Parashat Va’Etchanan – The Dynamics of Prayer

This week’s Torah portion is, spiritually, on of the richest in the Torah. The 10 commandments are here, the Shema is here, and a lot of instructions from Moses. Put them all together and you have a very impressive collection of teachings.

The portion begins with a very strange episode. G-d has told Moses that he will not enter into the land of Israel. Moses prays and prays and prays. Eventually G-d has enough and tells Moses to go up on the Mountain and look onto the land but that he will never enter it. Not only does G-d not accept Moses’ prayer, G-d tells Moses that he doesn’t want him to pray anymore.

There seem to be two issues here. Number 1, Moses is surely a great man, so why doesn’t G-d accept his prayer? Second, if G-d hasn’t accepted his prayer until now, why tell him to stop praying? Basically, these boil down to the question of “How does prayer work?”

The Talmud addresses this issue with the following. Say you have two people, seemingly identical from the outside, with the same illness. They both pray for health, but one lives and one dies. The Talmud gives two explanations as to why one person’s prayers were answered, and the other’s wasn’t.

The first explanation says that one of the people prayed with all their heart, and the other didn’t. So according to this approach, the difference between a prayer being answered or not, is the intensity of the prayer, and the devotion of the person praying.

The second explanation says the first person prayed before his final sentence was announced in heaven, and the second person after it was pronounced. So this approach says it’s all about timing. Praying only helps until G-d has made his decision. Once he’s passed his judgment, there is nothing praying can do.

There are sources that hold by the second position, but it seems that the first position is the more commonly accepted in Jewish thought. So that raises the question; why then did G-d tell Moses to stop praying? We’ll need to look into prayer a bit deeper to understand.

Lets look back at the sick people from the Talmud. The illness is not the problem; it’s the symptom. The problem is a distancing from G-d, which could sometimes have severe consequences. The person got a message from G-d (the illness) alerting his to the problem and tries to correct the problem by bringing himself closer top G-d through prayer. If that prayer is intense enough, according to the first position in the Talmud, the distancing from F-d will be healed, and there will no longer be a need for the illness, so it will go away.

So let’s look at Moses’ case. G-d tells Moses not to pray anymore, because there was no problem with their relationship. As we said, prayer can raise your relationship with G-d to a higher level, but there was no higher level for Moses’ relationship with G-d, it was perfect. So why couldn’t Moses enter the land? Does it have anything to do with Moses? No, it has to do with the people. Once you understand that, you see why G-d told Moses not to pray anymore. G-d was saying ‘It’s not about you, its about the people.” It’s not that Moses’ prayers will not be answered, it’s that they cannot be answered because the people had distanced themselves from G-d.

This gives us some insight into why so much of Jewish teaching has to do with community. Perfecting our own personal relationship with G-d will only take us so far; the pinnacle can only be reached when the entire Jewish people mend their relationships with G-d.

Shabbat Shalom

Parashat D'Varim

I have recently started a committee at our Shul (along with our Cantor) to attract young members (25-35 years old) and encourage their active involvement in the Shul, and in Jewish life. Tonight we hold our first event, a Shabbos Dinner. This was supposed to take place in the Cantor's home, but the response was so great, that we needed to move to a larger space!

I will be delivering the Dvar Torah. What follows is my planned speech.

-----------

Public speaking is often listed among the activities people fear most. While I regularly engage in public speaking at work, I’m still not completely comfortable with it.

However, this small discomfort is magnified when I’m preparing a Dvar Torah. During the preceding week, I’m truly anxious. But the anxiousness is not in anticipation of the speaking, but because of the desire to convey a meaningful message in the time I have.

Winston Churchill is considered to be one of the great orators of modern time. He once said; “Ask me to speak for an hour, and I’ll start right away. Ask me to speak for 5 minutes, and I’ll need time to prepare.” A speaker can ramble for an hour on any topic, but when you only have 5 minutes, you need to make sure you use them well.

And since I’m sure you’d all prefer that I talk for 5 minutes as opposed to rambling for an hour, I’ve chosen my topic carefully.<>

This week we start the book of D’varim (Deuteronomy), the fifth and final book of the Chumash. The book is Moses’ farewell address to the people in the days before his death, and just before the people enters the Promise Land. The book is written in the first person, Moses speaking directly to the people. The other four books are written in the third person; “G-d spoke unto Moses saying, ‘speak to the people and tell them…’.”

