Ki Tissa 5770:Why are we stupid?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently reading Nicholas Nassim Taleb's Book, The Black Swan, I appreciated one of his themes: we are all stupid, it's part of human nature. The only way we can get any more stupid is to believe otherwise and trust an expert. An expert is just someone who denies, sometimes with really elegant mathematics, how stupid they really are. The Israelites waiting for Moses at Sinai were just as human as you and me. The Midrash points out their great sin was not worshipping the calf, but by calling Moses "this man Moses"(Exodus 32:1) Moses in their eyes is objectified, not a person they knew but a stranger. They also completely forget God, as they believe it was this Moses, not God who brought them out of Egypt. Forty days and they forget everything of the few months before. As will become clear in the book of Numbers, their memory of slavery will get foggier and foggier as they travel in the wilderness, making Egypt from the world of slavery into an enormous buffet. This is of course not Egypt but their desires at the time, their immediate needs. What was their immediate need when Moses did not come down from the mountain? They said to each other about the calf "This is thy god, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt."(32:5) They wanted something or someone to make immediate why they were in the wilderness. The big plan for a people who would span millennia, the longest running religion of any on earth, was not of interest them. Neither was their wish to be the special people of Ha Kadosh Baruch Hu, or the promise of a land to be free and prosperous in.They apparently had no need for Torah, and the answers it would give to those questions. They forgot the power and glory that came before that stupid moment at Sinai, when gold was worshipped instead of God. They needed the immediate and concrete form of something. That need was so great they did a lot of awful things to get it.

I do enough stupid things in my day. I'll totally admit it. I'll leave the toilet seat up, or forget to turn off the light in the closet. I interrupt in the middle of a conversation, and sometimes not listen too well. More than once I've forgotten flowers for a special occasion, and I've definitely eaten a lot of things I really, really shouldn't have. The key to being stupid is the instant fix, or the thing that gets done now the thing within reach, versus the thing we think out the consequences and may be far away. The golden calf was an instant fix. Why was the first rules after the Ten Commandments civil law? God knows we're stupid too, and we need a few laws from from doing really stupid things, like hurting other people or their property. Not that such things stops people of course, but it slows down or deters most. Oddly enough while ethics and law might help stop the stupidity, I think something else does a better job.

While I never mention the golden calf for Ki Tissa, I almost always mention that thing that does work. It's mentioned not once, but twice. It's really a simple word:STOP. In Hebrew it's Shabbat. I believe that truly stopping and doing a bit of nothing for a day does something to you. For one you actually notice beyond the car door or Honi's circle the world around you. You get this time which is only about time to be in relationship with others. And thirdly, if there's anything you want, you may just have to wait to get it. All of this does something that seems to have been impossible for far too many people for thousands of years: actually begin to think. Maybe in the V'shamru, where we read about va'yinafash, God resouling himself by resting, is the key to stopping stupidity. We stop being stupid on Shabbat, if we observe it properly, by bringing some holy soul-rest to ourselves.

Tetzaveh 5770: Esther and Aaron at the -- Roller Derby?

I need to confess something. When I began writing this weeks commentary, I did a review of my previous pieces and they are all thematically a comparison of two people: Esther and the High Priest. Comparing an exiled orphan who intermarried into Persian royalty, then seduced the king to kill his prime minister and make an ordinance to kill anyone who hated Jews is so different than the one man in a generation who can enter the holy of holies of the Temple. they seem like such different people. The reading of parshat Tetzaveh very often directly precedes the reading of Megillat Esther. This year they are almost back to back. I've compared these two several times based on the theme of Tetzaveh, that clothes are more than just something to keep us from being naked. Besides a mere coincidence, why do these two reading so often correspond to each other?

This time however it is not Torah or Megillat Esther I start with, it is my new found love of roller derby. Sweetie, who is a big fan, took me to see the recent movie Whip it, and last month took me to my first bouts at a local university. Strangely enough, I'm hooked on one of the most improbable sports for me to ever be a fan of.

But then, Roller derby is one of the most improbable sports of all time. For those unfamiliar with the modern sport, it appears to me some mutant combination of Speed-skating, Hockey, and football, all played by a bunch of women in revealing tops and fishnets. There are two teams of five on a skating rink. One player on each team, wearing a star on her helmet, is a jammer. She is the one who scores points for her team. The other four are called blockers and try to block the opposing jammer from scoring points. Simply put, a point is scored when a jammer passes a player from the other team. Of course the other team tries to prevent this by blocking or knocking down the jammer in order to prevent her from scoring. The action is fast, and might be best described as a large scale shoving match on wheels.

Besides the game, there are other aspects of Roller derby that make it an interesting sport. The fans are very often a younger, alternative looking set than many sporting events. Unlike any other sport I'd pay money to see, the entire league is a volunteer league. Players, coaches, refs, and all the support staff are there just for the love for the game. Fans have favorite players of course, but unlike any other sport besides professional wrestling, everyone knows a player's track nickname, but rarely their real name. But there is one aspect of the game, one I think most everyone there is attracted to No matter if they are fan or player, is the women who play roller derby appear to be the most comfortable women in their own skins.

Watch any of the Winter Olympics and you will notice something: there is an ideal body form for all of these high performance sports. How much we fit female athletes into a ideal body image is best noted by an annual February tradition: The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue. This year along with the supermodels was several Olympic hopefuls decked out in bikinis. Who is model and who is athlete is hard to tell in these photos. Yet, roller derby girls don't fit this rather artificial ideal. One thought I had watching them line up for a bout was rather startling to me. When I was young and the proverbial 98 pound weakling, I remember being picked last for team sports in Phys ed class. The rare case when I was not was the times we played co-ed. Girls who did not look much different than those on the track, some very small, some very thin, or those who were above average weight were those who were picked last as their looks dictated their athletic ability.On that track those years of being picked last are proven wrong. These are trained athletes who don't fit the model's ideal of an athlete. They are comfortable in rejecting the ideal for the real.

As Purim has become a kids holiday, we often hear a Disney Princess version of a rather R-rated tale. The story which has more twists than a coil of rope starts with an interesting one. Bragging about his wife's beauty, The king of Persia orders his wife, Queen Vashti to come wearing nothing but her crown to the court to show off her beauty. Vashti refuses and ends up executed for her insolence. Now the king needs a new queen, and a search is made for a new one. Women throughout the kingdom are gathered at the palace, sent through beauty treatments, given whatever they want in jewelery, dress and ostentation to get ready for the king. They are eventually sent to the king for a night "interview." If the king likes her he will declare her queen. If not, she is moved from the house of the virgins to the house of the concubines. One Jewish exile, Esther, cared for by her cousin Mordecai is one of the women set to meet the king. Yet she takes advice other women do not:

15. Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had adopted her as his daughter, came to go to the king, she asked for nothing but what Hegai the king’s eunuch, the keeper of the women, advised. And Esther found favor in the sight of all those who looked upon her.[Esther 2]

Esther is described only once as beautiful, but three times as "having found favor" of those who saw her. The word for favor can also mean gracious, and I believe it was Ester's graciousness more than her looks that made the difference:

15. Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had adopted her as his daughter, came to go to the king, she asked for nothing but what Hegai the king’s eunuch, the keeper of the women, advised. And Esther found favor in the sight of all those who looked upon her. 16. So Esther was taken to king Ahasuerus to his royal palace in the tenth month, which is the month Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign. 17. And the king loved Esther above all the other women, and she found grace and favor in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown upon her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti.[Esther 2]

When she later comes to the king in her rather ingenious plot to save her people, she comes unbidden, which could mean a death sentence. The text tells us:

1. And it came to pass on the third day, that Esther dressed in royalty, and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, opposite the king’s palace; and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal palace, opposite the gate of the house.2. And it was so, when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she found favor in his sight; and the king held out to Esther the golden scepter that was in his hand. So Esther drew near, and touched the top of the scepter. 3. Then said the king to her, What do you wish, queen Esther? and what is your request? It shall be given to you even to the half of the kingdom.[Esther 5]

While in parshat Tetzaveh we hear of virtually every stitch in Aaron's outfit as the high priest, what Esther wore in front of the king is a bit of a mystery. The word used is royalty, which leaves much to the imagination. The rabbinic opinions differ greatly from a very formal presentation of jewels and dress, to the most common opinion: she was dressed in the spirit of the Divine Presence. I've had the opinion, given the irony that Vashti refused to come in nothing but crown to her husband, that Esther was wearing nothing but the Shechina. Yet, I'm not sure about that anymore. The story does not mention what she wore is because it was not important. Her mere presence in a room, no matter what she was or was not wearing was incredibly intoxicating. Such things only happen to someone who was completely in touch with who they are, who is comfortable in their own skin. Much of this comes from a belief in God, and a sense of humility before God. Yet with Esther's graciousness she was able to turn a genocide decree up side down and execute Haman and his cronies instead.

