Migdalor Guy's New Blog

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Bo 5772–Lifting the Cover of Darkness

2012-01-27T11:31:00.001-05:00

Eleven years ago, I wrote wondering why the Israelites had simply not left Egypt under the cover of darkness during the 9th plague. I wrote:

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Bo 5771 – Cover of Darkness

The question seems so obvious that this week even a 1st-grader asked it. That could be a good thing, but perhaps not. More on that later.

Here's the chain of events: locusts, darkness, slaying of the first-born, exodus. "Why," the 1st-grader asked, "didn't the Israelites sneak out of Egypt while it was dark?" "yeah," another chimed in. "You told us it got so dark the Egyptians couldn't see anything." Another chimed in "It got so cold they were frozen in place." "Yes," I answered. "The Torah says 'v'lo kamu ish mi takhtav'-no man got up from his place', and the rabbis tell us the Egyptians couldn't move. And a midrash says that the Egyptians could hear noises all around them-doors opening, footsteps, etc-it was the Jews, checking out the beautiful things the Egyptians owned that they knew Hashem had promised they would be taking with them when they left Egypt." "But how could they see?" I answered, "the rabbis tell us that the Jews, wherever they went, there was light, and they could see, but no Egyptian could see." "So why didn't the Jews just leave Egypt?" my original questioner asked.

It's a good question. The rabbis have a few answers. The most obvious one is that G”d had not yet told the Israelites it was time to leave. G”d needed to work that final, awful plague to be sure Pharaoh on the Egyptians-and even the Jews themselves, learned of G”d's awesome power and learned that G”d was in charge. That's the classic answer I offered the students in this rather traditional Day School where I teach. But when one teaches, one is also a student, a learner, and I wasn't even fully satisfied with that answer. The rabbis also tell us that the Jews needed to collect the spoils of Egypt when they left, and that needed to wait until later. But there's a problem with that solution too. The Jews could just as easily taken the Egyptian's gold, silver and other valuables under the cover of darkness and then snuck out of Egypt while the Egyptians were frozen in place and blind.

Now, who I am to question G”d? Well, I am one of G”d's creations, endowed with the very ability to do so-so I assume my creator wants it that way. It wasn't enough to decimate the Egyptian economy with these plagues. G”d had to go ahead and kill all those first-born sons of Egypt. and later on, G”d wipes out most of the rest of the sons, drowning them in the sea! Was all that killing really necessary to make the point? How much punishment is enough?

"If all the first-born were killed, why wasn't Pharaoh killed?" asked another student. "A good question," I answered. "Of course, Pharaoh might not have been a first-born, but we all know Kings usually leave their kingdoms to their oldest sons, right? The rabbis tell us Pharaoh was left alive because someone had to be around to tell the story of Hashem's great power." A classic answer but yet one that troubles me. Even with all the decimation, might not leaving Pharaoh alive make it look to the Egyptians that perhaps Pharaoh, after all, did have some G”d-like powers? But no, Pharaoh had to still be there- to face that ultimate humiliation and tell Moshe to take the Jews and get out of Egypt. And to be alive for that ultimate defeat at the sea of reeds. Ah, the old "puppet master" G”d. Not particularly satisfying.

But G”d, even with such ultimate power and unfathomable plans recognizes that human beings need to have things demonstrated in terms they can understand (something I wrote about in a last week's musing.) And sometimes human beings need to encounter things in terms they can't understand, so the mystery that is G”d can remain. And we have all that here in our parasha. Plainly understandable and totally incomprehensible at the same time.

Perhaps all this killing and destruction was a necessary part of our history, a necessary part of G”d's plan. Perhaps the Jews not sneaking out of Egypt under cover of darkness was part of all that. The same for Pharaoh not being slain as a first-born, if indeed he was. But I would be less than the creature the G”d made me if I didn't wonder if that really was all necessary. A moot point, since that's how it happened and it's how we got to where we are today? Perhaps. But maybe what G”d really wants us to do is to ask these question anyway. And ask them I shall. I won't live like an Egyptian in total, utter darkness. My questions are perhaps the light that I, like the Jews in Egypt, carry with me at all times to help me illumine at least a little bit of Gd. May our questioning always fuel our inner and outer light.

These words speak for themselves and bear repeating. However, I want to add to them, and question another case of “cover of darkness.” Our parasha tells us the the last plague came “in the middle of the night. It’s tempting to ask whether G”d chose the middle of the night because even G”d was feeling a bit guilty about having to kill all these Egyptians. Then again, my opinion of whether G”d would be so concerned or considerate is tempered by the fact that Torah makes a point of telling us the all Egyptians, from the Pharaoh himself, to the lowest prisoner in the dungeon. I presume this also means from the richest of the rich to the poorest of the poor – poor, that I might add, had probably been made serfs and poor through G”d’s servant Joseph when he acquired their land in exchange for food during the famine. Talk about a double-whammy. Was that really necessary? Where is the love and compassion for the downtrodden? Then again, we are talking about the G”d who didn’t spare Sodom or Gomorrah, and as I have speculated before, may have done so knowing there actually might have been 10 or more righteous people in them.

I don’t like this G”d. This G”d who finds it necessary to harden Pharaoh’s heart, to make the suffering of the Egyptians so great, who shows no compassion or mercy except when it’s convenient. This G”d who singles out the children of Israel and keeps them safe whilst plaguing everybody else. While killing others. Directly.

We sanitize our G”d. We have the rabbis and the midrash to help with the whitewash. Why is it that we have a story of G'”d chastising the angels for celebrating at the Reed Sea, reminding them that many Egyptians died. Where is the same outcry for the indiscriminate, darkness-hidden slaying of the first born?

Tell me – when you spill your drops of wine at your Seder, are you thinking of just the soldiers who drowned in the sea, or are you thinking about all of G”d’s victims in the Passover story? All of G”d’s victims throughout the biblical texts? For that matter, all of G”d’s victims, at any time, past, present, or future.

I believe, with almost absolute certainty, that G”d could have accomplished what needed to be accomplished without so much death. If that’s not the case, then I call into question how G”d structured the universe.

G”d calls upon us to be pursuers of peace. G”d tells us we should not murder. Yes, it doesn’t say we should not kill, so G”d gives us, and even G”d, an out. Yet how can one look upon the tenth plague or the drowning at the Reed Sea (or Sodom and Gomorrah, or the biblical flood, or our violent takeover of Canaan) and not consider those not just killing, but murder? Is there one standard for G”d and a different one for human beings? Apparently so, but I reject that and will not accept that.

As long as we allow G”d to hide these deeds, these murders, under the cover of darkness, we allow G”d to get away with them. We must not allow the G”d of light to hide misdeeds in the darkness. We must not stand by idly while our neighbor bleeds. J’accuse, G”d. Are you ready to stand trial at my Seder this year?

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2012 by Adrian A. Durlester. Portions ©2001 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Bo 5771 - Keretz MiTzafon-Again! (not the same as 5769)
Bo 5769-Keretz MiTzafon
Bo 5768 - Good Loser (Redux 5763)
Bo 5767-Teach Your Children Well (Redux 5762)
Bo 5766 - Random Disjunctions and Convergences (Redux 5760)
Bo 5765-Four Strikes and You're...Well...
Bo 5764-Keretz Ani
Bo 5763 -Good Loser
Bo 5761-Cover of Darkness
Bo 5762-Teach Your Children Well

Technorati Tags: torah,commentary,bo,murder

Random Musings Before Shabbat-Va'era 5772 - Got It! (Revised and Adapted from 5761 - Just Not Getting It)

2012-01-20T12:14:00.001-05:00

A decade ago, I wrote about our parasha. I'm going to share it with you in its entirety before adding some reflections from today:

-----begin 2001 thoughts--------

Sometimes, there are things that are beyond a persons comprehension. Sometimes, we humans can't see outside our paradigms. Therefore, interacting with people often requires us to work within a framework that others can understand. If this is true for one human to another, how much more so it must be true for an incomprehensible deity.

Sometimes, the deity needs to maintain the mystery. "Eh'yeh asher eh'yeh," is the deity's answer to Moshe's question "who shall I tell them has sent me?" At others times, it's in the best interests of the deity to be more direct. "I am the L"rd. I appeared to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov as Kel Shaddai, but I did not make myself known to them by my name, [the tetragrammaton]." But for you, dear Moshe, I have revealed my true name (at least as much as I wanted you to know.) At this time, it was important for Moshe to comprehend the deity, at least as much as was humanly possible. So G"d personalized things a bit.

The question is always asked-why did G"d put the Egyptians and the Israelites through this whole plague thing when, as an all-powerful deity, G"d could have just freed the Israelite people without a hitch or hassle. We all know some of the well-worn answers to this-some attested to in the Torah itself-that G"d wanted to demonstrate absolute sovereignty over all, and so needed some effective demonstrations. Or that nothing worth having should be easy to get. Or that G"d really needed to hear the Israelites cry out in their despair-a despair so deep they could not hold back any longer, could not be complacent or silent.

Whichever of these reasons you choose, the simple fact is that G"d was choosing to operate in a manner which could be understood by all the parties involved. Oh, the truly wise might have seen how great G"d was from a simple one-step act of freeing the Israelites from slavery, but the average Israelite & Egyptian needed something less abstract.

So G"d gives us Moshe, a human being, to carry out G"d's plans-putting a human face on it all. No big mysterious deity, but a real flesh and blood person through whom G"d could demonstrate power.

G"d also understood something about Pharaoh. Pharaoh thought he himself was a deity. And to Pharaoh, his courtiers and the Egyptians, the idea of some unseen, non-physical deity was simply too bizarre. So G"d appointed Moshe to the role of "god to Pharaoh." Moshe (and Aharon) put a face, something tangible, to represent G"d so that Pharaoh could interact and play out G"d's little charade.

This helps me understand something that has always puzzled me. Why was it necessary for Moshe to plead with G"d to stop several of the plagues once Pharaoh appeared to have agreed to let the Israelites go worship their G"d? Surely the omnipotent and omnipresent deity was aware of this.

So the theory is this: Pharaoh was, as they say, just not getting it. Pharaoh continued to see G"d as just another rival, a potentially more powerful deity than he was. But this Pharaoh did not have the foresight or open-mindedness of an Amenhotep IV or an Avraham, and comprehend the idea that there was only one all powerful deity. To compensate for this, Gd even went so far to accommodate the Egyptian ( and to some extent Israelite) world views, that, even though G"d was perfectly well aware of when Pharaoh had acceded to Moshe's demands after several of the plagues, Moshe had to go plead with Hashem to stop them. Pharaoh could not comprehend otherwise. And I'm not sure that Pharaoh ever really "got it." I'm not even sure we Jews have ever completely "gotten it." But we try.

G"d is exceedingly wise. G"d's understanding that sometimes we humans "just aren't getting it" has enabled G"d to do some things necessary for us to be able to comprehend, in some form, Gd. It's why we are not just a people with a covenant in thought and memory. We have a document-a physical something which Gd gave us so that we could have a form in which to understand and appreciate G"d, in the limited ways possible to us.

And we have Shabbat. A reminder, once every seven days, of the G"d who created us, who commands us, and watches over us. Shabbat is the perfect time for us when we are "just not getting it." The workaday world, with all its trials, tribulations, disappointments, problems, bad things happening to good people, etc. With all that going on, it's no wonder we sometimes can't comprehend or understand G"d, the One who set it all into motion and keeps it going. No wonder we are "just not getting it."

Using this gift of playing to the paradigm enabled Moshe to be G"d's agent in freeing the Israelites from Egypt. We, too, can benefit from these gifts from G"d in forms we can comprehend. Torah. Mitzvot. Shabbat. Paths to "getting it." Use them wisely, use them often, use them lovingly. And remember to offer thanks to the One wise enough to make them available to us.

---end 2001 thoughts----begin additions for 2012-----

Wow. In hindsight, I have to say to myself: what a whitewash! It's a lovely whitewash, but a decade later, it falls a little flat for me. I still have some credence in the thought that G"d may have been wise enough to work within human paradigms - and this helps explain a few things. In the end, however, it's just a rationale. Now the thoughts in my head tend to worry less about Pharaoh not getting it, but about G"d not getting it. G"d may not truly understand G"d's creations as well as G"d thinks G"d does. (Not that I object to gender neutral language, but boy does that make for a complicated sentence.)

Did we all really need this lesson in this particular manner? As an educator, I struggle with this all the time. I want my students to not just learn, but to understand. I even feel compelled to give rationales for rules of classroom behavior and demeanor. Yet sometimes, as I face problems in classroom management, as all educators do, I realize that it's not always the best idea to get into a lengthy discussion of things.It may be that sometimes it really is okay to say "that's just the way it it, like it or lump it." Now, I have to admit I have a hard time with that. I don't ever think it is reasonable to expect anyone to adhere to a set of rules without their full comprehension and understanding of them. (This is what I think drives scientists to continue to try and understand what is behind all the rules of the universe.) Yet there are times when I just want to say (and when other professionals encourage me to say) "because I am the teacher and you are the student. Just do it."

It seems G"d may have been as uncomfortable with that (at times) as I am. There are certainly plenty of examples in Torah of G"d just saying "that's the way it is, deal with it." Yet in this parasha and a few other places in the text we encounter a G"d who insists on offering explanations and rationales. The aseret hadibrot (ten commandments) are rife with explanations, as are many of the rules laid out in Torah. Yes, sometimes the rationale is a simple "ani Ad"nai," because "I am G"d." At other times it can be things like "so that you may long endure on this earth."

Our long history of interpretative text - Talmud, Midrash, and later commentaries serves, among pother things, to satisfy our natural human need for understanding, for rationales to support things. The rabbis have always been happy to provide them. Rarely, if ever, would a great posek simply say "because G"d said so."

So once again I ask, why wasn't G"d plainer and clearer? The need for centuries of interpretation, explanation and provision of rationales seems to me clear evidence that G"d just doesn't get us.

Ah, but wait. What would our lives be like if G"d had laid it all out for us in plain language? We may have then been more like a totalitarian society - the trains would run on time, crime would be less rampant. Yet what would we lose in exchange? Some religions really do spell it all out for their adherents (or at least their adherents claim that they do) but Judaism, among others, certainly does not. We don't have 613 rules. We have 613 (and more) things to try and figure out how and why to do. Life as a Jew is never boring. Other religions provide equally vexing problems, balanced with a dash of "just do it."

Even if G"d always provided clear guidance, would that always work out? Let's look at Gan Eden. G"d was pretty specific: eat anything you want except this. If Adam and Chava had followed the rules, what would humanity be like today? What I have often complained about as G"d's bad parenting may just be G"d being wiley as a fox. Perfection will drive these creations crazy. I must find a way to challenge them and keep them occupied. I know, I'll tell them they can do anything they want except this. They're bound to do it. Just to be sure, I'll even ask that serpent to help out.

I'm still not convinced that all the plagues and heart-hardening of Pharaoh was necessary, and I'm even still unconvinced by my own arguments from 10 years ago. Yet I'm willing to give G"d the benefit of the doubt.

Some people in the world need clear answers. G'd seems to have made provisions for them. Other people in the world thrive on trying to figure things out for themselves. G"d seems to have provided for them as well. G"d's Torah seems to reach out to both types at different points.

Maybe G"d really gets us after all.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
© 2012 and parts ©2001 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Va'era 5771/5765-Brighton Beach-Last Stop!
Va'era 5769 - Substitute
Va'era 5767-again, Crushed Spirits (Miqotzer Ruakh)
Va'era 5766-Why Tomorrow?
Va'era 5765-Brighton Beach-Last Stop!
Va'era 5764-Imperfect Perfection and Perfect Imperfection
Va'era 5763 - Pray for Me
Va'era 5761-Just Not Getting It
Va'era 5762-Early will I Seek You

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Sh’mot 5772–Is Might Ever Right?

2012-01-13T15:32:00.001-05:00

Maybe G”d needed a Merlin. Maybe G”d needed to be turned into a fish, a hawk, an ant, a goose, and a badger. Maybe (and yes this borders on the heretical) G”d needed to be turned into a human being so that G”d could experience what that was like. Could (can) G”d truly understand what G”d’s creations have to deal with on a daily basis?

Yes, there’s some evidence in Torah that G”d certainly experiences forms of human emotions and behavior – anger, petulance, jealousy, pride, arrogance, and more. Yet there is a very basic lesson that G”d didn’t seem to learn – that might for right is better than make is right.

Oh, one could easily argue that G”d’s cause is intrinsically right, therefore any action of might on G”d’s part is, perforce, for right as much as it is right. I think that’s pretty thin ice.

Let’s play the hypothetical game. What if G”d (through Moses, or even directly) attempted to use reason, and reason only, to convince Pharaoh that G”d was indeed the One true G”d and that Pharaoh should let the Israelites go? We don’t get the argument in this parasha, but we will soon, that the plagues, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, etc. were all necessary to make the event of enough significance. The rationale is that if it seemed or appeared to be a victory too easily won, it wouldn’t have been as meaningful.

Poppycock. We know the truth. G”d is an “ish milkhama” or better yet an “El milkhama” – a warrior G”d. The earth of G”d’s creation was a place where might made right, and G”d contributed to that overall sense of values.

G”d does things with a “yad hazaka” – a strong arm. Why not a G”d who does things with a strong intellect, or a strong and worthy cause?

Send the Israelites down to Egypt. Have Joseph assist Pharaoh in making the Egyptians all serfs. Ignore the Israelites for a few centuries. Suddenly harken to their cries and decide to bring them forth from their bondage – but not directly, rather through an intermediary.

“But wait,” I hear you cry. “Isn’t sending Moses sort of a way that G”d is trying to negotiate and reason with Pharaoh?” Let’s think about that. Really? Moses wasn’t sent to negotiate. He was sent to warn and threaten. He was sent to tell Pharaoh that might is right and might is G”d and G”d is might and G”d is right, and you are going to suffer, whether you like it or not. For good measure, G”d will make sure you suffer extra by hardening your heart. Yeah, that’s negotiating alright.

Yes, G”d could use a few lessons from Merlin, G”d ought to be convinced to use might only for right. (which would also require G”d to accept that just because G”d thinks something is right doesn’t necessarily make it right. Now there’s a conundrum.) G”d could learn to be more like Arthur.

“But wait,” I hear myself cry. The Arthur and Merlin of “might for right” is only a fantasy, a concoction from the brilliant mind of T. H. White. A brilliant concoction, no doubt – probably the finest work of fantasy ever written. However the Arthur and other characters of “Once and Future King” as as unlike their earlier portrayals in stories, myths, and legends as they could possibly be.

Prior to White’s version of the Arthurian legends, most tales portrayed Arthur and his knights in very negative ways. Arthur was often derided as the “do nothing King.” His knights were lechers and debauchers. There may have been a great table, but it wasn’t round. There may have been a sword, but it wasn’t Exacalibur. Go take a look at the medieval Welsh stories of the Mabinogion, or the historical writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth. The Arthur we think of today is not the Arthur of the original sources, just as our understanding of G”d today is different from the G”d of understanding of our ancestors.

So how is it that the writings of an agnostic, alcoholic, sexually repressed, somewhat misanthropic British author provide for us lessons which we might dare suggest ought to be learned by G”d? It’s as cliché as the ending of the movie version of Dan Brown’s “Angels and Demons” when Cardinal Strauss suggests to Professor Langdon that G”d had sent him to help the church in its time of need.

Religious wisdom and insight often comes to us from outside the religious fold. Consider this great essay from Tablet Magazine in which the author derives some religious wisdom from Christopher Hitchens. So why not from T. H. White?

For that matter, why not from Monty Python:

“And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it”

What does G”d need with Holy hand Grenades? What does G”d need with plagues? With sacrifices? What use does G”d have of war, armies, swords, battle?

Finally, now that I think about it, is might for right any better than might makes right? After all, there’s still might involved. Hard to argue with Hitchens. Religions have certainly wielded the sword with the idea that their might was for right just as much as they wielded the sword for might making right. Who gets to define what “right” is? As Pontius Pilate once asked a certain Jewish man, “What is truth?” Defining “right” is no easier.

So where does this leave us? Right where the Torah wants us. Confounded. Confused. Frustrated. Not frustrated enough to stop, just frustrated enough to be determined to keep looking, keep seeking, keep turning it and turning it.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2012 by Adrian A. Durlester

Previous musings on this parasha:

Sh'mot 5771 - Free Association IV
Sh'mot 5767-Logic & Metaphysics
Sh'mot 5766-Free Association III
Shemot 5765-Why Us?
Shemot 5764-Uncomsumed-ness
Shemot 5763 - Free Association II
Shemot 5760-Tzaz Latzav, Tzav Latzav
Shemot 5761-The Spice of Life
Shemot 5762-Little Ol' Me?

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Vayekhi 5772–A Different HaMalakh HaGoel

2012-01-06T11:35:00.001-05:00

It’s so convenient and we so overlook it. Joseph brings Ephraim and Menashe before Jacob for his final blessing, and Jacob offers the familiar and beautiful words:

Vay’variekh et Yoseif vayomar: HaElohim asher avotai l’fanaiv Avraham v’Yitzkhak; HaElohim Ha-ro’eh oti m’odi ad hayom hazeh; HaMalakh HaGoel oti m’kol rav, y’variekh et hana’arimv’yilarei vahem sh’mi v’shem avotai Avraham, Yitzkhak v’yid’gu larov b’kerev ha’aretz

And he blessed Joseph, saying: The G”d in whose ways my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked; The G”d who has been my shepherd from my birth to this day; The Angel who has redeemed me from all harm-Bless the lads, In them may my name be recalled, and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and may they be teeming multitudes upon the earth. (JPS Gen. 48:15-16)

I’ve written previously about the Hamalakh HaGoel prayer, and I commend those thoughts to you, however today I am taking a somewhat different slant.

It’s important to recall the recipients of this blessing – Ephraim and Menashe, Yosef’s sons by his Egyptian wife. Now, Jacob’s blessing here doubtless confers upon these two sons membership in the tribe, and eligibility to be part of the continuing lineage of the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob clan. Even with this blessing, and from my modern lens, I still have trouble as seeing the “half-tribes” of Ephraim and Menashe as legitimate given how later Jewish tradition so twisted the concept of “who is a Jew?” How, on the one hand, can traditional Judaism still cling to the idea of matriarchal descent, cling to its strong opposition to inter-marriage, and overlook the fact that at least a goodly number of those who stood at Sinai were descended from an Egyptian mother?

Oh, I’ve heard all the arguments. It’s a pre-Sinai event. The advent of matriarchal descent became normative later. Jacob’s status as one of the patriarchs is alone enough to confer upon him the right to forever include these two children of an inter-marriage in the tribe, circumstances be damned. It was all part of G”d’s plan.

All of it is thin ice, a house a cards. In our post-Shoah world as we rail against assimilation and inter-marriage, we seem to have little trouble overlooking the fact that at least two of the twelve tribes had parents of mixed lineage. (Actually, chances are there was quite a bit of mixed lineage among the tribes.)

It’s time for us to get off our high horses and get realistic about Jewish survival. The Jewish world is replete with “gerim toshvim",” with strangers who live among us and practice our ways. It is full of children who have only one Jewish parent. It is full of many children whose Jewish parent is not their mother.

For the sake of Jewish continuity, Jacob was able to overlook the mixed parentage of Ephraim and Menashe. Who are we to do any less?

In my other musing about Hamalakh HaGoel I wondered why Jacob invokes G”d in three ways- as the G”d of his father and grandfather; as the G”d who has been his shepherd from birth; and as the Angel who redeemed him from harm. I suggested that mention of the Angel recalls Jacob’s struggle. It occurs to me now that it might also reference Jacob’s internal struggle to bring himself to bless Ephraim and Menashe, knowing as he did that their mother was an Egyptian.

Like Jacob, we too are Israel, and we struggle. May we have the wisdom to learn from Yaakov and embrace all children and their parents who seek and strive to be part of Am Yisrael, regardless of their parentage and lineage. May we bless them. Then, perhaps, we will again be worthy to become teeming multitudes upon the earth.

Hazak, hazak, v’nitkhazeik.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2012 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Vayekhi 5771-Trading Places (Redux & Updated from 5759)
Vayekhi 5770 - Musing Block?
Vayekhi 5769 - Enough With the Hereditary Payback Already!
Vayekhi 5767-HaMalakh HaGoel
Vayechi 5766-Thresholds (Redux 5764 with Reflections
Vayechi 5761/5-Unethical Wills
Vayechi 5764-Thresholds
Vayechi 5763 - I Got it Good and That Ain't Bad (Redux 5760)
Vayechi 5759-Trading Places
Vayechi 5762-The Wrong Good

Random Musing Before Shabbat Vayigash 5772–Redux & Revised 5760- Teleology 101: Does G"d Play Dice With the World

2011-12-30T17:19:00.001-05:00

I've written on this issue before, even in relation to this Torah parasha. It continues to haunt me so I continue to plumb the depths of the question "can good come from evil?"

Joseph calms his brothers' fears, and tells them they need not be distressed as their past actions towards him. They were all merely pawns in G”d's plan.
[Gen 45:5-9]

The obvious inference from this is that the actions of
Joseph's brothers in selling him into slavery were forgivable, as the end result was fortuitous? Such a teleological [outcome or end-result oriented]
ethic is surely a dangerous one. The people who come out on top always write the history. Hindsight is always 20/20. [Insert your own tired cliché here.]

Pharaoh could have used Joseph and then done away with him. Joseph could have slept with Potiphar's wife (there are some who suggest he did!) Of
course, if one accepts the idea of a Divine plan, then no deviations were really possible. More on this later.

Many interpreters of Torah support the viewpoint that good can come from evil, if it is part of the Divine plan. Yet this idea has been used by the
perpetrators of the most vicious crimes against humanity. Was the Shoah truly part of G”d's plan? That medinat Israel is the phoenix that rose from
the ashes of the Holocaust seems little justification for the deliberate slaughter of millions.

To save Egypt (and that raises yet other questions about why Joseph was sent to “save Egypt” – another exercise in teleological thinking) Joseph had to make Pharaoh a slumlord and Feudal ruler. All Egypt became property of Pharaoh through the state’s control of the necessary resources to see the country through the famine. He could have been a ruler who simply gave the people the food they needed without extracting from them the price of the deeds to their property. Can we really say it was worth the price? Did the ends justify the means?

Some suggest that a "global view" of events facilitates the reconciliation between Joseph and his brothers. This reconciliation, too, as a worthy end,
is further justification of the evil acts previously perpetrated.

We could play many "what if" games that might affect our willingness to accept that "good can come from evil." Things certainly could have turned
out quite differently. Even Joseph's brothers seemed to think so. In Vayechi, they will wonder if, after Jacob's death, Joseph will finally take his revenge. [Gen 50:15] Maybe they weren't buying Joseph's "big picture" story after all.

But the “what ifs” didn't happen. History unfolded as it did and none of us would be here if it hadn't. Oh, really? G"d wouldn't have had realization of
the Divine plan if Potiphar had simply decided to kill Joseph? If Joseph's brothers, fearing his retribution, simply fell upon him and killed him when he revealed himself to then, alone and exposed? The typical answer when such questions are raised is that when G”d’s plans are (apparently to us) thwarted by human choice/free will, then G”d just chooses an alternative. If not Joseph, then someone else and some other combination of circumstances would have led to the eventual slavery of the Israelites in Egypt and their ultimate redemption and covenant with G”d. All part of the plan, right? Any good manager or supervisor understands that it is an essential skill to be able to find alternatives when things gang aft agley. Better managers already have alternatives ready to go. Truly superior managers have the alternatives underway even while the main plan is proceeding apparently unimpeded.

So what happens when the Divine plan goes wrong? Don't be ridiculous, some argue. G”d is G”d. How much impact can our free will have on the Divine plan? It all depends on our conception/construction of Gd...or does it? G”d is what G”d is, regardless of how we construct our ideas of G”d!

I remember how, as a child, I loved playing with erector sets, Lincoln logs, etc. Legos are the new equivalent. I also remember how I would like to
throw a curve in the works-take something that wasn't from the set, and fit it into my plan. I watch young children do this all the time. Perhaps G”d likes to do this too-and we, with our free will, perhaps provide some interesting curves for G”d in the plan for the universe? Perhaps G”d enjoys the chance in allowing humanity free will and the possibility of our interfering in Divine choice?

I also remember it was sometimes fun, and sometimes not, to create something with a friend. Ultimately, when the final shape deviated from my
plan too much because of a friends participation, I had several choices- knock it down and start again (the flood?)-restructure it the way I wanted (Torah?)-or revel in the beauty of having created something that neither of us could have done alone (covenant?) Perhaps you, my readers, can think of other examples where G”d chose options one two or three?]

One can take a modernist viewpoint and say that history is all hindsight, and write off any concept of Divine plan. Joseph got lucky, so he was willing to forgive and forget. After all, what cost to him to be a nice guy? He can well afford it. The idea of Divine plan is so fraught with consequentialist ethics that it frightens me. Yet it also intrigues me. For a nihilistic [meaningless] view of life has little to recommend it.

My personal world view, at this point in time, incorporates the best of both worlds-Divine plan and free will. It is the "partnership with G”d" philosophy; that together we can finish the world. Joseph and his brothers seem to be merely pawns, yet surely Joseph is made of the stuff it takes to be a partner with Gd. It seems, however, that G”d was not yet ready to make such a covenant. So perhaps my answers aren't to be found in Joseph's story after all.

G”d does offer humanity choices. The clearest offering our of blessing and curse, death and life. [see Deut. 30:19] Nevertheless G”d gives us some advice: choose life!

In Mishna Avot 3.15, R. Akiba tells us that although there is a plan, man does indeed have free will.

Theologians go back and forth on these issues. A popular notion is the idea of a G"d who is persuasive but not all powerful. A less popular notion these
days in the "ineffable Gd." Both theologies think they wrap up the problem with a nice little bow, but in reality, they succeed no better than other solutions to the question of teleology, divine plan and humanity's free will.

Einstein didn’t like quantum mechanics. He didn’t like or accept a Universe in which G”d played dice, in which probabilities rather than certainties were the norm. Einstein didn’t want to accept “spooky action at a distance” either and spent most of his later life trying to prove that the idea of quantum entanglement was wrong. Modern physics has been able to demonstrate, albeit at only modest distances so far (though an experiment is underway that will attempt to demonstrate it across many miles) that quantum entanglement is indeed the reality of our universe, like it or not.

(The existence of quantum entanglement also provides a strong argument against teleological ethics. Choices we make at a local level have consequences that we might never see happening at a distance that might come back to haunt us.)

Einstein was wrong-G"d (or at least G”d’s universe) does play dice with the world. Human history as G"d's crapshoot. Hmmmm.

There is much to understand, study, and question about Joseph's reconciliation with his brothers. While we may not find the answers we are seeking, as I often suggest, we will surely find the questions we need to be asking.

Shabbat Shalom to you and yours,

Adrian A. Durlester
©1998, 2001, 2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other Musings on this parasha:

Vayiggash 5771-Being Both Israels
Vayigash 5769 - He's A-Cookin'-a-Somethin'-A-Up
Vayigash 5768 - G"d By the Light of Day
Vayigash 5767-Two Sticks As One?
Vayigash 5765-One People
Vayigash 5763-Things Better Left Unsaid
Vayigash 5761/5766-Checking In
Vayigash 5762-Teleology 101: Does Gd Play Dice With the World?
Vayigash 5764-Incidental Outcomes and Alternate Histories

Technorati Tags: torah,commentary

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Miketz 5772–A Piece of That Kit Kat Bar

2011-12-23T13:55:00.001-05:00

In this parasha, Miketz, which tells the center section of the Joseph saga, and leaves us with one of the great biblical cliffhangers, as we wait to learn the result of Joseph setting up Benjamin as the fall guy for a missing goblet, we also get an example of a word phenomenon. The scholarly term for it is hapax legomenon – a word that occurs only once in a body of literature. This makes pinning down the true meaning of a word quite difficult.

When Joseph is appointed as Pharaoh’s second in command, he is paraded around town in a chariot (shades of Purim here)

41:43 He had him ride in the chariot of his second-in-command, and they cried before him, "Abrek!" Thus he placed him over all the land of Egypt.

The work “abrek,” (alef/patakh-vet/sh’va-resh/tsere-khaf sofit/sh’va, pronounced “a-brake” ) is one of about 70 hapax legomena in the Torah. This is a subject of some debate. There are probably about 1,500 words in the Tanakh that are candidates for being unique words, however more than two-thirds of such words have an etymology that can fairly readily be derived from some existing word or shoresh (root) leaving somewhere between 400-500 true hapax legomena in the Tanakh (of which some 67 or so are in Torah.)

As a brief sidebar, I am also curious as to why this word is transliterated as “Abrek” when, at least according to the vowelization of the Masoretes the second letter has no dagesh and would be pronounced as a “v” sound, and the final letter, khaf, even though the added sh’va sharpens and shortens the sound, would still not make it a true “k” sound but more of an abrupt “kh” sound.

Enough digression. As a true hapax legomenon, we cannot be sure of the word’s true meaning. We can make a lot of decent guesses based on the context – it is likely a word of honor rather than one of derision, and it is quite likely a word one would use to show obeisance.

We can certainly speculate. For one thing, some scholars argue that this word, too, is not a true hapax legomenon, and is easily derived from the Hebrew root “bet-resh-khaf” – the root that means “knee” and “to bend or bow” from which we eventually derive the words for “blessing.” Yet our context is Egypt, and this is a word that Egyptians would use for their leaders, making a Hebrew derivation somewhat suspicious (or not, depending on your views about where Hebrew actually comes from.) Strong’s Concordance says it is likely an Egyptian work meaning “kneel” (which makes it suspiciously like the Hebrew.) The venerable BDB (Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon) says the meaning is “dubious” and HALOT (Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament) says its meaning is uncertain but seems to buy into the connection to the Hebrew root. Of course these are resource works compiled mostly (but not exclusively) by Christian bible scholars.

The Septuagint (the Greek translation of Torah created by comparing the work of 70 (actually 72 in the original legend) elders of the Jewish community who separately translated the Torah into Koine Greek, each arriving, through G”d’s assistance, at the same translation) translates the word “Abrek” as “herald.”

Rashi suggests it could mean “father of the King” or, buying into the Hebrew root hypothesis, “bend the knee.” Modern scholar Nahum Sarna prefers thinking of it as an Egyptian term of uncertain meaning.

In his article on “Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Literature” that appears in the Plaut commentary, William Hallo seizes on the word “abrek” as a perfect way to illustrate how important the use of context can be in biblical exegesis. Hallo provides a wonderful exploration of the topic. He suggests that the Alexandrian Jewish elders who created the Septuagint would be likely to understand the word. He then goes on to cite recent evidence of an Akkadian origin of the word meaning “chief steward” and a later Assyrian meaning specifically designating a high official in an administration. Hallo then takes off on a great discourse on what significance may or may not be attributable to the presence of an Assyrian word in the context of this part of the Torah. I commend it to you.

Now I hear you asking “so what?” When the Torah has so much to say, so much to teach, why waste time and such an insignificant and seemingly unimportant word that hardly does much to contribute to or advance the narrative?

The rabbis would have us believe that every word in Torah is carefully chosen, and every jot and tittle matters. Hallo (and many other scholars) argue that we must consider the interconnectedness of the Torah and other Ancient Near Eastern texts. The various texts inform and shape each other (Hallo reminds us that we must not see the Torah as only a recipient of influence from other ANE texts.)

