Shlomo's Drash

Rosh Hashana 5772: A Mourner at Rosh Hashana

2011-10-02T12:58:00.000-05:00

I stood in the darkened anteroom corner of this synagogue my congregation rented looking out into the night while the choir rehearses. There were things I should not be doing tonight, on Erev Rosh Hashanah before services. One I’m sure is I shouldn't be writing, tapping out a Shlomo’s Drash blog post on my iPhone, but writing is my heartfelt prayer, and God knows I haven't prayed a lot with kavvanah in these last few months. Granted I’ve been going to services, and I said the prayers, but I didn't pray the way I prayed, praying fervently and with intension. The way I prayed what most would consider prayers when my mom was illl. When I said Kaddish for her the first time at her grave, I stopped praying -- tying to say the kaddish even moths after her death is so hollow. Flowing prose onto screen and paper seems to be the most fervent prayer I've managed.

Since February, my mom had beendead -- suddenly, without real reason. Now my family celebrates The High Holidays so differently. There is no family dinner that mom took two days off of work to cook, using the same pots she has for years. Due to differing timing of services, Sweetie and I cannot even eat at a family meal like I have for so many years. Timing doesn't work out --
For my family, there is a chain restaurant to replace the family meal at home. For us, dinner with friends.

The liturgy has a kind of centerpiece of this season. The Netana Tokef reminds us this is the season where we are judged on Rosh Hashanah and inscribed in the book. On Yom Kippur it is sealed. Who is to live this year, and who is to die. With my
Moms death, this brings up many questions, including the big one: Why did she die now? Why was such a compassionate, good woman inscribed and sealed in the Book of Death? What did she do to deserve that? There are people in this word who are hate filled and spread their hate to all who listen, why should they live and my mom, one of the most giving, caring people I have ever known, have to die?

I have no answers, I can only explore. I, along with many others have never liked the Netana Tokef theology. I have in other of these commentaries changed the Book of Life to the Book of Fully Living. It is not just enough to live, but to make the most of your circumstances to live fully -- to make your world and the world around you a better, happier more complete place. To learn and grow,to engage with God, to perform deeds of kindness -- that is fully living. As the liturgy reminds us every morning, as quoted from the Perkei Avot, the word stands on those three things: on Torah, Avodah, and Gemilut hasidim.

Pondering that, it is time for services, and I walk into the evening service. I hurt, and by the end of the service I hurt so much, I am numb. It makes no sense, I cannot pray at all. Halfway through the Amidah, a page before Modim Ananchnu Lach, I just sit down. It just becomes too difficult -- I feel nothing, I feel no connection. Later, I say the words of the Mourners Kaddish like a zombie -- there is nothing of my soul in me -- it too seems dead. Prayer has left me, and I fell no connection, I feel there is no one to serve. God and I are no longer talking to each other. Sweetie drives me home and I collapse into bed.

The next morning, the numbness is gone but the hurt remains. While dressing that morning, I think about how wonderful it would have been for Sweetie to spend more time with my mom, to go shopping and with her, for them to go to their favorite restaurant and share their favorite pizza.
When I get to the synagogue , and services start, I still cannot pray. I cannot even look at the words in the prayerbook -- although it is bulky, I usually can hold it with no problem. Today, I cannot even hold it. I go through much of the prayers by memory. My mind wanders to the trees outside, behind the window framing the Ark and the Torahs within it. I remember similar windows a long time go, and in my mind I am forty years in the past, in Rochester New York, standing between my mom and my dad, fidgeting at Rosh Hashanah services on my metal bridge chair. The synagogue I remember was rather dark, with a very large 3 steeple-like roof meant to be a tent held up by poles behind the Aaron Chodesh. The steeple behind the Ark was a diamond of glass, and bees or hornets would always be flying into it. I spent many a service looking up into that window out into the grey featureless sky beyond. My mom would point to an English paragraph in the Machzor with a look that told me I should read it. Following my mom’s instructions, I always did.

We stand up for Barchu, and I’m brought back to the present -- though there is a connection to my memory. In Rochester, that conservative prayer book never spoke to me, the english translation was a religion that I did not understand or accept -- the words about Ribbono Shel Olam, HaMelech are so empty and meaningless. There is no connection to something greater for me. In the present, everything I do is so half-hearted, so seemingly meaningless. Eventually we get to the Netana Tokef and we sing in Hebrew the concluding lines “but charity, prayer and repentance cancel the stern decree” as it would be translated in that conservative prayerbook. For the first time today I feel something. I want to scream across the room “BULLSHIT!!!!!!!”. I don’t, though. Instead I cry, tears streaming down my face. Then I hear the rabbi repeat the English for what we just sang in Hebrew., yet with a change: The English uses “comforts us” instead of cancels. Once again we are in the silent Amidah, and once again I cannot pray, I sit down without completing it, bewildered at what I am feeling. Like my mom told me to do decades ago, I look down at the text and begin to read a Reconstructionist response to Netana Tokef, and by extension, to much of the theme of Rosh Hashana. I’ve heard it in other forms before. There is stuff we are able to control, but there is a lot that we are powerless about. To acknowledge that we are powerless and admit that we need to trust God for those things is what ths is about. We do not choose the day of our death -- God does. Nothing we do changes that. But we can make the world a better place in the meantime, and know that it is so for our efforts.

That for me still isn't enough comfort. A kind deed, a small act of Gemilut Hasidim strengthens me enough to get home. I drive a fellow congregant to the train so he doesn't have to stand in the rain waiting for a bus. A thought occurs to me, one I don't like and have a hard time accepting.

What if one person lives life so fully, that it shadows others from doing so? Was my mom so good to all of us, that we could not grow into being as good as she was? Was her death removing her from the picture so we could truly live? Even with all the challenges that are before me personally, all the places I have to rise to the occasion, I have a he'd time believing this. I have not succeeded in many of them, and the future does not look bright for my success. I still don't know what to believe.

I have no answers, Rosh Hashanah leaves me with none. All I am left with is the dread of Yom Kippur, when Yizkor raises it's ugly head for the first time. Will I connect with God sometime in this holiday? I don’t know, but I fear the gates are closed to me.

Ki Tavo 5771: The Evil of Tea?

2011-09-16T06:45:00.004-05:00

This week we read the ceremony of the first fruits and instruction for the ceremony at Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerizim of the Blessings and Curses. As part of the first fruit ceremony we read:

12 When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithe of thine increase in the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, to the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be satisfied, 13 then thou shalt say before the LORD thy God: 'I have put away the hallowed things out of my house, and also have given them unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, according to all Thy commandment which Thou hast commanded me; I have not transgressed any of Thy commandments, neither have I forgotten them. [Deuteronomy 26]

We also read in the curses:

18 Cursed be he that makes the blind to go astray in the way. And all the people shall say: Amen. {S} 19 Cursed be he that perverts the justice due to the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say: Amen.[Deuteronomy 28]

We keep seeing the same phrase: the stranger, fatherless and widow. In each case we are to deal with justice to them -- feed them. This phrase and the obligation to take care of those less fortunate than us show up not just here but in 19 places I could find explicitly:

Ex 22:21-25
Deut 10:18, 14:29, 16:11, 24:17, 24:19-21, 26:12-3, 27:19,
Is 9:16, 10:2,
Jer. 5:28, 7:6, 22:3,
Ezek 22:7, 7:10,
Mal 3:5,
Ps 10:18, 82:3, 94:6,

All say the same thing, and all state that God will take care of the stranger, fatherless and the widow in a very angry way -- with revenge:

22 The LORD will smite thee with consumption, and with fever, and with inflammation, and with fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish. 23 And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. 24 The LORD will make the rain of thy land powder and dust; from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed. [Deuteronomy. 26]

Most modern liberal folk have a hard time with this angry quid pro quo punishment stuff. I admittedly do too. The news for the last few weeks has me wondering. I have heard Politicians and fundamentalist religious leaders blame earthquakes, hurricanes and other catastrophes on passing gay marriage and not cutting the budget for public program that help so many. Yet earthquake and flood aren’t the curse we read about.

It is drought and famine accompanied by fiery heat.

I didn't think much about this until I watched a storm track of Tropical storm Lee, which seemed to go out of its way to avoid Texas and Oklahoma, and deny relief for the drought those beleaguered states are facing. A state with as many problems as Texas makes me wonder. It is a state, though by far not the only one, who oppresses the fatherless, the single mom, and the stranger in their midst. Many in that state, on religious grounds want to ban abortions and would never allow Gay marriages in their state. For this, they call themselves “righteous.” Their leaders believe in life for the fetus, yet Texas is the worst state in the nation for prenatal care. There is only two places in the entire Tanach mentioning a prohibition of homosexuality, and to my knowledge only one in Tanach which hints at abortion being bad. Indeed the Talmud interprets the laws for abortion much differently than this lot of “righteous” people, believing the life of the mother to be far more valuable than the life of the fetus.
If God says something twice, say "a man should not lay down with a male as he does with a woman"[Lev 18:22] it may be important, even though that says nothing about signing a contract of lifetime commitment under God. If you believe that two time is important, if God says something nineteen times, wouldn’t be a good idea to listen? The latter prophets and the book of Kings are statements that oppressing the needy is not a new thing. They also attest to God’s anger in doing so, for oppressing the poor is oppressing the image of God.
I still have a very hard time believing in a quid pro quo God, even on a macro level. Yet I watch the evil around us, and the evil that wants to lead us, and I wonder if such wonders as a massive drought are a sign or retribution from God. While I might hear something about climate change, I don't hear people stating that the catastrophes that plague us this year are because we oppress the poor. Yet I wonder.
The curses are set up to turn those who oppress into the oppressed. It is to turn a whole land, both the innocent and the guilty to a horrible fate. I really don’t know if this is God’s doing. Whatever the cause there are now more poor people in the world, and each needs help. I know what our role is -- and that is to help the stranger, widow and orphan.

D'varim 5771: Pt.2 Resistance and the Yetzer Hara

2011-09-08T10:07:00.000-05:00

In this week’s portion, Moses gives the people a review of the book Numbers. In this Cliff's Notes version he recounts their leaving Sinai, and the story of the spies. He goes into describe their adventure once getting there and the opposition encountered the Amorite kings of Sihon and Og and their armies, who the Israelites completely rout - men women and little ones all die. Moses then recounts the settling of the land by some of the tribes on the east side of the Jordan, ending with encouragement for their new leader Joshua.

What I read today was bloody -- a practically scorched earth policy. It seems so horrible -- a Genocide on a small scale. Is that what is going on? What is going on here?

Like Moses giving his history this week, I need to look at some personal history. On June 24 1979, I read Shlach Lecha, the original story of the spies that Moses summarizes this week, for my bar mitzvah portion. Oddly I was a lot like the Israelites -- I feared a lot. By the time I got to college I still did. In my sophomore and junior years of college I met and was in the very outer social circles of one of the most beautiful women I have ever met. Between her always dating someone else and with my fear, I was intimidated of even talking to her. My senior year she left for a year abroad in France, and I of course graduated. I never expected to see her again.

In May 2008, I put a pintelach in the Kotel asking to find my mate. In August 2008 I signed up for Facebook. On December 28 2008, I got a happy birthday message from that woman from college-- Sweetie. This time Fear did not grip me. Even going on vacation was not going to stop me, and I kept up communication. We met in late January 2009, flew back and forth between Seattle and Chicago from then until August 2009, and when we moved in together. In December, on my birthday I proposed to her. Next week, two years from moving in together, we will be married.

Looking back on the last quarter century of my life, I would answer that: Sihon v’Og zeh yetzer ha ra. Sihon and Og are the Yetzer ha ra, the evil inclination.

We often think of the evil inclination terms of some little voice on our shoulder telling us to do evil things. For example in terms of lust, as found in the Story of Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Meir, who even as sages were unable to control sexual urges when Ha Satan tries to tempt them with really beautiful women sitting in trees. We also find another case of greed leading to injustice in the Haftarah this week in a rather strong rebuke from the prophet to the government, one which sounds all too contemporary:

Your princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves; everyone loves bribes, and follows after rewards; they judge not the orphans neither does the cause of the widow reach them. [Isaiah 1:23]

It is easy to succumb to such voices, as we have seen many times in public figures. Yet the yetzer hara is more than just doing evil to others. There is a phrase repeated several times (1:21, 1:29, 3:2) in this portion lo yira -- do not fear. Yet it is clear that in the wilderness hearing the report of the spies the people did fear. They even went into battle fearing their adversary and ended up with their butts handed to them. Sun Tzu’s art of war makes an important point:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Why does Moses start his farewell speech with this much edited and very personal take on the book of numbers? Why does he spend so much time rebuking everyone, only to conclude this portion with two incredibly big victories that happened only weeks earlier in Torah time?

I believe Moses was telling the story of the wilderness to make a point: know the enemy and know yourself. . The people, we have heard many times before are "stiff-necked." but what does that mean? I believe it means they gave into their own yetzer hara too easily. Moses was starting his speech with a very important point: there is a yetzer hara, an internal enemy. Give in to it and you can live in fear and failure. Alternatively, don’t be afraid knowing God is with you, and beat fear and resistance in the ground, and find yourself at your fullest potential -- the way God wants it.

There were many things standing in the way of bringing us here to this auf ruf -- the 1800 miles between here and Seattle, coming from very different backgrounds, and not least of all, two stubborn-headed independent individuals under the same roof. Each could have derailed us with a word from our Yetzer Ha ra. The fact that they didn’t is a miracle, and I get to marry the woman of my dreams.

We must know the internal enemy, often it is the most dangerous and destructive. IN anything that brings out our fullest potential and God given talent such is true. Knowing the enemy is the first part of strategy. As Steven Pressfield wrote in The War of Art:

To yield to Resistance deforms our spirit. It stunts us and makes us less than we are and were born to be. If you believe in God (and I do) you must declare Resistance evil, for it prevents us from achieving the life God intended when He endowed each of us with our own unique genius

Sihon and Og is that enemy for the people. The people cannot get to the Promised Land without going through them -- and Sihon and Og both want nothing but to stop them. Any remnant left will go back and stop them. I don't want to think of this on terms of political terms, for that too is a form of resistance to what I am going to ask. I want to think of this in terms of our inner selves, our potential for tikkun olam, for changing the world for good, put into each of us. I beat my fears of dating and am getting married next week. I have many fears of success to yet to beat. How can we all find the Sihon and Og in us so we can all get to our promised lands?

Questions:

Are Sihon and Og metaphorically the Yetzer hara of resistance?

What is the nature of the Yetzer hara?

How do we overcome it?

Is it ever completely overcome?

What is the role of lo yira and God in overcoming resistance?

Parshat D'varim 5771: Tisha B’Av and Marriage.

2011-09-08T10:04:00.002-05:00

This is my Auf Ruf D'var Torah at Emanuel Congregation and Congregation Or Chadash Erev Shabbat August 5 2011

Marriage...Marriage is what brings us here together today.

If there is any movie that my whole family likes it's The Princess Bride, where that quote comes from. At its core was a story of true love between a princess and a pirate. True love brings us together today too.

This week in Torah we begin Deuteronomy, where we find Moses beginning his farewell speech, since he will not cross the Jordan with the people into the Promised Land. Moses starts by reviewing the book of Numbers from the time of leaving Sinai, through the episode of the spies to the defeat of Kings Sihon and Og along with their Kingdoms.

This is also the Shabbat before The 9th of Av, Tisha B'Av in Hebrew, part of the cycle where we commemorate the destruction of the temple. This portion and its associated Haftarah are read always on the Shabbat before Tisha B’Av.
`
For me personally this is full circle. Thirty two years ago, I read Shelach Lecha, the portion of the spies as my Bar Mitzvah portion. I was the first in my family’s generation to be called to the Torah. Here I am the last to be married. Like the Israelites I read about in that portion, I was terrified, so terrified I did not even give a D'var Torah. D’varim this week reviews that episode of the ten out of twelve spies giving bad reports about the land.

There is a Midrash [taanit 29a, numbers rabbah xvi:20] that tells the evening the spies gave their report was the 9th of Av. During the night of the 9th, we read in this week's portion

27 You murmured in your tents, and said: 'Because the LORD hated us, He has brought us out of the land of Egypt, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us.[Deut. 2]

God, in anger for this needless whining, apparently decreed: "They cry over nothing! I’ll give them something to cry about!" So the 9th of Av is the worst day in the Jewish Calendar. Both Temples were destroyed on the Ninth of Av, and the Spanish expulsion of the Jews started on the 9th of Av. The number of events related to the 9th of Av are innumerable.

Usually the Hebrew calendars and secular calendars do not match in dates. In a curious coincidence this year, August and Av match in their dates. The 9th of Av is on August 9th, and the 6th of Av is august 6th. August 6th and 9th 1945 is if course a date known to most of us: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now since the Hebrew calendar did not match the secular one in 1945, there is another connection to the Manhattan project: The test firing of the first Atomic bomb at Trinty site on the 6th of Av 5705, or in the secular calendar July 16,1945.

When planning our wedding, we found out about this, and some other issues about the 6th and 9th of Av. While I knew about Treblinka's ovens and gas chambers getting fired up for the first time on the 9th of Av, I did not know about the 6th of Av 5702, July 23, 1942. The Gila River relocation camp, the fifth of the Japanese Internment Camps was opened on a barren patch of stolen Native American territory. 13,000 Japanese Americans were forcibly relocated from their homes in California to Arizona to what FDR himself called a concentration camp.

While it has no connection to the month of Av, as a computer scientist, one of my heroes is of course Alan Turing, a man I had pause to think about a lot lately. One of the most brilliant men of the 20th century, he arguably did more to advance computer science than anyone else. He also was responsible for a lot of what was necessary to break German codes, and helped the Allies to defeat the Nazis. Yet less than a decade after the war he was arrested and convicted by the British government he so heroically assisted in wartime of the crime of merely being gay. In June of 1954, he took his own life with a poisoned apple. Turing’s story was really my first exposure to what the GLBT community has dealt with throughout history. I’m too aware today, there are still those who hurt and oppress those who are part of the GLBT community.

I think about all these horrible things and cry. It's hard to think about all of that and not cry. To know how much racism and hate continues, that it appears to become more and more institutionalized once again like it did in the 30's and 40's makes me cry. That was, according to the Midrash God’s idea, but it should not just make Jews cry. It should make everyone with a heart and soul cry. Indeed that might be the real motivation behind the 9th of Av: to prove you really do have a heart and soul, you have to cry. Until you cry you cannot truly repent as we approach the season of repentance. Not like I haven’t been crying this year. Without all this historical tragedy, Sunny and I have been crying for the last seven months since the loss of my mom in a totally senseless illness and death. I’ve been crying a lot in the last two weeks. I miss her so much as Sunny and I do what planning and preparation we need to do for next weeks wedding -- much of it she would have done with us or done herself. Grief I buried seven months ago is at the surface now.

Yet, It gets better, and you know why?

Marriage. Marriage is what brings us together today. True Love brings us together today. Because that's the good part of any story, of any fairy tale. This is the second Auf Ruf in two weeks. Ours is nothing special compared to the one last week right here. There are now civil unions here in Illinois. There is the marriage for anyone who chooses to in New York. Last week’s celebration here is one I hope we as a community repeat many Shabbats with many people. Unfortunately we only have half the battle fought, I do look forward to the day when I can say anyone in these congregations can be Married.

Through all that crying I see Treblinka and Auschwitz, Camp Grenada and Gila River, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the latest bullying incident and the insane homophobic statements of politicians and pundits. All go back to what Moses was doing with this week’s cliff notes version of the book of Numbers. To make a short statement objectifies us; it places us in a box. It’s easy to kill or hate something in a box when all you see is the box. For all you know there really isn't anything in the box - it is a mere idea, and you really aren’t hurting anything significant.

The world and the media tells us that we are to fit into a box. Marry someone of the opposite gender, have 2.5 kids and a house in the suburbs, some cars and a widescreen TV. Have a job and be loyal to your company. Have friends that also are in the box. If people do not fit in the box, make them uncomfortable or hurt them until they do.

Funny thing is, such a box a lie -- worse, it is a superficial crust. None of us really fit into that box. Many of us here cringe about even going near that box. Yet we often find ourselves in boxes. Everyone is put into boxes, willingly or unwillingly, and sometimes we find the boxes named not very complimentary names. These generalizations celebrate walls and boundaries. In doing so, generalities give birth to divisions between people. Taxonomies might be good for classifying insects, but what of people?

Abraham Joshua Heschel writes in Who is Man?

Generalization, by means of which theories evolve, fails in trying to understand man. For in dealing with a particular man, I do not come upon a generality, but upon individuality, a person. It is precisely the exclusive application of generalities to human situations that accounts for many of our failures... my existence as an event is an original, not a copy. No two human beings are alike. A major mode of being human is uniqueness. (Heschel, 37)

We are told in Mishnah Sanhedrin we are all unique and all in Gods image. We are all unique, and we can communicate that uniqueness, our bit of holiness by telling stories, by including others in the narratives of our lives. It is harder to be heartless to someone you know their story, and that you tell yours. That is what Moses is doing in D’varim -- telling his story from his perspective.

We all have stories. I know a story of Shlomo and a princess. Shlomo met the most beautiful princess he ever saw but he had been cursed by an evil witch to be quaking in fear around princesses. He wished he could be close to the princess but she had other suitors, and she rarely noticed him. So the princess went away to a far off land and he thought he would never see her again. Shlomo spent many years learning to break the curse, and in time, he did. One cold wintery day he gets a message from the princess. He responds, and then she responds back. He learns she is in another faraway land, a land of seas and cloud and rain -- and really good coffee. They travel to each other several times until they decide to be together. And in one very hot, wet summer, they get married. I don’t yet know if they live happily ever after, but I for one am excited to find out with my princess, my true love.

Marriage, marriage is what brings us together today. May He who blessed our ancestors bless us with marriage and true love that will bring us together for many more Shabbats like this one and last week’s, with many more people and their stories, with civil unions now and weddings for whoever wants one soon.

Shabbat Shalom.

Shelach 5771: Sink or Swim

2011-09-08T10:02:00.001-05:00

Last week I was at the bat mitzvah of our our Rabbi's daughter. In her D'var Torah, the Bat Mitzvah asked a very good question relating to last weeks portion "Who tells you when you are ready?" The answers to that question apply not only to last week's portion, but to this week's which is my Bar Mitzvah portion from so many years ago.

This week Moses at God's command sends twelve spies, one from each tribe into the land to find out what it is like. Ten of the spies report back with good tiding, then deliver the bad news that the inhabitants appear unconquerable. On the other hand Caleb of the tribe of Judah and Joshua of Ephraim disagree and believe that if the people have confidence and they believe that God can help them in their quest, they cannot be defeated. This causes a riot, and Moses, Aaron, Joshua and Caleb are threatened with being stoned to death. God intervenes and after first wanting to kill everybody, decides to just let every adult who left Egypt die out through forty years of wandering in the desert. At this, some of the people, grumble and complain. Some who were at first cowards enter the land to conquer it, only to be completely defeated. We then have some sacrificial rules, and the short story of a man executed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath, followed by the commandment to wear fringes on the corners of our garments.

But the question the Bat Mitzvah asked was sadly not answered by many. Many who tried did not even hear the question correctly. Many thought she said "When do you think you are ready?" But that was not the question, though they implicitly answered the actual question with "I am." and went off to tell when they thought they were ready for something. I have a different answer. I believe who tell us when we are ready is two fold: it is God and our own actions when placed in that situation by God. It has nothing to do with our personal opinion about being ready.

The people when told the bad report by the ten spies, say something interesting about being ready:

And they said one to another, Let us choose a chief, and let us return to Egypt.[Numbers 14]

Last week they described Egypt as:

We remember the fish, which we ate in Egypt for nothing; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic;[Numbers 11]

Next week we read:

12 And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab; which said, We will not come up; 13 Is it a small thing that you have brought us out of a land that flows with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, that you also make yourself a prince over us?[Numbers 16]

All of this points to Egypt as somewhere comfortable, somewhere safe. It was, of course nothing like that in reality. These were the same people a few years earlier crying out to God to save them from captivity, from the people who wholesale murdered their children. They fell into a comfort zone of the knowable versus the unknown. We never feel we are ready for the unknown. It takes faith like Joshua's and objectivity like Caleb's to even look at it fairly, and that is only two out of ten voices. There are the ten voices of Doubt uncertainty and fear that keep us still. The story of the spies was a test, and a test the people failed. God said "you are ready" and the people said they were far from ready. So God waited till they were ready. It is in the Haftarah we read how ready they were forty years later:

And they said to Joshua, Truly the Lord has delivered to our hands all the land; for all the inhabitants of the country faint because of us. [Joshua 2]

What really changed was belief. The people forty years earlier did not believe the same as those forty years later. They took the long journey and had to erode the comfort zone. I've done this. The bar Mitzvah boy from three decades ago was too scared of public speaking to give a D'var. Time has changed me, and I speak in front of hundreds easily today.

It is not alwys a good idea to charge into things though. If you go do something not totally believing you are ready, or that God is with you, you might get handed your corpse in a hand basket. The people do try to go up in to the land after God tells him they will not, and they fail miserably. It requires both our own confidence and God to go up into the land, to succeed in anything.

I said nothing about this question, and we left just after Kaddish and Aleinu. Neither Sweetie or I felt much like celebrating at the oneg afterwards. Four and a half months into mourning my mom, neither of us felt like partying. Seeing the Rabbi and her daughter and a reminder of a good mother daughter relationship didn't help much. But on the way home in the car, I had a thought: I am facing dozens of crises right now, mostly due to my mom's death. She would have taken care of many of these issues, from filing my tax return to paying for our honeymoon to keeping the family business on a the same path it has been for many years to being the best friend and counsel of both myself and Sweetie, her death changed everything. There is a lot of things my whole family needs to do, and are now challenged to realize they are ready for them.

God said to the people implicitly by sending the spies out: "You are ready." The spies then needed to come back and give all the strategic data to take the land, instead they cower underfoot from the same people terrified of them only forty years later. What they did was rely on themselves and their fears to say "we are not ready." They went and cried and whined so much, Midrash tells us that God uttered a rather infamous line "your'e crying for nothing! I'll give you some to cry about!" the day they cried was the 9th of Av and we have bee crying ever since.

We have a choice, like I have a choice now. We can spend our lives in paralysis saying "we are not ready" living in a illusion of a comfort zone, or take up the challenge and do what is necessary. "We are ready" we need to tell ourselves, "otherwise God would not put us here." I worry a lot about our future without my mom as a support. Yet, I see one way this changes things. We now need to be ready or we can fail and fall into a chaotic wilderness. God set this up, and while I'm still not very happy about being in this situation, there is only two things I can do. One is know that God is with me in the next few difficult months and years. And the second is go ahead and succeed, go ahed and get to my personal Promised Land.

Behaalotecha 5771: Healing and Petitionary Prayer

2011-09-08T10:01:00.002-05:00

Last weekend we had a discussion about Petitionary prayer in my Shabbat morning minyan. I said nothing in the discussion, though I had a lot to say. I was too busy trying not to cry. Here's why.

This week we read at the end of the potion, about Miriam and Aaron slandering Moses. Miriam takes the brunt of the punishment from God.

10 And when the cloud was removed from over the Tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow; and Aaron looked upon Miriam; and, behold, she was leprous. 11 And Aaron said unto Moses: 'Oh my lord, lay not, I pray thee, sin upon us, for that we have done foolishly, and for that we have sinned. 12 Let her not, I pray, be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he comes out of his mother's womb.' 13 And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying: 'Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee.'[Numbers 12 ]

Moses' prayer, in Hebrew אל, נא רפא נא לה El na rafa na la is simple and to the point, "please God, please heal her" is all it says. I first learned it as an alternative Mi Shebeirach, the healing prayer at the first synagogue I attended in my return to Judaism. I've said it many times, many of those times last January.

Starting when I got a phone call that my mom was taken by ambulance to the local hospital I kept saying it, over and over again. I said it out loud when I could, I said it silently when I couldn't, on the road, at home, in the hospital when I was awake or lying in bed at night. I said El na rafa na lawhen we found out she needed emergency surgery for a rare condition that should have killed her already. I said it during her recovery, and when she slipped into a coma. I said אל, נא רפא נא לה when she came out of that coma, and when she slipped back into another. I said it until a few hours before her death when we were told it was hopeless, and my sister, Sweetie and I began our vigil to be with her at her last breath.

[caption id="attachment_311" align="alignright" width="225" caption="El Na rafa na la"][/caption]

With my mom's passing our lives have been turned upside down. Our family is shattered by this loss and still trying to put the pieces back together. Grief does different things to different people, and all too often grief blinds us to another's grief. I once described grief early in our mourning as drops on a pond with ripples spreading out to others. When there is one drop in the pond there is little problem in understanding the concentric circular waves. But many drops in the pond produces confusing, conflicting waves.

El na rafa na la is a petitionary prayer. We ask for health and healing. I heard many things about petitionary prayer in our discussion. Much was condemning the frivolous petitionary prayer common in children praying for something for themselves, like anew doll or getting on the baseball team. It's selfish, most say, and not a good prayer. Yet I remember placing a small scrap of paper from my sketchbook into the Western wall and praying as hard as I could that would find my mate. I cried that day as Israeli jets flew over Jerusalem celebrating 60 years of independence. My mom shot a picture of me with tears still in my eyes from her side of the mechitza. A few months later, a freak snowstorm shut down the town Sweetie lived in at the time, and so she did something she rarely does -- go online. We started to chat, and that lead to everything else, including our upcoming wedding. Somehow that prayer in that little piece of paper is hard to ignore. It's hard to ignore that my mom did start to get better after all that prayer. She could have died that first night, but was with us for three more weeks, enough to let us say goodbye to her.

Interestingly this prayer ends with the word la meaning her. It is not writtenli meaning to me . The Cohanic blessing is in the second person. That prayer, expresses all the good things God may do to you, not me. IN that case maybe petitionary prayer does not work when it is selfish, when it is about me. Petitionary prayer does not work when I gain, only if someone else does. So one thought that keeps going around in my mind. I wanted my mom at my wedding. I wanted to see her joy at the day of my joy, one that has taken too long to come. Did all my prayer amount for nothing because my healing prayer had a selfish end? Since I wanted her to be joyous on that day, was it selfish? I don't know and the questions still dig at me.

I have many questions about what happened and the part prayer played. Prayer seemed to work then didn't. Should I have ever given up praying? Would she still be alive and another miracle would have occurred had I kept praying and not given up like everyone else? What if, as is likely that meant a very limited life for her? If prayer was just keeping her alive but in extreme pain, did I did the right thing by giving up? I did hear a voice while I was prying in those final hours say " stop. Let Go." I keep wondering about that voice and if I should have heeded it.

I also wonder the power of communal versus personal petitionary prayer. when she came out of the first coma and begin to have some function to her body, she had yeshivas praying for her, the second time, I'm not so sure who was. One synagogue I attend called me to find out my mom's status, ostensibly to take her off the mi sheiberiach list the day we found out the bad news she was likely to die. Does volume count in petitionary prayer. Does it count in healing prayer?

I keep thinking about how much I prayed those three weeks. I keep thinking how in the end it didn't matter, she didn't get better but died instead, and I'm left living in a shattered world. I prayed so hard and wasn't heard. She won’t be at the wedding, she won’t be there to support me, my bride-to-be, my sister or my father not just at the wedding but every day.

Does petitionary prayer work? Who I have become in large part because of my mom says in a still small voice "yes." My grief continues to shout "NO!" in the end I still do not know. I just know I hurt so much because she is no longer here.

Naso 5771: Sotah, Fear and Dancing

2011-09-08T10:01:00.001-05:00

This week we have several interesting pats of the portion, but Sotah is the most curious of all. I keep trying to understand it, and end up still perplexed. In this last attempt, I studied this portion in my Hebrew class and came to another conclusion no one was very happy with, Liberal or Conservative: State mandated abortion.

...then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is a meal-offering of jealousy, a meal-offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD. 17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water. 18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and let the hair of the woman's head go loose, and put the meal-offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal-offering of jealousy; and the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that causeth the curse. 19 And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse; 20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband-- 21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell; 22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.' 23

I came to this startling and disturbing conclusion after we talked about what "belly to swell and thigh to fall away" meant. With several other citations we learned of in class, it seems it meant a miscarriage. I then noted some about the dust on the tabernacle floor -- it was likely that the dust contained ash from the sacrifices, but also a rather large amount of myrrh, which was used in the anointing oil for the vessels in the Mishkan and later temple, as read in Exodus 30. Exodus 30 was also very clear this stuff is toxic. In herbal medicine, myrrh has been known to induce labor -- no matter what stage of pregnancy a woman is in. Herbalists avoid myrrh around pregnant women for this reason. That Ahashveyrosh in chapter 2 of the book of Esther requires myrrh treatments for six months for all maidens before meeting him points to more than cleaning the skin but the insides as well. Acashveyrosh was guaranteeing any child born to one of the "contestants" was really his.

I mentioned all this in class, and my idea of a state induced miscarriage and got it from all sides. Abortion is of course a touchy subject but what I was saying equally offended everyone. That a biblical passage was a commandment for preists to give a potion that would terminate a pregnancy in order to adjudicate a domestice dispute smashes both the pro-life and pro-choice positions rather squarely. The only one who did not object was my Orthodox professor, who from a biblical scholarship point of view could not find a fault in my argument.

And while there is a whole Talmudic tractate on Sotah, I think there is one critical element to Sotah, this bitter waters rite, that is missing. There is no record it was ever used in the biblical text. Someone leading a D'var Torah I attended recently asked the question did ancient peoples who could have written the Biblical text, also know modern psychology. I would say today no, they did not, for they had no use for understanding the mechanism of behavior. But they were certainly interested in results, and results that modern psychology might be able to derive, ancient man could easily see and use in their lives.

One of these is the concept of the ordeal and fear associated with it. Ordeals are painful or dangerous situations, sometimes used to judge a person. In some of those cases, as in Sotah, it is to gauge a woman's guilt or innocence for infidelity. Yet rites of passage into adulthood have often had ordeals as part of their ritual. To go through the ordeal as part of a rite of passage is to show one's bravery or perseverance. To fail is to show one is still a fearful child.

Yet not everyone has the courage, or some might say the stupidity to go through an ordeal. Some just looking at the ordeal freak out. I had that experience this weekend, and failed miserably. Of course my ordeal was something rather laughingly benign, indeed most would look at me funny -- Dancing.

Everyone has performance fears. Probably one of the most common is speaking in public. Some fear being in crowds. Sometimes reason can counter a phobia, but a lot of time it is not enough. I do not have any problems getting in front of a crowd, I'm happy speaking or lecturing in front of 10 or 10,0000. Some people would be a total panic. But I can understand them, since I believe my fear of dancing is very related to public speaking. Both are about being embarrassed in public. My brain and my nerves have a really bad habit of not communicating well. It takes a huge amount of practice for me to do even the simplest of coordinated things. I could not catch a ball until I was in college for example. This has irritated more than one kid when I was growing up. I was so incompetent in sports all I got on the playing field was either kids laughing at me or kids yelling at me. If anything more than attendance was considered for Physical Education classes when I was growing up, I would undoubtedly fail. I even failed driver's education. I was terrified to get behind the wheel of a car for the longest time.

Oddly though, I got a job out of college which required a massive amount of travel. 83,000 miles on the odometer in one year got me out of my driving phobia. As busy as I-80 is, it is still a rather lonely road, with no one but the one or two cars around you and state troopers watching what you are doing. That's different from a crowded dance floor. Trip and everyone sees you. Dance badly and everyone knows.

What's worse,as I found out in those P.E. Classes I failed so miserably, is that dances are not just partners dances but things like square dancing, which requires a lot of rather complex moves leading to disaster. I don't just mess myself up, but everyone else as well. That kind of embarrassment is more than I can take. I thought of that this weekend watching a northwestern kind of square dancing known as contra dancing. These people were good, but watching them scared me witless. It was not me dancing, but just watching brought on the panic.

I can of course do what I did with driving. Get behind the wheel and do more intensive performance in a year than most people get in ten years of driving. If I do it gets into my "muscle memory" and it is no longer a problem. But just seeing people dancing brings on the fear, and that makes me realize why Sotah probably was never used. It was too fearful an ordeal -- not just for the woman but her jealous husband. If she was willing to go throughout with this, it might be his child he was killing. there is a lot of setup, a lot of what the Inquisition called "showing the instruments," bringing fear of the ordeal to do the same thing as the ordeal itself. If anyone even tried this, by mid ritual it probably stopped, for either husband or wife lost their nerve and confessed or recanted, depending on the situation.

I think for most we would not go through ordeals unless they are forced on us. The ordeal of mourning is one we have no choice. The ordeals we have a choice in we are, for the most part, cowards and will avoid. I believe there was a fiction of a bitter waters rite, once that scared everyone enough to calm dawn and deal with domestic disputes in a lot more rational and civil way.

But that said it is a good thing to conquer your fears. Excuse me while I practice this waltz.

