September 27, 2014 B”H
3 Tishrei 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parasha Ha-azinu – Duteronomy 32:1 - 52. Shabbat Shuvah
Haftorah – Hosea 14:2-10, Joel 2:15 - 27, Micah 7:18 - 20.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying.
This was a particularly meaningful commentary on the meaning of what T’shuvah, returning, means, and Mendy needs to write it down and put out to the congregation as a reminder and source of support and reinforcement as we move through the coming year. I know that I am not coming close to the power of his message. I can recall just so much.
He began with a little story about his youngest son. Mendy had complained that his voice was going, and his son, logically suggested that he not give his commentary. And when Mendy assured him that not delivering a sermon was not an option because people came to shul just to listen to him speak, his son said that, “People should come to daven, and not just to listen to you.”
Ah, out of the mouths of babes. Such innocent, pure belief. So there I was, recognizing and accepting the truth of why I first came to Chabad, why I continue to attend weekly, and what has changed since that first day. My primary reason for coming to Chabad is to hear Mendy teach. I will freely admit that learning and study is more spiritually satisfying than prayer. At that time, I was not conscience of attending because here I could establish a closer relationship with God.
I confess that Mendy is still an important draw, but what also has become a major draw is the community of people who are there, the spiritual and emotional experience derived from watching generations sitting next to one another, seeing a sea of white and black tallisim swaying, hearing the ancient chants that speak to my soul, and the little children periodically rushing up to the Gabbai for candy. I feel very safe when I am at Chabad. All that said, I’m still not connecting with God as Mendy would have me do. The prayer book just doesn’t do it for me, so I’ve taken to bringing my own prayer cards which are personally more meaningful. Sometimes I just stand there watching and listening to other men at their prayers, wondering if they are truly connecting with God, wondering what God they believe in that allows them to pray with such passion. Sometimes I just stand there with my eyes closed trying to clear my brain from the images I bring with me, trying to focus and become one with that infinite, creative Power in the universe that I believe exists. But belief in a power that neither promises nor blesses makes an emotional and spiritual connection difficult.
Mendy said that real teshuvh is knowing where you really want to be, and if I am not mistaken, he inferred that we really want to be in a relationship with God because that is where our soul wants us to be.
Does the soul have its own cravings separate from the cravings of which our consciousness is aware?
All the mitzvot in the Torah are opportunities, doors to connect us with the self that is beneath the self we convey to the world; the self that masks our soul.
I imagine the people praying around me also acknowledge that there is a Creative Power beyond ourselves that is greater than we are, but I am still not sure if that Power is aware of me or aware of anyone else. I know I am part of it because I am the stuff of creation and everything is One. On that molecular level, we are all One with the Power. The Power is One and we are One with the Power. And the synagogue attempts to become that sacred, focused space that enables us to make that connection although for me, the connection can be made wherever sudden awareness and awe is found. Those who attend, like me, crave a more direct connection, and it is in these brief moments of awe that we might briefly view and return to our genuine selves. So Mendy is asking us to return to our genuine selves because that is where our souls want us to be. Is the soul and the ego separate? It would seem they are unless I did not hear Mendy correctly.
But here’s a thought. Cultural socialization, Torah law, secular law, and psychiatry all exist to bring people back into balance and safety so society might function. But laws exist because people behave badly. Law becomes a standard by which one can measure behavior. Is the person who behaves badly closer to his or her real self? By asking them to obey the law, are we asking them to become someone they are not. There are people who are good and people who are bad depending on the criteria you hold dear. I guess there are just some “selves” to which one should not return.
Mendy continued speaking of resolve, and of sincere resolutions and efforts to bring about change and self control only to realize that the actions following resolutions are often ephemeral. We always have the best of intentions. He spoke of his own girth and how he makes sincere efforts at weight loss. To this end, he has banished Pringles and other temptations from the house. And for a time he is good, but he always backslides. We also have good intentions, and also backslide. He got on the topic of being a good parent and spouse, and urged us to attend to our children’s and spouse’s needs whether we understand these or not. I forgot the connection between that and the topic though is might have been something on how one moves into a better relationship.
He summed it all up by stating that even though we know what we want, we are not going to change. But if we do attempt to really change, we must do it incrementally.
Over at M’kor Shalom, Rabbi Frenkel introduced us to the Hatorah that is read on the Shabbat between Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. It begins: “Return, O Israel, to Hashem, your God, for you have stumbled through your iniquity. Take words with you and return to Hashem; say to Him, “Forgive every sin and accept goodness, and let our lips substitute for bulls.”
We were reminded that time is not given to us eternally, and it is up to us to make it meaningful, and then we were asked to consider the word, “fallen from sin.” Members of the group suggested that we fall because of sin, that sin is a lack of balance, that to fall from sin is to
fall from God and His path, a loss of potential, a loss of aspirations, a lack of forward movement.
The Rabbi’s explanation seemed to be that we create our own sin because of our actions. We have “fallen into our own sins.” We missed the mark as an archer would miss the mark. There are those who try and miss, and there are those who know they will not reach the target even as they take aim.
We do not begin the new year with Yom Kippur, but we move towards it by moving into the new year with a fallen self. We stumble, we fail, and we fall. These three actions are reflected in the notes of the Shofar. There are different notes and they reflect our condition. The tikea is a constant note, the teruah is a broken note, the shevorim is a completely shattered series of notes, and the tikea gadolah is long held note that is complete. We, our lives, and our hopes are reflected in the sound of the shofar. We move from shattered to complete.
We don’t move first to Yom Kippur because, for there to be repentance, there is work to be done, and that work is to take ten days.
The Torah tells us that we are to “take words with you,” and that means that we are to use our own words because when we use our own words when speaking to God, there is an expectation that we truly understand. Buy using our own words, we have figured it out. But to have done this, we have had to go inward. After the destruction of the Temple and the cult of sacrifice could no longer be maintained, prayer became the substitute for animals. “Open up my lips that my mouth may declare your glory,” reflects that truth and change in worship. God wants the sacrifice of the open heart, and an offering of our lips. Else where God say enough with the sacrifices. Act and that will transform you. “Circumcise your lips” is another phrase that is used.
We could no longer see the smoke of the holocaust rising upward to heaven and disappear, so we substituted words that would rise up to heaven and also disappear. A few weeks ago there was a reference to “circumcising the heart.” This metaphor referred to the cutting away of the callouses that keeps the heart from being open.
Prior to written language, words had power. The word was synonymous with the action. “So let it be written, so let it be done.” The Torah stands as a witness against us for the words we’ve uttered as vows. At this point in our history, religion is being transformed. With the Temple destroyed and no central place to sacrifice, we had to develop a portable faith, much as we envisioned a universal and portable God that was not limited to a specific geographical location as were so many other ancient deities. And as our God and faith become portable, God becomes more personal.
We turned our attention to the question, “Why fast?” The following were offered:
1. To focus inward on spiritual self.
2. To be humbled. To remind ones self of our bodies and needs.
3. To make us grateful and remind us of how many are starving.
4. From the Mishnah Yoma Chapter 8. We are rehearsing our deaths. When dead, there is no need to eat.
5. When we are dead, we are buried in a white garment. We wear a kittle which is white.
6. We do not work when we are dead.
7. We do not drink water, because water is a life force.
8. Intercourse is forbidden because it gives pleasure and is an act of creating life.
9. It is a cleansing of the soul.
On Yom Kippur there is to be no anointing of the body. That is vanity, and we are not to concern ourselves with outward appearances. We are to be who we are in all our vulnerableness and naturalness. If we think of ourselves, we are less receptive to God. We need to open ourselves to God and not to our own needs. When we are hungry, we are very much aware of our body and our vulnerability.
We covered some of the more esoteric rules for Yom Kippur such as the right of the king or a woman who has given birth to wear sandals. According to the sages, the king must be beautiful, and that can be at all times. I guess sandals enhances the king’s stature. A women must be protected from anything harmful that she might step on, and therefore, she can wear sandals. Also, we must protect ourselves from breaking the law unintentionally. Something eaten that is smaller than a date is acceptable, but if you have eaten and been satisfied, you have broken the fast. Necessary medications are to be taken with food. The primary value is saving a life. We are not to work, but we may do anything to save a life. If someone is buried under concrete, we must dig them out and uncover their nose to see if they are breathing. All these exceptions are indications of Gods forgiveness.
There are ways of getting yourself back on track, of bringing about change, but it must be done step by step. Zealousness leads to frustration. When prepping children for Yom Kippur, it’s best to start by taking away certain things.
And you have to mean your repentance, and differentiate between sins. God does not forgive sins committed against other people. That you must take care of yourself.
But what about sins committed against you? What about those people out there who owe you an apology for their behavior? Is one ever correct in not wanting to forgive?
October 11, 2014 B”H
24 Tishrei, 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Shabbat Chol Hamoed
Chabad: This is what I think I recall Mendy saying:
Mendy introduced his drush by saying that since there were mostly regulars in the congregation today, he would go a little further afield in his comments despite those he knows in the congregation whose eyes will roll or shut at what he was going to say. He began by asking, “Why do we have the mitzvah of a succah?” “How did the idea of a succah originate?” “What was a mitzvah?” The responses were the ones people learned in Hebrew school: a mitzvah is an act of righteous behavior, the succah was a commemoration of the small booths we lived in while wandering in the dessert, and they were a reminder of the impermanence of life. Most thought the succah originated in the dessert.
I knew that a mitzvah was also a commandment, and agreed with Mendy when he said that some people prefer not considering them commandments because to have a commandment means that there is a commander with expectations of you. I was reminded of a joke that related the idea that lawyers didn’t like having the Ten Commandments in the courtrooms because it reminded them that there was a power higher than they were.
Mendy then went into a midrash about Abraham and how at ninety-nine he circumcised himself and was suffering. (Y’a think?) To aid him, God caused it to become so hot, that people would not travel, and Abraham would not feel compelled to host strangers. But three angels did appear on the third day (There’s that third day again) just as Abraham was talking to God, and Abraham excused himself, telling God that he had to see to the needs of these strangers. It would seemed that God appreciated Abraham’s willingness to care for these men, so He was not insulted. So Abraham, still in great pain, brings the men into the shade of a tree. Now a tree is a finite thing, and can grow to a finite height, with branches spread out just so far and no more. This tree near Abraham’s tent became the first succah, shielding the angels from the heat, and providing them with a place of sustenance. I think I remember Mendy saying that the angels were served matzah. There was more about matzah and the Exodus, but can’t remember it.
I think Mendy said that we have the mitzvah of the succah because Abraham welcomed the strangers, and like Abraham, we are to emulate him and welcome guests also. Then Mendy told us that the a succah must not be under a tree or branches of a living tree may be substituted for the covering. The answer was that a broken branch is not finite any more, and we symbolically must also move beyond our finite selves. If we see trees growing above the succah, it will remind us of finite things and hinder us from imagining the infinite.
I’m thinking about this now as I remember it because one cannot think about anything while Mendy is speaking because you risk losing his line of thought. But now I can see the idea of the need to sit in the succah, look up, and see an open sky because when you look up, you are looking into infinity. While the branches are on the tree, they are finite. When broken off, they have no end that confines them as they were confined when attached to the trunk or limbs. We are finite beings who have the power to see infinity and, if we can wrap our brains around that concept, it’s not too far to imagine that we have the spiritual power to become one with infinity. To sense infinity is to sense The Eternal within it..
According to the laws of the succah, my succah is not “kosher.” The branches are placed on a permanent pergola, and there is a very old old oak tree near it that shades my deck. The thought of tearing down that oak is not a thought I would never entertain. Nor would I entertain the idea of building my succah down in the side yard where there might not be trees because that’s two flights of stairs and I’m not about to carry food down there daily. Stairs and I are not friends. It was hard enough cutting and schlepping the decorations up from the basement. Though is not a “kosher” succah, I still welcome friends into it, wave my luluv and ethrog, give opportunities to others to do the same, invite into my succah all the ancients and a few moderns, and feel a sense of unity with my people who are doing this all over the world at the same time than I am. My succah is also a doorway to The Eternal. So because it’s not a “kosher” succah, should I deny myself and my friends of it’s welcome and the experience? If I can experience in my “non kosher” succah what those in a “kosher” experience, I think The Eternal still accepts my offering and gratitude.
The point was also made that part of Abraham’s greatness was that he did not have rituals to get to The Eternal as we do, so he was constantly reaching up to create them so he could better connect.
I like the idea of having the power to create rituals like our father Abraham did to access and encounter The Eternal. The Reform Movement has especially invited new rituals to celebrate or comfort its members. New rituals keep Judaism contemporary and address the needs of an evolving people.
God is infinite, and man is finite. There are no way of connecting the two unless there is some mechanism to do that. The mechanisms to do that are the mitzvot. Mitzvot are in effect commandments, but they are given along with the option of free choice. There are 613 opportunities that are proffered to us, and we have the option of accepting them which will bring us closer to God, or rejecting them and thereby distancing ourselves from God or remaining in place.
I’m not sure why Mendy thought his message was so far out that he imagined eyes would either roll or close. I will tell you that there are more people who sit genuinely interested in what he has to say and eager to learn what they never knew before, than there are people who sleep or roll eyes. Certainly, I know that there are a few who genuinely think Mendy has nothing to teach them because there is nothing that they don’t already know. We all know such a person, and I imagine Mendy was thinking of them when he spoke about rolling or closing eyes. So knowing what I know, I now urge Mendy not to throw the sop of self deprecation to his distractors, and focus on those who are genuinely interested in learning from him. Distractors or detractors, working on old messages they probably picked up in Cheder, decided long ago that they would absorbed nothing from any rabbi’s sermon. Sadly, some adults just can’t move out of their teenage mentality when it comes to sermons.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Over at M’kor Shalom, after a brief review of where Moses and our ancestors were on their trek, Rabbi Frankel focused on a dialogue between God and Moses in Exodus: “... You say to me, ‘Take this people onward,’ but You did not inform me whom You will send with me...” God responds: “My Presence will go with you and provide you rest.”
Moses responds as though he has not heard what God said, and that if God’s Presence does not go along, no one will know that he has found favor in God’s eyes. Also, how will he and the people become distinct from everyone else on earth if God doesn’t go with them? God reassures him again, saying that Moses has found favor in His eyes, and that God knows him by name.
Still, Moses wants more, and that more is to see God’s glory. So God says that His Glory or goodness will pass before Moses, but no one may see God’s Face and live. So Moses is put in a cleft of the rock, protected by God’s hand, and Moses is allowed to see God’s back.
That moment in the story where Moses asks God to tell him His name so he can go back to the Hebrews in Egypt and say who sent him was also referenced. The Name is usually translated as “I Am What I Will Be.” At its core, the Name has to do with Being or Existence.
We would ask the same questions. We also want proof that God will be with us. We were told of a midrash where one man says that he would like to see God. The other tells him to look at the sun. He replies that he cannot. The first man then says, “How can you expect to look at God when you cannot even bear to look directly at one of His creations?”
For me, Moses’ greatness lay in the fact that he is a reluctant hero, called upon to do things that he feels he is ill equipped to do. He has a profound sense of inadequacy which makes him so very human. So he needs to be reassured and reassured again.
His response to God after God assures him that His Presence will go with him is to question whether or not that Presence will be there. It’s almost as if he doesn’t hear God because of his anxiety. Anxious people can’t hear others even if they are getting what they want.
But God’s Presence does accompany the people in a cloud, and this gives the people and Moses a sense of being protected. God also promised that he would give Moses rest, and this seemed to indicate that Moses would have fewer responsibilities. What was also discussed was that God going with the people reinforced the idea that this God was not limited to a physical location as were other gods, but was portable. And this new God was not tied to a natural element like the sun. Moses challenges God to be there, and God says that he will be up front as the Israelites advance.
One congregant suggested that this is a Parent/Child relationship. The parent has assured, and the child is so focused on his or her own needs, that the assurance is not heard and the demand is made again. Again the assurance is forthcoming as it would be from a concerned parent. Later, this same congregant suggested a twist, and that by Moses saying that he will not leave this place unless he is assured that he as God’s Word, Moses has reversed roles and is now in the Parent position offering an “if/then” scenario.
But I’m inclined to think that Moses is still operating out of his frightened and abandoned Child, and this Child in Moses is really folding his arms and stamping his foot to get his way, all the time wanting to be hugged.
This idea of needing to know God’s Name was explored, and I suggested that in ancient societies, the name of a person held magical power. To know someone’s name was to exert control over them. To know someone’s name gave the person knowing that name, credibility. Even today, stature comes with being on a first name bases with someone who is highly respected or a celebrity. “I know who you are,” is not just a statement of intimacy, it can also be a threat. Things haven’t changed much. There was an experiment several years ago in a highschool where each student was required to wear his name on an ID that everyone could see. Disruptions in the school dropped precipitously. I recall reading a story where Indians, before battle, would write their names and arrows and shoot them into the river, believing that their names would now be hidden from the enemy and they would be safe. There are certain names in the Bible, not translated that give the essence of the person. A name in ancient times was a big deal, and it still is. Bringing shame on a family name in certain societies can be fatal. I think the term “yichas” or pedigree, certainly has to do with a good name. To marry into a family with a good yichas is to acquire those qualities.
Rabbi told us that in the Talmud, we learn that a person has three names; The first is the one your mother and father give you. The second is the one you acquire by yourself, and the third is the one you acquire through your reputation.
We considered the qualities Moses had that gave him his third name: compassionate, hot tempered, leader, negotiator, humility, teacher. God’s behaviors also reveals the Name he acquired though His actions: compassionate, creator, vengeful, merciful, angry, capricious.
It would be an interesting Yom Kippur activity to consider the names we have acquired though our behavior.
It was suggested that God would rather pull back and let Moses learn how to be a leader, much the way a good parent will pull back so the child can face his or her own challenges and deal with them on his own. It’s the only way to become independent. God wants Moses and the people to grow up and become independent. It was noted that God starts out in Exodus as an angry and vengeful God, but by Deuteronomy, He has become compassionate. As Moses is maturing, so God is maturing. This becomes obvious when God declares, “Let My compassion overwhelm my anger.”
We grow up quickly when we see something shocking. The Golden Calf episode was a shock, the breaking of the tablets was a shock. Such events in a life bring a quick maturation process. We might consider the forty years in the desert as symbolic of the maturation process itself. Children, when they are first starting out, need rules and boundaries. Children need to see things in black and white. To survive, they need to obey. That’s who we were in the beginning of Exodus. But in Deuteronomy, we are adolescents, still needing parental guidance, but needing to test our own boundaries and limitations. Parents know we are going to make mistakes, so there are still the warnings. But the mistakes will help us grow into the people we are to become.
Moses wanted to know his God. To want to see God and to know His nature is a very human thing. But the Bible raises certain problems. In order to be able for the people to relate to God, God was anthropomorphized. Does God really have a face?
God has manifested himself in different way, but always at his discretion. At Sinai, everyone sees God glory or manifestation in the clouds, the lightening, and the rumbling of the mountain. But God reveals himself only when He wants to, and always from a distance. In effect, God is saying when he says, “You cannot see my face,” He is telling us that He is beyond our intelligence. When He says, “You can only see My back,” he is saying that we can only understand what has happened in our lives in retrospect.
God is a mystery, and to see the face of the mystery is for the mystery to lose its power. What we can see and know is no longer to be held in awe.
Moses wanted to know his God. To want to see God and to know His nature is a very human thing. But as God is presented in the Bible raises certain problems. In order to be able for the people to relate to God, God was anthropomorphized. Does God really have a face?
Conceiving God as pure spirit and entering a relationship with an Endless Creative Power, is not easy. How does one relate to such a Force? So our ancestors gave God human qualities so we could better understand His essence, but my hunch is that over the centuries, people came to believe that the symbolic personification of our God was God, and not the Creative Power that brought all things into existence. One can easily relate to such a depiction.
If our trek across the centuries have led us from childhood to adulthood as a people, there are many among us who look at the anthropomorphized God of the Bible and the prayer books and say, “This just doesn’t work for me.” The image of God for many is still that old judgmental man on a throne who is not easily appeasable. And when these lapsed Jews do come to synagogue, they read about the same God they came to doubt when they were adolescents. Few were given any alternative concepts of God, though they all took permission to question God as he is depicted in our sacred texts. Jewish institutions really need to reconsider how God is presented, especially to those whose Jewish educations end when they are thirteen.
October 18, 2014 B”H
24 Tishrei, 5775
Torah Study: Bereshit – Genesis 1:1-6:8
Haftorah – Isaiah 42:5 - 43: 10
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by telling us that from now on Rabbi Kaminker will be leading Shabbos services for the Israeli members of our community in the storefront where Chabad started. He said that this expansion of Chabad is in the same spirit as the expansion into Burlington County and Gloucester County.
My immediate thought was that this was a mistake because separating the Israelis from the wider community was not only a loss to the wider community, but reinforced Israeli isolation.. If we are to consider ourselves Kal Yisroel, why separate us from those members of the family who came from Israel? I expressed my feelings to another congregant, and I was informed that the Israelis, like most immigrants, are not eager to assimilate into the wider society, and as a group, are very insular. I was also told that many do not attend services being rather secular, and by giving them the comfort of their own minyon, they might change that behavior. So good luck to them and to Menachim Kaminker. I shall really miss seeing him weekly because he has become part of my Chabad family,was always eager to answer my spur of the moment questions, and he always had a ready smile for anyone who walked in.
Mendy turned his attention to the parshah, asking us “Why does this story take place in a garden and not in a forest? Several congregants attempted to answer, myself included, suggesting that a garden is a metaphor for life and for creativity. Mendy reminded us that the Torah contains 53 parshahs (divisions), and that the numerical equivalent in the Gematria for the words “Gan Eden” is also 53. Therefore, the Garden of Eden, on a higher spiritual level, is synonymous with the Torah. The Torah itself is the garden, and all that is necessary for life to flourish and be sustained can be found in it. That is why we say, “It is a tree of life to those who hold fast to it...”
He also spoke about the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge as symbolic of two attitudes we might have in our own approach to our faith. Both are in the metaphoric garden of life; one promising intellectual satisfaction, the other promising spiritual satisfaction.
Mendy made it very clear that those who came to Chabad or by extension, to any synagogue just to be intellectually stimulated by the rabbis sermon or the commentaries in the text, have missed the point of their faith. To eat only from the metaphoric Tree of Knowledge is to ignore the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life refers not only to physical existence (we invited death in with the disobedience) but to our spiritual existence. The fruit of the Tree of Life is really our spiritual existence which depends on our relationship with God, and if that is not the focus of attending and learning, the rest means little. Again, if we are not here to develop a relationship with God, we have missed the point.
I have a relationship with God, and it is deeply personal and deeply spiritual. But I will say that that relationship is not reinforced or expanded by reading the same prayers three times a day, and reading the same prayers on Shabbat and holidays. I do not find these prayers repeated over and over again spiritually, emotionally, or intellectually satisfying or uplifting. But that doesn’t mean I do not offer words of gratitude to the The Eternal. The service I attend weekly is a doorway that opens to a sacred space where I can find my own words, and I am as confident that if The Eternal does take notice of me, my words are as pleasing as are the traditional prayers of the siddur because my soul is constructing them as I stand there with my fellow congregants. Such prayers do not come to me all the time, but when they do, I know I am in a different place from those who say the traditional prayers by rote. I do not feel that I have missed the point of my faith by looking forward to Torah study at M’kor Shalom and Mendy’s weekly drush more than I look forward to the service. For me, Mendy’s drush was what first drew me to Chabad, and the philosophy of acceptance, Mendy himself, and the people I’ve met there, keeps me attending. My relationship with The Eternal is not limited to a building, a congregation, or a particular rabbi as wonderful as that rabbi or the people might be.
God forbad eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but Mendy related a midrash that that prohibition was for only the day on which Adam and Eve were created. It would seem that their creation, their temptation, their punishment, and their expulsion all occurred on the same day. According the midrash, God did not want automatons for children. He wanted them to have choices, and therefore would have allowed the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge to be eaten on another day.
I think God might have wanted his creations to be innocent for just a day. As a parent, we all want to prolong the innocence of our children, knowing full well that it cannot be done if our children are to reach their full potential. Metaphorically, Adam and Eve had to disobey in order to grow in their own humanity. All children have to grow, disobey, and recognize the consequences of their choices. That’s an aspect of what being human is all about.
And speaking of choices, Mendy referred us to God’s declaring His creations “good” and “very good.” He asked what the differences were.
Again, the commentary was revealing. It would seem that God created the “Yetzer Tov, or good inclination, and the “Yetzer Hara, or evil inclination. He declared the good inclination in humankind good, but the bad, very good. The answer he gave was that without the bad inclination, there could never be a choice, and therefor no true humanity. With both good and bad, we now have a choice. Without one or the other, there is no choice. God needed us to have choice. God needs us to have the Yetzer Harah.
I’ve said this before. In the Talumd it says that a man would never build a house or have a child without the Yetzer Hara. There is nothing evil in having a child or building a house, but what there is in those two acts is ego. We want children to project our DNA into the future. What could be more egotistical than wanting our own image to continue indefinitely. To build a house is to have a place to show our stuff. Our stuff is an extension of ourselves. That is egotistical though superficial. There is nothing evil about the Yetzer Hara, but when ego takes over a person’s life and his relationships, it can lead to evil behavior.
This is what I think Mendy wanted us to learn from his drush.
The key expectation was that if we allowed ourselves to work towards and to enter a relationship with God that is more than just an intellectual relationship, we will afford ourselves the most meaningful and satisfying experience of our lives. We need to open our souls to God, and not just our minds. We need to welcome God into our hearts and truly believe. A secondary expectation was his challenge that we bringing in people so they can experience Chabad, learn about Yiddishkeit, and how it could improve their everyday lives.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Over at M’kor Shalom, Rabbi Koch spoke about the “breath of life,” as being the Hebrew concept of the soul. God, by breathing into Adam, He moves him from inanimate to animate. Adam means from the earth. Adon is Hebrew for red as in clay. Adam is an earth creature. But the word nefesh can mean more than just soul. Nefesh can mean essence or awareness, and that which will distinguish the inanimate from the animate.
It is interesting to note that God creates everything through fiat. He said it and it was done. Words and actions, to the ancients, seemed to be synonymous. “So let it be written, so let it be done!” It is also interesting to note that man is the only creature that God personally creates and personally animates with His own breath. God doesn’t call him forth, but molds him from the earth. Since God fills the entire universe and everything is God, we are given the mystical idea that we breath in and out God’s breath each moment we live. This very personal behavior establishes our importance in the chain of being, and if we can suspend disbelief, God is therefore ever present.
The nefesh is a life force and has different levels of meaning. In the first version of man’s creation, he is created on the sixth day. In the second version, he is created first to till the soil. There is no rain, and no one to till. Humanity is the center of the story in the second version, and God is the center of the story in the first. We are partners with God in the act of creation, but we are not partners with the earth.
In the first story, God first created the heaven and the earth, and some quality of God fluttered on the face of the deep. What is the light of day one?
The Torah begins with a pre-existent God who is the creator and the sole power in the universe. One member of the class suggested that the initial light that illuminates is the true light of God, not the light of the sun which comes later. I had suggested that it was the emanation of the Ayn Sof, the Kabbalistic concept of God.
God is both transcendent (beyond) and separate from us; the other, and at the same time fully present in the world (immanent). How can that be? Well, it seems our ancestors, in the early Middle Ages, became aware of philosophy of the ancient Greeks and took from the Neo- Platonic tradition ideas that enabled the Kabbalists to conceive of an Endless Being who sent out emanations on a variety of levels that enabled It to become present in the physical world and relate to it.
There is no science here, even though the first story of creation seems to point to the theory of evolution. Prior to the advent of science, religion addressed all questions that science would address today. But the boundaries have shifted. Earlier in human development, science and religion always asked the same questions, but now the question, “What does it all mean?” is addressed only by religion.
We spoke of ancient cosmologies and how water dominated their creation stories. In ours, there seems to be a dome above earth and above that dome there is water. Below the earth there is also water, and the earth and the dome keep them separate.
I had suggested that the reason there were parallel stories about the creation of humanity was that they might have come from separate traditions. I also said that the stories moved from the general to the specific, the first being an overview and the second getting into the details.
That comment generated the rabbi’s expansion regarding the four different sources that are thought of to have come together when the Torah had finally moved from an oral tradition to a written one. The redactors or editors who put all the various oral traditions together, compressed centuries of the stories of different traditions, selected specific ones, and then wrote them down.
The Apocrypha speaks to the fact that there were other literatures that did not make it into the Cannon. But the authorship of the Torah is a serious point of theological contention among the different divisions of the Jewish faith. Orthodox tradition holds that the entire Torah, as well as the oral law was conveyed to Moses on Mt. Sinai, and he wrote it all down. As you move along the Jewish theological continuum, you move from the Torah being dictated by God to Moses, to a divinely inspired document written by men, to a document that is an accumulation of ancient wisdom, a series of historical events, transformational myths, borrowed epics from other traditions, rituals and rites of a particular ancient society, and more. But each of these traditions look to that singular scroll for inspiration and guidance.
Scholarship suggests four sources: The J source, the P source, the E source, and the D source. Numbers and Leviticus are mostly from the Priestly (P) source.
The Elohist (E) source uses Eloheim as the name for God, the Yawhist (J) source uses Jehovah as the name of God, and the Deuteronomists (D) source is distinguished by something I do not recall.
The conquest of the Northern Kingdom by Assyria in the 8th Century BCE, removed the ten tribes from Jewish history. Judah and Benjamin of the Southern Kingdom called Judea, remained. It is conceivable that among the twelve tribes there were sub cultures with stories of their own making, and these stories survived and were brought to the Judea by members of the tribes who escaped to the south. These became part of the oral and written traditions of Judea, and that is probably how parallel stories came to be in the Torah. The redactors of the Torah employed the stories of both traditions.
The Talmud teaches that there are no superfluous or extraneous words in the Torah, so we can learn from all that is there. Tradition teaches that every word has power. If God’s words can create a universe by fiat, and we are created in God’s image, what do our words create?
There’s a syllogism lurking here, is there not?
One of the congregants expressed difficulty with the idea that man was given dominion over all things, and invited to subdue all creatures under his rule. The word “master,” we were told, is a translation of the Hebrew word for “rule.” We were informed that a word in the Torah is defined against how it is used elsewhere, and a concordance, a book of words and their multiple uses, would help us clarify what “master” really means in this context. Rabbi cautioned us not to be married to one definition of a Hebrew word.
I suspect the congregant who had problems with humanity ruling over the animals is a “speciesist,” one who considers all living creatures of equal value. When I taught my Law, Values, and Morality class, I would ask my students if they would save the life of a stranger or the life of their pet if both appeared to be drowning. It’s a forced choice issue with no clarification. My purpose was to ascertain if the key Jewish value of saving a human life was prominent in their minds. There were always those who would save the stranger, a few who would save their pets, and a few who couldn’t decide. Those who couldn’t decide considered no one life greater than any other. Of course I reminded them that during their inaction, both had drowned. These were my “speciesist.” I suspect this congregant is one of that group.
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
And now for something totally different. Years ago I wrote the lyrics for a musical that was never set to music. It was called The Experiment, and took place in the Garden of Eden. One song follows:
(Caution– this is a very silly song sung by someone who is innocent and only hours old so please bear with him.)
Adam is singing this to god (who is played by an ever present light bulb that goes on and off. Also, all the animals either wear pants or skirts.
A very special guy
Excuse me but I think there's been an error.
I think that something's very out of key.
For whenever I name features,
And whenever I count creatures,
There are always two of them but one of me.
Excuse me but I think there's been an error.
I think I may have something to regret.
I don't know the dance they're doing,
But they smile when they are through-ing.
And they always seem to light a cigarette.
Oh, I know you may consider this intrusion.
But you've given me a brain with which to
Think.
Now my observation brings me this conclusion.
Please forgive me if I choose to raise a stink.
You see that I think that I'm a very special
Guy,
I must be 'cause there aren't any others.
And if it's true that I'm a very special guy,
I think you should bestow on me my druthers.
Please make for me a creature with a skirt.
I need one so I might begin to dance.
I've been told that one enhances a romance,
With a creature with a skirt.
Please make for me a creature with a skirt.
And with a skirt I'll know her at a glance.
One who will be steadfast, strong and true.
And make her feathers blue.
(Spoken) I like blue. It's my favorite color. The sky is blue, you know, but I don't know why so don't ask.
Create for me a creature with a skirt.
I'm willing to take any kind of chance.
Someone I can pet who's soft and sweet,
And don't forget to web her feet!
(Spoken) yes, give her feet like a duck. The duck is the best swimmer here and if she has webbed feet, she'll be able to catch a lot of fish. I also like fish.
Give her claws like the lion's for
Scratching my back,
Give her wings so she'll fly me to the sky,
Give her legs for running swiftly
And a nose for jungle tracking,
Give her every little thing that I am lacking.
Above all please,
Design for me a creature with a skirt.
I promise I will never look askance,
At someone who will ever be my bride,
If she has a furry hide.
(spoken) I like fur also. It's soft and warm and when it gets cold, I can wear her like a coat.
(Dance number with animals)
One of the Serpent’s songs.
Into Every Little Life
Into every little life a little serpent comes a
Stealing,
At the moment that you're feeling you have less than
Anyone.
Into every little life a malcontent becomes appealing,
At the moment when you cannot get the best of anyone.
Into every little life a little viper comes a striding,
When you're slipping or you're sliding or misguiding
Anyone,
Into every little life, a little bitterness and strife,
A little twisting of the knife,
It's just my way of having fun.
(Spoken) ha! Turn me out without so much as a reference, will you? I'll show him!
Into every little life a little serpent comes a huffing,
At the moment when you're scuffing down that life's a
Little tough.
Into every little life a little snake is there a puffing,
At the moment when you tell yourself you haven't got
The stuff,
Into every little life a little viper comes a tricking
When you're sticking it to someone who has really had
Enough.
Into every little life a little bitterness and strife
A little twisting of the knife,
It's just the way I show my stuff.
You'll all know when a serpent thought comes crawling,
You will tell when a snake is in your head,
You're aware when right and wrong are caterwauling,
And you'll love it when you choose to be misled.
Into every little life a little serpent comes a
Strutting,
When you're butting up your head against a wall that will
Not break.
Into every little life a little rogue is undercutting,
When you're smutting down or cutting up a friend you
Will forsake.
Into every little life a little viper comes a coiling,
When you're broiling or you're toiling for the spoils
Of a mistake,
Into every little life a little bitterness and strife,
A little twisting of the knife,
It's just the way that I'll partake,
Yes, just the way that I'll partake,
Yes, just the way that I'll partake.
October 25, 2014 B”H
1 Cheshvan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Noach – Genesis 6:9 - 11:32, Numbers 28:9- 15.
Haftorah - Isaiah 66:1-24.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
There was a Bar Mitzvah today, and Mendy began by reminding us that he tries to find some meaningful passage in the Torah that will contain some Bar Mitzvah message. But the ritual came millennia after the story of Noah, so he was hard pressed to find one. Of course he did, and directed us to God’s statement that “man is evil from his youth.” I would say, “Man is egotistical from his youth.” He interpreted this by reminding us that little newborn babies are not the least interested in their parent’s well being, but will loudly insist that their needs be taken care of first. This is a survival mechanism that is inborn, and absolutely necessary. This demand for immediate gratification moves into the toddler years, and beyond.
If infants could talk, they would probably say, “I will destroy you if you don’t give me exactly what I want when I want it.” There are preteens and teens who say the same thing. Considering this, I couldn’t help but think of those children living among us whose immediate need for gratification and constant gratification never really ends and moves with them into adulthood. Some of these types never really care about their parent’s feelings as long as their own needs are to be met often by those very same parents whose feelings they discount. So everyone is born with an ego that says, “me first,” but that self centered position, in Judaism at least, is expected to change by Bar or Bat Mitzvah age. That’s when the Yetzer Tov or good inclination is supposed to kick in and keep the Yetzer Hara or evil (ego) inclination in check. I think after years of television resolving every problem in an hour or half hour, people lost perspective of how long it really takes to deal with life’s problems. Instant answers to questions from the Internet, faster speeds at getting on line, instant messaging, and instant everything else, is making it hard for people to wait, to pay “their dues.” Too many have a sense of entitlement that they did not earn because gratification cannot be postponed.
Mendy made it clear that Bar and Bat Mitzvah time of life was the time when choices now had to be made, and being an adult had to do with your willingness and personal skills to make such choices. At thirteen, you are no longer a child, and this is the time when the good inclination kicks in to moderate the actions of the ego. He praised this young man for wanting to continue with his studies, and this was not only an indication of the quality of this young man’s ability to choose, but also praised his parents for inculcating in him a love of Yiddishkeit that led him to that choice. He said that good parents make good children who make good choices. Using this latter idea, he suggested that Noah was “Righteous in his generation,” because his parent’s were righteous. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”
“Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” First came across that phrase in the short story, The Ransom of Red Chief. Means the same as the apple doesn’t ... etc. But there are certainly exceptions. In reading about Jewish gangsters, I learned that Arnold Rothstein’s father was called “Jacob the Just,” and he raised his son to be a pious young man with every opportunity available to a young gentleman at the turn of the 20th Century. Yet Jacob’s son became a notorious gambler, remade the image of the American gangster, married out of the faith, and ended up being murdered. Parents will do the best they can for their children, and sometimes it just doesn’t work. Parenting is a crap shoot. Nothing is guaranteed. Child rearing is very complex to begin with, and when you factor in a child’s personality, the influence of their friends, the media, and the wider world outside the home, some of us have a very bumpy ride. There are no guarantees.
Mendy told us a story of a man who took care of three very wealthy men. In the morning, he shopped and cleaned the house of the first, in the afternoon he shopped and cleaned the house of the second, and in the evening he shopped and cleaned for the third. One day, the three men were talking and extolling the virtues of this butler, and each decided that he wanted to learn more about what it took to shop. So they each asked him to take them to the market. The butler became rather nervous because for years he had been buying produce and charging the men more than he paid. He figured they could afford it, and he needed the extra money. He tried to dissuade them, but each insisted. So the first one he told that the market was dirty, and the sights he would see, and the noises he would hear would revolt him. So the first man decided against going and the butler was relieved. The second man would not be put off, so they went. But as they walked, the butler spoke constantly about the poor conditions, pointing to the broken pipes, the peeling paint, etc. This worked and the man did not see the how different the cost of the food was from what he was charged. The butler felt safe, but the third man was not like the other two, and told the butler not to point out all the market’s problems because he wanted to focus on what was sold. Quickly, he saw that he had been cheated and confronted the butler. In his defense, the butler informed his employer that he didn’t buy off the carts, but the highest quality food was put aside for him, and that food cost a bit more. I think I recall the employer accepting this.
Now I would have thought that this story would have some metaphoric meaning, and I’m sure if I thought about it, I could certainly come up with one.
But Mendy’s take on it seemed more to do with focus. The first man was scared off with what he might experience, the second was dissuaded by having his attention put elsewhere, but the third insisted on staying on focus, and that was key. The Bar Mitzvah boy and all the rest of us should not loose our focus. What should be our focus? Specifically, to keep Yiddishkeit in our lives, and to live decent lives.
Our lives are pulled in so many different directions, and the battle between our Yetzer Tov and our Yetzer Hara is ongoing. Each day we are confronted with choices that would lure us from what our spiritual selves desire. Do we get out of bed on a Saturday morning to come to shul, or do we sleep for a few more hours, read the paper, and do some yard work? Our lives are constantly demanding that we choose one thing over another, and many of us pay little attention to our spiritual needs.
This is what I think Mendy wanted us to learn from his drush.
As adults, each and every day we are confronted with choices that pit our spiritual needs against our animal or egotistical needs. We need to decide the place and value of Yiddishkeit and spirituality in our lives, and make the effort to bring these into balance. We can do this if we put some focus on our spiritual side. It’s only when we become balanced that we can become happy and complete. A secondary message had to do with parents as important role models.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel’s opening question to us had to deal with the Hebrew adjective describing Noah, variously translated as righteous, perfect, whole, blameless, or complete, in his generation. We then spoke briefly about the flood stories that seem to abound in the collective memories of the ancients. Early cuneiform clay tablets found in Nineveh dating from 3,000 BCE tell of such a catastrophe. It is to be noted that this story, a piece of human history, connects us to that history and to other civilizations. All existed simultaneously, and all are interdependent.
For so many ancient cultures to have such a similar story, I do believe that in pre-history there was a massive deluge that was told and retold orally until written down to become part of a cultures folklore. Abraham came from Mesopotamia, and it is certainly possible that the tales told around the campfire included ancient stories handed down by his family. The Epic of Gilgamesh is well known, and it was one of those stories borrowed and incorporated into our own. But it is the moral level to which it is raised that makes the Hebrew version of it so much more meaningful. In the original, the gods destroy the world because humans are disturbing their sleep. In the hands of our ancestors, our God sees how corrupt the world has become and decides that if the world is ever to improve, He needs to start over with a family who is basically decent.
There have been many attempts to locate the ark or find the source of the flood. My favorite theory is based on the idea that at one time in history, the Black Sea was once a fresh water inland lake, and a seismic shift separated the land mass creating the Bosphorus, and this cataclysmic event caused the salt water Sea of Marmara to pour itself into this inland lake. Those living along the edges of the lake were drowned, but those at higher ground fled, carrying this story with them in their escape into what is now Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey. Iran, Iraq etc. The experience became part of the Jungian Collective Subconscious. Naturally, this ancient community spoke a distinctive language and this language may have been the original Indo- European language from which most languages today evolved, dovetailing nicely with the story of the Tower of Babel which is really a transformational myth explaining how different languages came to be. Of course, I may be totally wrong.
After the flood, there is a sense of renewed order, that corruption has been rooted out, and a new and better world can begin. But hard on this euphoria comes the Tower of Babel story, and the sense of renewal and order quickly devolves into a sense of disorder. So as God says, “Man is evil from his youth.”
It was suggested that if we look at the Garden of Eden story and the Noah story as metaphor for evolving humanity, we cannot help but see that everyone is new and at a childlike stage in development. God is also developing, and we see this evolution of both God and humanity as the Torah unfolds. An immature God is angry with what he has created because it chose not to do as He had wanted, and rather than work with what He has, decides to destroy it and start over. Noah, also a child, has no sense of responsibility to his fellow human beings, and does exactly what he is told to do. Noah does not feel responsibility or compassion and exhibits no free will. He follows blindly whatever God tells him to do without question. His is blind faith. Noah doesn’t change his character throughout his story, and is therefore not considered a Biblical hero.
So why a flood story? This is a cautionary tale teaching that there are consequences for not taking responsibility for your actions. We are also to learn this from the Adam and Eve story. Infractions will cause consequences that you cannot imagine.
Noah does tell God that He should not have done this, and there is a sense of Divine Regret. So God sets a rainbow in the sky as a reminder to Him that he must not destroy the world again. This might be an indication that God is growing in His own understanding of what it takes to be a parent with disobedient children.
Noah’s initial response is not to care. We’ve all been there. If it’s not happening to me, and if I’m going to be okay, why bother? So Noah builds the ark, takes his family into it, and possibly might even believe that those outside the ark deserve what they are getting. The German word froidenshas (quietly happy that others are having problems that don’t touch you,) comes to mind.
The issue of the tension between the role of faith and our responsible actions was raised. Are we commanded to be conscious of our actions, or our faith, or both? Noah exhibits blind faith. He has no sense of wavering at all. He does what he is told. A mature faith is not just noting and accepting what is, but putting our own gloss on it. Again, using the metaphor of childhood development, Noah is a toddler while Abraham is an adolescent. Abraham progresses throughout his life and continues to become, while Noah becomes stagnant and does not grow.
I’d like to say something in defense of Noah. There are people who encounter great life altering events and grow from them. There are those who just become depressed and fold up. Noah folded up. After the flood his immediate response was to give thanks. After that, he self medicated with wine, becoming drunk and possibly due to his guilt at not having challenged God, or possibly because he at last comprehended the enormity of what had happened. Noah has the burden of setting a new world in motion, and it is just too much for him. Noah is traumatize, Noah is ossified, Noah is us.
Noah is flawed, and though Abraham is our first role model for becoming and for growing in humanity, we still must recognize that he, too, is flawed. Abraham does expel his eldest son and his mother, giving them a mere flask of water and some bread when he is a prosperous man. Also, he does agree to sacrifice his other son without a complaint. In the course of becoming, we sometimes take one step forward, and two steps back. Growing is not easy, and none of us do it perfectly.
Rabbi Frenkel asked us to consider the word “sohar” which is translated from the Hebrew to mean an opening for daylight. This Hebrew word is used only once, and there is no parallel. Therefore, we cannot fully understand the intent of this word because it is not used elsewhere in another context. We say it might be a skylight, but why would Noah need a skylight? One possible answer may be that it is to count the days. Another might be that looking up is a reminder that he is to strive to do better.
The only other place in the Torah I can think of where people are told to “look up” is when God tells Moses to create a brazen serpent, put it on a pole, and have the people “look up” at it. I was told that by looking up at it, the people were also looking up to the heavens and being reminded of God. This was to heal them from the fiery serpent plague God had sent. Now as far as I am concerned, the creation of the brazen serpent was an overt act of idolatry, and the fact that it was then placed into the Ark of the Covenant along with the broken and whole tablets of the law, remains a mystery to me. Perhaps someone might explain this to me.
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
First Disobedience
Apple, pomegranate,
What did it matter?
The taste was new.
And suddenly
She knew of patterns and sequences
All elements unified in one field --
Her brain made instantly insatiable.
But for all her wonder and knowing,
It was the profound fear that came upon her,
That moved her,
The awful loneliness–
The consequences of it all–
And still, life circumscribed.
Aware,
She drew near to him.
“Come and eat, Lord Adam,” said she,
Smiling, her scarlet stained lips
Moist with passion,
Dissembling submission.
And being created
In his Father’s image,
Loving the flattery
And the newness of the game,
He sensed unfairness –
Her knowing more than he,
The fear of equality or inequality,
He too, took a taste.
Apple, pomegranate,
What did it matter?
The taste was new.
L’ador, v’ador
From generation to generation,
Apple, pomegranate,
What does it matter?
The taste is new.
Leonard H. Berman
November 1, 2014 B”H
8 Cheshvan 5775
WeeklyTorah Study: Lech Lecha – Genesis 12:1– 17:27
Haftorah – Isaiah 40:27 - 41:16
Mendy turned the bimah over to his brother-in-law this Shabbat, and this is what I think I recall the rabbi saying:
Before Mendy’s brief introduction, Mendy informed the congregation that there was going to be a brit millah or bris that afternoon which is unusual because it is Shabbat. But what I found most memorable was that this was the great-grand- son of one of our most distinguished congregants. And that’s one of the reasons why I love Chabad - four generations in one place. Most often there are three, but today there were four. L’ador V’ador.
Like Mendy, who usually tries to find a message in the Torah portion that is pertinent to today, our guest rabbi began talking about the circumcisions that take place in this parshah, and the commandment that every male in Abraham’s entourage was to undergo this rite. So Ishmael is circumcised at thirteen, Issac at eight days, and Abraham in his nineties. He then told of a midrash that tells the story of Ishmael, years later, taunting Issac and saying that his involvement in the rite was more significant than his younger brother’s because he had chosen it, while the rite was imposed on Issac without his consent. The point being made here was that the brit was a revolutionary event not only because it established the Covenant with God and the Jewish People signed in the flesh, but it recognizes that there was a Creative Power in the universe with whom one might have a personal relationship and one who has expectations of us. This rite that symbolically and physically was the signature to the Covenant was not to be a choice. The rabbi elaborated on this idea by saying that all of us here were here because we were not given a choice. Being a Jew is not easy considering the world’s response to us, but being a Jew was too important to allow that decision to be left to children or teenagers. Our parents and ancestors made that choice for us. And we continue to make that choice for our own children so the Covenant and the Jewish People will continue. He elaborated on this by addressing parents and how they have to nurture, direct, and sometimes take away choices because children and teens often do not have the intellectual or moral capacity to do what is safe or right. We give them space to grow and become independent, but we are always watchful and often must intervene when the decisions they are about to make or have made are detrimental to their well being.
The good rabbi spoke of God as the authority behind moral law, and that in traditional homes, children are taught not to do certain things because it is forbidden in the Torah and that God doesn’t want you to behave this way. Too often more secular parents will give reasons that are rational and appeal to a child’s sense of fairness or emotions that might hopefully correct a behavior, but that may or may not work if the child does not respected as the authority behind the request.
But if you say that it is God who does not like that behavior and that the behavior is forbidden in the Torah, there might be a very different response. But a different response presupposes that both parents and child mutually agree that the Torah is God’s word, and must be respected as the guide to behavior. If there is no such concept in the home, there is no authority other than the parent’s and sometimes that isn’t enough.
Once upon a time, Jews knew the laws in the Torah and could make decisions on behavior based on those laws. These laws gave rise to values that gave rise to traditions and rites that became part of our daily lives, and while many Jewish people continue to act on these values, rites and traditions, the source of these values, the Torah, has become separated from the ethical principals behind them. This became very clear to me in my own life. I was in a seminar where the teacher asked us to think of a tradition that has come down in your family. There weren’t many, but I did recall that on my Bubba’s table there was always bread with the meal. The meal didn’t start until my Zeydeh broke a piece of bread, mumbled something inaudible, and we ate. There was always bread on my mothers table for each meal, but my dad never broke it or mumbled anything. I suddenly realized that my Zeydeh was saying the blessing over bread, and what got transported to my childhood home was the bread without the blessing. In one generation, the connection of the bread, the blessing, and the gratitude to God was lost. That’s what happened with Torah law. Jewish people may behave well, but few will ascribe that behavior to God’s expectations or a Torah law. They just don’t know the connection any longer.
To address this, I created a course entitled Law, Values, and Morality were our responses to contemporary issues were traced back into the Torah and Talmud. My students were surprised that their responses were often supported by our sacred texts.
Abraham initial contribution to civilization is a revolutionary one (and one for which his descendants have never been forgiven): Abraham discovers God, conceives of monotheism, and posits a God who makes demands on our behavior. (Suddenly, the pagan party is over.) But this is all before God decides to speak to Abraham, and all that Abraham was or accomplished before this moment become discounted in scripture because Abrahams real life is to begin from that seminal moment on when both Abraham and God enter into a personal relationship. Once God chooses Abraham for a relationship, the terms of the relationship change. Prior, it was one dimensional, but when God responded, it became something quite different. Now the terms change, and God’s first statement is “Get yourself out of here.” Now God is making demands and expects Abraham to obey. Certainly, he does without question. And now God tells Abraham that if he does this, he will be blessed, have countless descendants, get a new land that will belong to his descendants in perpetuity, and that the nations of the world will bless themselves through him.
How does one refuse that! But I can see a problem. It’s been ten generations since God spoke to a human being. Prior to that, God spoke to Adam and Eve. In both circumstances, God laid down expectation and they were not followed. Free will has always been the fly in the ointment. Adam and Eve disobeyed, and the people of Noah’s generation disobeyed. So God blinked, ten generations pass, and God looks at the world that Noah’s descendants created and sees that it is not particularly good either. So beginning with a man who was righteous in his generation hoping that the world would follow his example, God saves Noah, and after a while, once again sees that His plan didn’t pan out. Again, God is disappointed, seems to lose interest for ten generations. But maybe during this time He decides to change the plan and his expectations of humanity. Instead of expecting the whole world to follow his orders and behave well, He’ll begin with one man and establish one family who just might tow His line. This would provide for limited liability. Abraham, prior to being approached with this new plan, has already realized that there is a Universal Power that is the only true God. The midrash about breaking the idols in his father’s shop and blaming it on the biggest idol, attests to his mind set and discovery. I think that Abraham’s initial faith is a very simple faith that is pure in its intent and initiated by the patterns and balances that he saw around him in nature. So God decides to begin again, but the new twist is that He will dangle a carrot on a stick to only one special person who has a predilection for spirituality. There were not carrots to Adam and Eve or to Noah. And that carrot to Abraham was a land for his countless descendants, a blessing, and the promise of his own child. And if He will do this for Abraham, Abraham must do as he is told. Thus begins the “If/Then” paradigm which will especially be revealed in the dialogues of God with Jacob and with Moses. Again, it’s not going to work. The dramatic irony here is that we know the story that will follow, and we know all too well that even Abraham’s descendants will falter and make bad choices that will get them in all sorts of trouble.
This is what always happens when you give mammals free will. Personally, I think God would have done better experimenting with fish. Fish behave well even though they are always naked.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel also began with Lech Lecha, reminding us that this is the first time that God speaks to anyone since Noah. Lech means go, and lecha can mean for yourself. What does it mean to “go to yourself.” Why is it necessary to leave?
Parents have to launch children so they can move ahead, and to improve one’s self and not stagnate, we must leave our comfort zones. Change is imperative for growth, but dealing with change and growing requires courage. Change brings risk, and an older part of us must die before we can enter a new aspect of our lives. Moving forward without a blue print is a risk, but if you wait for all the dots to be connected, you risk becoming ossified in place.
Terah, Abraham’s father also started out on a journey, but only got as far as Haran and stopped. Abraham is the one who leaves.
Each of us hears a Lech Lecha, and I was wondering if Terah also heard his? The Torah tells us that he, too, began his journey but it seems that shortly after leaving his old comfort zone, he fell into another comfortable zone and gave up seeking. Do small contentments and small achievements keep us from pushing ourselves? If we are successful somewhere, why get up and move? Did Abraham take up the challenge? Isn’t it true that children should exceed their parents? Is this another metaphor of human growth? Just questions.
There is a huge faith component here. God promises Abraham, and there is no proof. This could also be the first of several tests God would present to see if he were truly worthy of the blessings and the burden he was to carry. Why does God select Abraham? We really don’t know, but that may be the reason there is the midrash about Abraham and Terah. Abraham, like all of us, is imperfect, and that is what makes him interesting. Abraham seems vulnerable, and seemed willing to make a change. Are we willing to take that leap of Faith as Abraham did? Hershel wrote, God in Search of Man which implies that God is always looking for those of us who are willing to become an Abraham.
I saw this on a metaphoric level as a paradigm shift in God’s dealing with humanity. God is starting over again. Prior to this, He wanted obedience from Adam and from Noah. Now God seems to want faith from Abraham. Perhaps God believes that if Abraham has strong faith in Him, he will not need so much direction. This is a relationship beginning with humanity, and one that is more mature.
Abraham is also growing. Change is made when you are ready and willing. There is also an element of restlessness. The lyric, “If that’s all there is my friend, then let’s keep dancing” expresses this restlessness exactly.
January 10, 2015 B”H
19 Tevet 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Shemot – Exodus 1:1 - 6:1.
Haftorah - Isaiah 27:6 - 28:13, 29:22 -23.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying: He prefaced his comments with a statement which confessed that he understood that many would not agree with what he was about to say, but he felt compelled to speak.
Mendy began by expressing his anger with God. This is not the first time he has done this recently, and his anger seems to stem from promises not kept. This week, he was referring to the deliberate murders of people in the kosher market in Paris which suggested to me that the anger had to do with some promise of protection that was not forthcoming. I’m not sure if he actually clarified why he was angry, so I’m assuming it had to do with protection.
He indicated that he was more angry over this event than the one the day before where the cartoonists were murdered because of their satyrical treatment of Muslims and the Prophet because the people in the market were targeted exclusively because they were Jews. He aslo alluded to the idea that deliberately going out of one’s way to insult anyone’s religion is not the Jewish way of dealing with conflicts, and though the Torah does not grant the right to free speech, normative Judaism does not condone violence as a response to insult. And certainly, not to murder.
The Torah also does not grant a lot of things that most Western societies offer, and if Mendy is implying that life under a theocratic government based on Torah Law is better, I would have to ask him how that would be different from the Muslim extremists who wish to impose Shiria law on their people and their world? It wouldn’t be, and I would not be willing to live in such a world where Jewish extremist were in charge. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, and is destructive to creative thinking, creativity itself, and the human spirit. I am positive that the Jews who have contributed most to the advancement of civilization, were Jews who allowed themselves to think “outside the box.” Fundamentalism, to me, is a box that may protect those who choose to stay within it, but doesn’t advance civilization.
So called “fences” have been built around preserving Torah law, at the same time that rabbis have been reinterpreting and setting up barriers so that some Torah laws would no longer be enforced as they are written.. The Torah cannot be changed, but we have given ourselves permission to interpret it so it becomes a viable document to guide us as we move through the centuries. There are no such interpretations in Islam of which I am aware that moderates or reinterprets Quranic law, so most will take the mandates contained in the Quran at face value as justification for action. In the most fundamental of Islamic societies, body parts and heads continue to come off, people continue to be stoned to death, and women are held in servitude. While there are barbaric responses to infractions in the Torah by our standards today, we have chosen not to act on them. We do not stone people, burn witches, or murder homosexuals. Barbarity is barbarity whether it’s their barbarity or ours, and if we did find a bonafide Amalakite living among us, I seriously doubt if we would kill him.
The brilliance of America is that the Founding Fathers took the broad concepts and ideals of the Torah, and crafted documents that would enable people to actually put into practice a fair and just society that respected human dignity and law.
Mendy also expounded on the idea that the Torah not only allows but encourages the separation of dissimilar things, and he offered the Sabbath and the rest of the days, dairy and flesh, etc, as examples. Things and ideas that are not alike, should be kept separate, and this he seemed to apply to people as well because when unlike groups with differing value or belief systems come together, there is often conflict.
This requires some thought. I would tend to agree that certain groups should better be kept apart, especially when one group is bent on the destruction of another. Arab Palestinian terrorist who, though living in Israel and bent on its destruction, should be incarcerated for their actions and then expelled to the Gaza. If it is proven that their families encouraged such action, the families should be expelled immediately. If these people are citizens, their citizenship should be revoked.
France, because it believes in multi-culturalism, and desperately trying to separated itself from its colonial image as a imperialist nation (which is frowned upon by other imperialistic nations now embracing Eurocentric Liberalism), has welcomed in and permitted an often hostile minority to set up 700 areas in France under Shiria law that the French police will not enter for fear of their lives.
Sweden, England, Holland, etc. like France, have allowed similar enclaves because they need to see themselves as politically correct and democratic. But they are what they are, and the truth is that their institutional bigotry has not provided these people with access to jobs or means of assimilation, though they will feed, cloth, and house them. Of course, there are thousands or even millions in France and elsewhere who are not interested in assimilation, but in the Islamization of their adopted country. Such people use the democratic values of their adopted governments and national guilt to infiltrate and destroy from within.
When I was in school back in the 40's and 50's, I was taught the myth that America was a melting pot of people from all walks of life, but the reality is that America is a tossed salad of very different people, ideas, proclivities, etc. I am of the opinion that the only thing really binds this disparate group together is a binding silent agreement that the salad dressing that I think is the Constitution. Americans, subconsciously, understand that being an American is being part of something totally unique in human history, and worth the problems that come with living in close proximity to people who are different from you. And they also understand that even with all the problems and tensions among the diverse groups here, it is still the best place to be. I further state that Americans who go over to Arab countries to train as a terrorist or fight with Al-Qaeda, ISSIS, or any other terrorist group, should have their citizenship revoked and not be allowed to reenter the United States. Americans who goes to another country to fight against Americans are traitors and should be treated as such.
Mendy made it very clear that while the newspaper people were murdered because they insulted Islam, the people in the market were murdered solely because they were Jews. They were murdered not because of what they did, but because of who they were.
Some Muslims murder Jews just because they are Jews. These fundamentalist terrorists have been taught the following in the the Quran, Sura 2:6: Here it states “that wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon the Jews, and they were visited with wrath from Allah..., that was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. And for their taking usury, which was prohibited for them, and because of their consuming people's wealth under false pretense, a painful punishment was prepared for them.”
The Quran requires their "abasement and poverty" in the form of the poll tax “jizya.” In his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes, monkeys and swine and idol worshipers because they are "infidels." And while the Quran also attests to Muhammad's
amicable relations with Jews, this is not stressed in the school that teach the hate. The Quran, for those who seek it out, provides holy justification for murdering the infidel Jew with impunity. And if this is the fate for the Jews, it really must stick in their craws the idea that these Jews, destined for second class citizenship, debasement, and death, have beaten them back in several wars and are flourishing in their own homeland. Such success gives the lie to the Quran. Underlying the cause of the conflict in the Middle East is not only Arab nationalism, but Muslim theology not fulfilled.
Mendy suggested that we can fight back by being prouder of our Judaism, and displaying it openly. He suggested that for one Shabbat, we become entirely kosher. He suggested that people wear a kippah. I do believe that he said that the only people who will not support this new behavior will be other Jews. Other people in this country wear all sorts of distinguishing garments that proudly state who they are. Why shouldn’t Jews?
In some way he segued into the relationship between siblings, and opened a dialogue with a question about who is responsible for the relationships between siblings: parents or the siblings themselves?
I think each response was a reflection on the personal experience each had growing up.
I felt parents were responsible by either encouraging or discouraging relationships. You are what you are taught before you go out into the world to see how others do it, but most of our proclivities are ingrained when we are little when you do not have the intellect to make reasonable comparisons. Sometimes we retain these childlike images, and they inform our relationships all our lives if there is no intervention. In dysfunctional homes, children may be pitted against one another so the parent retains his or her role as the center and the one in control. Sometimes the children become pawns in a parental game of chess. Believe it or not, there are parents who may appear to be biological adults but are masking their inner deprived and angry child by pretending to be adults. And these dysfunctional people are raising children. In non- dysfunctional homes, parents are apt to encourage friendship and support among their children.
Mendy told us that he talks to brothers frequently, and share ideas for drushes. He said that his father is at his happiest when Mendy tells him this. This idea of the importance of friendship and communication between siblings, the last point that I recall made, was that we have enough trouble in the work world and in getting along, so wouldn’t it be better to make peace in the family if problems do exist? He invited us rejoice in our siblings accomplishments because with so many people in the world hating us, we can find comfort and security in a loving family.
Congregation M’Kor Shalom: Both rabbis were away, so we were treated to my dear friend Edmond who, because of his age and wisdom, has had bestowed upon him (by myself), the loving title of “Iconoclastic Curmudgeon in Permanent Residence.”
Ed reviewed the Shemot parasha, but not until he had informed us that Genesis is a self contained narrative that has absolutely nothing to do with Exodus (Shemot) or the books following it. In fact, there is considerable argument as to why Genesis should or should not be the first book of the Torah.
I don’t recall if there were an answer to this question, but I certainly see the value of beginning with Genesis. Yes, the Torah is the story of the Jewish People, and like all histories of any people, there is often allusions to origins of a people coming out of a dim past. People have to begin somewhere. Should our history books leave out England because the American People do not begin their journey into history until the British are defeated? Some Native American Totems and stories proudly assert a connection to animal ancestors. All people have origins, and Genesis is our attempt to tell the story of ours. And not only do we learn about the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish People in that book, we learn about our connection to them, and their selection by the God they chose to believe in and follow. Consider any attempt on your own to do a family genealogy. Why bother unless knowing where you are from and who your ancestors were gives you something of value and a connection with history.
But I think there is an additional reason for beginning with Genesis and it has to do with the law. Laws are generally made when someone does something that someone else doesn’t like. I think that all the laws regarding sexuality in Leviticus 18 were created because the things
forbidden by those laws were happening, and the people in charge wanted them to stop so sexual energy might be directed into the marriage bed and the family stabilized. Can’t have a stable society without a stable family. There was probably a narrative that preceded each law in Leviticus 18, and possibly had those narratives been included, more people would read the Bible. There are people who believe that these laws came directly from God, because God was a moral God and did not like immorality. After all, the Noah story is the narrative for destroying an immoral world. There are those who believe that the laws were set down by divinely inspired men who were also moral and knew what society needed to sustain itself. There are those who believe that these laws were just good laws to keep people acting decently. Everyone seems to agree that these laws are good for society no matter who wrote them. But there is a difference between God being the authority behind these laws and men being the authority behind these laws.
Exodus and the books following it posit laws, and I think that Genesis provides the narrative from the lives of those who inhabit that book as well as the lives of those who are contemporary to those people. You shall not do the things that the Egyptians do or that the Canaanites do. That’s my take on the importance and the need for Genesis. In addition, all ancient cultures have in their literature attempts to understand why things are they way they are. The Tower of Babel for instance explains why there are so many different languages on earth. Story of Eve explains why woman give birth in pain and why man must labor in sweat. These are called transformational myths. But whatever you call them, they provide an instructive message.
Ed’s comment were filled with very interesting tidbits of interesting information. We were informed that the first indication of the idea of a separate Hebrew People comes from an inscription using the word “Iparu” which means “dust people.” (I knew about the inscription, but not how it was translated.) The term “task master” was considered to mean someone with a whip. To “task” is a word that also means flog. In Moby Dick, Ahab says, “The whale tasks me.”
My friend Ed is a living font of etymological trivia.
The Israelites who came to Egypt numbered seventy, and a couple of centuries later we are told became a tribe of two million men, women, and children. The fertility of the Jewish People seemed to be central to this narrative with Hebrew women so lively that they had their babies before the midwives could arrive and kill the male children.
Also considered was the city of Armana and the 34 year reign of Amenhotep IV or Ahkenaton, the Pharaoh who instituted a type of monotheism recognizing Aton or Ra as the
only deity to be worshiped. This change of focus angered many Egyptians and put the priests of any other god out of business. He was overthrown, and Armana was totally destroyed. Some scholars believe that Ahkenaton was Moses, and that Moses was not an Israelite, but an Egyptian prince, and all the stories about Moses are fabrications. At the time of this destruction, there are records that the lepers were also driven out of Egypt along with those who followed Ahkenaton. Freud posits a similar idea, but such ideas have been refuted since the advent of modern archeology and technology.
Moses flees to Midian, and marries Zipporah, the daughter of the high priest who worships a god in a volcano. The description in the Torah of Mt. Sinai and what happens during the revelation, is reminiscent of what happens when a volcano is rumbling.
So it seems that what Ed is suggesting is that our ancestors were originally the followers of a monotheistic pharaoh who was killed. His followers fled or were expelled from Egypt by the older establishment along with the lepers which gives us an understanding as to why leprosy figures so prominently as a disease in the Torah. The mixed multitude?
Such scholarship refuting the Exodus narratives and others in the Torah, are part of a body of work begun in the 19th Century to apply science and archaeological finds that will refute Biblical narrative. I have always had a vague suspicion that what became known as the “higher criticism” had at its core an attempt to negate Judaism itself, because by negating the efficacy of the Torah, you also negate the laws of the Torah, the history of the Jewish People, their claim to the Promised Land, and the claim of “Choseness.”
In short, you negate Judaism itself which is founded on these scrolls. But the good Christians scholars involved in this effort at the same time must realize that if the Torah is not true, then Christianity hasn’t a leg upon which to stand, for without the apple and the fall of man because of original sin, there is no need for Jesus’ sacrifice to save humanity. Without the Torah and the life of Moses, the savior of his people, the life of Jesus could not be imagined as savior of the world. With out the Passover, Christian rituals would have no basis or meaning. If these stories are not accepted as true, western religion falls apart. Did those involved in the “higher criticism” have this in mind, or was their purpose only to debunk Judaism?
So while I find it interesting to listen to these theories, I do believe that at the same time their existence is meant to whittle away at the core beliefs upon which Judaism rests. So what are we left with? Pure reason? Intellect devoid of the mystery? Are we happier with just our ethnic memories sans our Torah visions and expectations? What gets passed on if it’s all a fable? What happens to moral law without an authority behind it greater than man made law that are subject to change? Just questions to ponder?
At one point, we discussed the concept of divided loyalties because that was the fear of the Pharaoh. Here, in his land, were a group of strangers who might turn against Egypt in a war. So he enslaves them. This idea of divided loyalties has plagued the Jewish People since the destruction of our homeland because we have been a nation within the nations we have inhabited. We have refused to give up our concept of Peoplehood and Kal Yisroel. Ed mentioned that during the ‘70's, he was asked by someone as to where his loyalty lay between the United States and Israel.
After the French Revolution, the Jews were invited to have all benefits due them as individuals, but not as a nation. They were asked to refute their concept of nationhood. The Jewish People have been unique in that they were a nation in exile, and yet retained their national
identities. We are also a religion and an ethnicity. We are unique among the people of the world in that many of us continue to see ourselves as part of a distinctive nation, The Jewish People, and yet are loyal citizens of many nations. It is a paradox few can understand, and that is why we are suspected of duel loyalties. What they do not understand, is that our first loyalty is to the land in which we live, and at the same time, loyal and supportive to our Jewish brothers and sisters who we consider part of our greater family no matter where they live.
At certain moments in time, there have been those among us who advocate for a universalism that asks us to view the world as our synagogue; that we are to transcend time and space. Ed mentioned something about religion deriving its energy from sameness, and I think he mentioned tribal sameness verses universalism.
Can universalists also become tribal in their sameness?
I am reminded of an idea: “Radical ideas threaten institutions which in turn become institutions which in turn are threatened by radical ideas.” Big circle. “There is nothing new under the sun.” Might holding on to something many think of as eternal give some small sense of comfort in a world where nothing seems to last?
Respectfully submitted,
Labe Chaim
Leonard HowardJanuary 17, 2015 B”H
26 Tevet 5775
WeeklyhTorah Study: Parashas Va-Era – Exodus 6:2- 9:35
Haftorah – Ezekiel 28:25 – 29:21
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by asking how many plagues were visited on Egypt, and knowing that it was ten, I sensed I had to be wrong and he was looking for a different answer. And sure enough, I was both right and wrong, for according to the Orthodox Haggadah, you find that there are three rabbis who argued that there were either 40 or 50 depending on who you agree with. Not using an Orthodox Haggadah, I did not know of that discussion. I have forgotten the names of the first two rabbis who were in this discussion. The third was Rabbi Akiva. The rabbinic discussion had to do with human responses to human actions, and there were three categories given:
• Responses which are superficial responses to whatever was happening.
• Responses based on what was motivating the behavior in another.
• Responses from our essence. (This was Akiva’s contribution.)
Mendy gave specific examples of each, none of which I can recall.
The second rabbi (and here Mendy acknowledged that the Greek philosophers were in sync with our sages) stated that the focus here was on what motivated people to act in the way they did, and that earth, air, fire, and water are the four elements that inform the human temperament and as a result, human response. According to the ancients, every response we have, emotional, physical, or intellectual stems from one of these element, so in effect, we are intellectual, emotionally, and physically bound to these elements.
But Akiva said there is a fifth element, an element that speaks to our essence or identity The Greeks call this ethos. I don’t recall Mendy using a Hebrew term to describe this element. It is this element that truly reveals us to ourselves and to others, and working from this inner core, we engage the world at the highest level at our disposal.
Again, Mendy gave many examples of a variety of decisions and responses and how these are related to the five elements, and at this moment, I cannot recall them. But I assure you, that they were quite on target and relevant. It was very interesting, and I wish I could remember the examples he used with each element to bring it alive.
I do recall him saying that if the essence of a person cannot be changed, then the best way to deal with that person is to distance yourself from that person. He may have related this to what is going on in France right now, and how it would be best for the Jews of France to separate themselves from a place where there is ingrained mindless hatred.
Having gun battles in the streets to bring down Muslim terrorists is one response, and though “superficial” it might be the only way to practically rid yourself of the immediate threat.
The second response is to deal with what motivates the terrorist, looking for the core issues to ameliorate economic and social problems that foster such behavior.
Personally, I’m not one to care much about what is motivating a person to point a gun at me while that person is pointing that gun. People who seek rationales for murderous behavior seem to have a bent on explaining it away and the result is a veiled way of excusing it by giving it validity. In such instances, the murderer’s circumstances or societal conditions become the key factor and not the person himself who has demonstrated no compassion or understanding of the human pain that is multiplied.
The extreme Left Wing are those who seek out “reasons” while the victims lie bleeding to death. While there may be “rationalizations” for murder, there is no rationalization for taking a life because you disagree with a person’s ideas, especially ideas that are politically or religiously inspired. The Talmud teaches: “If a man comes to slay you, slay him first.” Killing someone to protecting your life is different from going out to kill someone because you don’t like what they have to say or how they look.
Jews were not a physical threat to the Nazis, but Jews, by believing that there was a God above governments who demanded correct behavior from people who governed, was a threat to totalitarianism. To kill such a judgmental God idea requires killing the people who hold it. The same now holds for Zionism. It is an idea that radical Islam needs to destroy, and the only way to do it is to destroy the people who believe that Israel must exist. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism whether it espoused by Nazis or radical Muslims. While there are those who claim that Jews are targets because of what they do, the reality is that Jews are targets for what they believe.
The third response is to try to change the person at his core beliefs, so the person becomes different. If this is impossible to do, separation is best.
The textbooks that are printed in Saudi Arabia (America’s ally?) and used in Arab schools all over the world and especially in the disputed territories and Gaza, teach the very youngest to hate Jews and seek their destruction. So how is this to be countered when there is absolutely no attempt to develop a generation that will consider peace or living in peace when the most powerful influences in a child’s life, the views espoused in the home, the views espoused in the schools, and the views espoused in their religious institutions, all sing the same song of hate for the Jews and the destruction of Israel?
Those who hate will never stop hating, and those who seek to destroy Israel, will never stop their efforts. And since there is no way to expel those who would support Israel’s destruction, the only thing I can reasonably see is a two state solution, encourage the haters to migrate to the new entity, and build very high walls between Israel and those who would seek her destruction. Even a two state solution will not bring peace, because this is not about land. This has always been about destroying Israel, a non-Muslim entity in an area of the world that Muslims believe is exclusively theirs.
Another topic of conversation dealt with how we are to respond to the murder of French Jews specifically because they were Jews. Our response should reveal the level of our understanding of Kal Yisroel and to what degree we relate to that concept. Kal Yisroel is a concept that insists that we respond as if the three Jews murdered just because they were Jews were members of our own family. Mendy suggested that we can demonstrate our support by increasing our mitzvot in their memories. He urged us to be more overt in our pride in being Jews by wearing a kipot for a full Shabbat, or being kosher for a day, coming to minyon, or checking to see if our teffilin or mezzuzot on our doors were kosher. He continues to believe that until the Messiah comes to impose order on the chaos, there are things we might do to hasten his arrival.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch began by letting us know that the first important words of the parshah are “I appeared,” reviewed the story of Moses thus far, and focused in on the five times God tells Moses to go, and Mose’s response that he is not the man for the job. Moses cannot understand what God is thinking or why he was chosen, knowing that his first attempt revealed a people who were contentious, not willing to fall in line, and unwilling to believe him. Besides, why send a man who was raised as an Egyptian prince?
Another question asked was “What took God so long to remember?” Depending on who you read, the Jews were in Egypt anywhere from 200 to 400 years. What was God doing?
The problem is is that we have expectations of God based on promises that were made. But the reality is that we are on our time and not on God’s time. There are two translations: “I have now heard...” and “I have also heard... their groans.”
We have no clue as to what God was doing that he didn’t hear the “groans.” He may have been off in another galaxy attending to some major implosions or super novas and temporarily forgot about that little experiment with humanoid free will going on on that insignificant blue dot in another galaxy far far away.
We have created a linear time construct that also recycles back on itself, so that if you were to plot time, it would look like a spiral moving forward. But this is our concept. God exists in His own time which has to be different from ours. God is eternal, and eternity has no concept of Time. In eternity, all exists at the same time. We are dealing here with Existence in eternal and infinite space. That may be why our expectations, which exist in our frame of time reference, are often not met. Our time and God’s time may be out of sync.
God reveals himself to Moses with the name Yud Hay Vov Hay which has at its root the concept of Eternity or Being. When God first revealed himself to the Patriarchs, he was El Shaddai, and we the root of that word is Power. But this second revelation offers us an aspect of God as being pure Being.
At one point the names of Moses’ ancestors appear, tracing his lineage to the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, and specifically showing a direct line to Jacob. Why insert his genealogy now? The answer is clear. Moses’ authority must be established, and it is important to show that Moses is a direct descendant of Levi. This genealogy connects Moses directly to leadership, to Abraham, and therefore, to God. In effect, this connection gives Moses “cred.” The Covenant is now with the People, and the people need a leader with established bonafides.
Since we are all descendants of Abraham, we are all connected to God. Nice thought.
From a historical perspective, Moses could have been an Egyptian, but history has nothing to do with it. We do not look to the historicity of the story, but to the meaning of the story. We don’t ask if it happened, but we ask what does it mean?
The Torah must be viewed as a document of ideas and of behaviors to be fathomed at different levels. So it matters that it is historically accurate only to those who cannot fathom it as a document that is so much more than a book of stories about a particular people and their ascent in history. As I said in an earlier commentary, the authors of the “higher criticism” and those who revel in it, are people who are looking at our Torah as an actual sequential record of a particular people’s history. But was the Torah ever meant to be viewed that way? Sadly, this
history and the God of these people, were adopted by the wider culture who also based their own faiths on this narrative and this God. I agree that subconsciously, the followers of these newer faiths have never forgiven us for being the source of what they see as the restrictions placed upon them by their own religious systems that grew out of ours.
At the same time, the questions was asked as to why Moses was raised in the palace. The answer was that only an education given to a prince of Egypt could give him the experiences he would need to become the inspired leader he had to be.
A good leader has to know military strategy, have skills at being a quarter master, have some judicial know how, some logistical skills, etc. An illiterate slave making bricks all day would not have such skills. Big picture plan.