This week in Tetzaveh there is a lot of detail and a lot that Aaron and anyone in the role of High priest was to wear.

4. And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and an embroidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle; and they shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, and his sons, that he may minister to me in the priest’s office.[Exodus 28]

Later on, God even commands the wearing of underwear.[28:42] Much of these garments contained stones and gold. the hem of the robe was made with gold bells, the ephod epaulets of gold and onyx. The Urim and the Thummim, the breastplate of judgement, was gold and stones, with more gold chain to secure it to the ephod. God begins his instructions for all this with:

2. And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother for glory and for beauty[Exodus 28]

the word kavod, however might mean glory or honor, but it also means heavy and burdensome. The weight of all those accouterments certainly weighed down Aaron. But so did the weight of his responsibility for the sins of everyone else, and the weight of knowing how dangerous it is to be near the inner chambers of the mishkan. In a few weeks we'll read the story of the death of Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu under such circumstances. Even in this portion we hear about all the gold bells on his robe:

35. And it shall be upon Aaron to minister; and his sound shall be heard when he goes in to the holy place before the Lord, and when he comes out, that he should not die.[Exodus 28]

Looking at Aaron as a person, He is a quiet man. This is man who holds his silence after watching his sons die horribly only a few feet away from him. He has only three times in all of Torah he gets his own solo speaking part. In the golden calf incident he speaks twice, and once when he repents for both himself and Miriam after they slandered Moses. While he does not say anything on the death of his sons, when Moses starts getting cranky about not following procedure to the letter after the tragedy, Aaron intercedes. From when we first hear of him after the burning bush until his death, he always plays second fiddle to his younger brother, and sometimes even his sister Miriam. This despite a man who God knows is a good speaker [Exodus 4:14]

Kavod is a weighty honor, with many responsibilities. Some believe that for his acts in the Golden calf incident he was never punished. I think he was -- He was made high priest, the man designated to bear all of the sins of Israel, and to preform his duties exactly right to absolve Israel of those sins, or else he may not survive the ceremony. Tractate Yoma tells the classic story that the high priest, when he went into the Holy of Holies for Yom Kippur has a cord tied around his leg so that if he died or got into trouble they could pull him out. We never know Aaron as a person, but we know what he wears. We know his uniform, and the sanctity and safety measures of his uniform.

Esther and Aaron make up a polarity, though they have much in common. They are the point person saving their people. they also have to do so with the threat of death hanging over them if they should make any mistake. Both have relatives that seem to get all the hero spotlight. Aaron however is defined by his clothes, and Esther by what is under them -- the person she is. Both however are part of our identity, the person we are comfortable being inside and the outer things in our world that define who we are. No one is immune from extreme cold, abrasions, falls and tumbles. Aaron's clothes on one side protected him from the dangers of his job, as does the knee and elbow pads and helmet protect many an athlete. No one is a mind reader either. Without the clothes it becomes difficult to identify someone. Our choices in dress is what will define us to others in that impressionable 90 seconds of first meeting. We will get much of our identity information from clothes. But at the same time how we present ourselves in those clothes is also important. When we show confidence and graciousness, others are confident of us, even interested in being part of our inner circle.

All of this comes down to the roller derby again, and seeing many very interestingly dressed women looking so confident. When buying a season program I got to meet one of the players, decked out in full All-star uniform. I got two impressions as she towered over me in helmet elbow pads, and short shorts with fishnets as the other woman in the booth sold me my program. The first was how much I would never want to fight with her, but the other was one of her grace and confidence, and that was the driving force behind the first.Going back to my seat to watch the end of the first half, I thought of her and Aaron and Esther. She is neither a queen or a priest, but embodied both Aaron and Esther. Maybe that is what I like the most about roller derby. At least in the current set of local bouts, the game isn't about winning, though one team does win. It's about being an all-together person, something so lacking in our sports heroes or leaders today. I can remember Ester and Aaron and those girls on the track to remind me that it is possible to be an all-together person.

Teruma 5770: Why build the Mishkan?

This week, God tells Moses that the Israelites should bring free-will offerings of various precious raw materials to build the Mishkan, then proceeds to give rather detailed instructions on how to build not only the tent itself, but all of the utensils that go into it, including the ark, menorah and offering tables. This description is so long it will continue into next week's portion. Yet there is a nagging question: why do this? Torah gives a simple explanation, yet one that is somehow not satisfying:

8. And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.9. According to all that I show you, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all its utensils, so shall you make it.[Exodus 25]

The Simple explanation is that this is where God will dwell. Yet God is clearly omnipresent, even in one of God's many nicknames "the Place" HaMakom (המקום) do we find the idea of this. God is one place because God is all places. If God is all places, how could one place be more special than another? Some modern Jewish thinkers, as did Abraham Joshua Heschel in The Sabbath reject Judaism as a religion of place, but instead one of time. God is eternal too, but time is marked with reminders of specific dates which we use to remember events. Purim reminds is of the events of the book of Esther, Passover the Exodus from Egypt.
It's interesting to note something else: these are directions for the Mishkan, not the later Temple. Dimensions and other details are derived for the Temple from this text but God commands directions explicitly for the Mishkan, not the temple. Like we will read later in Exodus when Betzalel puts the Mishkan together, I Kings only chronicles the construction Solomon initiated four hundred and eighty years later. The Temple was wood and stone, a rather permanent structure. The Mishkan wasn't: it was cloth, poles and sockets and thus portable. Until the time of David and Solomon, it moved around. It was not stuck in one place.
Place, however is tangible -- time far from it. Even the things marked by time happen in a reference place. Yet this reference place itself is relative to the one observing by remembering that event. The Mishkan was there for every Shabbat, wherever it was in the wilderness or in the land of Israel. In ancient times, The Passover sacrifice could always be performed right at the Mishkan. With the destruction of the temple, as Resh Lakish, R. Johanan and R. Eleazar all said

While the Temple still stood, the altar used to make atonement for a man, but now that the Temple no longer stands a man's table makes atonement for him.[Ber 55a, Men 97a,Hag 27a]

The place of either the Mishkan altar or a dining room table changes depending on who is having an Erev Shabbat or Passover Seder. Places can act a reference to other things, even when place is not absolute.
I spent last weekend in a place where Sweetie once lived. She left this place to be with me. So we went back and visited -- and connected with friends. It was not a lot of spending time in place, but in relationship with people. It was activating memory for Sweetie, with every description of a place or an event at a street corner, shoreline or store. We even stopped in a few places of import to both of us: the breakfast restaurant she frequented every Saturday and the coffee shop she drank most of her caffeine in. Both places, during my visits to her became customary stops for both of us, cherished by both of us. To be there is to remember our other visits and the thing we ordered on their menus. It also is to be ready to go back for even more visits, to remember the past and make new memories.
The Mishkan is not about a place. It is about memory and relationship. Purim and Passover, for example are very different when celebrated in a group or alone. There is more meaning in the relationships generated at a synagogue Purimspiel than a private reading at home. A big Seder may be a lot of work and preparation, but it also is extremely rewarding in the relationships we strengthen at the Seder table. Each interaction creates new and precious memory.
God is infinite, yet finite amounts of God are in each of us. The Perkei Avot tells us

If three have eaten at one table, and speak there words of Torah, it is as if they had eaten at the table of HaMakom, Blessed be He, as it is said, "This is the table before the Lord" [Avot 3:3]

This and Avot 3:6 point to the idea of synthesis which brings God closer. The old joke about two Jews three opinions always make me think the third opinion is God's. The more people, the more we gain aspects of God, of HaMakom, in one place.
The Mishkan, as a temporary structure, was one that could and did move frequently. It was, most of all, a focal point. When encamped the people surrounded it. When marching its components were at the center of the ranks. When it was time to celebrate Passover, Shavuot, or Sukkot, everybody knew exactly where to assemble. The Mishkan was a place of assembly, and a place to get into relationship with everyone else. Within that relationship we gain memory, and revive memory of previous events. With those memories, we remember God, what God has done for us. We thus cause God to dwell with us and within us.

Mishpatim 5770: Why 'these three things'?

