IJanuary 1, 2011
Va-Era Ex. 6:2-9:35
The parsha this week dealt with the plagues suffered by the Egyptians when pharaoh chose not to let the people go, but Mendy chose not to speak about these. Instead he opened with a comment that one of his friends made in response to a picture that he had posted on his Face Book page of Senator Eric Cantor, putting on tefillin at the Western Wall. The friend castigated Mendy for having posted it saying that is was a political ploy and a shameful display. Mendy asked the congregation for our opinion. Most people who chose to speak said that they had no problem with the picture no matter what the motivation. Only one disagreed, saying that Cantor’s integrity was to be questioned. Mendy then spoke of what the Alta Rebbe, the founder of the Hasidic Movement taught. It seems the Rebbe would have supported Cantor’s putting on tefillin regardless of the motivation because the mitzvah itself has its own meaning separate from intentions. Donning tefillin may or may not be part of Cantor’s life style, but it could be the seed needed to begin that morning ritual where it might become part of his life. It might also inspire another to investigate what those little boxes placed on the head and are mean. Mendy went on to say that little things count such as buying something at the grocery that has Rabbinic approval when you might otherwise choose something that has none. Tiny mitzvahs or blessing are cumulative in a person’s life, and with enough of them, they might even become that person’s way of life.
Mendy then went into the text itself to the part where G od says to Moses that he must tell pharaoh and the Israelites something. We know what he is to say to the Egyptian ruler, but what is he to say to the Jews? It isn’t stated. So Rashi, the great Medieval commentator states that the message that Moses was to give to the Jews was that when they, in the future, have slaves, they must free them after six years of servitude. (Later in the Bible it specifically commands that if a slave is struck by his master and the slave loses a tooth, the slave must be freed because of the tooth. It also states that a run away slave must not be returned to his master. Imagine such a law in the Torah so many centuries before the dreadful Supreme Court ruling called Dred-Scott Decision that demanded that run away slaves be returned to their masters.)
This was indeed a very strange midrash because we are dealing with current slaves being in a position to own slaves in the future. When I thought about why it was interpreted in this way, I thought it might have something to do with hope. But it had something to do with freedom, and it was a wonderful teaching.
Abused people tend to become abusers. It has to do with being powerless and then being powerful and taking back something of what you gave up when you were being abused by becoming an abuser. I imagine that the abused Child living in the adult abuser might feel some temporary release while abusing, but it neither frees nor satisfies, and abusers never get it out of their systems nor do they feel safe despite the pain they inflict. They just continue their abuse.
The Rabbi appeared to be teaching two concepts: that a truly free human being doesn’t have to be a slave to his emotions or his past experiences. The second is the fact that though you were an abused slave, it does not mean you are free to abuse another because you were abused. In short, free people can conquer their pasts, rise above their experiences, and act decently and appropriately. Also, a truly free person recognizes the rights of others. It was a good teaching, and it gave me a perspective on freedom that I had not considered.
I read with great interest again the story of the plagues, and I could not help but wonder if these were actual miracles performed by G od, or actual natural phenomena caused by some cataclysmic event that were experienced by our ancestors and ascribed to G od because they were too wondrous to be understood in any other way. I have no doubt that these events took place. They are all plausible, described in detail, and how could anyone make such things up and set them down in such an order. The Exodus took place about 3500 years ago. At the same time, the volcanic Greek Island of Thira to the west of the Nile Delta where our ancestors lived, exploded with such force and intensity that it created a caldera miles across, and destroyed the entire Minoan Civilization with earthquakes, burning ash, columns of smoke that reached miles into the atmosphere, and massive tidal waves that spread out throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Now in the Pirke Avot, the rabbis teach that at the dawn of creation, G od created certain entities such as the well that followed our ancestors in the desert, the mouth of the earth that swallowed Korah, etc. so as to convey the idea that a miracle was part of the natural order of things. So who is to say that G od did not ordain at creation that this particular volcano was to erupt just about the time the Jews were ready to be taken out of Egypt so the effects of the eruption might be used against pharaoh? Vulcanologists, studying the effects of more recent volcanoes, found that many of the same conditions occur in modern explosions that occurred 3500 years ago. Terrified wild animals do invade human habitats. If the pomace is pink or ocher and falls on water, it might look like blood. If this pomace does cover the water, choking off the oxygen to fish and frogs, fish die, and frogs will leave the water. Volcanic ash blackens out the sun and can fall to earth carrying burning embers. Tidal waves pull water out to sea for a time, and returns with a vengeance. Goshen was on the Mediterranean. Did our ancestors cross the Sea of Reeds when the water was pulled out, and were the Egyptians swept away when the water came back? Underground earthquakes under lakes can release toxic gasses into the atmosphere that might kill people who sleep on beds close to the ground. Egyptians did sleep on beds with very short legs. All of these natural things happened and they are vividly describe in the Exodus because our ancestors experienced them first hand. But I have questions: Did our ancestors see these events as ordained by G od and did Moses write them down exactly as they happened? Did our ancestors ascribe the natural events that they saw as miracles of G od because there was no other explanation? Were our ancestors opportunistic slaves who used these cataclysmic events that created chaos in Egypt to get themselves out of Egypt and then tell the story over centuries as part of an oral tradition and then write them down? Am I tapping into the Doubt we are told G od built into each event we experience that challenges us to believe despite the Doubt? I wonder and I still believe in a universal creative force in the universe that I call Ein Sof. Being a Jew demands no abdication of my reason.
January 8, 2011
Parsha Bo
Mendy began his drush this week by telling us of a phone call he received from a friend of a Modern Orthodox congregation who as him if he would favor or reject the idea that there be different mynions (gatherings of people to pray) based on ages. For example, should there be one for the teenagers, one for young adults, another for families with small children, and still another one for the older members of the congregation. This man’s congregation is rather large and many different needs have been expressed. The Chabadnicks who attended on this very snowy day, universally said that it would be a tragic mistake to divide this congregation. Mendy agreed and used this motivation as a way of entering the parsha which partially deals with Moses going to Pharaoh and demanding that the Israelites be allowed to go into the desert to worship G od. Moses insists that all men, women, and children, as well as all cattle and other flocks be allowed to go. Pharaoh laughs in Moses’ face knowing full well that if Moses leaves with all the cattle, he will be taking part of the wealth of Egypt, and if the children leave, he will be losing the next generation of slaves. So he refuses, and G od brings on the next set of plagues which involves darkness, locust, and the slaying of the first born. Pharaoh relents and drives the Israelites out.
The major point that Mendy was making was that for the Jewish people to remain a people and cohesive, they must remain a unity even as they remain individuals. Moses knew this very well. Later, there is a midrash that when they passed through the Sea of Reeds, the individual tribes were together, but their focus was unified. In the desert we set up our individual tents with our tribes, but the focus was on the sanctuary. Over and over again, the Torah reinforces the concept that we must always remain a unified people. Mendy also made reference to the Rebbe who always included in special gatherings the exact statement in the Torah were Moses says that we shall all go out together.
For me, the joy of coming to Shabbos at Chabad, and I’ve said this before, is seeing the little children being held by their grandfathers and fathers. This is what this community is all about. The sounds these children hear from birth and through attendance with parents and grandparents, become familiar and associated with prayer, study, and loving memories. Yiddishkeit, the Jewish way of living, its sounds and sights and smells, becomes natural to them and will never be alien. In this way, the beauty is handed down daily and weekly from generation to generation. No congregation should separate any part of itself from another part of itself. Though my own grandchildren live far from me, I have tried to create for them "yiddishkeit" memories on those occasions when they are visiting my home. I would want them to remember helping me set the Shabbos table and remembering what each symbol means. I would want them to remember their grandmother lighting the candles and me making the blessing over the wine, and the bread. I want them to remember me placing my hands on their heads, blessing them, and kissing them. I want them to remember me reciting A Woman of Valor to their grandmother. At Passover, I want them to remember us setting up the seder table and learning the symbols as we do it. I want them to remember helping me make the charosets, the horse raddish, and inspecting each egg that goes into the cake we’re baking. I want them to remember the story of our people, and the sounds of Hebrew and Yiddish. Of my nine grandchildren, only five are being given a Jewish education, and I do hope that one day, they will come to discover their religion, and recognize the beauty of Yiddishkeit and its benefits as they grow into adulthood. Still, I am fearful that my generation of secularized first or second generation Americans who still recall those who came over from Europe, is the last generation that will hold those fragments of Yiddishkeit recalled as something to be valued and practiced. I believe I am the only one in my family who attempts some semblance of keeping kosher both in and outside my home.
Mendy then turned his attention to an equally interesting passage that dealt with the admonition from G od that the people of Israel, as regards the Passover sacrifice, were to roast it and nothing else. G od specifically says there should be no water near it to contaminate it.
The explanation that Mendy gave for this was fascinating. It had to do with the nature of two of the four elements: fire and water. I don’t recall everything Mendy said, so you’ll forgive my embellishment. Water is cold, changing, and unemotional. It seeps down, spreading out to lose its volume, easily taking on the shapes of other forms allowing itself to become diluted. And depending on the conditions, water can morph into different forms, dissipating into the air as steam or becoming rigid like ice. Mendy made the point that there are people like water who are cold, unemotional, not committed, and easily diluted. On the other hand, fire leaps up into the heavens. It is hot and passionate, blazing but always consistent in its nature. If it spreads, it does so by consuming what it touches, always leaping up into the air. There are people who are like fire, passionate in their faith and commitment like the Macabees and Prophets. Mendy is on fire with passion. The commandment to only roast the lamb was that the Israelites, on seeing the fire, were to be reminded to be passionate in their adherence to the Torah and loyalty to G od. It is the fire that leaps up as should our spirits.
Mendy continued by saying that our struggle to have a relationship with G od is part of the passion that the fire symbolizes. The questions that we have as well as our daily struggles are all part of that passion and it is welcome. In addition, he also said that he would rather deal with people who shake their fists against heaven, than deal with someone who is apathetic or dismissive. Such people do not see the wonder that pervades the Ein Sof's universe. With such people, there is no growth. (Again, I am embellishing because I don’t recall his specifics, but I’m close to the message in spirit.) On a more personal note, since I often rail and question, I feel more accepted by Mendy and this community. It was a very important sermon for me, and delivered with his usually soaring passion.
Something extra:
These early chapters of Exodus are particularly interesting if you are interested in the Jewish take on how much of the Christian Bible came to be written, and the rites of the Christian Church. Admittedly, very little is known about Jesus’ life, and when the world did not end as promised, the early followers of Jesus began writing stories to keep his memory and his message alive. They had the Torah and were familiar with midrash as guides for developing their own sacred literature. They also knew that for a midrash to be accepted, it had to link in with something from the Torah to give it truth. So the life of Moses became the model for the life of Jesus, and if you don’t believe that, go to the Sistine Chapel and look at the frescoes that run up both sides of the side walls. Up one side of one wall is the life of Moses, and up the other side is the life of Jesus and they are parallel. The Christian “take” on this is that Moses’ life pre-configures Jesus’ life, thus providing prophetic proof that Jesus is the Savior or Messiah.
The Jewish take on this is quite different. The Jewish “take” is that the Gospel writers “cherry picked” those stories in the Torah in order to prove to their followers that Jesus is the Savior or Messiah so they could say that Moses prefigures and points to the coming of Jesus. In reality, the Torah and the Prophets have absolutely nothing to do with or say about Jesus. Moses becomes the model for Jesus because Moses is the savior of his people and a great deal is known about his life and his relationship to G od. Very little was known about Jesus by his contemporaries, and the Gospels themselves I believe were written between thirty and ninety years after his death. It is my understanding that no Gospel writer knew Jesus personally. The Gospel writers borrowed heavily from the life of Moses to give a life to Jesus.
Moses’ story originates in Egypt, and when Pharaoh hears about the birth of a Hebrew child who will liberate the Hebrews, he has the boys murdered. The little boy who is saved, Moses, will later become the savior of the Hebrews and bring them up out of Egypt.
To parallel this, the Gospel writer has Herod, hearing about a Hebrew child to be born, has all the male children murdered. This is called the “Slaughter of the Innocents,” yet there is no record of such an horrific event among the writings of the most literate people of that time. So the Gospel writer has Mary and Joseph fleeing to Egypt to save their son, and eventually, Jesus, too, will come up from Egypt to save humanity. At the Sea of Reeds, Moses parts the waters. Jesus, at one point in his ministry, stands in the waters and parts the heavens. Moses goes into the desert for forty years, while Jesus also goes into the desert for forty days.
Imagery is also borrowed. The Pascal lamb is slaughtered as a sacrifice to G od prior to the bodily freedom the Hebrew slaves will experience. No bone of the Pascal lamb may be broken, and its blood must be smeared and the lintel and doorposts of each home so the Hebrew people will be saved from death. Christian theology borrows these images, and Jesus becomes the human embodiment of the lamb who is sacrificed to save and redeem mankind so mankind can have eternal life after death. Jesus is often referred to as The Lamb of G od. To further develop the image of Jesus as the Lamb of G od, the point in the Gospel is made that his bones are not broken. Also, his blood becomes the symbol of salvation as did the blood on the doors in Egypt, but Jesus’ blood now saves and redeems the faithful. The symbols of the Eucharist, an important rite in the Christian faith, employs the symbols of the Passover Seder where Jesus declares that the wine and bread served to him at the Last Supper also his last Seder, now transubstantiates into his blood and body. Another borrowing comes with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on a white donkey with palms being placed before him. This is an exact duplicate the Messiah’s entry into Jerusalem written by one of the Prophets, only palms are not used on Passover but on Succot in the fall. I can go on about why Jews do not consider Jesus as the Messiah, but I suspect you already know that.
January 15, 2011
Parsha Be-Shallach Ex. 13:17-17:16
Mendy began his talk by informing the congregation that today, the 15th of the Hebrew month of Shevat is an important day in the Chasidic Lubavitch calender because this day marks the anniversary of the death of the Rebbe, Yosef Shneersohn, and the advent of his son-in-law, Menachem Mendel Shneersohn, the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Mendy detailed parts of the Rebbe’s inaugural address, but I can remember only one piece of it, and that was the Rebbe encouraging his followers that they must do, and not just pray. That they must turn whatever energy and passions they have, especially if these are slightly out of wack, into positive action that will benefit others. Do this despite the nay sayers who might try to dissuade you. At that moment I was reminded of the proverb, “It’s easier to get forgiveness than permission.” Mendy was particularly passionate himself, and sometimes I find myself swept up by the rhythms of his convictions, and I forget what he is saying. But I think I did recall what was the core of the Rebbe’s talk.
The parsha this week dealt with the our forefathers at the Sea of Reeds with pharaoh’s chariots coming up fast. Moses seems not to have gotten it yet. He still believes that he cannot take the initiative without going first to G od and asking what he should do. G od is getting annoyed so He tells Moses to raise his staff over the water and the water parts.
Mendy also told us of two midrashes, two wonderfully imaginative stories written by the rabbis to fill in the empty spaces between the lines that are not in the Torah. The first story was about the four different groups that formed at the edge of the sea, but I think there were five. The first group said that going forward was impossible, and that they should return to Egypt. The second group said that they would never be slaves again, and suggested suicide. The third group said that because they were armed, they should fight the Egyptians to the death. The fourth group said they must pray for a miracle and G od would save them. Then Mendy told another midrash about Nachshon ben Amidai who walked into the water up to his nose and the water parted. So I think there was a fifth group, a group lead by Nachshon who looked around, saw the others bickering, prayed to G od and took some forward leaning action. Nachshon is one of my Biblical heroes even though I think he is mentioned only in the midrash. Now my personal take on this is that Nachshon assessed the situation, saw and heard the arguments and rejected all of them in favor of taking his life in his own hands and acting to save himself. I do believe he did this with the full faith that G od would do something, but rather than stand there and allow himself to be overwhelmed by fear, remorse, depression, or despair, he moved forward. By doing this, the rabbis though their tale about Nachshon, taught us that we are not to allow ourselves to succumb to fear, remorse, depression, and despair, but we are to put our faith in G od and take some responsibility for ourselves. We are the ones who make the miracles happen. If I am not mistaken, I believe that the aphorism, “pray as if everything depends on G od, and act as if everything depends on you,” comes from Nachshon’s bravery. Nachshon may have been the spiritual ancestor of the Lubavitcher Chassids.
Mendy drew on this midrash of the four types of responses at the water to the teaching about the four types of Jews who came after the Holocaust, and again, I think there were five. The first group walked away from G od, no longer believing that G od was loving or protecting of his people and assimilated into that culture in which they found themselves. The second group continued to be Jews at home, but hid their Jewish identities, did not affiliate, and did not get involved in causes that might identify them as Jews. The third group became basically secular with vestiges of yiddishkeit as their cultural identity, and created the State of Israel. The fourth group, totally religious, stayed within their own community and denied the wider world as having any value. The fifth group, the one to which Mendy belongs, is totally devoted to G od, but goes out into the world to bring those who are tangential to yiddishkeit and those assimilated without any yiddishkeit, back to an appreciation of their heritage and to a relationship with G od. Lubovicher Chassids, both men and women, live in two worlds and straddle both successfully to the benefit of those who doubt and those who search. If I am not mistaken, I think Mendy even said that G od delights in those who doubt and search, because these people are searching for a relationship with Him, and that is the primary objective of Judaism on the most personal of levels. That gave me a good feeling since I both continue to doubt and continue to search.
There was in interesting digression. Mendy told the story of a woman who called him very concerned that her son wanted to start wearing a black hat and what should she do? Mendy then related a story about a relative of his who went to the Rebbe to ask him what she should do because her son wanted to grow his beard and not shave it off. It was a few years after the Holocaust, and they were new to America. This woman feared that her son would not be able to find work with a full beard. While she was standing on line, she struck up a conversation with a woman crying bitterly who told her that her son had fallen in love with an non-Jewish girl. The first women then left the line with her answer, and probably counted her blessings all the way home. I recently read of a similar Jewish fable about a woman who had a lot of heart ache and troubles who went to her local rabbi hoping for some sort of understanding or solace and all the while complaining that everyone else in the town seemed so content. The rabbi then tells her to bake an apple strudel and go to each house in the town offering it to that neighbor who has no problems. A week later, the woman returned stating that she would never had believed there was such sadness in so many houses. She did not give away her strudel, but by listening to other people’s stories and by telling her own to them, she felt better. She prepared a fresh strudel for the rabbi in gratitude for his wisdom. In the Buddhist tradition, there is a similar story. A distraught women who has just lost her son, goes to the Buddha and asks if he will bring her son back to her. The Buddha tells her he can if she can bring him dirt from a house that has never experienced death. After a while, she returns without the soil but with greater understanding.
While nothing was said during the drush about the Hebrews fulfilling their promise to take with them the bones of Joseph, I was thinking about a graduation speech I delivered several years ago at The Delaware Valley Torah Academy where I taught English. A section of it follows: (The bones of Joseph become an important metaphor.)
...Abraham was the first to hear Lech Lecha, and he sets out into the unknown and he becomes the ancestor of mighty nations and mighty faiths. Isaac also sets out with his father into the unknown, and into a Covenant with Hashem as does Jacob when he sets out for Beer Sheba to become Israel. Joseph was sold by his brothers into the unknown to become a mighty counselor to Pharaoh and a savior to his people. And Moses flees Egypt into an unknown land called Media, finding Hashem and the strength to lead. And the Children of Israel hear Lech Lechca and are led into an unknown, hostile desert to the foot of Sinai and into history.
But the Children of Israel are told not to go out of Egypt empty handed, for along with the spoils of Egypt, they were told to take the bones of Joseph with them. The bones of Joseph-the bones of the person who was his people’s savior. The bones of Joseph, perhaps a metaphor for the Jewish commitment to community, values, history and tradition to be carried with us where ever we go.
You, like our ancestors, are hearing your own Lech Lecha and are setting out into your unknown to uncover the mystery of who you are and where you are going. And like our ancestors who carried out of Egypt the bones of Joseph, you also do not go out empty handed, for you take with you certain teachings that will direct you, counsel, you and sustain you if you choose to hold these teachings close to your hearts.
You have been taught you are part of a singular group of identifiable people who have a mission to be a light unto the nations, to model righteous behavior as Jews, and to be the voice of Hashem where ever you encounter cruelty and injustice. This is our reason for being and it is your purpose. You have been given a vision that clearly states that cruelty and injustice need not be the norm and that tyrants and oppressive systems can be changed. Your ancestors in Egypt were the first to do it and we have been doing it ever since. You have been taught of the Messianic Vision, a vision of universal peace, the vision of the prophets. These are your bones of Joseph.
You were given the idea that as part of the Jewish people, you are obliged to act to bring about changes in the world that benefit all, but to bring about this change only under Hashem’s eternal moral law, for you know that if we substitute personal opinion for Hashem’s eternal law, values will become situational and morality will become relative. You know that your purpose as participants in humanity and as members of the Jewish family is to assist Hashem in mending the world. These are your bones of Joseph.
You know that your Jewish identity is not solely centered in a set of dogmatic beliefs, but is also to be centered in a particular value system, in community, and history and that we will survive as a people as long as we all remain part of that community. These are also the bones of Joseph.
You also take with you the idea that Judaism is a life affirming faith whose adherents worship a life affirming G-d; a G-d whose primary expectation is that we treat each other well.
And finally my dear students, you will go out into the unknown, into a world that will often tempt you with excess. But you know that you can control your appetites-not by stifling them, but by mastering them; enjoying everything in Hashem.’s world with moderation, understanding that once your have marked off the limits of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden, you can enjoy yourselves within those parameters without wondering if you are doing right or wrong.
So we do not send you out empty handed. We send you out with your own bones of Joseph if you will. We send you with knowledge, with values, with purpose, and with a vision of how you can make a difference. And because you are now hearing your own Lech Lecha, we send you off with a prayer.
“May it be thy will, O Lord our G-d and G-d of our fathers and mothers to conduct them in peace, to direct their steps in peace, to uphold them in peace, and to lead them in life, joy and peace unto the haven of their desire. O deliver them from every enemy, ambush and hurt by the way, and from all afflictions that visit and trouble the world. Send a blessing upon the work of their hands. Let them obtain grace, loving kindness and mercy in thine eyes and in the eyes of all who behold them. Hearken to the voice of our supplications; for Thou are a G-d who hearkenest unto prayer and supplication. Blessed are Thou, O Lord, who hearkenest unto prayer.” Amen.
January 22, 2011
Parsha Yitro
I do believe I am starting to “lose it,” because I’m finding it difficult to recall details from Mendy’s drush, but I’ll do my best. Mendy began by talking about how people view their Judaism, and he made it very clear that if the Judaism we are or trying to hand to down to our children and grandchildren are merely reflected fragments of yiddishkeit that we recall from growing up and being with our bubbes and zeydees, such a Judaism will not be relevant to our descendants because the good memories, and feelings we may associate with these long deceased people are irrelevant to people who have never met our bubbe and zeydee. Doing things because grandma and grandpa did it that way, or doing things by rote because that is the way we were taught by our rabbis and parents, may not be accepted by our descendants because such behavior may be perceived as being devoid of a spiritual honesty. People who watch and search are looking for and searching for spiritual honesty and a real connection.
Mendy believes that the questions and challenges the seeker poses are core to spiritual development, and I bet he was thrown out of class on more than one occasion for raising such questions and challenges. I certainly witnessed young men who challenge the rabbis at the yeshiva at which I taught being thrown out for questions and challenges. “Hillul Hashem,” blasphemy of G od’s name, often rang in the ears of the recalcitrant student as he slammed the door. As an educator of Judaica, it became obvious to me that when questions and challenges are stifled, students become hostile and more reluctant to accept other things the rabbis or lay teachers have to say to them. This of course I have seen only among the Orthodox, but I know it exists among the brighter students of other denominations.
I think I also remember that the drush touched upon how G od has been presented to us as we grew, and how we fail to help our children develop a relationship with G od because we cannot express our own. A traditional Jewish education focuses on rituals, holidays, social action etc., but little attention is paid to G od and to developing that spirituality needed for a relationship. It is probable that that does not occur because some rabbis and most lay teachers may have no training in developing spirituality in others, or they may not be connected with their own, or they don’t know how to present that level of spiritual existence to their students at any particular age level. Often young Jewish people will seek out eastern faiths for the spiritual dimension they find lacking in their own faith. Yet there certainly is a spiritual dimension in Judaism, but most young people do not know how to access it because few parents and teachers know how to help them access it.
I teach a course at the Midrashah at the JCC entitled G od Stuff. I developed this course after recognizing that not only did my students have little understanding of what Judaism teaches about G od, but that the only concept of G od that they had was of the old man sitting on the throne giving out commandments and expecting us to adhere to them without question. Their concept is the Torah/Rabbinic teaching they learned as children, and no other. So when some grow up and come to reject that G od concept, they have absolutely no Jewish alternatives to help them stay with a Jewish belief system, so they claim agnosticism, atheism, or start romancing eastern religions.
Teenagers challenge and need to be challenged to verbalize their own belief systems, and because some have rejected the G od concept they’ve been taught, some have just decided not to believe. So using a text Finding G od, I present the students with a dozen or more concepts of G od that Jews have posited over the centuries. Over the year we cover the Torah/Rabbinic concept, but we also look at Philo of Alexandria, Maimonides, Luria, Spinoza, Steinberg, Reines, Buber, Kaplan, etc., etc., and we consider their G od concepts, their explanations for evil to exist, their vision of the afterlife, and how G od relates to us. At the end of the year, for their take home final, they are asked to construct a theological construct they can relate to at this moment in their lives understanding all the time that the construct can change over the course of their lives. But this is still a cognitive process to keep them believing in something. I do not have the skill to bring them to a spiritual relationship with G od.
(Personally, while I think Mendy would find such a course intellectually fascinating, I doubt if he would ever sanction Chabad students taking such a course because only the Torah/Rabbinic concepts of G od are acceptable though the Middle Ages. Besides, I would imagine that few Chabad students would question a belief in G od, although I did find some at the yeshiva who confessed their doubts to me though I never asked the question. My feeling on this is that if I can keep a Jewish kid thinking about G od, and willing to develop a concept of G od that works for him or her, I don’t care which Jewish G od concept they find most compelling. For me, no one has cornered the market on knowing G od.)
There is another course that my students find really interesting. It is called, Law, Values, and Morality. The premise of this course is that for the most part, secular, Conservative, and Reform Jewish students behave well, but if you ask them why, they will tell you that their parents and grandparents taught them. Some will also say the fear of being caught. Very low on the moral development ladder. Rarely will someone mention religion let alone G od as the source of their behavior.
The objective of this class is to have the students judge situations, judge human behavior, governments, etc., consider their responses, and see if the Torah or Talmud would support their responses to these behaviors. Our sacred literature almost always does. In this way, the students come to see that the value systems that inform their moral judgments and behaviors have been handed down to us over the centuries, but we have lost the connection to the commandments even if the response remains. Yes, modern children may model and parrot parental behavior or ideas, but they are totally unaware that those behaviors and ideas are firmly grounded in our sacred literature. It is an eye opener for them when they make the connection. And speaking of connections, I vividly recall after the first week of teaching at the yeshiva asking the Rabbi when the idea that G od has demands on our behavior kicks in for these students, and when Orthodox students learn that they are to adhere to a higher standard of behavior. He looked at me as if I had two heads and just smiled. For some, it just doesn’t kick in, and that led me to conclude that there was something terribly wrong in the way Judaism is taught to our children in our schools and in our homes.
Mendy did get to the parsha which is possibly the most important one in the Bible because it is the one that contains the Ten Commandments. But other than our standing during their recitation, the reader and possibly tradition makes no delineation between the actual reading of the Commandments, what preceded them, and what followed. (Personal observation: When the commandments were read, we stood which is the tradition. The midrash teachers that all souls stood at Sinai, so I tried to imagine myself standing at Sinai, hearing the ram’s horn, the thunder, seeing the smoke, the fire, and trying to connect with the majesty of that astounding moment in history. I was looking for Mendy, but to tell you the truth, there were so many men there with black hats and beards that I’m sure only G od would be able to find him. I’m going to suggest he put a large red feather in his fedora so he’d stand out when the Messiah comes. In that way I’ll be able to find him and we can catch up. But I couldn’t connect and I partially think it was because of the way the commandments were read. There are the usual sounds called trop that most Torah readers use, and the commandments were delivered by the excellent reader in the exact way that everything else in the parsha was read. For me, the majesty and the mystery of the moment should have been reflected in the recitation of the commandments. They were not. There was no slowing of the reader’s rhythm; no change in tone. For me, I would have preferred it if they dropped the trop and just read them slowly so they might have had some distinction and veritas. Perhaps someone on the bimah might have also repeated them in English, or blown the shofar. There should have been some drama attendant on the reading. These laws are the foundation of our moral lives and the moral underpinnings of Western Civilization. They should stand out.) But I digress.
As I started to say before my own fantasies broke in, we were talking about Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law whose sage advice to Moses on how to judge the people led to the establishment of the court system in the desert, and possibly to the concept of all future court systems. But Mendy’s question had to do with why Jethro, a man midrash tells us was not a particularly nice or decent person, would have the honor of being in the same parsha as the parsha that recounts the Ten Commandments, and why Jethro waits until now to convert to Judaism when he had heard of the parting of the Sea of Reeds. I don’t recall the comments from the congregation though they were interesting. I only recall that Jethro’s decision comes as a result of the events attendant on the parting of the Sea of Reeds and the destruction of Amalek. It had something to do with G od helping the people at the sea, and the people helping themselves in battling Amalek. Jethro’s conversion also had something to do with his understanding that there was a place for everyone in this faith. He realized that G od welcomed even those who had grievously sinned, and Jethro wanted to be part of such a faith that honored such a G od. G od is open and welcoming to all. I wish I could remember more of this very interesting discussion.
Mendy very sincerely thanked us for coming out in such cold weather and seemed to praise those of us who struggle to establish a relationship with G od despite our doubts. At one point he did talk about being grateful for what G od has given us. Within the G od Field, I did not feel very grateful for many years, but I certainly am now. I rejoice in my portion, and I rejoice in the portion of others. Life has never been so good as it is now. Yet I cannot honestly say that I thank G od for what has come my way. I remain very conscious of the decisions I have made in my life that has brought me here, though I will definitely state that the rights and wrongs of the Torah, whenever I have acknowledged its authority, has guided my life and my decisions for the better. Perhaps by consciously letting Ayn Sof in, I do have His guidance to thank. Something else to think about.
February, 5, 2011
Mendy Log:
Terumah
Mendy began by telling us that while he was away, he had the opportunity to watch and listen to a speaker from Israel on a computer as his children finally slept. The woman told a story of a couple who, after years of deprivation and abuse at the hands of the Russian Government had finally been able to emigrate to Israel. Here the couple had a child, and the doctors told them that something was wrong and that an operation was immediately needed. Sadly, the operation would save the child’s live, but there was a strong possibility that the child would never walk. The father, who was a Lubovicha Chassid, told the doctor that he could not make a decision like this without referring to the Rebbe. But this was Israel and the Rebbe was in Brooklyn and there was a seven hour difference. The call was made and the story was explained to the Rebbe’s secretary, and the man was told to call back in three hours. The doctors pressured the man, the man insisted on waiting. When the time had passed, the man called again, and again was told to call back in an hour. The doctors continued to pressure the father, and the father insisted that he would only do what the Rebbe advised. The third time he was again told to wait, and while waiting this time, the doctors returned with the information that the child had been mis-diagnosed and the operation was not necessary. The woman telling that story was the baby born that day. Mendy told another story that was almost the same. There was trouble, the Rebbe was consulted, the Rebbe didn’t return the call, and everything turned out fine.
The point Mendy was making was one of having faith in the wisdom that has been handed down over the centuries and transmitted to us via holy conduits such as the Rebbe. Did the Rebbe know that the child was mis-diagnosed because G od told him and a response would have been similar to Moses’ hitting the rock when G od told him to speak to it, or did the Rebbe not respond because he didn’t know what to say and saying nothing offered a 50% chance of getting it right?
I would love to have that kind of faith where I could turn it all over to G od like the Christian Scientists or the Jehovah Witnesses do, but when they make a mistake, they are often charged with child neglect and taken before a judge in the event that a child dies from “lack of faith.” I think I would pray for the strength to make the right decision for my child and get at least two other professional opinions. I might have called the Rebbe if he were still with us, or asked Mendy as the Rebbe’s representative on a medical issue for his spiritual support and rabbinic wisdom, but that would only be one factor for consideration among several factors.
It was interesting, but didn’t see a clear relationship between the Torah portion this week called Terumah and the introduction. Terumah tells the story of G od calling for the creation of the Mishchan or Tabernacle which is to be built to very specific specifications. If I recall, the line is something like, “Build a house for Me so I might dwell with them.” Now the G od who created the universe cannot be contained in any human structure, so the interpretation is that the Mishchan is for the people as a physical reminder and as a physical way of connecting with G od. Beyond that, the “so I might dwell with them” has been interpreted that while the Mischan is a reminder, G od's real indwelling is the hearts and minds of his people. We carry G od within us all the time, and can connect at any moment if we have a mind to do so. Mendy inferred that whenever people do good, are grateful, or show an appreciation of the wonders of creation that exist all around us, it is at those moments when G od is making the connection with us. I came to intuit this when I was a child, sitting up on the roof by myself looking at the stars.
But something of a paradox presented itself to me. Somewhere I recall reading, possibly in the Ethics of the Fathers, that prayer may not be interrupted by a sudden awareness of a sun set, flower, or any natural beauty. At least that’s what I recall of the law. Now for me, I have always made more of a connection with G od when I pushed my nose into a tuft of lilac blossoms or while standing under my Quansom Cherry Tree looking up at a blue spring sky than I have when reading the Amidah. I connect more with G od whenever I see the outpouring of support for bereaved people, or the coming together of diverse people for a good cause. I connect more with G od watching the prayer shawl covered backs of my fellow congregants standing praying in unison than I do reading the words of the siddur despite its brilliant translation into English. Frankly, organized, ritualized prayer does not connect me with G od as will my garden, my classroom, or a good sermon from the bimah.
February 22, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parshash Vayakhel
Mendy began his talk by informing us that a congregant had asked him to discuss the problems in the Middle East, and his response was that he never speaks about subjects his congregants know more about than he does. But he did take the opportunity to comment on what was going on in Wisconsin based on rabbinic teachings which he does know something about.
Now this is what I know about labor in the Torah. There are laws in the Torah that demand of an employer that they must return a garment to the borrower before the sun goes down if the garment was given as a pledge because the garment may be the only thing the person owns to keep him warm, and that wages must be paid to the worker at the end of each day because that money may be the only money he may have to feed himself and his family. The Laws of Righteousness tell us that the highest form of righteous behavior is to give a man a job or provide him with skills that will allow him to earn a living.
There are many other laws, and the dialogues, stories, and debates in the Talmud written two thousand years ago that speak to honesty in business dealings with employees and honest negotiations also reflect a concern for the welfare of the worker. One important comment comes from Rabbi Ben-Zion Uzziel, a former Sephardic chief rabbi of Israel who said Jewish law permits unions "in order that the individual worker not be left on his own, to the point that he hires himself out for a low wage in order to satisfy his hungert and that of his family with a bit of bread and water and with a dark and dingy home."
Mendy told a Talmudic story of two butchers who vied with one another for the same customers until they agreed that one would sell on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and the other would sell on Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday. I assumed they set the price so there would be no competition. But it turned out that one of them cheated, and the case went to the rabbinic court. If I remember correctly, the judges ruled that both men were wrong because the people who purchased meat from them were not being served well because there was no fair competition. The butchers were only concerned about their own profits. If anything, the story speaks to price fixing, but it really addresses the needs of the people being served. In negotiations, each party has a vested interest. The government negotiating with unions want to keep wages low to balance the budget, and the elected representatives who keep the government running may or may not care about the rank and file. The labor unions want more benefits and wage hikes to maintain a standard of living for their members. But who is to speak for the people in the negotiation is what the Talmud is asking.
(My take on this is that certainly, the government might be for the people, but more often than not, they are in the pocket of the big money companies and CEOs who contribute to the campaign chests of said government officials, and these captains of industry have only profits and power as their focus. These people care little about standard of living for the workers. These moguls expect the governors they support to address their needs rather than the worker’s needs in such negotiations. Again, the elected government officials who should also be concerned about the workers who keep the government rolling, are often more concerned about keeping their campaign chests full. In the Wisconsin case, the unions have agreed to pay more into their pensions and medical plans, but the Governor of Wisconsin is insisting on destroying their right to collective bargaining. Collective bargaining has nothing to do with balancing the budget, but if the Governor of Wisconsin can kill the right of collective bargaining with the public employees unions, the next unions to lose collective bargaining rights will be the private sector which is exactly what the CEOs want. ) What the Talmud is pointing out is that only a truly disinterested third party who has no axe to grind in the negotiations is the most honest means of getting an agreement that everyone can accept and that no one will like. Perhaps that’s how you know it’s a good agreement. Binding arbitration follows when collective bargaining reaches an impasse, and must be in play to protect the people. Remove collective bargaining from the equation, and your remove binding arbitration as a way of getting a valid solution that protects those who need to be protected. The rabbis were very wise. Mendy made several other cogent comments, none of which I can recall.
Mendy then turned to the parsha which he said was one of two in the Torah that was pretty boring and did not offer many ideas for comments. But Mendy being Mendy, said he found something that was really important, and it had to do with the mistranslation of a single word that has led to confusion among anyone who has ever read the Bible. The word was the mistranslation of the word “side” for “rib.”
I don’t recall the Hebrew word under consideration, but it appears in this parsha in relations to the description of the sides of the Tabernacle (Mishcan) built as a physical reminder of G od’s presence. Now this is where it gets a little fuzzy. Mendy referred us to the early chapters of Genesis where G od has decided Adam needs a help mate. To introduce this, he asked why women were created for men. I was about to say, “Who else would point out our inadequacies and ridicule our foibles?” when I realized the questions was rhetorical. Mendy is too smart to open that can of worms. So he said that women were created so as to complete men, and this was derived from the word that is mistranslated as “rib.” Yes, Eve was not created from Adam’s rib but from his side. Two sides are needed and a woman is the other side of man. Opposites are fundamental to this world. Somewhere in the talk was the midrash that when G od first created Adam, he was created with both masculine and feminine aspects. But G od saw that all His other creations were male and female and none contained both. So G od set to correct His mistake, (my word) and thus woman became the other half of man. A man and a woman are incomplete without one another. They are two halves of one original whole, and the object of human interaction is trying to rediscover our other half. So in the Jewish tradition, a woman is not subservient to a man, but stands at his side completing him. Women and men are equal, but with different obligations.
So G od caused a deep sleep to come over Adam, and He probably had to anesthetize him because He knew that it would be the only way to get him to go along with having a wife and a piece torn out of his side. I can imagine Adam saying to G od, “You want to do what to me?” Originally, Adam was created with both a masculine and a feminine soul which became separated when Eve was created. So we are now all half a soul looking for completion, and many continue this search multiple times even if they are married already. G od must have anticipated that with the commandment against adultery. When asked what happens when we find that we are married and divorced because the person we thought would complete us did not, Mendy said that souls can divide if a mistake is made and it would seem that at least some part of your soul can continue the search. This I do not buy.
There is a wonderful short story by Isaac Betshevet Singer entitled, Yachild and Yachilda which is about two angels tossed out of heaven and condemned to be reborn on earth as punishment. Here they must seek one another out for completion.
In my musical, The Experiment, I wrote a lyric where Adam is telling G od what he wants in a mate when he is told that he is to have one. It follows:
ADAM
But I'm the only one of me.
KANGAROO
Well, that's very sad indeed because there should be someone like you who wears a skirt.
ADAM
I think so too. Do you think something was overlooked? Do you think I ought to ask?
KANGAROO
Can it hurt?
ADAM
A VERY SPECIAL GUY
(Sung to the light that has gone on again.)
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 DO,
BUT THEY SMILE WHEN THEY ARE THROUGH.
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)
ADAM
(yawns and stretches and wanders over to inclined platform downstage right)
This thinking and naming things is tough work. I think I'll call this feeling tired. What a wonderful place.
(he stretches again, looks around and lays down to sleep)
ELEPHANT
Can you believe it? I have the strength of a hundred and the memory of a computer and they'll call him the crown of creation.
Mendy, it’s a very cute play but only slightly irreverent. G od is played by an overhead light that goes on and off.
March 5, 2011
Mendy Log:
Pekude – Last Parsha in Exodus
Once again, Mendy began his talk by referring to a congregant who has been involved, generous, and spiritual and yet one who has encountered many personal setbacks. While the congregant did not ask why he was subject to the difficulties that befell him, Mendy did think about it and why such people are not rewarded for their efforts with a good life. This became the open discussion which led to the single word in the parsha that took up about thirty-five minutes of thinking. The single word was the name of a man named Hur, and his name is mentioned as the grandfather of Bezalel, the chief artist who created the trappings of the Tabernacle. Each of the other men responsible for the creation of the Tabernacle were mentioned as sons of a particular man, but only Bezalel has his father and grandfather named. So Mendy opened up the discussion with why Hur is named but not other grandfathers? Nobody could guess, so Mendy referred us to an earlier chapter in Exodus that tells of Moses going up and staying on Mt. Sinai But putting Aaron, his brother, and Hur in charge, telling them that if there were concerns or questions among the people, both men were in authority to address these. So when the people came to Hur and Aaron demanding that a golden calf be made because they believed Moses was dead and G od had abandoned them, Hur immediately berated them for their lack of faith and for his response, he was promptly murdered. Obviously, Hur was a man of great faith and great integrity. Aaron, seeing what happened to Hur, probably decided that discretion was the better part of valor, and rather than suffer death, he decided to involve himself in the creation of the golden calf possibly to stall for time until Moses returned to impose order on the chaos. At least that is the rationale for Aaron’s involvement offered by the rabbis. If that was the case, Aaron had a right to save himself. I can’t help but wonder that if Hur knew that a spear would be hurled at him, would he have chosen life over faith as did Aaron? But the point that was also made was if a man with faith and integrity could suffer death because he was acting on his most precious value, what good is faith and integrity if it gets you dead? Very valid question. With that information and question, Mendy brought us back to the original question as to why Hur was the only grandfather included. Several congregants responded, and one responded with an answer that Mendy found quite profound. It seems that the inclusion of Hur’s name is a reminder to us that the merit of our behaviors are seeds that are planted in our families and take root in ensuing generations. Hur, despite his death, at that moment had planted seeds of integrity and faith in his son and in his grandson, and this grandson grew in that faith and was given the talent and the honor of being asked by Moses to create the objects to be used in the service of G od. So what was being reinforced here was that the seed, the values and the yiddishkeit that we plant in our families, do take root and effect the generations to come. So is this man who came to Mendy satisfied knowing that his descendants will be better people because of the troubles he had? I'm not so sure.
So here is my problem. I do believe that we do try our best to plant the seeds of decency, values, and whatever ghosts of yiddishkeit that cling to us from earlier generations in our children, but children grow up, and while they accept the decent behaviors and act on the positive values you’ve instilled, the yiddishkeit can be rejected as having no relationship to them and little value in their lives. Grandchildren become tangentially aware of yiddishkeit on the rare occasions that their parents fly in for a holiday or a visit. It is not reinforced in their parents homes for a variety of reasons. I am not concerned that my grandchildren will not be decent people. The fruit of that tree is being eaten as I write. But I am concerned that the Tree of Yiddishkeit, whose leaves are pretty sparse now, will bear no fruit in the future and that my grandchildren will identify with nor have meaningful associations with their religion or their people.
March 12, 2011
Mendy Log:
Vayikra
Mendy began by raising the question as to whether or not a leader or in this case a rabbi, should confess to the congregation that he was in error and gave them the wrong information. I and most raised their hands feeling that he must tell them so the error would not be repeated. One or two felt he should not tell them because the congregation must feel that their rabbi does not make errors regarding ritual because that would call into question other instructions given. One suggested that the rabbi not bother telling them because in all probability, no one was listening anyway.
Mendy so much as admitted that he was not infallible, which was accepted by the congregation with a yawn and a “so what else is new?” But in saying that he would admit to error, he was also saying that everyone must be able to improve his or her behavior in their quest to “perfection,” and the first step to doing this is to admit error and then have a pathway to forgiveness. He then asked the congregants to consider their marriages and when they are told or have discovered that they have made an error. How do we handle it? One said, laughingly, “diamonds,” another said, “running upstairs,” and I said, “Thank you once again for pointing out my inadequacies, thus once again allowing me to grow in my humanity and consideration of you.”
I do believe that my sarcasm was lost on those on the distaff side of the mechizta, but it was not lost on the men’s side. But in saying what I said in my stage whisper, I did touch on a key learning for the parsha, and that was the “growing in humanity” piece. It would seem that according to our faith, one becomes greater in his humanity and therefore closer to G od when one recognizes his errors, admits his errors, and makes rectification first with an apology, and then with either a gift of flowers, chocolate, diamonds, or the sacrifice of a bull without blemish.
The parsha dealt with all the different types of sins, and the animal sacrifices that had to be brought to achieve forgiveness and gain atonement. Mendy pointed out that this is the first parsha used to introduce little children to the study of Torah, not because it is a good story that excites the imagination like creation or the flood, but because it is meant to establish in a child’s mind that forgiveness is always available, and that there is a procedure to follow to obtain it. Growth as a person and the human quest to reach higher so as to be more G od like, seemed to be one of several key messages taught today.
Now there were other very interesting things of which Mendy spoke and twice he referred to things in sets of four. One set dealt with the different types of errors we commit and from this set I recall: Those errors you do that you don’t know you are doing (carrying on the Sabbath thinking that there was an eruv), Those errors you do that you cannot help but do (someone threatening to kill you if you don’t eat tref), Those errors you do knowingly (driving on the Sabbath to get to shul), and one other type which I cannot recall. The other set was equally interesting and I cannot recall one word of those let alone to what it referred. That’s the problem of getting old and not having the memory for details I once had. I could have committed the error of taking notes on the Sabbath in the shul, but I would not have done that out of respect for Mendy and the congregation. So I am left with a space, but no need for sacrificing a bull.
Even though Mendy referred to all these behaviors as “errors” but I could not help but wonder if he really intended to use the word “sin” but thought better of it. To me, “sin” is a religious word and “error” is a secular word meaning supposedly the same thing, but not really.