God speaks to Moses with a seemingly different focus. When God first spoke to the Patriarchs and stated the Covenant, it was about fertility and about making their descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky or the sands on the shore. But now, God is not talking specifically about family, but of People. God’s promise was fulfilled. They were so numerous, Pharaoh was threatened by them. Now, the nature of the story is changing. Abraham’s family has become the People of Israel that Moses is charged with the task of leading them out of Egypt.
Another change in focus comes with several descriptions of how the people are feeling, and how Moses is feeling. This focus on emotional response is new in the Torah.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
January 24, 2015 B”H
4 Shevat 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Exodus - Parashas Bo – 10:1 - 13:16
Haftorah - Jeremiah 46:13 - 28
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy referred us to the end of the parasha and the final line: “And it shall be a sign upon your arm, and an ornament between your eyes, for with a strong hand HASHEM removed us from Egypt.”
Mendy devoted his entre drush to the mitzvahs of putting on Teffilin or phylacteries each morning, but not on the Sabbath or on holidays. His first question to us was why not on holidays or on the Sabbath, and I, having been told by another authority elsewhere, replied that it was because we are not to mix mitzvahs. I was applying what I had been taught about why you can’t have a wedding on Shabbat to his question. Mendy’s response was immediate, dismissing my comment by saying that he “mixes mitzvot all time.”
This response reaffirmed a previous learning that Mendy can be abrupt if you have not guessed what he is thinking. To me, my reasoning was on target. Happily, I don’t take these small discounts personally.
The request to bind something on your arm and wear something between your eyes which we now call the mitzvah of Tefillin, is enjoined upon us four times in the Torah. Connected to this Torah request, he followed by referring to three observances that act as identifiers of a Jewish male: Observing the Sabbath, putting on Tefillin, and Brit Milah. One needs not do all three, so if you are observing the Sabbath, you do not need to put on Tefillin. That’s the reason. Of course, a Jewish male is perpetually identified as a Jew by virtue of the Brit Milah, so one identifier is always there. And since two out of three is required, and one is always there, Sabbath observance fulfills the requirement on that day, and Tefillin observances fulfills the requirement on the other six days of the week. So one key reason to put on Tefillin is to reinforce your identity as a Jewish male on the days that are not the Sabbath. He also taught that the head Tefillin and the hand Tefillin are two separate mitzvahs and putting on the one and not the other etc., etc, ... became too much information to remember.
Tefillin are outward symbols of an inner dynamic that is going on in the head and in the heart. There is a day set aside where men all over the world will be putting on Tefillin at the same time. I just may involve myself in that mitzvah.
Judaism incorporates many symbols as a short hand to learning and remembering. Each symbol may be there to remind us of our value system, our theology, and our history. And everyone of these symbols speaks to us as a reminder of who we are and what is expected of us.
If you know how to read the Sabbath table, you can read the history of the Exodus there, and when a father blesses his children and blesses the bread, he symbolically assumes the role of priest with the power to bless and give sustenance. The same reminders are there on the Passover table, and in the Succah rituals. The mazuzah on each door is also a symbolic reminder of God and His expectations, as is the choice three times a day to choose Kashruth.
The Exodus story, while a story about slaves who became free, is also a story about a God who is revealing himself in history and letting the world know that He is all Powerful and totally in charge. This is a God who can bring on plagues that will destroy and kill. This is a God who demands obedience. This is a God who controls nature and can bend people to His will as he does with Pharaoh.
I do recall that in the Tefillin on the head, there are four compartments that while appearing to be one, are really divided to keep what they contain separate. Into each compartment is a small scroll containing four Torah passages; the first two passages of the Shema, which recognizes God as the only God, and speaks to our responsibility to observe God’s
commandments. The two other scrolls from this parsha in the box speak about the Exodus and our responsibilities to God. The box that we place on our arm has only one scroll, and I don’t recall if he mentioned what was written on that scroll.
But I do recall that the he said that these principles must always be with us as reminders to dedicate our mind, our heart, and our arm, and hand to the service of God. The box that goes near the heart contains only one scroll, perhaps because the heart needs to focus. The heart is the seat of passion and desire. The heart is not easy to control, and the bindings that continue down the arm and onto the hand are symbolic of the need to control the heart’s desires. It takes extra energy and extra focus to control the heart’s passions.
While our hearts are our emotional center, the brain is our intellectual center, and our thoughts can move from scroll to scroll and contemplate the expectations written on each. But when considering the heart, we must remain focused, and for us to do that, there can be only one scroll with one commandment.
The messages in the tefillin are basic to our understanding of Judaism and to our understanding of what Judaism asks us to believe. The passages all come from Exodus, because it is in Exodus that God demonstrates his Power to subdue all other gods, kings, and nature. God is God, and in total control. You don’t mess around with this God.
In the early 70's, when I returned to some degree of observance, I learned how to put on Tefillin, and I liked saying each day that I would “betroth myself to God in righteousness, in justice, in kindness, and in mercy...” I had returned to the Judaism of my early years, the years where I never doubted what the rabbis taught me, and fully believed that the Torah was given in its entirety on Sinai. That faith taught that sincere prayer was heard and answered. And so I prayed with all the kavanah I could muster at that time God would sustain the lives of two infants in grave danger. But the infants died, and being emotionally immature, I became angry with God, and stopped putting on Tefillin. I’ll show Him! But now that I am a more mature adult who has come to a very different understanding of what God is and what I can expect, I may consider putting Tefillin on again as Mendy asked us to do because I see this act as a reminder of how I am to behave in this world. Personally, I don’t think I need such daily reminders, but Tefillin is a universal activity, much like Sabbath observance. All over the world, Jews are lighting candles, blessing bread, wine, and children. Participation in Shabbat helps one to be part of something universal and special. Tefillin might have the same unifying effect of belonging to something great. Shabbat and Tefillin connect me to my people.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch began by reviewing the past plagues, and responded to the question as to why the slaves just didn’t get up and leave. That led to a lengthy discussion about the ties that bind, family, culture, provisions provided to the slaves, a sense of security, and the collective mind set of a slave mentality. For most of us, the images in the film, Ten Years a Slave, informs us of the brutality of slavery. Certainly, there was brutality from the task masters. We were informed that there were different kinds of slavery. Chattel slavery (Hebrew type)is that form of slavery where one person asserts ownership over another person’s body, while couve slavery (sounded like that and couldn’t find it in the dictionary) was an obligation to provide physical labor to the state for a time and then go back home. There was of course indentured servants, as well as other forms of servitude in the ancient Middle East.
Many Jews are shocked and ashamed to learn that our ancestors did own slaves and indentured servants, and it is difficult for some to align this history with our current value system, but we really don’t have to do that. That was then and this is now. We should not bare guilt. Italians do not berate themselves for being descended from Romans who threw people to the lions for sport, crucified people, and gleefully watched gladiators tear one another apart. If we were still slave holders, then we could berate ourselves, but not today. Jews lived in the ancient world and held views that were acceptable then. But Judaism has evolved, and now we see that holding slaves denies the concepts of freedom and justice. And because of these value concepts, Jews have generally been in the forefront of movements that have brought about justice and freedom. Consider the Labor Movement, Suffragette Movement, the Women’s Rights Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, to name a few. The Torah is a time capsule of a life and society that flourished millennia ago. They were our ancestors, and we should not feel ashamed for that ancient society. We are who we are today because, separate from the wider society in which they lived, they had a great deal to teach us about being human.
We considered our own situations; the socio-economic and psychological conditions in our own lives that have kept us and continue to keep us from leaving where we are to go to a place we might want to go. Certainly, after being in Egypt between 200 and 420 years, the people didn’t think they had any place to go, so why leave? They had the “flesh pots” of Egypt, and roofs over their heads. Goshen was home, and the world outside of Egypt was hostile and uninviting. But Joseph’s prophesy and request to have his bones taken out when they left, indicated that there was something of a collective memory.
Why did the Hebrews merit being let out? There is a midrash about the men divorcing their wives so no more male children would be killed, but Miriam berated them because then girls would not have been born. The men remarried their wives. Marital chastity among the people was the first reason for meriting being freed. The second was that the Hebrews did not worship idols in all the years that they were there, and the third was that they continued to give their children Hebrew names, and that kept us connected.
When the parsha opens, seven plagues had already happened, and Pharaoh is willing to negotiate. One translation of the word “Bo” is “Go to” or “Go into Pharoah,” and another translates it as “Come to Pharoah.” But it can also mean “Enter before Pharoah.” What’s the difference?
By using “Go,” Moses is being given a purpose. He is going to warn Pharaoh. “Entering” has a psychological component. We also considered the way God reveals Himself at this time. His intent is to make a mockery of Pharaoh as a living god and a mockery of the Egyptian pantheon. Both have a purpose.
God’s purpose is to establish His bonafides once and for all, even to the Hebrews because even people who believe sometimes are not perfect in their faith. And God seems to involve Himself directly in the last three plagues. Prior to these last plagues, Pharaoh seemed to have hardened his own heart, but now it is God who “hardens” or “strengthens” Pharaoh’s heart so he will not let the people go. God’s behavior is often explained away by saying that a person can become so entrenched in his or her own ego, that eventually, they cannot do anything other than justify or satisfy their own needs. But the reality is that God admits that He is doing this for a specific reason, and that reason has more to do with God proving that this is His world than it has to do with Pharaoh’s ego.
God’s behavior presents us with a challenge because not only do God’s actions challenge our notions of free will, but such an action challenges our notion of a benevolent God of Justice. How can God justify condemning and punishing someone whom God Himself has caused to behave in a particular way? But God is God, and He can do whatever He wants to do. The whole point that God is making here is that He is establishing his total control and power over events in history and in the lives of the people. This is a God with whom one does not trifle.
This is full confrontation revealing a tangible problem on a metaphoric level. Simply stated, this story is also a struggle between monotheism and paganism. In this contest, the Divine God will win over earthly gods.
When we returned to the text, I suggested that leadership was a key factor in their leaving because such an Exodus depended on the emergence of someone who could coalesce a disparate group into a focused unity. Moses was such a man, having been raised and educated in the Pharaoh’s palace; a man, though initially feeling inadequate and not up to the task, never the less had the latent courage and skills that would raise him up to that challenge.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim January 31, 2015 B”H
11 Shevat 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Exodus - Be-Shallack-Shirah–Exodus 13:17 - 17-16.
Haftorah – Judges 4:4 - 5:31.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy reviewed the parshah, and then informed us that he had been to visit the grave of the sixth Rebbe, Rabbi Schenerson’s father-in-law on the occasion of the man’s yhertziet. Mendy spoke about each generation having one particular leader who was so far beyond everyone else in wisdom and understanding, that no one could fathom his depth. I do think he said that each of the Lubovitcher Rebbes were such leaders in their generations.
He then waxed mystical and referred to the Kabalistic concept of God in the world at creation, and then Adam’s disobedience as the start of the first of the next seven generations that drove God away. I think he did this to connect God in the world with the righteous leadership that arises in each generation that lets God know that we are still marching forward, and that He is still worshiped and needed. Perhaps that people continuing to be righteous despite God hiding is what keeps God interested in us.
Noah must have been such a man. Certainly we are told that he was the best in his generation. Abraham was born six years before the death of Noah according to commentators, so a new generation, the generation that will bring God back into the world, begins with him. I suppose that seven generations after the death of Abraham (or is it Joseph?) Moses appears in history as the leader of that generation. Subsequently, we have Joshua, the Prophets, the Rabbis of the Talmudic Period, then such men as the Bal Shem Tov, The Alta Rebbe, and so on down to The Rebbe. And now we are told we are leaderless, but I’m not so sure of that. Is Mendy telling us that there is not one person in all of Chabad who is not worthy of assuming the mantle and title of Rebbe? Are they all too humble, like Moses, to believe he is capable of continuing the Rebbe’s work? Why not have a conclave like they have to select the Pope. Gather the wisest, the most accomplished Lubavitcher Chassids, and let them put up for election the names of worthy men who have proven their leadership skills and devotion to the Movement. Let votes be taken until one is selected. Let a new dynasty begin. I know such a man, the most humblest and most self effacing of them all. But knowing how modest this man is, he would not forgive me if I suggest that he allow himself to stand for this position.
I wonder if they have not done this because such an action would generate so much dissension among the faithful, (after all, they are men and men can be petty) that it would destroy the Movement itself. So is Chabad Lubavitch to remain leaderless from now on? Who will be the righteous leader in the next generation? Might we look outside a religious group for such leadership?
Mendy then directed our attention to a passage that read, “Pharaoh will say of the Children of Israel, ‘They are imprisoned in the land, the Wilderness has locked them in.’” The issue raised dealt with the word “of” as being mistranslated from the Hebrew. The Hebrew reads “to,” and that raises the following problem: To whom is he speaking if the Children of Israel left? Now here is where the commentators get involved. Mendy said that there were evil Jews among the Israelites, and two of them were named Dathan and Abiram. It is to these two men that Pharaoh is speaking. According to the rabbis, these were the two men who were fighting and threatened to
tell that Moses killed the Egyptian, and these two men acted as taskmasters over the people much like the Jewish capos in the concentration camps, kept the Jews in line so they might garner favor from the Nazis and live. These two appear in the Korach rebellion which begs the question: If they did not leave Egypt, how can they appear in the Book of Numbers?
It would seem that in some midrash, these evil men accepted being whipped at one point in the narrative for the sake of the Jews, and that indicated that though they had moved away from their people, there was a small spark of Yiddishkeit that could be ignited. The fire of the Jewish soul is always there ready to burst back into flame. The soul’s fire may be dim, but it is never out. So Dathan and Abiram accompanied Pharaoh to the sea, and because of this prior act of kindness, they were permitted to join the others. Mendy also said that about 80% of the Jewish slaves died in Egypt because they were evil themselves or because they were not ready for the commitment it would take. This story is based on one word that has at its root the concept of 1/5th. Don’t recall the word.
The final teaching had to do with us collectively taking the leadership that would cause the Messiah to appear. Each of us has the ability and obligation to move out into the world and bring Yiddishkeit and goodness.
A number of years ago, the Reconstructionist Movement posited the idea that the Messiah
will be humankind acting collectively to bring about a better world. Their concept does not include a physical being, but the results of people acting for the betterment of others. And if enough people act this way, the world will change for the better. The first time I witnessed what I call a Messianic Moment came with the Civil Rights marches on Washington, and the Great Society Legislation that followed. Another was Live Aid where musicians here and in Europe got together to raise money for food to be sent to Africa. It was televised all over the world. Farm Aid followed. Remember “We Are The World?” These I see as Messianic Moments and give us a hint of what acting collectively can do to benefit others. Today, there are little possibilities that can push the process along. Passage of a law that calls for equal pay for equal work, raising the minimum wage so that those at the lower social and economic levels might enjoy a better life, or the end to human trafficking, might be counted small Messianic Moments that would add up to something really Big.
I cannot think of an age where Jews have not prayed for the Messiah to come to impose order on the chaos in which we live. Christians do the same, and yet, neither their Messiah nor ours has appeared either for the first or second time. There are events that will take place once the Messiah arrives, set out in Isaiah, and they’re all very good. And I suspect that there are expectations set down somewhere that have to be achieved for the Messiah to first appear. Obviously, genocide and massive destruction of earth’s resources are not required for the Messiah since there have been plenty of those and still no Messiah. Perhaps only good things must happen first. I therefore must confess, that while the concept of a man who will appear to “make the crooked straight, and the bumpy smooth,” and turn everyone to Zion, are beautiful ideas that fills us with hope, I have to confess that I’m more of a Reconstuctionist in this, believing that humanity, acting in concert, will bring about something akin to a Messianic Age. Since we are humanity, it is up to us to make the world as good a place as we can, and Mendy is saying that we can do this easily by bringing kindness, hope, and Yiddishkeit to others. Perhaps that is one of the reasons I send this out weekly. It’s my way of bringing Yiddishkeit and stirring souls.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel began by reviewing the parshah and asking why the song that the Israelites sing at the sea is written in the way it appears in the Torah. It was suggested that poetry is written this way, and one commentator suggest that it appears this way because the broken lines of words appearing one on top of the other, look like bricks stacked to remind us of where we were.
She then asked three questions: “What does God do for you?” Answers followed:
God gives us courage, God sustains us, God is a source of energy, God sets out expectations for our behavior, God sets standards, and God becomes the authority behind moral law, were offered.
The second question was, “What bolsters your faith?” The responses had to do with gratitude, reading God’s word, and getting up each day.
The final question was, “What causes doubt?” When bad things happen to good people, the state of the wider world, and the terrible relationships that exists between and among the nations of the world.
When the Israelites see the Egyptians bearing down on them, their first instinct is to pray even though they really don’t know this God at all. They have seen the plagues, but belief that God will protect them is not forthcoming, and they immediately turn against Moses. Our human instinct is to reach out, and then to blame. God is bothered that they do not see, believe, or trust His involvement. God doesn’t give us very much slack for our imperfections.
Why is God annoyed or even surprised by human response to Him? He encountered this early on in the Garden, and then when humanity stepped into corruption, resulting in their watery destruction.
So God tells Moses to start walking and raise his staff. In effect, God is coaching Moses to become a leader. Moses must be taught to do this. Moses, throughout the Torah, often seems reluctant to act on his own either because he lacks confidence, doesn’t believe that he can bring about change by his own words of deeds, or just isn’t very imaginative.
And here once again we were reminded of a midrash about Nachshon ben Amidi who took it upon himself to walk into the water till it was above his nose. Nachshon, though not in the Biblical account, remains one of my favorite characters. It was his faith that either God would do something, or his realization that he had better do something himself that moved him to act. It was only when Nachshon took action then that the water parted. The message is clear. You can pray all you want, but you’d better be ready to act on your own. You can pray that the Messiah (or the Messianic Age) will come, but what are you doing to bring that event about?
Children need to learn how to walk, and they can’t if they are constantly being held up. They must fall. Children can only ride a bike when the parent lets go of the seat and allow them to ride on there own. God has shown his power, has given them freedom, and now they have to walk or ride on their own. At least, that’s how God thought it would be.
Forty-five days later, they are grumbling again because the water is bitter, but this time they don’t call upon God, but turn their anger directly against Moses and Aaron. Though they were slaves in Egypt, everything was still handed to them meaning that there were the flesh pots,
fresh water, and roofs over their heads. Now, they are suddenly free and don’t know how to handle it. They have no sense of personal responsibility so they blame others for their condition.
Some clamor to return to being slaves. Slavery is comfortable at a certain level. Slavery frees you from thinking and being responsible for yourself. It’s almost like what we now describe as the Stockholm Syndrom. They must have thought freedom was easy. The challenge is to learn to exchange dependency on others for independence and faith in God.
I am of the opinion that not much thought was put into this project. God decides to finally hear the people’s groaning after a few centuries, and sends Moses to free them. It would seem
that part of God’s plan is to wreak havoc on Egyptian gods and the Pharaoh to prove His power. While freeing the Hebrews may have been God’s initial goal, I really think that it became
secondary after a while. God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart gave me the clue. Lots of thought given to the plagues and their intended consequences, but little to what happens when you suddenly have thousands upon thousands of men, women, children, animals, hangers on, etc. to deal with in a wilderness.
No wonder Moses is beside himself. These people are mega complainers and Moses has no clue himself as to how to deal with them. Remember, he didn’t want the job in the first place. And God always seems annoyed with Moses for bothering Him and most often, His solution for dealing with the Hebrews is to destroy them. It’s almost as if God did His thing, and now wants to be off to create another universe, but He is tied down to these people because of a promise made to their ancestors.
It is also possible that the reason they turn against Moses is the same reason non-Jews have wreaked havoc on Jews for centuries. Jews came along with their moral law and their God, and these were both accepted and adopted by the wider society in which the Jews lived. The constrictions placed upon these happy pagans caused a deep seated resentment, and since you can’t be angry at the God they gave you and you accepted, you can be angry at the people who gave you this God and His law.
Life in the wilderness is tough for both Moses and the Israelites, and God’s next test comes with the Manna. They are to take only what is needed for each day, and have faith that there will be food that will be given tomorrow. In Egypt they knew that the next day there would be food provided by the Egyptians, but now they have to learn to face themselves, their fears, and how to believe that God will follow through
Mitzraim or Egypt is translated as “narrow places.” The Israelites came out of these narrow places and are suddenly in the open wilderness and free. How should they react? How would we?
Prisoners who spend decades in jail and are freed, often do not function on the outside because they no longer have the security of being directed each moment of their lives. Freedom might terrify such a person. The recidivism rate is high for many.
This story is relevant to our own lives, and we can read ourselves into it. We all have our own narrow places, and from time to time we have also wandered in our own personal wildernesses.
The story of our ancestors mirrors the development of a human being. When they leave Egypt, you might say they are toddlers. They need to learn how to walk. They fall. They make mistakes. But this is how children grow and learn. It will take forty years before they achieve something akin to adulthood that earns them the right to enter the Promised Land. What we have here is the beginning of a society, and a community must learn to look out for one another or it will not succeed. Trust must be established, and people must learn to work together.
We ended the session by reading about Moses once again going to God to complain that the people want water and he doesn’t know what to do. God tells Moses to strike the rock so the water will come out, and the people will be mollified. This he does.
I don’t know if Moses ever decides that he has the power to take the initiative and do something without asking God for help. The staff he carries has miraculous powers. It became a serpent, it parted the Sea of Reeds, and now it brought forth water from the rock. Did it never occur to Moses that being God’s messenger, he could have used the staff in God’s stead and
drawn forth water because he believed he could? Is that what God wanted Moses to do? To act in His stead? To be a leader with some initiative? Or perhaps not, because the next time Moses has to provide water for the people, God tells him to speak to the rock, but Moses, in his anger, strikes the rock. By doing this, God says that Moses’s action did not give God His rightful honor and because of this slight, Moses, would therefore would not be permitted to enter the promised land. Give me a break! How much “honor” does God need? Is he still not use to human mistakes or excesses?
Metaphorically, the children were now grown, and their parent was to die. But if any person deserved to enter that land, it was Moses. It should have be his tangible reward for taking on a job that he did not want, for doing it for forty years, and for giving up his own family and personal happiness to lead these people. And we don’t even know where he is buried so we can put a pebble on his grave.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
February 14, 2015 B”H
25 Shevat 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Mishpatim-Shekalim – Exodus 21:1 - 24:18; 30:11-16
Haftorah - II Kings 12:1 - 17.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by telling us that this parsha is filled with commandments, and that he was going to concentrate on two or three.
But before we got to the laws, Mendy referred us to very end of the parasha where Moses returns to the people with the law, reads it to them, and the entire congregation responds with one voice: “All the words that Hashem has spoken, we will do.” The second time this sentence appears only a few lines later, it ends with “we will do and we will obey.” I do believe he said that this response on the part of the people then, and our people’s willingness to do and obey throughout the centuries, is why Yiddishkeit has lasted over the two and one half millennia.
The repetition seems superfluous, and I’m wondering if when the Torah was written down, this repetition reflects two traditions.
Doing the mitzvot before understanding it may seem strange, especially because there are several commandments that we cannot understand and seem illogical. Yet we do them because God asked us to do them. Logic has little to do with faith.
Faith may be illogical yet satisfying on the soul level of existence, and that is why people continue to have faith. I’m thinking of those people who do not mix certain fabrics because there is a law in the Torah saying that we must not do that. There is no logic to this law, yet people act upon it. But there are other commandments that we perform where reasons are given, and yet whose true and hidden meanings are revealed only when we absorb them into our lives over a period of time by doing them. Remembering the Sabbath and keeping it separate, and remembering that we were once slaves in Egypt, are two where reasons for observance and recalling are given, but not fully understood until a person actually attempts to remember and do.
I confess I am limited in my understanding because I do not know Torah Hebrew or Hebrew word analysis. “Do” I can understand, but the word translated as “obey” causes me a problem. Mendy spoke of “doing” as leading to “understanding.” But the word that should have been translated as “understand” is translated as “obey.” These two words are very different. It would seem that “doing” and “obeying” are similar, while “doing” and “understanding” are not.
Mendy made the case for the need to move from doing to understanding. Doing can become rote, and appearing to believe because you do something by rote is not “faith.” Faith in God comes only when we understand and understanding is an intellectual activity. In addition to faith, there must be mind. He then referred us to the symbolism of the Tefillin, and how this is the physical manifestation of doing with understanding. The box on our heads symbolize our mind’s understanding and dedication to God’s Will. The box next to our hearts is symbolic of our emotional connection to God and His creation, and the straps on our arm, hand, and fingers are symbolic reminders of how we are to extend our minds and hearts into the world to make it a better place and to treat those we meet with integrity and compassion.
He then went into specific commandments, and made a point of how a lack of understanding Judaism has brought others to believe that Judaism is a religion of harsh laws while Christianity is a religion of love.
To make this clear, he directed us to the so called “eye for an eye...” ruling. Judaism is a faith that is based on interpretation of law, and it is clear from the Talmud, that this example always meant monetary restitution for the injured person. No Jewish court ever mandated blinding, burning, or maiming a person as a retaliation for an injury. The commentators explain that human courts have no other recourse but to demand monetary payment for such injuries because they do not have the authority to do more. The rabbis comment that if this perpetrator were put on the Heavenly Scales, he would deserve to lose his eye or hand. It is written in the Torah the sages say because the ruling reflects what would happen in a Heavenly Court.
This of course doesn’t speak kindly of the Heavenly Court which would seem far more punitive than the earthly court. This idea of interpretation to rationalize away something that doesn’t go with the reality of what is there, is used my other faiths. Most notably, is Christianities’ interpretation of the Second Coming. Isaiah sets out specific criteria for what will happen when the Messiah comes. Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but when the Jews looked out of the window and saw that nothing in the world had changed and therefore rejected Jesus as the Messiah, the Church declared that all of Isaiah’s predictions happened in heaven, and that Jesus would return a second time, and all the predictions would happen on earth. It would seem that we reinterpret events to reflect our needs.
It is interesting to note that the Torah contains many laws that also appear in the older Code of Hammurabi which was the law governing Mesopotamia. The Patriarchs were governed by these laws as were future generations of our ancestors. But while similar, these laws become far more evolved and humanized in the Torah. For example, there is a literal interpretation of the so called “eye for an eye” law.
In the Code, if a builder builds a house and the owner’s son falls off the roof and dies, the builder’s son is put to death. But there is an adaptation of that law in the Torah that calls for a roof having some sort of railing around it, so no one falls to his death. In the Torah, an escaped slave must not be returned to his master, but in the Code, he must returned and be severely punished. Oddly, there was a Supreme Court decision that declared that a run away slave must be returned. Slaves could also go free if the master knocked out a tooth or an eye. How different it was and continues to be in places where there is still slavery. How far advanced were our ancestors in human decency. Finally, the Code lists all the different punishments which were meted out depending upon your status, but the Torah states that there shall be one law for the stranger and the home born. Even a rich man was to be put to death for murder.
The Torah is the model for true equal justice for all under the law. The ancient Romans did not know of this concept, and British System only came to it in the 19th Century. It is a great shame that Western Civilization does not give credit where it is due, and does not recognize the Torah as a foundational document to civilized society.
Mendy said that the real translation of the Hebrew is “eye under eye,” There was a detailed explanation as to what the etymology involved here was, but I don’t recall it. But I do recall that he said that to one person, artist or craftsman, an eye is worth more than it would be worth to a field worker who may not need both. A person who uses his hands to make a living may need the hand more than a person who uses his voice.
This may seem odd or even cruel to make such assumptions, but that is probably what happens in courts of law where compensation is assigned. Such discussions are recorded in our Talmud, and I imagine that the study of legal procedures might be modeled on such Talmudic conversations.
One law that was not discussed but one that I found particularly appropriate for our time was the law “And a stranger you shall not oppress seeing you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” In my Law, Values, and Morality course, I used this law as the ethical principle undergirding the rational for not taunting or molesting people who are strangers or new to your school just because they are different. Ethical principles lead to values which lead to behaviors. If you need a reason for not bullying the new kid on the block, the Torah gives you one. Such a law should be on the walls of all religious schools. If kids who claim to be religious cannot be expected to follow such a Biblical law, they are missing the point of their faith, and someone in authority should point that out to them. Taunting or oppressing a stranger, or just someone who is different, is just not Yiddishkeit or the Jewish way of doing things.
The last law Mendy referenced was, “Distance yourself from a false word.” This of course has to do with lying, but the focus of his comments were not so much as you hearing the “false word,” but what you will do with that information. If you choose to relate “false words” to others, you cannot be guaranteed that they will not fall into sin based upon what you said. How many times in real life and in fiction based on real life, has someone done something terrible based on what they believed was true because someone they trusted told them so. If you give false information, the sin that may result from someone acting on what your related , is not only theirs, but also yours. You have led them into sin. Other than breaking the prohibition against evil gossip, you have figuratively “placed a stumbling block in front of a blind man.”
He concluded with the admonition to break stereotypes and show kindness.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
February 21, 2015 B’H
2 Adar 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Terumah - Exodus 25:1 - 27:19.
Haftorah - II Kings 12:1 - 6:13.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by informing us that many rabbis will find other topics upon which to speak when faced with the architectural and design demands expounded upon in Terumah, but he felt that the parshah contained hidden wealth, and he would explore just one. He then referred us to the opening lines: Speak to the Children of Israel and let them take for Me a portion, from every man whose heart motivates him you shall take My portion. This is the portion that you shall take from them: gold, silver, and copper...”
He raised the idea of why the words “take for Me” and “not bring to me,” and then expounded on Rashi’s interpretation that “take for Me” had to do with intent of the action, and how crucial the intent of the action was for it to be a whole hearted mitzvah and “earn you points.” The people had taken the spoils of Egypt, and the tabernacle had to be built. Materials were needed, and God specified what was needed and said that only the materials to be used should be taken from those whose hearts were in the giving.
I think there is an element of gratitude involved here that is not mentioned. There are those who have a great deal, and there are those who have little. It would seem to me that a small gift from a person with little but has a full heart, is dearer to God than a large gift from a rich man given grudgingly. But that may be the way it is between God and man, but ask a fund raiser which gift he’d prefer, and I’m sure it would be the one from the reluctant giver that would furnish the sanctuary of the new building. Perhaps the poorer man with the open heart may have a seat closer to God in heaven, but the one with the big bucks in this world is the one who will have a seat at the eastern wall in that sanctuary.
The root of the word, “charity” comes from the French root referring to the heart. Our word for tzedakah finds its root in the Hebrew, righteousness. As I’ve written before, people need to be fed, housed, and clothed, and as far as Jews are concerned, those asking for tzedakah don’t care and maybe shouldn’t care about whether or not the giver’s heart is in it. There are stingy people in the world, and people still need help with basic needs. Let God care about the openness of the heart; we need to care about the openness of the wallet. It has always amazed me that the Jewish people are stereotyped as being cheap and tightfisted when the reality is that as a group we are third in giving behind United Fund and Red Cross. Not bad for a fraction of the American population. As a distinct People, we are the most generous group on earth. Stereotypes take a long time to die, and reality as to the truth of the stereotype has little to do with anything.
Though Rashi said that the intent of the action was crucial to God, I think Mendy said that the Halachah, rabbinic law, saw things in a different light. As an example, he referred to three mitzvot that had to be done where intent was not to be considered: Giving charity was the first, attending the mikvah was the second, and I cannot recall the third. Someone asked if our mandated law of circumcision was performed in a hospital by a doctor was acceptable as fulfilling
that mitzvah, and Mendy said it was not because the intent was not to bring the child into the Covenant. Certainly the child is circumcised, but if the child wanted to convert, he would have to have a drop of blood taken. There were several important points made, but I do not recall them. I do recall Mendy saying that while Chabad does not ask for traditional dues from those who attend, people are still quite generous. Chabad is the giver, and we are the takers. And grateful takers feel they want to give back. It’s a give and take relationship, and because there are no expectations to give, giving comes from the heart.
I can see the comradery each time I walk into the building. There is an intimacy that one feels immediately, and one need not be concerned about his or her level of observance. Mendy and Dinie are both charismatic, accessible, and their dedication to Yiddishkeit in all its ramifications, and to the congregants is unquestionable.
I do recall a discussion of the “giver’ and the “taker” in relationship to this whole idea of charity. Mendy said that the reason a person who is in the “taking role” must not feel badly, is that he has been assigned that role by God as much as the “giver” has been assigned his role. Mendy made it clear that there is a mitzvah in taking as well as in giving.
Had I known that as a child, I would not have felt so bad asking my parents for money.
I immediately thought of the line from Fiddler where Tevyeh says to God: “There is no great shame in being poor, but there is no great honor either.” I have a problem with this idea that your poverty is because God put you in it for a reason. Such an idea flies in the face of one of the great Jewish principles that states that because something is, it doesn’t mean that it must always be that way. By accepting the role of being poor because God wants you to be poor so one who is cast in the role of giver might prove his generosity, goes against Free Will. We were once slaves, and we decided to change our situation proving that nothing in the social world need be permanent. We proved that by leaving Egypt. Rulers have always maintained that the status quo was supported by God, and if your father was a day laborer, you had to be a day laborer. The Jews said that that was nonsense. Yet here we have the idea that God wants some people to be poor because the world needs takers. I don’t buy it. The circumstances into which a person is born has more to do with decisions made in that person’s family history than it has to do with God. Sorry Mendy.
The question was raised by a congregant about those people who take when they do not need to take, and Mendy made no bones about his answer. Such people, he said, were thieves. He related a story about such a man who would stand in line waiting to receive a dollar from the Rebbe. The Rebbe’s purpose was to give out a dollar, and have it matched by the receiver who would then give two or more to the poor. This one man took money from those giving with a full heart, and was later discovered to be a man of wealth. This man was a thief. I do believe that some referred to people who claim workers compensation when they are fit to work or welfare when they are only playing the system. Such people are also thieves.
I know that Yiddishkeit enjoins on all Jews the obligation of giving tzedakah, so I asked Mendy whether or not one pauper exchanging coins with another pauper, satisfied that mitzvah. He said it did. I could just imagine a pauper in the shtetle going over to another one and saying, “Sholmo, here’s a kopec for you.” “Thank you, Myer,” the begger replies, “and here is one for you, also.” What a rich tradition!
Mendy finished with the three types of offering God wanted: gold, silver, and copper.
Each of the metals is highly symbolic. Gold means that the person servitude giving with a full heart. Silver means that the person is giving, but his giving may be motivated by fear or shame. The third, the copper, is symbolic of someone who doesn’t want to give at all, and gives only on his death bed hoping to buy his way into heaven. According to tradition, all are acceptable.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: The Chairperson of the Education Committee took over this week because both rabbis had business out of the state. He decided to review last week’s portion, making it clear that to understand these laws, we needed to put aside our modern standards because we were dealing with laws written in the Bronze Age. He mentioned those laws which govern behavior for which the reasons for following them are obvious, and he mentioned laws that appear that seem to have no rational reason behind them other than God wants us to do them.
The first focus was on the laws of slavery. Yes, there was slavery in ancient Israel as there was in every ancient culture. There were the slaves captured in battle although there is nothing said of them, and there are slaves or what we might call indentured servants who because of dire economic circumstances either were were pressed into servitude to pay off a personal debts, or sold themselves into servitude for survival purposes. Slavery was part of this society, but it became so humanized in the Torah, that the “master” often felt over regulated by the Torah protections. If a slave escaped, he could not be returned. If a master beat a slave and took out a tooth or an eye, the slave went free. Slaves were released after a definite period of time. Also, the slave had corporal rights, and while the slave could be beaten, the beating could not be lethal.
Contrast these laws with the laws of ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, and the United States before slavery ended. Civilized people no longer have slaves, but look at the nations of the world that quietly continue to sanction slavery and hold slaves. The Jews were millennia ahead in their human rights concepts, yet those who continue what is the longest hate in history, continue to claim that Judaism is more of a religion of demanding laws than a religion of love. We’ll, I’d choose law as a foundation of a faith over love any time because love is very subjective and can and is applied subjectively. The Torah says, “There shall be one law for the stranger and the home born.” I don’t care if you love me, but I do care how you treat me. You protect me with good human rights laws. I’ll find love on my own.
“Eye for an eye” was discussed as monetary compensation or its equivalent. It has always been that those who cite it as a sample of the cruelty of Judaism, are ignorant of how it was implemented and how it has always been implemented. The current laws of compensation and the work of actuaries are based on this interpretation. If anyone has ever received monetary compensation for a loss, they have the rabbinic interpretation of this law to thank. Prior to this law, and possibly an expansion on it, there is another law dealing with the loss of a fetus resulting from a woman being injured in a fight between two men. Again, monetary compensation is required.
Someone suggested that this was the proof text for allowing abortion. While it does deal with the loss of a fetus, it is a proof text only for the idea that a fetus is not a person since the loss of the fetus does not result in the charge of murder but calls for a levy on the perpetrator of the resulting miscarriage for money. Those who wave the Bible at us insisting that the Bible says that the moment the egg and sperm meet to form a zygote, that fertilized egg has all the rights of a full human being. That is not what the Bible says. They have misinterpreted the intent of the law.
To the modern ear, some of the laws of the Torah are impossible. To stone a child to death who is unruly, to burn a witch, kill a homosexual, kill someone who breaks the laws of the Sabbath, etc. are abhorrent to the civilized person. Yet such punishments were and continue to be carried out by others who took our written Torah, based their faiths on it, and never took permission as did our rabbis to interpret it so such harsh laws would not have to be implemented. The word of God cannot be nullified and that’s why these laws continue to remain with us. But such laws, written when a holy society was being formed, were there to frighten those who would weaken this society with behaviors that would undermine what the Jews were trying to accomplish, namely, a safe and orderly society based on justice. So though God’s laws cannot be nullified, they can be interpreted to the point where no child would ever be stoned for being disrespectful to parents, and no person killed for violating the Sabbath.
Life is narrative, and as far as I understand it, laws are responses to narratives. Therefore, narrative precedes law. If there is a law against it in the Torah, you can bet that somebody had done something that demanded a law to stop that behavior. The “doing it” created the narrative, and a law was created to prevent that happening again. Consider all the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18. The Bible recognizes that these relationships must not exist or continue to exist because Judaism recognized that for a society to be wholesome, a man’s animal instincts, his sexual energy, had to be controlled and directed towards one woman. Monogamous relationships between a man and woman, Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, etc. had to be the conceptual bedrock upon which a solid society would rest. A stable family was the foundation of a stable society. That wisdom still works for us today. So many of the problems we have today in America stem from the fact that many families are no longer stable two parent families. .
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
February 28, 2015 B”H
9 Adar 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Tetzaveh-Zachor - Exodus 27:20-30:19. Deuteronomy 25:17-19.
Haftorah - I Samuel 15:2 - 34.
Chabad - This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
There are six items God demand that Jews remember. One was to remember that God brought us out of Egypt, that we were to remember what God did to Miriam, that we were to remember the Sabbath, and another is to remember Amalek and what he did to us when we left Egypt. Two escape me.
Mendy said that the Miriam episode we were asked to remember had to do with the miraculous well of water, but based on the tone of the other five, I think God’s intent was for us to remember that he gave her leprosy because she spoke against Moses. In effect, God is insisting that we remember that if you choose to mess with God’s appointed or with God for that matter, serious consequences follow. I must be something of a cynic.
Mendy focused on the Amalek and the Sabbath demands of the six, and told us a midrash. A midrash, if you don’t already know, is a story handed down in our tradition allegedly to flesh out or give the back story for events related in the Torah. These midrashim were given at the time the Torah was given, but not included in the Torah. These additional stories are there to give us insight as to what is in the blank spaces in the lines between the Torah words so as to fully explain what is going on. Mendy insists that these stories are as every bit as valid and valued as are those found in the Torah itself. The story he told was of the people coming to Moses and telling him that they cannot remember so many demands, but Moses knew that the real issue dealt with a particular dilemma, a dilemma that we continue to wrestle with as we have throughout our existence as a people. It is this: Are we to be Sabbath people or, for want of a better term, secular people. Sabbath people are people who remember the Sabbath and all the laws and keep themselves and the Sabbath, holy. Secular people are those who would remember Amalek and wipe out his name. To those who approached Moses, claimed that they could not be two different things at once.
So, as the midrash continues, Moses spreads a Sabbath table and sets up two cups of wine. In one he has sweet wine, and in the other, vinegar. He tells the people that the sweet wine represents Shabbat people and the vinegar represents the secular people. While we must drink deeply and enjoy the sweet wine and that should be our key focus, we are not absolved from sipping from the vinegar cup. The vinegar is part of our lives and must be addressed. We are enjoined to sip the sweet, but not to ignore the bitter.
The same symbols are found on the Passover table. The point is made that by dipping the bitter herb into the sweet haroset, we remind ourselves that life is a mixture of the sweet and bitter and we must experience both to be fully human. To be a full “Sabbath person,” in the truest sense to me is to become an ascetic who has removed himself from humanity and contributes little other than perpetual prayer and study. Catholicism believes this to be the highest form of service, but Judaism teaches that to separate yourself from humanity is to abrogate the great purpose for which Jews exist: to be a light unto the nations, and to make the world a better place. Study and prayer are passive. People are not fed, and lives are not saved by people who choose a life exclusively devoted to study and prayer.
From this, Mendy began talking about Purim, a very important and symbolic holiday even
though it is not mentioned in the Torah. Purim, like so many of our celebrations, has in it the sweetness and the bitterness of events, and we are to remember them, celebrate them, and learn
from them. He said that the important commemoration of this holiday is not that Haman coerced the king to kill the Jews, but that Jews came forward to stand up for what was right and overcome the evil that would have befallen us had we been silent. Thoughout his talk, Mendy insisted that we begin to look at the positive in our celebrations and in our lives. He also said that the traditions of drinking to the point of not being able to tell the difference between Mordecai and Haman, does not apply to people who have no business drinking because of age, health, or addiction.
He spoke about the concept of “otherness” and how we have always been the “other.” He spoke about how the Jews of Shushan could have assimilated into the Persian Empire to avoid being the “other”, but chose not to do so. He spoke about what we have given to the world, and how this, as well as our insistence that we continue as a distinct people, should be a source of great pride.
From the time we left Egypt and demonstrated that slaves could change the staus quo and the course of history, we have been viewed as a threat to established order and considered “the dangerous other.” To whom were we dangerous? To the established order of a hierarchal society were the king was at the top, and the slaves were at the bottom.
How often we could have given up our distinct God, our distinct law, and our concept of being a distinct people and disappeared into the fog of history as many did willingly or did under duress only to disappear. Those of us who are here today, are descendants of people who were willing to hold on to Yiddishkeit in whatever forms they could because they sensed in it something of great value. This was their legacy to us. But too few of us are aware of the depth of the contributions Jews have made to Western and Mid-Eastern Civilization, because those who win write the history, and Jews and their contributions have been left out of the books. Greece and Rome are lauded as the founders of Western Civilization, but it is the Torah and the moral imperatives found in it that give Western Civilization its morality. You cannot have a civilization without a code of moral behavior and the values that ensue from it. Jewish morality and ensuing values came into Western Civ via the Greek translation of the Torah called the Septuagint. Christianity took this Greek Torah as their own, and as Christianity spread, so did Jewish morality and values. Our own children own children do not know this.
Years ago, I was told by a student that you could take the class in world history given at his school and conclude that Jews offered little to the world and barely existed in time. I then took the Cherry Hill curriculum on world history and taught it from the perspective of the Jews. It was called, “The Jewish Contribution to Western Civilization” and was taught every other year for years. It was an amazing experience, a great source of pride, and my classes were filled. Sadly, Midrashah was closed, and that course along with so many others that introduced students to ideas not taught in regular Hebrew school, are no longer taught. Still bitter about closing the Midrashah? Yes!
Mendy asked, why do we eat humantashan on Purim? There were the usual answers such as that they reminded us of the hat Haman’s wore, or his pocket, or whatever. But Mendy said that this pastry, like kreplach, are to be viewed as symbols, but not symbols to remind us of that
evil descendent of Amalik. To understand the symbol, he asked us to consider what is inside the humantashan, the part that is sometimes hidden by the crust. Inside is something sweet like apricot preserves, or special like dark chocolate. There is a crust that covers the essence. Each of us is like a humantashan. There is goodness and sweetness within, and it is often covered for protection by our curst or our outer selves that we show to the world as a protective cover so we will not be injured by those who are cruel and do not understand us. His message was that we should look within to our better selves, and always try to focus on the positive.
One last thing that Mendy spoke about was his belief that God has a “Plan,” and he mentioned a fact that he had just learned that supported this theological construct. He related that in 1854 or there abouts, Brittan fought China in what was called the “Boxer Rebellion,” and after that, the British established Shanghai as an open city that did not require passports or visa for entry. Fast forward one hundred years to the Jews escaping the Holocaust to Shanghai which was one of the very few places on earth that allowed them free entry. Some congregants owe their very lives to this open city.
Those who believe in the“Plan,” would have to believe that it was in God’s Mind to create this city of refuge so Jews one hundred years later could find protection there from the Nazis. But to accept that reason, one must also have to accept the idea that God’s “Plan” included the Holocaust so a “remnant” of European Jewry might be saved. So are we to accept the idea that God created the Holocaust as some of our more ultra-Orthodox brethren believe because Jews had to be punished for not lighting Shabbat candles? Were the Nazis merely tools of God’s wrath against His own people? I think not!
To imagine that God has a “Plan” or to imagine that you actually know what goes on in the “Mind of God,” may be acceptable to those who lock step agree, or who just don’t think about the ramifications of this idea. But for those of us who think about such assertions, we are put in a position to doubt the veracity of the people positing such an idea, and that aspect of Jewish theology of those espousing it. I’ll stick with the idea that God had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust, and that Shanghai, as a refuge city, was a random and lucky happenstance in history of which our people took advantage. Evil people cause evil things to happen. How could one continue to believe in God if you must also believe that the daily carnage going on in this world is “God’s Plan.” Give me a break!
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch introduced the study with the title of the portion called, “Tetzaveh” which is translated as “instrument” and comes from the same root as “mitzvah.” The opening lines calls for the creation of a Ner Tamid, which means eternally or regularly (everyday). It is a light to shine everyday and eternally. Originally, it was a light that was on the outside of the Holy of Holies and was kindled from evening to morning before God. This is a rule or law (hoke) for the Children of Israel for all generations.
When I was a child, I remember listening to a radio program called, “The Eternal Light” introduced by a man named Morton Wishengrad. He began with, “Bring unto Me pure oil olive, beaten for the light, To cause the lamp(s) to burn continually in the Tabernacle of the congregation.” Strange what sticks in one’s memory even after sixty plus years.
We spoke about the Ark of the Covenant and what was inside it: the two tablets of the law as well as the broken ones. The idea that even if things are broken, that doesn’t mean it’s lost its sanctity. Rabbi Koch also suggested that the “baggage” we each carry, are our broken pieces. And though broken, it doesn’t mean we are of less value.
The laws prohibiting work on the Sabbath was discussed as it related to kindling a flame, and “avodah” and “malacha,” two types of work were offered. All thirty-nine prohibitions of Sabbath work are related to the types of work done regarding the Tabernacle. Kindling a light is in the prohibited category of “no skilled labor.” An example of other differences were suggested, and we were told a story about Rabbi Abuya Ben Elisha reminding a colleague that he was in danger of walking more that what was allowed.
If you’ve never read the novel by Rabbi Milton Steinberg entitled, As A Driven Leaf, I urge you to do so. It’s the story of this Abuya Ben Elisha and how he forsakes Judaism for Helenistic and Roman culture, and what happens to him and the People as a result of his actions. Brilliant piece of literature. Fantastic insight into the life and times of the first century of the common era.
Everything in the Torah speaks to us on four different levels of understanding. The highest level, “Sod,” “The Pardis” or “Orchard,” is the mystical level. The Ner Tamid is the light in the darkness meant to keep us away from the Holy of Holies. It was a dangerous place where only the high priest was welcome and only at certain times. God’s Presence is to be feared. Even Moses could not look upon God’s Face and live. But in the Torah, God presents different Faces to us. We experience Him as approachable and compassionate, yet we cannot know the infinite, the unidentifiable known as Ayn Sof, the Endless One. Because God is incomprehensible, we project onto God wonderful qualities, the qualities we need God to have.
Our concept of God has changed since the beginning, and continues to change, yet a radical unknowability remains. We do not know what God is, so how safe is it to get too close? All cultures put “off limits” signs around the Presence of the Divine. While we create a sacred space for ourselves by coming together to worship, there are sacred spaces we dare not enter. While we crave communication with the Divine, we at the same time know that this is dangerous to enter into union with the Divine because you can die. (The High Priest had bells on the hem of his garment so the people could listen for his movements. He went in with a rope tied to his foot, so in the event that he died in the Holy of Holies, he could be removed without anyone risking his life by going into this forbidden place.)
The Ner Tamid reminds up of God’s Presence in our lives and also reminds us to be aware that spiritual excesses and efforts to become one with the Divine, is not a safe enterprise.
It seems to me that God may be saying, “Come to me, but don’t get too close.” There is a story of the four rabbis who entered into the Pardis. This story is a warning of what could happen if you get too close. One, this Rabbi Abudy ben Elisha became an apostate, Ben Zoma committed suicide, one whose name I cannot recall went insane. Only Rabbi Akiva came out whole. I do believe that the Pardis refers to the Kabbalah, the mystical dimension of Judaism.
“Be holy, for I am holy,” is interpreted to mean that God is saying, “be separate for I am separate.” From what are we to be separate? Here, God’s expectation is interpreted as asking us to separate ourselves from our animal natures. As man is separate from God, we can be like God in certain aspects of human behavior such as exerting enough self control to separate ourselves from our carnal instincts.
Respectfully,
Leonard Howard
Labe Chaim
March 7, 2015 B”H
16 Adar 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Ki Tissa - Exodus 35:1 - 40:38.
Haftorah - I Kings 18:1 - 39.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by saying that as the Revelation at Mt. Sinai reflected the high point in the Torah for the Jewish People, the story of the Golden Calf reflected the lowest.
God is furious with the people for their betrayal and abandonment of Him despite all the things He revealed to them, and in His anger, He threatens to annihilate them and begin over with Moses. God say to him, “desist from Me” but Moses will not desist. In fact, Moses pleads with God asking, “Why, HASHEM, should Your anger flare up against Your people, whom You have taken out of the land of Egypt...”
Mendy listed the valid reasons God should be angry, but Moses reminds God of the Covenent with the Patriarchs, and also reminds him that the people who hear of it will charge Him with the evil intent of bringing the people into the desert to kill them. He begs God to stay his anger. God does.
But a deeper understanding was shared. In effect, Moses is saying that God should not be angry because no matter how far the Jews might stray, they still have a Jewish soul that at its core will always contain a spark of love for God. This eternal spark of love makes them worthy of being saved.
He compared this very same theme to the Story of Esther. Mordecai wold not bow down to Hayman. So why would the king allow Hayman to kill all the Jews in Persia because one man would not bow down? The king might have initially seen what Hayman saw, that being that Mordecai was not merely a man but a symbol for an entire nation. These people, as Hayman says, have different laws, a different God, and do not follow the king’s commands. For Hayman, it was pure ego gratification to have the Jews killed because Mordechi would not bow down, but to the king, he might have agreed because he knew that this particular people would never assimilate into his nation and were therefore a threat.
I cannot recall the connection between the Purim story and the idea of the core of love for God existing in each of us unless it has something to do with the idea that no matter how hard one tries to assimilate, they can never be successful because of that soul spark. I am not sure how many Jews of Persia were assimilated, but it is obvious that they could still be identified and open to attack. So while the king’s proclamation could not be abrogated, both assimilated and non-assimilated Jews defended themselves successfully. They responded as a collective, possibly because of the Jewish soul we all carry that can come awake when our people are in need.
I have to say that ancient anti-Semitism or Jew-hatred as it should be called, evolved out of our distinctiveness. We had a God that was different from everyone else’s gods, (HASHEM) a law that was different from everyone else’s law, (TORAH) a particular ethnicity whose morality, traditions, and values made us a distinct community.(ISRAEL). Not only did we refuse to give up these three elements that comprise what Judaism is, our very existence was a statement to all other groups that they were wrong to believe what they believed. As two objects cannot occupy the same place at the same time, so two or more religions, ethnic groups, or civilizations cannot occupy the same space at the same time without the one with the larger numbers feeling resentful of not everyone agreeing with them. And by virtue of the fact that you will not giving up your own and accepting theirs so they can feel better about themselves and what they hold dear, they see us as an affront and danger to their way of life.
Thus you have the beginnings of ancient Jew-hatred. And that has come down to us. Those who have hated us most throughout history, are those whose faiths we would not legitimatize by converting to it. Thus, we have been attacked for centuries, and delegitimatized for centuries. The people in power don’t like being told that they are wrong. The people in power also write the history, and that is why we have been treated as a peripheral group and not given credit for our contributions. It all stems from an attempt to delegitimatize Judaism and the people who practice it. If Judaism is an illegitimate faith, then theirs must be legitimate.
Mendy briefly mentioned the Nazis, and compared them to the Persian Empire under this king and Hayman. I think he spoke about the assimilated German Jews who could not believe that the German People would allow this to take place. Assimilated Persian Jews probably felt the same way. What they didn’t want to accept, was that no matter what elevation in society they reached, or how sophisticated they were, or what they contributed to German or Persian society, they were still Jews and that was the bottom line.
The Nazis, like the Persian, and all the others throughout time, saw Jews as a threat to their ideologies and moral systems. The Nazis did not care about the Jews not being good German citizens. They were. The Nazis cared about the judgement of the Jews and the Jew’s God on a system of government where the State is set up higher than any other institution, and sets the standards for moral behavior. Totalitarianism demands absolute obedience to the State. The Jew and the Jewish soul cannot accept that system.
So wherever there has been a totalitarian State instituted, the Jew cannot be abided. In order to kill a God whose primary demand is that we treat others righteously, and who judges those who do not, you have to kill the people who hold that belief. That belief is embedded in the soul, and that is why the Nazis murdered people who had any Jewish blood or any part of a Jewish soul.
This may sound a little weird, or over the top, but for me, it explains the Holocaust and the need to eradicate Jews. The scapegoat explanation is nonsense. You keep scapegoats alive so you can continue blaming them. Take them out of the picture and no one’s to blame but yourself. The reason for murdering Jews has always been psychologically far more sinister than merely jealousy or scapegoating.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel’s car was inoperable, and she called upon the president of the synagogue to fill in at the last minute. He began with an interesting series of questions and we were invited to raise our hands: Is God good? Is God evil? Is God both? Is God neither?
I responded that God is neither good nor evil, because I believe that our intellects cannot comprehend what God is, and we therefore cannot know His nature. For me, God is the Ayn Sof, the Endless One who cannot be imagined; a creative force that is all things, that moves through all things, that impels all things.
He handed out an essay by Rabbi Rami Shapiro entitled, The God in the Mirror. Actually, the article was about an essay written by Rabbi Simeon Maslin who argued that “when the Bible clearly commands us to do evil in the name of God (killing every man, woman, child, and cow of the Amalakites for example) the Bible is being misunderstood. God, being all-good, would never command such a thing. Humans, being all-fallible, would and would do so in the name of God. But why?
The second paragraph informed us that if God commands something, it must be believable. We can believe that God commands us to slaughter the Amalakites because God Himself committed similar slaughters: wiping out all but the family of Noah, murdering all the first born sons of Egypt, the numerous plagues He sent, etc.”
In another paragraph we read, God is what we want God to be, and scripture says what we want scripture to say and all this reflects who we are and what we want to do. “God is cruel when we want to be cruel; God is kind when we want to be kind; our holy books sanction violence when we want to sanction violence, and they sanction compassion when we want to sanction compassion...”
We looked at the Torah text for some insight, and focused on the lines God delivers to Moses. “And now, desist from Me. Let My anger flare up against them and I shall annihilate them; and I shall make you a great nation.” Moses immediately asks God, “Why would your anger flare up against Your people whom you have taken out of the land of Egypt...? Here, God can list a dozen reasons why He is angry and they’d all be justified. But Moses plays upon His ego, saying that the people will say that God had an evil intent to bring them out of Egypt only to kill them in the desert. God would have done what Pharaoh wanted to do, and Pharaoh would have won. Moses also reminds God of the promise he made to the Patriarchs about increasing these people and the promise of the land. God reconsiders and relents.
In effect, Moses is saying to God what Jewish mothers have said to their children for millennia: “What will the neighbors think? Or “It’s a shanda for the neighbors.” What we have here is Moses reminding God that He entered a partnership (Covenant) with these people, and He cannot break it because He loves them. Moses is also a partner. Moses loves them, and God loves them. And at the same time we have two parent types blaming one another for the behavior of the children. “They’re your problem. No, they’re your problem.” The Covenant is a business enterprise, and God and Moses are partners. But the realization is that moving the Jewish People forward is like herding cats. This is not the first time God has regretted creating people, so one must conclude that either God has no clue as to what people will do next, or God knows and must allow it to happen because He has granted free will. Either way, we are led to conclude that if God is omniscient, God is not going to intervene.
Human emotions are raging here which begs the question, “Why would people attribute all this anger to a God who is also compassionate and all knowing?” Perhaps the answer has something to do with the idea that God is a reflection of who we are. Perhaps we ascribe God darkness so the darkness in us becomes more acceptable and more bearable. God’s darkness becomes a rationalization and acceptance for our own negative thoughts and behaviors.
And as there is a dark side to our God, there are still the thirteen attributes that we ascribe to God based upon His behavior though out the Bible. God is revealed as being compassionate, truthful, gracious, kind, forgiving of sin, limiting punishment, etc. Human nature also contains such attributes, and therefore, goodness is also justified. “ Slow to anger” is also listed, but I
personally don’t see that. What I do see is that throughout, one can negotiate with God for a better deal, and sometimes get it. Abraham does it and so does Moses. But God always gets His due, so in this instant, the leaders of the rebellion die, and another plague does break out.
So the article has us deconstructing the Torah and insisting that the idea of God is a really a mirror of our own minds, and that whatever God really is, has little to do with what individuals imagine God to be. I can accept that notion. We need God because we need an authority behind moral law, or else, man is the authority and that’s a problem for me. We also need God so we do not feel existentially alone. We need God so we will not believe that we are finite. We need God, even though our concepts of may vary from person to person depending on need.
Beyond the need for prayer and rituals as a vehicle for organizing time in a meaningful way, there is the need for like minded people who share a common history and value system who can also be relied upon for support and comfort in joy and in tragedy. Community and the need for a unified purpose that will make life more secure, is what I believe keeps Jews together and not a common belief in God. More and more, to the modern mind, God is becoming more and more of what we need God to be.
Talmudic arguments and contradictions exist because times change and support for new behaviors need some authoritive justification. Perhaps the rabbis knew this and included diverse opinions deliberately. The Constitution of the United States is also open to interpretation, and that’s why we have a Supreme Court. And so the idea of God and what God’s nature is must also be open to interpretation and debate if people are to continue having a meaningful relationship with Him.
If the darkness of human emotions are indeed reflected in our concept of God and written in our scriptures, then interpretation in order to modify God’s behavior is absolutely necessary in order to keep zealots from using scripture for justifying murder and other behaviors that we now view as uncivilized. Fundamentalists who take the Torah, the Gospels, or the Koran as the absolute word of God that must be obeyed to the letter, have not gone to the trouble to listen to those who see sacred texts as in need of reinterpretation. Such people use sacred texts to justify the heinous actions we have seen throughout history and in our times.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
March 14, 2015 [Happy Pi Day (3.14)] B’H
23 Adar.5775
Weekly Torah Study: Va-yakhel - Pekudei - Para: Exodus 35:1 - 40: 38;Numbers 19:1 - 22. Haftorah: Ezekiel 36:16 - 38.
Chabad: Mendy was elsewhere so today I must say that this is what I remember Josh saying:
Josh is a congregant somewhere in his twenties. He is a young man who has great facility with the Hebrew language, the service itself, and now I see, a young man who can speak publically and still have his much older audience riveted by his knowledge and style. His delivery was well constructed, humorous, informative, and presented at a rapid fire pace which rivaled Mendy’s. I don’t know if he lost people along the way because of it, but I found him stimulating and thought provoking.
I’ve had the pleasure of watching Josh develop from a teenager into the excellent young man he has become. Here at Chabad, one can watch young people evolve because their connections to their community, their families, and their faith remain very strong, and they keep returning. Some of the little children who were brought to Shabbat services in car carriers, are now toddlers, and others are old enough to wait patiently for the gabbai to give them candy from his tallis bag. The sounds of Chabad and Yiddishkeit become familiar to their young ears, so there is nothing alien to them as they come to awareness of who they are.
Josh began by telling us that the two parashahs to be read to day were considered not only the most boring in the Book of Exodus, but end with the most boring outcome. He invited the congregation to suggest why such excruciating detail for the building of the Tabernacle was included here when only the two parashas preceding the Golden Calf debacle also give excruciating details of what was to be in the Tabernacle.
Josh’s explanation was illuminating. First, we were informed that this is not the worst ending of any parashah, but the best because it is here that we have demonstrated that we have the will and the skill to give God the home He asked of us, and that we get God to live among us. What better ending could there be? God’s Presence rested among our ancestors. And the reason that there are four parshahs devoted to the building of the Tabernacle is that the first two speak about the plans, but the second two detail the execution of the plans. Planning something is very different from executing something. Both are vital to any venture.
The clear message is that while God can do for us, God would prefer that we do it ourselves. At one point he said that the text was a microcosm of human existence, but I do not recall the specifics.
But we are not left on our own to struggle without direction. As the Torah is a guidebook to good behavior, it is also a book of planning and vision. While we are given the direction in which we should go, it is still up to us to refer to the Torah for guidance or not.
God is there to help us, but when God saw that we could not free ourselves from Egypt, He sent plagues to break Pharaoh’s will, enabling us to be taken out of slavery “with a mighty hand.” Now He wanted us to build him a house, and so specific directions were needed. First the
plan, and then the needed specifics to bring the plan to fruition. No Tabernacle was ready in heaven for the Children of Israel as some believe the Third Temple is waiting to be placed on the Temple Mount when we have perfected ourselves and have earned it. The Tabernacle had to be built with human hands, and with materials donated freely from the hearts of the givers.
Something to think about regarding where God resides. I’m aware of a Yiddish aphorism that only a Jew could have uttered: “If God lived in our town, all His windows would be broken.” I wish I knew that in Yiddish. The statement reflects not only a close relationship that the Jew has with God, but also an honesty that must exist between two partners in a Covenant. God promises, and sometimes does not deliver, and promises unkept generate angry responses. I have never heard of such relationships existing between man and God in other faiths. To struggle with God is to be involved in a give and take relationship. Who dares shake a fist at God if not a Jew?
This parasha ends the Book of Exodus, and at the end of each book we stand and say in unison, “Chazak! Chazak! Venischazeik! which is translated as “Be strong! Be strong! And may we be strengthened!” Josh then presented the idea that each ending of each book of the Torah is the beginning of the next, and each beginning is the end of the last. Thus, the next book of the Torah pulls its strength from the book of the Torah preceding it, as the book before that one pulled its strength from the one before.
To reinforce this idea, he spoke of the song Lecha Dodi which is sung to welcome the Sabbath Bride. He asked for a translation, and pointed out that the ones usually given cannot be correct, and it was decided that neither God nor Israel were the subject of that stanza, but the Sabbath and the days of the week were. The days of the week strengthen the Sabbath, and the Sabbath strengthen the days of the week. The days of the week are welcoming the Sabbath. The six days of creation are welcoming the seventh, and as the six days strengthen the seventh at the beginning of the Sabbath, so the end of the Sabbath strengthens the coming six.
It’s all very mystical and wonderful, and such ideas take you out of yourself to a different plain of existence and understanding. From strength to strength! There is a cosmic flow of one thing into the other. There are unseen strengths that flow from the six days to the seventh, and from the seventh to the six, from one book to the other, and from one human experience to the next. Such awareness are only briefly glimpsed and when they are, our awarenesses are elevated. If you really want to get mystical, consider the Ayn Sof, the Kabbalistic conept of God that is all things. If Ayn Sof is all things, then with every breath we take we are breathing in and out the Ayn Sof. Everything we see and feel around us is the Ayn Sof enveloping us. Ayn Sof is Existence and everything that Exists.
Josh related a story of the Chasid who goes to the Baal Shem Tov because the Chasid wants to meet Elijah. The chasid is assured by the master that if he goes to the poorest street in the poorest neighborhood and finds a decrepit hovel, there he will also find a destitute widow with many hungry children. If he wants to see Elijah, he is to bring the best food for the Passover he can find, enough to feed everyone, and to conduct a seder. This he does, and when it comes time for Elijah to enter, he asks the widow if he might open the door. He does, but Elijah is not there. Disappointed, but thinking he may have the wrong seder, he returns to the Baal Shem Tov and tells him what happened. The great rabbi says that he must double his generosity by doubling the amount of food and return to conduct another seder. This he does willingly, and as he approaches the hovel, he hears one of the little children asking his mother for food, and themother saying that she has none to give. But perhaps the nice man who came yesterday will come again. So the Chassid recognizes that he is in the image of Elijah, bringing sustenance to those who have no hope. The point here is that we are all Elijahs with the power to bring hope to those around us and to those in need. It is that part of God within each of us that impels us to do good in the world.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel invited us to read silently an excerpt from Abraham Joshua Heschel’s The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man. Here, the joy of the Sabbath is directed to both the soul as well as the body, and all a person’s faculties must share in this blessing. The soul cannot celebrate alone, so the body must also be involved in Sabbath rejoicing.
The Sabbath is not a day but an atmosphere. The Sabbath is something we are within rather than something that is within us. The Sabbath surrounds us wherever we go. On all other days, the hours have no real significance unless we ascribe significance to them, but on the Sabbath, each hour has a beauty and grandeur all its own that is separate from anything we ascribe to it. Herschel tells us that the Sabbath is a state of mind.
Considering this essay, I found myself going back to a time when I had just started my own journey back to Judaism, and something I called Super Shabbos. The family would go to shul on Friday night after Shabbat dinner, and return on Saturday morning. Afterwards, we would get in the car and go into the city to a museum, the zoo, a movie, and dinner out. The restrictions placed on the Orthodox, were not restrictions I accepted. Super Shabbos began in shul and then incorporated something the entire family enjoyed. Shabbos became a vacation once a week. For someone who did not grow up with a “Shabbos” but only with vestiges of one that reflected restrictions no one understood, my version as an adult was a better fit for me and my family.
We reviewed the texts in Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy where God commands us to keep the Sabbath day and make it holy. Here we are told that no manner of work is to be performed, and the list of things we may not do corresponds to the type of work performed when building the Tabernacle. It is also understood that God expects those who are working for Him also to observe. No one is to be exempt. Even when building the Temple, work had to stop for the Sabbath. There were 39 forbidden activities all based on what was done when constructing the Tabernacle, and as civilization progressed, new restrictions have been instituted. But we also read in Exodus 31:12 - 17 that he “who defiles the Sabbath shall surely be put to death...”
This extremely harsh punishment presented something of a problem to the congregants because the only other infractions that demanded the death penalty were adultery, idol worship, and murder. From my point of view, I saw each of these infractions as detrimental to the smooth workings of a new type of society that was being created. The foundation of a stable society is a stable family life, and adultery causes instability for the family unit. To worship any deity other than God is to deny the authority behind the law, and therefore law becomes relative and ethics, situational. To murder is to willingly take a life, and that undercuts the primary directive in Judaism that life is sacred.
Each of the commandments or statements regarding the Sabbath and humanity requires a separation and it is that separation that speaks to holiness. God is holy. God is separate from mankind. The Sabbath is holy and that means we are to keep it separate from the other days of the week. God enjoins us “to be holy for I am holy.” This means that we are to separate ourselves from our animal natures and be in control those instincts.
There was some discussion of the paradox of the “Shabbos Goy, ” the non-Jewish person who is paid to perform certain tasks on the Sabbath that Jews are not to perform. This is a
paradox because even the “strangers among you” were not permitted to work on the Sabbath.
But if you hired a non-Jew to work for you, and that person chose to work into the Sabbath, the sin was not on you.
A discussion followed regarding the “Aruv” or the symbolic line that encompasses a private community that widens the private domain. As long as the Sabbath observer is within this aruv, he or she may carry as though they were in their own home. Yes, there are certain restrictions, but I don’t recall what they are.
Another idea dealt with an odd juxtaposition. The Lord commanded that gifts be brought for use in constructing the Tabernacle, but only gifts may be brought by those whose hearts move them to do so. In effect, God is commanding people to volunteer. Is this some sort of test? If your spirit moves you, you are commanded to do it was the explanation. If your spirit doesn’t move you, you are released from this order. This is a free will offering. If you have it, you give it.
I mentioned that this applies more to Chabad than to other synagogues. Chabad is gaining in membership, while other synagogues are shrinking. It is known that Chabad does not require dues, yet they are currently building because they need more space. I imagine that because it is free, people are moved to contribute possibly because individuals recognize that they have a responsibility to this community. I think another factor may be that people in Chabad are there because they firmly believe in the God of the Torah, and believe that every word of the Torah is God’s word. They give because that is what God expects of them. So when they read that God says “Take from yourselves a portion for HASHEM... they take that literally and feel that they want to be part of this effort.
They are not there for social action; they are there to develop a relationship with God. That may be the secret as to why Chabad speaks to so many people. The God they speak of is not an abstraction, but a power who directs the events of humanity, and is aware of each and every one of us. I will confess that I go to Chabad to listen to Mendy, but the bulk of the congregants go to speak to and praise, their God. God, to the people who attend Chabad, is very real and very present. In other synagogues, it is believed that God is found in social action, and in making the world a better place. That is right and proper, but what kind of comfort is there in abstractions?
Sincerely,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
March 21, 2015 B”H
1 Nissan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Va-Yikra-Hachedesh - Leviticus 1:1 - 5:26;
Numbers 28:9 - 15;
Exodus 12:1 - 20.
Haftorah - Ezekiel 45:16 - 46:18; Isaiah 66:1, 23,24.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying: Mendy began by telling a Medrish about a young woman of noble birth who was very bright, beautiful, and learned, but who could not find a husband because her standards were so high.
I wasn’t sure if she couldn’t find a husband because she had set her standards for a husband so high, or that the men of her city didn’t want to be married to someone who was smarter and more learned than they. A beautiful face is always a plus, but there are some men who are intimidated by bright and assertive women. It was true then, and it may even be true today. The male ego is very fragile, and feelings of inadequacy easily generate resentment. “The fault dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves that we are underlings,” comes to mind. We have not evolved sufficiently. But I digress.
Time passes, and she decides that she will sit at the door of her mansion and marry the first eligible man who comes by. (I guess standards take a header when one’s biological clock is ticking) and a very nice man who happens to be a farmer, happens by. She proposes and he accepts. The morning after the wedding ceremony, he decides to do something nice for his wife, and he goes to his farm and picks her the best cucumbers he can find. He offers them to her with a full heart, and she begins to weep. He believes she may not like cucumbers, so he returns to the farm and picks the most beautiful tomatoes he can find. Again she weeps and explains to him that the person she is cannot be satisfied with cucumbers and tomatoes. The farmer cannot see the world through any eyes other than those of a farmer, and the young lady cannot see the world through any eyes other than those of a noble lady.
Mendy then went on to explain that the farmer was symbolic of the body, and the girl symbolic of the soul. That which satisfies the body cannot satisfy the soul and visa versa. That is why the body and soul are in conflict. He reinforced this tale with another where the soul is placed into the body, and the conflict immediately begins because each has a different agenda and different needs. The body delights in comforts, in good food, in fine possessions etc., while the soul delights in study and in mitzvot. That is why we are enjoined to make time for study.
He let us know that Passover begins the New Year for the soul, while Rosh Hashonah is the New Year for the body. And if we are to observe the Passover properly, we are to let go of the petty things that keep our souls from rejoicing
I’m doing a workshop this week at the JCC that will address this issue. I will introduce an empty jar and fill it with golf balls. My audience will agree that the jar is full. Then I will take pebbles and pour them into the jar surrounding the golf balls. The audience will agree that the jar is now filled with pebbles. Then I will pour in sand and the audience will agree that the jar is filled with sand. The jar is life. The golf balls are the core things that are important that we believe and do. The pebbles are the daily activities that we must perform, and the sand represents
all the little annoyances, angers, and pettiness that also fill up our lives. If you have only a jar filled with sand and pebbles, there is no room for the golf balls. Considering what Mendy said, whatever our golf balls represent, they are the things most meaningful to our souls, and if we clutter our lives with pressures of daily life (pebbles) and pettiness (sand) without considering and making room for what the soul needs, we lose ourselves.
Mendy told a true story about a man in Israel who when to the grave of his wife to say kaddish. His son was with him. Sadly, there was no one else there to make a minyon and the man was distraught. His son then sent a message to his friends telling where the cemetery was asking that if anyone was available, it would be greatly appreciated if they would come. Well it seems that his friends forwarded the message to others, and one hundred people showed up. Now these people were mostly secular, but the important thing was that they were there to support a fellow Jew. Their behavior spoke to the similar needs among our people, that makes us more alike than different. Mendy then suggested that we spend more time thinking about the similarities among our people than our differences, and that was the core message.
As a Jew, I firmly believe that there is such a concept as Kal Yisroel, one people, one huge extended family, and what one member of this family does brings honor or shame to all. Happily, I have experienced more honor than shame. But within this family, there are many pathways, and I do not believe that any one sect of Judaism that nourishes the soul of any Jew has more of the “truth” than any other. All are efforts to a relationship with God, all have a piece of the truth, and for that matter, all are valid attempts. There are differences, but at the heart of the matter, the objectives are the same. We need to see the similarities, and focus on these.
Mendy invited us to consider the different Passover traditions between the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim as an example. Traditions in food for example, were dictated by the locations of where these people lived, but what was at the core and is still at the core, is the Haggadah. It’s the same book used all over the world. The stories are the same, and the language is the same. In fact, if Elijiah did come to the Seder, he would be perfectly comfortable because he would be hearing the language he heard when he first walked the earth. The differences don’t make a difference. Mendy’s final plea was to rid ourselves of the pettiness that absorbs us, and give our souls a chance to soar.
He also heaped praise on Dinie, his beloved wife, for all she does for the congregation, the community, and their family. This week is her birthday, and if there is such a woman worthy of being called a Woman of Valor, Dinie Mengel is that person.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Before we spoke about the text, we took Rabbi Koch off on a tangent that I personally found exceptionally interesting because I learned things about the Hebrew language that I did not know.
• I learned that the Hebrew is a language that has 22 consonants which may be pronounced differently depending on tradition. This language is a system of patterns, and sets of consonants can produce many different words. Specific groups of consonants create specific roots. Mostly three and four letter groups, but few two letter groups. Depending on how root letters are conjugated or declined, you get lots of words. For example, Yud Hay Vov Hay, the Tetragrammation identifying God, is from the root for “being,” but it has no present tense.
• I learned that the “trope” is grammatical, and used for punctuation. It tells us where sentences begin and end, or where commas are needed. It is a system for comprehension.
• I learned that the Mazorites were a tenth century group of teachers who recognized that the pronunciation of the Torah was being lost, and they wrote out the Torah with vowels.
• I learned that a Hebrew consonant can only take one vowel.
• I relearned that the various sources of the Chumash – the J, E, P, D, and R sources represent various schools, and contain stories from the Northern Kingdom, the Southern Kingdom, and the Priesthood. Didn’t catch all of them.
• The Tetragrammation, Yud, Hay, Vov, Hay comes from the J Source.
• The E Source uses Eloheim when referring to God, and the J Source uses Adonoi.
• “Yahway” and “Jehovah” are Christian attempts to pronounce the tetragrammation, but since there are no vowels, pronunciation is impossible.
• Leviticus is an instruction manual for the Priestly Class. The Red Heifer story deals with the conundrum of death.
Continuing with the text, Rabbi Koch said, “What’s the difference between “speaking’ and “calling?” The parashah begins with “He called to Moses, and HASHEM spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting...” Normally, God speaks to Moses, but here, God is calling or summoning Moses. The word “summoned” carries with it all sorts of connotations because when we are “summoned” it is often by a power that is greater than we. One might be intimidated, or called to answer for something, But inherent in the summons is the demand to respond.
Rashi interprets “And He called..” as an expression of love saying that in order to speak to one another, there has to be a “call.” Some “calling” precedes all verbal engagements. We read that the angels call to one another, and so God calls to Moses. We want to draw near to God, but first God calls us to sacrifice. That is how we respond to God. As Abraham Joshua Heshel said, “God calls to us because God needs us.”
There are two different types of work: Milahah is work involved in building the Temple, and Avodah is everyday labor. The Sanctuary has been completed, and now God is at the point of telling Moses what he has to do. This summons is to reveal God’s next step in His plan.
• I relearned that a “herd” was a group of large animals, and a “flock” was a group of small animals.
What follows are procedures for offering the sacrifices, and there is a hierarchy – only priests can offer the sacrifice. Human sacrifice is forbidden, but not animal sacrifice.
A sacrifice is really a valued offering that is brought by someone as a statement of thanks or as a propitiation so something might be avoided in the future. The whole idea of sacrifice is
predicated on the belief that there is something out there that controls and can be appeased or persuaded. The inclination to give an offering or demonstrate gratitude is first found in Genesis where Cain and Abel feel an inclination to offer the best of their work to God. God did not ask
for this offering, so I’m concluding that there is something within the human mind that has this inclination. The first thing Noah does is to sacrifice to God. Again, God didn’t ask. Then there is Abraham who is asked by God to sacrifice his only son. And this is where things change.
