About 2 and a half years ago (MY, time does fly), I put up an initial post about spending shabbos in Boynton Beach as the Rabbi in Residence. [See Part III here]
*******************
I recently added the following note on that initial post:
Looking back at this several years later, it is hard to imagine this reality any more. The community has exploded in its growth. There are easily over 600 homes, condos and apartments owned by Orthodox Jews in the local area - many for "snowbirds" (all of winter) and "snowflakes" (come in for weekends or for short stints), as well as many full-timers and younger families.. What you'll read below is a little nostalgic, but things have changed dramatically.
Check out accbb.org and our Education/Program Book to see the kinds of things which are going on at Anshei Chesed today!
********************
Note: Do to significant changes in demographics and population, this blog post has been updated to reflect the portions which are of historical significance.
The shul reached a tremendous milestone this week because after years of planning and many "moons" of construction, Anshei Chesed finally has a new home, in a brand new building on El Clair Ranch Rd, the main street that connects the developments that host most of the members of the two shuls in town
What Has Changed
For the shul, membership has grown in the last couple of years. The size of the crowd during the "season" is generally bigger, and the vacation times in January and Pesach time have been door-busting. It is no understatement that Anshei Chesed had outgrown its old location.
Day to Day and Week to Week
Daily minyan meets at 7:30 in the morning, except on Sunday when it is at 8a.m & 9a.m..
Evenings adjust with the clock but in much of the summer time is typically between 7:30-8p.m.
There is usually a kiddush on shabbos morning - sometimes more "mainstream" and sometimes more "Gala." It all depends on the occasion being celebrated - or, in some cases, the yarzeit being observed.
The in-house caterers (volunteer members) do a wonderful job of putting it all together.
During the summer months, particularly July and August, things (in all of South Florida) are much slower. Much of the crowd is gone. The weather is, at times, very humid, and things move at a different pace. Not a complaint, mind you, just an observation of the reality of South Florida summers.
If you plan to be in Boynton Beach and/or would like to visit Anshei Chesed, be in touch here:
https://www.accbb.org/shabbos-hospitality-request-form.html
Monday, April 30, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
Human Development in Two Worlds
Parshat Tazria Metzora
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Due to their not (yet) having been translated by the Jewish publishing houses much of the midrashic library is a treasure-trove of untouched gemstone mines. It is particularly fertile ground for rabbis to utilize in homiletical discourses, because not all Midrash is meant to be understood literally. Frankly, much of midrash can not be understood literally – an essential point to bear in mind before exploring any midrashic passage.
It is fascinating to read through certain midrashim – and without the crutch of a translation, because it leaves the midrash open to interpretation, as well as the derivation of either important lessons, important messages, or both.
Parshat Tazria opens with laws and practices surrounding giving birth and the aftermath of boy or girl's arrival, vis-à-vis the baby's mother's responsibilities.
The Yalkut Shimoni on Tazria 547 recounts a debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in which they differ over how the fetus develops versus how a parallel development takes place in the World to Come.
Beit Shammai says "In this world, the flesh and skin develops first, followed by the sinews and bones. In the World to Come, the sinews and bones develop first, and the completion is the development of skin and flesh." He proves this analysis from Yechezkel's depiction of the Dry Bones coming to life (37:8).
On the other hand, Beit Hillel thinks the two developments pan out in the same ways. "In this world the skin and flesh develops first, and [the body] is completed with the sinews and bones. In the future as well, development will begin with skin and flesh and will be completed with the sinews and bones." He proves his analysis from a comment made by Iyov in Iyov 10:9-11.
What are they talking about?
Unlike questions of a "halakhic" nature, I don't believe the conclusion to this difference of opinion is particularly important. But the debate does give us pause to consider how people develop – not only physically, but spiritually. Bones and cartilage certainly begin developing in the fetus two months into a pregnancy, long after the (somewhat) human shape has formed its skin. This is a fact that everyone – even Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel – can take for granted and cannot argue otherwise.
Aside from the physical reality, the message of human development would seem to suggest that the vessel is created first, and then the human has the opportunity to develop what shape or form the vessel will take. Please read the following descriptive words with their multiple meanings intended: will the person be tall and straight or bent and crooked? Will the mind be full or empty? Will the vessel be growth-oriented to reach great potential or will it be sedentary and take the shape of the couch it sits on its entire life? These are questions we can all appreciate.
