Parshat Pinchas

Parshat Pinchas
Tammuz 21, 5773 ~ June 29, 2013
by Jay Koppelman

Mo Robinow was having a bad day. Over the years, he’s taken quite a few hits, but he’s always hit back hard and fast and then moved forward. This time was different. Mo was having a very, very bad day.

He’s sitting in shul next to his good friend Michael and they’re chatting in whispered conversation while the Chazzan is chanting Meshabarach. When the Chazzan is finished, the Rabbi says, “So many of you seem restless today. Your conversations have become distracting. Why not step outside for a few minutes and then come back in when you’re ready for prayer.”

Nobody gets up to leave as a hush spreads across the congregation. But then Mo turns to Michael and says, “Come outside with me so we can finish our conversation.”

Michael knows that Mo takes his davening seriously so he knows that Mo’s got to unload. So he says,  ”Sure. Come on. Let’s go.”

So they step outside under a dreary, overcast sky. It’s quite chilly and looks like it’s about to rain.  Michael starts by asking, “OK Mo. What’s going on? This isn’t like you. What’s bothering you – Helen, the kids, what?”

Mo answers, “No. Nothing like that. It’s my work. They want me to step down. I started this company nearly 40 years ago. It was my idea in the first place. Well maybe I got the suggestion from Oshman – he’s Chairman of the Board -- but nothing would have come of it if it weren’t for me driving this damn thing forward every step of the way. It’s been a long struggle. Some years it felt like we were wandering around in the desert and we’d never find our way out. Oshman was always demanding. He wanted this and he wanted that and I had to deliver. I play second fiddle to no man – but with Oshman, it’s something else. He’s one tough guy and very hard to please. Yeah, he and the board helped but I had to argue with them too.  And then there were all the naysayers and back biters and trouble makers. And now that we’ve grown into a real business and we’re just about to go public, now they want me to step down? And not just step down. They want me to retire. I can’t believe it. They want me out of the way. I lead them out of the desert and we’re finally about to cross the river and me, they want out of the way. I don’t get it.”

Michael waits quietly, but just before Mo can speak Michael says, “So what did Oshman say? That’s a pretty big decision. Did he even explain it?”

“Oh, he had an explanation alright. Oshman had all the answers. He said I had done an incredible job shepherding the company from start-up to maturity. He said I had molded a horde – or did he say a herd -- of unskilled, stiff-necked workers into an accomplished, motivated workforce. He said I was exactly the right guy at the right place at the right time. But he was blunt too. He said there were times that I angered him. And now it was time for me to step down, to turn the reins over to someone else. He said that my experience was just what was needed all these years of building but now that we were going public an entirely different set of skills would be needed. And then he said --  even now I can’t really believe he said it --  that as the public face of our company, my stutter and speaking skills would be a liability. Now that hurt. So then I asked him who would take my job. He said Josh Benin. I said, ‘Josh Benin? He’s just a kid.’  He paused for just a moment and then said, ‘Mo, are you kidding. He’s not a kid anymore. Sure, he was when you started him here, but not anymore. He’s got great energy. He’s demonstrated an aggressive leadership style. He’s got chutzpah and he makes the right public impression. You should be proud that you have so successfully developed Josh’s talents. The credit for that too goes to you. He will do you proud.’”

Michael asks, “So what did you say to that? What could you say?”

“Well, it’s not like I’ve never won arguments with Oshman before. But I knew I wasn’t going to win this one. It was a done deal. So I suggested to him that OK, Josh could take the lead, but I was still needed to run the machinery. He could sit in the driver’s seat but I was still the best at keeping everything running under the hood.”

Mo continues, “Then Oshman said, ‘Mo, you’ve earned so much loyalty and not just from your management team. Our entire workforce knows you and holds you in the highest regard. You have been, you are now and as long as you remain anywhere in this organization you will be the “go-to-guy”. No. Josh needs you to transfer every bit of your official authority to him. And, more than that, he needs you to transfer to him every last bit of the personal loyalty that you have earned over these many years. This is your last and perhaps most important remaining responsibility.  Fulfill this last responsibility and you will retire with great honor and a hefty retirement package including more than a handful of stock options. Your efforts and all that you have accomplished will not be forgotten.’”