B’midbar 5771: Change and changing.

2011-09-08T10:00:00.001-05:00

This week we begin the book of B’midbar, known in English as the book of Numbers. While the more accurate name for the book is in the wilderness as the Hebrew indicates, the English is a reference to the census which starts the book.

1. And the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they came out from the land of Egypt, saying, 2. Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, by families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of names, every male by their polls; 3. From twenty years old and upward, all who are able to go forth to war in Israel; you and Aaron shall count them by their armies. [Numbers 1]

It is not the only time we have a census in this book. There is also one towards the end of the journey, immediately after the Baal-Peor incident is closed, and the people are ready to enter the land of Israel. They are bookends to the journey between.

45. So were all those who were counted of the people of Israel, by the house of their fathers, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go forth to war in Israel; 46. All those who were counted were six hundred three thousand and five hundred and fifty. [Numbers 1]
51. These were the counted of the people of Israel, six hundred thousand and a thousand seven hundred and thirty. [Numbers 26]

There is debate by biblical scholars what Elef, usually translated as thousand, means. There is a school of thought that it is actually some smaller unit of a company or detachment and the true number is less. Either way, there are 603,550 at the beginning of the trip and 601,730 at the end. The numbers themselves don’t matter as much as that they change. This journey is not a static one.
The people too change. The timid slave mentality of being provided for and believing they are weaker than anyone around changes into an effective, unstoppable juggernaut. The people on the east side of the Jordan are trembling in terror, as the spies bring back their report from Rahab of Jericho in the book of Joshua.
B’midbar is about change, and how the people change. It can be taken as a whole as an allegory of change, from a stupid idolatrous people to a people strong and worthy of worship of Ha Kadosh Baruch Hu. For one to worship Hashem, one really need to be empowered enough to believe they can. It requires a mindset like the Daughters of Zelophehad where even the rules as set down get questioned, not in rebellion like Korach, but synthesis, something no one completely submissive can do.
I think of this as I begin a new journey myself, Since the death of my mother, I’ve been in a wilderness too, wandering in this desert of emotion, where the water of life, joy, seems so rare. I’m two and a half months from my wedding as well. I’ve also lost my biggest client, and officially begin to take my professional life in a new direction.
It’s all scary, but the last two give me hope. I’m marrying the most wonderful woman in the world. I’ve know how beautiful she is for close to twenty-some years, when we first met in college. Her beauty is overshadowed by the person within though, and I am so blessed she will be my wife.
My professional life is yet to be set but the direction is clear. Almost thirty years ago, I ran across an ad for a new company called Electronic Arts. I remember the first time I saw their ad proclaiming CAN A COMPUTER MAKE YOU CRY?
The ad had a bunch of people who could be either rock stars or avant garde artists dressed in black. They were programmers. The copy was equally intriguing:

These are wondrous machines we have created, and in them can be seen a bit of their makers. It is as if we had invested them with the image of our minds. And through them, we are learning more and more about ourselves. We learn, for instance, that we are more entertained by involvement of our imaginations than by passive viewing and listening. We learn that we are better taught by experience than by memorization. And we learn that the traditional distinctions-- the ones that are made between art and entertainment and education-- don't always apply.

It went on like that, and it inspired me to get into software development and even write my first published program. I wanted to be one of those guys. They called themselves "software artists" instead of programmers. I got my BA in computer science because of that ad. I have the suspicion a lot of us did.
I found the real world, just as Electronic Arts found out, doesn’t share that vision. They sold out to a corporate mentality, and I found life behind the keyboard not what I thought it would be. So I ended up going into technical support, and from there to training and masters in Education. From there I went into foodservice sanitation training and took a hobby of biblical Hebrew translation into a master’s degree in Jewish studies. I took up drawing and painting. All the time I have been seemingly moving away from programming.
It takes a very unique person to blur the lines between art, education and entertainment. It takes a unique person to write anything that inspires the active imagination. I’ve been wandering for decades in another wilderness gaining those skills.
The closeness of the population data from the beginning of the journey to the end, only 1820 people, three tenths of a percent change in population, suggests something too. The stability of the population might also tell us how stable we really are. This may be about change, but paradoxically there really is little gain or loss in that change. It is all there in potential, we just have to release it. The guy Sweetie barely noticed in college is the same one she’s marrying in summer, though they might not seem the same. The journey I’ve been on did empower me.
AS the Israelites will find out in the coming portions of Torah the journey is not pleasant, but in the end, as I will definitely feel under the Huppa this summer, it is worth the effort.

Bhukotai 5771 a Nice Apocalypse

2011-09-08T09:58:00.000-05:00

This was supposed to get out two days ago. Saturday we read if we are good, we'll get the good stuff. If we are bad, well things are going to go very bad. In a strange coincidence, this Saturday May 21st some people believe is also supposed to be the apocalypse. I have some opinions about all this.

This simplistic idea of quid pro quo has a lot of problems. It is not clear from the text exactly what brings on this

3 If ye walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments, and do them; 4 then I will give your rains in their season, and the land shall yield her produce, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. 5 And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time; and ye shall eat your bread until ye have enough, and dwell in your land safely. lev 26

The great and good things continue, but there is a catch:

14 But if ye will not hearken unto Me, and will not do all these commandments; 15 and if ye shall reject My statutes, and if your soul abhor Mine ordinances, so that ye will not do all My commandments, but break My covenant; 16 I also will do this unto you: I will appoint terror over you, even consumption and fever, that shall make the eyes to fail, and the soul to languish; and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.

It gets worse: disease famine, and exile are all in the cards depending if people repent or not. BUt even in exile there is the chance of return.

There lots of questions about such a simplistic system. Do good, get good. Do bad get bad. As I wrote a few weeks ago, a death to a close relative is one of those things that frames this as nonsense. When bad things happen to good people, none of this is helpful or meaningful. I wanted nothing more in my life than my mom at my wedding, and only a few months from the date of the wedding, that was snatched from me. When such a thing happens, it's hard to believe in such a simple system.

In contrast, the claims of some fundamentalists that the end of the world is May 21 have me thinking. the whole idea of a violent end time is odd to me. I'm not the only one -- the Rabbis in Tractate Sanhedrin couldn't come to any conclusions about the end times either. There is not a lot that makes sense about it. What I find particularly interesting is the idea that there is some kind of justice at the end of the world -- those who are good get good, those who are bad get bad. Of course those proclaiming the end are the "good ones."

Of course the current crop are also the same people who put a government in place that wants to make absolutely sure the widows and orphans of the world are totally and completely ignored in their needs. This is against the words of the same prophets they figure out their prophecies of a May 21 end of days. National economic health is more important than the poor. Isaiah and Jeremiah probably would not agree with that, and this weeks portion in it's literal context would seem to say treating the poor well leads to economic health, not the converse.

As a reader of comedic science fiction, I have liked what two authors have said about the destruction of the universe. Douglas Adams wrote that if we ever made sense of the universe, it would be immediately destroyed and replaced with a more inexplicable one. This may have already happened. Terry Prattchett in his parody of the apocalypse The thief of time follows the idea that every second the universe is destroyed and remade. Interestingly in the same novel, the keys that saves the universe from a an ultimate doom is a milkman with a curious past, one of the Horsemen of the apocalypse's granddaughter, and a lot of chocolate truffles.

A year ago I could have written more definitively, but the tragedy of this year in my life makes me far more cynical. A god who would not let my mother live is a god sadistic enough to go through with such thing as an end of days. Yet, even as a write that, I cannot believe that is Ha Kadosh Baruch Hu. Much of the Bible makes no sense if it is.

There is a Hasidic tale which I cherish about the coming of the messiah. It concerns an abbot of a monastery who was at the end of his rope. His monks were always fighting, the place was a mess, and the grounds unkept. Not knowing what else to do he went and talked to the Baal Shem Tov, in a desperate hope he might be able to give him some insight from Heaven. The Baal Shem Tov considered for a moment, then said: "I have it on good authority that one of your monks is the Messiah, though I do not know which one." THe Abbot went back with this information, and told the monks. Strangely things changed. the garden was kept, the halls was cleaned and no one fought. The abbot found that when everyone thought the messiah might be dwelling among them they treated each other with respect. I believe the BESHT knew it was not one, but all the monks were the messiah. When we all treat each other with that level of respect, when we see everything as an aspect of God and not an aspect of our own arrogance things change.

Given the end of the rebuke in this weeks chapter it is not clear if all the mizvot need be violated. God seems to concentrate on the sabbaticals and jubilees.

33 And you will I scatter among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you; and your land shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste. 34 Then shall the land be paid her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye are in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and repay her sabbaths. 35 As long as it lieth desolate it shall have rest; even the rest which it had not in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it.[leviticus 26]

verse 43 repeats this. It is not only respect for people, but a healthy respect for the environment as well. We are taken off the land so the land heals from our abuse. This was only for over plowing. What of bleeding it dry of its resources and then taking all those substances and emitting them into the atmosphere? The Earth is the Lord's the psalmist exclaims, do we have the right to exploit what is the Lords?

The rabbis debate with no definitive answer if the messiah will come at the end of days when the world is thoroughly wicked or thoroughly good. I for one, believe it is when we are all good, for the messiah as a person will be redundant -- we all will be one with God of our own free will. We are far from that day as we cannot even decide what is "good." this week's rebuke was aimed at the whole nation, and even more so all humanity. Yet somehow, I still believe that there will be a time when we finally understand that lesson.

Behar 5771: Sabbaticals and Art

2011-09-08T09:57:00.000-05:00

This week we read about the sabbatical system,

2 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a sabbath unto the LORD; you shall neither sow your field, nor prune your vineyard. 5 That which grows of itself of your harvest you shall not reap, and the grapes of your undressed vine you shall not gather; it shall be a year of solemn rest for the land.[Leviticus 25]

Before the nightmare of January and my mother's death I left off this column essentially in a mid-life crisis. I've been asking myself a question: What am I going to do with myself? The death of my mom puts this even more into perspective, as I now fear for my current job is not as permanent as I once thought it was.

It is interesting that the Sabbatical is a rest for the land, but not a rest for a lot of other things. It does not say to rest one's plow for example, though that would seem to be an obvious extension. One cannot plow the field but one can get the plow to work better in a year. The ox that runs the plow isn't mentioned either, but might well gain from a little rest to make more oxen.

The tools of creating the harvest for seven years are renewed and maintained in this process. Drainage ditches, fences, and other infrastructure projects are far from forbidden. The sabbatical or shmita year requires trust in God in the way we will feed our selves, but also gives us the opportunity to get done all that stuff we need to improve and have another good six years.

In modernity we are not all land farmers. Indeed, what the shmita year does not seem to think about is craftsmen, fishermen and shepherds even in its own day. These get no sabbatical year. Even farmers have found a way around the sabbatical year, and "sell" their land to non-Jews for the year. There is that poetic idea of stopping for a year, and improving our farm that seems to get lost in such cases.

But I like that idea of a human sabbatical, one I wish I really could do: Get my "farm" ready for the next six years. Take a full year off to intensely improve myself and get myself the skills I need for whatever my current or next career requires. Like many, I've tried to work on the infrastructure of my life while still doing my regular work. I got two Master's degrees because of that, but it was an exhausting process. I'm doing it again, thought the fate of my program is in doubt, and I need to decide if I will be the last to graduate in my program, or change paths. On top of all that I have been taking non-credit classes non-stop.

I am a little discouraged that neither the masters in education or the masters in Jewish studies bore financial fruit. I am not paid to be either an educator or a Jewish scholar. I am not paid to be an artist either, or at least yet. My current career path however is pointing in that direction. I remember after taking four years of Hebrew deciding to start doing it for credit, and I ended up with a master's degree. After years of non-credit courses in art, I'm wondering if this will be the pattern again. Deciding if I want to be want to be an artist, animator or video game designer is still up in the air, but it is the direction I am headed. But this time, I am running up against the problem that courses are during the work day. How nice it would be to think of nothing but school for a whole year, and really re-design myself to be the best re-designed person I can be. It would be nice to have a sabbatical where I did nothing but learn for a year. But of course our economy is not set up that way.

It may not take one sabbatical to re-design a whole farm: it may take many. I'm scared my current career track in art and graphic design, wont work like the last two attempts. But then, it may be that I needed all three to do something spectacular. Sabbaticals require faith that there will be fruit and grain for the year, we leave it up to God to do the farming. I have to leave it up to God to see what happens, and If I am destined to become an professional artist.

Emor 5771: On Being Angry at God on Mother's day

2011-09-08T09:54:00.001-05:00

I'm Back, and with a new look. Actually a new blog as well.

I moved from Blogger to WordPress for a bunch of reasons,(and if you are readin this on Blogger now posting on both platforms) most of all to consolidate the stuff I have on my website with the Blog - and thus handle maintenance with everything better, easier and with some other nice features.

A friend of mine encouraged me to write again, and I have just completed a witting project which topped out at 30,000 words. Thing is, I enjoyed that experienced of writing, so when my friend made that suggestion, it tipped the scales and here I am again.

This weeks portion Emor, is kind of appropriate to be a re-introduction to Shlomo's drash.

And the LORD said unto Moses: Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them: There shall none defile himself for the dead among his people; 2 except for his kin, that is near unto him, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother; 3 and for his sister a virgin, that is near unto him, that hath had no husband, for her may he defile himself.[Leviticus 21]

It was an irony that over a decade ago, first day I walked into a synagogue to go to services after my long self-imposed exile from Judaism was the same day the Rabbi's mother died. As someone new to the congregation, I did not know how to respond,and what would be considered respectful. I did go again to that synagogue, and became a quite active member there for a time. But I never gave a thought to how a religious leader, or for that matter any individual handles a death of immediate family.

Now my mom is dead for four months and I understand that passage bit more. Interestingly the Torah reads in Hebrew for the end of Verse 21:1 לנפש לא-ייטמא בעמיו., and doesn't mention death. Two more literal translations are don't defile yourself with your people or for flesh/soul don't defile with your people. Targum Onkelos has על מית לא יסתאב בעמיה which does include the word dead. Verse 21:2 contextually makes it clear we are talking about death.

In particular, the priest as we read elsewhere is not to be in the presence of anywhere where there is death or the dead. But the exception was made that a priest could see the body of their deceased immediate relative. I understand now how upsetting and world-changing such an event could be. To be forbidden from mourning and burying one's relatives is a horrible thing. To do so in a person who handles dangerous things, or with great responsibility, needs to have some way of setting things right and mourning. Seeing one's loved one last time, saying goodbye is very important. Indeed Aaron's family has already gone through this, with the death of Aaron's sons.

I remember my Grandmother's death, where I was not allowed to mourn. I wanted to be part of the minyan for my grandfather, but I choose not to wear tefillin when I pray in the mornings, which I did every morning back then. While My grandfather is not Orthodox, we prayed in an Orthodox minyan who insisted in me wearing tefillin. My refusal meant I was not part of a minyan -- actually the tenth person. It hurt me as much as my grandmothers death that Jews thought I was not Jewish. That they took my atheist brother-in law strapped the tefillin on him and counted him as the tenth hurt more - tefillin were the indications of being Jewish, not kavvanah, nor keeping even more kosher than most of these people (I was vegetarian at the time) nor my own daily Davven, nor my Torah study. The dirty looks as we davvened that morning never left my memory. It hurt so much that I stopped davvening every mornings, and tefillin became not just something I didn't wear for my own reasons, but a hated object to me.

I realize everybody has their traditions. Talmud goes out of its way to remind everyone of that repeatedly. It is a mitzvah to bind a sign on your hand and put something between your eyes. If this mitzvah alone, strapping some leather on, makes one Jewish in that congregation, then that is what makes someone Jewish. I just keep away from their services, and find someone who respects who I am. I believe this is one of those situation where it is not those in attendance but their rabbi (who wasn't there at the time), the one who leads and teaches them that is guilty of anything. I'll let this be decided between Ha Kadosh Baruch Hu and this Rabbi. Yet this same rabbi I'll admit taught me an interesting tradition i did not know until mt grandmother's death. There is tradition from the time of death to the time of the funeral, a mourner is exempt from mitzvot, since he or she has no good sense of judgement. We all had bad judgement and stubbornness back then, both congregants and me.

As upset as I was about being labeled not Jewish while my grandfather, mother and aunt were sitting shiva, I was also upset about something else as well. My grandmother would never see me married. I am, in some sense the failure of the family. I was the one who didn't get married and have kids like I was supposed to on the time table i was supposed to. That was even more upsetting -- failing her expectations, though I know very well back then and now I had not found someone who would make a good marriage back then.

We no longer have a Temple, and so the idea of taamei, ritual defilement, is very different today. The mitzvah of permitting a priest to defile himself for his mother father, children and siblings, is different too. Those who are close mourn differently than those who are more distant.

WhenAaron's sons Nadab and Abihu died, Aaron stayed silent. When discussing this a few weeks ago, I made an observation I wouldn't have made even a year ago. Aaron stayed silent for the same reason Job remained silent: so he wouldn't curse God. Job was even urged by his wife to go ahead and curse, but he refused. I happen to be angry at God, and I'm not keeping quiet. In the case of Aaron at least, he knew the name of God. As we read at the end of the protion blespheming with that does get you killed. I don't know that name, so my anger is different.

I want to scream at God still for taking my mom. I know everyone eventually dies, but just to give her a few more months, one more year. When she was sick and in a coma, I prayed not to extend her life indefinitely, but to get just one more year -- for her to be there for my wedding, to see with her own eyes the joy of Sweetie and I as husband and wife under the Huppa. My last real conversation with her was a detail about our wedding plans. Twenty minutes later she fell ill, and was in a hospital till she took her last breath three weeks later.

We had plenty of miracles to be sure. She survived the condition that put her in the hospital in the first place and the historically extensive surgery which was a success. SHe came out of a coma once. But the miracle of her being happy at Sweetie's and my wedding, standing or sitting next to us wasn't to happen.

So I've spent the last few months not just feeling like I failed, but God sadistically snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. After all that prayer, particularly the heartfelt prayer I did at the Wall in Jerusalem, God did bring me the love of my life. Yet All that prayer seems to be wasted for the three weeks I did nothing but pray fr my mo to survive this ordeal. All I have wanted for years is all of my family at my wedding. Selfishly I wanted what every one of my family's generation got, yet I'm the one not to get it.

I've been so angry at God for the death of my mom, for taking away a rock of stability in my world. It's been hard to think lately, and I could not even write this blog for months. It's been hard to go a pray, even though I am obligated to say the Kaddish, which I do when I go. It seems God failed me this year,and I'm so angry with no way to show it. Singing praises seems so hollow and empty.

I finally did yell at God -- with bacon cheeseburger. For the first time in over a decade I ate beef and pork with cheese. While I might not keep glatt kosher, I do not eat milk with red meat. But in a sign of protest, a way of yelling at God I broke one of the mitzvot, what I have described in the past as love notes to God, I keep so dearly. To make the point I did not just order it and eat it, I said a hamotzi over it. I kept every other rule, even a few I don't normally. but then I went and ate it the sandwich, which actually, being from a fast food restaurant, was tasteless. That was my protest.

Oddly, when I got back to my office I found out I have the largest tax bill I have ever had from the IRS. I'm still not sure what that means.

Defile is quite an odd word for the text the week, but I understand it. If one believes in God and struggles to figure out what is God's actions and what are our own, if one struggles with the nature of prayer and the sacred, it is very hard to reconcile why people die when they do, particularly when it is someone very close to you. I do not believe the text means the defilement that a priest gets from being around or touching the dead but the defilement that leads to crazy thinking, of breaking rules that were sacrosanct only a little while ago. Some we are too distraught to care we break, some we break intentionally to vent our anger at God. The Torah tells us here that's it's okay, it human to be that way when a partner, a mother or a father, a daughter or a son dies. We hopefully will heal and go back to our normal activities. But until we do, we are given leeway.

My mom loved my writing this blog. So it is only fitting that I start it again on Mother's day, since I cannot get her anything else.

Baruch Dayan HaEmet, My Mom.

2011-02-14T14:49:00.003-06:00

I haven't written in a while, and since some might wonder what happened who are not familiar with me face to face, I thought I'd write something today.

Two days after I posted my Last Column, My mom was admitted to the Emergency room, for what was thought to be a heart attack. It turned out to be a lot more -- a neurological emergency. She was rushed to a better hospital, and came thought the surgery pretty well. But then in the hospital, she had something like a stroke and she fell into a coma. After a few days she did awake.

After what we thought was the beginning of a recovery, she fell back into a coma again. This time she would not come out of it. Two weeks ago, I saw her draw her last breath, and depart this world at age sixty-seven.

My mom was the best mom I could have had. She was a traveling companion as well as a mom. She was not the "cool mom" but something more. She was the mom everybody wants to bei their mom. Generous caring and loving. She would listen to you no matter who you were.

She loved to read and not only dreamed the adventures she read but did them, in style. Together we went to Africa, Hawaii, Alaska, Israel, Jordan. We walked across the equator together, then crossed it again a few weeks later in a boat headed between the Galapagos Islands. With my sister she visited Egypt and turkey. With my dad, most of Europe, east and west.

My sense of art is from her. She was not an artist, but a wonderful crafts person. She loved building and furnishing Dollhouses. The one she has worked on for years was a museum, each room different but spectacular. There was needle point, and collecting antique Wedgwood pieces.

She also in her later years had her spiritual side, and was the one who so support my own spiritual journey which led to this blog. She was the one who commented more than anyone else, often in private e-mail to me as she began and continued her own spiritual journey.

I'm gonna miss her. I loved her so much.

I'm understandably broken up and have no interest in writing. It may yet be some time before I write again. I thought you show know.

Shemot/Vaiera/Bo 5771: Moses, Akiba and the Midlife Crisis

2011-01-07T14:55:00.004-06:00

Last week was my birthday. It doesn't completely explain why I haven't gotten into writing Shlomo's Drash for a while, but it needs to be said. I turned 45 last week. I've been thinking about someone who turned 80, and the last three parshiot, the beginning of Exodus.

7. And Moses was eighty years old, and Aaron eighty three years old, when they spoke to Pharaoh. [Exodus 7]

There is a Midrash which tells us that Moses died on his birthday, the Seventh of Adar [b. Megilah 13b] Torah is not much about the first two thirds of Moses' life, it is about the last third. Midrash has been written by everyone from the Sages to Cecil B. DeMille filling in that timeframe of eighty years, the text tells us of his birth, that he was raised by a daughter of Pharaoh, and of killing the Egyptian. The story tells us he fled and lived in Midian as a shepherd and family man, until he came across the burning bush. But that is all it says to account for eighty years of life.

Who was the younger Moses? There are legends that he became king of Ethiopia for a while, and that his engagement to Tzipporah was a series of trials and test by her father. The most enduring legend has to do with his age of a hundred and twenty at his death. [Deuteronomy 34:7] We know the last forty years were spent from the time he faced Pharaoh through the Exodus from Egypt, the time in the wilderness, to his death overlooking the banks of the Jordan River. The rabbis split Moses' earlier eighty years into two pieces: for forty years he was in Egypt, and for forty years he wandered as an exile, settling in Midian at some point.

The legend of Moses' life is intertwined with three of the greatest rabbinic sages who reportedly lived to 120: Hillel, Rabbi Yochanan b. Zakkai and Rabbi Akiba. These sages’s story also breaks into three parts, which Aggadah also breaks evenly into three parts.

The years of six pairs were equal: Rebekah and Kohath, Levi and Amram, Joseph and Joshua, Samuel and Solomon, Moses and Hillel the Elder, R. Johanan b. Zakkai and R. Akiba. Moses spent forty years in Pharaoh's palace, forty years in Midian, and served Israel forty years. Hillel the Elder came up from Babylon at the age of forty, served [i.e. studied under] the Sages forty years, and served Israel forty years. R. Johanan b. Zakkai engaged in commerce forty years, studied Torah forty years, and served Israel forty years. R. Akiba was an ignoramus forty years, studied forty years, and served Israel forty years.[Genesis Rabbah C:10]

Sometime After forty, our bodies change. Our reproductive abilities start to wane, though our desire to use them may not. Our biological function is complete, yet we have our social function. The social function acts very differently than the needs of merely passing genes. But how do we do this? What is our role if not biological?

Midlife and midlife crisis in my mind are synonymous they are the answer to that question. Usually when we think of a midlife crisis we think of someone far too old trying to reclaim a youth they no longer can have. It’s stereotypically the sports car and fling with a younger member of the opposite gender. But I think a more general and far more constructive way of describing mid-life is the time when we re-define our role as a human being. Granted part of that might be wanting to go backwards, but it’s a lot more about going forwards, dropping a lot of the baggage we no longer need and moving forward into the future, where we propagate memes instead of genes.

Monday morning I put on a sweater that didn't fit. Partially it was the several pounds I've put on my frame since I bought the sweater many years ago, but that was minor. If clothes make the man, then this sweater didn't fit me because it no longer made the man that is me. Rummaging through my closet for another sweater, I ended up cleaning the sweater shelf out -- many of the sweaters didn't fit. I didn't even have to put them on to know that.

For the past month, I have been thinking about my future and figuring out where I'm going to be when I'm eighty. Am I going to be like Moses? Am I going to be like Abraham? Thinking about both of those I have to remember the question the Hasidic rabbi Zusya was so scared of on his death bed. When he reached the afterlife, he was not afraid of being asked "Why were you not Moses or Abraham?” Instead he was terrified of being asked "Why were you not Zusya?"

Right now, I feel if I would be asked that question, I would have no answer because I am not me. I realize there is no answer, only living one's life so that fearful question is never asked. In the last few years so much has changed in my life. I have a job so nebulous it literally sulks on the corner of the organization chart. Like Zuzya's question, another question I fear is the question "what do you do.?" because I really have no idea. I think I am trying to create products for a profession I have so little knowledge of. I often feel like a blind painter being instructed by the sighted how to paint a copy of the Sistine ceiling. Late in my life I have found the love of my life, and I'm still trying to figure out how to have a relationship with such a strong, brilliant, beautiful woman. But I have never been this far in a relationship before, and I am often stumbling my way through. Like Moses off in a desert by himself, I feel very lost with no idea of direction.

Moses at the beginning of midlife dressed like an Egyptian and acted like an Egyptian, so much so we read that Ruel's daughters refer to him as an Egyptian[Exodus 2:19]. Yet we read this week of a Moses with a strong identity to Beni Yisroel, enough to coordinate a mass exodus from Egypt, and enough to convince the people to perform the ritual we will call today the Passover Seder. It was in midlife I believe he learned what he need to move from his youth to the leader he was in old age. So too with Rabbi Akiba, who never left the academy from forty until sixty four according to the Sages. When he left, he was a sage himself.

Moses learned in midlife by being a shepherd. Akiba who started life as a shepherd, learned by being a student, and then a teacher. Both became phenomenal leaders, as did Hillel and Johanan ben Zakkai. Midlife is the time to realize you are not young anymore, and it's time to have a very different identity for the rest of your life. It's time to find it, and find who you will be in that time left on the planet.

I look at life and think there may be two ways to live a life the one of Solomon and the one of Moses. The rabbis mention that the three books of the Tanach written by Solomon are written in three stages of life: The Song of Songs is the joyful optimism and sensuality of Youth, Proverbs the widsom of the middle years, and Kohelet the bitterness and futility of old age. As wise as Solomon was, Solomon supposedly died at fifty two, with his last words bitter and futile ones, though he was not very old. In my mind, this is a path of Kohelet as a life burnt out, who did everything for gain, and not for something greater than gain. Yet Akiba and Moses seem so different than this, and aspire to a different path. There is the passion of youth, the change of middle age, and the leadership, the Sageing, of a very ripe old age of 120.

Even though we have no choice as to the day of our death, we still have a choice: the road of Solomon or of Akiba and Moses. I have had the privilege of meeting a few sages in my life. There are those who I wish I had met as well, but there are some I wish I had met, like my fiancé's mentor before his passing away last year. I have met those who live, if that is any kind of living, their last years bitter. I would rather be a sage with a full life than bitter and angry at the world. I do not know where the next thirty five years will take me. Will I make it to What the Perkei Avot calls “the age of strength?” I’ve made a few decisions that point me in some directions I hope will send me down the road of Moses and not the road of Solomon. Somewhere along the line I hope I learn enough about myself and do enough not to have to answer the question "Why were you not Shlomo?"

Vayehi 5771: Grandparents Remember

2010-12-20T07:37:00.004-06:00

This week we have the end of the story of Genesis, which ends with death. First we have the last years of Jacob's life, his blessing to his sons, then his death and burial. This is followed by a rather short section showing Joseph doesn't exact revenge on his brothers, he sees three generations of his children, and then dies, with a promise to be buried in the land of his birth, but that won't happen for quite a while.

One of the joys I take in doing midrash is taking a seemingly innocuous verse and look at it carefully. Some of the throwaway verses can lead in unexpected directions if one know how to look. For example, In this weeks portion we read an interesting verse:

23. And Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third generation; the children also of Machir the son of Manasseh were born upon Joseph's knees. [Genesis 50]

Two questions come to me about this verse immediately: Why is Machir mentioned? Why specify the Third Generation? Machir is found next in the genealogies of Numbers 26, where the Gereration who will enter the land is enumerated.

29 The sons of Manasseh: of Machir, the family of the Machirites--and Machir begot Gilead; of Gilead, the family of the Gileadites. 30 These are the sons of Gilead: of Iezer, the family of the Iezerites; of Helek, the family of the Helekites; 31 and of Asriel, the family of the Asrielites; and of Shechem, the family of the Shechemites; 32 and of Shemida, the family of the Shemidaites; and of Hepher, the family of the Hepherites. 33 And Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters; and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.[Numbers 26]

A chapter later the Daughters of Zelophehad approach Moses to challenge of Halakah:

1 Then drew near the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph; and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. [Numbers 27]

There is a verse in Torah which does mention both Egypt and the Third generation.

8 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land. 9 The children of the third generation that are born unto them may enter into the assembly of the LORD. [Deuteronomy 23]

The descendants of a marriage and an Israelite does not enter into the congregation until the third generation.We of course have read earlier that Joseph's wife is Egyptian:

45 And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphenath-paneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Poti-phera priest of On. And Joseph went out over the land of Egypt...50 And unto Joseph were born two sons before the year of famine came, whom Asenath the daughter of Poti-phera priest of On bore unto him. [Genesis 41]

If you believe that The Torah of Sinai was known to the patriarchs, this becomes a problem. Joseph intermarried an Egyptian and thus according to Deuteronomy 23:9, Neither Menasseh nor Machir are part of the congregation.They were officially not Jewish. This dilemma apparently had been thought of by some Tamudic-era Rabbis. The Perkei of Rabbi Eliezer and the Targum Yonatan b. Uzziel have a commentary about Asenath that solves the problem. Asenath was Dinah's and Shechem's daughter, and only adopted by Poti-phera. There is little evidence of this,it is mere midrashic commentary, but it does solve the problem. If Asenath was part of the family by matrilineal decent, her children would be part of the congregation. Of course, there is the other answer, which our verse suggests. Joseph lived long enough to see Gilead born, and see the descendants of his that would be included in the congregation.

One part of this verse provides an interesting entry into the issue of who is a Jew and How Egyptians fall into the schema . The mention of Machir, however provides us with a pointer to the genealogy of Gilead, Menasseh's grandson, one of those born on Joseph's knee. Gilead's descendants will include the Daughters of Zelophehad, who will successfully challenge the rights of inheritance of property to sons only.

I then find a third question about the verse. How were Joseph's great-grandchildren born on his knee? Did he hold their mother while she gave birth? Here I look to one of my favorite Talmud quotes.

R.Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: He who teaches his neighbor's child Torah, Scripture ascribes it to him as if he had begotten him. [Sanhedrin. 19b]

Joseph taught Torah to his descendants. I doubt it was Torah mi Sinai, but the ethics, and wisdom he learned in his life, the connection to God he had even in the darkest pits and dungeons he taught to his children, his grand children and his great grandchildren. He knew his mistakes, and the mistakes of his brothers and father. He didn't want to have them make the same mistakes again. Six generations later, five women descended from Joseph would not be at each other's throats like Joseph and his brothers, but work together to change things. The Daughters of Zelophehad, make a strong case for a change in the rules as there were. They use the system of justice, not trickery or murder or any of the other foul tricks we find in Genesis. They learned the lesson.

Joseph was thirty when he was summoned to Pharaoh [Gen 41:46] Between thirty one and thirty seven he was a father of Ephraim and Menasseh [41:50] and he died at 110 [50:22], leaving somewhere around seventy five years he was a parent. For the majority of those he was a grandparent, and great-grandparent. Parents may be good at providing sustenance for the bodies, but Joseph spent his later years making sure the souls of his descendants were nourished as well.

Why is this verse important? You do not need to believe Joseph knew all of Torah to realize Joseph did teach Torah to his Grandchildren. After Joseph dies, there is none of the games between siblings we find in Genesis until the time of David, and there for very different reasons. I find that critically important to the world around us. Our future is in our future generations. It is not just in having children, but teaching them the lessons we have learned over the years. Otherwise they forget the lessons, experience, and wisdom of the past. Many times parents have a hard time doing this while supplying the clothing shelter and other physical needs of a child. It is a role for others who are not involved in those roles: Grandparents, teachers and other role models. I was reminded that this week in a world we are never to forget that Shoah, I saw a few individuals so horribly forget those lessons, and try to spread that forgetfulness and the consequential hate to others. Yet I saw a few who one would have expected to go along with this bunch of right wing extremists, but instead find their actions detestable -- because they still remember the Holocaust. Next week, we see what happens when one forgets. We meet the Pharaoh who did not know Joseph, and he enslaved the Israelites. But as much as the taskmasters tried to subjugate them, the Israelites remembered. As we will see int the the book of exodus, without remembering, they never would have been redeemed, for they never would not have cried out to God.

Mikkeitz 5770: Joseph, Hanukkah and AIDS

2010-12-01T10:26:00.004-06:00

Hanukkah, the festival of lights most often falls late in December, and close to the solstice. As part of the eight Days of Hanukkah, the new moon occurs, leaving us with a holiday with little to no Moon and the least amount of Sun. This year it is early, but begins on one of the darkest days in another way. December 1 is World AIDS Day, and I have a hard time separating starving cows from HIV. In this week's portion, Pharaoh starts by having a dream:

1 And it came to pass at the end of two full years, that Pharaoh dreamed: and, behold, he stood by the river. 2 And, behold, there came up out of the river seven cows, well-favored and fat-fleshed; and they fed in the reed-grass. 3 And, behold, seven other cows came up after them out of the river, ill favored and lean-fleshed; and stood by the other cows upon the brink of the river. 4 And the ill-favored and lean-fleshed cows did eat up the seven well-favored and fat cows So Pharaoh awoke. 5 And he slept and dreamed a second time: and, behold, seven ears of grain came up upon one stalk, rank and good. 6 And, behold, seven ears, thin and blasted with the east wind, sprung up after them. 7 And the thin ears swallowed up the seven rank and full ears. And Pharaoh awoke, and, behold, it was a dream. [Genesis 41]

After finding no one to interpret the dream, The chef cup bearer remembers Joseph in prison, and Joseph is called before Pharaoh. After telling Joseph the dream, Joseph delivers both the good news and the bad news:

29 Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt. 30 And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt; and the famine shall consume the land; 31 and the plenty shall not be known in the land by reason of that famine which follows; for it shall be very grievous. [Genesis 41]

Joseph’s solution would have many a bible-thumping Tea Partier screaming "Socialism!" Levy heavy taxes on grain production during the time of plenty and store all that grain, then distribute it during the famine. Joseph in seeing the dream realizes something most people do not: this famine will affect everyone. If the grain isn’t stored it is not just the poor who will starve but so will the rich. Indeed, everyone in the region will starve.

Joseph is involved in setting the economic policy of one of the two superpowers of his time. Sitting in Synagogue last Erev Shabbat, listing to one of my friends give an excellent D'var Torah, I began to not think of economics, but public health. I had just read a rather startling report From Human Rights Watch about the American South. their report, Southern Exposure highlighted the overwhelmingly large numbers of AIDS and HIV cases in the American South. The epicenter of HIV infection in the United States is not New York or San Francisco, but Dixie. Inadequate healthcare and education are contributing to a dangerous situation.

Surprised by this, I did some checking in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control website, and found the recently released data for 2008 Notifiable diseases. Combing through that data the magnitude of the problem struck me. Almost Half the Reported AIDS cases were from the three southern regions of the united starts, the area from Maryland on the northeast to Texas on the southwest.

While the Southern Exposure report mentioned the lack of needle sharing programs in southern states as one contributing factor, I wondered if there was another issue besides the drug abuse issue. Indeed the report mentioned the lack of adequate sex education, particularly in the use of disease and pregnancy preventing measures. With more digging I compared it to the numbers for other sexually transmitted diseases. Compared to Syphilis for example, and adjusted for population, similar patterns appear. Comparing rates for Gonorrhea, the South Atlantic region has almost double the case rate as the Pacific or the Mid Atlantic regions.