But what about the end of life? What will be in future, or in the World to Come? Many rabbinic figures of the past have weighed in on what the World to Come means and what it will be like for all of us on some "other side." I am not interested in entering that conversation, because I am comfortable saying "I honestly have no idea." But Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, in this minor debate, shared with us what their opinions are.
If some version of the World to Come refers to a resurrection of the dead, with former bodies somehow being reformed from DNA, then their debate in the physical realm of how bodies will be recreated speaks for itself.
But if the reality they speak of is a spiritual development, I think there is no harm in suggesting that the two approaches will both be influenced by how a person leads and lives life in this world.
According to Beit Shammai, the bones and sinews will develop first. This would indicate that the form or shape that a person created in life will inform the person's reformulation in the World to Come.
In Beit Hillel's approach, on the other hand, one's "rebirth" is exactly as was one's original birth. In other words, one gets a new slate, just as each person had the first time around.
There is no question that both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai would advocate living life to one's full potential – an honest, ethical, and morally upright existence. Their sons and daughters married one another because they respected each other greatly (Yevamot 14b). In a different realm, they also discussed the merits of living versus never having been born and concluded that now that we are born, we must constantly review, and presumably improve, our deeds (Eruvin 13b). But both approaches to the World to Come provide insight as to the long term merits of one's ethical existence.
Beit Shammai would seem to leave little room for error, while Beit Hillel would seem to leave open the possibility that no one is perfect, and every one of us will have the chance to try again to "get it right" in a world-to-come existence.
May we merit to get it right the first time, with no regrets.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Due to their not (yet) having been translated by the Jewish publishing houses much of the midrashic library is a treasure-trove of untouched gemstone mines. It is particularly fertile ground for rabbis to utilize in homiletical discourses, because not all Midrash is meant to be understood literally. Frankly, much of midrash can not be understood literally – an essential point to bear in mind before exploring any midrashic passage.
It is fascinating to read through certain midrashim – and without the crutch of a translation, because it leaves the midrash open to interpretation, as well as the derivation of either important lessons, important messages, or both.
Parshat Tazria opens with laws and practices surrounding giving birth and the aftermath of boy or girl's arrival, vis-à-vis the baby's mother's responsibilities.
The Yalkut Shimoni on Tazria 547 recounts a debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in which they differ over how the fetus develops versus how a parallel development takes place in the World to Come.
Beit Shammai says "In this world, the flesh and skin develops first, followed by the sinews and bones. In the World to Come, the sinews and bones develop first, and the completion is the development of skin and flesh." He proves this analysis from Yechezkel's depiction of the Dry Bones coming to life (37:8).
On the other hand, Beit Hillel thinks the two developments pan out in the same ways. "In this world the skin and flesh develops first, and [the body] is completed with the sinews and bones. In the future as well, development will begin with skin and flesh and will be completed with the sinews and bones." He proves his analysis from a comment made by Iyov in Iyov 10:9-11.
What are they talking about?
Unlike questions of a "halakhic" nature, I don't believe the conclusion to this difference of opinion is particularly important. But the debate does give us pause to consider how people develop – not only physically, but spiritually. Bones and cartilage certainly begin developing in the fetus two months into a pregnancy, long after the (somewhat) human shape has formed its skin. This is a fact that everyone – even Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel – can take for granted and cannot argue otherwise.
Aside from the physical reality, the message of human development would seem to suggest that the vessel is created first, and then the human has the opportunity to develop what shape or form the vessel will take. Please read the following descriptive words with their multiple meanings intended: will the person be tall and straight or bent and crooked? Will the mind be full or empty? Will the vessel be growth-oriented to reach great potential or will it be sedentary and take the shape of the couch it sits on its entire life? These are questions we can all appreciate.
But what about the end of life? What will be in future, or in the World to Come? Many rabbinic figures of the past have weighed in on what the World to Come means and what it will be like for all of us on some "other side." I am not interested in entering that conversation, because I am comfortable saying "I honestly have no idea." But Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, in this minor debate, shared with us what their opinions are.
If some version of the World to Come refers to a resurrection of the dead, with former bodies somehow being reformed from DNA, then their debate in the physical realm of how bodies will be recreated speaks for itself.
But if the reality they speak of is a spiritual development, I think there is no harm in suggesting that the two approaches will both be influenced by how a person leads and lives life in this world.
According to Beit Shammai, the bones and sinews will develop first. This would indicate that the form or shape that a person created in life will inform the person's reformulation in the World to Come.
