This also appears in the Jewish Star
B'haalotkha
Bamidbar chapter 11 is an example of the aftermath of someone observing that everything is perfect and cannot get any better, followed by the opposite extreme when things become so bad that they “can’t get any worse.”
Three incidents indicate a breakdown of the rosy image of idyllic travel, and lead up to the devastating event of the spies in chapters 13-14, that causes the generation of the exodus to slowly die out over forty years, never to reach the promised land.
Let us examine the first of these incidents.
“The people began to complain, and it was evil in G-d’s ears. When G-d heard it, He displayed His anger, and G-d’s fire flared out, consuming the edge of the camp. The people cried out to Moses, and when Moses prayed to G-d, the fire died down. ” (11:1-2)
Firstly, the language that describes this fire is very similar to the language describing the fire that killed Nadav and Avihu in Vayikra 10. Perhaps the “consuming fire” in both cases strikes down those who were meant to die from a previous incident.
In Shmot 24:10-11, Nadav, Avihu, and the elders all catch a glimpse of G-d, which Rashi explains as requiring a death sentence (most likely related to Shmot 33:20), which was commuted at that time – but carried out later. Nadav and Avihu died at the dedication of the Mishkan, and the elders died here (Rashi in Shmot 24; see also Chizkuni here).
Lesson #1
Perhaps we can say, “You can run, but you can never hide” from your past. Those guilty of misdeeds eventually have it catch up to them, particularly when other people were involved or hurt by their deeds.
Other Ways to Interpret
But there are other interpretations of the complainers’ identity, their complaints and why all was considered evil.
Many commentaries focus on the prefix and root of “k’mit’on’nim,” suggesting different shorashim (possible roots) and questioning why the people were “as if,” and not “actual” complainers.
Different interpretations of their complaint include: they wanted to separate from G-d (Rashi); now that they were sojourning, they were concerned about the difficulties of the journey (many commentaries); they thought the world predated G-d, which would mean there is no reason to fear G-d (Toldot Yitzchak); that Mishkan work had been taken from the firstborns of all the tribes and given to the Levites (which makes this a preview to Korach’s complaint, where fire will again consume the guilty) (Meshekh Chokhmah).
Most interesting are those who say the root of the word is “Onen,” as in a person who has yet to bury a deceased relative. According to the Daat Zekenim, this kind of mourning is the negativity they carried with them to their desert travels.
Kli Yakar, on the other hand, focuses on the backward letters “nun” which comes immediately before our tale, and also appear doubled in the word “k’mit’on’nim.” He examines complaints that follow in this chapter about lack of meat, and about the laws of sexual conduct, as delineated in Vayikra 18 and 20.
He claims the people accepted a suppressed desire after learning the latter rules, until the hidden message of “Vayhi Binsoa Ha’Aron” (end of chapter 10) reminded them of the importance of procreation. Men were now “willing” to procreate with every woman, until they remembered the laws of Vayikra 18 and 20. They now became like “Onenim” – new mourners who separate from their spouses, complaining of their catch-22. “We want to procreate, but we are limited in possible partners.”
The result of their complaints against Moshe and G-d for curbing their enthusiasm to fulfill the commandment, a fire of G-d consumed their fire of passion, says Kli Yakar, and those on the fringes were killed.
Lesson #2
The beauty of halakhah lies in the fact that much is still up for discussion – kashrut standards, medical ethics, the role of women, definitions of zmanim (times) and sizes of “shiurim” (amounts).
Rules that are explicit in the Torah, however, are not up for discussion. Whether they be of an appropriate way: for a person to see G-d, to violate the arayot of Vayikra 18 and 20, to suggest anything pre-dated G-d, or to complain about the Levites receiving special privileges, or any one of the Torah’s prohibitions, Jews who follow the Torah are going to have an impossible task declaring them void and unbinding.
In our free country, everything boils down to choices. One can choose to be or not to be part of the system. Once in the system, the unequivocal rules are dead-set. Those that might still be open to discussion should be front-burner discussions.
