This week’s Torah portion talks about the building of the Mishkan (the portable Temple) and some of its vessels. One of the vessels are the two Cherubs that make up the lid of the Ark of the Covenant. The Cherubs are made from gold and are in the form of winged children.
Next week we'll read about the sin of the golden calf. If we were punished for making a golden calf, then why is it ok to make a golden Cherub? Wouldn’t this fall under the category of “Thou shalt not make graven images”?
The answer goes to the very core of our belief system. Are the Ten Commandments G-d’s codification of basic human morality, or are they G-d defining morality? In other words, was it wrong to worship other god’s, and the 10 commandments just write that down. Or is it wrong to worship other god’s BECAUSE G-d said so.
Judaism teaches that morality is defined as the word of G-d. What G-d says is, by definition, morality. Any other system of morality falls apart when you press it.
So if G-d commanded us to make the Cherub, then it can’t be immoral. That’s the difference between the golden calf and the Cherub. One is against the will of G-d and one is according to it.
The lesson here is summed up in the saying “Don’t out tzadek a Tzadek” (or in the Christian world, “Don’t be more Catholic than the Pope”). If G-d says something is OK, don’t forbid yourself from doing it because it seems to contradict a different commandment. G-d is the only one who truly knows the intention of the Torah, so we can not try to out interpret him.
Shabbat Shalom.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Friday, February 20, 2004
Parashat Mishpatim and Purim
There is a passage in this weeks Torah portion, where G-d is offering the Torah to the Jewish people at Sinai. The text says that the Jewish people stood under the mountain. The Midrash explains, that G-d lifted up the mountain and held it over the Jewish people and said, “Accept the Torah, or there will be your grave.”
So, first off, this doesn’t sound like the Jews accepted the Torah out of free will – it sounds more like they were forced into it. They felt that G-d would have dropped the mountain on top of them if they didn’t accept it; hence the enthusiastic “We will do and we will listen” (see last posting).
But if you look closely at what G-d said, you see another problem. If G-d is holding the mountain over the Jews and would have dropped it on them if they did not accept Torah, then G-d should have said “Accept the Torah, or here will be your grave.” Why did G-d say ‘there’ instead of ‘here’? Where is the ‘there’ that G-d was refereeing to?
The commentary explains that ‘there’ means in the time of Achashverosh – the King from the Purim story. Of all the times and places to choose from, why did G-d say that their grave would be there if they did not accept Torah?
To answer that, we need to see what is special about that time, and what it means to accept Torah.
In order to accept Torah, you need to know what the Torah means. At first that was easy, you have Moses to explain. After that if you had a Torah question, you would go to a prophet and ask them (there were over 1,000,000 prophets in Jewish history). When did prophesy stop? After the destruction of the First Temple. (I’ll discuss why it stopped then in another posting). Once the Temple was gone, no new person could attain prophesy, but those who attained that level in the time of the Temple, retained it.
The Purim story happens about 60 years after the destruction of the Temple, so any prophets who were around at the time of the destruction of the temple had died out. So that was the first time in Jewish history that there were no prophets to turn to for questions about Torah law.
At that point, the Jewish people had a choice; they could either abandon Torah, or make a commitment to study, so that they can learn what the Torah is telling us. The events of Purim convinced the people to choose to accept Torah. This time they accepted it without a mountain over their head.
What G-d was saying, is that if you don’t accept torah in the time of Achashverosh, then that will be the grave of the Jewish people.
In this light, we can even better understand the phrase from last posting “Na-asai v’Nishma” – “We will do and we will listen”. They were saying that while they had prophets to guide them, they will do the words of the Torah as they were told. But after that they agreed to study and learn torah, so that they can continue their relationship with G-d.
Shabbat Shalom.
So, first off, this doesn’t sound like the Jews accepted the Torah out of free will – it sounds more like they were forced into it. They felt that G-d would have dropped the mountain on top of them if they didn’t accept it; hence the enthusiastic “We will do and we will listen” (see last posting).
But if you look closely at what G-d said, you see another problem. If G-d is holding the mountain over the Jews and would have dropped it on them if they did not accept Torah, then G-d should have said “Accept the Torah, or here will be your grave.” Why did G-d say ‘there’ instead of ‘here’? Where is the ‘there’ that G-d was refereeing to?