This week we have a rapid fire succession of mitzvot involving civil and criminal litigation, though ending with the calendar of festivals. Near the beginning of this vast number of rules there is a the discussion of having slaves and the proper way of keeping them. For the female slave there is an interesting verse:

10. If he takes for himself another wife; her food, her garment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish. 11. And if he does not do these three things to her, then shall she go out free without payment of money.[Exodus 22]

As specific as the rules that make up Mishpatim are, they leave a lot unanswered. Such answers would come through the Oral law, written down in the Mishna and the Gemara, what is know collectively as the Talmud. the rules of jurisprudence and how to try cases involving each of these cases make up a whole order of the Talmud, Nezikin. Yet here and there other orders of the Talmud find their basis in this week's text. In the order Nashin, the rules concerning the relationships of women and men and marriage. We have the commentaries on these rules.

The rabbis quickly connected slavery with marriage. Contemporary minds might scoff at that, that wives were nothing more than slaves, but the point of this passage in Mishpatim was the exact opposite. Female slaves were elevated to a responsiblity level for a man as if he had a wife. The rabbis derive this that 22:10 refers to the slave as "another wife." A slave could be treated a lot worse than a wife, but is put on a equal footing.

The implication of this is that all women under the power of man either by buying her or marrying her are guaranteed three basic needs. While this might seem simple for the first two it is not as simple as it seems. The phrase in Hebrew is Sh'airah, c'sutah, and onatah. But these a difficult words to translate, and the rabbis in Ketubot 47b debate their meaning. In its most literal sense the first word Sh'airah would be her remnant, or her flesh. the second word, c'sutah means covering or clothes, but sometimes used as a word for gift. Finally there is Onatah, which oddly enough means her affliction. None of these words make sense, and so are open to clarification by the rabbis. Flesh, most rabbis decide means food, a covering means clothing, and her affliction means the affliction found in the curse of Eve:

16. To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply the pain of your child bearing; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you. [Genesis 3]

The rabbis came to the conclusion the the desire for sexual satisfaction was not strongest in a man, but in a woman, so much so she suffers because of it. The only way to relieve it was to have orgasms. The rabbis were so adamant on this, they even created a timetable for providing a woman with satisfaction depending on a man's profession.

Students may go away to study the Torah, without the permission [of their wives for a period of] thirty days; laborers [only for] one week. The times for conjugal duty prescribed in the Torah are: for men of independence, every day; for laborers, twice a week; for ass-drivers, once a week; for camel-drivers, once in thirty days; for sailors, once in six months. These are the rulings of R. Eliezer [M. Ketubot 5:1]

Some of the rabbis combined 'her flesh' and 'her suffering' and come up with a second idea - you gotta have sex naked:

R. Joseph learnt: Her flesh implies close bodily contact, viz, that he must not treat her in the manner of the Persians who perform their conjugal duties in their clothes. This provides support for [a ruling of] R. Huna who laid down that a husband who said, ‘I will not [perform conjugal duties] unless she wears her clothes and I mine’, must divorce her and give her also her kethubah.[Ketubot 48a]

Where that leaves us is a Torah passage which means a wife must be given food, clothing and sex or else she has grounds for divorce. I've written more about Onatah before, but there is another question that nags me: why these three? Is this the basic needs of a human being or of a woman? What about shelter, or of less hard things like learning and creativity? Sex is one thing, but what about love and emotional support? What else could be considered basic needs?

For the most obvious physical need, shelter, we do have an obvious answer. Her covering does not just apply to clothes, but also to shelter as well, a covering of a roof over her head. If following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, all others of a higher order are not required for the husband to provide. I have yet to find much about these higher needs of women in the tradition, and from what I have read our view of wives and slaves comes full circle: beyond basic needs wives have little needs -- relationship between men and women are not required.

Yet when we break those assumptions in our contemporary world and break the mould of who is in a partnership or marriage, we need to re-evaluate this. While I've thought about this a lot theoretically, it is only this year I am finally blessed to think of it from the view of living it. Form that view I believe two things. First is that as the role of husbands and wives have changed, it is no longer the mans responsibility to provide these things but the couple's. Both provide for the other. At any given time, there might be inequalities, like one working while the other goes to school, but in the end, it will all balance out. I've know many a couple, who have one spouse working to support the couple in order to allow their partner to achieve their dreams -- often with a possibility of switching off in some time in the future. Often I believe people percieve this idea of equality is too short term -- that both need to be equal in the instant observed, when it may be there are some long term investments to make that so, or even to switch off pursuing a higher dream.

That brings us to the second belief of mine. Onata does not mean merely physical sex needs, it is far grander than that.Onah is an affliction, one I have felt for so many years myself. Maybe I first noticed it fourteen years ago, how lonely and empty the single life is. Some of my friends reminded me of this recently with Valentines day coming. It is hard to be single. I' ve felt that affliction all too much myself. Yet in the last year I know what the absence of Onah is, having that gap filled. Onata is the need for all of the higher needs we have: validation, appreciation, emotional support. It is the shoulder to cry on after a bad day, it is the ear to listen to stores of the day's adventures. It is the mouth that kisses for no apparent reason, and tells how wonderful their partner is. It is the arms that hug, it is the eyes which cry together, and even once in a while the voices clearing the air in an argument. it is learning together and exploring together, it is found in gifts of plush animals and flowers. . It is being loved by your partner and loving back with all your heart and all your might. Love fulfills all the higher needs.

I give give sweetie flowers, chocolate and plush stuffed toys to say that I love her. I might give her a message every once in a while to say how I love her. Mishpatim is a set of rules, of mitzvot. Most make sense. Some are about the relationship between human beings, some about our relationship between man and God. Some seem to have no reason, like not mixing milk with meat. In our observance of each commandment, we are saying "I love you" to God, we are giving the spiritual equivalent of a rose or chocolate truffle. Like a gift to our sweetie, it needs to be done with the right attitude, not a cold "here!", but with joy and warmth and showing our love. I think the relationship between committed intimate partners and between God and Humanity is parallel. Both feel Onah, an affliction of being without the other. Only through loving each other can that emptiness in Onah be filled.

May we fill it with our partners, may we fill it with Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

Yitro 5770: Is Art Idolatry?

In this weeks portion Moses father in law teaches Moses delegation, then the people get prepared for the big event: the revelation at Sinai, starting with the Ten Commandments. One of the ten, mentioned in many more places afterwards is this:

4. You shall not make for you any engraved image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;[Genesis 20]

This has brought up a question that has bothered people for generations afterwards. Is what an artist does a transgression?
As an artist, this is not a trivial question for me. As I usually paint figures of women, is this some form of idolatry I'm involved in? Figurative work adds a bit more weight to the problem, since Genesis states

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

If God made man in the image of God, so any figurative work, any portrait is the image of God. This issue creates a ban concerning portraits found in the Talmud.

Why then has it been taught: All portraits are allowed, save the portrait of man? — R. Huna the son of R. Idi replied: From a discourse of Abaye I learnt: ‘Ye shall not make with me’ [implies], ye shall not make Me.6[RH 24b]

Key in this is another passage about making idols found immediately after the ten commandments, and also part of this week's portion:

20. You shall not make with me gods of silver, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold[Exodus 20]

The rabbis, noted an exception :

A man may not make a house in the form of the Temple, or an exedra in the form of the Temple hall, or a court corresponding to the Temple court, or a table corresponding to the [sacred] table or a candlestick corresponding to the [sacred] candlestick, but he may make one with five or six or eight lamps, but with seven he should not make, even of other metals.[RH 24a-b]

Therefore if something was not a direct replica, it may not be considered an idol. Possibly if there is some level of abstraction, then it is not a prohibited image. Pure geometry, as in Islamic design, would be permissible. Archaeological evidence might seem to contradict this. Abstraction seemed to be common in the Biblical Levant. Yet, by rabbinic times abstraction was not the only game in town. The Greco-roman aesthetic was less abstract and far more realistic.
The commandment seems to make an assumption, that all art is religious art. Yet the rabbis living in that Roman world saw things differently. All trees were not Ashera, and all figures were not idols. The most notable of these statement we have the following story from the Mishna:

Proclos, son of a philosopher, put a question to R. Gamaliel in Acco when the latter was bathing in the bath of Aphrodite. He said to him, it is written in your Torah, and there shall cleave nought of the devoted thing to thine hand; [Deut. XIII, 18] why are you bathing in the bath of Aphrodite?’ He replied to him, we may not answer [questions relating to Torah] in a bath.When he came out, he said to him, ‘I did not come into her domain, she has come into mine. Nobody says, the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite; but he says, Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath. Another reason is, if you were given a large sum of money, you would not enter the presence of a statue reverenced by you while you were nude or had experienced seminal emission, nor would you urinate before it. But this [statue of Aphrodite] stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it. [in the Torah] it is only stated, their gods — i. e., what is treated as a deity is prohibited, what is not treated as a deity is permitted.[Avodah Zarah 44b]

