Parashat R'eih

Parashat R'eih's overarching theme is that of choice. Beginning with the opening sentence, "See, this day I set before you blessing and curse" (Deuteronomy 11:26) and extending through to the end of this section with the instruction for the pilgrimage holidays, the text deals with making decisions in our lives. As the commentary in the Etz Hayim commentary points out, "The distinguishing characteristic of human beings, setting us apart from other animals, is our ability to choose the values by which we live."(1061). Solidifying this capacity becomes the marker of this week's reading. Distinguishing between our holy places and others' (12:2-3, 12:29-13:1); deciphering which animals can be used for sacrifice (12:17-19) ; making choices between true prophets and certain types of diviners (13:2-6) - each speaks to the issue of the types of personal choices we make in our lives, and the values we emphasize as a people. At the core of our lives are the decisions we make about how to interact with each other, with our world, and with God. The selections we make add significance to the medley of our religious behavior.

Abraham Joshua Heschel once said, (The Insecurity of Freedom, 7)

 "Unlike animals, man is the playground for the unpredictable emergence and multiplication of needs and interests." He continues, "This, indeed, is the purpose of religious traditions: to keep alive the higher Yes as well as the power of man to say, 'Here I am, to teach the mind to understand the true demand and to teach our conscience to be present' " Again, Heschel teaches, "Man is free to be free; he is not free in choosing to be a slave; he is free in doing good; he is not free in doing evil" (Insecurity of Freedom, 15). We can exercise our freedom for the betterment of the world or we can be enslaved to our evil inclination and bring the world down. The decisions we make about the values we hold sacred change the nature of the world. The choices we make in the mitzvoth we observe and the mitzvoth we will not effect us or alter our world.

Every day, we make decisions to act or decisions to stand idly by and the ramifications of these decisions are great, for our children and even our grandchildren. Are we going to spend Shabbat at the mall or with God and our people in prayer? Are we going to increase our donations to worthwhile causes or buy the latest and newest electronic equipment? Are we going to attend a class in sacred text or go to yet another physical fitness class? Our lives present us with many choices; our parashah teaches us to make the right choices.

This coming week, we will celebrate the new month of Elul, the month we spend in preparation for the High Holidays. May we utilize this time to evaluate and prioritize the choices in our lives so that we may elevate our experience in the coming year.

Cantor Eichaker

May 25, 2013 - B'ha·alot'kha

This week's parashah, B'ha·alot'kha, is instructive in suggesting a number of ways that God may potentially lead us to fuller lives. All of these ways are illustrated powerfully in the ways that God leads the Israelites through the desert en route to the Land of Israel. The Torah speaks of three ways that God led us on this perilous journey — two in this week's parashah and a third from the Book of Exodus. I would like to use these images as metaphors for the ways in which we can be guided by God in our own lives.

To begin, Numbers 9:15–23 describes the Israelites' journey through the desert on their way from Egypt to Israel. God guided the Israelites by a cloud during the day and a fire in the evening. The Torah relates, "whenever the cloud lifted from the Tent, the Israelites would set out accordingly; and at the spot where the cloud settled, there the Israelites would make camp" (Numbers 9:17). Although the Torah states that it was at the 'command of the Lord' that the Israelites journeyed, God's will is not expressed verbally. Instead, as in Egypt, God's method of communication was through signs and wonders. More specifically, the wonder the Israelites experienced was one born of nature. A cloud and fire were the means by which God communicated that the Divine Glory was present over the Tabernacle and in the midst of the people. Nature communicated God's greatness and Presence to the Israelites, who would dwell wherever they sensed the Divine Presence. For many of us today, nature continues to be our path to a relationship with God. Indeed, as Heschel writes, "The whole earth is full of His Glory. The outwardness of the world communicates something of the indwelling greatness of God, which is radiant and conveys itself without words."