Key to that is the poor state of sex education in this region according to the report:

The states in the South with the highest rates of HIV, sexually transmitted disease, and teen pregnancy are not ensuring that students receive comprehensive, evidence-based education in sexuality and HIV/AIDS. Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi do not require sex education at all; of these states, only Alabama requires HIV/AIDS education be taught in the schools. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina do require sex education to be taught in the schools, and North Carolina recently replaced its abstinence-based education policy with the Healthy Youth Act, legislation that requires local schools to teach evidence-based information approved by experts in sexual and reproductive health. However, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and South Carolina all require that where schools teach do sex or HIV/AIDS education, abstinence before marriage shall be "stressed" or "strongly emphasized." … The discussion may include contraceptives but only if such discussion includes a discussion of the risks (failure rates, diseases not protected against). In no case shall there be a demonstration of how condoms or any other contraceptives are applied.[http://www.hrw.org/node/94476]

As alarmed as I am at this, I also remember an strangely humorous aggadic passage discussing the tension involved in Sex education.

R. Kahana once went in and hid under Rab's bed. He heard him chatting [with his wife] and joking and doing what he required. He said to himself: One would think that Abba's mouth had never sipped the dish before! He said to him: Kahana, are you here? Go out, because it is rude. He replied: It is a matter of Torah, and I am required to learn.[Berachot 62a]

Both Rab and Kanaha are right. It is rude to be a voyeur, but Kahana wanted to know how to be holy in the act of sex, only to find it needs a lot of passion and joy. In context with the Gemara passages before this one, it becomes clear, that everything from toilet habits to sex are a matter of Torah, and we are required to learn from our teachers. Rab does not give lessons in the academy about sex, and students have to observe his personal habits to find out. Yet there are some Talmudic passages that do give instructions. There is even a few sex manuals written by Medieval Rabbis such as the Ramban. While their choices and directives were not as liberal as those today, knowing how to make love properly was not only important but a holy act.

Yet the majority culture has this tendency to portray sex as dirty and sinful, and only abstinence is sacred, reflected strongly in government policies in the South. More than a thousand years ago, Jews realized abstinence doesn’t work, yet the majority religion still can’t figure that out. Neither are they willing to protect their flocks from disease – The knowledge of prophylactics is forbidden knowledge, even for adults. In doing so they shield young and old from knowing what choices they have which will spare their lives from life threatening disease. Many religious institutions, heedful of “be fruitful and multiply” doom their believers to a slow painful death. While the CDC numbers do place a large amount of the current cases in the South in poor African Americans, like the famine of Pharaoh and Joseph, this can easily spreads to the privileged people as well. They too are ignorant of precautions, and while they might not be infected with HIV, herpes or gonorrhea might be in their futures.

There is a way to stem the tide of infection, a variant of Joseph’s storehouses. It is a active and strong public health and public education effort. We know it works. Regions that were the epicenter of the HIV infection are now much smaller infection sources than the south. Good education in at-risk communities have slowly reversed the infection rates.

Joseph and Pharaoh were not slouches. They both understood there was times when Government needs to take care of the needs of the public. Economic policy is just one way of course that we can help people. A comprehensive way of healing the sick, and preventing them from becoming sick is also critical. Yet it is sorely lacking.

Torah is the tree of life, and in doing so addresses all aspects of life, even good sex. It does not hide from it, but puts it in a perspective that makes sense. For Rab, sex was a fun joyous thing to do with his wife, as though it was his first time every time -- it was far from dirty or sinful to have sex and enjoy it. But there were responsibilities involved, and Rab and Kahana took those seriously as well, as their halakic rulings show well. The majority culture’s insistence on avoiding sex or making it sinful tragically hides those responsibilities, and bans talking about it in places where the most good can be done: our public schools, the media and clinics.

The dark and cold of December 1 is both world AIDS day and it is the beginning of Hanukkah. The darkness of the day is not just the Darkness of AIDS and the numbers of people it kills or debilitates yearly it is the darkness of public health, who I expect will be far dimmer after the recent elections. It is the darkness of those so stigmatized by a disease they will not get tested or treated. It is the darkness of the GBLT young people who cannot get constructive information about who they are, and thus make some very bad decisions, or have bad decisions made for them. It is the darkness of "sex is bad, don't do it" while still heeding a genetic programming in our bodies we cannot fully control.

I fear the darkness not just for sexually transmitted diseases, but for those that are more easily transmitted by food, water and air. The system to control AIDS is not that much different than those for other diseases and their public control. Education, surveillance, and the ability to mitigate the spread of disease is the same for almost any disease. Like Joseph feared, I believe we are setting ourselves up for the seven lean cows, who will eat the seven healthy ones. This will not just be a one demographic, geographical ethnic or otherwise: No one will be safe from disease.

Yet this is also Hanukkah, the festival of lights and the miracle of the light that did not go out even in the time of darkness. While many will merely think of it as a Jewish Christmas, at its core it is an anti-assimilation holiday, celebrating we are different and want to live differently. It celebrates where a people did not want to follow the majority religion but live their lives according to Torah. It reminds me there is always a light cutting the darkness. It reminds me that we as the inheritors of the Talmud and Torah need to be there helping the sick and preventing illness through good education and good example. We need to support a strong governmental system of education and disease prevention. In that way can we be a light unto the nations in a time of darkness.

Decades after AIDS and HIV entered the scene, we are on December 1 around the world both Pharaoh and an imprisoned Joseph, deciding if a dream and warning signs are enough to act. May we all have the wisdom of that Pharaoh and choose wisely. May we have the discernment of Joseph to act wisely for us and for the future generations.

Vayishlach 5771: Struggling with Yourself.

2010-11-28T19:28:00.001-06:00

One of the most memorable scenes in the Book of genesis is Jacob's midnight wrestling match:

25. And Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. 26. When he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the socket of his hip, and the socket of Jacob's hip became dislocated as he wrestled with him. 27. And he (the angel) said, "Let me go, for dawn is breaking," but he (Jacob) said, "I will not let you go unless you have blessed me." 28. So he said to him, "What is your name?" and he said, "Jacob." 29. And he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, because you have strived with God and with men, and you have prevailed." 30. And Jacob asked and said, "Now tell me your name," and he said, "Why is it that you ask for my name?" And he blessed him there. 31. And Jacob named the place Peniel, for [he said,] "I saw God face to face, and my soul was saved." [Genesis 32]

This passage has many questions which one could ask. Who is this man Jacob struggles with? IS he even a man? Based on 32:31 we can assume that at least Jacob thinks this is a divine messenger, if not God personally. His new name also points to such a conclusion, that he was striving with God. Rashi notes there is a tradition it was Esau's guardian angel. Some commentators will say it is Esau, others one of the archangels, such as Michael or Gabriel.

There is a tradition concerning the angels insistence of leaving before dawn. The purpose of the angels was to sing praises to God. Since he was struggling with Jacob he was going to be late and unable to fulfill his purpose if this wrestling match continued. The rabbis are also clear the praises are those in Isaiah 6:3:

ג וְקָרָא זֶה אֶל-זֶה וְאָמַר, קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת; מְלֹא כָל-הָאָרֶץ, כְּבוֹדוֹ.
And one called unto another, and said: Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory.

What the rabbis cannot agree on is how this is said. Either one set of angels says קדוש, "holy" another set says the next "holy" and a third say "Holy is the Lord of Hosts." But some of the angels might say it every morning, some might say it once and never again. While debating this point, the talmudic Rabbis insist the people of Israel are superior to angels as Jews say all three praises every morning as part of the Morning Amidah.

I believe Jacob was fighting with Jacob and God at the same time. At the core of this fight was Jacob's resistance to go home. Resistance is what keeps us from doing what we want to do and what we have the potential to do. Self doubt, a lack of conviction and confusion lead to resistance, which causes laziness, procrastination, and finding excuses for not moving forward. I'm very familiar with resistance, it tries to prevent me from writing every day of every week. I certainly got me for the last three weeks. Resistance delayed one d'var, and this crunching another one from ever getting written. It's a hard fight, and one I constantly need to do, just as I'm trying to finish this very late once again. I'm sure each of us can think of a situation where we didn't get done what we would have liked to, and somehow irrationally wasted time instead of being constructive.

By this, I don't mean Shabbat rest of course. There is a time and a place for recharging the batteries. But how many time does someone surf the web during the workday instead of getting their tasks for the day done? Such a thing is resistance at work. Its those places we do waste time when we really shouldn't. We could be more efficient, but we don't.

The angel was really Jacob's resistance. He knew he had to get out of Padan Aram, but going back is not easy, particularly on the news his brother, who is out to kill him, is on his way with 400 soldiers. As I once commented his gift of sheep may have been a delaying tatic. Horseback soldiers and sheep don't get along very well- randomly moving animals make it hard to charge in a fast straight line. His positioning of his sons may have had some merit in their ability for battle: Levi and Simon, who later in this portion will commit wholesale murder against the town of Shechem to avnege the rape of their sister is near the front. Jacob is not a warrior, and he knows it. He's never fought, but thought and tricked his way out of every situation he is in. Brute force is not his way.

When showing brute force against your own resistance, you deadlock. You still don't get anything done but waste energy fighting the resistance, yet that resistance has a weakness -- it hates being seen and identified, for then we see how ridiculous it really is and easily defeat it. So too with the angel -- It really doesn't want to be seen, but Jacob does see him face to face, and when he does he realizes he is strong enough to face his brother. Rashi's comment about the angel being Easau's guardian angel comes from a midrash which gives a parable of a king who trains his son not to be afraid of wild animals with a tame lion. Afterwards, feral dogs don't bother the prince. So too with Esau's angel: if he was defeated, so could Easu. Or put another way: if one can defeat our dire expectations of an issue, how much easier when we encounter the real thing?

One of our biggest enemies is ourselves and our negative thinking, the thinking of "I can't." Jacob was victim to this, but spent the night before his encounter with Esau fighting this negative impact. I have found in our modern world there is a lot that tries to tempt human beings into believing they cannot do on their own, they must have some external force do for them. Commercialism tells us that a new television set, car or brand of beverage will be the external force that lets us do what we cannot otherwise do. Some believe this external force is drugs or alcohol, only to fall into a downward spiral of addiction. This is false thinking. God could have done the same as the Red sea and drowned Esau the way he drowned the egyptians. He did not flash-flood the Jabbok river and wash away Esau, but instead got Jacob to do some hard, painful thinking. We need to do the struggle within our selves, not let an external force, including God do it for us.

The phrase "yes we can" is a little tarnished right now, but it is still true. As any grammarian will tell you, "We" requires more than one "I." When I am not believing "Yes I can" then the phrase is really "Yes, they can." We must first believe in ourselves as individuals and then as a collective. Jacob had to believe in himself before he could transmit that ideas to his sons. His sons understood it in their own ways. Ruben and Judah will make mistakes, and try to make up for them. Joseph will too, and as we will read in the next few weeks, Joseph and Judah will only have themselves and God to depend on in some very difficult situations.

Toldot 5771: Why do we believe lies?

2010-11-10T06:56:00.001-06:00

This week we have the birth of the two twins, Esau and Jacob. They are very different people, with Esau being a hunter and and Jacob a dweller in tents according to the text. Esau was favored by his father and Jacob by his mother. As the story continues, Esau sells his birthright for a snack, and then when Isaac is ready to give Esau his blessing, Rebecca hatches a plan to have Jacob receive the blessing instead:

11 And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother: 'Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man. 12 My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a mocker; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing.' 13 And his mother said unto him: 'Upon me be thy curse, my son; only hearken to my voice, and go fetch me them.'[Genesis 27]

It is a deception, a lie. This is not the only deception in this portion however, though one of the most well known. Isaac pulls the same stunt his dad Abraham did with Abimelech King of the Philistines. Yet this time, there is no divine warning to the king, he catches Rebecca and Isaac in a intimate moment, and Abimelech realizes they are not brother and sister.

Though Rebecca says the curse will be upon her, Jacob ends up never seeing his beloved mother again. Rebecca dies before his return from Padan Aram and his uncle Laban. Jacob is also deceived when he unintentionally marries Leah instead of Rachel, when Laban switched them just before the wedding. Jacob returns the deception by conning Laban out of all his good livestock. Deception seems to be less a curse and more a communicable disease.

What surprises me is how many people fall for deception. In the story of Jacob, even the con men are conned. I'm sitting here wondering my fate and the fate of many of my friends in the world after the 2010 American elections. A lot of what happened I look at as short sightedness, and not looking at the big picture or the ethical character of who people were voting for. Yet a lot was outright lies and deception, from the editing of a video of a government official to make her sound racist to the the surveys day by day telling us how many people think the President is a Muslim. A great propagandist whose strategies it appears many on the right have espoused said it best about such: If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. That propagandist, Adolf Hitler, spawned the Shoah with his lies. But such deceptive rhetoric is much older than than the early 20th century:

8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph. 9 And he said unto his people: 'Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too many and too mighty for us; 10 come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there befalleth us any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us, and get them up out of the land.' 11 Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Raamses. [Exodus 1]

Why did Pharaoh or the Nazis lie to get power over people? Very likely I believe it was easy to do so, because we fall for deception so easily. It's easy to lie because it's easy to trust, to believe it. Over twenty years ago, a social psychologist wondered why he was so gullible to sales people, and has since made it his life's work to figure out why. Robert Cialdini published much of his early work in this area in his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuation. Ironically, instead of the defense against such practices which Cialdini intended, it is one of the most highly regarded marketing textbooks ever -- it teaches people how to lie. What he found, told through case studies and a review of the research of others, shows how we are compelled to buy things we never wanted, why a doomsday cult still had faith when the predicted end of the world never came, why Stanley Milgrom's experiments, which showed how you can order a decent human being to murder someone by eletrocution, worked so elegantly, and how Jim Jones convinced a lot of people to commit suicide in Guyana.

He found a lot of things in his research, though some of it may seem obvious: We do tend to trust those we like or those perceived in authority. We are terrified of scarcity. We like doing the same thing over and over agin and the same thing everybody else is doing. Though Ciadini doesn't not make the link himself, humans as communal animals seem to have such things hard wired -- to keep a social group intact we will do these things even when it is contradictory to our own interests.

Rebekah's and Jacob's deception of Isaac is not complete without the belief of Isaac that this really is Esau. Isaac even has evidence that this is Jacob:

18 And he came unto his father, and said: 'My father'; and he said: 'Here am I; who art thou, my son?' 19 And Jacob said unto his father: 'I am Esau thy first-born; I have done according as thou bade me. Arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me.' 20 And Isaac said unto his son: 'How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son?' And he said: 'Because the LORD thy God sent me good speed.' 21 And Isaac said unto Jacob: 'Come near, I pray thee, that I may feel thee, my son, whether thou be my very son Esau or not.' 22 And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said: 'The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau.' 23 And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother Esau's hands; so he blessed him. 24 And he said: 'Art thou my very son Esau?' And he said: 'I am.' 25 And he said: 'Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son's venison, that my soul may bless thee.[Genesis 27]

Isaac was suspicious from the beginning, that the venison got there too fast, that the voice was Jacob's not Esau's. It seems odd that goat hair could ever fake human hair. Could goat ever taste like venison? Yet Isaac blesses Jacob anyway. But as a narrative, it strikes me as odd that none of the things that Caildini mentions seems to indicate why Issac believed Jacob: the evidence was rather clear this is Jacob faking it, even to a blind man.

Some commentators on this puzzle think Isaac knew and gave Jacob the blessing anyway. My belief is that Isaac wanted to believe it was Esau. I've written else where why I thought Esau was his favorite, but in essence Esau was strong enough to counter his own father, something that Isaac wasn't at the Akedah. He could not resist a hundred year old man with a knife, That was so embarrassing he wanted to be strong -- and reflected that on his strong son. Isaac was angry at himself and wanted to be another person. Even though he was blind he could only see the image of that other person: Esau. Here is the consistency principle of Cialdini: He was so wrapped in that illusion, Isaac believed with the flimsiest of evidence, since that wimp that was Jacob and the wimp that was Isaac as a young man never would have the guts to decieve his father. To believe anyone but this was strong Esau would shatter Isaac's illusion.

Why do so many believe lies? Because there are illusions of might and greatness, and breaking those illusions, be it with a massive growth of immigrants, economic downturns, a defeat in a war, or a attack on native soil brings us to places where we want the illusion of greatness to be true. The news-- not just one station but virtually all news outlets are consistently giving us statistics and innuendo, over and over again getting us to believe the lies. As Cialdini found and Isaac fell for, once we believe the lies, we cannot go back to the truth, it shatters our world view too much.

Haye Sarah 5771: Prayers Answered

2010-10-28T08:25:00.001-05:00

This week’s portion, named the Life of Sarah, ironically starts with her death. Abraham does some land deals to find a proper burial place for his late beloved wife. Then he tells his trusty servant Eliezer to find a wife for Isaac back in the old country. Eliezer, not having a clue what to do, decides the best thing is pray and to ask for a sign from God. Almost immediately the sign comes to pass, he meets Rebekah and eventually brings her back to Isaac, where she is so blown away by him she falls off her camel. Isaac and Rebekah get married, move into Sarah's old digs, and Isaac is comforted from the loss of his mother. Abraham remarries, (some rabbinic sources say he marries Hagar), and has a few more kids. Even with the death of Abraham, whom both Isaac and Ishmael bury jointly, everybody's one happy family until the twins show up next week, and things get really, well, hairy. But the whole portion pivots on one theme: prayers do get answered.

In the eight times that I have annually written about this portion, I invariably come back to the same set of verses. It is a prayer by Abraham's servant to have the god of his master help him find the bride for Isaac. He wants some very specific help.

12. And he said, O Lord God of my master Abraham, I beseech you, send me good speed this day, and show kindness to my master Abraham. 13. Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water; 14. And let it come to pass, that the girl to whom I shall say, Let down your water jar, I beg you, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give your camels drink also; let the same be she whom you have appointed for your servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that you have shown kindness to my master.

The Talmud and Midrash find this prayer outright careless if not pagan divination. I have argued in five of those eight times that there is more going on here than meets the eye. It takes a lot of water, hundreds of gallons, to totally satiate ten camels. Yet the text goes on to say that Rebekah appeared immediately and did exactly that -- an act of hospitality equal to Abraham running across a field while recovering from circumcision, then preparing a meal for a bunch of strangers. While one may wonder why this is so, it becomes obvious when one adds a Midrash which I often quote along with the passage above.

A [Roman] matron asked R. Yose: ' In how many days did the Holy One, blessed be He, create His world?’ ‘In six days,’ he answered. ‘Then what has He been doing since then?’ ‘He sits and makes matches,’ he answered, ‘assigning this man to that woman, and this woman to that man.’ ‘If that is difficult,’ she gibed, ‘I too can do the same.’ She went and matched [her slaves], giving this man to that woman, this woman to that man and so on. Some time after, those who were thus united went and beat one another, this woman saying, ' I do not want this man,’ while this man protested, ‘I do not want that woman.’ Straightway she summoned R. Yose b. Halafta and admitted to him: ‘There is no god like your God: it is true, your Torah is indeed beautiful and praiseworthy, and you spoke the truth!’ Said he to her: ‘If it is easy in your eyes, it is as difficult before the Holy One, blessed be He, as the dividing of the Red Sea.’ [Genesis Rabbah 58:4]

A good match is a miracle of a greater order than splitting the Red Sea. My comments on this week's portion have been my prayer, much like Eliezer's, for seven years. In retrospect, I didn't see the things that were happening each step along the way, but my prayer was being answered.

I have been praying for a mate for quite a long time. Each time I prayed, a new door opened, and often in the form of a book falling into my lap. I found Roger Kamentz's book The Jew and the Lotus which led me to Jewish Renewal, which led to learning Hebrew, then Aramaic. Quitting a project for the Renewal Kallah led me to Mordechai Gafni's Soulprints, and in him I found a teacher who brought alive the meaning of aggadic works for the first time. Shortly after, the rabbi of my then congregation retired, and in the tumult of picking a new rabbi, based on what I had learned from Gafni, Shlomo's Drash was born, and with it my prayer took a new form. I checked out matchmakers, and wrote for my first Haye Sarah Shlomo's Drash how little they resemble Ha Kadosh Bruch Hu making matches and how much that ditzy Roman Matron and matchmakers have in common. Then came Gafni's downfall and run from the Israeli authorities. In my despair over losing a teacher, I found Neil Strauss' "The Game", which taught me to be a confident human being. While many learned mere pickup routines from the book, I learned that being genuine and having confidence is incredibly attractive. With that confidence, I dated someone who introduced to Facebook. Early on in my Facebook experience, I friended the most beautiful woman I ever knew in college, though back then her circles and mine barely touched. She apparently didn't do much on Facebook, since I didn't seem to hear back from this woman after I wrote her. By November of that year, I broke up with the woman I had been dating. What I wrote in the Haye Sarah that year, a piece about social media, was where the fracture between us started.

At the very snowy end of that year, I got a happy birthday message from that college crush who hadn't answered me back in August. I wrote a thank you back and asked what she was up to. She wrote back and I wrote back. On New Year's Day I saw she was logged in, and chatted with her in what ended up as a four-hour conversation. Then our conversation became a series of e-mails about Hebrew and Aramaic grammar, all while I was on vacation. The emails led to nightly phone calls. The phone calls became visits half a continent away. The visits led to moving in together. A year after that first thank you on Facebook, I asked her to marry me. Next year, the woman of my college dreams, the love of my life, will be my wife.

When someone asks me if there is such a thing as prayer that gets answered, I think of this woman who I say the Shema with every night before going to sleep. Someone to say the Shema with was my "let me water your camels". That a snowstorm hit on that December day paralyzing her city, leading her to log on to Facebook and then to talk to me, was a miracle of a magnitude like the Red Sea. Yet, I look back on that list of what got me to that moment in my life, and I see there are two things that are true about prayer being answered: what you get is not what you expect, and when it does come, you have to act.

Circumstances both good and bad have happened to me over and over again. Only in hindsight do I see that each put me in the place where I am now. The beginning of our romance was over the grammar of Hebrew and Aramaic. I keep asking myself if I would be getting married to her, had I not gone to Hebrew school when I did. I ask myself had I not had the confidence I gained in my self-help courses, would I still be as invisible to her as I was in college? Had I not gained confidence, would I even have tried to talk to her, or would I have stayed as silent as I was twenty years ago?

When we talk of miracles and answers from God, we expect the splitting of the Red Sea, a burning bush, or the revelation at Sinai. But most miracles are so little and subtle, we often miss them. Often, they are near impossible to see, except in hindsight. Often, we are so self-occupied we miss them. On the occasions that we do see them, it is a time for blessing, of thanking God for the Blessing and the gift bestowed on us.

I've used this portion as a prayer of petition for close to a decade. Now I want to pray in thanksgiving. Blessed are you, God, for answering my prayers. Like your matching of Isaac and Rebecca, the great wonder of two people united in both love and marriage so far away have you bestowed such a miracle on me and my mate.

Amen.

Vayera 5771: Akedah and the Builders.

2010-10-22T14:04:00.003-05:00

This week we have the circumstances surrounding the birth of Isaac, from the time three visitors announce Sarah will become pregnant, through the events of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Issac's birth and weaning ceremony and the Akedah, the binding of Issac.

There is a midrash usually associated with Lecha Lecha which has parallels to the akedah. It is the second half of the well known story of Abram smashing the Idols in his father's store. He tells his father that the idols had a fight and the big one won. His father immediately said that Idols aren't real and can't do that.

Should not your ears listen to what your mouth is saying,’ he [Abram] retorted. Thereupon he seized him and delivered him to Nimrod. ‘Let us worship the fire!’ he [Nimrod] proposed. ' Let us rather worship water, which extinguishes the fire,’ replied he. ' Then let us worship water! ' ' Let us rather worship the clouds which bear the water. ' ' Then let us worship the clouds! ' ' Let us rather worship the winds which disperse the clouds.’ ' Then let us worship the wind!’ ' Let us rather worship human beings, who withstand the wind.’ ‘You are just bandying words,’ he exclaimed; ‘we will worship nought but the fire. Behold, I will cast you into it, and let your God whom you adore come and save you from it.’ Now Haran [Abram's brother] was standing there undecided. If Abram is victorious, [thought he], I will say that I am of Abram's belief, while if Nimrod is victorious I will say that I am on Nimrod's side. When Abram descended into the fiery furnace and was saved, he [Nimrod] asked him, ‘Of whose belief are you?’ ‘Of Abram's,’ he replied. Thereupon he seized and cast him into the fire; his inwards were scorched and he died in his father's presence. Hence it is written, AND HARAN DIED IN THE PRESENCE OF (‘ AL PENE) HIS FATHER TERAH "(Genesis 11:28 ) [Genesis R. XXXVII:13 ]

Several elements are parallel to the akedah, a sacrifice by fire, a father willingly taking his sons to be sacrificed. The akedah was a test we are told, and Nimrod was a test as well. it is the differences which provide a bit of insight. Another parallel is that Midrash tells us that it was in the fire God said to Abraham, "Lech Leha," which begins his journey, while the Akedah begins:

1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did test Abraham, and said unto him: 'Abraham'; and he said: 'Here am I.' 2. And He said: 'Take now your son, your only son, whom thou love, Isaac, and go for yourself [Lech lecha] into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.'[Genesis 22]

Since the time of the Akedah, commentators have tried to figure out what happened and why. The way the Rabbis told the story of the death of Haran, who incidentally is Lot's father, indicates one possibility. God was testing Abraham and Issac. Isaac's test was to test his belief. Was he like his Uncle Haran, who believed in Abraham's god, when it appeared Abraham's god was stronger? Does Issac believe, like his father, in God? Abraham rebelled against the gods of his father, would Isaac rebel against the One God of his father? If Abraham did a good job of teaching and raising Isaac, then Issac would answer those questions correctly.

Abraham had an incredible mind shift to get to monotheism. He needed to transmit that mindshift to his sons Issac and Ishmael in order for monotheism to continue. One an idea is established It hard for any of us to understand why anyone thought the way people did in the past, so its difficult for contemporary people to really understand why this test was so important.

I am a painter. I'm not very good but I'm able to do some half decent portraits in watercolor. For portability reasons, I decide to invest in a an iPad and a few different art apps and learn to paint digitally. One might think that painting on a computer would be similar to painting watercolors. The experience, I have found is very different. It requires me to think differently about how to use color, and how to use the brushes in the programs. even in the same size area, drawing is not easy. I'm using a very different mindset, and one that was very difficult for me to accept. Here's two different paintings and although they are both my paintings, they look entirely different .I have to approach the blank white page so very differently.

I think that was the point of the Akedah. It is so very difficult to change, especially in a world so very different than you see it. Isaac could have assimilated into the culture around him, but he didn't. Abraham and God needed God to be in the new mindset. To learn good techniques there is plenty of good watercolorists around ready to teach me that. Digital painting on a iPad is a different story -- even related techniques for PC's or Macs don't help me. It's such a new product with even newer application to do art, there is little for me to learn from. But the thing is, as I learn, I can pass my ways of making art on an iPad to others, by writing tutorials. Issac had to learn not only what is monotheism, which is even more difficult than understanding some of my paint programs, but then teach the next generation such things.

There is a very special place in the Talmud for those who take on the task of learning and teaching. In one of the more powerful statements, found at the end of several of the tractates of the talmud, we read:

R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Hanina: The disciples of the Sages increase peace in the world, as it is said, And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children(Is. 54:13) . Read not ‘thy children’ [banayik], but ‘thy builders’[bonayik]. [K'rithoth 28b]

Students are not just children growing up, but the builders of the next generation. It's important for them to transmit the mindshift to the next generation. This is not just book learning but something deeper. It's an attitude and belief at one's core, in one's heart and soul. Superficial learning or forcing someone, like Nimrod did, will not transmit much of this core change. If the core change happens, then we get the attitude of Abram confronting Nimrod, not the attitude of Haran his brother. Abraham may have been an architect of monotheism but it would take builders like Isaac and Jacob to really turn it into something lasting.

For sixty years or so, I believe we have been in the middle of a modern paradigm shift, a mind shift so mind blowing that it is very difficult for many to completely understand it. LIike Nimrod, again and again those who don't understand try to suppress it. The idea is old, but after the Holocaust and Hiroshima, what it means to so many people has changed radically. One of the most poetic version of it is the instructions given to death penalty witness in the Talmud:

[Adam was created alone] because of the peace of creation that no man shall say to his fellow "my father is greater than your father" and no heretical groups shall say "many rule in heaven." To tell of the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, that man stamps many coins with one seal, and each is like the other, but the King, King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, stamps every man with the seal of the first man and not one of them is like his fellow.

[Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5, B Sanhedrin 37a]

The story of creation means we are all family. Adam and Eve is everyone's ancestor. What is more we are all created in the image of the first human, and the image of the first human was in Btzelem Elohim God's image. To destroy Btzelem Elohim is to desecrate God. Yet to profess the greatness of God, we are paradoxically all different and all minted in that divine image. To not celebrate and honor those differences such as gender, race, sexual orientation, and belief system is to deny God's greatness.

There are Nimrods out there still, trying to enforce their beliefs. Btzelem Elohim for them is about one people being so, but not others. They feel more validated in such a belief, and thus superior to everything else. For them, there is a superior and inferior people, not that we are all reflections of the Divine. Like Nimrod, they enforce it with violence to the soul, to the heart and to the body. Somewhere inside of them they are threatened that they will no longer be superior, or that violence is the only way they can be superior. There are also Harans out there, following whoever seems to be the strongest. There are a few Abrahams, giving us the new paradigm. There are the Issacs, and Jacobs, the builders, those who do not enforce a belief, but make it their very day life and their core being.

Most of us are somewhere between Haran and Issac. Unfortunately the only way to tell where our core is under extreme stress, where there is only the core thinking. Abrham put Isaac thought the same intense situation that he went through, a burmt sacrifice, knowing full well what God was doing. Isaac did not have to choose like Haran who was stronger, but believe with all his heart all his soul and all his being that God is One. In that Isaac succeeded, and Abraham succeeded in teaching him to be so.

Lech Lecha 5771: Mind Shift

2010-10-18T07:07:00.001-05:00

This week begins:

1 Now the LORD said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee. 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing. [Genesis 12]

The rest of the portion chronicles the wanderings of Abraham up through Abraham's and Ishmael's circumcision. This includes a sojourn into Egypt where Abraham deceives Pharaoh, a lightning raid on the enemies of Sodom and Gomorra when Lot gets into a hostage situation, Ishmael's birth, and a really strange sacrifice.

A few weeks ago, I began attending a group discussion on Jewish theology. We are using a book edited by R. Elliot Cosgrove Jewish Theology in our Time an anthology of rabbis from my and younger generations as the starting point. Across the spectrum of Jewish thought, these authors presented ideas I was familiar with and which describe much of my own theology. Many ideas are not new at all, but showed how influenced the authors of these essays were by Abraham Joshua Heschel, and the 18th and early 19th century Hasidic masters. Among the members of the class, there were strong objections to much of the material, and a complaint that these Rabbis' theology wasn't authentically Jewish. Apparently, in much of the group, only Maimonides is Jewish.

The group went on bashing the beliefs of the young rabbis, discrediting their credentials while continuing to compare them to the their ideal image of the intellectual Maimonides. I felt very alone in that room. I agreed with many of those contributing Rabbis in the book, At the same time, I understood where the rest of the class were coming from: a world that was different than the one I grew up in, even if it was in the same country. Rationality made Judaism special in their minds, compared to the far less rational Christians around them. For them, Maimonides is the pinnacle of rationality and intellectualism. But Jeremy Gordon, the Rabbi of New London Synagogue, England Shares my concern about Maimonides when writing his essay in the book:

I am not that interested in dogmatic assertions that allow me to test who is and is not a proper Jewish theologian. None of these theological endeavors seems to help me be better: A better husband,father or rabbi. They don't even seem to help me understand the world with more accuracy or insight (More Theos less Ology, 51)

I believe like many of these rabbis' essays that the logic and rationalism that Maimonides uses fails when talking about theology. It is an import and reconciliation of Plato and Aristotle and not what the tradition uses to work out theological problems. Instead, it is Aggadah, stories and midrash which provides the medium for such discussions. Yet I was seemingly alone in that, and so alone I was afraid to respond in the discussion, short of defending the credentials of the contributing Rabbis to the book.

I sometime fear others will take me for crazy for asking for wisdom and guidance from God, because I very often get an answer from God. God would give the wisdom in signs. I've done that myself so many times I take it for granted but never thought that I was crazy. I talk to God all the time, then look for God's responses in a street signs, songs on the radio and even the occasional fortune cookie. Yet, I'm uncomfortable talking to others in my synagogue about praying and finding wonders, who probably would find it irrational, and believe me crazy. I know that many think I'm crazy that heartfelt prayer for me does not happen in the Big Synagogue. For me, it needs something smaller, warmer and more personal. Yet the older generations in liberal communities seem to have a hard time understanding that. The older generation was interested in rationality, and my spiritual life has so much more richness than mere thinking. I wrote in my notes for the theology class a summary of one article:

We don't find God's wonder's until we shut up and listen. the Shema does not read "Proclaim oh Israel!", But "Hear oh Israel!"

Yet in much of my life I find few who do keep still and quiet long enough to actually hear -- they are too busy talking.

Abram was told by God to Lech Leha, to go for himself, in doing so he became Abraham. Many know the Midrash of Abram Smashing the Idols, but few know the rest of the story. Terah, Abram's Father, took Abram to be executed for this act. After Abram was thrown live into a sacrificial fire pit, [Genesis R. XXXVII:13] it was then that God said "Lech lecha."[ibid, XXXIX:2] Breaking some pottery or a few assets of a merchant wasn't the issue, thinking differently than everyone else was. The thinking of the people of Abram's time was so rigid, Abram's father Terah wanted to see his son die than change his view, and Abram was willing to be sacrificed for his.

There are different generations, and they are influenced by different things. The generations of liberal Jews older than me were influenced by a need for rationalism, a continued fear of anti-semitism, the Shoah, and the joy of the establishment of the state of Israel. The generations younger than me are influenced by different things, those issues which influenced the older generations are now in the past far enough to be not be significant in their lives.

The way I read the situation, the older generations want and seek a prime mover, and are often puzzled by its absence in horrific events while demanding their free will. The younger generation wants a prime lover, the most moved mover, and is often puzzled in how to keep or even start such a relationship. Neither is wrong or even inaccurate, just different based on different life experiences.

In every older generation there will be mavericks. It is often these mavericks who inform the next generation as its teachers. My own education was at the feet of students of Abraham Joshua Heschel.. A majority of the baby boomer generation may remember Heschel for Selma and his views on Vietnam. My generation and younger generations will remember him more for God in Search of Man, which was panned by the Jewish community at its publication. It's clear to me that many of the young rabbis in Cosgrove's book remember Heschel for his theology than his social justice stands, though both are important.

As Midrash and the text tell us, Abraham the patriarch was a maverick. He was aware that a statue, a pocket sized clay figure, a tree or a hill was not a god. There was something more than the wind and the sun, and that something more was God. The older generation of his time, including his own father, could not make that conceptual leap, and so they set out to destroy him.

Abraham left that world to define himself and his family in the mind shift to monotheism. We celebrate his iconoclasm, all while being fallible human beings and clinging to idols of the mind, the assumptions we hold so dear. It may be assumptions of our generation, gender, sexual orientation or social status. We hold them so dear they become idols. When the rabbis of the Talmud would challenge a statement, very often they would phrase their challenge "how is this derived?" Understanding why a rule was written the way it was came before rejecting it on seemingly logical grounds. Once understood, it could be accepted or rejected. But understanding came first, and even in rejection tolerance for a community's view remained. I find so little of that in our world, and that class was only the latest and last example. Most people would rather defend their idols of assumptions, than even listen or understand to the the assumptions of another.

It's hard to make a mind shift. One of the hardest is to remove the assumptions that our assumptions are facts. We need to examine them, to continually challenge ourselves to say "how is this derived?" In some cases, like the Rabbis of the Gemara, we may continue to believe or we may see how we are faulty in our thinking. Like Abram, we may learn to lech lecha, to move on to a different way of thinking, away from the prejudices and faulty assumptions of our kindred and ancestors' house.

Noah 5771:Ravens and Doves

2010-10-08T16:23:00.002-05:00

This week we come to the story of the Noah and the flood, Noah getting drunk and stupid after the flood, and the Tower of Babel. But the story that interests me has to do with my tallis. Over the high holidays I got a lot of compliments on my hand-designed silk tallis. A very important part of that tallis is the image of the Dove. We read of doves in the Noah story (Genesis 8:6-12)

From Blogger Pictures

6. And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; 7. And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth. 8. Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; 9. But the dove found no rest for the sole of its foot, and she returned to him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth; then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her into the ark. 10. And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; 11. And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off; so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. 12. And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which did not return back to him any more.