This change in style has been noticed by ancient and modern readers. While modern scholars are quite comfortable using this information to suggest a different “source” or author for this book, traditional Jewish opinion, both ancient and modern, insists that the entire Torah is the word of God. So strong is that insistence that the Talmud teaches (Sanhedrin 99a) that if a person claims the entire Torah is written by G-d, except for one word which was written by Moses, that person has denied the entire Torah.

But the Talmud itself says that the first four books came from G-d through Moses, but the words of D’varim came directly from Moses. How does traditional Judaism resolve this issue?

Before we get to that, we need to ask “why do we care?” What would be the big deal if the first four books were written by G-d and the fifth by Moses? It’s a matter of authority. Judaism is Torah. If all or part of the Torah is man made (even if that man is Moses), then it has less authority that if it were written by G-d. Less authority for the Torah means less authority for Judaism. Judaism is Torah. Even if we say that the ideas come from G-d but the words come from man, that has less authority and if the words were to come from G-d.

But the Torah is full of places where the words don’t come from G-d. “And Pharaoh spoke to Moses…” These words clearly come from Pharaoh. Yet we still say that those words are just as divine as the ones describing the giving of the 10 commandments.

What gives those words their authority is that G-d told Moses to write them down. Even if the words come from man, they become divine when G-d decides they need to be included in the Torah and tells his scribe, Moses, to write them.

That’s what happens in D’varim. Moses writes his own speech and delivers it to the people. At the end of the speech, G-d tells Moses “I couldn’t have said it better myself. Now right it all down”, and then proceeds to dictate back to Moses everything that was just said. When the speech was given it did not have divine authority, it got that authority when G-d told Moses to write it down.

This is captured (cryptically) in the Zhoar when it writes that the entire Torah are the words of G-d, but the book of D’varim are also the words of Moses.<>

The book of D’varim is always started on the Shabbat before Tisha B’Av. One reason for this is that a major theme of the first parashat of D’varim is the retelling of the story of the spies. That tragedy occurred on the 9^th of Av. On that day G-d told Israel that because they cried for no reason, that G-d would give Israel many valid reasons to cry on that day in the future. In addition, Parshat Devarim is a record of Moses' speech of chastisement to the Jewish people, an especially appropriate prelude to the historic day of Divine chastisement. This connection is too powerful to ignore. Parshat Devarim and the 9^th of Av clearly belong together.

The story is told that Napoleon was walking through the streets of Paris one Tisha B'Av. As his entourage passed a synagogue he heard wailing and crying coming from within; he sent an aide to inquire as to what had happened. The aide returned and told Napoleon that the Jews were in mourning over the loss of their Temple. Napoleon was indignant! "How come I wasn't informed? When did this happen? Which Temple?" The aide responded, "They lost their Temple in Jerusalem on this date 1,700 years ago." Napoleon stood in silence and then said, "Certainly a people which has mourned the loss of their Temple for so long will survive to see it rebuilt!"

When we loose a loved one, we cover the mirrors, we sit on the floor and we mourn for 7 days. Then every year we light a candle, say Kaddish and drink a L’Chaim, but we don’t reenact the mourning. So why do we continue to mourn a loss that occurred 2000 years ago?

When the Temple was destroyed, we lost more than a building; we lost the ability to practice normative Judaism. Normative Judaism requires a Temple, High Priest, alter and sacrifices. We will not be able to return to that until the Temple is rebuilt. The Jerusalem Talmud makes an astounding statement: "The generation in which the Temple is not rebuilt is to be regarded as though the Temple was destroyed in that generation." The explanation is simple. When we mourn for the Temple, we are not mourning for a building that was destroyed 2,000 years ago. Our mourning must be directed to the realization that each generation is obligated to rebuild the Temple and that our failure to do so has little to do with politics, the debate over who has control over the Temple Mount, or the threat of the Arab nations to go to war if we disturb the mosques that sit atop the Temple Mount. The Temple will be rebuilt when a sufficient number of Jews make a commitment to Judaism. When will the Messiah come? As the Torah says, "Today, if you hearken to My voice."

That’s why we’re here today. The trends suggest that commitment to Judaism is declining with each generation. These problems are in no way unique to Judaism, but they are uniquely important to us. The continuity of Shaar Shalom and the Conservative movement is in jeopardy. Cantor Ben and I started the Young Members Committee in order to address this problem, because the solution lies with our generation. We need to stem by tides of assimilation and secularization. We need to foster our love for Judaism, keep Jewish homes and pass our traditions on to the next generation. That is what has sustained us through 2000 years of exile, and that what is needed to sustain us in the future. We’re starting with a Shabbat program, because there in lies the key to continuity.

More than the Jews kept the Shabbas, the Shabbas kept the Jews.

