with a statement that what he was about to say might offend some of the congregants. He was not apologetic. He said that the world and everything in it was created by God expressly for His chosen people, namely, us. He then went on to explain what he meant, though I don’t recall the details other than we were put on earth to model correct behavior and we were given the Torah as a guide.
The remainder of the drush had to do with the creation of Adam and Eve and specifically, the line that tells us that God has created a mate for Adam that will be both a helper and a challenger to him. The question was raised as to why a “challenger” and not just a “helper.” Mendy’s answer was that men, who are not as spiritually developed as are women, would never grow in their humanity if they didn’t have someone to catch them up short, and question their behavior. He almost implied that the criticism that is leveled at us by our wives so we might improve ourselves, is a blessing.
I wish I had known that in my first marriage where such “blessings” were abundant. But I couldn’t help but think: What if the spouse’s challenges are only to satisfy the spouse’s needs and these needs can never really be satisfied? Is one expected to turn oneself inside out and lose one’s identity to satisfy another’s needs even if they are the needs of the spouse? The philosophic mind comes late in life, and may not be around when the couple are in their twenties, thirties, or forties. Perhaps other divisions of Judaism might insist on relationship instruction prior to getting married the way the Orthodox and Catholics do.
Mendy implied that a wife who is only a helper to her husband and who does not challenge him to grow, may be a helpful wife, but not a good one. To reinforce this, he gave examples from his own life where his wife will catch him up short with a comment on his plans or attitudes, and he will have to consider her perceptions and possibly change his own. Mendy also mentioned the words that “a man should leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh” as a way of reinforcing the idea of the closeness of the relationship between a husband and a wife, and how the challenges and the help make for a secure and an honest relationship.
I would like him to expand on this idea. It is very idealistic, and I guess the Torah sets high objectives so one might have something to which one might aspire. To become one flesh may be a metaphor for becoming one mind and acting on the needs of the other.
There is the concept that each of us has a “bashert,” a person we are destine to marry to complete us. This would imply that there is an outside intelligence behind people meeting one another that has ordained this coupling. But while the decision of this “outside intelligence” may be traditionally thought of as infallible, the “intelligence” certainly must not be aware of the human factors that figure into the equation. In my first marriage, my mother and my first wife disliked each other from the very start, and my wife literally wanted me “to leave my father and mother.” While I knew that my mother was to blame for the conflict, I could not seem myself disassociating myself from my family, and though it might have satisfied my wife, I chose not to do so. Perhaps I was too immature to do what really needed to be done for the sake of the marriage. I believe she saw this as me choosing my parents over her, and perhaps I did. Her challenge was too early in our marriage, too costly, and I was not up to it. Of course, there were many other issues that ultimately ended our twenty year marriage. But being in the middle of two very strong women and having to constantly balance between the two and thus satisfying neither, revealed other issues and other personal flaws.
Yes, I certainly did grow from those challenges, and I am certainly not the man tody that I was thirty years ago. But not all challenges are good. Can one honestly believe that the pain of growing in this way was God’s plan? To what end? Did God mean for me to grow in order to be happy with another woman and to make another woman happy? But what of my first wife’s unhappiness? Why would God cause her such stress by matching her with someone who could not possibly fulfill her emotional needs or protect her?
It raises the issue of why we were created, and what is our purpose. True, we are told that we were created to be to “be a light unto the nations,” and that we are to “make the world a better place,” but these reasons come much later on in our sacred texts. The earlier reasons seem less noble. The commandment, “You will have no other gods before Me” is a good clue as to why we were created. God wanted to be worshiped. It might also be possible that The Creative Process in the universe which some of us identify as God ,wanted or needed to experience life on a physical dimension and we were the solution to that addressed that need. We are a complex and volatile species, and capable of providing a limitless ranges of emotional and physical reactions. Our experiences give our lives meaning and we hopefully grow from them, and our experiences and the emotions generated from these allow God a constant renewable source of experiences on a physical plain. We grow and God grows. Everybody wins. Ya think?
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard spoke about non- revelatory literature and gave examples of borrowings in the literatures of other ancient civilizations that also appear in our Torah as these relate to the creation of the world and of humanity. He spoke of word derivations, and how the roots of words give a deeper meaning that cannot easily be translated into English. For example, the name Havel or as we know him, Abel, has its root in the idea of emptiness or nothingness. This child will be murdered, and nothing will ensue from him.
Richard said the that for him, the most important question for us is found in Genesis 3:9 where God says to Adam and Eve, “Alyecha” or “Where are you?” We continually try to answer that question, and he seemed to imply that if we can keep that question with us as a personal way of assessing ourselves, we will grow.
He invited us to look at the family dynamic in Genesis, and suggested that there are family pathologies that are sent down generations.
Most of these pathologies exist outside our awareness, and it is only when we step back and look at our lives and the patterns that seem to flow from generation to generation, that we can see them. We are all a series of learned behaviors and attitudes give both verbally and non verbally from the powerful people in our lives. For example, I began to write my first novel after my divorce when I realized that I might have been the fourth generation of a Berman male in a bad marriage. So my story begins with the messages my great grand father might have gotten from his own parents.
We then looked at the two creation stories, and how each depicts a different type of human being. In the first, Adam is created with Eve. This man is given orders: the first is to propagate, and the second is to subdue the earth. One commentary offered was that we were put here to learn how to be God like, and how this was our “sandbox.” We are to bring the world back to God. We were also told a Talmudic story of how three angels requested that mankind not be created.
We were informed that the second creation story was probably older than the first because of the language used, but when the priests put all the stories together, they decided this one should go first. In this story, man is created alone and put in a garden. Then, for his pleasure, trees, plants, animals etc. are created. Richard spoke of a word (which I don’t recall) that has two “yuds” in it and these refer to the two inclinations that exist in us, namely, the good inclination and the bad. This Adam is different from the first Adam. This one is formed from clay by God Himself and animated directly by God own breath. In one story, God creates from nothing, and in the other, God creates humanity from something. Eve seems to be created from a spare part.
The concept of the two Adams seem to point to the symbolic duality of man’s two natures and speaks to two stages of life, but I cannot recall anything other than one Adam is told that he has to procreate and subdue the earth, while, the other Adam is given opportunities to name the living things around him and ordered not to eat the fruit of a certain tree. The first Adam is not challenged with a warning, but is give a definite road to being a success. But the other decides he needs to acquire the true meaning of what it is to be alive and decides to challenge himself by tasting the fruit of the forbidden tree. This Adam is far more dynamic than the first who follows orders.
Now one of the issues I have with the story is that the second Adam is warned not to eat the fruit or he will die. But what concept of death could he possibly have had, and what concept of cause and effect could he possibly have had? How could he possibly understood the concept of consequences and of over reactions on the part of a parent? Adam and Eve are children without guile and without an agenda. They must be considered a metaphor for children who will test their parents and challenge themselves to grow. That’s what humanity does. Besides, did these two innocents really know who God was? Could they even comprehend such a being with expectations of being obeyed? Did God want pets or did God want individuals who would grow in their intelligence and in their humanity? Either way, He really beats up on them for disobeying him. The message for us here is that we never really know the consequences of what we may see as an insignificant action.
Respectfully,
Lenny
October 21, 2012
Heshvan 4, 5773
Mendy Log: Noah Genesis 6:9-11:32
Halftorah Isaiah 54L1-1-55:5
Note: This was my Torah and Halftorah portion at my bar mitzvah in 1952. Honestly, I could not remember a word of it. But in thirteen years I will be eighty-three and entitled to a second bar mitzvah so I have ten years to reacquaint myself with it. You are invited to the celebration.
This Sabbath, a young man became a bar mitzvah, and Mendy rightfully praised the family for having raised such a fine young man, and he also heaped praise upon the young man himself for the outstanding effort made during his preparation. In fact, the young man read the entire Torah portion which was quite lengthy as well as his Halftorah. He did both very well.
In the rear of the synagogue sat several of his friends who where not Jewish. I could not help but wonder if they felt they had happened in on aliens in America: men separated from women, a sea of prayer shawls, a foreign language everyone seemed to know, strange music, and strange rituals including throwing candy and piercing chirps from the women’s section. But I also hope that they saw in this spectacle the honor that was heaped on their friend by not only his rabbi and family, but also a congregation of men and woman who were only tangentially involved in his life. While there are many cultures around the world that have rituals of rites of passage into adulthood, I do believe only Judaism requires the young person to study for a year or more, and stand in front of the congregation so he or she can demonstrate literacy, poise, and intelligence in order to be welcomed into the community as an adult. This young man did not disappoint.
Mendy did speak to the story of Noah, and this is what I think I remember him saying:
The quote “Noah was a righteous man in his generation,” was offered along with the question as to whether or not he would have been righteous had he lived in another generation? Would he have been considered righteous had he lived along side Abraham or Moses?
There were many responses with Mendy clarifying and asking additional questions. In fact, there were so many responses, that I do not remember any of them, including Mendy’s final take on the statement. I may have been distracted and slightly overwhelmed by so many words coming at me.
I think he also spoke about the incident of Noah getting drunk and his son Ham, who we are specifically told is the father of Canaan, finds him and report this to his brothers. Mendy also related this odd midrash about a certain huge animal that came on the ark that is now extinct.
I immediately thought of the unicorn, and the fact that the unicorn was rumored to appear only in the presence of a virgin, may explain why they are now extinct. I also think that Noah has been given a bad reputation because of the “drunkenness” story. But one must remember that his first act after getting off the ark was to build an alter and in doing so, demonstrates to future generations that we must first be grateful for what we have been given. The vineyard story, and getting drunk comes later. The economy of the story is brilliant. Time is compressed. But I think that if I had seen my entire world destroyed and I had to live for weeks on a boat filled with stinking animals, I might also experience “survivor’s guilt” and also try to self medicate with a drink or two. Who wouldn’t? Vineyards take years to grow, so his drunkenness comes years after the ark has landed. Survivors remorse or guilt does not leave a person. Is trauma ever forgotten? I think we need to lighten up on Noah.
It occurred to me that this story has very definite political undertones. Noah’s sons had many children, yet only Ham’s son, Canaan, is singled out to be mentioned, and it is Canaan, not Ham himself, and his descendants who are cursed by Noah. Could this little tale that sullies Noah’s character have deliberately been included as a justification or rationale for over running the land of Canaan?
Mendy also related a rabbinic midrash about one extinct species on the ark that was so huge, it wouldn’t fit in at all. So the rabbis posited three suggestions, and sadly, I don’t think I will do the story justice. The first was that the animals horns were so wide, that even by putting one horn in first, the beast couldn’t get the second one in so it was partially in but mostly outside. One suggested that only the animal’s nose was able to enter the cabin, and that’s how it traveled. I’m not clear about the third suggestion, but it may have had something to do with tying the animals to the boat and floating them. Mendy himself raised the issue of why there was such a strange story such as this one, and he interpreted it as an allegory. The ark, I believe he said, was Judaism and Yiddishkeit, the way Judaism is expressed in every day life. The animal may have been symbolic of the way parents introduce their children to Judaism and Yiddishkeit. I honestly don’t recall how each attempt to explain how the animal made the trip related to different parental attempts, but Mendy’s message was clearly one of hope. Some of our young may only stick their noses into the ark or into their Judaism or Yiddishkeit, but they have not separated themselves from it, and because of this, they may one day they may return and learn about it. That is hopeful.
He made mention of how the bar mitzvah boy’s family introduced him to Judaism and Yiddishkeit when he was an infant, and how he has grown in his tradition.
One of the beautiful things about Chabad is seeing parents bringing in infants and watching them grow in the shul. Nothing is strange. Nothing is alien or will ever be alien. I am envious as I rejoice in the portions of the grandfathers who surround me. I have grandchildren whose parents have opted not to allow their children into “the ark” but only their noses when they are with their grandparents. I have to wait until they are of age so I can begin to share with them the beauty of our faith and the extraordinary contributions of our civilization.
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard was also discussing the story of Noah, describing it as a universal myth and an attempt at Jewish pre-history. The idea that Noah was a “righteous man in his generation” was also discussed and one thought that I found amusing was that he “was the least horrible out of all the other horrible people.”
