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.
No comments:
Post a Comment