Vayikra 5769: Offerings and Giftings.

This week we begin the book of Leviticus. A friend of mine who coordinates Lay led Torah discussions at our minyan every Saturday morning has often noted that this is the hardest book of Torah to find discussion topics for. His point is well taken: Like water in the Sinai, the easily interpreted stories are few and far between in this sefer. Leviticus is mostly mitzvot, various laws centering on the priestly duties. This week starts with the instruction for various types of sacrifices

1. And the Lord called to Moses, and spoke to him out of the Tent of Meeting, saying, 2. Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them, If any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of the cattle, of the herd, and of the flock. 3. If his offering is a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the Tent of Meeting before the Lord.
10. And if his offering is of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring a male without blemish.
14. And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the Lord is of birds, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons.[Leviticus 1]
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;[Leviticus 2]

In the text, there is a successive list of procedures from the most to the least expensive offerings: Livestock, poultry, doves and pigeons, and finally flour. As contemporary Jews, such things still present us with issues of course since there are no burnt sacrifices anymore. This is of course not a new issue. On the 9th of Av in 70CE, the second temple was destroyed and with it any possibility of Temple sacrifices. Much of parshat Vayikra and the first few chapters of the book of Leviticus have been obsolete for 1900 years. Jews from the time of the destruction of the temple have been dealing with that issue.
One breakaway group of Jews, Christianity, was critical of the whole temple system to begin with. The aggadah of Jesus turning over the tables of the money changers, those who converted money into one of the permitted sacrifices above is only one example of the polemic against that system. The money changers were an integral part of the system, mandated by Torah to handle the problems of transporting animals far distances. Yet these merchants often abused their position by severely overcharging visitors, most especially poor women, to the temple for the necessary sacrifices.
A great rabbinic mind also got angry about the money changers, but he did something different.
It once happened in Jerusalem that the price of a pair of doves rose to a golden denar. said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, by this sanctuary, I shall not go to sleep to-night before they cost but a [silver] denar! [K'ritot 8a]
Simeon B. Gamaliel then made a ruling that destroyed the demand for doves used for sacrifices, killing the market, the price of a pair of birds then dropped to quarter of a [silver] denar each.
Such abuses were only one problem for the circle which Shimon b. Gamaliel belonged to. Another was far more problematic. What to do when you no longer have somewhere to give an offering? Their answer, which forms a large basis of the Talmud, is to transform the offerings into something else. Elements found in the Talmud had already existed for centuries. Much were popular practice, as many found it so difficult to get to the Temple to give those offerings. Prayer, home ritual, charity, and observance of the laws of Torah replaced the Temple sacrifices.
As early as the Prophets, the actual act of giving sacrifices had its critics:

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.[Isaiah 1]
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]

The problem is not the sacrifice, but the intention it was given with, and the actions that follow it. Isaiah and Jeremiah, along with Asaph in Psalm 50, all point to the idea that God doesn’t want a sacrifice as some automatic, emotionless thing. One needs to follow the laws and ethics of Torah as well. The old cliché comes to mind: it's the thought that counts. It's the heartfelt intention of giving the gift to God, the kavvanah that is as important as the offering itself.
I've been thinking a lot about this idea of gifting in my own life, and in a far more practical way. My sweetheart and I are serious gift givers, not just to each other but to everyone around us. We do often share our love with other in little things we give each other. I might give her one half of a his and hers matching set of pins for example. She gives me some expensive soap, I give her some books on biblical Hebrew. Some things cost nothing, and a gift comes from listening to the other after a very bad day, sometimes followed by a well needed neck rub. But we also get things for others. She always brings thing back to her office from her visits with me. When she met my family she brought gifts for my nieces and nephew. All of which was received with wide eyes of appreciation. When I am with my nephew, the most wonder gift I can give costs as much as a sheet of paper. I’ll fold him a paper airplane and he is thrilled beyond belief. The glow on his face is worth every second needed to fold that simple white sheet.
I think it is easy to confuse an offering with a bribe. A bribe has a goal in giving the gift. An offering's only goal is to delight someone else. The delight of seeing someone delight in something is a high I think Sweetie and I would agree is like no other. It's not about the cost, but the personal value of connection and sharing the joy. The pagan gods were bribed for favors. In that we are different. Ha Kadosh Baruch Hu wasn't looking for bribes, but the message “I love you.” As the prophets very often remind everyone, they are offering God's own creation and property to God – not much of a bribe. It’s a lot like bribing a king with his own money. It is the actions and intentions that count in the offering. God wants to hear a heartfelt “I love you” by following mitzvot in Torah. If one sings a song to the king, that’s a far more precious gift, coming from the heart. Since we cannot make a sacrifice any more, we sing Ashrei and Psalm 145. Sweetie and I say “I love you” with our little gifts and things we do for each other, and in that way we strengthen our relationship by delighting and acknowledging one another. God wants to be in the relationship with us. Offerings are about making good relationships, not about goals and outcomes.
God gave a sliding scale of offerings not that one could impress with the offerings but one could do the act of giving in a way that allowed everyone to participate. That was what got Shimon b. Gamaliel and others so upset. The greedy money changers prevented poor women from being in a relationship with God. Today we have to think differently of course. Charity is one form of offering to God, by making sure someone else can continue surviving. Prayer and home ritual have transformed the Temple service into something family and community find themselves in relationship to God and to each other. Vayikra may be obsolete in many ways, but under the surface, one can learn a lot about giving.

So, how do you give?

Vayakhel-Peukedei 5769: Shabbos

This week we have Moses first giving the instructions for creating the Mishkan he learned 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.

This is the end of the book of Exodus and, the last of my pieces on Shabbat for a while. Leviticus will take up other matters. Yet here is the first time Moses speaks the mitzvah of Shabbat, and includes in it a specific prohibition.

1. And Moses gathered all the congregation of the people of Israel together, and said to them, These are the words which the Lord has commanded, that you should do them. 2. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord; whoever does work in it shall be put to death. 3. You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day. (Ex 35:1-3)

In Torah and Tanach, we have very few specific prohibitions noting what kind of work is banned on the Sabbath. In Exodus 16, we are told not to collect Manna on the Sabbath day, to stay home, and to cook for Shabbat the previous day. Elsewhere in Tanach we have the prophets complaining about specific transgressions of the Sabbath, which by implication must have already been established. In Jeremiah 17:22 we have the prohibition against carrying things out of a house, in Amos and Nehemiah 13 lists several involving commerce:

15. In those days I saw in Judah men treading wine presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and loading them on asses; and also wine, grapes, and figs, and all kinds of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; and I warned them on the day when they sold food.16. Men of Tyre, who lived there, brought fish, and all kinds of ware, and sold on the Sabbath to the people of Judah, and in Jerusalem.17. Then I confronted the nobles of Judah, and said to them, What evil thing is this that you are doing, profaning the Sabbath day?

Using a hermeneutic principle called parat u’kalal on this passage, the Rabbis of the Mishnah determined what other prohibitions of work would not be allowed on the Sabbath. Our specific case of lighting a fire in the week’s portion, and the instructions for all things used to make the Mishkan that follow that prohibition, would imply that the activities that follow are also prohibited on the Sabbath. Given this logic, the rabbis go on to list thirty nine prohibitions

Mishnah. The primary labors are forty less one, [viz.:] sowing, ploughing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, selecting, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, shearing wool, bleaching, hackling, dyeing, spinning, stretching the threads, the making of two meshes, weaving two threads, dividing two threads, tying [knotting] and untying, sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches, capturing a deer, slaughtering, or flaying, or salting it, curing its hide, scraping it [of its hair], cutting it up, writing two letters, erasing in order to write two letters [over the erasure], building, pulling down, extinguishing, kindling, striking with a hammer, [and] carrying out from one domain to another: these are the forty primary labors less one.(M. Shabbat 7:2)

For observing the positive commandment of Shabbat there seems to be a lot of negative provisions. And for most except for a small percentage of Jews, it is impossible to follow these rules as closely as the rabbis. My own considerations that my synagogue is about ten miles from my own home put it in perspective. If I followed the rule about travel, and particularly lighting the fires that run the combustion engine in my car, I would never be able to go to the synagogue I go to now. Nor would I be able to sit in a Starbuck’s early Saturday morning before I go the Saturday morning services, and paint and people watch, which is a very sacred and precious time for me. That Saturday morning cup of coffee is so different than the other seven mornings of coffee, yet the Mishnah prohibits it on so many levels.

Yet as I discussed last week, what I do for Shabbat is still far more than most Jews do. As a friend of mine commented me recently, we tend to think of Shabbat in terms of all or nothing thinking. Even our euphemism for a very observant person, Shomer Shabbos, builds on that thinking. And so, if we believe we cannot do all of what the Mishnah or the Orthodox think is observance, we decide to do nothing.

