PARSHAT VAYCHI
The end of Bereishit is so anti-climactic.
Take a quick glance at the end of each other "Book of Moses," and a typical reader is very satisfied.
Shmot (40:38): A cloud rests on the Mishkan (signifying God’s presence), and a fire guards the Jewish people at night through all of their travels. In the context of the completion of the Mishkan and the continuation of the travels in the desert, this verse makes perfect sense.
Vayikra (27:34): These are the mitzvot which God commanded Moses to tell the Israelites at Mt. Sinai: a perfect summary verse of the contents of a book primarily focused on laws.
Bamidbar (36:13): These are the commandments and statutes that God commanded the Israelites through Moshe, in the plains of Moab, near the Jordan, across from Jericho. This verse also summarizes what the book is about, including the narrative and laws which bring the Israelites to the point of being a little over two months away from entering the land of Canaan/Israel.
Devarim (34:12): This verse is part of a longer statement summarizing the greatness of Moshe, and the wonderments he presided over in the process of taking the Jews from Egypt to the Jordan River. It is a perfect ending to the Torah which is named for its master teacher, Moshe.
Comes Bereishit 50:26 which tells us Yosef died at age 110, was embalmed and placed in a coffin in Egypt.
Where is the tribute to the forefathers? Where is the anticipation of the coming years? The last eight verses of the Torah portion are all about Yosef! If anything, 50:24 would have been a more suitable ending – Yosef promises his brothers there will be a redemption and God will take the Jews out just as he promised to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov!
To strengthen the question, the very beginning of the book of Shmot reviews the fact of Yosef’s death (1:6), and could just as easily have mentioned that his remains were placed in a coffin in Egypt. That fact, put at the beginning of the book, instead of at the end of Bereishit, might even be a better reminder, so to speak, of the need to take Yosef’s remains with them for burial in Canaan. (Obviously, the Torah had not yet been given, but the homiletic idea of more commonly looking at the beginning of a book than the end is meant as an illustration of how things seem out of place.)
The commentaries point out a few singularities in the verse.
Firstly, it does not say he was buried.
Secondly, it does not say where the box was placed.
One common approach is that Yosef’s remains were placed in the Nile so the waters would be blessed on his behalf. (See Rabbeinu Bachya) (Baal Haturim observes that “Nilus” נילוס and “Yosef” יוסף have the same gematria (numerical value), 156.)
Another approach maintains Yosef was not buried, so it would be easy to identify and take his remains when it was time for the Jews to leave (see 13:19) (see Chizkuni and Seforno)
While the commentaries debate the nature of the coffin’s material and what its purpose was (to protect from water or other elements), perhaps the second approach, that Yosef was not buried, is what gives us the climactic moment we seek.
Consider: if Yosef is buried and hidden away, what is the point of his promise? The chances are he will be forgotten. The midrash is replete (and see Rabbeinu Bachya for more) on how Moshe had to seek to find, in order to fulfill the forgotten promise to remove Yosef’s remains from Egypt.
Some argue the Egyptians placed Yosef in the river so his descendants would not find him. But what is stopping us from suggesting the brothers made, in line with Egyptian custom, a monument or a crypt in which Yosef’s remains stand, unburied, as a reminder of his promise to the Jewish people?
For a people who are about to fall into the depravity of Egypt, a culture from which the rabbis teach us they were only saved because they kept small parts of their heritage, such as their names, language, certain secrets, and were not gossipers nor steeped in Egyptian immorality, Yosef’s remains might stand as a mainstay, as a reminder of what it means to live in Egypt as a Jew. Yosef did it by himself, with no familial support, for 22 years.
As the Jews eventually become idolaters, steeped in many Egyptian (im)morals, Yosef’s remains would be the ultimate reminder of what it means to be a wanderer who is not home, a stranger who has a better future in a different land.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Making Up Stories
Parshat Vayechi
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Many years ago I saw a movie called “Glengarry Glen Ross” which is based on a play by David Mamet. Mamet is known for his roller coaster dialogue and fantastical plot turns, and this movie, about a veteran salesman trying to sell real estate, is loaded with both. It was my custom to read the reviews of Roger Ebert after watching a movie — his commentary always had a keen insight, and helped me get a deeper appreciation for the film. Sometimes we both liked it, sometimes we both hated it, and sometimes we would disagree.
In that movie, one of his observations about Jack Lemmon’s performance in the film was quite memorable.
This is the final story of Yosef and his brothers. Since identifying himself as their long lost brother, Yosef has been only gracious, has shown only love, has expressed only the desire for his brothers to not feel guilt for having him sold, for had Yosef not been in Egypt to interpret Paroh’s dreams, perhaps they’d have all died in the famine. And now they’ll all be taken care of for the rest of Yosef’s days, if not the rest of their days as well.
And yet after their father dies, the brothers present a tale to Yosef about a conversation that purportedly took place before the recent death in the family (50:16-17). Every indication in the Torah suggests they fabricated the “conversation with their father.” Rashi says so plainly in 50:16. To partially quote Ebert, “they knew it, we know it, and perhaps even Yosef knew it.”
To be sure, some commentaries suggest Yaakov did actually say what they claim he said (Taz quotes Ramban elsewhere as saying such, and even initially suggests it himself), even though most commentators think they made it up.
The Netziv wonders how Yosef could have missed such a deathbed command, particularly when one considers where Yosef spent the last few days of his father’s life, at his bedside. Netziv concludes that there were hints in the blessings Yaakov gave which showed the command, but Yosef did not catch them the way his brothers did.
Regardless of which way one understands, neither side knew or presented the complete picture, because, as some commentaries point out, until his dying day Yaakov never knew how Yosef ended up in Egypt, nor of the role the brothers played in getting him there. If this is the case, the likelihood of his commanding Yosef not to enact revenge is increasingly minute.
I raise all this out of a particular concern I have which plagues the Internet world in general, and specifically a certain Internet population who ought to behave differently than they do.
Two top stories in the Jewish Star, including this week’s lead story, which was first posted online late last week, were subsequently picked up by the popular Jewish news aggregate website, vosizneias.com. Having personally had the experience of some of my writings for this paper being posted there, I know full well the editor posts news items and articles he finds to be of interest, hoping to share his intrigue with his readership.
I commend his efforts.
But the readers who choose to anonymously utilize the comments section — while they should by all rights be ignored for not putting their names to their opinions — cause a bigger chilul Hashem (desecration of God’s name) than any news item or editorial that they so designate. Three-quarters of the time the negative responses clearly stem from having read only the headline, and the other negative responses raise holier-than-thou arguments with statistics and “facts” apparently fabricated out of thin air.
Do we, in the Jewish community, have our differences? Absolutely. Does the muckraking of individuals who, with the click of a few keys, aim to destroy Yeshiva University, the memory of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Modern Orthodox Jews, Jews who struggle with tremendous challenges, and anyone who wishes to support any or all of those listed, fit in line with Jewish thought and halakha? Absolutely not.
While we can not be sure if Yosef’s brothers made up their story, many of the commenters on VIN are definitely guilty of making things up about all parties in question.
Rechilus (slander) is still Rechilus, and should not be tolerated under any circumstances.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Many years ago I saw a movie called “Glengarry Glen Ross” which is based on a play by David Mamet. Mamet is known for his roller coaster dialogue and fantastical plot turns, and this movie, about a veteran salesman trying to sell real estate, is loaded with both. It was my custom to read the reviews of Roger Ebert after watching a movie — his commentary always had a keen insight, and helped me get a deeper appreciation for the film. Sometimes we both liked it, sometimes we both hated it, and sometimes we would disagree.
In that movie, one of his observations about Jack Lemmon’s performance in the film was quite memorable.
“Look at Shelley (the Machine) Levene (Lemmon’s character)... he was once a hotshot salesman... Now he is making no sales at all... and it’s heartbreaking to hear his lies, about how he would feel wrong, not sharing this ‘marvelous opportunity.’
Lemmon has a scene in this movie that represents the best work he has ever done. He makes a house call on a man who does not want to buy real estate. The man knows it, we know it, Lemmon knows it — but Lemmon keeps trying, not registering the man’s growing impatience to have him out of his house.”
This is the final story of Yosef and his brothers. Since identifying himself as their long lost brother, Yosef has been only gracious, has shown only love, has expressed only the desire for his brothers to not feel guilt for having him sold, for had Yosef not been in Egypt to interpret Paroh’s dreams, perhaps they’d have all died in the famine. And now they’ll all be taken care of for the rest of Yosef’s days, if not the rest of their days as well.
And yet after their father dies, the brothers present a tale to Yosef about a conversation that purportedly took place before the recent death in the family (50:16-17). Every indication in the Torah suggests they fabricated the “conversation with their father.” Rashi says so plainly in 50:16. To partially quote Ebert, “they knew it, we know it, and perhaps even Yosef knew it.”
To be sure, some commentaries suggest Yaakov did actually say what they claim he said (Taz quotes Ramban elsewhere as saying such, and even initially suggests it himself), even though most commentators think they made it up.
The Netziv wonders how Yosef could have missed such a deathbed command, particularly when one considers where Yosef spent the last few days of his father’s life, at his bedside. Netziv concludes that there were hints in the blessings Yaakov gave which showed the command, but Yosef did not catch them the way his brothers did.
Regardless of which way one understands, neither side knew or presented the complete picture, because, as some commentaries point out, until his dying day Yaakov never knew how Yosef ended up in Egypt, nor of the role the brothers played in getting him there. If this is the case, the likelihood of his commanding Yosef not to enact revenge is increasingly minute.
I raise all this out of a particular concern I have which plagues the Internet world in general, and specifically a certain Internet population who ought to behave differently than they do.
Two top stories in the Jewish Star, including this week’s lead story, which was first posted online late last week, were subsequently picked up by the popular Jewish news aggregate website, vosizneias.com. Having personally had the experience of some of my writings for this paper being posted there, I know full well the editor posts news items and articles he finds to be of interest, hoping to share his intrigue with his readership.
I commend his efforts.
But the readers who choose to anonymously utilize the comments section — while they should by all rights be ignored for not putting their names to their opinions — cause a bigger chilul Hashem (desecration of God’s name) than any news item or editorial that they so designate. Three-quarters of the time the negative responses clearly stem from having read only the headline, and the other negative responses raise holier-than-thou arguments with statistics and “facts” apparently fabricated out of thin air.
Do we, in the Jewish community, have our differences? Absolutely. Does the muckraking of individuals who, with the click of a few keys, aim to destroy Yeshiva University, the memory of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Modern Orthodox Jews, Jews who struggle with tremendous challenges, and anyone who wishes to support any or all of those listed, fit in line with Jewish thought and halakha? Absolutely not.
While we can not be sure if Yosef’s brothers made up their story, many of the commenters on VIN are definitely guilty of making things up about all parties in question.
Rechilus (slander) is still Rechilus, and should not be tolerated under any circumstances.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Shabbos in Boynton Beach during vacation weekend - "A+"
What a beautiful Shabbos!
My wife and I took our kids (well, we can't just leave them) to Boynton Beach for Shabbos - what an enjoyable weekend! I blogged about why we enjoy Shabbos there once before, so we need not repeat.
But - man! Now that we are in the dead of winter here in Florida (not that we would know because it's in the 80s during the day and 60s at night), people are starting to come down to visit. Frequently. And with their families.
This Shabbos, the shul which had thirty people in attendance (men and women altogether) on Rosh Hashana, had approximately 75 adults and 30 kids! To make the point of the influx of numbers in attendance, the gala kiddush - which was indeed gala - was so good, there was no food leftover. And no one walked away hungry either. (Though I am sure everyone went home to enjoy lunch). My 4 year old son asked me, "Abba, was there any cake?" No - not a single birthday. Thank God for lollypops!
Speeches
I spoke 5 times: Friday night, pre-davening parsha class, Morning Sermon, pre-Mincha afternoon class, and at Seudah Shlishiss.
Friday night
Two approaches to what happened when Yehuda approached Yosef:
1. Went close to speak with him softly - as Koheles says "The words of the righteous are heard when spoken gently." Yehuda wanted to make sure Yosef would hear him out. If they would resort to a shouting match, nothing would get accomplished.
2. The Kotsker rebbe says, "Vayigash Eilav Yehuda" means "Yehuda approached himself." Before a person presents himself to royalty or any figure in a powerful position, it is important to be true to yourself, to know who you are and what you want out of your next human encounter. Yehuda needed to come close to his own true identity to be able to approach Yosef.
Sermon
The gyst of the sermon boiled down to two points:
1. The reaction of Yosef''s brothers to his revealing his identity is one of pure stupefication. They have nothing to say. The Talmud (Chagiga 4b) says Rabbi Elazar would cry when he read this verse because of the scary nature of its consequences. Imagine how embarrassed Yosef's brothers were, when he, a brother, reminded them of their evil deed of selling him. That embarrassed feeling is what it is like - though much worse - when God "calls us" on our inconsistent behavior.
2. To improve our overall relationship with God through prayer, we ought to follow Yosef's lead when he cleared out the room to address his brothers. Yosef wanted to achieve a unique spiritual connection with his brothers, and anything which would stand in the way or distract him needed to leave the room. The Slonimer rebbe says this is how a person must pray.
Think of what it means to take out all people from our presence, all distractions - and now we are more ready to pray to God.
The Parsha Drama Experience
(Parsha Drama is a dramatic presentation of the Torah reading, aimed at children of all ages)
I heard I heard... Someone (we won't mention who) got a little excited when playing Yaakov finding out that Yosef is still alive. And the whole shul heard it in the middle of the announcements. We'll try to tone it down next time. No promises.
Feedback
The entire effort is worth every minute because people give the most genuine and appreciated feedback on the Torah and thoughts I prepare and share.
And the compliments we've gotten about our kids (so cute! you have a beautiful family! "kein yirbu!" etc etc) make my wife and I want to come back for more.
Overall
What a genuine and friendly place. We are glad to be having this experience this year. It is tremendously rewarding to prepare classes and sermons. I enjoy the work, and the payoff (what can I do? - as an actor I enjoy a good performance, especially when audience members tell you how much they enjoy), and look forward to our next visits - still during the January break times when we will continue to enjoy larger crowds - which only enhance the davening - and the warmth of the community that is Anshei Chesed of Boynton Beach.
Important Final Thought
This past Thursday was the first yahrzeit of David Bilowit, ע"ה. The president, Adam Rosen, gave a warm and heartfelt tribute to his memory, not only on account of his special status as a founding member of Anshei Chesed, but as the most senior member of Anshei Chesed. Rabbi Kossowsky also spoke warmly to David's wife, expressing the need to celebrate his life and all that he meant to everybody, even as we are saddened at his no longer being with us.