So, what do I argue for in this case? Simple. It’s just another mystery in the Torah put there to do just what it is doing. Causing us to wonder about it.

Were you expecting something more, something deeper? Dear reader, you know me better. This has all been one giant shaggy dog story of a pun to connect the title of this musing with its last words:

Gimme “Abrek.”

Shabbat Shalom and Khag Urim Sameiakh,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on the parasha:

Miketz 5771-What's Bothering...Me?
Miketz/Hanukkah 5769 - Redux 5763 - Assimilating Assimilation
Miketz/Hanukah 5768 Learning From Joseph and His Brothers (revised from 5757)
Miketz 5767-Clothes Make the Man?
Miketz 5766-Eizeh Hu Khakham?
Miketz 5757& 5761-Would You Buy A Used Car From This Guy?
Miketz 5763/5764/5765-Assimilating Assimilation

Technorati Tags: torah,commentary

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Vayeishev 5772–The Ram’s Horn Rag

2011-12-16T15:58:00.001-05:00

Some years back, I wrote a musing, Strangers Walking Together, based on one short phrase from the Haftarah for parashat Vayeishev, centered on this verse:

3:3 Can two walk together, without having met?

In that musing, I asserted that we were sadly becoming a society in which it was indeed possible for two people, indeed for dozens, hundreds, thousands of people to walk together without meeting. This year I’d like to focus on another short phrase from the same source:

3:6 When a ram's horn is sounded in a town, do the people not take alarm?

Sadly, again, the answer is no longer the obvious one that the haftarah expects. It’s due to a combination of factors. First, we have now lived through centuries of people crying “wolf” when there was no wolf, so we have developed a tendency to ignore the warnings.

Second, we have become a society that, at least on the surface, utilizes technology to help insure safety. When fire alarms go off, despite all that was drilled into us as children in school, we don’t all drop everything we’re doing and go rushing into the street as quickly as we were taught. We have become complacent, arrogantly sure of our own safety. We are convinced that the alarm is meant for others and not for us.

Third, every time an alarm is sounded, there are people who shout loudly that the alarm is premature, or based on inaccurate information, or is unnecessary or reactionary.

I’m a bit of an odd duck in today’s world. Though I won’t claim to be scrupulously and consistently law-and-generally-accepted-practice abiding, I’m a bit more of a stick-in-the-mud than most other people I know. I have gotten into arguments with family and friends over this. I obey traffic and parking signs (even when others might say “oh, it’s just for a second”) and respond quickly and appropriately to alarms. People who regularly take shortcuts or imbibe in white-collar abuse of the system scoff at my unwillingness to take advantage as they do.

So yes, I think I am one of those people who believes that when the ram’s horn is sounded, I would, perforce, take alarm. My very use of the word perforce shows how I don’t even consider it an option – circumstances compel me. Why is it that I, exposed to as much of the “wolf!” crying, the arguments, the complacency that exists in our world, will respond to the shofar just as our ancestors expected I would? I am not devoid of cynicism (though I would agree that I am generally positive and a bit of a Pollyanna.) I am not devoid of selfishness or laziness. yet still, the sound of the ram’s horn, or its modern equivalent acts upon me at deeper than a surface level.

I don’t know about you, but even now, living once again in New York City, where sirens and alarms are frequent, when I hear a police or fire siren in the distance, I don’t just ignore it, but really do take a moment to stop and wonder about what emergency may be occurring, what people may be in danger, what people may need our prayers. I don’t often act on those thoughts except, perhaps, to offer a brief prayer, and I probably don’t do that as often as I should. I’m thinking it’s a habit I should get back into.It’ll help me work towards that 100 blessings a day goal.

Ram’s horns are being sounded all around us, every day. Rather than ignore the din because there are so many, because we don’t believe it’s real, required, necessary, because we don’t think it is calling to us, maybe we need to start listening and heeding. Yes, perhaps discernment is needed, or we would spend our entire life responding to alarms. However, our world is pretty messed up, and maybe there’s a good reason so many alarms are being raised simultaneously. We ignore them at our own peril.

3:6 When a ram's horn is sounded in a town, do the people not take alarm?

Is it not time to make Amos’ words a truism again?

Shabbat Shalom and Khag Urim Sameakh,

Adrian
© 2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Vayeishev 5771-Ma T'vakeish?
Vayeishev 5768 - Strangers Walking Together
Vayeishev/Hanukah 5767-I Believe in Miracles
Vayeishev 5766-Who Was That Guy?
Vayeshev 5761 - In Gd's Time
Vayeshev 5765-Mikol HaMishpakhot HaAdamah
Vayeshev 5758-What's Worth Looking After

Technorati Tags: torah,commentary

Random Music Before Shabbat – Vayishlakh 5772 – One and Many, Many and One

2011-12-09T15:52:00.001-05:00

This parasha is rich with things to muse upon. I never know what’s going to catch my attention. Perhaps because I have mused many times upon the more significant events in the parasha, I sought out something different. I found it, near the end of the parasha, at the very start of chapter 35 of Bereshit/Genesis:

35:1 G”d said to Jacob, “Arise and go to Bethel and remain there; and build an altar there to the G”d who appeared to you when you were fleeing from your brother Esau.”

Now go back and read that several times. G”d is asking Yaakov to go build an altar to the specific G”d that appeared to Jacob at Bethel. Huh? Is there not only one G”d? why does the text not simply read “go back to Bethel and build an altar to Me?”

Is this all just part of the general confusion in Torah that seems to revolve around the role of malakhim, angels/messengers, who sometimes appear to be stand-ins for G”d. There are several occasions in the Torah when we see transitions from angels/messengers speaking to one of our ancestors to G”d directly speaking and interacting, as if they were somehow interchangeable.

Of course, this could also just be an artifact of the ancient worldview which had G”ds associated with places, and in the transition from a plurality of G”ds to the concept of a single G”d (which clearly passed through a period of monolatry-where the existence of multiple G”ds was accepted but there was a prime of chief G”d that was worshipped,) as well as the change from G”ds for every place to a portable, and ultimately “everywhere” G”d this holdover found its way into the sacred texts.

Or it could be that G”d really does acknowledge the existence of other G”ds. Not just manifestations, but perhaps lesser G”ds operating under G”ds authority. There’s a heresy. However I don’t see how anyone can read the Torah and come away with the idea that monotheism, as we understand it today, was really the theology of our ancestors.

The Hebrew further confounds things (or, perhaps, helps explain them.) Verse 35:1 uses the word “Elohim” at the beginning, but when it refers to the G”d that Yaakov encountered, it is simply “El” (as part of the construct “L’Eil”.) Keeping in mind that “elohim” is effectively a plural form of a noun, and “El” is singular, we have some interesting possibilities. Perhaps the fact that G”d is “Elohim” tells us that G”d has many constituent parts, many different manifestations – all part of the one same G”d. So when G”d, Elohim, refers to “El” perhaps G”d is referring to some constituent part. Perhaps monolatry was prevalent in the time the Torah was written/redacted/rediscovered.

The great rabbis and scholars wouldn’t like this. It borders uncomfortably on the Xtian concept of the Trinity. Yet true biblical scholars have to ask themselves if the Trinitarian idea was solely an invention of the Xtians or if it had roots in Judaism in some form. We’ve already seen lots of discussion about the potential existence of a female consort of the Hebrew G”d, so why not extend that to the concept of multiple instances of the G”dhead – especially since that sort of seems what we have here (and in other places in the Torah.) Heresy? Perhaps. Still worthy of exploration.

I am growing fond of the idea that “Elohim” is plural quite purposefully, and it’s a subject upon which I am going to spend some time studying. If each of us has a little spark of G”d in us, maybe it’s a piece of “El” which, when all taken together as a whole, becomes “Elohim.” E pluribus unum. Who knew?

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Vayishlakh 5771/5763 - The Bigger Man
Vayishlakh 5769 - A Fish Called Wonder
Vayishlakh 5768 - No One's in the Kitchen With Dinah
Vayishlakh 5767-Wrestlemania
Vayishlakh 5766-Like Deity, Like Deity's Child
Vayishlakh 5765-B'li Mirmah
Vayishlakh 5762-Don't Get Mad--Get Even!
Vayishlakh 5761-No Doubt? No Wonder!

Technorati tags: torah, commentary, judaism

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Vayeitze 5772 – Stumbling on Smooth Paths

2011-12-02T15:16:00.001-05:00

The editorial committee that created the JPS translation of the Tanakh was composed of very wise, scholarly folks. Despite my own humility and acknowledged limited level of knowledge I’ve sometimes taken them to task for their word choices. Sometimes, conveniently, I’ve decided to ignore any questions I might have about their choice of words in a translation precisely because their choice works for me in that moment and at that time. This may be such a case.

The new JPS translation for the last line of verse from the Book of Hosea, which is also the concluding verse for the haftarah for this weeks parasha (for Ashkenazim, not S’fardim,) Vayeitze, is as follows:

“For the paths of the L”rd are smooth: the righteous can walk on them, while sinners stumble on them.” (Hosea 14:10b, JPS)

The Hebrew word JPS translates as “smooth” is “y’sharim.” Using smooth requires a bit of poetic license for this word and root which generally means “straight,” “upright,” “pleasing,”and, in some contexts, “just.”

I might quibble that a smooth road and a straight road are not necessarily the same thing. A road can be one without being the other.

Now, whether you see the metaphoric road as “straight” or “smooth” the basic idea of Hosea’s words remain essentially clear and simultaneously confusing.

Life is hardly a smooth or straight road. That would be difficult for the righteous as well as the less so. Yet a smooth and straight road should be easy for anyone to navigate. Being a sinner should hardly be an impairment. So why doesn’t Hosea say that G”d’s paths can be difficult, yet the righteous can walk them whereas the wicked stumble?

The idea that a sinner might have a difficult time walking a straight road is beautifully poetic. Used to crooked twists and turns due to their inherently evil inclination, the sinner finds the straight road unfamiliar and this more difficult to navigate. Imagine being prepared for a path that meanders to and fro, to always be in that mode, and encounter a straight path.

However, what about the smooth road? Smooth can mean many things. Smooth paths can actually be very difficult to walk, if their smoothness is the result of an icy or otherwise slick surface that offers no friction. That Teflon coating may make the razor pass smoothly over the face, or the food separate easily from the pan, but have you ever tried walking on a Teflon surface?

The righteous and less than righteous alike could have difficulty coping with a truly smooth road. Perhaps a person’s righteous nature gives them the traction they need to climb the smooth roads of G”d? People who understand dvekut, clinging to G”d, may have the necessary clinginess to traverse the smooth surface. The sinner, who often has little commitment, may not have the stick-to-it-tiveness to walk down the smooth path.

I think the example of the difficulty the wicked might have walking a straight path might have, to forgive the pun, more and easier traction as an understanding of these words. So in this case, though I think “smooth” is a stretch of a translation, I find I like it better, simply because it may be the harder reading! (Sadly, a musing I wrote for last week that expounded on Occam’s razor and questioned the idea that the easier reading of a text is generally the best never made it online – I’m saving it for next year. Nevertheless, this might help explain why I am in a mood that is happy to embrace the more difficult reading of a text.)

So kudos to the JPS editorial committee for their choice of smooth instead of straight. It’s not the simpler, easier translation. Kudos to them as well for perhaps recognizing that Hosea was perhaps being similarly feisty when he chose this particular text to end his book.

May your Shabbat have smooth and straight paths, and may you have the wisdom to understand that both can be easy and treacherous.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Vayeitzei 5771 - Luz is No Loser
Vayeitzei 5769 - Going Down and Loving It!
Vayeitzei 5768 - Encounters
Vayeitzei 5767-Hapax On All Your Hapaxes
Vayetze 5766-Pakhad HaShem?
Vayetze 5765-Cows and Cranberries
Vayetze 5764-Terms and Conditions
Vayetze 5763-Now and Then
Vayetze 5762-Change in Perspective
Vayetze 5760-Taking Gd's Place

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Hayyei Sarah 5772 - Zikhnah

2011-11-18T13:46:00.001-05:00

This weeks parasha, Hayyei Sarah, and its haftarah (from I Kings chapter 1) are connected in many ways, but most clearly by their use of the same Hebrew phrase, “zakein ba bayamim,” meaning “old, advanced in years,” applied to Avraham and David respectively.

The end days of Avraham and David are not all that similar (or are they? We’ll see about that.) It is said of Avraham that he died having led a full, and generally righteous life. David’s end is marked by the same sorts of moral failings and intrigues that plagued his entire lifetime. David’s failings most definitely came home to roost in his last days.

The text paints a picture of a David who is quite possibly not fully aware. I have written in a previous musing, Never Warm, about the description of David as having lost his internal flame. Even a nubile young concubine, in the person of Abishag the Shunamite, seems unable to warm David up or restore David’s vigor. David’s courtiers think a little Viagra made flesh will cure what ails the King, but David seems unwilling, unable, or otherwise able to rise to the task.

A close reading of the text may cause one to read the words “v’HaMelekh lo y’da-ah” - “the King did not know her” as implying more than the classic knowing in the biblical sense. It is a David perhaps senile, disconnected, unaware. Later, we see that David is apparently unaware of Adonijah’s machinations and proclamation of himself as King. David would really have to be pretty out of it to be unaware of this.

Bathsheva and the prophet Nathan somehow seem to reach through David’s haze, and he regains his composure and intellect long enough to put a stop to Adonijah’s attempts to usurp the throne and insure Solomon’s ascension. Where sexual titillations failed to stir David’s passions, politics and intrigue succeeded. Says a lot about David.

The text paints a picture of an Avraham still in full control. with the sense to prepare for his impending death by insuring that his legacy is secure, certain, and designated. He leaves no doubt that Isaac is to inherit all. The many sons he fathered with numerous concubines after Sarah’s death are given rewards and gifts and sent away to the east so they will not be there to challenge Isaac or cause trouble for him.

So classically, we are told to see David’s end as portrayed as reaping in old age what he sowed in life, and Avraham’s end as the end of a virtuous and full life lived.

(There is a midrash that attempts to recast David’s old-age as equally deserving of consideration as a righteous end, but I find it falls far short of its goal.)

As usual, I want to consider turning things upside-down or sideways. I’m not entirely sure that Avraham was any more deserving of the status of a righteous elder, of being zikhnah than David in any case. Yes, Avraham had a neater, more orderly end. If we are only to judge in hindsight, and in full knowledge of what the Torah says were G”d’s intentions, then Avraham did the right thing to insure Isaac as his successor. Avraham followed G”d’s instructions and left his home for an unknown place. He argued with G”d against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. He properly acquired the cave in which he buried Sarah (and where he was eventually to be buried.) He faithfully prepared to slay Isaac as G”d instructed him to do.

Nevertheless, Avraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away. He fathered many sons after Ishmael and Isaac, and showered nothing in the way of legacy on any of them save Isaac. (G”d promised to further Avraham’s line through Ishmael, but Avraham sent Hagar and Ishmael off with nothing but a little bread and water.) And the kicker – Avraham faithfully prepared to slay Isaac as G”d instructed him to do. Despite the supposed outcome, I am still not prepared to accept this as a success on the part of Avraham. There is much to be troubled about in Avraham’s supposedly righteous life.

Yet, in the end, I am prepared to accept Avraham as possibly worthy of zikhnah. Why, despite the misgivings I have outlined? For one simple reason, an artifact of the text I have mentioned before over the years. While Avraham’s many other sons were not there to bury him (and I still find this troubling) both Isaac and Ishmael were. Two sons, scarred and traumatized by their father come together to bury him and honor him. I can forgive the absence of all the other sons-perhaps they were not truly worthy, simply being bought off with gifts and rewards rather than a piece of their father’s legacy. Neither Isaac nor Ishmael had any compelling reason to help bury their father. That they did must tell us something not only about Ishmael and Isaac, but about their father as well.

If I can so easily overlook Avraham’s failures to allow him to be zikhnah, why not David’s? After all, David was a great man and king despite his failures. David left a great (if somewhat fractured) legacy. This is going to be my challenge to myself this Shabbat – to see if I can find it in myself to see both Avraham and David as worthy of being venerated as zikhnah. Of course, I will extend this to people I know in my own life, and to my own family. I commend the same activities to you.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Hayyei Sarah 5771 - The Book That Isn't - Yet
Hayyei Sarah 5770 - Call Me Ishamel II
Hayyei Sarah 5769 - Looking for Clues
Hayyei Sarah 5768 - A High Price
Hayei Sarah 5767-Never Warm?
Chaye Sarah 5766-Semper Vigilans
Chaye Sarah 5763-Life Goes On
Chaye Sarah 5762-Priorities, Redundancies And Puzzles
Chayeh Sarah 5761-L'cha Dodi Likrat Kala
Hayyei Sarah 5760 - Call Me Ishmael
Chaye Sarah 5757-The Shabbat That Almost Wasn't

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Vayera 5772 – Well?

2011-11-11T16:42:00.001-05:00

There is something about deserts. It seems we’ve always known that. Our history, literature, and religious texts are replete with desert experiences that shape people and societies. People and prophets have walked the deserts seeking solace, answers, solitude, and more.

Science fiction author Frank Herbert created an entire universe which revolves around a desert planet:

Arrakis ... Dune ... wasteland of the Empire, and the most valuable planet in the universe. Because it is here — and only here — where spice is found. The spice. Without it there is no commerce in the Empire, there is no civilization. Arrakis ... Dune ... home of the spice, greatest of treasure in the universe. And he who controls it, controls our destiny.

Deserts fascinate us. I can still remember the stunning visual images of desert that graced the giant CinemaScope screen upon which I first saw “Lawrence of Arabia.” The joke at the time had been that the images were so realistic and awe inspiring that they caused long lines at the water fountains in the cinemas.

Which leads me to the subject of the preciousness of water in a desert environment, and eventually to the subject of wells. It’s no wonder that wells figure prominently in many of the stories we read in Torah. In this week’s parasha, in close proximity, we read of two wells. The first is the one that is revealed to Hagar that enables her and Ishmael to survive. The second, the well that Abraham reclaims from Avimelekh – a well that Abraham claims to have dug. As surety to Avimelekh that he is being truthful in his claim to be the owner of that well, he asks Avimelekh to accept seven ewes. Thus the name of the well, Beer-sheva, the well of seven.

Abraham was a wealthy man, and could easily afford to offer seven ewes as a bond of truth, yet it is nonetheless a significant gesture, indicating the importance and values of wells.

A more interesting lesson about wells might be derived from the story of Hagar. She has been thrown out of the camp by Abraham at the insistence of Sarah (sort of lowers their esteem in your eyes, doesn’t it?) with only some bread and a skin of water, which are quickly exhausted. She sets Ishmael down and moves away from him in the hopes that he might die out of her sight, so desperate is her plight.

In a delightful literary twist, we read first that, having left her son to due, Hagar bursts into tears. In the very next verse we read that G”d heard the cry of Ishmael, and then, through an angel, calls out to Hagar. There is no mention previously of Ishmael crying, though it is certainly likely that a thirsty, hot baby, left abandoned by its mother, would be crying.

However, the seemingly logical thing would be for the text to read that G”d heard Hagar’s crying and spoke to her through the angel. Yet the angel reiterates the point that G”d has heard the cry of Ishmael, and that G”d is responding to that.

However, there’s yet another literary twist here which complicates things. Before telling Hagar that G”d has heard Ishmael’s cries. the angel’s opening line is “What troubles you, Hagar?”

Is this G”d’s subtle way of saying to Hagar “you gave up too easily, and should not have abandoned the boy” ? Is this G”d telling Hagar, “look, dummy, there’s a well right over there and you were to busy feeling sorry for yourself and your son that you completely missed it” ? (Sort of like that well worn joke where G”d says to the man complaining about his death in a flood while waiting for G”d to rescue him “But I sent you a boat, a helicopter…”)

Even more intriguing than this is the very fact that G”d seems to have enough interest in Hagar to ask her what troubles her. G”d actually cares that Hagar is troubled? Is this some newly sensitized G”d, having been taken to task by Abraham over G”d’s intent to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, trying to give more attention to human concerns? (when pondering this, consider that G”d went ahead and destroyed the two cities. By implication G”d could not find even ten good people within them, but the Torah is certainly not explicit about that point, and I wouldn’t put it past G”d to fudge on the agreement with Abraham. (G”d did it after the flood, first promising to never destroy the earth, and then adding later the caveat “by flood.”)

In the Dune universe, the existence of a desert planet allows for a species of sand-dwelling animal to evolve into a worm species that produces a substance that enables inter-stellar travel. Just as we find in Torah, the Dune universe has its contradictions, and it remains unclear whether the desert created the sandworms (and thus the spice melange required for interstellar travel) or the sandworms (in their earlier forms) created the desert.

Consider, for a moment – G”d floods the earth – an overabundance of water is responsible for the death and destruction of all species (including humans except for Noah’s line.) Then, in subsequent developments, G”d seeks out the inhabitants of a largely desert and wilderness region with whom to communicate and eventually create a covenantal relationship. Coincidence?

We will, in the course of our year-long journey through the Torah, encounter many other wells, and situations which bespeak of the power of the desert to shape, refine, strengthen and provide insight. We will learn to see water with the same reverence as that of the Fremen of the planet Dune/Arrakis. We will learn that wells and water are not solely the province of men.

The Shabbat bride is almost here. While wine is nice, maybe have a glass of water ready to offer her. As she comes into your life to sweeten your Shabbat, here’s a great conversation starter:

“Well…”

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Vayera 5771 - Density
Vayera 5770 - Not Even Ten?
Vayeira 5769 - He's a Family Guy (?)
Vayera 5767-Revised 5759-Whoops! (or Non-Linear Thinking)
Vayera 5766-The Price of Giving
Vayera 5765-From the Journal of Lot Pt. II
Vayera 5762-Plainly Spoken
Vayera 5760/5761-More From the "Journal of Lot"
Vayera 5759-Whoops! (or "Non-Linear Thinking?")
Vayera 5757-Technical Difficulties

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Lekh Lekha 5772 – Out of Context

2011-11-04T13:10:00.001-04:00

I was perusing the haftarah for Lekh Lekha this week while pre-occupied with other thoughts, not giving my reading the attention it deserved. My eyes chanced upon these words:

Each one helps the other, saying to his fellow, “Take courage!”
The woodworker encourages the smith; he who flattens with the hammer [encourages] him who pounds the anvil.
He says of the riveting, “It is good!”
And he fixes it with nails that it may not topple.” (Is 41.6-7, JPS)

Wow, that sounds like a really positive and encouraging bit of text around which I could build a musing. Instantly I began to think about these words as describing an ideal community of people, helping each other, working together, supporting each other, and securing their efforts to protect them. That’s a nice positive thought.

Then, setting other distractions aside, I began to read more fully the text of the entire haftarah, allowing me to place it in context. It was only after a bit that the light dawned and I realized who the “they” were of which these passages speak, and what the work they were engaged in really was. It isn’t entirely obvious without some thought (although one generally familiar with working with these texts will already be working from a mindset that sees these words in context.)

The first clue is found in the immediately preceding words:

The coastlands look on in fear, the ends of the earth tremble.

Just a passing familiarity with Isaiah is enough to know that these words are not referring to Israel, but rather those who surround and threaten her.

Following verses 6-7, in two, as the scholars call them, oracles, we hear G”d reassuring Israel that they will be supported against their enemies, and they need not fear them.

Having this information, when you go back to look at the text of verses 6-7, you soon realize that they are speaking of Israel’s enemies, and the work of which they are urging each other on is that of creating their idols, and, most telling of all, fixing them in place with nails so they will not fall! A little prophetic humorous barb or jab. The G”d of Israel does not need to be nailed down (and all levels of double, triple, and even more entendre intended. Isaiah may have more more prescient in saying this than he realized. How even more delightfully ironic then, that so often Christian theologians turn to Isaiah as a source of positive foreshadowing. This one is a real kick in the teeth to them, seen in the right light. Now before you get all worked up,I intend no offense. Recall, dear reader, I studied at Vanderbilt Divinity School, and count many Christian ministers, scholars and theologians as colleagues.)

There’s something very Jewish about this little misinterpretation or misunderstanding that I had, initially, about verses 6-7. Surely, encouraging and supporting each other, and working together are good traits. Yet in the Torah’s view there always seems to be two sides to every thing. Consider migdal Bavel (tower of Babel.) The Torah (and G”d’s) view of this working together is not that it is an entirely positive thing. It is, in fact, so dangerous and threatening to whatever it is that G”d is trying to create that G”d directly interferes to eliminate the danger.

Context matters. On an entirely unrelated note to the parasha, but definitely connected to context, is a blog post I read last week from a rabbi once again railing against Halloween and simply dismissing it as not Jewish because the Torah forbids witchcraft and such things.

Need this rabbi be reminded of the many, many examples of magic, sympathetic magic, and other supposedly forbidden things one finds in Torah and Tanakh, and indeed in Jewish culture to this day (hamsas, pictures of “the Rebbe,” spitting and avoiding the ayin hara, attributing misfortune to scribal errors in mezuzot, etc.) Now, I will not quibble that there is some very direct language in the Torah against witches, witchcraft, sorcery, divination, etc. Yet these terms are not clearly defined, and we have oddities like the serpent on Moshe’s staff, the curative solution of the ashes of the red heifer, and the urim and thummim (if not oracles, what are they?) So like everything else in Judaism, the Torah is a bit conflicted when it comes to magic.

The well-worn “do not allow a witch to live” (Ex. 22:17) is, when examined in context, likely related to the Torah’s misogynistic bent and later layers of attempts to ascribe all the blame to women for men’s sexual weakness. It comes, after all, in the midst of text about deflowered virgins and bestiality!

Traditional Judaism gets away with distancing itself from magic, witchcraft, divination, etc. with a simple explanation. If it is in the Torah (see the examples above) then it’s not magic. Magic is what the goyim do. The azazel goat, the waters of lustration, the urim and thummim, kapparot, tashlich – these are what Jews do. It’s a pretty thin veneer covering very deep inconsistencies and contradictions.

Look, there are plenty of reasons to dislike Halloween, and discourage your family from engaging in its rituals. It has become both a celebration of the macabre and selfishness/greed. Greed of children for candy, greed of companies for money. Yet it also has aspects of neighborliness, community-building, fun, and even, to some extent, providing a cathartic way for some people to confront their inner demons through the release provided by donning costumes, living out their fantasies, and partying. (It’s slippery slope, I know, sort of like the argument that violent video games provide an outlet for children and teens to release their aggression ) That’s Halloween in its contemporary American context. Yet neither Judaism nor Christianity has a leg to stand on when it comes to critiques against participation in Halloween festivities based on its supposed roots and connections to witchcraft, sorcery, etc.

Clearly two disparate trains of thought in this musing, but nonetheless there exists a tenuous connection on the basis of context. I’ll hope you’ll place this musing in its own context before you attempt to understand it. Good luck with that. Oops, can we say good luck? Is that Jewish? We do say mazal tov all the time, don’t we. Hmm, what is mazal? Look it up, it has astrological origins!!

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Lekh Lekha 5771 (5765, 5760) Things Are Seldom What They Seem An Excerpt from the "Journal of Lot"
Lekh Lkha 5770 - Revisiting the Ten Percent Solution
Lekh L'kha 5769 - Of Nodding Heads, Whistling Airs, and Snickersnees
Lekh Lekha 5768 - The Covenant That (Almost) Wasn't - Excerpts from the Diary of Terakh
Lekh Lekha 5767-Penile Pilpul
Lekh Lekha 5766-The Other Siders
Lekh Lekha 5765 - Redux 5760
Lekh Lekha 5764-Ma'aseir Mikol-The Ten Percent Solution
Lekh Lekha 5763-No Explanations
Lekh Lekha 5761-The Intellectual Echad
Lekh L'kha 5758-Little White Lies

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Noakh 5772 – The Long Haul

2011-10-28T17:03:00.001-04:00

Maybe it’s a result of our affectation for pediatric Judaism (though we find it in the Xtian world as well) or perhaps its’ just our tendency to simplify. What people always seem to remember about the Noakh story are the 40 days and 40 nights of rain.

Ask someone how long the Flood was, or how long Noakh, his wife, his three sons and their wives, plus all those animals were afloat in the ark, and more often than not, people will answer, as it if were obvious, why, 40 days and nights of course.

Wrong. Now, as is sometimes typical of Torah it is not clearly or directly stated, briefly, in one place just how long the ark was afloat. (we find similar problems with the year counts of genealogies, censuses, and more.) If we read the text closely, we can put together two pieces, one from Genesis 7:11 that

11: In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventh day of the month, on that day

All the fountains of the great deep burst apart and the floodgates of the sky broke open.

and one from Genesis 8:13-15 that

13: In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the waters began to dry from the earth… 14: And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. 15: G”d spoke to Noah, saying, “Come out if the ark…”

So it would appear that the ark was afloat for one year (lunar? solar? do we know?) and 10 days. Yet we can’t be entirely sure, because we have other parallel chronologies in the text, plus other chronologies to add.

If we read a bit before 7:11, from 7:6-8, and 10 we read

6:6 Noah was six hundred years old when the Flood came, waters upon the earth. 7: Noah, with his sons, his wife…went into the ark because of the waters of the Flood…10 And on the seventh day the waters of the Flood came upon the earth.

Seventh day of what? Seventh day after everyone went into the ark? The seventh day of the week (i.e. Shabbat?) Surely not the seventh day of the month, since the very next verse tells us it was the seventeenth. If we work the chronology backwards, and assume it means seven days after they went into the ark, this tells us that Noah et al entered the ark on the tenth day of the second month, and seven days later the flood started. So this would seem to indicate that Noah and company were on the ark for one year and 17 days.

More chronology:

7:17 The Flood continued forty days on the earth…

7:24 And when the waters of the Flood had swelled on the earth one hundred and fifty days 8:1 G”d remembered Noah and all the beasts…and G”d caused a wind to blow…and the waters subsided.

8:3 the waters then receded steadily from the earth; At the end of 150 days that waters diminished, 4: so that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5: The waters went on diminishing until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.

While it seems there might be two periods of 150 days, that doesn’t add up. One period of 150 days, added to everything else, seems to add up. Sort of. Then it gets even more confusing:

8:6 At the end of forty days, Noah opened the window of the ark and sent out the raven…

Forty days after what? After the 150 days, or the two sets of 150 days, or forty days after the 1st day of the 10th month when the mountaintops became visible? Not really clear.It doesn’t say how long he waited, but after a while when the raven didn’t return, Noah sent out the dove. It doesn’t say how long the dove was gone before it returned (ah, you forgot that part didn’t you-Noah sent the dove forth twice. We tend to combine the lost raven and the first dove in our minds, but the first dove returned when it couldn’t find a place to land. The raven simply never returned.) The text does say that Noah waited another seven days after the dove had returned presumably, to send it out again-it returned the evening of that same day with that olive leaf. (One again, I so often hear people mistakenly refer to an olive branch, but the text is clear that is was a alei-zayit, olive leaf.)

The general scholarly consensus is one year (however long that was) and seventeen days. In any case, all of this is fluff, and not even what prompted me to write this musing. I just can’t resist playing these number games.

My point here is two-fold. First is our tendency to conflate, simplify, and generally accept the pediatric explanations we were given (as children or as adults.) Even though we may read and hear the text read year after year, what sticks in our minds in the 30 days and nights.

The second point is how our tendency to conflate, simplify, etc. contributes to our growing sense of seeking quick results, instant gratification, etc. Things take time. Good things and bad things both. The Japanese tsunami is out of the headlines, yet the region is still struggling. The same could actually be said of the gulf coast and Katrina. Heck, look how quickly we’ve forgotten the recent effects of Irene on the east coast – yet communities will be struggling with the after-effects for years. The forest and the wolves are reclaiming the lands around Chernobyl, but humans can still only venture into the exclusion zone for limited periods of time.

There is so much we can learn. We must be in things for the long haul. It takes far longer than we often assume to recover from a disaster. Even our efforts to clean up the mess we’ve made of our planet’s environment will take time. The same is true for the US (and the world) economy. All these messes we’ve made and need to clean up. G”d may have had the power to wipe out life on earth instantly, and/or to simply dry up the earth after the flood in the blink of an eye (though for those who ascribe to the limited, or self-limited understanding of G”d, perhaps G”d couldn’t rush things either, and had to allow the Flood to dry up naturally.) It’s far too easy to get in a hurry, get frustrated when things don’t change or get fixed as quickly as we like, and simply go back to our old ways. So the next time you are tempted to view things from that modern (and even ancient) short attention/interest span, short-term view, consider how you might have felt spending a year and 17 days in the ark waiting to come out. May G”d grant us all the patience that Noah, his wives, sons, daughters-in-law, and all those animals must have had to endure a year and 17 days in the ark, and the perseverance to keep up our efforts, and remember to plant trees not so much for ourselves as for those who will come after us.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Noakh 5771 - Redux 5765 - A P'shat in the Dark
Noakh 5770 - Don't Ham It Up
Noah 5768 - Redux 5761 - Getting Noticed
Noakh 5766-What A Nimrod! (Revised)
Noakh 5765-A Pshat In The Dark
Noach 5764-Finding My Rainbow
Noach 5763-Striving to be Human
Noach 5762-To Make a Name for Ourselves
Noach 5761-Getting Noticed
Noach 5760-What a Nimrod!

Random Musing Before Shabbat – B’reisheet 5772 – The Unified Field Theorem of The Twelve Steps

2011-10-21T16:17:00.001-04:00

Science has no place explaining religion. Religion has no place explaining science. As someone with a foot in both of these camps, I’m going to completely ignore this conventional wisdom.

Tohu vavohu. Whatever it means in Hebrew (and of this we can never be certain) it is an attempt to describe the universe prior to G”d’s act of creating the universe as we know it. If we want to play with analogies from physics, we can think of it as the state of the universe in those first few microseconds when the physical forces and laws as they now exists were not yet in force (that is, if we accept the big-bang theory of the origin of the universe.) It’s a very simplistic explanation, but certain current models of the formation of the universe extrapolate that it took some time (albeit measured in very minute quantity) for the various forces, strong and weak, that operate in our universe, to come into play. It is not at all clear, at least as far as my limited understanding of the physics goes, that the universe would resolve itself in the particular way it has, and that subtle occurrences during those first few microseconds might not have yielded a universe with entirely different forces and physical laws. (In fact, I understand that there is speculation that indeed different variations did occur resulting in multiple universes with differing physical properties.)

G’d is, perhaps, one way to attempt to explain why the physics of our universe are just what they are. G”d is, and may I be forgiven for this liberty by both my friends scientific and religious, a sort of unified field theorem-or in more recent scientific approaches, a “theory of everything” - an attempt to explain why things are the way they are.

One of the reasons I’m not a scientist is that I have sought (and continue to seek) unscientific answers to the things that baffled me. Science as we know it is full of all sorts of interacting forces, particles, waves, constants. etc. It’s the constants, in particular, that trouble me, because it’s always appeared to me that there’s no clear relationship between some of the constants. This is a gross oversimplification, as many of the constants are related. Planck’s constant (the ratio of a photon’s energy to its wavelength) can be used to derive other functions like the Avogadro constant (the ratio of the number of particles of a substance within a given amount of that substance.) I particularly chose these examples because both these constants can be used to help understand and derive other physical constants. The Avogadro constant, in particular, helps scientists when it comes to matters of scaling – from the macroscopic to the microscopic and v.v.