The question arises what is the difference between the dove and the raven? Popular reading of this story puts the dove as the good guy and the raven as the selfish bad guy. But is that the case? Reading the text carefully it does not say the raven just disappeared, but instead kept looking until its mission was finished - of finding dry land. The dove however returns to the Ark, until the time after it returns with an olive branch.

The story hints the ancients were very aware of many animal behaviors. Ravens, as scavengers are known to keep searching until they find a meal. It is for this reason the Rabbis of the Talmud likened ravens to Torah scholars who spends too many hours in deep study [Eiruvin 22a]. Ravens, however, are for the most part independent creatures not relying on any other bird, even neglecting their young in their pursuits. Ravens on rare occasions group together when there is a group interest. Doves on the other hand are Doves are committed to their mate. Often when perching on a phone line you will see doves in pairs. So committed are doves that even when their mate dies, they will circle the body for hours not letting go to their mate. They also will never look for another mate. It is such strict animal monogamy that Noah used to get some message to the status of the world. While accurate, using the raven takes time to get feedback. Until things are dry, Noah will not know what the status of the world is from the raven. On the other hand the Doves desire to be with her mate is so strong, she cannot stay away for long. When the dove comes back with the olive leaf, only then does the dove change its strategy and prepare the nest for both itself and her mate, who will soon join her.

On my tallis I have a picture of two doves one on each side of the tallis. On the collar, instead of the traditional blessing, I have the words in Hebrew Hinach Yafa Ra-yati, Hinach Yafa, ay-na-yich Yonim which is from the Song of Songs 1:15 as an declaration of the male to the female. In English, this translated to the phrase How beautiful you are how Beautiful! Your eyes are like doves.' It is easy to believe that her eyes are pretty because they have a soft, dove-like quality. In The Song of Songs 1:9 the male lover compares the female to a mare released among all the stallions of Pharaoh's army. While the allusion seems to be a man who is taken back by all the the suitors the female protagonist has, but 1:15 shows she has eyes for no one but the male. Her eyes are like doves as they can only see her mate.

In the rabbinic mind, the Song of Songs is a parable. The male here is God, the female Israel. The rabbis also do not believe that eyes are compared merely on appearance, but on their qualities. (Shir Ha Shirim Rabbah I:66) Within the Song of Songs, Israel, while having many suitors, only has eyes for God. The Rabbis comment:

Just as a dove, from the time that she recognizes her mate, never changes him for another, so Israel once they had learnt to know the Holy One, blessed be He, have never exchanged Him for another. (Shir Hashirim Rabbah I:64)

Similarly it is the Tzitizit of the tallis, which are to remind us not to have eyes for others.

39. And it shall be to you for a fringe (tzitzit), that you may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord, and do them; and that you seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, which incline you to go astray; 40. That you may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God. (Numbers 15:39-40)

I combined these images, the tzitzit and the Dove together to make my tallis. My tallis is about commitment, both in the worlds above and the worlds below. It is a commitment to God. It is also about commitment to all of our relationships in this world. The one I was thinking at the time I made my tallit was of course finding the woman I want to spend the rest of my life with. It so fills me with joy every Shabbat to stand next to my fiance and wear the tallit that I show my commitment to both.

The Raven was committed to finding land, and not coming back till it did. The dove was committed to its mate and would make multiple trips to the ark. The wicked generation of the flood had no commitment.

For all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. (Gen. 6:12) R. Johanan said: This teaches that they caused beasts and animals, animals and beasts, to copulate; and all of these were brought in connection with man, and man with them all.

Others believe the animals, wild and domestic, copulated willingly:

R. ‘Azariah said in R. Judah's name: All acted corruptly in the generation of the Flood: the dog [copulated] with the wolf, the fowl with the peacock; hence it is written, For all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. (Gen. 6:12)[Genesis Rabbah 28:8]

The generation of the flood did not even commit to a species let alone a single mate. Some in our society today think that sexual promiscuity is where one does anything that isn't about making children. Sexual promiscuity is where there is a lack of commitment. A lack of commitment was the big sin that got everything killed. Anyone, Gay, Bi, or Straight who makes a commitment to others is far from promiscuous.

Living in the modern world my talis is a reminder to that commitment, in a simple promise to our life-partner's commitment for a healthy lifetime together, to our commitment to God forever. For me, commitment is a holy thing. Praying next to my bride-to-be every Shabbat, I find joy in my commitments to God, and to the commitment to this woman who is the love of my life.

Breishit 5771: Fruitful and One Flesh?

2010-10-01T16:01:00.001-05:00

Breishit 5771: Fruitful and One Flesh?
This week, we start again the story of Torah. This year I start as a member of not one but two synagogues, and infrequently attending a third on some holidays. Why this is so is what I want to write about, because two verses in this week’s parasha are at the heart of this situation.

28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creeps upon the earth.'[Genesis 1]

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. [Genesis 2]

These verses are part of the two creation stories we find at the beginning of Torah. In the eyes of the rabbis, these two lines say the same thing, though it may not appear it. Rashi, summarizing Sanhedrin 58a, show us how 2:24 is the same as 1:28

one flesh: The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one.

For Genesis 1:28, Rashi comments on the possible bad grammar of the sentence. God starts in the plural, but if one vowel is different, "subdue" is in the masculine singular.

It is also meant to teach you that the man, whose way it is to subdue, is commanded to propagate, but not the woman (Yev. 65b).

In short, these two verses define a family as a husband as the head of a household, and he should have a woman to procreate with. The classic line "A marriage is one man and one woman" comes to mind. It seems to establish itself in the story of creation.

Though one half of the genetic material of a father and one half on the genes of a mother come together in a fetus, I have thought, "one flesh" does not mean children. The reason for making woman in Genesis 2 is to correct the first problem of creation: loneliness.

18 And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'[Genesis 2]

The solution given in Genesis is to have a ezer c'negdo, a companion, an opposite. Where this opposite comes from is the separation of the sides of a whole creature. Tzela, is often translated as rib, but is better translated as a side. God spilt the first creature in half to find a companion for it. Woman and man are two opposite halves. When put together, they make a unit which can be more than the sum of its parts. That whole may produce children, but that may not always be the case.

Children are a biological imperative of course. In my experience these verses have substantiated that biological imperative and elevated it to the level of a mitzvah. For many non-observant Jews, I have observed it had long ago become the only mitzvah: be fruitful and multiply. As long as you have Jewish children, you are okay. Kosher? Shabbat? Acts of Charity? Not needed. The assumption is be fruitful, have some Jewish kids and get them to the Bnei Mitzvah Bimah. After that it is up to the kids.

While many might take exception to this, it is this assumption of what is a family which drives much Jewish community structure, often defined as our prayer community, our synagogue. The assumption of "be fruitful and multiply" is to produce children who will need a Jewish education. Thus having kids attending the events that are supposed to shape them into good Jewish adults becomes a driving force in the culture of the synagogue. I spent Simchat Torah at such a synagogue, which beautifully orients the entire service to the kids, and to the parents to support their children. This education continues till the child reaches their bar mitzvah. At the point where the child becomes responsible for themselves, some of those kids will go on too teen activities at their synagogue. Some will even go to Hillel services and activities at their college or university. But what happens to those kids after that?

When it comes to be fruitful and multiply, while the assumption is this is the greatest mitzvah, the reality is very different. In 1990, the National Jewish Population Survey raised some alarms about the rates of intermarriage. Inthe follow-up, NJPS 2001 continued to see such a trend. That was not the only alarming news however. Fertility rates were low, and childbearing years were later than the general population.

At all ages, fertility among Jewish women is lower than fertility for all U.S. women, whether gauged by the percent who are childless or the average number of children ever born...The fertility gap between Jewish and all U.S. women narrows but is not eliminated in later childbearing age groups, indicating that Jewish women delay having children until later years, and then come close to, but do not match, fertility levels of all U.S. women.

It is not until age 35-39 that less than half of Jewish women remain childless, compared to a fifth of all U.S. women. By age 40-44, usually considered the last childbearing age group, the gap narrows but is not completely closed, with just over a quarter of Jewish women remaining childless compared to less than a fifth of all U.S. [NJPS 2000-2001]

Be Fruitful and multiply is something many young Jews do not do early in their lives. Many plan to have children after they feel they can successfully financially support a family. Fertility rates, the NJPS notes directly correlate to graduate school attendance. In some graduate research I performed surveying dating websites, I found the age one finishes graduate school correlates with when one begins to look for a mate to have children with. Yet they are not the only ones who reject these two verses. Those who find ezer c'negdo in a member of the same gender also run into dilemmas. Is one’s other half always of the opposite gender? The GLBT community would disagree. The drive to having children in gay and lesbian couples is not as prominent as mainstream straight couples. One could contend it is this lack of fruitfulness which many straight people find so disturbing about the GLBT’s communitty. There are also those who just decided, for whatever reason, that raising children is not for them. All of these have in one way or another decided it is not raising children that will be the center of their universe.

Yet in the culture of the Synagogue, these childless demographics are not the lifeblood of the synagogue, the traditional family is. Many synagogues might have adapted enough to allow for two-mommy or two-daddy families, but they are parents and children still. The culture, like the synagogue I was at for Simchat Torah, admirably revolves around educating Jewish youth in both Jewish culture and belief. Yet in this pedagogy, the Childless are both left behind and made to feel alien, even the nest-makers who want children. As Synagogue 3000's demographer Steven Cohen and Rabbi Lawrence Hoffman report, all those same kids who went to Hebrew School in the big synagogues stay away from those same synagogues as adults because there is no place for singles and couples without children.

I experienced this myself almost a decade ago at a previous extremely liberal synagogue, one that prided itself on open-mindedness. I realized back then how much work it is to raise a child well, and realized I was not up to the task. As a straight man, I do not know what it is like to come out of the closet, but the day I told my friends I would not have children is one that is probably a lot like coming out. Coming out as gay that day would not have caused as much a furor as when I told them I decided not to have children. Instead of listening to me, they tried to find way I would have children.

While I am no longer at that synagogue, I'm a lot like my gay and lesbian friends as far as the culture of any mainstream synagogue is concerned. While I can admit to who I am to most people, there are some who will react strongly. Indeed I'm taking a big risk in outing myself as Childless by Choice to people who will not be tolerant of my life choices. Yet like my GLBT friends, I will be by definition be a minority in synagogue life. Synagogues are for Parents, Children and Grandparents. I have found over the years, If you are anything else, particularly if you do not ascribe to Be fruitful and multiply you don’t exist, and it’s often best not to show up.

Even when a synagogue calls itself "gay friendly”, I have found the culture still diminishes them as a minority. So too the childless like myself. To emphasize pedagogy is to emphasize having children around. As one who has chosen childlessness, I for one find myself rather comfortable in a community of GLBT Jews in ways I don't in a community of straight Jews. And so I am now a member of both a larger mainstream Synagogue and a smaller, GLBT synagogue. The part of me that doesn’t fit in one, fits in the other.

Although I choose not to have kids, I do still take some responsibilities with children very seriously. The Talmud states:

He who teaches the son of his neighbor Torah, Scripture ascribes it to him as if he had begotten him [Sanh. 19b]

I may not have my own children, but in the children I know it is vital that I am there to show them how good it is to embrace words of Torah. This week it was literally embracing as I danced with the Torah, with little kids around me wide eyed in the delight of Simchat Torah. Many of their parents do not do what I do, waltzing around with that Torah, or sing verses of Torah off the top of my head. Many do not keep kosher to any degree, or refuse to work on Shabbat. That third Synagogue is where the kids are, and so on some Holidays, I am there too. But my job extends beyond the synagogue walls to the rest of life and teaching the little ones about who they are and who they should be as Jews. Jewish education is also outside of the classroom and synagogue. When the little ones ask me why I davven on Shabbat, or say some particular blessing or why I don’t eat cheeseburgers or bacon, I can tell them, and they can learn something along the way.

I may choose not make more Jewish Bodies, but in doing so, I’m also committed to keep Jewish souls joyously Jewish.

Simchat Torah 5771: God Heart's Stories, Again and Again.

2010-09-30T07:13:00.001-05:00

There is a wonderful Midrash about Simchat Torah. The last word of Deuteronomy Is Yisrael( ישראל ), and the first word of Genesis is Breshit ( בראשית ). Take the last and first letters in Torah and you get the word Leiv ( לב ), the word for heart. Telling stories are loved so much, when we end the Story of Moses's life, we go back and immediately start with the story of creation once again.

In Jewish writings there is Halakah, which is the law, its interpretations and its interpolations. There is also everything else, known as Aggadah, including stories, interpretations of those stories, known as Midrash, ethical literature, theological musings and even poetry. The Medieval French Commentator Rashi noted an interesting division between Halalkah and Aggadah right from the word Breishit:

In the beginning: Said Rabbi Isaac: It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from “This month is to you,” (Exod. 12:2) which is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded... Now for what reason did He commence with “In the beginning?” Because of [the verse] “The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations” (Ps. 111:6). For if the nations of the world should say to Israel, “You are robbers, for you conquered by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan],” they will reply, "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it (this we learn from the story of the Creation) and gave it to whomever He deemed proper When He wished, He gave it to them, and when He wished, He took it away from them and gave it to us.[ Rashi to Gen 1:1 Chabad Online Library]

The first part of the Torah therefore is all Aggadah, primarily meant to describe the world as God's creation, and that God owns it and can give and take things at will. This cannot come across as mere law, story works much better. The origin stories legitimize everything that comes later.

There is a story in the Talmud about Aggadah and Halakah. Two rabbis walk into a town, and head for the town square, one begins to lecture about Halakah and one about Aggadah. Everyone flocks to the Aggadist and no one listens to the Halakist. On their way out of town the Halakist sulks. The Aggadist, trying to cheer his friend up, tells him a parable. "To what could this be compared to? To a merchant of pots and pans and to a merchant of precious jewels. Would not people flock to the pots and pans?"

Stories are useful and approachable. They convey emotion and they can convey a moral or ethical lesson. While Torah contains Halakah, it is important to note that it is primarily Exodus through Deuteronomy which contain Halakah. As the Talmudic rabbis so eloquently describe, prophets are prohibited from making Halakah, unless in a dire emergency. The prophets and writings are all story. Indeed the Reform movement in its inception pretty much rejected the mitzvot of Torah as antiquated practices. Instead it embraced the Aggadah of the prophets. And while the role of Halakah in the Reform movement has changed, it still is not binding as it is in Orthodoxy. Instead it is still driven by the stories Reform Jews know, and that primarily is the same stories of the prophets crying out for social justice. Orthodoxy can get extreme in Halakic orientation, Reform is still Aggadah powered in the spectrum of things.

This is not to say that Orthodoxy does not have Aggadah or Reform does not have Halakah. Both have both, but like the difference between a cinnamon coffee with a dash of milk and a Vanilla Latte, it is just in differing proportions and differing flavors. Neither is right or wrong, each has its merit. Halakah gives structure and strengh. Agggadah ethics and theology. Halakah is what we do, Aggadah is why we do it.

Shavuot is our celebration of Halakah. Simchat Torah is about story, it is about Aggadah. It is the celebration of our ability to read the same story over and over again, and each time pull new insights from it. It is the celebration of how much we love this book. Torah is both precious gems and pots and pans. It's been said God loves stories. Those pots and pans are a big half of our existence. But like many a small child, God likes the same stories to be read over and over again, and delights in ending and then beginning the cycle anew. We all get to be the little child bouncing on their bed, now, excited that we are beginning that book we love so much over again.

It is my wish that this year brings many good stories in your own and many good insights from the story we call Torah.

Sukkot 5771: What is the Difference Between Wind and Breath?

2010-09-24T09:47:00.004-05:00

Like many Jews around the world, the morning after breaking the fast of Yom Kippur, I helped build a Sukkah. As must of liberal Judaism does, I do not have my own, but have the sukkah of a prayer community I'm involved with. With a September Sukkot, and rather good weather, it seems all the more enticing, to dwell out in this structure for a few days.

Also like many Jews around the world, I spent the first few days after Sukkot talking with other Jews about their Yom Kippur. We would talk about their fast and how they lasted before breaking their fast. We would talk about each rabbi's sermon or D'var Torah and we would talk about how the services were presented. One conversation I had was with someone who had very mixed feelings about video screen PowerPoint presentations during the sermon. I, for one was taken aback at such a blatant use of technology. I'll let a few instruments in services, no problem, but there seem to be a line crossed when a video screen, either connected to a computer or television system is part of the holiest day of Yom Kippur. My reaction led me to think of some interesting Hebrew vocabulary we find during Sukkot.

While most people connect the reading of the Megillah with the reading of Megilat Esther, the reading for Purim, there are actually five such readings from the Ketuvim, the writings of the biblical text, each associated with a holiday on the calendar. The traditional reading during the holiday of Sukkot is Ecclesiastes, in Hebrew Kohelet, supposedly written by king Solomon in his old age. That book starts on a less than optimistic tone, and gets gloomy from there:

א דברי קוהלת בן-דויד, מלך בירושלים. ב הבל הבלים אמר קוהלת, הבל הבלים הכול הבל. ג מה-יתרון, לאדם: בכל-עמלו--שיעמול, תחת השמש.

1 The words of Kohelet, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. 2 Vanity of vanities, said Kohelet; vanity of vanities, all is vanity. 3 What profit has man of all his labor when he labors under the sun? [Kohelet 1]

The key word in this verse is, חבל , Hevel. Here it is translated vanity, but a check of the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon gives us some texture to that word.

From Google books BDB Page 211

We also have verses including hevel and something else of interest, the first of these being:

יד רָאִיתִי, אֶת-כָּל-הַמַּעֲשִׂים, שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ; וְהִנֵּה הַכֹּל הֶבֶל, וּרְעוּת רוּחַ.
14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.[Kohelet 1]

The word for wind here is רוּחַ Ruach. On page 1112 of the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon reads like this.

From Google Books BDB pg 924

In kohelet 1:14 we have wind in a phrase "striving after wind." The word used as striving in the Biblical text is found only here so understanding it cannot be done by context. However we can look to the Aramaic translation, the Targum, for its meaning of the word. In the Targum chasing after wind is translated ותבירות רוחא , which gives us a new word, תבירות translated in English by the Jastrow Dictionary as:

From Tynedale Archive Jastrow Dictionary pg 1644

Thus the parallelism in kohelet all is vanity and a striving after wind talks about disappointment and futility. Yet in both words, the image of air flow is important, In hevel, it is a breath, in ruach it is a strong wind. We cannot catch the wind, and we cannot sustain breathing out. That is the common image of futility. Yet there is also a large difference between the two. Ruach is a sustainable wind, lasting a long time if not forever, much like our spirit and souls. Ruach can be strong compared to Hevel's feebleness. Hevel is a mere wisp of breath, so fleeting to be meaningless. Indeed it is so common, most of our lives we ignore it completely.
Ruach is our home, Hevel our sukkah. Ruach is our soul, Hevel the petty meaningless thoughts we have everyday. Ruach is genius behind a classic novel, Hevel the latest gossip tweet about some 2nd rate actress. They are a polarity, one where we can see where there is meaning.

Hevel all too often happens on video monitors. It's not the use of electricity on a holiday that disturbs me, as much as the Hevel that makes up its content. Many argue we need such things to keep the younger generation engaged, and many of the older generations as well. But if we use things that have no substance, how can we build substance? PowerPoint and short videos are all hevel. They might engage an emotion, but they rarely engage the mind for long, if at all.

It is therefore ironic, that something so like hevel, a sukkah, is so good at countering hevel. Exposing us to the lie that hevel is substantial, we live in something that is temporary and very leaky. We get days that the wind blows us and our decorations around while threatening the structural integrity of our little home. In a sukkah we are subjected to cold and rain. But we are also blessed by seeing stars and meteors, the beautiful designs the Ruach shapes clouds into sculptures and paintings, the comedy of squirrels. Many of these change, but they are almost always there. Seeing them engages parts of our souls and spirits that may be asleep. We can engage our imagination, our will toward doing good things, here in the sukkah, all of this grows our personal Ruach. We cannot catch Ruach, but we can grow it by observing it.

King Solomon was right to be pessimistic in his old age. Even in his low tech times, he found that much of life was vanity and chasing after wind. Pursuing wealth, collecting wisdom or being a party boy, only leaves one as satisfied as eating one potato chip. Yet I believe, if we do not pursue wind, but sit there and observe it, then somehow in the observing, we energize the spirit and inspiration needed in our lives and in our souls.

Yom Kippur 5771: The First Step, The First Sail

2010-09-16T10:15:00.001-05:00

I have not been feeling very spiritual for a few weeks now. I felt rather disconnected in a sense, and the light of God in me seems to have gone out. I have found just when things are so dark, a light is found. Such lights for me are always a book from an unexpected quarter. This time it'a a book by Rabbi Rami Shapiro, Recovery -- The Sacred Art, his spiritual take on the 12 steps used in addiction recovery. It is Shapiro's view of the first step that has me thinking a lot:

Step 1 - We admitted we were powerless over our lives - that our lives had become unmanageable

Instead of our addicition as in most twelve step programs, we are to look at our lives as completely unmanageable, and we have no control over them. It is God, or the Higher Power in 12-step terminology, that does.

This seems to be contradictory to the idea of free will. Free will does not mean we are free to do anything and control everything. I would love to be home in twenty minutes from work, but I cannot control the speed of traffic on my way home from work, so it usually takes an hour or two. If I do not understand that I will become frustrated, I might even become stressed out, angry or sick. I felt that frustration this week trying to configure a set of computers and a network. I don't control enough that it works perfectly all the time, nor do I control the demands of others on my time. That is frustrating and anger inducing.

Paging through my Reconstructionst Mahzor I found something I had read many times before but I saw differently:

We have acted wrongly, we have been untrue, and we have gained unlawfully and we have defamed. We have harmed others, we have wrought injustice, we have zealously transgressed, and we have hurt and have told lies. We have improperly advised, and we have covered up the truth, and we have laughed in scorn. We have misused responsibility and have neglected others and have stubbornly rebelled. We have offended, we have perverted justice, and have stirred up enmity, and we have kept ourselves from change. We have reached out to evil, we have treated shamelessly, we have corrupted and have treated others with disdain. Yes, we have thrown ourselves off course, and we have tempted and misled. [Kol haneshama 819]

This was a translation of the Ashamnu, the shorter, alphabetic acrostic one of the two confessional prayers. The Al Heiyt, the longer of the two continues in the same mindset with even greater specificity. Reading both I realized we are really only confessing manifestations of one set of sins:

For the sin before You for believing ourselves to be You
For the sin before You of expecting to be your power
And for the sin before You to judge what you alone judge.

The true sin is believing we are God. When we believe we actually have control of the universe, we not only delude ourselves with this illusion, we sin. We end up doing something harmful to ourselves, to others, or very often both. I think that is what Rami Shapiro was getting at in his book. We do not control the universe -- God does.

Yet, paradoxically we do have free will. We choose what we want to do -- we choose our course. there are times we will choose badly and times we do a good job. We can choose to understand the nature of divine will or not. We can try to counter divine will if we want, but with consequences, very often negative ones to ourselves, our relationships and to our environment. It is at this time of year we try to repair some of those consequences and prepare to not make those mistakes in the coming year.

Many have problems with the term divine will, it is often sounding dictatorial compared to many of our notions of freedom. As a beginning sailor, one who does so many things still completely wrong, I've been thinking differently about this term. I've been using a Hebrew word that many know in the English: ruach ( רוח ). Ruach can be translated many ways, based on a verbal root to breathe. It can mean breath, spirit, soul, and wind. Ruach Hakodesh, might be translated holy wind, holy breath, or holy spirit. I keep thinking as a beginning sailor of Ruach Hakodesh.

We do have choice. We have the choice to how we act in the Ruach Hakodesh. I thought of a parable about boats again to explain what Rabbi Rami was trying to say. This can be compared to a sail boat. I have no control over wind, or water or weather. I may be rained on, or the wind may be strong or weak, or heading in the direction I am not going. I cannot tell the wind to blow at ten knots to the south east. I have no control over it. But I can trim my sails and steer in ways that will let me move. I cannot control anything but I can react accordingly to what is there. Of course to know what is there, I must be aware. I can see the wind on the water, and often can feel it on my face. Knowing that I am not controlling the world around me, I am free to perceive and react accordingly, and free to sail where ever I want, with little effort. So too with the Ruach Hakodesh. I cannot control it or presume to control it, but react in a holy and righteous way to what happens in my life.

Even in a sail boat, steering is a art of subtlety and awareness. Without it, one might capsize or be be thrown overboard. Tacks and jibes move the boom rather quickly from one side of the boat to the other, and one must watch one's head continually. A rudder or sail in the wrong place may tilt the boat precariously, as I v'e learned the hard way once too often. While the movements must be quick, they must also be subtle. I am not out to single handedly save the world, but live a good, just life, and do things that let others do so too. I am not God or a god, nor do I have the power knowledge or wisdom of God, I can only do little things without capsizing my boat.

This is what Yom Kippur is to remind us of. Besides the confessionals, and a few prayers for the high holidays like Netana Tokef, it is just a regular service. It is a service where we try to recognize something about ourselves -- that we cannot control the universe, not even ourselves. One day of hunger and intense, almost non-stop prayer reminds us of how little we control our own bodies. Most have problems with a one-day fast. We are reminded that we cannot even control our hunger for even a few hours. We are also reminded of those who have no food and still have no control of their hunger. Humbling ourselves with how little power we have, and recognizing who really has it.

May you have a good fast and be sealed in the book of fully living.

Shabbat Shuvah/ Haazinu 5771: Turning and Turning Again.

2010-09-14T08:01:00.003-05:00

In the season of repentance I'll admit I was wrong about something about last week's drash. I did find one place where I did enjoy High Holiday services. It was the second day of Rosh Hashana at Northwestern Hillel. It was a small room, and we often had to wait quite a while to get a minyan to start services. I realized that nothing that was true of the bigger services was true of this little one. I though that it was charming, and very very comfortable. Not everyone prayed the same way, but that did not matter either.

That thought came to me at Erev Rosh Hashanah services. Instead of my usual venue, we went with many of our friends to their services The sanctuary was far from full, and there was definitely no fashion contest going on. I found it kind of cute there might have been a contest to see how oddly one could dress. The choir was there, all eight or ten strong in a room far too big for their voices, singing a cappella without the help of microphones. This congregation rented this from a congregation who needed to rent a church to hold the large number they had for services. It was in a strange way comfy. It was so comfy, I spent first day services there, though I had originally planned on going back to my current synagogue.

I've been in big and little synagogues for much of my life. I like the little. Even my current big synagogue is more an umbrella to the little minyan I spent Saturday mornings in. I find this comforting. I'm not the only one. Demographic studies from Synagogue 3000 are showing a shift to smaller emergent communities and away from the big synagogue, particularly among Jews under the age of forty. [link, pg 13,14] . The study mentions that this demographic feels alienated in the traditional synagogue who is often focused on young children and education. The assumptions that under 40 childless couples and singles have are far different than families, and the emergent communities and independent minyans are finding a large number of their members (87% for emergent communities compared to 29% for NJPS 2000- 2001 synagogue definition) to be less than 40.

One response I got from my previous post had an interesting beginning, which that statistic reminded me of

How about remembering what I call the Mayflower Midrash, the verse that used to be posted in Mayflower Donut Shops across the country, As you wander on through life, Brother/Whatever be your goal,/Keep your eye upon the donut/And not upon the hole.

http://eachlittleworld.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/12/donutpoem_4.jpg

I hadn't heard of Mayflower doughnuts, so I did some research. Mayflower doughnuts had the first operational doughnut making machine in their first bakery in New York. In the times I went to visit my grandparents there, I don't remember this at all, since I would have been an infant or toddler. By the time the last Mayflower doughnut shop shuttered it doors almost 40 years ago, I still would have been too young to read it. The comment is indeed very true, and wise in many respects. My rant in many people's eye was unnecessary, and though I thought I made it clear the problem for my prayer is a financial shot in the arm for most congregations. Yet, the use of that slogan led me to realize that this is also a generational assumption. Some generations know Mayflower doughnuts, some have never heard of them.

http://fansinaflashbulb.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/munkasci_martin_2007_110_0263.jpg

Parshat Haazinu is the transition from one generation to another. A lot like Mayflower doughnuts, there is a generation who lives on the west side of the Jordan and the ones mostly under 40 who will live on the east side. Moses has the people who will live in the land give ear to the last instructions, ones that can only be made by someone who didn't see the wonders of Egypt and the Exodus. With the exception of Joshua and Caleb, Moses is the last of his generation, the last alive who witnessed the plages, the Red Sea and Sinai. In many respect, Moses is the last. There were many assumptions made by the people who left Egypt, Moses included. From their times as spies onward, Joshua and Caleb make different assumptions, and are thus awarded the privilege of entering the land, of being part of the younger generation. Moses does not, and thus is left on the east side of the Jordan. Assumptions allow us to be on one side of the river or the other. In the time of deciding what way to turn, shuva means turning. It is something we think about in these ten days: which way do we turn? Which assumptions do we keep and which do we forgo?

Where I was for Rosh Hashanah removes some very strong assumptions in many Jewish communities. Some it shares with many emergent communities, such as not emphasizing children's education, like the traditional synagogue does. That fits my own experience, one of many assumptions I hold true. Some assumptions I realized are very different from my own as I listened to three congregant's reflections during the Shofar service. It will take some getting used to, and indeed getting comfortable with. The challenge to my assumptions is welcome. I am as welcoming of those challenges as the people of this community are welcoming of me -- with bear hugs.

This is the time of turning. The Perkei Avot, speaking of Torah proclaims

25. Ben Bag-Bag used to say of the Torah: Turn it and turn it again, for everything is in it. Pour over it, and wax gray and old over it. Stir not from it for you can have no better rule than it.

We can also turn over the Torah of life, and challenge our assumptions continually. The time of the ten days is for that. Understanding the assumptions of others and finding our own, even the ones we think of as facts, is a challenging but rewarding exercise. It prepares us for the next stage of the process, acknowledging what we did wrong as we come up on Yom Kippur, where all doughnuts and assumptions are to be cast aside.

Rosh Hashana 5771: Where the Book Am I?

2010-09-07T09:19:00.001-05:00

It's that time again for the High Holidays or Days of Awe depending on what you want to call them, and instead of being prepared for them, I am not feeling very spiritual lately. A big part of that is something that I have hinted at almost every year, but never said outright: I hate Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

Many of my reasons are pretty common reasons for not finding this a very spiritually connected holiday, though these days are meant to inspire Awe and be the most connected. On my list is the changes in prayer space. Then there is the pretty morbid liturgy. Third is all the extra people, and the need for tickets. Finally there is the theological problem.

It is at this time of year I tend to think of Abraham Joshua Heschel's essay The Spirit of Jewish Prayer Originally a speech to an assembly of Conservative Rabbis, who he called a mere "master of ceremonies" in the speech, many decades later it still rings true:

We have developed the habit of praying by proxy. Many congregants seem to have adopted the principle of vicarious prayer. The rabbi or the cantor does the praying for the congregation. In particular, it is the organ that does the singing for the whole community. Too often the organ has become the prayer leader. Indeed, when the organ begins to thunder, who can compete with its songs? Men and women are not allowed to raise their voices, unless the rabbi issues the signal. They have come to regard the rabbi as a master of ceremonies. Is not their mood, in part, a reflection of our own uncertainties? Prayer has become an empty gesture, a figure of speech. [Heschel, Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity, 101-2 ,Google Books]

I feel that way every Rosh Hashanah. I know I'm supposed to get dressed up, grab my tickets, tallit and machzor, go to synagogue and pray. Yet the prayer is hollow and empty. The environment of prayer changes so much it is hard to pray. The Netana Tokef tells us we are supposed to be praying as one of the three things necessary be written into the book of life, but it never feels like the fervent prayer such effort requires. It's more like a night at the opera. The cantor is at full voice and talent, and the rabbi is so remote as to be on another planet. All warmth and fervor is replaced by cold prayers performed by a choir and cantor. I do not pray, I watch a performance of others praying for me.
Unlike the weekly Shabbat services, there are hundreds of people I have never seen except at this time. Also dressed in their finery, they seem little interested in the ideals of communal prayer, but fulfilling a yearly obligation, outdressing their neighbor, and socializing with everyone else who doesn't show up except this time of year. Why things are the way they are is that these paying customers seem to expect it to be that night at the opera, and synagogue financial survival depends on them showing up. This has been my experience since I was old enough to be in the same sanctuary as my parents for the holidays, in Conservative, Reform and Renewal synagogues. I can never forget the Kol Nidre service when I was twelve. I was almost thrown out of Kol Nidre for not being an adult paying customer. If my father hadn't made a huge stink, I would have spent Kol Nidre in the same dark parking lot I spent most of Rosh Hashanah in. Like Heschel mentioned over forty years ago, this is not one synagogue I'm talking about, but a systemic problem.

I written many times before about my view of this time theologically. Traditional images have us judged and placed in the Book of Life or the Book of Death. On Rosh Hashanah we are inscribed in the book we belong, and our destiny sealed at the close of Yom Kippur. I have had a different view. There is only one book, our Book of Fully Living. The question of Rosh Hashanah is not if we will make one list or another, but if we will fill our pages with fully living. What this season is about is for us to get ourselves oriented and set up for a year of fully living.

In my current infatuation for boats, it might be good to think about this season more like a boat. Every so often, the boat needs to come out of the water, and undergo thorough maintenance. Painting, cleaning, overhauling the engines, replacing the lines and even removing barnacles are all tasks which make our sea adventures so much more rewarding, and assures us that we will not run into trouble in the future. So too with the holidays. It is our time to connect with God and clean the spiritual schmutz from our souls, and replace the worn out parts . We do this through three things: Prayer, repentance and the righteous deeds.

Yet this year as we approach the High Holidays, I feel none of those three as I have apparently entered a spiritual crisis. My disconnect from the way most people do prayer, particularly during the holidays is one of the biggest problems with this. Many of my assumptions this year I've been led to question, many I have found no answers for. Even without answers, a lot of illusions have been shattered lately. It has left me wondering far too much. I'm not as spiritually connected as I once was, and wondering what that really means. I have a spiritual vacuum in my life. Where I am and where I am going seem totally unknown. I am sailing in dark waters on the moonless night of Rosh Hashanah.

I do not know what will happen this week, and how attending services at two different congregations will go. I have an idea of how I'm going to get out of this, and I'll write more about that next week. I realize I don't hate the holidays of course, I just strongly object to how they are observed. most especially how we pray.

But let me wish you all a L'shana Tovah, a good New Year, and may you have another full, rich chapter in the Book of Fully Living.

Nitzavim-Vayeilech 5770: Letting Go

2010-09-02T07:14:00.001-05:00

I feel really sorry for God and Moses this week. It's something I've never thought about before, but it hit home by watching a car commercial.

This week we read:

15 See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil, 16 that I command you this day to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His ordinances; then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God shall bless you in the land when you go in to possess it. 17 But if your heart turn away, and you do not hear, but are drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; 18 I declare unto you this day, that you will surely perish; you will not prolong your days upon the land, when you pass over the Jordan to go in to possess it. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that you may live, you and your descendants; [Deuteronomy 30]

There has, of course been a lot of discussion and commentary about this passage for centuries, but I want to take it in a direction which fits the season. Not Rosh Hashanah, but back to school season.

This is the time of year that many parents have to struggle with themselves, especially if it is their first born and they have no experience. For some parents in this season, it may be first grade, for some high school, and for some college. In the commercial I saw, there is another annual event that brings terror to parents everywhere: giving the car key for the first time to their child. I was in a restaurant at the time so I didn't get the dialogue, but the visuals had me in tears. A young girl, maybe four years old, was strapped into the driver's seat of her dad's car. She apparently was asking for the car keys which her dad, who was looking through the open car window at her was very reluctant, giving her a lecture on safe driving. Eventually he gave the car keys, not to her, but to the 17 year old who is really behind the wheel. The point is clear, many parents have a hard time letting their children grow up, seeing them as the little child they once were. It is very hard letting them go to have their own adventures and lives. Most importantly, many parents want to protect their children, and letting kids go off on their own loses the ability to protect. Granted the world is dangerous, but one needs to let go.

This is true in any relationship. To be in a relationship means you care about the other person, and do not want to see them hurt. One will do anything to prevent the hurt. I've been there myself so many times. I know a lot about where I live and some of the places I frequent. I'm aware of some possible problems in the world around me, and it just about kills me to keep my mouth shut, and let someone walk into them. Yet, I have to keep my mouth shut. It kills me I cannot prevent the disappointment ahead, but it is not for me to control another person. Indeed I may hurt them more by interceding, since they will not learn.

For forty years of wandering in the desert, the Israelites were controlled and coddled. Food was provided by Manna. Drink by miraculous wells. Every time the people got into trouble, Moses would save them. With the impending death of Moses and the entry into the land, this is about to change. One very good reason that Moses was not let into the land was the same reason parents are often not allowed into schools the first day of class -- it would stifle the student.