Yet as we read on in this portion, Moses asks for donations of both materials and skill to help build the Mishkan. And the response is overwhelming:

21. And they came, every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing, and they brought the Lord’s offering to the work of the Tent of Meeting, and for all his service, and for the holy garments. 22. And they came, both men and women, as many as were willing hearted, and brought bracelets, and ear rings, and rings, and bracelets, all jewels of gold; and every man who offered offered an offering of gold to the Lord. 23. And every man, with whom was found blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair, and red skins of rams, and goats’ skins, brought them. 24. Every one who offered an offering of silver and bronze brought the Lord’s offering; and every man, with whom was found shittim wood for any work of the service, brought it. 25. And all the women who were wise hearted did spin with their hands, and brought that which they had spun, both of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine linen. 26. And all the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom spun goats’ hair. 27. And the rulers brought onyx stones, and stones to be set, for the ephod, and for the breastplate; 28. And spice, and oil for the light, and for the anointing oil, and for the sweet incense. 29. The people of Israel brought a willing offering to the Lord, every man and woman, whose heart made them willing to bring for every kind of work, which the Lord had commanded to be made by the hand of Moses.

What I find so amazing about this passage is the not everyone brought everything but individuals brought different things. It differentiates between man and woman, that all had a unique gift. Otherwise, verse 22-29 could have been skipped, and 21 would have said it all. What I believe this means is we are all individuals, uniquely crafted by God. We all bring something different to the building of holiness. So too with Shabbat, we all bring our own unique perspective and situation to the Island in Time. And just like a tropical resort on some island, if we all did everything exactly the same, it wouldn’t be much fun. Yes there are a lot of things we do alike at a resort like eat good meals and walk along the beach, yet not everything, and that is what makes the resort a better place. We all don’t play tennis and golf nor want to, nor do we all want just the beach or just the pool. Each has their preference. If we all did exactly the same things at the same time, many of the activities would be ruined. If everyone played golf or tennis at the same time, there would be too many players on the court or course to actually play the game.

When on retreat or in a predominately Jewish area, I have had the occasion to follow the more stringent rules, and I also agree they are somewhat satisfying for those short durations. But for me to follow all the rule all the time just would work for me -- I enjoy certain activities on Shabbat too much to give them up - I find things like painting, playing instruments or Photography on Shabbat just as much a celebration and witnessing of creation as some find not turning on any electric switches. And it was in this spirit that when I first got back into Judaism about ten years ago, I created my own list of personal halakah for Shabbat, both positive and negative rules to follow. That list has changed over the years, but its current version is this one:

Shlomo’s Shabbos

Live Juicy one day a week. Celebrate it with candles. Read Torah and Talmud and contemplate them. Wear Hawaiian shirts when you can. Do not use electronic devices-no Internet, iPods, or TV. Only relate to others by voice on your iPhone. Don’t buy anything but food or medicine. Eat a REALLY good meal. Love. If no one else is around love yourself. Don’t forget 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.

My belief is that we all should have such a list, and we should all practice what we put down on our list. If you are doing nothing or never written down a list like this, I challenge you to do so.

So here’s the challenge: pick five positive commandments to and for yourself to do every Shabbat, five things that you obligate yourself, with god as the witness, that you will do. Then pick five things you will forbid yourself from doing every Shabbat. While my list has changed, mostly with additions and dealing with issues like what functions of my iPhone am I allowed to use, it has been close to a constant for close to a decade. When I really follow this list, I really feel good about myself, and good about the world we live in. Your list may be different, and that is just as good and holy as mine, though you may use my ideas as well. Like the holy place we build in this portion we all bring something different to Shabbat. Most of us cannot do all but we can do something. And only when we all bring what each individual especially can bring can Shabbat be particularly holy, so holy it may even build the third temple of messianic times.

Have a great Shabbat.

Ki Tissa 5769: The Spice of Death, Used for Life

I have an obsession. It started with sex, but ended up as my breakfast. Every morning, I usually get up, get dressed and drive to a Starbuck's close to where I will be working for the day. Every day, I order the same thing for breakfast: A venti coffee and oatmeal. While I drink the coffee black, I do add something to the oatmeal. Since the first time I have done so, I have I’ve noticed something. What I added to my oatmeal is mentioned in this week’s portion, though it is far from edible.

23. Take you also to you the best spices, of pure myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, two hundred and fifty shekels, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty shekels, 24. And of cassia five hundred shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and of oil olive a hin; 25. And you shall make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound according to the art of the apothecary; it shall be a holy anointing oil.[Exodus 30]

This is to be the oil which all of the vessels of the temple are to be anointed with. There are debates as to the mass of the shekel, making conversion into modern units difficult. 9, 11, 14, and 17 grams are commonly possibilites. Adin Steinstalz in his Talmud: A Reference Guide defines a shekel as 9 grams, and in the lack of any better conversion factor we can come up with a formula of dry ingredients:

Myrrh 500 Shekels (4500gr)

Cinnamon 250 Shekels (2250gr)

Sweet calamus 250 Shekels (2250gr)

Cassia 500 Shekels (4500gr)

This spice power was then suspended in a hin of olive oil. A hin of olive oil is also debated, but this might be 7.1 liters. That would mean if the dry ingredients were added directly to the oil there was 1.9 grams/ml of spice, an amount which would be closer to a paste than flowing oil.
The Talmud however, notes the dry ingredients was extracted by heating this mixture, and the resultant extract was what was added to the oil [K’ritot 5b]. The Talmud also makes adjustments by adding 250 shekels more of sweet cinnamon [K’ritot 5a-b].
Looking at these concentrations, I have for long time suspected something about the anointing oil for the vessels. Part of my suspicion comes from the punishment for using the stuff.

32. Upon man’s flesh shall it not be poured, nor shall you make any other like it, after its composition; it is holy, and it shall be holy to you. 33. Whoever compounds any like it, or whoever puts any of it upon a stranger, shall be cut off from his people.[Exodus 30]

While it is a sacred material, I’ve wondered about such warnings which sound very much like the warnings of a chemical manufacturer when warning a consumer. When I first wondered about this about ten years ago, I was researching the large number of botanical references found in the Song of Songs. Cinnamon, myrrh, and calamus all occur in one verse:

14. Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices; [Song of Songs 4]