The commentary explains that ‘there’ means in the time of Achashverosh – the King from the Purim story. Of all the times and places to choose from, why did G-d say that their grave would be there if they did not accept Torah?
To answer that, we need to see what is special about that time, and what it means to accept Torah.
In order to accept Torah, you need to know what the Torah means. At first that was easy, you have Moses to explain. After that if you had a Torah question, you would go to a prophet and ask them (there were over 1,000,000 prophets in Jewish history). When did prophesy stop? After the destruction of the First Temple. (I’ll discuss why it stopped then in another posting). Once the Temple was gone, no new person could attain prophesy, but those who attained that level in the time of the Temple, retained it.
The Purim story happens about 60 years after the destruction of the Temple, so any prophets who were around at the time of the destruction of the temple had died out. So that was the first time in Jewish history that there were no prophets to turn to for questions about Torah law.
At that point, the Jewish people had a choice; they could either abandon Torah, or make a commitment to study, so that they can learn what the Torah is telling us. The events of Purim convinced the people to choose to accept Torah. This time they accepted it without a mountain over their head.
What G-d was saying, is that if you don’t accept torah in the time of Achashverosh, then that will be the grave of the Jewish people.
In this light, we can even better understand the phrase from last posting “Na-asai v’Nishma” – “We will do and we will listen”. They were saying that while they had prophets to guide them, they will do the words of the Torah as they were told. But after that they agreed to study and learn torah, so that they can continue their relationship with G-d.
Shabbat Shalom.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Parashat Mishpatim – We will do and we will listen
This weeks Torah portion continues with the account of the revelation at Sinai, and contains the famous statement by the Jewish people, “Na-asai v’Nishma” – “We will do and we will listen”.
This phrase is often offered as an indication of how great the way that we accepted the Torah was. We didn’t say that we’ll listen to what G-d has to say, and then decide if we will do it. We said “I unconditionally accept your law. Now tell us what it is.” We had total trust in G-d that he would give us a law that is good.
At least that’s how it’s always been explained to me.
Rabbi Kahn disagrees. He argues that we each know many friends whom, if we would call them up and say we need a favour, they would say “No problem, you name it I’ll do it.” They would agree before you tell that what the favour is. Now these are very special friends and should be recognized, but is it really that amazing a thing that it should be picked out of the text and held up as a sign of out commitment for 3500 years?
The key to understanding this phrase is to look at its tense. Most people think that it’s in the future tense “We will always do, and we will always listen”. But in fact, it’s in the present tense. It’s saying that “We will constantly, and every moment, do that which you command us, and we will constantly, at every moment, learn your Torah.”
That’s what’s so amazing about this phrase. Our forefathers didn’t just accept the law for that day, or year, or for their lifetime. They accepted it upon all future generations. They accepted upon the entire Jewish people, for all time, to do all the mitzvoth and constantly study them.
It’s through that study that we are able to hear G-d’s voice just as clearly as our ancestors heard at Sinai.
This phrase is often offered as an indication of how great the way that we accepted the Torah was. We didn’t say that we’ll listen to what G-d has to say, and then decide if we will do it. We said “I unconditionally accept your law. Now tell us what it is.” We had total trust in G-d that he would give us a law that is good.
At least that’s how it’s always been explained to me.
Rabbi Kahn disagrees. He argues that we each know many friends whom, if we would call them up and say we need a favour, they would say “No problem, you name it I’ll do it.” They would agree before you tell that what the favour is. Now these are very special friends and should be recognized, but is it really that amazing a thing that it should be picked out of the text and held up as a sign of out commitment for 3500 years?
The key to understanding this phrase is to look at its tense. Most people think that it’s in the future tense “We will always do, and we will always listen”. But in fact, it’s in the present tense. It’s saying that “We will constantly, and every moment, do that which you command us, and we will constantly, at every moment, learn your Torah.”
That’s what’s so amazing about this phrase. Our forefathers didn’t just accept the law for that day, or year, or for their lifetime. They accepted it upon all future generations. They accepted upon the entire Jewish people, for all time, to do all the mitzvoth and constantly study them.