All ancient civilizations practiced human sacrifice, and there is even a theory that the Egyptians themselves sacrificed their own first born to the gods to end what they saw as the natural disasters that resulted from the Thera explosion.
But the fact that a ram was sacrificed instead of Isaac introduced to the world the concept of symbolic substitution where an animal could take the place of a human being. This was a
major leap forward in the concept of the sanctity of human life, and for the Jew thereafter, human sacrifice became an anathema. It was because of this that even the most illiterate Jew knew that The Blood Libel was a lie. No Jew would sacrifice a child for his blood to make matzah. Using even animal blood was forbidden let alone human blood. The thought was and continues to be repulsive and ludicrous.
A better phrase for this substitute sacrifice is “vicarious atonement.” In Christian theology, Jesus becomes the sacrifice for the sins of humanity, and through Jesus’ blood, humanity is redeemed and God forgives. Personal salvation come through something else, in this case, Jesus’ sacrifice.
In effect, the person bringing the sacrifice is saying to God, take this offering instead of taking me.
But does sacrifice show gratitude or is it an expiation of darker needs? An interesting question.
The Hebrew word “qorban” translated as “sacrifice” is from the root which is to “draw close to.” The purpose of the offering is to draw close to God. In other ancient societies, the people and priests were expected to feed the gods, but to us, it is “a pleasing odor” that brings us closer.
We are dealing here with a very sensory experience. Imagine the lowing of the reluctant animal being pulled to the alter, the heat of the fire, the odors of prior sacrifices, the blood... very dramatic and very emotional. And as the smoke ascends and dissipates, one can imagine the supplicant watching and hoping that the smoke and the pleasing odor will bring the forgiveness and atonement requested.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
March 28, 2015 B’H
8 Nissan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Shabbat Hagadol - Tzav: Leviticus 6:1 - 8:36.
Haftorah Malachai 3:3 - 24.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by talking about how the trope or the cantillation marks that are written above the Hebrew letters of the words in the Chumash (Bible), not only tells the reader how to chant each word, but also allows the reader insight into the meaning of the words, insight into the people of the story, and insight into phraseology.
This is a new awareness of the many skills needed to chant the Torah, a scroll that does not contain any vowels, any punctuation, and any hint on how to pronounce the words, puts me even in greater awe of those who can perform this honor than before. Bravo Mike and Arthur!
Mendy focused in on one mark called a “shalshelet” which can be described as a small piece of lightning composed of five tiny slashes. He then informed us that this mark was used only four times in the entire Torah, and indicates an emotional moment when the person in the situation is initially terribly conflicted as to what must be done, but acts righteously despite the internal struggle. The first time the shalshelet appears is in the story of Lot and I think Mendy said that the struggle within Lot deals with saving the angels at the expense of his daughter’s virtue.
If that wasn’t the reason, it should have been.
The next occurrence has to do with Eliazer, Abraham’s faithful servant sent to find a bride for Isaac. Eliazer has a daughter of his own he wishes to marry Isaac, so he is conflicted, but despite his own desires, he decides that the first kind girl who waters his camels will be the one.
The next shalshelet appears in the story of Joseph who is repeatedly assailed by the beautiful wife of Potiphar, his master. Joseph may be desirous of the benefits that would come with submitting to her, but his sense of right and wrong overcomes his desires and he refuses her.
Finally, we come to the shalshelet which appears when Moses has to sanctify his brother and his brother’s sons as the priestly family in perpetuity when his own role is to be only the leader whose rule and family legacy ends with his death. Moses would like his own children to have this great honor, but we are told that because he was initially reluctant when God spoke to him out of the burning bush, he was punished by God by not having himself or his own progeny given this honor.
After Mendy explained the meaning of the shalshelet, and said that there were only four, I immediately thought that the first had to be above Abraham’s response when he was told to sacrifice Isaac. But it was not, so we must conclude that Abraham’s devotion was so great, that there wasn’t even the slightest bit of internal conflict when asked to commit that heinous crime. That kind of mindless devotion, at least to me, is as dangerous to the human condition as is the idea that martyrdom will get you seventy virgins in heaven. Mindless, uncritical devotion to anyone or anything is not a positive quality in a human being, and Abraham’s unwillingness to plead for his son’s life or challenge God’s demand, has never sat well with me.
Somewhere in his drush, Mendy referred to the tragedy last week of the seven children who were burned to death in the fire in Brooklyn, and because the fire was started by a hotplate used to keep Shabbat food warm, he hoped no one would blame the Sabbath or the traditions of the Sabbath, for the tragedy. He did encourage us to check our fire alarm systems.
A Digression: This concern reminded me of two stories about fires resulting from ritual observance. One dealt with a house burning down on the day of the first Seder, and the major concern of the family was where they were going to find a place for their guests. This was an Orthodox family. The other story told to me had to do with laundry hanging above the Sabbath candles catching fire and destroying the apartment. The conclusion reached by the person who told me the story was that Sabbath candles were dangerous, and that was why she did not light them. Of course this same person might have concluded that the candles should be kindled away from low hanging laundry.
Mendy continued by telling us that there were phone calls to him about the tragedy, and he focused on one man who wept over the loss and asked “How can we believe in a God who would allow such a thing to happen?” After that, the man said that his original intent was to ask Mendy about selling the chumatz for Passover.
What Mendy pointed out was that though he couldn’t answer the question, the questioner was still focused on the Passover tradition despite his immediate concern about God. The caller was in inner turmoil, having a shalshelet moment as we all have from time to time, and yet was concerned with doing the right thing for Passover despite his inner conflicts..
I was reminded of the story where a group of Jews in one of the death camps put God on trial and found him guilty. After the verdict came in, one of the inmates declared, “It’s time to daven Mincha.” I think that some Jews, despite their theological reservations, are so in tune with what tradition demands of them, that they will continue moving forward despite private misgivings.
I for one, have resolved this problem about God being involved in the deaths of these seven children, and all children for that matter. I simply do not acknowledge that God has anything to do with such events. I do not believe that God had anything to do with the Holocaust, or with the destruction of the Temples, or with any other horrific event that has descended on our people. People create evil, and the people who have come against us with mindless hatred throughout the centuries, were evil. Nature cannot tell the difference between the innocent and guilty, so we cannot blame God for what is a natural occurrence either.
I cannot believe in a God who would allow such suffering. I chose to believe that God is unaware of seven children burning to death rather than believing that God would allow it to happen, and I would rather believe that God is unaware of children dying of cancer, or dear friends being stuck down in the prime of life, or people starving, or being hacked to death, or people crashing planes into mountains.
I have no difficulty observing the Sabbath to the extent I do, or putting up a Succah, or hosting two Seders or attending most holiday and Sabbath services. I can do all this because I am a Jew and choose not to believe in the deity of traditional Judaism. If more people gave themselves permission to confront and evaluate traditional God beliefs, there would probably be less confusion and conflict regarding religion, and more observance and understanding of traditions that make us a people and that bind us together.
Mendy asked the congregation to call the synagogue if members would be willing to open their homes for the Seders to people who did not have a place to go. He spoke of his own family traditions growing up as a child, and the amusing strangers who attended. Mendy also spoke about a story that the elder Rebbe told about a poor man who was invited to his home for the Seder and did not know that matzah was not to be made wet. The other Chasids where shocked that he dipped his matzah into the borsht, and when this was reported to the Rebbe, the Rebbe said, “Better his matzah be red than his face from being embarrassed.”
Cool guy. It reminded me of the statement from Ethics of the Fathers: “Let every man’s honor be as dear to you as your own.”
Another digression: “Would that all who were hungry could come and eat!” I could not help but wonder if a person had absolutely no place to go for a Seder, and would have to sit at home alone, would or should this person be encouraged to attend a Seder that even if the Haggadah contained all sixteen orders, no chumatz served, but the chicken and meat were not kosher and some ingredients used were parve, but not “kosher for Passover?” In short, is it better to sit at home alone than to attend a Seder that does not observe Passover kashruth?
Mendy’s drush could be summarized in the idea of “Do what is right.”
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch began by informing us that today was Shabbat Hagadol, a time when we are to be mindful of our preparation for the Passover. In addition to cleaning the house, performing the rituals, etc., we are enjoined to bring about internal changes also.
The rabbi spoke about the tasting of moror, the bitter herb, and what that means to us in this contemporary world. She said that in some way we are all enslaved, and we are trying to break out of that enslavement. “In every generation, each person should feel as though he or she went forth from Egypt,” as our Torah teaches: And you shall explain to your child on that day, it is because of what the Lord did for me when I, myself, went forth from Egypt.”
Not only were our ancestors redeemed, but even we were redeemed with them. God took us out of Egypt to give us the land he vowed to give the patriarchs. But what does it mean when we read, “I myself went forth from Egypt?” It means that we continue to go forth from Egypt because we are players in a play that continues to perform using the script that was given to us in the desert. This harkens back to our identities as a distinctive people, and gives us insight into the origin of Kal Yisroel. By accepting the idea that we were there, it commits us to the past and present as one. We are always becoming the future with the same story line.
We were taken by God from Mizrayim, Egypt, the narrow place. And when we are in this narrow place, our own symbolic Egypts, do we need assistance? Do we need God? We do not know how God is reaching out to us in the deepest, darkest, narrowest moments in our lives. When are those moments when we are in Egypt and leaving Egypt?
Change is never easy, and one might feel as though the changes you encounter have put you in a narrow place, a personal Egypt. Leaving home for the first time could be frightening for someone who has never been on his or her own. Divorce, or being alone and not knowing what life will be like alone, is a narrow place, a personal Egypt. There are of course options. One can stay, be abused, and die physically or emotionally, or take the option to leave. It takes courage to move out into the unknown.
In the death camps, there were electrical fences to keep the people in. Some chose suicide rather than be subjected to the horror. Suicide, in traditional Judaism is a sin, and the person may not be buried in sacred ground. But in non-traditional Judaism, suicide is considered a symptom of mental illness, and they can be buried in sanctified land, believing that we must honor equally both those who perished and those who survived.
We were invited to read several poems and I’ll reproduce only one of them.
Leaving Egypt
by Merle Feld
The night is so dark
And I am afraid.
I see nothing, smell nothing,
the only reality--
I am holding my mother’s hand.
And as we walk
I hear the sounds
of a multitude in motion–
in front, behind,
all around,
a multitude in motion.
I have no thought of tomorrow,
now, in the darkness,
there is only motion
and my mother’s hand.
The poem is sensory and kinetic at the same time. The child and mother are being bourne along by some unseen force that creates the sounds of an unseen multitude in motion. It is at once frightening, mysterious, and anticipatory. Here we might have God as parent in the same way that God parented us out of Egypt. God’s hand and the mother’s hand are there for comfort and reassurance, and we are impelled to move without really understanding where we are going, and what we will find. We are reminded of God’s outstretched arm that brought us forth out of Egypt, but we don’t know when this arm will reach out. The poem reflects to me those deeply personal moments when one stands there like an infant standing up, balancing, reaching up. Afraid to take the next step because we are afraid to fall, the unknown terrifies us, so we stand there reaching into the air, ossified, hoping to be rescued, picked up, carried, nurtured. But the toddler knows instinctively that he must move forward as we know that we must move forward when we are in our private narrow places, our personal Egypts. Personal growth demands that we move forward.
We cannot be passive.
Another poem, Maggid, by Marge Piercy, recalls the universal theme of the difficulty of letting go of the familiar and moving out into the unknown. It speaks about the memories and the tangible things that connect you to a particular place – the graves of loved ones, the tree you planted, the place where love began, the language of your ancestors. It takes great courage to face the unknown, but if you opt to stay, you also opt to die. The poem is about the very real experience of individual Jews, and the individual experience described moves from microcosm to the macrocosm
of the Jewish People who have experienced displacement and wandering for millennia. The poem honors those who transformed themselves, even at the expense of being looked down upon by their own. It honors those who chose to let go of everything, to become “the other” in exchange for freedom and the right to live.
We must take courage to move out, to go to college, to marry, to divorce, to flee, to take a new job, to move across the country, to move across the world, to move to escape persecution... It is natural to resist change, even though the current situation may be toxic. But even the toxic can be comfortably familiar. But at our core we know that staying is dangerous to the soul and we must face the unknown if we are to physically and spiritually survive. My great grandparents and grandparents were such people. They left with nothing, but insured their descendants survival.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
April 4, 2015 B”H
15 Nissan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: First Day of Pesach
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying: I remember nothing because Mendy chose not to speak on this Shabbat, depriving thousands of his perceptions and wisdom. I am not sure of where this tradition of not delivering a drush on this Passover Sabbath comes from, but I’m not in favor of it. The only thing Mendy did say was related to a new fad where college kids stay up all night to watch a marathon of shows and talk about it. Now of course anyone who has ever read a traditional Haggadah, knows that there is a reference to a similar situation where we learn that the rabbis sat up all night discussing the Haggadah and the meaning of the story. Again, there is nothing new under the sun.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel also did not refer to the parasha in the Torah this week, but chose to speak about the tradition between Passover and Shavuot where The Ethics of the Fathers are read. It is also translated as The Chapters of the Fathers composed between the 2nd and 5th Centuries of the Common Era. It is a series of statements on how to lead an ethical life, how we are to treat our fellow human beings and ourselves, and to whom we must be grateful.
One characteristic of the Ethics is that each piece of wisdom refers back to another rabbi so the gravitas or wisdom of what is to follow is established. Once deference is made to the forefathers, the additional thought is added. So the first statement in this compilation is “Moses received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over to Joshua. Joshua gave it over to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets gave it over to the Men of the Great Assembly. They would always say these three things: Be cautious in judgement. Establish many pupils. And make a safety fence around the Torah.”
We were told that the book starts off with the lineage of how the Torah was passed down so we can see that the ideas contained have legitimacy because they are anchored in the Torah and not the ideas that may not be legitimate. It reinforces the concept of l’dor v’ador; the giving and receiving from generation to generation. Be deliberate in judgement means that we are not to rush to judgement. Make a safety fence around the Torah refers to additional laws to protect people from sinning against the laws in the Torah. For example, grains are not eaten on the Passover, so in the Askenasic tradition, this prohibition was expanded to include rice and legumes to protect the law against eating grains.
There is the law of not mixing meat and milk, so people would not be confused, the prohibition against eating chicken and milk together to protect the meat and milk separation was added. It works so certain laws could not be implemented because they were too harsh. There are infractions that call for the death penalty in the Torah, but fences were built around certain of those laws so they could not easily be implemented. For examples, in Jewish law, the death penalty requires two eye witnesses, and a warnings to be given to the potential perpetrator of the crime. Adam was the first to build a fence around a law. God tells Adam not to eat the apple, and Adam tells Eve not even to touch the apple.
The fence is moveable, and the wisdom of having such a moveable fence was obvious to the rabbis if they wanted Judaism to stay viable as we moved through history. I do think that more traditional Jews would agree that the idea of a moveable fence makes living in our contemporary possible. Perhaps the eruv, the line stretched out in a particular area so as to extend our private
domain was not needed centuries ago, but it makes it possible for traditional Jews to better function on the Sabbath in suburbia. I think it’s important to realize that while these “fences”
keep us from breaking the laws, they also keep us from acting on them as they are written in the Torah. Sadly, other religious traditions have not built fences around harsh laws or exhortations to hate in their own sacred documents, so some among them are mindlessly hating and chopping off heads, hands, and feet.
One point of information that I shared regarding the tradition of teaching in the name of other rabbis, was that one key problem the Jews of ancient Judea had with Jesus was that he taught in his own name. Statements in the Gospels such as “You have heard it said that.. but verily I say unto you...” That method of teaching was a no-no because he not only did not reference the ancients, but the very structure of the statement implied that they were wrong and he was right.
The second statement discussed was uttered by Shimon the Righteous who said: The world stands on three things: Torah, the service of God, and deeds of kindness. The Torah is God’s word, and the authority behind moral law, and without that concept, morality can be relative to the situation because man becomes the authority. The service of God refers to the prayers offered up after the Temple was destroyed, and the gratitude we must show. The world rests on this three legged stool.
The third statement speaks to the importance of doing something for the intrinsic value of doing it and not for the sake of the reward you might anticipate. It also spoke of the “fear of heaven being upon us.” The latter is a state of being where you are enveloped and always aware of God’s expectations.
Judaism is filled with reminders that we are to be aware of God’s expectations. For me, God’s primary expectation is that I and all others should behave well. In everyday life, I am reminded of God’s expectations each time I see a mezuzah on a door and walk through that door, or choose not to eat traf three times a day. Such constant reminders keep God in your head, and with God in your head like that, you tend to behave better towards others. Of course, there are those who keep kosher, touch every mezuzah three times a day, pray three time a day, and act despicably. Such people have missed the point of their faith, and are clueless as to God’s primary expectations regarding behavior towards others
The fourth idea considered had to do with letting “your home be a meeting place for the wise; dust yourself in the soil of their feet, and drink thirstily of their words.” The focus here is obviously on educating yourself, and letting it be known that your home is a place of welcome to those who would help you expand your knowledge and soul.
The fifth piece of wisdom continued with the home idea, but extended the openness by urging you to let the poor become members of your household. It also exhorts men “not to have excessive conversations with women...” “One who excessively converses with a woman causes evil to himself, neglects the study of Torah, and, in the end, inherits purgatory.” In commenting on this, we recalled the story in Genesis of Abraham whose tent was open on all sides to welcome the stranger. This prohibitions against speaking excessively to women invited many comments.
I suggested that there was something sexual about this warning, and we discussed this as another one of those fences that would make adultery less possible. It’s a fence around that Commandment as is the law of the mehizah, the barrier of separation of men and women in
Orthodox synagogues. Dozens of laws were created such as not being able to kiss the cheek or shake the had of a woman not married to you, or help her on with her coat, or the idea of not listening to a woman sing, were all instituted to protect the modesty of the woman, and tamper down the raging sexual and uncontrollable impulses of men. These impulses naturally lead a man
away from the study of Torah only to end up in purgatory.
For me, such prohibitions are statements that men are no more than uncontrollable beasts. I disagree, and the prohibition of not listening to a beautiful female singing voice especially deprives a human being from experiencing of one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity. Are Orthodox Jewish men improved by never having heard Beverly Stills sing? I don’t think so.
I taught in an Orthodox yesivah for several years, and the repression of all things sexual expcept what came out of the Talmud and Code of Jewish Law was what was imposed. Everything else was considered “sin” and thoughts that might be considered normal for teenage boys were forbidden. The restrictions placed on their learning only angered them, caused them to judge the rabbis harshly, and rebel by sneaking magazines into the dorm, and listening to rock and roll, rap, and female vocalists secretly. The rabbis saw themselves as keeping the boys pure, and many of the boys saw the rabbis as people from a different planet with no concept of what it took to negotiate the world they lived in. Some came to reject Judaism because there was no freedom to think or discuss thoughts that were not approved by tradition.
We see in the Torah where Moses puts in an extra stringency regarding Revelation at Mt. Sinai. Whereas God tells Moses to have the people purify themselves, Moses tells the men not to go near a woman three days prior to the Revelation on Mt. Sinai.
I can see where some people need to have their natural inclinations controlled, and religion can do this for that person. And I can see where some people need to be fully directed in their moment to moment existences by the minutia in the form of “fences” so they will never have to make a decision on their own and risk failure. I can see the attraction of turning everything over to tradition and to God as the vehicle for moving through and among the barriers of life and all its uncertainties. That said, I still prefer making my own choices. The thought of it being a sin if you become aware of a sunset while praying is too drastic a “fence.” To me, that sunset is a prayer all its own and the Ayn Sof’s own handiwork. No one can tell me that I commit a sin by being in awe of such beauty. And the only thing missing from such a moment is the voice of Beverly Sills.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
April 25, 2015 B”H
6 Iyyar 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Tazri`a – Metzera – Leviticus 12:1 - 15:33.
Haftorah II Kings 7:3 – 20.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy had already begun speaking when I arrived, and his message did not address the parshah but concerned itself with the afterlife as it is conceived of in Orthodox Judaim. At points he did compare our ideas to Christian and Muslim ideas, and the over all comparison led one to conclude that both Christian and Muslim faiths have a heavy focus on the afterlife, and that while Judaism certainly does believe in an afterlife, our primary concern is on how one behaves in this life to earn a place in that afterlife.
It is not correct faith that earns you a place in the Jewish afterlife, but correct behavior.
His delivery was more rapid fire than usual. At one point he spoke of the three questions one is asked before one’s afterlife is to begin. At least I think that’s when the questions are asked, because the questions are assessments of the supplicant’s life, and it is only logical that they be asked before one is assigned to either Gan Eden (Heaven,) or Gehenah, (Purgatory.) There is no Hell in Jewish theology.
Christianity and Islam have conceived of Hells with boiling oil, demons with pitchforks prodding you eternally, and buckets of puss as repositories for evil souls. Actually, the imagery for Christian Hell comes primarily from the imagination of Dante as he describes it in his Divine Comedy and from the dramatic scenes depicted on Medieval church windows. Judaism does not envision eternal damnation.
Life is difficult enough on earth, and some people live through “hell” while alive. So why pursue people for eternity? Besides, if God directs all behaviors as some believe, why eternally condemn someone who had been deemed by God to sin. It would be just too cruel. I’m not sure if the souls of truly evil people have a “share in the life to come,” or simply cease to exist as their ultimate punishment. He didn’t touch upon that subject.
The first question basically stated: Were you a mensch or a decent person when you lived? If the answer was “no” you went to Purgatory. Purgatory as conceived in Judaism, is a place of ritual cleansing which prepares you for Gan Eden. If you said “yes” and I guess documented it, you were then asked: Were you a good Torah Jew? This I believe questioned your Yiddishkeit, your adherence to ritual, and whatever else makes a Jew a “good Jew.” If you said “no” you went to Purgatory. If “yes” and documented it, you were asked the third question which was Did you believe in the coming of the Messiah? This question tested your faith in the future and whether of not you believed in the ultimate goodness of humanity. In short, did you believe or at least hope that the world ultimately get better.
I would ask one other question that I think I heard somewhere. Have you ever seen a rainbow in the sky? I think this should be a question because it would indicate the person’s
sensitivity to the beauty of creation, and the person’s ability to stop, appreciate, and be grateful to the Creator. Gratitude is at the core of happiness.
Gahenna or Purgatory is considered the opportunity for the soul to come to terms with its failings. While it is a punishment, it is not designed to be torture as we understand torture to be as depicted in the Christian and Muslim faiths.
It is also to be understood that a person may not be in Purgatory for more than twelve months, and we can help the soul move upward through saying the kaddish for that person and doing mitzvahs in that person’s memory. So those of us who still live, can assist those who have passed away through our own behavior. We were also told that though we say the kaddish for only eleven months, and it is to be understood that the year of earth time is not the same as the time as experienced in Purgatory. What is eleven months to us, may seem like decades to the penitent soul.
Mendy told a midrash to explain the Purgatory idea, but I’m not quite sure if I got it right. He spoke of a person attending a fancy dress celebration where he drops mustard on his white shirt. All night he walks around covering the stain, worried about what people will think or say about him if they were to see it. That perpetual worry and fear of discovery and the perpetual fear of judgement on you by others for what you did, is one metaphoric type of punishment in Purgatory. Another type is when someone comes up and tells you that the hem of your dress or jacket has dropped, and you cannot fix it. This clothing malfunction is exposed for all to see, and cannot be covered. The metaphoric punishment here is that you know everyone can see the problem, will judge you for the problem, and you will not be able to fix it though you are fully aware of it. In either case, you are exposed to judgement, and you are, or feel you are being negatively judged by others.
I asked Mendy privately what happens when metaphorically someone else spills or throws the mustard on you because they are angry and vindictive, but those who see the stain do not know it was not of your doing. He said that that was a difficult situation. Lies told about you stain your integrity. There are those who can only believe the lies because they have been kept from the truth or are not interested or willing to listen to the truth because acknowledging the falsehood would cast the liar in a bad light. For some reason, known only to themselves, they cannot deal with confronting the liar. Such people may feel a loyalty to the one who threw the mustard out of friendship or some psychological hold the liar has over them. So the lie remains, the judgement on you by others remains, and your integrity continues to be impugned by people who do not know the truth and choose not to hear it. This experience is a taste of Purgatory while alive.
At one point Mendy spoke about three conditions of existence: the body and soul as a unit, the body and soul as separate entities, and the afterlife where the body returns to the earth, and the soul “goes to its reward.” He also mentioned reincarnation about which he did not speak, but made it clear that this, too, is a traditional belief. He mentioned that both Moses and Yocheved, his mother, were reincarnations of earlier beings.
Prior to our births, God creates the soul which is part of God Himself. With each soul comes a mission. This soul, this spiritual component of God, is place in a natural being that is immediately in conflict with the spiritual because the natural being wants the earthly pleasures, while the soul seeks out fulfillment of the mission and the spiritual plane.
Wordsworth writes: “Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting.
The soul that rises with us, our life’s star,
Hath elsewhere 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.
Heaven lies about us in our infancy.
Shades of the prison house begin to close upon the growing boy,
But he beholds the light and whence it flows. He sees it in his joy...”
The dynamic between soul and body continue, but it is also recognized that each is important and its needs are valid. We are to live in moderation, but not in denial of earthly pleasures. That is why celibacy and all extremes that deny are anathemas in Judaism.
His final midrash seemed to be an afterthought. It involved sitting at a banquet table in Heaven composed of people who had no elbows. While they could not feed themselves, they could feed others. The visual image is strange, but the message of nourishing others is not.
I’m not sure of how this story was connected to what went before, but the snatches of Heaven glimpsed from this story and from others, do not entice me. Dining (without elbows?) on Leviathan and Behemoth, studying Torah in perpetuity, singing praises for eternity, playing a harp, (not a Jewish image) etc. doesn’t sound all that enticing.
I think it was Mark Twain who said, “Go to Heaven for the weather, but to Hell for the company.” Personally, I like the statement that “The Heaven you believe in is the one to which you will go.” Now that opens a wealth of possibilities, and I’ve given it some thought. Though I won’t go into specifics about what is in my heaven, I will tell you that each of my days in my Heaven ends with all the people I have ever enjoyed knowing and loving attending a cocktail party on a large stone veranda overlooking the sea and watching a magnificent sunset. Anyone reading this is invited to stop by any evening if you have nothing better to do in your own Heaven. The conversation is always meaningful and clever. And you can bring a friend. Behemoth and Leviathan are not on the menu unless they are on skewers and in sushi.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch opened with the question as to why there were two Torah portions read today.
What follows is a lot of information about the division of time, and I confess I’m not all that clear on what was said. Make whatever sense of it as you can.
We were informed that there are fifty-four portions, and fifty-two weeks. We were told that seven times during the year we double up because there are festivals where special portions need to be read. We also split them up because of leap years, and add whole months because we are on a lunar calendar. Lunar months have twenty-eight or twenty-nine day months, and we are always a little bit behind. We have three harvest festivals specific to seasons so our calendar is seasonally adjusted. Every nineteen years we add a lunar month. See what I mean.
We were the first civilization to have a seven day week, but there is nothing astrological about such a division. The month is lunar as measured by the phases of the moon, and the year is solar, as measured by the movement of the earth around it. The ancients were brilliant and knew their math. They were also very tuned into observation and awareness of the natural world.
The topic shifted to something called “The Documentary Hypothesis” which refers to different schools of thought related to the redaction or editing of the Torah. While tradition holds that the Torah was given in its entirety to Moses on Mt. Sinai, modern scholarship, initiated by Wellhousen, a 19th Century scholar, says that it is an anthology of stories woven together into one piece from several different traditions.
A careful reading will show that there are stiches or seams that show up revealing places where the narrative doesn’t flow such as the story at the Sea of Reeds. Linguistic scholars have identified several sources: The “J” tradition uses YHVH as the name of God. (There is a theory that the “J” text was written by a women in the court of King David.) The “E” tradition use Eloheim as the name of God. The “J” tradition is woven into Genesis and in Exodus. The “P” tradition is the priestly or rabbi’s manual that is the Book of Leviticus. “D” is the Deuteronomy tradition, and “R” is the redactor who sewed the whole thing together and incorporated his or her own words to make one narrative connect with another.
Chapter seventeen in Leviticus seems to have a change of voice from the text surrounding it. This text reveals the “H” tradition and appears in the middle of Leviticus. It is called “The Holiness Code.”
We were told that in ancient times, the ranking for the most important was not the first, but the center. That is why Leviticus is in the central book of the Torah, and the Code of Holiness is in the center of Leviticus. Everything builds to the middle. Even the Torah Service is in the middle of the Shabbat service.
The Code of Holiness, if you consider the Torah from a teacher’s point of view, is the medial summary of the lesson.
Because we approach the text from different points of views, it doesn’t mean that Revelation is not of great meaning to us.
This is how I see it: A pianist’s hands may play two different musical ideas at the same time, but the result is a singular experience called the composition. The idea that different literary traditions came together to form the Torah does not take anything away from the value of its content. Consider an orchestra. Each group of instruments play its own ideas in support of the larger idea which is the symphony. The Torah is a symphonic piece, conducted by God, and though made up of different instruments, they are all following the same score to produce the core values of the Jewish People.
Reform Jews experience Revelation metaphorically and spiritually, while our more traditional co-religionists take it literally.
The Holiness Code is right there in the middle of the Torah, and begins with the lines: “Be holy, for I am holy.” Rabbi asked us what was meant by “holy?” There is also the insistence that Moses speak to everyone.
I responded with the word “separate” and explained it this way: God is separate from man. Man is classified as an animal. We are to separate ourselves from our animal natures. We are both earthbound and spiritual. We are to endeavor to separate ourselves from our more earthbound natures. We are part of the ordinary, and we are part of the sacred. When we are
endeavoring to be “holy” we are endeavoring to raise ourselves to the sacred and spiritual. It is the physical action that brings one closer to God.
I also expanded on the idea that as a separate and distinct people (I did not use the word “chosen” because that word offends or excites some of my co-religionists who see the “choseness” as a statement of superiority and not responsibility) we have a special calling which is different from the calling of other peoples:“Be a light unto the nations,” and “ Make the world a better place,” is unique in theology.
But one the members of the congregation found the thought of distinctiveness difficult because it seemed that such a notion was not in sync with her notion of liberalism. Years ago I wrote a piece on multi-culturalism and that movement’s effort to destroy distinctiveness in our society and make everything equal. My thesis was and continues to be that not all cultures are of equal value, not all values are morally equivalent to the Judeo-Christian values of Western Civilization, and not all people have equal worth. There! I said it!
The Islamic guardians of Islam in Saudi Arabia who allow girls to burn to death, do not come from a culture that is superior to mine. Judaism does not sanction the murder of little girls because they may appear in public inappropriately dressed. Any Jew who gives these people a pass because they are acting on their religious belief, has no clue as to what Judaism demands as far as judging others is concerned.
Muslim terrorists screaming “Allah Akbar” as they cut off the head of an innocent journalist or stone a women to death, do not come out of a religion that is superior to mine. Judaism does not sanction killing innocent people in the name of God. Any Jew who gives these people a pass because it is their religious belief, has no clue as to what Judaism demands as far as judging others is concerned.
Wives being expected to throw themselves on a funeral pyre so they would not be a burden to their dead husband’s family, do not come out of a culture that is superior to mine. Judaism teaches that we are to support the widow and the orphan. Any Jew who gives the culture that demands such an action has no clue as to what Judaism demands as far as judging others is concerned.
Children left to die or aborted because they are girls, are abandoned and killed by people who do not have a culture or value system superior to mine. I can go on. It has been my experience that some people on the Left have substituted their religious teachings for the principals of a political system, and though Judaism and liberalism have much in common regarding the welfare of individuals, liberalism is not Judaism, and Judaism is not liberalism.
I do not hold with the idea that we must accept how other people behave and honor their behavior because that is their way of doing things or that is what their faith teaches. I do not hold with moral equivalency and that “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.” I do not hold with the Christian idea of “Resist not evil, but if someone strike you on one cheek, turn to him the other.” Evil and the people who practice it need to be confronted even though the multi-culturalist among us would give them a pass because they are acting on what their faith and culture teaches.
The Code of Holiness is a book of ethical behaviors, and not a book of spirituality. But behaving well as the Code demands will make you more connected to God, and that will make you a more spiritual being.
The body and soul of the human being are intertwined. The body is a holy thing because it houses the very thing that God created, the soul. Both are sacred, and that is why we treat the dead with enormous respect. A fundamental Jewish teaching is that the whole being is holy, and while the Hebrew words “tome” and “tahor” are translated as “unclean” and “clean,” they really describe the state of being when a person can participate and times when a person cannot participate.
When you marry, the ritual words are powerful. Words are active and create reality. In fact, in ancient times a spoken word had the gravitas of the action already done. Remember, “So let it be written. So let it be done.” “You are sanctified to me according to the laws of Moses...” means that you are not permitted to anyone else. I set you aside for myself. We speak of being chosen, of being set aside only for God and only for a unique relationship. We are set aside to be distinctive. It is the Holiness Code that tells us what we must do in order to be distinctive.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard May 2, 2015 B”H
13 Iyyar 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Acharei: Leviticus 16:1 - 20:27
Parasha Kedoshim: Leviticus 19:1– 20: 1- 27
Haftorah: Amos 9:7 - 15
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began speaking before I came in, but I immediately recognized that he was speaking about the current situation in Baltimore and elsewhere in the country because he was talking about the grouping of laws in the Torah regarding the care the wider society owes to the poor, and our obligations to treat everyone justly.
Specifically, he was referring to the gleanings of the harvest you must not take, nor the fruit fallen from your vineyard. These are for the poor and the proselyte. The second group dealt with laws insisting that we not swear falsely, steal, and have honest dealings. But the key message Mendy gave was that the Torah insists that we not only know these laws, but know that the Torah demands that we act on these laws.
It is up to us to fulfill the mitzvah of providing for the poor. He asked us to try to imagine what it was like to wait on line for government assistance and experience how demeaning that must be to the human spirit. And, if I am not mistaken, he also said that any rabbi who claims to speak the words of God and does not bring the true intent of this teaching to his congregants, is not doing his (or her) job properly. And Mendy made it very clear that he was speaking universally, and not just about helping our own.
I have always believed that God, while demanding strict obedience to the theology and rituals or else, was and is, a closet Liberal when it comes to social action, and fully supportive of the social programs instituted by our government over the decades such as welfare, Medicare, Medicade, etc. And I wondered how Mendy’s drush fell on the ears of the Republican Capitalists in the room (of which there are many) and I wondered how they resolved in their own minds the mandates of the Torah to support social welfare of the less fortunate, and their actual feelings about social welfare as it currently exists and the people who receive it. I imagine for some, (if they give the paradox any thought at all) are having a values conflict.
On one hand we are commanded to support and protect the poor, and on the other hand we see the poor and don’t like them or the taxes required to support them. But as the Torah says, “The poor shall never depart from the land.” God is a universal God, so I don’t think the commandment is to support only the Jewish poor or only the poor in Israel. After all, there is a commandment that says, “There shall be one law for the stranger and the home born.” I imagine that we are asked to respect that law no matter where we live. Do we hold the Torah as our guide to what our social responsibility should be, or a political ideology?
Based on today’s readings, I think God would be very supportive of universal health coverage as well as Social Security. I think God would be (is) marching in Baltimore, in New York City, in Philadelphia, and in Furgerson, for equal justice and the elimination of unnecessary police brutality, nickel rides, and profiling. Those I spoke with after the service agreed with Mendy that there are many difficulties that continue to exist, and each had a story about negative
experiences in their jobs with minority people. That said, they still see the need for changes in these people’s lives, and that can only come from jobs, a change in values, and a change in the culture of victimhood.
Now no one is talking about the “thugs” who burned down buildings and places were their own had found work. These people need to be prosecuted. We are talking about honest people who only want jobs to support their families and feel the dignity of having a job and providing for
loved ones. Tragically, this calls for massive infuses of job opportunities and money that only the government can supply, and many people continue to feel that the government should butt out of state business. But bake sales will not build factories or pay for education and training.
Trillions have been spent over the past decade on wars we cannot win, but that doesn’t mean that that money would have found its way into the urban centers. Congress will not raise taxes on the one percent to pay for the work projects to rebuild American roads and other infrastructures. They see this money coming out of social welfare programs which would defeat the purpose of upholding the poor. Republicans will find billions of dollars for the military, but see only cutting social action programs for the poor to finance creating jobs to rebuild the country. Republicans will vote to cut back on food stamps and not vote for increasing the minimum wage so a person in poverty might get out of it. Republicans would sooner let millions of Americans be forced out of our current weak attempt at universal health care, but have offered anything substantive in its place that would actually make life better for the poor.
But Mendy neglected to say specifically what we can do to ameliorate the conditions of the poor. Trickle down economics as a way of creating jobs is a myth, and the truly wealthy who have a social action core have become seriously involved in supporting schools in urban centers and making major donations to health facilities and the like. I have a single vote, and can help vote into office those people who will continue those policies of which I approve, many of which I learned of and adopted by reading the Torah.
It has been said that God is a a mathematician, and I say that He is also a left of center Democrat. Bravo Mendy for being courageous enough to say that Judaism is more concerned about the welfare of the poor than it is about the bottom line. And thank you for opening hearts and minds to the wider world!
Mendy then shifted gears to a topic that gave him enormous pleasure. Today, a young man was being called to the Torah in a ritual called an “ufruf.” This commemoration is to honor the man a week before his wedding. This particular young man, Josh, aside from being an affable and interesting young man is quite scholarly, and read the Torah with great skill. Part of this service involves the men on the bimah joining hands and dancing around the reader’s platform while the congregation pelts the group with small pouches of candy. It’s a very happy moment, and I wish the couple all the best.
Each time there is such an event, Mendy searches the text for something meaningful that he can teach the bride and groom, and though he said this one was difficult, he found it in the lines: “Aaron shall bring near his own sin-offering bull, and provide atonement for himself and for his household.” Then he expounded on the rabbinic questions of why the word “household.” What if his wife had died? He then explained that the wife was so important as a stabilizing factor in the sanctity of the Jewish home, that there was a second woman waiting to marry the High Priest in the event that his wife died. There were a variety of other explanations including Rashi’s where he explains that the household of the High Priest were other Kohanim. But one rabbi said that the “household” is the wife. The wife is the home. This is more than just metaphor.
Judaism believes that the foundation of a civil and safe society is one where the family is the basic unit, and the man’s sexual energy must be concentrated on the wife and not anyone else. We’ve seen this idea repeatedly infused in the laws of Leviticus. You want a stable society, you’d
better have a stable family. If we are to address the needs of the poor in this country, we need to provide people with jobs so they can have the dignity of providing for their own and establishing a stable family. Stable families create stable communities. Stable communities create stable cities. Stable cities create stable states, etc., etc..
Mendy said that there are two Yom Kippurs; one being the Day of Atonement, and the other being the wedding day. It seems that our tradition teaches that on one’s wedding day, all sins are forgiven so the couple can begin with a new slate. Nice idea. Totally unique.
The third topic had to do with something of a warning. Though the Torah says that a man should “cleave unto his wife,” Mendy made it clear that conflicts do arise over the involvement of other people, mainly, in-laws. Mendy advised that parents are to be kept close and honored. “Every man: Your mother and your father you shall revere...”
That’s a wonderful thought, and certainly I know people who do or did revere their parents and now can only revere them in their memory. That said, there are certain people who get married to get away from their parents so they can try to begin a life that is without burdensome parental expectations, harsh judgements, and intrusions. There are just some parents who cannot be revered despite the commandment. Some parents just never see what they are doing to their children, and why their children must push them away to survive.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel continued with a discussion on Pirke Avot, the Ethics of the Fathers which is part of the Talmud that is read between Passover and Succoth.
The opening of Chapter 2 begins with Rabbi Eliezer saying: “The honor of your fellow should be as precious to you as your own, and do not be angered easily, and repent one day before your death, and be warmed by the light of the Sages, but be careful of their coals that you will not be burned, for their bite is the bite of a fox, and their sting is the sting of a scorpion, and their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their words are like coals of fire.”
The first focus was on anger, and Rabbi Frenkel asked why that was such an important aspect of the statement. We spoke about God’s anger with Adam and Eve and the results of that anger, of His anger with Moses at the rock and the results of that anger, and we spoke of Sodom and the results of that anger. The message was clear that you don’t anger God.
I suggested that anger is a secondary emotion, and we have to look to what emotions felt prompt anger as a response. My thoughts regarding God’s anger was that God was feeling discounted. He had made statements, or had expectations and these were not addressed by the people He felt should have known better. So while the message is Don’t Discount God, we are also to recognize that there are consequences to our angry responses. The rabbi is telling us to step back and think about it. It’s why we are told to count to ten. Within the statement is the idea that we are not to get comfortable with our anger, or it will become a way of life. We have to learn to deal with the feelings that make us angry and get over them. Remember what happened to Pharaoh.
Since you never know when you will die, it best to repent every day. That was the initial understanding of the third idea in the quote. We are also asked elsewhere not to put off study because you may never find the time. Time is passing and we are not to wait.
The next idea dealt with the warmth of knowledge, but the need for balancing that which is safe and that which is dangerous.
I was reminded of the three rabbis who went into the Pardis. One came out and committed suicide, one became an apostate, and one became elevated to greatness. They had delved into the mysteries of the Kaballah, and two of the three were not stable enough to maintain their balance. (If you haven’t read “As a Driven Leaf” by Milton Steinberg, I urge you to do so. You’ll meet the apostate.)
The idea of extreme fundamentalism came up as a reference to what can happen when you get too close to certain ideas. The closer you get to God, the more dangerous it is. I am reminded of Aaron’s two sons.
The second quote discussed was by Rabbi Yehoshua. “The evil eye, and the evil inclination, and hatred of the creations remove a person from the world.”
The evil eye is a response someone who bears you ill will may give you, but the evil inclination is something you are born with. The evil inclination is also that thing in us that moves us to have children, and build a house. For me, the evil inclination is really the ego, since it is the ego that wants to extend itself through its children and its stuff that is in the house one builds. Nothing wrong with that unless it becomes all consuming and no one else matters.
The idea of hating the creation refers to hating other human beings. They are God’s creation. If you hate God’s creations, you hate God and remove yourself from the world. People you hate become seen as “the other,” and you will be punished and isolated if you act on your evil inclinations. Again, Pharaoh became hard hearted and removed himself from the world and from any compassion. Hate is a very strong word in rabbinic literature.
Rabbi Yosei says: “The property of your friend should be as precious to you as your own. Prepare yourself to study Torah, for it is not an inheritance for you. And all your deeds should be for the sake of Heaven.”
Our property, our “stuff” is in some ways an extension of ourselves into our environment. Our “stuff” in some ways define us and reflect who we are and what we wish to convey to others. Therefore, our “stuff” is important to us, and if loaned or given for safe keeping to another, it is if we have given a piece of ourselves to that person and it must be seen as “precious.”
The Torah is a gift that needs to be studied to be made our own. It is not just given. It needs to be earned. Each time we learn something new, it is like finding a key that will further unlock ourselves. I was reminded of Robert Frost and his poem “The Gift Outright” that he read at the Kennedy inauguration. Basically, the poem teaches that we must invest ourselves into the thing in order to make it really our own. The same investment of ourselves is required to make the Torah our own.
“For the sake of Heaven” means that the intent of our actions should be for a higher purpose.
The fourth statement was uttered by Rabbi Shimon referred to the care that had to be taken when reciting the Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, and how these must not become routine. He cites Joel 2:13: “For [God] is gracious and merciful. He is slow to anger, and abundant with kindness, and relents from punishment.”
The Shema and Shemoneh Esrei are the central prayers of the service, and the reader must approach them with intensity and meaning. We spoke of Keva which is the literal order of the
prayers, and of Kavanah which is the intention and meaning you bring to these prayers. The reader must know what he or she is saying, or they are missing a key element. In the Shemoneh Esrei we read that if you do good, God will reward you.
I think that a religion where there are no promises of reward would be an easier religion to follow because there would be few expectations and few disappointments. And whatever one does to make the world better would be done just because they were making the world better for its own sake; for the sake of heaven. Such a religion would demand that we focus on this life. Judaism, I believe, comes closest to this philosophy because we are forbidden to dwell on thinking of the afterlife. Other faiths make the afterlife a primary concern in their theology.
The Shemoneh Esrei speaks of an ideal God who rewards the good and punishes the bad. But we all know that this is not the case, and the supplicant is confused between what is promised and reality. Rationalizations based on things that cannot be verified such as a reward in an afterlife may comfort some, but not others.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard HowardMay 9, 2015 B”H
20 Iyyar 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parshas Emer – Leviticus 21:1 - 24:23.
Haftorah – Ezekiel 44:15 - 31.
Chabad: This what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy once again began by reminding us that the Torah is a living document and relevant to our lives in ways we cannot imagine, and that it is his objective to find that relevancy each week so we might grow spiritually. So he began the connection by telling us that over the past weeks he had been asked for his opinion on three questions, and he was curious as to how we might have responded.
• The first question involved a family that was inching its way towards observance and had set out Friday night dinner as especially important. But the child in the family was invited to a prom to be held on Friday night, and the parents disagreed with one another as to how they should respond.
• The second question had to do with a kid who was out of control and causing such stress in the family, that the family was at the point of desperation. (I think that was the issue.)
• The third question had something to do with whether a person had to be ritually cleaned and watched over by the Hevra Kedisha (burial society) if family members did not hold with that tradition. (I think that was the issue.)
But it doesn’t really matter what the specific issues or questions were, because Mendy did not share his responses being primarily interested in ours. I’m sure many guessed his responses anyway. Many people did respond. By raising these issues and questions, Mendy was tying into a particular teaching that had to do with the responsibility parents have to teach their children, and that they best teach by setting the example through their own behavior.
He connected this piece of parental advice to the opening of the parasha where HASHEM says to Moses: Say to the Kohanim, the sons of Aaron, and tell them...” Mendy spoke of the redundancy “say...and tell them.” This was interpreted to mean that not only were the Kohanim to teach their own young children so they would not become contaminated, but these teachings were to be conveyed to the general population so the people would also avoid becoming contaminated in their own lives. And the adults in the community, through the expectations placed on the Kohanim, were especially responsible regarding their own children’s education because children will see their actions and learn from them.
In the musical “Into the Woods,” Steven Sondheim writes a song called, “Children Will Listen” which addresses this very concept. One of the things that always disturbed me regarding the behavior of many contemporary Jewish parents is that if they do belong to a synagogue, they may or may not attend services regularly, have little observance in the home, and will drop their children off at the Hebrew school and take off. The message to the child is that “this is for you. This is what children do. Adults do not do this.” Naturally, no one ever says this specifically, but the observed behavior subliminally states it loudly. “We’re supposed to educate you because we were educated, but we did not follow through and we do not expect you to follow through either.”
None verbal parental messages are just as strong as verbal ones.
Mendy mentioned that there were only three places in the Torah where this apparent redundancy appears, and these were regarding the holiness of the Kohanim, the prohibition against drinking or eating blood, and one other I cannot recall. Then he skillfully connected each of these issues where the redundancy appears to the three issues he began with. I recall that the prom issue was connected to the holiness of the Kohanim, and the ritual washing issue was connected to the blood prohibitions, and I cannot recall the bad kid issue to the Torah connection. But again, each of the three Torah “redundancies” was connected to the questions brought to him, and I also cannot recall how each was connected. Still, the message was again that parents not only need to learn themselves, but are obliged to teach their children in a calm, reasoned, and clarifying way. Children will listen if they can understand the value of the teaching.
He reinforced this by telling the story of an issue concerning the exchanging of rings at a wedding ceremony. The bridegroom wanted to exchange rings, and the rabbi of his synagogue said that he would not do that because it was not part of the tradition. The bridegroom and bride asked if Mendy would perform the ceremony, and Mendy also said that the male receiving a ring was not part of the tradition, but he took forty-five minutes to explain the tradition and his reasons. After that, the bridegroom agreed that he could receive his ring at a later time. The point being made here is that when something is fully explained, the chances of understanding and acceptance are increased, and acquiescence may follow.
A factual correction from last week’s commentary: The Ethics of the Fathers is read between Passover and Shavuot. I mistakenly wrote between Passover and Sukkot.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel continued with our Pirke Avot study by citing Rabbi Elazar’s statement that we are to “Be diligent in your studies of Torah, and know what to respond to a heretic...” She asked us why there would be a concern about a heretic, and one congregant defined the word as one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine. Another said that heretic were to be feared because they could lead the less informed astray from the Torah. But in order to respond to a heretic, one had to know the Torah very well. Tradition fears heresy because it confronts established “truths” and could influence others to turn away from that which is traditionally accepted.
Throughout our tradition there are warnings about following “false prophets” and “false Messiahs” because of the spiritually dangerous places they might lead. I was thinking about Spinoza and his excommunication from the Jewish community of Amsterdam for his ideas that all is God, and that God is unaware of us as individuals. To deny that God is not personal is a heresy in traditional Judaism. False prophets fall into that category of heresy, and the most famous one was Sabbatai Zevi in the 17th Century. There were dozens of others over the century. All faiths warn against heresy, and religious wars are fought over such ideas being introduced. Early Christianity had many “gospels” and after Matthew, Mark, Luke and John became “The Gospels” all other were considered heresy and destroyed along with the people who held those ideas. The Reformation was a heresy and is still considered such among certain people. The battle between Shia and Sunnis is the battle over a perceived heresy.
The next statement came from Rabbi Tarfon who said; “The day is short and the task is great, and the laborers are lazy, and the wages are much and the master is pressing.” Simply stated, the teaching refers to the human condition where we tend to procrastinate even though our time is short to accomplish what needs to be done despite the benefits.
Tarfon continued with the idea that though we are not expected to finish the work, we are not free to abandon it. There are great rewards in studying the Torah, and that God should be trusted to reward you for your study. And that the reward for the righteous will be in the time to come.
At its core, the statement says that our task is to improve the world, and though we cannot finish this task, we must continue to try. We are part of a process, and that the work was given to us and will continue after we are gone. The responsibility continues from generation to generation. It’s a l’dor v’dor moment. It also speaks about the reward for the righteous in an afterlife. Ideas about the afterlife begin after the exile. The concept of an afterlife is only vaguely referred to in the Torah and Prophets, but becomes important in the Rabbinic Period because under Rome, life was brutal and the people needed hope. The promise that there is another life where there will be reward for earthly suffering assists people to deal with the brutality and injustice of living. But the Jewish People were taught not to focus on this promise, but continue to try to make the world a better place in this life.
And interesting image was introduced. It was suggested that life is a strip of exposed film. We live frame by frame and we can see each frame as it is created. But God sees the entire strip of film.
The next piece of wisdom for consideration came from Akavya ben Mahalalel who said that if you reflect on where you come from, where you are going, and before whom you will have to give account, you will not come to sin. We come from a putrid drop, we are going to a place of dust and maggots, and we shall give a reckoning of our lives before the King of Kings.
We are reminded that we are very mortal, and that we are to be very humble because of our fate. Sin comes from self absorption and ego in excess. When we sin, we erase God from our world.
So this does not happen, Judaism has come up with a time structure and a system of blessing and gratitude that if followed, will keep God and God’s expectations to behave well in our heads constantly. There are one hundred prayers one can say each day, and there are three designated times for formal worship each day. You can’t get into much trouble while you’re praying. You eat three times a day, and each time you must avoid eating what God wants you to avoid so you have God in your head each time you eat. A mezzuzah remind you each time you walk through a door of God’s expectations of how you should behave. Each reminder is to keep you from sinning.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. The Yetzer Hara, the Evil Inclination each of us carries, is really the ancient’s concept of Ego. I believe this because there is a statement in The Ethics that says “Without the Yetzer Hara, a man would not build a house or have a child.” A house and the stuff you put into your house is really an extension into the world of who you are, and it says to the world, “I exist, and this is what I have.” That to me is pure ego. And what is more egotistical than having a child and pushing your genetic material into the future that also says, “I was here, and this is what I created.” That is also pure ego. But when the ego gets out of control, and striving for more acquisition tramples others and becomes your reason for being, one might come to sin because the ego has gotten out of control.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
May 16, 2015 B”H
27 Iyyar 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Bechukosai – Leviticus 26:3 - 27:34.
Haftorah: Jeremiah 16:19 - 17:14.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy had already begun speaking when I entered, and he was obviously sharing some story about congregants who had asked him a question regarding how Chabad continues to attract people while other congregations are declining. Later on, he also referenced a meeting of rabbis where one element of the discussion was on how to increase participation of non-affiliated Jews in the community.
In order to respond effectively, he referred us to Chapter Five, verses 13 and 14 of The Ethics of the Fathers which is currently being read. These two items deal with types of Jews who give tzadakah, and types of Jews who study. Each has four statements, and the benefits derived
for each is stated. But the last of each states that he who does not give and resents others who do, and he who does not study and resents others who do, are evil.
Mendy told the story of the Rebbe who responded negatively to a visitor who intimatedd said that a relative had distance himself from Judaism. The Rebbe’s feeling was that no Jew was ever disconnected from his or her Judaism even though he or she did not participate. All people have something within them that is searching for connection and spirituality even if they are not aware of it themselves. And this understanding on the part of Chabad rabbis is the reason Mendy gave for the success of Chabad: At Chabad, each Jew is viewed as spiritual being searching for his own spirituality even if he is not consciously aware of it yet. Viewing a person in that light is much better than viewing them as potential paying members.
Mendy commented that the reason the Chabad run community wide Challah event was so successful with three hundred participants from all over South Jersey attending though another attempt which was sponsored by an other Orthodox synagogue had limited participation, was due to the idea that the women knew that there would be no risk and felt comfortable and welcome. Chabad has a reputation of being open and welcoming, and people are willing to participate at Chabad functions because they know that.
He commented that the rabbis, in looking to increase membership, offered the idea of reducing religious activities in favor of more secular experiences. This Mendy said was the opposite of what people needed. Mendy insists that you give more, not less. People are looking to synagogue affiliations for spirituality first, and then opportunities to do good in the world.
While I agree that there are many who may be consciously seeking to increase their level of spirituality, and develop a relationship with the Transcendent, I’m of the opinion that neither of these goals can be achieved through rote recitation of the service. At least, that has never worked for me. A search for spirituality, I believe, is a deeply personal thing that can best be pursued in small group discussions of thoughts and feelings both with fellow seekers or with people who are deeply involved with spiritual matters and who can listen to doubts and concerns, and be a guide to the seeker. I also think that by reading the works of mens such as the Rebbe, Herschel, one can be inspired by ideas that you can incorporate with your own. And serious introspection is needed. The quest demands a suspension of disbelief and an openness that risks vulnerability.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch spoke of this parasha as a continuation of the Holiness Code, suggest that the Torah might be read in a historical and cultural context. She said that history and culture are on vertical and horizontal lines, and that we can better understand Torah if we consider what was going on in the surrounding cultures of the Middle East at the time the Torah was redacted. If I am not mistaken, she said that the redactors of the Torah played around with time because the time of the composition is not the time of the setting of the story. Some of the stories were ancient and handed down orally, some were contemporary, and some written about older times.
She reviewed the four concepts of the Pardis, the Garden, which explains the four different levels through which the Torah may be understood: the literal meaning, the interpretive/metaphoric meaning, the meaning to be extracted to show how Torah effects our lives, and the mystical meaning.
We began the Torah study by reading the list of behaviors that will bring blessings, and noticed that these general blessings covered all aspects of life. In fact, the blessings describe a utopian world. Still, it is made very clear that while the blessings are beautiful, there are conditions. It also makes it crystal clear that the blessing are in this life and not in any afterlife. This is the place of focus and it is our behavior, not our correct faith or our our adherence to any correct theology that is demanded by God.
I could not help but think about other faiths who put so much weight on correct faith as being the litmus test of membership in that religion, and their focus on rewards in the after life. These two areas of theological disagreement as to the proper religious focus of human beings, is what really separates Judaism from other religions.
Throughout the parasha, God addresses humanity as “you” which is collective and plural. The blessings cover all basic needs, and it is incumbent upon everyone to obey these commandments. And since there is a collective obligation, there is also a collective punishment. In short, each of us is responsible for everyone else, and all of these laws must be observed by everyone.
That collective expectations for collective rewards and punishments to me sets people up to fail because there will always be people who will march to a different drummer. I don’t feel it moral to punish an entire population for the missteps of a few. Certainly, Abraham felt the same way as I do when he negotiated with God over Sodom and Gomorrah. I fully understand that the Torah, in addition to being many things, is a guide book to correct behavior, stressing the idea that if the people consistently follow the law, an organized and safer society will follow. If not, chaos ensues.
The concept of Kal Yisroel which states that all Jews are responsible for one another, is embedded in this idea. Even the Romans used this concept of collective guilt and collective punishment retroactively when they martyred the Sages for the crimes of Joseph’s brothers for selling him into slavery. The brothers had never been punished for that crime. .
What we have here is a social contract that is meant to protect the group. We are being told to behave in the way God wants us to behave. We are to obey the laws, and by doing so, we will keep the community and relationships stable and organized. In order to do this, we have to be
growing and flourishing as a people. Again, belief here is not an issue. We may make it an issue because it is an issue to us, but belief is not an issue here. For the Jew, doubt and struggle are part of the natural process. Even “saints” like Mother Theresa revealed her struggle with doubt and faith, but struggle did not keep her from her life’s work.
In traditional Judaism, God’s existence and control is never in doubt. The opening of Genesis states that first there was a preexisting God who created all. God exists prior to creation.
The Torah does not worry if people believe in God. The Torah is all about behavior.
Rabbi Koch spoke not only about our responsibilities to one another, but our responsibilities to the planet. She mentioned an African frog that some believe has curative powers and because of this, it is being hunted and is quickly becoming extinct. What effect will this have on the environment? Years ago I came upon a story where the houses in an African village were falling in on the families because man inserted himself into the environment. In order to grow more crops, the farmers sprayed DDT (now illegal) on the crops. The crops were eaten by certain insects that now carried the poison. Birds ate the insects and promptly died. Along this food chain, an animal that fed on termites also started to die off so the termites, now flourishing and out of control, and ate the supports, walls, and roofs of the houses. The houses fell in on the occupants. You think about elephant ivory and rino horn. Both animals are being hunted to extinction, because there is no sense of responsibility or understanding of the interconnectedness of life on our planet.. If you have never seen the film “Avatar” I urge you to do so. The relationship between the planet and the indigenous population makes this very clear. Think butterfly effect.
We read that God promises not to “spurn” us if we do as we are told. The root of the word translated as spurn means detestable, or loathing, or can’t stand you. Following this, we are introduced to the curses which are read quickly and softly. These are really nasty, and the mystical number seven appears in the seven fold punishments to be meted out for disobedience.
These curses may reflect events that had happened in the history of our people prior to the redaction of the Torah. The curses are reflections of what people do to other people in times of chaos. It’s sort of a back story to remind the people of what has happened to their ancestors for turning away from the laws of correct behavior. The blessings are general, but the curses are specific, and it is important to understand that these curses are happening now in Nigeria, Sudan, Congo, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc.
Leviticus ends here.
“Chazak! Chazak! Venischazeik! (Be strong! Be strong! And may we be strengthened!
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
May 23, 2015 B”H
5 Sivan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Be-Midbar - Numbers 1:1 - 4:20.
Haftorah – Hosea 2:1 - 22.
Chabad: Mendy turned the bima over to his brother-in-law, a well know writer and editor in the Chabad world. Out of respect, I will also state that the following is what I think I heard him saying.
I have never been disappointed in listening to any of Mendy’s relatives speak because they are all consistently good speakers and interesting men. This speaker began with what seemed to be an obligatory joke about a group of men who went hunting with their rabbi. All shot arrows simultaneously, and then they gathered around the deer to see whose arrow took the animal down, one congregant said, “The arrow belongs to the rabbi because the arrow went in one ear of the deer and out the other.” Many laughed, but the deers in the audience were not amused.
He informed us that we were about to begin The Book of Numbers which begins with yet another census ordered by God. Here God directs Moses and Aaron to conduct it themselves and then agrees to let them get assistance from the heads of each tribe. There were several questions raised, namely, “Why assign such a task to elevated personages such as Moses, Aaron, and the tribe leaders?” Today, a census would be taken by people willing to accept part time work and minimum wages for this tedious effort. He also asked, “Why Shavuot is such an important holiday?” “What’s with all these numbers?” and “What’s the need for yet another census when one had been taken in the not too distant past?”
In answering the census question, the rabbi said that God’s choice of who would take the census was to teach us that each of us has intrinsic worth, and that we are worthy enough to be counted by Moses, Aaron, and the tribal leaders themselves.
In another parshah dealing with another census, the people were counted and were asked to bring a specific number of shekels to the Tabernacle based on an assessment dictated by God. This was also meant to teach that each of us has a value, at least a value that could be measured out in shekels. So Jews are instructed in the Torah that each person has value, and no one is worthless. This might be a good reference for classes on improving self-concept. The message is that God believes each of us has intrinsic worth.
Another thing to be noted from the secular world is that most people out side of your family or maybe a teacher or two if you’re lucky, don’t care about your personal worth or self- concept, but only about how you behave. But always keep in mind that even if it seems that no one thinks you have any worth, know that the Torah teaches that God thinks you have worth. That thought may have been of some value when my crazy sixth grade teacher made me sit between two massive glass windows while the other kids were told to get under their desks during an atomic bomb drill. The message from here was clear. Happily, I ascribed to her no power to tell me who I was or my worth as a human being.
I believe the rabbi said that while we celebrate Shavuot as the time the Torah was given to us, in reality, it was given to us over a period of time. But it was on this particular day that we were asked if we would accept it and obey its precepts. It may commemorate the idea that this is the first time that Jews became responsible for their behavior.
I think I remember that the message about why all the “numbers” might have been connected to the message of the Shavuot holiday itself. Prior to Shavuot, the rabbi said, the people had many choices, and could pretty much do as they pleased. We had choices because prior to the giving of the Torah on Shavuot, these laws were not mandated. Now with Shavuot, we were commanded to obey. This changed things. The people became Chosen to obey these commandments, and not everything was now to be a choice. I don’t recall his exact comments about this.
I believe that if every thing is a choice, then standards have to be situational, and under this system, morality has to float. Perhaps this census was taken to number the people who would now be told what was expected of them as the Chosen People, a people who were chosen to receive the moral law that would become the foundation bedrock for civilization. Perhaps it was important to know such numbers to see how many would fall away, or how many would cling to the law and grow with it. In the world we live in, we are given choices that seem to overwhelm us, and I believe that we become stressed out and ill both physically and mentally because there are just so many choices before us.
I’m also thinking that the reason Jews are more and more embracing Orthodoxy is that Orthodox Judaism demands that they stop and do what they are told. Orthodoxy takes choices away, thus freeing adherents take a breath from having to constantly choose. Certainly, Orthodoxy demands that one day a week you stop and do what you are told. No choices have to be made because the choices have been made for you. Now while there are some who will rail against this idea of turning your life over to a tradition and being told what to do, there are others who find that following Yiddishkeit frees them on some levels from the insane pace and voluminous choices one confronts daily.
On Shabbat, one knows what one must do. A day free of choices. A day for God, family, and friends. I think today’s human being craves this vacation once a week to replenish personal resources, be grateful, and take a breath from technology and weekly demands.
If one is raised in the Orthodox tradition and has breathed it in for a lifetime, one accepts the laws and limitations on choice, understanding their value. But if not raised with the beliefs, the sights, the sounds, the smells, and the tastes of Yiddishkeit, one must reach an introspective point in life when the realization comes to you regarding what is really of value and what do you really want out of your life?
I think he said that people who are in important roles have their choices limited for them because of who they are and their and the requirements of their position. He mentioned the Queen of England who must behave in a particular way and has no choice to do otherwise. He mentioned the astronauts who have limited options if they want to survive in space. No one is free if they do not have restrictions. This seems to be a paradox in need of further discussion.
The rabbi did say that our choices do matter, and we distinguish ourselves though our choices, but if you can do anything and make any choice, then it is possible that little matters, and that nothing is important to protect or defend because there few standards to uphold.
Note: I have to say that I feel great joy seeing my fellow congregants on Shabbat at Chabad, and what I see are generations sitting together praying, learning and listening, comradely with good discussions and laughter at the kiddish, etc. Today, a Chabad friend commemorated the sixtieth
anniversary of his bar mitzvah by chanting the Haftorah he chanted so many years ago. He worked on it for six months, and his efforts were rewarded in the glowing comments made by Mendy and other congregants when he finished. He did a wonderful job, and everyone was enormously proud of him for undertaking the task. Mendy challenged the rest of us to do the same for our own Haftorahs.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard HowardMay 24, 2015
6 Sivan 5775
Chabad : Shavuot Comments:
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying: Prior to the reading of the Ten Commandments, Mendy spoke of a congregant who had called him with feelings of insufficiency. From what he said, I surmised that this man had come recently back to Yiddishkeit, and had involved himself in study, regular attendance at services, and other activities. But for some reason he was confronted with thoughts that he was “insufficient” and called Mendy expressing feelings of failure because he realized how little he knew. Mendy did not respond to him on this weighty matter on the phone, thinking that the situation required some thought.
But he formulated his response by sharing the incident with us, and referred us to the Book of Ruth, the story of a Moabite woman who probably knew little about Judaism, but decided to throw in her lot with her mother-in-law, Naomi, and follow her back to Naomi’s family saying the famous words, “Whither thou goist, I shall go. And whither thou lodgest I shall lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God.” I believe the point he was making was that one doesn’t have to be a great rabbi, or teacher, or scholar to gain the respect or love or even make a great name for him or herself based on how much they know. Ruth originally was not Jewish, and yet she became the grandmother of King David, and the ancestor of the Messiah. Not bad for a shicksah.
If I were to speak to this man, I would tell him that his feelings of insufficiency are a gift because the awareness of how little you know is the thing that impels you forward to learn more. Of course one must recognize and accept the fact that no one can know everything, and whatever you do learn increases you, may inform or effect your behavior, and may benefit those in your immediate circle. The latter are all we can hope for in this life.
As Mendy spoke, I was reminded of my response to my father when I graduated college. My dad was a reticent man, a product of the Depression, and possibly suspect of people who wanted more out of life than the station in life to which they were assigned afforded them. The only thing I recall him saying to me upon graduation was,“Well, big shot, what did you learn?” He may have thought the question humorous, but I found it similar to the question “when do we eat?” at the start of a seder. I responded with “I learned just how much I don’t know.” That realization was what put me on to a life long love affair with literature, art, music, philosophy, history etc. And like Mendy’s caller, I began to learn Judaism or Yiddishkeit in my forties. I have learned a lot, and I know it is only a fraction of what is to be learned. Realizing how little you know is the first step on the great journey, and I wish each kid who gets a diploma would come to that conclusion.
Mendy then turned his attention to the reason we were in shul – Shavuot, and he invited us to close our eyes as the big Ten were read, and imagine ourselves standing at the foot of Sinai.
As we are asked at the Passover Seder to think of ourselves as if each of us went out of Egypt, so Mendy was asking us to imagine ourselves personally receiving the Law. I imagined myself seeing the scene with the fire and the lightning, hearing the shofar blasts, and feeling the rush of the wind. I also imagined standing next to some Chabad friends and rejoicing with them. Years ago when Mendy first invited us to fantasize this moment, I asked him if he would consider putting a red plume into his hat so I could find him among the vast sea of black hats. This time I’m going to ask him if the men and the women were separated at Sinai. There is the statement that to prepare for the event“a man was not to go near a women,” but that refers to sexual relations I’m sure. The Torah does not call for a machitzah.
As an introduction to the recitation of the Ten Commandments, he reminded us that we were chosen to receive this honor because we had met the three criteria God had set.
We already knew midrash about God taking the Torah to the great nations of the world, and each refusing for one reason or another. That midrash continues with God holding Mt. Sinai over the heads of the people, threatening to drop it if we did not accept His teachings. But this was the first time I had ever heard of the criteria that had to be met to become chosen for the task of obeying the laws, and being a “light unto the nations.”.
The first criterion related to the concept of Kal Yisroel. It seemed that God demanded that we become a unified people, that we recognizing the importance and the value of each other, and that we see ourselves as a unified people with a unity of purpose.
In the Shema we say, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” The unity of God seems to me to be the only theological construct upon which Jews across the Jewish continuum seem to agree. The Shema states the recognized unity of God, and if there is a universal piece of Jewish dogma, it is stated in the Shema. The foundational unity of God in Judaism is a given, so in my mind, I choose to translate the Shema as a reflection of the unity criteria God had set out for receiving the Torah. I translate it as: “Hear O Israel, we are one with the Ayn Sof, we are one with each other.” I think it is a good idea to insists that we constantly recognize the unifying relationship of the people with God, and our unity with each other. These should also be givens.
The second criterion had to do with following the Commandments without question.
I do recall a statement where our ancestors said in response that “We shall do and we shall hear,” which I think meant that we shall trust and act first, and learn and understand later. This requires faith, and I suspect that the criteria of “following” was for God to check out our capacity for faith. It would seem that faith and obedience are two important behaviors as far as God is concerned.
The third criterion had to do with who would accept the Torah. Again, there is the midrash of the great men and scholars saying that they would accept it, and God refusing them. Then the adults agree to accept it, and God refuses them, too. It is only when the adults promise that their children will accept it and live by it that God agrees to giving the Torah to the Jewish People.
This midrash anticipates the lyric, “I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way...”
Note: A wonderful image. A young father was standing by the door davening, lost in prayer, while his three year old daughter was sitting on his shoulders. Later, this same young man took his daughter over to his father and the three of them stood under the grandfather’s tallis as the Kohanim blessed the congregation.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
May 20, 2015 B”H
12 Sivan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parasha Nasso – Numbers 4:21 - 7:89.
Haftorah – Judges 13:2 - 25.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy opened up his talk by referring us once again the The Ethics of the Fathers which he said has nothing to do with theology, but has everything to do with behavior and how a Jewish person is to deport him or herself. Specifically, he cited Chapter 1 verse 12 which says:
“Hillel and Shammai received from them. Hillel would say: Be of the disciples of Aaron--a lover of peace, a pursuer of peace, one who loves the creatures and draws them close to Torah.”
According to Torah and Jewish tradition, Aaron was the peacemaker in the family, and Moses was the lawgiver/administrator. The character of peacemaker was what was most revered and valued in Aaron, and Hillel asks us to emulate him in our lives. But beyond just trying to make peace, we are to pursue peace. But it shouldn’t stop there.
I’m thinking that this admonition is to seek out those places where peace between people needs to be established and we are not absolved from that obligation. I am reminded of the statement that though the task is not ours to complete, we may not refrain from trying to complete it. I think that’s also from the Ethics. This idea of pursuing is similar to the Torah demand that we are to pursue justice as in “Justice, justice, you shall pursue.” It would seem that these ideas reinforce God’s expectation that we are not to “sit idely by on the blood of our neighbor,” and that we “burn the evil out of our mists.” We are to be actively involved in making peace between others, and doing what we can to make the world a just place. Hillel is saying that we are to get involved in more than just a superficial way.
But Hillel goes on to say that it is as important to love God’s creations as well, because if you love those with whom you are involved, you are at another level in the relationship because you become part of the relationship. The people you are helping come to know that you are truly with them and interested in them more than just in a passing way.
The modern therapist is one who is paid to make peace between and among people, but I do believe that there is a cardinal rule that the therapist remain separate from having a personal relationship with those he is helping. The therapist, like the judge in a court of law, must remain totally disinterested. Anything beyond disinterest might involve the therapist, judge, or rabbi in a difficult position where judgement might become biased. That said, there is probably a level of compassion that each must show to those in stress to establish an appropriate and trusting relationship. Conflict resolution must involve rational and dispassionate people, and the skilled “peace maker” must know how to move their clients away from the passionate to the rational.
Finally, Hillel adjures us ultimately to draw people closer to the Torah, but Mendy specifically cautioned us by saying that Yiddishkeit and Torah must never be diluted.
At that moment, other ideas began to push their way into my thoughts, and though I’m sure he reiterated that the Torah is a tree of life... etc, my thoughts moved to former students who
rejected their Judaism possibly because of how it was taught to them in Hebrew school and offered to them in the synagogue. These kids did not get watered down Yiddishkeit. Each was afforded an Orthodox Jewish education. I taught English in an Orthodox yeshivah, and I saw and heard how the student felt about what they were being taught and what they thought of their rabbis. I saw two of the students walk away and marry out of the faith. Nothing was diluted for them, and no one was willing to answer their questions or challenges with any response other than “Hillul Hashem” or blasphemy against God. And these were the Orthodox ones. I can tell you similar stories about both Conservative and Reform students, also raised in homes where there was something akin to more that three times a year attendance. Still, these kids also moved away from observance except when they are invited to Passover seders or the high holiday celebrations with their families.
It must be easier raising kids in a ghetto where there are no options. But if you find yourself straddling a secular society with a religious tradition, it is not easy. The students to which I refer rebelled, and continue to do so possibly because their religion was taught to them in such a way that did not give them a reason to see how the religious life was superior to the secular life. If some rabbis and parents take the position that it’s “my way or the highway,” they may see the backs of their kids as the kids walk away. I’ll just say this. Kids are taught, kids believe, and kids feel disappointment and betrayal when they find out that what they have been taught to believe and expect just doesn’t happen to them or to those around them. The promises are shattered by realities, and where is a teenager to go with that?
So Mendy spoke about the need not to dilute Torah, and I was someplace else.
He then turned his attention to the parasha and focused on the Nazirite vows. He pointed out that there were three books in the many books of the Talmud devoted entirely to a particular topic. One text deals exclusively with the laws of the Passover, the second deals with the laws related to the High Holidays, and the third book relates to the laws concerning the Nazirite. Briefly, the Nazirite vow involves no wine or liquor of any kind, never cutting your hair, and never attending a funeral or touching a dead person. Samson, in the Book of Judges, was a Nazirite from birth.
He spoke of a “nazir” who is a person who imposes a rule on him or herself for a given period of time or for all time for that matter. We impose such rules on ourselves during Passover when we get rid of hommetz for eight days so we will not be tempted during that long period of time. (We don’t get rid of food for Yom Kippur because it would be unthinkable to eat on that day.) We impose such rules on ourselves for a variety of reasons. We might want to lose weight, or we might have lost a bet. Or we might want to support someone who has become allergic to something. Whatever our reasons, it is a promise we make to ourselves that has little to do with faith.
I haven’t smoked since 1973. It is a self imposed rule, so does that make me a nazir?
But there are also other choices that I’ve consciously and deliberately made that are religiously oriented, and long term. For example, I chose not to eat tref in the 1980's, but that had more to do with finding a new identity than it did with theology. My specific behaviors in this world are often guided by laws in the Torah and Talmud that tell me to act or not to act. I choose to act this way. But are choices also vows, or are vows religious and choices secular?
The Nazirite is working out of a different frame of reference. While the nazir may have imposed the rule on himself and does not make himself more holier than he was before the committment, the rules of the Nazirite makes that person holy to God. It is a personal dedication of one’s self to God, and not to be taken lightly.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch informed us that the Book of Numbers was not a narrative, but a book of rituals with narrative interspersed. She made it clear that the placement of the Tabernacle in the center of the camp, made the Tabernacle and God the focus of the people’s lives. Rules for exclusion from the camp were discussed, and the word “Tuma” which is normally translated as “unclean” was translated as “ritual ineligibility” which seems closer to the intent of the Hebrew word itself.
In our discussion of Chapter 5 verses 6-8, there is presented the idea that a person can realize his or her own guilt, and this illumination of self-awareness of sinful behavior on the part of an individual, seems to be a new concept in the Torah. When God says, “Speak to the Children of Israel,” it is to be understood that this idea applies equally to all. We were referred to Leviticus 5:20 verse 6 where the phrase “breaking faith with the Lord” was written, and this is interpreted to mean “treachery” and/or “fraud.” The same word is used here. The word “intertextuality” was used to describe that idea where the use of a word or words in one part of the Torah elucidates or informs of the meaning of a word or words used in another part of the Torah. So it is with this idea of treachery against God.
The implication in the verse is that a betrayal of another human being is a betrayal of God.
I was thinking that because we are God’s creations, and that our souls are extensions of God into this world, betrayal of another human being and treacherous treatment of another person is tantamount to a sin against God. Each of us is in God’s image, is an extension of God into this world, is unique in history, and therefore is to be valued. I was also thinking that if you take away the value of a human being, you are devaluing God and denying His authority.
We then considered the steps one is to take towards making it right with the injured person and God. First, there is the recognition that the person committing the sin knew it was wrong. The second step it to publically confess or elocute, and the third is to make restitution. Expiation requires awareness, public admission, restitution, and a sacrifice. The confession must be public as a means of humbling one’s self. Our ritual confession on Yom Kippur in some ways follow this procedure.
It would seem that the Torah once again anticipates the requirements of any ten step program and what a person must do in a court of law to state his or her crime in order to get a reduced sentence.
The Hebrew word for confession is “veduee,” and we are asked to confess during Yom Kippur, in the daily service, before we go to sleep, and upon our death beds. As part of this confession, and request for forgiveness, we are asked to forgive others. No relationship can be repaired without making amends. If we ask someone to forgive us and they refuse, we must return to them two more times. If they do not forgive us after the third request, then they are the ones who need forgiveness for their intrangency.