Michael presses for more so Mo continues, “So what could I say? I take them all the way to the river’s edge and now I can’t cross? I feel dead inside – and discarded.”

Michael shapes his thoughts carefully before saying, “Mo, we’ve been friends for a long time. I think I understand how you feel. But I want to tell you that Oshman is right about a lot of things. First, he’s right that you should step aside. Next, he’s right that you have done an incredible job. And lastly he’s right that you are due and will receive, besides the retirement package and stock options, the very great honor to which you are so richly entitled. And I want to tell you something else too. I want to tell you that you are a most remarkable man. Understand that Mo. You are a very great man.”

The two of them went on for a little while longer until they were finally distracted by the chanting of Kaddish. And with that they returned quietly to the sanctuary and reverently to their prayers. 

Hashem said to Moses, “Take to yourself Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom there is spirit, and lean your hand upon him. You shall stand him before Elazar the Kohen and before the entire assembly, and command him before their eyes. You shall place some of your majesty upon him, so that the entire assembly of the Children of Israel will pay heed.”   Pinchas 27:18-20

Parshat Chukat

Parshat Chukat
Tammuz 7, 5773 ~ June 15, 2013
by Dan Cohen

Free Will & The Ritual of the Red Heifer.

(This drash is prepared in honor of the unique and fantastic contributions made to OHDS and our BJC community by Rabbi Ari Leubitz)

The fun thing about writing one of these is watching how the greats of the past and present wrestle with the topics raised in Parsha. This week’s Red Heifer Paradox was no different.

I liked this succinct summary of the need for the red heifer ritual as written by Naftali Silberberg. 

“There are many forms of spiritual impurity, of varying gravity. The most severe type of impurity is contracted through contact with a human corpse. In times past, in order to be permitted access to the Holy Temple, one who contracted this impurity needed to be purified by being sprinkled with waters mixed with the ashes of a red heifer.”

Most commentaries hover around the word “paradox” to describe this purification process.  They grapple with the idea that those who conduct the ritual become impure, but that those who benefit from the ritual become pure. 

Commentary after commentary speaks to our inability to comprehend this ritual, yet Hashem commanded it and therefore we did it.  However, are we really fulfilling the mitzvah and exercising free will if we don’t comprehend it?

In Pirkei Avos Chapter 3: Mishnah 19, we learn that:

“Everything is seen, yet the freedom of choice is given.  The world is judged with goodness, and everything depends on the majority of good deeds.”  

The Maharal shares three points in his commentary on this Mishnah that spoke to me.

First, that we all have the ability and desire to exercise free will, that the choices we make are exactly what places us in the image of G-d.   

Second, that “Everything is seen.” We benefit from the idea that G-d directs his attention to every action that is performed for his sake. 

Third, that when Hashem judges the world, it is not to find opportunities for punishment, but that instead he looks to provide opportunities for goodness.  And in creating these opportunities, Hashem gives us the window to repair the world.

So to follow are a few thoughts on free will, divine appreciation and the opportunities for goodness.

Free will.  Why do we do the things we do? 

In a commentary at Aish.com, an unknown author states there is a direct link between the two ideas embodied in the ritual.  That one who prepares the ashes from the red heifer becomes spiritually impure, but that the ashes themselves can be used to purify someone. The author goes on to highlight that in real-life, sometimes it’s the negative behaviors or decisions we make that lead us to hit rock bottom – at which point the negative behavior drives us to make a change in a positive direction.  The author said, “So the very act that was so impure is now the very same act that allows you make a real change.” 

Change is a choice. So too is the enactment of the Red Heifer ritual. It is a choice to perform an act that may cause (temporary) impurity, to help someone else achieve a reparative state of purity.  In a way, the parsha gives us the instructions to make a “comeback” from our most impure state.  With that knowledge, there is nothing we can’t achieve spiritually if we make choices with our eyes open.

Which then begs the questions…is anyone paying attention?  Does that matter? 

Appreciation by Hashem.