It was a fitting and heartwarming tribute to a man who meant a lot to the shul.
My wife and I took our kids (well, we can't just leave them) to Boynton Beach for Shabbos - what an enjoyable weekend! I blogged about why we enjoy Shabbos there once before, so we need not repeat.
But - man! Now that we are in the dead of winter here in Florida (not that we would know because it's in the 80s during the day and 60s at night), people are starting to come down to visit. Frequently. And with their families.
This Shabbos, the shul which had thirty people in attendance (men and women altogether) on Rosh Hashana, had approximately 75 adults and 30 kids! To make the point of the influx of numbers in attendance, the gala kiddush - which was indeed gala - was so good, there was no food leftover. And no one walked away hungry either. (Though I am sure everyone went home to enjoy lunch). My 4 year old son asked me, "Abba, was there any cake?" No - not a single birthday. Thank God for lollypops!
Speeches
I spoke 5 times: Friday night, pre-davening parsha class, Morning Sermon, pre-Mincha afternoon class, and at Seudah Shlishiss.
Friday night
Two approaches to what happened when Yehuda approached Yosef:
1. Went close to speak with him softly - as Koheles says "The words of the righteous are heard when spoken gently." Yehuda wanted to make sure Yosef would hear him out. If they would resort to a shouting match, nothing would get accomplished.
2. The Kotsker rebbe says, "Vayigash Eilav Yehuda" means "Yehuda approached himself." Before a person presents himself to royalty or any figure in a powerful position, it is important to be true to yourself, to know who you are and what you want out of your next human encounter. Yehuda needed to come close to his own true identity to be able to approach Yosef.
Sermon
The gyst of the sermon boiled down to two points:
1. The reaction of Yosef''s brothers to his revealing his identity is one of pure stupefication. They have nothing to say. The Talmud (Chagiga 4b) says Rabbi Elazar would cry when he read this verse because of the scary nature of its consequences. Imagine how embarrassed Yosef's brothers were, when he, a brother, reminded them of their evil deed of selling him. That embarrassed feeling is what it is like - though much worse - when God "calls us" on our inconsistent behavior.
2. To improve our overall relationship with God through prayer, we ought to follow Yosef's lead when he cleared out the room to address his brothers. Yosef wanted to achieve a unique spiritual connection with his brothers, and anything which would stand in the way or distract him needed to leave the room. The Slonimer rebbe says this is how a person must pray.
Think of what it means to take out all people from our presence, all distractions - and now we are more ready to pray to God.
The Parsha Drama Experience
(Parsha Drama is a dramatic presentation of the Torah reading, aimed at children of all ages)
I heard I heard... Someone (we won't mention who) got a little excited when playing Yaakov finding out that Yosef is still alive. And the whole shul heard it in the middle of the announcements. We'll try to tone it down next time. No promises.
Feedback
The entire effort is worth every minute because people give the most genuine and appreciated feedback on the Torah and thoughts I prepare and share.
And the compliments we've gotten about our kids (so cute! you have a beautiful family! "kein yirbu!" etc etc) make my wife and I want to come back for more.
Overall
What a genuine and friendly place. We are glad to be having this experience this year. It is tremendously rewarding to prepare classes and sermons. I enjoy the work, and the payoff (what can I do? - as an actor I enjoy a good performance, especially when audience members tell you how much they enjoy), and look forward to our next visits - still during the January break times when we will continue to enjoy larger crowds - which only enhance the davening - and the warmth of the community that is Anshei Chesed of Boynton Beach.
Important Final Thought
This past Thursday was the first yahrzeit of David Bilowit, ע"ה. The president, Adam Rosen, gave a warm and heartfelt tribute to his memory, not only on account of his special status as a founding member of Anshei Chesed, but as the most senior member of Anshei Chesed. Rabbi Kossowsky also spoke warmly to David's wife, expressing the need to celebrate his life and all that he meant to everybody, even as we are saddened at his no longer being with us.
It was a fitting and heartwarming tribute to a man who meant a lot to the shul.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Vayigash - Back Where We Started?
Parshat Vayigash: First history lesson
By Rabbi Avi Billet
One can assume Paroh was referring to the availability of Egyptian products, Egyptian agriculture (which dried up during the famine), Egyptian culture, Egyptian technology and innovation. Was Paroh indicating this promise would remain in effect for the duration of the famine? For the remainder of Yosef’s life? For the remainder of Paroh’s life? Until such time as the family would want to leave? Indefinitely?
Netziv points out that sometimes, Biblical characters say things with a certain intention, while their words end up having a different meaning. For example, in 37:20, the brothers said, “Let’s kill him, and then we’ll see what become of his dreams.” While they were being cynical, their words “We will see what become of his dreams,” became prophetic.
Here too, says Netziv, Paroh was unaware that his words “the good of the land of Egypt will be available to you,” was a pre-ordained prophesy: Avraham had been promised that his children would be strangers in a strange land, and G-d meant for “all of the good of Egypt to be available to them” so their stay — even while enslaved — would never lack the amenities of Egypt.
Nonetheless, it is quite clear that the family does not take Paroh up on his offer. As they leave Canaan, G-d tells Yaakov (46:2-4), “Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for you will become a great nation there. I will take you down, and I will also bring you back up from there.” The next two verses tell us that in addition to their entire families, they bring all their cattle and property. This is confirmed again at the end of the chapter (46:32) — “they brought with them their sheep, cattle and all they had.”
When leaving home, they have no idea how long they will stay in Egypt. As was the case in every exile, for better or for worse, the Jews got comfortable in their new environment. They enjoyed everything Egypt had to offer them — the open space, the endless supply of food and water, the culture. While different rabbinic sources indicate they were ultimately redeemed from Egypt because they maintained their names, language and secrets, and guarded themselves from speaking lashon hara and protected their wives from sins of a sexual nature, it would seem, they were otherwise completely assimilated into Egyptian society — idolaters and all!
In essence, the descent to Egypt was the ultimate paradox. On the one hand, since you don’t trust the host nation’s promise to completely provide for you, you bring your own possessions and supplies. On the other hand, because you so appreciate the hospitality, you assimilate almost completely into the culture, only maintaining a minimal smidgen of your old identity — enough to indicate you’re “different” within your own circles and in the general culture, but other nationalities would not be able to distinguish between you and your host nation.
We live in the greatest nation the world has ever seen. The principles of freedom upon which this country was founded — most notably separation of church and state — gave us the chance to thrive in a way that throughout history has ultimately led to persecution or expulsion from other lands.
In a world of parable, however, the Jewish people are experiencing Egypt all over again. Not in a sense of slavery, but in the sense that even those things that helped us maintain our identity in Egypt — names, language, clothing, and separation from lashon hara and immorality — are being blurred.
In many hearts and minds, intermarriage is no longer “rebellion”; it is a fact of life. Lack of Hebrew literacy and Jewish knowledge is no longer “because it’s not for me”; it is not even on the radar screen. With the exception of small communities, we all dress the same. One can argue it is not even worth opening a lament about lashon hara and immorality, because it will never end.
History has a lot to teach us, and as is often the case, history does indeed repeat itself.
When it is time for the ultimate redemption, will G-d recognize us at all?
As soon as Paroh learns of the arrival of Yosef’s family, he invites them to return to Canaan merely to bring their father and families, in order to settle more permanently in Egypt.
“Do not even concern yourselves with your vessels/belongings, for the good of the land of Egypt will be available to you.” (45:20)
One can assume Paroh was referring to the availability of Egyptian products, Egyptian agriculture (which dried up during the famine), Egyptian culture, Egyptian technology and innovation. Was Paroh indicating this promise would remain in effect for the duration of the famine? For the remainder of Yosef’s life? For the remainder of Paroh’s life? Until such time as the family would want to leave? Indefinitely?
Netziv points out that sometimes, Biblical characters say things with a certain intention, while their words end up having a different meaning. For example, in 37:20, the brothers said, “Let’s kill him, and then we’ll see what become of his dreams.” While they were being cynical, their words “We will see what become of his dreams,” became prophetic.
Here too, says Netziv, Paroh was unaware that his words “the good of the land of Egypt will be available to you,” was a pre-ordained prophesy: Avraham had been promised that his children would be strangers in a strange land, and G-d meant for “all of the good of Egypt to be available to them” so their stay — even while enslaved — would never lack the amenities of Egypt.
Nonetheless, it is quite clear that the family does not take Paroh up on his offer. As they leave Canaan, G-d tells Yaakov (46:2-4), “Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for you will become a great nation there. I will take you down, and I will also bring you back up from there.” The next two verses tell us that in addition to their entire families, they bring all their cattle and property. This is confirmed again at the end of the chapter (46:32) — “they brought with them their sheep, cattle and all they had.”
When leaving home, they have no idea how long they will stay in Egypt. As was the case in every exile, for better or for worse, the Jews got comfortable in their new environment. They enjoyed everything Egypt had to offer them — the open space, the endless supply of food and water, the culture. While different rabbinic sources indicate they were ultimately redeemed from Egypt because they maintained their names, language and secrets, and guarded themselves from speaking lashon hara and protected their wives from sins of a sexual nature, it would seem, they were otherwise completely assimilated into Egyptian society — idolaters and all!
In essence, the descent to Egypt was the ultimate paradox. On the one hand, since you don’t trust the host nation’s promise to completely provide for you, you bring your own possessions and supplies. On the other hand, because you so appreciate the hospitality, you assimilate almost completely into the culture, only maintaining a minimal smidgen of your old identity — enough to indicate you’re “different” within your own circles and in the general culture, but other nationalities would not be able to distinguish between you and your host nation.
We live in the greatest nation the world has ever seen. The principles of freedom upon which this country was founded — most notably separation of church and state — gave us the chance to thrive in a way that throughout history has ultimately led to persecution or expulsion from other lands.
In a world of parable, however, the Jewish people are experiencing Egypt all over again. Not in a sense of slavery, but in the sense that even those things that helped us maintain our identity in Egypt — names, language, clothing, and separation from lashon hara and immorality — are being blurred.
In many hearts and minds, intermarriage is no longer “rebellion”; it is a fact of life. Lack of Hebrew literacy and Jewish knowledge is no longer “because it’s not for me”; it is not even on the radar screen. With the exception of small communities, we all dress the same. One can argue it is not even worth opening a lament about lashon hara and immorality, because it will never end.
History has a lot to teach us, and as is often the case, history does indeed repeat itself.
When it is time for the ultimate redemption, will G-d recognize us at all?
Friday, December 18, 2009
Parshat Miketz - Soulmates
Read this in the Jewish Star or right here
Parsha: Pharaoh finds a soul mate
Parshat Miketz
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of December 18, 2009/ 1 Tevet 5770
On the eve of his birthday the Egyptian monarch has two dreams that vex and try his sanity. “In the morning he was very upset. He sent word, summoning all the symbolists and wise men of Egypt. Paroh told them his dreams, but there was no one who could provide a satisfactory interpretation.” (41:8) (Shadal notes that his dreams take place exactly two years after his birthday party of 40:20.)
Rashi quotes the Midrash that his interpreters gave all sorts of interpretations surrounding the number seven, but none was satisfactory to him.
If Paroh employed so many interpreters, and if their magical powers were uninspiring to Paroh, what made Yosef’s interpretation so acceptable? Why would his attempt make Paroh flip the table so drastically so as to turn a slave into the second in command of all Egypt?
Imagine someone in the mailroom coming up with a single good idea, only to be named CEO within five minutes. In most cases, even if the boss appreciates the contribution, the most the employee could reasonably expect is a nice bonus. Maybe he’ll get a promotion. But the owner of the company is not likely to place the inexperienced mail sorter in the top rank of the company!
Nechama Leibowitz quotes a Midrash in which Paroh says, “Just as I saw the dream, so I saw its interpretation.” Similarly, Sekhel Tov records, “He was immediately reminded of the interpretation of the dream, that this was as Joseph had interpreted. He had forgotten it, but now remembered.”
In other words, Paroh was intuitively aware of the correct interpretation to his dreams. He merely needed to hear it presented to him the way he knew it to be true, in order for his take on the situation to be confirmed.
In this light, perhaps when Yosef came along and presented the truth to Paroh, he was no longer a slave-prisoner, parallel to the mailroom sorter of our parable (no, I am not equating the two), but he became an extremely close confidant to Paroh.
Paroh saw in him a person with whom he had a naturally close kinship. Not only could he hear the king out and understand his innermost thoughts, but he could also provide a plan of action in line with the king’s plans and needs for ruling his country and taking care of his people.
This unique bonding of souls was particularly suited for a human monarch who, if our understanding of ancient Egyptian culture is correct, fancied himself a deity. How could a human who tries to pass himself off as a god deal with his human frailties? He can if he finds a human being who understands him, who sees him for who he is and the image he must present, yet who relates to him in a way no other human can.
Paroh said to his advisors, “Can there be another person who has G-d’s spirit in him as this man does?” Paroh said to Joseph, “Since G-d has informed you about all this, there can be no one with as much insight and wisdom as you. You shall be in charge of my government, and food will be distributed to my people by your orders. Only by the throne will I outrank you.” Paroh then formally declared to Joseph, “I am placing you in charge of the entire land of Egypt.” Paroh took his ring off his own hand and placed it on the hand of Joseph. He had him dressed in the finest linen garments, and placed a gold chain around his neck. He had [Joseph] ride in his second royal chariot, and [those going] ahead of him announced, ‘The Viceroy!’ [Joseph] was thus given authority over all Egypt. Paroh said to Joseph, “I am Paroh. Without your say, no man will lift a hand or foot in all Egypt.” (41:38-44)
We see as well, after Yosef reveals himself to his brothers, how his relationship with Paroh has developed over seven years:
“Now it is not you who sent me here, but G-d. He has made me Paroh’s vizier, director of his entire government, and dictator of all Egypt. Hurry, go back to my father, and give him the message: Your son Joseph says, ‘G-d has made me master of all Egypt.’ Come to me without delay.” (45:8-9)
Not everyone merits the privilege of such a wonderful and close relationship with another human being. Some people find it in a spouse. Some have a close friend and confidant. Some have such a relationship with one or both parents, and some have this kind of relationship with a son or daughter.
It does not have to be about finishing each other’s sentences. But it is about being completely in sync, completely understanding, and completely relating to the other person’s experience, to the point that you feel like soul brothers, soul sisters, or in the case of a spouse, soul mates, perhaps
.More important than interpreting dreams correctly is connecting with the other person, to the point that the other person feels you fill his or her life with power, strength, and encouragement to take on all of life’s challenges, and every blessed new day.
