It's About Power

                                                            

In 2008 (before I put my weekly dvar Torahs in this blog), I wrote the following dvar Torah about Zimri's attitude towards Moshe in Parshat Balak + Pinchas.

I was reminded of it when I read Erica Brown's take on the recent rabbinic scandal, in which she wrote this: "It was a crime of power. Crimes of power happen when power is unchecked."

Power? Wasn't it about voyeurism? 

Nope. Power it was. She is so right (see below). Dr. Brown also concludes saying what very few bloggers have said - this is not a "rabbinic" problem. Most rabbis are wonderful people who care deeply about their congregants, and a scandal like this is not only nowhere near their radar screen, but would never even enter their minds. (here is Rabbi Efrem Goldberg relaying a similar message)

A wonderful rabbi I admire greatly has told me several times over the years of his view of where some rabbis fall.

Point #1: "A rabbi cannot have an ego." [Much longer discussion...]

Point #2 (WADR to physicians): "You know what is the difference between a doctor and a rabbi? A doctor saves a life, tells you when you're going to die. He thinks he's God! So if he is going to be arrogant, that's OK. He is God. But a RABBI thinks he represents God. And for this [role] one must hide under the table." In other words, the rabbi must learn from Moses, who was "the humblest of all men."

Since better writers than I have already said it all, and since I don't want to look like a Monday morning quarterback (a lot of people seem to have all the answers about what is wrong with rabbis, mikveh standards, conversion standards, and Judaism), I'll just share a Torah thought - unedited from 2008 (though I did put some parts in bold) - and you can understand where Dr. Brown and I agree.

Parshat Balak or Pinchas

How Not to Earn Respect

Rabbi Yochanan said, "He had five names: Zimri, Ben Salu, Shaul, Ben Ha'Canaanit, and Shlumiel ben Tzuri-shadai. Zimri because he was like a stale egg, Ben Salu because he caused people to speak of the sins of his family, Shaul because he lent himself ("hish'il") to sin, Ben Ha'Canaanit because he did a Canaanite act, and his real name was Shlumiel ben Tzuri-shadai." (Sanhedrin 82b)
While the Talmud clearly defines the names presented into five sections, there are those who would argue that Zimri is identified here as the same "Shaul ben Ha'Canaanit" who is identified as one of the sons of Shimon who came down to Egypt with Jacob and sons. (Breishit 46:10)    
A positive identification would indicate he somehow managed to survive 210 years of Egyptian living and bondage, another 40 years of wandering, and is now committing this act with Kozbi as a sprite and seasoned 250-year-old, if he's not even older. Not bad for a man his age.    
A 20th century rosh yeshiva or mashgiach (whose identity eludes me) offered the following response to this hypothetical age: "Ich bin an alter yid." ("I am an old Jew") The rabbi proceeded to explain that the act of defiance Zimri committed, for which Pinchas took his life as punishment, seems out of character for such an elderly man. He argued that there comes a time when the real desire an older person has is power and "kavod" — honor.

While some desires dissipate, some never go away (though they may remain in check), and some become increasingly important in our mind's eye. We have a very difficult time letting go. We want dignity. We don't want to be written off. We don't want to ride off into the sunset. We want to feel necessary and important. We want to feel as if we matter. And there's no reason why anyone should ever feel any other way.

The question becomes how we go about achieving that.    
Obviously Zimri's chosen course of action is not an option. While some public figures use Zimri's preferred expression of power to their benefit (or to the destruction of their reputation), this is not a markedly Jewish approach.

What is a key to achieving deserved honor? Mishlei (Proverbs) 15:33 says "Yirat Hashem Mussar Hokhma, v'lifnei kavod anavah" — Fear of G-d is the discipline that leads to wisdom, and honor must be preceded by humility.    
King Solomon (author of Proverbs) is telling us that one who desires the ability to achieve wisdom and to understand the Torah must have a fundamental base rooted in fear of G-d. More importantly, fear of G-d leads to humility, the key ingredient to truly becoming honored and revered.
    