It sort of reminded me about elections and voting for the lesser of the two evils. It seems that even God has to make such choices. Perhaps that is one of the key messages to us that life demands such choices of us and like God, we, too, also must decide between the best of the worst. Such a reality has given us such phrases as “a Hobson’s choice” and “a choice between Scylla and Charybdis.”
In Genesis chapter 9 verse 1, Noah is told by God everything is his and that he is to become master of the earth. Noah, like Adam, is given the commandment to multiply, and God establishes a covenant with him that He will never destroy the earth again with a flood. The rainbow will be a reminder to God of his promise.
The rainbow is common in other cultures such as the Babylonian, but there it is a symbols of triumph in war, used when the Babylonian god Marduk sets the bow in the sky to commemorate his triumph over Tiament. The ancient Hebrews borrowed this symbol, but turned it from a war symbol into a peace symbol. The story of Noah is also based on a much more ancient Babylonian text called the Epic of Gilgamish. Here, the gods choose a man named Utmashpitim and give him very clear directions as to how to build a boat and what to put in it. But in their story, the capricious gods are angry with mankind because they make noise and disturb the god’s sleep. Mankind has also lax on offerings. But when the Hebrews take over the story, you have a moral dimension that is not in the Babylonian tale. God in the story of Noah is responding to corruption and evil. He wants to start over and get it right.
The Talmudic rabbis extracted from the communication of God to Noah, seven laws called the Noahide Laws that would apply to all human beings. These are derived from the text; patterns of behavior as to what is a good human being. Basically they require that every person is to come to and observe religion and judicial laws:
1.- Don’t blaspheme
2.- Don’t worship idols,
3.- Don’t commit incest,
4.-Don’t steal,
5.-Don’t murder,
6.-Don’t drink or eat the blood of an animal, and
7.-Don’t eat the flesh of a living animal.
These laws were given to the descendants of Noah, and required of all those non-Jewish people who chose to live among the Israelites. These laws termed Natural Religion were vital to maintaining a human and a civil society.
Respectfully,
Lenny
October 27, 2012
Heshvan 11, 5773
Mendy Log: Lech Lecha
Genesis 12:1-17:27
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
“Lech Lecha,” which is the statement made by God to Abram that tells him to leave his father’s house and go to a land that he will be shown, begins one of my favorite parshas because it is the story of every person who decides to grow by leaving his or her past and entering upon a journey that might take them to places unknown.
But Mendy chose another path to take this Sabbath by talking about the opening of a particular prayer that we say at every service. Though we can all recite this prayer by rote, he we suggested that we do not know what the words really means or to what it refers. He was right.
The words to which he referred contains the lines, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”
The Reform Jew in me had always taken this statement as recognition our God concept was not to be set but was to evolved as humanity evolved, as indicated in the line to Moses, “I shall be what I shall be” as a translation of His Name. The implication for me is that the God of Abraham, was not the same exact God as the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob is different from both. As we evolve, God evolves in our own understanding as He reveals Himself to us. But Mendy’s take was different. Surprise, surprise.
Mendy made reference to this repetition by saying that the Rabbis who wrote the service back in Talmudic times, had specific qualities in mind when the distinct statements about the God of the Patriarchs were made, but most people now have no knowledge of what each quality was, so the statements become rote, and for most, meaningless. He referred us to two references, but I can recall only the one in the Ethics of the Fathers, and if my memory serves it was Hillel’s statement that we are to love and pursue peace, love thy fellow-creatures, bring them to Torah. It seems that each of the patriarchs exemplified one of these qualities. I think it was Abraham who was the one who loved his fellow man because his tent was always open, Isaac was the quiet scholarly one who exemplified Torah study, and Jacob was the one who exemplified love of fellow creatures.
I may have mixed them up so you understand why I always qualify what I write with “This is what I think I remember Mendy saying.” But as Mendy spoke, I recalled other qualities that oddly enough also come in threes. Simon the Just told us that the world existed on three things: Torah, temple service, and practice of charity. Rabbam Simon, son of Gamaliel added that the world exists on truth, on justice, and on peace. And the Prophet Micah, in positing his trio, says that God wants us to seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with HIm. Each of our Patriarchs could also be identified with such qualities.
I think Mendy’s comments were important because so much is said by rote, and little thought is given to the actual meanings of the words or the meaning behind the words. But the services are always the same, and I doubt if many apprehend the meaning behind what they are saying. Perhaps it is also the fault of the rabbis who have an established service they must get through because that is the tradition. But would an Orthodox or Conservative rabbi have the courage to say to a congregation: “Look, you come here week after week, and some of you day after day, and really do not understand the heart of the prayers. So this Sabbath, we are not going to do the entire shemoneh esreh repetition, and we’re going to just concentrate on one of the eighteen prayers so you will fully know in the future what it really means and it’s significance in the liturgy.”
And if I knew that such a teaching would be going on for at least eighteen weeks, I would be much happier with the service because I would be learning and intellectually and hopefully, spiritually growing. Personally, I think the repetition of the amidah is unnecessary because it is redundant, and I don’t know why we have to include it other than “it’s always been that way.” I am the poster child for not knowing why the prayers are there and what their real significance are.
On Shabbat, a rabbi has a captive audience, and if he (or she) were to take the opportunity to educate on the meaning of the prayers and why they are included, I do believe that his (or her) congregation would be very appreciative. Of course, a rabbi might say that if you want to learn, take a class, but there are those of us who can only allot a certain amount of time to attendance, and might not be willing to attend or could not attend because of other pressures.
Before we started talking about the Lech Lecha parshah over a M’Kor Shalom, we reviewed a piece of the Noah story and what nakedness might also mean metaphorically. To be naked is to be exposed; to see the truth of that person in all their fallibility.
Was Ham the one to see first see his father’s fear, confusion, and anxiety at seeing the world destroyed? Did his father curse his descendants for seeing the truth that lies beyond the image the parent feels compelled to project? The older brothers, wishing to respect their father and his fallibility, cover him up and will not see the reality. Perhaps they are protecting the established relationships between children and parents. Perhaps they have learned to deal in denial.
Parents, because they fear being seen as vulnerable and fallible, will keep family secrets. But such secrets underlie certain behaviors that could be confusing and dangerous if not explained to their offspring. We spoke about breaking away from family patterns and curses from generation to generation that are both physical and emotional? What do you do with the knowledge that you are cursed?
“Lech Lecha” speaks to the natural inclination of moving forward and taking risks. Taking risks to grow seem part of Jewish tradition and a Jewish value. (The status quo has historically not been kind to Jews, so risking a new path and thinking outside the box has always been part of our survival plan). Abram is well up there in years when the call comes, and this teaches us that we are not to be afraid to take risks at any age. We are invited to grow; to take a leap of faith to a “place you do not know.” It can be both a physical and spiritual leap. To grow spiritually is to go to a place we do not know. Judaism invites us to just do it, and have faith and courage in yourself.
I’ve had several major lech lechas in my lifetime. I think my first major one was deciding to teach, and this career choice was not what was anticipated in my family. But despite the drama this choice caused, it made me very happy. My second was to elope. That made no one happy, but I had to “leave my father’s house” in order to grow up. My interest in inter-disciplinary education and teaching skills allowed me to write a curriculum that was accepted as one of the models for the New York City School System. I was about twenty five, and following that, I was invited to join the New Jersey State Department of Education. This brought me to my third life altering lech lecha. Time was a crucial factor. I was told I had the job but one person still had to approve me. But to move to NJ, I had to give up my job, our apartment, take out my pension for a down payment to buy a home and all this had to be done before the school year began. Nothing could be done until I quit. So without a firm commitment, I did all of these things. And though I was told I should not have done it, I did get the job, and my professional life truly began as the New Jersey State Consultant in Arts and Humanities. I was twenty-nine. I risked it all for a chance at a new and exciting life. I got it, but in retrospect, I can honestly say that most of my “lech lechas”have been accompanied by great drama, and lasting trauma that were imposed on me from those responding to my choices. Was it worth it to have the life I carved out for myself and the people I have met and befriended on this journey? You bet it was!
It was made clear that each spiritual journey comes in stages, and our growth is not always at once. We always have the opportunity to grow. None of us is ever complete.
Abram is told to leave his native land and “his father’s house” because to become who he’d become, he had to develop a new lifestyle. The question was considered as to why the Torah lists the particular order of the leaving in the way it does. The explanation was that the parental home as well as the community and country, imprints on us emotional responses, values, and attitudes. Change comes slowly, beginning with making superficial changes first, and then internalizing them. Each change in attitude, value, or behavior must be integrated and internalized before moving on. Change in personality and spiritual growth must be gradual. Growth takes a lifetime. Who you are has taken a lifetime of growth.
Abram makes a radical change when Terah, his father, dies. Such moments give us permission to change ourselves: death, divorce, birth etc. Something becomes the trigger that tells us that we have a major choice to make and an opportunity to grow. Such moments may take us to the metaphoric abyss, “to a land you may not know.”
I do believe that our lech lechas must first require a latent vision and only then can we give ourselves permission to grow. Y’a gotta have a vision!
Respectfully,
Lenny
November 3, 2012
Heshvan 18, 5773
Mendy Log: Vayera Genesis 18:1-22:24
Haft. II Kings 4:1-37
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
This chapter in Genesis is perhaps one of the most dramatic and telling chapters in the Torah because it moves from God’s visit to Abraham, his negotiation with God, the destruction of Sodom and Gemorah, Lot and his daughters, Sarah’s giving birth to Isaac, the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, and the great test of Abraham, namely, the sacrifice of Isaac. Initially, Mendy chose to speak about God’s visit to Abraham which by the way gives us one of our strongest values which is visiting and comforting the sick. He later stressed the negotiation with God to save the righteous in the two cities which gives rise to another key Jewish characteristic of not accepting the status quo if you deem it unfair or unjust, and challenging God Himself for what you see as a righteous cause.
Hurricane Sandy was on Mendy’s mind as it was on all our minds, and he implored the congregation to be generous in giving. He related this need to open our hearts and hands to both “the stranger and the home born” by referencing how Abraham, while talking to God, saw three strangers coming toward his tent in the heat of the day, left talking with God, and greeted them offering to wash their feet, and give them refreshments. Mendy’s question was, “How do you leave off talking to God Himself and go take care of strangers? Why would the patriarch do such a thing, and how should God have responded?
Mendy inferred that God responded favorably, because the man He chose to be the father of the Jewish People would consider assistance to the wayfaring stranger in need of food and shelter more important that a conversation with Him; thus projecting the value of hospitality to his descendants. Abraham was taking care of God’s people, and that was and continues to be the right and proper thing to do. In short, the immediate needs of people are more important. Hurricane Sandy, if anything positive can be said about it, is an opportunity to be like Abraham and help people who need help.
Chabad did not lose its electricity, and Mendy sent out an e-mail inviting people to come charge their phones. He let us know that some people did not see this as an opportunity to help people, but should have been yet another opportunity for further involvement in ritual. Mendy recounted two congregants who complained that there should have been a greater call to prayer and to study and that he had missed an opportunity. Another actually complained that the children were invited to see a magic show asking to know why they weren’t being given religious instruction instead of being entertained? Mendy disagreed with these callers emphatically, because they wanted to concentrate on rituals rather than on helping. He made if very clear that this is not what God wants, and this is not what Judaism is all about. He also spoke about our obligation to do whatever needs to be done to save a life even if it means breaking a Sabbath law.