It’s through that study that we are able to hear G-d’s voice just as clearly as our ancestors heard at Sinai.
Monday, February 16, 2004
Good vs. Evil
Many religions talk about the internal struggle between good and evil. Rabbi Kahn in his lecture “An introduction to Jewish Mysticism” says that is not entirely accurate.
When you got up this morning, did you think to yourself; “Should I get up and go to work, or should I rape and pillage”? Most of us don’t have to struggle with real evil (that’s not to say there aren’t people who do have to struggle with that). The internal struggle in Judaism is different.
Judaism teaches that each person has a “Yetzer Hora” and “Yetzer Ra” – generally translated and evil inclination and good inclination. These two are always fighting. While “good” and “evil” are accurate translations for the words “Hora” and “Ra”, it does not capture the meaning. Rabbi Kahn explained that in Judaism “good” means meaningfulness and “evil” means meaninglessness.
When you eat an apple, we’re supposed to first say a short blessing thanking G-d for the food. Your Yetzer Ra wants you to say the blessing, and your Yetzer Hora wants you to just eat. But what’s “good” about saying the blessing, and what’s “evil” about not saying it? Saying the blessing gives meaning to the act of eating. You acknowledge that the food you are about to eat was given to you by G-d, and that mindset elevates the act of eating from a physical act to a spiritual one. Not saying the blessing tries to push a potentially meaningful spiritual act into a meaningless physical one.
That’s our struggle; to try to instill meaning into everything that we do. A Jew who is just starting to pray every morning will struggle with the issue of getting up a half hour early every day to say his prayers. His Yetzer Ra wants to start the day with meaningful prayer, and his Yetzer Hora wants to start the day with meaningless sleep. That’s his struggle.
But a Jew, who has been saying his morning prayers every morning for 50 years, has a different struggle. His struggle is does he put the extra effort to concentrate closely on his prayers and make them meaningful, or does he say them mechanically and just do an empty meaningless act?
There is a spectrum of meaningfulness in praying. The left is meaningless and as you move right you get more meaning:
Not saying the prayers Doing it mechanically Concentrating it
In the first example, the person was sitting somewhere between not saying the payers and just doing it mechanically. His struggle was do I move to the left on the above spectrum or to the right. In the second example the person sits between saying it mechanically and concentrating on it. He has the same struggle, do I move to the left or the right.
So when go to sleep at night lets not say to ourselves “Well, didn’t rape and pillage today, so my day was good”. Let’s instead say “I moved my life towards meaningfulness today, so it was a good day.”
When you got up this morning, did you think to yourself; “Should I get up and go to work, or should I rape and pillage”? Most of us don’t have to struggle with real evil (that’s not to say there aren’t people who do have to struggle with that). The internal struggle in Judaism is different.
Judaism teaches that each person has a “Yetzer Hora” and “Yetzer Ra” – generally translated and evil inclination and good inclination. These two are always fighting. While “good” and “evil” are accurate translations for the words “Hora” and “Ra”, it does not capture the meaning. Rabbi Kahn explained that in Judaism “good” means meaningfulness and “evil” means meaninglessness.
When you eat an apple, we’re supposed to first say a short blessing thanking G-d for the food. Your Yetzer Ra wants you to say the blessing, and your Yetzer Hora wants you to just eat. But what’s “good” about saying the blessing, and what’s “evil” about not saying it? Saying the blessing gives meaning to the act of eating. You acknowledge that the food you are about to eat was given to you by G-d, and that mindset elevates the act of eating from a physical act to a spiritual one. Not saying the blessing tries to push a potentially meaningful spiritual act into a meaningless physical one.
That’s our struggle; to try to instill meaning into everything that we do. A Jew who is just starting to pray every morning will struggle with the issue of getting up a half hour early every day to say his prayers. His Yetzer Ra wants to start the day with meaningful prayer, and his Yetzer Hora wants to start the day with meaningless sleep. That’s his struggle.
But a Jew, who has been saying his morning prayers every morning for 50 years, has a different struggle. His struggle is does he put the extra effort to concentrate closely on his prayers and make them meaningful, or does he say them mechanically and just do an empty meaningless act?