R. Gamaliel believes there is different intents for making a statue of even a goddess like Aphrodite. The primary purpose of the place was to bathe, not to worship. The Aphrodite images were in the margin as decoration. So much in the margin that the toilets were under the statue, hardly a sign of respect one would make of a goddess. As such disrespect is a constant, this could not be considered an idol.
In my modern mind, to connect art and idolatry one must first decide what is art, and that alone is difficult. But the verse above makes an assumption for the most part. Making something into an idol means you intend it to be an idol or a representation of an object. If an piece of art loses all symbolic value in its abstraction, say a Jackson Pollack painting for example, can it be an idol? Can a detailed piece with lots of symbol, like the ceiling in the Sistine chapel be an idol then?
When I paint, I get around the idolatry problem with a twist on the symbolic approach. I've yet to come up with a general solution, since anything might be turned into an idol. When I paint I am abstract enough that I cannot be considered real, yet even then it is not what I am painting that is important to me, but that I am painting and how I am painting. The process of art is far more important than the final product. In that time of close focus and deep attention, I am in a state akin to meditation, but not in worship of the object in front of me. Instead I am witnessing a creation of the Creator. When I look at a female model I do not see a goddess, but some great creation of God. One of the most poignant passages in Talmud say it best

For if a man Strikes many coins from one mould, they all resemble one another, but the supreme King of kings, The Holy One Blessed be He, Fashioned every man in the stamp of the first Man, and yet not one of them resembles his fellow. [Sanh 37b]

Since each man in therefore the image of God, I am looking in each model at a glimpse of part of God, and of God's greatness that every model I use is different, even though we are all the same. I am not making an idol, I am recording a miracle. To note the difference in a nose, and eyebrow or lips, shoulders chest and arms all says the same thing: while the original mold is the same, everything that comes out of it is so very different. Oscar Wilde once quipped "if you want to lose a friend, paint their portrait." Painting people means the artist will see everything, and record everything. Sometimes they might edit as they go along, sometimes not. Often such a process might show someone different than the model or subject expected, and may not even like. But an artist looks at people differently than a mere object. But each woman I paint, either from life or from photo reference is more than a mere picture, I see more of her than most who ever look at her will. Witnessing that and recording that is a testimony to God and what wonders there are in creation.
Such an answer may not be acceptable to everyone, but it works for me. Now if you excuse me, I'd like to paint.

B'shelach 5770: The Frst Shabbat Revisited.

Sometimes when I write these thing I’m not sure what to write about, because there is too much going on in the portion. This is one of those weeks. We start with the Israelites leaving Egypt going the long way, so the Israelites don’t meet the Philistines and get discouraged by war. Not like they don't see it looming: They get themselves sandwiched between Pharaoh’s whole army and the Red Sea, only to have a miracle save them. On the other side of the Red Sea, the people, and in a rare occurrence in biblical text, even the women led by Miriam, dance in joy. They sing that God is good, in their words mi chamocha, “who is like you?”, because he’s so good at turning live people and animals into waterlogged corpses. From there, the people complain about the water and food, when miracles save the day, including the incredible food substance Manna. God also introduces Shabbat observance by commanding that a double portion of manna be taken on the six day, as he doesn’t cook on Shabbos. To end the portion, we are introduced to Joshua, who repels an Amelakite attack with the help of God, Moses and two very tired arms.

There’s too much going on. Five years ago I wrote this original piece where I complained about how busy I am in grad school. I also wrote about Trying to talk about the triumphal Song at the Sea after the Tsunami in southeast Asia seemed in a little bad taste. Five years later, It's Haiti. Five years on what I'm busy with has changed but I'm still busy, and very blessed in what I'm busy with. With Sweetie in my life there is the stuff of another person to think about, and to care about. As she is now in school, she has a lot to do too. But I wouldn't trade busy that has to do with her for anything. I’m suffering from doing too much, and having even more that needs to be done. Sound familiar to your life? I complained about it five years ago, have complained about it constantly ever since.

In such a environment there is an interesting wrinkle to the miracle of Manna that we read this week:

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…. 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]

For years my “meditation” on Shabbat has been what is best referred to as “recreational translation”. I would spend most of Saturday morning immersed in the Hebrew texts, extracting their meaning. But at that time I was auditing classes, they were not for credit. Somewhere in trying to give the performance needed for credit in graduate-level classes, I lost the joy and holiness of it. THe recreational translation disappeared. Before that, I would make my Shabbat mornings, art mornings. I would do nothing but sit in a Starbuck's and paint for three or four hours.

Within the last few years, I now attend Shabbat services every Saturday morning. Within the last few months, Sweetie and I both attend, and make a big deal about doing so. Prayer has taken over this time, as it has for Jews for millenia. As it is written in the siddur we pray form, the v’shamru tells us that Shabbat is about v’yinafash - God re-souled God by stopping. If an infinite God does that, how much more so a limited human like me! If we never stop, we cannot re-fresh or re-soul ourselves. I, like a lot of people, have forgotten that. Like the manna, I need to just stop working and gathering and sit still for a day. Supposedly, as the Midrash to this portion notes, the messiah would come if all of Israel would just have one good Shabbat.

As I thought about Shabbat, I've not always had a good relationship with Shabbat. When I was in my teens in a conservative synagogue, like many I got a little caught up in the God-victory language found in song of the sea. I remember reading in Friday nights Psalm 92, one of the psalms for Shabbat:

8. When the wicked spring like grass, and when all the evil doers flourish; It is that they shall be destroyed forever; 9. But you, O Lord, are most high for evermore. 10. For, behold, your enemies, O Lord, for, behold, your enemies shall perish; All the evil doers shall be scattered.

My experience in those days were so different. Somehow, my enemies weren’t God’s enemies. Because when I invoked these words, I still got beaten up by bullies. Sometime in High School, after getting pulverized by two students because I was wearing a cheap knock-off of the then status symbol Izod shirts, I stopped believing in God. It just seemed that God didn’t care about me. Of course many have said that about bigger nightmares than just a bully, for example the Holocaust. Where was God when I needed Him? Where was God when we needed him?

At one point in writing the earlier version of this five years ago, I was in Starbuck’s, and noted something written as part of the wallpaper of the store. “Do I need you or you need me, things have come full circle.” The covenant with God is two way, and I have come about to a different person than the one I was back in High School. That change in me makes me think about the odd food Manna. A food from a divine origin does not show up on the Sabbath. In short, we don’t get anything on the Sabbath.Instead, we get Nothing - and that’s a good thing. The Sabbath really is for our personal rest, to just stop for a day of true Nothing, even from God in one sense. The Shabbat Amidah reflects this by cutting out a lot of blessings and petitions said during the week.

But those quotes about enemies? I realized my enemy is not an external one, It’s the one I see in the mirror every morning, my own yetzer ha ra. The enemy springs up like the grass because I'm sort of attached to him. It’s that voice that tells me to just keep doing even when it is a time to stop doing. Its the voice that get me up at 4:30 in the morning to do an extra three hours of work even before I go into the office, even on Saturday when I'm not going into the office and supposed to be resting.It's the part of me that just doesn't stop.

The constant enemy of Israel, Amalek actually attacks right after that manna and the first commandment for Shabbat. And the text gives an interesting thought - Amalek picks off the weak, and Amalek prevails when Moses' arms get tired. Only the efforts of others to keep his arms up wins the day. When we are tired the enemy grows stronger, and we get weaker. When we actually rest, we get stronger and prevail. I work very, very hard and wonder why things seem to be slipping away from me. The answer of course is simple, but one that will takes the Israelites a long time to find: I don’t really ever stop, even on Shabbat.

In a world of deadlines and consistent urgent request for immediate assistance it is not easy to just take a day off. For some it’s the difference between the next meal and no meal, at least in their perception if not in fact. But like the manna that doesn’t show on Shabbat, all that work is futility if we don’t stop, rest and continue refreshed. Even a meal is worthless if we drop dead from exhaustion.

I rambled a bit this week, for which I apologize, but it’s been that kind of week. So this week, and every week, may you have a great Shabbat. I’m certainly going to try for one myself. While complaining about doing too much hasn't changed in five years where I am this Shabbat has. Five years ago I had a date with a drum, a camera and some recreational translation. This shabbat I have a day-long date with my beloved Sweetie.


Blessed be the difference. I am certainly blessed for it.

Bo 5770:Circumcised for Passover

I have a question, but no answer, Can you help? I began by investigating one word, but it took me indirections I didn't plan.

This week 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 beforehand. God gives a set of directions to first chain up then kill a lamb as an assembly, eating it all in the night of the plague, and spreading its blood on the doorposts of the houses of the Israelite 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. After the Israelites leave we read.