We have to risk. We have to do the wrong thing and suffer the consequences to learn why we do the right thing. God knows this and Moses, though crushingly wanting to see his people in the land and happy, also knows that going in with them will stifle them and they will not learn the lessons they need to learn. Learning is failing and then correcting. It is teshuvah. Yet, we often care so much we don't want those we care about to fail. Think how heart breaking the ultimate version of this is: A child unable to perform for forty years, unable to leave the house without supervision. Even then they will get into trouble. To let them go after forty years would be devastating. That is what Moses must be feeling as he rattles off much of the book of Deuteronomy. Yet here, the people are given the choice of the blessing or the curse. It is theirs to decide, the point as crushing as handing that car key to a new driver for the first time. The people need to grow up.

And when we hand that key to the driver there is only one thing one can say:

19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, so that you may live, you and your descendants;

We can only tell the driver to choose to drive safely. We cannot choose for them to drive safely. Yet here, it is the people of Israel, it us, who is asked to drive safely. Here, we are reminded of that choice. We can be careless or we can be careful with the mitzvot. We can make mistakes then we can do teshuvah to correct the errors of our ways.

I remember how scary that time was when I first got behind the wheel of a car. I remember how scary it was the first day of to Kindergarten, first grade, Junior High, High School and College, Each one was a step away from my parents and I stood with the responsibility on not only keeping myself safe, but the responsibility of keeping others around me safe -- particularly in that car. We are asked by Torah this week to take our responsibilities deadly seriously, not because we need to be obedient, but that someone cares about us.

Shofar Callin': The Rosh Hashanah song

2010-08-27T13:20:00.001-05:00

Not something I did, but a nice little video to prepare for Rosh Hashana from the people over at G-dcast

Ki Tavo 5770: Wanderer or Destroyer?

2010-08-27T07:36:00.001-05:00

This week we have a curious verse in the ritual of Bikkurim, the offering of the first fruits: When the first fruits of a crop are gathered they are brought in a basket to the priest and offer them while saying the following:

5 And thou shalt speak and say before the LORD thy God: 'A wandering Aramean was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there, few in number; and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous.[Deuteronomy 26]

While the bikkurim does not happen since the destruction on the Temple, the phrase a wandering Aramean was my father does as part of the Passover seder:

MISHNAH. THEY FILLED A SECOND CUP FOR HIM. AT THIS STAGE THE SON QUESTIONS HIS FATHER; IF THE SON IS UNINTELLIGENT, HIS FATHER INSTRUCTS HIM [TO ASK]: ‘WHY IS THIS NIGHT DIFFERENT FROM ALL [OTHER] NIGHTS... AND ACCORDING TO THE SON'S INTELLIGENCE HIS FATHER INSTRUCTS HIM.15 HE COMMENCES WITH SHAME AND CONCLUDES WITH PRAISE; AND EXPOUNDS FROM ‘A WANDERING ARAMEAN WAS MY FATHER’ UNTIL HE COMPLETES THE WHOLE SECTION. [Pesachim 116a]

Every time I read a wandering Aramean was my father I've wondered who this Aramean is. I at first assumed it was Abraham, who traveled through the Aramean world, though that does not makes snase to the next phrase. While Abraham did go go down to Egypt. He did not become a great mighty and populous nation there. On the other hand Jacob did. So this wandering Aramean might be Jacob.

Interestingly, the Rabbis of the Talmud and early Rabbinic Judaism also had a problem with this phrase. The common language of the time was Aramaic, not Hebrew. Much of the common people did not even know Hebrew, so Aramaic translations,targumim in Aramaic, of the Hebrew text began to show up in the Jewish world. While intending to give an accurate translation of the Hebrew, like any translation it does takes some interpretation of the text, and often can be used to understand the literal biblical text. The most literal of these, Targum Onkelos, is often found as a commentary in traditional Hebrew bibles for the Torah, makes some interesting additions:

Laban the Aramean sought to destroy our father.

The two other major Targumim to Torah , Yonatan ben Uzziel and Neofiti 1 also have similar emendations, though they add specifically that our father is Jacob, and that God saved Jacob from Laban's plans to destroy him from their first meeting onward.

Midrash Rabbah also reflects this interpretation:

R. Berekiah said in R. Levi's name: It is written, The blessing of the destroyer (obed) came upon me (Job XXIX, 13). ’ The blessing of the destroyer (obed)’ alludes to Laban the Syrian, as it says An Aramean sought to destroy (obed) my father (Deut. XXVI, 5). ‘ [Genesis Rabbah LX:13]

This interpretation is possible due to the double meaning of the Hebrew root ABD ( אֹבֵד). The root can mean to wander, or its more common meaning is to destroy. Since the word isn't clear, the Rabbis take the word Aramean to mean the man from Padan-Aram, Laban.

While once again pointing out Laban's duplicity is a legitimate interpretation, what does it really have to do with the Bikkurim? What does offering the first fruits of your yield have to do with somebody trying to kill an ancestor? In context with the rest of the text, there is reason to use the word wandering instead of destroy.

6 And the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage.7 And we cried unto the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice, and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression. 8 And the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders. 9 And He has brought us into this place, and hath given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. 10 And now, behold, I have brought the first of the fruit of the land, which Thou, O LORD, hast given me.' And thou shalt set it down before the LORD thy God, and worship before the LORD thy God.

For most of the people's time, they were wanderers. Abraham moved around, as did Isaac and Jacob. The generations between Jacob and Moses were foreigners in a land their entire stay. Only after crossing the Jordan and setting up farming in the Land are they a permanent people.

The Mishnah for Pesachim tells us we start with "a wandering Aramean was our father" to indicate shame. The gemara commenting on this give two meaning for Shame:

What is ‘WITH SHAME’? Rab said: ‘Aforetime our fathers were idolaters’; while Samuel said: ‘We were slaves.’ [Pesachim 116a]

In sense both Rab and Samuel are right. Both are shameful. Yet the text continues with an odd story:

R. Nahman asked his slave Daru: ‘When a master liberates his slave and gives him gold and silver, what should he say to him?’ ‘He should thank and praise him,’ replied he. ‘You have excused us from saying "Why [is this night] different?"’ observed he. [Pesachim 116a]

The slave, still being a slave, only thought of his freedom and riches he could have. The freed, prosperous person needs to think of more, of how he used to live, of how his life was before the bounty he has now. To do so is to keep it in context. Are we as person not completely settled? Are we a person who might have others seeking to destroy us? Things used to be bad. We can ask "Why is is this night different?" only when there has been change and we are aware of it.
I think back over the years. Thinking back only three years ago, I was a very different person, a very lonely one. In the years that have followed, my life has changed radically, a year later I was dating, though still lonely. A year later I was and adjusting to Sweetie living with me. Next year at this time, Baruch Hashem, I will be her husband. There is a lot of joy in my life right now, more than there has ever been. Both Sweetie and I have worked hard on building a great relationship, but I must always remember it was God who got us together in the first place, and guides us every step of the way. The formula said at Bikkurim that was adapted for Passover is there to remind of where we were, and who got us here in the first place.

That is the point of the formula. Things were bad. Appreciating that things were bad, and who got us out of those bad spaces, we can properly thank God for the bounties in our lives. We can also appreciate those who are still under the threat of destruction, and those who still do not have the power to control their own lives.

As Elul winds down and we get ready for the Days of Awe, one can appreciate that, and begin to wonder how in the next year we can change that so others have the bounty we have.

Elul 5770: Fundamentalism vs Sailing

2010-08-22T21:29:00.004-05:00

Elul 5770: Fundamentalism Versus Sailing
After my hiatus of the the last few weeks, This week i'm not going to give a portion of the week, but do a little catch up instead. There is a theme in much of Deuteronomy I have been thinking about during my recent vacation and activities this summer. Several passage in the text suggest something which bothers me In parshat Re'eh we read the following:

1. What ever I command you, take care to do it; you shall not add to it, nor diminish from it. All this word which I command you, that you shall observe to do; you shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. [Deut 13:1]

It is not only in this passage we hear such words. Throughout Deuteronomy there is such statements, obeying the commandments explicitly. Another example from this week's portion is the following:

12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to go in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul;

From parshat V'ethanan we have this passage:

29. You shall take care to do it therefore as the Lord your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. 30. You shall go in all the ways which the Lord your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which you shall possess. [Deuteronomy 5]

What strikes me about these passages is their tendency to support fundamentalism. Here are passages which takes the literal meaning literally. In the last few weeks, a lot of things have me thinking about fundamentalism, not only in the the world in general, but in Judaism specifically. I've been studying Torah lately in a way I did not realize at the time. I was learning to sail, and in doing so learning the answer to the question of fundamentalism.

Strangely, it starts with something that most fundamentalists take very literally, but miss something critical. If asked what was the first thing created, one most likely would say "light." But that very possibly would be wrong.

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And a wind from God moved upon the face of the waters.[Genesis 1]

Some translations will translate Ruach Elohim, the "wind of God" as the equally valid "spirit of God." Unless wind and water is unthinkably external to God, wind and water were some of the first things in creation. Sweetie and I were joking recently that God was a sailor, and on that water sailed on those holy winds. But it was too dark to sail,

3. And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. 4. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

While the metaphor of a God of desert people being a sailor may be a stretch, I think it is a critical lesson, since any journey is best described not by the Straight Path, but by the Sailor's Tack. It is very rare for a sailor in a boat to move on a straight line, because the wind is never in the straight line you want to go, and one is dependent on the wind to move.

Most of the time one wants to move against the wind, and that, rather intuitively seems very difficult. Indeed, directly into the wind a sailboat completely stops. Yet, what is not so intuitive is that if you are slightly off being against the wind to being in a cross wind, a boat actually moves well. Often traveling against the wind will get you to your destination. Yet in order to get to a point upwind you will have to tack, move back and forth against the wind. You do not stay on the path, but move starboard and port, right and left, against the wind repeatedly.

The fundamentalist can go whatever straight direction the wind takes them, but that is all. To go against the wind never occurs to them. It's a bit scary to think about to them. They are always afraid of getting into Irons, being directly against the wind and unable to move by directly going against the word of God and the wind, or spirit of God. While they might make advances, more often than not they retreat from the destination. There is little freedom to go where they want, or even where God really wants us to go.

I truly believe that God wants us to tack, to move slightly to the starboard, then to port, over and over again. To go against the wind is to head towards the source of the wind. While it is a lot of work to go through repeated tacks, it does makes a boat move fast. Not to mention it's a lot of fun. I believe the Rabbis of the Talmud understood this. There are gaps in the text, places where the rules are not clear. To follow literally the biblical text is bound to cause problems. The Rabbis came up with constructs which made variations on these themes in order to understand them. To understand "Do not boil a Kid in its mothers Milk" has the Rabbis asking a lot of questions. The literal is simple. yet to get to a complete exposition which requires separate dishes for milk and meat or milk and poultry, and possibly even another set for fish presents a lot of questions and tacking around the literal meaning of the negative mitzvah. Here is a set of questions that the rabbis did ask, mostly found in the Talmudic tractate Hullin:

• Is it only a young goat? Could it be an adult goat in its mother's milk?
• Is it only a goat or any of the small cattle like Sheep? Could it be bigger mammals like Cows?
• All but a few of the permitted meats like venison(12:22, 14:5), are also the meats used in temple sacrifice. We are told that we are to prepare venison like beef or lamb. Is any read meat the follows the preparation process not to be boiled with milk?
• Since poultry doesn't produce milk, can it be boiled in milk? Since poultry is prepared almost identical to beef, can it be boiled in milk?
• Is it just boiled in milk? Can it be eaten with milk?
• Can it be eaten with milk products?
Can small amounts on a dish be considered enough to mix milk and meat?
Can the udder of the cow be eaten?

These questions give answers that set precedents and halachah about mixing meat and dairy. Why the rabbis answers those questions they way they did is another discussion, but they did stray to port and starboard from the literal interpretation. On many of the death penalty cases, their response to the questions of a running a court case with a death penalty made it near impossible to invoke the death penalty, though Torah invokes it frequently.

I am not yet a good sailor. I need a lot of practice. Yet I understand the idea of sailing and can handle the tiller and main sheet okay, and sometimes as a team with Sweetie. I find all too often it's best to tack, and in many ways it's fun to tack. Such is true of Torah as well. Some have tacked on the sea of Torah over centuries. Some we do now so routinely,we do not even question. Yet, there are a lot of things we do need to question and answer differently than we did centuries or even decades ago. Fundamentalism, even when based on someone else's tacking, ends up refusing to tack. It can only go in one direction, failing to make the destination if the winds change. It is clear to me that the winds do change, and to get to the destination, the source of that wind, requires a lot of work and not just going to the left or the the right, but going ahead by going back and forth, moving port and starboard.

Eikeiv 5770: God's Mouth

2010-08-03T07:12:00.002-05:00

This week we read the lines "Man does not live on bread alone, but that man may live on anything that the lord decrees." (Dt. 8:3) In context, this is Moses telling the lesson of eating manna in the wilderness. But the Hebrew can be translated "man does not live on bread alone, because on anything the mouth of God finds, man will live." This second interpretation is just at true. As Leviticus and Deuteronomy tells us, the animals designated for eating are the sacrificial animals.While God really does not have a mouth, we have the idea that what is sacred to God should be sacred to us, particularly in what we eat.
Also in this parasha is the phrase, repeated three times "you shall eat, and you shall be satisfied.” connected by images of abundance (Deuteronomy 8:10, 8:12, 11:13). Two of these times there is a warning: Don’t stray away from God and worship false Idols. What does images of abundance have to do with eating and Idolatry. What is Idolatry anyway?
In one sense, to be an Idolater is to place the complete joining of self to divinity. For the idolater, the divine is what we say it is, limited by our own ignorance and selfish desires. In such selfish tunnel vision it reject what is outside of self, our relationship to everything else. The idol itself is not a god, but a self projection onto a finite object. But the lack, indeed rejection, of relationship with anything but their idol-god-self will lead the Idolater do things which others find abhorrent: abuse, rape, incest, hate crimes, even murder, all because there is no recognition of other people- there only a god and self.
This “other” may be a person, but it may be to an entire system. One such system is the environment which sustains us. When we treat our world ethically, we have an abundance of what finds God's mouth. But to treat this abundance only in terms as self-reference, in terms of Idolatry, abuses the privilege of abundance. Such a warning is found in this weeks portion:

13. And it shall come to pass, if you shall give heed diligently to my commandments which I command you this day, to love the Lord your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, 14. That I will give you the rain of your land in its due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that you may gather in your grain, and your wine, and your oil. 15. And I will send grass in your fields for your cattle, that you may eat and be full.16. Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and you turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them; 17. And then the Lord’s anger be kindled against you, and he closed the skies, that there should be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest you perish quickly from off the good land which the Lord gives you. 18. Therefore shall you lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes. 19. And you shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. 20. And you shall write them upon the door posts of your house, and upon your gates. 21. That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth.[Deuteronomy 11]

In traditional siddurim, this is the 2nd paragraph of the Shema, which is also found in every mezuzah and tefillin, objects which try to remind us of this in all our actions. Some movements seeing too much quid pro quo theology in this statement have omitted it. I do not take this as a statement of do good and get good, do bad and get bad. It is telling us of the consequences of forgetting where our food comes from, and too much to heed .
Our third passage with you will eat and satisfied, gives us the reminder to avoid abuse. 8:10 reads “you will eat, you will be satisfied, and you will bless”. It is from this third passage that we get the Birkat Hamazon, the grace after meals. To bless God for the food in our bellies, is to say thank you. When we say thank you, we commit an act of ethics, that we acknowledge others. We acknowledge that God, the environment, and the people who helped make the food from farm to fork, are just as important as ourselves when it comes to eating and sustaining our lives. And to acknowledge the other beside ourselves is the whole point of ethics.
Mouths are both where we speak and where we eat. When we put something into our mouths, then we need to bring something out, a blessing of thanks. When we say thank you, we acknowledge what is outside of ourselves. Reciting Birkat Hamazon, is just as important a meal for both God and humanity as the bread we eat.

V'ethanan 5770: Inviting to the Party

2010-08-03T06:30:00.002-05:00

This Shabbat is known as Shabbat Nachamu, the Sabbath of Comfort. It is the Shabbat immediately following Tisha B'Av. The Haftarah is meant as comfort from the events that happened on that day. The Torah portion has two major parts, both of which are known to many. The first is the events of the recitation of the Ten commandments, including a repetition which is curiously not identical to the one in Exodus 20. the second part is the the Shema.

The days after Tisha B'Av mark the beginning of the season of repentance. about a month and a half from now is the pinnacle in the High Holidays. Shabbat Nachamu seems to mark the beginning of this season by reminding us of the most basic concepts. One concept is also why the second temple was destroyed. The Talmud tells the story:

The destruction of Jerusalem came through a Kamza and a Bar Kamza in this way. A certain man had a friend Kamza and an enemy Bar Kamza. He once made a party and said to his servant, Go and bring Kamza. The man went and brought Bar Kamza. When the man [who gave the party] found him there he said, See, you tell tales about me; what are you doing here? Get out. Said the other: Since I am here, let me stay, and I will pay you for whatever I eat and drink. He said, I won't. Then let me give you half the cost of the party. No, said the other. Then let me pay for the whole party. He still said, No, and he took him by the hand and put him out. Said the other, Since the Rabbis were sitting there and did not stop him, this shows that they agreed with him. I will go and inform against then, to the Government.[Gittin 55b-56ab]

Bar Kamza in revenge tells the Romans to give a sacrifice in the temple, but makes a very tiny defect in the cow they offer. Some of the rabbis want to go on with the sacrifice, some stringent, fundamentalist others refuse to do so. When the cow is not sacrificed, the Romans consider this an act of sedition, and destroy Jerusalem.

While Bar Kamza's actions are not beyond reproach, the later Talmudic rabbis are clear of who was in the wrong in this incident:

It has been taught: Note from this incident how serious a thing it is to put a man to shame, for God espoused the cause of Bar Kamza and destroyed His House and burnt His Temple.[Gittin 57a]

The second temple fell because someone was thrown out of a party, and no one stood to champion bar Kamza. We read in this week's portion, as part of the Ten commandments:

18. Nor shall you desire your neighbor’s wife, nor shall you covet your neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is your neighbor’s.[Deuteronomy 5]

When it comes to parties, it often hurts to not be invited, or in Bar Kamza's case, to be an unintentional party crasher and thrown out. When we do not have something of our own is when we most often will covet what another has. there is this idea of "inside" and "outside." And being "inside" can be coveting as much as wanting that large screen TV your neighbor has, if not more so. Yet we also read this week:

5. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. 6. And these words, which I command you this day, shall be in your heart; 7. And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9. And you shall write them upon the posts of your house, and on your gates. [Deuteronomy 6]

We are told we love God in three ways, with "heart" better translated as our conscious mind and emotions, our "soul" which is our spiritual connection to God, and with our might, our physical action. All our minds, souls and strength need to be directed toward god everywhere, all the time. When we read, And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes, this is not just about wearing tefillin, but we must take it metaphorically as well. In the Shema service we also read,

39. And it shall be to you for a fringe, that you may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord, and do them; and that you seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, which incline you to go astray;[NUmbers 15?]

So too with tefillin -- they are there to remind us, even when we are not wearing them to use our eyes to see mitzvot, and our hands to do mitzvot. It's not wearing them that is as important as remembering to see and do these words. Mezuzot may also provide a similar meaning that when we come inside and when we got out to remember what we are supposed to do.

In Genesis, that we are told we are created in the Image of God. And the rabbis were clear: Since the first man was in the image of God, then we all are. The rabbis take another of the ten commandments very seriously: You shall not kill.In Sanhderin 37a, they present the idea that killing one man is like killing a whole universe, both in the potential of the children that person might have and because they too are a unique image of God, It does not take a great leap to realize that in order to Love God with all our heart, soul and might, it requires us to have every face to face encounter as though it is an encounter with God.

Why Bar Kamza and the host of the party might have been enemies, they also could have reconciled at the party, and left as friends. The host could have been more gracious of course. And the sages at the party never intervene. They might have seen the holiness within each other, and done something about it. Yet, the host of the party throws out Bar Kamza. Bar Kmaza in revenge plays off rabbis more interested in the rules than in people. As a result, the temple is destroyed.

I remember how devastated I feel when I wasn't invited to a party. One of the most devastating was one where all my friends were there, including an ex-girlfriend. Since she was there, I wasn't invited or welcome, even though I lived next store to where the party was. I remember that as a very sad night, hearing the party through the thin walls of the apartment. I think of many times I have felt like that night and how bad it was. While some were afraid of how my ex and I would react to each other in the same room, it meant I was excluded. I felt second class, much like I expect Bar Kamza felt. But the party may not just be a party, but something more. The struggle among some for gay marriage rights is an example of bar Kamza once again. Some are invited to the party, some not. Some at the party might believe inviting Bar Kamza cheapens the party, or make it worse. Some, who find the party boring or falling apart might enjoy the refreshing changes of new guests. Th rhetoric of gay marriage is similar. Some say it will diminish the institution of marriage, others that the institution is already in shambles, and this might strengthen the ideas of commitment and love of two people. Of course some just want to get married to the person they love.

The are many of these cases where people are not invited to the party, and I think it's more important for one think up their own conclusions to this than for me to tell you what to do. So some questions to consider, to invite you to my party of wondering about all this:

When have you not been invited to the party?
When have you not invited someone to the party?
How many people in the story of bar Kmaza were not thinking of facing God in their everyday encounters?
Is there everyday encounters with God?
How do we fix what we have broken in terms of not inviting to the party, both when we are not invited and when we do not invite?

Devarim/ Tisha B'Av 5770: The Nine Days and The Concentration Cam

2010-07-19T07:15:00.004-05:00

I once drove through a concentration camp, and I, I did not know it. Two years ago, I was going to a business conference in Tucson, and flew in to Phoenix where I rented a car. Driving Interstate 10 was a Interesting trek in the desert, a terrain so different than the Midwest. Around Exit 170 something, I do remember passing a sign that I was entering the Gila River Indian reservation. I didn't know what else was there. It wasn't even visible anymore.

Last winter, I was to plan a big social event for the summer. One date in particular one person I'm close to liked, but I was doubtful. On the Jewish calendar, it came out to the sixth of Av and the evening would be the seventh. I had problems with this date, three days before the Ninth of Av. While I don't observe much of the traditions and halakah concerning the 9th, it for some reason just seemed very creepy. The Ninth of Av is the day when the both the first and second Temple were destroyed, among many other calamities. As I found out, the first Temple happened over a period of several days:

On the Seventh the heathens entered the Temple and ate therein and desecrated it throughout the seventh and eighth [of Ab] and towards dusk of the ninth they set fire to it and it continued to burn the whole of that day, as it is said, Woe unto us! for the day declines, for the shadows of the evening are stretched out.[Taanit 29a]

I was vaguely aware of this, but I wanted to do a little more research on the days leading up to the destruction of the temple. The party would have come out at the same date as the temple was desecrated. We changed the date to a week later, but I did a little more digging. What I found surprised me. I knew about some of the other events in Jewish history that occurred on or near the Ninth of Av. The expulsion of the Jews from Spain, and the opening of Treblinka. I didn't know about the first orders to empty the Polish ghettos and deport everyone to death camps, and the beginning of this process in the Warsaw Ghetto. Yet there was one date I had no idea about. On the 6th of Av , July 20 1942 Gila River War relocation center officially opened. The interment of over 13,000 Japanese Americans from California and Hawaii at the fifth relocation center had begun on essentially stolen sacred Native American land. The name Gila River stuck in my head, and with a little work from National park service documents, and google maps, I found it and was in for a surprise. Today, interstate 10 runs right through the former camp. I drove through the ruins of that internment camp, and I, I did not know.

Then came the next surprise. I wonder if they felt it at Gila River, 300 miles away. Was there a odd warmth in the air, or a sound? Windows had been reported to rattle 200 miles away, but what was true in this valley, I do not know. What it was would thunder in their return to their home in a few months, but at a horrible cost. That morning the America made Zyklon-B used in Auschwitz and Treblinka a into mere plaything in comparison. On the morning of July 16,1945, the 6th of AV 5705, the Manhattan project successfully tested an atomic bomb near Alamogordo New Mexico.

I've thought about it a lot since I've done that research, how many events happened in that short nine-day stretch. I'm aware I could have picked any stretch of nine days and found a lot of bad things in history. But this period of time intrigues me for several reasons, one of them is why we read this weeks Torah portion without fail within the first nine days of the month of Av. Indeed the double portion of Matot-Masei is there in the calendar to make sure we do. This weeks portion is Moses telling the people almost every failure on their part throughout the entire journey. It is a non-stop rebuke. Moses starts at the episode that made them take so long to get to the land in the first place, the episode of the spies, who gave such an ill report, the entire community was about ready to rebel:

26. However you would not go up, but rebelled against the commandment of the Lord your God;
27. And you murmured in your tents, and said, Because the Lord hated us, he has brought us out of the land of Egypt, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us.[Deuteronomy 1]

The rabbinic texts make a rather startling statement about this

Rabbah said in the name of R. Johanan: That night was the night of the ninth of Ab. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: You have wept without cause, therefore I will set [this day] aside for a weeping throughout the generations to come.[Sota 35a]

There is date a few weeks earlier, the 17th of Tammuz, where tragedy began, and the walls of Jerusalem were breached by the Bablyonians leading to the first destruction. Another date the 1st of Av, is when Aaron died, as we know from Numbers 33:38. This period among many in orthodoxy is a period of ramping up sadness culminating with the 9th of Av. First there is a level of sadness from the 17th on, then there is the 1st through the 9th where more prohibitions that are often associated with mourning are observed. Yet, most outside of that type of observance barely notice it.

The non-stop rebuke of the beginning of Deuteronomy, the telling to the people of every failure on their part for forty years seems to fit so well in this context it cannot be accidental. I've often thought the midrash about the establishment of Tisha B'Av of the was a lot like a father telling a kid, "what are you crying about? I'll give you something to cry about!!!!" It is a bit abusive and cruel. With what I did to get this portion out, I'm not sure that is the intent. A short cursory look into 9 days on the calendar in World War II history was enough to have me in tears every time I sat down to write. Thinking more broadly, it was not just Jews who suffered horrible things. We can all be guilty, either through complicity or actively in despicable acts to others of causing such acts. In the 1940's what did the American Jewish community think of the war relocation camps holding Japanese-Americans? What did they think of the Atomic bomb? I would wager most American Jews were as racist against Japanese-Americans as the local chapter of the KKK. They never cried. Without crying for the plight of others, there can be no change.

It would be easy to object that in any 9-day period in history one could find horrible events. Yet in thinking about all this, and thinking about speeding through Gila River as though it wasn't there, I wondered how many times we do that. I've come to another conclusion about that crying in the the month of Av. The high holiday season starts on the 1st of Av. Our repentance might culminate in what we do on Yom Kippur, but how we get there starts in Av. If we do not cry, we cannot change, because we have not felt for those harmed, Jewish and non Jewish. the nine day are days of crying, of dealing with the shock of how horrible the world is right now. Until we do that we cannot change either the world or ourselves. We cannot begin the self examinations necessary to get to the point where we can repent.

We need to cry, to weep for all big things we have had a hand doing in this world. We cannot change if we do not feel. While I had heard of Japanese relocation, I did not know Gila River was there on Interstate 10. There was only desert, the owners of the property prohibiting others from visiting as a way to prevent their sacred land being stolen once again. We need to cry to change. When we see the changes we can make in our world, and then in our selves, we can then to make this a better world. Besides the latest all-too-similar reasons for me not visiting Arizona, I could never drive I-10 in Arizona the same way again. I could never ignore the empty stretch of road between the exit to AZ 587 to mile marker 180 again.

How could we change if only we spent a few days crying?

Masei Matot 5770 -- Backlashing the Sisters

2010-07-09T16:24:00.004-05:00

In the face of Zelophehad's daughter's victory comes a backlash -- and not just against them.

This week is a double portion. In the aftermath of the Baal-Peor idolatry mess with the Moabite women, God mentions some rules for making vows, and how women might have their vows invalidated. After this, God tells Moses that he is to order the armies to wipe out the Moabites, and afterwards it will be time for Moses to die. The armies don’t follow orders as well as they were supposed and spare all the women and children to take as slaves. Moses, rather angrily scolds the troops for sparing the women who cased the problem in the first place, and order the execution of all males among the captives, and any woman who isn't a virgin. After all this, the tribes of Ruben and Gad ask Moses if the conquered lands of kings Og and Bashan in Transjordan could be their inheritance, instead of the land east of the Jordan. After some haggling, the deal is made: yes the land can become the portion of Rueben, Gad, and half of Menasseh on the condition the men leave all their women and children in fortified cities, and the men enter the land as shock troops with the rest of the tribes. When the land is taken then they may return. The section ends with two and a half tribes settling this conquered land. In the second parasha read, there is a travelogue of all the places the Israelites stopped through the period of forty years of wandering, ending on the back of the Jordan not far from Jericho. The Torah then begins the process of figuring out how the land will be divided. The whole enterprise will be lead by Eleazar and Joshua. There will be princes over each tribe, who will then divide the inheritances by tribe. Since the Levite do not get a land inheritance, they instead will be given cities spaced through all the land. Six of the levitical cities, three on the east side of the Jordan, and three on the west, are to be set up as cities of refuge, places where someone who caused can legally hide if they caused an accidental death. The text ends with the objections of the elders of Menasseh concerning the inheritance of daughters.

When reading this week's portion I had real problems getting into it. In a word, it's rather misogynist. This didn't seem not a complementary section for women. First, women are told that men are bound by their vows, but the vow of a woman may be overturned by the man who has power over her, such as father or husband. Secondly, the non-virgins of the Moabites were executed, but the virgins were made captives, for the "use" of the army. The last slight was a little subtler. While two tribes Gad and Rueben ask about staying on that side of the Jordan, three are granted land by Moses. The third, a part of Menasseh, just so happens to be the same part of Menasseh the Daughters of Zelophehad belong to. For those who remember last week, these are the same women who outclassed Moses in halakic debate, and even got a compliment out of God. One has to ask, was Moses trying to keep these women away from everyone else?

We find out a little more of the story.

1. And the chief fathers of the families of the sons of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spoke before Moses, and before the princes, the chief fathers of the people of Israel; 2. And they said, The Lord commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the people of Israel; and my lord was commanded by the Lord to give the inheritance of Tzlofchad our brother to his daughters. 3. If they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the people of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be given to the inheritance of the tribe where they are received; so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance 4. So when the jubilee of the people of Israel shall be, then shall their inheritance be given to the inheritance of the tribe where they are received; so shall their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers. [Numbers 36:1-4]

This problem with inheritance is solved with the strictest ban on inter marriage: In the case a daughter inherits, then she must marry from within her own tribe only. The daughters do follow this, and marry their cousins. But note in our section (Numbers 32:39-40)

39. And the sons of Machir the son of Manasseh went to Gilead, and took it, and dispossessed the Amorite who was in it. 40. And Moses gave Gilead to Machir the son of Manasseh; and he lived in it.

Remember back in 27:1 the daughters were described as

Then came the daughters of Tzlofchad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph; and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah.

Thus to bring the point so far, the daughters were not allowed to enter and live in the land of Israel. Their portion was apportioned on the east side of the Jordan, decided for them by Moses and their kinsmen, the sons of Machir, for taking the city of Gilead. They must live only there as they must marry within their own tribe, so living in Israel as a wife in another tribe was out of the question. Until the land was conquered, they were also locked up in fortified cities. If you wanted to keep the smart girls as far away from the action as possible, one couldn't come up with a better plan.

There is another who is finding the same fate, but with a shorter ending. This week, God notes to Moses that its time to die, implying he will not set foot in the land of Israel. But very much unlike Moses the daughters do make their way into the land despite everyone's best efforts to keep them out. We have in the text two possibilities for them to enter the land.

The first is a legal loophole. Only half of the land of Menasseh was to be Transjordan, the other half was to be in the land of Israel. Even if their inheritance were apportioned in Transjordan, they could marry family form Israel, and enter through marriage. Then there is the biblical story in Joshua, where these women show their halakic stuff. In the time of Joshua, the daughters come in front of Joshua and demand their inheritance, not from Gilead but from the land of Israel, recalling that God through Moses promised them a portion. (Joshua 17:3-6) Joshua gives each a portion of the land, along with five male descendants of Menasseh of their grandfather's generation, for a total of ten portions in the land for Menasseh.

Yet that will be years away for them. In this portion, we seem to have a strong backlash against women, and I truly wonder if it was that Zelophehad's daughters showed their smarts to all those men.

Their generation was far more praiseworthy than their male counterparts according to the rabbis, referring to one of the daughters whose name would become the capitol of the Northern Kingdom:

THOU ART BEAUTIFUL, O MY BELOVED, AS TIRZAH: this refers to the women of the generation of the wilderness, for Rabbi said: The women of the wilderness were virtuous and made up their minds not to give their rings for the calf. They said: ‘If the Holy One, blessed be He, could break the hard idols, how much more so the soft one! [Song of Songs Rabbah VI: 14]

The women of the wilderness refused to worship the stone idols of Egypt, and saw what God did to the Egyptian gods. They realized the God would find toppling the soft gold idol of the calf easy. In later times, The women of Jerusalem, once again resist what the men cannot, Baal-Peor, the god of the people of Moab, the people destroyed this week over the same god. There are always righteous women who don’t fall to idolatry. Not only that, but as the verse 5 of the Song of Songs notes, the daughters are the mighty flock descending from Gilead, into Israel. They reject living in Gilead, on the sidelines. Their eyes are intense on their prize, enough to make others cringe. If there is one thing to pull from the text this week, it’s the will and righteousness of these women, who stood up for what God promised them, and never took second best, like some of their kinsmen. Last week, we discussed these women as independent thinkers This week we once again looked into their story, spread out in small pieces throughout the biblical text, and their fight for their portion of land, even when others would restrict their rights.

Interspersed with the story of Zelophehad's daughters in Torah, is the seduction of the men of Israel by the unrighteous women, the seductresses of Baal-Peor. I wonder if they might be intentionally in contrast to one another. Righteousness, strength, determination and Law, even in the most extreme conditions are what is to be praised, not idolatry and seduction. Both women and men have a choice in life, which of these paths to follow. Tirzah and her sisters are there to point us in the right direction.

Pinchas 5770: Midrash on a Gay Pride Float

2010-07-02T06:38:00.006-05:00

Last Sunday I could not get a quote from Abraham Joshua Heschel out of my mind "When I marched in Selma, my feet were praying." Sunday I was not praying but making Midrash in an experience I never thought I'd actually have. After some problems in college with a particular woman who happened to be lesbian, I'll admit I was not very fond of gay rights issues. So it amazed me how a straight guy like me was there on a back of a flatbed truck for a GLBT Synagogue waving at the crowds as we drove the Chicago Pride parade route. Yet I realized along the way, what I was doing was not much different than the Daughters of Zelophehad. In this week's portion God promises the the priesthood to Pinchas and his descendants, then there is a genealogy, to divide up the land. But there is an objection:

1. Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph; and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. 2. And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the Tent of Meeting, saying, 3. Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of those who gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons. 4. Why should the name of our father be taken away from among his family, because he had no sons? Give to us therefore a possession among the brothers of our father.[Numbers 27 ]

It's such a good question Moses has no answer and has to ask God for advice, who replies:

6. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 7. The daughters of Zelophehad speak right; you shall surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brothers; and you shall cause the inheritance of their father to pass to them.[Numbers 27]

The daughters of Zelophehad did something no one actually pulled off to this time: they questioned authority. Up to this point, as the daughters point out, there are many rebellions against Moses. They are mere complaints which take the form of rebellion. The daughters are different. They ask a question which every rule dictated by God up to this point does not answer. Doing so, they create new law and new possibilities, unheard of before: women, under certain circumstances, inherit the possessions of their fathers. They challenged a faulty assumption by their example. It is true not true that all families have sons, they assert. They asked the question: what should be done in this case? Then they give an answer.

Last Sunday, Here we were, gay, lesbian and straight, sitting on a float, and I was thinking of the daughters. They in a way started what was happening here on Halsted and Broadway streets in Chicago. The marchers behind us had handed out signs which had "____________ is a human right". In a one-word midrash for the week, I wrote "Thinking" in that blank. The Daughters of Zelophehad reminded us the precious gift granted by God of thinking for ourselves. In doing so, we expand our world. Indeed to do Tikkun Olam, repair of the world, may very well require such expansion. It could have been easy to restrict to the written word of Torah. Anything outside the written word could be said not to exist. Ha Kadosh Baruch Hu, was too smart for that, and left such large gaps in Torah it was impossible to not ask questions, to make midrash. The word midrash itself come from the Hebrew root דרש for seeking, for asking a question. While we often believe midrash to mean the interpretation of story, it can be said to be a more encompassing idea of asking questions of Torah, and then finding the answers. Modern evidence to the contrary, this is not just for an elite, but something we all do. The Daughters give us the example of everyday people involved in midrash. Here are five women in a man's world challenging the status quo with a simpler and logical question. They thought out a question and they got an answer.