There is a spectrum of meaningfulness in praying. The left is meaningless and as you move right you get more meaning:
Not saying the prayers Doing it mechanically Concentrating it
In the first example, the person was sitting somewhere between not saying the payers and just doing it mechanically. His struggle was do I move to the left on the above spectrum or to the right. In the second example the person sits between saying it mechanically and concentrating on it. He has the same struggle, do I move to the left or the right.
So when go to sleep at night lets not say to ourselves “Well, didn’t rape and pillage today, so my day was good”. Let’s instead say “I moved my life towards meaningfulness today, so it was a good day.”
Friday, February 13, 2004
Parashat Yitro – The 10 Commandments
It’s interesting to note that Jews, Protestants and Catholics disagree over what each of the 10 commandments are. A comparison can be found here.
Judaism holds that the first commandment is “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” The problem is that that’s more of a statement than a commandment? So what’s the commandment associated with it? Most sources hold that the commandment is to know that there is a G-d.
But who is this commandment for? If someone already believes in G-d they don’t need to be told this? If the don’t, then they won’t care what it says in the Torah. And can you really command belief?
The answer is as follows: The Torah does not say "BELIEVE" in God. Nor does it say to wonder, feel, intuit, assume, presume, hope, or aspire that there's a God. Rather, the Torah commands us to "KNOW" there is a God!
Western society typically associates religion with “blind faith”. Judaism rejects that idea. The first commandment tells us to use reason and logic to ascertain the existence of G-d. We are told to question, to explore and to understand… not to simply follow along blindly.
Just how one goes about doing that is more difficult, and will have to be left to a future posting.
Shabbat Shalom.
Judaism holds that the first commandment is “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” The problem is that that’s more of a statement than a commandment? So what’s the commandment associated with it? Most sources hold that the commandment is to know that there is a G-d.
But who is this commandment for? If someone already believes in G-d they don’t need to be told this? If the don’t, then they won’t care what it says in the Torah. And can you really command belief?
The answer is as follows: The Torah does not say "BELIEVE" in God. Nor does it say to wonder, feel, intuit, assume, presume, hope, or aspire that there's a God. Rather, the Torah commands us to "KNOW" there is a God!
Western society typically associates religion with “blind faith”. Judaism rejects that idea. The first commandment tells us to use reason and logic to ascertain the existence of G-d. We are told to question, to explore and to understand… not to simply follow along blindly.
Just how one goes about doing that is more difficult, and will have to be left to a future posting.
Shabbat Shalom.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Parashat Yitro - What happened at Saini
This week’s torah portion contains the central event in Jewish history, the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai.
It’ important to understand what was given and how it was given. Most people’s understandings of this are based on Cecil B. DeMille’s movie; if you liked the movie, try the book… it’s much better.
In the movie, Moses goes up the mountain, gets the two tablets, and goes and gives them to the Israelites. This is very different from the account in the Torah. The Torah version goes basically like this.
The Israelites are camped by the foot of the mountain and are told by Moses (who was told by G-d) to get ready for the revelation. G-d then speaks directly to the entire nations (more 2 million people) and tells them the 10 commandments.
There are a variety of positions about what G-d actually said to the people. Some hold that G-d speaks all 10 directly to the people; this is what the simple reading of the text implies. Others hold that G-d only spoke the first two, and then the people begged G-d to use Moses as an intermediary (because the experience was to powerful for them). This is supported by the fact that the first two commandments are given in the first person (“I am the Lord your G-d”), and the rest are in the second person (“You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain”). Others hold that G-d spoke all 10 simultaneously, and then Moses was used as an intermediary to explain them. Others hold that G-d only spoke the first letter of the first commandment, and the people intuitively understood the rest. This is a very interesting topic that is far to involved for this forum.
After G-d speaks directly to the people, Moses goes up the mountain and is there for 40 days. While there he gets 2 things. Firstly, Moses received the two tablets. (Most people only know about that one, but if that’s all he got why did it take 40 days?) Secondly he was taught all of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) and the principles of how to apply them. In short he was given what Jews refer to as the Oral Law. So if anyone ever tells you that the Oral law is just Rabbi’s interpretation of the written law, you can tell them they have it backwards. The oral law was given first. The written law (the Torah) was dictated to Moses over the next 40 years in the dessert.