This triggered the following in my mind: This idea of believing you can read the mind of God, know what God wants, God’s involvement, or what God’s intentions are in in the events that happen, for me is very off putting. And I think proposing and ascribing to God rationalizations for events such as Hurricane Sandy, The Holocaust, the destruction of the Temples, boarders on blasphemy. In the Book of Job, we are told not to try to fathom God’s ways and though it is proper to challenge them, we will never fathom them. The Right Wing Christian Right ascribes any natural calamity as God’s judgement on the immorality of the East and West coasts, as well as the Gulf region. What hubris! And we can’t forget our own crazies who claim that God brought about the Holocaust because not enough Jewish women were lighting Sabbath candles. It is a natural inclination to want to know the whys and wherefores of tragedies. But to rationalize these events as messages from God boarders on delusion. The Holocaust happened because people are taught to hate other people and there are people in this world who are sociopaths. There is evil in the world, and when good people remain silent in the face of injustice because of their own evil inclinations, evil flourishes. Hurricane Sandy happened because the glaciers and ice shelves are melting due to global warming, the seas are rising, the oceans are heating up, the moon was raising the tides, and the results are, and will continue to be, massive and cataclysmic events if we refuse to do anything about it. I do not believe that God had anything to do with it, although the question was asked by one of the men at lunch. “I wonder why Hashem did this to the east coast?” or some question like that. He might as well believe in Karma. And if it is God’s will that destruction follow because of some infraction against His laws, who are we to try to ease the plight of the people who are suffering his righteous wrath? Right? But what about Abraham leaving God’s company to take care of strangers and his arguing for the righteous of Sodom and Gomorrah? It can’t be both ways. You either believe God is punishing people for moral infractions and you have no right to interfere with the Divine Purpose, or you see natural disasters exactly as they are without any relationship to God’s wrath, and you do everything you can to help. The duel messages of God being involved in everything that goes on, and the message that we must behave in ways that might counter His severe decrees is confusing, and such aspects of theology take away from the beauty of Judaism.
Over at M’kor, the teachings primarily dealt with the metaphoric meaning of the the parsha. Sodom and Gomorrah became metaphors for evil, depravity, and destruction. God, in deciding to tell Abraham of His plan, became a parenting metaphor– an idealized father image. In the Torah, God often does not react in a linear logical fashion. The expulsion from Eden and the flood, were not logical but emotional reactions. Perhaps he wants to check out his decision with Abraham who may be a moderating influence because he is human. But in sharing His intentions, Abraham raises the issue of the deaths of possibly innocent people and delivers the great line, “Shall not the judge of all the world deal justly?” God indulges this moderating voice and agrees not to destroy the cities if there are ten righteous men found there. We are not told how the assessment is made, but the cities are destroyed leaving us to wonder if God had any real intention of abiding by the negotiation.
The fact that Abraham is bold enough to confront God is a proof text that tells Jews that we are supposed to argue and challenge God’s decisions. When we see something wrong, the Jew must stand up for justice. The Torah law, “You shall not stand idly by upon the blood of your neighbor,” reflects an ethical precept that was given the status of law. We are told by Rabbi Sax that this is a turning point in human spiritual growth. To argue with God on justice is unique in religious literature. Defending justice is the first human argument for the sake of heaven. Argument is part of being Jewish. Heroes of the spirit make such challenges.
It would seem that God invites Abraham to speak, and in doing so, also invites Abraham to challenge His verdict. He even signals words to use such as “righteousness” and “justly.” It would seem that we move in God’s universe, and God is teaching us all the time. God rules by right, not might, and God is not merely powerful but ethical. As God is ethical, so we, too, must model that behavior. We cannot know God. We cannot know the teacher, but we need to model the teacher. There will be things we cannot understand, and how we deal with the randomness of existence determines the type of person we become.
At one point there was mentioned Abraham and a shadow, and I cannot recall the origin of the reference except that it led to a discussion on Jung and the archetype of evil. It also had something to do with the debate between Abraham and God as an inner debate between humanities’ destructive and compassionate inner development. In this internal dialogue, it is Abraham who is the human ethical yardstick, standing as a symbol for life, and God as the destructive aspect of man’s nature. The Divine image needs the human level to modify its destructive nature, and the debate between God and Abraham is the same internal dialogue we have daily but on a universal scale. It is the good inclination verses the bad inclination.
This Divinity exists as a manifestation of our spiritual potential. Our perceptions of God changes as we change in our lives. We project our own growth on to the Divinity. If you see yourself as the spokesperson for what is ethical as Abraham obviously does, does God become the evil inclination in Abraham? Obviously, Abraham has great internal tensions and his inclinations struggle though out. He is not crazy but very human.
If we could make our fantasies come true, would we become God or King and impose order on the chaos we see around us? But since “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” we need to temper our egos so we can live with other people. We are dealing here with a 10th century BCE tribal nomadic culture, and the God posited here reflects these people, what they value, and their internal struggles to make sense out of a dangerous world.
Abraham is the patriarch and archetype of humanity. He is flawed just as we are, and that’s why he still continues to be valid and inspirational thirty centuries after he walked the earth.
Respectfully,
Lenny
Mendy Log:
Toledot Genesis 23:19-28:9
Halftorah Malachi 1:1-2:7
It was a sober Mendy who got up on the bimah to deliver his drush today because his first thought was of the impending ground incursion into Gaza, and the three Chabadnicks who were killed by terrorist missiles.
I did not know that one of the three was a pregnant woman, and the two men were fathers of small children. That fact was not pointed out on CNN, MSNBC, the regular network news channels, our local newspapers, or the BBC. Of course what was poignantly pointed out to the public was the father in Gaza holding his lifeless son for the cameras. Now call me cynical, but I do recall past pictures and fabricated stories detailing the so called loss of other Arab children who were used for propaganda purposes by the Arab Palestinians, so forgive me if I’m not choked up. This picture may also be a fiction to garner world support for Hamas and its supporters which it surely will in Europe and among main line Protestant groups in the USA.. Would the same plaintive voices be raised if they were burying Jewish children? These murderers know just how gullible the world is and how much the world loves putting aside the facts if there is an opportunity to condemn Israel. Even Rachel Maddow had the nerve to say that she “didn’t know how this whole thing got started.” Well, Rachel, Hamas started lobbing missiles into Israel, and that’s how it got started. Israel did not initiate this. She should be ashamed of herself. Another MSNBC thought it fine to compare weapons that Israel had with weapons that Hamas had. What a schmuck and what a less than subtle in your face reference to the David and Goliath metaphor that can only lead to a condemnation of Israel for what will be a response that the world will see as “over the top.” For the non-Jewish world and for Jews on the extreme Left, all responses from Israel are always “over the top” no matter what the provocation. Sometimes the hypocrisy and the hate is just overwhelming, so my only conclusion is that Israel has got to do what it has to do to survive and those who don’t like that response can pound sand. For me, the guiding maxim must be the Talmudic exhortation that “If a man comes to slay you, slay him first. None of this “turn the other cheek” bullshit.
And before getting into the actual parsha, Mendy spoke of the hundreds of elderly Jews living in Sea Gate Brooklyn who were devastated by Hurricane Sandy, and urged us to continue giving what we could so they could begin rebuilding their shattered lives.
This parsha begins with the story about the wells that were dug, fought over, abandoned, and re-dug. If I recall, between Abraham and Isaac, there were seven wells, six of which were in contention with the indigenous population and one which was not. This final single well dug by Isaac’s men is the one that establishes Isaac and his descendants the physical right to the land. In this place they dug wells and buried their dead. They planted and reaped. They could claim ownership. God had already granted our ancestors their spiritual right to this land. Isaac’s well establishes the land its on as his.
Mendy linked this to the right of Israel to be on that land, but not by virtue of the covenant that both Abraham and Isaac made with King Abimelech. Such covenants are easily abrogated with time as were those. Covenants made with mere mortals are tenuous. Nor did he say that Israel was given this land in 1948 by the decree of the United Nations, because most of the member nations would happily see the creation of Israel rescinded, and I’m fully convinced that those who did vote for the creation of Israel imagined that the Arabs would immediately destroy it and finallysolve the “Jewish Problem.” The majority of the UN member states support the delegitimization of the Jewish State.
At the end of this Mendy Log is an essay on manifest destiny and Israel’s survival.
What Mendy did say was that the Land of Israel was given to us by God Himself and it was given in perpetuity despite what the world does or says. This land is ours, and we will gain the respect of the world if we proudly say that God gave it to us millennia ago and insist on that fact.
Happily, the Evangelicals believe this to be true and are our best supporters among Christians. Christians who do not believe this and reject or discount the truth of the Torah as it regards God and Israel, must logically reject the truth of the Gospels since the truth of our Torah verifies the truth of their testament. You can’t have it both ways. Christian theology stands or falls on the Torah as God’s revealed word. The land of Israel is ours because God gave it to us, and that we can do our part by to protect Israel by involving ourselves in prayer, ritual, action, and by moving outside our comfort zones and trying on new behaviors.
The focus of the story turned to the deception of the blind Isaac by his wife Rebecca and the willingness of Isaac to go along with his mother. Now prior to this, there is the story of how the wild Esau comes in from hunting claiming that he was famished and near death. This is pure hyperbole, but it is indicative of Esau’s dramatic and broad nature. His twin brother, the younger Isaac, says that he will give him the stew he is making if he will give him the birthright that is due the first born. Primogeniture, the law that the first born son gets the lion’s share, was the law of their society, but Esau reasons that a birthright would mean nothing if he starved to death. So we are told that Esau despised his birthright, the spiritual gravitas that comes with it, and in giving up his claim to it, he also gives up the legacy of perpetuating his grandfather’s and his father’s traditions and faith. We are told that Esau has no interest in such matters.
Esau is portrayed as a wild man, a hunter who is comfortable out in the open air while his brother is comfortable in the tents studying. (Was Isaac literate? What was there to read?) Rabbi Menachim related a story that tells us that because both Isaac and Rebecca knew their elder son’s true character, they both connived the deception in the hope that the loss of the blessing would temper his nature and bring him back to some semblance of balance. (Chaim Potok uses the same technique in The Chose, where the rabbi father, perceiving that his brilliant son lacked empathy/compassion, withholds empathy/compassion from his son in the hope that the lad will come to feel what he is withholding from others.)
But that is pure midrash and certainly not what the Torah says. In reality, Isaac is blind, clueless, and deceived by his wife and younger son. But deception generates deception, and if there is anything to learn from how this story ultimately plays itself out, it is that once an action is taken, it can roil down the generations. From generation to generation. From dysfunction to dysfunction.
When Esau realizes that the blessing was given to his brother, he becomes enraged and for the first time complains that Isaac has not only stolen the blessing, but the birthright as well. This is the first time that Esau has mentioned the birthright, and Mendy suggested that he did this because it were his material possessions being threatened and not just his spiritual ones. He sold the spiritual because he perceived it had not tangible value. Mendy expanded this line of thought by likening it to the Jew’s position in the world. He said that as long as the Jews stayed in their place and prayed, the non-Jewish world did not concern itself with them. But because Judaism is not just a religion but a way of life, and Jews moved into areas and excelled in the provinces believed by the non-Jewish world to be exclusively theirs, there was a backlash that we now call anti-Semitism and what I call Jew-hatred.
I disagree with Mendy in his assertion that we were left alone as a people as long as we quietly prayed in our little backwater country. Our foray into economic competition may have been one issue that has exacerbated the reactions to us in the past two thousand years. But Jew hatred begins at the very beginning of our faith where we are compelled in the Torah to bring the word of God to the world. In doing this, we had to tell the world that the gods they worshiped were false. People don’t like being told such things, and there was a backlash. We had a book of moral laws where this God demanded that we behave well and point out when others were not behaving well, and our different laws and judgements made us suspect. There was a backlash. We conceived of ourselves as a transnational tribe of people anyone could join if they accepted our God, our laws, and our concept of Chosenness and Peoplehood. The backlash continues. God, Torah, Israel, and Chosenness are the reasons for Jew hatred. Economics may be a factor in Jew hatred, but not the underlying cause.
Over at M’kor Shalom, the same story was being discussed and the initial focus was on the metaphoric meaning of the rivalry between Jacob and Esau. It is a struggle for position, for status, and for property. Esau, who was born ruddy likes the earth, fulfills his destiny and becomes a man of the earth, a wild hunter who lives in the open and relishes the hunt. Jacob is a quiet almost scholarly man who lives in tents and cooks. One brother represent the urban world, and one the rural. The brothers are metaphors for the process of moving from the hunter/gatherer life to the life of living in cities. Society requires restraint and laws allowing for civilization. Jacob is concerned with how people might get along in society, while Esau prefers living off the land. The text suggests that a society where there are laws and mutual respect for individual rights is better than living in a state of nature. Civilization grows from urban centers, not from the fields and forests.