The intension of the Ashamru prayer is that a realization is required of us.
The intension of the Viduee prayer is that we be engaged in the process.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
June 6, 2015 B”H
19 Sivan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parasha Be-Ha’aletcha – Numbers 8:1 - 12:16.
Haftorah – Zechariah 2:14 - 4.7.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
This past week, Chabad held its 11th Annual Founder’s Dinner, and Mendy expressed great appreciation for the roughly 362 attendees. In addition, he asked that anyone who wished to do so was invited to send him an email expressing not only what they liked, but what they disliked also so corrections might be made for next year. He also invited suggestions. Already people had commented to him about likes and dislikes, and he told a story about a bride who after the sheva bruchas cooked a wonderful meal for her husband. But her husband did not respond as she had hoped she would. The second meal received the same response, and she called her mother asking what she was doing wrong. But the mother could give her no advice at that time, and yet another meal went unpraised. The next meal she made was overcooked and burned, and she called her mother in tears. The mother said to serve it anyway since the husband wouldn’t like it either. And so she did, and the husband said, “This is wonderful. It’s just like the way my mother cooks.”
The point Mendy was making was that one man’s tough piece of meat is another man’s delight. Not everyone is going to agree on what is good, and not everyone is going to be happy.
He then turned his attention to the parasha to the lines describing a dark cloud that covered the Tabernacle by day, and the “fiery appearance” that covered it by night. And whenever the cloud was lifted, the Children of Israel would journey to where God wanted them to be, and when the cloud rested on the Tabernacle, they would encamp.
Immediately I had two questions: Why was it a dark cloud when there is no indication in the Torah that it was any particular color? And “If the Tabernacle had to be set up for the cloud to rest upon it, how did the Children of Israel know where to stop and set up the Tabernacle so the cloud could rest on it? Did the cloud hover above the selected spot? We are told that the cloud accompanied them as they moved on the journey, but we were then told that it was the the Ark that journeyed before them that searched out a resting place. (Chapter 10:33-34). My second question was answered with a further reading, but that answer just raised more questions such as how did the Ark that was being carried by people communicate that it wished to stop?
I braved asking the first question, and Mendy said it was a good question. But his response was not particularly satisfying intellectually though I understood from his later comments that a dark cloud was necessary for the particular message he and the sages wanted to teach.
Mendy said that the dark cloud is an ongoing reminder to us that there are less fortunate people in this world. In this instance, the Tabernacle is symbolic of God’s goodness, and the good life of plenty, and of the spiritual and physical satisfaction that many of us enjoy. But though life is good for some of us, we must remember that there are those of our people who do not have the benefits that we enjoy, and are in need of our support. We are to be aware that sitting above our heads is the potential of fortune reversal, that this dark cloud is that reminder, and we are to be mindful of that reality. He referred to the Ethics of the Fathers and reminded us that we are not to separate ourselves from the community which is a tendency for some who have achieved wealth
and status. Mendy also intimated that kindness garners rewards for generations that follow. He also referred to the breaking of the glass at the end of the wedding that was to also be a reminder not only of the destruction of the Temple, but also a reminder of the needs of others.
Contrasted with this dark cloud that was to remind us of our obligations to be kind to the less fortunate and generally to all, there was the fire that infused the cloud by night. The blackness of a desert at night, a darkness so dense that one cannot see one’s hand before them, could be terrifying if there is no moon to give light, and no stars to provide a sense of place. So the fire emanating form the cloud gave comfort and was a reminder that God was also there to comfort and enlighten them in the dark places.
I was thinking about the Pilar of Cloud that formed in front of our ancestors escaping Egypt, and the Pilar of Fire that kept the Egyptians from pursuing them as they crossed the Sea of Reeds to safety. But I don’t think the cloud on the Tabernacle day and night morphed out of the clouds that were at the sea. Just an interesting theory suggested by a scholar whose name I do not recall: The cloud by day and the cloud of fire by night might have been the pillars of smoke that could be seen in the sky over the eruption of the Island of Thera in the Mediterranean. It was the most massive volcanic explosion in recorded history and visible in Egypt. That experience, it is suggested, entered the consciousness of our ancestors, merged with the escape narrative, and became part of the story as it was passed down for generations.
Mendy expanded on acts of kindness, and how one act can have repercussions decades latter. This led to two stories. The first dealt with Miriam who was struck down with a spiritual disease for speaking against Moses. She was expelled from the camp for seven days, and the entire congregation did not move until she was healed and returned. The reason this happened was due to a simple kindness she participated in when she suggested to Bithia, Pharaoh’s daughter, that she could provide a wet nurse for her brother, Moses, so he would not be stressed. This concern for the infant’s comfort was rewarded by the people’s support.
Miriam’s affliction has always bothered me, because Aaron also was part of the conversation that took place, and while God afflicted Miriam, He gave Aaron a free pass. Nothing is said about Aaron’s punishment for the sin of evil gossip. This is not the first time Aaron is involved in questionable actions such as his participation in The Golden Calf incident. My thought is that this book was written by the priest, and they whitewashed their ancestor. There is a level of sexism and inequality imbedded in this story.
Mendy reinforced this idea of doing a kindness and reaping the rewards in unexpected places. He spoke of a Yeminite Israeli soldier newly assigned to Hebron who heard shots and wanted to investigate. His companion said they need not since there was always gunfire, but he insisted. He found another Israeli soldier that had been wounded by a sniper and saved his life. The young Yeminite refused any recognition, and swore the two men involved to secrecy. They agreed. But the parents of the soldier who was saved could not get the name of the Yeminite, so they put a sign in the window of their grocery store asking if anyone had heard of such a young man. A Yeminite couple came in one day, claiming that it was there son who saved the child of the store owners. The wife of the store owner fainted, and when she revived, she reminded the Yeminite couple that when they came to Israel twenty years ago, both husband and wife worked stocking shelves. This couple chose not to have a child because they could barely support themselves, but the store owners vowed that if they did have a child, they would supply this family with food for two years. The Yeminite couple conceived a boy, and this was the young man who saved their son. A kindness twenty years before resulted in the life of their son being saved twenty years later.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel began by telling us that two years and one month had passed thus far in the narrative, but our ancestors had no inkling that they had 38 more years to go. God gave them their marching orders which were very logical because who was to go first had to do with which tribe was assigned for carrying which part of the Tabernacle. It would have been foolish for the offering plates to arrive before the structure upon which the walls and curtains would hang.
After this brief introduction and after having read the description of the cloud by day and by night, she asked “Why it was so important to follow the movements of this cloud?” Other than it being God’s command, other responses had to do with the need for order to be established among the people and this could only be done in a lock step manner, the need to follow a symbol of order, the need to be aware of a higher authority than Moses, and the need to be aware of whatever this cloud entity was. This was a military camp, and when the order came to “bug out,” they did. The objective was to learn to trust God and to have faith. At times the cloud would rest on the Tabernacle for days or for weeks, and sometimes for a day or less according to tradition.
We were asked to consider those moments in our own lives of transition, and how those moments are often disruptive to what we might consider normal. Structure and obedience are two concepts that tend to lessen the stress of transitional moments. We were asked to consider the student who leaves a structured home and school for a college far away where it is assumed the student has the maturity to deal with this new freedom. Many cannot.
It seemed to me that our ancestors were being asked to develop a relationship with God, but in some ways they may have felt that they were being asked to exchange the obedience to Pharaoh for an obedience to God. God’s objective seemed to be to get them to do what they were told, until they came to rely on God to tell them what they had to do. I dare say it was something like the Stockholm Syndrom.
The relationship was definitely one where the people were to become dependent on God.
Like the Fort Bragg Sergeant charged with turning raw recruits into Marines, God’s first step was to break the people down, shatter their slave identities, and build those identities back up. Yes, they were to have a new master, but they would also have identities and values. But here, God, unlike Pharaoh, is teaching them a different kind of obedience.
But the people complain because they don’t see a reason or reward. Though they have seen miracles, and plagues, they seem to need more, and their attitude seems to be one of “What have you done for me lately?” There doesn’t seem to be any accumulation of benefits. They have been promised something, but nothing tangible is to be seen. Though they have the physical manifestation of God in the cloud each day, there seems to be an intense fear because God does not manifest himself enough for them.
We then looked at Chapter 10 verse one where God told Moses to make two silver trumpets. God then orders exactly how they should be sounded and what is to happen when particular blasts are heard. The Kohanim are in charge. But the text goes on to say that when the people are in battle against an oppressor, God will hear the blasts and the people will be recalled by God and God will save the people.
So the short blasts of the trumpets will remind God that the people are in need of military aid. It would seem that God needs to be reminded. The same thing happens with the rainbow. It is to remind God that He is not to destroy the world. How come God needs to be reminded? Did
God appear to periodically disappear and because of this, the people fell into fear of being abandoned and rebelled against Moses? I was also wondering about the use of the trumpets as
opposed to the use of the shofar as a means of gathering and informing the people. Perhaps the shofar was used for more prosaic events while the trumpets were used for events that were administrative and militaristic.
The Ark, the symbolic power of the Israelite Nation, goes out before the people to protect them. The people need to see something tangible before them in order to have faith.
To these people, the world was mystical, and magical. These were not a people who dealt with abstractions, but believed in what they could see. Their world was very concrete. The Tabernacle and the Temples were concrete manifestations of God’s Presence among them. When the Temples were destroyed, the sensory experience of have God in their midst was devastating. With no external edifice, it was thought that God had abandoned them. At this moment, the rabbis substituted prayer for sacrifice, and the religion moved from the concrete to the abstract. Now, people had to become literate in order to be good Jews so they could read the prayers. This switch in the manner of addressing God was a seminal moment in our development as a faith and as a people. This demand for literacy to be a “good Jew” now informed the development of the religion itself. The Judges, Prophets, and Rabbis take over.
In Chapter 11 we read that “the people began to complain: it was evil in the ears of HASHEM...,” but the rabbi said that the Hebrew was closer to “but the people were in mourning over themselves.” We were told that there is a period of time between the death and the burial where the mourner is exempt for all commandments. The person is in shock. Perhaps the reality of the desert and their fear of not finding food or their fear of being abandoned by God did cause them to express this fear out loud because their fear mechanism took over. Perhaps there was a collective mourning for themselves and perhaps they were collectively in shock and in need of being exempt. Some were more fearful than others and expressed this concern. These people are called “the rabble,” and such types will appear time and time again.
In His anger, God presses His default button and a fire burns against them at the edge of the camp. The formula for this is established: the people cry out to Moses, Moses prays to God, and God relents. This pattern will continue though out the wanderings. What is happening is that the people are separating, not coming together as one as God wanted. This begins a pattern that will also be repeated in the next thirty-eight years.
Moses, ever the reluctant hero, also complains to God about the burden he has been asked to carry, and says he cannot carry these people by himself. Moses is caught between an angry people and an ineffective God. He wants to submit his resignation. He never wanted the job in the first place, and doesn’t feel up to it. Moses also needs to learn how to be a leader. God also expected Moses to elevate himself and start making decisions and miracles on his own. So God tells him to select 70 elders from the tribes to share the administrative responsibilities. These 70 become the foundational number for the Sanhedrin, the court, later to be established in Israel. God gathers the elders and puts the spirit of Moses into them. Moses loses none of his own spiritual veritas, but the elders can now prophesy for a brief time.
I’m wondering if this Torah moment was what inspired the Christian writer to speak about the Holy Spirit descending on the people symbolized by little flames above their heads, causing them to speak in “tongues?”
God, it would seem, does not really know how to handle these people. He seems constantly surprised and disappointed by their behavior. It doesn’t seem to occur to Him that people have physical needs like food, water, etc. and are terrified of an unknown future. Sadly, His immediate response is to destroy, and then relent after Moses assuages Him through prayer and reason. Abraham tried the same. It seems you can reason with God and get Him to change his mind, but not until after He has inflicted some pain on those who displease Him.
Respectfully submitted,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
June 13, 2015 B”H
26 Sivan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parshah Shelach Numbers 13:1 - 15:41.
Haftorah Joshua 2:1-24.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
He was talking about the spies when I arrived, that ten of them had given a bad report, and that Joshua and Caleb were the only two that believed that the land could be conquered. I believe he said that the two finally acquiesced to the majority, not because they agreed, but because they felt that the relationship among the tribes was more important than they being proved right. He then segued from the spy conflict and the idea about making the relationship more important than the issue, to relationships between husbands and wives in conflict, and how it is more important to think of the relationship first rather than proving right or wrong. Ultimately, the lesson here is that it is important to think about others.
I can understand Mendy’s concern about relationships being important and relationships being injured where there is conflict. That said, there are issues that are so important to individuals, that the health of a relationship could turn on both agreeing on a particular issue when a crucial value of one party might be at stake. Husbands and wives negotiate and come to agreements, and trust that each will abide by that agreement. But if one suddenly goes against that agreement, and the agreement has been something that was sustaining in the relationship, one party might not want to give up that very important component for the sake of the relationship.
In considering how relationships were maintained, Mendy made reference to the masculine and feminine sides of human nature that are contained in each of us. He urged the men in the congregation to allow that aspect of their feminine natures to come forward when in conflict with one’s wife, but because it is that aspect that is softer and more attuned to hearing the problem rather than imposing a solution on it which is very definitely part of the male nature. To reinforce this, Mendy made reference to how names in the Torah are changed at a significant moment in a person’s life. He referred to Joshua receiving an additional “yod” to his name when he assumed leadership. That letter change the pronunciation. He also asked us to recall Sarah’s name which originally was Sarai. The midrash teaches that the “yod” that was taken from Sarai to make it Sarah, was transferred to Joshua’s name and with that single letter came feminine qualities such as compassion that Joshua would need as the leader of his people.
Our next focus was on the regulations regarding the separation of the Challah. I did not know that the piece of dough and only that piece of dough separated from the larger mass of dough that will become the bread, is called the “Challah. But the word is now used to describe the loaf of bread that is used for the Sabbath, though technically, everything not that separated piece is really only bread. Note: the use of one part of something to describe the whole is a figure of speech called metonymy. Eg. Twelve sails in the harbor means twelve boats. The section of dough separated for the priests gives its name to the entire bread. Forgive the digression.
The question to the congregation was, “Why not just give the four, dough, eggs, water, and yeast to the Kohanim and let them bake the bread at their convenience?” “Why not give them the finished product?” We were told that the finished product was not given because the baker would have to discern between good and bad loafs and perhaps give the bad or burnt one away.
The raw materials were not to be given because then there would be no investment of one’s self in the creation of what would ultimately be fulfilling a mitzvah. But when you gave the dough, you were fully invested in the preparation, and thinking about others. In this instance, probably the preparer’s own family and certainly, the Kohanim.
I have a lot of questions about logistics. Did the woman of Jerusalem know how many Kohanim there were so they could prepare enough? Certainly there were fewer Kohanim then members of the other tribes, so how much challah did they have to prepare? Was there a division of labor among the women, and did each have to come from all parts of the city to deliver the dough to the Temple? I’m assuming that the wives of the Kohanim were exempt from the mitzvah of separating the challah or were they? Since the Kohanim were centralized in Jerusalem, was the mitzvah incumbent only on the wives of the tribes living in the city? What about the wives living miles away. Was the challah still symbolically separated and given say to the poor?
Congregation M’kor Shalom: We started with the blessing before studying the Torah as we always do, and then we discussed the blessing that we are to say upon getting up in the morning: The Modeh Ahni which is translated as “King of Life and Existence who returned into me my breathing soul – great is your faithfulness.” We spoke of how often reflexive verbs are used and how they indicate something coming back on us. In the case of this prayer, it is the soul that is returning with the breath of life.
Rabbi Koch also reminded us once again that the title for each parasha is the first substantive word we encounter. In this case it is “shelachlech” which translates as “send for yourself.” The action is in the reflexive mood. In this mood, you are both the subject and the object. Je m’appelle or Yo me llamo both translate as “I call myself...” The verb “go” in Hebrew, lech lecha (I think) translates as the reflexive “you take yourself...” The reflexive puts you into an internal process.
The parasha opens with God giving the order to spy out the land, but there is a midrash that God does not want to send in spies, but the people prevail upon Moses and Moses prevails upon God to let them go. So God leaves the decision to Moses. God is giving them the land, but the people insist on scouting it out. “Latour” in Hebrew means to scope out or to spy on.
God, in the midrash, is annoyed that the people still want to scope out the land though He has said he would give it to them. God sees the big picture, but again, doesn’t recognize that there are needs that are big to the people. He took them out of Egypt to freedom, and is surprised and annoyed that they are demanding clean water and food. It seems he is a good micro manager when it comes to the specifics of worship rituals and sacrifices, but not so much with human needs. Is agreeing to let the spies go another test? Are the people being set up to fail?
The chiefs from each tribe is selected to go. Caleb is from Judah, and Joshua is from Ephriam (Joseph). These are the two tribes that later become dominant.
Verse 17 describes it as a good land, but well fortified. This will not be “a gift.” This is a land for which they will have to fight, and the question is this: Is a gift something for which you must fight? Is this a gift at all?
There is a learning process the people must experience to become a people. Because they were slaves for so many years, they need to relearn how to function again as a unified and independent group. Parents are the ones who are obliged to teach their children how to function independently. In Genesis, God is seen making clothing for his first children, and in Prophets, He is spoken of as a mother. In Numbers, Moses uses the image of himself as a nursing mother. The Divine encompasses both male and female as do we.
When coming out of Egypt, God did not send them on the most direct route to the Promised Land because that road was fortified and these newly freed slaves would have been cut down. They first had to transform themselves from a unorganized rabble into a unified army that could and would, fight. They had to learn to create systems of justice. It took two years to accomplish this. But the Promised Land is problematic because there were other people there. Indeed, this was a very fertile land, a land with massive grapes, with many goats, date trees, etc., and definitely worth fighting for. The term “milk and honey” does not refer to milk from cows, but from goats. The honey does not refer to bees, but to date syrup.
The spies are gone for forty days, which is a term used in the Torah to indicate a long time, and two say we can do it, and ten say we cannot. But whatever was decided, there would be war.
The rabbis came up with categories for war, and war was part of our history. The rabbis distinguished between religious war, and war that had no religious obligation. If you we were going to go to war, it had to be justified. The continuation of the people is justified. So what’s the giving if you have to fight for it?
The spies relate that the Canaanite gods no longer protect their people. They’ve lost their “shade” or protection. Reference to “shade” in such a climate has at its core a protective note. In this society, and perhaps in any ancient militaristic society, if you are unable to defend what you have, you deserve to lose it. Ancient societies came and went. The Assyrian Empire rose, expanded through invasion and occupation, over expanded, and collapsed, and withdrew until the next group replaced them. Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, all went through the same process and disappeared eventually. In each case, one might conclude that their gods abandoned them, and that made them ripe for the pickings.
Menolotry is a concept that recognizes that as monotheism was developing, there were still other gods in the neighborhood who were worshiped and whose existence was recognized. “You shall have no other god before Me,” is clearly a recognition of this phenomenon. You have your gods and we have ours. It was not until Isaiah that full monotheism enters. Menolotry recognizes that there may be other gods, but Jews must not worship them. “Who is like you among the gods?”
God gets angry (surprise, surprise) at the spies reports, and is about to take his revenge when Moses prays using the thirteen attributes he learned about in Exodus. God told him in Exodus that if he uses these appellations in his prayer, God would relent. This God does, but not before wiping our the ten leaders who gave the bad report (surprise, surprise) and declaring that the entire nation had another thirty-eight years to wander and get their act together. Of course, the entire generation that came out of Egypt would have to die except for Joshua and Caleb.
The time to fight had passed, and when those Israelites who realized the mistake went into the land, they were severely trounced. God was not with them.
Historically, what might have happened? We had to fight and dispossess others. So what was the gift?
As I said before, God sees the big picture. To God, promising the land was to Him as if he had already given it to them. He decreed it was theirs, (big picture) but the fact that other people were on it and the Hebrews would have to fight for it to possess it was not a factor He considered as being relevant.
Of course, one might interpret the “gift” as God inspiring us to do for ourselves and grow up. God is a good parent who wants us to do for ourselves and be independent. A second gift is the recognition that conquest comes through expansion and conquest of super powers. But as they collapse on themselves and return to their original roots, they leave power vacuums that allow small groups to grow up and become independent.
At one point in history, the Egyptian Empire enslaved the land of Canaan, and when it was there time to restrict themselves, they left a vacuum in Canaan. It is theorized that there were Israelites in Canaan at the time of Egyptian restriction, and during one of these retreats, these Israelites took advantage of the vacuum and came together to build their own empire which began with Saul, then David, and finally with Solomon under whose guidance the empire flourished and reached its Golden Age. Then the Assyrians came. There are those who claim that there were no Israelite tribes in Canaan at the time, but disparate groups came together to form an alliance and called themselves the Hebrew People.
I do not have problems with theories about Biblical historical origins. In fact, I enjoy reading and thinking about them. I even agree with some of them. But I do despise those self-hating Jews who would happily use these theories to de-legitimatize the Jewish People and Israel. Such theories and the scholarship that support them are often used by self-hating Jews, and other anti-Semites under the guise of anti-Zionism, to give credence to their views that Israel should not exist because it was taken from the indigenous Canaanites. Such people see the Arab Palestinians as the descendants of the Canaanites. Well to those people I say this: If in fact the Hebrew People originated as separate tribal groups living in Canaan who came together to form the Hebrew People, they were still as indigenous as the Jesubites, and any other Canaanite people who inhabited that land. Jews can claim the land based on their own origins there. Also, Arabs starting arriving in Palestine in bulk after the Jews came in the 19th Century, drained the swamps, and provided them with agricultural opportunities. Before the Jews returned, it was a wasteland, that was of such little value, that the nations agreed it could go to the Jews as a homeland.
I noticed on the face of one congregant at the Torah study, a smug smile when this theory suggested that the Jews had no Divine Manifest Destiny and did not escape from Egypt. I have always felt that he would sooner see Israel dismantled than see Arab Palestinians inconvenienced. I do believe this theory gave him and those of his “peace at all cost” cohorts some justification for the stance they take.
Respectfully submitted,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
June 27, 2015 B”H
10 Tammuz 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parshah Chukkat - Numbers 19:1-22:1.
Haftorah - Judges 11:1-33.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
We have once again returned to the story of the Red Heifer which is a cow that has no blemish on it, no older than three, (I think) and has never come under a yoke. In all of the recorded history of our people, there have only been nine such red cows born. The parasha sets out a very complex recipe for how this animal is to be killed, what is to happen with the carcass, what items are to be burned with the cow, and especially, how the ashes of this animal was to be combined with water and used for a rite of purification for those needing to be cleansed after being associated with a corpse. The dilemma here is that anyone who is associated with the preparation or the implementation of this cleansing ritual, is made impure himself. This mitzvot or commandment has never been explained, and it was carried out until the Second Temple was destroyed.
Mendy told us that there was a midrash that tells us that Solomon was given the reasons for all the mitzvot in the Torah, except this one, so the only response Mendy has to explain it is that we must wait until the Messiah comes when all will finally be revealed.
He then proceeded to remind us that there are three types of laws in the Torah. The first type are those laws that we would have come to on our own such as “Don’t murder,” or “Don’t steal.” There is logic to these commandments what we can easily see. The second group are those that we cannot see at first, but are laws that we are told to do because they are good for us. Once we do them, we can see the value in them. An example is resting on the Sabbath. We came to understand the need to rest and refresh one’s self. And the third type of commandment are those where there is no logical explanation and no way we can understand why they are given. The law regarding the red heifer and not mixing linen and wool fall into this category.
The interpretation Mendy gave was enlightening though it did not explain why the commandments were there. Mendy said that we were to act on such laws simply because God said we were to act on those laws whether we could understand or rationalize them. “Just do it because I said so!” Seems to be the message.
One key idea Mendy shared was that if you act only on mitzvot that are reasonable or can be rationalized, eventually you will rationalize not performing the mitzvah.
The first category list laws that are good for creating a just society that would be composed of righteous and compassionate people. There are other instances in the Torah where we are asked to do, and the understanding will come from the doing. Those requests seem to fall in with the second category. But this third category demands that we act without understanding or agreement. This week, the Supreme Court ruled on same sex marriage which contradicts Biblical tradition. (A man shall cleave to his wife.) So I got to thinking about laws in Leviticus that call for the “not suffering a witch to live,” the stoning of a disrespectful son, and the condemnation of homosexual acts and the killing of those involved. These are harsh punishments, and I suspect , that the ancients might have viewed these acts as a threat to the established order they were trying to create in this new society. While and I do not know if these punishments were implemented or not, I do know that these acts today still bring death to people in extreme religious and less compassionate societies.
But Judaism is an interpretive religion, and though such harsh laws may have been put in place to discourage such acts, we are taught that there were so many fences built around certain laws, these laws could never be implemented. One might consider these “fences” an end run around God’s intentions, but let’s face the facts. Judaism has become a religion of justice, compassion, acceptance, and love because the rabbis did do end runs around the harshness of specific Torah laws so they could never be implemented. Go Rabbis! Yes, there is the death penalty in the Torah, but the Sanhedrein was called a “killer court” if it condemned anyone to death.
We are taught that Judaism thrives in the home and in the family. The Supreme Court, has officially sanctioned and redefined the concept of what a family is, though American society has been doing that for decades. So if two men or two women, good decent people, observant and committed to creating a Jewish home, marry and raise a family together either through adoption or impregnation, becoming a secure unit and part of the community, how will traditional Judaism treat this union? Isn’t this type of family most desired in Judaism? For some rabbis, this will not be an issue because they do not see the Constitution or the Supreme Court as having a say in what a marriage should be.
I do not know any Jews who feel their own marriages are threatened by gay marriage. I know Jews who are uncomfortable with the idea, but it is more of a visceral response than a rational response. People need to talk this out, because there are many Jewish people who are gay and should not be turned away because of their way of life. I think we can agree that gayness is not a decision, but is part of a person’s inherent being. In fact, the only decision involved is choosing not to act on the inclination. But if one believes that God directs a person’s life, and has a plan for each of us, then it seems that it would be very cruel indeed to create someone in this way and then condemn this person for being what God intended. I do not understand people who wrap themselves in religion, believe God creates people as they are, and deny those very same people their rights to happiness. Now that’s not reasonable.
Mendy finished off with a story about the Rebbe. It seems that a few weeks before he was to go to Australia for two years, the Rebbe’s wife passed away. Mendy wanted to stay in the community and comfort his Rebbe, but a particular teaching of the Rebbe told him he had to leave. The story dealt with the Red Heifer and its ashes. The Rebbe made it clear that the ashes were symbolic of death and of the bitter things we encounter in life, while the water has always been a symbol and source of life. These two mixed together was a reminder to us that life is made up of moments of profound sadness and moments of joyous living. And we are to go forward despite the ashes of death and loss. Mendy went to Australia with this message and a lighter heart.
I recall another teaching about death that insisted that the grieving parents go out and build something positive to give to the world in memory of their lost child.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch is no longer with M’kor, and Rabbi Frenkel was elsewhere. So one of the congregants led the discussion group. When I walked in, he was discussing the mystery as to why there was this ritual with no rational explanation, other than it reflects the fear of living in close contact with the dead. The ritual was actually a redemption process where you were impure and now you became pure again. There were questions about how much water was actually needed, and how many heifers were needed in order to address the needs of such an enormous number of people. There were lots of people dying normally over the thirty-eight years of additional wandering, and lots of people dying from plagues God sent.
My thoughts about this prohibition of being associated with anything that was dead stem from my idea that the most recent experience of our ancestors at this moment was that of being in Egypt where the focus of living was on the afterlife. It is possible that our ancestors, to separate themselves from this society, moved in the opposite direction and considered anything that was associated with death as something that defiled the person.
The mixture of the ashes from the red heifer with water were referred to as the “waters of lustration” or separation. The separation was the pure from the impure.
I was wondering how the Chevra Keddishah, the people who make up the traditional burial society become pure after touching the dead. I inquired, and was told that there were no rituals of purification demanded after the destruction of the Second Temple. Some in the burial society may choose to go to a mikvah, but even that is not required. Basically, I was told, we are all in a state of impurity. That condition seems to be acceptable and will change when the Messiah comes and makes everything right.
The process used by the priests to create the waters of lustration was not an easy process and not everybody could do it. It was suggested that this was an attempt at “job security.” The priests were very much needed by the congregation. There seems to be an overwhelming concern about being unclean. The slightest contact contained the essence of contamination. In fact, the person had to be segregated for seven days. This is not unlike what is done today in the event of exposure to a disease. The person is put in isolation until it is determined that there is no infection. Things must be sanitized. This was brilliant from a biological point of view, and could be seen as the first medical attempts at containing any disease that might be spread from touching a corpse. Much like they treat people who have come in contact with ebola. There is no indication in the Torah as how the ancients disposed of corpses.
I suspect that they were buried quickly in the sand and the people moved on. I once read that stones were placed over the grave to keep wild animals from digging. I believe that it was traditional for people visiting the grave to put stones on it to maintain it. That’s where our tradition of placing a stone on a headstone comes from. We are symbolically maintaining the gravesite.
So thirty-eight years have passed according to the story, and the people fall to complaining that there is no water for themselves or their livestock, and the complainers wanted to go back to Egypt. Again, they turn against Moses.
So it would seem that nothing much has changed with the generation that were born in the desert. Yet like the older generation, they also complained So it is either true that complaining is in the Jewish DNA, or this story is misplaced and belongs in Exodus. I, for one, can understand the complaint. Again, God does not understand that people need water and food to survive, and He has a responsibility to provide this for them. He took them into the desert for forty years and they came to rely on His care. When they are parched and starving, what else are they to do other than go to Moses and complain. So God tells Moses to talk to the rock, and Moses, in his anger at the Children of Israel, forgets the commandment and hits the rock in error. God is annoyed at both Moses and Aaron because by hitting the rock they did not sanctify Him in the eyes of the Children of Israel. For this slight, God tells them they are forbidden to enter the Land of Israel. It seems to me that God never feels sanctified enough and never get in touch with the basic needs of human beings. Not long after this, the people once again find themselves without water and food and speak against God and Moses. So the pattern continues. The people demand water and food, God gets angry. This time he sends fiery serpents and multitudes are killed. Moses prays, God tells Moses what to do, Moses does it, the people stop dying, and God is once again appeased.
Now I must say that the only time God gets angry is when the people seem to overtly rise up against Moses and therefore against God. But the reality is that the only times they rise up is when they have no food or water which is clearly God’s responsibility. By God not paying attention to the needs of the people, God sets up the situation where the people are forced to rebel against Moses. God must take some responsibility here.
I have always wondered why God instructed Moses to create a serpent made of copper and put it on a pole with the understanding that if the people looked up to it, they would be healed because they were looking up towards heaven. Why create a forbidden image when all they had to do was to look up to heaven for salvation. And then I once learned that this copper serpent was put into the Ark of the Covenant along with the scroll and the whole and broken tablets. It seems to me that there is something very ancient and very hidden in this tale.
There was a midrash that said that the women of the generation who first left Egypt did not die off with the men, but were left alive to tell the history of the people to the new generation. Perhaps that’s where they learned to complain.
Respectfully submitted,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
July 4, 2015 B”H
17 Tammuz 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Balak – Numbers 22:2 - 25:9.
Haftorah - Micah 5:6 - 6:8.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
He began with a salute to our country and his hope that we fully recognize how the rights granted to Jews here have enabled us to thrived and make meaningful contributions. He asked us to be cognizant of just how much we owe America for being a place where we can lie down in peace and get up in peace.
Yes, America still has problems, but I personally would want to live no where else, and if you judge by the numbers of people who continue to apply for visas and citizenship, most others feel as I do. Each of us owe a great deal to our ancestors for making the choice to leave wherever they were and come here.
Mendy then told us a story about a wonderful old scholar who lived across the street from his home in Crown Heights. This man was a great story teller, and produced records that Mendy and his friends bought and listened to over and over again. Each story ended with a moral teaching, and Mendy said that he would not tell us the moral of the tale he was about to tell.
This man sounds like a Chassidic Aesop.
The story Mendy chose to tell us was about a king who loved his subjects, and to prove that he loved them, he made it his business to travel to all parts of his kingdom to visit them. One day, it was announced that the king would be visiting very poor village. When the people of that village heard of the visit, they wanted to show their appreciation to him. But having very little themselves, they decide that they would build a wine barrel, and each family would bring some the best wine they had, pour it into the barrel, and that way the king would have a taste of the best they had to offer. All was agreed, but the story then focused on one man who decided that pouring out a bottle of his best wine, a bottle that could be sold to feed his family, was not in his best interests. So he decides to fill the bottle with water, thinking that the water will only dilute the wine infinitesimally and no one would be the wiser. So on the day when the king arrived, a great ado was made as the leaders of the town tapped the barrel for the king. And low and behold, a very light, pink water filled the king’s glass.
Mendy then posed a question: “How would you feel if you were the only one or one of the very few who had poured your best wine into the cask, and learned that you neighbors had poured only water?”
Like most responses after a teacher asks a question, there was a deafening silence, but after some prodding, one congregant said he would be proud of himself for doing what was right. Mendy, like any good teacher invited other responses. I braved the silence and said that initially, I would be pleased with myself and also annoyed with my fellow townspeople for not being honest and responsible. There were other answers. Then Mendy said, “Would nobody be angry?
Feeling good about yourself for being honest would probably not be the initial response for most of those who poured in the wine because such a response may seem too altruistic and make them appear foolish and gullible in the eyes of those who poured in the water. The more
natural response was to be angry. But responding with “anger” may make someone appear petty and unforgiving to those who are content with themselves for doing the right thing. People may be reluctant to say how they think because they do not want to appear less than how they want people to see them. The anger they may have felt is a secondary emotion, so the question to follow should be, “What emotion or thought underlies the anger you feel?”
If you think about it, the anger may be a response to the realization that you have been trusting in the good will of others, and then duped and betrayed by friends and neighbors. I think a sense of betrayal is a far more primary emotion that begets anger as a response. There may also be a sense of shame that you were so trusting and so innocent of guile. Both are reasons why anger is a valid response.
I think Mendy’s point in relating this tale was that when we act righteously and “pour in our own wine,” we are to be proud of ourselves for having acted well and honestly despite what others do or say. Our wine is really our investment of ourselves into the future.
I recall Mendy making a wonderful connection between this story about doing the right thing, and the story of Balaam who went to curse the Jewish People (which was the wrong thing to do), but could only bless them (which was the right thing to do). While I was aware of this wonderful and insightful connection, I do not recall it. It’s funny how important ideas just slip one’s mind. My apology to my readers. As you know, I cannot take notes.
But I do recall the following lesson: Balaam maintained that he could only utter what HASHEM said he might, so he says, “How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel.” This line was introduced by Mendy asking us if we should put a mezuzah up on a tent or on a trailer?
I felt the repetition of “tent” and “dwelling places” was a literary conceit where something is repeated for effect and importance. Mendy himself does this frequently.
Many, including myself, said that any opening that acted as a door might have a mezuzah, but we were told we were wrong because this line uttered by Balaam speaks to two different concepts. The rabbis teach that “...your tents, O Jacob” refers to the Jewish People when they were new and before they had the Torah as their moral guide. They were a people becoming. The words, “...your dwelling places, O Israel” refers to the Israel after they had been given the Torah and made complete. Only after they had the Torah, the Promised Land, and built the Temple, did they become permanent in permanent houses. Only permanent and complete dwellings need a mezuzah.
Mendy ended with a message that he seems to repeat often, and I really think that this message is at the core of all Jewish teachings. It is an invitation to see ourselves with a mission of entering into meaningful relationships, and doing what is right despite what other are doing around you. It is an invitation to walk with pride as a Jew and to treat each other with respect.
It is a shame that the congregation studies The Ethics of the Fathers only between Passover and Shavuot because this Talmudic gem contains all the words needed for behaving well. “Let every man’s honor be as dear to you as your own,” is a real piece of wisdom that one can absorb into one’s life easily. Hundreds of these bits of advice abound. This weeks Haftorah ends with Micah saying, “What does the Lord God require of you but to do justice, love mercy, and walk
humbly with your God.” I do believe that if you seek out for study those laws of the Torah that relate to developing sound relationships such as the Code of Holiness, and The Ethics of the Fathers and actually act on these laws/suggestions, you will become a very decent human being. Our ancestors handed down these messages to us with that purpose in mind.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
August 1, 2015 B”H
16 Av 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parasha Va-Etchannam - Deuteronomy 3:23-7:11.
Shabbat Nachamu
Haftorah: Isaiah 40:1- 26.
Chabad: This is what I think I recall Mendy saying:
Mendy began by informing us that it was the yertzite of the Rebbe’s grandfather who was the inspiration for the forward movement to reach out to unaffiliated Jews that Chabad began decades ago. In his memory, Mendy asked us to do a mitzvah such at put on tefillin, eat one meal that was kosher, or add something to our Sabbath observance.
He then proceeded to tell us of something he came across written by the Rebbe years ago that spoke to a key issue in the parasha today; the relationship between a parents and a child. Since Deuteronomy is a recounting of the story of our people in condensed form, this week had Moses reminding the Children of Israel of the lines, “...and thou shall teach them diligently to your children...” The “them” to which Moses was referring were the commandments given in the Torah and the request that you “... shall love the Lord you God with all you heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And all the words which I command you on this day, shall be in your heart...” These are what parents are obligated to teach their children: to love God, and to follow the commandments. To support this expectation, Mendy made reference to Moses proclaiming once again the Ten Commandments, with a focus the fifth, the one stating that we must honor our parents.
The Rebbe’s message was that we are to totally invest ourselves in our children’s religious education, and we are obligated to teach them through our actions. We are to model correct behavior.
A minor digression: I’m thinking of this idea of modeling correct behavior, and I’m thinking that the Jewish People exist for this same purpose. We were chosen to do two things on this earth: To teach the world of a loving and forgiving God, and to be “a light unto the nations,” which means we are to model correct behavior for the wider world, thus bringing them to the light of God’s law. Perhaps that is why we have been so hated throughout history. We are an ever present reminder that there are higher expectations on human behavior than just doing what is expedient and feels good at the moment. Get rid of the Jews, and you get rid of their God, and this God’s expectations for good behavior. We spoiled the pagan’s fun, and we’ve never been forgiven by those how followed them. This is probably one of the deeply rooted and out of conscious mind reasons for Jew hatred in Western Civilization.
The parent who drops his or her kids off at the shul, never goes in to services, or takes a class, is sending a very loud and silent message that this is for you, kid, not for me. That’s how children also learn. They observe and conclude. The silent message the parent is sending is that this Jewish thing is not important to me. Nine out of ten times, it won’t be important to the kid either. The Rebbe had in mind the opposite behavior.
Mendy honed in on Shabbat as an example of how parents might teach Yiddishkeit, and the and the centrality of importance in which his parents held it as a vehicle for teaching. If holy
means to elevate, his parent’s Shabbat dinner was certainly elevated and made separate from all the other dinners served in his home. The Shabbat meal was served in the dinning room, not in the alcove where they ate daily. The best cloth was put on the table, the good dishes and silverware were used, and the best food was reserved for that special day. Each child was involved with a physical job that made him or her part of the experience. Mendy did some mop work and also polished his father’s shoes.
A memory recalled: When I was little, I also took it upon myself to polish my dad’s shoes. This had nothing to do with Shabbat. What it had to do was my effort to please this man and getting a promised nickel. But what I recall from the experience was that he always seemed to point out the places I missed, and because of this, he would not give me the nickle. Perhaps he was trying to teach me that you got rewarded only for doing a good job, but I was maybe five, and started to conclude that I could probably never please this man. A silent conclusion which proved to be true even as an adult. After a while, I stopped polishing his shoes, and I stopped trying to please him. Mendy’s father also saw the parts Mendy missed, but he quietly redid the shoes without saying anything or making a little kid feel bad. If there were other occasions where I tried to please my father, I do not recall them.
While there were vestiges of Shabbat Yiddishkeit growing up in my home such as not being able to write on Friday night or to step only on the news paper covering the newly washed floor, there was not the spirit or warmth that should have been part of the experience. In looking back, I can honestly say that the Shabbat experience was not what I know it should have been.
I imagine Mendy’s Shabbat table as well as other Shabbat tables in the Chabad family having such warmth and spirit because not only is there ritual, but there is a genuine belief in God, an understanding of the meaning of Shabbat, and the meaning of the importance of relationships that are guided by Jewish law and values.
When I first decided to explore Judaism, I read books and pieced together what I thought a Shabbat should be. We had dishes that we used only for that day, we ate in the dinning room, fresh flowers that I brought home were on the white lace cloth, there were songs, highlights of the week shared, Shabbat presentations by the children, and delicious food. But I see now that while everything looked right, there was a spirit missing that could not be garnered from the books. This realization that spirit cannot be gleaned easily from a book as an adult, makes it more all the more imperative that we learn ourselves when we are young, believe ourselves, and teach our children early about the beauty of faith and rituals and the joyful spirit that needs to accompany them in order to fully realize what they can do for a family and the relationships among its members.
In concert with this obligation of parents to teach children as part of the relationship, Mendy referred us to the fifth commandment about honoring parents, because the relationship between parents and children must be one of respect if children are to learn and accept the laws that parents are required to teach. He made it very clear that parents were not to be their child’s friend because that blurs lines that must be maintained if parents are to be respected and in control. To learn respect, he said that we are taught that a child never sits in the seat of his parent, and he let us know that whenever his father visits, Mendy gives his father the seat at the head of the table where he normally sits. He said that a child must never call a parent by his or her first name, and that when he was a child, every adult was addressed as Rabbi, Mr., or Mrs. Again, the separation inculcates respect for the adult. Teaching is the objective, and children will discount the teachings of someone they do not respect.
In some way we got on the topic of whether or not the physical representation of the Ten Commandments is correct. Most of us think of two rounded tablets, but Mendy taught that the tablets were two feet long, two feet wide, one foot deep, and rectangular. He said something about Christianity having curved them, but I don’t recall if he said why they might have done that. Each was a rectangle and they are depicted that way on the great synagogue in Jerusalem. He also said that they could fit in the Ark of the Covenant, completely taking up its inner space.
This raised a question that I did not get to ask. My question was, “If the commandments took up the entire ark, how did they fit the broken commandments into it (which had to be as large as the second pair) the brazen serpent, and the scroll of the law?” After services, I asked Mendy and he said something like, “It all fit in. It was a puzzle.” Since I firmly believe that two things cannot occupy the same place at the same time, I have no clue as to understanding what “it’s a puzzle” means. But if I think of this phenomena as a metaphor, I can squeeze my brain around the idea.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
August 8, 2015 B”H
Av 23, 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Ekev - Deuteronomy 7:12-11:25.
Haftorah: Isaiah 49:14 - 51:3.
Chabad: This is what I think I heard the guest Rabbi saying:
After Mendy offered the best of luck to a young man who was taking a leave from his second year in medical school to study at a yeshivah, he introduced his sister’s husband to us and turned the bimah over to him. This is what I think I recall his sister’s husband saying: His name is also Mendy. I think most Chabad rabbis are named Mendy.
He began by telling us that as he was rereading the parsha in preparation for his talk, and he had a realization that while Moses was speaking directly to the Children of Israel, he was also speaking directly to us, and that we should read the Torah with this in mind. This is a timeless document, and we need to have an intimate relationship with it if it is to carry weight in our lives. We are to read it as if God wrote it directly for us. I am to read it as if God wrote it just for me.
And why should this be a surprise? After all, aren’t we taught that we all stood at the foot of Mt. Sinai when Moses came down with it? But it will be a new mind set if we actually open it up and see it as a personal communication between us and HASHEM.
This good rabbi from Basking Ridge said that while there is much to learn, he was focusing on two ideas. The first was that we are to always remember that we were homeless wanderers with a history of slavery in our past, and that HASHEM’s love for Israel is eternal.
We were to recall our past because if we remember where we come from, we would not become arrogant when we developed the land and became rich from its bounty. We were to always keep in mind that it is HASHEM that is the source of our success.
Paraphrasing President Obama when he spoke to business owners, “You didn’t build this yourself.” Of course he meant that the business owners didn’t put in the infrastructure that the business needs to function, and that the government deserves some credit. We need to appreciate and recognize that there are forces in or lives that contribute to our success and that without them, we could not easily function. This same idea possibly gives rise to the reminder in The Ethics of the Fathers that we come from a maloderous drop, and that our destiny is the dust. Now if that doesn’t sober up an arrogant person, nothing will. Perhaps that passage should be sent out to The Donald. Can you picture the White House with huge gold letters over the portico spelling out TRUMP? Would or could The Donald have become TRUMP without his father’s millions? But I digress.
The second focus of his talk dealt with Israel, the land. Israel, according the this parsha must be central to our lives. He used something of a syllogism to reinforce this concept: God loves Israel. You love God. You love Israel.
One of the few concepts I recall from math class is that “things equal to equal things are equal to each other.” I’m having a sense that this is what he meant. If Israel existence for the Jewish People was central to God’s purpose, Israel’s continued existence and well being should be central to ours. It is vital for all Jews to understand (and for non Jews as well), that Judaism has
its own trinity: God, Torah, and Israel. A possible forth, making it a quartet is “chosenness.”
Being “Chosen” to “be a light unto the nations,” gives us our purpose. Our concept of God gives us Ethical Monotheism whose core states that God’s primary expectation is that we treat one another well. Our Torah is a guide book of laws and stories that informs our daily living and directs us to righteousness, and Israel, the Land, is our spiritual home.
He made reference to some members of his congregation as having no clue as to what this relationship between Jews and Israel should be. He spoke of an Afgan restaurant frequented by many in his congregation that was inviting patrons to support a Muslim organization that was proven to be funding Hamas. Happily, a congregant did confront the owner who claimed innocence of the fact. I do not recall the details or the connection he was making with the restaurant, and awareness and connection to Israel that certain members of his congregation lacked, but I do recall it was interesting and relevant to his overall message. All in all, a good drush.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
August 15, 2015 B”H
30 Av 5775
Torah Study: Parashas Re-eh - Deuteronomy 11:26-16-17. Numbers 28:9-15
Haftorah: Isaiah 66:1-24. Samuel 20:18, 42.
Chabad: Mendy was away at a conference, and Josh took the bimah. This is what I remember Josh rapidly saying:
Josh reminded us that while the entire Torah covers forty years, Deuteronomy covers the last five weeks of Moses’ life. So it is a book filled with laws and exhortations given by a man who knows he is about to die. It’s his last desperate attempt to review for these people, this generation that is about to enter the Holy Land, what they must know in order to remain safe and please God so God will allow them to live on the land in peace and in plenty. Josh continued by informing us that there are two ways must one approach learning the Torah: a recognition of the place in history, the placement of core ideas, and what is happening at that moment in time, and also, that particular parasha’s relationship to the parasha before it and after it.
I think those were the two. He really speaks fast, and infuses his commentary with non lethal self deprecating asides and humor. Josh is engaging both on an off the bimah, he’s always informative, and it’s always a pleasure listening to him. Josh and people of his generation reinforce the fact that age does not mean that they do not have valuable information to share. Go Josh.
He made us aware that right in the center of Deuteronomy was Re-eh, and right in the center of Re-eh were the laws on what animals are kosher and what are not. He invited the congregation to address the question as to why these particular laws become the cornerstone of Deuteronomy? There were several responses, and Josh accepted all and pointed out how those responses were valid even though they were not what he was looking for.
Had I chosen to answer, I would have said that considering what is kosher and not kosher makes you choose God’s expectations for you at least three times a day, and that keeps God in your head. With food as a constant reminder that God wants you to follow His law, it is hoped that you will recognize God’s tap on your shoulder at other moments. Seeing and touching a mezuzzah is also a constant reminder of how God wants you to act. Also, I might have suggested that keeping kosher instills self control and teaches that you cannot have everything you want and we are to just recognize that as a fact of life. And I also might have suggested that keeping kosher three times a day at minimum, is a choice that elevates us in our choices of foods and how and where we might consume that food.
Josh’s take on the centrality of keeping kosher dealt with what he called engaging in the physical world. To reinforce the importance of animals, our relationship to them, and to the physical world, he made it very clear that our Torah is printed on the skins of dead animals. The most venerated object in every synagogue in the world, is composed of animal skins stitched together. He then went on to speak of the animal soul that is in us, the part of us that wants to eat and to sleep, and to behave without restraint. He compared this to our spiritual souls, that part of us that is composed of some aspect of God whose purpose is to elevate the animal soul so together they might move into the physical world, engage it in a meaningful way, and make it a better place. He asked us to whom we pray when we pray, and made it clear that the words of praise are not directed to God, but are directed to the animal soul within in the hope that these words will help it
recognize its need to be elevated. The goal of prayer, from the moment we get up till the moment we go to sleep, is to engage our animal soul and entice it to the higher spiritual plain by informing it of what God expects of us. We must do this repeatedly, since this animal soul has a very short attentions span, and is really only interested in self gratification.
This idea really resonated in me, because I find the constant praise to God of the service not satisfying. And I’ve always imagined God being quite bored if listening at all. I certainly am. But the idea that we are not speaking to God, but speaking to our animal soul, reminding it of God’s will, and expectations in the hope that such prayers will wake it out of its focus on itself, fascinates me. This is a new awareness, and can be a new and a positive refocusing of my mind when I pick up the sidder. From time to time, I have not read the words on the page, but spoke honestly to myself, and frankly, I have always found this inner dialogue satisfying and of great benefit to my spiritual growth. Perhaps all along I have been talking to my animal soul, trying to elevate it and didn’t know that I was doing something that was part of our tradition.
He pointed out that the marks of a kosher animal were a cloven hoof, and the ability to chew it’s cud. And then he said something that was pretty mystical. I think he said that we are to think of ourselves as a kosher animal, and that when we look at our cloven hoof, we see God’s light coming up out of the physical earth between the separation. When we chew our cud, it is symbolic of us not acting rashly, but thinking about something over and over again. As a cow might ruminate, bringing up its food three or four times to extract the most benefits from it, so we are to think and rethink what we see and hear before we act. He also said that some of the angels in heaven are represented with faces of animals and humans. He may have said this to impress on us the importance of the animal world in both our physical and spiritual worlds.
And somewhere along the way, and I do not recall the connection, he told us of the story of the widow and Elisha, the prophet. On the surface, Elisha performs a miracle by instructing the widow to use the one small cruise of valuable oil she owns to fill the empty pots that she and her neighbors own. This miraculous supply of oil is sold and she is out of debt. The more mystical or metaphoric interpretation of the story is that the woman has reached a point in her life where she herself is an empty vessel and life has little meaning. The cruise of oil is the one thing left in her life that is a mitzvah in which she still finds satisfaction. To the rabbis, that single small mitzvah symbolized by the oil, is her lifeline and she can reignite the spark in her existence by using that mitzvah, and spreading it around. I imagine that her neighbor’s vessels are symbolic of how she will effect others. I have been in groups where one candle is used to light another candle, and that to light another. Same principal. It also reminded me of the teaching that one small mitzvah can lead to other mitzvahs that can lead to a lifetime of mitzvahs.
If one looks at the life of Jesus, one sees many parallels to the life of Moses. If you look at the Prophet Elisha, you will see Jesus performing many of the same miracles. Coincidence or direct borrowings?
Respectfully submitted,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
August 22, 2015 B”H
7 Elul 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Shoftim- Deuteronomy 16:18-21:9.
Haftorah: Isaiah 51:12-52:12.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
When I arrived, I knew something was going on. There were more black hats and beards than usual, and there were kids of all ages in seats, playing on the floor, and running around. In short, it was another beautiful Shabbat at Chabad.
Mendy got up to speak, and he told us something of the week long seminar he attends yearly. He said that it is traditional that each rabbi speaking on a particular topic will begin with a joke. In one group, where any question might be asked, he confessed that only he and one other person did not get the joke. The joke was in response to the question, “What happens after you die?” The rabbi said, “The children fight.”
Mendy did not understand this joke because growing up he had no experience with such responses to loss since he came out of a very small family. But he used the joke was a segue into talking about Denie’s parent’s 50th wedding anniversary celebration which brought all 65 of the happy couple’s children, grand children, and great grand children to Mendy and Dinie’s home for the celebration. Mendy spoke extensively about the close and loving relationships that exist in this family, of the honor in which they are held by the wider community, and of how proud he is to be part of it. He even confessed that friends had asked him if there might be anything wrong with Dinie for this family to welcome somebody like him in as one of their own.
There are times his self-deprecation is really funny.
He said that such fealty to one another comes from a devotion to Torah, mitzvot, and a genuine respect for who each member of the family is and his or her accomplishments.
The things you grow up with, the things you see and hear around you, become to you what is acceptable and normal. In this family, respect for each other and a devotion to Yiddishkeit that kept the family in balance and all of one mind, is the norm. But for those of us who grew up where brothers didn’t talk to sisters, and sisters-in-laws didn’t talk to brothers-in-laws, and daughters-in-laws didn’t talk to mothers-in-laws, anger, vitriol, and the absence of family members were the norm. So it should come as no surprise that children growing up seeing this would easily give themselves permission to carry such behaviors forward, and then a son might not to talk to his mother, or a sister not to speak to her brother, or a daughter not to speak to her father, or for a step-son not to speak to his step- father, or for an entire family to cut themselves off from a sister-in-law and her daughter.
One overwhelming common factor among all the people in this particular family is that while all involved had a vague identification with being Jewish, the actual laws and behaviors that Judaism and Yiddishkeit asked of us regarding actions towards parents and family members, were never considered if they were ever even known. If the spiritual soul is deprived of Torah learning, and is deadened, it will not be able to teach the animal soul within how to respond appropriately and behave well.
Sadly, one can look back with regret and anger at what one was taught or not taught, but the reality is that we acted and accepted what we knew because such actions were acceptable in our own families. And being so taught, we gave ourselves permission to carry into our own lives those attitudes and behaviors regarding familial relationships we never should have been taught in the first place. I profoundly regret this aspect of my upbringing, and the way I contributed to
perpetuating it. In our defenses, those of us who have such experiences in our backgrounds,might say we acted outside of our awareness, and that is valid. But the effects are the same, and “it is what is” and we just have to live with it. And because “it is what it is,” and we cannot go back and change the past, some of us have to live with being peripheral, and some will never have the pleasure of seeing their entire family in the same place at the same time.
Each of Denie’s brothers and sister, their children and grandchildren put whatever they were doing on hold and came to celebrate their parent’s simcha. Obviously, their parents deserve such love for what the fostered in their children. They are to be honored for their work.
Mendy turned the bimah over to Dinie’s eldest brother, the Chabad Rabbi of Sherman Oaks, CA, and this is what I think I remember him saying:
He chose to speak about all the laws in this parsha related to those who witnessed a crime. The Torah demands that for the death penalty, the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses are needed. The point made is that even if there are dozens of witnesses, each must be examined to assure justice. The Torah also insists that no matter how serious the charge, the court may not act unilaterally until it has done a thorough investigation. The idea that we are to pursue righteousness is also expressed here, and this means that we must get at justice through proper and honest methods. Judges are especially warned not to pervert justice by accepting bribes, and the court is told that it is not to honor the word of a wealthy man over the word of an indigent. Also, if a person who accuses someone of a crime and is proved to be lying, that person will suffer the punishment that would have been meted out to the accused.
The Torah is centuries ahead of its time, and is the first system to establish the need for eye witnesses, the first to reject circumstantial evidence, and the first to mete out punishment for those who purger themselves for their own gain, and the first to deny evidence that was gotten illegally even if the evidence does prove that the accused is guilty. An honest judicial system must use honest methods. “Fruit from the poisonous tree” is the term now used to describe such ill gotten evidence. If one compares the harshness of the Roman System and the British Systems of justice, with what the Torah is legislating, one must wonder why the Torah is not lauded in the same way as the former two systems. Such laws were in effect while the ancestors of the Romans and the British were still hunters and gatherers, worshiping natural phenomena, and painting their faces with pitch and ochre. Why is the Torah not given credit? Could it be that the winners write the history and give credit to what is only theirs?
The rabbi from California did not talk about any of this, but I think its important. But he did talk about the need for witnesses to authenticate the “kosherness” (my word) of life. Two witnesses are needed to declare a wedding kosher, and they must see the nuptials from the same angle so there is no discrepancy. Other examples were given, but I forget them.
I believe he said that there are two types of witnesses– human and not human. The human witness is to verify like at a cuppah, or in a court of law. The second comes from the lines where God says something like “I call upon the sun and the moon to witness against you.” I don’t recall the specifics or how it applies, but what I do recall him saying that a witness to verify, cannot make
something happen, and that we are charged with being witnesses to God’s presence in the world, and that our behavior brings God into the world. We are the witnesses who can and must make things happen.
This last statement was the core of the drush. The Jewish People have two purposes on this earth, and the first is clearly stated in the line, “You shall be a light unto the nations.” Light has always been a symbol of knowledge, and the knowledge that we have to illuminate the world is the knowledge that there is a single creative Power in the universe whose primary expectation for us is
that we treat each of our fellow human beings, decently. Our Torah tells us what these behaviors should be, and the Torah tells us that we were chosen the teach these behaviors by modeling them.
I’ve always been amused by all the people and the nations who revile us for being The Chosen People, and by thinking that “choseness” brings with it blessings, wealth, celebrity etc. What they don’t realize is that “choseness” brings with it only the responsibility to put Torah law into action and teach it and God’s existence to the world. Yet they continue to focus on the absurd idea that something special, beyond their reach, comes along with the title, and that we Jews should not have it, and do not deserve it. Personally, I’d be happy to give anyone who wants it the title and the responsibility, since we haven’t done such a good job with that expectation if you look around at the insanity of the world today. To tell you the truth, I don’t think the wider Jewish population knows what we were chosen to actually do. Of course, some do, but it’s been my experience that the Orthodox branches of Judaism who reach out, tend to be insular and short armed and extend their decency and good will primarily to their own, while the more progressive branches of Judaism which are less tribal, extend decency to the wider world, but these behaviors are more often credited to the will of social action committee, and not specifically to Torah expectations.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
August 29, 2015 B”H
14 Elul 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Ki Tetzay - Deuteronomy 21:10 - 25:19.
Haftorah - Isaiah 54:1 - 55:5.
Chabad: This is what I think I recall Mendy saying: Mendy began by telling us that this particular parsha was filled with many important laws, and that he wanted to elaborate on those related to marriage. There was a congregant whose daughter was about to be wed.
He began by informing us that there were three ways a couple could be married. The first method had to do with the groom giving the bride a ring, the second method was by signing certain documents, and the third had to do with the consummation of the union. He then proceeded to elaborate. The giving of something of value, something worth an amount of money that can be verified, goes back to the beginnings of our people. He spoke of the use of the Hebrew word for “taking.” The Torah speaks of a man “taking” a wife. This word is used in only one other place in the Torah, and it has to do with Abraham, “taking” from the king, the cave in which he will bury Sarah. This “taking” involves the exchange of money.
Our rabbis teach that the use of a particular word in one place can inform its use in another place, and the fact that Abraham’s “taking” involved the exchange of money or something of an assessed value, the husband, by “taking” his bride, must give her something of assessed value. In this case, it is a ring. He mentioned that there are established methods that are approved of such how the value of the ring is to be assessed since it cannot have any writing or numbers on it. He also made it very clear that an exchange of rings under the chupah technically invalidates the marriage. Only the groom is to give the ring. The bride may give one after the ceremony, but not during. The groom giving the ring establishes his intent to wed this bride. Intent sees to be very important.
I could not help but wonder how many men smiled at the thought that their marriages might not be valid.
The second method of being married is to sign a document called the Ketubot. This must be written in such a way that its truthfulness cannot be challenged, and he went into extreme detail of how this is done, the experts who do it, and how important it is that all is kosher. The slightest mistake renders the document unkosher, and the marriage invalid.
Centuries ago, this document was drawn up a year prior to the wedding ceremony, and at that moment, everyone recognized that the prospective bride belonged to the prospective groom. But because of living conditions, and the fact that wars, disease, kidnaping, or disappearance were all possible, this betrothal contract which bound the bride to this man, was signed prior to the wedding chupah itself. The two ceremonies that bound were put together, and to honor and remember the history of the betrothal ceremony and to take nothing away from the wedding chupah, the witnesses sign the Ketubot, and it is read publically so as to establish the idea that time has passed between one ceremony and the other.
The third method had to do with intercourse, and it seemed clear that the act of intercourse itself was not what married people, but the intent on the part of the couple to be married was the needed component of the act.
Virginity in the woman was an important expectation of the marriage, and in Orthodox Ketubot there is a noun in apposition that reads, “the bride, the virgin...” Traditionally, the evidence of virginity was proven after the ceremony where the bride and groom were left alone to
consummate their union, and the vaginal blood established proof of virginity in the event that there were later accusations. The Torah is very clear in its law about a husband who falsely accuses his wife of not having been a virgin when she was. He has to pay her father a sum of money, and he can never divorce her. But if it is found that she was not a virgin, she was stoned to death.
The tradition of the bride and groom retiring to a private place is still practiced though I’m pretty sure the consummation of the marriage does not take place now. I think that the time they spend together after the ceremony is also a means of honoring this tradition. The room itself is to have only one door, and witnesses or guards if you will, stand outside.
Mendy was asked why have all three if one will do. I think his response was that if one was good, three were better.
There was one other reference he made to marriage, and this came out of the statement: “When a man marries a new wife, he shall not go out to the army, nor shall it obligate him for any matter; he shall be free for his home for one year, and he shall gladden his wife whom he has married.” He expanded on this idea of “gladden his wife,” making it absolutely clear that it was the duty of the man to see that his wife was happy. She did not have to gladden him, but he was commanded to gladden her.
One congregant asked if the husband could stop “gladdening” after the year was up, and that garnered a laugh all around. Couldn’t tell what was going on on the woman’s side of the separation. Sadly, the Torah does not expand on how one “gladdens” his bride, and I wish it did because it would cut out the guess work. The commandment is there, but no clue as to what it means. It’s like Moses coming down from Sinai with the commandments, and realizing that there is no funding to implement these statements. So what gladdens a brides heart? I’m sure listening with total focus on every word she says about her day or her soap operas is one way, praising whatever she might put on the table is another even if it looks and tastes like a hockey puck, or handing over the remote in the middle of a game so can watch whatever she desires. My hunch is that if this is what is meant by “gladdening” I think there will be a lot of animosity generated on the part of the young man because he might feel he is giving up whatever it is that “gladdens” him. Of course, sex can “gladden” both, and I would not be surprised if “gladden” was a euphemism for sex.
Mendy spoke two half souls becoming one.
Never heard of this idea. Reminded me of chromosomes from the sperm and egg coming together to form a zygote. In Genesis there is a statement that “a man shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one” or something to that effect. The bride and groom in a Christian wedding light a single candle from two tapers symbolizing the same idea. But I never thought of us each being a half soul seeking the other half. It’s a very romantic notion, and I suspect that when marriages fail, it is because an error was made somewhere, and “the match in heaven,” wasn’t. Bashert, which I believe refers to that one person in the world who was meant for you and will complete you, is the word that comes to mind. That is also a very romantic notion. Glad my religion is infused with romantic notions. After all, the stories of the relationships between our Patriarchs and Matriarchs are very intimate, very romantic, and establishes the idea that romantic love is quite desirable. Abraham did not divorce Sarah when she could not have children, Issac did not send Rebecca off when she could not give him children, and Jacob worked fourteen years just to be able to marry Rachel. These men were deeply in love with their wives. Romantic love is foundational.
September 5, 2015 B”H
21 Elul 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashah Ki Tavo - Deuteronomy 26:1-29:8.
Haftorah - Isaiah 60:1-22.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
He began by telling us that this was the year of ‘schmita” in Israel, and according to Torah Law, farmers in Israel were allowing the land its mandated sabbatical. And because the farmers will suffer financial losses for a year and one half because they will not be planting, one of the congregants has decided to host a fund raiser in an effort to support those farmers who are adhering to this ancient law.
I recall that when I became a home owner, I planted a little vegetable garden. Knowing about the law, and realizing I had been planting for six years, I asked an Orthodox rabbi what I had to do and how to do it to observe the law, but he told me that the law of schmita applied only in Israel. I found this odd, since we all live on the same planet, and all the earth needs to replenish itself.
Mendy then turned to the end of the parasha where he read the line: “You shall observe the words of this covenant and you shall perform them, so that you will succeed in all that you do.” Mendy referred us to this line because he said it clarified for him the core of what a Jewish education must contain. He was focusing on Jewish education because he had been invited to sit on a panel whose focus would be that very subject.
An interesting discussion followed that involved different translations of the line from the original Hebrew, and I confess that I remember none of this. But of what little I can remember, it had to do with the difference between knowing and doing. I do think I recall him saying that if Jewish education concerned itself only with knowing and doing, it is dooming Yiddishkeit to oblivion. In short, Mendy said that knowing the commandments, and performing the commandments are not enough to keep one’s allegiance to those commandments if the essence of why we should perform those commandments is not fully explained and understood. Why we do what we do is central to the doing.
Mendy was speaking about how we inculcate values in our young, and I’ll tell you that teachers, both secular and religious, are not taught how to do this. In secular schools, the focus has always been on cognition because it easy to measure if someone knows the facts and concepts. The affective domain, the domain of feelings, values, and attitudes, seem to be shunted aside because they cannot be easily measured. In religious schools, the focus is also on cognition and while there is the hope that with knowledge of Torah and Talmud, the values will be absorbed, but I think it is a hit or miss. After the first week of witnessing the most disruptive and outrageous behavior, I asked one of the rabbis when the learnings of the Torah and Talmud begins to effect the boys. He looked at me and laughed.
And my experience of teaching English in an Orthodox yeshiva put me in touch with the phrase, “halul Hashem” or the word, “appichorus,” or the sentence, “Get out of the room!” These three responses were given when a student dared to question what he was being taught, or was caught talking to a girl, or sneaking out to go to a movie.
Whenever a rabbi dismisses a student’s challenge, question, or behavior with a harsh judgement, the student may intellectually and emotionally withdraw and discount future teachings from this particular rabbi, concluding that this rabbi is not safe and not honest. Students did comply, but only when the rabbi was around. Away from the rabbi’s watchful eye, problem behaviors continued. The rabbi’s words were never internalized. Why are some Orthodox rabbis and parents so afraid of being challenged?
Inculcating values involves a process, but you will not inculcate a value if it is imposed without allowing for questions and honest answers. While a person may act on what you say they should value because of your status, that doesn’t mean they will hold that value once you are not there. A person may act on a value to garner your approval and get them something they want you, but again, that doesn’t mean they will hold that value once they have what they want. A person may promise to act on a value after being beaten or threatened, but once the threat is gone, so is the value. The best way to inculcate a value is to go through a process.
The first thing to do is to have a concept of what a value is. For me, a good working concept is: Some idea that has great importance to you that is stronger than a feeling.
Eg. (Used in a highschool classroom) Someone you don’t know too well has been wrongfully accused of doing something one of you closest friends did. You really like your friend, and you feel very close to him or her. But allowing an innocent person to be accused, goes against your sense of justice. There are numerous commandment in the Torah about pursuing justice. The pursuit of justice is a fundamental value of Judaism. What do you do?
If we are serious about inculcating values, we must take our students through the following process. If something is to be of value, it should be;
• Chosen from Alternatives.
• Chosen after thoughtful consideration of the consequences of each alternative.
• Chosen freely.
• Acted on.
• Publically affirmed
• Has a source that makes it “right” for you.
•
After all is said and done, in a non-judgmental way, the teacher may give the Jewish response along with the reason why this is the Jewish response. Those students who agree with the teacher can feel vindicated and have specific laws that support their positions rather than just a vague sense of right and wrong. Those students who stayed silent, have to deal with what the Torah says and how it differs from their response. Kids need to know the Jewish way of thinking and responding, and essence of why we think this way.
At this yesivah, I was not permitted to address religious values, but I did listen to plenty of complaints from the boys, and knew how the boys maneuvered their way around the seemingly unreasonable expectations imposed on them. I especially questioned the requirement to pay for infractions discovered like talking to a girl on a cell phone, and wondered if this “payment”was universal in all yeshivas?
Let me give you a technique that religious school teachers might use to get students involved in valuing. Ask the students to draw a circle and divide it in quarters. Give them the situation that they are going to Israel for an extended stay, and can take only four items. Clothing,
shelter, toiletries, and food be provided. In each of the quadrants, have them write the four things that they would take with them, and number them in order of importance. After they do that, tell them that the plane is so crowded that they can take only one item. Circle the most important, and in a sentence under the circle, have them write why that item is so important to them. Ask them to share that item and the reason with someone sitting next to them. Then, the teacher invites them to share it with the class.
• You have asked them to write down four things that are important to them.
• You have given them alternatives to choose from.
• You have asked them to select the most important, and in doing so, put them through the mental process of considering the consequences of being with out the others.
• The choice they made was chosen freely. No one told them what they could take.
• They have publically affirmed to others and to you what they would take.
• The teacher then processes out and without judgement, the underlying reasons as to why this item is so important to them.
This “here and now” circle has involved students in a valuing process. There are many of these “valuing techniques” that any teacher K-12 can learn, but the affective domain has to be considered as important as the cognitive and the psychomotor for school systems to be willing to pay for in-service where these techniques can be taught. But as important as the affective domain is, it cannot be measured and therefore cannot find a place in the curriculum that increasingly is focused on basic cognitive skills and not basic affective skills.
Somewhere I heard the statement, “God doesn’t need us to pray. God needs us to actualize Him.” To actualize God, to make God come alive, can only be done through our behavior, and our behavior is based on our value system. For us to act, we must embrace and become the living embodiment of the laws we were given, but for us to act on those laws, we must first believe that there is an authority behind those laws in which we believe. I have had yesivah students and secular students at our now defunct Midrashah who came out of frum and observant homes who did not believe in God. Some of the yeshiva students married out of the faith. Some have little to do with formal observance when they are not with their parents. Many secular students attend only twice a year with their parents.
Parents are the first bastion of Jewish values. They have the initial power to teach the child right from wrong, and children will listen because they want their parent’s support and approval. Jewish parents generally model good behavior by enrolling and driving their children to Hebrew school thus saying that Jewish education is a value. But if there is not Shabbat dinners, and no observances in the home for all the other holidays, and only two days of formal observance, the value of education will not become rooted, and children will conclude that involvement in Jewish education this is for them because their parents learned “Thou shall teach,” regular attendance is not for adults.
So while parents may model correct behavior by dropping their kid off at the synagogue, the message to the child is that while education is a value for children, observance is not. Sadly, the connection between Jewish behavior and the law of the Torah which informed that behavior for centuries, is no longer clear to most.
Rabbis and teachers in in Hebrew classes need to make the connection between values, the behavior that comes out of those values, and the ethical principals from the Torah that inspired those values?
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard HowardSeptember 12, 2015 B”H
28 Elul 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Nitzavim - Deuteronomy 29:9 - 30:20.
Haftorah - Isaiah 61:10-63:9.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
In this parashas, Moses declares for the first time that the Children of Israel, in all its unity, is a nation. Till this moment, the moment of Moses’ life ending, we were referred to and viewed as a family, the descendants of Patriarchs and Matriarchs. Prior to this, the only other time any biblical figure referred to us as a nation, was Pharaoh. To Pharaoh, it was his own hate and the threat he perceived us tp be that bound us together in his mind as a nation, a nation to be feared and hated. But here, Moses says what binds us together is God’s unbounding love for us. This is the first time we hear Moses saying in effect, “Listen to me. I’ve never said this before. We were chosen by God to be a holy nation, bringers of light to a dark world, and it is God who defines us, not our enemies. God loves you. That is something we must always remember.”
The idea of letting others define us is something Jews have had to deal with for our entire existence. And over the centuries we have been defined by religious institutions, legal institutions, and nationalistic institutions.
The Church fathers defined us by declaring us the people who killed Christ, the people who murdered children so we could make matzah, and an cursed people doomed to wander the earth despised.
Legal institutions have defined us by denying us the right to vote, to work, to own property, and declared us to be second class citizens.
Nationalisms has defined us by declaring us to have duel loyalties, and now, as imperialists.
All these accusations and attempts to keep us down, are also attempts to define us. Tragically, there are a few among us who have bought into these hateful allegations, and have become self-hating Jews because they allowed outsiders to define who they were. So they hate themselves for having been born Jews, and accept what others have said of their own people.
But even the most illiterate Jew who ever lived knew from watching his mother cook the arch prohibition that Jews are not to drink blood or cook with blood because it is the life force of another living creature. And Jews know that Jesus was viewed by the Romans as a threat to the peace of Jerusalem and they, not us, had to silence him. We also know that Rome was the only group with the power to crucify anyone; Jews could stone but not crucify. And if we wandered despised, it was because we were forced to do so by religious and legal groups that forced into that situation.
But we have remained Jews because we have not allowed outsiders to tell us who we are. We know who we are. The Torah, Prophets, Talmud, and Kabbalah tells us who we are and what our purpose is. We are a people chosen to “be a light unto the nations” which means that we are to model moral behavior and thus tell the world of a God whose primary demand is that we treat one another well. We are also commanded to make the world a better place than how we found it. By following the laws of the Torah. These are our parameters, and these are how we were defined. Other religions, other legal systems, or other nations, must never tell us who we are, and if they continue to do so as some do, we must continue to reject their assessment of us. We already know who we are. Judaism tells us so.
Mendy also told us the story of a young man who had walked away from Judaism and returned. I do not recalled the details, but the point being made was that within us there is a spark that can always be rekindled. The Jewish spark in us never goes out, and so we have a day for recognizing that there is still a spark, fanning it so it can be rekindled, and returning it to a full blaze.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Michaleski, newly appointed, led the Torah study, and her initial focus was on the importance of the repetition of the Hebrew words “ha yom” which means, today. She also made several references to the Torah alluding to recording in a book since both ideas referenced the Rosh Hashonah service.
The parasha speaks of God sealing the Covenant with the people there and with the people not there, so we are to know that this Covenant is an eternal agreement between those living and those yet to be born. No one is exempt from these Commandments, and this Covenant. And it comes with a dire warning against those who would follow other gods, and the warning is that God will not forgive or redeem those whose hearts turn away. God will set him aside for evil. Other dire warnings of what will happen to the land are also recorded in the event that the Covenant is forsaken. In short, forsaking God will result in the devastation of the land. And the reference to the people being captive in other lands is a prophesy of what the future will bring if these laws are not obeyed. Over and over, the image of what appears in the Book is related along with God’s fury and relentless wrath.
Let’s face it. This is a very egocentric God, and you don’t fool around with Him, His law or agreements. It’s God’s way or the highway.
And after all these warnings, we are told that God will return us to our land and have mercy on us, making us more numerous than were our forefathers if we repent. And he will remove from us the spiritual impediment that encourages our evil inclinations. God says he will “circumcise” our hearts because while humans can cut away the physical impediments, only God can cut away the spiritual impediments that surround the human heart.
I saw a bit of a conflict here between the opening of the parasha with the warnings and this part of the promises of redemption. It would seem that the serving of other gods is the ultimate crime from which there is no forgiveness, no repentance, and no redemption.. So if there is no redemption or forgiveness for for apostasy, why would anyone try to reconsider older decisions and return to Judaism. Bob Dylan, born Robert Zimmerman, was born Jewish and converted to Christianity, and then returned to Judaism. Is he not to be forgiven? And what of Gustav Malher who converted so he could become the musical director of the Vienna Symphony, and then converted back. Two very different reasons for conversion, but both men returned. Surely, there is redemption for them.
We then focused on the word “it” from the lines: “It is not hidden from you and it is not distant. It is not in heaven... and it is not on the other side of the sea...” The question was, “To what does the “it” refer. What is it that is “in our mouths and your hearts — to perform it?” And what does the “it” refer to today?
To me, the “it” refers to two things: Forsaking God is one aspect, and the commandments is the other. The Covenant basically declares God to be our only God, and only we have the power within ourselves to be true to Him. The Commandments are not unreasonable requests of us to form a more just and humane society. Again, we have the power to do that, also. Both are very close to us and within our ability to act on them.
Love of God is the core of the message. What does it mean, “To love God?” We spoke of divinity being in all things which means God is in all things; God is within as well as without.
But if we are to hold with any traditional belief, we also have to say that while God is all things, and within us, we must also say that God is something that is also beyond us and aware of us so that there can be teshuvah, a return to Him. If there is no God out there, to what are we returning?
As far as the meaning of the “it” today, for those traditionalists, it has not changed, but for those who are more progressive, the “it” refers to the moral behaviors society asks us to perform.
Of course, moral behaviors are good things, but if any given society becomes the arbiter of what is right and wrong, you can get some despicable laws that such a society might declare as “good.” Consider what totalitarian countries have deemed “good” in the last century and in the first part of this one. That is why I think traditional Judaism has a better idea by accepting God as the arbiter of right and wrong, not some changeable society who might move with the whim of tyrants. “That which is hateful to you do not do to another” is a good rule of thumb.
In progressive societies, there is a shift away from God and ritual to a focus on human behavior. The session closed with two fascinating question: “What happens when God shows up?” and “How do our chains inform our journey to teshuvah?”
These questions were not fully discussed, but they’d make marvelous dinner table conversations with like minded people.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
3 Tishrei 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parasha Ha-azinu – Duteronomy 32:1 - 52. Shabbat Shuvah
Haftorah – Hosea 14:2-10, Joel 2:15 - 27, Micah 7:18 - 20.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying.