Einstein remained frustrated until the end for his failure to create a unified theory that connected general relativity with electromagnetism. Scientists keep trying.

String theory, M-theory (those “branes” you often read about,) and quantum geometry (aka Loop gravity) are among the recent theories advanced as best candidates for a “theory of everything” that tie all known aspects of universal physics – reconciling relativity, quantum mechanics, et al.

Religion and Science have this in common – origins in the human desire to understand the universe in which humankind exists. Having dabbled in both disciplines for many years, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that both efforts may be futile when it comes to seeking a complete understanding of everything.

The Wikipedia article on “Unified Field Theory” contains this lovely quote:

“There may be no a priori reason why the correct description of nature has to be a unified field theory. However, this goal has led to a great deal of progress in modern theoretical physics and continues to motivate research.” (Unified field theory. (2011, October 18). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:06, October 21, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unified_field_theory&oldid=456260058)

To put it in biblical terms, we have a little Job and a little Qohelet (Ecclesiastes.) Why do we persist in seeking something which need not exist? Might not the universe be little more than organized chaos?

One the one hand, we expect that G”d might want a well-ordered and structured universe. On the other hand, we have a Torah which relates our relationship to a G”d that can be whimsical, random, even unfair. Might not the universe of G”d’s creation be similarly inconsistent? Must it all tie together somehow?

So here’s the thing about tohu vavohu. In terms of a physical understanding of the universe, tohu vavohu describes a time when the rules of our universe were not yet set . How then can we, limited and restricted by the very constants that define our universe, even attempt to understand anything that existed before our universe, outside it? That lovely rationale of the Torah beginning with a “bet” whose shape intrinsic tells us that we can’t go back any further than this, that the answer to the question of what came before this is “don’t go there” or “even if you went there you couldn’t understand it” – there may be something to this. (What I like about this explanation combined with my theory about tohu vavohu is that is precludes any necessity of of asking “what came before the big bang?” because if we can’t even understand our own universe in the microseconds after the big bang before its physics became fixed, how can we possibly hope to go back before the big bang itself?

While religion and theology, even Judaism, came into being as part of humankind’s attempt to understand the universe, Judaism has, I believe, evolved past this. Whereas some religions, and even science, remained largely focused on understanding why our universe is the way it is, Judaism recognized that our efforts may be better spent learning how to live in the universe as it is. It recognizes than human beings have some ability to change and shape that universe, but only up to a point – beyond which they are powerless.

Rashi spoke about tohu vavohu as an “astonishment at the nothingness” It is a nothingness, an emptiness upon which one can only look in awe. “G”d created a universe out of that?” The other day I heard a rabbi refer to tohu vavohu as “play-doh” as though it were simply formless matter waiting to be shaped by G”d. I’ve similarly heard tohu vavohu described as “crazy all mixed up mish-mosh” and all sorts of other metaphors.

Here’s the thing for me. As fascinated and driven as I am to understand tohu vavohu, to discover that there really is a theory of everything, these are mere distractions from the real tasks before me. (Now I am NOT suggesting that science stop seeking answers, or that religion stop as well. There may very well turn out to be a theory of everything. G”d may or may not be a part of that ultimate theory, though we could get into a real semantic loop here.) So I intend to go about my life trying to change the things in the universe that I can change, not trying to change the things in the universe that I cannot change, and seeking from Judaism and science the wisdom to know the difference. (How’s that for the ultimate conglomeration of science, theology-Jewish, Christian and otherwise, and the 12-steps?)

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

B'reishit 5772 - The Unified Field Theorem of the Twelve Steps
B'reishit 5770 - One G"d, But Two Trees?
B'reishit 5769 - Do Fences Really Make Good Neighbors
B'reishit 5767-Many Beginnings
Bereshit 5766-Kol D'mei Akhikha
Bereshit 5765 (5760)-Failing to Understand-A Learning Experience
Bereshit 5764-Gd's Regrets
Bereshit 5762--The Essential Ingredient
Bereshit 5763--Striving to be Human
Bereshit 5761--Chava's Faith
Bereshit 5760-Failing to Understand

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Sukkot III 5772 - Fragility

2011-10-14T17:32:00.001-04:00

Sukkot is a time when we remind ourselves of the fragility of our own existence by dwelling in the sukkah. At first I was thinking that, giving all the instability in our world at the moment, few of us need an additional reminder of the fragility of life. Tsunamis. Hurricanes. Tornados. (Almost ) nuclear meltdowns. Financial meltdowns. Continuing wars. Poverty. Disease. Pollution. Global warming. Things couldn’t be much more fragile than they are. Do we really need to dwell in a sukkah for a few days to remind us of our fragility. Do we need the anamnesis of reliving as our ancestors lived?

Yet history continues to remind us what we too easily forget when we fail to remind ourselves, periodically, of the fragility of existence. We become complacent, comfortable, even over-confident.

When we dwell in the sukkah, we are more likely to understand and have compassion for those whose lives truly are that fragile on a daily basis. As big a mess as our economy is in, many of us live lives of relative comfort and ease in comparison to many in this world.

When we dwell in the sukkah, we are more likely to be attuned to the fragility in our own lives brought about by a combination of institutional greed and crass consumerism. We’ll be reminded that we are (at least most of us) part of the 99% and we need to stand up for economic fairness and justice in our world.

In many places tonight it’s raining. How many people will retreat from dining in their sukkah because of the rain? What might we learn and how might we be better persons if we ignored the rain and ate and even slept in our sukkot (always bearing in mind that human life is precious and we must do nothing to cause harm to ourselves.)

After Sukkot we can all return to our people caves with out 56” flat screens, iPads, heating and air conditioning, solid roofs, etc. We’ll lose sight of that fragility. We will be the worse for that.

To paraphrase that obnoxious beer commercial:

Stay fragile, my friends.

Shabbat Shalom, Moadim L’Simkha,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings for Sukkot:

Sukkot I 5770 - Fire and Rain
Sukkot 5767-Precious Congealed Light - Or Y'kator V'kipa'on
Sukkot 5764--Bayom Hazeh
Sukkot 5763--Sukkot Time Travel

Random Musing Before Yom Kippur 5772 – Al Chet Shekhetanu

2011-10-07T11:30:00.001-04:00

This is truly a collection of random thoughts inspired by my ruminations this week on Yom Kippur and what’s going on in the world and in my life.

A tweet pointed me to a great blog post on “Occupying Kol Nidre” by writer Ester Bloom. Her comments, especially about the communal nature of our sinning and repentance interested me – more on that later. So I surfed on over to the Facebook page established for the Yom Kippur service at Occupy Wall Street. As I scrolled through the comments I noticed one person asking if a cellist was needed to play the Kol Nidre. The response by one of the organizers (a name well known in the blogosphere) was a simple

“no instruments please, but thank you for your kind offer”

The original poster responded:

“How would folks feel about having a cello before 7pm in an unofficial way? I'd really miss not getting to hear the max bruch piece as it really defines the holiday for me.”

Something about that exchange got my dander up and I wrote:

“ why must we continue to shape pluralistic Jewish gatherings in terms of traditional practice as the lowest common denominator? this seems somewhat inconsistent with the whole occupy wall street climate which seeks to rise above politics etc. and strives to be open to all. I believe a progressive Jew can be as offended by the absence of musical instruments in worship as much as a traditionally observant Jew can be by their presence. Surely some form of compromise in is order. I somehow believe our great sages would have found a way...”

I added as an afterthought:

“...and for 33 years, the CAJE conference always found a way as well...”

Now, if you read the full description of the service on the event page, it does state that the service is egalitarian. So we have at least one nod to modernity. So it’s not entirely using traditional practice as the lowest common denominator. Yet it is only going so far.

I’m not sure what got my dander up. Those of you who know me know that I am pretty much post (or trans-) denominational. I’ve taught and worked in Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Chabad, Traditional and other settings. I would not deliberately or purposefully shove my liberal attitudes in the face of a more traditional gathering, and would observe the minhag hamakom. Though, as someone for whom music and using a musical instrument is an essential part of my religious expression, I do have a preference for services that are musical and do use instruments, this has never stopped me from participating in , davening at, even leading services and programs where instruments were not used or permitted. Working across the movements as I do, I’ve had plenty of experiences where I’ve had to lead a group in prayer without my keyboard nearby.

However, the whole Occupy Wall Street movement has stirred within me social and political passions akin to those of my high school years in the late sixties and early seventies. Yes, there is a provocative element among the protestors which has led to confrontations with the police. Frankly, I’m skeptical about the NYPD’s claims to have been exercising great restraint. I do not for one second believe that all the protestors arrested, or hit with batons, or shoved, or otherwise treated roughly were among the provocateurs. The scandal-ridden NYPD has once again shown its true colors. It has also shown the typical law-enforcement misunderstanding of passion. Passion and provocation are not the same thing. People feeling passionate about something can be quite wrought up – but this does not automatically make them a threat. Law enforcement needs a better was to distinguish real from perceived threats especially in these sorts of situations.

I digress. I am concerned that in a movement as broad as Occupy Wall Street the organizers of a Kol Nidre service are showing complete disinterest in accommodating the broadest possible array of practice and praxis. There should be some way to accommodate those for whom the use of music and musical instruments is crucial to their perceived spiritual value of prayer. The organizers are wrong to simply reject it out of hand, and decide, by fiat, “this far and no farther.”

Then there are Ester Bloom’s comments about the communal nature of Yom Kippur. I think this is a time when we might all do well to consider the communal nature of our sins. To be fair, I think we need to include our current economic situation. I don’t think Occupy Wall Street has gone far enough in identifying the problem.

For example, do we need an “Occupy Organized Professional Sports” and “Occupy Hollywood” movement? I posted this on my Facebook profile the other day:

I am in total support and sympathy with Occupy Wall St http://www.facebook.com/OccupyWallSt http://occupywallst.org/ I hope to join those marching in support this afternoon at 4:30pm. However, in comments accompanying an article critical of the apparent lack of diversity among the protestors (an article that actually seems a bit misleading and one-sided against the protest) one poster did raise a valid point: what about the ridiculously wealthy and overpaid folks of the entertainment and sports industries? If we are demanding that CEO salaries be kept in reasonable line with those paid to the lowest paid employees of a company, ought we not ask the same of entertainers and athletes? (It is important to bear in mind that, as with Wall St., it's probably only 1% of Hollywood stars who are super wealthy, and this is likely true of pro sports as well. Not including the wealthy 1% of entertainment and sports as part of what we are protesting against simply gives ammunition to the critics of this movement. I'd love to hear what Susan Sarandon or Alec Baldwin have to say in response to this. Would they be willing to have their fees limited to some reasonable multiplier of what the lowest paid actor on the shoot gets? (Also, FWIW, the high cost of seeing a Bway show is not really related to what the artists get paid, though even here there are exceptions that ought to be examined.) I agree that, unlike Wall St., the entertainment and sports industry haven't caused the same kind of economic problems that Wall St's greed has, but greed is greed, and if we're going to be fair about things, we should consider this.

The wealthy 1% in the this country, and large Wall St. firms have undoubtedly (with some notable exceptions) unfairly and unreasonably profited from their greed. Yet we must accept the fact that we, the other 99%, are not entirely blameless in all that has transpired. Some of us were seduced, some of us were tricked, some of us willingly went along, some of us were sheep. We wanted to take advantage of the economic good times, so we overspent, over-extended ourselves, took out loans that maybe shouldn’t have taken. None of that excuses or mitigates the guilt of the banks, lenders, etc. who, often through misleading and deceptive practices, preyed on those least able to protect themselves.

And through it all, we keep routing for our sports teams, building new stadiums, pay outrageous prices to see movies and shows, and allow sports figures and movie stars to receive ludicrous amounts of compensation for work that is, although admittedly sometimes hard, and very specialized, based on what the public is willing to pay for something rather than what the work is actually worth when compared to other work. (I think of the current TV commercial for a credit card that shows a bit actor on location at a shoot away from home that is running longer than expected. The bit actor uses her credit card to pick up some necessities locally. Something tells me this extra cost is more significant to her than it is to any high-paid stars also working the same shoot.) I’ve made a living in the arts and entertainment industries, and I know that 99% barely manage to eke out a living. Why have we in the arts community never really spoken out about the huge sums paid to top actors, or the millions spent by producers to create spectacle rather than art that drive ticket prices into the stratosphere. (I think the ticket prices for Book of Mormon may be the ultimate irony considering the somewhat anti-establishment origins of its creators. Their very success is ironic and oxymoronic, because their scathing social commentary lines their pockets quite well, I am sure.)

Which leads me to yet another thought thread- the value of genius. Matt and Trey are, in their own way, geniuses. I am not opposed to rewarding genius and creativity financially. It is a question of scale.

Why do some people become enormously successful and wealthy and become the targets of scorn and derision, while others become paragons? Witness the outpouring of sentiment upon the death of Steve Jobs. No doubt he was a genius. Some of that genius was devoted to creativity, but we’d be naive to believe that none of that genius was devoted to financial success for him and his company.

Consider that Apple’s products have always been proprietary and lacked (for the most part) any form of shared open architecture. Apple charged more for their products than other companies, and got away with it. Despite all this, Jobs managed to generally capture the public’s good will.

Let’s consider for a minute. A select group of people each year get MacArthur Genius Grants, That’s $500,000 spread out over 4 years. That’s recognizing and rewarding genius. However, that’s way less than some sports figures receive in salary, and way less than the compensation of may CEOs and top actors. What makes sports players, actors, and CEOs worth more than geniuses? Can we complain about Wall Street and CEO salaries without also drawing attention to the excesses elsewhere?

John D. MacArthur is an exemplar of the American success story. He was raised in poverty and became one of the world’s richest men. The foundation that was created to distribute some of the wealth of he and his wife is a fine example of the wealthy giving back to the community Still, might he not also be an exemplar of all that’s wrong with the system? Did he really need to accumulate all that wealth? Is all that wealth ill-gotten, or did we, the 99%, perhaps help contribute to it?

What about state lotteries? Why do we continue to allow them to be all about huge “mega-prizes?” Might it not be better to see hundreds of $10,000 winner as opposed to a few winners of prizes in the millions? Yet would people buy lottery tickets if the top prizes were capped? My suspicion is they would not. This is a flaw in ourselves that we need to address. We also need to stop using the “American dream” as a means of sucking away dollars from those who can least afford it on a chance at getting rich quick. It’s wrong and we know it. Part of me is glad that some native American tribes have been able to address the injustices done to them through financial revenge using casinos and gambling. It’s wrong, and we all know it. Private home poker games are illegal but casinos can rake in millions? It’s wrong and we know it.

Some fight to keep Wal-Mart out of our their community (that’s certainly a hot topic here in NYC these days, where others argue that Wal-Mart brings needed jobs. ) Yet Wal-Mart rakes it in – because most of us shop there instead of the small Mom and Pop stores they put out of business because it is cheaper.

Some of us, knowing that the music industry and the movie industry have made billions off of us, decide that intellectual property need not be respected and that artists are not entitled to any compensation for their work, and download and watch millions of illegal videos and music files. It’s wrong, and we know it.

How then can we only make Wall Street our “azazel goat” and place all the sins of our economic problems on them? As Walt Kelly said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” (or, if you read, Gus.)

Just as a I do with my Judaism, I’m not going to claim any consistency when it comes to the secular philosophies. I can rant here about the excesses of the wealthy, but I just made the conscious choice to open a bank account at Chase because of the convenience of their many NYC locations, multi-check-deposit ATMs, etc. I took advantage of the economic good times and managed to accumulate plenty of debt I shouldn’t have. I am not without sin. I would like to work with the community to create in world in which we can be less tempted to sin in these ways. Anarchy is not the answer. Libertarianism is not the answer. Socialism and Communism are not the answer. And yes, capitalism, at least in the form we know it today, is not the answer. (I’m a little disappointed that the official Occupy Wall Street site talks about the “stealing of the American dream” because I’m not entirely sure the “American dream” was really a good idea all along. Parts of it yes. The parts about equality and equal opportunity. Not so much the parts about wealth being a goal of life. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness yes. Working hard and insuring I make more money than someone else so that I can live in more relative comfort than they can, not so much. My hope is that the growing Occupy Wall Street movement is about more than seeking redress for all of us injured by the excesses of the past few decades, and will seek to find a new and reasonable path in which justice and economic security co-exist as equals. A world in which economic sin and injustice is usually averted and quickly dealt with. My hope is that it is about restoring the “American dream” to its social, rather than economic roots.

And that is the point of Yom Kippur. None of us is without sin. At Yom Kippur, we repent for the communal sins. Occupy Wall Street is about seeking justice in our world. What has occurred in this country economically is unjust, and Occupy Wall Street is right to seek a way to bring those responsible for the economic meltdown to justice, and to seek fairer economic parity in our society. We must not fall prey to any attempt to make only Wall Street and the 1% our azazel goat, as deserving as they may be of this questionable distinction. However, there can be no justice until we all admit our collective sins, and work together to fix this broken world.

Barukh Atah ’’, Eloheinu Melekh Ha-olam, she-natan lanu hizdamnut l’takein et Ha-olam.

Blessed are You, Ad”nai, our G”d and CEO of all existence, for giving us the opportunity to fix the world.

Gmar chatimah tovah,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Yom Kippur 5765 - Blanket apologies

Book Review: Chanukah Lights by Michael J. Rosen and Robert Sabuda

2011-10-05T20:05:00.001-04:00

What do you get when you combine the talents of two award-winning people like Michael J. Rosen (author of National Jewish Book Award winning Elijah's Angel: A Story for Chanukah and Christmas) and Robert Sabuda? Only the most incredible book you’ll ever want for yourself, your family, and for a gift to give to others. I’m talking about “Chanukah Lights” by Michael J. Rosen and Robert Sabuda, and published by Candlewick Press. Given that it's a collaboration with Mr. Sabuda, who has created some of the best-selling and ingenious pop-up books, what else could it be but a pop-up book? And what an eye-pleasing pop-up book it is, full of cleverly designed and constructed pops ups, one for each of the eight nights of Chanukah (I might as well adopt this book’s transliteration, even though it’s not my favorite.) I will add the disclaimer that your humble reviewer is a lover of the pop-up book genre.

The authors were clearly troubled by many of the aspects of how Chanukah is observed and the story is told, especially the military aspects. Thus they chose, as did the rabbis of long ago, to focus the centerpiece of the story on light. Unlike the rabbis, who chose to mask their fear of openly celebrating a military victory of a small minority of Jews over the mighty Syrian Greeks and antagonizing the Romans (and later oppressors) by introducing the story of the miracle of the oil (you mean you didn’t know the rabbis made that up?) Mssrs. Rosen and Sabuda use the concept of the “light” of Chanukah to help illustrate and illuminate eight different times and places in Jewish history and existence where Jewish people have been able to celebrate Chanukah and the story of the single lamp that burned for eight days. I won’t spoil the surprise by telling you which places are represented by the beautiful pop-ups. You’ll have to discover that for yourself. I’ll include this quote from the publisher:

“…this stunning collaboration showcases the spirit and resilience of a people in search of a home.”

The pop-ups are stunning, and their pure white color stands out against the subdued colors of the book’s pages. The very last pop-up is a surprise in how it departs from the all-white color scheme, and makes me wish that this technique had been used on at least some of the other pages – although I recognize that it was both nice to save it for a special surprise at the end, and also how difficult and expensive the process of colorizing the pop-up components can be.

If you’re looking for a book that tells the story of Chanukah, whether it’s the concocted rabbinic version, a more historical take, or even the “delayed Sukkot celebration” theory then this is not the book for you. If I have any quibble with the book, it’s pedagogic, in its subtle adherence to perpetuating the story (or should we say myth) of the “miracle of the oil” without any hint or suggestion that this so-called miracle may not have been part of the historical origins of Chanukah – though I can’t blame the authors for side-stepping that potential pitfall.

If, however, you are looking a for a delightful way to celebrate Chanukah, or share the celebration with others, then “Chanukah Lights” may very well be the best solution for Chanukah 5772.

Chanukah Lights by Michael J. Rosen and Robert Sabuda
ISBN 978-0-7636-5533-4
Candlewick Press, Somerville, MA

More about Michael J. Rosen at http://www.fidosopher.com/
More about Robert Sabuda at http://robertsabuda.com/

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Nitzavimm/Vayelekh 5771 – Reader’s Choice

2011-09-23T16:31:00.001-04:00

Call it writers block, or call it laziness. Whatever it is, it compels me to simply offer you this week a list of previous musings for Nitzavim/Vayelekh. I think they’re all worth reading. They represent a cross-section of my evolving and changing views over the years (as well as evidencing some constancies) and provide a nice window into how I deal with the tensions at the heart of Judaism.

Nitzavim/Vayeilekh 5770 - Flawed, Schmawed
Nitzavim/Vayeilekh 5769 - Disconnecting and Reconnecting the Dots
Vayeilekh_Shabbat Shuvah 5769 - Cows and Roses
Nitzavim/Vayeilekh 5766 - Keep Looking
Vayelekh 5765-The Time Is Still Now
Nitzavim 5765-To Lo Or Not To Lo
Nitzavim/Vayelekh 5763-Connect the Dots
Nitzavim 5757/5759/5764-Lo Bashamayim Hi
Nitzavim 5758-Not By Ourselves
Nitzavim/Vayelekh 5760/5767-L'eyd B'vnei Yisrael-The Real Denouement
Nitzavim 5761 was the week of Sept. 11, 2001. There was no Musing.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011, linked material ©1997,1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Ki Tavo 5771 – Curse This Parasha!

2011-09-16T15:58:00.001-04:00

G”d could take a lesson from the Rambam (Maimonides.) The Rambam extrapolates, from the Torah verse “you shall not curse the deaf” (Lev. 13:14) that Torah was teaching us that the one who curses is a much a concern as the one who is cursed. For some, the Rambam explains, the mere act of verbal cursing will provide the necessary catharsis to prevent the one cursing from taking any physical act of revenge, however, cursing is just as likely to incite the curser further to commit to pursuing a course of physical vengeance or retribution against another party, only after which the curser feels ready to move on.

Given this, we have to ask ourselves why our parasha, Ki Tavo, is chock full of curses, including a series of ritualistic curses to be pronounced by the Levites when the people enter the promised land. If we follow the Rambam’s logic, then those pronouncing the curses might be tempted to be overly zealous in their pursuit of identifying and dealing with those who transgress and invoke the curse.

This of course brings up the very important conditional nature of the curses that appear in this parasha. These are not curses in the form of imprecations simply uttered by one wishing G”d to inflict punishment on another. The curses are warnings of what will befall those who do not follow G”d’s instructions and keep G”d’s ways.

There’s no clear direction from G”d to Moses and the elders to give this list of blessings and curses to the people. D’varim is, after all, one long discourse by Moses. So it would be unfair to indict G”d for threatening curses upon the people (thus, by the Rambam’s logic, making G”d more prone to continue to seek vengeance on the people.) Yet we can take Moses to task for his usage of curses as threats or warnings. While Moses has certainly seen the wrathful side of G”d, Moses has also seen the ever-loving side of G”d. The fact that Moses instructs the people with a list of blessings and curses makes that clear. Do right by G”d and be blessed, do wrong by G”d and be cursed.

While the blessings here are promises, the curses here are warnings. It’s Moses’ way of saying “choose wisely.”

Nevertheless it still troubles me that the threat of curses is used as an instrument to keep the people in line. One has to wonder if the Jewish people might have been less recalcitrant in their transgressions of G”d’s instructions if only a positive message had been used. (Human nature being what it is, there’s little evidence that a positive message would have been more successful than negative reinforcement, but there’s no clear evidence it would have been any worse. The threats of curses didn’t seem to have the desired effect. Or did they? It can easily be argued that the Jewish people might have been even worse in their transgressions without the threat of the curses looming over their heads. We’ll never know.)

The correctness of the Rambam’s view is clear in our own time. Surely I need not enumerate the countless situations in which mere verbal cursing led to much more drastic physical results. If it’s catharsis we seek, perhaps we can get it with verbal expressions that aren’t curses. I know many who try and avoid saying things like “G”d damn it” or “G”d damn you” and seek benign-er substitutes. In fact, one might make the case that allowing us to utter normally inappropriate language, like those seven words you used to not be able to say on television, in the place of curses (which, by definition, seek some sort of supernatural bad consequence befall someone or something else) may provide better catharsis, and be less likely to tempt us to take actual physical vengeance.

Here’s the thing about curses. Often the utterance of a curse turns out worse for the person who utters it. They can wind up consumed by guilt, even if nothing bad ever befalls the person they cursed. We do feel bad when we curse others, as we should. (Which would lead me to ask if Moses and the Levites should feel bad for uttering curses if it were not for the fact that these being conditional and only potential curses mitigates the situation. Or does it? History is replete with conditional curses. Does making a curse conditional make it alright to curse? Is it ever moral to wish for the Deity to cause harm to befall another? In fact, is a prayer for victory over another, even in a sports event, almost the moral equivalent of asking for a curse upon the other party?

Moses and the Levites are enumerating some pretty bad outcomes in their conditional curses. Some of them are disturbingly graphic in nature. It’s no wonder it was decided to soften the blow by providing such a positive haftarah reading from Isaiah.

Yes, there are times when we need to be made to feel low, in order that we might appreciate the normals and the highs. The combination of Torah reading and haftarah reading for Ki Tavo does strike a nice balance. However, I still wish we weren’t subjected to hearing these curses annually – even if it has become traditional to rush through them quickly and quietly.

The very concept of curses is one that could easily be utilized by the Hitchins’ and Gladwells of the world as yet another argument against religion and belief in G”d. If there’s no Deity to call upon to ask for evil to befall another, there might be no cursing, right? I wonder. Even if every human being were a rationalist, realistic, and fully scientifically knowledgeable about the nature of the universe, we might still call upon the universe’s randomness to result in harm to another.

There is yet another side to curses we haven’t explored. The efficacy of curses is dependent on the willingness of both the utterer and object to believe in their efficacy. (Yes, that’s a circular argument, but it works.) Moses surely believed that curses were efficacious and thus posed a viable and credible deterrent when used as a threat to the people against transgression of the G”ds laws. Curses used by the builders of Egyptian tombs were dependent on the willingness of potential grave robbers to fear them. It seems they have only proven truly efficacious in the movies (though again it is hard to know how many potential tomb robbers never went through with a robbery as a result of learning about a curse.)

The Rambam argues that cursing was an especially important prohibition and the Torah is strongly concerned about it because the Torah takes into account the beliefs and superstitions of the people (even when they might be erroneous) in determining how to instruct the people in the law. Again, following the logic here, we can perhaps justify the Torah’s inclusion of all the curses in the parasha, not because the Torah (or G”d) actually believe (or will cause) such things to pass, but rather because they believe the people believe it just might, and that ought to be enough to make them take the warnings seriously. Talk about preying on people’s superstitions.

The end result of my own wrestling with this is to make me even more upset and angry at the inclusion of these curses. Yes, you can argue that G”d was treating the Jews as the relative children they were at the time, and speaking in a language and with metaphors they could understand. Yet, if that is the case, since so much of the Torah was written with that in mind, does that not give credence to the view that the Torah is not intended to be eternal and unchanging, at least in matters of interpretation as opposed to actual text? Rabbinic tradition has already altered the Jewish view of these blessings and curses from what was probably their raw original understanding. The rabbis cloak their revised interpretations in the mantle of oral Torah and rabbinic authority (as in the story of the oven of Akhnai.) I’ve no need to cloak mine.

These curses are here because at the time the text was written (however that happened) the text’s creator(s) believed that curses as threat would be effective. I do not believe they are effective any longer, and I am not even certain what we can learn from them. My covenant with G”d as a Jew is no longer dependent on what this parasha teaches. I will not be compelled to follow the mitzvot under threat or duress.If there were parts of the Torah that I were comfortable with expurgating completely, this parasha would be one of them. (I could do without large portions of D’varim entirely…)

Yet this is not like me. I like the challenge that Torah presents – I sometimes revel in that challenge. So why do I shrink from this one? That is the question that I shall be asking myself this Shabbat. What will be your question?

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha

Ki Tavo 5769 - If It Walks and Talks Like a Creed...
Ki Tavo 5767 - Uncut Stones
Ki Tavo 5764-Al Kol Eileh (in memory of Naomi Shemer, z"l)
Ki Tavo 5763--Still Getting Away With It?
Ki Tavo 5760--Catalog of Calamities
Ki Tavo 5761--Rise & Shine
Ki Tavo 5762--Al Kol Eileh

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Ki Teitzei 5771 – Metaphorical Parapets

2011-09-09T18:21:00.001-04:00

Officials knew the hurricane was coming. They recognized the potential danger it posed for the citizens of their states, counties, cities, towns, villages, etc. Deciding to err on the side of caution, they ordered evacuations, shut down public transit, and took other actions to prepare.

People grumbled and people whined. Many followed the directions of officials, yet a significant number chose to flaunt their independent nature.

Some communities were heavily damaged. Others escaped the worst possible outcomes. Yet others suffered more problems in the aftermath of the hurricane: flooding, loss of electricity and other utilities. In some areas it took days, even a week or more, to restore service.

No sooner than the storm had passed that the pundits were out second-guessing the officials, criticizing the the officials (and the media) for over-reacting.

Now we are approaching the tenth anniversary of 9/11. Already NYC is experiencing massive traffic jams due to the increased and heightened security. Again, people are grumbling and complaining – though this time there are grumbles on both sides – i.e. some are grumbling that the whiners and grumblers about the delays and inconveniences need a reality check – that in light of what did happen almost ten years ago, no precaution and no inconvenience is too much.

Both situations are examples of putting the commandment from D’varim 22:8 to build a parapet on the roof of one’s house into practice in a more metaphorical sense.

After all, unlike some ancient practices which Jews maintain to this very day, we don’t all erect a parapet on the roof of any new homes we build and occupy. I’ve had well-meaning non-Jews ask me several times over the decades (this came up not a few times while I was a student at Vanderbilt Divinity School) why, given that we still follow the commandment regarding shatnez (the mixing of wool and linen in garments) from this parasha, or to cite an example from elsewhere in the Torah, given that we still place mezuzot on our doorposts and gates, do we not create even “symbolic” parapets on our homes.

This has always been for me a very teachable moment. It is an opportunity to explain how Judaism has evolved and continues to evolve. From there we can explore the various ways in which Judaism has evolved – from nomadic existence to slavery, to wandering in the wilderness, to ancient nation-state, to Temple cult, to exile/return/rebuilding, to diaspora, to rabbinic Judaism, to the medieval philosophers, to the haskala, to the hasidim and mitnagdim, to Reform/Conservative/Modern Orthodox, and beyond.

Certainly by the rabbinic period, guided by Mishna, Gemara and eventually the Talmud, we were restructuring Judaism with an eye to current circumstances. Choices were made as to which commandments we could still practice, and guidance was offered for the many commandments that were unclear, or challenged by new realities. The rabbis, sages, philosophers, and contemporary poskim all thought/think carefully about how to reconcile Torah with current circumstances and knowledge.

Many non-Jews (as well as many liberal Jews) have the mistaken idea that the modern liberal Judaisms (Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Renewal, Humanist, et al) are the only form of Judaism that is evolving. Almost each and every day our brothers and sisters in the traditional/orthodox/hasidic/frum communities struggle with our rapidly changing world and society, and turn to their rabbis, leaders, and scholars for guidance.

Our traditional friends are often criticized for basing their “wiggle room” decisions on following the “letter of the law” rather than the intent. To some extent, there is validity to that criticism, however, I do not believe it can be generalized. I have read a good many opinions of orthodox poskim that clearly wrestle with both letter and intent of the halakha. With the exception of the scoundrels that exist in any community, I am certain that orthodox/traditional/hasidic/frum leaders are always concerned with more than the letter of the law when rendering opinions or decisions. To believe otherwise would also require me to think somewhat poorly about their antecedents, the rabbis who created what we know as rabbinic Judaism.

Sure, Hillel (and many other great rabbis) kept a keen eye on the practical, and there are times I am compelled to question some of their opinions (Hillel’s prosbul comes to mind as a somewhat dicey approach.) We’ve also the great story of the oven at Akhnai in which the rabbis clearly state that their opinions (which they base on the “oral Torah” of which we have only their word that it, too, was given to us at Sinai) are the only ones that matter in interpreting the Torah (and even G”d admit defeat at the hands of G”d’s own creations, according to the story.) Yet, despite the enormous hubris of the great rabbis, I’m reluctant to suggest that their approach to interpreting the Torah was almost entirely focused on the practical, because there is too much evidence to the contrary. Indeed, ethics, intention, and even metaphysical probably figured into their opinions.

As to parapets, there’s lots to consider. First, the commandment specifies new construction. It also clearly stipulates that the reason for the commandment is to avoid blood guilt by protecting the lives of those who go on your roof. Parapets certainly make sense on flat roofs, and especially in a time and place when roofs were used for drying and other activities and used regularly. Makes somewhat less sense on slanted roofs and ones where people would not usually go.

Yes, we’re back in an era where one finds plenty of flat roofs, many of which do see regular use for all sorts of activities.I daresay one would be hard-pressed to find a flat roof anywhere in the world today that wasn’t protected by some kind of parapet-what builder or landlord wants to be found liable of not being reasonably prudent in protecting people from falling off the roofs of their properties?

Jews today interpret the parapet commandment as instructing them to always take reasonable precautions to protect the lives of others (and themselves) by making sure their property or premises are safe.

All of which is a long way to go in explaining why we don’t build parapets, and why, in a way, we still do.

Human beings are far from perfect. I am sure there were people in ancient Israel who ignored or flaunted the parapet regulations, even though they were from the Torah. Just as there are plenty today who flaunt the need for real or metaphorical parapets. Their arguments probably haven’t changed all that much: too expensive, too inconvenient, bad cost/benefit ratio, nobody ever goes up there anyway, people need to take their own precautions, only an idiot would go near the edge, etc.

During the recent hurricane, NYC police had to rescue two people who had chosen to go out kayaking in NY harbor. People who chose not to evacuate from mandatory evacuation zones had the nerve to complain that city officials didn’t do enough to help them!

No one asked to die in the twin towers on 9/11. That’s why plenty of people, professionals and volunteers alike went in to try and rescue folks. No parapet could have saved them (though it can be argued that problems and holes in our intelligence network were sufficient as to be compared to the lack of a metaphoric parapet. In the aftermath, officials did realize they needed a better parapet, and they set about building one. We can argue about how well they did/are doing, and about the liberties that may have been sacrificed in the process, but that’s not the focus here.)

So I applaud the way that officials take their obligation to build parapets seriously. I am more than willing to put up with inconvenience for the chance that lives can be saved. I think that how we create these metaphorical parapets is a subject that needs discussion as thorough as the type employed by the rabbis of the Talmud, who always sought to look at every side of a question. I also think that, like the Talmud does, we ought to preserve within our records all the arguments – because times and circumstances do change, and a time may come when access to the dissenting opinions may prove invaluable in meeting challenges.

It is said that the rabbis of the Talmud sought to create a fence around the Torah. They were concerned with the potential for violating commandments we didn’t fully understand, so they instructed us to keep our distance from the problem area just in case.

Today, many people are climbing over, digging under, or simply ignoring that fence, to get to the Torah. Which raises the question – does the Torah herself have a parapet to protect those of us who who ascend her heights? I can think of several responses to that question, but I’d rather leave it unanswered here so thought you (and I) might have something to do this Shabbat. I hope that you will share your answers with me and all my readers.