The fact that G-d spoke directly to the entire people is a key bit of information that was left out of the movie. It’s the basis of the entire Jewish religion. Why is it so important? Because it is what separates Judaism from all other religions. All other religions are based on one person claiming to have been spoken to by G-d, and then convincing others of that fact. The problem with that claim is that it can never be proved or discredited. The Jewish claim is different; our claim is one that can not be faked.
Imagine the following. You’re sitting at dinner, and someone speaks up and says “Guess what, G-d spoke to me yesterday. He gave me a new set of laws and said that everyone should follow me.” Would you believe this? Maybe, it depends how charismatic the person is. You can not disprove it, but you can never know for sure.
Now try this one. You’re sitting at dinner, and someone speaks up and says “Do you remember 5 minutes ago, when G-d spoke to all of us and gave us some new laws and told you to follow me?” Do you believe that one? This one you can either prove or disprove. If you did experience what he claims you did, then you know he tells the truth. If you didn’t, then you know he’s lying.
Judaism is based on the second claim. All other religions are based on the first. That’s why no other religion disputes the events at Sinai. It can be taken as a historical fact.
I could talk for hours on this subject… but I’d better not.
It’ important to understand what was given and how it was given. Most people’s understandings of this are based on Cecil B. DeMille’s movie; if you liked the movie, try the book… it’s much better.
In the movie, Moses goes up the mountain, gets the two tablets, and goes and gives them to the Israelites. This is very different from the account in the Torah. The Torah version goes basically like this.
The Israelites are camped by the foot of the mountain and are told by Moses (who was told by G-d) to get ready for the revelation. G-d then speaks directly to the entire nations (more 2 million people) and tells them the 10 commandments.
There are a variety of positions about what G-d actually said to the people. Some hold that G-d speaks all 10 directly to the people; this is what the simple reading of the text implies. Others hold that G-d only spoke the first two, and then the people begged G-d to use Moses as an intermediary (because the experience was to powerful for them). This is supported by the fact that the first two commandments are given in the first person (“I am the Lord your G-d”), and the rest are in the second person (“You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain”). Others hold that G-d spoke all 10 simultaneously, and then Moses was used as an intermediary to explain them. Others hold that G-d only spoke the first letter of the first commandment, and the people intuitively understood the rest. This is a very interesting topic that is far to involved for this forum.
After G-d speaks directly to the people, Moses goes up the mountain and is there for 40 days. While there he gets 2 things. Firstly, Moses received the two tablets. (Most people only know about that one, but if that’s all he got why did it take 40 days?) Secondly he was taught all of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) and the principles of how to apply them. In short he was given what Jews refer to as the Oral Law. So if anyone ever tells you that the Oral law is just Rabbi’s interpretation of the written law, you can tell them they have it backwards. The oral law was given first. The written law (the Torah) was dictated to Moses over the next 40 years in the dessert.
The fact that G-d spoke directly to the entire people is a key bit of information that was left out of the movie. It’s the basis of the entire Jewish religion. Why is it so important? Because it is what separates Judaism from all other religions. All other religions are based on one person claiming to have been spoken to by G-d, and then convincing others of that fact. The problem with that claim is that it can never be proved or discredited. The Jewish claim is different; our claim is one that can not be faked.
Imagine the following. You’re sitting at dinner, and someone speaks up and says “Guess what, G-d spoke to me yesterday. He gave me a new set of laws and said that everyone should follow me.” Would you believe this? Maybe, it depends how charismatic the person is. You can not disprove it, but you can never know for sure.
Now try this one. You’re sitting at dinner, and someone speaks up and says “Do you remember 5 minutes ago, when G-d spoke to all of us and gave us some new laws and told you to follow me?” Do you believe that one? This one you can either prove or disprove. If you did experience what he claims you did, then you know he tells the truth. If you didn’t, then you know he’s lying.
Judaism is based on the second claim. All other religions are based on the first. That’s why no other religion disputes the events at Sinai. It can be taken as a historical fact.
I could talk for hours on this subject… but I’d better not.