In a preview to the previously quoted Talmudic passage, Sanhedrin 82a presents Zimri confronting Moshe: "[pointing at Kozbi, the Moabite] Son of Amram! Is she permissible to me or prohibited? If you say prohibited, who permitted you to marry the daughter of Yitro [the Midianite]?"    
His arrogant, disrespectful, flippant approach ultimately led to his destruction. His attempt to humiliate Moshe to prove an irrelevant point was beyond out of line. Moshe's marriage to Zipporah was before the giving of the Torah, when even his own identity was uncertain. Yet she clearly chose to join the Jewish people, as evidenced by her being one of the two most famous "mohels" in the Torah. (Shmot 4:25)

Zimri certainly should have known better, but humility played no role in his life as presented in this story. A person with fear of G-d, who seeks wisdom, who does not look for justification from others for his behavior, who is humble, is the one most deserving of respect.

No matter what picture is painted in other rabbinic sources of Zimri's knowledge and intentions, no amount of scholarship or position provides an excuse for his behavior.

While Pinchas's action worked in that time and place and was approved of by G-d, whose presence was known and felt in a more obvious way than now, Pinchas did teach us that when injustice is served by the flawed behavior of a leader, we have an obligation to stand up for what is right.


Through an important internal check-and-balance system, those who deserve respect will certainly earn it. And no one will stand for the shenanigans of those who do not.

Torah Teaches Not to Sin

I wrote this at around the time the rockets began flying and Israel started its retalliation - which I hope turns to an annihilation of Hamas' infrastructure, if not the entire entity. The message is still important - the difference between us and them

Parshat Pinchas                

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Parshat Pinchas contains the Maftir readings for all of the Biblical holidays. Every holiday had a specific set of korbanot (offerings) that were brought in its honor. A similarity running across all of the holidays is a single goat which was brought as a “chatat” (sin offering) to atone for the sins of the people.

                

However, when it comes to the holiday of Shavuot, the Torah does not label the goat as a “chatat.” That word is missing from the description, when it says, “A single goat, to atone for you.” (28:30)

                

The Minchat Shai notes that the way the goat is presented here is as a “s’ir izim” and not with a vov to say “u’s’ir izim.” As only Yom Kippur has a similar formulation (every other holiday says “u’s’ir” – AND a goat), he suggests that Yom Kippur and Shavuot have in common that they are days when the Torah was given. The Tablets were finally presented to the people on Yom Kippur, and the contents of the Tablets were declared to the people on Shavuot. In order to contradict the Sadducees who suggested the Torah was not given on Shavuot, the Torah made the S’ir to S’ir comparison to make it clear that Shavuot is a day when the Torah was given.

                

A number of commentaries point to the Yerushalmi in Rosh Hashana 4:8 which explains the phenomenon as follows: Rabbi Mesharshia explained that the “chatat” not being mentioned in the context of Atzeret (Shavuot) was God’s way of saying to Israel, “Since you accepted the yoke of My Torah, I am considering you as if you never sinned [and therefore don’t need a “sin offering.”]”  

                

This, concludes the Torah Temimah, is the proof that the Torah was actually given on the same date as Shavuot.

                

Of course, in Mishpatim (chapter 24, note 36), the Torah Temimah explains that Shavuot is on the 50^th day of the Omer – which can either fall on the 5^th, 6^th, or 7^th of Sivan. (Rosh Hashana 6b) This is why when we describe the holiday, we call it “zman matan torateinu” (the time period of the giving of the Torah) and not “yom matan torateinu” (the actual day of the giving of the Torah).

                

Rashi notes in Shmot 19:1 and Devarim 26:16 that we must view the Torah as if it was given every day. Pinning the giving of the Torah to a single day, in a sense, cheapens its value – makes it as if it is to be celebrated on an anniversary, as opposed to throughout the year.

                

It is fascinating that the Torah Temimah would suggest that the missing word “Chatat” in the description of the goat offering proves that Shavuot and the giving of the Torah coincided – even as he points to his own commentary in Shmot which suggests that it’s not an exact science.

                

In truth – the matter could be one of simple semantics. The Torah may have been given on Shavuot, but since the date of Shavuot (Biblically speaking) is not always the same date (could be 5, 6, or 7 Sivan), if we celebrate Shavuot as the day rather than a specific date as the day of the giving of the Torah, then everyone is right.