Parsha: Pharaoh finds a soul mate
Parshat Miketz
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of December 18, 2009/ 1 Tevet 5770
On the eve of his birthday the Egyptian monarch has two dreams that vex and try his sanity. “In the morning he was very upset. He sent word, summoning all the symbolists and wise men of Egypt. Paroh told them his dreams, but there was no one who could provide a satisfactory interpretation.” (41:8) (Shadal notes that his dreams take place exactly two years after his birthday party of 40:20.)
Rashi quotes the Midrash that his interpreters gave all sorts of interpretations surrounding the number seven, but none was satisfactory to him.
If Paroh employed so many interpreters, and if their magical powers were uninspiring to Paroh, what made Yosef’s interpretation so acceptable? Why would his attempt make Paroh flip the table so drastically so as to turn a slave into the second in command of all Egypt?
Imagine someone in the mailroom coming up with a single good idea, only to be named CEO within five minutes. In most cases, even if the boss appreciates the contribution, the most the employee could reasonably expect is a nice bonus. Maybe he’ll get a promotion. But the owner of the company is not likely to place the inexperienced mail sorter in the top rank of the company!
Nechama Leibowitz quotes a Midrash in which Paroh says, “Just as I saw the dream, so I saw its interpretation.” Similarly, Sekhel Tov records, “He was immediately reminded of the interpretation of the dream, that this was as Joseph had interpreted. He had forgotten it, but now remembered.”
In other words, Paroh was intuitively aware of the correct interpretation to his dreams. He merely needed to hear it presented to him the way he knew it to be true, in order for his take on the situation to be confirmed.
In this light, perhaps when Yosef came along and presented the truth to Paroh, he was no longer a slave-prisoner, parallel to the mailroom sorter of our parable (no, I am not equating the two), but he became an extremely close confidant to Paroh.
Paroh saw in him a person with whom he had a naturally close kinship. Not only could he hear the king out and understand his innermost thoughts, but he could also provide a plan of action in line with the king’s plans and needs for ruling his country and taking care of his people.
This unique bonding of souls was particularly suited for a human monarch who, if our understanding of ancient Egyptian culture is correct, fancied himself a deity. How could a human who tries to pass himself off as a god deal with his human frailties? He can if he finds a human being who understands him, who sees him for who he is and the image he must present, yet who relates to him in a way no other human can.
Paroh said to his advisors, “Can there be another person who has G-d’s spirit in him as this man does?” Paroh said to Joseph, “Since G-d has informed you about all this, there can be no one with as much insight and wisdom as you. You shall be in charge of my government, and food will be distributed to my people by your orders. Only by the throne will I outrank you.” Paroh then formally declared to Joseph, “I am placing you in charge of the entire land of Egypt.” Paroh took his ring off his own hand and placed it on the hand of Joseph. He had him dressed in the finest linen garments, and placed a gold chain around his neck. He had [Joseph] ride in his second royal chariot, and [those going] ahead of him announced, ‘The Viceroy!’ [Joseph] was thus given authority over all Egypt. Paroh said to Joseph, “I am Paroh. Without your say, no man will lift a hand or foot in all Egypt.” (41:38-44)
We see as well, after Yosef reveals himself to his brothers, how his relationship with Paroh has developed over seven years:
“Now it is not you who sent me here, but G-d. He has made me Paroh’s vizier, director of his entire government, and dictator of all Egypt. Hurry, go back to my father, and give him the message: Your son Joseph says, ‘G-d has made me master of all Egypt.’ Come to me without delay.” (45:8-9)
Not everyone merits the privilege of such a wonderful and close relationship with another human being. Some people find it in a spouse. Some have a close friend and confidant. Some have such a relationship with one or both parents, and some have this kind of relationship with a son or daughter.
It does not have to be about finishing each other’s sentences. But it is about being completely in sync, completely understanding, and completely relating to the other person’s experience, to the point that you feel like soul brothers, soul sisters, or in the case of a spouse, soul mates, perhaps
.More important than interpreting dreams correctly is connecting with the other person, to the point that the other person feels you fill his or her life with power, strength, and encouragement to take on all of life’s challenges, and every blessed new day.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Searching for our brother
This week's Dvar Torah appears here in the Jewish Star
Parshat Vayeshev
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of December 11, 2009/ 24 Kislev 5770
Before the infamous sale of Yosef — in which the role of Yosef’s brothers is the subject of much debate — Yosef is on a mission.
Walking around near Shechem, looking lost, Yosef encounters a “man” (the rabbis identify him as an angel) who says two words to him, “Mah T’vakesh?” — What do you want? What do you seek?
Yosef’s answer is “I am looking for my brothers.” (37:15-16)
It seems like such a trivial conversation. Q: What are you looking for? A: I heard my family was around here. Can you direct me to them?
The Kotzker rebbe said, “You need to know what you want. The man/angel was teaching Yosef that he must constantly express his goals to himself.”
To take it a step further, what should those goals be? We ought to be seeking and looking out for our brothers.
In lieu of sharing comments on this statement from the commentaries, let us give our own answers this week. What do we want? What do we seek?
I will not presume to speak for you, but here is my wishlist.
I want Jews to be left alone. I want the Jews in Israel and the rest of the world to be given a real chance to honestly live in peace with their neighbors. Let each side live and let live and pursue opportunities to make our lives better — within our communities and collectively — without bothering to make the others’ lives worse.
I just read Will Eisner’s graphic novel, “The Plot,” a telling of the never-ending saga of the proven forgery of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I wish anti-Semitism and those who harbor it will cease to play a role in this earth.
“I am looking [out] for my brothers.”
I wish that all those who are actively or desperately seeking to find and marry “the right person” will be successful in their search. In the right time. Sooner rather than later.
I wish that all those who are trying to build families will merit the benefits of G-d’s blessings, so their child and children can be born, and ultimately live beautiful lives having “found their brothers.”
I wish that all those who are looking to find direction in life — how to relate to G-d; how to relate to people; what profession to choose; where to live; what kind of lifestyle to lead; and how to come to peace with choices and decisions, will find all of these and more in their efforts to make their lives the best that G-d will give them.
“I am looking for my brothers.”
Let all Jews accept that we may have differences in the ways we observe, worship, and believe. Let us also agree that every Jew was born with a holy soul who yearns to come close to the Divine in some way, and that there is room for each person to find a way that works for the individual.
And that there will never be “one way” that works for everyone. And that intolerance — whether it be of the right for the left, or of the left for the right — will never be a good ingredient in promoting “Ahavat chinam.” And that our political beliefs — whether they are in politics themselves or religious politics — should remain hotbeds for debate but should not resort to personal differences, hatred and invective.
The chips on the shoulders would do us all a lot of good if they were cast away into a fireplace to warm our cold hearts which have ceased to care enough about one another.
Chanukah is a widely marked holiday in the American Jewish community. This is most likely due to the commercialization of the “holiday season,” which allows many Americans to get in touch with a religious side, no matter how secularly they may observe their respective holidays.
This is an opportunity to open new and positive relationships with our neighbors. All Jews who put a menorah in the window “come out of the closet” over this holiday. Some of us know more and some know less about the national, historical and social significance of the holiday. The laws related to the menorah are essentially the only laws of the holiday — the most important one being “publicizing the miracle.” Not everyone knows the significance of the defeat of the “many in the hands of the few.”
If we can be like Yosef, however, who, despite knowing full well that his brothers did not like him, actively sought them out, to be in their presence, to make peace, we will only benefit from the experience.
Chanukah falls in the beginning of winter, when the nights are longer and darker than they are all year. Ironically, the lights of the menorah cannot be used to light up the room — they are only to be lit for us to look at, so we might draw inspiration.
Let us all be inspired to seek out our brothers, no matter how far they (or we) may seem to be.
Parshat Vayeshev
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of December 11, 2009/ 24 Kislev 5770
Before the infamous sale of Yosef — in which the role of Yosef’s brothers is the subject of much debate — Yosef is on a mission.
Walking around near Shechem, looking lost, Yosef encounters a “man” (the rabbis identify him as an angel) who says two words to him, “Mah T’vakesh?” — What do you want? What do you seek?
Yosef’s answer is “I am looking for my brothers.” (37:15-16)
It seems like such a trivial conversation. Q: What are you looking for? A: I heard my family was around here. Can you direct me to them?
The Kotzker rebbe said, “You need to know what you want. The man/angel was teaching Yosef that he must constantly express his goals to himself.”
To take it a step further, what should those goals be? We ought to be seeking and looking out for our brothers.
In lieu of sharing comments on this statement from the commentaries, let us give our own answers this week. What do we want? What do we seek?
I will not presume to speak for you, but here is my wishlist.
I want Jews to be left alone. I want the Jews in Israel and the rest of the world to be given a real chance to honestly live in peace with their neighbors. Let each side live and let live and pursue opportunities to make our lives better — within our communities and collectively — without bothering to make the others’ lives worse.
I just read Will Eisner’s graphic novel, “The Plot,” a telling of the never-ending saga of the proven forgery of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I wish anti-Semitism and those who harbor it will cease to play a role in this earth.
“I am looking [out] for my brothers.”
I wish that all those who are actively or desperately seeking to find and marry “the right person” will be successful in their search. In the right time. Sooner rather than later.
I wish that all those who are trying to build families will merit the benefits of G-d’s blessings, so their child and children can be born, and ultimately live beautiful lives having “found their brothers.”
I wish that all those who are looking to find direction in life — how to relate to G-d; how to relate to people; what profession to choose; where to live; what kind of lifestyle to lead; and how to come to peace with choices and decisions, will find all of these and more in their efforts to make their lives the best that G-d will give them.
“I am looking for my brothers.”
Let all Jews accept that we may have differences in the ways we observe, worship, and believe. Let us also agree that every Jew was born with a holy soul who yearns to come close to the Divine in some way, and that there is room for each person to find a way that works for the individual.
And that there will never be “one way” that works for everyone. And that intolerance — whether it be of the right for the left, or of the left for the right — will never be a good ingredient in promoting “Ahavat chinam.” And that our political beliefs — whether they are in politics themselves or religious politics — should remain hotbeds for debate but should not resort to personal differences, hatred and invective.
The chips on the shoulders would do us all a lot of good if they were cast away into a fireplace to warm our cold hearts which have ceased to care enough about one another.
Chanukah is a widely marked holiday in the American Jewish community. This is most likely due to the commercialization of the “holiday season,” which allows many Americans to get in touch with a religious side, no matter how secularly they may observe their respective holidays.
This is an opportunity to open new and positive relationships with our neighbors. All Jews who put a menorah in the window “come out of the closet” over this holiday. Some of us know more and some know less about the national, historical and social significance of the holiday. The laws related to the menorah are essentially the only laws of the holiday — the most important one being “publicizing the miracle.” Not everyone knows the significance of the defeat of the “many in the hands of the few.”
If we can be like Yosef, however, who, despite knowing full well that his brothers did not like him, actively sought them out, to be in their presence, to make peace, we will only benefit from the experience.
Chanukah falls in the beginning of winter, when the nights are longer and darker than they are all year. Ironically, the lights of the menorah cannot be used to light up the room — they are only to be lit for us to look at, so we might draw inspiration.
Let us all be inspired to seek out our brothers, no matter how far they (or we) may seem to be.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Interesting Discussion
Tuesday night I filled in for Rabbi Nightingale of Aish of Florida, at a dinner and discussion with university students. We had a really great discussion about the Jewishness of American and secular holidays - somewhat inspired by the REKA program from Thanksgiving.
One of the participants asked a question about the afterlife - and as that is not my area of expertise, I was very comfortable saying "I have no idea."
But you might find it interesting - as a thought or discussion. Comments are appreciated below.
The question was: "Let's say Mr. Jew Smith marries. After a little while, Mrs. Smith sadly passes away. Mr. Jew Smith marries again, to a new Mrs. Smith who never married before. In the afterlife, with whom does Mr. Smith spend eternity?"
One person said "No problem. According to Jewish law a man may have two wives."
Then the speaker said, "Say the same scenario about a woman who survives her first husband and then marries again."
My initial response was, as mentioned, "I have no idea."
But, in thinking about it, my next response is, "Who says that the afterlife reflects the monogamous or polygamous relationships a person might have in this world? Who says eternity means being "reunited" with ones loved ones?" We may say that our loved ones look down upon us and watch over us. It makes us feel good to believe this. But do we really know?
I said to the questioner, "I don't know, as that is in a realm that is really beyond us. Perhaps we can ask, is the male buried next to both wives? Or the woman next to both husbands? How is that decided? The one "found love" twice. Sadly, the first spouse died young."
In posing this question, I was thinking about my great aunt and uncle who lived across the street from friends of theirs for many decades. My great uncle passed away, and the woman across the street also died. The two neighbors decided to spend their later years as husband and wife. They knew each other very well already, so the dating process wasn't too drawn out.
While he has since passed away, I am sure he was buried next to his first wife. And when it is her time, I am sure my great aunt has a plot next to my great uncle. As it should be.
Anyway, as much as it may make us feel good to think we will one day have it made in the world to come, with our dream house and with our closest loved ones with us, I don't think we can rely on Richard Matheson, Ronald Bass, and Vincent Ward to paint this image for us. (Though I did enjoy the movie!)
Your thoughts?
One of the participants asked a question about the afterlife - and as that is not my area of expertise, I was very comfortable saying "I have no idea."
But you might find it interesting - as a thought or discussion. Comments are appreciated below.
The question was: "Let's say Mr. Jew Smith marries. After a little while, Mrs. Smith sadly passes away. Mr. Jew Smith marries again, to a new Mrs. Smith who never married before. In the afterlife, with whom does Mr. Smith spend eternity?"
One person said "No problem. According to Jewish law a man may have two wives."
Then the speaker said, "Say the same scenario about a woman who survives her first husband and then marries again."
My initial response was, as mentioned, "I have no idea."
But, in thinking about it, my next response is, "Who says that the afterlife reflects the monogamous or polygamous relationships a person might have in this world? Who says eternity means being "reunited" with ones loved ones?" We may say that our loved ones look down upon us and watch over us. It makes us feel good to believe this. But do we really know?
I said to the questioner, "I don't know, as that is in a realm that is really beyond us. Perhaps we can ask, is the male buried next to both wives? Or the woman next to both husbands? How is that decided? The one "found love" twice. Sadly, the first spouse died young."
In posing this question, I was thinking about my great aunt and uncle who lived across the street from friends of theirs for many decades. My great uncle passed away, and the woman across the street also died. The two neighbors decided to spend their later years as husband and wife. They knew each other very well already, so the dating process wasn't too drawn out.
