September 21, 2013 B’H
Tishrei 17, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parshas Vezos Haberachah- Deuteronomy 33:1– 34:12.
Haftorah - Joshua 1:1 - 18.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
In the Orthodox tradition, the last chapter of Deuteronomy is read on Simchat Torah, and then Genesis 1 is immediately begun. The same tradition is followed in the Reform Movement. In this way, the Torah is never not read. In the Orthodox tradition, the entire Torah is read every year, and in the Reform tradition, a triennial cycle is followed. Again, the Torah is never not read.
Though Mendy did not read the closing chapter of Deuteronomy, he did make reference to a major teaching in it. He pointed out that after Moses died, we read that the Israelites mourned Moses for thirty days, but he referenced the death of Aaron, Moses’ brother and that when Aaron died, we are told that all the Israelites mourned him. So Mendy’s question was, “Why did everyone mourn Aaron when we are given the idea that not everyone mourned Moses?
Several attempts were made by congregants, but Mendy let us know that while Aaron was a man of peace, bringing people together and acting as a mediator, Moses was the law giver and told you what you had to do whether you liked what he said or not. He elaborated on this point by telling a joke about the congregant who comes to the rabbi because he is in conflict with another person, and the rabbi tells the man that he is right. When the other man the first one complained about comes to the rabbi to complain, the rabbi tells him that he is right, too. When the rabbi’s wife confronts him with his inconsistency, he tells her that she is also right. It would seem that Aaron was such a man.
Moses on the other hand is like the CEO and makes managerial decisions that are not liked so not everybody on the receiving end of his decisions were happy. So it would seem that those who were not happy with Moses, did not mourn him.
Mendy brought the concept home by referring to the relationship between parents and children. To keep children safe, parents make demands and issue edicts that children don’t like. Parents must do this to keep children safe, stable, and living up to cultural and religious standards. That’s the job of the parent.
In my years as an educator, I’ve encountered parents who abdicated their role as parent in order to “be friends” with their child. Most often, they were single mothers who were overwhelmed by having to work two jobs, keep a house going, financial problems, and kids acting out and making demands on limited resources. While I sympathize with their plight, making friends with your kid instead of parenting them and risking them not liking you and giving you a rough time, does not end up well for either parent or child. I can see how an overwrought parent does not want to come home to angry children. Parents need to be loved also. That said, parents who give their children carte blanche to avoid conflict, will eventually be less respected, resented, and not loved by those very same children. Children need discipline, and discipline tells a child that they are loved, gives them a sense of being safe, and a standard of behavior even though they are resentful and rebel against them.
Mendy then turned his attention to Sukkot, one of the three harvest festival that required all males to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Temple. He questioned the reason as to why this holiday comes so quickly upon the heels of Yom Kippur. His explanation was that Yom Kippur is a holiday where the soul is the focus, and spiritual growth and connection or reconnection to God are the paramount objectives. Thus, to better connect with the spiritual soul within, we refrain from those things that keep us focused on our physical selves. But Sukkot is a physical holiday that stresses tastes, smell, sight, touch, and hearing. We physically go into a sukkah to eat, smell the fruit of the ethrog, shake the lulov, consider the meaning of the symbols, sing and listen to the songs and the prayers. In the sukkah, the spiritual and the physical or secular combine, and it is hoped that this combining elevates us to a higher level of being.
On the first day of Sukkot which was September 19th, Mendy spoke about the symbolic meaning of the ethrog and the lulov which are used on this holiday. The ethrog as we know is a particular citrus lemon type fruit which is very fragrant. The lulov contains three types of branches: the palm, the myrtle, and the willow. Each of the species is symbolic of a type of Jewish person. The ethrog is the person who is well versed in the laws of the Torah and in the traditions of the people and acts upon these to make the world a better place. Now I may not get the following correct, but the jist will be there. The myrtle may smell sweet and my be the type of person who knows Torah and traditions, but does little in the world. The palm may be the person who knows little of tradition and law, but does good in the world despite his lack of specific knowledge. The willow is the interesting one. In the Torah, we are told that this fourth species must come from a tree that grows near water. Perhaps at one time they did, but tradition teaches that this species can also be very distant from water as long as it is in the family of a species that does grow near water.
The point Mendy made after sharing this with us was that this willow is symbolic of the person who has grown so far away from Torah and tradition that they do not think of themselves as Jews. But a Jewish soul is a Jewish soul, and the light never goes out even if it is very dim. The willow is taken up with the myrtle, the palm, and the ethrog, and held together as one. The symbolic meaning is that no one, no matter what their relationship and behavior might be, is always to be considered part of the Jewish People, Kal Yisroel.
To reinforce this, Mendy told a true story about his wife’s relative who was sent by the Rebbe down to South America to purchase ethrogs. The Chassid did not speak Spanish, and was totally out of his element. While there, he received a call from the Rebbe telling him to drop whatever he was doing and go to a town halfway across the country. The man did not know why he was to do this, nor did the Rebbe tell him what to do once he got there. So he traveled to the town, found the market place, and sat down. After a while, a stranger came up to him, introduced himself as a Jew and told the Chassid that he was about to go into the church to convert, but would not do that if God sent him a sign. The man considered this Chassid, totally out of place in this town, a sign from God and he did not convert. How the Rebbe knew this is one of the mysteries that abound in Chabad Lore. So those who are in the willow category are out there, perhaps just waiting for a sign, and we symbolically bring them in when we hold all four of the species together. I imagine a great mitzvah is to bring a Jew back to Yiddishkeit.
Rabbi Rosensweig, one of the great philosophers/rabbis of the Reform Movement, was, as a young man, also at a point in his life where he was considering conversion. But he said that he would attend his last Yom Kippur service just to reconfirm his decision. He did this, and something deep within his Jewish soul was so moved, that he left the synagogue to enter history as one of the great Jewish shining lights of the 19th Century.
Of course it does beg the question: Are Jews like Arnold Rothstein, Louis “Lepke” Buchalter, Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, Arthur “Dutch” Schultz, Meyer Lanksy, Gurrah Shapiro, and perhaps Bernie Madoff still to be considered part of Kal Yisroel?
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Address was considering the last Torah portion of Deuteronomy where Moses, knowing he is about to die, has gathered the people for his final blessings. The tone has changed, and the blessing is filled with hope and a sense of finality and reconciliation. He seems to want to go out on a high note and project a sense of peace to the people. He seems to be saying that we’ve had our troubles, and it’s been a powerful journey. Like many people at the end of their lives, he is seeing the past through a filter, claiming it wasn’t so bad. And like Jacob, his ancestor, he, too, blesses each of the tribes, but oh, what a difference. The speech, like the song at the sea, is in poetry, but the redactors of Deuteronomy in the 6th Century put it in prose.
Rabbi Twersky, commenting on the lines, “Torah tziva lanu Moshe” or “The Torah that Moses commanded us...” teaches that the mitzvah in the belief in God is found within the first two commandments of the Ten Commandments, and are open to all. But if you leave the community, you cannot be observant. Only as a unity of community can you experience each of the other 611mitzvot. To be really Jewish, you need to function within a community.
So God calls Moses up to the top of the mountain where he can see the Promised Land, lets him know that he did a good job, and Moses dies. The conversation then turned to the idea of free will and choice. Moses could not choose the moment of his death. God chose that for him. But in these times, we are moving to a place in our society where we can choose the time of our own deaths. Right now, there is a death with dignity law going through the N.J. Legislature, and New Jersey may join some eleven other state with similar laws. The Yom Kippur liturgy is replete with prayers that we might continue, even though we know that there is a randomness of life over which we have no control. We do not choose to get sick or to have an accident. Like birth and death, those decisions are out of our control.
The idea of not being in control, especially where the behavior of others is concerned, is something that one comes to understand as one gets older. As Einstein once said, “We cannot control the chaos with brute force, but one day, while eating an apple, the solution may present itself and say ‘Here I am.’” Chaos doesn’t seem to leave just because you get older. Just about all of my friends, even though they are in their sixties and seventies, still have issues with their children, mostly stemming from the issues their children seem to have with them. And why children who are in their thirties and forties have not and will not deal with whatever issues they have openly and honestly, is a mystery to me now that I am in my seventies. So of late, I’ve more and more come to accept as a great truth the statement, “It is what it is.” Accepting this truth does free you from holding on to grievances and allows you to move on. Accepting this truth allows you to move beyond the pain because by accepting how things are, you can begin to free yourself from the pain, realizing that the pain only robs you of you’re here and now. By accepting this truth, you fully embrace the idea that there are situations and people whose behavior and thinking are beyond your control, and by trying and hoping that something might change, you can lose yourself in desperate hope and destroy your today and even your life. The children for most of my peer group, myself included, are the ones who cause and continue to cause the pain, and being parents, we continue to try over and over again. But again, to quote Einstien in his definition of insanity: “To do something over and over again and expect a different result is the definition of insanity.” If we do exert any free will, it is only over our actions to those who intentionally and unintentionally cause us pain. “It is what it is,” and there is little to be done about it. The past cannot be changed, and no amount of worry, hoping, or prayer will effect the future or change someone’s behavior unless that person wants to change. The person who is most disturbed by the behavior owns the problem. If you own the problem, you either deal with it and the person who is causing it, or let it go! “It is what it is.”
Surrendering or accepting the contingencies of life as illustrated by the quote “It is what it is” is not a negative thing but a positive thing.
The brain lies. It tells you what you want to hear. The brain rationalizes. But the soul and the heart do not. Check with your heart. Check with your soul. There is a rabbinic admonition that you are to “repent the day before you die.” The intent of this since we do not know such a date is that we are to embrace life and not waste it. We are to enjoy it within the confines of what is allowed and acceptable, and live in the day. The Torah exhorts us to live in the moment.
We are told that Moses was 120 years old when he died and that his eye had not dimmed and his vigor had not diminished. This is to be read as a metaphor. Jewish tradition compels everyone no matter how old to savor life. We are never too old to learn as long as our eyes are not dimmed, and we are never too old to experience as long as we have the strength to live.
But what happens when alzheimers dims our eyes, takes away our vision and makes us physically, emotionally, and spiritually inactive? We cannot control this. There is no free will here.
So God takes Moses. There is a midrash telling us that God kisses Moses on the lips and thus, draws from Moses, His breath. I could not help but think of Genesis where God puts His lips on Adam’s and breathes His breath into Adam, animating this creature as no other creature was animated. It would seem to me that the thing that animates us, our soul, is the breath of God. I do believe that another name for God is Yah or breath, and if God is everything as Spinoza taught, than we, each and every moment, are breathing God in and out. Breath does sustain us. It’s a nice thought and quite spiritually uplifting.
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
October 5, 2013 B”H
Cheshvan 8, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Noach - Genesis 6:9-11:32.
Haftorah: Rosh Chodesh, Isaiah 66:1-24.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Prior to Mendy speaking, there was a representative from the Samost Family Service to inform the congregation about the services offered to men, women, and children who were suffering abuse at the hands of another family member. This is a topic that was usually spoken in hushed tones, but is now becoming part of the community dialogue because family abuse does exist in the Jewish community though perhaps not as prevalent as in other communities.
I did not get to ask the gentleman if there were a relationship between abuse in the family and an affiliation in any synagogue. I’m thinking this because as we have assimilated as a people into American society and taken on the values or lack thereof of the wider society, have we separated ourselves from the traditional values of “family purity” and respect for the spouse. Have some lost their way in their separation from Jewish values. Or then again, abuse has probably always existed even in “traditional” families, and only now we are starting to address it and religious affiliation has little or nothing to do with such behavior. Still, anyone who claims to have a God centered life and is still an abuser, has missed the point of his or her faith.
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
When Mendy came to the bimah, he assured us that 100% of pulpit rabbis would be speaking about the results of the Pew Survey regarding the status of Judaism in America. He made mention of two responses: ( and I am paraphrasing them) the “oy vey, the sky is falling and we are doomed,” response, and the “ Judaism will be alive and well as long as the Orthodox in Lakewood continue having children.” He made it clear that both responses were wrong!
Mendy also commented on the the survey being currently held in the Jewish Community of South Jersey and he made it clear that they will not get the proper response because they did not give the right categories in which people might respond. The categories of Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstruction may have been appropriate in the 50's or 60's, but they do not speak to the reality of what is going on in 2013. For example, he made it known that Chabad, for the High Holidays, had more attendance than all the Orthodox synagogues combined, but Chabad was not listed as one of the entities of choice. So if people were to respond, they would respond with where they sent their monthly check regardless of how they felt about their faith.
As a Reformadox Jew, who attends both a Reform synagogue and Chabad, I certainly could not say I was Orthodox because I am not. So I checked off Reform affiliation, but that is not entirely the story.
Mendy said it was difficult to decide because there are three criteria that must be adhered to in order to consider one’s self Orthodox. First you must be Shomer Shabbat, a guardian of the Sabbath and follow all those laws. Secondly, you must keep strictly kosher, and thirdly, you must keep the laws of family purity and the laws of Mikvah.
Those are tough criteria, and most of the people with whom I am friendly at Chabad are not that stringent in their observance. In fact, I would go so far to say that most people in Chabad cannot meet that criteria.
When Mendy let the person know that Chabad should have been listed as a separate entity, she admonished him for not attending the meetings they had and offering his input for consideration. Mendy glanced over her criticism.
I think that over the years, Mendy has chosen not to include himself or become a leading force in the wider community because he has been hurt by the accusations made by other Jewish leadership that Chabad is a cult, that Chabad steals members of other congregations, etc. and this has made him wary of getting involved in activities such as being on committees that construct surveys . But Mendy, being Mendy, also from time to time conveys a hint of condescension when I’ve heard him speak of other denominations. In Mendy’s mind, it seems to me, that everyone who is not Chabad is wrong, and while he generously welcomes into Chabad all people whose soul is searching for a meaningful relationship with God regardless of where they are in their search, he does not seem to recognize the idea that there are other legitimate paths to that relationship offered by other Jewish visions. It is possible that this attitude is picked up by others and the result is that he is viewed by some as a petulant little boy with a beard. Mendy is correct though he did not say it directly that Chabad is now a completely different division of Judaism, but he cannot legitimately complain after the fact that Chabad was left off the survey when he chose not to make his thoughts known.
I think if I were to summarize Mendy’s response to the survey it would be his exhortation to us to go out and invite those who are tangentially involved with “Yiddishkeit” to become more involved and to join us at Chabad. There was a lot more said, but it was at the beginning of the talk and I don’t recall most of it.
The parshah was the story of Noah, (which was my bar mitzvah parshah) and the first question asked of us was “Why was Abraham considered the first Jew, and not Noah?” The answer Mendy gave was that Abraham had passion and Noah did not.
In fact, Noah is absolutely silent in the face of the destruction of the world, and perhaps he doesn’t value human life in the same way Abraham did when Abraham argued with God to save the righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah. We are told that “Noah walked with God,” and Abraham “walked before God.” To use the parent image, a mature child need not walk beside the parent, but can be trusted to walk ahead. Perhaps walking along “with God” or along side God, is an indication of a lack of maturity. Also, while Noah was called “righteous in his generation,” we are told that his generation was corrupt. Does that mean that Noah was the best as compared to everyone else? And an additional question is, “Why did he wait another seven days to leave the ark when it was clear that the land was dry? Had he actually become comfortable in the dark and stench or was he just traumatized by the experience and just couldn’t deal with the overwhelming idea of starting over?
Mendy then began speaking about the tale metaphorically. He said that we also build arks that we call synagogues, and like Noah, we don’t go in until we are forced to, not by a coming deluge but by either a bar or bat mitzvah, the High Holidays, the anniversary of a parent’s death, or just guilt. He seemed to me to liken many Jews today to Noah’s reluctance. But it was Abraham who went out into the world to make known to the world that there was a Power in the universe whose primary demand was that we treat each other decently. Abraham was passionate in modeling good behavior, while Noah just went into the ark because he was ordered to do so, came out probably traumatized, got drunk, and cursed his son. For these reasons, Abraham, not Noah, became the first Jew. We, too, must be like Abraham, proud of our “yiddishkeit” and willing to share it with others.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Address began by referencing Gastner’s, Myths, and Legends in the Old Testament, the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh from which the story of Noah is taken, as well as referring to the fact that just about every ancient civilization has a flood story in their tradition.
Richard pointed out that Noah doesn’t speak, but is an ordinary person chosen to do an extraordinary thing. He does it well, and in doing so, lets us know that we, too, can do extraordinary things even though we may not be extraordinary people.
One of the most interesting explanation given for a flood tradition suggested that at one time, the Black Sea was a small inland fresh water lake separated from the Mediterranean Sea by a land mass. The theory surmises that in pre-recorded history, there was a massive earthquake that allowed the Mediterranean to pour itself into the lower river valley through what we now call the Bosporus. The initial rush of water drowned and covered the towns and people living at the shores of this inland lake rapidly, but others on higher ground were able to escape, and tell the story of this massive flood. When I took a course in language history in college, I read in the text a theory posited by Otto Jesperson that at one time, there was a language that was the common ancestor of most languages ever spoken. This is called the Indo-European Hypothesis. It suggests that people speaking a single language migrated from a single place and over the millennia, the single language morphed into the languages we have to day. I would posit the idea that the people living around that fresh inland lake spoke this original language and migrated out of this river valley taking the story of the flood with them. Of course, this migration and changing languages can also mirror the Tower of Babel story which become a transformation myth as to how languages came to be different. There is also the work of Professor Wooley of Princeton who, in the early part of the 20th Century, took his archeological team to Mesopotamia, dug down into the earth till he reached a bed of silt where no artifacts were found, continued digging through the silt and discovered older civilizations under the silt. He fanned out his digging and found that the bed of silt in different depths covered just about all of what we know as Mesopotamia. There was definitely a flood, and though we have two different suggestions for it based on archaeology, a great cataclysmic event did impress itself on the imaginations of our ancestors. But were the Babylonians said that the gods destroyed humanity because they were making too much noise and disturbing the sleep of the gods, the Hebrews took the tale and used it as a moral lesson and a warning that destruction will follow a world that does not behave morally.
Richard pointed out some inconsistencies in the story such as the two pairs of all types of animals and the seven pairs of clean animals and suggested that they are part of two different literary traditions; the Yahvistic and the Elohistic strains. The focus of the talk was moved to the Covenant that God establishes with the people of the earth forever and the rainbow as the symbol of this brit. The idea of the rainbow and the Covenant have different interpretations and meanings.
The bow in the sky was not new, but is now infused with significance. The bow was the weapon favored by ancient gods, but now becomes a symbol of peace and reconciliation between man and God. The bow in inverted, which means it is non- threatening. The colors exist side by side indicating a unity among all peoples. It is also an indication that the rain has stopped and that signifies “hope.”
In his book, Tree of Souls, The Mythology of Judaism, Howard Schwartz writes that the rainbow is a reflection of God’s glory, and that yellow, red, and white are the colors of the Shechina, the Divine Feminine that connects us to the Ayn Sof. Sometimes a rainbow does not appear in a generation indicating that there is a Tzadik, a righteous individual, living on the earth.
In the Zohar, the Medieval book upon which Kaballah is based, we are told that there is a Rainbow of the Messiah, and that we are not to expect the Messiah until the rainbow appears announcing the arrival amid brilliant colors. It tells us that the rainbow is another symbol of the Covenant about bringing Israel out of exile and with it, the Messiah. It will signal the ingathering of the exiles. The major non-Jewish support for Israel in America and elsewhere comes from the Messianic Christian Community which supports the spiritual and political existence of Israel so the Jews can return. This return of the Jews is the precursor to the Second Coming of Jesus who Christians believe is the Messiah. The marriage of politics and religion is sometimes to be seen with causation.
I am personally very grateful to this Christian Community for their support of the Jewish People and the People of Israel. Their faith is their faith and my faith is my faith, and Jews should be appreciative for all he support they can get in a world that is increasingly hostile to us.
In the book, Voices from Genesis published in 1998 by Norman Cohen, the author suggests that Genesis be viewed in Ericsonnian stages of development. Noah is a toddler and God is the parent. Noah is learning how to do a task. Mankind is now coming out of our rebellious teens into science which is increasingly raising questions whose answers are bordering close to mysticism.
If Genesis can be seen as the movement of humanity from innocent children as Adam and Eve to a toddler such as Noah, through an array of types of men and women in different stages of social and intellectual development, we are indeed observing metaphorically the movement from the child to the toddler to the adolescent to the adult to the aged. Perhaps we must also evolve in our means of addressing God. Perhaps an invitation to a more silent, internal dialogue might be suggested for those who do not find the ancient supplications and praise meaningful any longer.
In the story of Noah, there is a contract between God and all life. Among certain groups there is a tradition of blessing pets as an out growth of this story. Here there is a promise that goes to the heart of the matter which is the quest for spirituality. In nature, we are ultimately alone, trapped, so we make fleeting covenants with others out of self-interest. It is all the more true when one of the partners is human and the other Divine. If you will do this for me, then I will do that for you. It is causation.
In setting up this covenant, God has realized that He made a mistake and promises never to do destroy humanity again. The question is why? The answer is that God needs people to worship Him. Like people who enter into a covenant for selfish reasons, God needs worshipers. The Torah God is egocentric. God needs us as much as we need God. If no one worships, what becomes of the whole enterprise? The rainbow is put there to remind God not to destroy again. God, like us, needs reminders. Very human quality. This need to worship is part of our innate quest for spirituality. A mature spirituality is having a dialogue with God.
This I believe to be true. Cain and Able are not asked to offer gratitude to God, but there is an innate desire to do so. Of course it didn’t turn out too well for Able, but that wasn’t his fault. The need to offer gratitude and worship something greater than one’s self is in our wiring. When Noah leaves the ark, the first thing he does is to build an alter and offer up sacrifices to God. We are spiritual beings at our core, and the need to express a relationship with something greater than ourselves is part of our nature.
There were comments from the group about worship and the need for a relationship with God. One of the more spiritually connected members said that “God must continue thinking about us, and this keeps us in existence. The rainbow reminds God to think about us so we can continue to exist. We are God’s thoughts.” Does that mean that when we die, God is no longer thinking about us? Needs further consideration.
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
October 12, 2013 B”H
Cheshvan 8, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: - Parashas, Lech Lecha, Genesis 12:1- 17:27
Haftorah: Isaiah 40:27-41:16.
Opening lines of Parashas: Hashem said to Abram, “Go (to or for) yourself from your land, from your relatives, and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation: I will bless you, and make your name great, and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you.” 12:1-3
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy’s drush this Shabbat was one of those wonderful teachings where you had to step back and see the big picture before you could appreciate the value of the individual parts. Mendy began by referring us to the statement Abram makes when he speaks to God. It is the second time he addresses God by “Hashem/Elohim” which basically infers that Abram recognizes God as the Master of the Universe. Mendy said that it is this second address that convinces God that Abram is the right choice for becoming the Father of the Jews and of the nations. But why does God decide after the second address and not the first?
Few were willing to guess. At this point, Mendy went into a long dissertation about blessings and promises and all sorts of things and did not seem to answer the question. I don’t know if other people felt left hanging at that moment, and I decided not to interrupt to remind him that he didn’t answer his own question. I’m glad I did not because he skillfully wove the entire sermon together and brought the answer home at the very end. To have challenged him for the reason would have broken the rhythm of his discourse. The answer follows:
God’s choice of Abram had to do with Abram’s initial question to God: “What can You give me seeing that I go childless...” is a question of self absorption and ego. But the second time Abram addresses God, Abram says, “Whereby shall I know that I am to inherit it (the land.)?” I think it was Rashi, the Medieval commentator, who said that we are to understand this line as meaning that Abram is asking God what he might do for God to warrant the blessings for his descendants if and when they sin and become unworthy to retain it. It is this concern for his progeny and his willingness to do what must be done, that convinces God that Abram is the right man to be the father of the Jewish People. The Covenant between Abram and God becomes irrevocable and the Children of Israel will be kept in the Covenant and in God’s love forever.
This reason for the selection is an interpretation by Rashi. But right above Abram’s second question a statement: “And he [Abram] trusted in Hashem, and He [God] reckoned it to him [Abram] as righteousness.” God decided that Abram was a righteous man before the second question! It would seem to me that we are being told the reason right here in the Torah. To me, Abram’s second question is just as egocentric as the first. In this society, self interest meant survival, and Abram was a normal human being who was asked to do extraordinary things. I think a little reassurance was in order.
Mendy then referred us to the two promises God makes to Abram in this parsha. The first is that “I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth so that if one can count the dust of the
earth, then your offspring, too, can be counted.” The second promise is similar. God tells Abram, “Gaze, now, towards the Havens, and count the stars if you are able to count them!...So shall your offspring be!”
• The “dust of the earth” is interpreted as our going into the world and making our mark. We are to strive to better the world in our own small or large way depending on our personal traits and the resources we have at our desposal. The greater our personal gifts and wealth, the greater our responsibility to make things better for others. It is only through this largesse on our parts that this blessing can be fulfilled.
• “as the stars in the Heavens” is interpreted to mean our spiritual selves. We have the power to look up and to wonder. We must reach for the stars. Each of us has the inclination to make a connection with the universe and the awesome Creative Power that is infused in it, but our rational mind tells us not to do that. It is only by moving beyond the rational and striving to make the spiritual connection with God, that this blessing can be fulfilled.
Mendy said that Rashi tells us that to earn the blessings of the “earth” and the “dust,” we must be willing to do three things:
1.- We must be willing to move out of our comfort zones. (I don’t think Rashi used the words ‘comfort zones.’) The world does not change unless individuals are willing to perform acts of righteousness that are not part of their usual lives. Most people fear change and new behaviors because of the unknown. But personal and spiritual growth can come only by moving beyond what is usual and easy. Mendy gave the example of a man who wore a kippah in the street when he had never worn one before, and reported that no one seemed to notice. Some might find that getting up early for morning services, or going to the mikvah is a challenge to their comfort zone.
2.- We must be willing to challenge those personality traits that we have that keep us from becoming our best selves.
This is no easy feat. Significant people in our lives let us know verbally and non-verbally who we are and what we can expect from the world. Some of these messages are supportive and loving and people raised in such a way stand a good chance of being loving and competent people who believe in themselves and in their abilities to make a difference and achieve. There are others who are given hostile messages and kicks in the behind and conclude that this is what they deserve. Such people have a longer row to hoe in believing the opposite of what the significant others told them about themselves. Our personalities are shaped by what significant others say to us when we are young. You must understand that these messages begin at birth, and those who send them are the ones who sustain life. To reject the messages or to challenge the messages is to endanger one’s life, because in the child’s mind, these big people can take life away as easily as they gave it. Children become what their parents say they should be, and changes may be effected by a really supportive spouse or a psychotherapist.
3.- The third thing Rashi tells us is that we must do something out in the world that will bring us closer to God, and something that will better humankind even if the betterment is for a single person.
The world was never changed by sitting and wishing. Only God was able to will the matter that made up Creation into being through fiat, but we humans must actually think of something and go out and do it or build it. I do know that there are certain communities, both Jewish and Gentile, who do believe that if you continue to only pray, God will act and something will happen. But those monks who still spend their days praying for vocations, have not seen much of an increase in the priesthood, and those Christian parents who belong to sects that forbid their children to see doctors believing only that God heals if you pray hard enough, have seen their children die and have seen themselves in prison. There is a legend that tells of a Rabbi, when faced with destruction, would go to a certain place in the forest, build a certain fire, and say a certain prayer. We are told that the danger abated. Over the years other rabbis were also faced with similar threats to their people, but over the years, the place in the forest was forgotten as was the special fire and the prayer. So the last rabbi tells this to God because he can only tell the story, and the people are saved because telling the story had to be enough. It’s a nice story and does reinforce the need to believe that prayer does work. But it is a legend. That said, I think the saying, “Pray as if everything depends on God, and act as if everything depends on you,” will stand a person in better stead than just praying. There was an old song entitled, “Praise the Lord, and Pass the Ammunition.”
Mendy told a cute joke. A young lady from a wealthy family, brings in a young yeshiva student who is dirt poor. The parents are not pleased with her choice, so the father brings the young man into his study and tells the young man first that his daughter is use to the finer things in life like a new car every few years. The young man smiles and says, “God will provide.” The father is not happy that this young man is not getting the message and continues by telling the young man that his daughter will expect a beautiful home, elegantly furnished, and all modern fixtures. Again the young man smiles and says, “God will provide.” The father is somewhat exasperated. He leaves the young man and goes to his wife. “Well?” says the wife. “I really like this young man,” the father says, “He know who God is.”
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Address began by telling us that this parashas is the beginning of Jewish history, and the beginning of the Jewish People. On the metaphoric level, this Lech Lecha parashas is not only about the journey of a man soon to be known as Abraham, but it is also the journey of the Jewish People into history and the journey of the individual to self awareness and self-actualization.
The actual translation of the words “Lech lecha” is “go to you” and this can further be translated as “go to yourself.” If this is the case, are we being asked to “look within?” Are we being asked to go within ourselves to find our own good or our authentic selves? The implication is that we were born in a state of perfection and we must return to that place. We can only do that by honestly going within.
I immediately thought of the lines from Wordsworth’s Ode to Intimations of Immortality, and the lines “Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting. The soul that rises with us, our life’s star, Hath else where had its setting, and commeth from afar. Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come, From God who is our home.”
Leah lecha is our effort to discover that divine spark within ourselves. We are born with that spark, that original self, that reaches out and pulls back. In this we are like God who withdraws and expands in the Kabbalistic concept of zim zum.
This very human trait of reaching out and pulling back, expanding ourselves and contracting ourselves, mirrors our testing the waters when we by pushing ourselves to expand our horizons, (leave our comfort zones as Mendy would say) and then pulling back out of the fear of the unknown.
If we look at “go to yourself” as the translation, we see that it doesn’t say go to people. In going to yourself, you can go forward, but alone. The journey into the future must be made by ourselves alone. But don’t we have God with us you may well ask? Yes! God gives us the power to look into ourselves to make decisions. In my aloneness, I am given the power of free will.
In moving forward we, recognize the need for other people. The Theology of Relationships states that what awakens people, enables them, and gives them meaning, is their ability to reach out to other people. As we age, the power of connections becomes more important.
When I was little, both sets of grandparents were an easy bus or train ride away. Great uncles and aunt, uncles and aunts and cousins were an easy commute. People in my family were often seen weekly, and certainly, monthly. When my parents were growing up, they saw their aunts, uncles, and cousins daily. Today, my children and grandchildren are all over the country, because of job opportunities, climate preferences, and living conditions. Some visit for certain holidays, and some do not though we do try to see each other at least a few times a year. Sometimes, even that is not possible.
At this time of life, we have turned to friends and they have become the family we see weekly. And friends are the family you choose. It is true that ultimately, we are all alone, but we ease that existential loneliness with beloved friends if family is not available to us.
Since we are ultimately alone, the importance of loving one’s self is important to our survival. Richard spoke of looking within for solutions and following our instincts. The answers are all within. Learn to trust instincts. They are correct, but you must learn to trust them. We have a fear of giving into one’s self.
I do believe each of us knows the answers to many of our own problems though we may pretend or actually believe we do not. When we think of changing, the silent fear of not knowing what will follow if we change or act confronts us, and not wanting to face the unknown effects of change, we sometimes choose to continue familiar patterns. Even if the patterns are self destructive, they are at least known. The fear of the unknown is greater than the know even if the known is destructive in the long run. The fear is especially great if we fear that when we look within, we will find nothing of value.
I agree with the idea that should look within for the answers and that we know the solutions to our problems, but we are fearful to act on what we know. There were times in my classroom where I asked a student a question and his response was “I don’t know.” And my statement to him was that “I saw you thinking, and I’d like to speak to that part of you that does have the answer.” An answer was always forthcoming. Kids often don’t trust what they know, and adults often don’t trust what they know.
There are other problems about looking within and trusting your instincts. What if you fear or worse, know, that what you will find within is not good. What if the messages you received from those powerful people who gave you life were negative, and your instincts and self-concept are based on them. What if your instincts are self-destructive? Happily, if we become aware of what is within, what we do have is free will to act against one’s negative instincts consciously and deliberately. Again, we are told in Genesis that “Man is evil from his youth.” We must be taught to be civilized and decent as we must be taught not to bite and how to share. We can teach ourselves to monitor our negative instincts and act accordingly.
Abram’s going out, his personal Lech Lecha is not possible unless Terra, his father, dies. Life evens such as death, birth, marriage, divorce, etc. are triggers for allowing us to move
forward in life. Such major events somehow free us from the past and enable us to move into a future. The Lech Lecha on a personal level is one of the most frightening things we can do, but each Lech Lecha we hear opens us the possibility for human growth.
When I did teacher training programs on incorporating affective education into the classroom experience through content, I would initially ask the teachers to write down three major events in their lives that moved their lives in a particular direction. I then asked them to consider which of the three domains weighted most heavily in their decision to act. Consistently, it was the affective domain, the domain involving feelings, values, and attitudes that swung the decision. When we look within, we are looking not so much at what we cognitively know or what we can physically do, but to our feelings, values, and attitudes.
If the Lech Lecha story of Abram is also the Lech Lecha story of the Jewish People, this episode in Genesis connects the people to the Land of Israel for eternity. God makes a Covenant with Abram that all the land, from the Nile to the Euphrates Rivers will belong to his descendants in perpetuity. The geographical issues Israel faces with the world today are rooted in God’s promise to us of the land. Critics of the Bible sees this as a looking back and a reflection of rewriting of history to link us to this land.
Ultimately, the entire issue is whether or not you believe in the Bible as God’s word and will, and whose Manifest Destiny do you like better – the Jewish Manifest Destiny or the Arab Manifest Destiny? Do Jews get the land because God gave it to them, or does the land belongs to the Muslims because the Muslim Brotherhood says that all land that was once part of the Muslim Caliphate be Muslim land again? At its core, the problem is a religious one.
Being back in Israel has set us free to become the best that we could be. The land has given us a degree of safety not experienced for millennia and the freedom to become who we were destined to be.
We were told to be “a light unto the nations,” and the advances in technology, pure math/science, environmental studies, medicine, etc. have certainly demonstrated our ability to be a “light.” Had the world left us alone and just let us be over the centuries, so much more could have been accomplished and given. The Jews in Israel have accomplished and given more for humankind’s advancement in the past sixty-five years than most nations have in centuries of existence.
The Covenant is made, and Abram falls into a dark sleep where he sees his people enslaved in Egypt for four hundred years, but eventually, they will be redeemed. It would seem that the people must first suffer before redemption. Is Judaism a religious civilization based on the need to suffer? Is oppression and suffering a prelude to hope? Do we need to suffer in order to be redeemed? Is this idea of suffering a rationalization and justification for our history past and current?
The Hebrew word for Egypt is “mitzrayim.” The word is used to described the narrow places and the dark places in our lives. We all have them, and periodically we find ourselves there. Everyone suffers either from the conditions in which they find themselves or from who they believe themselves to be. No one escapes this life unscathed. Everyone has his or her personal Egypts.
We do need darkness to see the light.
We do need suffering to see hope.
The idea of redemption is the idea of finding your true self. “It is living the life you were meant to live according to your deepest inner self; being your authentic self.” Redemption is the path you take on your journey to becoming the best you can be.
Contemporary rabbis have considered this idea of going within to find yourself and to find God, concluding the following:
Kaplan: “God is the totality of those forces in the world that render human life worthwhile.”
Fromm: “God is a symbol, an idea, of our highest potential, the most desirable good.”
Heschel: “God is the source of insight and intuition and is ‘in search of humanity.”
Reines: “God is the enduring possibility of being.”
Buber: “God is the Eternal Thou, an eternal presence that cannot be defined, described or proven.”
Note: Towards the end of the session, one congregant commenting on our relationship with the land, introduced herself as having just attended a J Street conference. While J Street claims to be supportive of Israel, they never the less initially supported the boycott of Israeli products, and call for the pulling down of the barrier that has cut down on murders and infiltrations by 97%. I personally do not think J Street, Peace Now, B’Tzelem, or any of the other left wingers who claim to support Israel would stand with Israel in the final analysis.
I have a test that I would like this woman to take as a pre-condition for me listening to her.
Imagine that there are two buttons. Above one button it reads:
• “Barrier remains, Jews are not murdered by terrorists, Palestinian Arabs continue to be inconvenienced.”
Above the second button it reads:
• “Barrier is removed Jews are murdered by terrorist infiltrators, Palestinian Arabs are not inconvenienced.”
Press a button! I have yet to meet a radical left wing Jew who is willing to make the decision, and as far as I’m concerned, unless you can ultimately stand with your people and support their survival, I am not interested in anything you have to say!
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
October 19, 2013 B”H
Cheshvan, 15, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Vayeria: Genesis 18:1-22:24
Haftorah: II Kings 4:1-37
Originally, this effort was called, “The Mendy Log,”but it is now called “Weekly Torah Study.” It is a technical change to address two of my concerns. My first concern is that I must rely on my memory to relate what Mendy says, and I sometimes do not get the gist of his message correctly or leave out important points. Mendy expressed this concern to me and to a friend, and though Mendy has sometimes said, ‘I disagree with what you’ve said,’ and requested that I begin with “This is what I think I remember Mendy saying.” I do realize that my responses are often diametrically opposed to Orthodox Judaism and possibly off putting to some. Only one person has expressed his displeasure in the course of the six years that I’ve been reporting what Mendy has said asked me not to send him the log any longer. Of course, I complied with his request. I consider the man whose name I removed from the list very much a friend and he continues to be a guest in my home and always shall be. But I need to make it clear that Mendy in no way sanctions some of the things I say. What is written in italics are my own musings on what the rabbis teach.
Secondly, there are now two rabbis whose teaching I comment on, and it seems that each deserves his own “log” so their ideas and my comments on them will not be confused in the mind of my readers. The thought of causing stress to either rabbi because of my italicized comments is personally painful, and because of my affection for these men and my other readers who may be quietly offended or stressed because of what I write, I am splitting the log in two distinct sections. One will say Chabad, and the other will be Congregation M’kor Shalom. I’ll be dropping Mendy’s name from the log.
I shall not stop the log or my responses to what the rabbis are saying because it is the one time of the week when I can sit down and wrestle with my faith and my God concept. There is no time for thinking or wrestling at a rote service, and all services are rote. I do believe that those who have read the log over the years, also take the opportunity to clarify their thoughts based on my once a week scribblings. Those who don’t attend either Mendy’s drush, or Richards Torah study, or both, or rarely walk into a shul, learn, relearn, or think about ideas they would probably never consider thinking about without my weekly intrusion into their lives. As the log prods me into thinking about Torah, about God, and about relationships and life in a quiet space, it is my hope that the log prods others to do so where they normally might not. Thus far, 32 people are prodded weekly.
If you wish to be taken off the list of those who receive the log, just let me know. There will never be any hard feelings. I wish only to be respectful. Rabbi Address was out this week so I decided to sleep an extra hour. There will be no Richard’s Log this week.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying;
Parashas Vayeria is crammed full of many stories such as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham’s negotiation with God to save the righteous, the story of Lot and his family, the promised birth of Issac, the birth of Issac, the expulsion of Ishmael and Hagar, the interaction between Abraham, Sarah, and King Abimelech, and finally, the binding of Issac, etc. Mendy did not reference any of these well known stories, but chose to speak about Abraham’s tent, its significance in informing us about Abraham as a man, and it’s symbolic meaning.
Abraham”s tent, we are told, was open on all four sides, and placed in a crossroads where Abraham could easily see travelers and welcome them. The specific story told here is about Abraham’s hospitality to the three travelers, two of whom were angels and the third, God.
The overt message here and the value that emerges from it was that hospitality to strangers is a foundational concept in an environment where one could easily die if not welcomed and fed. So kindness to strangers became a strong value for our ancestors and for the people who followed in that area of the world, because traveling across a desert was riddled with danger and death.
And that is why when I re-read the story of Abraham expelling Hagar and Ishmael from his encampment, I was once again astounded that he gave them only a flask of water and some bread. Abraham was a very wealthy man. So why did he not give her enough provisions to ensure that they would survive? He had servants. Why did he not provide her with men who would protect her until she got to Egypt or wherever she was going? Why not give them a donkey so they would not have to walk? There are explanations given for Abraham’s insensitivities to his eldest child’s need and those of the child’s mother, but they all whitewash the patriarch’s behavior and I am buying none of them. The rabbonim tend to exoneration terrible behaviors, and not just Abraham’s.
But Mendy went further and expanded on the story with other tales of what happened in Abraham’s tent. It seemed that after watering and feeding his guests, Abraham would take the opportunity to speak about God, and ask his guests after their meal to thank God. If they refused, Abraham would present them with an extraordinarily large bill, and let them know that unless they thanked God, they were responsible to pay. Why do this?
The rabbi asked the congregation why Abraham might do such a thing, and there were many responses. My response was that like any mitzvah, you can do it without understanding it, but once you sort of break the ice by doing it, it is easier to do that mitzvah again. Once you come to thank God, even if it is for the preservation of you pocket book, you might find it easier to thank God again and eventually, you may come to actually be grateful to God and believe that what you have does come from God. I forgot Mendy’s reason, but I think I may have come close.
Later on in the drush, Mendy told a story that supported Abraham’s idea. He told of the Fifth Rebbe who was visited by a very wealthy man who asked him for a blessing. I do not recall the details of the story, but initially, the man did not appear to be humble. The Rebbe refused to give the blessing though the man pleaded. Still, the Rebbe refused. The man left despondent and sat in the outer office crying. When the Rebbe’s brother saw the man and found out what had happened, he went into his brother’s office and berated the Rebbe for withholding the blessing. After hearing that the man was weeping, the Rebbe told his brother that he should send the man back in. He did and the Rebbe gave the blessing originally requested. After the man left, the brother asked why the blessing now and not before and the Rebbe said that before the genuine tears, the man was all ego and not sincere.
The point being made was that we owe everything to God, and blessings only come when we believe with all our hearts and souls that God is involved in our world and in our lives. Gratitude is the one thing we can give to show our devotion, but it must be honest and from within. But I could not help but wonder that had the brother not come along, would the Rebbe had known of the man’s new found humility and his tears? Would the blessing and the teaching have been forthcoming had the brother not spoken? This seems to be a “speaking truth to power” scenario, or at least not always agreeing with the boss.
I am also wondering if a person must first be humbled before he or she can become a true believer in God’s involvement in our lives? Are our egos the sacrifice God demands of us?
To strengthen this idea of being grateful, Mendy gave examples of parents and children. He said that it is the way of children to most appreciate their parents when there is something to be gotten such as an ATM card and money in that account. If you say to a child, “Tell me you love me, and I’ll give you this ATM card, you will get an “I love you,” and you might not hear from the child until the money runs out. So it would seem that the ATM and the pin number gives us access to our children and they, needing us, will call even if it is only to ask for additional funds. But it is still a connection.
I couldn’t help think about Shakespeare's, "King Lear" who foolishly decided that the lion’s share of his kingdom would go to the daughter who expressed the most love for him. That strategy got him blind, homeless, wandering on a heath in a storm, and finding that the only daughter who really loved him was dead at the hands of her sisters.
Many kids become manipulative if they perceive their parents desperate to be loved by them. When parents become desperate for their children’s love, they give up their power and respect. In the worst of cases, they could even become enablers of destructive behaviors.
Note: Focusing on what Mendy says an absolute imperative if I am to be able to recall the points he makes. So while others might be able to go off into one’s own revery, I cannot. But his talk about children seeing parents as a resource undeserving of gratitude and love until they are needed, really hit home, and I found it hard not to consider the situation in which I currently find myself. A friend told me that he had learned that traditional Judaism teaches that the child operates out of the heart’s desires and the head is that aspect that operates when the child is mature. An infant does not care if the parents get any sleep. Infants are concerned exclusively with their own needs. Some children continue this egotistical predilection into adolescence and into adulthood. There are children we raise who will always view us through the eyes of an angry pre-teenager or adolescent. As I listened, to Mendy’s comments, I was tremendously saddened . So many people I know, myself included, have ungrateful children who have either separated themselves completely from their parents, have embraced the spouse’s family, does not visit on Mother’s Day or Father’s Day, call rarely, go elsewhere on holidays, ignore birthdays, etc., etc., etc. Many of us have biological adult children who are really acting out of the angry child that continues to live in them without ever allowing the adult in them to challenge the validity of that behavior. It is hard wanting a relationship with a child and being ignored or rejected. People who should not be in pain because of adult children, are in pain. The pain continues because we are reluctant to confront, fearing that the confrontation would be just the thing the adult child wants to rationalize the ending of the relationship. And of course, there are grand children involved. Mendy said that despite their behavior, we do not stop loving them, though I have to wonder what these children would say or feel if they were told that they are no longer loved because of their behavior? I had to struggle to refocus what the rabbi had to say following this.
To reinforce the idea of children having to return to the parent for funds, Mendy referenced the Yom Kippur service where God sets out the plan for the next year as to who will live and who will die, who will be content and who will wander, etc., and we were asked that if our lives are all set out, why bother attending shul and praying? The answer given had to do with access and our need to return to God although I can’t recall the exact connection because I continued to struggle with prior thoughts. But I think it had something to do with a child having to access the ATM machine, and by doing so, also accesses the parent as we access God through prayer. There was also some references to the cash being there, but withholding the pin number or changing it periodically with out telling the
child. It was an excellent comparison, but I honestly cannot recall the specifics. The final message though was that there is a God, that we should believe, and that our well being depends on our ability to access Him.
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
November 2, 2013 B”H
Cheshvan 29, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Toldot: 25:19-23– 28:1-9
Haftorah: I Samuel 20:18-42 Rosh Chodesh (New Moon reading)
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy had attended the yearly massive conclave of Chabad Rabbis from all over the world gathering in New York City this weekend, and he returned to Cherry Hill for Shabbat because that’s where he feels he belongs. He will return to NYC after sun down.
When I came in, he was sharing the fact that in the four or five floors of conference rooms and topics, not one of them dealt with the recent Pew Survey regarding the state of Judaism in America. And he informed us that the reason Chabad did not consider the document worthy of discussion is that the crepe hangers are all wrong about Judaism’s future in America, and that Chabad has and has always had the answer. Chabad has been putting that answer into effect since the Rebbe sent out the first couple back in the 1940's to North Africa to establish a Chabad Center that would instruct Jews about Yiddishekeit (the Jewish way), and help the Jewish People to be proud of their faith, their history, and their culture. Hundreds upon hundreds of like communities with the same objectives are now in more countries than Coca Cola. Chabad’s answer to assimilation decried in other Jewish denominations is that people must return to a belief in God, seek a meaningful relationship with God, make Yiddishkeit their way of life, and act in the world on Jewish values. To this end, the Rebbe took a great risk by sending his followers all over the world to bring Jews at all levels back to Judaism. It’s working. Chabad is growing while other denominations are faltering.
American Jews, at least many of the ones I know, may or may not realize that they straddle two worlds that vie for their attention. For a secular Jew with no spiritual bent, there is no problem despite Mendy’s insistence that the Jewish soul always yearns to reconnect. I have people in my own family who have no affinity for the faith or for the wider community into which they were born. But for that person who feels a spiritual pull towards religion and people, and also feels the secular world pulling back, there is an enormous conflict. The restrictions placed on a Jewish person by the Orthodox tradition are difficult to embrace because it is surmised that there would be a definite loss in the quality of life to which one has become accustomed. I chose Kashruth in my forties. It was difficult to maintain it because none of my friends at that time were kosher. Few are now, so I have modified my kashruth because over the years, other values such as shalom bait (peace in the house for example) superceded those dietary restrictions. I’ve grown in my Yiddishkeit since attending Chabad, but I would never give up listening to the female singing voice. To me it would be a sin never to listen to a Sills or a Strisand. Never hearing an opera again, or going to Broadway to me would be tragic depravation of one of life’s great pleasures, and comparable to self flagellation which is thoroughly un-Jewish. (I can be dramatic.)
Following this, Mendy focused on the episode where Rebecca, Isaac’s wife and the mother of the twins Esau and Jacob, convinces Jacob, the younger son, to masquerade as his brother so he can receive the blessing of the first born. Rebecca had been given assurance by God that the elder son would serve the younger, and Rebecca wanted make sure that it was her favorite who would get the blessing.
I think it important to know that in the Torah text, Esau is presented as a wild, impulsive, explosive, natural man who, if he lived today, would probably be in a motorcycle gang. But beyond his marrying out of the tribe, the Torah does not depict him as evil. Even the Patriarch favors him over the quiet, domesticated, Jacob. But the commentaries that accompany the Torah, casts Esau as the quintessence of evil, a violent man who is a liar, a cheat, a thief, and otherwise thoroughly reprehensible and therefore not worthy of any blessing or his father’s love. Was this characterization an effort to whitewash the duplicities of a Matriarch? Was the characterization of Esau a political statement to underscore the idea that the descendants Esau were to be held in contempt much the way Noah’s son Caanan was cursed so his descendants would be held in contempt?
Commentators also suggest that Isaac knew about the deception, but the Torah text says “Then Isaac trembled in great perplexity,” and later says, “Your brother came with cleverness and took your blessing.” To me, these reactions are not those of one who was in on the deception, for if his was, his behavior is as duplicitous as his wife’s. I could imagine a scenario where Rebecca comes to Isaac and says: “Listen to me old man. If you want the faith of your father and mother to continue, that’s not going to happen through our eldest son Esau who you know not only inherits the lion’s share of our property and wealth, but also becomes the spiritual leader of our clan. Your favored son is not interested in spiritual matters. Beyond this, he has taken to wife two Hittite woman who are pagans, and don’t think for a minute that they will respect our God. He is totally self absorbed in meeting his own needs and it’s time for you to see this. Now this is what I’m going to do, and you know I’m right.” I can see this scene unfolding so the new faith would be perpetuated.
When Rebecca tells Jacob of her plan, he does not object to the betrayal. His first concern is that he has smooth skin and Esau has hairy skin. His next concern is that his father will curse him.
He never objects to the betrayal, probably believing that his brother is not up to the task of perpetuating the faith. There obviously is no loyalty between the two, and one can surmise that they are not friends. Jacob will do as his mother says.
When Jacob speaks of the curse, his mother says that the curse will be on her. Mendy said that the curse did come upon Jacob in the form of his brother’s hatred, the years of labor under his uncle Laban, and the belief that his beloved son Joseph had been killed. I think the Hebrew word for curse may be composed of the ayan for Esau, the lamed for Laban and the yud for Yosef. I may not be remembering this correctly, but if I am, I think it is a remarkable hidden message and prophesy.
Later on, Isaac says, “The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are Esau’s hands. I became a little confuse with what followed. There is one word (I forget which one) where there is the Hebrew letter vuv, and in another place the vuv is missing from the word. The think I recall Mendy saying that if you take away the vuv, you are diminishing the meaning of the the word and therefore taking away the voice of Jacob. When you do this, you leave only the voice of Esau. This was a major point, and I think it links back to what Mendy was saying earlier when he spoke about Chabad’s mission. Chabad brings the voice of Jacob to Jews around the world who may or may not have ever heard that voice before. And he said that those people who cling to their Yiddishkeit and teach it so that it will be perpetuated, are also the voice of Jacob. But when the voice of Jacob is silenced through assimilation (the removal of the vuv) or just through the disregard of Yiddishkeit, what is left is the voice of Esau, the voice of materialism, ego, and
hedonism.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Address first summarized the Parashas by reminding us that the sibling rivalry between Esau and Jacob began at birth with Esau being born with his foot being held by his twin brother, Jacob. He spoke briefly of the concept of primogeniture and that in Jewish tradition, it is the second son, not the first, who is often the favorite and the one who excels. He spoke briefly about the changes in the personalities of Isaac and Rebecca from their initial romantic love to something quite different late in life, and he pointed out the repetition of themes such as the re-digging of wells, the wife/sister motif, and the duplicity of the Patriarch to the kings for fear of his life.
One of the things I’ve learned in Torah study is that themes are often repeated so as to connect one Biblical personality with another and therefore establish the latter’s gravitas.
Both father and son encounter the exact same situations, and Jacob even uncovers the wells his father dug. Experiences of the father are transferred to the son. Joshua, if I recall, parts the Jordan as Moses parted the Sea of Reeds. The mantle of leadership is passed through such events. Extending this concept to the Gospels, Jesus’ gravitas is established by duplicating the life of Moses, beginning with the slaughter of the innocents, the going down to Egypt and coming out again, the parting of the heavens, the forty days in the desert, etc. It is a literary technique that transfers validity from one person to another. As Bishop Spong of Newark stated, the stories of the Gospel are midrashic stories based on the Hebrew Bible.
Continuing this idea, all seems well in the Isaac family until Esau turns forty and marries two Hittite women. He marries outside the clan. These women become a source of bitterness to Rebecca and Issac. Issac was forty when he married Rebecca. Forty becomes a magical number symbolic of an important event. (Think of all the 40's there are in the Torah) At this point, Rebecca tells Isaac that she is disgusted with her life if Jacob marries out, and that Isaac is to get Jacob a wife. In the meantime, she is manipulating behind the scenes to cheat Esau out of his blessing.
The conversation then focused on an Op Ed piece in the NY Times by someone who was extolling the virtues of inter faith marriages and raising children in two faiths so they might better choose. While no one agreed with the author, it was pointed out that the brilliance of the Torah is that it is always contemporary and always seems to have something important to say to us about contemporary issues. The Pew Survey dealt with this issue.
The question of whether or not being “tribal” is good was raised, and whether a particular culture can be translated to children of an intermarriage and survive. Intermarriage is becoming more and more acceptable among many Jews in America because of the success of American Jews in America and the universal acceptance of Jewish values found in the Torah as the foundational values of our society. People are not so very different from us in America. Our insulation as a “tribe” was guaranteed while we were oppressed, but that’s not happening any more here, and we’re not going back. Peoples are merging, and the big question is: “How can or should we stay insular so as to retain our identity, and how far can we move into the greater society and still retain our distinctiveness? The strict boundaries regarding intermarriage that existed prior to the Kennedy Administration, do not exist any longer. They are being frayed among the different divisions, and the Jewish Community reflects these changes. Now people shop around for synagogues, some have three of four memberships in different congregations during a lifetime. Among synagogues there blendings: Conservadox, Reformative, Ultra, and the unique Reformodox of which I am the only adherent that I know. These are a reflection of the spiritual search among those who are searching for meaning.