May this Shabbat be your parapet in these tumultuous times.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

By the way, I have a new blog: Adrian is Back in The City on which I am sharing my thoughts at being back in NYC after over three decades away, and having lived in communities large and small around the country. I also blog on Jewish music (Hava Nashira Blog) and Technology in Jewish Education (Yoeitzdrian)

Other musings on this parasha:

Ki Tetzei 5769 - The Choice of Memory
Ki Tetzei 5767 - Honoring Inconsistency
Ki Teitzei 5766-B'Shetzef Ketzef
Ki Tetze 5764/5-The Torah, The Gold Watch, and The Rest of the Story
Ki Tetze 5757,9,60,63--The Torah, The Gold Watch, & Everything
Ki Tetze 5758--Exclude Me
Ki Tetze 5762--One Standard

Random Musing before Shabbat - Shof'tim 5771 Hassagat G'vul-Revisited

2011-09-02T17:50:00.001-04:00

It was only five years ago that I wrote this musing on the subject of Hassagat G’vul, the moving of boundaries, and its extrapolation into the modern concepts of intellectual property rights and copyright. With each passing year it seems to me that general disregard for matters of intellectual property and copyright has gotten worse. We live in a world in which a great deal of stuff is available to a great many people, and people have grown to expect that many things we once thought of as valuable commodities should now be freely available.

It’s not enough to lament this situation. Strict enforcement isn’t the answer. I have some thoughts on what might work, but more on that later. Here’s what I wrote just 5 years ago (with some modifications and additions.)

19:14 You shall not move away the boundary (marker) of your neighbor which the first ones boundaried, in your taking possession of it, in the land which Ad"nai Your G"d gave to you to inherit. (JPS)

It's a simple enough commandment. You can't encroach on your neighbors property by moving the boundary markers around. There's plenty enough material in other parts of this parasha (and in particular the verses that follow soon after, regarding the requirements for witnesses in a legal proceeding.)

From this fairly straightforward verse in Torah, the rabbis constructed an entire class of laws referring to hassagat g'vul, encroaching upon the boundaries of others. As an agrarian society, the land one possessed had a direct impact on their ability to live, to, as we say, "make a living." As we moved from being a largely agrarian society into becoming merchants and engaging in other trades, it became necessary to define what "borders" needed to be protected in order to insure a person's livelihood.

The Talmud has a great example of how this concept was extrapolated into halakha when it speaks of the rights of a fisherman to not have his fishing-grounds encroached upon by other fishermen with their nets, the Talmud requiring that the other keep away at least the distance of a fish's swim (which they defined as one parasang, equivalent to about 2.5 miles!)

The concept of hassagat g'vul, moving boundaries, was eventually extended to the concept of unfair competition. And from there, it was a short hop to become one of the underlying concepts behind what Jewish law has to say about the protection of intellectual property, and more specifically, what we now call copyright.

The Chatam Sofer, Rabbi Moshe Schreiber (1762-1839, chief Rabbi of Bratislava) used the concept of hassagat g'vul to underlie his opinion on a matter concerning the editor of a series of siddurim (prayerbooks) and makhzorim (holiday prayerbooks) who was seeking to prevent others from republishing his editions. For the Chatam Sofer, it was ultimately a matter of comparing the work that the editors had put into their siddurim and machzorim - the layout, typestyles, etc. (though obviously not the basic text itself) to that of the fisherman who labors to lay his traps, set up his nets, and catch fish. The editor's work entitled him to derive income from his efforts, and it would be unfair of others to reprint his editions without compensation.

Much of what the rabbis wrote regarding intellectual property rights found its way into copyright laws in the U.S. and around the world. Unfair profiteering and racketeering by record companies, and other egregious abuses notwithstanding, the system has worked fairly well to insure the creator of an intellectual property the means to earn a living from those creations, and to be protected for unfair competition or use of those creations by others without permission or compensation.

And now, here we are, in the 21st century, with digital music, iPods, Napster, et al. Decades of copyright laws, and centuries of tradition seem to have outlived their usefulness. The laws as we know them have certainly not kept up. While the U.S. Patent and Trade Office, and its Copyright Office have been working hard to find ways to update the laws to reflect current (and future potential) realities, there have been only a few minor tweaks here and there so far like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (This act primarily serves to enable DRM, Digital Rights Management schemes employed by the recording industry and make it a violation to circumvent them. Since the act was passed in 1998, most major companies have dropped DRM schemes. Few of the commercial services (iTunes, Amazon, Rhapsody, etc.) still carry DRM-protected files.)

Judaism has managed its way around a host of major changes in society, and we'll find a way to manage this change as well. Yet the stage is already set for the almost complete tearing down of boundaries, by the alarming state of copyright abuse that goes on daily in our many Jewish institutions - synagogues, JCCs, schools, etc. I can't tell you how many times I have seen photocopies of complete textbooks being used, DVDs and Videos intended for personal home use being shown to large audiences. Photocopied music being used by choirs. Not to mention the times when I've overheard someone standing at the sales table of some musical artists at a concert or conference say "I'll buy these two CDs, and you buy those two, and we'll make copies for all the rest of the faculty.)

Modern technology and the digital age have become a double-edged sword (which, by the way, is another original Jewish reference!) While the technology has seen a flourishing of new works of Jewish music of all kinds, it is also enabling people to easily make and distribute copies without any recompense to the artists who created the work. The present flourishing may be reduced to a trickle if the artists can't make a living.

Yes, I'm an educator who has run religious schools, so yes, I know what a limited budget we all have to work within. I also direct choirs and know what choir music costs. I understand with a deep passion how important the work we all do is to the future of Judaism. I'm also musician and arranger, and my work appears on a few recordings. I know that writers of Jewish music want to get their work out to people – however, they still want to make a living. So I am sensitive to both "sides" of this issue.

The rabbis knew this tension as well. As usual, not being of one mind, they differed on whether "copyright protection" would be a stimulus or deterrent. Some argued that without the incentive of some income from their efforts, scholars would be reluctant to write more commentaries. Others argued "the more Torah, the better." It's hard to argue with that. Just as it is hard to argue with the constant cry of "Lashem Shamayim" (for the sake of Heaven) that is used to justify the scandalous amount of copyright infringement that occurs each and every day in our Jewish institutions.

Yet, if what we are doing is truly "LaShem Shamayim" is it not all the more incumbent upon us to not infringe upon the boundaries of others in such a way as to possibly impact their parnassa, their livelihood?

We need not engage in a "glatt kosher" process here. Common sense must prevail. For example, these days many of the publishers of choral music will grant permission to use photocopies with the purchase of some reasonable number of print copies of the music. Using technology, many artists and publishers will sell you licenses to print out your, on your own paper and equipment, your own copies of music, books, etc. from PDF files. Digital rights management systems can be made non-onerous and can be configured many different ways to allow the original purchaser to make a reasonable number of copies of the file, or burn the file to a CD more than once, but not unlimited quantities. And what artist, what merchant, for that matter, would not be at least somewhat receptive to offering a reduced price for quantity purchases? Film distributors do charge synagogues and other non-profit or religious institutions a lower license fee to show a film than they would charge for a commercial setting.

I don't know about you, but I felt better having paid the $250 fee to show "Paperclips" to my congregation than simply renting it from the local Blockbuster and showing it. By doing so, I just might help insure that the creative minds behind "Paperclips" continue to create films like that.

The Copyright act does have provisions for what is called “Fair Use.” There are even specific Fair Use rules of educational uses. Maybe it's not fair, but under existing U.S. Copyright law, supplementary religious schools do not qualify for inclusion in the class of educational institutions that benefit from the "Educational Fair Use" provisions covering books, music, films and other media. (Most days schools would qualify, however.) Maybe that's something we ought to lobby Congress to change. However, and this needs to be clearly understood-while we may not qualify under the educational fair use provisions, we are certainly eligible under the general provisions for Fair Use in the Copyright Act:

17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.^[1

Whether we what do in religious schools, synagogues, et al would meet the generally applied Fair Use tests (beyond those reserved exclusively for education) is a very gray area. Some legal experts I have spoken to say that much of what we do would easily meet a Fair Use test. Others argue it’s not as clear cut as it seems. Government is always reluctant to get into any controversy that involves religious institutions. Businesses are not so reluctant. Remember that the music industry went after the mega-churches some time back for all sorts of copyright violations, resulting in the creation of many clearinghouses and licensing consortiums in the Christian music world. (I’ve been arguing, and continue to argue, that we need something similar in the Jewish music world, small as we are-because it will make “doing the right thing” easier for all of us.)

I believe it should be "fair use" to show a portion of a film in a religious school class, or create a "class pack" of assembled chapters from a few different books, or audio clips from a few songs in a class. On the other hand, I do agree that we probably shouldn't be showing full-length commercial DVDs intended for private home use to an entire class, or a group of congregants without some kind of license fee. And we shouldn't be using photocopies of entire textbooks, or illegally copied CDs, mp3s, DVDs, etc.

Yes, common sense is required. Noted Jewish educator, author and lecturer Joel Grishaver, in his "meseket photocopy" (masekhet is the word for a tractate of Talmud) recognizes that there are emergencies, last-minute needs, texts from extremely expensive original sources, etc. in which exceptions ought to be permissible and acceptable. Yet he states the other case quite succinctly: " The use of photocopied textbooks, workbooks, instant lessons, etc. to "save money" no matter how poor the school, is an act of theft and undermines the Torah that is being taught."

There are great resources on the web about Fair use. One good place to start in the Wikipedia Article on Fair Use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

This section is great:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Common_misunderstandings

Earlier, I alluded to one possible solution to balance society’s continual call for “more and free” and respect for intellectual property. This is something that needs to come from the creative end. Some time back I read some interesting articles and blog posts that suggested that the solution to overcoming over-saturation and easy access is to give your “product” – your website, your database, your music, your blog – whatever – some unique and defining quality that makes it desirable. For example – there are dozens of sites that might offer the same information. What tangible, or even intangible quality might you be able to give your site to allow it to stand out from the others? Surely this is something artists and musicians already understand.

As a reviewer and critic of Jewish music, I have often remarked about how something does or does not stand out from all the other settings of the same text out there. Good work will stand out. However, that is not enough these days. There is so much noise out there, that “good work will out” is no longer a given. Just look at the mediocrity in general in the popular music industry these days. There’s some really great stuff out there that never gets its due recognition, and some really mediocre stuff that tops the charts. So it is no longer enough to write a really great song or make a really great recording. It needs that, as they say in New Orleans, lagniappe. In fact, that word is a perfect example. It has come to mean that “something extra” but its origins are in referring to little gifts that merchants gave away to their customers at the time of purchase. (A baker’s dozen would be a form of lagniappe.)

The theory is that people will find that lagniappe of value, and it will induce them to buy your product, or order from your website, or download your music rather than go to someone or somewhere else.(Even free things, like website and blogs, can employ the same approach to attract visitors.)

Elul is here. Time to do some inner soul searching. Maybe some organizational inner soul searching. Between now and the end of the Yamim Noraim (Days of Awe, the High Holy Days) might be a good time to go through your shelves, files, Hard drives, CDs, DVDs, videos and weed out the obviously illegal (both under U.S. law and Jewish law) items we have and are using, for ourselves, and our institutions. Time to go to our boards and officers and executives and clergy and insist that we practice the Torah that we teach. Insist that we are not engaging in hassagat g'vul, moving boundaries.

I hoped I've stretched your boundaries a little with these thoughts. If you'd like to know more about copyright and Judaism, please visit http://www.havanashira.org/copycamp.htm where you will find a host of linked resources.

I hope, most of all, that this musing provided you with a little lagniappe!

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian

Some other musings on this parasha:

Shoftim 5767 (Redux and Updated 5760/61) From Defective to Greatest
Shof'tim 5766-Hassagut G'vul
Shoftim 5765/5759-Whose Justice?
Shoftim 5763--Pursuit

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Re’eh 5771-Revisiting B’lo L’sav’a

2011-08-25T22:34:00.001-04:00

Twice before, at turning points/new beginnings in my career, I wrote and shared musings for parashat Re’eh entitled B’lo L’sav’a. It seemed fitting at yet another new beginning to revisit this theme again.

Some of you know my history, some do not. I was trained in childhood as a musician and scientist. As fate would have it, I wound up with a career in the performing arts – and not even onstage, but backstage. I was happy in my career. The twists and turns of life brought me to a place where participation and involvement in the Jewish community became important to me. I started by using my musical skills in service to Judaism, but was soon drafted into teaching as well. It wasn’t long before I found myself as the director of a supplemental school. As my passion grew, I decided that I needed to commit myself to working full-time in the Jewish arena. I went back to school, studied theology (not exactly a typical path, but that’s a story for another time) and began to support myself solely through work in the Jewish community.

I wish I could have said “began to support myself solely as a Jewish educator” but the reality is it wasn’t enough. Even teaching full-time at a day school I found it necessary (not just desirable) to supplement my income by using my musical and technology skills. Without additional work as a synagogue music director, teaching at local synagogue schools, plus the editing I did for Torah Aura, the parnassa, the means of livelihood, would be insufficient.

In the years since, I have returned to serving in an administrative capacity for synagogue supplemental schools. While the parnassa was better I still found it inadequate without continuing to be involved in other activities-musical, educational, and even theatrical-yet all Jewish.

Then I relocated again, and the economy went south. While I was able to piece together a little supplemental school teaching, bar/bat mitzvah tutoring, and occasional musical gigs, the ever slowing spigot led to a prolonged bout of under employment and even periods of complete unemployment. It wasn’t fun, and even began to dampen my passion, something I thought wasn’t possible.

Though I sought work as a supplemental school principal, the pickings were slim, and many synagogues, in poor financial health, couldn’t offer me reasonable compensation and benefits for someone of my age and experience. Luckily I was open to a sideways/lateral career move, and now I start a new job as music teacher for a day school on Manhattan’s upper west side. I am still going to have to supplement that work (especially given the cost of living in NYC) and will likely continue to be wearing lots of different hats.

I certainly made some poor career choices if financial security and comfort was my ultimate goal. The theater business, the music business, and Jewish education (I refuse to call that a business – and thinking of it as a business has been the cause of a lot of the problem we have with it) – none of them known for being particularly lucrative (well, as in any profession, some people do make a great living in the performing arts and music-but for every star there are hundreds of others who toil in the vineyards.)

Yes, I like nice things. I like to live in nice places. Yet I still value some intangibles more than property and lifestyle. I have learned that quality of life is dependent not just on economics. I enjoy what I do. I am passionate about it. In my careers, I have experienced some of the best and worst that these professions have to offer. Right now, I’m just beginning to shake off the effects of a pretty strong challenge to my passion and enthusiasm. My flame got pretty low for a while-almost just embers, truth be told. The spark remained, and slowly, beginning with my part-time work last spring as a substitute music specialist for a NYC synagogue, and my just completed stint as a music specialist for the 92nd St Y day camps, I can feel the flame rekindling. Those positions both showed me that I still had deep wells of passion and enthusiasm on which to draw – and I hope and pray that those deep internal sources become renewed and replenished as time goes on. They have been depleted pretty heavily, but somehow (or through the aegis of someOne) they never ran dry. Once again explaining why the haftarah for Re’eh speaks to me so strongly:

Isaiah Chapter 55 1 Ho, all who are thirsty, Come for water, Even if you have no money, Come, buy food and eat: Buy food without money, Wine and milk without cost. 2 Why do you spend money for what is not bread, Your earnings for what does not satisfy? Give heed to Me, And you shall eat choice food And enjoy the richest viands. 3 Incline your ear and come to Me; Hearken, and you shall be revived. (JPS)

When I first wrote a musing on this theme, I said I'm wasn’t going to offer excuses for the paltry salaries paid to Jewish educators, and I stand by those words. It remains a shanda, an embarrassment to the entire Jewish community. We have not put our money where our mouth is. On top of the already dismal pay, benefits, etc. we now have the additional complications of the bad economy and the changing face of Judaism and Jewish Education.

Something I’ve not written about before when musing on this theme, however, is the tendency of synagogues and other Jewish institutions to take excessive advantage of the passion of their undervalued staff.

I was reminded of this just the other day by a tweet that called my attention to a discussion on the Darim Online blog jewpoint0.org about an all too common reality in the Jewish (and larger religious/non-profit) community – the accidental techie. You know – the person who by default of knowledge, ability, passion, and volunteerism becomes the synagogue’s tech or web site or social media point person. I added these thoughts to the discussion:

I’d like to expand the category to talk about people like myself – the “professional” accidental techie – i.e. synagogue staff who become defacto IT, web, and social media support and point persons. I have to admit that, as a social deviant, I allowed, and often pushed, for this to happen so I wonder how often it’s truly accidental? As a digital naturalized citizen (my self-coined term since neither digital native nor digital immigrant describes me) who has been active in computing and online since 1980, I have decades of experience as the “accidental techie” and have always enjoyed it. However, I have always worked hard to insure I was not indispensable in that role-keeping things as transparent as I could, so that, inevitably, when I moved on, there was continuity. Unfortunately, not all the places I worked took the hints, and they suffered as a result. Synagogues have a long and sad history of abusing the “and other duties as assigned” clauses in employees’ contracts, and while I have always enjoyed the addition of tech responsibilities to my work, I have on occasion come to resent the dependence and expectation – and the continued insistence to only use volunteers or staff who have other primary duties for this work. Yes, every synagogue has money woes. My own inability to find work as a synagogue educator and thus having to move sideways into other Jewish work is ample evidence. Yet in this digital age, synagogues need to invest in having staff with primary responsibility for technology/social media/etc. Woe unto those who continue to rely on the accidental techie. Wow, when I consider how much more money I could have been making if I were a computer/IT professional instead of choosing to dedicate my life in service to Judaism…

Nevertheless, while I may be a bit older, wiser, and cautious, and I may lament about it a bit, I’m still the passionate and eager accidental techie when asked. In addition to musical and technology skills, my employers over the decades (synagogues, JCC, etc.) also happily plumbed the depths of my theatrical skills, getting me to set up, fix, and adjust their sound systems, or stages, etc. I was even crazy enough to volunteer to be the technical coordinator for those two crazy mass synagogue choir concerts the DC Metro area Jewish community put together for the 350th anniversary of Jews in America, and the 60th birthday of Israel.

Part of me feels like Sancho Panza wanting to ask Don Quixote why he does what he does, and part of me feels like Don Quixote, trying to explain to Sancho the depth of my passion. I’ve always had passion for things, and even in my careers before devoting myself to working full-time in the Jewish community, I had the passion of which others would willingly take advantage. At first, I couldn’t help myself.Then I entered the denial phase where I simply convinced myself I was only doing all this extra stuff because I wanted to do it. When I look back and see how much I did for love in the theater business, working for all those community theaters for little or no compensation, in addition to my full-time work in theater I recognize that this is just who I am. I have come to terms with it. I’m still bad at saying no, but I have a little more self-awareness than before. (Or so I’d like to believe…)

It is nice to know that now feeling continually called to work in service to our faith and tradition, I, and most of us (if not all of us) in Jewish Education realize the truth revealed in Isaiah's words:

Lama tishk'lu-kesef b'lo lechem; vigiachem b'lo l'sav'a? Why do you spend money for what is not bread, Your earnings for what does not satisfy?

I love what I do. It does give me satisfaction. I like things, I like comfort, but not so much so that I would give up the joy of doing work I enjoy doing for the sake of just having more money, more things, more comfort. If I have any “b’lo l’sav’a” in my life – a lack of satiation – it is not in the way this of which this text speaks. If I hunger, it is for more of what I already do with passion. I could be in another profession, and earning much greater amounts of money to spend and save. Yet I could not do this in a profession about which I was not passionate and be happy.

I cannot say it better than I did in my previous musings on this theme:

Even the minimal salary of a Jewish educator is a king's ransom when it is spent for what is truly bread, and for what truly satisfies. The bread and satisfaction that is available to those who worship Ad”nai and follow G”d's ways. To those who seek to teach these ways to our children.

By reinvesting what I earn back into the Jewish community, by seeking to live by G”d's commandments, by showing khesed and acting righteously, I get greater value for my money. The commitment of a Jewish educator to the future of Judaism opens the door to riches beyond imagination.

Shabbat shalom,

Adrian

Other musings on this parasha:

Re'eh 5770 Meating Urges
Re'eh 5766-Lo Toseif V'lo Tigra
Re'eh 5765--Revised 5759-Open Your Hand
Re'eh 5761--Our Own Gifts
Re'eh 5760/5763--B'lo l'sav'a
Re'eh 5759--Open Your Hand
Re'eh 5757/5758--How To Tell Prophet From Profit

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Eikev 5771-Lining Up Alphabetically by Height

2011-08-19T19:33:00.001-04:00

I am not a sports enthusiast. In fact, I am pretty sure I didn’t even watch the half-time show of the last Superbowl. Yes, I do occasionally attend a baseball game. I usually do watch at least some of the Superbowl, and, usually, at least the half-time show. I do dabble in watching Olympic events, and, once in a blue moon, might watch some non0Olympic ice skating or ice dancing event on television.I don’t believe I’ve ever been to a professional football, basketball or hockey game. As a child and young professional, I enjoyed auto-racing, but I’ve never attended a race. (I do watch the Kentucky Derby but ask me to name a horse other than Secretariat and I’d be stumped. I’ve never been to a horse race live.) I’m barely aware of top sports figures, don’t follow any teams with any gusto or commitment. (I suspect this may change now that I have moved back to NYC, where at least getting to a major or minor league event is easier. On the other hand, I’m pretty much a Mets fan in a Yankee-dominated city, having been in HS the year the Mets won the series for the first time. I actually think NYC Jews should perforce be Mets fans. We have so much in common with them, at least up until the last 50 years or so of our history.)

I am sure there are others out there who can identify with my common discomfort when all around me people are talking sports. I’m glad I don’t work in a typical office or business setting where my non-attention to sports would be outed in a second, and leave me with little to talk about with co-workers when they are talking sports.

Sure, I follow the news, so I have some rough idea of the names of key and popular sports figures. However, besides names like A-Rod and Jeter I would be hard-pressed to name a pro-sports player currently playing. My sports figure vocabulary seems to be stuck in a time warp with names like Casey Stengel, Yogi Berra, Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle, Sandy Koufax, OJ Simpson, Joe Namath, Fran Tarkenton, Arnold Palmer, Bobby Orr, Richard Petty, Wilt Chamerberlain and Lew Alcindor (err, I mean Kareem Abdul Jabar. He grew up in the same housing project as I did and I’m fairly certain I got to watch him play in our playgrounds.) I think the era/age of most of those names will give you some idea of when I stopped having much interest in professional sports – a long time ago. Sure I know other names like Tiger Woods, Peyton Manning and probably dozens of others, but don’t ask for where they played or when (and in some cases, even what they played!

All of which is merely preface to my caveat that using sports metaphors may not be the best way I can convey things. However, damn the torpedoes, I’ll try.

Our parasha, Eikev, in fact, most of the book of D’varim (Deuteronomy) is a locker room speech or a huddle. The Israelites are preparing to cross into the promised land, and despite all the miracles they have experienced still need a pep talk. Yes, there’s an awful lot of negative reinforcement in the words of Torah from this book, but if the reputation of some coaches is accurate, it wouldn’t surprise me to know they used negative reinforcement as a pep-talk technique too. (Personally, I don’t find negative reinforcement particularly effective, but that’s my 21st-century perspective on things. Perhaps negative reinforcement was more effective in ancient times. However, given the stubborn and recalcitrant history of the Jews, I’m led to conclude that it wasn’t all that effective back then.)

“We’re Gonna Win!” “You’re Gonna Win!” That’s the enthusiasm of this last book of the Torah. It’s peppered with a lot of “But to win, you gotta….” Probably not atypical of a locker room pep talk.

The consequences for losing (or for not following G”d’s ways) are pretty drastic, much more so than losing a ball game. Yet to hear athletes and coaches talk, sometimes I wonder if they realize that. Parents, too, who push their kids too hard to win at youth sports (or dance, or music, or whatever.)

Ultimately, the lesson in parashat Eikev is “listen to what I am telling you.” Sounds like a coach to me. “I’m telling you this for your own good.” It’s possible we kept losing because we didn’t listen. We still aren’t listening very well, but our streak of bad luck seems to be thinning out (at least for now. Unless you consider the continued existence of Judaism to be under threat, which some people do.)

I’ve little experience with athletic coaches, but a a reasonable amount with band directors – who have quite a bit in common with each other. Some manage to give pep talks without negative reinforcement, and others are pretty heavy-handed with it. (Personally, I continue to believe you catch more flies with honey.)

What this coaching/pep-talk/huddle metaphor does for me is enable me to be a bit more accepting of the striking text we encounter here in parashat Eikev and much of D’varim. When I consider the (supposed) time and place of this long oration by Moses, and place it in the context of a pep talk, it makes it easier for me to digest and accept. It also convinces me that we were just as dysfunctional then as we are now.

Since I am still struggling with so much of what the Torah, and particularly this parasha and this book, has to say, I thought I might offer some Torah from two of my childhood heroes, Casey Stengel and Yogi Berra.

Yogi explained the book of D’varim pretty well:

It’s like deja vu all over again.

Here are a few more of my favorites pieces of CS/YB Torah:

When you are younger you get blamed for crimes you never committed and when you’re older you begin to get credit for virtues you never possessed. It evens itself out. YB

If you come to a fork in the road, take it. YB

There comes a time in every man’s life, and I’ve had plenty of them. CS

The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided. CS

Without losers, where would the winners be? CS

I stayed up last night and watched the Republican Convention all night long. I watched all of them talk, and listened to them and seen them and I'm not interested in politics. If you watch them and listen to them you can find out why. CS

If you’re really a baseball fan, then you’ll know from whence the title of this musing comes from.

We can end with this well-worn YB quote:

It ain’t over ‘til it’s over YB

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Ekev 5770 - For the Good Planet
Ekev 5769-Not Like Egypt
Ekev 5766 - Kod'khei Eish-Kindlers of Fire
Eikev 5765-Are We Forgotten?
Ekev 5764-KaYom HaZeh
Ekev 5760 (from 5759)-Not Holier Than Thou

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Va’etkhanan/Nakhamu 5771 – Comfort

2011-08-12T19:15:00.001-04:00

The timing of Shabbat Nakhamu is consistent in the Jewish calendar, coming as it does after Tisha B’Av and taking us from a place of utter despair to one of comfort and hope. This year, its timing within the secular calendar is equally propitious. Let’s face it. Things, well, to put it bluntly, suck right now. Nobody appears to be happy. In England, youth are rioting. In the US, the stock market is going crazy, our economy is in awful shape, and politicians have gone absolutely mad. There’s still war in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Libya. Syria’s government continues to crackdown. The horn of Africa is experiencing a food crisis.

What scares me is that I’m afraid we haven’t seen the worst of it yet. Consider the words of hafatarah reading for Shabbat Nakhamu (Isaiah 40:1-26.) We have not yet seen the depths of despair and destruction as those being consoled by Isaiah’s words.

We are, I’m afraid, quite guilty of many of the behaviors and sins for which Isaiah (and most of the prophets) take the people to task. Our systems and practices have become corrupted. We do not dispense justice equally to rich and poor alike.

I am not trying to rationalize or defend the actions of the young British rioters. But I understand their angst. An article I read the other day tried to pass off the riots as the product of lazy, self-indulgent, spoiled British youth with a sense of entitlement and easy to anger and act on that anger. I can’t dismiss the analysis completely – there is likely some truth in it. I am somewhat surprised it hasn’t started happening here in US. I fear that, when the truly serious cuts to government spending come to pass, without any attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy, our own youth (and adults, and seniors) may be similarly angered and driven to riotous behavior. To turn a phrase around, lo y’hi ratzon.

I make no bones about my politics. I’m a liberal to the core. I truly believe the Judaism of my understanding compels my political outlook, though I fully recognize that others derive totally different understandings and political views from the same sources I use.

Things are not right in this world. The rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor, and the poor are growing poorer. Pollution? Global warming? Nuclear energy? Nuclear weapons? Terrorism? The democratic spring in the middle east and north Africa? All of these are starting to take a back seat to the worldwide economic spasms. Conveniently so, I might surmise. What better way to take our mind off of things which will cost companies millions to fix and make right that to have worldwide economic panic? (I’m no big fan of conspiracy theories, but there are times that “follow the money” can lead to some very suspicious thoughts.)

G”d is not likely to provide a solution, but it is said that religious faith can provide some comfort. I’m trying real hard to have that faith, and harkening to Isaiah’s words. It’s not easy, and my faith and trust is tenuous at best. When faith and trust are all you’ve got however, it seems foolish to throw it away. Maybe if we all grabbed at a little piece of faith, maybe if we all allowed ourselves to be comforted by the G”d (or non-deity) of our understanding, we can find our way through the darkness.

At times like this we truly need comfort. Would that the whole world , all of us together, united as one, despite our differences, could cry out to G”d “Comfort us, comfort us, all our people. That’s what I’ll be praying for this Shabbat.

Finally, it has been somewhat of a tradition for me to share my musing for parashat Va’etkhanan, “The Promise” at this time each year. So here’s a link to it: http://www.durlester.com/musings/vaetkhanan5767.htm

Shabbat Shalom and May You Find Comfort,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Va'etkhanan 5769-This Man's Art, That Man's Scope
Va'etchanan 5764--Sometimes A Cigar...
Va'etchanan 5758-63-66-67-The promise

Random Musing Before Shabbat-D’varim/Shabbat Hazzon 5771-Redux 5766-Refractory Recalcitrant Recidivists

2011-08-05T19:06:00.001-04:00

So, before the mournful Tisha B'Av, we get Shabbat Hazon, the Sabbath of Prophecy (vision? foresight?) named after the first words in the haftarah reading from Y'shayahu (Isaiah) chapter one. Talk about a downer.

Isaiah reports G"d's words, spoken like a true parent "I reared children and brought them up--and they have rebelled against Me!" The children of Israel are labeled "goi khotei"-sinful nation, an "am keved avon"-a people heavy with iniquity. (I love the use of the kaf, bet, dalet root, more often seen in a positive light as honor or glory--"kavod"--yet here it reverts to the root's base meaning - heavy - we are heavy with (laden) with sin. Perhaps our sin is that we have taken what should be our honor, and have viewed it instead as a heavy burden which we can shuck off.)

We are "zera m'rei'im"--seeds from evilness (JPS poetically uses "brood of evildoers") and "banim mash'khitim" --children who have become spoilers (and, though we can't impute a more modern meaning, I daresay that perhaps we had become not just spoilers, but "spoiled children" ourselves. Maybe we still are.)

"Why," asks G"d, "do you seek to be beaten further, adding to your apostasy?"

Why, indeed? What is it about human beings that make us prone to being refractory, recalcitrant, and recidivist? Could you think of a worse innate trait? Stubbornness combined with obstinacy, resistance, and a tendency to fall back on old bad habits?

Can we truly blame the high incidence of recidivism among those sent to prison for crimes solely upon the weaknesses and problems with the penal system? And why is it that some are able to overcome their demons and others not? Why are some alcoholics and addicts successful in keeping their recovery going, and others on a constant cycle of falling off the wagon?

So many in our prison system appear to find G"d in some fashion. Yet when these are warrior gods of Norse mythology, or a pure white Aryan Jesus. And Isaiah tells us that G"d isn't interested in our sacrifices or our prayers when what is in our hearts is evil. When we lift up our hands, G"d will turn G"d's eyes away from us, though we increase our prayer, G"d will not listen, for our hands with bloods are full. (1:15)

So just how defiant and off-task must we be before G"d will no longer listen to our prayers? Can any of us truly say that our hands are not somehow tainted with the blood of others? When evil happens in our world, are we not responsible as a community to do something about it? If we follow the Sodom and Gomorrah example, if at least 10 of us are trying to do something about it, is that enough for G"d to continue to listen to us, hear our prayers, show us favor and mercy and kindness? Is there another "tipping point?" If so, why the different standard, you might ask. That, my friends, is the price for being a people covenanted with G"d. Yes, we will be held to a higher standard.

"That's not fair! I didn't ask to be born into this covenant" I hear some cry. Opt out then. But don't come crying to G"d the next time you've run out of other options.

G"d not listening to us. It's not a very comforting thought. It seems harsh-it's not the loving, all-forgiving G"d we all want. Yet did we always get what we wanted from our parents?

Nevertheless, how many of us were, in the eyes of our parents, sometimes refractory, recalcitrant, and recidivist? So probably sometimes our parents had to turn a deaf ear to our please in do what they felt they needed to do in order to get to to do family t'shuva. They continued to love us (at least most of them, for even parents are imperfect.) And so does G"d.

Our criminal justice system, to some extent, tries (though often fails) to heed Isaiah's reminder from G"d that "sins like crimson, they can be turned into snow-white; be they red as dyed wool, they can become like fleece.

All negative messages from our parents (or from G"d) are not likely to be successful at getting us to return to the path of righteous living. And just as our parents knew to temper their "tough love" with a little kindness, so, too, does G"d. We see it throughout our sacred scriptures, and we see it here at the end of this haftarah.

"Zion shall be saved in the judgment, her repentant ones, in the retribution." (JPS, 1:27)

Yet we cannot depend solely on G"d's ultimate mercy. Our Jewish understanding is that this is a two way street. That is why, perhaps, Isaiah has G"d saying:

"L'khu-na, v'nivvakh'khah." It's somewhat odd morphology makes it difficult to translate, but scholars believe the meaning to be something like "Come, please, let us reason together" or, as the JPS committee decided to translate it "Come, let us reach an understanding."

Refractory recalcitrant recidivists that we are, let's go reach an understanding with G"d.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian

For another take on this haftarah for Shabbat Hazon, see D'varim 5762-L'chu v'niva'ch'chah and the Twelve Steps

Some Previous Musings on the Same Parasha

D'varim 5769-Torah of Confusion
D'varim 5764--Eleven Days
D'varim 5763--Remembering to Forget or Forgetting to Remember?
D'varim 5762-L'chu v'niva'ch'chah and the Twelve Steps
D'varim 5759-Owning Up
D'varim 5760-1-Kumu v'Ivru

Random Musing Before Shabbat - Masei 5771 - Cause and Effect

2011-07-28T22:50:00.001-04:00

Every decision, every choice, has an outcome. Sometimes the consequences are as intended, other times they are not. Sometimes we get unexpected results. Sometimes the effects are only local, other times the effects can be quite distant (and surprising.)

None of us are surprised by this. It's how life works. For some, however, this challenges their understanding of G"d. If G"d is truly omniscient, then no consequence is unforeseen or unknown to G"d. This is one the reasons that many modern theologians embrace the concept of a limited G"d (whether self-limited or externally by the nature of the universe.) I certainly find it easier to embrace the idea of a deity that is limited. It matters little to me if that limitation is self-imposed by the deity in question, if the deity is actually limited by forces beyond it's control (and no, I don't see that as oxymoronic,) or if, in the act of creating a universe with a specific set of physical laws the deity in effect became self-limited.(You can also extend this to the concept of free-will. By giving creations free-will, is not the deity effectively self-limiting?)

Having thought and written about all this, I was surprised to find myself wrestling with why we have sequel to the Zelophehad's daughters story here in our parasha, dealing with a (perhaps unforeseen) consequence of G"d's original instructions to allow Zelophehad's daughter to inherit. Whoops! Somebody missed the boat at the time on this one. What happens when the daughters then marry into other clans? Theoretically, their inheritances could wind up the property of the clan into which they marry, thus putting a kink into the system, one that even the year of Jubilee would not resolve. So in this parasha the unexpected consequence gets fixed.