But if we’re going to complain (instead of participating in the give-and-take of dialogue) or flat out reject, then we’re pitting ourselves in the camp of those on the fringes who were destroyed by a fire, mourning over their “loss of freedom” that comes with being part of a collective whole, under G-d.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
In Good Faith
Parshat Naso - Being Faithful
by Rabbi Avi Billet
I cherish the fact that the Torah does not hide from truths, and does not whitewash unpleasant situations. Biblical narratives in and beyond the Torah include examples of individuals who struggled with the most primal of human urges. More than monetary fraud and tax evasion, this sin remains, to this day, one that ends even the greatest of political careers (unless you were U.S. president for most of the ‘90s).
Yosef, Shimshon, and King David are three examples of great Jewish leaders who faced these challenges. Yosef triumphed, David failed, and Shimshon dealt with his desires through a faithful intermarriage in order to infiltrate the enemy’s inner circle.
With this background, however, one can still argue that nothing about the circumstances surrounding the Sotah, the suspected adulteress, is particularly pleasant. It is nice that our parsha instructs in how to deal with a real-life possibility of unfaithfulness, but the focus is on exposing the unfaithful married woman, and there is no particular focus on her partner-in-sin, nor whether he is likewise married.
Not to say that he is faultless, blameless, or unpunished in the Torah’s presentation of the case or in the Talmud’s subsequent analysis of the circumstances. [Aish.com takes a stab at explaining this conundrum]
But in the Torah’s depiction of the particulars, it seems translators have a debate as to what really happened.
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s translation of the verses (5:12-13) reads thus:
“[This is the law] if any man's wife is suspected of committing adultery and being false to her husband. A man may have Iain with her carnally, keeping it hidden from her husband, and they may have acted secretly so that there could be no witness against [the woman]. [The woman] was not raped.”
ArtScroll translates the same words, “Any man whose wife may go astray and commit treachery against him; and a man could have lain with her carnally, but it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she became secluded and could have been defiled — but there was no witness against her — and she had not been forced.”
Rabbi J.H. Hertz translates the same words, “If any man’s wife go aside, and act unfaithfully against him, and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act.”
The husband’s jealousy follows, and the Torah then says she may have or may have not actually committed the act.
In all cases, she is brought to the temple, and the procedure with the kohen and the special waters follows.
Clearly there is talk of her husband being suspicious. The Hebrew text (5:13) says “V’shakhav ish otah shikhvat zera, v’ne’elam me’einei ishaH.”
Where Rabbi Kaplan and ArtScroll translate “a man may have” and “a man could have,” Rabbi Hertz writes “and a man lie with her.” The question therefore goes beyond, ‘does her husband have real grounds to suspect, beyond his warning to her?’ The question is, “Did she or didn’t she? And is it only because her husband warned her that she goes through this process?”
Hertz’s translation is the most literally accurate. The Torah does seem to suggest at the outset that the woman is guilty, before it retracts and says she may have or she may have not committed the sinful offense against her husband. Could it be, then, that she might maintain a complete secret from her husband, and though personally guilty of adultery, nonetheless get away with it on the human level?
It would seem so.
In our Jewish community, we value and focus on the nuclear family, and are meant to do our utmost to preserve its sanctity. Some of our communities have a standard of conduct that prevents married men from becoming too “familiar” with married women, and vice versa. The Mishnah in Avot 1:5 (see part I and part II) even suggests a healthy distance, to avoid problems.
In explaining the custom that women would not work in the evenings of Sefirat Haomer (Shulchan Arukh 493:4), Shibbolei Haleket (Pesach laws 235) compares the Omer offering to the Sotah offering — both are a tenth of an eiphah of barley — and says because the Omer offering might cause us to think of a Sotah and thus arouse suspicion that our righteous women are unfaithful, it is to their continued honor and glory that they refrain from work during these evenings, because they are above suspicion.