Translating the Song I wondered if this was not just a metaphor for some very expensive imported plants, but something more, an herbal pharmacopeia. In the Song of Songs I was looking for aphrodisiacs, but what I found was far more interesting. As I did my research I found out several things about each of these spices:
Cinnamon and Cassia: As far as modern trade names are concerned these are both cinnamon. However, Cinnamon or sweet cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum) is the imported Indian and Sri Lankan species, and cassia (Cinnamomum cassia) is from China, sometimes called Chinese cinnamon. While both have in common the chemical cinnamaldehyde making up 65-80% of its volatile oil, Cassia has less of other active chemicals than Cinnamon, including the antimicrobial o-methoxycinnamaldehyde.
Cinnamon in Hebrew is Kinmon and cassia in Hebrew Kidah. However the Aramaic translation of Exodus 30 has k’tziata, which sounds a lot more like cassia. Kidah and Kinmon has only three occurrences each in the biblical text. The use of the two types of cinnamon do have a sensual side to them, as noted in the Song of Songs (4:14) passage and in the Seductress of Proverbs (7:17) both times associated with anther of the ingredients of the anointing oil, Myrrh. Cassia and Calamus also occur together in Ezekiel 27:19 in terms of being an item traded from afar.
In laboratory experiments, cassia and cinnamon both have been found to retard microbial growth including a wide variety of disease-causing bacteria and fungi. Other research has pointed to other uses. Its folk use as a remedy for abdominal pain seems to have some evidence. Lab tests on animals describe the relaxation of intestinal linings when exposed to cinnamon. The German Commission E, the German government commission given responsibility over herbal supplements in Germany, found evidence it was as effective as cimetidene in controlling gastric problems. However research has also shown it has little to no effect on Helicobacter pylori, the cause of many ulcer related problems. Cinnamon has shown a its greatest promise as a food preservative to retard E. coli and Salmonella among other food pathogens.
Myrrh: While the other three ingredients have only three occurrences, Myrrh had fifteen. Eight are in the Songs of Songs and may have meaning more in its extraction as much as its use. Myrrh is the sap of a tree of genus Commiphora found primarily in the Middle East. Which species is anyone’s guess, because all have similar properties. To harvest Myrrh, one has to massage out the whitish or reddish sap from a slit made in the tree’s twigs, suggesting one of its sexual connotations particualy in the scene in Chapter 5 of the Song of Songs. Myrrh’s other sexual connotation may be hinted themost in its one mention in the book of Esther. One of the precautions given about myrrh in virtually every folk tale and pharmacopeia about it and in several academic journals is its uncanny ability to initiate menstruation. Thus all sources forbid the use of myrrh with pregnant women due to the possibility of miscarriage. Therefore in the case of Esther 3:12 the six months, or two trimesters of Myrrh treatments may be a case of an induced abortion and contraception to assure any child born of the woman chosen queen was a legitimate heir to Ahasuerus’ throne. I could even speculate in one other case about such an abortion: the bitter waters rite for a woman suspected of adultery. Such a rite required the dust from the Mishkan, the same dust the Myrrh infused anointing oil dripped. When ingested, the high concentration of myrrh in the dust on the Mishkan floor might have caused an abortion from an illicit affair, what the text refers to as her thighs falling [Numbers 5:27].
But once again, Myrrh or Mor in Hebrew most documented use in medical literature is as an antimicrobial and fungicide. It was one of the items used in embalming fluid of the Egyptian mummification process, and does wonders in killing all kinds of molds. Apparently it also stimulates the human immune system as well. Due to its difficult harvesting methods and the scarcity of the plant, it is very expensive to use. Thus there is not a significant amount of modern research into its properties.
Sweet calamus: Called Kaneh in both Hebrew and Aramaic, there have been many debates as to what it really is. Most authorities including Israeli biblical botanist Zohary agree it probably is one of the grass species Cymbopogon, with Zohary championing Cymbopogon marinii, commonly known as ginger grass, even though there is another species indigenous to Israel. There is evidence of its use from Egyptian tombs by the smell reported of ginger grass still evident when sealed tombs are opened. People today probably know the East Asian species best, Cymbopogon citratus or lemongrass. As Ezekiel 27:19 and Jeremiah 6:20 seem to indicate Kaneh was an import to Israel, probably from India. One extract from Cymbopogon nardus is citronella, known for its insect repellent properties. All species of Cymbopogon are bactericidal, and there is some laboratory evidence that some may also be antiviral.
There is a consistent pattern among all of the spices of the anointing oil. All, in one way or another are demonstrated antimicrobials. When the raw spice was concentrated into essential oils then placed in an olive oil suspension this became one of the first recorded sanitizers. It purpose was not one of directly of life, but of death to microorganisms. Given the amount of blood and animal carcasses that were part of the priestly sacrifices, killing microorganisms on surfaces makes sense as a way to limit illness from contamination. It is not coincidental that right before the anointing oil God tell Moses to build a handsink, and that Aaron and his sons are to “wash with water, that they do not die” [Exodus 30:20] The health and safety of the priests depended on good decontamination procedures from their daily tasks. The anointing oil was probably the worlds first recorded antiseptic.
But like the bleach we use today, it was not made for human consumption. While all of these ingredients were edible in small quantities, at the concentrations in the anointing oil they might very well be toxic. While some of the others have potential for contact dermatitis, cinnamon and cassia essential oils can cause burns to human skin if left on for prolonged periods. In an oil base this is very likely, demonstrated by cases where it is suspended in petrolatum, and thus another reason for the prohibition of placing on a human being. When we read the phrase “cut off from his people” the rabbis understand this not as a literal ex-communication, but a death penalty meted out by God. Put another way, when that phrase occurs, there is the potential for lethal consequences. In the anoiting oil, toxic levels of cinnamaldehyde alone could cause painful burns.
We tend to think of many of our advances in science as happening in only the last 500 years, and tend to forget that there were people observing the natural world far before that. Some of what those people found was wrong, but more and more, we are finding evidence that was thought superstition was effective cures. I’ve not had problems with gastritis or heartburn since I started eating my cinnamon oatmeal every day. Instead of swallowing Tagamet, I think I’ll keep enjoying a little cinnamon in my oatmeal.

Tetzaveh 5769:Aaron Clothed, Esther Naked

There is a huge irony thematically between this week’s reading of Tetzaveh and the book of Esther. In Tetzaveh, this week we continue with plans for the Mishkan, including the oil for the lamps, the garments of the high priest, and the incense. There are also instructions on how to give a sacrifice on the altar. Early in the text we read:

And take to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, that he may minister to me in the priest’s office, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons. 2. And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother for glory and for beauty.

A few days after Shabbat, when reading the book of Esther, we will read:

10. On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbonah, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king, 11. To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the royal crown, to show the people and the princes her beauty; for she was beautiful to look on. 12. But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s command by his eunuchs; and the king was very angry, and his anger burned in him. [Esther 1]

Later in the Megilah we will read:

1 And it came to pass on the third day Esther clothed herself 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. [Esther 5]

Nowhere in the text do we read that Vashti is summoned in the nude, merely in royal crown. The Rabbis later interpret this to mean in crown and nothing else.

Some said, The Median women are the most beautiful, and others said, The Persian women are the most beautiful. Said Ahasuerus to them, The vessel that I use is neither Median nor Persian, but Chaldean. Would you like to see her? They said, Yes, but she must be naked [B. Megilah 12b]

Which of course begs the question of what Esther entering the court of the King clothed in royalty means:

Esther, as it is written, Now it came to pass on the third day that Esther clothed herself in royalty. Surely it should say,’royal apparel’? What it shows is that the Holy Spirit clothed her. It is written here, ‘and she clothed’, and it is written in another place. Then the spirit clothed Amasai, etc.(I Chron. 12:19) [B. Megilah 14b]

The crown was the only thing Vashti was supposed to wear when ordered to the court. Refusing to do so, she was executed. In the flip-flop nature of the book of Esther, Esther entered clothed only in the Holy Spirit unbidden to the King’s court, with the threat of execution over her for entering the court. Esther survives a situation that should have gotten her killed, one thing that might have made it possible was her bare skin clothed only in Ruach Hakodesh.
We also have Aaron and his sons, who get a whole set of various clothing items to wear, from the ephod to linen underwear. While Esther naked and Aaron fully dressed seems not to be related I think they are.
Back in late December I began a relationship with an incredible lady. There is a picture of me from June while I was at a professional conference that she particularly likes. When we went out for dinner on Valentine’s day, I wore the shirt in the picture, and she was delighted. In my paintings, I’ve also noted lately how I’m not so interested in my usual subject matter, scantily clad women. Since I’ve been in a relationship with her, they just don’t thrill me the same way they did before.
Many in modernity might look at this week’s chapter as one that has little meaning, since the outfit of Aaron is obsolete without a temple. I don’t think it’s about the outfit as much as why one is wearing it. There are times we do things for people we love. We know they like a certain shirt for example. By wearing that shirt of our own free will, we non-verbally make a statement of “I love you” because we like to delight our partner.
Of course, there is the possibility that a partner demands something from you. While she never would, my sweetie could demand or require me to wear that shirt. This changes the relationship, to one of dominance and submissiveness. For some, this might work, but for others such a relationship leads to drifting away from the relationship, as these constraints are too much to bear.
The women I’ve painted for so long out of such things as Victoria Secret catalogs and fashion magazines are about desire. Showing of skin, whether a little or a lot, is about unfulfilled lust and cravings, the same way a picture of a hot fudge sundae dripping molten chocolate inspires hunger. The way the Rabbis envision Esther, she knew exactly what she was doing. In all commentaries, it’s clear Esther never slept with the king, while all her other ‘competitors’ did. The rabbis never say it directly, but portray Esther as a tease, and she used that to her people’s advantage. The king’s unfulfilled lust of Esther got her the job as queen and even his willingness to give her anything up to half the kingdom, and eventually to save the Jewish people. His wanting to finally feel good at the hands of Esther clouds all other judgment.
I believe these three ways of wearing clothes explain three different ways of approaching the mitzvot of Torah. We can look at the commandments as commands from a king, one we as the lowly subject must obey. We might also find some kind of unfulfilled spiritual lust satisfied by their observance.
The one I find best is putting on that shirt on for Valentine’s Day. I showed my love for my sweetheart. By doing the mitzvot, we show our love for God. Torah in this light has a different meaning than mere obedience. Mitzvot are the things that delight God, they are the ways that we tell God how much we love and cherish the Divine. I can’t hug or kiss God, but I can refrain from eating pork, not work on Saturdays, and mount a mezuzah on my door. It’s not about lust or obedience, but being in relationship with someone special, someone we deeply love. It’s a lot like that classic line from William Goldman’s The Princess Bride. “As you wish” really means “I love you.” So too can we approach our loving relationship with God.

Terumah 5769: Table Conversation

I'm a little behind in everything due to a series of deadlines and a lot of travel. So here is a revision of a 2005 Shlomo's Drash which I had posted only privately before, though a huge part of my own theology.

This week, Moses is on Mount Sinai beginning the Forty-day period of receiving the Torah. God starts with the design plan of the Mishkan, the portable temple that will be the center of Israelite practices until the time of Solomon. God starts holy and works his way out, giving plans for the Ark of the convenant, noting about the Ark: .

And there I will meet with you, and I will talk with you from above the cover, from between the two kerubim which are upon the ark of the Testimony, of all things which I will give you in commandment to the people of Israel.[Ex 25:22]

It is from here that all divine revelation of the prophets comes. When the temple is destroyed divine revelation disappears. God continues our parsha with the plans for the Table, on which would be put what is usually translated the shewbread.