I expanded on another’s thought by saying that the metaphor was not quite that simple. We are still both Esau and Jacob, and as Esau, we have substituted symbolic activities for the hunt although some still do. We watch competitive games, violent sports, involve ourselves in technology where we become players in violent and uncivilized stories, and some of us do and think things that are just not civilized. But the Jacob in us is a law abiding citizen, often well educated, righteous in our treatment of others, and generous in our lives. The Jacob in us balances the Esau in us as the good inclination balances the bad. The world, including ourselves, is composed of vying opposites.
The conversation moved to what happens to a child when it is obvious that one parent favors one child over the other. In the case of these twins, each lacked the love of one parent and each became a particular person because of that lack. We also spoke about the animal images as it relates to people in the episode where the birthright is sold for some stew. Easu employs hyperbole as he describes himself as being famished and likely to die of hunger. He is described as gulping down his food, not savoring it or appreciating it. Animals eat in such a way, but humans are asked not to do that. In fact, to slow down the animal in us, we are asked to wash our hands ritually as well as physically, for spiritual elevation, and for cleanliness.
In this symbolic act, we are also separating this moment of sustaining our lives from other moments. To make something holy is to separate it from the mundane. I define holiness as separation. As we separate the Sabbath from the other days of the week, so we can think of it as an elevated moment in time and therefore separate, so we become holy by separating our animal inclinations from our civilized inclinations.
Respectfully,
Lenny
Manifest Destiny and Religion
By Leonard H. Berman
The conflict in the Middle East finds its origins in religion and in the concept of manifest destiny. Manifest destiny is a philosophical imperative by which a nation gives itself permission to expand itself because of its own perceived virtue and greatness, or by virtue of Divine Will. A religious imperative is a mandate a group perceives is given to them by the deity they worship and is legitimized in their holy scripture. The Arab/Israeli conflict is, at its heart, a Muslim/Jewish conflict and the animosity towards Israel and toward Jews that exists in the world of Muslim fundamentalism, stems from these two concepts. Religion and nationalistic perceptions have more to do with the conflict than disputed boundaries and settlements.
Fundamentalist Muslim Arabs believe that the land upon which the legitimately created nation of Israel exists, belongs to them. According to their own concept of manifest destiny, all lands that were ever Muslim are still Muslim and must ultimately be returned to Muslims. This idea comes from the Islamic political/theological imperative which teaches that it is the duty of Muslims to re-establish a global Islamic state called the Caliphate, and that entity is to be ruled by Islamic law. Jihid, or holy war, is waged to achieve that end.
Jewish manifest destiny comes from that section of the Genesis where God gives to the Jewish people the particular piece of property in question. But if you don’t believe in biblical manifest destiny, there have been legally recognized bodies over the years such as the United Nations in 1948, the British Balfour Declaration, and the support at the League of Nations earlier in that century, that have called for, supported, and created a homeland for the Jews in what was once a section of the Ottoman Empire called Palestine. There never existed at any time in ancient or in modern times an independent entity called Palestine. Palestine was a section of the Ottoman Empire much the way New Jersey is a section of the United States. There were Palestinian Jews living in that section of the Ottoman Empire and Palestinian Arabs living there as well. Both were given the option of a state of their own by the U.N. in 1948.. The Arab Palestinians and the Arab nations around them, acting on their concept of manifest destiny, chose not to accept the partition and the creation of two legal entities called Israel and Palestine. Wars followed and Israel was victorious, thrived, and dominated, much to the disgust of those Arabs who have not given up their hope to destroy the Jewish state. Now the questions to be asked are: Why do Arabs want to destroy Israel? Arab manifest destiny is certainly a piece of the answer, but the answer can also be found in the Koran, the Muslim bible.
One can easily see that the real issue for Arabs is Israel’s very existence and Jewish dominance on that piece of property. If one looks into the Koran one finds mandates which state that Jews and Christians must be kept in perpetual servitude. The Suras that make that demand are further expanded upon by the Pact of Umar, the Muslim legal code written in the seventh century, which delineates what that servitude must look like. Both these absolute theistic works are discredited by the fact that Jews are dominant in Israel and Israel exist. So the question remains: Are Israel’s borders or disputed settlements really the cause of the problems between the Jews and the Arabs, or is the problem for the fundamentalist Muslims ultimately that Israel exists on what the Arabs perceive as their land by virtue of their concept of manifest destiny, and by virtue of the fact that Israel’s dominance gives the lie to their holy book and legal code? When you canonize hatred in your holy books and believe that every word is God given or God inspired, the fundamentalist has only the option to believe.
It is the Jew’s refusal to accept an unequal, inferior status that irks the Arab nations. This is what really lies at the heart of the Arab-Muslim hatred for Israel. The existence of the Jews was not a provocation to Islam as long as Jews were subordinate or degraded as they were throughout the centuries that they were living in Arab lands. But a successful and dominant Jewish state is incompatible with the view of Jews as the “humiliated and wretched” beings they are called in the Koran. The call for a Palestinian Arab state in place of Israel is the call for a state where Islam dominates and is not dominated.
Muslim fundamentalist end sentences with: If Allah is willing.” Perhaps it is time to conclude that after sixty years of trying to destroy the Jewish state, one might conclude that Allah is willing for Israel to exist.
Mendy Log:
November 24, 2012
Kislev 10, 5773
Parsha: Vayetzei – Genesis 28:10-32:3 missile
Halftorah: Hosea 12:13- 14:10
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying: The conflict between Hamas and the Palestinian Arabs who support them in Gaza and the Israelis continues to weigh heavily on Mendy’s mind, and he began with something of a review of what was going on, updating us on the status of those who were murdered and injured by rockets falling indiscriminately on civilian populations. He then exhorted the congregation to pray and to perform mitzvot because he insisted that it is prayer and faith, not the Iron Dome missile interceptor or the IDF that keeps and will keep Israel safe. He continued with the idea that Israel’s survival and our survival as well hinges on our ability to connect with one another as a people. There were more comments, but I don’t recall because there was an audible murmur among the male congregants. One had went up, and Mendy said, “Later.”
The murmur was to the idea that Mendy was asking us to believe and accept the traditional belief that all was in God’s hands, and as long as we prayed, did mitzvot, and kept connected to our people, Israel would be safe. My brain immediately raced through my knowledge of Jewish history, reviewed it, and concluded that while God promised that there would always be a remnant (which we currently are) the reality remains that there were millions upon millions of Jews throughout history who were connected with one another, prayed sincerely to God for His protection, and were still murdered by any number of despotic regimes. (Akiva’s prayers to God were no doubt sincere I’m sure, and his love and connection to the Jewish people are legendary. Still, the Romans flayed the skin off of him and God remained silent.) Of course there are those in certain Orthodox communities who would insist that the prayers were to no avail because he along with the other eleven rabbis of the Great Assembly didn’t pray sincerely, light enough candles, study enough Torah, perform enough mitzvot, or stay connected to one another. One can rationalize anything to explain the chaos that has been inflicted on us, but such reason cannot be verified, and therefore, fallacious. And please don’t counter that “we cannot know what is in God’s plan.” I just don’t by that rationalization to explain why God’s compassion is not forthcoming. I am reminded of similar specious reasoning in the Christian Testament where they are told that “If you had the faith the size of a mustard seed” you could move a mountain or something equally big. Since you cannot move the mountain, you obviously don’t even have faith the size of a mustard seed. Talk about setting people up to feel inadequate. All human rationalizations as to why God does or doesn’t do something may be comforting to some, but are in reality only conjecture. We just don’t know and that is the only honest response that can be given!
You may already know that one of my maxims is “Pray as if everything depends on God, and act as if everything depends on you.” There was a song I heard years ago that had the line, “Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.” It’s the same idea. Mendy’s take is that everything depends on God. My take is that God has a way of staying silent and hiding His Face from us in the most traumatic of times, but has promised that there will always be a “remnant.” Well sorry if I am not comforted by that promise. To be comforted by such an idea is to have total faith that there is an over arching plan and that God knows what He is doing despite the horror that others may inflict on us. To buy into that is to buy into the idea that the individual is not important; only the remnant. I just don’t have that kind of faith. I do say that it's fine to pray if you feel that will help, and after your finished with that, you'd better raise an army and equip them with what they need to defend us.
Some of the men I see at Chabad pray because it is something they do and because it is something they have always done. It is done by rote and I do believe that little thought is given to what the words really mean or how God relates to those words. Some of the men I see at Chabad pray because they do believe that God does have a plan and will answer their individual prayers. These are the same people who wondered what the people in the shore communities did that was so terrible that God sent a hurricane to punish them. I call this “Resignation Theology” and I reject it. Some men I see at Chabad (and I include myself among this group) pray so we do not feel existentially alone, believing that a community of people praying reinforces and strengthens the resolve of those near them, to act as a community. I and I believe that these people fully believe that it is better for Israel to dot the landscape with missile defense systems and that we should be grateful to our Congress for their unfailing support of the Jewish State be that support God inspired or not. My prays to the Ayn Sof requests that I be infused with the only gift I believe Ayn Sof offers us: Divine Energy and the resolve to meet whatever the current challenge may be. Again, “Pray as if everything depends on God and act as if everything depends on you,” is my truism. I connect with all these types of men just because they are my people, and I am strengthened by them.
Mendy’s concept of staying connected is the same concept posited by Rabbi Mordicai Kaplan who founded the Reconstructionist Movement. He called the connection “Peoplehood,” and it he taught that it was this concept that kept us one People though out the centuries and not God or the rituals. For this and other radical ideas such as creating the bat mitzvah, he was excommunicated and sent to join Spinoza in Cherem. I think it was Mark Twain who quipped, “Go to heaven for the weather, and to Hell for the company.” If I could create my own afterlife, one dinner party I would host would have Spinoza, Kaplan, Akiva, and Moses at my round dinner table. Care to join that conversation anyone?
The next topic Mendy focused on was a little discussed moment at the well when Jacob castigates the shepards for not doing an honest day’s work because they were waiting for all the flocks to assemble before raising the stone on the well. It seems that the shepards felt that as individuals they are not obligated to lift the stone because one should not do the work that all of them should have to do. Jacob lifts the rock himself, letting them know that they are squandering time, and time is a commodity that cannot be reclaimed. He is giving them a lesson in leadership and initiative.
I was reminded of a line in the Ethics of the Fathers that tells us that though “We may not be required to complete the task, we are not absolved from doing so.” Also, “In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man.” Jacob did both.
To me, Jacob is the most interesting and complex member of the patriarchal triumverate.
Though a trixter who is doomed to be tricked, he also is a man of integrity, ingenuity, and resolve as indicated by his honesty when dealing with Laban’s flocks, his machinations with the rods, as well as his willingness to work for his thoroughly reprehensible father-in-law for the privilege of marrying his daughters. He is also a spiritual being, a tactician, and a leader of men. He is a survivor who sees opportunities and takes them. He’s always thinking of his future and his survival because he knows he lives in a dangerous world and using his wits will give him the edge against stronger opponents. If Jacob lived to day, I think he might be a politician. Certainly, he is a role model for survival in a very complex world.
The last thing I remember Mendy talking about was how the word Jew came to be applied to our people. The word comes from the word Judah who was Leah’s second son, and it was also the name of our ancient kingdom. The root of the word has something to do with the concept of gratitude. We are a people of gratitude, and that is easily seen because three times a day we demonstrate our gratitude to God though prayers, and there is a blessing for just about everything which reinforces the idea. At one point, Mendy asked what was at the root of choosing the name Judah as our own, and I got sucked into a reply which I knew would not be right even as I said it. I said, “People who are not grateful cannot be happy. It was a reminder to be grateful.”
This I firmly believe is true, but Mendy moved on. At the end of his solicitation where no one could guess the answer, Mendy did say that we all had good answers, and that positive acknowledgment of the varied responses was a first. I for one appreciated it although I doubt if it registered on anyone else. The actual correct answer Mendy had in mind had to do gratitude that came from within and not from without. I’m not relating this idea clearly, and I think I lost the connection. I think the idea was about people who are motivated by those on the outside, the other directed type of person, as opposed to people who are motivated by some internal value system, the inner directed type person.
A sense of being grateful has to rise up from within and not from without. We are to be grateful for what is within us, and that is important because we carry what is within all the time. Those who depend on others for validity are more prone to becoming lost if the motivation or praise is not there.