                

Because the truth is that whether a missing vov proves the point (Minchat Shai) or the missing word “chatat” proves the point doesn’t matter. The point is that we have the Torah. The anniversary of its giving is perhaps noteworthy, but to a large degree it is irrelevant.

                

When news came that arrests were made over the murder of an Arab teen after the deaths of Gilad, Eyal and Naftali became known, and that the initial suspects are Jews, my sister told me she was going to attend a “Lo Tirzach” (Thou Shalt not Murder) Rally in Israel. It was postponed, ironically, because of rockets out of the Gaza Strip.

                

A life governed by the Torah’s teachings is one in which the deliberate sin has no place. We are all human, and we make mistakes. But there is a major difference between human failure and human error and descending to depths that are completely antithetical to the Torah’s teachings. [The irony of Pinchas being a vigilante is not lost, but his circumstance was VERY different.]

                

I personally have no sympathy for terrorists and murderers, and I have a very different mindset than the State of Israel generally has about how to deal with those who have Jewish blood on their hands. But if it turns out that those who murdered an Arab teenager were Jews, and that they did it because Arabs murdered Jewish teens (or whatever reason), they were operating under a Hammurabi Code, and not under a Torah code.

                

We rally for our People when our People are in need. And we must also rally for our true beliefs, distancing ourselves from those who conduct themselves in a manner that is antithetical to the Torah’s teachings.

               

If Shavuot’s goat offering was not called a “chatat” because the giving of the Torah made the people sinless, then it is the Torah’s teachings which should always guide us in being sinless. 

Logic Would Seem to Dictate

Parshat Pinchas

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Outside of Bible adherents' responses, were the story of Pinchas and Zimri presented or played out in our world, it wouldn’t be Pinchas who is heralded and Zimri who is thrown under the bus for being an arrogant and abrasive antagonist.

 The story is pretty simple. Zimri, a leader of the tribe of Shimon, consorts with a Midianite woman in public. According to the Talmud (Sanhedrin82), he mocked Moshe – if a Midianite (Zipporah) was permissible to Moshe, why was a Midianite prohibited to Zimri?

 Pinchas, sensing the rebellious nature of Zimri's act, as well as his mocking tone, recalled a law that declared Zimri deserved the death penalty. And, in that particular circumstance, when he took the law into his own hands, he was praised for it. (See Rabbenu Bachaye 25:6-7) He was even granted a reward of the "The Covenant of Peace." 

 In most circumstances, we do not tolerate taking the law into one's own hands, which is why beyond Pinchas' example, there will be no endorsement of vigilantism here.

 But one wonders how our enlightened society would look at this case.

 Our society would look at Zimri and say perhaps he is a little boastful and bold, but he is an adult, is entitled to make his own decisions. Furthermore, the woman in question was a consenting adult, making their act nothing which could be construed as illegal. Furthermore, if Zimri was not married, then he was hurting no one. He has every right, our liberal provocateur will note, to marry or consort with any consenting woman he wants, of any religion.

 Pinchas, on the other hand, has no excuse for his actions. Who does he think he is? He is a murderer! Just because he doesn't like someone's behavior does not justify killing the person!

 These are all very logical arguments. And the truth is, in some cases, logic is a good sell.

 Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik noted, however, that Judaism is not always governed by logic. Korach, for example, tried to figuratively skewer Moshe in his position as leader and teacher through very logical arguments against some of the commandments of the Torah. But logic doesn't explain the mitzvah of techeilet, or the mitzvah of Mezuzah.

 And, frankly, it doesn't explain the mitzvah of Bris Milah. If Pinchas was awarded the Covenant of Peace, some continue to refer to him as one of the "guardians" of Bris Milah – THE Covenant.

 This week, my website and Facebook page were attacked by "Intactivists." These people are very vocal advocates against circumcision of infants, using many arguments such as barbarism, mutilation, nonconsensual, defenseless baby, etc.

 Logically, they are right. Circumcision, it can be argued, is an unnecessary medical procedure performed on people who, with uncommon exception, do not need it.

 But where they fail in their attack is that they don't understand that for us, this is not about a medical procedure. And we don't view it as barbaric. As Avraham was told, "Walk before me and become complete" through the act of circumcision, the mark of the covenant is placed in our flesh and in the flesh of our children to complement our relationship with God.

