Thursday, July 21, 2011

Parashat Matot

Parashat Matot
Tammuz 21, 5771 ~ July 23, 2011
by Dan Cohen

Parsha Matot:The lasting impact of wounds that never fully heal.

For my dear daughter Abby whose layers continually surprise me.

We can never fully know what motivates our actions or our decisions - or even accurately anticipate what our actions will inspire in others.That is one of the great mysteries of life.

In the movie, Shrek, the deep-thinker Shrek says to his friend, the not-so-deep thinker, Donkey, "Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. Onions have layers. You get it? We both have layers."

It struck me that our choices, the motivations behind them, and the reactions they inspire in others are a key element of this week's Parsha.

A quick summary of the key moments in this Parsha caught my eye.Courtesy of a 1997 piece by Rav Elchanan Samet for the Virtual Beit Midrash:

In chapter 32 of parasha Matot, the tribes of Gad and Reuven present their request to Moshe:

(5) "If we have found favor in your eyes, let this land [on the east bank of the Jordan] be given to your servants as a possession; do not bring us over the Jordan [into Eretz Yisrael]."

Moshe responds with a lengthy and harsh monologue (verses 6-15) accusing them of trying to evade the responsibility of participating in the war of conquest with their brethren. He compares them to the spies who had turned the hearts of the nation from the mission of reaching the land:

(14) "And behold, you have risen up in place of your fathers, a tradition of sinful men, to stoke again God's anger against Israel."

From Moshe's perspective, their request is likely to lead to results similar to those of the sin of the spies, or even worse:

(15) "You will destroy all of this nation."

The two tribes respond to this rebuke by offering to leave their wives and children to settle the east bank while the men lead the Israelite forces in their war of conquest of Eretz Yisrael. Moshe's anger is assuaged and he accepts their proposal.

What's going on here?

These quotes represent the core of the vignette.The Tribes of Reuven and Gad asked to settle on the Eastern side of the Jordan River and not to the west with the rest of the tribes.The key question is why?What motivated them?And what inspired the harsh rebuke from Moshe?

In a piece from a 2001 commentary on the Parsha, Menashe Elyashiv of Bar Ilan University cites a few commentaries of interest by Abarbanel that I will borrow.

"First, Rabbi Isaac Abarbanel, arguing that the Bible is not necessarily narrated in historical sequence, believes that the event took place after the war against Sihon and Og (Num. 21:21-35), when the tribes had acquired not only much plunder from battle but also large numbers of flocks."

Here, Abarbanel seems to imply that this was a request driven by need. It's a short leap to recognize that these tribes acquired large quantities of livestock in battle and now found great grazing land to the east of the river to utilize.Abarbanel seems to imply that Reuben and Gad's request was motivated by the realities on the ground.

Moshe doesn't seem to be buying this.

As we see in the text above, Moshe's response includes an expression of his fear that failure to cross the river will turn the minds of the rest of the tribes. He has seen this kind of devastating betrayal before.

Moshe also expresses anger (bordering on rage) by drawing a direct connection to the actions of the spies forty years prior - an episode that appears to be as fresh as the day it happened.

The representatives of the tribes of Reuben and Gad would surely have known the history and understood why it was them, and not the previous generation, that stood on the precipice of entering the Promised Land.However, is it reasonable to expect the tribal representatives to understand the depth of the wound that the episode of the spies left on Moshe?

Upon re-reading, Moshe's rage pours off the page.He calls them sinful men and replacements, not just descendants, of those who betrayed the nation forty years prior.Wow.

Moshe's reaction may be an example that in our interactions with others, regardless of how important or innocuous they may be, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to recognize that there is far more about the person we are engaging that is unknown than what is known.

Abarbanel had a second comment, one that flips the entire analysis.

"Since Reuben had lost the rights of the firstbornand the kingship (Gen. 49:3-4), it was humiliating for him to dwell in the Land of Canaan along with Judah who held the crown and the sons of Joseph who inherited a double portion in the land, the right of the first-born."