17. And you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread; for in this same day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt; therefore shall you observe this day in your generations by an ordinance forever. 18. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty first day of the month at evening.
19. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses; for whoever eats that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a stranger, or born in the land. 20. You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall you eat unleavened bread. [Exodus 12]

The people leave Egypt, and shortly after they camp for the night, God says to them:

43. And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the Passover; No stranger shall eat of it; 44. But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then shall he eat of it. 45. A foreigner and a hired servant shall not eat of it. 46. In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry anything of the meat out of the house; neither shall you break a bone of it. 47. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48. And when a stranger shall sojourn with you, and will keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one who is born in the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. 49. One law shall be for him who is native born, and for the stranger who sojourns among you. [Exodus 12]

Three words stuck out. Uncircumcised(ערל) stranger גר and alien נכר Now I have problems with these words since my own family's passover celebrations often include non Jews. What's more, while we may not be completely observant, I've been to Orthodox Seders where there were non-Jews present. They are, to say the least, a lot of fun. What is the case here, and what is and isn't allowed for particularly the uncircumcised? What does Uncircumcised mean, and why are they prohibited from eating the passover sacrifice?


King David, interestingly, mentions it in two circumstances. Once before he takes down Goliath:

26. And David spoke to the men who stood by him, saying, What shall be done to the man who kills this Philistine, and takes away the reproach from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?[I Sam 17]


36. Your servant slew both the lion and the bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he has defied the armies of the living God.

After this, he never uses the term again, until he eulogises Saul, disparaging those who defeated and desecrated Saul's body.

19. The beauty, O Israel, is slain upon your high places; how are the mighty fallen!
20. Tell it not in Gath, proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.[II Sam 1]

Interestingly during the entire time he was on the run form Saul, flitting in and out of Philistine territory and even settling in Ziklag under the philistines, he never use this term. It seems to be a derogatory term for foreigner. Ezekiel also seems to use such a term as foreign.


Yet the rabbinic Aramaic version Targum Jonathan to the Torah adds to circumcised not able to eat the passover sacrifice, "the uncircumcised who are Jews", a reflection found in the Talmud as well. This refers back to Genesis 17:14 notes that a male born of Jewish parents if not circumcised is to be cut off from his people since he broke the covenant. The ancient rabbis seem to have played on that to understand what is uncircumcised.

I for one have not come up up with any good answers here, but do have questions:

• What does uncircumcised mean?
• What is being foreign in this context?
• Does foreign really prohibit participation in Passover?
• Does foreign really prohibit participation in Jewish ritual in general?
• What is the line of prohibition of participation?
• If you feel passionately about this, why do you feel that way?

I've gotten some really interesting answers, now I'd like yours.

Va-eira 5770: The missing plague

This week we begin the plagues yet before we do we get the genealogy of Moses, and Mose's and Aaron's confrontation of snakes and staffs with Pharaoh sorcerers. One interesting aspect of this week's portion is how it reflects what happens in front of the burning bush last week inParshat Shemot. Last week we read

' 2 And the LORD said unto him: 'What is that in thy hand?' And he said: 'A rod.' 3 And He said: 'Cast it on the ground.' And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it. 4 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Put forth thy hand, and take it by the tail--and he put forth his hand, and laid hold of it, and it became a rod in his hand-- [exodus 4]

Then in this weeks portion:

And the LORD spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying: 9 'When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying: Show a wonder for you; then thou shalt say unto Aaron: Take thy rod, and cast it down before Pharaoh, that it become a serpent.' 10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so, as the LORD had commanded; and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent. [Exodus 7]

Similarly we have God commanding Moses to turn water into blood.

9. And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these two signs, nor listen to your voice, that you shall take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land; and the water which you take from the river shall become blood upon the dry land.[Exodus 4]

Later the fist plague begins

19 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Say unto Aaron: Take thy rod, and stretch out thy hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their streams, and over their pools, and over all their ponds of water, that they may become blood; and there shall be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.' 20 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood. [Exodus 7]

While there are Differences between pouring out of a jar and striking the Nile, water to blood remains the same. Between these two is another thing Moses is told to do:

6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him: 'Put now thy hand into thy bosom.' And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, as white as snow. 7 And He said: 'Put thy hand back into thy bosom.--And he put his hand back into his bosom; and when he took it out of his bosom, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.-- 8 And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign.[Exodus 4]

This has no parallel in this weeks portion. In all the plagues there is no mention of tzarat, the strange disease which might inflict the people. It's next appearance will be in Leviticus where diagnosis, isolation and treatment procedures will be scrupulously detailed.
Tzarat does eventually show up of course, but not until the book of Numbers, almost two years from the time of leaving Egypt.

10 And when the cloud was removed from over the Tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow; and Aaron looked upon Miriam; and, behold, she was leprous.[Numbers 13]

Why did Moses stretch out his rod to start the plague of blood? What did he do when his hand became tzarat? I believe these two questions are related. Why wait until deep in the desert for tzarat to show up?

Moses original question was essentially "what if they don't believe me?" In Parshat Shemot, it might well have been Moses who in some small way doubted he could complete the mission and the three wonders there where for his benefit. The Staff to snake were for the court of Pharaoh, and that went unexpectedly well when the Aaron's staff ate the other staffs. The blood to water however, wasn't private with a water pitcher, but but all of Egypt by spreading a staff across the water.

If spreading the staff over the Nile was a public act. Placing one heart on one's chest is a private, intimate one. The plague was a private one too, inflicting a family member, Miriam. It happened in a moment where she had doubts about Moses' authority. According to the rabbinic interpretation, one easily seen in the way God defends Moses' actions, Miriam's doubts was about little brother's ability to prophesy. At the heart of the argument according to the Rabbis, was Moses determination to keep celibate since he knew the people were prepared to receive the word of God by being celibate three days before Sinai. He figured someone like himself who could be called at any moment by God needed to be prepared at all times. Miriam didn't trust this argument, believing he should not be celibate as the Torah mandates, and it was that lack of belief that caused the tzarat.

There are wonders both big and small, public and private. Sometimes they are plagues and bad things happening to people. Like a lot of Torah columns this week I struggle with talking about the plagues in the shadow of Haiti's earthquake. The extending of the staff, the large widespread plague, doesn't happen often, more likely in my mind is natural disasters just happen, and what we do in their aftermath is what we are judged on. We make a disaster a plague, or we do what is necessary to mitigate the damage and prevent more. Hurricane Katrina always sticks in my mind of both how badly we sometime fail, and how wonderfully we sometimes put our own lives aside to help others. Yet it is that missing plague from this week that speaks to me, for that is all to easy to happen under the best of circumstances. Losing faith in the ones we love is eerily easy, and hurting the ones we love because of that is easy too. I truly believe Moses never wanted to hurt his sister. Some situations get out of hand between family and friends, those close to our hearts.

Sometimes, sadly, the damage is irreparable. But more often, if we understand what we are doing, both parties can try to change things for the better.

Shemot 5770: What if Moses was Just Middle Class?

This week we begin the story of Exodus. The Israelites are enslaved, Moses is born, and eventually ends up confronting Pharaoh to let his people go.
That’s the short version. This is one of those stories where a lot of midrash has been written. There is a story from the Passover haggdah, taken from the Talmud, of many brilliant rabbis that met at Beni Brak for Passover. Their seder went on and on, while they discussed all night the Passover story, not realizing that it was already dawn until their students interrupted. Such a story is significant here. There is enough material just in Moses’ origins to keep people busy for a lifetime.
Interestingly enough, Hollywood had more then once stepped up to the plate. IN both the Epic The Ten Commandments” and the animated “The Prince of Egypt” much of the story fits in between Exodus 2:9 and 2:11.

9And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her: 'Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages.' And the woman took the child, and nursed it. 10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said: 'Because I drew him out of the water.' 11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown up, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens; and he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren.