Monday, February 09, 2004
Doing and Understanding
Over the weekend I was listening to a lecture called “Introduction to Jewish Mysticism” by Rabbi Ari Kahn. I’ll have to listen to it many more times to absorb all the information, but there was one phrase that really resonated with me.
He was talking about how Judaism is not an “all or nothing” religion, and how it is important to proceed carefully when you’re on the path back towards traditional Judaism. The theme of different people reactions along this path came up. His response was that “Some things you have to understand before you can do it, other things you have to do before you can understand it.”
Many of the laws of Judaism, you need to study and understand before you can do it. But some laws, like Shabbas, you need to do before you can understand.
There is much more going on with Shabbas than you can possibly understand from reading about it in the Mishna. The joy of Shabbas is more than the sum of the actions (or inactions), there is a spiritual side than can only be understood by doing it.
An outsider would look at an observant Jew and conclude that Judaism is full of rituals. If one wants to become religious, you need to understand the rituals so that you can perform them.
However, to the observant Jew, what they are doing should not be rituals. It’s only a ritual if it doesn’t have any meaning to you. To the observant Jew, they are participating in a profound act that elevates your soul… that’s hardly ritualistic. But, until you do the ‘ritual’ (many times), you can not possibly understand that aspect of it.
I’m going to have to play this around in my mind for a while before I fully grasp the profoundness of it… maybe if I put it into practice, I’ll understand it better.
He was talking about how Judaism is not an “all or nothing” religion, and how it is important to proceed carefully when you’re on the path back towards traditional Judaism. The theme of different people reactions along this path came up. His response was that “Some things you have to understand before you can do it, other things you have to do before you can understand it.”
Many of the laws of Judaism, you need to study and understand before you can do it. But some laws, like Shabbas, you need to do before you can understand.
There is much more going on with Shabbas than you can possibly understand from reading about it in the Mishna. The joy of Shabbas is more than the sum of the actions (or inactions), there is a spiritual side than can only be understood by doing it.
An outsider would look at an observant Jew and conclude that Judaism is full of rituals. If one wants to become religious, you need to understand the rituals so that you can perform them.
However, to the observant Jew, what they are doing should not be rituals. It’s only a ritual if it doesn’t have any meaning to you. To the observant Jew, they are participating in a profound act that elevates your soul… that’s hardly ritualistic. But, until you do the ‘ritual’ (many times), you can not possibly understand that aspect of it.
I’m going to have to play this around in my mind for a while before I fully grasp the profoundness of it… maybe if I put it into practice, I’ll understand it better.
Friday, February 06, 2004
Parashat B’Shalach
This weeks Torah portion gives us the answer for a common themes of Jewish jokes. The joke usually asks why the Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years (and is usually answered with something like ‘because the men wouldn’t stop to ask for directions).
The portion starts “17. It came to pass when Pharaoh let the people go, that God did not lead them [by] way of the land of the Philistines for it was near, because God said, Lest the people reconsider when they see war and return to Egypt 18. So God led the people around [by] way of the desert [to] the Red Sea…” [Exodus 13:17-18]
G-d knew that when Israel arrived in the land of the Philistines (which is biblical Israel), they would face a war. G-d also knew that that Israel was not ready for war. If Israel would come up against a war so soon after leaving Egypt, they would flee back into the relative safety (albeit slavery) of Egypt.
But what was it that Israel wasn’t ready for? The obvious answer is that they were not physically ready for a war… after all, slavery doesn’t exactly make you fit to be warriors. But if that’s the case, why would taking the route by way of the Red Sea (actually Sea of Reeds) – which is only an extra few weeks travel – make them physically ready?
The answer is that the problem wasn’t physical, it was a spiritual deficiency. Witnessing the 10 plagues wasn’t enough to convince Israel that with G-d in their corner they can win a war against the Philistines. There was more that Israel needed to witness (the more is, of course, the revelation at Sinai and the many miracles in the desert).
So we start with G-d not wanting Israel to face war yet. But the portion ends with Israel fighting a war with Amalek. If G-d took Israel the long way around so they would not have to face war, then why does the portion end with Israel getting into a war?