A second means through which God leads us is suggested by Numbers 10:33. There we read, "They marched from the mountain of the Lord a distance of three days. The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord traveled in front of them on that three days' journey to seek out a resting place for them." A rabbinic teaching elaborates further: "Rabbi Judah Bar Ilai taught: Two arks journeyed with Israel in the wilderness — one in which the Torah was placed, and the other in which the Tablets broken by Moses were placed." Numbers 10:35 and 36the upsie down nuns indicate that these two sentences are a book unto themselves.  These passages complement each other magnificently — communicating to us that the text (i.e., the Torah) served as a guide to the Israelites in the desert. Just as the Torah was the blueprint by which God created the world, so too was it a map by which the Israelites were led to the Land of Israel. Learning and living words of Torah is yet another way that God guides us today. Simply by opening our sacred scripture, we are blessed with a direct link to God. We raise our consciousness and become more attuned to God's words and world. They in turn become the signposts by which we may live and enrich our lives.

Torah suggests yet a third way by which God leads us. In Exodus 23:20, God declares, "Here, I am sending an angel before you to care for you on the way, to bring you to the place that I have prepared." An angel leads the way for the Israelites in the desert. A heavenly intercessor is sent by the word of God to protect and lead the people. This means by which the Israelites were led speaks to us in a profound way today. Not only do we find God through nature and Torah, but we also find God through spiritual means. Whether it be through participating in a spirited service, humming a Carlebach niggun (melody), or engaging in kabbalistic meditation, the spiritual realm is a compelling way of approaching God and feeling God's Presence.

The Torah deigns to tell us almost nothing about Moses off–stage. How we yearn to catch a glimpse of him as a child of privilege growing up in Pharaoh's court. Only the bare facts of his own domestic life are shared with us. In flight from Pharaoh's wrath, Moses marries Zipporah, the daughter of a Midianite priest, who bears him two sons, Gershom and Eliezer (Exodus 2:21–22, 18:2–4).

It is a striking fact that we never hear of Moses's sons again. Unlike the sons of Aaron, who inherit his priestly leadership, the sons of Moses do not figure as the natural heirs to the office of their father. Nor are we given a clue as to why. In truth, we know as little about the fate of his sons as we do about the location of his grave. Political leadership in Moses' Israel was to be a function of charisma and not birth.

Part of the reason for this self–denial may have been the utter unworthiness of Gershom and Eliezer to succeed their father. A tantalizing detail points to a tragic pattern not uncommon in the household of biblical leaders. The book of Judges records a campaign by the tribe of Dan for territory in Israel. The time, not long after the death of Samson when "there was no king in Israel; every man did as he pleased (Judges 17:6)." The Danites conquered the peaceful Phoenician town of Laish in the Upper Galilee, renamed it Dan and installed a cult with a sculptured image to be run by one "Jonathan son of Gershom son of Menasseh and his descendants (Judges 18:30)." Page 560 in JPS

In Hebrew but one letter, a nun, separates the name of Menasseh (Menasheh) from that of Moses (Mosheh), and in our text the nun is elevated, as if it doesn't belong, suggesting an older reading of Moses. The Rabbis acknowledge as much: the grandson of Moses presided over a sanctuary that violated the faith of his grandfather. Out of respect for Moses they tried to obscure the identity slightly by inserting a suspended nun, a letter that hangs there with all the ambivalence of a child of a prominent parent. While the Bible fails to reveal the domestic price of Moses's leadership, it is not quite so sparing with the offspring of other public figures like Aaron, Eli, Samuel or David.

The Rabbis tend to identify Zipporah as the dark–skinned Cushite women (despite the fact that the word means Ethiopian), turning an apparent ethnic slur into an issue of celibacy. Interestingly, they take the term black to mean beautiful in body and deeds. Nevertheless, Moses's marriage was marked by separation, even when husband and wife lived together. At some point in his struggle with Pharaoh, Moses must have sent his family back to Midian, to be reunited only shortly before the appearance of God at Sinai, when they were returned to Moses by Jethro, his father–in–law. Yet on his own, after the experience of revelation, Moses decided to forgo any further intimacy with his wife, believing he could not be intimate with both God and Zipporah. He reasoned as follows: if Israelite spouses were to be separated for a period of three days prior to revelation (Exodus 19:10–11, 15) in order to meet God in a state of purity, then he who speaks with God constantly, and often on a moment's notice, should surely remain in a perpetual state of readiness. According to the Talmud, God acquiesced to Moses's logic.