May all of us, men and women, continue to live up to the category of “above suspicion” of the Shibbolei Haleket, as we model ideal family life for ourselves and for our children.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
I cherish the fact that the Torah does not hide from truths, and does not whitewash unpleasant situations. Biblical narratives in and beyond the Torah include examples of individuals who struggled with the most primal of human urges. More than monetary fraud and tax evasion, this sin remains, to this day, one that ends even the greatest of political careers (unless you were U.S. president for most of the ‘90s).
Yosef, Shimshon, and King David are three examples of great Jewish leaders who faced these challenges. Yosef triumphed, David failed, and Shimshon dealt with his desires through a faithful intermarriage in order to infiltrate the enemy’s inner circle.
With this background, however, one can still argue that nothing about the circumstances surrounding the Sotah, the suspected adulteress, is particularly pleasant. It is nice that our parsha instructs in how to deal with a real-life possibility of unfaithfulness, but the focus is on exposing the unfaithful married woman, and there is no particular focus on her partner-in-sin, nor whether he is likewise married.
Not to say that he is faultless, blameless, or unpunished in the Torah’s presentation of the case or in the Talmud’s subsequent analysis of the circumstances. [Aish.com takes a stab at explaining this conundrum]
But in the Torah’s depiction of the particulars, it seems translators have a debate as to what really happened.
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s translation of the verses (5:12-13) reads thus:
“[This is the law] if any man's wife is suspected of committing adultery and being false to her husband. A man may have Iain with her carnally, keeping it hidden from her husband, and they may have acted secretly so that there could be no witness against [the woman]. [The woman] was not raped.”
ArtScroll translates the same words, “Any man whose wife may go astray and commit treachery against him; and a man could have lain with her carnally, but it was hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she became secluded and could have been defiled — but there was no witness against her — and she had not been forced.”
Rabbi J.H. Hertz translates the same words, “If any man’s wife go aside, and act unfaithfully against him, and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act.”
The husband’s jealousy follows, and the Torah then says she may have or may have not actually committed the act.
In all cases, she is brought to the temple, and the procedure with the kohen and the special waters follows.
Clearly there is talk of her husband being suspicious. The Hebrew text (5:13) says “V’shakhav ish otah shikhvat zera, v’ne’elam me’einei ishaH.”
Where Rabbi Kaplan and ArtScroll translate “a man may have” and “a man could have,” Rabbi Hertz writes “and a man lie with her.” The question therefore goes beyond, ‘does her husband have real grounds to suspect, beyond his warning to her?’ The question is, “Did she or didn’t she? And is it only because her husband warned her that she goes through this process?”
Hertz’s translation is the most literally accurate. The Torah does seem to suggest at the outset that the woman is guilty, before it retracts and says she may have or she may have not committed the sinful offense against her husband. Could it be, then, that she might maintain a complete secret from her husband, and though personally guilty of adultery, nonetheless get away with it on the human level?
It would seem so.
In our Jewish community, we value and focus on the nuclear family, and are meant to do our utmost to preserve its sanctity. Some of our communities have a standard of conduct that prevents married men from becoming too “familiar” with married women, and vice versa. The Mishnah in Avot 1:5 (see part I and part II) even suggests a healthy distance, to avoid problems.
In explaining the custom that women would not work in the evenings of Sefirat Haomer (Shulchan Arukh 493:4), Shibbolei Haleket (Pesach laws 235) compares the Omer offering to the Sotah offering — both are a tenth of an eiphah of barley — and says because the Omer offering might cause us to think of a Sotah and thus arouse suspicion that our righteous women are unfaithful, it is to their continued honor and glory that they refrain from work during these evenings, because they are above suspicion.
May all of us, men and women, continue to live up to the category of “above suspicion” of the Shibbolei Haleket, as we model ideal family life for ourselves and for our children.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Jewish Pride = Knowing Yourself
Parshat Bamidbar
When one looks at synagogue décor, one often notices odes to the 12 tribes. The specific images on the stained glass window or other artwork is inspired by something in the Torah, but they differ from shul to shul. This causes us to wonder, perhaps, if we are missing something, if artists know more than us, less than us, or if people are just looking at different sources to arrive at the image that best depicts the tribe in question.