 I have met many happy and calm parents before brisses. I have also met my share of nervous parents before brisses. Most of these latter parents just want it to be over with. All parents want it to go well and for their baby to be fine. And when this outcome is achieved, the nervous tension goes away.

But even such "hesitations" do not drive us away from performing Bris Milah. We are who we are partially because of Bris Milah (Talmud Shabbat 130a). Our attitude has always been, upon the birth of a boy, "We need to arrange for the bris."

 These personal experiences have been the opening to many conversations over the course of this week, and every Jewish person with whom I've had this discussion has said the same thing. "Different worlds. They don't understand us. They never will."

 Many of us want to rationally understand everything we do. Some of the things we do defy logic and rational thinking, because they are matters of faith.

 Zimri's flaw, and why the Torah does not side with him, rested in his belief that his brilliant logic should trump all else. But Zimri ignored important principles of the Torah, and may have even not understood the things he violated in the first place.

 But sometimes commitment to and observance of the Torah defies logic. Do we remain steadfast and committed? Or do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? For the committed Jew, the answer is obvious. Logic alone is not what we are all about.

The Covenant of Peace

Parshat Pinchas

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Pinchas is most famous for his act of zealotry in punishing Zimri for an immoral act of defiance, which he perpetrated in front of Moshe and the elders, as a clear affront to God.

An interesting cast of characters have parshas named for them: Noach, Yisro, Korach, Balak, Pinchas (Chayei Sarah includes a name, which comes after her death). Each has his own story of intrigue making the coincidence of their being in this club a source for much homily.

What makes Pinchas unique is that he literally emerges out of nowhere, he is a protagonist for a very small amount of Torah-space, and then he disappears into obscurity again, only to reemerge in the books of the Prophets – in Yehoshua and Shoftim (Judges). The gift he receives, however, is one of the more coveted in the Torah: he receives from God בריתי שלום - "Britee Shalom," God's "Covenant of Peace."

What is the Covenant of Peace? Were you to google the term "Brit Shalom" you would find many websites dedicated to "bris without circumcision." As a quick aside I find it ironic that a certain website utilizes two negative commandments, not to imprint marks on the body and not to make cuttings in the flesh, to prove that bris milah goes against the Torah. Invoking negative commandments out of context (the first refers to tattoos and the second refers to cutting the flesh over the loss of a loved one) while ignoring Bereshit 17 and Vayikra 12:3 is a lesson in intellectual dishonesty. [I've written about this in my mohel blog.]

 Pinchas has become a symbol at the Bris Milah ceremony, as the first verses of our parsha are recited as a reminder of Pinchas's role in defending the covenant.

But was the "Covenant of Peace" meant to refer specifically to the Covenant of Circumcision? Every commentary has a different approach. Some include: That Zimri's relatives will not seek revenge, he had been grandfathered out of being a kohen and now he would inherit his father's position, that he will be the Messiah delivering the message of World Peace. And some talk about Pinchas being the defender of "the" covenant – Bris Milah.

I find the the Seforno's interpretation to be quite compelling, mostly because it carries a lesson we can all live by, live for, and pray for ourselves and our loved ones. The Seforno writes "The Covenant of Peace [meaning] from the Angel of Death. Pinchas outlived all the people of his generation – by a lot – as he was still the kohen in Mishkan Shilo at the time of the Pilegesh B'Givah story (Shoftim 20:28)… By most accounts this was at least 300 years later… Certainly, according to those who say Eliyahu was Pinchas, then he still lives."

It is worth noting that Ibn Ezra thoroughly rejects the idea that Pinchas was later Eliyahu. And, of course, there are non-literal interpretations of what the Pinchas=Eliyahu equation means. As well as what "Eliyahu still lives" means. A much longer discussion.

But even Ibn Ezra cannot get around the fact that Pinchas is still around at the end of the book of Shoftim, which means that Pinchas lived for a length of time that is completely uncharacteristic of his generation.