The parsha dealt with sacrifice, and I couldn’t help but imagining myself at the Tabernacle watching all those frightened animals lowing at the sky waiting to be slaughtered. All those people seeking forgiveness, all those animals, all that blood in order to create a sweet aroma that was pleasing to G od. I was also wondering how the high priests kept their garments clean considering all the blood that they had to dash on the horns of the alter. I think the Jewish idea taught to us by the angel staying Abraham’s hand over Isaac as a way of teaching humanity to substitute animals for people, was a major step along the way to humanizing mankind and our means of worship, but I think that substituting a truly meaningful prayer that will rise upward is a sweeter aroma to G od’s nostrils and less anger directed at Jews from PETA.
The Haftorah of Isaiah was of particular interest. I enjoy discovering the origins of something that I’ve known for a long time. In Catholicism, the Alpha and Omega, the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, are used symbolize Jesus. Now I see that was a borrowing from Isaiah where the prophet says of G od, “I am the first and I am the last, and besides Me there is no G od.” I recall how pleased I was to discover that it was Isaiah who said “See and be radiant” which became the new motto of Brooklyn College in the early 60"s. I think they went back to “Nil Sin Magno Labore.” (Nothing without hard labor.)
March 19, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Tzav-Zacher
Since sundown is the start of the Purim festival, Mendy began with a reference to Heyman, the arch villain of the Persian Empire, and his history as a descendant of Amalak who was a descendant of Esau, Jacob’s twin brother. In the Torah, G od’s wrath is extended to Amalak and the Amalakies because of their attack on the Israelites as they march through the desert on the way to Caanan. The Israelites marched near their lands, but the Israelites were not a threat. Yet that didn’t stop Amalak from ordering an attack on the back of the camp where the old, the women, and the children were. It was not out of fear that they attacked, but out of pure hatred, a hatred that was handed down from Esau for his brother’s descendants. It seems that when G od gave King Saul the order to eradicate the Amalakites, Saul took pity on the king and allowed him to live for a time. During that time, the Amalakite king fathered a child that became the ancestor of Heyman. So the Amalakites became the traditional enemies of the Jews throughout time, and anyone who has tried to destroy the Jewish people is considered a descendant of Amalak.
Mendy also raised the idea of true prophesy, and if you knew that such a person like Heyman would be born who would in fact become the source of such a hatred and potential devastation, would you put an end to that person’s life before he developed into the person he would become? I think one or two women took umbridge with such a notion and possibly as well with G od for commanding that all the Amalakites be destroyed. Mendy should have asked her if she would have allowed Hitler to live if she had absolute proof that he would, like Heyman, try to murder all the Jews? Some hard choices have to be made, and I’ll stick with the Talmudic admonition that “If a man comes to slay you, slay him first.”
At the time of the Purim story, Persia was the great power in the world and all Jews lived in the Persian Empire. So when Heyman convinced the King of Persia, Ahashsveros, to issue an edict to murder all the Jews on a certain date, the Jewish People were in a terrible predicament.
But Esther, Ahashsveros’s queen, was secretly a Jew, and her uncle, Mordecai, prevailed upon her to go to the king. Now to go to the king without being called for was a death sentence, and Esther was reluctant to put her life in jeopardy. But she relents, and this reveals two things about heroism. First, it’s harder to be a hero when you are afraid and know you must act because there is no one else to act. That’s what real courage is. A person who knows his life is in danger and still acts for the good, is as great a hero as one who is trained to be a hero. The second thing one learns from the interpretation of this story is that each of us has a purpose, and all of Esther’s life was leading up to this moment. She did not want to be queen and did everything not to be queen. Yet she was selected. She was afraid to speak up for her people, and she was compelled to speak. She rose above here fears to become one of our greatest heroines.
Mendy taught that Esther had a task to perform, and her entire life was leading up to that task. Mendy said that each of us also has a task to perform and few know what that task is until we are called upon to perform it. Do we only recognize this task in hindsight? Is Mendy saying that G od destines everyone?
I like the idea because it endows all human beings with a sense of purpose, and people need a sense of purpose. But to accept the fact that we are placed here with a specific purpose, is to come dangerously close to determinism. I do believe the Jewish People as a group have taken upon themselves the purpose of modeling for the world correct behavior as it is spelled out in the Torah, and making the world a better place, but beyond these, any acts of courage or heroism are dependent on the nature of the person who is the actor in the drama and not foreseen at this person’s birth.
Mendy said nothing about the parsha itself which dealt primarily with how one becomes pure again after suffering from a skin disease, and how one gets rid of a fungus that has infiltrated a home. The parsha was a good indication of the attention to health and sanitation our ancestors considered in their travels. It was certainly an early attempt at the science of infectious diseases, and the recognition that the infected person needed to be isolated from the others and washed. Building inspection for environmental hazards as regarding public health was also a consideration in the Torah millennium before it became part of Western Civilization.
April 2, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Tazira
This parsha continues the concern for communicable diseases, infestations, skin eruptions, and other things that render a person unclean and in need of being isolated so the community will be safe until the condition can be identified and remedies taken. The parsha actually opens with the laws regarding how long a woman remains forbidden to her husband and involved in ritual matters after the birth of a child. For a girl, it is two weeks, and it should be two weeks for sons, too, but it is only seven days so the mother can be present at the circumcision. I like to think that this mandated space of time was incorporated into law as a way of guaranteeing the woman some personal space, healing, and rest, and also as a way of limiting a new mother’s obligations for rituals and the sexual demands of her husband.
Mendy began his talk by informing us that he had been instrumental in convening a group of the local rabbis for the purpose of sharing information, problems, etc. At one point, a very important rabbi had agreed to come to speak to them, and Mendy was asked as to what the topic should be. Mendy was taken aback by the deference on the part of this elder community rabbi calling him, but Mendy hasn’t learned yet that his youthful exuberance, impressive knowledge, and perceptions of reality, are just what this council needs. So Mendy suggested that this great rabbi from Philadelphia respond to specific questions that these pulpit rabbis encounter on a regular basis that need to come before a great tzadik’s eyes for clarification. At the meeting, Mendy was encouraged to speak, and his question dealt with the time that Passover must begin according to the law (halacha) which this year is 8:20 PM, and the reality that children need to be put to bed and that eating late is unhealthy for some. The great learned rabbi was silent as the other rabbis discussed the question, some stating that the law is the law, and if you can’t abide by the law it is better not to do anything. Taking that stance is what Rabbi Schecter of the Renewal Movement calls “a tightassed torah.” Mendy’s take was that people need to be moved slowly through the process, taking small steps until there is understanding as to why the law needs to be obeyed. So unless I misinterpreted his comments, Mendy seems to feel that it is better for people to have the experience of performing the rituals of drinking the four cups of wine, telling the story, eating the bitter herbs, eating the matzah, and partaking of the sweet harosets which is symbolic of the mortar the slaves used between the bricks. Mendy seemed to imply that pulpit rabbis see a reality different from academicians. The guest rabbi finally said that it would be up to each individual rabbi to address the questions and concerns of each individual congregant as the issue is raised.
I was personally gratified to hear his reasonableness because few of the rituals I try to to maintain follow the law specifically. So I confess that I, for years, have moved my second seder to Saturday night, because that is the only time I can have two or four out of my nine grandchildren come in from out of state to participate. By doing so, those children can help me make harosets with my grandmother’s hand grinder, and in some mystical way, connect with her. At this time I can explain why each egg must be broken into a glass separately to be sure there is no blood, and at this time I can explain other traces of yiddishkeit that still cling in the kitchen but will disappear when I am gone. At this time I can explain and review the symbols as we set the Passover table because without moving the second seder to Saturday night, those grandchildren who are not receiving a formal Jewish education, would have little understanding of what is going on. So do I stop moving my seder to adhere to the law, or do I try to inculcate yiddishkeit at whatever opportunity I can create? For me, the answer is easy.
Ultimately, though Mendy might sympathize with my situation, he would not be supportive of it because at his core, he is a committed Orthodox rabbi and the law is the law is the law. He may bend it by winking at people who drive to shul on Shabbos, but he knows that he would not have the size congregation he has if he insisted on the halacha regarding driving. So he is constantly recognizing issues and accommodating to preserve what he has built. Yet, he made it quite clear during the service when he revealed that the conversation at the rabbinic gathering was philosophic, and the reality is that Passover begins at 8:20 and there are no ifs, ands, or buts. None of the required obligations are to be performed before that time. But Mendy, being Mendy, had a suggestion for the congregants that the songs usually sung at the end be sung first, and that the meal be served early. In this way, all halachac needs could be met. That’s brilliant and such suggestions and perceptions are exactly why older rabbinic types will seek out Mendy for his perceptions. Sadly, it’s a moot point this year because none of my grandchildren will be attending Passover seders here this year, so I’ll be hosting the two on the usual dates.
One final observation. At one point Mendy brought up the idea of friendship with members of the congregation, but I don’t recall how he got on this topic. It had something to do with making friends with the rabbi or who the rabbi might consider a friend. I think he might even have asked the question: “How do you know if the rabbi is your friend?” but I’m not sure. I thought of my own criteria at that moment, and if I want you as a friend, I’m going to begin having lunch with you and invite you to my home for a Shabbat dinner or a Sunday brunch. But Mendy said that the criteria had something to do with the rabbi sharing his own problems or concerns, and if that is the criteria, I do believe that Mendy views many people as his friends, especially those who attend services regularly. Mendy will openly raise or share problems he encounters with congregants or with the community from the bimah, and invites comments and suggestions. In one on one conversations I’ve had with him, I have found him to be open and honest. Few rabbis I have known share problems or issues from the bimah, fearing that familiarity will breed contempt and they will be seen as something less than infallible. Mendy wears his infallibility with honor, and such openness makes him at once vulnerable, but also reveals his trust in us and affection for us. His behavior lets us know that , we are all friends. And that trust and affection is certainly returned, and I have no difficulty admitting that though I am old enough to be his father and would be honored to have such a son, I would have no difficulty going to him with a problem because he is a vast repository of an ancient wisdom that can be made relevant for today. At one point, a congregant came into the service, and Mendy smiled and welcomed him back from Florida. Mendy came off the bimah and hugged him, and I could see in Mendy’s face the genuine affection that he has for this man.
Mendy Log;
Parsha Acharei Mote
Lev. 16:1-18-30
April 16, 2011
Mendy began by offering congratulations to the families that would be united next week in marriage and spoke glowingly about the bride and groom who will be married in Israel. On the week prior to the wedding the prospective groom is called up to the Torah for an honor and the procedure is called an “Uff Ruff.” Mendy said that both bride and groom are dressed in white both because white is a symbol of purity, and that no adornments of gold or jewels should distract the couple from their thought on one another. He then drew a comparison between such simple apparel to the apparel worn by the High Priest. On all days, the high priest wore remarkable vestments with lots of gold, silver and jewels, yet on Yom Kippur, the day when all eyes were focused on him, he wore only plain white linen, because his focus was on redeeming the people, and the people’s focus was on redeeming themselves. There were to be no visible distractions from this.
This particular Sabbath, the one right before the Passover, is called Shabbat ha gadol, or the great Sabbath, and Mendy asked why it was given this appellation. It was traditional for the rabbis to give long speeches on this day which were possibly “great,” in both content and in time, but the reason Mendy gave dealt with miracles. Now miracles happen daily, but because they are so readily available to us such as the rising and setting of the sun or the seasonal patterns, we have taken them for granted. But when something occurs only once and calls attention to itself, it is viewed as a miracle. Mendy related a story told in The Code of Jewish Ethics by Rabbi Joseph Caro about a miracle that took place in Egypt but not readily known. As the story goes, it seems that when Moses declared that all the first born were to die, the first born of Egypt came to Pharaoh and begged him to let the Jews go. Pharaoh refused, so they went to the generals of the army pointing out that all the other events that Moses said would happen, did, but the army was loyal to Pharaoh and refused to expel the Israelites. So the first born of Egypt took up arms against the army of Pharaoh and a civil war was fought. This civil war, Egyptians fighting Egyptians according to Joseph Caro, was a great miracle and thus the commemoration of this miracle on the Sabbath before Passover. I had never heard this story nor had the very bright men who sit near me. Traditionally, the slaying of the first born is attributed to G od, but this story introduces another idea by suggesting that there were also first born slain at the hands of Pharaoh’s army. This is a very provocative idea. There is also the theory that the Egyptians, after suffering all the torments attributed to G od and Moses, might have sacrificed their own first born to their gods so as to placate them and lift from them the plagues that befell them. Then again, there is the theory that first born Egyptians had the honor of sleeping on low cots in the cool courtyards of their homes, and died from poisonous vapors were released by the effects of massive seismic action due to the eruption of the volcano on the island of Thera that rocked the Mediterranean world and brought an end to the Minoan Civilization. Any or all of these events may have become woven into the wonderful tapestry we call the Exodus and passed down through our oral tradition. Or then again, it may have happened just as it is related in our Torah. For me, there is no conflict between science and religion, because, to paraphrase Einstein, science seeks out what is, and religion seeks out what might be. They exist on separate planes. Biblical archaeology seeks to prove or disprove what is written in religious texts. It looks for facts, but not for spirit. The Exodus story is a story about the human yearning for freedom, and it is the story of a G od who believes that his creatures should be free. This G od reveals Himself by commanding nature to turn against the Egyptians and their pantheon of gods and demonstrates the impotence of these gods and the impotence of earthly monarchs who would deny His reign as the one true G od of all. The core message here is that human kind has a right to be free and a right to do whatever it takes to achieve that blissful condition, all the while recognizing that G od is the inspiration for this desire to be free.
A Joyous Passover,
Mendy Log:
April 19, 2011
On the first day of Passover, Mendy asked a very provocative question: “How is it possible to identify with the slaves that went out of Egypt when we live in lovely homes, in a free country, and with the food and comforts we so thoroughly enjoy?” It is a question that I’ve thought of myself at each seder as I consider my family and friends gathered and enjoying the bounty offered. So Mendy asked us to consider other kinds of slavery, the slavery of our own making. What is there in our lives that binds us to our own treadmills so we keep going around and around in guilt and in pain. Simon and Garfunkel raised the same issue in The Sounds of Silence with the words: “And the people bowed and prayed, To the neon gods they made...” We have become bound and dependent on a technological world that has little room for spirituality in it, but we retain an awareness within ourselves that we yearn to connect with something greater than ourselves, but cannot suspend cognitive disbelief to access it. Wordsworth, in the 1700's wrote: “The world is too much with us, Late and soon, we lay waste our powers.” It’s all the same. The world closes us in with it’s temptations and pleasures, and we become slaves to these. We take a stand and we become enslaved to the stand we’ve taken. We become ossified in our own egos, and in doing so, we create our own Egypts. And so we wander through our own lives feeling disconnected, much as the way our ancestors wandered through the desert until they had freed themselves of their fears.
My Passover greeting was: “May you find the strength to free yourselves from whatever personal Egypts in which you might find yourselves, and become free.”
Mendy Log:
April 26, 2011
Last day of Passover
Mendy didn’t speak before the Torah portion as is his tradition, but before the Yiskor service, the prayers uttered in memory of those we’ve lost. His message was one of hope and gratitude. He spoke of a particular song sung at the seder called Dyanu which translates into “It would have been enough.” It’s a song of gratitude that basically says that if G od had taken us out of Egypt and not split the sea, for us, it would have been enough. It continues with the line that if G od had taken us out of Egypt and split the sea, and not given us the Torah, it would have been enough. It then goes on that if G od had only taken us out of Egypt, split the sea, given us the Torah, and not fed us with manna, it would have been enough. Get the point. We are to be a grateful people and appreciate everything we are given or obtain for ourselves. It is my personal belief that ungrateful people are not happy people and not easily made happy. Judaism is big on gratitude. Every day we are told to thank G od for everything that touches our lives. I for one, am very grateful for what I have. I have more than most, but not as much as some. I rejoice in my portion, and rejoice in the portions of others. There are those with “things” who may lack spirituality and education, and there are those with education and spirit, who might not have a lot of “stuff.” Happily, here in America, we are endowed by our Creator with the ability have both and all my life I’ve been working towards that end. I’m still a little short on education and spirituality. I am quite content with my “stuff.”
Mendy continued by speaking to us about telling our story. He used the Passover story and the symbols of the matzah, the bitter herb, and the sweet haroseth that tells both a story of sadness but also of hope. These stories are told to inspire us and our children and grandchildren in the belief that nothing is permanently fixed and that the society that keeps us from becoming free can be changed. We can change it if we tell the story and infuse that story with hope. Hope is the gift we give to one another at the seder. In my home, the Elijah cup remains empty, but as we tell the story of Elijah and sing, the empty cup is passed around and each person pours some of his or her wine into it along with their hopes and dreams for the coming year. In this way we symbolically invest ourselves in the future and the dream of Messianic times.
Likewise, each of us as individuals has a story to tell, and we also have stories told to us by our parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, great uncles and aunts and on and on. Each of these stories makes up the tapestry we call a family. And like the Passover story, there are trials and tribulations in our family tales, but also there we are told of overcoming barriers and the joy of achieving. I was very fortunate to become interested in my families genealogy, and in doing so, rediscovered my great aunt Fanny who unlocked for me the story of my great grandparent’s lives and the lives of their children. She was the last of that generation, but through her I was able to contact, record, and write down the memories of her nieces and nephews, the people of my parent’s generation. These memories were all sent out to my own generation to be shared with their children and grandchildren.
Each of us is a giver of memories, and when we die, our memories die with us. So it is vital that we sit with the elder generation and with the box of pictures and have them identify who these people in the photos are and how they are part of the story. It is vital that we record these voices so they and the stories are not lost to posterity. Like the Passover story, the stories of our families’ survival gives us hope. From the destitute dirt streets of a shetle in Ukraine, a poor tailor and his wife were brave enough to leave and go to a land where they may or may not known anyone, had very little money, and did not know the language. But in two generations, some of their grand children graduated college, and in the next generation, almost all of their great grand children are college graduates in one profession or another, and I do believe that all of their great, great grandchildren are college graduates. That speaks of what America is and what can be hoped for here. It took courage to leave “the flesh pots of Egypt” and throw yourself in with a ragged band of slaves who are marching into a desert either to encounter G od or death. Happily, we encountered G od and entered history.
May you never be in a narrow place.
May 7, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha
Mendy began by telling us that the parsha deals with G od’s orders to the Kohaniem (High Priests) on what they are to act, what is allowed them and what is forbidden. Oddly, the first admonition is that they are not to attend a burial unless it is of an immediate family member. Mendy then asked what the congregation thought was the reason that of all the rules to be imposed on the priests, this was the first one uttered. In short, why this one and why was it the first? As always, Mendy invited the congregation to respond, and there were many different takes on this. Over the years, Mendy’s style of responding to answers has change, and he no longer points out why the congregant is wrong, which encourages other congregants to participate without feeling that they will be ridiculed. Ultimately, the answer he gave which did build upon some responses was that the focus of the priests was to be on life and not on death. To my way of thinking, our ancestors had just come out of Egypt were the focus of their religion was on the afterlife. The Egyptian sacred book was called, The Book of the Dead. By insisting that anything dead was a contamination the G od of Israel was letting the Jewish priests know that they were to focus on life, and in this focus on life was the message to the Jewish people that G od was giving. Unlike other faiths, Judaism says nothing of an afterlife in the Torah, and nothing of a Heaven or Hell. The Orthodox concepts of going to purgatory to be cleansed for no more than eleven months and then to Gan Eden, entered Judaism at a later date. While other faiths focus on how to use this life so as to be redeemed for the afterlife, Judaism asks its adherents to focus on this life and not to be concerned about the next.
So the key value reinforced by the teaching that the priests were not to go near anything or anyone that died, reinforces the idea that life is sacred. This is the supreme Jewish value and is revealed in the Torah in numerous places: “I set before you this day good and evil, life and death. Therefore, choose life,” is one of the clearest statement regarding this value. Here G od is giving you the choice, but clearly says what He wants you to do. In the Talmud we are taught that “To take a life, is as if you have taken an entire world, and that to save a life is as if you have saved an entire world.” Christianity and Islam both borrow this exact thought.
Somewhere, the concept of holiness was introduced, and it may have been in relation to the priests themselves being told to be holy. Holy means separate. As G od says, “Be holy for I am holy,” and that means that we are to be separate because G od is separate. The question that needed to be asked was, “How do you get to be holy?” “Separate from what?” My response would have been that humans are to separate themselves from their animal instincts. After all, we are part of the animal kingdom, and we have such inclinations, so in those areas such as eating, sexuality, interactions with others, etc.,we are to rise above our animal instincts which may be base, and rise to a higher level of behavior. There are criteria for what is moral and what is immoral. But on top of that criteria is an additional criteria which layers on to the judgment a higher standard. It is the criteria for holiness.
June 18, 2011
Mendy Log
Parsha Shelach Numbers 13:1-15:41
Mendy began by telling a story about his first months in Cherry Hill and his inability to put together a minyon for the High Holidays. Because of this, he returned to Crown Heights, Brooklyn to pray with the Rebbe. While there, one of other rabbis told him that he was very lucky to be able to return from where he was sent to be with the Rebbe. This comment led Mendy and this rabbi to a discussion, one that reflected a debate that has been going for well over three thousand years. The discussion dealt with whether it is better to be able to return to in a sacred place to pray, or whether it is better to stay where you were sent to fulfill your mission. Mendy opened the question to the congregation and the overwhelming response was that it is better to fulfill your mission. All Chabad rabbis are sent out to fulfill a particular mission, and that is to assist Jews who have veered off the path to return. The Rebbe sent Mendy to Cherry Hill to do just that, and he is here until the Messiah comes. While he was once again overjoyed to be in the presence of the Rebbe, his yearning was to create his own minyon in Cherry Hill. I voted with those who felt the mission was more important because I feel, with your own minyon, you create your own sacred space. Besides, personal prayer is a passive activity, but bringing people to prayer is an action. Judaism is a faith of action. “That which is hateful to you DO NOT do to another.” Action. “Pray as if everything depends on G od, and ACT as if everything depends on you.” Action. I can go on and on with such types of declarations. At the core of Judaism is the idea of correct action over correct faith.
This introduction led into the parsha which dealt with the twelve spies being sent out to scout out the land and the “evil” report brought back by ten of them. The report was basically that the land, while flowing with milk and honey, was filled with giants, well fortified, and with air that swallowed people up. The spies saw themselves as “grasshoppers” in the eyes of these very tall people. But Mendy said that aside from forgetting that G od would insure their success, the spies liked the life they had come to live in the desert. They studied Torah all day, were fed with manna, the well of Miriam provided water, and they had no major tasks to perform. There is even a midrash that their clothing never got dirty. It was a good life. If they conquered the land, all that would change and they’d have to become responsible for themselves. Why give up a good thing?
Moses is outraged, as is G od who is getting fed up with the people’s lack of faith. These people have seen the signs and wonders in Egypt and in the desert, and yet continue to doubt, so G od tells Moses that he will destroy them. But Moses, reminds G od that if He did that, word would get back to Egypt and the rest of the nations, that He was not able to control his own adherents, and what would be “ah shanda fur deh goyim” which basically means that He would be shamed among the nations. So G od decrees that as punishment, no person over twenty would be allowed to enter the Promised Land, and that the people would wander forty years until that rebellious generation was no more. The natural outcome of this is the weeping and wailing and the willingness to fight for the land. But by this time, G od was not interested. So against Moses’ wishes, a group attacks Canaan, are soundly defeated, and beaten back. It is interesting and so true that people will miss opportunities given them out of fear or selfishness, and it is only afterwards, when they realize what they have missed will they attempt to change the past and their behavior. But by that time the opportunity is passed and nothing can be done about it. “The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on. And all your piety and wit shall not call it back to cancel out half a line.” Sad but true that we come to action a little too late. (Right now I’m thinking of global warming and the melting icebergs that will inundate our costal cities.) So only Joshua and Caleb who delivered a good report to Moses are permitted to live long enough to enter the Promised Land as are the women who were not condemned by the spy’s actions. By the way, death by plague was the fate of the ten spies. I guess the message is that that’s what happens when you disappoint G od.
June 25, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Korach Num.16:1-18:32
Mendy’s began by telling the story of his earliest days setting up Chabad in the Cooper Corner strip mall, and his father’s response to Mendy not sitting in a chair of honor, not being dressed to standard, and allowing his congregants to call him by his first name. Mendy’s dad was disturbed to the point where the elder Mangel called his other two sons to speak to their brother on the proper way a rabbi was to comport himself. Now I’m positive, this was not the first time that Mendy’s dad took umbridge with Mendy’s behavior because Mendy has shared several stories of being a spunky and somewhat independent thinker growing up in the home of a very formal and very well respected Chassidic Lubuvicher rabbi. So Mendy invited the congregation to comment on who was right: Should a rabbi be part of the congregation and readily approachable, or should he be more formal, aloof, and convey an air of mystery and distance? There were those who felt that they had been brought up to respect the rabbi and would never address the rabbi by his first name even if he had permission. My former students have permission to call me by my first name after they graduate college, but most choose not to. Others felt that for a rabbi to connect with his people, he has to go among the people and make them feel comfortable, while others felt there should be a distance since familiarity might bring contempt or open the way for disrespect. I have, over the years, felt contempt for some rabbis, but it was not their familiarity that caused it but their behavior. Yes, I do not hold that a rabbi, or any man of the cloth no matter what his faith, is “only a man” with foibles that should be excused. I for one believe that when a man wraps himself in that cloak where he is speaking about and for G od, he had better not disappoint in his public life. Men of the cloth have to be more morally fit than the best of their congregants. Others felt there should be a balance between distance and familiarity.
Mendy, unlike his father, sits by the door on Shabbat, and I know I am always guaranteed a smile and a warm handshake even if there are no words. Such a personal connection with everyone who enters, makes this sanctuary more open and inviting. But the connection is really established by the honesty, knowledge, warmth, and humor that Mendy exudes from the bimah each week and this is where the rapport is established. Over the years of experiencing him, and even though he is young enough to be my son, I would take a problem to him because after all these years of belonging to a variety of synagogues, Mendy is the first rabbi I ever think of as “my rabbi.” This is because of his approach to us and that is why his congregation has grown over the years to include so many people who are not Orthodox, but who still come to an Orthodox shul. We come for different reasons, but Mendy has made himself the properly placed fulcrum that keeps everything in equilibrium. Mendy is right to behave as he does for this particular congregation. His father has his own congregation, and I’m sure for his congregants, the elder Mangel’s behavior is what they need.
Now all this was prelude to the story of Korach who is the man who leads a rebellion against Moses for not showing proper leadership and not being connected to the people. The rabbis teach that Korah was a man who was ahead of his times in demanding that the leader not be separate from the people. Of course he also had a hidden agenda which was to assume leadership himself, and that is probably why he and his followers got swallowed up by the earth’s mouth. In response, Moses said that he was the interface between man and G od, and Aaron, his brother, was the connection with the people. But whatever argument Moses made for the differentiation G od established for the Israelites, Korah argued. Moses could not win. Again, a hidden agenda. Today some leaders, both secular and religious, interface with G od by looking in the mirror, and do go out to connect with the people so they will continue to be voted back into office. Yes, I tend to be cynical.
July 2, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Chukkat Num. 19:22:1-22:1
Mendy began by telling us that Abraham establish a precedent for celebrating rites of passage in our tradition even though the sages argued whether the original rite was the circumcision of his son Isaac, Isaac’s weaning or Isaac’ bar mitzvah. This led Mendy to inform us that his own son was celebrating his thirteenth birthday and was becoming a bar mitzvah. He related to us how proud he is of the choices his son is making that reflect the value this young man places on learning for the sake of learning and on Yiddishkeit, the traditional Jewish way of doing things. We were also told of a midrash about the celebration Abraham held in Issac’s honor to which all the major players of his society were invited including King Og who said, “I will crush the child with my finger.” This was a strange thing to say at a celebration to the guest of honor or the host, and I don’t recall the connection Mendy made except for the interpretation that perhaps it was a forecast that when Isaac was grown and out of the sphere of Abraham and Sarah’ influence he would turn against his faith and his G od. Holding fast to faith or walking away seemed to be one of the themes of the day.
And while he was on the topic of the bar mitzvah, Mendy also took the opportunity to tell us that there were three things that has killed Judaism and kept people from Yiddishkeit: bar mitzvah preparation and the party that follows, and having to say the kaddish and the yiskor prayers for their departed. Simply, these three traditions have turned the religion into a commemoration of death and an expensive party that puts some in hock. Too many people come to services to say the kaddish and yiskor only when they have to commemorate the memories of loved ones, and young children tolerate learning because of the party they know will follow. Many young people then walk away because the values inherent in the faith that are life sustaining, are never taught and cannot be taught through the rote memorization that often accompanies bar mitzvah preparation. Values are taught and internalized through the actions modeled by the trusted and significant people in our lives, and we incorporate them because we want to please. I remember prior to my bar mitzvah, my mother gave me the option of the family having a new car with the money to be spent on the party, or me having the party. Realizing I couldn’t drive at thirteen, I took the party. After the party, I attended synagogue only on the High Holidays as my father did, and it wasn’t until I was in my 30's that I took it upon myself to learn and discover my religion because I started to sense that there was something significant missing. The thing missing was Judaism. I was never taught as a child that this religion could provide me with life sustaining values. This I discovered on my own.
There is a process of valuing and Mendy touched upon it. At its foundation, the valuing process insists that a value cannot be kicked into someone if the value is to really be held by that person. Certainly, a person will act on someone else’s value out of fear or shame, or even love and the need to please, but once the source of fear and shame are gone, the value and the ensuing behaviors will go also if they have not been internalized. Mendy praised his son for genuinely holding Yiddishkeit because, like Manesseh and Ephraim, the boy has chosen to hold it. But part of the valuing process is to choose the value from alternatives and after thoughtful consideration of the consequences of not holding them. But Joseph’s two sons had other options before them so they indeed had a choice. I don’t know if there are any alternatives to Yiddishkeit in Mendy’s home, so I must ask myself whether or not a choice can be freely made if there are no choices from which to choose. As Mendy has often said, it’s easier for him to hold the values he holds because he was raised in a loving home that reinforced them every day of his life. His entire world reinforced those values. He recognizes that for those of us who fell away for a variety of reasons, coming back and reaccepting such values and practices are not easy tasks.
Mendy also spoke of how difficult this week was for him because it was the week of the Rebbe’s passing, and it also marks the week of his older brother’s passing. He spoke lovingly of both, and made the connection between the love the Rebbe had for the Jewish people and the love Moses also had for the people. Mendy related that there have been certain people, among them Chaim Potok the author, who said that after the Rebbe died, Chabad Lubovicher would fall apart without their charismatic leader. Here I believe was the connection between King Og’s threat, Potok’s prophesy, and the Rebbe. But Mendy pointed out that since the Rebbe’s death, Chabad has flourished and centers have opened up all around the world run by young men and women who have internalized the values of Yiddishkeit and the Rebbe’s message of loving. What the Rebbe taught was taught out of love for the people, is accepted by his followers, and is acted on consistently because the message of loving resonated as being right and good. The success of Chabad is that it accepts people at all stages of their religious practices and awarenesses, and this was also at the core of the Rebbe’s teachings.
Moses was the spokesman on behalf of the Jewish People to G od as witnessed by the numbers of times he pleaded with G od not to destroy them because of their inability to understand or believe in the miracles they saw happening around them. When people’s stomachs are empty, and they thirst, they fear for their survival, demanding protection and sustenance from their leaders. For many, leadership is only as good as what the leader did for me yesterday. It may have been Gandhi who said, and I’m paraphrasing, “For some, the only time they can find G od is in a piece of bread.” Moses loved these people, and this quality is what G od liked about him. The Rebbe loved his people, and I’m sure G od liked him for this quality, too. Conveying a love for the people and modeling that love to all was the underpinning message of the Rebbe, and that is what has enabled Lubuvichers to continue to bring Jews back to Yiddishkeit without the direct presence of the Rebbe.
Mendy Log:
July 16, 2011
Parsha Pinchas Num. 25:10-30:1
There was a Ufruf this Shabbat, a ritual where the man is called up to the Torah prior to his marriage to recite a blessing and to be blessed. His bride is also blessed, though in the Orthodox tradition, she does not go up on the bimah during the service.
On such occasions, Mendy tries to find something in the weekly parsha that he could use as a message to the bride and groom; the chussan and kallah. So he opened his drush with the a review of last week’s portion. He reminded us that after Bilam blessed and not cursed the Israelites, this false prophet/ magician, told the king that the way to destroy the Israelits is by getting them to become immoral so that their G od will get angry and destroys them Himself. The king does this by inciting the women of his country to introduce harlotry to the Israelite men. As expected, they embrace the embraces of the pagan women who lead them into all sorts of debauchery including idol worship which is always a no-no. G od does get angry and His response come in the form of plague. Thousands die, but Pinchus, a Levite, sees one of the young leaders who should have known better “sporting” with a Median princess, and Pinchus promptly dispatches them with a spear. The plague stops immediately and that is where the parsha ends. The following Parsha, one of only two in the entire Torah named after an individual, continues the story where G od tells Moses to elevate Pinchas to the status of priest for his willingness to lead, and to do what needed to be done to save the people.
So the question posed by Mendy to the congregation was “Why is there a separation between the action Pinchas took and the reward he receives for that action?” It would have been just as easy to finish the story in the last parsha where the rest of his story takes place.
And this is where Mendy brought home an esoteric teaching to the bride and groom. The separation exists because the Torah is teaching that between an action that generates feelings or great passions for that matter, and the response, there must be a space for all concerned to come down from the moment and to regain some equilibrium and perspective. He used himself as an example and an incident in his marriage. Such a story (which always reinforces his humanity even if the story might depict a failing on his part) led into the idea that time is needed to cool off in any given situation where one person really annoys another. Things said in the heat of a response may cause more problems than that of the initial incident that caused the problem in the first place. This is where I find the genius of the rabbis and the beauty of Judaism. A seemingly simple division of two chapters written centuries ago becomes the source of a good piece of wisdom for us today because some rabbi a thousand years ago wondered why there was a separation between actions and responses.
This reminded me of something that happened before Toby and I were married. I was visiting her and her eldest daughter was out on a date and said she would be back at 12:30. When the time arrived the daughter did not. One o’clock came and went as did two. All this time, Toby was becoming frantic and more angry. But as everyone knows, anger is a secondary feeling, and I knew that when the girl walked in, there would be a “Where the hell were you, you inconsiderate.....”. So I asked Toby what was under the anger which initially reflected the girl’s disobedience, but which really was a profound fear that something had happened to her child. I also told her that in all probability, her daughter was rehearsing her own fight and counter responses, and there would be a major confrontation if she responded with anger. I told her to respond with the feeling she will feel which would better reflect the moment and not the past. So when her daughter finally walked in at 2:30 A.M. ready for her fight, Toby said honestly, “Thank G od you are home safely! We’ll talk about this tomorrow after a good night’s sleep.” The daughter was completely disarmed and confused because her mother chose a completely different tactic.
The Torah has hidden wisdom, but it does take a Mendy on the bimah to see it and to offer it.
There was a second message to the bride and groom, but I can’t recall what it was. And because it was an Ufruf, at one point small candies were passed out, and after the prospective groom received his blessing, he was showered with the sweets. I remember the candy that rained down upon me at my bar mitzvah. It’s a delightful tradition.
July 23, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Mattote Num. 30:2-32:42
I surmise that the core message Mendy wanted us to have this week is that people who are not living in a religious community daily, and who have taken work in the secular world, are valuable people and to be honored if they incorporate the traditions and values of Judaism in their daily lives. He got on this topic because relatives were visiting who did not earn their livings as rabbinic types but as business people. Once in our history, rabbis had a trade probably based upon the injunction, “You shall not use the Torah as a spade,” which means I believe, that scholarship and rabbinics is what you can do in addition to earning a living. Happily, modern rabbis do not have to spit their time between a secular career and focusing on the needs of their congregations.
It was this combination of being observant and holding a secular position that initiated the discussion because in the parsha, the Israelites are about to enter Canaan when the tribes of Reuben and Gad inform Moses that they which to stay on the eastern side of the Jordan because they have many heads of live stock, and the pastures are good. Moses agrees once they convince him that they will fight and not return home until the land has been wrested from the Canaanites, but Moses states that the half tribe or half the tribe of Menassah, descendants of Joseph, must live among them. So Mendy asked the question as to why Moses posited this odd condition? The answer had to do with the tribe of Menassah also being involved in commerce of a sort as were the tribes of Reuven and Gad so they understood them, but the tribe of Menassah had proven to Moses that they were devout as well. Moses, believing that all his people needed to be kept close to one another for support and comfort, felt that half the tribe of Menassah would be a good influence and keep these two tribes in contact with the rest of the people who would be living in Canaan proper. The other half of the tribe of Menassah would be settled in close proximity so their brethren, living with Reuben and Gad, would also not be out of contact and feel isolated from their own.
Mendy was praising specifically those people in his family who not only maintained a place in the secular world, but also held fast to the traditions of their people. In doing so, he was also praising those of his congregation who did their utmost to straddles these two very different worlds, and to incorporate each into his or her daily lives.
A part of the parsha also dealt with vows a woman makes and when they may be forgiven by the Nazarite.
Mendy used a different word similar to Nazarite which is a person who has taken special vows not to drink wine or cut one’s hair. Samson was a Nazarite. I never knew what a Nazarite did and I surmise they were holy people who had the power to absolve someone from a vow.
The Kol Nidre prayer chanted on Yom Kippur asks G od to annul those vows we make to Him that we will not be able to keep. Vows made to people are not annulled through this prayer, and that has always been known to the Jewish world. Sadly, because of this prayer, some in the non-Jewish world came to believe that a Jewish vow, or promise did not have to be kept and thus, another stereotype was born due once again to the unwillingness of people to ask questions. Now it would seem that if the Kol Kidre prayer absolved vows to G od, and a holy person such as a Nazarite could absolve vows that could not be kept because they were made under duress or in a passion, why couldn’t Jeptha, break his vow to G od to sacrifice the first thing he saw when he returned home? Sadly, Jeptha was greeted by his young daughter. Surely G od, who rejected Isaac as a sacrifice, putting an end to human sacrifice, did not want Jeptha to do this. The outcome of the story is very vague and leaves one to wonder. Were there no Nazarites around at the time to whom he might go? I suspect this was before the Kol Nidre prayer. Were there no safety nets at this time for people who made foolish vows?
From the 21st Century, I can look back at the stories and the wisdom found in many of them, and I can also look back at the brutality of people living in the copper and iron ages discovering, haltingly, how to build a lasting civilization. While I can see the reasoning having to destroy the pagans who had and would lead the easily tempted Israelites to debauchery and blasphemy, my modern sensibilities decry the razing of cities, and the wholesale slaughter of men, women, children, and livestock. Such stories in our Torah are used against people of faith, stating that organized religion sanctions cruelty and war. “‘ More wars have been started in the name of religion, and more people have been murdered in the name of religion than anything else,”’ is something you’ve heard more than once. That may be true, but these wars weren’t started by Jews, and if the Jewish mandate to bring the world to ethical monotheism had not been thwarted by those who actually started such wars and murdered Jews in them, perhaps the world would not be in the situation in which it finds itself. The moral code of the Torah which became the moral foundation for Western Civilization, has probably kept humanity from totally destroying itself. This code came out of religion.
July 30, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Masel Numbers 30:2-32:42
Mendy said he was going to speak about a serious subject which involved two murders; one in Brooklyn, and one in Israel. He lamented the fact that both murderers were very observant, and that their years of prayer and their involvement in a community was not enough to stem the rage that no one knew festered inside them. I see what happened in the minds of these ciminals as one of those cognitive disconnects where a person knows the difference between what they are about to do and what they should do and still chooses to do wrong. Theirs was a choice. Mendy and I both agree that there are evil people in the world, and that claiming that someone is “sick” doesn’t alter and should not excuse the crime. The legal defense of psychological impairment is a cop out and often rejected by the courts. It’s another excuse for some on the politically correct secular Left to protect evil people because they can’t deal with the reality of evil existing. Evil is a religious descriptor. Moses said, “You shall burn the evil out of your midst,” and I think that is a good rule of thumb where it appropriately applies.
I for one have never believed that there is any correlation between wealth, great talent, and higher degrees and decency. We all have seen wealthy, talented, and highly educated people acting despicably. I have also come to know that because one adheres to the tenants of an Abrahamic religion, practices its rituals, and is generous, it doesn’t mean they are decent human beings. One only has to think of Madoff, Milkin, and Boesky to understand the concept. But for a human being who is rigorous in his or her faith be that person a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim, or a person in our case who has wraps himself in a prayer shawl, puts on phylacteries each morning, and attends services three times a day and still willfully murders an innocent child or revered teacher, one must wonder why the basic core concept of “choosing life” did not tap him on the shoulder and stay the murderous hand.
The behavior of these two men reinforces in me the idea that if a Jewish person who chooses to follow a religious path but does not take the commandments and the values of Judaism to his or her heart but merely goes through the motions of study and ritual, that same person cannot evolve into a decent human being at his or her core. I say “evolve” because Genesis teaches that G od said that “Man is evil from his youth.” Therefore people must learn to become decent. You are born innocent, not decent. The Torah is a guide book to decency and those who seemingly observe it and yet willfully and with malice of forethought murder, have not only broken the commandment not to kill, but as a representative of Judaism and seemingly of G od, they have broken the Second Commandment as well as the Sixth. They have given G od a bad name without taking His name in vain. (Parenthetically, after the first week at the yeshiva in which I taught, I went over to one of the rabbis and asked him at what age the teachings of honoring teachers, respecting the rights of others students, and the love learning kicks in for Orthodox kids. I had actually believed that kids raised in Orthodox homes where somehow more elevated in their attitudes towards education. The rabbi looked at me as if I had two heads, chuckled, and walked away.)
The story that had moved Mendy to this topic dealt with the entry into the Land of Israel, and G od portioning out the areas for the different tribes. We already know that the tribes of Reuben and Gad along with half the tribe of Manasah settled on the west bank of the Jordan. By G od’s law, there were to be created six cities of refuge. Three were to be on the east bank and three on the west. The cities all belonged to the Levites because they had no portion of land of their own. The cities were created for the Levites and also for a very practical reason. The culture of the day allowed for an avenger, a person selected by a family who had suffered the death of one of its own, to pursue and kill that person who had taken the life of a member of their tribe or clan. Now, to me, this cultural tradition seemed to me to be at odds with the legal system that had been set up that required two witnesses to a killing and a warning not to kill to be at a trial for the alleged offender. There were to be trials, but it seems as if the avenger got there first, it was the avenger who was now guilty of murder. If there were witnesses, and the court found the person guilty, the man would be put to death. Yes, G od permitted capital punishment for premeditated murder. But G od also recognized that a death might be accidental, and mandated that there be cities to exist for an innocent person because the avenger seemed not bound by the law or court decisions. This I don’t understand and it is not explained.
So a man, even though found not guilty, could still be killed by the avenger. Even if judged innocent, the accused had to remain in the city that gave him sanctuary until the High Priest died. This law could keep him there a day, or thirty years. Honor killing is still practiced among some Muslim populations in the Middle East, and periodically we learn of it when it rears its ugly head in our newspapers.
Now the death of the High Priest was to have a sobering effect on the people, and the result of their feelings was to generate compassion and forgiveness. Such an environment allowed theinnocent man to leave the city of refuge without trepidation. Of course there are no records as to whether this worked out for this person or not.
This law seemed to trigger in Mendy comments related to the responsibility of the Jewish People for people who exhibit behaviors that indicate loneliness, anger, or alienation. He informed us that it is up to us not to exclude anyone from conversation or concern because our effort just may be that small gesture that lets that person know they are welcome and of value. People need to feel part of something. People need to feel that they belong. In this, Mendy is correct. In the past I’ve had the experience of standing against a wall or sitting by myself after services in an out of town synagogue and not have anyone come up to me. I experienced the same feeling in the synagogue in Budapest during the kiddish. So I have always made it a point to go over to a stranger and to welcome them. On some occasions, these people have joined because of that small gesture of welcome. Sadly, at a kiddish, most people are into their own friends and conversations and do not notice someone standing alone. I once read a story about a woman who was about to commit suicide but would not if one person said “hello” to her on her way to the bridge. Someone did, and she did not take her own life. By saying “good morning” or offering some greeting to a stranger who passes, one might be that someone to save a life. It’s a nice thing to do so greet a stranger. You may be saving a life.
Earlier in the year, Mendy asked us to support a Jewish man in a Florida prison who was about to be executed because this man was a Jew and it was incumbent upon us to speak out for him because he was a Jew. I did not agree with him. Now I’m wondering, since Mendy was so passionate at the horror of these murders, if he would ask us to support these murderers because they are also Jews. As a followup, Mendy also made it clear that if anyone in the congregation knew of anyone who was abusing or planning to abuse or murder someone, they were not to call him as their rabbi to ask what should be done, but they were immediately to call 911 and report the person. I found this particularly uplifting knowing Mendy’s devotion to his rabbi and the tradition of asking one’s rabbi for direction when making an important decision. Mendy, unlike others who may wrap themselves in G od garments of any other faith, is not among those who would protect his co-religionists if their behavior is deemed to be evil. Another reason why I love and respect him.
August 13,2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Va’ Etchannan Deut. 3:23-7:11
Another “ufruf” and since it is the tradition for the rabbi to find in the parsha a message for the bride and groom, Mendy used the numerical equivalent the Hebrew word translated as “implore” where Moses is telling the people how he implored G od to allow him to enter the Promised Land. The numerical equivelent of the word is something like 414. This number we are told refers to the number of times Moses asked G od to allow him to enter the Land of Israel. So the question the rabbis ask is, “Why wasn’t there a 415th time. The answer is that each time Moses implored G od, he was imploring for himself. What Moses probably should have said is, “Don’t do this for me. Do it for your own good Name. Show the people that even for a sin a grievous as mine was for hitting the rock rather than just speaking to it, let them see you as a great forgiving G od.” This stance, now that I think of it, is used in the prayer books where we implore G od not to do things for our sake, but for His. Whatever makes G od look good to his followers should be the order of the day. So the message to the bride and groom in this was that when you have a problem and need forgiveness, it’s best to acknowledge your error and point out how much better one will look and feel themselves if they forgive. In essence, forgive me not because I’ll feel better, but because you’ll feel better and look like a better person. I think that was the message. I must try it.