I do not recall if or how this interesting tangent was related to the Jacob story.
Over at Congregation M’kor Shalom, the Jacob story was also considered, and the water/well motif was reconsidered. Jacob leaves Bersheba and comes to a well. Something dramatic takes place where there is water be it water in a river or water in a well. Water is a symbol of transformation and transition in one’s personal life. Water is symbolic of change.
Jacob also dreams of a ladder which is a gateway to heaven, and also involves us in a shift of senses. God makes a promise to him, and he responds as an adolescent with an “if/then” condition which is indicative of who this man is at this moment in his life. “If you want me, you will do this for me, and then I will worship you.” Jacob is the center of his own universe at this stage in his development. Jacob’s response can also be interpreted as a test of God.
There are those who believe that humanity created God in its own image, and this dysfunctional God reflected the dysfunction in humanity. God Himself, from time to time is capricious, angry, and reactive. And the family we’ve created to emulate is just as dysfunctional. Let’s face it. The family stories reflected in the Torah are so true to life, that these people had to be real. Who or why would you invent them and sanctify them in you most sacred text if they weren’t? Major relationship issues exist between husband and wife, between parents and children, between sibling and sibling, and between God and man. Jacob is at a moment of transformation in his spiritual growth, recognizes something is happening and knows he can only move upward if he begins at the “if/then” negotiation level which is were he is at in his spiritual development. Human growth of any kind is developmental, and one cannot leap to higher levels without going through the lower levels. For example, if you ask someone on a lower level of moral development why he would not steal a car, he might answer that he or she is afraid of being caught. Someone on a higher level of moral development might say that he or she has an unwritten social contract where there is a mutual agreement that what is mine is mine and what’s yours is yours. The spiritually adolescent Jacob at this point represents a spiritually adolescent humanity who must first go through the different layers of spiritual development before reaching whatever the highest spiritual level. We were told that we never reach the top of the ladder and we may even not know what is there. I have considered that and concluded that if there is no goal, why climb? So I have decided what the learning at the top rung is and this is it. It has to do with the unification of all things. That’s my guess. When we evolve to the top rung, we come to apprehend that we are One with the Ayn Sof and we are One with each other.
The ladder itself is symbolic of each stage of our own wrestling match with God, and each rung is another level of our spiritual development. There was an interesting comment about how Jacob arranged the rocks originally around his head, and how in a few passages later, we read that they combined into one to become Jacob’s pillow. (I’m sure there is a midrash to explain this obvious quirk in the story.) We were told that in Gematria, the numerical equivalents of Hebrew letters, the numerical number for the word “ladder” is the same as for the word “Sinai.”
So what happened at Sinai and what was happening with Jacob has a lot to do with the spiritual development of each of us as an individual, and us as a people. Later, Jacob will wrestle with God or an angel of God and will receive the name Israel which means “wrestling with God.” To understand how this relates to us, we conclude that to grow spiritually, the Jew must wrestle with God, and that means challenging God and demanding answers. And because of this, there is a duality of tensions within. We believe that God has made a Covenant with the Jewish People, but we also have a personal Covenant that we have made with God as a result of our wrestling matches. This makes for an intensely personal relationship with God, and an intensely personal relationship with, and responsibility to, our co-religionists. Perhaps this is the reason why we come together as a people to pray, and why we pray and react in very unique ways when relating to our concept of God.
Some people will put themselves on the ladder because the sense something important to be gained is on that ladder. Others do not see spiritual growth as a necessary part of their lives and will not consider it. But those who do attempt the climb, learn that what you encounter on each rung is the struggle as well as the process and probably the hidden learning of each rung. When you begin your climb, you begin the struggle/process, and this is what initiates your own Covenant. When we begin our spiritual journey, we often have a teenage “if/then” attitude for proof that the climb will not be a futile activity. We soon discover that what we may ask for in physical proof is given in values.
We were told that one can’t begin to understand Jewish tradition and Torah until you’re about forty, and that Judaism, real Judaism, is not a religion for children. For truly understanding Judaism, you have to have lived. If you’ve lived, you can relate to the ladder.
December 1, 2012
Kislev 17, 5773
Mendy Log: Vayishlah Torah Genesis 32:4-36:43
Halftorah: Obadiah 1: 1-21
Mendy was at a Bar Mitzvah out of town and we had the pleasure of listening to Rabbi Menachim who is most likely the tallest rabbi in the world. He’s a big man with a big brain.
This is what I think I remember him saying: His initial comments were related to the nations of the world who voted to change the status of the PLO to non-member status which gives this group a certain gravitas for which it did not have to negotiate.
The vote was an end run around the Oslo Accords and the peace process, and though it changes nothing on the ground, it gives tacit approval for the Palestinian Arabs to appeal to the World Court and charge Israel with terrorism and bring specific people up on charges. It may give them leverage now that they have been given new validity by the UN and also enables them to join UN organizations and exert even more bias against Israel than already exists. Of course Israel can now take them to court and do the same to them, and since they are close to being considered an independent entity, Israel might not have to be so careful the next time Hamas attacks. Also, Israel may withhold the taxes that are collected now that Abbas has gone this route.
Rabbi was appreciative of the support of the United States, Canada, and mentioned Micronesia. I imagine Israel has been supportive of that country. But Rabbi expressed profound disappointment in Western European countries such as England, France, Switzerland for voting yes and disappointed in countries such as Germany for abstaining.
I have been all over Western Europe and has seen first hand the change in the demography of the major cities. On some major streets in London and Paris, only Arabic is spoken and only Arabic signs appear. Europe is rapidly becoming Islamified, and that is because after the Second World War, the Left in Europe, never again wanting to appear racist or phobic, opened their doors to a group of people who had no intention of assimilating or making meaningful contributions to their adopted societies. Western and Eastern Europe easily and eagerly gave up to the Nazis their one minority population that was literate, creative, cultural, and assimilated and replaced them with millions of illiterate people who despise Western Civilization and would happily see it destroyed as easily as the fundamentalists destroyed the centuries old Buddahs in Afghanistan. The mosques are filled, and the churches are empty except for tourists. The final moral decline of Europe began with the Holocaust and now, Europe is reaping what it has sown. European institutional Jew-hatred such as the kind spewed by Norway, England, and Spain, is still alive and reflective in its support for the Arab narrative. Europe is getting what it deserves.
The rabbi continued by insisting that Israel has no friend but God, and that Israel exists because God wants Israel to exist. We were asked to consider our survival from 1948 through the present, and the vast armies and resources that have come up against us. Yet we have prevailed because God wanted us to prevail. He was reinforcing what Mendy had said last week.
Both rabbi’s faiths are extraordinary, and I wish I had it. But our God and the Muslim God is the same God. The rabbis teach that it is God who wants Israel to exist. Yet in the Koran, it clearly says that Jews and Christians are to be subservient to Muslims and kept in a state of degradation. Muslims often end statements with the expression, “If it is Allah’s will.” Well, Israel has been in existence for sixty-five years, and is clearly not subservient or degraded. At what point do Muslims get the idea that Allah, the same God as the God of the Jews and Christians as well, wants Israel to exist? Israel has won all the wars waged against them, has made the desert bloom, and has maintained itself despite the calumny of the world. If the rabbis are right, what else could it be but God’s will. When will Muslims realize that by insisting that Israel be destroyed, they are going against Allah’s will and not submitting to it. Do their holy books and laws insisting that Jews be degraded second class citizens trump what God has willed on the ground? Might the reality on the ground be God’s will?
Using the reality of the UN vote, he referred us to a prophesy in the Book of Numbers that was quite telling and seems to have come true. I guess that’s what a prophesy is all about. The specific quote comes from the pagan prophet Bilam who was hired to curse the Jews but said instead, “How goodly are your tents, Oh, Jacob, your dwelling places, Oh Israel.” He later went on to say that “The Jews would be a nation alone.” This prophesy as it regards the nations of the world and their attitudes towards Israel, has sadly, always been true.
Menacham then turned to the text itself. This text tells of Jacob’s fear of seeing the brother he cheated out of his blessing and birthright twenty years ago. It also tells of his strategy for the meeting, and relates that wonderful story of how he wrestles with the angel, is wounded, and gets a new name: Israel. The story also relates the sad story of Jacob’s only daughter, Dina, and the brutal murder of Shechem and his people at the hands of Dina’s irate brothers.
The rabbi also referred us to the story of how Jacob, after sending his wives, children and possessions across the Jabbok River, stays there and it its here that he encounters the “divine being” he wrestles. I do not recall the specific word Menacham focused on, but it could be read in two ways.
One way was an interpretation given in the Oral Torah which traditionally explains the meaning behind the Torah’s written words, and expands the stories to explain and expand what is written in between the lines. The Oral Torah translates this particular word as “vessels.” I have no recollection of the other translation. Here, the case was being made for Jacob’s work ethic and his holiness. It seems that the vessels and what they contained were earned honestly, and things earned honestly become endowed with a kind of sacredness. They were too precious to leave behind. I do recall something about the family going over the Jabbok and Jacob going back across the river, but when I check the story, I could not find that he returned. I must have been on overload. Still, I like the idea that the things we create and earn honestly are imbued with a kind of sanctity.
Over at M’kor Shalom, we reviewed the story of Jacob and Esau, and how Esau vowed to kill his brother for stealing the birthright and the blessing. It is now twenty years later, Jacob is returning, and Jacob is terrified. And though he prays to God for guidance, God remains silent. Jacob will now hedge his bets by sending gifts to placate his brother while diminishing himself by telling his servants that he, Jacob, is a servant to Esau. By means of this tribute, Jacob hopes that his brother will be magnanimous.
Jacob, throughout his life thus far has revealed himself as a man who survives by using his wits. He is patient, crafty, and relies on his intellect to think his way out of difficult and dangerous situations. He is a Trixter, and in ancient literature and folk literature, the Trixter is revered. The Trixter is the one who survives by being crafty. Both his father and grandfather also survived by using their wits. That is also a message that has come down to us from the Torah. The Torah lets us know that as a small and often friendless people, our survival often depended on our abilities to manipulate situations and people. We all carry Jacob’s genes. The gifts Jacob sends to Esau reminded me of a phrase that entered the English language from ancient Greek mythology. It is “A sop to Cerberus.” Cerberus was the three headed dog that guarded the gates to Hades. It was a potentially dangerous foe. I think it was Odysseus who had to get past this creature, and he does so by tossing it a drugged cake (sop) which is eaten and renders the dog catatonic. (Do you see the humor in the last two words?) So a “sop to Cerberus” is anything you give a potentially dangerous foe that will placate them. Esau is Jacob’s Cerberus.
The word in the Torah is translated as “propitiate” or “to regain favor from God, a god, a person, or spirit by doing something that will please them.”
The next focus was on the idea of “face,” and why the word appears so often. Which face does Jacob want his brother to see? In the beginning of this story, Jacob is the quiet son who sees faces, watches faces, and reads faces. Jacob has caused Esau to lose face, and now he fears his brother’s face. Esau has the power to lift Jacob’s face. When he is alone near the Jabbok River, he comes face to face with an angel. This unknown man or angel is metaphorically himself. He wrestles with himself as we all must come face to face with ourselves and wrestle with our conflicting natures. Jacob’s greatness is revealed when he faces his inner fears straight on and overcomes them. When we do this, when we face ourselves, we, like Jacob, are never the same. And like Jacob, we may also walk away limping and carry that limp or self realization for as long as we live. In the film, “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” the beasts are symbols of the girl’s fears and troubles. In the new movie, “The Life of Pi,” it is the tiger who is the young man’s fears which must be overcome in order to survive. There was a reference to “Zim Sun” which means expansion and contraction, but I don’t recall it exactly. It had something to do with the name of the boat Pi and the tiger find themselves on. I think the boat was called Zim Sun. If that is the case, the boat becomes the place where you encounter yourself; where you expand yourself or contract. The cognoscente will see the name of the boat and smile.