B’H’, May we all live to see the day when continuity is no longer an issue; a day when the entire Jewish world turns its attention away from internal politics and towards the Almighty.

Shabbat Shalom

What’s in a name?

I’ve always wondered where the English names for the books of the Torah come from. For the most part they seems quite unrelated to the Hebrew names.

The first book makes sense; the Hebrew name “Bereishit”, which means “in the beginning”, clearly relates to the English name “Genesis”. But what about the other 4 books? How does “Shmos”, which means “the names” relate to “Exodus”? How does “Vayikra”, which means “And He called”, relate to Leviticus? How does “Bamidbar”, which means “In the wilderness”, relate to “Numbers”? And finally, how does “Devarim”, which means “the words”, realte to Deuteronomy?

The answer is that the English names (which are actually Latin) are based not on the traditional Hebrew names, but on the names given to each of the books in the Talmud. The traditional names are based on the opening sentence of the book. The Talmud gives each book an alternate, more descriptive name.

The Talmud calls Shmos “Sefer Ha’Gaula”, which means “the book of the redemption”, we can clearly see how that relates to the English names of Exodus.

Vayikra is called “Toraht Kohamin” which means “Laws of the Priests”. The Priests, remember, come from the tribe of Levi. The English name Leviticus, is Latin for “tribe of Levi”.

Bamidbar is called “Sefer Ha’Pekudim” which means “the book of the counting”, hense the English name “Numbers”.

And finally, “Devarim” is called “Mishnai Torah”, which means “The repetition of the Torah”. The Latin Deuteronomy means “repetition of the law”.

Parashat Matot-Massei

This week we conclude the book of Bamidbar (Numbers) with the reading of the double portion of Matot and Massei. Among the many themes discussed in this week’s portion, we read the story of the Tribes of Reuben and Gad asking Moses for permission to stay on the east side of the Jordan river so that they can raise their sheep. Moses agrees to their request, but it is decided that they must still cross the Jordan to participate in the conquest of the Promise Land, and then they may settle where they wish.

No one seems to bat an eye at the request to stay outside of the Promise Land. But wasn't the entire point of the Exodus to settle in the Promised Land? Would it have been just as acceptable if these two tribes had opted to return to Egypt after assisting in the conquest? What happened to the commandment of settling in Israel? How could people on the spiritual level of the desert generation decide to voluntarily trade spiritual potential for livestock? And how could Moses and the elders support such a plan outright, without making the slightest attempt to dissuade them from such apparent madness, or at the very least consult with God before reaching agreement? Why do we not find the slightest degree of criticism about this transaction in the Torah?

Judaism teaches that everything in the universe only exists by virtue of the fact that it can be used as a vehicle for sanctifying God's Name. It is the responsibility of every Jew to sanctify G-d’s name, but every Jewish soul was sent to this world having been assigned a particular way of sanctifying G-d’s name. Some souls do this through charitable work, others through leadership, some through military prowess, some through teaching, and other through the raising of livestock.

The tribes of Reuben and Gad made their request because they knew (and Moses understood) that their souls were intended to sanctify G-d’s name through raising sheep. (After all, many of the most important people in Jewish history were shepherds.) Not only were the lands of the east side of the Jordan ideal for shepherding, but the Torah forbids the raising of sheep inside the land of Israel.

Reuben and Gad did not choose to live outside of Israel in hopes of a better life, they chose to live there because they knew that that’s where they believed they could best sanctify G-d’s name.

In the world of today, the decision to remain in other countries rather than move to the land of Israel is a voluntary one. Whoever chooses to remain in the lands of exile because he feels that he can do a better job of collecting his holy sparks there is committing no fault.

But whoever chooses to voluntarily remain there because his standard of living would be higher, needs to question their priorities. If a correct system of priorities would place a person in Israel, where it is easier to form a more powerful connection with God, then that person is clearly losing out by staying put.

I count myself among those who may need to reexamine my priorities.

Shabbat Shalom

Parashat Pinchas –Women’s Rights

This week’s Torah portion is deals with many different issues. It starts with the conclusion of the story of Pinchas (which started at the end of last week’s portion), where he is made a Cohen, by Divine decree. We then read that G-d commands Moses to wage war on Midian in retribution for the licentious plot the Midianites perpetrated upon the Israelites. A census is then taken for two reasons; first, to count the number of men available for army duty, second, to divide up the land of Israel among the tribes. Moses then asks G-d to appoint a successor to him (G-d selects Joshua). We conclude with a description of the various offerings that are to br brought throughout the year.