In addition to this, Mendy mentioned that this month has the saddest day in the Jewish calendar and the most joyous. The saddest day of course, the 9th of the month of Av, commemorates the destruction of both Temples in Jerusalem, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, and a variety of other unfortunate moments. But this month also has the most joyous day, for it was on this day that young people in ancient Judea exchanged clothing and went into the streets to meet other young people. The idea was that since no one knew how rich or poor a person was or how high or low born, they could relate to one another as just people. All the trappings were a fiction, and only the core of the person was there to be encountered. This, I believe, was another message to the bride and groom. Always consider what is at the person’s core. Also to be learned is that we must not dwell on the tragedies of life, but to find reasons and ways to rejoice.
There was a lot of back and forth with the congregation, so I found it hard to keep the thread going. You begin to consider one point, and another is presented just as provocative.
At one point Mendy spoke of how difficult it was for his children to grow up in this environment because they are touched daily by the secular world. He on the other hand, growing up in Crown Heights, had no temptations not to be the child his religion and his community demanded that he be. So as a father of eight, he has to be aware of each of these individual’s personalities and needs as they are presented with the temptations that the secular world offers even as limited as that exposure is. I imagine his life must resemble a game of “pop up” where you are confronted with these little secular creatures that pop up randomly and you have to smash them down with your hammer. I guess the points he earns for effective smashing, gets him a good night’s sleep if that is even possible with eight kids.
He related how his youngest son came home from camp without his yarmulka and said that he had lost it in the pool. The pool activity was hours before he came home, and Mendy was outraged that for those hours, one of his children was not adhering to tradition. While he was annoyed with the counselor who did not see or did not provide the little boy with another, he was most upset with himself that he had not instilled in his child the awareness that though he may have lost his own yarmulka, he should have asked for another. Mendy judged himself for having failed in his duty. Personally, I think he was a little too hard on himself, because with eight kids, he had better recognize that he will be disappointed by their behavior, and that he just may not be responsible for the choices they make. Mendy may see the Torah as a road map, but what if some of his kids see it as a guide book? Choices are made, and the only thing a parent ultimately controls is how that parent responds to that child’s choice. Mendy will do his best, and then “it will be what it will be.”
Naturally, this little excursion into his family led me to think about mine and the choices made. I came late to any hint of regular observance. I grew up with the ghosts of orthodoxy clinging to my childhood home, and with nothing of the spirit or of the understanding that should have accompanied those few traditions. Other than learning how to decode Hebrew, everything I’ve learned about Judaism I’ve pretty much learned in the past thirty years and mostly on my own. I did send my children to day school, and though they were raised with all the holidays, Shabbat, and synagogue attendance, I could not convey the spirit of Judaism to them because I did not have the language to convey it. I had never seen it practiced, and I have learned that it doesn’t come to us though some mystical osmosis. I had no role model. So all I was able to do was to expose them to something that I knew was of great value, but had not at that time internalized myself. At seventy-two, I am finally developing the vocabulary of spiritual awareness, and the connections between spirit and practice, but I came to it too late to instill in my offspring that which I would have them instilling in my grandchildren. I do not see my most of my grandchildren being involved in yiddishkeit because they have no one to model it. I try when they visit, but they all live very far away, and I see them infrequently. As it “is what it is,” “it will be what it will be.”
I understand exactly how Mendy feels. He will consider any deviation from the norm he is giving his children as a personal failure on his part to convey to them the beauty and joy of adhering to all of the mitzvot. I consider my inability to convey to my children and step children the beauty and joy of becoming part of a Jewish community, involving their children in Jewish activities and education, and keeping the Jewish traditions in their homes my greatest failure. One step daughter, to her credit, is deeply involved in her Jewish community, but I had nothing to do with that since she never lived in my home nor has ever taken any religious direction from me. To her great credit, she came to her involvement on her own. Would that my grandchildren will do the same one day. As Shakespeare wrote, “It is a consummation devoutly to be wished.”
August 20, 2011
Mendy Log
Parsha Ekev Deut. 7:12-11:25
Mendy and several members of the congregation were away at a conference so our other Chabad rabbi, Rabbi K, possibly the tallest rabbi in the world, took over the bemah. Also, there was an unscheduled ufruf that was supposed to take place in Ohio, but the bridal party’s flight was canceled because of the bad weather. So the bride and groom were here and the big party was in Cleveland. I love watching he little kids scurrying up to the bimah to gather the candies tossed towards the groom after he read his blessing.
The parsha begins with G od telling the people that if they adhere to all the laws He has given them, they will be rewarded with rain in each season, good crops, peace etc. But if they move off the set mark, bad things will happen. This is clearly doing what is right so you can get the reward, and too Pavlovian for my tastes. Then Rabbi K said that Maimonides, the great physician, theologian, philosopher, and commentator of the Middle Ages, wrote that you do the commandments, not for the rewards, but because it is the right thing to do. Rabbi K then opened the discussion to these seemingly contradictory motivations. As always, there were many interesting responses. I even responded, but my response had more to do with people evolving in what they saw between the promises in the Torah and the realities of what really happens in life. I must not have made myself clear because the rabbi moved on with out much comment. What was glanced over was that Maimonides’ reason led him to recognized that there is little relationship between how a person acts in life and the quality of the rewards or punishments he or she might actually garner. This was his reason for changing his focus on the rationale for doing the mitzvot demanded by G od. I am not convinced that I am not correct in my assessment, but more certainly can be said.
When the original laws were given, our ancestors, as far as their moral development was concerned, were just at the beginning of their development. Reward and punishment and avoiding punishment was paramount in their minds. They had only recently come out of Egypt. Children will say that they don’t do certain things because they don’t want to be caught and punished. They do not say they don’t do certain things because not doing something is the right thing to do. The carrot and the stick is a way you get children to behave. When the Torah was given to us, we were still children functioning at the intellectual levels of children. We needed time to evolve.
Those who stressed this Medieval sages’ rational side, referred to him as Maimonides, the son of Maimon, and those who stressed his Torah learning referred to him as Rambam. First of all, he was a rationalist and a student of Aristotle and as such, Maimonides wanted to merge the logic demanded by this Greek philosopher with the morality discovered in the Torah. To do so, he reinterpreted how we might view Torah laws now that the Jewish people had been tramping through time for about 2,000 years and had somewhat matured. He must have also recognized that morality could not be effective if the people were still functioning at a primary moral development level of reward and punishment. So he posited the idea that the reward for doing a good deed is the feeling one gets from the action and the fact that one good deed leads to others.
Modern educators who deal with how morality and values become inculcated all agree that there is a process in the development of both and the process reveals a hierarchical order. Not breaking the law for fear you will be caught and punished is at one end of the moral development continuum while not breaking the law because you are part of a social contract with others for mutual protection is at the other. Holding a value because you want approval from others who are in power is at a lower level of valuing than holding a value because you have chosen among alternatives and after thoughtful consideration of the consequences.
I think that Maimonides was teaching that though G od demanded that we accept his morality and values when we were a very young and immature people, we had come along in our development where we might be able to look at these demands through the eyes of mature, rational beings and see the logic and benefits under the command that we do these things. So the sound of the shofar reinterpreted as a call to the people to worship and repentance and not a sound to scare away demons. We are a people who question and this attitude that we must question is a gift to the Jewish People from Maimonides. We are a people who have evolved from the fear of punishment to recognizing that there is a mutual benefit if we all attempt to do what is right even if there is no reward. I do believe this was the core of Rabbi K’s message to us, but I may not be remembering everything that was said.
August 27, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Re-eh Deut. 11:26-1617
Mendy began by telling a story about his parents fiftieth anniversary, and how their children sent them on a trip to Russia and Ukraine for the purpose of visiting the graves of great sages of the past. It was what they wanted as their gift from their children. When they returned, Mendy mentioned to his father that when he was in Russia, he, too, had visited several of these graves. His father’s response seem to imply that Mendy went there so he could say he was there, and the elder rabbi further informed his son that their trips were very different. The father said that when Mendy went, he went with a camera. He took pictures. The camera separated him from the real experience. Mendy’s dad said that in anticipation of his trip, to experience it fully, he had studied the lives of these rabbis and their writings so he could better appreciate their genius and their contributions. If I know Mendy, I think he may have been slightly humbled, but walked away wiser. Certainly, he had to have learned from this encounter because he used it to point out the fact that we are entering the month of Elul which is the month of preparation for the High Holidays and our encounter with G od. He reminded us that to do this properly, we, like his dad, must prepare for the meeting. He asked us to not to come into the shul as one who has a camera and keeps the camera between himself and the experience. He asked us not to base the experience of attending services on whether you are sitting next to an interesting friend or whether the rabbi has something valid to say. The important experience is in the encounter and the relationship with G od.
I’m not sure if Mendy suggested how one prepares, but my mind started wandering to how I think I should prepare. This is what is good about Mendy. He moves us to consider where we are in relation to what he is saying even if he doesn’t ask you directly. This may or may not be his intent, but it’s how I see it because it is how I am effected. Anyway, I started thinking how I should prepare myself for my encounter with G od, and what G od will I be encountering. My G od concept has never been all that clear to me, and I am still trying to formulate a consistent belief even at my age. I am still not there. I know my G od is not in the earthquake we felt last week, and not in the hurricane winds I am anticipating as I write this. The destruction and the fear engendered are too negative to be considered as factors even though I do think Spinoza’s had a piece of the truth. I do believe G od to be more in the “still, small voice” that is more within than wiihout. Preparing myself for the encounter will come through a process of self-assessment and contemplation. Elul is that time. I just need to make time for Elul. We should know where we are and who we are before we enter and know before whom we stand. I pulled myself back from this tangent, because I was missing the rest of the talk.
When my revery dissolved, Mendy was talking about a part of the parsha that spelled out what animals were kosher to eat and which were not, and I learned something I never knew before. It seems that our tradition believes that the character of the animal in some way infuses itself into the people eating it, so other than specific physical characteristics that make something kosher such as chewing its cud and having a cloven hoof, there are, qualities such as gentleness that are absorbed in digestion. This is a charming belief, but I’m not hinging anything on it. He did focus on forbidden birds which are the scavengers, and on one in particular. Three different names are used in the Torah for this bird, and all are mentioned so one cannot conclude that if it is not the word you use, it ok to eat. I have forgotten the names used, but one characteristic of this particular bird is its eyesight. Though not in the Torah, it is said elsewhere that the eyesight of this bird is so sharp, that from Babylon it can see corpses of animals in Israel. And because some sage said that it sees dead things, it is not fit for the Jewish diet because the quality of seeing only that which is decaying or bad might be absorbed. Basically what Mendy was saying is that if you see only the negative, you are not seeing clearly and your relationships will suffer. Mendy mentioned that he has a tendency to point out the missing button rather than complimenting someone on his suite. I have that tendency myself, but I have tempered it considerably in the past years.
At this time he mentioned someone who taught him that a child must be complimented eight times before he or she can be criticized once. Parents who are only critical of their children believing that constant correction will improve the child’s performance, personality, or self-image only damages the relationship with the result that the child no longer hears. I can still hear my dad say, “That’s very good Lenny, but where are the other two points?” A 98 was not good enough. Only 100 was to be praised, and after several times of getting that response to my small successes in elementary school, my immature brain concluded that I could not please my father and that I would always disappoint him. I don’t recall ever trying very hard to win his approval after those youthful experiences. In time his approval didn’t matter, and we didn’t have much of a relationship until he was an old man and I moved him up from Florida. Then I saw him just about every day, and at one time, he actually did say that he was proud of me and of what I had become. Parents just never know what their kids are concluding based upon what parents are saying to them. My daughters were raised with compliments and support. One other thing about compliments is that people become suspect of them if you use a compliment to get at a criticism. For some people you just know that if they say something nice, you can expect a “but” to follow. Having a few experiences like that will lead a person to conclude that the only reason this person says something nice is to get to what they really want to say which is critical. It’s much better to compliment and leave it at that. Then, if you have a criticism, you can state it without the person anticipating it. Mendy professed his preference for people who are not always complimentary and who are not always critical, but I can’t say I recall the happy combination that gets him to consider you a friend.
The final part of the drush had to do with giving charity, and Mendy spoke about how the spirit and intention behind the giving was as important to the recipient as the gift or money itself. The Torah makes it clear that “the poor will never depart from the land,” and that it is incumbent on those who have to support the poor. The word “charity” has at its root the French root for heart. The Jewish word for charity is “Tzedakah” which has at its root, righteousness. I think it is more important for the welfare of those need if righteous is at the core rather than the heart. People need to be supported even if your heart isn’t in it. That’s a truth. Ultimately, it’s the hand giving out the money that is important. But that’s not what Mendy said. That’s what I believe. Sometimes my heart just isn’t in it, and I give anyway.
In the concept of tzedakah, there are seven levels. Mendy did not go through the levels, but one level is that one gives and does not know the receiver and the recipient takes and does not know the giver. In this way, there is no embarrassment to either person. The Torah exhorts the people to give with an open hand and open heart. But if the person knows you and you know the person who is requesting help directly, it is incumbent on you to make that person receiving your largess know that you feel their pain, and that you hear and understand them. Then when you give, they will welcome even a small amount. To make his point about hearing and understanding with compassion, Mendy told a very personal story about a man who came to him who was trying to raise money for his son who was born with a birth defect and was now in danger of dying if the medical insurance premium could not be paid. At the very same time, a very wealthy man in England decided to gift $540 dollars to every Chabad rabbi in the world. Mendy, living by the Torah he teaches, listened. This surprise gift check was waiting to be deposited, and Mendy, with a full heart, opened his had and endorsed the check over to the man. We need to take the time, at the very least, to listen and empathize even if we cannot help. The act of listening is in itself a kindness that is appreciated.
September 3, 201
Mendy Log:
Parsha Shofetim Deut. 16:18-21:9
Mendy’s message today dealt with having complete faith in G od. At least that’s what I’ve concluded. But getting there was a rather circuitous route because at times I found it difficult to follow the thread of Torah citations, responses from the congregation, and side stories.
He began by referring us to the passage that clearly states that the G od is banishing all the people before the Israelites because they perform unspeakable acts such as child sacrifice, divination, sorcery, and necromancy. To be sure, there were others. These are an abomination before the Lord, and it is for this reason these Caananites were driven out. The House of Israel were forbidden to use any “magic” to divine the future, but were to defer to those specific men and women selected from among the people by G od, who would be prophets,judges and priests. (I’m wondering if s the tradition of deference to the Rebbe or to any rabbi a direct outcome of the admonition to the Israelites to listen to the prophets and judges.).
This idea of listening to those appointed by G od, enabled me to begin to understand what he was about, but right after that, Mendy started talking about not listening because the only one we can truly rely upon is G od. So I began thinking about how one knows when G od is responding to your plea or question for how you are to proceed or how to address the issue you bring to Him? To address this silent question, Mendy said that there is a belief that if you go to the Rebbe’s grave with a concern or question, you will walk away with an answer. That comment caused me to recall that psychology teaches that we all possess the solutions to our own problems, and that we are afraid to implement these solutions because they may put us outside of our comfort zones and cause us to shake up our lives and relationships beyond what is comfortable for us. To some extent I think this is true. He also briefly mentioned dreams as a means to solve our problems or become aware that an issue exists. Ultimately, I believe, we act either relying on our own counsel, on the counsel of others, or we choose not to act at all. But of course, no action is also an action as no response is also a response.
From time to time, Mendy tells stories about people who had written to the Rebbe for advice. These stories, I believe, are meant to demonstrate that mystical connection a privileged few have with G od. Prior to the Rebbi’s passing, it was a tradition that major decisions in the Lubuvitch Chassidic community were passed before his eyes before action was to be taken. Those who fully believed and had that special faith acted on what the Rebbe suggested. Mendy spoke of his own experience with this where he and his brother had been diagnosed with a condition that required surgery. His older brother, of blessed memory, was also diagnosed and surgery was also recommended. The Rebbe was consulted, and the Rebbe said that the two younger boys should have their operations, but the elder brother should not. The doctor was outraged at the Rebbe’s insertion of himself into a medical and possibly life threatening condition. But Mendy’s parent’s followed the Rebbe’s advice, and with in a while, the elder brother healed naturally. He told another story of a family who fled a hurricane in Florida against the advice of the Rebbe. All those who listened remained safe and dry, while the single family fell the full brunt of the storm in the place to which they fled. Was there a higher power speaking to the Rebbe as G od spoke to the prophets? Is G od still speaking to very special people? (I may be able to accept this if people like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorim, and John Perry didn’t claim to have G od on speed dial. If it’s the same G od speaking to them as to the rabbis, I’m not interested.)
Mendy’s parents had unquestioning faith in the Rebbe, and I suppose this story was to illustrate that we, too, must have unquestioning faith in G od. So I have a problem with this request as did several others in the congregation. The most damning exception was one congregant who reminded Mendy that the rabbis in Europe did not support their communities’ efforts to emigrate prior to the Nazis and those who listened went into the gas chambers. Mendy promised a response to this at another time. I do believe that someone suggested that the rabbis were more concerned about safety on a spiritual level than they were on a physical. To such men, the real rewards are in heaven. Now you need true faith to believe that. I’d prefer to live and take my chances with what might follow. Several time I have said, “Pray as if everything depends on G od, and act as if everything depends on you.” This is the statement of someone who is not absolutely sure that G od will come through. Perhaps such a statement enables me to balance G od and His promises, and the reality I see daily in my life. I would not mind having such a faith. I would not mind a little absolute certainty.
To this cynic, a rabbi making medical decisions comes close the Christian Science and Jehovah’s Witnesses’ philosophy. I reject these beliefs as I reject all fundamentalist preaching where I cannot choose for myself without feeling I am betraying my religious leader and my people. Mendy said it was much harder for him to make important decisions since the Rebbe died.
I imagine that had the Rebbe passed his mantle to a successor, the Lubavichure community would
have been happier and more secure. Still, they continue to function and I guess they exchange opinions with each other much like beggars are required to fulfill the mitvah of exchanging alms. I am positive that Mendy would rather tell me how to bring the spirit of Elul into my life than whether or not I should get a wart burned off. But then again, I wouldn’t ask Mendy about a wart, but I would ask him for direction on how I should prepare myself to go out into the fields to meet the King.
Mendy Log:
September 24, 2011
Parsha Nitzavim/Vayelilech Deut/ 29:9-31:30
This is going to be a short one because preparing for the holiday is taking up a great deal of time, and I am writing this several days after the drush was delivered.
Mendy addressed two seemingly contradictory laws from this weeks parsha. The first law had G od requiring His people to “stand fast to the law.” That seems pretty straight forward. But on the very next page of the text, G od requires the people to “move forward,” as regards the law. This was paradoxical since how can one stand fast and still move forward? [I thought of time and how one of the great contributions to the world was the Jewish idea that time and life did not move as if they were on a wheel that went around and around where events only repeated themselves. On such a wheel, change is impossible. But along came the Jews who proclaimed was that life could change and that people could change themselves. We were slaves in Egypt, and then we became free. That exodus gave humanity permission to change the way it could view itself. The Jewish People taught the world that all people can create and recreate themselves if they are brave and willing to risk the staus quo. And humanity has never been the same since because humans are dynamic beings who must move forward to survive. We change, and we also move forward. Jews conceived that life moves forward in a spiral, moving yet turning back on itself as it moves forward. We spiral forward, growing yet keeping our rites, holidays and personal yearly events. Now, facing another year, we hold fast to the law as we celebrate the birth of mankind and creation as we’ve done for millennia. The traditions and the rites of Rosh Hashonhah were handed down in ancient times by our ancient laws, and yet this holiday also asks us to strive to grow and become better. So this is how I comprehended the paradox of standing fast and moving forward.]
Mendy had something of a different take one it, and his take was more about creative ways of thinking outside the religious box so one might keep “fast to the law” and “still move forward” to address very real needs. The first story he told was of a couple who had tried everything they could to conceive a child. Finally, they went to this doctor who told them that he could help them if they did exactly what he said for over a year. They agreed, and entered a rather strict regimen. The doctor kept very complete records of ovulation patterns and did tell them that if they were to conceive a child, it had to be on a certain day at a certain time. They were overjoyed until they checked the calendar and found out that day was Yom Kippur, a day when Jewish people are not permitted sexual intercourse. This devastated them because their rabbi and all the others said that they could not break this law. It was only when one elderly rabbi suggested that while it would be Yom Kippur in this hemisphere, it was yet to be Yom Kippur in another, and it was suggested that the couple fly to a country where the holiday was yet to happen. This they did, but Mendy did not know he outcome of the story. [ I for one thought that if you can break the laws of the Sabbath and of the High Holidays to save a life, why not be able to break the laws to create one, but that’s the Reform Jew in me coming out.]
Mendy also told a story of his nephew who was more interested in playing foot ball than in attending to his religious traditions, and since Mendy’s brother is also a rabbi, the stress between the father and son must have been enormous. So the young man wants to sign up for football but that requires permission from the parents. The father was adamantly opposed to this venture both because he saw his son falling away from the tradition, and also because games were to be played on the Sabbath. Now the problem was not playing on the Sabbath because that is permitted. The problem was traveling to the games on the Sabbath. Mendy’s brother was advised that if he didn’t sign, he would further alienate his son from the family, but a strong message was that he had to “stand fast to the law.” So how do you stand fast and move forward? It was decided that if the boy could travel to the games and stay in the motel before sundown, no law would be broken and everyone could get something of what he wanted. Again, this solution as well as the solution for the couple was thinking outside the box. People were allowed to hold fast to the law, and yet move forward. The younger Mangel seems to be doing OK and making efforts to follow traditions.
[The ability to think outside the box is an ability that has enabled Jewish people to survives the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” heaped upon them over the centuries. To survive, Jews have had to think creatively because the status quo which is maintained by thinking “inside the box” has historically not been particularly good to us. Perhaps that is one reason why we some of us are in the forefront of revolutionary movements. I think perhaps that such paradoxical laws in the Torah were what gave the Jewish People permission to think creatively. This proclivity coupled with our mandate to make the world a better place, has given the Jewish people a penchant for being creative. I do believe our contributions to Western Civilization attest to that proclivity.]
Mendy told one story that was tangentially attached to his nephew’s. He recalled that he had taken off from school to go skiing with friends and this was reported to his father. With great trepidation, he entered his father’s study expecting to be severely reprimanded, but his father only asked him if he had a good time. His father, obviously recognizing his spunky son’s proclivity to “test the waters,” surprised Mendy with his response. Tateh was thinking outside the box. He did not want to alienate his son. It’s always surprising to our offspring that we can be understanding, and I think we should be reasonable occasionally just to keep them off balance.
October 1, 2011
Mendy Log
Parsha Ha-azinu Shuvah Deut. 32:1-52
When Isaac asks Abraham where the sacrifice is, Abraham’s reply is that “G od will provide.” This idea of G od providing, begun in the Akedah story, the binding of Issac traditionally chanted on the first day of Rosh Hashonah, continued into today’s Shabbat drush. Mendy’s primary request through out this talk was for us to have faith that G od will provide and does provide. The core concept in the binding of Isaac story is not so much that human sacrifice was to end, but about having complete faith in G od and what G od provides.
Cynic that I am, I immediately had a problem, because the concept of “G od providing,” conjures up the idea that G od has a greater plan and to accept this core idea, reality must be suspended. I can look at my life and be very grateful for what my life has become in the past thirty years, and I would love to have the faith that G od took notice of me and provided me with Toby who, with her love, support, and respect, helped me turn my life around and become a better person. But the reality is that G od has not provided for others who are probably more deserving than I to catch a break. There is suffering, fear, destitution, disability, etc. among good people. Why is G od not providing for them as well? What kind of plan could there possibly be that allows for such suffering? Yes, I know that Job was asked “Where were you when I created...etc. etc., but Job had that faith. I’m having difficulty with the “leap of faith” necessary.
Mendy used the example of the Exodus as his vehicle for talking about G od providing. Having been enslaved in Egypt for about two-hundred and forty years (I think,) our ancestors had had everything provided for them. At least in their slavery they were secure in knowing that the Egyptians would supply them with food and shelter. Moses comes along and inspires them with the idea that if they have the faith to follow him into the desert, G od will provide for them. According to the story, G od provides them with the Torah which will become the guide book for living a righteous life, and G od also provides them with water, raiment, shelter, and food. G od did provide them with tangible means of survival, and he continues to provide for us now. So says Mendy.
Mendy then merged the idea of G od providing and the faith one needs to accept this into the entire sequence of holidays celebrated at this time of year. Beginning with Slichot which is a week that we are suppose to spend preparing ourselves to encounter G od, to Rosh Hasshonah, the time we encounter Him and praise Him as we enter His presence all the while involving ourselves in the process of introspection. On Yom Kippur, where we seek forgiveness for past behaviors and are most open and eager to enter into a very personal relationship, we resolve to make meaningful changes in our lives for the betterment of ourselves and for those around us.
But then Mendy said that this was not enough, and if we stopped at this point, we had failed to fully appreciate what we were about in the soul journey process. He then spoke of Sukkot, the holiday where we are charged with building ourselves a small room outside, a succah, a room that is open to the sky, covered with branches, and symbolic of the tenuousness of existence that our ancestors experienced as they wandered for forty years under G od’s protection. We are asked to leave the comfort of our own homes at least symbolically, and live and sleep in the sukkah as a reminder that like our ancestors, we, too, are indebted to G od for what he has provided for us. And the full realization of this belief and this faith, coupled with what such a faith brings to us, leads us to the holiday of Simchat Torah, our rejoicing in the law.
This law, these moral teachings found in our Torah, I see as the ultimate provision G od has made for us, for without moral law, as the Ethics of the Fathers teaches, “men would devour one another.”
I had never heard the holidays sequenced this way before, and I really appreciated seeing the flow of concepts. The span one must cross from Slichot to Simchat Torah is indeed a large one and to meaningfully do it with any degree of success takes personal space, silence, a sincere desire to connect with the transcendental, and a willingness to suspend disbelief. I do not know if I shall ever attain the faith that Mendy proposes, and I shall continue my journey with him as my primary guide. I think somewhere in the Talmud is a statement that one should “get oneself a teacher.” Mendy is mine.
Mendy Log
October 15, 2011
Shabbat Chol Hamoed
Yom Kippur is a holiday that is devoted to self-introspection and a coming to terms with who you are and what you can do to make yourself better. Another Rabbi this holiday told a story that was tangential to this Who am I? issue. It takes place in a town called Chelm and all the people in that town are well known fools. So before the holiday, one man goes to the ritual bath as is the custom, and thinks that since all people know one another from their clothing, and everyone will be naked, he will tie a red string around his toe so he would know who he is. During his emersion, the red string comes off and floats onto someone else’s toe. The first man sees this and goes over to this other man and says, “I know who you are, but who am I?” Admittedly, it is a silly story, and it does point to a truth that most of us project who we are from what we own and wear but reveal little of our true selves to the world. Perhaps we are not sure who we really are or perhaps we know who we really are and prefer to keep ourselves hidden. In effect, this man of Chlem had lost himself.
But on another level, this losing of one’s self is very much in keeping with the spirit of this holiday, because on Yom Kippur we are to give up ourselves and become one with the Spirit and the Power that pervades the universe. We atone. We become at one. We do this by not being concerned with the needs of the physical body. What is done daily is not done today. Our souls are nourished on prayer and contemplation. During the week prior to Yom Kippur, we prepare for this moment. Then it is over, and since no one can exist in this state for any length of time, this holy day is followed by Sukkot, the holiday were we celebrate with food and friends the prospect of becoming whole again and our return to our spiritual individuality.
The Succah, the little house we build to remind us both of G od’s care and shelter in the wilderness, and the instability of life, itself becomes a place where no matter how big or small, lavish or plain, one becomes whole again and a separate entity from God. We do this in a recognizable and symbolic way.
There is the lulov which is composed of a sprig of myrtle, a sprig of a willow, and the spine of a palm. These three types of trees are symbolic of types of people: inflexible with little flavor or personality, pretty, bending to any wind, weak, sweet smelling but without substance, etc. The ethrog, the fourth element, is a special fruit that is yellow and fragrant, and symbolic of that human being who is righteous and learned, in short, the ideal Jewish human being. By taking the three of the lulov and the ethrog in hand, one is combining all types and making the people whole. The act is the act of unification, and causes us to recognize and consider the various aspects of our own natures and how we are to proceed knowing who we are and what we are capable of doing. Unless we are willing to consider the “Who are you? question, change won’t come about.
October 22, 2011
Mendy Log
Parsha Bereishit
M’kor’s new rabbi has initiated a study session on Shabbat morning from 9:00 to 10:00. This works out perfectly for me since Mendy gets up to speak at about 10:10 and it takes me only a few minutes to get from M’kor Shalom to Chabad for Mendy and services. What follows is a combination of my study session with Rabbi Address and a drush given by Mendy’s brother-in-law who was invited to speak.
The translation of the Torah used at my Chabad begins with the traditional line, “In the beginning, G od created the heavens and the earth.” The translation used in my Reform synagogue begins with the line, “When G od began creating the heavens and the earth...” Both translations are valid based on the root of the word “bereishit” and both impress us with the idea that there is a pre-existing Being who creates. But where the former implies that the event took place and ended at a set time some 5772 years ago, the latter implies that creation is an on going process. I think I prefer the ongoing process translation because it supports the idea that humanity is charged with the process of co-creating with G od in order to make the world a better place.
Any consideration of this creation story, at least in a Reform context, raises the issue as to why there are two very distinct creation tales regarding the creation of Adam and Eve, and they explain it as the coming together of two story traditions that were combined into one tale when the Torah was codified. For the Reform Movement, elements of Genesis act as transformational myths explaining for example why women give birth in pain and why men must live by the sweat of their brow.
In the Orthodox tradition, the two versions are explained as one expanding on the other so you understand more of the details. While the Reform Movement will posit the idea that the story is the Jewish People’s creation tale which is just one of many among ancient stories. If this is the case, the logical next step is to consider that if the earliest story in Genesis is not only fictional but also probably borrowed from more ancient tales, we then logically conclude that the Torah was not given in its entirety on Mt. Sinai to Moses, but was compiled from stories written and told by our people over the centuries and written down centuries after Moses lived. Opening this door must then lead us to the thought that the Genesis story and the deity posited was also the creation of human beings so we ourselves might address the following questions: Who are we? Where do we come from? Why are we here?
But beyond this is the overarching question: Is there a pre-existing creative Being above and beyond humanity that established a concept of morality and is the authority behind that morality? If there is not, then the question of good and evil becomes relative and situational; a concept that changes from person to person, group to group, country to country, etc. Who then sets the standard? Everything becomes permitted if there is no authority above and beyond humanity to hold humanity accountable for its actions. Therefore, people who do not believe in the Torah G od have a serious problem of answering this question.
Orthodoxy believes that there is a pre-existing creative Being who dictated the entire Torah to Moses at the time he was on Mt. Sinai after the Exodus from Egypt. By accepting every word as G od’s absolute truth, there are no conflicts or questions. In fact, questions, denials, or even considerations as to the origin of the Torah and the existence of G od, are considered a desecration of G od’s Name which is blasphemy.
So these were the thoughts of a Reformodox Jew entering Chabad to listen to the commentary, the prayers, and to the Torah being read from the beginning as is our yearly tradition. My dilemma remains that if G od is a creation of humanity and there is no authority above groups and governments, none of us are safe, for without a secular law that is applicable to everyone emanating out of a moral law, “men would eat each other.” So my conclusion hovers around the idea that even if G od is a fiction, we desperately need this fiction as the authority behind moral law. The most brutal murderers on both the Left and on the Right of the 20th Century, Communism and Nazism respectively, both denied the existence of G od and the philosophy of Nihilism gave them permission to act as they wished.
Mendy introduced his brother-in-law as the guest speaker. He was interesting and well spoken. He also dealt with creation, and raised a question as to why G od chose to call everything into existence using ten utterances rather than just one. Certainly since all but humanity was created by fiat, G od could have called forth everything at once a would have been done with it. But the rabbi said that G od chose ten utterances rather than one because if He used only one, there would be no questions as to His existence and therefore there could be no free will. Doubt is needed for free will to exist. But by creating with the ten utterances corresponding to the ten emanations from the Kabalistic seferot, G od deliberately hides knowledge of His absolute existence and it is this action that will ultimately cause humanity to question and be forced to make choices. In truth, being absolutely sure of G od’s existence would deny us of our humanity and of our ability to develop.
To reinforce this, I believe one of the rabbis spoke of the idea that while we are told that we are created in G od’s image, we are never told what that image is. We believe that since there is no physicality when we think of G od, we must then consider “image” as something akin to unbounded spiritual potential. This open ended image concept allows for great opportunities for human growth and human potential.
But because we use must use language, we are forced to use images to describe the ineffable, a concept that cannot be described. So we are given images of a loving or angry father, the protective wings of a bird, a warrior treading down His enemies etc., etc,. etc. This is solid, anthropomorphic images, offered to us so we might better relate to this G od, denies the intention vagueness of “in G od’s image” and such personifications keep people from coming to terms with concepts of G od not easily imagined. Of course, most people only know the Torah/Rabbinic concept of G od which so many of our people reject as something scary from childhood because that is where they learned about G od in the first place. Never having been taught any alternative Jewish concepts as children, some walk away from the faith or rarely consider G od as a factor in their lives even if they stay within Judaism.
So I started thinking about some other concepts of G od different from the old man judging from a sapphire throne. I thought of Martin Buber who said that G od is the “eternal Thou” and found in the genuine dialogue with another human being. I thought of Eric Fromm who said G od is a symbol of our highest potential, and I thought of Mordecai Kaplan who taught that G od is the sum of everything in the world that renders life significant, worthwhile, and holy: a force that encourages us to become fully human. And of course there is Abraham Heschel who said that G od is the source of our insight and intuition, or sense of the sublime. Each of these rabbis saw the openendedness of the “G od created man in His own image” statement, and took permission to expand our understanding of G od in more sophisticated and intellectually acceptable ways than those that require that we acknowledge the existence of a Being with images easily understood by children.
October 29, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Noach
Mendy asked the question as to why G od would put a rainbow in the sky to remind him not to destroy the world? I’m not exactly clear on the specific answer because Mendy gives us a lot of information, speaks rapidly, and we cannot take notes as you well know. I think we were told that the rainbow did not appear for the first time after the flood, but had been there since creation only now it had another purpose and that was to remind G od not to destroy his creations again. But I do think that part of the clarification had to do with the four ages that span existence: the age that was defined by those who lived after Adam and Eve, the age defined by those who lived after Noah, the age defined by those who lived after Moses, (the age we are currently in,) and the age that will begin after the arrival of the Messiah.
The first age begins with creation and extends for ten generations from Adam to the birth of Noah. During these generations, G od gives to humanity and humanity takes. It is a one way delivery system. G od gives and man takes. Humanity, like Adam and Eve seem to be children with the benevolent and indulgent parent providing for them. But like Adam and Eve who chose not to remain children and disregarded the wishes of the parent creator by eating the apple and “having their eyes opened” to reality and knowledge, their descendants also at one point decided not to continue to “take” what G od was freely offered by freely deciding to go their own way. In freely choosing this path, they degenerated through promiscuity, idol worship, refrained from sacrifice, and were involved in other nasty bits. G od then declares that “man is evil from his youth,” and in the very next chapter, He chooses Noah, a righteous man in his generation, (no criteria for righteousness stated) and his family to repopulate the earth. But first, G od decides to destroy the earth with a flood, and after repopulation will reveal the Noachid Laws which are applicable to all humanity. These (I’m sure) G od hoped would put this newer and improved version of humanity on the right path. The next ten generations are counted from Noah to Moses, but again, mankind also rejects the Noachid Laws and humankind moves again to a degenerate state. But since the rainbow is the reminder to G od that he must not destroy humanity again, He gives us the Torah as a guide. This begins the third age, and we must still be in it because the fourth age is the age of the Messiah when everything will be nice again.
So Noah leaves the ark and the first thing he does is to sacrifice one of the clean animals that G od ordered him to take on the ark possibly just for that purpose. The sacrifice created a sweet smell to the Lord. (It seems to me that G od likes a sweet smelling sacrifice because it is here He declares that He will never again destroy the earth. That’s when he says that when there are heavy clouds in the sky, the rainbow within the clouds will be a reminder of the covenant he has made between himself and the earth.
Prior to attending Chabad, there was a study session at M’kor, and the emphasis and questions raise could not have been more different. For a Reform Jew, the bible is a revered document that is a compilation of at least three distinct efforts to tell the story. This division of Judaism teaches that the story of the flood is just one of many ancient attempts for non-scientific minds to understand the world and make sense of it. The flood story itself is based on a much earlier story flood that comes from Mesopotamia. It is called The Epic of Gilgamesh and the counterpart of Noah is Ushnispitim. He, like Noah, is told to build an ark, and the dimensions and method of building it are clearly stated. Even the birds that are sent out are initially the same. It seems the gods are annoyed by the noise humans make and they decide to destroy the world by water by calling upon primordial forces that are soon out of control. The gods are described as “cowering like dogs” and totally out of control. It is probable that this story was well know to our ancestors and it was incorporated, but in the hands of the Hebrews, G od destroys the world because people have become corrupt and He regrets having created them. This is a G od that demands moral clarity, and very unlike the gods of the land between the two rivers.
The question was raised about the “nakedness of Noah,” how his son’s reacted to the event, and what the event might have meant. So the fist thing Noah does is to sacrifice an animal. This is indicative of man’s instinct to be grateful. G od is pleased with the sweet smell, but perhaps G od is more pleased with the fact that Noah’s initial act is an act of giving thanks. Has mankind learned a lesson. Then the next statement is one of great economy. It says, that Noah planted a vineyard, made wine and got drunk.
It is impressive how the Torah, compresses time. Now personally, had I just witness my entire world and all the people I knew and the relatives I had drowned, I, too, might have survivor’s guilt and need a drink or two. And in his drunken stupor, Noah is “uncovered within his tent” as one translation puts it. In Leviticus, the use of the phrase, “uncover the nakedness” is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. This provocative statement is found in other translations. So the implication is that something sexual may have happened while Noah was drunk. This tale might be just a warning of the evils of alcohol, but if the translation is closer to the Levitical prohibition, something sexual may have transpired between Noah and his youngest son, Ham who becomes the father of the Canaanite people. So Noah curses Ham and his descendants, the Canaanites which has something of a political ring to it. Let’s face it. The people of Canaan were being displaced by the Hebrews and what better rationalization could there be for their fate other than they were cursed to be slaves. Now of course Ham could be innocent and just made an error in judgement by reporting that he had seen his father naked. But would such a minor indiscretion be worthy of such a curse?
Someone raised the issue that this story was a metaphor for rebirth. Water has always been a symbol of life to all cultures, and the boat might be the womb carrying the seed of life in the form of Noah and his family. They are floating on the substance that gives life and will be pushed out into the new world with the mandate to go forth and multiply. It is similar to the story of Adam and Eve who are in a womb called Eden and who are pushed out also to populate the first world. The whale in Jonah is a womb and Jonah is pushed out to become reborn as a prophet in Israel who saves Niniveh. It’s an interesting concept and gives just another level to how this remarkable book may be read.
There are several interesting interpretations as to whether or not the flood happened. I for one am sure something happed that had a lot to do with a lot of water, and this cataclysmic event may have been the catalyst for massive migrations that carried this event to the four corners of the earth that became the myths and legends we have today. Professor Wooley of Princeton University in the 1920's began digging in different parts of what was Mesopotamia and reached hard mud. He dug through the mud and found the remains of very ancient civilizations. The underground mud extended for miles in all directions indicating that there had once been a massive flood that washed away a civilization. Certainly those living on the periphery of this catastrophe told and retold this story. The Minoan Civilization was wiped out much the same way when the island of Thera erupted. One of the most intriguing theories is that once upon a time, an inland body of fresh water in the general area of what is now Turkey, Iran, and Russia, became the Black Sea when a violent earthquake destroyed the land bridge that separated the Mediterranean Sea from this inland fresh water lake. Can you imagine the power and the destruction of this larger body of water cutting through this newly opened fissure in the earth we now called the Bosporus. Can you imagine those who survived those who witnessed this horror carrying this tale with them as they left this devastated area to begin life somewhere safer? Encased in the silt of the Black Sea, divers have found the skeletal remains of fresh water sea life as well as evidence that people lived at levels far below the current sea levels that exist now. Yes, I do believe there was a flood. Yes, I do believe that my ancestors heard this story and took it as their own to explain the actions of a righteous G od who demands that people should behave well.
Now within this parsha is also the story of the Tower of Babel. This is clearly a transformation myth to explain why there are so many languages in the world. The Babel story basically tells us that originally, mankind spoke one language and that seemed to threaten G od much the way G od seemed threatened at the thought that Adam and Eve would eat from the Tree of Life as well as the Tree of Knowledge and become more like the hosts of heaven. So G od confuses their tongues and languages are created.
Back in about 1960 while taking a course in linguistics, I learned an interesting theory called the Indo-European Hypothesis by Otto Jesperson which posited the idea that at one time there was one group of people living in a place where there were bees but no oceans, that spoke a language that became the parent language of just about all languages on earth today. Languages change with time and with travel. Is it not possible that many, many millennia ago, a group of people who spoke the same language, while living in that area near or around the Black Sea, experienced the cataclysm, fled, and set down roots all over the world carrying the story with them and speaking a language that would develop into the known languages of the world today? The Torah is indeed a record of human events.
November 5, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Lech Lecha
This parsha is the one where G od tells Abram (he gets to be Abraham later in the story) to get up from where he is and go to a land he will be shone. With complete faith, Abram takes his wife Sari (who later become Sarah) and his nephew, Lot. The implication is that where ever you go, G od has a reason for sending you there, and it is in that place where will fulfill your purpose. Abram was to fulfill a particular purpose and I imagine it was to tell the world of a single G od who was the creator of all things and that he was to model correct behavior for others to follow as dictated by this single G od.
It’s an interesting premise, and it may have been good for Abram, but from where I sit, too many people are in too many bad places for this to be a good plan. Are those who are dying of food poisoning dying so the Food and Drug Administration can realize that regulations need to be strengthened? To reinforce this idea that there is a “plan,” Mendy told a marvelous story that is true.
The story begins several hundred years ago in a small town where many Jewish people live in relative poverty but in relative peace with one another. As in most towns, there are different organizations to help out those most in need of help, but the wealthiest Jew in this particular town refuses to give to any of these organizations. Eventually, he is give the name “miser” and is shunned and ridiculed. When the old man dies, the rabbi and the townsfolk decide not to bury him in the part of the cemetery where the righteous are buried and they bury him in potter’s field. Not long afterward, the poor people of the town come to the rabbi to complain that the merchants, who before the Sabbath, would provide for them after the paying customers left the store, would no longer continue this practice. So the rabbi calls for the merchants and they tell him that it was the miser who had given them the money so the poor could have Shabbat provisions. The rabbi is devastated realizing that this very righteous man had live among them and took no credit for his generosity, he, the rabbi had condemned him and buried him away from the community. To atone, the rabbi asked that when he died, he should be buried next to the miser.
Flash forward to a rabbi mistakenly invited to speak at a Catholic seminary when it was his professor brother they wanted. After telling this story, a young man comes up to him wearing a clerical collar and tells the rabbi that before his mother died, she told him this very same story and that not only was he technically Jewish because she was Jewish, but the miser was his great, great, great, great grandfather. The young seminary student had not believed the story until the rabbi confirmed it.
Flash forward twenty-five years. The rabbi, who seems no to have changed very much over the years, is at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Not far from him is another man who appears to be a rabbi surrounded by many students. The rabbi leaves his students and come over to the older man and tells him that he was the very same seminary student who rethought his life and became a rabbi. The elder rabbi then tells the younger one that he had investigated his own genealogy, he discovered that he was the great, great, great, great grandson of the very same rabbi who was buried next to the miser. Coincidence or something planned that worked its way out over generations?
Now I have some questions.
Was it a mistake for the rabbi to make that speech instead of his brother or was it pre-ordained?
Was he put in that particular place because his purpose was to bring this seminary student to a new realization of who he was and become a rabbinic scholar?
Was this how the rabbi in the first story was finally redeemed by the behavior of his descendent?
Are we all where we are and doing what we do for a special purpose?
Do we have any clue as to what that purpose is?
I am also thinking about this idea of determinism and the concept that we are not free agents and our lives are directed by some plan. Baruch I Spinoza stated that everything is pre- determined because everything is Go d and that G od speaks through pre-set natural laws. And since we are part of nature, and therefore part of G od, we, too, must follow the pre-determined order of things. There are causes for behavior and causes for the causes and for the cause, etc. etc. There is no free will in Spinoza’s philosophy. Mendy says that G od determines what path we shall take, and that we are on that path to fulfill our mission on earth even if we are unaware of what that mission is. Yet Mendy says we have free will. I am confused. Determinism is determinism no matter what the reason, and I reject any philosophy, religious or secular, that holds to it. Of course, there is no answer. Of course the truth will be revealed when the Messiah comes.
The Torah study group at M’kor Shalom also dealt with the same parsha of Abram being called upon by G od to leave everything he knew and go forth, but the conversation was decidedly different. Here we started out with the questions Why Abram? How can G od tell someone to go somewhere and not say where? Comments led to the idea that all people get a message to get up and go in search of life, and any one can be called at any time. But why is it that some people move forward into life and some seem ossified and cannot move? Why does person A moves forward and person B becomes resigned and curls up emotionally?
We make existential choices based on our genetics, the family tapes that switch on and off in our decision making process, and how we deal with the randomness of life and the opportunities and barriers that suddenly confront us. We have major transitional events that insist we get up and go. Each of us has a lech lecha be it an elopement, a marriage, the birth of children, divorce, a new job, a death of someone. For each, Judaism has rituals and blessings to help us celebrate and move through these rites of passage. Some of these rites of passage bind us to new responsibilities so we are not free, and some free us for the first time in our lives.
We spoke of Judaism as a religious civilization that demands that you move forward. We are a faith that emerges out of searching. The rabbis say search and you will find meaning. We are compelled to search and find own passion. How do we uncover the layers that we hide behind to see ourselves? You have to keep arguing. The end does not give you meaning, but the search for meaning gives you meaning. It is what you experience and learn in the search that helps you grow. You have to find the answer yourself. Faith helps you go forward.
Prayer is an inner connection and communication with our own moral compass, and with something beyond one’s self which we can sense.
If G od is everything and is both within and without, is it blasphemy to think that prayer is an inward conversation with that aspect of G od that we are?