23. You shall also make a table of shittim wood; two cubits shall be its length, and a cubit its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height. 24. And you shall overlay it with pure gold… 30. And you shall set the bread of display upon the table before me always.[Ex: 25:23-30]

We read much later in Leviticus 24:5-9, what this shewbread is and how it is used. The shewbread was loaves of bread that were placed on this table sitting in front of the Ark. They sat there for a week, from one Shabbat to another. At the next Shabbat, they were replaced and the old loaves were eaten by the Priests at this table. The Talmud mentions a miracle about this bread. The bread was as fresh as when it came out of the oven the entire week. On Yom Kippur, part of the service was to lift it to the crowds and declare [Yoma 21a-b] “Behold how beloved you are of God, for it is as fresh when it is taken off as it was when put on, as it was said: 'To put hot bread in the day it was taken away.'(I Sam 21:7)”

I once came down with a stomach flu. The evening I got sick I was sitting an Italian restaurant and a weird thought popped into my head. There is a quote in the Mishnah I have been quoting a lot lately, and thinking a lot about.

If three have eaten at one table, and have spoken thereat words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten at the table of the All-Present, Blessed be He

However, I could not remember the proof text. For those not familiar with rabbinic logic, nothing exists unless it has some quote in the Tanach to back it up. As I left the restaurant, I stopped at a bookstore that was across the parking lot to see if they happened to have a copy of Jacob Neusner’s translation of the Mishnah, or some other translation of Pirke Avot which would have the proof text. Oddly enough, for a predominately Jewish neighborhood, they didn’t. While in the bookstore, my tummy rumbled, and went to the restroom. The beginnings of my flu erupted in Diarrhea. I got home, and spent most of the night with something coming out of one end or the other. By the morning, decimated, dehydrated, and exhausted, I was sitting in bed and that thought about the proof text popped up again. Being the Torah geek I am, it just so happens that I have a copy of the Mishnah by the bookshelf next to my bed. Although the book seemed to weigh a million pounds I did get it off the shelf and looked up the full quote

Mishnah Avot 3:3. R. Simeon said: if three have eaten at one table and have not spoken thereat words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten sacrifices [offered] to the dead, for [of such persons] it is said, ‘for all tables are full of filthy vomit, [they are] without the all-present.’(Isaiah 28:8) but, if three have eaten at one table, and have spoken thereat 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’.(Ezekiel 41:22)

I looked up the quote in Ezekiel 41:22, which actually wasn’t a lot of help, though it was related to this week’s portion.

The altar of wood was three cubits high, and its length two cubits; and it had corners; its length and its walls were of wood; and he said to me, This is the table that is before the Lord.

The table, though twice as tall as the Mishkan’s, is the table for the shewbread. Ezekiel was getting a preview of the third temple, the one to be built in the time of redemption, and here was the shewbread table in this temple.
That was nice but meant nothing to me, so once I felt better, I started digging. It turns out there was an oft quoted saying of two great rabbis in the Talmud who explained that verse:
[Berachot 55a] ‘The altar of wood three cubits high . . . . and he said to me, This is the table that is before the Lord’ [Now the verse] opens with ‘altar’ and finishes with ‘table’? R. Johanan and R. Eleazar both explain that as long as the Temple stood, the altar atoned for Israel, but now a man's table atones for him
Where the Shewbread table used to be our connection to God, since the destruction of the Temple it is our own dining room tables, indeed anywhere we sit down and have a meal. As our text this week says, the shewbread table is before the Ark, where God meets with us. Therefore the shewbread table is God’s dining room table, and every meal we are invited to dine.
But the beginning of the verse interested me as well, which seems a little graphic, and given my illness, a little personal as well. Its proof text is Isaiah 28:8, which one needs a few more verses to get the context:

8. For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean. 9. To whom shall one teach knowledge? and whom shall one make understand doctrine? Those who are weaned from the milk, and removed from the breasts. 10. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; 11. For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12. To whom he said, This is the rest with which you may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing; yet they would not hear. [Isaiah 28:8-12]

Even with small pieces of study building on one another, no one in the Northern Kingdom listened. It would be like being invited to someone’s house, grabbing some food, and never speaking to the host, let alone thanking or acknowledging his or her presence. It’s mind bogglingly rude, as rude as intentionally puking and defecating on the table. R. Simeon was outraged that people would behave that way at God’s table.
Therefore, for one to say words of Torah at the table is to be God's personal guest and honor your host, to not say words of Torah is to insult your host. But why did I need that quote from the Mishnah? In Sannhedrin 37a, there is parable related to why life is so precious. Most people who mint coins mint them with a face of a king, and every coin has a face of that king. But the King of Kings, when he mints coins, “Fashioned every man in the stamp of the first man, and yet not one of them resembles his fellow.” And of course of the first man, he “fashioned in his image.”(Genesis 1:27) We all are the faces of God, yet completely unique. It is interesting that the word in Hebrew for Shewbread is lechem panim. Literally this means the bread of faces. Since no translator can figure out whose faces, the usual translation in English is to revert to the verb, which means to turn. One turns to show the bread thus Showbread. Panim can also mean face to face. It could also mean the bread was face to face, lfnei Elokim, before God. What if those faces are the faces of those eating it? All faces are unique expressions of the God-image. When they sit eating bread, and discuss words of The Lord of Hosts the divine in each of us to combine to form a more complete connection to God, and as our portion says “And there I will meet with you, and I will talk with you”. In a collective we find divine revelation.
There is the old expression “Two Jews, three opinions” Often taken as sardonic humor one must ask where the third opinion comes from. The third is the synthesis of the two, the one that comes out of holy discussion, not a discussion of “I’m right your wrong” but of “Here is one case” and “here is another.” Together they make a third, one that we could easily call God’s opinion. When two Jews sit down at a meal, and talk words of Torah, there will their own opinions and together they will reveal the opinion of the Holy One Blessed Be He.
May your tables have holy conversations

Mishpatim 5769: Peanut Butter and the Goring Ox

How does contaminated peanut butter stand up to Jewish civil law? This week’s portion is primarily the civil law given at Sinai. Much of Jewish civil law is no longer binding but provides an interesting way of understanding how much more esoteric religious law was derived by the rabbis. While “an eye for an eye” is well known, lesser known but far more intriguing is the case of the goring ox:

28. If an ox gores a man or a woman, that they die; then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. 29. But if the ox was wont to gore with its horn in times past, and its owner had been warned, and he has not kept it in, but it has killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. 30. If ransom be laid on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is laid upon him. 31. Whether it has gored a son, or has gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done to it. 32. If the ox shall gore a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. [Exodus 21]

As this can invoke the death penalty for both the owner and the ox, the case is tried not as a monetary compensation case but a capital crimes one:

The ox to be stoned is tried by (a capital crimes court of ) twenty-three, as it is written, the ox shall be stoned and its owner shall be put to death — as the death of the owner, so that of the ox, can be decided only by twenty-three.[M. Sanhedrin 1]

As I noted last week, this usually means neither will die as actually carrying out the death penalty is very rare when one of these cases comes to court. Using verse 21:30, there is the possibility of a monetary penalty instead of a death. What is interesting however is that the ox is considered a life form here, one that can be tried the same way as a human.

Yet critical to the case against the owner would be if the ox was tam or mu’ad. A tam ox is one that has less than three incidents of injury prior to the incident that kills someone. This is the ox which is tame and docile, but through unforeseen circumstances charged someone. On the other hand there is the mu’ad ox, the one that has had three warnings of danger, and the owner did nothing to prevent them as mentioned in Exodus 21:29.

By the early middle ages much of Jewish civil and criminal law was superseded with the law of the land. But I thought it would be an interesting thought experiment to see what would happen if it were still in operation. As a food safety consultant, I’ve been following the current Salmonella outbreak case. While the way it will play out in the courts of the United States will be interesting, I’m also wondering how it would play out in Jewish law, and how would one actually deal with this case.

Starting back on Novebmer 10, 2008 13 cases of Salmonella typhimurium caught the eye of the Centers for Disease Control. . Further investigation followed as the case load increased. On January 12, 2009 Minnesota department of health found a commercial container of peanut butter which definitively linked peanut butter to the Salmonella Other heath departments followed, confirming the links Minnesota found. The originator of the product initiated a recall. As of February 19, 2009, 654 persons infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella Typhimurium have been reported from 44 states and there are over 2500 products recalled which contain products from two plants run by this manufacturer. Among persons with available information, 23% reported being hospitalized. Infection may have contributed to nine deaths:

What has also become clear in FDA’s investigation is that the product did have lot numbers that were shipped out either before it was determined the product contained no salmonella or when there had been a positive test. In one noted case of metal contamination it was shipped out of the U.S. to a Canadian producer, but the Canadian plant sent it back as unacceptable. When coming back into the U.S. FDA would not let it cross the border due to the excessive contamination.