While he has since passed away, I am sure he was buried next to his first wife. And when it is her time, I am sure my great aunt has a plot next to my great uncle. As it should be.
Anyway, as much as it may make us feel good to think we will one day have it made in the world to come, with our dream house and with our closest loved ones with us, I don't think we can rely on Richard Matheson, Ronald Bass, and Vincent Ward to paint this image for us. (Though I did enjoy the movie!)
Your thoughts?
Reuven and Bilhah
Between husband and wife, and father and son
Parshat Vayishlach
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Our tradition maintains that one merit Yaakov had over his father and grandfather is that all of his sons were righteous – no Eisav or Yishmael in the lot – allowing him to be the one after whom the Jewish nation is named – B’nei Yisrael, the children of Israel.
With this in mind, Bereishit 35:22 leaves us scratching our heads. “While Yaakov was dwelling [undisturbed] in the land, Reuven went and lay “et” Bilhah, his father’s concubine, and Israel heard about it… and Yaakov’s sons were twelve [in number].”
What happened with Reuven and Bilhah? Did he or didn’t he? Two factors need to be considered: 1. What is the meaning of the word “et”? 2. How well do we understand the words in the Talmud when explaining a seeming passage of narrative in the Torah?
Rabbi David Fohrman shares an important discussion of the meaning of the word “et” in his book, “The Beast that Crouches at the Door” (Devora Publishing, 2007, p. 117-124). Sometimes it means “with,” but sometimes it is a grammatical tool used to connect a verb to a direct object. Certainly the verse is not as simple as it seems.
The Talmud (Megillah 25a) goes so far as to say the verse should be read and not translated, due to the difficult nature of understanding the almost clear facts of the case.
But the Talmud says elsewhere (Shabbat 55b), that anyone who claims Reuven sinned is mistaken, because the verse concludes saying Yaakov had twelve sons – meaning none of them were rejected. Instead, we are to understand that Reuven mixed up beds, and the Torah only “makes it seem as if” he had relations with his father’s wife/concubine, even though he did not.
However, the Talmud also says (Shabbat 56a) that anyone who claims King David sinned is mistaken. But King David himself admitted that he sinned (Samuel II 12:13 and 24:10).
If we assume, as the Talmud implies, that King David was correct in his actions with Batsheva and the census, according to King David we are mistaken.
So let us assume for a moment that Reuven’s actions here are a faux pas. Having said that, what happened?
Ramban suggests Reuven was fearful of Yaakov fulfilling God’s command of 35:11 to have more children, because he thought he would lose out more of his inheritance. His “older” mother was no longer fertile, Rachel was dead, as was Zilpah. So he switched the beds around, which worked because Yaakov did not subsequently have more children.
Without apologetics, Bchor Shor and Ibn Ezra claim Reuven did what the Torah says he did. Chizkuni, Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch and others suggest, most likely on the coattails of the Tanchuma, that Reuven lay in the room, which discouraged Yaakov from going there. (Ro”sh says he slept on her bed many nights to discourage his father from coming back, even though he did not sin in the way we’d generally suspect.) Once that happened, Yaakov chose to remain celibate for the rest of his days.
The Sha’kh defends Reuven saying Yaakov understood Reuven’s sincere intentions, to keep the family unit intact, and to maintain the requisite number of children required to begin a new nation. Nachor, Yishmael, and Eisav combined with Seir each had twelve sons. Now that Binyamin was born, Yaakov had twelve sons.
Perhaps Reuven thought, “If he has more children, some of his original 12 will be rejected. Perhaps he’ll start by rejecting some of Leah’s children.” So he took matters into his own hands to avoid the creation of more siblings.
Maskil L’David has the most innovative interpretation. Following the line of Reuven mixing the beds, causing his father to spend his evenings with Leah, he says the Torah is indicating the switch through the specific words it chooses.
Mix around the letters of “Vayishkav” (וישכב) and you have “Vayachabosh” (ויכבש) (and he cornered). Mix around “Pilegesh” (פילגש) (concubine – an odd choice because Bilhah is elsewhere called a “wife”) and you have “She’pileg” (שפילג) (that he caused a rift). In other words, he cornered Bilhah, and caused a rift between her and his father, causing Yaakov to seek companionship elsewhere. In this vein, Reuven was punished “measure for measure.” Since he switched around beds, the letters in the Torah were “switched around” to make him look worse.
No matter how we look at Reuven’s deed, what he did was not nice. Whether Bilhah was now prohibited to Yaakov is one question, but that Yaakov chose celibacy as a course of reaction was his own free will – not Reuven’s fault.
Why did Yaakov get angry, as evidenced from the way he spoke to Reuven in Bereishit 49:3-4, “for having moved the beds,” particularly if his intentions may have been noble?
Because no one has the right to cause a rift between a husband and wife.
The relationship between spouses is holy and sacred.
Not only should they view it that way, but everyone who meets them needs to understand boundaries in relating to a couple. Particularly when it comes to relating to a married person of the opposite gender, it is important to bear in mind the holiness of the person’s “kiddushin” and to respect space, privacy, and the individual’s personal commitment to the holy bond of matrimony.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Successful REKA program
On Thursday, aka Thanksgiving, the REKA program was inaugurated at the Young Israel of Hollywood.
From the REKA flyer:
REKA (רקע) means background. As a Jew you may be aware of or familiar with various every day religious practices. But do you know how the methods of performance are informed by Jewish law, history and sociology? We invite you to empower yourself with the knowledge you need to be an "informed Jew" so you can make sensible decisions based on the facts. The classes will not present a conclusion. Rather, various approaches and differing opinions will be presented, leaving you to be the judge and jury in taking charge of your Judaism.
Our first topic was "Views on Others' Holidays" - a discussion about to what degree we may or may not participate in the celebration of American holidays, whether they come from secular sources, or even other-religion sources but have become for the most part completely secularized with no religious significance.
The main sources I used for a starting point were these two articles written by Rabbi Michael Broyde - on Thanksgiving, and on Valentines Day. (The Thanksgiving article also appeared in the RJJ Journal of Halakha and Contemporary Society, Vol XXX - without the addendum about Halloween which appears in the online version.)
We also explored the history and sociology of legal holidays through different articles and webpages accessed on the web, including howstuffworks.com and google searches on the origins of the Christmas tree and other traditions. Here, for example, is a well researched article about the history of Thanksgiving.
Rabbi Bryode summarizes his arguments about what makes or breaks a Jews permissibility to participate in a celebration created by non-Jews.
In general, Rama (YD 178:1) seems to posit that in order to permit engaging in conduct that might have pagan origins, one must show one of four things.
· The debated activity has a secular origin or value.
· The conduct the individuals engage in can be rationally explained independent of the gentile holiday or event.
· The pagan origins of are so deeply hidden that they have disappeared, and the celebrations con be attributed to some secular source or reason.
· The activities memorialized are actually consistent with the Jewish tradition.
We tried to apply the litmus test to the aforementioned holidays, with mixed results.
Holding them up to purely American dates such as Memorial Day, Labor Day, Mothers and Fathers Days, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Election Day, Presidents Day, Independence Day - particularly in that most of them are "celebrated" (much like Lag BaOmer) with outdoor activities and Barbecues, or just a day off from work, they don't present a problem of commemoration: None of them have noticeable religious origins.
In SUMMARY
It was a great inauguration of the REKA program. Hopefully we'll have even more people in attendance on the coming legal holidays, with the interesting topics we have lined up.
Lastly - as a credit to those who came, here are the last few lines of Rabbi Broyde's article on Thanksgiving:
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik would reschedule shiur on Thanksgiving day, so that shiur started earlier, and ended earlier, allowing the celebration of Thanksgiving. It is important to note the Torah study was not canceled, or even curtailed. Rather, the day was rearranged to allow for a full compliment of Torah, hand in hand with the requisite "civil celebrations." That too is an important lesson in how we should mark Thanksgiving.
Torah learning must be an integral part of what we do, and how we function. Sometimes, because of the needs of the times or our duties as citizens, we undertake tasks that appear to conflict with our need to study and learn Torah. But yet we must continue to learn and study. Thus, Rabbi Soloveitchik did not cancel shiur on Thanksgiving. We, too, should not forget that lesson. Torah study must go on.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Dear Father In Law
This can also be read and commented on at the Jewish Star
Parshat Vayetze: Dear father-in-law
By Rabbi Avi Billet
November 27 2009/ 10 Cheshvan 5770
Before they went out of style, mother-in-law jokes were very popular. Have you ever heard of a father-in-law joke? I have not, but I suppose if anyone were to author such a joke, it would be our forefather Yaakov.
Consider this sequence of events, in chapter 29:14-28: Yaakov arrives in Charan and stays with Lavan for a month because he is a blood relative. Then Lavan tells him, “Just because you are my close relative, does it mean that you must work for me for nothing? Tell me what you want to be paid.”
While there is no indication that Yaakov was planning to freeload, it is also not clear that he was looking to work for Lavan. One can imply from Lavan’s words that, “You will work for me if you plan to stay here.” And the question becomes “for what wages?”
Due to his love for Rachel, he offers to work for seven years to marry her. 29:19 indicates this arrangement was agreeable to Lavan, who then offered room (and board?) to remain at status quo.
To think wedding plans were put on a back burner until the seven-year engagement period was up is hard to reconcile. Nonetheless, Yaakov needed to remind Lavan when it was time to live up to his end of the agreement. “The time is up. Give me my bride and let me marry her.”
The father-in-law switches the brides and agrees to make amends after a week of celebrations. Mind you, he does not simply apologize and give Rachel to Yaakov. He only allows the originally planned couple to marry in exchange for another coerced seven years of work.
One wonders how Lavan viewed his relationship with Yaakov. Did he admire and respect his son-in-law in any way, even minimally, as the father of Lavan’s grandchildren?
In 30:26, after having worked for 14 years to marry Lavan’s daughters, Yaakov respectfully requests permission to return home, along with his wives. Lavan convinces him to stay with a new “contract,” negotiated on Yaakov’s terms, and Yaakov works for an additional six years.
After fortunes turn and Yaakov feels, once again, that it is time to leave, he tells his wives of his intentions. Their response is ‘Do we then still have a portion and an inheritance in our father’s estate? Why, he treats us like strangers! He has sold us and spent the money! All the wealth that G-d has taken from our father actually belongs to us and our children. Now, whatever G-d has said to you, do it!’ (31:14-16)
And so he leaves.
Lavan discovers the flight, chases after Yaakov’s family, and a series of verbal exchanges plays out like this.
Lavan: How could you do this? You went behind my back and led my daughters away like prisoners of war! Why did you have to leave so secretly?…I would have sent you off with celebration and song, with drum and lyre! [but no money] You didn’t even let me kiss my grandsons and daughters goodbye.
Yaakov: …I thought that you might take your daughters away from me by force… By day I was consumed by the scorching heat, and at night by the frost, when sleep was snatched from my eyes. [I lived the life of a slave!] Twenty years now I have worked for you in your estate — fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for some of your flocks. You changed my wages ten times!
Lavan: The daughters are my daughters! The sons are my sons! The flocks are my flocks! All that you see is mine! But my daughters…what can I do to them today? Or to the children they have borne?
Yaakov always viewed his arrangement with Lavan as a financial one. It seems Lavan always viewed it as servitude, if not slavery. This is why he gave wives to his slave. This is why he feels the women and children belong to him. This is why the periods of service were six or seven years (see Exodus 21).
While I, thankfully, have not met too many people like Lavan, I have met sons-in-law who have felt similar to Yaakov in the way they are viewed and, in some cases, treated, by their in-laws.
If, as a parent, you trust your daughter enough to pay for (at least part of) her wedding, then the next step is to welcome the son-in-law into the family. If he ends up working for you, you can treat him nicely because he is married to your daughter, but don’t make him your slave because you provide his living. If he walks all over you and doesn’t work properly, give him severance and make his position go away.
At the same time, a son-in-law who doesn’t want to feel enslaved to his father-in-law ought to make important, thought-out decisions about how indebted you want to be to your father-in-law.
Finally, all parents who are looking to be future grandparents who have a relationship with their grandchildren ought to think about what will happen when the son-in-law gets the guts to move on with his life, cut the coattails and make a go of life independent of your input.
He wants to be married to your daughter. But he does not want to be married to you.
The author has a wonderfully healthy relationship with his in-laws.
Parshat Vayetze: Dear father-in-law
By Rabbi Avi Billet
November 27 2009/ 10 Cheshvan 5770
Before they went out of style, mother-in-law jokes were very popular. Have you ever heard of a father-in-law joke? I have not, but I suppose if anyone were to author such a joke, it would be our forefather Yaakov.
Consider this sequence of events, in chapter 29:14-28: Yaakov arrives in Charan and stays with Lavan for a month because he is a blood relative. Then Lavan tells him, “Just because you are my close relative, does it mean that you must work for me for nothing? Tell me what you want to be paid.”
While there is no indication that Yaakov was planning to freeload, it is also not clear that he was looking to work for Lavan. One can imply from Lavan’s words that, “You will work for me if you plan to stay here.” And the question becomes “for what wages?”
Due to his love for Rachel, he offers to work for seven years to marry her. 29:19 indicates this arrangement was agreeable to Lavan, who then offered room (and board?) to remain at status quo.
To think wedding plans were put on a back burner until the seven-year engagement period was up is hard to reconcile. Nonetheless, Yaakov needed to remind Lavan when it was time to live up to his end of the agreement. “The time is up. Give me my bride and let me marry her.”
The father-in-law switches the brides and agrees to make amends after a week of celebrations. Mind you, he does not simply apologize and give Rachel to Yaakov. He only allows the originally planned couple to marry in exchange for another coerced seven years of work.
One wonders how Lavan viewed his relationship with Yaakov. Did he admire and respect his son-in-law in any way, even minimally, as the father of Lavan’s grandchildren?
In 30:26, after having worked for 14 years to marry Lavan’s daughters, Yaakov respectfully requests permission to return home, along with his wives. Lavan convinces him to stay with a new “contract,” negotiated on Yaakov’s terms, and Yaakov works for an additional six years.
After fortunes turn and Yaakov feels, once again, that it is time to leave, he tells his wives of his intentions. Their response is ‘Do we then still have a portion and an inheritance in our father’s estate? Why, he treats us like strangers! He has sold us and spent the money! All the wealth that G-d has taken from our father actually belongs to us and our children. Now, whatever G-d has said to you, do it!’ (31:14-16)
And so he leaves.
Lavan discovers the flight, chases after Yaakov’s family, and a series of verbal exchanges plays out like this.