The solution, not surprisingly, is somewhat misogynist. Zelophehad's daughters can marry anyone they wish - as long as that person is from a clan of their father's tribe! The girls were obedient and married their cousins (on their father's side.) (I think it is editorial of the JPS to use the words "the sons of their uncles" as the translation from the Hebrew, for, although it is accurate, is doesn't have the impact of saying they married their own cousins. A little whitewashing, perhaps?

In any case, all week long I have been bothered by this. Why wasn't this issue settled from the beginning, at the time G"d (through Moses) decided that the daughters of Zelophehad could inherit from their father? I find it hard to believe that this possible consequence simply escaped the minds of everyone involved, including G"d, Moshe, and just about everyone else! I mean, this is practically a "duh!"

We can play the inscrutable G"d card to explain why G"d decided to deal with this when it came up rather than right away, even though an omniscient G"d would surely have seen that far ahead. We can play the busy or limited G"d card to explain it away. We can rationalize and say that people (even G"d) often play the "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" game.

I'm just not finding any of those answers satisfactory for now. Being in this mood causes me to question more. What about the request of some tribes to allow to settle on the west side of the Jordan? Surely that was predictable. (In addition, as long as we're going down this rabbit hole, isn't a lot of it predictable - the continual stubbornness and recalcitrance of the Israelites, Korakh's rebellion, the reactions to the reports of the spies, and so on?

Ah, we humans with our need to know, to understand. A blessing and a curse. (How very Jewish.)

As I have said many times before, I see this as Torah's gift. I am glad for a Torah that does not leave me complacent, but instead leaves me perplexed, questioning, sometimes even angry. Thanks, Torah. May your Shabbat be equally relaxing and troubled as mine will be.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Matot-Masei 5770 - Treasure Trove of Trouble
Masei 5768 - Accidents Matter
Matot 5768/5765-Even Moshe Rabbeinu Had to Punt
Matot-Masei 5766 - First Fruit
Matot-Masey 5764-Putting the Kids Before the Kids
Matot--Masey 5763-Over the Top
Matot--Masey 5762--The Rebel's Complaint and Promises, Promises

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Matot 5771 – Don’t Become Like…Them

2011-07-22T19:32:00.001-04:00

Some years back, I wrote in praise of Moshe’s ability to “punt” in a difficult situation, as he did in dealing with the Gadites, Reubenites and others who asked to settle in the land east of the Jordan which they believed was good land for raising their flocks. (Their assumption being it was better land than G”d was bringing them to across the Jordan remains a puzzling piece of lack of faith, and no less strange is Moshe’s willingness to give-in to their request with certain conditions.)

As I read and re-read this parasha, I am struck by how unfamiliar I am with this Moses. He is a warrior-leader, calling for his soldiers to be brutal. Not that he had much choice, as it was G”d’s instruction to “avenge the Israelite people on the Midianites” (JPS Numbers 31:1a.) I think a clue as to why this is a somewhat different Moses can be found in the second half of the verse, “then you shall be gathered to your kin.” (JPS, Numbers 31:1b)

What happened to the Moses who responded to G”d “who, me?” Has Moshe been so worn down over the years that he no longer cares to argue with G”d (though later on as he approaches his imminent death Moses does put up a bit of a fuss.)

Has Moses seen so much carnage that he has been numbed by it? He’s certainly seen enough rebelliousness by the Israelites to be numbed by it-and this perhaps helps to explain his conciliatory attitude in dealing with the Gadites and Reubenites.

Let’s face it. You deal with enough crap, you quickly tire of dealing with it. Moshe is definitely wearing thin around the edges.

Frustration and over-exposure to things is dangerous and can lead to all sorts of trouble. Eventually, the way we deal with frustration, impatience, and over-exposure can come back to bite us in the ass.

I may be stretching things a bit to make my point, but I saw something this morning that I think ties in to all this. On my way from the subway station to the public school where we meet the day camp bus each morning, I see lots of parents (or nannies-after all, this is Greenwich Village) escorting children to and fro. Very often, I see them crossing against the light, or in the middle of the block. Now this, in and of itself, is not unusual. New Yorkers do it all the time. However, I think this illustrates how our frustration and impatience lead us into bad habits. As an adult, I certainly engage in the practice of jaywalking. As a latch-key kid (though the term didn’t exist when I was a kid-we were just normal NYC kids who two working parents who walked to and from school on their own each day, and remained at home until the folks returned) I’m sure I could have quickly learned the habit. Yet even today, I am tinged with guilt whenever I jaywalk. The reason: I know my parents would have never let us jaywalk when we were together as a family. They taught us to obey the traffic signals, the walk/don’t walk signs, the crossing guards, etc. To this day friends and others make fun of me for being such a law abiding citizen. I don’t look to cheat on my taxes, I generally don’t find ways to skirt around laws, and when I do, or help others do it, I feel remorse. This is, I believe, as it should be. Does my honesty cost me more, in time, effort, and financially? Sure? Do I resent those who flaunt rules and get away with it? Yes. (I am reminded at this time of seeing many, many church-owned vans driving around New York City-almost all of them with out of state plates despite clearly having names of churches within NYC painted on them. Dina d’malkhuta dina is as applicable for churches as it is synagogues.)

When I moved back to NYC a while back, I dutifully got a NY State driver’s license and registered and titled my car within the 30 day limit. Shortly after, my car was ticketed for failing to have an inspection sticker (by an either ignorant or lazy public servant who either didn’t know that NYS recognizes unexpired out-of-state inspections on vehicles moved into the state for either a year or the expiration of the out-of-state inspection, and also probably didn’t know that Massachusetts inspection stickers are on the passenger side of the windshield, unlike NYS.) I am fighting the ticket of course, but friends and others have ragged me noting the “thanks” I got for being such a dutiful citizen. They suspect if I had flaunted the 30-day rule I would likely get away with it for quite a while.

Let them rag on me. I feel good about being a good citizen. (To make a tenuous, at best, connection to the parasha, a citizen’s duty to be lawful is not unlike taking an oath, and this weeks parsha reminds us that we should keep our oaths (while offering us ways to deal with the reality that we sometimes promise what we can’t deliver.)

In some ways, I see Moshe’s acquiescence to the Gadites and Reubenites like the parent or nanny who teaches the child to jaywalk. He gave in to the frustration, the impatience.

While life continually proves me wrong, I continue to hold to the idea that slow and steady wins the race, honesty is the best policy, laws are meant to be followed and not generally observed only when convenient (yes, I know, you are welcome to take me to task for how miserably I fail in that regard when it comes to halakha.) I’m like that prophet I’ve mentioned before that Elie Wiesel spoke of – I no longer act as I do because I think I can change others, but rather so I don’t become like them. Don’t teach your kids that jaywalking is OK. Don’t become like them. If I were brave, I might say “don’t become like Moses” but I think that’s carrying things a bit too far. On balance, Moses is someone to emulate. So let’s stick with “don’t become like…them.”

Shabbat Shalom

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Some other musings on this parasha:

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Pinkhas 5771 – Wake Up and Smell the Coffee

2011-07-15T19:29:00.001-04:00

I have been trying for some time now to find a hook in either this week’s parasha or haftarah on which to hang what I planned to write about in this musing. I haven’t yet found it. It’s probably there, and now that I’m about to give up trying, it will probably reveal itself. So, with apologies for straying from the usual topic of the parasha or haftarah, I offer these thoughts.

If you’re not living in a cave (or underneath a rock, as the Geico commercial says) then you have probably learned of the shocking news of the killing of Leiby Kletzky. Eight year old Leiby was walking home alone for the first time from day camp at a local Yeshiva in Boro Park. He was to meet his mother about halfway home, for this first attempt at going it alone. Leiby never made it. He apparently failed to turn a corner, kept walking, and got lost. He was befriended by 35-year-old Levi Aron, who apparently brought him to his house. What happened after that remains murky. There’s some evidence he actually took the boy to a wedding upstate that evening.

The whole hasidic community (along with neighbors, including Pakistanis, Christians, and others) took to the streets in a valiant effort to locate the missing child.

A self-proclaimed amateur dectective, whose son was one of Leiby’s teachers at school, pressed local businesses to see the videotapes from their surveillance cameras. His work, passed on to the NYPD via their liaison to the hasidic community, led the police to Levi Aron, and they stormed his apartment.

The accused killer, Levi Aron, has claimed that after he saw so many posters and people looking for the child, he panicked, fed the child a tuna sandwich, smothered him, and then dismembered him. Some of the body parts were found in a dumpster some blocks away. Leiby’s feet were found in Aron’s freezer. Levi has confessed, but so much about this crime remains a mystery, as does the accused and self-confessed killer himself. There is no evidence so far of any sexual crime.

The whole community, and I don’t mean just the hasidic community, is in shock at this brutal and incomprehensible act. Much remains to be explained and discovered in the case. The local news has really hyped the story, which makes sorting out facts from theories and assumptions difficult. I think we will all need to be patient to discover the whole story, if indeed we ever do.

What makes this story interesting for me is the interaction with orthodox and hasidic Judaism. The local papers are replete with quotes from members of the community who state that rather than going to the police, they always go first to their own community-based groups: the Shomrim , a civilian patrol organization, and, for medical emergencies, the Hatzolah ambulance service.

Each of the major hasidic communities in New York City has its own Shomrim. You’ll also find them in other hasidic enclaves (like Monsey, NY, Miami-Dade County FL, Baltimore, MD, London, England, Sydney & Melbourne in Australia.)

Local police do work hand-in-hand with these Shomrim, though they continue to insist the people should contact both their local Shomrim and Police at the same time. The NYPD learned of Leiby being a missing child a full three hours after it was reported to the local Shomrim. (NYPD’s Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, while stating that the police always wanted to be notified concurrently, did say that in this case it did not make a difference. ) It is also true, as I noted earlier, that it was a community-member’s efforts that led the police to the kidnapper/killer/whatever he is.

I find myself frowning and disgusted when I read comments from members of the Hasidic community like “you always go to family first,” or “it’s against halacha to go to the police before speaking to the rabbis except in the most extreme situations” or “the folks at 911 aren’t personally involved, but the people at Shomrim are like family.”

We shouldn’t forget that the various neighborhood Shomrim in NYC have on occasion, been accused of unfair treatment of those who are not members of the community (i.e. people of color, Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims, basically anyone who isn’t a hasid, orthodox Jew, or who looks like a nice safe white person. They are quick to pursue those who are different, and, I would suggest, sometimes not as quick to pursue some within the community.

(It’s interesting to note that, as word spread about the missing child, that most in the hasidic community assumed an outsider was responsible. Many who contacted the office of the local state assemblyman were asking if the killer was from the neighboring Arab community! People in the community were actually hoping this child’s murder was somehow anti-Semitic in nature. Hoping. Unbelievable.)

Which brings me to something else that has me troubled about this whole situation. It’s all the geshrying that the accused killer is Jewish, orthodox, Yeshiva-taught. “He’s one of us!” One local woman was quote din the paper as saying “To me he is not an Orthodox [Jew] because an Orthodox Jew wouldn’t do that.”

What self-righteous poppycock! As history, much of it recent, has shown, the hasidic community is rife with thieves, scoundrels, racketeers, perverts and more. These insular communities think they are somehow better, made purer by their separation. Wake up and smell the coffee, folks. Jews DO kill other Jews. Jews do steal from other Jews (and not just, as the expression goes, from the schwartzes, the blacks. Even today I still see discrimination in hasidic-owned business-mostly in electronics-where people of color just don’t get the same deals, the same respect, etc. as others.)

Now don’t get me wrong. This is not an anti-hasidic screed. New York’s hasidic communities are full of good, honest, caring people (though for my taste they care a little too much more for people on the inside than on the outside.) Hasidic and orthodox Judaism are not for me, but I respect those who choose to live such lives. I may believe that they are misguided in their belief that clinging to ancient (and not-so-ancient) traditions is the only thing that will keep Judaism alive, however I will accept their choice. Doesn’t mean I won’t try to “convert them” into liberal Jews. In fact, I often wish liberal Judaism had it’s own version of Chabad!

Members of the hasidic community have started their rationalizing. Levi Aron isn’t a good Jew, or a real Jew, they will say. Or they will say “this is all G”d’s will.” Leiby’s own parents (who still have not been told the gruesome details of their son’s death) have said, in effect, that this must be what G”d wanted and we have to accept it.

Wake up and smell the coffee. If this is what G”d wants, maybe it’s time to call G”d to account, or find a new G”d. And stop believing that piety keeps a community honest and pure. All that piety seems to be creating is rose-colored glasses.

Torah is pretty up front about the fact that G”d expects human beings to err, to be imperfect, to break G”d’s commandments. Is not the whole idea of trying to live a pure life an oxymoron given what the Torah says?

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

PS-if you find a connection in the parasha or haftarah, let me know!

Other musings on this parasha:

Pinkhas 5770 - Thanking Those Who Didn't Make It
Pinkhas 5769-Why is This Rebuke Different From All Other Rebukes?
Pinkhas 5768 - Still Zealous After all These Years
Pinhas 5766-Let's Give Moshe a Hand
Pinkhas 5765-Kol D'mamah Dakah
Pinchas 5762 -- I Still Get Zealous
Pinchas 5764/5760-It Just Is!

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Balak 5771-Imperfect Justice Is No Excuse

2011-07-08T19:24:00.001-04:00

It’s a well-worn path, but one worth re-treading. These ever so famous words of the prophet Micah which appear in this week’s haftarah:

He (sic) has told you, O man, what is good,
And what the L”rd requires of you:
Only to do justice
And to love goodness
And to walk modestly with your G”d
(JPS, Micah 6:8)

Modern liberal Jews, and in particular, reform Jews, like to claim the prophets as one of the main underpinnings of their theologies (if you can call them that.) In the prophets you can find all sorts of repudiations and denouncements of the Temple cult and sacrificial rites. Placed in their context, these words of the Prophet Micah are at the tail end of such a repudiation. Micah states it bluntly:

Would the L”rd be pleased with thousands of rams,
With myriads of streams of oil?
Shall I give my first-born form my transgression,
The fruit of my body for my sins?
(JPS, Micah 6:7)

Micah’s answer clearly is “no.” G”d does not want our sacrifices, but for us to “do the right things.”

It’s a very freeing idea. Animal sacrifices and cultic rituals have long since lost their appeal, except to a select few. Yet the freedom and reinterpretation that Micah’s word give us is a double-edged sword.

It is far to easy to believe that passive application of these principles is adequate. Forgive me for for using an illustration from the last musing I wrote on this topic but I do not believe we are following Micah’s advice when we walk past beggars on the street smug in the knowledge that we give plenty of money to charity already. Sure, writing a check or clicking on a website takes some effort, however it is still a fairly passive activity.

Writing a check isn’t good enough. We need to practice “righting a check.”

Micah does not say “be just, be loving of goodness, and be humble walking with G”d. Micah so “DO” justice, “LOVE” goodness, and “WALK HUMBLY.” These are simply things one cannot do passively.

Of the three, some say the “walking humbly” part is the hardest. I disagree, and actually believe it is the easiest. While humility is not a dominant human characteristic, with practice it can become normative. If you have some concept of a deity, higher power, force that is in the universe, or some such theological construct, it becomes even easier, because without a doubt, that deity/power/force is bigger than you alone. Nothing is more capable of producing humility than the awareness of something greater than yourself. Walking humbly with the G”d of your understanding requires something on your part. Guess what it is? Sacrifice! You have to sacrifice your pride, your ego, your insistence that the universe always work the way you want it to work.

How does one “love” goodness? Again, remembering that this is meant to be an active, and not passive kind of love, there are many ways to do so. What makes a love not passive? Ah, herein lies the catch. What really makes “love” active is… sacrifice! You can demonstrate your love of things good, and of the good things that others do through the act of personal sacrifice. It could be as simple as writing a check or making a donation. It could be an act that recognizes the goodness of another’s efforts. It could be stopping what you are doing in order to aid someone else in doing goodness. All of these things require some form of sacrifice on your part.

And so we come to “doing justice.” I do think it is the hardest. This one can never be even the least bit passive. Not doing can be passive, but doing? I think not. So how do we do justice? Well, you can guess where I’m going again. It’s going to take…sacrifice. It means giving up preconceptions, pre-judgments, prejudice, bigotry. This is truly not easy in our modern society. Witness all the stories where the public and the media rush to quick judgments, and bounce back and force between viewpoints. The Frenchman and the maid. The mother and the dead child. The congressperson and Twitter. Amidst the media hype and sensationalizing, the constant chatter on Twitter and Facebook, where is the “doing justice.” Justice does not mean you get your opinion of what the situation was validated. It means giving up, as much as is possible, your biases, and seeking only justice. It also means taking action: walking picket lines, being a freedom rider, writing letter to a politician, boycotting a product you really like, manning a phone bank, doing your jury duty instead of always finding some way to angle out of it. You want justice, you have to help it happen.

In western religious texts, including our own, we read a lot about G”d as meting out justice. In reality, the task is ours. Micah, among others, figured out early on the logical extension of the idea that “G”d helps those who help themselves.” If G”d does indeed mete out justice, it is on G”d’s own term and times, and more likely to occur in olam haba or the messianic age. If we want justice here on earth, in our own time, we must make it happen. We must do justice.

There is yet another catch. Justice may not be perfect, ever. Even G”d’s justice may not be perfect (or, if you prefer the Jobist viewpoint, not perfect within out ability to understand and apprehend it.) Some innocents will go free, some guilty will be imprisoned, or even killed. (Let us hope that we recognize how this imperfection is a clarion call to avoid capital punishment, at least IMHO.) Some good will die young and some bad will live and prosper. Some works will be praised and other works will go unrecognized.

We cannot, however, use this imperfection in justice as an excuse to be inactive, or passive. This is the greatest sacrifice of all. Despite the fact that our efforts may not always yield just results, we must, day in and day out, do our best to do justice, love goodness, and walk humbly with the G”d of our understanding.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Some other musings on this parasha:

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Chukat 5771

2011-07-01T19:22:00.001-04:00

OK, I'm exhausted. It's not an easy job for someone my age (56) to be working at the high energy level required to be a day camp songleader. I'm working as Jewish Music Specialist for the 92nd St. Y's Yomi day camp for children entering grades K-4. I schlep from the extreme east end of Brooklyn each morning to PS 41 in the Village, where I board the bus with the campers from that location and head up to the Pearl River campgrounds. We get back and I schlep home to Brooklyn, and arrive home exhausted, after a full day of singing, cheering, and high energy. In between, by the way, I am having the time of my life at camp!

I know it's a lame excuse, but camp just started this week, and I just haven't had the energy to produce a musing this week. So forgive me if I commend to you my previous musings on the parasha, Chukat:

I'll get my grove going and be back next week with a new musing for Balak. I won't let any hidden from sight donkeys impede my way.
Shabbat Shalom,

-Adrian

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Korakh 5771 – Supporting Our “Priests” and “Levites”

2011-06-24T14:29:00.001-04:00

I’m writing this week’s musing from a very selfish standpoint. For the last few decades, I have primarily made my living as a Jewish Educator, especially supervising supplemental religious school programs or teaching for them. If you’ve been following my personal dramas, you’ll know that I’m taking a bit of a downward/sideways shift in my career, still involved in education, and still in a Jewish setting (a day school) however I’ll be teaching music.

Finding work as a Jewish educator (as a school director or similar work) is not so easy these days. (Religious school teachers, however, are always in demand, though the economic crisis is being felt by them as well. Many day schools are struggling as well.) Many of my colleagues are out of work, looking for work, working at reduced salaries and for reduced benefits, or are now working in other fields – some tangential and till in the Jewish community like mine, others no longer working as Jewish professional. Some are not working at all, a circumstance to which I can relate, having been through a two-year period of un/under-employment.

That’s not to say there isn’t any work in Jewish education, there are just many more people competing for those jobs. Many jobs have become part-time, many have few, if any benefits. If we were like ancient Levites, we wouldn’t be able to survive on the support the community was providing.

Now, admittedly, Jewish education has never been a field one goes into with expectations of generous compensation and benefits. All (and I mean all, not most) of the Jewish educators I know do what they do because they love it or feel compelled/obligated to do this holy work. (I suppose there may be some out there who chose the profession for other reasons, but I have personally never mey anyone like that.) All want and expect decent compensation, but recognize it’s not a profession from which they are likely to become rich.

I don’t want to upset any of my rabbinical and cantorial colleagues, most (being honest, I have to say most and not all) do what they do for its holy purpose, and not for financial reasons. I do not begrudge rabbis and cantors the salaries they make and the benefits they receive. They, too, suffer from a plethora of problems that pervade the institution of the synagogue when it comes to employment, contracts, ethics, etc. As a general rule of thumb, they are compensated better than educators – that’s just a basic reality (though there are exceptions.) They too, are being asked to accept salary or benefit reductions (or, at the very least, minimal increases or frozen wages) in many cases. Sometimes, I feel like we are modern “Levites,” except we aren’t landless (though many of us are apartment dwellers-does that makes us landless?)

Yes, I see the work that I and other educators do as of equal value and find the salary discrepancies (which, to us, indicate how we are respectively valued by the community) between us and ordained clergy bothersome. However that is not my focus here. I don’t want to get into a game of comparatives, because in many respects we would be comparing apples and oranges.

So I want to include the clergy as part of the issue I am prompted to raise as my response to encountering parashat Korakh this year.

We – the educators (administrators, teachers, specialists, and support staff alike,) and the the clergy are today’s “Levites.” We perform the essential services that enable the community to worship, learn, engage in the performance of mitzvot, and so much more. For a significant part of the liberal Jewish community, we are also their “surrogate Jew.” Viewed in this way, we, like the priests of old, are intermediaries between the deity/religious cult and the people. Clergy, in particular, perform what once were priestly duties, though not exclusively so. Clergy, educators, and the like (here a nod to synagogue administrators and support staff) also perform the work of the Levites.

Now it is true that we are living in an age in which clergy are not seen universally as intermediaries, and in Judaism we certainly don’t view communication with G”d as solely the purview of the clergy. In the parasha, we read that the priests are to handle all of the work “behind the curtain,” i.e. the altar and the holy of holies. Even before the destruction of the two Temples, people were starting to question this exclusivity, and with the advent of the rabbinical Judaism that replaced the Temple cult in the diaspora, holy obligations were certainly more decentralized. Rabbis were teachers, leaders, and advisors/decision-offerers, but they were not seen as intermediaries acting on behalf of the people to intercede with G”d (though, taking as an example the story of the “ovens at Akhnai” the rabbis may have seen themselves as the ultimate authority, even usurping G”d – G”d even admitting in the story that G”d’s people have defeated G”d.)

Today’s clergy do not, with rare exception, view themselves in this way. (I am chastened to admit that in addition to knowing a few rabbis that might possibly view themselves with such hubris, I have known a few educators and teachers similarly haughty.)

Anyway, to the nub of my musing. Today’s “Levites” (i.e. clergy, educators, et al) are not landless, and solely dependent on the community for their support and livelihood. That being said, the fact remains that, to a very large extent, they are dependent on the community for its support. That support is often inadequate, and it’s getting worse all the time.

Why is it that, to a great extent, Jewish educators generally do not receive compensation for their holy work that is anywhere close to that received by many, if not most, of the congregation’s membership? Yes, rabbis and cantors often make better salaries, and sometimes their earning are on a par with their congregants, yet this is not always the case, and I do not wish to exclude them from the modern “Levites” who rely on the community’s support.(Now, before you take me to task by assuming all congregants are wealthy - I have written in these musings and elsewhere many times about the Jewish community’s invisible Jews – the working class. I grew up in a distinctly working class Jewish family. It’s a phenomenon more widely found in the urban pales of American Jewish settlement in NY, Chicago, and a few other large urban areas. It’s less common in the suburban pales, and far less common outside the “pale,” – something I know from the experience of having lived in 11 states, in smaller communities in places like Indiana, North Dakota, Tennessee, etc.)

Nevertheless it is undeniable that Jews in America are, on the whole, living pretty good lives financially. People in America’s Jewish communities who are educators and the like are, in general, not living as good a life, at least financially. And yes, money isn’t everything. If it were, most of us might be doing something else.

Being Jewish in America is expensive (I’ve lamented about that before as well.) Nevertheless, a 2010 survey by The Forward found that churches and synagogues do equally well in raising funds despite the voluntary giving in churches vs. the typical dues structure of a synagogue. So I can’t really complain about Jews not supporting their institutions when compared to Christians. (The second article in the Forward series does, however, highlight the big discrepancy between the compensation of Jewish clergy compared to their Christian counterparts. Again, I’m not here to chastise my clergy colleagues, the the discrepancy is a bit troubling. In addition, I know any number of Christian educators, and they are generally compensated as poorly as Jewish educators-though the pay discrepancy is often smaller. In addition, a large number of them are volunteers.) Even though American Jews are generally, statistically, a somewhat wealthier class, I don’t believe the solution to the problem I am highlighting is simply to squeeze Jews harder for money to support its Jewish professional class.

So what do we do to insure that today’s “priests” and “Levites” receive the support they need? The question is a difficult one to answer, and is further muddied by today’s economic situation, plus the ongoing changes in the Jewish community (especially regarding its institutions) brought upon by technological and societal change.

The answer may involve a difficult if not impossible question to ask. G”d found a reasonable (though hardly perfect) solution for the priests and Levites of old. If we take our present situation, and resituate it terms of our biblical ancestors, we might well ask “what would G”d do to insure that today’s “Levites” receive what they need from the community to do the holy service they do? It’s time to write our own Torah on this question.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian (aka Migdalor Guy)
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha

Korakh 5770 (Redux 5758/62) Camp Rebellion
Korakh 5769 - And who Put G"d In Charge (or 2009: A Space Odyssey)
Korakh 5768-If Korakh Had Guns
Korach 5767-Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad, Tabernacle?
Korach 5766 - Investment
Korah 5765 - Stones and Pitchers and Glass Houses
Korach 5764-B'tzelem Anashim
Korach 5763-Taken
Korach 5761-Loose Ends

Technorati tags: torah, commentary, jewish, education

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Sh’lakh L’kha – Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

2011-06-17T13:33:00.001-04:00

There is a legal principle in western law expressed in the Latin phrase “Ignorantia juris non excusat” which literally means “ignorance of the law does not excuse” and which is commonly expressed as “ignorance of the law is no excuse” or “ignorance of the law is no defense.”

This very principle is included in this week’s parasha, Sh’lakh-L’kha (and elsewhere in Torah.) Beginning in 15:22, we learn how expiation is to be made for unwitting transgressions of G”d’s commandments through Moshe. I’ve written before in my musings (on this parasha and others) how this betrays an underlying assumption that there will be unwitting transgressions of the commandments. (As a side note, this makes it somewhat easier to understand how the concept of original sin became so prevalent in Xtianity.)

In the parasha, G”d presumes there will be unwitting failures to observe commandments both by the community as a whole, and by individuals, and delineates differing methods of expiation for each.

There is a subtle difference between the two, as translated by the scholarly committee of the new JPS translation. In the case of the community, a bull is sacrificed by the priest, and, as it says in the text, “v’nislakh lahem” they shall be forgiven. A priest also makes expiation for an individual through animal sacrifice (a she-goat.)Although the verb is the same for individuals, “v’nislakh lo” the JPS translates “that he may be forgiven.”

I won’t pretend to be scholar enough to challenge this translation, but I will point out that the subtle change in the English can be seen to imply that forgiveness for individual transgressions may not be as automatic as for community transgressions. Personally, I think this represents a bias on the part of the translators who wish to stress the communal as opposed to individual aspects of Judaism, thus making what appears, to them, a clear delineation from their understanding of Xtian practice. In my reading of the text it is not at all clear that there is any less of an expectation of forgiveness for an individual who follows the prescribed ritual.

As one who struggles with the exclusivity often found in Judaism, and our modern failure to embrace the concept of the ger toshav, the resident stranger, I cannot pass up the opportunity to point out how, in this parasha we read several times the reminder that there shall be one ritual practiced by both Israelites and resident strangers alike. Though it’s not the main theme I intend to explore in this musing, and I wrote about this just two years ago in my musing “One G”d for All” http://www.durlester.com/musings/shelakh5769.htm I feel compelled to write about it again.

Stepping back a bit in the parasha, to verses 15:14ff, we read that when a resident stranger desires to make an offering to G”d, they follow the exact same ritual as an Israelite. There are these key words in the middle and end of 15:15:

There shall be one law for you and the resident stranger; it shall be a law for all time throughout the ages. You and the stranger shall be alike before the L”rd.”

Read that last part again. “You and the stranger shall be alike before the L”rd.”

I have seen far too many intermarried families struggle with modern Judaism’s (possibly erroneous) take on this. I fully understand all of the arguments made by clergy and others for limiting the participation of non-Jewish family members in certain specific ritual acts. (See http://www.durlester.com/musings/shelakh5769.htm.)

To some degree, I find some of these arguments compelling. However, most of these arguments presuppose that one can truly understand what is in the heart and mind of the “resident stranger.” I know far too many “resident strangers” who are more Jewishly knowledgeable and more ritually active than the Jewish members of their families. There’s nothing in the Torah that compels a resident stranger to convert to Judaism. They are merely expected to follow the same commandments as the rest of the community. To those who would say “well, then they might as well convert” I might say that we must not be quick to judge what is in the hearts and minds of others. I have heard some very compelling arguments from modern “resident strangers” as to why they have chosen not to convert to Judaism.

Of course the waters are greatly muddied by the existence of liberal Judaism. How do we define the “resident stranger” in a community that itself has chosen to reinterpret, re-construct, passively or actively ignore, and otherwise conflict with the traditional understandings of the commandments?

I know that my opinions on this matter are conflicted, and that, in even being open to the possibility of full participation of the ger toshav in all aspects of Jewish ritual I place myself in a small minority of Jews. However, I also believe that the survival of Judaism may be very dependent on how we choose to approach the ever-increasing numbers of “resident strangers” in our community. To simply exclude them from certain rituals because they have chosen not to become converts may have a certain appeal to those who do not wish to see Judaism become a free-for-all. If nothing else, I believe each individual case of a “resident stranger” who wishes to more fully participate in Jewish ritual needs to be examined individually, and not by synagogue board policy or clergy decree. (I fully defend the right of all clergy to choose how they will handle such situations, however I do not endorse their various professional organizations or guilds imposing restrictions on their choices.) I personally know many non-Jewish “resident strangers” with whom I would be fully comfortable giving a full aliyah (even to include leyning.) I can’t say this is so for every “resident stranger” i know but that is related to the difficulty in defining the “resident stranger” in the context of modern liberal Jewish practice. The question I pose to clergy, and to all of us is “what we be our standard for how we draw a fence around the Torah?” or the even more provocative “do we even need a fence around the Torah anymore?”

Wow. This is not at all where I intended to go with this musing. It was not my intention at all to write about the “resident stranger.” If you look at the musing’s title, you’ll see my focus was to be on “ignorance of the law not being an excuse.”

What prompted the original title is something that happened to me just yesterday and raises this question: “What do you do when the person ignorant of the law is an officer of the law?”

I recently moved back to New York City. As a law-abiding citizen, I dutifully followed the requirement to get a driver’s license and register my vehicle within 30 days of moving to the state. I had thoroughly researched the requirements, prepared the necessary paperwork in advance, and was delighted when it only took 90 minutes to complete getting both a driver’s license and filing a registration/title application.

I should have known something was amiss when, in preparing to go to the DMV office, I read a note on the DMV website that walks people moving into New York State through the process of registering a vehicle. In included this text:

If you are a non-resident who becomes a resident of NYS, your out-of-state inspection is valid until it expires, or for one year after the vehicle is registered in NYS, whichever comes first. After the inspection expires, you must have the vehicle inspected in NYS. If you receive an inspection extension sticker at the DMV office, destroy the sticker.

The underlining, bold, and italics are mine. At the DMV office near the end of my transaction, the clerk gave me the extension sticker referred to above and I politely told her that I had researched the matter and my out-of-state inspection remains valid. She insisted this was not the case, and gave me the extension sticker, and told me to put it on my car.

Well, I didn’t put it on my car because it would expire in 10 days and I wouldn’t be getting my vehicle inspected until my MA inspection ran out in January 2012. I didn’t destroy it either-I still have it.

Well, yesterday afternoon I found a ticket on my car, citing me for failing to have a NYS inspection sticker. I should charitably suspect that perhaps the officer failed to note the valid MA inspection sticker, located on the passenger side of the windshield, though I’m not sure if it would have mattered if he did. MA does not use registrations stickers (you just carry the registration papers in the car,) only inspection stickers, and they go on the passenger side. My suspicion is that the officer was not familiar with the policy as stated on the DMV website (on two different pages, I might add) and also unaware that MA puts inspection stickers on the other side of the windshield – or perhaps he did see it but thought it was an MA registration sticker, being unaware that MA doesn’t use them. I’m trying to be fair-I cannot know what was in the heart and mind of the issuing officer.

I’ll fight the ticket, of course (though I am not convinced of an easy win even though NYS DMV policy is clearly on my side according to their own website.) Going through this maddening scenario did make me think of the parasha, and all this “ignorance of the law” stuff. I, a dutiful citizen, who made it a point to familiarize himself with the DMV’s (commandments) followed those commandments (though perhaps I need to make expiation for not destroying the extension sticker?) yet was nevertheless asked to make expiation for a sin I did not commit. Worse yet, I had changed my temporary status as a “ger toshav” a resident stranger in New York State by, in effect, becoming like a convert in Judaism – getting a NYS license, et al. Yet still I was being punished. At the same time, although I cannot be certain of this, I suspect that the issuing officer was not fully conversant with all the relevant commandments, and issued me a citation, requiring my expiation for a sin I did not commit.

The parasha is harsh on those who knowingly transgress the commandments. Such people bear their guilt and are cut off from the community. (15:30-31.) In the following section (15:32-36) we read of the poor fellow caught wood gathering on Shabbat. Because there was as yet no direction on what to do with such a transgressor, the community had to wait for G”d to voice an opinion. G”d’s choice: stone him to death.” Whoa. Hold on.

I guess the implication is that this man transgressed willingly and knowingly, but how can we be certain of that? The Torah doesn’t provide any background at all, and I can imagine all sorts of extenuating circumstances. Perhaps the man was feeble-minded? Perhaps he didn’t realize it was Shabbat. Perhaps he had a medical or psychiatric condition. The question also arises, what were the people who discovered this man in the woods up to themselves? Maybe, to cover their own sin or guilt, they conspired to make this other man a scapegoat?

This is a very troubling story. It’s not one I have used in the workshops I’ve done over the years on my favorite topic “Troubling Texts in the Tanakh” but I’m certainly going to add it to my repertoire now!