I was deeply struck by this interpretation.All of us are probably guilty of harboring old grudges that inform our decisions in the here and now.Now imagine that indignity lasting generations and leading to a decision that might have fractured a nation.

A few weeks back, we read the story of the Korach Rebellion where Korach challenged Moshe's leadership. Korach's rebellion garnered great support from the tribe of Reuben - the origninal first-born of the descedants of Jacob.

In a 2003 piece in Jewish Bible Quarterly, academicians Harvey Sicherman and Gilad Gevaryah called this the "complex case of the displaced first-born." They analyzed a series of anecdotes in our history which echoed this conflict.

In their conclusion, they speak to this issue saying "the quarrel over the birthrights of the first-born is a constant biblical theme from the time of Jacob to the end of the Northern Kingdom. Reuben's loss of rights is used to challenge Moses; Ephraim's claim, founded in Jacob's preference for Joseph, had considerable tradition behind it; and following the death of Solomon, Jeroboam acted effectively to establish a new kingdom."

Remarkable to me is how grudges, regardless of origin, are powerful things.They set their tentacles into our psyche- personal and collective - and challenge our rational thinking in ways we can never fully understand.Abarbanel challenges us to see that this grudge, the impact of a displaced first-born son, can scar a nation for generations.

So, like the great Rav Shrek said, we all have layers.This is true if we are speaking about Moshe, the descendents of Reuben, or ourselves.These layers have a significant impact on all of our interactions. As seen in the elements of the parsha, Moshe and the representatives of the tribes would have done well to respect the unknown"layers" in the other.

And sometimes, if we are overwhelmed by what we can't know about others, we can follow the Donkey's lead in his response to Shrek.We can forget about the layers and go eat some Parfait, because as the Donkey says, "Parfait's gotta be the most delicious thing on the whole planet!"

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Parashat Pinchas

Parashat Pinchas
Tammuz 14, 5771 ~ July 16, 2011
by Josh Offenberg


At the end of last week's Parsha, Parshat Balak, there was a plague that was caused by the fact that the Jewish people were starting to worship the Midianite idol, Baal Peor, by going to the bathroom on it (strange method of worship, don't you think?).


Then we meet Pinchas, who stopped the plague when he saw a Midianite princess with a Jewish prince in front of everyone. He took a spear in his hands, followed them into their tent, and killed them. In this week's Parsha, Parshat Pinchas, Pinchas is given the covenant of peace and priesthood as a reward for his actions. Why? How could Pinchas be given the covenant of peace in stopping the plague by killing two people? Is that peace?


It says in Bemidbar 25:13 that he received this covenant because he took vengeance and atoned for the people. Priests get forgiveness for the children of Israel, so that fits with his reward, but where does the vengeance play a role? And still, Pinchas killed two people, how is that vengeance?


The Hebrew word for vengeance is Kin'ah, which really means jealousy. True jealousy is 'a person's reaction when he finds that another is taking something that is rightly his.' (Based on Artscroll's Stone Chumash commentary) Hashem had a special connection with His chosen people. This connection was being challenged and Pinchas defended it by doing what he did.


Still, how is this connected to the gift of priesthood? Why doesn't Pinchas just receive a check in the mail or a medal of honor?


There are two different definitions of peace. One is serenity, tranquility, and mental calm. The second is freedom from or the cessation of war or violence. Which one was Pinchas involved in? Certainly not the second, as he was involved in violence.


What is the connection to Priesthood? What is a priest? For one thing they teach. They also pray and bring the sacrifices. They clean up the garbage in the Temple. How did they get to be in this position?


Aharon was the first priest. He built the golden calf. Why? Because the people forced him to. Why'd he do it? He was trying to keep them calm. This sounds a lot like the first definition that we had for peace.


Later in the golden calf story Moshe came down the mountain and asked, "Who is for Hashem?" The Levites got up and killed anybody, even their friends, brothers, and neighbors, who were involved in the episode of the golden calf.