In Beit Hillel's approach, on the other hand, one's "rebirth" is exactly as was one's original birth. In other words, one gets a new slate, just as each person had the first time around.
There is no question that both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai would advocate living life to one's full potential – an honest, ethical, and morally upright existence. Their sons and daughters married one another because they respected each other greatly (Yevamot 14b). In a different realm, they also discussed the merits of living versus never having been born and concluded that now that we are born, we must constantly review, and presumably improve, our deeds (Eruvin 13b). But both approaches to the World to Come provide insight as to the long term merits of one's ethical existence.
Beit Shammai would seem to leave little room for error, while Beit Hillel would seem to leave open the possibility that no one is perfect, and every one of us will have the chance to try again to "get it right" in a world-to-come existence.
May we merit to get it right the first time, with no regrets.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Why Eat Kosher?
Parshat Shmini
by Rabbi Avi Billet
According to my Concordance, the root word "Kosher" appears three times in the Bible (in Esther and Ecclesiastes) – not once in the Torah. Ask anyone with a decent familiarity with the Torah how many times "the laws of Kosher" are discussed in the Torah, and you'll get a few different answers, ranging from three to close to ten.
As much as the word "Kosher" is not utilized in the Torah, the terms which are employed are "tumah" and "taharah" as well as the negative form of "not-tahor" – referring to all the different kinds of permutations of animals which are fit (literal meaning of "kosher") or unfit for Torah-abiding-consumption.
In its discussion of these laws at the end of Parshat Shmini, the distinction between tameh (oft-translated as "spiritually impure") and tahor ("spiritually pure") is invoked, as a distinction is made between animals which are permitted to be consumed and animals which are forbidden to be eaten.
In his commentary on the Torah, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch has a 17-page essay (Feldheim edition) on the lessons and laws that are derived from these distinctions. He also makes reference to a similarly lengthy discussion on the subject in his book "Horeb" – Chapter 68, Forbidden Foods.
In Horeb, Hirsch profoundly states that the dietary laws have nothing to do with health. In fact, he claims that if one ingests the "impure" foods, "you may be more nourished and better fed, but the animal instinct will be aroused more strongly within you, and your body becomes more blunted as an instrument of the spirit… You become 'tameh,' impure, less capable of your holy mission, and you should really be 'anshei kodesh,' [people] of sanctity, members of a great, holy institution."
Along similar lines, his commentary on the Torah cries out that "the reason for these laws is not bodily health, but the moral integrity of our souls… to ensure the spiritual and moral health of our souls." Guarding what one eats doesn't assure a spiritual holiness, but it gives one the ability to attain it. "Tumah" – the spiritual impurity addressed by the Torah – is largely defined as death, and contact with death. But it is also an idea, notion, or conception (as Hirsch puts it) that is not something concrete, that is associated with certain living animals and creatures – the ones we would nowadays call "unkosher."
In the Orthodox world, "Kosher" does not need much of a sales pitch. Efforts of the kashrus organizations have made accessibility to kosher foods in the United States a fairly easy endeavor. In the non-Orthodox world, there are many who only buy kosher, and there are also many who do not. Some claim it is too hard, some claim it is too expensive. These arguments are sometimes true and sometimes not true.
At the same time, living in a society in which people are well aware of, and on top of outbreaks and scares associated with foodstuffs (including in vegetables), we can drop the notion that some people have that kosher is "healthier."
With few exceptions, such as the process of manufacturing wine and the mixing of dairy and meat (and, of course, the proper preparation of the meat of "tahor" animals), "kosher" means that the ingredients do not include "tumah" animals or their byproducts, or that the food in question was not cooked or processed on machinery or in utensils in which the same animals or their byproducts were cooked or processed (unless the machines or utensils were kashered first).
While some may claim to understand all the sentiments behind "tumah," most will readily admit they do not. At the same time, we are happy to add that if it is important enough for God to spend so much time in his Torah discussing these rules, they are clearly there for our benefit.
And if, as Hirsch argues, ingesting only "tahor" animals and ingredients sets our bodies up for, and allows them to achieve a spirituality level that is impossible if we are fueled by "tameh" ingredients, those looking to achieve such a status – whatever it means and however it may be defined, will only view the kosher laws as a gift rather than a burden.