This has me wondering something. Is a corporation which harms consumers considered a goring ox? Should we treat a corporation the same? In a thought provoking chapter in his book The Golems Among Us Byron Sherwin explains that in a legal sense corporations through the courts have given themselves the legal status of people without the consequences. In a sense they are a man made souless creature, a Golem. In his book, Sherwin compares golems like the legendary Golem of Prague to Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein monster. Both Golems and the Monster were made by man as essentially soulless creatures, but there the similarities stop. Fundamental to this discussion is that Frankenstein’s monster is left unchecked for its primary purpose of running amok, while the golem, who primary purpose is to help humanity, could hurt people if left unsupervised. A golem requires safety measures. Golems are very much like the goring Ox. Oxen have their domestic purposes, but often require preventative measures to keep people safe around them. If those preventative measures are ignored, they might hurt someone. Furthermore, it’s clear from Tractate Sanhedrin that oxen are tried for murder just like humans are tried for murder.

Here we delve into speculation and many questions. We apparently have a company which internally knew of a problem, had far more than three warnings and their only action was to cover it up. Is a corporation a goring ox, and if they do such things are they a Mu’ad ox? In a corporation, who is the owner and what is the ox? If the corporation is Mu’ad how do you stone a corporation to death? In the case of a tam corporation, is death without benefit necessary? While the death penalty can be commuted to a financial penalty for the owner what does that mean?

This case has one more wrinkle, which was not true when I started thinking about all this. The company who made the peanut paste has filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy. What if from the time the case starts to the time the case ends, the Ox dies, or the owner hides it or kills it himself?

I have no answers here, I’m interested in some interesting discussion.

What do you think? If we used Talmudic and biblical law, what should be done in this case?

If you happen to be around Evanston Illinois this Saturday, February 21, 2009, I’ll be leading the Torah Discussion at Beth Emet Kahal services on this topic.

Drash Yitro 5769: Jethro’s Gift of the Courts.

The Ten Commandments are not the most important part of this week’s portion in my mind. While most will remember this portion for the preliminary smoke and fire and the recitation of the Ten Commandments by God, there is something far more significant. While moving towards Sinai, Moses’ father in law Yitro catches up with the Israelites bringing Moses’ sons Gershon and Eleazar and wife Tzipporah with him.
Yitro notices the long line of people that want to talk to Moses and ask for judgment in one kind of case or another. Moses looks totally frazzled by the long lines, and Yitro begins to notice the people on the line are not too happy either. Yitro pulls over his son-in-law and gives some sagely advice:

19. Listen now to my voice, I will give you counsel, and God shall be with you; Represent the people before God, that you may bring the causes to God; 20. And you shall teach them ordinances and laws, and shall show them the way where they must walk, and the work that they must do. 21. And you shall choose out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens; 22. And let them judge the people at all seasons; and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they shall judge; so it shall be easier for yourself, and they shall bear the burden with you.

Moses enacts this system, creating a judicial bureaucracy. However it alone does not go far enough. As we will read in Numbers, Moses burns out over a second complaint about the food:

14. I am not able to carry all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me. 15. And if you deal thus with me, kill me, I pray you, at once, if I have found favor in your sight; and let me not see my wretchedness. [Numbers 11]

God then creates one more council, a court of seventy elders along with Moses to deal with the bigger issues Moses cannot do alone.
Rabbinic law changed and transformed this system, but the judicial system became the backbone of an entire order of the Talmud: Nezikin. In one of its tractates Sanhedrin, the organization and operation of the courts is discussed:

Monetary cases [must be adjudicated] by three judges… capital cases are adjudicated by twenty-three…a tribe, a false prophet and a high priest can only be tried by a court of seventy-one. War of free choice can be waged only by the authority of a court of seventy-one.[M. Sanhedrin 1]

Unlike the system of population to decide cases this system is based on the type of litigation. Interestingly, all three courts have a prime number of judges, there is no way any set of parties could have an even split. There can be no hung juries, even by multiple factions. What is also clear is that for capital cases and more important national matters the courts are so large they would have a hard time convicting anybody where there is the slightest doubt, as deliberation would go on forever. Indeed in capital cases this is made explicit in Tractate Makkot:

A Sanhedrin that effects an execution once in seven years is branded a destructive tribunal; R. Eliezer b. Azariah says, once in seventy years. [Makkot 7a]

This is despite the huge number of capital crimes found in the Torah. These even include several of the Ten Commandments such as murder, desecrating the Sabbath and insulting one’s parents, all of which should be relatively easy to find people guilty of. Yet very few are convicted, because of the court procedure in such cases, with a few exceptions, is not directly noted in Torah. Human beings, namely Rabbis and Judges came up with the system of jurisprudence found in Tractate Sanhedrin that made it near impossible to enact capital punishment.
This is the gift Yitro gave us before the revelation at Sinai. While Mitzvot are of Divine origin, how we implement them is a very human thing, requiring a very human process of questioning and finding solutions to dilemmas using a system of debate. This is core to what we might call Jewish thinking. It is not just Mitzvot that we follow, but the Halakhah, the derived rules that our ancestors debated and found, and the Halalka we derirve today and that our descendants will derive in the future. The Oral law may have been given at Sinai as well, but it has been adapted many times over millennia for new circumstances. The Oral law is never closed, never complete.
What Yitro did in suggesting to Moses was far more than delegation. In Egypt, Pharaoh’s word was absolute, and the slaves obeyed or were punished, On the way to Sinai, Moses’ word was absolute, because the people had no one else, and thus followed the Pharaoh model. What Yitro did was change everyone’s thinking from one person dictating policy, to ten percent of the population deciding its formation, and all the people able to ask questions to create the conditions for change. All of this was based on the original framework of Mitzvot in Torah. For former slaves this might have been a near impossible task, but the existence of order Nezikin proves that it was a successful one. While it is not the democracy of the Greeks it is democracy nonetheless: it is a democracy founded not in legislation, but in jurisprudence. For one of the minority religions on the planet, the assumptions behind that system have let Jews survive for thousands of years all over the globe, being one of the oldest continuous religions on the planet, constantly adapting to new conditions when necessary.
It builds on the system of God’s partnership with humanity, Mitzvot and Miracles are the realm of God, and God’s participation in this world. We through Halakhah and Aggadah contribute to creation, filling the gaps left by God in Torah for us to fill. This was not revealed at the top of Sinai by God, but by Moses’ father in law at the foot of the mountain, a gift we should be eternally grateful for.

Beshallah 5769: Back in the Harbor Again

In this week’s portion, there are a few verses in the biblical text that often gets lost in the excitement of the crossing of the Sea, The Song of the Sea, the battle of Amalek and the Manna. Yet it has the greatest impact of all, indeed repeated on Sinai itself.
The lost verses happen on the sixth day after Manna becomes standard food for the Israelites. While the people are told not to collect more than they need, the Israelites collect double portions as there seems to be double portions produced. The elders are puzzled and go to Moses.

23. And he said to them, This is what the Lord has said, Tomorrow is the rest of the holy sabbath to the Lord; bake that which you will bake today, and boil what you will boil today; and that which remains over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. 24. And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade; and it did not stink, neither was there any worm in it. 25. And Moses said, Eat that today; for today is a sabbath to the Lord; today you shall not find it in the field. 26. Six days you shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none. 27. And it came to pass, that some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather, and they found none. [Exodus 16]

Of course the people who went looking for manna on Shabbat doesn’t go over well with God, who makes his instructions more explicit:

28. And the Lord said to Moses, ‘How long refuse you to keep my commandments and my laws? 29. See, because the Lord has given you the sabbath, therefore he gives you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide you every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.’ 30. So the people rested on the seventh day. [Exodus 16]

In the Exodus 20:8-11 the Ten Commandments will make Shabbat explicitly a time to not do work. This passage,the first mitzvah of Shabbat makes different requirements. We do as God does in the Exodus 16 passage. Since God doesn’t cook on Shabbat, so too we don’t cook on Shabbat. To make sure we don’t do any gathering, we stay in our place and don’t carry anything in our out of our dwellings. Exodus 20 concerns work life while Exodus 16 concerns our home life.
What is meant by mimkomo “his place?” The text does not use the words moshavo for his habitation or beito for his house. Therefore “his home” might be the best definition. I realized the distinction between house and home about twenty years ago on my first job out of college. The job required six days on the road in a territory that covered anywhere from Pittsburgh to Omaha. I was so used to travel my apartment looked just like a suite at a Hampton Inn, down to the furniture and the sink outside the toilet room. Neither the hotel rooms I stayed at nor my apartment were home. Home was still my parents’ house, where I connected with my family. In that job, I connected nowhere else. After I left that job I did find a home not in my apartment, but in an old sports bar in a far northwestern suburb of Chicago. Here, home was having a few drinks and some munchies with other people in the pottery studio where I used to do my art. A few years later, I found Home in my synagogue life. For most of that time, Home would not be the four walls I paid rent to keep my bed and bookshelves in.
Home is more than just the shelter of a house. Home is about relationship, a place where one feels connected to others. Someone close to me was talking about being Home last week and even had given me a song by Jimmy Buffet about the subject, which made me think a lot about being Home.
I have before talked about Jimmy Buffett and how his song One Particular Harbor is my expression about Shabbat. But the harbor explains our passage as well. Boats spend their days out on the sea, freely moving with the wind, though rarely in communication with other boats. Yet every once in a while they come into harbor, and sailors talk on the docks and in the shops and bars that surround the harbor. Sailing is one thing but without being able to tell the story of your adventure, to relate with other sailors, it is an incomplete thing. So too with Shabbat. We work so hard during the rest of the week, we often forget to relate to our loved ones and friends. One day a week, we do nothing but bind those relationships closer together. Home is where those we care about are, and Home is where we spend Shabbat.
Heschel commented that Shabbat was not a place in Space but in Time. It is the time that we use for strengthening our relationships. We strengthen our relationships to God, to creation, to others in our spiritual community, our friends and our loved ones. It saddens me when those relationships break down on Shabbat, to me there can be no bigger desecration. Exodus 35:3 will command us to kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day. Not only is the fire in the hearth indicated here, but the fire in the heart. Controversy and fighting is not an appropriate activity on the Sabbath. We have six other days for such things. All too often, hurtful words are used and not only feelings but relationships are hurt. Home, whatever and wherever it is, sadly becomes a battlefield.