Free will is our uniquely human challenge and opportunity. The Maharal in the Pirkei Avos commentary connects these ideas.

He says that if Hashem withdrew a person’s free choice, that would undermine the divine nature of mankind, which finds its essence in that very same free choice.  However, if Hashem undermines a person’s ability to succeed in doing evil, he would undermine the system of nature, a system he created to run by consistent and predictable rules.

So, what is our role?  I would suggest that we are the essential spark that breathes life and opportunity into the natural outputs of the world.

Certainly, nature’s presence can be found in the fact that red heifers don’t come along every day.  They are a rare but natural occurrence.  Hashem has set forth natural biological systems that allow this wheel to start spinning.  

However, it is all of us and our free will that choose to see and act on this anomaly.  We can, with instruction from
G-d, follow a process to cleanse the spiritually impure and elevate a fellow member of the community. It is this elevation – from object to action – that the Maharal says merits special attention from Hashem.

So, if we can choose to partake in this ritual, and in doing so, merit special divine attention, do we ever really know why this specific action is so important?

Opportunities for goodness (and maybe transcendence). 

When it comes to wrapping up their red heifer analysis, many of the commentaries end with a theme of “trust in Hashem.”  Just trust him.  He knows all and we never can. 

These commentaries cite everyone from King Solomon to Job to Moshe saying to the effect that sometimes we humans just can’t understand.  Honestly, that’s a tough one in our post-postmodern world.

I took a measure of solace in a blink-and-you-miss-it line in the Stone Chumash in verse 19:9 and the words “It is for purification.” 

It’s the commentary and idea that the ashes are not to be used for personal benefit, but rather for community benefit (per Rashi). Rashi even states in the same commentary that those who use the ashes for personal reasons must make another (!) sacrifice to atone. While the red heifer is a challenging ritual, it also requires those who participate focus on the greater good, not personal gain. 

The Maharal says G-d created all of the mitzvot to give us a chance to repair the world – and I read it to mean this is true even when they defy rational comprehension. The restorative power of the red heifer ritual, to transform a fellow Jew from an impure state to one of ritual purity, is astounding.  Yes it defies logic, but in some ways it binds us to each other as Jews and gives us a roadmap to reach a higher plane together.  

Shabbat Shalom.

(For what it’s worth, does the “Red Heifer Paradox” sound like a lost Tom Clancy novel?)

Parashat Korach

Parashat Korach

Sivan 30, 5773 ~ June 8, 2013
by Joel Ackerman

The case of the man who disappeared during the night

 

          A famous case of Sherlock Holmes was that of the dog that did not bark during the night.  This week we consider the case of the man who disappeared during the night and did not appear in the morning – On ben Peleth.

          Parshat Korah begins with the description of an attempted revolution, or combination of several revolutions, against the leadership of Moses and Aaron.  The revolutionaries were (a) Korah, one of Moses’ first cousins, (b) Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliav, and On ben Peleth, three members of the tribe of Reuben (probably along with other Reubenites) and (c) 250 other prominent Israelites.  They had, among them, several complaints or objections to the way matters had become.  They asserted that Moses and Aaron had taken too much power on themselves.   They objected to the elevation of the Levites to positions where they would receive tithes – instead of the tribe of Reuben, who should have been entitled to this since their progenitor was Jacob’s first-born, and they objected in general to the way Moses and Aaron had been leading.

          In any event, in the beginning there were three Reubenite leaders involved – Dathan, Abiram and On.  Shortly after these objections were raised, Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, but did not summon On.  And the next day when Moses confronted the revolutionaries (and the earth opened up and swallowed the leaders), On again is not mentioned.  No explanation is given for his absence from one day to the next.  He disappeared from this account, and from the Torah.  His name is never mentioned again.

          The Midrash fills the gap by extolling the virtues of On’s wife.  It maintains that when On came home after the initial confrontation and told his wife of his involvement, she replied “What benefit do you gain from this?  If Moses prevails, you will serve him, and if Korah prevails, you will serve him”.  On was said to answer that he had promised to join the group and could not go back on his word.  In response, holds the Midrash, his wife got him drunk, put him to bed and prevented anyone from coming to talk to him by sitting in the front of their tent with her hair uncovered so that no man would approach to try to convince On to stay the course.  On thus switched from “Comes the revolution….” to “Start the revolution without me.”