I have on many occasions championed the case that while tradition puts Leviticus 18:22 as talking about homosexuality, given linguistic ques the verse was talking about pedophilia instead. It was about rape, not love. While there may have been people of the same gender who did love each other as far back as biblical times, many changing roles in both men and women in our modern era have opened new questions, like marriage between people of the same gender, and it is important to think about those questions, as they define not only the questioner, but everyone. Will gay marriage destroy an already beleaguered institution of marriage, or will it set precedents to strengthen a commitment to one's partner for life?

As we pass down the streets, I notice how many different ways people are dressed, and in some cases, not dressed. From the fully decked out cross dressers, the bikini wearing guys dancing on the roofs of a restaurant, gals with electrical tape barely hiding their chests, to many creative t-shirts, there is no one way of dressing here. There is a lot of creativity, and a lot of different experiences, in so many ways so very different than many of the bland by comparison fourth of July parades that will follow Pride in a week.

We are free to think -- it is a right of being human. Yet, while watching the news helicopters and news crews filming and photographing the parade, I wondered about that. How much are we controlled? The photographs that ended up in the paper was not of groups like us, a religious community, nor of the churches along the parade route which were clearly showing their support. The photos that usually get published are those which are the most sensational, leading readers, including me, to some very false conclusions about the people at the parade. What is published tells a story, one that is described as "truth". I don't care if there is liberal or conservative media: what is seen or not seen changes our opinion of the world, and in a sense mind controls us to think in a certain way. No one is fair and balanced. The stories that sell and get people to listen are by nature primarily bad, and tell us this is a bad world so we think it a bad world. I never listen to the morning news for this reason: I will start my day depressed if I hear the bad news. I will not be the creative person I am in the morning. I'd rather listen to a novel of imagination, and believe in the impossible. In such a mind I think anything is possible.
To make everyone think one way is sad. Almost all the signs and banners were individual statements I saw around the parade route. No one, in any of their colorful, cheerful and very creative statements there on the miles of parade route told me what to do or think. There were a few signs at the very end where some Christian Fundamentalists told me what to think in black, drab and very oppressive signs. It was a darkness in a sea of light, the brown-black posters they sported was like an oil slick on a colorful Caribbean reef. But it was contained. In the creative mode of the day, a guy next to these protesters, dressed as Jesus, held up a big white sign; "I'm not with them" So what did we do when we passed? We blessed all of them.

In an interesting play of words those fundamentalists were protesting homosexuality by promoting homothinking. While this parade is about the choices people make who to love, ultimately this parade was about hetero or even better polythinking. It is about the infinite possibilities and infinite ways of thinking out there in front of us. There were 450,000 ways in front and back of me Sunday. Free will and free thinking is necessary to come up with many ways of living and loving. Rabbi Akiba in the Perkei avot stated:

MISHNAH 15 EVERYTHING IS FORESEEN BUT FREE-WILL IS GRANTED, AND THE WORLD IS JUDGED WITH GOODNESS, AND EVERYTHING IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREPONDERANCE OF [MAN'S] DEED[S].[Avot 3]

Akiba would probably have thought that such a display as the Gay Pride parade, would have led to lewdness [Avot 3:12]. I think that since free will was given it is not for a man or even God to decide our choices or thoughts. That is up to us individually. Do we love a man a woman or both? Some are personal choices, some made by the way our body is constructed. Some are more than that, they are personal choices and questions that affect the world as a whole. There is a group of men and women forty-one years ago, who in the bungled closing of a bar, asked those questions that had never been asked publicly. Twenty years ago, they were the ones asking the questions we still do not have all the answers for, about a blood-borne virus that can kill anyone slowly and horribly. The questions the parade ask is "Will everyone else accept who I choose to love?, will they accept me for that choice and who I am because of that?" The answers are many, but here mostly positive. Asking those questions started a long time ago. When Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah challenge Moses about property rights of women, they did something that directly affected their own destiny, and everyone's at the same time.

When we ask questions, and find answers, we cannot know what will happen, as little as the agnostic homophobe I was leaving college can believe I was there waving at the crowd from a gay synagogue float a few floats behind the Stanley cup. I did this because my first thought was to support my friends, but even in supporting them was a huge statement, one I didn't realize before then. What those actions did to the world as a whole, I cannot know either. I can only pray all of mine are for the betterment of the world. I'll be back next year at Pride to keep that going.

Balak 5770: Breaking the Cub's Curse

2010-06-25T09:04:00.003-05:00

This week we have the story of King Balak, who watches all of his neighbors go down to defeat militarily, at the hands of the Israelites. He decides to do something other than a military solution, so sends envoys to the greatest magician in the area, Baalam, to curse the advancing Israelites. Balaam first refuses and then after a large amount of money and ego massaging, he reluctantly goes. But there is a condition; he can only speak whatever God put in his mouth. Baalam heads towards the camp of the Israelites, only to be blocked by a rather disturbing angel of the Lord with an even more disturbing sword. Saved by his donkey from being a real cut up, Balaam Meets up with Balak, and sets up the curse. Three times in a row, the curse ends up as a blessing, the most famous being “ma tovu” and the king is furious. Three strikes, and Balaam is out. Though at his next at bat, he gives the king a really good idea.

Balaam's and Balak's Story is one about Magic and the nature of magic. Back in 2004, I took a graduate level course on the history and theory of what is known as Jewish magic or Jewish wonder-working. On the take home final, one of the questions intrigued me:

The Chicago Cubs have not won a World Series since 1908 or a National League Pennant since 1945. Many people believe that the reason is because they were cursed years ago. As a famous wonder-working Chicago rabbi, you are hired by the Cubs to help them win the World Series in 2004. How will you do this, and why have you chosen the particular techniques, strategies, rituals, etc. that you intend to employ both to remove the curse and to help ensure victory in the World Series?

After going to the Cubs vs. A's game last week I thought I'd bring back that paper. Using Balak as a background let me summarize that answer I gave back in 2004.

For those not familiar with the curse, the classic "Billy Goat curse" begins many years earlier. In 1934, Bill Sianis bought The Lincoln Tavern across from the Chicago Stadium. Sianis also had a live billy goat in the back of the tavern and thus was known as “Billy goat.” Later, Bill Sianis would open a tavern on Michigan Avenue named the Billy Goat. As part of the publicity for the taverns, Sianis regularly brought a billy goat named Murphy along with him on trips to sports arenas and other events. In 1945 during the World Series against the Detroit Tigers, when Bill Sianis brought Murphy along, he was denied admission. Murphy had entered the park before to see another game earlier that year. This time security believed that the goat's odor was objectionable. After Sianis' protest that the goat did have a ticket, the matter was referred to Owner P.K. Wrigley. Wrigley denied the goat admission, again because of the smell. In anger, Sianis cursed the Cubs, with the words "The Cubs, they not gonna win anymore." After their defeat in the 1945 World Series, Sianis sent a telegram to Wrigley, stating "who smells now?" and stated that the Cubs were never going to win the World Series, let alone the National Championship. From that day on they have not.

An important recent episode of the Billy goat curse was when the Cubs were only five outs from successfully entering the World Series in game 6 of the National League championship in 2003. Fan Steve Bartman interfered with a foul ball that would have otherwise been caught by Moises Alou. This was followed by a wild pitch by Mark Prior. The Cubs lost the game and all subsequent games to let the Florida Marlins win the pennant. The Marlins would go on the World Series against the New York Yankees.

Jewish magic may seem like a contradiction in terms, as Modern Judaism is usually known for its rationalist position. Indeed, there are prohibitions against the use of magic in Torah. For example in Exodus 22:17 we read “You shall not suffer a witch to live.” More inclusively, there is the following:

There shall not be found among you any one who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or who uses divination, or a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a witch Or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination to the Lord; and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you.[Deuteronomy 18:10-12]

In the Talmud, we read “A sorcerer, if he actually performs magic, is liable [to death].”[Sannhedrin 67a] All of these indicate that is forbidden to use magic, although Sanhedrin does go on to exempt mere illusion.

However, there still is an old, ancient tradition of Jewish wonder working, going back to Moses. Moses did many things which we might call either miracles or magic. Later prophets like Elijah and Elisha were also renowned for their abilities to work wonders, including, torching altars, making jars never empty, split rivers, and resurrect the dead. How are these to be distinguished from magic?

There are differences between the two in how magic and wonder working operates, visible in the two times Baalam is to be employed by Balak's people. The first one is simple version of pagan curses:

9. And God came to Balaam, and said, What men are these with you? 10. And Balaam said to God, Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, has sent for me, saying, 11. Behold, there is a people come out of Egypt, which covers the face of the earth; come now, curse them for me; perhaps I shall be able to overcome them, and drive them out. 12. And God said to Balaam, You will not go with them; you will not curse the people; for they are blessed.[Numbers 22]

on a second attempt, with agents holding out a bigger fee they are successful:

20. And God came to Balaam at night, and said to him, If the men come to call you, rise up, and go with them; but only that word which I would say to you, that you will do. [Numbers 22]

There are differences, which highlight the issue of magic versus wonder-working. In the pagan world, it was the belief that the forces of magic were independent of the pagan gods. The power of the gods was something that the gods could harness to do things. Yet as this was independent of the gods, people could use it too. Thus the abilities of people who could harness this like gods, the magicians, would work on both people and gods. Magicians could thus control the gods. The control of the magic was the magician himself, not God.

However, Jewish Magic is not independent of the god. God is the source: We are merely the instruments or conduits of holiness. Hence Balaam's already been set up for blessing and not cursing these people, by saying exactly what God tells him to say. No matter the number of changes of procedure or change of where the altar is, or even where one looks at the people works. Wonder-working is doing God will, not your own.

Where this is underlined deeply is that healing is God's will. The Talmud holds that “Whatever is used as a healing is not [forbidden] on account of the ways of the Amorite [i.e. prohibited magic]” [P. Shabbat 6.9, B. Shabbat 67a]. Therefore where there is healing we are allowed to use the power of God to intercede.

What about the Cubs? In this case, the healing would be for a team in order for them to win a game and increase profits of the Cubs organization and other local establishments and not for physical health. This would not be an ethical use of our wonder-working in this case.

However, there was window of opportunity in Steve Bartman. Due his unfortunate actions, he has been threatened and has needed security to prevent personal injury from happening to himself and his family. Even with the burning of the ball he caught, he is still concerned for his safety. Until October 2003, the curse has only made a ball team lose. Now the curse has threatened a human being. There is a tradition among Jewish wonder workers that they are entrusted to prevent such a loss. In 2004, when I wrote this paper, the Cubs winning the World Series will remove the threat of physical harm from Mr. Bartman. Of course, memory fades and even now the 2003 game is mere point of history of the curse. Without someone in physical danger, this plan for removing the curse won't work anymore. Yet it is interesting to look into the way ancient rabbis looked at magic, and how they would have removed a curse.

In our tradition, words are very powerful. The world itself is made of letters.Thus to utter something is to create something. Jewish mystics have for millenia worked with permutations of letters, numbers, and the holy names to create things. In the Talmud, R. Hanina and R. Oshaia often would study such texts on Friday nights creating a third grown calf, then eat it for Shabbat dinner [B. Sanhedrin 67b]. While making things are difficult, things are different when it comes to curses. Ordinary people can produce effective curses.

Of course this again underlines Balak's fallacy. Balak thinks he needs an expert to do the curse right -- because only an expert can control magic stuff. When Balak uses the best in the business, Balaam, he's sorely disappointed, since this guy has to follow the Word of God. Fortunately he didn't realize had he cursed the people himself, like Sianis did, it might have worked.

The belief is verbal curses may create or activate invisible agents of destruction, which bring the desired result of the curse to bear. These agents of destruction are often referred to as ruach ha ra, evil spirits, or mazikin, demons. Some demons have names and different behaviors. However there are a few behaviors which are common among most demons. Demons for example, tend to appear around transitions, both in time and space. Often demons are found at life cycle events where there is a major change in a person or their family’s life. Thus births, weddings and deaths are common problems with demons. The tradition of throwing rice at weddings is actually a way of bribing demons to leave the newly weds alone for example. There are also times of the year where transitions cause demons to be common. Also physical transitions such as doorways are also places for demons to hide. One 5th to 8th century CE practice began to equate the mitzvah of posting a Mezzuzah on the door post as also an effective device for repelling demons from a doorway. [Targum to Song of Songs 8]

The Cub's curse in this light is based on the words of Bill Sianis, not the goat. Once the demons were activated, it is not possible for the person to simply retract it. This would also explain why bringing goats into Wrigley did not work, as it is the words, not the goat that is responsible.

Demons change the course of games. Often it takes the form of the players suddenly under-performing. Balls roll between the legs of outfielders, otherwise intractable pitchers can’t throw a strike. It is possible that some form of possession is involved retarding motor and critical thinking skills. Until the 2003 season, this seems to be isolated to the players and thus the playing field. However, with Mr. Bartman this changed. As photographic evidence shows, his hand was in the transition point between the stands and the playing field. As already noted, this would be a point where demons would more likely accumulate and attack, and thus possessed Mr. Bartman before he had a chance to realize what he was doing. Demons like to hang out near front row seats.

In this case, there are three possible methods to provide success in removing the demons involved in the curse: transformation, repulsion, and trapping.

Transformation is based on the concept of taking the existing demons, whose purpose is to make the Cubs lose, and transform their purpose into one to make the Cubs win. Transformation is often used in Alchemy, changing one substance to another. However in Avodah Zara 12b and several other places, there is discussion of drinking water at a jug or pond in the middle of the night. There is the danger in that case of Shabriri, a form of blindness. Here the solution is to take the word Shabiri and reduce it by one letter at a time, ending with the last two letters only. Thus the drinker would recite:

Shabiri
Habriri
Abriri
Briri
Riri
Iri
Ri

We would think we would try to destroy the shabiri by removing all the letter, instead of stopping the sequence stops at two letters. Ri, is the participle of the root word RVH, meaning to be drinkable. Thus we have transformed a dangerous situation of drinking a Shabriri to safe potable water. A similar reduction from the words of the curse to the words “Cubs win” will achieve the same effect as follows:

The Cubs they not gonna win anymor
Cubs they not gonna win anymo
Cubs they not gonna win anym
Cubs hey not gonna win an
Cubs ey not gonna win a
Cubs y not gonna win
Cubs not gonn win
Cubs ot gon win
Cubs t go win
Cubs g win
Cubs win
Cubs win
Cubs win

The second strategy is that of repulsion through the use of amulets. Amulets are written prayer and symbols used to repel demons. The formula for the creation of an amulet is the following:

In the name of…
Divine name
Angels
Reason for amulet (i.e. prayer, )
For the protection of A the son of B(mother’s name)
Amen amen amen selah selah selah

Often the amulet may contain other magical symbols or pictures. These include symbols for angels, hexagrams and the “script of the angels” a symbolic writing system.

In a Cub's amulet these elements would be written as follows: The phrase “in the name of” followed by divine name. This is followed by the names of appropriate angels. As this is a amulet of protection, we might use the same archangel configuration as the prayer for protection found in the bedtime prayers.

"At my right Michael, at my left Gabriel, before me Uriel, behind me Rapahel"

Assuming the speaker is found at the pitcher’s mound, and thus each archangel is also guarding an infield position. Many amulets have another angel, Nuniel, who in this configuration is at shortstop. The outfield had three additional angels, Galaretz, Querespar, and Tebachsadeh. In the original prayer, over the speaker, here associated with the pitcher’s mound, is the Shechina, the presence of God. There is no mention biblically of the presence of God having a strong arm necessary for this position. We have thus replaced the presence with the Arm of God, as written in Psalm 98:1 “his holy arm, have gained him the victory.” Thus the first parts of the amulet would read as follows:

In the name of (divine name) and in the name of his hosts Gabriel on first, Raphael on second, Michael on third, Uriel on home, Nuniel as the Short, and, Argamon as infield, Tebach-sadeh on right, Gal-aretz on left, and Qere-sapar in the middle and over the thrower is the Arm of God.

Secondly various biblical quotes are given. Here we have the following from Psalms 98:1, Proverbs 17:12-13 and Leviticus 16:22. While some amulets are direct, most cannot directly say what it does. Instead, it must be circumspect. These quotes accomplish the task using key words and double entendres to create meaning:

O sing to the Lord a new song; for he has done marvelous things; his right hand, and his holy arm, have gained him the victory. Let a man meet a bear robbed of her Cubs, rather than a fool in his folly. Whoever rewards evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house. So the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities to a land not inhabited; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

Finally an incantation, here given as a blessing and the person this amulet is protecting is identified,

May the (divine name) and his host throw swing and catch truly and in righteousness for the protection of Steven the son of (mother's name) . Amen Amen Amen Selah Selah Selah.

The amulet is written under all rules for sacred calligraphy applicable to Torah, mezuzot, and tefillin. While the best material for parchment is usually deer-skin, for this amulet it is best to be written on goat skin parchment. In addition the amulet writer might include the positions of the angels on the field graphically, and other symbols which would increase its efficacy. One set of such symbols would be pictographs of angels, another would be the language of angels, with symbolic meaning of a blessing used at Wrigley when a home run is hit by the Cubs. We will also include the transformation sequence noted above. Note this amulet is missing critical elements, notably divine names, as this is an example and it is not proper to use such names for an example. After the amulet is completed it is to rolled up in leather and hung on the neck of the pitcher by a leather strap, as the orientations of the angels is based from that position.

Our final strategy is to render harmless demons associated with the curse in a form of a demon trap know an incantation bowl. Originally found in Babylon this appears to be a common method during the time of the late Talmudic rabbis. On the inside surface of the bowls would be written a writ of divorce between demons inhabiting a house and the house's human inhabitants. Based on one of these inscriptions we can adapt it to trap bind and render harmless the demons in Wrigley Field. The location of these bowls should be somewhere close to where demons would be hiding. One place involved in the Bartman incident is the foul line, a transition between a fair and foul ball. Currently on the two foul-line posts are the retired uniform numbers of Ernie Banks (14) and Billy Williams (26). The gematria, or numerical value, of the four letter God Name is 26 and the gematria of the word for hand or pwoer, yod, is 14. Thus, as in all working, the Power or Hand of God is involved here, so the incantation bowls should be placed on these posts, in a weatherproof housing to prevent breakage during the winter months.

I concluded the paper by noting in the nature of a curse, words can be removed with manipulation of words. Wonder workers, in breaking this curse, are not involved in getting the Cubs to win. They would be involved removing the pressure upon Steve Bartman by removing the curse and letting the Cubs skill and talent alone decide the fate of the Cubs, and for them to get into the World Series by their own merit. We can use methods of trapping, repulsion and transformation to repel negative spirit elements. But in the end, it will still be the performance of the Cubs themselves that will determine whether they will win the World Series. Standing in Wrigley field at the seventh inning stretch, though, planning to blog this this week I realized something else. The words of Baalam came back to me:

How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, and your tabernacles, O Israel![Numbers 24]

There is a great blessing, a great and powerful magic that does exist at Addison and Clark. It is Wrigley field itself, an old ball field almost as rare as a magical dragon. I've been to many parks, but there is some magic about Wrigley that makes it special. Some claim that everyone has such a good time at Wrigley as a ball park, that there is no need of fielding a good team. That might be so. From the scoreboard changed by hand to the closer seating only available at a smaller stadium, there is something about a ball game at Wrigley that is a great blessing. It is a feeling found not only in any other ball park, but in any neighborhood around a ball park. Wrigleyville is aptly named. The curse doesn't thrill me as much as the magic in the stadium, one I have no idea how to describe.

Though wining the World Series against The Boston Red Sox, or to be more precise against Fenway Park, might just come close to a thrill....

Note: For those interested in what happened to that paper. My professor, Byron Sherwin, put the question in since he was writing a novel at the time about the Cubs Curse, and was deep into research into the curse. His book does not begin with the Sianis curse however, but retribution for anti-Semitic and racist tendencies of early 20th century Cubs fans, particularly against Hank Greenberg and Babe Ruth. I got an A on the paper. Later he told me there was stuff in my paper there he didn't even know, including why an exorcism by Father Guido Sarducci from Saturday Night Live fame might have actually worked and the gematria about the foul posts. If you want to read his version it is available from amazon.com

Hukkat 5770: Who Mourns with Moses?

2010-06-23T06:29:00.005-05:00

We read this week:

1 And the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month; and the people abode in Kadesh; and Miriam died there, and was buried there. 2 And there was no water for the congregation; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron. 3 And the people strove with Moses, and spoke, saying: 'Would that we had perished when our brethren perished before the LORD! 4And why have ye brought the assembly of the LORD into this wilderness, to die there, we and our cattle? 5 And wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in unto this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink.'[Numbers 20]

Once again we have mumbling in the camp. Yet this time there is another element: Miriam has died. Tradition tells us that the two events were related. From early in the exodus Miriam was responsible for the micracle of a continuous water supply for the people. With her death, the water stops.

Moses, as Miriam's brother, is probably distraught. While for much of the rebellions we have seen in the book of Badmidbar be keeps an even temper even in the face of a very angry God. Yet here, he loses his temper, and in the aftermath he loses the privilege to go into Israel.

8. Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock; so thou shalt give the congregation and their cattle drink.' 9 And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as He commanded him. 10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said unto them: 'Hear now, ye rebels; are we to bring you forth water out of this rock?' 11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and smote the rock with his rod twice; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle. {S} 12.And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron: 'Because ye believed not in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them. [Numbers 20]

The interpretations of this event have been many, but here I stick with one of the simplest and most emotional: Moses was not allowed to mourn for his sister. Additionally, the people were too busy complaining to pay respect to Miriam. While they showed her respect when she was ill with Tzarat by keeping the camp near her, in this case she was totally ignored. Or was she?

At the time of her illness, the people were not respectful but selfish. Their aim was simple: stay close to the water supply. It had nothing to do with honoring Miriam, but honoring the water she supplied. They liked their infrastructure but never really gave the person a second thought. This was what angered Moses. Not only was everyone complaining, which was nothing new, they did not honor either Miriam, Moses or Aaron as people. They did not honor Miriam's memory by giving Moses space to grieve. So, as many of us would probably do, Moses lost his temper.

I started to write this last week about this at the same time someone I knew in college died of a sudden heart attack. While I did not know him very well, he was part of that circle of people who I spent time with. For some reason, this death hit me very hard. I cried when I heard it, and could not stop. For some reason, I needed to grieve. I've realized we often have different levels of grief for people who are varying distances from us. Immediate family and spouses we of course we grieve the most. Friends we grieve for too. But as we get further away, this are a bit more spotty in our grieving process. Some who died halfway across the planet we hardly give a second thought to. As I found this week, sometimes we just need to grieve, we need to release the feelings we have about Death. Some do this by burying them, some release them. I needed release. I needed something to do. With no address of his widow, I did the best thing I could think of: I wrote the blessing for bad news on my deceased friend's Facebook page: Baruch Dayan HaEmet. I then wrote to his closest friends, who were also friends of mine and gave my condolences to them on their pages. It did in some way help. I also cried, before I left my office to take the long drive home. I cried some more on several occasions during that evening.

That reminded me of another friend of mine from college. We were in the same dorm freshman year, the year he pledged to a fraternity. As pledges they had to put on a party and he was in charge of a lot of it. Suddenly his mother had a dangerous relapse of cancer. Instead of being there for support him in his time of crisis, the other pledges were only yelling at him to get things done for the party. Not only was he hundreds of miles away from his mother, but getting grief from his pledge brothers to put the party together. Following a bit of advice from me, he ended up quitting the fraternity over the lack of support he got.

Moses and Aaron must have felt this way, with all the responsibilities on them. Always in the spotlight and required not by just the people but by God to be something other than human. While God seems to punish Moses and Aaron for their crankiness, thinking of my friend, I believe the dynamic here my be something else. There is point when we do need to grieve and deal with our personal emotions. We cannot be Moses and Aaron all the time. Even Moses and Aaron cannot be Moses our teacher and Aaron the High Priest all the time. There are personal moments they need for themselves and their own emotions. Sometimes the only thing we really need at that point is just to have someone listen, to have people give us the permission and the space to grieve. I remember calling my friend one summer break when his mom did succumb to the cancer. While he talked for an hour, I remember one sentence he told me form that conversation. He was grateful that I just sat on the other side of the phone and let him unload everything he was thinking. I just listened, not consoled or any thing else, just listened.

No one listened to Moses and Aaron when Miriam died. Water is a critical component of tears. Maybe the water stopped flowing because the people didn't flow water from their own eyes for Miriam. Why did God say to speak to the rock? God directions was a very deep, healing wisdom. Like I typed my grief and mourning into an inanimate keyboard to some Facebook database, when we are grieving, and there is no one to listen we can even talk to a rock.

8. Take the rod, and gather the assembly together, you, and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you shall give the congregation and their beasts drink.[Numbers 20]

The text does not say what they were to say, if there was an incantation or formula for bringing for the water from a rock. Not apparent in the English is that God commands both Moses and Aaron to speak -- the "you" is plural. The Brothers of Miriam were to speak of their pain to the rock, because the people were not listening nor empathizing with it. Their job was to eulogize Miriam on that rock and let the tears flow from everyone, and then the rock would flow water.

They may not have learned many lessons in their time in the desert, but this idea of mourning they did learn. We read at the end of the chapter:

28 And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there in the top of the mount; and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mount.29 And when all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, they wept for Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel. [Numbers 20]

This time, with Moses the people mourn thirty days.Today we have learned to mourn differently.From the funereal to the seven days to the thirty day to the eleven months there are different stages of mourning. There is saying Kaddish, and there is the responsibility of the community to visit the mourners during shiva, the seven days. As part of that tradition I gave my friend probably the greatest gift -- a shiva call of just listening, something that is so rare these days in most of society. There are immense numbers of commentaries on this portion, trying to figure out why Miriam, Aaron and Moses died when they did, never to see the Promised Land. I believe it was to teach their very last very important lesson: to grieve with the mourners.

Korah 5770: The Inner Korah

2010-06-15T06:56:00.002-05:00

I'm writing this late once again, and I keep wondering, "Why am I late?" I vowed a few weeks ago not to stop writing and not to skip a piece, but here I am again, in the same situation. Why? Parshat Korah may have an answer.

This week we have the story of the Korah rebellion and its aftermath. Korah, Dathan and Abiram, along with 250 of the leading figures in the community rebel against Moses and Aaron, and want to be included as priests. Moses tries to dissuade them, but is unsuccessful. In a contest the next morning, the rebels light incense in their censers, to determine who is chosen by God. Korah, Dathan and Abiram and their families are swallowed up by the earth, literally going straight to hell, and the 250 men are burned alive by a fire from God. The people murmur against this and a plague ensues. To settle the matter of leadership once and for all, another contest is performed. This time the leaders of each tribe place their staff in the Mishkan and leave them overnight. In the morning, Aaron’s staff buds and blooms with almonds. Yet, there are still murmurs.

I went to a D'var Torah last Shabbat where parshat Korah was discussed. Very unlike my usual participation in discussion, I kept silent. There was a mistake in her speech, and noting the mistake would have damaged her whole speech. So I kept silent as a matter of respect. In the questions she asked as part of her discussion, another thing I kept silent about was the question of why did the households of Korah, Dathan and Abiram have to die so quickly. Most thought it a little heartless. We know that the Talmud teaches that in capital crimes to be slow to justice while in monetary crimes to be quick. Why was judgment so quick here?

The book of Bamidbar has many of these dilemmas, and a lot of people die. Indeed, as a consequence of last weeks portion, all 600,000 Israelites but Joshua and Caleb die. Two years ago I wrote a series of these where I came up with an idea bout that. Eretz Yisroel, the Promised Land is who we can be in all of our potential, and Egypt is who we were, constrained and enslaved by many things inside ourselves. Bamidbar is a struggle inside of us, not just of a people. This week we hit one of the biggest hurdles in getting to the Promised Land, the internal rebellion. In the Torah this is represented by Korah and the related rebellions. We’re all familiar with the concept in our own lives, a sense of self destruction of the path to success. One day you are on the top of the word, successful and ready to have your dream come true. The next you do one very stupid thing and the world come crashing down. One feels like Korah’s final fate. The ground under your feet opens ups and you fall straight to Sheol. We’ve seen it happen all too often to people in view of the media both in the political and entertainment realms. Then there are the times it has happened to us as well. It’s happened to me numerous times to be sure, I'm pretty certain it happens to us all.

Korah personifies the self destructive element within us. Korah and his allies are deluded into believing how we existed in the past is better than the present. Dathan and Abiram for example ask:

13. Is it a small thing that you have brought us out of a land that flows with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, that you also make yourself a prince over us?[Numbers 16]

Egypt, the place of oppression, has become the promised land here. Who we were at the beginning of our quest seems to be what we are striving for. Of course to reach the true Promised Land, this is nonsense. It is merely the comfort of the familiar, the road ahead is very scary, though it will bring great success. We want to go back to slavery to our bad habits rather than change and become something more, and fully realize our potential. The Inner Korah is there to sabotage that effort, in any way possible. He is based in fear, but uses rhetoric to confuse us. Our Inner Korah, if let alone for any amount of time, will restrain us from our goals. To answer that bat mitzvah question, Korah needs to die and die quickly. He is a threat to all and can ultimately make us slaves once again. That assumes the Egyptians, that which enslaves us are merciful. More likely they would slaughter the people as punishment, like many self destructive behaviors lead ultimately to an untimely demise.

Like the last time I addressed this, I am fighting another battle with the Inner Korah, one that keeps this column from getting done. While it is best for him to be swallowed up by the earth, we are not as fortunate as Moses was. It is a great battle to defeat self destructive behaviors, one that needs to happen every day. The mistake in the D'var I heard was from a later part of Bamidbar when we find the "The sons of Korah did not die"[Numbers 26:11] While everyone else perished, they were saved. According to the Rabbis because they sang psalms of praise and repentance. Ironically their descendant was the Prophet Samuel, who is mentioned in the traditional Haftarah for this portion. One way to defeat Korah, the lesson seems to be, is to transform him into something constructive.

Shelach lecha 5770: Viewpoints

2010-06-11T21:27:00.002-05:00

This week we have the well known portion of the spies, Moses sends ten spies, one from each tribe into the land of Israel to scout out what is there. On their return, ten of the spies start by giving a positive report, only to tell the people that there are people inhabiting the land are unconquerable.

27 And they told him, and said: 'We came unto the land where you sent us, and surely it flows with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it. 28 Yet, the people that dwell in the land are fierce, and the cities are fortified, and very great; and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. 29 Amalek dwells in the land of the South; and the Hittite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, dwell in the mountains; and the Canaanite dwells by the sea, and along by the side of the Jordan.' ... the men that went up with him said: 'We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.'

Two, Joshua and Caleb report other wise.

30 And Caleb stilled the people toward Moses, and said: 'We should go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.'

When the people believe the ten spies, and want to go back to Egypt, God punishes them by the 40 years wandering in the desert effectively killing off this generation by attrition. The twelve spies saw the same things but came to very different conclusions. I hear such opposing voices all the time. It indeed makes it difficult to watch the news for me. There seems to be only two polarized voices shouting at each other. One is wrong and one is right. To even acknowledge the legitimacy of the oppositions point of view is considered a sign of weakness.

Indeed, even an opposing view is given a name connoting evil, "the devil's advocate." Such a term again shows there is a right way and a wrong way, and to even acknowledge the wrong way is evil. However, a wrong way may not be wrong, just different.

Rabina said in the name of Samuel: The Cherubim [made by Solomon] stood by a miracle; for it is said, And five cubits was the one wing of the Cherub,’ and five cubits the other wing of the Cherub,’ from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits, where, [then] were their bodies standing? Consequently it must be inferred that they stood by a miracle. Abaye demurred: They might have been standing [with their bodies] protruding [under the wings] like [those of] hens! Raba demurred: perhaps they did not stand opposite one another! R. Aha b. Jacob demurred: They might have been standing diagonally. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua demurred: The house might have been wider from above! R. Papa demurred: Might not their wings have been bent? R. Ashi demurred: Their wings might have been overlapping each other![Baba Bathra 99a]

In this discussion in the Talmud we see an interesting idea not in the content but how it was argued. When we have a cherub who is ten cubits long from wing tip to wing tip, yet each wing is five cubits long it leaves no room for a body. How could such a statue, found in the temple stand? Instead of one answer which is definitive, we have six different answers, each taking a very different approach and adding a piece of information to make their approach work. This is not keeping one right opinion, but listening and understanding all of them which is important. The truth is not a coin with two sides, but a precious gem of many facets. In another example, the rabbis, ever practical and spiritual come up with reasons for wiping with the left hand when going to the bath room:

Why should one wipe with the left hand and not with the right? — Raba said: Because the Torah was given with the right hand, as it says, At His right hand was a fiery law unto them.Rabbah b. Hanah said: Because it is brought to the mouth. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Because one binds the tefillin [on the left arm] with it. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Because he points to the accents in the scroll with it. A similar difference of opinion is found among Tannaim. R. Eliezer says, because one eats with it; R. Joshua says, because one writes with it; R. Akiba says, because one points with it to the accents in the scroll.[Brachot 62a]

Here the rabbis have a theme of course. A hand that has touched fecal matter should not come into contact with Torah scrolls, Tefillin, food or our mouths. They are, of course, all correct. Indeed it is our tradition that when there are multiple viewpoints at the table, then we have a holy understanding. Perkei Avot makes this rather clear:

Mishnah 3. R. Simeon said… if three have eaten at one table, and have spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten at the table of the all-present, blessed be he, as it is said, this is the table before the lord. (Ezek 41:22)

Mishnah 6. R. Halafta [a man] of Kefar Hanania said: [When there are] ten sitting together and occupying themselves with Torah, the Shechinah abides among them, as it is said: God stands in the congregation of God.(Ps. 82:1)[Avot 3]

There is not one viewpoint but many. We are all witnesses to Creation and all that is in it. That means we will all be different. Identical testimony in court according to the Talmud indicates a lie, since no one has identical viewpoints.
In my own thinking, I try to avoid putting situations in the good/bad flip of the coin. There is always facets. To think of a viewpoint other than your own as a devils advocate is highly inaccurate. Caleb and Joshua both held a minority opinion, but it held merit. While we call the 10 spies evil, they did have a viewpoint, though based primarily on fear and not trust in God. This all could have gone differently, if there were more consensus and less position taking. In the end, the 10 spies doomed their generation, and their “devils advocate” lead the next generation into the land of Israel.
I believe when we think, we need to consider all views, even if they are a bit uncomfortable. Even if we do not agree with another view, we at least gain the ability to talk in the same language as someone not agreeing with us. Ideally, they will do the same. I tend to do this and work out everyone else’s view first before my own. My only problem with this is other people misinterpreting my view as the ones I'm trying to appreciate first.

I have no idea what to do about others. It is a great puzzle to me how to communicate that there are many facets to any situation. I am not championing a point of view but exploring it, to understand it and acknowledge the truth of that and any other viewpoints. All I know so far is to listen to other viewpoints, and understand where the other has validity. To scoff categorically at another's viewpoint accomplishes nothing.
There is the old joke about two Jews, three opinions. The rabbis personified this type of thinking. The third opinion was a synthesis of all viewpoints, and that synthesis, not polarity, was a holy thing, one where we find God. I'm still a beginner in such Jewish thinking, but it is something we should all strive for.

B'halotecha 5770:Jewish Healing Prayers for the Body and Soul

2010-05-27T21:20:00.005-05:00

13. And Moses cried to the Lord, saying,'Oh please god, please heal her now'[Numbers 12]

In Hebrew Moses' words are the easily said

אל נא רפא נא לה

Pronounced Ayl na rafa na la, this is probably the first short prayer in the Hebrew biblical text. Most are long protracted poems. This is short and sweet and very repeatable in a mantra, chanting sort of way.

I first learned about his prayer when I returned to Judaism after a long hiatus. The one thing I remember most about that first prayer service at a Jewish Renewal synagogue, it was this healing prayer of Moses about Miriam's case of tzarat. Moses of course knew what Miriam was going through since God gave him a taste of it back at the burning bush.

6) And the LORD said furthermore unto him: 'Put now thy hand into thy bosom.' And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, as white as snow.And He said: 'Put thy hand back into thy bosom.--And he put his hand back into his bosom; and when he took it out of his bosom, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh. 8) And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign.[Exodus 4]

While he did use that first sign, the staff turning into a snake, Moses never used the second, tzarat, in Egypt. As I wrote back in Exodus in my piece Va-eira 5770: The missing plague it was here with Miriam that the plague and the doubt finally showed. But what is interesting is while Moses and Aaron were able to turn the snake back into a staff, in this case there is nothing that Moses is able to do, no methodology to revert Miriam's tzarat back into healthy skin. He is forced to ask God for help, to heal her. God is totally in control here, not human beings with a set of instructions, the Torah seems to say. The rabbis say similarly

On going in to be cupped[i.e. bloodletting] one should say: ‘May it be Thy will, O Lord, my God, that this operation may be a cure for me, and mayest Thou heal me, for Thou art a faithful healing God, and Thy healing is sure, since men have no power to heal, but this is a habit with them’...From this we learn that permission has been given to the physician to heal. When he gets up [after cupping] what does he say? — R. Aha said: Blessed be He who heals without payment.[Brachot 60a]

God does the healing clearly, and God heals through the spirit and through prayer and blessing. While "la" means "her" in Moses' prayer, referring to Miriam, it can also mean "it" in the feminine. Most who follow this idea think the "it" here is for neshama, one's soul. Ahava, which could mean love or friendship, could be another feminine word that would work here. Not only was there a physical healing need but one of the soul, and one of the relationship between people. Ayl na rafa na la is very versatile in that way.