This was a particularly meaningful commentary on the meaning of what T’shuvah, returning, means, and Mendy needs to write it down and put out to the congregation as a reminder and source of support and reinforcement as we move through the coming year. I know that I am not coming close to the power of his message. I can recall just so much.
He began with a little story about his youngest son. Mendy had complained that his voice was going, and his son, logically suggested that he not give his commentary. And when Mendy assured him that not delivering a sermon was not an option because people came to shul just to listen to him speak, his son said that, “People should come to daven, and not just to listen to you.”
Ah, out of the mouths of babes. Such innocent, pure belief. So there I was, recognizing and accepting the truth of why I first came to Chabad, why I continue to attend weekly, and what has changed since that first day. My primary reason for coming to Chabad is to hear Mendy teach. I will freely admit that learning and study is more spiritually satisfying than prayer. At that time, I was not conscience of attending because here I could establish a closer relationship with God.
I confess that Mendy is still an important draw, but what also has become a major draw is the community of people who are there, the spiritual and emotional experience derived from watching generations sitting next to one another, seeing a sea of white and black tallisim swaying, hearing the ancient chants that speak to my soul, and the little children periodically rushing up to the Gabbai for candy. I feel very safe when I am at Chabad. All that said, I’m still not connecting with God as Mendy would have me do. The prayer book just doesn’t do it for me, so I’ve taken to bringing my own prayer cards which are personally more meaningful. Sometimes I just stand there watching and listening to other men at their prayers, wondering if they are truly connecting with God, wondering what God they believe in that allows them to pray with such passion. Sometimes I just stand there with my eyes closed trying to clear my brain from the images I bring with me, trying to focus and become one with that infinite, creative Power in the universe that I believe exists. But belief in a power that neither promises nor blesses makes an emotional and spiritual connection difficult.
Mendy said that real teshuvh is knowing where you really want to be, and if I am not mistaken, he inferred that we really want to be in a relationship with God because that is where our soul wants us to be.
Does the soul have its own cravings separate from the cravings of which our consciousness is aware?
All the mitzvot in the Torah are opportunities, doors to connect us with the self that is beneath the self we convey to the world; the self that masks our soul.
I imagine the people praying around me also acknowledge that there is a Creative Power beyond ourselves that is greater than we are, but I am still not sure if that Power is aware of me or aware of anyone else. I know I am part of it because I am the stuff of creation and everything is One. On that molecular level, we are all One with the Power. The Power is One and we are One with the Power. And the synagogue attempts to become that sacred, focused space that enables us to make that connection although for me, the connection can be made wherever sudden awareness and awe is found. Those who attend, like me, crave a more direct connection, and it is in these brief moments of awe that we might briefly view and return to our genuine selves. So Mendy is asking us to return to our genuine selves because that is where our souls want us to be. Is the soul and the ego separate? It would seem they are unless I did not hear Mendy correctly.
But here’s a thought. Cultural socialization, Torah law, secular law, and psychiatry all exist to bring people back into balance and safety so society might function. But laws exist because people behave badly. Law becomes a standard by which one can measure behavior. Is the person who behaves badly closer to his or her real self? By asking them to obey the law, are we asking them to become someone they are not. There are people who are good and people who are bad depending on the criteria you hold dear. I guess there are just some “selves” to which one should not return.
Mendy continued speaking of resolve, and of sincere resolutions and efforts to bring about change and self control only to realize that the actions following resolutions are often ephemeral. We always have the best of intentions. He spoke of his own girth and how he makes sincere efforts at weight loss. To this end, he has banished Pringles and other temptations from the house. And for a time he is good, but he always backslides. We also have good intentions, and also backslide. He got on the topic of being a good parent and spouse, and urged us to attend to our children’s and spouse’s needs whether we understand these or not. I forgot the connection between that and the topic though is might have been something on how one moves into a better relationship.
He summed it all up by stating that even though we know what we want, we are not going to change. But if we do attempt to really change, we must do it incrementally.
Over at M’kor Shalom, Rabbi Frenkel introduced us to the Hatorah that is read on the Shabbat between Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. It begins: “Return, O Israel, to Hashem, your God, for you have stumbled through your iniquity. Take words with you and return to Hashem; say to Him, “Forgive every sin and accept goodness, and let our lips substitute for bulls.”
We were reminded that time is not given to us eternally, and it is up to us to make it meaningful, and then we were asked to consider the word, “fallen from sin.” Members of the group suggested that we fall because of sin, that sin is a lack of balance, that to fall from sin is to
fall from God and His path, a loss of potential, a loss of aspirations, a lack of forward movement.
The Rabbi’s explanation seemed to be that we create our own sin because of our actions. We have “fallen into our own sins.” We missed the mark as an archer would miss the mark. There are those who try and miss, and there are those who know they will not reach the target even as they take aim.
We do not begin the new year with Yom Kippur, but we move towards it by moving into the new year with a fallen self. We stumble, we fail, and we fall. These three actions are reflected in the notes of the Shofar. There are different notes and they reflect our condition. The tikea is a constant note, the teruah is a broken note, the shevorim is a completely shattered series of notes, and the tikea gadolah is long held note that is complete. We, our lives, and our hopes are reflected in the sound of the shofar. We move from shattered to complete.
We don’t move first to Yom Kippur because, for there to be repentance, there is work to be done, and that work is to take ten days.
The Torah tells us that we are to “take words with you,” and that means that we are to use our own words because when we use our own words when speaking to God, there is an expectation that we truly understand. Buy using our own words, we have figured it out. But to have done this, we have had to go inward. After the destruction of the Temple and the cult of sacrifice could no longer be maintained, prayer became the substitute for animals. “Open up my lips that my mouth may declare your glory,” reflects that truth and change in worship. God wants the sacrifice of the open heart, and an offering of our lips. Else where God say enough with the sacrifices. Act and that will transform you. “Circumcise your lips” is another phrase that is used.
We could no longer see the smoke of the holocaust rising upward to heaven and disappear, so we substituted words that would rise up to heaven and also disappear. A few weeks ago there was a reference to “circumcising the heart.” This metaphor referred to the cutting away of the callouses that keeps the heart from being open.
Prior to written language, words had power. The word was synonymous with the action. “So let it be written, so let it be done.” The Torah stands as a witness against us for the words we’ve uttered as vows. At this point in our history, religion is being transformed. With the Temple destroyed and no central place to sacrifice, we had to develop a portable faith, much as we envisioned a universal and portable God that was not limited to a specific geographical location as were so many other ancient deities. And as our God and faith become portable, God becomes more personal.
We turned our attention to the question, “Why fast?” The following were offered:
1. To focus inward on spiritual self.
2. To be humbled. To remind ones self of our bodies and needs.
3. To make us grateful and remind us of how many are starving.
4. From the Mishnah Yoma Chapter 8. We are rehearsing our deaths. When dead, there is no need to eat.
5. When we are dead, we are buried in a white garment. We wear a kittle which is white.
6. We do not work when we are dead.
7. We do not drink water, because water is a life force.
8. Intercourse is forbidden because it gives pleasure and is an act of creating life.
9. It is a cleansing of the soul.
On Yom Kippur there is to be no anointing of the body. That is vanity, and we are not to concern ourselves with outward appearances. We are to be who we are in all our vulnerableness and naturalness. If we think of ourselves, we are less receptive to God. We need to open ourselves to God and not to our own needs. When we are hungry, we are very much aware of our body and our vulnerability.
We covered some of the more esoteric rules for Yom Kippur such as the right of the king or a woman who has given birth to wear sandals. According to the sages, the king must be beautiful, and that can be at all times. I guess sandals enhances the king’s stature. A women must be protected from anything harmful that she might step on, and therefore, she can wear sandals. Also, we must protect ourselves from breaking the law unintentionally. Something eaten that is smaller than a date is acceptable, but if you have eaten and been satisfied, you have broken the fast. Necessary medications are to be taken with food. The primary value is saving a life. We are not to work, but we may do anything to save a life. If someone is buried under concrete, we must dig them out and uncover their nose to see if they are breathing. All these exceptions are indications of Gods forgiveness.
There are ways of getting yourself back on track, of bringing about change, but it must be done step by step. Zealousness leads to frustration. When prepping children for Yom Kippur, it’s best to start by taking away certain things.
And you have to mean your repentance, and differentiate between sins. God does not forgive sins committed against other people. That you must take care of yourself.
But what about sins committed against you? What about those people out there who owe you an apology for their behavior? Is one ever correct in not wanting to forgive?
October 11, 2014 B”H
24 Tishrei, 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Shabbat Chol Hamoed
Chabad: This is what I think I recall Mendy saying:
Mendy introduced his drush by saying that since there were mostly regulars in the congregation today, he would go a little further afield in his comments despite those he knows in the congregation whose eyes will roll or shut at what he was going to say. He began by asking, “Why do we have the mitzvah of a succah?” “How did the idea of a succah originate?” “What was a mitzvah?” The responses were the ones people learned in Hebrew school: a mitzvah is an act of righteous behavior, the succah was a commemoration of the small booths we lived in while wandering in the dessert, and they were a reminder of the impermanence of life. Most thought the succah originated in the dessert.
I knew that a mitzvah was also a commandment, and agreed with Mendy when he said that some people prefer not considering them commandments because to have a commandment means that there is a commander with expectations of you. I was reminded of a joke that related the idea that lawyers didn’t like having the Ten Commandments in the courtrooms because it reminded them that there was a power higher than they were.
Mendy then went into a midrash about Abraham and how at ninety-nine he circumcised himself and was suffering. (Y’a think?) To aid him, God caused it to become so hot, that people would not travel, and Abraham would not feel compelled to host strangers. But three angels did appear on the third day (There’s that third day again) just as Abraham was talking to God, and Abraham excused himself, telling God that he had to see to the needs of these strangers. It would seemed that God appreciated Abraham’s willingness to care for these men, so He was not insulted. So Abraham, still in great pain, brings the men into the shade of a tree. Now a tree is a finite thing, and can grow to a finite height, with branches spread out just so far and no more. This tree near Abraham’s tent became the first succah, shielding the angels from the heat, and providing them with a place of sustenance. I think I remember Mendy saying that the angels were served matzah. There was more about matzah and the Exodus, but can’t remember it.
I think Mendy said that we have the mitzvah of the succah because Abraham welcomed the strangers, and like Abraham, we are to emulate him and welcome guests also. Then Mendy told us that the a succah must not be under a tree or branches of a living tree may be substituted for the covering. The answer was that a broken branch is not finite any more, and we symbolically must also move beyond our finite selves. If we see trees growing above the succah, it will remind us of finite things and hinder us from imagining the infinite.
I’m thinking about this now as I remember it because one cannot think about anything while Mendy is speaking because you risk losing his line of thought. But now I can see the idea of the need to sit in the succah, look up, and see an open sky because when you look up, you are looking into infinity. While the branches are on the tree, they are finite. When broken off, they have no end that confines them as they were confined when attached to the trunk or limbs. We are finite beings who have the power to see infinity and, if we can wrap our brains around that concept, it’s not too far to imagine that we have the spiritual power to become one with infinity. To sense infinity is to sense The Eternal within it..
According to the laws of the succah, my succah is not “kosher.” The branches are placed on a permanent pergola, and there is a very old old oak tree near it that shades my deck. The thought of tearing down that oak is not a thought I would never entertain. Nor would I entertain the idea of building my succah down in the side yard where there might not be trees because that’s two flights of stairs and I’m not about to carry food down there daily. Stairs and I are not friends. It was hard enough cutting and schlepping the decorations up from the basement. Though is not a “kosher” succah, I still welcome friends into it, wave my luluv and ethrog, give opportunities to others to do the same, invite into my succah all the ancients and a few moderns, and feel a sense of unity with my people who are doing this all over the world at the same time than I am. My succah is also a doorway to The Eternal. So because it’s not a “kosher” succah, should I deny myself and my friends of it’s welcome and the experience? If I can experience in my “non kosher” succah what those in a “kosher” experience, I think The Eternal still accepts my offering and gratitude.
The point was also made that part of Abraham’s greatness was that he did not have rituals to get to The Eternal as we do, so he was constantly reaching up to create them so he could better connect.
I like the idea of having the power to create rituals like our father Abraham did to access and encounter The Eternal. The Reform Movement has especially invited new rituals to celebrate or comfort its members. New rituals keep Judaism contemporary and address the needs of an evolving people.
God is infinite, and man is finite. There are no way of connecting the two unless there is some mechanism to do that. The mechanisms to do that are the mitzvot. Mitzvot are in effect commandments, but they are given along with the option of free choice. There are 613 opportunities that are proffered to us, and we have the option of accepting them which will bring us closer to God, or rejecting them and thereby distancing ourselves from God or remaining in place.
I’m not sure why Mendy thought his message was so far out that he imagined eyes would either roll or close. I will tell you that there are more people who sit genuinely interested in what he has to say and eager to learn what they never knew before, than there are people who sleep or roll eyes. Certainly, I know that there are a few who genuinely think Mendy has nothing to teach them because there is nothing that they don’t already know. We all know such a person, and I imagine Mendy was thinking of them when he spoke about rolling or closing eyes. So knowing what I know, I now urge Mendy not to throw the sop of self deprecation to his distractors, and focus on those who are genuinely interested in learning from him. Distractors or detractors, working on old messages they probably picked up in Cheder, decided long ago that they would absorbed nothing from any rabbi’s sermon. Sadly, some adults just can’t move out of their teenage mentality when it comes to sermons.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Over at M’kor Shalom, after a brief review of where Moses and our ancestors were on their trek, Rabbi Frankel focused on a dialogue between God and Moses in Exodus: “... You say to me, ‘Take this people onward,’ but You did not inform me whom You will send with me...” God responds: “My Presence will go with you and provide you rest.”
Moses responds as though he has not heard what God said, and that if God’s Presence does not go along, no one will know that he has found favor in God’s eyes. Also, how will he and the people become distinct from everyone else on earth if God doesn’t go with them? God reassures him again, saying that Moses has found favor in His eyes, and that God knows him by name.
Still, Moses wants more, and that more is to see God’s glory. So God says that His Glory or goodness will pass before Moses, but no one may see God’s Face and live. So Moses is put in a cleft of the rock, protected by God’s hand, and Moses is allowed to see God’s back.
That moment in the story where Moses asks God to tell him His name so he can go back to the Hebrews in Egypt and say who sent him was also referenced. The Name is usually translated as “I Am What I Will Be.” At its core, the Name has to do with Being or Existence.
We would ask the same questions. We also want proof that God will be with us. We were told of a midrash where one man says that he would like to see God. The other tells him to look at the sun. He replies that he cannot. The first man then says, “How can you expect to look at God when you cannot even bear to look directly at one of His creations?”
For me, Moses’ greatness lay in the fact that he is a reluctant hero, called upon to do things that he feels he is ill equipped to do. He has a profound sense of inadequacy which makes him so very human. So he needs to be reassured and reassured again.
His response to God after God assures him that His Presence will go with him is to question whether or not that Presence will be there. It’s almost as if he doesn’t hear God because of his anxiety. Anxious people can’t hear others even if they are getting what they want.
But God’s Presence does accompany the people in a cloud, and this gives the people and Moses a sense of being protected. God also promised that he would give Moses rest, and this seemed to indicate that Moses would have fewer responsibilities. What was also discussed was that God going with the people reinforced the idea that this God was not limited to a physical location as were other gods, but was portable. And this new God was not tied to a natural element like the sun. Moses challenges God to be there, and God says that he will be up front as the Israelites advance.
One congregant suggested that this is a Parent/Child relationship. The parent has assured, and the child is so focused on his or her own needs, that the assurance is not heard and the demand is made again. Again the assurance is forthcoming as it would be from a concerned parent. Later, this same congregant suggested a twist, and that by Moses saying that he will not leave this place unless he is assured that he as God’s Word, Moses has reversed roles and is now in the Parent position offering an “if/then” scenario.
But I’m inclined to think that Moses is still operating out of his frightened and abandoned Child, and this Child in Moses is really folding his arms and stamping his foot to get his way, all the time wanting to be hugged.
This idea of needing to know God’s Name was explored, and I suggested that in ancient societies, the name of a person held magical power. To know someone’s name was to exert control over them. To know someone’s name gave the person knowing that name, credibility. Even today, stature comes with being on a first name bases with someone who is highly respected or a celebrity. “I know who you are,” is not just a statement of intimacy, it can also be a threat. Things haven’t changed much. There was an experiment several years ago in a highschool where each student was required to wear his name on an ID that everyone could see. Disruptions in the school dropped precipitously. I recall reading a story where Indians, before battle, would write their names and arrows and shoot them into the river, believing that their names would now be hidden from the enemy and they would be safe. There are certain names in the Bible, not translated that give the essence of the person. A name in ancient times was a big deal, and it still is. Bringing shame on a family name in certain societies can be fatal. I think the term “yichas” or pedigree, certainly has to do with a good name. To marry into a family with a good yichas is to acquire those qualities.
Rabbi told us that in the Talmud, we learn that a person has three names; The first is the one your mother and father give you. The second is the one you acquire by yourself, and the third is the one you acquire through your reputation.
We considered the qualities Moses had that gave him his third name: compassionate, hot tempered, leader, negotiator, humility, teacher. God’s behaviors also reveals the Name he acquired though His actions: compassionate, creator, vengeful, merciful, angry, capricious.
It would be an interesting Yom Kippur activity to consider the names we have acquired though our behavior.
It was suggested that God would rather pull back and let Moses learn how to be a leader, much the way a good parent will pull back so the child can face his or her own challenges and deal with them on his own. It’s the only way to become independent. God wants Moses and the people to grow up and become independent. It was noted that God starts out in Exodus as an angry and vengeful God, but by Deuteronomy, He has become compassionate. As Moses is maturing, so God is maturing. This becomes obvious when God declares, “Let My compassion overwhelm my anger.”
We grow up quickly when we see something shocking. The Golden Calf episode was a shock, the breaking of the tablets was a shock. Such events in a life bring a quick maturation process. We might consider the forty years in the desert as symbolic of the maturation process itself. Children, when they are first starting out, need rules and boundaries. Children need to see things in black and white. To survive, they need to obey. That’s who we were in the beginning of Exodus. But in Deuteronomy, we are adolescents, still needing parental guidance, but needing to test our own boundaries and limitations. Parents know we are going to make mistakes, so there are still the warnings. But the mistakes will help us grow into the people we are to become.
Moses wanted to know his God. To want to see God and to know His nature is a very human thing. But the Bible raises certain problems. In order to be able for the people to relate to God, God was anthropomorphized. Does God really have a face?
God has manifested himself in different way, but always at his discretion. At Sinai, everyone sees God glory or manifestation in the clouds, the lightening, and the rumbling of the mountain. But God reveals himself only when He wants to, and always from a distance. In effect, God is saying when he says, “You cannot see my face,” He is telling us that He is beyond our intelligence. When He says, “You can only see My back,” he is saying that we can only understand what has happened in our lives in retrospect.
God is a mystery, and to see the face of the mystery is for the mystery to lose its power. What we can see and know is no longer to be held in awe.
Moses wanted to know his God. To want to see God and to know His nature is a very human thing. But as God is presented in the Bible raises certain problems. In order to be able for the people to relate to God, God was anthropomorphized. Does God really have a face?
Conceiving God as pure spirit and entering a relationship with an Endless Creative Power, is not easy. How does one relate to such a Force? So our ancestors gave God human qualities so we could better understand His essence, but my hunch is that over the centuries, people came to believe that the symbolic personification of our God was God, and not the Creative Power that brought all things into existence. One can easily relate to such a depiction.
If our trek across the centuries have led us from childhood to adulthood as a people, there are many among us who look at the anthropomorphized God of the Bible and the prayer books and say, “This just doesn’t work for me.” The image of God for many is still that old judgmental man on a throne who is not easily appeasable. And when these lapsed Jews do come to synagogue, they read about the same God they came to doubt when they were adolescents. Few were given any alternative concepts of God, though they all took permission to question God as he is depicted in our sacred texts. Jewish institutions really need to reconsider how God is presented, especially to those whose Jewish educations end when they are thirteen.
October 18, 2014 B”H
24 Tishrei, 5775
Torah Study: Bereshit – Genesis 1:1-6:8
Haftorah – Isaiah 42:5 - 43: 10
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by telling us that from now on Rabbi Kaminker will be leading Shabbos services for the Israeli members of our community in the storefront where Chabad started. He said that this expansion of Chabad is in the same spirit as the expansion into Burlington County and Gloucester County.
My immediate thought was that this was a mistake because separating the Israelis from the wider community was not only a loss to the wider community, but reinforced Israeli isolation.. If we are to consider ourselves Kal Yisroel, why separate us from those members of the family who came from Israel? I expressed my feelings to another congregant, and I was informed that the Israelis, like most immigrants, are not eager to assimilate into the wider society, and as a group, are very insular. I was also told that many do not attend services being rather secular, and by giving them the comfort of their own minyon, they might change that behavior. So good luck to them and to Menachim Kaminker. I shall really miss seeing him weekly because he has become part of my Chabad family,was always eager to answer my spur of the moment questions, and he always had a ready smile for anyone who walked in.
Mendy turned his attention to the parshah, asking us “Why does this story take place in a garden and not in a forest? Several congregants attempted to answer, myself included, suggesting that a garden is a metaphor for life and for creativity. Mendy reminded us that the Torah contains 53 parshahs (divisions), and that the numerical equivalent in the Gematria for the words “Gan Eden” is also 53. Therefore, the Garden of Eden, on a higher spiritual level, is synonymous with the Torah. The Torah itself is the garden, and all that is necessary for life to flourish and be sustained can be found in it. That is why we say, “It is a tree of life to those who hold fast to it...”
He also spoke about the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge as symbolic of two attitudes we might have in our own approach to our faith. Both are in the metaphoric garden of life; one promising intellectual satisfaction, the other promising spiritual satisfaction.
Mendy made it very clear that those who came to Chabad or by extension, to any synagogue just to be intellectually stimulated by the rabbis sermon or the commentaries in the text, have missed the point of their faith. To eat only from the metaphoric Tree of Knowledge is to ignore the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life refers not only to physical existence (we invited death in with the disobedience) but to our spiritual existence. The fruit of the Tree of Life is really our spiritual existence which depends on our relationship with God, and if that is not the focus of attending and learning, the rest means little. Again, if we are not here to develop a relationship with God, we have missed the point.
I have a relationship with God, and it is deeply personal and deeply spiritual. But I will say that that relationship is not reinforced or expanded by reading the same prayers three times a day, and reading the same prayers on Shabbat and holidays. I do not find these prayers repeated over and over again spiritually, emotionally, or intellectually satisfying or uplifting. But that doesn’t mean I do not offer words of gratitude to the The Eternal. The service I attend weekly is a doorway that opens to a sacred space where I can find my own words, and I am as confident that if The Eternal does take notice of me, my words are as pleasing as are the traditional prayers of the siddur because my soul is constructing them as I stand there with my fellow congregants. Such prayers do not come to me all the time, but when they do, I know I am in a different place from those who say the traditional prayers by rote. I do not feel that I have missed the point of my faith by looking forward to Torah study at M’kor Shalom and Mendy’s weekly drush more than I look forward to the service. For me, Mendy’s drush was what first drew me to Chabad, and the philosophy of acceptance, Mendy himself, and the people I’ve met there, keeps me attending. My relationship with The Eternal is not limited to a building, a congregation, or a particular rabbi as wonderful as that rabbi or the people might be.
God forbad eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but Mendy related a midrash that that prohibition was for only the day on which Adam and Eve were created. It would seem that their creation, their temptation, their punishment, and their expulsion all occurred on the same day. According the midrash, God did not want automatons for children. He wanted them to have choices, and therefore would have allowed the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge to be eaten on another day.
I think God might have wanted his creations to be innocent for just a day. As a parent, we all want to prolong the innocence of our children, knowing full well that it cannot be done if our children are to reach their full potential. Metaphorically, Adam and Eve had to disobey in order to grow in their own humanity. All children have to grow, disobey, and recognize the consequences of their choices. That’s an aspect of what being human is all about.
And speaking of choices, Mendy referred us to God’s declaring His creations “good” and “very good.” He asked what the differences were.
Again, the commentary was revealing. It would seem that God created the “Yetzer Tov, or good inclination, and the “Yetzer Hara, or evil inclination. He declared the good inclination in humankind good, but the bad, very good. The answer he gave was that without the bad inclination, there could never be a choice, and therefor no true humanity. With both good and bad, we now have a choice. Without one or the other, there is no choice. God needed us to have choice. God needs us to have the Yetzer Harah.
I’ve said this before. In the Talumd it says that a man would never build a house or have a child without the Yetzer Hara. There is nothing evil in having a child or building a house, but what there is in those two acts is ego. We want children to project our DNA into the future. What could be more egotistical than wanting our own image to continue indefinitely. To build a house is to have a place to show our stuff. Our stuff is an extension of ourselves. That is egotistical though superficial. There is nothing evil about the Yetzer Hara, but when ego takes over a person’s life and his relationships, it can lead to evil behavior.
This is what I think Mendy wanted us to learn from his drush.
The key expectation was that if we allowed ourselves to work towards and to enter a relationship with God that is more than just an intellectual relationship, we will afford ourselves the most meaningful and satisfying experience of our lives. We need to open our souls to God, and not just our minds. We need to welcome God into our hearts and truly believe. A secondary expectation was his challenge that we bringing in people so they can experience Chabad, learn about Yiddishkeit, and how it could improve their everyday lives.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Over at M’kor Shalom, Rabbi Koch spoke about the “breath of life,” as being the Hebrew concept of the soul. God, by breathing into Adam, He moves him from inanimate to animate. Adam means from the earth. Adon is Hebrew for red as in clay. Adam is an earth creature. But the word nefesh can mean more than just soul. Nefesh can mean essence or awareness, and that which will distinguish the inanimate from the animate.
It is interesting to note that God creates everything through fiat. He said it and it was done. Words and actions, to the ancients, seemed to be synonymous. “So let it be written, so let it be done!” It is also interesting to note that man is the only creature that God personally creates and personally animates with His own breath. God doesn’t call him forth, but molds him from the earth. Since God fills the entire universe and everything is God, we are given the mystical idea that we breath in and out God’s breath each moment we live. This very personal behavior establishes our importance in the chain of being, and if we can suspend disbelief, God is therefore ever present.
The nefesh is a life force and has different levels of meaning. In the first version of man’s creation, he is created on the sixth day. In the second version, he is created first to till the soil. There is no rain, and no one to till. Humanity is the center of the story in the second version, and God is the center of the story in the first. We are partners with God in the act of creation, but we are not partners with the earth.
In the first story, God first created the heaven and the earth, and some quality of God fluttered on the face of the deep. What is the light of day one?
The Torah begins with a pre-existent God who is the creator and the sole power in the universe. One member of the class suggested that the initial light that illuminates is the true light of God, not the light of the sun which comes later. I had suggested that it was the emanation of the Ayn Sof, the Kabbalistic concept of God.
God is both transcendent (beyond) and separate from us; the other, and at the same time fully present in the world (immanent). How can that be? Well, it seems our ancestors, in the early Middle Ages, became aware of philosophy of the ancient Greeks and took from the Neo- Platonic tradition ideas that enabled the Kabbalists to conceive of an Endless Being who sent out emanations on a variety of levels that enabled It to become present in the physical world and relate to it.
There is no science here, even though the first story of creation seems to point to the theory of evolution. Prior to the advent of science, religion addressed all questions that science would address today. But the boundaries have shifted. Earlier in human development, science and religion always asked the same questions, but now the question, “What does it all mean?” is addressed only by religion.
We spoke of ancient cosmologies and how water dominated their creation stories. In ours, there seems to be a dome above earth and above that dome there is water. Below the earth there is also water, and the earth and the dome keep them separate.
I had suggested that the reason there were parallel stories about the creation of humanity was that they might have come from separate traditions. I also said that the stories moved from the general to the specific, the first being an overview and the second getting into the details.
That comment generated the rabbi’s expansion regarding the four different sources that are thought of to have come together when the Torah had finally moved from an oral tradition to a written one. The redactors or editors who put all the various oral traditions together, compressed centuries of the stories of different traditions, selected specific ones, and then wrote them down.
The Apocrypha speaks to the fact that there were other literatures that did not make it into the Cannon. But the authorship of the Torah is a serious point of theological contention among the different divisions of the Jewish faith. Orthodox tradition holds that the entire Torah, as well as the oral law was conveyed to Moses on Mt. Sinai, and he wrote it all down. As you move along the Jewish theological continuum, you move from the Torah being dictated by God to Moses, to a divinely inspired document written by men, to a document that is an accumulation of ancient wisdom, a series of historical events, transformational myths, borrowed epics from other traditions, rituals and rites of a particular ancient society, and more. But each of these traditions look to that singular scroll for inspiration and guidance.
Scholarship suggests four sources: The J source, the P source, the E source, and the D source. Numbers and Leviticus are mostly from the Priestly (P) source.
The Elohist (E) source uses Eloheim as the name for God, the Yawhist (J) source uses Jehovah as the name of God, and the Deuteronomists (D) source is distinguished by something I do not recall.
The conquest of the Northern Kingdom by Assyria in the 8th Century BCE, removed the ten tribes from Jewish history. Judah and Benjamin of the Southern Kingdom called Judea, remained. It is conceivable that among the twelve tribes there were sub cultures with stories of their own making, and these stories survived and were brought to the Judea by members of the tribes who escaped to the south. These became part of the oral and written traditions of Judea, and that is probably how parallel stories came to be in the Torah. The redactors of the Torah employed the stories of both traditions.
The Talmud teaches that there are no superfluous or extraneous words in the Torah, so we can learn from all that is there. Tradition teaches that every word has power. If God’s words can create a universe by fiat, and we are created in God’s image, what do our words create?
There’s a syllogism lurking here, is there not?
One of the congregants expressed difficulty with the idea that man was given dominion over all things, and invited to subdue all creatures under his rule. The word “master,” we were told, is a translation of the Hebrew word for “rule.” We were informed that a word in the Torah is defined against how it is used elsewhere, and a concordance, a book of words and their multiple uses, would help us clarify what “master” really means in this context. Rabbi cautioned us not to be married to one definition of a Hebrew word.
I suspect the congregant who had problems with humanity ruling over the animals is a “speciesist,” one who considers all living creatures of equal value. When I taught my Law, Values, and Morality class, I would ask my students if they would save the life of a stranger or the life of their pet if both appeared to be drowning. It’s a forced choice issue with no clarification. My purpose was to ascertain if the key Jewish value of saving a human life was prominent in their minds. There were always those who would save the stranger, a few who would save their pets, and a few who couldn’t decide. Those who couldn’t decide considered no one life greater than any other. Of course I reminded them that during their inaction, both had drowned. These were my “speciesist.” I suspect this congregant is one of that group.
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
And now for something totally different. Years ago I wrote the lyrics for a musical that was never set to music. It was called The Experiment, and took place in the Garden of Eden. One song follows:
(Caution– this is a very silly song sung by someone who is innocent and only hours old so please bear with him.)
Adam is singing this to god (who is played by an ever present light bulb that goes on and off. Also, all the animals either wear pants or skirts.
A very special guy
Excuse me but I think there's been an error.
I think that something's very out of key.
For whenever I name features,
And whenever I count creatures,
There are always two of them but one of me.
Excuse me but I think there's been an error.
I think I may have something to regret.
I don't know the dance they're doing,
But they smile when they are through-ing.
And they always seem to light a cigarette.
Oh, I know you may consider this intrusion.
But you've given me a brain with which to
Think.
Now my observation brings me this conclusion.
Please forgive me if I choose to raise a stink.
You see that I think that I'm a very special
Guy,
I must be 'cause there aren't any others.
And if it's true that I'm a very special guy,
I think you should bestow on me my druthers.
Please make for me a creature with a skirt.
I need one so I might begin to dance.
I've been told that one enhances a romance,
With a creature with a skirt.
Please make for me a creature with a skirt.
And with a skirt I'll know her at a glance.
One who will be steadfast, strong and true.
And make her feathers blue.
(Spoken) I like blue. It's my favorite color. The sky is blue, you know, but I don't know why so don't ask.
Create for me a creature with a skirt.
I'm willing to take any kind of chance.
Someone I can pet who's soft and sweet,
And don't forget to web her feet!
(Spoken) yes, give her feet like a duck. The duck is the best swimmer here and if she has webbed feet, she'll be able to catch a lot of fish. I also like fish.
Give her claws like the lion's for
Scratching my back,
Give her wings so she'll fly me to the sky,
Give her legs for running swiftly
And a nose for jungle tracking,
Give her every little thing that I am lacking.
Above all please,
Design for me a creature with a skirt.
I promise I will never look askance,
At someone who will ever be my bride,
If she has a furry hide.
(spoken) I like fur also. It's soft and warm and when it gets cold, I can wear her like a coat.
(Dance number with animals)
One of the Serpent’s songs.
Into Every Little Life
Into every little life a little serpent comes a
Stealing,
At the moment that you're feeling you have less than
Anyone.
Into every little life a malcontent becomes appealing,
At the moment when you cannot get the best of anyone.
Into every little life a little viper comes a striding,
When you're slipping or you're sliding or misguiding
Anyone,
Into every little life, a little bitterness and strife,
A little twisting of the knife,
It's just my way of having fun.
(Spoken) ha! Turn me out without so much as a reference, will you? I'll show him!
Into every little life a little serpent comes a huffing,
At the moment when you're scuffing down that life's a
Little tough.
Into every little life a little snake is there a puffing,
At the moment when you tell yourself you haven't got
The stuff,
Into every little life a little viper comes a tricking
When you're sticking it to someone who has really had
Enough.
Into every little life a little bitterness and strife
A little twisting of the knife,
It's just the way I show my stuff.
You'll all know when a serpent thought comes crawling,
You will tell when a snake is in your head,
You're aware when right and wrong are caterwauling,
And you'll love it when you choose to be misled.
Into every little life a little serpent comes a
Strutting,
When you're butting up your head against a wall that will
Not break.
Into every little life a little rogue is undercutting,
When you're smutting down or cutting up a friend you
Will forsake.
Into every little life a little viper comes a coiling,
When you're broiling or you're toiling for the spoils
Of a mistake,
Into every little life a little bitterness and strife,
A little twisting of the knife,
It's just the way that I'll partake,
Yes, just the way that I'll partake,
Yes, just the way that I'll partake.
October 25, 2014 B”H
1 Cheshvan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Noach – Genesis 6:9 - 11:32, Numbers 28:9- 15.
Haftorah - Isaiah 66:1-24.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
There was a Bar Mitzvah today, and Mendy began by reminding us that he tries to find some meaningful passage in the Torah that will contain some Bar Mitzvah message. But the ritual came millennia after the story of Noah, so he was hard pressed to find one. Of course he did, and directed us to God’s statement that “man is evil from his youth.” I would say, “Man is egotistical from his youth.” He interpreted this by reminding us that little newborn babies are not the least interested in their parent’s well being, but will loudly insist that their needs be taken care of first. This is a survival mechanism that is inborn, and absolutely necessary. This demand for immediate gratification moves into the toddler years, and beyond.
If infants could talk, they would probably say, “I will destroy you if you don’t give me exactly what I want when I want it.” There are preteens and teens who say the same thing. Considering this, I couldn’t help but think of those children living among us whose immediate need for gratification and constant gratification never really ends and moves with them into adulthood. Some of these types never really care about their parent’s feelings as long as their own needs are to be met often by those very same parents whose feelings they discount. So everyone is born with an ego that says, “me first,” but that self centered position, in Judaism at least, is expected to change by Bar or Bat Mitzvah age. That’s when the Yetzer Tov or good inclination is supposed to kick in and keep the Yetzer Hara or evil (ego) inclination in check. I think after years of television resolving every problem in an hour or half hour, people lost perspective of how long it really takes to deal with life’s problems. Instant answers to questions from the Internet, faster speeds at getting on line, instant messaging, and instant everything else, is making it hard for people to wait, to pay “their dues.” Too many have a sense of entitlement that they did not earn because gratification cannot be postponed.
Mendy made it clear that Bar and Bat Mitzvah time of life was the time when choices now had to be made, and being an adult had to do with your willingness and personal skills to make such choices. At thirteen, you are no longer a child, and this is the time when the good inclination kicks in to moderate the actions of the ego. He praised this young man for wanting to continue with his studies, and this was not only an indication of the quality of this young man’s ability to choose, but also praised his parents for inculcating in him a love of Yiddishkeit that led him to that choice. He said that good parents make good children who make good choices. Using this latter idea, he suggested that Noah was “Righteous in his generation,” because his parent’s were righteous. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”
“Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” First came across that phrase in the short story, The Ransom of Red Chief. Means the same as the apple doesn’t ... etc. But there are certainly exceptions. In reading about Jewish gangsters, I learned that Arnold Rothstein’s father was called “Jacob the Just,” and he raised his son to be a pious young man with every opportunity available to a young gentleman at the turn of the 20th Century. Yet Jacob’s son became a notorious gambler, remade the image of the American gangster, married out of the faith, and ended up being murdered. Parents will do the best they can for their children, and sometimes it just doesn’t work. Parenting is a crap shoot. Nothing is guaranteed. Child rearing is very complex to begin with, and when you factor in a child’s personality, the influence of their friends, the media, and the wider world outside the home, some of us have a very bumpy ride. There are no guarantees.
Mendy told us a story of a man who took care of three very wealthy men. In the morning, he shopped and cleaned the house of the first, in the afternoon he shopped and cleaned the house of the second, and in the evening he shopped and cleaned for the third. One day, the three men were talking and extolling the virtues of this butler, and each decided that he wanted to learn more about what it took to shop. So they each asked him to take them to the market. The butler became rather nervous because for years he had been buying produce and charging the men more than he paid. He figured they could afford it, and he needed the extra money. He tried to dissuade them, but each insisted. So the first one he told that the market was dirty, and the sights he would see, and the noises he would hear would revolt him. So the first man decided against going and the butler was relieved. The second man would not be put off, so they went. But as they walked, the butler spoke constantly about the poor conditions, pointing to the broken pipes, the peeling paint, etc. This worked and the man did not see the how different the cost of the food was from what he was charged. The butler felt safe, but the third man was not like the other two, and told the butler not to point out all the market’s problems because he wanted to focus on what was sold. Quickly, he saw that he had been cheated and confronted the butler. In his defense, the butler informed his employer that he didn’t buy off the carts, but the highest quality food was put aside for him, and that food cost a bit more. I think I recall the employer accepting this.
Now I would have thought that this story would have some metaphoric meaning, and I’m sure if I thought about it, I could certainly come up with one.
But Mendy’s take on it seemed more to do with focus. The first man was scared off with what he might experience, the second was dissuaded by having his attention put elsewhere, but the third insisted on staying on focus, and that was key. The Bar Mitzvah boy and all the rest of us should not loose our focus. What should be our focus? Specifically, to keep Yiddishkeit in our lives, and to live decent lives.
Our lives are pulled in so many different directions, and the battle between our Yetzer Tov and our Yetzer Hara is ongoing. Each day we are confronted with choices that would lure us from what our spiritual selves desire. Do we get out of bed on a Saturday morning to come to shul, or do we sleep for a few more hours, read the paper, and do some yard work? Our lives are constantly demanding that we choose one thing over another, and many of us pay little attention to our spiritual needs.
This is what I think Mendy wanted us to learn from his drush.
As adults, each and every day we are confronted with choices that pit our spiritual needs against our animal or egotistical needs. We need to decide the place and value of Yiddishkeit and spirituality in our lives, and make the effort to bring these into balance. We can do this if we put some focus on our spiritual side. It’s only when we become balanced that we can become happy and complete. A secondary message had to do with parents as important role models.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel’s opening question to us had to deal with the Hebrew adjective describing Noah, variously translated as righteous, perfect, whole, blameless, or complete, in his generation. We then spoke briefly about the flood stories that seem to abound in the collective memories of the ancients. Early cuneiform clay tablets found in Nineveh dating from 3,000 BCE tell of such a catastrophe. It is to be noted that this story, a piece of human history, connects us to that history and to other civilizations. All existed simultaneously, and all are interdependent.
For so many ancient cultures to have such a similar story, I do believe that in pre-history there was a massive deluge that was told and retold orally until written down to become part of a cultures folklore. Abraham came from Mesopotamia, and it is certainly possible that the tales told around the campfire included ancient stories handed down by his family. The Epic of Gilgamesh is well known, and it was one of those stories borrowed and incorporated into our own. But it is the moral level to which it is raised that makes the Hebrew version of it so much more meaningful. In the original, the gods destroy the world because humans are disturbing their sleep. In the hands of our ancestors, our God sees how corrupt the world has become and decides that if the world is ever to improve, He needs to start over with a family who is basically decent.
There have been many attempts to locate the ark or find the source of the flood. My favorite theory is based on the idea that at one time in history, the Black Sea was once a fresh water inland lake, and a seismic shift separated the land mass creating the Bosphorus, and this cataclysmic event caused the salt water Sea of Marmara to pour itself into this inland lake. Those living along the edges of the lake were drowned, but those at higher ground fled, carrying this story with them in their escape into what is now Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey. Iran, Iraq etc. The experience became part of the Jungian Collective Subconscious. Naturally, this ancient community spoke a distinctive language and this language may have been the original Indo- European language from which most languages today evolved, dovetailing nicely with the story of the Tower of Babel which is really a transformational myth explaining how different languages came to be. Of course, I may be totally wrong.
After the flood, there is a sense of renewed order, that corruption has been rooted out, and a new and better world can begin. But hard on this euphoria comes the Tower of Babel story, and the sense of renewal and order quickly devolves into a sense of disorder. So as God says, “Man is evil from his youth.”
It was suggested that if we look at the Garden of Eden story and the Noah story as metaphor for evolving humanity, we cannot help but see that everyone is new and at a childlike stage in development. God is also developing, and we see this evolution of both God and humanity as the Torah unfolds. An immature God is angry with what he has created because it chose not to do as He had wanted, and rather than work with what He has, decides to destroy it and start over. Noah, also a child, has no sense of responsibility to his fellow human beings, and does exactly what he is told to do. Noah does not feel responsibility or compassion and exhibits no free will. He follows blindly whatever God tells him to do without question. His is blind faith. Noah doesn’t change his character throughout his story, and is therefore not considered a Biblical hero.
So why a flood story? This is a cautionary tale teaching that there are consequences for not taking responsibility for your actions. We are also to learn this from the Adam and Eve story. Infractions will cause consequences that you cannot imagine.
Noah does tell God that He should not have done this, and there is a sense of Divine Regret. So God sets a rainbow in the sky as a reminder to Him that he must not destroy the world again. This might be an indication that God is growing in His own understanding of what it takes to be a parent with disobedient children.
Noah’s initial response is not to care. We’ve all been there. If it’s not happening to me, and if I’m going to be okay, why bother? So Noah builds the ark, takes his family into it, and possibly might even believe that those outside the ark deserve what they are getting. The German word froidenshas (quietly happy that others are having problems that don’t touch you,) comes to mind.
The issue of the tension between the role of faith and our responsible actions was raised. Are we commanded to be conscious of our actions, or our faith, or both? Noah exhibits blind faith. He has no sense of wavering at all. He does what he is told. A mature faith is not just noting and accepting what is, but putting our own gloss on it. Again, using the metaphor of childhood development, Noah is a toddler while Abraham is an adolescent. Abraham progresses throughout his life and continues to become, while Noah becomes stagnant and does not grow.
I’d like to say something in defense of Noah. There are people who encounter great life altering events and grow from them. There are those who just become depressed and fold up. Noah folded up. After the flood his immediate response was to give thanks. After that, he self medicated with wine, becoming drunk and possibly due to his guilt at not having challenged God, or possibly because he at last comprehended the enormity of what had happened. Noah has the burden of setting a new world in motion, and it is just too much for him. Noah is traumatize, Noah is ossified, Noah is us.
Noah is flawed, and though Abraham is our first role model for becoming and for growing in humanity, we still must recognize that he, too, is flawed. Abraham does expel his eldest son and his mother, giving them a mere flask of water and some bread when he is a prosperous man. Also, he does agree to sacrifice his other son without a complaint. In the course of becoming, we sometimes take one step forward, and two steps back. Growing is not easy, and none of us do it perfectly.
Rabbi Frenkel asked us to consider the word “sohar” which is translated from the Hebrew to mean an opening for daylight. This Hebrew word is used only once, and there is no parallel. Therefore, we cannot fully understand the intent of this word because it is not used elsewhere in another context. We say it might be a skylight, but why would Noah need a skylight? One possible answer may be that it is to count the days. Another might be that looking up is a reminder that he is to strive to do better.
The only other place in the Torah I can think of where people are told to “look up” is when God tells Moses to create a brazen serpent, put it on a pole, and have the people “look up” at it. I was told that by looking up at it, the people were also looking up to the heavens and being reminded of God. This was to heal them from the fiery serpent plague God had sent. Now as far as I am concerned, the creation of the brazen serpent was an overt act of idolatry, and the fact that it was then placed into the Ark of the Covenant along with the broken and whole tablets of the law, remains a mystery to me. Perhaps someone might explain this to me.
Respectfully,
L.H.B.
First Disobedience
Apple, pomegranate,
What did it matter?
The taste was new.
And suddenly
She knew of patterns and sequences
All elements unified in one field --
Her brain made instantly insatiable.
But for all her wonder and knowing,
It was the profound fear that came upon her,
That moved her,
The awful loneliness–
The consequences of it all–
And still, life circumscribed.
Aware,
She drew near to him.
“Come and eat, Lord Adam,” said she,
Smiling, her scarlet stained lips
Moist with passion,
Dissembling submission.
And being created
In his Father’s image,
Loving the flattery
And the newness of the game,
He sensed unfairness –
Her knowing more than he,
The fear of equality or inequality,
He too, took a taste.
Apple, pomegranate,
What did it matter?
The taste was new.
L’ador, v’ador
From generation to generation,
Apple, pomegranate,
What does it matter?
The taste is new.
Leonard H. Berman
November 1, 2014 B”H
8 Cheshvan 5775
WeeklyTorah Study: Lech Lecha – Genesis 12:1– 17:27
Haftorah – Isaiah 40:27 - 41:16
Mendy turned the bimah over to his brother-in-law this Shabbat, and this is what I think I recall the rabbi saying:
Before Mendy’s brief introduction, Mendy informed the congregation that there was going to be a brit millah or bris that afternoon which is unusual because it is Shabbat. But what I found most memorable was that this was the great-grand- son of one of our most distinguished congregants. And that’s one of the reasons why I love Chabad - four generations in one place. Most often there are three, but today there were four. L’ador V’ador.
Like Mendy, who usually tries to find a message in the Torah portion that is pertinent to today, our guest rabbi began talking about the circumcisions that take place in this parshah, and the commandment that every male in Abraham’s entourage was to undergo this rite. So Ishmael is circumcised at thirteen, Issac at eight days, and Abraham in his nineties. He then told of a midrash that tells the story of Ishmael, years later, taunting Issac and saying that his involvement in the rite was more significant than his younger brother’s because he had chosen it, while the rite was imposed on Issac without his consent. The point being made here was that the brit was a revolutionary event not only because it established the Covenant with God and the Jewish People signed in the flesh, but it recognizes that there was a Creative Power in the universe with whom one might have a personal relationship and one who has expectations of us. This rite that symbolically and physically was the signature to the Covenant was not to be a choice. The rabbi elaborated on this idea by saying that all of us here were here because we were not given a choice. Being a Jew is not easy considering the world’s response to us, but being a Jew was too important to allow that decision to be left to children or teenagers. Our parents and ancestors made that choice for us. And we continue to make that choice for our own children so the Covenant and the Jewish People will continue. He elaborated on this by addressing parents and how they have to nurture, direct, and sometimes take away choices because children and teens often do not have the intellectual or moral capacity to do what is safe or right. We give them space to grow and become independent, but we are always watchful and often must intervene when the decisions they are about to make or have made are detrimental to their well being.
The good rabbi spoke of God as the authority behind moral law, and that in traditional homes, children are taught not to do certain things because it is forbidden in the Torah and that God doesn’t want you to behave this way. Too often more secular parents will give reasons that are rational and appeal to a child’s sense of fairness or emotions that might hopefully correct a behavior, but that may or may not work if the child does not respected as the authority behind the request.
But if you say that it is God who does not like that behavior and that the behavior is forbidden in the Torah, there might be a very different response. But a different response presupposes that both parents and child mutually agree that the Torah is God’s word, and must be respected as the guide to behavior. If there is no such concept in the home, there is no authority other than the parent’s and sometimes that isn’t enough.
Once upon a time, Jews knew the laws in the Torah and could make decisions on behavior based on those laws. These laws gave rise to values that gave rise to traditions and rites that became part of our daily lives, and while many Jewish people continue to act on these values, rites and traditions, the source of these values, the Torah, has become separated from the ethical principals behind them. This became very clear to me in my own life. I was in a seminar where the teacher asked us to think of a tradition that has come down in your family. There weren’t many, but I did recall that on my Bubba’s table there was always bread with the meal. The meal didn’t start until my Zeydeh broke a piece of bread, mumbled something inaudible, and we ate. There was always bread on my mothers table for each meal, but my dad never broke it or mumbled anything. I suddenly realized that my Zeydeh was saying the blessing over bread, and what got transported to my childhood home was the bread without the blessing. In one generation, the connection of the bread, the blessing, and the gratitude to God was lost. That’s what happened with Torah law. Jewish people may behave well, but few will ascribe that behavior to God’s expectations or a Torah law. They just don’t know the connection any longer.
To address this, I created a course entitled Law, Values, and Morality were our responses to contemporary issues were traced back into the Torah and Talmud. My students were surprised that their responses were often supported by our sacred texts.
Abraham initial contribution to civilization is a revolutionary one (and one for which his descendants have never been forgiven): Abraham discovers God, conceives of monotheism, and posits a God who makes demands on our behavior. (Suddenly, the pagan party is over.) But this is all before God decides to speak to Abraham, and all that Abraham was or accomplished before this moment become discounted in scripture because Abrahams real life is to begin from that seminal moment on when both Abraham and God enter into a personal relationship. Once God chooses Abraham for a relationship, the terms of the relationship change. Prior, it was one dimensional, but when God responded, it became something quite different. Now the terms change, and God’s first statement is “Get yourself out of here.” Now God is making demands and expects Abraham to obey. Certainly, he does without question. And now God tells Abraham that if he does this, he will be blessed, have countless descendants, get a new land that will belong to his descendants in perpetuity, and that the nations of the world will bless themselves through him.
How does one refuse that! But I can see a problem. It’s been ten generations since God spoke to a human being. Prior to that, God spoke to Adam and Eve. In both circumstances, God laid down expectation and they were not followed. Free will has always been the fly in the ointment. Adam and Eve disobeyed, and the people of Noah’s generation disobeyed. So God blinked, ten generations pass, and God looks at the world that Noah’s descendants created and sees that it is not particularly good either. So beginning with a man who was righteous in his generation hoping that the world would follow his example, God saves Noah, and after a while, once again sees that His plan didn’t pan out. Again, God is disappointed, seems to lose interest for ten generations. But maybe during this time He decides to change the plan and his expectations of humanity. Instead of expecting the whole world to follow his orders and behave well, He’ll begin with one man and establish one family who just might tow His line. This would provide for limited liability. Abraham, prior to being approached with this new plan, has already realized that there is a Universal Power that is the only true God. The midrash about breaking the idols in his father’s shop and blaming it on the biggest idol, attests to his mind set and discovery. I think that Abraham’s initial faith is a very simple faith that is pure in its intent and initiated by the patterns and balances that he saw around him in nature. So God decides to begin again, but the new twist is that He will dangle a carrot on a stick to only one special person who has a predilection for spirituality. There were not carrots to Adam and Eve or to Noah. And that carrot to Abraham was a land for his countless descendants, a blessing, and the promise of his own child. And if He will do this for Abraham, Abraham must do as he is told. Thus begins the “If/Then” paradigm which will especially be revealed in the dialogues of God with Jacob and with Moses. Again, it’s not going to work. The dramatic irony here is that we know the story that will follow, and we know all too well that even Abraham’s descendants will falter and make bad choices that will get them in all sorts of trouble.
This is what always happens when you give mammals free will. Personally, I think God would have done better experimenting with fish. Fish behave well even though they are always naked.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel also began with Lech Lecha, reminding us that this is the first time that God speaks to anyone since Noah. Lech means go, and lecha can mean for yourself. What does it mean to “go to yourself.” Why is it necessary to leave?
Parents have to launch children so they can move ahead, and to improve one’s self and not stagnate, we must leave our comfort zones. Change is imperative for growth, but dealing with change and growing requires courage. Change brings risk, and an older part of us must die before we can enter a new aspect of our lives. Moving forward without a blue print is a risk, but if you wait for all the dots to be connected, you risk becoming ossified in place.
Terah, Abraham’s father also started out on a journey, but only got as far as Haran and stopped. Abraham is the one who leaves.
Each of us hears a Lech Lecha, and I was wondering if Terah also heard his? The Torah tells us that he, too, began his journey but it seems that shortly after leaving his old comfort zone, he fell into another comfortable zone and gave up seeking. Do small contentments and small achievements keep us from pushing ourselves? If we are successful somewhere, why get up and move? Did Abraham take up the challenge? Isn’t it true that children should exceed their parents? Is this another metaphor of human growth? Just questions.
There is a huge faith component here. God promises Abraham, and there is no proof. This could also be the first of several tests God would present to see if he were truly worthy of the blessings and the burden he was to carry. Why does God select Abraham? We really don’t know, but that may be the reason there is the midrash about Abraham and Terah. Abraham, like all of us, is imperfect, and that is what makes him interesting. Abraham seems vulnerable, and seemed willing to make a change. Are we willing to take that leap of Faith as Abraham did? Hershel wrote, God in Search of Man which implies that God is always looking for those of us who are willing to become an Abraham.
I saw this on a metaphoric level as a paradigm shift in God’s dealing with humanity. God is starting over again. Prior to this, He wanted obedience from Adam and from Noah. Now God seems to want faith from Abraham. Perhaps God believes that if Abraham has strong faith in Him, he will not need so much direction. This is a relationship beginning with humanity, and one that is more mature.
Abraham is also growing. Change is made when you are ready and willing. There is also an element of restlessness. The lyric, “If that’s all there is my friend, then let’s keep dancing” expresses this restlessness exactly.
January 10, 2015 B”H
19 Tevet 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Shemot – Exodus 1:1 - 6:1.
Haftorah - Isaiah 27:6 - 28:13, 29:22 -23.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying: He prefaced his comments with a statement which confessed that he understood that many would not agree with what he was about to say, but he felt compelled to speak.
Mendy began by expressing his anger with God. This is not the first time he has done this recently, and his anger seems to stem from promises not kept. This week, he was referring to the deliberate murders of people in the kosher market in Paris which suggested to me that the anger had to do with some promise of protection that was not forthcoming. I’m not sure if he actually clarified why he was angry, so I’m assuming it had to do with protection.
He indicated that he was more angry over this event than the one the day before where the cartoonists were murdered because of their satyrical treatment of Muslims and the Prophet because the people in the market were targeted exclusively because they were Jews. He aslo alluded to the idea that deliberately going out of one’s way to insult anyone’s religion is not the Jewish way of dealing with conflicts, and though the Torah does not grant the right to free speech, normative Judaism does not condone violence as a response to insult. And certainly, not to murder.
The Torah also does not grant a lot of things that most Western societies offer, and if Mendy is implying that life under a theocratic government based on Torah Law is better, I would have to ask him how that would be different from the Muslim extremists who wish to impose Shiria law on their people and their world? It wouldn’t be, and I would not be willing to live in such a world where Jewish extremist were in charge. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, and is destructive to creative thinking, creativity itself, and the human spirit. I am positive that the Jews who have contributed most to the advancement of civilization, were Jews who allowed themselves to think “outside the box.” Fundamentalism, to me, is a box that may protect those who choose to stay within it, but doesn’t advance civilization.
So called “fences” have been built around preserving Torah law, at the same time that rabbis have been reinterpreting and setting up barriers so that some Torah laws would no longer be enforced as they are written.. The Torah cannot be changed, but we have given ourselves permission to interpret it so it becomes a viable document to guide us as we move through the centuries. There are no such interpretations in Islam of which I am aware that moderates or reinterprets Quranic law, so most will take the mandates contained in the Quran at face value as justification for action. In the most fundamental of Islamic societies, body parts and heads continue to come off, people continue to be stoned to death, and women are held in servitude. While there are barbaric responses to infractions in the Torah by our standards today, we have chosen not to act on them. We do not stone people, burn witches, or murder homosexuals. Barbarity is barbarity whether it’s their barbarity or ours, and if we did find a bonafide Amalakite living among us, I seriously doubt if we would kill him.
The brilliance of America is that the Founding Fathers took the broad concepts and ideals of the Torah, and crafted documents that would enable people to actually put into practice a fair and just society that respected human dignity and law.
Mendy also expounded on the idea that the Torah not only allows but encourages the separation of dissimilar things, and he offered the Sabbath and the rest of the days, dairy and flesh, etc, as examples. Things and ideas that are not alike, should be kept separate, and this he seemed to apply to people as well because when unlike groups with differing value or belief systems come together, there is often conflict.
This requires some thought. I would tend to agree that certain groups should better be kept apart, especially when one group is bent on the destruction of another. Arab Palestinian terrorist who, though living in Israel and bent on its destruction, should be incarcerated for their actions and then expelled to the Gaza. If it is proven that their families encouraged such action, the families should be expelled immediately. If these people are citizens, their citizenship should be revoked.
France, because it believes in multi-culturalism, and desperately trying to separated itself from its colonial image as a imperialist nation (which is frowned upon by other imperialistic nations now embracing Eurocentric Liberalism), has welcomed in and permitted an often hostile minority to set up 700 areas in France under Shiria law that the French police will not enter for fear of their lives.
Sweden, England, Holland, etc. like France, have allowed similar enclaves because they need to see themselves as politically correct and democratic. But they are what they are, and the truth is that their institutional bigotry has not provided these people with access to jobs or means of assimilation, though they will feed, cloth, and house them. Of course, there are thousands or even millions in France and elsewhere who are not interested in assimilation, but in the Islamization of their adopted country. Such people use the democratic values of their adopted governments and national guilt to infiltrate and destroy from within.
When I was in school back in the 40's and 50's, I was taught the myth that America was a melting pot of people from all walks of life, but the reality is that America is a tossed salad of very different people, ideas, proclivities, etc. I am of the opinion that the only thing really binds this disparate group together is a binding silent agreement that the salad dressing that I think is the Constitution. Americans, subconsciously, understand that being an American is being part of something totally unique in human history, and worth the problems that come with living in close proximity to people who are different from you. And they also understand that even with all the problems and tensions among the diverse groups here, it is still the best place to be. I further state that Americans who go over to Arab countries to train as a terrorist or fight with Al-Qaeda, ISSIS, or any other terrorist group, should have their citizenship revoked and not be allowed to reenter the United States. Americans who goes to another country to fight against Americans are traitors and should be treated as such.
Mendy made it very clear that while the newspaper people were murdered because they insulted Islam, the people in the market were murdered solely because they were Jews. They were murdered not because of what they did, but because of who they were.
Some Muslims murder Jews just because they are Jews. These fundamentalist terrorists have been taught the following in the the Quran, Sura 2:6: Here it states “that wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon the Jews, and they were visited with wrath from Allah..., that was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. And for their taking usury, which was prohibited for them, and because of their consuming people's wealth under false pretense, a painful punishment was prepared for them.”
The Quran requires their "abasement and poverty" in the form of the poll tax “jizya.” In his "wrath" God has "cursed" the Jews and will turn them into apes, monkeys and swine and idol worshipers because they are "infidels." And while the Quran also attests to Muhammad's
amicable relations with Jews, this is not stressed in the school that teach the hate. The Quran, for those who seek it out, provides holy justification for murdering the infidel Jew with impunity. And if this is the fate for the Jews, it really must stick in their craws the idea that these Jews, destined for second class citizenship, debasement, and death, have beaten them back in several wars and are flourishing in their own homeland. Such success gives the lie to the Quran. Underlying the cause of the conflict in the Middle East is not only Arab nationalism, but Muslim theology not fulfilled.
Mendy suggested that we can fight back by being prouder of our Judaism, and displaying it openly. He suggested that for one Shabbat, we become entirely kosher. He suggested that people wear a kippah. I do believe that he said that the only people who will not support this new behavior will be other Jews. Other people in this country wear all sorts of distinguishing garments that proudly state who they are. Why shouldn’t Jews?
In some way he segued into the relationship between siblings, and opened a dialogue with a question about who is responsible for the relationships between siblings: parents or the siblings themselves?
I think each response was a reflection on the personal experience each had growing up.
I felt parents were responsible by either encouraging or discouraging relationships. You are what you are taught before you go out into the world to see how others do it, but most of our proclivities are ingrained when we are little when you do not have the intellect to make reasonable comparisons. Sometimes we retain these childlike images, and they inform our relationships all our lives if there is no intervention. In dysfunctional homes, children may be pitted against one another so the parent retains his or her role as the center and the one in control. Sometimes the children become pawns in a parental game of chess. Believe it or not, there are parents who may appear to be biological adults but are masking their inner deprived and angry child by pretending to be adults. And these dysfunctional people are raising children. In non- dysfunctional homes, parents are apt to encourage friendship and support among their children.
Mendy told us that he talks to brothers frequently, and share ideas for drushes. He said that his father is at his happiest when Mendy tells him this. This idea of the importance of friendship and communication between siblings, the last point that I recall made, was that we have enough trouble in the work world and in getting along, so wouldn’t it be better to make peace in the family if problems do exist? He invited us rejoice in our siblings accomplishments because with so many people in the world hating us, we can find comfort and security in a loving family.
Congregation M’Kor Shalom: Both rabbis were away, so we were treated to my dear friend Edmond who, because of his age and wisdom, has had bestowed upon him (by myself), the loving title of “Iconoclastic Curmudgeon in Permanent Residence.”
Ed reviewed the Shemot parasha, but not until he had informed us that Genesis is a self contained narrative that has absolutely nothing to do with Exodus (Shemot) or the books following it. In fact, there is considerable argument as to why Genesis should or should not be the first book of the Torah.
I don’t recall if there were an answer to this question, but I certainly see the value of beginning with Genesis. Yes, the Torah is the story of the Jewish People, and like all histories of any people, there is often allusions to origins of a people coming out of a dim past. People have to begin somewhere. Should our history books leave out England because the American People do not begin their journey into history until the British are defeated? Some Native American Totems and stories proudly assert a connection to animal ancestors. All people have origins, and Genesis is our attempt to tell the story of ours. And not only do we learn about the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish People in that book, we learn about our connection to them, and their selection by the God they chose to believe in and follow. Consider any attempt on your own to do a family genealogy. Why bother unless knowing where you are from and who your ancestors were gives you something of value and a connection with history.
But I think there is an additional reason for beginning with Genesis and it has to do with the law. Laws are generally made when someone does something that someone else doesn’t like. I think that all the laws regarding sexuality in Leviticus 18 were created because the things
forbidden by those laws were happening, and the people in charge wanted them to stop so sexual energy might be directed into the marriage bed and the family stabilized. Can’t have a stable society without a stable family. There was probably a narrative that preceded each law in Leviticus 18, and possibly had those narratives been included, more people would read the Bible. There are people who believe that these laws came directly from God, because God was a moral God and did not like immorality. After all, the Noah story is the narrative for destroying an immoral world. There are those who believe that the laws were set down by divinely inspired men who were also moral and knew what society needed to sustain itself. There are those who believe that these laws were just good laws to keep people acting decently. Everyone seems to agree that these laws are good for society no matter who wrote them. But there is a difference between God being the authority behind these laws and men being the authority behind these laws.
Exodus and the books following it posit laws, and I think that Genesis provides the narrative from the lives of those who inhabit that book as well as the lives of those who are contemporary to those people. You shall not do the things that the Egyptians do or that the Canaanites do. That’s my take on the importance and the need for Genesis. In addition, all ancient cultures have in their literature attempts to understand why things are they way they are. The Tower of Babel for instance explains why there are so many different languages on earth. Story of Eve explains why woman give birth in pain and why man must labor in sweat. These are called transformational myths. But whatever you call them, they provide an instructive message.
Ed’s comment were filled with very interesting tidbits of interesting information. We were informed that the first indication of the idea of a separate Hebrew People comes from an inscription using the word “Iparu” which means “dust people.” (I knew about the inscription, but not how it was translated.) The term “task master” was considered to mean someone with a whip. To “task” is a word that also means flog. In Moby Dick, Ahab says, “The whale tasks me.”
My friend Ed is a living font of etymological trivia.
The Israelites who came to Egypt numbered seventy, and a couple of centuries later we are told became a tribe of two million men, women, and children. The fertility of the Jewish People seemed to be central to this narrative with Hebrew women so lively that they had their babies before the midwives could arrive and kill the male children.
Also considered was the city of Armana and the 34 year reign of Amenhotep IV or Ahkenaton, the Pharaoh who instituted a type of monotheism recognizing Aton or Ra as the
only deity to be worshiped. This change of focus angered many Egyptians and put the priests of any other god out of business. He was overthrown, and Armana was totally destroyed. Some scholars believe that Ahkenaton was Moses, and that Moses was not an Israelite, but an Egyptian prince, and all the stories about Moses are fabrications. At the time of this destruction, there are records that the lepers were also driven out of Egypt along with those who followed Ahkenaton. Freud posits a similar idea, but such ideas have been refuted since the advent of modern archeology and technology.
Moses flees to Midian, and marries Zipporah, the daughter of the high priest who worships a god in a volcano. The description in the Torah of Mt. Sinai and what happens during the revelation, is reminiscent of what happens when a volcano is rumbling.
So it seems that what Ed is suggesting is that our ancestors were originally the followers of a monotheistic pharaoh who was killed. His followers fled or were expelled from Egypt by the older establishment along with the lepers which gives us an understanding as to why leprosy figures so prominently as a disease in the Torah. The mixed multitude?
Such scholarship refuting the Exodus narratives and others in the Torah, are part of a body of work begun in the 19th Century to apply science and archaeological finds that will refute Biblical narrative. I have always had a vague suspicion that what became known as the “higher criticism” had at its core an attempt to negate Judaism itself, because by negating the efficacy of the Torah, you also negate the laws of the Torah, the history of the Jewish People, their claim to the Promised Land, and the claim of “Choseness.”
In short, you negate Judaism itself which is founded on these scrolls. But the good Christians scholars involved in this effort at the same time must realize that if the Torah is not true, then Christianity hasn’t a leg upon which to stand, for without the apple and the fall of man because of original sin, there is no need for Jesus’ sacrifice to save humanity. Without the Torah and the life of Moses, the savior of his people, the life of Jesus could not be imagined as savior of the world. With out the Passover, Christian rituals would have no basis or meaning. If these stories are not accepted as true, western religion falls apart. Did those involved in the “higher criticism” have this in mind, or was their purpose only to debunk Judaism?
So while I find it interesting to listen to these theories, I do believe that at the same time their existence is meant to whittle away at the core beliefs upon which Judaism rests. So what are we left with? Pure reason? Intellect devoid of the mystery? Are we happier with just our ethnic memories sans our Torah visions and expectations? What gets passed on if it’s all a fable? What happens to moral law without an authority behind it greater than man made law that are subject to change? Just questions to ponder?
At one point, we discussed the concept of divided loyalties because that was the fear of the Pharaoh. Here, in his land, were a group of strangers who might turn against Egypt in a war. So he enslaves them. This idea of divided loyalties has plagued the Jewish People since the destruction of our homeland because we have been a nation within the nations we have inhabited. We have refused to give up our concept of Peoplehood and Kal Yisroel. Ed mentioned that during the ‘70's, he was asked by someone as to where his loyalty lay between the United States and Israel.
After the French Revolution, the Jews were invited to have all benefits due them as individuals, but not as a nation. They were asked to refute their concept of nationhood. The Jewish People have been unique in that they were a nation in exile, and yet retained their national
identities. We are also a religion and an ethnicity. We are unique among the people of the world in that many of us continue to see ourselves as part of a distinctive nation, The Jewish People, and yet are loyal citizens of many nations. It is a paradox few can understand, and that is why we are suspected of duel loyalties. What they do not understand, is that our first loyalty is to the land in which we live, and at the same time, loyal and supportive to our Jewish brothers and sisters who we consider part of our greater family no matter where they live.
At certain moments in time, there have been those among us who advocate for a universalism that asks us to view the world as our synagogue; that we are to transcend time and space. Ed mentioned something about religion deriving its energy from sameness, and I think he mentioned tribal sameness verses universalism.
Can universalists also become tribal in their sameness?
I am reminded of an idea: “Radical ideas threaten institutions which in turn become institutions which in turn are threatened by radical ideas.” Big circle. “There is nothing new under the sun.” Might holding on to something many think of as eternal give some small sense of comfort in a world where nothing seems to last?
Respectfully submitted,
Labe Chaim
Leonard HowardJanuary 17, 2015 B”H
26 Tevet 5775
WeeklyhTorah Study: Parashas Va-Era – Exodus 6:2- 9:35
Haftorah – Ezekiel 28:25 – 29:21
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by asking how many plagues were visited on Egypt, and knowing that it was ten, I sensed I had to be wrong and he was looking for a different answer. And sure enough, I was both right and wrong, for according to the Orthodox Haggadah, you find that there are three rabbis who argued that there were either 40 or 50 depending on who you agree with. Not using an Orthodox Haggadah, I did not know of that discussion. I have forgotten the names of the first two rabbis who were in this discussion. The third was Rabbi Akiva. The rabbinic discussion had to do with human responses to human actions, and there were three categories given:
• Responses which are superficial responses to whatever was happening.
• Responses based on what was motivating the behavior in another.
• Responses from our essence. (This was Akiva’s contribution.)
Mendy gave specific examples of each, none of which I can recall.
The second rabbi (and here Mendy acknowledged that the Greek philosophers were in sync with our sages) stated that the focus here was on what motivated people to act in the way they did, and that earth, air, fire, and water are the four elements that inform the human temperament and as a result, human response. According to the ancients, every response we have, emotional, physical, or intellectual stems from one of these element, so in effect, we are intellectual, emotionally, and physically bound to these elements.
But Akiva said there is a fifth element, an element that speaks to our essence or identity The Greeks call this ethos. I don’t recall Mendy using a Hebrew term to describe this element. It is this element that truly reveals us to ourselves and to others, and working from this inner core, we engage the world at the highest level at our disposal.
Again, Mendy gave many examples of a variety of decisions and responses and how these are related to the five elements, and at this moment, I cannot recall them. But I assure you, that they were quite on target and relevant. It was very interesting, and I wish I could remember the examples he used with each element to bring it alive.
I do recall him saying that if the essence of a person cannot be changed, then the best way to deal with that person is to distance yourself from that person. He may have related this to what is going on in France right now, and how it would be best for the Jews of France to separate themselves from a place where there is ingrained mindless hatred.
Having gun battles in the streets to bring down Muslim terrorists is one response, and though “superficial” it might be the only way to practically rid yourself of the immediate threat.
The second response is to deal with what motivates the terrorist, looking for the core issues to ameliorate economic and social problems that foster such behavior.
Personally, I’m not one to care much about what is motivating a person to point a gun at me while that person is pointing that gun. People who seek rationales for murderous behavior seem to have a bent on explaining it away and the result is a veiled way of excusing it by giving it validity. In such instances, the murderer’s circumstances or societal conditions become the key factor and not the person himself who has demonstrated no compassion or understanding of the human pain that is multiplied.
The extreme Left Wing are those who seek out “reasons” while the victims lie bleeding to death. While there may be “rationalizations” for murder, there is no rationalization for taking a life because you disagree with a person’s ideas, especially ideas that are politically or religiously inspired. The Talmud teaches: “If a man comes to slay you, slay him first.” Killing someone to protecting your life is different from going out to kill someone because you don’t like what they have to say or how they look.
Jews were not a physical threat to the Nazis, but Jews, by believing that there was a God above governments who demanded correct behavior from people who governed, was a threat to totalitarianism. To kill such a judgmental God idea requires killing the people who hold it. The same now holds for Zionism. It is an idea that radical Islam needs to destroy, and the only way to do it is to destroy the people who believe that Israel must exist. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism whether it espoused by Nazis or radical Muslims. While there are those who claim that Jews are targets because of what they do, the reality is that Jews are targets for what they believe.
The third response is to try to change the person at his core beliefs, so the person becomes different. If this is impossible to do, separation is best.
The textbooks that are printed in Saudi Arabia (America’s ally?) and used in Arab schools all over the world and especially in the disputed territories and Gaza, teach the very youngest to hate Jews and seek their destruction. So how is this to be countered when there is absolutely no attempt to develop a generation that will consider peace or living in peace when the most powerful influences in a child’s life, the views espoused in the home, the views espoused in the schools, and the views espoused in their religious institutions, all sing the same song of hate for the Jews and the destruction of Israel?
Those who hate will never stop hating, and those who seek to destroy Israel, will never stop their efforts. And since there is no way to expel those who would support Israel’s destruction, the only thing I can reasonably see is a two state solution, encourage the haters to migrate to the new entity, and build very high walls between Israel and those who would seek her destruction. Even a two state solution will not bring peace, because this is not about land. This has always been about destroying Israel, a non-Muslim entity in an area of the world that Muslims believe is exclusively theirs.
Another topic of conversation dealt with how we are to respond to the murder of French Jews specifically because they were Jews. Our response should reveal the level of our understanding of Kal Yisroel and to what degree we relate to that concept. Kal Yisroel is a concept that insists that we respond as if the three Jews murdered just because they were Jews were members of our own family. Mendy suggested that we can demonstrate our support by increasing our mitzvot in their memories. He urged us to be more overt in our pride in being Jews by wearing a kipot for a full Shabbat, or being kosher for a day, coming to minyon, or checking to see if our teffilin or mezzuzot on our doors were kosher. He continues to believe that until the Messiah comes to impose order on the chaos, there are things we might do to hasten his arrival.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch began by letting us know that the first important words of the parshah are “I appeared,” reviewed the story of Moses thus far, and focused in on the five times God tells Moses to go, and Mose’s response that he is not the man for the job. Moses cannot understand what God is thinking or why he was chosen, knowing that his first attempt revealed a people who were contentious, not willing to fall in line, and unwilling to believe him. Besides, why send a man who was raised as an Egyptian prince?
Another question asked was “What took God so long to remember?” Depending on who you read, the Jews were in Egypt anywhere from 200 to 400 years. What was God doing?
The problem is is that we have expectations of God based on promises that were made. But the reality is that we are on our time and not on God’s time. There are two translations: “I have now heard...” and “I have also heard... their groans.”
We have no clue as to what God was doing that he didn’t hear the “groans.” He may have been off in another galaxy attending to some major implosions or super novas and temporarily forgot about that little experiment with humanoid free will going on on that insignificant blue dot in another galaxy far far away.
We have created a linear time construct that also recycles back on itself, so that if you were to plot time, it would look like a spiral moving forward. But this is our concept. God exists in His own time which has to be different from ours. God is eternal, and eternity has no concept of Time. In eternity, all exists at the same time. We are dealing here with Existence in eternal and infinite space. That may be why our expectations, which exist in our frame of time reference, are often not met. Our time and God’s time may be out of sync.
God reveals himself to Moses with the name Yud Hay Vov Hay which has at its root the concept of Eternity or Being. When God first revealed himself to the Patriarchs, he was El Shaddai, and we the root of that word is Power. But this second revelation offers us an aspect of God as being pure Being.
At one point the names of Moses’ ancestors appear, tracing his lineage to the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, and specifically showing a direct line to Jacob. Why insert his genealogy now? The answer is clear. Moses’ authority must be established, and it is important to show that Moses is a direct descendant of Levi. This genealogy connects Moses directly to leadership, to Abraham, and therefore, to God. In effect, this connection gives Moses “cred.” The Covenant is now with the People, and the people need a leader with established bonafides.
Since we are all descendants of Abraham, we are all connected to God. Nice thought.
From a historical perspective, Moses could have been an Egyptian, but history has nothing to do with it. We do not look to the historicity of the story, but to the meaning of the story. We don’t ask if it happened, but we ask what does it mean?
The Torah must be viewed as a document of ideas and of behaviors to be fathomed at different levels. So it matters that it is historically accurate only to those who cannot fathom it as a document that is so much more than a book of stories about a particular people and their ascent in history. As I said in an earlier commentary, the authors of the “higher criticism” and those who revel in it, are people who are looking at our Torah as an actual sequential record of a particular people’s history. But was the Torah ever meant to be viewed that way? Sadly, this
history and the God of these people, were adopted by the wider culture who also based their own faiths on this narrative and this God. I agree that subconsciously, the followers of these newer faiths have never forgiven us for being the source of what they see as the restrictions placed upon them by their own religious systems that grew out of ours.
At the same time, the questions was asked as to why Moses was raised in the palace. The answer was that only an education given to a prince of Egypt could give him the experiences he would need to become the inspired leader he had to be.
A good leader has to know military strategy, have skills at being a quarter master, have some judicial know how, some logistical skills, etc. An illiterate slave making bricks all day would not have such skills. Big picture plan.