The map of American Judaism no longer has exact lines between the divisions. This “map” is starting to look something like a Jackson Pollack painting in third dimension.
Tom Friedman of the NY Times wrote a book entitled, From Beirut to Jerusalem and posits the thesis that tribes and tribal mentality underlay all the problems in the Middle East. Kill for kill is tribal. We are members of an historical tribe, but we are also members of an American tribe with subsets delineating class, education, political leanings, economics, etc. Our dilemma is that our Jewish tribal membership is often in conflict with our American tribal membership. More and more, our Jewish identity is becoming secondary. We often look at the world through suburban middle class glasses, and struggle with the question: Are we American Jews or Jewish Americans?
After this very interesting sociological digression, we were refocused back to the story and asked to think about family systems. In this family we find unbelievable rivalries, duplicities, and deceptions. This is Soap Opera at its highest form. Esau is the favorite is Isaac, Jacob is the favorite of Rebecca, Jacob manipulated Esau out of his birthright and his blessing, daughters-in-law are a source of pain for parents, and manipulating everything behind the scenes is the matriarch of the family.
In his book, Wrestling With Angels, Rosenblatt suggests that perhaps this favoritism happens because Isaac and Rebecca are growing older and growing apart. As they grow apart, they begin to use their children as substitutes to replace the affection and relationship that has drifted from the parent’s relationship. These people are mirrors into the life styles of our own families. Starved for her husband’s affection and companionship, Rebecca latches onto Jacob and teaches him to survive by his wits. But as we see, her tactics assure that her family will be torn apart.
Isaac and Rebecca are interesting and probably mis-matched. They may have loved one another once, but one gets the impression that they grew apart. The Torah says, that Isaac took Rebecca into his mother’s tent, he knew her and he loved her.
Isaac himself is in Abraham’s shadow. We know a lot about Abraham who was a dynamic and intuitive man, but be know little about his son. With such a father, it is no wonder that Isaac has trouble finding his own identity. And we cannot avoid thinking that the trauma he must have suffered at the realization that his father was going to murder him at God’s behest, did not have an effect on his personality. And the fact that he took his child bride into his mother’s tent seems to imply that Rebecca was some sort of mother substitute. Sarah died shortly after Isaac’s traumatic experience.
There is no doubt that subconsciously some people are attracted to and marry people like their parents so similar familiar patterns, both comfortable and uncomfortable, can be maintained for the purposes of keeping the positive or negative recognition to which one is accustomed. These decisions are often made outside of our conscious awareness. The poet, John Ciardi, wrote, “Men marry what they need, I marry you.” At this moment I was reminded just how close we come to duplicating the situations in which our ancestors found themselves through their own machinations, and I could not help but review my own life in light of such revelations. Images of stress, anger, and regrets dominated my recollections.
Rebecca is an aggressive and resourceful woman, and perhaps she is that way because Isaac was not an aggressive and resourceful man. It is she who discovers, probably to her annoyance, that she must become the strength of the family, and in this society where there is violence and lawlessness all around, people have to survive by their wits and by being duplicitous. These are the only skills she has to teach her favorite son who she has domesticated to keep him close to her and under her control. He is a man who “lives in tents” and does what his mother tells him to do.
If Jewish men were to review their lives, would they find themselves more like an Abraham, an Isaac, a Jacob, or a Joseph?
If “men marry what they need,” it is also possible that women marry what they also need. Does a woman who marries to be rescued find that she has really married someone who will insist that she learn to stand on her own because he knows that he cannot rescue her? Do marriages fail because some women come to learn that they can stand on their own and survive without a husband who was supposed to rescue them and could not because of his own shortcomings? Is there an underlying psychology that predisposes people to divorce even as they marry? I’m wrestling with the idea of whether people should live together before marriage so they can learn the true natures of their intended spouses before being legally tied. I know that that is not the Yiddishkeit thing to do.
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
December 9, 2013 B”H
Kislev 6, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Vayeitzei, Genesis 28:10-15 to 31:47- 32:3
Haftorah: Hosea 11:7-14:10
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy’s drush began with an uncharacteristic statement of concern for his intention to begin certain Sabbath commentaries by teaching what prayer was all about. He was quite up front about the fact that even those who are fluent in Hebrew do not truly understand the levels of meaning contained in the structured prayers we chant, and those who read the prayers in English are also unaware that there are deeper meanings that the translated words cannot plumb. In short, only the Hebrew can provide the multiple levels of meaning.
I believe the point he seemed to be making was that we move through prayers quickly and without thinking much about them because once learned, they are chanted by rote, and we do not absorb the full of their true meaning and true intent. Because the average congregant was not schooled in the nuances of Torah Hebrew, even those fluent in modern Hebrew do not fully comprehend. He also reiterated his mantra that if you cannot read the prayers in Hebrew, you read them in the language you know best, but an attempt at Hebrew is best because it is the soul that fully understand the true meaning of the Torah Hebrew even if the brain does not. By chanting in Hebrew, the true meaning enters the soul. I liked the image of the soul as an entity point with the power to understand.
Once he finished this initial introduction, he challenged the congregation to come up with the most repeated word in Hebrew prayers. That was easy– “baruch” or “blessed.” He followed that by asking what the word “baruch” could also mean, and several different levels of meanings were posited. He then continued with the “ata Adonoi eloheinu” recited the usual opening to most blessings which is usually translated as “Blessed are you Oh Lord our God,” and challenged the congregation to ask ourselves – “Who are we to bless God?” and “Of what value are our blessings to God?”
I’m not sure if I am remembering this correctly. Mendy then explained that when God created the world, and for some reason known only to God, He created a world where He could not be seen or heard so that individuals will have to seek Him out. So when individuals find God or sense God, God “shcleps nachus” or draws pleasure from those who recognize His existence. Our blessings indicate that we see God in our lives. Therefore, when we say a blessing over the apple we are about to eat, or at the sight of a beautiful sunset, or just getting up in the morning, we are really acknowledging God as the creator of the apple, and the sunset, and as the source of life that will abide with for another day. So a blessing not only shows our gratitude, but it is also designed to acknowledge God’s presence in everything we see and do. By uttering the word “baruch,” we are accepting God as the “well spring,” the source of all.
God gives us the power to bless.
When my children were young, I would bless them each Shabbat, and on those rare occasions when the are at my Sabbath table with their own children, I bless my grandchildren as well. Through this power to bless, I feel as if I am a conduit from something greater than myself.
At one point, Mendy made a comment on people who don’t really pay attention to greetings or understanding. It may have been connected to praying by rote and exchanges between people and God, but I remember thinking about the ritual recognition that we give to others during the day even though they are really meaningless exchanges. Exchanges of “nice day,” or “Good afternoon,” or “How y’a do’in?” to a stranger are needed bits of recognition exchanges that tell us that we exist. Recognition is a hunger, as strong a hunger as are those for food and shelter. It tells us that we exist, and any recognition is better than no recognition at all. Behaviors both good and bad are cries for acknowledgment that say to the world; “Hey, look at me. I exist.”
Personally, I found the comments on the word “Baruch” quite meaningful, and when we repeated the Amidah prayer again later in the service, I concentrated on that one word only, thinking of God as the “well-spring” of all that is in my life. I do hope Mendy will continue with this teaching periodically.
When Mendy did speak about the parshah, he focused on one blessing that God gave to Jacob. This was the blessing and prophesy that contained the words “... and you shall spread out powerfully westward, eastward, northward, and southward; and all the families of the earth shall bless themselves you you and by your offspring.” Mendy then spoke about the Rebbe who, unlike other leaders of other groups who kept their adherents close, the Lubavitcher Rebbe sent his flock out into the world to bring Jews back to their faith. They are doing this. Chabad is represented in more countries than Coca Cola, and this outreach in all parts of the world is the fulfillment of this prophesy today.
Whether the Pew Survey is right or wrong, time will tell. But I know that there are many Jewish people out there who are not affiliated, and there are those people out there who profess no religion. At one point in our history, Judaism was a proselytizing faith, but the Church fathers early on issued an edict that any Jew found converting a pagan or Christian to Judaism was to be killed along with the convert. That pretty much put an end to outreach. But these are different times, and if Judaism has something to offer to the world, there should be some movement out there to do this. The more liberal Jewish communities are in a good position to do this, but much more effort and openness is needed, and a big welcome mat must be placed at synagogue doors for the unaffiliated and the seekers. Chabad’s mission is to bring Jews back to Judaism. Perhaps the liberal movements might make it their mission to bring non-Jews to the Jewish faith. One of our missions on earth was to “Be a light unto the nations.”
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Address reviewed Rebecca’s insistence that Jacob marry someone from the tribe, and sent him off to her brother Laban to find a wife. On his journey, Jacob has a dream where a ladder appeared and angels were ascending and descending on it. God introduces Himself, and promises the land upon which he is lying to his descendants. God also says that his descendants will be as numerous as the dust on the earth, and spread out to all corners of the earth. God promises to be with him, guard him, and return him to this place. Jacob awakens from the dream, recognizes that this “is the gate to heaven,” and erects a pillar to commemorate the event. Then, after expressing his awe and gratitude, he makes a vow which is really more of a deal. Jacob says that if God does in fact keep his promise, then Jacob will make this place a house of God and repeatedly give back to God as a tithe.
This is another example of an “if / then” relationship between God and man, and appears at various times throughout the Torah. It is not a particularly mature theological perspective since it is reflective of the parent/child negotiations that go on today and have always gone on. Jacob is having an “Ah ha” moment, a moment when the soul is readied. But he immediately goes back to reality and begins to negotiate.
Perhaps he is not ready for a truly meaningful relationship until he is burnished a bit more by the sun. It is no different from “If you eat your greens, then you can watch a half hour more of television.” Or, “I’ll clean up my room if you promise not to come into it.” If the Torah can be viewed reflecting the evolutionary stages of mankind, then we are still at a pre-adolescent moment.
So was this stairway a reality or merely a dream, and are our dreams windows into our soul? Richard asked what the staircase might represent. I suggested that it is a place where connections are made; connections between the sacred and the profane, between man and God. Another congregant suggested that it was symbolic of choices, and another that it represented stages of life. Richard said that our relationship with the sacred is never linear. It’s like rungs on a ladder or steps. Sometimes we take two steps up and one step down. Our goal is to reach up. To get to the top of the ladder or staircase. It is like our relationship with God. We are always reaching up, and at times we falter and step back. Those who have sudden revelations are to be suspect. A relationship with God is something that evolves over years. We take small steps only to fall back. Most do not leap towards God, though a relationship with God often demands a leap of faith. Someone mentioned the philosopher, Kirkegard, and his idea that people do reach a point where they do leap, but that leap is an end product of small steps, a natural progression.
I suggested that a spiral staircase might be a better image, because if life is not linear, the ladder in the story is. Linear is a line that can be horizontal or vertical. Spirals seem to move up and come back on itself. Someone added that life is sometimes more like an Esher lithograph.
Jacob’s statement that “God is present in this place and I did not know!” is a statement to us that the presence of the divine and sacred are always here. Sadly, we tune it out or are not ready to understand its meaning.
I’m thinking of how rushed we are and how much of life and technology vie for our attention. Perhaps our ancestors were correct to demand that three times a day we stop and make an effort to connect with the sacred and divine presence that the noises of the world tend to obliterate. I’m thinking about how each of us may “see” our own personal burning bushes and “hear” a calling but ignore what we know in our hearts to be true because we are not ready to act or we are afraid of the change that such actions might have on our lives.
Richard referred us to Rabbi Twersky’s comments that Pharaoh awoke from his dream and went back to sleep, and when Jacob awakened from his, he is immediately became aware of this place. The Bal Shem Tov said that each day a heavenly voice tells us to do teshuvah, but most do not hear it even though the soul does. One can respond to the call to arouse ourselves by getting up and doing something or falling back to sleep. We can move forward in our relationship with God or not. We process the awareness of the sacred though our soul (gut?); not through our heads. God speaks to our soul.
I don’t recall the segue way, but we got on the topic of moving from the egocentric to the mature, and the idea that as we go through life, we must change our identities or else become stagnant. Later, Jacob will change and become Israel. The idea was raised that as we grow older in our search, we ultimately return to who we really were all along. Can we really change who we are? Probably not.
I do believe that we are never really far from who we were as children. All the messages and conclusions we drew from the powerful people in our lives are still with us and still informing us as to who we really are. What we do have as we grow (if we are lucky and somewhat introspective) is the power and presence of mind to control those messages that may lead us to negative inclinations,
and that the control we exert over our actions comes from our socialization, our intellect, and our bouts with therapy. We’ve learned to monitor ourselves and choose behave maturely. Of course, those who were raised with kindness and supportive messages, retain those qualities and probably did not have to see a therapist. If you go to a high school reunion, you may find that many are the same people they were back in the day. The nice people are still nice, and the less introspective, the jerks, are still jerks.
We turned our attention to the meeting between Jacob and Rachel at the well. Water and wells are major symbols in Genesis and the image continues throughout the Torah. Jacob falls in love immediately. When we fall in love, we do so through the soul. The soul never lies; the head does.
It is right after this that the sibling rivalry begins between the sisters, and it manifests itself in a contest of having children. God, we are told, sees that Leah is not loved and opens her womb so she can conceive. And after having Reuben, Leah says, “Now my husband will love me.” Some people use their children to save their relationships. At one point Rachel says, “Give me children or I will die.” Jacob’s reply is “I’m not God.”
This is a powerful story about children and what they represent. It is God who opens and closes wombs. It is well documented that many people have children in the hope of saving a marriage, and years ago, people did continue in bad marriages for the children’s sake. But in such a marriage, no one is happy. Today, divorce is common, and perhaps there are so many of them because people get married for the wrong reasons.
But if there are so many divorces, what are the right reasons to get married? Or are the reasons to marry correct, but the people who seem right before marriage prove not to be right in time? Biological adults may really be immature children under it all, and these truths are revealed only in time. Still, the variables in people are too great to make anything fool proof.
Rachel is infertile. Infertility is an issue that is also current in our society. Having children is both fulfilling to the individuals who give life, and to the society and cultures that are perpetuated through children. This story is being played out in families right now in every congregation. The Torah is a remarkable prescient document and continues to be very meaningful.
This infertility theme is recurrent. Sarah cannot conceive a child, Rebecca cannot conceive a child, and now Rachel cannot conceive a child. But Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob continue to love their barren wives, and it is only when this wife suggest a surrogate that they agree to take another wife. The expression “she will bare upon my knees” might literally mean that the first wife actually sat with the surrogate between her own legs as the surrogate gave birth. But I think what the Torah is suggesting is that romantic love, rather than the ability to procreate is an important value in the life of people and vital to the success of relationships. These men were in love with their spouses and did not seem concerned that their wives were infertile . These men are different from their wives in their attitudes. All the wives want to be love, but feel that to secure that love, they must produce a male heir. It is to be noted that this is a society living in Mesopotamia and abiding by Mesopotamian law. This law clearly stated that the status of a woman depended on her ability to produce sons. Such sons would assure her place in the tribe. Her security came through her sons and their inheritances. Of course, this recurrent theme of infertility is used to demonstrate that it is only through God’s intervention can one be blessed with children.
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
November 16, 2013
Kislev 13, 5774
WeeklyTorah Study: Parashas Va-Yishlach– Genesis 32:4-36:43.
Haftorah - Obadiah 1:1-21
Rabbi Kaminker’s Comments: Rabbi Kaminker, a man who has the distinction of being perhaps the tallest Chabad rabbi in the world, came to the bimah and announced that our beloved Mendy had been informed by his doctor that the only way for his voice to come back to full power, was to give it a rest. For me, I was disappointed, but for certain others in the congregation, Mendy’s not being able to deliver his weekly drush, was another proof of God’s existence. Please know, that my disappointment did not lessen my pleasure of listening to Rabbi Kaminker.
The good rabbi began by informing us that a very special Chabad holiday, one commemorating the release of the Alta Rebbe, the founder of Hasidism from a Russian prison in the 18th Century, was upon us. It seemed that there was a major push back then against the Hasidic Movement by the more conservative and dominant members of the Orthodox community who believed that meaningful prayer came only when one was totally focused on the text. But the Alta Rebbe insisted that prayer was to be joyful for it to be truly meaningful, and should be accompanied with song and dance. The soul can best soar on the wings of music. So those opposed, the Misnagim or Opponents of Hasidism, conspired with the authorities and had the Rebbe thrown in prison. But after an examination of the case, the Rebbe was happily released, and the influence of Hasidism begins to take hold of the Orthodox Movement and subsequently, all divisions of Judaism. Today, while there are very few Orthodox communities that do not sing and dance their joy to God, there is still an undercurrent among certain sects.
I guess we, too, have our Shiite and Sunnie rivalries, but happily, we don’t kill one another.
Rabbi Kaminker then focused on the story of Jacob, specifically the moment in the narrative where Jacob has deposited his family on the other side of the Jabbok River, and returns back alone. The Talumud raises the question as to why he would do such a thing, and answers it with a story that does not appear in the Torah text. The Talmud tells us that Jacob returned for “small earthen ware pitchers,” and then the rabbi explained that the pitchers represented something that Jacob had worked for honestly, and this made these things dear to him. Rabbi said that the Talmud was teaching that things earned honestly had a spiritual value and should not be treated indifferently. I think I recall him saying that by Jacob investing himself through his honest labor, these items became vessels of holiness. In fact, these items each contained a spark of holiness to be gathered and used.
I could not help but wonder what God must have thought when Jacob divided his family, and instructed his men to drive the tribute in droves to his brother always saying that he was right behind. Here, God had already told Jacob that He would be with him and that his seed would be as numerous as the “sand of the sea,” but Jacob still feels that he must take the opportunity to remind God of what He promised. Did Jacob not have faith that God would do as he promised? If he did have faith, should he not have marched forward fully believing that he was under God’s protection? Why the division of the camps? Also, his secondary wives and their children must have felt pretty bad realizing that Jacob had put them up front in harms way with his favorite, Rachel and Joseph in the rear. And what did Leah have to say about it?
Jacob who deceived his father and his brother was deceived by Laban. Jacob lives in a world of deceivers and tricksters, and to him, it seems that to deceive meant survival. Did Jacob think that God would also deceive him? Jacob did not trust easily.
The rabbi also used the image of a brick wall that is ten feet long and ten feet high. The wall collapses and the bricks fall in all directions. He said that those bricks at the top of the wall fall the furthest and are the holiest.
So if the bricks are holy, then the wall must be a metaphor for something that is built of or represents something holy. What the wall is, I do not recall, but I do recall that the wall had something to do with the physical world verses the spiritual world. Perhaps the bricks at the lower levels represent the physical world and the needs of the physical world. We know that one cannot reach higher levels of being if the lower levels of need are not addressed. I think it was Ghandi who said, “There are those who are so poor that they can only see God in bread.” Educators have, for years, spoken of a hierarchy of needs, and unless the basic needs of food, shelter, etc. are addressed, a person cannot reach for higher needs. Students cannot concentrate on learning if they are hungry, and that’s why supplying poor children with breakfast and lunch is imperative if they are to learn.
There was the suggestion that those who have more have an expectation to do more. People who have homes should open their homes to others and share their Yiddishkeit. People who have a car should consider using that car to perform mitzvahs.
This last part resonated with me, and I am pleased that this past Thursday, I drove a woman I did not know to a doctor’s appointment, waited for her, and drove her home. M’kor Shalom has a “Caring Community Program” where congregants do such things, or visit those in the hospital, or just visit people who are confined to their homes. It’s a wonderful program. I am also happy to say that I have striven to make my home an open place where Yiddishkeit is alive and well. Each year we have a full table for erev Rosh Hashonah dinner, two Sukkah parties, two huge Seders, and Shabbat dinners.
Congregation M’kor Shalom; Over at M’kor Shalom, there was also a guest speaker. Yossi Afeck, former Educational Director of M’kor Shalom and quite a scholar in his own right, filled in for Rabbi Address.
First off, Yossi made it very clear that he believes that the Bible was written by men who wanted to deliver to us a particular message. Therefore, we must study the text for its meaning and not use the Bible to promote one’s own ideas.
He then reviewed for us the four elements of this parasha which was a summary of the basic tale. The first element includes Jacob’s leaving Haran for Canaan, the fear of his brother, the gifts, the meeting, and his journey to Shechem. The second elements involve the rape of Dina, Shechem plea to marry her, Simeon’s and Levi’s deception, the mass circumcision, the mass murders, and Jacob and the family leaving that place for fear of an uprising against them. The third deals with the trip to Beth El where God repeats the promise to Jacob and again names him Israel. Prior to this, a fourth element dealt with the man who attacks Jacob. He is either an angel or God, and Jacob prevail, will not let the man go until he gets a blessing. Jacob is then called Israel.
Yossi suggested that Jacob did not need to send gifts since there was no indication that Esau meant Jacob harm. Esau may not have kept the grudge all these years, and Yossi said that between the two, Esau was the nicer of the brothers. Admittedly, Esau did threaten to kill Jacob years ago because Jacob had cheated him twice. Esau fell upon Joseph’s neck and wept.
Yossi seems to feel that all there is to consider is what is found in the text and nothing else. Midrash does not seem to be a consideration. At least that’s what I got from his presentation.
So Yossi’s question remains: If the Patriarchs are not treated in the text as nice people, who chose those stories, why where they chosen, and to what purpose?
The speaker maintained that the Bible was edited by people who took various stories and spliced them together. Of course you can believe that the Torah was written by God. If that is the case, you must look to the ethics in the book. If you consider it an historical book, then there are contradictions so one or the other must be true. If you consider the Bible as literature, than it is a fiction that the authors have created. This created text has its own truth and logic, and the message that the Bible is giving us is that of the editor’s.
I don’t recall who said it, but the quote was, “Fiction is a lie that gets to the truth.” So even if the Bible is a fiction as suggested, it nevertheless stills conveys a great truth.
So why are there so few positive stories? Why select stories that make people look bad? The commentators try to explain away their behaviors through midrash.
I must say that I personally believe that the characters appearing in the Torah after Noah are real human beings with all the fears, foibles, and mannerisms of real people. I know they existed because they have been enshrined with all their problems, and the problems they faced, we continue to face today. The editors and compilers of the Torah included all their faults as well as their virtues. We are real, and they were real. I think the rabbis wrote the midrashim to white wash what we would term terrible behavior. I feel the rabbis did these very real people a disservice by rationalizing their behavior, and a disservice to us by asking us to accept such behavior because they were the actions of the patriarchs, matriarchs, and their descendants. A great deal can be learned from recognizing what doesn’t work in relationships and not acting in that way. I realize that by saying this, I am rejecting the idea that every word in the Talmud is also inspired by God and has the efficacy of the Torah.
He continued with the story of Jacob wrestling with an angel. According to the text we have, Jacob really did wrestles with someone because there is physical evidence. Something happened to Jacob which left him wounded and limping. But we need to consider this as a metaphor where Jacob is really wrestling with his past to gain a new future. His struggle is within. He does get a new identity and is henceforth to be called “Israel.”
Each of us, if we have any sense of self-awareness and willingness to grow, must ultimately struggle with our own past and/or present demons. If we prevail, we can say that we emerge with a new view of life, a new way of seeing and behaving provided that we don’t commit those infractions that caused the demons in the first place. But any introspection and change may reveal deep wounds that are brought to the surface to be confronted, and not easily healed. Personal growth is often painful, and it is possible to walk away from our internal musings, like Jacob, metaphorically wounded.
There are two stories regarding Jacob’s name being changed to Israel. The first is where an angel wrestles with Jacob, Jacob prevails and will not release this supernatural being until he receives a blessing. The being gives him the name Israel. In the second story, God appears to Jacob at Beth-El and also gives him the name, Israel. The second story supports the first. When someone turns something into a metaphor, they do so because they don’t like the story. These two stories support the idea that Jacob’s people will be special. God will create a new people for a very special purpose as God creates in Jacob a new individual with a new name. Why would God create such a group? The answer goes back to Creation itself. God creates Adam and Eve and they immediately disobey him. Next, Cain kills Abel. What a disappointment. Then God destroys the world through a flood because it is evil, but saves Noah. But it takes ten generations to expiated from Noah’s descendants whatever needs to be expiated for an Abraham to step into history.
God ultimately concluded that his creations were not perfect. In fact, “Man is evil from his youth.”
Man is evil from his youth, not from birth. Judaism believes that we are born with two inclinations: the inclination to good and the inclination to “evil” or as I see it, “ego.” Or faith gives us free choice and the Bible as a guide. There is no such thing as Original Sin to burden us. If Adam and Eve sinned, it was their sin and they were punished for it. We do not carry it. If we miss the mark, we miss it on our own, and there is a formula for ridding ourselves of our missteps.
God had wanted a world of harmony, and goodness is equal to harmony. So God lowers his expectations and creates a new people which He hopes will be a “light unto the nations.” There will be an new order, and the Jewish People will be the model for perfecting the world. This is where the story is going. The editors of the Bible wanted to tell us that we are going through a trial and error process. Our God is an ethical God, and loving one’s neighbor as one loves one’s self is a fundamental principal if we are to bring harmony into the world.
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
November 23, 2013 B”H
Kislev 20, 5774
WeeklyTorah Study: Parashas Va-Yeshev – Genesis 37:1-40:23.
Haftorah: Amos 2:6-3:8.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Address gave a brief overview of the three major events in this parashas, namely, the introduction of Joseph, the story of Judah, and the Joseph cycle which includes the attempted seduction by Potipher’s wife. There was a brief allusion to “unintended consequences” where good comes out of bad, but that idea was not developed until much later when we considered the man Joseph meets on his journey to find his brothers.
Richard then focused on the line “...and Jacob settled,” invited us to interpret what that might mean to us, and the general answers all pointed to the idea that settling down had something to do with reaching that moment in life where we disengage from the chaos and the problems of living. He also indicated that “disorder,” for those who are more acute in their perceptions and involvement in this world, is profoundly more disturbing.
He then asked us to consider the relationship among the brothers, and said this went way beyond just sibling rivalry. Here we have the theme of jealously. Joseph, when we meet him, is seventeen, the son of Rachel, Jacob’s true love, and the brother most loved. The psychology here is that Jacob has transferred his love for his dead wife to Joseph. This is a very complex family system, but true to form. Esau hated his brother Jacob for stealing the blessing and birthright, Leah hated Rachel for being loved by Jacob. You can even go back to Abel and Cain. This father/child, brother/brother relationship and its effects on the characters is what sets the events in motion.
To better understand this transference of love, we need to look at ourselves and our fears. For most of us, we fear death and the end of our existence. In our growing children, we recognize in ourselves our own mortality: they grow up and we die. Jacob sees Joseph as a reflection of himself when he was young – bright and narcissistic. In Joseph, Jacob not only sees his own youthly image, but that of his beloved Rachel. We are all going to die. Joseph is what will remain of Jacob. He is the legacy. Our children are our legacy. Joseph is the fulfillment and the physical embodiment of his love for Rachel– perhaps the only untainted relationship he had ever had. Such untainted love had to live on, so Jacob invested everything in Joseph. That’s my take on this.
One might consider the Joseph story as a paradigm of the aging story. We first encounter him when he is a teenager, and we follow him until his death. Joseph also resembles us, in that he, too, has no direct experience with God. Therefore, Joseph must discover God through the events in his life, much the same way as we do. We are told that if you follow Joseph’s development from youth to age, you will see Ericson’s “Developmental Stages of Human Development” unfold. (I once knew what these were, but do not recall.)
I’ve often wondered why Joseph is not our fourth Patriarch since his personal story is the longest in the Bible, and he is truly far more noble, in my humble opinion, than his father and gradfather. But I’m thinking he does not make up the quartet because he does not speak to God directly. Like us, must come to a relationship with God without any direct revelations. Joseph evolves spiritually much the same as we do. In this, we are Josephs.
The Joseph story continues one of the inter-generational conflicts in the book of Genesis, letting us know that the pathology of families is past down from generation to generation. Reconciliation with the family is how Joseph finds God. Healing and forgiveness are the way to God.
Family pathologies are taught. The people who give life are powerful enough to send messages through verbal and non-verbal communication. Messages received by impressionable children before the skills for analyzing such data are in place, accept these messages as the truth and often draw erroneous conclusions about themselves, about life, and about other people. As they grow, the pathologies taught take hold, and certain behaviors ensue that reflect the old messages. Attitudes and behaviors become part of our lives, and change often comes only through professional intervention where the person is challenged to confront those very old messages to see if they are valid. I once quoted the poet, John Ciardi who wrote, “Men marry what they need.” So if a man marries a woman who will abuse him and keep him down, what messages are in his head that tells him that that is what he is entitled to and what he deserves? Did his father have the same relationship with his mother? And what of his grandparents? We are all products of the families from which we come.
We find God through the experience of living our lives.
We then turned our attention to the use of names, and their importance. Jacob has several different identities or titles which confer upon him different roles. We all have different identities and roles through our titles or names. Thus far we have seen him as Jacob, the individual, a son, a lover, a husband, a father, and Israel. In Judaism, names have power, and through the names and the identities these titles confer, we become involved in the world and learn who we are.
The dream theme begins when Joseph, a narcissistic, macho kid, decides to play a kid’s game which might be called, “Whose Better, Me or You?” The dream is of the bother’s sheaves of wheat bowing down to his sheave. He also tells his father about a dream about the sun, moon, and stars bowing down to him, and even Jacob berates him. At this point, he is so self absorbed, that he cannot imagine the effect that sharing his dreams will have. Shouldn’t his brothers and father be in as much awe of him as he is himself? Not!
Richard’s next focus was on a crucial but seemingly mundane moment that has turned out to be a pivotal moment in the history of the Jewish People. We are told that Israel tells Joseph to look into the welfare of his brothers and of the flocks report back. Joseph responds with “Here I am” which is the response of his father, his grand father, and his great grand father to God’s addressing them. Something important is about to happen. He also speaks as Israel, not Jacob. Why the change in name? I think the name Jacob is used when he in the role of the physical father, and Israel used when in the role of the spiritual father?
As Joseph is wandering in the fields, he encounters a man who says, “What are you seeking?” The letters bet, kuf, shin, are also interpreted as “What are you looking for?” “What do you request?”
Who is this man? How does he know that the brother’s are in Dothan? Did the brothers allow a stranger to get so close that he could hear them talking? It has been suggested that this is not just a man, but the very same angel that Jacob wrestled with and the one who gave him the name, Israel. If Joseph had not met this man, the story of the world or at least Western Civilization would have changed. With out this man directing Joseph, there would be no Exodus and no moral law that has become the standard for world societies.
There is a randomness in life, and because of it, we experience moments and people that change our lives. Throughout our lives, we meet “a man” as we wander in our own metaphoric fields. While at Brooklyn College, I took a class in Romantic and Victorian poetry, and Professor Valborg Anderson assigned Wordsworth’s “Ode to Intimations on Immortality.” I read it, was overwhelmed with a sense of profound loss, and because of what that poem spoke of, I changed my major to English from Biology. That decision changed the direction of my life. I became a teacher, and I have changed the lives of others. I know this because they have told me of the effect I had on them. Archie Maloff, the principal of the middle school in which I worked, challenged me to write a humanities curriculum for the middle school, and my work became one of the models for NYC. And because of the outcome of his request, my work found its way to Trenton, and I was invited to become the New Jersey State Consultant in Arts and Humanities in 1969. I was only 29. A chance meeting with Dr. Sid Simon opened up to me the world of process and affective education.
My career as an educator evolved seemingly from chance encounters, and my decision to pursue and develop certain avenues of ideas as well. I have never regretted any of my professional decisions. Chance experiences that we don’t expect, have the power to change our lives as we have the power to change our lives if we give ourselves permission to do so.
But there is the belief that there is no randomness and there is both meaning and purpose in those random acts. We have the Torah as a guide, and we are guided by an unseen Presence. Life is a journey back to God; a letting go of ourselves in order to find ourselves and become complete.
For one to believe in this, one must have faith. Faith is also a letting go, a letting go of our egos and of our cognitive understanding of what we can and cannot see through our senses. For some of us, this is the greatest of hurdles in the journey back.
Following up on the stages of life idea, we might think that Israel, as spiritual father, is sending Joseph into his next stage of life which involves separation and independence from parents.
This may be one of those times when the parent tells you that you have to grow up and in order to do that, you must leave the house and discover who you are. Israel is not just sending Joseph on an errand. Israel is sending Joseph out to meet his destiny. There comes a point in our lives when we must leave our parent’s homes both physically and emotionally.
For some people, this leaving the parent’s home could be either a joyous occasion or a traumatic one. If there is no pathology, it is a natural step forward for both parents and child. But if there is serious pathology, it could involve wrenching drama, emotional breakdowns, lingering animosities, elopements, and ongoing hostilities, suspicion that continue for years, and divorce.
The question the man Joseph meets asks is a spiritual question. “What are you seeking? is very similar to the first question God directs to Adam and Eve after the fall. “Where are you?” This is the first question we ask ourselves, and it is a question we must all ask ourselves if we are to begin our journey to self discovery. In truth, Jacob is sending Joseph to his destiny. The father does not know what will happen to his son, but he knows he must let him go.
Like Jacob, our parents have the power to send us out into our destiny, but also like Jacob, they have no clue as to where we will go and what that destiny will be.
Jacob’s charge is to “Go look into the welfare of your brothers.” Another translation is “Go and discover the peace of your brothers.” One sage interpreted this as Jacob’s request that Joseph should find the admirable qualities and the goodness in these men. Is Jacob trying to get Joseph to repair the relationship with his brothers? As Jacob faces his own mortality, he must bring the brothers together for peace in the family. He’s tired of discord.
Each of us sets out with an idea of what we want, but we don’t know where we will end up. There is a randomness to existence, and how you deal with the randomness of existence, tells you the person you will become and everyone else the person you are.
The Garden of Eden is a metaphor for bliss. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden much as we are expelled from the womb. Judaism assists us in finding our way back home to our bliss. It is the motivating factor for us to move forward. Like it or not, we are all going to die and that fact becomes the motivation for us to seek meaning in life. We want our lives to have meant something. The Joseph story is a metaphor for our journey from where we were to where we will be; from who we are to what we shall become. One of the ways we discover who we are and how to make our lives meaningful is to become involved in Judaism’s mitzvah system which is the driving engine of Tikun Olam, the repairing of the world.
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
December 30, 2013 B”H
Kislev 27, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Mi-Ketz - Genesis 41:1-44:17.
Haftorah: Zechariah 2:14-4:7
Rabbi Kaminker’s Comments: Mendy is still in Israel, and on Sunday evening a friend called to tell me that her daughter and son-in-law who live in California and who were married by Mendy, bumped into Mendy at the Western Wall. What are the chances? I can’t imagine how they recognized him. I once suggested to Mendy that if he stuck a large red plume in his hat, he will always be distinctive among all the other black hatted bearded Chassids there. Perhaps he took my advice.
Rabbi Kaminker began with a reference to Chanukah and Thanksgiving as having at their core the same message of gratitude to God for all the bounty and wonders He performs for us. The rabbi made it a point to underscore the idea that America is the only nation on earth that seems to have enshrined the idea of gratitude to the Creator in a holiday, and how fortunate we Jews are to be blessed with living in such a place.
Unlike other more stringent Orthodox movements who do not even acknowledge secular holidays such as Thanksgiving, Chabad recognizes the blessings of America and what we owe this country. Here we and our children can go to sleep knowing full well that we are protected by the Constitution. For most people in the world, America is not the norm, and the brilliance of our founding documents and what they promise, is why so many want to migrate here and not to other places.
He told the congregation that there are at least one hundred reasons to explain the miracle of Chanukah, and why the oil remained for eight days. Only a few congregants had suggestions, but one the Rabbi offered, I like best. According to legend, the sanctified oil was evenly divided over the seven cups that held the wicks, but only the wicks burned without using up the oil. The first miracle was that they found a sanctified cruse of oil in the first place, and that was the first miracle of the eight. There was some back and forth, and one man suggested that by such pilpul (minutia) you lose the essence or beauty of the miracle itself.
I tended to agree that by deconstructing the miracle and arguing over how it happened, the wonder of the miracle is lost. Of course, I tend to have a problem with miracles themselves, seeing them as metaphors and that my ancestors were letting me know that something significant happened at that time and in that place by telling me that a miracle took place. Chanukah commemorates the human spirit and the human right to worship God as one chooses. So even if there were no miracle, the freedom to worship remains a very good idea to commemorate. For me, one of the glories of Judaism is that we celebrate concepts that invigorate the human spirit, not the events in the lives of people long dead.
In the Books I and II of Maccabees, (two books that are part of the Apocrypha which means that they were rejected by those who constructed the Bible), there is no mention of any miracle of the oil. This oil miracle story comes about five centuries later in the Rabbinic period, and the story may have been created so the young men of Judea would not take it into their heads to revolt against the Romans as their ancestors revolted against the Syrian Greeks. In the Rabbinic take on the tale, God, not the Maccabees, was the source of the victory. A second non-traditional interpretation I’ve come
across is that the reason there are eight candles is that when the Temple was cleansed, the first thing our ancestors did was to celebrate Succot, a holiday where prayers for rain are offered for eight
days. Such prayers are vital to the welfare of the people and the land, and could not be offered in the Temple while the Syrian Greeks had it. So Chanukah took on the same number of days as did Succot, and eventually became its own holiday separated from Succot.
Rabbi told a very interesting story which personally touched me because I knew the people who were part of that horrible saga. He had received a call from a rabbi who could not comply with a request from a prisoner to have a rabbi bring a menorah for Chanukah. So our rabbi complied, but before doing so was curious as to who this prisoner was. He discovered that this prisoner was a murderer, and specifically one contracted by the husband to murder his wife.
This wife was a friend of mine and the mother of three of my former students. Her murder devastated our community, and engendered profound feelings of betrayal. The prisoner never showed up.
Rabbi Kaminker said that he was overwhelmed with feelings of confusion, and had great misgivings about going to meet this man. But he recalled a teaching of the Rebbe that said that the mitzvah is for the sake of the mitzvah, and that mitzvahs must not be denied even to a murderer. At least I think that’s what he said. But the entire basis of this rested on the idea that there are things that we are asked to do and accept that go beyond logic, and that perhaps we are not to delve too much into the event or request and just accept it. To reinforce the latter idea, the rabbi told a rather mystical story. He said that in the Holy of Holies, the Ark of the Covenant stood in the center of the room. Let us say that the room was twenty feet wide. But if you measure from one wall to the Ark it was ten feet, and if you measured from the other side of the Ark to the wall, it was also ten feet. It would seem that the Ark took up no space but was still there. It is illogical but we are asked to accept this on another plane of understanding much the same as we are asked to bring mitzvahs to murderers.
I don’t know if evil people deserve the comfort of faith and rituals. I have neither the power nor the inclination to forgive people who have done harm to others. Whether or not I could forgive someone who has done me great harm is something I would have to address if that person and I were to confront one another. I don’t know any evil people, but I do know ungrateful and mean spirited people who have hurt me. We all know such people. Can we forgive them?
The commentary ended on a high note which was “get high on life.” I don’t recall how we segued into that, but it was still a good message.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: As always, Rabbi Address summarized the portion by telling us that today we would read of Joseph’s ability to interpret dreams, his rise to power, the sojourns of his brothers into Egypt. It also tells us the story of Judea who was involved in the sale of his brother and his efforts to become a responsible human being. He said that this parashah had many ideas also found in the Chanukah story. Chanukah tells of the victory of the weak over the powerful: Joseph who was weak, is now powerful. The desiccated corn and cows consume the robust corn and cows, as the numerically weak Maccabees overcame a might army. Israel was oppressed and became triumphant. Here, the message and the lesson for the Jewish people is that life is cyclical; good years will follow bad years. We are to prepare ourselves in the good days and this means that we are to store up resources of faith to nourish us spiritually when bad times come.
We can all be assured that life is going to deal us bad cards, and for solace, we need to go back to our faith. When those lean years come, it will be faith that will maintain us in this down time. Sadly, when the bad times do come, we debate, we question, and we scream “Why?” into the void,
but rarely do we dip into the well of sustaining faith probably because most people just don’t have such a resource.
In this parashah, we also see the dream motif brought to fruition. As his brother’s stars and sheaves of wheat bowed down to Joseph’s star and sheave, so the brothers bow down in reality. So what is the role of the dream? Are dreams a message from the divine? Are dreams “a wish your heart makes when you’re fast asleep?” Are they portentous of things to come that come to us from another dimension? These questions were asked but not answered. The key to Joseph’s interpretation is that he sees the two dreams as one, and he lets Pharaoh know that God has let Pharaoh know what He is about to do. Joseph set himself up as the mediator between God and Pharaoh. Later, Moses will do the same. Both are saviors of their people. Now Joseph seizes the opportunity to tell Pharaoh that what is needed is a discerning and wise man, and Joseph tells Pharaoh what that man must do. It is a brilliant manipulation. Naturally, Pharaoh appoints Joseph.
Side note: The singular “God ” is used by Pharaoh which is strange because this is a polytheistic civilization. No Pharaoh would have used this term unless it was the time when Egypt worshiped Aton, the Sun disc under Akanaton who imposed something like monotheism on his people. Of course, those who wrote the story down might not have taken such a historical reality into consideration, and had Pharaoh recognize the God of the Hebrews directing the drama. Joseph never mentions God, but may allow Pharaoh to believe that the Egyptian gods are speaking through him. Either way, God, or gods, Joseph will win the day.
For all intents and purposes, Joseph becomes an Egyptian. He become second to Pharaoh, marries the daughter of a priest, has two sons: Manassah which means “God has made me forget all my hardships and all my father’s household,” and Ephriam which means “God has made me fruitful in the land of my suffering.” Joseph receives a new name which means “God sustains life.” He is thirty now, and travels the land creating a new economic policy. Joseph has become totally assimilated.
Ancient names in the Torah are significant. What seems odd is that Joseph gives his sons names that will remind him daily of his suffering and of his father’s house. If he truly wanted to be assimilated, he would have given names that would not remind him of his former life. Joseph may have tried to assimilate, but the message to us is that we can never really forget who we are and whence we came. Joseph, like his father, his grand father, and his great grand father is an opportunist who seizes upon the opportunity to change his life. We might go to therapists to help us change our lives, but the best they can do is to help us deal with who we are and how to control those aspects of our lives, our control of our responses, and those aspects of our personalities that we wish to change. If we are lucky, we can reinvent ourselves periodically, but inside, we are never too far from who we know we really are. It’s all a matter of learning self control. The laws that govern our lives teach us how to control ourselves.
Joseph goes into the world a very happy and successful man. But when the famine comes, everything changes, and when Jacob sends his son’s to Egypt to purchase food, the Joseph cycle shifts. Like the unnamed man in the field whose direction to Joseph changes the moral compass of Western Civilization, Jewish history pivots on this famine. Though famine does involve the physical,
this particular famine is also alludes to a spiritual starvation as well. Joseph becomes aware of his own spiritual starvation. The famine becomes a metaphor for spiritual hunger. But why create such suffering?
There is a line for a song in The Fantastics that goes, “Without a hurt, the heart is hollow.”
Is suffering a test of faith? Must we first hurt in order to learn compassion for others? Is our pain and how we respond to it part of our evolutionary progress towards full humanity? I know that there is a hierarchy of hungers. The lower ones such as food hunger and recognition hunger must be addressed before higher hungers such as the search for knowledge can be sought. Not easy to learn
on an empty stomach or when you are too cold or too hot. How high up on that developmental ladder is spiritual hunger? I’m sure that some of us are more aware of it than others. I wonder what sustains those who have no apparent hunger for spirituality and where they go in adversity?
The brothers re-enter Joseph’s world and upset it. Joseph recognizes them, but they do not recognize him. He doesn’t know what to do with them. He believed that part of his life to be over, but they’ve pulled him back. So Joseph plans an elaborate scheme where he will accuse them of being spies, demand that they bring their youngest brother, causes them great anguish by returning their money, and having his goblet hidden in Benjamin’s sack. For the brothers, they see this as the reckoning. Their evil behavior has come home to roost for their treatment of Joseph so many years before. Joseph’s emotions are complicated. A part of him is happy to see them, but a part of his is still outraged at what they did to him. He will make them atone. But he also knows that they could jeopardize his situation. Though assimilated, he is still a foreigner. Like Joseph, we may try to remake ourselves, but we always carry our earlier lives with us and periodically, we are reminded of who we were and where we came from.
The Wilderness Motif comes back in with the brothers traveling from Egypt to Canaan. Wandering in the desert is found throughout the Bible as well as other literatures. People of renown go into the desert to be burnished by the sun, and return a changed person. This wandering may be construed as our searching for our own Promised Land and for our identities. This links in with the “Get yourself out” earlier in Genesis. Moses goes into the wilderness and emerges as the savior of his people. Jesus, like Moses, goes into the desert and emerges the savior of Christianity. Superman, like his Biblical predecessors, flies up to the Fortress of Solitude and emerges as humanities hope against the forces of secular evil. The wilderness is also a metaphor.
We have a famine of the soul. What do we starve for? Affection? Companionship? Understanding? Fill in your own blank. Starvation and Famine are metaphors. Some spend and some acquire, but these “things” do not satisfy the soul. So what does?
Life is cyclical with seasons following seasons, life and death, growth and decay. And one major objective of life is to achieve a balance, an equilibrium. If you will, the Golden Mean established centuries before Maimonides spoke of it.
The Neo-Classical poet, Alexander Pope wrote in Essay on Man, “Be not the first by which the new is tried, Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.” Find that center, that balance. Everything in moderation.
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
December 7, 2013 B”H
Tevet 4, 5713
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Va-Yigash - Genesis 44:18- 47:27.
Halftorah – Ezekiel 37:15-28
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy returned to an idea he had initiated several weeks ago where he decided to teach the meaning and concepts behind certain words that we utter when you pray. You might recall that in addressing the word, “baruch,” we were informed that it not only was used to express our gratitude to God, but to remind us that God is the well spring of all life. God is the source of all.
Today, Mendy focused on why we said, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?” Responses came and Mendy reinforced the idea that each of these Patriarchs, while worshiping the same God, had a different path to that God. This became the core of his message. If you give your children a box which you think expresses Judaism and expect them to follow it, you will be very disappointed. The point he was making is that each of us must follow our own path to God and enter into a relationship with God that is unique to ourselves. And while we might use the same overt words and perform the same mitzvot that our people have used over the centuries, our individual relationship remains unique. Some paths may be intellectual, some emotional, and some artistic. Our children also have a path to follow, and we need to honor their paths as we hope that the people around are honoring ours. The bottom line is that the path needs to lead to a relationship with God.
This idea of having a unique relationship with God does not seem to me one that has been stressed in other branches of Judaism. I tend to feel that most have been taught that it is the People Israel, the collective that is the focus, and that there will always be a remnant. We pray as a collective. We need ten to pray certain prayers. Buber’s concept of an “I Thou” relationship is not a concept often taught Hebrew schools, day schools, adult education, or from most bimas. So once again, Chassidism is teaching and urging something vital for the continuation of Judaism that is not taught by most other divisions on the Jewish continuum. In Christianity, people are urged to have an intimate relationship with Jesus, and a sincere belief that Jesus is guiding them. Jesus is very real, possibly because there is a story and depictions to accompany their faith. It is more difficult to have a personal relationship with an intangible concept, and we are asked to do that.
This idea of giving your children a box in which your Judaism is contained and expecting them to honor it and follow it reminded me of how I once taught student and teachers the valuing process. For something to be of value, it is supposedly to be chosen from alternatives, chosen after thoughtful consideration of the consequences, chosen freely, publically acknowledged, and acted on. And a value must be stronger than a feeling. Fear, threats, and intimidation will get you the behavior you want, but while lip service and actions may indicate acceptance through compliance, it may be given out fear. And as soon as that person who demands that the value be accepted is out of the room or their lives, that imposed value will not be honored or acted upon. Values imposed through fear or threat will not be internalized, and if such values are acted upon, they are acted upon for reasons that are less than noble.
When I worked at an Orthodox yeshiva, there were boys who raised reasonable questions about what they were being asked to accept, and, depending on the rabbi, were thrown out of the room with the words “a desecration of God’s name” following them. Certainly, they apologized to
get back into the room, but what was left was both a bad taste in their mouths for the rabbi and the idea that those who adhered to Orthodoxy’s “box” did not respond well to challenges by curious young men. Anger towards those rabbis easily transferred to anger against Judaism, and as soon as some graduated, they walked away.
Mendy spoke about the Pew survey of Jewish practices in America, and he maintained that we can change the future if we agree to act and risk letting our children know that they have it within themselves the power to perpetuate Judaism by acting on traditions and modeling for their own children such behaviors. By acting on something such as lighting candles, they demonstrate to our grandchildren that this action is valued. Only then will grandchildren come to see that lighting candles is to be valued.
I recall when I was a teacher how parents would drop the kids off for Hebrew school, expect them to learn, but chose not to replicate in their homes what their own children were being taught. The home is where values are reinforced but only if they are acted upon by parents. If not, going to Hebrew school or day school is only academic.
As part of the idea of people rejecting their Judaism, Mendy told a story about his nephew who had walked away from Orthodoxy and was working as a dishwasher in a bar in Jerusalem. He and his wife visited this young man, and Mendy asked him if he had a Chanukah menorah and if he had lit it. The nephew responded that he did not own one, and that an electric one was in the bar. When outside, Mendy found some Chabadnicks who were giving away menorahs and he took one for his nephew. Feeling that the secularized patrons of the bar with berate him for having one, he hid it at took it to the basement. I imagine he lit it there. At one point, the nephew and the bouncer came over to Mendy’s table, and the bouncer asked if he might get a menorah also. Mendy was happy to do this. A few days later, when Mendy and his wife returned to the bar, the bar was ablaze with menorahs.
So what’s the message? The messages is that there are people out there waiting to be invited back into Yiddishkeit. The message is that children want parents in their lives reminding them and demonstrating to them that Judaism is a viable way of life. So next Chanukah we are asked to call our children and ask them if they are going to light the candles. Next Shabbat, we are to call and ask if candles will be lit. Next Purim we are asked to call and ask if they’ll be listening to the Megilla of Esther, and next Passover we are to ask them if they will be at a seder.
Over at M’kor Shalom, a congregant who I think is also a rabbi filled in for Richard. I think his name was Rabbi Gold. He summarized the dramatic climax of the Joseph story, and said that revelations in Genesis are more personal than they are elsewhere. He also made an interesting comparison between Mandela and Joseph as men who were visionaries, imprisoned, released, and finally elevated to become the savior of their people. Each wisely chose to bring about harmony through non-violence, and the result was reconciliation.
It was an interesting comparison, and could make an interesting bar/bat mitzvah speech.
He then proceeded to speak about the themes or frames of reference for looking at the story that are being explored in this saga: Conflict and Reconciliation as demonstrated by Esau and Jacob, Joseph and his brothers, Judah and Joseph. Sin and Redemption, Foreshadowing of Slavery and The Exodus to Freedom, and Exile and Return.
These pairings were an interesting way of addressing and interpreting the text.
The crucial moment, the climax, is where Joseph cannot hold back his emotions any longer, dismisses the Egyptians from the room, and reveals himself to his brothers. Though he reveals himself to the others, he also reveals himself to himself. Joseph is at the deepest level of connection, and we are flooded with emotions and questions. The rabbi suggested that this event is like the dynamics of a dream where events and images merge in the sub-conscience and move to the fore.
It was suggested that the Joseph story, because of these blending of images might also be a dream. I thought of the last episode of St. Elsewhere and others were reminded of other shows where we were asked to believe that it was all a dream. I verbally rejected this idea, because if the Joseph story was a dream, then our ancestors never went down to Egypt, Moses never took us to Sinai, the moral law was never given, and civilization would be radically different today if in existence at all. I continue to believe that all the people after Noah actually existed, and that their experiences are what informed our ancestors as to how to behave and how not to behave. The things that go on in Genesis, both good and bad, had to exist prior to Exodus where there are laws given so as not to repeat the bad. If there is a law against it in Exodus, it was probably happening in Genesis or elsewhere in our ancestor’s experience.
And even if there are fictions in the Torah, fiction is a fabrication that helps a person get to a truth. There are great Truths in the Torah whether they were dictated by God to Moses, inspired by God to men, or created by men for other men. The core concepts of the Torah are constant and eternal.
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
December 14, 2013 B”H
Tevet 11, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Va-Yechi – Genesis 47:28 – 50:26
Haftorah – I Kings 2:1-12.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy was already on the bima when I took my seat, and he was excited about what seems to have been an epiphany in his life. Like Saul on the road to Damascus having his eyes blinded by a light of awareness that puts him on a particular path, so our Mendy was also blinded metaphorically in Jerusalem by a light that will hopefully move him onto a path of a greater self-awareness and happiness. From what I could glean, Mendy went to Israel with the intent of doing nothing other than praying at sacred places along with a resolution to refrain from calling home as is his usual pattern to micro-manage Chabad from wherever he happened to be. Mendy freely admitted that this was a very difficult thing to do, because being a man, he like most other men, see themselves in terms of what they do and accomplish, and take their identities from their successes or failures. He seemed to indicate that he, like most men, takes his sense of self from what he does on as his job. Men usually are hard wired to see themselves in terms of what they do and the effects of what they do are having. It was either before his trip or during his trip that he spoke to his father and shared his intension. The elder Rabbi Mangel told him “to enjoy his Sabbath.”