What I wanted to talk about, is a small paragraph tucked away in the middle of the portion. G-d is instructing Moses how to divide up the land, by giving a portion to every male for their families. The daughters of Tzelafchad come forward and tell Moses that their father is dead and had no sons. They ask for their father’s portion to be given to them. Moses consults with G-d, and agrees to the request, thus establishing the Jewish laws for inheritance.

Many people accuse Judaism of being sexist; they claim that women are treated as second class citizens. This is, of course, a ludicrous claim. If one takes the time to understand Judaism, you will see that women’s roles, while different from men’s roles, are central. Some choose to view different as meaning inferior, but the reality is that different roles simply reflect the real differences between the sexes; not better or worse, just different.

We see from the section of this weeks parashah, that women’s rights in Judaism were actually 1000’s of years ahead of their time. This episode takes place in a time when women had no inheritance rights anywhere in the world. A father would pass his estate to his son(s), and if there were no sons, to the closest male relative. If there were none it would go to a male friend… but never to a daughter or other women. 3500 years ago, Judaism gave women standing in property issues. While inheritance would still go to a son first, if there were none it goes to a daughter before going to other relatives. While some would arguer that it’s still not totally equitable, it’s still an amazing ruling considering that it took most other religions and cultures 3500 years to catch up (and many still have not).

In many ways Judaism is one of the least sexist religions out there. And in those cases where there seems to be some sexist issues, the perception usually results from a poor understanding of the laws. When you take the time to learn about the issue, you see that the law is not sexist, it simply is designed to take advantage of the unique make ups of men and women.

This is a major issue for me, so I’m sure I’ll write about it further.

Shabbat Shalom.

Parashat Balak - Prophecy

This week we read a famous section. The Israelites are in a war with the Moabites, and the fighting is at a stalemate. The King of Moab, Balak seeks out a non Jewish prophet, Bilam, to curse the Jews and turn the war in Moab’s favour. But every time Bilam tries to curse the Jews, what comes out of his mouth is a blessing.

As usual there is lots here I could talk about, but what is most interesting to me is a section in the Talmud that says Bilam’s level of prophecy is equal to that of Moses. Think about that, Moses, being the most righteous person ever to live, is being compared to Bilam, who the Talmud says committed all sorts of heinous acts. In fact, the Talmud goes so far as to say that any accusation you can think of, you can accuse Bilam of. So what does the Talmud mean here?

To answer that, we first need to understand how prophecy works. Prophecy is not “seeing the future”, it’s setting the future. When a prophet sees a vision it is not a picture of things to come; it is a communication by G-d. When the prophet interprets the visions and puts words to it, that is what gives the vision power. The interpretation of the vision caused the prophecy to come true. That’s a difficult concept to understand, but an important one. So the power is in how the prophet interprets the vision, not in the vision itself.

So there is a problem with that, the vision comes from G-d, but the interpretation comes from man. And how man interprets the vision depends on that man’s perspective. For example, there are cases in the Bible where two prophets see the same vision, one describes it in a few lines, and the other takes a whole chapter. One vision, but two sets of words to go along with it (remember that it’s the words that have the power). This is not unreasonable. Take two people, one from New York and one from a small town in the deep south, and show them both a vision of mid town Manhattan at 10:00 on a Monday morning. The one from the small town will go on and on about what he saw. So many people moving every which way, the cars, the noise, people with green hair… The one from New York will probably sum it up in a few lines; typical Monday morning.

Now that we understand how prophecy works, how does this apply to Moses and Bilam? When Moses prophesied, he did not do it in the same way as the other prophets. He didn’t get a vision and give it words; G-d spoke directly to Moses. G-d supplied the words, and thus G-d gave the power to the prophecy. When the Talmud says that Bilam’s prophecy was on the same level as Moses’ it meant that Bilam also got the words from G-d, not just visions. Moses prophesized that way because he was on such a high level that he was able to “talk with G-d”. But Bilam was obviously not on such a high level, why did he get words directly from G-d?

Remember that Bilam was a horrible person, if he would be given a vision, he would interpret it based on his immoral perspective, and thus bring about disastrous results. G-d didn’t want that to happen, so he gave the words directly to Bilam in order to prevent any interpretation.
Moses received words because he was on such a high level, Bilam because he was on such a low level.

This also explains another important question about the portion. If Bilam wanted to turn the war in favour of the Moabites, why didn’t he just bless them, rather than trying to curse Israel? The answer should now be obvious. Bilam was such an immoral person, he was unable to bless, only curse.

Shabbat Shalom