God speaks to Moses with a seemingly different focus. When God first spoke to the Patriarchs and stated the Covenant, it was about fertility and about making their descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky or the sands on the shore. But now, God is not talking specifically about family, but of People. God’s promise was fulfilled. They were so numerous, Pharaoh was threatened by them. Now, the nature of the story is changing. Abraham’s family has become the People of Israel that Moses is charged with the task of leading them out of Egypt.
Another change in focus comes with several descriptions of how the people are feeling, and how Moses is feeling. This focus on emotional response is new in the Torah.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
January 24, 2015 B”H
4 Shevat 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Exodus - Parashas Bo – 10:1 - 13:16
Haftorah - Jeremiah 46:13 - 28
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy referred us to the end of the parasha and the final line: “And it shall be a sign upon your arm, and an ornament between your eyes, for with a strong hand HASHEM removed us from Egypt.”
Mendy devoted his entre drush to the mitzvahs of putting on Teffilin or phylacteries each morning, but not on the Sabbath or on holidays. His first question to us was why not on holidays or on the Sabbath, and I, having been told by another authority elsewhere, replied that it was because we are not to mix mitzvahs. I was applying what I had been taught about why you can’t have a wedding on Shabbat to his question. Mendy’s response was immediate, dismissing my comment by saying that he “mixes mitzvot all time.”
This response reaffirmed a previous learning that Mendy can be abrupt if you have not guessed what he is thinking. To me, my reasoning was on target. Happily, I don’t take these small discounts personally.
The request to bind something on your arm and wear something between your eyes which we now call the mitzvah of Tefillin, is enjoined upon us four times in the Torah. Connected to this Torah request, he followed by referring to three observances that act as identifiers of a Jewish male: Observing the Sabbath, putting on Tefillin, and Brit Milah. One needs not do all three, so if you are observing the Sabbath, you do not need to put on Tefillin. That’s the reason. Of course, a Jewish male is perpetually identified as a Jew by virtue of the Brit Milah, so one identifier is always there. And since two out of three is required, and one is always there, Sabbath observance fulfills the requirement on that day, and Tefillin observances fulfills the requirement on the other six days of the week. So one key reason to put on Tefillin is to reinforce your identity as a Jewish male on the days that are not the Sabbath. He also taught that the head Tefillin and the hand Tefillin are two separate mitzvahs and putting on the one and not the other etc., etc, ... became too much information to remember.
Tefillin are outward symbols of an inner dynamic that is going on in the head and in the heart. There is a day set aside where men all over the world will be putting on Tefillin at the same time. I just may involve myself in that mitzvah.
Judaism incorporates many symbols as a short hand to learning and remembering. Each symbol may be there to remind us of our value system, our theology, and our history. And everyone of these symbols speaks to us as a reminder of who we are and what is expected of us.
If you know how to read the Sabbath table, you can read the history of the Exodus there, and when a father blesses his children and blesses the bread, he symbolically assumes the role of priest with the power to bless and give sustenance. The same reminders are there on the Passover table, and in the Succah rituals. The mazuzah on each door is also a symbolic reminder of God and His expectations, as is the choice three times a day to choose Kashruth.
The Exodus story, while a story about slaves who became free, is also a story about a God who is revealing himself in history and letting the world know that He is all Powerful and totally in charge. This is a God who can bring on plagues that will destroy and kill. This is a God who demands obedience. This is a God who controls nature and can bend people to His will as he does with Pharaoh.
I do recall that in the Tefillin on the head, there are four compartments that while appearing to be one, are really divided to keep what they contain separate. Into each compartment is a small scroll containing four Torah passages; the first two passages of the Shema, which recognizes God as the only God, and speaks to our responsibility to observe God’s
commandments. The two other scrolls from this parsha in the box speak about the Exodus and our responsibilities to God. The box that we place on our arm has only one scroll, and I don’t recall if he mentioned what was written on that scroll.
But I do recall that the he said that these principles must always be with us as reminders to dedicate our mind, our heart, and our arm, and hand to the service of God. The box that goes near the heart contains only one scroll, perhaps because the heart needs to focus. The heart is the seat of passion and desire. The heart is not easy to control, and the bindings that continue down the arm and onto the hand are symbolic of the need to control the heart’s desires. It takes extra energy and extra focus to control the heart’s passions.
While our hearts are our emotional center, the brain is our intellectual center, and our thoughts can move from scroll to scroll and contemplate the expectations written on each. But when considering the heart, we must remain focused, and for us to do that, there can be only one scroll with one commandment.
The messages in the tefillin are basic to our understanding of Judaism and to our understanding of what Judaism asks us to believe. The passages all come from Exodus, because it is in Exodus that God demonstrates his Power to subdue all other gods, kings, and nature. God is God, and in total control. You don’t mess around with this God.
In the early 70's, when I returned to some degree of observance, I learned how to put on Tefillin, and I liked saying each day that I would “betroth myself to God in righteousness, in justice, in kindness, and in mercy...” I had returned to the Judaism of my early years, the years where I never doubted what the rabbis taught me, and fully believed that the Torah was given in its entirety on Sinai. That faith taught that sincere prayer was heard and answered. And so I prayed with all the kavanah I could muster at that time God would sustain the lives of two infants in grave danger. But the infants died, and being emotionally immature, I became angry with God, and stopped putting on Tefillin. I’ll show Him! But now that I am a more mature adult who has come to a very different understanding of what God is and what I can expect, I may consider putting Tefillin on again as Mendy asked us to do because I see this act as a reminder of how I am to behave in this world. Personally, I don’t think I need such daily reminders, but Tefillin is a universal activity, much like Sabbath observance. All over the world, Jews are lighting candles, blessing bread, wine, and children. Participation in Shabbat helps one to be part of something universal and special. Tefillin might have the same unifying effect of belonging to something great. Shabbat and Tefillin connect me to my people.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch began by reviewing the past plagues, and responded to the question as to why the slaves just didn’t get up and leave. That led to a lengthy discussion about the ties that bind, family, culture, provisions provided to the slaves, a sense of security, and the collective mind set of a slave mentality. For most of us, the images in the film, Ten Years a Slave, informs us of the brutality of slavery. Certainly, there was brutality from the task masters. We were informed that there were different kinds of slavery. Chattel slavery (Hebrew type)is that form of slavery where one person asserts ownership over another person’s body, while couve slavery (sounded like that and couldn’t find it in the dictionary) was an obligation to provide physical labor to the state for a time and then go back home. There was of course indentured servants, as well as other forms of servitude in the ancient Middle East.
Many Jews are shocked and ashamed to learn that our ancestors did own slaves and indentured servants, and it is difficult for some to align this history with our current value system, but we really don’t have to do that. That was then and this is now. We should not bare guilt. Italians do not berate themselves for being descended from Romans who threw people to the lions for sport, crucified people, and gleefully watched gladiators tear one another apart. If we were still slave holders, then we could berate ourselves, but not today. Jews lived in the ancient world and held views that were acceptable then. But Judaism has evolved, and now we see that holding slaves denies the concepts of freedom and justice. And because of these value concepts, Jews have generally been in the forefront of movements that have brought about justice and freedom. Consider the Labor Movement, Suffragette Movement, the Women’s Rights Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, to name a few. The Torah is a time capsule of a life and society that flourished millennia ago. They were our ancestors, and we should not feel ashamed for that ancient society. We are who we are today because, separate from the wider society in which they lived, they had a great deal to teach us about being human.
We considered our own situations; the socio-economic and psychological conditions in our own lives that have kept us and continue to keep us from leaving where we are to go to a place we might want to go. Certainly, after being in Egypt between 200 and 420 years, the people didn’t think they had any place to go, so why leave? They had the “flesh pots” of Egypt, and roofs over their heads. Goshen was home, and the world outside of Egypt was hostile and uninviting. But Joseph’s prophesy and request to have his bones taken out when they left, indicated that there was something of a collective memory.
Why did the Hebrews merit being let out? There is a midrash about the men divorcing their wives so no more male children would be killed, but Miriam berated them because then girls would not have been born. The men remarried their wives. Marital chastity among the people was the first reason for meriting being freed. The second was that the Hebrews did not worship idols in all the years that they were there, and the third was that they continued to give their children Hebrew names, and that kept us connected.
When the parsha opens, seven plagues had already happened, and Pharaoh is willing to negotiate. One translation of the word “Bo” is “Go to” or “Go into Pharoah,” and another translates it as “Come to Pharoah.” But it can also mean “Enter before Pharoah.” What’s the difference?
By using “Go,” Moses is being given a purpose. He is going to warn Pharaoh. “Entering” has a psychological component. We also considered the way God reveals Himself at this time. His intent is to make a mockery of Pharaoh as a living god and a mockery of the Egyptian pantheon. Both have a purpose.
God’s purpose is to establish His bonafides once and for all, even to the Hebrews because even people who believe sometimes are not perfect in their faith. And God seems to involve Himself directly in the last three plagues. Prior to these last plagues, Pharaoh seemed to have hardened his own heart, but now it is God who “hardens” or “strengthens” Pharaoh’s heart so he will not let the people go. God’s behavior is often explained away by saying that a person can become so entrenched in his or her own ego, that eventually, they cannot do anything other than justify or satisfy their own needs. But the reality is that God admits that He is doing this for a specific reason, and that reason has more to do with God proving that this is His world than it has to do with Pharaoh’s ego.
God’s behavior presents us with a challenge because not only do God’s actions challenge our notions of free will, but such an action challenges our notion of a benevolent God of Justice. How can God justify condemning and punishing someone whom God Himself has caused to behave in a particular way? But God is God, and He can do whatever He wants to do. The whole point that God is making here is that He is establishing his total control and power over events in history and in the lives of the people. This is a God with whom one does not trifle.
This is full confrontation revealing a tangible problem on a metaphoric level. Simply stated, this story is also a struggle between monotheism and paganism. In this contest, the Divine God will win over earthly gods.
When we returned to the text, I suggested that leadership was a key factor in their leaving because such an Exodus depended on the emergence of someone who could coalesce a disparate group into a focused unity. Moses was such a man, having been raised and educated in the Pharaoh’s palace; a man, though initially feeling inadequate and not up to the task, never the less had the latent courage and skills that would raise him up to that challenge.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim January 31, 2015 B”H
11 Shevat 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Exodus - Be-Shallack-Shirah–Exodus 13:17 - 17-16.
Haftorah – Judges 4:4 - 5:31.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy reviewed the parshah, and then informed us that he had been to visit the grave of the sixth Rebbe, Rabbi Schenerson’s father-in-law on the occasion of the man’s yhertziet. Mendy spoke about each generation having one particular leader who was so far beyond everyone else in wisdom and understanding, that no one could fathom his depth. I do think he said that each of the Lubovitcher Rebbes were such leaders in their generations.
He then waxed mystical and referred to the Kabalistic concept of God in the world at creation, and then Adam’s disobedience as the start of the first of the next seven generations that drove God away. I think he did this to connect God in the world with the righteous leadership that arises in each generation that lets God know that we are still marching forward, and that He is still worshiped and needed. Perhaps that people continuing to be righteous despite God hiding is what keeps God interested in us.
Noah must have been such a man. Certainly we are told that he was the best in his generation. Abraham was born six years before the death of Noah according to commentators, so a new generation, the generation that will bring God back into the world, begins with him. I suppose that seven generations after the death of Abraham (or is it Joseph?) Moses appears in history as the leader of that generation. Subsequently, we have Joshua, the Prophets, the Rabbis of the Talmudic Period, then such men as the Bal Shem Tov, The Alta Rebbe, and so on down to The Rebbe. And now we are told we are leaderless, but I’m not so sure of that. Is Mendy telling us that there is not one person in all of Chabad who is not worthy of assuming the mantle and title of Rebbe? Are they all too humble, like Moses, to believe he is capable of continuing the Rebbe’s work? Why not have a conclave like they have to select the Pope. Gather the wisest, the most accomplished Lubavitcher Chassids, and let them put up for election the names of worthy men who have proven their leadership skills and devotion to the Movement. Let votes be taken until one is selected. Let a new dynasty begin. I know such a man, the most humblest and most self effacing of them all. But knowing how modest this man is, he would not forgive me if I suggest that he allow himself to stand for this position.
I wonder if they have not done this because such an action would generate so much dissension among the faithful, (after all, they are men and men can be petty) that it would destroy the Movement itself. So is Chabad Lubavitch to remain leaderless from now on? Who will be the righteous leader in the next generation? Might we look outside a religious group for such leadership?
Mendy then directed our attention to a passage that read, “Pharaoh will say of the Children of Israel, ‘They are imprisoned in the land, the Wilderness has locked them in.’” The issue raised dealt with the word “of” as being mistranslated from the Hebrew. The Hebrew reads “to,” and that raises the following problem: To whom is he speaking if the Children of Israel left? Now here is where the commentators get involved. Mendy said that there were evil Jews among the Israelites, and two of them were named Dathan and Abiram. It is to these two men that Pharaoh is speaking. According to the rabbis, these were the two men who were fighting and threatened to
tell that Moses killed the Egyptian, and these two men acted as taskmasters over the people much like the Jewish capos in the concentration camps, kept the Jews in line so they might garner favor from the Nazis and live. These two appear in the Korach rebellion which begs the question: If they did not leave Egypt, how can they appear in the Book of Numbers?
It would seem that in some midrash, these evil men accepted being whipped at one point in the narrative for the sake of the Jews, and that indicated that though they had moved away from their people, there was a small spark of Yiddishkeit that could be ignited. The fire of the Jewish soul is always there ready to burst back into flame. The soul’s fire may be dim, but it is never out. So Dathan and Abiram accompanied Pharaoh to the sea, and because of this prior act of kindness, they were permitted to join the others. Mendy also said that about 80% of the Jewish slaves died in Egypt because they were evil themselves or because they were not ready for the commitment it would take. This story is based on one word that has at its root the concept of 1/5th. Don’t recall the word.
The final teaching had to do with us collectively taking the leadership that would cause the Messiah to appear. Each of us has the ability and obligation to move out into the world and bring Yiddishkeit and goodness.
A number of years ago, the Reconstructionist Movement posited the idea that the Messiah
will be humankind acting collectively to bring about a better world. Their concept does not include a physical being, but the results of people acting for the betterment of others. And if enough people act this way, the world will change for the better. The first time I witnessed what I call a Messianic Moment came with the Civil Rights marches on Washington, and the Great Society Legislation that followed. Another was Live Aid where musicians here and in Europe got together to raise money for food to be sent to Africa. It was televised all over the world. Farm Aid followed. Remember “We Are The World?” These I see as Messianic Moments and give us a hint of what acting collectively can do to benefit others. Today, there are little possibilities that can push the process along. Passage of a law that calls for equal pay for equal work, raising the minimum wage so that those at the lower social and economic levels might enjoy a better life, or the end to human trafficking, might be counted small Messianic Moments that would add up to something really Big.
I cannot think of an age where Jews have not prayed for the Messiah to come to impose order on the chaos in which we live. Christians do the same, and yet, neither their Messiah nor ours has appeared either for the first or second time. There are events that will take place once the Messiah arrives, set out in Isaiah, and they’re all very good. And I suspect that there are expectations set down somewhere that have to be achieved for the Messiah to first appear. Obviously, genocide and massive destruction of earth’s resources are not required for the Messiah since there have been plenty of those and still no Messiah. Perhaps only good things must happen first. I therefore must confess, that while the concept of a man who will appear to “make the crooked straight, and the bumpy smooth,” and turn everyone to Zion, are beautiful ideas that fills us with hope, I have to confess that I’m more of a Reconstuctionist in this, believing that humanity, acting in concert, will bring about something akin to a Messianic Age. Since we are humanity, it is up to us to make the world as good a place as we can, and Mendy is saying that we can do this easily by bringing kindness, hope, and Yiddishkeit to others. Perhaps that is one of the reasons I send this out weekly. It’s my way of bringing Yiddishkeit and stirring souls.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel began by reviewing the parshah and asking why the song that the Israelites sing at the sea is written in the way it appears in the Torah. It was suggested that poetry is written this way, and one commentator suggest that it appears this way because the broken lines of words appearing one on top of the other, look like bricks stacked to remind us of where we were.
She then asked three questions: “What does God do for you?” Answers followed:
God gives us courage, God sustains us, God is a source of energy, God sets out expectations for our behavior, God sets standards, and God becomes the authority behind moral law, were offered.
The second question was, “What bolsters your faith?” The responses had to do with gratitude, reading God’s word, and getting up each day.
The final question was, “What causes doubt?” When bad things happen to good people, the state of the wider world, and the terrible relationships that exists between and among the nations of the world.
When the Israelites see the Egyptians bearing down on them, their first instinct is to pray even though they really don’t know this God at all. They have seen the plagues, but belief that God will protect them is not forthcoming, and they immediately turn against Moses. Our human instinct is to reach out, and then to blame. God is bothered that they do not see, believe, or trust His involvement. God doesn’t give us very much slack for our imperfections.
Why is God annoyed or even surprised by human response to Him? He encountered this early on in the Garden, and then when humanity stepped into corruption, resulting in their watery destruction.
So God tells Moses to start walking and raise his staff. In effect, God is coaching Moses to become a leader. Moses must be taught to do this. Moses, throughout the Torah, often seems reluctant to act on his own either because he lacks confidence, doesn’t believe that he can bring about change by his own words of deeds, or just isn’t very imaginative.
And here once again we were reminded of a midrash about Nachshon ben Amidi who took it upon himself to walk into the water till it was above his nose. Nachshon, though not in the Biblical account, remains one of my favorite characters. It was his faith that either God would do something, or his realization that he had better do something himself that moved him to act. It was only when Nachshon took action then that the water parted. The message is clear. You can pray all you want, but you’d better be ready to act on your own. You can pray that the Messiah (or the Messianic Age) will come, but what are you doing to bring that event about?
Children need to learn how to walk, and they can’t if they are constantly being held up. They must fall. Children can only ride a bike when the parent lets go of the seat and allow them to ride on there own. God has shown his power, has given them freedom, and now they have to walk or ride on their own. At least, that’s how God thought it would be.
Forty-five days later, they are grumbling again because the water is bitter, but this time they don’t call upon God, but turn their anger directly against Moses and Aaron. Though they were slaves in Egypt, everything was still handed to them meaning that there were the flesh pots,
fresh water, and roofs over their heads. Now, they are suddenly free and don’t know how to handle it. They have no sense of personal responsibility so they blame others for their condition.
Some clamor to return to being slaves. Slavery is comfortable at a certain level. Slavery frees you from thinking and being responsible for yourself. It’s almost like what we now describe as the Stockholm Syndrom. They must have thought freedom was easy. The challenge is to learn to exchange dependency on others for independence and faith in God.
I am of the opinion that not much thought was put into this project. God decides to finally hear the people’s groaning after a few centuries, and sends Moses to free them. It would seem
that part of God’s plan is to wreak havoc on Egyptian gods and the Pharaoh to prove His power. While freeing the Hebrews may have been God’s initial goal, I really think that it became
secondary after a while. God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart gave me the clue. Lots of thought given to the plagues and their intended consequences, but little to what happens when you suddenly have thousands upon thousands of men, women, children, animals, hangers on, etc. to deal with in a wilderness.
No wonder Moses is beside himself. These people are mega complainers and Moses has no clue himself as to how to deal with them. Remember, he didn’t want the job in the first place. And God always seems annoyed with Moses for bothering Him and most often, His solution for dealing with the Hebrews is to destroy them. It’s almost as if God did His thing, and now wants to be off to create another universe, but He is tied down to these people because of a promise made to their ancestors.
It is also possible that the reason they turn against Moses is the same reason non-Jews have wreaked havoc on Jews for centuries. Jews came along with their moral law and their God, and these were both accepted and adopted by the wider society in which the Jews lived. The constrictions placed upon these happy pagans caused a deep seated resentment, and since you can’t be angry at the God they gave you and you accepted, you can be angry at the people who gave you this God and His law.
Life in the wilderness is tough for both Moses and the Israelites, and God’s next test comes with the Manna. They are to take only what is needed for each day, and have faith that there will be food that will be given tomorrow. In Egypt they knew that the next day there would be food provided by the Egyptians, but now they have to learn to face themselves, their fears, and how to believe that God will follow through
Mitzraim or Egypt is translated as “narrow places.” The Israelites came out of these narrow places and are suddenly in the open wilderness and free. How should they react? How would we?
Prisoners who spend decades in jail and are freed, often do not function on the outside because they no longer have the security of being directed each moment of their lives. Freedom might terrify such a person. The recidivism rate is high for many.
This story is relevant to our own lives, and we can read ourselves into it. We all have our own narrow places, and from time to time we have also wandered in our own personal wildernesses.
The story of our ancestors mirrors the development of a human being. When they leave Egypt, you might say they are toddlers. They need to learn how to walk. They fall. They make mistakes. But this is how children grow and learn. It will take forty years before they achieve something akin to adulthood that earns them the right to enter the Promised Land. What we have here is the beginning of a society, and a community must learn to look out for one another or it will not succeed. Trust must be established, and people must learn to work together.
We ended the session by reading about Moses once again going to God to complain that the people want water and he doesn’t know what to do. God tells Moses to strike the rock so the water will come out, and the people will be mollified. This he does.
I don’t know if Moses ever decides that he has the power to take the initiative and do something without asking God for help. The staff he carries has miraculous powers. It became a serpent, it parted the Sea of Reeds, and now it brought forth water from the rock. Did it never occur to Moses that being God’s messenger, he could have used the staff in God’s stead and
drawn forth water because he believed he could? Is that what God wanted Moses to do? To act in His stead? To be a leader with some initiative? Or perhaps not, because the next time Moses has to provide water for the people, God tells him to speak to the rock, but Moses, in his anger, strikes the rock. By doing this, God says that Moses’s action did not give God His rightful honor and because of this slight, Moses, would therefore would not be permitted to enter the promised land. Give me a break! How much “honor” does God need? Is he still not use to human mistakes or excesses?
Metaphorically, the children were now grown, and their parent was to die. But if any person deserved to enter that land, it was Moses. It should have be his tangible reward for taking on a job that he did not want, for doing it for forty years, and for giving up his own family and personal happiness to lead these people. And we don’t even know where he is buried so we can put a pebble on his grave.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
February 14, 2015 B”H
25 Shevat 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Mishpatim-Shekalim – Exodus 21:1 - 24:18; 30:11-16
Haftorah - II Kings 12:1 - 17.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by telling us that this parsha is filled with commandments, and that he was going to concentrate on two or three.
But before we got to the laws, Mendy referred us to very end of the parasha where Moses returns to the people with the law, reads it to them, and the entire congregation responds with one voice: “All the words that Hashem has spoken, we will do.” The second time this sentence appears only a few lines later, it ends with “we will do and we will obey.” I do believe he said that this response on the part of the people then, and our people’s willingness to do and obey throughout the centuries, is why Yiddishkeit has lasted over the two and one half millennia.
The repetition seems superfluous, and I’m wondering if when the Torah was written down, this repetition reflects two traditions.
Doing the mitzvot before understanding it may seem strange, especially because there are several commandments that we cannot understand and seem illogical. Yet we do them because God asked us to do them. Logic has little to do with faith.
Faith may be illogical yet satisfying on the soul level of existence, and that is why people continue to have faith. I’m thinking of those people who do not mix certain fabrics because there is a law in the Torah saying that we must not do that. There is no logic to this law, yet people act upon it. But there are other commandments that we perform where reasons are given, and yet whose true and hidden meanings are revealed only when we absorb them into our lives over a period of time by doing them. Remembering the Sabbath and keeping it separate, and remembering that we were once slaves in Egypt, are two where reasons for observance and recalling are given, but not fully understood until a person actually attempts to remember and do.
I confess I am limited in my understanding because I do not know Torah Hebrew or Hebrew word analysis. “Do” I can understand, but the word translated as “obey” causes me a problem. Mendy spoke of “doing” as leading to “understanding.” But the word that should have been translated as “understand” is translated as “obey.” These two words are very different. It would seem that “doing” and “obeying” are similar, while “doing” and “understanding” are not.
Mendy made the case for the need to move from doing to understanding. Doing can become rote, and appearing to believe because you do something by rote is not “faith.” Faith in God comes only when we understand and understanding is an intellectual activity. In addition to faith, there must be mind. He then referred us to the symbolism of the Tefillin, and how this is the physical manifestation of doing with understanding. The box on our heads symbolize our mind’s understanding and dedication to God’s Will. The box next to our hearts is symbolic of our emotional connection to God and His creation, and the straps on our arm, hand, and fingers are symbolic reminders of how we are to extend our minds and hearts into the world to make it a better place and to treat those we meet with integrity and compassion.
He then went into specific commandments, and made a point of how a lack of understanding Judaism has brought others to believe that Judaism is a religion of harsh laws while Christianity is a religion of love.
To make this clear, he directed us to the so called “eye for an eye...” ruling. Judaism is a faith that is based on interpretation of law, and it is clear from the Talmud, that this example always meant monetary restitution for the injured person. No Jewish court ever mandated blinding, burning, or maiming a person as a retaliation for an injury. The commentators explain that human courts have no other recourse but to demand monetary payment for such injuries because they do not have the authority to do more. The rabbis comment that if this perpetrator were put on the Heavenly Scales, he would deserve to lose his eye or hand. It is written in the Torah the sages say because the ruling reflects what would happen in a Heavenly Court.
This of course doesn’t speak kindly of the Heavenly Court which would seem far more punitive than the earthly court. This idea of interpretation to rationalize away something that doesn’t go with the reality of what is there, is used my other faiths. Most notably, is Christianities’ interpretation of the Second Coming. Isaiah sets out specific criteria for what will happen when the Messiah comes. Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but when the Jews looked out of the window and saw that nothing in the world had changed and therefore rejected Jesus as the Messiah, the Church declared that all of Isaiah’s predictions happened in heaven, and that Jesus would return a second time, and all the predictions would happen on earth. It would seem that we reinterpret events to reflect our needs.
It is interesting to note that the Torah contains many laws that also appear in the older Code of Hammurabi which was the law governing Mesopotamia. The Patriarchs were governed by these laws as were future generations of our ancestors. But while similar, these laws become far more evolved and humanized in the Torah. For example, there is a literal interpretation of the so called “eye for an eye” law.
In the Code, if a builder builds a house and the owner’s son falls off the roof and dies, the builder’s son is put to death. But there is an adaptation of that law in the Torah that calls for a roof having some sort of railing around it, so no one falls to his death. In the Torah, an escaped slave must not be returned to his master, but in the Code, he must returned and be severely punished. Oddly, there was a Supreme Court decision that declared that a run away slave must be returned. Slaves could also go free if the master knocked out a tooth or an eye. How different it was and continues to be in places where there is still slavery. How far advanced were our ancestors in human decency. Finally, the Code lists all the different punishments which were meted out depending upon your status, but the Torah states that there shall be one law for the stranger and the home born. Even a rich man was to be put to death for murder.
The Torah is the model for true equal justice for all under the law. The ancient Romans did not know of this concept, and British System only came to it in the 19th Century. It is a great shame that Western Civilization does not give credit where it is due, and does not recognize the Torah as a foundational document to civilized society.
Mendy said that the real translation of the Hebrew is “eye under eye,” There was a detailed explanation as to what the etymology involved here was, but I don’t recall it. But I do recall that he said that to one person, artist or craftsman, an eye is worth more than it would be worth to a field worker who may not need both. A person who uses his hands to make a living may need the hand more than a person who uses his voice.
This may seem odd or even cruel to make such assumptions, but that is probably what happens in courts of law where compensation is assigned. Such discussions are recorded in our Talmud, and I imagine that the study of legal procedures might be modeled on such Talmudic conversations.
One law that was not discussed but one that I found particularly appropriate for our time was the law “And a stranger you shall not oppress seeing you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” In my Law, Values, and Morality course, I used this law as the ethical principle undergirding the rational for not taunting or molesting people who are strangers or new to your school just because they are different. Ethical principles lead to values which lead to behaviors. If you need a reason for not bullying the new kid on the block, the Torah gives you one. Such a law should be on the walls of all religious schools. If kids who claim to be religious cannot be expected to follow such a Biblical law, they are missing the point of their faith, and someone in authority should point that out to them. Taunting or oppressing a stranger, or just someone who is different, is just not Yiddishkeit or the Jewish way of doing things.
The last law Mendy referenced was, “Distance yourself from a false word.” This of course has to do with lying, but the focus of his comments were not so much as you hearing the “false word,” but what you will do with that information. If you choose to relate “false words” to others, you cannot be guaranteed that they will not fall into sin based upon what you said. How many times in real life and in fiction based on real life, has someone done something terrible based on what they believed was true because someone they trusted told them so. If you give false information, the sin that may result from someone acting on what your related , is not only theirs, but also yours. You have led them into sin. Other than breaking the prohibition against evil gossip, you have figuratively “placed a stumbling block in front of a blind man.”
He concluded with the admonition to break stereotypes and show kindness.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
February 21, 2015 B’H
2 Adar 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Terumah - Exodus 25:1 - 27:19.
Haftorah - II Kings 12:1 - 6:13.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by informing us that many rabbis will find other topics upon which to speak when faced with the architectural and design demands expounded upon in Terumah, but he felt that the parshah contained hidden wealth, and he would explore just one. He then referred us to the opening lines: Speak to the Children of Israel and let them take for Me a portion, from every man whose heart motivates him you shall take My portion. This is the portion that you shall take from them: gold, silver, and copper...”
He raised the idea of why the words “take for Me” and “not bring to me,” and then expounded on Rashi’s interpretation that “take for Me” had to do with intent of the action, and how crucial the intent of the action was for it to be a whole hearted mitzvah and “earn you points.” The people had taken the spoils of Egypt, and the tabernacle had to be built. Materials were needed, and God specified what was needed and said that only the materials to be used should be taken from those whose hearts were in the giving.
I think there is an element of gratitude involved here that is not mentioned. There are those who have a great deal, and there are those who have little. It would seem to me that a small gift from a person with little but has a full heart, is dearer to God than a large gift from a rich man given grudgingly. But that may be the way it is between God and man, but ask a fund raiser which gift he’d prefer, and I’m sure it would be the one from the reluctant giver that would furnish the sanctuary of the new building. Perhaps the poorer man with the open heart may have a seat closer to God in heaven, but the one with the big bucks in this world is the one who will have a seat at the eastern wall in that sanctuary.
The root of the word, “charity” comes from the French root referring to the heart. Our word for tzedakah finds its root in the Hebrew, righteousness. As I’ve written before, people need to be fed, housed, and clothed, and as far as Jews are concerned, those asking for tzedakah don’t care and maybe shouldn’t care about whether or not the giver’s heart is in it. There are stingy people in the world, and people still need help with basic needs. Let God care about the openness of the heart; we need to care about the openness of the wallet. It has always amazed me that the Jewish people are stereotyped as being cheap and tightfisted when the reality is that as a group we are third in giving behind United Fund and Red Cross. Not bad for a fraction of the American population. As a distinct People, we are the most generous group on earth. Stereotypes take a long time to die, and reality as to the truth of the stereotype has little to do with anything.
Though Rashi said that the intent of the action was crucial to God, I think Mendy said that the Halachah, rabbinic law, saw things in a different light. As an example, he referred to three mitzvot that had to be done where intent was not to be considered: Giving charity was the first, attending the mikvah was the second, and I cannot recall the third. Someone asked if our mandated law of circumcision was performed in a hospital by a doctor was acceptable as fulfilling
that mitzvah, and Mendy said it was not because the intent was not to bring the child into the Covenant. Certainly the child is circumcised, but if the child wanted to convert, he would have to have a drop of blood taken. There were several important points made, but I do not recall them. I do recall Mendy saying that while Chabad does not ask for traditional dues from those who attend, people are still quite generous. Chabad is the giver, and we are the takers. And grateful takers feel they want to give back. It’s a give and take relationship, and because there are no expectations to give, giving comes from the heart.
I can see the comradery each time I walk into the building. There is an intimacy that one feels immediately, and one need not be concerned about his or her level of observance. Mendy and Dinie are both charismatic, accessible, and their dedication to Yiddishkeit in all its ramifications, and to the congregants is unquestionable.
I do recall a discussion of the “giver’ and the “taker” in relationship to this whole idea of charity. Mendy said that the reason a person who is in the “taking role” must not feel badly, is that he has been assigned that role by God as much as the “giver” has been assigned his role. Mendy made it clear that there is a mitzvah in taking as well as in giving.
Had I known that as a child, I would not have felt so bad asking my parents for money.
I immediately thought of the line from Fiddler where Tevyeh says to God: “There is no great shame in being poor, but there is no great honor either.” I have a problem with this idea that your poverty is because God put you in it for a reason. Such an idea flies in the face of one of the great Jewish principles that states that because something is, it doesn’t mean that it must always be that way. By accepting the role of being poor because God wants you to be poor so one who is cast in the role of giver might prove his generosity, goes against Free Will. We were once slaves, and we decided to change our situation proving that nothing in the social world need be permanent. We proved that by leaving Egypt. Rulers have always maintained that the status quo was supported by God, and if your father was a day laborer, you had to be a day laborer. The Jews said that that was nonsense. Yet here we have the idea that God wants some people to be poor because the world needs takers. I don’t buy it. The circumstances into which a person is born has more to do with decisions made in that person’s family history than it has to do with God. Sorry Mendy.
The question was raised by a congregant about those people who take when they do not need to take, and Mendy made no bones about his answer. Such people, he said, were thieves. He related a story about such a man who would stand in line waiting to receive a dollar from the Rebbe. The Rebbe’s purpose was to give out a dollar, and have it matched by the receiver who would then give two or more to the poor. This one man took money from those giving with a full heart, and was later discovered to be a man of wealth. This man was a thief. I do believe that some referred to people who claim workers compensation when they are fit to work or welfare when they are only playing the system. Such people are also thieves.
I know that Yiddishkeit enjoins on all Jews the obligation of giving tzedakah, so I asked Mendy whether or not one pauper exchanging coins with another pauper, satisfied that mitzvah. He said it did. I could just imagine a pauper in the shtetle going over to another one and saying, “Sholmo, here’s a kopec for you.” “Thank you, Myer,” the begger replies, “and here is one for you, also.” What a rich tradition!
Mendy finished with the three types of offering God wanted: gold, silver, and copper.
Each of the metals is highly symbolic. Gold means that the person servitude giving with a full heart. Silver means that the person is giving, but his giving may be motivated by fear or shame. The third, the copper, is symbolic of someone who doesn’t want to give at all, and gives only on his death bed hoping to buy his way into heaven. According to tradition, all are acceptable.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: The Chairperson of the Education Committee took over this week because both rabbis had business out of the state. He decided to review last week’s portion, making it clear that to understand these laws, we needed to put aside our modern standards because we were dealing with laws written in the Bronze Age. He mentioned those laws which govern behavior for which the reasons for following them are obvious, and he mentioned laws that appear that seem to have no rational reason behind them other than God wants us to do them.
The first focus was on the laws of slavery. Yes, there was slavery in ancient Israel as there was in every ancient culture. There were the slaves captured in battle although there is nothing said of them, and there are slaves or what we might call indentured servants who because of dire economic circumstances either were were pressed into servitude to pay off a personal debts, or sold themselves into servitude for survival purposes. Slavery was part of this society, but it became so humanized in the Torah, that the “master” often felt over regulated by the Torah protections. If a slave escaped, he could not be returned. If a master beat a slave and took out a tooth or an eye, the slave went free. Slaves were released after a definite period of time. Also, the slave had corporal rights, and while the slave could be beaten, the beating could not be lethal.
Contrast these laws with the laws of ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, and the United States before slavery ended. Civilized people no longer have slaves, but look at the nations of the world that quietly continue to sanction slavery and hold slaves. The Jews were millennia ahead in their human rights concepts, yet those who continue what is the longest hate in history, continue to claim that Judaism is more of a religion of demanding laws than a religion of love. We’ll, I’d choose law as a foundation of a faith over love any time because love is very subjective and can and is applied subjectively. The Torah says, “There shall be one law for the stranger and the home born.” I don’t care if you love me, but I do care how you treat me. You protect me with good human rights laws. I’ll find love on my own.
“Eye for an eye” was discussed as monetary compensation or its equivalent. It has always been that those who cite it as a sample of the cruelty of Judaism, are ignorant of how it was implemented and how it has always been implemented. The current laws of compensation and the work of actuaries are based on this interpretation. If anyone has ever received monetary compensation for a loss, they have the rabbinic interpretation of this law to thank. Prior to this law, and possibly an expansion on it, there is another law dealing with the loss of a fetus resulting from a woman being injured in a fight between two men. Again, monetary compensation is required.
Someone suggested that this was the proof text for allowing abortion. While it does deal with the loss of a fetus, it is a proof text only for the idea that a fetus is not a person since the loss of the fetus does not result in the charge of murder but calls for a levy on the perpetrator of the resulting miscarriage for money. Those who wave the Bible at us insisting that the Bible says that the moment the egg and sperm meet to form a zygote, that fertilized egg has all the rights of a full human being. That is not what the Bible says. They have misinterpreted the intent of the law.
To the modern ear, some of the laws of the Torah are impossible. To stone a child to death who is unruly, to burn a witch, kill a homosexual, kill someone who breaks the laws of the Sabbath, etc. are abhorrent to the civilized person. Yet such punishments were and continue to be carried out by others who took our written Torah, based their faiths on it, and never took permission as did our rabbis to interpret it so such harsh laws would not have to be implemented. The word of God cannot be nullified and that’s why these laws continue to remain with us. But such laws, written when a holy society was being formed, were there to frighten those who would weaken this society with behaviors that would undermine what the Jews were trying to accomplish, namely, a safe and orderly society based on justice. So though God’s laws cannot be nullified, they can be interpreted to the point where no child would ever be stoned for being disrespectful to parents, and no person killed for violating the Sabbath.
Life is narrative, and as far as I understand it, laws are responses to narratives. Therefore, narrative precedes law. If there is a law against it in the Torah, you can bet that somebody had done something that demanded a law to stop that behavior. The “doing it” created the narrative, and a law was created to prevent that happening again. Consider all the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18. The Bible recognizes that these relationships must not exist or continue to exist because Judaism recognized that for a society to be wholesome, a man’s animal instincts, his sexual energy, had to be controlled and directed towards one woman. Monogamous relationships between a man and woman, Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, etc. had to be the conceptual bedrock upon which a solid society would rest. A stable family was the foundation of a stable society. That wisdom still works for us today. So many of the problems we have today in America stem from the fact that many families are no longer stable two parent families. .
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
February 28, 2015 B”H
9 Adar 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Tetzaveh-Zachor - Exodus 27:20-30:19. Deuteronomy 25:17-19.
Haftorah - I Samuel 15:2 - 34.
Chabad - This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
There are six items God demand that Jews remember. One was to remember that God brought us out of Egypt, that we were to remember what God did to Miriam, that we were to remember the Sabbath, and another is to remember Amalek and what he did to us when we left Egypt. Two escape me.
Mendy said that the Miriam episode we were asked to remember had to do with the miraculous well of water, but based on the tone of the other five, I think God’s intent was for us to remember that he gave her leprosy because she spoke against Moses. In effect, God is insisting that we remember that if you choose to mess with God’s appointed or with God for that matter, serious consequences follow. I must be something of a cynic.
Mendy focused on the Amalek and the Sabbath demands of the six, and told us a midrash. A midrash, if you don’t already know, is a story handed down in our tradition allegedly to flesh out or give the back story for events related in the Torah. These midrashim were given at the time the Torah was given, but not included in the Torah. These additional stories are there to give us insight as to what is in the blank spaces in the lines between the Torah words so as to fully explain what is going on. Mendy insists that these stories are as every bit as valid and valued as are those found in the Torah itself. The story he told was of the people coming to Moses and telling him that they cannot remember so many demands, but Moses knew that the real issue dealt with a particular dilemma, a dilemma that we continue to wrestle with as we have throughout our existence as a people. It is this: Are we to be Sabbath people or, for want of a better term, secular people. Sabbath people are people who remember the Sabbath and all the laws and keep themselves and the Sabbath, holy. Secular people are those who would remember Amalek and wipe out his name. To those who approached Moses, claimed that they could not be two different things at once.
So, as the midrash continues, Moses spreads a Sabbath table and sets up two cups of wine. In one he has sweet wine, and in the other, vinegar. He tells the people that the sweet wine represents Shabbat people and the vinegar represents the secular people. While we must drink deeply and enjoy the sweet wine and that should be our key focus, we are not absolved from sipping from the vinegar cup. The vinegar is part of our lives and must be addressed. We are enjoined to sip the sweet, but not to ignore the bitter.
The same symbols are found on the Passover table. The point is made that by dipping the bitter herb into the sweet haroset, we remind ourselves that life is a mixture of the sweet and bitter and we must experience both to be fully human. To be a full “Sabbath person,” in the truest sense to me is to become an ascetic who has removed himself from humanity and contributes little other than perpetual prayer and study. Catholicism believes this to be the highest form of service, but Judaism teaches that to separate yourself from humanity is to abrogate the great purpose for which Jews exist: to be a light unto the nations, and to make the world a better place. Study and prayer are passive. People are not fed, and lives are not saved by people who choose a life exclusively devoted to study and prayer.
From this, Mendy began talking about Purim, a very important and symbolic holiday even
though it is not mentioned in the Torah. Purim, like so many of our celebrations, has in it the sweetness and the bitterness of events, and we are to remember them, celebrate them, and learn
from them. He said that the important commemoration of this holiday is not that Haman coerced the king to kill the Jews, but that Jews came forward to stand up for what was right and overcome the evil that would have befallen us had we been silent. Thoughout his talk, Mendy insisted that we begin to look at the positive in our celebrations and in our lives. He also said that the traditions of drinking to the point of not being able to tell the difference between Mordecai and Haman, does not apply to people who have no business drinking because of age, health, or addiction.
He spoke about the concept of “otherness” and how we have always been the “other.” He spoke about how the Jews of Shushan could have assimilated into the Persian Empire to avoid being the “other”, but chose not to do so. He spoke about what we have given to the world, and how this, as well as our insistence that we continue as a distinct people, should be a source of great pride.
From the time we left Egypt and demonstrated that slaves could change the staus quo and the course of history, we have been viewed as a threat to established order and considered “the dangerous other.” To whom were we dangerous? To the established order of a hierarchal society were the king was at the top, and the slaves were at the bottom.
How often we could have given up our distinct God, our distinct law, and our concept of being a distinct people and disappeared into the fog of history as many did willingly or did under duress only to disappear. Those of us who are here today, are descendants of people who were willing to hold on to Yiddishkeit in whatever forms they could because they sensed in it something of great value. This was their legacy to us. But too few of us are aware of the depth of the contributions Jews have made to Western and Mid-Eastern Civilization, because those who win write the history, and Jews and their contributions have been left out of the books. Greece and Rome are lauded as the founders of Western Civilization, but it is the Torah and the moral imperatives found in it that give Western Civilization its morality. You cannot have a civilization without a code of moral behavior and the values that ensue from it. Jewish morality and ensuing values came into Western Civ via the Greek translation of the Torah called the Septuagint. Christianity took this Greek Torah as their own, and as Christianity spread, so did Jewish morality and values. Our own children own children do not know this.
Years ago, I was told by a student that you could take the class in world history given at his school and conclude that Jews offered little to the world and barely existed in time. I then took the Cherry Hill curriculum on world history and taught it from the perspective of the Jews. It was called, “The Jewish Contribution to Western Civilization” and was taught every other year for years. It was an amazing experience, a great source of pride, and my classes were filled. Sadly, Midrashah was closed, and that course along with so many others that introduced students to ideas not taught in regular Hebrew school, are no longer taught. Still bitter about closing the Midrashah? Yes!
Mendy asked, why do we eat humantashan on Purim? There were the usual answers such as that they reminded us of the hat Haman’s wore, or his pocket, or whatever. But Mendy said that this pastry, like kreplach, are to be viewed as symbols, but not symbols to remind us of that
evil descendent of Amalik. To understand the symbol, he asked us to consider what is inside the humantashan, the part that is sometimes hidden by the crust. Inside is something sweet like apricot preserves, or special like dark chocolate. There is a crust that covers the essence. Each of us is like a humantashan. There is goodness and sweetness within, and it is often covered for protection by our curst or our outer selves that we show to the world as a protective cover so we will not be injured by those who are cruel and do not understand us. His message was that we should look within to our better selves, and always try to focus on the positive.
One last thing that Mendy spoke about was his belief that God has a “Plan,” and he mentioned a fact that he had just learned that supported this theological construct. He related that in 1854 or there abouts, Brittan fought China in what was called the “Boxer Rebellion,” and after that, the British established Shanghai as an open city that did not require passports or visa for entry. Fast forward one hundred years to the Jews escaping the Holocaust to Shanghai which was one of the very few places on earth that allowed them free entry. Some congregants owe their very lives to this open city.
Those who believe in the“Plan,” would have to believe that it was in God’s Mind to create this city of refuge so Jews one hundred years later could find protection there from the Nazis. But to accept that reason, one must also have to accept the idea that God’s “Plan” included the Holocaust so a “remnant” of European Jewry might be saved. So are we to accept the idea that God created the Holocaust as some of our more ultra-Orthodox brethren believe because Jews had to be punished for not lighting Shabbat candles? Were the Nazis merely tools of God’s wrath against His own people? I think not!
To imagine that God has a “Plan” or to imagine that you actually know what goes on in the “Mind of God,” may be acceptable to those who lock step agree, or who just don’t think about the ramifications of this idea. But for those of us who think about such assertions, we are put in a position to doubt the veracity of the people positing such an idea, and that aspect of Jewish theology of those espousing it. I’ll stick with the idea that God had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust, and that Shanghai, as a refuge city, was a random and lucky happenstance in history of which our people took advantage. Evil people cause evil things to happen. How could one continue to believe in God if you must also believe that the daily carnage going on in this world is “God’s Plan.” Give me a break!
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch introduced the study with the title of the portion called, “Tetzaveh” which is translated as “instrument” and comes from the same root as “mitzvah.” The opening lines calls for the creation of a Ner Tamid, which means eternally or regularly (everyday). It is a light to shine everyday and eternally. Originally, it was a light that was on the outside of the Holy of Holies and was kindled from evening to morning before God. This is a rule or law (hoke) for the Children of Israel for all generations.
When I was a child, I remember listening to a radio program called, “The Eternal Light” introduced by a man named Morton Wishengrad. He began with, “Bring unto Me pure oil olive, beaten for the light, To cause the lamp(s) to burn continually in the Tabernacle of the congregation.” Strange what sticks in one’s memory even after sixty plus years.
We spoke about the Ark of the Covenant and what was inside it: the two tablets of the law as well as the broken ones. The idea that even if things are broken, that doesn’t mean it’s lost its sanctity. Rabbi Koch also suggested that the “baggage” we each carry, are our broken pieces. And though broken, it doesn’t mean we are of less value.
The laws prohibiting work on the Sabbath was discussed as it related to kindling a flame, and “avodah” and “malacha,” two types of work were offered. All thirty-nine prohibitions of Sabbath work are related to the types of work done regarding the Tabernacle. Kindling a light is in the prohibited category of “no skilled labor.” An example of other differences were suggested, and we were told a story about Rabbi Abuya Ben Elisha reminding a colleague that he was in danger of walking more that what was allowed.
If you’ve never read the novel by Rabbi Milton Steinberg entitled, As A Driven Leaf, I urge you to do so. It’s the story of this Abuya Ben Elisha and how he forsakes Judaism for Helenistic and Roman culture, and what happens to him and the People as a result of his actions. Brilliant piece of literature. Fantastic insight into the life and times of the first century of the common era.
Everything in the Torah speaks to us on four different levels of understanding. The highest level, “Sod,” “The Pardis” or “Orchard,” is the mystical level. The Ner Tamid is the light in the darkness meant to keep us away from the Holy of Holies. It was a dangerous place where only the high priest was welcome and only at certain times. God’s Presence is to be feared. Even Moses could not look upon God’s Face and live. But in the Torah, God presents different Faces to us. We experience Him as approachable and compassionate, yet we cannot know the infinite, the unidentifiable known as Ayn Sof, the Endless One. Because God is incomprehensible, we project onto God wonderful qualities, the qualities we need God to have.
Our concept of God has changed since the beginning, and continues to change, yet a radical unknowability remains. We do not know what God is, so how safe is it to get too close? All cultures put “off limits” signs around the Presence of the Divine. While we create a sacred space for ourselves by coming together to worship, there are sacred spaces we dare not enter. While we crave communication with the Divine, we at the same time know that this is dangerous to enter into union with the Divine because you can die. (The High Priest had bells on the hem of his garment so the people could listen for his movements. He went in with a rope tied to his foot, so in the event that he died in the Holy of Holies, he could be removed without anyone risking his life by going into this forbidden place.)
The Ner Tamid reminds up of God’s Presence in our lives and also reminds us to be aware that spiritual excesses and efforts to become one with the Divine, is not a safe enterprise.
It seems to me that God may be saying, “Come to me, but don’t get too close.” There is a story of the four rabbis who entered into the Pardis. This story is a warning of what could happen if you get too close. One, this Rabbi Abudy ben Elisha became an apostate, Ben Zoma committed suicide, one whose name I cannot recall went insane. Only Rabbi Akiva came out whole. I do believe that the Pardis refers to the Kabbalah, the mystical dimension of Judaism.
“Be holy, for I am holy,” is interpreted to mean that God is saying, “be separate for I am separate.” From what are we to be separate? Here, God’s expectation is interpreted as asking us to separate ourselves from our animal natures. As man is separate from God, we can be like God in certain aspects of human behavior such as exerting enough self control to separate ourselves from our carnal instincts.
Respectfully,
Leonard Howard
Labe Chaim
March 7, 2015 B”H
16 Adar 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Ki Tissa - Exodus 35:1 - 40:38.
Haftorah - I Kings 18:1 - 39.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by saying that as the Revelation at Mt. Sinai reflected the high point in the Torah for the Jewish People, the story of the Golden Calf reflected the lowest.
God is furious with the people for their betrayal and abandonment of Him despite all the things He revealed to them, and in His anger, He threatens to annihilate them and begin over with Moses. God say to him, “desist from Me” but Moses will not desist. In fact, Moses pleads with God asking, “Why, HASHEM, should Your anger flare up against Your people, whom You have taken out of the land of Egypt...”
Mendy listed the valid reasons God should be angry, but Moses reminds God of the Covenent with the Patriarchs, and also reminds him that the people who hear of it will charge Him with the evil intent of bringing the people into the desert to kill them. He begs God to stay his anger. God does.
But a deeper understanding was shared. In effect, Moses is saying that God should not be angry because no matter how far the Jews might stray, they still have a Jewish soul that at its core will always contain a spark of love for God. This eternal spark of love makes them worthy of being saved.
He compared this very same theme to the Story of Esther. Mordecai wold not bow down to Hayman. So why would the king allow Hayman to kill all the Jews in Persia because one man would not bow down? The king might have initially seen what Hayman saw, that being that Mordecai was not merely a man but a symbol for an entire nation. These people, as Hayman says, have different laws, a different God, and do not follow the king’s commands. For Hayman, it was pure ego gratification to have the Jews killed because Mordechi would not bow down, but to the king, he might have agreed because he knew that this particular people would never assimilate into his nation and were therefore a threat.
I cannot recall the connection between the Purim story and the idea of the core of love for God existing in each of us unless it has something to do with the idea that no matter how hard one tries to assimilate, they can never be successful because of that soul spark. I am not sure how many Jews of Persia were assimilated, but it is obvious that they could still be identified and open to attack. So while the king’s proclamation could not be abrogated, both assimilated and non-assimilated Jews defended themselves successfully. They responded as a collective, possibly because of the Jewish soul we all carry that can come awake when our people are in need.
I have to say that ancient anti-Semitism or Jew-hatred as it should be called, evolved out of our distinctiveness. We had a God that was different from everyone else’s gods, (HASHEM) a law that was different from everyone else’s law, (TORAH) a particular ethnicity whose morality, traditions, and values made us a distinct community.(ISRAEL). Not only did we refuse to give up these three elements that comprise what Judaism is, our very existence was a statement to all other groups that they were wrong to believe what they believed. As two objects cannot occupy the same place at the same time, so two or more religions, ethnic groups, or civilizations cannot occupy the same space at the same time without the one with the larger numbers feeling resentful of not everyone agreeing with them. And by virtue of the fact that you will not giving up your own and accepting theirs so they can feel better about themselves and what they hold dear, they see us as an affront and danger to their way of life.
Thus you have the beginnings of ancient Jew-hatred. And that has come down to us. Those who have hated us most throughout history, are those whose faiths we would not legitimatize by converting to it. Thus, we have been attacked for centuries, and delegitimatized for centuries. The people in power don’t like being told that they are wrong. The people in power also write the history, and that is why we have been treated as a peripheral group and not given credit for our contributions. It all stems from an attempt to delegitimatize Judaism and the people who practice it. If Judaism is an illegitimate faith, then theirs must be legitimate.
Mendy briefly mentioned the Nazis, and compared them to the Persian Empire under this king and Hayman. I think he spoke about the assimilated German Jews who could not believe that the German People would allow this to take place. Assimilated Persian Jews probably felt the same way. What they didn’t want to accept, was that no matter what elevation in society they reached, or how sophisticated they were, or what they contributed to German or Persian society, they were still Jews and that was the bottom line.
The Nazis, like the Persian, and all the others throughout time, saw Jews as a threat to their ideologies and moral systems. The Nazis did not care about the Jews not being good German citizens. They were. The Nazis cared about the judgement of the Jews and the Jew’s God on a system of government where the State is set up higher than any other institution, and sets the standards for moral behavior. Totalitarianism demands absolute obedience to the State. The Jew and the Jewish soul cannot accept that system.
So wherever there has been a totalitarian State instituted, the Jew cannot be abided. In order to kill a God whose primary demand is that we treat others righteously, and who judges those who do not, you have to kill the people who hold that belief. That belief is embedded in the soul, and that is why the Nazis murdered people who had any Jewish blood or any part of a Jewish soul.
This may sound a little weird, or over the top, but for me, it explains the Holocaust and the need to eradicate Jews. The scapegoat explanation is nonsense. You keep scapegoats alive so you can continue blaming them. Take them out of the picture and no one’s to blame but yourself. The reason for murdering Jews has always been psychologically far more sinister than merely jealousy or scapegoating.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel’s car was inoperable, and she called upon the president of the synagogue to fill in at the last minute. He began with an interesting series of questions and we were invited to raise our hands: Is God good? Is God evil? Is God both? Is God neither?
I responded that God is neither good nor evil, because I believe that our intellects cannot comprehend what God is, and we therefore cannot know His nature. For me, God is the Ayn Sof, the Endless One who cannot be imagined; a creative force that is all things, that moves through all things, that impels all things.
He handed out an essay by Rabbi Rami Shapiro entitled, The God in the Mirror. Actually, the article was about an essay written by Rabbi Simeon Maslin who argued that “when the Bible clearly commands us to do evil in the name of God (killing every man, woman, child, and cow of the Amalakites for example) the Bible is being misunderstood. God, being all-good, would never command such a thing. Humans, being all-fallible, would and would do so in the name of God. But why?
The second paragraph informed us that if God commands something, it must be believable. We can believe that God commands us to slaughter the Amalakites because God Himself committed similar slaughters: wiping out all but the family of Noah, murdering all the first born sons of Egypt, the numerous plagues He sent, etc.”
In another paragraph we read, God is what we want God to be, and scripture says what we want scripture to say and all this reflects who we are and what we want to do. “God is cruel when we want to be cruel; God is kind when we want to be kind; our holy books sanction violence when we want to sanction violence, and they sanction compassion when we want to sanction compassion...”
We looked at the Torah text for some insight, and focused on the lines God delivers to Moses. “And now, desist from Me. Let My anger flare up against them and I shall annihilate them; and I shall make you a great nation.” Moses immediately asks God, “Why would your anger flare up against Your people whom you have taken out of the land of Egypt...? Here, God can list a dozen reasons why He is angry and they’d all be justified. But Moses plays upon His ego, saying that the people will say that God had an evil intent to bring them out of Egypt only to kill them in the desert. God would have done what Pharaoh wanted to do, and Pharaoh would have won. Moses also reminds God of the promise he made to the Patriarchs about increasing these people and the promise of the land. God reconsiders and relents.
In effect, Moses is saying to God what Jewish mothers have said to their children for millennia: “What will the neighbors think? Or “It’s a shanda for the neighbors.” What we have here is Moses reminding God that He entered a partnership (Covenant) with these people, and He cannot break it because He loves them. Moses is also a partner. Moses loves them, and God loves them. And at the same time we have two parent types blaming one another for the behavior of the children. “They’re your problem. No, they’re your problem.” The Covenant is a business enterprise, and God and Moses are partners. But the realization is that moving the Jewish People forward is like herding cats. This is not the first time God has regretted creating people, so one must conclude that either God has no clue as to what people will do next, or God knows and must allow it to happen because He has granted free will. Either way, we are led to conclude that if God is omniscient, God is not going to intervene.
Human emotions are raging here which begs the question, “Why would people attribute all this anger to a God who is also compassionate and all knowing?” Perhaps the answer has something to do with the idea that God is a reflection of who we are. Perhaps we ascribe God darkness so the darkness in us becomes more acceptable and more bearable. God’s darkness becomes a rationalization and acceptance for our own negative thoughts and behaviors.
And as there is a dark side to our God, there are still the thirteen attributes that we ascribe to God based upon His behavior though out the Bible. God is revealed as being compassionate, truthful, gracious, kind, forgiving of sin, limiting punishment, etc. Human nature also contains such attributes, and therefore, goodness is also justified. “ Slow to anger” is also listed, but I
personally don’t see that. What I do see is that throughout, one can negotiate with God for a better deal, and sometimes get it. Abraham does it and so does Moses. But God always gets His due, so in this instant, the leaders of the rebellion die, and another plague does break out.
So the article has us deconstructing the Torah and insisting that the idea of God is a really a mirror of our own minds, and that whatever God really is, has little to do with what individuals imagine God to be. I can accept that notion. We need God because we need an authority behind moral law, or else, man is the authority and that’s a problem for me. We also need God so we do not feel existentially alone. We need God so we will not believe that we are finite. We need God, even though our concepts of may vary from person to person depending on need.
Beyond the need for prayer and rituals as a vehicle for organizing time in a meaningful way, there is the need for like minded people who share a common history and value system who can also be relied upon for support and comfort in joy and in tragedy. Community and the need for a unified purpose that will make life more secure, is what I believe keeps Jews together and not a common belief in God. More and more, to the modern mind, God is becoming more and more of what we need God to be.
Talmudic arguments and contradictions exist because times change and support for new behaviors need some authoritive justification. Perhaps the rabbis knew this and included diverse opinions deliberately. The Constitution of the United States is also open to interpretation, and that’s why we have a Supreme Court. And so the idea of God and what God’s nature is must also be open to interpretation and debate if people are to continue having a meaningful relationship with Him.
If the darkness of human emotions are indeed reflected in our concept of God and written in our scriptures, then interpretation in order to modify God’s behavior is absolutely necessary in order to keep zealots from using scripture for justifying murder and other behaviors that we now view as uncivilized. Fundamentalists who take the Torah, the Gospels, or the Koran as the absolute word of God that must be obeyed to the letter, have not gone to the trouble to listen to those who see sacred texts as in need of reinterpretation. Such people use sacred texts to justify the heinous actions we have seen throughout history and in our times.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
March 14, 2015 [Happy Pi Day (3.14)] B’H
23 Adar.5775
Weekly Torah Study: Va-yakhel - Pekudei - Para: Exodus 35:1 - 40: 38;Numbers 19:1 - 22. Haftorah: Ezekiel 36:16 - 38.
Chabad: Mendy was elsewhere so today I must say that this is what I remember Josh saying:
Josh is a congregant somewhere in his twenties. He is a young man who has great facility with the Hebrew language, the service itself, and now I see, a young man who can speak publically and still have his much older audience riveted by his knowledge and style. His delivery was well constructed, humorous, informative, and presented at a rapid fire pace which rivaled Mendy’s. I don’t know if he lost people along the way because of it, but I found him stimulating and thought provoking.
I’ve had the pleasure of watching Josh develop from a teenager into the excellent young man he has become. Here at Chabad, one can watch young people evolve because their connections to their community, their families, and their faith remain very strong, and they keep returning. Some of the little children who were brought to Shabbat services in car carriers, are now toddlers, and others are old enough to wait patiently for the gabbai to give them candy from his tallis bag. The sounds of Chabad and Yiddishkeit become familiar to their young ears, so there is nothing alien to them as they come to awareness of who they are.
Josh began by telling us that the two parashahs to be read to day were considered not only the most boring in the Book of Exodus, but end with the most boring outcome. He invited the congregation to suggest why such excruciating detail for the building of the Tabernacle was included here when only the two parashas preceding the Golden Calf debacle also give excruciating details of what was to be in the Tabernacle.
Josh’s explanation was illuminating. First, we were informed that this is not the worst ending of any parashah, but the best because it is here that we have demonstrated that we have the will and the skill to give God the home He asked of us, and that we get God to live among us. What better ending could there be? God’s Presence rested among our ancestors. And the reason that there are four parshahs devoted to the building of the Tabernacle is that the first two speak about the plans, but the second two detail the execution of the plans. Planning something is very different from executing something. Both are vital to any venture.
The clear message is that while God can do for us, God would prefer that we do it ourselves. At one point he said that the text was a microcosm of human existence, but I do not recall the specifics.
But we are not left on our own to struggle without direction. As the Torah is a guidebook to good behavior, it is also a book of planning and vision. While we are given the direction in which we should go, it is still up to us to refer to the Torah for guidance or not.
God is there to help us, but when God saw that we could not free ourselves from Egypt, He sent plagues to break Pharaoh’s will, enabling us to be taken out of slavery “with a mighty hand.” Now He wanted us to build him a house, and so specific directions were needed. First the
plan, and then the needed specifics to bring the plan to fruition. No Tabernacle was ready in heaven for the Children of Israel as some believe the Third Temple is waiting to be placed on the Temple Mount when we have perfected ourselves and have earned it. The Tabernacle had to be built with human hands, and with materials donated freely from the hearts of the givers.
Something to think about regarding where God resides. I’m aware of a Yiddish aphorism that only a Jew could have uttered: “If God lived in our town, all His windows would be broken.” I wish I knew that in Yiddish. The statement reflects not only a close relationship that the Jew has with God, but also an honesty that must exist between two partners in a Covenant. God promises, and sometimes does not deliver, and promises unkept generate angry responses. I have never heard of such relationships existing between man and God in other faiths. To struggle with God is to be involved in a give and take relationship. Who dares shake a fist at God if not a Jew?
This parasha ends the Book of Exodus, and at the end of each book we stand and say in unison, “Chazak! Chazak! Venischazeik! which is translated as “Be strong! Be strong! And may we be strengthened!” Josh then presented the idea that each ending of each book of the Torah is the beginning of the next, and each beginning is the end of the last. Thus, the next book of the Torah pulls its strength from the book of the Torah preceding it, as the book before that one pulled its strength from the one before.
To reinforce this idea, he spoke of the song Lecha Dodi which is sung to welcome the Sabbath Bride. He asked for a translation, and pointed out that the ones usually given cannot be correct, and it was decided that neither God nor Israel were the subject of that stanza, but the Sabbath and the days of the week were. The days of the week strengthen the Sabbath, and the Sabbath strengthen the days of the week. The days of the week are welcoming the Sabbath. The six days of creation are welcoming the seventh, and as the six days strengthen the seventh at the beginning of the Sabbath, so the end of the Sabbath strengthens the coming six.
It’s all very mystical and wonderful, and such ideas take you out of yourself to a different plain of existence and understanding. From strength to strength! There is a cosmic flow of one thing into the other. There are unseen strengths that flow from the six days to the seventh, and from the seventh to the six, from one book to the other, and from one human experience to the next. Such awareness are only briefly glimpsed and when they are, our awarenesses are elevated. If you really want to get mystical, consider the Ayn Sof, the Kabbalistic conept of God that is all things. If Ayn Sof is all things, then with every breath we take we are breathing in and out the Ayn Sof. Everything we see and feel around us is the Ayn Sof enveloping us. Ayn Sof is Existence and everything that Exists.
Josh related a story of the Chasid who goes to the Baal Shem Tov because the Chasid wants to meet Elijah. The chasid is assured by the master that if he goes to the poorest street in the poorest neighborhood and finds a decrepit hovel, there he will also find a destitute widow with many hungry children. If he wants to see Elijah, he is to bring the best food for the Passover he can find, enough to feed everyone, and to conduct a seder. This he does, and when it comes time for Elijah to enter, he asks the widow if he might open the door. He does, but Elijah is not there. Disappointed, but thinking he may have the wrong seder, he returns to the Baal Shem Tov and tells him what happened. The great rabbi says that he must double his generosity by doubling the amount of food and return to conduct another seder. This he does willingly, and as he approaches the hovel, he hears one of the little children asking his mother for food, and themother saying that she has none to give. But perhaps the nice man who came yesterday will come again. So the Chassid recognizes that he is in the image of Elijah, bringing sustenance to those who have no hope. The point here is that we are all Elijahs with the power to bring hope to those around us and to those in need. It is that part of God within each of us that impels us to do good in the world.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel invited us to read silently an excerpt from Abraham Joshua Heschel’s The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man. Here, the joy of the Sabbath is directed to both the soul as well as the body, and all a person’s faculties must share in this blessing. The soul cannot celebrate alone, so the body must also be involved in Sabbath rejoicing.
The Sabbath is not a day but an atmosphere. The Sabbath is something we are within rather than something that is within us. The Sabbath surrounds us wherever we go. On all other days, the hours have no real significance unless we ascribe significance to them, but on the Sabbath, each hour has a beauty and grandeur all its own that is separate from anything we ascribe to it. Herschel tells us that the Sabbath is a state of mind.
Considering this essay, I found myself going back to a time when I had just started my own journey back to Judaism, and something I called Super Shabbos. The family would go to shul on Friday night after Shabbat dinner, and return on Saturday morning. Afterwards, we would get in the car and go into the city to a museum, the zoo, a movie, and dinner out. The restrictions placed on the Orthodox, were not restrictions I accepted. Super Shabbos began in shul and then incorporated something the entire family enjoyed. Shabbos became a vacation once a week. For someone who did not grow up with a “Shabbos” but only with vestiges of one that reflected restrictions no one understood, my version as an adult was a better fit for me and my family.
We reviewed the texts in Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy where God commands us to keep the Sabbath day and make it holy. Here we are told that no manner of work is to be performed, and the list of things we may not do corresponds to the type of work performed when building the Tabernacle. It is also understood that God expects those who are working for Him also to observe. No one is to be exempt. Even when building the Temple, work had to stop for the Sabbath. There were 39 forbidden activities all based on what was done when constructing the Tabernacle, and as civilization progressed, new restrictions have been instituted. But we also read in Exodus 31:12 - 17 that he “who defiles the Sabbath shall surely be put to death...”
This extremely harsh punishment presented something of a problem to the congregants because the only other infractions that demanded the death penalty were adultery, idol worship, and murder. From my point of view, I saw each of these infractions as detrimental to the smooth workings of a new type of society that was being created. The foundation of a stable society is a stable family life, and adultery causes instability for the family unit. To worship any deity other than God is to deny the authority behind the law, and therefore law becomes relative and ethics, situational. To murder is to willingly take a life, and that undercuts the primary directive in Judaism that life is sacred.
Each of the commandments or statements regarding the Sabbath and humanity requires a separation and it is that separation that speaks to holiness. God is holy. God is separate from mankind. The Sabbath is holy and that means we are to keep it separate from the other days of the week. God enjoins us “to be holy for I am holy.” This means that we are to separate ourselves from our animal natures and be in control those instincts.
There was some discussion of the paradox of the “Shabbos Goy, ” the non-Jewish person who is paid to perform certain tasks on the Sabbath that Jews are not to perform. This is a
paradox because even the “strangers among you” were not permitted to work on the Sabbath.
But if you hired a non-Jew to work for you, and that person chose to work into the Sabbath, the sin was not on you.
A discussion followed regarding the “Aruv” or the symbolic line that encompasses a private community that widens the private domain. As long as the Sabbath observer is within this aruv, he or she may carry as though they were in their own home. Yes, there are certain restrictions, but I don’t recall what they are.
Another idea dealt with an odd juxtaposition. The Lord commanded that gifts be brought for use in constructing the Tabernacle, but only gifts may be brought by those whose hearts move them to do so. In effect, God is commanding people to volunteer. Is this some sort of test? If your spirit moves you, you are commanded to do it was the explanation. If your spirit doesn’t move you, you are released from this order. This is a free will offering. If you have it, you give it.
I mentioned that this applies more to Chabad than to other synagogues. Chabad is gaining in membership, while other synagogues are shrinking. It is known that Chabad does not require dues, yet they are currently building because they need more space. I imagine that because it is free, people are moved to contribute possibly because individuals recognize that they have a responsibility to this community. I think another factor may be that people in Chabad are there because they firmly believe in the God of the Torah, and believe that every word of the Torah is God’s word. They give because that is what God expects of them. So when they read that God says “Take from yourselves a portion for HASHEM... they take that literally and feel that they want to be part of this effort.
They are not there for social action; they are there to develop a relationship with God. That may be the secret as to why Chabad speaks to so many people. The God they speak of is not an abstraction, but a power who directs the events of humanity, and is aware of each and every one of us. I will confess that I go to Chabad to listen to Mendy, but the bulk of the congregants go to speak to and praise, their God. God, to the people who attend Chabad, is very real and very present. In other synagogues, it is believed that God is found in social action, and in making the world a better place. That is right and proper, but what kind of comfort is there in abstractions?
Sincerely,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
March 21, 2015 B”H
1 Nissan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Va-Yikra-Hachedesh - Leviticus 1:1 - 5:26;
Numbers 28:9 - 15;
Exodus 12:1 - 20.
Haftorah - Ezekiel 45:16 - 46:18; Isaiah 66:1, 23,24.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying: Mendy began by telling a Medrish about a young woman of noble birth who was very bright, beautiful, and learned, but who could not find a husband because her standards were so high.
I wasn’t sure if she couldn’t find a husband because she had set her standards for a husband so high, or that the men of her city didn’t want to be married to someone who was smarter and more learned than they. A beautiful face is always a plus, but there are some men who are intimidated by bright and assertive women. It was true then, and it may even be true today. The male ego is very fragile, and feelings of inadequacy easily generate resentment. “The fault dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves that we are underlings,” comes to mind. We have not evolved sufficiently. But I digress.
Time passes, and she decides that she will sit at the door of her mansion and marry the first eligible man who comes by. (I guess standards take a header when one’s biological clock is ticking) and a very nice man who happens to be a farmer, happens by. She proposes and he accepts. The morning after the wedding ceremony, he decides to do something nice for his wife, and he goes to his farm and picks her the best cucumbers he can find. He offers them to her with a full heart, and she begins to weep. He believes she may not like cucumbers, so he returns to the farm and picks the most beautiful tomatoes he can find. Again she weeps and explains to him that the person she is cannot be satisfied with cucumbers and tomatoes. The farmer cannot see the world through any eyes other than those of a farmer, and the young lady cannot see the world through any eyes other than those of a noble lady.
Mendy then went on to explain that the farmer was symbolic of the body, and the girl symbolic of the soul. That which satisfies the body cannot satisfy the soul and visa versa. That is why the body and soul are in conflict. He reinforced this tale with another where the soul is placed into the body, and the conflict immediately begins because each has a different agenda and different needs. The body delights in comforts, in good food, in fine possessions etc., while the soul delights in study and in mitzvot. That is why we are enjoined to make time for study.
He let us know that Passover begins the New Year for the soul, while Rosh Hashonah is the New Year for the body. And if we are to observe the Passover properly, we are to let go of the petty things that keep our souls from rejoicing
I’m doing a workshop this week at the JCC that will address this issue. I will introduce an empty jar and fill it with golf balls. My audience will agree that the jar is full. Then I will take pebbles and pour them into the jar surrounding the golf balls. The audience will agree that the jar is now filled with pebbles. Then I will pour in sand and the audience will agree that the jar is filled with sand. The jar is life. The golf balls are the core things that are important that we believe and do. The pebbles are the daily activities that we must perform, and the sand represents
all the little annoyances, angers, and pettiness that also fill up our lives. If you have only a jar filled with sand and pebbles, there is no room for the golf balls. Considering what Mendy said, whatever our golf balls represent, they are the things most meaningful to our souls, and if we clutter our lives with pressures of daily life (pebbles) and pettiness (sand) without considering and making room for what the soul needs, we lose ourselves.
Mendy told a true story about a man in Israel who when to the grave of his wife to say kaddish. His son was with him. Sadly, there was no one else there to make a minyon and the man was distraught. His son then sent a message to his friends telling where the cemetery was asking that if anyone was available, it would be greatly appreciated if they would come. Well it seems that his friends forwarded the message to others, and one hundred people showed up. Now these people were mostly secular, but the important thing was that they were there to support a fellow Jew. Their behavior spoke to the similar needs among our people, that makes us more alike than different. Mendy then suggested that we spend more time thinking about the similarities among our people than our differences, and that was the core message.
As a Jew, I firmly believe that there is such a concept as Kal Yisroel, one people, one huge extended family, and what one member of this family does brings honor or shame to all. Happily, I have experienced more honor than shame. But within this family, there are many pathways, and I do not believe that any one sect of Judaism that nourishes the soul of any Jew has more of the “truth” than any other. All are efforts to a relationship with God, all have a piece of the truth, and for that matter, all are valid attempts. There are differences, but at the heart of the matter, the objectives are the same. We need to see the similarities, and focus on these.
Mendy invited us to consider the different Passover traditions between the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim as an example. Traditions in food for example, were dictated by the locations of where these people lived, but what was at the core and is still at the core, is the Haggadah. It’s the same book used all over the world. The stories are the same, and the language is the same. In fact, if Elijiah did come to the Seder, he would be perfectly comfortable because he would be hearing the language he heard when he first walked the earth. The differences don’t make a difference. Mendy’s final plea was to rid ourselves of the pettiness that absorbs us, and give our souls a chance to soar.
He also heaped praise on Dinie, his beloved wife, for all she does for the congregation, the community, and their family. This week is her birthday, and if there is such a woman worthy of being called a Woman of Valor, Dinie Mengel is that person.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Before we spoke about the text, we took Rabbi Koch off on a tangent that I personally found exceptionally interesting because I learned things about the Hebrew language that I did not know.
• I learned that the Hebrew is a language that has 22 consonants which may be pronounced differently depending on tradition. This language is a system of patterns, and sets of consonants can produce many different words. Specific groups of consonants create specific roots. Mostly three and four letter groups, but few two letter groups. Depending on how root letters are conjugated or declined, you get lots of words. For example, Yud Hay Vov Hay, the Tetragrammation identifying God, is from the root for “being,” but it has no present tense.
• I learned that the “trope” is grammatical, and used for punctuation. It tells us where sentences begin and end, or where commas are needed. It is a system for comprehension.
• I learned that the Mazorites were a tenth century group of teachers who recognized that the pronunciation of the Torah was being lost, and they wrote out the Torah with vowels.
• I learned that a Hebrew consonant can only take one vowel.
• I relearned that the various sources of the Chumash – the J, E, P, D, and R sources represent various schools, and contain stories from the Northern Kingdom, the Southern Kingdom, and the Priesthood. Didn’t catch all of them.
• The Tetragrammation, Yud, Hay, Vov, Hay comes from the J Source.
• The E Source uses Eloheim when referring to God, and the J Source uses Adonoi.
• “Yahway” and “Jehovah” are Christian attempts to pronounce the tetragrammation, but since there are no vowels, pronunciation is impossible.
• Leviticus is an instruction manual for the Priestly Class. The Red Heifer story deals with the conundrum of death.
Continuing with the text, Rabbi Koch said, “What’s the difference between “speaking’ and “calling?” The parashah begins with “He called to Moses, and HASHEM spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting...” Normally, God speaks to Moses, but here, God is calling or summoning Moses. The word “summoned” carries with it all sorts of connotations because when we are “summoned” it is often by a power that is greater than we. One might be intimidated, or called to answer for something, But inherent in the summons is the demand to respond.
Rashi interprets “And He called..” as an expression of love saying that in order to speak to one another, there has to be a “call.” Some “calling” precedes all verbal engagements. We read that the angels call to one another, and so God calls to Moses. We want to draw near to God, but first God calls us to sacrifice. That is how we respond to God. As Abraham Joshua Heshel said, “God calls to us because God needs us.”
There are two different types of work: Milahah is work involved in building the Temple, and Avodah is everyday labor. The Sanctuary has been completed, and now God is at the point of telling Moses what he has to do. This summons is to reveal God’s next step in His plan.
• I relearned that a “herd” was a group of large animals, and a “flock” was a group of small animals.
What follows are procedures for offering the sacrifices, and there is a hierarchy – only priests can offer the sacrifice. Human sacrifice is forbidden, but not animal sacrifice.
A sacrifice is really a valued offering that is brought by someone as a statement of thanks or as a propitiation so something might be avoided in the future. The whole idea of sacrifice is
predicated on the belief that there is something out there that controls and can be appeased or persuaded. The inclination to give an offering or demonstrate gratitude is first found in Genesis where Cain and Abel feel an inclination to offer the best of their work to God. God did not ask
for this offering, so I’m concluding that there is something within the human mind that has this inclination. The first thing Noah does is to sacrifice to God. Again, God didn’t ask. Then there is Abraham who is asked by God to sacrifice his only son. And this is where things change.