As a man who has children older than Mendy, I immediately understood what his father was saying to him. Let’s face it. Mendy has a tendency, nay, a compulsion to want to be involved in every decision concerning Chabad because Chabad is one of his children. And like any parent, he finds it difficult to let go. Men usually want to know if there are any problems so they can solve them. Men who are parents, are like that. It’s a guy thing. But what Mendy’s dad was saying in effect was:
“Mendy, take a break from yourself. For six days a week, you are hovering over your world trying to create and control it. I can understand your concern because we control little enough in life. But God himself rested one day a week, and you don’t give yourself permission to do even that. Your world (Chabad) will not fall apart if you separate yourself from your control issues and get in touch with yourself and what is around you without feeling you have to solve the problems of that world. Take a break from the man you’ve concluded you must become and try on a new behavior. You will find that the world doesn’t fall apart because you have taken a day off. Enjoy your Sabbath can also mean taking a day off from who you are and getting in touch with a part of you that just wants to smell the roses. Mendy, be more than your job!”
This comment: “...enjoy your Sabbath was a “permission” that did not occur to Mendy until much later.
Back in my freshman year of college, I was taking a social science course and was introduced to the terms “inner directed” and “other” directed.” Basically, if I recall a fifty-six year old teaching, an “inner directed” person is one whose identity arises from his inner being, and whose sense of worth comes for a core place that is based on what he or she feels about himself or herself without outside confirmation. The“other” directed” person is one whose identity comes from comments and events outside of him or herself. Such people accept what they are told about themselves, and their identities or self concepts tend to depend on what other say to them or about
them. Most people are “outer directed” because we grow up being told who we are by significant people, we carry that pattern into our lives, and learn to rely on it. We ascribe to parents, teachers,
bosses, etc. the power to tell us who we are mostly based on how we behave, what we produce, and how we perform. It may take years for a person to become “inner directed.” Some never do.
This tendency has led men and women to look to others for judgement and ultimately come to see themselves in terms of what they produce. Most see ourselves in terms of what we produce, seeking and accepting another’s judgment of that product as a source of our identities. I think that is why many men will ask another man what he does for a living. Sometimes this inquiry is made out of curiosity and as a conversation starter, but it may also sometimes be asked out of a need to measure one’s self against this person or measure the person himself. For many men, what they do is an indication of who they are, and revealing it is a way others may judge. That is why a man’s job is so important to his sense of being and worth. Men of my generation were taught that we first produce and what you do will tell you who you are. This may not have developed an “inner directed” person, but it did develop responsible people who knew that they had to produce something of value in order to feel good about themselves. This was the modus operandi for the world until after World War II.
But a man’s job or apparent success in that job really says nothing about who that man is at his core or what he values. It is always important to remember that there is no relationship between having lots of money, having higher education, an impressive title, having celebrity and being a kind and a decent human being. I for one rarely ask a man what he does for a living. I don’t care how much someone has, their title, or how smart they are. But I will ask a man what he enjoys doing in his spare time, and if I like what I hear, I will continue the conversation. The following is something I discovered that changed how I see myself and how I see others. I share it with you:
(Please notice that nothing here has anything to do with a person’s job.)
Success
To laugh often and love much,
To win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children;
To earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends;
To appreciate beauty,
To find the best in others, to give of oneself; to leave the world a bit etter, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition;
To have played and laughed with enthusiasm and sung with exultation;
To know even one life has breather easier; this is to have succeeded.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
The problem for Mendy as I see it is that since he has recognized that there is more to living than his job and gleaning his identity and success as a man from this job, will he have the power to overcome this life long tendency of daily micro-managing and reinvent himself so he can take a day off from who he has always been?
Mendy then spoke about women, addressing once again the issue of why women are not welcome on the bimah. There must have been a challenge, usually made derisively to him, and Mendy countered by saying, why this the only question and not “Why do women light candles on Friday night?” He basically said that women are more spiritual than men. They were created that way, and because they are closer to the spiritual in their lives and in their connection to God, they are
not obliged to be constantly reminded of what they need to do. Men need symbols and specific actions to remind themselves of who they are and of their obligations. Men who are less spiritual beings than women, are required to pray three times a day, to put on the phylacteries, etc. because
without such reminders, they would not come up to the standard set by the Torah. Women do not need such tough standards to keep them on the proper path to become spiritual beings.
Mendy then invited us to look at the parashas. The Torah portion deals with the deaths of both Jacob and Joseph, and with Joseph’s death, Genesis ends. During the talk, the question came up as to why Rachel was buried in what is now Bethlehem, and why she was not carried a few miles further to the Cave of Malpelech where Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebecca, Leah, and now Jacob were buried. The answer given in a midrash was that when Rachel died, God told Jacob that Rachel needed to be buried in this undistinguished place because in the future, the Children of Israel would be taken captives by the Babylonians, and that they would pass this place in their exile. It would be mother Rachel who would comfort them and weep with them, and it would be mother Rachel whose tears would touch God and remind Him the Children of Israel would need to be comforted. So God revealed that they would return to the land.
(As an aside, I asked Rabbi Kaminker why Joseph was not buried in the cave, and he said that the cave could hold only eight. He told me the names of the other two there, but I don’t remember who they were. I hope the honor went to Zilpah and Biliah, Jacob’s secondary wives, but I think not.)
Rachel did not need to be buried in a sanctified place because her presence there sanctifies it. Jacob needed to be with his parents because that who Jacob was. Jacob needed symbols; Rachel did not.
When Mendy said this about Rachel sanctifying the place by virtue of her presence, I thought of Abraham Lincoln standing on the Battlefield of Gettysburg saying “... we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.”
I could not help but make a connection between this midrash about Rachel’s burial, and what Joseph tells his brothers when they come to him fearful that he will turn on them now that their father is dead. Joseph tells them that he now sees that God had a plan to save the people. That would not have happened if he had not been sold into slavery. Rachel has to be buried where she is because God has a plan that she will be needed to comfort the Israelites as they move into captivity in Babylon. The message to us is that God has a plan.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Address began by referencing two books: My Promised Land by Ari Shavit, and From Beruit to Jerusalem by Tom Friedman. I have read neither. That said, Richard spoke that the Shavit book revealed to him things about the founding of Israel and the treatment of the Arab Palestinians that were less than complimentary. From this statement I concluded that Mr. Shavit was exploring aspects of Israeli history that did not put Israel in a favorable light. To this end, I asked if this book suggested that Israel had no right to exist, and I was told that it did not. I’m thankful for that, but I remain convinced that such books do not advance Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State, but gives additional rational and tangible proof to those who would see Israel destroyed.
Rant:
So what am I to feel about my people’s “poor behavior?” and if I choose to feel badly, what am I expected to do about it? Boycott Israeli products? March in the streets with scum
like Richard Falk and those who chant “Death to Israel?” Become a follower of Noam Chomsky? Send checks to Peace Now or J Street? While books such as these give succor to the anti-Israeli forces that are too numerous to mention, and too eager to condemn, Tom Friedman and Ari Shavit are not writing books or asking Arabs to wring their hands over the massacre of the Jews of Hebron in the 20's, the expulsions and desecration of the Jewish communities living in Judea and Samaria after the 1948 Jordanian take over of that land mass and Jerusalem, and the terrorist who lob missiles into Israel. It’s Jews such as these writers who seem more willing to incite the world to pressure Israel to give up more than is reasonable and safe. Where are their books asking the Arabs and the Left to accept their responsibility in the drama and give up their dreams of eradicating the Jewish homeland?
Perhaps I’d think differently if California, New Mexico, and Texas were returned to Mexico and the people who were forced to leave or left on their own were allowed back to their ancestral homeland. Perhaps I would think differently if the American Indians were suddenly given all their rights and their lands returned. Perhaps I would think differently if every nation on earth who ever invaded a country and murdered the indigenous people were to apologize and return the land and the spoils of that land. Perhaps I would feel differently if the nations of Europe, America, and Africa actually begged the pardon of the people they enslaved and compensated their descendants. You see, no one is going in front of the United Nations trying to dismantle and deligitimatize China for invading and subjugating Tibet. No one is going to the UN to dismantle and deligitimatize the United States for taking land from Mexico and the American Indians. No one is going to the UN to dismantle and deligitimatize England, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc. for the brutal colonization of Africa and the Middle East, the subjugation of their peoples, and the theft of their land and resources. And certainly no one is hauling Russia before the world body demanding that they apologize for the pogroms, murders, forced resettlements of Jews and the starvation of millions of Ukrainians. But there are plenty of people and nations who do support the deligitimazation and the eradication of Israel because of their alleged mistreatment of a group of people bent on their destruction, and I believe such books as these along with Jimmy Carter’s book on apartheid support their rationalizations. It would seem that the statute of limitations runs out for everyone in the world except for the Jews and for Israel. An unjust world demands that Israel be “just,” but the playing field is not level. The world’s rules and standards are constant for everyone except for the Jews and Israel.
Liberal Jews, it would seem, are asking Israel to give up their right to exist as a Jewish homeland so they, the liberal Jews, can feel better about themselves and not be perceived as being part of a people who have given up the high moral standards of behavior imposed upon them by the Bible. Personally, I would rather be perceived as morally less than I could be and not dead.
Why is it only the Jews are held to a standard that no one else holds? The world’s history is awash in horror and injustice. When Israel was created legitimately by the United Nations, the Arab nations surrounding her wanted to wash Israel off the map with Jewish blood. The U.N. expected such a response and probably anticipated the final answer to “the Jewish question.” Was that why they allowed Israel to be created in the first place? I’ve always wondered at that. The world body that created Israel did not lift a finger to protect the new nation, and would have stood by and seen the Jewish remnant destroyed as they would stand by today. Why is the Jew the and the Jewish
Nation the only people and nation on earth asked to agonize over the history of the past sixty-five years? I don’t see other nations being asked to agonize over their history?
I think we have agonized enough, and I’m tired of being asked to agonize over the plight
of Arabs who were not indigenous but were brought in from other Arab lands by Arab land owners to work their property in the 19th Century. Palestine was a section of the Ottoman Empire. It was never and independent country taken over by Jews. I’m tired of being asked to anguish over a people who did not exist as a people until the Palestinian Liberation Organization was created as a proxy
army by the USSR, and that the concept of a Palestinian People did not exist until the late1960's where it was decided that the best plan for delegitimatizing Israel was to create a “nation” of people and make them the underdogs. The Left loves the underdog and the rest of the world, despising Jews and Israel, gladly took up the cause of these people. I’m frankly tired of hearing it. How many times was peace offered to the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab world and how many times was the response a resounding “No!” or another Intafada?
Through yet another book, the world is again made more aware of what the Jews in Israel did to survive and create a land so their people could continue to survive. So what will happen? Will more of our college age children after reading it embrace the Arab Palestinian cause because they have substituted liberalism for Judaism and the thought of being part of a people who dominate and are not dominated offends them? I wonder how they will handle the Muslim next to them calling “death to the Jews and to Israel?” Have these young people become so liberal that they see themselves as universalists, as people having no particular people? Have we given them Liberalism as a substitute for Judaism and universalism instead of a feeling of oneness with their people?
Gee, wouldn’t it be great if everybody could join hands, have a coke, sing kubaya, and pass a joint?
End of Rant
Richard gave his usual overview of the parashas to be considered and initially focused in on the blessings that Jacob would give his sons and two of his grandsons. Two things were pointed out. The first was that Joseph, the younger son, and his children were blessed before the older brothers came in. Also, Joseph’s children were adopted by Jacob and received a portion in the distribution of the Promised Land. The second idea is that when Jacob goes to bless these boys, he crosses his hand deliberately so he is giving the better blessing the younger child. These two events reinforces the idea in Judaism that primogeniture, the accepted law for inheritance, was not part of the Jewish way. We see this as far back as Cain and Abel. We next see it with Isaac and Ishmael, Esau and Jacob, and now Joseph and his brothers. In Exodus, Moses will be chosen to lead over his older brother, Aaron. In Judaism, the quality and content of the person’s character, not birth order is what decides blessings and leadership. The younger can and must take precedence over the elder if it is warranted.
According to the rabbis, Joseph’s sons, Ephriam and Mannasah are used in our weekly blessing of our male children because though they were raised in Egyptian society and surrounded by the Egyptian culture, they identified with the Jewish people and with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
“Grandchildren are the legacy. In their faces I see the face of my father, my grandfather, and my great grand father.” I don’t recall who said this, but it can just as well apply to mothers.
Since two deaths are written about in this section, we spoke about death and dying. Richard raised the question as to “Why some people wait to die to see someone?” and several people shared stories of people who waited to die so they could experience an event or see someone. One story told was of a grandfather who vowed that he would live to see his grandson married, did, and died later on. It was agreed that people can and do control their deaths to some extent because there may be unfinished business or they want to see or say goodby to specific people. It would seem that there is a spiritual component. It was also agreed that those people who are close to death need help in preparing for the event, and not another CAT scan or radiation treatment.
An interesting question: “How does the death of a parent change a person’s life?” One suggestion was that with the death of a parent, the child is given permission to grow. Death can trigger a feeling of freedom in addition to lots of other feelings. You grow up when you become the parent of the parent. With age, often comes a role reversal. This is a spiritual moment, and one for which most of us are not prepared.
The “why?” questions are the spiritual questions. The “how?” questions are the medical questions.
Jacob’s death bed blessings are the proof text in Judaism for the ethical will. The ethical will, unlike the secular will which divides property, is a will citing the moral gifts one may bequeath to those who are left behind. The ethical will is being reintroduced in Judaism.
For many years, I was a teacher of Judaica and the Humanities. I believed I learned a lot about my people and the workings of the human spirit. So here I am with this vast repository of knowledge, and values, and when I die, unless what is in my head is transferred, it is gone. That’s the sad thing about death. You live a life, gathering information, experiences and hopefully wisdom, and if you don’t transfer it, it’s gone. Naturally, you want to pass off what you’ve learned to your grandchildren and in my case, my students, too. But my grandchildren live very far away, and my students are no longer in my classroom although I stay in touch with many of them. And besides, few to none ever call to ask me what I think about this or that. So because I want to feel that I still have a purpose and some value, I created a website and under Biography is a subtitle called, “Grandpa Zeydeh’s Wisdom.” Contained here are things about “life, the universe and everything” that I knew they would not ask me about, but that didn’t mean I wouldn’t put it out there for them to read when they needed some direction. In effect, this is my Ethical Will to them. If you are interested, you can access the website at leonardhberman.weebly.com. Go to Biography, click on Grandpa Zeydeah’s Wisdom, read the letter, and skim for a topic of interest. You might also consider doing one of these of your own.
To reinforce this ethical will idea or death bed blessing and direction, the Haftorah read deals with King David speaking to his son and future king, Solomon. David says, “I am going the way of all the earth. Show yourself a man.” He then instructs his son to follow the laws of God and to kill Joab.
Jacob’s blesses each son separately, demonstrating and reminding us that each person, each child, is an individual and needs to be treated as such. There is a statement in the Zohar that goes, “One blesses people best by blessing their children.”
I think that when one speaks well about another person’s child, they are also commenting on the parenting of that child and the values those parents infused into that child. Blessing or praise on one is also a blessing or praise reflected on the other.
After Jacob dies, the brothers fear that Joseph may finally take revenge on them. When the brothers speak to him, Joseph responds with the idea that though they intended him harm, God meant it for the good. Them selling him into slavery was not an accident. Joseph makes a theological connection by stating that God had a plan, and that plan was for this people to survive and multiply.
If the Jewish people were to survive, Joseph had to go to Egypt, interpret Pharaoh’s dream, store the grain against the famine, and bring his family up from Canaan where they would survive and multiply. The Joseph story sets up the Exodus where the moral laws are given, God reveals Himself to the people, and they can be brought to the Promised Land. There is a Master Plan is the message.
There are no accidents. There is a plan. We don’t understand it, but that’s why faith is needed.
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
December 21, 2013 B”H
Tevet 18, 5774
WeeklyTorah Study: Parashas Shemot - Exodus 1:1-61.
Haftorah– Isaiah 27:6-28:13, 29:22-23
Chaba:This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
What do names of individual ancestors, the difference between yiddishkeit and tradition, and jeans have in common? It would seems a great deal if anyone followed Mendy’s drush carefully. I’m starting out with this question, because while the drush was clearly focused on one primary theme which had to do with identification as a Jew, it did take us to a variety of places so the point of the theme would be clear for all.
Mendy began by raising the issue of the difference between Yiddishkeit and Jewish Tradition, a question I raised with him over lunch last month. A conversation he had with a congregant this week prompted him to return to the topic for clarification. It would seem that Yiddishkeit has to do with what Jews do to obey Torah law, (mitzvot) and the Halacha (rabbinic law) which are laws that evolved to clarify and give form to Torah law so it can be acted on. Tradition has to do with the cultural aspects of being Jewish such as the variety of foods served in different homes that reflect the areas of origin, the music, the art, the literature etc. Mendy made it very clear that of the two, he had always considered Yiddishkeit the more important because tradition, just by itself, may or may not honor God and Torah law as these need to be honored. And tradition, unlike Torah, is not steadfast. As people move around, traditions tend to change, and anything not God based will not have staying power. God and Torah law are eternal. He gave several cogent examples and referenced the moment in Fiddler on the Roof when men and women break with tradition and dance together. For Mendy, this was flaunting the halacha dealing with modesty in favor of what was a reflection of the “other culture,” and an embracing of that other culture.
Though always believing the primacy of Yiddishkeit over tradition, he said that he now saw that both were vitally important if we are to remember who we are.
Traditions are doors to our identities, as rituals are doors to our God.
There are vestiges of traditions that cling to me from my youth that I’ve brought over into my own life since my own return to moderate observance. I will sprinkle Yiddish words and phrases into my conversation because Yiddish keeps me connected to my bubba and my zeydah and my people. I will still crack eggs separately as my grandmother and mother did so any blood spot on one will not contaminate all the other eggs. In all the years I’ve been doing that, I have found only one egg with a blood spot on it. Now I would have to classify this cracking of each egg separately as Yiddishkeit because the Torah forbids Jews from ever ingesting blood, and the rabbis issued a law that said you can fulfill this law if you open each egg separately and discard any with a blood spot. Before modern technology, lots of eggs had to be tossed. I make my own chrain as did my zeydeh. Is dancing separately also a reflection of the halacha regarding modesty and therefore to be classified under Yiddishkeit? I recently attended one of my former student’s weddings. He graduated an Orthodox yeshiva. While the rabbis were there, the young people danced separately. When the rabbis left, the wall that separated the dancers came down. Here we see what Mendy was lamenting. I would suspect that these young people were Modern Orthodox and giving themselves permission to make changes.
Mendy also bemoaned that even those in the congregation, those who attended Sabbath services regularly and perhaps daily prayer minyons, still have children who rejected Yiddishkeit in favor of a superficial show of tradition. He spoke of a grandfather who spoke about a granddaughter who, though recently a bat mitzvah, did not know the story of Moses.
I can identify with this grandfather having granddaughters and a grandson who are being deprived not only Yiddishkeit, but also of Jewish tradition at a meaningful level. Lighting Chanukah candles, and attendance at a Passover Seder and little more, does not convey Judaism and all its aspects, and this causes me great sadness because their parents see Judaism as a burden and something not to be perpetuated. As a result, they do not support Jewish causes and have little interest in Israel. I was not present in their formative years to model either Yiddishkeit nor tradition for them, but it has been available to them for the past thirty years since I entered their lives. But they all moved away. It’s in the formative years of growing up that religion takes hold, and they were not involved. As adults, they might choose to become involved as I did and as so many do, but that does little to instill the love of Judaism into their children, my grandchildren. That I was not able to model for them something that was of value and something that they could take as their own, is a great failing on my part. I will say that I attempted to share my traditions and faith with my grandchildren and was told to stop. I could do anything I liked with secular holidays, but not with Jewish ones. Mendy is “preaching to the choir,” but there are young men with young children who are listening, and there are young highschool and college students who are listening. I and others who have adult children who have moved away from the faith of their forefathers have little control other than asking periodically of their grandchildren if they were involved in any Jewish activities.
Now this is the great conclusion I have reached: Many of us, following the values of our parents who may or may not have connected these values to the Torah, conveyed to our children, through our actions, the democratic principals and the social justice embodied in the Torah, without connecting these values to God’s law. “Do this because God tells us to do it,” is not a statement most of us have made. So our children and now or grandchildren are good Americans fully supporting democratic principals and social justice for all, never connecting these values with Judaism because we did not and our parents did not. In short, we have, unknowingly, substituted and given Liberalism for Judaism. Liberalism is the new Judaism for many people. That’s probably why there are so many Jewish kids on college campuses supporting the boycott and divestment policies of Arabist organizations. These kids were never taught the idea that Judaism also has a trinity: God, Torah, and the People Israel. Judaism cannot exist without all three, and to support a boycott calling for the destruction of the Israeli economy is also giving support to those who would dismantle the nation. Many of our kids and grandkids are very naive when it comes to the workings of the world.
The parshah actually begins with a recounting of Jacob going down to Egypt with a reference that Joseph was already in Egypt. Each male who went down is mentioned specifically, and the total of Jacob’s issue is sixty-nine souls. Names are important because a name, a Jewish name, carries not only your history, but the spirit of the person for whom you were named. Naming each also speaks to the importance of the individual in Judaism. In Egypt, Joseph’s name was changed, but in Joseph’s soul, he was always Joseph. This was the crucial point being made. Mendy asked us if we knew our Hebrew birthdays or the date of our own bar mitzvahs? He implied that to retain our sense of our Jewish selves, we needed to think in terms of the Jewish calendar and how our own lives can be immersed in that monthly guide. He was asking us to embrace our Jewish selves and be proud of who we are.
He reinforced this idea by referencing Shifra and Puah, the two midwives Pharaoh employed to murder male Jewish children. Mendy suggested that Pharaoh would take advantage of those Jews who would turn against their own for favors. It wasn’t clear if these two woman were also Yokaved and Miriam, Moses’ mother and sister respectively, or just channeling them, but it doesn’t matter. The women retained their identities as Hebrews and would not go against the people. They had the opportunity to assimilate and chose not to do that.
When I taught, I had a technique where I asked my students to get in touch with their Jewish selves and their secular selves by making a list the ten things that they did that they really enjoyed. I then asked them to list the five things they did that they enjoyed that were Jewish activities. Along with each I asked them to list such things as cost to do it, whether it was done with friends or alone, the last time it was done, etc. I then asked them to rank each list in order of importance, requiring them to further value the behavior. I then asked them to compile a new list combining all the items according to their numbering system. Finally, they were asked to draw conclusions from this data about their time and what they might have learned through this activity. Most revealed that what they loved doing they did often, and many of these things had to do with being Jewish and they never realized it.
Finally, Mendy spoke of a piece of his own mishaghas (personal bit of irrationality) as regards wearing jeans, and by doing so, wrapped up the message about Jewish identity in a neat package. He does not permit his children to wear jeans and he does not where them himself. This prohibition stems from his father who also did not permit his children to wear jeans either. But the question that riveted Mendy regarding this prohibition came from his father who asked him: “Mendy, why do you want to wear jeans? Is it that you want to identify with people who are not like you? Do you wish to embrace their culture?
Jewish tradition suggests that for Shabbat dinner fish and meat are served. Sushi is kosher and may be served instead of gefiltah fish, but is that really keeping the tradition or working around it and away from it eventually? Gefilte fish was created so as to avoid breaking bones on the Sabbath which violated a law.
But by changing from gefilte fish to sushi, though both could be kosher, is vaguely unkosher as regards what the change does to both Yiddishkeit and Jewish Tradition.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: First off, Richard began by answering a question a congregant asked last week as to why Rachel was not buried in the Cave of Machpelah along with the other patriarchs and matriarchs. After all, her burial site was only two days away from Hebron where the cave is. The answer he gave, based upon Rosenblatt’s comments, is that Rachel was buried there because in the year 587BCE, when our ancestors are carried off to Babylon, it would be Rachel who would empathize with them and give them hope. It was God who told Jacob to bury her there, so she might empathize with them, and entreat God for mercy as her captive children they pass by. God will hear her bring them home. Rashi writes in the tenth century that Jacob feels guilt, but does what God wants because it is part of the design. Rachel is to wait for centuries to weep for them leaving and is to wait until she can welcome them back when they return. She will let them know that they are not alone and will ultimately be redeemed. She is the source of hope.
He then turned his attention to the parashah and focused on the line, “And there arose a pharaoh who knew not Joseph.” He spoke about a rebellion in Egypt or a revolution which brought about a change in the power structure.
If I am not mistaken, a foreign power called the Hyskos had invaded Egypt and it was under Joseph that this foreign entity allowed another foreigner to rise to power. Years after Joseph dies, these Hyskos are expelled by the Egyptians and the Hebrews, also foreigners, are enslaved.
There was a discussion as to when Moses became aware of his origins as a Hebrew. The text seems to suggest that he always knew he was a Hebrew. When Pharaoh’s daughter rescues him she states that this is a Hebrew child. The child is given back to his mother to be nursed and sent back to the Egyptian princess after he is weaned. So he was raised in a Hebrew home with a Hebrew family in his formative years. These were important years where his early identity was established. We are told he goes out to see his brethren and observes an Egyptian beating a Hebrew slave. At this moment he becomes suddenly aware that there was an injustice being committed against one of his own, he judges this to be wrong, and feels compelled to do something about it. This might be considered his emotional maturity revealing itself.
We each grow in stages. There is a physical development over which we have no control, and there is an emotional development. But there is a spiritual growing up, too. As we search for meaning, we are propelled on to a spiritual journey where we seek to discover what does all of this mean? The spiritual journey is the most powerful of all, and takes place after physical and emotional
growth.
To reinforce the idea that Moses knew he was a Hebrew as did everyone else including Pharaoh, we are told that after he tried to break up two Hebrew slaves from fighting, he was told by one of them that he did not have authority over them and that they knew he killed an Egyptian. Pharaoh also called for his death. So Moses escapes and goes to Median, and his journey there ends where we find him sitting by a well.
This “well” motif is important in the Torah because something important always happens near water or near a well. Both Isaac and Jacob meet their prospective brides at a well. Isaac re-digs the wells that Abraham had dug. Moses now sits down by a well and repeats the same events earlier in Genesis where Jacob waters the sheep for Rachel. Isaac waters the sheep for Rebecca.
This repetition of prior events does not mean the child is usurping the father (only Jacob’s eldest son did that) but is repeated to establish the importance of that particular individual. Each Patriarch is visited by God and the Covenant is renewed. This is another means of establishing the person’s gravitas. It would seem that this pattern was established specifically for that reason. If it happened to one very significant Biblical personality, that same event could establish the significance of another. As an example, Moses crosses the Sea of Reeds and Joshua crosses the Jordan. Joshua, having been given the mantle of leadership, now does things similar to the quintessential Jewish leader.
When you get into the Christian Testament, we see Jesus standing in the water parting the heavens as Moses parted the waters. The life of Jesus parallels the life of Moses so Jesus would be as acceptable to the Jews as was Moses. Moses begins his life in Egypt as Pharaoh is drowning Hebrew boys in the Nile. Jesus, likewise begins his life as Herod is slaughtering the Jewish boys because he, like Pharaoh, has been told that a savior would be born to the Hebrew people. Moses will come up out of Egypt as the liberator of his people. Mary and Joseph take flight to Egypt with Jesus so Jesus, too, can come up from Egypt to liberate the world from sin. Ultimately, Jesus, like Moses will go into the desert for forty days.
If you visit the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, you will see on one wall the entire life of Moses, and on the other, the parallel life of Jesus. For Christians, the life of Moses prefigures the life of
Jesus. For the Jews, the Gospel writers consciously took the life of Moses because little was known about his life and thus, gave Jesus’ life a structure that would be acceptable to the Jews. For a story to be considered Midrash, it must be linked to an earlier story or event that has been well established in tradition.
According to classic Judaism, Jews assumed a corporate identity at Sinai. Here they became a people. It was a central moment in Jewish history, and whether or not you think of it as an actual event or a symbolic event, nevertheless, a national identity was formed and tradition teaches that we were all there.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
December 28, 2014 B”H
Tevet 25, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Va-Era – Exodus 6:2-9:35.
Haftorah – Eziekel 28:25-29:21
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by reminding us that in the past he taught us concepts from the Amidah prayer, and he would continue with that effort this Shabbat. He read the line “‘Blessed are you, God, shield of Abraham.”’ He then asked us what the word “shield” meant to us, and several congregants responded. Each had something to do with the word “protection.”
After each response, Mendy non judgmentally nodded and moved on to the next person without challenging them or correcting them. And then he said something he had never said before. He said that each of the answers touched on the truth. As an educator very much aware of the process of education, this was a major growth spurt for my dear Mendy. By not commenting and then saying that each had an element of truth, he was not only putting people who risked an answer in public at ease, but was stroking them on having a element of the correct answer. I must warn him that if this keeps this up, he runs the risk of more and more participation.
Mendy then shared his own thought on the subject. He referred us back to the statement: “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” reminding us that each of the Patriarchs had a particular relationship with God and each a separate path to that relationship with God. When the writers of this prayer wrote this, they intended for us to see the uniqueness embedded here, and Mendy continues to encourage us to encounter God on our own terms.
Mendy also told us that Abraham’s path to God was through hospitality and goodness; that his tent was open on all four sides, and that all who passed by were welcome. But, Mendy warned, that when people are so open and do such good, they sometimes fall prey to people who are less than good, who take advantage, and cause pain. In effect, such people are in need of a shield to protect them so they can discern the good from the evil. Since both Isaac and Jacob had different pathways to God, pathways that were possibly not so open, that a shield was needed. But Abraham needed a buffer as do some of us.
I think the message was that we are to be open, giving, good, and hospitable like Abraham, but to also be wary. Perhaps this is to be taken as another lesson in moderation. I recall that my dear great aunt Fanny, before she died said, “Lenny, give, but don’t give all. In a way, I do believe she was asking me to protect myself, and to retain something so I would not be left drained. And that “draining” can exist on multiple levels. I must say that the Abraham in me is strong, and I have a strong tendency to want to give to all those good and needy organizations out there. But I have also become aware that there are organizations who will send out multiple notices and requests for pledges, and on a few occasions, I have given twice. Yes, I know it is my fault for not checking my records, but it is also their fault for not updating their records. Unless, of course, double billing is the plan from the start. I think my realization that organizations will do that deliberately is my shield of Abraham.
Giving and giving too much prompted the next part of the drush, and it dealt with Mendy and Dinie’s youngest son, Berel. But in this instance, it seemed that the “giving” was actually “giving in.” It seems that the Cherry Hill Schools were closed and Chabad camp follows that schedule. So camp
was about to begin with a bowling excursion. But the Jewish day school was to be opened, and when Berel found out he insisted that he was going to bowl and not go to school. Day and night, at home or on a trip, Berel hocked (bothered) his parents for two weeks. Finally, he pulled out all the stops and said, “I work so hard to make you proud of me. Why do you make me sad?” He may also have said, “Why can’t you make me happy?” The point is that whatever he said, he turned his parent’s hearts to mush, and they acquiesced. Mendy was concerned about the strength of his shield and wondered whether he had given too much. Afterwards, Mendy thought about his decision to allow his son to skip school, and concluded that perhaps it wasn’t such a tragedy if it made the kid happy.
I recall that when my daughters had to face something unpleasant such as a visit to the doctor for a shot, we would not tell them until it was time to go. That way we only had to deal with the histrionics and hysteria for a car ride, and then it was over. Why would Berel have been told two weeks before camp opened that he wasn’t going? Parents should not set themselves up for being “hocked” if they can help it.
As we began this parashah which dealt with the plagues, Mendy focused on Moses and his relationship with God. He asked us to consider why God did not condemn or get annoyed with Moses for saying that he was not competent to do this task, and that he was slow of speech. He was not angry at Moses for being a reluctant hero. The answer Mendy gave was that God knew Moses’ heart, that he loved his people, would care for them, and would do what he had to do for their survival. God knew that Moses was a leader and would put the people’s needs before his own. True leaders, good leaders, do that.
Mendy also said that the reason God chose and made Covenants with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob for two reasons. Each Patriarch believed in God, and each chose a different pathway to his relationship with God. The second reason was because they were also leaders and not followers. Leaders lead and do not change. Followers will change depending on the leader or the will of the majority. God needed leaders to protect His people.
At one point, Moses is complaining that the people aren’t listening to him and either is Pharaoh. Moses is at a loss. But God tells him to return to the people and return to Pharaoh. On the surface, God is saying, “I gave you a job. Go do it!” But the rabbis interpret this clear mandate as one that teaches that Moses is to go back to the people and speak to them softly in a language that they will understand. If they still do not understand, it is not their fault but Moses’s, and the message has to be made more succinctly or softer so they will ultimately understand it. As regarding the message to Pharaoh, that message is to be firmly repeated and repeated often, because people in power need to know that you are not afraid to tell them the truth, and that the truth must be told over and over again until it pierces their egos. Mendy referenced commentaries by Rashi and the Rebbe, but I cannot remember what they were.
Mendy seemed to suggest that we also have a message to deliver, and this message is to our own children and grandchildren about Yiddishkeit and the traditions that give it shape. In our own families, we are the keepers and purveyors, and it is up to us to give the message softly about the value of Yiddishkeit and tradition.
He also made it very clear that anything forced will ultimately be rejected because it has not been chosen freely. We can force our children to participate and demand a belief, but as soon as we are out of the picture, those beliefs and values may fall by the wayside since they were not concluded by the child as being important to them. Because they may want approval or continued support and protection, the will acquiesce to our desires.
But if one is to extend the core meaning of this latter part of the drush, we, like Moses, are also at fault for not making the message clear or palatable or valued to our own. I acknowledge the sad fact that I was not able to imbue my own children and my step children with a love of Yiddishkeit and tradition that would sustain them as it currently sustains me. I was not able to invite them into a personal relationship with God or with any Supreme Being concept. Like many Jewish fathers, I
exposed them to holidays and some Yiddishkeit, but it was superficial as I think of it now. For some of my children, Judaism is a framework upon which some hang time to be spent in a certain way, while for others, one day has no more special meaning than any other. In my defense, I can only say that in my childhood home, in Hebrew school, or in all the years I moved from synagogue to synagogue. I did not learn of a loving God who equally yearns for a relationship with me until I came to Chabad. If the rabbis of my formative years spoke of God, they spoke of God in Hebrew or in Yiddish, and I did not understand either. It was not until six years ago when I started coming to Chabad that I started to hear about God. Now I have conceived a God idea, and though it may not be the traditional one taught at Chabad, it works for me, and I and my God have an understanding and a relationship. But I came to this relationship late in life, and therefore did not convey the beauty of having such a relationship to God to my own children or step-children. Now, I must rely on the belief that since each has a Jewish soul that animates them, that same soul will one day yearn to seek the well-spring of its own existence.
Sincerely,
Labe Chaim
January 4, 2014 B”H
Shevat 3, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Bo – Exodus 10:1-13:6.
Haftorah - Jeremiah 46:13-28
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by speaking about his last trip to Israel where just he and Denie were together and not part of any group. One day, a friend who lives in the disputed territories, took them to an ancient town called Shilo. In speaking of this place specifically, Mendy made it clear that there were many more places sacred to the Jewish people than Jerusalem and Safed. Shilo, for example, was the first place the Hebrews established as their official place of worship prior to conquering the lands west of the Jordan River. Jerusalem would ultimately replace this ancient site as the seat of worship and sacrifice. He described standing at the ruins of what might have been Shilo’s temple complex, and reminded us that it was here that Hannah came to silently pray for a son. Falsely accused of being drunk, she explained to Phinnias, the priest, that she was pouring out her heart to God. He assured her that God would answer her prayer and she did conceive a son who would become the prophet Samuel. An interesting aside was that Hannah’s silent prayer was the source of saying the Amidah prayer silently.
It should be noted that Judea and Samaria, what Israel now refers to as the disputed territories, were taken away from the Jewish State by Jordan in the 1948 war, but was retaken in the 1967 war by Israel. This section of land was never part of any Palestinian nation because there had never been an independent country called Palestine. While the Arab Palestinians may claim it as their own, it is never the less disputed land and must be negotiated. Jordan and the Arab world began referring to Judea and Samaria as “the West Bank” so as to separate Judea and Sameria from their Jewish roots. The rest of the world willingly picked up this Arab term as it began to embrace the Arab narrative.
At one point Mendy spoke about the tribes on the other side of the Jordan building a temple that duplicated the one in Shilo, and the conflict that erupted because it was thought that this other temple would lessen the importance of the one in Shilo. But it was pointed out that this second one was never used for worship or for sacrifice. It was to be a reminder to the Jews far from Shilo of their heritage and the symbolism of their faith. This symbolic representation of the temple in Shilo had to do with the preservation of what was to become Yiddishkeit.
I had not realized the importance of Shilo to our people until now. I knew the reference from the Bible in that in one of the books it says “...till Shilo comes.” I had known this phrase as a Christological reference to Jesus as the Messiah and the Second Coming. Rabbi Kaminker explained that the term Shilo was indeed a reference to the Messiah, but a Jewish reference that had nothing to do with Jesus. That I already knew. Christian scholars and academics who espouse Replacement Theology, (the belief that Christianity replaced Judaism) have combed the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms for references that they insist are textual prophesies that Jesus fulfills. Of course, Judaism rejects these “proof texts” interpretations, seeing such interpretations as being taken totally out of
context and attempts at a justification for the belief that Jesus is the Messiah. Replacement Theology also avers that Jewish sacred texts not only verify this Christian belief, but were specifically placed there by God for such “proof” to be uncovered at a later date. But underlying all this is the very real attempt to delegitimatize Judaism. After all, how could the Church Fathers and Gospel writers acknowledge the faith that Jesus followed as valid. Would they not be denying the validity of their own at the same time? Since it is a scientific truth that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, the Church decreed that two true faiths could not exist at the same time either. That even ideas could not coexist. Happily, more recent pronunciations out of Rome have made appropriate changes to this long held view.
Mendy then referred us to the text and a statement that included the word, “tomorrow.” He spoke extensively on the meaning of this word and invited congregants to interpret the word within the context of the sentence. For Mendy, the word not only meant the next day, but also the future. He indicated that God knew that at one time in the future, the Jews would be disengaged from
Judaism, and it might have been at this point where he made mention of that second symbolic temple built in Israel was a reminder to those who may have fallen away and as a way back. He also made it very clear that children must be taught Yiddishkeit, and it is up to us to do that. Parents and grandparents have that responsibility to inspire them now and to give them something to hold on to so they can find their way back should they falter in the future.
He then focused on the line, “And it shall be when your son will ask you at some future time, ‘What is this?’ you shall say to him, ‘With a strong hand HASHEM removed us from Egypt from the houyse of bondage.’” The Passover Seder is based on this statement and it also lets us know the we must teach the story of our people as well as the gratitude we must show to God for having freed us from slavery.
Inherent in the statement is the responsibility given to us, the fathers and grandfathers, the mothers and the grandmothers to be the source of knowledge and Yiddishkeit for the next generation. It also points back to the idea that this second temple built outside of Shilo was an early reminder to our ancestors that we make sure that the symbols, the short hand of our history, are known to our children and grandchildren because that “future” of disengagement for our children and grandchildren may rapidly be approaching, and for some of us, is already here.
I cannot help but wonder if the grandchildren sitting at your Shabbat table can tell you the meaning of the following symbols or actions: (In no particular order)
:
Why is the Shabbat table cloth white?
Why are there two loves of challah?
Why are the challahs covered both above and below?
Why do we bless them?
Why do we wash our hands?
Why is a portion of the challah cut off and not eaten?
Why is salt sprinkled on the challah?
Why does the Sabbath begin at sundown?
Why are there a minimum of two candles?
Why do we drink wine and why do we bless it?
Why do we bless the children and what role does the one who blesses the children assume?
Why are the children blessed in the names of Joseph’s sons and the Matriarchs?
To know the answers to these questions is to touch what we call Yiddishkeit and the history of our people. Symbolism is a short hand to our history, and we have carried these symbols and
behaviors with us for millennia. They inform us of who we were and who we are. If your grandchildren do not know the answers to these questions, they may become “disengaged,” and lose this vital connection. Do you all know the answers to these questions?
My grandchildren live very far away, and the last time two of them were here for a Shabbat dinner, as we set the table, I told them what these symbols meant. They wanted to know why I was telling them this? (They are being raised in a secular home and have had no Jewish education). I said that these symbols were part of their heritage, and that one day, if they did meet and fall in love with a Jewish boy, there might be an expectation on his part that they know something of what it takes to make a Jewish home. I also said that they did not have the option of being ignorant of their heritage. I live very far away from all of my grandchildren to have any tangible effect on their upbringings, so my only hope is that they discover their Judaism on their own.
The last part of the drush had to do with books and having a Jewish library. The Rebbe, of blessed memory, made the owning of Jewish books one of his objectives while he lived. Mendy said that he would even give out money from his own pocket so people who could not afford them could purchase them. For the Rebbe, Jewish books in a Jewish home were a symbolic connection to the past, and a visual proof to children and grandchildren that in this Jewish home, Yiddishkeit was alive and well. But equally important to the next generation was the idea that these books and their connection to Yiddishkeit were valued by you to the point of proudly displaying them for all to see. Mendy also said that not all the books on his shelf have been read, but one day, he hopes to get to them.
For me, books are friends, and my rather large collection is a symbol of the value I place on both religious and secular education. I also dream that one day I’ll have the time to read them all, but I’d need more that just one life time to do that. As technology advances with iPads, Kindles, and the latest in virtual public libraries, having a library in one’s home will become a curiosity as will people who have those libraries. You can’t show your interest or demonstrate the value of books by showing you grandchildren what you just purchased on your Android. It won’t work. Sometimes, technological advances do not advance the human spirit.
I wonder what will happen to my library when I am gone since I have the feeling thus far that none of my children or grandchildren have any interest in the collection. Same thing goes for my music CD’s, my art collections, my movie DVD’s, and my Judaica.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
January 11, 2014 B”H
10 Shevat 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Beshallach - Exodus 13:17-17-16
Haftorah- Judges 4:4- 5:31
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by informing those of us who did not already know that Ariel Sharon, the great Jewish military hero, passed away. He continued by telling us that this great leader was also a secular Jew. But even so, when the Western Wall was retaken from the Jordanians, Sharon’s first act when he got there was to have a Chassid help him put on teffillin. Sharon may have eaten lobster, but he was still, at his core, a deeply committed Jew and this action at the Kotel let the world know his pride in being a Jew. Like Sharon, we must be deeply committed to our Yiddishkeit and bring it to the fore.
Mendy then reminded us of the elder Rebbe’s yahrzeit, and how when his son-in-law took over the leadership of Chabad a year after the elder Rebbe’s passing. Menachem Mendel Shneerson, the new leader set up a series of commentaries on his father-in-laws writing. In one of these commentaries, we were reminded that we are connected to God in two ways: the first is that God is an ember within all of us, and the second is that there is a “rope” that connects us to God. Any rope is composed of individual strands, and the more strands, the stronger the rope. For us, there may be as many as 613 individual strands, each corresponding to the 613 positive and negative precepts in the Torah. One strand might be attending Yom Kippur services. Another might be waving a lulov on Sukkot or attending a Seder. The more strands you have, the more mitzvot from the Torah you accept and act upon, the stronger your rope and therefore the stronger your link is to God.
As I’ve written before, this great Rebbe said that we should “consider Judaism as a ladder with 613 rungs. Do not consider yourself a good or bad Jew because of where you stand on the ladder, but whether you are ascending or descending.” A ladder exists to help us get to a higher place. In this case, I’m sure the Rebbe was referring again to our connection with God. Rope, Ladder, Bridge, or what you will, they are all metaphors inviting us to a relationship with the Infinite. The more mitzvot, the greater the light of the ember, the stronger the rope connection is to God.
This God within, this ember always ready to burst into flame, is an interesting metaphor, and I have come up with another since the advent of technology that’s helped me understand my relationship with The Infinite. Bear with my imagry. I sometimes think of God as the ultimate Main Frame Computer containing all the data that ever was and is. Each of us, you and I, are a CD or Floppy Disc depending on how frequently you up date. Perhaps these can be thought of as our soul. In the PC Box that contains the pre formatted disc or floppy. On this disc is a file called “Torah” to be used as the manual to which we can refer so we can incorporate a program that will be in sync with The Big Main Frame In The Sky. But we have the free will to discard the manual, delete the file, or go with another program or operating system which will not be in sync and not easily read by TBMFCITS. So each of us, unique as we are, can record our experiences only as we can on our CD,
and if we use the manual well, when our computer crashes as it ultimately must, our CD or Floppy can be fed into the Main Frame with ease. In this way the data in The Main Frame continues to grow or is diminished depending on what we have recorded. The Main Frame is insatiable for data. God is insatiable for us as we are formatted to be insatiable for Him. So it is my belief that if you want to increase God, you do that by going into the world and perform mizvot. Your actions become expressions of gratitude to the Creator that speak louder than prayer.
I like to think that God may have created us as physical extensions of Himself into the world
so His non-corporeal Self might experience the physical through us. Also, I don’t believe that God has a clue as to what we will do next. If either of the latter could be true, then we would understand why God continues to take an interest in us, and His willingness to put up with our mishagas (each person’s particular brand of insanity.) God is not complete. Each of us, our personal data, adds to God’s continuous becoming.
Mendy said that the soul within us, the ember, the God spark if you like, is always there. This ember never goes out despite a person’s belief that he or she is so far from the traditions or beliefs that nothing will change for them or bring them closer to it. But our tradition teaches that this ember yearns to spring to life and will if we choose to act on the Torah mitzvot. There was more to this, and I just can’t remember it.
When Mendy did come to speak about the parshah, he directed our attention to the moment when our ancestors were crossing the Sea of Reeds. We were asked to consider the description that the “waters were on the left and on the right.” These are symbolic of the opposites in our lives that we must learn to embrace if we ourselves are to be honest in our relationships and remain whole.
Opposite vie within us, and he said that we must balance these forces or needs, making time for each honestly. He gave the example that it was not honest to tell your wife that you have to go to shul to avoid putting the children to bed. Yes, you may be obliged to go to shul, and you may be obliged to put the kids to bed. You just figure out how to do both. Can’t recall the rest.
Maybe it was Rashi who came up with the idea of the two walls of waters as symbolic of the opposites in our lives, and if it was, it once again points to his brilliance. Our world is a world of opposites when you think of it. We start out in the Garden of Eden with God and man; opposites. Man and Woman; opposites. Good and Evil; opposites. Life and Death, Love and Hate, and on and on and on. The Golden Mean, posited first by the Greek philosophers and then by Maimonides as he tried to reconcile Greek Philosophy with Torah, teaches that balance is the key to the good life; a Torah centered life; a God centered life. It simply means that a person must balancing between extremes, between opposites. Everything in our lives need balance, especially relationships in families. In some families, there can be no easy balance because the dynamics among the people will not allow it. In some relationships there are demands to chose one side or the other. There is no negotiations, and if a choice to balance is made by the one in the middle, no one is happy.
Maimonides wrote: The sacred life if the life of moderation.”
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Richard gave an overview of what transpired in this parashah including the parting and the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, the songs of Moses and Miriam, the bitter waters, the complaints, the manna etc.
The story opens with instructions on how to get to the Promised Land, and we were immediately invited into the world of metaphor, and asked to consider this as the journey of our own lives. People need time on their journey. People need time to process. Sometimes what we think is the most direct root might be fraught with danger as was the most direct route to Canaan. And we
were also asked to think about the journey itself, not the destination. But we can undertake the journey only when we are ready. Moses must have seen that bush a dozen times, but he was not ready
to see it burn and to learn of his journey and his destination. None of us is ready for the journey, and we must go through a learning process that may take us first on a different route and to a different
place. Journeys involve growth; a psycho-spiritual growth. The route to liberation and freedom is never straight. This moment is the beginning of the rest of the story. The beginning of our story. The beginning of the human story. Moses is a metaphor for transitions. If you believe, you must give up your past identity to achieve a vision of where you want to go and who you want to be. The People’s vision was entering the Promised Land. This is a metaphor for our own journey. We are all on the same journey seeking our own Promised Land. The goal of liberation is getting back to or finding our own personal Eden and the Promised Land.
Underlying this Torah portion is the concept of “fear.” There is fear taking the direct route to the Philistines. There is fear upon seeing Pharaoh’s chariots. There is fear when there is no water to drink. There is fear when there is no meat to eat. Fear is a key element, and God knows that they want to go back. It is change that triggers the fear, and fear triggers transformation. That’s what the story is about. Each of us comes to the moment in our lives, in our story, on our journey when we are moved to put our foot into the sea. This movement is accompanied by the question, “What do I want to do with the rest of my life.” It is important to know that you cannot have fear unless you have choices.
Though change triggers fear, there must be change or life remains stagnant. Without change to prod us into movement, the journey cannot begin. To change is to risk the unknown, and perhaps there is something deep with in, that urges us to risk. It is not the brain, but the heart that impels us to move.
Throughout my life, there were times when I have been forced to choose and act on my own behalf if I were to save my self and establish an identity as an individual being. There were forces in my life that worked against me in that effort when a younger man. I am reminded a particular moment in my life that moved my life in the direction that it has taken, and fear and risk were my companions when those decisions were made. One of those moments came when at twenty-nine, I was offered a job in Trenton as the N.J. State Consultant in Arts and Humanities, a job no NYC high school teacher had ever been offered before. But there was one more person who had to sign on. Time was of the essence. I would be moving my young family to NJ and we needed to buy a home. To buy the home I needed to use my pension money. To get that I had to give up my job. To do that, I had to give notice. I had nothing written on paper with NJ. But if I didn’t act, I couldn’t see how I would be able to relocate. I also had to give notice on our apartment. So I decided to put my foot into the water, and like Nachshon ben Amidi, believing with a full heart, waded in fearful, but hopeful. So I quit my job, gave up the apartment, bought my first home in Willingboro, called Trenton and asked them if I had the job. They said I did.
Just reviewing this long ago behavior, I feel a strange heat that may be the heat of remembered fear. Something in me said that if I didn’t role the dice, I would be left behind. People cautioned me, but something in me said that this was the chance I had to distinguish myself and begin a new journey that would take me to a new place. It was probably the most reckless thing I ever did. Happily, everything fell into place, and I distinguished myself in that job. I think I wanted this so badly, I just turned off my head and went with my heart.
At certain ages, we become aware that our time to chose new paths is running out.
So the people looked at one another and said, “Oh, my God, we’re out of Egypt! What do we do now?” It’s never like we thought it would be. So they are standing at the water’s edge, they see the Egyptian army, and turn on Moses. But Moses reassures them that God will battle for them. But God seems a little miffed at the people because they still seem not to believe, and a little miffed at
Moses for not acting on his own. If we look outside the text, we see that we are always standing on a precipice or at the waters edge, and we are being told that we have powers of our own, but we must choose to go forward with courage and faith. Still we refuse to believe.
The midrashic story of Nachshon ben Amidi tells of a man who walked into the water to his nose and the water parted. The implication and teaching is that if you have courage, faith, and the willingness to act on your own behalf, you may just bring about a miracle. The aphorism “Pray as if everything depends on God, and act as if everything depends on you,” is a correct conclusion.
We are responsible to act, and we cannot blame God if we do not.
An important part of faith is believing that there is the divine in each of us. But there are times when our souls become dark, and we have to die before we can begin to live again. The dark issues that people have covers the soul pain, but we must ultimately believe that we have the power to change. Still, it is easier to dump onto someone else or God.
People who have no vision will end up with challenges. We must all have meaning and purpose. Religion exists to provide a sense of goals and purposes.
Where there is no vision, the people perish.”
God says: “If you follow my laws and statutes, you’ll be fine.”) We are always being asked to move forward. But it wouldn’t be much of a story if we went directly to the Promised Land. Faith continually prods us to step forward into the journey.
The Torah story is a symbolic representation of our own lives. There are paradoxes in the Torah as there are paradoxes in our own lives. We are to deal with them. The journey brings us an understanding that there are paradoxes in our lives that we haven’t figured out yet. But learning this is one of the tasks we learn on our journey. The relationship between us and God is never linear. We may want things to be linear like time and language, but in real life things keep coming back at us. That’s what life is all about. Peggy Lee sang a song in which the line “If that’s all there is, my friend, then let’s keep dancing..” It’s the “lets keep dancing” that insists we continue on.
For change to come about with a degree of ease, you need more than faith and courage. You need good advice. Torah is good advice. God’s advice is that people should follow the Torah. This is your path. Choose life. This is not a give and take conversation. We are told to choose life.
In making my decision about that job of which I spoke before, I must say that if I followed the advice of important people, I would have never gotten that job or purchased my first home.
No one gets to where we are by ourselves. We have help. And if we ever do achieve some degree of control, we should be grateful because the truth is that we control very little.
Sincerely,
Lab Chaim
B”H
January 18, 2014 B”H
Shevat 25, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Yitro – Exodus – 18:1 - 20:23.
Haftorah– Isaiah - 6:1-7:6 9:5-6.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy opened his dursh by referencing Zipporah, Moses’ wife, and raising the issue as to why we know almost nothing about her and she just disappears from the text. Then he proceeded to tell us everything we do know about her: that she was modest, that she took action when she needed to act, and that she was supportive of her husband. To prove these, Mendy pointed out how she quietly and modestly waited her turn at the well, how she circumcised her son to save Moses’ life, and how she knew that his mission would take him away from his family. Zippora and Moses were partners.
He then compared her to the wife of the former Rebbe who also demonstrated those very same qualities but in other ways. The Rebbe’s wife was so modest, that she shopped outside of Crown Heights so she would not be recognized and given preferential treatment. She also recognized the value of educating Jewish women, and became a force in that effort. Finally, she supported the Rebbe’s efforts in every way to bring Yiddishkeit to the Jewish People. Like Zippora and Moses, the Rebbe and his wife were partners.