There is no question that some look to the blessings Yaakov gave his sons in Parshat Vayechi for inspiration. Many of his children are compared to different animals in Bereishit 49, which are always nice ideas for artistic imagery.
But the Midrash Aggadah on our parsha speaks of the flags each tribe carried — each one bearing a symbol that represented the family patriarch whose tribe bears his name.
- Reuven’s symbol is the “duda’im” flower (often translated as mandrake), because of the role he played in bringing them to his mother. According to the Torah, that episode directly brought about the births of Yissachar, Zevulun and Yosef.
- Shimon’s is represented by the image of the destroyed city of Shchem, based on the role he played in destroying the city (along with his brother Levi).
- Yehuda’s image is a lion and Yissachar’s is a donkey — as per Yaakov’s blessing.
- Zevulun’s sign is "a home" based on the word Leah used when naming him, which is translated (by the midrash) to mean “a dwelling place.”
- Ephraim, one son of Yosef, has an ox (shor), as his symbol.
- Menashe, Yosef’s other son, has a “re’em” as his symbol. The identification of the re’em is unclear. In “Mysterious Creatures,” Rabbi Natan Slifkin concludes that it is either the oryx (a kind of gazelle) or an aurochs (a type of huge wild cattle - original version is extinct, though a "new aurochs" has been genetically created), while Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan includes other animals as possibilities, including a unicorn or rhinoceros, the white antelope, the wild ox, or bison (for many reasons, Rabbi Slifkin assumes the unicorn as we imagine it never existed)
- Binyamin is a wolf;
- Dan is a serpent;
- Naftali is an “ayalah” — which Rabbi Kaplan translates to be a hind or gazelle (though this is usually a “zvi”), and interestingly records the possibility of it referring to a tree or plain;
- Gad had images of armed soldiers on their way to battle.
- Asher is represented by an olive, or olive tree, because Devarim 33:24 describes Asher as dipping its feet in oil.
In addition to each tribe’s sign, the forefathers were also invoked on the chief flag of each three-tribe group. On Yehuda’s flag were the letters Alef, Yud and Yud איי, the first letters of the forefathers’ names. On Reuven’s flag were the second letters of their names, spelling the word “Betza" - בצע. Ephraim had the third letter of their names, “Rachok” - רחק. Dan had the word “Mekev” - מקב - in his case, the fourth letter of Avraham’s name was skipped (the “heh” which was added by G-d).
Each of these three-letter words has a lesson embedded in it. The term on Yehuda’s flag means “About me” — which is a reminder to comprehend G-d as best as possible.
Reuven’s hidden message is Betza, which means to gain profit — often in an unkosher way (see Bereishit 37:26) — which is a reminder not to profit from thievery.
Ephraim’s message is to “distance oneself from idolatry,” which is related to the message on Dan’s flag, a mekev — piercer or hatchet — which is to be used to destroy idols.
These images and phrases are meant to teach us to know ourselves. We have to know our history, from where we came, and what we stand for. If our people have certain tendencies or leanings, we ought to be proud of them and carry them as banners with pride.
Every Jew needs to know what Judaism has said about Judaism, what our religion stands for, and what our people stand for. We should not look to the general society, or to people who want to redefine what Judaism is all about, in order to kowtow to the demands of people who only want to take advantage of our natural tendencies of tolerance and care for underdogs.
When the world will allow the Jews to live in peace, we will respond in kind. We honor and respect the laws of tolerant and civil societies. We march to the beat of the Torah’s drum — which mandates ethical living and following the law of the land when its morals and ethics are in consonance with our own — and we carry the character traits our forefathers defined for themselves and held with pride as they marched toward the Promised Land.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Helping Others Survive
This appears in the Jewish Star
Parshat Behar-Bechukotai
“The Living Torah” is the late Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s translation of the Chumash. In addition to the standard divisions by chapter and parsha, Rabbi Kaplan z”l gave subtitles to the sections he divided by topics.