I hope I am luckier than the alleged Shabbat wood-gatherer in fighting my ticket, but reading this troubling story in the parasha doesn’t give me a lot of confidence at the moment. If this sort of potential injustice exists in the Torah, what hope might I have in the labyrinth of the New York City Traffic and Parking Court system? Wish me luck! I’ll try not to let this spoil my Shabbat. Who knows? Maybe I can be like Joshua and Caleb and ignore those around me who tell me it would be easier to just pay the fine for the crime I didn’t commit than to go through the process of challenging it.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian (aka Migdalor Guy)
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Shelakh L'kha 5769 - One Law
Sh'lakh-L'kha 5767-Cover Up II - G"d's Scarlet Letter?
Sh'lakh L'kha 5766 - Another Missed Opportunity?
Shelakh Lekha 5764-They Might Really Be Giants
Shelakh-Lekha 5762-Minority Report
Shelakh-Lekha 5761-Cover Up?
Shelakh Lekha 5760 and 5765-Anamnesis
Shelakh-Lekha 5759-Do You Spy What I Spy?

Technorati tags: torah, commentary

Random Musing Before Shabbat – B’ha’alot’kha 5771-Manadatory Retirement

2011-06-10T17:07:00.001-04:00

As I have mentioned before, B’ha’alot’kha is a densely-packed parasha, with many lessons and ideas. I commend to you other musings I have written on this parasha to explore some of them.

This year, as I was rereading the early parts of the parasha, I was drawn back to my days as a theatrical professional. The parasha describes how the Israelites would set out from their encampment in a prescribed order so that when they reached their destination, things would fall into place. The whole procedure is well thought out so that people arrive on time to do the things they need to do (like the Kohatites and Levites setting up the Mishkan and Sanctuary.) It reminded me of a typical touring theatrical troupe. The tech crew disassembles the set and then drives all night to the next venue to set up the set so it is ready when the actors and musicians arrive later in the day. In the parasha, the deconstruction and reconstruction of the Mishkan is similarly well-timed and organized.I also imagine that, like today’s “techies” the Levites and Kohatites were the unsung heroes of the effort. When the audience (the people) and the actors (the Kohanim) show up, all is ready for them.

I’ve experienced the touring life in the theatre. I’ve also experienced being the pianist in the band, who, unlike the trumpet or clarinet player (but like the drummer) can’t just show up at the rehearsal or gig ready to go (unless you’re lucky and successful enough to have roadies who do it for you.) There have been, still are, and likely will still be plenty of times I curse myself for being the pianist who has to schlep his instrument, set it up, pack it up, and schlep it to the next gig.

As I was stuck in this reverie, only half paying attention to the parasha as I read through it, I was brought up short by the end of chapter 8 (vv. 24-25.) This is where we learn that Levites begin their service at age 25 and retire at 50. In actuality, when they “retire” they are still permitted to do guard duty and similar ancillary work.

The idea of forced retirement has always troubled me. I know so many people who have been valuable and productive workers for many decades past our arbitrary retirement age. I do understand that life expectancies were shorter in biblical times, so it’s not the retirement age of 50 for the Levites that troubles me as much as the implied assumption that there should be a mandatory time of retirement.

Now there are certainly positive ways to spin this. Just as G”d knew we needed one day off in seven, and gave us Shabbat, G’d may have recognized that it might not be a great idea to work well into our old age without giving ourselves a break. (A cynic might say that G”d perhaps believed that after so many years on the job, one reached a point of dwindling returns for the effort and it was better to retire them.)

Yet each of us in a unique individual. Even allowing for the idea that we are all b’tzelem Elokim, in the image of G”d, we are not made froma cookie cutter or mold. Some of us might be far happier working until we are dead than being forced to retire. Others might be thrilled for the chance to finally stop working and enjoy retirement. There is at least some recognition of the idea that older folks might want to keep working in the fact that “retired” Levites could still perform certain non-ritual duties.

I, for one, would like to retire at some point. Unfortunately, I despair at this ever becoming possible giving the economic climate and my own failures to be properly prepared financially to retire. I certainly don’t want to be forced to retire at some certain age.

I spent last summer at a Jewish summer camp, where I was one of a handful of older adults on staff. I found it refreshing and invigorating to be around so many younger workers. This summer I’ll again be one of few older adults in a staff of 20-somethings, albeit in a different camp setting. I’ll admit it can sometimes be a challenge to keep up with my juniors, but it’s a challenge I like trying to meet – even when I fail at it.

I suspect that, throughout Jewish history, there has been much variance in what older adults choose to do – retire, keep working, etc. Mandatory retirement is a vile concept that, at least in the US and Canada, has been made illegal. In the US, of course, the government has exempted itself from the law as it often does – so the FBI, for example, has a mandatory retirement age. (Sort of amusing in that I just watched the 2010 film “Red” with Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, and Helen Mirren as retired black-ops types last night.)

The industrial revolution, and increasing personal wealth led to a lowering of the typical retirement age (reaching an average in the mid 50s during the last part of the 20th century.) It’s not like we were working any harder than the generations before. In fact, I suspect most of them worked much harder than we do. But we developed a growing sense of entitlement (and perhaps a touch of hedonism) that found us enamored of the retired life.

The pendulum is starting to swing the other way. Boomers are not seen keen on early retirement. Some of it is related to finances, but there are other reasons as well.

In his now classic piece “Retiring Retirement” published by Stephen F. Barnes in 2007, he wrote:

No longer satisfied with just a nice dinner and commemorative watch, golf or some other kind of lessons, and arts and crafts courses at the local Senior Center, many of us want a lot more out of our “golden years.”

I’d like to believe that our ancestors found ways to allow older Levites to do more than “guard duty” once past the age of 50, so that those who chose could lead continually fulfilling lives. There’s no evidence one way or the other.

In our own time, we surely recognize that mandatory retirement is an idea that has outlived its usefulness (well, to be honest, it can be a useful tool to help deal with employees who have overstayed their welcomes-I can think of synagogues that would love to retire their rabbis at a time of their choosing rather than the rabbi’s choosing. Actually, I think that’s probably happened at some synagogues. Synagogues are not, unfortunately, great bastions of employment ethics – but don’t get me started on that topic today.)

If nothing else, this week’s parasha got me (and hopefully you) thinking about the whole concept of retirement, mandatory retirement, etc. Not a bad topic to muse about this Shabbat.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other Musings on this Parasha:

B'ha'alot'kha 5770 - Ecstasy (Redux 5760)
B'ha'alot'kha 5766 - Vay'hi Binsoa - Movin' Out, Movin' On
B'ha'alot'cha 5765-Unintended Results?
Beha'alotekha 5762 - Redux 5759 - The Kiss of Moshe
Beha'alotekha 5760-Ecstasy

Technorati tags: torah, retirement

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Naso 5771 – The Nazarite Conundrum

2011-06-03T18:15:00.001-04:00

Both this week’s Torah portion and Haftarah speak of the nazir, one who has pledged a life of service to G”d. This is surely and honorable and admirable thing. It takes someone really special to live the life required of a nazarite. Or so we might think. I’m beginning to come to the conclusion that the whole idea of the nazarite may have been the seeds of many of the problems that now besiege religion (and not just Judaism.)

Judaism is practical in its understanding that life’s struggle is about maintaining the best possible balance between the extreme – light and dark, good and evil, etc. Judaism recognizes the need for the existence of these oppositional forces. Judaism’s object is not be all and only good. It is about the struggle to find the balance. Judaism recognizes, for example, that it is often our yetzer hara, our evil inclination, that helps drive us to do the things we need to do to succeed in life, to earn a living, etc. Judaism’s challenge is to allow enough of the evil inclination to successfully compete in the world without totally compromising the ethics and values that our yetzer tov, our good inclination, compels us to follow.

A nazir is asked to forego some of the things that our ancestors viewed as temptations to give in to the the yetzer hara-things like alcoholic beverages. Nazarites are also asked to make great sacrifices. For example, they are not permitted to be near dead bodies, including even their closest family.

I’m not entirely sure how to evaluate the requirement that a nazarite not shave or cut their hair. For the sake of the argument I wish to make here, let’s place it in the category of the nazarite being able to avoid more quotidian tasks (though I’m certain the act was more symbolic than practical.)

Now, it must be understood, to place all this in proper context, that one need only become a nazir for only a limited or fixed period of time. A lifetime commitment was not required (though some did make such commitments.)

Most people became a nazir in fulfillment of a pledge made by themselves for G”d’s help (or perhaps sometimes to convince G”d to grant their request.) Parents could pledge their children to religious service, though this is not quite the same as an adult choosing to become a nazir.

So where am I going with this? Well, I am wondering if the most spiritual and holy people are those who, to some degree, separate themselves from the community. To some extent, I would more likely admire some everyday person trying their hardest to find the balance between good and evil while living an ordinary life than I would admire someone who was a nazir. To bring the concept along further, we can add concepts layered upon the nazarite idea by other religions – think of monks, yogi, brahmans – or, in the Jewish world, first the priestly class of the Temple periods, and later the hasidic (and other) scholars who did (do) nothing but study all day while others provide(d) for the means to support the scholars and their families.

The great rabbis of the talmudic period and later were not exclusively scholars, and did not live a nazir’s life. I imagine their ability to help the Jewish people understand how to live their daily lives in accordance to the Torah might have been greatly hampered had they led secluded lives. It is precisely because of the earthiness, their connection to things quotidian, that they were able to give a lot of practical advice. (Not all of the talmudic rabbis’ advice is practical, but that certainly was of concern to them.)

There are studies that suggest that the problems of abusive priests among Catholic clergy is unrelated to the requirement for celibacy. While this may be true, it certainly casts a shadow on the church’s extension of the nazarite concept to their own priests.

It all goes back to gan eden, and that forbidden fruit, a mistake I have long since classified as G”d’s first big mistake in parenting 101. I am unconvinced that self-denial is the only or even the appropriate path to enlightenment, or connection with the Divine. It doesn’t have a particularly successful history.

All of this is not to say that a simple life is not a good idea. I am not opposed to those who seek a simpler way of life. Personally, I’m not one who is overly enthusiastic for that simpler a life. I do appreciate the technologies that our brains enable us to create – even with their inherent dangers and drawbacks. However one can seek to lead a simpler life without having to make the sort of sacrifices asked of a nazir. In fact, I suspect those looking to live close to the land would not at all be aided by taking a nazarite’s approach. They need to be very connected to their earthy sides as well as their Divine sides.

The nazirite. An idea whose time never really came, and an idea that was never particularly useful. There are many other ways to bargain with, make promises to, or give thanks to G”d.

Our ancestors may have thought the nazarite concept was a good idea. Our ancestors can be wrong.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Others musings on this parasha:

Nasso 5770 - Cherubic Puzzles
Naso 5768 - G"d's Roadies
Naso 5767 (Redux 5759) - The Fourth Fold
Naso 5765-Northeast Gaza-Side Story
Naso 5763--Lemon Pledge
Naso 5759-The Fourth Fold
Naso 5760-Bitter Waters
Naso 5761-Keeping Me On My Toes
Naso 5762-Wondrous Names (Haftarah Naso from Judges)

Technorati tags: Torah, commentary, Naso, Nasso, Nazirite

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Bemidbar 5771 – Moving Treasures

2011-05-27T14:53:00.001-04:00

Though I am sometimes puzzled over the level of detail the Torah sometimes contains about certain subjects, this week, I find myself not at all puzzled by the instructions for the preparation of the ritual items in the Mishkan in preparation for the Israelites moving to their next location. I’ve just recently completed another move. If I’m counting correctly (and excluding “temporary relocations like college) I have moved my household/personal belongings between states eleven times since 1977, the year I graduated from college. Four of those moves were completed with the assistance of professional moving companies, and the remaining seven utilized the services of various moving companies.

For some of these moves, I have been extremely well organized in advance. (Only once did I employ a moving company to actually pack things, all the other times I did my own packing.) For a few of these moves, including my most recent back to the NYC area after 3 decades away, my procrastinating instinct found me hastily packing things at the last minute, and not always in the best and safest manner.

All things considered, my property has survived these moves fairly well. My Steinway upright, though its exterior is worn, has fared quite well. Over the years I’ve lost a few small items to breakage, and a few larger pieces of furniture were damaged (mostly because they were made of particle-board, which just doesn’t travel well.) I’ve only lost one piece of furniture completely to breakage, and that was a Sauder particle-board desk that didn’t survive the short trip to northern VA to MD. This most recent trip, the only casualties were a corner of my favorite TV/Stereo stand, and my favorite bedside lamp (a model that has both a regular torchiere-style room lamp plus another lamp just for reading.)

On those moves when I have been a better advance planner, I usually took the time to complete breakdown more sensitive furniture pieces (like IKEA desks, my keyboard recording studio desk, bookshelves, and the like.) Some movers have insisted on this, others have said as long as things are broken down enough to fit through doors and around corners, that’s enough for them.

I’ve a lot of items still packed, and it could be some time before I actually get some of these items unpacked, and who knows what else I may discover, but I remain hopeful. Yet, if I discover some hastily or less-than-optimally wrapped items broken, I need but think upon this parasha to remind myself that I have no one but myself to blame for failing to do due diligence when it comes to packing. Nothing I own is really as sacred to me as the ritual objects of the Mishkan were to the ancient Israelites (well, there are a few things I hold quite dear) yet if I expect them to survive the trip, I must be prepared to take the same care as Aaron and his sons did in preparing the ritual items to be moved by the Kohatites.

Similarly, I need to be sure that the people I entrust to actually load and move my items are as trustworthy and reliable as the Kohatites. For the most part, I’ve been satisfied with the care shown to my property by the various movers I have utilized. There have been a few hot shots, and others that take risks I think are unwise. I imagine even among the Kohatites there were a few overly gung-ho, or, oppositely, slackers.

I have noticed in myself the signs of age influencing the care with which I pack (or with which I supervise those packing/loading/unloading for me.) I used to be a much more fastidious person when it came to careful packing. Having experienced items less than optimally packed still surviving the trip, I have allowed myself to become a little more lax. I’m actually unhappy about that, and making a vow to myself that for the next move (and I’m sure there will be one at some point) I will return to the habits of my younger self, carefully disassembling and packing things. (One measure of my laxness is that I barely managed to use half a roll of bubble pack, and I didn’t buy a single specialized picture frame/mirror box, and simply used un-formed boxes as covers for some of the larger pieces of art.) I even allowed the movers to to take my 42” HD TV without packing, just wrapped in moving blankets, even though I still had the original carton available. I didn’t completely disassemble my desk or keyboard workstation. I even let the movers take the oldest of my three desktop computer CPUS and it’s monitor in just moving blankets, as I didn’t have the original cartons and hadn’t packed them up into other boxes. (I just can’t imagine having ever thrown the original packing out-I am really careful about saving those sorts of boxes-so I am at a loss as to what happened to it.) Imagine if Aaron and his sons had been as lax in preparing the ritual items of the Mishkan for traveling? I suppose after 11 moves, it’s hard to care as much, but that’s silly. (On the other hand, I’ll bet the Kohatites were relieved when the Israelites finally had a permanent location for the Mishkan. However, on the other other hand, this just left the Kohatites without enough to do and eventually to led to lots of infighting among the priestly clans.)

So, for at least the present moment, this explains to me why chapter 4 of Bemidbar outlines the specific steps in preparing the ritual articles for being moved. There’s a lesson in that for all of us, and for all time.

I recall that some years ago, North American Van Lines boasted as having moved the treasures of a King, being the company chosen to transport the Tutankhamen exhibit around the US. Imagine the slogan of the Kohatite Moving Company: we moved the treasures of our G”d. We would all do well to learn to take the time to carefully prepare items for moving, just as Aaron and his sons were instructed to do.

Having spent another week unpacking, and getting re-used to life in tNYC, I’m definitely ready for Shabbat! How about you?

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Some other musings on this parasha:

Bemidbar 5770 - Sense Us
Bemidbar 5769 - That V'eirastikh Li Feeling
Bamidbar 5767-What Makes It Holy? (Redux & Revised 5761)
Bemidbar 5766-Redux 5760-Knowing Our Place
Bemidbar 5764-Doorway to Hope
Bemidbar 5763-Redux 5759 (with additions for 5763)
Bemidbar 5762-They Did As They Were Told? You Gotta be Kidding!
Bemidbar 5759-Marrying Gd-Not Just for Nuns
Bemidbar 5760-Knowing Our Place
Bemidbar 5761-What Makes it Holy

Technorati tags: Torah, Commentary, Bemidbar

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Bekhukotai 5771 – The Long Road Ahead

2011-05-20T17:39:00.001-04:00

In the haftarah for this parasha we read:

Like a partridge hatching what she did not lay,
So is one who amasses wealth by unjust means;
In the middle of his life it will leave him,
And in the end he will be proved a fool. (Jer. 17:11, JPS)

Would that Jeremiah's words proved true in most cases, but, alas, history has shown us that they do not. The wicked, the greedy, the unjust often seem to succeed and rarely suffer any sort of Divine justice. It's just another corner of the "theodicy" question - trying to understand why evil exists in the world, and whether evil is as much a creation of G"d as is good.

Some who amass wealth unjustly are brought to some kind of justice, but is it truly justice when those who suffered at the hands of this evil doer never truly get full recompense? The Torah reminds us that sometimes justice takes time to mete out, and can consequently span generations. However, even measured across generations, I have a feeling that the scales of justice aren't balanced all that often.

I think if all we do is sit around and wait for G"d, or simply nature and time to balance things out, we're missing the boat. Justice, like so many other things, is really up to us. I don't believe that G"d wants us to wait around for G"d to act. It is up to us to act - we must feel obligated, compelled to act to bring about justice. It can be an uncomfortable thing to do, and it can also be sadly seductive. Admit it - we all enjoy those moments of schadenfreude, especially those in which the mighty, the rich, the famous, are brought low. So, if we are to seriously take on the the obligation of meting out justice, we must heed the Torah's call to not show favoritism to anyone in the process.

Our current legal system does a horrible job. While it gives lip service to the idea of impartial justice, the reality is far from impartial, as most studies show. The rich and famous get better treatment. People of color generally are not treated as well by the system. This extends beyond the legal system. I saw an article the other day which talked about how Countrywide kept an "A" list of mortgage and loan customers, all of them rich, famous, influential, and many of them not even aware they were on such a list. Seems these people got much better treatment than your average Joe.

Justice is so difficult a thing to manage, it's no wonder we want to turn it over the G"d. Given G"d's track record, I'm not sure that's such a good idea. As imperfect as our efforts are, we must continue to try. Maybe between the "two" of us, that is to say, G"d and us, we might stand a slim chance at seeing true justice in this world. To do so requires us to accept that a human lifespan may be too short a time to see justice done. However, rather than trust to G"d to insure the justice is meted out of the decades, centuries, millennia, we must pass the responsibility down generation to generation, along with the understanding that each generation may only be a small part of a very long chain leading to eventual justice. It's the old "planting a tree for future generations" story. Rather than see our limited time scale as an obstacle, let us view it as a challenge to overcome.

Judaism is one way we can pass on our values about justice. It's not the only way, but for those of us who choose the Jewish way, this is reason enough to care about insuring that Judaism survives and its values handed down to future generations. As depressed and unhappy as I am that justice does not seem to prevail easily in this world, I'm unwilling to just turn it all over to G"d. I'm motivated to try and continue to teach young Jews everywhere that there is intrinsic value in learning about Judaism and the Jewish way. Are you with me for the long road ahead?

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian

Other musings on this parasha:

B'har-B'khukotai 5770 - Bad Parenting 301
Behar-Bekhukotai 5769- Scared of Leaves?
Behar-Bekhukhotai 5767-A Partridge in a Tree of Life
Behar-Bekhukhotai 5766-Only An Instant
Behar-Bekhukotai 5764 - The Price of Walls
Behar-Bekhukotai 5762 - Tough Love
Behar-Bekhukotai 5761-The Big Book (Bottoming Out Gd's Way)

Behar 5765-Ki Gerim v'Toshavim Atem Imadi
Behar 5763-Ownership
Behar 5760-Slaves to Gd

Bekhukotai 5765-I'll Take the Hard Way
Bechukotai 5763-Keri Is So Very...
Bekhukotai 5760-Repugnant Realities

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Behar 5771 – Your Choice

2011-05-13T17:11:00.001-04:00

Haverim:
I am in the midst of completing my relocation to NYC, which will be complete on Sunday, May 15. I offer you these previous musing on parashat Behar for your reading pleasure:

Behar 5765-Ki Gerim v'Toshavim Atem Imadi
Behar 5763-Ownership
Behar 5760-Slaves to Gd

Bekhukotai 5765-I'll Take the Hard Way
Bechukotai 5763-Keri Is So Very...
Bekhukotai 5760-Repugnant Realities

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Emor 5771 – B’yom HaShabbat, B’yom HaShabbat

2011-05-06T13:55:00.001-04:00

In re-reading parashat Emor in preparation for writing this musing, I kept coming back to one particular bit of Hebrew in 24:8

ביום השבת ביום השבת יערכנו לפני יהוה תמיד מאת בני־ישראל ברית עולם

He shall arrange them before the L”rd regularly every Sabbath day-it is a commitment for all time on the part of the Israelites (JPS)

This is referring to the twelve loaves of bread spread out in two rows that is to be presented as a gift to G”d. This is a great example of where reading the Hebrew points out something not obvious in the English. The English word “every Sabbath day” appear in Hebrew as “on the Shabbath day, on the Sabbath day” (b’yom HaShabbat, b’yom HaShabbat.) There are plenty of simpler and more common ways to say this in Hebrew rather than rely upon the well-known fact that in Hebrew repetition can be a way of expressing regularity. Yes, this is not the only example in Torah, nevertheless I still find myself asking why, in this particular case, this particular way of saying “every Shabbat” was used, as opposed to using simpler Hebrew words meaning “every” (b’khol being the most common.)

Maybe the comparison doesn’t work as well in English, but let’s try it. Imagine yourself an actor. What are your reactions to these different ways of saying it? (You can even try different inflections and emphases.)

On every Shabbat you will….
Each Shabbat you will
On each and every Shabbat you will
On Shabbat, on Shabbat
On Sabbath day, On Sabbath day

They all essentially mean the same (or similar) things yet I find myself reacting quite different to them. Of course, there’s no way for us to know how our ancestors might have heard the Hebrew “b’yom HaShabbat, b’yom HaShabbat” as opposed to, for example, “b’khol HaShabbat.”

I’m really caught here. Part of me wants to really figure out why the Torah uses “b’yom HaShabbat, b’yom HaShabbat” here. After all, every little thing in Torah is meaningful (or so we are taught.) Part of me just wants to say “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” There’s no special and underlying meaning here, this is just how the author (whoever that might be) chose. Right now, the latter impulse is winning, and so I’m going to stop this musing. I have a feeling, however, that, during this Shabbat, the former impulse will ascend to dominance and I’ll spend time on it again. Perhaps you might do the same. After all, that’s what I do b’yom HaShabbat, b’yom HaShabbat.

Shabbat Shalom,

Adrian
©2011 by Adrian A. Durlester

Other musings on this parasha:

Emor 5770 - G"d's Shabbat II
Emor 5767-Redux and Revised 5761-Eternal Effort
Emor 5766 - Mum's the Word (Redux 5760 with new commentary for 5766)
Emor 5765-Out of Sync
Emor 5764-One Law for All
Emor 5763-Mishpat Ekhad
Emor 5758-Gd's Shabbat
Emor 5759-Lex Talionis
Emor 5760-Mum's the Word
Emor 5761-Eternal Effort

Random Musing before Shabbat – Kedsohim 5771 – Oil & Water (redux 5763)

2011-04-29T15:44:00.001-04:00

Haverim:

I'm only one day post-op and not quite able to focus enough to write an entirely new musing this year. So please forgive this redux from 5763 about shatnes in a modern context.

Random Musing Before Shabbat - Kedoshim 5763
Oil and Water?

What is it, this compulsion we have to try and do things that G”d (or nature, if that's how you choose to see it) does not permit to occur naturally. Is it just curiosity, stubbornness, or perhaps hubris?

Oil and water won't mix. We can create an emulsification or suspension, but we can never get the oil and water to actually mix together. Their separate identities will always be there. Still we try.

Were we to succeed in changing this natural order, however, we would no longer be able to clean our clothes, or dishes, or linens, and other things. For it is the very fact that certain substances and water won't fully mix together that enable most cleaning agents to work their "magic."

Our scientific studies of nature and the way this universe was constructed have led us to the ability to combine all sorts of things that won't combine naturally. We routinely cross-pollinate plants and create hybrids. We do the same with animals. Many of these hybrids we have created have greatly benefited humankind. (Whether, in the long term, they have all benefited our entire planet is yet to be determined. G”d and nature don't work on our time scale.)

So why should we, knowing the great benefit we derive from hybridization, listen to the Torah when it instructs us in this parasha to not make kilayim -- hybrids -- combinations of two things that would not normally be combined ? Why should we not plant two different kinds of seed in the same ground?

Not that any of us have had recent experience yoking an ox and a cow together as a team to pull a plow -- nevertheless, simply from the sheer physical differences between them, one can see why it might not be a good idea, why they might not work well as a team, unless moving in a straight line wasn't important all the time.

There most definitely are plant species that should not occupy the same field. Similarly, there are plant species that might benefit from being planted in the same field. Perhaps the former but not the latter is what the Torah is referring to?

Plants that can be cross-pollinated to produce better plants, or healthier plants, or insect-resistant plants, or higher-yield plants -- while the rabbis of the Talmud may disagree, I don't see those as kilayim.

It's a radical way to view things, but consider this--if G”d had not intended for us to be able to creating useful hybrids of plants and animals, then perhaps we wouldn't be able to. Those things that we are able to create -- perhaps they are not true kilayim. Maybe at one point we couldn't combine them, but now we can.

The rabbis teach us that G”d created everything just as it is--who are we to meddle with the natural order of things? Yet, if G”d created everything as it is, then G”d created us with the ability to create these hybrids. It seems to follow that creating such hybrids is as G”d intended, for G”d has given us the ability to gain knowledge and learn to do so. One can explain this simply as free will, and, as we all know, free will can be used for purposes both good and evil. So it is certainly arguable that our creation of kilayim when we cross-breed or create hybrids is a defiant act of free will, rather than a part of the natural order. We can and do combine things that wouldn't normally be together for nefarious ends.

G”d has clearly demonstrated that G”d could and might interfere if and when we do things we really aren't supposed to do. We learn this from the very beginning-both with the expulsion of Adam and Chava from Gan Eden, and in the story of Migdal Bavel, the Tower of Babel. Admittedly, there hasn't been such obvious interference since then, but perhaps the interference comes in more subtle ways. Nevertheless the fact remains – G”d created us, we create hybrids from things that might not normally mix. Ergo, these hybrids are just as much part of the natural order as we are!

Now, I'm not sure I fully buy that argument, still, it makes one think.

There remain some things that, try as hard as we may, we cannot turn into kilayim. There remain things we cannot combine. Oil and water, for one example. Then there are things that we can combine together, but shouldn't. Like the things that come together to make a nuclear weapon work. Or the things that come together that make anthrax easy to disperse. People and money. There's that free will again.

However, the fact that there are things we cannot combine shows that there are limits even on free will. On TV, in the movies, and in the pages of books we can dream about things contemporary physics says are impossible,like faster-than-light travel, or "molecular transporters." (Of course, with physics, the answer is often "just wait a decade or two and we'll re-invent the field yet again.)

Since we have this free will, how do we know what to mix and what not to mix? The Torah offers some specific examples, although they make little sense to us in these times. So what is it that the Torah is teaching us? Simply that there are some things that probably shouldn't be mixed.

The rabbis take a fairly narrow view of creating kilayim. They, in fact devote an entire tractate of the Talmud to it. G”d forgive me for my hubris, but I think the rabbis may have missed the point. The Torah wasn't trying to be that specific.

The greatest danger from accepting the traditional view about the concept of kilayim might be to think of Israelis and Palestinians as kilayim. G”d forbid that we aren't able to ever find a way for them to mix and live together in harmony.

What I learn from what the Torah has to say about kilayim is that there are some things which may never be able to be mixed together, and others which, even if they can, should not. However, the Torah does not say that everything that at one time did not seem natural to mix together should always remain so. To help us use our free will to determine what "unnatural" combinations might not be kilayim, the Torah offers insight. Not only in the specific passage in Leviticus 19;19, but by using the entire Torah and all the other learned writings of our people, and working and learning to understand what it is that G”d does not intend for us to combine and make into kilayim.

And here's an interesting question: By bringing together my view of kilayim and the traditional view in the same musing, am I attempting to create yet another kilayim?

My head is spinning as I contemplate that one. It ought to keep me occupied for all of Shabbat. So with that I'll stop and wish you and yours a

Shabbat Shalom,

Some previous Musings on this parasha:

Kedoshim 5768-Unfamiliar Spirits
Kedoshim 5760 & 5765 - Torah for Dummies

Akharei Mot-Shabbat Hagadol 5771 - Ultimate Tzimtzum
Aharei Mot-Kedoshim 5770 - Redux 5762 - Dis tinct Unities and United Dis junctions
Aharei Mot-Kedoshim 5769-Schroedinger's Cat 5769 (Redux 5761 w/new comments)
Akharei Mot/Shabbat HaGadol 5768 - Why Wait for Elijah?
Akharei Mot-Kedoshim 5767 - Insults Don't Weigh Anything?
Aharei Mot-Kedoshim 5766-Redux 5761 & 5762
Acharei Mot-Kedoshim 5764-Whither Zion?
Acharei Mot-Kedoshim 5762 - Dis tinct Unities and United Dis junctions
Acharei Mot-Kedoshim 5761 - Schroedinger's Cat & Torah
Akharei Mot 5765-The Ways of Egypt and Canaan (revised)
Acharei Mot 5763--Immoral Relativisms?
Acharei Mot 5760-The Ways of Egypt & Canaan

Technorati tags: Torah, commentary, kedoshim

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Shabbat Hol HaMoed Pesakh 5771 – Admat Yisrael

2011-04-22T10:41:00.001-04:00

Ezekiel has a particular preference for referring to the land of Israel not as “eretz Yisrael” but instead as “admat Yisrael.” Semantically, “eretz” and “admat” are effectively interchangeable, but there’s a subtle difference.

Eretz, ארץ can be translated as “earth” or “land.” This is “land” in the sense of specific territory or country. It is the earth in the sense of the entire planet. As is typical of Judaism, with its predilection for separation and opposites held in tension, means earth as opposed to that which is heaven, or sky. Where eretz is used to mean “ground” it is generally in the sense of the surface. It is the noun most frequently used in phrases like “people of the land” and also in geographical descriptors.

Admat, אדמת is the construct form of adamah, אדמה, meaning “ground” or “land” generally in a property sense, or usage sense (as in ground or land used for agriculture.) There’s no denying some connection between adamah and adam, the name of the first created human being, and a word also meaning a man or mankind. (There’s no getting around the gender here, though it is interesting to note that adam, אדמ is a masculine noun, whereas adamah אדמה, is feminine. Adam is believed to come from an Assyrian word that means “to make, produce.” Thus we have the male maker or producer, adam, working the female soil, adamah. There’s lots of fodder for discussion.)

Ezekiel’s preference for “admat Yisrael” is likely connected to his exilic audience. It hints of a promised land with fertile soil that is the true home to the exiles. It subtly shifts the nature of their yearning to return. One might want to “retake” eretz Yisrael, whereas one is more likely to simply desire to return to admat Yisrael. It speaks of a deep connection to the land because it is land that has been tended by them and their ancestors, and not simply by fact of possession.

All of this is fascinating, but what brought me to this matter of the difference between admat Yisrael and eretz Yisrael is its use near the end of the special haftarah for Shabbat Hol HaMoed Pesakh. In 37:12, we read

Prophesy, therefore, and say to them: Thus said the L”rd G”d: I am going to open your graves and lift you out of the graves, O My people, and bring you to the land of Israel (admat Yisrael.) (37:12 JPS)

In the following verse, we read:

You shall know, O My people, that I am the L’rd, when I have opened your graves and lifted you out of your graves. (37:13 JPS)

Like many before me, I choose to read Ezekiel’s words as metaphoric, and do not expect an actual resurrection of the dead, even though such resurrection remains a normative understanding of Judaism to this day (affecting burial practices, for example.)

Yet understanding “admat Yisrael” as being subtly different from “eretz Yisrael” raises interesting questions about what Ezekiel has written and prophesied. G”d is lifting our dead bodies out of their graves in the adamah of galut, to be returned to the admat kodesh, the holy land of Israel.

If we dismiss the following verse for a second, we can think of this as more like Jacob’s body being brought up from Egypt and buried in Israel or Joseph’s bones being returned to reburied in Israel. It’s a promise that those who have died in galut (exile) shall have their bodies returned to Israel. Perhaps nothing more.

But then we get the next verse:

I will put My breath into you and you shall live again, and I will set you upon your own soil (admat’khem.) Then you shall know that I the L”rd have spoken and have acted”—declares the L”rd.(37:14 JPS)

Yes, easy to read as metaphor, but surely calling into question the idea that Ezekiel was merely talking of returning dead bodies from their graves in exile to be buried in their native soil.

Nevertheless it still feels as bit softer to me. G”d could have chosen to resurrect the bodies of dead Israelites buried in exile, and brought them back to life to be an avenging host to retake “eretz Yisrael.” As a rhetorical device, Ezekiel might have found that quite effective. Yet somehow Ezekiel knew that this was not the message the people needed to hear. This is not a war cry to avenge and retake the land, it is the longing of an exiled people to simply return to living and working upon their native soil. I can’t help but think of linking this to present day circumstances in the land of Israel. In fact, it helps me clarify my connection to Israel. Whatever my issues with the powers that rule “eretz Yisrael” I can remain connected through my heritage to “admat Yisrael.” Maybe it is time for us to rethink how we here in modern galut/diaspora refer to Israel. Is it “eretz Yisrael” we seek, support, and love, or “admat Yisrael?” The choice is ours.

Shabbat Shalom,

Other musings on this parasha:

Shabbat Hol HaMoed Pesakh 5769 - Valley of the Dry Economy
Pesach VII 5768 - Department of Redundant Anamnesis Department
Hol HaMoed Pesach 5767-Not Empty
Intermediate Shabbat of Passover 5766-A Lily Among Thorns
Pesach VII 5761 (Revised 5765)
Hol HaMoed Pesach 5764-Dem Bones & Have We Left Gd behind? (5578-60)
Hol Hamoed Pesach 5763-No Empty Gestures (Redux 5762)
5761-Pesach VII-Redundant Anamnesis

Technorati tags: Torah, commentary, Ezekiel, Israel

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Akharei Mot-Shabbat Hagadol 5771 – Ultimate Tzimtzum

2011-04-15T14:53:00.001-04:00

Reading the words of the last of the prophets, Malachi, as we do in the haftarah for Shabbat Hagadol, before Pesakh, I begin to see how Judaism may have sown the seeds of its own eventual displacement by Christianity. In fact, it may be G”d’s own fault that things turned out as they did.

Let’s face it – we’re a stubborn lot – have been from the beginning.

From the very days of your fathers you have turned away from My laws and not observed them. (Mal 3:7 – JPS)

It is yet another restatement of a perpetual theme and a perpetual problem. It’s an impossible situation. G”d creates us and gives us free will. G”d then gives us laws to follow. In hindsight, it might have been better to hold off on the free will, allowing humanity to develop first with a strong sense of duty, obligation, and obedience to their Creator. Do we not, in dealing with children, begin by using strict controls and gradually allowing them greater freedom? Is this yet another example of Bad Parenting 101 by G”d?

G’d continually offers the Israelites the opportunity to turn back to G”d and follow G”d’s commandments. At every turn G”d sent patriarchs, messengers, and prophets to proclaim these opportunities. We might acquiesce for a while, but eventually we drift back into our stubborn defiant ways.