This was Mendy’s introduction to get at what seemed to be two crucial points. The first was that there are roles that men and women have that are assigned them by tradition and by physical abilities. And whenever the roles that separate men and women are blurred, there is a breakdown in relationships and in the society at large. But when a woman and a man know their roles and their responsibilities, the relationship between them and the preservation of Yiddishkeit will grow and remain strong.
I think the second crucial point was an offshoot of the first, and it dealt with the role of women and their responsibility to keep Yiddishkeit alive in the family. He referenced the lines in the Torah where God says to Moses: “So shall you say to the House of Jacob and relate to the Children of Israel.” The interpretation is that the House of Jacob or Bait Yaakov refers to the women of Israel, and the Children of Israel refer to the men. The women were told first, and they in turn, told the men. Thus, in Judaism, the women have the intellectual and emotional understanding that keeps, nurtures, and protects Yiddishkeit in the home where Judaism is centered. The center of Judaism is in the home, and not in the synagogue. The men, on the other hand, being somewhat less intuitive and less emotional, are assigned the task of praying three times a day, (whether they know what they’re saying or not) and going to work. (I thought of referring to work as “bringing home the bacon,” but that would be a non-kosher metaphor that should not be mixed.) He pointed out that the first schools built to educate Jewish women were called Bait Yaakov.
This is not the first time that Mendy has lauded (and rightfully so) the role of the woman in preserving Yiddishkeith. But to deride the role of the man in preserving Yiddishkeit is something that bothers me, and continues a trend of devaluing the Jewish man as a spiritual being. There are men in the congregation whose wives, because of their upbringings, their experiences, and conclusions, are not in tune with God, traditions or their spiritual side. So in such homes, if there are attempts to keep
Yiddishkeit alive, it is through the men who see its value. To be fair, Mendy did say there were exception, but I still don’t appreciate the blanket covering and what I see as devaluing men in preserving our values.
Are preserving Yiddishkeit and being spiritual inter-related or two separate things? To me, if I recall correctly, Mendy implied that they were not independent of one another. I do recall him saying that men are less spiritual than women. I concur. The men I see around me at Chabad pray far more often than I do, but I seriously doubt if they are ever given the opportunity to verbalize to another, to verbally clarify their relationship to the One to whom they are praying. I also doubt if there is anyone other than myself in that sanctuary who attends a monthly spirituality group where I am invited to talk about the role God plays in my life and listen to the role God plays in the lives of others. Yes, some men attend Tanya and other classes, but at these sessions, are people invited to do more than understand the ideas on the printed page? Perhaps men would be more spiritual if given the opportunity to talk among themselves rather than assigned the chanting of rote prayers which might not conjure up anything other than words without meaning and auditory dissonance.
Is my quest to find God in my life blurring a line? Have I crossed over the demarcation line that God or men established into the realm of the woman? If there is such a role assignment, is Mendy, by informing us of the danger of blurring the lines, also saying that men should not become more spiritual because that places us in the roles assigned to woman? But what if the lines drawn and the roles assigned evoluted spirituality out of men’s lives over the millennia? Remember, the very first act of Cain and Able was to offer gratitude to God. That was indicative of something deeply spiritual inborn that moved them to give thanks. I believe both men and women are hard wired to spirituality, but it has been devalued in men and replaced with rituals and rules that may outwardly speak of the preservation of spirituality and Yiddishkeit, but inwardly leave a void.
And still I ask, Are Yiddishkeit and spirituality two very different things and unrelated?
I challenge Mendy to create class called Men’s Spirituality and see who comes and if there is a need for such a thing.
I can understand Mendy’s dilemma. He recognizes the difficulties of preserving Yiddishkeit in a world where the lines and roles between Jewish boys and girls are blurring. Women work out side of the home, and are as well educated as the Jewish men, and sometimes more so. Certainly, the number of under graduate and graduate degrees awarded in the USA increasingly go to female students. I recall that none of the non-Jewish girls I knew from my neighborhood went to college, and most of the Jewish girls did. It was a question of values and roles in the home. It would seem that back in the 40's and 50's, the lines were blurring, and in the 60's, 70's until today, Jewish girls, in the wider Jewish community are raised pretty much like their brothers are raised with the same expectations. They are competitive and just as accomplished. Perhaps that is the reason there is so much intermarriage. Do Jewish boys not what to feel that competition when they come home at night? Might they want the respect and possibly fewer challenges and demands that they might get from a non-Jewish spouse who was raised to understand the role of the wife as a partner and not as a competitor? When a prince and a princess of equal rank marry, there should be servants to do the heavy lifting because neither was raised to do the grunt work. Are there fewer difficulties in Orthodox marriages where men and women know and accept their roles? And if so, would Mendy council Jewish women to limit themselves and their expectations?
I forgot the connection that Mendy made between what he was talking about and the low level of education among Jewish boys and girls once in our history. It may have had something to do with the roles played early on in our history when we were wanderers or farmers. But the period of time he referenced was vague. Everybody seems to have been illiterate. Now for everyone to have been illiterate, Mendy had to be thinking about the years before 70 C.E. because after the Temple was
destroyed and the sacrificial cult ended, prayer became the substitute for sacrifice. In order to pray, and in order to read the Torah publicly, people had to know how to read. So it was in the Second Century of the Common Era that Rabbi Gamlah decreed that all Jewish boys had to be put to letters and numbers. This was the first attempt at universal schooling almost 2000 years ago. What a visionary! Sill, girls were not involved. But being literate had little use on the farm, so those who became literate found themselves migrating to the urban centers where such skills were needed. Over the centuries, Jews became more involved in commerce than in farming because of their cognitive skills and growing focus on education and scholarship. The Diaspora demanded a language Jews could be used in different parts of the world for commerce and banking, and that became Yiddish. I do believe that Yiddish writing, a writing that incorporated vowels within the word, was developed so Jewish woman might also be able to learn to read. Because of this focus on education, Jews became and continue to be the most literate minority on earth.
To reinforce the need for the separation not only between men and women, Mendy mentioned a phone call from an irate parent who wanted to know why parents were not invited to a new program were teens discuss relationships with their parents. Mendy maintains and I agree that there are certain times when separations must be in place for something to happen. This idea of people being separated from one another, especially at Chabad social events, became an issue, and the point was made by several congregants that a particular dinner held for the Israeli community where traditional Mid-Eastern foods were served should not have been closed to the Ashkenazism in the community. They felt that such separations were divisive. Mendy was blunt in his dismissal of comments where people insisted everything be open to everyone, reminding us that there were times when men’s club activities were only for men, and others with women invited. There are times when certain groups will come together, and other times the entire congregation. Several congregants were annoyed, but you could not tell that from the interactions later on at the kiddish.
But Jews being Jews, I’m sure offense was taken by some, and there may be a new synagogue founded next week by the irate.
And speaking about separating Jews from one another, when I was growing up, food was either kosher or not kosher, but as I grew older, I came to learn about something called glatt kosher. Suddenly, plain kosher was not good enough, and Jews separated themselves from other Jews as they had done for centuries from non-Jews regarding foods. Those who were “glatt Kosher” did not eat with other Jews who ate in “kosher” restaurants. To me this was an artificial and arbitrary method of self-segregation. Was this just another attempt of a certain group of Jews proving to others that they weren’t good enough and did not come up to their “higher” standard? Again, the mishbacha are shooting themselves in the foot for no good reason. And I’m sure you are aware of many other artificial barriers set up by certain religious groups to exclude or judge other religious groups of the same religion! One definition of “holy” is being separate. But for some, “holy” has become “holier than thou.”
At one point, Mendy or someone else raised the issue of Moses as a father and as a husband.
I don’t recall specifics of this, but I recall my thinking.
Moses, and just about every key character in the Torah are either whitewashed or vilified depending on who they are. Believe me, I believe Moses was the greatest religious figure that ever
walked the earth, and I have a statue of him on my desk as a reminder of what he stood for. ( Please note that I do not worship this statue.) But as a father and husband, Moses was not up to a standard that would make him an outstanding husband or father. In the film, The Ten Commandments, Yvonne
DeCarlo who plays Zeppora says to Anne Baxter who plays Neffreteri, an Egyptian princess and rival for Moses’ affections: “You lost him when he went searching for his God, I lost him when he found his God.” Moses’ focus was always on God to the obvious exclusion of his own wife and sons.
Yes, he had an important mission, but just in this chapter alone, when his father-in-law arrives with his wife and children, Moses prostrates himself before the man, kisses the man, and inquires as to his well being. But Zippora and the boys are ignored. His sons, Gershon and Eliazar, disappear when they should have logically taken up their father’s office as leader, but that is given to Joshua. Why do these three disappear? Zippora bore this man two sons. The boys carry Moses’s genetic code. Yet they are dismissed. At first they were abandoned by their father, then ignored by their father, and then gone. Elsewhere in the Torah we are taught that the younger son will supercede the older, and that primogeniture is not an indication of greatness. Are we to conclude that the disappearance of Moses’ sons teaches that the children of the movers and shakers of the world may not excel even though their parents had? I believe it is the goal of every Jewish parent that their children exceed them. This is a subtle statement that they might not.
And by the way, also dismissed from the Torah narrative are Zilpah and Bilah, Jacob’s secondary wives but still mothers of several progenitors of the twelve tribes. And what of Dinah, Jacob’s daughter? And finally, if women are so important in traditional Judaism, why are the Matriarchs not mentioned in the same sentence as the “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob...” as they are in the Reform prayer books. Wouldn’t their inclusion be a constant reminder of the importance of the Jewish woman and the Jewish home in preserving Yiddishkeit? Just a thought.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
January 25, 2014 B”H
Shevat 24, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Mishpatim - Exodus 21:1- 24:18.
Haftorah - Jeremiah 34:8-22; 33:25-26.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by asking the question: Why should the opening lines start with the word “and?” The answer I think I remember him giving was that this is an extension of the Ten Commandments given in the previous chapter, and that the “and” connects them and gives them the same veritas as the commandments in Parshah Yisro.
But taking this beyond the written word, he gave us the Kabbalistic interpretation which claims that the line has to do with reincarnation. Sadly, I can’t remember the connection. What I do recall is the story he told about a rabbi coming to the successor of the Bal Shem Tov, the founder of Chassidism, and asking a question. Sadly, I don’t recall the question, but the Rabbi sent the man to a place in the forest overlooking a stream. He was instructed to watch carefully and to make no sound. After a while, a man comes along, lays down on a bench and puts his sack of money under his head. After a while, he gets up and goes on his way forgetting the sack. A short while latter, another man comes along, finds the money and seeing no one is there to claim it, he takes the money and goes on his way. Lastly, an old man comes to the bench and sits down. After a while, the first man returns looking for his money and concludes that the old man took it. The old man tells he doesn’t know and receives a severe beating for claiming to be innocent. The rabbi watching this is astounded and goes back to the elder rabbi and tells him what happened. The elder rabbi explains it this way: Years ago, a powerful man in a particular community cheated another man out of a sum of money. The man who was cheated brought his complaint to the rabbi. The rabbi, being intimidated by the powerful man, refused to hear the complaint. Now this is where the reincarnation comes in. The man who fell asleep leaving his sack of money at one point was the reincarnated soul of powerful man who cheated the man out of his money. The man who found the money was the reincarnation of the man who was cheated. And the old man who was beaten was the reincarnated soul of the fearful rabbi.
Most people, when they think of reincarnation, think of Hinduism and Buddhism where the soul has multiple reincarnations until it learns what it must learn to reach Nirvana and final rest. The soul in these faiths incarnates into any number of beings or creatures depending on their behavior in former lives. Jewish reincarnation has something to do with finishing up a goal or addressing some purpose or injustice that had not been completed or addressed in the lifetime given to you. It would seem from this story that Jewish reincarnation also has to do with righting wrongs in past lives and putting things back in balance again. Still, I am confused because there seem to be two systems at play here. There is a “traditional” view of what happens to us after we die involving eleven months of purgatory, etc. But the Kabbalistic idea here has nothing like that. Is each to be believed, or is neither to be believed?. Or is there a combination of both? Perhaps the best thing to do is to choose for yourself what follows. I personally like the idea that the afterlife you believe in is the one to which you will go.
One of the important utterance in this parshah is where the Jewish People respond with, “We will do and we will obey.” This statement is made before the people even know what God will be asking of them, and it shows complete faith that God would never set his people up to do anything that could not be done. In fact, the statement itself leads to another key idea regarding how we are to
think about Torah law, namely that by following the laws and having faith, we will ensure a safe society free of want and fear among other things. Mendy said that we should not to think of the laws in the Torah logically, but act on them because God tells us to act on them. If the issue is reason verses faith, the committed Jew needs to come down on the side of faith.
I can see the wisdom in this acceptance. Very often therapists, rabbis, etc. will invite people to try on a new behavior if the old one is no longer working for them in the hope that in the repetition of the new behavior, they will come to understand the effects of it on their behavior and their lives. Do it first even if you don’t fully understand why you are doing it. Understanding and acceptance comes through repetition and osmosis. But it must be said that we no longer kill children who disrespect their parents, nor do we burn witches, or kill people who do not observe the Sabbath even though God demanded that we do so. We have reinterpreted laws as our society has advanced and as our understanding of human nature, our compassion, and our morality has advanced. That’s one reason why Judaism has continued. We have found reasons to get around certain God given laws that are not suitable to an advanced civilization.
Mendy also spoke about a discussion he had with teenagers where they were asked if they would save a drowning pet or a stranger. He said it was a lively discussion, and I think he used this example to make the point that obeying does not rely on logic.
I do not know what Mendy’s specific objective was in teaching this lesson, This is a lesson I’ve taught for over twenty years, but my ultimate objective in this lesson was to introduce to my students the key value in Jewish Law that “life is sacred.” To get to this, you ask the question about the pet and a stranger. There are students who will immediately save the stranger, and there students who will save the pet. They put their names under each heading as a public statement. There is a third heading for the students who are undecided. When all the names are up, I would tell the undecided students that if they don’t make a choice, both will drown, so I force them to do that. (Sometimes life is like that.) Above those who would save the pet, I put a sign that reads, “Animal life is more important than human life.” Above the other, “Human life is more important than Animal life.” If there were students who refused to choose one or the other, above their names is a sign that read. “An animal’s life and human life are of equal value.” I ask them to consider how different it is seeing the specific headings from just the ideas of saving one or the other. The clarifying process has begun. I then invite any one to move his or her name, along with asking them what changed their minds. At this time, the reality and consequences of their choices are seeping in. Names get moved over to saving the human. If there is a student who will still save the pet over the human, I invite that student to the front of the room, and ask a student who would save the stranger to stand in front of the other. I give the student who would save the pet a card upon which is written, “The life of my pet is more important than the life of you mother.” Most refuse to read it to the other. They are questioned as to why they would not, and what is going on?
Always, the question as to why the change? was asked. Ultimately, you will be asking what thoughts or values are guiding your decisions, and that ultimately, the idea that human life is important will be the response. So the next question is: Where did you get that idea? In most cases, the Torah is not the source because most Conservative and Reform students do not see the Torah as a living part of their lives. Mostly, they know about stories and holidays, but not about moral laws that guided their ancestors. Perhaps Orthodox students would immediately say that Torah law teaches me that, but I doubt it. I’ve taught Orthodox students. They pray by rote, and in my experience, there is little relationship between how some behave and how the Torah asks them to behave morally. Ritual they can do, but treating one another respectfully as the Torah demands, not so much.
So about a half dozen statements from Torah and Talmud are given as the ethical principles behind the value statement that Human Life is Sacred, and they carry this value because their families and the culture they live in had absorbed that Torah value over the centuries. I try to show them that they have been removed from the origin of that knowledge even though they might still hold the value. What has replaced the knowledge of Jewish morality are holidays and social action. (Not that that’s so bad if you’ve been given little else.)
In a subsequent lesson, they learn that the valuing process must involve choosing from alternatives, thoughtfully thinking about the consequences of each choice, publically affirming choices, and acting. But though a value is something you hold important, it has to be stronger than a feeling. You may love your pet. That’s a feeling. Saving a human life over your pet’s life, is acting on a Jewish value. I further reinforce this by asking if they would tell the parents of a friend that the friend was cutting themselves, drinking to excess, or contemplating suicide? What is up for grabs here: risking the loss of the friendship or preserving a life? Feelings for the friend, or saving the life of a friend at the risk of losing the friendship. All agree to tell the parent. Choices, consequences, acting and a value over a feeling. There is a process that kids should be taught.
The very first session in the sequence of lessons is showing why it is vitally important to have God as the authority behind moral law. They learn that without God as the authority, man becomes the authority and the arbiter of right and wrong, good and bad. We daily see where that has lead us. It’s easier to prove the need to believe in God as the authority behind moral law, than it is to give them faith. In this case, reason has to come before faith. Perhaps by seeing the need for God, they will ultimately believe in God.
Congregation M’kor Shalom; Rabbi Richard also began with the work, “and.” “And these are the judgements and rules...” that follow the Ten Commandments. After all the drama of the plagues, the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, Mt. Sinai, we are given the rules for organizing a society. The first set of rules is how one is to deal with a slave, which in this case is really indentured servitude or the way one had to work to pay off a debt. Richard said that this is a “write back” into the wilderness experience. Also “written back” were laws concerning child/parent relationships, laws regarding festivals, laws regarding dwellings, etc.
I asked Rabbi Menachim at Chabad how the Orthodox tradition explained this “write back,” and he said that this is all God telling the people the laws that they would have to use in the future so they would know what to do.
Slavery in the Torah was an economic reality, much like it was in the American South. But reflecting the 7th Century BCE social and economic system when this was written, slavery was acceptable.
That said, it should be noted that in the Torah, there are laws regarding a slave’s treatment that read: If a slave runs away, you may not return the slave to his master. The Dred/Scott decision passed by the Supreme Court states the opposite. That why one can say that the Torah is such a fantastic document; so advanced for its times. There is a law that states if a master strikes a slave and loses a tooth or an eye, the slave is to go free for the tooth or eye. Compare this humanity to what when on depicted in “Ten Years a Slave.”
Another series of laws dealt with “Capital Punishment.” In the wilderness, there were no time outs for very serious infractions, and no prisons. God, through The Torah, is saying that these are the expectations, and if you do not act appropriately, you will be put to death. To mitigate certain
contemporary behaviors such as revenge killings, there were four Cities of Refuge a person who accidently killed someone might flee and be judged by the priest who was acting for God.
At one point, Richard referenced the Code of Hamurabi, (1728 BCE) which existed eight hundred years before the advent of the Jewish People. There are many parallels between this Babylonian code of law and the Torah. Certainly, our ancestors, who came out of Mesopotamia, knew these laws and incorporated some of them as they built their own code. But one of the advances our people did was to limit the concept of retribution.
The important thing to understand for me is this: It is easier to respond and change something than to start with a blank page. The fact that our Torah borrows laws from an older established code does not bother me. What I see is what our ancestors did with that older code and how they elevated it. And this elevation wasn’t just in the area of slavery. In Hamurabi’s Code, if a man builds a house and the owners son falls from the roof, the son of the builder must be killed. But the Torah takes that law, and insists that when a person builds a house, a barrier must be put up on the roof’s edge so no one falls and is killed. Such advances in such laws became the basis of civil law of Western Civilization. When the Babylonians wrote an “eye for an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth,” they meant it literally. When the Jews adopted that concept, it was interpreted to mean just compensation for the loss of an eye or a tooth. And remember that a slave can go free if the master takes either. The Torah advanced justice and the sanctity of life as no other ancient or modern document has, and those secular documents that have come close such as the US Constitution or the Declaration of the Rights of Man, contain ideas that are easily traced back to the Torah.
What followed was the “proof text” in Judaism for all Jewish laws regarding pregnancy and the terminating a pregnancy. It is based on the law that if two men fight, and a pregnant woman miscarries because she is injured in the melee, her husband and the judges determine what payment should be made for the loss of that fetus. A person accidentally causing a miscarriage was not accused of a capital crime but fined based on how advanced the pregnancy was. As a result of this law, the fetus is not considered a person, so it was logical to conclude that if something goes wrong in the delivery of the fetus, you may sacrifice the fetus to save the life of the mother. But if the child is mostly born, you may not sacrifice it to save the mother. The fetus becomes a human being, a nefesh, when it is capable of breathing on its own.
While a miscarriage is involuntary, an abortion is not. This “proof text” has been interpreted and reinterpreted over the centuries. One text has led to another text to another text. Abortion is not for birth control, but only to save the life of the mother. But abortion is permitted at certain times when not just saving the life of the mother. The Reform Movement, in the 60's, passed a resolution stating that it supported “free choice.” The Conservative Movement cited “mental anguish” as a reason to terminate a pregnancy. But with the advent of technology, things are changing, and consideration is now being give to abortion when the fetus is carrying a defective gene that will cause its death or when the fetus is terribly deformed. The emotional and financial burdens such a child might place on the family, needs to be taken into consideration in the decision. The emotional trauma that such knowledge causes is not easy to deal with. Ethical conflicts abound.
According to Jewish law, there are categories regarding the development of the fetus. For example, the first forty days, the fetus is considered “water,” and there is no obligation for a funeral. I don’t recall the other stages, but for a still born child, certain funeral practices kick in. Today and with the rise of the Feminist Movement, customs are changing, and now there are rituals to address the emotional needs of families where there was a miscarriage. The Reform Movement will do
funerals if requested for closure. Because of the technology and advances in invitero fertilization, a science that I believe advanced based on the Torah law of “Be fruitful and multiply,” there are ethical decisions and rituals that deal with the disposing of fertilized eggs. But in Jewish Law, such eggs are not considered life and therefore can be disposed of. Still, the forces advancing technology continues to push the envelope in Jewish ethics.
Respectfully,
Labe ChaimFebruary 1, 2014 B”H
Adar I, 1, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Terumah - Exodus 25:1- 27:19.
Haftorah - Isaiah 66:1-24
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by informing us that this day begins the month of Adar, and because it is a leap year, there are two months of Adar so the lunar calendar can align itself with the solar calendar and thus, Passover will always be in the spring. There is a saying, “Be happy, it’s Adar.”
I’m not sure where this admonition to be happy comes from, but it is possible that it was made because there are no holidays between now and Passover to bolster our spirits, so we have to look to our own devices for joy and meaning.
Mendy also informed us that we are to be doubly happy because there are two Adars this year. But right on the heels of that statement, he challenged us to think about how it is possible to be “happy” when there are times when our lives are full of stress, and sadness, and illness. So his major message was that even if we are not happy because of stress and illness, we will find happiness in focusing on our purpose in life and how recognizing and accepting our purpose in life can refocus us, even if it is brief, so we might find happiness. Happiness, he said, can be found in seeing that our lives have purpose. In fact, he said that “Trust that if you are alive, you have a purpose.” He spoke of pain, and even if we do not know why we have that pain, there is still a purpose for the pain. He also said that it may take years of pain before you find that the pain was for your own benefit.
I’m wrestling with this concept. Often, pain is inflicted from without, and at times, self inflicted because you might be acting outside of your awareness and to your own detriment. Wisdom comes with age and assessing behaviors by looking backward. But if you do not have the capacity to change your behavior so as not to repeat former destructive behaviors, you are doomed to repeat it. Such people are caught in a Ground Hog Day scenario. Are we reincarnated until we come to understand our failings and ameliorate them?
Certainly, seeing your purpose can give you a positive sense of self, especially if you see your purpose as making meaningful contributions to the quality of the lives of the people you love or the wider population. But what if you do not have the facility of introspection, and what happens when you do assess your life and find it wanting meaningful purpose? What if you are so ossified that you cannot see a way out? I know people who would never look within. And worse than that, they do not see themselves as doing something that has meaning or value. Do these people get up every morning not knowing why they exist?
I think Mendy was subliminally suggesting the theological idea that to see and accept whatever one’s purpose is, even the pain, you must be willing to buy into a belief that there is a wider plan that you are part of and that your role or purpose must be accepted because any wider plan is God’s plan. That is fatalism or predestination, and I don’t buy it. Is the man who tortures himself because he cannot put food on his table to feed his children to take solace in the idea that his starving children are all part of a greater plan, and that his reward will be in heaven? I don’t buy it. Is the married woman who is abused and her children threatened daily supposed to accept her life because her role as a battered wife has purpose in a greater plan? I don’t buy it. Are the centuries of abuse, torture, debasement, or murder our people suffered throughout the ages all part of a greater plan?”
There are those who sang “Ani Maamim”in the packed cattle cars, but what else were they to believe at that moment? Do you think that at such a moment they took comfort knowing that they were part of a greater plan? I don’t buy it! At such moments, hope may be all that is left, and hope is the only source of comfort. But why even hope if you truly believe that your situation or condition is part of a greater plan? For me, it is easier to believe that God has nothing to do with the horror and despair human beings inflict on other human beings. I cannot believe that the horrors inflicted is part of a “greater plan” that we cannot understand. There is something called, “evil,” and evil is caused by human beings inflicting their will on other human beings. To me, whatever horrors are going on in the world today, has nothing to do with my concept of God. I cannot, I will not believe in a God who is a Puppet Master. For there to be a “plan” means there is no free will.
Perhaps the truly righteous believers entering Adar can find meaning in their suffering or in their plights, but it is much easier to be happy when you’re not in pain, when your not stressed, or when you have satisfaction in your work and play.
At one point in his drush, Mendy asked us not to see ourselves as the jobs we have, but to see ourselves in what the job enables you to accomplish: feeding your family, keeping them sheltered and safe, supporting Jewish causes, etc. He said that if you get up, you have value. If you are alive, you have value.
I will take some comfort and be more grateful when I get up each morning, thankful that I am given another day to do whatever good I can do. That said, three times a week I visit a nursing home and read to friend a friend who is confined to her bed with the use of only her right hand. I search for meaning in her condition. I look at those on that floor who are being warehoused until they die. What is their value? What is their purpose? Yet they get up each morning. What does their existence in those states serve in the greater plan if there is a greater plan? Does my friend exist in her state so I might have an opportunity to be compassionate? Was I not compassionate in another life so I have to learn compassion in this one through her pain? And what did she do to deserve the life she has?
When Mendy did speak of the parshah, he spoke of the requests that God made of the people to bring to Him a portion of what they owned so that the Tabernacle might be constructed. A congregant raised the question as to where they got the acacia wood, and Mendy responded with a midrash that told of how Jacob, in going down to Egypt, brought saplings with him just so these might grow into the trees that would be needed centuries later for the Tabernacle’s construction. According to the midrash, Jacob knew that his descendants would become slaves and ultimately freed. The trees growing were symbols to them and reminders of the hope that one day they would leave Egypt for the Promised Land.
Hope is often all we have. In any struggle, in any effort, hope is a comfort and allows us to continue moving ahead. Hope gives us the power to move forward. The growing acacia trees grew in sight of the slaves and gave them hope that one day they would be free. In Greek mythology, Pandora, the first women, is given a box and told not to open it. But her curiosity gets the better of her and she does. Suddenly, out of the box flies all the evils in the world. Fearful, she immediately closes the box imprisoning hope. Now one might say that hope was kept as a resource for humanity, or one might say that hope is imprisoned in the box and was kept from entering the world.
I am not happy about today’s drush. While it would be wonderful for people to look within and find the happiness that comes with purpose and value, most people in the world can not do that. I can accept the condition of humanity if life is random, but I find it personally painful to think that the human condition is part of a greater “Plan” whose end we cannot know. And if there is
such a plan, it was created as a rationalization for the human condition and the suffering that attends it. Some very smart man once said, “Religion is at its best when it asks questions, and at its worse when it answers them.” If “God’s Plan” is the answer to the question, I’m not buying it!
Congregation M’kor Shalom: After a brief review of last weeks parashah, Rabbi Richard pointed out that the moral laws for holding society together are suddenly dropped, and the complex instructions for building the Tabernacle in the wilderness are presented.
The key phrases that informed the rest of the session were: “...take for Me a portion, from every man whose heart motivates him you shall take My portion.” And...“They shall make a Sanctuary for Me– so that I may dwell among them...” The list of items to be donated is exotic and valuable, and one may surmise that the precious gems, gold, silver, and copper, were part of the “spoils of Egypt.” But all the other items, the rare skins, the spices, the incense, and the acacia wood seem to be from a time in the distant future when such items were available in an established and wealthy society. Richard suggested that this is a “read back” from the time of Solomon’s Temple when all these things existed and came to the Court of Solomon through trade with other nations.
God says that Moses is to accept gifts for Him (“whose heart so moves him”), and it seems that God is interested only in those gifts that are given openly and with a full heart. This voluntary donation of resources may be the origin of the first building campaign.
This took us to a discussion that dealt with the idea that for many, Jewish hearts are not motivated to support Jewish organizations, and part of the cause is that we are evoluting away from the idea that we no longer see ourselves as one people needing each other to survive. Assimilation is taking its toll on Kal Yisroel. It was suggested in order to return to this idea that we are all one people, the money spent on sending Jewish children to Hebrew school a few days a week be funneled into sending Jewish children to Jewish camp for an intensive experience that will be meaningful.
The conversation went to the fact that we are not even reproducing ourselves, and that the age of marriage has shifted among young Jews from their twenties to the thirties. Young people between 20's and 40's are not associating themselves with organized Judaism or supporting temples or organizations. Besides, there are also alternatives available such as Sunday School Societies where the training for bar/bat mitzvahs is the primary goal. There are also rabbis who do not have congregations who will officiate. If we are to survive, this demographic must be addressed. But this generation seems more interested in establishing their status and success than belonging to organizations that cannot further these goals.
Having taught Hebrew high school for many years, I have seen the pressure that my students were under to participate in extra-curricula activities and to get top grades. This pressure was put on them by their parents and by the schools. I saw our Midrashah, an educational offering that had been around for sixty-six years, fold because Jewish parents did not rank learning how to be a decent Jewish person higher than getting the best grades possible. It would seem that, Jewish education, one of the key values of our religion, is no longer as important as the secular school’s grade standing. I am convinced that what my students learned from me in my course, “Law, Values, and Morality,” or “God Stuff” now stands them in better stead as human beings than anything they learned in any highschool classroom. And it wasn’t only the parents. It seemed that since the Midrashah could not not generate enough students to pay for itself, it could no longer to be offered. Such an attitude towards education on the part of the community seems indicative of a new attitude
towards Jewish education. So the Midrashah ended as did the teacher’s resource room at the JCC. If you ask parents to rank “happy,” “good,” and “smart” as to what they want for their children, and I have done this time and time again, “happy” and “smart” vie for first place. “Good” is always third. Secular high school teach kids how to be smart. Jewish education teaches kids how to be good.
Richard spoke of those attempts to reach out to this age group and give them free membership to entice them into Jewish activities. He also said that there was a major internet attempt to organize this demographic because this age group is an untapped potential market. There was recognition of certain successes in these attempts, but the general feeling was that synagogue boards are not going to do this, and are not ready. Certainly there is the concern that bills need to be paid and building funds must be maintained, but boards are not seeing the big picture that without this new generation feeling welcome, these buildings will not continue to be her for future generations. He stressed Innovation, Preservation, and Adaptation as the future of Jewish survival.
Richard then turned back to verse 8 and the idea that God would dwell among the people. This says to us that we are to be receptive of divine goodness. If you open your heart, the sanctuary is within us. God will live in us. It is a spiritual way for the energy to enter. And as much as we need
God, as Heschel says, “God needs us.” Following this was a question to the class: What is God saying when He says “...so I might dwell among them?” Several congregants responded.
God is saying, “Let me come into your heart so I can experience you returning to me.”
God is saying, “You need a physical place to remind us of who we are.”
God is saying, “ I know that man needs a place to go.”
God is saying, “There is a need for community.”
God is saying, “I am without, and I am within.”
In conclusion, Richard said that each of us is our own sanctuary, and it is meditation and chanting that gives one this sense. So is a building needed?
I am of the opinion that if not huge structures, we still need places for the community to gather. One of the great benefits of being a Jew is being part of a community. We each may carry our sanctuary within, but we carry it alone. To be fully Jewish, you may not be alone.
Respectfully,
Labe ChaimFebruary 8, 2014 B”H
Adar I 8, 5774
WeeklyTorah Study: Parashas Tetzaveh - Exodus 20- 30:10.
Haftorah: Ezekiel 43:10-27.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Menachem saying:
I think I recall Rabbi Menachem beginning his drush with the question: “Would you rather be rich or would you rather be poor?” This motivating question was to move us to a better understanding of the opening lines in the Torah portion in which God says, “Now you shall command the Children of Israel that they shall take for you pure olive oil pressed for illumination, to kindle a lamp continually. In the Tent of Meeting outside the Partition that is near the Testimonial - tablets.”
The connection between the text and the question had to do with the word “pressed,”
and the ramifications of being “pressed.”
The rabbi seemed to be making the point that the poor person, is probably closer to God because there are greater stresses or “pressing” in such a life and at such times, people turn to God for support. He spoke of the “essence” within each of us, and how this essence is revealed through our thoughts and our feelings as we respond to such stresses or “pressings.”
I would add that our actions when “pressed” are another indication of who we really are.
Do we demonstrate, “grace under fire,” or do we default into denial, depression, and inaction?
In Europe, we were told, the Jewish population was much more connected to their faith and to God because their neighbors and the governments under which they lived, put them under great pressure and gave them few options. People, in their desperate hope and with few options, often turn to God as their final refuge and last bastion against the onslaught. But in America, there is an even greater challenge to reveal who we truly are because we are not daily confounded by Jew hatred. God, we are told, does not want us to respond to Him from an “essence” of last resort as did our European brethren who had no other options.
Menachem returned to the text and suggested that each of us is like an olive. And like the olive, the oil, our essence, is not revealed unless it is pressed. A little pressure, the first pressing, brings out the best of the oil from within, but too much pressure collapses the olive and the oil mixes with impurities revealing confusion and conflicts. The best in us will come from the first pressure, the first awareness that something needs to be done.
Of course, this commandment is the origin of the Ner Tamid or eternal light which hangs above the ark holding the Torah scrolls. It is never to go out, and generally has written on it words that let us know that God is the light of the soul. It is a constant reminder that God is within us and that each soul is an aspect of God. When I read the opening of this parashah, I was reminded of a 1940's radio program that we listened to in our apartment called, “The Eternal Light,” It told Jewish stories. Morton Wishengrad was the announcer, and he always began the program with, “Bring unto me pure oil olive, beaten for the light. To cause the lamps to burn continually in the Tabernacle of the Congregation.” I guess I remember it for the poetic beauty of the translation, and the rhythmic flow.
Respectfully,
Labe ChaimFebruary 15, 2014 B”H
15 Adar I 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Ki Tissa - Exodus30:11- 34:35.
Haftorah - I Kings 18:1-39.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
I came in towards the end of Mendy’s comments, and the gist of what he was saying was that it is very easy for a Jew to bring Yiddishkeit into his or her life in Crown Heights, Lakewood, Boro Park, etc. because every opportunity is available in those communities for observance. But here in Cherry Hill, where people are given options, the decisions to observe are harder to make because there are so many alternatives available. So he was very complimentary to us for coming out in such miserable weather, and participating in so many Chabad activities. He let us know that God was waiting for us to act, and if we are to extend ourselves, we would feel God’s reward.
I know enough of Jewish history to accept as a fact that even the most pious and righteous people often suffer mightily at the hands of evil people, so even those who extend themselves farthest may not garner any reward from God for their devotion. The question was raised in Job and never satisfactorily answered.
And please don’t counter that their rewards are in heaven because that is not a rational answer. Christianity teaches that all the prophesies regarding what would happen when the Messiah came as outlined in Isaiah, came true but came true in heaven.
So I have to consider what rewards might be experienced for such efforts, and the only rewards I can think of thus far are: 1.- The feeling of selflessness that you get for being supportive of other people and creating a minyon so they can say Kaddish, 2.- The feeling that you might actually be giving comfort by sitting quietly next to a bereaved person, 3.- The feeling garnered from a belief that you are actually making a difference in the life another person by knowing you are attending to, or comforting them when they are sick or incapacitated . Such rewards come from within, not from without.
We recognize that such behaviors cause us to feel that we are doing good and making a just a small piece of the world better for someone. We might also believe that the only reward we need is knowing that God is pleased. But for others, the reward may come through others recognizing what they are doing and getting a pat the back for whatever effort is made. Ego satisfaction and recognition can be the motivating factor for some, but before you condemn this motivation, consider the people who benefit from such ego trips. For me, the best reward is knowing that I am doing something good for someone, and that I am making even a slight difference. I have even made contributions to individuals through a third party with the expressed expectation that the recipient not know where the money came from. In such instances, I can’t even deduct these as a charitable contribution because there is no paper trail. The reward? Self satisfaction and the knowledge that I have eased the life of someone in stress. .
At the kiddish, I asked by friends what Mendy spoke about prior to my arrival, and I was told that he focused on the Haftorah, and the story of the contest between the priests of Baal and the Prophet Elijah. In this story, Elijah invites the pagans to set up a sacrifice, and the deity that receives the sacrifice will be proven the God of Israel. Elijah even offers the pagans the opportunity to choose the bull they want. But Mendy expanded on this story with a midrash that related the reluctance of
the bull to go with the Baal priests to be the pagan sacrifice. It seemed that the bull would have been happy to be sacrificed to God, but not to a pagan god. It was not until Elijah himself led the animal to the pagan alter that the bull did not hesitate.
Perhaps the bull, at that point, understood that he was part of a bigger picture and his reward would be in heaven.
I had to conclude (without being there) that this “reluctance” on the part of the bull was paralleled with the reluctance of some Jews to participate in religious activities to which Mendy referred later on in his drush. Perhaps the comparison was made with Jews who, when being asked to “sacrifice” their time and money, feel reluctant to do so believing that their time and money are better spent elsewhere. This must have been the connection between the statement of conflict Jewish choices present in Cherry Hill, compared to Orthodox communities, and when a Jew in Cherry Hill is willing to offer up his time and money, the rewards are greater because it is a tougher decision.
But did Mendy articulate for the congregation what that reward from God is, and if he did, was the reward something that would sooth the ego or did the reward insist that we function on a higher principal?
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Richard began by mentioning the census that was taken of the Children of Israel and the half shekel of silver that was mandated for each man regardless of status. This was to be an “atonement for his soul when counting them, so that there will not be a plague among them...” We were also informed that one of the Hebrew words (which I have forgotten) was a palindrome, and the symbolic significance is that giving is a two way process- a back and forth. Those who give will also get back.
Again, are we talking about rewards for extending oneself here? I think that this half shekel had other purposes: The first was very practical and had to do with supporting the Sanctuary and the Levites. The second, and more esoteric, may have been to give the donors a sense of a personal investment in building and therefore connect as part of the greater community. The shekel was also for the atonement of souls so this establishes the idea that contributions to the sanctuary and the general welfare goes hand in hand with God’s forgiveness. Also, there is the sense of personal value: everyone is worth half a shekel. In God eyes, all people are equal and equally responsible for supporting the Tabernacle. So this is also another foundation for supporting synagogues, and possibly avoiding the plague by doing so. There are rewards for extending oneself, and consequences for not.
The Golden Calf then became the focus of the discussion, and Richard referred us to the First Book of Kings12:28 where we found the story of Jeroboem and Rheboam, the sons of Solomon who divided the kingdom after Solomon died. It seemed that Rheboem, fearing that the people would continue to flock to his father’s Temple in Jerusalem and that would cause him to lose his influence to his brother, created two golden calves, setting one up in Beth El, and one in Dan. He made these cult places and appointed priests not of the Levitical line. He suggested that the story of Exodus’ Golden Calf was a “read back” of history from I Kings 12 by the Levitical priests, and put into the Exodus story to reinforce the blasphemy of Rheboam’s two golden calves and further disparage this king.
But does the delegitimization of the Golden Calf story in the Torah strengthen the message of the calf or do the lessons people might derive from analysis make it more powerful than just a story? One must now ask the question: “What the Golden Calf represents in your life?” The answer is that the Golden Calf story demands that we deal with the idiolatry in our own lives.
The Golden Calf in our lives is symbolic of all those things in contemporary life that get in the way of human beings finding a relationship with God. It is symbolic of the barrier between us and our relationships with the sacred and with other human beings. The calf is a complex symbol and more important than historical accuracy, because what really makes our lives have that have the most meaning are our relationships.
One symbolic meaning of the Golden Calf is reflective of what has become the human need for immediate gratification. The people wanted an immediate response from Moses. He was gone for forty days and nothing seemed to be happening. Some people have a tendency to look upon others as means to an end with an expectation that if you are not doing something to move me forward, you have no value to me. These are the “what have you done for me lately people?” The people who demanded that the calf be built may be the inspirations of such people living today. We have been conditioned by T.V. to expect resolution to problems in a half hour or hour at most. TV has reinforced this demand for speed in solving problems and we have carried this into our real lives with the result that we have lost patience and the ability to see the greater picture which may take more time. We demand things to have been done yesterday. We look for faster and faster ways of connecting through the technology we have been given, and we even get upset if responses are delayed by seconds. Many people have involved themselves in the “cult of the Google.” The fast food craze that dominates is a reflection of this phenomena, and eating out has replaced carefully prepared dinners at home for friends and family. Everything has become too rushed, too difficult, or too inconvenient. Nothing of oneself goes into eating in a restaurant, when everything of the self goes into preparing a meal at home and setting the table with the good dishes and stem ware. Judaism was smart to have inculcated a Shabbat meal weekly with the expectation that the food should be the best one can afford, and that it will be presented in the best way possible.
The Children of the Exodus rarely display patience, and one might see the destruction of those who created the Golden Calf as a symbol of what happens to those who can’t or won’t wait for the next moment or the next “fix.” The Torah is a book that tells us to hold up and control ourselves. Moderation and self control are key to the good life.
I raised the issue of these so called “read backs,” and what they do to the concept of God as the authority behind moral law. I was brought up in the Orthodox tradition that held that the Torah was God’s word, given by God in its entirety on Mt. Sinai. I did not question this until a rabbi once looked at me quizzically and said, “You don’t really believe that, do you?” It was the first time a person in religious authority had given me permission to think about this. I can accept that many stories in the Torah are borrowed from older civilizations because I’ve made those comparisons myself, and I can accept the idea that there are laws and rules that can exist only in an urban environment and not in the desert. I can but won’t argue with the Orthodox belief that the idea of a shekels, dolphin skins, and parapets put on a roof for safety, all reflect God’s effort to let us know what we need to know in the future once we settle the land. But the one thing I struggle with is the idea that if the Torah is not God given but written by men, then I must also accept the idea that God is not the authority behind moral law, and that human beings and the community are. I see daily what human beings do to one another because they or their governments have set themselves up higher than God’s moral law. Fascism and Communism both claimed to be the arbiter of right and wrong in their societies, and created laws that systematically murdered millions of people. I have lived through the worst half of the 20th Century and the beginnings of the 21st, and I have seen and continue to see what has happened when the authority behind moral law is based on the “community” or a charismatic leader. Totalitarian governments abound all over the world, and they set the standard for what is correct behavior. And when the laws change from country to country, and even from state to state, is anything “right” or is it all just relative and subjective to the wishes
of the society and governments in charge? People never flourish when the state combines with religion and decides what is good and what is evil. In this combination, corruption and evil thrive. The Spanish Government became a willing arm of the Catholic Inquisition in the 15th Century, and the Czar was eagerly supported in his Pogroms by the Russian Orthodox Church in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. The despotic government of Saudi Arabia allows only the severest type of Islam, and there are no churches or synagogues permitted in that nation.
The Jewish concept of Ethical Monotheism, the belief that God is the authority behind moral law and expects us to behave properly, is undermined by this idea of “read backs.” And I challenge Reform theologians to deal with this.
Yes, there have been reinterpretations of the Torah so the harsh laws that may have been needed to control a very “stiff necked people,” would not be instituted throughout the centuries. But the Torah itself has never been changed. As far back as Ezra’s time in Babylonia, the Prophet changed the rules so those who were in Babylon could live successfully and still be good Jews. Also, an annotated copy of the Shulchan Aruk, the Code of Jewish Law, attests to these reinterpretations as have Responsas written though out the centuriesThe Reform Movement claims that the authority is the society in which the people exist, and I have a serious problem with that piece of Reform theology.
Judaism is an interpretive religion and change is an integral part of it, but never have our revered scholars upon whom we still rely for interpretation of the text, denied God as the authority behind moral law.
I would go so far as to say that even if you don’t believe that God is the authority behind moral law, you can certainly appreciate why I believe that we need the concept of God as the authority behind moral law.
If I recall correctly, Richard spoke of God as an expanding Life Force in the universe that connects us to other life forces. It was suggested that when a person ceases to exist, the life force moves elsewhere and possibly into others. Several personal testimonies to this idea were offered. This is a mystery, and we don’t have to explain it.
Maimonides says that we “can never know God,” and God tells Moses that “he can never see My face.” What does that mean? The answer was that seeing God’s Face would limit our concept of God. Any visible representation of God, limits God. The Golden Calf limited the God concept.
The physical representation of Jesus on the cross limits the sense of mystery that needs to accompany any idea of what God might be. The Torah is revered as sacred, but it is not God. When our ancestors chose to worship the Golden Calf, they chose to worship “a thing” because they were not sophisticated enough to grasp the idea that God’s time and their time were two different ideas of time. And if you worship “things” you limit yourself spiritually.
Personally, I think the word “God” limits God. I prefer referring to God as Ayn Sof or Endless. No images or expectations conjured up with this appellation. Too many people have the child-like image of the old bearded man from Renaissance paintings as God. The Bible, our Psalms, and our liturgy also reinforce an anthropomorphic Being with physical and emotional attributes perhaps because human kind needs something physical to which they might cling. Is it any wonder that so many people find it difficult to believe in the God they were taught about as children now that they are adults?
At the end of our finite existence is a merging with God. We are an energy animating a body, and when we die, we become part of a collective energy. From Les Miz, is the lyric, “To love another person is to see the Face of God.” Falling in love changes both body and chemistry.
We have felt the need to gather in the synagogue. The synagogue brings people together and that itself makes it significant, because it become the medium through which relationships are formed. At its core, Judaism is a religion about relationships, the primary one being your relationship with God. When God tells Moses that his people are sinning and dancing, dancing is a euphemism for illicit sexual relationships. The reality is that infidelity is a diverting of one’s focus from what should be the focus such as that which is crucial: significant relationships, family, protecting children etc. Any thing taken to extreme can become your “Golden Calf.”
I was reminded of the Simon and Garfunkle lyric from Sounds of Silence: “And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon gods they made.” I guess that people who worship their money, their status, their own image, drugs, sex, etc. are limiting their own spirituality.
When men devote all their energies into their work and bypass the home, the result might be an absentee father. The lyrics in the song, Cat’s Cradle speaks to that false idol. In the song, a man promises to play with his son, but never delivers because he is working. When he retires and wants a relationship with his son, the son also can’t find the time. “My boys grown up just like me.”
Moses breaks the tablets when he sees the Golden Calf, but not before. This teaches that actions determine character. The people are enjoying their debauchery and as they act our, their characters are revealed. The shattering of the tablets is symbolic of a break with this generation. The giving of the second set of tablets is a symbolic transition to the next generation. The essence of transition is to break with the past. Here it is revealed that the generation that crossed the Sea of Reeds will not go into the Promised Land. The bringing down of the second set of tablets recognizes a second stage in the people’s development. It repeats the same the law. The law doesn’t change, but people do. The teaching here is that we must break with the past in order to move forward, but you must keep both the broken set of tablets and the complete set because you need your history to remind you of where you’ve been and your need for growth. Both were kept in the Ark of the Covenant.
Lastly, Richard made mention of the image of Moses’ face being radiant after his conversation with God. “Rays of light shone forth from his face,” is the usual translation. The word for ray and the word for horn have the same letters, but one knowd only the meaning from the vocalization of the word since Hebrew has no vowels.
So when the Torah is translated from the Hebrew to the Greek and then to the Latin, the word “rays of light” is translated as “horns of light.” That is why the iconic statue of Moses done by Michael Angelo housed in the Church of St. Peter in Chains in Rome, depicts Moses with horns. And would you believe that this mistranslation of a word gave the Christian world the idea that Jews have horns? Of course this idea is reinforced by the Gospel of John written about one hundred years after Jesus dies. John has Jesus saying that the Jews are the children of the devil. The Jesus Seminar refutes this and claims Jesus never made that horrendous accusation. Jesus himself was a practicing Jew. Would he accuse himself and his own people as being the spawn of the devil? It doesn’t make sense. John had his own agenda for such slander, and his calumny has caused the deaths of millions of innocent people. Other mistranslations from the original Hebrew and interpretations refuted by Biblical scholars, lead to misconceptions that gave rise to several Christian beliefs that have caused friction between the two faiths.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
February 22, 2014 B”H
22 Adar I 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Va-Yakhel – Exodus 35:1- 38:20.
Haftorah - I Kings 7:40-50.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy reviewed the history of the Hebrews by telling us that we had been enslaved in Egypt for 210 years. He seemed to imply that because of this, we had the mentality of slaves and could not fully appreciate our freedom and God’s power despite our first hand experiences with the plagues, the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, and the face to face encounter at the foot of Mt. Sinai where we miraculously received the Ten Commandment. It was because of this slave mentality which insisted on being directed by an outside force, that they could not accept the fact that Moses, the one who told them what to do, had disappeared for forty days. They felt leaderless, afraid, and abandoned. They did not have the capacity for self direction, patience or faith, and when Moses did not return as they believed he would, they demanded to have a new leader and created the Golden Calf. When Moses returns, and sees that they are enjoying their sin, he breaks the tablets, but immediately goes back up to Sinai to plead with God not to destroy them. God relents and gives him two more tablets with the laws on them. From start to finish, we’re looking at the passing of one hundred and twenty days. It is one hundred and twenty days from the giving of the Ten Commandments to Yom Kippur.
I wonder if it is a coincidence that the time between the Revelation and the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, is the same time allotted to human life. The Commandments revealed give you the spiritual source with which to live your life, and Yom Kippur is the opportunity to atone for not meeting the expectations of those Commandments. It would seem that mystically, each year, we span our life times by going from an awareness of our source to an awareness of our success or failure in addressing the demands of that source. I’ll have to give this more thought.
Once the ground work was laid, Mendy focused on the lines, “On six days, work may be done, but the seventh day shall be holy for you, a day of complete rest for Hashem; whoever does work on it shall be put to death. You shall not kindle fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.”
Since Mendy was talking about the Commandments, I could not help but think about the first and what it means. The first Commandment of the Ten is not a commandment at all but a statement that intends to get your attention because if you can’t buy into the first and acknowledge God as the Authority behind the other nine actual Commandments, then the Commandments are really only good ideas or suggestions. God’s Commandments don’t come with a choice, and if God is not the authority, who is to say that you must follow them?
The Commandment to keep the Sabbath became the next focus of the drush. I think all therapists and life coaches will agree that in order to maintain some degree of happiness and health, we need to reduce the stress in our lives and give ourselves a vacation. Sabbath observance is like taking a vacation each week. I know that there are 39 laws regarding behavior on the Sabbath. I once tried observing the Sabbath as the best I could as the tradition required, and I did not find it a satisfying or even happy experience. I recall that I only like the idea of stepping over something that needed to be picked up. Never did “Sabbath” again, because I don’t like being ossified.
Mendy spent some time on the question as to why God would assemble the entire congregation only to tell them things that they already knew? They knew about the Sabbath observance and work. Something else must be at work. What was to be understood by the was that we must also know that our acknowledgment of God on the first six days of the week is just as important as our acknowledgment of God on the Sabbath. In fact, it may be more important because we are people who can make choices, and while the Sabbath may limit choices, the other six days do not.
During our work week, we have opportunities to raise up false gods. These false gods often out of what we do. Money, social position, power etc. were intimated as examples of the false gods we create out of what we do during the week, and we sometimes tend to see these as the end goals and attribute our success to them. Our own egos can become a god of our own creaton. He referenced ancient civilization who made the sun or moon, fertility, the sky, the sea etc. into gods, but let us know that these physical realities were only tools. God was the Power behind the workings of these things. Everything in the universe including humankind are tools to be used in the service of God. While people may also be tools, we are the only tool with options and free will. The rain and the sun and the moon do what they do at God’s behest and never by their own choosing.
We are God’s tools but with a choice. We are asked to recognize that God is behind everything, and must be acknowledged as the source of all. When people begin saying that they do not recognize themselves as tools but as the source of their success and not God, they are missing the point of their faith and creating false gods. The key point I believe Mendy was making was that gods that come out of our labor, namely, wealth, power, status etc. are not the source and are not to be revered. They are merely the by products of what God has given individuals.
President Obama was taken to task for saying to business owners that “You didn’t create this.” All thoughtful and honest human beings knew immediately what the president meant. He was saying that a business does not grow or become successful in a vacuum. The street upon which the business stands was not put there by the business owner, but by the city or town. The business owner did not build the roads that brought customers to the shop, and did not put in the pipes that brought in water or took out the waste. Business owners owe their success to many unseen others. Certainly, they can take all the credit for their vision and what goes on in their stores. No one denies them that. But without the streets, the US Postal Service, UPS, the roads, the sewer, and dozens of other things, business could not exist. That’s what the president was saying, and I do believe that Mendy was saying the same thing. We do not exist in a vacuum, and we did not get what we have or do what we do without the help of others or without an infrastructure that was in place before we happened on the scene. For the Jews, God is the infrastructure upon which we depend, and we must acknowledge Him. The three services a day speak to that obligation and inner human need to acknowledge.. President Obama was as correct in his assessment as was Mendy in his. No one does it all by him or her self.
Mendy also spoke about both parents in concert with God as the creators of life. The Fifth Commandment, the one where we are told to honor our father and mother is on the same tablet as the other Commandments dealing with our relationship with God, and its location there is a statement all by itself. I don’t recall much of what he said. I think it might have had something to do with us as tools with choice, or parents and community also as a part of the infrastructure in our lives. .