I do not believe that we live in a world in which a person can literally cheat the Angel of Death through living for centuries. But as the 93-year old great grandmother (who could pass for a sprite and with-it 75 year old) I met at a recent bris told me, "I get up every morning, swim my laps for 45 minutes and then I get on with my day. It's what keeps me alive."

For some people it is a physical activity – exercise, playing tennis, golf or basketball. For some people it is daily minyan or a regular shiur they attend. Some people volunteer their time at libraries, hospitals, or continue to work. Having that routine keeps you alive because there is something to look forward to on a daily basis.

While this is by no means a guarantee for longevity – genes and a healthy lifestyle probably have more to do with it than anything – perhaps the lesson from Pinchas is that if we know what we believe in and take a stand when necessary, we can hopefully merit the blessing of the covenant of Peace. That when our time does come, whether after 50, 75, 100 years or the proverbial 120, if we've lived our lives wholly and fully with no regrets, we may be blessed to have a peaceful end, without suffering, in a way that we and our loved ones can feel we got the better of the Angel of Death.

I certainly hope for everyone to live a long life, and to enjoy life and family for many years. But as no one lives forever, hopefully we can merit to go into the sunset riding at the top, where not even the Angel of Death can reach us.

Man Plans...

Parshat Pinchas

by Rabbi Avi Billet


Before its exposition of the holidays and their respective sacrificial offerings, the Torah gives us its only reversal of the most repeated verse in the Torah. Normally it says "And God spoke to Moshe saying." Here it says "And Moshe spoke to God saying."

Moshe's instruction to God centered around his concern that with his own passing, the people would be left without a leader – like a flock without a shepherd. Understandably, after seeing his brother die, his nephew Elazar fill the vacant shoes, and now his great-nephew Pinchas slated to be the next inline for the High Priest position, Moshe wants to see that the next person is ready to take on the leadership role to complete the project he started: to bring the people to the Promised Land.

In all the pomp and ceremony, perhaps the most significant element of Yehoshua's new appointment is his being put into a position in which he will direct questions to the Urim V'tumim, the divinely controlled mechanism in Elazar the High Priest's breastplate that provides a direct line of communication with the Divine.

It becomes the ultimate lesson in irony.

The Talmud (Eruvin 63a) points out that this connection was never utilized. Both Yehoshua and Elazar were punished, in a sense, for speaking out of turn in the presence of Moshe. Yehoshua instructed Moshe to put Eldad and Meidad in jail (Bamidbar 11:28), and Elazar taught everyone the laws of kashering metals in the aftermath of the Midian war (Bamidbar 31:21-24). Yehoshua's punishment was that he never had children, and Elazar's punishment was that Yehoshua never needed him.

To be fair, the Midrash Aggadah suggests that Yehoshua never needing Elazar was more of a reward to Yehoshua, as per the verse in Mishlei 27:18, "He who guards his master shall be honored."

Regardless, the fact is that there was a high anticipation of the new generation of leadership sharing an incredible professional relationship. Aharon and Moshe worked well together because they were brothers and because their personalities complemented one another in many respects.

Would Yehoshua and Elazar have a similar rapport? We never find out.

There's an old Yiddish saying (some claim German origins) that "A mentsh tracht und Gott lacht - Man plans and God laughs." [On the internet, I found some people ascribing its origins to Tehillim 33:10 and Mishlei 16:9]

Perhaps we can suggest that even Moshe, in a sense, spoke out of turn to God. For all of Moshe's plans, even Yehoshua did not leave a successor. In this regard maybe the anarchy of the book of Shoftim is partly attributable to Yehoshua's poor leadership choice.

In the end, our charge is to do our best, in as humble a manner and in as God-fearing a manner as we can. Success, wealth, employment, our ability to accomplish and fulfill our dreams are all in the hands of God.

But God puts them in our hands when we do our part to make it happen, and when He feels, at this stage, that we are deserving. But we must be doing something if God is going to help us fulfill our goals.

A classic Jewish joke has Mendel praying to God to help him win the lottery. After months and months and no winning, Mendel comes to the Western Wall and screams at God, "After all I've done for You! After all the sacrifices and promises!"

All of a sudden, the heavens open and God's voice communicates directly with Mendel, "Mendel you are my most beloved. But for heaven's sake – buy a ticket!"