Jacob is at a crucial moment in his spiritual growth. Spiritual growth is an on going and never ending process. It is an evolutionary process, tolerate we change as we grow. In this process, we also come face to face with our fears and we become someone new. Jacob become Israel. He is now more spiritual and whole. His ego and sense of survival has wrestled with his spiritual side. For us to encounter ourselves and move forward, we must go into isolation. Moses goes into the desert as does Jesus, and both emerge spiritually uplifted and leaders. We also need to withdraw or contract from people in order to come back to them. What we see in Jacob, we also see in ourselves.
We have two souls: one pulls us away from our spirituality, and the other pulls us towards it. The soul that pulls us back to God will ultimately win out, because the pain of moving further and further away becomes too much to tolerate. This push/pull leaves the soul in spiritual exile. This is our personal Exodus. We are exiled from God, and we wander in emptiness. Our goal is to get back to Eden. When you confront yourself, you see the face of God looking back at you. If we are willing to reach up, we can draw down the energy from the universe. Only then do we set things in motion.
Before you wrestle with your true self, you have to shed the stuff that gets in the way. It’s a
“Lech Lecha” moment. You must confront the things that tie you down and limit your ability to find your true self so you can move forward. Jacob sends sheep, goats, camels etc. ahead. All these are symbols of his “stuff.”
The conversations became deeply personal and I may have lost the link connecting these ideas so I think it best to just bullet them.
1. Each of us having a default setting to which we return.
2. We leave childhood, the paradise of innocence.
3. Growth is a paradox. It’s the tension between push/pull where we must learn to balance.
4. We must find the Golden Mean, the balance between the Yetzer Tov and the Yetzer Hara. The good inclination and the bad inclination within us all.
5. Maturity is learning how to deal with the paradoxes of existence.
6. You learn how to become whole by living life.
7. We must go into a place of deep spiritual exile in order to be reborn.
8. We pray for the broken parts of ourselves to be made whole again.
Indeed, Judaism is not a religion for children.
December 8, 2012
Kislev 24, 5773
Mendy Log: Vayeshev
Torah: Genesis 37:1-40:23
Halftorah: Amos 2:6-3:8
Chanukah is upon us, Mendy was filled with the spirit of the season, and this is what I think I remember him saying. He did not share the story since everyone knows it, but he did raise the following question: What is your Chanukah? No one knew what he was talking about, so he proceeded to explain what he meant. I recall him saying something about how the Jewish People have throughout the centuries, been steadfast to this celebration and how it has kept them together. All over the world, menorahs are being lit, and thousands of people are coming out to celebrate where not too long ago there were no public celebrations. People are becoming more comfortable with their Judaism. So the question, “What is your Chanukah?” was really a statement to us as to how comfortable are we in our Judaism, and what are we willing to do to push ourselves outside of our comfort zones to become more than we are now. What will we do that will keep us connected to Yiddisheit?
This year, for the first time, I put an electric chanukia in the dining room window, and I think that next year I’ll join the menorah motorcade though the neighborhoods.
Mendy continued by letting us know that this parsha would include the conflict with Joseph and his brothers over Jacob’s preference for him and his dreams of superiority, the brothers selling him into slavery, his rise in Potiphar’s house, his descent into prison based on a false charge, his interpretation of the dreams of the baker and wine steward, and the insertion of the story of Judah and Tamar. Mendy affirmed that this digression in the Joseph narrative was a strange one, and asked the congregation if anyone knew why. No one knew, so he began by actually saying that the story was really a metaphor for the relationship between God and the Jewish People.
Personally, I am uncomfortable with this interpretation since the story of Tamar, her two dead husbands, Judah’s sons, and the one son he has left, seems more like a dysfunctional soap opera then something that should be elevated to a love between God and His People. For a faith that introduced a non-corporal Being to the world as their God, the idea of deliberately anthropomorphizing this Being into a sexual Being just to explain why a story is included, is very off putting.
The story is highly sexually charged with God taking the part of Judah and Tamar the part of the people. There is guile on the part of both Judah and Tamar as well as an illicit relationship that causes Judah to condemn her to death. When she produces proof that Judah is the father of her unborn child, he confesses that he had “done her wrong” and her life is saved. The interpretation is that God also recognized that He had abandoned the Jewish People who had held fast to Him, and as Tamar held Judah to the Nazerite marriage law, Judah had abandoned her. As the Jewish People were true to God, God was not true to them. Metaphorically, God is Judah, and confesses that He has not been true to His word. One might also think that as Judah “stuck” it to Tamar in a variety of figurative and literal ways, so God has “stuck” it to the Jewish People also in a variety of ways. I am as uncomfortable with this metaphor as I am with the same idea carried over to the “Song of Songs” where the young man is equated with God in pursuit of the shepardess who, we are asked to believe, is representative of the Jewish People. I was once told that this interpretation was made because this beautiful piece of poetic drama was far too sensuous for inclusion in the cannon unless it had some religious connection. The story of Tamar and Judah can stand by itself and a vehicle of truth for what it says about promises and human relationships. The “Song of Songs” can stand by itself because it is a beautiful love story about passion and innocence. They both cause us to think and to feel and do not require a connection to God to give them value. Rationalizations for their inclusion are unnecessary.
Over at M’Kor Shalom, the focus was entirely on Joseph and his relationships. The parsha beings with the statement that “Jacob was settled,” but this is metaphorical language. While Jacob is finished with his youthful battles, has married, has children, and now comes back to his place of origin, the events in his life will not let him settle down. We are being taught that life is not tranquil. Settling down means separation, but those most sensitive to justice, order, and righteousness in the world, continue to see reality and cannot settle down. Life has a way of continuing to stick it to us, and though we would like to say, “This is my time!,” those who see themselves as part of the process to mend the world, may never settle down. We know that there is a right and wrong way in this universe.
Being settled may be developing a comfortable rhythm, but the period of wholeness is never going to happen. We are never really done growing, and the tangled mess that is life is an opportunity to rise above it and untangle it through Tikun Olam, repairing the world. We do rise up.
While there are days I wish the world would just go away and leave me alone, I don’t believe I will ever be able to settle down. There are just too many things wrong with the world in general, and I am told that though I am not responsible for solving the problems, I may not desist from doing something about it. If society is to evolve, and people are to evolve, we do not have the luxury of settling down. Some can numb themselves to life, but I don’t see separation as living.
To further clarify this point, Richard quoted someone who said that “there are always going to be waves, and the trick is to learn how to serf.” Also, there are those of us who are economically and socially secure enough in our lives to be able to be aware of the problems around us.
I think it was Gandi who said something like “there are some people who are so destitute, they can only see God in bread.” There are a ladder of needs posited by educators such as Bloom and Havinghurst that teach us that one cannot move up the ladder unless lower needs have been addressed. People who are hungry or have no homes, cannot be concerned about the lack of human rights in the Middle East or in Africa because they themselves are having trouble surviving.
And now for the Joseph cycle which is the growth of Joseph as a human being. The Joseph story opens with Joseph bringing back to Jacob bad reports about his brothers, and the brothers hate him for it. At this point, Joseph is seventeen, totally egocentric, a self absorbed brat who has no clue as to the possible consequences of his actions, and is in the process of separating himself from the pack. He’s individuating. This is a study in the development of a human being- a journey of the individual from where they were to where they should be. It is the search for purpose in one’s life. At the core of this search are the three questions we all ask ourselves at one point or another: Why was I born?, Why must I die?, and why am I here?
Here it was suggested that we are born into a metaphoric jig saw puzzle representing life, and we spend our lives trying to fit the pieces together. Joseph’s dreams are an attempt to answer those three questions.
I recall having a dream years ago where I was given a large life size painting, and though I cannot recall what was depicted, I knew it was beautifully painted and perfect. Strangely, the painting was not done on canvas, but on long pieces of wood hanging on hooks with bulges at their ends like musical notes. When I next looked, all the pieces of wood had been rearranged by some unseen hand and I recall how distraught I was having been given something perfect and now having to figure out how to rearrange the pieces so they would be perfect again. Are we given something perfect and either we or something else makes a mess of it leaving us to repair it for ourselves?
Like many bereaved spouses, Jacob, who has lost his beloved Rachel, has transferred that love to her son, Joseph, the physical representation of his wife. The coat is therefor the tangible representation of that love. Jacob’s behavior conjures up again the “favorite son” motif which really begins with God, Cain, and Able. Genesis is a series of stories depicting inter-generational woundings, and Genesis continues to resonate powerfully with the same trans-generational pathology because these same stories are being played out in one form or another in 2012. The book expresses hard truths about human nature, and a sibling rivalry that has been seething for generations. None of the people in Genesis are super human. They are real and flawed just as we are. Jacob is over compensating for his pain by loving Joseph excessively, and unwittingly carrying on a pathology begun between Cain and Abel and now includes Issac and Ishmael, Jacob and his brother Esau, and now Joseph and his brothers.
When Joseph is sent by Jacob to find his brothers, he meets a man who says, “What are you looking for?” Joseph tells him that he is looking for his brothers, and the man tells Joseph where he might find them. If Joseph had never met that man, history would be different. Joseph would not have been sold into slavery, he would never have gone down to Egypt, he would not have saved the Jewish People from starvation, Moses would not have been born, the Torah would never have been given, moral law would not have become the source of values for civilization, Christianity and Islam would not have been born, etc. etc. Sort of like the new film Cloud Odyssey. This unnamed man who might have been the same man who wrestled with Jacob, sets in motion the Joseph cycle.
The questions raised are: Did Jacob send his son on his journey knowing what would happen so Joseph could fulfill his destiny? The man asks “What are you looking for? not “Who are you looking for?” What are we looking for? Where are we going? Are we, ourselves, that man?
Is the question one of self assessment that we ask ourselves at every stage of our lives? Do people who do not have the bare necessities for survival have the luxury of self assessment? We are indeed on a developmental ladder, but only those who have satisfied the needs of the lower rungs can afford to climb.
December 15, 2012
Tevet 2, 5773
Mendy Log: Miketz Genesis 41L1-44:17
Haftorah: Zechariah 2:14-4:7
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
He began by recognizing the insanity of yesterdays massacre at the school in Connecticut and offered whatever comfort he could to the parents and loved ones who lost children, family, and friends. He also freely admitted that he had no answers to any question that could possibly be asked.
I am very proud of Mendy for opening his drush by expressing the pain we were all feeling, offering his compassion for the bereaved, and honestly saying that he had no answers. I shudder to think what reasons for this evil event might have been given by other religious leaders who are over on the extreme sides of their faiths. I for one do have an answer although it will not satisfy nor give comfort.
In the first place, I do believe there is real evil in the world, and that evil is at the core of many people in this world. “Man is evil from his youth” is a line God delivers in Genesis, and I have always wondered why my faith would posit a God who creates both good and evil and projected these elements into those who were created in His Image?
Evil people carry within them the mindless hatred that they have been taught, and though evil is part of our God given inclinations, not everyone chooses to act on those inclinations. Evil people deliberately gun down innocent people be they adults or children, or push them into gas chambers. To dismiss such people as psychologically disturbed, is to excuse them. Yes, there are psychologically disturbed people, but most would never dream of murdering children or to call for the destruction of an entire people as some currently do or have done in the past.
In the second place, I do not believe we can go to God for an answer to the insanity because from my point of view, the God we conceived of and continue to worship is a silent God who is either unable to interfere, is unwilling to interfere, or cannot interfere. Either way, we are left to impose order on the chaos through law and righteous behavior, the good inclination also God given, without satisfying answers and without comfort. To quietly utter the word, “why?” or to scream it in our rage into the black void, is a waste of breath.
I may not be remembering this correctly, because I was very tired and could barely focus.
Mendy then spoke about Chunukah, but was a little shaky on his history facts. These were clarified by several congregants, but I’m not sure if the facts of the story were really important to the message he was giving us which I think had something to do with the right of people to worship as they choose, and to be themselves. It also had something to do with the Jews of that time being a people who did not accept what the other nations around them accepted, though many Jews relished the new ideas of the Hellenistic world and eagerly embraced it. Ultimately, the Syrian Greeks tried to squelch the Jewish way of life by prohibiting Torah study, celebrations, and circumcision. The Jews revolted, but it was both a civil war of traditionalist Jews fighting Hellenistic Jews, and traditionalist Jews fighting an outside enemy that was trying to eradicate their way of life.