Perhaps I can’t recall what was said because this idea of partnering with God brought to mind a wonderful story and I thought about it; a story that only a Jew could fully appreciate. It seems that one day, a farmer was standing on a hill overlooking his fields. A man comes up to him, surveys the scene and says, “Look at the neat rows of fruit trees and the size of those fruits. Look at
that corn field and the ears of golden corn. And that grape arbor with those luscious grapes. You should thank God for letting you be a partner in all of this.” The farmer looked at the stranger and said, “I do thank God every day for His allowing me to be His partner, but you should have seen this place when God had it all by Himself.”
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Richard also spoke about the “six days of work that may be done, and the seventh being a holy day for you, a day of complete rest...” He mused on the idea that the Talmud gives a special dispensation to Rabbis who are obliged to work on Shabbat.
Somewhere I recall a statement saying something like “...you may not use the Torah as a spade with which to dig...” If that implies that one may not make his living from the Torah, does that imply that the reward for becoming a rabbi and teaching Torah should be the wonderful feelings garnered from the act and not a salary?
He informed us of the distinction between two types of work: “avoda” and what I think I heard him say, “melech malach.” I think “avoda” work was the drudgery type such as the work done in Egypt and perhaps every day, and “melech malch” was the heavenly work that was involved in creating the Mishcan or Tabernacle. The latter is work inspired through the heart – work in the name of heaven. God worked on six days and then rested. We are told to do the same.
But the question was raised as to whether or not Shabbat should remain fixed or if Shabbat should be portable so we might better observe it when we have the time to celebrate it. Many people find it difficult because there is just too much to do on a weekend. Must Shabbat always be sundown to sundown Friday evening to Saturday evening, or may we go from Tuesday sundown to Wednesday sundown if that is more convenient? It was a question that was asked. Also asked was the question: What should trump, spirit or reality? A reference was made to Dr. Alvin Reines, professor of Jewish philosophy at the Hebrew Union College, in relation to whether or not one may change the day to celebrate the Sabbath. I don’t recall specifics, but from what I know of Dr. Reines and the Polydoxy he suggested as an alternative Jewish path, I think he would support such a move.
No one in the study group thought that moving Shabbat was a good idea. Last night, as the candles were being lit, the wine and bread blessed, I had the vision that this same thing was happening in countless homes around the world, and that image enabled me to easily enter into the spirit of Shabbat and my Kal Yisroel connection. I would not be able to experience the wider connection with my people if Shabbat floated. Now there are moments when one may not be able to observe a holiday on the day it is set on the calendar, and I know it is permissible to celebrate it as soon as you can. After all, the eight day holiday of Chanukah originally was a late celebration of the eight day holiday of Succot because our ancestors couldn’t celebrate Succot at the appointed time. There is precedent for changing dates. While time and the calendar are human ways of measurement, once something is codified, we should not play around with it. Once Washington’s birthday and Lincoln’s birthday were combined into President’s Day, America has never been the same. I like some of what Dr. Reines has to say about making religion your own, but you don’t mess around with when Shabbat is celebrated. For years I’ve had to move my second Seder to Saturday night because that was the only time I could ever get my grandchildren to experience Passover as I need them to experience it. This is a question of balancing the reality of life, my need for children and grandchildren to be a the seder, and adhearing to Jewish tradition. In this case, I took Dr. Reines’ advice.
The concept of Shabbat is way beyond just one day. It’s an expression of the need for mental health and rest. Everyone needs to stop and take a step back. Studying Torah on Shabbat is doing sacred work. The Talmud asks us what constitutes work? Making a fire constitutes work. It say so in
Exodus. This is a 3,000 year old law. So in the Medieval Period, the idea of hiring a non-Jew to make a fire was instituted as was the “erev” so Jews might extend their homes and carry outside. Just these two additions to Yiddishkeit were attempts to modernize. Such changes do not change the law. They are means of dealing with the law effectively as we move through time and situations. But underlying all is the idea that anything that is essential to preserve life can be performed on the Sabbath even if it means breaking the laws of the Sabbath.
Judaism has survived because it interprets, adjusts, and redefines. It is a living organism that continues to grow and evolve. The Judaism of the dessert is not the Judaism of the Prophets, and it is not the Judaism of the Rabbinic Period. The Medieval writers put their mark on it, as did those in the Enlightenment. Responsa continues the plasticity of the faith, and so it may continue.....
In Chapter 36, we are introduced to Bezalel, a man endowed with wisdom and insight that gave him the skills to oversee and execute all the work needed for the Sanctuary. Everyone whom God inspired with wisdom and whose heart was so moved approached to work on the Tabernacle. Bezalel, in Chapter 37 is instructed how to execute the Menorah that will provide light. Light is a symbol or the divine in humankind. Rabbi Dr. Rachel Adler speaks of light as a metaphor, and the Menorah as a symbol of creation and a sign of the beginnings of conscienceness. (The lightbulb above the heads of cartoon characters, or “I see the light.” “Light One Candle” “Light is the best antiseptic.”)
In Chapter 35:30, Bezalel is singled out, and God names him Himself. Few have been given that honor. He is very special with Ruach Eloheim, the Spirit of God, inspiring him to do it all and to teach others how to work the different mediums God requests. But where did Bezalel come from, and why is he there? Richard said that his name means “in the shadow of God.” We were then informed that a scholar named Umberto Cassuto writes of the similarity between this man and a man whose name I think may have been Katabarachsis who was Bezalel’s counterpart in the pre-Hebreic Uritic Civilization. In this older Mesopotamian Civilization, this Katabarachsis is called upon by one of the gods to build a house in which this god may be worshiped. As a pre-Hebraic tale known to our ancestors, it, like many others, may have found its way into the Torah. It was suggested that Bezalel was written in as an antidote to Canaanite deities much the way the prophets of Baal were challenged by Nathan.
It is interesting that the name of the Sumarian sea god is Yom, and the Babylonian deity of rest was Shabalti.
The Hebrew month of Tamuz is also the name of a Mesopotamian god. Borrowings abound. Many of the laws of Moses are duplicates of the Laws of Hammurabi, the story of Noah is too similar to the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh to be coincidental, and the Gospel writers took the events in the life of Moses and recreated them in the life of Jesus. And Pharaoh ordering the building of the Tower of Babel in the Koran was also not an accident. Borrowing goes on, and the realization of that should not be a challenge to beliefs.
We looked again at the parasha to the line “...Take from yourselves a portion for Hashem, everyone whose heart motivates him shall bring it...” When we are doing something that we want to do, it is not work. What does it take for a person to have his heart moved to work on behalf of the angels? The heart was the focus. “Have a heart...”implies an activity. “Do not stand too long because
it is bad for the heart.” “A heart that is not used becomes hardened.” It becomes restricted. What does that mean? It means that when we choose not to go with our hearts, we risk becoming self
centered and lack compassion. God wanted those who would be moved and whose hearts were
inclined, because a heart will be invested. A heart so moved can enhance the entire world.
Think about what you do that you do with a full and open heart. Think of the difference that that makes in the lives of others. Those whose hearts move them to act for the good, move the lives of individuals to a better place, and in doing so, improve the world.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
March 1, 2014
I Adar 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Pekudei - Exodus 38:21-40: 38 & 30:11-16.
Haftorah: II Kings 12:1-17, I Samuel 20:18
Mendy’s Comment: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying.
Mendy spoke briefly before turning the bima over to a visitor from Israel who was the head of the One Israel Fund. I’ll speak to his comments shortly.
Mendy referred us to God’s request that half a silver shekel coin be given by each male over twenty as an atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf, and this coin would also be a means of numbering the people after the sin because of the ensuing deaths that occurred from angering God. He also told us that Moses was confused as to the procedure or the purpose of the coin, and sought clarification from God. And this bewilderment on Moses’ part led to a midrash telling us that when Moses took his confusion to God, God took the coin He wanted offered from beneath His throne, and the coin was aflame. Moses immediately understood that the coin of fire represented passion, and that atonement for one’s transgressions can come only when the the person seeing atonement is sincere and has passion.
So atonement for sin has to be accompanied certainly by recognition and ownership of the infraction, but also some “passion” to rectify what was done. We are invited by this story to act with passion because our atonement is in the passion we bring to that atonement. That’s what is wonderful about studying Torah with someone trained in stripping away the layers of meaning. I have always felt that we are granted atonement or grant ourselves atonement when we are next faced with the opportunity to “sin” and we chose not to do so.
The parasha primarily deals with an accounting of the gifts brought for the Tabernacle or Mishcan and how God wants the items created to be set up. So at one point, God tells Moses exactly how he wants everything placed, and right after that, everything is repeated when Moses does what he was told.
This redundancy seemed superfluous, so I asked Rabbi Kaminker, “Why the repitition?” I’ve learned from my years at Chabad, that there is a reason, and the answer is readily available. He told me that there were three different reasons, but I tell you the one that I liked best mostly because I have forgotten the other two. Funny how the mind works. It seems, as the Rebbe explained it, that the repetition is there because when Moses first hears God’s request and directions, they are on a spiritual plain. It must be repeated over again, and by doing this, the directions must be brought down on to the physical plain.
Mendy’s guest was a gentleman named Marc Prowisor who originally was from Cherry Hill and made aliyah to Israel and is now living in Shilo, a town in Judea/Samaria. Mr. Prowisor is the Security Project Director of an organization called the “One Israel Fund” whose motto seems to be, “To Protect the People of Israel, We Have to Protect Israel.” Among other things, his organization provides security systems to Jewish town in the disputed territories. But Mr. Prowisor is also something of an activist who challenged us to ask, “Where are all the Peace Now Arab organizations? His answer was that they do not exist because those Arabs who want peace with Israel, and there are many who do, do not dare speak out or they and their families will be killed.
This is a man who speaks with passion, pointing out that Shilo, his home, was the site of the Tabernacle and connected to the Jewish People as more than just a physical place. Jewish history is alive in this place as it is in Hebron and as it is in so many other places in what the world has come to call the West Bank. For this reason, Mr. Prowisor is not in favor of a two state solution because to give away Judea and Samaria, is to give away a land to which we are intimately attached.
This title, the West Bank, was created by the Jordanians to separate that land mass from its Jewish roots. Originally, Judea and Samaria were ceded to Israel, but it was taken from the Jews when the Jordanians over ran it in 1948 and expelled the Jews who had been living on that land for centuries. It became “Jew free.” That’s when the Jews also lost East Jerusalem and access to our holy sights, most of which were destroyed by the Jordanians. Of course, no nation at the UN raised any objection to what Jordan did so the land taken from Israel remained with them until Israel reclaimed it in 1967. Then the UN got its panties in a bunch because the Jews had been victors again. I am of the opinion that those who voted for the creation of Israel did so expecting that the Arabs would drive the Jews into the sea and finish the work of the Nazis. Once this was done, they would wring their hands, but they would have assuaged their consciences of guilt for having stood by doing nothing while the“Final Solution” was taking place.
Yes, we are spiritually attached to the land, and whether you believe that the land and the story were divinely handed down or not, the Torah is a history book of a distinct people listing such places as Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem, Jericho, Shilo, and Ramallah just to name a few listed as places where events in Jewish history took place. Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran, and these ancient cities have no connection to the Arabs who were brought into this section of the world in the 19th Century by the Ottomans to work the land. They were transplants from other areas of the empire and were no different from any other Arab living in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. The boarders of these nations were artificially drawn after the First World War, and the Arabs living on those land masses became Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians. The people living in the section called Palestine were called Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Never was there an independent Palestinian country that was taken over by Jews. The land was to be legitimately divided into two separate states.
To be perfectly candid, the Arab Palestinians, along with the Jewish Palestinians lived in a province of the Ottoman Empire, and there was never a separate and distinct “Palestinian People until the 1960's when Russia decided that to create a “Palestinian People” as a underdog, and the Palestinian Liberation Army as a way of creating another proxy war front with the USA, was a strategic move. So this myth was indoctrinated, and over the decades, has come to be believed. Now, the Arab Palestinians, believing the propaganda created to be another wedge between east and west, demands a homeland of its own, fully believing that once upon a time, there actually was an independent country that was wrested from them by the Jews.
And I would willingly give it to them if peace could be established. But I also know that the only real peace for them, the Muslim world, and certain countries of Europe will come only when the State of Israel is destroyed and returns to Muslim control as required from the Muslim Brotherhood and their dream of reestablishing a new Caliphat.
I also know that unlike in Israel where Arab Palestinians and Israeli Arabs have options and freedoms, it has already been declared that any new Palestinian country will also be Jew free. Again, no one in the UN has raised any objections to that statement, though dozens and dozens of resolutions against Israel’s perceived “injustices” are passed with every meeting of the UN Human
Rights Council.
Mr. Prowisor also made that statement that he would like to see the separation barrier come down because it daily limits their freedom to access the Israeli beaches and inconveniences them on their way to work. This barrier has angered the Arab Palestinian living in Judea and Samaria, and contributes to their resentment.
While I can appreciate their frustration, I have to weigh their frustration against the lives of Jewish people, and if I have to weigh the two: Jewish lives or Arab Palestinian inconvenience, I have to come down on the side of saving Jewish lives. Sadly, the extreme Jewish left such as J Street and Peace Now also continue to demand that the separation barrier come down. Since the barrier went up, the number of Jews murdered by suicide bombers and other infiltrators have been reduced to almost nil. Great reality. And though the wall and the graffiti on it makes great visuals for people like Christiana Aminpour and her ilk, and great images for Arabists like our former President Jimmy Carter whose Carter Institute gets the majority of its funding from Saudi Arabia, the wall does protects Jews from Arab Palestinians terrorists. Mr Prowisor says we can better control this border with better surveillance, but I must respectfully disagree. There has always been surveillance between Jerusalem and Jennin and Arab Palestinian settlements.
Until the Arab Palestinians stop teaching their children to hate Jews, it will take generations before those barriers can or should come down. While I’m sure that there are those Arab Palestinians who do not hate Jews and do not wish that Israel was destroyed, the hatred felt by others will not end and if there is a two state solution, there will still be the need for a barrier between the two nations because the ultimate goal for the Arab world is that all of what we call Israel is to return to Muslim dominance. Israel remains a bone in their throat because Israel’s very existence and the Jews dominance on land that they consider theirs, gives the lie to statements in the Koran and the Pact of Umar that Jews are to be dominated and treated as second class citizens by Muslims.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Richard wasn’t there, so Rabbi Frankel took over the class. We began by reading about Moses’ accounting of all the materials that were offered up by the people for the Tabernacle, and the questions raised was: “Why take an accounting in the first place.?”
She told a delightful little midrash that Moses’ tunic did not have pockets in them so he would always be above suspicion of taking for himself that which was meant for God. She also spoke of the root of the Hebrew word for accounting as being something that sounded like “paqad.” The same root also means “to take notice of” or “paying attention” and the example she gave was when God took notice of Sarah and promised to give her a son. It would seem that for the sake of appearances, we must take notice. This idea of the importance of taking notice was reinforced by referencing the commandment that we are not to mix milk and meat. The idea was that a person walking by a place were they saw people eating might conclude that the place served kosher meat if they didn’t look carefully.
The conversation then focused on the question, “How do you create holiness in time.” Rabbi Frankel was very open and encouraging of participation, hearing responses such as ritual, study, services, gratitude, etc. The follow up question was, “Can we profane time?” It seemed that these two questions were related to taking an accounting of ourselves as something like the taking accounting of what was brought to the Tabernacle. There is an accounting of the soul that is to be made.
The question about creating holiness in time resonated with me because unless you are a saintly tzadick whose entire life is devoted to spiritual matters and one who lives a life that is totally
God centered, you may have some problems about creating holiness in time. There are moments in our every day lives that are opportunities to experience holiness, but we must be in tune and aware of those moments when they present themselves. Suddenly feeling awe upon seeing a night sky filled with stars while taking out the garbage, or a sudden smile from you wife that seemed new after thirty years, are such moments. But if you don’t have the capacity for suddenly stopping and seeing, you miss those moments. I believe most people miss such moments, and in doing so, miss that sanctity. It’s almost as if we have two brains, a brain that experiences the holy, and one that experiences the profane. The profane world is where we tend to exist, so recognizing the holy for some is a stretch.
The Sabbath is given as an open weekly invitation to experience the holy in time, and to get there, we have to consciously and deliberately separate ourselves from the world of everyday. To do this, we are given specific times to turn off our profane brain and embrace the rituals of washing one’s hands, candle light, wine, and bread. These symbols become the door into holy space that you create in your home.
Our study session then turned to the religious principals of Reform Judaism, and how these have changed from those first stated in 1885, in 1937, in 1976, and in 1999. I do believe that the connection be made here on how one can find sanctity is reinforced in the platforms of the Reform Movement.
If one looked closely, one could easily see the Reform Movement move from the top down denigration of ritual in favor of individual autonomy in 1885 when the movement was in its infancy, to a bottom up revision of principals that reintroduces the need for Torah study, rituals, and the sanctification of our lives daily.
In 1887, it was felt that ritual matters got in the way of spiritual matters. Kashruth was viewed as something that created obstacles between Jews and Jews being accepted into American society. If you are restricted to eating only kosher, you restrict your world. The wearing of a kippah and a talis were also put aside in a effort to cut down on barriers.
By 1937, things were changing. The advance of the industrialized world, the rise of Nazism, the Depression, and the rise of Jew-hatred cause the movement to see the need for ritual as a means of bringing people together. A focus was put on Sabbath, the Holy Days, and the festivals. There was a movement not to look like the immigrants or to identify with them. There was also an effort to move Shabbat to Sunday to better meet the needs of American Jews.
The question was asked as to why we know that Shabbat is Saturday, and the answer was that a double portion of Manna fell on Friday. We celebrate on Saturday for this reason. But is it really Shabbat if I can’t make it? Why isn’t Thursday okay? The answer is that Shabbat is when my community says it is.
Throughout the Torah, we watch a community being created. These individuals now have to come to one site– the Mishchan. The creation of the Mishcan was a place where God can dwell. Now, it is our souls where god can dwell.
Something else happens in the Jewish world between 1885 and 1937, and that is the creation of the Reconstructionist Movement. In this movement, the concept of Peoplehood as the idea that holds the people together is presented, and rituals, the Hebrew language, the role of women, holidays, art, music, etc. become important. I think this movement influenced the Reform Movement in 1937.
In 1976, the Reform Movement continued stressing the need for ritual and the centrality of the Jewish home, study, private prayer, keeping the Sabbath, the importance of educating girls etc., but laid new stress on social action and social responsibility as a way of achieving universal justice, peace, as a means of our survival as a people and as a religion. These seem to parallel the Civil Rights Movement and the rise of Feminism. But along with this, Reform Jews were called upon to confront the claims of Jewish tradition, and to exercise their autonomy.
There was another theology posited at this time by Dr. Alfred Reines called Polydoxy. Polydoxy invited Jews to develop theologies that worked for them. Polydoxy is a religious ideology that affirms the ultimate right of an individual to religious self-authority or autonomy. So within this ideology, each individual possess absolute freedom to select personal beliefs or practices, so long as they do not impinge on the freedom of others. I think Reines influenced the Centenary Reform Perspective.
The 1999 principles seem to come full circle back to a Judaism that sees God as in our daily lives, and that we respond to God through public and private prayer, study, mitzvot, a responsibility to others etc. Torah comes back and is revealed when we sanctify time in our lives with observance. The concepts underlying the holidays are to be the focus, and this is all to be accomplished through an egalitarian effort.
The thought that a new set of perspectives and principles are needed to guide the 21st Century was suggested.
I for one, liked the idea for a new set of principles, and there are definitely several areas that need to be addressed.
• I feel that one of the most important concept to be addressed is the concept of God. The God most Jewish people learn about is the God of the Torah, and we learn about this God when we are children. As children, the stories taught along with promises in the psalms lead us to believe that this Father God effects what goes on in the world and what goes on in their lives. Eventually, they come to see a different reality and realize that this God does not follow though on the promises in the books and psalms. The reality is that many walk away from formal education after bar or bat mitzvah never having had the opportunity to learn about other Jewish God concepts that might work better for them as adults. Yet the few times Jews walk into a synagogue, they are confronted by books that speak of the same God they rejected as children.
Any Reform perspective must address this issue of our God concept and reeducation.
• Educating children must place a stress on the concept that are the reasons for the holidays we celebrate. The idea behind Chanukah is the right of people to be free to have the religion they chose and to worship their God as they choose; the idea behind Passover is the idea that people have a right to be free and not enslaved; the idea behind the High Holidays is that we need to have a relationship with something beyond ourselves so we are not existentially alone, and that we need to learn how to be decent and how to forgive ourselves so we don’t wallow in guilt. The concept behind Succot is the concept of gratitude for what we have.
Any Reform perspective must address how we teach our young people the core meaning of Judaism. The must not walk away from us thinking that Judaism is a series of restrictions and a series of holidays with tedious rituals and big meals following them.
• Jewish young adults who are getting married need to be offered classes on how to perform Jewish rituals in the home that will make it a Jewish home and sanctify it. Couples need to be taught how to set a Sabbath table, taught the meaning of each symbol placed upon it, and taught how to conduct the table ritual. Couples need to learn how to conduct a Seder. Couples need to know how to build a Succah.
Just because a Jewish child went to Hebrew school, was a bar or bat mitizvah, attended confirmation, or joined Hillel, it doesn’t mean he or she has a clue as to how to create a Jewish home. Too many Reform families do not have weekly Shabbat meals, or build Succahs, or model a Jewish home that is more than just tangentially Jewish. People need to be physically involved. There must be a Shabbat table in the classroom, there must be material to build a Succah and decorate it. And it should be done communally.
There are any number of other issues that must be considered, but if these three are, I’ll be content.
Respectfully,
Labe ChaimMarch 8, 2014 B”H
Adar II 6, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Va-Yikra - Leviticus 1:1- 5:26.
Haftorah: Isaiah 43:21-44:23.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Parshah Va-Yikra opens with the God’s request about sacrifices, and Mendy said that this is the very first passage that is taught to three year old children when they are brought to school by their father right after having their first hair cut. He claims to have almost no memories from this time of his life except the hair cut itself and being wrapped in a tallis and carried by his father to school. So the question he asked was why begin a child’s formal learning experience by talking about sacrifices?
The answer had something to do with the idea that each sacrifice brought was really a symbolic effort on the part of each individual to come closer to God. Such a lesson, accompanied by the sweets thrown so as to associate learning with sweetness, was a lesson that instilled the idea that the need to come closer to God was an ongoing objective for a lifetime and to be associated with something sweet.
I think I may have missed a few thoughts here because there was this adorable little girl who was squealing and talking right across the aisle from me, and her father did not pick her up and take her out because he only saw how adorable she was. He did not see that she was a distraction, and was making it difficult for people to focus on Mendy.
I’m sure the message to a three year old about bringing sacrifice and thus coming closer to God, was a subliminal one because three year olds have no concept of sacrifice even if they do have a concept of a great God watching over them. But they do have a concept of sweets, and the association of Torah learning and sweets is a good idea. I use to begin all my first classes in each Hebrew school in which I taught with cookies.
I do recall my first hair cut, but I don’t know if I was three at the time or younger. There were vestiges of Orthodoxy in my life without any connection to any reason why demands for these behaviors were made. I have a picture of myself with a head of blond curles and I look to be about three. I remember being taken to a barber by my Bubbie on Liberty Avenue in Queens, and I remember being terrified of the barber and the scissors. Bubbie told me I tore every button off her dress. I guess my first hair cut was not the rite of passage that is was for Mendy. No introduction to Torah, no father to carry me wrapped in a tallis, and no candy to accompany my first taste of formal learning. I can certainly see the value of these rituals. What a wonderful memory to have.
Mendy focused us on God’s demand that a sacrifice be brought, especially for a sin committed in error. He spoke about our imperfections and those things that bring us closer to perfection because we have the opportunity to become better each day. He related his trips into Crown Heights were there are no options and therefore no real opportunity to grow. But here in Cherry Hill there are challenges, and each Shabbat we must decide if we are going to get up and go to shul. And each Shabbat we must decide if we will turn on that switch or tear that piece of paper. We have options, and opportunities to bring Yiddishkeit into our lives, and if we do, it is because we choose to do so.
I will freely admit that if we had a sacrificial system today, I would be having the priest heave, wave, sprinkle etc. regularly for both sins committed innocently, and sins committed purposefully because I know what is asked, and I choose not to act on those demands. Mendy readily admits that being Jewish and keeping Yiddishkeit was the easiest thing to do in the world of Crown Heights. But for me, I am still evolving to it because the vestiges of Yiddishkeit that hung around my childhood home were no more than vague allusions to something that may have been once, but was no more. The disconnected laws about not writing on Friday night as an example, were meaningless, unconnected to any sort of theology, and therefore to ultimately to be dismissed. The Yiddishkeit I have today, is far more than it was when I was young, and it continues to grow but only as I choose to grow it. I can conceivably see myself putting on teffilin one day, but I will never walk to shul. You want me in shul, I have to drive to it. Say no, I stop coming or go elsewhere.. I have given myself permission to pick and choose what I do and what I will believe in, and I have also given myself permission to grow and change my behavior as I see fit. I see everyone as having the obligation to make Judaism their own, and by doing so, find the God to which they can relate. I thank Dr. Alfred Reines and Rabbi Kaplan for that permission.
Mendy spoke of Rabbi Akiva who had the facility to separate his emotional world from his physical reality, and was therefore able to separate himself from pain. So when he and his friends came upon the ruins of the Temple, he did not share their pain, but was able to remember that though the Prophets had prophesied the Temple’s destruction, they had also prophesied the Jewish People’s redemption. Mendy related this story and also related another story about a time when Akiva cried.
I cannot recall any of these connections because my attention was drawn to another sweet little girl coming over to the first and a blue balloon being tossed around, and suddenly I felt as if I were at a highschool graduation. But this second little girl was not taken by her father’s hand and led out of the room as she should have been. The father remained in the back oblivious to his daughter’s behavior.
Mendy also spoke about the yeshiva students who introduced themselves at his Shabbat table, and how he felt very emotional when one of them said that he hoped that he would get something meaningful out of this Shabbat experiences.
I think there were other comments and connections, but a cute little boy now joined the girls with the balloon, and his grandfather also made no effort to quiet down this little group of children who continued to distract me from my focus on what Mendy had to say. I’m feeling resentful because I feel I missed so much of the talk. Fathers and grandfathers, while delighting in their grandchildren, also need to recognize that their grandchildren were distracting members of the congregation from Mendy’s drush and pulling the focus from where it should have been. These three adorable little children could just have easily enjoyed the balloon and chatter in the hall. Now anyone who knows me knows that I delight in watching little children run around during part of the service, but not when Mendy is speaking. Aside from being distracting, allowing it to happen is disrespectful to the man.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Richard spoke about the small “aleph” in the opening word of the parshah and that it referred to Moses’ humility. In this encounter, God purposefully calls Moses, while in other encounters, God speaks only once. The line is “He called to Moses, and God spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting saying...” “Called” and “spoke” seem redundant. Why are they repeated. Why this construction?
I don’t recall the explanation. I get foggy whenever roots of Hebrew words are considered.
What does it mean to be called? Does God speak to us? Do we still get called? In the Prophets, in the Torah, and in the Writings, people get called. The reference was made to “the still small voice” as being the voice of God. Could being “called” mean becoming aware of something beyond ourselves? Are there moments in our lives when the presence of the sacred are palpable, and we were asked when we were so aware that we allowed God to speak to us.
The heart must be open to awareness, and it is with an open heart that one can hear the call.
Several congregants shared their deeply personal moments of when they felt they had been called. For me, I had to think about it, and said nothing. But I do recall the first moment in my life when the presence of the sacred was made manifest. The first time I became aware that there was something truly great beyond myself that seemed to be beyond the God of the Bible stories, was when I was maybe about ten or eleven years old, and I was up on the roof of the apartment house looking at the stars. It was the first time I had ever experienced or actually thought about the enormity of the universe and how infinitesimally small I was. I think that that was the first time I ever glimpsed that there was a Power in the Universe that was different from the God I was learning about in Cheder. But this encounter was a non verbal encounter, and I still wrestle with my apprehension of this Power. The Power did not speak to me in the way you and I might speak to each other, and I did not speak to It. I was just simply aware. If there is something as paradoxical as uncreated words, perhaps there was an exchange. I don’t recall. I know that there was no change in my life and no change in my behavior as I can recall.
As I think of it now, I can see that the second time where I think the Presence of the Sacred touched or “called” me resulted in a life altering decision after I encountered the lines written by a Transcendental poet named William Wordsworth. Those lines enabled me to glimpse how this Power experienced so long ago on that roof in Brooklyn, actually manifest itself in our lives. I realized that I was not alone. The lines spoke so deeply to me, that I cried and changed my major from Biology to English. Oddly enough, this transformative moment had nothing to do with Judaism. At this moment in my life, Judaism and Yiddishkeit held little interest for me. The poem gave me an image of the Power that I could understand emotionally and accept cognitively that my religion did not give me. At that moment, I decided to become a teacher, and once that decision was made, an enormous burden was lifted from my shoulders, because my heart was not in the sciences. My heart rejoiced in the Humanities. It was probably the first time I had ever made a decision that benefitted me and not someone else. I was nineteen. As I look back now, there was something within me urging me to act for my own welfare. There are other decisions made in my life that moved it in a particular direction, a good direction, and perhaps I was being inspired by that which people call God. Whatever moved me, each movement I took, I took knowing there was an enormous risk if I failed, but also feeling that I would not fail. Thus far, I do not see myself as having failed in any decision made in my professional life. My personal life is another story.
Have I been guided by a Divine Presence? Have I spiritually evolved to the point where I can say that and truly believe it? I very much want to believe that there is a Divine Presence in my life that has guided me and continues to do so with “uncreated words.” I do not wish to doubt, but doubt still remains.
Richard said that being “called” manifests itself in our lives everyday. We are asked to be cognizant of this “call” and the “Caller” each day when we are asked to recite the Shema and the Ashkiveynu (Cause us oh Lord to lie down in peace, and raise us up ....” before we go to bed, and the
Modi Anu...., in the morning when we get up that expresses our gratitude for another day of life. Tradition teaches us that each day is a gift, and asks us, “What will you do with it?” This gift of life is precious and fragile, and as we get older, it becomes more fragile. This daily question demands action from us. It is the quiet voice with in us, the “still small voice” that we each hear as we wander in our personal wilderness . When we speak to ourselves, when we pray, we are speaking with the Divine within.
“Prayer is a magnified wish. A prayer is a vocalization of our wish.” We are “called,” and the actualization of being “called” is what we actually do. The teffilin wrapped around the arm and the hand is a reminder that it is the hand that does. The heart inclines us to act, and the head tells us how. But it is the hand that reminds us to do.
Rabbi Barach Schutz, channeling Maimonides, asks, “Does God speak in our words or in a language we cannot understand? God’s speech is not human speech. It would seem that Maimonides wrote that all God speaking to us must be interpreted as metaphoric. What followed were a series of statements about Maimonides’ take on God. Maimonides was heavily influenced by Aristotle. I’m not sure if I am clear on these.
• Maimonides teaches that God is without– way out, but there were a series of emanations from God which reached mortals.
• Only a small number of individuals “hear God.” Moses was the greatest of them, and became aware of God’s Presence, face to Face.
• God and His Will are the Primal Cause. When you cut back from cause to prior cause to the cause of the prior cause, you ultimately reach the Primal Cause.
• The actions of people have been ascribed to God, because the Bible attributes everything to God. God is therefore the ultimate cause in nature.
• God doesn’t micro-manage the world. God’s Will became known, but not through interaction.
• When Torah says that God spoke to Moses, God really didn’t speak.
• We do not hear God directly because there are layers in between. Only true prophets can actually cut through the layers to communicate.
• There are a multitude of layers between us and the Primary Cause.
Today class was a very enlightening experience even though I left the class somewhat sad. I thought about the sadness, and concluded that I was sad because I had to accept the idea that the best I can ever have is a knowledge that there is an awesome and creative Power in the universe whose Presence I might occasionally glimpse and feel if my eyes, my mind, and my heart are open to it. That’s it. I can be grateful to the Power, but at the same time I’m starting to understand that there are just too many layers or dimensions, or worlds between little me and whatever this Power is
.
All I have ever learned about this Power is in reality just honest attempts made through filtered voices of man’s wishes for understanding about life, death, and purpose. We have created religions and codified answers to these questions so we might have some assurance of the answers.
We are exhorted to seek a relationship with God, but my question is, What God are you talking about? The God of the Torah has different Names to identify His attributes. But while we are taught that this God is pure Spirt, without form, we encounter Him as an anthropomorphic Being who has all the emotions and reactions of a human being. This is another attempt at understanding something that cannot be understood, and by ascribing physical characteristics and behaviors to this Natural Force so we might better be able to relate to this God, our ancestors thought they were doing us a favor, but I now believe they did not. The people who wrote our sacred texts, wrote through the prism of their own experiences, thus adding their own layers of the societies in which they lived. In those times, monotheism and henotheism vied for our ancestor’s attention, and our ancestors sometimes worshiped them and sometimes tore them down. People needed to relate to the tangible, and most still do. But while our God was intangible and should have remained so, we were still given stories of a God who manifests Himself by using the physical world to send plagues, win battles, open the mouth of the earth, sit in a tent, and write laws on stone tablets. It was our ancestors experiences, their fears, their loves, their hopes and their dreams that have come down to us in our sacred texts.. And along with these, they have given us their expectations and promises that they and we scream into the void. And I think it is because of a historical reality that has not been addressed or ameliorated by religious promises, that many have come to abandon our faith, and disassociate from the community.
The conversation then focused on the idea that synagogues and Jewish community centers were the last bastion or perhaps vestige of the Jewish Community. We no longer have ghettos or “Jewish neighborhoods” to keep us together. We are in an age of transition. But it is the synagogue that makes people Jewish, not the JCC. So the question to us is, “How do you maintain this religion?” knowing that it is apathy that will ultimately destroy us.
Just a random thought: I have met people in the Orthodox community who fervently believe that God is in total control of their lives, and that the misfortunes that they experiences are sent by God for a particular purpose unknown to them. They accept the idea that they cannot understand why God has singled them out for such difficulties and stress, but they accept it without question and go on praying. On one level, they might be envied, not for their travails, but for their faith. I imagine it is a great comfort knowing that God is controlling your life, even though God is making it difficult for seemingly no apparent reason.. Ultimately, they believe, the resolution will come in heaven, and all will be made right. Their faith is so strong, that I don’t think they even ask “Why?”
Now for me, it would seem better to believe that God has absolutely nothing to do with such tragedies because to believe that He does would most likely lead to many people to an unquenchable anger at His injustice and abandonment of His worship. Phrases such as “It is what it is,” shit happens,” “evil people,” “irresponsible behavior,” “bad genes,” “the shifting of techtonic plates,”“the randomness of existence,” etc., etc., etc., are more acceptable to me as the origins of any tragedy or response to it than God’s singling out any individual, family, group, or nation for catastrophe or mayhem because of something they did that angered Him. I can more easily accept the Kabbalistic concept of the Ayn Sof, The Eternal, The Endless, who is not micro-managing our lives than I can of a God who does.
Just some random thoughts on a Sunday afternoon.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
March 22, 2014 B”H
20Adar II 5774
Torah Study: Parasha Shemini- Leviticus 9:1-11:47, Numbers 19:1-22.
Haftorah - Ezekiel 36:16-38.
Menachem’s Comments: Mendy is off in Poland and Israel, so the following is what I think I remember Rabbi Kaminker saying:
When I came in, the rabbi was already speaking, and the topic was about those animals that were kosher and those that were not. I do believe that the key point he was making was that while there may be rational reasons for eating kosher, the ultimate reason is that this is what God says you may eat and what God says you may not eat. It’s as simple as that. You do it because God says you do it. It is true that certain non-kosher animals do carry certain diseases and we can avoid these by not eating these animal. While it is also true that it is safer not to eat birds of prey that feast on carrion, or consume crustations or other bottom feeders for the same reason, the ultimate reason for keeping kosher has nothing to do with health. Better health just happens to be a good side effect. The commandments concerning hygiene, washing the hands, and ritual bathing are also part of the commandments that happened to also result in improved health for those Jews who followed these traditions. The side effects of circumcision also have proven to have major health benefits in preventing cervical cancer and venereal diseases. Still, all these rituals are to be followed because God tells us to follow them, and not because of the proven side effects.
Sadly, during the years of The Black Death in Europe, Jews were accused and killed for causing the plague because, while many Jews did die, Jews seemed to be less effected because of the ritual hygiene God commanded them to practice. Therefore, the ignorant concluded, that if fewer Jews were dying, Jews must have caused the plagues and magically avoided it. Had the Gospel writers not insisted that Jesus came to replace the law, (which Jesus specifically claimed he did not) perhaps fewer Christians would have died from the Black Death had they been instructed to follow those commandments that demanded hygienic practices. But this new replacement theology plus the sheet that miraculously revealed itself to Peter showing him all the animals that could now be eaten, was more to separate Judaism from Christianity so as to make it easier for the pagans to join.
I chose to not eat tref or mix meat and milk when in my forties, not because God told me not to do that, but because at that moment in my life I was coming back to Judaism, and kashruth would help me better identify with my people, and remind me that three times a day, God had expectations that I should behave well. For me it worked. This idea that God had expectations and that the Torah was a guide to my behavior continues to be intertwined in my brain, and while I have a God concept different from the Torah and Rabbinic concept, the morality of the Torah, in most cases, remains my guide with God as the authority behind those laws.
Menachem expanded on the ideas of kashruth by informing us that if an egg has a point on one side and is rounded on the other, it is kosher, but if it is perfectly round or pointed at both ends, it is not. This I never knew. I also never knew that Orthodox people do not allow their children to play with stuffed animals that represent aggressive animals. Teddy bears are out! It seems that there is a belief that to associate with such creatures is to absorb those kinds of qualities. One of the reasons given for not eating predator animals or bottom feeders is that when you ingest such creatures, you also absorb the qualities of those creatures. So only gentle domesticated animals such as sheep, lambs, and cows are fit for Jewish consumption and Orthodox toys.
This I consider narishkeit (foolishness).
He then spoke about Nazi Germany, and how they had laws that prevented cruelty to dogs and cats, but perpetrated unspeakable horrors on the Jewish People. He explained that this could happen when people or governments set themselves up as the arbiters of what is right and wrong and become the authority behind moral law. Germany took better care of animals than they did of people. Why?
The question may have been rhetorical. What he did not deal with was what gave the German People permission to behave that way, and I do believe that there were people in the congregation who did not know how such a thing could happen in a civilized society that gave Western Civilization such great art, literature, philosophy, and music. Well, the first thing to understand is that there is no relationship between morality and great art and great scientific achievements. Education does not make you a good person. The second thing to understand is that Germany was equally divided between Catholics and Protestants who were taught and continued to believe that the Jew were the spawn of Satan and not really human. Once your God, your revered religious leaders, or you sacred texts tell you this, the Christians now had permission from these authorities to dehumanize and treat Jews like vermin. If your government and legal authorities give you permission to do so, there are those who will take it. Europeans willingly murdered us because they could, and even felt justified in doing so because their governments and religion approved. It was not against moral law because there was no longer anything higher than the secular law they wrote themselves. A key element came into play with the German philosopher Neitche who declared that “God was dead.” That thought coupled with the hatred of Jews common to both churches, and the vitriol toward Jews of the so called “Enlightenment” became a perfect storm that enable the Holocaust to take place. Because of the latter ideas, both the secular German world and the religious German world took permission to support the destruction of the Jewish People.
Dostoevsky, the Russian novelist, summed it up when he said, “Where there is no God, all is permitted.” This means that when God ceases to become the authority behind moral law, then men and society become the authority. Then is no concept of any one or any thing higher than man or his government, and what is decreed to be right by men or by governments becomes right. So in a fascist and or despotic society, genocide may be declared acceptable. This has happened throughout history and continues to happen. In such a world, morality can float from person to person, group to group, and government to government. There are no mutually agreed upon rules of behavior because everything has become relative.
Rabbi Menachem did reference the Red Heifer story and spoke about not having to understand everything commanded in the Torah. He reiterated the idea that we are to follow the laws because God said we should, and that should be enough.
The Red Heifer conundrum comes from a law where the ashes of the heifer that will make someone pure after contamination, also contaminates the person preparing it. It is one of those wonderful Biblical paradoxes. But while the good rabbi says we don’t always have to understand everything logically, I still think I have the right to read into the story some meaning so I can glean more from it. My take on it is this is similar to my take on the Brazen Serpent story but the reverse. Where as my take on the serpent was “that the solution to the problem may be found in the problem itself,” my take on the Red Heifer is that “within the solution to a problem may lie the seeds of another problem.” How often is that true! Both are good pieces of wisdom if I do say so myself. There’s lots of wisdom in the Torah if one looks for it. But again, my wisdom, as truthful as it may be, may be discounted because I did not die two thousand or so years ago.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Richard reviewed what happens in this parshah, and assured us that we would not get past the first page. He discussed how Moses and Aaron finished the blessings and the rituals, and how God accepted the offerings with fire. Then he turned to Nadab and Abihu, Aaron’s sons, who brought “alien” fire and were also consumed on the spot. At this moment, it seemed that God was asserting His authority, and making it very clear to all that if God doesn’t ask for it, you don’t get creative and make assumptions that He wants changes. The role of ritual is very important. God gives us the prescription of how you are to do this. You don’t step outside the parameters or you’ll mess things up.
Beyond this, I see another message here, and it is similar to the one in the story of Adam and Eve. It has to do with consequences. Seemingly minor events like eating an apple, or bringing an offering not required can garner enormous consequences. You never know what will happen for seemingly innocent acts. “Sure I’ll hold this package for you,” can get you thrown in jail or worse when all you were trying to do was to be a good friend.
Aaron’s response to the death of his two sons is silence. Silence might also mean “shocked” or “struck dumb.” Moses tries to comfort him by saying that he knew that God would take a sanctified soul as part of the Tabernacle’s sanctification process. God did this to get “honor before the entire people.” Moses also directed Aaron and his other two sons to dispose of the bodies, not to mourn, and not to leave the entrance of the Tent of Meeting lest they also anger God and die.
I’m not even going to comment on this “means” of becoming “sanctified.” I will only say that if Moses gives this reason, why do the commentators provide such negative ones?
So what is this alien fire? What was going on in the boy’s minds? What does this all mean to us? Some commentators interpret the “fire” as the fire of ambition; of egotism, and disrespect for their elders. The sin was disrespecting their father and/or uncle by not consulting them. Alien fire can also be a symbol of assimilation. It was suggested that they were killed because they got too close to the truth? Too close to God? Did they strip away the illusion? Did they discover that life is an illusion and had to die so that that truth could be protected? Are we only dreaming our lives?
Frankly, this idea of life being an illusion may be a fundamental precept of one of the world’s great religions, but I cannot wrap my brain around it, and applying such an interpretation to the reasons for the deaths of the two boys is not acceptable. The names Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron the high priest, parallels the names of two other young men whose father was also a high priest during the time of the kingdom. I think their story is in one of the Books of Kings. These two boys also died, and I’m wondering if their story is a read back into the Torah to bring home the point to the people of the kingdom that you don’t mess around with God or God’s rituals. During the times of the Kings of Israel and Judea, idol worship was a serious threat to the Jewish priesthood and nation.
Because fire played such an important role in this particular parasha, fire was discussed as a universal motif that exists among divergent cultures. The same can be said of water. I wondered if this universality stemmed from the Jungian concept of the collective sub conscience. Since all life emerged from the sea, and evolved over many millennia with similar experiences in any particular environment, (fire/water) it is certainly conceivable that our symbolic languages would use similar images.
In ancient Greece, drama emerged out of religious rituals. The source of drama was the dithiramb or goat song. And like drama, one must also suspend disbelief in order to enter into religion and ritual for one to glean meaning.
Rituals are sense oriented. The ancient sacrificial cult incorporated the sight of the priest, the animals, the blood, the accompanying music, the smells etc. and created a total sensory experience. The senses open us up, and they open us up to a reality we do not know. The more experiences, the more growth. There is a life force in the universe, and we must be open to it.
Ultimately, the message in the deaths of Aaron’s sons is the same as the one in the Prophets. Don’t follow other cultures, don’t allow in foreign gods, and don’t alter God’s commandments, because they are there for a reason even if you do not know or understand those reasons. Keep the cult pure.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
March 29, 2014 B”H
Adar II 27, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashah Tazri’a - Levitics 12:1-13:59.
Haftorah: Eziekel 45:16-46:18.
Menacham’s Comments: I came in after Menacham was on the bima, and I think he was speaking about someone who had said that he wanted to go to Mars because he had no effect on this earth. But at the end, he returned to this would be astronaut because his entire drush focused on evil gossip, and he brought it all together by stating that when we speak well of others, we effect society for the better.
I am reminded of this commercial (I don’t recall what it was for) depicting one person doing something nice for a stranger, and then that person doing something nice for someone else and so on and so on down the line. The good deed to a stranger gets replicated because the first person who sent out that unsolicited kindness did not realize that this act affected others to also act with consideration., That was the message. The man who wanted to go to Mars actually has the power to have an effect on earth.
The parshah deals with skin eruptions called tzari’a which is a disease that seems to no longer exist. It was also suggested that this disease was a reflection of a spiritual malady most often caused by “lushon harah” or evil gossip. Evil gossip creates an environment of spiritual uncleanliness, which can be contagious. So the person who has that skin eruption is sent out side the camp until that eruption disappears. Once the infected person is outside the camp and isolated from others there is a reduced chance that others will become infected.
It was also related that the person who shares the gossip not only infects himself, but also the person to whom he is speaking as well as the person spoken about.
During the drush, Menachem told a story about the Bal Shem Tov, the founder of Chassidism, who overheard a conversation where one man told another that he would gut him like a fish. The Bal Shem Tov was horrified, and went to his disciples and asked them to stand in a circle with one hand on the shoulder of the man in front of him. When the circle was complete, the Bal Shem Tov was able to project his experience to each Chassid so each saw and felt what it would be like to be disemboweled. Each was horrified, and the Bal Shem Tov explained that he did this so each could experience for himself the effects that “lushon hara” can have on a person.
This idea of evil gossip is very important. I recall reading somewhere that the Temple was destroyed as a punishment for lushon hara, and that speaking evil of someone is like destroying them.
In summary, the thought to remember is that whenever you wish people well, you are having an effect on them. It’s more about speaking good than bad. That’s the Chabad take on things. Rosh Hashonah is a great holiday for wishing people well, and that creates a positive spiritual environment.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Richard first told us that this portion is the bane of all bar and bat mitzvah portions because it is about skin eruptions, expelling people, and childbirth. None of these are very conducive to an inspiring speech. So what is going on? Why must a woman who gives birth to a female child, twice as unclean and must be isolated for another week. The woman is the giver of life.
So if a woman gives birth to a daughter, is she more unclean or is she given preferential treatment because she has given another life giver to the world? Does her additional confinement really mask a society’s gratitude? I think I remember learing that she is unclean with a son because the boy needs to be circumcised on the 8th day, and the mother must be there.
Blood is a major image. In Leviticus we are told that the “life of the flesh is in the blood.” We speak of blood when we when we speak about the remission of sin, and that the expiation of sin is in the blood. We speak of blood in connection with lineage, and also in connection with personality.
Certainly, Christianity has placed blood as one of their central theological constructs. Jessus’ blood is shed to save humanity from Original Sin, much the way blood of the sacrificial lamb was put on the lintels and door posts of our ancestors in Egypt so the Angel of Death would pass over them. The lamb’s blood saved Jews, as Jesus’ blood saves Christians.
The blood of a sacrificial animal is shed and in effect, we were saying “Here, God, take the blood of this animal and its life in lieu of mine.” Animal sacrifice and symbolic acts were a clever substitution for human sacrifice and for appeasing God.
Both the treatment of the woman after giving birth, blood, and sacrifice were draped in ancient fears. The woman bleeds and yet does not die. This is a great mystery.
It is also conceivable that this period of separation from duties for the woman was to begin the process of bonding with the child.
Childbirth, the giving of life, is one of the most powerful things a person can do. It is still a mystery. It is a mystical moment and a spiritual moments. As a man, we are in awe of the act of giving birth to another human being. The act of giving birth sanctifies women and gives them a power that men cannot have. Women have power and men fear it. It is possible that the statement that women were unclean goes back to Eve, and was a male dominated society’s weak attempt to reassert control over something they knew they could not control. Circumcision is a legal document in the flesh which links us to Moses and our Patriarchs. The Brit Bat is a new ritual that takes place eight days after a daughter is born. It has entered our rituals mostly in liberal Judaism.
In the Orthodox tradition, creating a human life comes when a man and woman partner with God whose role is to bring a new soul into being that will become a tool for the good. God gives the child a soul, and we offer it to God’s service. The practice of the ritual of Pinyon Haben which takes place thirty days after the birth of the first male child, is based on the biblical text that whatever first opens the womb belongs to God. The ritual is held to redeem the child. At the heart of this ritual and Biblical motif is the question of “How do you create a life when you have a relationship with God?” Every relationship I have as a man has to relate back to a relationship with God.
I confess I am not clear on this latter idea.
I was wondering if this ritual of redeeming had some darker, more ancient implications our ancestors experienced in the ancient world. We are told that we must not “pass our children through fire” as the Canaanite did for their god, Chemash. I recall learning that there was a belief that the first child born to a Canaanite woman was really the child of the god, and in this act, the god gave up it’s energy and this energy had to be returned to the god. Thus, the first born were sacrificed back to the god. In Egypt, it was the first born of everything that died in the final plague. Was this a similar motif at play. Was God in effect taking away from the Egyptian gods those living things that may also have been devoted to the god’s service. We know that there are stories in the Torah that are just too
similar to be coincidental and were actually borrowing from the folk tales and literature of older and contemporary civilizations. Still, in all instances, these borrowing only show how the concepts are elevated once the Jews take them over as their own. For example, the story of Noah is based on a much older story called the Epic of Gilgamesh, in which one Babylonian god tell Usmitpastim, our Noah, to build an ark because the god’s are going to destroy the earth because humans are disturbing their sleep by making too much noise. But when our ancestors take over this story, God has become aware of how corrupt the earth has become and decides to recreate society with a decent human being. Wanting to end corruption is very different from losing sleep because of noise.
We then returned back to the infections and what happened when a person was declared unclean. Rabbi Twersky’s interpretation was that the person diagnosed had to call out that he or she was unclean. The person afflicted had to warn others so they would not become impure. You can’t stand before God when impure. But is the unclean person calling himself unclean or everyone else unclean? I am unclean, and you are unclean. It was then suggested that a person who insults others is really projecting his won failings onto others. The Bal Shem Tov said that the world is a mirror in which he sees his own image. In the Talmud we are told that we project our own feelings onto to someone else, and a person can project his or her self image onto the world. Something else is always there.
There were several examples of how we do this. One involved a rabbi violating the Sabbat because he did not defend a tzadick. I don’t recall others, but I’m sure we all have projected our own selves onto others. The phrase “I’m OK and Your OK” come to mind, as well as “I’m not OK, and Your not OK” also come to mind.
But this idea that there is always something else beyond what is said reminded me of something called Rogerian listening. This idea is based on the fact that people won’t always come out and tell you what is bothering them, so you have to feed back to them the feelings that you hear beneath the words. So if your child says “I’m sick and I don’t want to go to school,” you hear that there is a problem in school, and you feed back to him something like “Something is so upsetting that you don’t want to go to school.” The child will hear that you’ve read something beyond his words, and that gives him permission to continue. Ultimately, you may discover that the code “I’m sick” is really a kid on the buss bothering him. People send out codes, and we have to be in tune to pick up on them if we want to get to the truth.
Respectfully submitted,
Lab Chaim
April 5, 2014 B’H
Nissan 5, 5774
Weekly Torah Study– Parasha Metzera - Leviticvus 14:1-15:33.
Haftorah: II Kings 7:3-20.
Menachem’s Comments: This is what I think I recall Rabbi Menachem saying:
Rabbi Menachem was speaking about the Passover when I arrived, and specifically about how God freed our ancestors from Egypt. But he seemed more focused on the concept of freedom rather than on the physical story of our ancestors becoming free. His questions to the congregation were, “What is freedom? and “Are we truly free?” There were many responses.
Menachem’s take on the subject was that we are not free at all because we were given laws, and laws are to be obeyed regardless of what we might want to do ourselves.
Without limits on our “freedom,” humanity would descend into anarchy. In the Ethics of the Fathers there is a statement that sums it all up: “With out the law (governments), men would eat one another.” Laws exist for our own good, and were probably created after an event took place to make sure that that event didn’t happen again. It’s like Genesis created a narrative, and the laws of Leviticus are there to make sure that the problem behavior of ancestors in Genesis did not happen again. Narrative does precede law.
He spoke about the natural environments using a fish and a tree as an example and what happens when you take them away from the source that enables them to live. I think he was making the point that people also must recognize what in their environments give them the freedom to be who they are, and how important it is to be who you are within the confines of the laws that are there to protect you and the rest of the society.
Key to this discussion was the question- “Is freedom the highest value?” I said it was not because life in Judaism is the highest value. He agreed. Without life, there is nothing.
Torah and Rabbinic teaching make this very clear: “to take the life of a person is to destroy a whole world,” “don’t murder,” “choose life,” are just a fraction of the statements regarding the value life in our tradition. Humanity alone is animated by God’s own breath. God gave us life directly. There is no argument that life is a high value than freedom.
Random thought: For a person to live and to thrive, he or she requires certain basics: food, shelter, family, friends, and for some, God. The latter are a person’s environment. For the law thrive, it requires adherents to it and an authority behind it. Those adherents and the authority is its environment. Secular law has the Constitution as its environment. Torah law and Rabbic law have God as its environment.