Lavan: How could you do this? You went behind my back and led my daughters away like prisoners of war! Why did you have to leave so secretly?…I would have sent you off with celebration and song, with drum and lyre! [but no money] You didn’t even let me kiss my grandsons and daughters goodbye.
Yaakov: …I thought that you might take your daughters away from me by force… By day I was consumed by the scorching heat, and at night by the frost, when sleep was snatched from my eyes. [I lived the life of a slave!] Twenty years now I have worked for you in your estate — fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for some of your flocks. You changed my wages ten times!
Lavan: The daughters are my daughters! The sons are my sons! The flocks are my flocks! All that you see is mine! But my daughters…what can I do to them today? Or to the children they have borne?
Yaakov always viewed his arrangement with Lavan as a financial one. It seems Lavan always viewed it as servitude, if not slavery. This is why he gave wives to his slave. This is why he feels the women and children belong to him. This is why the periods of service were six or seven years (see Exodus 21).
While I, thankfully, have not met too many people like Lavan, I have met sons-in-law who have felt similar to Yaakov in the way they are viewed and, in some cases, treated, by their in-laws.
If, as a parent, you trust your daughter enough to pay for (at least part of) her wedding, then the next step is to welcome the son-in-law into the family. If he ends up working for you, you can treat him nicely because he is married to your daughter, but don’t make him your slave because you provide his living. If he walks all over you and doesn’t work properly, give him severance and make his position go away.
At the same time, a son-in-law who doesn’t want to feel enslaved to his father-in-law ought to make important, thought-out decisions about how indebted you want to be to your father-in-law.
Finally, all parents who are looking to be future grandparents who have a relationship with their grandchildren ought to think about what will happen when the son-in-law gets the guts to move on with his life, cut the coattails and make a go of life independent of your input.
He wants to be married to your daughter. But he does not want to be married to you.
The author has a wonderfully healthy relationship with his in-laws.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Hakol kol Yaakov - said by Whom?
This appears in this week's Jewish Star (feel free to comment there or here!)
Redefining Ambiguities
Parshat Toldot
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of November 20, 2009/ 3 Cheshvan 5770
One of the fun exercises I like to employ when studying Chumash is to attribute vague or ambiguous statements to the less obvious person.
Let us reread two familiar verses in Chapter 27. We’ll follow them with a series of questions to provoke the imagination.
22 Yaakov came closer to his father Yitzchak, and he touched him. He said, ‘The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esav.’ 23 He did not recognize him because his hands were like Esav his brother’s — hairy — and he blessed him.
While most people will ascribe hard-set identities to the vague pronouns presented, what would the verses look like if we flipped things around? Who touched whom? Who said the words of the well-known statement describing Yaakov’s voice and Esav’s hands? Finally, who blessed whom before Yitzchak gave the true blessing in verses 28 and 29?
Yitzchak wanted to feel Yaakov — he said so in verse 21. But if Yitzchak is laying in a bed, as we imagine, who is making the effort to feel? Is Yaakov putting himself in position for Yitzchak to touch him, or is it Yitzchak’s action? This is a question of semantics; it doesn’t really matter.
Ramban and others say Yaakov was much less concerned about his voice being a giveaway than his hands, either because the twins sounded alike or because Yaakov could disguise his voice. Chizkuni suggests that people’s voices do not always sound the same (you could be hoarse, have a cold, wake up on the wrong side of the bed, etc.)
With this in mind, if Yitzchak describes the voice and the hands, we are left to ponder what he meant. Commentaries suggest a whole slew of ideas.
Curiosity — “It’s odd that Esav is talking this way, but whatever.”
Exasperation or confusion — Yitzchak was trying to comprehend the oxymoron in front of him, a person who speaks the way Yaakov speaks, yet who clearly fills Esav’s body.
A confirmation — Esav had arranged with Yitzchak that he would use Yaakov’s voice when he returned, just in case Yaakov tried to steal the blessings in his absence by using Esav’s voice. In this way, Yitzchak was affirming the test he was supposed to perform. (Ohev Yisrael and Beit Halevi)
A different kind of test – Yitzchak was using his senses to test the identity of the person. His taste, touch and smell all indicated Esav, while the voice indicated Yaakov. 3 out of 4 are good odds. (Toldot Yitzchak)
But what if Yaakov made the statement? As the Torah does leave it vague, the possibility — remote as it may be — remains. And if it was Yaakov, we can now ponder what he may have meant.
Patronizing — I know the voice is Yaakov’s, but look at the hands!
Clever — This is what you were expecting: Yaakov’s voice and Esav’s hands. (based on Beit Halevi)
Meek — The voice is Yaakov’s because I (in my role as Esav) am having “a moment.” I am feeling spiritual right now and have decided to speak in a different way.
Convincing — Don’t pay attention to voice or the things I am saying. Voice is the strength of Yaakov. But my (Esav’s) strength is the hands. And the hands prepared and brought you the food you asked for.
The vague blessing at the end of verse 23 can also have gone either way. Whether Yitzchak was giving a cursory blessing to Yaakov for having brought the food, or Yaakov was blessing Yitzchak for going along with the ruse thus far, we see two people challenged by the circumstances they’ve been put to, who relate to each other in a cautious yet respectful way.
When Rivka told Yaakov in 27:13 that any penalties would be on her shoulders, she gave Yaakov what football fans would call a “free play.” He could essentially do whatever he wanted or felt he needed to do in order to receive the blessings from his father.
If Yaakov said the “famous phrase” he teaches us how there are times we need to be our own best advocates. As long as we follow the rules laid out for us (in Yaakov’s case the rule was his mother’s instruction, “You are pretending to be Esav”), we are to make the best effort to achieve our desired outcome.
Redefining Ambiguities
Parshat Toldot
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of November 20, 2009/ 3 Cheshvan 5770
One of the fun exercises I like to employ when studying Chumash is to attribute vague or ambiguous statements to the less obvious person.
Let us reread two familiar verses in Chapter 27. We’ll follow them with a series of questions to provoke the imagination.
22 Yaakov came closer to his father Yitzchak, and he touched him. He said, ‘The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esav.’ 23 He did not recognize him because his hands were like Esav his brother’s — hairy — and he blessed him.
While most people will ascribe hard-set identities to the vague pronouns presented, what would the verses look like if we flipped things around? Who touched whom? Who said the words of the well-known statement describing Yaakov’s voice and Esav’s hands? Finally, who blessed whom before Yitzchak gave the true blessing in verses 28 and 29?
Yitzchak wanted to feel Yaakov — he said so in verse 21. But if Yitzchak is laying in a bed, as we imagine, who is making the effort to feel? Is Yaakov putting himself in position for Yitzchak to touch him, or is it Yitzchak’s action? This is a question of semantics; it doesn’t really matter.
Ramban and others say Yaakov was much less concerned about his voice being a giveaway than his hands, either because the twins sounded alike or because Yaakov could disguise his voice. Chizkuni suggests that people’s voices do not always sound the same (you could be hoarse, have a cold, wake up on the wrong side of the bed, etc.)
With this in mind, if Yitzchak describes the voice and the hands, we are left to ponder what he meant. Commentaries suggest a whole slew of ideas.
Curiosity — “It’s odd that Esav is talking this way, but whatever.”
Exasperation or confusion — Yitzchak was trying to comprehend the oxymoron in front of him, a person who speaks the way Yaakov speaks, yet who clearly fills Esav’s body.
A confirmation — Esav had arranged with Yitzchak that he would use Yaakov’s voice when he returned, just in case Yaakov tried to steal the blessings in his absence by using Esav’s voice. In this way, Yitzchak was affirming the test he was supposed to perform. (Ohev Yisrael and Beit Halevi)
A different kind of test – Yitzchak was using his senses to test the identity of the person. His taste, touch and smell all indicated Esav, while the voice indicated Yaakov. 3 out of 4 are good odds. (Toldot Yitzchak)
But what if Yaakov made the statement? As the Torah does leave it vague, the possibility — remote as it may be — remains. And if it was Yaakov, we can now ponder what he may have meant.
Patronizing — I know the voice is Yaakov’s, but look at the hands!
Clever — This is what you were expecting: Yaakov’s voice and Esav’s hands. (based on Beit Halevi)
Meek — The voice is Yaakov’s because I (in my role as Esav) am having “a moment.” I am feeling spiritual right now and have decided to speak in a different way.
Convincing — Don’t pay attention to voice or the things I am saying. Voice is the strength of Yaakov. But my (Esav’s) strength is the hands. And the hands prepared and brought you the food you asked for.
The vague blessing at the end of verse 23 can also have gone either way. Whether Yitzchak was giving a cursory blessing to Yaakov for having brought the food, or Yaakov was blessing Yitzchak for going along with the ruse thus far, we see two people challenged by the circumstances they’ve been put to, who relate to each other in a cautious yet respectful way.
When Rivka told Yaakov in 27:13 that any penalties would be on her shoulders, she gave Yaakov what football fans would call a “free play.” He could essentially do whatever he wanted or felt he needed to do in order to receive the blessings from his father.
If Yaakov said the “famous phrase” he teaches us how there are times we need to be our own best advocates. As long as we follow the rules laid out for us (in Yaakov’s case the rule was his mother’s instruction, “You are pretending to be Esav”), we are to make the best effort to achieve our desired outcome.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Married With Children - Sunday Morning at Temple Solel
This morning, I participated in a program for the religious school parents who brought their children to Temple Solel's Sunday morning program. Thanks to Rabbi Kurtz-Lendner for organizing the program, and of course for the introduction and for his participation.
Our topic was "Married With Children" - though we left Al Bundy and his machinations out of the equation.
Instead, our focus was on lessons to be learned from our forefathers and mothers, in the Torah portions of yesterday (Chayei Sarah) and this coming Shabbat (Toldot).
With a merging of drama and discussion, we focused on five points to be learned from the ways in which Abraham, Isaac and Rebekah raised their children.
1. Abraham makes a concerted effort to help his son find a spouse.
While most of us do not experience parental involvement in the choosing of our mate, as parents we can be involved in the process leading up to important life decisions our children make.
2. Rebekah recognizes the different nature of each child
From the time she was pregnant with her twins, she knew each one was different. Even twins can be dramatically different from each other. It is important to recognize the differences and never to assume that just because they are being raised in the same home that the same methods will work for both (or all) of them. And, of course, to relate to each child in a different way, in a way suitable to the needs of the individual child.
We compared this to the Cain and Abel story (interestingly, Esav is a farmer and Jacob is a shepherd, which are the same professions as Cain and Abel respectively). Cain and Abel each brought an offering to God: Abel's was accepted and Cain's was rejected. Abel had brought the choice of his flock, while Cain had brought secondary items.
It was not that God compared Cain's secondary offering to Abel's choice offering. Cain was compared against himself, and what he could have brought had he only cared more.
Children should never be compared to one another. They should only be measured against their own potential.
3. Isaac and Rebekah parent differently - and love their children differently
The Torah tells us that Isaac loved Esav because of the 'food he put in his mouth,' while Rebekah simply 'loved Jacob' - with no reason attached.
While a parent may "prefer" one child over another - and it also may depend on the day - it is never a good idea to express this to children. There are no favorites.
Additionally, love must be unconditional. The moment Isaac receives food from the diguised Jacob, he blesses Jacob, because he loves the bearer of food not for who he is but for what he does.
4. Isaac and Rebekah share a vision of what is best for their child
Recognizing the danger Jacob is in due to the violent tendencies of Esav (and his self-admitted plan to kill Jacob), the two parents discuss and conclude that Jacob's best bet is to go to her brother's home where he can continue his life. They know his presence will lead, minimally, to discomfort in the home, and maximally to his death. Together they come up with a plan that will work for everyone - though the amount of time he stays away (22 years) is not anticipated.
5. Subliminal Messages
One thing Esav did learn from his father is to marry at age 40. The problem is that Abraham establishd a rule for the family that the men marry women from his hometown - Charan - and not from the women of Canaan.
Esav's wives were Hittite women, and they were a tremendous source of anguish to his parents
However, when he heard that his parents did not approve of such marriages, he immediately went and married his first cousing, the daughter of Yishmael.
Sometimes a subliminal or subversive message can get the point a cross in a clearer way, such that the child gets the message without feeling the need to reject or revolt against what is being said and/or modeled in the home.
Our discussion
We had a lovely discussion between us and focused on the need to not only study, but demonstrate and explain to our children that they are not the only ones attending classes and furthering their Jewish experience and Jewish education.
This is the first ingredient in assuring Jewish continuity: creating a culture of continued learning, as we learn lessons from our ancient texts, as they speak to us in each generation.
Our topic was "Married With Children" - though we left Al Bundy and his machinations out of the equation.
Instead, our focus was on lessons to be learned from our forefathers and mothers, in the Torah portions of yesterday (Chayei Sarah) and this coming Shabbat (Toldot).
With a merging of drama and discussion, we focused on five points to be learned from the ways in which Abraham, Isaac and Rebekah raised their children.
1. Abraham makes a concerted effort to help his son find a spouse.
While most of us do not experience parental involvement in the choosing of our mate, as parents we can be involved in the process leading up to important life decisions our children make.
2. Rebekah recognizes the different nature of each child
From the time she was pregnant with her twins, she knew each one was different. Even twins can be dramatically different from each other. It is important to recognize the differences and never to assume that just because they are being raised in the same home that the same methods will work for both (or all) of them. And, of course, to relate to each child in a different way, in a way suitable to the needs of the individual child.
We compared this to the Cain and Abel story (interestingly, Esav is a farmer and Jacob is a shepherd, which are the same professions as Cain and Abel respectively). Cain and Abel each brought an offering to God: Abel's was accepted and Cain's was rejected. Abel had brought the choice of his flock, while Cain had brought secondary items.
It was not that God compared Cain's secondary offering to Abel's choice offering. Cain was compared against himself, and what he could have brought had he only cared more.
Children should never be compared to one another. They should only be measured against their own potential.
3. Isaac and Rebekah parent differently - and love their children differently
The Torah tells us that Isaac loved Esav because of the 'food he put in his mouth,' while Rebekah simply 'loved Jacob' - with no reason attached.
While a parent may "prefer" one child over another - and it also may depend on the day - it is never a good idea to express this to children. There are no favorites.
Additionally, love must be unconditional. The moment Isaac receives food from the diguised Jacob, he blesses Jacob, because he loves the bearer of food not for who he is but for what he does.
4. Isaac and Rebekah share a vision of what is best for their child
Recognizing the danger Jacob is in due to the violent tendencies of Esav (and his self-admitted plan to kill Jacob), the two parents discuss and conclude that Jacob's best bet is to go to her brother's home where he can continue his life. They know his presence will lead, minimally, to discomfort in the home, and maximally to his death. Together they come up with a plan that will work for everyone - though the amount of time he stays away (22 years) is not anticipated.