November 12, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Vayeira
This particular parsha is one of the most interesting in the Torah. Here you find not only the story of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction, but you also find the story of Isaac's birth, the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, and the binding of Isaac. Both rabbis chose to speak about the Sodom and Gomorrah and came from it from very different viewpoints.
Mendy spoke about Abraham as the quintessential man of hospitality whose tent was open on four sides so any traveler would see and be welcome. He compared this quality with the people of Sodom who were quintessentially selfish and treated all people who did not live there as the “other” and to be feared. To this end, they take on iconic proportions. To point out Abraham’s devotion to hospitality, we are made aware that when he sees the three strangers (angels who each have a particular mission) he leaves off talking to G od to tend to his guests. The commentaries say that G od was not slighted in the least.
Mendy then went into midrash, those stories that tell what is in the blank spaces between the lines and words of the Torah written centuries ago. I’m a little fuzzy on this because Mendy often speaks rapidly and is frequently interrupted by a particular congregant who insists on being heard. Mendy, always gracious, tries to respond to this congregant but more often than not, the congregant is not satisfied so he continues. So by the time Mendy gets back to his original thought, the thread is often broken and I am sometimes lost. So I think this particular midrash told the story of how G od found the soul of the man who would be King David in Sodom of all places. I think the midrash is teaching that if a man (soul) such as David's could exist in Sodom, there is the hope that Sodom itself could be redeemed in the future.
Now Sodom existed centuries before David was even born and Mendy did not clearly explain how this was to be reconciled, and if he did, by this time I was somewhat lost in my own musings. So I reasoned that since the mystics believed in transmigration of the soul, perhaps this very old soul that would one day transmigrate into King David was living in a man who lived in Sodom. That seemed reasonable to me if any part of this story can be reasonable. But it seems David’s merit and his soul’s existence at Sodom assures us that the city will be rebuilt when the Messiah comes and the people will be redeemed. So the message is one of hope, and hope is a particularly Jewish message.
Mendy then referred us to the Ethics of the Fathers and went through four statements relating to ownership and relationships. I can’t find my copy of the Ethics, so I only can recall three:
“What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine,” speaks of an evil person.
“What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is yours,” speaks to a person who is a righteous man.
“What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours,” speaks to a normal relationship, and the rabbis say that this is the way things were in Sodom. Here, a man did not care about another, but took care of himself without concern for his neighbor. This attitude seems normal because it is right and proper that people take care of themselves, but unlike those in Sodom, decent people take care of themselves and also take care of those in need. This is what being a decent person means. This is what being a good Jew means. Mendy said something about the end of days, when the people of Sodom will recognize this truth and behave decently towards one another. Then, no one will be the “other.”
At M’Kor, the conversation was decidedly more sociological and psychological and definitely less spiritual. We spoke about Abraham arguing with G od to save Sodom and Gomorrah, and we were told of the pre-Hebraic traditions of the Hittites and Canaanites where the wife/sister motif was common. When a woman came into the clan as a wife, she also assumed the honor of becoming a sister. At one point Abraham tells Pharaoh and another king, Abimelech, that Sarai is his sister so as to save his life, but it was not entirely untrue. Still, the idea of giving your wife other to another by today’s standards is reprehensible. (The alcoholic supervisor I had while working on my masters degree suggested that things would go better for me if I pimped out my wife to him. I refused and nothing more was said of the matter. He was drunk at the time. While it was not a life or death situation, it could have been a masters degree or else no job situation. Happily, he backed off and he approved my production.)
I think somewhere I read that Sarah was in fact Abraham’s half sister which was not an uncommon tradition in that time if only to keep the wealth in the family. Isaac will act the same way with Rebecca so there must have been a tradition that kings could murder a husband if only to get his wife as a concubine. Again, we must try not to judge these men for wanting to stay alive. They were weak in numbers, and had to use their trickery and deception in order to survive in a land where the mighty were the law. The Torah does not tell us if Rebecca or Sarah agreed.
The questions were raised as to why Abraham argues with G od to save a corrupt city when he is silent when he is told to “listen to Sarah” why he sends Hagar and Ismael to a certain death, and silent when he is told to sacrifice his youngest son.
I for one could understand sending Hagar away, but Abraham was a relatively wealthy man, and certainly he could have afforded more than a flask of water and some bread for his second wife and son. For a man who prepared a sumptuous meal for the strangers who visited him while in pain from circumcising himself and not provided for his own blood to insure that his wife and child survive in the indecisiveness, is reprehensible and the rationalization that Abraham had faith that “G od will provide” just doesn’t cut it with me. His complete lack of empathy and charity towards his own sons does not speak well of this paragon of virtue despite what the midrash tells us and what the rabbis teach.
Mention was also made that the binding of Isaac was used by the Christian church as a precursor to Jesus, as the son of G od being sacrificed by his father, and that the halting of the act is also a polemic against child sacrifice indicating that we, as a Jewish civilization, will not practice this abomination.
There is a diacritical mark over one of the words in the story of Lot called a shalshelet, and the drawn out sound that it suggest is used to describe Lot’s indecisiveness at making up his mind. There are three places in the Torah where this mark is used. We were not told what the other two are.
The Torah reflects what happens in real life. Lot welcomes to his home the two angels, and to protect them, he is willing to sacrifice his own daughters to the mob who is outside his door demanding to “know them” which is a biblical euphemism for sex. Lot’s horrendous offer to the mob is interpreted as a sublimation of his own sexual desires for these girls. He will let the mob do to them what he dares not do. His is a dark fear. Lot has no hesitation in offering his daughters, but hesitates when these angels insist that he leave with his family. At this moment, Lot is weighing the loss of property and comfort, and must be pulled out of the city with the admonition not to look back. On a psychological level, Lot is frozen, caught between desires. We are often caught between our desires. It is the struggle between our spiritual and the physical selves. The warning not to look back is a psycho-spiritual interpretation that if you keep looking to the past, you will become ossified in it and will not be able to move into life. Lot’s wife symbolically and dramatically demonstrates this reality. She looks back and is turned to salt. In short, we must learn to live with the destructive tapes that play in our heads and move beyond them. We are to take warnings seriously, and when we are hesitant and cannot decide when making those decisions that will change our life, we risk paralysis and turn ourselves into salt.
Lot insist on fleeing to a small town instead of going into the mountains as the angel suggests, but this is where Lot’s true character is exposed. Lot is not a good man as we’ve seen in his relationship with Abraham, and has dark, unconscious desires, and a fear of death. Both Lot and his daughters struggle against sexual demons. Freud will later call this “The Electra Complex” named for Electra, Agamemnon’s daughter who murders her mother out of love for her dead father.
Lot and his daughters soon tire of this shabby town and go to the mountains where the three take up residence in a cave. The cave image is a metaphor for the womb which is a temporary comfort, but ultimately blurts you into your life and into reality. The dark desires soon become their reality. In this extreme isolation from society, inhibitions are lowered, and the dark urges come to the fore. Without society as a moderating factor, such desires are not easily reined in. The daughters decide that there are no men left with whom they can procreate, and think that the way to save humanity is to have a child with their father. But this is a ludicrous rationalization since they both came from a town were there obviously were people. Now this also may be an illustration of a women’s drive to procreate, but satisfying maternal instincts in this way is totally unacceptable, and this may be an indirect indictment which will warn the nation of Israel that incest is forbidden. This prohibition will be greatly expanded upon in Leviticus 18. So the daughters get their father drunk, copulate with him and become pregnant with two sons. One son will become the progenitor of the Moabites, and the other the Amorites.
This tale may also have some political overtones as did the story of Ham as the progenitor of the Canaanites. Like the Canaanites, the Moabits and the Amorites were enemies of the Israelites, and what could be a better history for them but to have them descended from an incestual relationship? It is to be noted that the rabbis give the daughters a pass because of their stated instinct to save humanity. The rabbis were not looking too closely at what the daughters said were their motivations and what was the reality of their situation..
The Book of Gensis is fraught with Trauma. The innocent Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden of Eden and their reality becomes a life of sweat and pain. Then the trauma of having one of their sons murdered by the other. Noah is traumatized when he sees his entire world destroyed, and then is sexually abused by his own son. Lot sees his home destroyed, his wife turned to salt, and his daughters pregnant by him. Now that's trauma. Ishmael and Hagar are sent off by Abraham and Sarah into the unknown, and then Abraham traumatizes Isaac by putting him on a alter to be sacrificed. And what of the trauma Sarah suffers upon hearing of such a thing that leads to her death?
Trauma is an integral part of these people’s lives and it is, from time to time, a part of ours. Perhaps this is one of the underlying messages of Genesis to us. Perhaps it is saying to us, you have work to do to deal with your trauma, and you will continue to repeat your own trauma if you continue to stay in your past. The Torah message is that you must move on.
Mendy Log:
November 26, 2011
Parsha Toldot
This parsha tells us the story of Isaac and Rebecca which is a story of a family where there is disagreement between the parents regarding their twin sons Esau and Jacob. It is also a story that raises the questions of “ Do the ends ever justify the means?” “Are we to try to see something good in everyone?” and “Are we ever to judge others?”
Mendy wove these questions into a narrative that was disturbing in its duplicity, where a mother is pitted against a father, a parent against a child, and a brother against a brother. More and more, as you read of the descendants of Abraham and Sarah, you find a family dynamic that is very real and continues to be reflected in contemporary times. Putting aside the religious significance of these people and the stories told about them by our rabbis to turn them into paragons of virtue, these people ring true to the modern reader because they are so very real in their conflicts and so absolutely flawed. I do believe that these people really existed and have something important to say to us today about familial relationships if only to awaken us to what can go on that may be going on outside our conscious awareness.
Twins are born to Rebecca and Isaac, and Rebecca is informed prior their births that the older one will serve the young. This she does not tell to her husband. As the boys grow, it is obvious to the parents that the elder, Esau, the one who will be responsible for carrying on the traditions, is a wild man who has little regard for the traditions and the faith that his parents and grandparents established. Jacob, the younger is just the type of person who will. Isaac shows love for his son Esau despite the reservations he has on his son’s nature and possibly believes that with such affection, the boy will change. But Esau sells the birthright of the first born to his brother for some soup, thus indicating his attitude towards carrying on the family traditions. He also marries two pagan women and this causes great stress for his parents. Later, he will taunt his parents by marrying a third. But Isaac is a traditionalist, and the laws of the times demands that Esau be given the blessing and all rights of the first born. Rebecca will have none of that knowing that it is through Jacob that these new beliefs and practices will continue, so she devises a plan to substitute Jacob for Esau. Jacob wants this blessing, but is afraid that if his father sees through the ruse, he will be cursed. Rebecca assures him that any curse will fall upon her. Jacob’s concern is not that he will be cheating his twin, but that he might be found out and cursed. Jacob is Rebecca’s child. Meanwhile, Esau, a seemingly devoted son, goes out to hunt so he can make the stew his father requested, and receive the promised blessing, but Rebecca has Jacob dress in Esau’s clothes so he will smell and feels like his brother. The blind Isaac famously says, “The hands are the hands of Esau, but the voice is the voice of Jacob.” It is conceivable that Isaac did know what was going on, but he did bless Jacob possibly because he, too, knew that it would be through Jacob that the faith would move forward. He could also later claim that he was duped by Jacob’s and Rebecca’s duplicity when Esau came back. And Esau does come back and flies into a rage with threat to kill his brother. But Isaac still has a blessing for Esau which may be indicative that one was held in reserve for just such a time. Rebecca overhears Esau’s treat and sends Jacob to her brother to get a wife from her tribe and that will insure that the traditions will continue.
So the idea of whether the ends justifies the means comes into play.
At stake are new traditions and a new faith perpetuated against the rights of the first born to his full inheritance. Had Rebecca not imposed her will as her mother-in-law, Sarah did by getting rid of Hagar and Ishmael, the Jewish Civilization would not have come about, and certainly, whatever we now have in Western Civilization would be remarkably different. The law of the land dictated one behavior and Rebecca saw beyond the law to what she considered a greater good. We do not know what was really in Jacob’s heart. Did he want the birthright and the blessing to perpetuate the faith, or only for the rights and privileges they offered? The rabbis have made Jacob golden, but personally, I think he was a conniving individual who took advantage of situations. He was not described as a strong man, so he had to survive by his wits and cunning. This was also valued in his society and certainly valued by his mother. Perhaps that’s why he was so lauded in rabbinic traditions. The weak have to survive. Knowing what I know about what civilization needs in order to develop, I would say that without this duplicity, Judaism may never have developed, the Torah would never have been written, the Greek translation of the Torah, the Septuagint, would never have become the “Old Testament” of Christianity, and the values based on the Torah’s ethical principals would never have become the values of Western Civilization through Christianity. In this case, I believe that Rebecca’s ends did justify her means.
I don’t recall how we got to the following two questions, but I think they might have been rabbinic commentary related to viewing the characters in this story. “Are we to try to see something good in everyone?” and “Are we never to judge others?” Giving Jacob the benefit of the doubt, we can say that being a “quite man living in tents,” he was sincere about perpetuating the faith and traditions of his father, and not just interested in the rights of the first born. While Esau was a wild man who loved hunting and the fields, we can say that he was devoted to his father though not interested in perpetuating his father’s traditions. We can say that Rebecca had strong values and knew how these values were to be perpetuated. These values she tried to inculcate in her sons, but they took hold only in Jacob. It would be Jacob who would perpetuate what she and her husband deemed important. Isaac was silent on most things perhaps because he never fully recovered from being place on the alter as his father’s test of faith, but he appears to be devoted to his sons, and this was a saving grace. I can see trying to find the good in someone because that’s a point at which one might begin if a person is to be brought forward to a better life and better behavior. But let’s face it, there are certain people who are just evil, and the fact that he or she may have loved a pet or was a good artist, cannot be a counter weight on the scales of decency.
Also, that we are never to judge is antithetical to the law of the Torah. It is noble to say that “until you walk a mile in a man’s shoes” you should not judge him, but this flies in the face of the admonition that “You are surely to rebuke your neighbor that you do not bear his sin,” and “You shall burn the evil out of your mists.” To do both demands judgements on another’s behavior. There is also a law that says, “You shall not stand idly by upon the blood of your neighbor.” To stop what is going on is a judgement on the person who is causing the bleeding. Do I have the time to “walk in his shoes?” Are we to see the “good” in an abuser or try to understand by “walking a mile in his or her shoes why he or she is abusing someone now?” There are certain moments where action must be immediate and there is no time to consider the motivations for the actions that you see. What must be immediate is the judgement.
The conversation with Rabbi Richie again took a different tact. At M’kor, the focus seemed to be more on the psychological motivations of the characters involved, and a birth issue that seemed to establish the younger sibling as the one who is more deserving of the honors. Abel was more deserving than Cain, Isaac was more deserving than Ishmael, Jacob was more deserving than Esau, David was the youngest of his siblings, Solomon was younger than Adonijah, etc.
By rejecting the concept of primogeniture in favor of quality of character, the Torah is establishing a new vision for the world which is echoed by Martin Luther King millennia later in the statement, “It’s not the color of your skin, but the content of your character.”
An important piece of the conversation dealt with the parenting styles of Rebecca and Isaac, and the undercurrent of hostility that existed between the two that led to the divided parenting style. We talked about how in such a case, it is common for a parent to come to depend upon the children for fulfillment because they cannot find fulfillment with their spouse or in their marriage. We see Rebecca depending on Jacob, and Isaac depending on Esau. Each parent compensates for being in a dysfunctional marriage by devoting themselves to their children.
We are not sure that Isaac is not aware of what is going on. He is described as “zakain” which means old and it can also mean wise. Isaac knows that Esau is violent and Isaac must also know that Esau does not stand for what is valued in the family. Also, there are certain patterns that emerge in this family such as both Abraham and Isaac claiming their wives were their sisters so as to save their own lives. This was not entirely untrue since in old Sumerian documents, the wife may be portrayed as a sister for legal reasons, and these people abided by the laws of their pre-Hebraic culture. Abraham and Isaac are cunning and survivors. Both dig wells, fight over them, but to maintain the peace, dig new wells. Abraham and Isaac will finesse, sue for peace, stretch the truth, and negotiate. These were the methods the weak needed to employ in order to survive in a society that did not countenance the value of morality. Jacob is also this type of person having learned survival skills from his father and grandfather. But Esau is an in your face guy with little guile and ready to fight. He is not like his father or grandfather. Abraham marries someone from his tribal family. Isaac does the same. Esau marries three local pagan woman.
Isaac may be getting even with Esau for marrying out and not willing to continue the traditions of faith of his family. It is Isaac that orchestrates the blessings perhaps with the hidden intent of saying when all is revealed that “I’m a blind old man so don’t blame me.” Considering this family, that seems like a viable scenario. And Jacob does not see himself as doing something wrong. Deception is a way of survival in this family.
This story explores several key issues in the Torah. It raises the issue of whether there are times when the ends justify the means, and why some people discount the high moral standards taught and still get away with their despicable behavior. Do Rebecca, Isaac, and Jacob do something morally repugnant by conspiring to steal Esau’s blessing in order to attain a higher purpose?
What seems to be at stake and at the core of this story is the perpetuation of a new idea in the world. Ultimately, this new idea will be that there is a universal creative G od whose primary demand is that we treat one another well, and it is in behavior, not in correct faith that we can connect with this creative power. And so we might be tempted to ask ourselves if there is any greater good than to act in the name of G od and in the perpetuation of faith? And yet, in the name of G od or in the name of religion, millions of good people have been slaughtered.
Must horrible things have to happen for a greater good to happen? Much of an answer to this question will depend on whether you believe that there are forces of evil in this world that confront the forces of good or whether there is no such thing as good and evil or right and wrong and such concepts are of human creation. If the latter is true, than any person may take it as his or her right to do whatever he or she wants to do because such people feel like doing it. I do believe that there are evil and cruel people in this world who wish to impose their wills and beliefs on others because they perceive themselves as entitled and powerful. Such people need to be stopped, and at times, wars such as World War II is the only way to stop them. The means was war and the Axis Powers were defeated. That was a good end. To contain terrorism, key terrorists must be targeted and killed to keep innocent people safe. The way such murderers are taken out can be justified if innocent lives are to be saved. If everyone played by the same rules, and the playing field was level to all, then the laws of morality could always be applied. But people do not behave well and therefore the laws that would normally apply might not always be able to be applied in life and death situations. “To save a life is to have saved a whole world “is a strong criteria for deciding whether or not the ends justify the means.
Mendy Log:
December 3, 2011
Parsha Vayeitzei
Mendy had laryngitis and Rabbi Menacham gave the drush. I arrived from M’kor late, so I’m not exactly sure how he got on the topic of man’s ego. However he got there, I believe he thinks ego is absolutely important for survival and I tend to agree. If I remember correctly, he also spoke about the good and evil inclinations and connected ego with the evil inclination.
I agree that it the human ego may dwell in what we call the evil inclination and I’ll tell you why. Somewhere in the Talmud it tells us that without the evil inclination, a man would not build a house or have a child. So on one level, this says to me that having a child may have something to do with projecting one’s self into the future by passing genetic material along, thus achieving some sort of immortality. To me this is the ego at work even if it is done unconsciously. Building a house is a reflection of who you are also, and a house houses all your “stuff” which also reflect who you are. Our stuff and our homes are our egos made manifest for others to see. Our procreation and acquiring are ways of saying to the world “Hey, I am here and I was here.” That’s the ego at work, and there is nothing wrong in that. Of course, when this need pushes the ego to lengths where other people are harmed so one’s ego may be expanded at the expense of others, it is here where we get into the evil inclination and the breaking of commandments. Coveting and murder are on the darker side of the evil inclination continuum.
But the good rabbi insisted that we should have strong egos and the resulting selfishness from a strong ego is not a terrible thing because it is such selfishness that impels us to move forward to create, contribute, and to gather. After all, the rabbis teach us that G od made the world for us and animated us with His own breath. How could we not think highly of ourselves. How could we not feel somewhat self possessed? But the key point that was being made was though the world was given to us, we must give ourselves to G od, and in the giving of ourselves and in the opening of our hands to others who were also animated by G od’s breath, we find G od and establish that singular relationship we crave. There were other important things said, but I cannot recall. There were also questions raised and comments made by the congregation. Even I made what I thought was a very perceptive comment, but I cannot recall what it was.
The discussion at M’kor was decidedly different. The parsha dealt with Jacob’s ladder and the recurrent theme of love, manipulation, wells, and going away. The word for ladder or stairway is salom. Jacob’s dream is the first dream in the Torah, and Rabbi Address spoke of this dream as an ego boost and a wish fulfillment as well as a source of prophesy and a direct communication with G od Himself. Certainly, Jacob’s ego was really massaged by the dream. Whose wouldn’t be what with angels walking up and down and with G od either standing above you or beside you giving you His personal blessing? It was also noted that the Bet Din, a rabbinic tribunal centuries ago developed a ritual for turning bad dreams into good ones by insisting that the dreamer think happy thoughts during the day so his behavior and dreams will change. It would seem that Behavior Modification Therapy was invented by the Talmudists.
We spoke of the going up and down of the angels as symbolic of the rise and fall of the nations that the Jews will have to live with. In this way, according to the Medieval commentary, Jacob is a symbol of the Jewish People. Other interpretations has the up and down angels as symbolic of the Jewish wanderings, while still another says the angels are symbolic of G od’s protection. The last of these varied interpretations has the ladder and angels symbolic of Mt. Sinai because according to Gamatria, Jewish numerology, both “sulam” and “sinai’ each have the numerical equivalent of 130.
Then we got into more modern interpretations of the ladder. A ladder is composed of a series of rungs and you ascend or descend step by step. One interpretation is that the ladder is a symbol of transition from childhood to maturity; from dependency to independency.
A Freudian interpretation says the ladder is a phallic symbol to which I said, “Rabbi, sometimes a ladder is just a ladder” paraphrasing Freud’s famous statement that “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” Everyone laughed.
Explored was the idea that the up and down of the angels points to the tensions that exist between earth and heaven; the base desires of the human being, and the spiritual desires of the human being. Reference was made of the yetzer tov and the yetzer hara, the good and evil inclinations that struggle constantly within us much the same way Esau and Jacob struggled in the womb.
One major idea was that we, like Jacob, may not be aware that any place in which we find ourselves, has the possibility of being a holy place. In such a place, ladders are always being lowered into our lives from heaven in the guise of teachers, friends, parents who prod us to do the right thing. The ladder is the opportunity to climb but we must take the first step.
Hope is at the core of Jacob’s dream, and faith is the ladder of hope. At this moment G od says to Jacob: “I will be with you.” It tells us that in the depths of despair, G od is with us and that we are never alone.
There is a rabbinic belief that there are no superfluous letters or words in the Torah, so it was natural to question why Jacob says, “I, I, did not know.” According to the interpretation given us, the first “I” refers to the ego, and if you are only concerned about your ego, you will never meet G od. When we change ourselves and lose our narcissism, then we will know a holy place when we find it. The ego will always get in the way of finding G od. We must lose it. The second “I” is the spiritual “I.”
Yet following this, Jacob bargains with God with “If you do this then I will do that and if you don’t do that then I won’t do this.” Jacob is still a child. Jacob is still directed by the first ego “I. ” Children bargain with parents to get what they want, and the child in us bargains with G od when we are vulnerable and afraid as we were as biological children. Jacob has to wake up first and give up that first ego “I.” He needs to spiritually awaken, and when he loses the extra “I,” the other ego “I” will he be able to fulfill his destiny and become the third patriarch of the Jewish People.
The Rabbis through interpretations and midrashes make Jacob golden as they made his father and grandfather golden. But personally, based on the stories that have come down to us as written in the Torah, I believe my ancestors to be flawed to a fault, and oh so thoroughly human. Perhaps that is why I honor them for who they had to be considering the times in which they lived, and despite their times, did overcome the first ego “I” to be who they had to be. While I can honor them, I do believe that only G od could love these men and their wives. That gives me some hope that with all my flaws and failings, G od can also love me.
December 10, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha: Vayishlach
This parsha is filled with real nail biting drama, irony, fear, deception, murder, rape, love, and spiritual enlightenment. These seem to be normal events in just another chapter in the happy family saga of our ancestors.
Mendy began with the story of Jacob and the wrestling match he has with a mysterious figure who appears to him before he crosses the Jabbok. The wrestling match is a metaphor for the dark forces with which we wrestle before confronting some life altering crisis. Night is the time for torment and conflicting self doubt, and the daylight is symbolic of enlightenment, clarification, and forward movement. Jacob emerges triumphant yet transformed with a new name and a physical impairment, but he does receive a blessing, and concocts a plan that is once again founded on guile, his modus operandi for surviving and getting what he wants.
Using the metaphor of dark and light, Mendy spoke of the Jewish people, and how in America, we are now in the light. For centuries we wrestled in the dark with forces of evil and with our own doubts and insecurities, but here in America, we are free to be the men and women we’d like to be. So what is keeping us from doing that? What is keeping American Jews from embracing their faith and their yiddishkeit? It was an important question to be raised, but it was “preaching to the choir.” I do believe the people at Chabad do embrace their faith and culture and live it daily.
As I listened, I was thinking about the Jabbok which is a titulary of the Jordan. Jacob must cross this river before he can become the patriarch he is meant to be. Moses crossed the Sea of Reeds and became our greatest prophet, and Joshua crossed the Jordan to become a great leader. I would imagine even Abraham crossed the Tigris or Euphrates to become G od’s first messenger, and I wonder how many others of our ancestors had to cross water? I know that my great grandfather and my zeydeh also crossed the Atlantic to survive and become who they would become. It seem archetypical, this crossing of water. Did not Caesar cross the Rubicon?
Mendy also referred the congregation to the words “Jacob arrived intact to the city of Shechem.” It is the only time in the Torah where the work “intact” is used and it refers to completeness. Jacob, having made peace with his brother, no longer felt that he or his family’s lives were in danger. His family was complete.
Peace in the family is a primary Jewish value, since it is the family that is the basic supportive unit and what makes society stable. Jacob feels that he is intact or complete now that he has made amends with his brother. It’s one less thing this man has to fear.
Yet one cannot help notice that Jacob’s peace is a cold peace, and he definitely does not trust Esau. Immediately after the reconciliation, he lies about the need to care for his little ones and the lambs, and as soon a Esau leaves, Jacob take the family to Succoth. Even after the reconciliation, Jacob remains suspicious of his brother, and considering the times and the need for guile in order to survive, Jacob probably has good reason though I did not find anything specific in the Torah regarding Esau’s intentions. Esau is portrayed, not in the Torah, but in the commentaries as quintessentially evil and the progenitor of every evil society that will ever plague the Jewish people. I guess that Esau is the ancestor of Amalek and I thought that was Ishmael.
There is another translation which reads “Jacob came in peace to the city of Shechem,” which is filled with dramatic irony, since we have prior knowledge that Jacob and his sons will destroy the peace of the people of Shechem and murder the king, the prince, and the townsmen later on in the parsha.. Jacob may have come in peace, but he did not leave in peace, and after this outrage, he will never find true peace again.
Rabbi Richie addressed the same parsha, but focused on the story of Dina, Jacob’s only daughter born to Leah. Considered were the 9th Century BCE values and cultural mores that informed the society in which these people lived, and though we are to understand that these were the conditions of the times, we must understand that these times were brutal and cannot be truly judged by today’s standards. Still, what happened then is still happening today because the human psych has not basically changed. What has changed is that some societies have developed better controls and systems to stem the natural inclinations of humanity. And those inclinations continue to be pretty base.
Throughout the story of Dinah, Dinah has no voice. In fact, she is totally invisible as girls were then. When Jacob divides his camp, he refers to his eleven children. She is not even considered in the count. Dinah is chattel, a possession, completely discounted, and has no right of consent. And this innocent teenager, feeling the discount, might have concluded that seeing and being seen is what counts. As the story goes, Dinah, went out to see the daughters of the land. This was a reckless thing to do, but it is natural to crave attention and be initiated into the ways of the world. When Shechem, the prince of the country, saw her, he felt entitled to take her and lay with her. As Isaac felt entitled to kiss Rebecca at the well and give her jewelry before speaking to her father, so Shechem also felt entitled to “know” Dinah without speaking to her father. It was after he “humbled” her that he loved her and sought out her hand in marriage.
It is to be noted that Jacob does not go to rescue his daughter. Her brothers become angry, but lets face it. To them, she is now damaged goods. She is unclean. But still no one asks her what she wants to do. No one thinks that maybe being the wife of a prince where love may blossom is better than being a discounted daughter in a house of eleven sons who can no longer fetch the virgin bride price. Jacob and his sons see only their honor being violated, not their sister’s, and it is only after the slaughter they bring that they take Dinah back to her father’s encampment.
So Shechem’s father, Hamor, goes to Jacob and offers a handsome bride price which includes offering to intermarry with the tribe and becoming one people. This is refused. And when Shechem says that he will do whatever is necessary to have the girl he loves, the brothers “with guile” insist that he, the king, and all the men must be circumcised. To have the girl he loves, Shechem agrees. Now it is to be pointed out that tenderness after abuse is characteristic of abusers in modern life. The acquisition of power abusers feel over their victims can be intoxicating.
Guile is a means of survival among this small tribe, and our ancestors used it to their advantage when they had to. But to use guile means that you have a plan which makes whatever you are going to do pre-conceived. The brothers, Levi and Simeon, chose to use the religious ritual of entering the Covenant as the means of murdering the king, the prince, and the men of Shechem. This in itself is an offensive act, and must not be dismissed as just a warning to others both in the tribe and out of the tribe that intermarriage with other peoples is forbidden. And the other brothers involve themselves by taking the livestock as well as the wives and children of the slaughtered men.
No one is clean in the destruction of Shechem. To me, Jacob’s response to the slaughter of these people continues to reflect the flaws of his character, for never does he berate his sons for the heinous crime, but he berates them for making his name odious to the people of the land and bringing upon him danger. It is always about him. Despite the blessings and assurances he has received, he is still all ego. He is as self-centered as an adult as he was when he was a teenager.
Mendy Log;
December 17, 2011
Parsha: Vayeishev
Mendy began by telling a story about allowing a woman with a full cart and a potentially howling toddler in front of him in line. Mendy, being Mendy, read her face, felt her pain, and blossomed with compassion saying that he understood because he had eight at home. When the woman left, she turned to him and said something to the effect that “he had changed her life” or something similar. Whatever it was, this small act of compassion from a stranger meant a great deal to her at that moment.
This introduction led to one of the core concepts of the parsha, where Joseph, in jail, inquires of the newly jailed baker and wine steward as to why they “were sad?” This simple question which reveals Joseph’s concern and compassion for strangers (which is an indication that his years in prison has tempered his ego, and he has matured from his days of being the favored son) becomes a very important moment because it is from this simple kindness that he will ultimately be freed to interpret pharaoh’s dreams and to become the grand vizier of Egypt (which then allows him to save his family so they could ultimately receive the Torah and introduce Ethical Monotheism to the world. This is his ultimate his purpose for being.)
From this, Mendy spoke about the people around us who may need someone to look at them and ask them Why they are sad? Such a recognitions of another’s pain might be just what is needed for them not to feel so totally alone and not so totally the “other.” Such an empathetic statement is a reaching out to say that someone sees you and someone cares about you. Such a simple awareness of another may just be the thing that saves a life or gives a person permission to go on.
Years ago, I read a story about a man who was on his way to commit suicide off of a bridge, and he vowed that if just one person said “hello” or “good morning,” he would not do it. Well somebody obviously did because we know the story. After reading this, I’ve made it a habit to say “hello” or “good morning” to people I pass in the event that I might be the person that that person needs to save his or her life.
Mendy then spoke of three kinds of people who are represented in this parsha: the man of self importance who leaves little, the man of humility, shy and unassuming who makes great contributions, and the man nobody knows who changes the course of history by a small word or deed.
To Mendy, Rueven, the eldest brother who is in charge of the others and answerable to Jacob, is the first type. According to the rabbis, he leaves to pray because he is wracked with guilt over having bedded one of his father’s lesser wives and to minister to his father. He is taking care of what Reuven needs to take care of and though he initially saves Joseph with the intention of freeing him, he does leave to take care of his own business leaving Joseph in the hands of his brothers. Reuven is all ego, all into his own needs, and think he is important but will leave little of value as his legacy.
Joseph is portrayed by the rabbis as the second type, the type of person who is shy, unassuming, unpopular but who possesses great inner qualities that eventually will be revealed and will greatly benefit his immediate world and possibly the world at large. The rabbis tell us that Joseph is such a man.
Again, here, based on the text, it is Joseph, not Reuven who is the supreme egotist, and this is because of his father. After Rachel dies, Jacob transfers his love for his dead wife onto her eldest son, and sets him above his brothers. The coat is a symbolic reference to everything else that was lavished on him and symbolic of what Jacob denies his other sons. Joseph has dreams of being superior to everyone including his father, and foolishly lords the dreams over the family as I’m sure he has lorded all the other benefits of being Joseph over them. Joseph has an enormous ego thanks to his father and feels fully entitled. It is Joseph who likes being out in front and the center of attention, not Reuven. But Jacob knows about his other ten son’s enmity for their brother, knows about the dreams that annoy him and the ten brothers, and knows that these same ten sons are violent men. Now, this presented me with a problem that also speaks to Jacob’s intelligence. I know Jacob is smart because you have to be smart to be wily and a trickster. So knowing that your other sons detest their younger brother not only because of Joseph’s dreams, but because of your overt favoritism for him, why do you send him off alone in his amazing technicolor coat to find a group who hold him in contempt? These are not nice people. Levi and Judah are both cold blooded killers, and the others had no qualms about pillaging and abducting the women and children of Shechem. What was going on in Jacob’s mind? Was he really that naive? These are questions I’d like answered.
The third person spoken of was that person whose name is not known, but whose actions and words change the course of history and the course of individual lives. The unknown person here is the stranger Joseph meets on his way to find his brothers. Had he not been told by this man that his brothers had taken the flocks to another place, Joseph may have returned home and not fulfilled his destiny. But he goes looking for them, finds them, and begins an adventure that will ultimately save his people and change the course of civilization. This nameless man is pivotal in the action that unfolds because he spoke to Joseph.
As I listened, it occurred to me that each of us effects the world as a nameless person. I know that I have effected the lives of my students and a myriad of teachers, but who knows when something that I did or said to someone changed their thinking in such a way that someone who never heard of me was effected for the better? So in some way, all us nameless people are interconnected with one another, never knowing who we have touched and what the result was. The lady told Mendy that he had effected her life and that had to be for the better. Who can tell how his simple moment of empathy will replicate itself?
At M’kor, Rabbi Richie introduced Joseph as a narcissistic male teenager who is the creation of his father’s favoritism. Jacob had transferred the affection and indulgence he had for Rachel to their son, Joseph, and Jacob may have come to see himself as having to be over protective because now he must be both mother and father. Joseph is depicted as a normal teenager with all the adolescent angst and ego. He is struggling to establish his masculinity and potency as the youngest of ten older hostile brothers. It can’t be easy for him.
The story also seems to reveal the intellectual, spiritual, and emotional growth of Joseph as he moves from adolescence to maturity. As children, we worship ourselves, but if we are basically healthy, we know we must grow. To grow we must ultimately ask ourselves: What is life all about? and What am I leaving behind as my legacy?
The man Joseph comes upon in his search for his brothers asks him "What are you looking for?" The man may be an angel sent with the sole purpose of pointing Joseph in the direction in which he must go. Though he says he is looking for his brothers, on the metaphoric level he might as well be saying, “I am looking for my destiny.”
What’s remarkable about the Torah, is that though the time of the story may be three thousand or more years ago, the human psyche has not changed very much. Parents continue to favor one child over the other, be over protective because of some family trauma, and siblings vie for parental affection and vilify one another. And we must never forget that each of us hears our own Lech Lecha; pick yourself up and go out. Joseph’s is on his journey of self-discovery and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose. It is to be noted that when Joseph does become a regent in Egypt and can do anything he wishes, he does not contact his father or siblings. While Joseph may have concluded that it was G od who sent him down to save the family, I think he was very angry with his family and would sooner have forgotten them. The torment that he will later put them through seems indicative of this anger.
Little has changed in family dynamics over the millennia, and the Torah continues to be an honest guide reflecting such dynamics and emotional states. Why would anyone make this stuff up? These people did live and their story and warnings have come down to us so we might recognize ourselves and become aware of how destructive we might become if we do not exert self-control.
One other theme that was discussed was the womb motif. It is archetypical. We come out of the womb into a new life. Lech lecha begins at birth in a way. Joseph is thrown into a pit which is like a womb, and emerges as a slave in Egypt to begin his mission. Later he is thrown into jail which he describes as a pit, to emerge as the man who will save his family and Egypt. Jonah is swallowed by a whale and spit out to fulfill his destiny as a prophet of G od. The whales belly become his womb. Adam and Eve live in Eden which is a womb all to itself and they are forcefully expelled from it to begin life as rational and aware beings. Children leave their comfortable homes to brave the world on their own and find their destinies. It’s all in the Torah if you look for it.
December 24, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Mikeitz
(The fifth candle of Chanukah)
Mendy informed us that the Chanukah menorah set up in Haddonfield was stolen, but he had immediately replaced it before people could realize that it was missing. Actually, had the director of the Jewish Community Relations Council and Mendy not decided on a course of action that could have destroyed the young thief’s life, the teenager in question might have been charged with a hate crime and put in jail for fifteen to twenty years. But Mendy, who lives by his faith, is not a vindictive man and decided that an apology note from the young man and hopefully his explanation for his behavior would be better than sending him to prison where whatever nascent Jew-hatred that was emerging might fester. (Haddonfield was once a restricted community so there is probably some residual discomfort with a menorah in the town. To their credit, the Christian congregations offered to replace it.)
It is my impression that Mendy is the kind of man who sees each opportunity presented to us as an opportunity to bring light to a dark world. The incident reminded me of the priest’s response in Les Miserables when questioned as to whether or not Jean Valjean had stolen the silver from the church. The priest says the silver candle sticks were a gift, and Jean Valjean goes on to become an upstanding citizen and brightens the lives of those around him. Perhaps this callow adolescent will take this opportunity to go on to do good things absent of his anger. Of course, the kid could have stolen it to sell it for scrap, but Haddonfield is a very affluent town, so I suspect there was a hint of Jew-hatred motivating him. I can’t help but wonder what in his background gave him permission to do this? We all know that kids are taught by significant people in their lives who have power over them.
This image of light, of menorah light, and human light must have triggered in Mendy the argument between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel who were generally at odds with one another on anything from the placement of a mezuzah on a doorpost to the how to light the chanukah menorah. And since this is Chanukah, Mendy told us that the followers of Shammai, one of the great rabbis of the Rabbinic Period taught that all chanukah candles should be lit the first night and diminished by one each successive night. The rational for this was that the energy emitted and symbolized by all the candles lit at the same time was needed to inspire the people. But the followers of Hillel, another great rabbi of this period 2,000 years ago, taught that you must start small with only one candle, because it was the nature of people to grow slowly and they need time
to grow and see progress from their efforts. The Rebbe adhered to the teachings of Hillel as we do today because the Rebbe also recognized that growth is developmental and time is needed to consider and explore.
To paraphrase this idea in one of the Rebbe’s quotes: The mitzvots are rungs on a ladder. The object is to keep climbing, and as long as you are ascending, you are being a good Jew. It doesn’t make a difference where you are standing at any moment as long as you’re climbing. The ladder is always waiting, and the first rung is not very high off the ground.
To reinforce the idea that we grow with each candle that is lit, Mendy encouraged us to strengthen our Jewish selves by doing something that will move us closer to taking action to bring some light to the world. He encouraged us to bring a friend to the service or invite a friend to the kiddish for food and conversation. Mendy said that each of us was a candle and our mission was to to light the dark places in the world. We could do this one individual at a time.
I think the connection between the Menorah incident, the Shammai/Hillel dispute, and the parsha, had something to do with lighting candles and brightening the world.
Mendy started talking about Joseph’s two sons born to him in Egypt to the daughter of a pagan priest. The eldest son was named Menasha which is a made up name that translates into the idea that Joseph has forgotten the pain and anger towards his family. (Although to me having a child that I see daily with such a name would do just the opposite. The child would be a constant reminder.)
The younger son also receives a made up name which translates into: I have overcome and I have made myself a good life and I am happy and thankful for what G od has given me. But the point Mendy was making here linked us to the idea that we must not wait until we have discarded the baggage we carry from our past to do good or to move forward. Moving forward without a life of mitzvahs is an anathema to Jewish thinking because none of us is ever baggage or issue free, and we were put on this earth to make it a better place which can only be done through the mitzvot.
And since we will never be issue free one must learn to accept these and deal with them effectively because the impetus of life is to move forward. It’s Lech Lecha all over again. In each day we live, there are opportunities to move forward to make life better for ourselves and others be it physically or spiritually.
This idea of moving forward and being a positive force is revealed when Joseph brings his sons to Jacob for a blessing before the old man dies. Menasha, the eldest is to have his grandfather’s right hand on his head, and Ephraim is to have the left. But the old man put his right hand on the head of the younger. When Joseph objects, he is told to back off. The blind Jacob sees that it is through recognition and gratitude for what G od gives us symbolized by the child that the Jewish people will move forward and be blessed.
Like Lot’s wife who looked back to the past, we, too, can become immobilized if we focus on the past and allow it to immobilize us in the present. Moving forward is the only option for survival.
This blessing also continues the motif of the youngest child superceding the elder and continues the idea that spiritual merit is far more important to the Jewish people than age and the traditions of primogeniture.
The womb motif seen in the stories of Adam and Eve, Jonah, and Joseph, and the Lech lecha motif in the Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob stories, are all stories that demand that we move forward. The Joseph, Menasha and Ephraim stories tells us that we must move forward without allowing the past to ossify us.
Note: Jewish boys are blessed on the Sabbath in the names of Menasha and Ephraim, not in the names of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is done because these boys had the option of being pagans, but chose the faith of their father. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob made no such choice. The girls are blessed in the names of the Matriarchs, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel because they did make that same choice when they married their husbands.
December 31, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha: Vayigash
Mendy began by informing us of a celebration among Chabadnicks that has been going on for the past 25 years. The celebration is to commemorate a secular judge’s decision that the massive and rare book collection that the first American Rebbe amassed did in fact belong to the Chabad community and not to his relatives. The final piece of evidence was give by the Rebbe’s own daughter who told the lawyer deposing her that she had grown up knowing that nothing that the Rebbe owned was his but belonged to the community. She also revealed that it was the Rebbe’s belief that his sole objective and responsibility was to protect the community and help it to grow spiritually. His library was part of that effort.
After the decision, the Chabadnicks danced in the street for days, and when the Rebbe heard of it, he went to them and said, “Why are you dancing when you should be studying. What is the point of having this library if you are not using it?”
To help us connect with the importance of maintaining books on Judaism, Mendy asked us if in the past months or even the past year any of us had purchased a book on Judaism. Certainly, I’ve purchased at least five that I can recall. And yet, though my library is extensive with over 1,000 books on Judaica, Judaims, Yiddish, as well as art, literature, music, history, architecture, etc. it continues to sadden me that no one in my family will vie for it or make any effort to keep it in tact.
Mendy skillfully linked this idea of Rebbe’s feelings of rabbinic responsibility to his congregation to the Torah portion in which Judah, the brother who was put in charge of Benjamin’s safety on the trip to Egypt, begs Joseph to relent and let the boy go in exchange for himself. He says to Joseph, “For how shall I go up to my father, if the lad be not with me? Lest I look upon the evil that shall come on my father.” The news would indeed kill Jacob, and it would be Judah’s fault because he was responsible for Benjamin. This is Judah speaking of his responsibility for those in his charge.
Mendy opened up a dialogue with the congregation as to what Judah might have said to explain Benjamin’s absence, and all explanations he gave and those who chose to participate gave, would have been valid. Yet Judah is fully aware as are we that ultimately, Benjamin would be in prison. No matter how you turn it, Judah failed in his responsibility and no excuses changed that fact. The proverbial buck stopped at Judah.
For Mendy, this comment from Judah which reveals his attitude towards his responsibility, carries a powerful and important message to all those who assume leadership be they rabbis or lay people, For once you don the cloak of leadership, you own the responsibility of being responsible for both the good that follows and the bad. As a rabbi, Mendy insists that his focus must be on the spiritual welfare of the congregation and that it is his responsibility to poke and prod the members in Chabad to ever higher steps on the ladder of mitzvot. Mendy is the candle lighting our way, and each of us is responsible for lighting our own candle so as to light the way for others.
The candle I’ve chosen to light, lights the way for my students both adolescent and adult. But my adult students are usually grandparents and sometimes lament how their own children and grandchildren behave regarding Judaism, and it may take years before my students take what I’ve taught them to heart in terms of an organized faith and the need for community. Happily, they’ve all taken my lessons on moral behavior to heart and all are decent kids as are my own step and biological children.
At the end of the drush, a hand was raised from a congregant asking Mendy how he responded to the incident about ultra-Orthodox men in an ultra-religious section of Jerusalem verbally abusing an spitting at a young Orthodox girl they did not consider dressed appropriately. The congregant also asked if he, Mendy, as an Orthodox man who looked like these men, felt any association with these people or felt that he would be lumped with these people. Mendy said that he was appalled by such extreme behavior and that because these men wear a beards, they should not not be lumped with anyone else who also chooses to wear a beard. We were assured that these men were not of Chabad, because their vilification of a child was an anathema to the Rebbe’s teachings that any Jew at any state of his or her Jewishness, is to be embraced. He gave a very funny example of making such a judgement error when he said to a congregant, "You look like Bernie Madoff. Does that mean you're a thief?" Mendy was clear that while he could not keep someone from lumping him with these men because of his dress and beard, he made it clear to us that each person or group was responsible for themselves and he owned no responsibility for the actions of these people. To blame all Jews for the action of one, or to blame all in one race for the action of one is illogical.
Mendy made it clear that not all Jews are alike. There are righteous Jews and reprehensible Jews, and that said, we are also to embrace them judging their actions but not their ethos as a human being. It is only by embracing them that we can bring them to a better understanding of what is right. It reminded me of the Christian admonishment: love the sinner, not the sin. One member of the congregation asked how that was to be done, but Mendy, recognizing that he had spoken for about an hour and that several people’s eyes had glazed over a while ago, suggested that the man take a class he was teaching on the wisdom of the Rebbe.