I try to avoid that. I think of Shabbat as that One Particular Harbor that Jimmy Buffett sings about:

And there's that one particular harbor
Sheltered from the wind
Where the children play on the shore each day
And all are safe within.

We are told that Shabbat is a foretaste of the world to come, one sixtieth of the messianic era. In a week full of stress controversy and strife, I like Shabbat to be that time to rest and work on building relationships. Once a week sailing into the sheltered port of Shabbat from the storm of life is a delight, an Oneg. Having a world around me peaceful enough to witness creation and enter into relationship with it is the joy of the day, if not my week. While John Lennon naively wrote of atheism in his song, Imagine, I still believe the chorus applies to the world where all celebrate Shabbat as a day of rest and building relationships:

You may say I’m a dreamer,
But I’m not the only one
Some day I hope you’ll join us
And the World will live as One.

Or as Zachariah prophesized in a passage which ends the Aleinu Prayer:

On that day the Lord shall be One, and his name One [Zech 14:9]

Bo 5769:Of Spamalot and Haggadot

A couple of years ago I wrote a piece for Parshat Bo comparing Monty Python to the Passover Haggadah. Since I've gotten behind in writing, I thought I'd post that piece this week, instead of something completely different.

In Parshat Bo, we have the last three plagues: locusts, darkness, and finally the death of the first born. Before the last plague hits, however, there is a lot of preparation done. God gives a set of directions to first chain up then kill a lamb, eating it all in the night of the plague, and spreading its blood on the doorposts of the houses of the Israelites so to indicate whose house to pass over. Further instructions mentioned not eating leavened foods for seven days and eating Matzah instead. This was the first Passover.

Every year we go through a haggadah with the same words about this event. Many over the years have had their favorite parts memorized, and quote them even away from the Passover table. Oddly enough, there is little from parshat Bo that is actually included in the Passover seder. Although we celebrate this event told in the book of Exodus, the number of quotes from the book of Exodus in the liturgy of the Passover seder, the Haggadah, is rather small. But the lines that are mentioned everybody remembers.

Exodus 12:26. And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say to you, What do you mean by this service?

Exodus 13:8 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.

Exodus 13:14 And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying, What is this? That you shall say to him, By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the house of slavery;

These of course are three of the four sons, who were formulated into different archetypes by the early rabbis. The rabbis of 1900 years ago, in creating the structure of the Passover Seder we celebrate today had a problem. Much of the ceremony required the Temple, but the Temple no longer stood. How would one use all the differing symbols and stories of the Exodus in a world where the primary thing necessary, roasting the lamb in the Temple, could not be done? We can even see the problem in the Mishnah, where the rabbis preserved the temple service:

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.
For on all [other] nights we eat leavened and unleavened bread, whereas on this night [we eat] only leavened bread; on all other nights we eat all kinds of herbs, on this night bitter herbs;
On all other nights we eat meat roast, stewed or boiled, on this night, roast only.
On all other nights we dip once, but on this night we dip twice.’

And according to the son's intelligence his father instructs him. 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]

One of the four questions includes roasted lamb, which is impossible without a Temple. How does the Haggadah deal with such problems? Of all the places to think about this, it was after watching a new musical on its way to Broadway that gave me insight into this problem. Of all musicals which had to deal with the problem it was Spamalot, the musical based on Monty Python and the Holy Grail. When it was in it's pre-Broadway tour several years ago, I saw it in Chicago. Like a majority of the audience I had memorized every line of the movie, knew every joke and gag from beginning to end. Indeed, it is probably the most memorized film comedy ever. I kept wondering how former Python Eric Idle could put together a musical which could handle some of the material that was only possible on film, and could not translate into musical theater. Cutting in and out of Terry Gilliam's animation just could not happen, there could be no "problems" with the beginning credits, and the original ending of the film just couldn’t be done. Idle realized he could not translate Grail directly, so he changed many parts to create entirely new experience with the same cherished symbols of Python lovers, even some from other Monty Python sources such as Life of Brian.

Like Monty Python, how does the rabbis who no longer have their original medium, the Temple, deal with the issue of all the symbols around Passover? Like Holy Grail, everybody had memorized many of the words already, and they have special nostalgic meaning. The words of Exodus 12 and 13 had already been repeated over and over again for generations. Not only that, many of the traditions that had sprouted could not be simply put aside. Leaving out the four questions, four sons or the Haroset from the Seder, much of which had little or no biblical basis, was unthinkable. It would have caused the same disaster leaving out the killer bunny rabbit in Spamalot would have. In a qualitative study of moderately affiliated Jews by Cohen and Eisen, the primary factors why people keep Jewish tend not to be spiritual, but nostalgia and grandma’s cooking. The two holidays, which show the most observance, Passover and Hanukkah have home-made food associated with them. The rabbis even 1900 years ago understood that same problem all too well.

Sprinkled repeatedly in the text of Bo is the reason for this type of observance. The four sons, four questions, Hillel sandwiches and singing Had Gadya are there intentionally for one reason: to transmit the tradition from one generation to another easily. In a reference usually associated with tefillin, we are to do this with (13:9)“a sign to you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes.” We are to do this remembering experientially, with both actions and sights. The best place to find the children, to continue the nostalgia and food is at our own dinner tables. We change a large production number in the Temple to a smaller setting -the family dining table. Along the way there is need for changes to compensate of course, new things were added, some things were changed. The third question in the Mishnah about the roasted lamb would evolve into a question of reclining. The Haroset would in some sense become a substitute to the roast lamb in the Hillel sandwich. But the elements, many of which were probably from popular observance, were preserved for generations.

I still find it funny Eric Idle’s book for Spamalot is an analogy to the creation of the Passover Haggadah. But oddly enough it is. It is an important lesson: one can change things, but be careful of personal attachments to parts of what you are changing.

Vaeira 5769: Why Plagues?

It’s a question that has bothered many: Why should an entire nation suffer horribly just to change the mind of one person? It’s been a timeless question and is immediately topical as well. On a smaller scale, should suffering bring about change on the interpersonal level? The week’s text leaves me wondering.
After Moses’ first disaster talking to Pharaoh and the Israelites, God talks to Moses again and tells him to talk to the Israelites again, they are so stressed out, they promptly ignore him. Then God tells a despondent Moses to talk to Pharaoh once again, and Moses objects -- again. God tells Moses that he will use signs and wonders in order to make completely clear God’s power. First there is the wonder of the staff being turned into a snake, then the staff eating the other snakes. Then begins the plagues, where we have the first seven of the ten: blood, frogs, lice, swarms, cattle disease, boils and hail.
Even the Midrash wonders why there was a need for ten plagues:

Surely, the Holy One, blessed be He, could have delivered Israel from the Egyptians with the first plague? But it was in order to fulfill the verse: He increases the nations, and destroyed them; which is followed by, He takes away the heart of the chiefs of the people of the land (Job XII, 23, 24). [Midrash Rabbah - Exodus XV: 10]

It’s answer is not very satisfying, the land, it’s animals and it’s people are apparently to suffer for the deeds of the leadership. Another midrash is a little more reasonable, but no less satisfying:

God brought the ten plagues upon them in accordance with the regular plan of campaign [Midrash Rabbah - Exodus XV:27]

While Midrash Rabbah leaves only this oblique comment, other commentaries flesh out the idea that God used the traditional tactics of any army which was attacking a city, correlating each plague with a different stage of a military siege. After the crossing of the Red Sea, and running out of water, Moses is given his first encounter with a rock:

5. And the Lord said to Moses, Go on before the people, and take with you of the elders of Israel; and your rod, with which you struck the river, take in your hand, and go. 6. Behold, I will stand before you there upon the rock in Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. [Exodus 17]

Midrash adds Moses’ objection:

Moses then said: ‘Lord of the Universe. This is the rod of punishment, for it caused the waters in Egypt to stink, and it brought the ten plagues on the Egyptians.’ But God replied: ‘My methods are not those of mortals; man cuts with a knife and heals with a bandage, but I heal with the thing with which I smite.’ ‘And thy rod, with which you struck the river, take in thy hand’ (ib.), so that all may know that it is an instrument of blessing. [Midrash Rabbah - Exodus XXVI: 2]