5. Subliminal Messages
One thing Esav did learn from his father is to marry at age 40. The problem is that Abraham establishd a rule for the family that the men marry women from his hometown - Charan - and not from the women of Canaan.
Esav's wives were Hittite women, and they were a tremendous source of anguish to his parents
However, when he heard that his parents did not approve of such marriages, he immediately went and married his first cousing, the daughter of Yishmael.
Sometimes a subliminal or subversive message can get the point a cross in a clearer way, such that the child gets the message without feeling the need to reject or revolt against what is being said and/or modeled in the home.
Our discussion
We had a lovely discussion between us and focused on the need to not only study, but demonstrate and explain to our children that they are not the only ones attending classes and furthering their Jewish experience and Jewish education.
This is the first ingredient in assuring Jewish continuity: creating a culture of continued learning, as we learn lessons from our ancient texts, as they speak to us in each generation.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Parsha Drama - Chayei Sarah
After Sarah's death and funeral (of which we, strangely, have no photos), Avraham tells his servant (standing) to go find a wife for his son, from the land where Avraham grew up.
We try very hard to get the instructions clear... Avraham grew up in Charan!
I (Midrash identifies me as Eliezer) arrived at a well and made a condition. If a girl at the well gives me a drink, and then, on her own decides to give water to my camels, I'll know she's kind, sensitive, caring, thoughtful, sincere, and she even likes animals! Here I am drinking the water she gave me.
And here she is filling her bucket from the well while I am explaining to everyone how much water ONE camel drinks. And she's shlepping water for TEN camels. Unbelievable!
Her brother Lavan (which means white) noticed the jewelry I gave her, and he wants to know if I have any more...
While he's pretending to hug me, he's really checking my pockets to see if I'm hiding anything.
After I proved to her family my noble intentions, even Lavan sent Rivkah off with a blessing...
When we got back to the place where Avraham lived, the first person we saw was Yitzchak. Out of awe, Rivkah fell off her camel, and then covered her face so Yitzchak could not look at her. This just proves how modest she was.
Yitzchak was a little concerned that he could not see her face, (he even wondered if she was hiding her face to hide the fact that she isn't so pretty...)
But I sure showed him! She is actually very pretty.
So they got married, and Yitzchak was finally comforted over the loss of his mother - who had died three years earlier.
Avraham continued his life, getting married to Keturah and having six more sons (aside from others he may have had with different concubines), and he lived to the ripe old age of 175. [He didn't want pictures taken from his second wedding because he didn't want photo documentation that he ever lived with a wife other than Sarah.]
We try very hard to get the instructions clear... Avraham grew up in Charan!
I (Midrash identifies me as Eliezer) arrived at a well and made a condition. If a girl at the well gives me a drink, and then, on her own decides to give water to my camels, I'll know she's kind, sensitive, caring, thoughtful, sincere, and she even likes animals! Here I am drinking the water she gave me.
And here she is filling her bucket from the well while I am explaining to everyone how much water ONE camel drinks. And she's shlepping water for TEN camels. Unbelievable!
Her brother Lavan (which means white) noticed the jewelry I gave her, and he wants to know if I have any more...
While he's pretending to hug me, he's really checking my pockets to see if I'm hiding anything.
After I proved to her family my noble intentions, even Lavan sent Rivkah off with a blessing...
When we got back to the place where Avraham lived, the first person we saw was Yitzchak. Out of awe, Rivkah fell off her camel, and then covered her face so Yitzchak could not look at her. This just proves how modest she was.
Yitzchak was a little concerned that he could not see her face, (he even wondered if she was hiding her face to hide the fact that she isn't so pretty...)
But I sure showed him! She is actually very pretty.
So they got married, and Yitzchak was finally comforted over the loss of his mother - who had died three years earlier.
Avraham continued his life, getting married to Keturah and having six more sons (aside from others he may have had with different concubines), and he lived to the ripe old age of 175. [He didn't want pictures taken from his second wedding because he didn't want photo documentation that he ever lived with a wife other than Sarah.]
Growing to Love
This appears in the Jewish Star
Parshat Chayei Sara
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of November 13/ 26 Cheshvan 5770
Take a careful look at Bereishit 24:67. “And Yitzchak brought Rivka to his mother’s tent. He took Rivka, she became his wife, and then he loved her, and then he was comforted over the loss of his mother.”
In modern parlance, we might say “He dated her, he married her, and then he grew to love her.”
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch points out the classic beauty of the ideal Jewish home. “The more she lived as and grew into her role of being his wife, such did his love for her grow.” This, Hirsch argues, is the fundamental ingredient to a successful Jewish marriage. (And, yes, it goes both ways!)
A Jewish home is not built on lustful thoughts and feelings; it is built upon common values and similar approaches to how to live the best Jewish life, sharing an overall gestalt that serves for a harmonious existence. This intellectual and spiritual connection strengthens love, as the couple gives themselves the chance to get to know one another.
Hirsch emphasizes the marked distinction between pre-marital “love,” and the love which comes after the commitment to one another has taken complete effect. It is that commitment which becomes the fuel that drives a person to achieve and to accomplish, and ultimately to make the home a model of respect and caring behavior.
The wedding is not the pinnacle of love. It is the root which allows love to blossom. This is the difference between the Western, romantic notion of love, and love as described in the Torah.The fact that Yitzchak, a forty-year-old man, is only comforted now, three years after his elderly mother’s death, indicates not only the tremendous connection and regard a man can have for his mother, but the tremendous role a wife can play in the life of her husband.
Quoting Onkelos, Ramban explains that the love Yitzchak felt for his wife began because of her righteousness and the straightness of her deeds — things he learned of as they were living together. Could this mean that he loved her because of the things she did? Absolutely.
The Mishnah in Avot (5:16) describes two kinds of love: love which is dependent on something, and love which is dependent on nothing. If love is dependent on something, when that is lost, the love falls apart. The other kind of love never goes away.
The example the Mishnah gives of the love which can fall apart is Amnon and Tamar, two children of King David who had a very disturbing, one-sided relationship. (Samuel II:13) The other kind of love is modeled by David and his best friend, Yonatan, the son of King Shaul. As best friends who shared a vision of how each other could shine, and how they could both become leaders of Israel, all they ever wanted for each other was the very best.
A husband and wife will often begin their marriage out of love of the first kind: egotistical, what he/she can do for me, to make my life better. This is normal. In the initial stages, love based on deeds is the healthiest type of love. How does one love others just because they are there? Love, in a sense, needs to be earned. A person has to work hard to love and to be loved, to do for someone else, to be worthy of being the recipient of someone else’s true (non-lustful) affection.
Love which comes out of infatuation, or a tingly feeling a person gets, is meaningless. It doesn’t take long for that tingly feeling to go away once the excitement becomes routine, unless the love continues to derive strength from other factors. The former and the latter sentiments can best be summarized in this distinction: the difference between “I love you because you are beautiful” and “You are beautiful because I love you.”
Yitzchak is the first person in the Torah who expresses love.
And he does so with thought, with consideration, and most importantly, with time.
Yitzchak teaches us that the ideal state of love in a marriage begins when people do things for one another. This is love which is dependent upon something.
But as the two sides grow together, and create their home in such a way that they think alike, feel alike, believe alike and have common goals, their love will no longer be dependent upon anything. Their love will last till eternity as they live out their lives as the best of friends.
Parshat Chayei Sara
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of November 13/ 26 Cheshvan 5770
Take a careful look at Bereishit 24:67. “And Yitzchak brought Rivka to his mother’s tent. He took Rivka, she became his wife, and then he loved her, and then he was comforted over the loss of his mother.”
In modern parlance, we might say “He dated her, he married her, and then he grew to love her.”
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch points out the classic beauty of the ideal Jewish home. “The more she lived as and grew into her role of being his wife, such did his love for her grow.” This, Hirsch argues, is the fundamental ingredient to a successful Jewish marriage. (And, yes, it goes both ways!)
A Jewish home is not built on lustful thoughts and feelings; it is built upon common values and similar approaches to how to live the best Jewish life, sharing an overall gestalt that serves for a harmonious existence. This intellectual and spiritual connection strengthens love, as the couple gives themselves the chance to get to know one another.
Hirsch emphasizes the marked distinction between pre-marital “love,” and the love which comes after the commitment to one another has taken complete effect. It is that commitment which becomes the fuel that drives a person to achieve and to accomplish, and ultimately to make the home a model of respect and caring behavior.
The wedding is not the pinnacle of love. It is the root which allows love to blossom. This is the difference between the Western, romantic notion of love, and love as described in the Torah.The fact that Yitzchak, a forty-year-old man, is only comforted now, three years after his elderly mother’s death, indicates not only the tremendous connection and regard a man can have for his mother, but the tremendous role a wife can play in the life of her husband.
Quoting Onkelos, Ramban explains that the love Yitzchak felt for his wife began because of her righteousness and the straightness of her deeds — things he learned of as they were living together. Could this mean that he loved her because of the things she did? Absolutely.
The Mishnah in Avot (5:16) describes two kinds of love: love which is dependent on something, and love which is dependent on nothing. If love is dependent on something, when that is lost, the love falls apart. The other kind of love never goes away.
The example the Mishnah gives of the love which can fall apart is Amnon and Tamar, two children of King David who had a very disturbing, one-sided relationship. (Samuel II:13) The other kind of love is modeled by David and his best friend, Yonatan, the son of King Shaul. As best friends who shared a vision of how each other could shine, and how they could both become leaders of Israel, all they ever wanted for each other was the very best.
A husband and wife will often begin their marriage out of love of the first kind: egotistical, what he/she can do for me, to make my life better. This is normal. In the initial stages, love based on deeds is the healthiest type of love. How does one love others just because they are there? Love, in a sense, needs to be earned. A person has to work hard to love and to be loved, to do for someone else, to be worthy of being the recipient of someone else’s true (non-lustful) affection.
Love which comes out of infatuation, or a tingly feeling a person gets, is meaningless. It doesn’t take long for that tingly feeling to go away once the excitement becomes routine, unless the love continues to derive strength from other factors. The former and the latter sentiments can best be summarized in this distinction: the difference between “I love you because you are beautiful” and “You are beautiful because I love you.”
Yitzchak is the first person in the Torah who expresses love.
And he does so with thought, with consideration, and most importantly, with time.
Yitzchak teaches us that the ideal state of love in a marriage begins when people do things for one another. This is love which is dependent upon something.
But as the two sides grow together, and create their home in such a way that they think alike, feel alike, believe alike and have common goals, their love will no longer be dependent upon anything. Their love will last till eternity as they live out their lives as the best of friends.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Age Doesn't Matter
Or does it?
There is a lot of talk in the parsha blogosphere about the age of Rivkah at her wedding.
I wrote about it last year [original post is here, and how some people disagreed (understatement) is here (note the disclaimer they add because of the inflammatory nature of the article), and another blog which picked it up is here. And the last one - to which I was the last to comment - is here - (his layout is the same as arabbiwithoutacause... :) ]
Rabbi Marc Angel wrote about it this year over here
Lessons to be Learned Are More Important
Practically speaking it does not matter if Rivkah was three at her wedding, nor does it matter how old Yitzchak was at the Akedah, nor does it matter what caused Sarah to die at age 127.
My Chayei Sarah parsha class this year focuses on these issues.
I have found numerous sources which indicate a younger Yitzchak (most likely 13 at the akedah), and older Rivkah (more likely 14 at her wedding), and that Sarah did not die at 127 from the shock of being told by an outsider that Avraham was on top of a mountain about to kill her son.
So Why Make a Big Deal?
I think that it is more important to see that there are differences of opinion, which are all legitimate, they are typically backed by talmudic or midrashic sources, and we need to open our eyes.
Many people learned something once as a child, had it reinforced over and over without ever subjecting it to real critical-thinking analysis, and have ingrained it in their psyche so deeply that a suggestion which challenges their assumptions is not only difficult to conceive, it must be labeled heretical (!) which will automatically make it meaningless, useless, and not worthy of a response.
Sounds a little like communism, no?
A Better Flavored Palate
Bear in mind that the source for the ages of 37, 3 and Sarah's death caused by news of Akedah is because all three events take place within 8 verses of each other in the Torah - the end of Chapter 22 and the beginning of Chapter 23.
With that argument, however, let us look at the end of Chapter 16 and the beginning of Chapter 17, in which Avram is first 86, and then in the very next verse he is 99.
13 years pass in the space between sentences.
Why can't we say the same thing takes place here, a quick skip of 13 years between the Akedah and the birth of Rivkah? Another 11 years or so pass before Sarah dies... Now we are talking!
If Yitzchak is 13 at the Akedah, then the test remains all about Avraham, because the agenda was hidden from Yitzchak, he could not figure it out, and the fact that Avraham is able to overpower him is not even mentioned. Yitzchak is still a child. Were he 37, his submission would be a bigger test of faith than that of his father for doing exactly what God told him. God never told Yitzchak to sacrifice himself.
If Rivkah is 14 at the time she is propositioned for marriage to Eliezer's master, then we have no problem with her carrying tons of water for camels (approximately 300 gallons), her thoughtfulness, and her family's willingness to let her go based on her own agreement. The fact that she is called a "נערה" in the Torah (a term which usually indicates an age significantly higher than 3) is no longer misunderstood.
If Sarah did not die because of the shock of the Akedah, we can reconcile why she and Avraham seem to be living in different places at the time of her death, we can understand a little better why Yitzchak is still mourning for his mother by the time Rivkah arrives (despite the fact that some midrashim suggest he went away after the at-age-37-akedah and might not have even known about his mother's death until he brought Rivkah into Sarah's tent), and we also remove from the Torah an example of someone who dies from shock.
Any person who dies in the Torah is either murdered, punished, or dies of natural causes such as old age (or to protect them from bad things that may happen). We never find an incident where "shock" causes someone's soul to exit the body.
While the incident of the Akedah may have been shocking, there are many midrashim which indicate Sarah actually met Yitzchak afterwards (meaning, hearing the news of her husband on top of the mountain with a knife in his hand did not kill her).
Other midrashim suggest she lost (depending on how you count how long she should have lived), either 38, 43 or 48 years of her life over the way she treated her husband when Hagar first became pregnant. If this is the case, her death at 127 has nothing to do with the Akedah, no matter how you slice it.
Bottom Line
Let us open our eyes to new ideas, let us learn lessons from whichever age you prefer, but to decide what is the simple meaning and explanation without fully exploring the breadth of Torah to find other approaches... Not just intellectually deceiving (to yourself), but the ultimate disservice to your growth as an educated Jew.