Israel was not spiritually ready for war at the start of the portion. Through the portion, G-d gets Israel spiritually ready with a series of miracles (water from rocks, manah…) which were designed to show Israel that comes with service of G-d.
Reading the text, the Amalek attack seems to come out of left field… there is no description of them coming; in the middle of a paragraph we get “8. Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim”[Exodus 17:8]. Looking at the line before this, we begin to understand what is happening. After complaining to Moses about lack of water, the text says “… the children of Israel [tested] the Lord, saying, Is the Lord in our midst or not?” [ Exodus 17:7].
Israel looses faith in G-d, and are immediately faced with war. It’s hard to not see a correlation there. This is a theme we see repeated many times in the Torah. From Psalm 81 “If only my people would heed Me, if Israel would walk in My ways. In an instant I would subdue their foes, and against my tormentors turn My hand.” The lesson here is just as applicable today was it was when G-d first taught it to the Jews 3500 years ago.
Shabbat Shalom.
The portion starts “17. It came to pass when Pharaoh let the people go, that God did not lead them [by] way of the land of the Philistines for it was near, because God said, Lest the people reconsider when they see war and return to Egypt 18. So God led the people around [by] way of the desert [to] the Red Sea…” [Exodus 13:17-18]
G-d knew that when Israel arrived in the land of the Philistines (which is biblical Israel), they would face a war. G-d also knew that that Israel was not ready for war. If Israel would come up against a war so soon after leaving Egypt, they would flee back into the relative safety (albeit slavery) of Egypt.
But what was it that Israel wasn’t ready for? The obvious answer is that they were not physically ready for a war… after all, slavery doesn’t exactly make you fit to be warriors. But if that’s the case, why would taking the route by way of the Red Sea (actually Sea of Reeds) – which is only an extra few weeks travel – make them physically ready?
The answer is that the problem wasn’t physical, it was a spiritual deficiency. Witnessing the 10 plagues wasn’t enough to convince Israel that with G-d in their corner they can win a war against the Philistines. There was more that Israel needed to witness (the more is, of course, the revelation at Sinai and the many miracles in the desert).
So we start with G-d not wanting Israel to face war yet. But the portion ends with Israel fighting a war with Amalek. If G-d took Israel the long way around so they would not have to face war, then why does the portion end with Israel getting into a war?
Israel was not spiritually ready for war at the start of the portion. Through the portion, G-d gets Israel spiritually ready with a series of miracles (water from rocks, manah…) which were designed to show Israel that comes with service of G-d.
Reading the text, the Amalek attack seems to come out of left field… there is no description of them coming; in the middle of a paragraph we get “8. Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim”[Exodus 17:8]. Looking at the line before this, we begin to understand what is happening. After complaining to Moses about lack of water, the text says “… the children of Israel [tested] the Lord, saying, Is the Lord in our midst or not?” [ Exodus 17:7].
Israel looses faith in G-d, and are immediately faced with war. It’s hard to not see a correlation there. This is a theme we see repeated many times in the Torah. From Psalm 81 “If only my people would heed Me, if Israel would walk in My ways. In an instant I would subdue their foes, and against my tormentors turn My hand.” The lesson here is just as applicable today was it was when G-d first taught it to the Jews 3500 years ago.
Shabbat Shalom.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Tu Bi’Shvat
This Saturday is the holiday of Tu Bi’Shvat – literally the 15th day of Shvat. The holiday is the New Year for the trees. The holiday is typically celebrated by eating the seven species of Israel (wheat, barley, olives, grapes, dates, figs, and pomegranates) and planting trees in Israel (or donating to a charity that does the same).
Today, we play up the Zionistic aspect of the holiday, but in fact the holiday is Biblical in origin. There are 4 New Years in Judaism. There is the 1st of Nisan, which is in the New Year for the Kings, the nth year of a Kings rule begins on this day. Then there is the 1st of Elul, which is the New Year for the animals. Every 10th animal born is given to the Priests, this day determines which year a given animal is counted with. Then there is the 1st of Tishrei, which is what we all know as Rosh HaShana. Then there is Tu Bi’Shvat, the New Year for the trees, which has a similar meaning as the New Year for the animals.