We get away with it. We are like the savvy child, envelope-pushing teenager. We discover our parents can be manipulated. We discover our parents aren’t always consistent with follow-through. Sometimes punishments are meted out, sometimes the punishments get forgotten or overlooked. Sometimes our parents just don’t have the energy or will to be the enforcers. So we get away with it, and keep on pushing to see how much we can get away with. They are our parents, and they love us.

It is no surprise that Malachi put these words in the mouths of the people:

“It is useless to serve G”d. What have we gained by keeping G”d’s charge and walking in abject awe of the L”rd of Hosts?” (Mal 3:14 – JPS)

We figured out the inconsistency. We learned that we can often live with the consequences of our disobedience. They’re not so bad.

Like any parent, G”d gets mad. Typical of any parent, G”d often feels remorse for acting upon those feelings. You can be darn sure that the children figure that out, and play it for all it’s worth.

G”d may punish us, but, in the end, we get forgiven, or get another chance. Eventually, G”d develops another strategy. G”d will send a messenger, a prophet (in the case of this haftarah, Elijah) that will just set everything right, put righteous behavior in our hearts.

It’s a fairly logical step from there to the idea of a permanent atonement in which expiation is made through the life of a martyred prophet. Seen from the Christian point of view, it lends credence to the common Christian predilection for reading and interpreting the Tanakh as foreshadowing and preparation for the coming of their understanding of the messiah. As reluctant as I am to admit it, as a Jew, there may be something to the idea that G”d, having given up on the idea of humanity (and in particular, the Jewish people) willingly and steadfastly clinging to and following G”d’s commandments, decided to go another route.

It is a common misperception on the part of Jews and other non-Christians that the sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth simply becomes an easy out enabling people to continue in their sinful ways, knowing that, in the end, they will be forgiven. That is not, with rare exception, a normative understanding of Christianity by Christians. We Jews often revel in what we believe is the superiority of our system (largely a construct of the rabbis) for expiation of sin, which requires continual effort, and which is moment by moment (for the most part-though Yom Kippur is slowly evolving into our own momentary substitute for continual effort.) Christianity is not as simplistic as “Jesus died for your sins, go ahead and sin, you’ll be forgiven.” Self reflection and making regular expiation for sins through prayer or action forms is not unique to Judaism, and is a normative expectation of Christianity and Islam, among other religious traditions.

All that being said, there’s a lot of indicators in the Torah and Tanakh that G”d’s methodology for dealing with the effects of having given humanity free will has gradually shifted over time and exhibits G”d’s ever-increasing frustration that perhaps humanity won’t get there by itself.

As a strategy, it’s not a bad approach. While it’s easy to suggest that perhaps G”d made a mistake in giving us free will from the outset, one can also argue that it was and still is worth the risk. If, in the end, it’s all about G”d controlling us so that we obey, it seems a pretty unsatisfactory outcome for both G”d and us.

We Jews know (and knew at the time of the first stirrings of the Jesus cult) that this is not an easy situation to address, and that it is likely to endure, perhaps in perpetuity. We Jews have taken one approach to addressing the tensions inherent in the system. Christians, Muslim, and others have taken different approaches. I’d like to think that it’s not a matter of which approach is the right one. The struggle continues. It’s possible that the best solution is that there not be a definitive outcome.That humanity’s free will shall always be in tension with that which is best for humanity (which, if you work from a more religious perspective, is what G”d tells us is best.)

So, in thinking it over, having given us free will does not automatically put us on a trajectory that inevitably leads to Christianity as a solution. It merely leads to Christianity (and Islam, and Judaism as they have evolved) as possible responses. A clever G”d will recognize that, as creatures with free will, having options on how to reconcile that with religious obligations is probably a more successful approach than simply trying to make us all act and believe the same way. It does not require supersession, but co-existence. It’s G”d saying “by giving you free will I have limited my options, so I leave it to you to figure it out.” That’s pretty brave on G”d’s part, because invariably one of the solutions we’ll come up with is that there is no G”d. Rather than fear the “death of G”d” perhaps we can look at it as the ultimate act of tzimtzum?

[A reminder to my readers that these writings are thought processes revealed, and deliberate efforts to examine an issue from all sides. Don’t assume they reveal my own beliefs and understandings.]

Shabbat Shalom,

Other musings on this parasha:

Akharei Mot/Shabbat HaGadol 5768 - Why Wait for Elijah?
Akharei Mot 5765-The Ways of Egypt and Canaan (revised)
Acharei Mot 5763--Immoral Relativisms?
Acharei Mot 5760-The Ways of Egypt & Canaan

Aharei Mot-Kedoshim 5770 - Redux 5762 - Dis tinct Unities and United Dis junctions
Aharei Mot-Kedoshim 5769-Schroedinger's Cat 5769 (Redux 5761 w/new comments)
Akharei Mot-Kedoshim 5767 - Insults Don't Weigh Anything?
Aharei Mot-Kedoshim 5766-Redux 5761 & 5762
Acharei Mot-Kedoshim 5764-Whither Zion?
Acharei Mot-Kedoshim 5762 - Dis tinct Unities and United Dis junctions
Acharei Mot-Kedoshim 5761 - Schroedinger's Cat & Torah

You, Ewe, Yew, U

2011-04-11T11:15:00.001-04:00

[Cross-posted from my Yoeitzdrian blog.]

Note: This is a blog post in progress. I plan to continue editing and updating this post, so please keep that in mind while reading it.

The other day a 10-year-old of my acquaintance told me that she had noticed texting shorthand had become so routine for her that it had started cropping up in her regular keyboarding when she writes papers and things for school (well, “papers” seems a bit much, but, like the comedy line from Avenue Q “but they’re kindergarten, so they’re very short.”) She particularly cited using “u” quite a bit on place of “you.”

Now this is of course not surprising. Texting shorthand has been finding its way into school work at many grade levels for some time now. Slang and other types of shorthand have been finding their way into common usage throughout the history of language.

A first instinct might be to knee-jerk react negatively to the usage of texting shorthand in regular writing. I will admit that an initial thought I had in my head was “tsk, tsk.” Though I’m far from perfect, I do try and pay due attention to spelling, grammar, syntax, sentence structure, etc. I’m not sure how I would react if a student sent me a written assignment using all shorts of texting shorthand (unless they were sending it to me as a text message or a tweet at my request!) However, as I began to mull it over, I saw there is another side to consider.

Being strict about grammar, spelling, sentence structure, use of clauses, et al has its place, and is of value. Whether or not it is always of value is open to debate.

In a “No Child Left Behind” world in which standardized testing is the yardstick, and we strive to create “Stepford students,” spelling (and grammar, et al) is almost a requirement. If we leave this already clearly doomed to failure NCLB approach behind, we become open to a world where other things besides having every jot and tittle in its place is important.

Consider how we in Jewish Education struggle with teaching Hebrew to our students. Consider as well that modern Hebrew speakers read a form of Hebrew that, like its true ancient ancestor, does not use vowels! Often, the only way to know what a certain word is is through context. Now there’s a skill worthy of teaching our students.

It seems fairly self-evident to me that, in many cases, texting shorthand used in regular writing isn’t much different. Understanding the context of what is being communicated will help the reader who is unfamiliar with the shorthand understand it. It also helps the reader who is familiar with the shorthand understand it.

Now I recognize the value of spelling, and for a great many words which come from or are built upon Greek, Latin and other language roots, knowledge of these roots and their spelling can enable a student to decipher newly encountered words made up from those roots. (Hmm, sort of like Hebrew again. Knowing Hebrew roots, prefixes, suffixes, etc really is the key to learning to understand Hebrew. Yet knowing the vowels is less so, for one can ascertain with reasonable certainty, the vowels used to shape the roots into meaningful words from the context.) So not every word is, IMHO (as Tom Lehrer once said, the rest of you can look that up when you get home) a candidate for a texting shorthand substitute. I’m not sure what the appropriate criteria might be for determining which texting shorthand substitutions might be appropriate in which circumstances.

I discussed this the other day with a now retired elementary school teacher I know (who also happened to have taught the student to which I am referring in this post.) She did feel strongly that teaching correct grammar and punctuation was important, and she wasn’t ready to wholeheartedly embrace the use of texting shorthand in school work. She responded somewhat differently when I mentioned a related bit of information. Some time ago, a college professor of my acquaintance, who diligently writes out her notes by hand and shares them with her students, was surprised when one of her students told her that the notes were useless because he couldn’t read cursive writing.

I fully expected the retired elementary school teacher to “tsk, tsk” this as well, but she surprised me by relating that during the last few years of teaching, she had begun to argue with her superiors and the school system about their continued insistence of teaching students cursive writing. She believed there were far more important skills to be teaching to students, and cursive was one we could easily do without.

So I asked her why, when she had little difficulty giving up cursive, she wasn’t as amenable to texting shorthand being used. Unfortunately our conversation was interrupted at that point and I’ve yet to discover her answer.

It seems to me that substituting “u” for the word “you” is not an entirely inappropriate form of shorthand, and could become normative. I can understand how an etymologist might object, but from what I know of the etymology of the word you, there’s little to be learned from the spelling that would give a modern reader a clue to its meaning. Knowledge of correct spelling and roots might be useful for words like philosophy or anamnesis. I’m just not convinced this is as useful when it comes to words like you.

“What about homonyms?” I hear you cry. To the rescue comes context. However, I probably would not approve of “u” becoming a universal substitute for homonyms of the word you like ewe and yew (though I daresay that context would probably allow this to work in some cases-though not all. The sentence “I love u” is easily readable. What about this sentence: “U took that ram and u and u mated them” ? Not quite as easy to decipher.)

Another frequent and ubiquitous substitution is the number symbol “2” for the word “to.” Purists might argue that we have potential homonym problems here, but again I suggest context comes to the rescue. “Me 2!” is no less understandable than “Let’s go 2 your house.” Now, turning to the Judaics side briefly, how might you feel about seeing this: 2bishvat ? 2b’av? Now we’ve complicated things. We’ve taken a Hebrew number represented by Hebrew characters (15) and replaced it with a numeric symbol. It might make getting across the point that “tev-vav” is a representation of the number 15 in Hebrew a bit more difficult and confusing.

Let’s be honest-we’ve been using all shorts of symbolic shorthand for decades, even centuries. Think about mathematical and scientific symbols. Consider abbreviations like “etc. Not all abbreviations are free of potential confusion. Most likely only context would reveal what the abbreviation “St.” is representing in a given situation-street or Saint.

When I say 10KB you probably know I mean ten kilobytes. There’s a fair chance if I write “go check the online KB for that software” you’ll know I’m using KB to represent “Knowledgebase.”

Context doesn’t always come to the rescue as easily as we might hope. I am reminded of the bit from “The Odd Couple” in which Oscar is ranting about a note that Felix left for him and complains that it took him hours figure out that the “F U” at the end of the note stood for Felix Ungar!

Here’s one for you: He knows that He is the symbol for Helium. No problem figuring that one out, right? I am @ home. Pretty obvious, yes?

Is it problematic if these symbols, forms of shorthand, and abbreviations find their way into common written usage? I’m not sure. Personally, I wouldn’t be thrilled to read a book (even on an e-reader) that rendered Shakespeare as “2 b or not 2 b…”

A common defense used by those who utilize texting shorthand is “everyone , including you, understands what I wrote, so why is this a problem?” A common response form those rigidly insistent on a fixed and static form of written language is that it usually and often makes it harder to understand. It’s a vapid response at best. For those who understand the new shorthand, abbreviations like “WTF",” “FWIW,” and “ROTFLMAO” can actually be easier to understand and make a more emphatic and pointed form of communication than if these expressions were fully written out.

There is a controversial project, the Evolution of Human Languages project, that is attempting to trace the history of written language back to a prototype system of symbols common to early humans around 50,000 years ago and found at mutliple sites of early human settlment. Some linguists have embraced the idea, others reject even the concept, stating that languages are too fluid to be studied across truly large spans of time (current thinking seems to place the outer limit of useful historical study around 7-8,000 years.) I am beginning to wonder if our technology is bringing us full circle, back to a form of written language that is less formal and structured, easier to write and use.

I’ve devoted a good deal of time and effort in my life in learning to write properly according to established conventions (though I would point out that are variations in the standards-witness the manual different “style manuals.”) The same is true for many of us. A certain amount of jealousy or frustration may be involved in our knee-jerk reactions to the increasing “threat” of email and text shorthand finding its way into common written usage.

Except for the few true curmudgeons among us, most of us are using email, chat, twitter, texting on cell phones, etc. We must admit that the use of shorthand and abbreviations is, to a large degree, not just convenient but necessary. So we excuse our own use of the shortcuts in those situations. Is continued stubborn resistance to any usage of these abbreviations and forms of shorthand in more formal writing truly logical and appropriate. Now, the obvious argument to raise here is the “slippery slope.” If we allow some shorthand, we’ll simply open the floodgates to all.

History has not proven this true. Telegraphy, radio, television, computers, e-mail – all have been heralded by some as signs of the death of written language. Written language will survive as it always has. The forms it takes in the future may be less familiar, but that is the nature of language – it changes and adapts.

Since I’m writing these words from Amherst, MA I can hardly pass up the opportunity to remind us all that Emily Dickinson was thought of by some of her contemporaries as posing a similar attack upon the conventions of writing. Now her work is view as brilliant.

Then there’s Twitter. Being forced to say something meaningful in 140 characters or less. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I, for one, am often criticized for being verbose, and I struggle to be concise and on point. Using Twitter is actually helping me to hone the skills required. The same is no less true for digital natives.

I came across this quote on http://ppbloggers.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/twitter-and-texting-are-not-destroying-the-english-language-srsly-get-over-it/
while perusing the internet for fodder for this post.

I would actually argue that effective tweeting and texting require a higher level of literacy, because you need to have a solid understanding of the language before you can abridge it.

The author of that blog also makes the point that Twitter and texting eliminate the availability of formatting like italics, bold, and underline that we use as aids to help us convene meaning, tone, and intent. Trying to make your point without the benefits of formatting text is actually more difficult, and helps to sharpen communication skills.

To those who insist on sticking their feet into the mud- you might want to try reading a little poetry. In particular, Percy Bysshe Shelley’s Ozymandias. The mighty edifice that is the form and structure of the English language as it exists today my look as vain and forlorn as the shattered statue of Shelley’s poem. Changing TELAWKI (the English language as we know it) will not bring about TEOTWAWKI (the end of the world as we know it.) On the other hand, due caution ought to be observed. The introduction of email and texting shorthand into common English writing may have unexpected consequences. Or, as Robert Heinlein put it, TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.) OMG, I used the word “ain’t.” It’s the end of the world as we know it.

Adrian (aka Migdalor Guy aka Yoeitzdrian)

Some online links pertaining to this subject:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Will_email_and_texting_together_destroy_the_power_of_written_language_and_literature

This discussion from the BBC website is from 2003! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2815461.stm

http://ppbloggers.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/twitter-and-texting-are-not-destroying-the-english-language-srsly-get-over-it/

I’ll post more links as I come across them.

Technorati tags: texting, textese, language, English, writing, shorthand

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Metzora 5771 – Afflict This!

2011-04-08T12:48:00.001-04:00

OK G”d, so which is it? Are you responsible for every little thing that happens, or not? Where does our free will fit in? Do you only pull strings for major events? Does anything happen by mere chance?

These questions, and more, went running through my head as I revisited parashat Metzora once again. This time I was particularly struck by this text:

When you enter the land of Canaan that I give you as a possession, and I inflict an eruptive plague upon a house in the land you possess… (Lev. 14:34)

I found it odd that, out of all the various forms of plagues, skin diseases, etc. dealt with in this parasha (as well as Tazria) only in this instance does G”d declare G”d’self to be the cause/source of the affliction.

G”d is most assuredly capable of inflicting diseases, skin conditions, and more upon human beings. The Torah certainly tells us of a few times when this happened. From this, are we simply to assume that all the afflictions in Tazria and Metzora are caused to happen by G”d, even if it doesn’t explicitly say this? Seems an awfully big leap, if you ask me. In addition, if we accept that as the case, then it begs the question of why, in the case of afflictions of houses, does G”d specifically self-identify as the cause.

It is possible that there might be cases of houses afflicted by plagues that were not caused by G”d, and that, in such case, the rules and remedies prescribed in the Torah don’t hold? How is one to know the difference between a G”d-caused afflicted wall and a non-G”d-caused afflicted wall?

Rashi doesn’t directly address my question but does suggest that these afflictions upon walls were placed deliberately by G”d in order that it would cause the Israelites to tear down those walls and find within them treasures hidden by the previous occupants. That provides a somewhat offhand explanation of why G”d would be noted as the direct cause of this tza’arat of walls. Not a very satisfying one at all.

Subtle issues of translation also contribute to the problem here. Which is the more accurate rendering: “when I place an affliction…” or “I will place an affliction…” or “and I place an affliction…” Subtle yet significant in terms to trying to understand what’s going on here. Rashi views it as a statement of definitive action “…I will place…” citing the textual difference in this sentence and other sentences where it speaks of such infections on people and clothing, saying “if there is an affliction of tza’arat.”

So Rashi clearly notices that there is something different about this situation, yet surprisingly does not mention that it is only here that G”d self-identifies as causing the afflictions.

Now, taking into account our understanding of tza’arat as being a condition that is reflective of a person’s guilt, bad actions or bad intents, it makes sense that people, to some degree, self-afflict themselves with tza’arat (and, I suppose, their clothes) whereas walls and houses, being inanimate, must have tza’arat placed upon them by an external force. Yet if we follow this line of reasoning, it sort of takes G”d out of the equation when it comes to tza’arat afflictions of people and clothes, at least some of the time.

So I’m right back where I started. OK G”d, so which is it? Are you responsible for every little thing that happens, or not? Where does our free will fit in? Do you only pull strings for major events? Does anything happen by mere chance?

Are these questions even answerable? Do I really want to know the answers? Is this a worthy use of my time?

All good questions to ponder this Shabbat.

Shabbat Shalom,

Some other musings on this parasha:

Metzora 5765-Defiling the Tabernacle
Metzora 5763-Not So Irrelevant
Metzora 5760-Even Lepers Bring Good News

Tazria-Metzora 5770 - Excessive Prevention
Tazria-M'tzora 5767-Once Impure, Not Always Impure
Tazria-Metzora 5766 - Comfort in Jerusalem
Tazria-Metzora 5758/5764-Getting Through the Messy Stuff
Tazria-Metzora 5761-Lessons For Our Students
Tazria-Metzora 5762-Sing a Song of Leprosy

Tazria/Shabbat HaHodesh 5771 - It's Good To Be the King
Tazria 5765-If Naaman Can Be Forgiven...
Tazria 5760-Preventing Spiritual Rot

Technorati tags: torah, commentary, metzorah

Paying It Forward – My 2011 Birthday Experience

2011-04-04T09:57:00.001-04:00

[Posted both here and on my Yoeitzdrian blog]

Yesterday was an amazing day. It was my 56th birthday, and I spent the morning teaching Jewish music to kids at the SAJ, most of the afternoon on a bus back to Amherst, and a quite evening here with a wonderful birthday dinner and desert.

What made it truly amazing was the many, many birthday greetings I received on Facebook, e-mail, and other electronic fora. I was, frankly, overwhelmed by the sheer number of people who sent me greetings. The vast majority of those greetings were not the product of some app, but the effort of an individual friend, colleague, or family member. Most, were, indeed, short and terse, but many were obviously individually crafted and not generic at all. Some of you may believe that’s important. I am no longer so certain that is the case.

Even those who turned over the task of sending me a birthday greeting to an automated app still had to take the time to add my name to the list of those they wanted to included among the recipients.

Sure, I got plenty of automatically generated birthday greetings from businesses like CVS, my insurance agents, financial planners, and from many of the online fora to which I am subscribed. Are those heartfelt? Probably not many of them. Are they just marketing tools? Probably so. I don’t mind. And the coupons can be a nice bonus. At the same time, I don’t feel as obligated to acknowledge those birthday greetings.

Yet I felt so blessed for all those birthday greetings, that I am taking the time to respond with a thank you to each and every one-and believe me, that’s a lot.

I can already hear some of you thinking “it’s not about the quantity, it’s about the quality.” Like all supposed truisms, even this one has levels of subtle complexity. Quantity is relative, anyway. I don’t have the huge numbers of friends and followers that celebrities do. My numbers of friends and followers are actually pretty small in the scheme of things Facebook and Twitter. Nevertheless, I must admit that the quantity, in this case, did come as a surprise. I received far more birthday messages than I ever expected. So the quantity did contribute to the overall good feelings produced by this mass onslaught of birthday wishes. However, it wasn’t the quantity alone.

Made easier by the technology or not, people who are my friends and colleagues still have to make the initial decision to send me a note on my birthday. That’s quality. It tells me, I think, several things. It tells me that these many friends and colleagues are good people who care enough to send me a birthday greeting, to engage in a simple act of kindness. It also tells me that I must have, at some point, had an impact on their lives in some way.

The diversity of people who sent me greetings is amazing. Yes, that sheer diversity is the product of technology, and the ease with which it makes possible re-connecting with people. I heard from grade school, high school, college and grad school classmates. I heard from people at every synagogue, school, job with which I have ever been associated. I heard from people in every community in which I have ever lived. I heard from students I have taught, and from teachers who taught me. I heard from friends, neighbors, employers, colleagues and more.

The collective effect of all this has been to increase my own positive feelings of well being, and caused me to feel extremely blessed. As I stated in one wall post, I have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to friends, colleagues, and family.

Here it is the next day, and I am still basking in the positive, reinforcing glow of this experience. I suspect it will last for a while.

I’ve had lots of nice birthdays over the years. In terms of some of them, this year was far less in terms of actual physical interaction, didn’t have much in the way of a party or presents. (Well, except for the best present of all which is the good feelings I’ve gotten from all those greetings.) I’ve been thrown some humdinger birthday parties over the years, including ones that reunited me with people I hadn’t seen in a long time. I remember those experiences, and I also remember the relative lengths of the afterglow, the endorphin release. This year’s afterglow seems stronger, more resilient.

While songleading yesterday, teachers had their students sing me a happy birthday wish, and the effect was, indeed, heartwarming. Would that have had the same impact if it were virtual, sent as a video, or some other electronic form? I’m not sure. So there remains a power in face to face experiences. Yet I have discovered here a truly impressive power in a more virtual and electronic experience, and I cannot deny that it was no less impactful than the in-person experiences I had for my birthday.

Something, at least for me, made this Social Media birthday experience different. Many synagogues with which I have been affiliated have done things to acknowledge birthdays (and have even been using technology solutions for years to generate personalized letters or postcards from generic texts.) For me, those just didn’t have the power of this recent experience. Something is different, and trying to figure out what that something is is what we need to suss out.

So now comes the obvious question. How can we harness the forces of Social Media to help bring this experience to others, in general, and in a Jewish context? I’m not speaking here of the particular effect of birthday greetings, but the positive feelings I experienced as a result.

I’m aware of the risk that analyzing the effect of this experience could wind up imploding the experience for me. Nevertheless it’s a risk I’m willing to take. There’s something here – I can’t quite put my finger on it yet – but it is something that re-affirms my belief that the internet, like the aether that preceded it, carries more than simple bits and bytes, electrons, pieces of data. I could feel the warmth of the good wishes that people were sending me, despite the obvious lack of real-time, in-person interaction. I know the experience is reproducible.

As always, there are cautions to be observed. As a form of media, social media can be abused. I think of all the televangelists who used the power of television and radio to sustain their ministries financially. I was tempted to say “bilked their listens out of millions of dollars.” However, I feel I can’t be that cynical right now. If my theories and beliefs are correct, it is certainly possible that many of those listeners were actually moved and affected by their virtual encounters with a televangelist. Their desire to support those ministries was sincere. It is even possible that some of the televangelists were sincere.

It’s equally possible that some televangelists were masters of techniques and tools designed to produce endorphin release in their viewers. It’s possible my own birthday experience this year is similar, except that it wasn’t the result of a deliberate or intentional effort. So, as we explore the power of technology and Social Media for good, we can’t ignore the risks and perils as well.

It’s not just a matter of a risks vs. benefits analysis. That can only tell you when something’s good marginally or significantly outweighs its potential for bad. For me, it is a matter of seeking to be as aware of possible of the potential negative outcomes, and structuring what you create the minimize or even eliminate them. I’m not so foolish as to believe we can really know and predict every possible outcome, but we certainly have the tools and experience to enable us to work towards the good.

Help me turn my good experience into something good for others. Let’s explore the possibilities, potentials and pitfalls together.

-Adrian (aka Migdalor Guy, aka Yoeitzdrian)

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Tazria/Shabbat HaHodesh 5771 – It’s Good To Be the King

2011-04-01T09:01:00.001-04:00

Among the many prejudices I acknowledge is a general bias against people who are wealthy. It’s a bias that I, raised in the public housing projects of New York City and coming from a family with lots of Wobblies and members of the Socialist Workers Party, will admit to readily. It’s a bias generally exasperated through experience in the Jewish community, primarily the community outside of large metro areas like NYC, Chicago, etc. though it can be just as exasperated in those places as well.

I’ve written about this before. There is a segment of the Jewish community which I’ll call, for lack of a better name, working class, which one seems to find primarily in the large metro areas. Yes, those areas have more than their share of Jews who are doctors, lawyers, CEOs, etc. However, it has been my experience that outside these metro area, one doesn’t find many “working class” Jews. If you’re one of my many friends from the several smaller Jewish communities where I have lived, don’t take offense yet – read on.

At least in the liberal Jewish world, being an active member of the Jewish community is expensive. Large percentages of the Jewish community do seem to have more than adequate resources to deal with this (although, as is typical in the US these days, the large middle and upper middle classes are feeling the squeeze.)

Striking off in a somewhat different direction earlier this week the radio program On Point apparently had a show discussing the difficulties of the extremely wealthy. I wasn’t able to listen to the show, but I saw the subject in a Tweet to which I hastily responded how I didn’t have much sympathy for them. My brother-in-law happily chimed-in echoing my sentiments.

All these thoughts and more were on my mind as I perused the special haftarah for Shabbat HaHodesh. At the very end the prophet tells us these things:

When a ruler makes a gift to his sons, it becomes their inheritance
When a ruler makes a gift to one of his subjects, it only belongs to that subject until the next Sabbatical year
A ruler may not take property away or rob property from his subjects in order to endow his sons, but may only endow them from his own property.

That last part I like, the rest of it, not so much. I have really struggled with this. It seems an unfair sort of fairness. If a King chooses to bestow his largesse on me, why do I only get its benefit until the next Sh’mita year?

I began to wonder what the lesson is here. Surely rulers have as much right as any parent to pass on their holdings to their offspring? Nevertheless it still grates on me how, even today, we allow the very wealthy and powerful to pass on their holdings to children who did little to earn them. Some children are lucky to be born into wealth. Others are born into poverty (yet, surprisingly, might consider that just as lucky!)

When I step back and examine these texts, I begin to get a glimmer of intent. As with so many things in Judaism, it is about balance. As I am constantly reminding others, I must remind myself: “Equal” and “Fair” are not always the same.

There is a clear enjoinder here for the ruler (or the wealthy, if you prefer) that their property shall only be obtained fairly and justly. They cannot abuse those beneath them in order to accumulate more property. You cannot examine the rest of the text here without keeping this in mind, though it might have been easier to understand if this enjoinder had been placed in the text before the other statements.

The Torah teaches that we must not pervert justice to favor either the poor or the rich. Not only must we do this in action and deed, but thought as well. My knee-jerk bias against those with wealth is not an appropriate way to think.

I still think it stinks that the sons of rulers get to keep their gifts whereas the rest of us peons have to give them back at the next Sabbatical year. To some degree, I accuse this text of attempting to pervert justice in favor of the rich. I’m adding this text to my list of irredeemable texts that I’ll try to find a way to redeem.

For the moment it will have to suffice that reading this text has caused me to be observant of my own biases, and to reconsider them. Yes, when you’re living hand-to-mouth, it is hard to be sympathetic to the cries of the nanny-hiring set complaining about the high cost of a day school education. There’s been a recent kerfuffle caused by some day schools suggesting to families that they can’t really offer them financial support unless they’re willing to make more sacrifices like giving up expensive vacations, etc. Part of me understands the point of view of the schools, though I still think it’s a tacky thing for them to do. It is important, however, that I work so that part of me also understands the point of view of the families. As I mentioned earlier, the middle class is getting squeezed. Life requires balance, and being able to take a nice family vacation is not an unreasonable expectation of any family where the parents are working hard to give their children a good education. (Though I hasten to add, from my own childhood experiences, that good family vacations need not be expensive.)

Money is not a panacea. It doesn’t fix everything. So yes, even the very wealthy can have problems. It’s a step in the right direction, I suppose, if I at least stop being automatically unsympathetic to the wealthy. That doesn’t require me to be sympathetic, though it could lead to it. Oh, the places Torah can take you…

Shabbat Shalom,

Technorati tags: Torah, Shabbat HaHodesh, Ezekiel

Some other musings on this week’s parasha:

Tazria 5768 - Just Not Good Enough is Just Not Good Enough
Tazria 5765-If Naaman Can Be Forgiven...
Tazria 5760-Preventing Spiritual Rot

Metzora 5768 - Human Nature
Metzora 5765-Defiling the Tabernacle
Metzora 5763-Not So Irrelevant
Metzora 5760-Even Lepers Bring Good News

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Sh’mini/Shabbat Parah 5771-So Say We All

2011-03-25T15:15:00.001-04:00

I’m confused. In the special haftarah for Shabbat Parah which we read this Shabbat, G”d speaks of removing our hearts of stone and replacing them with hearts of flesh. This, G”d says (though the prophet Ezekiel) will cause you to obey the commandments. However it seems to me that it is our very fleshy natures, our “free will” as it were, that causes us to be stubborn, obstinate, and disobedient. It seems to me that in coercing to follow G”d’s commandments, G”d is taking away our free will, and making our hearts more like stone.

Now I realize I am seeing the metaphor differently than it was perhaps intended. The stone heart of which the prophet (and thus G”d) speaks is most likely referring to our selfishness, our failure to do justly, care for the poor, treat rich and poor alike fairly, and our empty and meaningless performance of ritual and prayer. On those with a truly stone or cold hear could be so cruel and unthinking.

Yet if we are merely automatons, coerced and forced to do G”d’s bidding by G”d’s own hand, that, to me, is more like having a stone heart. We are like machines that merely do what we are programmed to do.

If you follow the world of (the recent remaking of the world of) Battlestar Galactica, you may note the irony in the fact that it is the humans that believe in a pantheon of gods while the machine-based Cylons worship their one true G”d. Who has the heart of stone here? It’s not so clear. (The Cylons, of course, are machines, but machines that would clearly pass a Turing test. They are self-aware, procreate, and have thinking power equivalent (if not superior) to humans. Sometimes, the series seemed to suggest, it wasn’t clear whether the humans or the Cylons had better morals, ethics, and values. There is also the interesting parallel that, just as in our universe we humans are G”d’s creation, in the Battlestar universe, the Cylons are humanity’s creation. They, too, are stubborn, obstinate, and prone to follow a different G”d!)

In this haftarah, is G”d seeing the error of the choice to give us free will? Realizing we’re just not gonna get it on our own, G”d decides to cause us to change our ways, and become obedient to G”d’s laws. (Not too difficult for the G”d who could harden Pharaoh’s heart. If G”d can harden hearts, G”d can surely soften them as well.)

I ask “what’s the point?” I have offered the thought before that G”d gave is free will, made us less than perfect as it were, precisely because it would have been a pretty boring universe if everything were perfect and nothing were left to chance.

I recognize that Ezekiel was trying to give hope to the people in exile. He recognized that they felt hopeless to change themselves in a way that would make them more obedient to G”d’s desires on their own. So he offers them the hope that G”d will do the changing for them.

Thanks, but no thanks. If I am to follow G”d’s commandments, I want it to be entirely of my own free will and volition. Because I want to do so, not because I am being compelled to do so. So thanks for trying to help us feel better about our inadequacies, Ezekiel, but I don’t buy your hypothesis.

So say we all.

Shabbat Shalom,

Other musings on this parasha

Sh'mini 5770 - Don't Eat That, It's Not Kosher
Sh'mini 5769 srettirC ypsirC
Sh'mini 5767-Don't Be a Stork
Sh'mini 5766-Palmwalkers
Shemini 5765-It All Matters
Shemini 5764-Playing Before Gd
Shemini 5763 - Belly of the Beast
Shemini 5762-Crispy Critters
Shemini 5761-Lessons From Our Students
Shemini 5760-Calm in a Crisis
Shemini 5759-Porking Out

Why Would A Developer Fail to Plan Ahead for Firefox 4?

2011-03-24T16:35:00.001-04:00

Just a quick blog entry to wonder aloud this question:

Why, when Firefox 4 has been in beta for a long time, and the release candidate has been around for a while now, are there so many Firefox Add-ons that aren’t yet FF4 compatible? Many of my favorite add-ons were made compatible even before the official release of FF4, and kudos to those developers and companies for planning ahead. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why major add-ons, with lots of users (for example, the Delicious Bookmarks add-on) were not yet FF4 ready at the time of its release. C’mon people. be forward looking, plan ahead! Yes, not every one of your users is an early adopter or will be so quick to upgrade to FF4, but it has been clear now for weeks, if not months, that FF4 would contain enough improvements (especially in memory usage and speed) that most users would want to upgrade as soon as possible, since FF3 has become real slow and bloated.

I know it’s not easy for developers, and especially so for those who create free add-ons. These are labors of love a lot of the time. Nevertheless, if you’re gonna make the commitment, make it all the way, and be prepared to support major new releases when they are released.

I’ll let you in on a little secret. Those developers who have always shown foresight by planning ahead for new releases, who respond quickly to bug reports and offer good customer service – well, those are the developers on whose “donate” buttons I click, and give them some cash in appreciation of their efforts and to help them keep the app going. Get it?

Adrian (aka MigdalorGuy aka Yoeitzdrian)

Technorati tags: Firefox 4, FF4, add-ons

Random Musing Before Purim 5771 – A Purim Ditty

2011-03-18T17:34:00.001-04:00

Random Musing Before Shabbat - Purim 5771

Rather than write about Parashat Tzav or Shabbat Zachor this year, I thought I would turn to Purim. This is an extemporaneous piece of writing I worked one earlier this year that I thought might be fun to share. For thoughts on Tzav, try any of these previous musings:

Tzav 5769 - Payback: An Excerpt From the Diary of Moses
Tzav/Shabbat HaGadol 5767-Redux 5762-Irrelevant Relavancies
Tzav/Shabbat HaGadol 5766 - Dysfunction Junction
Tzav 5765 (updated 5760)-Of IHOPs, Ordination and Shabbat
Tzav/Shabbat HaGadol 5764-Two Way Street
Tzav 5763 - Zot Torahteinu?
Tzav 5761/5759-Jeremiah's Solution

Random Musing before Purim 5771 - A Purim Ditty

Purim is coming, the goose is getting fat

Please put a penny in the old man’s hat.

OK, that’s a terribly mixed up metaphor, taking a traditional Xmas song and using it for Purim. However, isn’t that one of the main themes of Purim – that everything is v’nafokh-turned upside down? In the Purim story, the Jews of Persia managed to turn the tables on those who sought their destruction. In celebration of that aspect of the story, we bring that sense of topsy-turvy into our Purim, and do the unexpected, reverse roles, and the like.

