Balak 5770: Breaking the Cub's Curse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shabiri
Habriri
Abriri
Briri
Riri
Iri
Ri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hukkat 5770: Who Mourns with Moses?

We read this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Korah 5770: The Inner Korah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shelach lecha 5770: Viewpoints

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

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

Two, Joshua and Caleb report other wise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Hebrew Moses' words are the easily said

אל נא רפא נא לה

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naso 5770: The Vows of the Nazirite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Except for the last few weeks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acahrei Mot Kedoshim 5770: What is Abhorrent?

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

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

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

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

or these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tzaria -Metzora 5770: Cleaning House

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shimini 5770: Are Chocolate Covered Crickets Kosher?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tzav 5770: The Embarrassment of the Moderately Affiliated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vayikra 5770: Keva and Conflict of Shabbat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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

Vayakhel- Pekudei 5770: Who was Betzalel?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Betzalel was described as

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

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

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

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

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

Wish I was that good.