The history of this holiday is really interesting. When Alexander died, his empire was divided among his three generals, and the land of Judea fell under the rule of the Selucids who operated out of Syria and ruled by Antiochus. So they were called the Syrian Greeks. Their king was somewhat insane, and claimed that he was the incarnation of Zeus, demanding to be worshiped in the Temple. This did not sit well with the Jews. The sons of Matatihius, known as the Maccabees, led the revolt with Judah, the Hammer, at the head of the army. The Jews won, and cleansed the Temple.
The story is told in books one and two of The Maccabees which Mendy did not mention as a source even though it is as contemporary as you can get. I suspect he did not mention it because these books are not part of the accepted cannon of holy writ, and do not contain the miracle of the oil which was first written down 700 years after the event. In fact, scholars believe that the eight days of celebration which took place was the belated celebration of Succot which could not have taken place in a defiled Temple. The Succot prayers for rain had to be said even a month or so later. As Succot had eight days and was celebrated in Tishrei, so Chanukah, celebrated in Kislev, also had eight days. Tishrei in Kislev. I do believe Mendy rejects this interpretation.
The miracle of the oil was written about in the Talmud, and it is thought that the rabbis felt it was not a good idea to support a story where young men rose up against superior forces, so they had God create a miracle that became the focus of the holiday. Could this be the reason that these books are in the Apocrypha and not included in the books of the Bible? But miracle or not, the concept of people having the right to worship as they choose and keep their customs as they choose, is another good idea that Judaism gave to the world.
There was also an “ufruf” this Shabbat which is a calling up to the Torah a young man who is about to be married, and Mendy said that he searched the parsha for some wisdom to give to the young man and to his bride. I must tell you that this young man is rather special to me since he was one of my former students, and I now have the pleasure of sitting near him weekly at Chabad. After receiving the honor, he was pelted with candy as is the tradition, and then he read the halftorah flawlessly. I am enormously proud of him, and will happily attend his wedding.
I honestly cannot recall how Mendy divined the message from the text, but I think it had
something to do with the reversal of words. Whenever Mendy uses the Hebrew, I tend to forget the specifics. The reversal may have related to the reversal of blessings that the dying Jacob gave to Joseph’s sons, but I’m thinking there was another reversal in the parsha. I think the message Mendy was sending to the couple had to do with seeing the substance in one another rather than just surface appearance, and that as a husband, you must always look for what is deeper in the words, and act on the feelings beneath the words. Did Jacob see greater worth in one of Joseph’s sons over the other? Mendy also suggested that you act on your wife’s request even when you do not understand the logic behind the request. To a man, the request may not seem reasonable, but if it is important to the spouse, it needs to be addressed. Remember, Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus.
I leaned over and said to the young man that if he wanted things to go smoothly he had to learn to say: “Yes, dear. Whatever you say, dear.” But I will admit that that can go just so far, and there are requests or statements that are made that one cannot act on or accept without comment. But it is in how the comment to the request or statement is made that makes all the difference in how the conversation proceeds. After thinking it really through before I choose to confront the issue, and only after I am settled in my resolve that this cannot go without a response, my opening line may be: “Are you aware that when you said such and such, I began to think such and such and that made me feel such and such. If there is a harsh response after you’ve “bared your jugular” in this way, there may be a problem in the relationship beyond the current problem and that’s the problem that needs to be addressed first. Children scream at each other; adults confer.
Over at M’kor, Rabbi Richard raised the issue of famine, and how this recurring motif in the Torah is symbolic of all catastrophic life experiences over which we have no control. At such times, our identities and our integrity are tested. “Famine” represents an opportunity for change. There is a famine in Egypt, and in the surrounding lands, and a radical opportunity for change is about to take place in Joseph’s soul and character, as well as in the characters and souls of his brothers.
There are many famines in the Bible, and it would be interesting to note who is involved, what they were before the famine, how they handled it, and what they became as a result of it.
When we consider the word “famine” in the context of Torah, we may also be considering a famine of the soul; literally a starving for affection, country, community. Famine is an emptiness; a hunger for something.
Joseph is thrown into a jail which could be his symbolic desert or his symbolic famine. He needs to languish there until he is ready to leave off who he was to become who he must become. His soul needs to be burnished.
I have noticed that in some relationships, some people tend to forget their personal "famines” once they are married because they are no longer “hunger” for a relationship. Once satisfied and no longer “hungry,” some might “let themselves go,” reverting to behaviors that might have been sublimated. Such people, while “hungry,” behaved and looked a certain way but then changed once they no longer felt that they would have to worry that they would be “hungry” again. That kind of famine brought on only a temporary change because the person reverted back to who they really were. So not all symbolic famines lead to positive growth. One party in the relationship might feel betrayed that the person they thought they married became someone else because he or she was no longer “hungry.”
The Joseph cycle is a progression of growth. Joseph is transformed from despair to affluence, but never lost his family or origin. In his growth, clothing also effects who he is. His father gave him a coat of many colors which set him apart and caused him grief because of the statement it made. When he is brought to Pharaoh to interpret the dreams, he is cleaned up and given a new tunic. When Pharaoh raises him up, he is given robes, a new name, a high born women, and a signet ring. All these are symbols of change.
Joseph is totally assimilated into Egyptian society, and his sons are given symbolic names to reflect his assimilation, his past adversity, and present good fortune. The elder is Manassah, and the younger is Ephraim. Throughout the Bible, names have great power. For Joseph, the names he gives to his sons reflect the bitterness and sweetness of his life and informs us that he has moved forward.
The motif of the younger son achieving greater things than the older is again carried through when Jacob crosses his hands and deliberately places his right hand on the head of Ephraim, the younger and not on the head of his elder brother.
In his dealings with his brother, should he act out of revenge or pity? He has prospered and can certainly afford to be kind. He can’t change the past, but he can move on. There is no reason to continue the animosity. With the power and wisdom one hopes to gather as one gets older, we begin to prioritize and certain things that bothered us years ago, no longer bother us.
Life is a journey, and the journey motif in Judaism is very powerful. Abraham goes on a journey as does Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and on and on. We are all on a journey as well and as we travel, we dream dreams of who we are, what we will become, and what our legacy will be. Dreams abound in the Joseph cycle. Joseph dreams, the baker and wine steward dream, and Pharaoh dreams. Of course there are other kinds of dreams that we allow ourselves that do not come to us as we sleep. These are the dreams we dream while we are awake, the dreams of identity.
There are faiths in this world that proclaim that all life is a dream, but I do not know who the dreamer is if there is a dreamer to begin with. I do know that each of us is a dreamer and we dream ourselves into being through our choices, and our work, and the relationships in which we are involved. But as life draws down, we eventually must all face ourselves as creations of our own dreamings. If we were resourceful, like Joseph, cleaver like Jacob, content with our lot like Isaac, and faithful like Abraham, we will realize that if we brought more good than bad to the small corner of the world we inhabited, our dreams of a successful and valued life may have been fulfilled.
December 22, 2012
Tevet 9, 5773
Mendy Log: Vayigash
Torah Genesis 44:18 - 47:17
Haftorah Ezekiel 37:15-28
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying: Mendy had already begun when I arrived, so I did not hear his introduction. He was speaking again of the massacre in Connecticut and mentioned that one of the local rabbis had devoted his Friday evening sermon to the issue of how we should address the issue of guns in our culture and the importance of becoming proactive. His focus seemed to be on leadership or becoming leaders when confronted with difficult situations because he did speak of Judah as the leader of the brothers in the Joseph saga, and the nature of leadership.
I think he agreed with the concept of becoming proactive as a general rule of conduct, making it very clear that in stressful times, the first reaction is to look to something or someone to blame. Blaming is easy, but the true leader will lead others to do something that will correct the situation. Judah, as the leader of the brothers, does just that by taking full responsibility for the alleged actions of his youngest brother, and offers himself as a slave to save Benjamin.
I had received a phone call from a friend Friday morning who asked me how I would respond to the rabbi of her synagogue devoting his sermon to gun control? This friend thought this was not an appropriate topic for Shabbat, and endangered the pulpit’s integrity by speaking about a political issue. I saw several issues at work and wondered the following: I know this person is not a guardian of the Sabbath, not kosher, and probably attends services sporadically. So why the big concern suddenly about the sanctity of the Sabbath or the integrity of the pulpit? I know that this person is a defender of the Second Amendment as interpreted by the most conservative among us, is a conservative leaning to the extreme Right, and I suspect that guns are owned. I was also curious as to why this person brought up the issue of the synagogue losing it’s tax free privileges by speaking about a political issue such as gun control. I chose not to raise these for clarification at this time, but I did suggest that an e-mail letter to the rabbi be written expressing concern. I also suggested attendance at the service to hear what was being said. I remain suspect of the motivation.
The slaughter in Connecticut should be a topic on every pulpit in America. This is a moral issue. Where else should the murder of children and adults be explored? Such a conversation as to whether or not there is a need for military grade weapons that are easily obtained and easily accessed should begin in the place where morality should be the focus and not just a factor. Should any house of God be exempt from discussing the sanctity of life because it may touch on a touchy subject? I would love to hear my fellow congregants sitting in a synagogue after prayer justify the need for clips that shoot a hundred or more rounds of ammunition when no gun that uses those clips are ever used for hunting. Such automatic weapons are used only to murder people.
The conversation is not about abrogating The Second Amendment. This amendment gives American citizens the right to “bear arms” and no one wants to take away that right. What we have now are so many loopholes in the existing laws that anyone who wants any kind of gun can usually obtain it. The laws are so vaguely written and some so poorly written that manufacturers can make and sell whatever they wish, and just about anyone can currently sell and purchase whatever they please. The first step is to close the loop holes, and we need to enforce the laws already on the books. Then, laws need to be rewritten so there are no loop holes. That is one thing our legislators might insist upon as a first step in their attempt to lead.
But too many of our legislators, both locally and in Washington, are so beholden to the gun lobby for campaign contributions, that they do not dare vote against the NRA Lobby if these representatives want to be reelected. That’s not leadership.
If we are to talk of leadership such as Judah’s,we have to talk about taking responsibility. Our legislators and the NRA cannot or will not lead in this because they refuse to take any responsibility. Recently, the NRA blamed video games, movies, comic books, etc. for the violence that pervades American Society. I agree that virtual violence has numbed us and especially our children to the consequences of real violence. Certainly, these are a factor. That said, the NRA must own responsibility for allowing and supporting the vehicles that provide the violence in reality, and if they were truly interested in ameliorating the situation, they would support legislation that bans automatic guns designed for use in war, armor piercing ordinance, and clips that discharge hundreds of rounds a minute. But the NRA supports only what is good for the members of the NRA and only the legislation that will keep millions floating into their coffers.
Joseph warned his brothers that on their return trip to get his father, they should not become “agitated.” By this he meant that they were not to argue about who was right or wrong, or who was to blame. The Torah understood the human mind. They were to move on.
The American People, our legislators, and the NRA, like the brothers, must realize that it will be a waste of time to accuse each other of blame. All are to blame. We must all accept responsibility. People who own guns must lock them safely away from children or people who may have emotional problems. Parents and the media need to monitor what their children are exposed to and the media needs to cut down on violence as entertainment. Our legislators need to become independent of the NRA lobby, and the NRA needs to recognize that the sanctity of life trumps the rights of citizens to have whatever weapons they want.
But beyond these, there are the rights we as Americans enjoy that are granted us in the Constitution and here’s the rub. If we demand that Hollywood and other entertainment venues cut back on violence, we are infringing on their First Amendment rights. If we try to put a stop to the ease at which any type of gun can be obtained, we are infringing on Second Amendment rights. If we insist that the mentally ill be incarcerated whether they like it or not, we are infringing on their Fifth Amendment rights. So the question remains as to how many rights Americans are willing to fore go to achieve some degree of safety if such a thing really exists. After 9/11 there was an uproar by some because of the Patriot Act that some saw as an infringement on individual freedoms. The ACLU, the NRA, and Congress all have to get together and make some hard choices.
There is a quote in The Ethics of the Fathers from the Talmud that says something like “though it is not up to you to complete the task, you are not exempt from doing so” or something close to that. Basically, we are all responsible to do something about the chaos we may or may not have created, and we are all obliged to make it better.