Note here there is no palace intrigue, no love interests or triangles, and even no mention of even a friendship or rivalry with Rameses. The only mention of Rameses is a storage city named back in 1:11. It is assumed that since kings name cities after themselves, Rameses was one of the kings during the slavery.
It is also interesting to note a little point about Hebrew grammar. Due to the way the possessive phrase Pharaoh’s daughter is put together, it may mean a daughter of Pharaoh. Pharaoh may have had many daughters. Whether this one was important or not is again a matter to imagination or midrash.
I point this out because there is an archetypal story, which seems to be missed by both traditional midrash and Hollywood. Moses may have been nothing special growing up. He was a plain vanilla upper-class kid, isolated from the horrors of the world. It was when he went out to his brothers, when he saw what really happens, that he changed.
There are many fictional and true accounts of similar events. One I haven’t got out of my mind lately is the white truck driver who listened and started to play black music, particularly the Blues, in a time and place of intense racism. If Elvis Presley hadn’t listened and played that music, would rock and roll ever have been what it is today? There is the story of the young Indian attorney, who enjoyed privilege, but when he tried to take a first class train In South Africa, was thrown off merely for the color of his skin. I wonder what would have happened in India and Pakistan without Mahatma Ghandi getting thrown off that train. As bad as the situation there now, it probably would have been a lot worse without him.
Many of us can think of similar events in our own lives, when we realized someone wasn’t as well off as we were and wanted to do something about it. We did two things, we recognized who our brothers are, and we saw their burden. Then we wanted to act.
For me it was on a public bus from Playa Del Carmen to Merida, across the Yucatan peninsula. Sitting next to chickens, turtles, nursing babies and many different people during a blinding rainstorm, I think I understood a lot better what the third world thinks. Walking through the real mercados of Mexico, not the tourist ones, with their fly encrusted meats, I understood how everyone couldn’t just go to the local supermarket and buy vaccum-packed meats. It was also taking the metro and public transportation through Moscow and what was then Leningrad. It wasn’t the great monuments or statues or the Moscow circus that got me. It was the bullet holes in the Leningrad buildings left over from WWII nobody’s bothered to fix. It was talking to some students from a school of English. It was watching Russian television report every protest in the U.S. was another Kent State (and showing the same clip of Kent State for each of these). It my tour guide’s joy at finally getting the lyrics to a Stevie Wonder song she had only heard as a melody. I realized how little we know of each other, and how much the Soviet Union’s, now Russia’s biggest motivation is never to be invaded again, to always be safe, even if freedom is the price.
But unlike Moses, we need to act constructively, not destructively. Moses definitely has a temper. His first action when he finally realizes the horrors his brothers live, like many terrorists, is to kill someone. And it isn’t long until Pharaoh wants him dead. He flees into the desert to learn and be a normal person again. But at some point he finds the burning bush. And very reluctantly, he once again takes action- this time with a direct appeal to Pharaoh. No tricks this time, no snakes like the movies- that would come later. Just an appeal to go worship God.
Unfortunately, like most first requests, this request fails. We now set up the conflict to come between Pharaoh and Moses, and the plagues, which seem destructive themselves. And here we will pick up next week.

Vayechi 5770: Groundhogs and Brothers.

In this week’s portion, the last of Genesis, We enter the scene 17 years later. Jacob is dying, and performs some tasks he has not yet done. First he has Joseph promise to bury him in the cave of Machpelah back in Canaan. Jacob also blesses Joseph's sons as though they are his own. Finally, he gathers all of his sons together, says a little something about them and dies. The brothers, who are still agitated, try to make sure Joseph won’t get even with them, but Joseph re assures them. The Parshat ends with the death of Joseph after he sees three generations of his family.

One of my favorite movies is Groundhog Day with Bill Murray and Andie McDowell. The story is of a cranky, spoiled weatherman sent to cover the festivities in Pauxtawney PA on Groundhog Day. However, he keeps waking up on the same Feb 2, remembering everything from the previous day. No matter what he does, he keeps reliving the day over until he gets it right, and wins the heart of the Andie McDowell character.

I can’t help thinking of Groundhog Day when I think of Genesis. The whole book has a theme which everyone keeps getting wrong, which strings together almost every story. It is not till the very last chapters that Jacob and sons finally get it right. With that, the book concludes.

In every major story in Genesis there is always a story of the preferred son, which always leads to a disaster from other sons. To review:

• [Genesis 4:1-8] Abel's sacrifice was accepted and Cain’s wasn't. Cain killed his younger brother.
• [Gen. 21] Isaac is accepted to continue the covenant and Ishmael isn’t. Ishmael makes sport of his little bother, and gets himself and his mom banished.
• [Gen. 25:27-34, Gen. 27] Jacob cons the blessing and birthright out of his brother and father. Esau vows to murder him, but Jacob flees to his uncle Laban in Padan-Aram.
• [Gen. 37]Joseph is the spoiled favorite of his father to the detriment of his other sons. Joseph gets sold into slavery. But after almost losing several sons in this last exchange, Jacob changes. He no longer follows the pattern.

As we have seen in both the Abraham and Isaac stories, Abraham and Isaac prefer their older child, Ishmael and Esau, to their younger. But by the end of each story it is the younger child that receives the blessing. But in our potion Jacob intentionally blesses the younger before the older [Gen. 48:13-19]. He places his hand on the wrong grandkids for the blessing, and Joseph, disturbed by this interjects that he is doing it wrong. But Jacob says, I imagine with an understanding smile, "I know, my son I know"[Gen. 48:19]

When all of his sons are finally together, he does not pick out one specific son to say is better than the rest. Instead, he gives a comment about each one, not accord to their status or birthright, but to their temperament and merit. Some like Judah, who redeemed himself after initial errors of judgment in how he dealt with Tamar and Joseph, are praised as a lions' cub [Gen 49:8-12]. Some like Rueben who made serious lapses in judgment and temper, are blessed for past performance, but are cursed for the future.

All of this leads to one particular concept- Jacob treated his sons as people who made choices, instead of treating them according to things not in their control, like their birth order or mother.

The Talmud says of Jacob [Taanit 5a] that "Jacob didn’t die," that he lived on in his seed, which are his children. But the Ishbitzer Rebbe says that seed is a little different. That in his last seventeen years, when all of his children more or less got along, he had a taste of heaven in this world, and thus was spared the transition between this world and the next, that transition being death. That taste of heaven is reflected in this address to his sons. They are no longer honored by birthright but by merit, and thus sense of equality which brings harmony occurs.

Why does the text not end then with the death of Jacob, but with the death of Joseph? There is still one unresolved issue. Did Joseph reveal himself to his brothers did not yet forgive them? The brothers did not admit their wrongs to Joseph, they simply said that their brother was killed by an animal, [Gen. 44:20,44:28,42:13] which both Joseph and his brothers knew to be false. This lie continues until Jacob’s death when the brothers fretted about their fate. Then they apologized, but by that time Joseph had indeed forgiven. They live together as peacefully as brothers can until Joseph’s death, when the story ends. This is different than the relationship of Jacob and Esau or Isaac and Ishmael. They do get together only bury their respective father after death, and one meeting between Jacob and Esau. Once again we have closure of a pattern- brothers live together peacefully.

In the last chapter, after the death of their father, the brothers, though indirectly, finally apologize to Joseph, and this time Joseph speaks "to their heart” and accepts fully the apology. Rashi believes that Joseph said them additionally "how can one candle extinguish ten candles?" All were different and unique sources of spiritual illumination, and all were needed to increase the light. There is not one special candle: every candle counts.

Joseph was 39 when his brothers first approached him in Egypt and 56 when his father died. Joseph dies at age 110, enough to see three generations of his sons. In that last 54 years he lived peacefully, enjoying family life, and playing with the grandkids. The strain of the families of the past resolved. With that ending, our first book of the Torah ends.

To summarize all of the above, I can only think of one song:

Hine ma tov u'ma-naim shevet achim gam yachad.

How good it is for brothers to live together!

Vayishlach 5770: Dinah's Rape and the Missing Halakah

I lied a few weeks ago. I had mentioned that I was not going to write about myself nor write over 1000 words, yet this week requires me to break both of those. We read many stories this week, starting with Jacob wrestling with an angel, and then the meeting with Esau, and a genealogy of Esau. Yet, in the middle is a story which had both fascinated and plagued me for all eight years I've been writing

1. And Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.
2. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.[Genesis 34]

My story isn't Dinah's but it is close. I was sexually assaulted by five of my fellow seventh graders when I was 13 as some kind of prank. Thirty years later, I'm still trying to make sense of what happened. As I've written before, it was only a kiss, but being pinned down against your will and being kissed on the cheek is not your normal kiss. As I've learned since then, trauma is trauma, violation is violation. It is not just the physical act as much as the emotional and mental component. Some thing, anything done against one's will is wrong, is rape.

In talking to many who either have had my experience and even a few in law enforcement who have had to deal with the victims, I've learned something. the reaction of Jacob to the rape of her daughter is rather common.

5. And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter; and his sons were with his cattle in the field; and Jacob held his peace until they came.[Genesis 34]

He does nothing, he is described as holding his peace. He did not even show he was upset by this. After Simeon and Levi do take things into their own hands and slaughter all the males of the rapist's town, including the rapist Jacob still cant talk about Dinah:

30. And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, You have brought trouble on me to make me odious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and thePerizzites ; and I being few in number, they shall gather together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.[Genesis 34]

Recently, I've had a chance to think about this again. I began to think about Jacob's silence, remembering a rather disturbing discussion a few years ago where I heard many people appalled at a former policeman's comment that getting a testimony from a parent or relative of a rape victim is near impossible. All too often they do as Jacob did and say it was noting, or don't even acknowledge that the victim actually did anything. If they do it is often in the same way as the rapist himself will rationalize the act: Dinah asked for it. Even theMidrash says she asked for it.