          A nice story, I suppose, but it makes On ben Peleth, supposedly a leader of his tribe, out to be rather stupid.  Why should he accept this position of his wife, and indeed why should she speak to him in this way at all?  After all, it was possible that under Korah as a leader some improvements could be made in the lives of the people, and they desperately needed their lives improved.  At this point the Israelites were totally distraught.  They had sent out spies to check the land of Canaan.  The spies were all responsible men, leaders of their tribes, men selected for this mission based on a history of intelligent and responsible conduct and good judgment.  They had returned – and in the opinion of many, had told the truth!  The land was wonderful, but the people were too strong for the Israelites. 

And then the people felt that G-d had turned on them.  He had refused to acknowledge the truth told by the spies and had condemned all the adults to die in the desert.  And when they then tried to adhere to G-d’s command to invade Canaan, He had not joined them.  He had not given them a second chance.  This G-d, who had said that He wanted them to be His people, was just too hard on them, and Moses went along with His decision.  He did not (as he had done at the time of the Golden Calf) plead strongly enough with G-d to change His mind about the people.  And they were quite familiar with pagan gods, who could change their minds on a whim about something important to humans.  Perhaps some felt that this G-d was not so different from the others – that they could not trust Him to always be on their side.  Some said that a new leader was really needed – one who could improve their situation - perhaps even convince G-d to give them another chance.  So why not Korah for leader? 

And perhaps the Midrash only summed up the conversation.  It ought to have been longer.  Suppose that On had made the arguments that I have just mentioned.  What would his wife say in response?  For one thing, she could point out, that even if Korah would be a better leader, On would still have a problem – Dathan and Abriram.  They were brothers; they would unite against On to keep him from gaining any benefit.  It would be two against one, always.  On would get nowhere from participating in the revolution.  And perhaps she could remind him of all the good that G-d had done for the Israelites, beginning with the plagues and the Exodus.  And Korah was clearly a demagogue – one could not trust him to paint a true picture of the situation, and could not trust him to carry out some of the extreme promises he may have made to On and others (the Midrash holds that Korah really only wanted a high position for himself and did not aim to benefit anyone else).  And Dathan and Abiram claimed that Egypt had been a land of milk and honey, but On’s wife may have been able to point out that this was hardly the case – had On forgotten the backbreaking work done for long hours?

If On could see clearly, he would have seen that this was the wrong revolution to join.  And perhaps he did see that, despite promises made to him, which was the reason that he “disappeared”.  But the Midrash indicates the contrary – it describes that despite his wife’s arguments, On adhered to his initial position – or perhaps notwithstanding his position of leadership in the tribe he was weak-willed.   So his wife took what she felt was the necessary action.  On was distraught and confused.  She said “have a little schnapps to settle your stomach” and kept feeding him the drink until he was out of action.  And thus she saved him from the terrible fate that occurred to his co-revolutionaries.  How do we know that On adhered to his original position?  The Torah does not credit On with dropping out of the revolution.  No further mention of him is made at all.  He just disappears from sight.

What is the lesson to be learned here?  It’s not often so clear when a charismatic individual should be followed, and when not.   How can one clearly recognize when a charismatic person is acting only for his or her own interests and not, as he/she purports, for the general good?  How to recognize a demagogue who exaggerates matters to paint an inaccurate picture of the present and the future? 

And finally, if your husband, boyfriend, partner, etc. is acting in a way that you believe to be too stubborn, or even dangerous, should you temporarily incapacitate him until he comes to what you believe should be his senses?  Sounds just a bit drastic to me.

          When reporters on television cannot decide what to say, they like to use the cliché, “There are more questions than answers”.  Not here, however.  As is typically the case with us Jews, when one reads the commentaries, there are many more answers than there are questions.

          Enjoy solving the mystery of On’s disappearance.  Shabbat shalom.