This is a question of spiritual health and not physical health. And as true spirituality is more or less defined by the Torah, rather than an emotional feeling some people who are "spiritual" sometimes speak of, observance of these rules in nourishing the body is the first ticket towards achieving the Torah prescribed nourishment of the soul that we hopefully yearn to achieve in our lifetimes.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
According to my Concordance, the root word "Kosher" appears three times in the Bible (in Esther and Ecclesiastes) – not once in the Torah. Ask anyone with a decent familiarity with the Torah how many times "the laws of Kosher" are discussed in the Torah, and you'll get a few different answers, ranging from three to close to ten.
As much as the word "Kosher" is not utilized in the Torah, the terms which are employed are "tumah" and "taharah" as well as the negative form of "not-tahor" – referring to all the different kinds of permutations of animals which are fit (literal meaning of "kosher") or unfit for Torah-abiding-consumption.
In its discussion of these laws at the end of Parshat Shmini, the distinction between tameh (oft-translated as "spiritually impure") and tahor ("spiritually pure") is invoked, as a distinction is made between animals which are permitted to be consumed and animals which are forbidden to be eaten.
In his commentary on the Torah, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch has a 17-page essay (Feldheim edition) on the lessons and laws that are derived from these distinctions. He also makes reference to a similarly lengthy discussion on the subject in his book "Horeb" – Chapter 68, Forbidden Foods.
In Horeb, Hirsch profoundly states that the dietary laws have nothing to do with health. In fact, he claims that if one ingests the "impure" foods, "you may be more nourished and better fed, but the animal instinct will be aroused more strongly within you, and your body becomes more blunted as an instrument of the spirit… You become 'tameh,' impure, less capable of your holy mission, and you should really be 'anshei kodesh,' [people] of sanctity, members of a great, holy institution."
Along similar lines, his commentary on the Torah cries out that "the reason for these laws is not bodily health, but the moral integrity of our souls… to ensure the spiritual and moral health of our souls." Guarding what one eats doesn't assure a spiritual holiness, but it gives one the ability to attain it. "Tumah" – the spiritual impurity addressed by the Torah – is largely defined as death, and contact with death. But it is also an idea, notion, or conception (as Hirsch puts it) that is not something concrete, that is associated with certain living animals and creatures – the ones we would nowadays call "unkosher."
In the Orthodox world, "Kosher" does not need much of a sales pitch. Efforts of the kashrus organizations have made accessibility to kosher foods in the United States a fairly easy endeavor. In the non-Orthodox world, there are many who only buy kosher, and there are also many who do not. Some claim it is too hard, some claim it is too expensive. These arguments are sometimes true and sometimes not true.
At the same time, living in a society in which people are well aware of, and on top of outbreaks and scares associated with foodstuffs (including in vegetables), we can drop the notion that some people have that kosher is "healthier."
With few exceptions, such as the process of manufacturing wine and the mixing of dairy and meat (and, of course, the proper preparation of the meat of "tahor" animals), "kosher" means that the ingredients do not include "tumah" animals or their byproducts, or that the food in question was not cooked or processed on machinery or in utensils in which the same animals or their byproducts were cooked or processed (unless the machines or utensils were kashered first).
While some may claim to understand all the sentiments behind "tumah," most will readily admit they do not. At the same time, we are happy to add that if it is important enough for God to spend so much time in his Torah discussing these rules, they are clearly there for our benefit.
And if, as Hirsch argues, ingesting only "tahor" animals and ingredients sets our bodies up for, and allows them to achieve a spirituality level that is impossible if we are fueled by "tameh" ingredients, those looking to achieve such a status – whatever it means and however it may be defined, will only view the kosher laws as a gift rather than a burden.
This is a question of spiritual health and not physical health. And as true spirituality is more or less defined by the Torah, rather than an emotional feeling some people who are "spiritual" sometimes speak of, observance of these rules in nourishing the body is the first ticket towards achieving the Torah prescribed nourishment of the soul that we hopefully yearn to achieve in our lifetimes.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Cute Trivia Q
While looking at the Shmoneh Esreh, it occurred to me that most of the 19 blessings undergo some sort of change during the year. I am not referring to a "slightly different version" of such a text (such as "Vlamalshinim" v "V'laminim").
Question: How many of Shmoneh Esreh's blessings never undergo any kind of change during the year?
Answers welcome in the comments...
Answers welcome in the comments...
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Appreciating the "Broken" Afikoman
A Pesach Thought - On Seeing Depth in People
by Rabbi Avi Billet
There are differences of opinion as to the
origin of the word Afikoman – the most common suggestion I've seen is that it
is a Greek term – and, as far as its translation goes, while it is not entirely
clear, it is largely considered to mean "dessert."