The traditional prayer of healing, said as part of a Torah reading where one person who needs to ask for healing of another is much longer and has a few interesting issues in its text:

He who blessed our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Moses and Aaron, David and Solomon -- may He bless and heal the sick person ( insert name here) son of (mothers name) because (name of person saying prayer) will contribute to charity on his behalf. In reward for this, may the Holy One, Blessed be He, be filled with compassion for him to restore his health, to heal him, to strengthen him, and to revivify him. And may he send him speedily a complete recovery from heaven for his two hundred forty eight organs and three hundred sixty five blood vessels, among the other sick people of Israel, a recovery of the body and a recovery of the spirit swiftly and soon. Now let us say Amen.[Artscroll]

There are three points of interest. While I have placed this only in the masculine, the he referring to the patient has a section with feminine pronouns as well in the prayerbook, which is rather odd for a more traditional siddur which tends to put everything in the masculine. Secondly, it mentions two hundred forty eight organs and three hundred sixty five blood vessels, which if one were to add those two numbers up is six hundred and thirteen, a reference to the six hundred and thirteen mitzvot. Finally there is a quid pro quo here: one is to give charity in order to get this result. Given most tzedaka is give as a mandatory obligation, this seems strange. To trade one for the other seems counter to the idea of giving charity not because you want to or are after an end, but because it is commanded by God.

In liberal Judaism, much of these interesting points is addressed by deleting them. In the Reform Siddur Mishkan Tefila The more formal version reads

May the one who blessed Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Sarah Rebbecca, Rachel, and Leah bless and heal [A list of names].May the blessed Holy One be filled with compassion for their health, to be restored and their strength to be revived.May God swiftly send them a complete renewal of the body and spirit and let us say Amen.

With the replacement of Moses, Aaron David and Solomon with the matriarchs, the Reform version also adds another piece. while the Orthodox version is said by a individual, the Reform version is communal and neutral in gender. While this is found in Reform liturgy, it is uncommon in my experience for anyone to use it. Many congregations will sing instead Jewish songwriter Debbie Friedman's version, which is so common it is included as an alternate healing prayer in Mishkan T'fila.

Mi shebeirach avoteinu m'kor habracha l'imoteinu
May the Source of strength who blessed the ones before us
Help us find the courage to make our lives a blessing and let us say: amen

Mi shebeirach imoteinu m'kor habracha l'avoteinu
Bless those in need of healing with refua shleima
the renewal of body, the renewal of spirit, and let us say Amen.

Yet my favorite is still Moses' words for Miriam. Ayl na rafa na la. We do not know if Moses said it only the once, or said it over and over again. Its simple chanting sounds and meter makes me believe it was repeated over and over again. Even the Hebrew letters involved are easily repeatable. Like the reform version, it is based on the power of prayer more than anything else, and as a repeatable prayer it paradoxically means it can be one of the longest prayers possible. repeated over and over fro a very long time. Even on paper when written it becomes a powerful prayer.

I know many people who need healing of body. I know many who need healing of spirit, including me. The last few months have been a radical change in my life. Who I identified myself to be and how I did my daily work is radically different than it was a year ago. I realized how much I need to heal this week, sitting in bed around 2:30 in the morning, worrying about an international package getting to its destination. Part of my new life is running a shipping department, so different than the training and consulting I used to do. I laid there that night wondering why five boxes could keep me worried so much that I could not sleep.

I didn't figure it out that night but I have a good idea of my problem now. I need healing of my spirit. It's damaged and weak somehow, leading me down a path that every thing I do must be right and perfect, or my identify will be shattered. Who and what I am right now is pretty fragile anyway, as I still haven't clarified who I am based on the many new things in my life over the past year and a half. I'm sure I am not the only one like this, given the changes in the economy worldwide. Too many have had changed lives, and many more will in the near future. It is too easy when our souls are weak to cling on to our daily deeds and career as the sole source of our identity. I make a single shipment the most important thing in my life because I'm scared I will be nothing if I can't get those boxes to their destination.

My intellect knows better of course, but my soul does not. It's cowering in a dark corner of me, in pain. Thus I need to heal. Saying a few words may not heal me, but praying those words, and connecting with God may. Heschel said the prayer does not save but makes man worthy of saving. It does not matter the prayer, but that it is said. When we do the actions that connect us with God, that is when refua shleima, the complete healing happens.

I'm trying to heal, to bring my soul into a whole place again. Like Miriam it is locked away and isolated. It is another way of looking at why I have had such trouble writing the last few weeks. My soul has not been in it. It once was honored for its knowledge in the world it was in, now in its new world, it is denigrated at every turn. It has been told too many time lately that it is wrong for expressing its opinion so it does not want to express its opinion any more. It is also part of my soul to express itself so it keeps vainly trying and fails miserably. So it is hurt over and over again, and terrified of being wrong and hurt again. I know now it needs to heal from this, to handle those situations differently. Healing a soul is not easy, but it can be done.

For me, that healing will come through Ayl na rafa na la, repeating it over and over again, and with it opening my heart and soul to God once again, like Moses and Miriam did.

Naso 5770: The Vows of the Nazirite

2010-05-24T15:10:00.002-05:00

This week, among suspected adulterous women and counting the Levites we have the following:

1. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2. Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazirite, to separate themselves for the Lord; 3. He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, nor shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. 4. All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is produced from the grape vine, from the seeds to the grape skin. 5. All the days of the vow of his separation no razor shall come upon his head; until the days are fulfilled, during which he separates himself for the Lord, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. 6. All the days that he separates himself for the Lord he shall not come near a dead body. 7. He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die; because the consecration of his God is upon his head. 8. All the days of his separation he is holy to the Lord.[Numbers 6]

The Nazirite makes a public oath apparently, and then for a period of time he or she is then prohibited from doing and touching certain things. The Talmud clarifies a bit more. There are three types of Nazirite. The first is a limited time Nazirite. This is a person who disciplines themselves for a given period of time. According to the Rabbis, if that time is not specified, then it is a default period of thirty days. The second type is someone who decides to be a Nazirite for the rest of their life and the third is the rare case of one who is born a Nazirite and lives a life of a Nazirite for the entirety of their life. The Haftarah of the week concerns the first and the third one:

2. And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bore not. 3. And the angel of the Lord appeared to the woman, and said to her, Behold now, you are barren, and bear not; but you shall conceive, and bear a son. 4. Now therefore beware, I beseech you, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing; 5. For, behold, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head; for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.[Judges 13]

The child the woman give birth to she names Samson, who did not have magical hair as many believe but was consecrated as a Nazirite, a holy person to God when his hair was not cut. Interestingly, Samson's mom also was a Nazirite during her pregnancy. This might hint at why women are specifically mentioned as Nazirites when it is so rare for them to be specifically mentioned in other mitzvot. It was a vow of thanksgiving to consecrate yourself to the lord as a Nazirite. In ancient culture, where proclivity in children was a lot of one's status in society and family , women in particular may have had reason to thank god for a child, and this must have been it.

I do not completely understand why of all things the prohibitions were not to cut one's hair, or stay away from anything that is grape or intoxicant. The staying away from a corpse is a little more understandable, as it is the same idea as it is for a priest and the High priest:

11. Neither shall he go to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother[Leviticus 21]

Thinking about it, Intoxicants also are mentioned in terms of priests:

8. And the Lord spoke to Aaron, Saying: 9. Drink no wine nor strong drink You, and your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, that you will not die; it shall be a statute forever. [Leviticus 10]

In a sense, The Nazirite takes on a holiness comparable to a priest, and must avoid death the same way a priest does. Except for extraordinary conditions, these three are prohibitions that are not basic needs like food or shelter. Yet this is a practice of the past, can we understand it in the present? The answer comes from asking other questions. How do we take vows and have the discipline to do something with them? We find that taking a vow is actually rather easy, it just needs a statement.

MISHNAH. ALL THE SUBSTITUTES FOR THE NAZIRITE VOW ARE EQUIVALENT TO NAZIRITE VOWS. IF A MAN SAYS, ‘I SHALL BE [ONE].’ HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE. [IF HE SAYS.] ‘I SHALL BE COMELY, A NAZIRITE, A NAZIK,2 A NAZIAH2 A PAZIAH. HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE. [IF HE SAYS.] ‘I INTEND TO BE LIKE THIS,’ OR ‘I INTEND TO CURL [MY HAIR].’ OR ‘I MEAN TO TEND [MY HAIR].’ OR ‘I UNDERTAKE TO DEVELOP TRESSES,’ HE BECOMES A NAZIRITE.[Nazir 2a]

Much of the first part of the Talmud tractate on the Nazirite is about the oath itself. It is exceptionally easy, and with key words one locks themselves into various types of Nazirite vows. While admittedly not reading the Gemara for the entire tractate, I think it is clear there is a message here: it is easy to make a promise. One can phrase a promise many different ways, but still end up promising something. In the case of the Nazir it is a promise to God to do an act of devotion. In this case it is three things that most people can actually do without endangering their life. It is not a full fast of thirty days, for example, which would cause harm. It may be difficult to avoid grapes, to look unkempt for a month but it is possible without any harm to the person. As in the case of Samson's mom and later Hanna, Samuel's it is harmless enough that even a pregnant woman could do it. Indeed keeping away from any alcohol or diseased dead bodies might actually be good for the fetus.

Therefore it is also easy to keep this promise. For many of our promises that is also true. Making and keeping promises are easy. The third of the three disciplines is again not difficult under normal circumstances. Most people don't handle dead bodies on a regular basis. The Torah itself is clear that sometimes bad things happen. A nazirite might be caught in a war, and end up with dead bodies all around them, making it impossible not to touch a dead body. So there are procedures for essentially starting from scratch, removing the hair involved from the original oath, and repeating the entire oath from the beginning. This gives us an very important lesson: if we fail in our oath, we are not punished but given another chance to do so again. Unintentional mistakes are unavoidable, and when we make promises, we might break our promise from circumstances beyond our control. What are we to do? Get up from our mistake, Apologize, clean ourselves off from our mistake, and try again.

I've been thinking a lot about that. While it is not a vow, I did make Shlomo's drash a major discipline in my life. And as those who have followed this for while know. I am scrupulous in getting something written every week. I've skipped only a few times, and that was due to a lack of Internet connection in the Galalpagos Islands or in deepest darkest Africa. Otherwise, I'm always getting one of these out.

Except for the last few weeks.

For that time period I could not write a single word. While I have been very busy, there have been times in the past I was a busy and still got this out, so lack of time is only an excuse. I've realized what was wrong in Nazirite terms because I touched a metaphorical dead body. My ideas and writing died when touching it. So while I've been trying to write, I keep having miscarriages of ideas and nothing gets written.

It happened this week as well. But reading the text, I realized the old advice I gave as a computer tech support guy is still the most sage: Reboot.

9. And if any man dies very suddenly beside him, and he has defiled his consecrated head; then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, on the seventh day shall he shave it.[Numbers 6]

Cut off the desecrated hair, clean yourself, and a few sacrifices later, the Nazirite starts the whole process over again. So, as hard as it is to do the reboot. I'm going ahead and writing this week. I'll give the oath here that has been my life for nine years now: I want to write Shalomo's Drash to my dying day. I'm not stopping even though I contemplated it many time. I'm going to write and write forever. It's my dedication to God, to study Torah and give my insight to everyone else. If they care to read it is up to them, but I have done the writing.

I may falter very once in a while, but in the spirit of a nazirite, I will merely stop, clean up, and start again. I'm still human, and can make mistakes like everyone else.

So thank you, I'm here to stay. period.

Acahrei Mot Kedoshim 5770: What is Abhorrent?

2010-04-23T07:25:00.002-05:00

This weeks double portion covers a lot of ground, starting with the procedures for sacrifice on what will become to be known as Yom Kippur, then going through many ethical and social laws. Many are sexual in nature, such as those against Adultery and incest. Some are ethical principles like:

17. You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall reason with your neighbor, and not allow sin on his account.18. You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.[Leviticus 19]

Others, are ones which make little sense, or requiring a bit of puzzling:

19. You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with mixed seed; nor shall a garment mixed of linen and woollen come upon you.[Leviticus 19]

or these:

26. You shall not eat any thing with the blood; nor shall you use enchantment, nor observe times. 27. You shall not round the corners of your heads, nor shall you mar the corners of your beard. 28. You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you; I am the Lord.

Yet one in this double portion has caused a lot of puzzlement as to its meaning. Most will take a plain meaning, but some have problems with that, and I have lots of questions about it.

22. You shall not lie with a male, as with a woman; it is abomination[Leviticus 18]

13. If a man also lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[Leviticus 20]

The two places in Torah which many believe ban same sex relationships has been a puzzle to me. The puzzle is in the Hebrew, both in style and vocabulary. Hebrew tend to make things into a poetic parallel structure: for example:

27. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female He created them.[Genesis 1]

The repetition of phrases is very apparent, but in this verse there is another pairing of interest as well: "male and female." We see this repeated often in talking about different species and their males and females of the species. Often we hear of "Man and woman." Both of these have a symmetry that is stylistically consistent in Hebrew. But these two verse in Leviticus change that to "man and male" or "male and woman" depending how you pair it. Either way this is an inconsistency. And I wondered why.

My belief is that ish,איש man denotes an adult. on the other hand zacar זכר male, is not so clear on age. Looking in context most cases where zacar is not paired with female discuss the case of something male and young, either of animals or of humans. As many have had problems with, the phrase "as with a woman" provides a second problem. since males do not have the same physical organs as woman it is impossible to mate with a male as with a female. Yet, there is nowhere in Torah which explicitly or even suggestively ban anal sex with a male of female. So how could a male be like a woman?

The word for "lies with" שכב may suggest a possibility. Cases of rape and incest always use this verb to describe sex. This is not the intimate "knowing" ofiten used, but something less mutual. Shacav as a verb is often used in Leviticus 18 to describe the types of incest, written as a case of a man acting on a female. It bans men from acting on their urges against women within their family. This is a text that believes men is dominant to women sexually. Thus it may be that to be "like a woman" is to be forced into sex.

What I have come up with is that 18:22 and 20:13 is not about two male adults in an consensual intimate relationship, but a adult having sex onto a minor, who is not able to either understand or resist what is happening. For many years I have used such a interpretation to understand and deal with these verses which have caused so much hate against people's choice of who to love. Yet I still have a problem, and that is the death penalty for both participants in such a relationship. It's not the only death penalty like this of course, both parties in adultery are to be executed. But more significant is the case of bestiality:

15. And if a man lies with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and you shall slay the beast. 16. And if a woman approaches any beast, and lies down to it, you shall kill the woman, and the beast; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[Leviticus 20]

The problem I have is in the case of the beast and the case of a young male is the powerless party is found guilty along with he aggressor. They are treated as though they were willing participants, yet the way I understand the verses, that is not the case. The case of the woman, as we will found out in Deuteronomy 22, may not end in death for her, but could end in death for the rapist depending on her known resistance. Why in child abuse and bestiality does the victim have to pay the price? The biblical death penalties have been rendered harmless by the legal acrobatics of the Rabbis of the Talmud, but there is this idea of killing the victims that still bothers me. In contrast we read:

2. Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel, and say to them, You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy.[Leviticus 19]

I'm not feeling very holy right now. I actually feel a lot of doubt. the idea of one atrocity being solved with another bothers me greatly. I struggle with it, as I struggle with a lot of things lately. What really is abhorrent practices? Many around the world today think my way of living as a liberal straight male Jew is abhorrent. I think about how many things I think are abhorrent that people get away with. We read of institutionalized child sacrifice"Passing seed through fire to Molech", and of people turning their heads to ignore such practices. Both parent and silent witnesses are guilty according to the text. Thinking about the abuse scandals that rock some large religious institutions, and how many simply turned their heads away makes me wonder what is abhorrent. While I gave an interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as one of child abuse, this same institution continues to enforce it in its more common meaning. Looking at the news at any one time, and noting that adulterers are also given a death penalty, how can one think same-sex unions of any kind are any more abhorrent?

My view of Torah is to struggle with it. Yet I find it hard to struggle sometimes, and lately I've had a hard time even struggling, as things get too confusing. There are things in the text that I just don't get. Some people find this parasha, notably Leviticus 19, as a code to be holy. Sandwiched between Leviticus 18 and 20 I don't know how holy it can be. All I know is being holy does not mean being fair.

What is abhorrent? To be honest I don't know.

Tzaria -Metzora 5770: Cleaning House

2010-04-16T10:09:00.001-05:00

This week we have a double Torah portion and one of the longest of such readings. The chapters in Leviticus include many different clinical diseases including tzarat, often and wrongly called leprosy; and tzav, which most authorities believe was gonorrhea. The text presents their symptoms and cures rather clinically. In Chapter 14 there is procedures for sick building syndrome - when a house has tzarat. I find the concept of the sick building, the building with tzarat, a fascinating issue.

For the diagnostic procedures, we read in Leviticus 14:34-38

34. When you come to the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the disease of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession; 35. He who owns the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, "It seems to me there is a disease in the house;" 36. Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest goes into it to see the disease, that all that is in the house be not made unclean; and afterwards the priest shall go in to see the house;37. And he shall look on the disease, and, behold, if the disease is in the walls of the house with depressions, greenish or reddish, which in look lower than the wall; 38. Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days;

The diagnosis of a reddish or greenish depression in the walls is consistent with mold growth, a very common cause of sick building syndrome. Sick building syndrome is an indoor air quality issue where contaminants from the building itself released into the air are casing illness. Sometimes it’s chemical, as in the cases of certain types of insulation or paint leaving noxious odors in the room. Often it’s associated with mold. Common construction materials, particularly dry wall and plaster appear to be great growth materials for mold once they become wet. A leak in a pipe, a leaky roof, or a bad spill allows water to absorb into the wall, providing the right conditions to grow. Once it starts to grow, it isn’t the priest we call but according to federal regulations, we hire specially licensed bio-hazard teams completely outfitted in contamination suits. In their mold remediation procedures they have to remove the mold with full environmental isolation then disinfection of the area, particularly if it is in a workplace.

Plaster and similar compounds has been around since biblical times. The same situation could happen with clay mortar as well. I learned about this in college when one of the requirements of my senior project in sculpture (the artist version of a thesis) was to maintain the studio, and that meant scooping out the moldy clay in the trap used to prevent clay from clogging sewer lines. Sometimes I thought there was more mold than clay. With dried, unfired clay it’s possible that the mortar would begin to disintegrate as well under the influence of the mold. Therefore it is possible the mortar would be pitted as Leviticus tells us. The tzarat of buildings is probably a mold problem in the walls.

The first step in biblical mold remediation is to remove all items from the area to prevent them from becoming contaminated, or in biblical terms becoming unclean. From my recent experience, I think that is a large part of the spiritual story. Last July, I moved from my studio apartment to a one bedroom apartment in anticipation of Sweetie moving in with me. It meant totally stripping rooms of everything like Leviticus 14:36. Even though I have a studio, it was a lot of work for one person.

But something happened along the way. As I moved things around I found things that had been in my apartment way too long and really needed to be thrown out. When trying to fit an entire living room into a galley kitchen, reducing it by bringing it to “the unclean place outside the city;” also known as the trash chute, is ideal. Some things were paperwork from eight years ago I had been saving for some reason, a large collection of old magazines, and a lot of old knickknacks. So along with moving everything I also threw out a lot of stuff including clothing that hasn't fit in years. Many had old memories attached to them, but out they went anyway. What I moved into was very different than what I left. Yet, I still had too much stuff, as Sweetie noted when she moved in with me. She was right, and more right than I think she knew. I thought about that this week, as I cleaned out my closet once again of my Hawaiian shirts. Most didn't fit, so they ended up in the donation pile.

This new apartment is very different than my last apartment. But it is not in what is there alone. It is how I do things. I didn't own a recycle bin in my last apartment, but now I put things in the correct bin when it is recycling or trash. Much of who I was as a single guy is gone and thrown in the trash too. Clothes do not belong on the floor anymore, but in the hamper for example. In the last year I cleaned out the mold in my head too, and I'm better for it.

I think a big part of the tzarat of the house is the metaphorical stuff we keep around for too long. It eventually gets “moldy.” In my case it was old papers and magazines. When tzarat of the house happens the infectious agent needs to go or we need to go. There are three outcomes of this inspection by the priest: one is the tzarat goes away and everything is moved back in after a sacrifice, another is the tzarat doesn’t change and the place where it is found is removed and taken to the trash dump. And the third is that if grows back, then the house is condemned and destroyed. Removing Tzarat in this way is like many of the modern explanations of cleaning for hametz before Passover. The pre-Passover cleaning is an annual spiritual cleaning along with finding breadcrumbs around the house and changing dishes. The difference between hametz and tzara'at however is visibility: with hametz we know what we are looking for, with tzarat it may be sitting invisible until it “gets wet” and shows up suddenly. Hametz, which is a scheduled thing for the time between Purim and Passover, but God decides on an individual basis when tzarat will show itself in our house. It’s still the junk we need to get rid of, but it hides better. If we don’t get rid of it, we eventually lose the house.

I'm glad I did that cleaning. I have a lot more to do I think, though not in the apartment, more in my head.

From a sick building point of view, moving out all your furniture is not always a good idea: you might end up contaminating the whole neighborhood. Deciding what in our lives we want to throw away, no matter how painful, and what we want to keep however is a significant exercise. Tzarat of the house is not just a sanitary cleaning; it is a spiritual cleaning as well.

Shimini 5770: Are Chocolate Covered Crickets Kosher?

2010-04-15T07:00:00.002-05:00

It s an odd and silly question,but it once bothered me. Not that I'd ever eat such a thing but as a exercise in rabbinic thinking it was one that came up once during my advanced Hebrew class.

At the time we were translating this weeks portion Shimini. The question arose while translating the following verses:

20. All birds that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination to you. 21. (K) Yet these may you eat of every flying creeping thing that goes upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap with upon the earth; 22. These you may eat: the locust after its kind, and the bad locust after its kind, and the cricket after his kind, and the grasshopper after its kind.23. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination to you.[Leviticus 11]

If crickets, locusts and grasshoppers are permitted, the question arose could you have a glass of milk with them? Could you cover them in milk chocolate and eat them? What are they - meat like beef and chicken? Are they pareve, like fish? The Talmud is explicit in saying yes:

Every kind of flesh is forbidden to be cooked in milk, excepting the flesh of fish and of locusts; and it is also forbidden to place upon the table [flesh] with cheese, excepting the flesh of fish and of locusts.[Hullin 103b]

But why is this so? There are two passages of Talmud and one biblical text that will help here. One is the way chicken is designated as meat. The second is how to eat venison. Finally, how fish gets its status as pareve. There is an argument in the Talmud about the status of chicken as meat, and if it was permissible to eat chicken with dairy products. The sage Yose the Galillean made a simple argument

R. Yose the Galilean says, it is written, “you shall not eat of anything that dies of itself.”[Deuteronomy 14:21] and in the same verse it is written, “you shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk”; therefore whatsoever is prohibited. Under the law of nebelah it is forbidden to cook in milk. Now it might be inferred that a fowl, since it is prohibited under the law of nebelah, is also forbidden to be cooked in milk; the verse therefore says. “In its mother's milk”; thus a fowl is excluded since it has no mother's milk.[Hullin 113a]

Since mommy chickens have no milk the biblical rule is not addressing poultry, only mammals. But after several folios the rabbis make a rather elegant argument: Permitted birds and beasts are both animals that could be used for sacrifices. In order to be used for sacrifices they had to be prepared and treated on a specific way. Not treating or preparing them for sacrifice in this way renders the animal invalid or nebelah. Outside of the temple sacrifices the secular eating of the same animals requires the same preparation. It was not the species or whether it did or did not produce milk, but the method of preparation of the meat to be considered acceptable for sacrifice or eating that classified things as meat.

The extension applies to animals that are non sacrificial but fit to eat as well. In Deuteronomy the list of permitted animals for consumption grows to include other split hoove animals that are not sacrificial such as venison, but with the stipulation that these animals are handled the same way the sacrificial animals are such as beef or lamb[Deuteronomy 12:22, 14:5]. Thus all permitted animals must follow the rules of care, slaughter and preparation.

On the other hand we have the permitted seafood which has fins and scales. Both of these are considered pareve, although they are either potential kosher poultry or a living swimming creature. In discussing the permissibility of parasitic worms in seafood versus cattle, the Talmud mentions something interesting.

Cattle are [in a forbidden state until] rendered permitted by slaughtering, and since these maggots had not been rendered fit by slaughtering, they always remain in the forbidden state. Fish, on the other hand, are [always in a permitted state, for they are] permitted by the mere taking up; the maggots therefore generated in a permitted state.[Hulllin 67b]

In short, because fish have no sacrificial preparation step, they are kosher from the time they are caught. By not having those sacrificial steps, they are not considered meat but something that is not meat, and thus they can be mixed with milk. The winged things on fours which are permitted are like fish in this respect. There is no sacrificial procedure that needs to be followed, so they are not meat, but pareve like fish, and thus one could eat them with a milk chocolate coating.

Of course there is a problem to this permission for chocolate covered grasshoppers and crickets. We are not sure of the species permitted, so most modern Ashkenaz authorities, to prevent the consumption of a creeping thing, ban all insects including grasshoppers and locusts, even though the Talmud is explicit on identifying such creatures:

Of locusts: all that have four legs, four wings, leaping legs, and wings covering the greater part of the body, [are clean]. R. Jose says, it must also bear the name locust’. [Hullin 59a]

So for those who are getting sick thinking about chocolate covered locusts, you will have a hard time finding them in your local kosher grocery store.

Tzav 5770: The Embarrassment of the Moderately Affiliated.

2010-03-26T16:50:00.002-05:00

Recently I noticed something I do. In some ways this is a sequel to last week's commentary, and thinking about that one was what got me to notice this one.

The incident itself was simple. Someone asked me to buy something on Shabbat. Instead of mentioning I don't buy anything but food on Shabbat, I gave excuses. I complained that the store would be too busy. I didn't even notice I did it, till afterwards and felt something odd. Then I realized what I was feeling: embarrassment. I was embarrassed that I was trying to be observant.

I wonder about this embarrassment. It's not one the extremes have to think about. Both Orthodoxy and secularism is all or nothing. There is a consistency in each system of thought: You either do or you don't.

Both take a argument of consistency, one this weeks portion suggests with the operation of the altar

5. And the fire upon the altar shall be burning in it; it shall not be put out; and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay the burnt offering in order upon it; and he shall burn on it the fat of the peace offerings.6. The fire shall be burning always upon the altar; it shall never go out.[Leviticus 6 ]

While the light of the menorah is the one we usually associate with the Ner Tamid or Eternal light, it is also suggested by the altar as well. These all suggest a burning consistent observance of the mitzvot, as the Orthodox do. There is a burning consistent effort to not follow the mitzvot by secular people. I do not mean they are evil, but anything that does not have an ethical basis to it, a basis of practice without ethical reason, they do not follow. For example there is a part of the kosher code in this weeks portion:

26. Moreover you shall eat no kind of blood, whether it is of bird or of beast, in any of your dwellings. 27. What ever soul it is who eats any kind of blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people.[Leviticus 7]

The prohibition of blood and many of the rules around change the way people will approach a steak. For the observant, a steak thoroughly salted and drained of blood, then heated to well done will be the only way to eat a steak. There is the least possible amount of blood in such meat. Non observant people will eat it any way they want believing such rules silly. I for one don't eat blood, and since I don't like overly well done meat, I don't eat red meat at all-- kosher or otherwise.

But then I'll do something that the Orthodox will not do: put cheese on a chicken breast sandwich, which in their view is mixing milk with meat. I do follow an actual opinion here of Yosi of the Galilee, a Talmudic sage who made the simple argument that chickens don't have milk so the prohibition of boiling a kid in its mother's milk is silly when applied to poultry. The majority disagreed, stating that any sacrificial animal subject to slaughter and sacrifice using the methods described in Vayikra and Tzav was considered kosher meat, and so most Jews take chicken as a meat, though I still don't.

Interestingly, I don't have problems often with Orthodox practices: they often see my attempts as at least I'm trying. When eating with Orthodox, I'm probably eating in a kosher restaurant or home so there is no cheese for my grilled chicken sandwich anyway. The problem is in secular settings where I am the only one restricting myself for religious reasons.

To be observant in any way seems to often gain derision. In a conversation I had recently with a friend she observed something that unfortunately tends to be true. Observant is the same thing as radical to many today. She does have her own observances where she notices this. I'm no radical or fundamentalist to say the least. To many people I'm so inconsistent, I'm hypocritical. The problem of course is all or nothing thinking. If you don't eat pork or shrimp, then your'e assumed to be Shomer Shabbos, and thus get derided for driving to services.

The writing of Abraham Joshua Heschel addresses this problem. To him it is the difference between western, or what he calls Greek, and Jewish thinking. Greek thinking is categorical, placing things in well described categorical boxes. One such categorization is Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform. Another such categorization is whether one is completely observant or not. Thing smust fall in the box, they cannot be in two boxes at once, or between boxes. Heschel believes that we each are unique and can only be described by our own story. Applying Greek thinking to Jewish concepts only creates a mess which isn't very Jewish in his view.

Applying this concept to observance, each Jew has a way to observe the 613 mitzvot and the countless halakah. We observe some but not all of them -- it is truly impossible, since some are biologically gender related and some, like those in this week's portion, requires the Temple. We cannot categorize even among the Orthodox. All we can do is a lot like Passover, tell a story. Yet that is inconvenient to Western sound-bite, categorical thinking. And that really is the tension that causes my embarrassment. For many I am categorized, while I know better. I make a categorical false assumption that those who do not observe or observe differently will disapprove of my limited observance, and thus disapprove of me. I am embarrassed to show my observance in such circumstances. The answer here again is the statement of Hillel.

IF I AM NOT FOR MYSELF, WHO IS FOR ME, BUT IF I AM FOR MY OWN SELF [ONLY],51 WHAT AM I, AND IF NOT NOW, WHEN?[M. Avot 1:14]

I must be true to my own observance first. This is not easy of course. Some of my fear is learned and historical. Observance means that the majority religion might attack me for doing a minority practice. But maybe it is in spite of this, one must act according to one's observance. By observing the way I find meaningful, I separate myself from everyone else, and set my own identity. My actions say that I am strong enough to set such an identity.

As I get ready to follow one of those very visible practices, there is some words from Exodus that puts this all into perspective.

7. Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen with you in all your quarters. 8. And you shall tell your son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the Lord did to me when I came forth out of Egypt. 9. And it shall be for a sign to you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that the Lord’s Torah may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand has the Lord brought you out of Egypt. 10. You shall therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year.[Exodus 13]

Passover will mean a lot of Dietary Changes next week. While Verse 9 is commonly interperted to mean one should wear Tefillin, it may also mean to think, act, talk and eat according to belief. To do so says I do this because it is spiritually meaningful to me. Maybe embarrassment is unnecessary. To be myself is just who I am and is meaningful to me, Anyone else's categorization of me is meaningless.

Next time I begin to feel embarrassed about observance, I think I'll say Hillel's quote above: Im ayn ani li mi li?

Vayikra 5770: Keva and Conflict of Shabbat

2010-03-19T07:48:00.005-05:00

This week we have seemingly endless procedures for sacrifices. Since the destruction of the temple, this would seem to be also completely meaningless. What can we gain from such knowledge? For example, we have:

1. And when any will offer a meal offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense on it;2. And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron the priests; and he shall take from it his handful of its flour, and of its oil, with all its frankincense; and the priest shall burn the memorial part of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor to the Lord. 3. And the remnant of the meal offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire.[Leviticus 2]

When reading these verses, I am always reminded of the prophetic quotes about sacrifice:

11. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? said the Lord; I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of male goats. 12. When you come to appear before me, who has required this at your hand, to trample my courts?[Isaiah 1]

If God commanded the sacrifices, why is he spurning them here?

19. Hear, O earth; behold, I will bring evil upon this people, the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not listened to my words, nor to my Torah, but have rejected it. 20. To what purpose comes to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor are your sacrifices sweet to me. [Jeremiah 6]

There is a difference between practice and intention, one the people of Jeremiah's time didn't understand. Both are necessary and both are interdependent. In Judaism we refer to practice as keva, and the intention as kavvanah. This week’s portion is primarily keva in nature giving specific instructions how to perform a sacrifice. Most siddurim today are keva as well. They lay out a specific prayer service.

Liberal Jewish movements like Reform tend to emphasize kavvana over keva, and more conservative movements like the conservative and Orthodox tend to emphasize keva. This is of course not always true. Classical Reform for example has a strong keva about not wearing tallit and kippot. The inception of the Hasidic movement was a rejection of the keva centered movements of the time with a Kavvanah centered one. Prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah were condemning the people doing the motions without any real meaning or devotion to God.

As a liberal Jew, I have often emphasized Kavvanah in Shlomo’s Drash. Yet, I have been thinking a lot lately about keva and what it means. Keva is often found in the Mitzvot. Mtzvot are laws written into the Torah. We can explicitly understand not to eat pork sausage for example, since Leviticus clearly states:

7. And the swine, though its hoof is parted, and is cloven footed, yet it chews not the cud; it is unclean to you.8. Of their flesh shall you not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you.[Leviticus 11]

Yet not having a cheese burger is not directly mentioned in Torah, since the text states:

You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.[Exodus 23]

We have a halacha that tells us that eating meat with milk in any form, or even storing them together is a violation. Halacha like the separation of meat and milk are part of the Oral law, and what was derived from many debates and opinions from many sages on what boiling a kid in its mother's milk actually means.

Both mitzvot and halacha however can be positive, telling us something we should do, or negative, something we should not. This week’s sacrifices as would giving charity to the poor are positive mitzvot. Not eating pork or not working on the Sabbath would be negative cases.

It is often hard to tell if someone is talking about a mitzvah or a halacha if you do not know the law yourself. The words themselves are confusing. The word Mitzvah can be brought to a very general case. Indeed mitzvah can mean any good deed. Halacha can also mean the entire corpus of Jewish law, and not just those rulings made in the oral law. When we talk about positive and negative we usually use the term mitzvah however.

Negative mitzvot have been problematic for me. When I was young, I thought the negative laws were fundamentally restrictive and meaningless. About thirteen years ago, I got back into Judaism, and began to explore the world of mitzvot and halacha. One of the things I came up with was my Shabbat rules – my ideal Shabbat practice.

Live Juicy one day a week. Celebrate it with candles. Read Torah and Talmud and contemplate them. Wear Hawaiian shirts. Do not use electronic devices-no Internet, iPods, or TV.Don’t buy anything but food or medicine. Eat a REALLY good meal. Love. If no one else is around love yourself. Remember to hug! Dessert and sweets were created for Shabbos!!! Try to walk. Be sensual. Use all your senses to consciously: taste, smell, see, touch, and hear. Sense how wonderful everything is. Read and study. Read spiritual books and novels of imagination. Take naps. Paint the beauty in the world. Pray and Play. It doesn’t matter what or how -just play. Sing for the joy of singing, sing for the joy of God. With instruments, even if you can’t. Don’t do anything that has to do with work-unless someone's life is in danger. Spend time relating to other people. Have outrageous conversations. Bless yourself, everyone, and everything else.

Interestingly, my usual objections with the negative halacha show up here too. There are far more positive than negative. Often I use the positive instead of the negative. Instead of saying “don’t ride” I say “try to walk” for example. But there are a few negatives in there:

Do not use electronic devices-no Internet, iPods, or TV.
Don’t buy anything but food or medicine.
Don’t do anything that has to do with work-unless someone's life is in danger.

I have ironically found these three negatives are the three rules I adhere to the strongest. The positives come and go. I do some of them on some Shabbats while others on different Shabbats. Not buying things on Shabbat has been rather strongly observed. Listening to music, or watching TV or movies has been a granite structure in my Shabbat observance. All of this surprises me of course, since I once thought these were needless restrictions. As with many negative mitzvot there are exemptions. Buying stuff has the explicit exemption of food and medical supplies. For most of my single life, I never ate at home. Even today, Sweetie and I are very likely to go out for lunch after morning services. The electronics prohibition is a bit more problematic. I intentionally left off that list my cel phone. Communication with others I find important. In what I used to do, it may be a matter of someone else’s health. So as a communication tool I continued to use it on Shabbat, mostly for incoming calls. When I bought my iPhone, I ran into a bit of dilemma, as the phone was the same device as the music, movies and Internet. Then there was Sweetie’s introduction to me of text messaging. It has been a not so successful struggle to allow myself only phone calls, and then texting. Right now I will allow incoming calls, but try to refrain from initiating a call.