There are other parts of the Purim story that can be found if we perform a little exegesis on our cobbled-together ditty. Where does a fattening goose fit in? Well, we can think of it as a connection to the prevalence of banquets in the Purim story. The story starts with long banquets, and the central plot twists occur at more private banquets held for King Ahashverosh and Haman at Esther’s request. Some scholars have suggested that the whole Purim holiday came about after our exile in Babylon when the returning Jews didn’t want to give up the 40-day libation festival that was part of the mixed Babylonian and later conquering Persian culture in which they were living.

Then there’s that second line – clearly, a connection tsedakah and social justice – another main theme of Purim. In celebration of the turn of events, the Book of Esther commands the Jewish people to engage in two acts: shalalkh manot – the sharing of gifts with friends and neighbors, and mattanot l’evvyonim – sending gifts to the poor.

Now, let’s be honest, there are some rather politically incorrect part of the Purim story that we tend of gloss over – take a look at the last two chapters and see what I mean. Nevertheless, it is a holiday imbued with great meaning, and with great lessons. Even universal ones, and ones that can transcend boundaries.

There’s little doubt that Judaism was influenced by the time it spent in Babylon and Persia. What religion hasn’t been influenced in this way. Here, in 21^st century America, we have many religions and cultured represented. Why not a little cultural sharing, like our little X-mas-based Purim ditty?

Here’s to a joyous, upside-down, yet meaningful Purim for all!

Shabbat Shalom and Chag Purim Sameakh!

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Vayikra 5771-I’d Like To Bring To Your Attention…

2011-03-11T15:10:00.001-05:00

I’ve written before about my problems with the ideas underpinning the Jewish sacrificial system. While I accept the idea that human beings can and do make mistakes, you have to wonder a bit about a system that is complex (and perhaps unclear) enough that it simply assumes people will transgress on a regular basis. Yes, I understand the argument that a simpler system gives us less of a goal for which to strive. (It’s sort of like the dilemma we face today in Jewish education, being asked to provide meaningful content in less and less time. So we set our sights a little lower. Problem is, with lowered expectations, you generally get what you expected. If what you;re teaching isn’t challenging to your learners, what’s the point. Without some stretching, there’s really no learning. But I digress.)

Nevertheless, G”d (or those responsible for the creation of the text of the Torah and the laws and rules therein) could have created a system that was far less likely to cause regular transgressions. One place to start might have been starting with some clearer instructions in some areas – laws and rules less open to interpretation (for example, the one about boiling a kid in its mother’s milk.) Seems to me the written Torah could have been written in a fashion to obviate the need for the oral Torah. Yes, that could have been quite a challenge, and created a system even more static than the one we have (which, I must admit, is not truly static, just slow to change.)

It is sort of ironic that I, who so often point to the inconsistencies, problems, idiosyncrasies and challenges of Torah as precisely the things that make Judaism (and the Torah) so great and wonderful, should find himself advocating for a less mysterious text. Then again, if I revel in inconsistency, why not this one?

As I was pondering these things and reading the parasha this week, one thing did jump out at me. The text speaks of the committing of inadvertent or unknowing sins, of which the sinner later becomes aware. Twice, when giving instructions for sacrifices of expiation for inadvertent sins, the text adds the notion that rather than discovering the sin for themselves, the sin is brought to their attention.

This phrase is not used when referring to the sin of a priest, or of the whole community, but only in reference to the sin of a chieftain or individual. I suppose it is assumed that the priest will always knows when he has sinned, though that’s one whopping assumption. It also assumes that the community as a whole will also know when they have sinned. Another whopping assumption.

It may just be a matter of practicality. Who would dare to bring to the attention of a priest a sin they committed and had not acknowledged? And when it is the whole community, who could bring it to their attention? (Actually, there are a number of good answers to that. You see what you can come up with.)

Here’s my problem. In allowing for others to bring someone’s attention to an overlooked sin, we approach a very steep slope. Unscrupulous individuals could take advantage of this. Unscrupulous priests could really take advantage of this. (Hey, I’m hungry. Let’s tell Nachshon over there he committed a sin and didn’t know it, and he’ll have to bring a sacrifice. Let’s try and convince him to make it a meal sacrifice-I just love those griddle cakes he makes.) The system is an opening to a sort of Big Brother nightmare. People just watching each other trying to catch them in a transgression.

Why did the Torah feel it necessary to add the words “o hoda eilav khatato asher khatat” - “or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge?” What is added to the dimension of these laws and commandments with this additional words? Why not assume the better nature of human beings and leave it as the text preceding this says simply “and he realizes his guilt?” Why open this can of worms by introducing the ability of another person bringing the offense to the attention of the sinner?

Yes, Torah teaches us that all Israel are responsible one to the other, and that we are obligated for tokhekha, reproach. Is informing each person of a sin they overlooked of such importance? On a communal level, I suppose, it does matter. There is value in helping members of the community know when they have done wrong so that they may correct themselves the next time. That, for me, has greater value than the requirement for a sacrifice of expiation. On the other hand, putting ourselves in the position of the one who was unaware of sinning in those days, I’m sure it was helpful to them to be able to offer a sacrifice of expiation. Nevertheless, I think we’ve a better system nowadays, the one we often refer to at Yom Kippur, of trying harder to hit the mark when we have missed it.

There are those who would claim that all this sacrificial cult material is irrelevant, so why even bother to discuss it as all. Simply dismiss it. While I certainly reject the idea of animal sacrifices, I am not entirely opposed to some system of enabling people to make expiation for sins that is helpful to them and the community. I do see value in wondering why the Torah suggests that others make people aware of their sins. So I don’t find this material devoid of value in a modern context. As we work our way through Vayikra, I’ll try and keep that in mind, and hope you will, too.

And, as long as where on the subject of informing other people of their mistakes and sins…

Oh, G”d, un, I’d like to bring to your attention….

Shabbat Shalom,

Other musings on this parasha:

Vayikra 5770 - You Can Fool Most of the People Most of the Time
Vayikra 5768 - Redux 5763 - Kol Kheilev
Vayikra 5767-Stuff That's Bugging Me
Vayikra 5766 - Osymandias
Vayikra-Shabbat Zachor 5765-Chatati
Vayikra 5763 - Kol Cheilev
Vayikra 5759 & 5762-Salvation?
Vayikra 5760-Meaningful Gifts
Vayikra 5764 and 5761-Mambo #613: A Little Bit of Alef in My Torah...

Technorati tags: torah, commentary, vayikra

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Pekude/Shabbat Sh’kalim 5771 – Ideas worth Re-Examining

2011-03-04T11:08:00.001-05:00

I really wanted to write about something I came across in the regular haftarah for parashat Pekude but I am going to have to save the thought for another year, because this Shabbat is Shabbat Sh'kalim, and we read a special haftarah.

Shabbat Sh'kalim is a Shabbat that moves around a bit according to the dictates of the Hebrew Calendar. It is designed to start the series of 4 special haftarot that are read preceding Pesakh, and it has to fall such that all the others line up in time.
A special maftir is used for the Torah reading on Shabbat Sh'kalim, hearkening back to the openong 6 verses of parashat Ki Tissa which we read just a short while ago. It speaks of the half-shekel tax levied on the Israelites on the basis of the census, the funds then being used to serve a joint function - as expiation on the part of the Israelites, and as funds to support the needs of the Mishkan, the Tent of Meeting.

Synagogues love this Shabbat, as it reinforces the obligation of Jews to help support the religious infrastructure. On the other hand, there are aspects of how this was done that may conflict with modern synagogue operations. The biblical mandate is egalitarian when it comes to economic status - rich and poor alike pay just a half-shekel. Not exactly the way many synagogues are doing it these days, what with "fair share" and other types of programs designed to not conflict with our more modern sensibilities about the distribution of wealth. People who support a so-called "flat-tax" for income tax seem to have the Torah on their side.

Here's an interesting thought. What if every Jew, everywhere in the world, paid to a communal fund the modern equivalent of a half-shekel. This obligation would apply to every Jew, whether they belonged to a specific congregation or not. These funds are then divided up between all the world's congregation and Jewish institutions. Not very practical, but an interesting thought exercise that at least gets us closer to the biblical mandate. For example, synagogues could have no dues structure-operating solely on their portion of the half-shekel tax. Jews could freely come and go between congregations, so long as they can demonstrate they paid their half-shekel. Pretty mind-blowing idea, huh? I'm not advocating this wholesale, but it has some interesting possibilities, especially in light of recent cries that what a 21st century Jewish community may need and want is the ability to move seamlessly between institutions, as they structure their own path of Jewish life.

The socialist in me has a little trouble with placing equal burdens on rich and poor alike, but there is a certain appeal to the idea, philosophically.

The special haftarah we read for Shabbat Sh'kalim clues us in to something we already know about human nature. Money corrupts. King Jehoash instructed the preists of the Temple that all donations received shall go for the upkeep and maintenance of the Temple. Twenty years later (slow on the uptake, or choosing to ignore, we'll never know) he discovers that the priests had made no repairs to the Temple (surprise, surprise!) So King Jehoash comes up with an ingenious solutions. Money will no longer go directly to the pirests, and they, in turn, will have no obligation for the upkeep of the Temple. All donations would be collected in common vessels, and then turned over to the staff (i,e, the workers who kept the Temple operating, fixed it, cleaned it, repaired it, etc.) This would insure the Temple's upkeep (one might hope.)

To keep the priests from being totally unhappy with the deal (and possibly having him de-throned) he allows all money brought as guilt and purification offerings to go directly to the priests.
Imagine what our synagogues might be like today if all donations went to pay for the staff and materials for building upkeep and maintenance, and the clergy relied solely on monies donated to expiate the sins of congregants.

I wonder how many synagogues have policies on the maximum salary differential permitted between the senior rabbi and the lowest-paid custodian or staff member? It's an idea that many Jews cry out for in general society - capping CEO salaries, for example. Are we willing to try that in our synagogues?

Now here's something amazing. The haftarah for Shabbat Sh'kalim tells us that no supervisions or checks and balances were necessary for the people who oversaw the collection and distribution of the funds to the workers - for, as it says, they dealt honestly. The haftarah tells us the the high priest and the royal scribe were the ones who were to notice when the collections jars were full, count the money, and then distribute it to those who distributed it on to the workers. The text isn't clear whether the high priest and royal scribe were trusted and not checked upon, but my read is that the trusted ones were the next level down - those who actually too the funds and paid the workers and suppliers. What does it tell us that we couldn't trust the priests but we could trust these people?

There's another text here that, if taken at face value could vex modern synagogues many of whom have become "bar/bat mitzvah factories." The age of Jewish communal majority has along history of being fixed at age 13 (12 for females) however if you examine Israelite culture and the Torah, you see that the half-shekel tax was only assessed to males age 20 and up. Now, there can be many practical reasons for this. Nevertheless, it does seem to call into question the rabbinic decisions to fix the age of becoming bar/bat mitzvah at a much earlier age. Seems to me if one can be a full member of the community with all the appurtenant obligations, they ought to be obligated to pay the modern synagogue equivalent of the half-shekel. Imagine how well that would go over with both parents and children! So, do we change the age of majority, or start collecting dues from everyone over the age of bar/bat mitzvah? Radical? Perhaps. Worth contemplating, nonetheless, if for no other reason than, while it may not change things, it can influence and subtly affect our approach.

There are clear differences between our own times and those of Temple times and earlier. The synagogue may have taken the place of the Temple, but it is not quite the same thing. So comparisons aren't entirely fair. Yet the values and ethics we read about in the Torah should surely remain applicable.

The rabbis were smart. They enabled Judaism to survive the destruction of the Temple by two millennia! Yet much of what they did, which they claim is based in and supported by the oral law, seems somewhat antithetical to what we read in the Torah. The things that the rabbis put into place may no longer be necessary, or may not work well in the 21st century. It's equally true that the original teachings of the Torah might have the same problems. However, I'm willing to go back to the source without the cliff notes of the rabbinic interpreters to see if there are values and ideas we can re-adopt to our modern times. Issues of economic egalitarianism, how institutions are supported and paid for, how the donations are distributed, who are the people we can trust to distribute the communal funds without oversight - all are worthy of re-examination.

Technorati tags: torah, commentary, pekude, shabbat shekalim

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Vayakhel 5771-Giving Up the Gold Standard

2011-02-25T14:52:00.001-05:00

What is it about gold? Though centuries separated their times, both Moses and Betzalel, and later Hiram and Solomon, fashioned the most central items for the mishkan/temple of gold. Though millennia separate us from Moses, Betzalel, Solomon and Hiram, today gold seems as precious and revered now as it did then.

It’s sort of yellow-ish, malleable, and can be polished to a bright shine. It certainly stands out among other materials and metals. It is generally not found in plentiful supply in the area of Israel or neighboring countries. Though gold was important in Egypt, it isn’t found in any great quantity there, though could be found in nearby Nubia. Nubia, in fact, comes from the Egyptian word “nub” meaning gold.

Though Egypt had literally thousands of mines (one ancient map notes over 1300 sites) total production is thought to maybe have averaged about one ton per year – not a particularly impressive amount.

The Egyptians considered gold a “divine” metal, and, due to its color when refined, it was associated with the sun, and the sun god Ra. As important as gold was, because it was somewhat difficult to find and refine, its use was limited and reserved for particular purposes (like funerary masks. How odd and ironic that this most precious of metals dug from the ground was destined to spend most of its time buried again!)

In liberating the spoils of Egypt, the Israelites were lucky indeed to have come away with enough gold jewelry to be smelted down to create first the covering of the golden calf, and latter the few ritual items for the mishkan made of gold (the menorah, the cover of the ark and the cherubim, and a few others.)

Solomon and Hiram seemed to have a little better supply of gold available to them, and they used it a bit more freely, but only a bit. Solomon’s source was named Ophir, but to this day, scholars disagree as to its location. Various parts of Africa. India. Some even have suggested Peru! (There’s even a weird theory out there that Solomon actually got a lot of the gold by raiding Egyptian tombs, but not many scholars lend credence to the idea.)

The lust for gold can do strange things to people. We’re all familiar with the dramatic versions of these cautions from films like Treasure of the Sierra Madre and similar classics. In American history we have the several gold rushes, and even today, people are still trying to find that one lucky strike, and I don’t mean a cigarette.

We have the Romans to blame, perhaps, for spreading the gold lust, for it was in their empire that gold coinage became a standard. Gold mines were a monopoly of the empire. The Romans were certainly a bit more extravagant in their use of gold.

Gold became a standard against which value could be measured. It remained so for millennia.

In our own modern world, we gave up using the “gold standard” to back the value of money some time ago, though there are those out there suggesting maybe we ought to go back to it.

I have a rather radical thought related to all of this. While I am one who deplores extravagance and displays of wealth and ostentation, I do think our ancient Jewish ancestors were on to something. They recognized gold as a rarity that deserved to only be used for a few very special things. By so reserving it, they put it somewhat beyond the ordinary. While one could argue that this might make it seem all the more valuable and cause people to desire it even more, and there is certainly evidence for this, I still believe it is possible to generate the opposite effect. Use just enough of it that people, while overwhelmed by its beauty and value, still recognize how rare it is, and that perhaps it should be set aside only for the most special uses.

This requires a lot of faith in human nature, and the overwhelming sense of history would dictate otherwise. Is there something in how our ancestors viewed gold that we can find and renew that would enable us to learn that not all precious things are desirable for individual ownership? Consider that our ancestors actually gave up their gold so that the artifacts for the mishkan could be made (sadly they also gave up their gold for the calf, but then everyone makes mistakes.) They valued gold for themselves, but somehow they knew that the gold would be put to better use serving and honoring G”d.

There’s a metaphor here, and clearly it speaks to us of more than just gold. There are perhaps many things in our lives that are of value to us but might be of even greater value if we surrendered their use to only the most special and holy of uses. Not all of these things are physical or tangible.

Ready to surrender your “gold” in service to the One?

Shabbat Shalom,

Technorati tags: torah, commentary, gold

Other musings on this parasha:

Vayakhel-Pekudei/Shabbat HaHodesh 5770-Corroborative Detail
Vayakhel-Pekudei 5769 - There Are Some Things You Just Have To Do Yourself
Vayakhel 5768-An Imaginary Community?
Vayakhel-Pekudei/Shabbat HaHodesh 5767-Redux 5760-The Lost Episodes: Too Much of a Good Thing
Vayakhel-Pekudei/Shabbat HaHodesh 5766 - So How Did Joseph Get Away With it?
Pekude 5765-Redux 5760-Pronouns
Vayakhel 5765-The Wisdom of the Heart
Vayakhel/Pekude 5764-Comma or Construct?
Vayakhel 5763-Dayam V'hoteir
Vayakhel/Pekude 5762-Sacred Work
Vayakhel/Pekude 5761 (Revised from 5758)-Craftsman. Artisan. Artist.
Vayakhel 5760-The Lost Episodes: Too Much of a Good Thing
Vayakhel/Pekude 5758-Craftsman. Artisan. Artist.

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Ki Tissa 5771 – Still Waiting for the Fire

2011-02-18T14:52:00.001-05:00

It’s a lesson I’ve expounded upon many times – that we all wait for the big demonstration when all around us little miracles (and not so little miracles) take place all the time. It takes so much to impress us and that makes me wonder why. Would that it were that we were all extremely conscious of the everyday miracles that surround us that it truly takes something impressive to draw our attention.

Lately, foods seem to have been getting spicier. Now major burger chains have burgers with hot peppers ground right into the mystery meat. Hotter and hotter, as if daring our taste bids (and our stomachs) to revolt.

At the same time, all is not lost. We do seem to have developed a penchant for waters with just a hint of a flavor. So we do seem to appreciate some subtlety.

Elijah, too, offered the extremes – water literally dousing the altar, and fire from G”d consuming the offering despite its wet state.

Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal when their efforts seem unable to bring forth fire from their god to consume their offering. He uses mockery that seems almost modern and contemporary in its style, suggesting that perhaps their god was busy elsewhere, or asleep. These are the same sort of mocking arguments used today by atheists, agnostics, and even many believers who wonder about the apparent absence of G”d from our everyday lives (at least in terms of major miracles.)

My problem with the story in this haftarah is its resolution. The prophets of Baal are unsuccessful, but Elijah calls upon G”d and on cue G”d produces fire that consumes the offering, whereupon all the assembled people say the ancient equivalent of “yep, that must be G”d.”

One miracle and they are convinced? How atypical of humans, and especially atypical of the Israelites. If you think it took a lot to convince Pharaoh (and remember, G”d cheated and made it harder to Pharaoh to acquiesce) think how much more it took (and continues to take) to convince the Jews.

Of course, we know that the convincing was temporary-the people soon returned to their stubborn ways. So the effect of the big miracle was only temporary. That seems to often be the case.

G”d, in many but not all understandings, has unlimited power, so producing big miracles on a daily basis shouldn’t be a big deal. However, if G”d is spending all that time and effort regularly to convince us of G”d’s existence and to follow G”d’s instructions, it doesn’t seem a very happy situation all around. Not much gets done except the regular re-convincing.

It’s easy to reject the other guy’s god. Sadly, it seems even easier to reject our own G”d. Time and again it became necessary to give us a demonstration. Time and again we briefly acknowledged the effectiveness of the demonstration and then went back to whatever it is we were doing anyway.

Since those days, we’ve had ample opportunity to come to realize that life isn’t about big miracles, but the little ones that happen all around us all the time. Given what we know about our universe, the true miracle is that we, as a species, even exist at all.

Yet, here we are, thousands of years later, still waiting for the fire to consume the offering before we’ll be convinced. Have we really learned nothing in all this time?

Shabbat Shalom,

Other musings on this parasha

Ki Tisa 5770 - A Fickle Pickle
Ki Tisa 5768-Not So Easy? Not So Hard!
Ki Tisa/Shabbat Parah 5767-New Hearts and New Spirits
Ki Tisa/Shabbat Parah 5766-Fortune and Men's Eyes
Ki Tisa 5765-Re-Souling Ourselves
Ki Tisa 5764-A Musing on Power Vacuums
Ki Tisa 5763-Shabbat is a Verb
Ki Tisa 5762-Your Turn
Ki Tisa 5760-Anger Management
Ki Tisa 5761-The Lesson Plan

Random Musing Before Shabbat-T’rumah 5771-TorahLeaks

2011-02-04T15:20:00.001-05:00

Religion, and in particular, religious rites and the places and accoutrements that accompany them, tend, in general, to have some level of mystery and secrecy. Priestly classes develop which become the keepers of the mysteries, the secret knowledge. We find this across a broad range of religions, not just Western ones.

While architectural details or cultic structures (like the Mishkan/tabernacle) are sometimes, perhaps even often found in the writings of cultures in the ancient world, one will generally not find descriptions as detailed and complete, not only in architecture but implements, ritual objects, and ritual activities as one finds in the Torah, and, in particular, this weeks parasha, T’rumah.

Not only is history replete with with examples of religions closely guarding secrets and mysteries (though the actual realities may be exaggerated, consider Freemasonry, for example) even future history, in the form of literature, especially science fiction, is also replete with examples where even science has, in some future time, become like magic to the people, and a priestly class closely controls and guards the secrets and mysteries.

To some extent, this has even happened in Judaism. The story of the oven of Akhnai (Talmud, Bava Metzia 59b)shows just how far the rabbis would go to assert their authority. In fact, I actually believe they usurped authority here-not from the Divine, but from the people. The story of the oven of Akhnai is linked with the Deuteronomic statement in Deut 30:12-14 of “lo bashamayim hi” – the Torah is not in heaven – meaning that understanding of the Torah (and by extension G”d’s covenant and laws) is not beyond the ability of any human.

In our own time, though the role of the rabbi is largely changed, except, perhaps, in parts of the traditional/orthodox/haredi community, the rabbi is still perceived by many as a holder of secret or arcane knowledge. Jews the world over abrogate their responsibilities and allow the rabbi (or the cantor, or the educator, or simply the more knowledgeable congregant) to become their surrogate or substitute.

Yet, if we examine what we read in T’rumah, along with Deut 30:12, I believe the rabbis usurped an authority that was never intended for them (despite their protestations that in the face if the diaspora it was necessary.) I believe the evidence is clear. Judaism was not intended to have secrets and mysteries (beyond the essential mystery that is G”d.) The Torah goes into intricate details of the construction of the mishkan/tabernacle and all it contains (and all that takes place inside it) precisely because it intends this knowledge to be available to all, and not kept secret.

Yes, the Torah provides for the creation of a priestly class (though, as I argued in another musing, just last year, for the next parasha, Tetzaveh) perhaps it was just a crumb thrown Aaron’s way by G”d at the behest of Moses.) However, the Kohanim and the Levites are not given knowledge that isn’t available to everyone. They are the carriers out and teachers of the rituals and the knowledge, but the knowledge is not theirs alone-it is available in the Torah for all who seek it. (An example: the Torah later tells priests how to know determine the seriousness of skin diseases. Yes, the priests are the ones who perform the examinations. But the criteria are right there in the Torah for all to know-and presumably, when appropriate-used to question the priest’s decision.)

Yes, later in our history both the priests and the rabbis (and later the mystics) sought to become the controllers of the ritual knowledge, and, to a great extent, succeeded.

Modern liberal Judaism has been fighting back to regain control from the rabbis, with a modicum of success. However, these efforts cannot and will not succeed as long as (in particular liberal) Jews continue to abdicate their responsibilities to learn all that the Torah has to say to them and teach them.

I’m not suggesting, by the way, that we don’t need rabbis, and that they are irrelevant (though, as it is often pointed out, one does not need a rabbi for a wedding, and other Jewish rites.) In the traditional community, rabbis continue to play a very important role. I may disagree with their interpretations, but I cannot pretend knowledge of our traditions to even a small fraction of their scholarship. They and their adherents may interpret Judaism as they please-as long as they don’t tell other Jews that theirs is the only way.

In the liberal community, rabbis serve many functions. They are part of the fabrics of Judaism as it exists today, and perform many important functions and roles. It is only their role as “surrogate Jew” that I seek to eliminate. (I suspect many of the rabbis I know would equally welcome a congregation full of members as knowledgeable as they themselves are-though I do know some who do relish a certain amount of the authority that greater knowledge gives them.)

So my charge to all of you this Shabbat is to do your part to become an informed, well-read, knowledgeable Jew. What you do, armed with that information, is up to you. Here is where liberal and traditional Judaism part company, to a great extent. That’s okay with me. On the other hand, I might suggest that the differences need not be so wide. Even the most liberal Jew would do well to study and understand the classic rabbinic interpretations that are found in the Talmud, commentaries and other writings of these great (and not so great) sages.

Whatever your understanding of the origin of Torah, it’s difficult to avoid the realities thrown in our face by this parasha (combined with Deut 30:12.) The Torah lays it all out for us because the Torah intends for us to know it. Don’t that power away through inaction, abdication, or assigning it to a surrogate. Torah is our Wikileaks. That power is the Torah’s t’rumah to you.

Shabbat Shalom,

Technorati tags: Torah, commentary, not in heaven

Other musings on this parasha (on my web site:)

T'rumah 5770 - Finessing Idolatry, or Outgrowing It?
T'rumah 5769 - Planning for Always
T'rumah 5767-You Gotta Wanna - The Sequel
T'rumah 5766-No Tools Allowed
T'rumah 5765-Ish Al Akhiv
T'rumah 5764-Redux 5760-Doing It Gd's Way
T'rumah 5763-Semper Paratus
T'rumah 5762-Virtual Reality or Real Virtuality?
T'rumah 5760-Doing It Gd's Way
T'rumah 5761-You Gotta Wanna

Index to all my musings from 1997-present on my web site: http://www.durlester.com/musings.htm

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Mishpatim 5771-Getting Past the Apologetics

2011-01-28T14:33:00.001-05:00

“Now the Presence of the L"rd appeared in the sight of the Israelites as a consuming fire on the top of the mountain. Moses went inside the cloud and ascended the mountain..."

Twenty-five years ago today the shuttle Challenger became a consuming fire. It's seven crew members went inside the cloud and ascended-never to return.

Ronald McNair was one of the seven who lost their lives that day. Ronald wasn't the first African-American astronaut to go into space-that was Guion Bluford in 1983-but he was the second, in 1984. Ronald was a physicist with expertise in lasers. He'd come a long way from his childhood in South Carolina when he was consumed in that fire on January 28, 1986.

On NPR this morning there was a StoryCorps excerpt in which Ronald's older brother Carl told a powerful story about Ronald's visit to a library where he wanted to check out some books on science and was told by the librarian that "this library is not for coloreds." Ronald stood his ground. The police and his mother were called. At the suggestion of one of the officers, the librarian reluctantly allowed Ronald to check out the books, whereupon his mother reminded him to say "thank you," which he did.

This story was racing around in my head as I was reading and study parashat Mishpatim this morning. It's powerful reminder that America's legacy of African-American slavery and discrimination cannot be ignored. This parasha contains a number of laws pertaining to slaves. When people remark about how troubling it is that the Torah seems to endorse slavery, we are reminded by scholars and experts that the Torah seems to have great concern for the fair treatment of slaves. Still, they were slaves. How could we, the people freed from slavery in Egypt, ourselves be slaveholders? "That's just the way the world was back in those days." Slavery back then was really more a form of indentured slavery, a way for people to repay debts through physical service.

It appears (at least according to the rabbinic interpretation) that slaves who were foreigners were treated somewhat differently than slaves who were Israelites-as Israelites could never be considered to be the property of another Israelite. As Israelites, they were part of the covenant, and the rules of the Sabbatical year and Jubilee always applied as well.

In the Etz Chayim commentary, Sarna explains that it is significant that this list of laws starts with laws regarding slavery, and is a reflection of he desire of the newly liberated Israelites to see that slaves are fairly treated. Why would it not be the desire of the newly liberated Israelites to see slavery abolished, to make it a prohibited practice for them? Future generations certainly relied on the Torah's failure to abolish slavery to bolster their own support for the abhorrent institution. In the U.S. there were Jews on both sides of that argument.

Thus I am left with the unfortunate belief that what we have here is a whitewash. That the Torah insists on displaying a certain sensitivity to slaves is all well and good, but that's not enough for me now, and I don't think it should have been enough back then. Maybe it's time for us to stop rushing to the defense of the Torah, but to let everyone see and react to her, warts and all. That there are pieces of text in the Torah for which we continue to create apologetics tells me that there are pieces of text in the Torah with which we remain profoundly uncomfortable, but with which we still refuse to deal with head on.

So I'll say it - for it's failure to abolish human slavery, the Torah is wrong. It matters not whence the source of Torah - human or Divine (or Divinely inspired or anything in between.) That the Torah is wrong here (in my opinion) does not give me license to reject the whole of Torah, but it does give me license to also call into questions other troubling pieces of text. Slavery is not the only thing we still whitewash in the Torah. There's the lex talionis, the "eye for an eye" concept. We're told it is metaphorical. Can we really be certain of that? Why not state plainly in the Torah that redress and remedies for wrong acts should be in direct and fair proportion to the act and its wrongness?

That the Torah is replete with so many problematic things troubles me. That the Torah is replete with so many wise and fair things pleases me. How do I reconcile these two viewpoints? I don't. I am slowly reaching a new understanding of Torah, different from that which I have ever held before. Like humans, the Torah has a yetzer tov and a yetzer hara. While the Torah strongly urges humans to hone their yetzer tov in the hopes that it might dominate the yezter hara, it does not provide clear and concise instructions on how to do so. It certainly offers lots of hints and advice. Yet, because the Torah itself is subject to these same conflicting tendencies, it is of necessity inconsistent.

This understanding, for me, excludes the possibility of any form of strict adherence to the Torah (or any of the rabbinic interpretations-for they, too are subject to the conflict between good and evil inclinations.) For me, I feel it gives me to the freedom to be inconsistent in my practice, observance, belief, and actions. It does not give me the freedom to simply ignore Torah and tradition. If anything, its contrarian nature is what gives me impetus to remain continually engaged with Torah and tradition.

Torah teases me (and us) when it says, much later, the oft quoted "lo bashamyim hi" - that the Torah is not in heaven, it is not too baffling for us, that it is in our minds and hearts. Consider that this could be a deliberately misleading premise. Sort of puts a whole new perspective on things, doesn;t it. This could be the Torah's yetzer hara coming through, challenging us with what it knows to be an impossible task.

This is a whole new level of approaching life for me. I don't need to know the meaning of life. I don't need to know all the answers to all the questions. I don't need to fully comprehend Torah, and I do not need to reconcile all the conflicting things in Torah. I need merely remain engaged. I can accept the things I understand, question the things I do not understand, and explore those things I have not yet encountered.

Sending humans into space may or may not be the best way to advance our knowledge of the universe. As strong an advocate as I am of space exploration, I, too, have begun to question the need to risk human lives in this endeavor. We have the technology to do much of that exploring without the physical presence of humans. There will certainly be situations in which there is no substitute for an actual human explorer on site, just as there will be places when human to human contact is preferable to our newly emerging world of virtual and electronic connecting. Yet there is room for both, and we should spend a lot of time thinking about when and where virtual reality and physical reality are appropriate and necessary. (How much of the desire for actual human presence in space is driven by yezter hara and how much by yezter tov? It's an interesting question. Our tradition certainly teaches us that we need both inclinations.

Twenty-five years ago today 7 human beings gave their lives in a noble cause. To help insure their sacrifice was not in vain, I continue to dedicate myself to searching, seeking, inquiring, exploring. Reaching any sort of endpoint or goal in that searching seems so much less important now. Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning...

Shabbat Shalom

Migdalor Guy's New Blog

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Bo 5772–Lifting the Cover of Darkness

Random Musings Before Shabbat-Va'era 5772 - Got It! (Revised and Adapted from 5761 - Just Not Getting It)

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Sh’mot 5772–Is Might Ever Right?

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Vayekhi 5772–A Different HaMalakh HaGoel

Random Musing Before Shabbat Vayigash 5772–Redux & Revised 5760- Teleology 101: Does G"d Play Dice With the World

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Miketz 5772–A Piece of That Kit Kat Bar

Random Musing Before Shabbat–Vayeishev 5772–The Ram’s Horn Rag

Random Music Before Shabbat – Vayishlakh 5772 – One and Many, Many and One

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Vayeitze 5772 – Stumbling on Smooth Paths

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Hayyei Sarah 5772 - Zikhnah

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Vayera 5772 – Well?

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Lekh Lekha 5772 – Out of Context

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Noakh 5772 – The Long Haul

Random Musing Before Shabbat – B’reisheet 5772 – The Unified Field Theorem of The Twelve Steps

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Sukkot III 5772 - Fragility

Random Musing Before Yom Kippur 5772 – Al Chet Shekhetanu

Book Review: Chanukah Lights by Michael J. Rosen and Robert Sabuda

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Nitzavimm/Vayelekh 5771 – Reader’s Choice

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Ki Tavo 5771 – Curse This Parasha!

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Ki Teitzei 5771 – Metaphorical Parapets

Random Musing before Shabbat - Shof'tim 5771 Hassagat G'vul-Revisited

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Re’eh 5771-Revisiting B’lo L’sav’a

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Eikev 5771-Lining Up Alphabetically by Height

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Va’etkhanan/Nakhamu 5771 – Comfort

Random Musing Before Shabbat-D’varim/Shabbat Hazzon 5771-Redux 5766-Refractory Recalcitrant Recidivists

Random Musing Before Shabbat - Masei 5771 - Cause and Effect

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Matot 5771 – Don’t Become Like…Them

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Pinkhas 5771 – Wake Up and Smell the Coffee

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Balak 5771-Imperfect Justice Is No Excuse

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Chukat 5771

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Korakh 5771 – Supporting Our “Priests” and “Levites”

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Sh’lakh L’kha – Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

Random Musing Before Shabbat – B’ha’alot’kha 5771-Manadatory Retirement

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Naso 5771 – The Nazarite Conundrum

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Bemidbar 5771 – Moving Treasures

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Bekhukotai 5771 – The Long Road Ahead

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Behar 5771 – Your Choice

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Emor 5771 – B’yom HaShabbat, B’yom HaShabbat

Random Musing before Shabbat – Kedsohim 5771 – Oil & Water (redux 5763)

Random Musing Before Shabbat - Kedoshim 5763 Oil and Water?

Some previous Musings on this parasha:

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Shabbat Hol HaMoed Pesakh 5771 – Admat Yisrael

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Akharei Mot-Shabbat Hagadol 5771 – Ultimate Tzimtzum

You, Ewe, Yew, U

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Metzora 5771 – Afflict This!

Paying It Forward – My 2011 Birthday Experience

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Tazria/Shabbat HaHodesh 5771 – It’s Good To Be the King

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Sh’mini/Shabbat Parah 5771-So Say We All

Why Would A Developer Fail to Plan Ahead for Firefox 4?

Random Musing Before Purim 5771 – A Purim Ditty

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Vayikra 5771-I’d Like To Bring To Your Attention…

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Pekude/Shabbat Sh’kalim 5771 – Ideas worth Re-Examining

Random Musing Before Shabbat-Vayakhel 5771-Giving Up the Gold Standard

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Ki Tissa 5771 – Still Waiting for the Fire

Random Musing Before Shabbat-T’rumah 5771-TorahLeaks

Random Musing Before Shabbat – Mishpatim 5771-Getting Past the Apologetics

Random Musing Before Shabbat - Kedoshim 5763
Oil and Water?