God, not man, makes plagues. Huge acts of suffering might be contributed to by man, but a man cannot cause the volume and extent of damage that only God can in these ways. Even a nuclear weapon does not have the potential of a tsunami to cause massive destruction. As the Pharaoh’s magicians learn and acknowledge, the plagues are the finger of God. The plagues on one level were proving the power of God. Only God can do these things.
I have to wonder about a deeper level. Moses’ staff struck a river and it became undrinkable. When the people are free, He strikes a rock with the same staff and drinkable water pours out. Construction and destruction from the same implement. Human thinking is that there is one implement to hurt and one to heal. God thinks differently, that Divine power can hurt and heal. What intrigues me is that the hurt and the healing may be merely matters of perspective.
What if suffering is actually a way to make one stronger? As the biblical texts in the prophets attest, Egypt is not broken by the Exodus or the plagues, it remains a powerful nation. As the Egyptians suffered so did the Israelites under their slavery, only to become a powerful nation itself. Why was the slavery necessary in the first place? Slavery forged the children of Israel from a family into a people. To do so required suffering and challenge, but what for?
I think about that in many contexts. Why did I have horribly traumatic events, ones I have suffered from since I was rather young? My only answer of any comfort is to forge me into the person I am, and the person I will become. In another context, suffering allows us to perform acts of righteous compassion. We can help other people in need, or the homeless around the street. Knowing what suffering is allows us to show compassion for others who are suffering now, and to actively help with alleviating that suffering. It may be as big as stopping a famine or as small as holding the door open for someone unable to enter a building otherwise. Big and small acts of gemilut hasidim, acts of kindness abound, if we only see them. To see them we must feel them ourselves.
What Moses’ staff represents is a choice we have to make. We have the ability to bless or to curse by our deeds. God will leave suffering in the world, by famine plague, earthquake, disease, or other natural disaster. Many times, we initiate or contribute to the problem, much like Moses and his staff. Yet we too can heal, or even prevent greater devastation in such times by our actions. The biblical text is silent on any rebellions or movements within Egyptian society who took action to free the Israelites. We hear some advisors panicking, but nothing more. Like those advisors, we can choose to believe only in the finger of God and let God do everything, both healing and smiting, or we can choose to be Moses’ rod, being partners in the act of healing the world. We certainly have the power to destroy and to cause suffering; can we also find it in our hearts to stop polluting the waters with blood and toxic materials, but also to bring fresh drinking water to all peoples, so that they may live?
Such a change requires change not only in the leader, who often like Pharaoh will be incredibly stubborn. It requires the heart of every person be free to choose such a path. In Egypt, even the Egyptians were downtrodden and surfs, courtesy of Joseph’s taxation system, so they too were far from free. The plagues happened because there was no one to stop them but Moses and God. Magicians would replicate them, but never heal. It’s easy to build another bomb; it’s hard to negotiate for peace. The plagues were the challenge, and the Egyptian people failed, as did the Israelites of that generation who repeatedly failed in the years in the wilderness.
We too have that choice, Lets us all choose wisely.

Shemot 5769: Returning

Drash Shemot 5769:

Why Midian? For that matter why in this story did we need any of this middle part of Moses being a shepherd? Wouldn’t it have been simpler to stumble around a little and end up at Sinai and the burning bush? Last week, I wrote about Joseph getting away, about leaving behind that which impedes our identity and our development, which very well may have been Jacob.

This week we start the book of Exodus and are introduced to the setup for the rest of the Torah. A Pharaoh who does not know Joseph arises and appealing to national security has the Israelites enslaved. Things get worse. Pharaoh has the midwives try to kill all the newborn boys but they do not heed him. In response Pharaoh then decides to kill all male newborns by drowning, though one baby escapes this by being sent down the river, ending up living in the palace, until he murders an Egyptian taskmaster. The slave who this guy saves rewards him by ratting him out. To escape Pharaoh’s anger, this man flees to Midian where he finds a bride, becomes a shepherd and has a rather interesting conversation with a burning bush. This man is of course Moses. And this week is really his story.

After a time, which Midrash tells us is forty years away from Egypt, Moses returns with God’s marching orders. He’s not happy about it to be certain. At the bush, he repeatedly tries to get out of this task of returning:

11. And Moses said to God, Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the people of Israel out of Egypt? [Exodus 3]

1. And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor listen to my voice; for they will say, The Lord has not appeared to you. [Exodus 4]

10. And Moses said to the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither yesterday nor the day before, nor since you have spoken to your servant; but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. [Exodus 4]

13. And he said, O my Lord, send, I beseech you, by the hand of him whom you will send. [Exodus 4]
Moses tries everything to get out of this. Of course he has reason, Egypt is a painful place for him as there is a death penalty against him. God has to assure him that he does not have to worry about that.

Coming back this week from Disney World, I’ve been thinking about return. I’ve been thinking of return from the place I was able to acknowledge a part of me I rarely am able to do to that extent. The young kid came out and played. Several times I’ve written about me trying to conquer fear in that place, riding roller coasters and thrill rides I was afraid of. This year was different. I just had fun, and played like a kid. A lot of what had been problematic or painful in 2008 washed off in this place. Returning, I was fresh once again, able to handle the situations that are put in front of me. Like Moses in the portion, I’ll admit to some preliminary stumbling, but the energy, creativity and enthusiasm a little kid is all there, ready for my use.

For the last few months, I’ve been reconciling the two most painful experiences in my life. The first experience imprisoned the young kid inside of me who enjoyed Disney so much, hiding much of him from me. The second, which happened in my last year of college, was a repeat of the first only worse – because he was so locked away, the boy inside could not warn me, and I ended up in a very bad situation. What made that situation worse was I never was able to recover. Though I’m pretty sure it was not intentionally against me, my support system of my college friends was ripped away from me in a cause where my recovery meant I was against their cause. Like Moses I fled. One hour after graduation, I was on the road, away from that place.

Twenty years later, I’ve virtually returned. Though I never originally intended it, Via the Internet and Social networking, I’ve re-connected with many people from that time, some of them very special and dear to my heart now. As I thought of it, I realized I changed.

The events in out lives are sometimes extraordinary. Sometimes the turns they take are so bizarre as to only be miracles. The Midrash relates of the odd wording of Yitro’s daughters that an Egyptian saved them from the Shepherds at the well:

An alternative explanation of AN EGYPTIAN: Moses can be compared to one bitten by a lizard, who ran to place his feet in the water. When he put them in the river, he observed that a small child was drowning; so he stretched out his hand and saved him. Thereupon the child said: ‘Had it not been for you, I would already have perished.’ To which the man replied: ‘Not I have saved you, but the lizard who bit me and from which I escaped, he saved you.’ Thus the daughters of Jethro greeted Moses: ' Thanks for saving us from the hand of the shepherds.’ Moses replied: ‘The Egyptian whom I slew, he delivered you.’ They therefore said to their father AN EGYPTIAN meaning that the Egyptian whom this man slew caused him to come to us. [Exodus Rabbah I:32]

The chain of causality is so bizarre as to be inexplicable but by the word miracle. Moses ends up at a place where he was content to live, have Children and have the seemingly humble Job as a shepherd. Yet, as the Midrash explains, No role is better to prepare one for leadership, comparing David to Moses. Despite his objections, Moses was ready to return, and then bring the Israelites back from the land of Egypt. The experiences of our lives lead us down a path, and God has helped us set that path, even when we don't realize it.
There is even a midrash that the burning bush was burning quite a while, but only when Moses was ready to see it did things happen. Sometimes we need to go away for a while to return a different person, to do something special. In the short term, This might be a vacation. In the long term long lost friends might enter your life in ways you never imagined.

Vayehi 5769: Getting Away

As we read both this week and last week, Joseph made and incredible turn around. From the bratty tattletale to the viceroy of Egypt who could forgive his brothers and humble himself before God, there was quite a transformation. How did this happen? This week’s portion begins with another question, which might lead to an answer.