He also spoke of the material soul and the Godly soul, and how each yearns for its own kind of freedom. While the material soul in each of us might yearn for the physical freedoms to do and to make with few restrictions, it is the Godly soul in us that sees the restrictions put upon us by Torah and Rabbinic law that brings us closer to a relationship with God. None of us are free but we can be the best we can be under the restrictions imposed upon us by our secular and religious laws. They are there for a purpose, and their purposes are to make us safe and enable secular and religious societies to function.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Richard did a quick overview of the parashah which speaks to skin eruptions, growths on the walls of a house, nocturnal emissions, and a variety of other nasty things plaguing our ancestors. But he said that while we do not know exactly what the condition the Torah calls Taziria was, it is generally understood that the condition was caused by lushen hara or evil gossip. It was a physical conditions reflecting a spiritual defect.
Richard referenced a Rabbi Held and said that death and life are in the power of the tongue. Words can be dangerous. The tongue and the had are similar in that they can kill, but the tongue is worse. Now, with social media, we have electronic tongues and people’s reputations are destroyed when information that may be false goes viral. Anyone can put up slanderous comments with impunity and remain anonymous. Note cyber bullying and its effects.
I was reminded of two items from literature: Carl Sandburg worte: Proud Words. “Be careful how you let proud words go. They wear hob nail boots and stalk off not hearing you calling them back. Be careful how you let proud words go.” And Omar Kayiam, Persian poet: “The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on. And all you piety and wit shall not call it back to cancel out half a line.”
This Taziria the rabbis taught was a punishment for lushon hara. There was a leap to associate this with leprosy because Miriam spoke against Moses marrying someone who was not a Hebrew and she breaks out with “snow white”scales. This raises a problem, and the theologians are quiet on it. Do all illnesses come from God for something you’ve done, or is illness just part of the randomness of life? But if this is the case, then aren’t you just blaming the victim.
In The Book of Job, Job’s friends insist that his troubles are coming from God because he did something to cause them. Job insists that he did nothing. We as the readers see the irony here because Job’s anguish is caused by a capricious God and an angel who make a bet. Of course the entire story is a metaphor exploring why bad things happen to good people.
I know parents who have turned away from God and Judaism because they watched their children die. But I personally would prefer to assign such tragedies to genetic malfunctions and random acts then to lay the blame at God feet. In such time, people need to blame someone or something. I refuse to believe there is a conscience God who allows children to die.
It was suggested that this was a cosmic test sent that we might find meaning, because people need to see meaning and need reasons. We also considered the impact of constant stress because stress causes fatigue, weakens the immune system in the body and causes us to become ill. Stress kills. Taziria is linked to stress.
We are all part of a huge system where life feeds on life. White blood cells eat viruses, cancer cells “eat” good cells, worms eat corpses, bugs eat mites, people eat meat, etc. etc. etc. We are all interconnected. We are all one. The Universe is a living organism and everything is connected. How could it not be since we are all created from the same material generated in the Big Bang. We are a huge eco system interdependent on everything else.
Taziria is a general diagnostic term for various types of skin eruptions. It is punishment for slander. Slander separates people, and divides people one against the other. It breaks the interdependence which is the natural order of things.
This is a priestly text composed in the 6th Century BCE. There were no medications for the condition, so the preventive medicine offered was fear. So they created incantations and ritual and expelled them form the camp. Is this what we do with old people today?
When we do not have a cure do we warehouse them because if we don’t see them daily 24/7, we don’t have to deal with the problem. Or do we put people in nursing homes and the like to save our sanity, our health, and our time because of the daily stresses that caring for our elderly places upon us.
People can manifest emotional pain outwardly, and this physical pain can be a symbol of something going on psychologically that they’ve chosen not to deal with. Such physical manifestations may be the result of something that is even outside the awareness of the sufferer. Emotional issues certainly effect the body.
There is something referred to as a somatic component. As I understand that term it means a place in the body that responds to stress by hurting. Years ago, when my life was very stressful, my back would “go out” and I would be incapacitated for days. Some people get headaches.
The priests was to examine the whole person not only the afflicted part. The priest had to see the person as a system or unity. The priest had to find out what was going on in the life of the person at the time. Maimonides expected the physician to see the psychological distress, and to involve the patient in an introspective process attendant on his thoughts, his feelings, or his philosophy of life.
When we unpack this Torah, and consider the ancients, the medieval, and modern practitioners, we see that Judaism has always taken a holistic approach to medicine.
There is a link between your mind, your body, and your soul.
Richard concluded with several thought provoking ideas: We need to be needed. We need to need. Acts of kindness are a result from our needs. We need to have a relationship with God, and God needs to have a relationship with us. And are we in synagogue for theology or for community?
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
April 12, 2014 B”H
Nissan 12, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parshah Acharei Mote - Leviticus 16:1-18:30.
Haftorah-Malachi 3:4-24.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by reiterating the death of Aaron’s sons, and asked for the reason they had died. After several responses from the congregation, he said something I had never heard before. He said that the sons wanted to die because they wanted to free their souls from their bodies in order to move into a higher spiritual plane. This seemed contradictory to the idea that they died because they brought “alien fire.” This was also different from the idea that they drew too close to God, or wanted to supplant their father and uncle in positions of power and leadership.
I am not put off by the different reasons offered by the sages since Judaism is an interpretive religion and each of those reasons was some rabbinic attempt to understand and bring to us the deeper meanings embedded in the story.
But in deliberately wanting to die, Mendy said they missed the essential point Judaism which adheres to the fundamental value that life is sacred and the challenges of being both physical and spiritual beings at the same time as well as the challenges of handling that dichotomy and everyday life, is exactly what life is all about. How you live this paradox is indicative of who you are.
The Yezer Tov and the Yetzer Hara, the altruistic and the egotistical inclinations within each human being are basic in our natures and the struggle between them is normal and part of being human. What I like about Judaism as a faith is that it recognizes both sides of human nature, accepts both sides so we are not enjoined to feel guilty about being who we are, and assures us that we have the options and possibility of controlling our speech and behaviors. And there is always a path to forgiveness and redemption built in.
Mendy then spoke of the symbols of the Passover and how each is to remind us of some aspect of life. Matzah is a symbol of hope and faith, while chamatz is darkness and disorder. These symbols are also aspects of our lives, and to be truly human, we must strive to unify ourselves; to become an integrated being honoring all of our parts.
Another thing I like about the Jewish faith is that we recognize that there is an evil inclination within that we can choose to control. As God says to Cain, “Evil crouches at the door but you can rule over it.” Our dark side is part of us, and to deny it is to deny who we are. Judaism invites us to embrace it and deal with it. We are not perfect beings, and we can never be perfect beings. We are expected to attempt to become better, but we are not expected to be perfect. Such an expectation would set a person up to fail, and Judaism does not do that.
But to begin this process, you must put faith up front. He seemed to implore us to do what we could this holiday to become more in tune with the spiritual side of our natures, and to allow faith to triumph over reason.
The Passover story is a link between the present and the past, and also may be read as metaphor for all people who have ever found themselves enslaved physically, mentally, and
emotionally. Like the Hebrews in Egypt, Mitzrayim, often translated as “the dark places,” we, too, often feel confined by our patterns, the gods society imposes upon us, and those attitudes and behaviors that keep us from being the best we can be. So as you move through this holiday season, we were wished freedom from what ever real or imagined chains that bind us, the ability to rejoice in what we and the others in our lives have, and the wisdom to know the importance of gratitude.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Richard opened the Torah study by referencing the death of Aaron’s son, the establishment of Yom Kippur, the blood purification rites, and the laws of sexual deviancy. He alluded to the idea that there may have been a pre-Hebraic/Sumerian tradition for Yom Kippur. Here we are dealing with a priestly text that was probably written in the 6th Century BCE while borrowing from a much older tradition. Richard continues to insist that nothing exists in a vacuum, and that borrowings between and among ancient groups was part of religious evolution.
The two goats became the focus- the one to be sacrificed on the alter, and the one to be sent into the desert to Azazel. Azazel is thought to have been a demon, but no one is for sure. Azazel is a symbol of the evil impulse in us all, and its tendency is to lead us astray by our appetites. It is the seducer and enticer that our ancestors knew had to be expelled. So the collective sins of the people were placed on the goat, and the sins were symbolically carried into the desert and expired with the goat when it was pushed over a cliff. The community was then purged. The Tashlich ceremony where we empty our pocket and cast the crumbs we find into a body of water, is reminiscent of this ancient rite.
The Torah tells us that Aaron had to wash himself and make expiation for himself and for his family. This ancient rite is is reflected when the rabbi or cantor intones “Henani” which is also the formula for atoning for himself and his congregation. There is a subtext here of cleaning and atonement. A sanctuary is a human institution, and religious leaders, no matter how holy they are, are not perfect. Here we have flawed leaders and a flawed community aspiring to holiness, and the priest takes on a symbolic atonement for the entire community. Any sanctuary is symbolic of God’s presence. We also learned that Aaron had to be married, because an unmarried man could not understand the life of a man with a family and therefore could not empathize and comprehend what atonement fully meant. We also discussed the tension in Yom Kippur that stems from the idea that we confess as a community even though each of us has sinned and remains responsible for our own actions. What we as individuals do is key.
Leviticus 16:29 specifically states that no work is to be performed on Yom Kippur by you or the stranger among you. Ger is the Hebrew word for stranger. But the stranger is also to be thought of as the stranger within. In the Wilderness, sometimes thought of as a metaphor for Judaism, the ger within us is also that part which pulls us to a place to which we do not want to go.
I do believe that one of the great spiritual gifts Judaism gave the world came at the time Abraham’s hand was stayed at the binding of Isaac. At this moment we taught that symbolic substitutions could be made in lieu of a child or an adult. This is called substitution atonement or vicarious atonement, and our ancient ritual system was based on this. Human sacrifice to the gods to appease them or thank them or reinvigorate them was part of many ancient cultures our ancestors encountered. The Caananites who worshiped Molech “passed their children through fire” because they believed that the god fathered the first born and its energy was depleted from this act. The idea that the first born belongs to God is specified in the Torah, but we have substituted the ritual of Pinyahaben” in which parents“buy” the first born son back from the priests. Ancient agricultural societies often would sacrifice a man who had lived like a king for a year to the earth goddess for
increased bounty. The idea of wanting to substitute something else so you need not be the sacrifice is still seen in classrooms, where one child can become to scapegoat and be blamed for things other children did. When the teacher yells at that child, everyone else breaths a sigh of relief. The sacrifice was made.
It was made clear that on Yom Kippur, only sins committed against God may be forgiven, but sins committed against a fellow human being remain until do something yourself to rectify the situation. That is why many Jews will say to family, friends, and acquaintances, “If I have offended you this year, please forgive me.” Also pointed out was built into Judaism was a half year review process. The Sabbath that falls during the Passover is exactly six months after Yom Kippur and six months before Yom Kippur. We are being asked to review where we are in our lives.
I have always wondered how one knew if God had forgiven them. Since no one could tell me, I decided that forgiveness had been given when you were confronted with the same situation that cause the need for forgiveness in the first place, and you chose to respond differently. Forgiveness was reconfirmed if you responded differently a second time. When you know though your own actions that you have changed the “sinful” behavior, you also know you have been forgiven. At least that’s what I have decided to believe. And who is to say I am mistaken?
Richard informed us that originally, there were two holidays celebrated at this time: Hag Ha Mazot (the festival of matzah) and the Passover which had key elements of an agricultural holiday. We were informed that the earliest extra Biblical source for these two holidays was a document found on the Elephantine Island in the Nile dating from 419 BCE speaking of a seven day separation that was later joined as one. The holidays are linked in Deuteronomy and in Eziekel, and was firmly established by the second century of the common era. This combining of these two celebrations may have been caused by historical reasons because immediately after this, we turned our attention to blood sacrifice, the blood on the lintels of the Hebrew homes so the Angel of Death would pass over, and the lamb as the the pascal sacrifice. All of this was connected to Jesus, the Gospels, and early Christianity. Again, nothing exists in a vacuum, and the second century of the common era saw the Bar Kokbah rebellion in 135 C.E. Rabbi Akiva, the academies, the continued occupation of Rome, and the rise of Christianity. Everything going on influenced everything else.
Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who believed and taught that the world as the ancients knew it would end. This did not happen. Jesus was crucified by the Romans because they saw him as a threat and one who could foment rebellion. Rome was suspect of any Jew who had followers and crowds gathering around him. So Jesus died, the world did not end, and his followers had to deal with so many issues. One of the first things they had to deal with was “How and why would God allow his son to die such a horrible death. And because just about all of Jesus’ early followers were Jews, the only source they had that could help them continue to grow as an off shoot of Judaism was the Torah. So the early church fathers and Gospel writers looked into the Torah and came up with an answer. This was it: Adam and Eve sinned by eating the apple and disobeying God. This, they reasoned, brought Original Sin into the world, and each person born carried it (except Jesus himself and Jesus’ mother, Mary, who was immaculately conceived by her mother, Ann.) It was then thought that the only way Original Sin could be expiated for the world was for something or someone to be sacrificed that would be so significant, God would make atonement for all humankind. So it was decided that Jesus, by this time believed to be the Son of God, was that person whose blood would and could wash away the Original Sin of humanity. This mirrors the vicarious atonement presented in Genesis. Christians atone through Jesus’s sacrifice.
The early church fathers and Christian scholars now began to comb through the Torah, Prophets, Psalms, etc. to look for ways to justify this belief, and they found many in the Books of Exodus and Leviticus. They borrowed and drew parallels. For example, the blood of the Passover or Pascal lamb was put on the lintels of the Hebrew homes so they were saved from the Angel of Death. The early Christians claimed that this blood was a precursor of Jesus’ blood who became the Pascal lamb of God because Jesus’ blood was shed so all might be saved from spiritual death. The last supper is a seder. We also know this because we are told that Jesus and his followers came back to Jerusalem for the Passover. We know this because in the Gospels we are told that Jesus says at this meal said that “he who dips with me, shall betray me.” He is of course referring to the dipping of the parsley in salt water, and the bitter herb in the charoset. Another borrowing comes when Jesus says this bread is my flesh and this wine is my blood. The unlevened bread and the wine used at the seder table become transformed into the flesh and blood of the Eucharist ritual. A ritual borrowed from another ritual.
In the midrash tradition, for something or someone to be considered special, there needs to be some link to an older established literature. Moses, the savior of the Jewish People comes out of Egypt. He is rescued from Pharaoh’s attempt to murder new born Jewish boys because of a prophesy that a deliverer will be born. The Gospel writers have Herod institute something called the slaughter of the innocence because he is also told that a deliverer will become the King of the Jews. So Jesus as an infant is taken to Egypt and also comes up out of Egypt like Moses to be the savior of humanity. Borrowings and midrash establish authenticity, and all ancients cultures including ours did it.
Jesus becomes the Pascal lamb and the ultimate sacrifice. This is reinforced in the Gospel of John where he changes the dates of the Last Supper and Crucifixion in Matthew, Mark, and Luke from Nissan 14 and 15 to Nissan 13 and 14. By moving these events back one day, John makes Jesus the sacrifice. So the rabbis at this time make the Feast of Passover more central to move the holiday away from what John says. Again, nothing exists in a vacuum. One group take the symbols of another and change their meaning. Christians who reproduce the seder see the three matzoh as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. When all this was happening in the first and second centuries, we call this period the Inter-testimonial Period. Social, political, and religious upheaval was the order of the day.
I think it was because we had been speaking of the rabbi’s role in ritual that we got into the idea that the role of the rabbi has gone from scholar and teacher to officiant. We spoke of how lay people often project onto the clergy an idealized father or mother figure. But feelings projected have more to do with the lay person’s feelings about themselves and their personal history than they do about the actual rabbi in front of them. Richard called this the Protestantization of the American Rabbi.
It’s a mistake to look at any other human being as an idealized figure because no person is without flaws and foibles. This is especially true of people who assume leadership of any type. In my many years of knowing rabbis and assistant rabbis, I have sometimes experienced disappointment, discount, and betrayal because of who they were as people. They missed the core ideas of Judaism as evidenced by their behavior. But I have also been impressed by some, and have felt a genuine affection for a few. Despite it all, I have never not been a member of a synagogue because of its clergy, and though the rabbi might be the draw, it is also the faith and the community in that synagogue that keeps me there. Rabbis come and go. Judaism and community remain.
Respectfully submitted,
Labe Chaim
April 26, 2014 B”H
26 Nisan 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Kedoshim - Leviticus 19:1-20:27.
Haftorah - Ezekiel 22:1-16
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by telling us that when he is stressed out or sad, he centers himself (my word) by singing a particular nigun which is usually a melody without words. The aim of the nigun is to lift you from this plain to a spiritually higher one. The nigun Mendy spoke of has a story connected to it that took place in the time of the Alta Rebbe a few hundred years ago. It seems that it was the day after Yom Kippur and the men had returned to find one man walking around the bima singing this particular melody. He hadn’t eaten in thirty-six hours, but he was in such a high spiritual state that he didn’t realize Yom Kippur was over. The man had been transported, and no one knew who this man was.
Then Mendy told us that a young Chasid went to the Rebbe and asked the Rebbe if he was this man. The Rebbe said he was not and that this man lived long before Chassidism was conceived. The Rebbe related this tale: Many years before there was a wealthy man who was traveling and who had heard about another Jew who was in prison because he couldn’t pay his taxes. The amount owed was quite large, and this wealthy man thought he would ransom the man, but found out that the ransom would take all of his wealth. After going home to discuss this with his wife, he decided that he was wrong and went back to the lord who was holding the Jew as prisoner. When the lord heard that there was money to ransom the prisoner, he said to the man that he could have the prisoner on the condition that the money was not refundable no matter what. It turned out that the prisoner was dead, and the man who paid the ransom was left destitute. He returned home despondent. But he had a vision or heard a voice offering him a choice. He could either earn back his wealth plus more than before, or experience on earth what it was like in Gan Eden. He chose to experience heaven on earth, and that was the moment when the congregation found him so spiritually uplifted that he didn’t know the holiday had ended.
The point of the story is that the man made the wrong decision and that’s why the Rebbe said the story took place before the Bal Shem Tov created Chassidism. Chassidism teaches that we are not to be concerned with the after life, and that we are to concentrate on making this life the best we can. Had the man chosen to replenish his fortune, there were other people whose ransom he might have paid.
Close upon this story, I think Mendy asked the congregation how we experience the spiritual or holy? I don’t recall the specific question. The answers were quite varied going from seeing sunsets to watching the birth of a child. Mendy said basically that the opportunity was all around us and the moment did not have to be something momentous but could be as simple as hearing a grandchild read a blessing or having a loving moment with a loved one. This was also related to being “holy” and said that the holy can be found in the little things we do.
If I recall, God says to us, “Be holy for I am holy.” Rashi says that holy refers to self-restraint. But in most instances that I can find in the Torah, holy seems to have more to do with separation than self-restraint. For example, “You shall remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy,” seems to me that God has separated the Sabbath from the other days, and we are to keep it separate
and elevated. When God says, “Be holy for I am holy,” I believe God is saying as I am separated and elevated above men, so you endeavor to be separated and elevated from your animal nature. After all, we are part of the animal kingdom. Perhaps after one recognizes that he or she must be separate and above their animal natures, then they can achieve this through self-restraint. But I maintain that separation which is a concept comes before self-restraint which is an action. Animals live on instinct, and consequences do not matter. Animal are amoral in their behavior because they have no concept of right and wrong. A lion chases down a wilder beast. That’s not an immoral act. But a man wanting revenge who chases down another to kill him, is acting immorally. To be holy is to rise above and be separate from such animal instincts.
Moments of holiness as Mendy described them can really be invested with important realizations. For example, if holiness is a value concept, it cannot be forced or threatened. I worked in a yeshiva were fines and expulsion were the result of not being holy as the rabbis demanded of the boys. Certainly, someone will act on what you want them to do, but when you are not there to demand that behavior, they will revert. For something to be truly valued, it must be internalized as being right and become part of a process that includes choosing from alternatives, and choosing after thoughtful consideration of the consequences. Values imposed are not true values to the person who may be resentful of the imposition.
At one point Mendy spoke of children doing something not because they were asked to do it, but because they wanted to do it. He mentioned that when people are told what to do there is often a push back because they resent being directed and possibly out of control. But when something is done where there is no request, the resultant action comes out of a value that the person holds. So if a wife says I want to go to such and such a place, the husband might be resentful of the demand and how that may impinge on his time, but if the husband recognizes that his wife is tired and needs an “airing” from her daily schedule and suggests that he take her out to wherever she wants to go, he is acting on a value that comes from a loving place of concern. Mendy told of how his wife puts little love notes in his pockets and haberdashery when he goes on a trip just to let him know that he is very much loved and missed. She is acting out of a deep seated value.
Mendy also referred to laws in the parshah regarding food trees planted. For the first three years they are forbidden to you, and in the fourth year they are to be sanctified to God. But in the fifth year, you may eat of its fruit to your fill and thenafter. He then referred us to the creation story and Adam and Eve who ate the forbidden fruit. The story goes that man and women were created at the very end of creation and the years that forbid eating of the fruit corresponded to the hours after creation. It seems that Adam and Eve ate the “apple” two hours (two years) before they were supposed to, and for that they were punished. Had they waited for five hours, it was implied that God would have allowed it.
But that flies in the face of the story in Genesis where God says don’t touch it or you will die.
I think the point being made was that we have to wait, and if we do as we are told, things will become good for us. It’s all wrapped up in self-restraint. Restrain yourself and good will come to you.
I wish I could remember all that was said. Mendy gave a particularly good torah today.
At the end, one congregant asked how God might feel or respond to us failing to do or live up to the expectations we encounter in the Torah? I don’t fully recall Mendy’s response, but I do recall him saying that God preexisted before there was anything conscious of Him.
Personally, I doubt if anyone can tell me how God might feel. Only and anthropomorphic God would “feel,” and I don’t believe in such a deity. I don’t recall what was said in response, but I’ve been giving this a lot of thought lately and I’ve come to believe that God became conscious of humanity when humanity became conscious of God. I’ve also come to believe that God is not complete, and that the soul within each of us is that aspect of God that is becoming. God will never be complete as long as human beings exist.. Yet I think it is our uniqueness keeps God interested in us and perhaps also that God has no idea of what we are going to do. Dare I say that God is not omniscient? I’m also coming to believe that when I look at you, God is also looking at you, and my perceptions of you become God’s perceptions of you. And this holds for every other human being. God sees you through the eyes of every person who sees you. If that is not an incentive to behave well, I don’t know what is.
When we fail to live up to Torah standards for behavior, God, who is in a constant state of becoming, is lessened, but when we do what we know is the right thing to do, God is increased. I think some of these ideas were in agreement with Mendy’s ideas, but I’m not sure. I also had another thought. I think there is a whole body of theology that Mendy carries that he is not sharing with the congregation because it may be too radical. There were things he said today in response to that last question that I’ve never heard before from a bimah, and I sensed a hesitancy to share it. Perhaps I’m just seeking confirmation from Mendy for some of my ideas which are radical enough, but there is something gnawing at me that tells me that I’ve discovered one of the hidden theological truths that are not generally taught. Would a deeper theology other than the ones we learned in cheder or posited by the prayer books and Torah be too much of a challenge to a congregant?
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Richard spoke of the “Holiness Code” as a summary of the laws in the Torah. It is a priestly document attesting to how one should behave to become holy. He summarized the parsha and focused on verses 17,18 and 19: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall reprove your fellow and do not bear a sin because of him. You shall not take revenge and you shall not bear a grudge against members of your people; you shall love your fellow as yourself– I am Hashem.” Richard pointed out that there was no commandment to believe in God, but only to act. One cannot reasonably demand belief.
It was pointed out that Christianity says “Believe and you will be save,” where Judaism says, “Act and you will find meaning.” Christianity teaches, “Judge not lest ye be judged,” while Judaism insist that you not repress your feelings. We are taught to own our own feelings. People who repress their feelings may be tempted to act out sometimes violently. As we say to children, “Use your words.” Sometimes, people with Altzheimers act out because it’s the only way they can express what they are feeling. They are like children without words. Such an inability to verbalize becomes action that is self-destructive.
We are enjoined in Verse 18 not to take vengeance and most of these admonitions are followed by the line, “I am the Lord.”
I think the repetition of “I am the Lord” is a way of God letting us know who is in charge. This short sentence is repeated often. The very first of the commandment of the ten is not a commandment at all but a statement. It’s like the two by four that is meant to get your attention, because if you don’t buy into the belief that God is the authority behind these commandments, there is no authority and no enforcement behind them.
Richard also said that when considering the line “love thy neighbor as thy self,” we need to consider that in the Hebrew there is the prefix letter“lamed” and this letter changes the translation to,
“And you shall love to your neighbor as yourself.” “To” is active and it commands action, a reaching out to have an effect. It is not about feelings. Feelings have to be controlled. “Ahav” is to love. The lamed means “to.” Rabbi Held teaches that it means that we are to be useful. Be useful to your neighbor as you would want them to be useful to you. It’s not an emotion at all. We recognize that we cannot command feelings, but we can command being useful to our neighbors.
Judaism is not about belief, but about action. Action and deeds trump belief, so if you want to find meaning, go out and do something. Go out into the world and find your bliss. Love and respect are intertwined. “That which is hateful to you, do not do to another” are the words which summarize the meaning of Torah and the core of Judaism.
In our effort to become holy, we need only to look at the morning prayer service for a guide to action and meaning. These are the things that are limitless and raises you up: Visiting the sick, comforting the bereaved, dowering the bride, attending the dead to the grave, making peace, and others which I do not recall. These are all deeds of compassion, and actions that will heal a troubled soul. By doing this, you arrive at a state of holiness.
The individual’s quest of the sacred and the holy will only be found by going into the world and acting. I reject the idea that by sitting in a room praying all day, praying will make you holy. If you believe that, you have missed the point of Judaism.
The more you doubt, the more you are compelled to search for meaning. Blind faith will not make you holy.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
May 10, 2014 B”H
Iyyar 10 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parsha Be-Har– Leviticus 25:1-26:2
Haftorah – Jeremiah 32: 6-27
Chabad:This is what I think I remember Mendy saying.
Mendy began the drush by referring to a tragedy that befell 24,000 students of Rabbi Akiva in the Roman period, and connected this with the core message of his talk which would develop the idea that while we are a collective, we are also individuals. As Jews, we pray as a collective, considering ourselves one people regardless of ethnicity or nationality. Up until now, Jews have traditionally accepted the idea that the actions of any Jewish individual can effect every other because we are all members of a single family. This feeling of being part of one people and feeling the pride or the shame resulting from the behavior of a single Jewish individual, defines the concept of Kal Yisrael. Past generations handed down this idea of Kal Yisrael.
Mendy also spoke of the love and liking, and inferred that it is easy to love a large group because loving a large group is more of a concept than an actual behavior. The problem comes when we are asked to like the individuals who make up the larger group. Mendy told us that Rabbi Akiba’s followers loved conceptually, but they did not like the individuals and were therefore struck down by a plague. They did not understand that they needed to like each other because how one treats another in his or her personal interaction and relationships is at the very core of Judaism.
He pointed out that while Jews may love the Jewish people conceptually and not like individuals, Gentiles like Jews individually, but not collectively. A Gentile may think his Jewish friends, or his lawyer, doctor, or accountant etc. are the best and nicest on people on earth, but that same Gentile may still harbor ideas that all Jews are cheap, control the media, and have too much say in the government. It’s a cultural cognitive disconnect that is rooted in ancient anti-Semitism.
Mendy then connected this with the tradition of “counting the omer,” a time which memorializes student’s. The point he was making is that while we are a collective, we are also individuals. Each of us is asked as an individual to count the omer from the end of Passover to Shavout. It is not done collectively making the point that the individual and individual responsibility is important.
This was all prologue to the core message that we should not see our spouses and our children as extensions of our selves but as individuals and that we are to honor their individuality. He continued with the idea that the Laws of Family Purity have kept Judaism strong because inherent in these laws is a built in respect of the woman’s body, her need for privacy, and her need to be in a relationship that is not based on sex alone. These needs are addressed in the two weeks a month when the man may not touch his wife, but must communicate with her on more than a physical level.
Mendy insisted that it cannot always be about “you.” Normally, a married couple are a unity, but we must also realize that though we are we, I am I and you are you. We must not forget that and be vigilant to address the needs of the spouse.
You can like someone without loving them and you can love someone without liking them. The important thing to remember in any relationship is that you shall respect them and treat them with dignity. People you do not like you will not love and these people are to be avoided as often as possible. But as the Talmud teaches, “Let every man’s honor be as dear to you as your own.”
I was reminded of a Carl Sandburg poem that speaks to this idea:
Look out how you use proud words.
When you let proud words go,
It’s not easy to call them back.
They wear long boots, hard boots: they
Walk off proud; they can’t hear you calling.
Look out how you use proud words.
Richards Comments: Over at M’kor Shalom, Richard reminded us of the “if/then” motif in the Bible, and the idea of God’s reminding us once again that if we adhere to His laws faithfully, things will go well and if we don’t, there will be dire consequences. (This passage of curses is read in hushed tones.)
But we are also told that after God reacts by reeking havoc on us, He will remember the Covenant with the ancients and His having brought us up out of Egypt. We are reminded once again of God’s tough love which demonstrates the parent/child relationship that exists in the Torah. We are also reminded that we are caught between an infantalized spirituality that verses a mature spirituality. And to achieve a mature spirituality, we must move beyond a God who dispenses rewards and punishments for behavior to a place where a person does a mitzvah just for the sake of doing a mitzvah without the expectation of a reward. The mitzvah itself must be viewed as its own reward.
Mature spirituality is spelled out in the morning prayers where we are enjoined to visit the sick, comfort the bereaved, dower the bride, attend the dead to the grave, make peace etc.
These are behaviors involving individuals and relationships. A mature spirituality involves action.
Adults do not need rewards, and yet we do like them which tells us that much of our spirituality is childlike, and that we are really child(self) centered.
The challenge is to believe in a God who will do nothing for you.
The Torah is a guide book to correct behavior, and the idea that hope is part of life, makes our lives richer. There is a randomness to existence. Much of life is outside our control, and whatever free will we do exercise, places the responsibility on us.
There is a unity of diversity in Judaism. Oneness includes diversity of beliefs and people. Its like a sacred freeway; one road, lots of different makes and models.
Richard referred us to Rabbi Twersky who agrees that the Bible is like a user manual for a car. If you want your car to run well and do for you what it is intended to do, you must read and follow the user manual. The mitzvahs revealed in the Torah are the instructions to maintain the world in good running order. The manufacturers instructions are the natual things that will happen if you don’t follow the users manual. God offers rewards and punishments in the Bible, and the manufacturer’s manual also lets you know what will happen if you don’t do what you are supposed to do. To keep the car running smoothly, change the oil. If you don’t, the natural thing to follow is that the engine will burn out. Cause and effect; reward and punishment; blessing and curse.
If people don’t live according to the law, there are consequences.
Individual responsibility verses collective responsibility. The ‘sins of the father’s” concept has changed as Judaism has changed. But behavior is transgenerational. We cannot run from our genetics, or our families, or the verbal and non verbal messages we are given as children. We carry messages on our DNA which cannot change, but moral behavior certainly can change.
Deuteronomy was written circa 621 BCE. The Babylonian Exile happened in 586BCE. Things changed in Judaism as a result of that exile. The very nature of Judaism changed, the nature of God changed, the nature of worship changed, and relationships with others changed. Nothing happens in a vacuum. The Torah written down post exile.
In this parsha, Jews are also reminded that God broke the bars of our enslavement and made us walk upright. We are also reminded that we are slaves to God, and if we do what is right in God’s eyes, we will be able to stand erect. The image of being a slave is one of being bent over. “You were bent over in Egypt and I freed you.” Follow my statues and you will be able to stand erect.
I think this whole piece of standing erect and breaking the bars has to do with what we no call self- actualisation; a true sense of knowing who you are and what you’re all about; a mindfulness and independence of thought. Reference was made to being in the zone; moving with our destiny, and feeling that every part of existence and who we are clicks into awareness.
So how does one find a mature spirituality? Find like minded people because you need a community where you will feel safe. And at this time of your life, create a relationship with the sacred. Feel free to search.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim.
May 31, 2014 B”H
Sivan 2, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parsha Nasso – Numbers 4:21- 7:89
Haftorah – Judges 13:2-25
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Attended the bar mitzvah of the son of a former student so I did not get to Chabad this week. The comments from Mendy that follow are from his Shavuot drush.)
Richard introduced us to the section that details the procedure that is to follow when a husband believes that his wife has gone astray. In such an instance, the jealous husband will bring the wife to the priests for a ritual to be performed that involves drinking water with dirt in it, a serious of serious curses that will follow including a sagging thigh if the water proves her guilt. All these warnings are given prior to drinking. This is all in the Torah. The Mishnah, considers the legal aspect and insists that the jealous husband must confront the wife in the presence of two witnesses, and may oblige her to drink in the presence of two witnesses. This ritual was obsolete by the Rabbinic period, but the Rabbis continued to discuss it for its moral worth.
This “Ordeal” is the only halacha event that is supernatural possibly because marriage is a sacred relationship and once a husband mistrusts his wife, legal traditions wont change the emotions. Only God can provide relief. This “Ordeal” to prove innocence has similarities all over the world, and every one of them employs water as a medium. In fact, most momentous events in the Torah takes place near water or involves water. But unlike other ordeals dealing with water such as proving witchcraft, the woman does not die. Of course, the aggrieved spouse might forgive her if she confesses and move on, but there is always divorce and not death. The problem with the “Ordeal” is that even if the issue is resolved, there is a loss of trust. Once trust has been abrogated, it is difficult to reestablish it. One cannot easily return to the time before the accusation in the marriage. If a man finds something unseemly in his wife, he can divorce her. The ordeal was an alternative to what happens between Othello and Desdemona. Infidelity destroys honor in a marriage. If the wife is guilty, she is impure.
I am confused. The law against adultery is stoning. So how come divorce is an option in this instance? Is this all post-second Temple interpretation? I take it that there was no similar “ordeal” for a man if he were unfaithful. Or were post-second Temple men never unfaithful because they were so devout?
Today, we can consider this “cup of bitterness” in symbolic terms, and it is quite relevant for us. Now we have psychological, public, and physical ordeals that test us in so many ways. Reputations can be ruined in a matter of seconds by something going viral, and a life can be spent burdened by the release of private conversations. Nothing is private any longer.
Richard’s next focus was on the Priestly Benediction: “May the Lord bless you and protect you; May the Lord lift up His countenance unto you and be gracious unto you; May the Lord favor you and grant you peace.”
Richard offered a Rabbi Held’s interpretation of the benediction. What is the source of the blessing? It begins with God who gives it to Moses who gives it to Aaron who gives it to the Children of Israel. We are the channels of blessings, not the source of the blessings. We are the vehicle through which blessings come. Everyone is capable of being a channel of blessings. We do mitzvot,
but the act itself enables us to channel the sacred into the world. There is something higher taking place. Blessings are unique to us because we are unique individuals. We determine what the blessing is, and we channel our own sense of the divine.
The following are disjointed ideas because I can’t recall the connection:
The benefit of the mitzvah is in the experiencing the mitzvah itself, and the good feelings derived from the mitzvah has the power to change body chemistry. Mind, body, and spirit are all connected. Can the body crave spiritual activity?
Our genetic codes, our family of origin, the randomness of life– all direct us and inform us of who we are. The messages from our families both verbal and non-verbal, are still with us.
We seek out communities for secure and powerful relationships that will also validate us for who we are. Our primary purpose for becoming a member of a synagogue has little to do with theology.
Repectfully,
Labe ChaimJune 4, 2014 B”H
Sivan 6, 5774
Mendy’s Comments: First day of Shavuot
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying: He began by stressing the importance of the holiday and inviting us to imagine that we were each there to receive the Torah from God directly as is our traditional belief. But he stressed the idea that God strongly instructed Moses to make sure that no one touched the mountain or they would die. In fact, this admonition was given to Moses twice. So Mendy’s question had to do with the harshness of the statement, and invited the congregation to comment on why this stringent requirement when it would have been more seemly to be open and welcoming to the newly freed slaves. And comment they did.
I even ventured a suggestion that God’s motivation was to reinforcing in their minds that there are serious consequences for going against what God says he wants you to do. We of course are reminded of Adam and Eve and their consequences, the Golden Calf and its consequences, and, in previous chapters. the numerous plagues that plagued our ancestor for not considering the consequences of their actions.
Mendy then spoke about education and the teacher who throws the disruptive child out of the classroom, and the more patient educator who will be a bit more accepting and root out the cause for the behavior. In this context he retold the story of the man coming to Shammai and asking to convert him as he stood on one foot. According to the legend, Shammai pushes him away with his ruler. The man then goes to Hillel, demands the same, and says: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to another. The rest is commentary. No go and learn.” From these two stories Mendy asked us to accept the idea that to be a Jew, you must recognize that there are complexities and concepts that cannot be imparted to anyone standing on one foot, and that to be honest, it takes study, contemplation, practice, and acceptance of behaviors that are distinctive. But those distinctive behaviors and curious practices are what makes us a distinctive people and therefore unique. Hillel, on the other hand, reduced the entire concept of Judaism to God’s primary directive and His primary expectation: Threat one another with dignity.
Though this man is dismissed by the sages as a “clown,” I think he might also be considered a seeker of truth. Diogenes walked the ancient streets of Athens in broad daylight holding a lantern claiming he was looking for an honest man. Was he a clown or was there a deeper intent? Religion is a complex institution, and requires both intellectual and spiritual understanding, but there must first be an idea espoused by this faith that has profound meaning for the seeker. There needs to be ways of summarizing the belief system in those few words that will resonate with the listener and invite him in. “That which is hateful to you, do not do to another,” is such a statement. A person can relate to that because it involves real people in real time. This is a statement of action offering dignity and kindness. The Shema is a statement of belief and not one of behavior. Islam teaches, “Submit to Allah and you will be saved, Christianity teaches, “Have faith in Jesus and you will be saved.” Judaism teaches, “Observe the Commandments and you will be saved.” I’m assuming this idea of being “saved” has to do with the afterlife. Of the three, Judaism seems most proactive in this world.
The point Mendy was making was that Judaism requires both a Shammai and a Hillel, and if we are to hand this faith down through the generations, we must behave as both would have us behave. Judaism, while a faith that insists on dignity and integrity in our dealing with others, also insists on the adherence to those rules and regulations, observances and traditions, that make us
unique, distinctive, and separate from others. And if Judaism and the observable aspect of it we call Yiddishkeit is to move from generation to generation, we must be willing to tell our children about these expectations and not just about holiday traditions. There are obligations and consequences of not fulfilling these obligations. The ultimate consequence of not adhering to the obligations are Jews as a people becoming insignificant and ultimately, total assimilation as a religion and ethnicity.
In some Jewish families, liberalism has become a substitute for Judaism, and distinctiveness is to be eschewed in favor of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a concept that posits the idea that all cultures are equal and that one is no better than the other. I beg to differ. Traditions such as killing daughters because they have spoken to a man, thus shaming their families, allowing girls to burn to death because they are not properly dressed, killing girls because they are the wrong sex, stoning a women for being raped, etc. etc. are not from cultures that I consider civilized. But the extreme multiculturalists among us insist that because that is their culture, we must honor it. Nonsense!! But for some liberal minded Jewish families, the distinctive behaviors Shammai embraces are to be avoided and only the open arms of Hillel are to be considered. I do believe, the children of such families and the grand children of such families will eventually disappear. Sadly, I must consider mine included. Mendy’s message is best addressed to the young married men and women who have little children and also to the young singles. These groups have a chance to inculcate both the traditions of Shammai and Hillel into their lives and into the lives of their children.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
June 5, 2014 B’H
Sivan 7, 5774
Mendy’s Comments: Shavuot II
I arrived after Mendy began speaking, and this is what I think I recall him saying:
He was talking about those who see the details of observance and those who see the big picture. I was reminded of the Shammai/Hillel comment from yesterday, where it seemed Shammai focused on those specific things someone must know if they wanted to convert as opposed to Hillel who seemed to feel that it was more important to first learn the big picture of what Judaism is all about before conversion.
It is still very difficult trying to convert to Judaism in the Orthodox tradition. Because of a Catholic Church law back in the first or second century declaring that if a Jew was caught converting a pagan or a Christian to Judaism, both would be killed, barriers were set that have held on to this day. Traditionally, the rabbi must turn the potential convert away three times. Up until Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that law,, Judaism was doing well as a proselytizing faith and was a viable alternative to paganism.
My personal belief leans more towards Hillel. If someone is interested in converting to Judaism, I say let’s make it as easy as possible. I say let’s put the big picture out there as Hillel did, and after the convert is committed, help them to learn those little things that support the theology and the cultural aspects as Shammai would have wanted. To the outside, Judaism is a legalistic religion with a myriad of laws that must be obeyed and this is a barrier to those looking for a spiritual experience. Sadly, our classes do stress laws and holiday observances with scant focus on spirituality. Judaism, even for those born into it is an ongoing learning process if you take it seriously. People who want to be Jews are more likely to want to learn about it and practice it than people who are born into it. The Jewish people have already reached zero population growth in the non-Orthodox movements, so if we are to increase our numbers, we need to go out into the world to those who are un-churched and invite them to join us. We have this fantastic faith and philosophy that we have kept hidden, and the only way we will stem the flow of assimilation and Jew-hatred is to open up the doors to Judaism and invite people in. Every synagogue should have an outreach program that doesn’t take years of study and doesn’t cost a lot.
To illustrate this, he related a story told to him by Rabbi Kaminker. The story is about a wealthy man who is sitting studying the Torah one day when there is a knock at the door. Now you must understand that this is an exceptionally devout Jew who addresses every commandment he possibly can. So he opens the door and there is a poor man there begging for food. The wealthy man berates him for interrupting his study and turns him away. Another know and more begging with an emphasis on the possibility of death if he gets nothing to eat. Again, the wealthy man spurns him. Finally, after the third interruption, the beggar is given some fish bones out of the garbage. The man goes back to his studying. The following day, the man learns that this very same beggar has been taken to the hospital in great pain. The man sees this as a wonderful opportunity to do the mitzvah of visiting the sick. So he does. The next day, the beggar dies, and the man is delighted that he can have the mitzvah of burying the dead. Then, he is happy that he can perform the mitzvah of comforting the beggar’s bereaved family at the shiva. The point of the story is obvious. The big picture was that the man was starving and needed to eat.
This man was concerned only with adhering to the letter of the law and not even considering the spirit of the law. In fact, he was so focused on the rituals and laws, he never learned that ritual
and law are the door way to spirituality. He never realized that blessings come into the world when you accept the role of being the vehicle to bring blessings into the world.
Those who focus only on one aspect of Judaism, be it the legal aspect or spiritual aspect are missing the point of this faith. Both aspects must be present if Judaism is to be a vital force in an individual’s life, and make meaningful contributions to the world.
The difference between hearing and seeing was an important theme of this talk. Hearing deals with observing the law and rituals, and seeing deals with the spirit and the big picture. “You can’t see the forest for the trees” is a statement that informs us that if you look at only the individual trees or issue, you won’t see the entire forest or picture or problem. You need to look at both.
In the play, The Rain Maker, the father berates his son for wanting to whip the rain maker for making advances to his rather plain sister. The father tells his son that “He is so concerned with seeing what’s right, he can’t see what’s good.” That line always stuck with me. So here I am with something of a dilemma contemplating both drushes on this holiday of Shavuot. Mendy spoke in terms of extremes. Shammai and the legalities of the Talmud, and Hillel and the spirituality of the Kabbalists. He said both are important and I think he said something about learning both in the yeshiva. I did not attend a yeshiva, so my Judaism and the Yiddishkeit that informs it has come from cheder, my childhood home, from observation, from copying others, from adaption, from study, and decisions made over the past forty or so years. Strangely enough, I will still put my right shoe on first, and I will still break an egg into a glass to check for blood. I continue to observe all holidays in my own fashion, and attend Shabbat services. But I have modified my kashruth to accommodate the woman I love and the world in which I live, I do not put on teffilin each day, nor do I wear tzitzit. I do not observe all Sabbath laws. But, I am charitable, visit the sick regularly, comfort those in stress, and do whatever I can to make the world around me a little better for those who people it. Still, I know there is so much more that I can do. So I’m sort of in the middle like most people are when it comes to the legal/observant verses the spiritual/big picture issues. If there is such a thing as the Golden Mean, perhaps I and other people such as myself are straddling it. Mendy spoke of the extremes, and I know he is not in favor of such extreme behavior on either end. And that’s why I like Chabad. It accepts you where you are and invites you to grow. I’ve done some growing as “a part time Chabadnick” because at Chabad there is an implicit and verbal invitation to grow.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
June 7, 2014 B”H
Sivan 9, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parshah – Be-Ha”aletcha, Numbers 8:1-123:16
Haftorah – Zechariah 2:14-4:7
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
There was a bar mitzvah today of an excellent young man who is the scion of two prominent families in the community. Mendy introduced the four generations that stood on the bimah with the bar mitzvah boy and extolled the young man’s intelligence, his diligence in his studies, and his devotion as a son. The bar mitzvah boy read both the Torah and Haftorah flawlessly, and gave an excellent speech about the text he read. I was very happy for my friend whose grandson this is because my friend had the privilege of really getting to know his grandson, really developing a wonderful relationship with his grandson, and really having a meaningful effect on this young man’s development. It is certainly a great gift to see a grandson absorb, value, and act on the values of his parents and grandparents. I rejoice in my friend’s good fortune, and I am slightly envious that I was never afforded such a privilege. The bar and bat mitzvah service affords the child the opportunity to be the sole focus of the congregation and family and to feel the love, appreciation, and support that every child should have. In addition to feeling part of a family, children need to feel part of a community that wants them.The ritual does this in addition to the religious aspects. It is important on many levels.
Mendy then referred us to the following passage: “On the day the Tabernacle was set up, the cloud covered the Tabernacle that was a tent for the Testimony, and in the evening there would be upon the Tabernacle like a fiery appearance until morning.” He went on to describe this cloud as a dark cloud which he alluded to was symbolic of the despair and pain in the lives of so many people and the fiery cloud as a symbol of light, joy, and hope so many of us experiences between the sad times. He reminded us that we come into a shul, but do not often know the dark cloud that sits above the person next to you, no do we know the joys of that person’s life. But if we are aware, especially of the sadness, it is incumbent upon us to make an effort to lighten that burden and not move away because we do not wish to get involved. This idea of recognizing that there are dark clouds in the world hovering over others is reflected in the breaking of the glass at the wedding, a time of great joy. It is a reminder that life and joy are fragile, but immediately, there are shouts of mazel tov and dancing.
“We go to bed weeping, and joy comes in the morning.” That expression of eternal hope I think is from one of the psalms.
I am reminded of a statement from the Ethics of the Fathers that went something like “we are not responsible for completing the task, yet we may not desist from it.” I also thought about the idea that we are not to “stand idly by upon the blood of our neighbor” in the Torah. As Jews, we are obliged to help to the best of our ability. There is light and there is darkness. No one escapes either cloud. But as much as I liked the symbolic use of the cloud, I could not find in the commentary that the cloud that sat above the Tabernacle was a dark cloud. Could Mendy have been adding his own interpretation? Good for Mendy! That’s what a good rabbi does. He should expand the text so these ancient stories continue to speak to us in the here and now. It is foolish to believe that only people who lived thousands or hundreds of years ago were the only ones capable to adding to the meaningfulness of the text. Go Mendy!
Mendy then extended this symbolism to his own family and related the story of dark clouds of despair that descended, clouds of fire and hope that followed, and again, the darkness. His father, one sister, and his mother were all who survived the death camps. He lost fourteen aunts and uncles, not counting cousins, and friends.
The father, at fourteen, went to England, the sister to Venezuela, and the mother to Israel. The young man was alone, and lived with the darkness. The darkness was lifted when he came to America and met Mendy’s mother. The young survivor was happy and the cloud lifted. He was beginning to feel that his happiness gave the lie to the Nazi effort to destroy him and his people. Then his first son was born, and this son was the living proof that he had beaten the darkness in the world. This son became a victory for him and his people. There was hope. Life moved forward and this son married and his wife became pregnant. Joy was total. The Nazis had been defeated with yet another generation to be born. And the joy turned to tragedy when the day before the child was to be born, his father, the first son, the joy and the hope, the proof of victory, was killed in an accident. There was no consolation, no answer for this man or his wife, and yet one evening he called his wife and children into his study and in a small voice said, “I still believe.”
There is no greater tragedy in this life than that of parents having to bury a child. Mendy’s father had to believe that the death of his beloved son was part of God’s plan. The belief is that we cannot know the plan and we must accept it. Mendy’s dad, by saying, “I still believe” was giving his family permission to continue to have faith and to hope. Certainly, the fire clouds of joy and hope have covered this man. To have a son such as Mendy, a daughter-in-law like Denie, and the eight wonderful grandchildren they have given him, must lift him up.
I have seen parents bury children twice, and I have delivered the eulogy for both because they were my beloved students.. Both sets of parents turned away from God, and while I can certainly understand their anger, I do not believe that God has anything to do with the death of children, with disease, with genocide, or with anything else that has to do with the tragedies humanity and nature inflict on one another. I and these parents are not comforted by thinking “there is a plan”, and I am not comforted by the statement, “They’re in a better place,” or “God wanted them.” It is better to be silent, because there is no comfort.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Richard began the session by referring to the text describing what should happen when a person is impure or traveling and cannot partake in the Passover rituals. Moses inquires of God, and God responds that it is permissible to hold the seder the following month on the 14th day. Passover is a primary holiday, so the question becomes, Which is the higher value – strict observance of time which is a man inspired concept or the ritual itself? In this case, observance trumps time.
The majority on non-Orthodox Jews do not observe Shabbat according to halacha (the law). So the logical question was: “If you cannot do Shabbat on Friday night or Saturday, what about Tuesday when it is more convenient?” What about Rosh Hashonah or Yom Kippur? The answer was that the latter days of observance are fixed in time. The law applies only to the Passover. Passover is a family holiday, and the others are community holidays.
Richard made reference to his teacher A. Raines who posited Polydoxy and suggested a “portable Judaism” which taught that if you cannot observe on the appointed day, you observe when you can. For him, observance was more important than fixed time.
Halacha, from its inception recognized the need for flexibility and humaneness. It is constantly shifting, and this shift is noted in the Responsa literature.
Many years ago, I found in necessary to move my second seder to Saturday night because if the Passover did not fall on the weekend, I would not have children or grandchildren at my table. For me, having them there to participate in the ritual was more important that having the second seder at the appointed time. Over the past years, I’ve noticed other non-Orthodox people doing this also. But I can understand the importance of time, because to us there is a kind of universal connection, pride, and sense of belonging in knowing that on the day of Yom Kippur, millions of Jews are doing the same thing that you are doing, and that on Friday night, millions of candle are being lit at the appropriate time all over the world. That’s powerful energy.
We then focused on the complaints of our ancestors over the problem that they had no meat to eat, and they take the problem to Moses who takes it to God. Now Moses says to God that he did not give birth to these people, and that the burden is too great. He is fed up with their constant groaning and complaining, and that God should kill him on the spot. This feeling of frustration at not being able to make it right or it never being enough no matter what the expenditure, is very true for many professionals in the helping professions. Many feel that there is no more room in their soul, body, or mind to deal with these people’s problems. There is a fear of losing one’s self in other people’s needs. The feelings that Moses has and the situation are as real today as they were 3500 years ago. The Torah, in describing this, once again demonstrates itself to be a living document and source of the human condition. Moses wants to “throw in the towel” as do may physicians, teachers, therapists, and coaches do today. Moses’ lament is very modern. Some people carry such burdens that they are emotionally drowning in a soul numbing toxicity in which they find themselves.
Once again, God had no time for whining, and he tells Moses to delegate.
I have a problem with Moses as a leader and with God as the CEO. Moses, from the very start, does not want this job, and God insists that he take it. So Moses becomes a reluctant leader at best, and God seems to be a disinterested CEO, believing that Moses can handle things on his own. Why doesn’t God know that Moses is new at this and needs support? And if God is omniscient, why does God not see that these people are going to complain about the lack of food and water and provide it to them prior to the rebellions? And why does God usually respond by getting very upset and vindictive when Moses comes to Him with yet another problem? Is plague the only means at God’s disposal? Doesn’t God see that this response is a temporary control since the people continue to sin? So if you look at the Exodus venture in business terms, the Hebrews might be viewed as dissatisfied customers with short term memory problems who keep forgetting the presentations that Moses brings to the meetings at God’s behest. God has expectations of Moses that Moses will make the decisions and will leave Him alone. But Moses doesn’t seem to feel that he can call forth water from the rocks, or make quail appear. But has God ever told Moses that he has these powers or invested him and said, “Now you can do these things? I think not. God established this pattern back in Egypt when God perpetually told Moses what he had to do. There was never any transfer of power. Moses was never a miracle worker in training. And when God tells Moses that he should have spoken to the rock rather than strike it, He has set Moses up to fail because the first time in the story where there was a rock and water, God told Moses to hit the rock. So why get angry at Moses who was merely following the original instructions. Both God and Moses could use some leadership and management training. As the CEO, God did not want to micro manage the operation, yet never turned over the decision making power to Moses. This lack of support debilitated Moses as a leader.
Food is the issue in this parasha, and it needs to also be considered on the symbolic level, and on that level, the food becomes food for the spirit. The complaints that people have about daily life or religious institutions being satisfying are really statements that they are hungry for something that will feed their spirits. We want and need spiritual sustenance. We have a hunger for meaning; a hunger to feed our souls. Spiritual sustenance is transformative. At the root of this hunger is our search for purpose.
Rabbi Twersky comments that the Hebrews were looking back to the meat of the “good old days” forgetting the slavery part. Though the Torah relates that the Israelites lacked for nothing, and the manna that fell became whatever the individual wanted, they were still not content. So Twersky concludes that the The desire for meat was a distraction from their true desire which they could not verbalize. Twersky says that this distraction has nothing to do with meat. The meat is a cover up. Moses heard weeping in the tents, and Rabbi Twersky suggests that the source of the weeping was the discontent that was the result of the soul’s emptiness that was felt. They were homeless. They were cast off. They were afraid. They were empty.