There is a lot of talk in the parsha blogosphere about the age of Rivkah at her wedding.
I wrote about it last year [original post is here, and how some people disagreed (understatement) is here (note the disclaimer they add because of the inflammatory nature of the article), and another blog which picked it up is here. And the last one - to which I was the last to comment - is here - (his layout is the same as arabbiwithoutacause... :) ]
Rabbi Marc Angel wrote about it this year over here
Lessons to be Learned Are More Important
Practically speaking it does not matter if Rivkah was three at her wedding, nor does it matter how old Yitzchak was at the Akedah, nor does it matter what caused Sarah to die at age 127.
My Chayei Sarah parsha class this year focuses on these issues.
I have found numerous sources which indicate a younger Yitzchak (most likely 13 at the akedah), and older Rivkah (more likely 14 at her wedding), and that Sarah did not die at 127 from the shock of being told by an outsider that Avraham was on top of a mountain about to kill her son.
So Why Make a Big Deal?
I think that it is more important to see that there are differences of opinion, which are all legitimate, they are typically backed by talmudic or midrashic sources, and we need to open our eyes.
Many people learned something once as a child, had it reinforced over and over without ever subjecting it to real critical-thinking analysis, and have ingrained it in their psyche so deeply that a suggestion which challenges their assumptions is not only difficult to conceive, it must be labeled heretical (!) which will automatically make it meaningless, useless, and not worthy of a response.
Sounds a little like communism, no?
A Better Flavored Palate
Bear in mind that the source for the ages of 37, 3 and Sarah's death caused by news of Akedah is because all three events take place within 8 verses of each other in the Torah - the end of Chapter 22 and the beginning of Chapter 23.
With that argument, however, let us look at the end of Chapter 16 and the beginning of Chapter 17, in which Avram is first 86, and then in the very next verse he is 99.
13 years pass in the space between sentences.
Why can't we say the same thing takes place here, a quick skip of 13 years between the Akedah and the birth of Rivkah? Another 11 years or so pass before Sarah dies... Now we are talking!
If Yitzchak is 13 at the Akedah, then the test remains all about Avraham, because the agenda was hidden from Yitzchak, he could not figure it out, and the fact that Avraham is able to overpower him is not even mentioned. Yitzchak is still a child. Were he 37, his submission would be a bigger test of faith than that of his father for doing exactly what God told him. God never told Yitzchak to sacrifice himself.
If Rivkah is 14 at the time she is propositioned for marriage to Eliezer's master, then we have no problem with her carrying tons of water for camels (approximately 300 gallons), her thoughtfulness, and her family's willingness to let her go based on her own agreement. The fact that she is called a "נערה" in the Torah (a term which usually indicates an age significantly higher than 3) is no longer misunderstood.
If Sarah did not die because of the shock of the Akedah, we can reconcile why she and Avraham seem to be living in different places at the time of her death, we can understand a little better why Yitzchak is still mourning for his mother by the time Rivkah arrives (despite the fact that some midrashim suggest he went away after the at-age-37-akedah and might not have even known about his mother's death until he brought Rivkah into Sarah's tent), and we also remove from the Torah an example of someone who dies from shock.
Any person who dies in the Torah is either murdered, punished, or dies of natural causes such as old age (or to protect them from bad things that may happen). We never find an incident where "shock" causes someone's soul to exit the body.
While the incident of the Akedah may have been shocking, there are many midrashim which indicate Sarah actually met Yitzchak afterwards (meaning, hearing the news of her husband on top of the mountain with a knife in his hand did not kill her).
Other midrashim suggest she lost (depending on how you count how long she should have lived), either 38, 43 or 48 years of her life over the way she treated her husband when Hagar first became pregnant. If this is the case, her death at 127 has nothing to do with the Akedah, no matter how you slice it.
Bottom Line
Let us open our eyes to new ideas, let us learn lessons from whichever age you prefer, but to decide what is the simple meaning and explanation without fully exploring the breadth of Torah to find other approaches... Not just intellectually deceiving (to yourself), but the ultimate disservice to your growth as an educated Jew.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Shalom Zachar: Sources, Reasons, and Cute "Khaps"
There is a custom that on the first Friday night after a boy is born, his family hosts a party celebrating his arrival. This party is called the “Shalom Zachar,” שלום זכר – which can be translated any number of ways, most likely “Greetings, male child.”
In honor of the birth of our son, this class was prepared for and shared at his Shalom Zachar celebration. I present it here with the name of the source and what is presented in the work cited:
Why is it called Shalom Zachar?
Torat Emet – Through one method of gematria (Jewish numerology/’geometry’), the words Shalom Zachar equal the same amount as the word Bris, for which the Shalom Zachar is a pre-cursor.
Shalom = 376 :: Zachar = 227 :: add 7 (letters) + 2 (words) = 612
ש = 300, ל = 30, ו = 6, ם = 40
ז = 7, כ = 20, ר = 200
ברית
ב– 2, ר– 200, י– 10, ת– 400
altogether 612
Talmud Niddah 31b - כיון שבא זכר בעולם בא שלום בעולם – When a male זכר comes to the world, peace (שלום) comes to the world (He brings cause for celebratory parties, including one which takes place on the Sabbath, which is a day of peace)
Matamim (A book which describes the reasons for customs) – זכר equals the words ז' כר – 7 gifts God sends to those who have a male child. Milah, Pidyon Haben, teaching him “Torah Zivah Lanu,” teaching him to read, wearing tefillin, teaching a profession, marrying him off. We celebrate a “shalom zachar” because of the things which come with the arrival of a male child.
Why We Come to Greet the Baby
Matamim – As per the Moses story in Exodus 4, the one who is to be circumcised is called a groom. From elsewhere, we know a groom is compared to a king. The words לבד מאשר יושיט לו המלך refer to the treatment of a king [it appears in the context of whom may visit Achashveirosh, the king in the Esther story]. The beginnings of those words, their acronym, spells מילה, circumcision. Just as everyone comes to greet the king; and just as everyone comes to greet the groom on the shabbos before his wedding, so do we visit the ‘blood groom’ on the shabbos before his bris
Bris Avos – It seems to me, the reason we visit the baby is because when a guest comes to town, people come to greet and visit him on Shabbos. This is particularly so if he is a famous Tzaddik. And the baby is considered a Tzaddik, as the Magen Avraham writes…
Magen Avraham - And I saw one cantor who [, on the Sabbath, when praying for the ill is generally downplayed,] was accustomed to blessing those who had difficulty having babies [during labor?]. This is permitted according to everyone, because the baby is a Tzaddik, and he can bend the merits of the world.
Why We Have a Shalom Zachar (and why it’s Friday night)
Talmud Bava Kama 80a - Rav, Shmuel and Rav Asi went to the house of the “Shavua haben” (week of the son), and some say it was the “house of Yeshua Haben” – where the son was saved.
[Rashi says this refers to a Pidyon Haben, others say it refers to the bris, based on “week of…”]
Tosfot there - Rabbenu Tam believes it refers to when the son is born. Since he was saved from inside his mother, the language of “saved” is used – there was a custom to prepare a feast/meal, [before any meal celebrating the bris.]
Terumat Hadeshen – Even though it is explained in the name of Rabbenu Chananel that there was a custom to prepare a meal when a boy was born, because he’d been saved, this is not a disagreement with Rashi who says the Gemara refers to the pidyon haben meal. One of the sages proved from there that [the shalom zachar] is, according to Rashi, a seudas mitzvah (meal celebrating the fulfillment of a commandment), based on the idea that Rav attended the event (normally he only attended those kinds of meals, and not plain meals)… That it is our custom to enter the home to taste something at night – this is a fulfillment of a seudas mitzvah, and the reason why it is done Friday night is because everyone is home.
Midrash Vayikra Rabba 27:10 – … [A newborn animal that is to serve as a sacrificial offering is to stay] with its mother for 7 days… There is a parable to a king who entered a country saying “Anyone who wants to see me will not be allowed to until after you are approved by the matron.” In other words, an animal may not be brought as an offering until it has lived a shabbos, and the bris cannot take place until the baby has lived a shabbos.
Matamim – It is called Shalom Zachar because bris milah is the first closeness to holiness that a Jewish soul can attain through the removal of the foreskin, which is a cover for the holy crown which can otherwise not be revealed… he should experience one Sabbath before the bris, because it is the strength of the holiness of shabbos through which all activities of the week are filtered. Anticipation of excising the foreskin helps sanctify the previous shabbos, when we celebrate the Shalom Zachar.
Other Suggestions and Meanings of the words “Shalom Zachar”
Biras Migdal Oz of Rabbi Yakov Emden - 1. Eat fruits and sweets (no need for tons of food), 2. during the 1st week of life (as per BK 80a above), 3. It is called the “Meal of זכר”, 4. זכר means “remember” – we come to visit him for forgetting all he learned in the womb (see below Nidah 30b) [we come on Shabbos because of זכור – “Remember the Sabbath”], 5. Shabbos is the first mitzvah he fulfills, 6. We also “remind” (להזכיר) him of his promise (שבוע) [Another interpretation of שבוע הבן – the “swear of the son”], 7. Why not a similar party for girls? Males have more commandments…, 8. Females are sworn in through their destined spouses
Mourning
Niddah 30b – One of the most inspiring and moving passages in the Talmud, the baby’s experience in utero is described in great detail, how it is the most peaceful and blissful experience of a person’s life, how Job and others yearned to return to the womb, how a baby has a light over his head and vision to see from one end of the world to the other, how the baby is taught all of the Torah, and how it all comes to an end when the child emerges and an angel taps his mouth causing him to forget all that he has learned.
[Some say this is one of the reasons a baby cries when s/he is born. Others say this is a challenge for every baby to spend the rest of life trying to rediscover and relearn all the things forgotten at birth.
Because of this, another reason for visiting the baby is because he is mourning over the Torah knowledge he lost.
Mishnah Avot 4:22 – Reminds us that we are created, born and live against our will. All of which may be cause enough to mourn.
Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 – The dead are better off than the living, and better off than both of them are those who had not yet been born
Shefa Chaim – There is a custom to serve chick peas at a Shalom Zachar because they are considered a food of mourners (all round foods are considered such), and a source for this idea [reminiscent of the simanim/symbolic foods we eat on Rosh Hashana] is the verse הרבה ארבה את זרעך (Genesis 22:17). If you read that quickly, with a Yiddish pronunciation, you say Harbah Arbes Zar’ekha – which means “Have lots of chick peas with your children.”
Why No Similar Party for Girls?
Dagul Mervava – asks a very legitimate question: With the exception of one or two things related to bris, every reasons for the Shalom Zachar should apply to the arrival of a girl and there should be a similar party celebrating her first Shabbos.
Kings I 8:66 – On the eighth day he dismissed the people, and they blessed the King and went to their homes, rejoicing and delighted of heart for all the goodness that the Lord had wrought for David His servant and for His people.
Talmud Moed Katan 9a – To their homes [tents] – they went home and found their wives in a state of tahara. The rejoiced – because they merited from the divine presence. Delighted of heart – each of their wives became pregnant with a male child…
Talmud Bava Batra 16b – A daughter was born to Rabbi Shimon and he was disappointed [because he had hoped to fulfill the commandment of Pidyon Haben on the first-born boy]. His father said, “Propagation has come to the world.” Bar Kapara said to him “Your father gave you worthless comfort,” as we are taught in a Braita, “The world cannot exist without males and females – but praised is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females [because he will worry much more about his daughters than about his sons]”
Concluding Thought
Chavot Yair 70 – Suggests a different reason for the party is a celebration of thanks that the mother of the baby survived childbirth. He continues with a debate over what constitutes a סעודת מצוה – a meal hosted in celebration of the fulfillment of a mitzvah, v just a celebratory meal.
The conclusion we arrived at is that no matter what the Shalom Zachar is, it should consist of more discussions of Torah thoughts, and shared divrei Torah. It is very nice that the rabbi comes and speaks. But the rabbi should not be the only one who shares a serious word, thought out idea to provoke thought and to stimulate conversation.
Relatives and friends should be encouraged to participate, to help the celebration of the baby’s arrival, the mother’s being saved, the anticipation of baby’s bris, rise from a party to a sanctification of God’s name.
In honor of the birth of our son, this class was prepared for and shared at his Shalom Zachar celebration. I present it here with the name of the source and what is presented in the work cited:
Why is it called Shalom Zachar?
Torat Emet – Through one method of gematria (Jewish numerology/’geometry’), the words Shalom Zachar equal the same amount as the word Bris, for which the Shalom Zachar is a pre-cursor.
Shalom = 376 :: Zachar = 227 :: add 7 (letters) + 2 (words) = 612
ש = 300, ל = 30, ו = 6, ם = 40
ז = 7, כ = 20, ר = 200
ברית
ב– 2, ר– 200, י– 10, ת– 400
altogether 612
Talmud Niddah 31b - כיון שבא זכר בעולם בא שלום בעולם – When a male זכר comes to the world, peace (שלום) comes to the world (He brings cause for celebratory parties, including one which takes place on the Sabbath, which is a day of peace)
Matamim (A book which describes the reasons for customs) – זכר equals the words ז' כר – 7 gifts God sends to those who have a male child. Milah, Pidyon Haben, teaching him “Torah Zivah Lanu,” teaching him to read, wearing tefillin, teaching a profession, marrying him off. We celebrate a “shalom zachar” because of the things which come with the arrival of a male child.
Why We Come to Greet the Baby
Matamim – As per the Moses story in Exodus 4, the one who is to be circumcised is called a groom. From elsewhere, we know a groom is compared to a king. The words לבד מאשר יושיט לו המלך refer to the treatment of a king [it appears in the context of whom may visit Achashveirosh, the king in the Esther story]. The beginnings of those words, their acronym, spells מילה, circumcision. Just as everyone comes to greet the king; and just as everyone comes to greet the groom on the shabbos before his wedding, so do we visit the ‘blood groom’ on the shabbos before his bris
Bris Avos – It seems to me, the reason we visit the baby is because when a guest comes to town, people come to greet and visit him on Shabbos. This is particularly so if he is a famous Tzaddik. And the baby is considered a Tzaddik, as the Magen Avraham writes…
Magen Avraham - And I saw one cantor who [, on the Sabbath, when praying for the ill is generally downplayed,] was accustomed to blessing those who had difficulty having babies [during labor?]. This is permitted according to everyone, because the baby is a Tzaddik, and he can bend the merits of the world.