R. Berekiah said in R. Levi's name: This may be compared to one who was holding a pound of meat in his hand, and as soon as he exposed it a bird swooped down and snatched it away. Similarly, AND DINAH THE DAUGHTER OF LEAH WENT OUT, and forthwith, ANDSHECHEM THE SON OF HAMOR SAW HER.[Genesis Rabbah LXXX:6]

In some cases, family believe she asked for it so much she is likened to a prostitute. Indeed one Midrash even says "Like mother like daughter". Leah sold the mandrakes in order to have sex with Jacob, and thus her daughter acted like a harlot. [Gen Rabbah LXXX:1] But Her brothers Simeon and Levi's response, while violent and arguably barbaric, was in refutation of this. They respond to their father "Should he deal with our sister as with a harlot?" rejecting that she was. She was family and needed protection ans much as any other family member. Their slaughter ofShechem brought their father's ire against them at the end if Jacob's life, referring to them as "instruments of cruelty" [Gen 49:5] when they did not buythier father's position in protecting a sibling.
There is too many silent voices in the narrative. There is the voice of Dinah, who never speaks. There is a rabbinic interpretation that she married Job, and thus in her own bitterness she told Job to curse God and get it over with. [Job 2:9] There is also the relatively silent voice of Jacob, who only complains about international relations and not his daughter. For many years I've wondered something else. There is an abundance of words by the rabbis, yet besides the financial support issues of a rape victim, the victim is ignored. Talmud attributes a rape as the same thing as minor civil damages in the courts, needing only a court of three. [Sanhedrin 2a] Where is there a guide to heal? The text is strangely silent.
Why it was silent has bothered me. From my own experience I think I know part of the answer. I've been healing for thirty years now, along the way making some very bad steps and mistakes in the healing. In college I dated someone who was raped by a family member. Apparently she kept taking out her pain out on her lovers and abusing them to get even. Yet when I finally realized what she was doing, and broke off the relationship, I found out something else. I was suddenly and totally alone. No one believed me that she abused people, or more specifically me. I was the one in the wrong in my friends opinion, and I was squeezed out of their lives. The last semester of college is one of the most distasteful time in my life. Without my friends of four years, I felt totally alone, and blaming myself for this disaster.
There a silence I've only noted in the past few hours, though it has been there for weeks -- my own. With Sweetie in my life, I'm having a healthier, happier life than I have ever known. Writing today, I realized something about myself. I want to protect her from this part of me, from the damaged part of me. I've never told Sweetie this, because somewhere deep inside I didn't want her to think it's something she did wrong. Instead I instinctively hide inside of me my terror, and panic. I'm sure I'm not the only one who hides their pain from a trusted loved one in silence.
Over and over again there is this nagging silence. There is of course another silence. Most of the current research estimates one six boys will be sexually assaulted in some way before their 18th birthday. Yet until very recently, this was the biggest silence of all, so much so this may be an underestimate. Women can be thought of victims, but men are not allowed in any form to be a victim, particularly around sexuality. To do so is a sense of weakness that family friends and one's individual identity cannot handle, The weak excuses thrown at Dinah, do not work with men the same way they work with women. In men to be sexually assaulted by a woman is almost a fantasy initiation. To be sexually assaulted by a man is to question the survivor's sexual orientation. To bring any of this to the surface is so counter to what society expects of a man, gay or straight there is a horrible silence.
Even the rabbis are caught by this silence, and my 8-year search for Dinah's Halakah, the Halakah of the survivor is a fruitless search. They too did not want to admit such things, and bought the old lines, as shown by Midrash that rapists, and families of rape and abuse victims have used for thousands of years to silence the issue. They go further and intellectualize it, and make it more about commodities than healing the soul. The silence is understandable from them, though not forgivable.
I have found a large component of the Halakah of the survivor by the way. Knowing that the Rabbis were incapable of doing something about it, I moved from the classical sources to my own experience. I've felt the bitterness of the wife of Job, whether she was Dinah or not. She, became so bitter because she could not express what she needed to. There is only one way out of this, and it is mind bogglingly hard to do: find some people you can trust, people who can empathize, and tell them. This is not easy as trust is one of the most shattered things of all in such cases. Walking that path to healing is the only one that works: the silence must be broken, the grief must spill out. It is a difficult path. There will be many who will fail in such trust, many friendships destroyed, as I know too personally. Every time I write about this, I have that fear myself, How many people will now shun me for not being strong enough to subdue four boys who each outweighed me, and one girl's peck on my cheek. How many, in not knowing what to say to me about my experience, in their own discomfort will never talk to me again? How many will say something crass and demeaning? I cannot know, but I have learned it is not good to be silent, it is not good for man to be alone.

Vayetze 5770: What is are Dudaim?

In this week’s portion Jacob is on his way to Uncle Laban's and on his first night out has a dream telling him everything will be all right. He reaches Laban's lands, falls in love with his cousin Rachel, but is tricked into marrying his cousin Leah first. While not desired by Jacob, Leah apparently is far more fertile than her sister Rachel. So the two sisters begin a furious battle with themselves and their concubines trying to chunk out the kids leading to twelve boys and one girl. Rachel is barren though much of this, and halfway through this battle we have an interesting incident involving Leah oldest son Ruben.

14. And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found duda-im in the field, and brought them to his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Give me, I beg you, of your son’s duda-im. 15. And she said to her, Is it a small matter that you have taken my husband? and would you take away my son’s duda-im also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with you to night for your son’s duda-im. 16. And Jacob came from the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, You must come in to me; for I have hired you with my son’sduda-im. And he lay with her that night.[Genesis 30]

Leah apparently gets pregnant from this and Issachar is born, followed by Zebulon and finally Dinah. Rachel remains barren until she give birth to Joseph, At the core of this story is the Duda-im, mentioned only one other place in the text

The duda-im give forth fragrance, and at our gates are all kinds of choice fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for you, O my beloved.[Song of Songs 7:14]

The imagery of 7:11-14 is of two lovers running away to a storage shed full of harvested fruits, which the duda-im give forth fragrance. By rabbinic times there was a debate as to what the duda-im were. Sanhedrin 99b has duda-im as mandrakes, violets, or mandrake flowers, which also are purplish in color. The targums all agree it is a mandrake. Taking apart the word duda-im, we have a root of “DVD” which mean beloved or loving. The –im ending indicates a masculine plural. While the Greeks translated it into “love apples” it may be better described as “Male lovings,” referring to the way the roots of the mandrake split into different parts. Many have noted this tendency and the roots tendency to split into what looks like arms and legs, giving the impression of a human being or small child. Legends that go back at least to Josephus tell of the scream of the Mandrake when harvested which could kill a man if he was too close and that mandrakes were harvested by tying them to a dog and having the dog pull them, though this kills the dog.

However the Josephus legend, further spread by the Harry Potter books, may be partially true, though not of sound but of smell. As the Song of Songs indicates the mandrake gives off a smell, The word in Aramic Yavruchin also has the word for smell as its root. Genesis 30, many legends and herbal medicine all describe the mandrake as an aphrodisiac, and there is some evidence to that. However, freshly pulled root might just give off enough aromatic chemicals to kill someone or seriously injure them in an overdose.
What those chemicals are not only give evidence of an aphrodisiac, but a very dark one. In the mandrake root, there are high, and sometimes lethal amounts of Atropine,Hyoscyamine, and scopolamine, all part of the family of Anticholinergics. While in small dosages these are well known pharmaceuticals for a variety of illnesses and conditions, including gastrointestinal illness and seasickness. In larger quantities they can cause an increased heart rate, dementia and hallucinations. It is this overdose that might be the reason mandrakes are aphrodisiacs, but a very dark one. So dark, Arabs called them the Devils apples. Scopolamine in particular has had a rather dark reputation as both a truth serum and as a date rape drug. Finding Mandrakes in someone’s cupboard in the middle ages was enough to get them burned as a a witch. The pulling of a fresh root might have made for some legendary hallucinations and more than a few deaths when inhaled.
While it is clear that they might be one of the darker aphrodisiacs, since there is no fertility component to the mandrake, what did Rachel want them so desperately for? Was it for her own consumption or someone else’s? I’m still not sure. The rabbinic take on the story is that Leah got the kids out of the deal, and Rachel the mandrake. Rachel however remained barren, and as Rachel says herself when Joseph is born “God has taken away my reproach”[Gen 30:23] It was God that did all this, and none of her badgering or cures could change things. The context of the story was fertility, Jacob’s fertility was obviously not in doubt, but hers was. A psychotropic drug for Jacob to love Rachel doesn’t make sense either, he loved Rachel far more than Leah. Several medieval commentaries out of Spain note that Rueben intended them for his Mother's use to increase her fertility. Maybe Rachel was not only planning to use then herself but prevent Leah form using them, A plan which obviously backfired.