For the verses in 25:35-38, he entitled the section “Helping others.” In the context of helping the poor, giving loans, the phrase “v’chai imakh” וחי עמך appears, as does “v’chay achikha imakh” - וחי אחיך עמך. He translates the former phrase “Help him survive,” and the latter as “and let your brother live alongside you.”
Many interpretations for these two phrases often focus on civil harmony and congeniality, and perhaps learning how to treat a spouse, or a date, or simply how to be a mentsch towards others in the game of life.
I have a different interpretation based on a story I heard this week. Had I not met the person to whom this happened, I would not likely believe the story. The narrator - the one to whom this story happened - said he could not believe how the story unfolded either.
“Last Sunday I was at a fishing pier with my wife, along the boardwalk. I was feeling nauseous, but it was also hot, so I figured I’d go get a drink of water. I gave my wife my fishing rod and went to get a drink, and I stopped on a bench just to collect myself.
“A stranger who was jogging came over to me and said, ‘You look terrible. I think you need to call an ambulance.’ I thought the guy was crazy. I said to him, ‘I’m feeling a little queasy, but I definitely don’t need an ambulance.’”
“He said to me, ‘Look man. I’m an EMT and you have a cardiac condition. You’re sweating in a way that isn’t normal, and you need an ambulance to take you to the emergency room.’”
“I argued with him for a couple of minutes until I let him convince me. I called the ambulance saying, ‘I’m on the boardwalk. This guy stopped to tell me I should call an ambulance. I feel fine. But he’s an EMT. Can you please pick me up?’”
“They got there within a couple of minutes. My wife and I went to the ER together. I was totally fine filling out the papers. Then I said something to the nurse as she left the room. And that was the last thing I remember until Tuesday morning.”
“I got the feeling that there were many people around me, but I flat-lined. I was on a ventilator for 24 hours. I woke up on Tuesday, and was in the hospital for three more days – came home on Friday, in time for Shabbos.”
And now he’s walking around telling the tale. At all of 35-years-old. Turns out he had a clogged artery, a condition doctors sometimes call “the widow maker.” Had he not been in the ER when he went into cardiac arrest he would be dead now.
I asked him, “So what does Eliyahu Hanavi look like?”
“He’s a good-looking black man who jogs on a board walk,” he answered.
This man, the jogger, lives the phrase “Vchai imakh,” – “help him survive.” He was jogging, he could have minded his own business, but he saw something, recognized something, and in a simple debate that lasted three minutes, he saved a man’s life. Did he have to? Was anything in it for him? No. The one who lives to tell the tale does not even know the name of his benefactor, nor any way in which to find him and thank him.
Not all of us are EMTs or medical professionals. We might not be so lucky to be in the life-saving business. But we can also fulfill “v’chai achikha imakh” – “and let your brother live alongside you.”
It’s not just about “letting” as much as it is about “teaching” or “helping” a person learn “how” to live.
Some people who go through experiences like this turn around and say “I was given a second chance. I am now going to take steps to do the things in my life I was meant to do but pushed off for another day. Life is too short for us to have regrets about the things we never got around to doing.”
With encouragement and the right kinds of inclusiveness, we can help others have experiences they might not otherwise have. Some of them follow the teaching that says we are to enjoy life. Others follow the school of thought that has us dedicating and devoting ourselves to spiritual pursuits.
Whatever paths we take with our newfound second chances, may they be experiences of brotherhood as we truly learn how to live in the company of dear family and friends.
********************************************
(Sad update - a few years later, the person who's life was saved here lost track. Some time after this story he and his wife divorced. A few years later, he overdosed and died. Life takes strange turns. The story is inspiring. But we also have to remember that "and they lived happily ever after" is only in fairy tales. Our job is to work on ourselves, try to overcome the challenges life sends our way, and always be working up towards greater purpose (tafkid) in life, while improving our relationship with the Almighty.)