We do nothing to mark the New Year for the Kings or Animals, why do we celebrate the New Year of the Trees? It’s because trees are considered Holy… in fact the Torah often compares trees to man. Just as fruit and trees have been instilled with the power to grow physically, man has the power to grow physically.
The Kabbalists tell us of 4 kinds of creations, rocks, plants, animals and man. Rocks (and all inanimate objects) just sort of sit there doing nothing. Plants spend their whole day eating. Animals can think and walk around, but what are they thinking about? They think about getting food. What do they walk around for? They walk around to get food. Animals are basically thinking and walking plants. That’s why their head is on the same level as their body, because their brain is just there to serve the body. A man’s head is on a higher level than its body. Man can reach a higher level than the purely physical aspects of a plant or animal.
So this Tu Bi’Shvat, when you taste the sweet fruits of the land and say the She’Hechianu, be sure to think about the power of growth in the fruits, in the trees, in the Torah and is also within each of us
Today, we play up the Zionistic aspect of the holiday, but in fact the holiday is Biblical in origin. There are 4 New Years in Judaism. There is the 1st of Nisan, which is in the New Year for the Kings, the nth year of a Kings rule begins on this day. Then there is the 1st of Elul, which is the New Year for the animals. Every 10th animal born is given to the Priests, this day determines which year a given animal is counted with. Then there is the 1st of Tishrei, which is what we all know as Rosh HaShana. Then there is Tu Bi’Shvat, the New Year for the trees, which has a similar meaning as the New Year for the animals.
We do nothing to mark the New Year for the Kings or Animals, why do we celebrate the New Year of the Trees? It’s because trees are considered Holy… in fact the Torah often compares trees to man. Just as fruit and trees have been instilled with the power to grow physically, man has the power to grow physically.
The Kabbalists tell us of 4 kinds of creations, rocks, plants, animals and man. Rocks (and all inanimate objects) just sort of sit there doing nothing. Plants spend their whole day eating. Animals can think and walk around, but what are they thinking about? They think about getting food. What do they walk around for? They walk around to get food. Animals are basically thinking and walking plants. That’s why their head is on the same level as their body, because their brain is just there to serve the body. A man’s head is on a higher level than its body. Man can reach a higher level than the purely physical aspects of a plant or animal.
So this Tu Bi’Shvat, when you taste the sweet fruits of the land and say the She’Hechianu, be sure to think about the power of growth in the fruits, in the trees, in the Torah and is also within each of us
Monday, February 02, 2004
Not Yet
The story is told of Franz Rosenswag (who was voted the most influential Jewish philosopher of the first half of the 20th century). He was an assimilated Jew, who had a cousin who converted to Christianity. His cousin wanted Franz to convert also, after all Franz did not believe in Judaism, maybe he could believe in Christianity. Franz eventually agreed, but said he didn’t want to convert from pagan to Christian, he wanted to go from pagan, to Jew, to Christian – just like Jesus and the apostles did. So he decided he would first learn about Judaism, and then convert. So he started on that route, and never stopped learning.
In his old age, he was asked if he wore Teffilin? He did not, but his answer was interesting; he responded “Not yet”. He knew that Teffilin was one step on the ladder, and maybe one day he would get there. Even though he didn’t feel the need to keep that Mitzvah at that time, he knew that it was a possibility that he may in the future.
If people would have asked me if I was Shomer Shabbas, I would have answered “No”. The same answer would have been given for most other Mitzvot. But I think from now on I’m going to change my answer to “Not yet”. I know that I’ll never reach the point in my journey of keeping every Mitzvah, but there are none that I can say I would never do. But answering “Not yet” keeps me on my journey.
In his old age, he was asked if he wore Teffilin? He did not, but his answer was interesting; he responded “Not yet”. He knew that Teffilin was one step on the ladder, and maybe one day he would get there. Even though he didn’t feel the need to keep that Mitzvah at that time, he knew that it was a possibility that he may in the future.
If people would have asked me if I was Shomer Shabbas, I would have answered “No”. The same answer would have been given for most other Mitzvot. But I think from now on I’m going to change my answer to “Not yet”. I know that I’ll never reach the point in my journey of keeping every Mitzvah, but there are none that I can say I would never do. But answering “Not yet” keeps me on my journey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)