We may be most deserving. But nothing's going to happen just because we are good people. Very few are so lucky.

And for those who are in the trenches, sometimes we walk on a thin line between getting exactly what we want, and becoming destined to never reach that which should have otherwise been our absolute potential.

The words of Micha (6:8) in last week's haftorah say it best. "He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord demands of you; but to do justice, to love loving-kindness, and to walk discreetly/humbly with your God."

With this as our formula for achieving Godliness, hopefully we can be blessed to find our calling in life.

Universal Brotherhood = Marrying In

This can also be read in the Jewish Star

Parshat Matot-Masei

Without getting into particulars (I’ll leave you to look up the details), the Zohar on Parshat Matot uses the aftermath of the war with Midian as a springboard to speak negatively of intermarriage.

Of course, this is not a new discussion — from the Pinchas story and other sources in the Bible, it is quite clear that members of the Israelite nation should be marrying other Israelites, which translates to modern-day intra-marriage.

While those who choose to adopt or maintain an Orthodox lifestyle are not typically confronted with a challenge to this mindset, there are exceptions to the rule. Additionally, the society in which we find ourselves increasingly encourages some form of assimilation and an overall tolerance of others.

Meshuggenehs and radical extremists not withstanding.

And so, it comes as no shock that the concept of Jews not dating outside of the fold is often viewed as being anti-American, anti-harmony, arrogant and racist.

To put it in the form of a question — as Joseph Telushkin and Dennis Prager put it at the end of “Question 8” in “The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism” — doesn’t Judaism believe in universal brotherhood?

Those who have been praying that one who is “Oseh shalom bimromav” should grant us peace and harmony know very well that a motto of Judaism vis-à-vis the rest of the world is “can’t we learn to get along?” We all have a few bad apples to our millions of wonderful people. Let’s stop pointing fingers and just live in harmony.

Telushkin and Prager write:

“Is the assimilation of the minority of Jews into majority cultures the answer? Is abandoning Judaism the answer? What sort of universalism demands that smaller groups give up their identities?… The only way to achieve brotherhood is through all people sharing moral values, while retaining ethnic diversity… [asking people to reconsider intermarrying] has nothing to do with negative feelings toward non-Jews, or with automatically positive feelings towards those born as Jews. It is based solely on our commitment to the survival of Jewry…”

Along similar lines, in a sermon Rabbi Norman Lamm delivered around Purim time in 1966, he said

“Loyal Jews are opposed to intermarriage — not because we are narrowminded, and not, most certainly, because of contempt for the non-Jew. We want to marry within our own group because of our desire to remain different, to preserve our different identity, to survive and flourish with our own character intact.”

While the story that follows the Midian war is complex, the fine line we are distinguishing is not. It becomes a matter of whether we appreciate where we come from, and how much we want to preserve our future as a unique and distinct people.

Several years ago, I served as a mohel for an intermarried couple, where the mother of the baby was the Jewish partner in the marriage. Her aunt, who arranged the bris, suggested I tone down the religious side because her new-mom niece had told her “That’s why I married out” — to get away from this component of Judaism. Ironically, her non-Jewish husband was more into the bris than she was, more Biblically well-read, and was extremely proud their son was named “Aharon Moshe.”

One person on my college dormitory floor taped a letter on his door that was written by a single woman to a New York magazine whose gist was this (I am quoting from memory):

“I have heard that Orthodox Jewish men truly court a woman before marrying her, because their religion does not allow them even to touch her or hold her hand before marriage. What a thought! To connect with someone emotionally first before the physical component is brought into the picture! Why can’t I ever meet someone like that?"

Because, madam, you have not committed yourself to a system that has worked well for thousands of years. If you choose to join us because you like our rules so much, and will commit yourself to living by these rules, we will welcome you with open arms (but only our wonderful women and your husband will physically embrace you).

For the sake of the preservation of our ranks, we must do all we can to teach our children, family and friends that marrying in is not just something we do “because” or “to fulfill a Torah law.” We do it to perpetuate the strong values that are unique to our experience, which was always meant to focus on how to preserve the holiness of the marital bond in an environment that is most fitting for the raising of our o-so-precious little Jewish souls, a.k.a. our children.