The remark by Miriam and Aaron could well be an ethnic slur, prompted by the previous rebellious episode in which the discontent against Moses was fomented by "the riffraff (Numbers 11:4)," that is the foreigners in Israel's midst. Yet Moses himself is married to a non–Israelite!

The Torah may appear to be replete with double standards and contradictions however, one needs to read deeper to understand that many of the stories are constructed more for a guide for social decorum rather than taking the scenes and putting a “Reality TV” association to them.

 

Cantor Eichaker

Saturday, April 27, 2013 - Emor

In Parashat Emor, there is an echo of community as the dominant vehicle for expression of holiness which hinges on how we understand the enigmatic term for holy days, mikra'e kodesh, which the new Jewish Publication Society translation renders as "the sacred occasions" but the old JPS translation (preserved in the Hertz Humash) as "holy convocations (Leviticus 23:4)."  I can further complicate things by saying that a more detailed translation can be “with My holy proclamation.”  A “holy proclamation” implies that there is a gathering of people present to hear it.  In the context of “Emor,” bear in mind that this also implies a sort of channeling by Moses of God’s words rather than a relaying of the words through a fallible mind and truncated tone of voice as the term “dabeir” implies, we are hearing the words as if straight from the Originator’s voice. 

At issue is whether the book of Leviticus, in describing Israel's holy days as mikra'e kodesh intends to stress the attribute of time or space. I prefer the older translation which follows the commentary of Nachmanides (13th century) because it envisions assemblies of people gathered to celebrate the festival in community. I find the translation of "sacred occasions" adding little that is not already there in the designation moade Ha–Shem, "My fixed times." Thus the festivals stipulated in this rendition of the priestly calendar are occasions to reinforce a sense of community, as indeed the three pilgrimage festivals were designed to do. Even as community intensifies our experience of the holy, sacred days deepens the bonds of family and community. The interplay of time and space, calendar and community, communal worship and religious experience is exquisite.

So the importance of a “minyan” is underscored within the first three of the four chapters of Leviticus that constitutes Parashat Emor.  The 24^th Chapter departs, somewhat from this message and tells a rather disturbing story.

Leviticus 24:10-23 is a rare instance of a narrative segment amid the rituals, sacrifices and commandments that dominate that particular book of the Bible. It begins with an outsider, a man who is not referred to by name, but only by lineage, as the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian. He "goes out" and has a fight with a full-blooded Israelite. In the course of events, he curses and defames God's name. The witnesses bring the offender to Moses and he is held under guard "until the decision of the Lord should be made clear to them"(Leviticus 24:12). God declares that the man is to be taken out of the camp and stoned, and tells Moses to instruct the Israelites as to the laws of blasphemy. Indeed, Moses does so, and the man meets his death.

The story is remarkable in the degree of uncertainty that it reflects. It occurs to the observers that the unnamed man may have acted wrongly, but they are unsure if, and how, he should be punished. It would seem that even Moses does not have an answer, since God must tell him what to do.  In fact this instance of Moses’ sense of being “in the weeds” on an issue occurs three more times in The Book of Numbers.  We will have more to say about that later in the summer.

At the beginning of every morning service as we enter the synagogue we intone softly a few magnificently appropriate verses from the Torah. Among them, one gives voice to our hope that this might be the right moment to draw near to God: "I pray that this be an acceptable time for my prayer, O God (Psalms 69:14)." The Talmud asks: "What constitutes an acceptable time? The moment a congregation is assembled for prayer." Judaism posits a strong preference for communal prayer. God does not make light of the fervent prayers of many Jews uttered in unison.

This is both what Judaism has to offer and teach our confused and self–indulgent age. "Blessed are they who dwell in your house (Psalms l45:1)." The circuitous path to God leads away from the constricted focus on the self through the expansive world of the other. When we find renewal in the synagogue, we will have gained access to Judaism's greatest boon — this–worldly–salvation.

Cantor Eichaker

Parashat Vayikra - Saturday, March 9, 2013

Parashat Vayikra:  Vayikra meaning “and He called” refers to God’s call to Moses.  The Latin name “Leviticus” is derived from “Levitikon” the Greek word for the Levitical Book or Book of the Levites.  It has also been referred to as “Torat Kohanim”; containing explicit directions for the priests.

Leviticus interrupts the narrative flow of Genesis and Exodus, resuming in the Book of Numbers.  The key theme in Leviticus is the attainment of ethical and spiritual holiness..

Leviticus contains some of the loftiest and most inspiring passages in the Torah.  It also contains the most complete biblical account of the Holy Days (see Parashat Emor), the laws of Kashrut and the Sabbatical and Jubilee years are also mentioned here first.  Leviticus also contains most of the 613 Mitzvot and so much of the Talmud is based upon the Book of Leviticus.  In many Jewish days schools and yeshivot students begin their bible studies with the Book of Leviticus then go back to Genesis.

Specific to this week’s parasha, we begin to explore the details of the sacrifices (sacrifice derived from the two Latin words “sacra” and “fice” meaning “setting aside as holy”).  The offerings that the people of Israel are to make as they pertain to certain circumstances; such as sin, thanksgiving etc.  The people would bring their offerings to the priests and the priests would dispatch the offerings (whether killing an animal and examining its organs etc for defects or laying out the grain in appropriate fashion).  Once performed the people return to their homes having fulfilled their sacred responsibilities to God and the people.  This section deals with 5 types of offerings; the first 3 which are voluntary and not brought for atonement and the next 2 types that are obligatory upon guilty individuals.

What is of importance here is that there are now prescribed and measured responses to life’s transgressions or demands in order to establish and maintain and order within the fledgling  identity of the people among other people in the region.  We see that the priests act as proxies on behalf of the individual to make perform the sacrifices in a uniform fashion according the laws established by God and transmitted by Moses.  The priests (as intermediaries) have a responsibility to provide religious continuity which was essential in keeping everyone moving in the same direction morally, spiritually and ethically. 

Two examples:

Chatat: referring to sins of intention like; failure to testify, touching an unclean animal, contact with human uncleanness and failure to fulfill an oath. This chatat offering was to be brought by an individual or community  which unintentionally commits a sin regarding any commandments.  Specific offering to be determined by economic conditions.

Asham: was to be brought by an individual who had sinned by committing robbery or fraud.  The penalty for this is to restore to the owner(s) the item stolen plus an additional one fifth of its value.

Could we consider these offering a way of attempting to bribe God for favor?  Does it give the offending person the idea that if an offence is committed one only needs to offer a sacrifice and all is forgiven?  These kinds of questions will be pursued as we move forward into the Book of Leviticus.

We did not delve into our Haftarah at our study session but rather explored the recent article by Professor S. David Sperling in Reform Judaism magazine entitled “Were the Jews Slaves in Egypt?”  As with every opinion article we explore great care needs to be taken to derive context and understanding of the intention of the author.  This requires reading the thesis in its original form which, in this case, can be found in his 1998 publication entitled “The Original Truth: The Political Intent of the Bible’s Writers.”  The sidebar article with this larger piece is titled “Torah is not History” by Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and was adapted with permission from a piece that first appeared on belief.net.  I encourage everyone interested in digging deeper into the intentionality of these articles by looking at the source work.  We will undoubtedly discuss these two articles through our Passover season.

Next week we will study Parashat Tzav, Leviticus 6:1 – 8:36.

Cantor Eichaker

Vayakheil Pekudei - March 9, 2013

This past week we worked on the very beginning of the double parasha Vayakheil / Pekudei.  This section was from Exodus 35:1 through 40:38 beginning on page 191 in the JPS TANACH.

By the very beginning I mean the “very” beginning with the first word “Vayakheil”  Va-and, ya-God, k’heil-assembled.  The people were assembled to hear understand the connection between the Tabernacle and Shabbat.  Interesting though is the statement of assemblage because the last assemblage of this kind was to create a “golden calf.”  So in order to move forward in the Torah we actually moved all the way back to page 183 and Exodus 32:1 where this word (in variant form) was used.  The key here is that that first use of the word which included the root “khl” started a narrative and the next word which contained the root “khl” ended the narrative.  So there lies a story within the story.

The people were told to bring their riches to the construction of the Tabernacle with the same verve as they did when bringing their gold for the shaping of the calf – idol.  However, they were told to do so if their heart so moved to do so.  The thought being that out of guilt from the golden calf the people would move to compensate for their past action.  Well it worked. Notice that in no way was this deemed a punishment though the opportunity to make amends certainly has to be recognized and the people did oblige.  In Parashat Pekudei, Rashi points out that the need to make a full and accurate accounting of the riches brought for the Tabernacle was not so much for demographic purposes but as a response to the murmurings of the people as they assumed that Moses was deriving benefit from such a vast amount of acquired wealth.  And so the first transparency laws began to emerge, hence Moses called for the full accounting.

In the recent issue of Reform Judaism magazine several participants in our Torah study sessions asked me to respond to two articles.  The first is found on page 56 of the magazine entitled “Were the Jews Slaves in Egypt?” and the second found on page 57 is a sidebar article entitled “Torah is Not History.”  I started to address these two articles and their messages however time called us to the Main Sanctuary for services.  I told everyone to please read those two articles and there would be time available for next week to review as well.  The session will begin with a broad response to these articles but cannot delve too deeply with our time constraints.

We will be studying Parashat Vayikra – Leviticus 1:1 through 5:26 found on page 207 in the JPS TANACH.  We will only have the one hour to take in a great deal.  Please come early, have some breakfast, take a deep breath and let’s have some fun!

Cantor Eichaker

Parshat Mishpatim - Saturday, February 9, 2013

Parshat Mishpatim contains four main sections.  Spanning Exodus 21:1 – 24:18 Mishpatim means “judgments.”  What kinds of judgments?  These are the laws derived from humans whereas the term “Chukim” refers to laws beyond the grasp of human understanding.  This Parasha has also been known as the “Book of the Covenant” which Moses had written down (Ex. 24:7).  The term “…naaseh v’nishmah” you will then understand first makes its presence in the lexicon of religious directives.

We examined Ex. 21:24 (eye for an eye) and determined by back reading the section that the punishment was monetary rather than actually taking an eye if on loses and eye.  The literal application of punishment was not intended in these passages.  The use of prefixes indicate a continuation of thought as well as the structure of paragraphs.  We examined sections of the actual Torah and became able to recognize closed paragraphs and open paragraphs (and how they are indicated in the JPS TANACH) as an aide in determining context.

Getting back to “eye for an eye,” also known as “Lex Talionis” sought to limit retaliation to the exact measure of the injury, rejecting the Near Eastern practice of  vicarious punishment against family members. Also in the mix was the Code (or Law) of Hammurabi.  Dating back to 1772 BCE it is one of the oldest deciphered writing of significant length in the world.  The sixth Babylonian king, Hammurabi enacted the code.  Hammurabi ruled for 43 years from about 1792 – 1750 BCE and at that time the 282  laws, with scaled punishments were graded according to social status of slave versus free man; nearly half of the laws deals with matters of contract. Other provisions set the terms of a transaction, establishing the liability of the builder for a house that collapses or property damage while left in the care of another.  A third of the laws concern household and family issues ranging from inheritance, divorce, paternity and sexual behavior.  A small section relates to military service. 

One observation in our session compared the assessment of monetary value on damages to a modern day forensic accountant.  Excellent comparison. 

We also discussed men who lost their families and join another through slavery.  A man can conscript to elective servitude for six years and after those years can either go free or become a permanent servant to that household.  During that time the man can be given a wife (either related to the owner or not).  If the wife bore a child and the man decided to leave the family the owner of the slave contract can keep the woman and child and the man leaves without them.  This became motivation such men to remain with a family of course.  Should the man decide to remain his left ear lobe was pierced as a sign of permanent servitude.  This, of course, will foreshadow the Sabbatical Year later in our Torah text.

The section of Haftarah paired with this Parasha is from Jeremiah 34:8-22.  Jeremiah message came around 589 BCE when the Israelite elite tried to win God’s forgiveness by releasing all slaves who, according to biblical law, should have been released long before then.  Jeremiah pronounces judfement on Israel’s elite and predicts harsh consequences.  Of note in this section is the first use of the word “Yehudee” or Judasim in the TANACH.

Next week we study Parashat Terumah beginning with Exodus25:1 through 27:19.  Our Haftarah is taken from the Book of First Kings 5:26 through 6:13.  A compelling question was asked a Torah study last week; “How does First and Second Kings influence the current political climate in Israel today?”  Any thoughts?  Please feel free to share

Cantor Eichaker

Parashat Vaeira - January 12, 2013

Last week we studied Parashat Vaeira in the Book of Exodus and focused on chapter 6 verses 2 and 3.  This is the time when Adonai appears with three “names” to Moses.  These two sentences sparked a discussion about the various names for Adonai and we recognized that there are more than 70 names for Adonai in the TANACH!  But are they really names

Underlying this profusion of divine names is the insight that as humans, our nomenclature can do no more than depict God's actions, that is, our experience of God and not anything resembling God's essence. When Moses presses God, the midrash has God say: "You wish to know My name. It is by my actions that I am called. Sometimes I am called El Shaddai or Zevaot or Elohim or Adonai. When I sit in judgment on humanity, I am called Elohim. When I war against the wicked, I am called Zevaot (the head of an army). When I refrain from punishing someone on the spot for his or her sin, I am known as El Shaddai, [I am not quite sure why!] And when I treat my world with compassion, I am known as Adonai" (Exodus Rabba 3:6).

Strikingly, the midrash proves its theological case from the enigmatic phrase used by God in the original dialogue with Moses: "I will be what I will be" (Exodus 3:14). God is not the same in each and every instance. The very vagueness of the formulation with two verbs of being allows for a variety of intersections with God.

The midrash captures the essence of monotheism. If pagan religion raised to the level of deity an assorted number of disparate natural phenomena, hence a pantheon of gods, the Bible insists on a single grand deity who encompassed the diversity of nature and human experience within itself. Existence emanates from but one source of being, refracted into a brilliant spectrum of emotions by human consciousness.

Against this backdrop, we can savor the fact that our parashah uses three distinct names of God in the space of its first two verses: Elohim, Adonai andEl Shaddai (Exodus 6:2-3). Given the meanings the Rabbis attributed to God's names, the midrash construes an exchange fraught with deep tension. The name Elohim (God as judge) suggests a moment of divine impatience: God (Elohim) spoke to Moses. What triggered the rebuke was Moses' preceding assault on God after his first setback: "O Lord, why did You bring harm on this people? Why did You select me?" (Exodus 5:22), a remark laden with disrespect and impudence. God laments the slippage in leadership.

What a pity that the patriarchs are gone! Several times did I appear to them in the guise of El Shaddai and it was sufficient. To Abraham I said: 'Up, walk about the land, through its length and its breadth, for I give it to you' (Genesis 13:17). And yet he found no place to bury Sarah until he bought a gravesite from Ephron for 400 shekels. Similarly with Isaac and Jacob and none of them ever questioned My word. In contrast, to you I revealed Myself as Adonai, and you turn on Me after the first bit of adversity. Accordingly, I shall redeem Israel with compassion (Adonai) but condemn you to die in trans-Jordan [Elohim with El Shaddai perhaps signifying the delay in punishment] (Genesis Rabba 6:4).

This Shabbat we study Parashat Bo, Exodus 10:1 – 13:6 and Jeremiah 46:13-28

Cantor Eichaker