Va-Era Ex. 6:2-9:35
The parsha this week dealt with the plagues suffered by the Egyptians when pharaoh chose not to let the people go, but Mendy chose not to speak about these. Instead he opened with a comment that one of his friends made in response to a picture that he had posted on his Face Book page of Senator Eric Cantor, putting on tefillin at the Western Wall. The friend castigated Mendy for having posted it saying that is was a political ploy and a shameful display. Mendy asked the congregation for our opinion. Most people who chose to speak said that they had no problem with the picture no matter what the motivation. Only one disagreed, saying that Cantor’s integrity was to be questioned. Mendy then spoke of what the Alta Rebbe, the founder of the Hasidic Movement taught. It seems the Rebbe would have supported Cantor’s putting on tefillin regardless of the motivation because the mitzvah itself has its own meaning separate from intentions. Donning tefillin may or may not be part of Cantor’s life style, but it could be the seed needed to begin that morning ritual where it might become part of his life. It might also inspire another to investigate what those little boxes placed on the head and are mean. Mendy went on to say that little things count such as buying something at the grocery that has Rabbinic approval when you might otherwise choose something that has none. Tiny mitzvahs or blessing are cumulative in a person’s life, and with enough of them, they might even become that person’s way of life.
Mendy then went into the text itself to the part where G od says to Moses that he must tell pharaoh and the Israelites something. We know what he is to say to the Egyptian ruler, but what is he to say to the Jews? It isn’t stated. So Rashi, the great Medieval commentator states that the message that Moses was to give to the Jews was that when they, in the future, have slaves, they must free them after six years of servitude. (Later in the Bible it specifically commands that if a slave is struck by his master and the slave loses a tooth, the slave must be freed because of the tooth. It also states that a run away slave must not be returned to his master. Imagine such a law in the Torah so many centuries before the dreadful Supreme Court ruling called Dred-Scott Decision that demanded that run away slaves be returned to their masters.)
This was indeed a very strange midrash because we are dealing with current slaves being in a position to own slaves in the future. When I thought about why it was interpreted in this way, I thought it might have something to do with hope. But it had something to do with freedom, and it was a wonderful teaching.
Abused people tend to become abusers. It has to do with being powerless and then being powerful and taking back something of what you gave up when you were being abused by becoming an abuser. I imagine that the abused Child living in the adult abuser might feel some temporary release while abusing, but it neither frees nor satisfies, and abusers never get it out of their systems nor do they feel safe despite the pain they inflict. They just continue their abuse.
The Rabbi appeared to be teaching two concepts: that a truly free human being doesn’t have to be a slave to his emotions or his past experiences. The second is the fact that though you were an abused slave, it does not mean you are free to abuse another because you were abused. In short, free people can conquer their pasts, rise above their experiences, and act decently and appropriately. Also, a truly free person recognizes the rights of others. It was a good teaching, and it gave me a perspective on freedom that I had not considered.
I read with great interest again the story of the plagues, and I could not help but wonder if these were actual miracles performed by G od, or actual natural phenomena caused by some cataclysmic event that were experienced by our ancestors and ascribed to G od because they were too wondrous to be understood in any other way. I have no doubt that these events took place. They are all plausible, described in detail, and how could anyone make such things up and set them down in such an order. The Exodus took place about 3500 years ago. At the same time, the volcanic Greek Island of Thira to the west of the Nile Delta where our ancestors lived, exploded with such force and intensity that it created a caldera miles across, and destroyed the entire Minoan Civilization with earthquakes, burning ash, columns of smoke that reached miles into the atmosphere, and massive tidal waves that spread out throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Now in the Pirke Avot, the rabbis teach that at the dawn of creation, G od created certain entities such as the well that followed our ancestors in the desert, the mouth of the earth that swallowed Korah, etc. so as to convey the idea that a miracle was part of the natural order of things. So who is to say that G od did not ordain at creation that this particular volcano was to erupt just about the time the Jews were ready to be taken out of Egypt so the effects of the eruption might be used against pharaoh? Vulcanologists, studying the effects of more recent volcanoes, found that many of the same conditions occur in modern explosions that occurred 3500 years ago. Terrified wild animals do invade human habitats. If the pomace is pink or ocher and falls on water, it might look like blood. If this pomace does cover the water, choking off the oxygen to fish and frogs, fish die, and frogs will leave the water. Volcanic ash blackens out the sun and can fall to earth carrying burning embers. Tidal waves pull water out to sea for a time, and returns with a vengeance. Goshen was on the Mediterranean. Did our ancestors cross the Sea of Reeds when the water was pulled out, and were the Egyptians swept away when the water came back? Underground earthquakes under lakes can release toxic gasses into the atmosphere that might kill people who sleep on beds close to the ground. Egyptians did sleep on beds with very short legs. All of these natural things happened and they are vividly describe in the Exodus because our ancestors experienced them first hand. But I have questions: Did our ancestors see these events as ordained by G od and did Moses write them down exactly as they happened? Did our ancestors ascribe the natural events that they saw as miracles of G od because there was no other explanation? Were our ancestors opportunistic slaves who used these cataclysmic events that created chaos in Egypt to get themselves out of Egypt and then tell the story over centuries as part of an oral tradition and then write them down? Am I tapping into the Doubt we are told G od built into each event we experience that challenges us to believe despite the Doubt? I wonder and I still believe in a universal creative force in the universe that I call Ein Sof. Being a Jew demands no abdication of my reason.
January 8, 2011
Parsha Bo
Mendy began his drush this week by telling us of a phone call he received from a friend of a Modern Orthodox congregation who as him if he would favor or reject the idea that there be different mynions (gatherings of people to pray) based on ages. For example, should there be one for the teenagers, one for young adults, another for families with small children, and still another one for the older members of the congregation. This man’s congregation is rather large and many different needs have been expressed. The Chabadnicks who attended on this very snowy day, universally said that it would be a tragic mistake to divide this congregation. Mendy agreed and used this motivation as a way of entering the parsha which partially deals with Moses going to Pharaoh and demanding that the Israelites be allowed to go into the desert to worship G od. Moses insists that all men, women, and children, as well as all cattle and other flocks be allowed to go. Pharaoh laughs in Moses’ face knowing full well that if Moses leaves with all the cattle, he will be taking part of the wealth of Egypt, and if the children leave, he will be losing the next generation of slaves. So he refuses, and G od brings on the next set of plagues which involves darkness, locust, and the slaying of the first born. Pharaoh relents and drives the Israelites out.
The major point that Mendy was making was that for the Jewish people to remain a people and cohesive, they must remain a unity even as they remain individuals. Moses knew this very well. Later, there is a midrash that when they passed through the Sea of Reeds, the individual tribes were together, but their focus was unified. In the desert we set up our individual tents with our tribes, but the focus was on the sanctuary. Over and over again, the Torah reinforces the concept that we must always remain a unified people. Mendy also made reference to the Rebbe who always included in special gatherings the exact statement in the Torah were Moses says that we shall all go out together.
For me, the joy of coming to Shabbos at Chabad, and I’ve said this before, is seeing the little children being held by their grandfathers and fathers. This is what this community is all about. The sounds these children hear from birth and through attendance with parents and grandparents, become familiar and associated with prayer, study, and loving memories. Yiddishkeit, the Jewish way of living, its sounds and sights and smells, becomes natural to them and will never be alien. In this way, the beauty is handed down daily and weekly from generation to generation. No congregation should separate any part of itself from another part of itself. Though my own grandchildren live far from me, I have tried to create for them "yiddishkeit" memories on those occasions when they are visiting my home. I would want them to remember helping me set the Shabbos table and remembering what each symbol means. I would want them to remember their grandmother lighting the candles and me making the blessing over the wine, and the bread. I want them to remember me placing my hands on their heads, blessing them, and kissing them. I want them to remember me reciting A Woman of Valor to their grandmother. At Passover, I want them to remember us setting up the seder table and learning the symbols as we do it. I want them to remember helping me make the charosets, the horse raddish, and inspecting each egg that goes into the cake we’re baking. I want them to remember the story of our people, and the sounds of Hebrew and Yiddish. Of my nine grandchildren, only five are being given a Jewish education, and I do hope that one day, they will come to discover their religion, and recognize the beauty of Yiddishkeit and its benefits as they grow into adulthood. Still, I am fearful that my generation of secularized first or second generation Americans who still recall those who came over from Europe, is the last generation that will hold those fragments of Yiddishkeit recalled as something to be valued and practiced. I believe I am the only one in my family who attempts some semblance of keeping kosher both in and outside my home.
Mendy then turned his attention to an equally interesting passage that dealt with the admonition from G od that the people of Israel, as regards the Passover sacrifice, were to roast it and nothing else. G od specifically says there should be no water near it to contaminate it.
The explanation that Mendy gave for this was fascinating. It had to do with the nature of two of the four elements: fire and water. I don’t recall everything Mendy said, so you’ll forgive my embellishment. Water is cold, changing, and unemotional. It seeps down, spreading out to lose its volume, easily taking on the shapes of other forms allowing itself to become diluted. And depending on the conditions, water can morph into different forms, dissipating into the air as steam or becoming rigid like ice. Mendy made the point that there are people like water who are cold, unemotional, not committed, and easily diluted. On the other hand, fire leaps up into the heavens. It is hot and passionate, blazing but always consistent in its nature. If it spreads, it does so by consuming what it touches, always leaping up into the air. There are people who are like fire, passionate in their faith and commitment like the Macabees and Prophets. Mendy is on fire with passion. The commandment to only roast the lamb was that the Israelites, on seeing the fire, were to be reminded to be passionate in their adherence to the Torah and loyalty to G od. It is the fire that leaps up as should our spirits.
Mendy continued by saying that our struggle to have a relationship with G od is part of the passion that the fire symbolizes. The questions that we have as well as our daily struggles are all part of that passion and it is welcome. In addition, he also said that he would rather deal with people who shake their fists against heaven, than deal with someone who is apathetic or dismissive. Such people do not see the wonder that pervades the Ein Sof's universe. With such people, there is no growth. (Again, I am embellishing because I don’t recall his specifics, but I’m close to the message in spirit.) On a more personal note, since I often rail and question, I feel more accepted by Mendy and this community. It was a very important sermon for me, and delivered with his usually soaring passion.
Something extra:
These early chapters of Exodus are particularly interesting if you are interested in the Jewish take on how much of the Christian Bible came to be written, and the rites of the Christian Church. Admittedly, very little is known about Jesus’ life, and when the world did not end as promised, the early followers of Jesus began writing stories to keep his memory and his message alive. They had the Torah and were familiar with midrash as guides for developing their own sacred literature. They also knew that for a midrash to be accepted, it had to link in with something from the Torah to give it truth. So the life of Moses became the model for the life of Jesus, and if you don’t believe that, go to the Sistine Chapel and look at the frescoes that run up both sides of the side walls. Up one side of one wall is the life of Moses, and up the other side is the life of Jesus and they are parallel. The Christian “take” on this is that Moses’ life pre-configures Jesus’ life, thus providing prophetic proof that Jesus is the Savior or Messiah.
The Jewish take on this is quite different. The Jewish “take” is that the Gospel writers “cherry picked” those stories in the Torah in order to prove to their followers that Jesus is the Savior or Messiah so they could say that Moses prefigures and points to the coming of Jesus. In reality, the Torah and the Prophets have absolutely nothing to do with or say about Jesus. Moses becomes the model for Jesus because Moses is the savior of his people and a great deal is known about his life and his relationship to G od. Very little was known about Jesus by his contemporaries, and the Gospels themselves I believe were written between thirty and ninety years after his death. It is my understanding that no Gospel writer knew Jesus personally. The Gospel writers borrowed heavily from the life of Moses to give a life to Jesus.
Moses’ story originates in Egypt, and when Pharaoh hears about the birth of a Hebrew child who will liberate the Hebrews, he has the boys murdered. The little boy who is saved, Moses, will later become the savior of the Hebrews and bring them up out of Egypt.
To parallel this, the Gospel writer has Herod, hearing about a Hebrew child to be born, has all the male children murdered. This is called the “Slaughter of the Innocents,” yet there is no record of such an horrific event among the writings of the most literate people of that time. So the Gospel writer has Mary and Joseph fleeing to Egypt to save their son, and eventually, Jesus, too, will come up from Egypt to save humanity. At the Sea of Reeds, Moses parts the waters. Jesus, at one point in his ministry, stands in the waters and parts the heavens. Moses goes into the desert for forty years, while Jesus also goes into the desert for forty days.
Imagery is also borrowed. The Pascal lamb is slaughtered as a sacrifice to G od prior to the bodily freedom the Hebrew slaves will experience. No bone of the Pascal lamb may be broken, and its blood must be smeared and the lintel and doorposts of each home so the Hebrew people will be saved from death. Christian theology borrows these images, and Jesus becomes the human embodiment of the lamb who is sacrificed to save and redeem mankind so mankind can have eternal life after death. Jesus is often referred to as The Lamb of G od. To further develop the image of Jesus as the Lamb of G od, the point in the Gospel is made that his bones are not broken. Also, his blood becomes the symbol of salvation as did the blood on the doors in Egypt, but Jesus’ blood now saves and redeems the faithful. The symbols of the Eucharist, an important rite in the Christian faith, employs the symbols of the Passover Seder where Jesus declares that the wine and bread served to him at the Last Supper also his last Seder, now transubstantiates into his blood and body. Another borrowing comes with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on a white donkey with palms being placed before him. This is an exact duplicate the Messiah’s entry into Jerusalem written by one of the Prophets, only palms are not used on Passover but on Succot in the fall. I can go on about why Jews do not consider Jesus as the Messiah, but I suspect you already know that.
January 15, 2011
Parsha Be-Shallach Ex. 13:17-17:16
Mendy began his talk by informing the congregation that today, the 15th of the Hebrew month of Shevat is an important day in the Chasidic Lubavitch calender because this day marks the anniversary of the death of the Rebbe, Yosef Shneersohn, and the advent of his son-in-law, Menachem Mendel Shneersohn, the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Mendy detailed parts of the Rebbe’s inaugural address, but I can remember only one piece of it, and that was the Rebbe encouraging his followers that they must do, and not just pray. That they must turn whatever energy and passions they have, especially if these are slightly out of wack, into positive action that will benefit others. Do this despite the nay sayers who might try to dissuade you. At that moment I was reminded of the proverb, “It’s easier to get forgiveness than permission.” Mendy was particularly passionate himself, and sometimes I find myself swept up by the rhythms of his convictions, and I forget what he is saying. But I think I did recall what was the core of the Rebbe’s talk.
The parsha this week dealt with the our forefathers at the Sea of Reeds with pharaoh’s chariots coming up fast. Moses seems not to have gotten it yet. He still believes that he cannot take the initiative without going first to G od and asking what he should do. G od is getting annoyed so He tells Moses to raise his staff over the water and the water parts.
Mendy also told us of two midrashes, two wonderfully imaginative stories written by the rabbis to fill in the empty spaces between the lines that are not in the Torah. The first story was about the four different groups that formed at the edge of the sea, but I think there were five. The first group said that going forward was impossible, and that they should return to Egypt. The second group said that they would never be slaves again, and suggested suicide. The third group said that because they were armed, they should fight the Egyptians to the death. The fourth group said they must pray for a miracle and G od would save them. Then Mendy told another midrash about Nachshon ben Amidai who walked into the water up to his nose and the water parted. So I think there was a fifth group, a group lead by Nachshon who looked around, saw the others bickering, prayed to G od and took some forward leaning action. Nachshon is one of my Biblical heroes even though I think he is mentioned only in the midrash. Now my personal take on this is that Nachshon assessed the situation, saw and heard the arguments and rejected all of them in favor of taking his life in his own hands and acting to save himself. I do believe he did this with the full faith that G od would do something, but rather than stand there and allow himself to be overwhelmed by fear, remorse, depression, or despair, he moved forward. By doing this, the rabbis though their tale about Nachshon, taught us that we are not to allow ourselves to succumb to fear, remorse, depression, and despair, but we are to put our faith in G od and take some responsibility for ourselves. We are the ones who make the miracles happen. If I am not mistaken, I believe that the aphorism, “pray as if everything depends on G od, and act as if everything depends on you,” comes from Nachshon’s bravery. Nachshon may have been the spiritual ancestor of the Lubavitcher Chassids.
Mendy drew on this midrash of the four types of responses at the water to the teaching about the four types of Jews who came after the Holocaust, and again, I think there were five. The first group walked away from G od, no longer believing that G od was loving or protecting of his people and assimilated into that culture in which they found themselves. The second group continued to be Jews at home, but hid their Jewish identities, did not affiliate, and did not get involved in causes that might identify them as Jews. The third group became basically secular with vestiges of yiddishkeit as their cultural identity, and created the State of Israel. The fourth group, totally religious, stayed within their own community and denied the wider world as having any value. The fifth group, the one to which Mendy belongs, is totally devoted to G od, but goes out into the world to bring those who are tangential to yiddishkeit and those assimilated without any yiddishkeit, back to an appreciation of their heritage and to a relationship with G od. Lubovicher Chassids, both men and women, live in two worlds and straddle both successfully to the benefit of those who doubt and those who search. If I am not mistaken, I think Mendy even said that G od delights in those who doubt and search, because these people are searching for a relationship with Him, and that is the primary objective of Judaism on the most personal of levels. That gave me a good feeling since I both continue to doubt and continue to search.
There was in interesting digression. Mendy told the story of a woman who called him very concerned that her son wanted to start wearing a black hat and what should she do? Mendy then related a story about a relative of his who went to the Rebbe to ask him what she should do because her son wanted to grow his beard and not shave it off. It was a few years after the Holocaust, and they were new to America. This woman feared that her son would not be able to find work with a full beard. While she was standing on line, she struck up a conversation with a woman crying bitterly who told her that her son had fallen in love with an non-Jewish girl. The first women then left the line with her answer, and probably counted her blessings all the way home. I recently read of a similar Jewish fable about a woman who had a lot of heart ache and troubles who went to her local rabbi hoping for some sort of understanding or solace and all the while complaining that everyone else in the town seemed so content. The rabbi then tells her to bake an apple strudel and go to each house in the town offering it to that neighbor who has no problems. A week later, the woman returned stating that she would never had believed there was such sadness in so many houses. She did not give away her strudel, but by listening to other people’s stories and by telling her own to them, she felt better. She prepared a fresh strudel for the rabbi in gratitude for his wisdom. In the Buddhist tradition, there is a similar story. A distraught women who has just lost her son, goes to the Buddha and asks if he will bring her son back to her. The Buddha tells her he can if she can bring him dirt from a house that has never experienced death. After a while, she returns without the soil but with greater understanding.
While nothing was said during the drush about the Hebrews fulfilling their promise to take with them the bones of Joseph, I was thinking about a graduation speech I delivered several years ago at The Delaware Valley Torah Academy where I taught English. A section of it follows: (The bones of Joseph become an important metaphor.)
...Abraham was the first to hear Lech Lecha, and he sets out into the unknown and he becomes the ancestor of mighty nations and mighty faiths. Isaac also sets out with his father into the unknown, and into a Covenant with Hashem as does Jacob when he sets out for Beer Sheba to become Israel. Joseph was sold by his brothers into the unknown to become a mighty counselor to Pharaoh and a savior to his people. And Moses flees Egypt into an unknown land called Media, finding Hashem and the strength to lead. And the Children of Israel hear Lech Lechca and are led into an unknown, hostile desert to the foot of Sinai and into history.
But the Children of Israel are told not to go out of Egypt empty handed, for along with the spoils of Egypt, they were told to take the bones of Joseph with them. The bones of Joseph-the bones of the person who was his people’s savior. The bones of Joseph, perhaps a metaphor for the Jewish commitment to community, values, history and tradition to be carried with us where ever we go.
You, like our ancestors, are hearing your own Lech Lecha and are setting out into your unknown to uncover the mystery of who you are and where you are going. And like our ancestors who carried out of Egypt the bones of Joseph, you also do not go out empty handed, for you take with you certain teachings that will direct you, counsel, you and sustain you if you choose to hold these teachings close to your hearts.
You have been taught you are part of a singular group of identifiable people who have a mission to be a light unto the nations, to model righteous behavior as Jews, and to be the voice of Hashem where ever you encounter cruelty and injustice. This is our reason for being and it is your purpose. You have been given a vision that clearly states that cruelty and injustice need not be the norm and that tyrants and oppressive systems can be changed. Your ancestors in Egypt were the first to do it and we have been doing it ever since. You have been taught of the Messianic Vision, a vision of universal peace, the vision of the prophets. These are your bones of Joseph.
You were given the idea that as part of the Jewish people, you are obliged to act to bring about changes in the world that benefit all, but to bring about this change only under Hashem’s eternal moral law, for you know that if we substitute personal opinion for Hashem’s eternal law, values will become situational and morality will become relative. You know that your purpose as participants in humanity and as members of the Jewish family is to assist Hashem in mending the world. These are your bones of Joseph.
You know that your Jewish identity is not solely centered in a set of dogmatic beliefs, but is also to be centered in a particular value system, in community, and history and that we will survive as a people as long as we all remain part of that community. These are also the bones of Joseph.
You also take with you the idea that Judaism is a life affirming faith whose adherents worship a life affirming G-d; a G-d whose primary expectation is that we treat each other well.
And finally my dear students, you will go out into the unknown, into a world that will often tempt you with excess. But you know that you can control your appetites-not by stifling them, but by mastering them; enjoying everything in Hashem.’s world with moderation, understanding that once your have marked off the limits of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden, you can enjoy yourselves within those parameters without wondering if you are doing right or wrong.
So we do not send you out empty handed. We send you out with your own bones of Joseph if you will. We send you with knowledge, with values, with purpose, and with a vision of how you can make a difference. And because you are now hearing your own Lech Lecha, we send you off with a prayer.
“May it be thy will, O Lord our G-d and G-d of our fathers and mothers to conduct them in peace, to direct their steps in peace, to uphold them in peace, and to lead them in life, joy and peace unto the haven of their desire. O deliver them from every enemy, ambush and hurt by the way, and from all afflictions that visit and trouble the world. Send a blessing upon the work of their hands. Let them obtain grace, loving kindness and mercy in thine eyes and in the eyes of all who behold them. Hearken to the voice of our supplications; for Thou are a G-d who hearkenest unto prayer and supplication. Blessed are Thou, O Lord, who hearkenest unto prayer.” Amen.
January 22, 2011
Parsha Yitro
I do believe I am starting to “lose it,” because I’m finding it difficult to recall details from Mendy’s drush, but I’ll do my best. Mendy began by talking about how people view their Judaism, and he made it very clear that if the Judaism we are or trying to hand to down to our children and grandchildren are merely reflected fragments of yiddishkeit that we recall from growing up and being with our bubbes and zeydees, such a Judaism will not be relevant to our descendants because the good memories, and feelings we may associate with these long deceased people are irrelevant to people who have never met our bubbe and zeydee. Doing things because grandma and grandpa did it that way, or doing things by rote because that is the way we were taught by our rabbis and parents, may not be accepted by our descendants because such behavior may be perceived as being devoid of a spiritual honesty. People who watch and search are looking for and searching for spiritual honesty and a real connection.
Mendy believes that the questions and challenges the seeker poses are core to spiritual development, and I bet he was thrown out of class on more than one occasion for raising such questions and challenges. I certainly witnessed young men who challenge the rabbis at the yeshiva at which I taught being thrown out for questions and challenges. “Hillul Hashem,” blasphemy of G od’s name, often rang in the ears of the recalcitrant student as he slammed the door. As an educator of Judaica, it became obvious to me that when questions and challenges are stifled, students become hostile and more reluctant to accept other things the rabbis or lay teachers have to say to them. This of course I have seen only among the Orthodox, but I know it exists among the brighter students of other denominations.
I think I also remember that the drush touched upon how G od has been presented to us as we grew, and how we fail to help our children develop a relationship with G od because we cannot express our own. A traditional Jewish education focuses on rituals, holidays, social action etc., but little attention is paid to G od and to developing that spirituality needed for a relationship. It is probable that that does not occur because some rabbis and most lay teachers may have no training in developing spirituality in others, or they may not be connected with their own, or they don’t know how to present that level of spiritual existence to their students at any particular age level. Often young Jewish people will seek out eastern faiths for the spiritual dimension they find lacking in their own faith. Yet there certainly is a spiritual dimension in Judaism, but most young people do not know how to access it because few parents and teachers know how to help them access it.
I teach a course at the Midrashah at the JCC entitled G od Stuff. I developed this course after recognizing that not only did my students have little understanding of what Judaism teaches about G od, but that the only concept of G od that they had was of the old man sitting on the throne giving out commandments and expecting us to adhere to them without question. Their concept is the Torah/Rabbinic teaching they learned as children, and no other. So when some grow up and come to reject that G od concept, they have absolutely no Jewish alternatives to help them stay with a Jewish belief system, so they claim agnosticism, atheism, or start romancing eastern religions.
Teenagers challenge and need to be challenged to verbalize their own belief systems, and because some have rejected the G od concept they’ve been taught, some have just decided not to believe. So using a text Finding G od, I present the students with a dozen or more concepts of G od that Jews have posited over the centuries. Over the year we cover the Torah/Rabbinic concept, but we also look at Philo of Alexandria, Maimonides, Luria, Spinoza, Steinberg, Reines, Buber, Kaplan, etc., etc., and we consider their G od concepts, their explanations for evil to exist, their vision of the afterlife, and how G od relates to us. At the end of the year, for their take home final, they are asked to construct a theological construct they can relate to at this moment in their lives understanding all the time that the construct can change over the course of their lives. But this is still a cognitive process to keep them believing in something. I do not have the skill to bring them to a spiritual relationship with G od.
(Personally, while I think Mendy would find such a course intellectually fascinating, I doubt if he would ever sanction Chabad students taking such a course because only the Torah/Rabbinic concepts of G od are acceptable though the Middle Ages. Besides, I would imagine that few Chabad students would question a belief in G od, although I did find some at the yeshiva who confessed their doubts to me though I never asked the question. My feeling on this is that if I can keep a Jewish kid thinking about G od, and willing to develop a concept of G od that works for him or her, I don’t care which Jewish G od concept they find most compelling. For me, no one has cornered the market on knowing G od.)
There is another course that my students find really interesting. It is called, Law, Values, and Morality. The premise of this course is that for the most part, secular, Conservative, and Reform Jewish students behave well, but if you ask them why, they will tell you that their parents and grandparents taught them. Some will also say the fear of being caught. Very low on the moral development ladder. Rarely will someone mention religion let alone G od as the source of their behavior.
The objective of this class is to have the students judge situations, judge human behavior, governments, etc., consider their responses, and see if the Torah or Talmud would support their responses to these behaviors. Our sacred literature almost always does. In this way, the students come to see that the value systems that inform their moral judgments and behaviors have been handed down to us over the centuries, but we have lost the connection to the commandments even if the response remains. Yes, modern children may model and parrot parental behavior or ideas, but they are totally unaware that those behaviors and ideas are firmly grounded in our sacred literature. It is an eye opener for them when they make the connection. And speaking of connections, I vividly recall after the first week of teaching at the yeshiva asking the Rabbi when the idea that G od has demands on our behavior kicks in for these students, and when Orthodox students learn that they are to adhere to a higher standard of behavior. He looked at me as if I had two heads and just smiled. For some, it just doesn’t kick in, and that led me to conclude that there was something terribly wrong in the way Judaism is taught to our children in our schools and in our homes.
Mendy did get to the parsha which is possibly the most important one in the Bible because it is the one that contains the Ten Commandments. But other than our standing during their recitation, the reader and possibly tradition makes no delineation between the actual reading of the Commandments, what preceded them, and what followed. (Personal observation: When the commandments were read, we stood which is the tradition. The midrash teachers that all souls stood at Sinai, so I tried to imagine myself standing at Sinai, hearing the ram’s horn, the thunder, seeing the smoke, the fire, and trying to connect with the majesty of that astounding moment in history. I was looking for Mendy, but to tell you the truth, there were so many men there with black hats and beards that I’m sure only G od would be able to find him. I’m going to suggest he put a large red feather in his fedora so he’d stand out when the Messiah comes. In that way I’ll be able to find him and we can catch up. But I couldn’t connect and I partially think it was because of the way the commandments were read. There are the usual sounds called trop that most Torah readers use, and the commandments were delivered by the excellent reader in the exact way that everything else in the parsha was read. For me, the majesty and the mystery of the moment should have been reflected in the recitation of the commandments. They were not. There was no slowing of the reader’s rhythm; no change in tone. For me, I would have preferred it if they dropped the trop and just read them slowly so they might have had some distinction and veritas. Perhaps someone on the bimah might have also repeated them in English, or blown the shofar. There should have been some drama attendant on the reading. These laws are the foundation of our moral lives and the moral underpinnings of Western Civilization. They should stand out.) But I digress.
As I started to say before my own fantasies broke in, we were talking about Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law whose sage advice to Moses on how to judge the people led to the establishment of the court system in the desert, and possibly to the concept of all future court systems. But Mendy’s question had to do with why Jethro, a man midrash tells us was not a particularly nice or decent person, would have the honor of being in the same parsha as the parsha that recounts the Ten Commandments, and why Jethro waits until now to convert to Judaism when he had heard of the parting of the Sea of Reeds. I don’t recall the comments from the congregation though they were interesting. I only recall that Jethro’s decision comes as a result of the events attendant on the parting of the Sea of Reeds and the destruction of Amalek. It had something to do with G od helping the people at the sea, and the people helping themselves in battling Amalek. Jethro’s conversion also had something to do with his understanding that there was a place for everyone in this faith. He realized that G od welcomed even those who had grievously sinned, and Jethro wanted to be part of such a faith that honored such a G od. G od is open and welcoming to all. I wish I could remember more of this very interesting discussion.
Mendy very sincerely thanked us for coming out in such cold weather and seemed to praise those of us who struggle to establish a relationship with G od despite our doubts. At one point he did talk about being grateful for what G od has given us. Within the G od Field, I did not feel very grateful for many years, but I certainly am now. I rejoice in my portion, and I rejoice in the portion of others. Life has never been so good as it is now. Yet I cannot honestly say that I thank G od for what has come my way. I remain very conscious of the decisions I have made in my life that has brought me here, though I will definitely state that the rights and wrongs of the Torah, whenever I have acknowledged its authority, has guided my life and my decisions for the better. Perhaps by consciously letting Ayn Sof in, I do have His guidance to thank. Something else to think about.
February, 5, 2011
Mendy Log:
Terumah
Mendy began by telling us that while he was away, he had the opportunity to watch and listen to a speaker from Israel on a computer as his children finally slept. The woman told a story of a couple who, after years of deprivation and abuse at the hands of the Russian Government had finally been able to emigrate to Israel. Here the couple had a child, and the doctors told them that something was wrong and that an operation was immediately needed. Sadly, the operation would save the child’s live, but there was a strong possibility that the child would never walk. The father, who was a Lubovicha Chassid, told the doctor that he could not make a decision like this without referring to the Rebbe. But this was Israel and the Rebbe was in Brooklyn and there was a seven hour difference. The call was made and the story was explained to the Rebbe’s secretary, and the man was told to call back in three hours. The doctors pressured the man, the man insisted on waiting. When the time had passed, the man called again, and again was told to call back in an hour. The doctors continued to pressure the father, and the father insisted that he would only do what the Rebbe advised. The third time he was again told to wait, and while waiting this time, the doctors returned with the information that the child had been mis-diagnosed and the operation was not necessary. The woman telling that story was the baby born that day. Mendy told another story that was almost the same. There was trouble, the Rebbe was consulted, the Rebbe didn’t return the call, and everything turned out fine.
The point Mendy was making was one of having faith in the wisdom that has been handed down over the centuries and transmitted to us via holy conduits such as the Rebbe. Did the Rebbe know that the child was mis-diagnosed because G od told him and a response would have been similar to Moses’ hitting the rock when G od told him to speak to it, or did the Rebbe not respond because he didn’t know what to say and saying nothing offered a 50% chance of getting it right?
I would love to have that kind of faith where I could turn it all over to G od like the Christian Scientists or the Jehovah Witnesses do, but when they make a mistake, they are often charged with child neglect and taken before a judge in the event that a child dies from “lack of faith.” I think I would pray for the strength to make the right decision for my child and get at least two other professional opinions. I might have called the Rebbe if he were still with us, or asked Mendy as the Rebbe’s representative on a medical issue for his spiritual support and rabbinic wisdom, but that would only be one factor for consideration among several factors.
It was interesting, but didn’t see a clear relationship between the Torah portion this week called Terumah and the introduction. Terumah tells the story of G od calling for the creation of the Mishchan or Tabernacle which is to be built to very specific specifications. If I recall, the line is something like, “Build a house for Me so I might dwell with them.” Now the G od who created the universe cannot be contained in any human structure, so the interpretation is that the Mishchan is for the people as a physical reminder and as a physical way of connecting with G od. Beyond that, the “so I might dwell with them” has been interpreted that while the Mischan is a reminder, G od's real indwelling is the hearts and minds of his people. We carry G od within us all the time, and can connect at any moment if we have a mind to do so. Mendy inferred that whenever people do good, are grateful, or show an appreciation of the wonders of creation that exist all around us, it is at those moments when G od is making the connection with us. I came to intuit this when I was a child, sitting up on the roof by myself looking at the stars.
But something of a paradox presented itself to me. Somewhere I recall reading, possibly in the Ethics of the Fathers, that prayer may not be interrupted by a sudden awareness of a sun set, flower, or any natural beauty. At least that’s what I recall of the law. Now for me, I have always made more of a connection with G od when I pushed my nose into a tuft of lilac blossoms or while standing under my Quansom Cherry Tree looking up at a blue spring sky than I have when reading the Amidah. I connect more with G od whenever I see the outpouring of support for bereaved people, or the coming together of diverse people for a good cause. I connect more with G od watching the prayer shawl covered backs of my fellow congregants standing praying in unison than I do reading the words of the siddur despite its brilliant translation into English. Frankly, organized, ritualized prayer does not connect me with G od as will my garden, my classroom, or a good sermon from the bimah.
February 22, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parshash Vayakhel
Mendy began his talk by informing us that a congregant had asked him to discuss the problems in the Middle East, and his response was that he never speaks about subjects his congregants know more about than he does. But he did take the opportunity to comment on what was going on in Wisconsin based on rabbinic teachings which he does know something about.
Now this is what I know about labor in the Torah. There are laws in the Torah that demand of an employer that they must return a garment to the borrower before the sun goes down if the garment was given as a pledge because the garment may be the only thing the person owns to keep him warm, and that wages must be paid to the worker at the end of each day because that money may be the only money he may have to feed himself and his family. The Laws of Righteousness tell us that the highest form of righteous behavior is to give a man a job or provide him with skills that will allow him to earn a living.
There are many other laws, and the dialogues, stories, and debates in the Talmud written two thousand years ago that speak to honesty in business dealings with employees and honest negotiations also reflect a concern for the welfare of the worker. One important comment comes from Rabbi Ben-Zion Uzziel, a former Sephardic chief rabbi of Israel who said Jewish law permits unions "in order that the individual worker not be left on his own, to the point that he hires himself out for a low wage in order to satisfy his hungert and that of his family with a bit of bread and water and with a dark and dingy home."
Mendy told a Talmudic story of two butchers who vied with one another for the same customers until they agreed that one would sell on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and the other would sell on Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday. I assumed they set the price so there would be no competition. But it turned out that one of them cheated, and the case went to the rabbinic court. If I remember correctly, the judges ruled that both men were wrong because the people who purchased meat from them were not being served well because there was no fair competition. The butchers were only concerned about their own profits. If anything, the story speaks to price fixing, but it really addresses the needs of the people being served. In negotiations, each party has a vested interest. The government negotiating with unions want to keep wages low to balance the budget, and the elected representatives who keep the government running may or may not care about the rank and file. The labor unions want more benefits and wage hikes to maintain a standard of living for their members. But who is to speak for the people in the negotiation is what the Talmud is asking.
(My take on this is that certainly, the government might be for the people, but more often than not, they are in the pocket of the big money companies and CEOs who contribute to the campaign chests of said government officials, and these captains of industry have only profits and power as their focus. These people care little about standard of living for the workers. These moguls expect the governors they support to address their needs rather than the worker’s needs in such negotiations. Again, the elected government officials who should also be concerned about the workers who keep the government rolling, are often more concerned about keeping their campaign chests full. In the Wisconsin case, the unions have agreed to pay more into their pensions and medical plans, but the Governor of Wisconsin is insisting on destroying their right to collective bargaining. Collective bargaining has nothing to do with balancing the budget, but if the Governor of Wisconsin can kill the right of collective bargaining with the public employees unions, the next unions to lose collective bargaining rights will be the private sector which is exactly what the CEOs want. ) What the Talmud is pointing out is that only a truly disinterested third party who has no axe to grind in the negotiations is the most honest means of getting an agreement that everyone can accept and that no one will like. Perhaps that’s how you know it’s a good agreement. Binding arbitration follows when collective bargaining reaches an impasse, and must be in play to protect the people. Remove collective bargaining from the equation, and your remove binding arbitration as a way of getting a valid solution that protects those who need to be protected. The rabbis were very wise. Mendy made several other cogent comments, none of which I can recall.
Mendy then turned to the parsha which he said was one of two in the Torah that was pretty boring and did not offer many ideas for comments. But Mendy being Mendy, said he found something that was really important, and it had to do with the mistranslation of a single word that has led to confusion among anyone who has ever read the Bible. The word was the mistranslation of the word “side” for “rib.”
I don’t recall the Hebrew word under consideration, but it appears in this parsha in relations to the description of the sides of the Tabernacle (Mishcan) built as a physical reminder of G od’s presence. Now this is where it gets a little fuzzy. Mendy referred us to the early chapters of Genesis where G od has decided Adam needs a help mate. To introduce this, he asked why women were created for men. I was about to say, “Who else would point out our inadequacies and ridicule our foibles?” when I realized the questions was rhetorical. Mendy is too smart to open that can of worms. So he said that women were created so as to complete men, and this was derived from the word that is mistranslated as “rib.” Yes, Eve was not created from Adam’s rib but from his side. Two sides are needed and a woman is the other side of man. Opposites are fundamental to this world. Somewhere in the talk was the midrash that when G od first created Adam, he was created with both masculine and feminine aspects. But G od saw that all His other creations were male and female and none contained both. So G od set to correct His mistake, (my word) and thus woman became the other half of man. A man and a woman are incomplete without one another. They are two halves of one original whole, and the object of human interaction is trying to rediscover our other half. So in the Jewish tradition, a woman is not subservient to a man, but stands at his side completing him. Women and men are equal, but with different obligations.
So G od caused a deep sleep to come over Adam, and He probably had to anesthetize him because He knew that it would be the only way to get him to go along with having a wife and a piece torn out of his side. I can imagine Adam saying to G od, “You want to do what to me?” Originally, Adam was created with both a masculine and a feminine soul which became separated when Eve was created. So we are now all half a soul looking for completion, and many continue this search multiple times even if they are married already. G od must have anticipated that with the commandment against adultery. When asked what happens when we find that we are married and divorced because the person we thought would complete us did not, Mendy said that souls can divide if a mistake is made and it would seem that at least some part of your soul can continue the search. This I do not buy.
There is a wonderful short story by Isaac Betshevet Singer entitled, Yachild and Yachilda which is about two angels tossed out of heaven and condemned to be reborn on earth as punishment. Here they must seek one another out for completion.
In my musical, The Experiment, I wrote a lyric where Adam is telling G od what he wants in a mate when he is told that he is to have one. It follows:
ADAM
But I'm the only one of me.
KANGAROO
Well, that's very sad indeed because there should be someone like you who wears a skirt.
ADAM
I think so too. Do you think something was overlooked? Do you think I ought to ask?
KANGAROO
Can it hurt?
ADAM
A VERY SPECIAL GUY
(Sung to the light that has gone on again.)
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 DO,
BUT THEY SMILE WHEN THEY ARE THROUGH.
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)
ADAM
(yawns and stretches and wanders over to inclined platform downstage right)
This thinking and naming things is tough work. I think I'll call this feeling tired. What a wonderful place.
(he stretches again, looks around and lays down to sleep)
ELEPHANT
Can you believe it? I have the strength of a hundred and the memory of a computer and they'll call him the crown of creation.
Mendy, it’s a very cute play but only slightly irreverent. G od is played by an overhead light that goes on and off.
March 5, 2011
Mendy Log:
Pekude – Last Parsha in Exodus
Once again, Mendy began his talk by referring to a congregant who has been involved, generous, and spiritual and yet one who has encountered many personal setbacks. While the congregant did not ask why he was subject to the difficulties that befell him, Mendy did think about it and why such people are not rewarded for their efforts with a good life. This became the open discussion which led to the single word in the parsha that took up about thirty-five minutes of thinking. The single word was the name of a man named Hur, and his name is mentioned as the grandfather of Bezalel, the chief artist who created the trappings of the Tabernacle. Each of the other men responsible for the creation of the Tabernacle were mentioned as sons of a particular man, but only Bezalel has his father and grandfather named. So Mendy opened up the discussion with why Hur is named but not other grandfathers? Nobody could guess, so Mendy referred us to an earlier chapter in Exodus that tells of Moses going up and staying on Mt. Sinai But putting Aaron, his brother, and Hur in charge, telling them that if there were concerns or questions among the people, both men were in authority to address these. So when the people came to Hur and Aaron demanding that a golden calf be made because they believed Moses was dead and G od had abandoned them, Hur immediately berated them for their lack of faith and for his response, he was promptly murdered. Obviously, Hur was a man of great faith and great integrity. Aaron, seeing what happened to Hur, probably decided that discretion was the better part of valor, and rather than suffer death, he decided to involve himself in the creation of the golden calf possibly to stall for time until Moses returned to impose order on the chaos. At least that is the rationale for Aaron’s involvement offered by the rabbis. If that was the case, Aaron had a right to save himself. I can’t help but wonder that if Hur knew that a spear would be hurled at him, would he have chosen life over faith as did Aaron? But the point that was also made was if a man with faith and integrity could suffer death because he was acting on his most precious value, what good is faith and integrity if it gets you dead? Very valid question. With that information and question, Mendy brought us back to the original question as to why Hur was the only grandfather included. Several congregants responded, and one responded with an answer that Mendy found quite profound. It seems that the inclusion of Hur’s name is a reminder to us that the merit of our behaviors are seeds that are planted in our families and take root in ensuing generations. Hur, despite his death, at that moment had planted seeds of integrity and faith in his son and in his grandson, and this grandson grew in that faith and was given the talent and the honor of being asked by Moses to create the objects to be used in the service of G od. So what was being reinforced here was that the seed, the values and the yiddishkeit that we plant in our families, do take root and effect the generations to come. So is this man who came to Mendy satisfied knowing that his descendants will be better people because of the troubles he had? I'm not so sure.
So here is my problem. I do believe that we do try our best to plant the seeds of decency, values, and whatever ghosts of yiddishkeit that cling to us from earlier generations in our children, but children grow up, and while they accept the decent behaviors and act on the positive values you’ve instilled, the yiddishkeit can be rejected as having no relationship to them and little value in their lives. Grandchildren become tangentially aware of yiddishkeit on the rare occasions that their parents fly in for a holiday or a visit. It is not reinforced in their parents homes for a variety of reasons. I am not concerned that my grandchildren will not be decent people. The fruit of that tree is being eaten as I write. But I am concerned that the Tree of Yiddishkeit, whose leaves are pretty sparse now, will bear no fruit in the future and that my grandchildren will identify with nor have meaningful associations with their religion or their people.
March 12, 2011
Mendy Log:
Vayikra
Mendy began by raising the question as to whether or not a leader or in this case a rabbi, should confess to the congregation that he was in error and gave them the wrong information. I and most raised their hands feeling that he must tell them so the error would not be repeated. One or two felt he should not tell them because the congregation must feel that their rabbi does not make errors regarding ritual because that would call into question other instructions given. One suggested that the rabbi not bother telling them because in all probability, no one was listening anyway.
Mendy so much as admitted that he was not infallible, which was accepted by the congregation with a yawn and a “so what else is new?” But in saying that he would admit to error, he was also saying that everyone must be able to improve his or her behavior in their quest to “perfection,” and the first step to doing this is to admit error and then have a pathway to forgiveness. He then asked the congregants to consider their marriages and when they are told or have discovered that they have made an error. How do we handle it? One said, laughingly, “diamonds,” another said, “running upstairs,” and I said, “Thank you once again for pointing out my inadequacies, thus once again allowing me to grow in my humanity and consideration of you.”
I do believe that my sarcasm was lost on those on the distaff side of the mechizta, but it was not lost on the men’s side. But in saying what I said in my stage whisper, I did touch on a key learning for the parsha, and that was the “growing in humanity” piece. It would seem that according to our faith, one becomes greater in his humanity and therefore closer to G od when one recognizes his errors, admits his errors, and makes rectification first with an apology, and then with either a gift of flowers, chocolate, diamonds, or the sacrifice of a bull without blemish.
The parsha dealt with all the different types of sins, and the animal sacrifices that had to be brought to achieve forgiveness and gain atonement. Mendy pointed out that this is the first parsha used to introduce little children to the study of Torah, not because it is a good story that excites the imagination like creation or the flood, but because it is meant to establish in a child’s mind that forgiveness is always available, and that there is a procedure to follow to obtain it. Growth as a person and the human quest to reach higher so as to be more G od like, seemed to be one of several key messages taught today.
Now there were other very interesting things of which Mendy spoke and twice he referred to things in sets of four. One set dealt with the different types of errors we commit and from this set I recall: Those errors you do that you don’t know you are doing (carrying on the Sabbath thinking that there was an eruv), Those errors you do that you cannot help but do (someone threatening to kill you if you don’t eat tref), Those errors you do knowingly (driving on the Sabbath to get to shul), and one other type which I cannot recall. The other set was equally interesting and I cannot recall one word of those let alone to what it referred. That’s the problem of getting old and not having the memory for details I once had. I could have committed the error of taking notes on the Sabbath in the shul, but I would not have done that out of respect for Mendy and the congregation. So I am left with a space, but no need for sacrificing a bull.
Even though Mendy referred to all these behaviors as “errors” but I could not help but wonder if he really intended to use the word “sin” but thought better of it. To me, “sin” is a religious word and “error” is a secular word meaning supposedly the same thing, but not really.