We were asked to consider those people who are warehoused in nursing homes, and the loneliness and emptiness they experience. We were asked to think of the homeless in the streets and the women and children in shelters. These people are no less lost, homeless, and friendless than our ancestors, we must show compassion for them.
Years ago I trained teachers and parents in a communications model called “Teacher/Parent Effectiveness Training.” It dealt with assessing in a relationship who owns the problem. The person disturbed by a statement, action, or condition owns the problem, and there are specific ways of addressing that. But often, the problem is not expressed directly, but a code is given. The astute person hears that the statement is a code, and feeds back the feelings they read under the code without trying to solve the problem. In such a case, you do not own the problem, but the person sending the code does. A child who says that his or her stomach hurts may or may not have an ache, but the astute parent (who has the time in the morning before getting off to work) might say, “There’s some problem that’s causing your stomach to ache.” That response sends a subliminal message that you have understood the code and the conversation might continue. So it was, according to Twersky, with our ancestors and the meat.
It’s hard to relate to the Biblical God. His first inclination is to punish people. If you do this, then this will happen, and if you don’t do this, then this will happen. The choices are clearly laid out as are the consequences. And yet despite what the people see in terms of miracles, they still complain and sin. They just couldn’t believe. I just can’t believe. It’s hard to believe. This is the struggle of faith. It is easy just to accept and surrender to God’s. If I am nothing but dust and ashes, it is easier than fighting. It is beyond us to be able to figure out what is God’s plan. It is best to surrender. But in western religions, we want to be shown the Plan. Time is meaningless, and in the grand scheme of things we are insignificant. We resist a reality that was given to us, but we wand to create our own reality. It is frightening to accept the fact that we do control our lives. The story of Lech Lecha, of Abraham’s going out, teaches us that we also must go out and create a life. Be responsible.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
June 21, 2014 B”H
Sivan 23, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parahah Korach: Numbers 16:1- 18:32
Haftorah: I Samuel 11:14-12:22
There is no Mendy comments this week. This Torah study at M’kor is Rabbi Address’ final class as our spiritual leader, and there was a brunch in his honor following the class. His scholarship and his humor will be greatly missed.
He began by telling us that this was the third act of rebellion among the Hebrews since leaving Egypt, the first being the golden calf episode, and the spies. But this one was different because it was an organized revolution lead by two hundred and fifty people who were born to privileged: descendants to the Tribe of Levi and Reuben. To answer the question as to why they would rise against Moses, one must consider the dynamics at play in many human situations, power and control. The wonder of the Torah is that it continues to reveal struggles that are old and still contemporary. The issue is one of leadership style and who is going to be in control.
The question to Moses is why have you set yourself above the congregation, since we are all a kingdom of priests, and we are all equal in the sight of God? If we are indeed a Kingdom of Priests, then we all speak for God. This egalitarian challenge sounds better than it plays, and it is very present in contemporary politics.
I was reminded that this egalitarian effort, this “I’m as good as you are” is much like the so called multi-cultural and political correctness minority in this country, that continues to dictate what we can think and say. Now I’m certainly not against being sensitive to the needs of certain groups, but don’t insist that I believe that everything and everyone is equal to everyone else. There are those devoted multi-culturalists who actually tell me to believe that no one system of government, or system of values, or culture is better than any other. They insist that all cultures are equal and should be honored because that is what other people do and who are we to condemn them? Well I certainly don’t think that any culture that allows female infants to be abandoned to die because they are female (China) is equal to mine, and I don’t believe that widows should throw themselves on a funeral pyres so she would not be a burden to her deceased husband’s family (India). And I don’t think that girls should be allowed to burn to death because they were not properly dressed (Saudi Arabia), nor do I think that homosexual activity should be outlawed on pain of death. (Africa) I do not believe that a culture that lops off hands and feet of felons is better than mine, nor is one that sanctions the murdering of a daughter because she may have shamed her family by flirting with a man. I don’t believe any culture who forces people into slavery or sanctions the mutilation of females is on equal footing with my culture. And I don’t believe that any culture that sanctions the murder of people who differ with me politically should be murdered. When a majority is passive, the radical minority can impose its insanity.
But what is really going on? In human terms, this is a response to discount and jealousy. The Reubenites, the first born and descendants of Jacob’s eldest son, feel they have the right to lead and were passed over. The Levites, led by Korach, feel that they are the true leaders because they minister in the Tabernacle.
Moses says that God will decide who is in charge, and sure enough, Korah and his followers are swallowed up by the earth. The message is clear. If you dare to challenge Moses, God’s chosen leader, you will die. In contemporary, some lay leaders will go after the rabbi to get him fired. The psychological component here reflects the idea that the general population is passive, and the minority will take over.
I see this idea at work in the Republican Party with moderate Republicans, acquiescing to the demands of the Tea Party and the extreme Right Wing. The Republican Party has been hijacked by the Conservatives, and Republicans will not speak out for fear of not being elected or re-elected. The Islamic fundamentalists have done the same to Islam, and the moderate Islamists will not speak out for fear of being killed. People remain silent out of fear.
What Korah and his minions are about is pure hubris, and if you know anything about hubris in literature, those who exhibit it are doomed to die or fall.
Richard also suggested that we look to the world in which this story was written down to see what was going on in that world. He suggested that this Korah story was a reminder to the monarchy, a monarchy that was corrupt and leading the people to destruction. The Prophets constantly warned the monarchy of what will happen if they continue not to recognize God’s primacy in the world and only their own. Again, it is an issue of ego. Korach was an egotist, as were the Kings of Israel.
As a side comment, Richard mentioned that the image of the rabbi has been deflated in American life. He said that to be a rabbi is to have a calling. It is not a job, but once the rabbi became a profession, there was a loss of credibility. That is probably why lay leaders have no qualms about going after rabbis and getting them fired. The rabbi is no longer as revered as he was.
We may think we speak for God metaphorically, but there are those who actually believe that they do. Others don’t want to be reminded of a power above them.
Politicians who tell you that they speak to God and God tells them what to do should not get your vote. Judges and lawyers who do not like the Ten Commandments in the court room, don’t like being reminded that there is anyone higher than they are commanding them. I was also reminded that there is something in the Talmud that says that “the rabbi should not use the Torah as a spade with which to dig.” which I believe means that the Torah is not a tool from which a man might earn his living. Perhaps the ancients knew that becoming a “professional” would diminish the role. Wasn’t Akiba a wood cutter?
Did Moses not listen? Did he decide that since he was the leader, he did not have to listen? Moses was leader by God’s decree. Korah, the arch demagogue, wanted to supplant Moses for ego purposes. His motivation was ego gratification, and certainly not “for the sake of heaven.” Most politicians are in the business for ego gratification, also and are not humble people. But Moses is considered the model of modesty and humility, and we are asked to model him when we are told by the Prophet Micah that God only asks of us that we “seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with Him.” Moses did not want the job, and he never seems to know what to do.
Each faction in the rebellion had its own agenda, but like contemporary politicians, they defined themselves by saying what they were against and not what they were for.
Rabbi Twersky comments that rage can deny a person’s rational thought, and one in such a state is apt to project his own defects upon another. Korah is projecting his own real character flaws which include his insecurity and feelings of inadequacy upon Moses.
The Torah is representative of how we evolved as a people. It comes with a certain bias. Its ultimate goal is an affirmation of God. On a very fundamental level it is saying to us that there is a God, God is the creator, we are responsible to Him, we have a guide in the Torah, that we have a choice, and there will be consequences for our actions.
We will worship something. We become what we worship. If you don’t worship anything, you become a total egotist.
After Korah and his minions are dispatched, a plague breaks out among the people, so it sees that an entire community could be condemned and punished for the activities of the few. The story cannot be taken as literal truth, so take it as a metaphor as a challenge to us in the contemporary world. Do innocent people suffer for the actions of a few? They certainly do. Just open up the paper and look what is going on in Asia, in Africa, in Europe, and in the Middle East. The Korah story is a metaphor for the destructive power of envy. It has to do with people who want more even when they have enough.
This same theme glimmers faintly in the story of Adam and Eve and in the response to the manna.
The priests wrote a history that would validate their importance in the community. In Kings I and II, all monarchs are corrupt. The Prophets arose to bring Jews back to the true worship of God. The Korah story is a reflection of what was going on in those days, and speaks to what is going on today. And if there is a message to be learned, it is that we are never to stop being vigilant. There are consequences for actions, and innocent people get caught in the actions of the few and suffer.
The beauty of study and argument with the text and with God is that you evolve in your theology and understanding of you relationship with God.
A brief discussion of the vote by the Presbyterian Church to divest from companies doing business in Judea and Samaria followed, and comments were made on the morality of using economic sanctions. The genius of not having a state religion here in America was also part of the conversation. It seemed to be a truth that established religion in any country has the power to destroys, and that using God as a tool to oppress and kill is a good deal responsible for the retreat from organized religion because of the hypocrisy. People are interested in a belief system that doesn’t psychologically destroy or physically kill. Religion has become a political tool.
Richard returned to the idea of leadership verses indifference. The indifference of the group will allow leadership to be undermined. Moses was not an absolute monarch. He was open to advise, having taken advice from Jethro, Aaron, and the seventy elders. He did not rule by power but by consultation. What is better, leadership by power or by consultation?
But for consultation to work, and negotiation to take place, there has to be some sort of mutuality by both parties and an agreement to put ego and affiliation aside and work for the common good or for the sake of heaven. We continue to see that there is no mutuality in the Mid-East Peace Process because the Palestinian members of Fatah and Hamas want only the destruction of the Jewish State. How can there be a starting point to negotiate if that is their ultimate goal. And it most assuredly is. When they say, “free Palestine,” they do not mean the West Bank and Gaza. They mean all Israel. The Republican Party has been obstructionist since a black president entered the White House. They stated that their immediate goal was to make him a one term president, and they have continually voted down any legislation he has presented even when that legislation will improve the lives of the average American Citizen. But if they perceive that the legislation will impinge on the bottom line or regulate those industries that contribute to their campaign chests, that legislation is dead or not allowed to come out of committee. They will not raise taxes on the wealthiest people in this country even if it is to improve the medical care of the maimed veterans coming out of wars into which the Republican Neo-Cons pushed us. There is no mutuality in Congress for the sake of the
common good. Outside financial interests continue to undermine our country’s leadership, as oil interests and Jew-hatred continue to undermine the safety and attitudes towards Israel.
This Torah portion raises a challenge that we are not meeting.
Had Korah come to Moses with the issue, and had they sat down with a drink, things might have been different. A great leader does not do what he or she does for his or her own welfare and advancement, but for the welfare of the people; for the sake of heaven. That is the leader to be honored.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
June 28, 2014 B”H
Sivan 30 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parshah Chukkat – Numbers 19:-22:1; 28:9-15.
Haftorah – Rosh Chodesh reading : Isaiah 66:1-24.
Mendy’s Comments: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying.
He began by say that he was in some degree of emotional turmoil, and he intended to speak about things that some in the congregation might not appreciate. First he spoke of his profound sadness at the 20th anniversary of the passing of the Rebbe, a loss to Mendy and the Chasidic Movement that could not be quantified. He said that he would be one of 50,000 people who would visit the Rebbe’s grave, and hoped that he might be able to sacrifice his comfort via inclement weather. He then mentioned the yehrtzite of his own elder brother who was taken a day or two before his first child was born. But with this pain, the feelings of joy at the 20th birthday of his brother’s daughter.
This week is always a difficult week for Mendy and his family.
Mendy then mentioned two responses that congregants had made to him regarding Rabbi Menachem’s drush last week where Menachem compared Moses to a contemporary hero. I don’t recall which one. One congregant felt that no one could be compared to Moses, and the other said something I don’t recall. Mendy took exception to both and said they were both mistaken and did not understand Yiddishkeit at its core.
He then referred us to two passages in the text, one saying that Moses sent the angels to the king, and in the other, Israel, the people, sent the angels to the king. The meaning was clear. In the case of leadership, it is the duty and right of the people of Israel, or an individual Jew to assume the mantle of leadership. In every generation, great leaders will arise, and these leaders are one and the same with Moses. There are many instances of Moses delegating leadership roles to others.
Mendy reverently spoke of the Rebbe’s leadership style, and his insistence that young people leave Crown Heights and go into the world to find Jewish souls and bring them back to Yiddishkeit. To the Rebbe, no Jew was lost to the people, and though many were far from practice, he believed that the Jewish soul within yearned to return practice and belief. Initially, there was great concern as to what would happen to Chabad with the dilution of the Crown Heights congregation, but the Rebbe believed, was proven true, and Chabad is thriving all over the world and Jewish people are being brought back into the fold. Mendy once said that when a Jew walks into Chabad, he sees only a soul in search of meaning. Other rabbis in other congregations see a potential paying customer.
The Rebbe saw the potential in every Jew, and I believe that his faith in the potential of every individual Jew was a core part of his concept of Yiddishkeit.. Yiddishkeit contains not only Jewish ritual behaviors, Yiddishkeit also refers to how a person chooses to behave outside the synagogue and family structure. Leadership is part of Yiddishkeit. I recall the Ethics of the Fathers enjoining us: “In the place where there are no men, strive to be a man.”
Mendy also reminisced about his years growing up in the presence of the Rebbe, how he davened in the Rebbe’s shul, met with the Rebbe, and studied with the Rebbe. But in doing so, Mendy lamented that he did not fully understand the message the Rebbe was giving him, and this seems to be an ongoing pain and sense of inadequacy.
This is what I have to say to that. Mendy, think that everything that happens to us in life becomes a tape recording that gets filed away. When you studied with the Rebbi, you were a child, a teenager, and a young adult. This experience was all put on tape. What the Rebbe was teaching may have been beyond your developmental level to understand even though you heard it and recorded it. So I say to you, “Mendy, stop running those tapes that make you feel less than you are or should be, and stop beating up on that kid in Crown Heights because that kid grew up to be a spokesman for the Rebbe in the best sense of the word. Whatever the immature Mendy didn’t understand, Mendy, the man, Mendy, the leader, does understand now and speaks of it to his congregation weekly. How much more you could have been had you fully “comprehended” we’ll never know, but who you are today is remarkable rabbi, a valued member of the community, and a source of blessing in my life and in the lives of your congregants. You are you because you are the sum total of all those tapes, and you continue to improve because you remember enough of the Rebbe’s teachings to know what needs improvement in yourself. And you constantly challenge us to improve. That’s Yiddishkeit as the Rebbe would have it. I also want you to know something about guilt. Guild is a feeling caused by something in the past. The past cannot be changed, and the feeling of guilt stultifies or ossifies the person in the present. Guilt is a focus on the past, much the way you are replaying those old tapes and feeling regretful. Guilt is a waste of time so stop it. The way you get away from guilt is to resolve in the present and in the future never to behave in the way you behaved that caused the guilt in the first place. Now, Mendy the man, can study the Rebbe’s words with full understanding, and teach as the Rebbe would have taught. Let it go.
We are told of the death of Aaron and how all Israel mourns his loss. The reason that is given is that Aaron knew what was in the hearts of the people and helped them find peace or make peace with one another. It seems he operated on the fundamental belief that people wanted peace, but their egos got in the way of making peace. So according to midrash, Aaron would go to one aggrieved party and say that the other aggrieved party really wanted to apologize for his behavior, and he would go to the other and tell the same story. Yes, Aaron was fabricating, but in his mind it was for the “sake of heaven” and “peace in the house.” The Rebbe reinforced this idea of bringing relationships back into sync with a story about a Chabad rabbi who saw one of his students smoking on the Sabbath. He wrote to the Rebbe inquiring what he should do. The Rebbe referred him to the passages in this parashah about Aaron and how everyone mourned him. Aaron was a harbinger of love and peace. He brought people together and back. The rabbi was to bring the young man back with love and understanding. That was Aaron’s legacy.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
July 5, 2014 B”H
Tammuz 7, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Balak – Numbers 22:2– 25:9
Haftorah – Prophet Micah 5:6 – 6:8
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying: Mendy’s Comments:
To introduce this parshah, Mendy spoke about the tragedies going on in Israel and how even today, Israel is still a pariah to most nations in the world. He did not choose to expand on his thoughts from the bimah as to what was going on in Israel now, but told us a story about Yitchak Rabin who was sent from Israel with a message to the Rebbe on the Rebbe’s 70th birthday. Rabin, a young secular officer at that time, wanted Israel to be accepted as an equal nation among many nations, and he believe that this could happen by Israel’s willingness to make peace. He had his own vision of Israel’s future that he held till his assassination. The Rebbe’s understanding of Israel’s relationship with other nations was different, and the Rebbe referred Rabin to the line in the Torah uttered by Balaam, “For from its origins, I see it rock-like, and from hills do I see it. Behold! It is a nation that will dwell in solitude and not be reckoned among the nations.” Balaam’s prophesy given about 3500 years ago, still holds but it did not have for him the negative sense that it had for Rabin. To the Rebbe, this “aloneness” was a great blessing because where Rabin wanted us to be like everyone else, the Rebbe wanted us to continue being a unique people with a unique set of values, a profound sense of who we are, and a willingness to acknowledge that we are different and separate from other cultures, embracing that idea as being a good thing.
I was reminded at that moment of two things: The first was that we are given the task of “Being a light unto the nations; a holy people.” This simply means that we are to model decency in our lives, and make it known that this is God’s primary expectation for us as Jews. In behaving well, we also reveal God’s primary expectation for all humanity which is to treat each other well. For Jews, it’s not the correct form of worship that matters, but correct behavior based on Torah morality. This is our primary mission to the world. The other reason for Jews existing is to mend the world with good deeds.
The second thing I thought of has to do with this idea that no one culture is superior to another as the multi-culturalists would have us believe. I’ve ranted enough on this ludicrous concept, so I will only say that this is not true. Cultures that see death as a means of getting rid of unwanted children, wives, people who disagree with them religiously or philosophically etc., are not superior to people in cultures who do not do such things. For the most part, Western Civilization is superior in its belief that the sanctity of human life is a paramount value. Just look at the newspapers and witness what other cultures or civilizations value. A culture or civilization that values life as its primary value is superior in my opinion. Rabin wanted Israel to become like other countries, and when that sometimes happens, you give up your unique identities and merge with others. Throughout the Torah, we are admonished not to take wives or husbands from the pagan tribes around us, because assimilation follows quickly and our mission and unique identity and mission would be lost. Of course, there is also the idea that when you move away from God to other gods, God gets non-plused and things can go south quickly. So many of our people have been lost because of this tendency to move into the wider culture and substitute it for our own because it might be more exotic or easier.
The Rebbe said that we should be proud of who we are, and not want to be like others.
Mendy then turned his attention to the idea of whether we were being the best possible people we could be, and told the story of a Rabbi Zussia, a very revered and holy man who was found
weeping by his students. When they asked him why he was weeping, he responded that when he came to his final judgement, he was not afraid of being asked why he was not Moses, but afraid that he would be asked why he was not Zussia.
I think the point Mendy was making was that we plod along in our comfort zones, not realizing that it is only when we move out of those easy spaces that we become more than we are. Zussia was afraid that he would be held to account for not becoming all he could have been, and that we should also hold ourselves to account now and become more. Mendy told us of how he would go into the street to ask people if they were Jewish and if the men were, had they put on tefillin that morning. He did this because he was absolutely sure that as Jews, they wanted to put on tefillin but might not have known how or did not have a set handy. He thought everyone believed as he did. But Mendy was a shy young man, and this activity really pushed him out of his comfort zone, and he grew in his Yiddishkeit, and I think in his humanity. He wanted Jews to be as proud of being a Jew as he was.
Mendy wanted to know if we proudly said that we were members of Chabad, despite the fact that Chabad (according to Mendy) continues to be peripheral in the community. To say it proudly also says that we are different and happy to be different.
I for one am not only happy and proud to say that I am a member of Chabad, I am also happy and proud to say that I am a member of Congregation M’kor Shalom, a Reform synagogue. I am a Reformodox Jew, taking the best of both teachings and living my life in a meaningful way with the spirit of the Torah (if not all its laws), as my life’s guide.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
July 12, 2014 B”H
Tamuz 14, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Pinchas – Numbers 25:10 - 30:1
Haftorah – I Kings 18:46 - 19:21
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch, the new assistant rabbi at M’kor, opened up the study session with a series of questions:
• “What bothers you about the story of Pinchas?” (The question implied that there was an expectation that we should be bothered.)
• “What does it mean to have law?”
• “Is an individual’s opinion more important than the law?”
These questions were meant to put us into the mind set for discussion the story of Pinchas.
Briefly, the story of Pinchas, Aaron’s grandson, is a story of a dramatic moment where Pinchas thrusts a spear through the bodies of an Israelite man and a Midian woman who were involved in a carnal relationship that also involved Baal-peor worship. Prior to this, there is a punishing plague because such sinning was going on among the Israelite men, and Moses had just given a command from God to the judges of Israel that the men who had been so involved under each judge’s jurisdiction, were to be hanged as a warning. God says that such action would turn away His wrath. Pinchas’ actions ended the plague, and God ascribes this to Phinchas’ action saying: “...when he zealously avenged My vengeance among them...” It would seem that by acting on behalf of God with such zeal, Pinchas put an end to the plague. As a reward, God bestows on him “My covenant of peace,” and on him and his offspring, “a covenant of eternal priesthood.”
In her Friday night drush, Rabbi Koch said that Pinchas was a zealot, was acting as a vigilante, and according to Jewish law, had committed murder. This he did. Yet God gives him a covenant of peace which to the rabbi was a peace that quelled his rage and made him rational again. That’s a nice kind of peace and one I had not considered before. This new rabbi had something to say, even though she did not seem to stress that God was really pleased with Pincha’s behavior.
The topic continued at the Shabbat Torah study and we read that while the plague was raging, and more harlotry and idol worship was being committed, the Children of Israel were weeping and at a loss of what to do. I immediately thought of the Talmudic statement, “In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man.” At God’s command, Moses had already given the order to hang the sinners, but Moses, at that very moment, must have forgotten that the punishment for public lewdness and cohabitation with a gentile was death, so he did not act against the man and woman. Obviously, Pinchas remembered that law and not only acted on God’s behalf, but was rewarded for his behavior by God Himself. You might say that the people were saved because Pinchas acted. So if he hadn’t murdered the two, how many more lives would have been lost? Another question to consider. Can one commit murder for the greater good? A third question. One question leading to another question leading to another question. Another reason I love being Jewish and involved in Torah study.
Brutus, when speaking of Julius Ceasar uses the image of a snake before it is hatched, and once hatched, will cause mischief. So Shakespeare puts into Brutus’ mouth, “Lest he may, prevent, we must kill it in the shell.”
My Jewish soul wars against the idea of premeditated murder. But Pinchas’ actions were not premeditated, but a moment of passion. He wasn’t looking for those two people or any two people, but seeing them violating the law, sent him into a rage. His plea today might be temporary insanity.
Are there no circumstances where murder resulting from passion or premeditation is ever acceptable? Specifically targeting terrorists is premeditated murder. They are snakes still in the shell. So premeditated murder can easily morph into preemptive murder or is that just a rationalization? Is a preemptive strike where you are deliberately trying to kill an enemy always to be considered murder? Are we to model ourselves on Javier who insists that the law is the law and not to be mocked? And yet, if preemptive action is not taken, might greater tragedies not take place? If a person, walking past the Newtown School saw that man with the guns as he was about to enter into the school and shot him dead, the state would have the right to prosecute that man for murder according to the letter of the law. The judge would have to instruct the jury to discount the subsequent effects of the man’s actions (saving the lives of children) when rendering a verdict. But my hunch is that there would have been a hung jury or the man would have been acquitted. Whether the judge would have nullified the verdict, is anyone’s guess. The law is the law, and justice is blind. Sometimes the legal system is so busy seeing what’s right, it can’t see what’s good. (The latter phrase is paraphrased from The Rain Maker.)
So here I am now thinking of murder of passion, premeditated murder, and preemptive murder.
Israel exists because in 1973 it preemptively attacked Egypt and Syria by crippling their air forces. The attack was premeditated which means that everyone killed in that attack was murdered. The war hadn’t begun at that time, but was anticipated. “If a man comes to slay you, slay him first.” I don’t weep for people who want to kill me and my people if such people are killed or murdered. I’m sure that those who wanted to see Israel destroyed in ‘73, and Jew haters in general probably wanted Israel brought up on murder charges in the Haig.
Each week we try to relate what is happening in the Torah into our lives. What does the story of Pinchas have to say to us today? To me it says that there are consequences for what we do. The Israelite men whoring after Moabite and Medianite women and their gods, suffered consequences that they might not have initially considered. Many people, especially where sex and ego are involved, might not consider the full consequences of their actions before they act. That’s an important message for today. The story of Pinchas might also be a warning of the consequences of assimilation. This idea of consequences not dreamt of first appears in the story of Adam and Eve. Wow! For just eating an apple, Paradise is lost, a woman has pain giving birth, and man must live by the sweat of his brow.
The compilation of laws that Moses set out for the people were meant to keep them distinctive, holy if you will, with a distinctive set of values that would sustain them and make for a healthy and just society. These laws, to my thinking, were ascribed to God so there would be an authority behind them that was greater than man. Today, the Jewish people are confronted with assimilation, intermarriage, and the loss of “Yiddishkeit,”namely, those behaviors that once indicated that this person was a Jew.
The good rabbi maintained that the law is paramount and stands firmly against vigilantism. An individual’s opinion is never more important than the law. Pinchas committed murder in the first degree, and Jews do not want people to take the law into their own hands.
So what is it that bothers me about Pinchas? Never really gave it much thought until now.
Pinchas sacrificed or murdered if you will to save his people at best or at worst, to make a statement about obeying the law. To break one law to protect the others. Is that ever justified? Again, an interesting thought to consider.. Frankly, I’m more bothered about how the writers and compilers of the Torah have given us a God who seems to have limited means of dealing with his dysfunctional and stiff necked people.
Rabbi Koch continued by letting us know that there are four ways to interpret the Torah:
1- There is the narrative level where the story is taken at face value.
2- The multiple meaning to the text level (open to interpretation?) 3- The lesson level (moral meaning?).
4- The secret level or the hidden meaning in the text (mystical?).
I would like to one day at Torah study for the rabbi to take a passage and follow it through all four levels. That would be interesting.
Again we were challenged by with “What was the Hebrews biggest challenge?” My response was “to establish and maintain a relationship with God.” Other suggestions were made, but the one the rabbi seemed to like best was the one that alluded to finding an identity. This was a very diverse group that went out of Egypt and included a mixed multitude. Their chief task was to mold for themselves a cohesive identity. After 38 years, they were still whoring after pagan woman and pagan gods. The pendulum kept swinging back and forth between faith and apostasy. Today, the Jewish people are still in the same predicament as we struggle with what it means to be a Jew in the 21st Century and assimilation.
Ancient and still contemporary. That’s the power of the Torah.
Establishing a relationship with God is still a challenge. According to the Bible, God would just kill off those who didn’t agree. Plague after plague, fiery serpents, the mouth of the earth etc. all means of getting rid of people who would not conform to God’s vision of what He wanted His people to be.
The God of the Torah is not the God we talk about on Yom Kippur, and we are not the Jews of the Bible. Fundamentally, we are Rabbinic Jews, and the texts that defines us are the Talmud and Responsa literature. In the world of the ultra-Orthodox, every word of the Talmud and Tenach are true. Also revered is the Shulchan Arauch, the Code of Jewish Law. This book is a field guide to Jewish life, and along with the Talmud, we are told how to be Jewish in this world.
The reference to forty years in the Torah is an idiomatic expression for “a long time,” much the same way that we understand that at the end of a “three day’s journey,” something memorable and life altering will happen. In addition to believing that every word in our sacred texts are the exact words of God, the Orthodox also believe that the entire Tenach (the entire Bible, not just the Torah), the Mishnah, and the Gemorah, which becomes the foundation of the Talmud, were given to Moses when he was on Sinai for those forty days. Reform Judaism holds that since the historicity of this
event cannot be verified, and to believe this, we would have to suspend disbelief and accept the idea that Moses could retain all of this information in his brain and write it down, we are invited to decide what is reasonable to us and what is not. Are we to take all our sacred texts word for word?
Still, we have these stories that inform our identities, and it is our task as Jews to wrestle with them. There was some moment in our history which we call Sinai where all of us who chose to engage were there. According to the tradition, the only thing we heard was the letter Aleph, and all the rest is midrash.
We then considered what might have been a back story of Pinchas. God tells Moses to impale the ring leaders of this latest rebellion, and Moses appoints officials to perform the task. Pinchas, a priest and Aaron’s grandson, is motivated by God’s law, and acted to expiate the sin. The people he murdered (killed) were a sacrifice of appeasement. Pinchas was a zealot for God.
Zealots are tolerated in society because they are the tip of a much larger iceberg. Zealots reflect a strong belief in the wider population that may or may not be themselves involved in zealotry. But these silent zealots give tacit approval and secretly agree with that which may not be legal, but speaks to something deep within.
I asked, “What was Pinchas protecting?” “What do you think Pinchas was protecting?” was the response. I responded that he was protecting the laws that God had established so God and the Hebrews might have a lasting relationship and a safe, orderly, and sanctified society. I said that initially, and I hold with that. Another added the identity issue, while someone suggested that he was protecting the priesthood. After all, Numbers is one of the priestly books of the Torah that also includes the “J” texts, the “E” texts, and Deuteronomy.
Pinchas is Aaron’s blood, and this is the moment where God establishes Aaron’s descendants as the Priestly class in perpetuity. Pinchas is Aaron’s successor. Moses passes the mantle of leadership off to Joshua, an Ephramite.
Moses probably envisioned a meritocracy under God’s rule. Primogeniture was dismissed as a means of transferring power. The first born may have inherited the lion’s share, but the Torah clearly teaches that the first born may not be the best for the job. It was not to be the Hebrew way regarding leadership or protecting the faith.
It would seem that there is a conflict between the secular and the religious emerging in this ancient society that is reflected in the Torah. The priests who wrote Numbers, were their own line of power. It would be Aaron’s line.
Moses, from the tribe of Levi, does not invest his own sons with leadership nor does he choose one of his grandsons. The tribe of Judah is also not considered. But a man from the half tribe of Ephraim, a descendant of Joseph, is. Joshua demonstrated his skills as a leader and a man of steadfast faith in God. Pinchas demonstrated his zealotry for God and was divinely chosen by God.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Len Berman
July 19, 2014 B”H
Tammuz 19, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Mattote – Numbers 30:2 – 32:42
Haftorah – Jeremiah 1:1 – 2:3
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
The parasha begins with the tribes of Reuben and Gad approaching Moses and requesting the land on the east side of the Jordan because it is very good for grazing the huge numbers of cattle, goats, and sheep that they own. Moses’ immediate response not only accuses them of not wanting to cross the Jordan to fulfill the dream, but accuses them of being reluctant to fight the pagans who live there. He does this in a ten line tirade.
With this introduction, Mendy introduced the idea of criticism, how you respond to who gives it, and how do you handle it yourself. Interesting enough, neither tribe interrupts Moses’ rant, and it is only when he finishes that they tell him that they want only to build shelters for their families and livestock before becoming the vanguard of the army. They also say that they will stay until all the other tribes are settled.
Mendy then used the example of the wife telling her husband to get milk and he walks in without it. She is critical. He goes back to the car and gets the milk he had forgotten on the seat. How do you respond during the criticism, and how do you respond after you give her the milk? One congregant said he would not interrupt her rant, but smile to him self knowing that she would have to walk it back with a possible apology. I don’t recall if anyone said that they would feel sad at stressing their wife, or would feel annoyed or indignant?
But the point Mendy was making is that we respond to criticism based on how we think of ourselves at that moment, and from our core self-concepts.
I think Mendy said that there are four ways of responding to criticism. First, there are those people whose self-concepts are so fragile, that they fold up under the unfavorable judgments and retreat, apologizing all the way. Then, there are those who perceive any type criticism as an attack and immediately get angry and fight. Thirdly, there are those who do not accept criticism because their self- concepts are so overblown, always believing themselves to be right, that they cannot conceive of themselves being wrong. They may become indignant, walk away, or just tune out. And finally, there are those people who will listen to criticism calmly because they are grounded and secure in their self - concepts and do not need to flee or fight.
But so much of the response can depend on the person who is delivering the criticism, the relationship between the two, the manner in which it is delivered, and the place and moment in which it is given.
“We have to talk” are possibly the four most terrifying words in a relationship because one person in the relationship is going to have the brunt of what is usually a negative critique. But if the
relationship is a good one, and both parties believe that the other is sincere and wants only what is good for the relationship, the trepidation when hearing or saying those words need not be too severe.
The leaders of the tribes of Reuven and Gad listened to Moses without responding because they knew that whatever he was saying was in defense of his dream for them and the other
tribes. They knew his heart, and had he known theirs, he would not have made the quantum leap to what was an erroneous conclusion based on their opening statement. Was Moses’ response a window into his own self-concept? After all, God has his back. That should raise anyone’s image of himself. Or does Moses still see himself as an ordinary man who had this enormous responsibility thrust upon his still unwilling and unappreciated shoulders? Is Moses, after all these years, still a reluctant hero, still fearful that his own dream and years of effort could come to an end if everyone does not tow the line?. I believe that Moses leaps to his conclusions the same way we do because we believe we have something important to defend. Moses has something very important to defend, namely, his life’s work is at stake. So Moses responds from his parent place with accusations hurled and their people’s history thrust under their noses with the intension of shaming them. Shame is a very potent parental means of control. These children are very respectful of their parent figure and listen without interruption. As God is Moses’s parent figure, Moses is the parent figure to the Children of Israel. “Children will listen.”
Frequently criticism, when delivered with a harsh tone, can only be viewed as an attack, and depending on the relationship at play, and the self-concept being criticized, such a tone can initiate a counter critical attack, balloon into a major rift, cause withdrawal, or depression. Where people are not equal and there is criticism, a multitude of factors weigh in regarding accepting and responding.
Back in college, I was taught about the inner directed person and the outer directed person in social science. The outer directed person develops an image of him or her self based on the messages and treatment that comes from other people. The outer directed person relies on other people to tell him if he is doing a good job and worthy of being valued. The inner directed person, and I’m not sure of this, takes his strength and confidence from within himself based on what he does and who he knows he is. His self concept is not based on what others think. Perhaps the person who makes anonymous contributions is inner directed because he does not need the public honor. Outer directed people may need more public honor to reinforce their self-concepts.
I do believe that most people are outer directed and probably stay that way all their lives. After all, we are all raised to draw conclusions about ourselves and our self-concepts from what the powerful and significant people in our lives tell about ourselves and how they treat us. Messages, both verbal and non-verbal about how we should see ourselves and be treated, come from without.
The power of these people is given to them unconsciously when we are very little because these people are the one’s who gave us birth and kept us alive. And because we want to please them, and if we do not accept what they say about us and behave accordingly, they can magically take our lives away. I know this sounds weird, but I do believe it is true. All of this exists outside our childhood consciousness. So if we are treated harshly and diminished, we develop low self esteem because, at the hands of these powerful, magical people, we concluded that we must deserve such treatment and therefore deserve low self-esteem. What else might a child with limited data conclude?
Those who are treated with warmth, support, and love stand a better chance of developing a positive self-concept because of the data they received. I do think people with normal positive self concept, not an egotist, make better decisions in life, and have better relationships. (That’s a personal observation.) I also think that it is only when the people with poor self-concepts grow up and begin to receive new data based on how they behave and what they produce, that they may challenge the old negative messages and redefine themselves in a positive light.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
July 26, 2014 B”H
Tammuz 28, 5714
Weekly Torah Study: Parasha Masei – Numbers 33:1- 32:42
Haftorah - Jeremiah 2:4 - 28; 3:4
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch began the Torah study with the story of how the Israelites were told to ascribe land to the Levites proportionately from the smaller and larger tribes so the parceling out would be fair. The Levites would then build a town, and there would be 2,000 cubits around the town that would be an extension of the town. A cubit is 18 inches. She then alluded to the concept of the eruv which is a defined space that allows Jews to carry out tasks on the Sabbath within the eruv that would not be permitted outside of the eruv. The eruv extended the home, so we knew how far outside the city walls a Levite might go on the Sabbath.
We are told in the Torah that we are to stop all work on the Sabbath, but the rabbis came up with a universal understanding of what we can and cannot do. Over the centuries, the definition of work has been changing as the world has changed since these laws were promulgated, and we must change with it. For example, elevators and sky scrapers were not considered centuries ago. But now people live in high rise buildings. So the rabbis determined that if a elevator would run constantly, using it would be kosher because people would not have “worked” by causing the elevator to move. People as people have not changed in 3,000 years. The basic needs are the same, and we are no smarter than they were. What has changed and keeps changing is the technology.
In the 8 BCE, King Josiah decided to reform his nation and return to traditional worship. While the Temple was being cleaned, the Book of Deuteronomy was discovered. In this parsha, we are told that six cities of refuge as well as the 48 Levitical cities are to be established, but in Deuteronomy we are told that only Jerusalem can be a sanctuary city.
To me that implied that there were rituals and sacrifices held in the 48 Levitical cities before Jerusalem was made the sole sanctuary city. I’m still not clear if that was the case. I asked about how that worked with Levites spread all over the country, and I was told that the Levites went to Jerusalem in shifts to minister in the Temple. I’m also wondering if such a demand that everything be moved into Jerusalem was a consolidation of power for the monarchy and the priesthood. If there was a challenge to the High Priest and the Kohanim in Jerusalem from the outlying areas, this demand in Deuteronomy would work to bring the Levites under closer scrutiny. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
We then turned our attention to the six cities of refuge which was a radical new concept in the world of juris prudence in the ancient world. In this world, if someone was killed by someone, the family of the dead person would chose a member to become the blood avenger or redeemer with the task of seeking out the accused and killing him. But the Hebrews realized that not all killing was murder. Murder implies deliberate intent while killing says there may be extenuating circumstances. The Sixth Commandment says, “Lo Tisa” or “Don’t Murder.” “Thou shalt not kill is a Christian translation. Killing in Judaism is acceptable while murder is not. But war changes conditions and definitions.
By setting up these cities, Judaism was saying that a person could not take the law into his own hands, and the concept of man slaughter was established. Now, intent had to be proven and according to the law, there had to be two eye witnesses to the event, and a warning had to be given to
the person with the weapon. The accused had to have a trial, and the trial was to be in one of these cities if the accused could get there before the “blood avenger” or “redeemer,” got to him first. The redeemer redeemed the life that was lost, and the alleged killer was vulnerable until he got to the city. If the blood avenger did kill the man on the way to the city, the avenger would not be considered a murderer because of the blood vengeance tradition. These cities were so important, that we are told that the roads to them were twice the width of regular roads, and there were signs posted along the way.
Now the rule has changed. In Exodus 21:12 -14 we learn that if God caused a man to kill another and it just happened, there will be a city of refuge. But if a man intentionally murdered with guile, he shall be killed for his crime. So how is one to know what was in the mind of the man who killed another? Before this new attitude, it didn’t matter. The killing re-balanced the universe. The city of refuge also had an additional effect by freeing the appointed avenger from killing if he were not so inclined.
But how does one determine intent? How do you avoid a family feud? First, there is a trial that is held before an assembly that is to determine if there was any pre-intent. It is the community that will determine guild or innocence still recognizing that negligent homicide is still murder. The text is trying to point us in the direction of these issues. Any death caused by iron was especially suspect because iron was used in war. But if a stone hammer flew off and killed someone, the concern was also about who made the hammer and if the hammer maker was culpable also. Same issues today, but different technology.
If acquitted, the person had to remain in the city of refuge. In effect, he was in an open walled prison probably for his own safety. Still, death upset the balances in the universe even if it were an accident. So the accused now acquitted had to stay there until the High Priest died. The fact that the man was found innocent didn’t mean that the blood avenger would still not try to avenge the crime. But it was believed that the death of the High Priest expiated the sins of the community. Everyone knew when the High Priest died, and at the same time knew that each person acquitted was free of that sin. So if the blood avenger killed someone deemed innocent and freed from sin through the death of the High Priest, the blood avenger would be considered a murderer.
I was struck by this because it was human vicarious atonement. The idea that one man’s death could wash away the sins of a community and therefore bring blessings to that community, was a very ancient concept. Check out Sir Arthur Frasier’s Golden Bough for further examples. Vicarious atonement is the basis for animal sacrifice. “Here, Lord, take the life of this animal as a substitute for me. Let its death be a symbol for my repentance.” When the Second Temple was destroyed, prayer, charity, repentance, and study all became offerings in lieu of animals. We believe that our own death is the personal sacrifice we make to God so as to be forgive for our sins. I cannot help but wonder if the early Christian Church based the theological concept of Jesus’ death atoning and bringing blessings to the world by freeing humanity from Original Sin by believing that the blood of Jesus washes away sin, and he died so his death might bring salvation through his blood. Vicarious atonement was and continues to be foundational in western faiths.
Torah was demanding a change in our view of the universe. In Leviticus 17:11, it says that the “life of the flesh is in the blood.” The spark of life is in the blood. Blood is imbued with life, and when it is spilled, the balance of life is upset. Blood letting, belongs to God.
Leviticus 16 addresses the mystery of blood in the topic of menstruation. Judaism believed that the spark of life was in the blood. If a man were to bleed for five days, he would probably die.
But a woman will bleed monthly for five days and she does not die. This, according to the ancients, violated the basic understanding of life. Blood belongs to God. One rabbi said, “Blood was a ritual detergent.” It purifies and both life and death are contained in it. A woman’s menses violates every understanding of time and space. This state of neither being here nor there is called Liminality. What ever it was, it means “relating to a sensory threshold.” I looked it up. To the ancients, liminality creates chaos, and that is why in most cultures there are taboos. It’s all about blood. The mikvah is a ritual bath that involves the two life giving forces, namely, blood and pure water. Water, like blood, cleanses.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
I did not hear Mendy speak, but when I arrived at Chabad, I was informed that Mendy was particularly passionate. This is what I think I heard people tell me about Mendy’s drush.
His topic was about the war between Hamas and Israel, and from what I was told, he made it very clear that the Bible tells us that it is not just our right, but our obligation to go to war against those who would kill us. To prove this, he went back into Genesis and continued through all the books of the Torah citing all the promises God made to us about the land of Israel and how He was giving it to us as a possession in perpetuity. The Torah tells us the land is ours, and tells us in detail how we are to do this.
Interestingly enough, Sura 5 in the Koran, The Sura of the Table verse 21 says, “We made the Children of Israel the inheritors” (of the land,) and this is reinforced by Sura 26, the Sura of the Poets.” The Koran acknowledges that the Jews were given this land; it is Allah’s will. So what is keeping the devout Muslim from accepting this Koranic truth? Does the Koran send mixed messages about the Jews to the devout?
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 even though the Sura of the Table Verse 21 clearly says it belongs the the Children of Israel. But 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. They do not see that by doing this, they are violating the Koran.
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 exists. 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 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 six decades of trying to destroy the Jewish state, one might conclude that Allah is willing for Israel to exist.
August 2, 2014 B”H
Av 6, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Deuteronomy - Parshah Devarim 1:1 - 3:22
Haftorah - Isaiah 1:1 - 27
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by referring to the line where Moses tells the people of Israel that it took “eleven days to travel from Horeb by way of Mount Seir to Kadesh-barnea.” After the giving of the Ten Commandments and the Torah, it was God’s intention that the Israelites move from Mt. Sinai to the Promised Land after receiving the Torah. Normally, that would be an eleven day trip. But I think he said it was Rashi who wrote that it took only three days because God was so anxious to bring them there that He caused a miracle and the trip took only three days.
Sadly, it was at this time that the people demanded that spies be sent in to scout out the land, and Moses agreed. Had they trusted God, they would have entered the land without a problem, but because they chose to listen to the majority of the spies’ reports, God became angry and the punishment for their lack of faith was to wander for forty years.
A further interpretation was that when the heart is sincere in its endeavors, God will speed the heart’s journey to its goal. Mendy also made a reference to a story that when the people were in the land, they would want to go up to Jerusalem prior to the Sabbath, and though they lived two or more hours away, they would still kneed the challah, setting it out to rise, make other preparations, and then go off to Jerusalem. But miraculously, though hours away, they were able to return in time for the Sabbath. The story is that there were tunnels through which these people traveled that speed them on their way. Mendy had earlier made a connection between this hyper speed travel and an article he had read several years ago that seemed nonsensical to him about mysterious tunnels. Again, it was the intent of the heart, the intense desire to be in a particular place, that sped the journey along.
I couldn’t help but think of Star Trek and Star Wars and their hyper jumps to light speed that moved them from one place in the galaxy to another. A wormhole in space is indeed a tunnel that writers have created that also enables astronauts to travel millions of miles across space in moments. How far removed is this idea of spiritual tunnels that are energized by a person’s intentions from the idea of bending time and space and traveling through dimensions? God miraculously condensed an eleven day journey into three, and later on, devout people condensed the hours it took to get to Jerusalem into minutes to return.
I recall somewhere in Genesis that the angels complained that if man and women ate of the Tree of knowledge, they will become “as gods.” We did eat of it and as a result, we have created Civilizations. Within our Civilizations we have created science and science fiction. Science fiction conceived of hyper links between places that can break down our molecules and move them through time and space, reassembling us someplace else. Theoretical math and science have developed theories and formulas that express such ideas. Our ancestors may have been cognizant of such things, for we have no greater brain capacity than our ancestors had. But what we do have that makes the difference are Einstein like abstract mathematical theories and a technology that is approaching a place where these theories can become actual. If God or man can conceived it, it can be done if the technology is there.
This idea of moving from the abstract to the concrete was a final theme of Mendy’s talk. What are we doing to help the current situation in Israel? Are we doing things or are we only thinking of doing things? Are we lighting candles of Friday night to bring light into an ever darkening world or are we only thinking of doing it? He made reference to a survey where everyone seemed to agree on what was right, but the agreement dropped precipitously when it came to action. Putting on teffilin was an example of where most would not act. Mendy also suggested that by taking action through ritual, we will hasten the coming of the Messiah.
The point he was making was that by putting theory into practice, we would not only be acting in concert as one people for the world to see, but we would be connecting on a spiritual level and becoming one with each other. At minimum, he exhorted us to be kinder to one another than we might have been in the past, and to make peace wherever we could.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Len Berman
August 9, 2014 B”H
Av 13, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parasha Va-Etchannan – Deuteronomy 3:23 - 7:11
Haftorah - Isaiah 40:1 - 26
Shabbat Nachamu
Congregation M’kor Shalom:
With the best of intentions, Rabbi Koch said that she wanted to fully discuss the idea that Moses begged God to be allowed to enter the Promised Land, but one of the congregants raised the issue of many gods existing, and that took us on a track where the word “menolotry” was introduced to us by Rabbi Koch.
I never heard this word before, and must not have heard the word correctly because I could not find it in the dictionary. But I am aware of the word “henotheism” which means the worship of one God with out denying the existence of other gods. I think this was the period of time to which the congregant referred. Are menolotry and henotheism synonyms?
In any case, menolotry was defined a time when there was no strict monotheism, but we worshiped only one. The example given was that of Pharaoh who was a god on earth and worshiped as such. I referred to the commandment: “You shall have no other gods before me” which is a clear indication that God recognized the existence of other gods. Somewhere in the Torah, God admits that he created the moon and sun etc., so others might worship them, but that he had selected us to worship Him only. But God lets us know that if we accepted that role, there would be no other options and no going back. The contract was an exclusive one much like a wedding contract or pledge. The midrash about God holding Mt. Sinai over our head and threatening to drop it on us if we did not agree to His demands was related. She also made the point, several times, that translations are contextual, and that language is not precise; words having different meanings at different times in history, and translators and scribes use the prism of their own experiences and biases.
I am always amused by that story, but the story hinges on a word that could mean either “under” or “near.” With the word, “near” there is no awe or mystery. I’m not familiar with the nuances of Hebrew ancient or modern, and I do believe I learned today that prepositions are infused into nouns. So the translator may filter the message through his own proclivities. Thus, the people may have been under the mountain or near the mountain. Jesus may have walked “on” the water or “near” the water. Miracles and midrash turn on linguistics, and thus, natural occurrences become miracles. I do not think good ideas need to be proved by a miracle.
Since our ancestors were in this menolotic or henotheistic period, Pharaoh had to be forced to his knees. God had to prove a point. God had to stretch out His own arm and bring us to Him because that is the only way it could be done. So we came to God’s in a monogamous relationship, and that is why there are references in our holy texts to Israel being a bride and God the groom. In lines 33, 34, and 35, Moses recounts all the ways God has proven Himself to us and saved us. No other God compares to what our God has done for us.
People today are not very different from people millennia ago. They had statues, and we have statues. Statues were then and are today viewed as representations of what they thought a god looked like. But gods were more the physical representation of concepts, values, or environmental conditions
that they felt would magically hear their entireties and protect them Each group imbues their hopes and dreams into iconic images. We have done this with Torah, Sabbath objects, and the Western Wall.
I am reminded of a Left wing Jewish colleague who once screamed at me: “It’s a f**king wall. Let them have it!” Yes, but it is my “f**king wall, and my people imbued their aspirations and dreams into it, and those are my aspirations and dreams also. It is not just a wall. It is a bridge to the sacred. I have been to Hadrian’s Wall and to the Great Wall of China. But these are not holy or infused with a sacredness that connects us to God. To us the Kotel is holy in the same way as the Torah is holy. As regards this colleague, I wonder just how far she would go in giving up Jewish aspirations so there would be peace. I think such people would be willing to sacrifice Judaism, and the State of Israel itself if they could only join hand with the rest of the world, sing Kumbaya, and drink Coke.
Others may imbue sanctity into their statues, images, and icons that for them are sacred and connects them, but those of us who have suffered under the hands of those who revere such images bring to the image a very different emotion. While their responses to such images might be akin to exultation, another’s response may be fear and anxiety. The Crusader’s red cross on their white tunics struck fear into the hearts of European Jews as did the Crucifix swinging from the neck of the Inquisitor. I can go on.
Up until Isaiah in the 9th Century BCE, people acknowledged other gods, but with Isaiah, God became a universal God for all humanity. It took 1,000 years to get to One God.
We then moved deeper into the linguistics of Hebrew, and reference to words that appear only once in the Torah and what they could mean. The term used to describe this concept sounded like “hapacks lagamita.” The example used was the word “chasmal (?)” The word is only used by Ezekiel where he describes the wondrous force emanating from the chariot that carries God. Ben Yehudah, in creating modern Hebrew uses this “chasmal” for the Hebrew word, electricity.
We were also told that Hebrew is a language of verbal patterns. There was some discussion on the Shema and the essence of God’s name as “being.” The source are the letters, aleph and lamad which just mean god. El was the head of the Canaanite pantheon. Eloheim is the first person plural of the plural form of the noun El. There is no world in Hebrew for “is.”
The God of the Hebrews became a portable God from the beginning. The Tabernacle, was where the spirit of God rested, and when the Tabernacle was built, it became the symbolic residence of God among the people. God moved with our ancestors into Egypt, and then took them out. God initially moved with them again in in 729 BCE when Assyria took away the ten northern tribes, but they were lost in time and history. (Today, in Afghanistan, there are Muslim tribes that have names that bear some resemblance to those of the lost tribes, and even have some Jewish traditions and symbols. The Jew from Ethiopia are also descendants of one of the Lost Tribes.) But when Judah went into exile in 586BCE, they had the scroll so they could continue to study. The Temple may be gone, but the Torah remained, and with the Temple gone, God was no longer geographically limited. God comes and goes with the people. When the Romans destroyed the Temple, the seat of Jewish learning shifted, and God moved with the Diaspora because the people now had the Torah on five scrolls.
There is a distinction between the time the story happens and the dates of composition. Initially, these stories are part of an ancient oral tradition, and then written down around the time of David before
900 BCE. But the historical setting of the Abrahamic tales in Genesis are a two millennia plus before the time of David. The Exodus is reckoned to have taken place around 1200 BCE. Again, a thousand years old before it is written down. Things get filtered through the eyes and the politics of the people who are writing and recording this history.
With Moses recounting the history of the people, one might say he is attempting a “do over.” He’s telling them everything they need to know so they will be faithful and safe. Rabbi Koch related these final instructions to a parent dropping his or her child off at college for the first time. The parent pours out the rules and regulations in a last ditch attempt to keep the child safe and reiterate what may or may not have been learned over the years. A last attempt to transfer knowledge. Moses is doing the same. In effect he is saying, “Don’t pay attention to those other gods, and to what those people are doing. You just do what I’m telling you to do.”
Moses is taking off the training wheels and hoping for the best. The kids are on their own now, and the best a parent can hope for is that correct behavior and good values taught over the years will stick when they are not there to enforce parental or societal rules, and the kids are exposed to things diametrically opposed to what may have been taught. Parents are usually reluctant to let their children go, unless someone wants to take them when they are 13, 14, or 15. I recall the very first time I allowed my daughter to ride her bike around the block by herself. I realized that she was capable of doing that, and that I was the one who was reluctant to allow her out of my sight. It took a few days of pleading before I was ready.
Moses again pleads with the Lord to allow him to enter the Promised Land. There are even midrashim that tell us of a conversation that Moses has asking God to transform him into an animal and a variety of other things just for the privilege of entering the land. But God is adamant about his decision, Moses dies, and God buries him with His own hands.