Knowing how a mandrake works and its possibility of being a date rape drug at its darkest use left me with speculation, imagination and not any good answers. Was Rachel, known for her impulsiveness and lack of good behavior also a drug addict, addicted to the scopolamine ? Was she going to use the mandrakes on someone to do something? Was this witchcraft -- mind control of someone to do something? Was Reuben's mistake that lost him the birthright really his doing or a mandrake potion? Was Leah going to try to win the love of her husband through a love potion and gain a unfair advantage over here sister? Or was it the simple explanation that while mandrakes do not increase fertility, she believed they did.
I leave it to you to think about.

Toledot 5769: Who are Judith and Basemath?

This week we have the story of the birth of Esau and Jacob, Jacob’s bargaining Esau out of his birthright for a pot of stew, A short trip to Philistine territory to escape a famine and then Jacob and Rebekah trick Isaac out of the blessing, leading to Jacob leaving for his Uncle Laban more out of a fear for his life than to find a wife. By this point Esau has two wives, and Rebekah uses her disgust with these two wives to have Isaac look for a wife far away among her family in Paddan-Aram.

34. And Esau was forty years old when he married Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite; 35. And they made life bitter for Isaac and for Rebekah.[Gen 26]

Who are these two women, and why were they such a problem? The answer actually makes for even more confusion.When we read the genealogy of Esau

2. Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; 3. And Bashemath Ishmael’s daughter, sister of Nebaioth. [Gen 36]

In Genesis 28:9 Ismael’s Daughter here is Mahalath, not Basemath. Basemath is now Elon’s daughter. Judith is totally replaced by Aholibamah, who apparently have two fathers, one the son of the other (Gen 38:24-25) The problem is most of the major commentaries don’t give us any idea why this situation happens or why there are five women’s names all married to Esau, even though he had only three wives. One could take the documentary hypothesis and call it a case of bad editing of course, but that give us no insights. It take Rashi to make some sense out of it. Basemath and Adah are the same person according to Rashi. Aholibama and Judith are also the same. Similarly Basemath and Mahalath are also the same person.
Why all these names though? Even in modern society, we all have multiple names. I am my pseudonym and Hebrew name Shlomo, my secular name Steve, and even my Social security number. Each is different, but each is a label placed on me. Yet in biblical texts names are more significant. Issac’s name comes from the root to laugh, indicating the laughter of his mother Sarah when told she was going to have a son, and when he was actually born. Similarly these names according to rabbinic traditions may hold word meanings within them. The word for spices, often used in incense, is basamim. Basemah is a singular feminine ending on the root BSM, meaning Basemath was doing something with spices, probably offering them to idols in Rashi’s view. Rashi also had something to say about the name Bahalath, which associates with the word to pardon. Esau was pardoned from his previous transgression of marrying Caanites, which was prohibited by his grandfather Abraham, by marrying within the family again, in this case his cousin from Uncle Ishmael. Why her name changes to Basemath later is Esau's other wives corrupted her.
Judith, otherwise known as Aholibama is a little more complicated. Aholibama could easily mean my tent is an altar. the Targum Neofiti I suggest that the word for bitter in 26:35 is really licentious -- she was active in idolatrous sexual practices. Rashi comments on both father and son being her father pointing to another idolatrous sexual practice -- incest. To hide this out of bounds sexual nature Esau tried changing her name, though that did not stop Isaac and Rebekah from a lot of stress.
I was trying to find something to redeem Judith and Basemath in the Biblical text, and explain them differently. Unfortunately their names give us some insight into why they were such trouble for Issac and Rebecca. For some who want more logical than literary explanation this might sound weak. Yet, in interpreting Aggadah, such tools are often useful. Whether all these contradictions in names were because of bad editing or were intentionally there to makes us ask the questions, we can gain insight and increase the richness of the stories.

Hayei Sara 5770: Was That a Stupid Sign, or What?

This week we follow the story from the death and burial of Sarah, Isaac's marriage to Rebecca through the death of Abraham.

In the middle of this week's portion{Gen 24} is the story of Isaac getting a bride. When Abraham was old, Isaac is still feeling down about his mother's death. Abraham therefore sends his head of servants to find Isaac a wife. Abraham makes this unnamed servant, who most think was the Eliezer from his commando raid to save Lot, take an oath not to find one of the local girls. Instead he is go back to the old country, find some woman related to Abraham, and bring her back. When Eliezer gets to the old country, he's totally clueless about how to proceed. So he prays for a sign. The maiden who offers to give him water as well as his 10 camels will be Isaacs bride. A soon as he finishes a "good looking maiden, a virgin, no man had known her" [Gen 24:16] named Rebecca does in fact offer to give water to his camels. He gives her some trinkets and asks her name. Dumbfounded, he finds she is a relative of Abraham. She offers lodging for both him and the camels. Rebecca then runs and tells her family all about this stranger. After some storytelling and bargaining over timetables,he convinces her relatives for Rebecca to leave with him as soon as possible. They start out , and when she sees Isaac for the first time, she swoons so much she falls off her camel. They meet, immediately marry, head over to Sarah's tent and live happily ever after, or at least until the twins are born.

Talmud and Midrash notes the request to water camels as one of the five dumbest oaths ever given in Tanach. Yet, unlike any of the the other four, this frivolous line is often repeated in the text of the story. "Drink and I will also water your camels" is repeated four times: three times by Eliezer, and once by Rebecca, who adds "Until they (the camels) finish drinking." Repetition in the text is usually a way of reinforcing.

Camels drink a lot of water, and usually all at once. A camel can drink up to 30 gallons at a time, meaning Rebecca could have drawn 300 gallons of water, if she kept her promise that they have their fill. This is not a frivolous task- it is a task of deep hospitality.

The Midrash tells us the tents were closed after Sarah's death. It was from an open tent that Abraham was able to see the three angels from last week's parsha. Abraham's hospitality was dependent on Sarah's. Note Abraham ordered Sarah to bake cakes. In that hospitality was holiness, and no where is more the place for hospitality than the kitchen- the place of food. I always notice how people, no matter what the event, congregate in the kitchen or around the grill on the patio. In a strange sense, the original temple service was nothing but a big barbecue. Often it is in cooking food that we connect with each other. When there is joy in the kitchen there is holiness in the house.

Abraham's home and hospitality wasn't the same without Sarah. Eliezer knew this and thought that the greatest thing that the next generation could have was the return of hospitality. A woman who would go the extra distance when a stranger approached was the best for Isaac.

Rebecca understood the power of the kitchen. Later in Genesis, there are stories about cooking. She would eventually teach her favorite son Jacob how to cook. He would eventually use his culinary wizardry to get his brother to give him the birthright for a bowl of stew. She would use her own culinary wizardry to help Jacob get the blessing as well. Rebecca knew how to cook, but to go the extra distance she didn't just feed the people, she gave water and offered food to the camels.

At the end of our story Rebecca is taken to Sarah's tent. The Midrash[Breshit rabba 60:16] notes when Sarah was alive, the dough was always blessed, and a cloud resided over the tent. When she died both disappeared, only to return after Rebecca took up residence. To most this cloud was the cloud of the divine presence the Shechina. I think a little differently than this. I've seen that cloud, or more often smelled it. Between Chicago's wind and local environmental laws limiting the amount of particulate matter from ovens, often its hard to see these days. To me its the smell of my true home: the kitchen. Its the smell of good cooking. Good cooking wafts through the air and says "Come on in! Come and get it!" I believe the cloud which is the Shechina can be found is in the cloud of smoke from an oven or stove. When the ovens are alive, the house is holy, for there is the chance for hospitality. Both men and women when they fire up the grills, ovens, ranges, and mixers, only to share that which they make are doing some of the holiest work of all- feeding family, friends and strangers.

Eliezer did not make a frivolous statement at all. It was incredibly pointed. The woman who would feed and give drink to anyone, reguardless of species or the effort involved, that would be the one for Isaac. In our modern lives, what would be the thing we most want our potential mate, or current mate to say to us. What one thing, what "let me water your camels" statement wraps up the values we search for in that person? Eliezer was clear in what he was looking for and with God's help, being so clear he found it immediately. Maybe if we are as clear, with God's help, we will find what we are looking for as well.