In Pirkei Avot 1:12 it says that the students of Aharon love peace and pursue peace, love people and bring them closer to Torah. We see from here that peace leads to Torah.


The priests are the defenders of Hashem's relationship with His people. We see that the priests/kohanim are involved in bringing people closer to the Torah, to Hashem, through peace/priesthood.


The reason Pinchas received the covenant of peace and priesthood is that through his actions he brought back a certain calm to the situation and defended Hashem's connection with the Jewish people, even if it meant having to 'take out the garbage.'

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Parashat Balak

Parashat Balak
Tammuz 7, 5771 ~ July 9, 2011
by Neska


THE HUMAN NAMES OF THE PARASHOT

So, this "teaching" is on Parasha Balak. Why name the Parasha after such a "rasha".. The commetators teach that a parsha should not be named after a wicked person. So why Balak? What is Balak's redeeming quality?It is in this parsha that the coming of Mashiach is mentioned by the prophet Balaam. A time when the transformation of evil will be completed. A time when total Torah observance will be again as in the time of King David.

So then I began to wonder about all of the other Parshaot that were named after people and tried to figure out what I learned from them and whether they were rasha's or not.

NOACH - The commentaries leave it open as to whether he is truly righteous or only in his generation. I learn do the very best I can and what others may think of me may be none of my business.

SARAH - THE LIFE OF - The commentators call Sarah righteous. (Who am I to judge, but I do have questions). What do I learn from Sarah? Search for another way before you eliminate someone from your life.

YITRO - What do I learn. I learn that I can't quite grasp Yitro. Obviously brilliant. Trying to get his son in law, Moshe, to be a husband and father and hearing what Hashem does for the Jews, Yitro joins them and then Yitro leaves and returns to his people to teach them the Torah - Perhaps it is too much for him to see his daughter and grandsons neglected. Does he return? It, for me, is not clear. I think Yitro is a great Seeker and a disappointed parent.

KORACH - Commentators find him unrighteous - and yet, almost all of the commentaries I have read (few as they are) seem to find Korach's motives kosher but his behavior selfish and bad. Is this because he is an Ivrit? What I learn is that wanting what another has is wasting your life.

BALAK - As discussed above. But what I learn from Balak is to look at what is in front of you. The Yiden were encamped around his territory and meant to do him no harm. But his fear got in his way and he could not see clearly. (Which is why I don't fly).

PINCHAS - Again, commentaries seem to agree that he is righteous but that none of us are to do what Pinchas did. Think before you act - unless you are involved in saving a person's life.

My drash is on Parsha Balak. But it is really Balaam I am intrigued with.. I read the following passage in Wikipedia and found it so interesting that I am including it below.

Balaam in rabbinic literature

In rabbinic literature Balaam is represented as one of seven gentile prophets; the other six being Beor (Balaam's father), Job, and Job's four friends (Talmud, B. B. 15b). In this literature, Balaam gradually acquired a position among the non-Jews, which was exalted as much as that of Moses among the Jews (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 20); at first being a mere interpreter of dreams, but later becoming a magician, until finally the spirit of prophecy descended upon him (ib. 7).

According to a negative view of Balaam in the Talmud, Balaam possessed the gift of being able to ascertain the exact moment during which God is wroth - a gift bestowed upon no other creature. Balaam's intention was to curse the Israelites at this moment of wrath, and thus cause God himself to destroy them; but God purposely restrained His anger in order to baffle the wicked prophet and to save the nation from extermination (Talmud, Berachot 7a). The Talmud also recounts a more positive view of Balaam, stating that when the Law was given to Israel, a mighty voice shook the foundations of the earth, so much so that all kings trembled, and in their consternation turned to Balaam, inquiring whether this upheaval of nature portended a second deluge; the prophet assured them that what they heard was the voice of God, giving the sacred law to the Israelites (Talmud, Zeb. 116a).

According to Jewish legend, Balaam was made this powerful in order to prevent the non-Jewish tribes from saying: "If we had only had our own Moses, we would be as pious as the Jews."

Balaam died at the age of 33.

Shabbat shalom