The parsha dealt with sacrifice, and I couldn’t help but imagining myself at the Tabernacle watching all those frightened animals lowing at the sky waiting to be slaughtered. All those people seeking forgiveness, all those animals, all that blood in order to create a sweet aroma that was pleasing to G od. I was also wondering how the high priests kept their garments clean considering all the blood that they had to dash on the horns of the alter. I think the Jewish idea taught to us by the angel staying Abraham’s hand over Isaac as a way of teaching humanity to substitute animals for people, was a major step along the way to humanizing mankind and our means of worship, but I think that substituting a truly meaningful prayer that will rise upward is a sweeter aroma to G od’s nostrils and less anger directed at Jews from PETA.
The Haftorah of Isaiah was of particular interest. I enjoy discovering the origins of something that I’ve known for a long time. In Catholicism, the Alpha and Omega, the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, are used symbolize Jesus. Now I see that was a borrowing from Isaiah where the prophet says of G od, “I am the first and I am the last, and besides Me there is no G od.” I recall how pleased I was to discover that it was Isaiah who said “See and be radiant” which became the new motto of Brooklyn College in the early 60"s. I think they went back to “Nil Sin Magno Labore.” (Nothing without hard labor.)
March 19, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Tzav-Zacher
Since sundown is the start of the Purim festival, Mendy began with a reference to Heyman, the arch villain of the Persian Empire, and his history as a descendant of Amalak who was a descendant of Esau, Jacob’s twin brother. In the Torah, G od’s wrath is extended to Amalak and the Amalakies because of their attack on the Israelites as they march through the desert on the way to Caanan. The Israelites marched near their lands, but the Israelites were not a threat. Yet that didn’t stop Amalak from ordering an attack on the back of the camp where the old, the women, and the children were. It was not out of fear that they attacked, but out of pure hatred, a hatred that was handed down from Esau for his brother’s descendants. It seems that when G od gave King Saul the order to eradicate the Amalakites, Saul took pity on the king and allowed him to live for a time. During that time, the Amalakite king fathered a child that became the ancestor of Heyman. So the Amalakites became the traditional enemies of the Jews throughout time, and anyone who has tried to destroy the Jewish people is considered a descendant of Amalak.
Mendy also raised the idea of true prophesy, and if you knew that such a person like Heyman would be born who would in fact become the source of such a hatred and potential devastation, would you put an end to that person’s life before he developed into the person he would become? I think one or two women took umbridge with such a notion and possibly as well with G od for commanding that all the Amalakites be destroyed. Mendy should have asked her if she would have allowed Hitler to live if she had absolute proof that he would, like Heyman, try to murder all the Jews? Some hard choices have to be made, and I’ll stick with the Talmudic admonition that “If a man comes to slay you, slay him first.”
At the time of the Purim story, Persia was the great power in the world and all Jews lived in the Persian Empire. So when Heyman convinced the King of Persia, Ahashsveros, to issue an edict to murder all the Jews on a certain date, the Jewish People were in a terrible predicament.
But Esther, Ahashsveros’s queen, was secretly a Jew, and her uncle, Mordecai, prevailed upon her to go to the king. Now to go to the king without being called for was a death sentence, and Esther was reluctant to put her life in jeopardy. But she relents, and this reveals two things about heroism. First, it’s harder to be a hero when you are afraid and know you must act because there is no one else to act. That’s what real courage is. A person who knows his life is in danger and still acts for the good, is as great a hero as one who is trained to be a hero. The second thing one learns from the interpretation of this story is that each of us has a purpose, and all of Esther’s life was leading up to this moment. She did not want to be queen and did everything not to be queen. Yet she was selected. She was afraid to speak up for her people, and she was compelled to speak. She rose above here fears to become one of our greatest heroines.
Mendy taught that Esther had a task to perform, and her entire life was leading up to that task. Mendy said that each of us also has a task to perform and few know what that task is until we are called upon to perform it. Do we only recognize this task in hindsight? Is Mendy saying that G od destines everyone?
I like the idea because it endows all human beings with a sense of purpose, and people need a sense of purpose. But to accept the fact that we are placed here with a specific purpose, is to come dangerously close to determinism. I do believe the Jewish People as a group have taken upon themselves the purpose of modeling for the world correct behavior as it is spelled out in the Torah, and making the world a better place, but beyond these, any acts of courage or heroism are dependent on the nature of the person who is the actor in the drama and not foreseen at this person’s birth.
Mendy said nothing about the parsha itself which dealt primarily with how one becomes pure again after suffering from a skin disease, and how one gets rid of a fungus that has infiltrated a home. The parsha was a good indication of the attention to health and sanitation our ancestors considered in their travels. It was certainly an early attempt at the science of infectious diseases, and the recognition that the infected person needed to be isolated from the others and washed. Building inspection for environmental hazards as regarding public health was also a consideration in the Torah millennium before it became part of Western Civilization.
April 2, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Tazira
This parsha continues the concern for communicable diseases, infestations, skin eruptions, and other things that render a person unclean and in need of being isolated so the community will be safe until the condition can be identified and remedies taken. The parsha actually opens with the laws regarding how long a woman remains forbidden to her husband and involved in ritual matters after the birth of a child. For a girl, it is two weeks, and it should be two weeks for sons, too, but it is only seven days so the mother can be present at the circumcision. I like to think that this mandated space of time was incorporated into law as a way of guaranteeing the woman some personal space, healing, and rest, and also as a way of limiting a new mother’s obligations for rituals and the sexual demands of her husband.
Mendy began his talk by informing us that he had been instrumental in convening a group of the local rabbis for the purpose of sharing information, problems, etc. At one point, a very important rabbi had agreed to come to speak to them, and Mendy was asked as to what the topic should be. Mendy was taken aback by the deference on the part of this elder community rabbi calling him, but Mendy hasn’t learned yet that his youthful exuberance, impressive knowledge, and perceptions of reality, are just what this council needs. So Mendy suggested that this great rabbi from Philadelphia respond to specific questions that these pulpit rabbis encounter on a regular basis that need to come before a great tzadik’s eyes for clarification. At the meeting, Mendy was encouraged to speak, and his question dealt with the time that Passover must begin according to the law (halacha) which this year is 8:20 PM, and the reality that children need to be put to bed and that eating late is unhealthy for some. The great learned rabbi was silent as the other rabbis discussed the question, some stating that the law is the law, and if you can’t abide by the law it is better not to do anything. Taking that stance is what Rabbi Schecter of the Renewal Movement calls “a tightassed torah.” Mendy’s take was that people need to be moved slowly through the process, taking small steps until there is understanding as to why the law needs to be obeyed. So unless I misinterpreted his comments, Mendy seems to feel that it is better for people to have the experience of performing the rituals of drinking the four cups of wine, telling the story, eating the bitter herbs, eating the matzah, and partaking of the sweet harosets which is symbolic of the mortar the slaves used between the bricks. Mendy seemed to imply that pulpit rabbis see a reality different from academicians. The guest rabbi finally said that it would be up to each individual rabbi to address the questions and concerns of each individual congregant as the issue is raised.
I was personally gratified to hear his reasonableness because few of the rituals I try to to maintain follow the law specifically. So I confess that I, for years, have moved my second seder to Saturday night, because that is the only time I can have two or four out of my nine grandchildren come in from out of state to participate. By doing so, those children can help me make harosets with my grandmother’s hand grinder, and in some mystical way, connect with her. At this time I can explain why each egg must be broken into a glass separately to be sure there is no blood, and at this time I can explain other traces of yiddishkeit that still cling in the kitchen but will disappear when I am gone. At this time I can explain and review the symbols as we set the Passover table because without moving the second seder to Saturday night, those grandchildren who are not receiving a formal Jewish education, would have little understanding of what is going on. So do I stop moving my seder to adhere to the law, or do I try to inculcate yiddishkeit at whatever opportunity I can create? For me, the answer is easy.
Ultimately, though Mendy might sympathize with my situation, he would not be supportive of it because at his core, he is a committed Orthodox rabbi and the law is the law is the law. He may bend it by winking at people who drive to shul on Shabbos, but he knows that he would not have the size congregation he has if he insisted on the halacha regarding driving. So he is constantly recognizing issues and accommodating to preserve what he has built. Yet, he made it quite clear during the service when he revealed that the conversation at the rabbinic gathering was philosophic, and the reality is that Passover begins at 8:20 and there are no ifs, ands, or buts. None of the required obligations are to be performed before that time. But Mendy, being Mendy, had a suggestion for the congregants that the songs usually sung at the end be sung first, and that the meal be served early. In this way, all halachac needs could be met. That’s brilliant and such suggestions and perceptions are exactly why older rabbinic types will seek out Mendy for his perceptions. Sadly, it’s a moot point this year because none of my grandchildren will be attending Passover seders here this year, so I’ll be hosting the two on the usual dates.
One final observation. At one point Mendy brought up the idea of friendship with members of the congregation, but I don’t recall how he got on this topic. It had something to do with making friends with the rabbi or who the rabbi might consider a friend. I think he might even have asked the question: “How do you know if the rabbi is your friend?” but I’m not sure. I thought of my own criteria at that moment, and if I want you as a friend, I’m going to begin having lunch with you and invite you to my home for a Shabbat dinner or a Sunday brunch. But Mendy said that the criteria had something to do with the rabbi sharing his own problems or concerns, and if that is the criteria, I do believe that Mendy views many people as his friends, especially those who attend services regularly. Mendy will openly raise or share problems he encounters with congregants or with the community from the bimah, and invites comments and suggestions. In one on one conversations I’ve had with him, I have found him to be open and honest. Few rabbis I have known share problems or issues from the bimah, fearing that familiarity will breed contempt and they will be seen as something less than infallible. Mendy wears his infallibility with honor, and such openness makes him at once vulnerable, but also reveals his trust in us and affection for us. His behavior lets us know that , we are all friends. And that trust and affection is certainly returned, and I have no difficulty admitting that though I am old enough to be his father and would be honored to have such a son, I would have no difficulty going to him with a problem because he is a vast repository of an ancient wisdom that can be made relevant for today. At one point, a congregant came into the service, and Mendy smiled and welcomed him back from Florida. Mendy came off the bimah and hugged him, and I could see in Mendy’s face the genuine affection that he has for this man.
Mendy Log;
Parsha Acharei Mote
Lev. 16:1-18-30
April 16, 2011
Mendy began by offering congratulations to the families that would be united next week in marriage and spoke glowingly about the bride and groom who will be married in Israel. On the week prior to the wedding the prospective groom is called up to the Torah for an honor and the procedure is called an “Uff Ruff.” Mendy said that both bride and groom are dressed in white both because white is a symbol of purity, and that no adornments of gold or jewels should distract the couple from their thought on one another. He then drew a comparison between such simple apparel to the apparel worn by the High Priest. On all days, the high priest wore remarkable vestments with lots of gold, silver and jewels, yet on Yom Kippur, the day when all eyes were focused on him, he wore only plain white linen, because his focus was on redeeming the people, and the people’s focus was on redeeming themselves. There were to be no visible distractions from this.
This particular Sabbath, the one right before the Passover, is called Shabbat ha gadol, or the great Sabbath, and Mendy asked why it was given this appellation. It was traditional for the rabbis to give long speeches on this day which were possibly “great,” in both content and in time, but the reason Mendy gave dealt with miracles. Now miracles happen daily, but because they are so readily available to us such as the rising and setting of the sun or the seasonal patterns, we have taken them for granted. But when something occurs only once and calls attention to itself, it is viewed as a miracle. Mendy related a story told in The Code of Jewish Ethics by Rabbi Joseph Caro about a miracle that took place in Egypt but not readily known. As the story goes, it seems that when Moses declared that all the first born were to die, the first born of Egypt came to Pharaoh and begged him to let the Jews go. Pharaoh refused, so they went to the generals of the army pointing out that all the other events that Moses said would happen, did, but the army was loyal to Pharaoh and refused to expel the Israelites. So the first born of Egypt took up arms against the army of Pharaoh and a civil war was fought. This civil war, Egyptians fighting Egyptians according to Joseph Caro, was a great miracle and thus the commemoration of this miracle on the Sabbath before Passover. I had never heard this story nor had the very bright men who sit near me. Traditionally, the slaying of the first born is attributed to G od, but this story introduces another idea by suggesting that there were also first born slain at the hands of Pharaoh’s army. This is a very provocative idea. There is also the theory that the Egyptians, after suffering all the torments attributed to G od and Moses, might have sacrificed their own first born to their gods so as to placate them and lift from them the plagues that befell them. Then again, there is the theory that first born Egyptians had the honor of sleeping on low cots in the cool courtyards of their homes, and died from poisonous vapors were released by the effects of massive seismic action due to the eruption of the volcano on the island of Thera that rocked the Mediterranean world and brought an end to the Minoan Civilization. Any or all of these events may have become woven into the wonderful tapestry we call the Exodus and passed down through our oral tradition. Or then again, it may have happened just as it is related in our Torah. For me, there is no conflict between science and religion, because, to paraphrase Einstein, science seeks out what is, and religion seeks out what might be. They exist on separate planes. Biblical archaeology seeks to prove or disprove what is written in religious texts. It looks for facts, but not for spirit. The Exodus story is a story about the human yearning for freedom, and it is the story of a G od who believes that his creatures should be free. This G od reveals Himself by commanding nature to turn against the Egyptians and their pantheon of gods and demonstrates the impotence of these gods and the impotence of earthly monarchs who would deny His reign as the one true G od of all. The core message here is that human kind has a right to be free and a right to do whatever it takes to achieve that blissful condition, all the while recognizing that G od is the inspiration for this desire to be free.
A Joyous Passover,
Mendy Log:
April 19, 2011
On the first day of Passover, Mendy asked a very provocative question: “How is it possible to identify with the slaves that went out of Egypt when we live in lovely homes, in a free country, and with the food and comforts we so thoroughly enjoy?” It is a question that I’ve thought of myself at each seder as I consider my family and friends gathered and enjoying the bounty offered. So Mendy asked us to consider other kinds of slavery, the slavery of our own making. What is there in our lives that binds us to our own treadmills so we keep going around and around in guilt and in pain. Simon and Garfunkel raised the same issue in The Sounds of Silence with the words: “And the people bowed and prayed, To the neon gods they made...” We have become bound and dependent on a technological world that has little room for spirituality in it, but we retain an awareness within ourselves that we yearn to connect with something greater than ourselves, but cannot suspend cognitive disbelief to access it. Wordsworth, in the 1700's wrote: “The world is too much with us, Late and soon, we lay waste our powers.” It’s all the same. The world closes us in with it’s temptations and pleasures, and we become slaves to these. We take a stand and we become enslaved to the stand we’ve taken. We become ossified in our own egos, and in doing so, we create our own Egypts. And so we wander through our own lives feeling disconnected, much as the way our ancestors wandered through the desert until they had freed themselves of their fears.
My Passover greeting was: “May you find the strength to free yourselves from whatever personal Egypts in which you might find yourselves, and become free.”
Mendy Log:
April 26, 2011
Last day of Passover
Mendy didn’t speak before the Torah portion as is his tradition, but before the Yiskor service, the prayers uttered in memory of those we’ve lost. His message was one of hope and gratitude. He spoke of a particular song sung at the seder called Dyanu which translates into “It would have been enough.” It’s a song of gratitude that basically says that if G od had taken us out of Egypt and not split the sea, for us, it would have been enough. It continues with the line that if G od had taken us out of Egypt and split the sea, and not given us the Torah, it would have been enough. It then goes on that if G od had only taken us out of Egypt, split the sea, given us the Torah, and not fed us with manna, it would have been enough. Get the point. We are to be a grateful people and appreciate everything we are given or obtain for ourselves. It is my personal belief that ungrateful people are not happy people and not easily made happy. Judaism is big on gratitude. Every day we are told to thank G od for everything that touches our lives. I for one, am very grateful for what I have. I have more than most, but not as much as some. I rejoice in my portion, and rejoice in the portions of others. There are those with “things” who may lack spirituality and education, and there are those with education and spirit, who might not have a lot of “stuff.” Happily, here in America, we are endowed by our Creator with the ability have both and all my life I’ve been working towards that end. I’m still a little short on education and spirituality. I am quite content with my “stuff.”
Mendy continued by speaking to us about telling our story. He used the Passover story and the symbols of the matzah, the bitter herb, and the sweet haroseth that tells both a story of sadness but also of hope. These stories are told to inspire us and our children and grandchildren in the belief that nothing is permanently fixed and that the society that keeps us from becoming free can be changed. We can change it if we tell the story and infuse that story with hope. Hope is the gift we give to one another at the seder. In my home, the Elijah cup remains empty, but as we tell the story of Elijah and sing, the empty cup is passed around and each person pours some of his or her wine into it along with their hopes and dreams for the coming year. In this way we symbolically invest ourselves in the future and the dream of Messianic times.
Likewise, each of us as individuals has a story to tell, and we also have stories told to us by our parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, great uncles and aunts and on and on. Each of these stories makes up the tapestry we call a family. And like the Passover story, there are trials and tribulations in our family tales, but also there we are told of overcoming barriers and the joy of achieving. I was very fortunate to become interested in my families genealogy, and in doing so, rediscovered my great aunt Fanny who unlocked for me the story of my great grandparent’s lives and the lives of their children. She was the last of that generation, but through her I was able to contact, record, and write down the memories of her nieces and nephews, the people of my parent’s generation. These memories were all sent out to my own generation to be shared with their children and grandchildren.
Each of us is a giver of memories, and when we die, our memories die with us. So it is vital that we sit with the elder generation and with the box of pictures and have them identify who these people in the photos are and how they are part of the story. It is vital that we record these voices so they and the stories are not lost to posterity. Like the Passover story, the stories of our families’ survival gives us hope. From the destitute dirt streets of a shetle in Ukraine, a poor tailor and his wife were brave enough to leave and go to a land where they may or may not known anyone, had very little money, and did not know the language. But in two generations, some of their grand children graduated college, and in the next generation, almost all of their great grand children are college graduates in one profession or another, and I do believe that all of their great, great grandchildren are college graduates. That speaks of what America is and what can be hoped for here. It took courage to leave “the flesh pots of Egypt” and throw yourself in with a ragged band of slaves who are marching into a desert either to encounter G od or death. Happily, we encountered G od and entered history.
May you never be in a narrow place.
May 7, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha
Mendy began by telling us that the parsha deals with G od’s orders to the Kohaniem (High Priests) on what they are to act, what is allowed them and what is forbidden. Oddly, the first admonition is that they are not to attend a burial unless it is of an immediate family member. Mendy then asked what the congregation thought was the reason that of all the rules to be imposed on the priests, this was the first one uttered. In short, why this one and why was it the first? As always, Mendy invited the congregation to respond, and there were many different takes on this. Over the years, Mendy’s style of responding to answers has change, and he no longer points out why the congregant is wrong, which encourages other congregants to participate without feeling that they will be ridiculed. Ultimately, the answer he gave which did build upon some responses was that the focus of the priests was to be on life and not on death. To my way of thinking, our ancestors had just come out of Egypt were the focus of their religion was on the afterlife. The Egyptian sacred book was called, The Book of the Dead. By insisting that anything dead was a contamination the G od of Israel was letting the Jewish priests know that they were to focus on life, and in this focus on life was the message to the Jewish people that G od was giving. Unlike other faiths, Judaism says nothing of an afterlife in the Torah, and nothing of a Heaven or Hell. The Orthodox concepts of going to purgatory to be cleansed for no more than eleven months and then to Gan Eden, entered Judaism at a later date. While other faiths focus on how to use this life so as to be redeemed for the afterlife, Judaism asks its adherents to focus on this life and not to be concerned about the next.
So the key value reinforced by the teaching that the priests were not to go near anything or anyone that died, reinforces the idea that life is sacred. This is the supreme Jewish value and is revealed in the Torah in numerous places: “I set before you this day good and evil, life and death. Therefore, choose life,” is one of the clearest statement regarding this value. Here G od is giving you the choice, but clearly says what He wants you to do. In the Talmud we are taught that “To take a life, is as if you have taken an entire world, and that to save a life is as if you have saved an entire world.” Christianity and Islam both borrow this exact thought.
Somewhere, the concept of holiness was introduced, and it may have been in relation to the priests themselves being told to be holy. Holy means separate. As G od says, “Be holy for I am holy,” and that means that we are to be separate because G od is separate. The question that needed to be asked was, “How do you get to be holy?” “Separate from what?” My response would have been that humans are to separate themselves from their animal instincts. After all, we are part of the animal kingdom, and we have such inclinations, so in those areas such as eating, sexuality, interactions with others, etc.,we are to rise above our animal instincts which may be base, and rise to a higher level of behavior. There are criteria for what is moral and what is immoral. But on top of that criteria is an additional criteria which layers on to the judgment a higher standard. It is the criteria for holiness.
June 18, 2011
Mendy Log
Parsha Shelach Numbers 13:1-15:41
Mendy began by telling a story about his first months in Cherry Hill and his inability to put together a minyon for the High Holidays. Because of this, he returned to Crown Heights, Brooklyn to pray with the Rebbe. While there, one of other rabbis told him that he was very lucky to be able to return from where he was sent to be with the Rebbe. This comment led Mendy and this rabbi to a discussion, one that reflected a debate that has been going for well over three thousand years. The discussion dealt with whether it is better to be able to return to in a sacred place to pray, or whether it is better to stay where you were sent to fulfill your mission. Mendy opened the question to the congregation and the overwhelming response was that it is better to fulfill your mission. All Chabad rabbis are sent out to fulfill a particular mission, and that is to assist Jews who have veered off the path to return. The Rebbe sent Mendy to Cherry Hill to do just that, and he is here until the Messiah comes. While he was once again overjoyed to be in the presence of the Rebbe, his yearning was to create his own minyon in Cherry Hill. I voted with those who felt the mission was more important because I feel, with your own minyon, you create your own sacred space. Besides, personal prayer is a passive activity, but bringing people to prayer is an action. Judaism is a faith of action. “That which is hateful to you DO NOT do to another.” Action. “Pray as if everything depends on G od, and ACT as if everything depends on you.” Action. I can go on and on with such types of declarations. At the core of Judaism is the idea of correct action over correct faith.
This introduction led into the parsha which dealt with the twelve spies being sent out to scout out the land and the “evil” report brought back by ten of them. The report was basically that the land, while flowing with milk and honey, was filled with giants, well fortified, and with air that swallowed people up. The spies saw themselves as “grasshoppers” in the eyes of these very tall people. But Mendy said that aside from forgetting that G od would insure their success, the spies liked the life they had come to live in the desert. They studied Torah all day, were fed with manna, the well of Miriam provided water, and they had no major tasks to perform. There is even a midrash that their clothing never got dirty. It was a good life. If they conquered the land, all that would change and they’d have to become responsible for themselves. Why give up a good thing?
Moses is outraged, as is G od who is getting fed up with the people’s lack of faith. These people have seen the signs and wonders in Egypt and in the desert, and yet continue to doubt, so G od tells Moses that he will destroy them. But Moses, reminds G od that if He did that, word would get back to Egypt and the rest of the nations, that He was not able to control his own adherents, and what would be “ah shanda fur deh goyim” which basically means that He would be shamed among the nations. So G od decrees that as punishment, no person over twenty would be allowed to enter the Promised Land, and that the people would wander forty years until that rebellious generation was no more. The natural outcome of this is the weeping and wailing and the willingness to fight for the land. But by this time, G od was not interested. So against Moses’ wishes, a group attacks Canaan, are soundly defeated, and beaten back. It is interesting and so true that people will miss opportunities given them out of fear or selfishness, and it is only afterwards, when they realize what they have missed will they attempt to change the past and their behavior. But by that time the opportunity is passed and nothing can be done about it. “The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on. And all your piety and wit shall not call it back to cancel out half a line.” Sad but true that we come to action a little too late. (Right now I’m thinking of global warming and the melting icebergs that will inundate our costal cities.) So only Joshua and Caleb who delivered a good report to Moses are permitted to live long enough to enter the Promised Land as are the women who were not condemned by the spy’s actions. By the way, death by plague was the fate of the ten spies. I guess the message is that that’s what happens when you disappoint G od.
June 25, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Korach Num.16:1-18:32
Mendy’s began by telling the story of his earliest days setting up Chabad in the Cooper Corner strip mall, and his father’s response to Mendy not sitting in a chair of honor, not being dressed to standard, and allowing his congregants to call him by his first name. Mendy’s dad was disturbed to the point where the elder Mangel called his other two sons to speak to their brother on the proper way a rabbi was to comport himself. Now I’m positive, this was not the first time that Mendy’s dad took umbridge with Mendy’s behavior because Mendy has shared several stories of being a spunky and somewhat independent thinker growing up in the home of a very formal and very well respected Chassidic Lubuvicher rabbi. So Mendy invited the congregation to comment on who was right: Should a rabbi be part of the congregation and readily approachable, or should he be more formal, aloof, and convey an air of mystery and distance? There were those who felt that they had been brought up to respect the rabbi and would never address the rabbi by his first name even if he had permission. My former students have permission to call me by my first name after they graduate college, but most choose not to. Others felt that for a rabbi to connect with his people, he has to go among the people and make them feel comfortable, while others felt there should be a distance since familiarity might bring contempt or open the way for disrespect. I have, over the years, felt contempt for some rabbis, but it was not their familiarity that caused it but their behavior. Yes, I do not hold that a rabbi, or any man of the cloth no matter what his faith, is “only a man” with foibles that should be excused. I for one believe that when a man wraps himself in that cloak where he is speaking about and for G od, he had better not disappoint in his public life. Men of the cloth have to be more morally fit than the best of their congregants. Others felt there should be a balance between distance and familiarity.
Mendy, unlike his father, sits by the door on Shabbat, and I know I am always guaranteed a smile and a warm handshake even if there are no words. Such a personal connection with everyone who enters, makes this sanctuary more open and inviting. But the connection is really established by the honesty, knowledge, warmth, and humor that Mendy exudes from the bimah each week and this is where the rapport is established. Over the years of experiencing him, and even though he is young enough to be my son, I would take a problem to him because after all these years of belonging to a variety of synagogues, Mendy is the first rabbi I ever think of as “my rabbi.” This is because of his approach to us and that is why his congregation has grown over the years to include so many people who are not Orthodox, but who still come to an Orthodox shul. We come for different reasons, but Mendy has made himself the properly placed fulcrum that keeps everything in equilibrium. Mendy is right to behave as he does for this particular congregation. His father has his own congregation, and I’m sure for his congregants, the elder Mangel’s behavior is what they need.
Now all this was prelude to the story of Korach who is the man who leads a rebellion against Moses for not showing proper leadership and not being connected to the people. The rabbis teach that Korah was a man who was ahead of his times in demanding that the leader not be separate from the people. Of course he also had a hidden agenda which was to assume leadership himself, and that is probably why he and his followers got swallowed up by the earth’s mouth. In response, Moses said that he was the interface between man and G od, and Aaron, his brother, was the connection with the people. But whatever argument Moses made for the differentiation G od established for the Israelites, Korah argued. Moses could not win. Again, a hidden agenda. Today some leaders, both secular and religious, interface with G od by looking in the mirror, and do go out to connect with the people so they will continue to be voted back into office. Yes, I tend to be cynical.
July 2, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Chukkat Num. 19:22:1-22:1
Mendy began by telling us that Abraham establish a precedent for celebrating rites of passage in our tradition even though the sages argued whether the original rite was the circumcision of his son Isaac, Isaac’s weaning or Isaac’ bar mitzvah. This led Mendy to inform us that his own son was celebrating his thirteenth birthday and was becoming a bar mitzvah. He related to us how proud he is of the choices his son is making that reflect the value this young man places on learning for the sake of learning and on Yiddishkeit, the traditional Jewish way of doing things. We were also told of a midrash about the celebration Abraham held in Issac’s honor to which all the major players of his society were invited including King Og who said, “I will crush the child with my finger.” This was a strange thing to say at a celebration to the guest of honor or the host, and I don’t recall the connection Mendy made except for the interpretation that perhaps it was a forecast that when Isaac was grown and out of the sphere of Abraham and Sarah’ influence he would turn against his faith and his G od. Holding fast to faith or walking away seemed to be one of the themes of the day.
And while he was on the topic of the bar mitzvah, Mendy also took the opportunity to tell us that there were three things that has killed Judaism and kept people from Yiddishkeit: bar mitzvah preparation and the party that follows, and having to say the kaddish and the yiskor prayers for their departed. Simply, these three traditions have turned the religion into a commemoration of death and an expensive party that puts some in hock. Too many people come to services to say the kaddish and yiskor only when they have to commemorate the memories of loved ones, and young children tolerate learning because of the party they know will follow. Many young people then walk away because the values inherent in the faith that are life sustaining, are never taught and cannot be taught through the rote memorization that often accompanies bar mitzvah preparation. Values are taught and internalized through the actions modeled by the trusted and significant people in our lives, and we incorporate them because we want to please. I remember prior to my bar mitzvah, my mother gave me the option of the family having a new car with the money to be spent on the party, or me having the party. Realizing I couldn’t drive at thirteen, I took the party. After the party, I attended synagogue only on the High Holidays as my father did, and it wasn’t until I was in my 30's that I took it upon myself to learn and discover my religion because I started to sense that there was something significant missing. The thing missing was Judaism. I was never taught as a child that this religion could provide me with life sustaining values. This I discovered on my own.
There is a process of valuing and Mendy touched upon it. At its foundation, the valuing process insists that a value cannot be kicked into someone if the value is to really be held by that person. Certainly, a person will act on someone else’s value out of fear or shame, or even love and the need to please, but once the source of fear and shame are gone, the value and the ensuing behaviors will go also if they have not been internalized. Mendy praised his son for genuinely holding Yiddishkeit because, like Manesseh and Ephraim, the boy has chosen to hold it. But part of the valuing process is to choose the value from alternatives and after thoughtful consideration of the consequences of not holding them. But Joseph’s two sons had other options before them so they indeed had a choice. I don’t know if there are any alternatives to Yiddishkeit in Mendy’s home, so I must ask myself whether or not a choice can be freely made if there are no choices from which to choose. As Mendy has often said, it’s easier for him to hold the values he holds because he was raised in a loving home that reinforced them every day of his life. His entire world reinforced those values. He recognizes that for those of us who fell away for a variety of reasons, coming back and reaccepting such values and practices are not easy tasks.
Mendy also spoke of how difficult this week was for him because it was the week of the Rebbe’s passing, and it also marks the week of his older brother’s passing. He spoke lovingly of both, and made the connection between the love the Rebbe had for the Jewish people and the love Moses also had for the people. Mendy related that there have been certain people, among them Chaim Potok the author, who said that after the Rebbe died, Chabad Lubovicher would fall apart without their charismatic leader. Here I believe was the connection between King Og’s threat, Potok’s prophesy, and the Rebbe. But Mendy pointed out that since the Rebbe’s death, Chabad has flourished and centers have opened up all around the world run by young men and women who have internalized the values of Yiddishkeit and the Rebbe’s message of loving. What the Rebbe taught was taught out of love for the people, is accepted by his followers, and is acted on consistently because the message of loving resonated as being right and good. The success of Chabad is that it accepts people at all stages of their religious practices and awarenesses, and this was also at the core of the Rebbe’s teachings.
Moses was the spokesman on behalf of the Jewish People to G od as witnessed by the numbers of times he pleaded with G od not to destroy them because of their inability to understand or believe in the miracles they saw happening around them. When people’s stomachs are empty, and they thirst, they fear for their survival, demanding protection and sustenance from their leaders. For many, leadership is only as good as what the leader did for me yesterday. It may have been Gandhi who said, and I’m paraphrasing, “For some, the only time they can find G od is in a piece of bread.” Moses loved these people, and this quality is what G od liked about him. The Rebbe loved his people, and I’m sure G od liked him for this quality, too. Conveying a love for the people and modeling that love to all was the underpinning message of the Rebbe, and that is what has enabled Lubuvichers to continue to bring Jews back to Yiddishkeit without the direct presence of the Rebbe.
Mendy Log:
July 16, 2011
Parsha Pinchas Num. 25:10-30:1
There was a Ufruf this Shabbat, a ritual where the man is called up to the Torah prior to his marriage to recite a blessing and to be blessed. His bride is also blessed, though in the Orthodox tradition, she does not go up on the bimah during the service.
On such occasions, Mendy tries to find something in the weekly parsha that he could use as a message to the bride and groom; the chussan and kallah. So he opened his drush with the a review of last week’s portion. He reminded us that after Bilam blessed and not cursed the Israelites, this false prophet/ magician, told the king that the way to destroy the Israelits is by getting them to become immoral so that their G od will get angry and destroys them Himself. The king does this by inciting the women of his country to introduce harlotry to the Israelite men. As expected, they embrace the embraces of the pagan women who lead them into all sorts of debauchery including idol worship which is always a no-no. G od does get angry and His response come in the form of plague. Thousands die, but Pinchus, a Levite, sees one of the young leaders who should have known better “sporting” with a Median princess, and Pinchus promptly dispatches them with a spear. The plague stops immediately and that is where the parsha ends. The following Parsha, one of only two in the entire Torah named after an individual, continues the story where G od tells Moses to elevate Pinchas to the status of priest for his willingness to lead, and to do what needed to be done to save the people.
So the question posed by Mendy to the congregation was “Why is there a separation between the action Pinchas took and the reward he receives for that action?” It would have been just as easy to finish the story in the last parsha where the rest of his story takes place.
And this is where Mendy brought home an esoteric teaching to the bride and groom. The separation exists because the Torah is teaching that between an action that generates feelings or great passions for that matter, and the response, there must be a space for all concerned to come down from the moment and to regain some equilibrium and perspective. He used himself as an example and an incident in his marriage. Such a story (which always reinforces his humanity even if the story might depict a failing on his part) led into the idea that time is needed to cool off in any given situation where one person really annoys another. Things said in the heat of a response may cause more problems than that of the initial incident that caused the problem in the first place. This is where I find the genius of the rabbis and the beauty of Judaism. A seemingly simple division of two chapters written centuries ago becomes the source of a good piece of wisdom for us today because some rabbi a thousand years ago wondered why there was a separation between actions and responses.
This reminded me of something that happened before Toby and I were married. I was visiting her and her eldest daughter was out on a date and said she would be back at 12:30. When the time arrived the daughter did not. One o’clock came and went as did two. All this time, Toby was becoming frantic and more angry. But as everyone knows, anger is a secondary feeling, and I knew that when the girl walked in, there would be a “Where the hell were you, you inconsiderate.....”. So I asked Toby what was under the anger which initially reflected the girl’s disobedience, but which really was a profound fear that something had happened to her child. I also told her that in all probability, her daughter was rehearsing her own fight and counter responses, and there would be a major confrontation if she responded with anger. I told her to respond with the feeling she will feel which would better reflect the moment and not the past. So when her daughter finally walked in at 2:30 A.M. ready for her fight, Toby said honestly, “Thank G od you are home safely! We’ll talk about this tomorrow after a good night’s sleep.” The daughter was completely disarmed and confused because her mother chose a completely different tactic.
The Torah has hidden wisdom, but it does take a Mendy on the bimah to see it and to offer it.
There was a second message to the bride and groom, but I can’t recall what it was. And because it was an Ufruf, at one point small candies were passed out, and after the prospective groom received his blessing, he was showered with the sweets. I remember the candy that rained down upon me at my bar mitzvah. It’s a delightful tradition.
July 23, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Mattote Num. 30:2-32:42
I surmise that the core message Mendy wanted us to have this week is that people who are not living in a religious community daily, and who have taken work in the secular world, are valuable people and to be honored if they incorporate the traditions and values of Judaism in their daily lives. He got on this topic because relatives were visiting who did not earn their livings as rabbinic types but as business people. Once in our history, rabbis had a trade probably based upon the injunction, “You shall not use the Torah as a spade,” which means I believe, that scholarship and rabbinics is what you can do in addition to earning a living. Happily, modern rabbis do not have to spit their time between a secular career and focusing on the needs of their congregations.
It was this combination of being observant and holding a secular position that initiated the discussion because in the parsha, the Israelites are about to enter Canaan when the tribes of Reuben and Gad inform Moses that they which to stay on the eastern side of the Jordan because they have many heads of live stock, and the pastures are good. Moses agrees once they convince him that they will fight and not return home until the land has been wrested from the Canaanites, but Moses states that the half tribe or half the tribe of Menassah, descendants of Joseph, must live among them. So Mendy asked the question as to why Moses posited this odd condition? The answer had to do with the tribe of Menassah also being involved in commerce of a sort as were the tribes of Reuven and Gad so they understood them, but the tribe of Menassah had proven to Moses that they were devout as well. Moses, believing that all his people needed to be kept close to one another for support and comfort, felt that half the tribe of Menassah would be a good influence and keep these two tribes in contact with the rest of the people who would be living in Canaan proper. The other half of the tribe of Menassah would be settled in close proximity so their brethren, living with Reuben and Gad, would also not be out of contact and feel isolated from their own.
Mendy was praising specifically those people in his family who not only maintained a place in the secular world, but also held fast to the traditions of their people. In doing so, he was also praising those of his congregation who did their utmost to straddles these two very different worlds, and to incorporate each into his or her daily lives.
A part of the parsha also dealt with vows a woman makes and when they may be forgiven by the Nazarite.
Mendy used a different word similar to Nazarite which is a person who has taken special vows not to drink wine or cut one’s hair. Samson was a Nazarite. I never knew what a Nazarite did and I surmise they were holy people who had the power to absolve someone from a vow.
The Kol Nidre prayer chanted on Yom Kippur asks G od to annul those vows we make to Him that we will not be able to keep. Vows made to people are not annulled through this prayer, and that has always been known to the Jewish world. Sadly, because of this prayer, some in the non-Jewish world came to believe that a Jewish vow, or promise did not have to be kept and thus, another stereotype was born due once again to the unwillingness of people to ask questions. Now it would seem that if the Kol Kidre prayer absolved vows to G od, and a holy person such as a Nazarite could absolve vows that could not be kept because they were made under duress or in a passion, why couldn’t Jeptha, break his vow to G od to sacrifice the first thing he saw when he returned home? Sadly, Jeptha was greeted by his young daughter. Surely G od, who rejected Isaac as a sacrifice, putting an end to human sacrifice, did not want Jeptha to do this. The outcome of the story is very vague and leaves one to wonder. Were there no Nazarites around at the time to whom he might go? I suspect this was before the Kol Nidre prayer. Were there no safety nets at this time for people who made foolish vows?
From the 21st Century, I can look back at the stories and the wisdom found in many of them, and I can also look back at the brutality of people living in the copper and iron ages discovering, haltingly, how to build a lasting civilization. While I can see the reasoning having to destroy the pagans who had and would lead the easily tempted Israelites to debauchery and blasphemy, my modern sensibilities decry the razing of cities, and the wholesale slaughter of men, women, children, and livestock. Such stories in our Torah are used against people of faith, stating that organized religion sanctions cruelty and war. “‘ More wars have been started in the name of religion, and more people have been murdered in the name of religion than anything else,”’ is something you’ve heard more than once. That may be true, but these wars weren’t started by Jews, and if the Jewish mandate to bring the world to ethical monotheism had not been thwarted by those who actually started such wars and murdered Jews in them, perhaps the world would not be in the situation in which it finds itself. The moral code of the Torah which became the moral foundation for Western Civilization, has probably kept humanity from totally destroying itself. This code came out of religion.
July 30, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Masel Numbers 30:2-32:42
Mendy said he was going to speak about a serious subject which involved two murders; one in Brooklyn, and one in Israel. He lamented the fact that both murderers were very observant, and that their years of prayer and their involvement in a community was not enough to stem the rage that no one knew festered inside them. I see what happened in the minds of these ciminals as one of those cognitive disconnects where a person knows the difference between what they are about to do and what they should do and still chooses to do wrong. Theirs was a choice. Mendy and I both agree that there are evil people in the world, and that claiming that someone is “sick” doesn’t alter and should not excuse the crime. The legal defense of psychological impairment is a cop out and often rejected by the courts. It’s another excuse for some on the politically correct secular Left to protect evil people because they can’t deal with the reality of evil existing. Evil is a religious descriptor. Moses said, “You shall burn the evil out of your midst,” and I think that is a good rule of thumb where it appropriately applies.
I for one have never believed that there is any correlation between wealth, great talent, and higher degrees and decency. We all have seen wealthy, talented, and highly educated people acting despicably. I have also come to know that because one adheres to the tenants of an Abrahamic religion, practices its rituals, and is generous, it doesn’t mean they are decent human beings. One only has to think of Madoff, Milkin, and Boesky to understand the concept. But for a human being who is rigorous in his or her faith be that person a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim, or a person in our case who has wraps himself in a prayer shawl, puts on phylacteries each morning, and attends services three times a day and still willfully murders an innocent child or revered teacher, one must wonder why the basic core concept of “choosing life” did not tap him on the shoulder and stay the murderous hand.
The behavior of these two men reinforces in me the idea that if a Jewish person who chooses to follow a religious path but does not take the commandments and the values of Judaism to his or her heart but merely goes through the motions of study and ritual, that same person cannot evolve into a decent human being at his or her core. I say “evolve” because Genesis teaches that G od said that “Man is evil from his youth.” Therefore people must learn to become decent. You are born innocent, not decent. The Torah is a guide book to decency and those who seemingly observe it and yet willfully and with malice of forethought murder, have not only broken the commandment not to kill, but as a representative of Judaism and seemingly of G od, they have broken the Second Commandment as well as the Sixth. They have given G od a bad name without taking His name in vain. (Parenthetically, after the first week at the yeshiva in which I taught, I went over to one of the rabbis and asked him at what age the teachings of honoring teachers, respecting the rights of others students, and the love learning kicks in for Orthodox kids. I had actually believed that kids raised in Orthodox homes where somehow more elevated in their attitudes towards education. The rabbi looked at me as if I had two heads, chuckled, and walked away.)
The story that had moved Mendy to this topic dealt with the entry into the Land of Israel, and G od portioning out the areas for the different tribes. We already know that the tribes of Reuben and Gad along with half the tribe of Manasah settled on the west bank of the Jordan. By G od’s law, there were to be created six cities of refuge. Three were to be on the east bank and three on the west. The cities all belonged to the Levites because they had no portion of land of their own. The cities were created for the Levites and also for a very practical reason. The culture of the day allowed for an avenger, a person selected by a family who had suffered the death of one of its own, to pursue and kill that person who had taken the life of a member of their tribe or clan. Now, to me, this cultural tradition seemed to me to be at odds with the legal system that had been set up that required two witnesses to a killing and a warning not to kill to be at a trial for the alleged offender. There were to be trials, but it seems as if the avenger got there first, it was the avenger who was now guilty of murder. If there were witnesses, and the court found the person guilty, the man would be put to death. Yes, G od permitted capital punishment for premeditated murder. But G od also recognized that a death might be accidental, and mandated that there be cities to exist for an innocent person because the avenger seemed not bound by the law or court decisions. This I don’t understand and it is not explained.
So a man, even though found not guilty, could still be killed by the avenger. Even if judged innocent, the accused had to remain in the city that gave him sanctuary until the High Priest died. This law could keep him there a day, or thirty years. Honor killing is still practiced among some Muslim populations in the Middle East, and periodically we learn of it when it rears its ugly head in our newspapers.
Now the death of the High Priest was to have a sobering effect on the people, and the result of their feelings was to generate compassion and forgiveness. Such an environment allowed theinnocent man to leave the city of refuge without trepidation. Of course there are no records as to whether this worked out for this person or not.
This law seemed to trigger in Mendy comments related to the responsibility of the Jewish People for people who exhibit behaviors that indicate loneliness, anger, or alienation. He informed us that it is up to us not to exclude anyone from conversation or concern because our effort just may be that small gesture that lets that person know they are welcome and of value. People need to feel part of something. People need to feel that they belong. In this, Mendy is correct. In the past I’ve had the experience of standing against a wall or sitting by myself after services in an out of town synagogue and not have anyone come up to me. I experienced the same feeling in the synagogue in Budapest during the kiddish. So I have always made it a point to go over to a stranger and to welcome them. On some occasions, these people have joined because of that small gesture of welcome. Sadly, at a kiddish, most people are into their own friends and conversations and do not notice someone standing alone. I once read a story about a woman who was about to commit suicide but would not if one person said “hello” to her on her way to the bridge. Someone did, and she did not take her own life. By saying “good morning” or offering some greeting to a stranger who passes, one might be that someone to save a life. It’s a nice thing to do so greet a stranger. You may be saving a life.
Earlier in the year, Mendy asked us to support a Jewish man in a Florida prison who was about to be executed because this man was a Jew and it was incumbent upon us to speak out for him because he was a Jew. I did not agree with him. Now I’m wondering, since Mendy was so passionate at the horror of these murders, if he would ask us to support these murderers because they are also Jews. As a followup, Mendy also made it clear that if anyone in the congregation knew of anyone who was abusing or planning to abuse or murder someone, they were not to call him as their rabbi to ask what should be done, but they were immediately to call 911 and report the person. I found this particularly uplifting knowing Mendy’s devotion to his rabbi and the tradition of asking one’s rabbi for direction when making an important decision. Mendy, unlike others who may wrap themselves in G od garments of any other faith, is not among those who would protect his co-religionists if their behavior is deemed to be evil. Another reason why I love and respect him.
August 13,2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Va’ Etchannan Deut. 3:23-7:11
Another “ufruf” and since it is the tradition for the rabbi to find in the parsha a message for the bride and groom, Mendy used the numerical equivalent the Hebrew word translated as “implore” where Moses is telling the people how he implored G od to allow him to enter the Promised Land. The numerical equivelent of the word is something like 414. This number we are told refers to the number of times Moses asked G od to allow him to enter the Land of Israel. So the question the rabbis ask is, “Why wasn’t there a 415th time. The answer is that each time Moses implored G od, he was imploring for himself. What Moses probably should have said is, “Don’t do this for me. Do it for your own good Name. Show the people that even for a sin a grievous as mine was for hitting the rock rather than just speaking to it, let them see you as a great forgiving G od.” This stance, now that I think of it, is used in the prayer books where we implore G od not to do things for our sake, but for His. Whatever makes G od look good to his followers should be the order of the day. So the message to the bride and groom in this was that when you have a problem and need forgiveness, it’s best to acknowledge your error and point out how much better one will look and feel themselves if they forgive. In essence, forgive me not because I’ll feel better, but because you’ll feel better and look like a better person. I think that was the message. I must try it.