One of the other themes of Mendy’s talk had to do with the question Joseph posed to his brothers as to whether or not his father was alive? This question is interpreted as Joseph asking whether or not the influence of Judaism was still strong in the family, and whether or not the traditions of Abraham and Isaac were still influencing the behavior of his kin.
It is also taught that Joseph’s treatment of his brothers was not so much related to revenge, but whether or not they had grown morally and developed into responsible adults. He seemed satisfied that they had because they had dealt honestly with him, and did not withhold the history of the family or their genuine concern for their father and youngest brother.
I wondered why Joseph never contacted his family when he was able to do so, and was informed that Joseph could not act to move toward his family because all the dreams and the prophesies had to be fulfilled first. The brothers on their hands and knees before him fulfilled the last of his dreams and only at that moment could he reveal himself and his mission. Personally, I think there are better reasons.
I was curious as to why our tradition did not consider Joseph as the fourth patriarch since I consider him infinitely superior in his development as a human being to his father, and grandfather. I was informed at Chabad that the reason was because he had fathered only the two half tribes of Ephraim and Mannassa while his father and grandfather are considered as the father of all the tribes. I concluded from hearing congregant at M’kor that he was denied this honor because he had never spoken to God as did the others. Personally, I like the second because it says that Joseph developed his humanity, like us, through just living and not through divine revelation.
Over at M’kor Shalom, Rabbi Richard’s focus was on Judah’s recounting the entire story, pointing out that he repeats the word “father” no less than thirteen times. At this point, Judah is begging Joseph for Benjamin’s return. The result of this summary and the repetition of that particular word is that all of Joseph’s attempts to obliterate his past and his childhood trauma is torn away leaving him entirely distraught. Now he realizes that he must deal with his past. We are products of our pasts and we must all deal with the past eventually. All his defense mechanisms give way in this cathartic moment, and he says, “I am Joseph! Is my father still alive?” It should be noted that he does not say, “Is our father still alive?”
At this point, it seems that Joseph is doing some Monday Morning Quaterbacking, by looking back, connecting the dots, and drawing the conclusion that it was God’s plan that he be sent down into Egypt. The dreams he had as a young man of his brothers and parents kneeling before him, his slavery, his going to prison, the interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream, his elevation– all was planned by God so he could save the family. Joseph has come to his faith as a mature man, and what he discovers is that God’s Hand directs his life. I know people like Joseph who see God’s Hand in whatever they do. I do not know if they have true faith or just rationalization for what has happened to them be it good or bad.
Joseph can forgive his brothers, but would that have been the case had he not been successful? When we first met Joseph, he was an adolescent who saw himself as the center of the universe and who was ratting out his brothers. Now we see him spiritually mature.
What does he want? In all the years of separation, Joseph never attempted to contact his family. The naming of his sons indicates that as a fact. He had to have been very resentful. His father should have known the animosity in which his brothers held him, and yet Jacob deliberately sends him to them. His brothers sold him and abandoned him. Would they now abandon Benjamin as they had abandoned him? Joseph has many unresolved issues with his father and the repetition of the word forces him to think.
“Where there are no men, strive to be a man,” is another quote from the Ethics of the Fathers. Joseph is striving to be a man by abjuring revenge and seeing himself as someone who can save his family regardless of the issues still unresolved. To become our true selves, we must move beyond family hurts. Like Joseph, we have to say, “What can I do for my family rather than what can my family do for me?”
When Joseph reveals himself to his brothers, Joseph also reveals himself to himself.
Whenever we act or react, we also reveal ourselves to ourselves as well as to others.
At this moment, the brothers, on their knees or prostrate before him, are totally dependent on him. Only Joseph has the power to preserve his family. He is the single sheave of wheat standing as in the dream.
The message here is that we are to stop living in the past, forget the unresolved hurts, and move forward. The resentments of the past get in the way of our truly being human. This is a classical Jewish theological thought: If the anger doesn’t matter anymore, it’s time to give back. And giving back in time is just as good as giving back with money.
Rabbi Jonathan Sachs of England posits the idea that Jacob had set Joseph up to individuate– to become his own person. Parents say this when they tell you to move out. Joseph believes his father terminated their relationship, discounting the idea that his father truly loved him. “What did I do to deserve this?” he asks. “Why is my father angry? Joseph had seen his father’s anger in the Shechem episode where Jacob curses his sons. He had seen Jacob’s anger at Judah when Judah took one of Jacob’s secondary wives to bed. Joseph internalized this anger by asking what he did wrong? This is why he chose not to go back or contact his father all these years.
The Joseph Cycle is played out daily. These are human beings, and it’s amazing that three thousand years ago when the Torah was put down, the rabbis could see these dynamics. Joseph is a metaphor for aging and spiritual journey. He moves from a self-absorbed “punk” to a generative, spiritual person. Joseph’s revelations about God come to him not through God speaking to him directly on a mountain, or near a river, or in a dream, or in a bush, but through reconciliation with his family. He grows in his spirituality by forgiving. Joseph, by choosing to heal and move himself beyond his own anger and resentments towards his family, has found his path to God. Joseph is telling us that just by living, we can all come to God.
Personally, I think as people, we are all more reflective of Joseph than we are of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. We find God or God finds us not through personal revelation, but by attempting to live a decent life.
Respectfully,
Lenny
December 29, 2012
Tevet 16, 5773
Mendy Log: Vayehi Genesis 47:28-50:26
Halftorah: I Kings 2:1-12
I think I remember Mendy beginning his drush by asking us if we had seen a video that went viral on the Internet of rabbis in Texas dancing at what I think might have been a foot ball game. He then asked if those who had seen it were embarrassed. Since few had seen it, he asked us how we felt when we walked into an old synagogue and saw the line of portraits of old European rabbis in hallways that spoke to life in the shetle and Yiddishkeit, the Jewish way of doing things and thinking about things. This introduction led to a point Mendy was making about whether it is more important to remember and focus on our past, or to concentrate and employ new technologies so as to bring the past to present and involve people in that way. He used the image of relying on Tweets, e-mails, and videos as the dancing rabbis did, as well as other pieces of contemporary communications used increasingly each day by our children and grandchildren as a vehicle for perpetuating Jewish values and the Jewish way of doing things. Ultimately, he said that a combination of both remembering the past as you focus on the future was best. This idea was his introduction to some thoughts on Joseph’s sons, Manasseh, the eldest, and Ephriam, the younger.
I find that a line of portraits of old rabbis harkening back to the shetle something quite nostalgic if not comforting, because these pictures bring to mind the life my grandparents and great grandparents brought with them that continues to cling to me along with the comforting images I continue to have of them. The reality remains that sheltle life was more brutal than not, and leaving it was the best option. I would take the Voorhees/Cherry Hill area over any shetle any day.
Though my parents were born in America, the traditions I was raised with was a weird combination that I guess one might call Assimilated Orthodox American, but for the most part, the foods, the music, and the superstitions (which I see now was the religion I was given) were Eastern European. The nostalgia I feel is certainly is not for the shetle, but for the foods, stories, and music or what would be the ethnic side of Yiddishkeit that came from the shetle. The nostalgia I feel is for my mother’s parents, my Bubba and Zeydeh and the memories of their apartments when I was little. There, Yiddishkeit was the way of life. Bubba read only “der Forvitz” spoke little English, did not learn to write although I was told that she was fluent in several different European languages. But what she lacked in formal education, she made up for in the kitchen and in kindness to me, her favorite grandchild.
Whatever religion there was in my parent’s home came from my mother’s home and became a conglomeration of Eastern European Shetle Folk Judaism, and American superstitions. Yes, there was a “remembrance of things past” in the home in which I grew up, but there was a religious disconnect that did not encourage meaning ful involvement in Judaism or an impetus to perpetuate it. That came later in my life. My mother was also a fantastic cook.
Mendy referred us back to an earlier portion of Genesis where we are told that Joseph named his first born son Manasseh: “‘for God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house:’” and the second son he named Ephraim: “‘for God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.’” Mendy said that by naming Manasseh as he did, Joseph was both forgetting the past and at the same time, remembering the past. At this time of his life, Joseph has come to believe that God had directed his footsteps, so we know that he is still fully invested in his past and what he learned in his “father’s house” as regards his values and traditions even though he looks like an Egyptian in every way. Mendy then informed us that Ephraim implies that Joseph is looking towards the future because he has been “fruitful,” and Mendy tied the entire package together by saying that while we need to incorporate today’s technology so we can connect and understand the world of our children and grandchildren, we must still stay rooted in Yiddishkeit, because technology cannot teach you what is really important in life to value or how to act on those values. We can communicate those values through the technology.
Mendy invited us to focus next on the blessings that Jacob dispensed to his sons and these two grandsons in particular. Joseph presents Manasseh, the eldest, first as would be usual in their society, and put him closest to Jacob’s right hand. But Jacob reverses his hands and puts his right hand on Ephriam’s head. Joseph objects, but Jacob insists and the interpretation, based on their names, is that Manasseh represents the past, and Ephriam represents the future.
It is to be noted that when those of us who bless our sons or grandsons on Friday evenings say, “May God make you like Ephriam and Manasseh,” we are sending a subliminal message of looking toward the future. We are also taught that another reason we bless our sons in their names is that they, despite their opportunities to worship the Egyptian pantheon, chose to keep their father’s faith. The blessing is in remembrance of their choices.
We then turned to Jacob’s blessing his other children. Naturally, Jacob’s blessing on Joseph which is done privately, is extensive and specific as befitting the man who saved the family from famine and who was always the favorite son. But the blessings on Jacob’s other sons, in some cases, seem not blessings at all but statements either regarding their characters or what will happen to them. The three so called “blessings” of his eldest sons express his disappointment and can in no way be interpreted as blessings. Jacob reminds Reuben, that his eldest son committed the dastardly act of copulating with one of his father’s secondary wives. Reuben, as he is whitewashed in the commentaries, did so so his father would sleep with his mother, Leah that night, and not with this secondary wife. Earlier in Genesis we were told that he had maneuvered his father into his mother’s bed by bartering mandrakes he had picked for Leah with Rachel, Leah’s sister and rival. Mandrakes, because their roots looked like small people, were considered in the ancient world as encouraging fertility. The rabbis teach that Reuven was just being a devoted son, but there is another reason, less noble that is given in more contemporary literature that comes out of traditions of ancient Mesopotamia and seems more plausible . It would seem that in that society, it was the tradition that the eldest son, the son who would take over the leadership of the tribe, established his primacy and right to leadership by taking to bed a secondary wife of the current leader.
In “blessing” Simeon and Levi, Jacob reviews their horrendous decision and despicable behavior when they brutally murdered the prince, king, and men of Shechem when Jacob had already negotiated a treaty that would have allowed Dina, their sister, to marry the prince. Of course, Jacob’s initial response back when that happened led us to believe that he was more concerned with his own skin and what would happen when the word got out, than he was about the unjust taking of so many lives.
Now here is a problem I have with the rabbinic midrash that seems to fill in the spaces between the lines in the Torah, and rabbinic interpretations of the Torah. The commentators will take the statements that Jacob makes to these three adult sons and twist it into something that has no relationship to the text just to paint these biblical characters in a favorable light. Most people in the Torah are flawed, and because they are so flawed, I actually believe that did live. What religion would create flawed icons to admire? But to twist them into something that they are not for the purpose of casting them in a favorable light so we can admire them, takes away their humanity and asks us to accept something that just isn’t in the Torah. We can identify with them because they are as flawed as we are and sometimes more flawed than we are. Yes, I know that Judaism is an interpretive faith, but..................
While we are products of our world and culture and must not judge these people by our standards, they were also products of their societies, and should be accepted in that light and for who they were. We can learn just as much from them on how not to behave, as we can from them on how we should behave.
Mendy once beat off one of the more challenging congregants by asking him to read a particular book that would tie all the stories together and answer all the congregant’s questions. But it seems
to me that by reading this particular text, one must still suspend disbelief and accept the interpretations and rationalizations of this commentator as the truth. Where is one to go when one would view such a book as just another very creative and imaginative effort to make connections between people and stories that have no basis other than the word of the commentators. Suspension of disbelief is an absolute necessity if one is to believe, and as a Jew, I cannot easily do that.
Respectfully,
Lenny