28. And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years; so the whole age of Jacob was a hundred and forty seven years. [Genesis 48]

This week we read of the last days of both Jacob and Joseph. This ends the book of Genesis, and the Story of Joseph. Interestingly the Story of Joseph starts with this verse:

2. These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brothers; and the lad was with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives; and Joseph brought to his father their evil report. [Genesis 37]

In both verses is the number seventeen. Joseph lived in Jacob’s house seventeen years, and Jacob lived under Joseph’s reign seventeen years. The symmetry is striking, and may not be coincidental. Such symmetry is rampant in the story of Joseph according to Midrash. Potiphar's wife attempts to seduce Joseph, but Joseph marries Potiphar’s daughter. There is a midrash describing the young Joseph that begins to explain the symmetry of seventeen years:

7. JOSEPH, BEING SEVENTEEN YEARS OLD, etc. He was seventeen years old, yet you say, BEING STILL A LAD! It means, however, that he behaved like a boy, pencilling his eyes, curling his hair, and lifting his heel. [Midrash Rabbah - Genesis LXXXIV:7]

Joseph was a seventeen year old behaving like a ten year old, but why? One answer may be that Jacob wanted him to be that way. We know from later texts in I Kings that the coat of stripes that Jacob gave Joseph was the garb of princesses. Jacob was the one forcing Joseph to act a certain way, possibly to be the little boy he was at the time of the death of his mother, Jacob’s beloved Rachel. Here was a seventeen-year-old unable to act like a man, but only like a little boy. If so this was a painful, powerless, humiliating experience for Joseph. Joseph only recourse in behavior was his tale bearing and dream of a time when he will have power.
Joseph was a slave in the house of Potiphar, but he was considered an adult, and much of his physical appearance changed to that appropriate to his age, yet he really wasn’t free either to decide what he wanted to do, to make his own decisions. He changed more in prison when he volunteers to do things. He could have just sat in his cell whimpering, but he doesn’t. . Ironically he has more freedom in prison than he had at home. By the time Pharaoh appoints him viceroy, he in no daddy’s boy. He undertakes a position very different than his world in Canaan. He has unlimited freedom, to make decision, second only to Pharaoh’s.
It is the Joseph with incredibly adult responsibilities, making decisions for an entire nation, that Jacob meets. Even the father of a power figure is still not a powerful as that figure. That explains what Jacob says when he embraces Joseph:

30. And Israel said to Joseph, Now let me die, since I have seen your face, because you are still alive. [Genesis 46]

While Joseph may have gotten over what his brothers did, he did not get over what his father did to start the whole mess. Jacob knows this too and is asking for mercy for what is to come. Joseph’s, and very likely God’s retribution was subtle but again, symmetrical. Jacob, the free living powerful Patriarch of Caannan, would have to live as a squatter completely under the power of Joseph for the same amount of time Joseph had to wear those ridiculous outfits for the pleasure of his dad.

Joseph changed in Egypt. He became a different person because the negative influences of his home were no longer there. Joseph’s story, like many Biblical stories are magnified in order to give us a view of our own weaknesses and personalities. In today’s world making one’s 17 year old son dress up like a five-year old would probably be considered Child abuse. Hopefully many of us have not had experiences from their parents that hurt them that deeply, that forced them into a powerless place. Unfortunately it does happen. It happens in relationships too, as I experienced twenty years ago. There can be many possibilities for toxic relationships.

The best thing to do is get away, sometimes for a short time, sometimes for a long one. Each of us heals from the trauma differently, and each trauma is different. When Joseph names Menasseh, he admits that God gave him the gift of forgetting his old life.

51. And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh; For God, said he, has made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house. [Genesis 41]

Sometimes it is not just a place we need to forget but the patterns we learned there. It’s too easy to transmit abuse from generation to generation, or from partner to partner. We have to unlearn the patterns somewhere new that challenges us differently, and challenges the correctness of the old patterns. Joseph may not have known of his real problems but his time in Egypt changed him to the person he became. Next week we begin the main story of Torah -- what happens when a family of seventy is forged into a nation in the same crucible as Joseph?

Vayigash 5769: Forgiveness

In one of the great dramatic moments of the biblical text, Judah who has buried two of his sons by this point gives a heart wrenching plea to the Viceroy of Egypt, unaware of his real identity as his missing brother Joseph. After that plea, we read:

1. Then Joseph could not refrain himself before all those who stood by him; and he cried, Cause every man to go out from me. And there stood no man with him, while Joseph made himself known to his brothers.2. And he wept aloud; and the Egyptians and the house of Pharaoh heard. 3. And Joseph said to his brothers, I am Joseph; does my father still live? And his brothers could not answer him; for they were troubled by his presence. [Genesis 45]

Some might take this a great family reunion, or one filled with tension. Joseph in his cry completely forgives his brothers. But do the brothers believe that Joseph really forgave them? We will read in Genesis 50:15, seventeen years after this reunion.

And when Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, Joseph will perhaps hate us, and will certainly pay us back for all the evil which we did to him.

The brothers still did not trust that Joseph forgave them. Indeed reading this passage we see there is another tension which comes up from the phrase “does my father still live?” The brother’s apparently thought Joseph’s good behavior towards them was all for the eye of Jacob, it was a subterfuge until Jacob had died and then Joseph would exact his revenge. To ask if their father was still alive was not just the shock that Joseph was still alive, but that Joseph might kill, imprison or enslave them if Jacob wasn’t.
Joseph of course takes much of this portion to set up the brothers with the best of everything in Egypt, using material means to prove he had forgiven them. Yet the evidence was there that this did little to completely remove the fear of Joseph taking revenge over their treatment of him in Joseph’s youth.
This has me wondering something about the nature of apology and forgiveness. Forgiveness is only as good as the one who believes they are forgiven. If Joseph forgave and the brothers did not believe he forgave them, did he really forgive them? If I Say to someone “I forgive you” do I really forgive them?
There is a whole cycle of course. Mr. Smith for example insults Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones now has the possibility of retaliation or forgiveness. Mr. Smith asks for forgiveness, he repents of his insult. Mr. Jones then had to decide if he is willing to forgive, or retaliate against Mr. Smith. Finally, Mr. Smith has to believe that Mr. Jones meant what he said if he forgives, or prepare for a retaliation.
The problem is if there is any mistrust of either the repenter or the forgiver, the result is mistrust and less openness between Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith. The relationship changes dramatically, and often in a downward spiral. Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith trust each other less and are on guard for the slightest thing that might be hurtful. Even the unintentional become hurtful.
There is one poison which seems to cause this downwards spiral more than most. Some might call it righteousness, but I prefer to think of it as right-ness. Right-ness is the belief that one person’s position is the only right one. It gives a person a perception that their position is a superior one, and thus their in power of the situation. Often however there are many parts to a story or situation and combinations of each provide vastly different perceptions of the situation. A person could be merely clueless but perceived as vindictive for example. Two Right-nesses often make a wrong as people dig into positions. I’ve been guilty of it in the past, as I’m sure many have.
Indeed even the best and brightest have done so. The most tragic story, almost operatic in its sadness concerns the great Talmudic masters R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. R. Yohanan got into an argument with his best friend and brother-in-law Resh Lakish by mentioning his sordid past. Anger, hurt and grief is exchanged, and neither refuses to forgive the other. This all ends up killing Resh Lakish, the guilt and loneliness from the loss of his friend kills R. Yohanan [B.M. 84a]
It is often from the point of rightness that we retaliate. “Someone hurt me and that was wrong – I am right to hurt him back” But often the hurting back affects not only our selves but others as well. Being family, both of their deaths caused grief on R. Yohanan’s sister. She was so upset with her brother over the death of her husband she even verbally attack him too. It becomes sad how quickly these things can get out of hand as the hurt and pain spread else where.
While Midrash has stories about the potential to fall into this trap, Joseph did not. He forgave his brothers and it is important to see how he did.

5. Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that you sold me here; for God did send me before you to preserve life. 6. For these two years has the famine been in the land; and yet there are five years, when there shall neither be plowing nor harvest. 7. And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. 8. So now it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt. [Genesis 45]

And Later, after the death of Jacob,

19. And Joseph said to them, Fear not; for am I in the place of God? 20. But as for you, you thought evil against me; but God meant it to good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. 21. Now therefore do not fear; I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spoke kindly to them. [Genesis 50]

Joseph no longer blamed his brothers. In both instances he insisted that it was God’s doing. He acknowledges both times what they did, and what they thought. He sees the good in the situation and not the bad. Everyone was saved from the famine because they threw him in a pit one day many years. Joseph understood he was in God’s hands, and let the dark emotions go. Anger has no place here. For the brothers it took seventeen years to get that lesson, yet eventually they did too.
I’m sitting here on the first day of 2009 thinking about a lot of thing happening in my life and the world around us that all of that applies. The secular year for me feels a lot like what I might feel at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. In discussing this topic a few days ago on-line I thought of Yom Kippur. If on Yom Kippur atones for our sins, but we do not know if we are forgiven or not, was Yom Kippur worth anything? In ancient days they had that question too. There was a sign from God that the scarlet cord would turn to white to indicate that the people’s sins were forgiven. But today, there seems to be no sign.
For me there is a sign, one I try to use, and one I believe Joseph used. Genesis 20:51 translates more literally as he spoke to their hearts, though we read it as He spoke kindly to them. My personal slogan and way of life is a loose translation of Perkei Avot 1:15 “Learn every day, do more than you say, and greet everyone with a smile” That last is not a false smile of course, it’s a genuine one, and that is the key to Joseph’s words. Showing how genuinely he feels in his warm words to the heart opens up the belief in forgiveness and friendship with his brothers. We can rebuild relationships and maintains the friends we have and create new ones by a simple thing – greet everyone with a warm smile. This is the sign of forgiveness; this is the sign of openness.
In 2009, may you greet everyone with a warm smile, may you move from right-ness, hurt and anger to forgiveness and may your forgiveness lead to strength. May this be true for not just us but the whole planet. Amen.