In addition to this, Mendy mentioned that this month has the saddest day in the Jewish calendar and the most joyous. The saddest day of course, the 9th of the month of Av, commemorates the destruction of both Temples in Jerusalem, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, and a variety of other unfortunate moments. But this month also has the most joyous day, for it was on this day that young people in ancient Judea exchanged clothing and went into the streets to meet other young people. The idea was that since no one knew how rich or poor a person was or how high or low born, they could relate to one another as just people. All the trappings were a fiction, and only the core of the person was there to be encountered. This, I believe, was another message to the bride and groom. Always consider what is at the person’s core. Also to be learned is that we must not dwell on the tragedies of life, but to find reasons and ways to rejoice.
There was a lot of back and forth with the congregation, so I found it hard to keep the thread going. You begin to consider one point, and another is presented just as provocative.
At one point Mendy spoke of how difficult it was for his children to grow up in this environment because they are touched daily by the secular world. He on the other hand, growing up in Crown Heights, had no temptations not to be the child his religion and his community demanded that he be. So as a father of eight, he has to be aware of each of these individual’s personalities and needs as they are presented with the temptations that the secular world offers even as limited as that exposure is. I imagine his life must resemble a game of “pop up” where you are confronted with these little secular creatures that pop up randomly and you have to smash them down with your hammer. I guess the points he earns for effective smashing, gets him a good night’s sleep if that is even possible with eight kids.
He related how his youngest son came home from camp without his yarmulka and said that he had lost it in the pool. The pool activity was hours before he came home, and Mendy was outraged that for those hours, one of his children was not adhering to tradition. While he was annoyed with the counselor who did not see or did not provide the little boy with another, he was most upset with himself that he had not instilled in his child the awareness that though he may have lost his own yarmulka, he should have asked for another. Mendy judged himself for having failed in his duty. Personally, I think he was a little too hard on himself, because with eight kids, he had better recognize that he will be disappointed by their behavior, and that he just may not be responsible for the choices they make. Mendy may see the Torah as a road map, but what if some of his kids see it as a guide book? Choices are made, and the only thing a parent ultimately controls is how that parent responds to that child’s choice. Mendy will do his best, and then “it will be what it will be.”
Naturally, this little excursion into his family led me to think about mine and the choices made. I came late to any hint of regular observance. I grew up with the ghosts of orthodoxy clinging to my childhood home, and with nothing of the spirit or of the understanding that should have accompanied those few traditions. Other than learning how to decode Hebrew, everything I’ve learned about Judaism I’ve pretty much learned in the past thirty years and mostly on my own. I did send my children to day school, and though they were raised with all the holidays, Shabbat, and synagogue attendance, I could not convey the spirit of Judaism to them because I did not have the language to convey it. I had never seen it practiced, and I have learned that it doesn’t come to us though some mystical osmosis. I had no role model. So all I was able to do was to expose them to something that I knew was of great value, but had not at that time internalized myself. At seventy-two, I am finally developing the vocabulary of spiritual awareness, and the connections between spirit and practice, but I came to it too late to instill in my offspring that which I would have them instilling in my grandchildren. I do not see my most of my grandchildren being involved in yiddishkeit because they have no one to model it. I try when they visit, but they all live very far away, and I see them infrequently. As it “is what it is,” “it will be what it will be.”
I understand exactly how Mendy feels. He will consider any deviation from the norm he is giving his children as a personal failure on his part to convey to them the beauty and joy of adhering to all of the mitzvot. I consider my inability to convey to my children and step children the beauty and joy of becoming part of a Jewish community, involving their children in Jewish activities and education, and keeping the Jewish traditions in their homes my greatest failure. One step daughter, to her credit, is deeply involved in her Jewish community, but I had nothing to do with that since she never lived in my home nor has ever taken any religious direction from me. To her great credit, she came to her involvement on her own. Would that my grandchildren will do the same one day. As Shakespeare wrote, “It is a consummation devoutly to be wished.”
August 20, 2011
Mendy Log
Parsha Ekev Deut. 7:12-11:25
Mendy and several members of the congregation were away at a conference so our other Chabad rabbi, Rabbi K, possibly the tallest rabbi in the world, took over the bemah. Also, there was an unscheduled ufruf that was supposed to take place in Ohio, but the bridal party’s flight was canceled because of the bad weather. So the bride and groom were here and the big party was in Cleveland. I love watching he little kids scurrying up to the bimah to gather the candies tossed towards the groom after he read his blessing.
The parsha begins with G od telling the people that if they adhere to all the laws He has given them, they will be rewarded with rain in each season, good crops, peace etc. But if they move off the set mark, bad things will happen. This is clearly doing what is right so you can get the reward, and too Pavlovian for my tastes. Then Rabbi K said that Maimonides, the great physician, theologian, philosopher, and commentator of the Middle Ages, wrote that you do the commandments, not for the rewards, but because it is the right thing to do. Rabbi K then opened the discussion to these seemingly contradictory motivations. As always, there were many interesting responses. I even responded, but my response had more to do with people evolving in what they saw between the promises in the Torah and the realities of what really happens in life. I must not have made myself clear because the rabbi moved on with out much comment. What was glanced over was that Maimonides’ reason led him to recognized that there is little relationship between how a person acts in life and the quality of the rewards or punishments he or she might actually garner. This was his reason for changing his focus on the rationale for doing the mitzvot demanded by G od. I am not convinced that I am not correct in my assessment, but more certainly can be said.
When the original laws were given, our ancestors, as far as their moral development was concerned, were just at the beginning of their development. Reward and punishment and avoiding punishment was paramount in their minds. They had only recently come out of Egypt. Children will say that they don’t do certain things because they don’t want to be caught and punished. They do not say they don’t do certain things because not doing something is the right thing to do. The carrot and the stick is a way you get children to behave. When the Torah was given to us, we were still children functioning at the intellectual levels of children. We needed time to evolve.
Those who stressed this Medieval sages’ rational side, referred to him as Maimonides, the son of Maimon, and those who stressed his Torah learning referred to him as Rambam. First of all, he was a rationalist and a student of Aristotle and as such, Maimonides wanted to merge the logic demanded by this Greek philosopher with the morality discovered in the Torah. To do so, he reinterpreted how we might view Torah laws now that the Jewish people had been tramping through time for about 2,000 years and had somewhat matured. He must have also recognized that morality could not be effective if the people were still functioning at a primary moral development level of reward and punishment. So he posited the idea that the reward for doing a good deed is the feeling one gets from the action and the fact that one good deed leads to others.
Modern educators who deal with how morality and values become inculcated all agree that there is a process in the development of both and the process reveals a hierarchical order. Not breaking the law for fear you will be caught and punished is at one end of the moral development continuum while not breaking the law because you are part of a social contract with others for mutual protection is at the other. Holding a value because you want approval from others who are in power is at a lower level of valuing than holding a value because you have chosen among alternatives and after thoughtful consideration of the consequences.
I think that Maimonides was teaching that though G od demanded that we accept his morality and values when we were a very young and immature people, we had come along in our development where we might be able to look at these demands through the eyes of mature, rational beings and see the logic and benefits under the command that we do these things. So the sound of the shofar reinterpreted as a call to the people to worship and repentance and not a sound to scare away demons. We are a people who question and this attitude that we must question is a gift to the Jewish People from Maimonides. We are a people who have evolved from the fear of punishment to recognizing that there is a mutual benefit if we all attempt to do what is right even if there is no reward. I do believe this was the core of Rabbi K’s message to us, but I may not be remembering everything that was said.
August 27, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Re-eh Deut. 11:26-1617
Mendy began by telling a story about his parents fiftieth anniversary, and how their children sent them on a trip to Russia and Ukraine for the purpose of visiting the graves of great sages of the past. It was what they wanted as their gift from their children. When they returned, Mendy mentioned to his father that when he was in Russia, he, too, had visited several of these graves. His father’s response seem to imply that Mendy went there so he could say he was there, and the elder rabbi further informed his son that their trips were very different. The father said that when Mendy went, he went with a camera. He took pictures. The camera separated him from the real experience. Mendy’s dad said that in anticipation of his trip, to experience it fully, he had studied the lives of these rabbis and their writings so he could better appreciate their genius and their contributions. If I know Mendy, I think he may have been slightly humbled, but walked away wiser. Certainly, he had to have learned from this encounter because he used it to point out the fact that we are entering the month of Elul which is the month of preparation for the High Holidays and our encounter with G od. He reminded us that to do this properly, we, like his dad, must prepare for the meeting. He asked us to not to come into the shul as one who has a camera and keeps the camera between himself and the experience. He asked us not to base the experience of attending services on whether you are sitting next to an interesting friend or whether the rabbi has something valid to say. The important experience is in the encounter and the relationship with G od.
I’m not sure if Mendy suggested how one prepares, but my mind started wandering to how I think I should prepare. This is what is good about Mendy. He moves us to consider where we are in relation to what he is saying even if he doesn’t ask you directly. This may or may not be his intent, but it’s how I see it because it is how I am effected. Anyway, I started thinking how I should prepare myself for my encounter with G od, and what G od will I be encountering. My G od concept has never been all that clear to me, and I am still trying to formulate a consistent belief even at my age. I am still not there. I know my G od is not in the earthquake we felt last week, and not in the hurricane winds I am anticipating as I write this. The destruction and the fear engendered are too negative to be considered as factors even though I do think Spinoza’s had a piece of the truth. I do believe G od to be more in the “still, small voice” that is more within than wiihout. Preparing myself for the encounter will come through a process of self-assessment and contemplation. Elul is that time. I just need to make time for Elul. We should know where we are and who we are before we enter and know before whom we stand. I pulled myself back from this tangent, because I was missing the rest of the talk.
When my revery dissolved, Mendy was talking about a part of the parsha that spelled out what animals were kosher to eat and which were not, and I learned something I never knew before. It seems that our tradition believes that the character of the animal in some way infuses itself into the people eating it, so other than specific physical characteristics that make something kosher such as chewing its cud and having a cloven hoof, there are, qualities such as gentleness that are absorbed in digestion. This is a charming belief, but I’m not hinging anything on it. He did focus on forbidden birds which are the scavengers, and on one in particular. Three different names are used in the Torah for this bird, and all are mentioned so one cannot conclude that if it is not the word you use, it ok to eat. I have forgotten the names used, but one characteristic of this particular bird is its eyesight. Though not in the Torah, it is said elsewhere that the eyesight of this bird is so sharp, that from Babylon it can see corpses of animals in Israel. And because some sage said that it sees dead things, it is not fit for the Jewish diet because the quality of seeing only that which is decaying or bad might be absorbed. Basically what Mendy was saying is that if you see only the negative, you are not seeing clearly and your relationships will suffer. Mendy mentioned that he has a tendency to point out the missing button rather than complimenting someone on his suite. I have that tendency myself, but I have tempered it considerably in the past years.
At this time he mentioned someone who taught him that a child must be complimented eight times before he or she can be criticized once. Parents who are only critical of their children believing that constant correction will improve the child’s performance, personality, or self-image only damages the relationship with the result that the child no longer hears. I can still hear my dad say, “That’s very good Lenny, but where are the other two points?” A 98 was not good enough. Only 100 was to be praised, and after several times of getting that response to my small successes in elementary school, my immature brain concluded that I could not please my father and that I would always disappoint him. I don’t recall ever trying very hard to win his approval after those youthful experiences. In time his approval didn’t matter, and we didn’t have much of a relationship until he was an old man and I moved him up from Florida. Then I saw him just about every day, and at one time, he actually did say that he was proud of me and of what I had become. Parents just never know what their kids are concluding based upon what parents are saying to them. My daughters were raised with compliments and support. One other thing about compliments is that people become suspect of them if you use a compliment to get at a criticism. For some people you just know that if they say something nice, you can expect a “but” to follow. Having a few experiences like that will lead a person to conclude that the only reason this person says something nice is to get to what they really want to say which is critical. It’s much better to compliment and leave it at that. Then, if you have a criticism, you can state it without the person anticipating it. Mendy professed his preference for people who are not always complimentary and who are not always critical, but I can’t say I recall the happy combination that gets him to consider you a friend.
The final part of the drush had to do with giving charity, and Mendy spoke about how the spirit and intention behind the giving was as important to the recipient as the gift or money itself. The Torah makes it clear that “the poor will never depart from the land,” and that it is incumbent on those who have to support the poor. The word “charity” has at its root the French root for heart. The Jewish word for charity is “Tzedakah” which has at its root, righteousness. I think it is more important for the welfare of those need if righteous is at the core rather than the heart. People need to be supported even if your heart isn’t in it. That’s a truth. Ultimately, it’s the hand giving out the money that is important. But that’s not what Mendy said. That’s what I believe. Sometimes my heart just isn’t in it, and I give anyway.
In the concept of tzedakah, there are seven levels. Mendy did not go through the levels, but one level is that one gives and does not know the receiver and the recipient takes and does not know the giver. In this way, there is no embarrassment to either person. The Torah exhorts the people to give with an open hand and open heart. But if the person knows you and you know the person who is requesting help directly, it is incumbent on you to make that person receiving your largess know that you feel their pain, and that you hear and understand them. Then when you give, they will welcome even a small amount. To make his point about hearing and understanding with compassion, Mendy told a very personal story about a man who came to him who was trying to raise money for his son who was born with a birth defect and was now in danger of dying if the medical insurance premium could not be paid. At the very same time, a very wealthy man in England decided to gift $540 dollars to every Chabad rabbi in the world. Mendy, living by the Torah he teaches, listened. This surprise gift check was waiting to be deposited, and Mendy, with a full heart, opened his had and endorsed the check over to the man. We need to take the time, at the very least, to listen and empathize even if we cannot help. The act of listening is in itself a kindness that is appreciated.
September 3, 201
Mendy Log:
Parsha Shofetim Deut. 16:18-21:9
Mendy’s message today dealt with having complete faith in G od. At least that’s what I’ve concluded. But getting there was a rather circuitous route because at times I found it difficult to follow the thread of Torah citations, responses from the congregation, and side stories.
He began by referring us to the passage that clearly states that the G od is banishing all the people before the Israelites because they perform unspeakable acts such as child sacrifice, divination, sorcery, and necromancy. To be sure, there were others. These are an abomination before the Lord, and it is for this reason these Caananites were driven out. The House of Israel were forbidden to use any “magic” to divine the future, but were to defer to those specific men and women selected from among the people by G od, who would be prophets,judges and priests. (I’m wondering if s the tradition of deference to the Rebbe or to any rabbi a direct outcome of the admonition to the Israelites to listen to the prophets and judges.).
This idea of listening to those appointed by G od, enabled me to begin to understand what he was about, but right after that, Mendy started talking about not listening because the only one we can truly rely upon is G od. So I began thinking about how one knows when G od is responding to your plea or question for how you are to proceed or how to address the issue you bring to Him? To address this silent question, Mendy said that there is a belief that if you go to the Rebbe’s grave with a concern or question, you will walk away with an answer. That comment caused me to recall that psychology teaches that we all possess the solutions to our own problems, and that we are afraid to implement these solutions because they may put us outside of our comfort zones and cause us to shake up our lives and relationships beyond what is comfortable for us. To some extent I think this is true. He also briefly mentioned dreams as a means to solve our problems or become aware that an issue exists. Ultimately, I believe, we act either relying on our own counsel, on the counsel of others, or we choose not to act at all. But of course, no action is also an action as no response is also a response.
From time to time, Mendy tells stories about people who had written to the Rebbe for advice. These stories, I believe, are meant to demonstrate that mystical connection a privileged few have with G od. Prior to the Rebbi’s passing, it was a tradition that major decisions in the Lubuvitch Chassidic community were passed before his eyes before action was to be taken. Those who fully believed and had that special faith acted on what the Rebbe suggested. Mendy spoke of his own experience with this where he and his brother had been diagnosed with a condition that required surgery. His older brother, of blessed memory, was also diagnosed and surgery was also recommended. The Rebbe was consulted, and the Rebbe said that the two younger boys should have their operations, but the elder brother should not. The doctor was outraged at the Rebbe’s insertion of himself into a medical and possibly life threatening condition. But Mendy’s parent’s followed the Rebbe’s advice, and with in a while, the elder brother healed naturally. He told another story of a family who fled a hurricane in Florida against the advice of the Rebbe. All those who listened remained safe and dry, while the single family fell the full brunt of the storm in the place to which they fled. Was there a higher power speaking to the Rebbe as G od spoke to the prophets? Is G od still speaking to very special people? (I may be able to accept this if people like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorim, and John Perry didn’t claim to have G od on speed dial. If it’s the same G od speaking to them as to the rabbis, I’m not interested.)
Mendy’s parents had unquestioning faith in the Rebbe, and I suppose this story was to illustrate that we, too, must have unquestioning faith in G od. So I have a problem with this request as did several others in the congregation. The most damning exception was one congregant who reminded Mendy that the rabbis in Europe did not support their communities’ efforts to emigrate prior to the Nazis and those who listened went into the gas chambers. Mendy promised a response to this at another time. I do believe that someone suggested that the rabbis were more concerned about safety on a spiritual level than they were on a physical. To such men, the real rewards are in heaven. Now you need true faith to believe that. I’d prefer to live and take my chances with what might follow. Several time I have said, “Pray as if everything depends on G od, and act as if everything depends on you.” This is the statement of someone who is not absolutely sure that G od will come through. Perhaps such a statement enables me to balance G od and His promises, and the reality I see daily in my life. I would not mind having such a faith. I would not mind a little absolute certainty.
To this cynic, a rabbi making medical decisions comes close the Christian Science and Jehovah’s Witnesses’ philosophy. I reject these beliefs as I reject all fundamentalist preaching where I cannot choose for myself without feeling I am betraying my religious leader and my people. Mendy said it was much harder for him to make important decisions since the Rebbe died.
I imagine that had the Rebbe passed his mantle to a successor, the Lubavichure community would
have been happier and more secure. Still, they continue to function and I guess they exchange opinions with each other much like beggars are required to fulfill the mitvah of exchanging alms. I am positive that Mendy would rather tell me how to bring the spirit of Elul into my life than whether or not I should get a wart burned off. But then again, I wouldn’t ask Mendy about a wart, but I would ask him for direction on how I should prepare myself to go out into the fields to meet the King.
Mendy Log:
September 24, 2011
Parsha Nitzavim/Vayelilech Deut/ 29:9-31:30
This is going to be a short one because preparing for the holiday is taking up a great deal of time, and I am writing this several days after the drush was delivered.
Mendy addressed two seemingly contradictory laws from this weeks parsha. The first law had G od requiring His people to “stand fast to the law.” That seems pretty straight forward. But on the very next page of the text, G od requires the people to “move forward,” as regards the law. This was paradoxical since how can one stand fast and still move forward? [I thought of time and how one of the great contributions to the world was the Jewish idea that time and life did not move as if they were on a wheel that went around and around where events only repeated themselves. On such a wheel, change is impossible. But along came the Jews who proclaimed was that life could change and that people could change themselves. We were slaves in Egypt, and then we became free. That exodus gave humanity permission to change the way it could view itself. The Jewish People taught the world that all people can create and recreate themselves if they are brave and willing to risk the staus quo. And humanity has never been the same since because humans are dynamic beings who must move forward to survive. We change, and we also move forward. Jews conceived that life moves forward in a spiral, moving yet turning back on itself as it moves forward. We spiral forward, growing yet keeping our rites, holidays and personal yearly events. Now, facing another year, we hold fast to the law as we celebrate the birth of mankind and creation as we’ve done for millennia. The traditions and the rites of Rosh Hashonhah were handed down in ancient times by our ancient laws, and yet this holiday also asks us to strive to grow and become better. So this is how I comprehended the paradox of standing fast and moving forward.]
Mendy had something of a different take one it, and his take was more about creative ways of thinking outside the religious box so one might keep “fast to the law” and “still move forward” to address very real needs. The first story he told was of a couple who had tried everything they could to conceive a child. Finally, they went to this doctor who told them that he could help them if they did exactly what he said for over a year. They agreed, and entered a rather strict regimen. The doctor kept very complete records of ovulation patterns and did tell them that if they were to conceive a child, it had to be on a certain day at a certain time. They were overjoyed until they checked the calendar and found out that day was Yom Kippur, a day when Jewish people are not permitted sexual intercourse. This devastated them because their rabbi and all the others said that they could not break this law. It was only when one elderly rabbi suggested that while it would be Yom Kippur in this hemisphere, it was yet to be Yom Kippur in another, and it was suggested that the couple fly to a country where the holiday was yet to happen. This they did, but Mendy did not know he outcome of the story. [ I for one thought that if you can break the laws of the Sabbath and of the High Holidays to save a life, why not be able to break the laws to create one, but that’s the Reform Jew in me coming out.]
Mendy also told a story of his nephew who was more interested in playing foot ball than in attending to his religious traditions, and since Mendy’s brother is also a rabbi, the stress between the father and son must have been enormous. So the young man wants to sign up for football but that requires permission from the parents. The father was adamantly opposed to this venture both because he saw his son falling away from the tradition, and also because games were to be played on the Sabbath. Now the problem was not playing on the Sabbath because that is permitted. The problem was traveling to the games on the Sabbath. Mendy’s brother was advised that if he didn’t sign, he would further alienate his son from the family, but a strong message was that he had to “stand fast to the law.” So how do you stand fast and move forward? It was decided that if the boy could travel to the games and stay in the motel before sundown, no law would be broken and everyone could get something of what he wanted. Again, this solution as well as the solution for the couple was thinking outside the box. People were allowed to hold fast to the law, and yet move forward. The younger Mangel seems to be doing OK and making efforts to follow traditions.
[The ability to think outside the box is an ability that has enabled Jewish people to survives the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” heaped upon them over the centuries. To survive, Jews have had to think creatively because the status quo which is maintained by thinking “inside the box” has historically not been particularly good to us. Perhaps that is one reason why we some of us are in the forefront of revolutionary movements. I think perhaps that such paradoxical laws in the Torah were what gave the Jewish People permission to think creatively. This proclivity coupled with our mandate to make the world a better place, has given the Jewish people a penchant for being creative. I do believe our contributions to Western Civilization attest to that proclivity.]
Mendy told one story that was tangentially attached to his nephew’s. He recalled that he had taken off from school to go skiing with friends and this was reported to his father. With great trepidation, he entered his father’s study expecting to be severely reprimanded, but his father only asked him if he had a good time. His father, obviously recognizing his spunky son’s proclivity to “test the waters,” surprised Mendy with his response. Tateh was thinking outside the box. He did not want to alienate his son. It’s always surprising to our offspring that we can be understanding, and I think we should be reasonable occasionally just to keep them off balance.
October 1, 2011
Mendy Log
Parsha Ha-azinu Shuvah Deut. 32:1-52
When Isaac asks Abraham where the sacrifice is, Abraham’s reply is that “G od will provide.” This idea of G od providing, begun in the Akedah story, the binding of Issac traditionally chanted on the first day of Rosh Hashonah, continued into today’s Shabbat drush. Mendy’s primary request through out this talk was for us to have faith that G od will provide and does provide. The core concept in the binding of Isaac story is not so much that human sacrifice was to end, but about having complete faith in G od and what G od provides.
Cynic that I am, I immediately had a problem, because the concept of “G od providing,” conjures up the idea that G od has a greater plan and to accept this core idea, reality must be suspended. I can look at my life and be very grateful for what my life has become in the past thirty years, and I would love to have the faith that G od took notice of me and provided me with Toby who, with her love, support, and respect, helped me turn my life around and become a better person. But the reality is that G od has not provided for others who are probably more deserving than I to catch a break. There is suffering, fear, destitution, disability, etc. among good people. Why is G od not providing for them as well? What kind of plan could there possibly be that allows for such suffering? Yes, I know that Job was asked “Where were you when I created...etc. etc., but Job had that faith. I’m having difficulty with the “leap of faith” necessary.
Mendy used the example of the Exodus as his vehicle for talking about G od providing. Having been enslaved in Egypt for about two-hundred and forty years (I think,) our ancestors had had everything provided for them. At least in their slavery they were secure in knowing that the Egyptians would supply them with food and shelter. Moses comes along and inspires them with the idea that if they have the faith to follow him into the desert, G od will provide for them. According to the story, G od provides them with the Torah which will become the guide book for living a righteous life, and G od also provides them with water, raiment, shelter, and food. G od did provide them with tangible means of survival, and he continues to provide for us now. So says Mendy.
Mendy then merged the idea of G od providing and the faith one needs to accept this into the entire sequence of holidays celebrated at this time of year. Beginning with Slichot which is a week that we are suppose to spend preparing ourselves to encounter G od, to Rosh Hasshonah, the time we encounter Him and praise Him as we enter His presence all the while involving ourselves in the process of introspection. On Yom Kippur, where we seek forgiveness for past behaviors and are most open and eager to enter into a very personal relationship, we resolve to make meaningful changes in our lives for the betterment of ourselves and for those around us.
But then Mendy said that this was not enough, and if we stopped at this point, we had failed to fully appreciate what we were about in the soul journey process. He then spoke of Sukkot, the holiday where we are charged with building ourselves a small room outside, a succah, a room that is open to the sky, covered with branches, and symbolic of the tenuousness of existence that our ancestors experienced as they wandered for forty years under G od’s protection. We are asked to leave the comfort of our own homes at least symbolically, and live and sleep in the sukkah as a reminder that like our ancestors, we, too, are indebted to G od for what he has provided for us. And the full realization of this belief and this faith, coupled with what such a faith brings to us, leads us to the holiday of Simchat Torah, our rejoicing in the law.
This law, these moral teachings found in our Torah, I see as the ultimate provision G od has made for us, for without moral law, as the Ethics of the Fathers teaches, “men would devour one another.”
I had never heard the holidays sequenced this way before, and I really appreciated seeing the flow of concepts. The span one must cross from Slichot to Simchat Torah is indeed a large one and to meaningfully do it with any degree of success takes personal space, silence, a sincere desire to connect with the transcendental, and a willingness to suspend disbelief. I do not know if I shall ever attain the faith that Mendy proposes, and I shall continue my journey with him as my primary guide. I think somewhere in the Talmud is a statement that one should “get oneself a teacher.” Mendy is mine.
Mendy Log
October 15, 2011
Shabbat Chol Hamoed
Yom Kippur is a holiday that is devoted to self-introspection and a coming to terms with who you are and what you can do to make yourself better. Another Rabbi this holiday told a story that was tangential to this Who am I? issue. It takes place in a town called Chelm and all the people in that town are well known fools. So before the holiday, one man goes to the ritual bath as is the custom, and thinks that since all people know one another from their clothing, and everyone will be naked, he will tie a red string around his toe so he would know who he is. During his emersion, the red string comes off and floats onto someone else’s toe. The first man sees this and goes over to this other man and says, “I know who you are, but who am I?” Admittedly, it is a silly story, and it does point to a truth that most of us project who we are from what we own and wear but reveal little of our true selves to the world. Perhaps we are not sure who we really are or perhaps we know who we really are and prefer to keep ourselves hidden. In effect, this man of Chlem had lost himself.
But on another level, this losing of one’s self is very much in keeping with the spirit of this holiday, because on Yom Kippur we are to give up ourselves and become one with the Spirit and the Power that pervades the universe. We atone. We become at one. We do this by not being concerned with the needs of the physical body. What is done daily is not done today. Our souls are nourished on prayer and contemplation. During the week prior to Yom Kippur, we prepare for this moment. Then it is over, and since no one can exist in this state for any length of time, this holy day is followed by Sukkot, the holiday were we celebrate with food and friends the prospect of becoming whole again and our return to our spiritual individuality.
The Succah, the little house we build to remind us both of G od’s care and shelter in the wilderness, and the instability of life, itself becomes a place where no matter how big or small, lavish or plain, one becomes whole again and a separate entity from God. We do this in a recognizable and symbolic way.
There is the lulov which is composed of a sprig of myrtle, a sprig of a willow, and the spine of a palm. These three types of trees are symbolic of types of people: inflexible with little flavor or personality, pretty, bending to any wind, weak, sweet smelling but without substance, etc. The ethrog, the fourth element, is a special fruit that is yellow and fragrant, and symbolic of that human being who is righteous and learned, in short, the ideal Jewish human being. By taking the three of the lulov and the ethrog in hand, one is combining all types and making the people whole. The act is the act of unification, and causes us to recognize and consider the various aspects of our own natures and how we are to proceed knowing who we are and what we are capable of doing. Unless we are willing to consider the “Who are you? question, change won’t come about.
October 22, 2011
Mendy Log
Parsha Bereishit
M’kor’s new rabbi has initiated a study session on Shabbat morning from 9:00 to 10:00. This works out perfectly for me since Mendy gets up to speak at about 10:10 and it takes me only a few minutes to get from M’kor Shalom to Chabad for Mendy and services. What follows is a combination of my study session with Rabbi Address and a drush given by Mendy’s brother-in-law who was invited to speak.
The translation of the Torah used at my Chabad begins with the traditional line, “In the beginning, G od created the heavens and the earth.” The translation used in my Reform synagogue begins with the line, “When G od began creating the heavens and the earth...” Both translations are valid based on the root of the word “bereishit” and both impress us with the idea that there is a pre-existing Being who creates. But where the former implies that the event took place and ended at a set time some 5772 years ago, the latter implies that creation is an on going process. I think I prefer the ongoing process translation because it supports the idea that humanity is charged with the process of co-creating with G od in order to make the world a better place.
Any consideration of this creation story, at least in a Reform context, raises the issue as to why there are two very distinct creation tales regarding the creation of Adam and Eve, and they explain it as the coming together of two story traditions that were combined into one tale when the Torah was codified. For the Reform Movement, elements of Genesis act as transformational myths explaining for example why women give birth in pain and why men must live by the sweat of their brow.
In the Orthodox tradition, the two versions are explained as one expanding on the other so you understand more of the details. While the Reform Movement will posit the idea that the story is the Jewish People’s creation tale which is just one of many among ancient stories. If this is the case, the logical next step is to consider that if the earliest story in Genesis is not only fictional but also probably borrowed from more ancient tales, we then logically conclude that the Torah was not given in its entirety on Mt. Sinai to Moses, but was compiled from stories written and told by our people over the centuries and written down centuries after Moses lived. Opening this door must then lead us to the thought that the Genesis story and the deity posited was also the creation of human beings so we ourselves might address the following questions: Who are we? Where do we come from? Why are we here?
But beyond this is the overarching question: Is there a pre-existing creative Being above and beyond humanity that established a concept of morality and is the authority behind that morality? If there is not, then the question of good and evil becomes relative and situational; a concept that changes from person to person, group to group, country to country, etc. Who then sets the standard? Everything becomes permitted if there is no authority above and beyond humanity to hold humanity accountable for its actions. Therefore, people who do not believe in the Torah G od have a serious problem of answering this question.
Orthodoxy believes that there is a pre-existing creative Being who dictated the entire Torah to Moses at the time he was on Mt. Sinai after the Exodus from Egypt. By accepting every word as G od’s absolute truth, there are no conflicts or questions. In fact, questions, denials, or even considerations as to the origin of the Torah and the existence of G od, are considered a desecration of G od’s Name which is blasphemy.
So these were the thoughts of a Reformodox Jew entering Chabad to listen to the commentary, the prayers, and to the Torah being read from the beginning as is our yearly tradition. My dilemma remains that if G od is a creation of humanity and there is no authority above groups and governments, none of us are safe, for without a secular law that is applicable to everyone emanating out of a moral law, “men would eat each other.” So my conclusion hovers around the idea that even if G od is a fiction, we desperately need this fiction as the authority behind moral law. The most brutal murderers on both the Left and on the Right of the 20th Century, Communism and Nazism respectively, both denied the existence of G od and the philosophy of Nihilism gave them permission to act as they wished.
Mendy introduced his brother-in-law as the guest speaker. He was interesting and well spoken. He also dealt with creation, and raised a question as to why G od chose to call everything into existence using ten utterances rather than just one. Certainly since all but humanity was created by fiat, G od could have called forth everything at once a would have been done with it. But the rabbi said that G od chose ten utterances rather than one because if He used only one, there would be no questions as to His existence and therefore there could be no free will. Doubt is needed for free will to exist. But by creating with the ten utterances corresponding to the ten emanations from the Kabalistic seferot, G od deliberately hides knowledge of His absolute existence and it is this action that will ultimately cause humanity to question and be forced to make choices. In truth, being absolutely sure of G od’s existence would deny us of our humanity and of our ability to develop.
To reinforce this, I believe one of the rabbis spoke of the idea that while we are told that we are created in G od’s image, we are never told what that image is. We believe that since there is no physicality when we think of G od, we must then consider “image” as something akin to unbounded spiritual potential. This open ended image concept allows for great opportunities for human growth and human potential.
But because we use must use language, we are forced to use images to describe the ineffable, a concept that cannot be described. So we are given images of a loving or angry father, the protective wings of a bird, a warrior treading down His enemies etc., etc,. etc. This is solid, anthropomorphic images, offered to us so we might better relate to this G od, denies the intention vagueness of “in G od’s image” and such personifications keep people from coming to terms with concepts of G od not easily imagined. Of course, most people only know the Torah/Rabbinic concept of G od which so many of our people reject as something scary from childhood because that is where they learned about G od in the first place. Never having been taught any alternative Jewish concepts as children, some walk away from the faith or rarely consider G od as a factor in their lives even if they stay within Judaism.
So I started thinking about some other concepts of G od different from the old man judging from a sapphire throne. I thought of Martin Buber who said that G od is the “eternal Thou” and found in the genuine dialogue with another human being. I thought of Eric Fromm who said G od is a symbol of our highest potential, and I thought of Mordecai Kaplan who taught that G od is the sum of everything in the world that renders life significant, worthwhile, and holy: a force that encourages us to become fully human. And of course there is Abraham Heschel who said that G od is the source of our insight and intuition, or sense of the sublime. Each of these rabbis saw the openendedness of the “G od created man in His own image” statement, and took permission to expand our understanding of G od in more sophisticated and intellectually acceptable ways than those that require that we acknowledge the existence of a Being with images easily understood by children.
October 29, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Noach
Mendy asked the question as to why G od would put a rainbow in the sky to remind him not to destroy the world? I’m not exactly clear on the specific answer because Mendy gives us a lot of information, speaks rapidly, and we cannot take notes as you well know. I think we were told that the rainbow did not appear for the first time after the flood, but had been there since creation only now it had another purpose and that was to remind G od not to destroy his creations again. But I do think that part of the clarification had to do with the four ages that span existence: the age that was defined by those who lived after Adam and Eve, the age defined by those who lived after Noah, the age defined by those who lived after Moses, (the age we are currently in,) and the age that will begin after the arrival of the Messiah.
The first age begins with creation and extends for ten generations from Adam to the birth of Noah. During these generations, G od gives to humanity and humanity takes. It is a one way delivery system. G od gives and man takes. Humanity, like Adam and Eve seem to be children with the benevolent and indulgent parent providing for them. But like Adam and Eve who chose not to remain children and disregarded the wishes of the parent creator by eating the apple and “having their eyes opened” to reality and knowledge, their descendants also at one point decided not to continue to “take” what G od was freely offered by freely deciding to go their own way. In freely choosing this path, they degenerated through promiscuity, idol worship, refrained from sacrifice, and were involved in other nasty bits. G od then declares that “man is evil from his youth,” and in the very next chapter, He chooses Noah, a righteous man in his generation, (no criteria for righteousness stated) and his family to repopulate the earth. But first, G od decides to destroy the earth with a flood, and after repopulation will reveal the Noachid Laws which are applicable to all humanity. These (I’m sure) G od hoped would put this newer and improved version of humanity on the right path. The next ten generations are counted from Noah to Moses, but again, mankind also rejects the Noachid Laws and humankind moves again to a degenerate state. But since the rainbow is the reminder to G od that he must not destroy humanity again, He gives us the Torah as a guide. This begins the third age, and we must still be in it because the fourth age is the age of the Messiah when everything will be nice again.
So Noah leaves the ark and the first thing he does is to sacrifice one of the clean animals that G od ordered him to take on the ark possibly just for that purpose. The sacrifice created a sweet smell to the Lord. (It seems to me that G od likes a sweet smelling sacrifice because it is here He declares that He will never again destroy the earth. That’s when he says that when there are heavy clouds in the sky, the rainbow within the clouds will be a reminder of the covenant he has made between himself and the earth.
Prior to attending Chabad, there was a study session at M’kor, and the emphasis and questions raise could not have been more different. For a Reform Jew, the bible is a revered document that is a compilation of at least three distinct efforts to tell the story. This division of Judaism teaches that the story of the flood is just one of many ancient attempts for non-scientific minds to understand the world and make sense of it. The flood story itself is based on a much earlier story flood that comes from Mesopotamia. It is called The Epic of Gilgamesh and the counterpart of Noah is Ushnispitim. He, like Noah, is told to build an ark, and the dimensions and method of building it are clearly stated. Even the birds that are sent out are initially the same. It seems the gods are annoyed by the noise humans make and they decide to destroy the world by water by calling upon primordial forces that are soon out of control. The gods are described as “cowering like dogs” and totally out of control. It is probable that this story was well know to our ancestors and it was incorporated, but in the hands of the Hebrews, G od destroys the world because people have become corrupt and He regrets having created them. This is a G od that demands moral clarity, and very unlike the gods of the land between the two rivers.
The question was raised about the “nakedness of Noah,” how his son’s reacted to the event, and what the event might have meant. So the fist thing Noah does is to sacrifice an animal. This is indicative of man’s instinct to be grateful. G od is pleased with the sweet smell, but perhaps G od is more pleased with the fact that Noah’s initial act is an act of giving thanks. Has mankind learned a lesson. Then the next statement is one of great economy. It says, that Noah planted a vineyard, made wine and got drunk.
It is impressive how the Torah, compresses time. Now personally, had I just witness my entire world and all the people I knew and the relatives I had drowned, I, too, might have survivor’s guilt and need a drink or two. And in his drunken stupor, Noah is “uncovered within his tent” as one translation puts it. In Leviticus, the use of the phrase, “uncover the nakedness” is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. This provocative statement is found in other translations. So the implication is that something sexual may have happened while Noah was drunk. This tale might be just a warning of the evils of alcohol, but if the translation is closer to the Levitical prohibition, something sexual may have transpired between Noah and his youngest son, Ham who becomes the father of the Canaanite people. So Noah curses Ham and his descendants, the Canaanites which has something of a political ring to it. Let’s face it. The people of Canaan were being displaced by the Hebrews and what better rationalization could there be for their fate other than they were cursed to be slaves. Now of course Ham could be innocent and just made an error in judgement by reporting that he had seen his father naked. But would such a minor indiscretion be worthy of such a curse?
Someone raised the issue that this story was a metaphor for rebirth. Water has always been a symbol of life to all cultures, and the boat might be the womb carrying the seed of life in the form of Noah and his family. They are floating on the substance that gives life and will be pushed out into the new world with the mandate to go forth and multiply. It is similar to the story of Adam and Eve who are in a womb called Eden and who are pushed out also to populate the first world. The whale in Jonah is a womb and Jonah is pushed out to become reborn as a prophet in Israel who saves Niniveh. It’s an interesting concept and gives just another level to how this remarkable book may be read.
There are several interesting interpretations as to whether or not the flood happened. I for one am sure something happed that had a lot to do with a lot of water, and this cataclysmic event may have been the catalyst for massive migrations that carried this event to the four corners of the earth that became the myths and legends we have today. Professor Wooley of Princeton University in the 1920's began digging in different parts of what was Mesopotamia and reached hard mud. He dug through the mud and found the remains of very ancient civilizations. The underground mud extended for miles in all directions indicating that there had once been a massive flood that washed away a civilization. Certainly those living on the periphery of this catastrophe told and retold this story. The Minoan Civilization was wiped out much the same way when the island of Thera erupted. One of the most intriguing theories is that once upon a time, an inland body of fresh water in the general area of what is now Turkey, Iran, and Russia, became the Black Sea when a violent earthquake destroyed the land bridge that separated the Mediterranean Sea from this inland fresh water lake. Can you imagine the power and the destruction of this larger body of water cutting through this newly opened fissure in the earth we now called the Bosporus. Can you imagine those who survived those who witnessed this horror carrying this tale with them as they left this devastated area to begin life somewhere safer? Encased in the silt of the Black Sea, divers have found the skeletal remains of fresh water sea life as well as evidence that people lived at levels far below the current sea levels that exist now. Yes, I do believe there was a flood. Yes, I do believe that my ancestors heard this story and took it as their own to explain the actions of a righteous G od who demands that people should behave well.
Now within this parsha is also the story of the Tower of Babel. This is clearly a transformation myth to explain why there are so many languages in the world. The Babel story basically tells us that originally, mankind spoke one language and that seemed to threaten G od much the way G od seemed threatened at the thought that Adam and Eve would eat from the Tree of Life as well as the Tree of Knowledge and become more like the hosts of heaven. So G od confuses their tongues and languages are created.
Back in about 1960 while taking a course in linguistics, I learned an interesting theory called the Indo-European Hypothesis by Otto Jesperson which posited the idea that at one time there was one group of people living in a place where there were bees but no oceans, that spoke a language that became the parent language of just about all languages on earth today. Languages change with time and with travel. Is it not possible that many, many millennia ago, a group of people who spoke the same language, while living in that area near or around the Black Sea, experienced the cataclysm, fled, and set down roots all over the world carrying the story with them and speaking a language that would develop into the known languages of the world today? The Torah is indeed a record of human events.
November 5, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Lech Lecha
This parsha is the one where G od tells Abram (he gets to be Abraham later in the story) to get up from where he is and go to a land he will be shone. With complete faith, Abram takes his wife Sari (who later become Sarah) and his nephew, Lot. The implication is that where ever you go, G od has a reason for sending you there, and it is in that place where will fulfill your purpose. Abram was to fulfill a particular purpose and I imagine it was to tell the world of a single G od who was the creator of all things and that he was to model correct behavior for others to follow as dictated by this single G od.
It’s an interesting premise, and it may have been good for Abram, but from where I sit, too many people are in too many bad places for this to be a good plan. Are those who are dying of food poisoning dying so the Food and Drug Administration can realize that regulations need to be strengthened? To reinforce this idea that there is a “plan,” Mendy told a marvelous story that is true.
The story begins several hundred years ago in a small town where many Jewish people live in relative poverty but in relative peace with one another. As in most towns, there are different organizations to help out those most in need of help, but the wealthiest Jew in this particular town refuses to give to any of these organizations. Eventually, he is give the name “miser” and is shunned and ridiculed. When the old man dies, the rabbi and the townsfolk decide not to bury him in the part of the cemetery where the righteous are buried and they bury him in potter’s field. Not long afterward, the poor people of the town come to the rabbi to complain that the merchants, who before the Sabbath, would provide for them after the paying customers left the store, would no longer continue this practice. So the rabbi calls for the merchants and they tell him that it was the miser who had given them the money so the poor could have Shabbat provisions. The rabbi is devastated realizing that this very righteous man had live among them and took no credit for his generosity, he, the rabbi had condemned him and buried him away from the community. To atone, the rabbi asked that when he died, he should be buried next to the miser.
Flash forward to a rabbi mistakenly invited to speak at a Catholic seminary when it was his professor brother they wanted. After telling this story, a young man comes up to him wearing a clerical collar and tells the rabbi that before his mother died, she told him this very same story and that not only was he technically Jewish because she was Jewish, but the miser was his great, great, great, great grandfather. The young seminary student had not believed the story until the rabbi confirmed it.
Flash forward twenty-five years. The rabbi, who seems no to have changed very much over the years, is at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Not far from him is another man who appears to be a rabbi surrounded by many students. The rabbi leaves his students and come over to the older man and tells him that he was the very same seminary student who rethought his life and became a rabbi. The elder rabbi then tells the younger one that he had investigated his own genealogy, he discovered that he was the great, great, great, great grandson of the very same rabbi who was buried next to the miser. Coincidence or something planned that worked its way out over generations?
Now I have some questions.
Was it a mistake for the rabbi to make that speech instead of his brother or was it pre-ordained?
Was he put in that particular place because his purpose was to bring this seminary student to a new realization of who he was and become a rabbinic scholar?
Was this how the rabbi in the first story was finally redeemed by the behavior of his descendent?
Are we all where we are and doing what we do for a special purpose?
Do we have any clue as to what that purpose is?
I am also thinking about this idea of determinism and the concept that we are not free agents and our lives are directed by some plan. Baruch I Spinoza stated that everything is pre- determined because everything is Go d and that G od speaks through pre-set natural laws. And since we are part of nature, and therefore part of G od, we, too, must follow the pre-determined order of things. There are causes for behavior and causes for the causes and for the cause, etc. etc. There is no free will in Spinoza’s philosophy. Mendy says that G od determines what path we shall take, and that we are on that path to fulfill our mission on earth even if we are unaware of what that mission is. Yet Mendy says we have free will. I am confused. Determinism is determinism no matter what the reason, and I reject any philosophy, religious or secular, that holds to it. Of course, there is no answer. Of course the truth will be revealed when the Messiah comes.
The Torah study group at M’kor Shalom also dealt with the same parsha of Abram being called upon by G od to leave everything he knew and go forth, but the conversation was decidedly different. Here we started out with the questions Why Abram? How can G od tell someone to go somewhere and not say where? Comments led to the idea that all people get a message to get up and go in search of life, and any one can be called at any time. But why is it that some people move forward into life and some seem ossified and cannot move? Why does person A moves forward and person B becomes resigned and curls up emotionally?
We make existential choices based on our genetics, the family tapes that switch on and off in our decision making process, and how we deal with the randomness of life and the opportunities and barriers that suddenly confront us. We have major transitional events that insist we get up and go. Each of us has a lech lecha be it an elopement, a marriage, the birth of children, divorce, a new job, a death of someone. For each, Judaism has rituals and blessings to help us celebrate and move through these rites of passage. Some of these rites of passage bind us to new responsibilities so we are not free, and some free us for the first time in our lives.
We spoke of Judaism as a religious civilization that demands that you move forward. We are a faith that emerges out of searching. The rabbis say search and you will find meaning. We are compelled to search and find own passion. How do we uncover the layers that we hide behind to see ourselves? You have to keep arguing. The end does not give you meaning, but the search for meaning gives you meaning. It is what you experience and learn in the search that helps you grow. You have to find the answer yourself. Faith helps you go forward.
Prayer is an inner connection and communication with our own moral compass, and with something beyond one’s self which we can sense.
If G od is everything and is both within and without, is it blasphemy to think that prayer is an inward conversation with that aspect of G od that we are?