All ancient civilizations practiced human sacrifice, and there is even a theory that the Egyptians themselves sacrificed their own first born to the gods to end what they saw as the natural disasters that resulted from the Thera explosion.
But the fact that a ram was sacrificed instead of Isaac introduced to the world the concept of symbolic substitution where an animal could take the place of a human being. This was a
major leap forward in the concept of the sanctity of human life, and for the Jew thereafter, human sacrifice became an anathema. It was because of this that even the most illiterate Jew knew that The Blood Libel was a lie. No Jew would sacrifice a child for his blood to make matzah. Using even animal blood was forbidden let alone human blood. The thought was and continues to be repulsive and ludicrous.
A better phrase for this substitute sacrifice is “vicarious atonement.” In Christian theology, Jesus becomes the sacrifice for the sins of humanity, and through Jesus’ blood, humanity is redeemed and God forgives. Personal salvation come through something else, in this case, Jesus’ sacrifice.
In effect, the person bringing the sacrifice is saying to God, take this offering instead of taking me.
But does sacrifice show gratitude or is it an expiation of darker needs? An interesting question.
The Hebrew word “qorban” translated as “sacrifice” is from the root which is to “draw close to.” The purpose of the offering is to draw close to God. In other ancient societies, the people and priests were expected to feed the gods, but to us, it is “a pleasing odor” that brings us closer.
We are dealing here with a very sensory experience. Imagine the lowing of the reluctant animal being pulled to the alter, the heat of the fire, the odors of prior sacrifices, the blood... very dramatic and very emotional. And as the smoke ascends and dissipates, one can imagine the supplicant watching and hoping that the smoke and the pleasing odor will bring the forgiveness and atonement requested.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
March 28, 2015 B’H
8 Nissan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Shabbat Hagadol - Tzav: Leviticus 6:1 - 8:36.
Haftorah Malachai 3:3 - 24.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began by talking about how the trope or the cantillation marks that are written above the Hebrew letters of the words in the Chumash (Bible), not only tells the reader how to chant each word, but also allows the reader insight into the meaning of the words, insight into the people of the story, and insight into phraseology.
This is a new awareness of the many skills needed to chant the Torah, a scroll that does not contain any vowels, any punctuation, and any hint on how to pronounce the words, puts me even in greater awe of those who can perform this honor than before. Bravo Mike and Arthur!
Mendy focused in on one mark called a “shalshelet” which can be described as a small piece of lightning composed of five tiny slashes. He then informed us that this mark was used only four times in the entire Torah, and indicates an emotional moment when the person in the situation is initially terribly conflicted as to what must be done, but acts righteously despite the internal struggle. The first time the shalshelet appears is in the story of Lot and I think Mendy said that the struggle within Lot deals with saving the angels at the expense of his daughter’s virtue.
If that wasn’t the reason, it should have been.
The next occurrence has to do with Eliazer, Abraham’s faithful servant sent to find a bride for Isaac. Eliazer has a daughter of his own he wishes to marry Isaac, so he is conflicted, but despite his own desires, he decides that the first kind girl who waters his camels will be the one.
The next shalshelet appears in the story of Joseph who is repeatedly assailed by the beautiful wife of Potiphar, his master. Joseph may be desirous of the benefits that would come with submitting to her, but his sense of right and wrong overcomes his desires and he refuses her.
Finally, we come to the shalshelet which appears when Moses has to sanctify his brother and his brother’s sons as the priestly family in perpetuity when his own role is to be only the leader whose rule and family legacy ends with his death. Moses would like his own children to have this great honor, but we are told that because he was initially reluctant when God spoke to him out of the burning bush, he was punished by God by not having himself or his own progeny given this honor.
After Mendy explained the meaning of the shalshelet, and said that there were only four, I immediately thought that the first had to be above Abraham’s response when he was told to sacrifice Isaac. But it was not, so we must conclude that Abraham’s devotion was so great, that there wasn’t even the slightest bit of internal conflict when asked to commit that heinous crime. That kind of mindless devotion, at least to me, is as dangerous to the human condition as is the idea that martyrdom will get you seventy virgins in heaven. Mindless, uncritical devotion to anyone or anything is not a positive quality in a human being, and Abraham’s unwillingness to plead for his son’s life or challenge God’s demand, has never sat well with me.
Somewhere in his drush, Mendy referred to the tragedy last week of the seven children who were burned to death in the fire in Brooklyn, and because the fire was started by a hotplate used to keep Shabbat food warm, he hoped no one would blame the Sabbath or the traditions of the Sabbath, for the tragedy. He did encourage us to check our fire alarm systems.
A Digression: This concern reminded me of two stories about fires resulting from ritual observance. One dealt with a house burning down on the day of the first Seder, and the major concern of the family was where they were going to find a place for their guests. This was an Orthodox family. The other story told to me had to do with laundry hanging above the Sabbath candles catching fire and destroying the apartment. The conclusion reached by the person who told me the story was that Sabbath candles were dangerous, and that was why she did not light them. Of course this same person might have concluded that the candles should be kindled away from low hanging laundry.
Mendy continued by telling us that there were phone calls to him about the tragedy, and he focused on one man who wept over the loss and asked “How can we believe in a God who would allow such a thing to happen?” After that, the man said that his original intent was to ask Mendy about selling the chumatz for Passover.
What Mendy pointed out was that though he couldn’t answer the question, the questioner was still focused on the Passover tradition despite his immediate concern about God. The caller was in inner turmoil, having a shalshelet moment as we all have from time to time, and yet was concerned with doing the right thing for Passover despite his inner conflicts..
I was reminded of the story where a group of Jews in one of the death camps put God on trial and found him guilty. After the verdict came in, one of the inmates declared, “It’s time to daven Mincha.” I think that some Jews, despite their theological reservations, are so in tune with what tradition demands of them, that they will continue moving forward despite private misgivings.
I for one, have resolved this problem about God being involved in the deaths of these seven children, and all children for that matter. I simply do not acknowledge that God has anything to do with such events. I do not believe that God had anything to do with the Holocaust, or with the destruction of the Temples, or with any other horrific event that has descended on our people. People create evil, and the people who have come against us with mindless hatred throughout the centuries, were evil. Nature cannot tell the difference between the innocent and guilty, so we cannot blame God for what is a natural occurrence either.
I cannot believe in a God who would allow such suffering. I chose to believe that God is unaware of seven children burning to death rather than believing that God would allow it to happen, and I would rather believe that God is unaware of children dying of cancer, or dear friends being stuck down in the prime of life, or people starving, or being hacked to death, or people crashing planes into mountains.
I have no difficulty observing the Sabbath to the extent I do, or putting up a Succah, or hosting two Seders or attending most holiday and Sabbath services. I can do all this because I am a Jew and choose not to believe in the deity of traditional Judaism. If more people gave themselves permission to confront and evaluate traditional God beliefs, there would probably be less confusion and conflict regarding religion, and more observance and understanding of traditions that make us a people and that bind us together.
Mendy asked the congregation to call the synagogue if members would be willing to open their homes for the Seders to people who did not have a place to go. He spoke of his own family traditions growing up as a child, and the amusing strangers who attended. Mendy also spoke about a story that the elder Rebbe told about a poor man who was invited to his home for the Seder and did not know that matzah was not to be made wet. The other Chasids where shocked that he dipped his matzah into the borsht, and when this was reported to the Rebbe, the Rebbe said, “Better his matzah be red than his face from being embarrassed.”
Cool guy. It reminded me of the statement from Ethics of the Fathers: “Let every man’s honor be as dear to you as your own.”
Another digression: “Would that all who were hungry could come and eat!” I could not help but wonder if a person had absolutely no place to go for a Seder, and would have to sit at home alone, would or should this person be encouraged to attend a Seder that even if the Haggadah contained all sixteen orders, no chumatz served, but the chicken and meat were not kosher and some ingredients used were parve, but not “kosher for Passover?” In short, is it better to sit at home alone than to attend a Seder that does not observe Passover kashruth?
Mendy’s drush could be summarized in the idea of “Do what is right.”
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch began by informing us that today was Shabbat Hagadol, a time when we are to be mindful of our preparation for the Passover. In addition to cleaning the house, performing the rituals, etc., we are enjoined to bring about internal changes also.
The rabbi spoke about the tasting of moror, the bitter herb, and what that means to us in this contemporary world. She said that in some way we are all enslaved, and we are trying to break out of that enslavement. “In every generation, each person should feel as though he or she went forth from Egypt,” as our Torah teaches: And you shall explain to your child on that day, it is because of what the Lord did for me when I, myself, went forth from Egypt.”
Not only were our ancestors redeemed, but even we were redeemed with them. God took us out of Egypt to give us the land he vowed to give the patriarchs. But what does it mean when we read, “I myself went forth from Egypt?” It means that we continue to go forth from Egypt because we are players in a play that continues to perform using the script that was given to us in the desert. This harkens back to our identities as a distinctive people, and gives us insight into the origin of Kal Yisroel. By accepting the idea that we were there, it commits us to the past and present as one. We are always becoming the future with the same story line.
We were taken by God from Mizrayim, Egypt, the narrow place. And when we are in this narrow place, our own symbolic Egypts, do we need assistance? Do we need God? We do not know how God is reaching out to us in the deepest, darkest, narrowest moments in our lives. When are those moments when we are in Egypt and leaving Egypt?
Change is never easy, and one might feel as though the changes you encounter have put you in a narrow place, a personal Egypt. Leaving home for the first time could be frightening for someone who has never been on his or her own. Divorce, or being alone and not knowing what life will be like alone, is a narrow place, a personal Egypt. There are of course options. One can stay, be abused, and die physically or emotionally, or take the option to leave. It takes courage to move out into the unknown.
In the death camps, there were electrical fences to keep the people in. Some chose suicide rather than be subjected to the horror. Suicide, in traditional Judaism is a sin, and the person may not be buried in sacred ground. But in non-traditional Judaism, suicide is considered a symptom of mental illness, and they can be buried in sanctified land, believing that we must honor equally both those who perished and those who survived.
We were invited to read several poems and I’ll reproduce only one of them.
Leaving Egypt
by Merle Feld
The night is so dark
And I am afraid.
I see nothing, smell nothing,
the only reality--
I am holding my mother’s hand.
And as we walk
I hear the sounds
of a multitude in motion–
in front, behind,
all around,
a multitude in motion.
I have no thought of tomorrow,
now, in the darkness,
there is only motion
and my mother’s hand.
The poem is sensory and kinetic at the same time. The child and mother are being bourne along by some unseen force that creates the sounds of an unseen multitude in motion. It is at once frightening, mysterious, and anticipatory. Here we might have God as parent in the same way that God parented us out of Egypt. God’s hand and the mother’s hand are there for comfort and reassurance, and we are impelled to move without really understanding where we are going, and what we will find. We are reminded of God’s outstretched arm that brought us forth out of Egypt, but we don’t know when this arm will reach out. The poem reflects to me those deeply personal moments when one stands there like an infant standing up, balancing, reaching up. Afraid to take the next step because we are afraid to fall, the unknown terrifies us, so we stand there reaching into the air, ossified, hoping to be rescued, picked up, carried, nurtured. But the toddler knows instinctively that he must move forward as we know that we must move forward when we are in our private narrow places, our personal Egypts. Personal growth demands that we move forward.
We cannot be passive.
Another poem, Maggid, by Marge Piercy, recalls the universal theme of the difficulty of letting go of the familiar and moving out into the unknown. It speaks about the memories and the tangible things that connect you to a particular place – the graves of loved ones, the tree you planted, the place where love began, the language of your ancestors. It takes great courage to face the unknown, but if you opt to stay, you also opt to die. The poem is about the very real experience of individual Jews, and the individual experience described moves from microcosm to the macrocosm
of the Jewish People who have experienced displacement and wandering for millennia. The poem honors those who transformed themselves, even at the expense of being looked down upon by their own. It honors those who chose to let go of everything, to become “the other” in exchange for freedom and the right to live.
We must take courage to move out, to go to college, to marry, to divorce, to flee, to take a new job, to move across the country, to move across the world, to move to escape persecution... It is natural to resist change, even though the current situation may be toxic. But even the toxic can be comfortably familiar. But at our core we know that staying is dangerous to the soul and we must face the unknown if we are to physically and spiritually survive. My great grandparents and grandparents were such people. They left with nothing, but insured their descendants survival.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
April 4, 2015 B”H
15 Nissan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: First Day of Pesach
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying: I remember nothing because Mendy chose not to speak on this Shabbat, depriving thousands of his perceptions and wisdom. I am not sure of where this tradition of not delivering a drush on this Passover Sabbath comes from, but I’m not in favor of it. The only thing Mendy did say was related to a new fad where college kids stay up all night to watch a marathon of shows and talk about it. Now of course anyone who has ever read a traditional Haggadah, knows that there is a reference to a similar situation where we learn that the rabbis sat up all night discussing the Haggadah and the meaning of the story. Again, there is nothing new under the sun.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel also did not refer to the parasha in the Torah this week, but chose to speak about the tradition between Passover and Shavuot where The Ethics of the Fathers are read. It is also translated as The Chapters of the Fathers composed between the 2nd and 5th Centuries of the Common Era. It is a series of statements on how to lead an ethical life, how we are to treat our fellow human beings and ourselves, and to whom we must be grateful.
One characteristic of the Ethics is that each piece of wisdom refers back to another rabbi so the gravitas or wisdom of what is to follow is established. Once deference is made to the forefathers, the additional thought is added. So the first statement in this compilation is “Moses received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over to Joshua. Joshua gave it over to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets gave it over to the Men of the Great Assembly. They would always say these three things: Be cautious in judgement. Establish many pupils. And make a safety fence around the Torah.”
We were told that the book starts off with the lineage of how the Torah was passed down so we can see that the ideas contained have legitimacy because they are anchored in the Torah and not the ideas that may not be legitimate. It reinforces the concept of l’dor v’ador; the giving and receiving from generation to generation. Be deliberate in judgement means that we are not to rush to judgement. Make a safety fence around the Torah refers to additional laws to protect people from sinning against the laws in the Torah. For example, grains are not eaten on the Passover, so in the Askenasic tradition, this prohibition was expanded to include rice and legumes to protect the law against eating grains.
There is the law of not mixing meat and milk, so people would not be confused, the prohibition against eating chicken and milk together to protect the meat and milk separation was added. It works so certain laws could not be implemented because they were too harsh. There are infractions that call for the death penalty in the Torah, but fences were built around certain of those laws so they could not easily be implemented. For examples, in Jewish law, the death penalty requires two eye witnesses, and a warnings to be given to the potential perpetrator of the crime. Adam was the first to build a fence around a law. God tells Adam not to eat the apple, and Adam tells Eve not even to touch the apple.
The fence is moveable, and the wisdom of having such a moveable fence was obvious to the rabbis if they wanted Judaism to stay viable as we moved through history. I do think that more traditional Jews would agree that the idea of a moveable fence makes living in our contemporary possible. Perhaps the eruv, the line stretched out in a particular area so as to extend our private
domain was not needed centuries ago, but it makes it possible for traditional Jews to better function on the Sabbath in suburbia. I think it’s important to realize that while these “fences”
keep us from breaking the laws, they also keep us from acting on them as they are written in the Torah. Sadly, other religious traditions have not built fences around harsh laws or exhortations to hate in their own sacred documents, so some among them are mindlessly hating and chopping off heads, hands, and feet.
One point of information that I shared regarding the tradition of teaching in the name of other rabbis, was that one key problem the Jews of ancient Judea had with Jesus was that he taught in his own name. Statements in the Gospels such as “You have heard it said that.. but verily I say unto you...” That method of teaching was a no-no because he not only did not reference the ancients, but the very structure of the statement implied that they were wrong and he was right.
The second statement discussed was uttered by Shimon the Righteous who said: The world stands on three things: Torah, the service of God, and deeds of kindness. The Torah is God’s word, and the authority behind moral law, and without that concept, morality can be relative to the situation because man becomes the authority. The service of God refers to the prayers offered up after the Temple was destroyed, and the gratitude we must show. The world rests on this three legged stool.
The third statement speaks to the importance of doing something for the intrinsic value of doing it and not for the sake of the reward you might anticipate. It also spoke of the “fear of heaven being upon us.” The latter is a state of being where you are enveloped and always aware of God’s expectations.
Judaism is filled with reminders that we are to be aware of God’s expectations. For me, God’s primary expectation is that I and all others should behave well. In everyday life, I am reminded of God’s expectations each time I see a mezuzah on a door and walk through that door, or choose not to eat traf three times a day. Such constant reminders keep God in your head, and with God in your head like that, you tend to behave better towards others. Of course, there are those who keep kosher, touch every mezuzah three times a day, pray three time a day, and act despicably. Such people have missed the point of their faith, and are clueless as to God’s primary expectations regarding behavior towards others
The fourth idea considered had to do with letting “your home be a meeting place for the wise; dust yourself in the soil of their feet, and drink thirstily of their words.” The focus here is obviously on educating yourself, and letting it be known that your home is a place of welcome to those who would help you expand your knowledge and soul.
The fifth piece of wisdom continued with the home idea, but extended the openness by urging you to let the poor become members of your household. It also exhorts men “not to have excessive conversations with women...” “One who excessively converses with a woman causes evil to himself, neglects the study of Torah, and, in the end, inherits purgatory.” In commenting on this, we recalled the story in Genesis of Abraham whose tent was open on all sides to welcome the stranger. This prohibitions against speaking excessively to women invited many comments.
I suggested that there was something sexual about this warning, and we discussed this as another one of those fences that would make adultery less possible. It’s a fence around that Commandment as is the law of the mehizah, the barrier of separation of men and women in
Orthodox synagogues. Dozens of laws were created such as not being able to kiss the cheek or shake the had of a woman not married to you, or help her on with her coat, or the idea of not listening to a woman sing, were all instituted to protect the modesty of the woman, and tamper down the raging sexual and uncontrollable impulses of men. These impulses naturally lead a man
away from the study of Torah only to end up in purgatory.
For me, such prohibitions are statements that men are no more than uncontrollable beasts. I disagree, and the prohibition of not listening to a beautiful female singing voice especially deprives a human being from experiencing of one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity. Are Orthodox Jewish men improved by never having heard Beverly Stills sing? I don’t think so.
I taught in an Orthodox yesivah for several years, and the repression of all things sexual expcept what came out of the Talmud and Code of Jewish Law was what was imposed. Everything else was considered “sin” and thoughts that might be considered normal for teenage boys were forbidden. The restrictions placed on their learning only angered them, caused them to judge the rabbis harshly, and rebel by sneaking magazines into the dorm, and listening to rock and roll, rap, and female vocalists secretly. The rabbis saw themselves as keeping the boys pure, and many of the boys saw the rabbis as people from a different planet with no concept of what it took to negotiate the world they lived in. Some came to reject Judaism because there was no freedom to think or discuss thoughts that were not approved by tradition.
We see in the Torah where Moses puts in an extra stringency regarding Revelation at Mt. Sinai. Whereas God tells Moses to have the people purify themselves, Moses tells the men not to go near a woman three days prior to the Revelation on Mt. Sinai.
I can see where some people need to have their natural inclinations controlled, and religion can do this for that person. And I can see where some people need to be fully directed in their moment to moment existences by the minutia in the form of “fences” so they will never have to make a decision on their own and risk failure. I can see the attraction of turning everything over to tradition and to God as the vehicle for moving through and among the barriers of life and all its uncertainties. That said, I still prefer making my own choices. The thought of it being a sin if you become aware of a sunset while praying is too drastic a “fence.” To me, that sunset is a prayer all its own and the Ayn Sof’s own handiwork. No one can tell me that I commit a sin by being in awe of such beauty. And the only thing missing from such a moment is the voice of Beverly Sills.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
April 25, 2015 B”H
6 Iyyar 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Tazri`a – Metzera – Leviticus 12:1 - 15:33.
Haftorah II Kings 7:3 – 20.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy had already begun speaking when I arrived, and his message did not address the parshah but concerned itself with the afterlife as it is conceived of in Orthodox Judaim. At points he did compare our ideas to Christian and Muslim ideas, and the over all comparison led one to conclude that both Christian and Muslim faiths have a heavy focus on the afterlife, and that while Judaism certainly does believe in an afterlife, our primary concern is on how one behaves in this life to earn a place in that afterlife.
It is not correct faith that earns you a place in the Jewish afterlife, but correct behavior.
His delivery was more rapid fire than usual. At one point he spoke of the three questions one is asked before one’s afterlife is to begin. At least I think that’s when the questions are asked, because the questions are assessments of the supplicant’s life, and it is only logical that they be asked before one is assigned to either Gan Eden (Heaven,) or Gehenah, (Purgatory.) There is no Hell in Jewish theology.
Christianity and Islam have conceived of Hells with boiling oil, demons with pitchforks prodding you eternally, and buckets of puss as repositories for evil souls. Actually, the imagery for Christian Hell comes primarily from the imagination of Dante as he describes it in his Divine Comedy and from the dramatic scenes depicted on Medieval church windows. Judaism does not envision eternal damnation.
Life is difficult enough on earth, and some people live through “hell” while alive. So why pursue people for eternity? Besides, if God directs all behaviors as some believe, why eternally condemn someone who had been deemed by God to sin. It would be just too cruel. I’m not sure if the souls of truly evil people have a “share in the life to come,” or simply cease to exist as their ultimate punishment. He didn’t touch upon that subject.
The first question basically stated: Were you a mensch or a decent person when you lived? If the answer was “no” you went to Purgatory. Purgatory as conceived in Judaism, is a place of ritual cleansing which prepares you for Gan Eden. If you said “yes” and I guess documented it, you were then asked: Were you a good Torah Jew? This I believe questioned your Yiddishkeit, your adherence to ritual, and whatever else makes a Jew a “good Jew.” If you said “no” you went to Purgatory. If “yes” and documented it, you were asked the third question which was Did you believe in the coming of the Messiah? This question tested your faith in the future and whether of not you believed in the ultimate goodness of humanity. In short, did you believe or at least hope that the world ultimately get better.
I would ask one other question that I think I heard somewhere. Have you ever seen a rainbow in the sky? I think this should be a question because it would indicate the person’s
sensitivity to the beauty of creation, and the person’s ability to stop, appreciate, and be grateful to the Creator. Gratitude is at the core of happiness.
Gahenna or Purgatory is considered the opportunity for the soul to come to terms with its failings. While it is a punishment, it is not designed to be torture as we understand torture to be as depicted in the Christian and Muslim faiths.
It is also to be understood that a person may not be in Purgatory for more than twelve months, and we can help the soul move upward through saying the kaddish for that person and doing mitzvahs in that person’s memory. So those of us who still live, can assist those who have passed away through our own behavior. We were also told that though we say the kaddish for only eleven months, and it is to be understood that the year of earth time is not the same as the time as experienced in Purgatory. What is eleven months to us, may seem like decades to the penitent soul.
Mendy told a midrash to explain the Purgatory idea, but I’m not quite sure if I got it right. He spoke of a person attending a fancy dress celebration where he drops mustard on his white shirt. All night he walks around covering the stain, worried about what people will think or say about him if they were to see it. That perpetual worry and fear of discovery and the perpetual fear of judgement on you by others for what you did, is one metaphoric type of punishment in Purgatory. Another type is when someone comes up and tells you that the hem of your dress or jacket has dropped, and you cannot fix it. This clothing malfunction is exposed for all to see, and cannot be covered. The metaphoric punishment here is that you know everyone can see the problem, will judge you for the problem, and you will not be able to fix it though you are fully aware of it. In either case, you are exposed to judgement, and you are, or feel you are being negatively judged by others.
I asked Mendy privately what happens when metaphorically someone else spills or throws the mustard on you because they are angry and vindictive, but those who see the stain do not know it was not of your doing. He said that that was a difficult situation. Lies told about you stain your integrity. There are those who can only believe the lies because they have been kept from the truth or are not interested or willing to listen to the truth because acknowledging the falsehood would cast the liar in a bad light. For some reason, known only to themselves, they cannot deal with confronting the liar. Such people may feel a loyalty to the one who threw the mustard out of friendship or some psychological hold the liar has over them. So the lie remains, the judgement on you by others remains, and your integrity continues to be impugned by people who do not know the truth and choose not to hear it. This experience is a taste of Purgatory while alive.
At one point Mendy spoke about three conditions of existence: the body and soul as a unit, the body and soul as separate entities, and the afterlife where the body returns to the earth, and the soul “goes to its reward.” He also mentioned reincarnation about which he did not speak, but made it clear that this, too, is a traditional belief. He mentioned that both Moses and Yocheved, his mother, were reincarnations of earlier beings.
Prior to our births, God creates the soul which is part of God Himself. With each soul comes a mission. This soul, this spiritual component of God, is place in a natural being that is immediately in conflict with the spiritual because the natural being wants the earthly pleasures, while the soul seeks out fulfillment of the mission and the spiritual plane.
Wordsworth writes: “Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting.
The soul that rises with us, our life’s star,
Hath elsewhere 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.
Heaven lies about us in our infancy.
Shades of the prison house begin to close upon the growing boy,
But he beholds the light and whence it flows. He sees it in his joy...”
The dynamic between soul and body continue, but it is also recognized that each is important and its needs are valid. We are to live in moderation, but not in denial of earthly pleasures. That is why celibacy and all extremes that deny are anathemas in Judaism.
His final midrash seemed to be an afterthought. It involved sitting at a banquet table in Heaven composed of people who had no elbows. While they could not feed themselves, they could feed others. The visual image is strange, but the message of nourishing others is not.
I’m not sure of how this story was connected to what went before, but the snatches of Heaven glimpsed from this story and from others, do not entice me. Dining (without elbows?) on Leviathan and Behemoth, studying Torah in perpetuity, singing praises for eternity, playing a harp, (not a Jewish image) etc. doesn’t sound all that enticing.
I think it was Mark Twain who said, “Go to Heaven for the weather, but to Hell for the company.” Personally, I like the statement that “The Heaven you believe in is the one to which you will go.” Now that opens a wealth of possibilities, and I’ve given it some thought. Though I won’t go into specifics about what is in my heaven, I will tell you that each of my days in my Heaven ends with all the people I have ever enjoyed knowing and loving attending a cocktail party on a large stone veranda overlooking the sea and watching a magnificent sunset. Anyone reading this is invited to stop by any evening if you have nothing better to do in your own Heaven. The conversation is always meaningful and clever. And you can bring a friend. Behemoth and Leviathan are not on the menu unless they are on skewers and in sushi.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch opened with the question as to why there were two Torah portions read today.
What follows is a lot of information about the division of time, and I confess I’m not all that clear on what was said. Make whatever sense of it as you can.
We were informed that there are fifty-four portions, and fifty-two weeks. We were told that seven times during the year we double up because there are festivals where special portions need to be read. We also split them up because of leap years, and add whole months because we are on a lunar calendar. Lunar months have twenty-eight or twenty-nine day months, and we are always a little bit behind. We have three harvest festivals specific to seasons so our calendar is seasonally adjusted. Every nineteen years we add a lunar month. See what I mean.
We were the first civilization to have a seven day week, but there is nothing astrological about such a division. The month is lunar as measured by the phases of the moon, and the year is solar, as measured by the movement of the earth around it. The ancients were brilliant and knew their math. They were also very tuned into observation and awareness of the natural world.
The topic shifted to something called “The Documentary Hypothesis” which refers to different schools of thought related to the redaction or editing of the Torah. While tradition holds that the Torah was given in its entirety to Moses on Mt. Sinai, modern scholarship, initiated by Wellhousen, a 19th Century scholar, says that it is an anthology of stories woven together into one piece from several different traditions.
A careful reading will show that there are stiches or seams that show up revealing places where the narrative doesn’t flow such as the story at the Sea of Reeds. Linguistic scholars have identified several sources: The “J” tradition uses YHVH as the name of God. (There is a theory that the “J” text was written by a women in the court of King David.) The “E” tradition use Eloheim as the name of God. The “J” tradition is woven into Genesis and in Exodus. The “P” tradition is the priestly or rabbi’s manual that is the Book of Leviticus. “D” is the Deuteronomy tradition, and “R” is the redactor who sewed the whole thing together and incorporated his or her own words to make one narrative connect with another.
Chapter seventeen in Leviticus seems to have a change of voice from the text surrounding it. This text reveals the “H” tradition and appears in the middle of Leviticus. It is called “The Holiness Code.”
We were told that in ancient times, the ranking for the most important was not the first, but the center. That is why Leviticus is in the central book of the Torah, and the Code of Holiness is in the center of Leviticus. Everything builds to the middle. Even the Torah Service is in the middle of the Shabbat service.
The Code of Holiness, if you consider the Torah from a teacher’s point of view, is the medial summary of the lesson.
Because we approach the text from different points of views, it doesn’t mean that Revelation is not of great meaning to us.
This is how I see it: A pianist’s hands may play two different musical ideas at the same time, but the result is a singular experience called the composition. The idea that different literary traditions came together to form the Torah does not take anything away from the value of its content. Consider an orchestra. Each group of instruments play its own ideas in support of the larger idea which is the symphony. The Torah is a symphonic piece, conducted by God, and though made up of different instruments, they are all following the same score to produce the core values of the Jewish People.
Reform Jews experience Revelation metaphorically and spiritually, while our more traditional co-religionists take it literally.
The Holiness Code is right there in the middle of the Torah, and begins with the lines: “Be holy, for I am holy.” Rabbi asked us what was meant by “holy?” There is also the insistence that Moses speak to everyone.
I responded with the word “separate” and explained it this way: God is separate from man. Man is classified as an animal. We are to separate ourselves from our animal natures. We are both earthbound and spiritual. We are to endeavor to separate ourselves from our more earthbound natures. We are part of the ordinary, and we are part of the sacred. When we are
endeavoring to be “holy” we are endeavoring to raise ourselves to the sacred and spiritual. It is the physical action that brings one closer to God.
I also expanded on the idea that as a separate and distinct people (I did not use the word “chosen” because that word offends or excites some of my co-religionists who see the “choseness” as a statement of superiority and not responsibility) we have a special calling which is different from the calling of other peoples:“Be a light unto the nations,” and “ Make the world a better place,” is unique in theology.
But one the members of the congregation found the thought of distinctiveness difficult because it seemed that such a notion was not in sync with her notion of liberalism. Years ago I wrote a piece on multi-culturalism and that movement’s effort to destroy distinctiveness in our society and make everything equal. My thesis was and continues to be that not all cultures are of equal value, not all values are morally equivalent to the Judeo-Christian values of Western Civilization, and not all people have equal worth. There! I said it!
The Islamic guardians of Islam in Saudi Arabia who allow girls to burn to death, do not come from a culture that is superior to mine. Judaism does not sanction the murder of little girls because they may appear in public inappropriately dressed. Any Jew who gives these people a pass because they are acting on their religious belief, has no clue as to what Judaism demands as far as judging others is concerned.
Muslim terrorists screaming “Allah Akbar” as they cut off the head of an innocent journalist or stone a women to death, do not come out of a religion that is superior to mine. Judaism does not sanction killing innocent people in the name of God. Any Jew who gives these people a pass because it is their religious belief, has no clue as to what Judaism demands as far as judging others is concerned.
Wives being expected to throw themselves on a funeral pyre so they would not be a burden to their dead husband’s family, do not come out of a culture that is superior to mine. Judaism teaches that we are to support the widow and the orphan. Any Jew who gives the culture that demands such an action has no clue as to what Judaism demands as far as judging others is concerned.
Children left to die or aborted because they are girls, are abandoned and killed by people who do not have a culture or value system superior to mine. I can go on. It has been my experience that some people on the Left have substituted their religious teachings for the principals of a political system, and though Judaism and liberalism have much in common regarding the welfare of individuals, liberalism is not Judaism, and Judaism is not liberalism.
I do not hold with the idea that we must accept how other people behave and honor their behavior because that is their way of doing things or that is what their faith teaches. I do not hold with moral equivalency and that “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.” I do not hold with the Christian idea of “Resist not evil, but if someone strike you on one cheek, turn to him the other.” Evil and the people who practice it need to be confronted even though the multi-culturalist among us would give them a pass because they are acting on what their faith and culture teaches.
The Code of Holiness is a book of ethical behaviors, and not a book of spirituality. But behaving well as the Code demands will make you more connected to God, and that will make you a more spiritual being.
The body and soul of the human being are intertwined. The body is a holy thing because it houses the very thing that God created, the soul. Both are sacred, and that is why we treat the dead with enormous respect. A fundamental Jewish teaching is that the whole being is holy, and while the Hebrew words “tome” and “tahor” are translated as “unclean” and “clean,” they really describe the state of being when a person can participate and times when a person cannot participate.
When you marry, the ritual words are powerful. Words are active and create reality. In fact, in ancient times a spoken word had the gravitas of the action already done. Remember, “So let it be written. So let it be done.” “You are sanctified to me according to the laws of Moses...” means that you are not permitted to anyone else. I set you aside for myself. We speak of being chosen, of being set aside only for God and only for a unique relationship. We are set aside to be distinctive. It is the Holiness Code that tells us what we must do in order to be distinctive.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard May 2, 2015 B”H
13 Iyyar 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Acharei: Leviticus 16:1 - 20:27
Parasha Kedoshim: Leviticus 19:1– 20: 1- 27
Haftorah: Amos 9:7 - 15
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy began speaking before I came in, but I immediately recognized that he was speaking about the current situation in Baltimore and elsewhere in the country because he was talking about the grouping of laws in the Torah regarding the care the wider society owes to the poor, and our obligations to treat everyone justly.
Specifically, he was referring to the gleanings of the harvest you must not take, nor the fruit fallen from your vineyard. These are for the poor and the proselyte. The second group dealt with laws insisting that we not swear falsely, steal, and have honest dealings. But the key message Mendy gave was that the Torah insists that we not only know these laws, but know that the Torah demands that we act on these laws.
It is up to us to fulfill the mitzvah of providing for the poor. He asked us to try to imagine what it was like to wait on line for government assistance and experience how demeaning that must be to the human spirit. And, if I am not mistaken, he also said that any rabbi who claims to speak the words of God and does not bring the true intent of this teaching to his congregants, is not doing his (or her) job properly. And Mendy made it very clear that he was speaking universally, and not just about helping our own.
I have always believed that God, while demanding strict obedience to the theology and rituals or else, was and is, a closet Liberal when it comes to social action, and fully supportive of the social programs instituted by our government over the decades such as welfare, Medicare, Medicade, etc. And I wondered how Mendy’s drush fell on the ears of the Republican Capitalists in the room (of which there are many) and I wondered how they resolved in their own minds the mandates of the Torah to support social welfare of the less fortunate, and their actual feelings about social welfare as it currently exists and the people who receive it. I imagine for some, (if they give the paradox any thought at all) are having a values conflict.
On one hand we are commanded to support and protect the poor, and on the other hand we see the poor and don’t like them or the taxes required to support them. But as the Torah says, “The poor shall never depart from the land.” God is a universal God, so I don’t think the commandment is to support only the Jewish poor or only the poor in Israel. After all, there is a commandment that says, “There shall be one law for the stranger and the home born.” I imagine that we are asked to respect that law no matter where we live. Do we hold the Torah as our guide to what our social responsibility should be, or a political ideology?
Based on today’s readings, I think God would be very supportive of universal health coverage as well as Social Security. I think God would be (is) marching in Baltimore, in New York City, in Philadelphia, and in Furgerson, for equal justice and the elimination of unnecessary police brutality, nickel rides, and profiling. Those I spoke with after the service agreed with Mendy that there are many difficulties that continue to exist, and each had a story about negative
experiences in their jobs with minority people. That said, they still see the need for changes in these people’s lives, and that can only come from jobs, a change in values, and a change in the culture of victimhood.
Now no one is talking about the “thugs” who burned down buildings and places were their own had found work. These people need to be prosecuted. We are talking about honest people who only want jobs to support their families and feel the dignity of having a job and providing for
loved ones. Tragically, this calls for massive infuses of job opportunities and money that only the government can supply, and many people continue to feel that the government should butt out of state business. But bake sales will not build factories or pay for education and training.
Trillions have been spent over the past decade on wars we cannot win, but that doesn’t mean that that money would have found its way into the urban centers. Congress will not raise taxes on the one percent to pay for the work projects to rebuild American roads and other infrastructures. They see this money coming out of social welfare programs which would defeat the purpose of upholding the poor. Republicans will find billions of dollars for the military, but see only cutting social action programs for the poor to finance creating jobs to rebuild the country. Republicans will vote to cut back on food stamps and not vote for increasing the minimum wage so a person in poverty might get out of it. Republicans would sooner let millions of Americans be forced out of our current weak attempt at universal health care, but have offered anything substantive in its place that would actually make life better for the poor.
But Mendy neglected to say specifically what we can do to ameliorate the conditions of the poor. Trickle down economics as a way of creating jobs is a myth, and the truly wealthy who have a social action core have become seriously involved in supporting schools in urban centers and making major donations to health facilities and the like. I have a single vote, and can help vote into office those people who will continue those policies of which I approve, many of which I learned of and adopted by reading the Torah.
It has been said that God is a a mathematician, and I say that He is also a left of center Democrat. Bravo Mendy for being courageous enough to say that Judaism is more concerned about the welfare of the poor than it is about the bottom line. And thank you for opening hearts and minds to the wider world!
Mendy then shifted gears to a topic that gave him enormous pleasure. Today, a young man was being called to the Torah in a ritual called an “ufruf.” This commemoration is to honor the man a week before his wedding. This particular young man, Josh, aside from being an affable and interesting young man is quite scholarly, and read the Torah with great skill. Part of this service involves the men on the bimah joining hands and dancing around the reader’s platform while the congregation pelts the group with small pouches of candy. It’s a very happy moment, and I wish the couple all the best.
Each time there is such an event, Mendy searches the text for something meaningful that he can teach the bride and groom, and though he said this one was difficult, he found it in the lines: “Aaron shall bring near his own sin-offering bull, and provide atonement for himself and for his household.” Then he expounded on the rabbinic questions of why the word “household.” What if his wife had died? He then explained that the wife was so important as a stabilizing factor in the sanctity of the Jewish home, that there was a second woman waiting to marry the High Priest in the event that his wife died. There were a variety of other explanations including Rashi’s where he explains that the household of the High Priest were other Kohanim. But one rabbi said that the “household” is the wife. The wife is the home. This is more than just metaphor.
Judaism believes that the foundation of a civil and safe society is one where the family is the basic unit, and the man’s sexual energy must be concentrated on the wife and not anyone else. We’ve seen this idea repeatedly infused in the laws of Leviticus. You want a stable society, you’d
better have a stable family. If we are to address the needs of the poor in this country, we need to provide people with jobs so they can have the dignity of providing for their own and establishing a stable family. Stable families create stable communities. Stable communities create stable cities. Stable cities create stable states, etc., etc..
Mendy said that there are two Yom Kippurs; one being the Day of Atonement, and the other being the wedding day. It seems that our tradition teaches that on one’s wedding day, all sins are forgiven so the couple can begin with a new slate. Nice idea. Totally unique.
The third topic had to do with something of a warning. Though the Torah says that a man should “cleave unto his wife,” Mendy made it clear that conflicts do arise over the involvement of other people, mainly, in-laws. Mendy advised that parents are to be kept close and honored. “Every man: Your mother and your father you shall revere...”
That’s a wonderful thought, and certainly I know people who do or did revere their parents and now can only revere them in their memory. That said, there are certain people who get married to get away from their parents so they can try to begin a life that is without burdensome parental expectations, harsh judgements, and intrusions. There are just some parents who cannot be revered despite the commandment. Some parents just never see what they are doing to their children, and why their children must push them away to survive.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel continued with a discussion on Pirke Avot, the Ethics of the Fathers which is part of the Talmud that is read between Passover and Succoth.
The opening of Chapter 2 begins with Rabbi Eliezer saying: “The honor of your fellow should be as precious to you as your own, and do not be angered easily, and repent one day before your death, and be warmed by the light of the Sages, but be careful of their coals that you will not be burned, for their bite is the bite of a fox, and their sting is the sting of a scorpion, and their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their words are like coals of fire.”
The first focus was on anger, and Rabbi Frenkel asked why that was such an important aspect of the statement. We spoke about God’s anger with Adam and Eve and the results of that anger, of His anger with Moses at the rock and the results of that anger, and we spoke of Sodom and the results of that anger. The message was clear that you don’t anger God.
I suggested that anger is a secondary emotion, and we have to look to what emotions felt prompt anger as a response. My thoughts regarding God’s anger was that God was feeling discounted. He had made statements, or had expectations and these were not addressed by the people He felt should have known better. So while the message is Don’t Discount God, we are also to recognize that there are consequences to our angry responses. The rabbi is telling us to step back and think about it. It’s why we are told to count to ten. Within the statement is the idea that we are not to get comfortable with our anger, or it will become a way of life. We have to learn to deal with the feelings that make us angry and get over them. Remember what happened to Pharaoh.
Since you never know when you will die, it best to repent every day. That was the initial understanding of the third idea in the quote. We are also asked elsewhere not to put off study because you may never find the time. Time is passing and we are not to wait.
The next idea dealt with the warmth of knowledge, but the need for balancing that which is safe and that which is dangerous.
I was reminded of the three rabbis who went into the Pardis. One came out and committed suicide, one became an apostate, and one became elevated to greatness. They had delved into the mysteries of the Kaballah, and two of the three were not stable enough to maintain their balance. (If you haven’t read “As a Driven Leaf” by Milton Steinberg, I urge you to do so. You’ll meet the apostate.)
The idea of extreme fundamentalism came up as a reference to what can happen when you get too close to certain ideas. The closer you get to God, the more dangerous it is. I am reminded of Aaron’s two sons.
The second quote discussed was by Rabbi Yehoshua. “The evil eye, and the evil inclination, and hatred of the creations remove a person from the world.”
The evil eye is a response someone who bears you ill will may give you, but the evil inclination is something you are born with. The evil inclination is also that thing in us that moves us to have children, and build a house. For me, the evil inclination is really the ego, since it is the ego that wants to extend itself through its children and its stuff that is in the house one builds. Nothing wrong with that unless it becomes all consuming and no one else matters.
The idea of hating the creation refers to hating other human beings. They are God’s creation. If you hate God’s creations, you hate God and remove yourself from the world. People you hate become seen as “the other,” and you will be punished and isolated if you act on your evil inclinations. Again, Pharaoh became hard hearted and removed himself from the world and from any compassion. Hate is a very strong word in rabbinic literature.
Rabbi Yosei says: “The property of your friend should be as precious to you as your own. Prepare yourself to study Torah, for it is not an inheritance for you. And all your deeds should be for the sake of Heaven.”
Our property, our “stuff” is in some ways an extension of ourselves into our environment. Our “stuff” in some ways define us and reflect who we are and what we wish to convey to others. Therefore, our “stuff” is important to us, and if loaned or given for safe keeping to another, it is if we have given a piece of ourselves to that person and it must be seen as “precious.”
The Torah is a gift that needs to be studied to be made our own. It is not just given. It needs to be earned. Each time we learn something new, it is like finding a key that will further unlock ourselves. I was reminded of Robert Frost and his poem “The Gift Outright” that he read at the Kennedy inauguration. Basically, the poem teaches that we must invest ourselves into the thing in order to make it really our own. The same investment of ourselves is required to make the Torah our own.
“For the sake of Heaven” means that the intent of our actions should be for a higher purpose.
The fourth statement was uttered by Rabbi Shimon referred to the care that had to be taken when reciting the Shema and Shemoneh Esrei, and how these must not become routine. He cites Joel 2:13: “For [God] is gracious and merciful. He is slow to anger, and abundant with kindness, and relents from punishment.”
The Shema and Shemoneh Esrei are the central prayers of the service, and the reader must approach them with intensity and meaning. We spoke of Keva which is the literal order of the
prayers, and of Kavanah which is the intention and meaning you bring to these prayers. The reader must know what he or she is saying, or they are missing a key element. In the Shemoneh Esrei we read that if you do good, God will reward you.
I think that a religion where there are no promises of reward would be an easier religion to follow because there would be few expectations and few disappointments. And whatever one does to make the world better would be done just because they were making the world better for its own sake; for the sake of heaven. Such a religion would demand that we focus on this life. Judaism, I believe, comes closest to this philosophy because we are forbidden to dwell on thinking of the afterlife. Other faiths make the afterlife a primary concern in their theology.
The Shemoneh Esrei speaks of an ideal God who rewards the good and punishes the bad. But we all know that this is not the case, and the supplicant is confused between what is promised and reality. Rationalizations based on things that cannot be verified such as a reward in an afterlife may comfort some, but not others.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard HowardMay 9, 2015 B”H
20 Iyyar 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parshas Emer – Leviticus 21:1 - 24:23.
Haftorah – Ezekiel 44:15 - 31.
Chabad: This what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy once again began by reminding us that the Torah is a living document and relevant to our lives in ways we cannot imagine, and that it is his objective to find that relevancy each week so we might grow spiritually. So he began the connection by telling us that over the past weeks he had been asked for his opinion on three questions, and he was curious as to how we might have responded.
• The first question involved a family that was inching its way towards observance and had set out Friday night dinner as especially important. But the child in the family was invited to a prom to be held on Friday night, and the parents disagreed with one another as to how they should respond.
• The second question had to do with a kid who was out of control and causing such stress in the family, that the family was at the point of desperation. (I think that was the issue.)
• The third question had something to do with whether a person had to be ritually cleaned and watched over by the Hevra Kedisha (burial society) if family members did not hold with that tradition. (I think that was the issue.)
But it doesn’t really matter what the specific issues or questions were, because Mendy did not share his responses being primarily interested in ours. I’m sure many guessed his responses anyway. Many people did respond. By raising these issues and questions, Mendy was tying into a particular teaching that had to do with the responsibility parents have to teach their children, and that they best teach by setting the example through their own behavior.
He connected this piece of parental advice to the opening of the parasha where HASHEM says to Moses: Say to the Kohanim, the sons of Aaron, and tell them...” Mendy spoke of the redundancy “say...and tell them.” This was interpreted to mean that not only were the Kohanim to teach their own young children so they would not become contaminated, but these teachings were to be conveyed to the general population so the people would also avoid becoming contaminated in their own lives. And the adults in the community, through the expectations placed on the Kohanim, were especially responsible regarding their own children’s education because children will see their actions and learn from them.
In the musical “Into the Woods,” Steven Sondheim writes a song called, “Children Will Listen” which addresses this very concept. One of the things that always disturbed me regarding the behavior of many contemporary Jewish parents is that if they do belong to a synagogue, they may or may not attend services regularly, have little observance in the home, and will drop their children off at the Hebrew school and take off. The message to the child is that “this is for you. This is what children do. Adults do not do this.” Naturally, no one ever says this specifically, but the observed behavior subliminally states it loudly. “We’re supposed to educate you because we were educated, but we did not follow through and we do not expect you to follow through either.”
None verbal parental messages are just as strong as verbal ones.
Mendy mentioned that there were only three places in the Torah where this apparent redundancy appears, and these were regarding the holiness of the Kohanim, the prohibition against drinking or eating blood, and one other I cannot recall. Then he skillfully connected each of these issues where the redundancy appears to the three issues he began with. I recall that the prom issue was connected to the holiness of the Kohanim, and the ritual washing issue was connected to the blood prohibitions, and I cannot recall the bad kid issue to the Torah connection. But again, each of the three Torah “redundancies” was connected to the questions brought to him, and I also cannot recall how each was connected. Still, the message was again that parents not only need to learn themselves, but are obliged to teach their children in a calm, reasoned, and clarifying way. Children will listen if they can understand the value of the teaching.
He reinforced this by telling the story of an issue concerning the exchanging of rings at a wedding ceremony. The bridegroom wanted to exchange rings, and the rabbi of his synagogue said that he would not do that because it was not part of the tradition. The bridegroom and bride asked if Mendy would perform the ceremony, and Mendy also said that the male receiving a ring was not part of the tradition, but he took forty-five minutes to explain the tradition and his reasons. After that, the bridegroom agreed that he could receive his ring at a later time. The point being made here is that when something is fully explained, the chances of understanding and acceptance are increased, and acquiescence may follow.
A factual correction from last week’s commentary: The Ethics of the Fathers is read between Passover and Shavuot. I mistakenly wrote between Passover and Sukkot.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel continued with our Pirke Avot study by citing Rabbi Elazar’s statement that we are to “Be diligent in your studies of Torah, and know what to respond to a heretic...” She asked us why there would be a concern about a heretic, and one congregant defined the word as one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine. Another said that heretic were to be feared because they could lead the less informed astray from the Torah. But in order to respond to a heretic, one had to know the Torah very well. Tradition fears heresy because it confronts established “truths” and could influence others to turn away from that which is traditionally accepted.
Throughout our tradition there are warnings about following “false prophets” and “false Messiahs” because of the spiritually dangerous places they might lead. I was thinking about Spinoza and his excommunication from the Jewish community of Amsterdam for his ideas that all is God, and that God is unaware of us as individuals. To deny that God is not personal is a heresy in traditional Judaism. False prophets fall into that category of heresy, and the most famous one was Sabbatai Zevi in the 17th Century. There were dozens of others over the century. All faiths warn against heresy, and religious wars are fought over such ideas being introduced. Early Christianity had many “gospels” and after Matthew, Mark, Luke and John became “The Gospels” all other were considered heresy and destroyed along with the people who held those ideas. The Reformation was a heresy and is still considered such among certain people. The battle between Shia and Sunnis is the battle over a perceived heresy.
The next statement came from Rabbi Tarfon who said; “The day is short and the task is great, and the laborers are lazy, and the wages are much and the master is pressing.” Simply stated, the teaching refers to the human condition where we tend to procrastinate even though our time is short to accomplish what needs to be done despite the benefits.
Tarfon continued with the idea that though we are not expected to finish the work, we are not free to abandon it. There are great rewards in studying the Torah, and that God should be trusted to reward you for your study. And that the reward for the righteous will be in the time to come.
At its core, the statement says that our task is to improve the world, and though we cannot finish this task, we must continue to try. We are part of a process, and that the work was given to us and will continue after we are gone. The responsibility continues from generation to generation. It’s a l’dor v’dor moment. It also speaks about the reward for the righteous in an afterlife. Ideas about the afterlife begin after the exile. The concept of an afterlife is only vaguely referred to in the Torah and Prophets, but becomes important in the Rabbinic Period because under Rome, life was brutal and the people needed hope. The promise that there is another life where there will be reward for earthly suffering assists people to deal with the brutality and injustice of living. But the Jewish People were taught not to focus on this promise, but continue to try to make the world a better place in this life.
And interesting image was introduced. It was suggested that life is a strip of exposed film. We live frame by frame and we can see each frame as it is created. But God sees the entire strip of film.
The next piece of wisdom for consideration came from Akavya ben Mahalalel who said that if you reflect on where you come from, where you are going, and before whom you will have to give account, you will not come to sin. We come from a putrid drop, we are going to a place of dust and maggots, and we shall give a reckoning of our lives before the King of Kings.
We are reminded that we are very mortal, and that we are to be very humble because of our fate. Sin comes from self absorption and ego in excess. When we sin, we erase God from our world.
So this does not happen, Judaism has come up with a time structure and a system of blessing and gratitude that if followed, will keep God and God’s expectations to behave well in our heads constantly. There are one hundred prayers one can say each day, and there are three designated times for formal worship each day. You can’t get into much trouble while you’re praying. You eat three times a day, and each time you must avoid eating what God wants you to avoid so you have God in your head each time you eat. A mezzuzah remind you each time you walk through a door of God’s expectations of how you should behave. Each reminder is to keep you from sinning.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. The Yetzer Hara, the Evil Inclination each of us carries, is really the ancient’s concept of Ego. I believe this because there is a statement in The Ethics that says “Without the Yetzer Hara, a man would not build a house or have a child.” A house and the stuff you put into your house is really an extension into the world of who you are, and it says to the world, “I exist, and this is what I have.” That to me is pure ego. And what is more egotistical than having a child and pushing your genetic material into the future that also says, “I was here, and this is what I created.” That is also pure ego. But when the ego gets out of control, and striving for more acquisition tramples others and becomes your reason for being, one might come to sin because the ego has gotten out of control.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
May 16, 2015 B”H
27 Iyyar 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Bechukosai – Leviticus 26:3 - 27:34.
Haftorah: Jeremiah 16:19 - 17:14.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy had already begun speaking when I entered, and he was obviously sharing some story about congregants who had asked him a question regarding how Chabad continues to attract people while other congregations are declining. Later on, he also referenced a meeting of rabbis where one element of the discussion was on how to increase participation of non-affiliated Jews in the community.
In order to respond effectively, he referred us to Chapter Five, verses 13 and 14 of The Ethics of the Fathers which is currently being read. These two items deal with types of Jews who give tzadakah, and types of Jews who study. Each has four statements, and the benefits derived
for each is stated. But the last of each states that he who does not give and resents others who do, and he who does not study and resents others who do, are evil.
Mendy told the story of the Rebbe who responded negatively to a visitor who intimatedd said that a relative had distance himself from Judaism. The Rebbe’s feeling was that no Jew was ever disconnected from his or her Judaism even though he or she did not participate. All people have something within them that is searching for connection and spirituality even if they are not aware of it themselves. And this understanding on the part of Chabad rabbis is the reason Mendy gave for the success of Chabad: At Chabad, each Jew is viewed as spiritual being searching for his own spirituality even if he is not consciously aware of it yet. Viewing a person in that light is much better than viewing them as potential paying members.
Mendy commented that the reason the Chabad run community wide Challah event was so successful with three hundred participants from all over South Jersey attending though another attempt which was sponsored by an other Orthodox synagogue had limited participation, was due to the idea that the women knew that there would be no risk and felt comfortable and welcome. Chabad has a reputation of being open and welcoming, and people are willing to participate at Chabad functions because they know that.
He commented that the rabbis, in looking to increase membership, offered the idea of reducing religious activities in favor of more secular experiences. This Mendy said was the opposite of what people needed. Mendy insists that you give more, not less. People are looking to synagogue affiliations for spirituality first, and then opportunities to do good in the world.
While I agree that there are many who may be consciously seeking to increase their level of spirituality, and develop a relationship with the Transcendent, I’m of the opinion that neither of these goals can be achieved through rote recitation of the service. At least, that has never worked for me. A search for spirituality, I believe, is a deeply personal thing that can best be pursued in small group discussions of thoughts and feelings both with fellow seekers or with people who are deeply involved with spiritual matters and who can listen to doubts and concerns, and be a guide to the seeker. I also think that by reading the works of mens such as the Rebbe, Herschel, one can be inspired by ideas that you can incorporate with your own. And serious introspection is needed. The quest demands a suspension of disbelief and an openness that risks vulnerability.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch spoke of this parasha as a continuation of the Holiness Code, suggest that the Torah might be read in a historical and cultural context. She said that history and culture are on vertical and horizontal lines, and that we can better understand Torah if we consider what was going on in the surrounding cultures of the Middle East at the time the Torah was redacted. If I am not mistaken, she said that the redactors of the Torah played around with time because the time of the composition is not the time of the setting of the story. Some of the stories were ancient and handed down orally, some were contemporary, and some written about older times.
She reviewed the four concepts of the Pardis, the Garden, which explains the four different levels through which the Torah may be understood: the literal meaning, the interpretive/metaphoric meaning, the meaning to be extracted to show how Torah effects our lives, and the mystical meaning.
We began the Torah study by reading the list of behaviors that will bring blessings, and noticed that these general blessings covered all aspects of life. In fact, the blessings describe a utopian world. Still, it is made very clear that while the blessings are beautiful, there are conditions. It also makes it crystal clear that the blessing are in this life and not in any afterlife. This is the place of focus and it is our behavior, not our correct faith or our our adherence to any correct theology that is demanded by God.
I could not help but think about other faiths who put so much weight on correct faith as being the litmus test of membership in that religion, and their focus on rewards in the after life. These two areas of theological disagreement as to the proper religious focus of human beings, is what really separates Judaism from other religions.
Throughout the parasha, God addresses humanity as “you” which is collective and plural. The blessings cover all basic needs, and it is incumbent upon everyone to obey these commandments. And since there is a collective obligation, there is also a collective punishment. In short, each of us is responsible for everyone else, and all of these laws must be observed by everyone.
That collective expectations for collective rewards and punishments to me sets people up to fail because there will always be people who will march to a different drummer. I don’t feel it moral to punish an entire population for the missteps of a few. Certainly, Abraham felt the same way as I do when he negotiated with God over Sodom and Gomorrah. I fully understand that the Torah, in addition to being many things, is a guide book to correct behavior, stressing the idea that if the people consistently follow the law, an organized and safer society will follow. If not, chaos ensues.
The concept of Kal Yisroel which states that all Jews are responsible for one another, is embedded in this idea. Even the Romans used this concept of collective guilt and collective punishment retroactively when they martyred the Sages for the crimes of Joseph’s brothers for selling him into slavery. The brothers had never been punished for that crime. .
What we have here is a social contract that is meant to protect the group. We are being told to behave in the way God wants us to behave. We are to obey the laws, and by doing so, we will keep the community and relationships stable and organized. In order to do this, we have to be
growing and flourishing as a people. Again, belief here is not an issue. We may make it an issue because it is an issue to us, but belief is not an issue here. For the Jew, doubt and struggle are part of the natural process. Even “saints” like Mother Theresa revealed her struggle with doubt and faith, but struggle did not keep her from her life’s work.
In traditional Judaism, God’s existence and control is never in doubt. The opening of Genesis states that first there was a preexisting God who created all. God exists prior to creation.
The Torah does not worry if people believe in God. The Torah is all about behavior.
Rabbi Koch spoke not only about our responsibilities to one another, but our responsibilities to the planet. She mentioned an African frog that some believe has curative powers and because of this, it is being hunted and is quickly becoming extinct. What effect will this have on the environment? Years ago I came upon a story where the houses in an African village were falling in on the families because man inserted himself into the environment. In order to grow more crops, the farmers sprayed DDT (now illegal) on the crops. The crops were eaten by certain insects that now carried the poison. Birds ate the insects and promptly died. Along this food chain, an animal that fed on termites also started to die off so the termites, now flourishing and out of control, and ate the supports, walls, and roofs of the houses. The houses fell in on the occupants. You think about elephant ivory and rino horn. Both animals are being hunted to extinction, because there is no sense of responsibility or understanding of the interconnectedness of life on our planet.. If you have never seen the film “Avatar” I urge you to do so. The relationship between the planet and the indigenous population makes this very clear. Think butterfly effect.
We read that God promises not to “spurn” us if we do as we are told. The root of the word translated as spurn means detestable, or loathing, or can’t stand you. Following this, we are introduced to the curses which are read quickly and softly. These are really nasty, and the mystical number seven appears in the seven fold punishments to be meted out for disobedience.
These curses may reflect events that had happened in the history of our people prior to the redaction of the Torah. The curses are reflections of what people do to other people in times of chaos. It’s sort of a back story to remind the people of what has happened to their ancestors for turning away from the laws of correct behavior. The blessings are general, but the curses are specific, and it is important to understand that these curses are happening now in Nigeria, Sudan, Congo, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc.
Leviticus ends here.
“Chazak! Chazak! Venischazeik! (Be strong! Be strong! And may we be strengthened!
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
May 23, 2015 B”H
5 Sivan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Be-Midbar - Numbers 1:1 - 4:20.
Haftorah – Hosea 2:1 - 22.
Chabad: Mendy turned the bima over to his brother-in-law, a well know writer and editor in the Chabad world. Out of respect, I will also state that the following is what I think I heard him saying.
I have never been disappointed in listening to any of Mendy’s relatives speak because they are all consistently good speakers and interesting men. This speaker began with what seemed to be an obligatory joke about a group of men who went hunting with their rabbi. All shot arrows simultaneously, and then they gathered around the deer to see whose arrow took the animal down, one congregant said, “The arrow belongs to the rabbi because the arrow went in one ear of the deer and out the other.” Many laughed, but the deers in the audience were not amused.
He informed us that we were about to begin The Book of Numbers which begins with yet another census ordered by God. Here God directs Moses and Aaron to conduct it themselves and then agrees to let them get assistance from the heads of each tribe. There were several questions raised, namely, “Why assign such a task to elevated personages such as Moses, Aaron, and the tribe leaders?” Today, a census would be taken by people willing to accept part time work and minimum wages for this tedious effort. He also asked, “Why Shavuot is such an important holiday?” “What’s with all these numbers?” and “What’s the need for yet another census when one had been taken in the not too distant past?”
In answering the census question, the rabbi said that God’s choice of who would take the census was to teach us that each of us has intrinsic worth, and that we are worthy enough to be counted by Moses, Aaron, and the tribal leaders themselves.
In another parshah dealing with another census, the people were counted and were asked to bring a specific number of shekels to the Tabernacle based on an assessment dictated by God. This was also meant to teach that each of us has a value, at least a value that could be measured out in shekels. So Jews are instructed in the Torah that each person has value, and no one is worthless. This might be a good reference for classes on improving self-concept. The message is that God believes each of us has intrinsic worth.
Another thing to be noted from the secular world is that most people out side of your family or maybe a teacher or two if you’re lucky, don’t care about your personal worth or self- concept, but only about how you behave. But always keep in mind that even if it seems that no one thinks you have any worth, know that the Torah teaches that God thinks you have worth. That thought may have been of some value when my crazy sixth grade teacher made me sit between two massive glass windows while the other kids were told to get under their desks during an atomic bomb drill. The message from here was clear. Happily, I ascribed to her no power to tell me who I was or my worth as a human being.
I believe the rabbi said that while we celebrate Shavuot as the time the Torah was given to us, in reality, it was given to us over a period of time. But it was on this particular day that we were asked if we would accept it and obey its precepts. It may commemorate the idea that this is the first time that Jews became responsible for their behavior.
I think I remember that the message about why all the “numbers” might have been connected to the message of the Shavuot holiday itself. Prior to Shavuot, the rabbi said, the people had many choices, and could pretty much do as they pleased. We had choices because prior to the giving of the Torah on Shavuot, these laws were not mandated. Now with Shavuot, we were commanded to obey. This changed things. The people became Chosen to obey these commandments, and not everything was now to be a choice. I don’t recall his exact comments about this.
I believe that if every thing is a choice, then standards have to be situational, and under this system, morality has to float. Perhaps this census was taken to number the people who would now be told what was expected of them as the Chosen People, a people who were chosen to receive the moral law that would become the foundation bedrock for civilization. Perhaps it was important to know such numbers to see how many would fall away, or how many would cling to the law and grow with it. In the world we live in, we are given choices that seem to overwhelm us, and I believe that we become stressed out and ill both physically and mentally because there are just so many choices before us.
I’m also thinking that the reason Jews are more and more embracing Orthodoxy is that Orthodox Judaism demands that they stop and do what they are told. Orthodoxy takes choices away, thus freeing adherents take a breath from having to constantly choose. Certainly, Orthodoxy demands that one day a week you stop and do what you are told. No choices have to be made because the choices have been made for you. Now while there are some who will rail against this idea of turning your life over to a tradition and being told what to do, there are others who find that following Yiddishkeit frees them on some levels from the insane pace and voluminous choices one confronts daily.
On Shabbat, one knows what one must do. A day free of choices. A day for God, family, and friends. I think today’s human being craves this vacation once a week to replenish personal resources, be grateful, and take a breath from technology and weekly demands.
If one is raised in the Orthodox tradition and has breathed it in for a lifetime, one accepts the laws and limitations on choice, understanding their value. But if not raised with the beliefs, the sights, the sounds, the smells, and the tastes of Yiddishkeit, one must reach an introspective point in life when the realization comes to you regarding what is really of value and what do you really want out of your life?
I think he said that people who are in important roles have their choices limited for them because of who they are and their and the requirements of their position. He mentioned the Queen of England who must behave in a particular way and has no choice to do otherwise. He mentioned the astronauts who have limited options if they want to survive in space. No one is free if they do not have restrictions. This seems to be a paradox in need of further discussion.
The rabbi did say that our choices do matter, and we distinguish ourselves though our choices, but if you can do anything and make any choice, then it is possible that little matters, and that nothing is important to protect or defend because there few standards to uphold.
Note: I have to say that I feel great joy seeing my fellow congregants on Shabbat at Chabad, and what I see are generations sitting together praying, learning and listening, comradely with good discussions and laughter at the kiddish, etc. Today, a Chabad friend commemorated the sixtieth
anniversary of his bar mitzvah by chanting the Haftorah he chanted so many years ago. He worked on it for six months, and his efforts were rewarded in the glowing comments made by Mendy and other congregants when he finished. He did a wonderful job, and everyone was enormously proud of him for undertaking the task. Mendy challenged the rest of us to do the same for our own Haftorahs.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard HowardMay 24, 2015
6 Sivan 5775
Chabad : Shavuot Comments:
This is what I think I remember Mendy saying: Prior to the reading of the Ten Commandments, Mendy spoke of a congregant who had called him with feelings of insufficiency. From what he said, I surmised that this man had come recently back to Yiddishkeit, and had involved himself in study, regular attendance at services, and other activities. But for some reason he was confronted with thoughts that he was “insufficient” and called Mendy expressing feelings of failure because he realized how little he knew. Mendy did not respond to him on this weighty matter on the phone, thinking that the situation required some thought.
But he formulated his response by sharing the incident with us, and referred us to the Book of Ruth, the story of a Moabite woman who probably knew little about Judaism, but decided to throw in her lot with her mother-in-law, Naomi, and follow her back to Naomi’s family saying the famous words, “Whither thou goist, I shall go. And whither thou lodgest I shall lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God.” I believe the point he was making was that one doesn’t have to be a great rabbi, or teacher, or scholar to gain the respect or love or even make a great name for him or herself based on how much they know. Ruth originally was not Jewish, and yet she became the grandmother of King David, and the ancestor of the Messiah. Not bad for a shicksah.
If I were to speak to this man, I would tell him that his feelings of insufficiency are a gift because the awareness of how little you know is the thing that impels you forward to learn more. Of course one must recognize and accept the fact that no one can know everything, and whatever you do learn increases you, may inform or effect your behavior, and may benefit those in your immediate circle. The latter are all we can hope for in this life.
As Mendy spoke, I was reminded of my response to my father when I graduated college. My dad was a reticent man, a product of the Depression, and possibly suspect of people who wanted more out of life than the station in life to which they were assigned afforded them. The only thing I recall him saying to me upon graduation was,“Well, big shot, what did you learn?” He may have thought the question humorous, but I found it similar to the question “when do we eat?” at the start of a seder. I responded with “I learned just how much I don’t know.” That realization was what put me on to a life long love affair with literature, art, music, philosophy, history etc. And like Mendy’s caller, I began to learn Judaism or Yiddishkeit in my forties. I have learned a lot, and I know it is only a fraction of what is to be learned. Realizing how little you know is the first step on the great journey, and I wish each kid who gets a diploma would come to that conclusion.
Mendy then turned his attention to the reason we were in shul – Shavuot, and he invited us to close our eyes as the big Ten were read, and imagine ourselves standing at the foot of Sinai.
As we are asked at the Passover Seder to think of ourselves as if each of us went out of Egypt, so Mendy was asking us to imagine ourselves personally receiving the Law. I imagined myself seeing the scene with the fire and the lightning, hearing the shofar blasts, and feeling the rush of the wind. I also imagined standing next to some Chabad friends and rejoicing with them. Years ago when Mendy first invited us to fantasize this moment, I asked him if he would consider putting a red plume into his hat so I could find him among the vast sea of black hats. This time I’m going to ask him if the men and the women were separated at Sinai. There is the statement that to prepare for the event“a man was not to go near a women,” but that refers to sexual relations I’m sure. The Torah does not call for a machitzah.
As an introduction to the recitation of the Ten Commandments, he reminded us that we were chosen to receive this honor because we had met the three criteria God had set.
We already knew midrash about God taking the Torah to the great nations of the world, and each refusing for one reason or another. That midrash continues with God holding Mt. Sinai over the heads of the people, threatening to drop it if we did not accept His teachings. But this was the first time I had ever heard of the criteria that had to be met to become chosen for the task of obeying the laws, and being a “light unto the nations.”.
The first criterion related to the concept of Kal Yisroel. It seemed that God demanded that we become a unified people, that we recognizing the importance and the value of each other, and that we see ourselves as a unified people with a unity of purpose.
In the Shema we say, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” The unity of God seems to me to be the only theological construct upon which Jews across the Jewish continuum seem to agree. The Shema states the recognized unity of God, and if there is a universal piece of Jewish dogma, it is stated in the Shema. The foundational unity of God in Judaism is a given, so in my mind, I choose to translate the Shema as a reflection of the unity criteria God had set out for receiving the Torah. I translate it as: “Hear O Israel, we are one with the Ayn Sof, we are one with each other.” I think it is a good idea to insists that we constantly recognize the unifying relationship of the people with God, and our unity with each other. These should also be givens.
The second criterion had to do with following the Commandments without question.
I do recall a statement where our ancestors said in response that “We shall do and we shall hear,” which I think meant that we shall trust and act first, and learn and understand later. This requires faith, and I suspect that the criteria of “following” was for God to check out our capacity for faith. It would seem that faith and obedience are two important behaviors as far as God is concerned.
The third criterion had to do with who would accept the Torah. Again, there is the midrash of the great men and scholars saying that they would accept it, and God refusing them. Then the adults agree to accept it, and God refuses them, too. It is only when the adults promise that their children will accept it and live by it that God agrees to giving the Torah to the Jewish People.
This midrash anticipates the lyric, “I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way...”
Note: A wonderful image. A young father was standing by the door davening, lost in prayer, while his three year old daughter was sitting on his shoulders. Later, this same young man took his daughter over to his father and the three of them stood under the grandfather’s tallis as the Kohanim blessed the congregation.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
May 20, 2015 B”H
12 Sivan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parasha Nasso – Numbers 4:21 - 7:89.
Haftorah – Judges 13:2 - 25.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
Mendy opened up his talk by referring us once again the The Ethics of the Fathers which he said has nothing to do with theology, but has everything to do with behavior and how a Jewish person is to deport him or herself. Specifically, he cited Chapter 1 verse 12 which says:
“Hillel and Shammai received from them. Hillel would say: Be of the disciples of Aaron--a lover of peace, a pursuer of peace, one who loves the creatures and draws them close to Torah.”
According to Torah and Jewish tradition, Aaron was the peacemaker in the family, and Moses was the lawgiver/administrator. The character of peacemaker was what was most revered and valued in Aaron, and Hillel asks us to emulate him in our lives. But beyond just trying to make peace, we are to pursue peace. But it shouldn’t stop there.
I’m thinking that this admonition is to seek out those places where peace between people needs to be established and we are not absolved from that obligation. I am reminded of the statement that though the task is not ours to complete, we may not refrain from trying to complete it. I think that’s also from the Ethics. This idea of pursuing is similar to the Torah demand that we are to pursue justice as in “Justice, justice, you shall pursue.” It would seem that these ideas reinforce God’s expectation that we are not to “sit idely by on the blood of our neighbor,” and that we “burn the evil out of our mists.” We are to be actively involved in making peace between others, and doing what we can to make the world a just place. Hillel is saying that we are to get involved in more than just a superficial way.
But Hillel goes on to say that it is as important to love God’s creations as well, because if you love those with whom you are involved, you are at another level in the relationship because you become part of the relationship. The people you are helping come to know that you are truly with them and interested in them more than just in a passing way.
The modern therapist is one who is paid to make peace between and among people, but I do believe that there is a cardinal rule that the therapist remain separate from having a personal relationship with those he is helping. The therapist, like the judge in a court of law, must remain totally disinterested. Anything beyond disinterest might involve the therapist, judge, or rabbi in a difficult position where judgement might become biased. That said, there is probably a level of compassion that each must show to those in stress to establish an appropriate and trusting relationship. Conflict resolution must involve rational and dispassionate people, and the skilled “peace maker” must know how to move their clients away from the passionate to the rational.
Finally, Hillel adjures us ultimately to draw people closer to the Torah, but Mendy specifically cautioned us by saying that Yiddishkeit and Torah must never be diluted.
At that moment, other ideas began to push their way into my thoughts, and though I’m sure he reiterated that the Torah is a tree of life... etc, my thoughts moved to former students who
rejected their Judaism possibly because of how it was taught to them in Hebrew school and offered to them in the synagogue. These kids did not get watered down Yiddishkeit. Each was afforded an Orthodox Jewish education. I taught English in an Orthodox yeshivah, and I saw and heard how the student felt about what they were being taught and what they thought of their rabbis. I saw two of the students walk away and marry out of the faith. Nothing was diluted for them, and no one was willing to answer their questions or challenges with any response other than “Hillul Hashem” or blasphemy against God. And these were the Orthodox ones. I can tell you similar stories about both Conservative and Reform students, also raised in homes where there was something akin to more that three times a year attendance. Still, these kids also moved away from observance except when they are invited to Passover seders or the high holiday celebrations with their families.
It must be easier raising kids in a ghetto where there are no options. But if you find yourself straddling a secular society with a religious tradition, it is not easy. The students to which I refer rebelled, and continue to do so possibly because their religion was taught to them in such a way that did not give them a reason to see how the religious life was superior to the secular life. If some rabbis and parents take the position that it’s “my way or the highway,” they may see the backs of their kids as the kids walk away. I’ll just say this. Kids are taught, kids believe, and kids feel disappointment and betrayal when they find out that what they have been taught to believe and expect just doesn’t happen to them or to those around them. The promises are shattered by realities, and where is a teenager to go with that?
So Mendy spoke about the need not to dilute Torah, and I was someplace else.
He then turned his attention to the parasha and focused on the Nazirite vows. He pointed out that there were three books in the many books of the Talmud devoted entirely to a particular topic. One text deals exclusively with the laws of the Passover, the second deals with the laws related to the High Holidays, and the third book relates to the laws concerning the Nazirite. Briefly, the Nazirite vow involves no wine or liquor of any kind, never cutting your hair, and never attending a funeral or touching a dead person. Samson, in the Book of Judges, was a Nazirite from birth.
He spoke of a “nazir” who is a person who imposes a rule on him or herself for a given period of time or for all time for that matter. We impose such rules on ourselves during Passover when we get rid of hommetz for eight days so we will not be tempted during that long period of time. (We don’t get rid of food for Yom Kippur because it would be unthinkable to eat on that day.) We impose such rules on ourselves for a variety of reasons. We might want to lose weight, or we might have lost a bet. Or we might want to support someone who has become allergic to something. Whatever our reasons, it is a promise we make to ourselves that has little to do with faith.
I haven’t smoked since 1973. It is a self imposed rule, so does that make me a nazir?
But there are also other choices that I’ve consciously and deliberately made that are religiously oriented, and long term. For example, I chose not to eat tref in the 1980's, but that had more to do with finding a new identity than it did with theology. My specific behaviors in this world are often guided by laws in the Torah and Talmud that tell me to act or not to act. I choose to act this way. But are choices also vows, or are vows religious and choices secular?
The Nazirite is working out of a different frame of reference. While the nazir may have imposed the rule on himself and does not make himself more holier than he was before the committment, the rules of the Nazirite makes that person holy to God. It is a personal dedication of one’s self to God, and not to be taken lightly.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch informed us that the Book of Numbers was not a narrative, but a book of rituals with narrative interspersed. She made it clear that the placement of the Tabernacle in the center of the camp, made the Tabernacle and God the focus of the people’s lives. Rules for exclusion from the camp were discussed, and the word “Tuma” which is normally translated as “unclean” was translated as “ritual ineligibility” which seems closer to the intent of the Hebrew word itself.
In our discussion of Chapter 5 verses 6-8, there is presented the idea that a person can realize his or her own guilt, and this illumination of self-awareness of sinful behavior on the part of an individual, seems to be a new concept in the Torah. When God says, “Speak to the Children of Israel,” it is to be understood that this idea applies equally to all. We were referred to Leviticus 5:20 verse 6 where the phrase “breaking faith with the Lord” was written, and this is interpreted to mean “treachery” and/or “fraud.” The same word is used here. The word “intertextuality” was used to describe that idea where the use of a word or words in one part of the Torah elucidates or informs of the meaning of a word or words used in another part of the Torah. So it is with this idea of treachery against God.
The implication in the verse is that a betrayal of another human being is a betrayal of God.
I was thinking that because we are God’s creations, and that our souls are extensions of God into this world, betrayal of another human being and treacherous treatment of another person is tantamount to a sin against God. Each of us is in God’s image, is an extension of God into this world, is unique in history, and therefore is to be valued. I was also thinking that if you take away the value of a human being, you are devaluing God and denying His authority.
We then considered the steps one is to take towards making it right with the injured person and God. First, there is the recognition that the person committing the sin knew it was wrong. The second step it to publically confess or elocute, and the third is to make restitution. Expiation requires awareness, public admission, restitution, and a sacrifice. The confession must be public as a means of humbling one’s self. Our ritual confession on Yom Kippur in some ways follow this procedure.
It would seem that the Torah once again anticipates the requirements of any ten step program and what a person must do in a court of law to state his or her crime in order to get a reduced sentence.
The Hebrew word for confession is “veduee,” and we are asked to confess during Yom Kippur, in the daily service, before we go to sleep, and upon our death beds. As part of this confession, and request for forgiveness, we are asked to forgive others. No relationship can be repaired without making amends. If we ask someone to forgive us and they refuse, we must return to them two more times. If they do not forgive us after the third request, then they are the ones who need forgiveness for their intrangency.