There are
a number of opinions amongst the Rishonim as to what purpose the Afikoman
serves. Some consider it the actual fulfillment of the mitzvah to eat matzah
(despite whatever earlier eatings took place). Others view it as a
commemoration of the Korban Pesach – eating a specifically designated
"dessert" in place of the meat of the sacrifice we no longer offer
because there is no Temple Jerusalem
Why do we make such a big
deal about the specific piece of matzah that we use for the Afikoman? Why do
parents fall for the negotiation for this piece of matzah meal (because that is
what it is after it's been folded and hidden inside a pillow) when surely a
fresh piece of matzah would be much more desirable to those sitting around the
table?
Because
when something is set aside for a mitzvah, it achieves its own unique identity,
and in some cases a level of holiness, which cannot be replaced by something
else.
In a homiletical sense,
perhaps the Afikoman carries with it a deep and profound message we all know,
but need to be reminded of every now and then.
The Afikoman might be a
broken matzah, but it's the best broken piece of matzah you'll ever eat because
of the added significance it carries. Even if though it may be a little
unsightly, we look past it's imperfections and its seeming limitations, and we
look forward to its taste, which we'll carry in our mouths until we go to
sleep. We appreciate the mitzvah it helps us fulfill.
How could a broken and
seemingly worthless piece of matzah serve that function?
Because not everything that
looks broken is automatically broken or in need of repair. My baby cries when a
cookie breaks – even if I give him both parts of the cookie. He doesn't
understand that both parts of the cookie are the same cookie and that as soon
as he takes one bite, he'll have left what is currently "broken" in
his hand.
The
Afikoman is not broken! It is meant to be this way. It is our way of
saving the best for last. Its imperfection is what makes it real. This
piece was part of a whole, and we've been anticipating this piece and looking
forward to this piece, and no other piece could ever take its place.
When
we think about this concept with respect to those we love, we understand how
people refuse to let go or give up on family members who have physically
changed on account of illness or aging. They may not look like they once did,
but we know them very well. They are not broken. Any physical imperfections are
what make them real.
In
a way, the value attached to the Afikoman is a reminder of how anything that
may seem on the surface to be dull or inconsequential is only that way to those
of us who don't scratch past the surface or who don't seek to uncover the depth
or beauty of what lies beneath.
To
bring the parable full circle, I share a passage from the children's book
"The Velveteen Rabbit" by Margery Williams.
"The Skin Horse had lived longer in the nursery than any of the others. He was so old that his brown coat was bald in patches and showed the seams underneath, and most of the hairs in his tail had been pulled out to string bead necklaces...
"What is REAL?" asked the Rabbit one day, when they were lying side by side near the nursery fender, before Nana came to tidy the room.
"Does it mean having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle?"
"Real isn't how you are made," said the Skin Horse. "It's a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real."
"Does it hurt?" asked the Rabbit."Sometimes," said the Skin Horse, for he was always truthful. "When you are Real you don't mind being hurt."
"Does it happen all at once, like being wound up," he asked, "or bit by bit?"
"It doesn't happen all at once," said the Skin Horse. "You become. It takes a long time. That's why it doesn't happen often to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept. Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand."
Have a wonderful Pesach,
enjoying all the company that spend time together through the holiday.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Allowing Kitniyos (to a degree)
Every year, the kitniyos discussion is a hot topic around Pesach time.
A friend of mine moved to Israel a little while ago and he commented that in Israel, because of the heavy "Sefardic" influence (Sefardim do not practice restrictions on kitniyos during Pesach), it is even harder to follow these Ashkenazic traditions than it is in the US.
This is why this article is a breath of fresh air. Not just because of what it says, but because a Rabbi can take a stand, and has the backbone to hold by his opinion - which is actually shared by many, but few (with the stature required) would stand up and say "it's time to reconsider" - despite whatever backlash may ensue.
A friend of mine moved to Israel a little while ago and he commented that in Israel, because of the heavy "Sefardic" influence (Sefardim do not practice restrictions on kitniyos during Pesach), it is even harder to follow these Ashkenazic traditions than it is in the US.
This is why this article is a breath of fresh air. Not just because of what it says, but because a Rabbi can take a stand, and has the backbone to hold by his opinion - which is actually shared by many, but few (with the stature required) would stand up and say "it's time to reconsider" - despite whatever backlash may ensue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)