Parshat Behar-Bechukotai
“The Living Torah” is the late Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s translation of the Chumash. In addition to the standard divisions by chapter and parsha, Rabbi Kaplan z”l gave subtitles to the sections he divided by topics.
For the verses in 25:35-38, he entitled the section “Helping others.” In the context of helping the poor, giving loans, the phrase “v’chai imakh” וחי עמך appears, as does “v’chay achikha imakh” - וחי אחיך עמך. He translates the former phrase “Help him survive,” and the latter as “and let your brother live alongside you.”
Many interpretations for these two phrases often focus on civil harmony and congeniality, and perhaps learning how to treat a spouse, or a date, or simply how to be a mentsch towards others in the game of life.
I have a different interpretation based on a story I heard this week. Had I not met the person to whom this happened, I would not likely believe the story. The narrator - the one to whom this story happened - said he could not believe how the story unfolded either.
“Last Sunday I was at a fishing pier with my wife, along the boardwalk. I was feeling nauseous, but it was also hot, so I figured I’d go get a drink of water. I gave my wife my fishing rod and went to get a drink, and I stopped on a bench just to collect myself.
“A stranger who was jogging came over to me and said, ‘You look terrible. I think you need to call an ambulance.’ I thought the guy was crazy. I said to him, ‘I’m feeling a little queasy, but I definitely don’t need an ambulance.’”
“He said to me, ‘Look man. I’m an EMT and you have a cardiac condition. You’re sweating in a way that isn’t normal, and you need an ambulance to take you to the emergency room.’”
“I argued with him for a couple of minutes until I let him convince me. I called the ambulance saying, ‘I’m on the boardwalk. This guy stopped to tell me I should call an ambulance. I feel fine. But he’s an EMT. Can you please pick me up?’”
“They got there within a couple of minutes. My wife and I went to the ER together. I was totally fine filling out the papers. Then I said something to the nurse as she left the room. And that was the last thing I remember until Tuesday morning.”
“I got the feeling that there were many people around me, but I flat-lined. I was on a ventilator for 24 hours. I woke up on Tuesday, and was in the hospital for three more days – came home on Friday, in time for Shabbos.”
And now he’s walking around telling the tale. At all of 35-years-old. Turns out he had a clogged artery, a condition doctors sometimes call “the widow maker.” Had he not been in the ER when he went into cardiac arrest he would be dead now.
I asked him, “So what does Eliyahu Hanavi look like?”
“He’s a good-looking black man who jogs on a board walk,” he answered.
This man, the jogger, lives the phrase “Vchai imakh,” – “help him survive.” He was jogging, he could have minded his own business, but he saw something, recognized something, and in a simple debate that lasted three minutes, he saved a man’s life. Did he have to? Was anything in it for him? No. The one who lives to tell the tale does not even know the name of his benefactor, nor any way in which to find him and thank him.
Not all of us are EMTs or medical professionals. We might not be so lucky to be in the life-saving business. But we can also fulfill “v’chai achikha imakh” – “and let your brother live alongside you.”
It’s not just about “letting” as much as it is about “teaching” or “helping” a person learn “how” to live.
Some people who go through experiences like this turn around and say “I was given a second chance. I am now going to take steps to do the things in my life I was meant to do but pushed off for another day. Life is too short for us to have regrets about the things we never got around to doing.”
With encouragement and the right kinds of inclusiveness, we can help others have experiences they might not otherwise have. Some of them follow the teaching that says we are to enjoy life. Others follow the school of thought that has us dedicating and devoting ourselves to spiritual pursuits.
Whatever paths we take with our newfound second chances, may they be experiences of brotherhood as we truly learn how to live in the company of dear family and friends.
********************************************
(Sad update - a few years later, the person who's life was saved here lost track. Some time after this story he and his wife divorced. A few years later, he overdosed and died. Life takes strange turns. The story is inspiring. But we also have to remember that "and they lived happily ever after" is only in fairy tales. Our job is to work on ourselves, try to overcome the challenges life sends our way, and always be working up towards greater purpose (tafkid) in life, while improving our relationship with the Almighty.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)