A negative mitzvah, denying yourself something, has a lot similar with the positive mitzvah of an animal sacrifice. In both you lose something for God. I prohibit myself from listening to music or the radio, and I lose the ability to listen to things others do. A person bringing a sacrifice to the Mishkan is removing one of their assets from their household to give to God. I think the loss actually has a gain. I can't speak to animal sacrifices, since I have never done one, nor have any desire to. However, my Shabbat prohibitions I can speak to.

Earlier this week, I stopped into an auto shop to have a car stereo installed. This store had won many an award at car shows for their awesome audio systems. Indeed one of the award winning cars was in the show room with more speakers than I have ever seen squashed into a hatchback. Had all of the speakers started to blast music, the building would have shook. I wondered about the people who have such stereos. That morning walking to the drugstore, I had heard seagulls and birds around me, I heard the wind in my ears as well. None of those listening to their music in that car would have heard either. On Shabbat we are to witness God’s creation. The rest of the week we are blanking out everything around us. We do not notice the little things. On Shabbat we stop. We stop and listen and see and breathe and feel. In my mind, leaving the stereos blasting or e-mail and Internet running masks out God’s creation. To do so is a statement of Human arrogance that tells God we are superior to Him and do not need to listen to the still small voice that is the Higher Power. We deny our role as partners in Creation, and act as agents of its destruction.

Yet there is another level to this negative mitzvah. When I follow these proscriptions something happens to me: I feel relaxed and happy. Not only do I stop, but stress stops. The things which cause stress disappear from my life. It often amazes me how much stress comes from media sources. Stop and live a simple low-tech uninformed life for one day, and I am refreshed to take on another six days of modern living. I have often thought of this in a tongue-in-cheek metaphor. Abraham Joshua Heschel described Shabbat as an palace in time on an island in time. For me the island is tropical with some really good beaches and beach bars, and the palace is a nice resort hotel. I've given such an idea a Jimmy Buffet motif by calling it Shabbosville, and even added a positive mitzvah of wearing Hawaiian shirts to Friday services to remind me of where I’m heading for the weekend. But in Shabbosville I want to listen to the surf and seagulls and watch the waves on the water. I want to listen chiming sound of ropes hitting masts in a near-by marina. Many people on vacation would want the same. Shabbat is my vacation.

Of course someone coming to that same beach with that very loud booming car is going to mess it up. Here is the dilemma I really have been mulling over this week. There are differences in the way we believe in God. How we observe keva changes greatly, as our structures made with keva change greatly. In the ideal we simply let each other follow our ways and leave others alone. What happens when that conflicts?

Let’s set up a story. Let’s say I have two friends, Hayyim and George. Hayyim is Orthodox. He is scrupulous concerning the halacha. George, on the other hand, has no religion unless you consider an obsession about cars a religion.

Hayyim needs to follow every law. If I were to spend a Shabbat afternoon by Hayyim, I would be sure not to ring the door bell, but walk right in since ringing would be considered a transgression. My cel phone is turned off and stored into the car before I walk into his house, and I carry nothing into the house. Hayyim never really enjoys Shabbat, he sees it as the obligation God gave our people. My enthusiastic Shabbosville Kavvanah is lost on him, including the wild Hawaiian shirts. I do not judge him harshly for that, actually I respect him. That is who he is and how he wants to serve Hashem, and to do so in such a restrictive manner takes a lot of discipline. In his home, I have to respect his way and while for a short time sublimating my own for his is fine, for a longer period, it does seem restricting and dull.

On a warmer day, since I do not live too far away, Hayyim might also visit me. Once again I try to respect all of his observances. Sometimes this becomes difficult. Since I live in a building with an elevator, we probably have to meet downstairs, and just hang on the street and not really go up to my apartment. Even if he did visit my apartment, I’m sure he would never eat anything in my home. It’s not rudeness, but that I do not keep kosher enough for him. When he visits me on a weekday, packaged kosher cookies are always ready for such occasions. Unfortunately, since we can't tear open the package, there's nothing for him on Shabbat. Hayyim and I do understand one thing about our observances: they are different. While some who are observant might be arrogant and think what they do is the superior, Hayyim is not one of these. This is a paradox of keva and kavvanah. If done right, one can have such a strong keva,the kavvanah follows from it. Hayyim is such an example. He actually has gained a sense of humility by doing his mitzvot so scrupulously. Even if he thought he was superior, he would hide it, because he also scrupulously follows the ban on lashon hara, the ban on evil speech, slander, and embarrassing someone else. We have a sense that we both observe in our own way, and as long as one person doesn't interfere with the other’s observance that is okay.

I have my moments with Hayyim where things can be awkward and restrictive, if not outright boring. His observances do have a tendency to mean he will interfere with my boundaries. I can't go out for a good Shabbat lunch when he is around. But that is not half as much of a problem as George. While George I’d at first expect to be the easier of the two friends, he’s much more difficult in my view. George’s love of cars is absolute. He spends a lot of his weekend working on his car, and most importantly listening to his favorite show, Car Talk.Though Hayyim and George know each other, they rarely talk at all, mostly due to Car Talk. George has this odd notion that if you don’t listen to Car Talk, you are not worth talking to. The problem is Car Talk comes on during Shabbat, so Hayyim cannot listen to it.

Since both Hayyim and I don't listen to the radio on Shabbat, I’ve mentioned to Hayyim my dodge to his problem – podcasts. Shabbat is about stopping, which means it is also about delayed gratification. Some things you just wait a little longer to do. I wait a day, download Car Talk and listen to it on Sunday. I have no problem if George finds Car Talk that important that he listens to it. If George is visiting, I’d honor him as a guest and let him listen, even though it comes close to breaking my no electronics rule.I might find another room or something else to do and leave him alone. Everyone should be able to observe Shabbat however they want.

The problem is, George doesn't see it that way. He gets upset with me when he comes over to my house, turns on Car Talk in my home, and then watches me leave the room. In his mind, Car Talk is important to him, something he cherishes. It is something that he wants to share with his friends because it is so precious to him. When a friend doesn't want to listen, he is hurt. It may be that friend is not interested in cars, and since George is so about cars he takes it personally. On the other hand there Hayyim and me. We don't listen because Car Talk is on the radio on Saturday. Even in this case George gets upset with us because we don't want to share his world.

For those on the extremes like Hayyim and George the answer is easy -- ignore each other and just not talk. In our own society we can see the strong polarization between the strongly secular and religious of all faiths. The two don't really understand each other, though in many ways they have a similar position: they have a practice and want to follow it. They also want you, a least when you are in their presence, to also follow it. This strong polarization puts those looking for balance, those who are moderately affiliated into a no win scenario if dealing with either group. In the moderately affiliated respect for others, others will impose their will on us. The belief of the moderately affiliated is non existent, or at least very malleable to either group. In the thought experiment, I at least have Hayyim happy that I'm trying to observe, and to honor his observance when I can. He's very cool about me disappearing if I need to tear a piece a paper or turn on a light. What he doesn't see doesn't make him uncomfortable. George is actually a bigger problem. If I want to keep my friendship with George I have to listen to Car Talk, and listen to it with him when it airs. George is making me choose between Shabbat observance and our friendship. George does not see the meaning of Shabbat to me, and how much it is vital to my own revitalization for the upcoming week. He doesn't see how precious it is to me and to my way of associating with God. He just thinks I'm being lazy and selfish and hurtful to a friend.

George and Hayyim are mere story characters, but I think anyone who is moderately observant will see themselves and those they know in the conflicts and relationship with the Hayyims and Georges of the world. It's not easy, as it is unfair to those who try to accommodate everyone. For me, I follow Hillel's sage advice about this:

If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am for [only] myself, what am I? If not now, when?[Avot 1]

I come first, then I will deal with being considerate with everyone else. With George, this might mean I lose a friend, but what kind of friend is he? If he is a good friend, I won't lose him and he'll understand my point of view, and be fine with my compromise, waiting a little longer to hear on podcast what he want to hear broadcast. I'm the kind of friend who will make sure there's some already torn toilet paper in the bathroom when Hayyim visits. Hayyim for his part doesn't demand that I do anything, indeed he wants me to do nothing at all, but is honored that I do care enough about him to make his observance as good as it can be, so he can actually use my bathroom on Shabbat. I'm sure there are more than a few things I make Hayyim uncomfortable doing, but he's a good friend and understands that embarrassment is worse than blood shed. Vayikra is all about sacrifices, and we all do need to make them. It may not be the animal sacrifices here, but other things that are Keva in our contemporary world. Keva may not be directions for killing a dove or baking fine meal, but how to observe God in the way we find meaningful.

Vayakhel- Pekudei 5770: Who was Betzalel?

2010-03-12T16:24:00.002-06:00

This week we have Moses first giving the instructions for creating the Mishkan he learned to make on Sinai, employing the people to help in the construction with Betzalel as lead craftsman and architect. The people enthusiastically help out in its construction, so much so Betzalel has to ask for the donations to stop. When all the pieces are done Moses puts the components together for the first time, and the Cloud of Glory covers the Mishkan.
Early on, we read:

30. And Moses said to the people of Israel, See, the Lord has called by name Betzalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; 31. And he has filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in every kind of workmanship; 32. And to devise finely done works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in bronze, 33. And in the cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of wood, to make any kind of skillful work. [Exodus 35]

Who is this Betzalel? Why him? What do we know about him? From this passage, we know a few things about him. We know his father and grandfather. We also know he is from Judah. This not the only genealogy we have of Betzalel though:

18 And Caleb the son of Hezron begot children of Azubah his wife--and of Jerioth--and these were her sons: Jesher, and Shobab, and Ardon. 19 And Azubah died, and Caleb took unto him Ephrath, who bore him Hur. 20 And Hur begot Uri, and Uri begot Betzalel. {S}[1 Chron. 2]

The passage in 1 Chronicles links Betzalel to several other names found in out text. Hezron is Judah's grandson from his night with Tamar[Genesis 38] and one of the seventy who went down into Egypt to meet and live with Joseph. [Genesis 46:12] Hezron is also the ancestor of the prince of Judah, Nachson ben Amminadab, at the time of Betzalel. Nacshon is the man who Midrash tells us entered the Red Sea before it split, having faith God will do something. Nachshon's descendants, as given in the book of Ruth will eventually lead to King David.

Betzalels' great grandfather's big moment is in the book of Numbers. According to most Midrash, Caleb son of Herzon is Caleb son of Japunneh, who was one of the two spies who brought positive reports of the land and one of two men who made the entire journey and settled in the land. The rabbis, in a play on words, say Japunneh means he turned his face away from the counsel of the other ten spies[Sotah 11b]. Caleb's wife Ephrath, is another case where there is a name change:

And Caleb took unto him Ephrath,’ this is Miriam. And why was she called Ephrath? Because Israel were fruitful (paru) and increased, thanks to her.[Exodus R I:17, Sotah 12b]

While the multiple names of Miriam are more complex than this, the rabbinic literature clearly defines that Miriam and Caleb had a son Hur. This means that Betzalel is related to Aaron, Moses and the priesthood through marriage. It also adds another layer of context to a Midrash from last week. Betzalel's grandpa Hur, who tried to stop the Israelites from idolatry and building the golden calf, was murdered for his efforts. When Aaron saw his nephew Hur's body in front of him, andthe people asked him to make the golden calf, he had a hard time refusing. [Exodus R. XLVIII:3, Leviticus X:3]

Betzalel was connected by family to all the major people in the story of Torah. We can also note something else about Betazalel. The rabbis bring one objection to connecting Caleb son of Japunneh and Caleb son of Hezron together. We know Caleb was 40 years old when he goes on his spying mission, which means to have great grand-kids he would have to have been pretty young when he had children with Miriam. It becomes near impossible to have three generations in that short a time. It means Betzalel is either not Caleb's great grandson, or else he was very young. Yet the text this weeks says

2. And Moses called Bezalel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man, in whose heart the Lord had put wisdom, every one whose heart stirred him up to come to the work to do it; 3. And they received of Moses all the offering, which the people of Israel had brought for doing the work on the sanctuary, And they still brought to him free offerings every morning.4. And all the wise men, that did all the work of the sanctuary, came every man from his work which they made;[Exodus 36]

The use of a colloquialism for every man in 36:4 (איש איש ) the rabbis took to mean Betzalel was an adult. The solution was rather simple. He had just become an adult, and had just reached the age of bar mitzvah, so he was 13 years old. [Sanhedrin 69b] He was a boy genius.

The Talmudic Sages ascribe other things to Betzalel, one such thing many have taken in a more mystical way is this one:

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Bezalel knew how to combine the letters by which the heavens and earth were created.[Brachot 55a]

Most today think this means Betzalel knew the mystical way to take letters and make them into things the same way God used them to make creation. Yet Betzalel and his craftspeople needed materials from the people, so this doesn't make sense. There is another possibility. Betzalel knew how to delegate and to communicate. He knew how to talk to people and motivate them. He also knew how to listen and then translate instructions to the way others think. There's a few more stories which put this more into context. Numbers Rabbah XV:10 tells a story that Moses had a hard time with the specifications for the Mishkan, most significantly how to make the menorah. He just couldn't understand what to do. God tried telling him and even made him a model but Moses just couldn't' remember. Exasperated, God tells Moses to just tell Betzalel what he wants and he'll get it right. Moses give a confused definition yet Betzalel immediately understands and builds it correctly.

The Mishkan should be a very difficult structure to put together, but instead it was incredibly easy. It was so easy when it was put together for the first time, Moses could do it himself. There are hundreds of parts. Many parts are identical, but need to fit perfectly. To track and organize such an effort with not a single mishap during production is quite the engineering and organization feat. To put it together for the first time and it all fits perfectly is also an engineering and organization feat. We also know also that Betzalel's efforts last. The original altar was durable enough for hundreds of years , as it is the same altar Solomon uses in the first temple [II Chronicles 1:5]

Betzalel was described as

30. And Moses said to the people of Israel, See, the Lord has called by name Betzalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; 31. And he has filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in every kind of workmanship;[Exodus 35]

He deserved this title. He had the spirit of God in him but could handle the organizational, and engineering parts just as elegantly as anything else. Moses difficulties with control and delegation are never seen in Betzalel. He even runs a tight inventory so well he doesn't come in over budget. While modern projects always come in over-budget, and are able to the spend all available resources, Betzalel is alone asking his boss Moses to have the people stop bringing things, [Exodus 35:5-6]

Who was Betzalel? He was a young prodigy, gifted by God in both craft and interpersonal skills. He understood his craftsmen and women. He knew the end users, those who were going to use the altars and lamps for the rest of time: they were his cousins. The deep faith of his grandfather seems to have clinched the deal, that those who murdered Hur to build for an idol of gold would find that this man's grandson would fashion out of gold an ark to the Lord. He is unlike any other character in the Torah, able to make things even Moses had no comprehension of.

Biblical characters are often described as human though only more so. There are few engineers in the bible. Betzalel stands out in his role of creating by words spoke to his crafts people, not some mystical magical words spoken. For a mere teen, he could communicate and inspire his workforce better than anyone else in all Torah.

On time, under budget, and 100% correct all at thirteen. In short Betazel was the greatest production manager ever.

Wish I was that good.

Ki Tissa 5770:Why are we stupid?

2010-03-05T16:53:00.002-06:00

For all eight years of Shlomo's Drash, I have avoided one particular part of this weeks portion. This was done intentionally, as writing about the Golden Calf debacle is, in my opinion, overdone. But staring at of all things a cup of tea, there is an issue that I keep thinking about lately. In the biblical text, we have the immense glory and power of the revelation of the Ten Commandments. Forty days later, we have the debacle of the golden calf. This is a people who within a four month period saw their redemption from Egypt, walked across the bottom of the red sea, and the thunder and fire at Sinai. With all that evidence of what God is, how could they do something stupid like the golden calf?

1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him: 'Up, make us a god who shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him.' 2 And Aaron said unto them: 'Break off the golden rings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.' 3 And all the people broke off the golden rings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. 4 And he received it at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made it a molten calf; and they said: 'This is thy god, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.' 5 And when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said: 'To-morrow shall be a feast to the LORD.' 6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt-offerings, and brought peace-offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to make merry. {P}[Exodus 32]

How can they be so stupid? This has been a question though about for ages. The rabbinic lore tells in us various places in Midrash and Talmud that they went further than the text. Hur, who was Betzalel's grandfather, objected to their plan and told them so. As a result, he is murdered. Aaron's reason to build the golden calf, according to the rabbis, was for fear of his life at this murderous mob mentality. Why all this craziness? What drives people to such destructive behaviours? There is a set of stories in the Tractate Taanit that might shed some light. It concerns Honi the circle maker, a Jewish wonder worker who has the uncanny ability to make it rain by yelling at God, getting instant results.

He drew a circle and stood within it and exclaimed, Master of the Universe, thy children have turned to me because they believe me to be as a member of thy household; I swear by thy great name that I will not move from here until thou hast mercy upon thy children. Rain then began to drip, and thereupon he exclaimed: it is not for this that I have prayed but for rain [to fill] cisterns, ditches and caves. The rain then began to come down with great force, and thereupon he exclaimed; it is not for this that I have prayed but for rain of benevolence, blessing and bounty. Rain then fell in the normal way until the Israelites in Jerusalem were compelled to go up [for shelter] to the temple mount because of the rain. They came and said to him: in the same way as you have prayed for [the rain] to fall pray [now] for the rain to cease.[Taanit 19a]

One day he was journeying on the road and he saw a man planting a carob tree; he asked him, How long does it take [for this tree] to bear fruit? The man replied: Seventy years. He then further asked him: Are you certain that you will live another seventy years? The man replied: I found [ready grown] carob trees in the world; as my forefathers planted these for me so I too plant these for my children. Honi sat down to have a meal and sleep overcame him. As he slept a rocky formation enclosed upon him which hid him from sight and he continued to sleep for seventy years. When he awoke he saw a man gathering the fruit of the carob tree and he asked him, Are you the man who planted the tree? The man replied: I am his grandson.[Taanit 23a]

Honi has a problem, one shared by most of us. He can only think short term. His way of rainmaking requires throwing a temper tantrum to God and getting instant results. In this story, we find such behavior can be dangerous, giving extremes of an ineffective too little and a damaging too much. Like Goldilocks in the house of the three bears, Only after the extremes do we get just right, though in his case the rain became a minor flood before he stopped it. He does not plan his result and gets thus gets erratic ones. He can only think of the moment, and not of the consequences of a crop destroying hard rain or of an overabundant rain leading to flood. He thinks so much in the immediate, The carob tree which requires generations before it's fruit can be harvested is inconceivable to him. Honi's story has a tragic ending. Have accomplished this time travel, he cannot go back, nor does anyone know him in this time, including his family. Not willing to try to take the time to make a new life, he prays for his death and it is granted.

We as humans have this thing I'll call the limitation of the local. We have limitations in space, time and even relationship. Honi could only think in his circle drawn around him. The world beyond in in both time and space he never payed attention to. We all fall victim to this all the time. One of my favorite examples is the honking driver. Imagine there are ducks crossing the road. I would slow down and stop to let the ducks cross. The driver behind me cannot see the ducks, and starts angrily leaning on his horn, believing I'm stopped for no apparent reason. His experience does not take into account there is a reason I'm stopped. For many drivers, their world ends outside their car. A driver who is using text messaging or talking on their cell phone while driving may fall victim to a similar problem. For such a driver, it is inconceivable that anyone is really outside the car, let alone that could cause an accident. The number of fatal accidents however witness the fallacy of this thought.

Time is just as victim to this as space. Or more to the point, memory and time are. The longer between one event and another, the harder it is to tie the two together. Imagine someone goes to a casino and loses $200 by the time they are done gambling that day. One should learn from the loss that one loses from gambling and should find something more constructive to do, like planting carob trees. Yet, go to any casino and you will find people who have returned time after time to lose more money. They forget about their last loss when they go the next time. Also long term exposure to substances has similar results. A cigarette which would kill you instantly would not sell very well. One which has a high probability of killing you after 30 years of prolonged exposure people easily purchase by the carton. I know that molten chocolate desserts is really bad for me with tons of fat and cholesterol, but I keep eating them still for a similar reason. I like the immediate taste of chocolate too much, and I don't think too heavily about how that dessert will affect my heart in twenty years.

Recently reading Nicholas Nassim Taleb's Book, The Black Swan, I appreciated one of his themes: we are all stupid, it's part of human nature. The only way we can get any more stupid is to believe otherwise and trust an expert. An expert is just someone who denies, sometimes with really elegant mathematics, how stupid they really are. The Israelites waiting for Moses at Sinai were just as human as you and me. The Midrash points out their great sin was not worshipping the calf, but by calling Moses "this man Moses"(Exodus 32:1) Moses in their eyes is objectified, not a person they knew but a stranger. They also completely forget God, as they believe it was this Moses, not God who brought them out of Egypt. Forty days and they forget everything of the few months before. As will become clear in the book of Numbers, their memory of slavery will get foggier and foggier as they travel in the wilderness, making Egypt from the world of slavery into an enormous buffet. This is of course not Egypt but their desires at the time, their immediate needs. What was their immediate need when Moses did not come down from the mountain? They said to each other about the calf "This is thy god, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt."(32:5) They wanted something or someone to make immediate why they were in the wilderness. The big plan for a people who would span millennia, the longest running religion of any on earth, was not of interest them. Neither was their wish to be the special people of Ha Kadosh Baruch Hu, or the promise of a land to be free and prosperous in.They apparently had no need for Torah, and the answers it would give to those questions. They forgot the power and glory that came before that stupid moment at Sinai, when gold was worshipped instead of God. They needed the immediate and concrete form of something. That need was so great they did a lot of awful things to get it.

I do enough stupid things in my day. I'll totally admit it. I'll leave the toilet seat up, or forget to turn off the light in the closet. I interrupt in the middle of a conversation, and sometimes not listen too well. More than once I've forgotten flowers for a special occasion, and I've definitely eaten a lot of things I really, really shouldn't have. The key to being stupid is the instant fix, or the thing that gets done now the thing within reach, versus the thing we think out the consequences and may be far away. The golden calf was an instant fix. Why was the first rules after the Ten Commandments civil law? God knows we're stupid too, and we need a few laws from from doing really stupid things, like hurting other people or their property. Not that such things stops people of course, but it slows down or deters most. Oddly enough while ethics and law might help stop the stupidity, I think something else does a better job.

While I never mention the golden calf for Ki Tissa, I almost always mention that thing that does work. It's mentioned not once, but twice. It's really a simple word:STOP. In Hebrew it's Shabbat. I believe that truly stopping and doing a bit of nothing for a day does something to you. For one you actually notice beyond the car door or Honi's circle the world around you. You get this time which is only about time to be in relationship with others. And thirdly, if there's anything you want, you may just have to wait to get it. All of this does something that seems to have been impossible for far too many people for thousands of years: actually begin to think. Maybe in the V'shamru, where we read about va'yinafash, God resouling himself by resting, is the key to stopping stupidity. We stop being stupid on Shabbat, if we observe it properly, by bringing some holy soul-rest to ourselves.

Tetzaveh 5770: Esther and Aaron at the -- Roller Derby?

2010-02-26T20:58:00.002-06:00

I need to confess something. When I began writing this weeks commentary, I did a review of my previous pieces and they are all thematically a comparison of two people: Esther and the High Priest. Comparing an exiled orphan who intermarried into Persian royalty, then seduced the king to kill his prime minister and make an ordinance to kill anyone who hated Jews is so different than the one man in a generation who can enter the holy of holies of the Temple. they seem like such different people. The reading of parshat Tetzaveh very often directly precedes the reading of Megillat Esther. This year they are almost back to back. I've compared these two several times based on the theme of Tetzaveh, that clothes are more than just something to keep us from being naked. Besides a mere coincidence, why do these two reading so often correspond to each other?

This time however it is not Torah or Megillat Esther I start with, it is my new found love of roller derby. Sweetie, who is a big fan, took me to see the recent movie Whip it, and last month took me to my first bouts at a local university. Strangely enough, I'm hooked on one of the most improbable sports for me to ever be a fan of.

But then, Roller derby is one of the most improbable sports of all time. For those unfamiliar with the modern sport, it appears to me some mutant combination of Speed-skating, Hockey, and football, all played by a bunch of women in revealing tops and fishnets. There are two teams of five on a skating rink. One player on each team, wearing a star on her helmet, is a jammer. She is the one who scores points for her team. The other four are called blockers and try to block the opposing jammer from scoring points. Simply put, a point is scored when a jammer passes a player from the other team. Of course the other team tries to prevent this by blocking or knocking down the jammer in order to prevent her from scoring. The action is fast, and might be best described as a large scale shoving match on wheels.

Besides the game, there are other aspects of Roller derby that make it an interesting sport. The fans are very often a younger, alternative looking set than many sporting events. Unlike any other sport I'd pay money to see, the entire league is a volunteer league. Players, coaches, refs, and all the support staff are there just for the love for the game. Fans have favorite players of course, but unlike any other sport besides professional wrestling, everyone knows a player's track nickname, but rarely their real name. But there is one aspect of the game, one I think most everyone there is attracted to No matter if they are fan or player, is the women who play roller derby appear to be the most comfortable women in their own skins.

Watch any of the Winter Olympics and you will notice something: there is an ideal body form for all of these high performance sports. How much we fit female athletes into a ideal body image is best noted by an annual February tradition: The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue. This year along with the supermodels was several Olympic hopefuls decked out in bikinis. Who is model and who is athlete is hard to tell in these photos. Yet, roller derby girls don't fit this rather artificial ideal. One thought I had watching them line up for a bout was rather startling to me. When I was young and the proverbial 98 pound weakling, I remember being picked last for team sports in Phys ed class. The rare case when I was not was the times we played co-ed. Girls who did not look much different than those on the track, some very small, some very thin, or those who were above average weight were those who were picked last as their looks dictated their athletic ability.On that track those years of being picked last are proven wrong. These are trained athletes who don't fit the model's ideal of an athlete. They are comfortable in rejecting the ideal for the real.

As Purim has become a kids holiday, we often hear a Disney Princess version of a rather R-rated tale. The story which has more twists than a coil of rope starts with an interesting one. Bragging about his wife's beauty, The king of Persia orders his wife, Queen Vashti to come wearing nothing but her crown to the court to show off her beauty. Vashti refuses and ends up executed for her insolence. Now the king needs a new queen, and a search is made for a new one. Women throughout the kingdom are gathered at the palace, sent through beauty treatments, given whatever they want in jewelery, dress and ostentation to get ready for the king. They are eventually sent to the king for a night "interview." If the king likes her he will declare her queen. If not, she is moved from the house of the virgins to the house of the concubines. One Jewish exile, Esther, cared for by her cousin Mordecai is one of the women set to meet the king. Yet she takes advice other women do not:

15. Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had adopted her as his daughter, came to go to the king, she asked for nothing but what Hegai the king’s eunuch, the keeper of the women, advised. And Esther found favor in the sight of all those who looked upon her.[Esther 2]

Esther is described only once as beautiful, but three times as "having found favor" of those who saw her. The word for favor can also mean gracious, and I believe it was Ester's graciousness more than her looks that made the difference:

15. Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had adopted her as his daughter, came to go to the king, she asked for nothing but what Hegai the king’s eunuch, the keeper of the women, advised. And Esther found favor in the sight of all those who looked upon her. 16. So Esther was taken to king Ahasuerus to his royal palace in the tenth month, which is the month Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign. 17. And the king loved Esther above all the other women, and she found grace and favor in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown upon her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti.[Esther 2]

When she later comes to the king in her rather ingenious plot to save her people, she comes unbidden, which could mean a death sentence. The text tells us:

1. And it came to pass on the third day, that Esther dressed in royalty, and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, opposite the king’s palace; and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal palace, opposite the gate of the house.2. And it was so, when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she found favor in his sight; and the king held out to Esther the golden scepter that was in his hand. So Esther drew near, and touched the top of the scepter. 3. Then said the king to her, What do you wish, queen Esther? and what is your request? It shall be given to you even to the half of the kingdom.[Esther 5]

While in parshat Tetzaveh we hear of virtually every stitch in Aaron's outfit as the high priest, what Esther wore in front of the king is a bit of a mystery. The word used is royalty, which leaves much to the imagination. The rabbinic opinions differ greatly from a very formal presentation of jewels and dress, to the most common opinion: she was dressed in the spirit of the Divine Presence. I've had the opinion, given the irony that Vashti refused to come in nothing but crown to her husband, that Esther was wearing nothing but the Shechina. Yet, I'm not sure about that anymore. The story does not mention what she wore is because it was not important. Her mere presence in a room, no matter what she was or was not wearing was incredibly intoxicating. Such things only happen to someone who was completely in touch with who they are, who is comfortable in their own skin. Much of this comes from a belief in God, and a sense of humility before God. Yet with Esther's graciousness she was able to turn a genocide decree up side down and execute Haman and his cronies instead.

This week in Tetzaveh there is a lot of detail and a lot that Aaron and anyone in the role of High priest was to wear.

4. And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and an embroidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle; and they shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, and his sons, that he may minister to me in the priest’s office.[Exodus 28]

Later on, God even commands the wearing of underwear.[28:42] Much of these garments contained stones and gold. the hem of the robe was made with gold bells, the ephod epaulets of gold and onyx. The Urim and the Thummim, the breastplate of judgement, was gold and stones, with more gold chain to secure it to the ephod. God begins his instructions for all this with:

2. And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother for glory and for beauty[Exodus 28]

the word kavod, however might mean glory or honor, but it also means heavy and burdensome. The weight of all those accouterments certainly weighed down Aaron. But so did the weight of his responsibility for the sins of everyone else, and the weight of knowing how dangerous it is to be near the inner chambers of the mishkan. In a few weeks we'll read the story of the death of Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu under such circumstances. Even in this portion we hear about all the gold bells on his robe:

35. And it shall be upon Aaron to minister; and his sound shall be heard when he goes in to the holy place before the Lord, and when he comes out, that he should not die.[Exodus 28]

Looking at Aaron as a person, He is a quiet man. This is man who holds his silence after watching his sons die horribly only a few feet away from him. He has only three times in all of Torah he gets his own solo speaking part. In the golden calf incident he speaks twice, and once when he repents for both himself and Miriam after they slandered Moses. While he does not say anything on the death of his sons, when Moses starts getting cranky about not following procedure to the letter after the tragedy, Aaron intercedes. From when we first hear of him after the burning bush until his death, he always plays second fiddle to his younger brother, and sometimes even his sister Miriam. This despite a man who God knows is a good speaker [Exodus 4:14]

Kavod is a weighty honor, with many responsibilities. Some believe that for his acts in the Golden calf incident he was never punished. I think he was -- He was made high priest, the man designated to bear all of the sins of Israel, and to preform his duties exactly right to absolve Israel of those sins, or else he may not survive the ceremony. Tractate Yoma tells the classic story that the high priest, when he went into the Holy of Holies for Yom Kippur has a cord tied around his leg so that if he died or got into trouble they could pull him out. We never know Aaron as a person, but we know what he wears. We know his uniform, and the sanctity and safety measures of his uniform.

Esther and Aaron make up a polarity, though they have much in common. They are the point person saving their people. they also have to do so with the threat of death hanging over them if they should make any mistake. Both have relatives that seem to get all the hero spotlight. Aaron however is defined by his clothes, and Esther by what is under them -- the person she is. Both however are part of our identity, the person we are comfortable being inside and the outer things in our world that define who we are. No one is immune from extreme cold, abrasions, falls and tumbles. Aaron's clothes on one side protected him from the dangers of his job, as does the knee and elbow pads and helmet protect many an athlete. No one is a mind reader either. Without the clothes it becomes difficult to identify someone. Our choices in dress is what will define us to others in that impressionable 90 seconds of first meeting. We will get much of our identity information from clothes. But at the same time how we present ourselves in those clothes is also important. When we show confidence and graciousness, others are confident of us, even interested in being part of our inner circle.

All of this comes down to the roller derby again, and seeing many very interestingly dressed women looking so confident. When buying a season program I got to meet one of the players, decked out in full All-star uniform. I got two impressions as she towered over me in helmet elbow pads, and short shorts with fishnets as the other woman in the booth sold me my program. The first was how much I would never want to fight with her, but the other was one of her grace and confidence, and that was the driving force behind the first.Going back to my seat to watch the end of the first half, I thought of her and Aaron and Esther. She is neither a queen or a priest, but embodied both Aaron and Esther. Maybe that is what I like the most about roller derby. At least in the current set of local bouts, the game isn't about winning, though one team does win. It's about being an all-together person, something so lacking in our sports heroes or leaders today. I can remember Ester and Aaron and those girls on the track to remind me that it is possible to be an all-together person.

Teruma 5770: Why build the Mishkan?

2010-02-18T10:04:00.002-06:00

This week, God tells Moses that the Israelites should bring free-will offerings of various precious raw materials to build the Mishkan, then proceeds to give rather detailed instructions on how to build not only the tent itself, but all of the utensils that go into it, including the ark, menorah and offering tables. This description is so long it will continue into next week's portion. Yet there is a nagging question: why do this? Torah gives a simple explanation, yet one that is somehow not satisfying:

8. And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.9. According to all that I show you, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all its utensils, so shall you make it.[Exodus 25]

The Simple explanation is that this is where God will dwell. Yet God is clearly omnipresent, even in one of God's many nicknames "the Place" HaMakom (המקום) do we find the idea of this. God is one place because God is all places. If God is all places, how could one place be more special than another? Some modern Jewish thinkers, as did Abraham Joshua Heschel in The Sabbath reject Judaism as a religion of place, but instead one of time. God is eternal too, but time is marked with reminders of specific dates which we use to remember events. Purim reminds is of the events of the book of Esther, Passover the Exodus from Egypt.
It's interesting to note something else: these are directions for the Mishkan, not the later Temple. Dimensions and other details are derived for the Temple from this text but God commands directions explicitly for the Mishkan, not the temple. Like we will read later in Exodus when Betzalel puts the Mishkan together, I Kings only chronicles the construction Solomon initiated four hundred and eighty years later. The Temple was wood and stone, a rather permanent structure. The Mishkan wasn't: it was cloth, poles and sockets and thus portable. Until the time of David and Solomon, it moved around. It was not stuck in one place.
Place, however is tangible -- time far from it. Even the things marked by time happen in a reference place. Yet this reference place itself is relative to the one observing by remembering that event. The Mishkan was there for every Shabbat, wherever it was in the wilderness or in the land of Israel. In ancient times, The Passover sacrifice could always be performed right at the Mishkan. With the destruction of the temple, as Resh Lakish, R. Johanan and R. Eleazar all said

While the Temple still stood, the altar used to make atonement for a man, but now that the Temple no longer stands a man's table makes atonement for him.[Ber 55a, Men 97a,Hag 27a]

The place of either the Mishkan altar or a dining room table changes depending on who is having an Erev Shabbat or Passover Seder. Places can act a reference to other things, even when place is not absolute.
I spent last weekend in a place where Sweetie once lived. She left this place to be with me. So we went back and visited -- and connected with friends. It was not a lot of spending time in place, but in relationship with people. It was activating memory for Sweetie, with every description of a place or an event at a street corner, shoreline or store. We even stopped in a few places of import to both of us: the breakfast restaurant she frequented every Saturday and the coffee shop she drank most of her caffeine in. Both places, during my visits to her became customary stops for both of us, cherished by both of us. To be there is to remember our other visits and the thing we ordered on their menus. It also is to be ready to go back for even more visits, to remember the past and make new memories.
The Mishkan is not about a place. It is about memory and relationship. Purim and Passover, for example are very different when celebrated in a group or alone. There is more meaning in the relationships generated at a synagogue Purimspiel than a private reading at home. A big Seder may be a lot of work and preparation, but it also is extremely rewarding in the relationships we strengthen at the Seder table. Each interaction creates new and precious memory.
God is infinite, yet finite amounts of God are in each of us. The Perkei Avot tells us

If three have eaten at one table, and speak there words of Torah, it is as if they had eaten at the table of HaMakom, Blessed be He, as it is said, "This is the table before the Lord" [Avot 3:3]

This and Avot 3:6 point to the idea of synthesis which brings God closer. The old joke about two Jews three opinions always make me think the third opinion is God's. The more people, the more we gain aspects of God, of HaMakom, in one place.
The Mishkan, as a temporary structure, was one that could and did move frequently. It was, most of all, a focal point. When encamped the people surrounded it. When marching its components were at the center of the ranks. When it was time to celebrate Passover, Shavuot, or Sukkot, everybody knew exactly where to assemble. The Mishkan was a place of assembly, and a place to get into relationship with everyone else. Within that relationship we gain memory, and revive memory of previous events. With those memories, we remember God, what God has done for us. We thus cause God to dwell with us and within us.