November 12, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Vayeira
This particular parsha is one of the most interesting in the Torah. Here you find not only the story of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction, but you also find the story of Isaac's birth, the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, and the binding of Isaac. Both rabbis chose to speak about the Sodom and Gomorrah and came from it from very different viewpoints.
Mendy spoke about Abraham as the quintessential man of hospitality whose tent was open on four sides so any traveler would see and be welcome. He compared this quality with the people of Sodom who were quintessentially selfish and treated all people who did not live there as the “other” and to be feared. To this end, they take on iconic proportions. To point out Abraham’s devotion to hospitality, we are made aware that when he sees the three strangers (angels who each have a particular mission) he leaves off talking to G od to tend to his guests. The commentaries say that G od was not slighted in the least.
Mendy then went into midrash, those stories that tell what is in the blank spaces between the lines and words of the Torah written centuries ago. I’m a little fuzzy on this because Mendy often speaks rapidly and is frequently interrupted by a particular congregant who insists on being heard. Mendy, always gracious, tries to respond to this congregant but more often than not, the congregant is not satisfied so he continues. So by the time Mendy gets back to his original thought, the thread is often broken and I am sometimes lost. So I think this particular midrash told the story of how G od found the soul of the man who would be King David in Sodom of all places. I think the midrash is teaching that if a man (soul) such as David's could exist in Sodom, there is the hope that Sodom itself could be redeemed in the future.
Now Sodom existed centuries before David was even born and Mendy did not clearly explain how this was to be reconciled, and if he did, by this time I was somewhat lost in my own musings. So I reasoned that since the mystics believed in transmigration of the soul, perhaps this very old soul that would one day transmigrate into King David was living in a man who lived in Sodom. That seemed reasonable to me if any part of this story can be reasonable. But it seems David’s merit and his soul’s existence at Sodom assures us that the city will be rebuilt when the Messiah comes and the people will be redeemed. So the message is one of hope, and hope is a particularly Jewish message.
Mendy then referred us to the Ethics of the Fathers and went through four statements relating to ownership and relationships. I can’t find my copy of the Ethics, so I only can recall three:
“What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine,” speaks of an evil person.
“What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is yours,” speaks to a person who is a righteous man.
“What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours,” speaks to a normal relationship, and the rabbis say that this is the way things were in Sodom. Here, a man did not care about another, but took care of himself without concern for his neighbor. This attitude seems normal because it is right and proper that people take care of themselves, but unlike those in Sodom, decent people take care of themselves and also take care of those in need. This is what being a decent person means. This is what being a good Jew means. Mendy said something about the end of days, when the people of Sodom will recognize this truth and behave decently towards one another. Then, no one will be the “other.”
At M’Kor, the conversation was decidedly more sociological and psychological and definitely less spiritual. We spoke about Abraham arguing with G od to save Sodom and Gomorrah, and we were told of the pre-Hebraic traditions of the Hittites and Canaanites where the wife/sister motif was common. When a woman came into the clan as a wife, she also assumed the honor of becoming a sister. At one point Abraham tells Pharaoh and another king, Abimelech, that Sarai is his sister so as to save his life, but it was not entirely untrue. Still, the idea of giving your wife other to another by today’s standards is reprehensible. (The alcoholic supervisor I had while working on my masters degree suggested that things would go better for me if I pimped out my wife to him. I refused and nothing more was said of the matter. He was drunk at the time. While it was not a life or death situation, it could have been a masters degree or else no job situation. Happily, he backed off and he approved my production.)
I think somewhere I read that Sarah was in fact Abraham’s half sister which was not an uncommon tradition in that time if only to keep the wealth in the family. Isaac will act the same way with Rebecca so there must have been a tradition that kings could murder a husband if only to get his wife as a concubine. Again, we must try not to judge these men for wanting to stay alive. They were weak in numbers, and had to use their trickery and deception in order to survive in a land where the mighty were the law. The Torah does not tell us if Rebecca or Sarah agreed.
The questions were raised as to why Abraham argues with G od to save a corrupt city when he is silent when he is told to “listen to Sarah” why he sends Hagar and Ismael to a certain death, and silent when he is told to sacrifice his youngest son.
I for one could understand sending Hagar away, but Abraham was a relatively wealthy man, and certainly he could have afforded more than a flask of water and some bread for his second wife and son. For a man who prepared a sumptuous meal for the strangers who visited him while in pain from circumcising himself and not provided for his own blood to insure that his wife and child survive in the indecisiveness, is reprehensible and the rationalization that Abraham had faith that “G od will provide” just doesn’t cut it with me. His complete lack of empathy and charity towards his own sons does not speak well of this paragon of virtue despite what the midrash tells us and what the rabbis teach.
Mention was also made that the binding of Isaac was used by the Christian church as a precursor to Jesus, as the son of G od being sacrificed by his father, and that the halting of the act is also a polemic against child sacrifice indicating that we, as a Jewish civilization, will not practice this abomination.
There is a diacritical mark over one of the words in the story of Lot called a shalshelet, and the drawn out sound that it suggest is used to describe Lot’s indecisiveness at making up his mind. There are three places in the Torah where this mark is used. We were not told what the other two are.
The Torah reflects what happens in real life. Lot welcomes to his home the two angels, and to protect them, he is willing to sacrifice his own daughters to the mob who is outside his door demanding to “know them” which is a biblical euphemism for sex. Lot’s horrendous offer to the mob is interpreted as a sublimation of his own sexual desires for these girls. He will let the mob do to them what he dares not do. His is a dark fear. Lot has no hesitation in offering his daughters, but hesitates when these angels insist that he leave with his family. At this moment, Lot is weighing the loss of property and comfort, and must be pulled out of the city with the admonition not to look back. On a psychological level, Lot is frozen, caught between desires. We are often caught between our desires. It is the struggle between our spiritual and the physical selves. The warning not to look back is a psycho-spiritual interpretation that if you keep looking to the past, you will become ossified in it and will not be able to move into life. Lot’s wife symbolically and dramatically demonstrates this reality. She looks back and is turned to salt. In short, we must learn to live with the destructive tapes that play in our heads and move beyond them. We are to take warnings seriously, and when we are hesitant and cannot decide when making those decisions that will change our life, we risk paralysis and turn ourselves into salt.
Lot insist on fleeing to a small town instead of going into the mountains as the angel suggests, but this is where Lot’s true character is exposed. Lot is not a good man as we’ve seen in his relationship with Abraham, and has dark, unconscious desires, and a fear of death. Both Lot and his daughters struggle against sexual demons. Freud will later call this “The Electra Complex” named for Electra, Agamemnon’s daughter who murders her mother out of love for her dead father.
Lot and his daughters soon tire of this shabby town and go to the mountains where the three take up residence in a cave. The cave image is a metaphor for the womb which is a temporary comfort, but ultimately blurts you into your life and into reality. The dark desires soon become their reality. In this extreme isolation from society, inhibitions are lowered, and the dark urges come to the fore. Without society as a moderating factor, such desires are not easily reined in. The daughters decide that there are no men left with whom they can procreate, and think that the way to save humanity is to have a child with their father. But this is a ludicrous rationalization since they both came from a town were there obviously were people. Now this also may be an illustration of a women’s drive to procreate, but satisfying maternal instincts in this way is totally unacceptable, and this may be an indirect indictment which will warn the nation of Israel that incest is forbidden. This prohibition will be greatly expanded upon in Leviticus 18. So the daughters get their father drunk, copulate with him and become pregnant with two sons. One son will become the progenitor of the Moabites, and the other the Amorites.
This tale may also have some political overtones as did the story of Ham as the progenitor of the Canaanites. Like the Canaanites, the Moabits and the Amorites were enemies of the Israelites, and what could be a better history for them but to have them descended from an incestual relationship? It is to be noted that the rabbis give the daughters a pass because of their stated instinct to save humanity. The rabbis were not looking too closely at what the daughters said were their motivations and what was the reality of their situation..
The Book of Gensis is fraught with Trauma. The innocent Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden of Eden and their reality becomes a life of sweat and pain. Then the trauma of having one of their sons murdered by the other. Noah is traumatized when he sees his entire world destroyed, and then is sexually abused by his own son. Lot sees his home destroyed, his wife turned to salt, and his daughters pregnant by him. Now that's trauma. Ishmael and Hagar are sent off by Abraham and Sarah into the unknown, and then Abraham traumatizes Isaac by putting him on a alter to be sacrificed. And what of the trauma Sarah suffers upon hearing of such a thing that leads to her death?
Trauma is an integral part of these people’s lives and it is, from time to time, a part of ours. Perhaps this is one of the underlying messages of Genesis to us. Perhaps it is saying to us, you have work to do to deal with your trauma, and you will continue to repeat your own trauma if you continue to stay in your past. The Torah message is that you must move on.
Mendy Log:
November 26, 2011
Parsha Toldot
This parsha tells us the story of Isaac and Rebecca which is a story of a family where there is disagreement between the parents regarding their twin sons Esau and Jacob. It is also a story that raises the questions of “ Do the ends ever justify the means?” “Are we to try to see something good in everyone?” and “Are we ever to judge others?”
Mendy wove these questions into a narrative that was disturbing in its duplicity, where a mother is pitted against a father, a parent against a child, and a brother against a brother. More and more, as you read of the descendants of Abraham and Sarah, you find a family dynamic that is very real and continues to be reflected in contemporary times. Putting aside the religious significance of these people and the stories told about them by our rabbis to turn them into paragons of virtue, these people ring true to the modern reader because they are so very real in their conflicts and so absolutely flawed. I do believe that these people really existed and have something important to say to us today about familial relationships if only to awaken us to what can go on that may be going on outside our conscious awareness.
Twins are born to Rebecca and Isaac, and Rebecca is informed prior their births that the older one will serve the young. This she does not tell to her husband. As the boys grow, it is obvious to the parents that the elder, Esau, the one who will be responsible for carrying on the traditions, is a wild man who has little regard for the traditions and the faith that his parents and grandparents established. Jacob, the younger is just the type of person who will. Isaac shows love for his son Esau despite the reservations he has on his son’s nature and possibly believes that with such affection, the boy will change. But Esau sells the birthright of the first born to his brother for some soup, thus indicating his attitude towards carrying on the family traditions. He also marries two pagan women and this causes great stress for his parents. Later, he will taunt his parents by marrying a third. But Isaac is a traditionalist, and the laws of the times demands that Esau be given the blessing and all rights of the first born. Rebecca will have none of that knowing that it is through Jacob that these new beliefs and practices will continue, so she devises a plan to substitute Jacob for Esau. Jacob wants this blessing, but is afraid that if his father sees through the ruse, he will be cursed. Rebecca assures him that any curse will fall upon her. Jacob’s concern is not that he will be cheating his twin, but that he might be found out and cursed. Jacob is Rebecca’s child. Meanwhile, Esau, a seemingly devoted son, goes out to hunt so he can make the stew his father requested, and receive the promised blessing, but Rebecca has Jacob dress in Esau’s clothes so he will smell and feels like his brother. The blind Isaac famously says, “The hands are the hands of Esau, but the voice is the voice of Jacob.” It is conceivable that Isaac did know what was going on, but he did bless Jacob possibly because he, too, knew that it would be through Jacob that the faith would move forward. He could also later claim that he was duped by Jacob’s and Rebecca’s duplicity when Esau came back. And Esau does come back and flies into a rage with threat to kill his brother. But Isaac still has a blessing for Esau which may be indicative that one was held in reserve for just such a time. Rebecca overhears Esau’s treat and sends Jacob to her brother to get a wife from her tribe and that will insure that the traditions will continue.
So the idea of whether the ends justifies the means comes into play.
At stake are new traditions and a new faith perpetuated against the rights of the first born to his full inheritance. Had Rebecca not imposed her will as her mother-in-law, Sarah did by getting rid of Hagar and Ishmael, the Jewish Civilization would not have come about, and certainly, whatever we now have in Western Civilization would be remarkably different. The law of the land dictated one behavior and Rebecca saw beyond the law to what she considered a greater good. We do not know what was really in Jacob’s heart. Did he want the birthright and the blessing to perpetuate the faith, or only for the rights and privileges they offered? The rabbis have made Jacob golden, but personally, I think he was a conniving individual who took advantage of situations. He was not described as a strong man, so he had to survive by his wits and cunning. This was also valued in his society and certainly valued by his mother. Perhaps that’s why he was so lauded in rabbinic traditions. The weak have to survive. Knowing what I know about what civilization needs in order to develop, I would say that without this duplicity, Judaism may never have developed, the Torah would never have been written, the Greek translation of the Torah, the Septuagint, would never have become the “Old Testament” of Christianity, and the values based on the Torah’s ethical principals would never have become the values of Western Civilization through Christianity. In this case, I believe that Rebecca’s ends did justify her means.
I don’t recall how we got to the following two questions, but I think they might have been rabbinic commentary related to viewing the characters in this story. “Are we to try to see something good in everyone?” and “Are we never to judge others?” Giving Jacob the benefit of the doubt, we can say that being a “quite man living in tents,” he was sincere about perpetuating the faith and traditions of his father, and not just interested in the rights of the first born. While Esau was a wild man who loved hunting and the fields, we can say that he was devoted to his father though not interested in perpetuating his father’s traditions. We can say that Rebecca had strong values and knew how these values were to be perpetuated. These values she tried to inculcate in her sons, but they took hold only in Jacob. It would be Jacob who would perpetuate what she and her husband deemed important. Isaac was silent on most things perhaps because he never fully recovered from being place on the alter as his father’s test of faith, but he appears to be devoted to his sons, and this was a saving grace. I can see trying to find the good in someone because that’s a point at which one might begin if a person is to be brought forward to a better life and better behavior. But let’s face it, there are certain people who are just evil, and the fact that he or she may have loved a pet or was a good artist, cannot be a counter weight on the scales of decency.
Also, that we are never to judge is antithetical to the law of the Torah. It is noble to say that “until you walk a mile in a man’s shoes” you should not judge him, but this flies in the face of the admonition that “You are surely to rebuke your neighbor that you do not bear his sin,” and “You shall burn the evil out of your mists.” To do both demands judgements on another’s behavior. There is also a law that says, “You shall not stand idly by upon the blood of your neighbor.” To stop what is going on is a judgement on the person who is causing the bleeding. Do I have the time to “walk in his shoes?” Are we to see the “good” in an abuser or try to understand by “walking a mile in his or her shoes why he or she is abusing someone now?” There are certain moments where action must be immediate and there is no time to consider the motivations for the actions that you see. What must be immediate is the judgement.
The conversation with Rabbi Richie again took a different tact. At M’kor, the focus seemed to be more on the psychological motivations of the characters involved, and a birth issue that seemed to establish the younger sibling as the one who is more deserving of the honors. Abel was more deserving than Cain, Isaac was more deserving than Ishmael, Jacob was more deserving than Esau, David was the youngest of his siblings, Solomon was younger than Adonijah, etc.
By rejecting the concept of primogeniture in favor of quality of character, the Torah is establishing a new vision for the world which is echoed by Martin Luther King millennia later in the statement, “It’s not the color of your skin, but the content of your character.”
An important piece of the conversation dealt with the parenting styles of Rebecca and Isaac, and the undercurrent of hostility that existed between the two that led to the divided parenting style. We talked about how in such a case, it is common for a parent to come to depend upon the children for fulfillment because they cannot find fulfillment with their spouse or in their marriage. We see Rebecca depending on Jacob, and Isaac depending on Esau. Each parent compensates for being in a dysfunctional marriage by devoting themselves to their children.
We are not sure that Isaac is not aware of what is going on. He is described as “zakain” which means old and it can also mean wise. Isaac knows that Esau is violent and Isaac must also know that Esau does not stand for what is valued in the family. Also, there are certain patterns that emerge in this family such as both Abraham and Isaac claiming their wives were their sisters so as to save their own lives. This was not entirely untrue since in old Sumerian documents, the wife may be portrayed as a sister for legal reasons, and these people abided by the laws of their pre-Hebraic culture. Abraham and Isaac are cunning and survivors. Both dig wells, fight over them, but to maintain the peace, dig new wells. Abraham and Isaac will finesse, sue for peace, stretch the truth, and negotiate. These were the methods the weak needed to employ in order to survive in a society that did not countenance the value of morality. Jacob is also this type of person having learned survival skills from his father and grandfather. But Esau is an in your face guy with little guile and ready to fight. He is not like his father or grandfather. Abraham marries someone from his tribal family. Isaac does the same. Esau marries three local pagan woman.
Isaac may be getting even with Esau for marrying out and not willing to continue the traditions of faith of his family. It is Isaac that orchestrates the blessings perhaps with the hidden intent of saying when all is revealed that “I’m a blind old man so don’t blame me.” Considering this family, that seems like a viable scenario. And Jacob does not see himself as doing something wrong. Deception is a way of survival in this family.
This story explores several key issues in the Torah. It raises the issue of whether there are times when the ends justify the means, and why some people discount the high moral standards taught and still get away with their despicable behavior. Do Rebecca, Isaac, and Jacob do something morally repugnant by conspiring to steal Esau’s blessing in order to attain a higher purpose?
What seems to be at stake and at the core of this story is the perpetuation of a new idea in the world. Ultimately, this new idea will be that there is a universal creative G od whose primary demand is that we treat one another well, and it is in behavior, not in correct faith that we can connect with this creative power. And so we might be tempted to ask ourselves if there is any greater good than to act in the name of G od and in the perpetuation of faith? And yet, in the name of G od or in the name of religion, millions of good people have been slaughtered.
Must horrible things have to happen for a greater good to happen? Much of an answer to this question will depend on whether you believe that there are forces of evil in this world that confront the forces of good or whether there is no such thing as good and evil or right and wrong and such concepts are of human creation. If the latter is true, than any person may take it as his or her right to do whatever he or she wants to do because such people feel like doing it. I do believe that there are evil and cruel people in this world who wish to impose their wills and beliefs on others because they perceive themselves as entitled and powerful. Such people need to be stopped, and at times, wars such as World War II is the only way to stop them. The means was war and the Axis Powers were defeated. That was a good end. To contain terrorism, key terrorists must be targeted and killed to keep innocent people safe. The way such murderers are taken out can be justified if innocent lives are to be saved. If everyone played by the same rules, and the playing field was level to all, then the laws of morality could always be applied. But people do not behave well and therefore the laws that would normally apply might not always be able to be applied in life and death situations. “To save a life is to have saved a whole world “is a strong criteria for deciding whether or not the ends justify the means.
Mendy Log:
December 3, 2011
Parsha Vayeitzei
Mendy had laryngitis and Rabbi Menacham gave the drush. I arrived from M’kor late, so I’m not exactly sure how he got on the topic of man’s ego. However he got there, I believe he thinks ego is absolutely important for survival and I tend to agree. If I remember correctly, he also spoke about the good and evil inclinations and connected ego with the evil inclination.
I agree that it the human ego may dwell in what we call the evil inclination and I’ll tell you why. Somewhere in the Talmud it tells us that without the evil inclination, a man would not build a house or have a child. So on one level, this says to me that having a child may have something to do with projecting one’s self into the future by passing genetic material along, thus achieving some sort of immortality. To me this is the ego at work even if it is done unconsciously. Building a house is a reflection of who you are also, and a house houses all your “stuff” which also reflect who you are. Our stuff and our homes are our egos made manifest for others to see. Our procreation and acquiring are ways of saying to the world “Hey, I am here and I was here.” That’s the ego at work, and there is nothing wrong in that. Of course, when this need pushes the ego to lengths where other people are harmed so one’s ego may be expanded at the expense of others, it is here where we get into the evil inclination and the breaking of commandments. Coveting and murder are on the darker side of the evil inclination continuum.
But the good rabbi insisted that we should have strong egos and the resulting selfishness from a strong ego is not a terrible thing because it is such selfishness that impels us to move forward to create, contribute, and to gather. After all, the rabbis teach us that G od made the world for us and animated us with His own breath. How could we not think highly of ourselves. How could we not feel somewhat self possessed? But the key point that was being made was though the world was given to us, we must give ourselves to G od, and in the giving of ourselves and in the opening of our hands to others who were also animated by G od’s breath, we find G od and establish that singular relationship we crave. There were other important things said, but I cannot recall. There were also questions raised and comments made by the congregation. Even I made what I thought was a very perceptive comment, but I cannot recall what it was.
The discussion at M’kor was decidedly different. The parsha dealt with Jacob’s ladder and the recurrent theme of love, manipulation, wells, and going away. The word for ladder or stairway is salom. Jacob’s dream is the first dream in the Torah, and Rabbi Address spoke of this dream as an ego boost and a wish fulfillment as well as a source of prophesy and a direct communication with G od Himself. Certainly, Jacob’s ego was really massaged by the dream. Whose wouldn’t be what with angels walking up and down and with G od either standing above you or beside you giving you His personal blessing? It was also noted that the Bet Din, a rabbinic tribunal centuries ago developed a ritual for turning bad dreams into good ones by insisting that the dreamer think happy thoughts during the day so his behavior and dreams will change. It would seem that Behavior Modification Therapy was invented by the Talmudists.
We spoke of the going up and down of the angels as symbolic of the rise and fall of the nations that the Jews will have to live with. In this way, according to the Medieval commentary, Jacob is a symbol of the Jewish People. Other interpretations has the up and down angels as symbolic of the Jewish wanderings, while still another says the angels are symbolic of G od’s protection. The last of these varied interpretations has the ladder and angels symbolic of Mt. Sinai because according to Gamatria, Jewish numerology, both “sulam” and “sinai’ each have the numerical equivalent of 130.
Then we got into more modern interpretations of the ladder. A ladder is composed of a series of rungs and you ascend or descend step by step. One interpretation is that the ladder is a symbol of transition from childhood to maturity; from dependency to independency.
A Freudian interpretation says the ladder is a phallic symbol to which I said, “Rabbi, sometimes a ladder is just a ladder” paraphrasing Freud’s famous statement that “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” Everyone laughed.
Explored was the idea that the up and down of the angels points to the tensions that exist between earth and heaven; the base desires of the human being, and the spiritual desires of the human being. Reference was made of the yetzer tov and the yetzer hara, the good and evil inclinations that struggle constantly within us much the same way Esau and Jacob struggled in the womb.
One major idea was that we, like Jacob, may not be aware that any place in which we find ourselves, has the possibility of being a holy place. In such a place, ladders are always being lowered into our lives from heaven in the guise of teachers, friends, parents who prod us to do the right thing. The ladder is the opportunity to climb but we must take the first step.
Hope is at the core of Jacob’s dream, and faith is the ladder of hope. At this moment G od says to Jacob: “I will be with you.” It tells us that in the depths of despair, G od is with us and that we are never alone.
There is a rabbinic belief that there are no superfluous letters or words in the Torah, so it was natural to question why Jacob says, “I, I, did not know.” According to the interpretation given us, the first “I” refers to the ego, and if you are only concerned about your ego, you will never meet G od. When we change ourselves and lose our narcissism, then we will know a holy place when we find it. The ego will always get in the way of finding G od. We must lose it. The second “I” is the spiritual “I.”
Yet following this, Jacob bargains with God with “If you do this then I will do that and if you don’t do that then I won’t do this.” Jacob is still a child. Jacob is still directed by the first ego “I. ” Children bargain with parents to get what they want, and the child in us bargains with G od when we are vulnerable and afraid as we were as biological children. Jacob has to wake up first and give up that first ego “I.” He needs to spiritually awaken, and when he loses the extra “I,” the other ego “I” will he be able to fulfill his destiny and become the third patriarch of the Jewish People.
The Rabbis through interpretations and midrashes make Jacob golden as they made his father and grandfather golden. But personally, based on the stories that have come down to us as written in the Torah, I believe my ancestors to be flawed to a fault, and oh so thoroughly human. Perhaps that is why I honor them for who they had to be considering the times in which they lived, and despite their times, did overcome the first ego “I” to be who they had to be. While I can honor them, I do believe that only G od could love these men and their wives. That gives me some hope that with all my flaws and failings, G od can also love me.
December 10, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha: Vayishlach
This parsha is filled with real nail biting drama, irony, fear, deception, murder, rape, love, and spiritual enlightenment. These seem to be normal events in just another chapter in the happy family saga of our ancestors.
Mendy began with the story of Jacob and the wrestling match he has with a mysterious figure who appears to him before he crosses the Jabbok. The wrestling match is a metaphor for the dark forces with which we wrestle before confronting some life altering crisis. Night is the time for torment and conflicting self doubt, and the daylight is symbolic of enlightenment, clarification, and forward movement. Jacob emerges triumphant yet transformed with a new name and a physical impairment, but he does receive a blessing, and concocts a plan that is once again founded on guile, his modus operandi for surviving and getting what he wants.
Using the metaphor of dark and light, Mendy spoke of the Jewish people, and how in America, we are now in the light. For centuries we wrestled in the dark with forces of evil and with our own doubts and insecurities, but here in America, we are free to be the men and women we’d like to be. So what is keeping us from doing that? What is keeping American Jews from embracing their faith and their yiddishkeit? It was an important question to be raised, but it was “preaching to the choir.” I do believe the people at Chabad do embrace their faith and culture and live it daily.
As I listened, I was thinking about the Jabbok which is a titulary of the Jordan. Jacob must cross this river before he can become the patriarch he is meant to be. Moses crossed the Sea of Reeds and became our greatest prophet, and Joshua crossed the Jordan to become a great leader. I would imagine even Abraham crossed the Tigris or Euphrates to become G od’s first messenger, and I wonder how many others of our ancestors had to cross water? I know that my great grandfather and my zeydeh also crossed the Atlantic to survive and become who they would become. It seem archetypical, this crossing of water. Did not Caesar cross the Rubicon?
Mendy also referred the congregation to the words “Jacob arrived intact to the city of Shechem.” It is the only time in the Torah where the work “intact” is used and it refers to completeness. Jacob, having made peace with his brother, no longer felt that he or his family’s lives were in danger. His family was complete.
Peace in the family is a primary Jewish value, since it is the family that is the basic supportive unit and what makes society stable. Jacob feels that he is intact or complete now that he has made amends with his brother. It’s one less thing this man has to fear.
Yet one cannot help notice that Jacob’s peace is a cold peace, and he definitely does not trust Esau. Immediately after the reconciliation, he lies about the need to care for his little ones and the lambs, and as soon a Esau leaves, Jacob take the family to Succoth. Even after the reconciliation, Jacob remains suspicious of his brother, and considering the times and the need for guile in order to survive, Jacob probably has good reason though I did not find anything specific in the Torah regarding Esau’s intentions. Esau is portrayed, not in the Torah, but in the commentaries as quintessentially evil and the progenitor of every evil society that will ever plague the Jewish people. I guess that Esau is the ancestor of Amalek and I thought that was Ishmael.
There is another translation which reads “Jacob came in peace to the city of Shechem,” which is filled with dramatic irony, since we have prior knowledge that Jacob and his sons will destroy the peace of the people of Shechem and murder the king, the prince, and the townsmen later on in the parsha.. Jacob may have come in peace, but he did not leave in peace, and after this outrage, he will never find true peace again.
Rabbi Richie addressed the same parsha, but focused on the story of Dina, Jacob’s only daughter born to Leah. Considered were the 9th Century BCE values and cultural mores that informed the society in which these people lived, and though we are to understand that these were the conditions of the times, we must understand that these times were brutal and cannot be truly judged by today’s standards. Still, what happened then is still happening today because the human psych has not basically changed. What has changed is that some societies have developed better controls and systems to stem the natural inclinations of humanity. And those inclinations continue to be pretty base.
Throughout the story of Dinah, Dinah has no voice. In fact, she is totally invisible as girls were then. When Jacob divides his camp, he refers to his eleven children. She is not even considered in the count. Dinah is chattel, a possession, completely discounted, and has no right of consent. And this innocent teenager, feeling the discount, might have concluded that seeing and being seen is what counts. As the story goes, Dinah, went out to see the daughters of the land. This was a reckless thing to do, but it is natural to crave attention and be initiated into the ways of the world. When Shechem, the prince of the country, saw her, he felt entitled to take her and lay with her. As Isaac felt entitled to kiss Rebecca at the well and give her jewelry before speaking to her father, so Shechem also felt entitled to “know” Dinah without speaking to her father. It was after he “humbled” her that he loved her and sought out her hand in marriage.
It is to be noted that Jacob does not go to rescue his daughter. Her brothers become angry, but lets face it. To them, she is now damaged goods. She is unclean. But still no one asks her what she wants to do. No one thinks that maybe being the wife of a prince where love may blossom is better than being a discounted daughter in a house of eleven sons who can no longer fetch the virgin bride price. Jacob and his sons see only their honor being violated, not their sister’s, and it is only after the slaughter they bring that they take Dinah back to her father’s encampment.
So Shechem’s father, Hamor, goes to Jacob and offers a handsome bride price which includes offering to intermarry with the tribe and becoming one people. This is refused. And when Shechem says that he will do whatever is necessary to have the girl he loves, the brothers “with guile” insist that he, the king, and all the men must be circumcised. To have the girl he loves, Shechem agrees. Now it is to be pointed out that tenderness after abuse is characteristic of abusers in modern life. The acquisition of power abusers feel over their victims can be intoxicating.
Guile is a means of survival among this small tribe, and our ancestors used it to their advantage when they had to. But to use guile means that you have a plan which makes whatever you are going to do pre-conceived. The brothers, Levi and Simeon, chose to use the religious ritual of entering the Covenant as the means of murdering the king, the prince, and the men of Shechem. This in itself is an offensive act, and must not be dismissed as just a warning to others both in the tribe and out of the tribe that intermarriage with other peoples is forbidden. And the other brothers involve themselves by taking the livestock as well as the wives and children of the slaughtered men.
No one is clean in the destruction of Shechem. To me, Jacob’s response to the slaughter of these people continues to reflect the flaws of his character, for never does he berate his sons for the heinous crime, but he berates them for making his name odious to the people of the land and bringing upon him danger. It is always about him. Despite the blessings and assurances he has received, he is still all ego. He is as self-centered as an adult as he was when he was a teenager.
Mendy Log;
December 17, 2011
Parsha: Vayeishev
Mendy began by telling a story about allowing a woman with a full cart and a potentially howling toddler in front of him in line. Mendy, being Mendy, read her face, felt her pain, and blossomed with compassion saying that he understood because he had eight at home. When the woman left, she turned to him and said something to the effect that “he had changed her life” or something similar. Whatever it was, this small act of compassion from a stranger meant a great deal to her at that moment.
This introduction led to one of the core concepts of the parsha, where Joseph, in jail, inquires of the newly jailed baker and wine steward as to why they “were sad?” This simple question which reveals Joseph’s concern and compassion for strangers (which is an indication that his years in prison has tempered his ego, and he has matured from his days of being the favored son) becomes a very important moment because it is from this simple kindness that he will ultimately be freed to interpret pharaoh’s dreams and to become the grand vizier of Egypt (which then allows him to save his family so they could ultimately receive the Torah and introduce Ethical Monotheism to the world. This is his ultimate his purpose for being.)
From this, Mendy spoke about the people around us who may need someone to look at them and ask them Why they are sad? Such a recognitions of another’s pain might be just what is needed for them not to feel so totally alone and not so totally the “other.” Such an empathetic statement is a reaching out to say that someone sees you and someone cares about you. Such a simple awareness of another may just be the thing that saves a life or gives a person permission to go on.
Years ago, I read a story about a man who was on his way to commit suicide off of a bridge, and he vowed that if just one person said “hello” or “good morning,” he would not do it. Well somebody obviously did because we know the story. After reading this, I’ve made it a habit to say “hello” or “good morning” to people I pass in the event that I might be the person that that person needs to save his or her life.
Mendy then spoke of three kinds of people who are represented in this parsha: the man of self importance who leaves little, the man of humility, shy and unassuming who makes great contributions, and the man nobody knows who changes the course of history by a small word or deed.
To Mendy, Rueven, the eldest brother who is in charge of the others and answerable to Jacob, is the first type. According to the rabbis, he leaves to pray because he is wracked with guilt over having bedded one of his father’s lesser wives and to minister to his father. He is taking care of what Reuven needs to take care of and though he initially saves Joseph with the intention of freeing him, he does leave to take care of his own business leaving Joseph in the hands of his brothers. Reuven is all ego, all into his own needs, and think he is important but will leave little of value as his legacy.
Joseph is portrayed by the rabbis as the second type, the type of person who is shy, unassuming, unpopular but who possesses great inner qualities that eventually will be revealed and will greatly benefit his immediate world and possibly the world at large. The rabbis tell us that Joseph is such a man.
Again, here, based on the text, it is Joseph, not Reuven who is the supreme egotist, and this is because of his father. After Rachel dies, Jacob transfers his love for his dead wife onto her eldest son, and sets him above his brothers. The coat is a symbolic reference to everything else that was lavished on him and symbolic of what Jacob denies his other sons. Joseph has dreams of being superior to everyone including his father, and foolishly lords the dreams over the family as I’m sure he has lorded all the other benefits of being Joseph over them. Joseph has an enormous ego thanks to his father and feels fully entitled. It is Joseph who likes being out in front and the center of attention, not Reuven. But Jacob knows about his other ten son’s enmity for their brother, knows about the dreams that annoy him and the ten brothers, and knows that these same ten sons are violent men. Now, this presented me with a problem that also speaks to Jacob’s intelligence. I know Jacob is smart because you have to be smart to be wily and a trickster. So knowing that your other sons detest their younger brother not only because of Joseph’s dreams, but because of your overt favoritism for him, why do you send him off alone in his amazing technicolor coat to find a group who hold him in contempt? These are not nice people. Levi and Judah are both cold blooded killers, and the others had no qualms about pillaging and abducting the women and children of Shechem. What was going on in Jacob’s mind? Was he really that naive? These are questions I’d like answered.
The third person spoken of was that person whose name is not known, but whose actions and words change the course of history and the course of individual lives. The unknown person here is the stranger Joseph meets on his way to find his brothers. Had he not been told by this man that his brothers had taken the flocks to another place, Joseph may have returned home and not fulfilled his destiny. But he goes looking for them, finds them, and begins an adventure that will ultimately save his people and change the course of civilization. This nameless man is pivotal in the action that unfolds because he spoke to Joseph.
As I listened, it occurred to me that each of us effects the world as a nameless person. I know that I have effected the lives of my students and a myriad of teachers, but who knows when something that I did or said to someone changed their thinking in such a way that someone who never heard of me was effected for the better? So in some way, all us nameless people are interconnected with one another, never knowing who we have touched and what the result was. The lady told Mendy that he had effected her life and that had to be for the better. Who can tell how his simple moment of empathy will replicate itself?
At M’kor, Rabbi Richie introduced Joseph as a narcissistic male teenager who is the creation of his father’s favoritism. Jacob had transferred the affection and indulgence he had for Rachel to their son, Joseph, and Jacob may have come to see himself as having to be over protective because now he must be both mother and father. Joseph is depicted as a normal teenager with all the adolescent angst and ego. He is struggling to establish his masculinity and potency as the youngest of ten older hostile brothers. It can’t be easy for him.
The story also seems to reveal the intellectual, spiritual, and emotional growth of Joseph as he moves from adolescence to maturity. As children, we worship ourselves, but if we are basically healthy, we know we must grow. To grow we must ultimately ask ourselves: What is life all about? and What am I leaving behind as my legacy?
The man Joseph comes upon in his search for his brothers asks him "What are you looking for?" The man may be an angel sent with the sole purpose of pointing Joseph in the direction in which he must go. Though he says he is looking for his brothers, on the metaphoric level he might as well be saying, “I am looking for my destiny.”
What’s remarkable about the Torah, is that though the time of the story may be three thousand or more years ago, the human psyche has not changed very much. Parents continue to favor one child over the other, be over protective because of some family trauma, and siblings vie for parental affection and vilify one another. And we must never forget that each of us hears our own Lech Lecha; pick yourself up and go out. Joseph’s is on his journey of self-discovery and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose. It is to be noted that when Joseph does become a regent in Egypt and can do anything he wishes, he does not contact his father or siblings. While Joseph may have concluded that it was G od who sent him down to save the family, I think he was very angry with his family and would sooner have forgotten them. The torment that he will later put them through seems indicative of this anger.
Little has changed in family dynamics over the millennia, and the Torah continues to be an honest guide reflecting such dynamics and emotional states. Why would anyone make this stuff up? These people did live and their story and warnings have come down to us so we might recognize ourselves and become aware of how destructive we might become if we do not exert self-control.
One other theme that was discussed was the womb motif. It is archetypical. We come out of the womb into a new life. Lech lecha begins at birth in a way. Joseph is thrown into a pit which is like a womb, and emerges as a slave in Egypt to begin his mission. Later he is thrown into jail which he describes as a pit, to emerge as the man who will save his family and Egypt. Jonah is swallowed by a whale and spit out to fulfill his destiny as a prophet of G od. The whales belly become his womb. Adam and Eve live in Eden which is a womb all to itself and they are forcefully expelled from it to begin life as rational and aware beings. Children leave their comfortable homes to brave the world on their own and find their destinies. It’s all in the Torah if you look for it.
December 24, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha Mikeitz
(The fifth candle of Chanukah)
Mendy informed us that the Chanukah menorah set up in Haddonfield was stolen, but he had immediately replaced it before people could realize that it was missing. Actually, had the director of the Jewish Community Relations Council and Mendy not decided on a course of action that could have destroyed the young thief’s life, the teenager in question might have been charged with a hate crime and put in jail for fifteen to twenty years. But Mendy, who lives by his faith, is not a vindictive man and decided that an apology note from the young man and hopefully his explanation for his behavior would be better than sending him to prison where whatever nascent Jew-hatred that was emerging might fester. (Haddonfield was once a restricted community so there is probably some residual discomfort with a menorah in the town. To their credit, the Christian congregations offered to replace it.)
It is my impression that Mendy is the kind of man who sees each opportunity presented to us as an opportunity to bring light to a dark world. The incident reminded me of the priest’s response in Les Miserables when questioned as to whether or not Jean Valjean had stolen the silver from the church. The priest says the silver candle sticks were a gift, and Jean Valjean goes on to become an upstanding citizen and brightens the lives of those around him. Perhaps this callow adolescent will take this opportunity to go on to do good things absent of his anger. Of course, the kid could have stolen it to sell it for scrap, but Haddonfield is a very affluent town, so I suspect there was a hint of Jew-hatred motivating him. I can’t help but wonder what in his background gave him permission to do this? We all know that kids are taught by significant people in their lives who have power over them.
This image of light, of menorah light, and human light must have triggered in Mendy the argument between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel who were generally at odds with one another on anything from the placement of a mezuzah on a doorpost to the how to light the chanukah menorah. And since this is Chanukah, Mendy told us that the followers of Shammai, one of the great rabbis of the Rabbinic Period taught that all chanukah candles should be lit the first night and diminished by one each successive night. The rational for this was that the energy emitted and symbolized by all the candles lit at the same time was needed to inspire the people. But the followers of Hillel, another great rabbi of this period 2,000 years ago, taught that you must start small with only one candle, because it was the nature of people to grow slowly and they need time
to grow and see progress from their efforts. The Rebbe adhered to the teachings of Hillel as we do today because the Rebbe also recognized that growth is developmental and time is needed to consider and explore.
To paraphrase this idea in one of the Rebbe’s quotes: The mitzvots are rungs on a ladder. The object is to keep climbing, and as long as you are ascending, you are being a good Jew. It doesn’t make a difference where you are standing at any moment as long as you’re climbing. The ladder is always waiting, and the first rung is not very high off the ground.
To reinforce the idea that we grow with each candle that is lit, Mendy encouraged us to strengthen our Jewish selves by doing something that will move us closer to taking action to bring some light to the world. He encouraged us to bring a friend to the service or invite a friend to the kiddish for food and conversation. Mendy said that each of us was a candle and our mission was to to light the dark places in the world. We could do this one individual at a time.
I think the connection between the Menorah incident, the Shammai/Hillel dispute, and the parsha, had something to do with lighting candles and brightening the world.
Mendy started talking about Joseph’s two sons born to him in Egypt to the daughter of a pagan priest. The eldest son was named Menasha which is a made up name that translates into the idea that Joseph has forgotten the pain and anger towards his family. (Although to me having a child that I see daily with such a name would do just the opposite. The child would be a constant reminder.)
The younger son also receives a made up name which translates into: I have overcome and I have made myself a good life and I am happy and thankful for what G od has given me. But the point Mendy was making here linked us to the idea that we must not wait until we have discarded the baggage we carry from our past to do good or to move forward. Moving forward without a life of mitzvahs is an anathema to Jewish thinking because none of us is ever baggage or issue free, and we were put on this earth to make it a better place which can only be done through the mitzvot.
And since we will never be issue free one must learn to accept these and deal with them effectively because the impetus of life is to move forward. It’s Lech Lecha all over again. In each day we live, there are opportunities to move forward to make life better for ourselves and others be it physically or spiritually.
This idea of moving forward and being a positive force is revealed when Joseph brings his sons to Jacob for a blessing before the old man dies. Menasha, the eldest is to have his grandfather’s right hand on his head, and Ephraim is to have the left. But the old man put his right hand on the head of the younger. When Joseph objects, he is told to back off. The blind Jacob sees that it is through recognition and gratitude for what G od gives us symbolized by the child that the Jewish people will move forward and be blessed.
Like Lot’s wife who looked back to the past, we, too, can become immobilized if we focus on the past and allow it to immobilize us in the present. Moving forward is the only option for survival.
This blessing also continues the motif of the youngest child superceding the elder and continues the idea that spiritual merit is far more important to the Jewish people than age and the traditions of primogeniture.
The womb motif seen in the stories of Adam and Eve, Jonah, and Joseph, and the Lech lecha motif in the Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob stories, are all stories that demand that we move forward. The Joseph, Menasha and Ephraim stories tells us that we must move forward without allowing the past to ossify us.
Note: Jewish boys are blessed on the Sabbath in the names of Menasha and Ephraim, not in the names of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is done because these boys had the option of being pagans, but chose the faith of their father. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob made no such choice. The girls are blessed in the names of the Matriarchs, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel because they did make that same choice when they married their husbands.
December 31, 2011
Mendy Log:
Parsha: Vayigash
Mendy began by informing us of a celebration among Chabadnicks that has been going on for the past 25 years. The celebration is to commemorate a secular judge’s decision that the massive and rare book collection that the first American Rebbe amassed did in fact belong to the Chabad community and not to his relatives. The final piece of evidence was give by the Rebbe’s own daughter who told the lawyer deposing her that she had grown up knowing that nothing that the Rebbe owned was his but belonged to the community. She also revealed that it was the Rebbe’s belief that his sole objective and responsibility was to protect the community and help it to grow spiritually. His library was part of that effort.
After the decision, the Chabadnicks danced in the street for days, and when the Rebbe heard of it, he went to them and said, “Why are you dancing when you should be studying. What is the point of having this library if you are not using it?”
To help us connect with the importance of maintaining books on Judaism, Mendy asked us if in the past months or even the past year any of us had purchased a book on Judaism. Certainly, I’ve purchased at least five that I can recall. And yet, though my library is extensive with over 1,000 books on Judaica, Judaims, Yiddish, as well as art, literature, music, history, architecture, etc. it continues to sadden me that no one in my family will vie for it or make any effort to keep it in tact.
Mendy skillfully linked this idea of Rebbe’s feelings of rabbinic responsibility to his congregation to the Torah portion in which Judah, the brother who was put in charge of Benjamin’s safety on the trip to Egypt, begs Joseph to relent and let the boy go in exchange for himself. He says to Joseph, “For how shall I go up to my father, if the lad be not with me? Lest I look upon the evil that shall come on my father.” The news would indeed kill Jacob, and it would be Judah’s fault because he was responsible for Benjamin. This is Judah speaking of his responsibility for those in his charge.
Mendy opened up a dialogue with the congregation as to what Judah might have said to explain Benjamin’s absence, and all explanations he gave and those who chose to participate gave, would have been valid. Yet Judah is fully aware as are we that ultimately, Benjamin would be in prison. No matter how you turn it, Judah failed in his responsibility and no excuses changed that fact. The proverbial buck stopped at Judah.
For Mendy, this comment from Judah which reveals his attitude towards his responsibility, carries a powerful and important message to all those who assume leadership be they rabbis or lay people, For once you don the cloak of leadership, you own the responsibility of being responsible for both the good that follows and the bad. As a rabbi, Mendy insists that his focus must be on the spiritual welfare of the congregation and that it is his responsibility to poke and prod the members in Chabad to ever higher steps on the ladder of mitzvot. Mendy is the candle lighting our way, and each of us is responsible for lighting our own candle so as to light the way for others.
The candle I’ve chosen to light, lights the way for my students both adolescent and adult. But my adult students are usually grandparents and sometimes lament how their own children and grandchildren behave regarding Judaism, and it may take years before my students take what I’ve taught them to heart in terms of an organized faith and the need for community. Happily, they’ve all taken my lessons on moral behavior to heart and all are decent kids as are my own step and biological children.
At the end of the drush, a hand was raised from a congregant asking Mendy how he responded to the incident about ultra-Orthodox men in an ultra-religious section of Jerusalem verbally abusing an spitting at a young Orthodox girl they did not consider dressed appropriately. The congregant also asked if he, Mendy, as an Orthodox man who looked like these men, felt any association with these people or felt that he would be lumped with these people. Mendy said that he was appalled by such extreme behavior and that because these men wear a beards, they should not not be lumped with anyone else who also chooses to wear a beard. We were assured that these men were not of Chabad, because their vilification of a child was an anathema to the Rebbe’s teachings that any Jew at any state of his or her Jewishness, is to be embraced. He gave a very funny example of making such a judgement error when he said to a congregant, "You look like Bernie Madoff. Does that mean you're a thief?" Mendy was clear that while he could not keep someone from lumping him with these men because of his dress and beard, he made it clear to us that each person or group was responsible for themselves and he owned no responsibility for the actions of these people. To blame all Jews for the action of one, or to blame all in one race for the action of one is illogical.
Mendy made it clear that not all Jews are alike. There are righteous Jews and reprehensible Jews, and that said, we are also to embrace them judging their actions but not their ethos as a human being. It is only by embracing them that we can bring them to a better understanding of what is right. It reminded me of the Christian admonishment: love the sinner, not the sin. One member of the congregation asked how that was to be done, but Mendy, recognizing that he had spoken for about an hour and that several people’s eyes had glazed over a while ago, suggested that the man take a class he was teaching on the wisdom of the Rebbe.