The intension of the Ashamru prayer is that a realization is required of us.
The intension of the Viduee prayer is that we be engaged in the process.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
June 6, 2015 B”H
19 Sivan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parasha Be-Ha’aletcha – Numbers 8:1 - 12:16.
Haftorah – Zechariah 2:14 - 4.7.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
This past week, Chabad held its 11th Annual Founder’s Dinner, and Mendy expressed great appreciation for the roughly 362 attendees. In addition, he asked that anyone who wished to do so was invited to send him an email expressing not only what they liked, but what they disliked also so corrections might be made for next year. He also invited suggestions. Already people had commented to him about likes and dislikes, and he told a story about a bride who after the sheva bruchas cooked a wonderful meal for her husband. But her husband did not respond as she had hoped she would. The second meal received the same response, and she called her mother asking what she was doing wrong. But the mother could give her no advice at that time, and yet another meal went unpraised. The next meal she made was overcooked and burned, and she called her mother in tears. The mother said to serve it anyway since the husband wouldn’t like it either. And so she did, and the husband said, “This is wonderful. It’s just like the way my mother cooks.”
The point Mendy was making was that one man’s tough piece of meat is another man’s delight. Not everyone is going to agree on what is good, and not everyone is going to be happy.
He then turned his attention to the parasha to the lines describing a dark cloud that covered the Tabernacle by day, and the “fiery appearance” that covered it by night. And whenever the cloud was lifted, the Children of Israel would journey to where God wanted them to be, and when the cloud rested on the Tabernacle, they would encamp.
Immediately I had two questions: Why was it a dark cloud when there is no indication in the Torah that it was any particular color? And “If the Tabernacle had to be set up for the cloud to rest upon it, how did the Children of Israel know where to stop and set up the Tabernacle so the cloud could rest on it? Did the cloud hover above the selected spot? We are told that the cloud accompanied them as they moved on the journey, but we were then told that it was the the Ark that journeyed before them that searched out a resting place. (Chapter 10:33-34). My second question was answered with a further reading, but that answer just raised more questions such as how did the Ark that was being carried by people communicate that it wished to stop?
I braved asking the first question, and Mendy said it was a good question. But his response was not particularly satisfying intellectually though I understood from his later comments that a dark cloud was necessary for the particular message he and the sages wanted to teach.
Mendy said that the dark cloud is an ongoing reminder to us that there are less fortunate people in this world. In this instance, the Tabernacle is symbolic of God’s goodness, and the good life of plenty, and of the spiritual and physical satisfaction that many of us enjoy. But though life is good for some of us, we must remember that there are those of our people who do not have the benefits that we enjoy, and are in need of our support. We are to be aware that sitting above our heads is the potential of fortune reversal, that this dark cloud is that reminder, and we are to be mindful of that reality. He referred to the Ethics of the Fathers and reminded us that we are not to separate ourselves from the community which is a tendency for some who have achieved wealth
and status. Mendy also intimated that kindness garners rewards for generations that follow. He also referred to the breaking of the glass at the end of the wedding that was to also be a reminder not only of the destruction of the Temple, but also a reminder of the needs of others.
Contrasted with this dark cloud that was to remind us of our obligations to be kind to the less fortunate and generally to all, there was the fire that infused the cloud by night. The blackness of a desert at night, a darkness so dense that one cannot see one’s hand before them, could be terrifying if there is no moon to give light, and no stars to provide a sense of place. So the fire emanating form the cloud gave comfort and was a reminder that God was also there to comfort and enlighten them in the dark places.
I was thinking about the Pilar of Cloud that formed in front of our ancestors escaping Egypt, and the Pilar of Fire that kept the Egyptians from pursuing them as they crossed the Sea of Reeds to safety. But I don’t think the cloud on the Tabernacle day and night morphed out of the clouds that were at the sea. Just an interesting theory suggested by a scholar whose name I do not recall: The cloud by day and the cloud of fire by night might have been the pillars of smoke that could be seen in the sky over the eruption of the Island of Thera in the Mediterranean. It was the most massive volcanic explosion in recorded history and visible in Egypt. That experience, it is suggested, entered the consciousness of our ancestors, merged with the escape narrative, and became part of the story as it was passed down for generations.
Mendy expanded on acts of kindness, and how one act can have repercussions decades latter. This led to two stories. The first dealt with Miriam who was struck down with a spiritual disease for speaking against Moses. She was expelled from the camp for seven days, and the entire congregation did not move until she was healed and returned. The reason this happened was due to a simple kindness she participated in when she suggested to Bithia, Pharaoh’s daughter, that she could provide a wet nurse for her brother, Moses, so he would not be stressed. This concern for the infant’s comfort was rewarded by the people’s support.
Miriam’s affliction has always bothered me, because Aaron also was part of the conversation that took place, and while God afflicted Miriam, He gave Aaron a free pass. Nothing is said about Aaron’s punishment for the sin of evil gossip. This is not the first time Aaron is involved in questionable actions such as his participation in The Golden Calf incident. My thought is that this book was written by the priest, and they whitewashed their ancestor. There is a level of sexism and inequality imbedded in this story.
Mendy reinforced this idea of doing a kindness and reaping the rewards in unexpected places. He spoke of a Yeminite Israeli soldier newly assigned to Hebron who heard shots and wanted to investigate. His companion said they need not since there was always gunfire, but he insisted. He found another Israeli soldier that had been wounded by a sniper and saved his life. The young Yeminite refused any recognition, and swore the two men involved to secrecy. They agreed. But the parents of the soldier who was saved could not get the name of the Yeminite, so they put a sign in the window of their grocery store asking if anyone had heard of such a young man. A Yeminite couple came in one day, claiming that it was there son who saved the child of the store owners. The wife of the store owner fainted, and when she revived, she reminded the Yeminite couple that when they came to Israel twenty years ago, both husband and wife worked stocking shelves. This couple chose not to have a child because they could barely support themselves, but the store owners vowed that if they did have a child, they would supply this family with food for two years. The Yeminite couple conceived a boy, and this was the young man who saved their son. A kindness twenty years before resulted in the life of their son being saved twenty years later.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Frenkel began by telling us that two years and one month had passed thus far in the narrative, but our ancestors had no inkling that they had 38 more years to go. God gave them their marching orders which were very logical because who was to go first had to do with which tribe was assigned for carrying which part of the Tabernacle. It would have been foolish for the offering plates to arrive before the structure upon which the walls and curtains would hang.
After this brief introduction and after having read the description of the cloud by day and by night, she asked “Why it was so important to follow the movements of this cloud?” Other than it being God’s command, other responses had to do with the need for order to be established among the people and this could only be done in a lock step manner, the need to follow a symbol of order, the need to be aware of a higher authority than Moses, and the need to be aware of whatever this cloud entity was. This was a military camp, and when the order came to “bug out,” they did. The objective was to learn to trust God and to have faith. At times the cloud would rest on the Tabernacle for days or for weeks, and sometimes for a day or less according to tradition.
We were asked to consider those moments in our own lives of transition, and how those moments are often disruptive to what we might consider normal. Structure and obedience are two concepts that tend to lessen the stress of transitional moments. We were asked to consider the student who leaves a structured home and school for a college far away where it is assumed the student has the maturity to deal with this new freedom. Many cannot.
It seemed to me that our ancestors were being asked to develop a relationship with God, but in some ways they may have felt that they were being asked to exchange the obedience to Pharaoh for an obedience to God. God’s objective seemed to be to get them to do what they were told, until they came to rely on God to tell them what they had to do. I dare say it was something like the Stockholm Syndrom.
The relationship was definitely one where the people were to become dependent on God.
Like the Fort Bragg Sergeant charged with turning raw recruits into Marines, God’s first step was to break the people down, shatter their slave identities, and build those identities back up. Yes, they were to have a new master, but they would also have identities and values. But here, God, unlike Pharaoh, is teaching them a different kind of obedience.
But the people complain because they don’t see a reason or reward. Though they have seen miracles, and plagues, they seem to need more, and their attitude seems to be one of “What have you done for me lately?” There doesn’t seem to be any accumulation of benefits. They have been promised something, but nothing tangible is to be seen. Though they have the physical manifestation of God in the cloud each day, there seems to be an intense fear because God does not manifest himself enough for them.
We then looked at Chapter 10 verse one where God told Moses to make two silver trumpets. God then orders exactly how they should be sounded and what is to happen when particular blasts are heard. The Kohanim are in charge. But the text goes on to say that when the people are in battle against an oppressor, God will hear the blasts and the people will be recalled by God and God will save the people.
So the short blasts of the trumpets will remind God that the people are in need of military aid. It would seem that God needs to be reminded. The same thing happens with the rainbow. It is to remind God that He is not to destroy the world. How come God needs to be reminded? Did
God appear to periodically disappear and because of this, the people fell into fear of being abandoned and rebelled against Moses? I was also wondering about the use of the trumpets as
opposed to the use of the shofar as a means of gathering and informing the people. Perhaps the shofar was used for more prosaic events while the trumpets were used for events that were administrative and militaristic.
The Ark, the symbolic power of the Israelite Nation, goes out before the people to protect them. The people need to see something tangible before them in order to have faith.
To these people, the world was mystical, and magical. These were not a people who dealt with abstractions, but believed in what they could see. Their world was very concrete. The Tabernacle and the Temples were concrete manifestations of God’s Presence among them. When the Temples were destroyed, the sensory experience of have God in their midst was devastating. With no external edifice, it was thought that God had abandoned them. At this moment, the rabbis substituted prayer for sacrifice, and the religion moved from the concrete to the abstract. Now, people had to become literate in order to be good Jews so they could read the prayers. This switch in the manner of addressing God was a seminal moment in our development as a faith and as a people. This demand for literacy to be a “good Jew” now informed the development of the religion itself. The Judges, Prophets, and Rabbis take over.
In Chapter 11 we read that “the people began to complain: it was evil in the ears of HASHEM...,” but the rabbi said that the Hebrew was closer to “but the people were in mourning over themselves.” We were told that there is a period of time between the death and the burial where the mourner is exempt for all commandments. The person is in shock. Perhaps the reality of the desert and their fear of not finding food or their fear of being abandoned by God did cause them to express this fear out loud because their fear mechanism took over. Perhaps there was a collective mourning for themselves and perhaps they were collectively in shock and in need of being exempt. Some were more fearful than others and expressed this concern. These people are called “the rabble,” and such types will appear time and time again.
In His anger, God presses His default button and a fire burns against them at the edge of the camp. The formula for this is established: the people cry out to Moses, Moses prays to God, and God relents. This pattern will continue though out the wanderings. What is happening is that the people are separating, not coming together as one as God wanted. This begins a pattern that will also be repeated in the next thirty-eight years.
Moses, ever the reluctant hero, also complains to God about the burden he has been asked to carry, and says he cannot carry these people by himself. Moses is caught between an angry people and an ineffective God. He wants to submit his resignation. He never wanted the job in the first place, and doesn’t feel up to it. Moses also needs to learn how to be a leader. God also expected Moses to elevate himself and start making decisions and miracles on his own. So God tells him to select 70 elders from the tribes to share the administrative responsibilities. These 70 become the foundational number for the Sanhedrin, the court, later to be established in Israel. God gathers the elders and puts the spirit of Moses into them. Moses loses none of his own spiritual veritas, but the elders can now prophesy for a brief time.
I’m wondering if this Torah moment was what inspired the Christian writer to speak about the Holy Spirit descending on the people symbolized by little flames above their heads, causing them to speak in “tongues?”
God, it would seem, does not really know how to handle these people. He seems constantly surprised and disappointed by their behavior. It doesn’t seem to occur to Him that people have physical needs like food, water, etc. and are terrified of an unknown future. Sadly, His immediate response is to destroy, and then relent after Moses assuages Him through prayer and reason. Abraham tried the same. It seems you can reason with God and get Him to change his mind, but not until after He has inflicted some pain on those who displease Him.
Respectfully submitted,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
June 13, 2015 B”H
26 Sivan 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parshah Shelach Numbers 13:1 - 15:41.
Haftorah Joshua 2:1-24.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
He was talking about the spies when I arrived, that ten of them had given a bad report, and that Joshua and Caleb were the only two that believed that the land could be conquered. I believe he said that the two finally acquiesced to the majority, not because they agreed, but because they felt that the relationship among the tribes was more important than they being proved right. He then segued from the spy conflict and the idea about making the relationship more important than the issue, to relationships between husbands and wives in conflict, and how it is more important to think of the relationship first rather than proving right or wrong. Ultimately, the lesson here is that it is important to think about others.
I can understand Mendy’s concern about relationships being important and relationships being injured where there is conflict. That said, there are issues that are so important to individuals, that the health of a relationship could turn on both agreeing on a particular issue when a crucial value of one party might be at stake. Husbands and wives negotiate and come to agreements, and trust that each will abide by that agreement. But if one suddenly goes against that agreement, and the agreement has been something that was sustaining in the relationship, one party might not want to give up that very important component for the sake of the relationship.
In considering how relationships were maintained, Mendy made reference to the masculine and feminine sides of human nature that are contained in each of us. He urged the men in the congregation to allow that aspect of their feminine natures to come forward when in conflict with one’s wife, but because it is that aspect that is softer and more attuned to hearing the problem rather than imposing a solution on it which is very definitely part of the male nature. To reinforce this, Mendy made reference to how names in the Torah are changed at a significant moment in a person’s life. He referred to Joshua receiving an additional “yod” to his name when he assumed leadership. That letter change the pronunciation. He also asked us to recall Sarah’s name which originally was Sarai. The midrash teaches that the “yod” that was taken from Sarai to make it Sarah, was transferred to Joshua’s name and with that single letter came feminine qualities such as compassion that Joshua would need as the leader of his people.
Our next focus was on the regulations regarding the separation of the Challah. I did not know that the piece of dough and only that piece of dough separated from the larger mass of dough that will become the bread, is called the “Challah. But the word is now used to describe the loaf of bread that is used for the Sabbath, though technically, everything not that separated piece is really only bread. Note: the use of one part of something to describe the whole is a figure of speech called metonymy. Eg. Twelve sails in the harbor means twelve boats. The section of dough separated for the priests gives its name to the entire bread. Forgive the digression.
The question to the congregation was, “Why not just give the four, dough, eggs, water, and yeast to the Kohanim and let them bake the bread at their convenience?” “Why not give them the finished product?” We were told that the finished product was not given because the baker would have to discern between good and bad loafs and perhaps give the bad or burnt one away.
The raw materials were not to be given because then there would be no investment of one’s self in the creation of what would ultimately be fulfilling a mitzvah. But when you gave the dough, you were fully invested in the preparation, and thinking about others. In this instance, probably the preparer’s own family and certainly, the Kohanim.
I have a lot of questions about logistics. Did the woman of Jerusalem know how many Kohanim there were so they could prepare enough? Certainly there were fewer Kohanim then members of the other tribes, so how much challah did they have to prepare? Was there a division of labor among the women, and did each have to come from all parts of the city to deliver the dough to the Temple? I’m assuming that the wives of the Kohanim were exempt from the mitzvah of separating the challah or were they? Since the Kohanim were centralized in Jerusalem, was the mitzvah incumbent only on the wives of the tribes living in the city? What about the wives living miles away. Was the challah still symbolically separated and given say to the poor?
Congregation M’kor Shalom: We started with the blessing before studying the Torah as we always do, and then we discussed the blessing that we are to say upon getting up in the morning: The Modeh Ahni which is translated as “King of Life and Existence who returned into me my breathing soul – great is your faithfulness.” We spoke of how often reflexive verbs are used and how they indicate something coming back on us. In the case of this prayer, it is the soul that is returning with the breath of life.
Rabbi Koch also reminded us once again that the title for each parasha is the first substantive word we encounter. In this case it is “shelachlech” which translates as “send for yourself.” The action is in the reflexive mood. In this mood, you are both the subject and the object. Je m’appelle or Yo me llamo both translate as “I call myself...” The verb “go” in Hebrew, lech lecha (I think) translates as the reflexive “you take yourself...” The reflexive puts you into an internal process.
The parasha opens with God giving the order to spy out the land, but there is a midrash that God does not want to send in spies, but the people prevail upon Moses and Moses prevails upon God to let them go. So God leaves the decision to Moses. God is giving them the land, but the people insist on scouting it out. “Latour” in Hebrew means to scope out or to spy on.
God, in the midrash, is annoyed that the people still want to scope out the land though He has said he would give it to them. God sees the big picture, but again, doesn’t recognize that there are needs that are big to the people. He took them out of Egypt to freedom, and is surprised and annoyed that they are demanding clean water and food. It seems he is a good micro manager when it comes to the specifics of worship rituals and sacrifices, but not so much with human needs. Is agreeing to let the spies go another test? Are the people being set up to fail?
The chiefs from each tribe is selected to go. Caleb is from Judah, and Joshua is from Ephriam (Joseph). These are the two tribes that later become dominant.
Verse 17 describes it as a good land, but well fortified. This will not be “a gift.” This is a land for which they will have to fight, and the question is this: Is a gift something for which you must fight? Is this a gift at all?
There is a learning process the people must experience to become a people. Because they were slaves for so many years, they need to relearn how to function again as a unified and independent group. Parents are the ones who are obliged to teach their children how to function independently. In Genesis, God is seen making clothing for his first children, and in Prophets, He is spoken of as a mother. In Numbers, Moses uses the image of himself as a nursing mother. The Divine encompasses both male and female as do we.
When coming out of Egypt, God did not send them on the most direct route to the Promised Land because that road was fortified and these newly freed slaves would have been cut down. They first had to transform themselves from a unorganized rabble into a unified army that could and would, fight. They had to learn to create systems of justice. It took two years to accomplish this. But the Promised Land is problematic because there were other people there. Indeed, this was a very fertile land, a land with massive grapes, with many goats, date trees, etc., and definitely worth fighting for. The term “milk and honey” does not refer to milk from cows, but from goats. The honey does not refer to bees, but to date syrup.
The spies are gone for forty days, which is a term used in the Torah to indicate a long time, and two say we can do it, and ten say we cannot. But whatever was decided, there would be war.
The rabbis came up with categories for war, and war was part of our history. The rabbis distinguished between religious war, and war that had no religious obligation. If you we were going to go to war, it had to be justified. The continuation of the people is justified. So what’s the giving if you have to fight for it?
The spies relate that the Canaanite gods no longer protect their people. They’ve lost their “shade” or protection. Reference to “shade” in such a climate has at its core a protective note. In this society, and perhaps in any ancient militaristic society, if you are unable to defend what you have, you deserve to lose it. Ancient societies came and went. The Assyrian Empire rose, expanded through invasion and occupation, over expanded, and collapsed, and withdrew until the next group replaced them. Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, all went through the same process and disappeared eventually. In each case, one might conclude that their gods abandoned them, and that made them ripe for the pickings.
Menolotry is a concept that recognizes that as monotheism was developing, there were still other gods in the neighborhood who were worshiped and whose existence was recognized. “You shall have no other god before Me,” is clearly a recognition of this phenomenon. You have your gods and we have ours. It was not until Isaiah that full monotheism enters. Menolotry recognizes that there may be other gods, but Jews must not worship them. “Who is like you among the gods?”
God gets angry (surprise, surprise) at the spies reports, and is about to take his revenge when Moses prays using the thirteen attributes he learned about in Exodus. God told him in Exodus that if he uses these appellations in his prayer, God would relent. This God does, but not before wiping our the ten leaders who gave the bad report (surprise, surprise) and declaring that the entire nation had another thirty-eight years to wander and get their act together. Of course, the entire generation that came out of Egypt would have to die except for Joshua and Caleb.
The time to fight had passed, and when those Israelites who realized the mistake went into the land, they were severely trounced. God was not with them.
Historically, what might have happened? We had to fight and dispossess others. So what was the gift?
As I said before, God sees the big picture. To God, promising the land was to Him as if he had already given it to them. He decreed it was theirs, (big picture) but the fact that other people were on it and the Hebrews would have to fight for it to possess it was not a factor He considered as being relevant.
Of course, one might interpret the “gift” as God inspiring us to do for ourselves and grow up. God is a good parent who wants us to do for ourselves and be independent. A second gift is the recognition that conquest comes through expansion and conquest of super powers. But as they collapse on themselves and return to their original roots, they leave power vacuums that allow small groups to grow up and become independent.
At one point in history, the Egyptian Empire enslaved the land of Canaan, and when it was there time to restrict themselves, they left a vacuum in Canaan. It is theorized that there were Israelites in Canaan at the time of Egyptian restriction, and during one of these retreats, these Israelites took advantage of the vacuum and came together to build their own empire which began with Saul, then David, and finally with Solomon under whose guidance the empire flourished and reached its Golden Age. Then the Assyrians came. There are those who claim that there were no Israelite tribes in Canaan at the time, but disparate groups came together to form an alliance and called themselves the Hebrew People.
I do not have problems with theories about Biblical historical origins. In fact, I enjoy reading and thinking about them. I even agree with some of them. But I do despise those self-hating Jews who would happily use these theories to de-legitimatize the Jewish People and Israel. Such theories and the scholarship that support them are often used by self-hating Jews, and other anti-Semites under the guise of anti-Zionism, to give credence to their views that Israel should not exist because it was taken from the indigenous Canaanites. Such people see the Arab Palestinians as the descendants of the Canaanites. Well to those people I say this: If in fact the Hebrew People originated as separate tribal groups living in Canaan who came together to form the Hebrew People, they were still as indigenous as the Jesubites, and any other Canaanite people who inhabited that land. Jews can claim the land based on their own origins there. Also, Arabs starting arriving in Palestine in bulk after the Jews came in the 19th Century, drained the swamps, and provided them with agricultural opportunities. Before the Jews returned, it was a wasteland, that was of such little value, that the nations agreed it could go to the Jews as a homeland.
I noticed on the face of one congregant at the Torah study, a smug smile when this theory suggested that the Jews had no Divine Manifest Destiny and did not escape from Egypt. I have always felt that he would sooner see Israel dismantled than see Arab Palestinians inconvenienced. I do believe this theory gave him and those of his “peace at all cost” cohorts some justification for the stance they take.
Respectfully submitted,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
June 27, 2015 B”H
10 Tammuz 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parshah Chukkat - Numbers 19:1-22:1.
Haftorah - Judges 11:1-33.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
We have once again returned to the story of the Red Heifer which is a cow that has no blemish on it, no older than three, (I think) and has never come under a yoke. In all of the recorded history of our people, there have only been nine such red cows born. The parasha sets out a very complex recipe for how this animal is to be killed, what is to happen with the carcass, what items are to be burned with the cow, and especially, how the ashes of this animal was to be combined with water and used for a rite of purification for those needing to be cleansed after being associated with a corpse. The dilemma here is that anyone who is associated with the preparation or the implementation of this cleansing ritual, is made impure himself. This mitzvot or commandment has never been explained, and it was carried out until the Second Temple was destroyed.
Mendy told us that there was a midrash that tells us that Solomon was given the reasons for all the mitzvot in the Torah, except this one, so the only response Mendy has to explain it is that we must wait until the Messiah comes when all will finally be revealed.
He then proceeded to remind us that there are three types of laws in the Torah. The first type are those laws that we would have come to on our own such as “Don’t murder,” or “Don’t steal.” There is logic to these commandments what we can easily see. The second group are those that we cannot see at first, but are laws that we are told to do because they are good for us. Once we do them, we can see the value in them. An example is resting on the Sabbath. We came to understand the need to rest and refresh one’s self. And the third type of commandment are those where there is no logical explanation and no way we can understand why they are given. The law regarding the red heifer and not mixing linen and wool fall into this category.
The interpretation Mendy gave was enlightening though it did not explain why the commandments were there. Mendy said that we were to act on such laws simply because God said we were to act on those laws whether we could understand or rationalize them. “Just do it because I said so!” Seems to be the message.
One key idea Mendy shared was that if you act only on mitzvot that are reasonable or can be rationalized, eventually you will rationalize not performing the mitzvah.
The first category list laws that are good for creating a just society that would be composed of righteous and compassionate people. There are other instances in the Torah where we are asked to do, and the understanding will come from the doing. Those requests seem to fall in with the second category. But this third category demands that we act without understanding or agreement. This week, the Supreme Court ruled on same sex marriage which contradicts Biblical tradition. (A man shall cleave to his wife.) So I got to thinking about laws in Leviticus that call for the “not suffering a witch to live,” the stoning of a disrespectful son, and the condemnation of homosexual acts and the killing of those involved. These are harsh punishments, and I suspect , that the ancients might have viewed these acts as a threat to the established order they were trying to create in this new society. While and I do not know if these punishments were implemented or not, I do know that these acts today still bring death to people in extreme religious and less compassionate societies.
But Judaism is an interpretive religion, and though such harsh laws may have been put in place to discourage such acts, we are taught that there were so many fences built around certain laws, these laws could never be implemented. One might consider these “fences” an end run around God’s intentions, but let’s face the facts. Judaism has become a religion of justice, compassion, acceptance, and love because the rabbis did do end runs around the harshness of specific Torah laws so they could never be implemented. Go Rabbis! Yes, there is the death penalty in the Torah, but the Sanhedrein was called a “killer court” if it condemned anyone to death.
We are taught that Judaism thrives in the home and in the family. The Supreme Court, has officially sanctioned and redefined the concept of what a family is, though American society has been doing that for decades. So if two men or two women, good decent people, observant and committed to creating a Jewish home, marry and raise a family together either through adoption or impregnation, becoming a secure unit and part of the community, how will traditional Judaism treat this union? Isn’t this type of family most desired in Judaism? For some rabbis, this will not be an issue because they do not see the Constitution or the Supreme Court as having a say in what a marriage should be.
I do not know any Jews who feel their own marriages are threatened by gay marriage. I know Jews who are uncomfortable with the idea, but it is more of a visceral response than a rational response. People need to talk this out, because there are many Jewish people who are gay and should not be turned away because of their way of life. I think we can agree that gayness is not a decision, but is part of a person’s inherent being. In fact, the only decision involved is choosing not to act on the inclination. But if one believes that God directs a person’s life, and has a plan for each of us, then it seems that it would be very cruel indeed to create someone in this way and then condemn this person for being what God intended. I do not understand people who wrap themselves in religion, believe God creates people as they are, and deny those very same people their rights to happiness. Now that’s not reasonable.
Mendy finished off with a story about the Rebbe. It seems that a few weeks before he was to go to Australia for two years, the Rebbe’s wife passed away. Mendy wanted to stay in the community and comfort his Rebbe, but a particular teaching of the Rebbe told him he had to leave. The story dealt with the Red Heifer and its ashes. The Rebbe made it clear that the ashes were symbolic of death and of the bitter things we encounter in life, while the water has always been a symbol and source of life. These two mixed together was a reminder to us that life is made up of moments of profound sadness and moments of joyous living. And we are to go forward despite the ashes of death and loss. Mendy went to Australia with this message and a lighter heart.
I recall another teaching about death that insisted that the grieving parents go out and build something positive to give to the world in memory of their lost child.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Koch is no longer with M’kor, and Rabbi Frenkel was elsewhere. So one of the congregants led the discussion group. When I walked in, he was discussing the mystery as to why there was this ritual with no rational explanation, other than it reflects the fear of living in close contact with the dead. The ritual was actually a redemption process where you were impure and now you became pure again. There were questions about how much water was actually needed, and how many heifers were needed in order to address the needs of such an enormous number of people. There were lots of people dying normally over the thirty-eight years of additional wandering, and lots of people dying from plagues God sent.
My thoughts about this prohibition of being associated with anything that was dead stem from my idea that the most recent experience of our ancestors at this moment was that of being in Egypt where the focus of living was on the afterlife. It is possible that our ancestors, to separate themselves from this society, moved in the opposite direction and considered anything that was associated with death as something that defiled the person.
The mixture of the ashes from the red heifer with water were referred to as the “waters of lustration” or separation. The separation was the pure from the impure.
I was wondering how the Chevra Keddishah, the people who make up the traditional burial society become pure after touching the dead. I inquired, and was told that there were no rituals of purification demanded after the destruction of the Second Temple. Some in the burial society may choose to go to a mikvah, but even that is not required. Basically, I was told, we are all in a state of impurity. That condition seems to be acceptable and will change when the Messiah comes and makes everything right.
The process used by the priests to create the waters of lustration was not an easy process and not everybody could do it. It was suggested that this was an attempt at “job security.” The priests were very much needed by the congregation. There seems to be an overwhelming concern about being unclean. The slightest contact contained the essence of contamination. In fact, the person had to be segregated for seven days. This is not unlike what is done today in the event of exposure to a disease. The person is put in isolation until it is determined that there is no infection. Things must be sanitized. This was brilliant from a biological point of view, and could be seen as the first medical attempts at containing any disease that might be spread from touching a corpse. Much like they treat people who have come in contact with ebola. There is no indication in the Torah as how the ancients disposed of corpses.
I suspect that they were buried quickly in the sand and the people moved on. I once read that stones were placed over the grave to keep wild animals from digging. I believe that it was traditional for people visiting the grave to put stones on it to maintain it. That’s where our tradition of placing a stone on a headstone comes from. We are symbolically maintaining the gravesite.
So thirty-eight years have passed according to the story, and the people fall to complaining that there is no water for themselves or their livestock, and the complainers wanted to go back to Egypt. Again, they turn against Moses.
So it would seem that nothing much has changed with the generation that were born in the desert. Yet like the older generation, they also complained So it is either true that complaining is in the Jewish DNA, or this story is misplaced and belongs in Exodus. I, for one, can understand the complaint. Again, God does not understand that people need water and food to survive, and He has a responsibility to provide this for them. He took them into the desert for forty years and they came to rely on His care. When they are parched and starving, what else are they to do other than go to Moses and complain. So God tells Moses to talk to the rock, and Moses, in his anger at the Children of Israel, forgets the commandment and hits the rock in error. God is annoyed at both Moses and Aaron because by hitting the rock they did not sanctify Him in the eyes of the Children of Israel. For this slight, God tells them they are forbidden to enter the Land of Israel. It seems to me that God never feels sanctified enough and never get in touch with the basic needs of human beings. Not long after this, the people once again find themselves without water and food and speak against God and Moses. So the pattern continues. The people demand water and food, God gets angry. This time he sends fiery serpents and multitudes are killed. Moses prays, God tells Moses what to do, Moses does it, the people stop dying, and God is once again appeased.
Now I must say that the only time God gets angry is when the people seem to overtly rise up against Moses and therefore against God. But the reality is that the only times they rise up is when they have no food or water which is clearly God’s responsibility. By God not paying attention to the needs of the people, God sets up the situation where the people are forced to rebel against Moses. God must take some responsibility here.
I have always wondered why God instructed Moses to create a serpent made of copper and put it on a pole with the understanding that if the people looked up to it, they would be healed because they were looking up towards heaven. Why create a forbidden image when all they had to do was to look up to heaven for salvation. And then I once learned that this copper serpent was put into the Ark of the Covenant along with the scroll and the whole and broken tablets. It seems to me that there is something very ancient and very hidden in this tale.
There was a midrash that said that the women of the generation who first left Egypt did not die off with the men, but were left alive to tell the history of the people to the new generation. Perhaps that’s where they learned to complain.
Respectfully submitted,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
July 4, 2015 B”H
17 Tammuz 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Balak – Numbers 22:2 - 25:9.
Haftorah - Micah 5:6 - 6:8.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
He began with a salute to our country and his hope that we fully recognize how the rights granted to Jews here have enabled us to thrived and make meaningful contributions. He asked us to be cognizant of just how much we owe America for being a place where we can lie down in peace and get up in peace.
Yes, America still has problems, but I personally would want to live no where else, and if you judge by the numbers of people who continue to apply for visas and citizenship, most others feel as I do. Each of us owe a great deal to our ancestors for making the choice to leave wherever they were and come here.
Mendy then told us a story about a wonderful old scholar who lived across the street from his home in Crown Heights. This man was a great story teller, and produced records that Mendy and his friends bought and listened to over and over again. Each story ended with a moral teaching, and Mendy said that he would not tell us the moral of the tale he was about to tell.
This man sounds like a Chassidic Aesop.
The story Mendy chose to tell us was about a king who loved his subjects, and to prove that he loved them, he made it his business to travel to all parts of his kingdom to visit them. One day, it was announced that the king would be visiting very poor village. When the people of that village heard of the visit, they wanted to show their appreciation to him. But having very little themselves, they decide that they would build a wine barrel, and each family would bring some the best wine they had, pour it into the barrel, and that way the king would have a taste of the best they had to offer. All was agreed, but the story then focused on one man who decided that pouring out a bottle of his best wine, a bottle that could be sold to feed his family, was not in his best interests. So he decides to fill the bottle with water, thinking that the water will only dilute the wine infinitesimally and no one would be the wiser. So on the day when the king arrived, a great ado was made as the leaders of the town tapped the barrel for the king. And low and behold, a very light, pink water filled the king’s glass.
Mendy then posed a question: “How would you feel if you were the only one or one of the very few who had poured your best wine into the cask, and learned that you neighbors had poured only water?”
Like most responses after a teacher asks a question, there was a deafening silence, but after some prodding, one congregant said he would be proud of himself for doing what was right. Mendy, like any good teacher invited other responses. I braved the silence and said that initially, I would be pleased with myself and also annoyed with my fellow townspeople for not being honest and responsible. There were other answers. Then Mendy said, “Would nobody be angry?
Feeling good about yourself for being honest would probably not be the initial response for most of those who poured in the wine because such a response may seem too altruistic and make them appear foolish and gullible in the eyes of those who poured in the water. The more
natural response was to be angry. But responding with “anger” may make someone appear petty and unforgiving to those who are content with themselves for doing the right thing. People may be reluctant to say how they think because they do not want to appear less than how they want people to see them. The anger they may have felt is a secondary emotion, so the question to follow should be, “What emotion or thought underlies the anger you feel?”
If you think about it, the anger may be a response to the realization that you have been trusting in the good will of others, and then duped and betrayed by friends and neighbors. I think a sense of betrayal is a far more primary emotion that begets anger as a response. There may also be a sense of shame that you were so trusting and so innocent of guile. Both are reasons why anger is a valid response.
I think Mendy’s point in relating this tale was that when we act righteously and “pour in our own wine,” we are to be proud of ourselves for having acted well and honestly despite what others do or say. Our wine is really our investment of ourselves into the future.
I recall Mendy making a wonderful connection between this story about doing the right thing, and the story of Balaam who went to curse the Jewish People (which was the wrong thing to do), but could only bless them (which was the right thing to do). While I was aware of this wonderful and insightful connection, I do not recall it. It’s funny how important ideas just slip one’s mind. My apology to my readers. As you know, I cannot take notes.
But I do recall the following lesson: Balaam maintained that he could only utter what HASHEM said he might, so he says, “How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel.” This line was introduced by Mendy asking us if we should put a mezuzah up on a tent or on a trailer?
I felt the repetition of “tent” and “dwelling places” was a literary conceit where something is repeated for effect and importance. Mendy himself does this frequently.
Many, including myself, said that any opening that acted as a door might have a mezuzah, but we were told we were wrong because this line uttered by Balaam speaks to two different concepts. The rabbis teach that “...your tents, O Jacob” refers to the Jewish People when they were new and before they had the Torah as their moral guide. They were a people becoming. The words, “...your dwelling places, O Israel” refers to the Israel after they had been given the Torah and made complete. Only after they had the Torah, the Promised Land, and built the Temple, did they become permanent in permanent houses. Only permanent and complete dwellings need a mezuzah.
Mendy ended with a message that he seems to repeat often, and I really think that this message is at the core of all Jewish teachings. It is an invitation to see ourselves with a mission of entering into meaningful relationships, and doing what is right despite what other are doing around you. It is an invitation to walk with pride as a Jew and to treat each other with respect.
It is a shame that the congregation studies The Ethics of the Fathers only between Passover and Shavuot because this Talmudic gem contains all the words needed for behaving well. “Let every man’s honor be as dear to you as your own,” is a real piece of wisdom that one can absorb into one’s life easily. Hundreds of these bits of advice abound. This weeks Haftorah ends with Micah saying, “What does the Lord God require of you but to do justice, love mercy, and walk
humbly with your God.” I do believe that if you seek out for study those laws of the Torah that relate to developing sound relationships such as the Code of Holiness, and The Ethics of the Fathers and actually act on these laws/suggestions, you will become a very decent human being. Our ancestors handed down these messages to us with that purpose in mind.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
August 1, 2015 B”H
16 Av 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parasha Va-Etchannam - Deuteronomy 3:23-7:11.
Shabbat Nachamu
Haftorah: Isaiah 40:1- 26.
Chabad: This is what I think I recall Mendy saying:
Mendy began by informing us that it was the yertzite of the Rebbe’s grandfather who was the inspiration for the forward movement to reach out to unaffiliated Jews that Chabad began decades ago. In his memory, Mendy asked us to do a mitzvah such at put on tefillin, eat one meal that was kosher, or add something to our Sabbath observance.
He then proceeded to tell us of something he came across written by the Rebbe years ago that spoke to a key issue in the parasha today; the relationship between a parents and a child. Since Deuteronomy is a recounting of the story of our people in condensed form, this week had Moses reminding the Children of Israel of the lines, “...and thou shall teach them diligently to your children...” The “them” to which Moses was referring were the commandments given in the Torah and the request that you “... shall love the Lord you God with all you heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And all the words which I command you on this day, shall be in your heart...” These are what parents are obligated to teach their children: to love God, and to follow the commandments. To support this expectation, Mendy made reference to Moses proclaiming once again the Ten Commandments, with a focus the fifth, the one stating that we must honor our parents.
The Rebbe’s message was that we are to totally invest ourselves in our children’s religious education, and we are obligated to teach them through our actions. We are to model correct behavior.
A minor digression: I’m thinking of this idea of modeling correct behavior, and I’m thinking that the Jewish People exist for this same purpose. We were chosen to do two things on this earth: To teach the world of a loving and forgiving God, and to be “a light unto the nations,” which means we are to model correct behavior for the wider world, thus bringing them to the light of God’s law. Perhaps that is why we have been so hated throughout history. We are an ever present reminder that there are higher expectations on human behavior than just doing what is expedient and feels good at the moment. Get rid of the Jews, and you get rid of their God, and this God’s expectations for good behavior. We spoiled the pagan’s fun, and we’ve never been forgiven by those how followed them. This is probably one of the deeply rooted and out of conscious mind reasons for Jew hatred in Western Civilization.
The parent who drops his or her kids off at the shul, never goes in to services, or takes a class, is sending a very loud and silent message that this is for you, kid, not for me. That’s how children also learn. They observe and conclude. The silent message the parent is sending is that this Jewish thing is not important to me. Nine out of ten times, it won’t be important to the kid either. The Rebbe had in mind the opposite behavior.
Mendy honed in on Shabbat as an example of how parents might teach Yiddishkeit, and the and the centrality of importance in which his parents held it as a vehicle for teaching. If holy
means to elevate, his parent’s Shabbat dinner was certainly elevated and made separate from all the other dinners served in his home. The Shabbat meal was served in the dinning room, not in the alcove where they ate daily. The best cloth was put on the table, the good dishes and silverware were used, and the best food was reserved for that special day. Each child was involved with a physical job that made him or her part of the experience. Mendy did some mop work and also polished his father’s shoes.
A memory recalled: When I was little, I also took it upon myself to polish my dad’s shoes. This had nothing to do with Shabbat. What it had to do was my effort to please this man and getting a promised nickel. But what I recall from the experience was that he always seemed to point out the places I missed, and because of this, he would not give me the nickle. Perhaps he was trying to teach me that you got rewarded only for doing a good job, but I was maybe five, and started to conclude that I could probably never please this man. A silent conclusion which proved to be true even as an adult. After a while, I stopped polishing his shoes, and I stopped trying to please him. Mendy’s father also saw the parts Mendy missed, but he quietly redid the shoes without saying anything or making a little kid feel bad. If there were other occasions where I tried to please my father, I do not recall them.
While there were vestiges of Shabbat Yiddishkeit growing up in my home such as not being able to write on Friday night or to step only on the news paper covering the newly washed floor, there was not the spirit or warmth that should have been part of the experience. In looking back, I can honestly say that the Shabbat experience was not what I know it should have been.
I imagine Mendy’s Shabbat table as well as other Shabbat tables in the Chabad family having such warmth and spirit because not only is there ritual, but there is a genuine belief in God, an understanding of the meaning of Shabbat, and the meaning of the importance of relationships that are guided by Jewish law and values.
When I first decided to explore Judaism, I read books and pieced together what I thought a Shabbat should be. We had dishes that we used only for that day, we ate in the dinning room, fresh flowers that I brought home were on the white lace cloth, there were songs, highlights of the week shared, Shabbat presentations by the children, and delicious food. But I see now that while everything looked right, there was a spirit missing that could not be garnered from the books. This realization that spirit cannot be gleaned easily from a book as an adult, makes it more all the more imperative that we learn ourselves when we are young, believe ourselves, and teach our children early about the beauty of faith and rituals and the joyful spirit that needs to accompany them in order to fully realize what they can do for a family and the relationships among its members.
In concert with this obligation of parents to teach children as part of the relationship, Mendy referred us to the fifth commandment about honoring parents, because the relationship between parents and children must be one of respect if children are to learn and accept the laws that parents are required to teach. He made it very clear that parents were not to be their child’s friend because that blurs lines that must be maintained if parents are to be respected and in control. To learn respect, he said that we are taught that a child never sits in the seat of his parent, and he let us know that whenever his father visits, Mendy gives his father the seat at the head of the table where he normally sits. He said that a child must never call a parent by his or her first name, and that when he was a child, every adult was addressed as Rabbi, Mr., or Mrs. Again, the separation inculcates respect for the adult. Teaching is the objective, and children will discount the teachings of someone they do not respect.
In some way we got on the topic of whether or not the physical representation of the Ten Commandments is correct. Most of us think of two rounded tablets, but Mendy taught that the tablets were two feet long, two feet wide, one foot deep, and rectangular. He said something about Christianity having curved them, but I don’t recall if he said why they might have done that. Each was a rectangle and they are depicted that way on the great synagogue in Jerusalem. He also said that they could fit in the Ark of the Covenant, completely taking up its inner space.
This raised a question that I did not get to ask. My question was, “If the commandments took up the entire ark, how did they fit the broken commandments into it (which had to be as large as the second pair) the brazen serpent, and the scroll of the law?” After services, I asked Mendy and he said something like, “It all fit in. It was a puzzle.” Since I firmly believe that two things cannot occupy the same place at the same time, I have no clue as to understanding what “it’s a puzzle” means. But if I think of this phenomena as a metaphor, I can squeeze my brain around the idea.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
August 8, 2015 B”H
Av 23, 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Ekev - Deuteronomy 7:12-11:25.
Haftorah: Isaiah 49:14 - 51:3.
Chabad: This is what I think I heard the guest Rabbi saying:
After Mendy offered the best of luck to a young man who was taking a leave from his second year in medical school to study at a yeshivah, he introduced his sister’s husband to us and turned the bimah over to him. This is what I think I recall his sister’s husband saying: His name is also Mendy. I think most Chabad rabbis are named Mendy.
He began by telling us that as he was rereading the parsha in preparation for his talk, and he had a realization that while Moses was speaking directly to the Children of Israel, he was also speaking directly to us, and that we should read the Torah with this in mind. This is a timeless document, and we need to have an intimate relationship with it if it is to carry weight in our lives. We are to read it as if God wrote it directly for us. I am to read it as if God wrote it just for me.
And why should this be a surprise? After all, aren’t we taught that we all stood at the foot of Mt. Sinai when Moses came down with it? But it will be a new mind set if we actually open it up and see it as a personal communication between us and HASHEM.
This good rabbi from Basking Ridge said that while there is much to learn, he was focusing on two ideas. The first was that we are to always remember that we were homeless wanderers with a history of slavery in our past, and that HASHEM’s love for Israel is eternal.
We were to recall our past because if we remember where we come from, we would not become arrogant when we developed the land and became rich from its bounty. We were to always keep in mind that it is HASHEM that is the source of our success.
Paraphrasing President Obama when he spoke to business owners, “You didn’t build this yourself.” Of course he meant that the business owners didn’t put in the infrastructure that the business needs to function, and that the government deserves some credit. We need to appreciate and recognize that there are forces in or lives that contribute to our success and that without them, we could not easily function. This same idea possibly gives rise to the reminder in The Ethics of the Fathers that we come from a maloderous drop, and that our destiny is the dust. Now if that doesn’t sober up an arrogant person, nothing will. Perhaps that passage should be sent out to The Donald. Can you picture the White House with huge gold letters over the portico spelling out TRUMP? Would or could The Donald have become TRUMP without his father’s millions? But I digress.
The second focus of his talk dealt with Israel, the land. Israel, according the this parsha must be central to our lives. He used something of a syllogism to reinforce this concept: God loves Israel. You love God. You love Israel.
One of the few concepts I recall from math class is that “things equal to equal things are equal to each other.” I’m having a sense that this is what he meant. If Israel existence for the Jewish People was central to God’s purpose, Israel’s continued existence and well being should be central to ours. It is vital for all Jews to understand (and for non Jews as well), that Judaism has
its own trinity: God, Torah, and Israel. A possible forth, making it a quartet is “chosenness.”
Being “Chosen” to “be a light unto the nations,” gives us our purpose. Our concept of God gives us Ethical Monotheism whose core states that God’s primary expectation is that we treat one another well. Our Torah is a guide book of laws and stories that informs our daily living and directs us to righteousness, and Israel, the Land, is our spiritual home.
He made reference to some members of his congregation as having no clue as to what this relationship between Jews and Israel should be. He spoke of an Afgan restaurant frequented by many in his congregation that was inviting patrons to support a Muslim organization that was proven to be funding Hamas. Happily, a congregant did confront the owner who claimed innocence of the fact. I do not recall the details or the connection he was making with the restaurant, and awareness and connection to Israel that certain members of his congregation lacked, but I do recall it was interesting and relevant to his overall message. All in all, a good drush.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
August 15, 2015 B”H
30 Av 5775
Torah Study: Parashas Re-eh - Deuteronomy 11:26-16-17. Numbers 28:9-15
Haftorah: Isaiah 66:1-24. Samuel 20:18, 42.
Chabad: Mendy was away at a conference, and Josh took the bimah. This is what I remember Josh rapidly saying:
Josh reminded us that while the entire Torah covers forty years, Deuteronomy covers the last five weeks of Moses’ life. So it is a book filled with laws and exhortations given by a man who knows he is about to die. It’s his last desperate attempt to review for these people, this generation that is about to enter the Holy Land, what they must know in order to remain safe and please God so God will allow them to live on the land in peace and in plenty. Josh continued by informing us that there are two ways must one approach learning the Torah: a recognition of the place in history, the placement of core ideas, and what is happening at that moment in time, and also, that particular parasha’s relationship to the parasha before it and after it.
I think those were the two. He really speaks fast, and infuses his commentary with non lethal self deprecating asides and humor. Josh is engaging both on an off the bimah, he’s always informative, and it’s always a pleasure listening to him. Josh and people of his generation reinforce the fact that age does not mean that they do not have valuable information to share. Go Josh.
He made us aware that right in the center of Deuteronomy was Re-eh, and right in the center of Re-eh were the laws on what animals are kosher and what are not. He invited the congregation to address the question as to why these particular laws become the cornerstone of Deuteronomy? There were several responses, and Josh accepted all and pointed out how those responses were valid even though they were not what he was looking for.
Had I chosen to answer, I would have said that considering what is kosher and not kosher makes you choose God’s expectations for you at least three times a day, and that keeps God in your head. With food as a constant reminder that God wants you to follow His law, it is hoped that you will recognize God’s tap on your shoulder at other moments. Seeing and touching a mezuzzah is also a constant reminder of how God wants you to act. Also, I might have suggested that keeping kosher instills self control and teaches that you cannot have everything you want and we are to just recognize that as a fact of life. And I also might have suggested that keeping kosher three times a day at minimum, is a choice that elevates us in our choices of foods and how and where we might consume that food.
Josh’s take on the centrality of keeping kosher dealt with what he called engaging in the physical world. To reinforce the importance of animals, our relationship to them, and to the physical world, he made it very clear that our Torah is printed on the skins of dead animals. The most venerated object in every synagogue in the world, is composed of animal skins stitched together. He then went on to speak of the animal soul that is in us, the part of us that wants to eat and to sleep, and to behave without restraint. He compared this to our spiritual souls, that part of us that is composed of some aspect of God whose purpose is to elevate the animal soul so together they might move into the physical world, engage it in a meaningful way, and make it a better place. He asked us to whom we pray when we pray, and made it clear that the words of praise are not directed to God, but are directed to the animal soul within in the hope that these words will help it
recognize its need to be elevated. The goal of prayer, from the moment we get up till the moment we go to sleep, is to engage our animal soul and entice it to the higher spiritual plain by informing it of what God expects of us. We must do this repeatedly, since this animal soul has a very short attentions span, and is really only interested in self gratification.
This idea really resonated in me, because I find the constant praise to God of the service not satisfying. And I’ve always imagined God being quite bored if listening at all. I certainly am. But the idea that we are not speaking to God, but speaking to our animal soul, reminding it of God’s will, and expectations in the hope that such prayers will wake it out of its focus on itself, fascinates me. This is a new awareness, and can be a new and a positive refocusing of my mind when I pick up the sidder. From time to time, I have not read the words on the page, but spoke honestly to myself, and frankly, I have always found this inner dialogue satisfying and of great benefit to my spiritual growth. Perhaps all along I have been talking to my animal soul, trying to elevate it and didn’t know that I was doing something that was part of our tradition.
He pointed out that the marks of a kosher animal were a cloven hoof, and the ability to chew it’s cud. And then he said something that was pretty mystical. I think he said that we are to think of ourselves as a kosher animal, and that when we look at our cloven hoof, we see God’s light coming up out of the physical earth between the separation. When we chew our cud, it is symbolic of us not acting rashly, but thinking about something over and over again. As a cow might ruminate, bringing up its food three or four times to extract the most benefits from it, so we are to think and rethink what we see and hear before we act. He also said that some of the angels in heaven are represented with faces of animals and humans. He may have said this to impress on us the importance of the animal world in both our physical and spiritual worlds.
And somewhere along the way, and I do not recall the connection, he told us of the story of the widow and Elisha, the prophet. On the surface, Elisha performs a miracle by instructing the widow to use the one small cruise of valuable oil she owns to fill the empty pots that she and her neighbors own. This miraculous supply of oil is sold and she is out of debt. The more mystical or metaphoric interpretation of the story is that the woman has reached a point in her life where she herself is an empty vessel and life has little meaning. The cruise of oil is the one thing left in her life that is a mitzvah in which she still finds satisfaction. To the rabbis, that single small mitzvah symbolized by the oil, is her lifeline and she can reignite the spark in her existence by using that mitzvah, and spreading it around. I imagine that her neighbor’s vessels are symbolic of how she will effect others. I have been in groups where one candle is used to light another candle, and that to light another. Same principal. It also reminded me of the teaching that one small mitzvah can lead to other mitzvahs that can lead to a lifetime of mitzvahs.
If one looks at the life of Jesus, one sees many parallels to the life of Moses. If you look at the Prophet Elisha, you will see Jesus performing many of the same miracles. Coincidence or direct borrowings?
Respectfully submitted,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
August 22, 2015 B”H
7 Elul 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Shoftim- Deuteronomy 16:18-21:9.
Haftorah: Isaiah 51:12-52:12.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
When I arrived, I knew something was going on. There were more black hats and beards than usual, and there were kids of all ages in seats, playing on the floor, and running around. In short, it was another beautiful Shabbat at Chabad.
Mendy got up to speak, and he told us something of the week long seminar he attends yearly. He said that it is traditional that each rabbi speaking on a particular topic will begin with a joke. In one group, where any question might be asked, he confessed that only he and one other person did not get the joke. The joke was in response to the question, “What happens after you die?” The rabbi said, “The children fight.”
Mendy did not understand this joke because growing up he had no experience with such responses to loss since he came out of a very small family. But he used the joke was a segue into talking about Denie’s parent’s 50th wedding anniversary celebration which brought all 65 of the happy couple’s children, grand children, and great grand children to Mendy and Dinie’s home for the celebration. Mendy spoke extensively about the close and loving relationships that exist in this family, of the honor in which they are held by the wider community, and of how proud he is to be part of it. He even confessed that friends had asked him if there might be anything wrong with Dinie for this family to welcome somebody like him in as one of their own.
There are times his self-deprecation is really funny.
He said that such fealty to one another comes from a devotion to Torah, mitzvot, and a genuine respect for who each member of the family is and his or her accomplishments.
The things you grow up with, the things you see and hear around you, become to you what is acceptable and normal. In this family, respect for each other and a devotion to Yiddishkeit that kept the family in balance and all of one mind, is the norm. But for those of us who grew up where brothers didn’t talk to sisters, and sisters-in-laws didn’t talk to brothers-in-laws, and daughters-in-laws didn’t talk to mothers-in-laws, anger, vitriol, and the absence of family members were the norm. So it should come as no surprise that children growing up seeing this would easily give themselves permission to carry such behaviors forward, and then a son might not to talk to his mother, or a sister not to speak to her brother, or a daughter not to speak to her father, or for a step-son not to speak to his step- father, or for an entire family to cut themselves off from a sister-in-law and her daughter.
One overwhelming common factor among all the people in this particular family is that while all involved had a vague identification with being Jewish, the actual laws and behaviors that Judaism and Yiddishkeit asked of us regarding actions towards parents and family members, were never considered if they were ever even known. If the spiritual soul is deprived of Torah learning, and is deadened, it will not be able to teach the animal soul within how to respond appropriately and behave well.
Sadly, one can look back with regret and anger at what one was taught or not taught, but the reality is that we acted and accepted what we knew because such actions were acceptable in our own families. And being so taught, we gave ourselves permission to carry into our own lives those attitudes and behaviors regarding familial relationships we never should have been taught in the first place. I profoundly regret this aspect of my upbringing, and the way I contributed to
perpetuating it. In our defenses, those of us who have such experiences in our backgrounds,might say we acted outside of our awareness, and that is valid. But the effects are the same, and “it is what is” and we just have to live with it. And because “it is what it is,” and we cannot go back and change the past, some of us have to live with being peripheral, and some will never have the pleasure of seeing their entire family in the same place at the same time.
Each of Denie’s brothers and sister, their children and grandchildren put whatever they were doing on hold and came to celebrate their parent’s simcha. Obviously, their parents deserve such love for what the fostered in their children. They are to be honored for their work.
Mendy turned the bimah over to Dinie’s eldest brother, the Chabad Rabbi of Sherman Oaks, CA, and this is what I think I remember him saying:
He chose to speak about all the laws in this parsha related to those who witnessed a crime. The Torah demands that for the death penalty, the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses are needed. The point made is that even if there are dozens of witnesses, each must be examined to assure justice. The Torah also insists that no matter how serious the charge, the court may not act unilaterally until it has done a thorough investigation. The idea that we are to pursue righteousness is also expressed here, and this means that we must get at justice through proper and honest methods. Judges are especially warned not to pervert justice by accepting bribes, and the court is told that it is not to honor the word of a wealthy man over the word of an indigent. Also, if a person who accuses someone of a crime and is proved to be lying, that person will suffer the punishment that would have been meted out to the accused.
The Torah is centuries ahead of its time, and is the first system to establish the need for eye witnesses, the first to reject circumstantial evidence, and the first to mete out punishment for those who purger themselves for their own gain, and the first to deny evidence that was gotten illegally even if the evidence does prove that the accused is guilty. An honest judicial system must use honest methods. “Fruit from the poisonous tree” is the term now used to describe such ill gotten evidence. If one compares the harshness of the Roman System and the British Systems of justice, with what the Torah is legislating, one must wonder why the Torah is not lauded in the same way as the former two systems. Such laws were in effect while the ancestors of the Romans and the British were still hunters and gatherers, worshiping natural phenomena, and painting their faces with pitch and ochre. Why is the Torah not given credit? Could it be that the winners write the history and give credit to what is only theirs?
The rabbi from California did not talk about any of this, but I think its important. But he did talk about the need for witnesses to authenticate the “kosherness” (my word) of life. Two witnesses are needed to declare a wedding kosher, and they must see the nuptials from the same angle so there is no discrepancy. Other examples were given, but I forget them.
I believe he said that there are two types of witnesses– human and not human. The human witness is to verify like at a cuppah, or in a court of law. The second comes from the lines where God says something like “I call upon the sun and the moon to witness against you.” I don’t recall the specifics or how it applies, but what I do recall him saying that a witness to verify, cannot make
something happen, and that we are charged with being witnesses to God’s presence in the world, and that our behavior brings God into the world. We are the witnesses who can and must make things happen.
This last statement was the core of the drush. The Jewish People have two purposes on this earth, and the first is clearly stated in the line, “You shall be a light unto the nations.” Light has always been a symbol of knowledge, and the knowledge that we have to illuminate the world is the knowledge that there is a single creative Power in the universe whose primary expectation for us is
that we treat each of our fellow human beings, decently. Our Torah tells us what these behaviors should be, and the Torah tells us that we were chosen the teach these behaviors by modeling them.
I’ve always been amused by all the people and the nations who revile us for being The Chosen People, and by thinking that “choseness” brings with it blessings, wealth, celebrity etc. What they don’t realize is that “choseness” brings with it only the responsibility to put Torah law into action and teach it and God’s existence to the world. Yet they continue to focus on the absurd idea that something special, beyond their reach, comes along with the title, and that we Jews should not have it, and do not deserve it. Personally, I’d be happy to give anyone who wants it the title and the responsibility, since we haven’t done such a good job with that expectation if you look around at the insanity of the world today. To tell you the truth, I don’t think the wider Jewish population knows what we were chosen to actually do. Of course, some do, but it’s been my experience that the Orthodox branches of Judaism who reach out, tend to be insular and short armed and extend their decency and good will primarily to their own, while the more progressive branches of Judaism which are less tribal, extend decency to the wider world, but these behaviors are more often credited to the will of social action committee, and not specifically to Torah expectations.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard
August 29, 2015 B”H
14 Elul 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Ki Tetzay - Deuteronomy 21:10 - 25:19.
Haftorah - Isaiah 54:1 - 55:5.
Chabad: This is what I think I recall Mendy saying: Mendy began by telling us that this particular parsha was filled with many important laws, and that he wanted to elaborate on those related to marriage. There was a congregant whose daughter was about to be wed.
He began by informing us that there were three ways a couple could be married. The first method had to do with the groom giving the bride a ring, the second method was by signing certain documents, and the third had to do with the consummation of the union. He then proceeded to elaborate. The giving of something of value, something worth an amount of money that can be verified, goes back to the beginnings of our people. He spoke of the use of the Hebrew word for “taking.” The Torah speaks of a man “taking” a wife. This word is used in only one other place in the Torah, and it has to do with Abraham, “taking” from the king, the cave in which he will bury Sarah. This “taking” involves the exchange of money.
Our rabbis teach that the use of a particular word in one place can inform its use in another place, and the fact that Abraham’s “taking” involved the exchange of money or something of an assessed value, the husband, by “taking” his bride, must give her something of assessed value. In this case, it is a ring. He mentioned that there are established methods that are approved of such how the value of the ring is to be assessed since it cannot have any writing or numbers on it. He also made it very clear that an exchange of rings under the chupah technically invalidates the marriage. Only the groom is to give the ring. The bride may give one after the ceremony, but not during. The groom giving the ring establishes his intent to wed this bride. Intent sees to be very important.
I could not help but wonder how many men smiled at the thought that their marriages might not be valid.
The second method of being married is to sign a document called the Ketubot. This must be written in such a way that its truthfulness cannot be challenged, and he went into extreme detail of how this is done, the experts who do it, and how important it is that all is kosher. The slightest mistake renders the document unkosher, and the marriage invalid.
Centuries ago, this document was drawn up a year prior to the wedding ceremony, and at that moment, everyone recognized that the prospective bride belonged to the prospective groom. But because of living conditions, and the fact that wars, disease, kidnaping, or disappearance were all possible, this betrothal contract which bound the bride to this man, was signed prior to the wedding chupah itself. The two ceremonies that bound were put together, and to honor and remember the history of the betrothal ceremony and to take nothing away from the wedding chupah, the witnesses sign the Ketubot, and it is read publically so as to establish the idea that time has passed between one ceremony and the other.
The third method had to do with intercourse, and it seemed clear that the act of intercourse itself was not what married people, but the intent on the part of the couple to be married was the needed component of the act.
Virginity in the woman was an important expectation of the marriage, and in Orthodox Ketubot there is a noun in apposition that reads, “the bride, the virgin...” Traditionally, the evidence of virginity was proven after the ceremony where the bride and groom were left alone to
consummate their union, and the vaginal blood established proof of virginity in the event that there were later accusations. The Torah is very clear in its law about a husband who falsely accuses his wife of not having been a virgin when she was. He has to pay her father a sum of money, and he can never divorce her. But if it is found that she was not a virgin, she was stoned to death.
The tradition of the bride and groom retiring to a private place is still practiced though I’m pretty sure the consummation of the marriage does not take place now. I think that the time they spend together after the ceremony is also a means of honoring this tradition. The room itself is to have only one door, and witnesses or guards if you will, stand outside.
Mendy was asked why have all three if one will do. I think his response was that if one was good, three were better.
There was one other reference he made to marriage, and this came out of the statement: “When a man marries a new wife, he shall not go out to the army, nor shall it obligate him for any matter; he shall be free for his home for one year, and he shall gladden his wife whom he has married.” He expanded on this idea of “gladden his wife,” making it absolutely clear that it was the duty of the man to see that his wife was happy. She did not have to gladden him, but he was commanded to gladden her.
One congregant asked if the husband could stop “gladdening” after the year was up, and that garnered a laugh all around. Couldn’t tell what was going on on the woman’s side of the separation. Sadly, the Torah does not expand on how one “gladdens” his bride, and I wish it did because it would cut out the guess work. The commandment is there, but no clue as to what it means. It’s like Moses coming down from Sinai with the commandments, and realizing that there is no funding to implement these statements. So what gladdens a brides heart? I’m sure listening with total focus on every word she says about her day or her soap operas is one way, praising whatever she might put on the table is another even if it looks and tastes like a hockey puck, or handing over the remote in the middle of a game so can watch whatever she desires. My hunch is that if this is what is meant by “gladdening” I think there will be a lot of animosity generated on the part of the young man because he might feel he is giving up whatever it is that “gladdens” him. Of course, sex can “gladden” both, and I would not be surprised if “gladden” was a euphemism for sex.
Mendy spoke two half souls becoming one.
Never heard of this idea. Reminded me of chromosomes from the sperm and egg coming together to form a zygote. In Genesis there is a statement that “a man shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one” or something to that effect. The bride and groom in a Christian wedding light a single candle from two tapers symbolizing the same idea. But I never thought of us each being a half soul seeking the other half. It’s a very romantic notion, and I suspect that when marriages fail, it is because an error was made somewhere, and “the match in heaven,” wasn’t. Bashert, which I believe refers to that one person in the world who was meant for you and will complete you, is the word that comes to mind. That is also a very romantic notion. Glad my religion is infused with romantic notions. After all, the stories of the relationships between our Patriarchs and Matriarchs are very intimate, very romantic, and establishes the idea that romantic love is quite desirable. Abraham did not divorce Sarah when she could not have children, Issac did not send Rebecca off when she could not give him children, and Jacob worked fourteen years just to be able to marry Rachel. These men were deeply in love with their wives. Romantic love is foundational.
September 5, 2015 B”H
21 Elul 5774
Weekly Torah Study: Parashah Ki Tavo - Deuteronomy 26:1-29:8.
Haftorah - Isaiah 60:1-22.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
He began by telling us that this was the year of ‘schmita” in Israel, and according to Torah Law, farmers in Israel were allowing the land its mandated sabbatical. And because the farmers will suffer financial losses for a year and one half because they will not be planting, one of the congregants has decided to host a fund raiser in an effort to support those farmers who are adhering to this ancient law.
I recall that when I became a home owner, I planted a little vegetable garden. Knowing about the law, and realizing I had been planting for six years, I asked an Orthodox rabbi what I had to do and how to do it to observe the law, but he told me that the law of schmita applied only in Israel. I found this odd, since we all live on the same planet, and all the earth needs to replenish itself.
Mendy then turned to the end of the parasha where he read the line: “You shall observe the words of this covenant and you shall perform them, so that you will succeed in all that you do.” Mendy referred us to this line because he said it clarified for him the core of what a Jewish education must contain. He was focusing on Jewish education because he had been invited to sit on a panel whose focus would be that very subject.
An interesting discussion followed that involved different translations of the line from the original Hebrew, and I confess that I remember none of this. But of what little I can remember, it had to do with the difference between knowing and doing. I do think I recall him saying that if Jewish education concerned itself only with knowing and doing, it is dooming Yiddishkeit to oblivion. In short, Mendy said that knowing the commandments, and performing the commandments are not enough to keep one’s allegiance to those commandments if the essence of why we should perform those commandments is not fully explained and understood. Why we do what we do is central to the doing.
Mendy was speaking about how we inculcate values in our young, and I’ll tell you that teachers, both secular and religious, are not taught how to do this. In secular schools, the focus has always been on cognition because it easy to measure if someone knows the facts and concepts. The affective domain, the domain of feelings, values, and attitudes, seem to be shunted aside because they cannot be easily measured. In religious schools, the focus is also on cognition and while there is the hope that with knowledge of Torah and Talmud, the values will be absorbed, but I think it is a hit or miss. After the first week of witnessing the most disruptive and outrageous behavior, I asked one of the rabbis when the learnings of the Torah and Talmud begins to effect the boys. He looked at me and laughed.
And my experience of teaching English in an Orthodox yeshiva put me in touch with the phrase, “halul Hashem” or the word, “appichorus,” or the sentence, “Get out of the room!” These three responses were given when a student dared to question what he was being taught, or was caught talking to a girl, or sneaking out to go to a movie.
Whenever a rabbi dismisses a student’s challenge, question, or behavior with a harsh judgement, the student may intellectually and emotionally withdraw and discount future teachings from this particular rabbi, concluding that this rabbi is not safe and not honest. Students did comply, but only when the rabbi was around. Away from the rabbi’s watchful eye, problem behaviors continued. The rabbi’s words were never internalized. Why are some Orthodox rabbis and parents so afraid of being challenged?
Inculcating values involves a process, but you will not inculcate a value if it is imposed without allowing for questions and honest answers. While a person may act on what you say they should value because of your status, that doesn’t mean they will hold that value once you are not there. A person may act on a value to garner your approval and get them something they want you, but again, that doesn’t mean they will hold that value once they have what they want. A person may promise to act on a value after being beaten or threatened, but once the threat is gone, so is the value. The best way to inculcate a value is to go through a process.
The first thing to do is to have a concept of what a value is. For me, a good working concept is: Some idea that has great importance to you that is stronger than a feeling.
Eg. (Used in a highschool classroom) Someone you don’t know too well has been wrongfully accused of doing something one of you closest friends did. You really like your friend, and you feel very close to him or her. But allowing an innocent person to be accused, goes against your sense of justice. There are numerous commandment in the Torah about pursuing justice. The pursuit of justice is a fundamental value of Judaism. What do you do?
If we are serious about inculcating values, we must take our students through the following process. If something is to be of value, it should be;
• Chosen from Alternatives.
• Chosen after thoughtful consideration of the consequences of each alternative.
• Chosen freely.
• Acted on.
• Publically affirmed
• Has a source that makes it “right” for you.
•
After all is said and done, in a non-judgmental way, the teacher may give the Jewish response along with the reason why this is the Jewish response. Those students who agree with the teacher can feel vindicated and have specific laws that support their positions rather than just a vague sense of right and wrong. Those students who stayed silent, have to deal with what the Torah says and how it differs from their response. Kids need to know the Jewish way of thinking and responding, and essence of why we think this way.
At this yesivah, I was not permitted to address religious values, but I did listen to plenty of complaints from the boys, and knew how the boys maneuvered their way around the seemingly unreasonable expectations imposed on them. I especially questioned the requirement to pay for infractions discovered like talking to a girl on a cell phone, and wondered if this “payment”was universal in all yeshivas?
Let me give you a technique that religious school teachers might use to get students involved in valuing. Ask the students to draw a circle and divide it in quarters. Give them the situation that they are going to Israel for an extended stay, and can take only four items. Clothing,
shelter, toiletries, and food be provided. In each of the quadrants, have them write the four things that they would take with them, and number them in order of importance. After they do that, tell them that the plane is so crowded that they can take only one item. Circle the most important, and in a sentence under the circle, have them write why that item is so important to them. Ask them to share that item and the reason with someone sitting next to them. Then, the teacher invites them to share it with the class.
• You have asked them to write down four things that are important to them.
• You have given them alternatives to choose from.
• You have asked them to select the most important, and in doing so, put them through the mental process of considering the consequences of being with out the others.
• The choice they made was chosen freely. No one told them what they could take.
• They have publically affirmed to others and to you what they would take.
• The teacher then processes out and without judgement, the underlying reasons as to why this item is so important to them.
This “here and now” circle has involved students in a valuing process. There are many of these “valuing techniques” that any teacher K-12 can learn, but the affective domain has to be considered as important as the cognitive and the psychomotor for school systems to be willing to pay for in-service where these techniques can be taught. But as important as the affective domain is, it cannot be measured and therefore cannot find a place in the curriculum that increasingly is focused on basic cognitive skills and not basic affective skills.
Somewhere I heard the statement, “God doesn’t need us to pray. God needs us to actualize Him.” To actualize God, to make God come alive, can only be done through our behavior, and our behavior is based on our value system. For us to act, we must embrace and become the living embodiment of the laws we were given, but for us to act on those laws, we must first believe that there is an authority behind those laws in which we believe. I have had yesivah students and secular students at our now defunct Midrashah who came out of frum and observant homes who did not believe in God. Some of the yeshiva students married out of the faith. Some have little to do with formal observance when they are not with their parents. Many secular students attend only twice a year with their parents.
Parents are the first bastion of Jewish values. They have the initial power to teach the child right from wrong, and children will listen because they want their parent’s support and approval. Jewish parents generally model good behavior by enrolling and driving their children to Hebrew school thus saying that Jewish education is a value. But if there is not Shabbat dinners, and no observances in the home for all the other holidays, and only two days of formal observance, the value of education will not become rooted, and children will conclude that involvement in Jewish education this is for them because their parents learned “Thou shall teach,” regular attendance is not for adults.
So while parents may model correct behavior by dropping their kid off at the synagogue, the message to the child is that while education is a value for children, observance is not. Sadly, the connection between Jewish behavior and the law of the Torah which informed that behavior for centuries, is no longer clear to most.
Rabbis and teachers in in Hebrew classes need to make the connection between values, the behavior that comes out of those values, and the ethical principals from the Torah that inspired those values?
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard HowardSeptember 12, 2015 B”H
28 Elul 5775
Weekly Torah Study: Parashas Nitzavim - Deuteronomy 29:9 - 30:20.
Haftorah - Isaiah 61:10-63:9.
Chabad: This is what I think I remember Mendy saying:
In this parashas, Moses declares for the first time that the Children of Israel, in all its unity, is a nation. Till this moment, the moment of Moses’ life ending, we were referred to and viewed as a family, the descendants of Patriarchs and Matriarchs. Prior to this, the only other time any biblical figure referred to us as a nation, was Pharaoh. To Pharaoh, it was his own hate and the threat he perceived us tp be that bound us together in his mind as a nation, a nation to be feared and hated. But here, Moses says what binds us together is God’s unbounding love for us. This is the first time we hear Moses saying in effect, “Listen to me. I’ve never said this before. We were chosen by God to be a holy nation, bringers of light to a dark world, and it is God who defines us, not our enemies. God loves you. That is something we must always remember.”
The idea of letting others define us is something Jews have had to deal with for our entire existence. And over the centuries we have been defined by religious institutions, legal institutions, and nationalistic institutions.
The Church fathers defined us by declaring us the people who killed Christ, the people who murdered children so we could make matzah, and an cursed people doomed to wander the earth despised.
Legal institutions have defined us by denying us the right to vote, to work, to own property, and declared us to be second class citizens.
Nationalisms has defined us by declaring us to have duel loyalties, and now, as imperialists.
All these accusations and attempts to keep us down, are also attempts to define us. Tragically, there are a few among us who have bought into these hateful allegations, and have become self-hating Jews because they allowed outsiders to define who they were. So they hate themselves for having been born Jews, and accept what others have said of their own people.
But even the most illiterate Jew who ever lived knew from watching his mother cook the arch prohibition that Jews are not to drink blood or cook with blood because it is the life force of another living creature. And Jews know that Jesus was viewed by the Romans as a threat to the peace of Jerusalem and they, not us, had to silence him. We also know that Rome was the only group with the power to crucify anyone; Jews could stone but not crucify. And if we wandered despised, it was because we were forced to do so by religious and legal groups that forced into that situation.
But we have remained Jews because we have not allowed outsiders to tell us who we are. We know who we are. The Torah, Prophets, Talmud, and Kabbalah tells us who we are and what our purpose is. We are a people chosen to “be a light unto the nations” which means that we are to model moral behavior and thus tell the world of a God whose primary demand is that we treat one another well. We are also commanded to make the world a better place than how we found it. By following the laws of the Torah. These are our parameters, and these are how we were defined. Other religions, other legal systems, or other nations, must never tell us who we are, and if they continue to do so as some do, we must continue to reject their assessment of us. We already know who we are. Judaism tells us so.
Mendy also told us the story of a young man who had walked away from Judaism and returned. I do not recalled the details, but the point being made was that within us there is a spark that can always be rekindled. The Jewish spark in us never goes out, and so we have a day for recognizing that there is still a spark, fanning it so it can be rekindled, and returning it to a full blaze.
Congregation M’kor Shalom: Rabbi Michaleski, newly appointed, led the Torah study, and her initial focus was on the importance of the repetition of the Hebrew words “ha yom” which means, today. She also made several references to the Torah alluding to recording in a book since both ideas referenced the Rosh Hashonah service.
The parasha speaks of God sealing the Covenant with the people there and with the people not there, so we are to know that this Covenant is an eternal agreement between those living and those yet to be born. No one is exempt from these Commandments, and this Covenant. And it comes with a dire warning against those who would follow other gods, and the warning is that God will not forgive or redeem those whose hearts turn away. God will set him aside for evil. Other dire warnings of what will happen to the land are also recorded in the event that the Covenant is forsaken. In short, forsaking God will result in the devastation of the land. And the reference to the people being captive in other lands is a prophesy of what the future will bring if these laws are not obeyed. Over and over, the image of what appears in the Book is related along with God’s fury and relentless wrath.
Let’s face it. This is a very egocentric God, and you don’t fool around with Him, His law or agreements. It’s God’s way or the highway.
And after all these warnings, we are told that God will return us to our land and have mercy on us, making us more numerous than were our forefathers if we repent. And he will remove from us the spiritual impediment that encourages our evil inclinations. God says he will “circumcise” our hearts because while humans can cut away the physical impediments, only God can cut away the spiritual impediments that surround the human heart.
I saw a bit of a conflict here between the opening of the parasha with the warnings and this part of the promises of redemption. It would seem that the serving of other gods is the ultimate crime from which there is no forgiveness, no repentance, and no redemption.. So if there is no redemption or forgiveness for for apostasy, why would anyone try to reconsider older decisions and return to Judaism. Bob Dylan, born Robert Zimmerman, was born Jewish and converted to Christianity, and then returned to Judaism. Is he not to be forgiven? And what of Gustav Malher who converted so he could become the musical director of the Vienna Symphony, and then converted back. Two very different reasons for conversion, but both men returned. Surely, there is redemption for them.
We then focused on the word “it” from the lines: “It is not hidden from you and it is not distant. It is not in heaven... and it is not on the other side of the sea...” The question was, “To what does the “it” refer. What is it that is “in our mouths and your hearts — to perform it?” And what does the “it” refer to today?
To me, the “it” refers to two things: Forsaking God is one aspect, and the commandments is the other. The Covenant basically declares God to be our only God, and only we have the power within ourselves to be true to Him. The Commandments are not unreasonable requests of us to form a more just and humane society. Again, we have the power to do that, also. Both are very close to us and within our ability to act on them.
Love of God is the core of the message. What does it mean, “To love God?” We spoke of divinity being in all things which means God is in all things; God is within as well as without.
But if we are to hold with any traditional belief, we also have to say that while God is all things, and within us, we must also say that God is something that is also beyond us and aware of us so that there can be teshuvah, a return to Him. If there is no God out there, to what are we returning?
As far as the meaning of the “it” today, for those traditionalists, it has not changed, but for those who are more progressive, the “it” refers to the moral behaviors society asks us to perform.
Of course, moral behaviors are good things, but if any given society becomes the arbiter of what is right and wrong, you can get some despicable laws that such a society might declare as “good.” Consider what totalitarian countries have deemed “good” in the last century and in the first part of this one. That is why I think traditional Judaism has a better idea by accepting God as the arbiter of right and wrong, not some changeable society who might move with the whim of tyrants. “That which is hateful to you do not do to another” is a good rule of thumb.
In progressive societies, there is a shift away from God and ritual to a focus on human behavior. The session closed with two fascinating question: “What happens when God shows up?” and “How do our chains inform our journey to teshuvah?”
These questions were not fully discussed, but they’d make marvelous dinner table conversations with like minded people.
Respectfully,
Labe Chaim
Leonard Howard