I have never been comfortable with the reason Moses couldn’t cross the Jordan. It’s all based on an event where Moses brings forth water from a rock by striking it with his staff. God gets in a huff because He feel that He was not honored in the way He needed to be honored. Moses should have just spoken to the rock. But right before that, there is another story about getting water out of a rock, and God instructs Moses to hit the rock. So when the opportunity arises again, Moses believes he has the formula for extracting water from rocks and hits it. So is Moses supposed to know that God has changed His mind? Moses was merely following what he thought was a pattern establish by God, Himself. And for this, the great man is denied entry into the Promised Land after carrying the burden of these people for forty years? Some reward for good service! Is God still trying to make the point that there are unforseen consequences for minor infractions? I think it overkill to prove that point with Moses now that the prophet is about to die.
If God is supposed to be so forgiving, why not have a little rachmunus (pity/mercy) for His main man? And if the great Moses could not be forgiven for not guessing what was going on in God’s head, what chances to we have with being forgiven either? Wives who look at their husbands and say, “Well, you should have known what I was thinking; we’ve been together long enough!” must be taking their cues from God who basically expected Moses to know what He was thinking at the time of the rock incident without telling him that He changed His mind. Husbands and Moses are set up to fail by women and a Deity who expect that you have the magical ability to read minds.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim ben Peretz
Len Berman
August 23, 2014 B”H
Av 27, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parshah Re-eh – Deuteronomy 7:12 - 11:25.
Haftorah - Isaiah 54:11 - 55:5.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
There was an “Ufruf,”the calling up to the Torah of a young man who will soon become a bridegroom, and Mendy opened up the drush with an admission that he had searched and searched today’s parshah for some wisdom from today’s parashah that he could impart to the bride and groom. Usually, he said he can do this, but Re-eh did not lend itself to this, being a portion devoted to prohibitions, false prophets, kosher and non kosher foods, places of sacrifice, remission of loans, etc. He even called up friends for guidance, and someone did suggest a line interpreted by Rashi that gave Mendy his commentary and blessing.
Mendy referred us to the line in the Torah that Rashi interpreted, but I could not recall what it was. So I went to my Rashi and read all his comments on Parshah Re-eh hoping to find something that Rashi said that referred to a wife and a husband, thinking the Torah line would be discerned from Rashi’s comments. Alas, I could find two Rashi references to a wife and one I assure you contained no blessing. But the other one was based on the interpretation of the line, “But thou shalt surely open thy hand unto him.” Rashi interprets this line as referring to a wife. This interpretation comes when the Torah is talking about “helping your needy brother,” and providing him with that which is “sufficient for his needs.” I think Mendy used this as a statement that a women (bride) is a need that all men have, and a wife compliments and completes her man. This certainly reflect the idea in Genesis where God says that man needs a helpmate and the two shall cleave together and become one. This I imagine was very complimentary all the married women in the congregation.
Mendy assured us that Rashi’s commentary referred to the wife being a gift that completes the husband. In short, a man is incomplete without a woman, and the woman is to be viewed as a gift.
Mendy expanded on this husband/wife relationship by commenting on one of the activities he dislikes most in his relationship with his wife, but does because his wife occasionally asks him to do it. That is shopping. Mendy spent a good deal of time on this, and I think it may have been part of the message to the groom about doing things just because you wife wants you to do it. It may have had something to do with being together or just acquiescing to her request because she may want to spend more time with you or wants your opinion. It may have had something to do with doing something even if you don’t want to just because your wife asked you to do it. Perhaps shopping trips have something to do with this idea of completion in the wife’s mind.
I can see a wife insisting that the husband accompany her when buying big ticket items like a couch, a car, or a TV. But insisting that he go shopping for things like clothing may be one of the many little tests a wife gives her husband to prove his support and love. Such little tests may be part of the wife’s game plan even though she may be unaware that her request is really a test. If a wife knows that her husband despises going shopping with her, and yet insists one it, what else is one to think? Do husbands have little tests to prove that a wife loves and supports him? I don’t think men are wired that way, although I do know wives who agree to watch certain television programs that their husbands know they do not like. If these are “games,” they are harmless.
My only suggestion to the groom is never to buy his wife any thing with a plug as a gift for any holiday or occasion unless she specifically ask for it. And if you do, always have something a little more personal in the shopping bag that will be a nice surprise.
Mendy then turned his attention to the act of giving, and the remission of debt, citing the idea that we must open our hands and give joyously. He seemed to imply that if the giving was begrudged, it would not be a full mitzvah. He also spoke about the idea of uplifting someone according to their need. The Torah says, “...you shall lend him his requirement, whatever is lacking. Rashi’s statement was cited that teaches that while you are “not obligated to make a supplicant wealthy, you should try to give him what he lacks according to his individual needs.” So if he lost his horse or his servant, you are asked to provide these for him. “Someone who was once wealthy and lost all, cannot subsist on what would be sufficient for someone who was always poor.”
A more cynical person than I might have taken this message of “opening your hand and your heart” as a subliminal attempt to prepare the congregation for the High Holiday appeal, but Mendy would never think of doing something like that deliberately. That’s just not who he is.
We are now talking about Tzadakeh, though the word was never mentioned. Nor were the levels that have developed around the commandments to “open your hand and heart.”
• The highest form of Tzadaheh is finding a job for a person so they do not need to take or borrow from anyone. I have helped people find jobs so I know the joy of that mitzvah for the person who got the job and for me who brought it about.
• I have also given money targeted to a specific family in serious need, and though I did know who got it, they did not know that I gave it.
• I have given money directly to people.
• I have given money to organizations where I don’t know who ultimately got the money, and the recipient didn’t know that I gave it.
• And I can honestly say that I have given money because I have been guilted into giving, and I begrudged the giving of it.
• At times, I will give anonymously.
When I compare myself to others, I am more generous than some, but not as generous as others. I give what I believe I can afford, and I do not give beyond my ability. While I have a strong inclination to give regularly, I stop when I perceive that I will not be able to meet my own monthly obligations.
I have heard it said that the difference between Tzedakah and charity is that at the root of the word Tzedakah is the concept of righteousness, and at the root of the word charity is the word heart. While it may be a complete mitzvah to give with an open hand and an open heart, the destitute, the starving, and the homeless do not care if your heart is in it, but they do care that your hand is open. Their need is for shelter and bread. Do we always need to feel good or get recognition? I think Jews give because they know it is the righteous thing to do, even if their hearts are sometimes not in it. To be righteous is to know what needs to be done even if you are resentful of having to do it.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
August 30, 2014 B”H
Elul 4, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parshah Shefetim – Deuteronomy 16:18 – 21:9.
Haftorah – Isaiah 51:12 – 52:12.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by referring us to last week’s drush where he reminded us that he always tries to find a in the weekly parashah something that will relate and give form to some contemporary issue; proving weekly the veracity of the Torah and its value to us today. To put us into the mind set for the discussion and the contemporary idea he wanted to relate to the Torah, he asked of several questions regarding the Ashkinaze and Sepharic Rabbis in Israel. He asked us how many felt that it was appropriate for the two to exist in 1948. I and others raised our hands. Others raised their hands saying there should be only one. He then asked if we would change our minds if we voted today. I said “yes” and I would vote that there would be no chief rabbis at all.
Laughter ensued, possibly because some thought that I was suggesting that there be no rabbis at all anywhere. But my rational for both votes was this: When Israel was new, and groups were ingathering from all over the world, Israel was a land of Jewish strangers who found strength and stability in their respective traditions. I think it was important for each cultural division to have a symbol of what it valued embodied in a person, and this symbol could be manifested in a chief rabbi. (I think about the Messiah in the same way: the values of a civilization embodied in one person.) Now, that Israelis are pretty well assimilated culturally through intermarriage and through living in close proximity, there is no need for “symbols,” and the two positions continue as a reminder of the differences that still exist that might be divisive. The conflicts between the secular and the religious Israelis are ongoing. Besides, in my opinion, the right wing religious parties are much too influential in the government, and therefore able to impose too many restrictions on the wider community because they control how religious traditions and laws are to be implemented. Don’t get me started. (Yes, I know that has nothing to do with the question, but I’m writing this and taking a few liberties.)
I think Mendy’s introduction had to do with who should legally represent and judge a person from Group A, when those doing the judging are all from Group B. Is this system right and proper in a democratic society, and should a person’s peers, literally be their peers? And before he introduced us to that passage in the Torah that would give us some direction in helping us make a decision, he spoke of the problem going on in Ferguson, Mo. and the issues being raised by the African- American Community there as to whether or not they have true representation in their local government and in their police department. In short, the majority of the people in Ferguson are black, and the town is run by white people.
If this were to be established, that would mean that only Caucasians should judge Caucasians, African Americans would judge African Americans, Latinos would judge Latinos, etc. etc. etc. Leviticus clearly states that “there should be one law for the stranger and the home born,” which means that if there is one law for all, (a strong indication that our current justice system finds its roots in Torah law,) then there should not be alternative means of achieving justice based on race, creed, religion, sexual preferences, etc., etc., etc. Now one might say that we have Bet Dins, Jewish courts,
deal with religious issues outside the purview of secular law. The rulings of the Bet Din carry no weight outside of the Orthodox and Conservative Jewish Communities, and have power only if one
ascribes power to them. Secular courts have the power to impose penalties, and shunning is not one of them though it may be imposed by a Bet Din. But the politically correct among us might say that imposing Sharia law on the faithful is also valid. I would say that in the Muslim community, Sharia law is fine for keeping members of their faith adhering to religious law providing it’s not lopping off hands, legs, ears, or stoning women or men to death for infractions of religious law. But there are those Jehadists who would impose Sharia law on all people whether they are Muslim or not. Forcibly imposing religious law on those who don’t want such an imposition, is a dangerous odious idea, and anyone who holds it (including left wing liberals, multi-culturalists, and those who worship at the shrine of political correctness for the sake of accepting everyone and every value) have no concept of what democracy is and must be stopped by all means possible. Have your religious law among your own, but it must stop at the door of inflicting pain and death on its adherents or on anyone else. I have never heard anyone say that the Bet Din should impose Jewish law on anyone else. As there must be “one law for the stranger and the home born,” there must be one vehicle for carrying out that law. The United States Court system and trial by the jury of one’s peers is how things must be done for maximum fairness. Certainly, there are inadequacies in the system, and we know that we sometimes find in courts only the law with justice taking second place. But like they say, “America isn’t perfect, but there is no other place I’d rather be.”
I do want to know something. The community of Ferguson is about 80% African American and the people in elected positions seem to be Caucasian. Why? Certainly, the African Americans of Ferguson have qualified candidates to put up for election. Do African Americans not have the right to vote in Ferguson? Do the people of Ferguson own any responsibility for lethargy regarding their voting behavior or involvement in the system if in fact those in power are there because the people in Ferguson choose not to vote? I am not blaming the victims here. These people feel victimized and rightfully so. The reports on police behavior over the years regarding its African American citizens are disconcerting. That would change if they were voted out of office and the leadership changed. That said, I would not change the justice system. As I would not suggest an all white jury and judge because the officer in question is white, I would not suggest an all black jury and judge if he were black. Still, I would ask for a different venue for a trial to assure that the jury pool of the officer’s peers would be more open minded than they might be in Ferguson.
Mendy then directed us to the Torah portion that speaks to this entire issue. “Judges and officers shall you appoint in all your cities – which HASHEM, your God, gives you – for your tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgement.” I think the interpretation here was that we shall have judges for the cities, and judges for the tribes, but both shall judge righteously. The implication is that the judges of the tribe will be people from the tribe who know the people involved, who the defendant is, and the nuances of the crime. This judge will take into consideration all factors that a judge in a big city might not know that would help him or her render a fair and just verdict. The reference to the judge of the city meant that when people come together into a city, they come from different tribes and places and become a new kind of entity. Cultures merge, and people change. A judge in a city would know the mores and values of the place and judge accordingly because he is part of that society. To be fair and just, he must know his community.
But the problem remains. Should an African American judge only judge African American defendants because the judge is more in tune with the community from which the defendant emerged? Does the same also hold for a Caucasian defendant? I do believe that a Caucasian judge can know a community different from his own, as well as can an African American judge. Both judges will know the law, and while we do not insist that the law be carried out the way Javier would carry it out, we do have options to the letter of the law. Such options might be nullification of a juries’ decision, or a hung jury. Also, a judge can show mercy in the sentencing.
Years ago I had the experience of being on a committee in Camden County that met in the court house. A judge presided over the committee, and the Caucasian judge posited the problem that the clientele of the jails, predominately African American, were under the supervision of Caucasian guards. He also said that most of the people who came to the Camden Court House were also African American, and the people who inspected their bags were predominately Caucasian. He felt that this was wrong and “things” had to change.
I immediately rejected this idea because the week before I had been to a museum in NYC. Ninety-eight percent of the patrons at that exhibit I judged to be Caucasian, and all of the guards in the galleries were African American. Should all the guards be fired because they did not reflect the race of the patrons? I do believe the judge was wrong in his assessment, and I do believe that race should not be a factor in selecting judges and jurors. But for all of this to work, everyone must be an honest broker, and that includes a righteous judge who knows the law, is completely disinterested, and who can instruct an open minded and righteous jury.
Lastly, Mendy must have gotten some complaints or comments that the Torah was not for women. To address this, he pointed to a section that used the word “it” when referring to the Torah. He said that in Hebrew as well as in other languages, gender is attached to words, and that the word “it” can be masculine or feminine. In this section, one use of “it” regarding the Torah is masculine and one feminine, proving to the women of the congregation that the Torah was given to everyone. But he did say that the impression may be caused by a change in Jewish culture. He said that prior to coming to America, the shul was part of the man’s life, but it was in the home that Yiddishkeit was taught to the children. It was the woman who was the foundation of the home, and the one who conveyed the values to the children on a regular basis. When Jews came to America, they saw beautiful churches
and built beautiful synagogues to emulate the churches. But in doing this, the learning moved from the home which was the province of the women to the synagogue which was the province of the man. We did ourselves a great disservice by allowing the switch to be made. The synagogue has replaced the home as the center of Judaism and Yiddishkeit, and a shift back to the home is needed.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Torah study is back on its fall schedule, so I had the pleasure of once again attending both of my houses of worship. Rabbi Frankel lead the discussion of the parshah, but her focus was on the line, “Justice, justice shall you pursue.” The word “tzedeck” has as its root the word justice, and she asked us why the word is repeated. I suggested it is repeated for intensity, an effort to stress the importance of of justice and the need to run after it. She pointed out that the word “kavanah” or intention behind the words of a person’s prayer, was similar.
What I found interesting was that we seem to be dealing here with “legal justice,” but the word tzedeck also means “righteousness.” So what happens if you translate the text as “righteousness, righteousness you shall pursue.” I think the concept of righteousness is different from the concept of legal justice. We have all heard of verdicts that adhere to the law, but certainly are not righteous. I wonder how different our judicial system would be if we pursued righteousness and not just legal justice?
It was posited that justice is about fairness and since fairness is a matter of opinion, justice must therefore must be pursued. At one point, the future tense of the sentence was considered, and interpreted to mean that we are to pursue justice (righteousness) in the future. Pursuit of justice is a state of being, and though we may never achieve it, we must continue the pursuit.
Thoughout this discussion, there was a sense that justice was relative. The quote, “You don’t come to court to seek justice; you come to court to seek law,” suggested that justice was something you
could or could not expect and it all depended upon where you were, and possibly who you were. (The trial and subsequent murder of Leo Frank came to mind.) Justice was not universal. In fact, it was said that justice in Judaism is an evolving concept, and that we are enjoined to follow the dictates of the evolving concepts of justice in each generation. For example, we don’t stone adulterers, unruly sons, or those who break the Sabbath. That’s evolution of ideas and behaviors.
For many adherents in Judaism, the Torah is an absolute truth, and one goal of that truth is to promote justice. But law and justice are not congruent, being man made concepts that allow us to function in society. Still, the goal is justice, and it is pursued differently in different societies. One’s group’s concept of justice, is not another group’s concept of justice, and the justice of a three thousand year old society, is not the same as ours today.
Thomas Jefferson said that “laws are useless without a moral and religious society.” It was suggested that the idea of separating church and state came about not because of any great truth, but because it was expedient. How cynical.
I have to say that I had a problem with the idea that justice and righteousness were being accepted by my fellow congregants as concepts that are relative. Certainly, there is strong evidence that that is the case. But in accepting that idea, we must also accept moral relativism which posits the idea and demands acceptance that “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.” So the deliberate attacks and slaughter of one group by another, genocide, etc. are to be accepted because one group thinks they are heroes? There is such a thing as good and evil, and sooner or later, you may be forced to take a stand on who is right and who is wrong. Perhaps those who have substituted liberalism for Judaism will never be able to do that. Who said “Good people who do nothing allow evil to flourish?” No decision is also a decision. I once said to a politically correct and multicultural liberal friend of mine that he and I would be pushed into the same oven, but at least I would know why I was there.
Also, by accepting the concept of moral relativism, we allow ourselves to be led to ideas that all values and all cultures are equal and one must not judge them. There were people who did not want to judge let alone fight Nazism or Communism, and if we followed that isolationist line of thinking, the world might be a very different place. Of course, we would not be here to see it. And one other quote is repeated throughout recent parasha’s: “You shall burn the evil out of your midst.” That is a direct order to judge evil, and do what you have to do to eradicate it. Another important order I believe from the Talmud is: “If a man comes to slay you, slay him first.” These are Jewish guidelines for staying safe and alive. After all the liberal moaning and groaning about political correctness and multicultural acceptance, these are bottom line statements contain the wisdom of centuries based on what is needed to stay safe and alive. Ultimately, choices do have to be made.
Judging and the pursuit of justice and righteousness are absolutely necessary if there is to be progress, and if evil people and evil societies are to be vanquished. The Jewish people decided three millennia ago that some standard of justice had to be written down, followed, and defended if a stableand safe society were to exist for them. For Jews, those standards by which we were to judge individuals and society are enshrined in the Torah. And Western Civilization, finding nothing better, adopted the Septuagint (the Torah translated into Greek and used by the early Christian Church) and embraced Torah morality as its own. The values of Western Civilization are the values of the Torah. Let’s be very proud of that.
Even if you do not believe in God or that the Torah was written by God and given to Moses, I’m sure you can see a need for there to be some authority behind the laws of the Torah. With out the idea
of God as the authority, we must conclude that the Torah laws are nothing more than a series of wise attempts by one or more human beings who were trying to figure out how to establish a society that
would work, be safe, stable, and moral. But if there is no authority other than human authority behind Torah law, then these laws are only good attempts and good ideas made up by people that other people can change as they see fit. And if that were to happen, what would be our moral anchor or moral compass to guide our actions? As Jews, we need to believe that the core moral foundations of the Torah have authority that is more than human. The implementation of those laws change, but the moral principals embodied in those laws do not.
Certainly, one may view our man made secular documents as substitutes for creating a stable and safe society, and that would be fine. That’s worked for us since the founding of this Republic. But recognize that just about every concept dealing with human rights and human dignity enshrined in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, can be traced back into the Torah. So let the Founding Fathers be the authority behind our law if you like, but also recognize that the laws they wrote did not come out of the air. These men knew the Torah and the vision that the Torah gave to humanity. The Torah and our secular documents provide us with a vision that we can achieve. That vision was worthy to become the moral foundation of our nation and Western Civilization..
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Len Berman
September 6, 2014 B”H
Elul 11, 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashah – Ki Tetzay – Deuteronomy 21:10 – 25:19.
Haftorah – Isaiah 54:1- 10.,
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
When I arrived, Mendy was speaking about how most, if not all, rabbis lift the ideas of other rabbis for speeches and commentaries, but that becomes only plagiarism when you read another’s work word for word pretending it is your own. In all other instances, one rabbi will take the kernel of another’s idea, and make it his or her own. (Remember, I’m Reformodox.)
He then focused on the qualities of a good teacher. Since this was preceded by the comment about making something your own even though it was based on another’s work, I surmised from the rest of his comments that we were being introduced to the idea that while it was important for a teacher to be familiar with the material even if it were developed by someone else, the best teachers are the ones who are truly engaged with that material, make it their own, infuse it with their own personalities, and convey intensity in their desire to teach it. So a truly good teacher must be in the moment, and it is in that intensity in that moment that connects the student, the teacher, the material, and that which in the material contains the objective of the lesson that needs to be learned.
For me, the teacher is the conduit, the catalyst that brings knowledge to life and makes it meaningful by making it applicable. The passion Mendy brings to his teaching is his “kavanh” manifested, and his efforts to relate each week’s Torah portion to something that can inform our lives for the better, is to be praised. Weekly we are asked to carry Torah learnings into our lives. As a teacher, and whether he recognizes it or not, Mendy structures his drushes along the lines of the developmental lesson plan which is how I was taught to create lessons. His objective is always clear, and it is a direct out-growth of his introduction which is also the motivational question that generates interest. The series of questions that follow are all geared to clarify and expand the objective, and there is a fitting summary after all is said and done. If more teachers took the time to develop such sequential plans and deliver their lessons in such a way as to convey their own love for the subject, education would improve considerably.
While he did not use the word “kavanah” which has to do with the intensity of prayer, I believe that is what he was thinking of when he spoke of teaching criteria. For someone to be truly good at his or her job, there must be more than just knowing the subject. Anyone can convey facts. But to be able to hang those facts on concepts and underlying values requires something intangible in the teacher, an intangible or quality that is not easily quantified. And based upon what Mendy said after his motivating remarks, it is this intangible quality that speaks to intensity and honesty that needs to be infused into our lives, especially into that aspect of our lives that involve us in tzedakah. I do believe that that was his objective.
Mendy’s rapid fire delivery, which is usually proportional to his own interest in the subject, made it difficult to keep up. My little grey cells and ganglia just ain’t what they use to be. He spoke about “shita” which I believe covers the laws of leaving the corners of the fields to the gleaners, not going back after a bundle of wheat you may have forgotten, and not picking all the olives on the tree.
He spoke about the mitzvah of giving, and that the mitzvah was in the forgetting to go back to retrieve what you lost. He said that at such a moment, you were truly being charitable. He spoke about God wanting us to elevate ourselves, and that elevation comes most when you are giving. We are especially elevated when we are giving outside of our comfort zones. The two examples he developed dealt with a couch being washed out to sea and claimed by a stranger, and of fifty dollars lost in Times Square. According to the Talmud, there are certain moments when you just cut your losses and move on with the expressed understanding that there is an expressed understanding that when a couch is washed out to sea or fifty dollars is lost, it is lost and you have no claim on either. The person who finds an unidentified item it is not obligated to return it.
I missed many of the legal nuances, and one thing was clear. The person losing the item was not to be bitter because the person finding the money might have been poor and could now feed his family, and the person finding the couch may now have something upon which he might sit. Things lost in this way are not considered stolen when found. I know that whenever I lose something, I am more annoyed with myself for not being careful than I am angry or resentful of the person who found it.
Mendy spoke of the poor not caring if the giver was sincere or angry at having to give or having lost something. He spoke about the conscious and the subconscious levels of giving. He spoke about giving without the intention of giving. Again, there were just too many points to remember. But the overall message was clear: We are elevated by giving, there are different levels of giving that are indicative of your conscious awareness of the need to give, and there are subconscious levels where we give outside our awareness of giving. All are important and all indicative of the people we are.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: We had the pleasure of our Torah study being conducted by Dr. Edmund Weiss, a long time member of our community and noted scholar in several fields of endeavor. His knowledge of Biblical and Jewish history is impressive, and it is always a pleasure to be in a classroom with him.
His opening lines were rather thought provoking. He said that Judaism, as it has been practiced from the fall of the Second Temple to the Middle Ages was closer to Reform philosophy than to Orthodoxy because the rabbis had to come up with a Judaism that would be sustainable without the Temple. They were reformers.
Did you ever notice how radical ideas threaten the establishment, become the establishment which in turn are threatened by radical ideas? What is considered normative Judaism today was once a challenge to a much older normative Judaism. We no longer stone an unruly son, or stone women and men for adultery. While those ancient laws are still read today, the rabbis built up so many conditions around carrying out such punishments, that they could not be implemented.
Ed began by reviewing certain laws, the first being the obligation of Israelites to ransom which raised a current ethical dilemma. Both Israel and the United States have as policies that they do not negotiate with terrorists.
This is very complicated because despite its stated policy, Israel has negotiated with Hamas for the release of prisoners and bodies. The United States also has a policy of not negotiating, and thus far, two journalists have been decapitated. Should we free terrorists in order to save American lives? Other allies such a France and Spain do it all the time. The Torah again raises a very contemporary issue, and one in need of being resolved. Ultimately, it might boil down to saving face or saving life.
Since this parasha deal with mizvot or commandments, a discussion followed on what a mitzvah actually was. Responses were interesting, each having to deal with aspects of charity and righteous behavior. According to Maimonides, there are 74 mitzvot in this parshah alone. Maimonides looked at the Talmud, went through the Mishnah and Gemmorah, and codified by topic. His Mishnah Torah was organized by categories which saved an enormous amount of research time, but the rabbis of his time were resentful, because his method of organization was not the traditional way of teaching, and they saw themselves as being undermined.
He found that there were 39 forbidden labors to be avoided on the Sabbath. Why? Because there were 39 tasks in building the Tabernacle, and such tasks became forbidden on the Sabbath. We were also told that there were only three commandments in Genesis: “Be fruitful and multiply,” circumcision, and, from the story of Jacob, that we are not to eat the hind quarter of an animal because Jacob was injured there when wrestling with the angel. (The latter is a proof text for wheelchair accessibility.)
Maimonides counted 613 mitzvot, and there is a side comment in the Talmud that the Gamatria tells us that the world for “Torah” adds up to the number 611. When you add the two commandments from the Ten Commandment, namely, “I am the Lord your God...” and “You shall have no other Gods...” you have 613. Of these 613, Wikapeida states that only 150 apply to living people. A reference was made to the hierarchy: Torah, Mitzvot, Mishpatim.
We were reminded that some of the mitzvot was to differentiate the people of Israel from others. For example, unlike the Egyptian priest who was very much involved in the mummification and
burial rituals, the Jewish priest was forbidden to touch a dead body or go onto a cemetery. Not cutting yourself or shaving the corners of your beard are also such attempts at separation. The wearing of certain clothes with diverse fibers may also be one of those kinds of laws.
Ed reminded us that while Deuteronomy is the fifth book of the Torah, it was the first one found. He suggested that it was a summary document and was written down first by the Prophet Jeremiah and the High Priest, Ezra.
As I said, Ed is something of a Biblical scholar and is well acquainted with the “Higher Criticism,” a criticism begun in the 19th Century and continuing till today. This approach denies the fundamentalist idea that the Torah was given by God on Mt. Sinai. Instead, it insists that the Torah is a compilation of three distinct documents: a Torah as it was revered in the Northern Kingdom, a Torah as it was revered in the Southern Kingdom, and a priestly book detailing the rites and rituals for the worship service in the Temple. These came together when the kingdom was formed and merged so there would be one Torah for all. He said that the four other books were compiled after Deuteronomy. They were back written to address the idea that the Levites were in charge. He even suggested that Aaron was a creation that justified Levitical control.
Otto Jesperson posited the idea that there once was a single group living in a temperate climate, that spoke a single language that became the ancestor of most languages in existence today. His idea is called the Indo European Hypothesis. I am positing the idea that the Hebrews were a unique people with a single set of stories, laws, and lore that were passed down orally that became the source of what was written down by several tribes and viewed as sacred. It was called The Torah and compiled into one document by Jeremiah and Ezra.. Many of the original sources are now lost, but many remain and can be identified as borrowings from older civilizations. But centuries before
Jeremiah and Ezra summarized the Torah, and merged the other writings into what we now call the Torah, I believe there was a man named Moses who brought together the original stories, laws, rituals, etc. upon which all subsequent Torahs were based. What inspired Moses to gather his people’s traditions, stories, and lore, is anybody’s guess. Perhaps it was divine inspiration, or just the dream of establishing for earthly societies the balances and harmonies that he perceived held the universe in place. But whatever moved Moses our teacher, he still elevated these older laws of Mesopotamia to address human needs that have remained so admirable so many millennia later and so indicative of his moral brilliance, though I continue to have strong reservation about many battle commandments and punishments meted out by Moses’ God. Still, when you are dealing with extreme evil as we are today, perhaps eradication of those who are evil is the only viable way to stop terror. “You shall burn the evil out of your mists,” is a commandment frequently repeated in Deuteronomy.
Higher Criticism, Shmyah Criticism. I’m not willing to give up the idea that once upon a time there was a man named Moses who was the greatest story teller, law giver, and spiritual human being who ever walked the earth.
It was mentioned that the word, Israel, which is singular, is used in the Torah to symbolize unity when going into battle. Soldiers were held harmless in times of war, and they could take as spoils of war the women and children. The world at the time the Torah was written was a world where women were still considered property, and if a woman were not a virgin, her value was depreciated. And yet, the treatment of captured women is very ethical and enlightened. Ed said that the writers of the Torah were a much lustier group, while the writers of the Talmud are more sedate. There are strong prohibitions against certain sexual encounters.
I have always believed that if there is a law in the Torah against something, especially in the laws related to sexual relations as in Leviticus 18, somebody was doing it and such a behavior was forbidden and deemed a threat to the sanctity of the home and the stability of the society which relies on the sanctity of the home.
Over the years, the laws of evidence become more and more beneficial for the accused. The Sanhedrin would free a prisoner if all 70 judges found him guilty because it meant that the defense was poor. The Sanhedrin was called a “killer court” if a certain number of people in a particular period of time were judged guilty and killed.
This brought us to capital punishment and methods of executions. Many of the harshest laws such as the one of the rebellious son were meant as deterrents. “All Israel will hear and be afraid.”
There were four different methods of capital punishment: pressing or stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangulation. It is thought that for the latter three, the person was not alive at the time. (Very civilized when you consider Joan of Arc, Salem witches, John Proctor, and most recently, American journalists.) Torah law also mandated that a body left impaled or exposed overnight was an affront to God and had to be taken down before sunset.
Crucifixion was not a Jewish method of capital punishment, and in the time of Jesus, Roman law was the only law that could condemn a prisoner to death. Crucifixion was Rome’s chosen method. Somehow I doubt that the Romans would care if a body were left hanging on a cross or spike after the sun went down because it was an affront to the Jewish God. There is no indication that Jupiter seem to
care, and certainly the Romans didn’t. I wonder how much of the crucifixion story written thirty to
ninety years after the actual event, white washed Rome’s involvement in what actually occurred. After all, pagan Romans were converting to the new faith. Not a good idea to burden your new converts
with the death of their new God.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
September 13, 2014 B”H
6 Elul 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Prashah Ki Tavo – Deuteronomy 26:1 - 25:19.
Haftorah - Isaiah 60:1 - 22.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by telling us of a recent trip he took to Israel and of a friend who took him to places that are not on the itinerary of most travelers. One place was in the desert over mountainous terrain and at heights which he found rather uncomfortable. But when he got there and wondered why they had hazzarded the trip, his guide told him that he was facing the two mountains that were spoken of in this Torah portion: Mount Gerizim where six of the tribes stood for the blessings, and Mount Ebal where the other six stood for the curses. In the center stood the Levites who uttered the blessings and curses at them. What was most remarkable to Mendy was that he was standing looking at the place where the Israelites entered the Promised Land.
He also made us aware that today we celebrated the anniversary of two important births, that of the Bal Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidism, and that of the Alter Rebbe who was the founder of the Lubovitch Hasidic Movement. He told the story of a man who was not wealthy, but knew wealthy people. And though his resources were limited, he opened his home, like the wealthy, to travelers and poor people so they had a meal for Shabbat.
One Friday night, after the Shabbat service had begun, a stranger comes into the shul, much to the chagrin of the pious men at prayer. The man of few resources but a man with abundant love of people and Torah, greeted him and invited the man to dinner. The righteous congregants were confounded by the response, but the host defended his actions. After a time, this stranger reveals himself as the Prophet Elijah who has come down to earth to see if his host was worthy enough to sire a child that would change the course of Jewish History.
Now this man and his wife did not have any children, and the following year was born to them a son who would become known as the Bal Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidism. He taught that prayer should be a joyful experience that incorporated song and dance. Judaism should be deeply emotional and spiritually uplifting, and not the rote intellectual experience it had become. Not long after that, another child was born elsewhere who caught the spirit of the Bal Shem Tov’s teachings, and expanded it to welcome all seekers of the light no matter what their experiences had been. This man became known as the Alter Rebbe. For this saintly man, all Jews were to be accepted wherever they were in their spiritual development, and no one was to be judged. God was to be encountered with joy, and all Jews were to be welcomed with an open heart.
The story of the Bal Shem Tov’s parents and Elijah reminded me of the story in Genesis where the angels came to Abraham and told him that Sarah would bear a child. It would be Sarah’s child through which Judaism would continue. Here Elijah speaks to another father informing him that he and his wife are worthy to have a son who would also be the forefather of a great movement that would, to some, save Judaism from rote rituals and legalisms. It is traditional that a seat is set for Elijah at each circumcision so he might announce to the world that the Messiah has arrived. Talk about a proud Papa! Hannah was also told by a man of God that she would give birth to a son who would become a great religious leader.
In many ancient cultures, the prophesy of impending births, for good or for ill, is a recurring literary motif. Greek mythology tells us that Chronos is told that one of his children will kill him, and Zeus, his youngest son, does. Oedipus’ father is told that his son will kill him, and this comes to pass. Perseus’ grandfather is told that his grandson will kill him, and this also happens. Alexander’s birth was also foretold. The idea of a Messiah is part of this tradition. A child will be born.... And of course, the Angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would bear a son.
But my own birth was also foretold by someone in Ukraine in 1938. Word came to my Bubbe and Zeydeh that a child was going to be born in America and they should name him after Leiba, my Zeydeh’s mother. No one knew of my mother’s pregnancy, and I came along 3 Elul 5699. So what am I to make of that?
Mendy returned to the two mountains where the blessings and the curses were delivered, and asked an important question: Why separate the people? Wouldn’t it be better to have them unified? Wasn’t unification the objective? After several responses, Mendy said that the separation was deliberate because the idea of separating things that should not be considered together was something the people needed to learn. In life there are blessings and there are curses. They are separate things. There is good and there is evil. They are separate things. There is a right and there is a wrong, and these are also separate things. The key teaching here is that things must be kept separate, because if they merge, the lines that separate blur, and what should be black and white becomes grey. The result can be moral equivalency. Moral equivalency, an idea that allows one to equate things that are not alike as being alike, blurs the lines between what is right and what is wrong. We are instructed by the separation that we are always to know the difference, and we are to keep those concepts separate.
The Levites stand between the two mountains reading out the blessings and the curses. The Levites and this includes the Kohanim are there to teach us the criteria for good behavior. The Torah is a guide book, and they are empowered to teach it to us. Rabbis now have assumed that role.
Moral relativism is expressed in the statement, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
If you accept this concept, you accept the idea that the behavior of one group of people is no better than the behavior of another because each is defending an idea that each considers valid.
If you accept this concept, you agree that deliberate murder of innocent people for a cause that you or your group has decided is correct is acceptable because it brings them closer to their stated goals.
If you accept this concept, you do not see the difference between firing rockets from hospitals, schools, and places of worship with the sole purpose of murdering non combatant people you consider enemies.
If you accept the idea that everything is equivalent, then you do not see that the response to such attacks are defensive efforts to stop implacable militants whose sole purpose is to destroy you.
If you see no differences, you are a moral relativist, and possibly an extreme multi-culturalist who would see all lines and divisions among ideas and groups dissolve into a homogenized soup of mediocrity and sameness.
For you, there is no fundamental right or wrong, and all cultures, and ideas, behaviors, and moralities are of equal value and not to be judged. Judaism insist that there are concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong.
Judaism insists that “If a man come to slay you, slay him first.” In Deuteronomy we read, “You shall burn the evil out of your mists.” To see evil you must first have a criteria for recognizing evil. To see it as evil, you must judge it as evil. If you have substituted these fundamental Jewish teachings for “judge not lest ye be judged,” or “all cultures and moralities are equal,” then you have embraced moral relativism as an aspect of your philosophical view of the world.
And if you say that all cultures are equal because that is the politically correct thing to say, then you must agree that all moralities are also equal.
But my Judaism insists that there are moral distinctions and that we are mandated to live by these distinctions.
Judaism insists that people must be held personally responsible for the evil that they do. But if there is no concept of good or evil, then no one is responsible for his or her behavior.
To such a person, every morality is equal to every other morality.
How does that sound to you?
You agree with the practice of leaving female children to exposed to die, or aborting female children because you want a son?
You believe that it is acceptable to allow girls to burn to death because they might appear in public improperly dressed?
You accept decapitation because it is what one society considers a just form of punishment?
If no culture is better than any other culture, and no morality is better than any other, then this is what you have to accept.
Jews who insist that any standard for quality and any standard for morality is acceptable, to my way of thinking have substituted what Judaism teaches for extreme left wing liberalism and the political correctness that left wing liberalism demands. Judaism insists that people, groups, and nations be judged. Without judgement, nothing and no one would change or improve. Yes, Judaism sets a standard for behavior and demands that we judge and speak out. No improvement comes unless there is judgement.
Doing what is right or good requires that we have some sort of criteria upon which one might base his or her behavior.
For traditional Jewish People, that criteria is the standard God sets for us in the Torah.
For secular Jews, that criteria could be some secular document or social contract that we mutually agree upon so society will continue to function.
For most along the Jewish continuum, the criteria can come from a combination of both.
But for all, the reward for acceptance and following the law is some assurance that things will be good for us. If we don’t, things will fall apart. These social contracts are of human invention, and require the ongoing support and belief that it is in the best interest for everyone to accept and follow the rules set down.
But being created by humans, the power behind these documents rest with the authority we ascribe to the authors of these documents. Such documents can be changed and amended as time, styles, leaders, governments, and beliefs change. Our Constitution has many amendments to augment, expand, and protect the core thoughts of the Founding Fathers. The Bill of Rights cannot change, though it can be amended to reflect the predilections of the people. Documents penned by people can be overturned, discarded or rewritten by individuals.
I’m thinking of Animal Farm by George Orwell where the pigs take charge of the farm promising hope and freedom, but over a period of time, the laws written on the wall start to change.
Ultimately, we read “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Nothing that is of human design is eternal. But many Jews believe that the Torah is an eternal truth that was given by God. God stands behind the Torah and is the eternal authority. Dostoevsky wrote: “Were there is no God, all is permitted,” so even if you do not believe in God as the authority behind moral law, you can see the need to believe in God as the unchanging authority. Anything goes if there is no authority greater than man. It’s a concept you either buy into or reject. But if you reject it, what do you put in its place?
It was suggested that some people behave well because they fear the curses that would follow bad behavior, and some behave well because they want the promise of the blessings that follow.
When you consider the responses of the latter people, they are functioning at a very low level of moral development: Fear and Reward. Children behave in a particular way because they are afraid of punishment, or they behave because they want a reward. And they might behave in the way they do because they were told that if they don’t behave well, there is a God above who will punish them or curse them, and they do behave well, there is a God above who will bless them and reward them. Inside, we are all children, and some of us still carry these beliefs.
Mendy ended his drush with an admonition to those who judge others for not being as ritually observant as they are. He rightfully insisted that our task is to bring people up, not to put them down so you can feel superior. We were asked to “be a light unto the nations,” but we can also be a light to one another.
While I insist that people be judged and held accountable for their behavior as it effects others, I agree with Mendy when he insists that Jews should not judge other Jews for any ritual deficiency. Modeling behavior is preferable. But we all know that people grow spiritually at different rates, and there is certainly the possibility that a person who observes the rituals and prays three times a day is no more spiritually connected with God than a person who stands quietly facing west as the sun sets and is fully in the moment and totally infused with his or her God.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch began by reviewing where our ancestors were in their journey, and suggested that Moses was like a parent dropping his only child off at college for the first time. Here there is a rush to tell the child what he or she must know and do to survive in this new environment, and always the parental feeling that there isn’t enough time to tell it all, and did I do everything I should have done or could have done to make the kid safe.
Parasha Ki Savo opens with the order to the Children of Israel that they are to take the first fruits of the ground that God has given you, “and you shall put it in a basket, and go to the place that your God, will choose, to make His Name rest there.” This idea of God choosing to establish his Name tells us that this is where the Temple will be, in Jerusalem, is where His Name will be established.
The first question asked was why is this request for first fruits made, and responses had to do with both our need to express our gratitude to God for His gift of the land and His bounty. We are dealing with an agricultural society and there is an intimate connection among God, the land, and us. But first, we must acknowledge God. The Torah is called an orchard or pardis, and it can be understood on levels ranging from the narrative to the mystical.
I was reminded that at JFK’s inauguration, Robert Frost read one of his poems called, The Gift Outright. The first line was, “The land was ours before we were the lands.” There must be an intimate relationship between the land and its people, but the people have to possess the land, not only physically, but spiritually. The possession must be mutual. We cannot withhold ourselves from the land which God gave to us. Bringing the first fruits had to be a tangible recognition that we had tilled this land, brought forth its bounty, and offered that bounty to God in appreciation for His gift. The Jewish soul is intimately bound up with the land and with God.
I was also reminded of a joke. A farmer is standing above his fields admiring his efforts when a stranger comes along and stands next to him. The stranger says, “Look at those beautiful rows of vegetables growing there, and the perfect rows of corn. Look at that beautiful peach orchard, and the lines of berry bushes.” The man looks at the farmer and says, “You should thank God that he allowed you to partner with him to create these beautiful fields. The farmer smiles thoughtfully, and says to the man, “I thank God everyday for our partnership, but you should have seen this place when God had it all by Himself.” Interestingly, the first thing we learn about this acknowledging God with the earth’s bounty is in Genesis where Abel brings an offering to God. God did not call for this offering, so it seems that there is an inborn inclination to be grateful. Of course, it doesn’t work out well for Abel, but that’s beside the point. It’s important to be grateful, and show your gratitude. “Grateful people are happy people.”
And this trilogy of the People, the Land, and God raises an important question. Did our existence as a distinctive people depend on our being on this land? In most instances, the gods of the ancient world were local, and when people were conquered the local god continued to be worshiped. Rome always incorporated the local god into its pantheon. That god had power over a small piece of geography. But the God of the Jews was a universal God that could not be contained by artificial boundaries and not limited by geography. Our God was as portable as was the Tabernacle, and present wherever we went. Our God was not geographically based.
When Israel was in Egypt, we are told that there was a connection and that spark flamed into the Exodus. But why did our ancestors merit redemption? What sustained them? Why bother with slaves? What was the connection and what did Jews do to show that connection?
The rabbis say that because the Jews continued to circumcise their males, and because the Jews continued to speak Hebrew among themselves, and because the Jews did not succumb to the worship of the Egyptian gods, and because they cried out to God, God took notice and redeemed them from bondage. The Hebrews never forgot God.
There were several other responses. One suggested connection was that God needed us to recognize Him as the one and only God to be worshiped. The plagues in Egypt clearly were aimed at the Egyptian pantheon. Another suggested connection was that we needed God’s protection and called upon Him. It was suggested that on a mystical level, there is always the ember of a Jewish soul that waits to burst into flame, and that soul ember was another connection.
So why, in 720 BCE when the Northern Tribes were carried off by the Assyrians, did they disappear, but when Israel was carried off to Babylon years later, they did not disappear.
I think the Northern Tribes may have been lost to us because at the time of that ancient diaspora, the Torah had not been written down. By the time of the Babylonian Exile, the Torah been written down as was carried off to Babylon by the Hebrew slaves. They kept their heritage alive through study and rituals, and retained that connection to the land through the Torah.
When I taught a class called Jews in Other Lands, I came across an article about tribes in Afghanistan. The premise of the article was that these fierce Muslim tribes were descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel because they retain some customs that are very similar to those practiced by Jews today. There are Pathans who light Friday night candles, wear garments similar to prayer shawls, and circumcise their sons at eight days old rather than as six years old. Even in the names of these tribes can one see the roots of the names of Jacob’s sons. Rabbanis is close to Reuben, Afridis is close to Ephraim, Ashuris (Asher), Daftani (Naphtali), Shinwari (Shimon), Levani (Levi), and Yusafzai (sons of Joseph).
Another question dealt with the way(s) we come to God. Ritual was suggested as one way, and then we go deeper.
I suggested that rituals were only the doorway to help us create the sacred space we need to connect with God. Rituals themselves do not connect us to God. That connection is deeper and more personal, different from the social or ethical component that ritual brings to us. Are our ethical behaviors a substitute for a relationship with God? Might some of us believe that by behaving as God asks us to behave, we are in fact in a relationship with God? This may be the best some of us can do. And if it is, we are still putting righteousness out in the world, making it a better place.
There are many levels of connecting to the land, and many doorways for connecting with God. For some it is ritual, for some it is action, and for some it is the land itself. Spiritually, we are each connected to each other and to God.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
September 20, 2014 B”H
25 Elul 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parshah Nitzavim Va-Yelech – Deuteronomy 29:3 – 31:30
Haftorah – Isaiah 61:10 – 63:9
Chabad: This is what I recall Mendy saying;
When I entered, Mendy was talking about what the rules would be to say the Shema; does one put one’s hand under the glasses or over the glasses. He confessed that he did not know. His youngest son, who had just gotten a pair of glasses, asked him the question.
Mendy’s again displayed his warmth and humor by bringing this weighty question asked by maybe a five year old to the congregation. None of us had ever thought of it before. Some said “yes,” and some said “no.” To me, there is no correct answer. The reason one is asked to cover one’s eyes while saying the Shema is to block out all distractions so one might focus on what is being said. What I found delightful was that this little kid who, like his parents, lives his life by the Jewish calendar and Yiddishkeit, was thoughtful enough to ask the question. His immersion in this world has made him concerned at his age about appropriate behavior. I look forward to watching him grow up.
Mendy’s next question to the congregation was a bit more weightier. He mentioned that in his dentist’s office was a sign which read, “Please do not wear cologne or perfume.” He seemed to find this request an intrusion into the lives of the patients who came there, and asked for the congregation to comment. There were those who insisted that the health and welfare, since it might involve the health or life of another had to be considered over the needs or personal grooming of the other patients, and there were those who said that the allergic person should make some accommodation with the dentist to come in before anyone else. It is not the responsibility of the community to accommodate the needs of the individual. One congregant spoke of a neighbor who became so violently ill from neighbors spraying trees, that when the neighbors found out, they stopped and found alternative ways of getting rid of the pests.
Mendy made it very clear that there was a an uncomfortable debate in Judaism that has been going on from its inception, and that debate is whether one sacrifices the welfare of the community for the welfare of the individual, or sacrifices the individual for the welfare of the community. He said that the answers are ambiguous, and even rabbinic comments vary widely in their responses. Support for either stand can be found and justified. And this seems to be done purposefully, so each generation will have to deal with the issue.
He related an incident that one might either consider heroic and human or foolhardy. A group of men were hiding from the Germans who were killing as many of the Jews as they could before the camp could be liberated. One of the men began to cough, and fearing that the Germans would hear him and they would all be murdered, the group expelled him. The man could not believe that his compatriots would do such a thing, and Mendy’s grandfather, finding the act of the others horrendous, left his hiding place to comfort the man. The Germans murdered them, right before the allies liberated the camp.
Another congregant posited the idea that if a packed train were coming to a bridge that would collapse under the weight of the train, but the train could be stopped if one man were thrown onto the
tracks that the conductor could see, do you think this man should be sacrificed? One brave little boy in the front raised his hand and said, “Yes.” To him, it was a no brainer.
In one of the Star Trek movies, Spock sacrifices his life for the good of the crew, claiming that the sacrifice of one is to be made for the salvation of many. It was logical. Captain Kirk was upset.
Several years ago, I was involved in something called Values Clarification Strategies, and invited the creators of these techniques into the state to demonstrate how these teaching techniques could be incorporated into the classroom.
The vast number of these techniques were fantastic for raising subject matter to the values level, but a few I deemed dangerous and should not be taught to children. One was called Life Boat where there were a number of people of different races, religions, sexual preferences, etc. on a boat that would sink unless someone was thrown overboard. Another was Alligator River where one person had to be thrown to the Alligators so the others might pass safely. You can imagine how disruptive such discussions would be.
They agreed not to demonstrate those techniques while they worked under the aegis of the New Jersey State Department of Education, but when they were invited separately into local school districts, my request was discounted and one community erupted when a teacher used them in class. These techniques clearly raised the idea of the welfare of the community over the welfare of the individual. But it was readily apparent that parents and students did not want to have to consider such activities because they caused ugly confrontations, and brought up deeply held bigotries.
This introductory back and forth lead up to the opening lines of the parasha which read, “You are standing today, all of you, before HASHEM, your God, the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, – all the men of Israel; your small children, your women, and your proselyte who is in the midst of your camp; from the hewer of your wood to the drawer of your water, for you to pass into the covenant of HASHEM, your God ...”
You can see from the statement that the community is cited first, and what follows is a delineation of the entire congregation. This indicates the everyone counts; that everyone is important. And when you are considering the question of deciding which of the two, the community or the individual is to be considered, we are to conclude that both are to be considered, and never take the issue lightly. In short, we are responsible for every other Jew, and an interesting reason was given. We were asked to consider each person a puzzle piece, and when all the pieces are put into place, the picture that they create is what the world should be. Each contributes to the total only what it is supposed to contribute. Mendy talked about Maimonides in his own right as an important piece of the puzzle, but no less important than the person who rejects his Judaism, scoffs, separates himself from his people, and still does good in the world. Maimonides needs the scoffer and the scoffer needs Maimonides.
Lastly, Mendy spoke about the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Court, and how it was set up in a semi-circle with the youngest members sitting in front and the elders sitting behind them. This was done so the young rabbis could not see their elders react to anything they said. In this way they could get no direction as to what would please. They were to rely on their own conclusions after considering a case brought before them. The sages would speak last.
I think he referred to this court and how it functioned to underscore the importance of being involved honestly and without pressure when considering such issues as individual or community.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch opened with a review. Moses continues telling the people how to live a sacred life in a sacred land, and again seems like the desperate parent dropping his kids off at college for the first time knowing that they won’t be coming home again soon.
Rabbi Koch referred us to the opening of the parasha: “You are standing today, all of you, before HASHEM, your God, the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, – all the men of Israel; your small children, your women, and your proselyte who is in the midst of your camp; from the hewer of your wood to the drawer of your water, for you to pass into the covenant of HASHEM, your God ...”
Everyone is there; all who were, all who are, and all who will be. At least that is the tradition. Again we were told the midrash about God offering the Torah to all the nations of the earth, and when they heard about the restrictions to be placed upon them, they all refused. Finally, God found this rag tag, back water tribe and offered it to them. But the midrash says that God held Mt. Sinai over their heads and threatened to drop it on them if they did not agree to the conditions. The midrash turns on the word “tachat” which can mean at the bottom of, or under. Hebrew words have multiple meanings. So the response was, “We will do and we will understand.” This response from the people is understood to mean that out of the doing will come the understanding. The benefits of performing a ritual or a mitzvah becomes fully apprehended once you experience it.
The “you” in the statement “You are standing...” is plural, but the covenant is also viewed as being made with each and everyone individual as well as the collective. There are multiple covenants. When God made his covenants with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob they were individual deals.
Rabbi Koch discussed the meaning of “cutting a covenant.” I knew that she was referring to the act of sealing an agreement by cutting an animal in two, and together, those making the agreement, walk through it. It would seem that the act of both people moving through a thing that could never be made whole again, sealed the agreement. I was very curious as to the origin of this ritual, and I’m assuming it’s Mesopotamian in origin because that is where Abraham came from. But I’m also convinced that this act had to originate in a much less civilized time. My hunch is that it is pre-historical and pre-writing. Contracts on clay tablets in cuneiform abound.
So I went to my copy of “The Golden Bough,” by Sir Arthur Frasier and other texts in my library on ancient rites, but could find nothing on origins as regards“cutting a covenant.” So thinking as a primitive, an allegation hurled at me by some, I’ve come up with this: You kill and animal. This is a blood sacrifice with major mojo connected to it. With the animal cut in half and creating a path through which one can walk, those entering the agreement see that this animal is never going to live again. As sure as this animal is dead, our agreement is alive. It’s the rule of opposites. Life and death. Neither the animal or the agreement can go back on itself. It can also be a reminder to each party as to what will happen to them if they break the agreement. Remember, these are a very ancient people creating a very ancient ritual, and the reality is underscored by blood and death. The parties to the agreement walk through, also symbolically recognizing and accepting that as this animal cannot come together, so the agreement being made cannot come apart. It is as binding as death and sealed with blood. Now how’s that for primitive thinking?
So there we were, standing before a different mountain, and Rabbi Koch focused on the Hebrew word, “nizavim” which means standing up, not just standing. It also can mean step up, or stand for, or presenting yourself, or you have shown up. You are representing something more. This covenant says that we have crossed over into a relationship with God, and that there is no going back. It’s a stepping up where you take upon yourselves the weight of the commandments. The covenant is a burden, and once you accept it, you can’t back out. But be aware that by accepting the yoke of the covenant, you are also hitching yourself to commandments and danger. It will not be easy. You either cut a covenant or be cut out of the covenant if you don’t comply.
Whatever took place at that moment, it was a “lador va dor” moment. And since I was there, I saw myself looking back and seeing all those souls who came before me, seeing all those who stood around me, and all those souls who would ever be. Yes, one must suspend disbelief to accept this idea, but we are also asked to accept the idea at every Passover seder that we were once slaves in Egypt. It’s a request that asks you to just go with it.
One congregant suggested that this is not to be considered a burden, but more of an adventure;
that God is saying go out and experience free will and come to know what He (God) knows. Then come back to me. He described our relationship with God as a love affair.
A covenant means that we are to walk in God’s ways, and to know God. It is not enough just to believe in God. Judaism is experiential.
Rabbi Koch ended with two thoughts. The first was that God loves the repentant man more than the tzadik who has never sinned. She also referred us to Chapter 30, verse 19 which reads “I set before you this day, good and evil, life and death. Therefore, choose life.” And choose we must. We can choose whole heartedness. We can choose to return. It is within our power.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard