Blogs

September 17, 2011 – 18 Elul 5771

Annual: Deut. 26:1 – 29:8 (Etz Hayim, p. 1140; Hertz p. 859)
Triennial: Deut. 26:1 – 27:10 (Etz Hayim, p. 1140; Hertz p. 859)
Haftarah: Isaiah 60:1 – 22 (Etz Hayim, p. 1161; Hertz p. 874)

Prepared by Rabbi Joseph Prouser
Baldwin, New York

The Israelites are commanded to present the first fruits of their produce to the Priest at God’s chosen shrine. The worshipper is then to recite a declaration familiar to modern Jews from the Passover Haggadah: “Arami oved avi… My ancestor was a wandering Aramean…” This recitation of Israelite origins represents the very first scripted liturgy for Jewish worship and reflects our liturgy’s emphasis on historical experience. A prescribed verbal declaration, including a request for God’s blessing (“from your holy abode, from heaven”) similarly accompanies the tithe that Israelites provide for the support of Levites and strangers, widows and orphans.

The Israelites are admonished once again to be faithful to God and God’s commandments; God’s reciprocal devotion to His chosen people is assured.

When they will cross the Jordan to enter the Promised Land, Israel is commanded to erect stone pillars, coated with plaster, on which God’s laws are to be inscribed. These steles are to be dedicated with sacrifices to be offered on an altar of unhewn stone that the Israelites are instructed to build on Mount Ebal.

Israel prepares for the recitation of blessings and curses. (The ceremonious presentation was prescribed earlier, in parashat Re’eh.) The tribes of Shimon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin are assigned to Mount Gerezim for the blessing; Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zevulun, Dan, and Naphtali are to be present on Mount Ebal for the curses. Twelve specific sins (some would say, eleven specific sins and a final, generalized description of sin) are detailed, identified as worthy of being cursed, and individually acknowledged as such by a collective, national “Amen.” Offenses of cultic, sexual, moral, and violent character are included among these execrable sins.

Blessings for compliance with God’s commandments are given: “Blessed shall you be in the city and blessed shall you be in the country, Blessed shall be the issue of your womb. The Lord will make you the head, not the tail.” (This last blessing customarily is repeated on Rosh Hashanah eve.) These are followed by a further statement of largely parallel curses for Israelite disobedience to God: “Cursed shall you be in the city and cursed shall you be in the country. Cursed shall be the issue of your womb.” Thi passage, called the tochechah exhortation, includes particularly vile curses: “Your carcasses shall become food for all the birds of the sky. The Lord will strike you with the Egyptian inflammation, with hemorrhoids, boil scars. madness, blindness, and dismay.” Remarkably, the Torah reader customarily substitutes prescribed euphemism for the harshest of the Hebrew terms! So feared was this scriptural passage, nevertheless, that some communities have a history of skipping the section entirely. Others have required the Torah reader or shamas to accept this aliyah as a condition of employment. Still others, instead of assigning so unseemly a text as a Torah “honor,” simply announced “Yaamod mi she-yirtzeh” – “Let whoever wants it come forward!” In any case, it is common to read these verses quickly and quietly, dispensing with so unpleasant a text with all possible dispatch.

The parashah concludes with a firm admonition (for those who missed the message in the previous section!?) faithfully to adhere to God’s covenant, and to recognize in Israel’s historic experience God’s miraculous guidance and beneficent, providential care.

Theme #1: “Yes, Rev. Spooner, It Would be Curse”

“Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this Teaching and observe them. – And all the people shall say, Amen.” Deuteronomy 27:26

Study: Derash

“This curse applies to those who say that it is not necessary to observe the commandments of the Lord in practice, claiming that the important thing is that one should understand their meaning and that one should be good in one’s heart, and no more.” Ketav Sofer

“Rabbi Assi said in the name of Rabbi Tanchum, the son of Rabbi Chiyya: ‘Even one who studies the law, and teaches, observes, and fulfills it, but fails to avail himself of an opportunity he has to strengthen it, is truly accursed.’” Talmud Yerushalmi, Sotah

“Some people observe the mitzvot with unseemly intentions, so as to make themselves appear to be upright and thought to be trustworthy, etc. One who fulfills the mitzvot not because it is right and necessary to do so, but so as to serve his own selfish and unworthy agenda, deserves to be cursed.” Akedat Yitzchak

“In my opinion, the acceptance of the Torah addressed in this verse is that one must acknowledge the mitzvot in his heart, that he must consider them true and believe that one who observes them is rewarded, and one who violates them is punished. And if he rejects any one of the commandments and considers it forever void, he is cursed. If, however, he merely violates one of the mitzvot – say, by eating swine or another forbidden species to satisfy his animal appetite, or by failing to build a succah or observe lulav out of laziness, he is not execrated under the rubric of this verse. For the verse does not say ‘(Cursed be) he who does not observe the words of this Torah’ but, rather, ‘who does not uphold the words of this Torah in order to do them.’” Ramban

“I must uphold my ideals, for perhaps the time will come when I shall be able to carry them out.” Anne Frank

“Every blessing ignored becomes a curse.” Brazilian mystic and novelist Paulo Coelho

Questions for Discussion

Ramban articulates a remarkably modern distinction between intellectual acceptance of Jewish law and a personal commitment to practicing its observance. He demands of each of us the intellectual exercise of recognizing the Torah’s commandments as binding, notwithstanding our personal shortcomings in its application to our daily lives. How far is our conduct from our convictions? How might we each reduce that distance by putting into practice what we acknowledge in theory?

Anne Frank’s statement is closely related to Ramban’s philosophical stance. Our verse asks us, too, to uphold our ideals, even if circumstances (surely less daunting than those that confronted the teenage diarist) or distractions keep us from carrying them out. What are the ideals we cherish most? To what as-yet-unattained moral or spiritual achievements do we aspire?

Compare Akedat Yitzchak and Ramban. Taken together, they teach that someone who accepts the Torah in theory but transgresses its laws is at a distinct spiritual advantage over someone who fulfills Jewish law out of flawed motives. Are our actions or our motives critical? How would the Ketav Sofer answer this question?

Paulo Coelho provides a concise summary of parashat Ki Tavo. Spiritual neutrality is an illusion. Blessings and curses are our only options. Why was this principle dramatized for our ancestors at this particular juncture in Israelite history? What events necessitated the blessings and curses, whether Israel was ready or not?

What steps can we and our congregations take to strengthen Torah, beyond teaching and fulfilling its precepts?

Theme #2: “Do You See What I See?”

“Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: You have seen all that the Lord did before your very eyes in the Land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his courtiers and to his whole country: the wondrous feats that you saw with your own eyes, those prodigious signs and marvels. Yet to this day the Lord has not given you a mind to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear.” Deuteronomy 29:1-3

Study: Derash

“The underlying justification for this grand covenantal ceremony, 40 years after Sinai, is that now at last, on the verge of crossing into the land, the people is granted the discernment to see God’s real power.” Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses

“Perhaps only after living through the miracles of the Egyptian exodus and desert wanderings could the Jewish people finally look back and recognize the magnitude of what they had experienced. It often occurs that one can only appreciate a miraculous moment long after it occurs. A contrary thought can be suggested. Rather than emphasizing miracles as the key to faith, it is the everyday that leads to true belief. In fact, the test of people is not how they believe when experiencing a supernatural moment, but how they commit themselves when living a normal everyday existence. Only now, after 40 years, when miracles were no longer as overt, would the Jews really show their faith in God. It is easy to make a commitment on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur when one is experiencing the awesome power of the spirit of the holiday. The test is one’s preparedness to follow through; remaining committed even after the dust has settled.” Rabbi Avi Weiss

“Often, it is only in looking back on a time in one’s life that it begins to make sense. When we’re in the moment, certain aspects of our experience may seem obvious or wondrous, but our ability to comprehend and connect the incidents to the larger canvas of life is often lacking. As human beings, we seek an awareness of the ‘transcendent hand’ – a sense of the Divine whose energy and presence can be felt, but whose ways remain a mystery. We long to make sense of the seemingly arbitrary ways that our lives fit together. Like us, our ancestors the Israelites surely yearned to know why their lives had unfolded as they did. No doubt they wanted to believe that everything they lived through had a divine purpose, even if all had not yet been revealed. The passage implies that God gives the heart the capacity for faith, but only to those who exercise it.” Rabbi Camille Shira Angel

“Forty years have passed since the Six Day War was fought and won. Forty years – a whole generation – during which we have studied that war, its background, causes, and course. Countless analyses have been written, from the most superficial babbling in cheap paperbacks and forgotten newspapers, to the most serious books and articles by the world’s foremost experts in military doctrines, strategists, tacticians and political scientists. The very fact that Israel survived was a miracle; that we not merely survived, but won a decisive victory, infinitely more miraculous. Indeed, a West Point general once remarked that though the U.S. military academy studies wars fought throughout the world, it does not study the Six Day War - because what concerns West Point is strategy and tactics, not miracles.” Daniel Pinner

Questions for Discussion

What miracles go unheralded, unappreciated, unrecognized by today’s Jews? Technology and health care advances? The downfall of despotic regimes like Hitler’s Germany and the Soviet Union? The founding and flourishing of the State of Israel, its emergence as a besieged bastion of democracy and freedom, its growth as a military superpower, world leader in medicine, communications, education, and environmental advances? Surely, history will judge the first century of Israeli statehood as a time of wondrous miracles. Do we lack “a mind to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear”? How might we, as Rabbi Angel puts it, exercise our capacity for faith and our ability to recognize and appreciate the miraculous?

When have you most explicitly experienced a sense of the miraculous in your own life? Did you come more fully to understand the element of providence in your personal experience only with the passage of time?

In what ways are the everyday, the routine, the normal more the key to Jewish faith than the spectacular and the miraculous? What elements of Jewish observance are designed (or, in practice, tend) to reinforce this religious attitude? Does this emphasis make faith more accessible or more challenging?

Historic Note

Among the curses in parashat Ki Tavo, read on September 17, 2011, is: “The Lord shall scatter you among all the peoples from one end of the earth to the other. Yet even among those nations you shall find no peace, nor shall your foot find a place to rest” (Deuteronomy 28:64-65). On September 17, 1394, Jews were expelled from France by order of King Charles VI.

Halachah L’Maaseh

In addition to his philosophical interpretation of Deuteronomy 27:26 about “upholding the Torah,” Ramban notes the homiletical interpretation of the verse as being about someone who does not show the writing in the Torah properly to “all the men and women” of the congregation to see. When honored with hagba (the highest of all Torah honors: see BT Megillah 32A), a person should keep the Torah open not longer than his strength safely permits (Mishnah Berurah Orach Chaim 134:8). A seam should be visible in the middle of the open section (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 147:3). Hoshen Mishpat 267:20 has been interpreted to indicate that you should not open the scroll more than necessary to show three columns of print. You should be careful to allow the entire congregation to see the print by turning your body, not by moving the scroll itself.

September 10, 2011– 4 Elul 5771

Annual: Deut. 21:10 – 25:19 (Etz Hayim, p. 1112; Hertz p. 840)
Triennial: Deut. 21:10 – 23:7 (Etz Hayim, p. 1112; Hertz p. 840)
Haftarah: Isaiah 54:1 – 10 (Etz Hayim, p. 1138; Hertz p. 857)

Prepared by Rabbi Joseph Prouser
Baldwin, New York

Sefer Ha-Chinuch counts 74 individual mitzvot in Parashat Ki Tetzei, though that number is disputed more than such counts in any other Torah portion. Among the commandments and legal categories addressed are the following: the treatment of women taken captive in time of war; the immutability of the birthright; the draconian treatment of the “stubborn and rebellious son”; judicial hangings; the return of lost property; the obligation to assist the owner of an animal that has fallen under its burden; the prohibition against wearing clothing that is intended for the opposite sex and characteristic of it; the commandment to chase off a mother bird before taking its eggs or its young and the reward for fulfilling this imperative; the requirement to build a parapet on your roof and to remove analogous safety hazards from your property; the prohibitions against sowing a vineyard with diverse species, plowing with an ox and ass yoked together, and shaatnez (wearing garments in which wool and linen are combined); the commandment to wear fringes; laws about slander; the procedure followed when a newlywed husband alleges his wife was not a virgin as claimed and the consequences of such claims, whether they are unfounded or accurate; the legal ramifications of adultery and rape and a variety of marital restrictions; conduct and sanitation in a military camp (“keeping the camp holy” would later be expanded into a general mandate to establish worthy communities); the treatment to be accorded an escaped slave; sexual conduct deemed immoral and therefore prohibited; the prohibition against usury; mandates about vows; the legal parameters guiding someone working in a vineyard or field of crops; the fundamental laws of divorce; the special obligations and military exemption attending the first year of marriage; the securing of a debt; the legal treatment of kidnapping; the authority of priests in cases of leprosy; the commandment to remember God’s punishment of Miriam after to her ill-advised criticism of Moses; the fair treatment of laborers and the obligation to provide prompt payment of workers. Fundamental legal principles are addressed: individual responsibility and the principle that people are punished only for their own sins, not the sin of their parents or children; the obligation to deal justly with the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. The obligation to provide justice for society’s most vulnerable finds specific expression in the requirement to leave forgotten sheaves and gleanings for the desperate poor. A maximum of forty lashes is established in cases of judicial flogging. Concern for animals is given expression through the prohibition against muzzling a plow animal at work, keeping it from eating. The law of levirate marriage and its circumvention by the ritual of chalitzah is introduced. Harsh consequences are provided in the case of a woman who violently intervenes in her husband’s physical altercation with another man (as the King James Version euphemistically puts it, she “taketh” the antagonist “by the secrets”). Scripture prescribes amputation of her hand – the only penal mutilation in the Torah, not surprisingly commuted to a punitive fine in rabbinic law. The requirement of honest weights and measures, and the more general principle of integrity in commerce are detailed. The parashah concludes with the requirement to “remember what Amalek did” – that bellicose nation’s merciless attack on the weakest parts of the Israelite camp. Israel is to “blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” These final verses are read as the eponymic maftir aliyah on Shabbat Zachor, just before Purim.

Theme #1: “Smitten”

“When a man has taken a bride, he shall not go out with the army or be assigned to it for any purpose; he shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household, to give happiness to the woman he has married.” Deuteronomy 24:5

Study: Derash

“’He must cause his wife to be happy,’ as in Targum Onkelos (using the causative form of the verb). And Targum Yonatan, which translates, ‘He must rejoice with his wife,’ is incorrect.” Rashi

“By envisioning a year of uninterrupted courtship after the wedding, the Torah was seeking to blend two distinct personalities into a harmonious union for life. And that is precisely the goal the Torah had set for itself when it coupled marriage with creation at the beginning. Marriage is a form of restoration. A partnership based on utilitarian considerations can never end our existential loneliness. For husband and wife ever to merge into one, their relationship must be cemented by love.” Rabbi Ismar Schorsch

“Judaism prescribes a yearlong honeymoon period, though not in the sense of a Champagne-glass-shaped Jacuzzi and a heart-shaped bed. In biblical times a newlywed husband was excused from the army in order to be free to ‘gladden the woman he married.’ The first year together is in many ways the hardest. Synchronizing two personalities is no easy task, and new couples will benefit from building a solid foundation of intimacy early on.” Rivka C. Berman

“Strike an average between what a woman thinks of her husband a month before she marries him and what she thinks of him a year afterward, and you will have the truth about him.” H.L. Mencken, A Book of Burlesques, 1916

“The first year of marriage is like wet cement — the impressions made in it are much harder to change once it has set.” Robert Wolgemuth, The Most Important Year in a Woman’s Life/The Most Important Year in a Man’s Life

Questions for Discussion

Rashi insists that the Torah imposes an obligation on a newly married man to assure the happiness of his wife, rather than himself finding happiness together with her. What support for this interpretation is to be found in the scriptural demand for military deferment? Is Rashi’s difference in understanding than Targum Yonatan a significant moral (and practical) distinction?

If the first year of marriage, addressed by our text, is not a matter of “a Champagneglass shaped Jacuzzi and a heart-shaped bed” – that is, a function of physical enjoyment and conjugal passion – how might the mitzvah prescribed by our verse most effectively and meaningfully be achieved? How do we “give happiness” to those we love most… those to whom we have made sacred commitments?

American essayist and acerbic satirist H.L. Mencken and evangelical Christian publisher Robert Wolgemuth make essentially the same point! The Torah is correct. The first year of marriage is absolutely essential to “cementing” the mutual understanding and relationship of husband and wife. If you were given a year to establish the truth of who you are and how you will be remembered – to change how you are perceived – what would you do?

Using the same metaphor as Wolgemuth, Chancellor Schorsch writes that a successful marital bond must be “cemented by love.” What other indispensible ingredients allow loving partners truly “to merge into one”?

Does marriage – does love – truly require “synchronizing two personalities,” as Rivka C. Berman asserts? To what extent may partners in a loving union remain independent actors and personalities, with sometimes conflicting opinions, views, and values?

Theme #2: “Smitten”

“Remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam on the journey after you left Egypt.” Deuteronomy 24:9

Study: Derash

“The Torah relates (Numbers 12:1-15) how Miriam spoke against her younger brother Moses for neglecting his wife. Miriam felt that the fact that Moses was a prophet was not an excuse for his behavior. ‘Is it only to Moses that God speaks? Does He not also speak to us?’…Far worse than her sin of slander, Miriam erred in her evaluation of the nature of Moses’ prophecy. Had Moses been just a regular prophet, Miriam would have been correct in her criticism. But in fact, Moses’ prophetic vision was on a higher plane than common prophecy. Moses’ vision was not distorted and murky, but crystal-clear, As a result, the Five Books of Moses are on a higher level than the other books of the Bible. No prophet may challenge or contradict Moses’ prophecies. It is for this reason that we are admonished to remember Miriam’s punishment for speaking against Moses. By recalling her mistake, we are reminded to appreciate the unique nature of Moses’ prophetic vision.” Rabbi Abraham Isaac Ha-Kohen Kook

“‘If you wish to guard yourself against being stricken with leprosy, do not speak slander.’ This is Rashi's language. And in my opinion this actually is a positive commandment, like ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy’ (Exodus 20:8); ‘Remember this day, in which you came out from Egypt’ (13:3); ‘Remember what Amalek did to you’ (25:17) – which all are commandments. If so, this verse, too, is like those, it being an admonition against speaking slander. He commanded by way of a positive precept that we remember the great punishment that God inflicted upon the righteous prophetess who spoke only about her brother upon whom she had bestowed her mercy and whom she loved as herself. And she spoke nothing wrong to his face, but only in private, between herself and her holy brother (Aaron). Yet all her good deeds were of no avail to her!” Ramban

“Even as we remember Miriam’s punishment, we might remember her leadership and her initiative, her inspiration and her caring.” Rabbi Gilah Dror

“Recalling Miriam’s misdeed is especially valuable today. Nowadays, through the power of electronic instant communication, words can be sent to millions of people in microseconds. If these words are negative, they can harm individuals instantly, without even the possibility of recourse or recall. Not a day goes by when we do not receive emails or read Internet reports which damage reputations of individuals, without due process and without the remotest possibility of defending themselves. Imagine if emails were limited to complimentary statements and words of praise. Imagine if the blogs and websites were replete with stories of human accomplishment, altruism, and heroism. It would be a happier world for sure. And it would be a world closer to that which the Almighty intended.” Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb

Questions for Discussion

The Torah calls upon us to remember six things. These zechirot are listed in many traditional siddurim. We are to remember the exodus from Egypt, the revelation at Sinai, the attack against Israel by Amalek, the rebelliousness of the wilderness generation, Shabbat, and the punishment of Miriam. How does remembering what God did to Miriam compare to these other religious imperatives?

As the Rabbinical Assembly’s president, Rabbi Gilah Dror, points out, there is much that is positive to remember about Miriam. Why does our parashah insist that we remember her moment of personal failure and disgrace? What other single event in her life would you consider defining and worthy of commemoration?

Miriam’s cup has become a fixture at an increasing number of seder tables. Through this contemporary ritual, we remember Miriam’s role in the liberation from slavery as we focus on her role in the redemption of Israel. How might the mitzvah of remembering the low point of Miriam’s career also enhance our understanding of the exodus and add to our observance of Passover?

Rav Kook teaches that the commandment to remember Miriam’s punishment is a function of Moses’ greatness, while Ramban seems to demonstrate that this religious obligation reflects her personal stature –the greatness of Miriam herself. What other aggravating circumstances might account for the severity with which Miriam’s act was handled and the urgency with which its commemoration is required?

Historic Note

Parashat Ki Tetzei, read on September 10, 2011, adjures us to “remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt – how, undeterred by God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished, and cut down all the stragglers.” On September 10, 1882, the “Congress for Safeguarding of Non-Jewish Interests,” an international conference aimed at the promotion of anti-Semitism, first convened in Dresden, Germany.

Halachah L’Maaseh

Parashat Ki Tetzei prescribes an obligation to safeguard the safety of those around us: “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you do not bring blood upon your house if anyone should fall from it” (Deuteronomy 22:8). The Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards has applied this principle to statemandated immunizations that required for admission to school: “Vaccination against infectious disease is the pharmaceutical equivalent of the biblically mandated parapet, designed effectively to shield potential victims from sudden fall, injury, and death. Immunization against infectious disease is thus logically rendered obligatory.” According to the Shulchan Aruch (Hoshen Mishpat 427:7-8): “For any hazard of mortal peril, it is a positive commandment to remove it, to keep away from it, and to be especially careful in regard to the matter. If one fails to remove the condition, leaving the hazards and the dangers they present in place, one has neglected a positive commandment and has violated ‘Do not bring blood upon your house.’”

August 27, 2011 – 27 Av 5771

Annual: Deuteronomy 11:26 – 16:17 (Etz Hayim, p. 1061; Hertz p. 799)
Triennial: Deuteronomy 11:26– 12:28 (Etz Hayim, p. 1061; Hertz p. 799)
Haftarah: Isaiah 54:11 – 55:5 (Etz Hayim, p. 1085; Hertz p. 818)

Prepared by Rabbi Joseph Prouser
Baldwin, New York

Parashat Re’eh presents Israel with stark choices: to be blessed for obeying God’s commandments or cursed by God for disobedience. Upon entering the Land, Israel is to dramatize the fundamental choice confronting it by ceremoniously articulating God’s blessing on Mount Gerizim and His curse on Mount Ebal. Accordingly, Israel is commanded to destroy the idols and pagan sanctuaries it finds in Canaan. Israelite sacrifices are to be offered at a single sacral location, which God will designate; this cultic center will be the only place where it may eat sacrificial food. The Israelites are permitted non-sacred slaughter and to eat that meat wherever they live, provided, as they are told repeatedly, that they do not consume the blood. They are admonished not to forget to provide for the Levite, who has no territorial allotment.

Israel is commanded not to adopt the cultic practices of Canaan, nor even to inquire about or investigate its forms of worship, which include, notably, child sacrifice to Molech. Exacting fidelity to God’s law is commanded: Israel may “neither add to it nor take away from it.” The Israelites are specifically warned not to be lured into foreign worship by prophets or diviners, notwithstanding convincing signs and portents, and even should the “enticer” be a trusted loved one: brother, son, daughter, wife, or dear friend. Any such enticer – familial or prophetic – is to be stoned. Should it be discovered after thorough investigation that an entire Israelite town has been seduced into idolatry, its inhabitants are to be put to the sword and the town itself, together with all it contains, must be destroyed, “never to be rebuilt.”

Self-mutilation by gashing as an expression of mourning is prohibited. In later rabbinic law, this commandment is understood to prohibit communal “disfigurement” through divisive and sectarian partisan politics. Prohibited and permitted species of animals (land animals, birds, sea-life) are listed as a further expression of Israelite holiness. This section concludes with a third iteration of the prohibition not to “boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” Significantly, here this verse is placed in the context of dietary laws for the first time; until now it had been discussed as the pagan (and therefore forbidden) practice to which Israel’s festival offering of first fruits was the authorized alternative.

Laws of tithing are followed by a further undertaking in the interests of financial and social justice: the prescribed remission of debts in the seventh year – the sabbatical year. In the same spirit, the religious imperative to provide for the poor is laid out. Israelites who are concerned about the possibility that borrowers might default are warned not to withhold funds from the needy as the remission of debts in the seventh year approaches; such behavior is deemed “base” in character. Israelites who enter into indentured servitude, perhaps out of financial desperation, may be kept as servants for six years. In the seventh year they must be released.

At the end of their indentures such servants must be furnished with appropriate material goods. The nation that remembers enslavement in Egypt is compelled to treat its own servants compassionately – to humanize the institution of slavery. Slaves grateful for such kindly treatment may opt out of the scheduled manumission, choosing permanent indenture instead. All firstborn livestock, it is commanded, are sanctified by God and must be consumed only at His chosen shrine. If it is blemished, such livestock (without the blood) in the Israelites’ settlements. The parashah concludes with a review of the pilgrimage festivals (on which these passages are read liturgically): Passover, the counting of seven weeks to Shavuot, Shavuot itself, and Succot.

Theme #1: “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?”

“If, however, there is a needy person among you, one of your kinsmen in any of your settlements in the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not harden your heart and shut your hand against your needy kinsman. Rather, you must open your hand and lend him sufficient for whatever he needs.” Deuteronomy 15:7-8

Study: Derash

“It was taught in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: The poor person standing at the door does more for the householder than the householder does for the poor person.” Midrash Vayikra Rabba

“Scripture already speaks of ‘a needy person, one of your kinsmen’ at the beginning of the verse. Why does it repeat ‘your needy kinsman’ the end? To show us what our attitude should be toward the needy, regardless of the suppliant’s background. If approached by a needy person who is honorable and from a good family, you will gladly give him what he needs, because you will want in your heart to do so. But God requires that if an ordinary beggar should come to you, whom you are not naturally inclined to assist, that you are not to shut your hand but shall assist him even if in your heart you are quite indifferent to his plight.” Imrei Shofar

“There is a separate mitzvah that the poor person should not have to convince one to give, and wait for him to find the money. Instead, one’s heart and hand must be ready for the mitzvah, so that as soon as asked he is ready and able to give. Thus the mitzvah is to prepare oneself to be willing to give.”. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein

“The Torah’s great social legislation is expressed in Re’eh in the mitzvot regarding three institutions: the tithe for the poor; the cancellation of debts in the shmittah (sabbatical) year; and the general obligation to give charity. We have the duty – and the ability – to abolish poverty from our society by observing the cancellation of debts and all the other mitzvot with social significance. In no social system will poverty disappear by itself. It is God’s will to make us responsible for abolishing poverty among us.” Yeshaya Leibowitz

“Charity is a strange word to the Hebrew language. In English, charity denotes philanthropy. In Hebrew the word is tzedakah, righteousness. Charity, then in the prophetic sense, means doing what is right, what God requires of every human being.” Rabbi Alfred Kolatch

Questions for Discussion

Imrei Shofar discusses the human tendency to relate more naturally and comfortably to those people with whom we believe we have much in common, and the need to transcend this prejudice. The verse itself, however, addresses the needy “kinsman” – a fellow Israelite, a fellow Jew. To what extent is it legitimate to prioritize our philanthropic giving based on shared religious (or national) identity?

Was Rabbi Yehoshua correct? What benefit accrues to the giver of tzedakah? Does this imply an inherent “need” in those of substantial financial means?

Imagine a conversation (or debate) between Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and the author of Imrei Shofar. What relative importance would each give to the spirit with which a person provides materially for the needy?

Professor Leibowitz asserts that “it is God’s will to make us responsible for abolishing poverty.” With what other social responsibilities has God entrusted us?

How do we and our communities go about effecting such societal transformations? What “mitzvot with social significance” should most occupy the agendas of our congregations and educational institutions?

Theme #2: “Happy Days Are Here Again”

“You shall hold a festival for the Lord your God seven days, in the place that the Lord will choose; for the Lord your God will bless all your crops and all your undertakings, and you shall have nothing but joy.” Deuteronomy 16:15

Study: Derash

“There are lessons concerning happiness and well-being that Sukkos can teach our present generation. First, that economic well-being is important, but that happiness depends upon what we are and not upon what we possess. Second, that standing still is wasting one’s life, while moving and becoming are the essence of creative living. And third, to cling to one’s idealism in the face of the hustle and bustle of contemporary society is living nobly and fully and fulfillingly.” Rabbi Isaiah Zeldin

“Happiness is not a synonym for self-satisfaction, complacency, or smugness. Selfsatisfaction breeds futility and despair. Self-satisfaction is the opiate of fools.” Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

“What in particular is it about Sukkot that makes it a time of joy? ...With Yom Kippur completed, the departure of the angst and anxiety intentionally cultivated by the liturgy and religious fervor during this season would cause a sigh of relief in anybody. Simply making it through the Days of Awe is enough to create joy. We are now ready to simply enjoy life. Who can help but experience a feeling of joy? But it may be a bit deeper than that as well. We take leave from the comforts of our lives on Sukkot. We spend our time eating and living in structures that at best are temporary — our roofs are insubstantial and our walls feeble. We intentionally remove the structures from around us to draw attention to what we are now more prepared to experience. After our days spent in awe, we can finally begin to appreciate the presence of God around us. We remove our material shelter and enter our spiritual sanctuary. This is the joy that surrounds us; the joy of the divine presence.” Rabbi Marc Wolf

“Sukkot, the Jewish harvest festival, is traditionally called the season of our joy... Joy comes from a fruitful harvest, when hard human work – joined to the soil, the sun, the rain, and the seed that human beings do not make – gives us physical, emotional, and spiritual sustenance and the time to refrain from hard work so as to take joy in the One Who is present in all these aspects of the harvest”. Rabbi Arthur Waskow

“The joy of Sukkot and the lulav emerges from two sources: the process of identifying our personal bounties and the confidence that God will grant us another year of blessings. The Jew emerges confident from the Yamim Noraim, having stood intimately before God and having been given another year and another opportunity to participate with God in the betterment of ourselves and the world.” Rabbi David Hoffman

Questions for Discussion

How does the joy of Sukkot derive from Yom Kippur? By escaping its severity, judgment, and angst, as suggested by Rabbi Wolf, or through the confident faith in the new lease on life, the personal spiritual renewal it affords us, a la Rabbi Hoffman?

“You shall have nothing but joy,” the verse prescribes (or predicts). Is this a reasonable – or even a worthy – life goal? How does this concept accord with Sukkot practices such as the reading of the somber book of Kohelet… or recitation of Yizkor on Shemini Atzeret? Is it not odd that the very festival on which – by symbolically leaving our homes – we develop a sense of sensitivity to the homeless and needy… requires us to experience “nothing but joy” despite the suffering and desperate need of others?

Rabbis Wolf, Waskow, and Hoffman all discuss our relationship with (or enhanced awareness of) God as a primary element of Sukkot joy. In what ways can we cultivate this relationship – and the asserted boon to personal happiness it brings about – throughout the year?

Is the goal of Jewish religious life to achieve happiness, or to refine the practitioner’s judgment as to where to seek happiness and in how to define happiness? How does Sukkot uniquely serve these goals?

Is there an element of Passover or Shavuot that might have disqualified them as z’man simchateinu – the “season of joy” – in favor of Sukkot?

Historic Note

The haftara for parashat Re’eh, read on August 27, 2011, is from Isaiah: “Unhappy, stormtossed one…” On this date in 1667, the earliest recorded hurricane to hit North American landfall struck Jamestown, Virginia.

Halachah L’Maaseh

Shemini Atzeret is a festival in its own right, independent of Sukkot, notwithstanding its name,“The Eighth Day of Assembly” (BT Succah 47B-48A). The characteristic observances of Sukkot – lulav and etrog, hoshanot procession around the bimah, and sukkah itself – do not apply to Shemini Atzeret. Nevertheless, it is customary to recite kiddush for Shemini Atzeret, both evening and morning, in the Sukkah, though the blessing for the Sukkah itself is omitted (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 668:1). The use of the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret is linked to the principle of hiddur mitzvah – performing a mitzvah in the most beautiful way or setting possible. On Shemini Atzeret Eve we should be careful not to recite kiddush before nightfall, when it is still the final day of Sukkot and the blessing for the sukkah would be required!

August 20, 2011- 20 Av 5771

Annual: Deuteronomy 7:12 – 11:25 (Etz Hayim, p. 1037; Hertz p. 780)


Triennial: Deuteronomy 7:12 – 9:3 (Etz Hayim, p. 1037; Hertz p. 780)


Haftarah: Isaiah 49:14 – 51:3 (Etz Hayim, p. 1056; Hertz p. 794)

Prepared by Rabbi Joseph Prouser


Baldwin, New York

Parashat Ekev opens with an elaborate description of the blessings and rewards that will be forthcoming when Israel is faithful to its Covenant. Israel’s enemies, in contrast, will suffer at God’s hand. Israel, too, will destroy hostile nations it encounters, despite its foes’ superior numbers. In so doing, Israel is instructed that it also must destroy all idolatrous images and cultic accoutrements: they must not be taken as booty or used in any way, lest they lead to idolatrous behavior among the Israelites themselves.

The hardships of the wilderness period – the crucible in which the Israelite nation was forged and tested – are contrasted with the beauty and bounty of the Promised Land that awaits them. The final verse of this description of the land – “When you have eaten your fill, give thanks to the Lord your God for the good land which He has given you” – is the scriptural basis for the practice of Birkat ha-Mazon, the grace after meals. This obligatory expression of gratitude is expanded to a more general principle. Israel is warned not to forget God’s beneficence in times of plenty. We are to remember that our well-being and prosperity, in fact all our achievements are results of God’s beneficence. Forgetting God will lead to punishment and destruction. Similarly, the Israelite conquest of Canaan – fulfilling God’s assurances to the patriarchs – will be effected only through divine agency and Providence, not on the basis of any virtue or power of the Israelites themselves. To emphasize this distinction, Moses recounts Israel’s long history of faithlessness and provocations throughout the wilderness period. Israel’s leader leaves no doubt as to his – or God’s – expectations of the covenant people: “What does the Lord your God demand of you? Only this: to revere the Lord your God, to walk only in His paths, to love Him, and to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and soul, keeping the Lord’s commandments and laws, which I enjoin upon you today, for good.” The first example provided of “walking in God’s paths” is Israel’s duty to treat strangers lovingly.

Moses further contrasts the dire consequences of disloyalty to God and the rewards awaiting God’s faithful. He similarly contrasts the life the Israelites knew in Egypt with the particular blessings – natural and spiritual – awaiting them in the land of Israel, “a land that the Lord your God looks after, on which the Lord your God always keeps His eye, from year’s beginning to year’s end.” These two themes are intimately linked: conquest and possession of the land will be achieved through fidelity to God’s laws.
The nexus between law and land is given closing emphasis in a reprise of the earlier passage in parashat Vaetchanan – known to us as the first paragraph of the Shema – V’Ahavta. Israel is instructed to “impress these My words upon your very heart: Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead, and teach them to your children – reciting them when you stay home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up, and inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and your gates”… adding: “to the end that you and your children may endure, in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to assign to them, as as long as there is a heaven over the earth.”

Theme #1: “By virtue of the authority vested in Me…”
“Know, then, that it is not for any virtue of yours that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess; for you are a stiff-necked people.” (Deuteronomy 9:6)
 

Study: Derash
“Moses wanted to emphasize and establish that the gift of the Land of Israel was not given to the Jews by virtue of the good deeds of any particular generation. Rather it was a gift to Klal Yisrael (the Jewish people as a whole); that is, to all generations. Thus, Moses wanted to encourage those generations that lacked good deeds and inform them that they were capable of acquiring the land despite their shortcomings.” (Chiddushei Ha-Rim)
“It was that stiff necked characterization of the Jews; the persistence to maintain bad habits that lead to destruction. Yet, it is this trait of stubbornness that is also the secret to the Jews’ survival. Other nations would have waned under intimidation of Hadrian. But the Jews would not be crushed. They were determined at any cost to fight for their survival as Jews.” Larry Domnitch, The Mystery of Lag Ba-Omer and the Stiff Necked People
“Stubbornness is a powerful trait. However, like any characteristic, it is neither positive nor negative in and of itself. Rather, it is a fact of our existence as a people. The question, both for us as individuals and as part of the Jewish people, is how we will use this powerful trait and what effect it will have on our lives and the lives of the people around us.” Rabbi Label Lam
“It gives me great pleasure indeed to see the stubbornness of an incorrigible nonconformist warmly acclaimed.” Albert Einstein
“No one has ever found the Lord through stubborn mindedness.” Guru Gobind Singh
“Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen.” Martin Luther
 

Questions for Discussion
In what ways does stubbornness (“stiffnecked-ness”) manifest itself in the Jewish people today? What are the positive and negative results of this collective trait? For diaspora communities? For the citizenry of the Jewish state?
In addition to Einstein himself, what other stubborn and incorrigible nonconformists have the Jewish people produced? Who has played critical roles in the survival and advancement of the Jewish people?
In regard to what goals, principles and ideals have you demonstrated insufficient determination? Excessive stubbornness? When would you say: “Here I stand; I can do no other”?
Does the people Israel’s alleged lack of virtue weaken or strengthen the nation’s claim to the land of Israel? If the land was not a reward, what is its purpose in Jewish (and human) history? What other aspects of Jewish tradition are unrelated to any asserted virtue or inherent national quality? What moral principle does this lack of virtue or deserving offer the individual Jew? How would our individual spiritual efforts (and our national self-perception) differ if we did assert that our ancestors were entirely virtuous and deserving of God’s generosity?
How might Guru Gobind Singh respond to Jacob’s tenacity in wrestling with the angel: “I will not let you go until you bless me”?

Theme #2: “Stranger than Fiction”
“For the Lord your God is God supreme, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who shows no favor and takes no bribe, but upholds the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and befriends the stranger, providing him with food and clothing – You too must love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 10:18-19)

Study: Derash
“This idea – counterintuitive, unexpected, life-changing – is one of the great contributions of the Torah to Western civilization and it is set out in the words of our sedra, when Moses told the people about the ‘G-d of gods and Lord of lords, the great, mighty and awe-inspiring G-d’ whose greatness lay not just in the fact that He was Creator of the universe and shaper of history, but that ‘He upholds the cause of the orphan and widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing.’ Those who do this are the true men and women of G-d.” British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
“‘Takes no bribe. Love the stranger.’ One cannot buy divine forgiveness for wicked deeds by giving large donations to charity. Even if a man’s good works should take the form of caring for widows, orphans, and strangers, giving them food and clothing, God will not accept his charity as atonement for past sin. You are to love the stranger because you were once strangers yourselves, and not in order to bribe God into forgiving your wicked deeds.” Ketav Sofer
“How striking! A claim of greatness that has nothing to do with demonstrations of force, with killing, or with intimidation. God’s greatness, says Moses, is based on moral rectitude, fairness, and compassion for the weakest members of society: orphans, widows, and strangers. What a role model to hold out to the rest of us! True greatness consists in our using our strength, our wealth, our wisdom and our power to build communities of love, justice and caring, to reach out to those who cannot fend for themselves, to build bridges with all humanity and with all living things, to care for the earth and all who dwell upon it.” Rabbi Howard Gorin
“The ancient Jews were told by their lawgiver Moses to remember the stranger; this was a challenge to them to build a future world where nobody would be a stranger.” Rabbi Charles E. Shulman
“In the perfect stranger we perceive man himself; the image of a God is not disguised by resemblances to an uncle or doubts of wisdom or a mustache.” Gilbert K. Chesterton
“We cannot possibly let ourselves get frozen into regarding everyone we do not know as an absolute stranger.” Albert Schweitzer

Questions for Discussion
The Jewish Publication Society Tanakh translation (and the chumash Etz Hayyim, which uses it) says “befriend the stranger” rather than “love the stranger.” What is the functional difference between loving and befriending? Which is a more attainable goal? Which is more “Godly”? Which more benefits the stranger?
How does the “great contribution of the Torah to Western civilization” – identified by Rabbi Sacks – find expression in today’s Judaism: in our own spiritual lives, in the activities of our congregations, in Jewish thought and practice? Where is there room for improvement? What else do you consider a great contribution of the Torah to Western civilization”?
The phrase “great, the mighty, and the awesome God” appears in the first blessing of the Amidah, recited at least three times every day (four times when Musaf is added; five times on Yom Kippur, when Neilah is also added!). How does the scriptural context of this descriptor change our understanding of the liturgical unit in which it plays so prominent a role? What is the connection between eschewing bribery and providing for the widow and orphan? What do we mean when we say that God “takes no bribe”?
Our text connects our principled treatment of strangers with our own historic experience as strangers. Chesterton seems to identify in the stranger the image of God Himself, while Schweitzer objects to the very concept of stranger. How do you understand the mitzvah of “loving” and providing for strangers? What is the religious meaning of this religious imperative? Is what we think about this verse critical to our observance of the mitzvah?

Historic Note
Parashat Ekev, read on August 20, 2011, opens with a panoply of promises – rewards for Israel’s faithfulness to the covenant, including: “The Lord will ward off from you all sickness; He will not bring upon you any of the dreadful diseases of Egypt, about which you know, but will inflict them upon your enemies” (Deuteronomy 7:15). On August 20, 1920, pre-State Israel saw publication of its first medical journal: “Ha-Refuah.”

Halachah L’Maaseh
In addition to the commandment to “love the stranger,” examined above, parashat Ekev also cites the religious imperative to love God. This mandate is included in Deuteronomy 11:13-21, which is familiar as the second paragraph of the Shema. In his commentary on the Siddur, “Tefillat Amecha,” Rabbi Shlomo Avineri of Yeshivat Ateret Yerushalayim writes: “In the second paragraph of Shema, we accept that God has given us the Mitzvot and that we will follow them. As part of this, we read that we are ‘to love the Lord Your God and serve Him with all your hearts and all your souls.’ This is very important. Our motivation to fulfill the Mitzvot is our love of God. Although one can perform Mitzvot without love or desire, this is far less than ideal. Doing the Mitzvot with joy is part of the Mitzvot themselves. To perform Mitzvot without love and joy and only out of obligation is like a husband telling his wife, ‘I don’t really love you. I’m just with you because I promised.’ Thus, we are told in the Shema that loving God is part and parcel of the Mitzvot.”

August 13, 2011- 13 Av 5771

Annual: Deuteronomy 3:23 - 7:11 (Etz Hayim, p. 1005; Hertz p. 755)
Triennial: Deuteronomy 3:23 - 5:18 (Etz Hayim, p. 1005; Hertz p. 755)
Haftarah: Isaiah 40:1 – 26 (Etz Hayim, p. 1033; Hertz p. 776)

Prepared by Rabbi Joseph Prouser
Baldwin, New York

As always, parashat Vaetchanan is read on the first Shabbat after Tishah B’Av. That Shabbat is called Shabbat Nachamu, taking its name from the opening words of its special haftarah. In this parashah, Moses continues addressing the Israelite nation, recalling his plea – which God rejects – to be allowed to enter the Promised Land. Moses delivers an eloquent oration, adjuring the Israelites to observe God’s commandments, neither adding to them nor subtracting from them. He gives special attention to the prohibitions against idolatry and the creation or use of graven images for idolatrous purposes. All of this is linked explicitly to Israel’s historic experience following the departure from Egypt and the revelatory encounter with God at Sinai.

Following a brief recap of the prescription of the three cities of refuge, the theophany at Sinai is recalled. The Decalogue is repeated – with subtle changes in language and phrasing from the Exodus version. It is further recalled that the Israelites, fearing a direct revelation from God, plead with Moses to act as intermediary, delivering God’s commandments to the nation in a less awesome and lethal manner. God assents to this method of transmission. Moses further adjures the people to be faithful in obeying God and in upholding the covenant.

The parashah continues with the famous passage, familiar from the daily liturgy that is known as the Shema and V’ahavta. God’s uniqueness – and Israel’s imperative of exclusive devotion to the Almighty – are declared. The following verses prescribe Israel’s duty to love God (V’ahavta), as well as providing the source for the observance of tefillin and mezuzah and recitation of the Shema. Of this critical Scriptural passage, Solomon Schechter wrote in 1907: “For more than twenty-three centuries the world has been busy with the interpretation and translation of Scriptures, and yet no agreement has been reached as to the exact rendering of the fourth verse of the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy containing the confession of Israel’s creed. But the Jew reads the Shema Yisrael and does know it. He cannot translate it, but he feels it and is it.”

The commandment to transmit the story of the Exodus from Egypt to your children is prescribed. The Israelites are warned not to test God’s patience or tolerance, but to “do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord.” Israel is commanded not to enter into treaties with the Canaanites and not to marry them; their idolatrous altars and sanctuaries are to be destroyed.

God’s faithfulness to those who love and obey Him, as well as His promise of punishment to those who reject Him, is re-emphasized, as are God’s reasons in choosing Israel: His love for the Israelite nation and the merits of their ancestors.

Theme #1: “Gimme Dat Ding”

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, or his field, or his male or female slave, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.” (Deuteronomy 5:18)

Study: Derash

“The prohibition of coveting a man’s wife is here made separate from ‘desiring’ (a different word, not occurring in Exodus) his possessions – a fundamental distinction of far-reaching moral consequence. There is also new mention of ‘his field’, an appropriate addition for a people about to enter upon the inheritance of their Land.” (Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz)

“Notable as a change from the earlier text is the characterization of the wife as an entity distinct from the ‘house.’” (Everett Fox)

“Covetousness is both the beginning and the end of the devil's alphabet – the first vice in corrupt nature that moves, and the last that dies.” (Michel de Montaigne)

“Excess of wealth is cause of covetousness.” (Christopher Marlowe)

“Though we take from a covetous man all his treasure, he has yet one jewel left; you cannot bereave him of his covetousness.” (John Milton)

“This was always obviously a no-hoper of a commandment. Coveting is all everyone does, all the time, every day. It’s what drives the world economy, pushes people to make a go of their lives. And would you want to be married to someone who nobody coveted?” (Charles Saatchi, British advertising mogul)

“There’s a town in Alabama that wants to abolish all laws except the Ten Commandments. Well, they’re going to have a problem. Coveting thy neighbor's wife, for instance. How’re you going to enforce that one? Plus, if I were arrested for coveting my neighbor’s wife, when asked about it, I’d probably bear false witness.” (Sam Seaborn, as portrayed by Rob Lowe on West Wing)

Questions for Discussion

Rabbi Hertz’s commentary suggests that the prohibition against coveting a field reflected the new historical reality confronting the Israelite nation when Moses addressed them: they were about to become landowners. What changes experienced by Israel since Sinai might have precipitated the change in tone and language about coveting another man’s wife? Does this represent a commendable new threshold in the evolving legal enfranchisement of Israelite women?

The new formulation of the tenth commandment to reflect a new reality demonstrates that an ancient principle may have very new applications in the contemporary world. What new significance has the twenty-first century bestowed on “You shall not covet”?

Is covetousness a function of accumulated wealth, as 16th century English dramatist Christopher Marlowe posits? Or is coveting simply a character flaw, independent of material well-being and circumstance – as John Milton (Marlowe’s 17th century countryman) seems to say?

Is the tenth commandment truly impossible to observe – a “no-hoper”? Do personal ambition (in the economic sphere) or attraction and admiration (in the romantic sphere) lead inexorably to sinful intent and covetousness? Does Charles Saatchi have a point? What positive consequences result from covetousness, and how might this ostensible evil be redirected constructively?

This is the only commandment in the Decalogue that legislates emotion, not action. Are emotions properly beyond the scope of a legal code, or is our ability to assert control over our emotional lives the essence of morality? Where else does Jewish law command an emotion? What does it mean to recognize an unenforceable commandment as law?

Theme #2: “Least But Not Last”

“It is not because you are the most numerous of peoples that the Lord set His heart on you and chose you – indeed, you are the smallest of nations.” (Deuteronomy 7:7)

Study: Derash

“Because of the Jews’ small numbers, any success they would have in making God known to the world would presumably reflect upon the power of the idea of God. Had the Jews been a large nation with an outstanding army, their successes in making God known would have been attributed to their might and not to the truth of their ideas.” (Rabbi Joseph Telushkin)

“The Jewish people are very small in number, especially as compared to other major faiths in the world that count their adherents in many, many hundreds of millions. Being small in numbers and obviously never aspiring to be the majority faith in the world, for God had foreclosed that option to us at the dawn of our nationhood, Judaism could never take the position that all of the other billions of humans were automatically doomed to eternal damnation and destruction. Our understanding of the God of Israel, the all-merciful and gracious One, would not countenance such an attitude towards His creatures. Our very meagerness in numbers forces us to accept the religious axiom that the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come. This is part of the Godly statement that we will always be the smallest of all peoples and therefore bound to be the most tolerant and least proselytizing of all faiths.” (Rabbi Berel Wein)

“In earlier biblical accounts, the almost preternatural numerical growth of the Hebrew people is stressed. In the historical reality of the later seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E., a writer would have been keenly aware that Israel was a tiny nation surrounded by large and powerful peoples.” (Robert Alter, Five Books of Moses)

“A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.” (Mohandas Gandhi)

“God hangs the greatest weights upon the smallest wires.” (Francis Bacon)

Questions for Discussion

The people Israel’s diminutive size, according to Rabbi Telushkin, enhances its historic mission to teach the world about God. What other, ostensibly disadvantageous conditions described in the Bible act to magnify the inherent value of Israel’s message?

A tiny but chosen people: that things are not what they appear to be is a critical and recurring motif in the Hebrew Bible. Where else do we see this theme at work?

Ironically, perhaps, the religious tolerance inherent in Judaism – our refusal to condemn (indeed our principled admiration for) the righteous of other nations and religious faiths – is one of the most appealing characteristics of Jewish life for prospective converts. Does being the “smallest of all peoples” necessarily preclude proselytizing actively?

In addition to theological humility (see Rabbi Wein) and the creditability of our historic message (see Rabbi Telushkin), what moral or spiritual lessons are to be learned from the small numbers characterizing the Jewish people?

What achievements of the state of Israel belie its diminutive stature in geography and population? How does this remarkable history of achievement (in medicine, technology, education…) relate to our parashah and our verse? To what extent do these achievements simply represent continuity with pre-state Jewish history?

Historic Note

Parashat Vaetchanan, read on August 13, 2011, includes the admonition to the Israelites to destroy the idolatrous edifices constructed by the peoples indigenous to Canaan: “You shall tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred posts, and consign their images to the fire” (Deuteronomy 7:5). On August 13, 1945, in an effort to stall the German war effort, 35 Jews sacrificed their lives blowing up a Nazi rubber plant in Silesia, in what is now Southwest Poland.

Halachah L’Maaseh

“You shall not steal” applies to intellectual properties as well as material goods. Rabbi Shaul Yosef Nathanson rules that we are halachically bound to observe copyright laws (Responsa Sho’eil U-Meishiv 1:1:44). The Chatam Sofer asserts an analogous obligation in regard to reprinting a siddur produced by another publisher (Choshen Mishpat 49, 69, etc., citing BT Baba Batra 21), applying the principle of hasagat gevul (illegal encroachment). For related rulings, see Rabbi Z.N. Goldberg (Techumin 6:195ff) and Rabbi Yechezkel Landau (Noda B’Yehudah, Choshen Mishpat 2:24). The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards has ruled: “Halakhah affords protection of intellectual property that can in some cases go beyond what secular law affords. We are obligated to follow the halakhah even if it is stricter than the secular law. Secular law can say it is permissible to steal; halakhah would still forbid us to be thieves” (Rabbi Barry Leff, “Intellectual Property: Can you steal it if you can’t touch it?”).

August 6, 2011- 6 Av 5771

Annual: Deuteronomy 1:1 - 3:22 (Etz Hayim, p. 981; Hertz p. 736)
Triennial: Deuteronomy 1:1 – 2:1 (Etz Hayim, p. 981; Hertz p. 736)
Haftarah: Isaiah 1:1 – 27 (Etz Hayim, p. 1000; Hertz p. 750)

Prepared by Rabbi Joseph Prouser
Baldwin, New York

Both its Greek name – Deuteronomy – and its classical Hebrew designation – Mishneh Torah (a repetition of the Torah) – aptly describe both the fifth book of the Pentateuch and this, its opening parashah. In his first oration, or discourse to the Israelite nation, Moses recaps much of the people’s earlier experiences and the lessons that have come from that 40-year journey. This begins with God’s command to the Israelites at Horeb to make their way to Canaan and to take possession of the Land. Moses recalls the burden of leadership and his resulting appointment of judges and chieftains to share in the day-to-day leadership of the nation.

Moses further recalls the journey from Horeb through Amorite territory to Kadesh, where spies were dispatched into the Promised Land, only to return with a faithless and pessimistic majority report. The two dissenting optimists among the spies – Joshua and Caleb – are duly rewarded. They, alone of their generation, are to be permitted entry to the Land, where Caleb will receive an allotment and Joshua will assume national leadership. Moses, too, is denied entry to Canaan. This divine decree requires the Israelites to follow a tortuous, circuitous route through the wilderness, involving confrontations with Edom, Ammon, and Moab.

The crushing Amorite defeat of the Israelites at Hormah is recalled. Other encounters with hostile, foreign powers include those with Sichon and Og. Sichon refuses Israel permission to traverse his territory, despite Israel’s friendly, diplomatic request. Israel is compelled to battle both the Amorite, Sichon, and Og of Bashan, conquering each and seizing their lands.

The beginning of the allotment of tribal portions in conjunction with the conquest is recapped: Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh are apportioned conquered territory – as earlier explained – in the Transjordan. Their territorial grant is conditioned upon their participation in the national military defense as shock troops, the vanguard of the conquest.

Parashat Devarim concludes with Moses retelling his appointment of Joshua as his successor, and his charge to his protégé not to fear the kings, powers, and forces he encounters in bringing about the conquest, “for it is the Lord your God who will battle for you.”

Theme #1: “…Nobody knows but Moses”

“How can I bear unaided the trouble of you, and the burden, and the bickering!” (Deuteronomy 1:12)

Study: Derash

“The Hebrew does not use the ordinary form for ‘how,’ eikh, but the elongated form eikhah, which often marks the beginning of laments.” (Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses)

“It goes without saying that it is unbearable for me to see the brave and loyal fighting men of Japan disarmed. It is equally unbearable that others who have rendered me devoted service should now be punished as instigators of the war. Nevertheless, the time has come to bear the unbearable.” Emperor Hirohito, announcing the surrender of Japan to the Allied forces in World War II “Television has made dictatorship impossible but democracy unbearable.” (Shimon Peres)

“Boys, if you ever pray, pray for me now. I don’t know if you fellows ever had a load of hay fall on you, but when they told me yesterday what had happened, I felt like the moon, the stars and all the planets had fallen on me.” (Harry S Truman, after succeeding to the U.S. presidency upon Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death)

“He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

“Here is the rule to remember in the future, when anything tempts you to be bitter: not, ‘This is a misfortune’ but ‘To bear this worthily is good fortune.’” (Marcus Aurelius)

“Although you see me goin’ on so, oh yes I have my trials, here below, oh yes, Lord!” (Louis Armstrong, “Nobody Knows the Trouble I’ve Seen”)

Questions for Discussion

Deuteronomy 1:12, due in part to its unusual Hebrew vocabulary, as well as to the fact that parashat Devarim always falls on Shabbat Chazon (the Shabbat before Tisha B’Av) –customarily is chanted to the melody for Lamentations, the trope for Eichah. How is Moses’ “dilemma” analogous to the tragedies recalled on Tishah B’Av?

As indicated in the Historic Note below, Shabbat Chazon 5771 is also the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, to which Emperor Hirohito’s remark, above, is a direct response. How does the emperor’s famous comment (the first comment he ever made in public) speak to the experience of Tishah B’Av, and to Jewish history in general? How does it compare to Moses’ brief lament?

Compare the statements of Moses and Harry Truman (who also, it should be noted, played a pivotal role in the relationship between the Jewish people and the land and sState of Israel). Might we understand Moses’ dictum not as a desperate lament but as an invitation to his countrymen (not unlike Truman’s) to share in his burden – to share in his daunting task – to provide him with emotional, spiritual, and practical support?

Shimon Peres, prime minister and later president of Israel, alludes to the difficulties inherent in a modern democracy. To which of these was he referring, and which did Moses, millennia earlier, experience in his leadership of the Jewish people? Is it true that dictatorship is impossible today? How might Peres and Moses have debated the relative merits of democracy and autocracy?

Imagine Nietzsche and Marcus Aurelius analyzing Moses’ statement abou his personal burdens. How might they have judged his character? His forbearance? His spiritual state?

We all have personal burdens and troubles. When do they become particularly onerous? What, at times, makes them seemingly unbearable?

Theme #2: “What makes a king out of a slave…?”

“I also charged Joshua at that time, saying, ‘You have seen with your own eyes all that the Lord your God has done to these two kings; so shall the Lord do to all the kingdoms into which you shall cross over. Do not fear them, for it is the Lord your God who will battle for you.’” (Deuteronomy 3:21-22)

Study: Derash

“Moses repeats his assurance that the people have nothing to fear, explaining that the Lord will do the fighting for them. This assurance is reminiscent of his words encouraging the people at the Sea of Reeds (Exodus 14:29-30) and is a prototype for the priest’s exhortation to the Israelite army before future wars (Deuteronomy 20:3- 4). Moses reminds the people that their own experience demonstrates the Lord’s capacity to meet all their needs, and that they are ignoring what their experience teaches. This experience became the basis of Israelite faith in God.” (Jeffrey Tigay, JPS Commentary)

“Israel’s army needs faith in God more than tanks.” (Israel Defense Force Deputy Chief of Staff Yair Naveh; February 2011)

“Courage is a special kind of knowledge: The knowledge of how to fear what ought to be feared and how not to fear what ought not to be feared.” David Ben-Gurion “My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.” (Abraham Lincoln)

“The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.” (George W. Bush, September 23, 2001)

“From the Jewish point of view the fatal flaw in the ‘just war’ concept is the illusion of the war-initiating side that it knows its purpose to be so absolutely right and pure as to justify the obliteration of the opposing society.” (Rabbi Jacob Agus)

Questions for Discussion

To what extent is it a blessing – is it desirable – not to fear war? How might David Ben-Gurion and President Bush have differed on this question? What makes their respective views “religious” in nature?

Though arguably America’s most theologically sensitive and articulate president, Lincoln was far from a fundamentalist, or even a conventionally religious man. How do we strive to be “on God’s side” – especially in matters of national governance and the conduct of war – without falling into theocracy, religious crusades, or holy war?

The wars described in the Torah are justified by the direct, revealed commands of God. How do twenty-first century leaders – to whom such absolute understanding of right and wrong is not readily available – determine the moral merits of armed conflict and, especially, of pre-emptive war?

In light of Professor Tigay’s commentary, how are we properly to balance faith in God, fear for the future of our people (or nation or community or family), and personal responsibility for the national defense? How might Israelis and diaspora Jews approach this quandary differently?

Is fear, by definition, faithlessness? What do you fear most? In what do you have the deepest faith?

Israeli Deputy Chief of Staff Naveh, made his comment at a meeting of the chief rabbis of Israel with the chief rabbi of the I.D.F. What did he mean?! How does the strategic value of faith reflect on the question of yeshiva students’ exemption from military service? How does Naveh’s statement translate into the activities of supporters of the state of Israel, and into Israel education programming for our young people and our congregation?

Historic Note

On Shabbat Chazon, observed on August 6, 2011, we anticipate the observance of Tisha B’Av, commemorating the destruction and burning of the Temple, the devastation of Jerusalem, and a variety of other tragedies that befell the Jewish people over the course of our history. On Shabbat Chazon 5771, we also recall that it was on August 6, 1945, that the atomic bomb destroyed Hiroshima. 2011’s widespread destruction in Japan, in the wake of an earthquake, tsunami, and damaged nuclear reactors – with the resultant release of radiation – makes this historic anniversary particularly painful and evocative.

Halachah L’Maaseh

On Tisha B’Av, both worshipers and the Torah itself – as it were – dress in mourning. It is customary to remove our shoes when Eichah (the Book of Lamentations) is read, and, indeed, to refrain from wearing leather shoes (as on Yom Kippur) throughout the day. At Shacharit, following the custom of the 13th-century Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, we wear neither tallit nor tefillin – this is the only weekday of the year on which this occurs – they both are considered “adornments” inappropriate to the day’s solemn spirit. Both, however, are worn at Minchah. Beginning with Arvit on the eve of Tisha B’Av, the decorative curtain (parochet) – also an adornment – is removed from the ark in the synagogue. Some similarly have the custom of not using a silver or decorative yad (pointer) for the Torah reading on Tishah B’Av, substituting (if anything) a simple wooden pointer or reed. See Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 553:1; 554:16; 17, Rema ad loc; 559:2, Rema ad loc.

July 30, 2011 – 28 Tammuz 5771

Annual: Numbers 33:1 – 36:13 (Etz Hayim, p. 954; Hertz p. 714)

Triennial: Numbers 33:1 – 49 (Etz Hayim, p. 954; Hertz p. 714)
Haftarah: Jeremiah 2:4-28, 3:4 (Etz Hayim p. 973, Hertz p. 725)

Prepared by Rabbi Joseph Prouser
Baldwin, New York

Parashat Masei begins with an extensive list detailing the Israelites’ journeys – the various stops and encampments they made as they traversed the wilderness, beginning with Ramses in Egypt and concluding at the steppes of Moab, perhaps five miles from the Jordan. The next stage of this long journey is to cross the Jordan and enter the Promised Land. On the cusp of entering Canaan, a number of critical matters are addressed. God commands Israel to expel the inhabitants of Canaan from the land and to destroy their idols and places of worship. Failure to do so, Israel is told, will result in dire consequences. The indigenous idolaters will be “stings in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall harass you.” Additional instructions are provided to effect equitable allotment of the land among the tribes and their members. The boundaries of the Promised Land are detailed, providing geographical features by which the frontiers are to be defined.

Within the Land, both towns and pasturage are to be provided the Levites, who are not otherwise granted a tribal allotment. Forty-eight such towns are to be designated, among them the six cities of refuge. These cities function to provide asylum to Israelites who unintentionally take a life, committing manslaughter. Once such a perpetrator of accidental homicide enters a city of refuge, he is safe from relatives of his victim, who might otherwise exercise the right of blood vengeance – lawfully taking the life of their loved one’s killer. The perpetrator of the manslaughter is given asylum until his lack of malice and intent is established by trial. Should he leave the city of refuge, he is vulnerable to those seeking vengeance. No monetary compensation is permitted the unintentional killer to effect release from his penal status. The “man-slayer” can be released from the city of refuge and is no longer liable to lawful vengeance only upon the death of the high priest. This of course is a period of indeterminate and unpredictable duration, perhaps dramatizing (to both society and the perpetrator) the unpredictable vagaries of the human condition that led to the accidental homicide that occasioned his legal predicament.

In addition to establishing the legal norm of trial and due process, parashat Masei also distinguishes carefully between unintended manslaughter and the heinous crime of murder, which is established by the intent, conscious action, or malice of the perpetrator. Such a criminal is not entitled to asylum and is subject to the institution of family avengers or execution. Such execution, however, can be imposed only on the strength of the testimony of two witnesses to the crime.

The parashah concludes by revisiting the case of the five daughters of Zelophehad, who, earlier, were granted inheritance rights to their father’s estate because their father left no male heirs. This precedent established this legal enfranchisement for all Israelite women in similar circumstances. Clan leaders within the tribe of Manasseh now object that the sisters, as property owners, will diminish their tribal allotment should they marry members of other Israelite tribes. At God’s instruction, Moses rules that such heiresses must marry only within their own tribe, in order to safeguard the integrity of the tribal allotments within the land of Israel. The five sisters, accordingly, marry first cousins.

The Torah is made of five books, but many scholars recognize the first four as a distinctive literary unit, even referring to this subset of the Torah as the “Tetrateuch.” By marking yet another dramatic innovation in Israelite law, the second case of Zelophehad’s daughters, with which Numbers, the fourth book, concludes, serves as an apt transition to Deuteronomy, with its sustained pattern of legal evolution and reinterpretation.

Theme #1: “Possession With Intent”

“And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have assigned the land to you to possess.” (Numbers 33:53)

Study: Derash

“Since this mitzvah operates timelessly, each Jew, even the one who has made the diaspora his home, must at all times strive to make this imperative a tangible reality in his own life.” (Maimonides)

“The fundamental aim of all the Torah’s precepts is to see all of Israel dwelling in the land.” (Nachmanides)

“I believe that the Zionist vision does not emanate from persecution, but that it is deeply impressed in the Jewish people’s desire for national existence; in its historical willpower to maintain its independence on the soil of the homeland in which it sprouted and in which its national genius was molded.” (David Ben-Gurion)

“Traditional and modern sources point to aliyah as an existential need for the Jewish people, the individual, Conservative Judaism, and the state of Israel. Each Jew’s religious imperative to reside in Israel is expressed in one of the Torah’s basic commands: ‘And you shall dwell in the land which I have given to your ancestors.’” (Rabbi Joseph Wernick)

“Only the Conservative movement, with the flexibility inherent in its approach to halachah, can deal with a key issue ignored to date by halachists: the bestowal of a special halachic status on the state of Israel, which would endow it with a legitimate, recognized standing within Jewish tradition. The Conservative movement is in a unique position to bring both Judaism and Zionism into a healthy and constructive relationship with the best of modern culture.” (Rabbi Lee Levine)

Questions for Discussion

How does a Jew living in the diaspora “strive to make the imperative” of settlement of the land of Israel a reality in her or his life? What are the unique benefits of Jewish life in Israel? What are the unique benefits of Jewish life in the diaspora – both for the diaspora Jew and for the state of Israel? How might an Israeli and a committed Jew living outside Israel answer these questions differently?

What specific contributions does the Conservative movement offer the state of Israel? Societies outside the state of Israel? The individual practitioner of Jewish tradition?

Should – or how should – Jewish day schools and congregational religious schools address the option of aliyah as a serious lifestyle option and as a critical issue of religious decision making to their students? Is it proper for religious leaders who have made their homes and careers in the diaspora to identify settlement in the land of Israel in terms of a “religious mandate” or “existential need”? (Rabbi Wernick, who uses these terms, above, is a long-time resident of Jerusalem and a Zionist leader.)

What place should Zionist activities have in our congregations? Can a Jew who is absolutely committed to staying in the diaspora claim to be a Zionist?

What is the “national genius” of the Jewish people to which Ben-Gurion refers? How are we to respond to those who would claim that the Jewish state came about only as compensation for Jewish suffering in the Holocaust?

Contemplate Nachmanides’ statement above. How would you complete his statement: “The fundamental aim of all the Torah’s precepts is to….”

Theme #2: “An Offer You Can’t Refuge”

“The Lord spoke further to Moses: Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, you shall provide yourself with places to serve you as cities of refuge to which a manslayer who has killed a person unintentionally may flee. The cities shall serve you as a refuge from the avenger, so that the manslayer may not die unless he has stood trial before the assembly.” (Numbers 35:9-12)

Study: Derash

“To any Jew who has had the misfortune of having slain a man by accident and is therefore so abjectly crushed that he can no longer find his place in the world, the Lord says, ‘I shall appoint a place for you,’ a city of refuge where he will be safe from the avenger and find peace. But as for him who is not so greatly stricken by what he has done and who can still find his place, there actually is no safe place and the cities of refuge will not offer him asylum.” (Rabbi Isaac Meir Alter, Chiddushei Ha-Rim)

“The Torah values human life. To kill intentionally is to deny another's humanness; perhaps the Torah believes that in doing so the murderer has hopelessly compromised his own humanity. Murder is an outrageous crime; to accept monetary compensation would be to place a fixed value on that which is priceless. In the case of accidental death, the community may protect the killer, but the gravity of his act must be recognized through exile. The Torah cannot prevent human beings from killing each other. It reminds us, however, that each human life has infinite value and that no life can be taken without consequences.” (Devora Weisberg)

“He that studieth revenge keepeth his own wounds green, which otherwise would heal and do well.” (John Milton)

“Revenge is a kind of wild justice, which the more a man’s nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out.” (Francis Bacon)

“Revenge is the naked idol of the worship of a semi-barbarous age.” (Percy Bysshe Shelley)

“Revenge is like a rolling stone, which, when a man hath forced up a hill, will return upon him with a greater violence, and break those bones whose sinews gave it motion.” (Albert Schweitzer)

Questions for Discussion

How does the Torah’s prescription of cities of refuge benefit the bereaved families of manslaughter victims?

Rabbi Alter suggests that the cities of refuge reflect the emotional condition of the psychologically healthy and morally lucid perpetrator of accidental homicide. In addition to preventing their own murder (no small matter), what further benefits do the cities of refuge represent to those who are exiled to such facilities?

Consider the various definitions of revenge offered above. Wherein lies the moral failure in the desire for revenge: its interference with emotional closure (Milton)? Its anarchic tendency (Bacon)? Its uncivilized and idolatrous nature (Shelley)? Or its self-destructive impact (Schweitzer)?

What did Shelley mean by describing revenge as a “naked idol”? How is revenge inconsistent with monotheism? With the historic mission of the Jewish people?

Is revenge for lesser offenses (personal insults and indignities, physical injuries, romantic betrayals, professional setbacks) also morally objectionable? How are these issues to be distinguished from homicide?

If the perpetrator of an accidental homicide merits the protection of a city of refuge, why are the victim’s relatives permitted to kill him if he leaves? Why does the Torah specifically prohibit monetary compensation for a homicide?

Historic Note

Parashat Masei, read on July 30, 2011, prescribes the cities of refuge, intended to curtail the practice of blood vengeance whereby the killing of a family member would be avenged by summarily executing the perpetrator. On July 30, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued what was popularly referred to (in language aptly borrowed from the Hebrew Bible) as the “eye-for-an-eye” order. Southern forces were warned that a Confederate prisoner of war would be executed in retribution for any black Union soldier who was murdered in captivity, and that a Confederate prisoner would be sentenced to life at hard labor for every black Union soldier who was taken prisoner and then sold back into slavery.

Halachah L’Maaseh

Parashat Masei, and therefore the book of Numbers, concludes with the marriage of Zelophehad’s five daughters to “their father’s brothers’ sons” – that is, to their first cousins. Marriages between first cousins – as, too, between an uncle and a niece – are perfectly permissible in Jewish law, and were not only quite common but considered particularly desirable among Ashkenazi Jews throughout the European diaspora. (See BT Yevamot 62B; Rambam, Mishneh Torah Issurei Biah 2:14; Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 2:6.)

July 23, 2011 – 21 Tammuz 5771

Annual: Numbers 30:2 – 32:42 (Etz Hayim, p. 941; Hertz p. 702)

Triennial: Numbers 30:2 – 31:54 (Etz Hayim, p. 941; Hertz p. 702)

Haftarah: Jeremiah 1:1 – 2;3 (Etz Hayim, p. 968; Hertz p. 710)

Prepared by Rabbi Joseph Prouser
Baldwin, New York

Anticipating the familiar Kol Nidre liturgy of Yom Kippur Eve both thematically and linguistically, Parshat Matot begins with a discussion of vows – the general principle of their binding nature and the prospect of their annulment under certain circumstances. A father is entitled to annul the vow of his youthful daughter, and a man has a brief window of opportunity to annul his wife’s vows – it is the day when he learns of those commitments.

Moses dispatches an armed force, with conscripts from all twelve tribes, to attack the Midianites in retribution for their earlier, idolatrous incitement and moral corruption of the men of Israel. The Midianites, including five kings and Balaam son of Beor, are annihilated; the Israelites suffer no casualties in the engagement. The victorious army of Israel returns with spoils of war: vast wealth including livestock (which is subsequently distributed), women, and children. Midianite cities and encampments are burnt. Moses orders that all males among the young Midianite captives and all but the virgins among the women be put to death. Purification of both warriors and implements that became ritually impure through contact with dead bodies – alas, a common occurrence in so brutal and lethal a military campaign – is prescribed and effected.

In gratitude for the safe return of all Israelite fighting men, the military officers bring Moses an offering for God of the gold they had taken as booty: “armlets, bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and pendants” totaling 16,750 shekels of gold. Rank-and-file soldiers are permitted to keep their share of the spoils. Moses and Eleazar accept they offering, and bring it to the Tent of Meeting “as a reminder” to the Israelites of God’s beneficence, and to God of Israel’s gratitude.

The parashah concludes with a crisis of apparent national disunity averted. The tribes of Gad and Reuben – later joined by the half-tribe of Manasseh – ask Moses to permit them to settle in Trans-Jordan – i.e., on the east side of the Jordan. Moses at first understands this as a betrayal of the Israelite mission of conquest and settlement of the Promised Land, as well as an abdication of their tribal share in responsibility for Israel’s military efforts. A compromise is effected: The tribes in question will be permitted to settle east of the Jordan, provided they serve as a vanguard – the advance military force, the shock-troops in the front of Israel’s campaign of conquest.

Theme #1: “Belief in a Higher Vower”

“If a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath imposing an obligation on himself, he shall not break his pledge; he must carry out all that has crossed his lips.” (Numbers 30:3)

Study: Derash

“The violation of a vow or ‘bond’ is at once an offence before God, and an act of profanation of man’s personality. There is a tendency in human nature to forget in health and security the vows that were made in sickness and danger; but the rule remains. Whatever a man has promised unto God, that he must fulfill.” (Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz)

“Of him who is careful in his utterances so that no word of his should lose its binding force or should have been spoken in vain, it is said: ‘He shall carry out all that has crossed his lips,’ with the pronoun ‘He’ referring not to that righteous man but to God Himself. This is to teach us that the Lord will cause all that proceeds from the mouth of the righteous to come true. The blessings he utters will be fulfilled. Indeed, all his words will be considered as enactments to be fulfilled by God.” (The Kozienice Maggid, Avodat Yisrael)

“The length of the chapter signals the importance, or rather the sacredness, of an oath in ancient Israel; it stood as uttered unless an annulment procedure was followed. Human words, and not only divine ones, were seen as having effects in the real world.” (Everett Fox)

“A vow is a purely religious act that cannot be taken in a fit of passion. It can be taken only with a mind purified and composed and with God as witness.” (Mahatma Gandhi)

“Rarely promise, but, if lawful, constantly perform.” (William Penn)

Questions for Discussion

What is the difference between telling the truth and keeping your word? Why is keeping your word – fulfilling your vow – treated as such an absolute, while examples of deception and constructive lies abound in biblical narrative?

Mahatma Gandhi and Rabbi Joseph Hertz (the first alumnus of JTS and chief rabbi of Great Britain) both address the problem of rash vows, commitments made in desperation or out of fear. Are such vows less meaningful or less binding than commitments that result from careful consideration and calculation? Or do the extreme conditions under which rash vows are adopted actually make their fulfillment more of a moral imperative?

Does a commitment require verbalization to become a binding obligation? What are our unspoken yet non-negotiable duties?

The Torah begins with God’s creation of the universe by means of the spoken word. In such a tradition, what does it mean to say, as Everett Fox does, that “human words, and not only divine ones” also have an effect in the real world?

Consider “the sacredness of an oath in ancient Israel” in the context of the Covenant at the heart of the Israelite national mission, and the Jewish experience today. How does the covenantal relationship between God and Israel translate into the Jewish view of personal vows?

Is the divine treatment of the righteous asserted by the Kozienice Maggid an entirely positive dynamic? What would happen – and how would we conduct ourselves differently – if everything we said came true?

Theme #2: “Gad Be With You”

“Moses said to the Gadites and the Reubenites: ‘Are your brothers to go to war while you stay here?’” (Numbers 32:6)

Study: Derash

“Do you think that when the enemy goes to war against your brethren on the western side of the Jordan, he will let you dwell tranquilly in your portion? Don’t think such a thing! If you sit complacently and fail to help your brethren in wars that are destined to occur in the land of Israel, the enemy is likely to attack you as well, after he defeats the other tribes. The Jewish nation’s strength lies in unity. When it is united, it can defeat all of its adversaries.” (Rabbi Yonatan Eybeshitz, Papera’ot La-Torah)

“Diaspora-Israel relations have never been simple. Yet this story indicates that those who seek to bring the Diaspora to an end are wasting their time. It has existed from the time Israel entered its land and will always exist, at least until the ‘end of days.’ Moses reconciled himself to the desire of these tribes not to cross the Jordan. Once he ascertained that they were not trying to cause Israel to turn away from the land, he granted their request – but required them to keep their word to fight at the forefront of the Israelites. (Rabbi Reuven Hammer)

“Gad and Reuben's petition is curious for two reasons. First, their apparently selfcentered wish to remain behind seems to ignore the larger ramifications for the entire community of b’nei Yisrael. Secondly, the focus on material goods even at the expense of human life and welfare seems reckless and even provocative. What does this mean for our own communities? We are not to be like Gad and Reuben and focus on material matters before everything else. We must not build sheepfolds for our flocks before the fortresses for our children. While personal and work issues may cloud our minds, it is important to safeguard our first priority – our community of Jewish students.” (David Bernay, Hillel Campus Advancement Associate)

“Hillel said: Do not separate yourself from the community, and do not be sure of yourself until the day you die; do not judge your fellow until you have been put in his position.” (Pirkei Avot 2:5)

Questions for Discussion

Is Moses’ indignant response to the Gadites and Reubenites merely strategic? That is, is Moses concerned only that the absence of these two tribes would compromise the military strength of the nation? Or is there an inherent moral wrong in a decision to “separate yourself from the community”?

Could the dissident tribes be viewed as visionary? Is not the opportunity to engage in commerce and to build homes for our children instead of engaging in armed conflict the sign of an enlightened and forward-looking people? Is that not what all Israelites would want? Did Moses misjudge his countrymen?

Rabbi Eybeshitz’s comment echoes a major theme in the book of Esther: “Do not imagine that you, of all the Jews, will escape with your life. If you keep silent in this crisis, relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another quarter, while you and your father’s house will perish.” How do the messages of both Mordechai and Moses speak to diaspora Jews today? What are our obligations to the national defense and military needs of the Jewish state?

What other biblical texts and themes teach the significance and sanctity of the diaspora? How might these shape the self-perception and mission of Jews living outside the state of Israel? How should these texts shape the attitudes of Israelis to their fellow Jews around the world?

How does the rest of Hillel’s statement (“Do not be sure of yourself” and “Do not judge”) relate to Moses’ interaction with Gad and Reuben?

Historic Note

In parashat Matot, read on July 23, 2011, Moses is commanded to “avenge the Israelite people on the Midianites.” This Shabbat is the 65th anniversary of the bombing of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel by the Irgun, carried out at the order of Menachem Begin on July 23, 1946.

Halachah L’Maaseh

“Gold and silver, copper, iron, tin, and lead – any article that can withstand fire – these shall pass through fire and they shall be clean, except that they must be cleansed with water of lustration; and anything that cannot withstand fire, you must pass through water” (Numbers 31:22-23). Parashat Matot’s treatment of the purification of ritually contaminated objects provides a historic basis for the procedures used for koshering utensils, whether to render implements previously used in violation of the laws of kashrut either accidentally or on purpose, or to render a kosher utensil pareve, or to render a year-round utensil permissible for use on Passover. Cooking utensils (pots, cutlery) are rendered kosher (and pareve – neutral) by boiling. Utensils used over an open fire, as for broiling (as, too, stove-top burners) are heated until red-hot, or until a piece of paper is singed by the touch. Utensils used only for cold food may be koshered by thorough cleansing. (See Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 451:4,5, 22.) Underpinning the koshering process is the principle that “as a vessel absorbs (food particles), so does it expel what is absorbed” (BT Pesachim 30A, Rashi ad loc.). Cutlery with handles attached present a difficulty; if the handles allow food particles to get stuck between it and the rest of the utensil, the item cannot be koshered. Handles that are joined tightly enough so that no particles can penetrate may be koshered. (See Shulcahn Aruch Orach Chaim 451:3, Magen David #5.) All items to be koshered should be thoroughly cleaned first (Ibid., 451:17-18).

July 16, 2011 – 14 Tammuz 5771

Annual: Numbers 25:10 – 30:1 (Etz Hayim, p. 918; Hertz p. 686)

Triennial: Numbers 25:10 – 26:51 (Etz Hayim, p. 918; Hertz p. 686)
Haftarah: I Kings 18:46 – 19:21 (Etz Hayim, p. 938; Hertz p. 699)

Prepared by Rabbi Joseph Prouser
Baldwin, New York

Our parashah opens with its namesake, Pinchas, receiving a divine reward – a hereditary priesthood and permanent “covenant of peace” – in recognition of his zeal in summarily executing an Israelite man and his Midianite paramour. The brazen couple is named here for the first time – they are Zimri ben Salu and Cozbi bat Zur. Moses is commanded further to harass the Midianites for their deceptive and corrupting influence on the Israelites.

A detailed census of the Israelite population is carried out, to be used in apportioning tribal shares in the Promised Land – a process that is addressed immediately after the census.

Allotting the land properly sparks a moral and legal crisis. Five sisters – the daughters of Zelophehad – approach Moses. They protest the law of inheritance, which provided only for male heirs. Zelophehad left no male heirs, the sisters explain, and his property will be lost, absorbed by the tribe, if his daughters are not permitted to inherit it. Moses seeks divine guidance, and God instructs him to grant the five sisters inheritance rights, further establishing this test case as a binding precedent, showing that in the absence of male heirs, daughters may inherit their father’s property. Beyond the narrow purview of the case, the passage is early confirmation of the need for interpretation and evolution of biblical law, as well as a milestone in the legal enfranchisement of the women of Israel.

Family inheritance matters are followed immediately by the question of succession in national leadership. Moses is informed that he will die in the wilderness before reaching the land of Canaan. He asks God to provide a successor, and so Joshua – “a man of spirit” or “an inspired man”– is appointed.

The rest of parashat Pinchas is devoted to the daily sacrifices, the festival calendar, and the sacrificial offerings associated with all of those sacred observances. Much of this section is excerpted for public reading as the maftir aliyah on the festivals, holy days, and rosh chodesh. The material should be familiar to regular worshipers. In fact, many congregations leave one Torah scroll always rolled to parashat Pinchas to use on these many liturgical occasions.

Theme #1: “A Peace of My Mind!”

“The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Pinchas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the Israelites by displaying among them his passion for Me, so that I did not wipe out the Israelite people in My passion. Say, therefore, ‘I grant him My covenant of peace.’” (Numbers 25:10-12)

Study: Derash

“Even though zeal is the opposite of peace and may indeed be equated with open controversy, the Torah says that honest zeal on behalf of a sacred ideal leads to peace.” (Rabbi Meir Eisenstadt, Kotnot Or)

“When he beheld the immoral conduct of the Israelite and the Midianite woman, Pinchas could have pointed to Moses, Aaron and the seventy elders and said: ‘If they take no action, why should I be more zealous than they?’ However, he did not wait to see what they would do, but proceeded to do on his own what he felt had to be done on behalf of the honor of the Lord, believing that it was his duty to defend the honor of God even if no one else would.” (Rabbi Menachem Asch, Chomat Esh)

“Watching Zimri and womanfriend saunter into their tent, the Moses who once slew a slavemaster knows about the option of the spear. He also sees the gash that zealotry can cut in the order he’s spent a life building, based on judges, rules of evidence, and deliberation, not on revolutionary justice. He senses the precedent an action like Pinhas’ will set, particularly for angry men who confuse hatred of anyone foreign with virtue, or who suppress the passion Zimri feels by turning it into violence against sinners. Yet Moses knows his camp is turning into chaos. There aren’t any easy answers, and he cries.” (Gershom Gorenberg, Opinion Editor, Jerusalem Report)

“The way of violence does not lead to liberation or healing but only to renewed decline and enslavement. We must repent and change our ways, whatever will happen now, lest an even greater catastrophe befall us. It is our obligation to elevate the sacred law of life to ensure that it will not be undermined, that the people as a people protect it from all subverters.” (Martin Buber, condemning the Irgun after the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel)

“I think while zealots fast and frown, And fight for two or seven, That there are fifty roads to town and rather more to Heaven.” (Samuel Johnson)

Questions for Discussion

Scribal tradition dictates that the vav in the word shalom in verse 12 be written in a defective manner – the vertical stroke of the letter should be broken. This seems to offer an implicit indictment of both Pinchas and the covenant with which God rewards him. Notwithstanding the commentaries cited here, what does this graphic scribal custom have to teach us about peace achieved through zealotry and religious violence?

Where indeed was Moses as Pinchas took matters into his own hands? (Where was he morally? Spiritually? We know that physically he was at the entrance to the tent of meeting!) Did Moses approve? Disapprove? Turn a blind eye in tacit support? Was he paralyzed by indecision in a situation of such moral complexity and spiritual consequence? How might Moses have displayed effective leadership, consistent with his prophetic mission, during this crisis?

What do we make of the fact that Pinchas’ violent zeal for God’s honor is followed so soon by a rethinking of Divine law (indeed, by a dramatic change in that law) in the case of Zelophehad’s daughters?

How would Rabbi Asch and Gershom Gorenberg advise Jews today to respond to existential crises facing our people and congregations? To the crises facing the state of Israel? Imagine Martin Buber debating Pinchas’ relative virtues with the author of the Kotnot Or. (Their debate would be in German.) Rabbi Eisenstadt was a rosh yeshiva in Worms until 1701, when the French conquered the city. Buber resigned from the University of Frankfort am Main when Hitler came to power, and he moved to Jerusalem in 1938. How might their personal experiences have affected their reading of parashat Pinchas?

When is religious zeal an admirable and constructive quality? When does the lack of passion for religious principle amount to a sinful abdication of personal responsibility? How do we find the proper balance between passionate commitment and moral relativism and apathy?

Theme #2: “Estate of Flux”

“Moses brought their case before the Lord. And the Lord said to Moses, ‘The plea of the daughters of Zelophehad is just; you should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsman; transfer their father’s share to them.’” (Numbers 27:7)

Study: Derash

“This section of the chapter is a good example of a law embedded in a narrative, or a narrative created for the sake of a law. It also has the effect of showing that the divine promise of land is about to be fulfilled, that all the tribes must be included in the process, and that the growing biblical tradition allows for reinterpretation.” (Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses)

“The daughters of Zelophehad are barred by law from inheriting. They appeal outside of the law, upon the simple human merits of the case. Inherent in their plea is the understanding that codified law exists only as an attempt to provide justice and mercy; that as a human construct it must be imperfect; and that a system which does not allow final appeal (to that human impulse which gave rise to the code) is an abomination. Moses realized that he was unable, in conscience, to perform as ordered, and he brought his problem to God.” (David Mamet)

“An elegant message of the hopeful possibilities for successful and comfortable change. There is also a message here, both for the members of the community and for communal leaders, in how to act responsibly and effectively. The sisters are appropriately respectful and outspoken in redressing a lack in the legal system they otherwise affirm. Their plea is not considered threatening in any way. In turn, their leader and the tradition itself show them respect… Like the Israelites in the desert, we are a generation in transition. Numbers provides us with models of appropriate behavior, for leaders and laypeople, in overcoming those fears and making gradual changes, to take us step by step to a better place. In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with where we are. It is not a holding station, but a place of growth and, if we make it so, a place of civility.” (Ora Horn Prouser)

I would ask your attention and exhibit for your imitation, the faith which these five young women, the daughters of Zelophehad, possessed with regard to the promised inheritance. They had not seen the promised land, yet, being persuaded that it was somewhere and the children of Israel would have it in due time, their anxiety was lest they, having no brothers, should be forgotten in the distribution and so should lose their rights. They were anxious about an inheritance which they had never seen with their eyes, and therein I hold them up to the imitation of this present assembly. There is an inheritance that is far better than the land of Canaan. Oh, that we all believed in it and longed for it! It is an inheritance, however, which mortal eye has not seen, and the sounds whereof mortal ear has not heard. It is a city whose streets are gold, but none of us have ever trodden them. Never has traveler to that country came back to tell us of its glories. There the music never ceases; no discord ever mingles in it; it is sublime, but no member of the heavenly choir has ever come to write out for us the celestial score.” (Charles H. Spurgeon, 19th century British Evangelical)

“I shall earnestly and persistently continue to urge all women to the practical recognition of the old revolutionary maxim. Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” (Susan B. Anthony)

Questions for Discussion

David Mamet and Susan B. Anthony both suggest that departure from law and authority ultimately can be in the service of God and the law itself. When is change a sign not of strength, but of doctrinal chaos?

Professor Horn Prouser depicts the change precipitated by Zelophehad’s daughters as demonstrating the strength of the legal system and as a model for our own relationship to the law. What specific factors in the sisters’ appeal to Moses justified the change? How are they an apt model for us and our congregations and movement?

In his sermon, Charles Spurgeon heaps ample praise on Zelophehad’s daughters; they become models of faith itself – strength of conviction worthy of eternal reward beyond our imagining. How might Spurgeon’s homily speak directly to twenty-first century Jews (rather than his 19th-century Baptist listeners!!)? What is the ultimate goal of Zelophehad’s daughters? Equal opportunity? Filial devotion to their father and his legacy? Material gain and independence?

God instructs Moses to effect a change in what was ostensibly divine law, which nevertheless failed explicitly to anticipate the scenario being addressed. What theological and halachic significance is communicated by this case and by the process by which it was adjudicated?

Historic Note

In parashat Pinchas, read on July 16, 2011, we read of five sisters, the daughters of Zelophehad, who petition Moses for the right to inherit their late father’s property because he left no male heirs. Moses, after seeking divine guidance, rules that they may indeed inherit, thus preserving their father’s estate and marking an important new legal enfranchisement for Israelite women: “The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is right!” On July 16, 1994, the Broadway show The Sisters Rosenzweig closed after 556 performances at New York’s Barrymore Theater. According to one reviewer, the production, nominated for 1993’s Tony Award for best play, “is held together by the richly woven dialogue of three Jewish-American sisters pushing against the boundaries of their own lives in order to define themselves. Consequently, they do come to a point of resolution in their struggles, sometimes raising their voices in protest to be heard, at other times speaking softly in an attempt to hear themselves.”

Halachah L’Maaseh

Parashat Pinchas includes a comprehensive schedule of the festival calendar: the pilgrimage festivals, Rosh HaShanah (which is as yet unnamed in the Torah), Yom Kippur, Shabbat, and rosh chodesh. In a 2005 responsum, Rabbi Diana Villa discusses how early we may begin Shabbat or holy days. That is, at what hour on the eve of these sacred times is it permissible to welcome the holy day and recite the evening service that inaugurates it? This question is especially important in the summer, when days are long and sunset is late in the evening. This issue is magnified depending on the latitude, and the consequently varying time of sunset. While Jewish holy days theoretically begin at nightfall, the period of twilight (bein hashmashot) – that is, between sunset and nightfall – is also treated as part of the sacred time. Furthermore, an additional period is included in order to “add from the profane to the holy” – thus the customary 18 minutes before Shabbat when candle-lighting customarily is scheduled. For those who wish to welcome Shabbat and the festivals still earlier, it is possible to do so as early as “plag ha-minchah” – an hour and a quarter before sunset. These are “proportional” hours, each defined as one-twelfth of the period between sunrise and sunset – and so, longer “hours” (well over 60 minutes long) come with the summer! The one exception to this “early onset” principle is the eve of Shavuot: we do not begin earlier than sunset, in order to fulfill the biblical requirement of “seven complete weeks” of the omer, counted from Pesach. (See Rabbi Diana Villa, “Ask the Rabbi” #70; Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chaim 260:2, 494:1; Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 267:2, Rema on 261:2)

July 9, 2011 – 7 Tammuz 5771

Annual: Numbers: 22:2 – 25:9 (Etz Hayim, p. 894; Hertz p. 669)
Triennial: Numbers: 22:2 – 22:38 (Etz Hayim, p. 894; Hertz p. 669)
Haftarah: Micah: 5:6 – 6:8 (Etz Hayim, p. 915; Hertz p. 682)

Prepared by Rabbi Joseph Prouser
Baldwin, New York

Balak, the king of Moab, fears the Israelites and their divine mandate, so through a series of invitations he engages Balaam to curse the people of Israel. Balaam is an enigmatic admixture of heathen prophet, true believer, and instrument of Providence. Reflecting either sincerity or self-promotion, Balaam explains that he can do and say only what God instructs. En route to his prophetic task, an angel of God blocks the road, standing before the donkey on which Balaam is riding, visible to the donkey but invisible to Balaam. The beast turns from its path, injuring Balaam’s foot against a wall. The bruised Balaam execrates and beats his miraculous mount, which talks back to him, reproving him for his merciless blows. The angel finally reveals himself to Balaam, explaining that the hapless animal had in fact saved Balaam from divine wrath, because his mission to curse Israel is contrary to God’s will.

Balaam meets again with Balak and his subordinates, who sacrifice with their hired prophet at seven altars constructed for the occasion, before sending Balaam to execute his appointed task of cursing Israel once again. On three separate occasions, Balaam approaches Israel to carry out his mission of malediction, only to pronounce a series of blessings for the Chosen People… culminating in the famous pronouncement: Mah tovu: “How goodly are your tents, O Jacob.” As an expression of the beauty and significance of Balaam’s blessing, the verse customarily is placed at the very top of a column of print in the sefer Torah, one of only five instances in which a column begins with a letter other than vav.

Balak reproves Balaam for failing in his task. The prophet repeats his earlier disclaimer: he can only act as instructed by God. Balaam proceeds to prophesy a bright and hopeful future for Israel, and then both Balak and Balaam return home.

Alas, the destiny of national greatness foreseen by Balaam must wait. Moabite women entice the Israelites into licentious liaisons and idolatrous worship of Baal- Peor at Shittim. Predictably, God responds with sharp anger, commanding the execution of the ringleaders in this wayward incident. An Israelite man brazenly flaunts his affair with his Midianite paramour, before a tearful Moses and Israelite community. The priestly Pinchas – son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron – summarily executes the lustful couple – apparently in flagrante delicto – impaling them with a spear. His zealous ire meets with God’s approval: a plague, which has taken 24,000 Israelite lives, is thereby stayed.

Theme #1: “Nothing Up My Sleeve!”

“Lo, there is no augury in Jacob, no divining in Israel: Jacob is told at once, yea Israel, what God has planned.” (Numbers 23:23)

Study: Derash

“In biblical religion, sorcery in any form was, by definition, deemed ineffectual since all events were under the control of the one God. It was also deemed heretical since any attempt to alter the future purported to flout and overrule the will of God.” (Jacob Milgrom, JPS Commentary)

“We defy augury. There’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ‘tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all.” (William Shakespeare, Hamlet)

“And such is the way of all superstition, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like; wherein men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, though this happen much oftener, neglect and pass them by.” (Sir Francis Bacon)

“People are always looking for the single magic bullet that will totally change everything. There is no single magic bullet.” (Temple Grandin)

“Being a parent is too complicated and emotional a task for magical techniques and miracle cures.” (Ron Taffel)

Questions for Discussion

The phrase here translated as “what God has planned” is rendered in the King James Version as “what hath God wrought” – quoted by Samuel Morse in 1844 as the first message sent using his new invention, the telegraph. What aspect of the biblical verse or its context might have motivated Morse to select it?

Temple Grandin and Ron Taffel contrast magic – that is unreasonable, quick fixes – with the moral imperative for thoughtful, sustained, responsible action. What aspects of the biblical narrative might suggest that this insight is behind the disdain for “augury in Jacob”? In what other endeavor – besides parenting – is the desire for magical techniques especially problematic?

Earlier in his prophetic career, Moses had produced “signs” that were repeated by Pharaoh’s magicians. Is there a moral or spiritual distinction between Moses turning his staff into a snake and the magicians doing the same?

What is the problem with magic? Its ineffectuality? Its heresy? Its self-selecting and delusive nature? Its tendency to distract us from more direct or meaningful communications from the Divine?

In light of Jewish theological objections to magic, what observances, superstitions, and folk customs present spiritual perils to the traditional Jew? If you could change one thing about yourself (or someone else, or your community) with a magical technique or miraculous cure, would you? If so, what would it be?

Theme #2: “No Escaping That For Me!”

“He saw Amalek and, taking up his theme, he said: A leading nation is Amalek; but its fate is to perish forever.” (Numbers 24:20)

Study: Derash

“Who was the Amalek that was Germany? Germany was the cradle of the civilization of culture – science, art and music. In the death camps, the Nazis played the music of Wagner and Beethoven... We must understand that there is no contradiction between sophisticated culture and immorality and bestiality.” (Rabbi Azarya Berzon, Rosh Yeshiva, Michlelet Mevaseret Yerushalayim)

“The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed; and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?” (Mark Twain, “Concerning The Jews,” Harper’s Magazine, 1899)

“I think it must be apparent to every thinking mind that the noblest of all professions is that of teaching, and that upon the effectiveness of that teaching hangs the destiny of nations.” (David O. McKay, 9th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)

“Actions are the seed of fate; deeds grow into destiny.” (Harry STruman)

“Civilized society is perpetually menaced with disintegration through this primary hostility of men toward one another.” (Sigmund Freud)

Questions for Discussion

Mark Twain’s historic observation is compelling, even if his estimation of the Jewish condition is very generous. What does explain the downfall of “great” nations? The survival of the Jewish people?

Specifically, to what do we attribute the destruction (or disappearance) of the Amalekites? Endemic hostility (a la Freud)? Inattention (or misguided attention) to the educational process (a la McKay)? Their collective actions and national behavior (a la Truman)? Why does their fate, prophesied here, not specify what will lead to Amalek’s downfall?

As Rabbi Berzon demonstrates, Amalek has had spiritual and moral disciples throughout history. What is the connection between becoming a leading nation and self-destructive corruption? What might have earned Amalek this description in the biblical period?

The Jewish community always has valued education, the sciences, culture. What correctives does Jewish tradition provide to prevent its often highly cultured adherents from moral corruption? How well are they working? How might they be reinforced? What similar correctives are at work in the broader societies in which we are participants?

If indeed it is education that will safeguard the Jewish People from suffering the fate of Amalek (and Rome, and Babylonia), how might we – our families, households, congregations, movement – more constructively contribute to the destiny of our nation?

Historic Note

Balaam’s famous blessing of Israel, mah tovu (“How goodly are your tents, O Jacob…”), read in parashat Balak on July 9, 2011, concludes: “God who freed Israel from Egypt is for them like the horns of the wild ox. They shall devour enemy nations, crush their bones, and smash their arrows… Blessed are they who bless you, accursed they who curse you!” On July 9, 1976 (35 years earlier to the day), Uganda asked the United Nations to condemn the state of Israel for its hostage rescue raid on Entebbe Airport. (It should be noted that in the last 35 years, there has been a dramatic regime change in Uganda. The nation ruled by the despotic Idi Amin is now a free and robust – if nevertheless troubled – democracy. The indigenous Jewish community (known as the Abayudaya), which was terribly persecuted under Amin, has since flourished, and has established close ties with the world-wide Jewish people and the Conservative movement.

Halachah L’Maaseh

“There is no augury in Jacob.” In his final book, Sefer Ha-Mitzvot Ha-Katzar (The Concise Book of Mitzvot), the Chofetz Chayim (Rabbi Israel Mayer Ha-Kohen Kagan) lists those commandments still practicable in the 20th (and by extension, 21st) century. Several relate to prohibited acts of augury or magic. Forbidden augury (relying on portents) includes, for example, saying “If X happens to me, I shall do Y” – as in flipping a coin to make a decision!! (Prohibitive Commandment #165). The Chofetz Chayim defines forbidden conjuring as, among other things, identifying lucky and unlucky days (or months or dates) – Friday the 13th, for example, or May weddings (Prohibitive Commandment #166)! Among prohibited acts of divination he includes entering a trance to predict the future, or using stones or crystals for that purpose (Prohibitive Commandments #167-168). He points out that although such prohibitions are binding on the person doing the magic, the rabbis also prohibited consulting the practitioners. Casting spells and charms, particularly those using special phrases and languages reserved for that purpose, is banned under Prohibitive Commandment #169.