Why We Have a Shalom Zachar (and why it’s Friday night)
Talmud Bava Kama 80a - Rav, Shmuel and Rav Asi went to the house of the “Shavua haben” (week of the son), and some say it was the “house of Yeshua Haben” – where the son was saved.
[Rashi says this refers to a Pidyon Haben, others say it refers to the bris, based on “week of…”]
Tosfot there - Rabbenu Tam believes it refers to when the son is born. Since he was saved from inside his mother, the language of “saved” is used – there was a custom to prepare a feast/meal, [before any meal celebrating the bris.]
Terumat Hadeshen – Even though it is explained in the name of Rabbenu Chananel that there was a custom to prepare a meal when a boy was born, because he’d been saved, this is not a disagreement with Rashi who says the Gemara refers to the pidyon haben meal. One of the sages proved from there that [the shalom zachar] is, according to Rashi, a seudas mitzvah (meal celebrating the fulfillment of a commandment), based on the idea that Rav attended the event (normally he only attended those kinds of meals, and not plain meals)… That it is our custom to enter the home to taste something at night – this is a fulfillment of a seudas mitzvah, and the reason why it is done Friday night is because everyone is home.
Midrash Vayikra Rabba 27:10 – … [A newborn animal that is to serve as a sacrificial offering is to stay] with its mother for 7 days… There is a parable to a king who entered a country saying “Anyone who wants to see me will not be allowed to until after you are approved by the matron.” In other words, an animal may not be brought as an offering until it has lived a shabbos, and the bris cannot take place until the baby has lived a shabbos.
Matamim – It is called Shalom Zachar because bris milah is the first closeness to holiness that a Jewish soul can attain through the removal of the foreskin, which is a cover for the holy crown which can otherwise not be revealed… he should experience one Sabbath before the bris, because it is the strength of the holiness of shabbos through which all activities of the week are filtered. Anticipation of excising the foreskin helps sanctify the previous shabbos, when we celebrate the Shalom Zachar.
Other Suggestions and Meanings of the words “Shalom Zachar”
Biras Migdal Oz of Rabbi Yakov Emden - 1. Eat fruits and sweets (no need for tons of food), 2. during the 1st week of life (as per BK 80a above), 3. It is called the “Meal of זכר”, 4. זכר means “remember” – we come to visit him for forgetting all he learned in the womb (see below Nidah 30b) [we come on Shabbos because of זכור – “Remember the Sabbath”], 5. Shabbos is the first mitzvah he fulfills, 6. We also “remind” (להזכיר) him of his promise (שבוע) [Another interpretation of שבוע הבן – the “swear of the son”], 7. Why not a similar party for girls? Males have more commandments…, 8. Females are sworn in through their destined spouses
Mourning
Niddah 30b – One of the most inspiring and moving passages in the Talmud, the baby’s experience in utero is described in great detail, how it is the most peaceful and blissful experience of a person’s life, how Job and others yearned to return to the womb, how a baby has a light over his head and vision to see from one end of the world to the other, how the baby is taught all of the Torah, and how it all comes to an end when the child emerges and an angel taps his mouth causing him to forget all that he has learned.
[Some say this is one of the reasons a baby cries when s/he is born. Others say this is a challenge for every baby to spend the rest of life trying to rediscover and relearn all the things forgotten at birth.
Because of this, another reason for visiting the baby is because he is mourning over the Torah knowledge he lost.
Mishnah Avot 4:22 – Reminds us that we are created, born and live against our will. All of which may be cause enough to mourn.
Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 – The dead are better off than the living, and better off than both of them are those who had not yet been born
Shefa Chaim – There is a custom to serve chick peas at a Shalom Zachar because they are considered a food of mourners (all round foods are considered such), and a source for this idea [reminiscent of the simanim/symbolic foods we eat on Rosh Hashana] is the verse הרבה ארבה את זרעך (Genesis 22:17). If you read that quickly, with a Yiddish pronunciation, you say Harbah Arbes Zar’ekha – which means “Have lots of chick peas with your children.”
Why No Similar Party for Girls?
Dagul Mervava – asks a very legitimate question: With the exception of one or two things related to bris, every reasons for the Shalom Zachar should apply to the arrival of a girl and there should be a similar party celebrating her first Shabbos.
Kings I 8:66 – On the eighth day he dismissed the people, and they blessed the King and went to their homes, rejoicing and delighted of heart for all the goodness that the Lord had wrought for David His servant and for His people.
Talmud Moed Katan 9a – To their homes [tents] – they went home and found their wives in a state of tahara. The rejoiced – because they merited from the divine presence. Delighted of heart – each of their wives became pregnant with a male child…
Talmud Bava Batra 16b – A daughter was born to Rabbi Shimon and he was disappointed [because he had hoped to fulfill the commandment of Pidyon Haben on the first-born boy]. His father said, “Propagation has come to the world.” Bar Kapara said to him “Your father gave you worthless comfort,” as we are taught in a Braita, “The world cannot exist without males and females – but praised is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females [because he will worry much more about his daughters than about his sons]”
Concluding Thought
Chavot Yair 70 – Suggests a different reason for the party is a celebration of thanks that the mother of the baby survived childbirth. He continues with a debate over what constitutes a סעודת מצוה – a meal hosted in celebration of the fulfillment of a mitzvah, v just a celebratory meal.
The conclusion we arrived at is that no matter what the Shalom Zachar is, it should consist of more discussions of Torah thoughts, and shared divrei Torah. It is very nice that the rabbi comes and speaks. But the rabbi should not be the only one who shares a serious word, thought out idea to provoke thought and to stimulate conversation.
Relatives and friends should be encouraged to participate, to help the celebration of the baby’s arrival, the mother’s being saved, the anticipation of baby’s bris, rise from a party to a sanctification of God’s name.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Lot's Daughters
This article appears in this week's Jewish Star
Parsha: What happens when we assume
Parshat VayeraBy Rabbi Avi Billet
Issue of November 6, 2009/ 19 Cheshvan 5770- I always thought the story of Lot’s daughters was not taught in grade school because the material is inappropriate for children.
Reading it again, the initial sentiment still holds true. But an even bigger problem exists: the story makes no logical sense. Zero.
Consider: two daughters escape the Armageddon of their time. According to Rashi (19:31) they thought the world had been destroyed and that they and their father were the only survivors.
Considering his age and that there seem to be no other men, they take matters into their own hands, quickly become pregnant through him and give birth to Moav and Ammon — the fathers of two nations who were so devastating to our people.
It would seem that because of his age they were concerned he would not father another child. So what? If they believed they were the only survivors in the world, their father’s inability to marry and have another child is irrelevant. Even if he could, the son their father might have would be their brother, making a future marriage to him impossible according to most rules of the world.
If they were right in assuming there were no other men in the world to whom they could be married, and that their father was the only option, their focus on his age indicates the necessity for expedience. But what was their long-term plan?
They both had boys. Were they planning to continue to reproduce with their offspring, assuming Daddy would kick the bucket before their children were old enough to become fathers? And what would they have done had they both had girls?
Ramban writes (19:32) that they hoped one would have a girl and the other would have a boy. This is sincere, almost admirable. What lovely intentions. Did they consider alternative possibilities should they not produce their desired gender outcome?
More likely they weren’t really thinking of different permutations. Considering the relationship that existed between Lot and these two daughters, along with the family history of living in Sodom, there were bigger problems than “what will happen to the children born from Daddy?”
Lot offered his daughters to a mob in Sodom in exchange for protecting his mysterious guests. Between them, there seems to have been no love lost over the demise of Lot’s wife. The city of Sodom seems to have been a breeding ground of sexual immorality in which about everything “went.” This is the background for our strange tale.
To their intellectual credit, the girls were pretty sure that in a sober state their father would never go along with their plan. Perhaps that is to Lot’s credit as well.
On the other hand, the Talmud (Nazir 23a) explains that the word “u’v’kumah” (“and when she arose”) — which appears in the context of Lot not knowing of his elders daughter’s deed neither when she went to sleep nor when she woke up — appears in the Torah with dots to indicate that he actually did discover her deed when she woke up. As such, he was at fault when he allowed them to get him drunk the following night, now having full understanding of their intentions.
Ramban records two points of note: a Talmudic opinion that a Noahide is permitted to marry his daughter (Sanhedrin 58b), and a Talmudic defense of Lot (Nazir 23).
But if the midrash is correct that the daughters of Lot felt the destruction was as devastating as the flood (Bereishit Rabba 51:8), making it their duty to repopulate the world, why did they not wait for Divine instruction? If they felt they had been chosen, and they modeled their story on that of Noach, wouldn’t they expect directions from G-d?
How Adam and Chava populated the world beginning with two sons is a topic of one discussion. That Noach had three married sons who could procreate after the flood is a different discussion.
Whether one looks at their intentions as honorable or otherwise, the outcome of their actions produced Ammon and Moav.
As much as we can, we are meant to seek Divine guidance through the Torah and the mesorah (heritage) available to us. When there is no guidance, or the script is not written, what do we do to move on with our lives?
Sometimes we need to do a lot of legwork to find an answer. Sometimes it requires leaving the cave, finding the right person who can help and guide us along the way. And sometimes it means really exploring to see if our assumptions were correct, or if the difficulty in our life was really limited to a small time and place, making it, in the scheme of things, much less of a big deal than we originally thought.
But if we jump to our own conclusions, even if we’re not literally guilty of bringing an Ammon and Moav into this world, we are at least guilty of the same kinds of behavior that lead to a devastation of our people.
An Important Issue - Quick Marriages and Divorces
Last week an article I wrote about what I call the "post-shidduch crisis" appeared in The Jewish Star. It made its way to the vosizneias.com, where it created a bit of a splash.
It made it to Gil Student's hit list on his blog - hirhurim.blogspot.com - one of the Thursday links.
Here is the article - please feel free to comment below...
It made it to Gil Student's hit list on his blog - hirhurim.blogspot.com - one of the Thursday links.
Here is the article - please feel free to comment below...
Opinion: The Post-Shidduch Crisis
By Rabbi Avi BilletIssue of October 30th/ 12 Cheshvan 5770
Our community has a lot to say about the “shidduch crisis.” First, we blame the singles themselves. Why can’t young people date like we did? Why can’t they meet people in normal ways? Why can’t they have social functions like we had? Why can’t they get over their hang-ups of dating one person at a time? Why do they have to be so picky? Maybe they don’t really want to get married, because if they did, they would.
Then we blame their teachers. Why don’t the rebbeim do something about it? Why do they teach the boys that girls are taboo until it’s time to get married? Why are girls prohibited from talking to boys because of a stigma?
Then we blame halacha (Jewish law). It’s because they can’t be normal teenagers or adults – they don’t hold hands (plenty do anyway — that’s for a different discussion). What’s the big deal about a casual hug or impersonal kiss? Modesty shmodesty — they’re going to share a bedroom once they’re married, so why the need to dress modestly now?
Then we blame the culture we’ve created. Ridiculous background checks that put FBI and El-Al security to shame. Measuring tapes to check lengths of skirts, sleeves, and hat-brims. How classy are the “mechutanim”? (What does any of this have to do with whether the dating couple will honor, respect and care for each other in what will hopefully be a long marriage?)
It’s been said before that people get more excited about, and put way more hours into, preparing what will be a five-hour wedding than what should be, in good health, a fifty-plus years marriage.
Which leads to a newer, more serious crisis: the post-shidduch “very short marriage” crisis.
One of my professors in Yeshiva University would quip that college students got engaged so they could tell their friends “I’m engaged.” He’d say, “You people don’t know anything about love and romance. And you’re all too young to get married.”
Based only on informal polling, I would bet most people would probably prefer to experience or witness a broken engagement than a divorce. One of the last statements in Tractate Gittin (90b) is Rabbi Elazar’s comment that when a divorce takes place, even the mizbeach (altar) sheds tears.
At one point a couple of years ago, I personally knew of five marriages and divorces between the same couples that had taken place over a period of ten months. It is sad to think that all the joy, optimism and hope that took place at the wedding resulted in misunderstandings, disrespect (in some cases), and shattered dreams.
Unquestionably, men and women go into marriages with different expectations. Men and women have different needs spiritually, emotionally, and physically. They each bring different strengths to a marriage. But they each need to know in advance that not only is the marriage a partnership, but it is also a team. Sometimes you need to sacrifice yourself so the other person can shine. But the sacrifice helps the team win.
What is lost in communication pre-marriage? In all the hours dating and talking and sharing dreams, what is missed? How does the “love love love” feeling drastically switch (in such a short time) to “divorce”? Could it be we are not teaching ourselves that problems can come up and we need to deal with them? Could it be our eyes are so glazed over at the thought and process of preparing for that walk down the aisle we forget that five hours after the procession there’s a life to live together? And we need to prepare for that?
In America, it’s been said that “Marriage as an institution is a failure.” (To a similar statement, Groucho Marx said “And who wants to live in an institution?”) But it doesn’t have to be. It can be stressful, at times, and it requires work all the time. And that is why the married couple is a team. When a team works together and communicates, they can succeed. If each player is only worried about his or her own stats, the team has no chance.
Communication is hard at first. How does one give up being single, independent, making your own decisions, and replace that with having to think of another person? How does one communicate intimate, private thoughts about very personal dilemmas that one has never shared with anyone before? It sometimes takes time to really get to know and trust one’s spouse.
People who have never lived together do not really know each other until they have lived together for some time. I heard a great speaker talk about love and marriage and he declared, “Knowing what I know about love now [after 25 years of marriage] I would venture to say I did not love my wife when we got married.” But they grew together and built a wonderful marriage together.
There are a number of very traumatic events in a person’s life that can have a negative impact on one’s psyche and lead to symptoms of depression. They include: getting married, birth of a baby, moving, starting a new job, getting fired, divorcing, death of a close loved one. Marriage and moving usually take place at the same time, and if the wife or husband is from “out of town,” the move can be even more traumatic. The two people need to be there for each other, to trust each other, to share with each other, validate feelings, work together, see a marriage counselor if necessary, and work through kinks. The first few miles of any new road can be bumpy, but that doesn’t mean it’s an altogether bad road.
This is not to say that mistakes don’t happen. Some things creep up and come out in a way a person might never know until a man and woman share a roof. In some cases, there can be no reparation and the two parties will really have a miserable marriage if they stay together. This is why the Torah describes a method of divorce, why an entire tractate of the Talmud is dedicated to the topic, and why a complete section of the Shulchan Arukh is devoted to interpersonal relationships between men and women in the context of marriage and divorce. It is certainly hard to know the future. But divorce after a four-month marriage shouldn’t always be the answer to what seem to be, after such a short time, irreconcilable differences.
The mizbeach would like to stop crying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)